IAC giving a platform to Prop N supporter Sup. Mark Leno

Seeing that about 60 to 80% of SF supports Prop N why would you expect from a politician like Leno.

Seeing that about 60 to 80% of SF supports Prop N what would you expect from a politician like Leno.

Editor:

Your recent article "Mark Leno Vying for Another Job" [July/August 2001] was an interesting piece, but I can't recognize the Mark Leno we know in it. Who actually wrote that article? Mark Leno?

Many of us in District 8 would welcome his move to Sacramento -- as a resident, not a politician -- and he's definitely for sale. We agree it's probably time for him to move on.

Let me share just one example of a tale we've titled "The Two Faces of Mark Leno." Last fall, concealing his true anti-TIC [tenancies-in-common] feelings, Candidate Leno stomped Eileen Hansen for her anti-TIC views (then Proposition N on the ballot). In that effort, he campaigned for TICs, accepted money, time, and volunteers working the precincts, during the November election and the runoff, as though he favored TICs as a way to provide home ownership to persons with modest incomes. Candidate Leno also accepted money, time, and work from the Small Property Owners of San Francisco (SPOSF), who favor TICs as entry-level housing.

After the election, Board President Tom Ammiano and his Seven Dwarves drafted and redrafted resolutions designed to defeat the will of San Francisco voters, including those in District 8. [Prop. N was defeated at the polls.]

During that time, Supervisor Leno continued to conceal his true feelings from those who'd donated money to help him dump Eileen Hansen (whose major fault, apparently, was her honesty; obviously not a failing of Mark Leno).

Does that sound like a man who is "our Jim Jeffords. He is not for sale"? (Did someone actually say that?)

As your article reports, Leno's facility with polit-speak is awesome. The most positive aspect of your story lay in the final paragraphs, which identified just a few of the other campaign promises he has not kept. Now, if we can get him to do his job here and to stop betraying his constituents and the voters for his own ends, the city will be better served.

http://www.noevalleyvoice.com/2001/September/Letr.html

I'm not so sure prop N is entirely contrary to Marxist practices, having the state provide services directly ....

SF Liberals love to care about far off places and things that dont effect them personally, but when people have to directly deal with issues their politics is often different.

The majority of SF voters oppose a war in Iraq. A majority of voters dont like seeing homeless people around and dont really care if they are helped or "gotten rid of". Prop N will cut off fund homeless people use to sustain themsleves while not providing any increase in services that can make up for the cutoff.

A politician needs some sense of morality to oppose proposition N, they only need to look at the polls to oppose the war.

shout down Leno when he speaks. The rally is going to be huge and making a strong statement about N could get alot of publicity

The IAC would have to back down since I can see no way that they would openly support N. They are open enough with their speakers list Im sure they didnt know.

I called them and asked them...They said it was important to build a "coalition" against the war. I agree. However, I do NOT agree that giving Mark Leno an audience = coalition building.

well it may give Leno an audience but it also gives the crowd chanting him down an audience....

Anyone ready for civil disobedience at the IAC event?

We should stake out a place close to the stage early on and make sure Leno and the IAC here us loud and clear!!!

I'll be glad to join in to shout him down over Prop N!!

I just called also - The IAC is selling us out!! Leno is apparently the *only* local city official speaking, although there are tons of speakers, Barbara Lee, Phil Burton . .. Mark Leno??? The person answering the phone doesn't know all of it. Maybe someone should call Leno and tell him we're prepared to chant him down because of N.

Okay here's an more reasonable idea - let's chant for him to change his stance on N. Can anyone come up with a good chant?

If we can't, we could just chant "No on N" over and over. If you can, make a No on N sign or bring your window sign!

I'll be with the Greens, who do NOT support N, and I'll see if I can get them to join in. We'll be the ones in Green.

Leno, Leno he's our man
If he can't do it
Feinstein can

Feinstin Feinstein she's our man
If she can't do it
Newsom can

Newsome, Newsome he's our man
If he can't do it
bov can

bov, bov he's our man
If he ca.......

(Suddenly the crowd parts and leaves on lack of interest)

No one would know who bov is.

