Five of San Francisco's mayors discuss their attempts to solve the homelessness problem while in office.

A response that goes ‘Beyond Shelter’ By Art Agnos When I became mayor in 1988, existing government policy for homelessness consisted of the “American disaster model” employed in natural disasters like floods and tornadoes. Cities opened armories and served coffee and doughnuts in what was expected to be temporary relief. Afterward, the homeless “victims” would resume their lives. My administration recognized that the homelessness created by disasters like drug abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, alcoholism, runaway children, unemployment or low wages required a different approach than homelessness created by floods and hurricanes. In 1989, San Francisco homeless advocates, religious leaders, nonprofit and social service staff gathered to invent a first-of-a-kind plan. That plan, “Beyond Shelter,” is a solution but not a fast solution — there are no fast solutions. Sadly, we, the politicians and the public, have lacked the conviction and commitment to realize success in solving homelessness. “Beyond Shelter” was developed to deal with the aftershocks of national political and economic decisions that put hundreds of homeless people on city streets. The Reagan administration had cut the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget from $32 billion to $8 billion for affordable housing — as well as minimum financial assistance such as Supplemental Security Income. The combined effect was terrible. Then, just as “Beyond Shelter” got under way, the Loma Prieta earthquake hit on Oct. 17, 1989, and the city faced a new homeless crisis. Devastation in the Marina neighborhood suddenly forced residents from their homes. Emergency shelter and services were quickly put in place by national agencies. Not as much attention was paid to more than a thousand formerly homeless people living in the South of Market single-room-occupancy hotels made homeless again. The Red Cross and Federal Emergency Management Agency offered immediate housing aid to homeowners and renters, but denied the same housing aid to those who had been living on public assistance in SRO hotels. I demanded, received and shared with other badly damaged cities, donated earthquake funds totaling more than $30 million, which was surreptitiously taken from the city by the Red Cross and deposited in its Washington, D.C., accounts. “Beyond Shelter” was inaugurated with San Francisco’s share with the opening of two centers totaling 480 beds. These facilities initially were modeled after the magnificent Delancey Street Foundation, a successful program that never compromises with the highest standards of quality and design. The homeless in the Civic Center encampment, which I had allowed to exist in the months between the earthquake and the opening of the centers nine months later, were peacefully moved to the multiservice centers with priority for placement in the new “Beyond Shelter” programs. At the multiservice centers, social service and health professionals would evaluate each new arrival to determine what services he or she needed to recover a productive life. Compassion and aggressiveness were balanced in a case management system designed to help homeless people recover by, first, housing them and then linking them with appropriate services. “Beyond Shelter” had three levels of service: Assessment MultiService Centers (think today’s Navigation Centers) accepted individuals and families — with pets — for a diagnostic stay to identify the conditions responsible for their homeless “disaster.” A part of this was the McMillan Emergency Drop-in Center, where individuals could crash — with no questions asked or be brought there in “Mobile Assistance Patrol” vans, always on standby for that purpose. Transition Once they were diagnosed, the homeless entered the appropriate transitional housing with supportive services matching their evaluation. Some might need a short stay — others a longer one. Permanent housing Permanent housing — the ultimate goal of the program. “Beyond Shelter” had two essential assets: — A Community Housing Partnership to develop, maintain and employ homeless people in their housing. Today, this agency houses and supports more than 1,000 formerly homeless people. Jeff Kositsky, former director of Community Housing Partnership, was just named as the leader of the new San Francisco Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. — A “modified payment” program to stabilize existing SRO housing by guaranteeing rent payments to landlords in exchange for rent discounts. This helped secure the existing housing stock as well as complement the longer-term commitment to nonprofit housing development. The final, and more controversial, element called for severely troubled homeless individuals who acted out in socially unacceptable or uncivilized ways to be sent by court order to a “rehabilitation farm” for treatment. The cost estimates to build out “Beyond Shelter” were about $125 million in today’s dollars for a target population of 6,000. It certainly fit within the current budget spending of $245 million. Nevertheless, we knew that San Francisco needed the buy-in of the Bay Area cities. In May 1990, mayors from San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and San Francisco signed a joint action plan and encouraged every city around the bay to join the effort. By 1991, we had added 444 beds in transitional housing, and awarded funding to construct 645 more for a total of 1,500 new places. So why didn’t this state-of-the-art plan work? The monumental human tragedy that is homelessness cannot be solved by constantly changing plans at election day. Elected officials must be willing to assume immediate political risks in order to achieve a long-term solution. Further, the public must accept responsibility for its fair share of the solution. NIMBYism threatened any effort to locate a necessary component of a homeless plan anywhere except the Tenderloin. People want the issue to be solved, but not at their inconvenience. But it can be done — just look at the magnificent Delancey Street facilities located in Pacific Heights and now along the high-end waterfront. The media has the responsibility to do more than the occasional special feature. Recently, homelessness came into the news because of the tent crisis on Division Street. This teachable moment must be continued regularly to inform the community about honest, workable solutions. No plan will succeed until we demonstrate that we have the commitment to do all that is necessary to make an effective plan work for the most unpopular group of needy Americans.

