November 20, 2023, Chicago

Chairman Ni Pin and Chairman Hu Wei,

Ambassador Baucus,

Ambassador Branstad,

Governors and mayors,

Senators, congressmen and congresswomen,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure to be in Chicago, the hub of the United States, to join friends old and new in exploring the right way forward for China and the United States. This year marks the coming-of-age of the China General Chamber of Commerce (CGCC). Over the past 18 years, the CGCC has provided an important platform for exchanges between entrepreneurs of our two countries, and played a positive role in promoting bilateral economic cooperation. CGCC Chicago has been actively involved, giving a strong boost to investment, trade and cultural exchanges between China and the American Midwest. Let me first express my warm greetings and heartfelt thanks to all those who have long supported bilateral investment and cooperation and the development of China-U.S. relations!

I just came back from San Francisco, where I had the privilege to participate in the summit meeting between our two Presidents and the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting. The summit meeting between President Xi Jinping and President Joe Biden in San Francisco a few days ago is of special significance, producing fruitful outcomes and attracting worldwide attention. It is a highlight in the China-U.S. relationship this year, a milestone in the history of bilateral relations, and also a major event in international relations. During the visit, I witnessed how the two Presidents set the direction for China-U.S. relations at this critical moment, sensed the eagerness of both peoples for greater exchanges and cooperation, and also felt more acutely the extensive common interests between our two countries and the profound public support for China-U.S. friendship.

The visit helped to put in place the pillars for China-U.S. relations. The two Presidents had a four-hour-long candid, comprehensive and in-depth exchange of views on strategic and overarching issues critical to the direction of China-U.S. relations. President Xi pointed out that for China and the United States, turning our back on each other is not an option. It is unrealistic for one side to remodel the other. Any conflict and confrontation would have unbearable consequences for both sides. The right approach is to respect each other, coexist in peace and pursue win-win cooperation. China is committed to having a stable, healthy and sustainable relationship with the United States. We are willing to be its partner and friend. At the same time, we have interests that must be safeguarded, principles that must be upheld, and red lines that must not be crossed. In particular, the U.S. side should stop arming Taiwan, and support China’s peaceful reunification.

The visit fostered a future-oriented San Francisco vision. The journey from Bali to San Francisco has not been an easy one. But San Francisco should not be the finish line. President Xi emphasized that China and the United States need to jointly develop a right perception toward each other, and find the right answer to the fundamental and overarching question as to whether we are adversaries or partners; jointly manage disagreements effectively, and refrain from flip-flopping, being provocative, or crossing the lines; jointly advance mutually beneficial cooperation, including in such areas as counternarcotics, law enforcement and AI; jointly shoulder responsibilities as major countries, and coordinate and connect our initiatives; and jointly promote people-to-people exchanges, and support greater interactions and communication between our peoples. These are the five pillars that have laid out a roadmap for the sound, steady and sustained growth of China-U.S. relations.

The visit reached more than 20 important deliverables in multiple areas, including: establishing government talks on AI and launching the Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s; setting up a working group on counternarcotics cooperation with the U.S. side lifting its sanction on relevant Chinese institutions; agreeing to work toward a significant further increase in scheduled passenger flights early next year, and expanding cultural, sports, youth and business exchanges; in terms of principles related to China-U.S. relations, stressing the importance of all countries treating each other with respect and finding a way to live alongside each other peacefully, and of maintaining open lines of communication, preventing conflict, upholding the U.N. Charter, cooperating in areas of shared interest, and responsibly managing competitive aspects of the relationship, so as to provide guidelines for bringing China-U.S. relations back to the right track.

The visit also renewed the goodwill between the two peoples. At the welcome dinner hosted by friendly organizations in the United States, President Xi fondly recounted his friendship with the American people, stressing that the more difficulties there are, the greater the need for us to forge a closer bond between our peoples. President Xi also expressed China’s readiness to continue cooperation with the United States on panda conservation, and to invite 50,000 young Americans to China on exchange and study programs in the next five years. 

President Xi’s old friends in the United States, including those from Iowa who have known him for more than four decades, a 103-year-old Flying Tigers veteran, the descendants of General Joseph Stilwell, Kuliang Friends and those from the Washington state, joined him in San Francisco for a heartwarming reunion. Also, an American family, dressed in traditional Chinese clothing, warmly welcomed President Xi, holding up a board with handwritten Chinese characters “Welcome, President Xi! We love you!” All these touching episodes have made us even more confident that the friendship between our peoples will surely weather wind and rain and continue to thrive.

Dear friends,

We are living in a time of changes and chaos, when challenges abound. The crisis in Ukraine is lingering on. The Middle East is again engulfed in conflicts. The recovery of the world economy remains sluggish. And global production and supply chains are facing new disruptions. China-U.S. cooperation is indispensable for both developing bilateral relations and creating a better future for the entire world. The China-U.S. relationship has never been smooth sailing, and we are still facing many difficulties and challenges. The theme of this annual gala, “Let’s Move Forward”, reflects the readiness of both sides to implement our Presidents’ important common understandings, and also our aspiration to embark on a new journey from San Francisco onward.

The two sides need to rise to the challenges, and act on the important common understandings reached in San Francisco. To do anything, attitude comes first, action is the key, and real effect is what matters most. At the summit meeting, President Biden noted that a stable and growing China is good for the United States and the whole world, and reiterated that the United States does not support “Taiwan independence”, does not seek a new Cold War, and does not seek to contain or suppress China’s development or to decouple with China. It is important to move in the same direction, follow up on the important common understandings reached between the two Presidents, and translate the commitments into concrete policies and real actions. It is important to avoid backpedaling, still less saying one thing but doing another. The two sides need to respect each other, coexist in peace and pursue win-win cooperation, so as to turn the San Francisco vision into reality and further improve China-U.S. relations.

The two sides need to follow the rules and bring bilateral economic relations back to the right track. Earlier this month, IMF upgraded China’s GDP growth forecasts for this year to 5.4%, speaking volumes about the confidence of the international community in the Chinese economy. Right now, more than 7,000 Chinese companies are doing business in the United States. The Chinese-funded members of the CGCC alone have invested a total of over US$137 billion in the United States, creating over 230,000 jobs directly. Many of you attended the sixth China International Import Expo a few weeks ago. Altogether, over 230 American businesses participated in the event, taking up the largest exhibition area for six years in a row. China’s development is a blessing for the world, and the success of China and the United States is an opportunity for each other.

Sanction is never a solution, and will only create more problems. It is important to follow the will of our peoples, respect market rules and uphold free trade, and resolutely say no to any attempt to politicize economic issues on the pretext of security.

The two sides need to bring out the vitality, and foster closer ties between the peoples and at the subnational level. The Midwest is known as the granary and the industrial heartland of America. It is home to 30% of American companies on the Fortune Global 500, and it exports 70% of the world’s grains and soybeans. The Midwest is also a promising land for China-U.S. economic cooperation and people-to-people exchanges. The first pair of sister cities between our two countries was between Nanjing, Jiangsu province and St. Louis, Missouri. Chinese companies including Wanxiang and Fuyao have invested in projects here, writing more stories of China-U.S. mutually beneficial cooperation.

It is hoped that the U.S. side will provide a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies. And I count on CGCC Chicago to continue building bridges and providing solutions for its members, pool the strength of our two peoples, and make the pie of win-win cooperation bigger, so as to inject more stability into China-U.S. relations and positive energy into the world.

Dear friends,

Martin Luther King once said in Chicago, “The time is always right to do what is right.” Let’s embark on a new journey starting from San Francisco, move forward with no delay, and jointly usher in a better future for China-U.S. relations and our two peoples!

Thank you.

The post Collectively transfer ahead to understand the San Francisco imaginative and prescient from a brand new beginning point_Embassy of the Individuals’s Republic of China in america of America appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

By Magaly Muñoz,
Post Staff

On Monday, the Indigenous Peoples Day Festival was held for the fifth consecutive year at the Yerba Buena Gardens in San Francisco. This event was organized in collaboration with the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) to celebrate and honor the traditions and heritage of Native Americans.

Art exhibits, music performances and vendor stalls were set up at the garden’s public park and cultural space on Monday afternoon with many people stopping by to purchase items or watch the cultural events.

Among the performers was a Mexican native group called Grupo de los Wawas del Centro Ceremonial de Tajín hailing from Veracruz, Mexico. The group belongs to the Totonaco Nation, which is primarily based in east-central Mexico.

Group leader Vidal Perez has been performing a traditional dance called “Danza de Voladores” and one called “Danza de Wawa” for over 30 years. This dance has been passed down through several generations of men in his family.

“We do this dance to celebrate Mother Earth, so that she brings rain, a plentiful harvest and good energy,” Perez said.

He said that they tour all over California, performing for a few weeks before heading back to Mexico to continue expressing their culture through dance. He pointed out that they come to events like this because it allows both Native American and Mexican groups to recognize and celebrate the resilience of communities that strive to preserve their cultural heritage despite enduring a long history of colonization.

TrendingFree Hazardous Waste, Mattress Drop-Off Event Coming to Richmond

“We want people to remember that there are still old customs and cultures to learn about. No matter where we live, the point is to acknowledge where we came from,” Perez said.

Cristina Ibarra, a Yerba Buena Gardens employee who is co-organizer for the event, said that this festival is her favorite one to put on each year. She said working with all the vendors and performers has been the best experience, likening it to being in the company of family.

“It’s so beautiful to see all the families, especially the elders and the kids, celebrating their culture,” Ibarra said. “We do probably 150 events every year and this is still one of my favorites.”