Look, Leno isn't terrible - but this propostion *is* - and it needs to be addressed. Why is he supporting a prop that is filled with lies?? Where 'cease and desist' orders have been taken out against Newsom for illegally using references? Isn't Leno above that?

OK, maybe it's not all that good, but how about:

Leno, Leno
You're a dick
Care not Cash is really sick

He's also rabidly pro-Israel.

He supports Prop N and zionism, but he's "against war"?!!?

I hope everyone brings whistles and bullhorns and other noise-making devices and drowns the fool out.

well, chanting down leno at the iac rally will only be vaguely useful, and perhaps will only allow the anti-war movement's detractors to further exploit the fact that there is so much bickering going on that actually getting shit done is something the "left" rarely does. not to say that Prop N isn't a horribly crafted, greedy and classist/racist idea. it is. it' s just that it's just one small drop in the bucket called capitalism that needs to be kicked over.

are there any affinity groups planning actions? any feeder marches from an anti-capitalist anarchist perspective? if not, where have all the anarchists gone in the bay area? are they all actually satisfied at being so marginalized and ineffective? is the lifestyle of themselves and their friends really going to change the world? i'm skeptical.

...the opposite of "Care not Cash" is "Cash not Care". Do you really want to be known as people who don't care? I don't. I'd prefer to be identified with "care" rather than "cash". Vote Yes on N.

"the opposite of "Care not Cash" is "Cash not Care"

Arent you Orwellian. You know full well there is no real care in the proposal. And your only argument for it is the name?

Reminder, have you even *looked* at the lies around Prop N?? Please read the 13 biggest lies here:
http://www.nomorehomelessness.org/13lies.html

"well, chanting down leno at the iac rally will only be vaguely useful, and perhaps will only allow the anti-war movement's detractors to further exploit the fact that there is so much bickering going on that actually getting shit done "

True its is a little factional but I really doubt that anyone besides Leno at the rally is a big supporter of N and raising it as an issue might get more people to work on it as an issue before the election.

But, what type of actions can one do in the middle of a city on a Saturday? Prop N is a good class based issue whereas trashing a Starbucks just means an insurance payoff. Perhaps if we could get actions organized to get in the way of the war buildup.... but I dont know of any bases near where the march will be... maybe a few recuiting centers....

The Left in SF tends to take on issues that are pretty far removed from city politics so a stance on N seems more of a threat to current business interests than any riot type situation... at least a small group making a point at the IAC protest could get some of the usual lefty suspects to also take on the issue and while the radical left is small it could be enough of a base to get the rest of the population won over enough to defeat N.

PLUS, the message of being up local issues at the protest could eaily be that opposition to the war is so widespread that other issues are safe to bring up since we KNOW the crowd wont change its mind about the war. If the SF Left could start taking on local issues we might actually win the struggles we are fighting; maybe then people will be willing to act more radical.

Thanks for the site. Enjoyed reading it. I am always willing to consider the opposing view before I vote Yes on N.

I called Leno's office (a voicemail) and asked for confirmation on 1. his support of Prop N, and 2. His speaking at the rally.

Maybe they'll get the message if several of us call and then we won't have to chant.

Mark Leno - District 8
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-7734 - voice
(415) 554-7739 - fax
Mark.Leno [at] sfgov.org

Thanks for the heads-up about the Israel thing . .. I hadn't known and people I know in his district I'm sure didn't know.

Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO — As other cities slashed cash payments to their homeless populations in recent years, San Francisco held out, living up to its national image as a city of compassion and tolerance.

But buffeted by the dot-com collapse and other economic woes, many San Franciscans today see themselves as America's last soft touch. Some feel the city's reputation for generosity has made it a magnet for street dwellers, whose numbers fluctuate between 7,000 and 10,000. Tourism promoters complain that aggressive panhandlers are driving visitors away.

Recent polls show a large majority of city residents favor a proposal on the fall ballot that would slash homeless general-assistance payments to roughly one-fifth of what they are today.

Cities and states have been making payments to homeless people since the early 1980s, when their numbers began to rise dramatically. After the Clinton administration in 1996 started emphasizing housing and job training over such direct payments, many cities followed suit.

