You're supposed to be getting people off the street into housing.
Yes, and that is what happens. But what you're asking is not how it works.
The bottom line is you haven't done any of that, have you? Have you gotten anybody off the streets of Kensington into a Project HOME house, yes or no?
How many? How many? Yes, the answer is yes. You took a homeless addict off the streets of Kensington and you put them in housing. That's what you're telling me on the record here, right? That's what you're telling me. All right. Do --
No, I don't. The answer to your question is yes. The units that I mentioned include new units of housing, including the Inn of Amazing Mercy, the Fitzgerald Residence and --
Okay. I would just like to note for the record I would like to have her put in -
-- writing how many actual people. I want names. I want to know who they serviced from Kensington and put into housing. That's it.
If you could provide the Chair at your convenience an answer to the Councilmember's question, if you can.
We can certainly provide you with that number. But the fact of the matter is that our housing is open to people with histories of homelessness, people with histories of addiction and we have also added -- because we are committed to addressing the opioid crisis in Kensington, we have also added Philly Home, we have added the Maguire Residence and we have added the Fitzgerald Residence to make sure that we have units --
-- of 8 housing to address the needs of 9 people with opioid use disorder, 10 and I am happy to give you the 11 number of unique individuals who 12 have been housed in those 13 residences as well as the other 14 1,000 units of housing -- 15
I 16 don't want to know -- I want to 17 know specifically who you housed 18 from the 7th Councilmanic District. 19 That's it. 20
Member Harrity, you can't talk over the testifiers. You'll be recognized if you'd like to be. And we do have a lot of other folks that have public testimony today. I'd like to --
So in addition to the units of housing that Project HOME offers, the Project HOME Outreach team that I mentioned before goes around and they do this thing called Contacts. If someone's not familiar, any time they encounter somebody who is unhoused in the streets of Philadelphia, they get their name, birthday, Social Security number. That goes on a list to the City where there's multiple organizations, including Project HOME, that do refer to various housing organizations so that Outreach is directly causative of housing those folks.
I think part of the problem and we're going to hear this consistently, right. I think that part of the problem and part of the great frustration is that we're not able to capture some of this data, right. We're not able to capture the dat -- we're not able to capture the data of who is out there providing services, but we're also not able to provide or capture the data of who they're providing services to, right. I think there is great frustration. There's great frustration on behalf of the provider. There's great frustration from the Kensington Caucus and this legislative body, right. But I think that a great part of that is that very important piece of information of who's out there, what is the service that they're providing and how many people are they providing it to. Continuing the conversations will allow us to be able to create I don't know if it's a dashboard, I don't know if it's a mechanism where we're reporting on a quarterly or, you know, whatever the frequency is that will allow us to really capture the information around that critical information, right. We are hearing that there are more people today in Kensington than there were last year, right. And so, I think that the frustration, especially from someone like Councilmember Harrity who lives there and who can see it, is it's real, right. It's a real emotion. We need to figure this information out, right. This bill 7 is just a beginning, right. I don't want people to think that this is an end. This is the beginning. We unfortunately had to legislate this process because as a government we were not able to do it without it. But that type of information, how many people are each of you providing services to, are there individual people, are you serving the same group of people, you know, what is the success of your services, all of that information is extremely important for us as legislators and for the community that you're in. And so, yes, there's frustration. Yes, there's anger, but it is all as a result of the fact that a government we did not do our due diligence, right. I don't want people to think that we're blaming the provider. We're not. This is a government issue. Government has caused this situation to be created. And now, as a government we need to figure out how to fix it. The only way we're going to fix it is through legislation, is through conversation, is through amendments. All of these things are possible and necessary in order for us to continue to move the restoration of quality of life in that community. And so, I want people to understand that, right. I want people to understand that the frustration and the anger that's here is real, but it's a result of what we as government have allowed to happen.
May I respond just briefly. Councilmember Lozada, I agree with you and I will tell anyone who will listen that there is a clear need in the city for not only a more coordinated approach to our operations but the collection and reporting of data. One of the reasons that it's actually quite difficult to give an answer to the question that Councilmember Harrity fairly asked is the way we collect data in outreach, that it is divided or operated by different City agencies. Some of those databases are maintained by the Department of Behavioral Health. Others are maintained by the Office of Homeless Services. So to figure out who specifically came from Kensington and was housed requires looking across that data set. That's not an insurmountable problem, but it absolutely is one that we need to address. And frankly, it's a problem that cuts across not only issues in Kensington but throughout the city. So I 100 percent wholly agree with you.
