ONE PAYCHECK AWAY
21st-century homeless programs
by Betsey Culp
(bculp@sfcall.com)
On Monday, January 7, the Supe-watching residents of San
Francisco were treated to a fifteen-minute “indulgence” by the
board as Gavin Newsom outlined his much-heralded plan to solve
the city’s persistent homeless problems. The good supervisor,
who has spent hours in research and visiting shelters, SROs,
and service centers, proposed an integrated approach,
coordinated through a city Department of Homelessness. In
acknowledgment of citizens’ complaints about aggressive or
unpleasant behavior by street people, he tacked on a series of
quality-of-life and panhandling penalties that have homeless
advocates seeing red.
Newsom’s conflation of panhandlers and homeless people,
while common, boggles the mind. Try this experiment: walk down
Market Street or another area known for its “spare change”
seekers and count the number of people who are stationed
there. Now take out your pocket calculator and figure out what
percentage they constitute of the 7,000+ homeless people who
live in San Francisco.
When are we going to realize that the problem isn’t the
panhandlers? It’s homelessness.
When will our politicians — whether Clint Reilly, Amos
Brown, or Gavin Newsom — stop reinventing the wheel and get
down to the real job at hand?
Last spring the newspapers made much of an angry
confrontation between Our Mayor and Supervisor Chris Daly over
the restructuring of the city’s shelter program. They paid no
attention whatsoever to a draft document issued by the city’s
Local Homeless Coordinating Board entitled “Continuum of Care:
A Five-Year Strategic Plan for Homeless Services, 2001-2006.”
Last fall, as the economic effects of the dot.com bust and
September 11 began to be felt, the Ex-paper’s Mess on Market
campaign came to a boil and the newspapers made much of an
angry statement by Our Mayor that “San Francisco’s dirty
streets and highly visible homeless population were hurting
tourism.” They ignored a nearly unanimous vote by the Board on
Supervisors on August 27 “declaring the policy that the
Continuum of Care Plan 2001-2006 is the City and County of San
Francisco’s official homeless policy document governing the
development of an integrated, effective, and coordinated
system of health care, housing, employment, and support
services to end homelessness.”
Ten supes voted aye; one — Gavin Newsom — was absent. Not
that it mattered: Our Mayor refused to endorse the program.
For those who, like Newsom, were absent when the Continuum
of Care was first introduced, an excerpt is reprinted below; the entire document is available at
www.ci.sf.ca.us/lchb.
It lacks the headline-grabbing excitement of an attack on
incivility, but it contains a lot of practical thinking about
a difficult problem. Much of it is, in fact, amazingly similar
to Newsom’s proposals. And the problem still lies in the
execution.
<>
<> <>
Continuum of care
A five-year strategic plan for homeless
services, 2001-2006
I always knew I was just one
paycheck away from being homeless. |
— Continuum of Care Consumer Focus
Group Participant |
San Francisco remains committed to its vision of
eradicating homelessness. Our goal is to move toward a
continuum of integrated services that focuses on the causes of
homelessness: poverty; lack of housing, living-wage jobs,
vocational skills, and health care; and the disruptions
resulting from substance abuse, severe mental illness, and
domestic violence. Adults and children grappling with
homelessness experience hunger, health crises, victimization,
alienation, humiliation, and even death. Survival on the
streets requires strength and stamina, often in short supply
among children and people who are ill, addicted or elderly.
This Continuum of Care plan, which maps San Francisco’s
strategies for ending homelessness, is the work of hundreds of
participants from all sectors of our community. Its pages echo
the diverse voices involved in crafting the plan, ranging from
people who are homeless to social service providers, from
advocates to City managers. The process involved residents of
neighborhoods where people who are homeless have traditionally
been underserved, as well as seasoned veterans of the central
city’s social service agencies. Collectively, those who
crafted this plan bring hundreds of years of expertise in
program design, social work, public policy; many have
first-hand experience with homelessness. Such a community
process, while time-intensive and undertaking, is critical to
the plan’s success, as it guarantees the support and
commitment of all who gave of their time, energy and passion.
In developing the plan, participants drew on their
experience and their vision, as well as research done to date
in San Francisco regarding homelessness, housing, employment,
and other topics. In addition, Continuum of Care committees
devised original research tools to guide their work and ensure
extensive participation by people who are homeless: a Family
Shelter Survey of 40 homeless families and 46
family shelter providers; seven Consumer Focus Groups
conducted in six neighborhoods, which gathered input from 100
currently homeless individuals; and a survey of over 400
people who are homeless at over 50 street and shelter sites
throughout the city. These surveys targeted the participation
of residents of all San Francisco neighborhoods, including
those which have traditionally been underserved by the
existing network of homeless services and housing: Bayview-Hunters
Point, Visitacion Valley, the Mission District, and the
Western Addition/ Haight Ashbury.
No new needs assessment of people who are homeless was
commissioned; the ongoing debates around a true definition of
homelessness and the number of people who are homeless in our
city were not resolved. As the Local Board moves into
implementation of the Continuum of Care plan, it will continue
to grapple with the complex issues of enumeration and
demographics, which face all communities where people who are
homeless live.
The principal challenge our community faces in preventing
and eradicating homelessness is a citywide housing crisis….
The loss of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing, a source of
stability for many poor people, has had a dramatic impact on
the overall housing market. With some of the nation’s highest
housing prices and rental housing that is barely affordable or
available for middle-income people, low-income and homeless
individuals are locked out completely….
The scarcity of living wage jobs for people exiting
welfare, and the lack of training and education that prevents
many low-income and homeless individuals from obtaining
employment in the technology sector, have intensified the gap
between San Francisco's haves and the have-nots….
In an effort to stem the growth of homelessness, this plan
contains action steps related to expanding eligibility for and
funding of rental assistance programs for the working poor;
increasing legal assistance programs to tenants vulnerable to
eviction; improving housing assistance services to individuals
discharged from jails and hospitals and to youth aging out of
foster care; and improving access to preventative social
services, through Neighborhood Resource Centers and other
agencies….
The lack of consistent, accurate, accessible information on
homeless services is consistently cited by people who are
homeless as a major barrier to accessing emergency shelter,
health care, housing, support services and employment
opportunities….