Homeless Court & SVdP

In my opinion, the Alameda County Homeless Court is one of the most exciting movements that SVdP has been a part of. I have witnessed its impact in my clients’ lives, and I am (optimistically) hopeful that its success and its mission will one day rub off on other parts of our local judicial system. It deserves some more attention here, and I would like to write about the inner-processes and challenges SVdP faces as the court’s largest referral agency.

**Note: For those unfamiliar with the Alameda County Homeless Court Program, it is a special court held for the purposes of expunging misdemeanors and infractions from the records of those who are homeless or at immediate risk of homelessness. It is a godsend for many very low-income people whose legal fines and records are preventing them from progressing in their lives. It also saves Alameda County a great deal of money in processing and incarceration expenses. Some readers may want to read my predecessor’s blog on what homeless court is before delving into the details here.

http://svdp-alameda-volunteer.blogspot.com/2006/03/i-have-utter-privilege-of-running.html

Each month, I submit cases to be reviewed by the Homeless Court Coordinator. If the clients meet the court’s qualifications and show that they have made sufficient life progress, they are given a court date and the opportunity to have their tickets dismissed. After careful examination, the coordinator contacts me to discuss whether each case has been accepted, held until more verification can be provided, or declared ineligible.

Cases falling into the insufficient verification category are beefed up and resubmitted for the next court session. (Verifications of progress differ depending upon the client’s individual circumstances. Some common forms include proof of drug or alcohol recovery, or evidence that the client has sought employment or applied for SSI). I have found clients in this group are usually able to acquire the necessary information and their cases typically make it through within the next month or two.

This is not the case for the ineligible group. Clients are usually declared ineligible because the court can not dismiss the particular type of charge (such as a violent felony or out of county misdemeanor), or the individual is not considered to be at immediate risk of homelessness. If the client falls into either of these categories, his or her case will not be processed by the court. I spend at least a couple of hours on each of these cases, and as my case load has grown, I have realized the importance of focusing my time on cases that are more likely to be processed.

What does this mean for St. Vincent de Paul?

We are the only agency that accepts clients on a walk-in basis. First, this partly explains our large caseload. It also makes our agency very different in how we first screen our clients for eligibility, and in how we collect evidence of their personal progress. All other referral agencies draw their cases from a pool of current clients already receiving services. They are building upon an existing service provider and client relationship. This allows agencies like Options Recovery to build filters into their intake system. For example, clients at Options must pass a certain stage of recovery before they can apply for homeless court. This gives the client time to build relationships with staff and case managers who are then later able to furnish documentation to verify personal progress. If the client is in their residential program, Options is also able to verify the client’s housing.

At St. Vincent’s, clients are sent out on their own to collect verifications of progress from other agencies where they have received services like therapy, housing, or assistance applying for SSI. This leaves more footwork for my clients to collect evidence of progress. It also means that I need to do more filtering, making sure that those who come in are at immediate risk of homelessness. (our only built in filter is that I need to know my clients for 30 days before submitting their cases) The positive side is that SVdP makes this court available to countless individuals who have made significant personal progress—even if they are not currently in a specific program like Options. And it is a joy to be able to provide these individuals with a second chance.

Working with the Homeless Court this year has been an ongoing learning process that I have thoroughly enjoyed and grown from. For those readers who have made it this far and are still interested, I have included a letter I wrote to the HC coordinator to try and establish a more objective screening system here at SVdP. The letter also touches upon some of the shifts SVdP has seen in its walk-in clients and some of the changes that I have begun to notice in the court’s review process. I think it will give readers a peak into (my understanding of) the way the court determines client eligibility.

*****

(All identifying client information has been edited out and names have been changed)

.... I also wanted to continue our dialog about setting up a more objective screening process for SVdP clients, and I decided that it might be helpful to have a starting point. I have outlined my reasoning process for screening this month’s cases, which is based upon my understanding of the court’s requirements. I am hoping to get some specific feedback and gain a better understanding of the types of cases that the court is willing to accept.

After speaking with you on the phone, I looked through some of our older cases that were accepted by the homeless court. It is clear that we are seeing more clients who are at no immediate risk of homelessness than we did in the past. At the same time, I came across a number of older moving violation cases that were accepted by the court, despite the fact that these clients were on fixed incomes and renting apartments.

For example, I called [Barbara] to let her know that she would not qualify for the July court because she is not at immediate risk of homelessness. She asked me how her relative [Tiffany] (who referred her to the program) qualified if she did not. I obviously could not discuss another person’s case with her, but I did look up Tiffany’s file after getting off the phone. Barbara seemed to have a point. Both clients had moving violations and both rented apartments and supported children. However, Tiffany’s case was accepted despite the fact that she had a much larger and more stable source of income than Barbara.

By looking at examples like these, I hope to get a better understanding of how these decisions are made. I can think of two explanations. You mentioned that Judge Baranco has recently emphasized the importance of clients being at immediate risk of homelessness, so it seems to me that this requirement may be tighter now than it had been in the past. The other explanation I can think of was that Tiffany had a substance abuse issue, and perhaps her overcoming alcohol addiction can be seen as significant progress, compensating for the fact that she does not appear to be at immediate risk of losing her housing.

In any case, I have been trying to improve my screening process to avoid investing time in cases that will not be accepted later on down the line. From what I gleaned from our last conversation, crimes related to homelessness such as sleeping in a park and j-walking tend to qualify just by their nature. It seemed as though cases failing to qualify dealt with moving violations. This distinction makes a lot of sense to me.

When it came to clients who primarily had traffic tickets, I examined the client’s housing situation. I considered all of the following living situations as homelessness or signs that the individual is at immediate risk of homelessness: shelters, cars, friend/family homes for very short periods of time, hotels, temporary housing programs, inpatient recovery centers (if they did not have permanent housing upon release). As long as this group was able to show sufficient progress, it seemed to me as though they would be eligible to have their moving violations dismissed.

The second seemingly qualifying category was those who were recently homeless. Some of the people in this group were either living with a friend or relative on a more long term basis (ie a few months) or they had recently begun to rent an apartment. Along with their housing situation, it seemed even more important for this category to show that their misdemeanors were major barriers to future progress (usually meaning they needed a license to earn an income). This is clearly where I began to slip into a gray area.

The third category were those clients whose livelihood depended upon regaining their licenses. These individuals were able to verify that they had a background in a driving related field, and they tended to have specialized licenses or other relevant certifications (ie. home pest control). If these clients were able to show that they were not receiving a sufficient income because they did not have a license or the funds to pay their fine, I was willing to process their cases. The main difference between this category and the one above was that this group may not have been recently homeless, but is at serious risk because of major barriers to earning an income.

A fourth category may be those clients who are able to provide proof that they are close to losing their housing. I spoke with one of last month’s clients who was not accepted because she appeared to have stable housing with her limited income. This month, she promised to bring me an eviction notice and I told her that I would be willing to resubmit her paperwork.

The fifth category I came across is a special exceptions group. The injured construction worker is a good example. This client was able to furnish proof that he was seriously hurt and unable to do his job. Through an employer’s letter he was also able to show that he would be returning to work upon his recovery. He proved he had no income source as he was recuperating. As the sole provider for his family, he and his family were at risk of losing their home....

****

That's it for this week.