she sees this entering san francisco at high rates. we feel like the work of first five is area aligned what she strifes to do. she'll value added. >> thank you for letting us know. >> supervisor mar. >> i wanted to thank the first five commission and all the staff for amazing work from preschool for all the help equity work done from firth to five. i wanted to -- from birth to five. it's hard shoes to fill, but i know that trent roors appointment will be another great person on the first five commission. i know supervisor cohen served on first five also like i did. >> seeing no other questions or comments, public comment www.we'll open it up for item seven. seeing none, public comments

closed. if we could get a motion to move sylvia deporto. we'll take that without objection. congratulations to sylvia. call item eight. >> hearing to consider appointing one member term ending october 19th 2017 to the eastern neighborhood citizen's advisory compete. one seat, one applicant. >> is shrug bucktell here? thank you for waiting. >> good morning -- it's good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for having me here today and a special thanks to the office for putting me up for appointment. my name is [inaudible] bucktell, i work for the community street

services. i believe i should be appointed to the eastern neighborhood citizen's advisory committee because of the unique and distinct perspective i can bring to the body. to me, the eastern neighborhoods are not just designated lines on a map. they exist at the same time as geographic and cultural segment of my life growing up and working professionally in san francisco. i don't just live and work in the eastern neighborhoods, i was made there. i'm a product of d-6. i within the to elementary school in solma. my first official job was working near mission bay, and today, i'm in d-9 every single day workerring. when agencies present about street improvements and park improvement in the new parks, they're talking about the streets i've walked on for years. the parks, i hope to have my children play in one day. my current job adds the outreach

and campaign engagement coordinator has allowed me to professionally work on many of the topics that eastern neighborhoods discuss and provides input on and votes on. every day, i'm involved in policy discussions with regarding land use which has become perhaps the most critical policy area in the entirety of this city. ground just broke at a new park on 17 st. and folsom. this happened due to funds allocated by the eastern neighborhood cac. and our organization was there. when the connections between the mission and mission bay are completed, it will be the people i work with an work for who will be there. ful appoint, i thot onl -- not only intend to but promise that relevant thftion is brought back to community spaces. i will understand my rol role

as a community organizer and member to make sure that my seat is the most grassroots-based seat on the committee and further more, i promise to review each project that comes through through the lens of not only those coming into the city but those coming here. i understand this appointment is not to be taken lightly. let me assure you on the record that i pledge to be an active member of this committee if appointed. i take this with the utmost amount of seriousness, on this, you have my word. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor mar. >> i wanted to say to mr. bucta, i appreciate the passion that you bring. you talk about be rooted in district six, your commitment to organizing the neighborhood to speak for themselves and empower

them, i appreciate that. joining others on the committee, giving that voice to this important eastern neighborhood, cac is so important. so much respect for your work empowering people from our neighborhoods. it's great to have you here. >> seeing no other members -- no other questions or comments from our committee, i'm going to open it up to public comment. i have a couple of comment cards here. la tonya jones. [inaudible] marti martinez. >> i'm here to speak before you because i was scared to speak. this is one of the guys that will speaker it you but i have to speak for myself. i was the kind of person that was deciding i like to speak in front of people. i'm blessed to have [inaudible] as one the stets for the

citizens. please, he is a good guy. he is the kind of guy you'll want on your board. thank you. >> please come on up. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors. [through the interpreter] >> he says that i've been doing a lot of work with mission clab arive and with the lower street community services i'm here to support his appointment because he makes leaders out of us. nothing more than i want to share my support for him.

thank you. >> thank you very much. any other members? come on up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm cynthia citizen and i'm with sro collaborative and i'm with the internship. i'm here to support [inaudible] for the appointment of citizen advisory. i've known terag for a number of years. not only him before before i got into th the internship. he's an silent outreach coordinator. not only is he an asset to the board but to the community in general. to appointment him would be a benefit to our community. not appointing sheeraz would be

a loss. his work speaks for himself. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public? >> good afternoon, i'm dinea martinez. i work with the commission collaborative and dlor ez street community service as long with chirrack bakta. what i've witnessed over the time that with we've spent working together is chirraz doing everything to educate himself on all sides of the issue. he not only looks toward the representatives from our community, and opinions of elected officials and people who have had a lot of experience if the situation, but he looks at the experiences of those of the most vulnerable populations of san francisco. those who don't always have the opportunity to share their

voice. the immigrant populations, sro, low income populations. lgbtq members and people who are on disability or things that have nature. so it's really important to have somebody on this committee who has ties with people who are actually being affected most by a lot of things that are happening in the city. he cares a lot about diversity and the effects on everybody in this city. and also, does so much research and a lot of thorough investigation to figure out historical context and important effects of projects. so thank you very much for hearing out what the community has to say about his appointment and i really think that it would be a great asset to this committee to have him. thank you. >> thank you very much.

any other members of the public who wish to speak on item eight? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues. >> i move appointment to seat 1 of chirrazz bakta so seat 8. >> i support that. >> seconded by supervisor cohen. before we move on to item nine, we're going to tack a bit of a recess, if we can meet back here at 2:00 if that works. thank you. we're in recess.jessica was sop

constantino and i'm a filmmaker. i'm the cinematographer producer, director. it's inevitable at some point that you want your movie to get out there and suddenly you realize it to be a community organizer sometime to get people together to see the story you have to tell. the conversations that can come out of a well-crafted film. they're pretty rich and interesting. what we do as the lakers, besides all the best way possible. so, i think that's where i do well learn everything. lighting, cinematography, i got your jobs

as a stage manager at someplace that was a projectionist. i kind of mix and match as they went kept refining. i feel like it isn't just about making things that are beautiful and appealing and rich and thought-provoking the way their films but it has to tell a story. >> my name is to know-i'm a freelance multimedia producer. my project comprises mostly of free took up photography. with a few portraits of people that i interviewed. i'm going around san francisco and capturing the black life. as i decided to do this project because i read about the decline of the african-american population in san francisco, and i wondered where the remaining population was and what they were doing and how life was for them.

