IV. ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY, INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE, AND COORDINATION

A. ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY AND COORDINATION

This chapter includes an analysis of 1990 poverty data and more recent Welfare to Work information, as well as a description of the City's Anti-poverty strategy, and programs that MOCD, MOH and the SFRA fund in support of this effort.

1. STRATEGIES TO MOVE FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS OUT OF POVERTY

The City of San Francisco, through the leadership of the Mayor and the Department of Human Services (DHS), has developed a comprehensive workforce development strategy with the cornerstone of the initiative being the California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) and Personal Assisted Employment Services (PAES) programs. The goal of the workforce development strategy is to secure stable employment and permanent exits from poverty for low-income residents of the City. To reach this goal, the City is working to establish a highly coordinated workforce development system to link welfare recipients and other low income residents with an array of job readiness, skills training, job placement, retention, career advancement and support services.

The major objectives of CalWORKs and PAES are:

• To establish strong policy and program linkages between economic development and job creation activities, and job training, placement and retention services.

• To build a partnership between job seekers, the employer community and service providers.

• To create on-the-job and/or work experience opportunities for individuals transitioning from welfare to work.

• To expand childcare resources to make it possible for parents to participate in work or training.

• To establish career centers in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods to bring public agencies responsible for employment services to people who need the services.

• To provide supportive services to people seeking to enter the labor market to remove barriers to their success.

• To strengthen child support enforcement systems and support to non-custodial parents to ensure maximum income to families with children.

The City has taken active steps to implement programs and partnerships in order to meet the aforementioned objectives. The City's actions are described in subsection 4 of this narrative.

2. PROFILE OF SAN FRANCISCO: 1990 AND 1999

According to October 1999 U.S. Census Bureau figures, the current poverty threshold for a family of four is $16,660. By comparison, the 1990 poverty line was set at $13,359 for a family of four. For two-person elderly households (at least 65 years old), the poverty threshold is currently $9,862. In 1990, for the same household type, the poverty line was set at $7,905.

a. 1990 Profile - Neighborhood and Demographic Analysis

Locally, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that in 1990 approximately 12.7 percent of the City's residents had incomes below the poverty line. The neighborhoods with the most significant rates of poverty are presented in Table IV-1. Not surprisingly, most of the neighborhoods identified in the table are the same neighborhoods that were designated by the Federal government as either Enterprise Communities or Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas.

Table IV-1: Neighborhoods with the Most Significant Poverty Rates in 1990

Neighborhood	Zip Code	% of Persons Below the Poverty Line
Tenderloin*/Hayes Valley/ North of Market	94102	26.4%
Bayview-Hunters Point**	94124	26.2%
South of Market**	94103	24.6%
Potrero Hill	94107	20%
Chinatown*	94108	18.4%
Inner Mission/Bernal Hts	94110	18.3%
North Beach/Chinatown*	94133	15.7%
Visitacion Valley**	94134	15.2%

(Note: * denotes Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas. ** Denotes Enterprise Communities. From DPH 4/99 study Building a Healthier San Francisco: A Citywide Collaborative Community Assessment)

According to the April, 1999 DPH study, the 1990 census data indicates that there were 7 neighborhoods with significant rates of adults aged 18 - 64 with incomes below the poverty line (Table IV-2). Additionally, this study reported that the highest percentage of elderly persons with incomes under the poverty threshold in 1990 were living in Chinatown, South of Market, and North Beach.

Table IV-2: Neighborhoods with the Highest Rates of Poverty for Persons between 18 - 64

Zip Code	Neighborhood	% of persons living below poverty line
94102	Tenderloin, Hayes Valley, North of Market	24.7%
94103	South of Market	24.2%
94124	Bayview-Hunters Point	21.7%
94107	Potrero Hill	17.0%
94110	Inner Mission and Bernal Heights	16.9%
94108	Chinatown	16.4%
94104	Rincon, Telegraph Hill and Embarcadero	15.3%

From DPH 4/99 study Building a Healthier San Francisco: A Citywide Collaborative Community Assessment.

According to the 1990 census, Caucasians made up 39.1 percent of the City population living in poverty, 29.4 percent of the City's impoverished population was Asian/Pacific Islander, and 22.3 percent was composed of African-American households. A total of 8.2 percent of those living under the poverty line identified themselves as other, and 1 percent of the impoverished population were Native Americans.

While 22.3 percent of the impoverished City population was African-American in 1990, as a group, African-Americans comprised only 10.8 percent of the City's population. In 22 of 23 City neighborhoods, African-Americans were disproportionately impoverished compared to the number of African-Americans residing in those neighborhoods. For example, in Visitacion Valley, African-Americans made up 22.4 percent of the neighborhood population, but 59.7 percent of these households were living below the poverty line. In the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, 64.9 percent of the residents were African-American in 1990, and 72.5 percent of African-Americans living in this neighborhood were living below the poverty line. Likewise, in Potrero Hill, and in the Western Addition/Japantown, where African-Americans made up approximately one-quarter of the neighborhood population respectively, over 50 percent of the African-American households living in these neighborhoods had incomes below the poverty line.

Asian/Pacific Islanders made up 29.4 percent of the City's population in 1990, and the census reported that 29.4 percent of the impoverished population was composed of Asian/Pacific Islanders. Analyzing poverty on the neighborhood level, as presented in Table IV-3, Asian/Pacific Islanders are over-represented among the impoverished in Chinatown, North Beach, in the Inner and Outer Richmond, and in the Rincon/Telegraph Hill/Embarcadero area. In Chinatown, 61.9 percent of the population is Asian/Pacific Islander, and 73.3 percent of the persons that are living below poverty in Chinatown are Asian/Pacific Islander. For Asian/Pacific Islanders living in the Inner Richmond, and in the Sunset (which includes Parkside), the number of families living at or below the poverty line was proportionate to the number of families living in these neighborhoods. However, in neighborhoods like Ingleside/Excelsior, South of Market, Visitacion Valley, Bayview-Hunters Point, and the Inner Mission, the proportion of impoverished Asian/Pacific Islanders were underrepresented relative to the neighborhood composition.

Table IV-3: Percentage of Asian/Pacific Islanders Living Below the Poverty Line by Selected Neighborhood

Neighborhood	Zip Code	% A/PI Population	% A/PI Under Poverty
North Beach/Chinatown	94133	61.1%	76.3%
Chinatown	94108	61.9%	73.3%
Outer Richmond	94121	47.3%	56.1%
Parkside	94116	43.5%	45.9%
Sunset	94122	41%	43.2%
Rincon/Tel, Hill/Embarcadero	94104/94105/ 94111	22.8%	53.7%
Inner Richmond	94118	39.7%	44.6%
Tenderloin/Hayes Valley/ North of Market	94102	25.5%	33.7%
South of Market	94103	28.3%	21%
Visitacion Valley	94134	43.4%	19.2%
Ingleside/Excelsior/Crocker Amazon	94112	36.3%	26.3%
Bayview-Hunters Point	94124	20.3%	16.4%

From DPH 4/99 study Building a Healthier San Francisco: A Citywide Collaborative Community Assessment

b. 1999 Profile

Current income estimates of San Francisco residents shows that approximately 14.5 percent of the local populace have incomes below the 1999 poverty level, which is a 2.6 percent increase over 1990 poverty figures. Further analysis of income data indicates that the number of households with incomes between $15,000 to $49,999 has decreased during the last decade, while the number of households with incomes over $50,000 has increased over the same period. For households earning more than $100,000, the change has been significant. During the last decade the number of households within this income bracket has grown by 13.6 percent. There has been a growth rate of 5.7 percent for households earning between $75,000 and $99,999 over the last ten years. The data clearly shows the growing disparity in income between the rich and the poor.

While there is no current data that can pinpoint the number of families and individuals that are living in poverty in San Francisco, there is useful demographic data collected on participants in the City's Welfare Reform Programs: CalWORKs and PAES. The demographic information can be treated as an indicator of neighborhoods that may be significantly impoverished, as well as provide a profile of CalWORKs and PAES clients who are as a group, living below the poverty line.

3. NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

The most recent information reported by the San Francisco Department of Human Services provides interesting comparative information on the percentage of families and individual accessing Welfare to Work programs. As indicated in the table below, the majority of participants in the CalWORKs programs are located in the Southeastern section of the City, while PAES participants are more evenly distributed throughout the City, with SoMA, the Tenderloin, and Bayview-Hunters Point showing the highest rates of PAES participation. It is important to note that 39 percent of the PAES caseload is reported to be homeless.

The majority of the neighborhoods with significant Welfare to Work participation are neighborhoods with high estimated poverty rates as indicated in Table IV-4. One conclusion to draw from this analysis is that the City has been successful in its efforts to target job training, placement and supportive services to families and individuals that are living in the most impoverished neighborhoods. Additionally, DHS reports in its October 1999 CalWORKs Quarterly Survey that 24 percent of CalWORKs participants resided in public housing.

