i am happy that the people took the time to speak to you about them. to respect everybody's time, i will follow-up. i will close this out pretty quickly. i will make one comment in passing. when we were sitting there at the beginning of this, said to you we're not here to get anyone's job and i want to emphasize that. this is a plea to get together with a to say -- hsa and other supervisors and agencies and to figure out how to fix this. we know the system is broken but this is something that is not irreparable. we can make this better if we work together. i want to emphasize that the reason why we're here is to work together with you and to fix this and you too, mr. dufty. we are urging the shelter

committee along with local homeless coordinating board with assistance from the mayor's office of hope to form a working group to embrace the following principles. accessible to non-english speakers. equitable to all shelter seekers while preserving culturally targeted programs. one that does not require waiting in line. let me say that in -- again. one that does not require waiting in line. one does not require walking long distances or traveling to multiple sites. easy and simple to understand, clearly stated rules. one that has no unnecessary barriers. accessible 24 hours, while vacant beds assists -- exist. one that maintains a currently if -- current link the state. if we go through these, all

these are applicable to the stories we heard today. this is a blueprint on how these stories will not reoccur. so with your help, let's fix this system. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you, mr. may. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: thank you, madam chair. and want to thank the members of the audience and all the residents who have experienced the shelter system for sharing their stories. it is not easy to talk about one's own personal experiences that way. it takes a good deal of courage to do that. i want to thank you all for being here, for your patience. and again, thinking the staff for the work -- thanking the staff for the work they do. if i may, i am trying to

understand why we have this two- tier system wher eyou ha -- where you have some separate treatment provided to folks who are enrolled in the c.a.p. program and those who are not. if you could explain the reasoning and what is the policy rationale. >> this is the beginning of the implementation of care, not cash, where it was voted on by the voters of san francisco that instead of providing a general assistance cash award monthly to what was then known as the general assistance clients, we implemented something called care, not cash where shelter beds would be in place of a cash grant, but food,

two meals a day would be provided to our clients and $59 a month. that was a way of taking that grant and putting it into housing. the impetus of that was to house people instead of providing emergency shelter beds. we had a number of master lease esther rose -- sro's and we started the cash grant toward subsisubsidizing their rent. supervisor campos: does that require one-third of the bed beside for c.a.p. recipients?

>> i will let the city attorney speak on whether it is one- third. it happens to be that one-third of the clients in the shelter sister -- system are getting the c.a.p. going to shelters. supervisor campos: maybe if we could hear from the city attorney as to what is actually required by what the voters passed? supervisor kim>> proposition 9 t specify on its face that there be a specific set aside. this is a matter of how the department implements that mandate of care, not cash for proposition n which is a voter- adopted measure. it provides that rather than cash payments, that the city provide in kind services or services in lieu of the cash payment. it is a matter of how the piece

is implemented based on the demand and needs of the people who would receive that payment. >> i am trying to understand what the level of flexibility is in terms of whether people agree with it or not, there is a mandate from the voters. i am trying to understand what the flexibility is and what the system looks like. >> the level of flexibility comes when a bed that has been reserved for of c.a.p. -- a c.a.p. client is not used, it is released back into the system. " we periodically do depending on the number of people who are on c.a.p., or the number of people who are trying to get on c.a.p., it has to be a time when eligibility is determined, presumptive eligibility pending. we offer them a shelter bed while they are waiting to get on the c.a.p. benefit.

once they're on the c.a.p. benefit, the legislation mandates abed be available. if it is not, they are entitled to the cash award. supervisor campos: if either situation, where a bed is available or given to a c.a.p. recipient, or if the bed is not used? >> that is correct. as long as the first date is given to them, they go in and check in and utilize that bad. it is their bed during the time it takes for them to go back to reid determine their eligibility. i mentioned could be anywhere from 30 to 40 days. supervisor campos: you could have a situation where there is a shortage of beds for non- c.a.p. recipients, bids assigned to them are not being used.

is that what you're saying? >> no. supervisor campos: once the bed is given to them, it is there is whether they use it or not. >> as long as the use if the first night. -- they use it the first time. that is their bed, the eligibility. definitely check in. they have to check in like everybody else does. that is correct. supervisor campos: the question for me, is there a way that you can still meet your obligations under the care, not cash but still free up more beds that could be used for the rest of the population? >> and free of those beds for the resource center? -- up those beds for the resource center? for one night bases or 30 or 49 basis? i do not think i could answer that question. i would have to take that question back to the actual program that implements it. i am quite sure there is room

for discussion around the question. supervisor campos: i think that is what i am trying to get out. obviously, there are different needs people have on care, not cash. initially, i was not supportive of it. it was what the voters passed. we have to respect the will of the voters. i am trying to understand if the system we have in place has to look exactly how it looks, and how -- what the level of flexibility within the confines of what the law requires is, what that reflects a -- one that flexibility is. that is what i am trying to understand. one thing that has been mentioned is there is this ordinance that was passed by supervisor -- and it was passed in 2003. supervisor daly. one of the things it says, i'm wondering if the city attorney

can provide some clarity of where this ordinance fits relative to care, not cash. it says that no displacement of any individual using an emergency shelter bed shall be based on that individual's a lack of or source of income, nor shall there be any party or set aside of emergency shelter based on income. -- prioritization or set aside a of emergency shelter based on income. >> care, not cash was adopted by the voters whereas this ordinance was adopted by the board of supervisors and when legislature -- legislation is adopted, it is a lot of greater dignity, entitled more weight because it is adopted by the voters then something that the board of supervisors adopt. in implementing both care, not cash, and the ordinance you are

speaking of, if in implementing, there turned out to be a conflict, the city is required to follow the mandate of care, not cash because that was something that was adopted by the voters. supervisor campos: i understand that. to the extent that care, not cash has a requirement that a specific number of bids be set aside, would this ordinance still apply then that prohibits set-asides? >> it depends on the implementation of the programs. it would depend on the demand for beds and the beds that are available. it turned out that in implementing the ordinance you are describing, there ended up being a shortage of beds for people who are eligible and who are required to provide them under care, not cash, the mandate is what the city would

have to follow. if there was no conflict in applying it, they would -- could apply. it depends on the demand and the numbers at that time. supervisor campos: it seems like the devil is in the details. in theory, you have an obligation to comply with care, not cash and to comply with this ordinance unless there is a conflict with care, not cash. >> that is fair, yes. supervisor campos: the question is, how do we move forward in the way that is consistent with the mandate of the voters but to the extent that that is within that confine, that it is also consistent with this directive from the board of supervisors, and that is where i hope we can get to. and so, one thing that i will say, i know that a lot of work has gone into this. i appreciate the commitment from staff.

i do think we have to figure out a better way of doing this and without pointing fingers or talking about how we got here, it seems to me that i and 2012, we should be able to do this better. and so -- the focus, i think of where i hope we go from here, and i am appreciative that supervisor dufty is here, he is involved, that is his approach, trying to figure out how you bring people together. i do not think that it makes sense to have a system that places on folks with disabilities, on elderly people who have illnesses, the kinds of physical requirements that are placed under the existing system. i also think that in the end, the kind of system that requires so much time and energy to get a

bed is ultimately counterproductive to the underlying goal, the overarching goal of making sure that people find employment and find a way out of whatever challenges they are having in their lives. i would rather have people spend their time getting training, looking for jobs than having to go and get shelter. that is where i hope we can get to. i will turn it over to the chair of the committee. i want to thank supervisor kim and her staff because they have made this a priority and it is important work. i hope we can get to a solution that makes all this better. supervisor kim: thank you. i want to acknowledge supervisor

bevan dufty is here and i want to give him a chance to speak. there is advocates and individuals that we utilize. i wanted to allow supervisor dufty to speak first. why don't we bring up nancy? thank you so much for being here. this is something i've heard over and over again. can we use existing systems to ease the reservation process and one of the proposals, the ability to use 311 so we can address the lines issue. the amount of hours people spent waiting in lines for beds and shelter. i was hoping you could speak to that. i know it is a new concept. if you could speak to that. >> director of the 311 customer service center. thank you, madam chair and supervisors. after hearing all i heard, it

would be good to look at 311 as a resource. we have not explored this particular issue in depth. we do have 24 by 7 accessibility. we have the language line assistance we can provide. i think that we are ready -- we already provide a lot of information. just this fiscal year through the end of march, we have answered over 2600 calls for information we provide to people who call on homeless and shelter matters. people are already accessing 311. i think that, i have met already with bevan and his staff and the mayor's office is committed to this. it would be worth deeper exploration on trying to see how we can further collaborate and how we can be of further research in helping in this issue. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor campos has a question.

supervisor campos: if i made this, just the point about 311. 311 is used in ways that have been outside the box before. i see some folks from the sro collaborative that are here. with sro residents, before 311, they have to go to many different places to report problems at our hotels and we created a working group, working with 311, that had different city agencies. if you are and sro president that has problems with your hotel, you just called -- and sro resident who has problems with your hotel, you just call 311. that happened after months of the working group figuring out how to make that happen. you have demonstrated your ability to tackle these issues before. >> thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor dufty: thank you. the reason we called the office

hope is we want to take things in a different direction and recognize this is a different time for the city and the ability we had for everyone to work together. i am appreciative of the time i have been able to spend with my city colleagues who i think are very forward thinking and willing to embrace new ideas and what the city to do a great job. in many respects we are doing a great job. i think that is important. as we seek to improve the services we provide, we have to continually point out the successes we have because we want the people of san francisco to know that this is a challenge we can face. this is something we can have an impact on, whether it is family homelessness, veterans, women who are victims of domestic violence and their families, all of these issues can be addressed if we try and bring best practices and understand what is in front of us. hope is about housing opportunity.

that means shelters, supportive housing, public, and affordable housing. it is important to emphasize that we know some of our population who has been homeless have been house. people cannot thrive in public housing. i met with an attorney who was representing the family who was evicted. a boy was shot and killed and i thought that was not consider it, putting the family out on a straight because of the system -- a situation that was not going to continue. i want to commend the members of the board but especially supervisor kim who has put herself out there not just to spend a night at shelters but to have office hours and make herself accessible and to make people who live and reside in shelters feel that they are every bit as important as every other constituent she has and

that is a powerful message. the hearing today is one part in a row where hopefully we can work together and i want to thank jennifer friedenbach and the advocates. i have never had the chance to collate -- to collaborate with a collision. 31 indicated some years ago they had talked to human services agency about being more involved in the delivery of services. at that time, perhaps the service was not as robust as it is now. mr. rohr has committed that he will have an in depth and meaningful consideration of how we can utilize 311 so individuals can get into a lottery and be advised whether by phone or text message or e- mail or all of the above as to what the availability is. i think that would be, to me, an

improvement. it would allow individuals who are seeking shelter to have the opportunity to pursue other services, meals, other rampart -- respite they need to be healthier. in the discussions we have, when we look at our shelter population, we are recognizing they are balancing priorities and the advocates and others have spoken up and said it is important to have 90 days to 120 days days. that is important to allow people to stabilize and the more successful. and that we have care, not cash. no matter how we my view it, one of the provisions was baseline expenditures. we could not spend below that amount even though individuals left the program. there were a large number of individuals who had been identifying as homeless would qualify. many left the program. the base line remains and it did allow the city to move more toward a housing first model of

having thousands of additional support of housing units but i want to be straight forward and say we have to look at the outcomes of those individuals. we recognize some of those individuals are isolated, just as supervisor kim has shared with me. the hours people spent not engaged in positive activity being in shelter, very much the same sometimes for people in sro's and we have to look at how we have -- can activate people's lives. one of the things our office hopes to do is to bring a model of adult education with what the charter schools in the jails are doing. bring it to the tenderloin. could we bring it to the shelters? could we bring opportunity for people to pursue a high school diploma, or gain education and tools that could allow them to be more successful, or a ged? those things have to come into what we're doing to improve things. we have met with the mta on transportation access and

supervisor kim has been involved. i have great admiration for what supervisor campos is championing with respect to use on muni. we have to look at -- youth on muni. could we blend clipper and an ebt card? muni is asking us to get private sector investment to move beyond the 1200 tokens that are so limiting. we have to ask the mta to give us a break, to give us a discount on these purchases. i do want to say that one of the things that is very important is peer to peer work. there is a tremendous amount of that that goes on to the coalition but i think in every area that we provide these services, legitimate peer to peer engagement is one of the most important things. the authentic experiences and knowledge that people have gained working successfully

through the system, whether it is in health, advocacy, housing, whenever those areas are. we need to embrace technology that may help to share that peer to peer but it is something we need to emphasize throughout our services system. it is very important to people and it truly is culturally competent. if someone has been through an experience, the things you're going through, that is a very valid and of the -- authentic voice you're listening to. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: i wanted to thank everyone who came out today. it is tremendously courageous to come out and tell your stories. thank you for doing that. to jennifer and your team for coming by yesterday, thanks for taking the time. it is readily apparent there are problems and i do not think anyone could deny that. supervisor kim, whether it is a

working group or what have you, taking your leadership on is a great thing. you have done a great job bringing this issue of belote. to supervisor dufty, i cannot think of a better person after hearing you speak, i would have said that before. to be the person spearheading this from the city's point of view, we're lucky to have you back. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor. i will wrap up this hearing. it has been quite lengthy. it speaks to the gravity of the issue and how passionate people are around this but how many people impacts. i am -- i got to speak to such an incredibly diverse group of individuals that are in our homeless shelter system. people who are working, the people who have been in our shelter system for eight plus years. i am excited about a working group that we might develop, particularly under hope. this is an issue i found with pedestrian safety which is

another priority issue. we have multiple departments, mta, planning, dpw, the transportation door -- authority. we have multiple departments dealing with a variety of issues. i appreciate the mayor taking up hope and i think we can develop a partnership with hssa and dph. we have so many resources, we need to get everyone in the same room. to improve services that many are dedicated to. in terms of my priorities, we have to deal with people waiting in line. that is not an appropriate way to deal with shelter. 31 is a great step where people can call in and get their name on one unified reservation system and find out through

means, either fallen or text, whether they have a bed and where that is. -- through the phone or text message, whether they have a bed and where that is. santa clara has an innovative policy where they provide quarterly passes on -- to homeless individuals so they can make it to job interviews, appointments, go through multiple sites where they get meals and shelter. that is an interesting program. it costs money and we need to find funding for it but i want to see what we can do. what does the plan looks like and how much does it cost and how much can mta give a discount? we cannot have people walking in their -- ior in wheelchairs. that is a system that we agree is not working. also, in conversations with the mayor's office on disability, we have to prioritize capital improvements in our shelter system. the vast majority are disabled.

we have to figure out how physical infrastructure of the shelter can surf this population. i know that one of the issues is we give out these three year to five-year grants so nonprofits might change every three or five years. the facility might change but we do not want to invest in elevator improvements, disability access. that cannot be their response to us not making improvements. we need to figure out a way to address that issue. it might be illegal for us to not be making this infrastructure improvements. the last thing i will say is, i want to say two more things. it is a economic and public health issue. the p.a.t. understands that. there needs to be a greater intertwining of partnership between hsa and dph. hsa is about shelter but the ph

is about holistic treatment. people are in our system because of their low-income status or inability to be within our resource network. we also see that people are staying homeless because of health issues they have challenges with and we are not addressing those needs. i would like to cpa to do at health assessment of all our shelters. in one night, we know who stays in our shelter. we do not know who was staying there. i am david driven. if we know who was staying in our shelters, what their needs are, maybe we can shift resources around. we do not have a lot but maybe we should be shifting resources to serve the actual need of our clients. this is my last point. when i stayed at next door, i was tremendously struck by the age of our shelter clients. i did not expect