tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 3, 2018 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
it is the way we provide services in the first year of proposition i. we got $6 million in new funding to distribute throughout the community. we did it by thinking a little bit about kind of by looking at the existing needs assessments and crafting within put from the community and advisory bodies. it included multiple compoments. the support for veterans. they were highlighted in the campaign. within this we were able to have service connection programs. $100,000 for congregate males.
that is one way we use the funding to reach out to the population. our guiding strategy or policy was two fold. to support and strengthen the existing network that we know exists in san francisco and is fantastic at providing services in the community. we know that people are providingness and important services. our dignity fund needs assessment found evidence of this. we want to be sure providers have the support they need. second was to expand services to less served populations and engage people not accessing services. populations lack parity. we haven't engaged everyone. sometimes people don't see things that work in our models quite yet.
this slide really kind of provides additional contexts for for the first $6 million. nutrition and wellness are the largest overall funding area, particularly nutrition. we were able to use new dignity fund dollars to expand services that haven't seen as much growth. we enhanced it with $1.3 million that went to pilot new activities and programming at community services centers such as evening, saturday hours. people wanting to reach out and try new innovative approaches. so this time last year we have been focused on completing the community needs assessment. this process and timeline is mandated by the legislation showing here. what we really wanted to focus on this year was community
engagement getting stakeholders involved. we had 11 community forums which a lot of you helped with. thank you very much. one in each district. 462 attendees in the 11 forums. 29 focus groups with two 82 participants. we had a survey of 266 providers and 1100 consumers. essentially just a couple notes. i will report the needs assessment to you in a couple weeks or one of the committees. i don't want to go into too much detail. i want to give you a few things we found. we are serving one in four of the older adults through the community-based programs. generally, the equity analysis we did with our consultant indicates the populations are accessing at higher rates than
the general population. in particular, it is serving half of the low income seniors through the community-based organizations. 519 per thousand. serving 40% of the seniors with limited english. we have effective partnership to engage these population this is culturally appropriate services. we have the adviser rebodies for the allocation for this coming year. we are looking at one of the things that came out of the needs assessment was that often people are very confused how to access services or don't know the services exist. as much as we think we are out there we realize they don't know. we want to spend time thinking about public information and awareness and messaging. one of the other things asked for was more inner generational
programming. we haven't funded it in the past. we are interested to help build stronger relationships and support the programming that is there. then thinking about how we currently have an under service to adults with disability population. thinking about expanding home delivered meals to those with disabilities. we have a consultant to help develop ideas for disability cultural center which i am excited about. that is really where we are right now. when we go to the next year, i know i get a gold star if i stop right now. i will say one more thing. that is that we will spend the next year allocating the full $51 million of the dignity fund dollars with public discussion and thinking about values and how we want to serve adults with disabilities in san francisco.
it is a good opportunity for us and stakeholders and four all of you as well. thank you very much. >> we want to here from supervisor yee. perhaps you can weave in more information through your answering of their questions. >> thank you. on page 2, maybe i am adding it wrong at the top it says $6 million new funding. when i look at the initiatives there are only $5 million. what happened to the other $1 million? >> some of it goes to covering the cost of increases for programs. the cost of doing business increases for these programs gets built into that. >> got it. i am having discussions with the different departments in regards to seniors and people with disabilities and how they are
probably under employed and many seniors find themselves not able to support themselves with their ssi and need to go back to work, but they have a hard time finding anywhere to work. is there any funding in these new initiatives where they are supporting that effort? >> well, you know there is a hearing for that. we are excited for that is i am headed for a meeting to discuss how we are approaching older adult employment and people with disabilities. we have a program that we fund called we serve that is focused on providing sub des for older workers with disabilities. our nonprofit provider reaches
out to perspective employers to work with them on that. we are also looking at ways to build in stipendses or part-time positions in the new allocation when we think about messages to the community. we think it takes some guidance to do this correctly. we have been short on that in the past. that is another opportunity that we will build in with the new dignity fund dollars for this year. >> i am not finished. thanks for reminding me i have a hearing issue. the other piece that i have been talking to you about and other departments is the whole independent living and the rc? >> rc.
