Efficiency is fine, but what about the need?

So if we buy the argument that it makes more sense to fund our local agencies who are trained and equipped to deal with human services needs rather than farm out the ongoing and recurring costs to our emergency rooms, jails, libraries, streets, police and fire departments, etc., then the next question has to do with the level of need. Do nonprofits need additional funds from the city?
The answer would be yes. A resounding yes.

As food and fuel prices continue their climb to who-knows-where, it is getting harder to provide the most basic needs. For example, a Spokesman-Review article from June 18th (in the NW section) entitled "Costs Squeeze Meals on Wheels," notes that things are pretty bleak for the local Meals on Wheels program, which delivers food to the elderly and the homebound. The program's bill "for liquid nutrition - supplements such as Boost and Ensure that are critical to some clients - went up by 50 percent recently, from $16 a case to $24."As if that weren't bad enough, since the Meals on Wheels program relies on volunteer drivers (and their cars), "58 percent of the nation's Meals on Wheels programs have said they've lost drivers because of gas prices, and some had eliminated meals or customers." Ouch.

Contact the City Council and let them know that getting food to people has to be a priority.

Speaking of Efficiency...

On Monday, June 16th the Spokesman-Review published an article entitled "Investing in Recovery." The article discusses a local program that fully funds the treatment of those with chemical dependencies and on public assistance. I think this program is ideal in its approach to a particular problem: where are we tossing money into an bottomless pit and what can we do to actually help someone, rather than leave them in a continued state of crisis?

Please contact the City Council members and let them know that you support such wise use of public funds and that you support funding Spokane's Human Services at 1% of the overall budget.

All for Efficiency

In the first post I mentioned how efficient it is to adequately fund Human Services. Let me expand on that a bit.

Fully funding Human Services allows our palette of fabulous local non-profit agencies to reach, counsel, and support those in our community who need assistance in managing homelessness, hunger, substance abuse, mental illness, physical disabilities, domestic violence, etc. Our non-profits have the staff with the background, training, and facilities to best --and most efficiently-- help those in need. Especially if they have the funding they need...

I work at the Downtown library and on the occasion when a person with mental health and/or substance abuse issues runs afoul of our Rules of Conduct, there is often very little we can do but call the police department. So we do it. The police then take the person to jail where they are subsequently released back onto the street with little chance of receiving the help they need. The next day the same person may be right back in the library. We then lather, rinse, repeat.

In terms of pure efficiency in local government, this is a horribly wasteful and damaging way to ignore a problem. The issue is this: when it comes to discussing efficiency with those who have the incredibly hard task of allotting scare public funds, they like to be able to point to hard numbers. But the rub is that it is frequently hard to prove, in numbers, the cost of not funding Human Services. How many dollars per year do the police and/or fire departments spend addressing areas that they are not trained to deal with nor have the tools to provide a long-term solution? How much is drained from our public libraries when our public (rightly or wrongly) avoid our facilities out of fear of being confronted with an unpleasant situation? I don't know, and therein lies the problem; it is really hard to quantify.

While the cost of not fully funding Human Services is a hard number to pin down, the overall logic of the situation remains: if Human Services doesn't address the problem, it is a given that the the issue, be it domestic violence or homeless teens, won't go away on its own and other local agencies will be forced to deal, in one fashion or another, with the complexities. The costs don't just go away. In fact, there are good arguments to be made that the issues (and the total costs) just compound if not properly addressed.

So what I'm hoping to hear from you and have you pass on to the City Council, are cases where adequate funding did (or would have) save money, preserved dignity, and got a fellow human being back up on their feet.

All for One!

1%, that is.

The goal of this campaign is to convince the Spokane City Council to allocate 1% of the total 2009 budget to human services. Thus, the "All for One!" rallying cry. As it stands right now, we are just under that mark at .008%, to be precise (source). The only way that this will happen is if you -- yes, you --contact your City Council representatives and let them know how critical -- and efficient -- it is to keep our homeless housed, our hungry fed, and our abused given nuturing support.

Here are your City Council members. Contact them and tell them that you are "All for One!"

Joe Shogan, City Council President
jshogan@spokanecity.org

District 1
Al French
afrench@spokanecity.org

Bob Apple
bapple@spokanecity.org

District 2
Richard Rush
rrush@spokanecity.org

Michael Allen
mallen@spokanecity.org

District 3
Nancy McLaughlin
nmclaughlin@spokanecity.org

Steve Corker
scorker@spokanecity.org

If you don't know your district? Who cares! Contact the entire Council. Or be a stick in the mud and check here: http://www.spokanegis.org/default.asp
Select "Council Districts" as one of the map layers and then click "redraw map."

Phone calls are always welcome at the Council chambers as well, 625-6255.

Oh, and don't neglect letting Mayor Verner know how you feel as well. mayor@spokanecity.org

Why is this so important, you ask? Well, I have my own reasons but I'd love to hear what your's are...