Meeting Information

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 

Commission on the Status of Women

Hearing – March 25, 2009

 

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Wonderful.  Well, we are moving on to our new business which is the start of a public hearing on the current economic crisis, impact and recommendations for San Francisco’s women and girls.  And for those of you that are here to make public comment, unless you are actually scheduled to do so, please make sure that you fill out the blue cards or blue sheets that are available and give those to staff who will give them to me and then I will call you.  But, again, I want to first of all welcome everyone, thank everyone for taking the time to be a part of what we hope to be not only a very healthy discussion, but clearly a very informative one towards the end of fashioning some sort of policy response so that we make sure that through these particularly challenging times that the interests of women and girls are best protected.  A number of key things clearly happened in the last sixty days or so with the new administration under President Obama.  One thing that I think that we can all take some celebratory moment to recognize is the creation of the White House Council on Women and Girls.  We’ve also heard some very encouraging remarks and some movement.  And, again, I want to welcome Anu back from Washington, DC.  She has presented a very healthy report in terms of what went down there in terms of moving forward on CVAL and other initiatives.  So we’re getting some good indicators from this new administration from both the White House from the President, as well as our new Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton that definitely indicates that the issues of women and girls not only here in the United States, but certainly looking at our issues globally are being taken seriously. 

 

So today’s meeting is in something of a similar vein of making sure that we’ll able to get the information, hear testimony, hear data, ideas, etc.  We’re very hopeful that some of you that may not be accustomed to coming to some of these public meetings (I see a number of new faces) that you will come, tell your story, give us an idea of what your concerns are, what you’ve gone through personally, or what you know to be happening to some of (maybe) your sisters, or your mother, or your neighbors, or co-workers.  So, again, welcome everyone, and on that note let us get started.

 

We are going to start with the series of speakers and each of these speakers will be granted three to five minutes.  If I can ask the speakers if at all possible, if you can, keep your remarks to three minutes.  That would be great and then that way we have some time to (address any questions that anyone may have).  What we would really like to do is have a continued flow of remarks from these scheduled speakers.

 

Let’s first bring up Rebekah Krell who is from the Mayor’s Budget Office.

 

Rebekah Krell:  Hi, good afternoon Commissioners.  Katherine Dodd is going to be a little late this evening, so I’m here in her stead.  I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments.  This may be information that folks already know but I am just going to go over a couple information notes.

 

So, the first is that different agencies in the City are coordinating to apply for both and competitive and formula funding.  The one (competitive) being kind of application based and the formula funding being based on last year’s application and demographic factors.  As we all noticed stimulus money is helping San Francisco and cities all over the US deal with the dramatic economic downturn.  Katherine also wanted me to share that a memo was distributed from the Vice President just kind of underscoring that cities with the most dire need are going to be funded first.  She wanted us to keep that in mind.  And then the other information to know is that there are two Violence Against Women grants coming out of the Department of Justice.  One is $13 million statewide for the STOP (correct name?) grant and in the past that has funded two prosecutors at the DA’s office to do (inaudible – stalking?) work.  That was previously cut so we’re looking for that funding to restore the two prosecutors that we used to have working on (inaudible – stalking?).  And then the other is the transitional housing which is $50 million nationwide so relatively small amount of money.  The Department On the Status of Women is the lead on that. The application is due April 8.  Although those are the only two specific grants there’s other broader public safety grants that will enhance that funding.  The other note is that City is hoping to launch “recoverysf.org” next week and all of this stimulus information, what’s being applied for, how to apply for an RFP, deadline time on all of that will be posted on that one website. Then just a note from my Budget Director, Nani Coloretti – we have a half billion dollar deficit to close the budget gap for FY09-10 and so we need to prioritize closing that gap and using the federal stimulus money to back the general fund costs whenever possible and to restore cuts that are going to be made in the budget wherever possible.  That’s it.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Great. Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Actually, Rebekah, before you sit down – I do actually have one question; hopefully you can respond to it quickly because that this is going to be somewhat of an issue through the continuance of these hearings.  Is there any particular response to the fact that 66% of those persons laid off so far in some of these categories have been women? 

 

Krell:  In response in terms of how federal stimulus funding will restore jobs?

 

President Shorter:  Well, yes, exactly.  Given the fact that (…inaudible…) perhaps sort of the majority of the people who have been laid off have been women, is there any particular concern in terms of how to restore maybe the positions, etc., of those persons that were laid off given that they are a majority of women?

 

Krell:  I do know that the federal funding does emphasize wherever possible restoring jobs, job creation, job growth, so in that sense, yes.  In terms of how the City is going to be able to restore jobs, I don’t know exactly what the plan is right now.  We have to wait and see what we get and what we can do.

 

President Shorter:  Great.

 

Krell:  Thank you. Any other questions?  I’ll be happy to take that…

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much.  Melanie Nutter, Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Thank you for being here.

 

Melanie Nutter:  Thank you very much.  My name is Melanie Nutter.  I am the Deputy District Director for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi here in San Francisco, and wanted to thank you for the invitation to come and represent the Office and to talk a little bit about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

 

I actually do have a letter from the Speaker that I wanted to read that will provide you with some of the information that you’re requesting today and then I’m happy to take questions:

 

“Dear Commissioners:

 

Thank you for the invitation to present testimony at today’s Commission On the Status of Women’s hearing regarding the impacts of the economic crisis on women.

 

The recession has put a large strain on American families, especially the millions of women that are struggling to make ends meet.  I’m proud that the Congress and President Obama recently passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which is designed to save and create jobs, get our economy moving again, and transform it for long term growth and stability.  The Recovery Act will create and save 3.5 million jobs by rebuilding America, making us more globally competitive, and energy independent.  It also provides 95% of American workers with an immediate tax cut.  The Act includes a broad array of investments that will specifically help women, children, and families.  Investments in childcare, in healthcare, and in education will all alleviate some of the burdens that women and children face in these difficult economic times. 

 

Investments in education have already prevented numerous teacher layoffs and a series of tax cuts including the child tax credit and the “making work pay” tax credit will reduce tax withholdings for working people immediately.  An additional $2 billion is included in the Childcare and Development Block Grant for low income families.  This Block Grant will provide childcare assistance for an additional 300,000 children while creating jobs for an additional 125,000 caregivers. 

 

The Recovery Act also provides funds for child support enforcement, for nutrition assistance, for women who own small businesses, as well as for funds to prevent violence against women.  We have included $225 million for the violence against women victims’ support services. 

 

Finally, I am pleased to offer the Commission a paper that we created with the leadership of the Democratic Women’s Working Group, Congresswoman Shikowski (correct name and sp?), and Congresswoman Moore called “Investing in Women and Children”.  This paper highlights the key provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that affect this population.  I encourage you to visit “recovery.gov” for additional information regarding the release of these funds and further assistance please feel free to contact Melanie Nutter, my Deputy District Director in the San Francisco office with any questions. 

 

Thank you, Commissioners, for you unwavering commitment to bettering the lives of women and girls in San Francisco.  Sincerely, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.”

 

So this paper that I have here is a seven-page paper that goes through a number of the topics that I discussed from childcare, to healthcare, to education and it specifically talks about what the amounts of money are that are delegated for each one of those programs.  The challenge that we currently have along with everyone who’s looking at the stimulus is – where are these funds going to be released?  Through what agency?  Are they formula grants? Are they already going to states and cities? Are they competitive?  A service that our office is providing is if there’s any particular amount of money or particular fund that you’re interested in us looking into, we can do that.

 

So thank you very much for your time and I’m happy to take any questions if there are any.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much, Melanie.  Commissioners, any questions?  Commissioner Keehn…

 

Keehn:  Hi.  I’m wondering if you know if any of the funding is targeted at senior women.

 

Nutter:  There actually is some money for seniors…there is one time payment for seniors and others.  The Recovery Act provides a one-time payment for Social Security beneficiaries, SSI recipients, disabled veterans, and others who are likely not to benefit from the “making work pay” tax credit.  So it provides a $250 payment to SSI recipients and those folks that I just mentioned.

 

President Shorter:  Great. Thank you.

 

Nutter:  You’re welcome.

 

President Shorter:  Any other questions?  Thank you very much and please extend our appreciations to the Speaker.  Our next speaker is Elmy Bermjo of California Commission On the Status of Women. 

 

Elmy Bermejo:  Good afternoon, Commissioners.  Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this very important hearing put on by the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women. 

 

My name is Elmy Bermejo and since 1999 I have served as a Commissioner on the California Commission on the Status of Women.  (COSW) is mandated to advise the legislature and the governor on issues impacting California women and their families.  My comments today are framed in large part by view of the entire state and nation, but also with an emphasis on San Francisco since last year we did have one of our public hearings here in the City.  Here are some of the known facts about the status of women and their families that we are now facing:

 

• Women are 40% more likely to live in poverty than men.
• They earn on the average 23% less than men.
• 42% of California’s children live in low income families, living below 200% of the federal poverty level.
• Women are 30 – 40% more likely than men to have a sub-prime mortgage loan, even though their credit scores are equal to or slightly better than men.  Thus they are at a greater risk of facing foreclosure.
• Eight out of ten single parent families are headed by women.
• More Californians are relying on the state’s income support programs and the number is growing.
• Seven out of ten adult Medicaid beneficiaries are women.
• One third of all low income women and four out of ten single mothers receive healthcare coverage from Medicaid.

 

While many of these facts are based on national data they also apply equally to California women.  (COSW) held hearings last year in three different cities in California and it was the second set of hearings that we have had in the last four years.  Some of the things that we heard about are:  other women and their vulnerabilities; the need for single (inaudible) healthcare system that would provide coverage for all people; the decrease of funding for rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters at a time when, because of the economy, violence is rapidly increasing; the impact of incarceration of parents on children; the importance of providing services in a culturally competent manner including multiple languages. 

 

Overarching all of the testimony in San Francisco, San Diego, and the city of Fontana was deep concern regarding the economy and the impact of budget cuts in California that disparately impact low income women and their families.   The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides and opportunity to address many of the issues that were raised.  Following are some recommendations from (COSW):

 

Childcare and early education:  that Block Grant money for parents receiving childcare subsidies and who lose their jobs extend the childcare subsidy beyond the 60 days currently allowed to provide more time to find a new job; to eliminate the 10% fees for those families receiving subsidies who cannot afford the fees, and therefore, do not receive childcare; to invest Block Grant money in providing subsidies to families on the waiting list (currently there are 204,000 statewide according to the Department of Education)

 

When it comes to healthcare, we recommend (…inaudible…) a 65% of subsidy of COBRA healthcare premiums for up to nine months for individuals losing their jobs between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

 

Direct assistance for low income households:  Because of the rising numbers of families seeking assistance, California is in line to receive $471 million in additional TANF (that’s temporary assistance) for needy families funding.  But the legislature and governor are planning to cut CalWorks grants by 4% effective July 1.  As a result $119 million of those funds will be left in Washington, DC.  Request that the legislature and the governor restore the grants before the cuts go into effect.  CalWorks families could certainly use that money. 

 

With the increase in food stamp funding by 13.6%, we conduct greater outreach in community to encourage eligible individuals to apply for supplemental nutrition assistance. 

 

In education in job training we recommend for the state to apply for all competitive grants under Workforce Investment Act and develop criteria in local applications for grant funding that include training components for women.  At the local level, ask the work force investment board to target some funds to prepare women for non-traditional employment especially in high-growth industries.  In governor’s discretionary funds we request that the governor designate a portion of the Workforce Investment funds to programs that recruit and retain women in non-traditional employment and/or that target low income women for job training.  Indeed, the implementation of any of the job funding of the Recovery Act includes support services for women to compete for non-traditional jobs.

 

In housing, we recommend that both state and local levels include low income and extremely low income housing as priorities for the housing stimulus funds and that they apply for all grants targeted towards homelessness prevention.

 

In terms of planning for use of stimulus funds, we request that the San Francisco Department On the Status of Women be consulted regarding applications for the stimulus grants with the express purpose of considering the application with a gender lens to assure that women and their families are considered in the use of grant funding.

 

I would like to thank you for this time and also just want to make sure that I leave our policy agenda; I believe Emily has a copy of that but it’s also on the Commission’s website which is www.women.ca.gov.  And also any questions regarding this can also be directed to Mary Weiberg (correct name?), the Executive Director of the Commission, and her number is 916-322-5194.   I will have a copy of this testimony given to Emily; and I will also email it to the Commission for inclusion in the packet, if you so desire, for the future. 

 

Thank you for the opportunity.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much, Elmy.  Commissioners?  Commissioner Marks?

 

Marks:  I hope that the State Commissions and the Commissions all over the state can work together in a united manner to present what our needs are and the needs of women are because if we speak forcefully with many voices we’ll be more successful.

 

President Shorter:  Great, thank you.  And also for the other speakers, as well, clearly if you have written testimony or something that you can supply to the Department it will be greatly appreciated and we will make sure that it is entered into the record. 

 

I also want to make a quick announcement.  In terms of those of you that are here, we clearly have a full house. If there are seats available I’m going to have to ask you to take them for fire code reasons.  We cannot a blocking of the potential exits to the door.  So if there are seats, I would urge you to take them. 

 

Marks:  Is it possible to get some more seats?

 

President Shorter:  I think that are seats available right now and then if necessary there are some seats in the back that I think we can wheel out, but it looks as though there are available seats in the gallery right now.  So thank you all for being here but let’s make sure that you are in need of a seat we’ll wheel out a couple more…

 

Out next presenter is Frances Culp from the Department of Public Health.  Hello.

 

Frances Culp:  Hello.  Good afternoon, Commissioners.  I am here today to represent the Department of Public Health.  My name is Frances Culp and I’m a Senior Health Program planner with the Department.  You do have written testimony in your packet that I’ve supplied; there’s quite a bit much more detail than I’ll be able to get into this evening but there are a few things that I would like to talk with you about tonight.  One of them is that while we’re in this recession I really want to point out that while it’s a bit of cliché we have a lot of difficulties we’ll talk about tonight but also, I think, opportunities with the new federal government and the ARRA funding to the stimulus package.  I think we do have some hope coming our way, as well.  Certainly DPH’s budget is taking very significant cut.  That comes as no surprise to anyone here; all City departments are struggling.  And San Francisco’s Maternal and Child Health budget through the Health Department does actually compare favorably to other California counties.  A report done recently on five counties shows that we do actually provide quite a bit more per capita per woman in San Francisco than other counties give, but it’s never enough.  The public health job is never done and we do have a lot of people who are living on the margins and living in really difficult situations who we still need to help.  Having less money and being asked to do more is never an easy task. 

