San Francisco's State of Homelessness Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:27:07 -0800 SanFranciscoSentinel.com 1156e4.jpg Wednesday January 5, 2005 Volume 5 Issue 145 Ó SanFranciscoSentinel.com 2005 The Coalition on Homelessness perspective San Francisco's State of Homelessness Moving from failure to failure with enthusiasm By Anne Kaplan With Chance Martin Wednesday, January 5, 2005 On December 7, 2004, speaking to a packed house of reporters, service providers, advocates, and even some actual members of the homeless community, Mayor Gavin Newsom delivered what was billed as San Franciscos first annual (until such time as the crisis is over) "State of Homelessness Address." The public hearing chambers at 101 Grove were clearly packed past maximum capacity-an increasingly hot, cramped, and relatively airless environment filled with people willing to trade in their normal mornings activities for a chance to personally assess the degree of knowledge, level of commitment, future direction, and chances of success for the first San Francisco Mayor to make solving the high-profile problem of homelessness a civic, as well as a public, priority. Arriving significantly later than the slated start time, and noting the number present (official count 250) Newsom quickly apologized, citing a tardy departure from an earlier obligation to "the girls at St. Brigids," and then immediately launched into an hourlong speech that was almost as complex as the issue of homelessness itselfand as densely packed with facts, figures, and future plans as the room was with people. Often in error, never in doubt As the foregoing suggests, Newsoms first homelessness address rigorously defies anything resembling single-sentence summarization or even several-sentence characterization. There was no "vitally important point," "stunning new policy announcement," or "strikingly memorable slogan." The subhead above came perhaps the closest to capturing the spirit of the day, the only real competition being the following quote culled by Newsom from a Churchill speech: "The secret of success is to move from failure to failure with enthusiasm." Perhaps the events most unifying feature was its tone-self-deprecating yet sincere... and determined to prevail over time. Which brings up something readers should know up front about this article: Its aim is to look at the Mayors State of Homelessness address in the context of the current state of homelessness in San Francisco, and understand clearly what City Hall proposes to do within this context to improve this state. In other, plainer, words, what you are about to read is definitively not a piece of predetermined political rhetoric ("Mayor, he bad-Homeless, they good," or vice versa); but as straightforward an analysis of the facts as they stand as is humanly possible. Truthfully, it turns out that while its nearly impossible not to harbor at least a modicum of skepticism about the true agenda of any politician, its damned difficult to muster much rancor for one who: a) professes profound commitment to "ending homelessness as we know it;" 2) has at this point seemingly adopted (if not co-opted) many of the key positions long advocated by the Coalition and articulates them well and publicly; and c) even mentions the Coalition by name, with respect, and in the context of "future mutual efforts." Factor in the full force of Newsoms much-vaunted charm, coupled with his ready admission, complete with sheepish grin and self-deprecating chuckle, that "mistakes have been made... and Im sure they wont be the last ones," throw in his seemingly heartfelt plea for patience, along with a reiterated call for cooperation in the struggle... and well, when you put all together were not quite sure what you have, but whatever it is, its something that effectively neutralizes any existing impulse toward knee-jerk negativity. Myth vs. Reality That said, many attendees came away from the speech fixated on the concept of "myth vs. reality." Although Newsom used the phrase in a very limited context, it struck the ear as an elegant gloss on the more pedestrian "reality check," and exactly what the rather rosy picture painted by the address itself required. Newsom kicked off his speech by reaffirming both the priority his administration places on solving the problem of homelessness and his own personal commitment to this goal. Speaking for himself, he stated, "Im not interested in this issue; Im absolutely committed to ending homelessness as we know it," adding, "I dont know why were here. Its a national disgrace. Every urban center has unaffordable housing." After briefly remarking on the high incidence of "self-medication and/or abusive behavior" among the homeless population, Newsom shifted his focus from personal responsibility to civic, and his language from the somewhat confrontational toward the more general, calling "mental and behavioral health issues" an area for particular attention. But after declaring behavioral health to be the "most challenging" front on which his administration was waging its war against homelessness, Newsoms discussion of the topic rapidly devolved into a pedantic discourse on some of the factors leading to Californias closure of state mental health facilities-moves that caused the "deinstitutionalization" of formerly housed mental patients viewed by some as seminal to the development of homelessness as we know it today. Behaviorally Speaking In fact, Newsoms targeting of behavioral health measures as key to solving the homelessness problem appears to be somewhat stalled between the rhetoric and the reality. Though he later spoke enthusiastically of the substantial funding expected to flow into the City from the passage of the statewide Proposition 63 (which taxes the very rich specifically to fund mental health services), calling