>> i wasn't very inspired by school. i wasn't very inspired by continuing to be read and write and read and write and go to class. i watch a lot of movies. saw a lot of porn films and thought i had this very feminist bent and i thought there was not enough of a woman's vision on the stuff that we see, the movies that we make in the beginning the way that we look at woman that where we find them and the roles that we then take in the stories that are being told. so, they felt to a motion. they didn't feel complex. i felt like, yes, i have a different say and i like to see the world shaped by its. >> my grandmother was a

teacher. she taught special education for 40 years in los angeles. when i was growing up, she inspired me to record. we recorded everything we record our conversation. we recorded the street. we recorded everything with a cassette players. learning multimedia skills led to some of the crossover informing opportunities for young people. someone who opened la seven cisco feels like a small town. these deluded western mission and when i visit someone to cut my hair i found a mate. he seemed like an interesting guy up in the neighborhood and he a lot to say about some of those honest foreign to me. that local perspective is so important to me because i think someone who isn't from here, knowing that history allows me to be more engaging the community that i live in. i

want the same for others. i want people to move into a new neighborhood to know what was there before. who was there before. what businesses were here. and what cultural and historical influences we see today. >> my guiding principle have been you know, if you stick to something long enough if you know what it is then you go forth eventually get there. of course, you refine and refine. whenever you wanted to whenever you want to do is totally possible. it's not something to listen to. >>[music]

>> alright, good afternoon, everyone, welcome to our budget and finance sub-committee meeting. i am katy tang and i will be chairing this meeting instead of supervisor farrell, it is march 23, 2016. to my left, i'm joined by supervisor yee and to my right, we have scott wiener, filling in, our clerk is linda wong.

and we'd like to thank sf gov tv, if we can get a motion to excuse supervisor farrell from our meeting from today. moved by supervisor yee, seconded by supervisor wiener, yes, without objection, he's excused, madam clerk? >> please silence all cell phone and is electronic devices, cop pis of any documents to be included as part of the files to be submit today the clerk, items acted upon today will appear on the april 5th supervised sore's agenda unless otherwise stated. er >> if we can tall item 1, please. er >> item 1 is an ard nones amend thing police code to require employers to provide supplemental compensation to employees who are receiving state paid family leave for purposes of bonding with a new child. er >> thank you, and since supervisor wiener's the sponsor of this, i'm going turn it over the him first >> >> thank you very much, supervisor tang, and thank you for -- to the committee for hearing this important

item today. colleagues, before us today is legislation that will make san francisco the first jurisdiction s nr the united states to guarantee all parents six fully paid weeks of parental leave in order to bond with a new child applying to both parents, applying both to natural birth, as well as adoption, this is trend setting legislation and it is long overdue as the united states is so vastly far behind the rest of the world on this important issue. i want to thank supervisor cohen for signing on as a co-sponsor to the legislation. colleagues, it is frankly surprising and troubling reality in this country that a huge portion of workers in this country can give birth or adopt or bring in a foster child today and be required to go back to work tomorrow.

for many of the choices between bonding with a new child and putting food on the table, this is not a real choice at all and it is not a choice that anyone should have to make. even though there is huge body of work, literature showing the time spent bonding with a child is critical for the health and development of that child, economic realities for many people mean that bonding time unfortunately must take a backseat to economic survival. some have even offered that this is the start of the achievement gap. the vast majority of the world, and i mean truly the vast majority of the world, has recognized the importance of parental leave and provides mothers and often fathers time off from work to help build the necessary foundations for a new family. the united states on the other hand is shamefully at the back of the line and is

one of only four country ins the world na do not required paid maternity leave, the other three countries are swaz siland, mosoto and pap poe ya new guinea, you have the right to take up to three months of unpaid time off. this is unworkable for all too many, only 12% have access to paid family leave through their employers. when we talk about income and equality in the united states, dealing with the needs of a family including parental leave factor into that equation, if we want to really start addressing income and equality in this country, there are many things we need to do and better access to paid parental leave is one of them. the percentage of employers offering fully paid parental leave has declined in recent years from about 17% in 2005

to 9% in 2014, and only half of first-time mothers take any type of paid leave. excuse me, unpaid leave. some firms are leading the way in providing parental leave, among states, california is one of just three that provides some level of paid parental leave, new jersey and rode island are the others and washington dc is considering moving in that direction. these are all funded through employee contributions through state-run insurance programs. in many ways, california leads the way in the u.s., yet we are still very far behind the rest of the world. california's program for paid parental leave is paid for by workers, most people who work in california pay into the state disability program, which in turn funds the paid family leave program. established in 2004 and the