Okay. Project HOME, thank you for your testimony. Ms. McDonald, would you please call up the next testifier.
Jonas Levy, Norome Finnell, Sam Stern. Again, Jonas Levy, Naromo Finnel, Sam Stern. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. Just whoever would like to go first please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
Sure. Good afternoon, and my name is Sam Stern. I work as a physician with Temple's Begin the Turn. I'm going to come closer to the mic.
So good afternoon. Thank you, Councilmembers, for the opportunity to speak. I really appreciate it. I really do appreciate it. Again, I am a physician working with Temple's Begin the Turn mobile clinic, although my remarks today represent my own perspective and are not those of my larger institution. I want to make that clear. Our program Begin the Turn includes a team of physicians, counselors and certified recovery specialists, people who themselves are in recovery. My hope is to share a few key points during a brief statement this afternoon. I'd like to express appreciation for the Councilmember's comments about the life-saving importance of mobile units. I'd also like to share concern and opposition to the bill 11 as written. I'd like to state that we are in the midst of an unprecedented local and national overdose crisis and that the people most likely to die during this public health crisis are least likely to access care in traditional health care spaces such as brick-and-mortar clinics and the hospital where I work. I might mention that people who use drugs are treated poorly, experience tremendous stigma and often do not have social support systems in place such as housing, transportation, identification and phones. For that reason, I'd like to share that Begin the Turn and mobile providers more generally function to provide access to life-saving and evidence- based care to people most in need of these services. This includes provision of medical services and referral to clinical and recovery care and spaces. I'd like to make the point that these services meet people where they are already and that rather than causing the neighborhood's overdose crisis, Begin the Turn, for example, started coming to Kensington based on an existing overdose statistics and in response to an existing overdose crisis. And then in addition to the importance of our programs to our existing patients, we frequently respond to overdose events in the vicinity of our clinic and provide emergency medical care and assistance. The most important thing I'd like to state clearly today is this: Mobile clinics are a response to an existing problem, not a cause. The situation in Kensington is dire and the trauma that the Councilmember described is undoubtedly very real. Mobile clinics are not the cause of this crisis and rather a response to mitigate this crisis. I'd also like to state for the record that we clean up after ourselves. We bring our trash. I'd like to make a plea for collaboration and partnership and to offer to help develop policy that protects the quality of life of residents in the 7th District which has clearly suffered, but I'd ultimately like to state that the legislation as written is too broad and would restrict the provision of life-saving services to people in need. I am a doctor and these are patients with a life- threatening medical condition. And I do believe sincerely that this bill as written will prevent me from accessing my patients. I do not believe that restricting mobile units will resolve the problem or accomplish the goals of improving the lives of people residing in the 7h District, but will rather serve to further isolate people with substance use disorders and risk worsening an existing overdose crisis. Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Doctor. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yep. My name is Jonas Levy. I work with Penn's Rock. We have our Director here, Norome Finnell. Thank you, Dr. Stern. I will keep my comments brief to respect everyone's time. We would like to say that we began operating in the Kensington region of the city starting in January of this year, January, continuing a previous initiative with Kensington Hospital. Since January -- from January until July, of 400 unique individuals served, not all of who had substance use issues, there were many primary care, general medical patients that we saw and encountered. Of 400 clients, we had placed 75 for specific addiction recovery services. The vast majority of those 75 were for wound care, but it was 75 nonetheless across a range of addiction services. We were able to do this successfully by collaborating with Begin the Turn with Dr. Stern. And as mobile service providers, neither one of our operations really produces large amounts of supplies or handouts or goods. It's predominantly service-based. We will administer Narcan or hand out Narcan, but we don't provide large supplies of goods. Did you have anything else?
Additionally, with the bill as written it would prohibit all medical mobile service providers. I want to be clear that is not just substance use. As written, this would prohibit mobile flu vaccination services on residential blocks. It would prohibit individuals coming to schools to provide sports physicals if they do so from a mobile unit. Granted I know with the recent amendments, it specified that you could get approval or exemption to operate in a special area, but there is no such process for a residential block. If there were a mobile urgent care that intended to serve members of Kensington, even though the urgent care could be providing urgent services, as written those are not emergency services. Those are not emergency medical personnel. It would be prohibited in operating in residential blocks. Additionally, the definition of residential block is vague. While one can say the spirit is pretty clear, it doesn't clearly define frontage. Is it specified by the length of the street? Is it specified by the number of unique parcels divided by total parcels? Is it specified by the number of doors? You know, if there's one big building that operates a whole half of the block and then you have six little houses, is that a residential block or is it 50/50? So while we support Councilwoman Lozada's efforts to improve quality of life in the 7th District, we feel that it needs to be more specific and more clear what services are allowed to be rendered by whom, under what conditions and what we're looking for. Thank you.
