Report to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors : special study of programs affecting the homeless administered by the City and County of San Franisco

88 Pages·1994·4.1 MB·English

by  San Francisco (Calif.). Board of Supervisors. Budget Analyst

TublicLibrary, documents (Dept.
SANFRANCISCOPUBLICLIBRARY
JArrB\[: Jamjudson
3 1223 06255 9472
REPORTTOTHE
SANFRANCISCOBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
^SPECIALSTUDYOF
PROGRAMSAFFECTINGTHEHOMELESS
ADMINISTEREDBYTHE
CITYAND COUNTYOFSANFRANCISCO
POP' l^''^=M"^c; RFPT]
OCT 1 8 1994
SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC LIBRARY
&F
V
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS">
BUDGETANALYST
OCTOBER, 1994
REF
362.5097
Sa513sp
2
LI
SanFranciscoPublicLibrary
COVEtiNMENTU-ITORMATtONCENTBH
SANmAI^S^COPUBUCUBRARir
tmcCSNVER
SANFtzANCisoo.cAUFt3rayaA0aiail
j
REFERENCE BOOK
Not to be takenfrom the Library
CITYAND COUNTY US ^X'] OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGETANALYST
1390MARKETSTREET, SUITE 1025
SAN FRANCISCO,CALIFORNIA94102 • TELEPHONE[phone]
October 17, 1994
HonorableAngelaAlioto
President, BoardofSupervisors
CityandCountyofSanFrancisco
Room 235, City HaU
SanFrancisco, California94102
DearPresidentAlioto:
Transmitted herewith is the Budget Analyst's special study ofprograms affecting
the homeless administered by the City and County of San Francisco (City). The
scope ofthe study was to determine and verify the source offunds forall homeless
programs, specifyexpenditiu-es forhomeless programs, identify administrative and
management responsibilityfor such programs, and provide aninventoryofservices
provided by homeless programs administered by the City and County of San
Francisco.
The primaryfindings ofthis studyare as follows:
• The City administered an estimated total of$75,791,511 in funding for direct
andindirectprogramsaffectingthehomelessin FY 1993-94. The General Fund
was the revenue source for 43.7 percent ofthe total, and other local revenue
sources contributed another 7.3 percent ofthe funds. The Federal government
provided 35.2 percent. State government provided 12.5 percent, and fees and
donationsprovided 1.3percentofthe funds forprograms affectingthehomeless
thatwere administeredbythe CityandCounty.
• The City administered an estimated $51,405,495 in direct services for the
homeless during FY 1993-94, ofwhich 34.4 percent was General Fund money.
These services were administeredby eleven agencies and Departments ofCity
government.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2012 with funding from
California State Library Califa/LSTA Grant
http://archive.org/details/reporttosanfranc1994sanf
HonorableAngelaAlioto
President, Board ofSupervisors
City and CountyofSan Francisco
October 17, 1994
Page 2
• Although the Office of the Mayor's Homeless Coordinator ($125,691) has
represented the Mayorin all aspects ofhomeless policy, the Mayor's Homeless
Coordinatorhas nodirectauthorityoveranyofthe City^shomeless programs.
The Mayor's Office ofHousing ($13,318,773) and the Redevelopment Agency
($3,630,900) administered Federal funds and local Tax Increment funds to
provide capital for developmentoftransitional and permanenthousingfor the
homeless and for persons with AIDS/HIV at risk of becoming homeless. In
addition, the San Francisco Housing Authority ($2,876,815) administered a
group of Federally-funded Section 8 rent subsidy vouchers and certificates
specificallydesigned toprovidepermanenthousingforhomelesspersons.
• The DepartmentofSocialServices ($9,083,772)iised General Fundrevenues to
fund shelters and avariety ofemergency services for the homeless, as well as
social services for formerly homeless persons in transitional and permanent
housing projects. The Mayor's Office ofCommunity Development ($1,865,638)
allocated Federalfundsforoperational andrehabilitationftindingforhomeless
shelters and other emergency social services for the homeless. In addition,
emergency shelter services for temporarily homeless battered women and
children, supported by the General Fund and other loced revenues, were
administeredbythe Commissionon theStatusofWomen($442,067).
The Department of Public Health ($19,213,373) administered a variety of
Federal, State andlocalfundingsources,including$7,560,987in(general Fund
revenues, that supported programs affecting the homeless in the areas of
medical services, services for persons with AIDS/HIV, mental health services,
and substance abuse services. Some of these programs directly targeted
homeless persons and others served homeless persons as part of providing
services to thegeneralpubhc.
