The policy debate in San Francisco for more than a decade has more often than not been centered on homelessness. The past two years have been no exception; the only difference is that the City is now actually addressing the issue. There have been countless articles and news stories about the City's success, including heart-rending stories about individuals who have been housed. However, for all its intensity in the media, the City's efforts have barely scratched the surface of the homelessness problem. Media stories repeat lines from the Mayor that homeless deaths have decreased, even though a study has not been done for three years, and that homelessness has decreased substantially, even though the numbers of homeless people seeking services at social service agencies continue to increase.

Across the nation, there has been growing momentum for a "Housing First" model and yet another new buzzword—"chronic homelessness." Housing First is a policy the Coalition on Homelessness has called for consistently during the past 10 years. What it means is that homeless people can be placed in housing directly off the streets, without first going through a "readiness process," shelter, or transitional housing program. This idea challenges popular beliefs in the social work field that you must have a "continuum" whereby homeless people must be "housing ready" before placement in housing. Of course, at the Coalition on Homelessness, we have always believed that all homeless people are housing ready!

However, as good ideas mixed with politics often go awry, so does Housing First in San Francisco. There are two problems with the way Housing First is being implemented in San Francisco. First, the City decides without input or choice from homeless persons that housing is paid for by cutting poor people's programs and benefits. It has been used as a way to garner political points, justify budget cuts and implement paternalistic welfare reform policies. The most obvious example of this is Care Not Cash, where 2—3 homeless welfare recipients have their benefits cut in order to pay for housing for one very lucky individual. In the rush to create housing, City department heads are cutting fundamental programs to pay for temporarily subsidized housing in Master Lease hotel rooms that the City does not even own. Public Health has recommended in its budget an almost elimination of residential mental health treatment and substance abuse outpatient treatment to pay for additional master lease rooms under its Direct Access to Housing program. Human Services railroaded over community concerns to recommend gutting $3,000,000 from HUD McKinney funding for treatment, employment, childcare and legal services to pay for two housing programs that would barely make the requisite timeline.

Secondly, this "Housing First" policy has, for the most part, focused on a very narrow portion of the population — those dubbed "chronically homeless." This is defined as an unaccompanied disabled individual who has been sleeping in one or more places not meant for human habitation or in one or more emergency homeless shelters for over one year or who has had one or more periods of homelessness over three years. It typically refers to single adults, and chronic homeless initiatives funded from the federal government are not meant for homeless families. In San Francisco, we were able to get families included in the definition of chronic homelessness, so at least on paper, this is our policy. This has yet to be reflected in most homeless housing developments.

We all agree that housing is a fundamental solution to homelessness, and we welcome the recognition of this fact by the City of San Francisco. But critical questions remain as to how this housing is paid for and who has access to this critical resource. This second question of who gets the housing becomes even more important as we look deeper into how homeless policies are being implemented. The people who are not being housed are paying for the housing of others more fortunate them themselves. As we will demonstrate in this document, poor and homeless people are paying for the housing — not for themselves — but for other, luckier, poor people. They are paying with their public benefits. They are paying with lost employment programs. They are paying with further destitution. They are paying with cuts in treatment programs. They are even paying with lost legal services and childcare.

While the success stories, and we applaud them, shine in the limelight, barely visible in the shadows are homeless children, youth, immigrants, disabled people, seniors, veterans, working homeless people, all quietly suffering. We are now drawing back the curtains, and homeless people are using their voices. Homeless people of all stripes are demanding input and inclusion. Homeless people are demanding housing for all — not just the few. Homeless people are demanding that their housing not come at the expense of others. Homeless people are also demanding jobs and healthcare, including treatment. Homeless people are coming together for justice and will not be divided and played against each other. We need true solutions to homelessness and poverty!

The dirty secret behind San Francisco's new homeless policy is that the City is housing a few hundred homeless individuals literally at the expense of thousands more who are being forgotten. While City officials mount an unprecedented public relations campaign that is repeated unchallenged by the major media, vulnerable human beings are suffering further destitution, despair and hunger.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) vociferously advocated that $3,000,000 be taken away from treatment, childcare, employment, and legal services to fund two housing projects. DHS railroaded the community process and pushed through its own plan to divert $3,000,000 from life sustaining services to housing expenditures.

The Department of Public Health is proposing over $4,000,000 in cuts to residential and outpatient mental health and substance abuse programs while restructuring the programs into master lease housing programs. This again was proposed without a community process.

Families with Children
The Mayor has called for 3,000 units of supportive housing for homeless people by 2008. So far, almost all of the 800 new units housing homeless people have been master lease units under Care Not Cash, and they include not one housing unit for families with children.

Undocumented Immigrants
Under current homeless policy, undocumented immigrants are being forgotten at best, and at worst are being displaced from shelters. Undocumented immigrants face unique challenges, as they do not qualify for public benefits, and are therefore ineligible for public and federally subsidized housing. The shelter system does not accommodate their work schedules. The combination of biometric imaging and set-aside beds under Care Not Cash has displaced them from the shelters.

Victims of Civil and Human Rights Violations
Police officers issue criminal citations for sleeping in the park or sitting in a doorway (Citations for camping nearly tripled in 2004). The Department of Public Works confiscates homeless people's belongings and often destroys them. People who live in their vehicles receive parking tickets, police citations, and visits from Auto Return that leave them without their only semblance of a home. Even when police officers do not issue formal citations, people living on the streets are herded like cattle from one neighborhood to another.

