
San Francisco Firefighters Become Unintended Safety Net for the Homeless - e0m
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefighters-become-unintended-safety-net-for-the-homeless.html
======
stcredzero
Funny, but something similar happened to librarians in public libraries: They
became unofficial social workers! (I know this from my friend, who was a
librarian in the Houston public libraries.)

Also, I find myself doing what amounts to social work in my volunteer life
now.

~~~
cperciva
To elaborate on this, here's (as accurately as I can remember it) what a
librarian I know in Vancouver said recently: "Hardly anyone comes in wanting
books any more, and the people who do already know how to find them. But
nobody knows how to find government services, so when I'm not reading to kids
I usually have a phone book open helping someone figure out which government
office provides the services they need."

~~~
derefr
Admittedly, navigating bureaucracy and discovering relevant available services
_does_ seem to fall within the wheelhouse of library science.

~~~
screwedup
Ideally, our government would be user-friendly enough to make this service
simple.

~~~
superuser2
Ideally. Making the application process sufficiently difficult that not all
who qualify will fill out the paperwork successfully is often necessary to
keep social services afloat. No one, not even a Democrat, gets elected on a
platform of raising taxes to support more welfare spending.

------
jbaudanza
An unfortunate side effect of the overuse of these emergency vehicles it that
makes it difficult for residents to get a healthy night's sleep. Frequent
sirens and air-horns are the number #1 cause of noise pollution in the
Tenderloin. Many residents here are elderly and low-income and cannot afford
double-paned windows and thick curtains to protect from the noise.

~~~
frandroid
Would it be possible for firefighters to respond to mental health emergencies
with another type of vehicle?

~~~
curun1r
That's the part of this story that's not being told. A little over a decade
ago, there was a political power grab wherein the fire department took over
all emergency calls. Prior to that, SF had EMTs that would respond in
ambulances. This has increased the cost of these programs because firefighters
often respond in fire engines instead of ambulances and all responders need to
be trained as both fire fighters and EMTs. It's a horribly wasteful policy
that makes no sense beyond increasing the political power of the fire
department.

Source: I had a friend who was an EMT at the time of the switchover who had to
leave the city to work in a nearby area because he didn't want to train for
and fight fires.

~~~
1024core
Came here to say this. It is a waste of SFFD resources, but since when did
"waste" become a concern in SF?

I remember one of the folks at Stamen design wanted to plot where SFFDs
responders were going, and for what purpose. But he was stonewalled by SFFD
and denied the info. SFFD does not want you to know that 90% of their calls
are for homeless-related issues.

~~~
techdragon
FOIA request ? Not sure how they could actually block that given the banality
of the data in question.

~~~
1024core
I've heard they refused, citing HIPAA.

------
Animats
It's sad that the SFFD is becoming demoralized by this. They're a good fire
department. (The SFPD isn't very good.) A decade ago, the SFFD had a better
plan for dealing with this.[1] Even now, there are better practical plans.[2]

[1]
[http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mocj/CommInvlv_News/...](http://www.sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/mocj/CommInvlv_News/FD_HOME_Team.pdf)
[2]
[http://endsfstrugglewithchronichomelessness.blogspot.com/](http://endsfstrugglewithchronichomelessness.blogspot.com/)

~~~
sliverstorm
What happened to [1]?

------
udp
Here in the UK, if you call the emergency services they ask which service you
require (police, ambulance, fire). It would be absolutely unthinkable to
respond "fire" if there wasn't a fire. How does it work in the US? Is the fire
dept. a different number that is somehow acceptable to call for this kind of
problem?

There have been a number of times when I've been in difficult situations with
severely drunken or otherwise vulnerable people, and every time I've called
the local police station (rather than the emergency number) and they've sent
someone over. But it's always the police I would call - never the fire
brigade.

~~~
mangeletti
The answer is that fire departments respond to any call where there could be
an injury or other related need, because they are also EMTs, and in the U.S.
you just call 911 and tell the operator what's wrong. If you say you want an
ambulance, chances are, you'll get an ambulance... and a fire truck. This is
partly due to the fact that most ambulances are a private service and don't
really represent the service of the city (which firefighters / fire EMTs do
represent).

The problem is that we don't really have a sort of emergency first responder
triage department. The operators are it. There's isn't an EMT who can speed to
the scene in a fuel efficient car on his own to bring you some bandaids or
water and check your blood pressure (e.g., in the case of a homeless person
prone with a needle in his arm), and then call for more help if needed, so,
instead, a $300,000 hook and ladder truck full of 4 highly trained
firefighters (also trained as EMT) is deployed to do the same thing.

~~~
mattmanser
That doesn't really answer the question.