 

In unemployment – that’s one of the areas that we can really, I think, see the greatest impact of the recession right now.  As you may aware, data often lags one to two years behind so it’s hard to get any really hard quantitative data to bring to you tonight about the impacts, but we do know that unemployment has gotten very, very bad and in San Francisco (you have a lot of the data in front of you this evening) alone, we’re at an 8% unemployment rate for the start of 2009 which is a very significant jump from what we saw in all of 2008 (which was ) at about an average of 5.3%

 

Women and families are disproportionately impacted by unemployment.  I think it’s because (there are great number of reasons but) primarily three reasons that I can think of are that women are most often the head of single family households (we know that ); we know that many already make less money than men even when they’re working the same jobs; and women often have an interrupted job history for childbearing reasons or other issues in their lives; and if they’re called into one of those sort of “last hired, first fired” scenarios, it’s going to be the women that more often than not get caught up that difficult situation.  Other difficulties with unemployment that impact women and families include the fact that they’ll lose their health insurance along with being unemployed and their other benefits and we know the difficulty in that.  They may have worked several jobs rather than one to even make anywhere near the same amount of money they used to be making.  Childcare might become very difficult for them to find and certainly to afford.  Even looking for a job while they’re caring for their own children that they weren’t able to pay for childcare for (because) they lost their job is also an impediment, just to do the job search.

 

So some of the observations that I found when talking to our Maternal and Child Health staff, that they were seeing already – and again we don’t have a lot of hard data to back this up yet; I have no doubt that unfortunately we will in the future when we can start collecting it – but we are seeing a lot more missed appointments.  We think that part of that is due to transportation issues and the number of other problems that families are facing.  So parents have a harder time getting their children to their appointments on time and that really has sort of a ripple effect through the whole Health Department system.  One thing that we see, just as an actual example, is the Family Mosaic program (that deals with children with medical needs) is no longer buying Fast Passes for families and they saw a real decline in the visits.  We’re also seeing more child protective order reports that nurses who go out to homes are having to write.  We’re also seeing an increase in the number of babies entering foster care through the Safe Surrender program.  We’re also seeing an increase in WIC enrollment, so that’s people that need help buying food and infant formula.  We’re seeing this particularly among slightly older children and pregnant women.  And we’re also seeing an increase in CCS, which is the program for children with certain diagnoses but who are very ill and have certain conditions like cancer or other problems.  We’re seeing an increase in the time in takes to complete an intake, so that’s putting us at two to three times the five-day mandated turn-around.

 

So those are just a very small number of the observations that I wanted to share with you that we’re seeing that we can trace back to some of the economic problems with our families.  There are more in the report that I gave to you this evening.

 

Also, I wanted to talk a little bit about health coverage programs.  A lot of the public programs that families are going to end up in when they lose their private insurance or for a lot of the families that we already see are already caught up in – these are programs like Medi-Cal or Healthy Families (programs like that).  One of the programs (since I can’t share with you what we’ve seen in all of them), Healthy Families, which covers our kids in kind of the lower to moderate income realm when they don’t have private insurance, the enrollment numbers right now for the state is almost 900,000.  That program has really been struggling to basically make ends meet and had to look at possibly instituting a waiting list, which is not even so much a waiting list but a freeze on enrollment.  They were saved from that fate, but I keep hearing it kind of in the background as something that might come down; that even the money from the federal government may not come quickly enough to save what may be enrollment freeze.  In San Francisco we have about 11,600 children who are on this program and depend on it.  We see about 300 enrollees per month, so an enrollment freeze would really be a big problem for us. 

 

We’ve already talked tonight about the stimulus package (or ARRA) that’s coming from the federal government.  We don’t know how much (or I don’t know – I haven’t been able to figure out how much) money is coming down from the federal government to the state much less to the county.  It’s not clear yet because we’re looking both at competitive grants and some allocations.  Even the state is struggling to figure this out.  If the Department of Finance and the Department of Treasury don’t find that we’re going to get $10 billion (for) the state that can go to general funds, we’re going to see a lot of problems in the budget, including an elimination of what are called optional benefits in the Medi-Cal program.  They’re looking right now at that $10 billion not being something that they can reach. 

 

President Shorter:  You have thirty seconds left.

 

Culp:  Okay.  So I can just conclude really that (SFDPH) is going to do all that we can to get that competitive money.  We can support a number of programs that we’re already looking at and we really look at health as viewed through a very wide lens and see the economic problems as something that are really going to impact the health of our women and children.  So we all need to (I think) work together and really think about where we can get this money and allocate it toward the women and children in our county.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Commissioners, any questions?

 

(Unidentified Commissioner’s question inaudible re DPH/Office of Policy and Planning report on “The Current Economic Crisis:  Impact and Recommendations for San Francisco Women & Girls, Department of Health – Written Testimony”)

 

Culp:  In my package it’s on green paper…with DPH letterhead, after a sort of peach colored one…

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much.  I actually have just one question, just to clarify – the 900,000 applicants for the state level…

 

Culp:  Enrollees.

 

President Shorter:  …enrollees…

 

Culp: Yes.

 

President Shorter:  Okay…and that sounds like a large number but I don’t have anything to compare that with…what does that mean?

 

Culp:  Well, there’s like what we call sort of a patchwork quilt of programs.  So there’s a lot of programs and we actually do, on the state level, I think quite well in enrolling kids, but there always ones that are eligible but are not enrolled.  But it’s hard to really put your finger on how many of those on the state level…I know a little more about that question based on San Francisco, and I know that with the exception of what we call “churning”, which is just sort of this natural (case of) people falling off and going back in and going from this program to that program, because their economic situation changes, we’re at pretty much having enrolled every kid that’s eligible in San Francisco; and I don’t think that California on the whole has or can do quite as well, but I think it really has gotten most of the kids.

 

President Shorter:  Okay.  Great. Thank you very much.  Our next speaker is Jenny Chung from Insight Center for Community Economic Development.

 

Jenny Chung:  Good evening, Commissioners, and thank you so much for holding this public hearing.  My name is Jenny Chung and I’m an attorney and program manager of the Insight Center for Community Economic Development.  We are a national research consulting and legal organization based in Oakland and our work is dedicated to helping people become and remain economically secure.

 

The Insight Center leads the Californians for Economic Security (CFES) which is statewide coalition of over 400 local and state organizations that work to help families and seniors reach economic security.  We measure economic security with two cost of living indices:  One is the Family Economic Self-sufficiency Standard and the other is Elder Economic Security Standard Index.  The Family Standard and Elder Index quantify the actual costs of meeting basic needs which include housing, food, healthcare, transportation and childcare in every county in California.  They’re based on publicly available data sources such as the HUD fair market rents as the USDA food plans.  Last month we released data on the number of seniors and types of seniors living below our elder index by gender, race, housing status, as well as by county.  And not surprisingly our research demonstrates that many seniors in San Francisco, especially women and people of color, cannot cover their basic expenses.  This situation is made even more difficult when compounded with rising prices, stagnant wages and income, and soaring unemployment, and is particularly alarming for women who earn on average $0.78 for every dollar that men earn and thus have less social security income to draw on in retirement.  So to provide some concrete examples from our data set, in San Francisco a parent with a pre-school and a school-aged child needs $57,658 a year to cover their family’s basic needs. So again this is  a family with one parent, a pre-school, and a school-aged child.  What this is equivalent to is more than two fulltime minimum wage jobs here in the city of San Francisco.  And even in families where both adults are actually working meeting basic needs can still be a struggle.  Our data set showed that a family with two adults, a pre-schooler, and school-aged child needs $71,819 a year to cover their basic needs, and in this case that’s equivalent to each of these adults, both adults working full time, at jobs where they each make at least $17 an hour. 

 

Unfortunately the economic security of older adults is particularly troubling.  Of California’s 58 counties San Francisco has the second highest percentage of seniors living below the elder index, with more than six out of ten struggling to make ends meet. Of seniors living alone in San Francisco, 14,000 women do not have enough income to cover their needs compared to 8,000 men.  And nearly 80% of San Francisco’s African-American and Asian seniors are living below the elder index. 

 

Now are three important things to note about these figures and what they mean in the context of the crisis and the opportunities that San Francisco has in light of this crisis.  One is that our methodology is very conservative; it doesn’t include eating out, it doesn’t include visiting family in other states, no internet, no cable.  It’s just a bare bones budget.  However, as you can see despite the fact that it’s just conservative and a bare bones budget, the true costs are quite high. 

 

Secondly, the families …(inaudible)… on the other index are used to help to prioritize the allocation of limited resources and evaluate programs and policies.  In 2004 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution adopting the Family Standard as goal towards which the City and County would strive to move its families to economic security.  And just last month the Elder Economic Dignity Act 2009 (AB324) was introduced.  This act would require the state of California to adopt the Elder Index and use it developing and evaluating local area plans in better addressing the needs of seniors throughout California.  This bill is currently scheduled to go before the Assembly Aging and Long Term Care Committee next month. 

 

And lastly, at this critical juncture, San Francisco has the opportunity to make a compelling argument for directing federal stimulus funds to the city and county and can use the Family Standard and the Elder Index to make this case and prioritize resource allocation as well as evaluate the impact of its investments.

 

So how can San Francisco best position itself for stimulus funding?  This answer is two-fold.  First off, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors can use the Family Standard and the Elder Index to highlight the economic insecurity among women and girls in San Francisco.  Secondly, the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors can use stimulus funding to create opportunities for its residents, particularly women which will lead them on along the path to economic security.  Given the current economic volatility local public policy will be most effective for working women by developing and improving systems that can create pathways for women in industries targeted by the stimulus funds.  According to California state estimates, the top three industries to receive stimulus funding are health and human services, education, and construction.  Based upon research that the Insight Center has conducted focusing on women in healthcare and construction specifically, it is evident that despite these opportunities there are still barriers in place that must be addressed by smart public policy. 

 

So in closing, as such, we would urge the Commission to call on the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to use the Family Standard as well as the Elder Index as a basis for making the claim for and benchmarking the impact of the stimulus resources for San Francisco.  We would also urge the Commission to call on the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to quickly develop allowable recruitment training and retention mechanisms that will give women fair and equal access to the industries that will receive inputs of federal dollars through the stimulus package.  We also urge the Commission to use the Family Standard and Elder Index when evaluating existing and new programs and policies to measure the impact on the economic security of San Francisco’s women and children.  Lastly we would urge the City and County of San Francisco to support the Elder Economic Dignity Act of 2009 (AB324) and to call on the state to adopt the Elder Index.  Thank you and I’ll take any questions.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Commissioners are they any questions?

 

Commissioner Keehn:  Do you have a copy of the Act that’s before the Assembly or can we get it online or…

 

Chung:  It is online.  I’ve included in the packet a fact sheet on the Act but I can also provide a link to the actual language of the Bill itself.

 

Commissioner Keehn:  And do you know when they’re going to consider it at the Assembly, the date or…

 

Chung:  April 21^st is when it’s going to go before the Aging and Long Term Care Committee.

 

President Shorter:  April 24^th?

 

Chung:  April 21^st.

 

President Shorter:  Great.  Any other questions, Commissioners?

 

Commissioner Keehn:  In relationship to senior women, beyond sort of broad recommendations that you made earlier, are there any recommendations that you have regarding product specific services to senior women?

 

Chung:  In this case that’s something that we’re still sort of fleshing out.  At this point the bill would really be targeting the local area agencies on aging in terms of all the services that they provide but we’re still kind of looking into the various specific targeted services toward senior women. 

 

Commissioner Keehn:  Do you have a sense of when you’re going to come up with those recommendations?

 

Chung:  Probably within the next month or so.

 

President Shorter:  Will you let us know?

 

Chung:  Certainly, we will.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.

 

Chung:  Sure. Yes..

 

(Speaker?):  Out of the budget at the state level for women, for children, and for seniors (…inaudible)

 

Chung:  Right…and that’s a concern of ours, too.  I mean nutrition issues as well as utility assistance, (how all of those) particularly impact all seniors, but particularly women, in this case.  So we’re looking at both the cuts side as well as new programs – precisely.

 

VP Gulbengay:  Can we ask the Executive Director to send a letter to Assemblywoman Ma (I believe) to urge them to approve the passage of this bill and (let them know) we’re in support of the passage of the Elder Act?  Thank you.

 

Chung:  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much.  And thank you, Vice President, for suggesting that.  We presume that we are in support.  If there are any questions regarding that I think that we should resolve that now before any correspondence is sent to that effect.

 

(Speaker?):   I think that falls under (inaudible).

 

President Shorter:  Exactly.  But…if there are any questions, now is the time to ask.  But I think that’s a wonderful suggestion.  Out next speaker is Mary Huss of the San Francisco Business Times.

 

Mary Huss:  Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for inviting me to participate today and represent the business community and hopefully the business press.  As she said, I am Mary Huss; I am publisher of San Francisco Business Times and we are a weekly newspaper that covers business in the five-county Bay Area, but we’re heavily centered in San Francisco.  Our subscriber base is very much small businesses and small business owners, so we hear a lot from them and many of them are women.  So, one thing I’ll just say at the outset, that if there were more women in the board room in some of our corporations perhaps we’d not be in this mess that we’re in today, but...  (Applause)  …I am borrowing a quote from Julie Abrams from Women’s Initiative … but I think that may well be true.

 

I’ll give you some background.  You’ve sort on the streets and heard from our reporters and newsrooms what we’re hearing, and I won’t get into some of the data that you’ve already heard, but in many ways we do see that women do have the economic deck stacked against them and this seems (to have) a lot to do with the remaining pay inequities and barriers to employment and increasing childcare expenses, and the many things that make it more difficult for women to be in the workplace any way.  Certainly the current economy has made that all that much more difficult.  The gender ratio has not improved in many years and we’re still only making about $0.77 for every dollar a man makes.

 

So here’s what we see that’s happening out in the world:  Business spending is frozen; layoffs will continue for the foreseeable future; small businesses (many women-owned) are struggling with cash flow challenges; and the banks have tightened or closed lines of credit.  There’s been a big stall in construction and development, and the stimulus is going to get some of those projects going again, but as others have said a lot of these jobs are not necessarily jobs that are traditionally jobs for women, so we need to look at training issues there.  Non-profit organizations:  fundraising efforts are increasingly challenged.  We expect to see more non-profit organizations merge and we expect to see many go away.  And so there’s the support infrastructure that’s not being provided in other ways.  We at the newspaper get more calls all the time from people who want to know what is available from the stimulus package, who do they call, how do they access the opportunities.  They are curious about seminars, websites, access, knowledge, transparency, so anything that can be provided on that front, and what are the resources to help them understand how they’ll benefit from (inaudible).  This is from anyone, but I’m including women in this.

