we can model out into the future how much money we need every year that we have 171 people identified this year going to be losing their money, so i think it's a very new approach, and it's been informed by working very closely in the housing world over the last 11 years and we provide a variety of eviction and homeless prevention services and in a lot of ways this is everything i have dreamed of and like if we only did it this way it would be better and we're at that place right now and i am super excited and i hope to make you proud of us. >> thank you. any other comments? commissioner james. >> yes, could you tell me a little bit about the foundation? are you on the board, members from the alliance on the board of the foundation? ? how does that work? >> go ahead. >> so yes we are incorporated

as the foundation and we -- our mission is provide safety net services for the hiv/aids and lgbt communities. aids housing alliance is a program of the q foundation. we're known as the aids housing alliance. we also have a cafe on campus at uc hastings and a job training program and called a hot cafe and we have another program simply sandwiches that delivers 10,000 organic brown bag sandwiches a year to all of our partner agencies, and then over the last couple of years we started doing what we call qhrp and the lgbt and homeless prevention and rapid rehousing. >> thank you. any other questions commissioner james? >> no. i am trying to get the

relationship. are they operating under the same 501(c)(3) oar whatever corporation? >> yes, there is one 501(c)(3) and i'm the executive director and on the board. >> okay. >> any questions or comments from the commission? any questions or comments from the public? hearing none call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you the motion carries. next item is b requesting authorization to modify the grant for in home supportive services consortium for ihss contract mode and provider skills development training and support during the period of july 1, 2014 through june 30, 2015 in the additional amount of $714,695 for a revised total grant amount not to exceed $83,038,398. shirreen welcome

back. >> thank you. i just want like quickly point out and it was mentioned earlier but in home supportive services consortium has changed its name to home bridge inc. and that didn't get reflected on the agenda there but it is correct on the memo, so just a reminder for those -- because i think ihss doesn't come before the commission as much as other programs and you know it's the biggest program by far and drives the budget of daas. one of the things that we have is whey have the contract mode in san francisco and that is when people are unable to manage their own worker we can refer them to home bridge and home bridge has its own very, very well trained work force that can

provide provider services to the clients that cannot manage their own person so it's a really important resource for us in san francisco, and in this case we're asking for an increase in this year's budget for $714,695. the main purpose is off set the grantee expenses for the increase in home care provider wages and benefits associated with the minimum wage ordinance. in addition to that we're adding 5,000 service hours to the contract and there are over charges in the home care provider wages, and then increase to the direct staff and direct operating costs so i wanted to point out if you're looking at the budget. commissioner loo i am looking at you and you're detailed oriented and that is great. we're

focusing on this year and if you look at subsequent years we have to come back with the requests for those years and this year looks bigger than the subsequent years and the years after that and that's why. we're just dealing with this year and we will come back for authorization from you for next year's budget and we're still working on that piece. >> thank you. may i have a motion and a second for discussion? >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you. any questions or comments? commissioner loo. >> yeah, i am looking at the benefit detail and seems like it's awful high cared to the other programs. >> >> it's 41% compared to others i have seen and 15, 17 and the highest i have seen is 30 and this one is 41%. >> so we have mark burns here

who is the deputy director of home bridge and maybe he can give specific information about that but i want to say we support our organization giving good benefits so he can probably give detail. >> good morning. i am mark burns and the dep director of home bridge, the ihss consortium. there are several reasons why it's high on the page. the first reason they're workers making in this fiscal year from 1175 to 1225 so benefits as a percentage of the base salary are higher than people making 15 to $25 an hour. the second reason is that these are all seiu [inaudible] members and they have a red line pension and the pension is currently at 48% above the minimum consideration and that is adding to the rate as well and going up

to 63% next year. the pension continues to be red lined. the workers have full health care through us and that's a good benefit carrying as part of the passion that we have a well compensated work force. >> thank you. any other questions or comments from the commission? >> maybe i will ask a question from anne. what is the average french benefit that you amount and the agency that we fund? >> >> so there is a wide range of benefit of benefits to salary across the community providers. by in large and [inaudible] is correct and we strongly support a good benefit package and the city's policy for all of the providers but it ranges somewhere between probably eight, nine, 10% to probably

30%. i do think that mr. burns comment here is really what is worth noting. these are very low wage earners and therefore for someone making $10 an hour at 50% -- if the benefit is 50% that's $5 so if you look at the few things they receive which is health care, dental and retirement -- mark, is that what what you said? and those are the benefits and it's less than that but it's really about the math on the low wage work force and i bet in any of the contracts we see something very similar. the city requires under ordinance that organizations with more than 10 staff provide those benefits to their employees so again it's just about the wage being so

low that the percentage looks so high, but it's a normal package. >> and also the benefits are fixed amount. they're not tied to the salary so it's a higher percentage. >> absolutely. >> of the salary. >> so the same organization if someone is making $40,000 the percentage is lower because they're getting the same benefit package but it's a smaller percentage of their wages. >> any other comments or questions from the commission? any comments or questions from the public? >> i have one. >> commissioner. >> this is kind of out of -- [inaudible] maybe but i am curious about the name change and what the rational was for it, just a little bit of context ? >> [inaudible] executive director. the name change. so when we started the agency 20 years ago we were made up of 12 community based agencies in the city as a consortium. comoachy