state program provides six weeks of paid family leave at 55% wage replacement, so you maintain just in excess of half of your pay. this works for some people, but for people who are lower income in particular, it creates a huge hardship in terms of that level of income reduction even with that limited access, the state's program has increased into concrete benefits for families. mothers who use the state program are more likely to initiate breastfeeding and to continue breastfeeding for approximately twice as long as mothers who do not use the program, the program doubled the average length of leave taken by new mothers from three weeks to between 6 and 7 weeks, the greatest gains are among mothers with lower levels of education, unmarried mothers, latina mothers and african american mothers. men who take two or more waoex off after the birth of a child are more involved

than fathers who take no leave in terms of the direct care of their children 9 months later. 83% of workers in lower level jobs who -- lower income jobs who use the program are returned to their previous employer, a 10 point improvement compared to workers who did not use the program. paid leave increases worker productivity, improves loyalty and moral. but even with these positive status, ix there's still a lot of room in our state to grow, many do not participate in the state program because they cannot afford to take a nearly 50% pay cut, the proposal before us today, colleagues, is structured to mirror and complement the state of california's program by taking the 55% wage replacement for 6 weeks that the state provides and extending it to 100%, our ordinance would require that san francisco employers with 20 or more workers provide a

contribution of that 45% so that the employee enjoys full wage replacement for that six week period. this legislation will help make sure that people here in san francisco have access truly to a full six weeks of bonding time with their new child. we're honor today have unanimous support of both the commission on the status of women and the youth commission. since the introduction of this legislation, colleague, we have worked with a broad group of stakeholders including in the business community, through that process, numerous meetings, conversations, a lot of correspondence, many issues were identified and raised and last week, i introduced a series of amendments to take into account some of the concerns that were expressed by the business community, we want to make sure that we have an open door and i want to thank the business community for formalizing and putting down in writing what

its requests were. key amendments that we made were one, that an employee must work at the employer for at least 90 days or three months before claiming benefits in order to be eligible, in addition, an employee must repay his or her supplemental parental leave benefit if he or she voluntarily separates from employment within 90 days of the end of the leap period, in other words, people need to come back to work for three months. we amended the legislation to provide a simplified record retention requirement for employers, we pushed back the operative date to january 1 of next year in order to align with the beginning of the calendar year. we -- the legislation now provides greater guidance for employers and employees for situations where an employee works multiple concurrent

jobs, the legislation also is much clearer about addressing the issue of fluctuation and income by employees, in addition, the legislation exempts workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement until the next collective bargaining is executed, not conflicting with an existing bargaining agreement coming into effect with the subsequent negotiation of a collective bargaining grekt, and today i distributed a few minor clarifying cleanup amendment, they're non-substantive, they won't require a continuance to clarify things like benefit calculations in the event that the employee is on unpaid leave prior to the bonding period and also to clarify the scope of the cba exemption. i want to thank the advocates who worked with us and provided a lot of information who have also been very active at the state level

including the california work and family coalition, the league aid society employment law center, equal rights advocates and the opportunity institute, i also want to thank ted e began and his staff at the office of economic analysis for their report issued today and i'll have some questions and comments about that report. so, colleagues, and finally i want to thank andre's power in my office for doing an enormous amount of work to move this forward. so, colleagues, if there are no comments or questions, i would -- i see supervisor yee is on the roster. >> supervisor yee? >> thank you, i want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this issue up, as you know, as he mentioned, california is one of the few states that does anything and even what it does is not adequate, i know that i've been part of a group for

several decades now trying to one way or another get the federal government to provide for this parental paid leave. it's something that, you know, we've tried everything we can, pressure, voicing ourselves, embarrassing the federal government saying how could you, we're really the only developed nation that doesn't have a paid leave policy, a federal one, so for us to do it locally and really pave the way, i'm very supportive. i do have some concerns about this piece of legislation and let me put it on the table so that hopefully we will address it. there's the question of who's paying for this and in

particular, those in the non-profit sector, and if i take, for example, probably the ones that's going to be pretty stressed in trying to make this work would be folks in the child care field. why is that? because in order to make up the difference, where are they going to find it? it's going to be hard enough to say to the parents, can you pay more now it's already 25% of your income that you're paying for child care, or do we say to the workers, can we give you less than minimum wage, that's all you're getting right now. the equation of making things balance between what comes in in termser of revenue and is what goes out in terms of expenses for child care centers is close to being flat equal, so -- and one

might ask, but we're only six weeks in, we're only talking about $3,600 per parent, it is $3,600 that the employee might get, however, in a child care center, or when you take care of children, you're restricted to a ratio that you have to abide by, whether it's for the preschool at 1-8 or a toddler at 1-6 or infants at 1-4 or 3, so you must not only pay that employee but you have to bring in a sub at the same rate just about, so it becomes $7,200 in which we have to find a way to help these people, otherwise, we're going to find centers closing down, we're going to find families not able to get child care and it's a big

concern of the field, and to a lot of parents too, so i know that we don't have the answers here and certainly this is an issue and it's certainly something that we need to pay attention to, but i still think that the overall value of this legislation really is more positive than negative. i really think that san francisco should do this, we need to get california on board to do more, we need to embarrass the federal government to be like the rest of the developed countries, so i'm making a pledge, we'd like to get the mayor's office, get our city to look at this particular issue. i'm going to look forward to working -- i don't know if supervisor wiener would like to work with me in trying to