Table IV-4: Neighborhoods with Significant Rates of Welfare to Work Program Participation in Comparison with 1999 Neighborhood Poverty Data Estimates

Neighborhood	Zip Code	% of CalWORKs Single and Two-Parent Households, October, 1999	% of Individuals Participa-ting in PAES June, 1999	Estimated % of Neighborhood Households Below the 1999 Poverty Line
Bayview-Hunters Point*	94124	19.3%	6.3%	21%
Inner Mission* and Bernal Heights	94110	9.8%	5.0%	12.6%
Visitacion Valley*	94134	10.5%	3.3%	19%
Ingleside/Excelsior	94112	8.8%	3.8%	6.7%***
Richmond	94121,94118	7.0%	5.8%	9.6%
Tenderloin**, Hayes Valley & North of Market	94102	7.5%	7.0%	50.2%
Sunset	94122 ,94116	6.5%	4.7%	9.3%
Western Addition	94115	5.6%	2.5%	28.4%
South of Market Area*	94103	3.9%	7.3%	28%
Chinatown**	94108	.8%	1.0%	26.9%

Note: * identifies Enterprise Community neighborhoods, ** identifies Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas. *** Figure is for the Excelsior only. The estimated poverty rate for the OMI is 10.8%.(Information from October and June, 1999 DHS Quarterly surveys of CalWORKs and PAES participants and Claritas 1999 U.S. Census Estimates.)

However, according to DHS data presented above, Welfare to Work participation is significantly low in Chinatown, the Tenderloin, SoMA and the Western Addition, in comparison to the 1990 and 1999 poverty rate estimates. It is unclear from the review of existing data why Welfare to Work participation is so low in these three neighborhoods. Given the fact that participation in CalWORKs and PAES is dependent upon a person's residency status, it is possible that a significant number of poor Asian/Pacific Islander households either can not or believe they can not participate in such programs. Another possibility may be that there are not enough job training programs and jobs for persons with limited English proficiency.

A significant percentage of the CalWORKs participants in single-parent households come from the Southeast Section: Bayview-Hunters Point, the Mission, and Visitacion Valley. Two-parent household participants are more evenly distributed amongst all neighborhoods, with the highest concentrations in the Tenderloin, Bayview-Hunters Point, and the Inner Mission.

According to most recent data, 48.7 percent of single-parent household CalWORKs participants are African-American, 15.5 percent are of Hispanic origin, and 9.7% are Caucasian. Asian/Pacific Islanders comprise 22 percent of this subset of CalWORKs participants, with 8.1% being Chinese, and 5.1 percent Vietnamese. (Source: 4/99 DHS CalWORKS Quarterly Survey )

For families with two parents, 63 percent of the CalWORKs participants are Asian/Pacific Islander. Of this figure, two-parent Chinese households make up 33.6 percent of the client base, and Vietnamese households comprise 20.4 percent of this sub-population. A total of 12.3 percent of the participants are of Russian origin, 9.4 percent are Hispanic, and 8.2 percent are African-American.

In terms of family size, 51.1 percent of single-parent households have one child, and 28 percent have two children. For two-parent households, 31.8 percent have one child, and a slightly higher percentage, 37.5 percent , have two children. Current data also reports that the majority of CalWORKs participants are between 20 and 49 years of age for both single-parent and two-parent households.

For single individuals participating in the PAES program, 45.1 percent are African-American, 25 percent are Caucasian, 10.9 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander (6.1 percent are Chinese), 8.9 percent are Russian, and 7.5 percent are Hispanic. In terms of age, 24.1 percent of the participants are 30 - 39, 34.9 percent are 40 -49, and 19.1 percent are 50 - 59. Only 11.4 percent of the PAES client-base are under the age of 30. (Source: 6/99 DHS PAES Quarterly Survey)

DHS conducted a survey during June and July of 1998 of CalWORKs participants that had secured jobs. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain what types of job participants had obtained, how participants found out about the jobs, the likelihood of advancement and salary increases, and what supportive services the participants were accessing. The results found that the majority of persons that obtained employment were from the Bayview-Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, Outer Richmond, the Mission and the Sunset. The study also discovered that the most common neighborhoods for participants to obtain employment were in the following neighborhoods: Bayview-Hunters Point, the Tenderloin, South of Market, Polk Gulch and the Inner Richmond. (Source: 6/99 SF CalWORKS Employed Participant Phone Survey conducted between 6/98 and 7/98.)

4. SPECIFIC INITIATIVES

a. Employment and Job Creation Programs

The City has been able to link job training, placement and retention services with job creation activities. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted the First Source Hiring Ordinance in August, 1998. This ordinance established the mechanisms for working with employers who anticipated creating new jobs as a result of the City's economic development activities. Information about future employment opportunities is being used to ensure that low-income job seekers have access to relevant training programs and are then referred directly to employers who will be hiring new employees. The First Source ordinance was developed to surpass the federal Section 3 local hiring requirements. Employer feedback is essential to the process of ensuring the quality of the job training and retention services.

The City works with economic forecasting institutions to develop and disseminate detailed local job growth information to ensure market-driven investment and strategically targeted job development. Additionally, in partnership with the State's Employment Development Department, (EDD), job openings can be placed on the EDD "Powerline" on-line jobs listing system, and then shared with job training and placement agencies.

In partnership with the local business community, and community service agencies, DHS has helped launch two innovative initiatives called "San Francisco Works" and the "Jobs Network", both created to help people transition from welfare to work. Both of these programs represent a long-term commitment to work with public and community agencies to provide job-readiness and skills development services to welfare recipients and place them in identified jobs in the private sector.

Additionally, City agencies have developed partnerships with City College of San Francisco (CCSF) and over forty community-based training organizations to provide targeted services to participants with special needs or interests, including language-specific services, services for people with physical disabilities and remedial programs. The City is also working with several unions for pre-apprenticeship training programs and job placement in union positions.

For welfare recipients with no or minimal work histories, the City has established the "Community Jobs Initiative". This program serves to provide these persons with jobs to develop paid work experience in closely supervised environments. The jobs, which are provided by non-profit and public agencies, are designed to teach marketable skills. Instead of receiving welfare payments while participating in this program, the workers receive paychecks and are eligible to receive the earned income tax credit. Participants of this program are provided with six to nine months of job coaching, after which they will be placed in the unsubsidized job market. The Irvine Foundation, the Walter and Elise Haas Fund, and the Rockefeller Foundation have jointly committed to support the project with technical assistance and a comprehensive program evaluation. The Community Jobs Initiative is the first of its kind in California.

In 1998, neighborhood career centers were opened in the Bayview-Hunters Point, Mission, and Polk Gulch neighborhoods. The intent of these centers is to make it easier for welfare recipients and other low-income persons to access employment services provided through community-based agency and private sector initiatives. These centers include staff from DHS, the Private Industry Council, EDD, the Department of Rehabilitation, CCSF, and the National Council on Aging, and counselors who can link participants to appropriate supportive services.

Additionally, the City has partnered with private agencies to establish Family Resource Centers in the Mission, Western Addition, Bayview-Hunters Point, Potrero Hill, and the Ocean-Merced-Ingleside district and within the Asian/Pacific Islander Community. While not exclusively for families involved in CalWORKs, the resource centers work with families under stress to resolve parenting and living issues, which can have a great impact upon a person's ability to participate in job training programs, and obtain and retain a job.

The supportive services infrastructure the City has developed is comprehensive in scope. It includes child care vouchers, back-up child care for children who can not attend regular child care due to illness, public transit passes, mental health, and substance abuse and domestic violence counseling. The City also operates two pilot programs to increase child support paid to low-income families. The "Noncustodial Parent Employment and Training Project" launched in early 1999, provides welfare-to-work services to noncustodial parents who are not fulfilling family support obligations because of unemployment or underemployment. Through the "Child Support Assurance Program" which will commence in 2000, the City will make the court-ordered payments to a limited number of families and pursue reimbursement from the noncustodial parent. These payments will not count against the custodial parent's lifetime TANF limit, although they will still be able to participate in CalWORKs self-sufficiency programs.

One of MOCD's three community development strategies is to assist persons and families in poverty achieve economic independence. MOCD is a partner with DHS and other public and non-profit agencies in implementing the City's Anti-Poverty Strategy. For example, in 1999, MOCD allocated approximately $10,000,000 for a variety of workforce development activities. Workforce development activities are defined by MOCD as activities that contribute to comprehensively preparing economically disadvantaged individuals for employment, including essential services necessary for persons to make a successful transition to employment. CDBG and ESG funds are used to fund programs that provide actual employment training and other workforce development skills. In addition, CDBG and ESG funds are targeted to other programs that help stabilize families which are described below.

b. Public Services Program

The CDBG (and ESG) funds assist a multitude of different types of activities, including: job training and employment referrals; English-as-a-Second-Language instruction; legal counseling; health services; domestic violence services; recreational activities for children; child care; services for the homeless; and other services which contribute to the well-being of the members of the community. These programs must assist low and moderate-income residents, which can include the severely disabled, homeless, persons with AIDS, abused children, seniors and battered spouses. To the extent possible, this program provides funding for the most essential human needs. The Public Service program complements CDBG-funded physical projects, such as housing rehabilitation or new neighborhood facilities, and works as a component of a larger, more comprehensive approach to neighborhood revitalization.

c. Existing Facilities Rehabilitation, New Facilities, Child Care Center Development Loan Program, Facility Emergency Relief and Disability Upgrade Programs

The existing facilities rehabilitation program is targeted to facilities which provide essential services to low and moderate-income residents. MOCD has also established a Child Care Center Development Loan Program, and partners with DCYF, DHS and the Low Income Housing Fund to provide capital funding for the creation of new child care facilities and the preservation of existing centers whose main focus is to serve children of low and moderate income San Francisco families. Rehabilitation of existing facilities preserves and expands the service capacities of existing centers that provide activities for children, youth, adults, and seniors. Funds are available for new facilities in high need, lower income areas if current needs are not being met by existing centers. Facility Emergency Relief Grants provide emergency capital funding to existing facilities that encounter unforeseen code problems during construction. The Disability Access Upgrade Program funds the renovation of buildings to make CDBG services accessible to persons with disabilities.

d. Affordable Housing Development

The affordable housing development activities described elsewhere in the Consolidated Plan are a part of the City's anti-poverty strategy in several ways. Fundamentally, affordable housing development is seen as an activity carried out in the context of overall neighborhood development and of addressing the range of needs of the residents of the housing. If the non-shelter needs of the residents are not met, the goals of developing affordable housing are not fully met.

Affordable housing development includes as an essential component the creation of activities and services for the residents which enable them to overcome poverty. Thus, rental housing developments funded by MOH and the SFRA include services such as child care facilities, resident training programs, and supportive services designed to allow the residents to access employment and business opportunities. MOH's lead hazard reduction program is specifically targeted to the homes of low-income persons who provide child care or foster care services, enabling these residents to attain economic stability.

Finally, the extensive efforts to develop affordable housing entail construction projects of various sizes and scopes, from small projects to multimillion-dollar developments. Especially on the larger projects, MOH ensures that very-low income neighborhood residents have opportunities to access the employment opportunities on these developments through the Section 3 and First Source hiring programs.

B. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

The institutional structure for delivering affordable housing and community development services to residents of San Francisco consists of a variety of local governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations and private sector entities. For clarity, the delivery of affordable housing development services, homeless services and community development services are described separately below. However, there are a variety of linkages among the providers of services in these different categories. For example, coordination of affordable housing development and community development services takes place within the Mayor's Office, between MOH and MOCD. Many housing developers also collaborate with homeless service providers to address specific needs of developments which serve formerly homeless persons. These linkages among categories will be described in each section.

1. INSTITUTIONS WITH OVERALL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DELIVERY OF SERVICES

Most of the entities involved in the delivery of affordable housing and community development services are discussed below in the section in which their role is most prominent. The City's elected officials, however, oversee the delivery of all these services.

Mayor. The Mayor is the elected chief executive officer of the City. The Mayor, through his Office of Housing, Homelessness Coordinator, and Office of Community Development, carries out delivery of services and coordinates the activities of other City departments. The Mayor's Office prepares the City's annual draft budget and makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for allocation of General Fund and other monies to be used for housing, homeless programs and community development. The Mayor may also sponsor legislation setting policies and establishing programs in those areas. The Mayor appoints members of the commissions which oversee many of the departments involved in delivering services, including the Redevelopment Commission, the Planning Commission, the Health Commission, the Human Services Commission, the Housing Commission of the Housing Authority, the Citizens Committee on Community Development and the Human Rights Commission.

Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is the elected governing body of the City and County of San Francisco. As such, it establishes by ordinance and resolution the policies which affect the delivery of affordable housing, homeless services and community development services in San Francisco. The Board also establishes budgets and funding levels for programs which assist these services. The Board approves the lease or disposition of publicly owned land as sites for affordable housing development or community development facilities. Finally, the Board reviews and approves the zoning and conditional use actions of the Planning Commission. Actions of the Board are required to be approved by the Mayor, whose veto can be overridden by vote of eight of the eleven supervisors. Beginning in November, 2000, members of the Board of Supervisors will be elected by district, rather than City-wide as has been the case to present.

2. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DELIVERY SYSTEM

This section examines the institutional structure by which the City creates and maintains affordable housing²⁴ and delivers services linked with that housing. It includes a general review of the major components of both the housing development and services delivery systems, and recommends actions to be taken to improve those systems.

a. General Structure of the Housing Development System

The three major components of the delivery system for the production of affordable housing in San Francisco are the public sector, the private non-profit sector, and the commercial sector. Their primary roles and interrelationships are discussed below.

In order to coordinate the activities of these sectors, the Mayor established the CHAS Advisory Committee in 1996. The CHAS Committee was charged with the responsibility of advising the Mayor on affordable housing planning, development and preservation planning, identifying and recommending solutions to problems in the City's housing delivery system, and producing and monitoring the City's long range and annual plans for affordable housing.

Membership of the CHAS Advisory Committee includes senior staff representatives of all City Departments and Agencies that play a role in planning or developing affordable housing or housing related services and it includes representatives of community-based provider and advocacy networks and coalitions. The CHAS Committee meets monthly and is coordinated and staffed by the Mayor's Office of Housing. Subcommittees of the CHAS have been established from time to time to address such issues as supportive housing, public housing, community acceptance and public housing in more depth. Although some subcommittees have been disbanded when their work was completed, others are standing committees and are expected to function for the foreseeable future.

Coordination also exists at the level of individual project funding decisions. The Director of MOH, the Mayor's Homeless Coordinator and the Executive Director of SFRA comprise the Citywide Affordable Housing Loan Committee. This committee makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and the Redevelopment Commission for affordable housing development throughout the City. MOH staff works closely with SFRA staff in issuing requests for proposals on a regular basis to seek applications for particular types of developments. RFPs are generally issued for projects to serve specific populations (family renters, single persons, seniors, people requiring supportive services, etc.). Staff jointly develop funding and general policy recommendations to the Loan Committee.

b. The Roles of Local Government Entities in Affordable Housing Production

Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH). The Mayor's Office of Housing is the City's primary affordable housing agency, operating out of the Mayor's Office. The responsibilities of MOH include:

• Administration of Community Development Block Grant activities with respect to housing. The staff of MOH administer the CDBG-funded site acquisition and rehabilitation loan programs; the monitoring of housing development and technical assistance subgrantees; and monitoring of ongoing compliance of developments funded with CDBG funds.

• Administration of the HOME Investments Partnership Program.

• Administration of HUD special and competitive grants for housing, when received by the City, including Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Grants.

• Administration of City-funded housing finance programs including the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Bond Program, Hotel Tax Fund, the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program, and (jointly with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency) the City-wide Affordable Housing Program funded by tax increment funds. In certain cases, where the fund is under the administration of another City department, MOH makes funding recommendations to those department heads, and administers the funds if approved.

• Administration of housing revenue bond financed programs including single-family and multifamily projects, and of the mortgage credit certificate program.

• Providing technical assistance to subgrantees and other housing developers in coordinating their applications for other sources of assistance such as state housing funds, low income housing tax credits, Section 202, Section 312, and other programs.

• Monitoring of projects funded by City and mortgage revenue bond monies for ongoing compliance with legal and regulatory agreement requirements, including the resale of single family units developed with bond funds or converted under the Condominium Conversion Ordinance.

• Advising and representing the Mayor with respect to housing policy issues including planning issues, rent control, code compliance and similar issues, and coordinating the efforts of other City departments in housing program initiatives.

• In cooperation with the Planning Department, administering the inclusionary zoning requirements on projects approved for conditional use, and developing recommendations for ensuring the long-term affordability of those units.

• Establishing standards for affirmative marketing programs for all city assisted projects, including inclusionary housing units.

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has adopted redevelopment plans in five areas, four of which include a significant number of planned housing units. The SFRA is accountable to its own Commission which establishes policy for development and provides financing for affordable housing developments. The Agency enters into development agreements with developers, establishes its own land use controls and conducts its own project approvals, some of which include affordable housing monitoring. Currently, it has its own technical staff to assist in all its activities, including affordable housing monitoring). SFRA also administers the Housing Opportunities for People with Aids (HOPWA) program for the City. The Redevelopment Commission also acts as the Housing Committee for the Affordable Housing and Homeownership Bond Program, advising the Mayor on program policies and recommending rental projects for funding.

San Francisco Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is accountable to HUD, though it is subject to land use controls established by the Planning Code. The Authority derives a portion of its revenues from rents (residents pay 30 percent of their income for rent), but its budget and its activity are substantially dependent on federal policy and programs.

The Housing Authority has established as its overall agency mission the provision of safe, decent, and sanitary housing for very low income households. An additional objective is to expand opportunities for economic stability and essential human services for the residents of public housing. The SFHA operates the city's public housing and administers the Section 8 certificate, voucher, and project-based subsidy programs.

The Authority is governed by a seven member commission appointed by the Mayor. The Commissioners are responsible for the policies and procedures of the Authority, as well as for the selection of the Authority's Executive Director.

Over 6,500 units of conventional public housing and 5,400 units subsidized through Section 8 Certificate, Section 8 Voucher, Moderate Rehabilitation and McKinney Program rent subsidies are administered by the Housing Authority. The Authority also manages over $9 million in annually in federal comprehensive rehabilitation funds for modernizing or replacing outdated units.

Mayor's Office of Community Development. Staff of MOCD carry out fiscal and administrative responsibilities for the CDBG and ESG programs as a whole, and also of MOH's non-CDBG funding sources (including HOME and non-federal funds).. They are also responsible for contract administration and monitoring of the CDBG-funded housing counseling subgrantees.

Mayor's Office of Economic Development. The Mayor's Office of Economic Development administers the City's Seismic Safety Loan Program for the upgrading of unreinforced masonry buildings.

Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Planning Commission plays a central role in the development of housing policy through the Residence Element of the General Plan. The Planning Department provides yearly data and analysis of housing trends which other agencies and the public rely on for the development of housing programs. Since the mid-1970's, it has developed several types of zoning controls which attempt to directly or indirectly encourage the retention of existing affordable housing or the production of new affordable housing. Among the mechanisms implemented by Planning Department are Affordable Housing Special Use Districts, density bonuses for senior and disabled housing, floor area ratio and height exceptions for affordable housing in certain areas, jobs-housing linkage requirements, inclusionary zoning requirements, restrictions on condominium conversions, and restrictions on the conversion of residential units to commercial or hotel uses.

Department of Human Services. The Department of Human Services administers a number of programs which deliver housing-related services to affordable housing developments assisted by other City Departments. DHS administers the federal Shelter Plus Care system, which provides rental assistance and services to households at risk of homelessness. DHS also administers the McKinney Supportive Housing Grants received by the City, including coordination of applications and services by the various nonprofit service providers. The Cal-Works program, which provides housing assistance, child care and other services to persons transitioning from welfare to work, is also administered by DHS. Finally, DHS licenses foster homes and board and care facilities.

Department of Public Health. The DPH administers public health programs through San Francisco General and Laguna Honda Hospitals, five District Health Centers, and mental health centers throughout the city. Community Mental Health Services (CMHS), a Division of DPH, operates a number of programs for specific groups, including seniors, women and children, and persons with drug and alcohol dependency. These services can be linked with affordable housing developments assisted by other City departments. Within CMHS, Community Substance Abuse Services Division provides funding for over 400 beds in residential detox and recovery facilities. Environmental Health Services enforces health and sanitation codes, and regulates hazardous wastes and toxics. They become involved in housing where toxics are an issue or where unsanitary living conditions are reported.

Human Rights Commission. The City's Human Rights Commission supports and monitors Fair Housing Access laws and reports to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors with findings and policy recommendations on issues of accessibility and discriminatory barriers. The HRC protects persons from housing discrimination on the basis of medical disability, sexual orientation, family status, race, religion, or national origin. It also assists in resolving problems with SRO hotel management and does advocacy work for disenfranchised groups. The HRC also monitors fair housing practices at housing projects which receive public assistance, and assists in correcting policies and practices with potentially discriminatory effects.

Rent Stabilization Board. The Rent Stabilization Board administers the city's rent control ordinance and hears appeals of the decisions of hearing officers who arbitrate disputes over rent increases. The Board consists of five members: two landlords, two tenants and one person who is neither, all appointed by the Mayor. The Rent Board also monitors owner move-in evictions and Ellis Act evictions and advises the Mayor on rent control and eviction policies.

Mayor's Office on Disability. The Mayor's Office on Disability (MOD) is the City's principal agency for ensuring access to City programs and facilities for people with disabilities. With respect to affordable housing development, MOD works closely with the Mayor's Office of Housing to review its programs and projects and ensure that these projects provide not only the accessibility required by federal, state and local law, but also the greatest accessibility feasible.

Commission on the Aging. The Commission on the Aging (COA) is the City's agency which coordinates programs addressing the needs of seniors. The COA has established a network of Senior Centrals throughout the City, which have as a principal function the dissemination of information about programs and services for seniors. The COA has assisted the Mayor's Office of Housing in establishing an Affordable Housing Information System, consisting of a web-based listing of affordable housing assisted by public agencies with information about the buildings, eligibility requirements, waiting lists, and how to apply. The Senior Centrals utilize this system to assist their senior clients.

Department of Children, Youth and their Families. The Department of Children, Youth and Families coordinates its family day care assistance program with the lead hazard reduction program operated by the Mayor's Office of Housing.

Department of Building Inspection (DBI). The Department of Building Inspection is responsible for the permitting and inspection of new construction and alterations, the maintenance of building records, and the enforcement of residential energy conservation standards. DBI conducts plan checking and performs building, electrical, housing, and plumbing inspections. DBI also administers the seismic retrofitting requirements of the Building Code which were enacted to strengthen unreinforced masonry buildings, many of which contain affordable rental units.

Department of Public Works (DPW). The DPW Bureau of Engineering is responsible for the development and maintenance of streets and utilities. Their decisions regarding the location, type, and scale of capital improvements influence both the feasibility of specific sites for new development, and the overall development capacity of the city.

c. The Roles of Non-Profit Entities in Affordable Housing Production

For more than two decades, nonprofit organizations have been an essential element in the City's strategy for affordable housing production. Their roles include:

Affordable Housing Production. The City's Community Development Block Grant program provides administrative funding to a number of nonprofit corporations to acquire and rehabilitate existing buildings and to acquire sites for development of new housing for low-income households. Both subgrantee and other nonprofit corporations (such as BRIDGE and Mercy Charities) have also received loans or grants from the CDBG site acquisition and rehabilitation loan pools for these activities. A number of these nonprofits qualify as Community Housing Development Organizations under the HOME program.

Administration of Rehabilitation Loan Programs for Privately Owned Properties. The subgrantee nonprofits are also provided administrative funds to operate the City's single family rehabilitation loan programs in various neighborhoods.

Housing Counseling and Technical Services. Several nonprofit organizations receive CDBG funds to provide housing counseling services and technical services to low-income households and to other non-profits. The housing counseling agencies receive housing discrimination complaints from the public, counsel complainants on their rights and remedies under state and federal laws, and work to prevent illegal lockouts, evictions and hotel conversions. The technical service agencies assist the other non-profits with feasibility studies, inspections, planning recommendations, architectural services, cost estimates, scheduling and construction administration.

Housing Services Providers. The trend toward linking affordable housing development with on-site supportive services has led to increasing collaboration between the housing developer, a service provider and the City. Such agencies as Walden House, Conard House and Progress Foundation have become essential partners in the development of affordable housing in the past five years, and are expected to continue in importance in the future.

Community Lending. Two nonprofit lenders based in San Francisco, the Low Income Housing Fund and the Northern California Community Loan Fund, play an important role in lending to affordable housing developers, particularly during the predevelopment stages of a project.

Through their Coalition of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO), the nonprofit housing developers meet monthly with representatives of the City's main affordable housing agencies (MOH, SFRA and SFHA). These meetings discuss City policies and programs, and ensure coordination of City and nonprofit efforts to develop affordable housing. A second consortium, the Treasure Island Housing Development Initiative (TIHDI), has assisted the City in developing a strategy for re-using housing made available to the City by the decommissioning of Treasure Island.

d. The Roles of Private Sector Entities in Affordable Housing Production

Lenders. A relatively small number of private financial institutions have demonstrated a willingness to participate in the development of affordable housing. Some of this participation is the result of pressure put on these institutions by regulators and community advocates. Participation is far from universal. Home mortgage lending to minorities continues to be poor almost across the full spectrum of lenders. Although the City's MCC program includes a large number of mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers (almost 100), the majority of MCC loans is originated by a handful of institutions.

Thrift institutions have established the Savings Associations Mortgage Company (SAMCO) and commercial banks have established the California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) to provide long-term, fixed interest rate permanent financing for affordable housing. Each group has a good understanding of the needs of non-profit developers, but both need increased capitalization and more participating members.

Certain commercial banks are very active construction lenders for affordable housing projects. A select few do bridge loan lending on tax credit transactions. Aside from SAMCO and CCRC, most permanent financing for multifamily projects (which usually amounts to a small part of total development cost) is provided by institutions that participate in the Federal Home Loan Bank's Affordable Housing Program. Local institutions have also been willing to participate in City bond programs as trustee and to a lesser degree as lenders.

