WE KILL THEM WITH KINDNESS

San Francisco's welfare checks pay for drug abuse

AFTER SERVING four years on the Human Services Commission, I am amazed at
how much we spend on ``compassionate'' programs that are making the
situation worse for street people. In the last decade, the city has spent
easily over $1 billion trying to solve the homeless street people problem,
yet it is worse today, despite our healthy economy.

Among the homeless -- a diverse population composed of different groups
with different needs -- there are many more young runaways, anti-social
drop-outs and substance abusers.

The city is, in large part, to blame. Here's why: we are subsidizing
substance abuse. We provide free basic services and then give
substance-abusing homeless street people welfare payments they can spend on
drugs and alcohol.

In effect, San Francisco is ``co-dependent'' with its homeless substance
abusers.

We are paying for it dearly. A significant portion of each city
department's budget goes to fund multiple programs for homeless street
people. These include counseling, shelters, food banks, emergency hospital
medical treatment, paramedic and ambulance calls, job training, drug and
alcohol treatment and police calls, as well as restoring city parks and
cleaning sidewalks of excrement and urine.

In addition to city agencies, hundreds of nonprofit agencies and corporate
and charitable organizations donate money, time and assistance to homeless
street people. (The United Way reports that more than 75 San Francisco
agencies provide food assistance; dozens of others provide housing and
shelter assistance.)

At the same time, San Francisco spends almost $62 million annually on
General Assistance for homeless street people, issued in checks on the
first and the 15th of the month. These funds are not federal or state but
rather local money paid out in sums of between $287 and $345 per month for
those who don't qualify for any of the other assistance the city provides.

A large percentage of homeless GA re cipients are addicts or alcoholics.
San Francisco General Hospital reports that a majority of overdose cases
occur after the first and the 15th of the month. The largest sales of
pint-size hard liquor in the Tenderloin occurs around the first and the 15th.

Homeless street people who are substance abusers often use food banks,
shelters and other free services first, enabling them to spend their GA
money on their addiction. In short, we spend tens of millions of dollars
annually on what amounts to a drug and alcohol allowance.

Result? Of all U.S. cities, San Francisco ranks first in heroin and
methamphetamine use and second in cocaine use, according local news reports.

Solution? We must get those homeless street people who are receiving
General Assistance clean and sober. We need to end cash payments to addicts
and instead use that money to fund drug and alcohol treatment. Drug and
alcohol treatment must come first for substance abusers -- before talking
about job training, housing or other programs.

The city needs to take the courageous step to drug test each street person.
This should be a pen and paper test, such as the widely used SASSI, rather
than a more invasive blood or urine test. Those who refuse would lose their
GA benefit.

Those who test positive would be en rolled in a 12-step program
specifically for street people, run by ex-addicts. To build self-esteem and
personal responsibility, the city could foster street-people ``family
units'' or ``tribes'' to help provide the necessary group support.

Finally, we must recognize that many homeless advocates have their own
political agendas. These may not include getting people off the street.

Instead, too many homeless advocates in San Francisco are primarily
concerned about growing their political power bases and maintaining the
revenue streams that sustain their organizations. Other than suggesting
that the city give a shopping cart to each street person, they haven't
generated any new ideas. They're not receptive to new ideas; what they want
is more money.

In my opinion, this kind of advocacy does more harm than good to the person
on the street. We are spending more and more on programs that foster
dependency.

We should think about this when we see someone on the street with an
obvious drug or alcohol problem. We are contributing to that person's
illness. Our money is keeping them where they are.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski