recommendations to mayor ed lee on how to transform the san francisco housing authority
TRANSCRIPT
CITY AND COUNTYOF SAN FRANCISCO
ROSA PARKS SENIOR CENTER
San Francisco Housing Authority
before
Buchanan Mall entrance - after
Grand OpeningMay 15, 2012
SFHA Re-EnvisioningRecommendations to Mayor Ed Lee on how to transform the San Francisco Housing Authority
Prepared by City Administrator Naomi Kelly and Olson Lee, Director, Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development
SFHA Re-Envisioning
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary • 1
SFHA by the Numbers • 4
An Agency in Crisis • 8
End It, Don’t Mend It: Re-Envisioning Public Housing in San Francisco • 10
Governance and Administration • 11
Financing/Re-Capitalization • 12
Section 8 Operations • 13
Public Housing Operations • 14
Resident Services • 15
Tenant Leadership • 16
From Plan to Action: Implementing the Transformation • 17
Conclusion • 19
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
❍
Mayor Edwin M. Lee appoints new Housing Authority Commissioners with Acting Director Barbara Smith.
1 SFHA Re-Envisioning
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background:
In his January State of the City speech, Mayor Edwin Lee called for a community process to help re-envision the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA). He asked City Administrator Naomi Kelly and Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) Director Olson Lee to lead this process and provide him with actionable recommendations by July 1st.
For the last four months, over a hundred representatives from 72 different organizations including residents, non-profit service providers, affordable housing developers, local labor unions, and private sector development experts, along with 20 City departments and representatives from United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) met a total of 18 times to discuss strategies for improving the delivery of services to public housing residents in the face of declining federal funding and a history of local mismanagement.
With the understanding there would be overlap between topic areas, working groups were formed on these topics: governance, public housing operations, Section 8 operations, resident services, resident organizations and leadership, and tools to re- finance public housing.
Below is the key finding and a summary of actionable recommendations for the Mayor’s consideration:
Key Finding:
With a severe decline in federal funding over the years, the San Francisco Housing Authority as it is currently constituted cannot adequately deliver housing services to its residents. The SFHA must adapt its 75-year-old organizational structure, governance, and housing model to become a more professional, accountable and transparent housing provider that meets the complex and varied needs of its residents.
In order to deliver quality housing and services to meet resident needs, the SFHA will need to develop an enhanced partnership with the City and County of San Francisco, HUD, affordable housing developers, community based organizations, and SFHA residents.
This report’s recommendations fall into six categories: Governance and Administration, Financing and Re-Capitalization, Section 8 Operations, Public Housing Operations, Resident Services, and Tenant Leadership. In addition, there are steps that the City can take to begin to strengthen its working partnership with the SFHA.
Key Recommendations:
1. Governance and Administration
a. Ensure the Housing Authority Commission remains a professional but independent oversight body. Create qualification requirements to ensure future commissioners have similar professional capacity and expertise.
2SFHA Re-Envisioning
b. The priority of the current Commission should be to adopt and direct the staff to implement HUD’s Corrective Action Plan, and overall recovery agreement.
c. Direct the Commission to work with the City Administrator to establish and chair a working group that will improve the administration of SFHA to increase the transparency and effectiveness of its finance and human resource management within the next two years. This working group should include the SFHA, Controller, Treasurer, Mayor’s Budget Office, Department of Human Resources, Human Services Agency (HSA), and MOHCD.
2. Financing and Recapitalization
a. Direct the Commission to engage MOHCD to evaluate the building conditions at all 48 SFHA properties and facilitate the necessary improvement to the 6,139 units within the public housing portfolio through public-private partnerships.
b. The goal is to upgrade building conditions in a minimum of 2,000 homes using a public-private land trust model within the next 3 years and provide improvements to the remaining non-HOPE SF SFHA portfolio within the next 8 years, while continuing to progress on the four active HOPE SF sites with the goal of completing the first two sites and getting the remaining projects entitled and into construction within the next 10 years. This is dependent on securing the necessary federal resources, which to date have not been fully committed by HUD
3. Section 8 Operations
a. Direct the Commission to find an effective program administrator to manage this troubled department in the short term, while they search for a permanent administrator.
b. The identification of a permanent administrator should begin immediately in coordination with HUD’s staffing assessment. The goal is to establish a permanent administrating entity for the program within two years.
c. Maximize the use of vouchers for financing affordable housing and use vouchers more efficiently for veterans, domestic violence survivors, and homeless families.
4. Public Housing Operations
a. The Commission should develop a maintenance plan that includes the creation of a maintenance mechanic position that provides efficient and timely on-site repairs.
b. The Commission should authorize the HA to partner with MOHCD to develop strategies to improve management, maintenance, and operations through public-private partnerships that leverage additional resources (see Financing/Re-Capitalization section).
3 SFHA Re-Envisioning
5. Resident Services
a. The Commission should create a rent collection and eviction prevention strategy that aims to increase rent collection while providing residents with opportunities to get current on their rent if they fall behind.
b. Build on the existing HOPE SF services coordination role and create a resident services and leadership coordination unit.
6. Tenant Leadership
a. Expand HOPE SF Leadership academy to train leaders at all HA sites.
b. Housing Authority residents should have access to the same housing code enforcement process as every other San Franciscan – one of the strongest and most effective in the country. Residents should be educated on how to participate in making this system work more effectively. This is one key area of resident engagement.
In order to improve the quality of service to the residents, the Housing Authority Commission should partner with the City and County Departments to align critical Housing Authority functions with the city infrastructure.
We also recognize that while improving the SFHA administration and providing long overdue capital improvements to the housing stock is important, that by itself will not disrupt the inter-generational poverty that exists in many of our SFHA developments, especially the family sites.
City Actions
We recommend the following changes to increase city coordination in the Housing Authority with the goal of reducing inter-generational poverty:
Issue a mayoral executive directive requiring MOHCD to evaluate and pursue options for increasing • resident choice by incorporating a portion of units affordable to public housing residents within MOHCD’s 9,000 unit construction pipeline of affordable housing
Require City Department Heads to catalogue their respective departments’ existing service delivery • to SFHA residents, evaluate its effectiveness, and develop a plan to extend existing services to all SFHA residents in the most cost-effective way possible. Those plans should be submitted to the Mayor’s Chief of Staff by Monday October 1, 2013.
Create a Director of Public Housing Initiatives who reports directly to the Mayor and who is • responsible for ensuring cross-departmental coordination and communication with residents, policy makers, foundations, and HUD to meet your vision.
This director will build on the HOPE SF service model, and structure the departments’ plans for • improving existing service delivery to SFHA residents into one holistic and culturally-competent plan that is measurable and goal-oriented for each of the SFHA sites.
4SFHA Re-Envisioning
By minimizing their direct role in service provision over time as the portfolio shifts to a public-private partnership model, the SFHA can focus on the delivery of housing services to public housing residents and Section 8 voucher holders through an asset and contract management role.
We believe this will allow the agency to leverage the city’s strengths - such as its ability to produce and maintain affordable housing through a strong network of community based affordable housing developers while also allowing the city to enhance what is essential to the SFHA future success: an independent oversight body comprised of skilled experts in their field who are solely focused on improving the lives of our city’s residents who rely on the SFHA for their housing.
Attached, please find documents we used to inform our work, including a Re-envision report prepared by HomeBase and recommendations of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association and the Council of Community Housing Organizations.
SAn FRAnCISCo HoUSIng AUTHoRITY: BY THE nUMBERSFounded in 1938, the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) was the first in the state of California •
and receives nearly all of its over $200 million in funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The SFHA is overseen by seven citizen commissioners, all of whom are appointed by the Mayor. Two • of those commissioners must be current SFHA residents.
The 17th largest housing authority in the country, SFHA administers public housing and voucher • programs that currently serve over 31,000 San Francisco residents, including:
12,259 residents living in 5,383 public housing units and 1,149 HOPE VI mixed income units (756 public housing and 393 other affordable) at 48 different properties; and
19,102 residents living in 8,652 privately owned housing units subsidized by Section 8 vouchers and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program.
The SFHA has an annual budget exceeding $200 million. For the fiscal year ending September 30, • 2013, operating subsidies and revenues supporting SFHA’s public housing and other programs are 38% of the budget ($79.9 of the $210.6 million budget) and housing assistance payments are 62% ($130.7 of the $210.6 million budget).
After federal sequestration took effect on March 1, 2013, HUD’s contribution to SFHA was slashed. • The formula funding to cover public housing was reduced from 92% to 82%, and its Section 8 administrative fee dropped from 94% to 72%.
There are 286 full-time employees represented by eight separate bargaining units and 108 part-time • resident concierges who make up the SFHA workforce.
Of the 31,000 residents it serves, over 95% of SFHA clients are people of color, according to the last • demographic analysis completed by SFHA.
The average annual household income for SFHA clients is $15,858.•
❍
❍
5 SFHA Re-Envisioning
The average annual household income for public housing residents is $14,639.•
Public Housing:
The SFHA public housing portfolio is divided into three categories: family and senior/disabled – • both of which are managed directly by the Housing Authority, and HOPE VI, which are ground- leased to private owners for the day-to-day management and operations.
There are 3,340 family units in 19 developments; 2,043 senior and disabled units in 23 • developments, 756 public housing and 393 other affordable units in 6 HOPE VI developments. Of the 3,340 family public housing units, 1,819 are part of HOPE SF initiative.
HoPE VI:
HUD implemented the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI program in • 1992 to fund redevelopment of severely distressed public housing. From 1993 to 1997, SFHA received $115.3 million in federal HOPE VI funds to redevelop six housing projects: (1) Bernal Housing, (2) Plaza East, (3) Hayes Valley North, (4) Hayes Valley South, (5) North Beach, and (6) Valencia Gardens.
SFHA is managing general partner of the four limited partnerships that own and operate: (1) • Bernal Housing Associates LP, (2) Plaza East Associates LP, (3) Hayes Valley Apartments LP, and (4) Hayes Valley Apartments II LP. SFHA, which owns the land, has long-term ground leases with each limited partnership. Each limited partnership is separate from SFHA, and files separate audited financial statements, which are also included in SFHA’s audited financial statements.
SFHA also has long-term ground leases with North Beach Housing Associates and Valencia • Gardens Housing Limited Partnership, who operate the respective housing developments. The SFHA is a member of North Beach Housing Associates and created the Valencia Gardens LLC as a special limited partner to the Valencia Gardens Housing limited partnership. Rent to SFHA includes annual base rent, adjusted by residual receipts.
Housing Vouchers and Housing Assistance Payments
SFHA currently has nearly 9,000 vouchers under lease, serving more than 19,000 residents. •
HUD provides housing assistance payments to landlords (private, nonprofit or public) through • housing vouchers for qualified low-income individuals and families.
There are two main types of housing vouchers available to eligible San Francisco residents through • SFHA: Section 8 (or “Housing Choice Vouchers”) for low-income individuals and families and Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) vouchers for US Veterans and their families.
Some housing assistance payments are used as “project-based vouchers,” in which the funds are used • to construct or renovate low-income housing units. These vouchers differ from “tenant-based vouchers” in that the subsidy is attached to the actual unit, whereas tenant-based vouchers are attached to the tenant, who must then find a suitable unit and landlord to accept the voucher on the open market.
6SFHA Re-Envisioning
HoPE SF
In response to a 2006 task force report calling for a new approach to rebuild and sustain • San Francisco’s public housing, the City authorized $95 million in local bond funding to launch HOPE SF.
HOPE SF is an initiative aimed at transforming some of San Francisco’s most distressed public • housing sites into vibrant mixed-income communities.
MOHCD is the lead implementing agency for HOPE SF, working in close collaboration with the • San Francisco Housing Authority.
HOPE SF calls for a wide variety of capital improvements which will help address deficiencies at a • number of public housing sites. Major program improvements include:
Renovating or replacing dilapidated public housing with new units while adding affordable 1. rental and market rate homes, as well as retail and commercial space;
Constructing new streets and improving public right-of-way infrastructure that connect 2. communities to their surrounding neighborhood fabric; and
Investing in community facilities such as community centers, parks and playgrounds.3.
Currently there are four active HOPE SF sites:•
Hunters View has completed the first of three phases of construction; 1.
Alice Griffith will begin construction in 2014;2.
Mayor Edwin M. Lee and Supervisor Malia Cohen celebrate a revitalized HOPE SF Hunters View Community
7 SFHA Re-Envisioning
Potrero Annex/Terrace is completing environmental review and land use entitlement; and3.
Sunnydale-Velasco is completing environmental review and land use entitlements.4.
InTRoDUCTIonIn his 2013 State of the City address, Mayor Edwin M. Lee called on San Franciscans to help create a new vision for public housing, and to reinvent the governance and management of the Housing Authority. Mayor Lee stated that if we can’t mend the troubled agency, then we should end it.
Over the last few months, Mayor Lee convened an inclusive and representative working group comprised of residents, community leaders, nonprofit housing partners, and private sector development experts to identify key issues and brainstorm solutions to problems that have plagued the housing authority for years.
This group of diverse leaders reached a unified conclusion that the San Francisco Housing Authority as it is currently structured is unsustainable. Unchanged since 1938, the Housing Authority and its residents have become isolated from the broader prosperity experienced by nearly every other San Franciscan.
San Francisco’s strength is its community. For most San Franciscans, basic services, transportation, shopping and employment are a few blocks away. The creation of complete communities was no accident – it was an intentional planning process that unfortunately left public housing behind. Where community activists, public housing residents, affordable housing developers, nonprofit leaders and others joined together to transform public housing—North Beach Place and Valencia Gardens—the results have been positive.
Resident leaders elected by their neighbors are sworn in.
8SFHA Re-Envisioning
We must re-envision the relationships between SFHA and City government. Public housing must not be housing of last resort, but housing of choice that better serves its residents and is integrated into the City’s fabric.
An AgEnCY In CRISISOn December 13, 2012, HUD notified SFHA that it has been declared “Troubled” – its lowest classification prior to placing an agency under federal receivership.
SFHA has faced significant financial challenges in recent years due to the reduction of federal funding for public housing. In the previous two fiscal years, SFHA’s public housing program experienced a budget shortfall of $4.0 million and $2.6 million respectively. In the first five months of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, the shortfall had already exceeded $1.7 million.
Although some public housing properties are well maintained and in good condition, a large number suffer from deferred maintenance and require extensive capital improvements. According to the Housing Authority’s portfolio-wide physical needs assessment, there are $270 million of immediate maintenance needs across all of its properties. In addition, as noted in the independent audit and thorough stakeholder input, even before federal sequestration the Housing Authority struggled to provide efficient property management, as evidenced by high vacancy rates, lengthy and expensive unit turnover, and consistently poor response to maintenance requests.
SFHA has not fully implemented asset management, and as a consequence, has forfeited at least $7.5 million in HUD operating subsidies over the last two fiscal years. SFHA does not effectively enforce rent payment obligations and payment plans are not consistently required or enforced. HUD Occupancy Standards have not been met and vacant units remain unoccupied far too long reducing income, and decreasing the availability of needed housing.
After federal sequestration took effect on March 1, 2013, HUD’s contribution to SFHA was slashed. The Formula funding to voer public housing was reduced from 92% to 82%, and its Section 8 administrative fee from 94% to 72%.
SFHA currently has no cash reserves to cover the shortfall, and according to HUD’s March 26, 2013 status report, SFHA was expected to run out of cash sometime between May 2013 and July 2013. Due to staff layoffs and savings earned by re-negotiating service contracts, SFHA projects it can last until mid-September before being out of money.
The Working Group concluded that the current Housing Authority’s “model is overly reliant on federal funding. Over the years, HUD funding levels have not kept up with the increased cost of managing and operating public housing, hindering the SFHA’s ability to provide adequate services, maintenance, and oversight. The continued mismatch of resources and demand result in a decline in SFHA operational capacity and an increase in performance issues.” The problems at SFHA are not only financial. They include serious maintenance response management issues at a high number of Housing Authority properties and extended turnover rates of vacant units. In addition, the current coordination of existing services available
9 SFHA Re-Envisioning
across the public housing portfolio does not achieve our goal of eradicating inter-generational poverty experienced by residents.
Existing organizational structures do not foster resident and community empowerment agendas to adequately address these inter-generational poverty issues. Residents have expressed concerns over the inadequacy of resources available to resident organizations, including lack of resident leadership and board trainings, equipment, and language access. Resident leaders are also frustrated by the lack of access to information and opportunities to provide feedback to policy makers.
The Board of Supervisors directed the Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct a performance audit of the San Francisco Housing Authority on February 5, 2013. The performance audit evaluated the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of SFHA’s financial, operational, and program management. In nearly every area, the Budget and Legislative Analyst found that SFHA did not meet basic performance standards.
Performance standards were found to be especially poor within the Section 8 program. HUD assessments support this finding. Over the past ten years, on 14 specific indicators annually measured by HUD, SFHA consistently received low assessment scores. SFHA’s score decreased from 85% in 2009 to 59% in 2012. Waiting lists have not been opened or purged in several years and have resulted in a severely delayed intake process. The time that units remain vacant is prolonged and eligible tenants do not receive housing. Despite urgent housing needs and HUD guidelines to update program waiting lists annually, SFHA has not updated the Section 8 waiting list since 2001. The Public Housing waiting list has not been open since 2008. Currently, there are 8,974 San Francisco households on the Section 8 waiting list, and 26,070 San Francisco households on the Public Housing waiting list. Despite previous corrective action processes with HUD under prior SFHA leadership, the SFHA has yet to demonstrate significant improvements within Section 8 program management and administration.
Compounding financial troubles for the agency, the SFHA has continually been unable to meet Stop Loss criteria or implement a corrective plan in partnership with HUD to address the following deficiencies:
Non-compliance with HUD budgeting standards, i.e. property by property accounting•Inefficient response to maintenance issues•Lack of a maintenance generalist position•Lack of an effective program for proper rent collection•Management fees in excess of reasonable standards•
10SFHA Re-Envisioning
EnD IT, Don’T MEnD IT: RE-EnVISIonIng PUBlIC HoUSIng In SAn FRAnCISCoEngagement Process and Guiding Principles
The community input process commenced on March 5, 2013 at a kickoff meeting for key public housing stakeholders identified by the Mayor’s Office and the Office of the City Administrator. The kickoff meeting included presentations by SFHA, HUD, and City Administrator Naomi Kelly on the current status of the agency, to help orient participants to the task of re-envisioning the SFHA. Stakeholders were then encouraged to sign up for working groups, and signup sheets were distributed at community meetings, including meetings of the Public Housing Tenants Association and all SFHA Residents’ Councils. The signup sheets were used to recruit stakeholders, gauge interest levels, and facilitate scheduling; however, working groups were open to all interested persons.
Working groups were formed to address six topics and included:
Governance1. Public Housing Operations2. Section 8 Operations3. Resident Services4. Resident Organization and Leadership5. Hope VI/HOPE SF/Public Land/Financing Tools6.
Over a hundred residents participated in the working group process as well as nearly 72 different agencies, offices, and organizations, including housing rights and housing advocacy groups, tenant groups, non-profit and for profit developers of affordable housing, representatives from elected officials, and City departments.
Each working group met two to three times from April to June of 2013 for a total of 18 meetings. The first meetings were conducted as listening sessions, during which working group members discussed problems, strengths, and desired changes to the SFHA within their topic areas. Due to the large size of the Resident Services, Public Housing Operations, and Section 8, each had a smaller executive committee.
Based on the input gathered during the first 1-2 meetings, each working group compiled a comprehensive list of priorities by topic area and strategies, which were then prioritized.
Due to the overlapping nature of the working groups, the priorities established through the working group were then organized into six cross-cutting topics or “guiding principles.”
Focusing on Transparency and Accountability•Improving Housing Choice and Access•Creating a Safe, Secure Living Environment•Supporting Resident Self-Sufficiency•Developing Community Connections; and•Facilitating Resident Empowerment•
11 SFHA Re-Envisioning
The below recommendations, organized by working group topic areas, intend to follow the guiding principles established through the stakeholder input process. Furthermore, they address directly the priorities that the groups articulated, and reflect many of the specific strategies presented. The recommendations draw on the Budget and Legislative Analyst Audit, HUD’s Corrective Action Plan, the Council of Community Housing Organization’s (CCHO) review, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s (SPUR) analysis, and numerous conversations with HUD officials and respected experts in the field.
The fundamental goal is to transform public housing in San Francisco by breaking down the barriers that have existed between public housing and the rest of our City, to connect public housing into our communities, to integrate public housing residents into our support services infrastructure, and improve public housing properties by creating new partnerships that bring in additional resources.
RECoMMEnDATIonSgovernance and Administration Objective: Transform the Housing Authority Commission into a body of qualified professionals with applicable management and operating expertise, and transform the Housing Authority’s administrative structure through the alignment of core public housing functions with appropriate City agencies.
Working Group priorities:
Improve the transparency of the SFHA and the SFHA Board of Commissioners through greater • openness, public access to information, and resident input.
Ensure that the SFHA and the SFHA Board of Commissioners are more accountable to the local • community, including City Agencies, the Board of Supervisors, SFHA Residents, and the public.
Take steps to increase the long-term organizational capacity of the SFHA and the SFHA Board of • Commissioners.
Improve the SFHA and the SFHA Board of Commissioners’ connections to the community through • formalized relationships with City agencies, resident organizations, and other community stakeholders.
Recommendation: A rethinking of the governance and administrative structure of public housing is at the core of a successful transformation to a functioning Housing Authority. Specific recommendations include:
The Commission should be a professional but independent oversight body. The Mayor should create qualification requirements to ensure transition to future commissioners with similar professional capacity.
The Commission should be a professional but independent oversight body. The Mayor should create 1. qualification requirements to ensure transition to future commissioners with similar professional capacity.The Housing Authority Commission should:2.
12SFHA Re-Envisioning
Select a permanent Executive Director to implement these changes. He or she should possess the required •affordable housing development, finance, human resource and management experience to be effective.Ensure that senior staff positions are filled on a permanent basis.•Oversee the implementation of HUD’s Corrective Action Plan to ensure its effectiveness and SFHA •compliance with Stop Loss Funding criteria in current and future years
With feasible and appropriate times for the public, relocate Commission hearings to City Hall and • record and archive hearings on the SFHA website
Meet at least once a month, and establish permanent committees•
Conduct an immediate evaluation of staffing levels needed to improve operating capacity and to • manage transitions.
Work with the City Administrator to establish and chair a working group to improve the • administration of SFHA to increase the transparency and effectiveness of its finance and human resource management within the next two years.
In order to improve quality of service to residents, the Housing Authority Commission should partner 3. with city departments to align critical Housing Authority functions with the City’s infrastructure. Better alignment and coordination with the City’s services and housing infrastructure will permit the Housing Authority to focus on the delivery of housing services to residents and voucher holders as it moves toward an asset management and contract management role.
Financing/Re-capitalization Objective: Transform public housing properties into financially viable real estate assets offering affordable housing that is competitive with housing offered by other affordable housing providers. Build on San Francisco’s successful affordable housing delivery and management model to improve resident experience, increase resident choice, and ensure the sustainability of the City’s public housing infrastructure.
Working Group priorities:
Identify potential sources of additional resources and tools for the SFHA.•
Ensure SFHA tenant protections (e.g. non-discrimination, grievance procedures, etc.) are preserved • under alternative financing structures
Recommendation: Build on HOPE VI, HOPE SF, and affordable housing land trust models to ensure preservation of public housing assets, and to increase investment to address capital needs and make the buildings’ operations more sustainable. Specific recommendations include:
The Housing Authority Commission should authorize the Housing Authority to engage MOHCD 1. to evaluate building conditions at all SFHA properties, assess options for financing, and facilitate the improvement of the public housing portfolio through public-private partnerships and public land trusts. Under any partnership, the Housing Authority would retain ownership of the land to guarantee that all assets are maintained as part of the City’s permanent affordable housing infrastructure.