Well, thank you. And that's why we're here today to hear this valuable information. I do want to know from my observation is we do have some very committed serious service providers and then some are not. So we're just trying to absorb as much information. We all come from different perspectives, and we appreciate what you've done. And congratulations on those 75. Well done.
Thank you. It was in partnership with Kensington Hospital and the Be Well Center at Girard.
Ms. McDonald, would you please call our next testifiers.
Elena, Milin, Ana Lucia Riojas, Raani Begum. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Morning. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Elena Milin. So hello. My name is Elena Chelfan Milin. I am a second-year medical student at Lewis Katz School of Medicine. I am here to provide my own individual perspective and I'm not speaking on behalf of Temple University or Lewis Katz School of Medicine. I am here to comment on the bills under discussion today, which propose to restrict vehicular mobile service providers in Kensington on the grounds that they, that we contribute to an unsafe environment for Kensington residents. I have worked with several of these vehicular mobile service providers and therefore find myself in a position to comment on some of the myths that are being propagated about our work. First, the idea that we or our participants leave extra trash around is in my experience untrue. Every single organization that I have ever worked with brings a Sharps container and goes around blocks where we operate to get rid of discarded needles and other paraphernalia. Every single organization that I have ever worked with makes sure to clean up trash around the area before leaving. If anything, we try to leave the streets cleaner than when we arrive. Second, the idea of increased confrontation from our participants is also I think unfounded. Most of us who serve people who use drugs in Kensington have learned how to deescalate conflict. And participants who come to us understand that there are rules, that we will not tolerate yelling, fighting or other disruptive behavior. We also respond to people who need help so that they are not left suffering and dying on the streets, which I would argue is a way of reducing the amount of disruption to the surrounding community. I have directly witnessed individuals who work with us making sure that participants stay off the stoops and the streets of nearby residents. The final reason that the bill gives for banning -- for restricting, excuse me, vehicular mobile service providers is that we expose residents' children to traumatic and frequently unsafe conditions arising from the fentanyl crisis. Again, I hear what our Councilmembers are saying, the testimony that has been given by people who live in Kensington, as I do not. Okay. I understand that. And as a student who is trying to help this community, I want to make sure that we're doing that in partnership with housed and unhoused residents. So I understand that that trauma exists. But again, the mobile service units, we are not the cause of that. And without our services, more people will be there with open wounds, more people will be dying, will be struggling, will be traumatizing people who live in the area if we are not there to help to connect them to services. I also want to point out that some of the people who get help from these organizations are children and are seniors. They are children and seniors who live in Kensington. It's depriving them of these services of food, of hygiene products, of connections with health care providers they might not otherwise have. Is that reducing their exposure to the conditions arising from the fentanyl crisis? That is my question. Finally, I will say that many of these vehicular mobile service providers are, in fact, health care providers and health profession students like myself. We want to work with our communities and not against them. We share the goal of making a happier, healthier, cleaner Kensington. Thank you for listening to my remarks. I beg you not to pass this legislation as written.
Thank you. Next testifier, please. State your name for the record and proceed.
My name is Lucia Riojas. That is spelled L-u-c-i-a, R-i-o-j-a-s. Thank you, everybody. And good afternoon, Councilmembers and everybody here. And my comment is against the Bill 14 No. 240665 introduced by Councilmember Lozada. By the way, I get what you say about seeing the reality from both lenses. That's your job, yes, but this bill isn't that. It isn't providing that. Also, I don't get why here we've heard Councilmembers asking the organizations and people that dedicate their life to serve in Kensington what the solution should be because that is your job. That is the government's job, and that is why you represent the people, all people. And accountability is something that should be provided from the government to the people and not the other way around. This bill will eliminate life-saving services by banning organizations to help people that live in a very deplorable way due to issues that concern us all. I don't believe that banning mobile life-saving services will be the solution to a much more profound problem, a public health problem. And it also lacks any propositions on how to seriously address the problem from the root, not only to try to put a band-aid on a really deep wound. I think that that is something that has to be worked on, the bill that is introduced. Banning the services would limit access to Narcan, medical care and basic necessities such as food and water. I mean, it's that simple, you know, basic life, basic dignity. It is also worth to say that we serve not only people without a home but also people who have a home in Kensington. And as my colleague here or whatever, we're not colleagues, but my new friend here, I have to say that, yeah, when we go and provide these services, we try to leave the space that we're working in like cleaner than we found it before. So that is very important because it's been an issue to address here a lot. Councilmember Lozada has decided to introduce a bill that tries to implement a decade-old strategy that has been proven to be a failure with scientific evidence available from all over the world. I don't have it with me right now, but I mean, again, it's your job as lawmakers, as representatives to study all that evidence and take in account scientific evidence so that you can represent the people that got you here in a better way. In the current political climate, the City of Philadelphia should be an example of forward- looking politics that put people and dignity first. And I just want to repeat this is a matter of empathy, dignity and caring for the people who need us. Mobile units are not the problem. They are part of the solution actually. So I think it would be a mistake to pass this law. Thank you.
Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Hi. My name is Raani Begum spelled R-a-a-n-i, last name Begum, B-e-g-u-m. And I have been living -- I've been a resident of Philadelphia. I've been organizing in Philadelphia for the whole time that I've been here. And I've actually been living in your zip code since 2014 to 2020 after which I was displaced out of it because of developers and rising rents. I've also been organizing in the Kensington area since before 2018, so I'm actually very familiar with all of the arguments, both from the residents' side, the harm reductionists' side, the Councilmembers' side. I've actually been there for all of it, including for when legislation for safe house was being pushed and people said that they didn't want it in their neighborhood. I'm bringing it up to say that this idea around, oh, you know, services should be here and not here, here and not here is a very, very, very old argument that has been happening in Philadelphia, and it is extremely clear that the unhoused population, not just the drug-using unhoused population, but the unhoused population in and of itself is unwanted by the "residents" of every single neighborhood, which I don't believe is true. And so, part of what I'm trying to do here is testify on both sides of the lens that you keep saying, Councilmember Lozada, not only from house residents which I'm very lucky. I have family, I've always had help. I'm very lucky to be a housed resident of Philadelphia even when I was displaced out of Kensington, but also as a person who's been organizing with unhoused members and who's been on the brink of eviction and on the brink of houselessness way too many times since I've been alive, right. And I think that it is in fact really important to talk about what we can do to restore dignity in our neighborhoods in Philadelphia, right. The first one is housing. So I think it's really interesting to me that right now you, Councilmember Lozada, and you, Councilmember Harrity, were arguing with representatives from places like Project HOME. There has never been actual legislation forwarded by any Philadelphia government, any Philadelphia government that does anything about the rent, about developers and how people are displaced out of the spaces that they are living in, right. Inflation in the United States right now is one of the high -- Philadelphia has the highest inflation in the United States. Developers are coming in, they're actually displacing people out of their neighborhoods, out of their homes. And so, I'm really glad that we're talking about children and we're talking about the elderly and the trauma that they experience, because I know having done mutual aid in Kensington since 2018 that a lot of the people that I'm talking to are actually historical Kensington residents. The elderly, a significant portion of the elderly people in Kensington are historically Kensington residents that have been displaced out of the home that they were living in these neighborhoods. I don't hear any concern for them. I just hear the concern for residents that are already there, who are again either in Kensington because of new development, because so much new development have been pushed since I have arrived, which again I've been here for at least 10 years, right. A lot of concern for these developments and these residents, who then are not actually local to Kensington, are not actually historical to Kensington. They're just people who have a little bit, just a little bit extra money to be able to gentrify Kensington, and those are the residents and their children that you seem to be really concerned about since they're the only ones who seem to be able to hold on to their housing because I wasn't. A lot of my friends were not, right. I actually also want to talk about actual real, meaningful commonsense harm reduction services.