1. Housing:
   • Expedite the turning over of Surplus Properties to house low-income and homeless individuals and families.
   • Reinstate and increase the number of section 8 vouchers released nationally.
   • Rent Control should be expanded to apply to vacant units (Vacancy Control). The San Francisco rent Board should be reformed to represent the interests of renters in the City. Renters are a majority of the city population and the rent Board should reflect this proportion.
2. Budget priorities:
   • Increase homeless prevention funds by at least 75%. Currently demand for these funds exceeds the amount available., Additionally there are strict criteria attached to their dispensation. This new funding should be more flexible in its possible use, and be directly linked the homeless shelter system with Catholic Charities, the primary agency that manages prevention funds.
   • Assure that no funding for homeless initiatives is paid for by cuts to programs that poor people need to exit homelessness and poverty.
   • Establish a sub acute, peer model, consumer run, twenty four hour emergency drop in center where people in psychiatric crisis who do not meet the criteria for 5150 can go to avert hospitalization.
3. Homeless families
   • Families should not only be considered as part of the "chronic homeless" population, but housing should include units large enough for families.
   • Implement a policy to accommodate 25% more families in all local housing initiatives for homeless people
   • Create a local housing subsidy program for homeless families. Subsidy would be approximately $500 a month for 120 families. The program would cost $390,000 the first year. The annual cost if all families continue with the full subsidy would be $720,000.
   • Include families in the Housing First policy in San Francisco. Families should be placed directly in housing, without any requisite stays in shelter or transitional housing. This housing must not be paid for by cuts to cornerstone poverty abatement programs such as treatment and employment.
   • Ensure that homeless parents have access to higher education. This can be accommodated not only through the welfare system, but also through special scholarship funding that pays for books, childcare, tuition, and living expenses for homeless families.
4. Homeless immigrants:
   • Eliminate the biometric imaging (fingerprint scanning) requirement to access shelter.
   • Ensure Spanish-speaking capacity for all shelters at all shifts.
   • Provide Drivers Licenses for all residents, documented or not.
5. Civil Rights
   • Provide amnesty for all quality-of-life citations
   • Stop the harassment and citation of homeless people by the San Francisco Police Department and the Department of Public Works for activities related to their homeless status.
   • Stop the prosecutions of 647 (j) Illegal Lodging.
   • Promote the end to HATE activities against poor and homeless people.
6. Homeless Services
   • Create 24-hour storage facilities across the City for homeless people.
   • Stop displacement of vulnerable populations from shelters such as immigrants, people with disabilities and seniors.
   • Stop reserving unutilized beds for CAAP recipients for 45 days.
   • Ensure transportation to and from the shelters.
   • Provide immediate access to housing for CNC recipients who are warehoused in shelters at reduced grant levels.
   • Set aside parking space for people who live in their vehicles.
   • Make mental heath services available to everyone regardless of age, insurance, economic or immigration status.
   • Demand an immediate review of the methodology used in the last homeless count.

There are several examples of how housing is being created at the expense of cornerstone poverty abatement programs. The 10-year Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness (2004) calls for 3,000 units of supportive housing for homeless people; 1,500 units by master lease (where city leases a block of rooms from a private landlord for a number of years) and 1,500 permanent supportive housing units. The hope was that this second chunk of housing would be paid in part by Proposition A, the affordable housing bond, which failed to garner the 2/3 majority vote required in order to pass. Currently, the city is $23,000,000 short in finding the funding for this housing. City departments are scrambling to shuffle resources in order to come up with the demanded funding. Rather than consulting the community on how this could be achieved, City officials have embarked upon a top-down rampage that will potentially ravage key programs that poor people depend upon for their survival.

Housing is clearly the primary solution to homelessness, along with homeless prevention, employment, education, childcare, decent public benefits, and health care. We are calling for Housing First to be applied to homeless families in San Francisco. Housing First for families in San Francisco must prevent homelessness, place homeless families directly in housing, and stop the merry-go-round homeless families face in San Francisco. This housing must not be paid for by cuts to fundamental poverty abatement programs such as treatment and employment. It must not be off the backs of other poor people's welfare benefits as we have seen under Care Not Cash. In other words, it must bring us new solutions, rather then relying only on cuts to the already severely undermined existing services.

Homeless children are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population (Mayor's Conference on Homelessness, 2004). Children who experience homelessness are devastated; homeless children are more likely to experience developmental problems, educational delays, behavioral issues and learning disabilities. The stress of instability leads to lapses in education, and feelings of shame and low self-esteem. The effect on the family is equally discouraging.

Nationally, 600,000 families are homeless (Based on NSHAPC, Rog, Shin and Culhane, 2003).

Homeless families are poorer, younger, more likely to be pregnant, from an ethnic minority and less likely to have a housing subsidy. Homeless families are not more likely to be mentally ill, depressed or less educated. (Sources: Shinn & Weitzman, 1996; Bussuk et al., 1997). As a group, homeless families are poorer, not more "troubled". In fact, studies show subsidized housing cures homelessness! (Rog et al.) A 9-city study finds 88% remained housed 18 months post placement. Two New York City studies find 93% remain housed two years post-placement whereas 38% of families without a subsidy returned to homelessness. Taken collectively, the data points very clearly to housing as the first solution to homelessness. (Based on NSHAPC, Burt et al., 2002; Rog, Shinn and Culhane, 2003)

Here in San Francisco, more than five hundred children, under 17 years of age, live in San Francisco Emergency and Transitional Shelters on any single day. In addition, a report by the San Francisco City's Controller found that by 2002 the City "lacks sufficient shelter beds for homeless families" and families usually wait three to five months for space in a full-service shelter. In 2005 the wait list to get into a full service shelter continues to be as high as 100 and the wait continues to be three to five months. San Francisco's housing crisis is in part due to the fact that it cost a family of three over $69,000 annually to live in the City. Most homeless families do not earn enough money, even those that are employed, to be able to pay for "affordable" housing.