13 SFHA Re-Envisioning
Based on the evaluation of the public housing portfolio, MOHCD should develop a work plan, in 2. partnership with HUD, for the conversion of all or a portion of the portfolio to a public/private land trust model. The feasibility of this work is dependent on the cooperation of HUD to provide necessary tools to ensure that any conversion is financially viable. The work plan shall include:
Consideration of available rent subsidies through HUD, including Rental Assistance Demonstration • (RAD) program vouchers, Section 8 vouchers, and project-based rental assistance
Timelines and critical milestones for submission of required applications to HUD•
Framework for issuing a Request for Proposals to convert properties to a public-private partnership • model, leveraging tax credit equity and private debt to address immediate and long term capital needs
An upgrade to building conditions in 2,000 public housing homes within the next 3 years using the • public/private partnership model
An application for “Moving to Work” status for the primary purpose of upgrading living conditions • at the non-HOPE SF family housing sites within the next 8 years
Progress on the four active HOPE SF sites with the goal of getting those projects entitled and into • construction within the next 10 years
Mayoral executive directive requiring MOHCD to evaluate and pursue options for increasing • resident choice by incorporating a portion of units affordable to public housing residents within MOHCD’s 9,000 unit pipeline of affordable housing
Assurances that tenant protections will be maintained as properties are converted and there will be • no net loss of public housing units
Staffing and budget needs in order to oversee financing and recapitalization activities•
Following approval by the Mayor’s Office and Housing Authority Commission, MOHCD should oversee the execution of the work plan in order to take best advantage of available HUD funding.
Section 8 operationsObjective: Transform Section 8 Operations into a highly responsive system that allows low income residents to stay in San Francisco.
Working Group Priorities
Increase effectiveness and efficiency of Section 8 operations to serve more low-income • San Francisco residents.
Increase housing choices for SFHA residents, including choices in housing location, accessibility, • and type.
Ensure that SFHA residents’ needs, including unit inspections and re-certifications, are timely met. •
Ensure that the waiting list is current, effective, and transparent, as well as easily understood/utilized • by SFHA residents.
14SFHA Re-Envisioning
Change the public’s perception of the Section 8 Program to align with the SFHA’s new vision and to • reflect the progress being made on proposed reforms.
Recommendation: SFHA must identify an effective program administrator in the short term while searching for a permanent replacement.
Specific recommendations include:Immediately, the Housing Authority Commission should work with a technical assistance provider, 1. engaged by HUD, to effectively manage and administer the Section 8 Program. Within 2 years, SFHA should identify and make recommendations for the permanent administration 2. of the Section 8 program. The identification of a permanent administrator should begin immediately in coordination with HUD’s staffing assessment. Immediately, the HA Commission should consult with MOHCD to evaluate and propose as appropriate 3. Section 8 program policies that will prioritize the use of vouchers to better integrate San Francisco’s most vulnerable populations, including veterans, domestic violence survivors, and homeless families, into the City’s award winning permanent affordable housing program.Provide outreach, education and training to property owners in order to increase the number of 4. participants in the program.
Public Housing operationsObjective: Transform public housing from housing of last resort to housing of choice by improving management, operations, and maintenance. Build SFHA’s asset management capabilities through the implementation of established best practices and industry standards.
Working Group Priorities:
Improve the efficiency and responsiveness of how repair and maintenance requests are handled. •
Develop a comprehensive strategy for reducing vacancy rates, recognizing that vacancies are caused by • a variety of factors and require a coordinated response.
Develop and implement long-term strategies to give public housing residents more choice in housing. •
Improve the effectiveness and financial stability of public housing operations by streamlining • administrative policies and procedures.
Change the SFHA’s culture to one of culturally competent customer service.•
Recommendation: Take immediate steps to address current deficiencies, and engage MOHCD to evaluate options for improving public housing operations through public-private partnerships. Specific recommendations include:
The SFHA should adopt, and direct SFHA staff to implement, HUD’s Corrective Action Plan. Technical 1. assistance from HUD should be accessed to assist with implementation. The Action Plan includes requirements to:
Prepare monthly operating financial statements by AMP.•
Establish a maintenance mechanic position to provide efficient on-site repairs.•
15 SFHA Re-Envisioning
Develop a Commission-approved rent collection and eviction prevention plan.•
Develop a Commission-approved maintenance plan.•The SFHA should partner with MOHCD to develop strategies to improve management, maintenance, 2. and operations through public-private partnerships that leverage additional resources (see Financing/Re-Capitalization section)In partnership with MOHCD, the SFHA should identify resources to address identified capital 3. emergency repair needs. Any City funds shall be secured against the property and repaid through available cash flow. MOHCD shall oversee use of any City funding provided for capital emergency repair needs. Once the Corrective Action Plan and overall recovery agreement requirements are in place, Housing 4. Authority should re-negotiate its MOU with the Dept. of Building Inspection to allow for more effective housing code enforcement. This is a key area of resident engagement. Housing Authority residents should have access to the city’s housing code enforcement process – one of the strongest and most effective in the country. Residents should be encouraged to participate in making this system work more effectively.
Resident ServicesObjective: Provide SFHA residents with full, equal access to all of the services offered to San Francisco residents.
Working Group priorities:
Ensure that all SFHA residents are able to live in a safe and healthy environment. •
For SFHA’s young residents and their families, focus resident services on educational opportunity • and achievement.
Utilize Resident Services as a platform to increase SFHA residents’ economic security and • self-sufficiency.
Develop a services strategy for SFHA residents that is both strengths-based and culturally competent.•
Recommendation: Create a resident services/community outreach and coordination unit to evaluate and ensure that services being promised are also services being delivered. Better connect both existing service providers and resident leadership with the City’s services infrastructure. Specifically, the City should:
Provide service coordination and oversight to the entire public housing portfolio, guided by the HOPE 1. SF City Services Team model established to coordinate service provision to HOPE SF sites. The Team should include participants from MOHCD, HSA, DPH, DCYF, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, SF Unified School District, First Five, Police, Juvenile Probation and Adult Probation. Support Team capacity with a position established at four key departments – DPH, HSA, OEWD and DCYF - that provide or fund essential direct services to public housing sites.Build on the existing HOPE SF services coordination role and create a resident services and leadership 2. coordination unit to: 1.) link on-site service connection staff to services agencies and the City Services Team; 2) provide capacity building, technical assistance, and support to resident councils. Liaison staff would carry primary responsibility for a portfolio of properties based on neighborhood and population,
16SFHA Re-Envisioning
and serve as the City’s primary linkage to specific sites.Ensure financing and re-capitalization plans include financial support for on-site service connection staff 3. to facilitate service provision to residents and adequate and identified space within each property for service and community building activities (see Financing/Re-Capitalization section)Integrate public housing units into the broader homeless housing continuum by utilizing the City’s 4. existing homeless access point for entry into the system. Use the existing access points system for public housing residents who qualify for DPH and HSA assisted housing the needs for supportive services. Ensure households are directed to developments with appropriate level of services within both SFHA and City portfolio.Increase access to supportive services at all public housing developments using the City’s supportive 5. service network. Utilize network of Family Resource Centers (FRC) and other organizations to connect residents with neighborhood-based or population-based service providers; look at opportunities to expand FRC network as an integrated framework to build comprehensive service delivery.Coordinate with the City’s Interrupt, Predict, and Organize (IPO) initiative to reduce street and 6. domestic violence by partnering with property managers, public safety officers, and service providers to target and remove tenants involved with particularly destabilizing activities, and to identify crime hotspots in and around SFHA’s developments. Require department heads to catalogue City departments’ existing service delivery to SFHA residents, 7. evaluate its effectiveness, and develop a plan to extend their existing services to SFHA residents in the most cost effective way possible. Those plans should be submitted to the Mayor’s Chief of Staff by Monday, October 1, 2013.
Tenant leadership Objective: Reform current jurisdiction-wide/local resident council structure to bolster relationships among resident leaders, to expand opportunities for meaningful participation by residents in leadership positions, and to better connect resident leaders to the City services intended to support them.
Working Group Priorities:
Increase opportunities for SFHA residents to participate in policy decisions that impact them. •
Increase resources and information available to resident leaders to better serve the residents that • they represent.
Ensure accountability of SFHA, City agencies and local service providers to SFHA residents and • resident leaders.
Strengthen relationships within and among local resident councils, jurisdiction-wide organizations • and other organizations to increase leadership opportunities for SFHA residents.
Increase resident participation in associations, leadership roles and attendance at resident meetings. •
Recommendation: Develop neighborhood/resident councils in accordance with best practices and with an eye toward integrating inclusive and culturally competent mixed-income neighborhood leadership opportunities into the larger leadership structure. Specific recommendations include:
17 SFHA Re-Envisioning
Ensure support to tenant councils allows for full and representative participation by residents, including 1. appropriate staffing support, access to meaningful aggregate site-based demographics and assistance with translation and other culturally competent support.
Create peer-to-peer learning and centralized training opportunities that are culturally accessible to 2. all residents.
Provide education and training, including succession training; improve election process to provide more 3. equitable representation
Expand HOPE SF Leadership academy to train leaders at all HA sites4.
FRoM PlAn To ACTIon: IMPlEMEnTIng THE TRAnSFoRMATIonThe above-listed recommendations are intended to support the Housing Authority so that it can be successful in pursuing its mission, transforming it into a functioning agency with a more limited and better defined role. In addition, they intend to ensure that the City’s public housing assets are “safe, solvent, and successful” over the long term, and can continue to play a vital role in providing affordable housing to San Franciscans. The key to the achieving these goals is to pursue an unprecedented integration with the City’s affordable housing and services infrastructure, and to connect public housing developments into the larger community through physical improvements, redevelopment, and enhanced service provision. When the transformation is complete, the stark line that exists today between public housing and the rest of the City will diminish, if not vanish completely.
The transformation process, however, will not happen overnight. It will require significant planning, outreach, and cross-departmental coordination, as well as new resources for service provision and capital improvements. The City should create an implementation structure, with staffing and budget, to manage the effort. Below is an initial outline of short-, mid- and long- term objectives:
Short Term objectives: Interim Management and Transformation Planning
There are three immediate priorities for sustaining current operations and laying the groundwork for future transformation efforts:
Reinforce current operations and management to ensure the short term viability of existing housing 1. and services.
a. The Housing Authority Commission should oversee immediate implementation of organizational improvements and cost-saving policies as outlined in HUD’s Corrective Action Plan. b. The Housing Authority Commission should immediately identify an effective Section 8 program administrator. c. SFHA, in partnership with the MOHCD should identify financial assistance to address emergency repairs and immediate capital improvements.
Authorize and enact interagency agreements. The Housing Authority Commission should authorize 2. necessary interagency MOUs in order to:
a. Receive immediate technical and financial assistance to preserve existing programs and services; and,
18SFHA Re-Envisioning
b. Facilitate evaluation and analysis necessary to create a detailed transformation work plan.
Establish the staffing and oversight infrastructure necessary for carrying out the transformation. 3. The Mayor’s Office should:
a. Create and fund a Director of Public Housing Initiatives reporting directly to the Mayor, whose primary responsibility will be to ensure cross departmental coordination and consistent communication to residents, stakeholders, policy makers, and HUD. The Director of Public Housing Initiatives, with input from particiating departments, should establish an integrated 24-month work plan for the transformation of the Housing Authority. b. Form a Public Housing Transformation Working Group to coordinate outreach efforts with residents and provide a forum for resident and stakeholder input during the transformation process. c. Require department heads to catalogue City departments’ existing service delivery programs available to SFHA residents, evaluate their effectiveness, and develop a plan to extend existing services in the most cost-effective way to SFHA properties by October 1, 2013.
Medium Term objectives: Implement 24-month Transformation Plan
With staffing, an oversight body, and a work plan in place, the City’s medium term objective will then be to implement the plan and ensure that all necessary deadlines and milestones are met.
Key components include: Initiate and complete required evaluations, including analysis of current and needed services, public 1. safety priorities, and capital needs throughout the portfolio.Establish a permanent Section 8 administrator by October 1, 2015.2. Define parameters for public/private partnership land trust conversions, issue RFP, and oversee initial 3. predevelopment, financing and rehabilitation activities.Initiate enhanced services coordination at all properties.4. Define and support tenant leadership.5. Implement asset management framework.6. Complete staffing adjustments at SFHA.7. Provide consistent communication and updates to all parties.8.
long Term objectives: Sustainable governance and Major Redevelopment Implementation
While completion of the work plan will transform public housing to a more socially and economically sustainable model, its long term viability will depend on ongoing oversight and management, as well as the commitment by the City to complete major redevelopment work that, given its scale, requires a longer term timeline for completion.Long term objectives are:
Implement and support professional governance structure that includes the necessary breadth of 1. representation as well as technical skills to oversee the City’s public housing.
19 SFHA Re-Envisioning
Complete major redevelopment work, including HOPE SF, the timeline for which will extend beyond 2. the 2 year transition period.Provide consistent reporting on transformation activities to all relevant stakeholders in order to maintain 3. a high degree of transparency and inclusiveness through the process and over the long term.
ConClUSIonIf the SFHA stays on its current course without any dramatic changes to its organizational model, it will be bankrupt or in HUD receivership within the year. It doesn’t have to be this way. San Francisco is a city of neighborhoods and nearly every neighborhood has a public housing development in it. The best examples of public housing done right, like North Beach Place and Valencia Gardens brought together community activists, businesses, affordable housing providers, and neighborhood non-profit social workers. They combined federal, local and private dollars to transform the lives of the residents who live there. While every development won’t look like these ones, San Francisco must learn the lessons from that experience. We all work more effectively to improve living conditions and alleviate poverty when we come together as one community.
What is unique about the history of public housing here in San Francisco is that it has failed while the development and preservation of affordable housing has been such a success.
San Francisco’s affordable housing community and neighborhood service networks excel at serving residents, yet public housing residents have only marginally benefited from what is at the center of their success: the neighborhood development corporations, activists, and service providers. We need to harness all their energy and their efforts and combine them with federal and local government work in this area if we are to have any chance of turning public housing into the community asset that it was designed to be. Since the gap between SFHA’s needs and the available resources is so vast, we need a fundamentally new approach to meet the challenge – one that has everyone working together to turn these recommendations into reality. We believe San Francisco can meet this challenge.
Leader Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Edwin M. Lee and Supervisor Malia Cohen tour efforts to improve public housing.
Ho
usi
ng
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
The
Pro
ce
ss t
o M
ake
Re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns
to M
ayo
r Ed
Le
e a
nd
th
e B
oa
rd o
f Su
pe
rvis
ors
M
arch
5, 2
013
2
San
Fra
ncis
co H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity
364
Hou
sing
Aut
horit
y em
ploy
ees
serv
e ov
er 4
0,00
0 re
side
nts
thro
ugh
Pub
lic H
ousi
ng a
nd S
ectio
n 8
prog
ram
$12,
000
aver
age
annu
al h
ouse
hold
inco
me.
Res
iden
t pop
ulat
ion
in c
ritic
al n
eed
of s
ocia
l ser
vice
s.
Jo
bs
E
duca
tion
H
ealth
Chi
ld c
are
Fi
nanc
ial M
anag
emen
t
Saf
ety
Pub
lic H
ousi
ng
P
ublic
Hou
sing
: ~16
,000
Res
iden
ts
~6
,500
Uni
ts a
re m
anag
ed in
Pub
lic H
ousi
ng.
48
Pro
perty
Site
s.
B
efor
e 3/
1, H
UD
fund
s 92
% o
f the
cos
t to
oper
ate
Pub
lic
Hou
sing
. Afte
r seq
uest
ratio
n, th
at n
umbe
r is
~77%
. 33
,000
wor
k or
ders
(uni
t mai
nten
ance
requ
ests
)/yea
r.
$270
Milli
on in
def
erre
d m
aint
enan
ce. R
epai
r bac
klog
of
agin
g pr
oper
ties
cont
inue
s to
gro
w.
50
0 un
its tu
rned
-ove
r ann
ually
– a
vera
ge c
ost $
12k
per
unit.
~30
0 un
its a
re c
urre
ntly
vac
ant.
3
4
Leas
ed H
ousi
ng
10
,000
Sec
tion
8 vo
uche
rs d
istri
bute
d.
26
,000
resi
dent
s se
rved
by
Sec
tion
8.
P
rior t
o 3/
1, th
e Se
ctio
n 8
prog
ram
gen
erat
ed re
serv
es.
Afte
r seq
uest
ratio
n, th
e ad
min
istra
tive
fee
is re
duce
d fro
m 8
2% to
68%
. Fu
ture
rese
rves
are
in q
uest
ion.
Pro
perty
ow
ners
repo
rt co
ncer
ns a
bout
the
man
agem
ent
of S
ectio
n 8.
Inco
me
verif
icat
ion
and
unit
insp
ectio
n de
lays
cau
se
unce
rtain
ty fo
r non
prof
it ho
usin
g pr
ovid
ers.
5
San
Fra
ncis
co H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity
toda
y…
“A tr
eadm
ill (c
ycle
) of t
roub
led
lists
and
repa
ir ba
cklo
gs th
at w
ill n
ever
get
fully
fund
ed.”
16
,000
Pub
lic
Hou
sing
R
esid
ents
$1
2,00
0 Av
e.
annu
al
hous
ehol
d in
com
e.
~6,5
00 U
nits
m
anag
ed.
48 P
rope
rty
site
s.
33,0
00 W
ork
Ord
ers
for
unit
mai
nten
ance
.
$270
Mill
ion
in d
efer
red
mai
nten
ance
Ag
ing
prop
ertie
s.
500
Uni
ts
turn
ed o
ver
annu
ally
–
ave.
$12
k pe
r un
it.
364
Empl
oyee
s.
Res
iden
t So
cial
Se
rvic
es
Req
uire
d
HU
D fu
nds
92%
of C
ost
to o
pera
te
Publ
ic
Hou
sing
.
Gro
win
g fin
anci
al d
efic
it.
Inad
equa
te
fund
s to
su
ppor
t re
side
nts.
Goa
l - M
ayor
’s C
harg
e.
City
Adm
inis
trato
r Nao
mi K
elly
and
May
or’s
Offi
ce o
f H
ousi
ng D
irect
or O
lson
Lee
will
partn
er w
ith H
UD
sta
ff an
d st
akeh
olde
rs to
dev
elop
a s
et o
f rec
omm
enda
tions
to re
-en
visi
on p
ublic
hou
sing
, by
7/1/
13.
6
Obj
ectiv
es -
May
or’s
Cha
rge.
E
ngag
e re
side
nts,
com
mun
ity le
ader
s, n
onpr
ofit
hous
ing
partn
ers,
City
sta
ff, &
priv
ate
sect
or d
evel
opm
ent
expe
rts.
Im
prov
e th
e co
nditi
on o
f pub
lic h
ousi
ng a
nd li
ve u
p to
ou
r obl
igat
ions
to o
ur lo
wes
t-inc
ome
resi
dent
s by
bu
ildin
g on
wha
t’s w
orki
ng th
roug
h H
OP
E S
F an
d co
llabo
rate
with
HU
D a
nd o
ur p
artn
ers
in th
e no
npro
fit
and
priv
ate
sect
ors.
A m
odel
of p
ublic
-priv
ate
partn
ersh
ips
that
inte
grat
es
peop
le o
f all
ages
, cla
sses
, and
eth
nici
ties
into
one
th
rivin
g co
mm
unity
.
7
Pro
cess
Obj
ectiv
es -
May
or’s
Cha
rge.
A
mod
el fo
r hel
ping
peo
ple
out o
f pov
erty
. A s
yste
m th
at
crea
tes
a ho
usin
g la
dder
that
allo
ws
mob
ility
rath
er th
an
soci
ally
, rac
ially
and
eco
nom
ical
ly is
olat
ed c
ompl
exes
.
Inte
grat
e pu
blic
hou
sing
with
oth
er lo
cal h
ousi
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties
that
be
tter m
eet t
he n
eeds
of t
he fa
mily
/resi
dent
.
A
mod
el S
ectio
n 8
prog
ram
. A
mor
e ef
ficie
nt p
rogr
am
for b
oth
vouc
her h
olde
rs a
nd la
ndlo
rds.
A fu
ndin
g m
odel
that
leve
rage
s di
vers
e an
d su
stai
nabl
e fu
ndin
g so
urce
s: fe
dera
l, st
ate,
loca
l, an
d pr
ivat
e in
vest
men
t.
8
Pro
cess
Obj
ectiv
es -
May
or’s
Cha
rge.
A
mod
el o
rgan
izat
ion
with
the
right
gov
erna
nce
and
man
agem
ent t
o im
plem
ent t
he re
com
men
datio
ns, u
p to
an
d in
clud
ing
repl
acin
g th
e H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity,
that
is
sust
aina
ble
for t
he n
ext 5
0 ye
ars.
May
or L
ee re
cent
ly re
plac
ed H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity
com
mis
sion
ers
with
sub
ject
mat
ter e
xper
ts to
ass
ist i
n sh
ort t
erm
pro
blem
sol
ving
.
9
The
Pro
cess
Def
ine
the
Pro
blem
:
Hou
sing
that
trap
s ge
nera
tion
afte
r gen
erat
ion
in s
ocia
lly, r
acia
lly a
nd
econ
omic
ally
isol
ated
com
plex
es.
A
chr
onic
ally
und
erfu
nded
San
Fra
ncis
co H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity
with
per
man
ently
di
stre
ssed
hou
sing
sto
ck th
at “d
oes
not w
ork
for g
ettin
g pe
ople
out
of p
over
ty.”
P
ublic
hou
sing
and
Sec
tion
8 on
the
HU
D tr
oubl
ed li
st.
P
rope
rty o
wne
rs h
ave
relu
ctan
ce to
acc
ept S
ectio
n 8,
stra
ined
inte
ract
ions
with
H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity.
HU
D p
revi
ousl
y fu
nded
92%
of t
he c
ost t
o op
erat
e pu
blic
hou
sing
& 8
2% fo
r S
ectio
n 8,
now
77%
and
68%
, res
pect
ivel
y, w
ith s
eque
stra
tion
impa
ct.
A
naly
ze C
urre
nt S
ituat
ion:
San
Fra
ncis
co H
ousi
ng A
utho
rity
data
.
HU
D a
udits
, dat
a an
d co
rrect
ive
actio
n re
ports
.
Eva
luat
e H
OP
E S
F m
odel
– S
ocia
l Im
pact
.
Eng
age
resi
dent
s, S
FHA
sta
ff, c
omm
unity
lead
ers,
non
prof
it ho
usin
g pa
rtner
s,
and
priv
ate
sect
or d
evel
opm
ent e
xper
ts.
In
volv
e st
akeh
olde
rs, H
UD
, City
Adm
inis
trato
r, M
OH
, SFH
A, C
ity s
taff.
Cle
arly
und
erst
and
and
defin
e th
e pr
oble
m.
10
The
Pro
cess
Def
ine
Obj
ectiv
es/P
rinci
ples
:
Saf
e, c
lean
pla
ce to
cal
l hom
e fo
r low
inco
me
resi
dent
s.
E
nhan
ced
resi
dent
’s li
ves.
Res
iden
ts w
ith p
athw
ays
out o
f pov
erty
.
Fina
ncia
lly s
usta
inab
le h
ousi
ng d
evel
opm
ents
and
org
aniz
atio
n.
S
eam
less
hou
sing
sys
tem
that
hou
ses
fam
ilies
and
indi
vidu
als
acco
rdin
g to
thei
r ne
ed.
M
aint
ain
a cu
ltura
lly ri
ch a
nd d
iver
se p
opul
atio
n of
San
Fra
ncis
cans
.
D
evel
op Id
eas,
Stra
tegi
es, S
olut
ions
:
Res
earc
h va
rious
mod
els.
Ben
chm
ark
othe
r citi
es’ h
ousi
ng s
olut
ions
.
App
ly le
arni
ngs
from
the
HO
PE
SF
mod
el a
nd o
ther
stra
tegi
es th
at a
re c
urre
ntly
w
orki
ng in
SF
C
onso
lidat
e an
d an
alyz
e id
eas.
Ver
ify th
at id
eas
alig
n w
ith o
bjec
tives
.
Rev
iew
sug
gest
ed s
trate
gies
with
key
sta
keho
lder
s.
11
The
Pro
cess
Rec
omm
enda
tions
:
Kic
koff,
mid
poin
t and
fina
l “bi
g te
nt” m
eetin
gs.
2-
4 m
eetin
gs o
f six
wor
king
gro
ups.
Tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce
from
Hom
eBas
e to
reco
rd, s
ynth
esiz
e an
d re
port
back
com
mun
ity in
put.
D
evel
op p
relim
inar
y id
eas
and
stra
tegy
.
Rev
iew
with
key
sta
keho
lder
s.
P
rese
nt fi
nal r
ecom
men
datio
ns to
May
or b
y 7/
1/13
.