mitigate this issue because this is a big issue for those providers, but you know, again, i want to thank you, supervisor wiener, for bringing this up. i think it is a great thing to do that our parents deserve what other parents are getting in other countries. >> thank you, supervisor yee. and so before we go to ted e ga*n from our office of -- on the economic impact report, i wanted to also say thank you supervisor wiener for bringing this issue forward, many of the statements that you have made were things that we also in our office acknowledged last year when we were working on prop b which had to do specifically with city employees and trying to create a better program and trying to set the bar for i think the private sector discussion in the private sector and we had launched in conjunction with the passage of prop b a task force that compromised of

advocates, of the business community and so forth, and coming up with other ideas for how we could address this issue, again, not just in city government but outside as well, so we've had several meetings and discussions about different policy ideas, and so i think that, you know, really, i support the shared goal of this, but i think i do have a couple of concerns that supervisor yee, one of them he raised, so the issue about the thresholds, i completely understand why it is currently set at 20 or more employees, something that i am very interested in is talking about whether we could potentially amend the legislation so that it would apply to companies with 50 or more employees, and this speaks to a lot of the small businesses and the concerns that were raised at the small business commission just this week, as supervisor yee mentioned, it's not just about that payment made to

the employee who's going on parental leave, it's also about back filling services, finding replacements and in the service industries or a child care industry, it's really hard to do that and especially with their economic situation such as child care providers, where are you going to find the funds to did that, so that's a pressing concern but not to take away the goal of this legislation at all, i fully support that, so at some point after our economic m pact report, i would like to see if we could potentially entertain a motion to that effect. another question i do have is whether we could address the issue of the private right of action that's been included in this legislation, i want to see if there is an ability for us to remove that from this, again, we really want to get businesses on board with this and i think eliminating that additional potential issue for them, i hope, will incentivize more companies to come into

compliance with this new regulation, and then thirdly, just to make sure that i know supervisor wiener already addressed changes, if they happen at the state level, and that it would automatically adjust what is required of the city and our businesses here in san francisco and i really appreciate that and i really hope the state takes a harder look at this issue and does a lot more to incentivize parental leave, so if there are changes though at the federal level, any improvements there which we also hope for, i'm wondering if there are amendments we can make to also incorporate some sort of automatic trigger for us here in san francisco so that there isn't this sort of double payment, so all that to say again, support this completely in concept, i think there's just a couple of outstanding issues that i have and i hope we can sort through. supervisor wiener? >> thank you, supervisor tang, and i wanted to thank

you for your work around paid parental leave, the work that you did last year to really modernize and improve paid parental leave for city employees, it was trend setting and i'm appreciative of the work you've done, i know this is a shared value here. i also a few things, regarding -- and this has been suggested to us in terms of what happens if there's a future federal paid parental leave program. now, i'm not holding my breath for the near future given the melt-down that has happened in washington dc, but who knows, we could have a mom in the speaker's chair and a mom in the whoit house in the not too distant faou khu, maybe there will be an earthquake in washington and we'll get some change. the challenge and we did work with the city attorney to see if we could come up with an amendment to address this. the problem is that if there

is a future federal paid parental leave program, we have no idea what that program will look like, who will be eligible, what its scope is, it's hard to structure an automatic amendment or change that will happen if we get a federal program in the future without knowing what that program is. what i would be prepared to do is offer an oral amendment today to require that if a federal paid parental leave program is enacted, then within let's say 90 days of that law being signed by the president, the controller would automatically prepare an analysis of the federal law, an analysis of how it interacts and intersects with our local law and then indicating possible amendments to our local law to make sure that we are not in any way conflicting with federal law or not, or

covering the same ground that federal law covers and the supervisors could consider that, i will offer that amendment again after public comment. in terps of the 20 employees versus 50 employees, i know this has been a topic of discussion and i completely respect the point of view that this should be 50 employee threshold instead of 20, i'm of the view that we should keep it at 20, that's consistent with other worker related ordinances that we've passed. if you right now about 75% of workers work for employers who are at 20 or more workers, so already at 20, about a quarter of the workforce is exempted, if we raise it from 20 to 50, that exempts i believe nearly 45% of workers, so it's a pretty big chunk of the workforce that would not be eligible, we tried to strike a balance

of 20, i respect those who advocate for 50, but i'm gowning to stand by the 20 threshold that we put into the ordinance. and then with termser of private right of action, our ordinances are mixed on this, our minimum wage and paid sick leave ordinance have a private right of action. there are other ordinances that do not like the fair chance ordinance, and so i think this is an ongoing topic of discussion. then, supervisor yee, in terps of non-profit, i've been supportive in the past of cost of doing business adjustments in our city budget and i'll be open to those discussions again today and i'm also open to discussions about how we can help our child care providers because they play a very, very important role in our city, so thank you for that input. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor yee? >> yes, thank you for offering the language to have