>> the gamut of care people need as they get older and so forth. is the support housing retention piece, what category is that in your allocation? >> support housing retention is really bathe housing subsidies program. it is different. what we look to do with respect to residential care facilities is really pull together a work group which i know you have talked about as well. we thought that and also i guess smalsimultaneously through the k groups finance and policy work group what we would love to do is figure out if there is a way to expand a waiver or create a new waiver to expand the capacity with respect to that. i think we know that asking the city to take that on is difficult, there are probably
things to do locally and we are looking at those as well. to really penetrate the need, we would need to go to the state and say let's see if we can draw down dollars or restructure something. we will look at that. >> thank you. i am finished. >> thank you very much. thank you for all the work you do especially in my neighborhood with the largest population growth with seniors. my question is how well do you think we are preparing for the increase in senior population. we have heard the senior population is soon to -- one of the largest growing populations in san francisco. >> across the country 10,000 people turning 65 every day. it is a fast growing population. i think that, you know, we can
look at it a lot of different ways. we have the dollars we have and in san francisco we have fortunate. when i talk to my colleagues across the state or country, san francisco, thanks to the generous mayors and board, we have a lot more flexibility to wrap services around people in san francisco. it is going to mean, i think, as the population grows we have to talk about how to target our dollars. what really are our values and how do we make sure we are serving people who are in most kneeled? -- most need. it really needs to be a public conversation. the other ways are looking at new partnerships, look at new partnerships with our for profit as well as nonprofit partners to see if there are new ways to think about things and develop
new methods of providing service or having mean to pay in a different way. it is with the state and federal government. that is difficult. over time really thinking about the three tiered approach, federal, state, local dollars. these conversations are happening all over the place. not just here, at the state level and also with the federal organizations as well. i think some multiple pronged approach. >> i just want to say in your budget presentation where you come before us again. the question i want answered is the budget -- your budget toward seniors growing proportion nat to the growth of the senior population? also, what is the greatest area that has the greatest need in
funding to secure -- so that what i want to ask is what area do you see is the greatest need of funding as the senior population grows. do you see that in housing, in food insecurity, in caregiver support? i know they are coming before us again. i want to prepare you i will ask these questions when you come before us. >> thank you. seeing there are no other questions, i think we will go to jessica layman at this time. >> thank you.
before you run away i have one question. my understanding is that organizations are a requirement of the r.f.p. are being asked to charge membership for the services where they previously had not done so. can you explain the reasoning behind this? >> we have -- when you are referring to is the village model. the village model started in boston and it is a membership model about communities coming together to create their own programming and create a network of support for themselves. one of the reasons that we started funding that program several years ago was really that it came to our attention that lower to middle income people weren't getting the services that people on medicaid can get or weren't using our
other services. in our minds that was always a membership model. when we put the r.f.p. out we created three categories. one is the village model where we asked programs to charge members 120 per year for the service that is the traditional model. we have another model where people do not pay or don't have to pay. we have the traditional community services model. it is those three things we were trying hard to reach across the total population. we know our community services programs about 75% of people in the community services programs are people of color and people who live very low income. which is great. they are very, very well used. we were trying to provide a
different model for a population that doesn't always qualify for those services or use them. next we will hear from jessica layman from senior and disability action. >> thank you so much for taking time t to hear about this. today i am with the coalition of the elderly and justice coalition. >> good afternoon greg mere with budget and case coalition of agencies serving the elderly. >> this is your presentation your slides? >> yes. >> are they loaded on the laptop? >> they are. do you have to work magic? here it is. thank you. >> just a second. do you have an electronic version? >> it is on the tv now.
>> this is your presentation? >> yes. >> please, whoever is next. >> so some facts up about the senior and adults with disability community in san francisco. currently, this population makes up one in four of the san francisco citizens. as was mentioned a few minutes ago, that population is growing rapidly. in 10 to 12 years it will be significantly higher. half of the seniors cannot afford a market rate housing that is significant amount. 16% are below the federal poverty left in the most expensive city in the country with incomes under $12,000. over half of san francisco
residents 60 or older do not have basic economic independence. we will talk about our funding area also for next year's budget. >> i just want to add in light of the facts there. ask a new effort to shift away from the term silver tsunami which i have used in the past, but not to see the growing population of seniors and people with disabilities, they are taking over, what are we going to do, but to recognize this is a huge resource and asset in the community that we have such richness of experience and energy among us. we are going to go over some of the funding priorities that we recommend. i know housing retention already came up. number one on the list is rental subsidies for seniors and people with disabilities. we were delighted the board
funded this last year. we are all seeing from experience this can't employee one-time funding. it works. when people get a subsidy they stay in their homes. they are not as likely to get sick and end up in the hospital, on the streets in the nursing home. they stay in the home and community and the subsidies need to continue. we propose $1.5 million in continued funding and $3 million in new funding to presents housing. we need to fund legal services to prevent elections. this is -- evictions. this is about funding eviction defense attorneys and recognizing that seniors and people with disabilities sometimes need specific support in that process and that seniors are often a target for eviction and buyouts. if they are in rent controlled
housing, a landlord or speculator will see a great opportunity to get them out and bring in someone to pay more represent. >> director mic pad den was talking about the 46 agencies funded by our over 30 members of case is that many, many people, seniors, families of seniors, loved ones do not know about available resources. we do have a tremendous amount of support available to people. if they don't know about it they can't take advantage of it. we are asking for $600,000 for a year around intensive marketing and outreach campaign. this would be a strategic overall campaign in all forms of media as well as funding for individual agencies to do their
own marketing and outreach. it would include a small amount of money. one of the items we have been working on for the past nine months is to create or begin an annual signature city wide event celebrating seniors and persons with disabilities. this funding would help with that in terms of a small amount of funding for part-time event planner. >> behavior health specialist was mentioned. the senior population is growing rapidly. it is also aging rapidly. as that takes place there are ever increasing amounts of behavioral health concerns for which staff at senior centers are not trained and equipped to deal. the $550,000 we are asking would
support that with 11 part-time positions so covering all districts with a variety of direct service, evaluation assessments and with training to staff to better deal with these situations. housing support staff at adrc aiding and disabilities resource center. housing is a huge concern for everyone especially for seniors. an extra challenge for seniors is navigating the system to try to find or get support for housing. $200,000 would provide for some part-time positions that would flow between these adrc centers and be able to use expertise and special training dealing with the senior population.
the adult day services, some of the most frail and at risk seniors and adults with disabilities rely on the day services. these programs are their life through services including males, -- meals, activitiesits. the van wind is underfunded. the agencies are struggling to afford the transportation, two, it is not able to accommodate the needs. the $465,000 would provide approximately 200,000 individual trips for persons. one-time infrastructure support for senior centers. senior serving agencies have for years struggled to keep doors open to offering programming that is appropriate, supportive
and needs. we all are aware of the cost of living, how rapidly it has increased. the funding has simply not been able to keep pace in the elements that suffers is infrastructure. simple things. >> you are at the searc the sevn mintmark. >> funding to support that. >> i guess negative two minutes to finish up. >> the last item is restoring and enhancing village services in the northeast part of the city to make sure people have access to the exciting village model. three things that did not make on it the slide. they are quick. one, you are going to hear from food security. that is a huge need for our populations. employment programs. i appreciate you had conversation with the director
mic spaed den. we see seniors and people with disabilities getting jobs. there is so much that is challenging to work later in life. people can't live on ssi or social security. we are suggesting $500,000 to go to sf reserve and it is currently very effective. lastly, i want to appreciate the board for funding support at home four the middle income population which there is currently an evaluation. i may be speaking out of term. we see a success, what we wanted it to be. seniors are getting on the program and benefiting and people with disabilities as well. it is continuing. i am excited to have that moving along. thank you so much. >> thank you for your
presentations and thank you for honoring our time. i have a couple questions. coal leagues i want to give -- colleagues i want to give you first crack. >> quickly. sorry. a few years ago, about two years ago, i met with people that were using the group ends and trying to improve the system and we talked extensively about it, and the need to increase the number of vans. there were federal grant to allow for that, and it seems like at the time there were some solutions that we were able to increase the rate, able to adjust the rates were sort of
the outer areas like the west side of the city because they were getting the same per pickup as somebody that was picking up on the east side, the services were on the east side. it wasn't worth some of the van people to go out there, then people stopped using it because it took so long to get to the services. i don't know -- i haven't had any recent discussion but is it still the same problem? i thought we were taking care of that. i am not too sure. if it is a problem i would support a group van, but i thought we addressed that two years ago. >> it is not a simple problem. it is a combination of the inability of the existing program to accommodate all of the need that there is. then the other comes into play
expanding the rental subsidy program. that's about making sure that people are off the streets and staying in their homes. it's about people that have a home. if we look at that as an existing program, people have housing, and we want to preserve that. it's better for the city, for them, and for all of us, to make sure they stay in their housing. the outreach and marketing campaign is one of the new items of the recognition of the dignity funds. so many people don't know about the programs and people continue to be isolated. isolation is the biggest indicator of death. to make sure people know about those programs and to take advantage of them. >> i want to be open and transparent. new programs like you are suggesting, i understand there's a need for it, but it's highly unlikely that it will be funded.
it will not be considered a priority. i'm sorry to share that news, but i think that's the economic climate we're in now. if there are no other questions, we'll move on and hear from the next presenter. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: we'll hear from paula jones. paula jones is coming from -- what organization are you with? >> i'm chair of food security task force. since we have just our 5 minutes, i thought i would lead the presentation, but we're both available for questions. >> supervisor cohen: great.
>> that should be on the screen and handouts in front of you as well. first, we want to thank everybody here for the opportunity to address one of the most basic needs, which is food. our slide today will start with food security and investment in nutrition, approved health and policy and priorities. we did try to follow the template that you offered. we have a policy. in 2013, our board of supervisors, some of you here, unanimously passed a resolution committing to a food-secure, hunger-free san francisco in 2020. the definition that we've been using is that all people at all times are able to obtain and consume enough nutritious food to support an active, healthy
life. we're targeting who we think are highest risk. we're looking at the federal poverty line, $24,000 for a single person or $41,000 for a family of three. that means we have 226,500 residents at 200% of the poverty line and at-risk for hunger, which most of us can imagine. what the food security task force has been trying to do is maximize federal programs, community partners, creating a local healthy food purchasing supplement and working to increase residents' ability to access food. and that means we want to increase food security and healthy eating for all the low income san franciscans at home and at school and in the community. we agree and we know it improves health. we know it supports seniors and
people disabilities to live at home. and it also supports local food business and jobs. we have been, as we know of over the last several years since the 2013 assessment went through a budget process, to highlight programs that were at capacity or we could leverage local dollarses to supplement private dollars and state and local funding. this your for our budget request we're focusing on budget requests for seniors and those with disabilities. we have been able to say exactly how many people are currently being served. how many dollars are in the program. how many people do we actually know that are on waitlists and if they knew about it are eligible and would come to this program. our success, we've been defining
that as addressing unmet need and malnutrition in san francisco. again, we've been focusing on nutrition programs, meals delivered to homes and also home-delivered groceries for those that are not able to get out and get to a food pantry or grocery store. we do satisfaction surveys so we understand how the programs are working. we have added screenings to address loneliness and depression. we're able to say that we're serving low-income residents all over san francisco in every district. the other is healthy eating vouchers, which has been giving people vouchers for fruits and vegetables. we've targeted low-income families on s.s.i. and s.s.p. and wick and we see that as families that cannot access cal
fresh. people on i.s.s. or s.s.i., cannot access cal fresh. same with medical. and lastly, sro food security initiative. there's not a system in place for our sro residents. there as myriad of programs, so we've been looking at increasing public and private funding to create a system to address that need. we have funding to do two pilot programs. our stretch goals -- it's a stretch, but we can do it. we're looking at a policy framework and system priority on how do we really address that unmet need? it comes down to a few things we know we need to attain sustainable funding and infra struck our investment to eliminate the waitlist and barriers to service we've want a client-centered approach to be sure we're using all of our resources to the best of our ability and making sure
that collaborate. and we want to ensure the accountability to the food safety system. that's making sure we understand where our dollars are going. what are we trying to do over the next few years? we've been working very hard to release a 2018 report. many of us in the room have been working hard on that. that will include, just as did our 2013 report, a city-wide and demographics, that will add on food usage and program analysis and our policy recommendations. we want to add new partners in this, both with the health sector and public and private sectors. we've launched a strategic funding process to make sure that we do the best with the 2018 report that we have coming out and make sure that we can implement the recommendations are there. change any program policy that
needs to be done. and in closing i think i'm within my 5 minutes, but i think that we as a city, what we've felt is that we're committed to this. this is not anything one agency, one department, one program can do. it takes all of us, local, state and federal and we know that. and i think it's a combination of budget investments. innovative programming and public policy. >> supervisor cohen: good. you got a gold star. colleagues, any questions, wee add like to start with you down here, supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: i'll say something to say something. i guess i really -- i really have grown to understand each year the importance of food security and each year when
there's been this asked for, to reach more people, and to get food to those that are vulnerable. >> supervisor cohen: supervisors? okay. thank you. i appreciate the slide on the stretch goals, particularly what the department is trying to change over the next few years. is it an attainable goal to get to food security by 2020, i think that's the original initiative. >> i think it's a stretch. it depends on the budget investments. i think with the 2018 recommendation, we're prepared to come back and work with you to look at that resolution again.
see if it's 2020. if it's not, what is that date. in terms of the policy framework, to meet unmet need, how would you prioritize the three bullets? >> we would start with the first. that's our number one. >> supervisor cohen: to attain sustainable funding to eliminate waitlist and barriers, what is the strategy? >> local, state and federal funding and private funding and is there any room for any sliding scale? >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. seeing no other questions, we'll continue to mover ahead. thank you. next up, pedestrian safety. we have hava conenberg from m.t.a. hava, i hope you have seen the great gold star examples.
>> i recognize that i was 20 slides. >> supervisor cohen: wasn't going to say anything. >> thank you sore saying my name directly. i'm with the san francisco pedestrian manager and speak on behalf of a number of agencies that are responsible for pedestrian safety and are vision-zero programs. vision-zero is our goal, to eliminate traffic fatalities in san francisco and reduce the severe injuries on our street. we have three parameters -- safe streets, engineering, safe people, education and enforcement, and safe vehicle, and we will get to save people and save vehicles and that's where we have budget needs. i want to acknowledge that it's probably labeled as expansion and i understand the role of
this body is not to look at expansion. we have on average 30 people dying on san francisco streets. last year was our lowest year with 20 fatalities, but it's still 20 of our neighborhoods. we're asked about pedestrian safety, 20% of the people that will die are people that are walking and that's fairly consistent year to year. 5 also want to know four people died using a motorcycle, 20%. and that's a severe overrepresentation of people that will use a motorcycle, which is 3% to 4%. i wanted to talk about the vulnerable populations. we're talking about people that are over the age of 50, aging populations. those are people that are most
likely to die when they're hit by a car. and you can see in this schart that the population is lower than the people that died -- or will die last year, rather. additionally, half of the people that passed away were on a high-injury network street. that's 75% of our fatalities -- >> supervisor cohen: is it in a specific part of town? >> great question. you can see the proportion are tenderloin and south of market. you can see the ve-- it's one o the best data sets that we have because it's run by the san francisco department of public health. and for the first time, it was created using injury data that came from our police reports,
which we've always had access to, but for the first time, data coming from san francisco general hospital. so we're picking up new injuries that were never reported to the police either because someone self-injured and went straight to general or please never made it to the site. or a person may not be comfortable calling the police. that's why we highlight communities of concern. there may be people that are severely injured that will not call the police. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> it's a great data set and nationally leading and great kudos to the department of public health that lead this effort. the reason i'm highlighting this is because the person you see who will get hit, i hear about a kid looking at his phone the kid most likely to die in a traffic fatality is an older woman who is walking across the street. and i just want to acknowledge, we left kendita duazo,
80-year-old woman walking on ocean on her way back from church. that's who i imagine when we talk about this program. that's who we are trying to save. i'm going to briefly go through our capital programs. our goal is to improve 13 miles a year. it's about $57 million per year. we've worked really hard with your offices and neighbors in developing this list. some of our quick people corridors are things that you know of and here's the funding sources. i'm comfortable that you are familiar with all of them. and our sales tax, of which you are the commissioners of. we're very successful at winning state and regional grants.
we're getting money directly from the federal government administered by state and region and that adds to our total funding. i'm moving on quickly to safe people, safe vehicles. we have campaigns that have $2 million to $3 million in budget. they're on our buses, in our radios, we've targeted them. the motorcycle safety campaign has a lot of traction. it's state-leading and we're also partnering with enforcement, so we try to lead with communication. it's a street you should not be speeding on. and then coming up with the campaign to those that didn't get the first message that we want to reduce speeding on these streets. two things less visible are
evaluations of safety streets that started two years ago and i will show an example in a second, to help inform you, our decision makers, future projects, and to celebrate the successes we do have. and, lastly, data transparency. it's run by public health and gives everybody the same access to information that i showed you where injuries and fatalities are happening. it goes with our open data goals of the city. these are one-time grant sources for every program that i listed. it comes from the office of traffic safety, noninfrastructure grants, one bay area, sales tax, and safety council road to zero. of the funds, 80% goes to
multimedia. and those that are on the ground that can best communicate that to the communities. i have stretch goals. one is to operate as neighborhood. we want to operate in up to 20 schools. thank you for supervisor yee for your work. our next stretch goal would be the hert brartbrea heartbreak c those who lost loved ones. as well as what are illegal behaviors. and our evaluation program only focuses on infrastructure efforts and we want to be more accountable about the safety people and safe vehicle efforts that the multitude of agencies are working on. so we would like to evaluate those programs more robustly, so we can show our progress.
lastly, infrastructure programs all over the city and it's hard to understand when we're talking about a planned view on a piece of paper. this is taylor street. we did a pop-up demonstration of the project. we had 1,500 people walk by and interact on the site and get a look at what it would look like. i'm done. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: all right. silver star. it was dense. >> supervisor sheehy: in was surprised you didn't mention school crossing guards. when i look at the needs that is most unfulfilled, it's a school crossing program that has not
been able to staff all the requests that you currently have and i know some schools even stop asking for them. but walking kids across the street is not happening and it's a huge safety gap. it's disappointing to see that -- we brought this up to the agency a number of times. there's not a plan to do something to fully implement a school crossing guard program for every school that wants and needs them. >> my colleague, dylan, will address that. >> through the chair to supervisor sheehy. very timely question. we are really trying to make the crossing guard program more robust. at tuesday's board meeting, we discussed 20 new positions.