Legal Services. A number of local corporate law firms provide legal services for non-profit housing developers. Some of these services are provided at market rate; others are pro bono, representing a significant contribution to reducing project costs. Services are also available, at customary rates, to the City's bond programs for bond counsel services. The City's bond funded developments tend to be more complex than usual due to higher affordability goals and multiple subsidies, and bond counsel has assisted the City in structuring the program to these ends.

Developers. The very high cost of development in the San Francisco area has somewhat limited the role of for-profit developers in affordable housing in recent years. Because of the large subsidies needed to build or rehabilitate affordable housing, the City has required most developers to agree to long-term affordability as a condition of receiving financing. Since in many cases for-profit developers enjoy alternative opportunities for development, their interest in affordable housing has declined.

In certain specific areas, however, for-profit developers continue to play an important role. The City's inclusionary requirements for new construction of market rate housing ensure that most new condominium developers are participating actively in developing affordable housing. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency's first time homebuyer development program has attracted developer interest, particularly among smaller and minority developers.

Rental Property Owners. Most owners of residential rental properties have little interest in providing affordable housing as such. Economic motivation, indeed, ensures that their properties will probably become less affordable over time. Certain groups of property owners, however, continue to play a role in maintaining the affordable housing stock. For-profit owners of HUD-assisted properties continue to make up a significant portion of the operators of such housing. To the extent that those owners do not seek to prepay mortgages and terminate Section 8 contracts, they will continue to provide (though not produce) affordable housing. Similarly, operators of board and care facilities provide a significant source of affordable housing, and some of these may seek to expand their facilities if assistance is available to do so.

Tax Credit Investors. As limited partners in affordable housing developments sponsored by non-profit corporations, private investors provide one of the most important sources equity for affordable housing. Continuation of the tax credit program at the federal and state levels will undoubtedly continue to induce this participation.

Architects, Engineers and Construction Contractors. The great majority of these participants in affordable housing development come from the private sector. Generally, architects, engineers and contractors are available to affordable housing developments. However, in periods when market-rate development is strong (as is currently the case), nonprofit developers experience increased costs due to the increased demand for their services.

As for factors which tend to discourage private sector participation, prevailing wage requirements and competitive bidding requirements may be cited. In large projects, prevailing wage requirements are not usually a factor, since most of the contractors competent to handle such projects are union firms. In smaller projects, however, a significant number of capable contractors choose not to participate. With respect to competitive bidding, as in other sectors of the construction industry, participants in affordable housing development often prefer a negotiated bid process to a competitive bid. To the extent that this is cost-effective and permitted by the funding source, the City has permitted negotiated bidding of a significant portion of the work.

e. Assessment and Recommendations

Improve Coordination of Government Activities Related to Affordable Housing Development

The creation of the CHAS Advisory Committee in 1996 was a significant step toward coordinating the affordable housing activities of the government and nonprofit sectors. The CHAS Advisory Committee provides an on-going structure for consistently sharing information among all agencies involved in production or delivery of services, developing joint programs or providing accountability to the public. At the level of reviewing specific project proposals, the Affordable Housing Loan Committee provides more intensive coordination among the Mayor's Office of Housing, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Mayor's Homeless Coordinator.

These efforts at coordination can be further improved by the following:

• Ensure consistent participation of all relevant City agencies in the monthly CHAS meetings, preferably through management-level staff.
  

• Expand participation of non-profit organizations and advocacy groups in the CHAS.
  

• Improve coordination among the Mayor's Office of Housing, the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority in the allocation of affordable housing resources.
  

• Improve coordination between the Mayor's Office of Housing and Redevelopment Agency on the one hand and the Planning Department, particularly in the review and approval of inclusionary housing requirements.

Increase The Capacity Of Community-Based Non-Profit Housing Corporations To Perform Their Role As Developers and Operators of Affordable Housing.

While the non-profits in San Francisco are among the best in the country, there is concern that the scope of needed development will overburden their capacity to play their necessary roles. There is particularly inadequate financial and technical support for non-profits in the areas of property management, maintenance and repair work, and on-site (non social-service) staff. City programs which facilitate these activities are limited.

An essential element of the city's strategy must be to develop the capacity of nonprofit organizations to perform these roles. The following activities should be undertaken:

• Increase coordination between non-profit development corporations and local government housing agencies and explore long-range strategic plans for funding and increasing capacityand increasing self-sufficiency of non-profit housing developers which have or can develop resources to do so.

• Increase administrative productivity and management capacities of non-profit housing developers.
  

• Improve coordination between non-profit development corporations and organizations which can provide services to their low-income residents.

Improve Coordination of Housing with Efforts to Improve Vocational and Economic Enterprise Programs for Lower Income San Franciscans.

Current City policy has begun to give greater attention to the importance of vocational support, education, employment training and economic development in maintaining stable affordable housing. Without such linkage, large numbers of people remain trapped in poverty or near-poverty, dependent on public income and housing subsidies, and unable to make choices about their living and working environments.

Some steps have been taken within the past several years to implement these policies. The enactment of the First Source Hiring Program in 1998 has now established in principle a consistent City policy to require hiring of economically disadvantaged residents in most City contracts. The Mayor's Office of Housing has also been implementing its "Section 3 Plus" program, to require such hiring not only for federally funded projects, but for all MOH projects. The "Section 3 Plus" program is intended to implement the First Source policy for MOH. Additional steps remain to be taken in this area:

• Improve coordination among first source agencies, non-profit housing developers, and construction contractors to ensure consistent utilization of economically disadvantaged residents in City-funded construction projects.
  

• Improve opportunities for residents of affordable housing to participate in programs to develop jobs and entrepreneurship.

3. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) DELIVERY SYSTEM

This section describes the institutional structure through which SFRA administers the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. Primary partners are the private, non-profit and public sectors to create capital projects, provide supportive services, rental assistance, and technical assistance. This section will discuss the role of these primary partners and related issues.

a. Private Sector

Because federal regulations mandate that tenants in HOPWA assisted units be charged no more than 30% of the their gross annual income, the rents at newly developed units are generally set at extremely affordable levels (generally at 30% of 15-20% of Area Median Income). As a result, the income collected from these units is usually insufficient to leverage private conventional debt. In an attempt to mitigate this effect, and at the request of the HIV/AIDS community, San Francisco has focused its provision of newly developed HOPWA units in larger mixed-population affordable housing developments. By doing so, HOPWA units can take advantage of a development's overall income potential to secure conventional loans and benefit from private equity provided through the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.

The San Francisco HOPWA program's primary interface with the public sector occurs through its scattered site tenant-based rental assistance programs. Clients of the rental assistance programs use certificates to locate and afford units, which exist on the private rental market. San Francisco continues to strategize ways to increase participation from the private sector in providing housing to persons with HIV/AIDS and to ensure that the clients can be competitive in the City's tight rental market. Examples of these efforts include fostering good landlord-tenant relationships via supportive services and intervention and allowing clients what is commonly referred to as OFTO, or Over the FMR Tenancy Option. OFTO allows clients to pay a limited amount in excess of the HUD established FMR for private rental units thus enabling them to compete with higher income prospective renters.

b. Non-profit Organizations

Once approved by the HOPWA Loan Committee and the Redevelopment Agency Commission, SFRA enters legal agreements with non-profit housing developers, supportive service providers, and other housing related agencies to disburse HOPWA funds. SFRA contracts with over a dozen housing developers to create capital projects through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and leasing. Two agencies, the San Francisco Housing Authority and Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, provide rental assistance through a "deep rent" program serving 325 households and a "partial rent" program serving 125 households. SFRA contracts with four agencies to operate five 24 hour licensed care facilities and provide intensive, on-site supportive services to 113 tenants.

HIV housing program providers are typically community based and frequently collaborate with non-HIV service providers. Many of these providers receive City funding other than HOPWA funds to provide comprehensive health care, substance abuse and mental health treatment, case management, money management, nursing and attendant care, and food service to people living with HIV.

A major challenge to create effective and sustainable supportive housing for people living with HIV involves the facilitation of partnerships between housing developers and service providers. In the early years of the HOPWA program, many housing developers had no service experience while many HIV service providers had no development experience. Although many of these partnerships are now well established, the Agency's shift the past two years to fund "mixed use" projects (not exclusively serving people with HIV/AIDS) has resulted in new challenges for HOPWA sponsors and the multiple City departments funding these projects. These challenges include: coordinating multiple wait lists for different eligible applicants, integrating AIDS services in multi-disciplinary service teams, providing education to deal with AIDS phobia from non-HIV tenants and/or in projects serving both families and singles, and defining a clear role for property management to work as a team member with the developer and service provider.

c. Public Institutions

Although SFRA has contact with all City departments that deal with homeless, housing, or special needs service funding, its primary partners in implementing the HOPWA program are the Department of Public Health (DPH), which administers the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) funds and more recently, the Department of Human Services (DHS), which administers the McKinney funds. In the beginning of the HOPWA program (1993), SFRA and DPH's HIV Health Services Branch collaborated on a 5 Year HIV/AIDS Housing Plan to set future funding directions for HIV housing. That plan, updated in June 1998, outlined needs which resulted in SFRA and DPH co-funding many HOPWA projects, frequently prioritizing HOPWA monies for capital and CARE monies for service funds (since CARE cannot be used for capital). Both HOPWA and CARE have funded rental assistance, initially co-funding several subsidy programs, and in more recent years, funding separate programs.

