CHICO >> After years of living outside and regularly relocating his tent, Charles Edward Whitfield now has a place to call home at Chico Housing Action Team’s Everhart Village.

Before receiving housing through the nonprofit, Whitfield said the city of Chico offered him a spot at the Torres Community Shelter after he went through the assessment process. However, due to a longstanding grievance he had with someone living there, he chose to remain unsheltered.

That was his only option, though. Because a city case worker selected Torres, Whitfield was ineligible for the Genesis emergency non-congregant housing site, commonly referred to as the Pallet Shelter.

“Half of us can’t go to Torres. Half of us can’t go to Pallet. They set us up for failure,” said Whitfield, a lifelong Chicoan.

Before getting housing at Everhart Village, Whitfield said he tried living on the outskirts of town, often under bridges, to avoid enforcement. Time and time again, he said, the city found him and forced him to move.

“Well, at some point we started asking, ‘Which direction can we head?’ Because there’s no resolve to this,” Whitfield said. “It doesn’t matter how segregated we become or how clean we keep the areas, it’s still going to have the same result.”

Whitfield is among hundreds — thousands, if counting uninvolved Chicoans — who have grown frustrated with the process. Homeless individuals find themselves in an endless cycle of moving after each enforcement; police officers find themselves enforcing anti-camping ordinances at the same locations over and over again; service providers hit a wall with a segment of the population who work the system to their individual advantage.

The city recently sought relief from the Warren v. Chico settlement agreement that outlines this process and its timeline, but to no avail.

“This process takes so long,” Chico police officer Jason Jueckstock said, adding: “A lot of times we’ll talk to the same person five different times.”

When the city conducts assessments to place homeless people in shelters, case workers go to homeless camps and interview those living there. While city officials say their goal is to house as many people as possible, some individuals don’t qualify for shelter — and others simply refuse.

Assessments

Per the settlement agreement, city case workers are required to assess each person using what’s called an Individual Assessment Form. A case worker, who must be a licensed social worker with experience working with homeless people, needs to conduct the assessment where the homeless person in question stays.

They follow a script of 19 questions to determine which shelter, if any, the person qualifies for. On question 17, case workers select one of four options: Pallet, Torres, Alternative Location or Other, with a line to specify the other option. Alternative Location refers to the city’s alternative camp site on Eaton and Cohasset roads.

The 19 intake questions address a person’s basic identity, needs and eligibility for local shelter options. Case workers ask the person’s name, preferred name, date of birth and how long the person has lived in Chico.

Case workers also inquire about employment or school status; whether the individual lives alone or with a partner; if they have pets, need physical accommodations and prefer a sober shelter. Additional questions determine whether the person is suitable for shelter placement based on their ability to communicate and care for themselves.

Immediately after the assessment interviews, case workers select a shelter referral option and note whether the individual needs to be transported to the shelter, plans to self-transport or declined transportation.

Case workers often find people they have already assessed when they go to do assessments. In these cases, the individual will be marked as “previously assessed” and reminded of the shelter option available to them.

“We are reminding people it’s not one and done,” said Jesus Center Director Amber Abney-Bass, whose organization operates Genesis and who has conducted “countless” intake surveys.

After the survey is completed, the case worker will give the homeless individual written notice of what location they qualify for. Each shelter has specific eligibility requirements and exclusions.

Qualifiers

At Genesis, registered sex offenders, arsonists and those with a “mental health disorder that would not make integration into a large-scale shelter a possibility for them” do not qualify, said Abney-Bass. The facility also has a list of former residents who are banned from the shelter.

“That list is, thankfully, brief with four individuals being included,” Abney-Bass said.

Ashiah Bird, communications director for True North Housing Alliance, said arsonists and sex offenders are also barred from the Torres Shelter. She added that Torres also has a list of people who have broken the rules there and have been kicked out.

Such individuals are noted in the Homeless Management Information System, or HMIS, the countywide database for housing placement.

“If someone is ‘red-flagged’ in HMIS, meaning they violated our program guidelines while previously receiving our services, they must reach out to our staff to set an appointment to return,” Bird said. “Our programs are behavior-based, and we do not tolerate violence or aggression.”

At the Eaton and Cohasset alternative site, which the city renovated last year with graded pads and a 24-hour security monitoring system, there are no barriers to entry for campers referred there.

The Torres Shelter offers bunkbeds in separate dorms for men and women, as well as eight beds for gender-neutral residents and for overflow purposes. Genesis offers a campus with what are essentially tiny homes with two beds each.

Because of the structure of the Torres Shelter, referring a homeless couple there could result in the couple being housed separately. This would violate the terms of the settlement agreement, explained Abney-Bass. As a result, couples must be referred to the Pallet Shelter, where they can stay together — provided they meet other eligibility criteria.

Another limitation of the Torres Shelter is its one-pet policy. If a person has more than one — typically dogs — they must instead be directed to Genesis.

Due to these two specific barriers, Abney-Bass said, homeless people trying to get a Pallet shelter at Genesis will sometimes get two dogs or “intentionally partner” with someone to qualify. Whitfield said this is something commonly discussed and understood in the homeless community.

Abney-Bass and Public Works Director Erik Gustafson said they believe homeless advocates are “coaching” people on what to say to get into the Pallet shelter. Whitfield said homeless advocates have suggested to him and others that they get dogs or a partner to get into the Pallet shelter.

This can create problems down the road, Abney-Bass said: “They go in there, and then they break up, or they cuss and scream and yell at each other, and we’re like, ‘What the heck is going on?’