In San Francisco, there have been a lot of media stories about homeless people and the City's new initiatives. In these broad policy discussions, homeless families have been left out, ignored and forgotten. Homeless families have not taken center stage during policy discussions in recent years; instead the mention of families tends to be relegated to passing comments or footnotes. The Mayor has called for 3,000 units of supportive housing for homeless people by 2008. Fifty percent of those units are planned to be "master leased" units, where a block of rooms in a privately owned single room occupancy hotel is leased for a number of years. So far, almost all those units have been master lease units under Care Not Cash. The over 800 housing units frequently talked about by the city are actually Care Not Cash units, paid for by lost welfare benefits and include not one housing unit for families with children. The eligibility criteria are limited to the County Adult Assistance Program, of which families do not qualify.

1.The Hidden Voices Report

In 2004 the Coalition on Homelessness released "Hidden Voices: The Realities of Homeless Families and Homeless Immigrants", an extensive report based on surveys of individuals belonging to those two "hidden" homeless populations. These are some excerpts from that report.

The majority of immigrants arrive in San Francisco without the kind of resources that would insulate them from the dual challenge facing any low-income individual or family attempting to live in this City: scarcity of both living wage jobs and affordable housing. However, in the case of immigrants, this challenge is often rendered even more difficult by such issues as legal status, language skills, and racism.

In San Francisco, as in much of the rest of the nation, the lowest-paid, most hazardous work tends to be reserved for immigrants. Such work is usually casual, with no formal job protections and little recourse in the case of promised work suddenly disappearing or an employer deciding not to pay earned wages. The poor quality and instability of these jobs increases the likelihood of immigrants becoming homeless or, in the case of those already homeless, decreases the likelihood of their exiting homelessness. It is also worth noting that immigrants are prohibited from participation in the majority of government benefits programs and services, as well as that regulations passed by Congress during the Clinton years make it nearly impossible for immigrants to secure subsidized housing.

The Hidden Voices report included the following recommendations regarding local policies to reduce homelessness among immigrants:

Housing

• Assure access to low-income housing for undocumented immigrants, whether individuals or families.
• Ensure rental protections and rights for undocumented immigrants.
• Create a city program that allows for credit check substitute for undocumented immigrants.
• Rent control.
• Equality in housing subsidy programs. Make subsidies available to undocumented immigrants. Create a special local fund to offset lack of funding from federal and state sources.
• Use city property to create housing.

• Ensure equality for all workers.
• Extend the Sanctuary Ordinance to protect the labor rights of immigrants, regardless of legal status,
• Create a cooperative connecting immigrant workers directly with good paying jobs in business. Have city enforce the proper treatment of workers in this hiring hall. Jobs should be offered for both men and women.
• More vocational training for immigrants.
• Create programs that really assist people in shelters and homeless service to obtain living wage work. Create job banks and encourage businesses to hire homeless people.
• Increase information about the ability to open checking account by undocumented immigrants.

• Increase culturally sensitive, bilingual staff at free community clinics.
• Create risk free hospital registration for undocumented immigrants.
• Provide more bilingual health professionals.

• End the biometric imaging (fingerprinting) system for homeless services. This system wastes huge amounts of city money, creates a barrier for homeless immigrants to access needed services and is unnecessary in meeting federal guidelines.
• Provide bilingual staff and services.
• Provide diversity and anti-racism training for city employees.

• Support legislation to permit driver's licenses and ID cards for undocumented immigrants.
• Create a local sanctuary city in which there is no distinction made between undocumented immigrants and citizens.

• Support public education campaigns against racism against and immigrants.
• Provide more English classes.
• Provide bilingual education in public schools by requiring all students to become fluent in a language other than their "home" language.

Shelter Displacement:

With the implementation of Care Not Cash, CAAP recipients are given priority to access shelter beds. Most homeless immigrants are ineligible for benefits under CNC and are thus relegated to apply for leftover beds on a daily basis. Prior to CNC, immigrants had access to long-term stays in the shelter beds in conditions that were equal to that of the rest of the homeless population.

Biometric Imaging:

According to the survey shelter residents views on CHANGES (the centralized in-take system implemented by DHS to comply with CNC needs) the requirement that shelter seekers have their finger images read by a scanner was a major factor discouraging immigrants from trying to access the shelter system. Despite assurances from city officials that the system would not allow for use of the data by any external agency, the pervasive perception that it could be used by immigration law enforcement agencies to track down undocumented immigrants led 44% of the respondents to say they would NOT seek shelter for fear of being reported to such agencies.

Families in SRO hotels:

Large numbers of immigrant families currently reside in SRO hotels. Many of these families have lived in such places for years without any perspective of obtaining better housing through public subsidies or other programs funded with federal dollars, since affordable housing providers that receive such funds are barred from using them to house immigrants.

Lack of federal resources:

The welfare reform of 1996 made federal resources almost completely unavailable for immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Most immigrants cannot access public housing or welfare benefits. Additionally, a majority of homeless immigrants work low-paying jobs and with the difficulties existing in order to rent property without proper documentation, immigrants face insurmountable barriers to actually exit homelessness. To this date, very few steps have been taken locally to reduce the impact of that discriminatory reform.

Inability to obtain valid identification documents:

The inability to obtain valid ID's such as a drivers' license further complicates the prospects of homeless immigrants to access better paying jobs, open bank accounts, etc. Such inability only makes it even harder for immigrants to access certain programs or affordable housing.

Lack of culturally specific treatment programs:

Homeless immigrants that have to confront issues of behavioral health do not find culturally specific treatment programs in San Francisco. Many have to seek help in other Bay Area counties that do provide such services. The only residential treatment program that is culturally specific and has enough bilingual staff provides only six beds.

The national and local press has repeatedly touted the successes — and only the successes -- of the Newsom administration's homeless policies. However, there is a dark side to the City's approach to homelessness during the past year. The City has consistently sanctioned the harassment, citation and incarceration of homeless people for being in public spaces, without any offer of the housing or services that have received such extensive publicity. This undeclared stealth City policy punishes homeless people for being homeless and makes it more difficult for homeless people to access housing, jobs, or services.

Summary of Abuses

Despite the administration's focus on outreach, the only City employees most homeless people ever encounter are police officers and DPW staff, making it more difficult for people to exit homelessness. Police officers issue criminal citations for sleeping in parks or sitting in a doorway. The Department of Public Works confiscates and often destroys homeless people's belongings. People who live in their vehicles receive parking tickets, police citations, and visits from Auto Return that leave them without their only semblance of a home. Even when police officers do not issue formal citations, people living on the streets are herded like cattle from one neighborhood to another. None of these City departments offer services to homeless people. Not one of the criminal citations has helped a homeless person receive housing, employment, or treatment. These punitive practices only add barriers to homeless people's struggle for stability.

Citation of Homeless People in Public Spaces

Though the City has made some new housing available to homeless people, the housing that exists is still far from sufficient to house everyone who is currently homeless in San Francisco. This forces homeless people to conduct basic life activities in public because they have no private space. Even people who can access emergency shelters must spend some time outside, because they cannot stay in most shelters during the day. The City punishes people who live with this reality by criminalizing these basic life activities. Homeless people receive criminal citations for sleeping, sitting, eating or drinking and walking in public. Every day in public spaces, homeless people are targeted by law enforcement simply because of their homeless status.

Citation for these homeless status crimes is not a new practice. However, this administration has increased the punitive enforcement. During the first year of this administration (2004), the San Francisco Police Department issued over 1,000 more "quality of life" citations than were issued in 2003. The number of citations for camping almost tripled during the first year of this administration: the City issued 1114 camping citations in 2004, up from just 436 in 2003. SFPD also regularly cites people under Penal Code 647 (j), illegal lodging. 647(j) citations are given for sleeping in public places outside of parks, and unlike other "quality of life" laws, 647(j) is a misdemeanor. For a 647(j) violation, a person can spend up to a year in county jail. Although the District Attorney's Office could choose not to press charges for such a minor offense as sleeping in public, 647(j) cases are regularly prosecuted, spending City resources on attorneys and judges to try cases against homeless people who have no place else to sleep.

Homeless people often cannot escape these criminal charges for their homeless status. Even when a homeless person is on private property with permission, police officers will issue citations simply because the person is visibly homeless. One homeless man made his home in a tent on his employer's property, with permission from his employer, the business owner. He worked part-time, had the full support of the business and residential neighbors in the area, and was on privately controlled property. Even after the homeless man showed police officers letters granting him permission to have his tent on the property, police officers issued citations under Penal Code 647(j) and threatened to have the Department of Public Works confiscate his property. One police officer told the man that the Mayor had ordered them to clean up all homeless encampments.

This incident is unfortunately not an aberration. A seriously ill homeless person had his vehicular home parked in a business parking lot with permission when a police officer issued him a red tag for leaving an abandoned vehicle on a public street. Police officers regularly harass and ticket another homeless man who provides security for a business on Market Street by sleeping in the doorway. Homeless people are targets for criminal enforcement and punishment even if they are peacefully on private property with permission.

Consequences of Citations

The enforcement of status crimes against homeless people has serious costs both for homeless people and for the City. The City unnecessarily spends millions of dollars each year on police officers, court costs, and jail for homeless people. In a two-month survey of every jail inmate last fall, triage nurses at the San Francisco jail reported that 28% of incarcerated people were homeless. It is rarely reported that part of this administration's housing for homeless people is through the San Francisco jail.

The citation and incarceration of homeless people only exacerbates homelessness. Homeless people who cannot afford an SRO hotel room for a night cannot afford to pay up to $100 for sleeping in the park. When fines go unpaid, the court issues warrants, and then homeless people are subject to arrest at any time, making it difficult to seek stable employment or treatment. Outstanding warrants and previous arrests make it difficult for homeless people to apply for jobs and public housing. Substance abuse treatment programs sometimes deny services to homeless people who have warrants for "quality of life" violations.

These status crimes citations do not come with an offer of services. No one offers homeless people housing or treatment before they are given criminal citations for sleeping or drinking in public. The citations and arrests simply punish people for being homeless without solving homelessness in any way.

Barricading and Spreading Toxic Chemicals in Public Spaces

Another of this administration's approaches to homelessness is to make the streets inhospitable. Instead of creating real services for people to help themselves to exit homelessness, the police and DPW push people from street to street, set up barricades on sidewalks, and spray areas where homeless people congregate.

Homeless people have reported asthma attacks from the toxic chemicals that DPW uses to clean streets while homeless people are sitting or sleeping there. City crews often soak homeless people's bedding and belongings during "clean-up." Just as homeless people are not offered services before they are cited for sleeping or sitting, they are not offered a place to go when City crews push them from place to place with barricades and toxic cleaning spray.

Confiscation of Homeless People's Property

Homeless people are constantly at risk of losing their personal property. DPW crews regularly take homeless people's belongings, even if there is someone with the property. While DPW's own policy requires crews to store the property, it is more often regarded as trash and destroyed. Homeless people often carry everything they own, and when their belongings are destroyed, they lose necessary bedding, prescription drugs, clothing, and irreplaceable personal keepsakes.

