tv BOS Budget and Finance 91615 SFGTV September 19, 2015 7:15pm-9:01pm PDT
trade center. >> i would like to claim today the center and the naming of it. [applause] >> kmer i actually challenged me to a little bit of a ping pong -- the mayor actually challenge me to a little bit of a ping- pong, so i accept your challenge. ♪ >> it is an amazing spot. it is a state of the art center. >> is beautiful. quarkrights i would like to come here and join them
>> thank you. >> good morning, everyone and welcome to the san francisco budget and finance committee for a wednesday, september 16, 2015, my name is mark farrell and i will be chairing this committee and i am joined by tang and we will be joined by eric mar and i want thank sfgtv no covering this meeting as well as the clerk miss linda woning, do you have any announcements? >> please, silence all cell phones and electronic device and completed speaker cards and the documents to be included as part of the files should be submitted to the clerk and the items acted upon today will be on the september, 22nd board of agenda unless otherwise stated. >> could you call item one? >> it is a hearing on the new,
information, compiled for the 2015, point-in-time, homeless count. >> thank you, and so colleagues, today i asked for this hearing, to take place, to discuss our recently completed and released 2015, point in time homeless count here in san francisco. as many of you are aware, the homeless count occurs every two years, in order to receive, federal funds to address, homelessness here locally. back? january, i joined the city staff and the non-profit partners to participate in the count and the white house, chief of staff came out as well and the results were just released publicly in july. and the results of the count, which we will discuss, in detail, today, provide some optimism, but also, show the way of a much more work to do ahead of us to reduce the homelessness here. and the stats in july shows that we continue to make the progress in the homeless, and we are on the way of achieving
and 2015. but the count revealed that the population is older and a higher rate of substance abuse and more behavior mental health as well. and 71 percent. and today, we are going to hear from the director of the human services, and dufty or director of hope and our research firm, partnering with the city, has for years, and to produce this count, she looked forward for the discussion and the work ahead of us. mr. roar, if you are ready, we have trent here who is the head of our human services agency. >> and thank you.
>> findings for the homeless count. and you know, you touched on supervisor farrell m of the points that i was going to mention that back that, that we encountered on the street and getting older, and we are seeing the higher incidence of the behavior health issues. and we are also seeing something interesting about the point or the length of most of the recent homeless that i am going to touch on as well but let me take two steps back and give you a little bit of context. and so we do this homeless count, at the point in time, koupt count and it is done on a single night, once every two years and it is a requirement from the federal department of housing and urban development as a condition of receiving or continuing of care funds and the continuing of the care funds, support and a whole range of interventions and targeted at homelessness and notable for us is the funding for the supportive housing and we get over 20 million a year from the feds through the continuing of the care process and so the count is geb, again
is a condition of that, but it also helps us to measure our progress, clearly and also gives us a much richer understanding every couple of years of the population on the street and we couple our point in time count, which is done by the volunteers. and i think that we had over 500 volunteers span the entire city and you walking or driving to attempt to encounter those who they see on the street that appear homeless. and in addition to that, we follow the count, with a survey. and we get a fairly large sample size, and so we can generally draw the conclusions from that representative sample and that gives us things like age and length of time that we have been on the street. and issues of behavior health and a lot of other really, interesting data that helps to inform our system, as we continue to see it evolve and continue to think of new interventions targeted to the folks who are on the street and
in our shelters. so, over all, the total number counted, in january, of 2015, was 6686. and this represents about a four percent increase, from two years ago or the number was 6436 and again, it is important to note that this represents the entire number of folks who are defined as homeless, which includes, not only the individuals and families, who are on the street, but those who are in shelters, and transitional housing and treatment and hospital and jail. and vehicles, and many of the others sort of temporary living and the situation. and the number of unsheltered homeless, and now in 2015, was 3505, which represents about a three percent increase from 2 years, before. where the number was 3401, and these are actually folks who are counted on our streets. and on that single night. we also for the second time did
a separate youth count, which is which is counted at night and the numbers there went down from 914 two years ago to 853 in 2015, which is a 7 percent decline. so, we sort of first reaction as one of many, and the city officials overseeing the system of care, is why did the numbers not go down in the context of the really, the significant numbers of individuals, and families that we have either housed or reunited with their families and support structures in their home communities. and so i want to talk a little bit about that. so you understand kind of really what we have been able to achieve over the last two years in changing the lives of thousands of people. and yet, the over all net number is, you know, essentially is the same.
and so, what it represents the progress, since, january of 13 to try to get a sort of similar time frame and so since january of 13, we added 348 units of supportive housing and 93 that are targeted to transitional aged youth. and you know that we have initiated very long, rental subsidy program for family and particularly through our cal works program where we housed 120 families. where it is really the supportive housing that i want to touch on. but we did add, 348 units which compared to 6600 homeless may not seem like a lot. but it is important to know that we have an existing portfolio of housing of over 4,000 units between the human services agency and the department of public health and those units do turnover and so we place, individuals in those units as they became, vacant and so over the last two years, of the human services agency, we placed 1391, individuals or individuals and families. and then, the department of
public health who is the direct access to the housing program, placed another 627 and that is the total number of individuals and 2018 who were placed over the last two years, about 450 of them were in families, and so when you take the single adult piece and you take the families out we placed almost, 1600 people in two years, 1569. and in addition as you know and supervisor you know well because you helped secure, funding for 8 additional home ward bound caseworkers and home ward bound is a program that we started in 2004, that helps the homeless individuals, reconnect with, their typically their families but it could be another support structure in their home communities. and over the last two years, through that program, we provided transportation, and resources, to reunite, 1614 individuals in all 48 states. and cities and in california as well as cities in other states
and so when you take those numbers together, that is, 3632, folks that we have placed in housing, either in san francisco or outside of san francisco. which is quite an accomplishment in two years. and i often comment when getting questions you know, why isn't the number going down? why aren't you making progress? the answer is we are making significant progress. and we do know how to house the people and how to end homelessness at the individual level. and feeling, and it is demonstrated and shown you that the successes over the last two years and it illustrates over the last, 12 years, since we have been tracking and since 2003, we have placed in the housing or reunited through home ward bound, over 21,000 people from san francisco. and which is an astounding number and you look at it and you say that this cannot be possible and yet, that is the progress that we have made.
so we are helping, you know it is important to keep this in mind that we are, you know, you look at the street and you see the individuals on the street and you look at the noise and you have got the lot and it is important to keep in mind that the human level is significant progress that we have made and the significant number of lives and family, and individuals and families, that we have improved. and looking forward, beyond january, 15 in terms of the pipeline of housing. 54 units of the housing and transitional housing that we anticipate coming on-line and another 324 units for homeless single adults, and that will be coming on-line very shortly, within the next few months. and so, we will continue our approach as supportive housing again, being the corner stone of our strategy to end the homeless in san francisco. and we do have and i think that devon the director of hope will talk more about this. we are and have piloted a what
we will define as a low threshold or intervention to the people on the street to whom the shelter may not be the place sxment this is in the navigation center which devon will talk about. and i was recently in new york two weeks ago looking at their front end and their not only, the street out reach, but, what they do, sort of in conjunction with the street out reach for the individuals who for the shelter does not necessarily work. and they have, similar to the navigation center, they are smaller and they have the safe havens which are the low threshold environments and the physical health barrier and not necessarily navigate a very large and complex shelter system and that is the resources that the out reach teams have and they have had significant success and there is slippage recently and they
coupled it with the low threshold and the folks on the street in two years and this is about six years ago in terms of the time frame. >> those interventions do work and we are pleased with the out comes that we have seen so far at the navigation center and devon will talk more about that. in terms of the interesting, subpopulations and i will turn it over to him. and there are two groups of homeless individuals, largely individuals that we have been focusing on. and we have been focusing on the chronically homeless for, since really, the mid 2000s. and recognizing that these are the sickest and down the street the longest and the folks most in need of interventions and so we have been targeting them. intentionally, for housing and for interventions. and the second subpopulation is veterans and you know, we have been following the directive from the white house to end
veteran homelessness and we have really, taken that as a community, taken it very seriously with the partnerships with the non-profit agencies like the serve to plow shares with the leadership from my staff and on addressing the veteran and just to speak to the numbers there. and starting with veterans in 2011, 17 percent of our homeless population, were veterans and 20 is 3, that dropped to 11 percent and in 2015, count dropped to 9 percent and so we are, we have had, cut in half the number of veterans who are experiencing homelessness. and i think that it speaks to the success of the strategy and if we are targeting the populations with the support of the housing and the other strategies and we know that those are working and among the chronically homeless in 2009 and almost two-thirds of folks who are counted, were defined as chronically homeless and again, these are folks and there is a formal definition of
chronic homelessness, and you know, the layperson's terms is someone who has been homeless for over a year and with the multiple spells of homeless, making progress in those two areas is important, and particularly among the chronically homeless which tend to be again not only those most in need but tend to be the largest strain on the city in terms of the use of emergency room, and inpatient, hospital stays. and other non-homeless service intervention costs. another piece of data that we bring to the survey is the length of time that an
individual has been homeless, and i think that this is important. because, it speaks to the need to have the different types of interventions. whereas someone who is more longer term and chronically homeless and typically the intervention will be supportive housing to address his or her behavior health and other needs. in addition to their homelessness. >> but, a shorter term stay or the folks who are homeless, it really speaks to a different time of intervention and maybe the home ward bountd and maybe the short term rental and the placement of a job and getting that person back in the housing through the rapid rehousing effort. >> it is the length of time for the most recent spell of homelessness, and over half, 51 percent of the most recent spell has been over a year. but interestingly, 35 percent of folks, that the most recent spell was less than 6 months. and ten percent of whom less
than 30 days. and so when you, you sort of pull that out, of 6600 folks, on the 6700 folks, 670 of them have just been on the street less than a month and that is really defined as low hanging fruit and those are the folks that we will get quickly rehoused or reunited with their families so that we don't fall into a pattern where homelessness, becomes more chronic for them and i think that you have got to even extend that out from the ten percent who have less than a month to those who are less than 60 months, and the third of the 6600 people and then lastly, i will speak to the age and the supervisor farrell you did noelt that the aging population and this is not a surprise or a new, phenomenon and there is research out of ucsf that follows the homelessness and sort of the age, and increase, but, i am going to give you the real
numbers. and in 2013, 17 percent of folks were over the age of 50. or over the age of 51. and in 2015, 30 percent, or over the age of 51. and then, even the older, 3 percent, over the age of 61, verses 8 percent in 2015. and then, of course, if the proportion of the folks are older then you are going to see a decrease on the younger side which is what we are seeing and in fact. 29 percent of the folks in 2013 were aged 31 to 40 and that number dropped to 16 percent and cut in half of the most recent year and again these numbers, you don't take them in isolation and you look at them and say is our service system equipped to handle the more aging population? and you know, i think that when you look at our supportive housing certainly that can is equipped to handle a more an older population that tends to have more physical health needs. but when you look at the intervention, and the shelter system it may not quite be, the
right, place. to have the folks who are older, and maybe, more frail, and again, maybe, that speaks to looking at a front end response, that is more, either low threshold or more medically centered for a larger segment of our homeless population. >> i will pause for questions. and then we will turn it over to devon when you want. >> thank you. >> one thing that i think that we will get into it with some and the applied research, but you know, as you think about, and in your experience here that you think about the number stayed static for the last two years, generally speaking and that is pretty remarkable and
the amount of people that we have helped is 21,000 is unbelievable. and also look at it relative to other jurisdiction and what they are seeing and this is not a san francisco phenomena, obviously. but then, also we need to talk and we need to talk about what is next and because, obviously no one thinks that even maintaining these numbers are okay and we all want to strive to do better. but how do you think about that? i mean that, is it hey, we are doing, or we are doing compared to other jurisdictions but we need to do better? >> yeah. >> how do the folks think about that and especially the folks that are on the daily working on this issue? >> sure. i appreciate the question, supervisor, portland was about
the same and la increased and new york although it dropped by 5 percent, the street numbers have increased recently, and so, it just gives you a sense and sort of, this problem is not ours alone. and it does not make us feel any better and we know that we have work to do. but, our path is correct. and there is numbers growing, and in large across the country, and it really is, and it gets the question a lot, and the way that, and the way unlike most of the public assistant systems that the human services agencies that are federally funded that the system for the care of homeless is locally funded and we get 20 million plus, from the feds, and we have the section eight program that can help some but when i am talking about supportive housing and shelters that is largely born on the general fund and so we have a national problem with millions of homeless individuals, and even a directive from the white house, that we should end the veteran's homelessness and what is coupled with that and even a more recent directive and that
should seize in communities across the country, what has not fallen is that influx of federal resource and so we are fortunate, i think in san francisco to have a system of care that has 150, or 170 million in general fund and because we have the political will and commitment. and the value of the human lives to that extent. but it is a national problem, that is not you said a word that i think that i would not use which is static. and the number one, similar, but, not static. and in fact, this is a very, very i dynamic population and the numbers that i talked about and i don't mean to, and disrespect your word. >> no, no, you are actually completely right. and half of the folks that we
counted in january and we didn't count in january of 2015, we didn't count them in 2013, because they were not here, right? and 49 percent of the folks that we counted there is most recent spell of homelessness was less than a year and so we are seeing this, and sort of this long term and then we see this episodic and a new face and a new person and whether they will become homeless in san francisco or they are coming in from the community and whether they are formally homeless or came here for a new opportunity and we know that does not matter. but what matters is that we are seeing the people on the street and it is really important, and i think, for the layperson and for the reader of the paper or someone who sees the homeless on the street to understand. half of the folks that i see are new.
we are not seeing that net change and a couple of what is the public policy response? and ours, and yours and the mayor has been, you know, twofold, which is to continue to support and expand the supportive housing which is the right way to go, and the subdies for those whose income is the problem and continued to support eviction, prevention and this is the next step and intervention and to comment from the director, and sort of my counter part in new york who said that when they look at his system for homelessness, they see two systems and a shelter system and they have the right to shelter, which is manifests itself at 12,000 beds which we
don't have here and would not want to have here. shelter population and they can navigate, and making a reservation and meeting a curfew and sort of being able to survive, in an environment that could be kie on the i can at times in a small area and a population that really can't, function in that environment and that is, the folks who are trying to address the navigation, and the folks that you see. who is so significant that they need the environment where they can bring their stuff and they can bring their companion animal or their partner. and again, with, getting 200 of the what we will call the homeless into the navigation center and 70 of whom have been
housed and 75 percent who are home ward bound is really an impressive number in a fairly short period of time and we opened it at the end of march. and so we want to replicate it and you know, the mayor had an announcement last week around looking at redirecting the money internally and the dph, to expand the model and we are going to be embarking on that shortly. >> we are a city without boarders and how to deal with it is challenging at times and we have to go at it and thanks for all of your part work on it. >> supervisor tang? there is a lot that has been done and more that will be done and in looking at the report, and also, from the information, and you know that we get from, you know, whether it is the
officers or whoever else, that are encountering the homeless individuals, and you know, the report says that, over time, it really shows, those who don't want the government assistant, they just refuse, the help, and it has and it looks like it has steadily increased so for example, 7 percent said that they didn't want the government assistance back in 2011, and now in 2015, 40 percent said that the reason that they do not receive the government assistance is because they don't want it and how do we, i know that it is a complicated question, how do we go about addressing those kinds of cases? >> the government assistance like the shelter system is harder to navigate. and you got to make your appointment and you have to fill out your forms and you need the id.
which many folks don't have and although we try to make it easy and we have the multiple modes of access and phone and walk in, and it is difficult. and which is why, the sort of front end and navigation center where the folks who may be, just distrustful or think that it will not work for them, or can't deal with the 40 percent and we have been able to show with 200, that it does work and i think that the word is getting out on the street that this is, you know, an environment where, you can come in doors, and be safe and what we have done is had the human reforces people on site, on the site and especially in the appointments to get the cash assistance and getting a california id through the dmv and sort of bringing the services right on the site, and making it as easy as possible.
to navigate that and not only providing the shelter and the navigation center but the things like the home ward bound and the 8 new caseworkers that we are in the process now, and a lot of folks that come here, not just homeless, or the low income and in san francisco it is historically a city of refuge for a lot of population and sometimes the things just don't work out and they find themselves stuck. and stuck in can lead to a lot of things and can lead to the increased substance use and it can lead to other sorts of
activity and behaviors that are not healthy and if we can be there and say that hey, you are stuck and where did you come from? and do you have a support structure and we can help you get back there and work for over 8,000 people and less than 1 percent who have returned to san francisco and i think that is important. and so to have 8 caseworkers who are having the shelters on the street, and who are at the navigation center and to offer, sort of that real time, and hey, i can get you transportation in a couple of hours. and to get there before they take the step backwards on the street >> good morning everyone and i want to say what an excellent job that trent did in outlining the count and talking about the efforts that are going on
during a two year period that do house people and help the people. >> he talked about the difficulty of navigating systems and the complexity of applying for affordable housing and the necessity for the people to apply to multiple lists and the fact that someone that i supported and was probably the single reason that i got elected supervisor here in san francisco, does not touch people in ssi like it
what we have. but in, salt lake city, the involvement of the mormon church and really just the setting that we are not going to have the people, who are struggling to access housing. we are foeg to develop housing. and that is a difficult thing to do, and we have a housing bond here, and it is going to take time and it costs, and he has been strategic because we have the hotels and the housing which is appropriate, for low income individuals in particularly, single adults and the mayor has been, aggressive, both in asking the tech community to come forward and help which is how we started the navigation system with the $3 million donation which was given to the san francisco, inner faith, council and it is a big part of boosting our effort. and now, and supervisors that are here and participated and supported and identifying an additional 3 million as trent pointed out, within the existing city resources but the
legislation that is going to specify that we can't spend that money, unless that money is matched. and, certainly, some of the housing that was referred to in trent's comments that are coming on-line this year, that is housing that is matching, this effort, and with the navigation center. >> and one of the most important things happened recently with leader, where she helped the hud approve a much heighter payment standard given the coast and i think that is the big overlay, is that how expensive housing is in san
francisco. these number show that the new people becoming homeless, and i think that it is parcel to the same struggle and you that and the mayor have been addressing and the different initiatives are addressing and i think that trent touched on the point that one of the numbers that brings a lot of energy is the people that are homeless and have been in san francisco, prior to becoming homeless, and verses those that came here for a job. and the partner or a relationship that did not work out and didn't have a safety net.
there is 700 or fewer individuals identified in the count, and 800 additional individuals who are identified, in district six. and so, i am not suggesting again because the chronic number has come down, from 2,000 and these are not fesly the people that picked up the possession and walked from the bay view into the civic center or the neighborhoods but the numbers are dramatically different. and i think that it will require a recalibration of our effort and a real focus on the neighborhoods like the tender loin where the homelessness is endemic to that neighborhood and we need to do more, i want to point out that, and sam, can talk about this, but the respondents also identified people always ask me this, to
what extent are health issues and mental health issues a factor in individuals homelessness, and in this count, 37 percent of the individuals identified as having a substance abuse issue, and 35 percent, were i do want to say that the individuals could have more than one, issue or challenge, but that does remain a big factor. and so, these numbers are hard and the city does work, diligently and we do make the investments and a lot of individuals that want to change, and homelessness and not have it be as present for
the people >> i think that without the curfew and respecting where the people are and combined with the really focused effort that the mayor and others are making around and maximizing the use of sros are really the path that we need to pursue in the near term to try to address the street homelessness. >> >> okay. thank you. >> and sorry. >> and colleagues, any further questions? >> okay, so, up next, we will must have peter, and thank you
for being here. and the work with the city and look forward with having this discussion with you. >> thank you supervisors. and members of the committee. and first off, i would like to thank the great number of people who participated in this effort. that we are going to talk about today. and i would also like to thank, bev and trent for their comments and the entire team, and the, this participated as well as my project director samantha green who is sitting behind me. and i am going to review, the summary, result of the report, and some of the data points have been discussed already. but, in the interest of being, methodcal i will go through those again and i apologize in
advance for any redundancy. >> they are done every odd years and they are required as a component on the application, for the homeless funding and that is part of the 20 minutes that san francisco receives. and all continuing of the care. and are over quiet and conducting the counts over two years and in the last ten days, of january, and in a single 24-hour period. and then in san francisco, that was, of course, january 29th of this year.
>> it is scrutinized by hud and the data presentation that is made every year, and the definition of the shelter used in the san francisco study, individual, or family living and a supervised and a public or privately operated shelter and designed to provide the temporary living arrangements, and the examples, are fairly straight forward, and the individual. we also collect the data at the people staying at resource centers and stabilization rooms and the residential programs
and jails and hospitals. the unsheltered definition, is an individual, or family with a nighttime residence that is a public or a private place and not designated for, or orderly used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, and setting apart of the building or the bus or campground and i spend a little extra time on the definition, because, it is, it is really a guiding principal and it, it excludes a lot of the persons who many, many of us, in the, and in the community think that may be literally homeless and that includes, folks that are doubled up. and in other words, living with a friend or a relative in an existing shelter. >> and informal shelters such as the church basements and the bunk beds and the rec rooms that have been converted to a nightly shelter, sros, and
other private property locations which are inaccessible to the teams. and also, some folks in unsafe areas that were not considered suitable for enumeratio n. >> the point in time counts do not include the persons in the permanent support of housing, because that is not considered, part of the shelter definition, within the point in time, rubric as given to us by hud. >> so, methodology that was used in san francisco, in 2015, is very similar to the methodologies used since 2009. when applied survey research began to come and similar to some previous years, with some
improvements from the periods before we helped out. and we follow a hud guideline on counting shelter and unsheltered persons in the method that has been selected in san francisco is an observation based street count and combined with a survey, and in the obligation based street count is mentioned the community effort included roughly, 500 volunteers, and which was similar to the number that we have had every year, that we participated since 2009. >> as trent mentioned, beginning in 2013, we added in a dedicated youth count, which was an overlay, or afr extra layer to the count, in response to growing interest, in concerns about youth homelessness, and certainly, its prevalence here in san francisco. and so that was, that was
counted as well and there were 75 youth guides, that were recruited and participated in that, with the support of local youth homeless advocates. in addition, to the street effort on the 29th, that was followed up by an indepth survey of roughly 1027 currently homeless persons in the shelter and unsheltered locations. and that is was a sample which means that we tried to, we tried to administrator survey and locations where the folks who were observed. and the quarter was based on the neighborhood location. shelters and status and age. >> peers were recruited to administer the surveys on the streets. and shelters staff have administered the surveys in the shelter, subsequent to the
completing of the survey element and the street, data collection, from the day of the count, and analysis, was conducted, which you see in the final report and then, several months ago, that data was submitted to hud, as part of the over all national effort to collect homeless data, which has been subsequently included in the annual homeless assessment report to congress. so, now for the fun part which is the results as we have heard already, the count found 6,686 persons, in the general street count that we did with all of the community volunteers, in 2015, and that was supplimented with the youth count result, which was 853 persons.
so, for reporting standards to hud, there were a total of 7539 persons reported in or on a single point in time in san francisco in 2015. which represents an increase of 4 percent. 205 people. and as both trent and devon very accurately noted, this number and this relatively small change does not reflect the level of turn in a population. it often in terms of number and characteristics. and there has been a lot going on, in the last two years. and the data reflects some of that. the youth count and there was a slight decrease of 7 percent. and then the over all count when you add both the youth and
the general count, there was an over all increase of 2 percent. >> as mentioned it is not always tremendously informative to know what other communities and jurisdictions around the county and state are doing, but within california to just give you an idea, we work at a number of these counties, and in the count, and santa clara went down over all 14 percent, as trent mentioned, san diego is down, and los angeles is up 12.4 percent and sonoma we want down 27 percent and santa cruz went down 44 percent. and salano went down 18-.6 percent just as a comparative in where we stand. and the vexing thing to us as
researchers many of the economic and the housing scarety issues and the affordable issues exist in all of the california, coastal communities and yet, each community showed odd changes, that are not necessarily consistent with that. >> and so, it just as a reminder, that there is a tremendous number of issues which effect the over all numbers, and them going up and down. >> the single adults and 25 years and older, represent 71
percent of the count. >> youth under 25, and 21 percent, and persons and families, 8 percent. >> here is a little geographic distribution, of home sness, within the city. as mentioned there has been some changes. some things have not changed in the district six remains are the most by far, the most significant area for homelessness in the city. and district ten as well. and district 6, increased from 2013, by 29 percent.