San Francisco has plans to do more By Ed Lee Our city is struggling with the humanitarian crisis of people experiencing homelessness on our streets. This challenge isn’t unique to San Francisco — cities up and down the West Coast, and in fact across the nation, are seeing spikes in their homeless populations. In San Francisco, we’ve moved 20,000 homeless individuals indoors over the last decade, and given them the social and emotional support they need in our city or back to their hometowns. But, clearly, we need to do more. As we house and serve thousands, they’re replaced by new thousands — people who fall into homelessness here, people sent here by other states or people who arrive every day seeking a better life. As a result, people live on our streets, under freeways and even in tents on our sidewalks. This is unhealthy, unsafe and unacceptable. That’s why I have pledged that over the next four years the city will help at least 8,000 people get off our streets and into housing or services to help them stay permanently off our streets. Through coordinated, compassionate and high-quality services provided by the newly created Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, we are building a system that ends a person’s homelessness before it becomes chronic. I’ve budgeted the funding necessary to support these plans and have worked closely with the Board of Supervisors on a proposed sales tax for the November ballot to sustain these investments. But in order to be successful, we must learn from the past. We know if we simply move people into shelter or from corner to corner without a longer-term plan for their success, we are not meeting the challenge of homelessness. We’re prolonging the problem. That’s why we started the Navigation Center, which has quickly become a model for serving people who are homeless. It maximizes existing resources, strategically invests in creative programs, and effectively matches individuals with the services they need. These centers break down barriers that homeless people face when moving off the streets by allowing 24-hour access to shelter and opportunities to bring their partners, possessions and pets with them. This approach allows us to stabilize individuals and take care of their immediate needs. Then we can help them focus on a long-term plan for their lives off the streets. As we expand Navigation Centers, we also have to expand our permanent supportive housing options. That’s why I have made an additional 700 housing units available in the last year alone. After people enter the Navigation Center, they then can move into housing with the mental health and other services they need — on-site —to remain housed. This is San Francisco’s largest expansion of supportive housing in more than a decade. We have all the ingredients for success to end homelessness for thousands of our fellow citizens. I see it every day in the passion and energy of our service providers, city staff and everyday San Franciscans. It is with this passion and these investments that we push toward one goal: to end homelessness one by one, with the compassion and dignity that defines San Francisco.

Solution calls for courage, creative ideas, new resources By Frank Jordan San Francisco has a proud reputation as a compassionate, caring, tolerant city — a place of new beginnings with opportunities for a second chance in life. Unfortunately, with all our good intentions and different strategies, we are still unable to resolve the problem of homelessness. Every mayor has devoted public resources and tax dollars, but homelessness continues to be a complex social issue with highly charged political ramifications. If there were simple solutions, then our city’s elected officials — with the assistance of human-services organizations such as the Salvation Army, St. Anthony’s Outreach, Glide Memorial Church, Hamilton House, the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp., A Woman’s Place and Swords to Plowshares (to name a few) — would have resolved homelessness. As it is, every major U.S. city is struggling with the issue. The reasons for homelessness are many: families are out of work; veterans return home with post-traumatic stress disorder or drug or alcohol dependency; a state adopts a policy whereby the state psychiatric hospitals closed and patients released to cities ill-equipped to provide them necessary services. Adding to the mix is the high cost of living and diminishing number of blue-collar jobs in San Francisco. Unfortunately, periodic economic downturns and a variety of complicated medical conditions provide a never-ending supply of new people to take the place of those who have been helped. At the same time, San Francisco’s taxpaying citizens and business owners are entitled to and expect a reasonable level of public safety and quality of life. As a city, we must extend a helping hand while encouraging civil behavior in public places. I suggest we need, with a coordinated effort and resources from the state and federal governments: Community support for the police, allowing realistic enforcement of quality-of-life laws. Courts working in concert with law enforcement, health care and social-service workers. Too often, cases are dismissed, and the revolving door continues. Rather than penalties, impose mandatory treatment. Sufficient housing and care facilities. Laura’s Law, which requires treatment of mentally ill people when they are a danger to themselves and others. The legal means to have people in need of alcohol, drug or mental health services to accept them. It will take courage, commitment and creative elected officials to successfully navigate the difficult road ahead. We must all stay positive and hopeful. Remember: “It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.” Homeless Approaches What I tried: The