Why is a fire truck helping a drunk instead of an ambulance?

~~~
aliston
In San Francisco, the Fire Department is one of the city's ambulance
providers. They have ambulances:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/SFFD_amb...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/SFFD_ambulance_M75.JPG)

Apparently sometimes they send the actual fire trucks, though. It would be
interesting to know if these stats included the ambulance service.

------
stefantalpalaru
> just over 1.5 percent of its runs last year involved fires

The issue here is not homelessness, it's the waste of resources by sending the
firefighters to tag along almost each and every ambulance call.

Looks like a classic case of perverse incentives. Somebody somewhere wanted to
give them more work or more exposure and they ended up doing useless runs.

~~~
bro-stick
Perhaps emergency social services would be a better use of resources. Btw SF
has social services people/volunteer orgs canvassing the Tenderloin during
most daylight hours distributing resource info... it's almost impossible to
not cross their paths on the fin district opposite side. The issue is that
emergency social workers whom can be assigned to a specific person to
intervene until they're in a better situation are what's most needed. Not all
homeless people know how to fill out forms, navigate, keep appointments or can
stick to getting their basic needs met by themselves/know what to do next for
whatever reason/s; some do too, sure. The U.S. really needs centrally-
coordinated assigned caseworker management for social services so that all
needs (food, housing, health, $, edu, work, mental, dental) can be met and
addressed, not the patchwork /hit-miss system-of-infinite-cracks it is now.

------
nslocum
The amount of money SF spends on homeless people is outrageous.

$230M / 6,700 homeless = >$34K per homeless person per year

~~~
mikeyouse
A better way to frame the spending is, how many _additional_ people would be
homeless if not for the efforts of San Francisco. There aren't just 6,700
people that refuse to be helped but tens of thousands on the cusp of a very
bad situation.

~~~
iansimon
Another way to frame it is: how many additional people are homeless _because
of_ the efforts of San Francisco?

~~~
mikeyouse
I'd wager approximately 0. If you mean, how many additional people are
homeless _in San Francisco_ because of the efforts here, then the number
surely isn't negligible but the wealthiest area in the country seems like a
decent place to extend a little humanity. What's the alternative? Treat our
homeless like shit so other people don't want to move here?

------
netfire
"By the end of this year 500 new single-occupancy units will be built and
existing homeless resources will be expanded."

Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the path
away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate costs and
rent as high as they are?

Its hard to see how someone living on the street is going to be able to afford
$1,000+ rent just for a studio apartment on whatever employment they can get
coming off the street.

~~~
fredkbloggs
> Are these units temporary housing for people on the street? What does the
> path away from homelessness look like in the bay area, with real estate
> costs and rent as high as they are?

It starts the same way it starts everywhere: by getting sober, getting into a
decent shelter, and becoming marketable as an employee. The cost of housing is
neither the first barrier nor the primary one, and someone who is sober and
marketable can always choose to seek work and housing elsewhere if that really
becomes the primary obstacle.

Don't forget that although the cost of housing in SF is very high, so is the
minimum wage. And the City has a lot of programs for people who are gainfully
employed but struggling with the cost of market-rate housing. What they don't
have is housing for someone who spends 20 hours of every 24 lying on the
ground cracked out and shitting himself. No landlord can tolerate that kind of
behavior, not even a publicly-funded one. It's a health hazard, a danger to
other tenants, and does too much damage to the dwelling; never mind the fact
that such a tenant will never be able to pay even token rent.

~~~
noir_lord
> What they don't have is housing for someone who spends 20 hours of every 24
> lying on the ground cracked out and shitting himself. No landlord can
> tolerate that kind of behavior, not even a publicly-funded one. It's a
> health hazard, a danger to other tenants, and does too much damage to the
> dwelling; never mind the fact that such a tenant will never be able to pay
> even token rent.

Which makes sense in a practical way, what we should be doing (inclusive we)
is funding social programs to help people _avoid_ spending 20 hours a day
cracked out shitting themselves, You aren't going to stop everybody but the
cost of doing it upfront is so much lower than doing it later.

That of course require that a government have a cohesive and inclusive
strategy for dealing with the welfare of it's citizens and we don't seem to
have that in the UK let alone the US.

------
ryanobjc
Interesting article. I see SF's finest out taking care of the homeless
population more than they do anything else. I applaud them, and agree that
society needs to do something better here. Unfortunately, I do believe that
"the average american" believes homeless people are in fact not people, and
should be left to die.

There was another callout to that video of '14 police officers taking down a
one legged black man': "Many onlookers saw not the police grappling with a
mentally disturbed man as he kicked and bit, but yet another incident of
police brutality."

I strongly believe in facts and information about the world, and the medium
piece was one of the most one-sided unfair articles. Yes it was an opinion
piece, but in the past we recognized that those who are in privileged
positions of publishing have a special responsibility. Now a days when anyone
can be a journalist, and hit-count are the name of the game, this has really
pushed a lot of bad-faith and lazy journalism.

------
habosa
If you live in SF and you're reading this and you want to help the homeless,
this may be a good option:
[https://handup.org/giftcards](https://handup.org/giftcards)

Also consider donating to a local organization, there are many good ones. I
personally like Larkin Street Youth Services. They help homeless children and
young adults (12-25) get back on their feet through housing, education, etc.
At that age you really can put it all behind you with the right support.

------
jkot
> _Mayor Ed Lee said this week that the homeless are “going to have to leave”
> the streets before the Super Bowl comes to town in February_

China had similar approach for their Olympic Games :-(