Campsites are broken up daily with little or no warning even where people have lived in these sites for 2 to 3 years. In one location, homeless people believed they were on private property with permission, and had been living there as a community for over a year. City officials had seen the site, and never told homeless people that it was City property. Months later, DPW trucks and police officers arrived, informed homeless people they had to leave immediately, and came the next day to tow nearby vehicles and throw away people's personal property. No one offered any of the 20+ homeless people another place to go or any support network to replace their previously stable community.

Harassment of People Who Live in Their Vehicles

People who live in their vehicles have some basic stability in their lives. Their vehicles allow them private space, protect them from the elements, and allow many vehicular residents to maintain employment where restrictive shelter hours and policies would not. However, people who live in their vehicles are also vulnerable to police enforcement of status crimes laws. The police target people living in vehicles for enforcement of minor parking laws, and issue red tags for abandoned vehicles when the vehicles are clearly not abandoned. The result is that vehicular residents lose their homes to the tow truck.

Police also issue misdemeanor citations for violation of a city ordinance that prohibits living in a vehicle between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Police issue the citations to people even if their vehicles are well maintained, they are not parked in a residential area, they follow all parking and traffic laws, and no one has complained about their presence. One former City and County employee was living in his vehicle after becoming disabled. He had never been arrested before and made every effort to be unobtrusive in the industrial area where he was legally parked. The officer came and handcuffed the vehicular resident while he was working on his laptop computer inside his vehicle and issued a misdemeanor citation. The incident exacerbated the man's disability, and made him terrified of future police contacts, though he may be unable to avoid them simply because he is homeless.

Hate Crimes

Homeless people are extremely vulnerable, not only to police harassment, but to hate crimes. They are often the victims of theft, verbal assaults, and violence on the streets. In one recent spat of incidents, fraternity boys were arrested for shooting five homeless men with a BB gun. Violence against homeless people is a clear human rights abuse, yet it is consistent with some media messages that it is okay to demonize or despise homeless people.

Police Abuses

At best, the criminal citations given to homeless people are ineffective. More often, they are baseless. There are over 20 different criminal ordinances and laws that are commonly used against homeless people. However, police officers, under pressure to move homeless people out of certain areas of the City, often give homeless people criminal citations where there is no evidence of a violation. For example, it is illegal to camp in the park under manmade shelter. It is not illegal to be in the park with personal property. However, homeless people are often cited just for having personal belongings with them in the park. At least one officer also cites homeless people for violating Municipal Police Code 63(a), which only applies to a person or corporation that owns or controls the property. Even though homeless people do not own public sidewalks and are not violating any law, they have to answer to criminal charges and face fines they cannot afford to pay simply because a police officer saw them in a public space. The citation and arrest of homeless people who are not violating any law is a blatant civil rights abuse. It happens all the time in San Francisco.

There have also been increased reports to the Coalition on Homelessness of physical violence by police officers against homeless people. Two undercover officers reportedly beat up a homeless man on a bus. Several officers in the Haight-Ashbury District quickly escalated a contact with homeless kids who were not violating the law, throwing several homeless people to the ground, handcuffing them, and kicking their dog in the process.

Officers are also under pressure to send homeless people out of San Francisco. Homeless people have stated that police officer use warrants from "quality of life" citations to threaten people that unless they agree to meet the officers at the Greyhound bus station and take a one-way bus out of town, the officer will arrest them on the warrant.

Conclusion

Homeless people start without a home, unable to afford the basic necessities that others take for granted. Then, because they are homeless, they are treated as criminals for sleeping or sitting in public places. Their only and most meaningful possessions are taken and destroyed. They are vulnerable to abuse from police officers and other San Franciscans. These civil rights abuses can make daily existence as a homeless person intolerable. They also make it much more difficult for people to get housing, find work, and access services. Yet, these practices have been adopted and escalated during the first year of this City administration. The City's policies that punish homeless people for being homeless are completely contrary to any effort to end homelessness.

Findings on the survey for Care Not Cash

The Coalition on Homelessness conducted a survey on the impact of Care Not Cash after it was implemented May 3rd, 2004. The Coalition on Homelessness has been closely watching the impact on not only homeless CAAP recipients, but on other clients in shelters around the city as well. As part of the implementation of Care Not Cash, homeless CAAP recipients are converted to Care Not Cash and usually offered shelter, and sometimes housing or treatment. Those offered shelter get a bed for up to 45 days, and these spaces are reserved for this time whether the recipient uses the bed or not. Based on our findings, it is our contention that this policy has displaced many seniors, disabled persons, as well as undocumented individuals that had more stable access to the shelters system in the past. This policy change has led to many problems from seniors being assigned to top bunks, and others camping out in the streets. A lot of Latino shelter seekers have been displaced because of the decrease in access to culturally and linguistically appropriate beds in combination with the need to go to the resource centers daily to get a one-night bed. Methodology:

We interviewed 200 individuals on a 6-week period; the surveys were done at different shelters and food lines throughout the city. The survey had nine main questions (three of which related to Care Not Cash and are listed here) and five more on demographics.

We visited different shelters, resource centers and food line locations where homeless gather including: A Man's place, A Woman's place, The Episcopal Sanctuary, Next Door, MSC South, South Beach drop-in center, St. Boniface, Glide Food Line, St. Anthony Food Line, St. Anthony of Padua Breakfast program and St. Martin de Porres Breakfast Program.

Results:

1) What have you lost under care not cash?
80% or 160 responded they lost income for food.
10% or 20 responded they lost income for other necessities
9% or 18 responded they lost housing /access to housing
1% or 2 had no response.

"With this new legislation I will not be able to afford my over the counter painkillers".
"If I do not make to the soup kitchens during the day I'll have to wait until the evening for food".
"I used to rent a room for a week every pay day, now I am a full time shelter resident"

2) Have you been displaced from your shelter? If so, how often?
60% or 120 individuals responded no
30% or 60 individuals responded yes, and the average is 3 times.
10% or 20 individuals declined to answer.