>> this increase in the districts where we are seeing some of the high concentrated homeless areas are getting increased infment lux of persons into those areas. and as homelessness, tends to be more and more consolidated in many, many urban areas. >> question for you, are you finding that in larger areas, or in every, jurisdiction that you do? >> even in the semi, urban rural areas, and so on. >> as trent mentioned it has
escalated for our perspective throughout the country in the last couple of years and hopefully that may change. 20 percent of adults and 25 and over, 74 percent. these are the efforts and the planning all over the country. and that, and there was, in the very good success in addressing this in san francisco, from
2013, to 2015, and as a, and maybe a repetitive reminder, chronic homelessness, by definition is being homeless, and continuously for one year. or having four episodes or more of homelessness, over three years. and a disabling continue as present as well. >> and so, there were 1745. homeless individuals in 2015 that were found and that is in comparison of 77 founded in 2013, and chronically homeless families. and there were 58 families to be found homeless, and that number was 116 in 2013.
>> >> veteran homelessness and this is an important area. and it is, as many of you, who are involved, in homeless services and read the paper, the addressing and the ending veteran homelessness has been, one of the top priorities of the, or of the hud and the inner agency. and the council on the homelessness and a lot of funding efforts in putting in the aggressive out reach and vouch programs. and so there is great, great progress made on this. in san francisco and a total of 598 persons, had veteran status, and it is down from the 716 found in 2013.
>> chronically homeless vets, which was kind of a subset of this, the veterans who are also, chronically homeless, and that number was 208 persons in 2015. and that is a decrease from 260, chronically homeless vets in 2013. >> pushp >> and this is a decrease of 7 percent of, or where from 2013, or 679 family members were
found. and again, very importantly, this does not include double up persons where double up is the most common sleeping location for many homeless families. and however, it is excluded from the pit definition we need to work with. >> unaccompanied youth, and 128 individuals, and unaccompanied children. and that is, children under 18 years of age. and they total of 1441 transition aged youth or youth between 18 through 24. and if you combine the unaccompanied children, and youth, number, it represents close to 21 percent of the over
all homeless population. >> i flow that the definition does not include the children that live in fros for example and, my understanding is that the definition, of the homelessness is a problem because there are so many people that are coach surfing and to and outside of the definition and so it is way higher, i know since the first census count and others were challenging the huge under count. and how many, children are within the estheros that we can add to that 128 that are below 18 years old, do you think? >> that is a great, question,
and unfortunately, i have not seen the sro data that would, or that i could share with you. >> and from to profile that. >> from the friends and family members and others, and stories, it seems that there is the cramming in of even more people under the tiny, 8 x 8 srorooms now that is going on. and my hope is that we have and i am really, pleased with the work and 300 plus volunteers and i am hoping that we can refine the way of giving accurate data and so the 1441, transitional aged youth that were identified, and my understanding too, is that many of them and there is probably way more than that, because of the other ways that the people find places to live that may be outside of the definition, could you comment on that? >> yeah. the again again one of the big challenges that we have to work with is that there are various
strict guidelines and data auditing from hud as to who is included and who is not. and in san francisco, too, there is very significant safety, safety concerns, which have prevented us from going into, abandoned buildings? many areas we have the law enforcement and community groups and the city staff, to see, if there are ways that we can penetrate those areas more effectively and it is determined to be too much of a hazard. >> there are and some other xhupts that we have worked in, we have made some efforts to get it, and some of those double up locations, and profile that data. and the results from some of
those efforts, and cost intensive have indicated that it is a huge number. and los angeles, and until this year, conducted a private property telephone survey. to profile the persons, on private property, who they consider homeless, but not to the enumerators and that represented 20 to 32 percent of the over all count. >> and we have, we have done some work, and general community assessments and santa cruz and we found that, the general community has had ten percent of the general community indicated that someone had lived in their house as a homeless person. and with the homeless status, in the last year. and so what as the researchers and one of the big unknown
areas, is this fine line between precar yusly housed, and literally homeless. and in the movement that goes on back and forthwith that. and there is very little, because of a challenges, and in research, and there is very little that is known about it, but, i believe that you are absolutely right that that is a huge group. that is not represented necessarily in this data. and yet, it is a group that is regularly accessing city services. in an attempt to improve their situation. >> so, you mentioned that the numbers that the point in time numbers don't include many of the people that are doubled up in different places that were counted? and then also, you said for squaters in a abandoned building, for example, because we don't have the ability we don't even, and we are not even able to go into some urban areas, where there may be large
numbers of encampments of transitional ages youth or younger that are living in encampments that are squatting in a building. >> right. >> and so there is and that is just, and unfortunately that has been the numberation teams are tip typically volunteers and i think that you have seen the efforts over the years, but there are two to five person teams of general community volunteers, that are going out, and having them go into the buildings under construction, or at some phase of demolition, and it is considered too risky from the liability standpoint. and i just wanted to acknowledge great articles by chris roberts from the examiner that looked at the methodology and tim redmonday for really kind of looking at numbers so that it is giving us a better
sense of what the policies work and i know that the significant funding from the federal government, for the, and to lessen the veteran, homelessness is as significant, investment, and it might be a good example that, more investments in to, long term solutions, are the farrell and others are promoting might being the best remedy, verses the policis that we are facing the 5th anniversary of right now. i wanted to ask one other question about immigrant rights and undocumented youth and so that i know that this board and the city has dedicated significant amounts of money to really try to support, young people, unaccompanied minors who are pleaing persecution and other horrors in other countries. do we have any sense of the youth and unaccompanied minor and how many are fleeing from central america, unlike in the middle east and other places that are dealing with the similar situations? >> we, unfortunately that is a great question and it would be
great data to have, unfortunately that is not something that we included in our youth survey. we have -- and the general survey, is given to everyone in the city and we added a supply mental questions that get into the youth themed data components but, where they were, if they were part of a refugee or the fleeing was not unfortunately one that we were able to capture. and as i mentioned earlier, we would love to get the better profile of the double ups and because especially with the youth, and in the couch surfing and the youth given a place to sleep on a regular nightly basis is a common phenomena. >> and just lastly, i wanted to thank you for the great work i wanted to ask later if sam
dodge or devon know if we are going to continue on the sro census count that helps us to suppliment good information like this for the youth and families that are homeless as well. >> very good questions. >> the next slide is one that is one that is always, very, very, much a topic in a lot of public discourse, and it is home grown, and homelessness or not. i think that both devon and trent mentioned this. but, 71 percent of our respondents said that they had a regular, a regular housing situation in san francisco before they became homeless. and that is, that is up