W
orki
ng g
roup
s:
P
ublic
hou
sing
ope
ratio
ns
S
ectio
n 8
G
over
nanc
e
Hop
e V
I, H
ope
SF
S
ocia
l ser
vice
inte
grat
ion
Te
nant
lead
ersh
ip d
evel
opm
ent
12
Ho
usi
ng
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
Co
nta
ct
to jo
in w
ork
ing
gro
up
s
Ash
ley H
art
Mc
Inty
re
Ash
ley@
ho
me
ba
sec
cc
.org
41
5.7
88.7
961
x30
6
Ho
meB
ase
Leg
al a
nd
Tec
hnic
al S
olu
tion
s
CO
NTE
NTS
•B
ack
gro
un
d
•P
rio
rity
Are
as
•F
ind
ings
•A
pp
en
dic
es
•P
roce
ss P
art
icip
an
t Lis
t
•S
um
ma
rie
s o
f Lis
ten
ing S
essio
ns
•C
om
ple
te L
ist
of
Pri
ori
tie
s a
nd
Str
ate
gie
s
•O
nlin
e S
urv
ey
Re
su
lts
Ho
meB
ase
Leg
al a
nd
Tec
hnic
al S
olu
tion
s
In O
cto
be
r o
f 2
01
2, th
e D
ep
art
me
nt
of
Ho
usin
g a
nd
Urb
an
De
velo
pm
en
t
(HU
D)
do
wn
gra
de
d t
he
sta
tus o
f th
e
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
Ho
usin
g A
uth
ori
ty
(SF
HA
) to
“tr
ou
ble
d”,
ba
se
d o
n H
UD
’s
an
nu
al re
vie
w o
f S
FH
A p
erf
orm
an
ce
.
Th
e S
FH
A a
lso
fa
ce
d s
ign
ific
an
t
bu
dge
t sh
ort
falls in
20
11
an
d 2
01
2,
wh
ich
ha
s le
d t
o la
yoff
s o
f m
an
y
em
plo
yee
s a
nd
re
str
uctu
rin
g w
ith
in
the
age
ncy.
In r
esp
on
se
to
th
ese
an
d o
the
r is
su
es
facin
g t
he
SF
HA
, S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ma
yor
Ed
Le
e d
ete
rmin
ed
th
at
a R
e-
En
vis
ion
ing P
roce
ss w
as n
ee
de
d,
dra
win
g u
po
n t
he
exp
ert
ise
of
HU
D
an
d C
ity
age
ncie
s a
s w
ell a
s r
esid
en
ts,
co
mm
un
ity
lea
de
rs, a
nd
no
np
rofi
t
org
an
iza
tio
ns, in
ord
er
to t
ran
sfo
rm
the
SF
HA
in
to a
mo
de
l H
ou
sin
g
Au
tho
rity
th
at
is a
ble
to
pro
vid
e
imp
rove
d p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g t
hro
ugh
ou
t
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
.
In F
eb
rua
ry o
f 2
01
3, th
e M
ayo
r’s O
ffic
e
req
ue
ste
d t
ha
t th
e O
ffic
e o
f th
e
Cit
y A
dm
inis
tra
tor
dra
ft
reco
mm
en
da
tio
ns f
or
a r
e-
en
vis
ion
ed
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
Ho
usin
g
Au
tho
rity
, to
be
pre
se
nte
d t
o t
he
Ma
yor’
s O
ffic
e b
y Ju
ly 1
, 2
01
3. I
n
de
velo
pin
g its
re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns,
the
Cit
y A
dm
inis
tra
tor’
s O
ffic
e
pa
rtn
ere
d w
ith
th
e M
ayo
r’s O
ffic
e
of
Ho
usin
g (
MO
H)
an
d H
om
eB
ase
,
a t
ech
nic
al a
ssis
tan
ce
pro
vid
er,
to
ga
the
r co
mm
un
ity
inp
ut
ab
ou
t th
e
SF
HA
an
d p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g in
Sa
n
Fra
ncis
co
. A
pu
blic in
pu
t p
roce
ss
wa
s d
esig
ne
d a
rou
nd
a s
yste
m o
f
wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps t
o e
licit
fe
ed
ba
ck
fro
m a
s m
an
y vo
ice
s a
s p
ossib
le
wit
hin
a lim
ite
d t
ime
fra
me
.
BA
CK
GR
OU
ND
3
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Th
e c
om
mu
nit
y in
pu
t p
roce
ss c
om
me
nce
d
on
Ma
rch
5, 2
01
3 a
t a
kic
k-o
ff
me
eti
ng f
or
ke
y p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g
sta
ke
ho
lde
rs, id
en
tifi
ed
by
the
Ma
yor’
s O
ffic
e, th
e O
ffic
e o
f th
e C
ity
Ad
min
istr
ato
r, a
nd
MO
H. T
he
kic
k-o
ff
me
eti
ng in
clu
de
d p
rese
nta
tio
ns b
y
HU
D a
nd
th
e C
ity
Ad
min
istr
ato
r’s
Off
ice
on
th
e c
urr
en
t sta
tus o
f th
e
age
ncy,
to
he
lp o
rie
nt
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
to
the
ta
sk
of
re-e
nvis
ion
ing t
he
SF
HA
.
Sta
ke
ho
lde
rs w
ere
th
en
en
co
ura
ge
d
to s
ign
up
fo
r w
ork
ing g
rou
ps, a
nd
sig
n-u
p s
he
ets
we
re d
istr
ibu
ted
at
co
mm
un
ity
me
eti
ngs, in
clu
din
g
me
eti
ngs o
f th
e P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g
Ten
an
ts A
sso
cia
tio
n a
nd
all S
FH
A
Re
sid
en
ts’ C
ou
ncils, a
rou
nd
th
is t
ime
.
Th
e s
ign
-up
sh
ee
ts w
ere
use
d t
o
recru
it s
take
ho
lde
rs, ga
uge
in
tere
st
leve
ls, a
nd
fa
cilit
ate
sch
ed
ulin
g;
ho
we
ver,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps w
ere
op
en
to
all in
tere
ste
d p
ers
on
s.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps w
ere
fo
rme
d t
o a
dd
ress
six
to
pic
s, se
lecte
d b
y th
e M
ayo
r’s
Off
ice
, th
e C
ity
Ad
min
istr
ato
r’s
Off
ice
, a
nd
MO
H. T
he
wo
rkin
g
gro
up
s in
clu
de
d:
•G
ove
rna
nce
•P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g O
pe
rati
on
s
•S
ecti
on
8 O
pe
rati
on
s
•R
esid
en
t S
erv
ice
s
•R
esid
en
t O
rga
niz
ati
on
an
d
Le
ad
ers
hip
•H
op
e V
I/H
OP
E S
F/P
ub
lic L
an
d
Tru
st/
Fin
an
cin
g T
oo
ls
TH
E W
OR
KIN
G G
RO
UP
PR
OC
ES
S
4
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Ho
me
Ba
se
sta
ff f
acilit
ate
d m
ee
tin
gs o
f th
e
Pu
blic H
ou
sin
g O
pe
rati
on
s, S
ecti
on
8
Op
era
tio
ns, R
esid
en
t S
erv
ice
s, a
nd
Go
vern
an
ce
gro
up
s. M
OH
fa
cilit
ate
d
the
Ho
pe
VI/
Ho
pe
SF
/P
ub
lic L
an
d
Tru
st/
Fin
an
cin
g T
oo
ls g
rou
p, a
nd
tech
nic
al a
ssis
tan
ce
pro
vid
er
En
terp
rise
Co
mm
un
ity
Pa
rtn
ers
facilit
ate
d t
he
Re
sid
en
t O
rga
niz
ati
on
an
d L
ea
de
rsh
ip g
rou
p. W
ork
ing g
rou
p
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
in
clu
de
d S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts,
co
mm
un
ity
me
mb
ers
, re
pre
se
nta
tive
s
of
ten
an
ts’ o
rga
niz
ati
on
s, co
mm
un
ity-
ba
se
d o
rga
niz
ati
on
s a
nd
no
np
rofi
ts,
un
ion
an
d t
rad
e o
rga
niz
ati
on
s, a
nd
va
rio
us C
ity
de
pa
rtm
en
ts a
nd
age
ncie
s.
De
scri
pti
on
s o
f e
ach
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p,
me
eti
ng d
ate
s, a
tte
nd
an
ce
lis
ts, a
nd
facilit
ato
rs c
an
be
fo
un
d in
Ap
pe
nd
ix A
to t
his
re
po
rt.
Org
an
iza
tio
ns r
ep
rese
nte
d in
th
e
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p p
roce
ss in
clu
de
:
•2
5 S
an
ch
ez
Ten
an
ts A
sso
cia
tio
n
•A
lem
an
y R
esid
en
t C
ou
ncil
•P
otr
ero
Hill A
nn
ex
Re
sid
en
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Co
rpo
rati
on
•P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g T
en
an
t A
sso
cia
tio
n
•H
olly
Co
urt
s R
esid
en
t C
ou
ncil
•A
lice
Gri
ffit
h R
esid
en
ts’ C
ou
ncil
•W
ests
ide
Co
urt
s R
esid
en
ts’ C
ou
ncil
•H
un
ters
’ V
iew
Re
sid
en
ts’ C
ou
ncil -
Mo
the
r’s C
om
mit
tee
•W
este
rn A
dd
itio
n F
am
ily
Re
so
urc
e
Ce
nte
r
•H
om
ele
ss P
ren
ata
l P
rogra
m
•N
ort
he
rn C
alifo
rnia
Pre
sb
yte
ria
n
Ho
me
s a
nd
Se
rvic
es
•B
ayv
iew
YM
CA
•A
. P
hilip
Ra
nd
olp
h In
sti
tute
WO
RK
ING
GR
OU
P P
AR
TIC
IPA
NTS
5
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
•A
sia
n L
aw
Ca
ucu
s
•C
ath
olic C
ha
riti
es C
YO
•S
F C
oa
liti
on
on
Ho
me
lessn
ess
•C
ou
ncil o
f C
om
mu
nit
y H
ou
sin
g
Org
an
iza
tio
ns
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Mu
nic
ipa
l E
xecu
tive
s
Asso
cia
tio
n
•W
alt
er
& E
lise
Ha
as F
un
d
•B
ayv
iew
Hu
nte
rs P
oin
t M
ult
ipu
rpo
se
Se
nio
r S
erv
ice
s
•M
o’M
AG
IC
•M
issio
n H
ou
sin
g
•U
rba
n S
tra
tegie
s
•TO
DC
O
•Lo
ca
l In
itia
tive
s S
up
po
rt C
oa
liti
on
•M
cC
orm
ack B
aro
n S
ala
zar
•C
hin
ato
wn
Co
mm
un
ity
De
velo
pm
en
t
Ce
nte
r
•Th
e J
oh
n S
tew
art
Co
mp
an
y
•S
RO
Fa
milie
s U
nit
ed
Co
lla
bo
rati
ve
•C
om
mu
nit
y H
ou
sin
g P
art
ne
rsh
ip
•R
eco
logy
•E
qu
ity
Co
mm
un
ity
Bu
ild
ers
•C
ath
olic C
ha
riti
es T
rea
su
re Isla
nd
De
velo
pm
en
t C
en
ter
•F
irst
5 S
an
Fra
ncis
co
•H
am
ilto
n F
am
ily
Ce
nte
r
•La
wye
r’s C
om
mit
tee
fo
r C
ivil R
igh
ts
of
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
Ba
y A
rea
•Te
nd
erl
oin
Ne
igh
bo
rho
od
De
velo
pm
en
t C
orp
ora
tio
n
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ap
art
me
nt
Asso
cia
tio
n
•E
nte
rpri
se
Co
mm
un
ity
Pa
rtn
ers
•A
lio
to &
Ke
en
an
(re
pre
se
nti
ng
Su
pe
rvis
or
Lo
nd
on
Bre
ed
)
•B
righ
tlin
e
•B
ern
al H
eig
hts
Ne
igh
bo
rho
od
Ce
nte
r
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Fo
un
da
tio
n
WO
RK
ING
GR
OU
P P
AR
TIC
IPA
NTS
6
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
•M
erc
y H
ou
sin
g M
an
age
me
nt
Gro
up
•H
un
ters
Po
int
Re
deve
lop
me
nt
Cit
ize
n’s
Ad
vis
ory
Co
mm
itte
e
•P
ATH
•P
HA
RM
C
•D
evin
e &
Go
ng
•E
vic
tio
n D
efe
nse
Co
lla
bo
rati
ve
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ho
usin
g D
eve
lop
me
nt
Co
rpo
rati
on
•H
un
ters
Po
int
Fa
mily
•To
ge
the
r U
nit
ed
Re
co
mm
itte
d F
ore
ver
•B
ayv
iew
Se
nio
r S
erv
ice
s
•B
ay
Are
a L
ega
l A
id
•S
PU
R
•Tr
ea
su
re Isla
nd
Su
pp
ort
ive
Ho
usin
g
Pro
gra
m
•B
rid
ge
Ho
usin
g
•E
pis
co
pa
l C
om
mu
nit
y S
erv
ice
s
•S
en
ior
an
d D
isa
bilit
y A
cti
on
•N
ati
on
al H
ou
sin
g L
aw
Pro
ject
•U
nit
ed
Wa
y o
f th
e B
ay
Are
a
•C
ityw
ide
Co
un
cil S
en
ior
Dis
ab
led
•A
sia
n N
eig
hb
orh
oo
d D
esig
n
•R
ela
ted
Ca
lifo
rnia
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
NA
AC
P
•Yo
un
g C
om
mu
nit
y D
eve
lop
ers
•H
um
an
Rig
hts
Co
mm
issio
n o
f S
an
Fra
ncis
co
•C
arp
en
ters
Lo
ca
l 2
2
•La
bo
rer’
s L
oca
l 2
61
•P
ain
ters
an
d A
llie
d T
rad
es D
istr
ict
Co
un
cil 1
6
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Bu
ild
ing a
nd
Co
nstr
ucti
on
Tra
de
Jo
bs
•S
EIU
Lo
ca
l 1
02
1
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ma
yor’
s O
ffic
e o
f
Ho
usin
g
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ma
yor’
s O
ffic
e o
f
Ed
uca
tio
n
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ho
usin
g A
uth
ori
ty
WO
RK
ING
GR
OU
P P
AR
TIC
IPA
NTS
7
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Hu
ma
n S
erv
ice
s
Age
ncy
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Cit
y A
dm
inis
tra
tor’
s
•O
ffic
e
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Bo
ard
of
Su
pe
rvis
ors
•S
up
erv
iso
r K
im’s
Off
ice
•S
up
erv
iso
r B
ree
d’s
Off
ice
•S
up
erv
iso
r C
oh
en
’s O
ffic
e
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ad
ult
Pro
ba
tio
n
De
pa
rtm
en
t
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Ma
yor’
s O
ffic
e
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f B
uild
ing
Insp
ecti
on
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Cit
y A
tto
rne
y’s O
ffic
e
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f P
ub
lic
He
alt
h
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f C
hild
Su
pp
ort
Se
rvic
es
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Po
lice
De
pa
rtm
en
t
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f
Ch
ild
ren
, Yo
uth
an
d T
he
ir F
am
ilie
s
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f
Pu
blic W
ork
s
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
Off
ice
of
Eco
no
mic
an
d W
ork
forc
e D
eve
lop
me
nt
•S
an
Fra
ncis
co
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f A
gin
g
an
d A
du
lt S
erv
ice
s
•D
ep
art
me
nt
of
Ho
usin
g a
nd
Urb
an
De
velo
pm
en
t (H
UD
)
WO
RK
ING
GR
OU
P P
AR
TIC
IPA
NTS
8
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Ea
ch
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
et
2-3
tim
es f
rom
Ap
ril
to J
un
e o
f 2
01
3. T
he
fir
st
me
eti
ngs
we
re c
on
du
cte
d a
s lis
ten
ing s
essio
ns,
du
rin
g w
hic
h w
ork
ing g
rou
p m
em
be
rs
dis
cu
sse
d p
rob
lem
s, str
en
gth
s, a
nd
de
sir
ed
ch
an
ge
s t
o t
he
SF
HA
wit
hin
the
ir t
op
ic a
rea
s. N
ote
s w
ere
co
mp
ile
d
fro
m t
he
se
fir
st
me
eti
ngs s
um
ma
rizi
ng
all c
om
me
nts
, fo
un
d in
Ap
pe
nd
ix B
. D
ue
to t
he
la
rge
siz
e o
f th
e R
esid
en
t
Se
rvic
es, P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g O
pe
rati
on
s,
an
d S
ecti
on
8 O
pe
rati
on
s w
ork
ing
gro
up
s, sm
alle
r e
xecu
tive
co
mm
itte
es
we
re f
orm
ed
wit
h p
art
icip
an
ts in
vit
ed
by
the
Ma
yor’
s O
ffic
e, th
e C
ity
Ad
min
istr
ato
r’s O
ffic
e, a
nd
MO
H, a
nd
the
Re
sid
en
t O
rga
niz
ati
on
an
d
Le
ad
ers
hip
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p h
eld
a
resid
en
ts-o
nly
me
eti
ng. E
xecu
tive
co
mm
itte
e a
nd
re
sid
en
ts-o
nly
me
eti
ngs
allo
we
d f
or
in-d
ep
th d
iscu
ssio
ns,
bu
ild
ing o
n issu
es r
ais
ed
at
the
in
itia
l
liste
nin
g s
essio
ns.
Ba
se
d o
n t
he
in
pu
t ga
the
red
du
rin
g t
he
fir
st
1-2
me
eti
ngs, e
ach
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p c
om
pile
d a
co
mp
reh
en
siv
e lis
t o
f p
rio
riti
es a
nd
str
ate
gie
s, fo
un
d in
Ap
pe
nd
ix C
. A
ll w
ork
ing
gro
up
me
mb
ers
re
-co
nve
ne
d t
o r
evie
w p
rio
r
me
eti
ng n
ote
s, a
s w
ell a
s p
rop
ose
d p
rio
riti
es
an
d s
tra
tegie
s, fo
r a
ccu
racy
an
d
co
mp
lete
ne
ss.
As a
fin
al ste
p in
th
e p
ub
lic in
pu
t p
roce
ss,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs w
ere
aske
d t
o
ide
nti
fy t
he
mo
st
pre
ssin
g p
rio
riti
es a
nd
str
ate
gie
s f
or
re-e
nvis
ion
ing t
he
SF
HA
.
Su
rve
ys w
ere
se
nt
ou
t th
rou
gh
an
on
lin
e
se
rvic
e t
o e
very
on
e w
ho
exp
resse
d in
tere
st
in t
he
Re
sid
en
t S
erv
ice
s, R
esid
en
t
Org
an
iza
tio
n a
nd
Le
ad
ers
hip
, P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g
Op
era
tio
ns, a
nd
Se
cti
on
8 O
pe
rati
on
s
wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps, to
allo
w f
or
as m
uch
bro
ad
-
ba
se
d f
ee
db
ack a
s p
ossib
le. Th
e s
urv
ey
resu
lts, fo
un
d in
Ap
pe
nd
ix D
, w
as p
rim
ari
ly
use
d t
o id
en
tify
re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns w
ith
th
e
mo
st
co
mm
un
ity
su
pp
ort
.
WO
RK
ING
GR
OU
P M
EE
TIN
GS
9
HO
ME
BA
SE
/T
HE
C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
GO
VE
RN
AN
CE
•Im
pro
ve t
he
tra
nsp
are
ncy
of
the
SF
HA
an
d
the
SF
HA
Bo
ard
of
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs t
hro
ugh
gre
ate
r o
pe
nn
ess, p
ub
lic a
cce
ss t
o
info
rma
tio
n, a
nd
re
sid
en
t in
pu
t.
•E
nsu
re t
ha
t th
e S
FH
A a
nd
th
e S
FH
A B
oa
rd o
f
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs a
re m
ore
acco
un
tab
le t
o t
he
loca
l co
mm
un
ity,
in
clu
din
g C
ity
Age
ncie
s, th
e
Bo
ard
of
Su
pe
rvis
ors
, S
FH
A R
esid
en
ts, a
nd
the
pu
blic.
•Ta
ke
ste
ps t
o in
cre
ase
th
e lo
ng
-te
rm
org
an
iza
tio
na
l ca
pa
cit
y o
f th
e S
FH
A a
nd
th
e
SF
HA
Bo
ard
of
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs.
•Im
pro
ve t
he
SF
HA
an
d t
he
SF
HA
Bo
ard
of
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs’ co
nn
ecti
on
s t
o t
he
co
mm
un
ity
thro
ugh
fo
rma
lize
d r
ela
tio
nsh
ips
wit
h C
ity
age
ncie
s, re
sid
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s,
an
d o
the
r co
mm
un
ity
sta
ke
ho
lde
rs
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA
S
10
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Th
e p
rio
rity
are
as id
en
tifi
ed
by
the
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p p
art
icip
an
ts a
re:
PU
BLIC
HO
US
ING
OP
ER
ATIO
NS
•Im
pro
ve t
he
eff
icie
ncy
an
d r
esp
on
siv
en
ess
of
ho
w r
ep
air
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
re
qu
ests
are
ha
nd
led
.
•D
eve
lop
a c
om
pre
he
nsiv
e s
tra
tegy
for
red
ucin
g v
aca
ncy
rate
s, re
co
gn
izin
g t
ha
t
va
ca
ncie
s a
re c
au
se
d b
y a
va
rie
ty o
f fa
cto
rs
an
d r
eq
uir
e a
co
ord
ina
ted
re
sp
on
se
.
•D
eve
lop
an
d im
ple
me
nt
lon
g-t
erm
str
ate
gie
s
to g
ive
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g r
esid
en
ts m
ore
ch
oic
e
in h
ou
sin
g.
•Im
pro
ve t
he
eff
ecti
ven
ess a
nd
fin
an
cia
l
sta
bilit
y o
f p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g o
pe
rati
on
s b
y
str
ea
mlin
ing a
dm
inis
tra
tive
po
licie
s a
nd
pro
ce
du
res.
•C
ha
nge
th
e S
FH
A's
cu
ltu
re t
o o
ne
of
(cu
ltu
rally
co
mp
ete
nt)
cu
sto
me
r se
rvic
e.
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA
S
11
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
SE
CTIO
N 8
OP
ER
ATIO
NS
•In
cre
ase
ove
rall S
ecti
on
8 c
ap
acit
y to
se
rve
mo
re lo
w-in
co
me
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
re
sid
en
ts,
an
d S
FH
A s
taff
's S
ecti
on
8 o
pe
rati
on
al
ca
pa
cit
y.
•In
cre
ase
ho
usin
g c
ho
ice
s f
or
SF
HA
resid
en
ts, in
clu
din
g c
ho
ice
s in
ho
usin
g
loca
tio
n, a
cce
ssib
ilit
y, a
nd
typ
e.
•E
nsu
re t
ha
t S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts’ n
ee
ds,
inclu
din
g u
nit
in
sp
ecti
on
s a
nd
rece
rtif
ica
tio
ns, a
re t
ime
ly m
et.
•E
nsu
re t
ha
t th
e w
ait
ing lis
t is
cu
rre
nt,
eff
ecti
ve, a
nd
tra
nsp
are
nt,
as w
ell a
s e
asily
un
de
rsto
od
/u
tilize
d b
y S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts.
•C
ha
nge
th
e p
ub
lic's
pe
rce
pti
on
of
the
Se
cti
on
8 P
rogra
m t
o a
lign
wit
h t
he
SF
HA
's
ne
w v
isio
n a
nd
to
re
fle
ct
the
pro
gre
ss b
ein
g
ma
de
on
pro
po
se
d r
efo
rms.
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA
S
12
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
RE
SID
EN
T
SE
RV
ICE
S
•P
rovid
e S
FH
A R
esid
en
ts w
ith
fu
ll, e
qu
al
acce
ss t
o a
ll o
f th
e s
erv
ice
s o
ffe
red
to
Sa
n
Fra
ncis
co
re
sid
en
ts.
•E
nsu
re t
ha
t a
ll S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts a
re a
ble
to
live
in
a s
afe
an
d h
ea
lth
y e
nvir
on
me
nt.