"I used to stay in the MSC-South for up to 3 months, now I do not know where I'll get a bed tomorrow".
" I have to carry my stuff with me everywhere I go, this is a joke".
"I am disable and have problems getting around, shelter staff have not common sense".

3) Has your length of stay been changed since May 3rd?
64% or 128 individuals said their stay had been reduced by an average of 7 days
33% or 66 individuals responded that they have increased their stay for an average of 28 days.
3% or 6 individuals reported no change on their stay.

"You do not have a regular shelter anymore".
" So much help from the city, now I do not have a place where I feel safe".
" What is next? Are we going to be playing musical chairs (beds) forever?"

4) What is your source of income?
58% or 116 individuals said they have no source of income.
22% or 44 individuals said to be on GA, PAES, SSIP or CALM
9% or 18 individuals said to be on SSI
6% or 12 individuals said they work
5% or 10 individual decline to answer.

"I get GA but now is worthless, I am getting out of it".
" Nobody thought of seniors or people in SSI, we are being discriminated for the city".
"I do recycle, I do not need assistance, but public welfare is a right, not a way to separate individuals"

5) What is your ethnic background?
38% or 76 individuals are African-American
27% or 54 individuals are White
21% or 42 individuals are Latino/ Hispanic
4% or 8 individuals are Native Americans
8% or 16 individuals are of Mix Heritage
1% or 2 individuals are Middle Eastern
1% or 2 individuals declined to answer

" Does not matter if you are Black, White or else, we are all in the same mess".
"I am Latino, but there is only one thing for sure, Care Not Cash is fucking everybody up".

6) What is your Age?
Between 18–25, 38% or 76 individuals
Between 26–34, 46% or 93 individuals
Between 35–40, 8% or 16 individuals
40 and up, 3% or 6 individuals
5% or 10 individuals declined to answer

" I am a senior, I am doing work here in there, I had bad luck and lost my place in a fire, eventually I will be housed again."
"I am 28, am here for 2 years, I had very few options to get a job".
" 27 year old Latino, I am desperate for work, my family rely on me to pay the medical expenses for my younger brother cancer treatment ".

7) What is your gender?
84% or 168 individuals are Male
14% or 28 individuals are Female
2% or 4 individuals responded other.

8) Are you a veteran?
89% or 178 individuals responded no
6% or 12 individuals answered yes
5% or 10 individuals declined to answer

9) Are you an Immigrant?
81% or 158 individuals responded no
18% or 32 individuals responded yes
1% or 2 Individuals declined to answer

Survey Conducted with the Staff of Shelters and Homeless Programs

The Coalition on Homelessness conducted a survey to study the impact of Proposition N (Care Not Cash), which was implemented on May 3rd 2004. We asked fifty direct service line staff members working at various shelters and other programs how they viewed its impact on their clients that they serve on a daily basis. We surveyed fifty staff members from homeless shelters and homeless providers in San Francisco. The shelters represented are Ella Hill Hutch, Episcopal Sanctuary, Multi Service Center-South (MSC-S), Next Door, Providence, and Third Baptist. Staff from drop-in resource centers and health clinics was also interviewed. The survey, which consisted of six questions, was conducted between September and October 2004. The results of our findings are as follows:

1) Have any of your clients not been able to access shelter?
60% (30 respondents) said yes.

2) What positive ways has Proposition N impacted homeless clients?
24% (12 respondents) said housing; 18% (9 resp.) said treatment, 43% (31 respondents) had no answer.

3) What negative ways has Prop. N impacted homeless clients?
52% (26 respondents) said displacement from shelters;
18% (9 respondents) said decreased income;
14% (7 respondents) said displacement from housing or treatment;
8% (4 respondents) did not respond.

4) Overall would you say Care Not Cash has had a negative or positive influence on your homeless clients?
38% (19 respondents) said negative;
10% (5 resp.) said positive;
52% (26 resp.) did not respond.

5) What percentage of your clients has received housing?
23 responded that 1% of their clients got housing.
15 responded that 3% of their clients got housing.
12 responded that 0% of their clients got housing.

6) Have you seen a negative impact on your clients that do not receive CAAP benefits?
46% (23 respondents) said the impact is negative,
16% (8 respondents) said is positive,
42% (21 respondents) did not answer.

Biometrics Survey

In June of 2003, immediately after the implementation of CHANGES — the centralized in-take system that requires biometric imaging of every person eeking shelter, the Coalition on Homelessness conducted a survey with 201 shelter users.

There is an overwhelming opposition among shelter clients to the use of finger image and/or photography procedures to access the shelters. Most of those who oppose the use of biometrics, feel that the new system violates their right to privacy, endangers their confidentiality, and humiliates and treats shelter clients as criminals.

It is important to note that almost half of the people who supported the use of biometrics, said they felt that the system would make shelters safer by identifying criminals, which is the one thing the system is NOT supposed to do.

Finally, the survey showed that 30% of those interviewed had at some point decided to not use the shelters because of the biometrics system, and a majority of those ended up sleeping in the streets instead.