and bayview hunters point and senior center and catholic charities and independent living -- there was a lot of us and we were a consortium. about five years after that we were no longer a consortium. we were just an agency, stand alone agency. at this point we probably should have changed our name because we were no longer a consortium but we did not so we continued with the ihss and as a lot of you know there is confusion at times between the ihss public authority, between the ihss department at daas and the ihss consortium. it's very confusing so since we weren't a consortium and the name has been confusing we decided to change our name to home bridge which is a much better reflection of the agency as well as some of the expansion of the work that we're doing. we recently got the

contract in san mateo county with the contractor and we're no longer just ihss in san francisco so the name is a better reflection, and we changed it march 1, something like that. >> thank you. >> your r. -- you're welcome. >> any other questions or comments? commissioner. >> yeah. i asked this before but what is the difference between ihss and home bridge? >> i'm sorry. >> what's the difference between the ihss and the new name home bridge what kind of job, what kind of function is different? ihss. >> there is no difference. >> ihssue mean the public authority, commissioner? >> yes. >> so the ihss public

authority does not employ the home care workers. the consumers hire directly their home care workers and home bridge, formerly the consortium as was said we actually have the responsibility of serving clients. we hire the work force. they're our employees. we superrize them and we have a training operation that the public authority uses but that's the real difference. >> if i may add to that. the home bridge clients are unable to manage their own care workers where the public authority clients can manage and choose to do so, and that's another very

important difference. >> thank you. i understand more now. >> thank you. >> okay. any other comments from the commission? comments or questions from the public? hearing none call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you the motion carries. item e requesting authorization to modify the grant with bayview hunters point multipurpose senior service inc. for community services during the period of march 1, 2015 through august 31, 2015 in the additional amount of $76,815 for a revised total grant amount not to exceed $1,736,567. linda lau. welcome linda. >> good morning commissioners. president james, commissioners and director hinton. i will be printing an overview of the item

that relates to agenda item e and f. you have the commission memo. this is the snap-ed grant that we're asking for authorization to modify for two contractors. snap-ed stands for supplemental nutrition assistance program education. this is a federal grant that we're getting for the first time this year. the purpose is to -- with this request is modify the funds from the snap-ed plus $5,000 from the board of supervisors for district project for thai chi. this in addition to the community services program for the two contractors. bayview hunters point, multi-purpose senior services and self-help for the elderly. the main purpose of this

program to improve the health and well being at seniors in the senior centers. if you look at page two of the memo, the table, it highlights the three different projects that we are recommending funding for. first under bayview hunters point multi-purpose senior services for this fiscal year 14-15 for the gardening project is for a total of $50,000 and for education is the total is listed. if you add the two projects it comes out to $76,815 which we're asking authorization to modify and add to the existing contract. self-help for the elderly we're recommending thai chi program for total of $46,321. just a

little background the california department of aging received snap-ed funding and we have an amount of that funding that was actually presented to the commission and it was approved several months ago. i believe it was in november. these contract modification is for us to be able to work with these two contractors to help us implement the three snap-ed projects. the goal is to target low income seniors below 185% federal poverty level and by implementing the programs we hope to reduce the prevalence of obesity and on set of chronic diseases for these low income population. we're able to accomplish these by educating and by providing direct

nutrition education and providing support to the participants with increased access to healthy foods, reducing the consumption of beverages that are high in sugar content, so healthier beverages and also increasing physical activity, and also improving the food resource management skills of these participants. so based on the state's and also the county's profile for snap-ed participants as well as staff needs assessment and also the providers identifying needs and interests we were able to identify two contractors that we recommend to you to help us implement these three projects. again the first project is snap-ed nutrition education and i will provide more details about that. the second project is the snap-ed early gardening project and i will introduce my

colleague soon and she will give you details about that project and the third one is the thai chi program. all of the programs are evidence based which means they have been proven to be effective in achieving the impact that we want. all these programs have to be and are approved by usda as well as the california department of aging, so first i'm going to review and highlight some of the nutrition education projects for you. in your document the appendix a gives you a lot of details about this system r program and the services. i'm going to give you just some highlights of the program. with this nutritional education project we're going to be providing direct nutrition education either four to six week sessions of the seric lums. the two that we identified that

we will implement is one is called cooking matter frs adults and the other one is "eat smart live strong." both programs include not only nutrition education but practical information. hands on training, food tasting and demonstrations and the goal is share information and have people have the skills to implement it and adopt it into their lifestyle. in addition to the direct nutrition education we will be having these two indirect nutrition education through community health fairs and the contractor will work with us and the other snap-ed partners. in terms of the other indirect nutrition education daas will be sharing other kind of policy changes, providing curriculum

and information to the contractors so they can share it and use it at their sites to encourage seniors to be able to adopt healthier eating habits, things that we do and more healthy beverages. in terms of the service objectives we plan to have at least 11 sessions of these direct nutrition education classes. that means 11 different centers that are snap-ed eligible and then provide at least two community health fairs serving a total of 190 unduplicated consumers through the direct education and serving at least 300 commissioners through the indirect nutrition education. for the outcome we are going to be doing some surveys of the