a study done by the controller if federal law kicks in. could you also -- would you be open to also including if there's any changes in the state law to also trigger? >> supervisor wiener? >> through the chair, yes, the current -- so, right now, california pays 55%. right now, the way the law is drafted, if that number changes, if it goes for example there's been a push -- >> you're correct. >> yeah, and i do want to say thanks to some wonderful advocacy, there is a bill, it's either on the governor's desk or head tog the governor's desk to increase the 55% to 60% and then to 70% for low-income workers, a that's a positive step even though it's not the 80% we hoped for, if the governor signs that, that will reduce the employer contribution here. >> i stand corrected, thank you, i saw it. >> thank you, and just lastly, going back to the 20

versus 50 threshold for employees, my kind of thought is, you know, can we at least try to experiment with the 50 threshold first and see how that goes and i've already asked our controller's office for an economic or an analysis on parental leave policies in our private sector, so perhaps if we started with a 50 person threshold, we could in their analysis also look to see what compliance is like, what sort of challenges may have curd, what are some things we could do bet e that's something i put out as a suggestion given this kind of debate between 20 versus 50, but with that said, why don't we go first then to ted e ga*n on the economic impact report. >> thank you, and good afternoon, supervisor, ted e ga*n, controller's office of economic analysis.

yesterday our office issued an economic impact report on this item and i would like the walk you through some of the main points of our findings of our report. first in terms of the introduction, there's a legislation, i think important things for people to keep in mind is that currently, california employees who take pfl are eligible for up to 55% of their salary, this is paid by california employees through a tax on their payroll, so it's entirely paid currently by employees. the proposed legislation would essentially top that up to 100%, the remaining 45% would be paid by the employer, the san francisco covered employer and in a moment, i'll say what a covered employer is, so that's a feature that the state program does not have, this requirement for the employer to pay a share of the pfl claims. a covered employer under the legislation is any employer with -- is any employer of a

covered employee which is almost any type of employee who has had a new child and is eligible for a bonding claimfinger only employers fewer with 20 employers anywhere would not be covered by this legislation, that's about the employers who employ about 75% of the workforce within san transwould be covered by this legislation. this is some data that the department of the employment development department at the state shared with us regarding the number of bonding claims, you can take paid family leave claims either to care for a family member or to care specifically for a new child, and this proposed legislation only requires additional employer supplement if you're taking the claim to bond with the new khiel, so it's not all paid family leave claim, if you look at the subset that is for bonding with the new khiel, the average from the 2011 to 2014 period is

about 4600 claims by san francisco residents. the average claim is about 5.5 weeks, you're el vibl under the state program for up to 6 week and is the average weekly benefit of that is about $743 a week which is again reflective of 55% or so of the average wage of the claimants who live in san francisco. just a little bit of background on the scope and prevalence of this and i apologize for those watching about our colors for the top slides here, this is just a chart that shows the breakdown by gender of employed people who work in san francisco, san francisco's workforce is about 47% female, using census data, we're able to restrict that to look at just the sample of people who work in san francisco and have told the census that they have a child who's less than one years old, so those employed people with a young

child is essentially the universe of folks living in san francisco who could potentially make a pfl claim. the point of this chart is although the workforce in san francisco is about 47% female, only 42% of the employed residents with a new child are female, this could be due to the fact that women are more likely than men to drop out of the workforce at least temporarily when they're caring for a new child. one of the underlying rationals for paid family leave around the world is to prevent women from interrupting their careers to care for children or at least to prevent that very inequitable pattern of women interrupting their employment than men to care for children had the family. if we look at sex breakdown for pfl claims bonding in san francisco, it's disproportionately female, women in san fra*bs appear to be more likely to drop out of

the labor force or at least temporarily suspect employment when they have a new khiel, they're twice as likely to take paid family leave than men are in the city. we're able to look at the bonding climbs as a percentage of this universe of folks who we think are employed living in san francisco with young children, to get an estimate of what what we call in our report the uptake or the prevalence of pfl claims among the people who are el vibl to take it in the city, and again we see something very disproportionate for gender, the number of claims by female is about 80% of all of the employed women with a young child in san francisco, the number of claims by employed males is only 26% of the number of employed men in the city who have a young child in their household, so again, very disproportionate patterns by gender there. to move on to the economic impact factors, our review

of the literature in this policy area suggests that there are three of which we're really only able to talk about two, but i'll mention three, when the amount of benefit that goes to to a pfl increases, their household has more money to spend, that increases the amount of spending in the household which creates an economic positive ripple effect. on the down side, this additional expense is paid for by san francisco based businesses, so there's a negative economic impact with higher compensation cost for local businesses, the third impact is more long term, it suggests that higher rates of paternal leave or parental leave in particular parental leave for men leads to better educational outcome for children which ultimately has higher productivity benefits for children in the long run

and for the society as a whole. it also helps balance out earnings differences over the long term between men and women and address the issue that career interruption for taking care of children accounts for the long term pay inequities between men and women. given california's relatively recent, it's been 12 years or so, with the paid pfl program, we have not seen the research in this country and in the state on the third point, so we're not able to quantify that, but we don't doubt that we would see something similar in the long term as with what we've seen in other country, we're not able to quantify it at this point, so we're talking about trying to measure the first two impacts. i'm going the skip ahead to this chart, which basically summarizes what we think the direct impacts of this are. a couple of points that are important for this, when you increase the amount of pfl

benefits, it's very likely to encourage more people to take paid family leave, indeed, that's the intent of the legislation. the problem is no local government has ever done this before and the state has never altered the 55% before, so we don't really know how this uptake will change if you make the benefit more luke creatve, so what we've done in this report is suggest there's a range of possible outcomes all the way on one end to no change and even though the benefit is more lou captive, the same percentage of employed people take the claim, all the way it goes up to 100% and everyone who has a new child and for a number of reasons, that can't happen, but it's certainly an upper end estimate. so, we've mated both what the increased income to san francisco residents and the increase cost to employers as a result of any of these four scenarios.

