HALO’s effect

Facing a $530-million budget shortfall, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is seeking to cut city payrolls by 10%. Among the casualties are four positions that are central to the city’s tough-love response to the problems on skid row: the three attorneys and a paralegal who lead the effort to divert homeless, nonviolent offenders from the jails to treatment programs. We understand that the budget gap will force some painful belt-tightening, but eliminating these positions is almost certain to cost the public more than it would save in salaries.

The attorneys are a key element of the Safer Cities Initiative, which was launched in September 2006 to reduce crime and improve services in skid row. The initiative has drawn stiff opposition from some homeless advocates, who argue that it puts too many of skid row’s denizens in jail instead of in housing and treatment. But over time, the focus has sharpened on the services that differentiate Safer Cities from previous police crackdowns. Now known as HALO, or Homeless Alternatives to Living on the Street, the diversion program coordinated by the city attorney’s office has three parts. The first offers some of those arrested on skid row the chance to avoid formal charges if they get treatment. A second, done in partnership with the public defender’s office, steers qualified homeless offenders into court-supervised stints in housing and treatment. The third, which is just getting started, enables selected homeless people to get their citations dismissed by doing community service. The four HALO staffers are the glue that holds these efforts together.

Successful diversion programs can yield enormous savings on jail and prison beds. A special mental health court in Santa Clara County reduced incarceration costs by nearly $21 million in 2005 and the first half of 2006, the county reported, while also getting more people off the streets. Granted, HALO can’t work without money for housing, counseling and treatment, some of which comes out of the city’s coffers. And the budget gap is so wide that city leaders may have little choice but to cut some programs that confer real, cost-effective benefits. But they need not cut just to cut. They must do their best to keep intact the best models for delivering services, spending tax dollars wisely and laying a foundation for better times.