SFRA and DPH take additional housing advisory direction from the HIV Health Services Planning Council (the "Planning Council"), and specifically from the Planning Council's Housing Subcommittee. Many funding decisions between SFRA and DPH, such as: SFRA predominately funding the creation and maintenance of five Residential Care Facilities; co-funding rental assistance programs; and DPH taking the lead on master leasing Single Room Occupancy hotels, have resulted from recommendations from the Planning Council. In 1998, DPH created a separate Housing Division to handle all DPH housing funding, which has resulted in most of SFRA's HOPWA implementation being done collaboratively with staff from this division. A representative from DPH's Housing Division and two representatives from the Planning Council also sit on the HOPWA Loan Committee, which reviews all HOPWA funding requests and makes recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency Commission for final approval.

HOPWA staff and DPH Housing Division staff participate in numerous monthly committee meetings focused on HIV housing and related services. These meetings include the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) group and various CHAS subcommittees on Fair Housing, supportive housing, public housing, and Single Room Occupancy hotels. In addition, both SFRA and DPH sit on an Advisory Board that oversees and monitors the HIV Housing Wait List and the HOPWA "deep rent" program.

Over the last two years as HOPWA funding has decreased, SFRA has committed HOPWA funds to designate units in numerous capital projects in process and collaborated with DHS to provide Supportive Housing or General Funds for special needs services. SFRA has also been a participant for several years in DHS's McKinney application process--sitting on the Priority Panel for funding recommendations, and strategizing options for renewal projects.

4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DELIVERY SYSTEM

This section describes the institutional structure through which MOCD implements its community development program. Essential partners are the private, non-profit and public sectors. They are integral parts of MOCD's community development planning and service delivery system. This section will discuss the role of each partner within the system, strengths and weaknesses of these roles, and strategies for strengthening the system.

a. Private Sector

MOCD works regularly with local, private foundations and community development divisions of corporations and banks. The interactions are substantially consultative regarding non-profit organizations seeking funding for projects. Two typical consultations are: (1) a non-profit organizations submits a proposal to a local business for funding and the business consults with MOCD regarding the merits of the proposal and capacity of the applicant organization; and, (2) a non-profit makes an inquiry to MOCD and MOCD in some instances engages the private sector in a discussion regarding the proposal.

MOCD and the private sector engage in the mutual exchange of information to better inform respective grant making processes. The relationship is productive but limited relative to the scope of the potential relationship that MOCD would like to develop. This relationship should evolve from being merely an informative relationship to one that creates and implements opportunities for collaboration. MOCD intends to explore the feasibility of consciously deepening the working relationship to encompass: (1) coordinated and/or complementary priority setting for funding; and, (2) increased private sector assistance and participation in workforce development issues, especially job creation issues.

b. Non-profit Organizations

Local non-profit organizations, one of the most integral parts of MOCD's community development service delivery system, receive grants through a competitive proposal process to provide needed services in our most impacted low-income neighborhoods and communities.

These non-profits are the primary implementation arm of MOCD in program areas such as construction and rehabilitation of community centers and the provision of a variety of social services such as job training, youth tutoring and mentoring, health and domestic violence services, housing counseling, economic development loans to small and micro businesses and economic development technical assistance.

These non-profit organizations, because they are typically neighborhood-based, provide an invaluable source of information regarding the changing needs, gaps in services and successes in our community development activities. This direct activity in neighborhoods also serves as an access point for MOCD to engage directly with low-income residents regarding neighborhood assets and needs. These organizations also often provide stability in neighborhoods that have few other resources for accessible information, assistance and services.

The relatively large number of non-profit organizations serving low-income communities in San Francisco is both an asset and a limitation. Because of the number of non-profit organizations operating in the City and with whom we work, and particularly those that have a specialized focus, the many diverse communities and individuals in San Francisco benefit from a broader range of culturally competent and tailored services.

On the other hand, the large number of non-profits also represent greater competition for limited CDBG, ESG and other services. The result can often be that the bulk of limited dollars are focused on programs and services and minimal dollars are directed to consistent organizational capacity building necessary to maintain organizations responsive to the needs of changing communities. Consequently, MOCD intends to identify and engage non-profit organizations in organizational and programmatic capacity building to better ensure effective and efficient delivery of needs services to low income individuals and communities.

In addition, MOCD intends to also create a more formal system for engaging non-profit organizations in mutually supportive dialogue to improve the manner, scope and quality of services provided to low income individuals and communities.

c. Public Institutions

It is MOCD policy to coordinate community development activities to the extent possible with other City agencies. Typically, these opportunities arise due to a common interest in a particular neighborhood, issue or population. For example, on a recent major multi-million dollar project, the Excelsior Youth Center, MOCD collaborated with the San Francisco Unified School District to plan and develop the Center and arrange with DCYF for the long-term viability of the program. MOCD provided much of the construction funds and DCYF is providing much of the operational funds. Without such an arrangement the project would not have been possible. MOCD had sufficient capital dollars but insufficient program dollars. In the case of DCYF, the circumstances were the reverse. By partnering, the City was able to build one of the most comprehensive and heavily utilized youth centers in the City.

More generally, on a regular basis MOCD confers with the Redevelopment Agency, Mayor's Office of Housing, Department of Children, Youth and their Families, the Department of Human Services, Commission on the Status of Women, and the Commission on Aging on matters such as proposal reviews. Most recently, MOCD engaged other City departments in the review of 1999 CDBG and ESG proposals. The resulting benefits are proposal review from multiple perspectives, and sometimes by other City departments that have more specialized knowledge and funding in a particular issue area.

In addition, MOCD recognizes that ESG and especially CDBG dollars are more flexible in use than other funding streams which often have narrow dedicated purposes. MOCD uses the review opportunities to engage other departments in a dialogue about and to become more attuned to the current developments and priorities in other City departments. This dialogue aids MOCD in being more strategic in the investment of CDBG dollars.

One of the barriers to more project collaboration has been the mismatch in fiscal years between MOCD (April-March fiscal year) and the majority of other City departments (July-June fiscal year). In this coming year, MOCD will align fiscal year to coincide with the other city departments. Moving to a common fiscal year will promote more and easier opportunities for inter-departmental discussions regarding joint projects and leveraging of resources. (On a related note, the common fiscal year will improve the likelihood of combined needs hearings. Currently most City departments conduct independent needs hearings in the City to solicit input regarding new programmatic priorities and strategies. Once on the same fiscal cycle with departments such as DCYF, the possibilities of joint needs hearings in our neighborhoods of common interest will be greatly facilitated and neighborhood participants less imposed upon.

MOCD also intends to improve regular coordination with other departments to identify opportunities to address issues of common interest, such as policy issues or other matters. For example, many City departments rely on non-profit organizations for service delivery. These organizations are facing increasing rents and pressure to find affordable operating space. Independently, each department would find it difficult to address a City-wide facilities issue. Collectively, City departments could develop a greater pool of resources and strategies, such as access to space and funds to address this issue.

In summary, similar to the private sector, the public sector is an effective partner for information sharing. At present, MOCD is prepared to develop a working relationship that more effectively promotes substantive collaboration to address issues and opportunities such as the facilities issue briefly discussed above.

d. Organizational relationship between the City and the public housing authority

Again, the nature of MOCD's working relationship with the San Francisco Housing Authority is largely one of information sharing for planning purposes. In particular, MOCD works with the SFHA to identify needs of housing authority residents and provides a pool of funds to focus on housing authority sites.

e. Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Overall, MOCD has well-established relationships within each institutional sector. The MOCD community development system is competent at the services it provides and in how it receives and shares information. These relationships will provide a foundation to evolve from information sharing to resource sharing and leveraging, collaborative planning and implementation.

C. LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION STRATEGY

1. GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE LEAD HAZARD REDUCTION SYSTEM

a. The Role of Local Government Entities in Lead Hazard Reduction

Mayor's Office of Housing. The Mayor's Office of Housing applies for and administers funds made available by HUD through the Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Grants program. These funds have been used to establish its Lead Hazard Reduction Program for Child Care Service Providers. MOH received a Round V grant in the amount of $3,000,000 in 1998, for a three year grant period beginning in 1999. MOH had also received a Round II grant previously.

In addition to administering the Lead Hazard Reduction Grant, MOH staff is responsible for ensuring that all MOH-funded rehabilitation activities comply with federal requirements for lead-based paint hazard reduction or abatement.

