San Francisco, Five Years On, Axes Program That Provided Free Vodka to Homeless Alcoholics

San Francisco has quietly pulled the plug on one of the most expensive and eyebrow-raising social programs in modern American municipal history: a taxpayer-funded initiative that dispensed metered doses of beer and liquor to homeless alcoholics living in a former Tenderloin hotel. Serving just 55 participants over a five-year period, the program ran up a tab averaging $454,000 per client before a new mayor finally called time this past January. Mayor Daniel Lurie has quietly terminated the $5 million-a-year Managed Alcohol Program, known internally as MAP, as part of a broader push to overhaul the city’s approach to homelessness and addiction.“For years, San Francisco was spending $5 million a year to provide alcohol to people who were struggling with homelessness and addiction. It doesn’t make sense, and we’re ending it,” Mr. Lurie told the California Post. “We have ended every city contract for that program.”The program was created by the San Francisco Department of Public Health in April 2020, when the city began housing homeless people in hotels during the lockdown. The original rationale had a narrow logic: with bars shuttered and liquor stores stripped of foot traffic, chronic alcoholics faced the real risk of life-threatening withdrawal.Nurses administered controlled doses of vodka and beer to keep clients stable. Yet, the scheme continued long after the pandemic ended. Taxpayers, naturally, got the bill.“San Francisco’s program was a misapplication transforming what is supposed to be an emergency and temporary treatment intervention into an institutionalized social support system,” a global risk management expert, Dennis Santiago, tells The New York Sun. “It was a bad idea to let the program evolve in that direction.”A bar tab that kept growingThe 20-bed program operated out of a former hotel in the heart of the Tenderloin neighborhood on a $5 million annual budget. Nurses provided clients with a room, three meals a day, and enough alcohol “to meet their addiction needs, but keeping someone at a safe level of intoxication,” according to Alice Moughamian, the nurse manager of the program.The math is hard to ignore: the program served 55 clients over its lifetime, averaging about $454,000 per person. This figure does not include the broader operational and administrative costs of the nonprofit contracted to run it. A spokesperson for Community Forward, the San Francisco nonprofit that operated the program under a city contract since 2023, confirmed officials had terminated the contract.The program’s stated goal, however, was not recovery.“Our goal at MAP is not to decrease the amount of alcohol that is consumed, or to taper someone towards abstinence,” Ms. Moughamian said in the October presentation. “The goal is to mitigate the many health, legal and interpersonal harms associated with unsafe alcohol use.”Clients received primary care referrals, psychiatric services, help securing government identification, wellness activities, life skills classes, and cultural outings.Defenders pointed to reductions in emergency room visits and ambulance rides. In a 2024 video presentation, a health department official highlighted one client who went from 36 emergency room visits annually to fewer than 10. Yet, critics pointed to the bottom line and asked a simpler question: was this the best use of $5 million a year in a city careening toward fiscal ruin?The science behind the controversyThe debate over managed alcohol programs is not simply a political one. Research shows that harm reduction strategies can be helpful for severe alcohol use disorder. According to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, an internal analysis of MAP found a fourfold reduction in emergency department usage by clients in the six months after intake compared to the six months prior, and clients called emergency medical services and visited the hospital half as often.A 2022 review of managed alcohol program studies found that these programs can reduce alcohol-related harms and improve outcomes for those with severe alcohol use disorder. Similar programs have been in use across Canada for over two decades.Yet the research has limits. A McMaster University synthesis reviewed 22 publications on managed alcohol programs and found that not one met the bar for a formal scientific review — a thin evidence base for a program costing nearly half a million dollars per person. For critics, the numbers alone make the case.“$454,000 per client could have funded multiple long-term residential treatment beds, job training, or permanent supportive housing for several people,” the political strategist and managing director of Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas, tells the Sun. “When the cost of ‘harm reduction’ becomes this exorbitant, it stops being compassionate and becomes fiscal malpractice.”On abstinence-based alternatives, he doesn’t mince words.“Abstinence-based treatment is not only realistic, but it is also the only approach that offers genuine long-term recovery,” Mr. Thomas continues. “Enabling addiction with government-supplied alcohol does not treat the underlying problem. It manages it at enormous public expense.”On the flipside, supporters say the city’s own data showed $1.7 million in savings from reduced emergency services in just the first six months and that five clients alone had racked up more than $4 million in ambulance costs before entering the program.A city at a crossroadsSan Francisco’s decision to shutter the program, however, did not occur in a vacuum. The city is facing a nearly $936 million budget deficit across the next two fiscal years, according to a city report released in December, with federal and state cuts projected to pull more than $300 million more from programs including food assistance and Medi-Cal. Against that backdrop, a program serving 55 people at $5 million a year became an easy, if symbolically significant, target.“Price per client history of San Francisco’s program rivals intensive care hospital treatment cost numbers. It definitely does change the ethical calculus because so many people could have been treated for so many other socially important issues for the same price,” observes Mr. Santiago. “The question is not whether to evaluate this program in isolation, but to look at it in the context of the greater social needs of the entire community. In this sense, the program was an utter failure and a classic example of mission creep overcoming common sense.”Mr. Lurie has since framed his approach under the banner of his “Breaking the Cycle” initiative — a strategy emphasizing treatment and transitional housing over open-ended harm management. In May, he signed the Recovery First Act, establishing long-term remission through recovery as the city’s primary policy goal for treating substance use disorders.Under the new administration, San Francisco has opened hundreds of new recovery and treatment beds — yet advocates say demand still far outpaces capacity, and many residents seeking help continue to face long waits for treatment.The city’s homelessness crisis will not be solved by ending one 20-bed program. Thousands of people remain on the streets, and the Tenderloin shows little sign of changing. What has changed is the city’s position: that managing addiction with a government-supplied drink is not a viable policy — and that taxpayer dollars should point people toward recovery, not just keep them comfortable.“It tells us San Francisco’s priorities were badly misplaced,” Mr. Thomas says. “What began as a temporary pandemic response became a permanent taxpayer-funded liquor distribution program, a perfect symbol of progressive governance that confuses compassion with enabling. You really have to ask, where’s the recovery in all of this?”

San Francisco, Five Years On, Axes Program That Provided Free Vodka to Homeless Alcoholics

More from the New York Sun

Back to the USSR, Russian Wait in Gas Lines — and Fume

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democrats’ New Voting Math

Trump-Backed Candidate for Georgia Governor Loses His Primary to Billionaire First-Time Candidate

More from the New York Sun

Back to the USSR, Russian Wait in Gas Lines — and Fume

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democrats’ New Voting Math

Trump-Backed Candidate for Georgia Governor Loses His Primary to Billionaire First-Time Candidate

Democrats Withhold Judgment on Clayton’s Nomination To Be Spy Chief, Choosing To Wait for Answers at Confirmation Hearing

Warsh’s First Press Conference as Fed Chairman Could Offer Clues About His Promised Reforms

Justice Department Seeks To Join Lawsuit Challenging Evanston’s Reparations Program

Hegseth Presses GOP Lawmakers for $350 Billion Pentagon Spending Increase Atop $1.1 Trillion Defense Appropriations

After Court Loss, East Village Group Says Fight Over Mamdani’s Homeless Intake Center Plan Is Far From Over