 

The current downturn touches all sectors of the economy; few are untouched.  It’s unlike other downturns where it may have zeroed in on a key area.  The hardest hit include hotel and restaurant industry, retail, auto, commercial real estate, legal, and financial services also.  The economic recovery that we experienced from the last downturn for about 2001 to 2008, was a jobless recovery and also recovery during which wages did not increase relative to dramatic productivity increases.  And this was the first time that productivity increases have not been accompanied by wage increases in an economic upturn.  So since women usually get the shorter end of the stick, on the pay scale I think they are going to be more hurt in that scenario.

 

In the past economic downturns, job recovery’s been fueled by small business start-ups, many that were launched by people who lost their jobs with large organizations and we expect that to happen again.  But a big difference (is that) one of the prime start up funding sources has been personal credit cards.  I don’t know if any of you have received a letter from your bank, but those personal credit limits have gone vastly down, in many cases (with just a letter in the mail) they’ve been eliminated altogether.  In many other ways access to capital is one of the most critical needs out there.  Individual and company credit lines haven’t been reduced.  That’s often the big emergency area for families.  The lines of credit they could get with their home equity have been either reduced or eliminated in many cases so their emergency backup is not there.  Another source of pain for small business owners is that the banks are also asking them to keep larger receivables to cover their credit card receivables – larger reserve amounts.  So they are cash strapped and they’re often running on fumes just to operate.  So I think we need to look at both the micro businesses and the ability to create a scenario that businesses can start and generate jobs, and generate economic fuel, but we also have to look at a way to keep our small businesses in businesses in business, and keep them employing people, and give them the ability to stay and not go out of business because there are many that are challenged (by) that.

 

Our non-profit writer continues to write about the demands for non-profit social services providers, particularly the food banks, shelters, and job training services; with all time highs and demand, all funding resources are increasingly challenged.  I spoke with a number of non-profit organizations and will speak on their behalf because they do provide services for women and girls, relative to their jobs and training.  Most of these are not in the room so I’ll speak for them. 

 

• From Professional Business women of California:  We can say definitively that the funds for professional development and career training for women have been decimated.
• From San Francisco Chapter of Dress for Success:  Many clients, including those who’ve had jobs for two years as a result of their program, are now back again on the unemployment rolls. Referrals have increased by more that 50% in the last month, while losing people that they’ve already put to work.  Donations are reduced by as much as 50%.
• (You’re going to hear from San Francisco Works today; I could hand you some information from them but I’ll let them speak for themselves.)
• From United Way:  The concern is let’s make sure we don’t become enamored only with the short term responses to the economic crisis; and very importantly, let’s invest in education because there’s a long term benefit there. 
• From the Girl Scouts:  (We’ve) seen a sharp and significant decline in funding to support youth development for girls in underserved communities.  They have programs for technology and the environment that really relate to a lot of things; they actually employ their staff (now), that lead the troops instead of just relying on volunteers, but they aren’t able to employ as many that help girls become more productive citizens.
• Jewish Vocational Services (JVS):  (Who you’ll hear from) – has huge increases in caseloads.
• Goodwill Industries:  Has seen a nearly 500% increase in demand for services since December.  Goodwill’s one-stop career center, which is budgeted to serve two hundred people a month is averaging 1200 monthly, with about half of them women and they’re experiencing not just job loss but housing, health, and childcare issues as well.
• (Side A of Tape 1 ends; the rest of comments re Goodwill not heard.)
• Larkin Street Youth Services:  They are seeing an increase in the number of underage girls on the street, many of these because their families are struggling and stress is causing increased problems in the home; the youth are having extreme difficulty in finding jobs because the competition for jobs is so intense.

 

So, I think you can see with many of the programs out there (that) job training programs are inundated with recently unemployed folks.  The never employed and the harder to employ get pushed out.

 

Some recommendations:  I think that the micro loan funds (and you’re going to hear from Women’s Initiative) are the things that we hear about and write about the most.  How ever we can most channel money and resources at giving women the opportunity to start their businesses, even with a little loan, and giving them training, that’s going to create jobs, and bootstrap people and give them the opportunity to put food in their families’ mouths, and employ others as well. 

 

We also need to pay attention above just the micro level, and as I said, we have to keep our small businesses and our women-owned businesses afloat now.  We need to support the job training programs that JVS Community College and SF Works, whose demand is far greater than what they can provide now.   I think a lot of our readers and subscribers are very interested in how they can access particularly the construction and bidding process for some of these infrastructure projects.  We need clarity on that, workshops, one-stops, how-to’s, websites – really, really transparent access to that information; perhaps we should have a stimulus job fair and other sorts of stimulus workshops that can bring people together and put them with the people they need to get with.

 

President Shorter:  Mary, you have about 30 seconds.

 

Huss:  Okay…I’m really done.  But thank you so much.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much; very helpful.  Just one quick question, though, if I might…I just wanted to make sure that we got the most out of your time.  If you have anything that you can give to the department that would be great because you have some very compelling statistics and we want to make sure that we have them in full record.  The other part…on the construction job piece that you just mentioned…it’s also some green industries as well and are you including that as part of construction?

 

Huss:  Actually, my little checklist was to zero in on the key industries like health, green energy, and construction – just kind of the lineup – education, and to make sure we’ve got training tied to each of those.

 

President Shorter:  I was just wondering if you were just encompassing the green sector, infrastructural, solar panels, kind of things into construction or do you see that as separate?

 

Huss:  (Inaudible).  …I think there’s going to be a bidding process or some sort of access to being able to create jobs.  People need to know "Who do I call?"  How do I get there? What’s the process?  I think sometimes people need some training in the process.  That may exist, and I don’t know about it, but I know we get calls about it and frankly we’d be happy to help get the information out.

 

President Shorter:  Okay. Thank you very much.  Any other questions, Commissioners?  They you very much, Mary.  Our next speaker is Terri Feeley.  She’s a consultant with the Family Economic Success Working Group.  I just want to say thanks to all the speakers for sharing with us your time.  (Addressing Ms. Feeley):  I will give you a warning when you have about 30 seconds left.

 

Terri Feeley:  Hi. So as you’ve heard from our prior speakers there’s a tremendous demand for information about the stimulus package and what its impact is across the board,  and people are trying to, I think, hone in on the likely effects here in San Francisco.  The Family Economic Success Working Group asked me to look at it from the perspective of low income San Franciscans (as we know, women are disproportionately represented among them) and to really think about it in the context of the near term impacts.  The White House has said about 6,900 jobs should be created in San Francisco as a result of the stimulus package.  Because the where and how is still unclear, not focusing on those sort of things or some of the systemic changes about the stimulus package, but really again, about the direct impacts on lower income San Franciscans.

 

The entire presentation is in your packets; it’s on a yellow piece of paper.  I am just going to highlight a few slides and just sort of walk you through some of the key components of it.

 

So, again, lots of questions about how the money is flowing and in fact how much money is flowing.  California estimates that they are going to receive between $31 billion and $95 billion.  (That’s a pretty wide spread, just to give you a sense…)  San Francisco is still trying to compile their estimates of how much they’re going to get across various funding lines and of course there are a lot of competitive monies that are available.  One of the key things to be advocating for is for San Francisco to really proactively go after those resources.  We actually don’t have a track record as being as proactive as many other communities around the state. 

 

So starting with tax credits, the stimulus package expands and it makes partially refundable (which is very important for lower income families because that means they get a check back) the higher education tax credit.  It expands eligibility for the child tax credit.  It increases the EITC (the Earned Income Tax Credit) for families who have three or more eligible children.  Right now families are kind of lumped together in just a few categories and it doesn’t account for larger family sizes.  And then the thing that’s gotten the most attention, of course, is the Making Work Pay tax credit which is a refundable tax credit for up to $400 per worker or $800 per couple and that’s what people in their paychecks on a more regular basis through changes in withholding.  We’ve heard mention kind of an alternative for folks who are on fixed-incomes; that’s the $250 payment to retirees, veterans, people with disabilities.  There’ll be an increase in unemployment insurance benefits by a flat amount of $25 per week.  It also decreases the amount of someone’s unemployment insurance which is taxed and it extends the deadline to qualify for unemployment insurance extensions.  Beginning very shortly in April there’ll be a 13.6% across the board increase in people’s food stamp benefits.  (Again, one of the key things that you all may wish to promote, as we have kind of new populations that qualify for public assistance, is additional outreach around the various public assistance programs.)  It increases childcare funding and as a particular focus on lower income families, it has the potential to offset a significant portion of increased CalWorks costs (that’s the welfare benefits that come down from the state; you’ve heard that there’s some challenges about how much we may be going after as a state and what we’re going to leave on the table.)

 

The other opportunities:  There’s the increases on the flexibility in terms of using those benefits including being able to use them to pay wages for transitional jobs – and that’s like a really exciting opportunity and one that pumps money directly into the economy as well as helping individuals.  It also increases resources to local agencies for prevention of homelessness and, in particular, a kind of direct one-time payments that would help someone pay their rent in the short term.  (Inaudible…) and then resources for the community services and the Community Development Block Grants, which are both relatively flexible sources of funding within communities which can be used in a wide array of social services, job training, etc.  On the work force development front, it’s really a huge influx of resources.  It more than doubles what our regular formula allocation is and that’s even before going after either competitive resources or some non-traditional work force funds that are available through the Department of Transportation and the Department of Energy as well as for all the infrastructure projects a portion of those funds can be set aside for the needed work force training, but that decision needs to be made (and so again that’s something to advocate for – that resources be allocated specifically for education training that leads to opportunities and are more available and accessible to lower income individuals, and particularly are kind of  non-traditional employees in their sectors of women.  It increases the maximum annual Pell Grant by $500, so again additional resources that an individual can use for their own education and training.  And then for healthcare it increases federal reimbursements rates for Medi-Cal expenditures – that’s really significant in terms of the state budget and that’s assuming that the state makes a changes in some mid-year child eligibility reporting requirements but we all assume that that’s going to go through.  It also permits an expansion of transitional Medi-cal; currently the legislative analysts’ offices at the state level is suggesting that the state not do that and so that is something that, again, we may want to advocate for.  It allows people to keep their Medi-Cal coverage as they transition back into employment for a slightly longer period of time.  As we know not all jobs come immediately with health insurance.

 

President Shorter:  Why is the state arguing against it?

 

Feeley:   The LAO’s analysis is that it will cost more money to provide that benefit than it will draw down from the feds given that it will expand the eligible population by such a great amount here in California.  And then again, as you all have heard, it subsidizes COBRA premiums for laid off workers for a really substantial amount – 65% and that is kind of kicking off in the very near term, as early as March, and it is retroactive for folks who were laid off between September and December. 

 

In terms of just again, some suggestions around policy, I just can’t say it and recommend enough advocating for the City to really coordinate resources from its diverse funding streams because they really tap into the same individuals and families even though they come at them from different directions and are often way too (inaudible), advocating for a transparency of expenditures (I’m really excited to hear about the City’s new website that they’re going to be putting up), outreach and education to newly eligible populations, and then many of the things that I recommended already and I have these bullet-pointed in the final slides in the presentation. 

 

President Shorter:  Great. Thank you.  Are there any questions for Terri?

 

Marks: I have a question.  Obviously there are going to be quite a few people who will qualify for this help.  How is the determination going to be made as to service selection?

 

Feeley:  A lot of the additional resources going into kind of social service types of programs and into work force development programs the regulations in terms of eligibility haven’t changed that much .  So it’s just (an assumption) that there will likely be new people who qualify because decreasing income puts them into that category for the first time.  There aren’t too many programs where the eligibility has changed that much with the exception of a lot of those tax credit programs that I did reference.  So educating people so that they take advantage of them.

 

Marks:  My question is that there are obviously people who are eligible and they maybe, possibly can’t cover all the people.  How do they have a cut-off point?  How do they determine all the people who qualify?  (Inaudible)

 

Feeley:  Right.  Some of these are entitlement programs (inaudible) where the funding works between the county, the state, and the federal level.  I can’t describe in too much detail because my knowledge is pretty limited.  But I don’t think people are really concerned about that, in fact most folks have the opposite concern that we will have under utilization of social services that are available to people.  Now that’s not the same concern as non-profits who are having to fundraise from philanthropic resources which have, of course, diminished drastically.  With those types of more kind of discretionary services, they can obviously decrease a bit if too many people are tapping into them.

 

President Shorter:  I have a question:  You started with the numbers California expects to receive between $31 (billion) and …

 

Feeley:  $31 (billion) is the amount we know we’re getting because of formula allocations.  So in general, a good kind of formula to apply when you hear about federal funding coming down is that California tends to get roughly 10% of it. So we know we’re getting at a minimum of $31 (billion) because of the formulas and then depending upon how much of the competitive grants that we go after as a state and how much comes from more discretionary resources that are available, it could go up to about $95 (billion), and that’s an estimate from the legislative analyst’s office on the state level.

 

President Shorter:  …and this might be too big a question for right now, but what do you think is the best way for California to increase its chances to get those competitive grants?   For example:  Do you think it’s targeting a specific area?

 

Feeley:  My personal opinion on it is about coordinating across agencies and demonstrating partnerships in order to go after the resources.  That’s often what we find with discretionary money from the federal government as well as discretionary from the state coming down to locals, in terms of  prioritizing their RFPs.  That’s obviously something that all of us who have interfaced with government would like to see more of  -  is more cooperation amongst agencies.  And to the extent that any agency has a plan in place, say for example, in work force:  Michigan has a plan that they’ve already put in place, but hadn’t had funding for it, but there plan was to guarantee two years of post-secondary education to every worker.  They hadn’t had funding.  But now there’s all this money available.  They’ve already made all the decisions and determinations and so they’re hoping to just plug it right in and I think that makes them very competitive. 

 

President Shorter:  …and also, presumably, demonstrated need…

 

Feeley:  Of course, of course.

 

President Shorter:  So for San Francisco specifically…

 

Feeley:  I think using the self-sufficiency standard numbers is really important because it is so locally specific but it really highlights the difference between our high cost of living and what people are actually getting by on or trying to get by on. 

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Are there any other questions?  Thank you very much?  Are next speaker is Barbara Mark of The National Association of Women Business Owners.  Welcome.

 

Barbara Mark:  Good afternoon and thank you very much, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak with you today.  I apologize for the fact that I haven’t been able to provide you with any written testimony.  I’ve been in Sacramento for two days along with other NAWBO members throughout the state of California seeing if we can get some questions answered about how small business is going to be supported in this difficult economic time.

 

First to speak from the point of view of the president of the organization.  It’s a non-profit and along with all other non-profits in the City, we’re struggling for funding.  Many of the services that we provide for our members are training in business skills and the opportunity to get mentorship, the opportunity to receive networking opportunities with other organizations, and to grow and create new programs.  And with funding coming to smaller and smaller amounts as we suffer more and more difficulty here in the city, we’re sharing funding with all of the non-profits who are also having difficulty getting funding and therefore finding it more difficult to provide programs, either continuing programs that we have, extending programs that we have, or developing new programs that we provide for women business owners. 

 

In terms of our numbers, it’s been starting to look like that the number of women business owners who have experienced such economic challenges that they have to go out of business and these are particularly smaller women business owners that have experienced an excruciating decrease in access to capital.  As Mary Huss noted, there has been so many instances of banks either diminishing a credit line to the point where it makes it extremely difficult for a woman to capitalize a business or they’re doing with those credit lines altogether.  Many women do support their business and capitalize their business with individual credit cards and when those credit cards’ interest rates go up or the credit lines are shrunk the access to capital is devastating to the individual business owner.  For business owners who have larger businesses, many have had to cut back on the number of employee.  With the number of increases of tax burdens that business owners experience in San Francisco, it’s challenging to keep workers on and pay a higher minimum wage and pay worker’s comp and so it’s more difficult to provide services at a reasonable charge so that customers keep coming back and can afford the services that people want to provide.  One woman remarked she’s a building care company and it’s very difficult for her because so many of her employees are people who live on minimum wage; many of those people are single moms.  So she’s trying very hard to keep as many employees as she possibly can  but as the people who buy her services cut down on the number of hours they want her services, it’s more difficult for to keep providing income for her employees.  That’s the story with a lot of other women business owners, that they’re finding it’s difficult to be able to keep providing services with the number of employees that they have had to lay off. 

 

One of the suggestions that has come is to (again I want to reiterate some of the remarks that Mary Huss made about having as much access as possible to programs that will give us information about how do we access the stimulus money?  How do we know about competitive grants that are available that may be appropriate (for) certain women business owners depending on which segment of the environment they provide services in?  How are we going to be kept apprised of which industries are going to be well supported in the context of the stimulus money?  Is there a way that internships can be funded so that people can hire at a lower cost workers that they would then be able to use to provide lower cost services in their own businesses, therefore have more opportunity for customers to be able to pay (inaudible) of their business.  Creating opportunities for more access to capital, whether that’s making sure that banks are encouraged in whatever way possible to keep providing lines of credit to small businesses; it would be really appreciated.  And I think that’s all.  Any questions?

 

President Shorter:  Thank you, Barbara.  Commissioners, you have any questions?  I am going to at least bring to everyone’s attention that certainly in their packets and I imagine that it’s also available (it should be) on the public table there are some letters, some correspondence from some women business owners (whose) comments are very reflective of what you’ve just described as some of the challenges, most specifically, around the lines of credit and use of personal credit to sustain business and to keep businesses open.  So I want to at least let you know that we have (that).  You were not able to provide us with written testimony today, and I would certainly urge you to, when you do have moment, if you can put in some notes so the Department can have that for record.  Clearly you are on record today but also that we (can) compile these materials and make them available to anyone that visits the Department.  But certainly these letters are very correspondent to the comments that you’ve just made, so thank you very much.  Are there any other questions or comments from the Commissioners?

 

Barbara, thank you very much.  And our next speaker is Julie Abrams from Women’s Initiative for Self-Employment.

 

Julie Abrams:  Thank you very much for having me here today and thank you very much for taking such a proactive role in addressing the impact on women of this economic downturn and what we can do together to shine a light (the gender lens) for this economic stimulus effort.  In our 20 years (21 in a month actually in San Francisco) we serve about 17,000 women to help them start their own businesses and grow their businesses, and we can see Women’s Initiative graduates on every street, every corner of the City.  We have women who are owning businesses and creating real economic vibrancy here.  What we’ve never seen is the current level of demand for business support services, in fact, the degree of desperation that people are coming to us with.  There is a level of insecurity and trauma that’s happening in their personal lives that’s really quite dramatic.  One client recently becoming homeless because her unemployment benefits were not enough to pay her rent.  I think we all understand that the very low limit on unemployment benefits does not work here in the San Francisco area.  For her, her only hope is that maybe she can move in with her daughter.

 

Now more than ever it’s critical that ever that Women’s Initiative and organizations like ours has a partnership with the City of San Francisco to meet the demand for services within the most recent budget cuts and pull-back.  The City of San Francisco has pulled back $500,000 a year that they had committed to women’s micro enterprises, in particular $25,000 in funding for our program at (WI).  In addition to intake interviews that we do with women and all of the true trauma that we’re seeing with women who come to our doors our research team conducts regular interviews and look at women and how they’re faring five years after participating in our business plan training course.  We have consistently seen that given access to training, capital, and business networks, low income women will start and grow prosperous businesses even during an economic downturn.  In fact, this is especially true during times of economic recession.  President Obama announced that 70% of all new job growth is going to take place in small businesses and our clients start businesses that stay in San Francisco.  They hire people locally and there is a $30 economic return for every dollar invested in those businesses.  We strongly urge the City of San Francisco to take a gender budgeting approach to insure that women and their families are not left behind in this economic recovery.  We ask that the City of San Francisco invest $20 million in women and minority micro entrepreneurs within the next eighteen months and that there be a $600 million (inaudible) and economic growth in that period time.  Women and their children are now especially vulnerable to hardship and violence.  A gender budgeted approach will ensure that women and their children to participate in the recovery and in fact be the heroes, the she-roes, of this economic recovery.  We recommend seven options to support  women and in particular micro entrepreneurship in San Francisco, and expect this strategy for low income women to increase their income, to create jobs and stimulate the local economy during this economic downturn.  Just a little bit to complement the need that other people have already mentioned:

 

• More women now are sole bread winners struggling to support their family
• Women are vulnerable than men in many ways. They have fewer assets and in fact women who come to us have $40 in net worth.  $40 – there is no stability there.  Latinos and African American women are much more likely to have zero assets or negative assets when they come to us. There’s no safety net.  And we’ve heard that women earn less on the dollar, but what you haven’t heard in the statistics about Latinos and African-Americans:  a Latina earns $0.42 on the dollar – completely unacceptable.  And when we’re looking at strategies for job creation we really need to think about the fact the our current economic system is not set up to create livable wage jobs for women of color in particular.  Women starting their own businesses worry that they can make their salary, they can set their own wage, and that they can have a true chance for economic prosperity. 

 

So here are the recommendations:

 

1. We recommend that (SF) renew its first time leaseholder grant program that helps low income women get into their first business space.  The City of San Francisco just announced a micro loan fund with 0% interest but what isn’t in the newspaper is the asset test that’s on there. 

 

2. We recommend that the City invest in micro loan funds that will actually address women and low income women of color and their needs in terms of lending.

 

3. We also recommend that the City invest in micro enterprise training and build support services for low income and minority women in particular and in addition to our organization, there are a number of organizations around the City that are highly effective in addressing this population.

 

4. We recommend that the City take a proactive role in decreasing the fees for business licensing and other fees that are creating barriers to (inaudible) people to start their own businesses.  Now more than ever it’s really about getting those businesses open and on the street.

 

5. Provide a taxing center (inaudible) and other supports for micro businesses located in the City of San Francisco (inaudible) hiring people at livable wages and really to create a stimulus that supports women.  We must push a stimulus that specifically supports women and the industries that women are more likely to be involved in. 

 

6. Payroll tax decreases and other stimulus methods targeting people who work at hourly wages as opposed to salaried will especially help low income women who often work in food service, childcare, customer service and other by-the-hour jobs.

 

7. Finally our seventh recommendation is low cost or subsidized healthcare and daycare services.  And  I know that this is something we’ve been talking about in this stimulus package but really being conscious of  the people that live in (SF) and the different barriers they have including immigrants to being able to take advantage of these resources.

 

President Shorter:  You have about 30 seconds…

 

Abrams:  I think that’s it.  I think other people have gotten the number of statistics.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you so much.  Commissioners?  I think there are some questions for you, Julie.

 

VP Gulbengay:  Do you have those recommendations in a written form?

 

Abrams:  I do; they’re over here on the table. 

 

VP Gulbengay:  Ok.

 

Commissioner Keehn:  Hi.  You mentioned that the City cut half a million in micro enterprise directed at women and in your recommendations you also mentioned that there is a program for micro enterprise services…

 

Abrams:  The City of San Francisco over the last two years made a $500,000 a year commitment to specifically support micro enterprise training, loan funds, and lease grants for women.  And (WI) got about half of those funds each of the last two years.  It was completely cut in November.

 

Keehn:   Ok…so and then the loan program is completely separate that’s directed at men and women.

 

Abrams:  My recommendation is that the micro loan fund program that the City of San Francisco is offering change its asset policy and expand.

 

Keehn:  Ok. Great.

 

Commissioner Munter:  From $500,000 to $20 million is your recommendation?

 

Abrams:  Well, overall, yes.  $500,000 was specifically for women’s micro enterprise over the last two years.  But if you combine all of the different funding in the City it’s been a larger number, but I’m recommending that it be increased.

 

President Shorter:  What is the number now?

 

Abrams:  I don’t have it off the top of my head, but I can find out.

 

VP Gulbengay:  The half million that was directed at women – it was completely cut?

 

Abrams:  It was completely cut.

 

President Shorter:  One other point of clarification:  the $30 out of the $1?  Can you elaborate on that a little bit more and how does that compare to other types of private sector output in terms of…?  Did you say that $1 turns into $30 for privately owned business?

 

Abrams:  Within eighteen months.  That’s women going off public assistance for about 15% of them; it’s women paying taxes, hiring others at double minimum wage, and all of the different economic growth that happens.  We have a paper on it; I’d be happy show you all of the statistics.  Over the last couple of years it’s gone from a $23 return to a $30 return. 

 

President Shorter:  Ok.  Great.  Thank you.  Our next speaker is Karla Rodriguez for the Women’s Foundation of California.  I just want to acknowledge while you’re coming up (Karla, please come up) is that Kathleen Dodd from the Mayor’s office is now with us and so certainly we would welcome any remarks from her.

 

Karla, you are from the Women’s Foundation of California.  So welcome.

 

Amanda Cassel:  Good evening.  I’m actually Amanda Cassel.  Karla from the Foundation is also here.  I apologize for the error on your agenda,  but obviously I’m here on behalf of the Foundation tonight.  So, I want to start by thanking the Commission for holding this extremely important hearing and also for inviting us to speak. 

 

As I said, my name is Amanda Cassel.  I am the Program Officer for Public Policy at the Women’s Foundation of California.  The Women’s Foundation of California is a statewide public foundation that has been in existence in (SF) for thirty years.  Our mission is to invest in women as agents of change.  So we provide grants, and capacity building and support to organizations around the state of California that are led by women and girls, and that serve women and girls.  Our work is driven by the knowledge that when women thrive so do their families and their communities.  I know that I don’t have to make this case to you as the Commission.  Women play multiple roles as caregivers for children and the elderly, as breadwinners for their families, as activists in their communities, and as, of course, workers and drivers of the economy.  In an economic downturn, as women are hurt by job loss and cuts to vital programs that support them and their families, the many people who depend on these women also suffer.  I have brought a list of statistics to show what a few of your prior speakers have really highlighted in very vivid ways what’s happening to women and families at this time so I won’t reiterate.  But I do just want to reiterate a little bit the impact on non-profits organizations of economic downturn.   Of course, as a funder we work with hundreds organizations around the state who we really see struggling very much.  United Way recently did a survey and found that overall non-profits are seeing a 65% decline in revenues which is a very incredible pot, especially when you consider that 70%  of Bay Area non-profits are reporting an increased demand for services that they are now not able to meet.   So we’re very much seeing that with our grant program as well. 

 

So now more than ever we really need government to step in and start to fill those holes, provide those services for those folks, and yet at the state and local levels we’re seeing ever deepening cuts to programs such as cash assistance, the Medi-caid and Medi-Cal programs; all of the programs that the state and local governments provide are seeing cuts.  So I think it’s extremely important for us to look at the Federal economic stimulus package as an opportunity – one of the few opportunities that we have right now – to actually increase funding for services and programs that will benefit women and families.  And I would submit to the Commission that women are, in addition to facing a disproportionate burden from the economic downturn, also hold the key to our economic recovery because of the central role that they play in women and families, particularly low income women.  We know that low income people spend every dollar that they get in their hands.  For example, food stamps will return $1.73 on every dollar invested, which is one of the highest returns on direct investment that the government can make, and so the more we can give to low income families the better off we’re going be in terms of the economy.

 

In terms of our recommendations to you, I want to focus on two key areas.  First of all strengthening the social safety net and secondly targeting women for training and hiring for new jobs created by stimulus funds.  Again, a lot of this has been said by prior speakers, so I will try to keep it really (short).  In regards to the social safety net for subsidized childcare, we know that this is an essential support that actually allows women to go out and go to work, knowing that their children are safe and well cared for.  In addition to $1 billion in formula funds for childcare and Head Start programs, there’s also $1.1 billion in Early Head Start in the Federal economic stimulus, so we recommend that the City should really encourage Early Head Start providers within San Francisco to apply for those funds and offer technical assistance in the application process.  We also would recommend that the $2 billion that’s provided in the whole economic stimulus be used in the Childcare and Development Block Grant to expand childcare services to families who are currently on the waiting list and there is a very, very long waiting list.  Sometimes families are waiting so long for childcare, (that by the time they get it the child) is in high school and no longer require childcare.  So that’s a very important place to look.  Affordable housing, of course, for San Francisco, is a critical need.  There are currently over 20,000 people on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers in the City and that list has been frozen for years and years.  So there are many more families that would be eligible and could benefit.  There’s also a significant amount of money in the Federal stimulus that could be used to expand affordable housing - $4 billion in the public housing capital fund; $1 billion in the community services block grant; and $1.5 billion dollars for the homelessness prevention fund.  There’s also $2 billion project based rental assistance program.  That rental assistance program as well as $1 billion of the capital housing fund will be distributed on a competitive basis.  So it’s very important that (SF) step up and apply for those funds in order to benefit.  Moving on to healthcare (running out of time?  Ok…30 seconds.)  We just want to make sure that in the case of community health centers that  the City also inform and encourage community health centers like the Women’s Community Clinic, to apply for competitive funds and offer them technical assistance for those funds.  We would like the City to help connect low income San Franciscans with the new tax credits that are available.  And finally I think we had another speaker really go into great detail on this, but in terms of job opportunities for women, really prioritizing women for recruitment and training, setting goals for the number/proportion of new jobs that are filled by women, and providing supportive services to women such as childcare and other supports so that they are able to go to work.

 

President Shorter:  Good.

 

Cassel:  Thank you very much for your time.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Questions?  Commissioner Keehn.

 

Keehn:  How is the Foundation shifting its focus?  It’s a grant allocation focus…in response to the economic crisis?

 

Cassel:  The question is…?

 

Keehn:  How is the Women’s Foundation shifting its grant allocation focus in response to the economic crisis?

 

Cassel:  So the Foundation provides support to organizations that are doing social change work.  We generally have not historically supported organizations that are providing direct services and we are committed to continuing to hold the longer term view.  And so our response has really been to shift funding to organizations that are doing advocacy work around the stimulus funds and around the state and federal budgets to ensure that in the long term systems are set up in the state to support families.

 

Keehn:  And are there particular organizations that you are funding that are doing specific outreach and education on the stimulus package.  I’m just wondering where else to partner with. 

 

Cassel:  Sure. Absolutely.  In the healthcare realm, the Women’s Community Clinic, which is here in (SF), as well as ACCESS in Oakland are doing some great work mobilizing women around the healthcare aspects of it and also trying to educate folks about those community health center dollars.  In terms of the kind of broader aspects of it, we’ve been working a lot with California Partnership, which is a statewide organization that’s based in Los Angeles.  I could certainly provide you with some information about other organizations as well. 

 

Keehn:  That would be great.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much.

 

Cassel:  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Our next scheduled speaker is Lateefah Simon…and I don’t see Lateefah.

 

Helen Smolinski:  I’m a substitute

 

President Shorter:  Okay we’re having some good proxies here.  You are?

 

Helen Smolinski:  Yes.  Good evening, Commissioners.  My name is Helen Skelinski and I’m a staff attorney and Program Director at the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights.  Lateefah Simon, our Executive Director, apologizes; she couldn’t be here tonight due to a scheduling conflict.  But obviously our office wanted to be represented given the importance of tonight’s topic.

 

First off, thank you for inviting us to speak and for convening us here.  Our clients were vulnerable before this economic crisis and are obviously made more so because of it.  I, too, was going to start with a lot of statistics particular to our organization, but in the spirit of my boss, who would certainly be real right now, and I want to be real as well.  I’ve got a story that I think will (or should) hit home with you all.  I’ve been at my current position, as I mentioned, Program Director, for eight years with the Lawyer’s Committee.  I run a program called Legal Services for Entrepreneurs, where we provide free legal help for low income folks, particularly women and people of color who starting small businesses, they’re starting their own enterprises.  I was in a meeting with a client about two months ago.  For the first time during that eight years doing this work, I  had a client threaten to commit suicide twice within this meeting. She’s a small business owner.  She runs a restaurant; it’s a small restaurant, she has about four or five staff, and she’s under water with regard to her business, with regard to her personal financial situation. “Under water” is making it sound nicer – it’s a euphemism these days.  She’s in a crisis.  We’re counseling her, we’re talking about different options, including bankruptcy, etc. and she looked at me and she said, “Honey, you know what?  That’s not the honorable thing to do here.  I’ve got employees who for the first time like coming to work.  I have a responsibility to them, I have a responsibility to my vendors who I owe money to.  I’m not walking away.”  It just broke my heart.  For the first time our office is thinking about organizing a protocol about how to deal with clients who are suffering such emotional distress right now.  So it’s beyond legal services.  I mean, we’ve always kind of worn hats in social services or as social workers, but I’ve never seen anything like this in my eight years. 

 

To the stats:  Lawyer’s Committee serves low income clients throughout northern California including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma.  Last year we provided program assistance to 519 clients.  Of these clients more than half were women, the vast majority of whom were low income or indigent, the majority of whom were women of color.  We saw a 16% increase in the number of women we served in 2008 from 2007.  I am sure you all know, many date the economic downturn to about October 2007  (about the last quarter of 2007).  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we served more low income women in 2008.  With regard to our micro entrepreneur clients, our small business clients, over 70% are low income, over half are women, over half are women of color.  We are seeing clients, quite simply, come to us whose businesses are in extreme crisis, extreme distress.  Many have either borrowed money against their homes, or borrowed money period.  Now their homes have decreased in value, their business is struggling, and they have nowhere to turn.  Bottom line, women and people of color make up a disproportionate number of the low income population and are hurting, particularly during these times.  They are being laid off or their businesses are failing and they cannot borrow because their credit has been cut back if not eliminated altogether.  If the demand for free legal services is indicative of anything, and I think it is, it’s that people are struggling – women, families are struggling more now than ever and need help.  Our recommendations?  More money, of course.  Right?  More money for social services programs including childcare subsidies, help for the homeless (I think we’re seeing a different population of homeless and that population is growing), increased funding to small and micro business owners to help get them through this difficult time and so that they thrive ultimately and provide jobs to the larger community in the long run.  Included in this help, of course, is increased funding to minority and women owned local businesses.  I’m happy to take any questions.

 

President Shorter:  Good.  Thank you and excuse my having to step out for a second.  I have to check in on another meeting.  Commission, do you have any questions?

 

VP Gulbengay:  I would just say thank you for bringing a personal side of this to the Commission.  Thank you.

 

Smolinski :  My pleasure.  Thank you again.

 

President Shorter:  Our next speaker is Rebecca Rolfe, Executive Director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center.  I also just want to make sure that everyone is aware that all the resource websites that people have mentioned, including funding opportunities and links, are also on the Department On the Status of Women’s website.  Welcome, Rebecca.  Welcome back.

 

Rebecca Rolfe:  Thank you.  I’m happy to be here.  It was my pleasure to serve as a staff member at the (DOSW) in 2001, 2002 or something along those lines.  I will be brief because I have a Board meeting that starts at 7 and if I’m not there on time I lose my job and add to the statistics.  But I’m here today to talk on behalf of the LGBT Center and specifically lesbians, bisexual women, and the transgender community.  The Center started the world’s first economic development for the LGBT community about six years ago.   I’m really, really pleased to be doing that work.  One of the key reasons that we started that program is really because there is a myth about the LGBT  community being a community of great affluence and in reality that is not true.  So we started the economic development program to really look at addressing the economic disparities that exist within the LGBT community.  Within that program we provide work force development, we work with job seekers, we provide support for small businesses, we look at financial literacy for LGBT individuals and family members, and about a year and a half ago we started Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative, which is a collaborative with the Transgender Law Center, Jewish Vocational Services, and SF Team looking at addressing high rates of un- and underemployment in the transgender community. 

 

One of the first things I can say about the LGBT community is that we are certainly not  (inaudible) and that we see very different economic impacts on different members of the community.  Certainly the (LGBT) community are heavily impacted by a number of different factors including life circumstances.  As a community we are more likely to leave home early, to experience higher rates of institutionalization in both the juvenile criminal justice systems as well as in foster care, and to have a high rate of runaways.  We also experience a lack of family support, which means we have less access to inter-family support as well as less access to inherited resources.  Beyond the life circumstances, lesbian, bisexual women, and transgender women in the transgender community experience many intersecting crimes of oppression.  One of the things we see is that those crimes of oppression have a multiplier effect.   We experience significant bias in education, housing, employment, access to healthcare and other resources; institutionally (there are the barriers) to access to marriage and the benefits that that can place on relationships; that includes 138 federal benefits, social security survivor benefits, ability to file joint federal income tax returns, military service benefits and inheritance, and it puts us at risk of losing valuable assets and important legal benefits should a partner become sick, disabled, or die.

 

All this means that the community really experiences significant forms of institutional marginalization which impacts their economic status.  Just a few statistics; there’s not a lot of statistics about the specific impact of the economic downturn on the LGBT community possibly because there’s very little research down on the LGBT community in general and we are in fact missed out of the census and other forms of statistical record keeping.  So it’s hard to analyze recurrent trends without doing some very specific targeted research.  But in general lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to live in poverty.  Nationally 24% of lesbians and bisexual women between the ages of 18 and 44 live in poverty compared with 19% of heterosexual women.  Children of gay and lesbian couples have poverty rates that are twice those of children of heterosexually married households.  Lesbian and bisexual women experience significant economic discrimination in terms of income.  We tend to earn (and again there’s sort of very  limited research that’s been done) but we tend to earn between 5 and 15% less than our heterosexual counterparts.  Lesbians who live in a committed relationship experience a dual impact of the $0.77 that women earn on the dollar since both earners (of dual income households) are earning at reduced rates.  In the (LGBT) community, there are extremely low rates of home ownership and extremely low rates of asset, high rates of debt, and high rates of financial liabilities.   

 

I want to talk for a minute the compound impact of homophobia.  Certainly, sexism impacts our women.  There’s a specific impact of homophobia and transphobia place on the (LGBT) community.  And then we really see particular significant other impacts.  Lesbians and bisexual women of color, transgender people of color, see a very, very, significant impact.  There’s some research done in looking at African-American couples in same sex relationships, who experience rates of 2, to 3, to 4% higher poverty than of African-American couples in different sex (partnerships), and also, higher rates of poverty than white same sex couples who’d be comparable.  We see significant pockets of poverty and economic marginalization in rural areas, which is not so much of an impact in (SF).  We see a lot of impact around age.  Partnered couples from 65 years or older are twice as likely to be poor as heterosexual married couples.  We see significant marginalization on youth.  We see, particularly in (SF), very high rates of youth coming to San Francisco seeking a Mecca and finding that it in fact it’s not only a very expensive place to live, but a very challenging place to live.  We see extremely high rates of homelessness, substance abuse, mental health issues, people who are living in the streets or are marginally housed and we’re looking at sort of multiple and intersecting needs and challenges.  I think that there’s also a specific pocket of economic marginalization in (SF) in the transgender community.  There’s a Good Jobs Now survey that was done several years ago that was a project of the Transgender Law Center and the San Francisco Weekly and they found that nearly 60% of the respondents surveyed earned under $15,300 a year and only 8% earned over $45K.  Only 25% of the respondents were working full time; an additional 16% were working part time; and 9% reported no source of income at all.  So 75% of the people are under or unemployed.  40% do not have a bank account of any kind; and 10% identified as homeless, with another 31% living in unstable living situations.  So clearly we see climbs of economic marginalization for the transgender community, again, remembering the compound factors for transgender folks of color, for transgender folks with disabilities, who are HIV positive.  We are just seeing sort of compounding multiple impacts.

 

President Shorter:  You have about 30 seconds.

 

Rolfe:  Great.  I want to say in terms of recommendations, it’s important to not buy into the myth of LGBT affluence.  In (SF) I think that myth can be pretty pervasive.  I think it’s important to look at funding LGBT specific programs and services. I think it’s important to focus your attention on this intersection of different oppressions and really look at how the oppressions compound and affect each other, including holding non LGBT services accountable for meeting LGBT community members’ needs and holding LGBT service providers accountable for meeting the needs of women of color, folks with disabilities, the transgender community, and other marginalized communities.  I just want to really put in a vote of support for continued gender budgeting and the work of CLAW  (…?...) because I think that that’s a critical way of analyzing how money is spent, how people are impacted by the City budgeting process, and funds that the City has some sort of access and control over.  So, thank you very much.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Are there any questions for Rebecca?  I just saw someone (inaudible) (and maybe she’ll make comment during public comment), but Jody Schwartz of LYRIC is here and I would imagine has some similar report in terms of how youth are faring in these times.  But thank you very much, Rebecca. 

 

(President Shorter requests that guests not hold conversations during the hearing unless they are providing translation services; one guest confirms that she is translating.)

 

We are going to have a quick change in program and if I can offer my apologies for a moment to Emylene Aspilla we’re going to take a sort of a change in the order of the program so that we can accommodate the Senator, who is here with us this evening.  So, thank you, Senator Lee, for being here.

 

Senator Leland Yee:  Thank you very much, Madame President and it’s good to see you and so many of your colleagues here.  I wanted to come by and just say “hello” for a couple of minutes, particularly (because) as you all know the California State Legislature celebrates “Woman of the Year”.  Each year members of the Assembly and senators have an opportunity to select a “Woman of the Year” in the eight Senatorial districts.  We have literally about a million individuals.  On this occasion this year my office and I decided we would, in fact, make a selection amongst you all.  Your Executive Director is a star among stars.  (Applause)  There was a historic bill that I crafted.  It had to do with women who are in situations of immense danger.  In the state of California, prior to my bill (being) enacted, if you are a victim of domestic violence and you chose to make a report against your batterer, and if you are then asked to testify in court against your batterer the court can in fact command that you testify and if you refuse to testify the courts can, in fact, put you in jail.  It is a law, it is a rule that is absolutely outrageous.  I can’t imagine how in the world that came about – that, in fact, the court can, in fact, command that you testify against your batterer and if chose not to, then the court can in fact put you in jail.  I, unfortunately, had the dubious situation where one of my constituents in San Mateo had that happen to her.  Fortunately, with a defense attorney that was a little bit more swift than the prosecutor, we were able to prevent that women (from) going to jail.  We then swiftly crafted a bill that would in fact eliminate that provision from our state code.  Now I will tell you that the district attorneys within the state of California are absolutely opposed to that bill.  District attorneys throughout California, except for the one here, even threatened individuals who are part of the support network of domestic violence women – they were threatened that they would not receive any cooperation from the (DA) if, in fact, they would support my bill.  Your executive director, Emily Murase, was of those shining stars that stood among all other individuals and said “I don’t care.  If anybody threatens their cooperation with women’s groups, domestic violence groups, and so on -- we don’t care because this is an important issue.  And so we were able to solicit her support, we were able to garner her support, and we were able to use her to fashion a tremendous network of support throughout the state of California, and we were able to get that bill passed, and surprisingly, we were able to even convince the governor to sign that particular bill.  And so now women who are the target of domestic violence, and they chose to make a report, that no longer can courts and no longer can prosecutors threaten and command that if you don’t testify then you will go to jail.  And that protection comes because there were valiant women who stood up there and said, “No, we’re not going to allow that to happen ever again.”  I  will dare say that if it were not for Emily Murase who initially provided that assistance that we would not, in fact be able to get that bill passed.

 

And so it is because of that, and I think because also (as you probably know Emily) she’s an individual of immense integrity, immense intellect, but she’s very, very quiet about it.  And she goes out there and does the hard work, and she doesn’t really ask for a whole lot of recognition.  And so my staff and I felt that she should, in fact, deserve that recognition, receive that recognition but most importantly let all of you know what a tremendous executive director you have.  So on behalf of the… (first tape ends at this point)…Emily Murase on this occasion, on this year distinguishing her as the “Woman of the Year” for the eighth senatorial district and Emily this is so well deserved.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

 

ED Murase:  I want to thank (thank you all!)  I want to thank the Senator.  I am completely taken by surprise.  We spend a lot of our time thinking about women in the community who are leaders who support the work of the Department and the Commission.  So I really appreciate this, Senator.  But I have to say before arriving at this job I had very little understanding of domestic violence and the issues involved, so I really owe a debt to the Commission, to Dorka Keehn, and the Justice and Courage Project; to trainers like Emberly Cross Beckie Masaki, Doreen Derr-McCleod, Kathy Black and Beverly Upton, who have really shown me what it means to be victimized – that these women get revictimized over and over again and how important it is that we respect and allow survivors dignity as they move through the system.  So I really just  want to thank the Senator.  Thank you so much.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.

 

Senator Yee:  Madame President, one more privilege:  If I could introduce the coordinator for my San Francisco office and that’s Leah Rone (correct name?).

 

President Shorter:  Great.  Thank you.

 

Senator Yee:  Thank you very, very much.  And keep up the good work

 

President Shorter:  Thank you, Senator and we very much appreciate your time and being here and if there’s anything you have to say in terms of the economic impact on women and children, while we have you, we would appreciate it.

 

Senator Yee:  Well, as you know, our failsafe system right now is the federal government.  The president has seen, within his wisdom, to provide a number of safety nets.  Today in the Labor Committee and tomorrow in the Appropriations Committee ( and I sit on both Committees) we will be authorizing an extension of unemployment benefit.  In addition to that we will be looking at changing the base period, and so hopefully through that we’re going to provide (a) greater safety net for many individuals who are unemployed or ready to be unemployed and hopefully through those extensions of benefits we’re going to allow women and other individuals to have, I think, a longer period of time to get themselves back in shape so that they can, in fact, renter into the labor market.  Again, we’re going to do what we can to try and help with this particular budget but short term we are looking at some of the economic recovery funding that’s coming into the state to try to bridge that particular gap.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Great.  Thank you very much, Senator.  Pleasure to see you. (Applause)

 

Emylene, are you still here with us?  Okay, great.  Thank you so much for your patience. 

 

Emylene Aspilla:  Absolutely.  I’m happy to be bumped for such awesome recognition. 

 

My name is Emylene Aspilla and I am the Director of Client Services of Jewish Vocational Services, also known as JVS.  We were founded in 1973 and we are a workforce development agency that addresses the barriers faced by one-income individuals who desire to become self-sufficient and economically productive.  The groups that we serve include youth, adults with disabilities, individuals transitioning from public assistance, foster care, and unemployment, immigrants, refugees, and individuals in career transition.  And what I don’t think a lot of people know about JVS is that 60% of our clients that we serve are actually women.  (They are) very diverse communities of women including with limited English proficiency and older adults and single moms, and through our Transgender Economic Empowerment Initiative, transgender women; we (collaborate) with San Francisco Center, Transgender Law Center, and SF Team.  JVS operates of twenty programs serving nearly 5,000 people annually and this includes youth services where we provide youth with disabilities ages 14 to 24 education support, vocational training, and work experience opportunities.  In the last year we have seen a huge increase in client volume with nearly a 60% increase in new clients compared to over a year ago. Our drop-in computer log, which serves a part of the local workforce development system as a one-stop access point, has seen an over 90% increase in the number of clients.  Across the agency we are now working with over 4,000 unemployed and underemployed people with demand continuing to increase.  Some of the trends that we are seeing:  A lot of older women (meaning women who are over 65) are coming to our doors needing to reenter the workforce as their retirement savings (have) dwindled, and partners and (family members) that they live with have also been laid off.  We are also seeing mother’s who are needing to reenter the workforce for their second or even third time.  And while the rapidly increasing unemployment rate is shocking, it does not tell the true story, the full story because many women who are reentering the workforce after an extended absence are not officially counted in the ranks of the unemployed yet are a significant population of job seekers that we are seeing each day.  There are a lot of statistics that were shared with you today and I’m not going to repeat them some of those but one that wasn’t shared was that in December 2008, there were 4.1 job seekers per available job and more than double of women job seekers per available job just twelve months ago.  So it’s gotten very, very competitive out there.  And for many women who are out job seeking or reentering the work force after an extended absence, what we’re seeing is that women are very much in need of training to upgrade their skills to be competitive.  However, most women who are primary caregivers (and some have dependent family members) it is really difficult for women to get this training.

 

We’re also seeing that while the local healthcare industry is relatively stable, we see that significant sections of this industry are facing cuts and employment and hiring freezes.  So these jobs include licensed vocational nurses, and (inaudible) service representatives providing administrative support.  We have traditionally been able to have our women placed in these jobs and they offer excellent wages and opportunities for career advancement.  But many of our nursing graduates are moving out of the region into other parts of the state to gain nursing employment; in our program that we did in collaboration with UCSF had to be cut due to lack of jobs available at UCSF. 

 

Some of our specific recommendations would be that the City really, really support job training programs in addition to helping women seek jobs right away.  What is really critical is supporting (inaudible) base training programs.  While we see that individual training can (inaudible) serve as an effective tool to get people into training we see that (inaudible) base training programs serve women successfully helping to gain skills and employment in a relatively short time period in a peer learning and supportive environment.  One of the examples of a training program that JVS does is our LEAP program which is an eight-week intensive training followed by a supportive internship and continued classroom time where our clients gain full time employment in an administrative job.  We historically place a lot of people in legal and law firms but those have also disappeared.  Over 85% of our clients in the LEAP program our women and over the past ten years we’ve helped over 140 enter administrative jobs and over 80% of them are still employed in these jobs after three years. 

 

A lot of the money is going to be going to the construction sector, healthcare, human health services and we want to be able to create short and long term training programs for these women.  And we hope that you will also support our case in making short and long term programs available for women.  I’m happy to take any questions.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much, Emylene.  Are there any questions for Emylene?  (No response.)

 

Aspilla:  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  I am told that Ann Hinton from the Department on Aging and Adult Services isn’t with us this evening and there isn’t a representative, but that a written report will be submitted to the Department. 

 

We have actually one last speaker holding the spot and that’s Catherine Dodd from the Mayor’s office. 

 

Commissioner Keehn:  …as Catherine is coming up I was going to comment that when Ann Hinton spoke I was struck by a recent report by the Women’s Foundation that showed that California had the highest percentage of senior women living before poverty line of any state and so I think that as we look at recommendations for the City that we really look at recommendations related to senior women.

 

President Shorter:  Right.

 

Catherine Dodd:  Thank you.  I’m sorry I couldn’t be here earlier.  I had a meeting on the 3^rd floor.  I will include something that Ann Hinton might have shared with you and I know Rebekah spoke at the beginning and I wanted to assure you as an appointed Commission and to assure the people present today that we’ve been working on finding every cent in the stimulus package since the first bill passed the House and then went through the Senate, and then the Conference Committee report was done.  I have read, many times, all seven hundred pages of the stimulus bill…

 

President Shorter:  You didn’t catch the error, Catherine?

 

Dodd:  Pardon me?

 

President Shorter:  You didn’t catch the error?  Side note.

 

Dodd:   What errors?  Oh…there were two errors.  But, anyway, I didn’t catch them.  I wanted to make the distinction that (SF) will get formula dollars and we’ll also be applying for every single competitive dollar that’s available.  So a lot of the things you’ve heard about today are competitive grants.  In that context Vice President Biden sent a letter to all mayors which was received last Friday and shared by Mayor Newsom with all department heads which had in it that cities would be funded based on dire needs.  So to expect that (SF) is going to compete successfully with every other city in the country (because it’s not counties that are funded in many of these, it’s cities that are funded as a local body; many states don’t have counties – all states have cities) is a challenge.  It doesn’t mean we aren’t putting together the best RFPs that existed.  But I wanted to also kind of dispel some magical thinking that, when you look at some of the budget numbers which are in your packet, that we are actually going to get anything in them.  I’ll just give you an example:  The Administration On Children and Families, which is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in which I previously served) was referenced as a community service block grant.  It’s a billion dollar block grant that’s given out nationally – a billion dollars, nationally – to local agencies.  We call a billion dollars “budget dust”.  That doesn’t mean we won’t compete for it but Region 9 will be disseminating that money.  Region 9 has Arizona, Nevada, California, Hawaii and the Western Pacific and I assure you that the people that are living in Guam and the islands are far worse off than people living in (SF).  So I really think we need to be realistic about what we’re demanding the City do and assure you that the City is applying competitively with our best and brightest for every single dime available.

 

In terms of health coverage, the Women’s Community Clinic was referenced.  The Women’s Community Clinic is not considered a federally qualified health clinic – a 330 under law.  So only 330 clinics can apply for that money.  (The Women’s Community Clinic) – it’s an incredible clinic; I write a check to it every year – but to expect the federal stimulus package to solve that problem is magical thinking.  We have to find other ways to support that unique women’s service. 

 

In terms of job training, the Director of Work Force Development in the City and County of San Francisco is Rhonda Simmons.  She’s a woman.  She’s well acquainted with all of the statistics and there is a focus on green collar jobs and green work force jobs, which is why having organizations like Women in the Trades training women and getting them in the pipeline for those positions is very important.  Our YouthBuild and our SFBuild programs all have women enrolled in them and that’s where those jobs are.

 

The childcare dollars (I kind of wish we’d been able to nudge Senator Yee for a minute) – the Childcare Block Grant comes down as a formula and unfortunately whenever the State of California has got an increase in that formula has given the money out in the form of vouchers, not in the form of slots.  Now a voucher means I give you $50 and you go see what you can buy with it.  Well in (SF) $50 doesn’t buy a lot.  In the form of slots it allows us to expand our childcare package.  That decision will be made by the California Department of Education, not by the legislature, but by Jack O’Connell and the (CDE).  So it’s not as easy for us to just expand those slots as we would like.  Early Head Start:  There’s a lot of money for Early Head Start and I met with Charlotte Ferretti of the Marian Wright Edelman Center at San Francisco State University.  (SFSU) is the agency of record that administers all (SF’s) Head Start dollars.  Our problem with Early Head Start is we don’t have the facilities.  There’s a very high level of safety, of build-out, that’s required for Early Head Start.  So unless we have the capital money to do the building and the locations, we’re strapped in terms of expanding those slots.  I will say, however, that the funding out of the Department of Agriculture for increased funding for food stamps will be a direct pass-through to (SF).  We will be able to eligibilize (if that’s a verb today) more people for food stamps in (SF).  In the Department of Aging – which, again, is under HHS – there’s additional funds for seniors that will come to us as a formula, not of increased funding for senior nutrition.  The FMAP (while this meeting was beginning, downstairs the Board of Supervisors was still hearing a lot about the FMAP which is the federal matching funds for Medi-caid) matches Medicaid, foster care, and in-home supportive services.  Presuming that the State of California is willing to roll back it’s eligibility requirements to July of 2008, which is required in order to be eligible for the FMAP, we will see large sums of money come to (SF).  So people are saying well that money should expand services and I just have to remind you (and I know that Rebekah did) that we still have a budget gap to close between now and the end of this year. We are required by law to have a balanced budget.  So a lot of the cuts that have been made to date are to deal with next year’s budget because the earlier you make the cut the smaller the cut has to be.  So that funding is going to back fill cuts that would have otherwise been made in the Department of Public Health and yet we are still making additional cuts to (DPH); it’s not enough to reach the $100 million. 

 

So that’s just kind of some of the issues.  As I was reading through the materials and listening to testimony, I think that it’s important to provide guidance but I also think that – I know, having been in Washington – the government is not prepared to deal with how to get all of this money out effectively so it’s using the same mechanisms that it’s always used to get money out and unless women in those positions at the state level, largely, say “This is how we should do it”, we’re going to have precious little say over how it actually gets spent.  So our focus should not just be here at the local level; our focus needs to be at the state level.  All of the messages that are in the packet are as applicable at the state level, in terms of advocacy, in fact more applicable there.

 

And lastly, Rebekah told me that you asked the question about the City and County layoffs affecting women disproportionately (as opposed to how they affect) men.  It’s no surprise that the layoffs have largely been in General Fund departments, which are largely health and human services departments (because women hold up more than half the sky in health and human services) and will likely continue to (be so).  But I do have to point out that there were also cuts proposed in some of the male dominated departments within the City and County, and the unions that represented those departments negotiated to not have layoffs.  They negotiated changes in their benefits; I’m not exactly sure what the specifics were but people were willing to take furlough days so that their co-workers wouldn’t get laid off.  And to date – and hope springs eternal – the unions that are representing a largely female dominated work force (health and human services) have been unwilling to (and this is to date, we are still prayerful) make any of those (sacrifices), even though my friends who work in health and human services are saying “I’m willing to take a furlough day.  I’m willing to forego my raise.”, (that they’re going to get in two months) in order to see that no more layoffs are made.  So we still have the possibility of preventing further layoffs in those women dominated departments.  But there’s going to have to be some give and take because the money just isn’t there, with exception (I’m going to have to point these out) the nurse managers, like all two hundred of them, did agree to forego their raise and save the city close to $800,000.  So that was significant.  Again, this is a City family and we’ll all have to realize you can’t close over $600 million budget deficit with hopes from the stimulus; we’re still more than $100 million off in balancing.  So (I’m channeling Nani Coloretti) we’re trying to make the cuts as painless as possible but any stimulus dollars we can get is to prevent further cuts.

 

Thank you for the extra time.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you, Catherine, very much. 

 

Okay.  We are now at the end of our scheduled testimony and before taking a break, and (then) we will go into public comment.  I move that the Department/Commission submit a report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors summarizing the findings of this public hearing that will also include public comment that we’ll be attended to in a few minutes. 

 

(Speaker?):  Could I suggest that we not take the ten minute break so that we can move into public comment?

 

President Shorter:  I have some other commissioners that would like to take the break.

 

(Speaker?):  Okay…

 

President Shorter:  …and there are also some members of the public… So is there a second to that particular motion?

 

VP Gulbengay:  Can we amend that to request that the Executive Director (when the report is prepared) that she contact the three female supervisors and ask for a committee hearing on what we’ve held here today?  I know you’re working with Supervisor Alioto-Pier on some issues but this might be something that, if we contacted Alioto-Pier and Carmen Chu, and Supervisor Maxwell…just to bring the awareness there? 

 

(Comments of an unidentified speaker are inaudible.)

 

VP Gulbengay:  I know they were, but…

 

President Shorter:  Great.  Thank you.  So the motion has been amended to have those reports also sent to their attention?  Is that the amendment?

 

VP Gulbengay:  …and to call for a hearing.

 

President Shorter:  …and to call for a hearing.  Sorry. Yes.  Is there a second to that? 

 

(Speaker?):  I move to second.

 

President Shorter:  Are there any public comments regarding the action that the Commission is to take in the summarizing of the findings and submitting of those reports? 

 

(Speaker?):  May I inquire (as to) the purpose of another public hearing on this subject?

 

President Shorter:  Actually, before we do that we do have public comment in relation to the action we’re to take…so Beckie if you could respond.

 

Beckie Masaki:  Good evening, Commissioners.  I would like you to also entertain possibly and amendment to that to include testimony around violence against women and its impact on the economic climate.  Violence against women is one of your primary program areas at the Commission.  I noticed that there were no representative speakers from any of our programs and I think it’s really critical that that piece get highlighted in the report as well…more than just what’s going to be coming out in the public comments section.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  And just to reiterate…you’re correct that (none) of the scheduled speakers today were from the collaborative partners, but there were some comments – very direct and relevant to the issue of domestic violence, but your point is well taken.  Kathy…

 

Kathy Perry:  I just wanted to thank you for pulling this hearing off and taking action, but I also want to state that I hope that the Commission will add (after the hearings) that there be the creation of some sort of task force to do a little bit of tracking and to do a little bit of analysis on how to get those stimulus dollars from the bureaucratic process directly to women.  So I hoping that a work group will come out of this.  This is just like the start, but we’ve got to go through this whole process of surviving this recession, so I hope that there will be a task force or work group (I don’t know what you would call it…) that will take a look at all the recommendations that you’ve come up with and make it happen so that there’s some action after this. 

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much.  That’s certainly on the table now, Commissioners.  It looks as though our motion and amendment to that motion is being amended again or potentially.  So would someone care to make a motion?  And maybe Cynthia can repeat back to us what some of the recommendations were from public comment that we can incorporate into our motion.

 

Marks:  It’s an amendment to the motion that’s on the table?

 

President Shorter:  Yes…just to make sure that we clarify.

 

Marks:  Well, I would like to amend it because I think that’s a very sensible suggestion.  I’m not giving you the wording.  Would you like to give the wording?

 

President Shorter:  Vice President?

 

VP Gulbengay:  …and I think that the motion, since we are bringing it to the (BOS), that could be the arena for broader awareness, where they could create the task force or the advisory committee on the issue and that’s why if we have the hearing they have the power to create that, put out vacancy notices, and get women involved.  That was why I agreed to have the motion to have the hearing.  The task force is a wonderful idea.

 

President Shorter:  My recommendation is that I like the idea of having some sort of follow up but I think that (it) would behoove the Commission to have more serious conversation about what that would look like and I’m a little hesitant to make a commitment to having a task force versus a committee or what not.  So I think that once we have the findings that are summarized in a report then at that point we can determine what is the best vehicle by which to make sure that recommendations are implemented.  So from my point of view as Chair of the body I would certainly hope that we take into full consideration any type of vehicle but I, personally, am not willing to commit to a task force at this point in time until we can determine exactly what the findings are and the best way and the most expedient way – sometimes task forces are great and task forces can also slow down the process.   So that’s why I’m recommending that we move forward and arrive at a vehicular recommendation once we have the report. 

 

Commissioner Keehn:  To second that, my recollection of our recent review of the strategic plan was that part of this process would be to impact partially our strategic plan so that that would be the path rather than create a task force.

 

President Shorter:  So in other words there’s already a vehicle in place and to fully the strategic plan or components of it to address these issues.  So I would like to make a motion that we submit a report to the Mayor and to the (BOS) with special interests to the supervisors that were indicated by (VP) Gulbengay summarizing the findings of the public hearing, including public comment, and certainly recommend that the (BOS) also hold a similar hearing to expand on the findings. 

 

(Speaker?):  I second.

 

President Shorter:  Great.  Any other public comment?  (No response.)  Being that there is no public comment, Commissioners:  All in favor of the motion please say “yes” or “aye”. 

(Commissioners all respond “Aye.”)

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  We’re going to convene and how about we do this:  We convene at about five minutes at the most so people can kind of stretch, get a little oxygen running through our brains and our body and come back in five minutes.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT:

(Before tape rolls, speakers are instructed that they will be given two minutes speaking time.)

 

Kathryn Johnson, Democratic Women in Action: Thank you for the opportunity.  I’m Kathryn Johnson.  I’m from the Democratic in Action, as is my colleague.  Our group’s objective is to promote legislation and candidates who support the needs of women, children, and families at the city and state level.  In this time of economic crisis budget cuts, not new legislation, are the order of the day.  Speakers, I’ve learned a lot from the discussion, particularly about the impact.  A lot of the comments were directed at innovative ideas to maintain existing services.  We’ve heard that women (particularly women of color and single women) are the hardest hit.  In this crisis politicians, policy makers, and practitioners are faced with the agenda of consolidating, reallocating remaining resources, and taking steps to minimize the impacts.  Most importantly, and some people have already said (this), it’s important not to forget that in every crisis there is an opportunity, nor must they lose sight of the long term vision.  It is this point that I want to stress.  President Obama’s – you brought up his accomplishment or what happened recently – agenda for women and girls provides a long term attainable vision useful in this crisis.  Specifically, items on President Obama’s agenda for women and girls that are relevant to City agencies and non profits receiving City funds include healthcare, empowering women of color to prevent HIV/AIDS, augmenting family parenting and comprehensive sex education, reducing domestic violence and strengthening (DV) laws, investing in women-owned business, protecting pensions and encouraging retirement savings, fighting for pay equity, expanding early childhood education, and promoting job opportunities for women in American science. (2 minute alarm sounds) I urge – and this is my point – particularly after listening to everyone that not only is it important to do tracking of the impact but to hold up the vision of what is being lost and what could be gained.  I think that would be a powerful political tool.  And I also see as central to this…

 

President Shorter:  Kathryn, if I don’t stop now...I’ve got thirty people that want to speak…

 

Johnson:  (Okay). I want to say, then, two things:  The gender budgeting methodologies are a useful tool to this end.

 

President Shorter:  Alright.  Thank you so much and if there’s anything you all have that’s written that  you can submit, it’d be much appreciated. 

 

 

Dr. Renee Golanty-Koel, Democratic Women in Action:  This is a letter that’s been sent to the (BOS) and to the Mayor and also to Emily.

 

“We want to support and commend Dr. Murase and the Commission and Department On the Status of Women for their continued service and support of human rights, employment and economic issues, violence against women, health, and girls issues.  The Democratic Women in Action believes that is important for the above services to be housed in a single department in order to obtain pertinent information regarding the areas in which the Department is involved.  If these services are dispersed, obtaining information and support will become difficult, cumbersome, and discouraging.  WE understand that the (BOS) and the Mayor are considering dismantling the Department and dispersing the above services to other departments.  The (DWA) does not support such a move.  The (DWA) and other Democratic women can muster support of many women’s organizations in (SF).  If our new president of the United States can form a Council of Women and Girls, which is indicative of the need on the national level, then our Democratic (BOS) and the Mayor can follow the national lead.

 

Thank you for your continuing support of the Department and the Commission.

(Applause.)

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.

 

 

Kelly Lee, Young Asian Women Against Violence/Sisters Against Violence Empowerment Project

 

Hello.  My name is Kelly Lee.  I work for the Community Youth Center here in (SF) and I help supervise the Young Asian Women Against Violence and the Sisters Against Violence Empowerment Project.  These are our peer leaders for this year:  Josephine, Joey, Yvonne, Winnie, Pamela, and Jennifer.  They prepared something to tell you this evening:

 

Dear Commissioners:

 

We are YAWAV (Young Asian Women Against Violence), also known as SAVE (Sisters Against Violence Empowerment Project). 

 

We would like to thank you for your many years of support and funding even during these difficult times.  The current economic crisis is a major burden on everyone, especially women and girls.  Females are usually the victims to acts of violence such as sexual assault and sexual harassment.  After these horrific events, they need someone to turn to.  Without YAWAV, SAVE or other similar organizations, these people would be hopeless.  Many do not have the resources or money to seek professional help.  This can lead to depression various health concerns and an increase in the suicide rate.  In addition, women who are at a very low income will fall into greater hardships.  They lack the money needed to provide nutritious meals for their families.  If (funding is) put into programs that promote prevention and provide education on violence a lot of government money could be saved.  Less people would experience violence and those who do experience violence would know what to do.  This in turn would allow the government to spend less money on medical fees for low income women.  This excess money could be put into circulation to help stimulate the economy.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much.  I also understand the you all have written testimony (and maybe that’s part of what you’re reading from) so we appreciate that.  I also want to acknowledge the fact that you all were some of the first people here today and we appreciate (you) taking time out from your schedules from school, etc.  So, thank you very much. 

 

Our next round of folks are Dr. Jane Bernard-Powers, Vicky Hamlin, and Bonnie Enriquez from Tradeswomen, Inc., and Molly Martin from Tradeswomen, Inc. as well.

 

Dr. Jane Bernard-Powers: I’m Jane Bernard-Powers.  I am a professor of education, Vice Chair of the (DWA), and this is a little bit of a fan letter.  I have been (as a person who went to Nairobi in 1985) am very aware of transnational and global issues.  I have been very encouraged and pleased that a global agenda has shown up here at the (SF) Department On the Status of Women and the Commission On the Status of Women.  The issue 1) being violence and the (inaudible) the conviction to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women, it being enacted on a local level, it seems to me, is critical.  That sort of activism, the understanding and collaboration, and a sense that what happens globally is not just happening globally, it is actually realized in community relationships and the activism.  So I just am so appreciative and also, I might add, dazzled by the commentary that I saw today.  I think this has been an amazing commission.  The people that showed up – their comments were very hard to hear, it’s very hard to listen to these economic impacts.  But I am so pleased that there is a Commission and a Department that continues to function and, I trust, will continue to function with all of the support of the community.  So, thank you very much.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.

 

Vicky Hamlin, Tradeswomen, Inc.: Hello. I’m Vicky Hamlin with Tradeswomen, Inc., a 25 or 27 year-old organization that supports women in the construction trades.  We have all heard a lot about the construction trade and the stimulus dollars, and we hear consistently that that’s for men.  It is not.  It’s for women, too.  There’s always been a consistent stratus of women who have worked in the construction trades.  When we have affirmative action with teeth that number goes up, and when we don’t it goes down.  Based on all of the testimony heard today you can all understand how construction trade jobs are good for women, good for the community, good for families, good for every stratus of society.  But women are also good for construction.  We a great job. Women love their work when they’re in construction and it’s a partnership that’s very strong, but we need help.  It’s impossible to learn construction trades with the kind of hostility that women face when we go on to the job without help.  We need teeth in affirmative action.  I know when I first started working in the construction trades I thought that men would find out how good of a job do, how much potential I had and they would be so supportive – and it took me a long time to realize that that was not the case, that the last thing they wanted was me to succeed; and it took me a longer time to understand why.  So with that we just want to say that we need to support all the programs out there that support women in the construction trades, both the retention and the recruitment of women and to use the construction dollars that we all believe are coming in to support women in the trades.  And do not think of the construction trades as just a man’s purview.

 

We also have some hard copy stuff that we would like to submit. 

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very, very much.  I would also like to recommend that if there are any online links make sure that you that your share that so that we can have that on our website at the Department.  Hello…

 

Molly Martin, Tradeswomen, Inc.: I am going to try not to repeat anything that Vicky said.  I’m Molly Martin and I’m an old-timer from Tradeswomen, Inc., and I also served on this Commission in the ‘80s; I was an Agnos appointee.

 

President Shorter:  Yes, that’s right!  Welcome back!

 

Martin:  Thank you.  Well, I hope that the Commission does make this a priority because I think it’s very important.  There’s lots of reasons for women to work in construction trades -- and we’re talking mostly construction trades here because they’re union jobs.  No college education is needed to go into an apprenticeship program, which still exists, and we make a lot of money.  We make five times the money women make in traditional jobs, some of us; we make a lot of money.  I also worked for the City for many years as an electrician and an electrical inspector and in comparison (to) what women make in City jobs, we make a lot of money.  So I think we really need to work on not thinking of these as men’s jobs – these are women’s jobs.  We want women to have these jobs.  I have a couple of recommendations.  You all know that affirmative action has gotten a lot harder after Prop. 209 has passed, which makes it a little more difficult to recruit women and place them in these kinds of jobs.  We still need to look at federally funded jobs because affirmative action laws still exist there.  There are still a lot of goals and timetables for women in federally funded construction jobs; they just aren’t enforced.  So we need to think of some creative ways to get the federal government to help enforce these (laws) and one thing that I would suggest is putting affirmative guidelines in every federal project in the City.  So whenever we build a big building or a hospital complex or anything that’s got federal money, the guidelines need to go into the contract and the monitoring needs to be funded.  We’re just like every other non profit; we have very little money.  We have one part-time staff person (who will speak in a moment).  We  aren’t going to be able to do it but we would love to partner with the Commission to figure out some creative ways to do outreach to women.  I’m not just talking about construction here; I’m talking about police, fire (safety) jobs, -- jobs that have been all men.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much, Molly, and we will be in touch.  Our next speakers are Charlene Clemens, Caitlin Chan, and Kathie Piccagli.

 

Charlene Clemens, San Francisco Family Support Network: Good evening.  I’m Charlene Clemens.  I’m from Family Service Agency of San Francisco but I’m here as the co-chair of the Family Support Network.  I have a document that I can send over by internet, so I won’t cover that but what was interesting (is that) that when I was thinking about coming here and speaking, I pulled up the family support policy program for the Network, and substituted “women” for “families”.  I worked through all of it; I’ll be very quick.  So I “womanized” our strategies (by the way I would love to be in construction but I am Miss Magoo and clumsy so here I am, a poor non profit worker!)