another point i want to make which is also relevant here is the more people who make pfl claims, the more that the city of san francisco's economy benefits from an increased draw-down from a state program, so right now, the -- it's paid into a state pool and the san francisco economy benefits from draw-down tos that pool, the more we sweeten that locally, the bigger the draw-down is and essentially the more transfer of funds from the state to the city's economy. but when we review the actual numbers, you can see in the left column here, the increase to san francisco households is anywhere we estimate between about 9 and 27 million a yaoe, it's a reasonably wide range but it certainly wouldn't be more than that, the increase in compensation costs to san francisco employers from their share of it ranges from 16 to 32. the reason the employer cost is bigger than the local benefit is mainly because

55%, only 55% of the employees who are covered by this live in san francisco, the other 45% live in surrounding communities and commute into the city, so our san francisco based employers will be paying increased pfl benefits to them but the city's economy per se will not be getting as big a share of that. and so when we calculate the economic impact, that kind of leakage effect is one of the major reasons why under all the scenarios, it's a negative economic impact rkts the negative economic impacts are small, we're talking at the small side if there's no change in use of the program, 42 million dollars a year to city's economy and 250 jobs up to 79 million and 480 jobs, just as a couple of point of context, the city's overall economy is 140 million dollars a year in

gdp, we're talking about a small fraction, over the past 11 or 12 year, the city has averaged out good times and bad times, 17 thousand new jobs a year, so the types of jobs foregone under this policy will be a small fraction of even the level of growth that the city currently has. we do make in a concluding slide one recommendation if it's a concern about the negative economic impact and it really flow from the fact that we don't know what the change in uptake will be as we make the benefit more attractive to employees, if that was stepped up and we went from 55% to something higher but not all the way to 100%, we could reduce the cost on businesses in the short term and see what the effect on pfl is and then make i think a more informed tradeoff about what the ultimate economic impact would be. so that's our report in brief, i'm happy to take any

questions from you, supervisors. inger >> saoup sore wiener? >> thank you, supervisor tang, thanks for the report, i appreciate it, so just to be clear, in terms of the economic impact, you indicated that it is small in the context of our 140 billion dollar economy, and the annual average 17 thousand new jobs in san francisco, i also pulled up some of your past reports on other ordinances on the minimum wage ordinance, the -- which was put on the ballot unanimously by the board and with the support of the mayor recently, the -- i think the average job loss per year was about 3 thousand jobs, about 10 times what we have here, the report did not indicate a cost to employers, i'm not sure why but we went through the report, it didn't have -- i'm going to

speculate that the cost to employers was dramatically higher than the 16 million, the 32 million annually here in terms of the minimum wage. and then the health care security ordinance, similarly job impact where as here it's 250 to 480, there, it was 230 to 460, but the economic impact, and this was 10 years ago, so presumably it's higher now just because of growth in the economy, it was 40 million, so significantly two to three times what we have here. and then of course you mentioned the benefits that haven't been quantified of better paid parental leave, better health productivity, etc., and i know it's probably hard to quantify that. >> it's possible to quantify it but the issue with this is the productivity benefits are really reside with the child,

so they take a long time to materialize. >> okay. great. i very much appreciate the report. >> thank you, supervisor. >> thank you, and supervisor wiener, if i may, just one more comment before we go to public comment soon, one issue that was raised by the small business commission as well on monday that i wanted to discuss is about the definition of covered employee, one of their recommendations was that a covered employee is someone who commences employment with employer at least six months prior to the start of a leave period than 90 days which is what you have in the legislation, and secondly, someone who performs 20 hours of work per week versus the 8 hours you have listed so i wanted to see what kind of discussion or thoughts you've had on the small business commission's recommendations. >> i'm sorry, in terms of the threshold being 8 hours versus the higher number? >> yes, as well as working

for six months prior to the start of the leave period versus 90 days. >> so, in terms of the 8 hours in terms of part time workers, so we took that from the paid sick leave ordinance, it starts at 8 hours. one thing that's important to note here with paid parental leave, it's a little bit different than some other ordinances, for example, the health care security ordinance, health care cost are the same whether you're working 10 hours a week or 40 hours a week, here if you're working 8 or 10 hours a week for part time, your paid parental leave benefit is going to be extremely small, so as the employee works less, the cost to the employer is going to go down proportionately, so we were a little bit less concerned about the part time issue than i think would have been

the case say for something that costs the same recorders, i think it's much more relevant in terms of the cut-off when you have a fixed cost, in termser of 90 days versus 180 days, we had taken the 90 days, it was from a different ordinance, i don't remember which one, i'm toep to a discussion whether that's exactly the right number or whether it should be a different number of days, i wouldn't rule out supporting a tweak to that, and i think i expressed that to the small business commission. >> okay, great, thank you. supervisor yee? >> 90 versus 180, does anybody have -- know what the states are in their policy? >> because it's a state, it comes from workers are paying into disability, i don't think there's any -- if i'm not mistaken, i think you can do it on day 1 if i'm not