1) Are you aware of the new rules over the use of finger images and photographs to access shelters?
YES	148	73.5%
NO	52	26.0%
N/A	1	0.5%
2) Are you in favor or opposed to giving your finger image and/or picture before entering a shelter?
In Favor	32	16.0%
Opposed	148	73.5%
No opinion	21	10.5%
2a) If opposed, why?
Privacy/confidentiality	49	33.0%
Criminalizes/ Humiliating	20	13.5%
Discrimin./danger for immigrants	8	5.5%
Other1	57	38.5%
N/A	14	9.5%
2b) If in favor, why?
Safer shelters	15	46.5%
Speeds up the process	2	6.0%
Doesn't affect me	4	12.0%
Other	11	34.5%
3) Have you been told by a staff person at a resource center or shelter that you must have your fingers scanned or imaged and/0r have your picture taken in order to have access to a shelter bed?
YES	133	66.0%
NO	61	30.5%
N/A	7	3.5%
4) Have you at some point chosen not to go to a shelter because you didn't want to have your finger image and/or picture taken?
YES	60	30.0%
NO	135	67.0%
N/A	6	3.0%
4a) If yes, where did you go to sleep?
Street	54	90.0%
Vehicle	3	5.0%
Hotel	7	11.5%
Other	19	31.5%
5) Should the COH initiate or support a campaign to prevent finger images, pictures or other biometric procedures (DNA, iris scanning, etc.) to be used to access public services?
YES	116	58.0%
NO	58	29.0%
N/A	27	13.0%

RESULT for the Latino Population

64 of the total 201 interviews were conducted with Latino immigrant shelter clients. These are the specific results for that group. There are significant variations to the results obtained among the overall population. Immigrants are opposed to the system at an even higher rate than the rest of the population. Also, immigrants are more likely to choose not to use the shelter system because of the finger imaging and photograph requirements.

1) Are you aware of the new rules over the use of finger images and photographs to access shelters?
YES	50	78.0%
NO	14	22.0%
2) Are you in favor or opposed to giving your finger image and/or picture before entering a shelter?
In Favor	8	12.5%
Opposed	53	83.0%
No opinion	3	4.5%
3) Have you at some point chosen not to go to a shelter because you didn't want to have your finger image and/or picture taken?
YES	28	44.0%
NO	36	56.0%

Hidden Voices: The Realities of Homeless Families and Homeless Immigrants

Executive Summary
This report establishes homeless families and immigrants as an integral part of the over all homelessness crisis in America and argues for the inclusion of families and immigrants in any strategy to reduce or end homelessness.

Today, 14.4 million American families—one out of every seven families — have critical housing needs. Despite all of the talk of family values in America, we have utterly failed as a society to value our families. We have failed to create the necessary affordable housing, decent and accessible jobs, income safety net, childcare, and health care that will allow all families in this country to thrive. Despite the severe needs of America's low-income families and children, the last twenty years have witnessed massive cutbacks in programs that benefit them.

The 1996 Welfare Reform act has also adversely affected America's families by pushing heads of households into low-paying jobs while eliminating social safety net.

The shifts in the economy over the past two decades — including de-industrialization, globalization, the growth in low-wage, temporary service jobs, and the decline in union density — have led to rising gaps between rich and poor and declining real wages for workers.

Taken together, the consequence is homelessness. Homelessness disrupts family life, damages emotional and physical health of family members, and inhibits children's education and development. Homelessness often causes family separation due to increased contact with Child Protective Services. Frequently homeless families are headed by single-mothers who are often victims of domestic violence. Instead of addressing the systematic nature of family homelessness, public policy and perception has been driven by stereotypes of poor families as parasitic and criminal.

Similar to families who have U.S. citizenship or legal residency status, Latino immigrants have distinct challenges that intensify and complicate their lives should they become homeless. In San Francisco, as in much of the rest of the nation, the lowest-paid, most hazardous work for is reserved for immigrants. Such work is usually casual, with no formal job protections and little recourse should an employer decide not to pay earned wages. Logically this increases the likelihood of immigrants becoming homeless.

This report challenges stereotypes of homeless immigrants. Homeless people in general are often accused of moving to areas where there are generous public benefits to be had. Our study provides evidence to the contrary. Similarly, immigrants are typically viewed as having little roots in the areas in which they settle. Those who we spoke with indicated that they have lived in the United States for a substantial period of time.

Immigrants contribute to the economy, often working in the lowest paid and most unstable jobs. The instability and poor quality of these jobs, however, often leads to homelessness or makes it near impossible to exit homelessness. Participants in this study indicate severe barriers to exiting homelessness, including legal status, racism, and language.

Most of the reasons why immigrants arrived in the U.S. are economic. The first most common reason for migration was to have better life prospects for themselves and to create a better life and future for themselves and their families. Many immigrants reported coming to the United States to find economic opportunities that were absent at home. American dream. The second most common reason for immigration to the United States was poverty and economic crisis in the immigrants' home countries.

A third key set of reasons that respondents expressed for coming to the United States was to help their family—both their family in the United States and their family in their country of origin.

Immigrants face many of the same challenges that any low-income person or family would to get by in San Francisco. The immigrant specific barriers are: lack of legal documents which make it difficult to rent or work, and discrimination. It should be noted as well that immigrants are prohibited from the majority of government benefits and that regulations passed by Congress during the Clinton years make gaining subsidized housing nearly impossible.

Green & red apples:
The 2,392 disappeared homeless in San Francisco*
by Matt Gonzalez
(Former President of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors)

The Newsom administration recently celebrated statistics purporting to show the dramatic impact the mayor's various approaches have had on reducing homelessness. According to the administration, over the course of one year, the number of homeless living on San Francisco streets apparently fell by 41 percent and the number of people receiving general assistance was reduced by 72 percent. (Total homelessness reportedly fell 28 percent to 6,248 from 8,640, which includes those on the street plus those in shelters, transitional housing, rehabilitation centers, San Francisco General Hospital and the county jail.)

Given that most San Franciscans have not perceived such a dramatic change in the city's homeless population, one would expect that these figures would be scrutinized. Instead, the leading newspaper in San Francisco disseminated these figures in a series of front-page stories, none of which made a serious effort to evaluate the credibility of the administration's assertions. Which begs the question: have 2,392 homeless persons disappeared?