People keep talking about Kenney and people keep implying, vaguely saying that maybe something whatever Kenney did was harm reduction and it was terrible for Philadelphia. I said earlier that I've been organizing since 2018 because one of the things that was proposed in 2019 got cut off and then reproposed in 2020 was PAD, Police- Assisted Diversion, the idea that a cop will come to an unhoused person and connect them to all these magical social services that exist in the city of Philadelphia. They don't exist. They don't exist. What ends up happening is that people end up at a precinct. They get maybe two bottles of water. They do not get connected to any services. The services that they do get connected to are places like Salvation Army, which don't have housing. I know this because I ran a relief fund program from late 2020 to late 2021 just to get people cash. And all of these services that Police-Assisted Diversion were supposedly connecting people to, all of these services ended up servicing people to me, one person who is just fundraising on her own and trying to get people indoors trying to get people to safety. The City of Philadelphia has never ever, ever actually have had real services, real resources around housing, and we have been asking for housing first models since before 2016, since before 2016. So I don't understand this conversation that is happening right now about, oh, COVID changed the game. People have been awful to unhoused people, myself included, since way before then, right. It is also really important to talk about these things because like I said, these are arguments around, oh, when we have services in the neighborhood, all of these people flock and then the residents can't stay safe or whatever. We've heard it since Safehouse, since before Safehouse. It's a very old, age-old argument, right, and it is not true because if you actually listen to commonsense things, you know that when services are actually connected in the same place a couple miles within the neighborhoods, a couple blocks from each other, a lot of services in neighborhoods actually really enriches the neighborhood, not only the unhoused people but the housed people. Housed people also have medical services that they can get to if housed people are experiencing not being able to pay their rent, not being able to pay their bills, not being able to pay their mortgage. They also themselves know that they have these services available within a couple blocks of themselves. It does not actually deter them. I do want to talk about harm reduction services again because I'm hearing a lot of, oh, there's needles everywhere, people are pissing and shitting everywhere. Since that conversation around Safehouse, Kensington has at this point eliminated every Sharps box that used to exist in Kensington, which means that people don't actually have anywhere for their trash to go, right. Porta-potties have been eliminated from the neighborhood. And so, now people don't have anywhere to actually just go to the bathroom. And public bathrooms, there's only one public bathroom that exists in the city of Philadelphia and it's in City Hall. The cruelty, the absolute cruelty of asking somebody in Code Blue weather where there is no more services -- it used to be that in Code Blue weather Philadelphia would roll out warming stations and buses and all of that, that has been eliminated since I think the last two years. That doesn't exist. The absolute cruelty of making people go from neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood, hey, you can't go to the bathroom here, hey, you cannot get medical services 17,000 miles from over here, the absolute cruelty is actually astounding to me. It is astounding to me that you're sitting here saying that you're trying to look at it from both sides of the lens or whatever because you're not, you're not.
And lastly, I again want to talk about commonsense actual harm reduction services, and not the ones that fancy suits in City Hall pretend that they're talking about, right. A couple months -- I think it was in September a couple months ago, Kendra Brooks organized an entire session for harm reduction people to come and have a conversation about what services are needed and why they're needed. You walked away from that conversation. You are not actually listening to us. You're not actually coming to the table for any commonsense conversation. You walked away from a public hearing that happened right here. So to come here and say that you are trying to, you know, you are not trying to eliminate services, you're just trying to make sure that everybody's coordinated, you have historically walked away -- both of you. Both of you have actually historically walked away from these conversations, right. Because had you been in these conversations, you would have heard how Prevention Point -- in New York City, in Harlem, New York City OnPoint NYC has changed the game for the entire neighborhood so that they went from thousands and thousands and thousands of needles on the street to zero, to zero within the first week of their opening. We can have that. We can have that here. We have been asking for this since before 2017. Harm reduction organizers have been talking about safe supply so that this issue around drug dealers and whatever violence happens on the street gets reduced and eliminated, but we don't -- but nobody actually listens to us. Some fancy suits come in here, talks about recovery and then it's like, oh, you know, like I'm doing it all. Do you know -- since you seem to know a lot about services, if they have true services or not, recovery services do not take in anybody if they have wounds. In fact, emergency departments in the city of Philadelphia will often turn away people if they have Xylazine wounds, especially in the cold because they have so many other patients coming in and they look at this person and they'll be like, oh, you're just coming in here getting drugs when there are wounds all over their body. And so, they end up back on the street. So, yeah, I imagine it's traumatizing for your kids because I cannot imagine being a child and then watching the adults around me look at another human being and say, oh, that's terrible, it's their fault, they should be left out to die just as long as they're not outside of my home, just like they're over in that other neighborhood, just like they're not outside of my home, but also not outside of City Hall because then developers cannot come in, because then developers cannot come in and have these new trashy buildings that are sinking. The buildings that they're building are sinking in Fishtown and Kensington. But, hey, we have to develop these neighborhoods for them so that they can make money. The fact that this is a city -- that Philadelphia is supposed to be a city of brotherly love and sisterly affection has been dying in City Hall and your bill is a nail in the coffin. Your bill is a nail in the coffin because it hasn't just started there for the last however many years. You want to talk about why people are on the door stoops of people's residences? Because the police keep shooing away unhoused people. Again, there's no housing. There's nowhere for unhoused people to go. So if the police is going to come and harass and terrorize people out of the parks that they were living in -- and I get it, I get it. We want to use our parks for the kids, for this and that. So if the police come and terrorize people out of the parks, then they're going to go somewhere else and that's going to be on your doorstep. They're there because you and your police evicted them out of the places they were living in, evicted them out of the tunnels, under the bridges that they were living in.