Department of Public Health. The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program provides assessments of EBL cases, assists with the orientation of subcontractor staff, provides childhood lead poison data and research information and coordinates shared cases. DPH also provides a number of resources to childcare and foster care providers, including:

• Assessment tools for providers and inspectors;

• A limited number of risk assessments per year for foster care providers;

• Training of DSS staff, as well as those community based organization working with the targeted population and

• Education of Public Health Nurses and other city staff.

MOH will develop marketing materials to be included with environmental health assessment tool designed by DPH for childcare and foster care providers. These materials will describe the program and eligibility requirements and include an application, referral notice and other important information. In addition, MOH will refer to DPH those care providers who are interested in testing and other services. DPH is currently assisting MOH with the design of their database to track the progress and results of lead remediation projects.

Department of Human Services. DHS currently provides orientation, pre-service training and follow-up training to foster care providers, and also to agencies that carry foster care homes under their licenses. MOH will use these opportunities to market the Lead Hazard Control Program, using marketing materials that include an application and referral notice. DHS also is developing a neighborhood childcare network that may be used to market the program and coordinate relocation activities while remediation is performed.

Department of Children, Youth and their Families. DOCYF works very closely with community based organizations to provide educational curriculums and legal and business training to childcare providers. Through the Childcare Facilities Loan Fund, childcare providers are receiving recoverable grants for one-time capitol improvements. MOH proposes to maximize this resource by making the applicants in this program eligible for the Lead Hazard Control Program.

b. The Role of Non-Profit Entities in Lead Hazard Reduction

Three community based organizations will be funded to provide Project Coordination staff to the Lead Hazard Control Program. These staff people will act as the liaison between MOH, City Agency staff, residents and owners to coordinate lead remediation activities at childcare and foster care homes.

c. The Role of Private Sector Entities in Lead Hazard Reduction

Private general and painting contractors are expected to carry out the bulk of the actual remediation work. The MOH sponsored Contractor Development Program will recruit and educate general and painting contractors to assist them with lead certification and training; current city, state and federal regulations; as well as certification with the City's Human Rights Commission. The goal of the Contractor Development Program is to educate contractors, encourage lead safe construction practices and increase the participation of contractors in the Lead Hazard Reduction Program.

2. STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN

The San Francisco Round V Lead Hazard Reduction Program is designed to build upon the successes of the current Lead Hazard Reduction/Primary Prevention Program. This program featured coordination of City agencies and an extensive community based system of education, project coordination, training and interim controls. The current Program focused reduced federal resources on residentially based family childcare providers, foster care providers and the families they serve in order to protect the health of the maximum number of the low-income children and help to expand the City's childcare delivery system.

The Program's strategy will continue to focus on controlling lead based paint hazards by utilizing short and long term remediation as described in A Framework for Action to Make Private Housing Lead-Safe: A Proposal to Focus National Attention, June 1993 by the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing.

3. ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Utilizing the programs described above and any further resources that can be identified during the Consolidated Plan period, the City will seek to reduce lead-based paint hazards and prevent childhood lead poisoning through the following long-term strategies:

• Promoting comprehensive public information and outreach regarding Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction, including establishing uniform health-based standards regarding what constitutes a (LBP) hazard and educating parents about the spectrum of interventions that can effectively address those hazards.

• Developing technical capacity and delivery systems for lead-based paint hazard reduction, including training stabilization and education teams and maintenance crews, developing standard maintenance, hazard evaluation, monitoring and control procedures, and training residents in maintenance techniques.

• Limited full hazard removal programs when necessary and feasible, with relocation assistance for displaced residents.

• Integrating lead-based paint hazard reduction into all existing and new publicly funded rehabilitation programs, including technical assistance and capacity building for non-profit housing development organizations involved in current rehabilitation efforts.
  

D. FAIR HOUSING STRATEGY

San Francisco's recent efforts to assure fair housing for its citizens date back to 1973, when the Mayor and Board of Supervisors established a Fair Housing Planning Committee "to create a plan for the racial, ethnic and economic integration of residential neighborhoods in the City." The Committee's recommendations have, over the past twenty years, been the basis for a number of actions and programs created by the City to address fair housing needs. The City's body of legislation addressing housing discrimination supplements the requirements of state and federal law, but, unlike state fair housing legislation, is not regarded by HUD as substantially equivalent to federal fair housing law.

1. INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND PROGRAMS FOR FAIR HOUSING EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT

a. Enforcement

The Fair Housing enforcement program is centered in the City's Human Rights Commission (HRC). The HRC has a coordinator position which is 25-33% dedicated to fair housing issues, and a representative position which is dedicated 100% to fair housing. The latter position is funded by CDBG.

The HRC receives complaints, inquiries and requests for assistance from both consumers and housing providers. When complaints of housing discrimination are received, complainants are interviewed. Depending on the fact situation, testing may be conducted on the subject premises. Testing is conducted by Project Sentinel, funded by a subcontract from the CDBG program.

Most cases are mediated between the parties. If there is adequate evidence and the complainant chooses, the case can be referred to HUD, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) or a panel of private attorneys maintained by Project Sentinel. (The HRC does not make referrals to attorneys.) While the program does not have sufficient resources to conduct extensive audits of the real estate market, HRC staff believes that it does provide effective and efficient services to victims of housing discrimination.

In the rental housing sector, the staff of the HRC believes from the complaint data analyzed above and other information that a certain degree of discrimination continues to exist in the rental housing market. Discrimination against families with children remains a particular problem. A series of audits is currently being conducted by Project Sentinel as a part of a HUD grant which includes multi-unit buildings. According to HRC staff, initial findings indicate a rate of discrimination of about 30% overall.

Apart from such discriminatory acts, it appears that incidents of racial animosity from moves by minorities into predominantly white areas are rare. Individual incidents of racial antagonism are monitored by the San Francisco Police Department's Hate Crimes unit, and some of these may be based in part on housing moves. The Police Department responds actively to such incidents, and the Human Rights Commission and the Intergroup Clearinghouse (a nonprofit organization which receives partial City funding) work with the affected communities and provide assistance to victims. Anti-Asian and anti-Semitic graffiti were reported in the Inner Sunset earlier this year, and there was strong community reaction against such incidents.

The Redevelopment Agency enforces fair housing in project area developments through its Owner Participation Agreements made with property owners of each development and through its Disposition and Development Agreements, made between the Agency and developers of Agency-owned land. Specific affordable housing requirements, including fair housing, are made and recorded to run with the land. For the past seven years, the Agency has contracted with a professional Fair Housing monitor, Project Sentinel (formerly "Operation Sentinel") to monitor the management of private housing developed with the Agency's participation, through its issuance of tax exempt bonds. Project Sentinel "tests" the performance of staff to ensure that there is no discrimination toward potential tenants based on disability, race or children.

Project Sentinel uses fair housing testers to monitor Redevelopment Agency housing in terms of racial, income, and family-related discrimination (were families without children afforded more housing opportunities than families with children?). Upon determining the vacancy and availability of units, trained fair housing testers are sent out in pairs to the sites. The "minority " (black or dark-skinned Latino/Latina) tester is instructed to make contact with the owner or manager first, with the "majority" (light-skinned white) tester following shortly thereafter. The minority tester is given a profile slightly better than the majority tester; the minority tester's income is set at 3.25 times the rent of the unit, with the majority tester's income set at slightly below 3.0 times the rent of the unit. Immediately following the interview with the prospective landlord, the fair housing testers are debriefed to determine how much, if any, differential treatment is demonstrated by the owner/manager of the housing in question. Those sites found in violation are requested to attend a general fair housing training (at Agency expense).

An average of $10,000/year has been spent on such testing, in an effort to ensure that there is no discrimination of any kind in any of the housing assisted by the Redevelopment Agency. The Agency believes such testing is effective in that there have been no valid discrimination complaints since the first contract was initiated in 1989.

In recognition of the substantial body of regulations which currently exist at the Federal, state and local level relating to fair housing, the Board of Supervisors enacted a Fair Housing Implementation Ordinance in 1999 to facilitate compliance with those fair housing laws. The ordinance identifies the laws which are applicable to local zoning, land use decisions, funding decisions, and other activities (including the Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act), and specifies that local decisions and actions shall not be based on evidence that discriminates against any class protected by those laws. The ordinance specifically describes as such discriminatory information effects on property values, increased crime, and compatibility with the existing neighborhood when these are considered the result of occupancy of the units by a protected class.

b. Education

The Mayor's Office of Community Development funds a number of programs designed to increase access to fair housing information and counseling for San Francisco residents. The 2000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program includes funding for the following housing counseling services, almost all of which are focused on fair housing implementation. The agencies receiving funding are identified in Table IV-5.