mistaken, some people are nodding in here, it travels with you. >> we will get that clarified for sure. do you want to go to public comment first then, supervisor? >> we have two more brief presentations, first from julia perish of the legal aid society and dr. curtis chang who's the medical director of adolescent dph and we'll move on to public comment after that. >> thank you, i just have a few slides here that i'm pulling up, but my name is julia perish from the legal aid society employment center and we're a non-profit organization here in san francisco that provides free legal services for low-income workers and i work in family program which is a program dedicated precisely to these issues and something we hear about a lot. to clarify your question if it needs additional

clarification, someone is entitled to paid family leave benefits on their first day of employment, assuming that they have at some point in the past paid into this tax fund, so there's no employer length of service requirement for that. but i just wanted to give a little background in the terms we see care giving needs change, particularly for our callers, today is not the same world that we live in like it was 30 years a most children live in oems where either both parents live or they live in a single parent household, so the model of care with where a child had a dedicated caregiver in the home is no longer relevant and it's particularly irrelevant here in san francisco, and women make up more than half the workforce nationally, they make up a higher percentage here in san francisco, and in nearly one in four households, the mothers are the primary bread winners, and studies show that

fathers want to be more engaged in family care giving, so what we're hearing is really both parents need equal access to equity and leave to care for a new child. and from a national perspective, we're seeing a lot of movement on this end as well, many people have mentioned how the united states is shamefully bemind the rest of the world in terms of paid family leave, and most employees do not have access to a single day of paid leave from their employers for the purposes of bonding or having a new child, so president obama and the national department of labor have been work on this issue and giving grants to try to implement this kind of xhaing in local states and jurisdictions across the country. california was the first state to implement a paid family leave program, and it was really revolutionary at the time, only two other states have followed but many other states are considering similar programs.

and just to clarify, the paid family leave program has been studied in california although it hasn't been implemented for that long, it's been in effect for over 10 years and surveys showed that the majority of employers found that paid family leave had a positive or no noticeable effects on productivity, profitability or performance for their employees and this is particularly true for small business owners who recorded less negative impacts than larger business owners and many say that it reduces absenteeism and turn-over which could be a substantial cost for employers and a lot of women especially turn-over when they need family leave, and the way the program works at the state level, mr. e ga*n also mentioned but i want to reiterate, that 55% of wages that workers are getting is funded entirely by workers, employers do not pay a penny into that fund, no

general tax dollars from the state go into that found, it's through a worker's pay tax deduction, so workers are paying into this insurance tax themselves and they are paying for the entire premium and it is administered through a state agency which is the employment development department, and what we know from the last ten years of paid family leave is that over 1.8 million working families in california have benefited from this benefit to improve their health and well being during a vulnerable time in their live and is the number of men who have used paid leave for bonding has doubled, it remains an unfortunately inequitable number because a third of claims filed are used by men, but a presence of paid leave has allowed more men to increasingly take this benefit which is important for the health outcomes of the child and equity issues. one of the pbs we're seeing

is awareness of the state program has decreased since 2011, in 2011, it was low at 43% of registered voters and last year, the field polled another study and it was only 36% of registered voters were aware the state program existed, so this is a problem because workers are paying into this tax fund and this is being taken from their wages and they don't know the program exists so they're unable to use it, but the edd which is the state agency that administers the benefit found that when employers integrate employer benefits with paid family leave, the uses increases, so by offering some employer incentive, it does have the potential to increase the uptake in use of this state benefit that workers are paying for, some other barriers we hear about commonly at the employment law center, and this again is based on the employment

development department studies, low-income workers make up 46% of the workers that are paying into the state program but only 12% of workers actually use it, and this is largely because the wage replacement is simply too low, if you are a low wage worker making minimum wage and you have to buy diapers and bottles and all of the other things you need when you have a new child, it is impossible to make ends meet on 55% of your income, so many of the workers that need this wage replacement program the most are barred from taking that, and this is a kind of a parallel issue to the employer -- the employee threshold in terms of moving the employee threshold from 20 to 50 employee, not only do you lose a significant amount of the workforce but you disproportionately exclude low wage workers because low wage workers are likely to work for smaller

employers, so you're taking a large chunk out from this benefit, so i would caution against that, another survey found that even when people barerbacker were aware of paid family leave, their wage replacement level was too low, this is an effective mechanism to help address those concerns, and then also the edd did a market study that included some focus groups and they had focus groups from different parts of the state and different economic backgrounds, but particularly for low wage workers, they cited economic barriers being able to take paid family leave, every income center cited the low-income replace but it was more pronounced for the low wage workers, wage replacement is the biggest barrier for poor people like us, we're barely getting by as it is, the biggest concern was using pfl is money, money, money, and we have to

work, nothing stops, the rent doesn't pay for you, this is people that know about the program but they simply can't afford to use the money that they have paid into the state system in order the bond with their new child, so we think this is a really important step forward that can help incentivize both the state to improve the program and other jurisdictions to follow and that it will really improve the equity of the state's paid family leave program particularly for low wage workers and having other important outcome ts, so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next, madam khai, i would like for a final presentation invite up dr. curtis chang who is the director of maternal and adolescent public health and the director of public health. >> is it being shown?