•Fo
r S
FH
A's
yo
un
g r
esid
en
ts a
nd
th
eir
fam
ilie
s, fo
cu
s R
esid
en
t S
erv
ice
s o
n
ed
uca
tio
na
l o
pp
ort
un
ity
an
d a
ch
ieve
me
nt.
•U
tilize
Re
sid
en
t S
erv
ice
s a
s a
pla
tfo
rm t
o
incre
ase
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts' e
co
no
mic
se
cu
rity
an
d s
elf
-su
ffic
ien
cy.
•D
eve
lop
a s
erv
ice
s s
tra
tegy
for
SF
HA
resid
en
ts t
ha
t is
bo
th s
tre
ngth
s-b
ase
d a
nd
cu
ltu
rally
co
mp
ete
nt.
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA
S
13
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
RE
SID
EN
T O
RG
AN
IZATIO
N
AN
D L
EA
DE
RS
HIP
•In
cre
ase
op
po
rtu
nit
ies f
or
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts t
o
pa
rtic
ipa
te in
po
licy
de
cis
ion
s w
hic
h im
pa
ct
the
m.
•In
cre
ase
re
so
urc
es a
nd
in
form
ati
on
ava
ila
ble
to
re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
to
be
tte
r se
rve
the
re
sid
en
ts t
ha
t th
ey
rep
rese
nt.
•E
nsu
re a
cco
un
tab
ilit
y o
f S
FH
A, C
ity
age
ncie
s
an
d lo
ca
l se
rvic
e p
rovid
ers
to
SF
HA
resid
en
ts a
nd
re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
.
•S
tre
ngth
en
re
lati
on
sh
ips w
ith
in a
nd
am
on
g
loca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils, ju
risd
icti
on
-wid
e
org
an
iza
tio
ns a
nd
oth
er
org
an
iza
tio
ns t
o
incre
ase
le
ad
ers
hip
op
po
rtu
nit
ies f
or
SF
HA
resid
en
ts.
•In
cre
ase
re
sid
en
t p
art
icip
ati
on
in
asso
cia
tio
ns, le
ad
ers
hip
ro
les a
nd
att
en
da
nce
in
re
sid
en
t m
ee
tin
gs.
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA
S
14
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
HO
PE
VI, H
OP
E S
F, P
UB
LIC
LA
ND
TR
US
T &
NE
W
FIN
AN
CIN
G T
OO
LS
•Id
en
tify
po
ten
tia
l so
urc
es o
f a
dd
itio
na
l
reso
urc
es a
nd
to
ols
fo
r th
e S
FH
A t
o a
dd
ress
ca
pit
al n
ee
ds a
nd
im
pro
ve o
pe
rati
on
s.
•E
nsu
re S
FH
A t
en
an
t p
rote
cti
on
s (
e.g
.,
ho
usin
g r
igh
ts, n
on
dis
cri
min
ati
on
, gri
eva
nce
pro
ce
du
res, e
tc.)
are
pre
se
rve
d u
nd
er
alt
ern
ati
ve f
ina
ncin
g s
tru
ctu
res.
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA
S
15
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Du
e t
o t
he
ove
rla
pp
ing n
atu
re o
f
the
wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps, th
e R
e-
En
vis
ion
ing P
roce
ss f
ind
ings
ha
ve b
ee
n c
ate
go
rize
d in
to s
ix
cro
ss-c
utt
ing t
op
ics:
Th
e d
eve
lop
me
nt
of
so
me
of
the
se
fin
din
gs w
as a
ide
d b
y re
se
arc
h
ma
teri
als
dis
trib
ute
d a
t
me
eti
ngs o
f th
e P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g, S
ecti
on
8, a
nd
Re
sid
en
t S
erv
ice
s w
ork
ing
gro
up
me
eti
ngs, a
tta
ch
ed
as
Ap
pe
nd
ix E
.
•Fo
cu
s o
n T
ran
sp
are
ncy
an
d
Acco
un
tab
ilit
y
•Im
pro
vin
g H
ou
sin
g C
ho
ice
an
d
Acce
ss
•C
rea
tin
g a
Sa
fe, S
ecu
re L
ivin
g
En
vir
on
me
nt
•S
up
po
rtin
g R
esid
en
t S
elf
-
Su
ffic
ien
cy
•D
eve
lop
ing C
om
mu
nit
y
Co
nn
ecti
on
s; a
nd
•Fa
cilit
ati
ng R
esid
en
t
Em
po
we
rme
nt
FIN
DIN
GS
16
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Sin
ce
th
e s
tart
of
the
Re
-En
vis
ion
ing
Pro
ce
ss, th
e C
ity
an
d t
he
SF
HA
ha
ve
rep
ort
ed
ma
kin
g s
ign
ific
an
t str
ide
s
in im
pro
vin
g t
he
Ho
usin
g A
uth
ori
ty’s
ove
rall p
erf
orm
an
ce
. T
he
SF
HA
Co
mm
issio
n, S
FH
A s
taff
, C
ity
off
icia
ls, re
sid
en
t a
nd
la
bo
r gro
up
s,
an
d H
UD
re
pre
se
nta
tive
s h
ave
be
en
wo
rkin
g t
oge
the
r to
id
en
tify
an
d
resp
on
d t
o k
ey
pe
rfo
rma
nce
issu
es.
As n
ote
d b
y w
ork
ing g
rou
p p
art
icip
an
ts,
ho
we
ver,
th
e g
ove
rna
nce
str
uctu
re
cu
rre
ntl
y in
pla
ce
ha
s n
ot
ch
an
ge
d
sin
ce
th
e S
FH
A’s
in
ce
pti
on
, a
nd
is
ba
se
d o
n a
n in
su
late
d m
od
el o
f
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g t
ha
t is
ove
rly
relia
nt
on
fe
de
ral fu
nd
ing.
Ove
r th
e y
ea
rs, H
UD
fu
nd
ing le
vels
ha
ve
no
t ke
pt
up
wit
h t
he
in
cre
ase
d c
osts
of
ma
na
gin
g a
nd
op
era
tin
g p
ub
lic
ho
usin
g, h
ind
eri
ng t
he
SF
HA’s
ab
ilit
y to
pro
vid
e a
de
qu
ate
le
vels
of
se
rvic
es,
ma
inte
na
nce
, a
nd
ove
rsig
ht.
Th
e
co
nti
nu
ed
mis
ma
tch
of
reso
urc
es a
nd
de
ma
nd
re
su
lte
d in
a d
eclin
e in
th
e
SF
HA’s
op
era
tio
na
l ca
pa
cit
y a
nd
an
incre
ase
in
pe
rfo
rma
nce
issu
es.
Wit
ho
ut
an
op
en
, fl
exi
ble
go
vern
an
ce
str
uctu
re, a
nd
wit
ho
ut
pro
pe
r su
pp
ort
for
exi
sti
ng m
on
ito
rin
g a
nd
fe
ed
ba
ck
me
ch
an
ism
s s
uch
as t
he
SF
HA
Co
mm
issio
n, re
sid
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s,
an
d r
esid
en
t gri
eva
nce
pro
ce
du
res, th
e
SF
HA
wa
s s
low
in
id
en
tify
ing
op
era
tio
na
l is
su
es a
nd
de
velo
pin
g
ap
pro
pri
ate
re
sp
on
se
s.
FO
CU
S O
N T
RA
NS
PA
RE
NC
Y &
AC
CO
UN
TAB
ILIT
Y
17
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Th
e u
se
of
Se
cti
on
8 a
dm
inis
tra
tive
fe
es a
nd
ca
pit
al im
pro
vem
en
t fu
nd
ing t
o f
ill
op
era
tio
na
l ga
ps
Mis
sin
g H
UD
’s f
ou
r-ye
ar
de
ad
lin
e t
o c
on
vert
to t
he
ne
w A
sse
t M
an
age
me
nt
Mo
de
l,
resu
ltin
g in
th
e a
nn
ua
l lo
ss o
f a
bo
ut
$1
.5 m
illio
n in
ad
dit
ion
al H
UD
fu
nd
ing
Th
e b
ack
log o
f m
ain
ten
an
ce
re
pa
ir r
eq
ue
sts
tha
t w
as a
llo
we
d t
o in
cre
ase
to
ove
r
2,5
00
ou
tsta
nd
ing r
eq
ue
sts
Hig
h v
aca
ncy
rate
s in
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g w
ith
lon
g t
urn
ove
r p
eri
od
s (
an
ave
rage
of
ove
r six
mo
nth
s)
Ba
ck
logge
d in
co
me
re
ce
rtif
ica
tio
ns, in
clu
din
g
inte
rim
re
ce
rtif
ica
tio
ns o
f re
du
ce
d in
co
me
lea
din
g t
o w
ide
sp
rea
d f
ailu
res t
o p
ay
ren
t
Wid
esp
rea
d d
ela
ys in
un
it in
sp
ecti
on
s, in
clu
din
g
de
laye
d m
ovin
g in
sp
ecti
on
s r
esu
ltin
g in
Se
cti
on
8 la
nd
lord
s w
ith
dra
win
g o
ffe
rs f
rom
po
ten
tia
l te
na
nts
Clo
se
d w
ait
ing lis
ts (
sin
ce
20
08
fo
r p
ub
lic
ho
usin
g a
nd
sin
ce
20
01
fo
r S
ecti
on
8)
wit
h
alm
ost
9,0
00
ho
use
ho
lds o
n t
he
Se
cti
on
8
list
an
d o
ver
26
,00
0 h
ou
se
ho
lds o
n t
he
Pu
blic H
ou
sin
g lis
t
La
ck o
f a
lis
t o
f a
vaila
ble
se
rvic
es p
rovid
ed
at
ea
ch
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g d
eve
lop
me
nt
ISS
UE
S
TR
AN
SP
AR
EN
CY
& A
CC
OU
NTA
BIL
ITY
18
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e o
pe
rati
on
al is
su
es t
ha
t th
e S
FH
A w
as s
low
to
id
en
tify
an
d a
dd
ress in
clu
de
d::
Cre
ate
a P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g S
tra
tegic
Pla
nn
ing
Task
forc
e t
o d
eve
lop
an
d im
ple
me
nt
lon
g-t
erm
str
ate
gie
s t
o im
pro
ve t
he
re
sp
on
siv
en
ess o
f
ea
ch
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g d
eve
lop
me
nt
to t
he
ne
ed
s
of
its r
esid
en
ts, in
clu
din
g d
ece
ntr
alize
d
pro
pe
rty
ma
na
ge
me
nt
po
licie
s a
nd
pro
ce
du
res, a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n w
ith
th
e C
ity’
s
ho
me
less p
rogra
ms t
o id
en
tify
ap
pro
pri
ate
inte
rve
nti
on
s t
o p
reve
nt
ho
me
lessn
ess.
Ho
ld r
egu
larl
y sch
ed
ule
d r
esid
en
t su
mm
its/fo
rum
s
at
SF
HA
ho
usin
g s
ite
s o
r o
the
r m
ee
tin
g s
pa
ce
s
ea
sily
acce
ssib
le b
y S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts in
ord
er
to
ga
the
r re
sid
en
t fe
ed
ba
ck
on
an
on
go
ing b
asis
.
Allo
w ju
risd
icti
on
-wid
e r
esid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
(P
HTA
an
d C
CS
D)
to v
ote
on
co
ntr
acts
(e
.g. la
un
dry
roo
m a
nd
fo
od
ma
ch
ine
ve
nd
ors
, m
ain
ten
an
ce
an
d s
ecu
rity
co
ntr
acts
) a
nd
po
licie
s t
ha
t
imp
act
resid
en
ts a
t m
ult
iple
fa
mily
or
se
nio
r/d
isa
ble
d d
eve
lop
me
nts
(a
s a
pp
lica
ble
);
allo
w lo
ca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils t
o v
ote
on
co
ntr
acts
an
d p
olicie
s t
ha
t im
pa
ct
tha
t
pa
rtic
ula
r d
eve
lop
me
nt.
Inclu
de
re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
in
dis
cu
ssio
ns a
nd
de
cis
ion
s
rega
rdin
g c
on
tra
cti
ng, se
rvic
e d
elive
ry a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n d
ecis
ion
s f
or
de
ve
lop
me
nts
in
vo
lve
d in
HO
PE
SF
an
d o
the
r m
ult
i-sta
ke
ho
lde
r in
itia
tive
s t
o
en
su
re h
igh
er
leve
ls o
f re
sid
en
t e
nga
ge
me
nt,
sm
oo
the
r tr
an
sit
ion
s, a
nd
gre
ate
r a
cco
un
tab
ilit
y
(e.g
. m
ee
tin
gs r
ega
rdin
g s
ele
cti
on
of
co
ntr
acto
rs
an
d S
ecti
on
3 issu
es, se
rvic
e p
rovis
ion
an
d
co
ord
ina
tio
n o
f re
loca
tio
n).
Inclu
de
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n b
y ju
risd
icti
on
-wid
e a
nd
, a
s
ap
pro
pri
ate
, b
y lo
ca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils, in
Cit
y/se
rvic
e p
rovid
er/
SF
HA
dis
cu
ssio
ns a
nd
de
cis
ion
s a
bo
ut
po
licie
s t
ha
t a
dd
ress s
yste
mic
issu
es a
t fa
mily
an
d s
en
ior/
dis
ab
led
de
velo
pm
en
ts
(e.g
. p
rod
ucti
ve m
ea
ns o
f a
dd
ressin
g h
om
ele
ssn
ess
an
d o
n-s
ite
me
nta
l h
ea
lth
or
su
bsta
nce
ab
use
issu
es, e
nfo
rce
me
nt
of
he
alt
h p
olicie
s).
Re
qu
ire
on
-sit
e s
erv
ice
pro
vid
ers
an
d C
ity
age
ncie
s
pro
vid
ing d
ire
ct
se
rvic
es t
o S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts t
o
pro
du
ce
a r
egu
lar
rep
ort
of
se
rvic
es o
ffe
red
(e
.g.,
nu
mb
er
an
d d
ive
rsit
y o
f re
sid
en
ts s
erv
ed
, ty
pe
s o
f
se
rvic
es p
rovid
ed
, go
als
an
d p
lan
s f
or
futu
re
se
rvic
es).
STR
ATE
GIE
S
TR
AN
SP
AR
EN
CY
& A
CC
OU
NTA
BIL
ITY
19
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
In r
esp
on
se
, th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d v
ari
ou
s s
tra
tegie
s, in
clu
din
g:
Re
qu
ire
age
ncie
s w
ith
re
so
urc
es o
r p
olicie
s t
ha
t
dir
ectl
y im
pa
ct
de
ve
lop
me
nts
to
me
et
wit
h a
nd
rep
ort
to
re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
(e
.g. d
eve
lop
Pu
blic H
ou
sin
g W
ork
ing G
rou
ps w
ith
SF
PD
- t
o
me
et
regu
larl
y w
ith
lo
ca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils t
o
rep
ort
on
in
cid
en
ce
s a
nd
ou
tco
me
of
inve
sti
ga
tio
n o
f cri
me
s in
an
d a
rou
nd
de
ve
lop
me
nts
an
d t
he
tim
e s
pe
nt
on
co
mm
un
ity
po
licin
g s
tra
tegie
s a
t th
e s
ite
s, w
ith
DP
W t
o a
dd
ress d
um
pin
g issu
es, M
UN
I to
ad
dre
ss t
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
issu
es, e
tc.)
Mo
ve
th
e m
ee
tin
g lo
ca
tio
n o
f th
e B
oa
rd o
f
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs t
o C
ity
Ha
ll t
o im
pro
ve o
ve
rall
tra
nsp
are
ncy
an
d u
nd
ers
co
re t
he
SF
HA’s
co
nn
ecte
dn
ess t
o t
he
Cit
y (w
hile
ta
kin
g s
tep
s,
ho
weve
r, t
o e
nsu
re t
ha
t re
sid
en
ts h
ave
op
en
,
ea
sy
acce
ss t
o t
he
me
eti
ngs a
nd
fe
el
co
mfo
rta
ble
en
teri
ng C
ity
Ha
ll).
Ho
ld m
ee
tin
gs o
f th
e B
oa
rd o
f C
om
mis
sio
ne
rs
du
rin
g t
ime
s t
ha
t a
re m
ore
co
nve
nie
nt
for
resid
en
ts, a
nd
vid
eo
-re
co
rd t
he
me
eti
ngs s
o
the
y ca
n b
e v
iew
ed
by
inte
reste
d s
take
ho
lde
rs.
Pro
vid
e t
ime
ly a
nd
de
taile
d a
ge
nd
as a
nd
min
ute
s o
f
Bo
ard
of
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs’ m
ee
tin
gs.
Ma
ke
Co
mm
issio
n B
yla
ws a
nd
th
e C
om
mis
sio
ne
rs’
qu
alifi
ca
tio
ns p
ub
licly
ava
ila
ble
, a
nd
po
st
the
m
pro
min
en
tly
on
th
e S
FH
A w
eb
sit
e.
Ma
ke
SF
HA
da
ta, in
clu
din
g D
em
ogra
ph
ics, O
pe
rati
on
al
Ou
tco
me
s, a
nd
Re
sid
en
t O
utc
om
es p
ub
licly
ava
ila
ble
, a
nd
po
st
pro
ce
du
res f
or
req
ue
sti
ng
info
rma
tio
n f
rom
SF
HA
on
th
e S
FH
A w
eb
sit
e.
Co
nd
uct
on
go
ing r
esid
en
t o
utr
ea
ch
an
d e
du
ca
tio
n a
bo
ut
an
y ch
an
ge
s t
o S
FH
A p
olicie
s a
nd
pro
ce
du
res.
Su
bje
ct
to c
ha
nge
s in
Sta
te la
w, m
ove
to
wa
rd a
sp
lit-
ap
po
intm
en
t a
uth
ori
ty m
od
el fo
r th
e B
oa
rd o
f
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs, u
nd
er
wh
ich
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs a
re
ap
po
inte
d b
y th
e M
ayo
r, t
he
Bo
ard
of
Su
pe
rvis
ors
,
an
d/o
r S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts.
De
velo
p a
pu
blic r
evie
w p
roce
ss f
or
Co
mm
issio
ne
r
no
min
ee
s s
imila
r to
ho
w o
the
r C
ity
bo
ard
an
d
co
mm
issio
n n
om
ine
es a
re c
on
firm
ed
20
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
In r
esp
on
se
, th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d v
ari
ou
s s
tra
tegie
s, in
clu
din
g:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
TR
AN
SP
AR
EN
CY
& A
CC
OU
NTA
BIL
ITY
De
velo
p a
sys
tem
fo
r th
e C
ity
to p
rovid
e f
ee
db
ack
on
a C
om
mis
sio
ne
r’s p
erf
orm
an
ce
(e
.g., a
re
po
rt
ca
rd in
clu
din
g a
tte
nd
an
ce
ra
tes, co
mm
itte
e
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n, a
nd
re
sid
en
t in
tera
cti
on
, e
tc.)
du
rin
g t
he
re
-ap
po
intm
en
t p
roce
ss.
En
su
re t
ha
t th
e B
oa
rd o
f C
om
mis
sio
ne
rs c
on
du
ct
a
pe
rfo
rma
nce
re
vie
w o
f th
e E
xecu
tive
Dir
ecto
r
at
lea
st
an
nu
ally,
ba
se
d o
n p
re-s
et
cri
teri
a
inclu
din
g k
ey
pe
rfo
rma
nce
in
dic
ato
rs (
e.g
.,
cri
me
, re
nt
co
lle
cti
on
, tr
an
sfe
r ra
tes,
va
ca
ncie
s, le
asin
g a
nd
tu
rnove
r ra
tes, w
ait
ing
lists
, w
ork
ord
ers
, in
sp
ecti
on
s, a
nd
rece
rtif
ica
tio
ns)
an
d b
en
ch
ma
rks (
e.g
.,
pro
gre
ss o
n t
ran
sit
ion
to
Asse
t M
an
age
me
nt
Mo
de
l, a
nd
Re
op
en
ing W
ait
lists
).
En
su
re t
ha
t th
e S
FH
A c
on
du
ct
regu
lar
pe
rfo
rma
nce
revie
ws o
f it
s c
on
tra
cto
rs a
nd
ma
ke
th
e r
esu
lts
pu
blicly
ava
ila
ble
.
Cre
ate
sp
ecif
ic e
xpe
rtis
e r
eq
uir
em
en
ts f
or
ce
rta
in
Co
mm
issio
n s
ea
ts; sp
ecif
ica
lly,
en
su
re t
he
re is a
t
lea
st
on
e s
ea
t e
ach
re
qu
irin
g a
ffo
rda
ble
ho
usin
g
an
d h
ou
sin
g f
ina
nce
exp
ert
ise
, a
nd
at
lea
st
two
se
ats
fo
r re
sid
en
t re
pre
se
nta
tive
s. (G
ove
rna
nce
)
En
su
re t
ha
t th
e S
FH
A’s
hir
ing p
roce
ss is c
lea
r, o
pe
n, a
nd
str
ea
mlin
ed
in
ord
er
to a
ttra
ct
the
be
st
po
ssib
le
tale
nt
for
SF
HA
sta
ff p
osit
ion
s. (G
ove
rna
nce
)
Wo
rk w
ith
HU
D, C
ity
Age
ncie
s a
nd
CB
Os t
o p
rovid
e
on
go
ing t
rain
ing f
or
SF
HA
sta
ff. (G
ove
rna
nce
)
De
velo
p a
mo
nit
ori
ng s
yste
m f
or
on
sit
e s
erv
ice
pro
vid
ers
tha
t sco
res, a
mo
ng o
the
r cri
teri
a, th
e p
rovid
ers
' use
of
cu
ltu
rally
co
mp
ete
nt
po
licie
s a
nd
pra
cti
ce
s.
Cre
ate
a s
ep
ara
te "
cu
sto
me
r se
rvic
e"
gri
eva
nce
/co
mp
lain
t p
roce
ss f
or
po
or
se
rvic
e, slo
w
resp
on
se
tim
e, la
ck
of
se
rvic
e a
nd
en
su
re t
ha
t a
ll
resid
en
ts h
ave
acce
ss t
o t
he
pro
ce
ss.
21
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
In r
esp
on
se
, th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d v
ari
ou
s s
tra
tegie
s, in
clu
din
g:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
TR
AN
SP
AR
EN
CY
& A
CC
OU
NTA
BIL
ITY
On
e o
f th
e c
ore
th
em
es id
en
tifi
ed
by
wo
rkin
g
gro
up
me
mb
ers
wa
s t
he
im
po
rta
nce
of
be
ing a
ble
to
acce
ss h
ou
sin
g t
ha
t is
ap
pro
pri
ate
fo
r th
e n
ee
ds a
nd
cir
cu
msta
nce
s o
f th
e r
esid
en
t, a
nd
to
do
so
wit
hin
a r
ea
so
na
ble
tim
e f
ram
e.
Ho
we
ver,
du
e t
o la
ck o
f re
so
urc
es,
ine
ffic
ien
t p
roce
du
res, in
ad
eq
ua
te
resid
en
t o
utr
ea
ch
an
d e
du
ca
tio
n, a
nd
pro
gra
ms t
ha
t d
on
’t t
ake
th
e in
div
idu
al
ne
ed
s in
to a
cco
un
t, S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts
rep
ort
ed
fin
din
g t
he
mse
lve
s s
tuck
wh
ere
th
ey
are
, o
r w
ors
e, fa
cin
g t
he
pro
sp
ect
of
ho
me
lessn
ess.