for this anticipated $30 million to become part of the supportive housing development effort, he made no mention of any immediate efforts on the behavioral health front. Perhaps thats because, far from funding any new initiatives in this area, Newsoms proposed budget included significant cuts to existing mental health services and programs crucial to many of the Citys poor and homeless people. Consider this: The Department of Public Healths solution to budget shortfalls resultant from the demise of Props J and K on last Novembers ballot is to eliminate the Citys long-standing "Single Standard of Care" for medically indigent mental health clients. Whats worse, non- Medi-Cal eligible clients presenting common mental illnesses like adjustment disorders, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders are being denied treatment on the basis of diagnosis and Medi-Cal status, with absolutely no regard for the severity of their symptoms or any assessment of functional impairment as a result of their mental illnesses. And all of these are mental health diagnoses that are practically guaranteed to grow worse in the absence of ongoing treatment. Meanwhile, when theyre not marshalling camera crews around the Tenderloin, those city-salaried photo opportunists with the Mayors "Project Connect" outreach team are pressuring the same mental health providers impacted by these latest cuts into providing more treatment slots for their referrals... somehow blithely unaware that many of the referrals they make are now ineligible for treatment. Now, that sounds really crazy. While this might serve to explain why the Mayors speech identified behavioral health as the Number One problem only somewhat fleetingly, Mayor Newsom left no doubt about his views on the primary solution. In keeping with the Ten Year Plan, and in agreement with virtually all of the concerned agencies and individuals, Newsom stated that supportive housing holds the key to solving homelessness. According to Newsom, San Francisco needs "to get out of the shelter business and into the housing business. The solution is clearly permanent housing, not temporary. We need to get everyone out of the shelter system and into housingdirect access to housing." This shift in City policy, from its earlier Continuum of Care model to a Housing First stance, lay at the heart of the address, and, as the Mayor himself pointed out, "Supportive housing is largely a nonfactional issue." That said, the problem becomes one of finding the substantial funds required to make Housing First a reality for San Franciscos estimated 9,000 to 15,000 currently homeless residents. Unsurprisingly, thats where the factionalism returns to the equation. The State of Care Not Cash To date, the Citys efforts to raise money to develop the some 3,000 units of supportive housing specified by the Ten Year Plan have taken the form of two major efforts. Unfortunately, the one slated to provide the bulk of the necessary funding, Novembers Prop A, was narrowly defeated at the polls, leaving the far less lucrative, more limited, and massively problematic Care Not Cash as the only current example of San Franciscos homelessness policy direction. Newsom himself labeled Care Not Cash "hardly perfect," admitting that "mistakes were made," and acknowledging that some of those whose monthly income had plummeted from a hardly princely $395 per month to a scant $49 under this welfare reform program had "slipped through the cracks" somewhere between the surrendering of their cash and the realization of their "care." Still, the Mayor was there to proclaim progress and evidence to back up those claims, including not only a raft of statistics, but also, for the non-numerically inclined, a handful of handpicked formerly homeless people ready to stand up and talk in glowing terms of Care Not Cash as the agent of their life turnaround. At a glance, the statistics are little short of staggering: Since Care Not Cash came into effect in May, 554 clients have been placed in permanent supportive housing and the homeless caseload has decreased by 61% (from 2,497 to 981), resulting in almost $2 million dollars in additional savings that will be used to expand housing and treatment options. It all sounds great, and no one is discounting the sincerity of the intent, nor the reality of the lives changed for the better. Its just that both the statistics and the personal histories as presented during this address illustrate only one side of a picture with two. Lets take the statistics first. Huge drops in caseloads, right; huge savings, yes. But as Rachel Brahinsky detailed so well in her December 15th San Francisco Bay Guardian article, if you look between the lines, whats gone unsaid here is something both startling and scary: the disappearance of at least 1,516 people from San Franciscos welfare rolls. These people have not been placed into supportive housing, they have simply stopped receiving payments from the City. Have they left town, unable to live on the pittance left of their check post Care Not Cash? Or are they still in the City, somewhere, under a different on-ramp or slumbering fitfully in another doorway, having made the decision a mere $49 that carries with it uncertain odds of bingo-ing on securing permanent supportive housing isnt worth the time it takes to jump through all of the welfare bureaucracys hoops? Or, to put it in Newsoms own words, "Its one thing to cut checks, its another to guarantee supportive housing." In reality, Care Not Cash housing is funded either by forcing another two to three other people into shelter beds and cutting the lions share of their welfare checks, or by cutting this many people off assistance altogether. This is the fatal flaw of Care Not Cash-any success is funded from the backs of more than double that many other human