San Francisco voters list homelessness as by far the most serious problem facing the city. Two leading candidates for next year's mayoral election are sponsoring November initiatives to address the homelessness issue.

Attracting the most attention is an initiative proposed by San Francisco Supervisor Gavin Newsom that would drastically reduce payments to single homeless adults. His measure — called Care Not Cash — would trim one of the country's most generous stipends from $320 a month to $59, and replace the cash with the promise of equivalent spending on housing and services.

Supported by the city's business establishment and struggling tourism industry, Newsom, a Democrat who leads the polls among early mayoral favorites, argues that the flow of cash to a population wracked by drug abuse, alcoholism and mental illness does more harm than good.

"We need to redefine our definition of compassion," said Newsom, who contends the city is contributing to its alarming death rate among homeless people by supporting self-destructive habits.

Dr. Pablo Stewart, director of psychiatric services at San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, agreed: "It is not only clinically incorrect but almost sadistic to give money on a regular basis to people who have a demonstrated inability to handle cash funds."

The Care Not Cash proposal has sparked a firestorm of protest among homeless-rights groups, who see the effort as an attempt to do in San Francisco what New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani did in his much-publicized cleanup of Times Square, which rid much of the area of homeless people, partly by banning sidewalk bivouacs and expanding city-run shelters.

Accusing Newsom of trying to "Giuliani-ize" San Francisco, homeless advocate Paul Bodin contended that the main intent of the Care Not Cash movement is to make homeless people disappear from the streets.

"The Newsom plan is heartless, ruthless and basically immoral," said Sister Bernie Galvin, a Roman Catholic nun who directs the Religious Witness With Homeless People advocacy group here.

Each summer, the 69-year-old Galvin, an Oklahoma native who came to San Francisco after working as a labor organizer and social activist in North Carolina and Texas, stages a memorial service for homeless people who die on city streets. In 1999, the count reached 169. Over the past 15 years, 1,843 homeless people have died on the streets, Galvin said.

Newsom, a 34-year-old restaurateur, argues that the high mortality rate is precisely the reason to cut cash payments.

"In nearly half these cases," Newsom wrote in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, "the cause of death was an overdose of drugs or alcohol. This is the cost of our failure: a toll of drugs, alcohol and death that is the shame of San Francisco."

Protests by homeless advocacy groups, including the militant People Organized to Win Employment Rights, have thwarted several of Newsom's public appearances, forcing the supervisor to leave under police escort.

But his stand on the issue has also won Newsom wide support.

Nearly three-fourths of San Francisco voters favor his Care Not Cash initiative, according to a July survey conducted by the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates for the Chinese American Voters Education Committee. The same poll showed Newsom, with 36 percent support, leading his closest two potential rivals, Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano, with 23 percent, and state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, with 6 percent.

The city's homeless population is most in evidence the first and 15th day of each month, known here as "Mother's Day," when assistance checks are handed out by a local chain of all-night check-cashing and payday loan outlets under a contract with the city.

On the eve of the most recent payday, the line of homeless men started forming before midnight in front of the Money Mark check-cashing shop in the Tenderloin District, San Francisco's skid row.

Across the street, orange-vested city work crews blasted the sidewalks with high-pressure hoses to remove human waste and trash left by squatters at United Nations Plaza.

San Francisco Police Officer Scott Korte was on Market Street issuing a citation to a man for urinating in a public place. "Two blocks away is the main drug-dealing area," Korte said. "Sometimes the dealers just stand outside the door. It always gets busier here payday."

One of the men standing in line at the Money Mark was Paul James Salks, 37, an ex-Marine.

Relatives of Salks said he was student-body president of his North Carolina high school before falling into a pattern of alcoholism that exacerbated a history of mental illness. Both of his parents also are homeless, said brother David Salks, a civil engineer in Charlotte, N.C.

After cashing his general-assistance check, Salks, clearly drunk and wobbly on his feet, said he planned to use the money to travel to Seattle to investigate the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil-tanker spill off the coast of Alaska.

But before he even made it to the street, a wad of new bills dangling from his clenched fist, Salks got into an argument with a drug dealer. The dispute ended when Salks passed out $20 bills to the dealer and several swarming antagonists.