participants and at least 85% will be participating in the survey and then based on the survey results and also the standardized evaluation tools, pre and post tests at least 75% of the participants at the sites will report improvement in healthy food and beverage consumption. also the other goal is through the post evaluation surveys at least 10% of the participants will show an increase in consumption of fruits and vegetables and at least 25% will increase their physical activity level so those are the goals of this project. at this time because the second piece of the contract modification involves the gardening projected i will introduce my colleague anna who will share some details with you. >> excuse me. just a

procedural question. i only read the first contract. will we will be voting on both at the same time or should we take them separately? >> i believe since it's two different organizations you will be voting individually. since the gardening and nutrition education that linda just spoke of are going to be authorized to bayview hunters point multipurpose senior services you will take that as one contract but yes, you need to vote on it separately. >> in that case i think we can vote on the first one now and discuss it and then discuss the second one separately. >> why don't you clarify that? so -- >> total piece to the first one. >> oh. >> linda outlined the nutrition education and anna will outline the gardening

project that is part of letter e. >> thank you for clarification. >> [inaudible] >> good morning president president, commissioners and director hinton. i am one of the nutritionists for daas and today i will guide you through the highlights of the gardening project and the federally funded program that linda presented. this is . >> >> an evaluation -- evidence based program and will provide education, growing and harvesting of edible food and allow for outdoor activity. it meets two of the state's objectives by providing physical activity and increasing the knowledge of healthy foods. we plan to approach this project

by establishing three gardens in the city of san francisco and meet the eligible criteria and have been identified as episcopal service in the soma area and rosa parks and samoan community center in visitacion valley and they will provide hands on gardening and education that supports the food grown seniors at each site. the outcome objectives are measured by surveying of the participants with the goal of obtaining at least 50% of the surveys completed, and the survey templates were approved and provided by the california department of aging and the focus of our easy urban gardening project is increase physical activity by 25% and increase consumption of fruits and vegetables by 10% and the hope is serve at least 80

unduplicated consumers. thank you for your attention as i highlighted this program and seek your approval on the program. >> thank you very much. may have a motion to approve and discussion for discussion. >> [inaudible] >> second. >> thank you. any questions or comments? commissioner sims. >> can someone explain the rational of combining two contractors in one memorandum and then separating the vote to two separate votes? seems to me it would have been clearer if there were two memorandums, one for each vendor? >> so i think what happened here is that the snap-ed -- these dollars came to us through snap-ed so it's all one pot of money that we will now be reporting to the state on as one pot of money with three categories so for reporting requirements through our funder we're going to have to report on

the overarching snap-ed money with the three programs, nutrition education, gardening and thai chi. i would imagine there are some communities where the snap-ed is going to one so it's not confusing but to have this laid out and who the funder is and how we're getting the money and the overarching objectives and why we have the one memo and detail of each and outcomes and measurements split apart. that's my best thinking but i seen david has gotten up and he's gog to really explain it to us. i think that what it is. >> i am the contract liaison for daas. i like her answer better than what i am going to give you. >>

[laughter] >> then why didn't -- and paused). and especially if they're providing the same service and better to provide a narrative and make it clear and concise that way so we tend to cluster services that are the same and provided by multiple vendors so and it's been my experience in serving the commission in the past and serving the dhs commission as well and one less paper to read is to your overall benefit unless you think otherwise and the purpose is eliminate the amount of paper you have to

read when approving multiple contracts for essentially the same service and we leave it up to the staff and anne as well to explain to you the nuisances or differences between the vendors and they're collective approach, but essentially it's to make it easier and minimize the reading you have to do in order to prepare for the job you have to do. >> thank you. >> thank you for that. i guess my only follow up question. in this case these are two stellar providers with tremendous reputations to the community and to daas but one of the concerns from my point of view is accountability and the metrics and if we're approving one program budget and the set of accountabilities for one budget at a time to me i am more comfortable with that because it allows a discrete analysis over

another of the contract period and if one contractor over permanents and one under permanents under the same program -- >> but you're voting separately and we're monitoring it separately and that's why the vote is separated out. >> it's a little counter intuitive. >> and like anne said and you're required to vote on them separately and the purpose is facilitate the work and if you prefer them to be separate we can direct staff to do that. >> i think we want a full conversation about that because if you remember in nutrition alone we have many, many, many contractors and the over overarching memo is a tool to separate out. we wouldn't take action on that today. >> correct. commissioner james. >> i just had one question and

when describing the frail elderly and their condition and how they're going to be gardening and how are they going -- boxes -- because i don't think i could stoop that low to do any gardening. >> they're going to be raised beds. >> okay. >> and there will be stools for them to sit on and they would be modified for them to be able to reach. >> that is a lot of -- that's my concerns when i looked the frail elderly and how much chopping? that's a lot of exercise, so i was just wondering if there is something raised. if somebody is in a wheelchair can they get -- >> definitely. there will be enough space to do so. duly noted. >> thank you. commissioner ow. >> yes, i want to congratulate the staff as picking the hunters