>> okay, all right. colleagues, i just want to add as a member of the health service system board now and working with the department staff and [speaker not understood] who does a good job, wellness is obviously a big push forward as a city. i know there seems to be a time lag issue here and certainly per mr. rose's recommendations which i absolutely appreciate, i do understand where he's coming from. i think without a doubt this space will be used for a wellness center. been talking about some of the folks involved na study. and in addition as we think about implementing president obama's health care act on the federal level where we are going to be adding head count for sure, ~ within the health service system. and, so, i certainly have no doubt na we will be able to utilize that space. but i do take mr. rose's recommendations to heart. so, mighty suggest a slight tweak to it in saying that

approval of this item, but make an amendment to say that we would direct the director of real estate -- if after the wellness study is completed by a controller's office, there is not suitable uses from the health service system to then direct the director of real estate to find alternative uses for the current space designated for the wellness center. that would be a suggestion from my point of view. mr. rose? >> [speaker not understood] recommendation. >> perfect. and from a health service system, was that -- >> speaking on behalf of my client department, yes, we would be amenable to that. thank you. >> perfect, thank you. can we have a motion to take that amendment? >> may we also add the additional resolved clause to request the department provide an executed copy of the contract for the file once it's complete? >> we will do that.

mr. updike, maybe in the future we can include that resolve clause in every single thing we bring forward. yes, we don't have to talk about it at committee. can we do this without opposition? thanks, so moved. and the underlying item as amended can we take that without opposition? so moved. [gavel] >> thank you very much. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 7? >> item number 7, hearing to consider the budget and legislative analyst's report on the socioeconomic equity in the city and county of san francisco, and how the report may be used to guide the city's budget decision-making process. >> okay, thank you. this was sponsored by supervisor avalos, so, i will turn it over to him. >> great, thank you, chair farrell. and thank you, colleagues, for scheduling and being here for this hearing. this is a hearing on a report that i had asked for of the budget and legislative analyst office. and fred russo has been the lead in the budget office on

the report. i want to thank him for his service. ~ budget analyst's office. this report was to provide a framework so we can look at our decisions we make here in the budget committee and as a city about how we are dealing with disparity. i wasn't trying to get a gotcha on the city so much as really trying to get a baseline on what the needs are in san francisco. i think perhaps at times i can be misunderstood about my concern about poverty and about how we spare economic benefit around and concerned about how we provide a lot of support for big business and corporations. actually, not so much worried about providing the support along as we make sure that we're providing a real benefit to everyday san franciscans, that we are using our wealth and not just trying to generate wealth, but make sure it gets to the places where it's needed the most. and i don't think any one

district, any one part of the city has a premium on what the need is in the city. we'll see from this report that it's pretty spared around. as we see reports like this, it gives us a sense of how we can be really strong advocates for our districts and for our neighborhoods within our districts as well as particular populations in need. we're going through a series of indicators of economic equity in this report and it's by no means an exhaustive list. and i think we can call it a working document as well as probably other ideas that can be generated. there are other ways that we can look at certain indicators in the city. and i welcome people's input on that. i don't want to say that this is the one reality we have. there are probably other realities to add in term of greater what reality is in the city. overall -- and i will say this at the end of the hearing as well -- i think -- i want to see if it's possible for the budget committee to really look at how we can provide some

guidance for the budget analyst to look at the budget and ways that we can be better informed about how we look at some of the priorities we make in the budget as it comes to us and we finalize in the last couple weeks of june. we'll see just recently the department of children and families had finished their [speaker not understood] allocation process. and we see that there are actually major changes about how districts are affected. and that's one way that we can actually make some adjustments about perhaps how we use any money that we're able to reprogram in the budget to focus on where there were big cuts in services and districts, especially districts that have a high level of children that are needed like district 5 where there were some major cuts there. overall, also i want to see that we're looking at how we can provide a framework for how we look at deciding where we need to promote greater

opportunity in san francisco. greater opportunity for housing, greater opportunity for education, and greater opportunity for better quality of life thaw can lead to safer streets, that can lead to playstations where young people without greater fear, with greater access to health care and things of that sort. so, i'll leave it at that and let mr. russo continue and share with us his indicators. and, colleagues, i encourage you to chime in any time with questions you might have as we move forward. mr. russo? >> thank you, mr. avalos. members of the budget and finance committee from the director of the budget analyst office, i'm going to walk through some of the indicators that we reported on in the reports of economic equity in the city of san francisco. this is requested by supervisor avalos. the idea initially was that this would be a first phase of

a two-phase report. this one is looking at the -- establishing the code file, looking at the allocation of social benefits or determinants of equity lot the city. and the second face would then take this information and look at how city departments and agencies allocate their resources to address some of the inequities identified. so, i'll start -- i have a couple of slides here. i guess that is on. the main variables we looked at to make the analysis of where disparities exist are race and ethnicity and neighborhoods and there are many other ways you can evaluate the city population and the distribution of social benefit. but these were two that are key and often lead to indicators of disparity or inequity and they were used for that reason.