Even some recipients of "Mother's Day" largess are critical of the system on which they depend.

Matt Reynolds, 36, described himself as a ski instructor and fishing-boat pilot temporarily down on his luck. Reynolds, a native of Cape Cod, Mass., said he got stuck in San Francisco two days before Christmas last year when someone stole $4,000 from his van.

His efforts to find work since have mostly failed. Lately, he has taken to positioning himself outside paint stores hoping to catch a day-labor painting job. At night, he sleeps in the van.

Reynolds, who said he conquered a severe drinking problem eight years ago, said he is grateful for the money. "I've never been in this predicament before," he said. But he is troubled by the abuse he sees of the cash-payment system.

"I can guarantee you that over 70 percent of this money is going right back into drugs," Reynolds said before leaving to buy laundry soap and a pack of cigarettes.

The 13 Biggest Lies Prop N Backers are Telling San Francisco Voters

Proposition N, being financed by big business and brought forth by media darling Supervisor Newsom would cut cash assistance to the poorest San Franciscans by 83%.

Prop N backers believe homeless people will then flee San Francisco -while telling voters this will actually help homeless people.

1. "Proposition N will guarantee services"
There is nothing in this initiative that guarantees services. It simply cuts poor people's income for the value of services available. Services they are now getting for free or will never get under this initiative. The money saved goes back to the bureaucrats. Meanwhile, potentially 2,895 people are screwed.

2. Prop N will help address the homeless crisis. (Care Not Cash website)
Actually Prop N will increase homelessness. Homeless people will lose the flexibility to pay for housing if some cheap housing becomes available. They will no longer have the funds to pay for it - you have to have a receipt before you get the money. They will instead have to wait for the "voucher" housing to come available from Human Services.

Individuals in "casual" housing arrangements will no longer be able to pay for it. If they do not have a receipt or a letter from the lease holder, they will lose their assistance. This will hit poor communities very hard, where many are fearful of being evicted if the landlord finds they have extra residents. And many hotel operators refuse to provide receipts, individuals living in those places will become homeless.

3. Prop N does not take money away from the homeless, it just changes the way it is spent. (Chronicle op-ed by Gavin Newsom 7.15.02)
Prop N does take money away from the individual homeless person, and that same person will not see any direct benefit from the removal of that cash. Welfare recipients do work for their money, unless they are disabled or in a job training. Under Prop N, they would still have to work but only get paid $1.64 an hour.

4. Services not cash - because we care. (Golden Gate Restaurant Association)
If proponents cared, they could spend all that money directly on housing - not billboards, and commercials to mislead voters. Deep corporate pockets should be funding services for poor people - not running campaigns to slash welfare benefits.

5. Surrounding Counties have already instituted this program and have been successful.
Simply not true - none of these counties has done exactly what is being proposed in SF, but those who have cut cash assistance, or instituted vouchers have seen an increase in the number of homeless people (source: SF Legislative Analyst/Local CBO's):

6. Other major cities, such as Seattle, Chicago, and New York have instituted similar programs and have seen huge success.
Simply not true - these cites have seen huge increases in homelessness. All the counties implemented changes to save money - not lives. The state of Illinois eliminated General Assistance in 1992 and last year they saw 166,000 more people become homeless. New York has seen huge rises in the number of homeless people this year - they have a lower grant but decided against vouchers. Seattle gives full grants to homeless people.

7. As a result of cash grants, there are over 100 fatal overdoses every year on San Francisco's streets. (Care Not Cash website)
We have not done a homeless death study since 1999. But, there was no evidence in San Francisco that homeless deaths are tied to receipt of cash assistance - then or now. Overdose prevention reports from DPH do not recommend cutting or replacing cash assistance.

8. Chicago only had one homeless death, and the city officials were in an uproar. (Richmond Democratic Club, April 23, 2002)
Chicago just did their first pilot study, run by the medical examiner. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, during just a five month period, there was at least 56 deaths among homeless people. This number only includes those who died on the streets, not those who made it to the hospital first.