The primary claim is that during a survey conducted in a 12-hour period in selected parts of the city (starting at 8 p.m. on Jan. 25 and completed the following morning), 250 volunteers scoured the city and counted homeless people. Two years ago the city's count identified 4,535 homeless people living on the streets. This year's count yielded a total of 2,655.

The problem though is in the methodology used. And let me say, it's a glaring one. Essentially, volunteers were asked to subjectively decide, without engaging anyone in conversation, whether an individual was homeless or not. They were told, apparently for safety reasons, not to go into parks or abandoned buildings. The beach, the Presidio, railroad encampments, Golden Gate Park and Stern Grove, all were left out of the count. Incredibly, they were told not to go to the Sunset District because there weren't many homeless people found there two years ago.

The administration's explanation for telling its counters to avoid places homeless people are known to frequent shifted as criticism arose. Initially, a mayoral spokesperson claimed that volunteers were instructed to avoid these areas because "they had already been canvassed" by Recreation and Park staff (S.F. Chronicle, 2/14/2005). A day later, Department of Health Services Director Trent Rhorer reversed this position, now claiming that the counting teams had counted parks, in the morning, towards the end of the count (S.F. Chronicle, 2/15/2005). Which is it?

In any case, it was apparent to homeless advocates that many homeless were overlooked. Jennifer Friedenbach, from the Coalition on Homelessness, noted there were homeless people in parks, aware the count was to take place, who stayed out in the open and never encountered any Rec & Park counters. This will not surprise city residents familiar with recent scandals involving Rec & Park gardeners caught on film by an ABC7 News crew hanging out at cafés and picking up laundry when they were supposed to be tending to the public parks.

Aside from the subjective nature of the count (doesn't it really test whether people "look" homeless), and the administration's shifting claims concerning when, where and by whom the count was conducted, the weather contributed against a successful count. It was raining for part of the day! And anecdotal reports indicate that many volunteers did not even leave their cars during the effort.

But to the Newsom administration, these are mere complaints by folks who don't want to face reality. They retort that they used the same methodology the Willie Brown administration used two years ago, and hence their numbers showing a reduction prove the effectiveness of the new administrations efforts to combat homelessness. Newsom himself says this is an "apple to apple" comparison. Regarding the issue of rain, his aides say it was cold two years ago, so it's close enough.

But let's face it. When it's raining, homeless people do not hang out on the street waiting to be counted. Most seek shelter, many in places excluded from the count. Is this really an apple-to-apple comparison? Well, if you mean like comparing a green apple to a red one, perhaps. Ask yourself honestly: what grade would your high school science teacher have given you if you had submitted this "methodology" for counting homeless people as a class assignment? C+ maybe?

It is widely known that the Willie Brown administration intentionally inflated its homeless count in order to obtain greater funds from the federal government. The more homeless, the more federal dollars. The strategy appeared to have worked. All of the new housing claimed by Newsom as part of his Care Not Cash initiative in the last year was built using funds obtained during the Brown administration.

It is clear that the present administration has a political need to show a reduction in homelessness. Bent on demonstrating that Care Not Cash has worked, it isn't above stretching the facts to make its case.

Homeless deaths are one example. The Newsom administration initially heralded a medical examiner's report that homeless deaths for the fiscal year ending June 30 was proof that his program was working. But Care Not Cash wasn't even implemented until May, one month before the homeless death count ended.

Anecdotal evidence also does not support a decline in homeless numbers. Loren Basham, who works at a soup kitchen in the Tenderloin, related a story that they had actually received a phone call from St. Anthony's, inquiring if they had ceased operations (San Francisco Sentinel, Letter to the Editor, 2/15/05). They hadn't. But the inquiry occurred because in the last few months, St. Anthony's has seen such an increase in the number of hungry people knocking on their door they assumed the other kitchen had shut down.

Police in the Haight District confirm that tickets for camping in the park (Park Code Sec. 3.12) are on the upswing. The numbers have more than doubled, going from 436 tickets issued in 2003 to 1,114 issued in 2004. Again, not dispositive of the issue, but a strong suggestion that, at best, some folks have moved off the streets preferring the privacy of our parks.

The other primary argument the Mayor is making showing the decline in homelessness is that the general assistance rolls have declined. They cite the implementation of Care Not Cash to explain this. But cutting monthly dollars from a high of $410 to $59 simply means most people won't bother leaping the bureaucratic hurdles to get such a small stipend.

Rather than declaring these people have disappeared, an obvious conclusion would be that they might be ignoring the little governmental aid being offered them. More importantly, we should ask ourselves if we will have to pay more in the future for this neglect when we see the same folks at the Hall of Justice or the General Hospital? This latter scenario reflects the findings of the Rand Corp. and others who have suggested that cutting cash grants is likely to exacerbate poverty.

Even if the Newsom administration numbers were accurate, the number of homeless today still exceeds the number found in the 2000 count, which totaled 5,376 total homeless. An additional 1,000 homeless persons would have to be housed in the coming year just to get us to the 2000 figure. And lest anyone think those were the good old days, the Hotel Council noted in April of 2000 that the homeless problem was "out of control".

Perhaps the count demonstrates what many sociologists already know: the homeless population is an unstable population, rarely staying in one place for too long. Like Johnny Appleseed, they are often on the road, moving from city to city, district to district, and even park to park.

Measuring their population at any one static moment is hardly a method to judge the efficacy of controversial public programs. Misuse of naturally shifting numbers to claim political successes undermines the ultimate objective: coming to terms with a regional problem facing many municipalities in the state and ensuring adequate resources are committed to addressing the issue.