• The Mayor's Criminal Justice Council ($94,292) and the Juvenile Probation
Department ($623,000) used State and General Fund monies to fund
emergency services forrunawayandhomelessyouth.
• The Commission on the Aging ($131,174) used local and Federal funds to
support services for seniors atriskofhomelessness.
• As detailed in this report, the majorityofdirectservices forthe homeless were
provided by private non-profit organizations, under contract to City agencies
and Departments. Manyoftheseorganizations receive additional ftindingfrom
grants andcontributionsthatarenotadministeredbythe City.
• We have identified eight areas of City administration that indirectly affect
homeless persons or are related to the presence ofa homeless population in
San Francisco. The estimated cost ofthese indirect programs in FY»1993-94
was $24,386,016, ofwhich63.5 percentwas (General Fund money.
BOARD OF STTPERVISORS
BUDGETANALYST
I
3 1223 06255 9472
Honorable Angela Aliotx)
President, Board ofSupervisors
City and County ofSan Francisco
October 17, 1994
Page 3
General Assistance($10,731,388)cashgrants, funded 100 percentwithGeneral
Fund monies, were provided to approximately 3,000 clients each month who
declared themselves to be homeless. Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) ($1,847,292), funded primarily with Federal (47.8 percent) and State
(44.4 percent) revenues, provided cash grants to an average of 181 homeless
famihes permonth and providedvarious homelessnessprevention services.
San Francisco General Hospital ($9,111,149) used a combination ofState (69.3
percent) and General Fund (30.7 percent) monies to finance the cost of
treatment ofpersons who gave no address and had no third party source of
payment for Psychiatric Emergency, Emergency Department, Outpatient and
Inpatient services. The Paramedics Division of the Department of Public
Health ($1,000,000) used (jeneral Fund monies to fundresponse to emergency
calls involvinghomelesspersons.
The Departments ofPublic Works and Recreation and Park provided clean-up
servicesinareas affectedbythehomeless. The BureauofStreetEnvironmental
Servicesinthe DepartmentofPublic Works ($544,800) usedStateGas Tax and
Cal Trans revenues, as well as General Fund revenues to allocate staff to
perform a variety of street clean-up and repair activities in areas that are
heavily used by homeless persons. The Recreation and Park Department
($436,500) used local revenues to staff the cleanup ofareas of(jolden Gate
Park and neighborhood parks where consistent campingbyhomeless persons
occurs.
The Police Department ($537,923) allocated staff to enforce nuisance and
quality oflife violations as part ofthe Matrix Program, funded an outreach
team to provide security for Department ofSocial Services and Department of
Public Health Matrix outreach workers, and allocated staffto a Matrix Night
Referral Shelter Program, all supported by the General Fund. Based on a
review of available information and discussions with SFPD administrators,
costs for enforcement activities included in this report represent what we
believe to be a reasonable estimate ofthe cost ofthese activities only as they
relate to homeless persons, although the departments were unable to provide
clear data to verify our assumptions about the proportion ofMatrix activity
affecting the homeless. The Sheriffs Department ($176,964) booked homeless
and other persons arrested underthe Matrix Program andheld some arrestees
injail while awaitingaMunicipal Courtappearance. All ofthese expenses were
supported by the General Fund. Again, in the absence of adequate data on
arrests or the portion of those arrests affecting the homeless, the Budget
Analysthas madevarious assumptions based onavailable informationinorder
to arrive at a cost estimate for Sheriffs Department expenses related
specificallyto the homeless.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGETANALYST

Honorable Angela Alioto
President, Board ofSupervisors
City and County ofSan Francisco
October 17, 1994
Page 4
Throughout the course ofthis study, we were mostappreciativeofthe cooperationof
the staff members of the many City Departments that administer programs
affectingthe homeless.
Respectfully submitted,
filarveyM. Rose
BudgetAnalyst
cc: SupervisorBierman
SupervisorConroy
SupervisorHallinan
SupervisorHsieh
SupervisorKaufman
SupervisorKennedy
SupervisorLeal
SupervisorMaher
SupervisorMigden
SupervisorShelley
Clerkofthe Board
MayorJordan
ChiefAdministrative Officer
Controller
TeresaSerata
RobertOakes
Ted Lakey
EleanorJacobs, Mayor's HomelessCoordinator
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGETANALYST
I