9. Impartial experts such as the Director of the Department of Human Services, and The Director of the Department of Public Health support this initiative.
These are not, under any stretch, impartial supporters. They are appointed to their position by the Mayor, and the Mayor is in full support of this initiative. If they want to keep their jobs, they support whatever the Mayor tells them to support. They are also breaking the law by using their position to support the initiative.

10. All Homeless People are addicts.
That's really what the Prop N campaign has been implying all along, isn't it? There is no data on how many people affected by this initiative are suffering from addictive disorders - just a reliance on class prejudice.

11. This will go beyond fractious politics and finally address the issue of homelessness from sound public policy. (Newsom letter on website)
This is fractious politics! The city has a homeless plan, entitled "Continuum of Care", that was developed by over 225 community members. Prop N is directly contrary to the plan. Putting this on the ballot was fractious.

12. This will increase funding for substance abuse and mental health treatment and free up funds we can use for real health care.
NOT! The hundreds of people who use their grant to purchase methadone, or detox services will lose it. This does not create additional funding for treatment - It boots people out of treatment.

13. The New England Journal of Medicine has found cash only that cash-only system cost lives (door hanger)
After a phone call to the NEJM, we discovered that they had made no such claim, and that Newsom has been using the Journal's trademark logo without their authorization - which, of course, is illegal. At this writing a "cease and desist" letter from NEJM is on its way to Newsom's campaign - and all of Gavin's illegal door hangers

"well, chanting down leno at the iac rally will only be vaguely useful, and perhaps will only allow the anti-war movement's detractors to further exploit the fact that there is so much bickering going on that actually getting shit done "

i'll be shouting at the top of my lungs! why do we need to pretend there aren't struggles among the left? we need to make struggle with ourselves and each other. not doing so for some liberal fake "unity," is not helping anyone.

someone said the iac is "open" with their speakers. thats total b.s. the iac is extremely tight with their speakers and jealously guards their platform. putting leno up there is an endorsement of his politics and must be exposed.

the iac is able to pull of the biggest demos because they have the resources and connections, not because they have the best politics or are even the best organized.

if thousands turn out we have a responsibility to set the terms for the political message. we can't allow ourselves to be drones that build leno's zionist career.

National Resource Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness

How many?
In 1996, an estimated 637,000 adults were homeless in a given week. In the same year, an estimated 2.1 million adults were homeless over the course of a year. These numbers increase dramatically when children are included, to 842,000 and 3.5 million, respectively.1

Over a five-year period, about 2-3 percent of the U.S. population (5-8 million people) will experience at least one night of homelessness. For the great majority of these people, the experience is short and often caused by a natural disaster, a house fire, or a community evacuation. 2

A much smaller group, perhaps as many as 500,000 people, have greater difficulty ending their homelessness. As one researcher who examined a sample of this group over a two-year period found:3

* Most - about 80% - exit from homelessness within about 2-3 weeks. They often have more personal, social, and economic resources to draw on than people who are homeless for longer periods of time.
* About 10% are homeless for up to two months, with housing availability and affordability adding to the time they are homeless.
* Another group of about 10% is homeless on a chronic, protracted basis - as long as 7-8 months in a two-year period. Disabilities associated with mental illnesses and substance use are common. On any given night, this group can account for up to 50% of those seeking emergency shelter.

Why?
The reasons why people become homeless are as varied and complex as the people themselves. Several structural factors contribute greatly to homelessness.

* Poverty. People who are homeless are the poorest of the poor. In 1996 the median monthly income for people who were homeless was $300, only 44% of the federal poverty level for a single adult.4 Decreases in the numbers of manufacturing and industrial jobs combined with a decline in the real value of minimum wage by 18% between 1979 and 1997 have left significant numbers of people without a livable income.5
* Housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that there are five million households in the U.S. with incomes below 50% of the local median who pay more than half of their income for rent or live in severely substandard housing. This is worsened by a decline in the number of housing units affordable to extremely low income households by 5% since 1991, a loss of over 370,000 units. Federal rental assistance has not been able to bridge the gap; the average wait for Section 8 rental assistance is now 28 months.6
* Disability. People with disabilities who are unable to work and must rely on entitlements such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can find it virtually impossible to find affordable housing. In 2000, the federal SSI benefit was $512 per month, which would not cover the cost of an efficiency or one-bedroom apartment in any major housing market in the country.7

There are also several individual risk factors that may increase people's vulnerability to becoming homeless and experiencing homelessness on a longer basis.8

* Untreated mental illness can cause individuals to become paranoid, anxious, or depressed, making it difficult or impossible to maintain employment, pay bills, or keep supportive social relationships.
* Substance abuse can drain financial resources, erode supportive social relationships, and can also make exiting from homelessness extremely difficult.
* Co-occurring disorders. Individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders are among the most difficult to stably house and treat due to the limited availability of integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment in most localities.
* Other circumstances. People might also find themselves homeless for a variety of other reasons including domestic violence, chronic or unexpected health care expenses, release from incarceration, "aging out" of youth systems such as foster care, or divorce or separation.

1. Burt, M.R., Aron, L.Y., Lee, E., and Valente, J.J., (2001) Helping America's Homeless. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
2. Link, B., Phelan, J., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., Moore, R., Susser, E. (1995) Lifetime and five-year prevalence of homelessness in the United States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65(3): 347-354.
3. Culhane, D. & Kuhn, R. A typology of homelessness by pattern of public shelter utilization. Personal communication, March 1996. Culhane, D., Chang-Moo, L., Wachter, S. (1996) Where the homeless come from: A study of the prior address distribution of families admitted to public shelters in New York City and Philadelphia. Housing Policy Debate, 7-2: 327-365.
4. Burt, M.R., Aron, L.Y., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., Iwen, B. (1999) Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on the Homeless.
5. Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., Schmitt, J. (1999) The State of Working America 1998-1999. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
6. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (2001) A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
7. O'Hara, A., Miller, E. (2000) Priced Out in 2000: The Crisis Continues. Boston, MA: Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc.
8. Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness. (1992) Outcasts on Main Street. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on the Homeless. Lezak, A.D., Edgar, E. (1998) Preventing Homelessness Among People with Serious Mental Illnesses. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information about the Homeless Programs Branch, please contact:

Frances Randolph, Dr. P.H., Acting Branch Chief
Homeless Programs Branch
Center for Mental Health Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(301) 443-3706

Research has provided a substantial amount of information on what services and practices are effective in ending homelessness for people with serious mental illnesses1. The key is to:

* Encourage the adoption of evidence-based practices for services, treatment, and prevention of homelessness;
* Establish partnerships with federal agencies, state and local governments, and public and private agencies to reduce barriers to services and increase resources and funding; and
* Conduct research that addresses important gaps in knowledge.2

We know what works

* Outreach, whether in shelters or on the street, is effective.3 Given the opportunity, most homeless people with serious mental illness are willing to accept treatment and services voluntarily. Consistent outreach and the introduction of services at the client's pace are key to engaging people in treatment and case management services. A consistent, caring, personal relationship is required to engage people who are homeless in treatment.
* Integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment provided by multidisciplinary treatment teams can improve mental health, residential stability, and overall functioning in the community. Regular assertive outreach, lower caseloads, and the multidisciplinary nature of the services available on these teams are critical ingredients leading to positive treatment and housing outcomes. 4
* Providing supportive services to people in housing has proven effective in achieving residential stability, improving mental health, and reducing the costs of homelessness to the community. Supported housing is preferred by many homeless people with serious mental illnesses. Many people who are homeless with serious mental illnesses can move directly from homelessness to independent housing with supports. However, the transition from homelessness to housing is a critical time that needs intensive support and attention.5
* Prevention. Homelessness among people with serious mental illness can be prevented. Discharge planning to help people leaving institutions to access housing, mental health, and other necessary community services can prevent homelessness during such transitions. Ideally, such planning begins upon entry into an institution, is ready to be implemented upon discharge, and involves consumer input. Providing short-term intensive support services immediately after discharge from hospitals, shelters, or jails has proven effective in further preventing recurrent homelessness during the transition to other community providers.6