in addition, we could get information from the census bureau and other sources including a number of city departments that enabled us to analyze the population by these two factors. there certainly, as i say, other ways of analyzing it. there are other subgroups that could be identified that might also be experiencing disparity, but these are the main indicators that we use, variable. so, the first slide is just rac it shows what probably everybody in this room knows, ethnicity. the city has changed considerably in the last 30 years and has become more diverse. there is a breakdown here showing the percentage change in population from 1990 through 2010, showing large growth in the other population which is could be mixed race, people who

don't choose to identify their race apart of the census [speaker not understood]. the second group that has -- their growth is 48%, second group is asian, latinos at 29%, and american indian, alaskan native 21%. there was a decline as you can see of 35.7% in the black or african-american population. the latino population just punish point on that and why it's shown below the total line because the way the census bureau corrects statistic, they don't identify latino as a race ~. it's identified as an ethnicity. so, latinos could be incorporated in the numbers above the total line, but then they also can self-identify as an ethnic group separate from the racial categories. so, you'll see this point of distribution throughout the report. ~ one, not punish i appreciate the break out. i did mention in my opening

comment that racial disparities are something that i wanted to make sure this report looked at, but it's a key area that i think the city needs to be cognizant of especially when we look at homicide rates, especially when we look at unemployment rates, especially when we look at access to after school programs and things that are going to help alleviate the conditions people find are high homicide rates and incarceration rates. >> the area [speaker not understood] in the report -- >> commissioner breed? >> i'm just trying to understand your statement that says the city has become more diverse. within your slide you said it's become more diverse over the last 30 years. i don't understand how that statement is actually accurate with such a significant decline in the african-american population. >> because there was -- the majority of the population in 1990 was white. so, that has declined or hasn't

grown at the same level that other groups have grown. so, the overall makeup is more diverse. and, yes, you're absolutely right, the african-american population has decreased, was offset in the asian population and latino population and it's called other, mixed race. >> okay. >> so, the net effect is an increase in diversity. this slide shows the mix of race and ethnicity varies by neighborhood. there is a mix overall in the city. certain groups are concentrated in certain areas. i won't go through all the detail. it's all provided in the report. but certain neighborhoods have higher concentrations at different racial ethnic groups than others. and this shows the distribution. in terms of youth and an

interesting point on this is that the population under 18 statewide is 24%. so, that's the average for the entire state of california. san francisco has a population under 18 is only 13.3% of the total. and, so, it's smaller than the state. and within the city it's concentrated in particularly in the southeast neighborhoods. and here we show the range of population under 18 ranging from 7.6% and this is all broken down by supervisorial district. so, both district 3 and 6 have 7.6% of the population under 18. and 22.7% is the high and that's district 10, shows the most youth of all the districts in the city. just a word about the use of supervisorial districts. also our intent was to look at neighborhoods and get

information by neighborhood. we were able to get some of the census data by supervisorial district and it's a nice way of grouping neighborhoods. so, a lot of the information is presented that way. it's not all presented that way because we couldn't get every variable allocated by supervisorial district, but where we did [speaker not understood] ourselves, we have done it that way. the other end of the age spectrum, seniors as a percentage of the city-wide population, 13.6% in 2010, and again, the distribution is shown here by supervisorial district ranging from a low of 9-1/2% in district 8 up to 19.7% in district 3. and then everything in between in the other districts. >> right, and i appreciate the pull-out of these two statistics. they're pretty significant for my district. but also for district 10, the southeast sector, we have the highest concentration of young people. and you see to the western part

of the city a really large number of seniors. and in districts like 11 and 4 probably a lot of multi-generational households as well, that is a pretty significant factor. >> in terms of language spoken other than english at home city-wide, there are 43.6% of the population identifies their household is a place where a language other than english is spoken. that doesn't mean the occupants don't speak english. they may speak english at home, but at home another language is spoken. there is quite a range from 17.7% of the population in district 2 to 66.4% of the population in district 11 where the language other than english is spoken at home. all the maps, by the way, are done the same way. so, the darker the shade usually the higher the number. the higher the rate, whatever

is being measured for that particular variable. in terms of education, and here are some of the disparity that supervisor avalos was mentioning starts to emerge. the city-wide rate of residents with a college degree or more, a graduate degree, professional school degree is 50.6%. so, half the population has college degree or more. but, again, when you distribute by neighborhood, it ranges from 28% and supervisorial district 10 up to 78% in supervisorial district 2. so, there's quite a range of residents in terms of their educational attainment. median household income is the next variable presented and this is based on 2010. it's broken out both by supervisorial district and by race or ethnicity.

in supervisorial districts it ranges from a low of $37,43 1 and that's in district 6, up to $105,509 in district 2. ~ and then you can see in the chart on the lower right-hand side the break out by race and eth kniss ithv. the spectrum isn't as large, but clearly there are differences there when you break it out that way as well. yes. >> how did you choose to look at median household income versus, say, per capita? because it's what was done in the past. what was the decision around that? >> well, median is the mid point of the data sets or taking all the incomes in each district and levels out for any highs or lows. so it's a measure i think is particularly meaningful when you're looking at something where there can be a wide range

of numbers. so, that was the idea of using median household versus per capita. it was data that was available. it seemed to be pretty representative of what is going on in each district and that was why we chose it. but per capita would be another way of looking at it as well. it tends to kind of water it down because you're also including non-working people in that income per capita income, whereas this is a unit of measurement i think is reasonably understandable when you think about a household income. >> thank you. >> the poverty rate, and this again is from 2010 census data, city-wide the rate was reported as 12% by the census bureau. looking at it by supervisorial district again, there's quite a range, from 6% which was the rate reported in district -- excuse me, that's the low rate in district 2, up to 22% in

supervisorial district 6. so, quite a range there. and that, what that means, the poverty rate, how that's defined is the census bureau gets certain amounts that are based on the number of people in a family or a household that can be unrelated individuals in a household. but there are dollar thresholds that range from 11,000 up to 49,000 if you have a family with many children. so, it's a pretty low amount in san francisco. and i know there are different ways of measuring poverty. you could certainly -- you will find certain programs in the city, for example, that are based on income and you could be 100% above the poverty level and still qualify for some low-income programs. but these are probably on the low end in terms of actually having a livable income in san francisco.

but, again, it gets at the disparity between neighborhoods. >> interesting to be able to link this poverty rate to kind of parallel, but these are the same people. what are the housing conditions they live in or what kind of housing are they in, is it rental housing? is it property owned by the household or public housing? that would be something i think would give a sense of -- drill down a little more of these people, [speaker not understood]. >> yes, i think that's right, supervisor avalos. and the census bureau does the american community survey, ongoing surveys and delves into more details. there is more information we can obtain if you're interested. and one more way of looking at the poverty, it's a slightly different measure. it's residents below the poverty level. city-wide it's 11.5%.

it's the same mechanism where income is defined or the poverty threshold is defined by household or family size, but for this particular measure it goes below that level. again, 11.5% city-wide, the range is 6.5%. that was for the white population. that has the lowest poverty level or least poverty up to 25.2% which was for the black, african-american population. so, quite a range there as well, and certainly an indicator of disparity. unemployment rate, city-wide rate in 2010 was 7%. again, with the distribution by district, the lowest rate was supervisorial district 2 and the highest district 10 with 11%. and the other district ranging in between. we also looked at crime

statistics and these slides show the distribution of crime by district. the two slides here show homicide and robberies. the highest rate of number of robberies as shown here in district 6. the chart shows only the odd numbered, but the ones in between are the even numbers. and homicides, the highest number was 27 and that was in supervisorial district 10. for 2012 and this information is from the police department, not the census bureau. >> it would be interesting to think about or look into who, in terms of racially, are homicide victims. i think that -- i know in my district, in 2012 i think it was all african-american except for the five who were killed on

howe street, asian family. [speaker not understood]. we're seeing who is most likely to be a victim of homicide and we're seeing also linked to some of the poverty indicators that we're seeing in parts of the city as well. >> well, on that, just looking at the other slides, the incarcerated population, not the victim population, but here is a breakdown from the sheriff's department of residents who are incarcerated in 2012 -- excuse me, yeah, 2012 by race or latino ethnicity. and you can see the numbers and percent of total incarcerated population, and then what we have on the right-hand side here is a percentage of the 2010 population. so, the highest concentration of those incarcerated were black, african-american, but making up 55.5% of the

incarcerated population that year. however, that same group, black african americans, only comprised 6.3% of the total population in the city. so, overrepresented in the incarcerated population and you see the opposite with the white population, and their representation. >> the headline in today's paper, chronicle, about when it comes to people arrested for marijuana possession, i believe it was, that this trend about african americans being incarcerated in greater rates was evident, what was discussed in that story. clearly justice is not being equally meted out. >> we also looked at education and number of education indicators. the next slide is in california department of education, this is for san francisco unified school district, the drop-out rate for the district during

that school year was 12.8% and this is a break out by race or ethnicity ranging from as you can see 6.2% asian not hispanic, up to 20.3% which was hispanic or latino of any race. these terms are slightly different than what i was showing you before because it came from a different source. and this breaks out more of the racial and ethnic groups and distinguishes better than the census bureau, actually, between whites and hispanic. we also reviewed some environmental issues and [speaker not understood] was one of them, presence of parks in neighborhoods. we did find disparity there. this particular slide looks at park acreage in residents by district. and city-wide, the number is 6.14 on average acres for every thousand residents.

by district, though, it ranges from a low of .17 acres for every thousand residents, and that's in district 6, up to 25 acres for every thousand residents, that's in district 2. i should note in the presidio, obviously there is a big block of land there that drives those numbers up. but if you take that one out, you can still see there is discrepancy between different neighborhoods. and it doesn't tell the whole story because you could live in district 6 and be near the waterfront or if you had a car, you could get easily to a park. but it could present more of an issue for people who have limited mobility, can't get to another neighborhood very easily, and would benefit from having parks locally accessible. in terms of health, we have other measures of park and environment in the report that

i just presented that one -- >> mr. rizzo, when you come back next time, i appreciate your comment. thanks for acknowledging the presidio as part of that. it is in my district. i agree, but i'd love to see what it looks like without that. as i think of parks and neighborhoods, district 2, presidio is an amazing resource. i grew up there. my parents were in the military. as i think about parks, these are more neighborhood parks and i would love to see that without -- >> sure, we can get you those numbers. and i mean, the same would apply to district 1 which includes golden gate park. it is a city park, a city resource if you happen to live near it in district 1, you can get to it very easily. but it is more of a city-wide draw as compared to a neighborhood park. these numbers include everything. [speaker not understood] park something as big as the presidio. >> i think [speaker not understood] what we see in district 3 and district 6 is a

lot of concrete, tall buildings, not very many places people can enjoy the outdoor space. >> right. and in both of those districts there are sizeable populations with limited mobility. so, they may not be as able to get in the car, get on the bike and ride to another neighborhood where more parks may be in place. one of the health measures we looked at, and we looked at a number of them, was prenatal care. so, this is a measure. it's not by supervisorial district, the data was not accessible that way, but it is broken out by zip code. so, knowing the neighborhood names, you pretty much know what goes with which district. but here, this was a measure compiled by the sustainable communities index of pregnant women receiving care of the first three months of a pregnancy city-wide. looked like a fairly good

statistic. 87%. however, again, we get into the range, there is a disparity, 69% was the low, some of the lower areas are indicated with a green arrows. 69% was in bayview hunters point. 71% in treasure island. and some of the higher ones and went up to 100%, although that's the financial district which were the only 8 cases total report that had year, it is not a large residential air i can't tellv also marina cal hal owe, miraloma sunny said and the presidio were high in terms of women getting care in the first three months of pregnancy. so, we do see a disparity thereby neighborhood. and the next slide is a map showing essentially the same information, but in graphic form. so, those are some of the highlights from the report. there are many more indicators

in all the areas that i mentioned in there. looking at the phase 2 question that supervisor avalos has asked, which is how this kind of this information be integrated into the budget process, there are some examples from elsewhere that i'll briefly mention. and this assignment, i know, was motivated, inspired in part by what occurred in king county, washington. they have adopted a strategic plan principle in 2010 which was one of the key principles, fair and just so that the county was to serve all residents by promoting fairness and opportunity and eliminating inequities. by county i mean the county government. it became a guiding principle for county government operations. they adopted an ordinance, it's called ordinance 169 48, which requires the application of equity and social justice ~ issues foundational practices to county government operations. and some of the details there,

all county departments are charged with increasing access to the determinants of equity through the way they deliver services, through theipolicy development and decision making, education and community within the government, and community engagement and partnership. the principles of equity and social justice are to be applied to all county actions including their operational business plan, management reporting systems for accountability and performance, and a county budget in order to eliminate inequities and create opportunities. and one example, i won't read through it all, in the king county budget as part of the presentation from the county executive to the county council, this is from their department of juvenile detentio