Am
on
g t
he
issu
es h
am
pe
rin
g S
FH
A r
esid
en
t
ch
oic
e a
nd
acce
ss t
o a
pp
rop
ria
te liv
ing
sit
ua
tio
ns in
clu
de
d:
Lo
ng t
urn
ove
r ti
me
s f
or
va
ca
nt
un
its r
ed
ucin
g t
he
ove
rall
ho
usin
g o
pti
on
s a
va
ila
ble
to
th
em
Re
sid
en
ts n
ee
d t
o a
ccu
mu
late
ca
pit
al in
ord
er
to m
ove
ou
t o
f p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g, b
ut
the
y lo
se
eligib
ilit
y if
th
ey
accu
mu
late
to
o m
uch
ca
pit
al
Lo
w P
aym
en
t S
tan
da
rds f
or
Se
cti
on
8 v
ou
ch
ers
pre
ven
tin
g t
he
m f
rom
fin
din
g h
ou
sin
g in
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
s w
he
re t
he
y w
ish
to
liv
e
La
ck
of
acce
ss t
o/k
no
wle
dge
ab
ou
t tr
an
sla
tio
n a
nd
inte
rpre
tati
on
se
rvic
es p
reve
nti
ng t
he
m f
rom
pu
rsu
ing a
va
ila
ble
ho
usin
g o
pti
on
s
Slo
w r
esp
on
se
to
mo
vin
g in
sp
ecti
on
re
qu
ests
re
su
ltin
g in
the
Se
cti
on
8 la
nd
lord
pu
llin
g t
he
off
er
An
in
eff
icie
nt
rece
rtif
ica
tio
n p
roce
ss in
wh
ich
th
e la
nd
lord
is n
ot
no
tifi
ed
of
the
re
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n o
r d
oe
sn
't
rece
ive
th
e u
pd
ate
d s
ub
sid
y, r
esu
ltin
g in
th
rea
ten
ed
evic
tio
ns
Clo
se
d S
ecti
on
8 a
nd
Pu
blic H
ou
sin
g w
ait
ing lis
ts
Re
sid
en
t re
lucta
nce
to
mo
ve
to
a d
iffe
ren
t lo
ca
tio
n d
ue
to
co
nfu
sio
n f
rom
dif
fere
nt
wa
itin
g lis
t p
roto
co
ls
IMP
RO
VIN
G
HO
US
ING
CH
OIC
E &
AC
CE
SS
22
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Co
nsid
er
mix
ed
-fin
an
ce
so
luti
on
s f
or
SF
HA’s
24
un
-
reh
ab
be
d p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g d
eve
lop
me
nts
usin
g
a p
ub
lic-p
riva
te p
art
ne
rsh
ip (
“PP
P”)
mo
de
l,
un
de
r w
hic
h S
FH
A o
wn
s t
he
la
nd
, a
nd
a lim
ite
d
pa
rtn
ers
hip
(in
clu
din
g a
no
np
rofi
t a
nd
an
inve
sto
r) o
wn
s t
he
pro
ject.
Fu
rth
er
exp
lore
th
e R
en
tal A
ssis
tan
ce
De
mo
nstr
ati
on
Pro
gra
m (
RA
D),
a H
UD
pro
gra
m
tha
t p
rovid
es a
gre
ate
r su
bsid
y th
an
th
e
An
nu
al C
on
trib
uti
on
s C
on
tra
ct
(AC
C),
in
cre
ase
s
op
era
tin
g in
co
me
, is
a lo
nge
r-te
rm c
on
tra
ct
wh
ich
ca
n b
e u
se
d t
o le
ve
rage
ou
tsid
e d
eb
t,
an
d o
ffe
rs p
ote
nti
al fo
r fl
exi
bilit
y in
re
sp
on
se
to
SF
ne
ed
s; P
urs
ue
RA
D c
on
vers
ion
un
de
r H
UD
’s
Pro
ject
Ba
se
d R
en
tal A
ssis
tan
ce
ca
tego
ry,
wh
ich
is m
ore
sta
ble
, m
ore
ro
bu
stl
y fu
nd
ed
,
su
pp
ort
ed
by
pri
vate
de
ve
lop
ers
, a
nd
sa
fer
fro
m e
ffe
cts
of
se
qu
estr
ati
on
.
Exp
lore
po
ssib
ilit
ies f
or
inte
gra
tin
g p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g
un
its in
to t
he
Cit
y’s a
ffo
rda
ble
ho
usin
g
infr
astr
uctu
re.
Co
nsid
er
alt
ern
ati
ve f
ina
ncin
g m
od
els
, in
clu
din
g c
ap
an
d
tra
de
, so
cia
l in
vestm
en
t b
on
ds, a
nd
HU
D’s
Ca
pit
al
Fu
nd
Fin
an
cin
g P
rogra
m.
Pu
rsu
e in
cre
ase
d u
se
of
pro
ject-
ba
se
d S
ecti
on
8
vo
uch
ers
, w
hic
h c
an
be
use
d t
o le
vera
ge
mo
re
pri
vate
de
bt
(pe
rha
ps w
ith
sh
are
d
gu
ara
nte
es/sta
nd
by
agre
em
en
ts);
re
qu
est
HU
D
wa
ive
r o
f 2
0%
ca
p if
po
ssib
le.
De
velo
p a
pla
n f
or
pro
jects
th
at
ne
ed
mo
re t
ha
n r
eh
ab
to
se
rve
exi
sti
ng r
esid
en
ts (
e.g
. b
uild
ings w
he
re h
ea
ds
of
ho
use
ho
ld h
ave
age
d in
pla
ce
an
d n
ow
re
qu
ire
ele
vato
rs, sm
alle
r u
nit
s, A
DA
acco
mm
od
ati
on
s).
Co
ord
ina
te w
ith
pe
rma
ne
nt
su
pp
ort
ive
ho
usin
g p
rovid
ers
to d
eve
lop
a “
gra
du
ati
on
vo
uch
er”
pro
gra
m f
or
su
cce
ssfu
l lo
ng-t
erm
re
sid
en
ts w
ho
ca
n t
ran
sit
ion
to
SF
HA
ho
usin
g w
ith
re
du
ce
d le
ve
ls o
f su
pp
ort
ive
se
rvic
es.
Se
ek
a t
em
po
rary
wa
ive
r o
f th
e 2
0%
ca
p o
n p
roje
ct-
ba
se
d v
ou
ch
ers
to
in
cre
ase
th
e in
ven
tory
of
su
ita
ble
un
its f
or
Se
cti
on
8 v
ou
ch
er
ho
lde
rs.
STR
ATE
GIE
S
HO
US
ING
CH
OIC
E &
AC
CE
SS
23
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d s
tra
tegie
s in
th
ree
ca
tego
rie
s, in
clu
din
g:
CR
EATE
MO
RE
HO
US
ING
OP
TIO
NS
:
Fa
cilit
ate
mo
ve
me
nt
be
twe
en
typ
es o
f su
bsid
ize
d
ho
usin
g, su
ch
as f
rom
SR
Os t
o S
he
lte
r P
lus
Ca
re o
r to
Se
cti
on
8, b
ase
d o
n t
he
re
sid
en
ts’
cu
rre
nt
leve
ls o
f n
ee
d.
Ide
nti
fy a
lte
rna
tive
me
tho
ds o
f ca
lcu
lati
ng p
aym
en
t
sta
nd
ard
s t
o g
ive
Se
cti
on
8 v
ou
ch
er
ho
lde
rs
mo
re h
ou
sin
g o
pti
on
s in
th
e C
ity
(e.g
.,
mo
dif
yin
g t
he
pa
yme
nt
sta
nd
ard
to
re
fle
ct
the
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
-ba
se
d d
ive
rge
nce
of
ho
usin
g
pri
ce
s in
Sa
n F
ran
cis
co
).
De
velo
p a
ho
usin
g a
dvo
ca
te p
rogra
m m
od
ele
d a
fte
r th
e
su
cce
ssfu
l H
OP
WA
pro
gra
m t
o h
elp
re
sid
en
ts w
ith
dis
ab
ilit
ies o
bta
in a
cce
ssib
le h
ou
sin
g.
Allo
w t
he
ho
me
less s
yste
m t
o p
lace
pe
op
le d
ire
ctl
y in
to
ap
pro
pri
ate
SF
HA
ho
usin
g u
nit
s a
s t
he
y b
eco
me
ava
ila
ble
(e
.g., if
a p
roje
ct-
ba
se
d u
nit
sit
s v
aca
nt
for
ove
r a
ce
rta
in a
mo
un
t o
f ti
me
du
e t
o la
ck
of
inte
rest
fro
m t
he
wa
itin
g lis
t, a
llo
w t
he
ho
me
less s
yste
m t
o
pla
ce
cu
rre
ntl
y h
om
ele
ss h
ou
se
ho
lds in
th
eir
sys
tem
in
to t
ha
t u
nit
).
24
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d s
tra
tegie
s in
th
ree
ca
tego
rie
s, in
clu
din
g:
CR
EATE
MO
RE
HO
US
ING
OP
TIO
NS
:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
HO
US
ING
CH
OIC
E &
AC
CE
SS
Ide
nti
fy t
he
ho
usin
g p
refe
ren
ce
s/exc
lusio
ns o
f
pro
sp
ecti
ve t
en
an
ts w
he
n u
pd
ati
ng t
he
wa
itin
g
list,
in
clu
din
g a
cce
ssib
ilit
y n
ee
ds,
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
s, d
eve
lop
me
nt
loca
tio
ns, e
tc., in
ord
er
to r
ed
uce
th
e t
ime
an
d c
ost
asso
cia
ted
wit
h f
illin
g a
va
ca
nt
un
it a
nd
re
du
ce
ra
tes o
f
tra
nsfe
r re
qu
ests
.
De
velo
p a
pri
ori
tize
d r
ece
rtif
ica
tio
n p
roto
co
l th
at
en
su
res t
ha
t in
teri
m r
ece
rtif
ica
tio
ns f
or
a d
rop
in in
co
me
are
giv
en
pri
ori
ty in
pro
ce
ssin
g, th
at
the
re
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n is p
roce
sse
d a
nd
no
tice
pro
vid
ed
to
th
e p
rop
ert
y m
an
age
r a
nd
re
sid
en
t
be
fore
th
e n
ext
billin
g p
eri
od
(o
r if
th
at
is n
ot
po
ssib
le, th
at
the
ne
xt b
illin
g s
tate
me
nt
ide
nti
fie
s t
he
pro
rate
d a
mo
un
t d
ue
an
d t
he
ne
w p
aym
en
t a
mo
un
t p
er
mo
nth
).
De
velo
p a
wa
itin
g lis
t sys
tem
th
at
up
da
tes p
ert
ine
nt
info
rma
tio
n in
re
al-
tim
e f
or
bo
th r
esid
en
ts a
nd
pro
ject
ma
na
ge
rs.
Sim
plify
th
e r
ece
rtif
ica
tio
n p
rogra
m b
y re
qu
esti
ng a
wa
ive
r o
f th
e a
nn
ua
l re
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n r
eq
uir
em
en
t o
f
ind
ivid
ua
ls w
ith
fix
ed
in
co
me
s, in
clu
din
g s
en
iors
an
d d
isa
bilit
ies, a
nd
de
ve
lop
pa
rtn
ers
hip
s w
ith
oth
er
inco
me
-ba
se
d b
en
efi
ts p
rogra
ms (
e.g
.
Ca
lWO
RK
S)
un
de
r w
hic
h a
no
the
r p
rogra
m's
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n o
f e
ligib
ilit
y ca
n b
e u
se
d f
or
SF
HA
's
init
ial in
take
pro
ce
ss
De
velo
p a
nd
im
ple
me
nt
tra
nsit
ion
pro
ce
du
res f
or
ind
ivid
ua
ls w
ho
are
liv
ing o
n S
FH
A p
rop
ert
y b
ut
no
t
on
le
ase
(e
.g., b
eca
use
th
ey’
ve b
ee
n t
erm
ina
ted
fro
m t
he
pro
gra
m o
r th
e p
ers
on
wh
o h
as t
he
le
ase
ha
s d
ied
, e
tc.)
.
Cre
ate
me
ch
an
ism
to
ad
just
inco
me
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n w
hile
on
wa
itin
g lis
t (e
.g., u
se
of
tax
retu
rns t
o c
ert
ify
inco
me
;
de
ve
lop
pa
rtn
ers
hip
s w
ith
oth
er
inco
me
-ba
se
d
be
ne
fits
(C
alW
ork
s, fo
od
sta
mp
s),
cre
ati
ng
pre
su
mp
tive
eligib
ilit
y if
in
div
idu
al q
ua
lifi
es f
or
oth
er
pro
gra
ms).
25
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d s
tra
tegie
s in
th
ree
ca
tego
rie
s, in
clu
din
g:
STR
EA
MLIN
E P
RO
CE
DU
RE
S:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
HO
US
ING
CH
OIC
E &
AC
CE
SS
Incre
ase
th
e n
um
be
r o
f p
rosp
ecti
ve t
en
an
ts o
n t
he
wa
itin
g lis
t w
ho
are
co
nta
cte
d a
bo
ut
ava
ila
ble
un
its (
wh
ile
en
su
rin
g t
ha
t p
rosp
ecti
ve t
en
an
ts
are
ma
de
aw
are
th
at
the
y h
ave
no
t b
ee
n
ch
ose
n f
or
the
un
it y
et)
in
ord
er
to r
ed
uce
th
e
tim
e a
nd
co
sts
asso
cia
ted
wit
h f
illin
g a
va
ca
nt
un
it
De
velo
p a
un
ive
rsa
l u
nit
in
sp
ecti
on
fo
rm (
i.e
.,
de
ve
lop
on
e f
orm
th
at
ca
n b
e u
se
d f
or
all
age
ncie
s t
ha
t p
erf
orm
in
sp
ecti
on
s).
Elim
ina
te e
vic
tio
ns c
au
se
d b
y S
FH
A d
ela
ys o
r e
rro
rs
(e.g
., r
evis
e t
he
Se
cti
on
8 c
on
tra
ct
form
to
pro
hib
it e
vic
tio
n b
ase
d o
n a
de
laye
d p
aym
en
t
fro
m S
FH
A).
Ma
inta
in s
ep
ara
te w
ait
ing lis
ts f
or
pro
ject-
ba
se
d a
nd
ten
an
t-b
ase
d v
ou
ch
ers
(a
lte
rna
tive
ly, scre
en
fo
r
ind
ivid
ua
ls n
ot
inte
reste
d in
pro
ject
ba
se
d v
ou
ch
ers
so
th
e S
FH
A d
oe
sn
’t h
ave
to
wa
ste
tim
e c
on
tacti
ng
the
m).
Cre
ate
a S
ecti
on
8 “
On
e-S
top
Sh
op
” w
he
re a
vo
uch
er
ho
lde
r ca
n f
ind
wa
itin
g lis
t o
pe
nin
gs a
nd
de
term
ine
all o
f th
e b
en
efi
ts f
or
wh
ich
he
/sh
e is e
ligib
le.
Exp
ed
ite
th
e u
nit
in
sp
ecti
on
sys
tem
(e
.g., m
ove
mo
re
insp
ecto
rs t
o in
itia
l in
sp
ecti
on
s; a
llo
w m
ove
to
bia
nn
ua
l in
sp
ecti
on
s if
pre
vio
us in
sp
ecti
on
wa
s
10
0%
of
HQ
S).
26
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d s
tra
tegie
s in
th
ree
ca
tego
rie
s, in
clu
din
g:
STR
EA
MLIN
E P
RO
CE
DU
RE
S:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
HO
US
ING
CH
OIC
E &
AC
CE
SS
Co
nd
uct
resid
en
t a
nd
pro
pe
rty
ma
na
ge
r o
utr
ea
ch
an
d e
du
ca
tio
n o
n t
he
en
forc
em
en
t o
f H
UD
’s
ren
t d
ete
rmin
ati
on
an
d c
olle
cti
on
po
licie
s a
nd
pro
ce
du
res. (P
ub
lic H
ou
sin
g)
Co
nd
uct
SF
HA
re
sid
en
t a
nd
pro
pe
rty
ma
na
ge
r
ou
tre
ach
an
d e
du
ca
tio
n t
o e
nsu
re t
ha
t a
ll
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts h
ave
acce
ss t
o t
he
lis
t o
f
ap
pro
xim
ate
ly 3
00
no
n-E
nglish
la
ngu
age
sp
ea
ke
rs a
nd
tra
nsla
ted
SF
HA
fo
rms. (P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g)
De
velo
p a
co
ord
ina
ted
la
nd
lord
ou
tre
ach
an
d
ed
uca
tio
n s
tra
tegy
wit
h t
he
Cit
y A
tto
rney'
s
Off
ice
an
d t
he
De
pa
rtm
en
t o
f B
uild
ing
Insp
ecti
on
ab
ou
t S
an
Fra
ncis
co
la
ws r
ega
rdin
g
ha
bit
ab
ilit
y sta
nd
ard
s a
nd
dis
cri
min
ati
on
aga
inst
inco
me
so
urc
e. (S
ecti
on
8)
De
velo
p a
ho
usin
g a
dvo
ca
te p
rogra
m m
od
ele
d a
fte
r th
e
su
cce
ssfu
l H
OP
WA
pro
gra
m t
o h
elp
re
sid
en
ts w
ith
dis
ab
ilit
ies o
bta
in a
cce
ssib
le h
ou
sin
g. (S
ecti
on
8)
Fo
r S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts w
ho
se
in
co
me
s a
re in
cre
asin
g,
pre
pa
re t
he
m f
or
the
im
pa
ct
tha
t in
cre
ase
d in
co
me
will h
ave
on
mo
nth
ly r
en
tal p
aym
en
ts. (R
esid
en
t
Se
rvic
es)
27
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e p
art
icip
an
ts in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps p
rop
ose
d s
tra
tegie
s in
th
ree
ca
tego
rie
s, in
clu
din
g:
CO
ND
UC
T B
ETTE
R O
UTR
EA
CH
AN
D E
DU
CATIO
N:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
HO
US
ING
CH
OIC
E &
AC
CE
SS
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs f
elt
a s
afe
, se
cu
re
livin
g e
nvir
on
me
nt
is k
ey
to t
he
su
cce
ssfu
l o
pe
rati
on
of
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g
an
d H
ou
sin
g C
ho
ice
Vo
uch
ers
.
Co
nce
rns a
bo
ut
the
sa
fety
of
SF
HA
ho
usin
g g
en
era
lly
fell in
to t
wo
ca
tego
rie
s: th
e p
hys
ica
l co
nd
itio
n o
f th
e
ho
usin
g its
elf
an
d r
esid
en
t sa
fety
fro
m
cri
min
al a
cti
vit
y.
HO
US
ING
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
Wh
en
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g u
nit
s r
eq
uir
e r
ep
air
,
resid
en
ts s
ub
mit
wo
rk o
rde
r re
qu
ests
to
SF
HA
, to
wh
ich
a t
ea
m o
f m
ain
ten
an
ce
ge
ne
ralists
(a
vaila
ble
fo
r le
ss s
kille
d
rep
air
s)
an
d s
pe
cia
lists
(in
clu
din
g
ele
ctr
icia
ns a
nd
plu
mb
ers
) re
sp
on
d.
Be
ca
use
of
cu
rre
nt
SF
HA
bu
dge
t
rea
liti
es, th
e m
ain
ten
an
ce
wo
rkfo
rce
ha
s b
ee
n s
ub
sta
nti
ally
red
uce
d; fo
r
exa
mp
le, a
s o
f th
is w
riti
ng, 3
ele
ctr
icia
ns s
erv
e t
he
44
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g
pro
pe
rtie
s a
cro
ss t
he
cit
y.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs id
en
tifi
ed
th
e lo
ng
ba
cklo
g o
f o
pe
n w
ork
ord
ers
an
d s
om
eti
me
s
po
or-
qu
ality
re
pa
ir w
ork
as p
rim
ary
co
nce
rns. A
dd
itio
na
lly,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p
me
mb
ers
id
en
tifi
ed
po
or
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
be
twe
en
SF
HA
, p
rop
ert
y m
an
age
rs, a
nd
resid
en
ts a
s a
sig
nif
ica
nt
ba
rrie
r. R
esid
en
ts
are
so
me
tim
es u
na
wa
re o
f th
e p
rop
er
me
tho
d o
f su
bm
itti
ng w
ork
ord
ers
, p
rop
ert
y
ma
na
ge
rs a
nd
31
1 s
taff
are
bo
th r
elu
cta
nt
to t
ake
re
sp
on
sib
ilit
y fo
r re
pa
ir r
eq
ue
sts
, a
nd
resid
en
ts s
tru
ggle
to
fin
d in
form
ati
on
on
th
e
sta
tus o
f w
ork
re
qu
ests
.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs r
eco
gn
ize
d t
ha
t S
FH
A is
cu
rre
ntl
y w
ork
ing t
o im
pro
ve t
he
exi
sti
ng
wo
rk o
rde
r re
qu
est
sys
tem
, a
nd
su
bm
itte
d a
nu
mb
er
of
str
ate
gie
s t
o a
ssis
t w
ith
su
cce
ssfu
lly
imp
lem
en
tin
g t
he
ne
w s
yste
m.
CR
EA
TIN
G A
SA
FE
, S
EC
UR
E L
IVIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
T
28
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
CR
IMIN
AL A
CTIV
ITY
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p p
art
icip
an
ts e
xpre
sse
d g
rati
tud
e
for
SF
PD
ou
tre
ach
to
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g
resid
en
ts, in
dic
ati
ng t
ha
t th
e r
esu
lt h
as
be
en
in
cre
ase
d t
rust
of
SF
PD
off
ice
rs.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs a
lso
re
co
gn
ize
d
tha
t th
e v
ast
ma
jori
ty o
f p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g
resid
en
ts d
o n
ot
po
se
a t
hre
at
to p
ub
lic
sa
fety
; a
su
rvey
co
nd
ucte
d b
y S
FP
D a
nd
SF
HA
id
en
tifi
ed
on
ly 7
0 in
div
idu
als
(o
f o
ver
12
,00
0 t
ota
l p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g r
esid
en
ts)
fou
nd
wit
h f
ire
arm
s in
20
12
.
In a
dd
itio
n t
o f
ee
lin
g t
ha
t sa
fety
is a
rig
ht
of
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts, w
ork
ing g
rou
p m
em
be
rs
sta
ted
th
at
a d
an
ge
rou
s e
nvir
on
me
nt
imp
ed
es r
esid
en
ts’ a
bilit
y to
ach
ieve
se
lf-
su
ffic
ien
cy;
re
sid
en
ts w
ho
fe
ar
the
ft o
r
vio
len
ce
are
un
willin
g t
o le
ave
ho
me
to
se
ek
em
plo
yme
nt
or
ed
uca
tio
n. In
so
me
loca
tio
ns, re
sid
en
ts n
ote
d a
la
ck
of
po
lice
pre
se
nce
—d
rug d
ea
lin
g a
nd
ga
ng a
cti
vit
y
are
co
mm
on
, a
nd
va
ca
nt
un
its a
re
vu
lne
rab
le t
o s
qu
att
ing a
nd
oth
er
ille
ga
l
acti
vit
y.
Th
e c
urr
en
t e
vic
tio
n s
tan
da
rd, e
me
rge
ncy
tra
nsfe
r
pro
ce
ss, a
nd
off
-le
ase
re
sid
en
ts a
re a
mo
ng t
he
ca
use
s o
f cri
min
al a
cti
vit
y th
at
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
id
en
tifi
ed
. P
art
icip
an
ts fe
lt t
ha
t th
e
for-
ca
use
evic
tio
n p
roce
ss is u
se
d t
oo
sp
ari
ngly
,
an
d t
ha
t S
FH
A s
ho
uld
mo
re a
ggre
ssiv
ely
pu
rsu
e
resid
en
ts e
nga
ge
d in
ille
ga
l b
eh
avio
r.
Pa
rtic
ipa
nts
als
o c
ite
d t
he
em
erg
en
cy
tra
nsfe
r
pro
ce
ss a
s p
rob
lem
ati
c; th
ou
gh
ap
pre
cia
tin
g
tha
t re
sid
en
ts a
re a
ble
to
tra
nsfe
r u
nit
s f
or
sa
fety
re
aso
ns, th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps fe
lt t
ha
t th
e
pro
ce
ss is t
oo
co
mp
lica
ted
an
d d
raw
n-o
ut
to
resp
on
d t
o a
n e
me
rge
ncy.
Fin
ally,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs e
xpre
sse
d c
on
ce
rn
ab
ou
t p
ers
on
s liv
ing in
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g u
nit
s o
ff-
lea
se
, w
he
the
r a
s c
ou
ch
su
rfe
rs o
r a
du
lt
ch
ild
ren
of
resid
en
ts, in
dic
ati
ng t
ha
t S
FH
A h
as
litt
le c
on
tro
l o
ver
the
pre
se
nce
or
acti
vit
ies o
f
the
se
pe
rso
ns.
CR
EA
TIN
G A
SA
FE
, S
EC
UR
E L
IVIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
T
29
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Incre
ase
th
e p
rop
ort
ion
of
ma
inte
na
nce
ge
ne
ralists
wh
o c
an
re
sp
on
d t
o m
ain
ten
an
ce
an
d r
ep
air
job
s t
ha
t d
o n
ot
req
uir
e s
pe
cia
list
cra
ft
wo
rke
rs.
De
velo
p a
sta
nd
ard
ize
d r
ep
air
re
qu
est
form
th
at
is
str
ea
mlin
ed
, sim
ple
to
use
, a
nd
wh
ich
ca
n b
e
su
bm
itte
d e
lectr
on
ica
lly,
by
ma
il, b
y te
lep
ho
ne
,
or
in-p
ers
on
.
En
su
re u
niv
ers
al a
cce
ssib
ilit
y to
th
e w
ork
ord
er
req
ue
st
sys
tem
—tr
an
sla
te f
orm
s, w
eb
sit
es, a
nd
oth
er
on
lin
e r
eso
urc
es in
to a
wid
er
va
rie
ty o
f
lan
gu
age
s t
ha
t is
mo
re r
ep
rese
nta
tive
of
the
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g r
esid
en
t p
op
ula
tio
n.
Co
nd
uct
regu
lar
resid
en
t a
nd
pro
pe
rty
ma
na
ge
r
ou
tre
ach
an
d e
du
ca
tio
n t
o e
nsu
re t
ha
t a
ll
resid
en
ts, re
ga
rdle
ss o
f d
isa
bilit
y, a
ge
, o
r
lan
gu
age
ba
ck
gro
un
d, a
re a
wa
re o
f th
e n
ew
wo
rk o
rde
r re
qu
est
sys
tem
, u
nd
ers
tan
d h
ow
to
use
th
e s
yste
m, a
nd
kn
ow
ho
w t
o g
et
tech
nic
al
su
pp
ort
.
To r
ed
uce
th
e lik
elih
oo
d o
f in
co
nsis
ten
t o
r in
accu
rate
me
ssa
gin
g t
o S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts, th
e n
ew
wo
rk o
rde
r
req
ue
st
sys
tem
an
d t
he
ne
w r
en
t e
nfo
rce
me
nt
sys
tem
sh
ou
ld b
e im
ple
me
nte
d a
t th
e s
am
e t
ime
.
Co
ord
ina
te w
ith
th
e C
ity’
s In
terr
up
t, P
red
ict
an
d O
rga
niz
e
(IP
O)
init
iati
ve t
o r
ed
uce
str
ee
t a
nd
do
me
sti
c
vio
len
ce
.
Co
ord
ina
te w
ith
pro
pe
rty
ma
na
ge
rs, p
ub
lic s
afe
ty
off
ice
rs, a
nd
se
rvic
e p
rovid
ers
to
ta
rge
t a
nd
re
move
ten
an
ts in
volv
ed
wit
h p
art
icu
larl
y d
esta
biliz
ing
acti
vit
ies, su
ch
as g
an
g m
em
be
rsh
ip a
nd
dru
g
de
alin
g.
En
ga
ge
in
da
ta-s
ha
rin
g o
pp
ort
un
itie
s w
ith
th
e S
FP
D a
nd
resid
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s t
ha
t a
llo
w s
take
ho
lde
rs t
o
ide
nti
fy c
rim
e h
ots
po
ts in
an
d a
rou
nd
SF
HA
de
ve
lop
me
nts
, a
nd
to
assig
n k
ey
sta
ke
ho
lde
rs.
Re
insta
te t
he
pra
cti
ce
of
billin
g t
en
an
ts f
or
no
n-w
ea
r a
nd
tea
r d
am
age
to
un
its, to
en
co
ura
ge
mo
re c
are
ful
use
of
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g u
nit
s
En
su
re t
ha
t u
nit
re
pa
ir p
rob
lem
s a
re r
eso
lve
d b
efo
re t
he
y
aff
ect
the
re
sid
en
ts’ te
na
ncy.
STR
ATE
GIE
S
SA
FE
, S
EC
UR
E L
IVIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
T
30
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
p p
art
icip
an
ts p
rop
ose
d t
he
fo
llo
win
g s
tra
tegie
s:
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs a
gre
ed
th
at
a r
e-
en
vis
ion
ed
SF
HA
will m
inim
ize
th
e
occu
rre
nce
of
se
co
nd
- a
nd
th
ird
-
ge
ne
rati
on
re
sid
en
ts a
nd
, w
he
reve
r
po
ssib
le, m
ove
re
sid
en
ts in
to s
elf
-
su
ffic
ien
cy
an
d m
ark
et-
rate
ho
usin
g.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs a
gre
ed
th
at
exi
sti
ng s
erv
ice
s a
re o
fte
n t
oo
sca
tte
red
to a
cce
ss e
asily
an
d t
ha
t se
rvic
e
pro
vid
ers
do
no
t a
lwa
ys c
om
ply
wit
h
co
nfi
de
nti
ality
re
qu
ire
me
nts
re
ga
rdin
g
resid
en
t se
rvic
es.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs f
elt
th
at
in s
om
e
ca
se
s, se
rvic
e p
rovi
de
rs a
re r
elu
cta
nt
to
assis
t S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts; so
me
wo
rkin
g
gro
up
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
fe
lt t
ha
t se
rvic
e
pro
vid
ers
are
afr
aid
of
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts,
an
d a
ll m
em
be
rs a
gre
ed
th
at
se
rvic
e
pro
vid
ers
sh
ou
ld b
e a
cti
ve, vis
ible
me
mb
ers
of
the
co
mm
un
ity.
ED
UC
ATIO
N
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p p
art
icip
an
ts id
en
tifi
ed
a la
ck
of
ap
pro
pri
ate
ed
uca
tio
n a
s a
ma
jor
ba
rrie
r to
lon
g-t
erm
se
lf-s
uff
icie
ncy
for
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts.
Pa
rtic
ipa
nts
str
esse
d t
he
im
po
rta
nce
of
en
su
rin
g t
ha
t yo
uth
gra
du
ate
fro
m h
igh
sch
oo
l, a
nd
no
ted
th
at
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts f
ace
ba
rrie
rs t
o G
ED
acce
ss.
Pa
rtic
ipa
nts
ap
pre
cia
ted
th
e t
rain
ing in
tra
de
s
su
ch
as c
arp
en
try
an
d p
lum
bin
g t
ha
t S
an
Fra
ncis
co
pro
vid
es; h
ow
eve
r, b
eca
use
th
ese
ce
rtif
ica
tio
n c
ou
rse
s a
re n
ot
ava
ila
ble
ou
tsid
e o
f b
usin
ess h
ou
rs, w
ork
ing r
esid
en
ts
are
oft
en
no
t a
ble
to
att
en
d.
SU
PP
OR
TIN
G
RE
SID
EN
T S
ELF
-SU
FF
ICIE
NC
Y
31
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
EM
PLO
YM
EN
T
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs e
mp
ha
siz
ed
th
e
imp
ort
an
ce
of
SF
HA
re
sid
en
t a
cce
ss t
o
ca
ree
rs (
as o
pp
ose
d t
o s
ho
rt-t
erm
or
un
sk
ille
d e
mp
loym
en
t) a
s a
me
an
s o
f
ach
ievin
g s
elf
-su
ffic
ien
cy.
W
hile
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
we
re e
nth
usia
sti
c a
bo
ut
the
hig
h p
erc
en
tage
of
resid
en
ts h
ire
d b
y S
FH
A,
it w
as n
ote
d t
ha
t th
ese
em
plo
yme
nt
op
po
rtu
nit
ies a
re t
ypic
ally
sh
ort
-te
rm a
nd
do
no
t co
ntr
ibu
te t
ow
ard
se
lf-s
uff
icie
ncy
in
the
lo
ng t
erm
.
Ad
dit
ion
ally,
th
e lo
ss o
f e
mp
loym
en
t sp
ecia
lists
for
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g r
esid
en
ts h
as in
cre
ase
d
resid
en
t d
iffi
cu
lty
in a
cce
ssin
g
em
plo
yme
nt.
LIF
E S
KIL
LS
A c
orn
ers
ton
e o
f lo
ng
-te
rm s
elf
-su
ffic
ien
cy
for
SF
HA
resid
en
ts is u
nd
ers
tan
din
g t
he
ir r
igh
ts a
nd
resp
on
sib
ilit
ies a
s r
en
ters
. W
ork
ing g
rou
p
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
sp
ecif
ica
lly
dis
cu
sse
d t
he
resid
en
ts’ n
ee
d t
o u
nd
ers
tan
d t
he
ir r
eco
urs
es in
the
eve
nt
of
lan
dlo
rd n
on
-re
sp
on
siv
en
ess, a
s
we
ll a
s n
ee
din
g e
du
ca
tio
n in
sim
ple
ho
me
ma
inte
na
nce
su
ch
as t
oile
t p
lun
gin
g.
OTH
ER
SE
RV
ICE
S
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs d
iscu
sse
d t
he
im
po
rta
nce
of
ca
se
ma
na
ge
me
nt
for
resid
en
ts w
ith
be
ha
vio
ral h
ea
lth
issu
es. I
n p
art
icu
lar,
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
no
ted
th
at
for
resid
en
ts o
f
se
nio
r/d
isa
ble
d a
nd
fa
mily
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g,
tho
se
wit
h b
eh
avio
ral h
ea
lth
issu
es s
ho
uld
ha
ve
acce
ss t
o s
erv
ice
s p
rio
r to
mo
ve-in
, a
s s
tab
ilit
y
of
all r
esid
en
ts is im
po
rta
nt
in m
ixe
d-p
op
ula
tio
n
bu
ild
ings.
Fin
ally,
acce
ss t
o q
ua
lity
, re
lia
ble
, a
ffo
rda
ble
ch
ild
ca
re is e
sse
nti
al to
yo
un
g f
am
ilie
s’ fi
na
ncia
l
su
cce
ss.
SU
PP
OR
TIN
G
RE
SID
EN
T S
ELF
-SU
FF
ICIE
NC
Y
32
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Co
nd
uct
on
go
ing r
esid
en
t a
nd
pro
pe
rty
ma
na
ge
r
ou
tre
ach
an
d e
du
ca
tio
n t
o e
nsu
re t
ha
t a
ll
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts a
re a
wa
re o
f a
va
ila
ble
se
rvic
es
an
d f
ee
l co
mfo
rta
ble
acce
ssin
g t
he
m (
e.g
., a
n
an
nu
al re
sid
en
t se
rvic
es f
air
)
Co
op
era
te w
ith
be
ha
vio
ral h
ea
lth
pro
vid
ers
to
pro
vid
e a
pp
rop
ria
te in
terv
en
tio
ns, in
clu
din
g
ca
se
ma
na
ge
me
nt,
to
pe
rso
ns e
nga
gin
g in
hig
h-r
isk
be
ha
vio
r.
To t
he
ext
en
t th
at
it's
no
t fi
na
ncia
lly
fea
sib
le t
o
loca
te a
ke
y se
rvic
e a
t e
ach
ho
usin
g
de
ve
lop
me
nt
sit
e, p
lace
th
em
at
23
str
ate
gic
ally
loca
ted
de
ve
lop
me
nt
sit
es a
nd
pu
bliciz
e t
he
ir lo
ca
tio
ns t
o a
ll S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts.
Imp
rove
lo
ng-t
erm
he
alt
h o
utc
om
es o
f S
FH
A
resid
en
ts b
y a
do
pti
ng a
pa
tie
nt-
ce
nte
red
me
dic
al h
om
e m
od
el o
f ca
re.
Le
ve
rage
th
e e
xpe
rtis
e o
f S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts b
y h
avin
g
kn
ow
led
ge
ab
le r
esid
en
ts p
rovid
e b
asic
pe
er
tra
inin
gs o
n p
rop
er
un
it u
sa
ge
an
d u
pke
ep
.
An
ticip
ate
th
e n
ee
ds o
f S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts w
ith
be
ha
vio
ral
he
alt
h (
me
nta
l h
ea
lth
an
d s
ub
sta
nce
ab
use
)
dis
ab
ilit
ies in
dis
ab
led
& s
en
ior
de
ve
lop
me
nts
thro
ugh
sta
nd
ard
ize
d b
eh
avio
ral h
ea
lth
asse
ssm
en
ts a
t e
ntr
y a
nd
de
velo
pin
g in
div
idu
alize
d
ca
se
ma
na
ge
me
nt
pla
ns a
s n
ece
ssa
ry.
Pro
vid
e p
are
nti
ng s
kills
cla
sse
s f
or
pa
ren
ts o
f in
fan
ts a
nd
you
ng c
hild
ren
, a
nd
le
vera
ge
th
e k
no
wle
dge
an
d
exp
ert
ise
of
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts b
y tr
ain
ing q
ua
lifi
ed
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts t
o p
rovid
e p
ee
r m
en
tori
ng a
nd
su
pp
ort
.
Fo
r S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts w
ho
ha
ve
min
ima
l w
ork
exp
eri
en
ce
or
sig
nif
ica
nt
ga
ps in
th
eir
wo
rk h
isto
ry, p
rovid
e c
ost-
eff
ecti
ve, in
div
idu
alize
d e
mp
loym
en
t su
pp
ort
th
at
inclu
de
s C
BO
-le
d c
lasse
s a
nd
tra
inin
gs a
nd
pe
er-
led
me
nto
rin
g a
nd
su
pp
ort
gro
up
s.
Incre
ase
SF
HA
re
sid
en
t a
cce
ss t
o c
are
er-
ori
en
ted
su
pp
ort
ed
em
plo
yme
nt
pro
gra
ms, su
ch
as
inte
rnsh
ips a
nd
ap
pre
nti
ce
sh
ips f
or
hig
h-w
age
ca
ree
rs, o
r vo
lun
tee
r o
pp
ort
un
itie
s t
ha
t h
elp
de
ve
lop
so
ft s
kills
an
d b
asic
wo
rk e
xpe
rie
nce
.
STR
ATE
GIE
S
RE
SID
EN
T S
ELF
-SU
FF
ICIE
NC
Y
33
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
To a
dd
ress t
he
se
issu
es, w
ork
ing g
rou
p m
em
be
rs p
rop
ose
d t
he
fo
llo
win
g s
tra
tegie
s:
Co
ord
ina
te w
ith
Cit
y a
ge
ncie
s a
nd
CB
Os t
o lo
we
r th
e
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n c
osts
fo
r re
su
me
-bu
ild
ing
acti
vit
ies lik
e D
PT's
Pro
ject
20
an
d F
oo
d P
an
try
vo
lun
tee
r o
pp
ort
un
itie
s.
Pro
vid
e s
tage
wis
e f
ina
ncia
l lite
racy
tra
inin
gs t
ha
t
he
lp p
rep
are
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts f
or
lon
g-t
erm
se
lf-
su
ffic
ien
cy
an
d f
ina
ncia
l sta
bilit
y e
.g., f
or
SF
HA
resid
en
ts w
ho
se
in
co
me
s a
re in
cre
asin
g,
pre
pa
re t
he
m f
or
the
im
pa
ct
tha
t in
cre
ase
d
inco
me
will h
ave
on
mo
nth
ly r
en
tal p
aym
en
ts.
Pro
vid
e d
ep
en
da
ble
, a
ffo
rda
ble
, q
ua
lity
ch
ild
ca
re t
o
allo
w p
are
nts
to
att
en
d s
ch
oo
l o
r fi
nd
em
plo
yme
nt
op
po
rtu
nit
ies.
Re
mo
ve a
co
mm
on
em
plo
yme
nt
ba
rrie
r a
mo
ng
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts b
y w
ide
ly o
ffe
rin
g b
asic
co
mp
ute
r sk
ills
cla
sse
s.
De
velo
p a
"re
nte
r's a
ca
de
my"
to
ed
uca
te S
ecti
on
8
ten
an
ts a
bo
ut
ren
ters
' rig
hts
an
d
resp
on
sib
ilit
ies a
nd
pro
vid
e t
he
m w
ith
th
e
too
ls t
o b
eco
me
su
cce
ssfu
l te
na
nts
.
De
velo
p a
n in
ce
nti
ve s
yste
m f
or
se
lf-s
uff
icie
nt,
hig
h
pe
rfo
rmin
g S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts: e
.g., r
ew
ard
SF
HA
resid
en
ts w
ho
co
nsis
ten
tly
pa
y re
nt
on
tim
e b
y
low
eri
ng h
is/h
er
mo
nth
ly r
en
tal p
aym
en
t fo
r a
s lo
ng
as h
e/sh
e c
on
tin
ue
s t
o p
ay
on
tim
e.
Fo
r S
FH
A f
am
ilie
s, d
eve
lop
a f
am
ily-
focu
se
d, str
en
gth
-
ba
se
d s
erv
ice
mo
de
l th
at
tea
ch
es r
esilie
nce
to
incre
ase
th
eir
lo
ng
-te
rm lik
elih
oo
d o
f su
cce
ss.
Insti
tute
a m
en
tori
ng p
rogra
m a
t a
ll S
FH
A d
eve
lop
me
nt
sit
es t
ha
t m
atc
he
s S
FH
A y
ou
th r
esid
en
ts w
ith
ad
ult
role
mo
de
ls w
ho
are
hig
h-p
erf
orm
ing c
urr
en
t o
r
form
er
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts.
Le
ve
rage
th
e c
ap
acit
y o
f S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts b
y h
avin
g
resid
en
t vo
lun
tee
rs le
ad
ori
en
tati
on
s f
or
ne
w S
FH
A
resid
en
ts.
Pro
vid
e r
esid
en
ts w
ith
acce
ss t
o p
re-e
me
rge
ncy
lega
l
assis
tan
ce
th
at
he
lps r
eso
lve
la
nd
lord
/te
na
nt
issu
es b
efo
re a
n e
vic
tio
n n
oti
ce
is issu
ed
.
34
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
To a
dd
ress t
he
se
issu
es, w
ork
ing g
rou
p m
em
be
rs p
rop
ose
d t
he
fo
llo
win
g s
tra
tegie
s:
STR
ATE
GIE
S
RE
SID
EN
T S
ELF
-SU
FF
ICIE
NC
Y
Th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps a
gre
ed
th
at
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts
sh
ou
ld b
e p
art
of
an
acti
ve, vib
ran
t w
ide
r
co
mm
un
ity.
P
art
icip
an
ts f
elt
th
at
en
ha
ncin
g
rela
tio
nsh
ips b
etw
ee
n p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g a
nd
pro
ject-
ba
se
d S
ecti
on
8 c
om
mu
nit
y m
em
be
rs
wo
uld
re
du
ce
vio
len
ce
an
d p
rop
ert
y cri
me
as
ne
igh
bo
rs w
atc
h o
ut
for
on
e a
no
the
r, a
nd
red
uce
th
e o
ccu
rre
nce
of
ma
ny
ge
ne
rati
on
s
of
fam
ilie
s g
row
ing u
p in
SF
HA
ho
usin
g.
Me
mb
ers
of
the
wid
er
co
mm
un
ity
so
me
tim
es
rega
rd S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts w
ith
fe
ar,
in
so
me
ca
se
s s
imp
ly b
eca
use
th
ere
is n
o e
xisti
ng
po
sit
ive
re
lati
on
sh
ip b
etw
ee
n S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts
an
d o
the
r co
mm
un
ity
me
mb
ers
. F
ina
lly,
th
e
wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps s
ugge
ste
d t
ha
t b
uild
ing
rela
tio
nsh
ips b
etw
ee
n S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts a
nd
the
ir s
urr
ou
nd
ing n
eig
hb
orh
oo
ds m
ay
be
a
wa
y to
in
cre
ase
la
nd
lord
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n in
Se
cti
on
8.
Pa
rtic
ipa
nts
no
ted
th
at
ma
ny
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g a
nd
pro
ject-
ba
se
d S
ecti
on
8 d
eve
lop
me
nts
are
ge
ogra
ph
ica
lly
iso
late
d a
nd
la
ck a
de
qu
ate
acce
ss t
o p
ub
lic t
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
, e
mp
loym
en
t,
an
d e
du
ca
tio
na
l fa
cilit
ies. M
an
y re
sid
en
ts
str
uggle
to
acce
ss jo
bs a
nd
ed
uca
tio
n d
ue
to
exc
essiv
e c
om
mu
te t
ime
s, a
nd
re
sid
en
ts o
f
ma
ny
de
velo
pm
en
ts f
ee
l u
nsa
fe w
alk
ing t
he
so
me
tim
es lo
ng d
ista
nce
s t
o t
he
ne
are
st
pu
blic
tra
nsit
sto
ps.
Wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs d
iscu
sse
d a
la
ck o
f
recre
ati
on
al o
pp
ort
un
itie
s in
th
ese
de
velo
pm
en
ts. P
art
icip
an
ts n
ote
d t
ha
t p
rovid
ing
ch
ild
ren
an
d y
ou
th w
ith
sa
fe, p
rod
ucti
ve
acti
viti
es is a
n im
po
rta
nt
pa
rt o
f ra
isin
g
pro
du
cti
ve a
du
lts, a
nd
th
at
str
on
g c
on
ne
cti
on
s
be
twe
en
ad
ult
re
sid
en
ts d
eve
lop
ed
th
rou
gh
recre
ati
on
su
pp
ort
sta
bilit
y a
nd
se
lf-s
uff
icie
ncy.
Fin
ally,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
ps d
iscu
sse
d t
he
im
po
rta
nce
of
pri
de
in
on
e’s
ho
usin
g a
nd
th
e o
pp
ort
un
ity
to
co
ntr
ibu
te t
o o
ne
’s c
om
mu
nit
y to
lo
ng
-te
rm
sta
bilit
y.
DE
VE
LO
PIN
G C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
ON
NE
CTIO
NS
35
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
De
velo
p n
eig
hb
orh
oo
d a
nd
po
pu
lati
on
-sp
ecif
ic (
e.g
.,
Eld
erl
y, D
isa
ble
d)
task
fo
rce
s t
ha
t b
rin
g
toge
the
r S
FH
A a
nd
Cit
y re
pre
se
nta
tive
s,
resid
en
ts, n
on
pro
fits
, o
wn
ers
, a
nd
ma
na
ge
rs
to d
eve
lop
str
ate
gie
s a
nd
po
licie
s t
o im
pro
ve
the
qu
ality
of
life
of
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts
Co
ord
ina
te w
ith
su
cce
ssfu
l yo
uth
-ori
en
ted
pro
gra
ms
(e.g
., S
FU
SD
pro
gra
ms, P
ark
s &
Re
cre
ati
on
De
pt.
pro
gra
ms, th
e B
oys
& G
irls
Clu
bs, &
th
e
YM
CA
) to
pro
vid
e n
ee
de
d s
ocia
l d
eve
lop
me
nt
se
rvic
es f
or
SF
HA
ch
ild
ren
& y
ou
th.
De
velo
p a
co
ord
ina
ted
str
ate
gy
wit
h C
ity
age
ncie
s
an
d c
om
mu
nit
y b
ase
d o
rga
niz
ati
on
s t
o p
rovid
e
fast,
ch
ea
p a
nd
re
lia
ble
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
fo
r
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts t
o a
nd
fro
m e
mp
loym
en
t,
no
ne
sse
nti
al se
rvic
es, e
tc.
Ho
ld r
egu
larl
y sch
ed
ule
d r
esid
en
t su
mm
its/fo
rum
s
at
SF
HA
ho
usin
g s
ite
s o
r o
the
r m
ee
tin
g s
pa
ce
s
ea
sily
acce
ssib
le b
y S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts in
ord
er
to
ga
the
r re
sid
en
t fe
ed
ba
ck
on
an
on
go
ing b
asis
.
Fo
rma
lize
th
e S
FH
A’s
re
lati
on
sh
ips w
ith
Cit
y
age
ncie
s w
ho
se
co
re c
om
pe
ten
cie
s
co
mp
lem
en
t S
FH
A f
un
cti
on
s (
e.g
., H
SA
, M
OH
,
DA
AS
, D
BI)
.
Inve
st
in a
cce
ss t
o a
lte
rna
tive
tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
op
tio
ns,
su
ch
as b
icyc
les.
Lo
ca
te e
sse
nti
al re
sid
en
t se
rvic
es (
esp
ecia
lly
nig
htt
ime
se
rvic
es lik
e a
fte
rsch
oo
l p
rogra
ms)
on
sit
e a
t e
ach
ho
usin
g d
eve
lop
me
nt,
to
min
imiz
e t
he
am
ou
nt
of
tim
e r
esid
en
ts m
ust
sp
en
d t
rave
lin
g t
o a
nd
fro
m
ba
sic
se
rvic
es.
Intr
od
uce
he
alt
hy
ea
tin
g a
nd
liv
ing (
HE
AL)
zon
es in
pu
blic
ho
usin
g d
eve
lop
me
nts
th
at
reco
gn
ize
th
e
imp
ort
an
ce
of
he
alt
hy
co
mm
un
al sp
ace
s in
imp
rovin
g c
om
mu
nit
y h
ea
lth
ou
tco
me
s.
Lo
ca
te p
resch
oo
ls, a
fte
rsch
oo
l p
rogra
ms, a
nd
oth
er
evid
en
ce
ba
se
d c
ogn
itiv
e d
eve
lop
me
nt
se
rvic
es
on
sit
e a
t S
FH
A d
eve
lop
me
nts
.
Str
en
gth
en
th
e lin
ka
ge
s b
etw
ee
n R
esid
en
t
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs a
nd
re
sid
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s t
hro
ugh
regu
larl
y sch
ed
ule
d m
ee
tin
gs a
nd
oth
er
form
s o
f
co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n b
etw
ee
n t
he
Re
sid
en
t C
om
mis
sio
ne
rs a
nd
th
eir
co
nsti
tue
nts
.
STR
ATE
GIE
S
CO
MM
UN
ITY
CO
NN
EC
TIO
NS
36
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
To a
dd
ress t
he
se
issu
es,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs s
ugge
ste
d a
va
rie
ty o
f str
ate
gie
s, in
clu
din
g:
Re
sid
en
ts a
nd
re
sid
en
t a
dvo
ca
tes
pa
rtic
ipa
tin
g in
th
e w
ork
ing g
rou
ps
em
ph
asiz
ed
th
e im
po
rta
nce
of
leve
ragin
g t
he
kn
ow
led
ge
, e
xpe
rtis
e,
an
d w
illin
gn
ess o
f S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts t
o
he
lp e
ach
oth
er.
W
he
the
r o
n a
volu
nte
er
or
pa
id b
asis
, e
nga
gin
g
resid
en
ts t
o e
du
ca
te a
nd
he
lp e
ach
oth
er
wa
s r
ep
ea
ted
ly c
ite
d a
s a
n
eff
ecti
ve t
oo
l fo
r e
mp
ow
eri
ng r
esid
en
ts
an
d a
dd
ressin
g t
he
ma
ny
issu
es f
acin
g
SF
HA
re
sid
en
ts t
od
ay.
Re
sid
en
ts e
xpre
sse
d c
on
ce
rns a
bo
ut
the
ina
de
qu
acy
of
reso
urc
es a
va
ila
ble
to
resid
en
ts a
nd
re
sid
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s,
inclu
din
g la
ck o
f re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
an
d
bo
ard
tra
inin
gs, o
ffic
e e
qu
ipm
en
t, a
nd
lan
gu
age
acce
ss f
or
ten
an
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
ap
plica
nts
an
d m
em
be
rs. R
esid
en
t le
ad
ers
we
re a
lso
fru
str
ate
d b
y th
e la
ck
of
resid
en
t
acce
ss t
o in
form
ati
on
, a
nd
th
e p
au
cit
y o
f
fee
db
ack o
pp
ort
un
itie
s in
po
licy
de
cis
ion
s
aff
ecti
ng t
he
m.
FA
CIL
ITA
TIN
G
RE
SID
EN
T E
MP
OW
ER
ME
NT
37
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
Pro
vid
e d
e-id
en
tifi
ed
/a
ggre
ga
ted
de
mo
gra
ph
ic
info
rma
tio
n t
o lo
ca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils
(esp
ecia
lly
se
nio
r/d
isa
ble
d d
eve
lop
me
nts
) to
allo
w r
esid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
to
be
tte
r
acco
mm
od
ate
ne
ed
s o
f sp
ecif
ic r
esid
en
t
po
pu
lati
on
(e
.g. p
rim
ary
la
ngu
age
sp
oke
n f
or
tra
nsla
tio
n, n
um
be
r o
f h
ard
to
se
rve
re
sid
en
ts,
etc
.)
Ide
nti
fy b
est
pra
cti
ce
s f
or
resid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
mo
de
ls in
all p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g s
ett
ings, in
clu
din
g
juri
sd
icti
on
-wid
e, lo
ca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils,
se
nio
r/d
isa
ble
d, m
ixe
d-in
co
me
co
mm
un
itie
s,
etc
.
En
su
re t
ha
t re
sid
en
t e
lecti
on
s a
re n
eu
tra
l,
rep
rese
nta
tive
, a
nd
acce
ssib
le t
o a
ll r
esid
en
ts
rega
rdle
ss o
f lo
ca
tio
n a
nd
pri
ma
ry la
ngu
age
.
Pro
vid
e B
oa
rd t
rain
ing a
nd
on
go
ing s
taff
su
pp
ort
fo
r
resid
en
ts s
erv
ing a
s S
FH
A C
om
mis
sio
ne
rs t
o
en
su
re t
he
y ca
n p
art
icip
ate
on
eq
ua
l fo
oti
ng in
Co
mm
issio
n d
ecis
ion
s.
Pro
vid
e r
eso
urc
e lis
t o
f sp
ecif
ic s
ite
-ba
se
d
Cit
y/S
FH
A/C
BO
se
rvic
es t
o ju
risd
icti
on
-wid
e/lo
ca
l
resid
en
t co
un
cils f
or
dis
se
min
ati
on
to
re
sid
en
ts
(e.g
. a
cu
rre
nt
dir
ecto
ry w
ith
na
me
s o
f re
so
urc
es
an
d p
oin
t p
eo
ple
fo
r se
nio
r/d
isa
ble
d a
nd
bro
ad
er
fam
ily
de
ve
lop
me
nt
se
rvic
es.)
Cre
ate
a “
On
e-s
top
Sh
op
” w
he
re a
n in
div
idu
al ca
n le
arn
ab
ou
t a
ll o
f th
e o
pp
ort
un
itie
s a
nd
re
so
urc
es b
ein
g
off
ere
d t
o r
esid
en
ts a
t e
ach
de
ve
lop
me
nt
to e
nsu
re
gre
ate
st
rea
ch
of
op
po
rtu
nit
ies.
Pro
vid
e a
n in
ve
nto
ry o
f w
ho
’s p
rovid
ing w
ha
t se
rvic
e t
o
wh
om
an
d e
sta
blish
cle
ar
lin
es o
f co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
be
twe
en
Cit
y a
ge
ncie
s/se
rvic
e p
rovid
ers
an
d
juri
sd
icti
on
-wid
e r
esid
en
t le
ad
ers
hip
to
pre
ven
t
du
plica
tio
n o
f se
rvic
es a
nd
to
en
co
ura
ge
align
me
nt
of
reso
urc
es a
nd
go
als
.
De
velo
p a
te
na
nt
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n a
nd
em
plo
yme
nt
pla
n f
or
an
y co
nstr
ucti
on
or
ma
jor
reh
ab
eff
ort
, to
pre
se
rve
ten
an
ts’ ri
gh
ts a
nd
en
su
re h
irin
g d
ive
rsit
y a
nd
op
po
rtu
nit
ies f
or
resid
en
ts.
STR
ATE
GIE
S
RE
SID
EN
T E
MP
OW
ER
ME
NT
38
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
To a
dd
ress t
he
se
issu
es,
wo
rkin
g g
rou
p m
em
be
rs s
ugge
ste
d a
va
rie
ty o
f str
ate
gie
s, in
clu
din
g:
En
su
re t
ha
t se
lf-s
uff
icie
ncy
op
po
rtu
nit
ies a
va
ila
ble
thro
ugh
HU
D, S
FH
A a
nd
Cit
y a
ge
ncie
s a
re
ma
de
ava
ila
ble
an
d w
ell p
ub
liciz
ed
to
resid
en
ts a
nd
re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
(e
.g. .s
tip
en
ds
to e
nco
ura
ge
fir
st
tim
e h
om
eb
uye
rs f
rom
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g, re
so
urc
es f
or
de
ve
lop
ing
ten
an
t-ru
n b
usin
esse
s, e
tc.)
.
Exp
lore
op
po
rtu
nit
ies t
o e
xpa
nd
th
e H
OP
E S
F
Le
ad
ers
hip
Aca
de
my
to s
up
po
rt t
he
go
als
of
re-
en
vis
ion
ed
SF
HA
an
d t
he
ju
risd
icti
on
-wid
e a
nd
loca
l re
sid
en
t co
un
cils.
Exp
lore
wa
ys t
o e
xpa
nd
pe
er
lea
de
rsh
ip
op
po
rtu
nit
ies o
ffe
red
at
Po
tre
ro t
o o
the
r
ho
usin
g d
eve
lop
me
nt
sit
es, in
clu
din
g
co
mp
leti
on
of
inve
nto
ry o
f re
sid
en
t sk
ills
an
d
inte
rests
.
Str
en
gth
en
th
e lin
ka
ge
s b
etw
ee
n R
esid
en
t
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs a
nd
re
sid
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s
thro
ugh
re
gu
larl
y sch
ed
ule
d m
ee
tin
gs a
nd
oth
er
form
s o
f co
mm
un
ica
tio
n a
nd
co
ord
ina
tio
n b
etw
ee
n t
he
Re
sid
en
t
Co
mm
issio
ne
rs a
nd
th
eir
co
nsti
tue
nts
.
De
velo
p t
ask
forc
e o
r w
ork
ing g
rou
p t
o r
eco
mm
en
d a
nd
imp
lem
en
t w
ays
to
im
pro
ve t
he
wo
rkin
g
rela
tio
nsh
ips a
nd
op
po
rtu
nit
ies f
or
mu
tua
l su
pp
ort
am
on
g t
he
ju
risd
icti
on
-wid
e a
nd
lo
ca
l re
sid
en
t
co
un
cils, a
nd
in
de
pe
nd
en
t o
rga
niz
ati
on
s, like
th
e
Ten
an
t’s U
nio
n (
e.g
. .e
lecti
on
pra
cti
ce
s,
acco
un
tab
ilit
y, r
esid
en
t re
pre
se
nta
tio
n o
n
juri
sd
icti
on
-wid
e b
od
ies, d
isse
min
ati
on
of
info
rma
tio
n, e
tc.)
.
Ho
st
Cit
ywid
e, re
sid
en
t-le
d, p
ub
lic h
ou
sin
g r
esid
en
t
su
mm
it o
r co
nve
nti
on
to
sh
are
in
form
ati
on
ab
ou
t
po
licie
s, re
so
urc
es, le
ad
ers
hip
op
po
rtu
nit
ies.
Inclu
de
co
mm
un
ity
org
an
izin
g t
rain
ing t
o a
cti
vate
bro
ad
er
sp
ectr
um
of
resid
en
ts.
Cu
ltu
ral co
mp
ete
ncy
cla
sse
s s
ho
uld
be
ma
de
ava
ila
ble
for
all S
FH
A r
esid
en
ts.
Allo
w s
take
ho
lde
rs t
o w
eig
h in
on
th
e c
rite
ria
fo
r se
lecti
ng
ne
w o
wn
ers
hip
en
titi
es u
nd
er
the
PP
P m
od
el fo
r
ne
igh
bo
rho
od
s a
nd
pro
ject
typ
es
Ma
ke
ava
ila
bilit
y o
f tr
an
sla
tio
n s
erv
ice
s a
pri
ori
ty t
o
en
su
re t
ruly
re
pre
se
nta
tive
te
na
nt
asso
cia
tio
ns.
39
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
STR
ATE
GIE
S
RE
SID
EN
T E
MP
OW
ER
ME
NT
En
su
re t
ha
t se
lf-s
uff
icie
ncy
op
po
rtu
nit
ies a
va
ila
ble
thro
ugh
HU
D, S
FH
A a
nd
Cit
y a
ge
ncie
s a
re
ma
de
ava
ila
ble
an
d w
ell p
ub
liciz
ed
to
resid
en
ts a
nd
re
sid
en
t le
ad
ers
(e
.g. .s
tip
en
ds
to e
nco
ura
ge
fir
st
tim
e h
om
eb
uye
rs f
rom
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g, re
so
urc
es f
or
de
ve
lop
ing
ten
an
t-ru
n b
usin
esse
s, e
tc.)
.
Cre
ate
a “
On
e-s
top
Sh
op
” w
he
re a
n in
div
idu
al ca
n
lea
rn a
bo
ut
all o
f th
e o
pp
ort
un
itie
s a
nd
reso
urc
es b
ein
g o
ffe
red
to
re
sid
en
ts a
t e
ach
de
ve
lop
me
nt
to e
nsu
re g
rea
test
rea
ch
of
op
po
rtu
nit
ies.
Incre
ase
th
e p
rop
ort
ion
of
ma
inte
na
nce
ge
ne
ralists
wh
o c
an
re
sp
on
d t
o m
ain
ten
an
ce
an
d r
ep
air
job
s t
ha
t d
o n
ot
req
uir
e s
pe
cia
list
cra
ft
wo
rke
rs.
Se
ek
a t
em
po
rary
wa
ive
r o
f th
e 2
0%
ca
p o
n p
roje
ct-
ba
se
d v
ou
ch
ers
to
in
cre
ase
th
e in
ven
tory
of
su
ita
ble
un
its f
or
Se
cti
on
8 v
ou
ch
er
ho
lde
rs.
Exp
ed
ite
th
e u
nit
in
sp
ecti
on
sys
tem
(e
.g., m
ove
mo
re
insp
ecto
rs t
o in
itia
l in
sp
ecti
on
s; a
llo
w m
ove
to
bia
nn
ua
l in
sp
ecti
on
s if
pre
vio
us in
sp
ecti
on
wa
s
10
0%
of
HQ
S).
Re
insta
te t
he
pra
cti
ce
of
billin
g t
en
an
ts f
or
no
n-w
ea
r a
nd
tea
r d
am
age
to
un
its, to
en
co
ura
ge
mo
re c
are
ful
use
of
pu
blic h
ou
sin
g u
nit
s
40
H
OM
EB
AS
E/
TH
E C
EN
TE
R F
OR
C
OM
MO
N C
ON
CE
RN
S
Go
vern
an
ce
P
ub
lic
Ho
usin
g
Se
cti
on
8
Re
sid
en
t
Se
rvic
es
Re
sid
en
t
Le
ad
ers
hip
HO
PE
VI/
HO
PE
SF
SH
OR
T-T
ER
M S
TR
ATE
GIE
S
Am
on
g t
he
str
ate
gie
s lis
ted
ab
ove
, co
mm
un
ity
sta
ke
ho
lde
rs id
en
tifi
ed
th
e f
ollo
win
g s
ho
rt-t
erm
str
ate
gie
s t
ha
t th
ey
wa
nte
d t
he
SF
HA
to
fo
cu
s o
n:
SPUR MEMORANDUM
Released June 24, 2013 Staff contacts: Sarah Karlinsky, [email protected] Tomiquia Moss, [email protected] SPUR 654 Mission St., San Francisco, California 94105 www.spur.org
RE-ENVISIONING THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 2
INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) is in crisis. The agency owns and manages 6,300 public housing units1 and administers roughly 9,000 Section 8 vouchers2 throughout San Francisco, representing a critical part of San Francisco’s affordable housing delivery system. However the SFHA suffers from a structural operating deficit. As a recent San Francisco legislative analyst and budget report notes, the agency had a budget short fall of $4 million in fiscal year 2011 and $2.6 million in 2012. In the first five months of this fiscal year, the budget shortfall has already exceeded $1.7 million.3
Meanwhile, the agency does not have nearly enough funding to meet its capital needs. A recent SFHA presentation estimated the cost of current unfunded capital needs at more than $270 million and funding at only $10 million.4 Currently roughly 2,500 SFHA units have a “high need” 5 for capital improvements out of a total portfolio of nearly 6,300 units.6 This number will only increase as maintenance continues to be deferred. In addition, the agency is expected to run out of cash at some point between May 2013 and July 2013.7
At the same time the SFHA is experiencing this crisis, federal resources for public housing continue to dwindle. Absent additional resources, SFHA’s physical assets will decline further.
Currently the City of San Francisco is seeking to provide housing and services for housing authority residents and voucher holders that is both high quality and financially sustainable. Without a major new strategy for managing SFHA resources, these goals will not be met, and the roughly 31,000 low-income residents served by the SFHA will suffer the consequences.
SPUR would like to offer recommendations to help transform the SFHA so that high-quality affordable housing can be offered to public housing residents in a way that is financially sustainable over the long term.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STRATEGIES
In order to determine which actions should be taken by the City of San Francisco to stabilize and support SFHA programs, SPUR recommends the following evaluation criteria:
§ Does the proposed action help to provide high-quality housing and services to Housing Authority residents and voucher holders?
§ Does the proposed action contribute to the economic and financial sustainability of both the City of San Francisco and the Housing Authority?
Both criteria should be taken into account when future actions are considered.
1 “Performance Audit of the San Francisco Housing Authority,” prepared by the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst, June 3, 2013, page 6. 2 Ibid, page 89. 3 Ibid, page iii. 4 “Critical Financial Deficit and Action Plan” presented by Barbara T. Smith, acting executive director of the San Francisco Housing Authority, slide 7. 5 Estimate of those units to be redeveloped as part of HOPE SF. 6 “Performance Audit of the San Francisco Housing Authority,” prepared by the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst, June 3, 2013, page 6. 7 Ibid, page iii.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 3
STRENGTHS TO BUILD ON
Although the SFHA is experiencing substantial challenges, there are significant resources that both the City of San Francisco and the private sector can bring to bear to help address SFHA’s challenges. The city should build on these strengths when considering new actions or models for providing housing and services.
The Bay Area has a high concentration of some of the most sophisticated and experienced nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing providers in the country. These include both large regional and local community-based organizations.
San Francisco has experience with transforming public housing into high-quality affordable housing that is privately owned and managed.
The City of San Francisco, unlike many local jurisdictions, has financial resources it can bring to help address the current situation. This includes Housing Trust Fund dollars for HOPE SF developments and other financial assets such as general fund revenues, revenue bonds and other potential resources.
The City and County of San Francisco has in place an effective Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH) that currently administers a number of programs targeted toward low-, very low- and extremely low-income residents.
The City of San Francisco is committed to addressing the existing challenge.
THE SFHA’S CHALLENGE
The SFHA has struggled for many years due to operational mismanagement, high cost structures and programmatic isolation from other city services. For many years the SFHA has experienced a structural operating deficit in its Section 8 program that is exacerbating its longstanding public housing operating and capital improvement deficits. This is due to the following factors:
§ For more than a decade, the federal government has been cutting public housing operating and capital funds, and more recently the Section 8 program.
§ SFHA’s cost structure for the maintenance of its public housing properties is very high.
§ The SFHA has not addressed deferred maintenance of its properties, creating bigger and more expensive capital issues over time.
§ Inefficient and inconsistent management practices have reduced the operating income of SFHA’s housing portfolio.
Other housing authorities around the country have faced similar challenges. Some of these agencies have developed effective responses, including:
§ Contracting out a significant portion of property management (Oakland, Los Angeles, Santa Clara County, Monterey County, Seattle);
§ Allowing public housing to be rebuilt by private entities that include public housing units within the newly rebuilt property (Oakland, San Mateo, San Diego, Los Angeles, Ventura and Pleasanton, to name just a few);
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 4
§ Using the project based Section 8 rental assistance program to help finance such redevelopment;
§ Pursuing Moving to Work program status to gain financial and regulatory flexibility (Oakland, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Seattle, Portland);
§ Better integrating housing authority functions into the rest of local government to ensure coordination across departments (San Diego, Sacramento).
For more information on other housing authorities see Appendix 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Transition SFHA’s role in public housing to asset management to enable affordable housing developers and managers to modernize and manage the portfolio.
§ Retain public ownership of housing authority land to ensure the long-term affordability of the portfolio.
§ Where possible, engage affordable housing developers to rebuild or rehabilitate distressed properties.
§ Pursue effective private property management of public housing (either nonprofit or for-profit).
§ Charge the Mayor’s Office of Housing with implementing this strategy, subject to SFHA Commission oversight.
The city, working through the Mayor’s Office of Housing, should retain public ownership of housing authority land to ensure the long-term affordability of the portfolio while pursuing a combination of strategies to better manage the existing portfolio.
Given the depth and breadth of the reforms required to bring the Housing Authority out of its troubled state and to generate sufficient revenue to provide modern, well-managed housing for its residents, a strong case can be made for the complete dissolution of the SFHA. However, short of complete dissolution, SPUR recommends that SFHA transfer the development and management of all public housing developments to third parties and that the ultimate role of the housing authority be reduced to asset management through a public land trust model.
In this model, the improvements (developments) would be ground-leased to high-functioning, private affordable housing developers and property managers who would either rehabilitate and manage or just manage the developments subject to all of the income and other restrictions intended to provide permanently affordable rental opportunities for public housing residents.
While almost all of SFHA’s properties need some modernization, not all of them require demolition and rebuilding. In addition, it is not likely that resources will be available to redevelop the entire portfolio. Utilizing third party developers under this public land trust model will allow SFHA and MOH to leverage public housing resources through use of rental assistance demonstration, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and other financing tools not available for direct use by the SFHA. The following chart categorizes the SFHA’s existing portfolio by rehabilitation need, the probable tools for revitalization and the approximate number of units in each category.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 5
Portfolio Strategy Rehabilitation Need Tool for Revitalization Number of Units*
Units in existing HOPE VI properties that do not require much, if any, modernization.
HOPE VI 1,200 units
Units in current active HOPE SF projects likely to be redeveloped in the next 10-15 years. These units will be demolished and rebuilt.
HOPE SF 1,800 units
Units that should be demolished and rebuilt as HOPE SF developments, but there currently isn’t funding identified to make this happen.
Future HOPE SF 800 units
Senior units that require better property management and some rehabilitation. These units should be preserved and modernized using 4 percent rental assistance demonstration credits.
Preservation, Property Management + Rehabilitation (Senior Properties)
1,800 units
Family units that require better property management and some rehabilitation. These units should be preserved and modernized using 4 percent rental assistance demonstration credits. May have greater damage and may be more difficult to upgrade than senior units.
Preservation, Property Management + Rehabilitation (Family Properties)
1,100 units
*Unit counts represent a rough approximation of the number of units in each category.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 6
Identifying the appropriate partner to acquire the leasehold interest, secure financing and begin rehabilitation will take time. By way of phasing, SPUR recommends that the SFHA immediately identify and engage third-party property managers to assume management of all, or substantially all, of the developments. These would likely be interim property management contracts that would allow SFHA and MOH to engage in simultaneous processes of identifying the rehabilitation needs of the SFHA portfolio and identifying the appropriate partner to ground lease and rehabilitate each property.
Phasing Strategy
Time Frame SFHA Role MOH Role
Short Term Contract with private property managers to manage SFHA developments.
Work with SFHA to transition voucher program. Work with SFHA and others to prioritize which properties will enter into long-term leases with affordable housing providers. Continue to support HOPE SF program.
Medium Term Continue to manage those properties that are not in long-term leases with affordable housing providers.
Manage the voucher program. Work with affordable housing providers to implement transition plan, negotiate long-term leases. Implement HOPE SF.
Long Term Remain as long-term lease holder.
Continue to manage the voucher program. Work with affordable housing developers to address long-term capital needs of the portfolio.
Lastly, the city should resource and authorize MOH to staff this effort. Given the lack of SFHA staffing and financial capacity, and MOH’s role as the city’s housing finance agency, this is a natural fit. Unlike past efforts, where MOH and SFHA worked through the SFHA, the MOH staff should report directly to the SFHA Commission in carrying out this vision.
2. Transfer oversight of the Public Housing Voucher Program to the Mayor’s Office of Housing.
Given the importance of the voucher program in the provision of housing, and given also that vouchers can be used to help finance the rehabilitation and rebuilding of public housing, MOH should be responsible for overseeing the voucher program over the long term.
There are many options for how this management can be implemented. MOH can chose to run the voucher program in house or can contract other city agencies, nearby public agencies or private entities to administer some or all of SFHA’s Section 8 vouchers. Potential contractors include other local housing authorities, such as the Oakland Housing Authority, or private consulting firms, such as Quadel, which
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 7
currently operates the Section 8 programs of housing authorities in Baltimore, Memphis, Miami-Dade and Newark.
