Shelter monitors warn of 'fundamental access problem' as San Francisco loses beds and waits for funding

Quentin Mechkey, chair of the Shelter Monitoring Committee, told the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee on Sept. 9 that the city's shelter system is facing “a fundamental access problem” after a quarterly review found dozens of operational shortfalls and growing demand.

Mechkey said the committee’s June report, covering Jan. 1–Mar. 31, 2008, included 16 site visits and documented a range of problems from inoperable toilets to shortages of basic hygiene supplies. Since the April 28 implementation of the city's 31 standards of care, the committee has received 47 individual standard‑of‑care complaints; “the majority of the complaints, around 68%, were regarding staff and shelter safety,” Mechkey said.

Why it matters: the committee reported that the city has lost roughly 400 shelter beds over four years, citing recent closures including Ella Hill Hutch (about 100 beds) and Buster’s Place, and said 150 Otis — a 24‑hour drop‑in site for men — faces closure at the end of the year. Those losses, Mechkey said, have produced high turnaway counts. On one monitoring visit to Tenderloin Health, staff documented 74 people who signed up for a sleeping unit and 34 who actually received one; at 150 Otis the committee observed 90 reservation requests and 34 placements on a single day.

Mechkey also described operational problems driven by policy and logistics: pillows and sheets purchased with last year’s budget add‑back were reportedly not distributed at some sites; laundry, dinner and service hours sometimes conflict in ways that force clients to choose between basic needs; and clients who received late‑night reservations sometimes had to travel to distant facilities with no tokens or transportation provided.

The committee urged the Rules Committee to clarify the Standard of Care complaint process. Mechkey said an interpretation attributed to the city attorney’s office requires complaints to be client‑initiated, which “hamstrings” monitors conducting site inspections because they cannot document violations they observe unless a client files a complaint.

Human Services Agency response: Joyce Crum of the Human Services Agency acknowledged the scale of the challenge and said the agency intends to make access a priority after a proposed McKinney NOFA application to HUD is submitted. Crum said some resources are being aligned: a prior $300,000 add‑back funded hygiene work and a part‑time nutritionist, and the current fiscal year includes a $200,000 add‑back to the Department of Public Health (DPH) to support ongoing implementation. She said the local homeless coordinating board will lead access work when timing allows, noting the HUD NOFA deadline had been extended 30 days.

DPH staffing: David Akanishi of the Department of Public Health told the committee the second support position for the Shelter Monitoring Committee had been prioritized and that the posting would be submitted that week. “We are expediting the hiring of that position as quickly as possible,” he said.

Public comment: witnesses and clients who spoke during the meeting underscored apparent mismatch between vacant beds reported at night and turnaway counts, questioned committee processes and asked for improved transparency and faster distribution of supplies and services.

Committee action and next step: the Rules Committee accepted the report and agreed to continue the item, asking the Shelter Monitoring Committee and city agencies to return with a six‑month update on implementation, staffing and access measures.

What’s next: the committee requested an expedited hiring timeline for the DPH position supporting shelter monitoring and asked for clearer interagency coordination on distribution of supplies, reservation logistics, transportation tokens and targets for restoring lost beds.