significantly from 2013. and in fact, if this number is fairly consistent, and with what we find in almost all of our research committees if not higher in some of the other communities. and then, first time homelessness, and this is something that trent in particular, i think was talking about and that has decreased significantly. and so, and it represents, you know, some changes and shifting in and the characteristics of the homelessness. and the next slide, is primary causes of homelessness and as you can see, there is a variety of different areas, and there is multiple reasons given in which is the primary and we have put on in the tech chart
in the trending from 2011 to 2015, and the lost job is consistently there. and you might predict with the shrinking housing stock and doubling up and so on, and related to, the housing status that is a consistent issue as well as other, as well as other family, oriented things. and obstacles to getting permanent housing. and you can see, how the issues noted by the respond ants are almost all economic in nature. >> and you can't afford the rent and no job. and no money for moving costs
13 percent. >> health conditions. we still feel that health homelessness is as much of a health as housing issue for many folks out there. and these percentages of different health conditions that folks have, are consistent in the years that we have been doing this. the alcohol use, 37, and the psychiatric and emotional and 35. and the physical disability and 28 and ptsd, and 27 and general chronic health problems, 27. and tbi, ten. and aids and hiv related 7. >> which is, is, consistently higher than other communities that we work with. and the hud is very interested in domestic violence.
and in, we interested of the communities, and the profile this, more effectively and in the data collection, and the history of domestic violence and 30 percent, said yes. 12 percent declined to state. 58 percent clearly said no. and just in the nature of the domestic violence, and self-reporting, is that it is typically, significantly under reported. and we have no reason to believe that this is not an under count as well. and folks, and supervisor chang has talked about the service assistance. and this is, these are the services that we are being accessed by the respondents. free meals and emergency shelter. and dish services and health services and not using any
services. and you could see that there is obviously changes in this. but, generally, within the ballpark. and then, specifically, what services were being accessed. and food stamps and again, it is one of the highest. and general assistance. and devon talked a little bit about the challenges to that and yet they are still 30 percent and not receiving any government assistance, and it is still high. but, it is an improvement from 2013. and medical 20 percent and ssi, 16 percent and getting back to the health issues, or excuse me. relative to receiving benefits, 74 percent of the respondents were getting something and to maybe, suppliment a little bit, on to what trent was saying,
about in addressing the supervisor change's comments about not wanting it, or any government help. and in other communities, not in san francisco, this topic is called, homeless by choice. and it is a, and it is a common belief that there is a lot of folks out there that don't want any help. and other communities have asked us to probe this a little bit. and when we phrase the question, in terms of if housing were available, to you, that it was acceptable to you, and safe and recognized some of the challenges that you phased, would you accept it? >> and it was a little, worded a little simpler than that. but the response was consistently 95 percent. >> and so there is a lot of, in a programming challenges and which, make placement, in the some of the shelter system,
very, very much a concern to folks. and we think that they would like housing, but not necessarily housing the way that they have experienced it to date. >> so with those applause i will conclude the presentation and as you know, there is, almost 90 pages, and there is more data that we can, we can thumb through and address. but, i will be happy to answer any questions, but, and the committee has. >> and thank you, very much. and i don't know if we have any more questions right now, but want to thank you for all of the hard work and look forward to continuing to work together as we offer this data and so forth and appreciate your work on this on the city's behalf. >> and i don't have any questions either, do i want to thank everyone for their presentations but, also, and even though the data shows that our district has 7 homeless individuals, and which we know
is much more than that, and you know our offices obviously worked very closely with whether it is dufty's office or other s to try to get services for the individuals on the street. and so, i know that this is an ongoing issue and i really appreciate that we have tried to find creative solution and trying to eliminate the barriers for the people to receive the services and so i want to see if we continue down that path and just, again, thank you for the ongoing, partnership, on this very challenging issue. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar. >> i had a question and i think that it was by one of the reporters analysis of our data. and my understanding is that in 2007, instead of district by district, we used a census track maps that helped us to hone in, we we say the golden gate park and 5200 homeless people and that is not a good example. but district seven we will know based on the tracks where the
people are and that and it is misleading to look at just, wide, 80,000 person districts to look more, specifically, on the census tracks. >> yeah. i don't know that, i would agree with that. the, and what has been developed and refined, in san francisco, with trents department has been neighborhood routes that make sense. from a canvassing and an out reach perspective and all of those, those routes and maps, are, developed and in conjunction with the jis department with the city. so it does, how or whether you define it in routes, or if you define it in census block, groups. or census tracks, you, can, mix and match the subunits very easily, either way. and i think that the way that
the city has chosen to makes it work, you know, effective, for good analysis. and that, and it does, it gives the ability for the future analysis, even on subareas that have or are, more targeted, within a census tract or a block group that might be done. >> yeah, i wanted to say that, it is shocking how many people are in district six and ten and then your information about the possibility of people moving out of district ten, and into district six, and then, district five, around the haight ash bury and the parts of the golden gate park around it seem to be the key spots for the large numbers and the homelessness in the city. >> yeah, it is, and it is, and unfortunately the data does not really give us insights into the migration, or whether or not the increase of the people that we saw in 10, are actually
or six, are actually from you know, another, particular district or not. we don't necessarily get that, that, level of analysis. >> and then i think that the report really shatters the stereotypes about homelessness and humane cities like san francisco that were not a magnet for homelessness and i think that out of the survey, 70 percent of the people were living in san francisco before they came homeless. >> right. >> so i think that is a really good thing about the report. and my last question is on page 14. you go through the federal definition, of homelessness, for point in time counts. and is there a possible way to work with the coalition on homelessness and the others to develop the san francisco based definition, that gets at the people that are cramed into couches and inlaw unsits and sro hotel rooms, and 8 x 8 rooms. and the squaters, in the buildings, and other places
that your definition and your data is not counting? if there are key data sources that for example, the coalition, if they, and if they had great numbers, on sros. and we would be fine with including them in our final report. there is also the education numbers that are reported to the county office of education. which do include some double up of the data children. but those can be added to the report as a reference, but
obviously they, they can't be reported within the hud definition. >> okay thank you, and i think that in san francisco, we have the other jurisdictions and the circumstances here and the way that people are dealing with it and being marginalized from the housing perspective and it does not capture all that we need to capture, for the future. and i know that we are bound as a city to do it according to hud standards and the federal definition is better. and they are good, but they don't capture the entire picture. >> right. and it makes it really difficult, to communicate to the community groups, some of these really, fine details definitional distinctions that we have to work under. >> thank you. >> we open up the public comment in a second.
