I not so subtly argued on the Orchid website that the State's behavior in our "negotiations" reminded me of Joseph Heller's Catch 22.
Well, the State is not the only one that can play that game; although they are experienced at it. We have a whole group of folks with "mental illness" that we have determined -- from clinicians to attorneys to judges, etc. that despite the fact that these Homeless people would seemingly meet the criteria for "Gravely Disabled" --- we are going to collectively ignore that fact and in fact honor the Civil Rights of these often Black and Brown people with mental illness -- allowing them the freedom to remain homeless.
Of course, they don't want to be institutionalized and they generally don't need to be.
On the other hand, most of them don't won't to be homeless either and its driving their mental & physical health further & further into the ground. But we're upholding their Civil Rights and that's really the important thing --- & GAWD How would providing Housing effect TABOR?
Colorado has done some on the Housing front and there is a lot more to do. While Assertive Community Treatment, etc. can be covered by Medicaid (with the State match), it might really make sense to use Social Impact Bonds to try and cover the considerable Housing Colorado is legally required to provide under Olmstead and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
People with mental illness who find themselves homeless or incarcerated need a considerable amount of support.
I am not so much wanting a Court Order or Certification on the Person, as a Court Order on the State to provide Housing and Necessary Intensive Services as required and desired by the person.
Also, we have people out on our Streets that are quite traumatized and or have experienced paranoia for years perhaps decades.
We don't want to:
Find an easy way to scratch someone off our caseload -- in pretty desperate straits & would qualify as "Gravely Disabled"
Lose Track of Them
We Do Want To:
Consider more ethical ways of handling these matters