Matrix program was an effort to address the escalation in the number of homeless persons on our streets. The goal was to assist in providing shelter and psychiatric or substance-abuse treatment to homeless individuals, provided that they would agree. What worked: Matrix was delivered through teams, each with a police officer, a public health worker and a social worker. The social worker would attempt to sign up homeless individuals for food stamps and a $345 monthly general assistance check. Monthly rent was paid directly to landlords of single-room occupancy hotels. This eliminated the problem of homeless people with drug/alcohol or mental health issues having cash to spend on their addiction or having other street people take advantage of them. The police officer would enforce laws against public inebriation, obstructing the sidewalks, trespassing, aggressive panhandling, public defecation or camping, and sleeping in neighborhood parks. We found we can’t be tolerant of inappropriate behavior or it will only get worse. To put Matrix into practice, the Mayor’s Office initiated and voters approved ballot measures involving quality-of-life issues and procedural changes in general-assistance funding. For example, panhandling was not allowed in the immediate area of automatic bank teller machines so customers withdrawing funds would not feel intimidated. What didn’t work: Housing the homeless proved insurmountable: The city was unable to provide large-scale funding for long-term, low-income housing to keep homeless individuals permanently off the streets. This is a much bigger problem for local governments to solve without a dedicated stream of funding from the state and federal governments. The program name was a problem: “Matrix” came across to some as a semi-militaristic title — too strong! More citizen acceptance possibly would have occurred with a more sensitive title. In succeeding years, the city launched a program very similar in practice but whose name, “Care Not Cash,” conveyed a softer tone. Semantics can help — or hinder — a program as it begins to unfold.

A window of opportunity for a regional approach By Gavin Newsom There’s nothing like seeing yourself burned in effigy. My life-size self was set ablaze at 18th and Castro streets, the response of some who opposed my new strategy on homelessness. It was the reaction of people who preferred the status quo. But we forged ahead and developed a 10-year plan to tackle chronic homelessness by reorienting the system of care away from managing the problem and toward solving it. We aimed to break the cycle of dependency and move people into stable living situations. We began by focusing on supportive housing. During my tenure, we moved people off the street — a 40 percent decrease in street homelessness. We helped move 12,391 people into permanent housing or back with family, aided by the completion of supportive-housing units and permanent supportive-housing units for homeless seniors. We laid the foundations for 2,827 more supportive-housing units, and added 67 units of homeless senior housing. Underpinning the plan — and the fuel for my burning effigy — was “Care Not Cash,” a strategy that changed the dynamic of San Francisco’s failed approach to homelessness. To suppress homelessness, you have to repeal the policies that support it. “Care Not Cash” emphasized supportive housing and social services instead of cash-handout dependency. It reduced the number of active welfare cases by 83 percent. We redirected more than $14 million to place once cash-dependent homeless San Franciscans into housing. We brought to scale Project Homeless Connect, a model that has been recognized and replicated globally, and served more than 33,000 homeless clients, delivering services such as dental care and eye exams through a volunteer army. The program addressed the basics: poor dental hygiene, the need for prescription eyeglasses and access to ID, which so often we found to be obstacles to employment, housing and government assistance. Homeless Outreach Teams targeted hotspots like Golden Gate Park; we established veterans’ programs, women’s programs, senior programs and respite programs. All were designed to expand our reach and access to services. And we opened the Community Justice Center to address quality-of-life violations by redirecting people out the revolving door of the criminal justice system and into life-changing rehabilitation programs. Ultimately, for all the energy invested and progress made on homelessness in San Francisco during my time as mayor, it was painfully clear that the city couldn’t do it on its own. It’s a myth that any city can end homelessness alone. Like the other seemingly intractable challenges San Francisco faces — traffic and housing — holistic solutions to homelessness require coordination and support from the region and the state. Without that, one city’s policies will simply temporarily shift its problems to a neighbor. Now is the time to take meaningful action, because we have bold, smart leaders at the state and regional level who understand what it takes. In San Jose’s Sam Liccardo and Oakland’s Libby Schaaf, San Francisco has neighboring mayors who understand the power of regional solutions to take on tough challenges. At the state level, state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, has a bill (SB1380) to create a state Interagency Council on Homelessness, which will allow California’s experts on homeless services to coordinate and trade our best ideas around the state. If there were easy answers, then homelessness would have been solved years ago. But we must never be complacent about something this fundamental to a city’s humanity. We should take advantage of this unique moment to work for state and regional solutions that will help San Francisco and California.