Ibarra stated that this year’s festival has seen the biggest turnout since its inception. She affirmed that they’ll continue to host this event in the future as a platform to “uplift Indigenous Peoples voices.”

In 2018, San Francisco made the decision to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day as a means of acknowledging and addressing the historical violence and discrimination faced by Native Americans in the U.S.

Andrea Carmen, the executive director of the IITC since the ’90s, said every city and county on this side of the hemisphere should consider revising this date on their local calendars. Instead of honoring Christopher Columbus, Carmen suggested to celebrate the people impacted by the explorer’s arrival.

“We’re celebrating our survival, the resiliency and strength of our cultures that still exist. We’re honoring our ancestors that sacrificed unbelievable amounts of suffering so that we could have these ways, the dances, the language,” Carmen said.

Carmen observed that it’s been over 500 years since colonization began in the Americas. She stressed that the IITC is committed to preserving their history and teaching it to those who are willing to learn.

She said it’s important for non-Natives to know that there is an ongoing struggle to revitalize languages, reclaim stolen land and preserve tareas that once belonged to Natives. She added that despite the horrors that Natives have endured, they’re still standing.

“We’re still here, our culture is still strong, and the amazing thing to me is that we’re still willing to share it with those very descendants of the ones that carried these things [colonization] out,” Carmen said.

The post Indigenous Peoples Day Competition at Yerba Buena Gardens in San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The ongoing cultural revolution that is People’s Park in Berkeley has always been deliberately leaderless.

But someone had to host the meeting that turned the idea of ​​converting a UC vacant lot into a community park into a plan of action, and someone had to bring the truckload of weed and shovels that started it all in April 1969. That someone was Michael Delacour.

A trained boilermaker who never attended UC Berkeley — or any other university — Delacour spearheaded when the police-erected cyclone fence collapsed in May 1969, and he was there again when another cyclone fence collapsed in January 2021. his last great act of resistance on the renegade, 3-hectare open-air site.

Delacour was often at the park to partake in the daily shared meal of beans and rice, delivered by Food Not Bombs, the food distribution collective.

“He was on stage and people came to reach out to him because he was known and respected,” said Lisa Teague, another People’s Park activist. “He was always open to conversations about park history and our 54-year resistance.”

Delacour campaigned for the park in the fall when stage 4 lung cancer made him too weak to walk to the park from his home a half-mile away. He died March 9 in Kaiser Oakland, said Teague, a close friend and confidante. Delacour was 85.

“Michael is widely recognized as the founder of People’s Park,” said David L. Axelrod, attorney and member of the People’s Park Council. “He continued to be a thought leader and inspiration to the people of People’s Park and the wider community up until his recent death.”

The park’s annual concert on April 23 will be a memorial to Delacour. As a tribute, a bulletin board for posting handouts – a favorite activity of Delacour – will be unveiled, bearing a portrait of him by artist Ed Monroe.

People gather at People’s Park in Berkeley on May 8, 1979, 10 years after the first protests: front row, Scott Muldavin, Bonnie Lane, Michele Gray and Kevin Ruditch; back row, Michael Delacour, David Axelrod and Howard Cooper.

John Storey/The Chronicle

“Michael was a very principled person,” said Carol Denney, a folk singer and activist who has known Delacour for 50 years. “He fully embraced the principles of peace, labor and revolution and took very seriously that we are one family.”

Michael Delacour was born on February 23, 1938 in San Diego. According to a biography by Tom Dalzell published on the Quirky Berkeley website, Delacour moved around with his father, an electronics engineer, before settling in the Mission Beach area. By the time he finished high school, he had a wife and a daughter.

He got a job at Convair, a military company, and one child grew to three. After his wife brought the children to Oklahoma, Delacour drifted across Europe before landing in Berkeley to protest the war effort he was involved in during his eight years at Convair.

“He had worked in the defense industry and had the amazing realization that the good jobs he had early in life were part of the war machine,” Denney said.

In 1967, the University of California used its title to purchase a large tract of housing, many of which were classic brown-clapboard Berkeley homes, a few blocks south of campus. Some of these houses had been converted into rental apartments, home to what Hunter S. Thompson called “the non-student left.” Delacour was not among the displaced, but he lived close enough to feel the pain of those who were, and that pain only worsened when the university leveled the housing and then reduced the land to a muddy parking lot.

“They wanted the hippies out,” Delacour said in an interview with The Chronicle to mark People’s Park’s 50th anniversary. “When the university took it over, they bulldozed and leveled 53 houses. We assumed that.”

People’s Park grew out of the anti-war movement in which Delacour and his friend Liane Chu were heavily involved in both Berkeley and Washington, DC

He and Chu opened Red Square, a clothing store on Dwight Way, which is also where they live. The first organizational meeting took place there on April 15, 1969. “They agreed to build a park in the craggy, desolate wasteland that Lot had become in 1875,” is how the moment is described in Heyday’s oral history, The Battle for People’s Park, 1969.

From the unrolled sod that Delacour trucked in, the park grew to include swings, a garden, a winding brick walkway, and an amphitheater, all built and maintained by volunteers. There was even public art, with red letters spelling out the word “KNOW” along a border.

After the group of activists spent a month planting and tending their park, the university came in again with the bulldozers and an eight-foot-tall cyclone fence was put up around it.

The situation escalated on May 15, 1969, when an anti-war rally at Sproul Plaza on the UC Berkeley campus ended with a march to People’s Park to retake it. It escalated further when Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies were brought in with shotguns loaded with bird pellets. The guns were fired from the street at people gathered on rooftops along Telegraph Avenue. James Rector was killed, Alan Blanchard was blinded and 40 people were injured.

“Some people are suffering from wounds today,” Delacour told the Chronicle on the 50th anniversary. “I was shot at but not hit.”

This began 40 days and 40 nights of protest in People’s Park, the longest in the long history of Berkeley activism. The National Guard came and went, but Delacour never left, and he never gave up the rectangular land as a symbol of struggle.

Delacour was a founding member of Pittsburg Local 549 of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers. It’s hard work involving heavy welding and rigging, and he worked well into his 70’s, mostly on large industrial construction projects. Outside of business hours, he could be found at the Caffe Mediterraneum, where he met Odile Hugonot, a French émigré who worked as a nurse. They lived together on the top floor of a house on Parker Street in the 1980s. By this time, Delacour’s wife, Leslie, and three children, Kathy, Vanessa, and David, had moved to Berkeley and were going in and out. He had also adopted his niece’s son, Dusk Delacour. There were many mouths to feed, but he always helped the street people, Hugonot said.

Michael Delacour, then 69, protested the Iraq war wearing a red shirt and holding a sign that read “It’s time to rebel!”

Brant Ward/The Chronicle

“He always said to me, it’s not easy to beg, so you should give them what you can when people ask for it,” Hugonot said. After seven years together, Delacour and Hugonot split, and Delacour later married Gina Sasso, another Volkspark activist. Sasso died of pneumonia in 2011 at the age of 49.

“Gina was such a rock in his life and when she died he was a broken man,” said Maxina Ventura, a longtime People’s Park activist. “But he continued to work in the park and continued to seek justice.”

Delacour ran for mayor of Berkeley in 1986 in a race won by Loni Hancock. He was also active in the squatter movement to occupy vacant buildings. He was hands-on and could always get water and electricity running and take care of plumbing, Ventura said. But his greater strength was as a motivator.

She last saw it in January 2021, when the university fenced off parts of the park. Delacour was there with his powers of persuasion and said the fence had to come down.

“He did it in his giggling way, with a twinkle in his eye,” Ventura said. “He said, ‘We have the numbers here, what are we going to do,’ and that fence fell with great joy.”

Reach Sam Whiting: swhiting@sfchronicle.com

The post ‘Founding father of Folks’s Park’ Michael Delacour dies at 85 appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Co-published with ProPublica. This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the San Francisco Public Press. Sign up for the Public Press newsletter and ProPublica’s Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

Tabitha Davis had just lost twins in childbirth and was facing homelessness. The 23-year-old had slept on friends’ floors for the first seven months of her pregnancy, before being accepted to a temporary housing program for pregnant women. But with the loss of the twins, the housing program she’d applied to live in after giving birth — intended for families — was no longer an option.

After several weeks in a hotel, which a prenatal program for homeless people had paid for while she recovered, Davis went to a brick building in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood to apply for a permanent, subsidized housing unit. There, a case worker she’d never met asked her more than a dozen questions to determine if she was eligible.

Some of the things he asked: Have you ever been sexually assaulted while experiencing homelessness? Have you ever had to use violence to keep yourself safe while experiencing homelessness? Have you ever exchanged sex for a place to stay? “Those are the questions that really bothered me,” she said. “Whatever my experience is of being sexually assaulted, or what I had to do in order to stay safe on the streets, shouldn’t pertain to whether or not I deserve housing.”

That day, Davis was informed that the score she’d been given based on her answers to the questionnaire wasn’t high enough to qualify for permanent supportive housing. It was a devastating blow after an already traumatizing few months. “I thought, ‘You put me on the streets right now, mentally, I will kill myself,’” she said.

What Davis encountered with those questions is called coordinated entry, a system designed to match people experiencing homelessness with housing. In San Francisco’s system, applicants are asked 16 core questions, and their answers are given a point value which is then tallied. The total number is intended to reflect applicants’ vulnerability; currently, a score of 118 points means they qualify for one of the city’s permanent supportive housing units, which is subsidized by the government and comes with wraparound supportive services. Applicants with lower scores may qualify for rent assistance or a bus ticket out of town, but if they want housing in San Francisco, they have to wait six months before taking the test again.