so, supervisors, thank you for the invitation to present some local data to you and hopefully my comments will bring some relevance to the question of 20 employees or 50 employees, small and large, and when we could implement. the major questions are what is going to be the health impact on san francisco and what will be the health impact on the individual mothers and children in san francisco, so the brief that has been circulated to you electronically and in paper in front of you summarizes some of the data that we have. so, the summary of the data really is conceptualized by something you can't read right here, this is from professor wilson from columbia, this is publicbacker limbered in the journal of health economics, and the quote that's really most interesting, this is

the summary comment that many pediatricians like myself, health care providers across the city share the same sentiments, if policy makers are concerned with decreasing disparities in child health and well-being between children of different backgrounds, they need to consider the fact that an unpaid maternity leave policy may increase disparities because it only benefits those mothers who can afford to take it, and that really becomes relevant when we think about what the threshold would be for small to medium employers. so, the next data set and i'll just spend a couple of minutes detailing this is to highlight a few key facts, one is that we have nearly 2400 women who are born with medicaid or other public insurance, health insurance in san francisco each year,

so that's a surprising number to many people. it's predominantly white and asian and what people don't realize though is that many of these women even though they're on medi-cal, they're abing hull working, so you could see that 51% work during pregnancy and 42% of those who worked worked through into the month of their delivery, so the key social inequity decision that's in front of us is what are the commonalities and differences between being publicly insured and having job stability and economic security and paid leave rights. it's really highly ror elated between those who are

publicly insured and privately insured, so the second group of data is a disruption, and we have this data on an annual basis describing the disparities between those in san francisco wlo are publicly insured versus privately insured, this highlights the needs and confirms the finding from supervisor wiener's report, julia perish's report about the health consequences of having paid leave. it's imperative that our families and specifically mothers who are insured through medi-cal have leave, that we protect their maternal health because of these disparities. as you can see, nearly 30% of those in san francisco who are publicly insured lost their job or their partner had lost their job. you could see they are

threefold high e those with medi-cal, to self-report they have no practical or emotional support to help them during their pregnancy and postpartum period, and as you can see as an association with the ability to take time off of work during the 6-8 week postpartum visit, you could see those with public insurance, the likelihood they're going the miss their visit is 18% versus only 4% of those privately insured, and this confirms what we find in the literature, many, many women, particularly those who are publicly insured are required or forced to go back to their work regardless of their own maternal health and regardless of the health and development of their baby. in all these social inequities, health disparities and job circumstances contribute to the disparities and health out kolas, you can see the

likelihood of preterm birth is two to threefold higher in those with public insurance and you can see the rate of depression during the postpartum period is 25% for those with medi-cal in san francisco and only 6% with private insurance. so, this data that i have in front of you just describes our look at the american census survey and what we find here is that this really confirms the importance of income security, job security safeguards and the disparities in job control amongst women in san francisco. you could see that amongst the women who choose to be out of labor force instead of being unemployed decreases amongst those who are publicly insured but nearly doubles amongst those who are privately insured. and finally, the last graph is table, describes the health impacts of paid

parental leave on women and children, i just want to affirm the -- and confirm the findings that supervisor wiener's staff has emphasized as well as julia perish, there are really few public policies at a governmental level that have as much data on mothers and children as paid parental leave does, and it's well established in the literature and by major and national organizations that pregnancy will reduce the rate of pree claming ya and low birthrate sx, that's reducing infant mortality, and there's very good evidence that having parental leave will improve physical health of women, many cases through improved opportunity to breastfeed for a longer duration of time, it improves

mental health with evidence showing decrease in depression rate, decrease stress amongst parents and decreasing anxiety by the mother, and for the child, there's great evidence as supervisor wiener highlighted of improving breastfeeding, immunization, infant mortality, child abuse, improves maternal infant interactions and there's good evidence about reducing child behavior problems, improving child cognitive test scores and improving reading and math scores, so all this data is at a population level that's really after hinged by public policy, as a pediatrician, obviously we don't counsel each individual patient to make a choice that's a really personal choice, but we really appreciate the board of supervisors considering this important health impact policy. >> i know dr. emily morasi

[inaudible]. er >> we do have some departments here that want to briefly speak and then we'll start public health. >> emily morasa and i ale hunter. >> good afternoon, vice chair tang, supervisor wiener, i'm [inaudible] executive director on the department of the status of women, and i appreciated the economic impact report provided by ted e ga*n, he's one of the top people in his field but one of his report leaves unanswered is what is the positive economic impacts of healthier babies of, of health year moms and of healthier families, so i want to offer five reasons why it's very important to support this legislation, first, healthier babies and healthier moms, we all know that paid leave for the care bonding with a new child has tremendous benefits for children and their parent, paid leave can lead to healthier babies, the

national institute of child health documented that breastfeeding is fewer illness, better infant sur vao*ifrl, decreased allergies, reduced risk of type 1 diabetes, there's an increase in the glibly hood and the duration of breastfeeding and health benefits go to the mom, there's less postpartum depression, stroerng family, number two, paid parental leave is not only beneficial when the family first welcomes children but throughout all of their lives, women who have accessed to paid leave when they have children are more likely to stay in the workforce, increasing their lifetime wages and retirement security. fathers who take leave are more involved in caring fir their children later in life and taking up a greater share of household work. number 3, gender equality, paid parental leave especially equal amounts of leave for