You are 19 reaping exactly what you sowed, and 20 now you're here coming and talking 21 about trauma and how it's so sad 22 that people don't get services when 23 you're the one taking those 24 services away. It is bone-chilling, bone-chilling how an entirely cruel bill is sort of being cushioned, is sort of being sugarcoated with conversations around trauma and care and this and that. It is bone-chilling how this is happening. Thank you for your time.
Well, thank you for that passionate testimony and all your testimony. Thank you very much. Ms. McDonald, are there any more testifiers this morning?
Yes, one more. Silvana Mazzella. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Silvana Mazzella. I'm with Prevention Point Philadelphia and I wanted to just express some concerns and also clarify some things that were said. There are many mobile units in Kensington, but it was stated that there are no 10 mobile units in other communities. There have definitely been other mobile units in different communities across the city. We've operated several units in other parts of the city and we've collaborated with other people in other parts of the city. But it's also worth pointing out that we place mobile units in areas that have the most need. In fact, many of the mobile units that are operating in Kensington and other parts of the city are operating specifically "following an overdose spike," so the Health Department or others might set out an alert about an increase in overdoses in a particular community, and this has certainly happened outside of Kensington, and a mobile unit will place there either immediately to distribute Narcan, do overdose prevention education, meet with pharmacies, community block captains or it will stay there for a period of time to saturate that neighborhood with Narcan and offer people substance use treatment. There are also units that specifically follow HIV incidents, right. So we know that in different parts of the area and part of the increase in mobile services in Kensington was paired with increases in new outbreaks of HIV infection, but that happens in other parts of the city as well. And in addition to Narcan overdose prevention, HIV testing, there are also offers of PrEP or HIV primary care. I also want to point out that there are people here that have been coordinating a mobile service provider meeting since at least 2020, 2019. Before that, the Health Department and DBH co-facilitated a mobile service provider meeting. The first one that I went to was held at the Health Department and after that, it was held at Rock Ministry and then moved to other parts of the city. It's now I believe mostly virtual, but there are two people here that coordinate that. And a range of mobile service providers meet there. Sometimes people from City government units meet in that. And I say that to say that all of us that provide mobile services want to collaborate with the City. We want to be good partners. We want to be better partners. And part of the discussions that happened today have been had at these meetings, negotiations with other service providers around not necessarily being on the same block the same day of the week the same time, but trying to coordinate in a way that we are hitting multiple areas across a week or across a month and not necessarily providing duplication of efforts if we can do slightly different things. The discussion of being long-term, most of the mobile service unit providers are not trying to replace brick-and-mortar services. I do agree with the Councilmember that brick-and-mortar services to me at least are ideal. We can provide a range of services under one roof in the most dignified way, but there are many people that are still not going into brick-and-mortar facilities. When we enroll people in mobile medical care as an example, we do a PDMP lookup to see where else they've gotten substance use treatment and how often. We gather records, we consent them to contact their managed care entity to find out a recent hospitalization or something else, and there are many people that we find that have not had care even in the last year or two. So for some people brick-and- mortar is ideal, but for many people mobile services are their first engagement with care. I can also tell you that, for example, for our service, and I would believe that most of the mobile providers here that use an EMR on their mobile trucks, will find people that since their entry to substance use treatment or wound care or some other health care service on the street are actually still engaged in care. They're still adherent. They are housed now. They're either employed.
They're on Social Security and they are living stable lives, and that happened through that initial engagement that may have then a month, three months later transitioned to brick-and-mortar services. So it is not always meant to be a long-term service. We respect and accept the need for more regulation, and we do clean up after ourselves. I think it is only right and reasonable that providers that provide mobile services do that and show respect for the community. And I just want to restate that we are -- the ones that participate in regular meetings are interested in partnering with the City, are interested in being the best neighbors possible, but these services have to continue. If there are going to be regulations around where a service can be provided, I think someone earlier talked about there are many mixed-use blocks with residential and commercial services. We would expect some type of blueprint but also some engagement with mobile service providers, with the Health Department, with DBH and Council to really look at where need is so that we're not just looking at residential and commercial but looking at placing services where there is the most need so that they can operate.
Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm not going to testify.
I did want to add one more thing about homeless outreach that I meant to add that was discussed before. The mobile outreach, we have a Homeless Outreach team. When calls are made into the Project HOME hotline, we are one of the service providers that goes out and responds, and we did over 400 placements to shelter last year. It's also notable that there are times where there is not an eligible placement for someone, where there just is not a spot, and that's definitely more extreme in the extreme winter and summer, but that happens. It's also notable that at least the outreach teams, part of the job is documenting the chronicity of people's unsheltered status and trying to make them eligible for placement. It is not possible for all of the mobile service providers, ourselves included, to take everyone off the street. It's simply not realistic. But the best that we can do is try to offer care, provide life-saving medical care in that moment, especially for people who are not going to get care elsewhere. And as I said, we often find every day that we're out on the street people that we treat that have not gotten care elsewhere and then to try to make them eligible for other types of placements.
Thank you and thank you to all our testifiers today. This was very, very, very helpful for this panel. There being no further questions from members on the Committee and no other witnesses to testify on Bill No. 240430 and Bill 9 No. 240665, I will ask if there is anyone else present in this hearing whose name we have failed to call?
(Inaudible). UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Speak in the microphone. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. My name is Katherine Abrams. I work for the Health Federation of Philadelphia. Thank you, Councilperson Lozada, Squilla, Driscoll, Phillips, O'Rourke, and Hannity -- Harrity.
Good afternoon. I know it's been a long morning. I'll try to keep this brief, but I feel like my work has been mentioned a couple times. I do training and technical assistance on behalf of the Health Federation of Philadelphia. My program is contracted by the Substance Use Prevention and Harm Reduction Division of PDPH to do training and technical assistance. We host monthly meetings for mobile medical teams, and this came as a result of a request from one team about three years ago. So Silvana was -- there were -- what she mentioned, the meetings, they were going on and on, and then it kind of fell apart and then we responded to the technical assistance request to meet with the medical teams, and these are the licensed teams. So our outreach was directly to the medical teams. Over time our group has expanded and we have relationships with some of the harm reduction groups that are here today. What I thought the groups would talk about when we first started meeting and the initial request was around location, I thought we would talk about location, where is the best place to go. And we really went with the data about where overdose was the highest. And so, Kensington became the priority. Over time I thought that what the group would talk about was how to provide the best services for addressing Hepatitis C, for example, which is hard to do on a mobile van, but trash has been on our agenda for two years. And there is consensus among these groups that trash is a priority. We don't want to add to the problem. I cannot control what these groups do, but I can offer a space for them to meet and try to discuss the concerns of the community and we do that often. Frank Franklin had introduced me over email recently to Mike Cameron, your Legislative Director. We gave him the date of our meeting. I asked to meet with him beforehand just so that I could learn more about what was going on. We didn't hear back. And I know it's a busy time. We thought maybe this legislation wouldn't be on the table and maybe that's why we didn't hear back. We are -- I think the groups would welcome a discussion, a sit-down. It's just the way things happen, you know, the neighborhood meetings that they go to a lot of yelling happens and it feels hostile. So I have to say I'm not here to oppose the bill or support it, but just to make sure that you know that there is some coordination happening. The groups respect each other. They like each other. And we try to support the best practices. And really one of those best practices is making sure that we're doing good in the community. They want to do good. That's all I have.
Thank you. Thank you very much. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee. We will now go into the public meeting to consider the action to be taken on the bill before this Committee today. Ms. McDonald, will you please call the roll to take attendance. Members that are in attendance, please indicate that you are present when your name is called.
Present. So before we make a motion, I just want to thank again all the testifiers today. This was important. We wanted to get this on the record. This is not the end of the process. This is the process and we want to get it right. And I think I can speak for the members that are here and I think I can speak for the maker of the bill. The maker, do you want to say anything, Member Lozada?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd also like to thank everyone that came out today to testify. I appreciate, I've heard. You know, again, I think that this is the beginning of a long-awaited conversation and a long-awaited process that needs to happen, and it's a process and a structure that we as government have to establish in order for us to ensure that both populations are receiving the absolutely necessary services, right. And so, I look forward to continuing the conversation. I've received some text messages from individuals who were here today who testified who want to continue the conversation, who want to be a part of the process. I welcome that. And again, I think it's important for us to ensure that both populations are heard and respected and that we're able to deliver for both of them as a government, as elected officials because that's what we're responsible for.