and we'll continue to work on that in outreach and recruitment and retention. so we're hearing you and we'll continue to work on making the crossing guard program more responsive. >> supervisor sheehy: 20 guards, that will not serve the backlog, much less people that may want to participate and have given up. >> we will continue to work together. i can follow up with your office later in terms of how we're going to address the backlog and the next steps. >> supervisor sheehy: you've been helpful personally, but when the m.t.a. budget comes to this committee, it's not something that i find as a parent of a public schoolkid that i understand. it's just not something that's rational to me. we're not talking about tens of
millions of dollars. the m.t.a. should be able to provide crossing guards to every school that needs them. it's a matter of principle. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: i just want to remind every member of the public and committee that we have no authority to add money to m.t.a.'s budget. we don't have that ability to add money or take away money. however, i want to note that the department of public health and san francisco police department also get pedestrian safety money and if we are interested in moving in that direction, there's an opportunity through those two budgets. i don't believe this was in your list of priorities. this is -- what you are
articulating is news to me. i didn't understand that it was a priority for you. >> supervisor sheehy: i've been engaging the m.t.a. we don't have to vote for their budget. we don't have to support their budget going forward. >> supervisor cohen: and there's always one person to go in that direction. i think we'll have a conversation with m.t.a. comes to discuss and we have the analyst report in front of us so we can have a detailed analysis as to where the resources are coming in and we need to make sure that we're budgeting these priorities. i know i cut you off, but wanted to give you an opportunity to finish. all right. no problem. >> supervisor yee: this was one of my priorities. >> supervisor cohen: yes, it was. >> supervisor yee: i appreciate there's even a slide for ed's
neighborhood. and i'm glad we'll push for that as a strategy. one of the things that -- you talk about the three major campaig campaigns. it looks like we may be on the same page on this, but i want to be sure that we are. as you may or may not know, i asked for a hearing to address what is going on with the seniors and the strategies that we have strategies for the campaign piece going to be focused on seniors? >> we can tailor our outreach and communication to seniors.
some of the campaigns have not been developed. we can take that into account. and what is important is that the people most affected by traffic collisions and violence are seniors, are older adults. so by taking a holistic approach to building safe streets, enforcing our laws and improving our tech follnosequignofollow - we'll have positive outcomes. i hear what you are saying, tailoring the program so seniors understand what i've presented. >> supervisor yee: it's a combination. it is always a combination of educating the seniors as well as drivers in terms of -- maybe seniors are slower to get across the street. one of the reasons why i ask is to fully understand what are the majority issues and what are
some solutions to -- if we have this problem? what i'm seeing is that i've seen over and over again seniors getting hit. and many are getting hit while in a crosswalk and many of them are getting hit while they're in a crosswalk when the car is turning. we need to study that and find a solution to it. >> i agree. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i have a question. one is about sfpd and the relationship between enforcement and also vision zero. i'm calling a hearing on the traffic division because i've heard there's a reduction in the traffic division and i'm wondering what your relationship is. i know they received some funds for pedestrian safety and wanted to know if you have had discussion about increasing
traffic enforcement. >> i will speak to the one-time grant that we received to put together communication in our enforcement campaign and i would ask perhaps dylan -- i don't know if we can speak to the overall traffic division. i was not prepared to answer that one. >> supervisor fewer: that's okay. >> specifically, cases like sunset or 19th avenue, leavenworth, we wanted to not just send a message through billboards and the bus, but also wanted to follow up with the enforcement side of things, so the grant funded additional safe hours from the traffic division. so it was on overtime. we have an evaluation forthcoming about the effectiveness of that work. so just to be clear, we did fund
the overtime through the grant source. >> supervisor fewer: how much is that grant for? >> i believe it was $2 million total, or that neighborhood, and it was from active transportation program. not all of that went to the p.d. it was a breakup between communications and the police officer hours. i will have to give you the exact breakdown. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. it's a high-injury corridor and we see little enforcement on that stretch. are lights, especially across the boulevards that are six lanes or four lanes, like geary -- >> i'm glad you asked that question. we have a public announcement coming on may 9. i don't want to take the wind out of anyone's sails, so if you can hold that question a few more days. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much.
are we doing any analysis around violations around stop signs and -- in my neighborhood, a lot of people run stop signs and run red lights, which is so dangerous because people depend on that if they are crossing at a green light they're safe. have we looked at that violation as well as running red lights? >> absolutely. our department of public health has every single police data we have and we have five violations and two of them are running red lights or not stopping at a stop sign. so we do have a goal for each police district for 50% of them to be on the top five citations. so those two you alluded to are included. the idea being we're trying to direct our traffic division to the