lives. Its worth noting that Care Not Cash was a welfare reform act, not a piece of homelessness legislation per se. In fact, by effectively prioritizing one set of people in need (those receiving City welfare monies) over another (those with different funding and those lacking any sort of official assistance whatsoever), it has actually had a negative impact on the lives of many of the Citys most disenfranchised citizens. December 04s STREET SHEET detailed the effect of Care Not Cash on shelter bed availability, and how this has changed the lives of poor and homeless immigrants, elderly, and disabled people. These were the displaced faces not seen during this address, theirs the stories not told. For example, one of the populations most negatively affected by Care Not Cash, and connected policy changes such as biometric finger imaging, is undocumented immigrants. Yet despite the fact that these people comprise a substantial portion of San Franciscos overall homeless population, Newsoms address made no mention of them whatsoever, let alone in the context of Care Not Cash. But enough already with Care Not Cash. If San Francisco is truly to move forward following the Housing First model, as appeared to be the Mayors central (and extremely welcome) message, its clear that more inclusive legislation will be required-and, most crucially, significant additional funding will have to be secured. Toward that end, among other approaches, Newsom was quick to point out that San Francisco had already received $28 million in federal funding to combat homelessness, a sum that he rightly termed "disproportionate," given the meagerness of the current federal funding behind the Bush Administration push for municipal 10-Year Plans (see Bushs Ten Year ScamJuly 04 STREET SHEET). He also called out the need to do everything possible to secure additional federal funding, saying that, though the City has been aggressive in its SSI advocacy, still more was needed... "and well do more." Locally, the Mayor suggested a number of avenues for funding, ranging from the political to the personal. Decrying the defeat of Prop A, Newsom expressed the opinion that it was the affordable housing aspects of that initiative that made it vulnerable and spoke of sponsoring a similar proposition more tightly targeting development of supportive housing for the poor and homeless. He also pledged to look to the private sector for funding, even to the point of saying that he would "open up his Rolodex" to "go after" some of wealthiest of Citys residents, singling out for special attention the "major players in the defeat of Prop A." Conclusions (and more issues left unspoken) Having metaphorically "hitched his star" to tackling our towns troublingly large and intractable "homelessness issue" by making Care Not Cash the centerpiece of his mayoral candidacy, Newsom seems keenly aware that his administration will be judged largely on the basis of his homelessness policys impact on the streets of San Francisco: If, a year from now, Newsom can cite statistics showing a significant drop in the number of desparate people making San Francisco's streets their homes and a concurrent rise in the number of City residents and tourists feeling at home on our streets, it will be a powerful endorsement of his political prowess. And according to his speech, he has apparently come to understand that the path toward this desirable goal begins with housingnot the punitive and costly law enforcement tactics so heavily relied upon by administrations past. But one of the things the public could not know from his State of Homelessness address is that Mayor Newsom is not only continuing, but increasing civil and human rights violations of homeless people with the same "quality of life" enforcement tactics so popular during the Jordan and Brown administrations. Under Mayor Newsom, police are now cordoning off public areas where homeless people congregate, sweeping encampments, and prosecuting campers for CPC 647(j) "Illegal Lodging" misdemeanors that could land people in jail for six months just for being homeless. Similarly, in his address Newsom mentioned homeless families, then immediately discounted them by stating their numbers were low. What was left unsaid is other homeless families languishing on waiting lists, in SROs, shelters, or transitional housing. We truly hope the implementation of Mayor Newsoms Housing First homeless policy and his Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness will reflect the documented and growing local need for homeless family housing. (Newsom actually went so far as to thank the Department of Human Services for its role in helping the San Francisco Housing Authority fill its hundreds of vacant public housing units, conveniently failing to mention years of community organizing by the Coalitions Eye On Housing campaign to make this housing a reality for so many homeless families.) While we here at the Coalition on Homelessness were certainly pleased to have our work recognized, and were even heartened that Mayor Newsoms rhetoric on homeless issues incorporates more and more of the Coalitions core messaging, talk (even a Mayoral State of Homelessness Address) is cheap. And at the end of the day, addressing homelessness is not about what one says one wants to do, but rather what one can actually accomplish. As for "future mutual efforts," apart from moving "from failure to failure with enthusiasm," its our sincere hope that Mayor Newsom, unlike his predecessors, manages to learn something along the way as well. Coalition staffers Jennifer Friedenbach, Miguel Carerra, and L. S. Wilson also contributed to this article. Email streetsheet@sf-homeless-coalition.org. Register for SanFranciscoSentinel.com email updates Attachment Converted: 1156e4.jpg: 00000001,68144ff9,00000000,00000000