>> i want to thank everyone for participated in the hearing, in particular, devon and trent, and the entire hsa team who is here and dph, or sorry, and trent's team. >> sure. >> and devon's team. >> excuse me one second sir. i think that we need to be reminded of the efforts that we are making in the city of san francisco. and it continues to persist, homelessness as an issue. and that is on everyone's mind. and san francisco residents and i think that we should be encouraged by the progress and all that we have done today but also cannot be come play ant and we have to do more to get the people in their own two feet and off of the streets and we look forward to working with everyone in the room and everyone else who participates in this. and challenge as a city going forward. with that, we will open to public comment and everyone will have two minutes. >> (inaudible)
>> my name is amy and i am the foupder developing with the mission to support, and sustainable development and here we are right now. we cannot hear right now without doing the solution and so i am proposing the solutions today and i did just talk with the coalition, on the homelessness, and was told that
under ed lee's administration we have gone from a 40 percent pipeline of a percentage of affordable housing going to homelessness, and to 20 percent. and so under brown,. we need to take action to improve the lives of our homeless neighbors while building a vision to permanent solution and for better or worse, he has made the up coming super bowl a catalyst for changing policies for the treatment of the neighbors on the street, we have enough, wealth and creativity and talant and heart in the city, to improve the lives of thousands of homeless residents and in time for the super bowl and i call it the saint francis, super bowl, homelessness challenge and now it is not a game. but we could all win by taking
this challenge >> we have homeless neighbors sleeping on in the tent em campsments and they became home s by life ining san francisco and we don't have enough permanent housing and this is a crisis and we must take the creativity action. what if we had $5 million and a source from the nfl or the 49ers we have under utilized small parcels of city owned property and there is a project that was done, by a cal berkeley professor called local, code, thank you >> any other members of the public that wish to comment on item number one? >> yeah i am hearing the reports. i think that we need to start with the main scenario. and i think that we need to, we need to actually partner with the homeless, so that they can actually build the better san
francisco. so they can actually work and prove and hope that the other homeless. and it just seems like every time that i will try to offer something like let's have a supportive group and let's do something, i continuously got rebuffed. and the other time out, and the homeless resistance to the services. and in the government agencies, and we as a city have not really gotten past that par dime of the violent and the local sro and the sro that, and that the community has in partnership, and they could be in and i have the better quiet enjoyment sleeping outside on the sidewalk than i actually do inside of that sro. and and it is tolerated if not endorsed with having a place to live and so, and have we gotten
passed the paradyme of the rat and roaches of the bed bugs of the sro stock? i think that there is definitely solutions, and i think that you just need to meet with the homeless, instead of talking down to our or about them. and i think that the, again, you need to partner with the homeless, because if there is a problem, then they are part of the solution. and lts just that there is no accountability or very, and our accountability for these violence abusive sro and the shelter workers. and i mean there is a woman intact in front of the partnership building, 650, 80, and they ran in circle and never -- >> thank you very much. >> any other members of the public wish to speak on item 1? >> i am not here as a homele,
however i am one of them and i heard about the data and i do have respect for it. okay? i do know that the people have been working hard with those men who are together and however i don't think that they are representing the real. and many of the people are on the street and many of the people are destroying our cities. and i, went to one of the shelters or two, and believe me, the reason why people do not want to go there, is because they do have time, and they force the people to keep from being homeless, and they do not want the people to go to the school that is to look for a job. they have to be there by 3:00 or 4 and besides that they do have to present more information than what they can afford i heard that santa clara, went down and i did show that the facebook and the police and others are taking away the people from the street, and not because they are not homeless, but because
they are taking their lasting to hide the fact that we are having much more homeless, today than before. and i am not sure how they presenting those members but what i can tell you is to go outside and see how many people there are. and how many people, that are in front of clara and how many people are hired to, and to hide the fact that we are getting worse and worse. and i just, begging you, to do something about it, and to, reflect that the real data to make changes for our country to be better. >> thank you very much. >> any other members of the public wish to speak on item number one? >> okay. and seeing none, public comment is closed. and our colleagues, thank you for being with me for this hearing and your involvement, and could i have a motion to file item one? >> so moved. >> motion by supervisor tang and take that without objection. >> and if you will call.