Thank you. I just want to recognize, Vice-Chair Squilla.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Councilmember Lozada. As we heard, there's a lot of good points on both sides of this argument. And the challenge is what do we do to make it work. And I think a lot of people understand hearing from the community side of it and hearing from the unhoused side of it that we have a lot more work to do. And I want to thank the sponsor of the bill for her commitment to continue working on this and to work not only with the colleagues here but also work with the providers, the Health Department, L&I and all of our departments to continue to work on this until we get it right. So thank you for your passion, thank everybody who testified and knowing that we will continue to work on this as it moves forward. Thank you.
With that, the Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill No. 240430.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 15 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session to Council.
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Squilla seconds the motion -- no, we need a second. (Duly seconded.)
I'm sorry. Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been approved and properly seconded that Bill No. 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Let me just get it on the record. So the ayes are Councilmember Squilla, Driscoll and Phillips. Councilmember O'Rourke, a nay and can now proceed to comment.
Thank you, Chairman. And also, I want to send my regard -- well, give my salutations again to Member Lozada as well as Member Harrity as well as the other colleagues, and also thanks to all of those who did come out and give their testimony today. I know we're about to wrap up, but I did want to share this. I'm a freshman and I'm new to this, and this is my first day on the Committee --
I just want to clarify. The bill 7 that we voted on was the L&I bill. You want to be a nay on the other bill, correct?
All right. So let's just for the record I'll put the -- let's do the motion again. This was on the L&I bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No. 9 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 22 240430 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it unanimously and the motion carries. Now, this would be an amendment to -- this is an amendment to Bill No. 240665.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 240665. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 22 240665 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 240665 be approved. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The amendment to Bill No. 14 240665 has been approved. Now, on to the bill as amended. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the bill. Did you want to speak, Councilmember O'Rourke, before we vote?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, my salutations to those making these mistakes as a freshman. Let me just say that we have clumsy tools in trying to do civic surgery. This has become evident to me in the last months 10 of lawmaking, which makes 11 interpreting the moves, the actions that are taken a bit difficult without explanation, which is the reason why I wanted at least a little space to say this. I want to be clear that I care deeply about this bill's goal of creating better living conditions for the residents both of your dist -- excuse me, of the 6th District and the 7th Councilmanic District. That has to be remembered, I think, in lawmaking. There is the letter of the law and then half the writing of the New Testament calls the spirit of the law that is also active in that. And so, capturing that spirit within the law is essential I think if we're going to do the right or righteous thing. However, as the Health Commissioner mentioned in his testimony I fear this bill will not accomplish that. Research consistently demonstrates that harm reduction practices are the most effective way to deal with the opioid, mental health and homelessness crisis that humans and citizens continue to face in our city, saving more lives and tax dollars in the process. That doesn't mean that the community's relationship with harm reductionists is perfect or regulated well, as we've kind of ironed out here today. But since these methods are the ones that actually preserve life, before we get to the question of the quality of life itself, I believe that we're tasked with improving relationships and improving regulations. At its core, this bill 10 regulates where these vital services can take place. It does not address the underlying causes of the issues faced by Kensington which did come up in this conversation in the 7th District and too many other neighborhoods in our city, as has been articulated. There is common ground in this legislation. That became evident as well. For instance, the amendment requiring better spacing. Member Lozada talked about that. That makes a lot of sense to me, about spacing it out so there's not hard concentration in certain areas. Multiple providers on a residential block is a challenge that very few people can deny, I think if we're being honest in our lawmaking. The pictures are compelling enough. The testimonies even more so because I see the pictures today, but I was in the meeting at McPherson Park in the summertime and I heard that come from folks. But again, if this is the work that is keeping people alive, giving them the opportunity to survive a dark time, we can't just sweep it off the board. Philadelphians who choose to help those in need do not need more hurdles to jump through. They need our help, and I consider that to be essential work for those of us who are tasked to etch out a common life together as hard and as difficult and as intense as this thing can be. I look forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues on finding ways to address these and many related issues facing our city, but I must urge us all to pursue a different course of action here. My hope is that you believe my desire to find what that right course of action looks like. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Member O'Rourke. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill No. 240665 as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 23 240665 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
The Chair notes for the record that Councilmember Phillips seconds the motion. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 12 240665 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Motion carries. This concludes the business before the Committee on Licenses and Inspections today. Thank you all very much for your attendance. (Committee on Licenses and Inspections concluded at 1:03 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL