Recommendations to Mayor Ed Lee on how to transform the San Francisco Housing Authority

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).


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.


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.•

❍

❍


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.


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


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.


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


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•


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•


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.•


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.


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,


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:


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,


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.


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

mailto:[email protected]

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.



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);



§ 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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


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


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


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.


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

[email protected]

Recommendations to Mayor Ed Lee on how to transform the San Francisco Housing Authority

Documents

Transcript of Recommendations to Mayor Ed Lee on how to transform the San Francisco Housing Authority