Though the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing has an annual budget of $598 million and the majority of that is spent on housing, there simply aren’t enough permanent supportive housing units available to accommodate the thousands of homeless people in San Francisco. (A 2019 survey estimated the number of homeless people at more than 8,000.) The threshold for approval is directly tied to housing availability, and right now, roughly one-third of people who take the assessment score high enough to qualify.

“It’s really prioritizing scarce resources,” said Cynthia Nagendra, the department’s deputy director of planning and strategy. “There has to be some prioritization, unfortunately, until we have some housing resource for every single person.”

Coordinated entry was meant to be a more objective tool than the previous system, which offered resources on a first-come, first-served basis. In contrast, coordinated entry aims to determine who is most vulnerable and who should therefore get access to the limited supply of available housing.

Through records requests, the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica obtained the questions and scoring algorithm used in San Francisco’s coordinated entry questionnaire, which has never before been made public. The news organizations solicited feedback on that tool from front-line workers, academics and people experiencing homelessness. Some raised objections to how the questions were phrased. Others pointed out inequities in the scoring. And many more criticized the way it was administered, suggesting that the process itself — in which applicants are asked very personal questions by a stranger — might make it unlikely that already-distressed people would answer accurately.

In our interviews, it became clear that the survey fails to identify many of the vulnerabilities it was intended to catch. And what was supposed to be an objective tool winds up, as a result of how it’s written and administered, making it harder for certain populations — immigrants, young people and transgender people — to get indoors, experts and advocates told us.

For Davis, that meant some of the hardships she was experiencing were overlooked. For instance, there was no question in the survey that would give her points for the losses she had just suffered. Failing to qualify for housing resulted in weeks of stress and instability while she recovered from the trauma of losing her children. Eventually, with the assistance of case workers at several organizations, she found a place in a transitional housing program for youth. But being told, during the lowest moment of her life, that she did not qualify for permanent housing left its mark. “It made me feel invalid in my own experience,” she said.

In response to these critiques, homelessness department spokesperson Denny Machuca-Grebe said in an email, “I want to make it clear that anyone who comes to our department for help should NOT ‘be left out.’” For those deemed ineligible for housing, he said the city offers other services; these may include shelter placements, relocation help and rental assistance. In general, the department had not responded to requests for comments about individual cases in the past, and it didn’t comment on Davis’ experience.

Excluded Populations

Coordinated entry was first implemented in 2018, after the Department of Housing and Urban Development began requiring regions that apply for federal homelessness funds to create a tool “to ensure that people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner.” Much of the rest of the country adopted a tool called the Vulnerability Index, Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool. San Francisco developed its own set of questions, intended to determine which unhoused people are in greatest need of a home.

In the four years since the requirement was implemented, some cities and counties have reviewed their coordinated entry systems and uncovered trends such as significant racial or gender biases. A 2019 analysis of data from Oregon, Virginia, and Washington found that even though people of color were overrepresented in the homeless population, they tended to score significantly lower than their white counterparts, making it harder for them to access permanent supportive housing. The study recommended that HUD consider revising its coordinated entry guidelines to ensure that communities“equitably allocate resources and services.” This year, San Francisco started its own analysis of its coordinated entry process, and it expects to present the findings before the end of the year.

Nearly every expert we interviewed suggested that the experiences of people of color may not be fully reflected in their answers to the coordinated entry questions. San Francisco’s own data shows Black, white, Asian and Indigenous people being approved for housing at roughly equal rates. But Nagendra, from the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, is looking into concerns that conditions that often make people of color more vulnerable are not being fully captured and that the numbers may not tell the whole story. “When you look at quantitative data, ours will show we are actually prioritizing people who are Black at an equitable rate. But when we talk to people, they might tell a different story,” she said.

Courtney Cronley, an associate professor of social work at the University of Tennessee who has written about racial bias in coordinated entry systems, pointed to one of San Francisco’s questions as an example of possible bias in action: “How many times have you used crisis services in the past year (for example, mental health crisis services, hospital, detox, suicide prevention hotline)?”

“Black people are less likely to use formal health care systems,” Cronley said. “They’ll reach out to family and friends and social support systems rather than going to the doctor. The doctor is not someone that they necessarily trust. These questions are biased towards persons who are white in our communities and biased against African Americans.”

The Department of Homeslessness and Supportive Housing has also said that very few transgender and gender-nonconforming people have been taking coordinated entry assessments. In a December 2021 meeting, Megan Owens, the department’s coordinated entry manager, presented demographic data on who was being assessed. She said that the number of people reporting those gender identities during assessments is “lower than in the best estimates of the homeless population.” In March, city data showed that transgender and gender-nonconforming people constituted only 2% of those taking assessments to try to get housing.

Critics of San Francisco’s coordinated entry system also say that one of the most basic questions, “How long have you been homeless this time?” leads to the exclusion of immigrants and younger people.

That question might sound simple, but it’s difficult for many people to say how long they’ve been homeless — and answering accurately can be critical to getting housing. That’s because San Francisco’s algorithm grants people more points the longer they have been unhoused: A person who has been homeless for more than 15 years receives 12 more points than someone who’s been homeless for one to two years. Anyone who says they’ve been homeless for less than a year gets zero points on this question. (On average, adults who qualify for housing in San Francisco report being homeless for six years.)

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

The screening tool’s 16 core questions are meant to gauge who qualifies for permanent supportive housing, but can be an impassible gauntlet for some.

Gayle Roberts, the chief development officer at Larkin Street Youth Services, a nonprofit serving young homeless people in San Francisco, said it is “common knowledge among social service providers that it [the coordinated entry system] is weighted heavily toward serving the needs of those who have experienced homelessness the longest.”

Laura Valdéz, executive director of Dolores Street Community Services, is one of several nonprofit leaders who questioned the efficacy of the system. “For many newly arrived immigrants, the way they literally interpret that question is since they’ve been here in San Francisco,” she explained. “So their scores are really low in comparison to other folks. But a large percentage of our immigrant community were unhoused in their home country.”

Valdéz also said the coordinated entry system can lead people living outdoors to accrue significant trauma before they qualify for permanent supportive housing. The program, she said, “requires people to stay in that system that is creating greater and greater harm to them for them to be able to score higher.”

The duration-of-homelessness question can also be tricky for homeless youth, defined as those between 18 and 24. In a 2019 count, they accounted for 14% of the city’s homeless population. Many young people are intermittently homeless, making it difficult to calculate the full length of that experience, said Dr. Colette Auerswald, a professor of community health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Maybe they stayed on their friend’s couch for five days and they were on a bus last night,” she said. “So they may be like, ‘Well, one day,’ but actually they’ve been in an unstable situation for a really long time.”

San Francisco’s homelessness department acknowledges this bias against young people seeking housing. In an attempt to address the age gap, the department included two questions that are only scored for people ages 18 to 24: “In the place you are staying, are you experiencing physical or sexual violence?” and, “In the last 12 months have you traded sex for a place to stay?” If they answer yes to either one, it provides a significant bump in their overall score: 12 points for each question. But if anyone older than 24 who has been sexually assaulted or has traded sex for a place to stay gets no points at all. (While the answers to these questions are only scored for 18-to-24-year-olds, they are asked of every person who takes the assessment. When asked why these questions were asked of people who could not receive points for answering, the department said it was for “data gathering.”)

Machuca-Grebe,  the department spokesperson, explained that the question was added because “we have found that without the score placed on the questions for youth, they would be seriously under prioritized — leading to a disproportionate exclusion of youth.”

Davis was in the 18-to-24 age range when she first took her coordinated entry assessment, so those questions were scored. But she does not believe they should be asked at all.

“There’s not a single person that I can think of that is female-presenting that hasn’t been sexually assaulted while experiencing any part of their life, not just homelessness,” she said. “So you’re telling me that because someone hasn’t been raped, that she doesn’t get housing, and then she stays on the streets and then does get raped? And now she can? No, that doesn’t make sense.”

Questions From a Stranger

It is not just the wording and scoring of the questions that give experts pause. They also said that the way the assessment is given can fail to accurately assess a person’s vulnerability.

In San Francisco, all questions must be read by a trained staff member from one of the nonprofits that contract with the city to conduct the assessment. The questions are pulled up on an iPad or a computer. A drop-down menu offers a prewritten set of answers to select from, and the score is automatically added up by the software.

Coordinated entry assessments are frequently conducted in semi-public places, like a bustling office or a street corner under a highway. Applicants rarely have a preexisting relationship with the person asking the questions, and, due to understaffing at many nonprofits conducting assessments and the high number of people in need, there may not be time to build one.

“You really need to have interviewers establish rapport and relationship with the client prior to conducting or doing any assessment, because if they don’t trust interviewers, they’re just not going to talk to them,” said Cronley, the University of Tennessee professor.

The stakes are high: When an interviewer chooses the “Client refused” option from the pull-down menu of potential answers, the applicant receives zero points for that question.

Valdéz also sees lack of trust as a problem in the communities she serves. “Many of us would not feel comfortable speaking about our personal traumas, in 45 minutes, to a complete stranger,” she said. “My family experienced homelessness, and I can tell you right now, if I’m sitting in front of someone that I’ve just met, it is very unlikely that I would share that in an assessment.”

This was a concern voiced by Auerswald, the Berkeley professor, about the youth questions on violence and trading sex for a place to stay. She said the phrasing would not secure accurate results.

“My worries here is that a lot of young people are gonna say no,” she said. “And obviously, here, they really need to say yes. It’s one of their only hopes at prioritizing for housing, even though it’s a super traumatizing question.”

