This ordinance aims to increase the availability of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) for homeless individuals that requires abstinence from illegal drug use, while prohibiting funding for drug tolerant housing until at least 25% of PSH is designated as Recovery Housing. It also allows the Board of Supervisors to bypass this funding restriction for specific expenditures deemed in the public interest.
Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to state that it is City policy to expand the availability of Permanent Supportive Housing (“PSH”) for people experiencing homelessness that emphasizes abstinence from illegal substance use (“Recovery Housing”); to prohibit the City from funding PSH for people experiencing homelessness that bars evictions on the basis of drug use alone (“Drug Tolerant Housing”) until at least 25% of the City’s PSH portfolio is operated as Recovery Housing, except where operation of the funded housing as Recovery Housing would conflict with standards imposed by law or as a condition of other funding; and to authorize the Board of Supervisors to suspend the funding restriction by Resolution for a specific expenditure, upon finding that the expenditure is in the public interest.
How it got here
This legislation originated from a need to address homelessness in San Francisco by expanding Recovery Housing options.
The City currently funds a large portfolio of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) that operates under a Housing First approach, which prohibits evictions based solely on substance use. There is no law dictating the proportion of PSH that must follow this approach.
HUD recommended that Recovery Housing, which supports individuals in recovery from addiction, should be part of a community approach to homelessness, emphasizing choice for individuals with substance use disorders.
Supervisors Dorsey and Mandelman introduced the ordinance to amend the Administrative Code to expand Recovery Housing and restrict funding for Drug Tolerant Housing until a certain threshold of Recovery Housing is met.
The ordinance was assigned to the Board of Supervisors under the 30-day rule for further consideration.
The ordinance was referred to the relevant department for review and input.
The ordinance was filed as an inactive matter, indicating it may not be moving forward at this time.
Reconstructed from attached documents & the official record