“Am I going to force somebody to stay with somebody? No, but being a partner and moving into (a) Pallet shelter, as soon as they do not meet that qualification of the shared unit, Judge Newman says, ‘Kick them out.’”

Abney-Bass referred to Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, who oversaw the enforcement of the Warren v. Chico settlement until his retirement earlier this year. Before stepping down, he spoke with local officials, including Gustafson and Abney-Bass, about intentional partnering. According to Abney-Bass, Newman made it clear if a couple breaks up, they no longer qualify for a shared unit and can be evicted.

Abney-Bass said it is important to note a couple breaking up does not automatically qualify them for eviction. In the event that someone is experiencing domestic violence, or someone’s partner is sent to jail, that won’t be held against them. She said each case is evaluated individually.

As of Thursday night (April 24), Genesis had 58 occupied shared units, 105 occupied single units and 14 units available for either purpose.

Abney-Bass said the Pallet Shelter is by far the preferred option by people experiencing homelessness. Still, both she and Gustafson said, choice is not a factor in the assessment or placement process per the settlement agreement.

While some people remain unhoused because they don’t qualify for shelter or weren’t referred to their preferred option, others who do qualify choose to stay on the streets.

Charles Withuhn, president of the North State Shelter Team, has heard myriad reasons why people choose not to live in local shelters, including being assaulted or robbed.

Leanne Woodbury, a homeless woman staying at Depot Park, said Monday that she was one of the first people living at the Pallet Shelter. While she said she struggled with certain rules at the shelter, Woodbury said she ultimately lost her spot after being extradited out of the county for crimes she committed in Southern California. She returned to Chico months later to take care of her dogs.

“All I simply ask is just leave me alone,” Woodbury said, discussing the anti-camping enforcements. “If this is it for me, don’t make me keep moving.”

Enforcement

Assessment and intake are two parts of the broader process. For the city, abiding by the settlement to enforce anti-camping ordinances takes a tremendous amount of time and resources.

Before the city can begin assessments and offer shelter, a case worker must visit the site on five separate occasions to attempt assessments of those living there. The Chico Police Department Target Team routinely goes out with a city case worker to stand guard while assessments are conducted.

Jueckstock, a member of the Target Team, said “ideally” the officers would help out with chronic issues like crime and mental health assistance or environmental improvements like cleaning up graffiti. However, anti-camping enforcement has overwhelmed the team, he said.

While Target Team officers are present during the city’s assessments of homeless individuals, they are not directly involved, per the settlement agreement. Jueckstock said officers act more as “security” for the case worker conducting the surveys.

“Without a uniform present, people are more free to be cranky,” Jueckstock said.

Jueckstock wasn’t surprised by the city’s inability to exit the settlement agreement, he said, but had wanted it to happen. Had a judge allowed the exit, enforcements could have been conducted in a shorter timeframe and with fewer hurdles.

“It would help us keep the city clean and get people into shelter,” Jueckstock said.

On their own accord, any person seeking shelter may call or visit any organization providing shelter to seek aid.

However, before the city can get to the assessment process, it must notify Legal Services of Northern California, legal counsel for the Warren v. Chico plaintiffs, of the areas where they plan to enforce.

Legal Services can then object to this process, which Gustafson said the LSNC often does.

This further delays enforcement. From the time a site is identified for enforcement to the day it’s cleared, the process can take up to three weeks — 17 days at minimum. During that time, Jueckstock said, many individuals decline shelter when it’s offered.

Chico Police Sergeant Dave Bailey, the Target Team supervisor, echoed Jueckstock’s sentiment.

“We’re getting down to the very service-resistant population,” Bailey said.

At the beginning of the Warren settlement, Bailey observed that camps were larger and more widespread. Now, he said, there are fewer camps, and they tend to be smaller in size.

Regardless, per the settlement, the city is only able to enforce three sites at a time. Bailey said this limits the Target Team and prolongs the efforts.

Reactions

January marked three years since the settlement agreement shook the status quo of Chico’s homelessness crisis. On all sides of the issue, various parties see room for improvement.

City Councilor Mike O’Brien, a former police chief, finds the process frustrating.

“The problem that remains is the inability, based upon interpretation, to remove encampments from our public spaces without a redundant process that is burdensome and ineffective for all,” he said. “The enforcement process would go well if a common-sense interpretation of the agreement was being applied. It is not, and that is not the fault of the city or our staff.”

Withuhn, a longtime advocate and service provider, said while there has been progress in addressing Chico’s homeless crisis, there’s much room for improvement.

“The shelters in Chico, by and large, have a frustrating system for the tenants, for the people living there, in terms of being able to come and go,” he said. “What is missing at Chico’s shelters is trust-building to be able to get back into society.”

One thing Withuhn hopes to see in the future is mandatory meetings at shelters where residents can voice their concerns and suggestions for improvements. Genesis does offer meetings for residents to discuss these things, but these meetings cannot be mandatory per the settlement agreement.

Councilor Tom van Overbeek said he thinks the enforcement process has been cumbersome to manage with 17-day notices.

“The people that we move can refuse shelter, even if they’re eligible for it,” he said. “A majority of the people now (being assessed) are people that have been offered shelter but just don’t want to go because they have to obey rules … and once campers are moved, they can come back, so we end up chasing people over time.”

Councilor Addison Winslow, though, said anti-camping enforcement is currently more controlled than before the settlement.

“The concept of ‘We can just disappear all the homeless people’ is kind of broken, at least for now,” he said. “The fact that in order for the city to be telling you you’re not allowed to sleep outside, they have to talk to you and figure out some kind of option for you — is a total game changer from where people were at.”