People’s personal interpretation of each question can affect their answers, Auerswald said. “A lot of young people who are trafficked would say no to this question,” she said. “They’d say, ‘Well I wasn’t raped, it wasn’t violent. I have someone taking care of me and I am paid or given something in exchange.’ Definitions of violence are different now. Violence is a lot of things. You can have sex under threat of violence, even if you don’t have a mark on you.”

Cronley said racial bias in child welfare and policing plays a similar role in determining how forthcoming people are willing to be when answering these questions.

“Black women are going to be more likely to fear that their children will be taken away from them if they report illicit behaviors, or if they report any sort of mental health challenges,” she said. “If you’ve got kids and you’re homeless and you’ve traded sex for money, you’re not going to tell them that you did that. No way.”

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

Critics of San Francisco’s coordinated entry assessment say it’s biased against groups like immigrants, young people and transgender people.

Davis had enough experience with systems for homeless people that she knew not answering the questions was not an option. “I had no choice but to answer them or I couldn’t get into housing,” she said.

For some, though, the experience is so uncomfortable that they drop out of the process entirely. A native of El Salvador, Luis Reyes has lived in San Francisco for 30 years and been homeless for 10 of those. Reyes said he has taken the coordinated entry questionnaire twice — once in 2019 and again in 2020, right before the pandemic hit. Like Davis, he went to the brick building at 123 10th St., the city’s largest drop-in center for these assessments.

“There was a guy who did the assessment in Spanish,” Reyes said, through an interpreter, of his 2020 interview. “‘Are you incapacitated? Are you a senior citizen? Do you have AIDS?’” Reyes remembers him asking. “He even asked me if I was gay,” he recalls — a question that is not included in the coordinated entry assessment. Reyes answered no to all of the above and says he was then told he didn’t qualify for housing.

The experience discouraged Reyes, who was living in a shelter at the time of his second assessment. He decided not to take the questionnaire again. He has spent some months sleeping in his car, and more recently he stayed with his girlfriend at a senior living facility. But she’s not allowed to have guests, and soon he will have to return to the streets.

System Under Review

Across the country, cities and counties are starting to critically examine their coordinated entry systems. Last year, eight communities, including Chicago and Austin, Texas, studied the data on their coordinated entry results and discovered significant racial disparities. Both cities revised their systems using community feedback, redesigned their processes and wound up approving more people of color for services.

In San Francisco, 17,000 coordinated entry assessments were conducted between the launch of the system in 2018 and the middle of 2021. This year, the city announced it would be undertaking its own review to determine if the government is serving people equitably and if the housing options offered are a good fit for those in need. Nagendra, at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, is overseeing the city’s review.

“If things have gotten away from our overall intention and design, we can look at those things and figure out where we need to redesign, refresh, whatever it might be,” she said in an interview.

The city’s approach to its review is driven by data and leans heavily on interviews, which are being conducted in focus groups and through outreach at encampments. The agency plans to make the research findings public in late May.

Critics would like to see a more radical overhaul of the coordinated entry system and the way it is pegged only to the supply of housing.

Joe Wilson, executive director of Hospitality House, a community center for homeless people in the Tenderloin neighborhood, where the majority of the city’s unhoused population resides, explains the problem with that approach.

“This algorithmic-based decision-making process is designed to keep the problem small enough so we don’t have to truly address it,” he said in an interview. “They’re not filling housing based on need, they’re assigning it based on capacity. It is not logical, it’s not consistent, and it’s not effective.”

For example, families used to be required to hit 40 points to qualify for housing. In February, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing doubled that number to 80 points due to a shortage of family-specific housing. Owens, the coordinated entry manager at the department, estimated that the change would reduce the number of families who qualified for housing to between 50% and 60% of those taking the assessment, down from 75%.

Critics of the coordinated entry program have been proposing solutions as the city begins its review. In a February report, the Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco’s largest nonprofit advocating for homeless people, recommended that the city “develop an assessment tool that categorizes people according to what type of housing would be the most suitable for their situation, instead of assigning them an eligibility score. This will tell us what type of housing and assistance is needed, versus how much housing we have.”

The organization also proposes letting case workers and housing providers work together to identify the best place to house an applicant. This approach, the Coalition argues, would create “a real-time housing placement system” that would more quickly bring vulnerable people indoors. This could help address the city’s chronic difficulty in filling the vacant units it has available: As the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica reported in February, 1,633 people who had been approved for housing were still waiting to move in — some for months — even as more than 800 apartments sat vacant. At least 400 people had been on the waitlist for more than a year.

For those working on the front lines of the homelessness crisis, change to the coordinated entry system can’t come fast enough. Last July, in a meeting with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Wilson told a story about a client his organization had helped.

“We have an 86-year-old woman who has been homeless for 14 years who has not been prioritized for housing,” he said, noting that she took a coordinated entry assessment but did not hit the 118-point threshold for housing.

A key insight from that experience, he said: Algorithmic decision-making “moves us away from the absolute necessity of human judgment and human interaction in human services.”

Read part one, In San Francisco, Hundreds of Homes for the Homeless Sit Vacant

The post San Francisco Rations Housing by Scoring Homeless Individuals’s Trauma. By Design, Most Fail to Qualify. appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Co-published with ProPublica. This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the San Francisco Public Press. Sign up for the Public Press newsletter and ProPublica’s Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

Tabitha Davis had just lost twins in childbirth and was facing homelessness. The 23-year-old had slept on friends’ floors for the first seven months of her pregnancy, before being accepted to a temporary housing program for pregnant women. But with the loss of the twins, the housing program she’d applied to live in after giving birth — intended for families — was no longer an option.

After several weeks in a hotel, which a prenatal program for homeless people had paid for while she recovered, Davis went to a brick building in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood to apply for a permanent, subsidized housing unit. There, a case worker she’d never met asked her more than a dozen questions to determine if she was eligible.

Some of the things he asked: Have you ever been sexually assaulted while experiencing homelessness? Have you ever had to use violence to keep yourself safe while experiencing homelessness? Have you ever exchanged sex for a place to stay? “Those are the questions that really bothered me,” she said. “Whatever my experience is of being sexually assaulted, or what I had to do in order to stay safe on the streets, shouldn’t pertain to whether or not I deserve housing.”

That day, Davis was informed that the score she’d been given based on her answers to the questionnaire wasn’t high enough to qualify for permanent supportive housing. It was a devastating blow after an already traumatizing few months. “I thought, ‘You put me on the streets right now, mentally, I will kill myself,’” she said.

What Davis encountered with those questions is called coordinated entry, a system designed to match people experiencing homelessness with housing. In San Francisco’s system, applicants are asked 16 core questions, and their answers are given a point value which is then tallied. The total number is intended to reflect applicants’ vulnerability; currently, a score of 118 points means they qualify for one of the city’s permanent supportive housing units, which is subsidized by the government and comes with wraparound supportive services. Applicants with lower scores may qualify for rent assistance or a bus ticket out of town, but if they want housing in San Francisco, they have to wait six months before taking the test again.

Though the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing has an annual budget of $598 million and the majority of that is spent on housing, there simply aren’t enough permanent supportive housing units available to accommodate the thousands of homeless people in San Francisco. (A 2019 survey estimated the number of homeless people at more than 8,000.) The threshold for approval is directly tied to housing availability, and right now, roughly one-third of people who take the assessment score high enough to qualify.

“It’s really prioritizing scarce resources,” said Cynthia Nagendra, the department’s deputy director of planning and strategy. “There has to be some prioritization, unfortunately, until we have some housing resource for every single person.”

Coordinated entry was meant to be a more objective tool than the previous system, which offered resources on a first-come, first-served basis. In contrast, coordinated entry aims to determine who is most vulnerable and who should therefore get access to the limited supply of available housing.

Through records requests, the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica obtained the questions and scoring algorithm used in San Francisco’s coordinated entry questionnaire, which has never before been made public. The news organizations solicited feedback on that tool from front-line workers, academics and people experiencing homelessness. Some raised objections to how the questions were phrased. Others pointed out inequities in the scoring. And many more criticized the way it was administered, suggesting that the process itself — in which applicants are asked very personal questions by a stranger — might make it unlikely that already-distressed people would answer accurately.

In our interviews, it became clear that the survey fails to identify many of the vulnerabilities it was intended to catch. And what was supposed to be an objective tool winds up, as a result of how it’s written and administered, making it harder for certain populations — immigrants, young people and transgender people — to get indoors, experts and advocates told us.

For Davis, that meant some of the hardships she was experiencing were overlooked. For instance, there was no question in the survey that would give her points for the losses she had just suffered. Failing to qualify for housing resulted in weeks of stress and instability while she recovered from the trauma of losing her children. Eventually, with the assistance of case workers at several organizations, she found a place in a transitional housing program for youth. But being told, during the lowest moment of her life, that she did not qualify for permanent housing left its mark. “It made me feel invalid in my own experience,” she said.

In response to these critiques, homelessness department spokesperson Denny Machuca-Grebe said in an email, “I want to make it clear that anyone who comes to our department for help should NOT ‘be left out.’” For those deemed ineligible for housing, he said the city offers other services; these may include shelter placements, relocation help and rental assistance. In general, the department had not responded to requests for comments about individual cases in the past, and it didn’t comment on Davis’ experience.

Excluded Populations

Coordinated entry was first implemented in 2018, after the Department of Housing and Urban Development began requiring regions that apply for federal homelessness funds to create a tool “to ensure that people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner.” Much of the rest of the country adopted a tool called the Vulnerability Index, Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool. San Francisco developed its own set of questions, intended to determine which unhoused people are in greatest need of a home.

In the four years since the requirement was implemented, some cities and counties have reviewed their coordinated entry systems and uncovered trends such as significant racial or gender biases. A 2019 analysis of data from Oregon, Virginia, and Washington found that even though people of color were overrepresented in the homeless population, they tended to score significantly lower than their white counterparts, making it harder for them to access permanent supportive housing. The study recommended that HUD consider revising its coordinated entry guidelines to ensure that communities“equitably allocate resources and services.” This year, San Francisco started its own analysis of its coordinated entry process, and it expects to present the findings before the end of the year.

Nearly every expert we interviewed suggested that the experiences of people of color may not be fully reflected in their answers to the coordinated entry questions. San Francisco’s own data shows Black, white, Asian and Indigenous people being approved for housing at roughly equal rates. But Nagendra, from the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, is looking into concerns that conditions that often make people of color more vulnerable are not being fully captured and that the numbers may not tell the whole story. “When you look at quantitative data, ours will show we are actually prioritizing people who are Black at an equitable rate. But when we talk to people, they might tell a different story,” she said.

Courtney Cronley, an associate professor of social work at the University of Tennessee who has written about racial bias in coordinated entry systems, pointed to one of San Francisco’s questions as an example of possible bias in action: “How many times have you used crisis services in the past year (for example, mental health crisis services, hospital, detox, suicide prevention hotline)?”

“Black people are less likely to use formal health care systems,” Cronley said. “They’ll reach out to family and friends and social support systems rather than going to the doctor. The doctor is not someone that they necessarily trust. These questions are biased towards persons who are white in our communities and biased against African Americans.”

The Department of Homeslessness and Supportive Housing has also said that very few transgender and gender-nonconforming people have been taking coordinated entry assessments. In a December 2021 meeting, Megan Owens, the department’s coordinated entry manager, presented demographic data on who was being assessed. She said that the number of people reporting those gender identities during assessments is “lower than in the best estimates of the homeless population.” In March, city data showed that transgender and gender-nonconforming people constituted only 2% of those taking assessments to try to get housing.

Critics of San Francisco’s coordinated entry system also say that one of the most basic questions, “How long have you been homeless this time?” leads to the exclusion of immigrants and younger people.

That question might sound simple, but it’s difficult for many people to say how long they’ve been homeless — and answering accurately can be critical to getting housing. That’s because San Francisco’s algorithm grants people more points the longer they have been unhoused: A person who has been homeless for more than 15 years receives 12 more points than someone who’s been homeless for one to two years. Anyone who says they’ve been homeless for less than a year gets zero points on this question. (On average, adults who qualify for housing in San Francisco report being homeless for six years.)

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

The screening tool’s 16 core questions are meant to gauge who qualifies for permanent supportive housing, but can be an impassible gauntlet for some.

Gayle Roberts, the chief development officer at Larkin Street Youth Services, a nonprofit serving young homeless people in San Francisco, said it is “common knowledge among social service providers that it [the coordinated entry system] is weighted heavily toward serving the needs of those who have experienced homelessness the longest.”

Laura Valdéz, executive director of Dolores Street Community Services, is one of several nonprofit leaders who questioned the efficacy of the system. “For many newly arrived immigrants, the way they literally interpret that question is since they’ve been here in San Francisco,” she explained. “So their scores are really low in comparison to other folks. But a large percentage of our immigrant community were unhoused in their home country.”

Valdéz also said the coordinated entry system can lead people living outdoors to accrue significant trauma before they qualify for permanent supportive housing. The program, she said, “requires people to stay in that system that is creating greater and greater harm to them for them to be able to score higher.”

The duration-of-homelessness question can also be tricky for homeless youth, defined as those between 18 and 24. In a 2019 count, they accounted for 14% of the city’s homeless population. Many young people are intermittently homeless, making it difficult to calculate the full length of that experience, said Dr. Colette Auerswald, a professor of community health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Maybe they stayed on their friend’s couch for five days and they were on a bus last night,” she said. “So they may be like, ‘Well, one day,’ but actually they’ve been in an unstable situation for a really long time.”

San Francisco’s homelessness department acknowledges this bias against young people seeking housing. In an attempt to address the age gap, the department included two questions that are only scored for people ages 18 to 24: “In the place you are staying, are you experiencing physical or sexual violence?” and, “In the last 12 months have you traded sex for a place to stay?” If they answer yes to either one, it provides a significant bump in their overall score: 12 points for each question. But if anyone older than 24 who has been sexually assaulted or has traded sex for a place to stay gets no points at all. (While the answers to these questions are only scored for 18-to-24-year-olds, they are asked of every person who takes the assessment. When asked why these questions were asked of people who could not receive points for answering, the department said it was for “data gathering.”)

Machuca-Grebe,  the department spokesperson, explained that the question was added because “we have found that without the score placed on the questions for youth, they would be seriously under prioritized — leading to a disproportionate exclusion of youth.”

Davis was in the 18-to-24 age range when she first took her coordinated entry assessment, so those questions were scored. But she does not believe they should be asked at all.

“There’s not a single person that I can think of that is female-presenting that hasn’t been sexually assaulted while experiencing any part of their life, not just homelessness,” she said. “So you’re telling me that because someone hasn’t been raped, that she doesn’t get housing, and then she stays on the streets and then does get raped? And now she can? No, that doesn’t make sense.”

Questions From a Stranger

It is not just the wording and scoring of the questions that give experts pause. They also said that the way the assessment is given can fail to accurately assess a person’s vulnerability.

In San Francisco, all questions must be read by a trained staff member from one of the nonprofits that contract with the city to conduct the assessment. The questions are pulled up on an iPad or a computer. A drop-down menu offers a prewritten set of answers to select from, and the score is automatically added up by the software.

Coordinated entry assessments are frequently conducted in semi-public places, like a bustling office or a street corner under a highway. Applicants rarely have a preexisting relationship with the person asking the questions, and, due to understaffing at many nonprofits conducting assessments and the high number of people in need, there may not be time to build one.

“You really need to have interviewers establish rapport and relationship with the client prior to conducting or doing any assessment, because if they don’t trust interviewers, they’re just not going to talk to them,” said Cronley, the University of Tennessee professor.

The stakes are high: When an interviewer chooses the “Client refused” option from the pull-down menu of potential answers, the applicant receives zero points for that question.

Valdéz also sees lack of trust as a problem in the communities she serves. “Many of us would not feel comfortable speaking about our personal traumas, in 45 minutes, to a complete stranger,” she said. “My family experienced homelessness, and I can tell you right now, if I’m sitting in front of someone that I’ve just met, it is very unlikely that I would share that in an assessment.”

This was a concern voiced by Auerswald, the Berkeley professor, about the youth questions on violence and trading sex for a place to stay. She said the phrasing would not secure accurate results.

“My worries here is that a lot of young people are gonna say no,” she said. “And obviously, here, they really need to say yes. It’s one of their only hopes at prioritizing for housing, even though it’s a super traumatizing question.”

People’s personal interpretation of each question can affect their answers, Auerswald said. “A lot of young people who are trafficked would say no to this question,” she said. “They’d say, ‘Well I wasn’t raped, it wasn’t violent. I have someone taking care of me and I am paid or given something in exchange.’ Definitions of violence are different now. Violence is a lot of things. You can have sex under threat of violence, even if you don’t have a mark on you.”

Cronley said racial bias in child welfare and policing plays a similar role in determining how forthcoming people are willing to be when answering these questions.

“Black women are going to be more likely to fear that their children will be taken away from them if they report illicit behaviors, or if they report any sort of mental health challenges,” she said. “If you’ve got kids and you’re homeless and you’ve traded sex for money, you’re not going to tell them that you did that. No way.”

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

Critics of San Francisco’s coordinated entry assessment say it’s biased against groups like immigrants, young people and transgender people.

Davis had enough experience with systems for homeless people that she knew not answering the questions was not an option. “I had no choice but to answer them or I couldn’t get into housing,” she said.

For some, though, the experience is so uncomfortable that they drop out of the process entirely. A native of El Salvador, Luis Reyes has lived in San Francisco for 30 years and been homeless for 10 of those. Reyes said he has taken the coordinated entry questionnaire twice — once in 2019 and again in 2020, right before the pandemic hit. Like Davis, he went to the brick building at 123 10th St., the city’s largest drop-in center for these assessments.

“There was a guy who did the assessment in Spanish,” Reyes said, through an interpreter, of his 2020 interview. “‘Are you incapacitated? Are you a senior citizen? Do you have AIDS?’” Reyes remembers him asking. “He even asked me if I was gay,” he recalls — a question that is not included in the coordinated entry assessment. Reyes answered no to all of the above and says he was then told he didn’t qualify for housing.

The experience discouraged Reyes, who was living in a shelter at the time of his second assessment. He decided not to take the questionnaire again. He has spent some months sleeping in his car, and more recently he stayed with his girlfriend at a senior living facility. But she’s not allowed to have guests, and soon he will have to return to the streets.

System Under Review

Across the country, cities and counties are starting to critically examine their coordinated entry systems. Last year, eight communities, including Chicago and Austin, Texas, studied the data on their coordinated entry results and discovered significant racial disparities. Both cities revised their systems using community feedback, redesigned their processes and wound up approving more people of color for services.

In San Francisco, 17,000 coordinated entry assessments were conducted between the launch of the system in 2018 and the middle of 2021. This year, the city announced it would be undertaking its own review to determine if the government is serving people equitably and if the housing options offered are a good fit for those in need. Nagendra, at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, is overseeing the city’s review.

“If things have gotten away from our overall intention and design, we can look at those things and figure out where we need to redesign, refresh, whatever it might be,” she said in an interview.

The city’s approach to its review is driven by data and leans heavily on interviews, which are being conducted in focus groups and through outreach at encampments. The agency plans to make the research findings public in late May.

Critics would like to see a more radical overhaul of the coordinated entry system and the way it is pegged only to the supply of housing.

Joe Wilson, executive director of Hospitality House, a community center for homeless people in the Tenderloin neighborhood, where the majority of the city’s unhoused population resides, explains the problem with that approach.

“This algorithmic-based decision-making process is designed to keep the problem small enough so we don’t have to truly address it,” he said in an interview. “They’re not filling housing based on need, they’re assigning it based on capacity. It is not logical, it’s not consistent, and it’s not effective.”

For example, families used to be required to hit 40 points to qualify for housing. In February, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing doubled that number to 80 points due to a shortage of family-specific housing. Owens, the coordinated entry manager at the department, estimated that the change would reduce the number of families who qualified for housing to between 50% and 60% of those taking the assessment, down from 75%.

Critics of the coordinated entry program have been proposing solutions as the city begins its review. In a February report, the Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco’s largest nonprofit advocating for homeless people, recommended that the city “develop an assessment tool that categorizes people according to what type of housing would be the most suitable for their situation, instead of assigning them an eligibility score. This will tell us what type of housing and assistance is needed, versus how much housing we have.”

The organization also proposes letting case workers and housing providers work together to identify the best place to house an applicant. This approach, the Coalition argues, would create “a real-time housing placement system” that would more quickly bring vulnerable people indoors. This could help address the city’s chronic difficulty in filling the vacant units it has available: As the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica reported in February, 1,633 people who had been approved for housing were still waiting to move in — some for months — even as more than 800 apartments sat vacant. At least 400 people had been on the waitlist for more than a year.

For those working on the front lines of the homelessness crisis, change to the coordinated entry system can’t come fast enough. Last July, in a meeting with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Wilson told a story about a client his organization had helped.

“We have an 86-year-old woman who has been homeless for 14 years who has not been prioritized for housing,” he said, noting that she took a coordinated entry assessment but did not hit the 118-point threshold for housing.

A key insight from that experience, he said: Algorithmic decision-making “moves us away from the absolute necessity of human judgment and human interaction in human services.”

The post San Francisco Rations Housing by Scoring Homeless Folks’s Trauma. By Design, Most Fail to Qualify. appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the San Francisco Public Press. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

Tabitha Davis had just lost twins in childbirth and was facing homelessness. The 23-year-old had slept on friends’ floors for the first seven months of her pregnancy, before being accepted to a temporary housing program for pregnant women. But with the loss of the twins, the housing program she’d applied to live in after giving birth — intended for families — was no longer an option.

After several weeks in a hotel, which a prenatal program for homeless people had paid for while she recovered, Davis went to a brick building in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood to apply for a permanent, subsidized housing unit. There, a case worker she’d never met asked her more than a dozen questions to determine if she was eligible.

Some of the things he asked: Have you ever been sexually assaulted while experiencing homelessness? Have you ever had to use violence to keep yourself safe while experiencing homelessness? Have you ever exchanged sex for a place to stay? “Those are the questions that really bothered me,” she said. “Whatever my experience is of being sexually assaulted, or what I had to do in order to stay safe on the streets, shouldn’t pertain to whether or not I deserve housing.”

That day, Davis was informed that the score she’d been given based on her answers to the questionnaire wasn’t high enough to qualify for permanent supportive housing. It was a devastating blow after an already traumatizing few months. “I thought, ‘You put me on the streets right now, mentally, I will kill myself,’” she said.

What Davis encountered with those questions is called coordinated entry, a system designed to match people experiencing homelessness with housing. In San Francisco’s system, applicants are asked 16 core questions, and their answers are given a point value which is then tallied. The total number is intended to reflect applicants’ vulnerability; currently, a score of 118 points means they qualify for one of the city’s permanent supportive housing units, which is subsidized by the government and comes with wraparound supportive services. Applicants with lower scores may qualify for rent assistance or a bus ticket out of town, but if they want housing in San Francisco, they have to wait six months before taking the test again.

Though the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing has an annual budget of $598 million and the majority of that is spent on housing, there simply aren’t enough permanent supportive housing units available to accommodate the thousands of homeless people in San Francisco. (A 2019 survey estimated the number of homeless people at more than 8,000.) The threshold for approval is directly tied to housing availability, and right now, roughly one-third of people who take the assessment score high enough to qualify.

“It’s really prioritizing scarce resources,” said Cynthia Nagendra, the department’s deputy director of planning and strategy. “There has to be some prioritization, unfortunately, until we have some housing resource for every single person.”

Coordinated entry was meant to be a more objective tool than the previous system, which offered resources on a first-come, first-served basis. In contrast, coordinated entry aims to determine who is most vulnerable and who should therefore get access to the limited supply of available housing.

Through records requests, the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica obtained the questions and scoring algorithm used in San Francisco’s coordinated entry questionnaire, which has never before been made public. The news organizations solicited feedback on that tool from front-line workers, academics and people experiencing homelessness. Some raised objections to how the questions were phrased. Others pointed out inequities in the scoring. And many more criticized the way it was administered, suggesting that the process itself — in which applicants are asked very personal questions by a stranger — might make it unlikely that already-distressed people would answer accurately.

In our interviews, it became clear that the survey fails to identify many of the vulnerabilities it was intended to catch. And what was supposed to be an objective tool winds up, as a result of how it’s written and administered, making it harder for certain populations — immigrants, young people and transgender people, among others — to get indoors, experts and advocates told us.

For Davis, that meant some of the hardships she was experiencing were overlooked. For instance, there was no question in the survey that would give her points for the losses she had just suffered. Failing to qualify for housing resulted in weeks of stress and instability while she recovered from the trauma of losing her children. Eventually, with the assistance of case workers at several organizations, she found a place in a transitional housing program for youth. But being told, during the lowest moment of her life, that she did not qualify for permanent housing left its mark. “It made me feel invalid in my own experience,” she said.

In response to these critiques, homelessness department spokesperson Denny Machuca-Grebe said in an email, “I want to make it clear that anyone who comes to our department for help should NOT ‘be left out.’” For those deemed ineligible for housing, he said the city offers other services; these may include shelter placements, relocation help and rental assistance. In general, the department had not responded to requests for comments about individual cases in the past, and it didn’t comment on Davis’ experience.

Excluded Populations

Coordinated entry was first implemented in 2018, after the Department of Housing and Urban Development began requiring regions that apply for federal homelessness funds to create a tool “to ensure that people who need assistance the most can receive it in a timely manner.” Much of the rest of the country adopted a tool called the Vulnerability Index, Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool. San Francisco developed its own set of questions, intended to determine which unhoused people are in greatest need of a home.

In the four years since the requirement was implemented, some cities and counties have reviewed their coordinated entry systems and uncovered trends such as significant racial or gender biases. A 2019 analysis of data from Oregon, Virginia, and Washington found that even though people of color were overrepresented in the homeless population, they tended to score significantly lower than their white counterparts, making it harder for them to access permanent supportive housing. The study recommended that HUD consider revising its coordinated entry guidelines to ensure that communities “equitably allocate resources and services.” This year, San Francisco started its own analysis of its coordinated entry process, and it expects to present the findings before the end of the year.

Nearly every expert we interviewed suggested that the experiences of people of color may not be fully reflected in their answers to the coordinated entry questions. San Francisco’s own data shows Black, white, Asian and Indigenous people being approved for housing at roughly equal rates. But Nagendra, from the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, is looking into concerns that conditions that often make people of color more vulnerable are not being fully captured and that the numbers may not tell the whole story. “When you look at quantitative data, ours will show we are actually prioritizing people who are Black at an equitable rate. But when we talk to people, they might tell a different story,” she said.

Courtney Cronley, an associate professor of social work at the University of Tennessee who has written about racial bias in coordinated entry systems, pointed to one of San Francisco’s questions as an example of possible bias in action: “How many times have you used crisis services in the past year (for example, mental health crisis services, hospital, detox, suicide prevention hotline)?”

“Black people are less likely to use formal health care systems,” Cronley said. “They’ll reach out to family and friends and social support systems rather than going to the doctor. The doctor is not someone that they necessarily trust. These questions are biased towards persons who are white in our communities and biased against African Americans.”

The Department of Homeslessness and Supportive Housing has also said that very few transgender and gender-nonconforming people have been taking coordinated entry assessments. In a December 2021 meeting, Megan Owens, the department’s coordinated entry manager, presented demographic data on who was being assessed. She said that the number of people reporting those gender identities during assessments is “lower than in the best estimates of the homeless population.” In March, city data showed that transgender and gender-nonconforming people constituted only 2% of those taking assessments to try to get housing.

Critics of San Francisco’s coordinated entry system also say that one of the most basic questions, “How long have you been homeless this time?” leads to the exclusion of immigrants and younger people.

That question might sound simple, but it’s difficult for many people to say how long they’ve been homeless — and answering accurately can be critical to getting housing. That’s because San Francisco’s algorithm grants people more points the longer they have been unhoused: A person who has been homeless for more than 15 years receives 12 more points than someone who’s been homeless for one to two years. Anyone who says they’ve been homeless for less than a year gets zero points on this question. (On average, adults who qualify for housing in San Francisco report being homeless for six years.)

Credit:
Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

Gayle Roberts, the chief development officer at Larkin Street Youth Services, a nonprofit serving young homeless people in San Francisco, said it is “common knowledge among social service providers that it [the coordinated entry system] is weighted heavily toward serving the needs of those who have experienced homelessness the longest.”

Laura Valdéz, executive director of Dolores Street Community Services, is one of several nonprofit leaders who questioned the efficacy of the system. “For many newly arrived immigrants, the way they literally interpret that question is since they’ve been here in San Francisco,” she explained. “So their scores are really low in comparison to other folks. But a large percentage of our immigrant community were unhoused in their home country.”

Valdéz also said the coordinated entry system can lead people living outdoors to accrue significant trauma before they qualify for permanent supportive housing. The program, she said, “requires people to stay in that system that is creating greater and greater harm to them for them to be able to score higher.”

The duration-of-homelessness question can also be tricky for homeless youth, defined as those between 18 and 24. In a 2019 count, they accounted for 14% of the city’s homeless population. Many young people are intermittently homeless, making it difficult to calculate the full length of that experience, said Dr. Colette Auerswald, a professor of community health sciences at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Maybe they stayed on their friend’s couch for five days and they were on a bus last night,” she said. “So they may be like, ‘Well, one day,’ but actually they’ve been in an unstable situation for a really long time.”

San Francisco’s homelessness department acknowledges this bias against young people seeking housing. In an attempt to address the age gap, the department included two questions that are only scored for people ages 18 to 24: “In the place you are staying, are you experiencing physical or sexual violence?” and, “In the last 12 months have you traded sex for a place to stay?” If they answer yes to either one, it provides a significant bump in their overall score: 12 points for each question. But if anyone older than 24 who has been sexually assaulted or has traded sex for a place to stay gets no points at all. (While the answers to these questions are only scored for 18-to-24-year-olds, they are asked of every person who takes the assessment. When asked why these questions were asked of people who could not receive points for answering, the department said it was for “data gathering.”)

Machuca-Grebe, the department spokesperson, explained that the question was added because “we have found that without the score placed on the questions for youth, they would be seriously under prioritized — leading to a disproportionate exclusion of youth.”

Davis was in the 18-to-24 age range when she first took her coordinated entry assessment, so those questions were scored. But she does not believe they should be asked at all.

“There’s not a single person that I can think of that is female-presenting that hasn’t been sexually assaulted while experiencing any part of their life, not just homelessness,” she said. “So you’re telling me that because someone hasn’t been raped, that she doesn’t get housing, and then she stays on the streets and then does get raped? And now she can? No, that doesn’t make sense.”

Questions From a Stranger

It is not just the wording and scoring of the questions that give experts pause. They also said that the way the assessment is given can fail to accurately assess a person’s vulnerability.

In San Francisco, all questions must be read by a trained staff member from one of the nonprofits that contract with the city to conduct the assessment. The questions are pulled up on an iPad or a computer. A drop-down menu offers a prewritten set of answers to select from, and the score is automatically added up by the software.

Coordinated entry assessments are frequently conducted in semi-public places, like a bustling office or a street corner under a highway. Applicants rarely have a preexisting relationship with the person asking the questions, and, due to understaffing at many nonprofits conducting assessments and the high number of people in need, there may not be time to build one.

“You really need to have interviewers establish rapport and relationship with the client prior to conducting or doing any assessment, because if they don’t trust interviewers, they’re just not going to talk to them,” said Cronley, the University of Tennessee professor.

The stakes are high: When an interviewer chooses the “Client refused” option from the pull-down menu of potential answers, the applicant receives zero points for that question.

Valdéz also sees lack of trust as a problem in the communities she serves. “Many of us would not feel comfortable speaking about our personal traumas, in 45 minutes, to a complete stranger,” she said. “My family experienced homelessness, and I can tell you right now, if I’m sitting in front of someone that I’ve just met, it is very unlikely that I would share that in an assessment.”

This was a concern voiced by Auerswald, the Berkeley professor, about the youth questions on violence and trading sex for a place to stay. She said the phrasing would not secure accurate results.

“My worries here is that a lot of young people are gonna say no,” she said. “And obviously, here, they really need to say yes. It’s one of their only hopes at prioritizing for housing, even though it’s a super traumatizing question.”

People’s personal interpretation of each question can affect their answers, Auerswald said. “A lot of young people who are trafficked would say no to this question,” she said. “They’d say, ‘Well I wasn’t raped, it wasn’t violent. I have someone taking care of me and I am paid or given something in exchange.’ Definitions of violence are different now. Violence is a lot of things. You can have sex under threat of violence, even if you don’t have a mark on you.”

Cronley said racial bias in child welfare and policing plays a similar role in determining how forthcoming people are willing to be when answering these questions.

“Black women are going to be more likely to fear that their children will be taken away from them if they report illicit behaviors, or if they report any sort of mental health challenges,” she said. “If you’ve got kids and you’re homeless and you’ve traded sex for money, you’re not going to tell them that you did that. No way.”

Credit:
Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

Davis had enough experience with systems for homeless people that she knew not answering the questions was not an option. “I had no choice but to answer them or I couldn’t get into housing,” she said.

For some, though, the experience is so uncomfortable that they drop out of the process entirely. A native of El Salvador, Luis Reyes has lived in San Francisco for 30 years and been homeless for 10 of those. Reyes said he has taken the coordinated entry questionnaire twice — once in 2019 and again in 2020, right before the pandemic hit. Like Davis, he went to the brick building at 123 10th St., the city’s largest drop-in center for these assessments.

“There was a guy who did the assessment in Spanish,” Reyes said, through an interpreter, of his 2020 interview. “‘Are you incapacitated? Are you a senior citizen? Do you have AIDS?’” Reyes remembers him asking. “He even asked me if I was gay,” he recalls — a question that is not included in the coordinated entry assessment. Reyes answered no to all of the above and says he was then told he didn’t qualify for housing.

The experience discouraged Reyes, who was living in a shelter at the time of his second assessment. He decided not to take the questionnaire again. He has spent some months sleeping in his car, and more recently he stayed with his girlfriend at a senior living facility. But she’s not allowed to have guests, and soon he will have to return to the streets.

System Under Review

Across the country, cities and counties are starting to critically examine their coordinated entry systems. Last year, eight communities, including Chicago and Austin, Texas, studied the data on their coordinated entry results and discovered significant racial disparities. Both cities revised their systems using community feedback, redesigned their processes and wound up approving more people of color for services.

In San Francisco, 17,000 coordinated entry assessments were conducted between the launch of the system in 2018 and the middle of 2021. This year, the city announced it would be undertaking its own review to determine if the government is serving people equitably and if the housing options offered are a good fit for those in need. Nagendra, at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, is overseeing the city’s review.

“If things have gotten away from our overall intention and design, we can look at those things and figure out where we need to redesign, refresh, whatever it might be,” she said in an interview.

The city’s approach to its review is driven by data and leans heavily on interviews, which are being conducted in focus groups and through outreach at encampments. The agency plans to make the research findings public in late May.

Critics would like to see a more radical overhaul of the coordinated entry system and the way it is pegged only to the supply of housing.

Joe Wilson, executive director of Hospitality House, a community center for homeless people in the Tenderloin neighborhood, where the majority of the city’s unhoused population resides, explains the problem with that approach.

“This algorithmic-based decision-making process is designed to keep the problem small enough so we don’t have to truly address it,” he said in an interview. “They’re not filling housing based on need, they’re assigning it based on capacity. It is not logical, it’s not consistent, and it’s not effective.”

For example, families used to be required to hit 40 points to qualify for housing. In February, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing doubled that number to 80 points due to a shortage of family-specific housing. Owens, the coordinated entry manager at the department, estimated that the change would reduce the number of families who qualified for housing to between 50% and 60% of those taking the assessment, down from 75%.

Critics of the coordinated entry program have been proposing solutions as the city begins its review. In a February report, the Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco’s largest nonprofit advocating for homeless people, recommended that the city “develop an assessment tool that categorizes people according to what type of housing would be the most suitable for their situation, instead of assigning them an eligibility score. This will tell us what type of housing and assistance is needed, versus how much housing we have.”

The organization also proposes letting case workers and housing providers work together to identify the best place to house an applicant. This approach, the Coalition argues, would create “a real-time housing placement system” that would more quickly bring vulnerable people indoors. This could help address the city’s chronic difficulty in filling the vacant units it has available: As the San Francisco Public Press and ProPublica reported in February, 1,633 people who had been approved for housing were still waiting to move in — some for months — even as more than 800 apartments sat vacant. At least 400 people had been on the waitlist for more than a year.

Child Advocates Sue New York Over Proposed Shadow Foster Care System

For those working on the front lines of the homelessness crisis, change to the coordinated entry system can’t come fast enough. Last July, in a meeting with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Wilson told a story about a client his organization had helped.

“We have an 86-year-old woman who has been homeless for 14 years who has not been prioritized for housing,” he said, noting that she took a coordinated entry assessment but did not hit the 118-point threshold for housing.

A key insight from that experience, he said: Algorithmic decision-making “moves us away from the absolute necessity of human judgment and human interaction in human services.”

The post San Francisco Rations Housing by Scoring Homeless Folks’s Trauma. By Design, Most Fail to Qualify. — ProPublica appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

To reach the unvaccinated in San Francisco, the city will bring COVID-19 vaccines into people’s homes, Mayor London Breed announced on Tuesday.

When a person can bring together between five and twelve people who want to be vaccinated, the city sends a mobile vaccination unit – doctors or nurses plus vaccination equipment – to their home or work place to give the vaccine.

The mobile vaccine unit has been supplying vulnerable groups of the population – such as senior citizens in dormitories and people who are home or homeless – and has administered around 6,000 doses since February. Now the service is available to anyone who organizes a small group, even if it’s just their own family members.

“It’s important that we make it as easy as possible for people to get vaccinated,” Breed said at an early afternoon press conference in the outdoor dining area of ​​Sheba Piano Lounge.

Breed found that vaccination rates are still lagging among the black and Latin American communities in San Francisco.

By Tuesday, 77% of all eligible San Franciscans had been fully vaccinated and 84% had received at least one dose. But for the black community, according to district data, only 64% got their first chance and only 74% of Latinos.

Breed added that of the 93 people currently hospitalized in San Francisco with COVID-19, the majority are black or Latinos.

“I understand people have concerns” about the history of the health system, she said. “But the fact is, we are in a different time where we need to focus on saving lives.”

“It’s really a matter of life or death,” added Breed, calling vaccinating more people “the final hurdle” of the pandemic.

She also found that San Francisco had fewer than 600 COVID-19-related deaths, far fewer than other major cities – Los Angeles County had a total of 24,690 deaths and New York City had 33,557.

But with the Delta variant fueling a surge in cases, San Francisco Health Department models show that at the current rate, there are about 300 more deaths likely within a few weeks, Breed said – the vast majority among unvaccinated people.

“We should be so proud” of how San Francisco has fared in the pandemic so far, Breed said. “So let’s not stop now.”

“Vaccines are still our way out,” said Dr. Grant Colfax, the city’s health director. “The best protection is the vaccine, the masking, and the encouragement to your friends, family and community members to get vaccinated today.”

While there are some breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people, vaccination is the difference between “sniffing and choking” or “a few days in bed at home” and “a few weeks in an ICU bed,” Colfax said.

“This is not a good time to be unvaccinated,” he said.

To schedule a vaccination visit to San Francisco, visit the mobile vaccination center website. You can also call the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s vaccine call center at 628-652-2700.

Danielle Echeverria is a contributor to the San Francisco Chronicle. Email: danielle.echeverria@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DanielleEchev

The post San Francisco will now carry COVID vaccines to folks’s houses appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The promenade will follow the historic route that the city’s first gay liberation day parade took in 1972

Juanita MORE !, co-host Alex U. Inn and activist Honey Mahogany march at the People’s Pride March and Rally 2020. (Photo: Courtesy of @ missmore8)

E.The work ethic of mpress Juanita MORE! knows no limits. In addition to her beloved (and now sold out) Pride party at 620 Jones Sunday, the venerable queen of finger swagging will again host the People’s March and rally that debuted around this time last year amid the pandemic.

Unlike the 2020 iteration, this year’s strolling and collecting will be a largely mask-free affair.

MORE! teased the event would be again hapPening earlier this year, but plans to cement activism did not bear fruit until earlier this month. And just like the first People’s March and Rally, an impressive list of local talent and artists will be in attendance, giving speeches, and participants pondering. But to avoid unnecessary confusion, the 2021 event will stay at the Civic Center – and not travel to Castro, which leads to the adorable chaos of the gayborhoods also on Pride weekend.

“We will roar our voices out of solidarity with our black, brown and indigenous trans and queer families, friends, lovers and neighbors,” read a press release from the event. “We will emerge in droves with increased voices to stand up for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, denounce and condemn police violence against our communities, and raise awareness of the need to defuse police departments, which can reallocate funds to social services, Mental health providers and social justice organizations.

The People’s March and Assembly will begin on Sunday June 27th at
10:30 am, starting on Sacramento and Polk Streets, before heading down to City Hall – where DJ spins, performances by drag performers, and general glee continue until 6:00 pm.

For more information on the event, visit juanitamore.com/events/peoplesmarch.

The post Go to Tomorrow’s Individuals’s March in San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Two women seen attacking Uber drivers in a viral video wanted for assault, robberyA San Francisco Police source told KPIX 5 that the latest attack by an Uber driver was looking for two women. (3/10/21)

4 hours ago

Project House: Bidding Wars Return as the Bay Area housing market warms 1 year after the pandemicIn the Bay Area real estate market, bidding wars are back with a vengeance, almost a year after the COVID-19 pandemic. Susie Steimle reports. (3/10/21)

4 hours ago

COVID reopening: Pleasanton 1st Public Middle, high schools in Alameda County to resume personal learningOn Thursday, the Pleasanton Unified School District will be the first in Alameda County to resume face-to-face learning at all grade levels, including middle and high schools, for the first time since the pandemic began. Andrea Nakano reports. (3/10/21)

4 hours ago

COVID vaccine: Santa Clara County stops scheduling appointments for first dose due to deliveryOfficials in Santa Clara County said they stopped scheduling appointments for the first doses of the COVID-19 vaccine after receiving fewer than expected doses from the state. Maria Medina reports. (3/10/21)

4 hours ago

VIDEO: Coast Guard looking for a driver who jumped off the Bay Bridge after a serious crashThe search was on for a driver who had jumped off the San Francisco / Oakland Bay Bridge following a multiple car accident that blocked the westbound lanes for nearly an hour.

6 hours ago

SF Startup’s 10-minute battery swap stations could revolutionize the electric vehicle marketA startup in San Francisco offers the ability to charge electric vehicles in just 10 minutes. John Ramos tells us this could revolutionize the electric vehicle market.

7 hours ago

Berkeley People’s Park residents reject responsibility for home vandalismStudent squatters in a warehouse in historic Volkspark fought with the University of California at Berkeley over who was responsible for the recent attacks and vandalism. Don Ford reports.

8 hours ago

Source identifies suspects in the brutal Oakland attack that left elderly Asian man on life supportKatie Nielsen reports, through a police source, that the suspect in the Oakland attack and robbery that killed a 75-year-old Asian man has a long criminal history (3-10-2021).

8 hours ago

Wednesday night weather forecast With Paul HeggenAfter a stormy Wednesday that included hail in some areas, expect the showers to subside on Wednesday nights and in cold conditions. Thick fog may be possible in some areas. On Thursday, conditions are cool and dry and temperatures warm up by the weekend. Paul Heggen has the forecast. (3/10/21)

9 hours ago

Jefferson Prize Winners: Margaret Gonzalez and Steve Perdicaris.This week’s Jefferson Award winners are two musicians who use the power of music to transform the lives of underserved students in the San Francisco Mission District. Sharon Chin reports. (3/10/21)

9 hours ago

Source: Oakland suspect who left the 75-year-old Asian victim for life support has a long criminal historyKatie Nielsen reports, through a police source, that the suspect in the Oakland attack and robbery that killed a 75-year-old Asian man has a long criminal history (3-10-2021).

9 hours ago

Recall efforts against San Francisco DA Boudin continueWilson Walker reports on campaign to recall the San Francisco District Attorney at the Signature-Gathering Phase (3-10-2021)

9 hours ago

Police Standoff With Man is closing down the Danville neighborhoodA stalemate between a police force and a man in a truck has closed a neighborhood in Danville.

9 hours ago

COVID vaccines: Women report worse side effects in the CDC studyThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published the results of a study that found that the first 13.7 million people received the vaccine and that women had worse side effects than men. Devin Fehely reports. (3/10/21)

9 hours ago

Orange County homes hit by mudslide in Silverado CanyonHomes in Silverado Canyon in eastern Orange County had to be excavated after a landslide. (3/10/21)

10 hours ago

House Adopts COVID Relief Package, Gives President Biden a VictorySkyler Henry reports on one of President Joe Biden’s first major legislative gains with the passage of the US rescue plan (3-10-2021).

10 hours ago

Pleasanton School District turns 1st in Alameda County to reopen middle and high schoolsPublic schools in Pleasanton will be the first in Alameda County to open middle and high schools for personal instruction on Thursday. Andrea Nakano reports. (3/10/21)

10 hours ago

Hail covers parts of the Bay Area; Snow falls on the highest peaksA storm that moved through the Bay Area on Wednesday morning brought hailstones to cover some neighborhoods while snow dusted the highest peaks. (3/10/21)

10 hours ago

Apple’s new collaboration with Common Sense MediaCBSN Bay Area’s Emily Turner speaks with CNET’s Shara Tibken about the latest tech headlines, including Apple’s new partnership to deliver podcast recommendations for children.

12 hours ago

National Colon Cancer Awareness MonthMarch is Colon Cancer Awareness Month. Michelle Griego of CBSN Bay Area interviews Dr. Anderson Rowe of the San Ramon Regional Medical Center on top causes and symptoms to look out for.

12 hours ago

Oakland’s Children’s Tale is gearing up to reopenCBSN Bay Area speaks with Kymberly Miller, Executive Director of Children’s Fairyland, about the park’s much-anticipated reopening on March 19th.

13 hours ago

“How it feels to be free” explores the struggles of 6 legendary black female stars from Stage & ScreenDirector Yoruba Richen talks to Black Renaissance host Jan Mabry about her latest documentary, How It Feels To Be Free, which examines the struggles of 6 black female stars – Lena Horne, Abbey Lincoln, Nina Simone, Diahann Carroll, Cicely Tyson and Pam Grier – who changed the entertainment industry and the image of black women.

15 hours ago

Historian Tyler Stovall talks about his new book ‘White Freedom’Historian Tyler Stovall speaks to BR host Jan Mabry about his latest book, “White Freedom, the Racial History of an Idea,” in which he examines the racist legacy behind the Western idea of ​​freedom. Stovall is Professor of History and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Fordham University.

15 hours ago

Wednesday afternoon weather forecast with Mary Lee(3/10/21)

15 hours ago

The post Berkeley Individuals’s Park Occupiers Deny Duty For Vandalism On Properties – CBS San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.