~~~
fredkbloggs
In this case it's doubly silly, since the Super Bowl is being played 80km and
two counties away in a different city for which SF has zero responsibility.
Undoubtedly a few of the visitors will stay in or visit SF while there, but
probably not all that many since it's a 2+ hour drive with traffic and there's
no direct mass transit option. Seems like much ado about nothing, or perhaps
an excuse or rationalization.

~~~
rsync
I think you'd be surprised ...

Last college bowl season, I saw _numerous_ college football players in
downtown SF who had a game to play _later that day_.

If you make it all the way to the bay area, you're going to come into the
city.

------
fiatmoney
Firefighters in general are becoming more social services or general emergency
services providers than actual "fire fighters".

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/fir...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-
dont-fight-fires.html)

------
fredkbloggs
> Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of the Coalition on
> Homelessness, a nonprofit in the city, said a lack of reasonably priced
> housing was the biggest problem.

Ms. Friedenbach, you make yourself and your ideological camp appear naive and
out of touch. No doubt, there are a handful of gainfully employed, productive
and law-abiding citizens of SF who are homeless solely or primarily because
they cannot afford an apartment. I am sure that the time they are forced to
spend living in shelters, sitting on the BMR housing waiting lists, and
looking for better opportunities in other cities with more affordable housing
is painful, degrading, and infuriating. That sucks.

As for the other 6600+ of SF's 6700 homeless population, it's not going to
make any difference whether housing is $10,000 a month or $100. These are
people with no marketable skills (not even the ability to show up), no desire
to work, major addictions (usually following multiple treatment
interventions), severe mental illnesses, a preference for the street
lifestyle, or some combination of those. Most live in SF not because they were
born there or because they have jobs or family there but because there is no
freezing weather and the City is accommodating, like spending a large fraction
of the $330m SFFD budget sending trained firefighters to pick up the same few
hundred people twice a day every single day of the year. All the free housing
in the world isn't going to get them off the streets.

Bitching about the cost of housing in SF is fashionable. But I would really
expect someone who works directly on the problems of homelessness and with
homeless people to know better. The cost of housing is at most a very minor
contribution to the problem. When you can show me that most of the people in
the City who are homeless have jobs and are reasonably healthy, it'll be time
to pin the blame on the housing market. Until then, get serious about
addressing the real problems, or just accept that you're never going to and
stop pretending.

~~~
netfire
You obviously need to address the core issues of homelessness first. But then
what? Once someone has marketable skills, mental health treatment and is in a
better condition to contribute to society, do you ask them to leave the city
because there isn't anywhere they can afford to live?

Unaffordable housing may not be the reason someone is on the street, but its
definitely a problem on the path away from that situation.

~~~
jff
> You obviously need to address the core issues of homelessness first. But
> then what? Once someone has marketable skills, mental health treatment and
> is in a better condition to contribute to society, do you ask them to leave
> the city because there isn't anywhere they can afford to live?

There are plenty of jobs in the rest of the state or the country, places where
you can get an apartment for a couple hundred bucks a month. Given a choice
between living on the streets in San Francisco or working minimum wage in
Turlock, I know which I'd choose.

~~~
netfire
Agreed, that's what I would choose as well, but would the people that are
already homeless make that decision as well?

It seems like part of getting someone off the street is building a support
system to help them stay on the path to recovery. If you establish that system
in the bay area (maybe with local friends, family, social workers, etc) and
then ship that person out of the city or state, what are the chances that they
will return to homelessness when things get tough?

------
brandonmenc
> Instead, the calls that ring in this and nearby fire stations tend to go
> like this: Male, apparently homeless, sprawled unconscious on a train
> platform.

I can confirm that this also happens in Tempe (Phoenix), all the time.

------
bro-stick
While SF's mayor plans to kick out or hide as many homeless as possible to
make way so Super Bowl partiers won't be offended or feel obliged to partake
in some extrajudicially-unprosecuted hate crimes.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10130589](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10130589)