1. Fosburg, L. Dennis, D. (eds), Practical Lessons. Washington, D.C.: HHS & HUD. Koegel, P., Burnam, M.A., Baumohl, J. (1996) The causes of homelessness. In Baumohl, J.(ed), Homelessness in America. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 24-33.
2. SAMHSA (2001) Strategic Plan on SAMHSA's Role in Reducing and Preventing Homelessness 2001-2005 (draft). Rockville, MD: SAMHSA.
3. Center for Mental Health Services (2001) Evaluation of the PATH Grant Program. Rockville, MD: CMHS. Lam, J.A., Rosenheck, R. (1999) Street outreach for homeless persons with serious mental illness. Medical Care 37 (9): 894-907. Tsemberis, S., Elfenbein, C. (1999) A perspective on voluntary and involuntary outreach services for the homeless mentally ill. New Directions for Mental Health Services 82: 9-19. Morse, G.A., Calsyn, R.J., Miller, J., et al. (1996) Outreach to homeless mentally ill people. Community Mental Health Journal 32 (3): 261-274. Bybee, D. Mowbray, C.T., Cohen, E.H. (1995) Evaluation of a homeless mentally ill outreach program. Evaluation and Program Planning 18(1): 13-24.
4. Ziguras, S.J., Stuart, G.W. (2000) A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mental health case management over 20 years. Psychiatric Services 51(11): 1410-1421. Morse, G. (1999) A review of case management for people who are homeless. In Fosburg, L. Dennis, D. (eds), Practical Lessons. Washington, DC: HHS & HUD; Lehman, A.F., Dixon, L.B., Kernan, E., DeForge, B.R. (1997) A randomized trial of assertive community treatment for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry 54: 1038-1043. Morse, G., Calsyn, R., Klinkenberg, et al. (1997) An experimental comparison of three types of case management for homeless mentally ill persons. Psychiatric Services 48(4): 497-503. Burns, B.J., Santos, A.B. (1995) Assertive community treatment. Psychiatric Services 46 (7): 669-675. Dixon, L.B., Krauss, N., Kernan, et al. (1995) Modifying the PACT model to serve homeless persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 46(7): 684-688.
5. Culhane, D.P., Metraux, S., Hadley, T. (2001) The Impact of Supportive Housing for Homeless People with Severe Mental Illness on the Utilization of the Public Health, Corrections and Emergency Shelter Systems. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation. Lipton, F.R., Siegel, C., Hannigan, A.,et al. (2000) Tenure in supportive housing for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 51(4): 479-486. Tsemberis, S., Eisenberg, R.F. (2000) Pathways to housing: Supported housing for street-dwelling homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Services 51(4): 487-493. Rosenheck, R., Morrissey, J., Lam, J., et al. (1998) Service system integration, access to services, and housing outcomes in a program for homeless persons with severe mental illness. American Journal of Public Health 88(11): 1610-1615. Shern, D., Felton, C., Hough, R., et al. (1997) Housing outcomes for homeless adults with mental illness. Psychiatric Services 48 (2): 239-241. Goldfinger, S.M., Schutt, R.K. (1996) Comparisons of clinicians' housing recommendations and preferences of homeless mentally ill persons. Psychiatric Services 47(4): 413-415. Hurlburt, M.S., Wood, P.A., Hough, R.L. (1996) Providing independent housing for the homeless mentally ill. Journal of Community Psychology 24 (3): 291-310.
6. Rosenheck, R., Dennis, D. (in press) Time-limited assertive community treatment of homeless persons with severe mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. Shinn, M., Baumohl, J. (1999) Rethinking the prevention of homelessness. In Fosburg, L.B., Dennis, D.L. (eds.), Practical Lessons. Washington, DC: HHS & HUD. Interagency Council on the Homeless (1999) Exemplary Practices in Discharge Planning. Washington, DC: Interagency Council on the Homeless. Lezak, A., Edgar, E. (1998) Preventing Homelessness Among People with Serious Mental Illnesses. Rockville, MD: CMHS. Averyt, J.M., Kuno, E., Rothbard, A., Culhane, D. (1997) Impact of Continuity of Care on Recurrence of Homelessness Following an Acute Psychiatric Episode. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research, University of Pennsylvania. Susser, E., Valencia, E., Conover, S., et al. (1997) Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men. American Journal of Public Health 87(2): 256-262.