item two. >> ordinance authorizing the department of human resources to accept and expend a grant in the amount of approximately $130,000 from the fuse corps to prepare students for the pathways into careers in science, technology and engineering and mathematics. >> good morning, donna from the department of human resource and workforce development director and i am here before you today to request the community's recommendation to authority to accept and extend a grant. and the fuse corps is part of an executive fellows program with the mayor's office with the department of human resources and fuse corp and this partner wls the career professionals and designated city departments to work on the specific, high priority city initiatives. the goals of the executive program, are to provide resources and opportunities for
city leaders to learn from the experts in the private sector to address the critical issues that may require the creative solutions to provide the opportunities for individuals in the private sector and to learn about the city and make a positive contribution to the city. and to create and build the stronger public, private working relationships and recruit the individuals would may not have considered, working for the city before. >> and in the fiscal year, 14, 15, a pilot program was launched and with the success of the pilot, the program was expanded in this fiscal year to 7 fellows, and the grant from this fuse corps will allow the city to expand the program and add one additional fellow. >> this is a joint project with the mayor's office and the unified school district and focusing on increasing opportunities for the unified school district schools for the careers in stem, science, and technology, and engineering and
math. and related fields. >> and the fellow will partner with the particular holers to develop a plan, to identify the common goals to put the students on the path, to succeed throughout their kthrough 12 education. and to also, work with the stake holders to maximize the opportunities and resources to achieve these goals. the fellow will work closely with the public and private and non-public partners to insure that the programs are working collectively and effectively to prepare san francisco youth for the stem careers, thank you and i will be happen xwr to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> any questions? >> all right, then we will move on to the public comment and anybody wish to comment on two? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and that motion to send this item forward with recommendation? >> and we can take that without objection. >> could you call number three. >> resolution for approve and authorizing the acquisition of one construction easement, and
one permanent subsurface electrical, and one permanent and well connection, and one utility water connection easement from the coast co-wholesale to be used by the city under the water system improvement program. >> okay, thank you we have fuc here to speak. >> actually, claudia. and we do have the staff if there are questions and i will be brief and this resolution regards the water, system, improvement program. in 2012. and the san francisco, public utilities commission initiated the regional ground water storage and consisting the of construction of the water wells and to increase the capacity of water, during the regional dry years. and the sfpuc is requesting funding for the 190,000 previously appropriate ated by the board of supervisors under the project as part of the sfpuc water system to purchase
four easements from the property owner, costco, and the easements will provide a temporary construction, easement area for the project, staging and the subservice, utility connections to provide power and water, and a connection easement. and the total average price which has been appraised, is $2.59 per square foot. and that is a $2 square foot appraised value for the temporary construction, easement and about $8 per square foot appraisal value for the other easements. and based upon a total land value of $60 per square foot. and the temporary construction, easement will be for 18 months with the option to extend the term up for 12 additional months for month to month. and the sfpuc is also asking that the final environmental report and the findings
previously adopted last fall, be readopted as there is no substantial project changes and no new, information, of substantial importance that will change the conclusion set forth. >> and mr. rose and his office and the report, provides a informative summary of the project and this project and ultimately recommends the resolution without change and we agree with that recommendation. >> thank you. >> colleagues any question for the staff here? >> okay, mr. rose could you go to your report please? >> yes, members of the committee on page 3 of our report we note that under the purpose of the agreement and as the department is just indicated, the city has purchased the four easements from costco at an average cost of $2.69 and a total cost of $190,000, and a matter of summarizing and table one on page 3 we recommend that you approve the resolution. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> and no other questions we will move on to public comment and you may wish to comment on
this item? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we have it in front of us. >> i would like to make a motion to move this forward with a positive recommendation, and motion with tang and we can take that without objection. >> could you call four? >> resolution approving the fourth amendment to the agreement with the prwt services. for citation processing and support services to extend the agreement by one year to october, 31, 2016. with an option to extend the agreement for up to two additional years, and for a total contract amount not-to-exceed, $63 million. >> good morning, supervisors, steve leee sfmta and thank you to hearing our item today. this fourth amendment and resolution, before you is a request for one year, extension, on the third of five one year options, and the increase to not-to-exceed amount by 9.2, million dollars,
and for agreement, with the prwt for the citation process and support services. and the amendment also authorizes the mta to implement the enhancements and we feel that we have the great customer service and the operations. and these improvements include, creating a residential permit and a parking system that will auto mate it on-line as well as mail in, and the improvements to the web portal that will allow the customer to view the current status of any citation and process of any protest and to create a web portal, where they can query the system to see if there is a payment on the citation and request it on-line. issuing an rfp for a new agreement by the end of the november of this year, and we urge that you approve this amendment. >> okay, thank you very much. >> and colleagues, with know questions, and mr. rose could we go to your report.
>> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 9 we report that the sfmta is arequesting approval of the additional approval of 9,250,494 which equals of to 3 million, for the july, first of 2015, 0 october, 31, 2016, and less the balance of 2 million, 45,000, and in 2015, from the original, not-to-exceed agreement amount and we also note on page 10 of our report that in the fiscal year 14, issued 1 million parking citation and received, 150 million, in parking citation revenues and we do recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you. mr. rose. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you and i think that this would have been in the budget analyst report as well. but i just wanted to provide for the public the information about funding that we are
spending through this agreement, amendment. particularly for i guess better on-line, efficiency or processing and i think that is a really good goal and i think that the budget analyst pointed out, roughly, 400,000 dollars extra that we are spending for that and just wanted to clarify that if for some reason we are going to go with another service, and after the rfp process, what happens to the data, and the system and if you could just explain that. >> sure, what the prwt will be developing is our web pour tal and any new rendor that will come in a year and a half from now or a year from now will have to integrate in terms of the data and that is natural. and these, particular improvements are we feel, minor elements of a contract, that will probably be in the range of about, 40 to 50 million dollars. and the heavy portion of the contract, will be citation, processing and enforcement and ajudation, and so these improvements will be able to
transfer to a new vendor in the future. >> and then, again, even though we are, and we could go with prwt again and another company, and do you have a sense of the time frame for when some of these new improvements especially through the on-line, web portal will be able to take place? >> absolutely. >> this extension, and authorization is from november first, and through, october 31st. of this year. we would implement it immediately and take two to four months to implement all three. >> from now? >> yes. >> because we can't start until we are authorized to start. >> okay. >> november first >> great, thank you very much. >> okay. thanks very much. we will open this up to public comment and anyone wish to comment on four? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues we have this item in front of us and could i have a motion to send this forward. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang and we can take it without objection. >> madam clerk do we have any other business. >> no other business.
♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho. people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a.
her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on
clear culture. strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that. it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very. we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more
chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture. >> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. >> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single
work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work,
i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