Table IV-5: CDBG Funded Housing Counseling Activities, 1999

Agency	Description of Services	Grant Amount
Independent Living Resource Center	Provides fair housing counseling services to the disabled.	$60,000
SF League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG)	Provide housing counseling services including case management, prevention of Section 8 conversions and tenant education in the Bayview-Hunters Point area.	$33,000
Tenderloin Housing Clinic	Provide legal counseling to monolingual tenants facing eviction	$87,450
Legal Assistance to the Elderly	Provide legal counseling and advocacy to seniors facing eviction or with other tenant problems	$30,000
Self Help for the Elderly	Housing and counseling services to low income seniors in Chinatown/North Beach	$50,380
St. Peter's Housing Committee	Counseling mediation translation for Latinos.	$31,571
Housing Rights Committee	Housing counseling services to low/moderate income seniors.	$47,000

Source: City and County of San Francisco 2000 Action Plan.

The Human Rights Commission staff also provide fair housing information services. The HRC is currently completing an outreach and education grant awarded by HUD, and works closely with HUD and the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing in this area. Much of the fair housing staff time is spent year round in education and outreach to both community housing groups and the real estate industry. Technical assistance is provided in the forms of:

• direct advice to owners, managers, builders, brokers, tenants and housing applicants who call the HRC directly;

• presentations to community groups and industry groups (San Francisco Apartment Owners' Association, Association of Realtors, etc.) who request them;

• distribution of printed materials on fair housing; and

• appearances on radio and television programs dealing with fair housing.

Project Sentinel, in addition to its role in enforcement activities, conducts fair housing education among community groups and the media throughout the Bay Area, including San Francisco. The HRC also works with other community based organizations that focus on housing to ensure that they are providing fair housing information to the public. This is especially significant among populations with special needs, such as language minorities and the disabled. Such organizations include the CDBG funded organizations listed above as well as the Mental Health Association, and Asian Neighborhood Design. These organizations provide fair housing education on a year-round basis.

The HRC's philosophy is that prevention of discrimination is more efficient than prosecution, and that the numerous changes in fair housing law in the past decade have made public education increasingly important. HRC staff feel that its education and outreach efforts have been very effective in increasing knowledge of fair housing law and requirements. Because the education efforts include descriptions of the potential penalties for discrimination, staff believe that they have been an effective tool to achieve compliance with fair housing law.

In its contract with Project Sentinel, the Redevelopment Agency also includes provision of Fair Housing Training as a deliverable. This training is provided to housing developers, both for-profit and nonprofit, as well as to Agency staff. The Agency feels that the training has been successful, and will continue to fund it.

The Disability Access Division of the Department of Building Inspection has held weekend seminars targeted at design and construction professionals, participated in brown bag lunch time outreach to groups such as TNDC, BOMA, AIA, etc. The Division seeks out opportunities to make presentations to such organizations, and considers these informational activities to be very helpful in increasing knowledge of the laws and regulations. The Division also hosts a Disability Access Advisory Committee that meets monthly.

2. STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS

Fair Housing regulations are directed at preventing or mitigating the effects of discrimination in housing based on a variety of personal or social characteristics that are used to unfairly deny people or households with those characteristics access to housing. These characteristics can include racial or ethnic background, family or household size, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, and source of income.

a. Fair Housing and Community Acceptance

The CHAS Advisory Committee (see p. 158) has established a subcommittee on Fair Housing and Community Acceptance to review issues relating to fair housing and to develop recommendations to address these issues. The subcommittee was instrumental in drafting and achieving enactment of the Fair Housing Ordinance in 1999. It is now reviewing possible activities for the future, including actions to further educate City staff and commissioners on their responsibilities in furthering fair housing.

b. Accessibility

San Francisco's affordable housing programs already require provision of physical accessibility for newly constructed units in multifamily housing and for more limited accessibility in buildings which receive rehabilitation above a certain cost threshold. However, the age of San Francisco's housing stock means that many units remain physically inaccessible to many individuals. This situation will persist for a long time, given the low rate at which the housing stock is replaced.

A subcommittee of the CHAS Advisory Committee was established at the end of 1999 to address issues of accessibility. The Accessibility Subcommittee developed a number of specific policy recommendations to achieve the following goals:

A. Adopt standards and guidelines which maximize the number of accessible units and the level of accessibility provided in affordable housing financed by the City.

The specific recommendations for this goal include establishing percentage goals for the construction of fully adaptable units in the housing development programs funded by the City. For new construction, goals of 50% of all assisted units City-wide and 20% of units in any given development were proposed. For rehabilitation, the subcommittee proposed a goal of 10% of all assisted units City-wide be adaptable. The subcommittee also recommended establishing a mechanism for ensuring availability of funds for accessibility upgrades in buildings which have been previously completed, and establishing a set accessibility design guidelines to be applied to City-funded affordable housing development which will be consistent with State and Federal requirements.

Because concerns were expressed as to the feasibility and need for the specific percentage goals, the subcommittee also recommended that the City carry out a study of accessible housing needs and feasibility which provides data essential for revising, as necessary, the proposed goals. Topics recommended for inclusion in the study were:

• The current and future need for accessible and visitable units (through analysis of the demographics of the disabled population and the status of the existing housing stock)

• The number of accessible and adaptable units in the current affordable housing stock, and who is residing in those units

• The number of adaptable units in the current production pipeline

• The cost of meeting specific goals for production of new and rehabilitated units

• The potential savings in other City expenditures which might be realized by producing more accessible units.

B. Minimize the effort required to apply for accessible units in affordable housing developments funded by the City.

In this area, the subcommitee recommended development of procedures for the marketing of City-funded affordable housing developments which foster equal access for people with disabilities. Practices identified as fostering equal access included application by mail, telephone and walk-in delivery and lotteries with ample application periods to select tenants. Practices identified as hindering equal access included first-come first-served application policies (unless these policies are accompanied by supplemental practices to eliminate the disparate effect on people with disabilities).

Other recommendations of the subcommittee were to:

• Establish a process for enabling applicants for units in City-funded projects, particularly persons with disabilities, to apply for units in multiple developments at one time, and for maintaining a consolidated waiting list for those developments.

• Develop a system for managing tenant selection and waiting lists which effectively matches available accessible units with persons who need the accessibility provided by the unit.

• Include in marketing plans affirmative outreach to people with disabilities through disability community organizations.

• Expand the definition of "displaced" persons to include persons living in units which are not fully accessible to them, so that they will be eligible for newly developed or available units which give priority to displaced persons and families.

C. Develop policies and practices which accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, to enable them to reside in affordable housing financed by the City.

The subcommittee also developed recommendations relating to the management of affordable housing to ensure that property management practices fully accommodate the needs of people with disabilities. The specific recommendations included development of written guidelines for ensuring accessibility and reasonable accommodation, provision of training to property managers and staff, and establishment of clear and accessible communications with tenants about accessibility and accommodation request procedures.

The Accessibility Subcommittee will continue to meet and review and recommend specific actions and guidelines to the City funding agencies and nonprofit developers, and to assist the City in ensuring that all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate in this process.

3. ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The City must continue efforts to combat housing discrimination and remove policies and regulations which, directly or indirectly, are barriers to fair housing. Among the activities which should be undertaken during the 2000 Consolidated Plan period are:

• Identify and correct any current policies and practices by City agencies involved in the development or preservation of affordable housing which may lead to discrimination against any person or group of persons on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, family status, or income level.

• Through local non-profit organizations, provide fair housing training, including nondiscrimination against low income persons, for non-profit and for profit property management staffs.

• Identify changes in current policy and procedures in the development and preservation of affordable housing to increase language accessibility in all city assisted or managed housing programs.

• Continue and improve programs which minimize displacement from publicly funded actions, provide relocation services where displacement occurs, and permit displaced households the right of first refusal to occupy replacement housing.

• Educate City agencies on federal, state and local fair housing legislation to ensure compliance in policies, programs and discretionary actions.

• Continue to petition for change, where necessary, of State and Federal regulations restricting the location of affordable housing facilities.

• Develop policies and mechanisms to increase the availability of units to Section 8 certificate and voucher holders, both in the existing Section 8 program and when used for relocation of public housing residents from units undergoing reconstruction.

• Develop and implement strategies for encouraging community acceptance of affordable housing developments.

• Continue review of implementation of the "Citizens Right to Know" initiative ordinance requiring neighborhood notification for City-funded projects to determine whether it has a discriminatory impact on housing for low-income and minority people, and, if so, advise Board of Supervisors of these impacts.

• Work, as needed, to broaden the definition of "accessibility" to address excluded categories identified by local agencies, such as persons with non-physical as well as physical disabilities, who may who may require unique "accessibility" modifications.
  

• Adopt standards and guidelines which maximize the number of accessible units and the level of accessibility provided in affordable housing financed by the City.

• Adopt standards and guidelines to minimize the effort required to apply for accessible units in affordable housing developments funded by the City.

• Develop policies and practices which accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, to enable them to reside in affordable housing financed by the City.