Cash poor
City report slams Newsom's homeless reform plan as unworkable

By Rachel Brahinsky

Supporting critics of Proposition N, the Care Not Cash ballot measure approved by voters last fall, a June 9 city report says there is no evidence that the measure's campaign promises of providing housing, meals, and support to homeless welfare recipients can be met even by next spring – a full year after the measure was originally scheduled to kick in.

That conclusion comes from a two-month inquest by San Francisco Board of Supervisors' budget analyst Harvey Rose, using data provided by the Department of Human Services, the city agency responsible for carrying out the plan. Rose says the department (from which he had a hard time getting information) gave him conflicting data throughout his investigation.

He also says the DHS fails to support the allegation that there is widespread fraud in the system by out-of-city homeless people. That assumption is key to the department's ability to finance the program, which would provide services in lieu of cash payments to the homeless.

The report comes at a time when Prop. N's future is already uncertain. Last month, after a judge overturned central provisions of the measure, Sup. Gavin Newsom asked the Board of Supervisors to pass it into law. At the same time several other members of the board offered an alternative plan, which would preclude counting shelters as housing. Hearings on both plans were not yet scheduled at press time, and the court decision is under appeal. And on June 10 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that DHS director Trent Rhorer said he is stopping any implementation to wait for direction from a court or the board.

In the meantime, the report provides an important road map for those trying to reform city homeless policy. The plan to use shelter beds as housing for welfare clients is high on the list of problems identified by Rose. Critics say it will displace homeless people seeking shelter who aren't on welfare, including the working poor and undocumented immigrants (see "Shelter Shuffle," 4/02/03).

Though Rhorer has repeatedly insisted there will be no displacement, Rose concludes that Rhorer's current plan "could displace up to 610 other homeless individuals." Sup. Jake McGoldrick, who requested the report, is sponsoring legislation to prevent shelter-bed displacement, which will likely come before the full board July 8.

Rose also takes aim at a central tenet in arguments by the DHS and Newsom that back up the Care Not Cash numbers. Rhorer is quoted in the report as saying Care Not Cash will reduce the homeless welfare rolls because "individuals who live outside of the county will no longer have an incentive to come into San Francisco to take advantage of a generous GA payment."

For evidence he has long used the example of Alameda County, where the welfare rolls dropped by 90 percent under a similar program. But, Rose writes, "Alameda County attributed the decrease in the General Assistance caseload to an 'aggressive program' of 32 budget strategies designed to make obtaining General Assistance 'difficult.' "

Rose's conclusion: "The DHS assumptions are totally lacking in any supporting documentation."

In his official response to the report, Rhorer wrote that the department's "assumptions can only be validated by actual experience. Therefore, we will be carefully monitoring our caseloads and services throughout the year and adjusting our plan to meet any unexpected needs."

John Shanley, spokesperson for Newsom's mayoral campaign, insists the report does not spell doom for the Care Not Cash concept. "It's actually very early in the game," he said. "San Francisco is slowly deciding to fundamentally change the way it approaches homelessness."

The report can be obtained from Rose's office by calling (415) 554-7642.

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky