homelessness. >> i would love to hear from compass as well because i know they're the ones that interface with our families and i know we had some questions about how we ask about documentation. >> i want to give director rory and opportunity to finish the presentation so thank you for putting up with us. >> that's what it's all about. so implementation plan -- i'll go through real quick with this. i wanted to respond to one of your comments is that if we finds this income verification requirement is so onerous and it effects so few people, then we change. that's the benefit of policy, not law. similarly with the cal works issue. this is stuff we need to work through. i said this

to the providers last week. there will be exceptions everywhere -- a family fleeing domestic spry violence, families with severe mental illness. there are gray areas if all this we have a target implementation date of august 1 and then the existing waiting list will be closed and a new one established with this criteria. it is important to know that families on the list prior to august 1 would be grandfathered in. we won't go ask for these new requirements. we will partner with community based organizations to help

around the immigrant population, see if there's ways we can get them to apply for benefits they're entitled to and -- as much as possible, decrease their fear and explain to them what our internal closed process is around providing benefits. i noted or website for faq for immigrants for all programs. then we'll continue working with hsa and compass on cal works and how that would work -- whether it be full-time, part-time, make it more easy for families to navigate our system. cal works is not a barrier, but a positive and benefit for families. with that i'll conclude. >> how long does it take approximately for a family or individual if they're on cal works in another county to get

their cal works transferred to san francisco? >> it's usually 30 days. >> during that time can they not get on the wait list? >> no. they can. >> okay. >> you just have to apply too, and that would initiate an intercounty transfer. >> i want to ask you a couple of points that are very important policy issues. i'm appreciative of the deaf cult position you're in. you have limited resources, you don't have the resources you need to address the needs of everyone. i understand what you're trying to do. one of the things that i do wonder is that if the intent when it comes to residency -- if the intent to

reside in san francisco is sufficient, to establish residency, if you will, you can say actions speak louder than words. if someone is actually willing to live in the shelter system and put themselves through that process, doesn't that, in and of itself, reflect intent to reside in san francisco? i mean, that's a question for me. >> i think -- i can't crawl into the heads and try to predict the behavior of families applying for shelter. there's a lot of comments about what it means to be on the waiting list. some families may think it's the gateway to housing, which is what we want

all our families to be in. we have a large stock of family supported housing and family affordable housing. larger than any other city in our county around us. if families think that getting on the wait list is a way to get into that housing, then families will get on that wait list. it takes seven months for families to get in a shelter given our current waiting list. so families who are applying -- i don't think it's a lot to ask a family when they're applying for the list that they demonstrate tangibly, more than saying i wanna live here. we all want to live here. but they take an action, which would be applying for benefits or transferring their case here. >> let me ask it this way. do

you have examples of families that have applied for the shelter system that we later found out -- >> this has been an issue for years and in talking with staff again, compass staff and others, they are working with family now who are living in oakland or the east bay and on the list and we do have those families. they may have an intent to reside, they may have formerly lived here and want to come back and others may not and are just looking for resources for their family as a safety net. >> the last question i'll ask related to that -- it seems to me there's a lot of anecdotal

information. i think it would be useful to have more data that shows this is the exact number of families that we're talking about and there might be variances. one thing you said, which i appreciate, is if the reallations become so onerous then at some point you change. i appreciate that, but isn't it better analyze the data and have data and information before the fact to really assess as much as you can whether or not the regulations are likely to become onerous before you actually implement. in other words, if we want to avoid

having onerous regulations from a public policy standpoint, isn't it an argument that it might be better to analyze the data and be sure they're not going to be onerous, and once you do that, begin with implementation as opposed to moving with implementation and then waiting for -- to see if there's a problem and then changing. >> again, with human behavior it's hard to predict what's going to happen when you launch, no matter how much data you crunch. over the last three years anywhere from 45 to 55 percent of the families on our list indicate they came from another county. i feel

confident that the policies we've laid out an proposed will not be onerous, however, we share the same goal that if something is so -- proves to be so onerous then we would change, but -- sort of like you get to a point where at some point you need to launch. we get to analyzing and debating the affordable care agent [inaudible] we're trying to propagate. you'll never been 100 percent sure in health and human services. we're not building a building, we're trying to massage a system to try to make it most beneficial for families who are most in need. >> what does the commission think about this? >> it hasn't been to our commission yet. >> so is there a process for the commission as the policymaking body to make a

decision on this yet? >> generally commission doesn't weigh in on policy changes around contracts or some things that don't require legislative change. this required a change in local ordinance we'd run it there our commission. >> i would think a change to the policy would be significant can enough that the policymaking body of the commission would weigh on it. >> historically the human service agency or voters or contracts and not generally in what they see as general operations of its programs. >> what does the city attorney say on this? >> i haven't asked city attorney. >> why don't we hear from

compass? thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, welcome to our committee. >> thank you. i understand i've just been brought up here to talk about the weight list process and also... >> if you can identify yourself. >> yeah. i'm the program director at compass so we manage the city's shelter wait list. i want to give a run down of the process. first step for any family is to call connecting point to do initial phone intake. at that point we do an eligibility screen inging

a lot of times families will come in with none of those documents and it can be challenging to track those documents down for a family that has lost their id and their birth certificate we have to go through the process of ordering the birth certificate to get the id. it's not a pro process that comes without its challenges. the families must check in once a week. it's a

fairly challenging process for families to access shelter and we do lose a significant number of families in that process. some families are families who finds other options and some are very venerable families. a variety of different things can happen to them including losing custody, hospitalization, et cetera >> any questions. supervisor kim. >> one question i had asked prior was you had done a survey of all the families [inaudible] . >> we did the survey last week that surveyed the families that

were on the waiting list at that point. we were able to get a hold of 152 families and 92 percent said they were currently residing in san francisco. >> what about the remaining ten percent? >> well, there's 60 percent of that remaining 10 percent said they had resided in san francisco within the last three years. another 14 per september said it was three or more years ago and then three or four families said they'd never resided in san francisco. >> with those four families, did you feel like maybe they were abusing the system, had no intent at living here, were on here because they thought san

francisco's a great place to be because you have so many benefits? what was your sense of these remaining four families? >> i didn't speak to these families myself, but i know generally having done management at connecting point, for the most part, with some of the limited exceptions, they do have some ties to san francisco, usually family support is a really common one. they might have an aunt or sister that said they could crash on their couch for a couple nights, weeks and they may have other ties to san francisco as well including school or employment. >> my last question is -- i kind of referred to this earlier when i was speaking -- was the challenges of providing documentation for many folks

you encounter. so how challenging is the process. do you find for the families you interface with /kurpbly? it varies depending on the families and [inaudible] the families that are capable of tracking down their birth certificate, that are capable of getting their letter of homelessness, for those that can check in every week. these families that are in a /tkpwraeer level of crisis, those are the families for whom it can be very challenging to

get these documents. i think the bulk of work that case managers do at connecting point, a lot of times, is helping families track down those documents. >> i have no idea how to get my own birth certificate. >> even the president of the united states is not able to get a birth certificate, right? let me go back to the point supervisor kim was making. for me, there is a difference when you're talking about homeless shelters because that is the lowest point in the safety net so the question would be -- you talked about some of those

families that are not able to provide that information. if the families are denied services here, where do they go? >> any time that we deny family services we attempt to refer them to other appropriate services. i think people have spoken to this already that there are not always services in other areas so referring them out to another county is not always result in them being referred into an appropriate shelter system. >> supervisor yee. >> i'm not sure if you'll know the answer, but for families [inaudible] is this for families that are 'em /phoeued in san francisco? could these be the same families?

>> they could be. >> i you don't know? >> i don't know based on the survey we did. let's open it up to public comment. we are

lacking shelter for family, for single adult. that's where we need to move. the intent here is not clear and i want to challenge the process that the hearing board was not privy of this policy. i want to ask you

that you guys start getting more involved with us around policies that should come to a local homeless board. opposing this policy, and i hope you hear from the community about the many reasons why. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, i'm deborah. i am the deputy director for hamilton family center. thank you for hearing our comments today. i want to recognize that

i recommend that we organize a family shelter access work group to look at these policies

so we can develop data driven policies that look at the regional system and what's happening in san francisco with family homelessness. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> my name is charles. i'm [inaudible]. i'm single, but a lot of people [inaudible] it's hard because i been there myself. /es /p-rblly especially a family -- it's hard. like the man say, it's crazy. [inaudible]. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is brian, i'm

the executive director of the aids alliance here in san francisco and i'm a member of the emergency services providers association. i like the direction you've taken this so that it's more of a collaborative approach because i think a lot of this is about communication around the details and it's estimated over a five year period that 20.4 percent of people with hiv and aids have been displaced from san francisco in a five year period. and i've long been a supporter of -- i think that

stopping displacement is triage. i want to support those values based approaches that if we have people here and hair emotional connections are to this city and if they are temporarily somewhere else, then i think we wan to make sure [inaudible] thank you all for your leadership on this and i really appreciate all the work that my sisters and brothers do at the family services agencies. >> nec speaker please. >> good morning, i'm vera hail and i wanted to call your attention to some issues related to the supreme your

[inaudible] residency requirement for programs like this. the durational residency requirement was ended by supreme court in 1968 and part of the rational was that if people meet the other eligibility requirements, you can't deny them aid based on the fact that they tone have residency. that would be a violation of due process so that fast that was part of the reason why they said you condition do it anymore. and the next year the secretary of health education and welfare told all counties they could not do it in any programs with federal funds and that was interesting too because i worked with the department of social /s*flss in those years and i remember that part of my job was to go down, make sure that general assistance

applicants got the money they needed the day they applied. now i notice that they have a 15 day residency requirement in ga and they have a 30 day residence requirement in three of their other programs per local ordinance. i wish the board of supervisors would not approve such local ordinances that bring back durational residency requirements. i'm trying to get shelters for seniors, and they don't exist yet either, but i wanted to bring your attention to the residency requirement. >> thank you. jennifer

[inaudible] kenya. next speaker please. >> [inaudible] i'm in a shelter with my daughter because she has to be with me 24/7. i wanna be brave and talk about [inaudible]. i'm really mad because [inaudible] really bad. they throw all my medical supplies in the garbage. [inaudible] they don't care

about homeless, they don't care about families. [inaudible]. it's a life. a lot of things i sew, they don't care. [inaudible]. nothing. [inaudible]. very abusive, sometimes [inaudible] and they don't care. [inaudible] because my neck and they don't care. they don't care about

families, they don't care about anything, you know. i see many, many things and it's very [inaudible]. >> thank you very much, ma'am. next speaker please. >> my name is [inaudible]. i'm with the homeless co/hreubgs and i'm also a resident at hamilton transitional. don't mess with something that's already fixed. i've been at hamilton transitional a year and if it wasn't for the stability i had there -- it can affect the child. i was overhearing when the guy was saying some people