It is critical that the voucher program be managed in a professional manner. MOH should develop a set of best practices to ensure that the voucher program is effectively managed.
MOH should also evaluate:
§ The cost of effectively managing the voucher program in house versus contracting out with a private entity, and
§ The quality of service offered by a public agency versus a private entity. This analysis should take into account the cost of developing the technology platform needed to effectively manage the voucher program.
We recommend that in the immediate term, MOH contract out the voucher program to a private entity and take the time needed to determine how the voucher program should be managed over the long term, including how it should be integrated with other city programs.
3. Clearly define the role of the Housing Authority Commission.
Given the state of the SFHA’s operations, it is hard to imagine how the commission can function as an effective oversight body unless it begins to focus its staff on a more limited set of roles. In doing so, the Housing Authority Commission should also proscribe its focus to concentrate solely on issues that are of strategic importance to protect the long-term viability of the assets of the SFHA.
The authority of the SFHA Commission should include and be limited to:
§ Review and approval of disposition agreements
§ Review and approval of long-term leases
§ Review and approval of annual plans
§ Review and approval of annual operating budget
§ Review and approval of changes to major policies
§ Review and approval of major contracts (more than $1 million)
In addition, SPUR recommends that the mayor continue to appoint commissioners to the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission, but that those appointments be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. This is similar in practice to many San Francisco commissions and boards (such as the Municipal Transportation Agency board), and to many other housing authority commissions throughout the country.8
The mayor should consider recruiting commissioners based on specific skills and qualifications and should consider implementing terms and term limits to ensure the expertise and on-going accountability of commissioners. The mayor must establish and communicate a clear code of ethics to prevent commissioners from inappropriately voting on matters where they may have conflicts of interest.
8 “Performance Audit of the San Francisco Housing Authority,” prepared by the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst, June 3, 2013, page 15.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 8
4. Put the Mayor’s Office of Housing in charge of managing the long-term implementation of the recommendations outlined above.
San Francisco currently has a well-organized and efficient housing department. MOH is in the best position to oversee the long-term implementation of the recommendations outlined above; to integrate and better coordinate the city’s housing priorities, resources and programs; and to achieve economies of scale by avoiding duplication of administrative functions.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 9
APPENDIX 1: HOUSING AUTHORITY CASE STUDIES SPUR evaluated several public housing authorities nationally and throughout California to help inform our recommendations for how to reimagine the structure and operations of the San Francisco Housing Authority. We used five categories to evaluate the housing authorities:
1. Portfolio Size We looked at the number of units the agency manages and how many residents it serves or, in many cases, how many vouchers it administers. 2. Regulatory Flexibility This category included the capacity of the housing authority to access the Moving to Work and rental assistance demonstration (RAD) programs. Moving to Work is a demonstration program for public housing authorities that provides them the opportunity to design and test innovative, locally created strategies that use federal dollars more efficiently, help residents find employment and become self-sufficient, and increase housing choices for low-income families. Moving to Work gives housing authorities exemptions from many existing public housing and voucher rules and more flexibility with how they use their federal funds. The RAD program allows proven financing tools to be applied to at-risk public and assisted housing and has two components: Component 1 allows public housing and moderate rehabilitation properties to convert, under a competition limited to 60,000 units, to long-term Section 8 rental assistance contracts. Component 2 allows rent supplement, rental assistance payment, and moderate rehabilitation properties to convert tenant-based vouchers issued upon contract expiration or termination to project-based assistance. 3. Functions We looked at both the management of public housing as well as the administration of the housing authority’s voucher program. We explored if public housing and the voucher program was managed by a third party or by the housing authority itself. 4. Governance This category was used to evaluate whether or not housing authorities operated as separate entities or were managed within an existing city department. Additionally, we looked at the commission structure and composition for housing authorities. 5. Coordinating Strategies This category examined the role of the city and the housing authority as a separate agency and its formal or informal coordination with the city.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 10
Case Study 1: Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) Portfolio Size OHA oversees roughly 1,600 public housing units on 14 sites — 966 units at large developments, 383 units at designated senior sites and 307 units in mixed-finance partnerships. OHA’s Section 8 voucher program serves 11,000 families and involves more than 5,200 property owners. Regulatory Flexibility Oakland is a Moving to Work site and as such is able to access RAD financing. Functions Oakland owns 2,600 public housing units. The remaining units are owned by an affiliate of OHA in an arrangement where the affiliate owns the improvements of the units and leases the lad from OHA. Some of OHA public housing portfolio is property managed by third party entities. OHA administers and manages its own voucher program. OHA provides services to its public housing residents through the Family and Community Partnership as well as the Oakland Housing Authority Police Department. Governance The OHA is governed by a seven-member board of commissioners appointed by the mayor of the City of Oakland, with the approval of the Oakland City Council. Two members are residents of the housing authority. Commissioners establish policies under which OHA conducts business, ensuring that policies are followed by OHA staff and ensuring that OHA is successful in its mission. OHA has a formal and informal relationship with the City of Oakland. The formal partnerships allow OHA to compete for city notices of funding availability refer youth to the mayor’s summer job program and assign vouchers to certain projects being developed or managed. Coordinating Strategies OHA also works with the City of Oakland and Alameda County to provides services for their most vulnerable residents. Some properties have contracts with specific nonprofits to administer services to a particular population.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 11
Case Study 2: Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo (HACSM) Portfolio Size HACSM manages 200 public housing units and administers 4,200 vouchers. Regulatory Flexibility San Mateo is a Moving to Work site and also able to access RAD financing tools. Functions HACSM provides property management for all of its public housing units. The agency plans to move to a land trust model for its public housing, where the housing authority will retain ownership of the land but will outsource the rehabilitation and management of the properties. HACSM manages its voucher programs in house. Governance The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, in a separate legal capacity, serves as the housing authority's board of commissioners. Coordinating Strategies HACSM is a separate agency from the city but coordinates and works closely with city departments. Case Study 3: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) Portfolio Size SHRA provides housing for 51,000 residents. It manages 3,100 public housing units and administers 11,000 vouchers and is combined with the redevelopment agency, which oversees close to 5,000 affordable housing units. Regulatory Flexibility SHRA is not a Moving to Work site and does not use RAD financing. Functions SHRA provides property management for all of its public housing units. The voucher program is administered in house. SHRA works with the city and county to provide services to residents. It also contracts with private and nonprofit organizations to manage services to particular sites. Governance SHRA is a joint powers authority created by the City and County of Sacramento to represent both jurisdictions for affordable housing and community redevelopment needs. The city council serves as the governing board of the housing authority for the City of Sacramento, while the county board of supervisors serves as the governing board of the housing authority for the county. The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Commission serve as an advisory panel to the agency on projects, programs and activities relating to redevelopment, community development and the housing authority. Coordinating Strategies As a joint powers authority, SHRA coordinates all housing and housing authority staff under the joint powers authority.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 12
Case Study 4: Fresno Housing Authority (FHA) Portfolio Size FHA owns and/or manages more than 4,500 residential units, which are rented to low-income households. Within this portfolio, nearly 2,300 housing units are public housing while 2,414 units were created through a combination of Low Income Housing Tax Credits, grants and/or conventional funding. In addition, FHA also administers 12,500 Housing Choice vouchers for qualified individuals and families, including specific populations such as veterans and people with disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Fresno is not a Moving to Work site. It does have three properties that qualified for RAD financing. Functions Fresno owns and manages its public housing portfolio. FHA also manages its voucher program in house. FHA provides services to its public housing residents through an affiliate and works with the city and county for additional services to residents. Governance FHA uses a joint powers model for its commission structure but for not the operation of the housing authority itself. FHA is governed by 14 commissioners: seven are appointed as city commissioners; five are appointed by the mayor in staggered terms; and two are Fresno Housing Authority residents. The FHA operates as a separate agency and is not within any city department. Coordinating Strategies Not available Case Study 5: San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) Portfolio Size SDHC currently manages 35 public housing units and administers 13,900 vouchers. Regulatory Flexibility Not available Functions SDHC has disposed of most of its public housing portfolio. What remains is in a land trust model. SDHC manages its voucher program in house. It works with the county to provide services to its residents. Governance SDHC has seven commissioners. Five are county board supervisors and two are residents of the housing authority. SDHC has a separate internal staffing structure within the city’s housing department that manages the housing authority functions. Coordinating Strategies SDHC maintains a high level of coordination between the city and the housing authority due to its shared governance structure.
SPUR | June 21, 2013
Re-Envisioning the San Francisco Housing Authority 13
Case Study 6: Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) Portfolio Size SHA manages 6,000 public housing units and administers 8,400 vouchers. Regulatory Flexibility Seattle is a Moving to Work site and uses RAD financing tools. Functions SHA manages a portion of its public housing portfolio. The authority outsources a small amount of its public housing sites to third-party property management entities. SHA provides services in house to its public housing residents and has several contracts with private and nonprofit entities for additional services for specific sites. Governance SHA is governed by a seven-member board of commissioners, two of whom are housing authority residents. The mayor appoints the board members, subject to confirmation by the Seattle City Council. SHA’s policies are reviewed and approved by the board of commissioners. Coordinating Strategies The mayor has a strong presence in the operations of the SHA, and therefore there is a great deal of coordination with the city and the housing authority. Case Study 7: Portland Housing Authority (PHA) Portfolio Size The Portland Housing Authority manages 3,100 public housing units and administers 7,900 vouchers. Regulatory Flexibility PHA is a Moving to Work site and qualifies for RAD financing tool. Functions PHA provides property management for its public housing portfolio. The voucher program is also managed in house. PHA contracts with nonprofit organizations for services to its public housing residents. Governance PHA operates within a city department and has dedicated housing authority staff. Four commissioners represent the City of Portland, two represent the City of Gresham and two represent Multnomah County. A ninth member — who participates in one of Home Forward’s housing programs — represents residents and program participants. Commissioners are recommended from the area they serve, appointed by the Mayor of Portland and approved by the Portland City Council. Coordinating Strategies PHA has a high level of coordination with the city because it is located within a city department. The city heavily influences the operations and management of the PHA.
COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS 325 C lement ina St reet , San Francisco, CA 94103 [email protected] 415.882.0901
TheCouncil of CommunityHousing Organizationsplans commonactions to expandaffordablehousing, needed services andemploymentopportunities for lower‐incomeSanFranciscans.CCHOmemberorganizationshavedevelopedover20,000unitsofaffordablehousingandprovidedthousandsofconstructionandpermanentjobsforCityresidents.
MEMO: June 21, 2013 FROM: Council of Community Housing Organizations TO: Mayor Edwin Lee, City Administrator Naomi Kelly, Housing Director Olson Lee RE: PUBLIC HOUSING RE-ENVISIONING Per your request, below is a short list of broad recommendations that we have developed in response to the re-envisioning of public housing upon which this Administration has embarked. The Council of Community Housing Organizations (CCHO) welcomes this long overdue process, and we stand ready to assist the City of San Francisco as this moves forward. CCHO has a long history of bringing our experience as affordable housing developers and community development advocates to the discussions around improving public housing and voucher programs (Shelter Plus Care, Section 8). On the public housing side, we have been involved in both policy advocacy and development partnerships related to HOPE VI and HOPE SF. CCHO's community-based housing developers also have a long history of interaction with both the Housing Authority and public housing tenants in Chinatown, the South of Market, Bernal Heights, and the Mission. In addition, we have been deeply involved with the Section 8 program, as both landlords of family and supportive housing properties and resources to voucher holders. We have learned from this ongoing experience that the long-term problems of the Housing Authority are not just about the deteriorated physical condition of the Agency’s public housing communities, but reflect deeper problems including: the abandonment of funding for public housing and the imposition of unrealistic policies by the Federal Government; a deeply dysfunctional Commission and the use of the Authority as a political patronage plum; the failure to change policies given the changing public housing tenant profile; the persistent denial of tenants' rights; and the deepening social and economic isolation of public housing tenants. Thus, we believe that the direction of re-envisioning the SFHA must move towards a complete transformation of the organization’s role, including:
1. A focus on addressing immediate needs while also expanding future opportunities for existing public housing residents . The focus of this transformation should be rooted in a firm commitment to public housing residents to assure decent and safe housing in existing developments while expanding access to other affordable housing in the City with enhanced services and improved opportunities..
2. Transforming Section 8 into a model program. The Section 8 program must not be an afterthought in the re-envisioning of public housing, despite the fact that it does not have the same public “visibility” as dilapidated housing authority sites. In fact, close to two-thirds of residents served by the Housing Authority are Section 8 residents, and a priority must be to transform Section 8 into a model program.
CouncilofCommunityHousingOrganizations Page2of6
3. Create real choices for public housing tenants without losing units • Given the tight rental market, San Francisco should maintain a policy of no-net loss of
units; however, this should be done not simply by rebuilding 100% public housing properties, but by incorporating these extremely-low-income homes into other affordable housing developments with a range of incomes.
• Likewise public housing should not simply be rebuilt in the current segregated distribution pattern. It must be re-conceived so that low-income citizens have access to safe, well-managed homes in a wider variety of neighborhoods.
• • However, public housing should not simply be rebuilt, it must be re-conceived so that low-
income citizens have access to safe, well-managed homes in a wider variety of neighborhoods than the current segregated distribution pattern.
4. Community Integration Strategies. Break down the current isolation experienced by many public housing tenants by integrating the properties into the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, both physically and functionally. Encourage community- and neighborhood-based organizations to participate in service provision, management, replacement housing plans, and leadership development with residents. Public housing sites should follow a “services-enriched” model, with wraparound services including access to workforce training and employment opportunities, including the integration of City departments and community-based social services agencies in the funding for such services.
5. Bringing the Housing Authority into City Family. The Housing Authority should, as much as legally possible, be encouraged to become part of the “City Family,” with particular functions assigned to appropriate departments within the city.
Within this framing, we have outlined four major topics of discussion: 1.) public housing transformation; 2.) tenant protections and expectations; 3.) the future of the Section 8 program; and 4.) governance structure and public accountability. SPECIFIC TOPICAL RECOMMENDATIONS A. Public Housing Transformation.
Public housing has been in crisis in San Francisco for many years as federal appropriations and lease revenue have not kept pace with the maintenance demands of an aging physical stock. Operating issues have ranged similar financial challenges in terms of costs and expenses as well as long-standing concerns around safety, property management, and other core issues. The current crisis in the San Francisco Housing Authority brings an opportunity for the City to engage its community-based housing resources to save the homes of 16,000 of San Francisco’s poorest residents. The strength and success of San Francisco’s affordable housing movement is rooted in its history of neighborhood-focused community-based development organizations that combine housing development expertise with deep commitment to community organizing and leadership development. Collectively, San Francisco’s community-based organizations have created and/or preserved more than 20,000 units of deeply affordable housing. San Francisco community-based housing organizations have a proven track record in effective asset and fiscal management, intentional and genuine tenant engagement, and transparent governance and administration. Our commitment to this effort is to foster leaders who will be prepared to represent the interests of their developments and communities, identify issues that can be addressed in the near term, and develop financing and redevelopment strategies for future sustainability for the buildings themselves and the people who call them home.
CouncilofCommunityHousingOrganizations Page3of6
Recommendations
1. Affordable Housing Choices. Dramatically increase the range of quality affordable housing choices for residents by transforming the existing portfolio without losing any public housing units
o Maintain the commitment to no net loss of units affordable to public housing residents, but do this creatively through Project-based Rental Assistance, mixed-income development, and other strategies.
o Work proactively with SFHA residents on a development level and other low-income residents in each neighborhood to assure that the location of new or replacement affordable housing opportunities reflect the needs and aspirations of those residents.
o 2. Community-Based Housing. Take advantage of the community-based housing providers in
integrating the public housing stock and residents into the surrounding communities. Because San Francisco-based nonprofit housing developers have such unique skills to offer, their involvement should be prioritized in selection of development teams for disposition of SFHA properties, with qualifying points for community-based housing organizations as demonstrated by community participation on Boards of Directors, HUD-qualified CHDOs, previous experience in community and tenant organizing, neighborhood-level planning experience, etc.
3. Social services and neighborhood integration. This re-envisioning process should address the problem of the social and economic isolation of public housing tenants by the design and funding of robust and directed health and human services for current and future public housing tenants, and where possible such services should be available to residents of the neighborhoods in which the public housing development is located. Programs and practices must be adopted that aim to bring “neighbors” to public housing sites and public housing residents into the surrounding neighborhoods in mutually supportive activities;
4. Services funding. The City must look hard at its budget to see where we might identify either new or reprogrammed funds to support the critically needed social and economic support programs which will be required in any lasting “transformation” of public housing.
B. Tenant Protections and Expectations – Developing the “San Francisco Model”
We expect a good faith effort by the city and the SFHA to work with tenant advocates as changes are made to our public housing and section 8 programs. We hope for this to include informing advocates of major policy proposals, requesting input on key proposed changes, considering feedback from advocates on issues of concern brought forth and regular, ongoing communication about issues regarding tenants rights and resident participation. We look forward to sharing our ideas about how through this process of transformation we can help the city ensure that no loss of key rights occurs, as well as enhance residents sense of involvement and empowerment within their housing systems. Recommendations
1. Tenant Engagement, Budget allocations (starting in 2013-14) should provide grants to CBOs to support active and effective tenant engagement/ leadership development to ensure that public housing residents have a voice in planning.
2. Clean Slate. We suggest a “clean slate” approach be taken regarding lease enforcement, rent collections and renewed or initial enforcement of policies in place that have not been effectively followed or enforced in the past. This means that residents are not made to pay for violations that occurred prior to the implementation of the “re-envisioning” changes. It also means that advocates will focus on future problems as they occur and less on remedying issues resulting from poor management practices in the past. This relies on a demonstration of material improvement and concrete measurements of progress by the SFHA for it to be successful.
3. Tenant Protections. There are universal rights, values and principles that are currently embodied in the conventional public housing program that we believe should be preserved regardless of what direction the transformation of the SFHA becomes. These are generally under the category of due process, eviction protections, rent affordability, and resident organizing and participation rights which are currently guaranteed to residents by law. The following tenant
CouncilofCommunityHousingOrganizations Page4of6
protections and rights should be carried over to any former SFHA units or replacement units in the case of conversion, demo or disposition, transfer of ownership or property management.
o Resident organizations are currently funded through HUD through resident participations funds ($25/unit). This should be preserved or otherwise funded.
o The grievance procedure for public housing residents is quite robust and has specific requirements including a two-step process, appeal rights, impartial hearing officers and right to representation. It is critically important that these procedural protections continue to apply to all residents.
o Resident association and organizing rights should not be weakened. o Just cause eviction protections must apply across the board. o All residents in good standing should have the right to remain (if no relocation is required)
or return to appropriately sized units, in accordance with the o One-for-one replacement of units at same affordability levels/ no net loss or termination
of housing assistance should occur as a result. o Rent remains income based/ affordable to extremely-low income residents o In case of relocation, no additional screening criteria should be placed on existing
residents o Residents and advocates must be involved in the creation of relocation plans,
management agreements, demo/ dispo applications and other such guiding documents. o Former residents of public housing units or new residents in replacement units should
continue to have the same opportunities to participate in any housing authority wide processes, decision-making opportunities, boards and commissions.
4. Moving to Work. Generally, CCHO supports the “fungibility” allowances of the Moving to Work program, but members have concerns about the waivers regarding tenant’s rights that have been sought in other MTW jurisdictions. Such waivers have included: work requirements, drug testing, time limits, renting to higher income residents, requiring tenants to pay more than 30% income (major rent reform), removal of grievance procedure requirements, no requirement to have a Resident Advisory Board or Annual Plan process. We would like to see tenant protections related to due process rights, eviction protections, resident participation rights and rents remain as consistent with the conventional public housing rules as possible, while still allowing for the spending flexibility necessary to assure financial stability of the developments. Essentially, are open to a “ basic MTW ” model but not an “enhanced MTW”. CCHO would like to be at the table in providing input into the MTW agreement between HUD and the SFHA.
5. RAD and Conversion to Project-based Section 8. The regulations regarding project-based section 8 have some important distinctions from the conventional public housing program concerning resident rights, specifically related to grievance rights and eviction protections. For example: If converted to PBRA, there is no longer a PHA plan process or requirements for residents to sit on commission, serve on Resident Advisory Boards be on a jurisdiction-wide council. These rights should be agreed to by SFHA, City, and the development partner. We would like the existing protections to be retained through binding language (an example of such language which could be included in the SFHA’s ACOP and Administrative plans has been drafted by advocates).
C. Section 8 Program.
While not as well understood by the general public, the problems facing tenants and landlords in the Section 8 program are also deeply troubling. Tenants have long experienced problems with basic program components like income certifications, inadequate staff training, poor customer service, and untimely response to basic program activities. Landlords also experience challenges related to timely inspections and referrals, which makes the program less desirable to participate in. Recommendations
1. Find an effective program administrator to carry out the basic tasks of the program now: whether this is HSA, MOH, or even a private contractor, residents deserve quality and responsive service. We are open to a variety of administrative solutions, as long as the changes come
CouncilofCommunityHousingOrganizations Page5of6
quickly and have effective oversight. If there is a significant ramp-up time with MOH or HSA, it may be appropriate to consider an interim solution such as contracting with the regional Section 8 Administrator, while a longer-term strategy is developed.
o HSA is a strong candidate for eventually administering the tenant-based voucher program and should take the lead on integrating the voucher program into efforts to address homelessness. Since the wait list concept is fundamentally flawed as it relates to homelessness, HSA and DPH should work together to incorporate homeless families and individuals more effectively into the referral system for vouchers and integrate those resources into the citywide referral system associated with the Local Operating Support Program.
o For non-homeless individuals and families, the referral process should be completely redone, by addressing the problem with thousands of inactive people on the current waiting list
2. MOH and HSA should play leadership roles in program development and policy making: regardless of who directly administer the tenant-based voucher programs, MOH and HSA each have important roles to play in aligning these resources with other city efforts related to HOPE SF and the Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness
o MOH should take the lead in directing the use of project-based vouchers and oversee any related activities: this is critical to ensuring that these resources are leverage to the transformation of the HOPE SF sites and to create permanent supportive housing
o As noted above, there is a great opportunity to integrate section 8 into a system for housing resources related to homelessness. This should be actively managed by the city agencies charged with this task.
D. Governance Structure and Public Accountability The “political” isolation of public housing must be addressed by giving the Housing Authority a role that integrates it into other City priorities and not leaving it isolated and aloof from all other departments and programs. The Mayor’s re-envisioning process must devise an integrated role of the Housing Authority in achieving broader city objectives (eg, programs integrating tenants and adjacent neighborhood residents in joint programs, employment training and placement programs in the health sector; fostering community gardens and urban agriculture programs for neighborhood residents and tenants, etc.), so that the Housing Authority does not shrink back into “policy isolation” that has so characterized it in the past and has led to the isolation of its residents. The Housing Authority Commission must enact robust standards for transparency and conflict of interest, in order to inspire confidence in its ability to move forward in the re-envisioning process, including an independent evaluation process. Finally, opportunities must be found to integrate tenants in decision-making where they can have the most impact in shaping how public housing affects their daily lives. Recommendations
1. Prioritizing the role of the Housing Authority as a policy and programmatic body, while dispersing operational capacity to other appropriate agencies
2. Transparency. The Housing Authority Commission must strive for transparency in all its actions, including centralized regular meetings at City Hall, televised recording of meetings, and thorough minutes of both discussion and decisions accessible to the public.
3. Conflict of Interest Standards. Commissioners must adhere to strict conflict of interest standards as do many other City commissions, including direct and indirect financial conflicts.
4. Independent third party evaluator, providing information analysis and performance evaluation to the City, reporting to the Mayor, independent of the Housing Authority Commission or Director, and providing annual reports at a public hearing of the Board of Supervisors
5. Representation on the Housing Authority Commission, in addition to required tenant seats, should include positions for Commissioners with specific skills and functions, such as finance, housing development, etc.
CouncilofCommunityHousingOrganizations Page6of6
6. Creating opportunities for tenant participation and leadership through bodies where tenants can have the most impact, that emphasize representation of resident communities and demographics, as well as representation of Section 8 participants
Again, the Council of Community Housing Organizations stands ready to assist the Mayor in this process in any way you deem appropriate
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Office of the City AdministratorCity Hall, Room 3621 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceSan Francisco, CA 94102