Concerning biased. So the answer is, we dont know because we dont have the full data and we need to do better in the meantime because i dont want to be here a year from now saying now we have full data and its the same and we havent done anything in the meantime. So we have to work in parallel process to train, to reduce biased, to partner specifically with lgbtq plus organizations who have trust with the community, to build the trust with our other partners and those are all of the steps were taking now to try to improve at the same time we try to improve our Data Collection. I think you know and would agree that in San Francisco in 2019, whatever the reason, this is troubling. We look forward to the full data and to the continued conversations with your office and with all of our partners and the board of supervisors. I think the way forward here is really, as ive said on a couple of small projects, is really about community and were really looking forward to our partnerships both with the board of supervisors, the mayors office, oti and much broader than that, were going to need the help of the full community to improve these numbers and we look forward to receiving that feedback, that reflection, that input, so that we can do better. The two other sort of subcategories of lgbtq that im curious about are the number the 16. 43 assessed for coordinated entry, do we know what percentage of lgbtq people are assessed as priority, as tier one or priorities for housing . We know some answers to that question. And i think it is probably the most important question to ask and so i thank you for that supervisor. This is a bit of a vicious cycle. If people arent in, we cant understand why near not in. And again, every time i talk about numbers, i really want to underscore that we have the experience of single people who are struggling with the tragedy of homelessness and so thats not lost on hsh and i want to note that any time i talk about data, we talk about individuals on a daily basis in our department and we need to be able to pull up the big picture to use data to drive better policy. In this case, not that we have an expanded data set with coordinated entry for youth coming online and setting targets in the adult population, we have some early analysis that lets us know the following. So for all populations for lgbtq individuals, we see that theyre scoring 7 higher than their nonlgbtq counterparts which would indicate they are 20 more to be prioritized. And this is a positive early data point. And for tae, for tgnc young people, they are 53 more likely to be prioritized than peers. Say that again, please. Say both of them . Lgbq people all lgbq people experiencing hopelessness, if assessed are 7 more likely to make it into are 7 likely to score higher. And then i want to get to that, because thats a fundamentally complicated thing. It means theyre 20 more likely to be prioritized. The issue here, supervisors, is that very, very few people get to prioritized for housing. And so obviously thats what we are all working on together. But in your transgender and theyre 20 more likely to be prioritized. So for tgnc young people theres a sample set to answer that question. In that case, they are 53 to be prioritized than theyre young people peers. But for the t . We dont have the analysis for t. How about lgbq youth . Were actively conducting that analysis, yes. So one thing i think is hard to explain, certainly, were not allowed in our coordinated entry assessment to prioritize based on lgbq status and we have to build equity and thats why were doing the constant looking and analysis. Thank you. Victim. Thank you. Lets hear from brian shue with moss cd. We didnt prepare a slide for every aspect. Thats good. My colleagues are grateful. Ill go through it quickly and happy to answer any questions on the larger support also. So for our soji Data Collection, as you know in july of 2017, expanded the selection to all of our clientbased programs and that includes our services programs, as well as our housingbased programs. We updated all of our Data Collection forms. The one aspect that i think we have to update is the portion that includes the preferred pronounce and clients preferred name, which were prepared to do now. We just want to look at a few aspects as it relates to some of our housingbased programs where we have to correlate the application name with the legal name because we look at a lot of the bank record and w records ao link it up with bank records. The next item is what weve done overall. You can see that its a little bit of a mixed bag. I think if you look at the overall lgbtq numbers, you can see it ranges from a low of 1 l7 to a high of 55 . Its those applying to hiv positive Housing Program. Its not too surprising the number is that high. If you look at the low number, 1. 77 for the affordable multiple Family Housing portfolio residents, part of the reason that number is so low is because if you look at the home at the far right, we have 84 of folks that we dont have information. Those are people that were preexisting. They were in the portfolio before we started this program. So were struggling with how we are we going to effectively reach out to those folks for all of the people that are now coming through our housing lotteries, were able to ask that question upfront. We have figure out if we can work with our Property Managers to go back to those people that have lived there for a long time and figure out how to get that information back out to us. And that being said, if you go down further, we had some discussion about the numbers, for example, our downpayment assistance program, the city second loan applicants. The numbers tend to be much better on the lgb side, not that high on the transside. We had some discusses with some of our preferred providers, such as lg bt center to support our home program and one of the things they mentioned to us was because they felt strongly they wanted to focus their outreach on the most vulnerable portions of the community and they tended to reach people that did not necessarily qualify for any of our ownership programs yet. Oftentimes they werent at the 50 ami. Were struggle to reach that balance and reach out to the most vulnerable folks. At the same time, we know ownership is the best stabilizer of the community. But it can be a stretch for some of the folks were reaching out to. So were going to try to continue to figure out how to balance that out. Its not here on the slide but since you mentioned the different areas in particular for our services program, i think what we found most particularly is Certain Program areas are particularly difficult to get information out of. We have an area called Service Connection and an area called housingbased services and a large number of individuals in those areas choose not to respond and we found that the majority of those folks are People Living in our current Public Housing residents, where they dont feel comfortable declaring their Sexual Orientation or identity. We have to figure out how to work with those folks. The role of Property Managers, in particular, for our housing is one in which i think we need to look at. Because when we receive complaints of people feeling harassed, sometimes its by their neighbors but oftentimes because they feel the Property Management staff is not sensitive to what they need to do. So i think we have to figure out how to reach out to those folks, also. Ill go to the next slide. You can see the difference in the results when we fund an organization that targets those communities. So access to Housing Program with lgbt center, 50 lgbtq and again, the firsttime Home Buyers Program from the center and youth advocacy through lyric anlyricand a womens place droph cats and Transgender Health and is ucsf program. With that, the overall lgbtq folks averages 38 and the transpacific goes up to 9 . So you can see the stark difference when we reach out to that program. Right below that, we included just for reference what it looks like when you have a very specifically marketed lgbt friendly permanent housing site. This is 95 laguna. Its not included in the overall numbers, because its technically closed in august of 201, bu2019, but i thought it ws helpful to what those numbers look at and you can see number higher numbers for that kind of project. It does require intensive outreach. Again people knew that this program was coming online for years and years, just like 55 laguna. But it does show that there are some possibilities for moving this forward. On that line, because at the last hearing we really focused on the transHousing Needs, i wanted to talk a little bit about the Current Program that we have as folks may remember we received dollars through eraf to fund a transgender rental Subsidy Program and were working with st. James i infirmy on Market Street to launch that to address the Housing Needs for transfolks and realize that many of them dont have the income to qualify for our traditional permanent housing. They often come in from incarceration or off the street and really dont have even the 50 area income and that has been used to launch a combination of some permanent rental subsidies and a unique program that we can talk about later, if you like, that is really creating a kind of a transitional Housing Program, or we can create a master lease where people can move into those units, receive intensive case management, oneonone help to move back into the employment world is then move out, hopefully with a lesser subsidy into a more permanent housing range. And then provide housing and then we go through our own training and we would be, i think, open to learning from our fellow colleagues who have developed more extensive so generic i training for our own employees. And then, lastly, in terms of underrepresentation, i think we really have wanted to do specific outreach this year and we are in the beginning of a new fiveyear cycle and so, we did a number of outreach effort to the lgb and ttranspacific to encourage them to come to our programs because we find thats the most effective way to reach out. We talked about the rental Subsidy Program and for us, i feel like on the housing side, its really much more intensively focusing on what we can do for the Transgender Community. I think thats lgb, also, but i think the transexpect i transs what weve heard their incorporatincorporateabilityto o engage and figure out what is the reality. In general, you know our ability to provide permanent housing for very poor folks that are below 50 ami but not homeless is difficult. And many of our Transgender Community falls into that area. We hope this will move forward in a successful way. I want to touch on the relationship in a chart in your report and in one of your slides. So on page 12, theres a chart on affordable Housing Programs, i think. Uhhuh. Which suggests that at least for 1819 tell me if im reading this right. For 1819, you know, close to 14 of the applicants for the citys affordable Housing Programs were lgbtq and close to 50 went on to be tenants 15 wept owent on to become tenantsd that all seems good. Now that includes 95 laguna, right . It does not include that. Its just because of the timing. 95 laguna will be included in the 1920 report because it technically closed in august. So 1920 might be even better. That is correct, yes. Were hoping, yes. Good. Thank you, mr. Chu. It. Thank you. Thank you. Lets hear from sarah duffy with dcos. I havent been entirely vigilant about enforcing the fiveminute limit but if you could. Mine is shorter. Awesome didnt and i have cs here. Well, good morning. Im sarah duffy, the data didnt evaluation manager, but the departmenat thedepartment of chh and families. Were excited to share out this data. We think really critically about the demographics of the grudge we serv fund. We ask them to collect data into the Data Management system and thats where we collect Demographic Data. For soji data, we focus on the disconnected transitional age youth we serve, so that is defined in the children and youth legislation as youth aged 1824 who are homeless and in danger of homelessness, have dropped out of high school, have a disability, lowincome parents, undocumented, new immigranted, lgbt g questions or transitioning from foster care, juvenile justice, criminal justice or special education. Thats the demographic of 1824yearolds that we aim to serve and thats who we collect identified soji data from. We serve these youth in a variety of different areas ranging from educational supports programs, enrichment and leadership programs, youth work and mentorship programs, totally 85 programs that identified disconnected as part of the target population for their programming. And those are the programs that we collected soji data from. You can see Sexual Orientation by the 1824yearold participants. This is not a marched field. Mandatory field. We had responses from 1,370 young people to this question and of those that reported, 17 indicated that they were bisexual, gay, lesbian, samegender loving, questioning, unsure and another 10 declined to state. We recognise this is a low number. This is a field that we ask all of our grantees to collect data on and well be working with them to better understand what their process is in collecting this information and how we can increase the proportion of responses. So in terms of gender identity, we had a higher percentage, pretty much all of the clients reported this data and we see here that of the young adults that we serve report being transgender, 2 as other. And only 1 has declined to state. Another thing that i just want to highlight is that we do really want to understand the Sexual Orientation and gender identification of the younger youth that we serve. We just dont feel comfortable collecting it on a client level, in an identified way. So what we do is we administer youth surveys or ask our ce o to administer youth surveys to the youth they serve in middleschool and high school and we ask for sexual orient attention and other demographic information from those youth and this gives us a little bit of a picture of the so generic i distribution for our younger participants. We see here, if you compare the survey responses to over 18 and under 18, that a higher proportion of middleschool and high schoolarche schoolaged sd respondents are not sure and thats thinking about how to collect the information from younger participants in our programs. So in terms of training efforts, we have partnered in the past to do different training for the cdos and for our own staff on both providing appropriate services for lgbtq clients, as well as how to do Data Collection. And we need to start working with them to do some training this year. We did them last year and were planning to do webinar and inperson of the winter of 1920. Serving the Lgbtq Community has been a major priority and highlighted in our proposals process. And so we remain very committed to understanding the needs of the community. Right now were going through our Community Needs assessment and the lgbtq youth and families are a priority plan population o understand more for our needs assessment. We do want to unpack some of thy Sexual Orientation and well be exploring that this year. We just finished analyzing all of the 1819 data and were embarking on understanding the demographic picture for our participants this year. Well be work on that and well continue to report it out and talk about it with our staff and with our cdos, weve published yearend reports for 1819 where there is Demographic Data ranging from highlevel service area where you can look at the demographics and so generatiojir all of our youth to the program levels. We look at it closely and take that seriously. We hope youll take a look at the website and you can access those reports now as of a couple of weeks ago. So that pretty much concludes the presentation. Theres more information in the report, specifically around the different programs that we fund that do serve disconnect. Thank you. Last up, we will be hearing from susie smith with hsa. Last but not least. Hi, everybody. Im susie smith, the Deputy Director for policy and planning at humidity services agency. Again, if we could ask you to stick to five minutes, that would be great. Ok. So quickly, im going to go over the scope of our data collecting efforts and ill highlight pieces of our reports, talk about what were doing specifically to promote lgbtq inclusion and talk about our training and then a new project that we have with the Controllers Office. So hsa, as you know, is compromised of three separate departments, department of aging and Adult Services which has been named department of disability and aging services, the department of Human Services didnt the office of early care and education. Together, we administer over 80 programs or contracts and we collect our data in 11 different database systems. We serve over 200,000 people in San Francisco and we have over 2,000 staff operating at nine main sites in addition to partnerships with community organizations. So were a large organization. Only until this past year have we been able to collect soji data because the state lagged behind a year inma in mandatingt we collect. Last year we werent able to say we could fully comply but now were happy to update you on that. So in terms of of the highlights of our repo