 

Helping families (women) make ends meet:

• Increase the access for women to public and private benefits designed to women make ends meet.
• Increase access for women to affordable childcare.  (…inaudible) 
• Increase access for women to affordable housing, helping families to build and protect assets.
• Promote women financial management via education.
• Increase opportunities for women with children to save for themselves and the next generation.
• Reduce or eliminate the asset limits for women in programs that assist low-income women.
• Increase family incomes.
• Make sure that the Work Force Development policies, programs, and studies are women supportive.
• Support women in reducing their tax burden and maximizing various tax credits.
• Promote educational opportunities.
• Increase school readiness for women.
• Increase literacy for women.
• Increase the quality of public education for girls and women, and
• Increase women’s adult literacy.

 

And, in general, increase women’s economic success efforts.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you. 

 

Caitlin Chan, Women’s Community Clinic: Good evening.  My name is Caitlin Chan and I am a (inaudible) at the Women’s Community Clinic.  It’s already been stated explicitly that the Women’s Community Clinic would not be eligible for any stimulus dollars but I did want to still report what we’ve seen and advocate for our services and methods.  We provide free sexual and reproductive health services for women by women.  We see women who are either uninsured or underinsured.  We have seen a huge influx of women who have lost their employer based healthcare plans.  At the same time as this increase (in need) for our services we’ve also lost our entire DPH contract because women’s healthcare is considered episodic care rather than primary care; the City is focusing all of its health dollars on Healthy San Francisco and a primary care medical home model.  We want to restate that for women of reproductive age gynecological care is primary care.  For most women between the ages of 18 and 35 we are there only access point to medical care.  Furthermore this strategy is clearly not meeting the health needs of San Francisco’s women as evidenced by the fact that, just today, I spoke with a woman who was referred by her Healthy San Francisco healthcare provider to us for emergency contraceptives.  So I feel like this is a very strong example of how some gender neutral cuts are actually to the detriment  of women and girls.  I also feel that, in terms of recommendations, that federal fiscal stimulus dollars and City money should be directed towards programs like ours  that have already proven to be effective and that have recently either been immobilized or just strongly hurt by all these recent slashes in the budgets.  Thank you very much.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Kathy.  … and while Kathy is making her way can Jody Schwartz, Vanessa Flores, and Beckie Masaki please also come forward.  Thank you, Kathy.

 

Kathy Piccagli, OWL: I’m Kathy Piccagli from OWL, which is the Older Women’s League and is now the voice of mid-life and older women.  I just wanted to remind you of the significant population of older women in (SF).  The population of people over 65 (years old) is 10% and, as we’ve heard from other speakers, women make up well over 50% of that 10%...and they’re poor.  They tend to be poor more than men do.  So they need all the help, all the resources you can muster for them.  In addition, I want to address issue with mid-life women, many of whom have told me:  “Gee.  When I retire I’m going to have to move.  I can’t afford to live here anymore.”  I think the diversity of (SF) is one of the things that I personally value, both in terms of age, ethnicity…a real variety of types of people.  I just want to urge you to support women so that older women are not an endangered species in the City. 

 

Jody Schwartz, LYRIC: LYRIC appreciates older women.  We actually have had a great project with elders in our community working with some of the youth and it has just been a phenomenal experience, and really shows the young people that they do have a future. 

 

I’m Jody Schwartz; I’m the Executive Director of LYRIC.  I’m going to get straight to my recommendations and back into it, to make sure I get that out front.

 

I did have a chance to talk to some of our young women and unfortunately they were not able to be here today.  They are running a group (that is) talking about young women’s issues at LYRIC; they call themselves “Msfits”.  It’s been great and a really wonderful women-centered space in the center of the Castro which is often considered a very male-dominated community.  So we’re excited about that.  So, what they want:

 

The really want to support an economic recovery that supports young women, concentrating on employment programs that include housing assistance and connections to mental health services.  Employment, housing, and mental health are all being impacted by the economic crisis and need to be addressed simultaneously for the young women to grow healthy and independent.  For young women attending school, it’s important to look at violence occurring on campuses and invest in addressing it as well as providing economic incentives and supports to continuing (to pursue) education.  I do want to say that you may have heard (the) recent report that came out from the schools (stating that) of the 19,000 youth in high school, 77% are reporting hearing anti-gay speech in schools; 48% report never hearing  a teacher or staff person intervene.  The prevalence of family rejection of their queer children results in creating suicide attempts that is 8.4% times that of their peers.  We heard about homelessness issues.  Larkin Street, who is one of our critical partners, serves 5, 700 homeless youth.  At least 30% (and more likely 50%) of who they serve are queer youth.  Work is the key, economic self-sufficiency is the key, the gender lens is the key.  (Addressing the issues of) transition-age youth is an experiment in the City (in which we are) really looking at it and because they do not have their own department, it is the first thing that has been cut from the budget.  Please do not put yourself in that situation. 

 

President Shorter:  Thank you very much. 

 

Vanessa Flores, Asian Women’s Shelter: Good evening Commissioners.  My name is Vanessa, of Asian Women’s Shelter and first I’d like to thank you for giving us this space to discuss the impact of the economic climate of our constituency and also the potential impact of reduced DOSW funding.

 

Twenty-one years AWS was founded to meet the unmet needs of non-English speaking immigrant and refugee survivors of domestic violence.  Over 1,000 women and children have called AWS “home” since it opened.  But unfortunately the needs for services for this vulnerable population continued to grow, especially in light of the economic climate.  At AWS we’re already beginning to feel its impact.  We’re experiencing an increase in the number of crisis calls we receive, especially from non-English speaking women.  Since 2006 there’s been a 41% increase in our crisis calls in over twenty languages.  The economic crisis is also affecting our former residents.  We recently held our annual New Year’s party, which is an event specifically for former and current residents.  This year we had our biggest event yet with over 100 women and children.  We believe the economic climate played a major role in this.  Every year at this event we offer not only a meal and holiday gifts, but also clothing and clean warm coats and outer wear, and groceries including food staples.  Many of our former residents are experiencing difficulty meeting their basic needs this year and this extra help that we provided made a significant impact on these families. 

 

Continuing to cut our budget year after year endangers the lives of all of the women and children who will not be able to access our services due to our decreased funding and staff capacity.  These women will find themselves in a very difficult situation, choosing between violence (and perhaps death) or homelessness.  Reduced funding may also prevent us from providing critical basic needs assistance for our former residents.  Therefore we really urge the Commission to fully fund AWS and all of the current grantees to protect the women and children of (SF).  Thank you very much for your time.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Beckie is here and as Beckie is coming up Marian Chatfield-Taylor, Mary Carmen Torres, and Emma Delgado.  Thank you.

 

Beckie Masaki, Asian Women’s Shelter: Thank you, Commissioners, for holding this very important hearing. My name is Beckie Masaki and I’m with the Asian Women’s Shelter.  I would request that in your report you really highlight violence against women and the intersection with the economic climate.  You are the primary voice in this city for violence against women programs and so we really need to bring out, as we all know, all of the information about economic abuse as a fundamental part of the power and control dynamic in domestic violence.  Also, the global financial crisis has really impacted human trafficking in (SF).  As it is one of the  major hubs of human trafficking, we’re certainly seeing an impact there.  Overall I am worried that violence against women issues and particularly survivors of violence are going to be left out when we are really the key to economic recovery.  For example, the API and immigrant stats are missing in these handouts.  The U.S. and California data often doesn’t include API populations but in (SF) 35% of the population is API and 30% of all of (SF’s) population below the federal poverty level are from API communities.  We heard earlier today that 80% are API seniors, 32% are linguistically isolated,  Also we have the problem of aggregation;  API is so diverse.  What we’re seeing is really a huge difference in economic impact for Cambodian, (inaudible – several API communities named), Mongolian populations, some of the newer immigrant populations versus fifth-generation Chinese or Japanese Americans.  There’s just such a big disparity; I think we get that modern minority myth as well.

 

A couple of specific things that I want to talk about (with regard to) the Recovery Act:  ESG funding from HUD – I think that the domestic violence shelters (and we have La Casa de las Madres, Asian Women’s Shelter, and Rosalee House here) I think we often get left out or forgotten but we are emergency shelters so we really need your help to make that connection and help us plug in to that.  The (inaudible …Violence Stop) money which is on a statewide level – all of the 95 shelters in California get $5,000 each from that.  Can you imagine with the increased (inaudible …Violence Stop?), if we just plug in a little bit of an increase for each of those shelters what an amazing way to quickly stimulate the economy?

 

I have more to say but I know my time is up.  I just really want to thank you.  Remember that we are your partners and that we really want to contribute to the recovery here in (SF).

 

President Shorter:  Absolutely.  Thank you very much, Beckie. 

 

Translator :  We have requested two minutes for testimony and two minutes for translation. 

 

President Shorter:  I’m sorry.  What did you say?

 

Translator:  Earlier we had requested two minutes for the testimony and two minutes for the translation.

 

President Shorter:  That’s fine.  Yes.

 

(Hernandez- first speaker to make public comment in Spanish):

 

Translation: Good evening.  I am sorry that my colleague wasn’t able to stay this late.  My name is (first name?) Victoria Hernandez and I am a member of Mujeres Unidos y Activas, an organization which supports Latina immigrant women with (issues of ) domestic violence and we know that the economic crisis has really affected....We know that domestic violence has increased and this affects all of our homes and our communities and that is why we are asking for support for all organizations that are working to eradicate domestic violence or are working to lower domestic violence in our community.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Gracias.

 

Translator:  Emma Delgado will be presenting our domestic worker project which was formed to help immigrant women with domestic violence (issues) become economically self-sufficient.

 

(Emma Delgado - second speaker to make public comment in Spanish): 

 

Translation: Good evening my name is Emma Delgado and I am a member of Mujers Unidas y Activas.  We know that this economic crisis is affecting many women.  Many women, like me, have lost jobs.  Sometimes it’s because our bosses, our employers have lost jobs, or, in my case, I was taking care of an elderly woman and her daughter lost her job.  So she told me that she wouldn’t need me any more.  Many of us are single mothers and we’re supporting our children here and also our children in our home countries.  For many immigrant women (there is no) access to unemployment benefits.  So we really are in crisis.  I think it’s absolutely unjust that the little services that exist for immigrant women (are) experiencing cut backs.  I’m so thankful for Mujer, a place that we can go to to discuss our problems.  For me – it’s like my second home.  I know that many other Latina immigrant women feel the same way.  So thank you for listening.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.  Gracias.  Did we miss Marian Chatfield-Taylor?  Alright then – Andrea Bible and Laura Guzman and Montira Warren. 

 

Andrea Bible, Free Battered Women: Good evening, Commissioners.  I’m Andrea Bible; I’m here representing Free Battered Women.  I also work with the National Clearing House for the Defense of Battered Women and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.  I know don’t have much time so I just want to say a few things.  One is that working with (DV) survivors who are charged with or convicted of crimes, as advocates, we know that we desperately need ongoing funding for community based organizations like those that are represented here tonight.  So when talking about the economic stimulus package I want to remind everyone – the Commission, the mayor, the state, and the advocacy community – that formerly incarcerated women are often battered women.  We know that upwards of 90% of women in prison are survivors of (DV), sexual violence, (and) child abuse.   When they’re coming out of prison and they’re returning to our communities they faced tremendous barriers in housing (and) employment because of the fact they have convictions on their records.  When we’re looking at things like the STOP grants, the transitional housing funding, job creation programs, we really need to eliminate the barriers for them as well as for their partners because if people are coming out of prison the economic vulnerability regardless – men, women, transfolks – makes everybody more vulnerable to violence.  So where can other sources of funding come from?  Actually, I believe that supporting the release of people from prison and investing that money into our communities, into community based organizations is really critical.  There’s a recent tentative ruling by the federal judges here in (SF) saying that prison overcrowding is a cause of unconstitutional levels of healthcare and mental healthcare and so they are proposing a cap on the number of people in prison.  They have suggested that that money be invested in our communities because we already know, as so many people have commented tonight, that what really builds safer, healthier communities is access to education, affordable safe housing, treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, as well as community based anti-violence programs.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you, Andrea.  Anything that you can submit in writing, especially in reference to the prison overcrowding and the rulings, please do so.

 

Laura Guzman, Mission Neighborhood Resource Center: Good evening, Commissioners.  I’m Laura Guzman and I’m the director of the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center.  I’m also (inaudible) that serves biological and transgender homeless women.  I’m here because in some ways homeless women that are on the streets are really not on the radar.  We want to make sure that the needs of homeless women on the streets, not those in shelters but those that cannot make themselves available to shelter or housing, are included.  At this moment we are facing a cut to our women’s services.  (DHS) calls it a non-core service.  We have actually advocated for women at City Hall to be able to get funding for this program, (to get) services to women who are working the streets, who are heroin-addicted, and who otherwise don’t belong anywhere else.  (One recommendation) -- and we will put it in writing -- is that you please support us.  In fact, there is enough funding (as Catherine Dodd was mentioning earlier) that can be used (inaudible).  So we would ask you to please recommend that any cuts to women that include (tape ends)…

 

I also want to recommend that you start considering homeless women (not necessarily women in domestic violence situations), as part of the purview of the status of women and hope you look closer at their needs.  Other women are really in dire need.  What is happening right now has put them completely at the bottom of the pit.  Even though this is no time to talk about increasing services, our women need housing and we need housing for women who use drugs, not just for women in recovery.  We need housing for women who have partners – same sex partner, whether same sex or opposite sex.  We need expanded methadone treatment for women and fully utilize all of the funding that we have for methadone treatment.  Thank you for hearing and considering homeless women in your report. 

 

President Shorter:  Absolutely.  Thank you.  And while Montira is coming up… Beverly Upton, Roberta Toomer, and Emberly Cross can up.

 

Montira Warren, Gum Moon Residence Hall: My name is Montira Warren and I am a program coordinator at Gum Moon Residence, in Chinatown.  I don’t have any statistics for you (sorry) only some very, very, heart wrenching stories of how the economic crisis is taking a toll on women. 

 

Almost daily for the past several weeks we have gotten calls or visits from women who come in and they’re saying basically that the stress of being unemployed, not having jobs is causing an increase in domestic violence.  So these women are being battered; they’re seeking refuge.  Some of them are already facing divorce and they are even being evicted (by) their husbands.  They have no jobs, no money, and now no place to call home either.  They’re all very frightened.  In fact, among the people who have actually been in the office, (many) are trying really hard to explain what their problem is (while) crying in between (sentences.)  So they need assurance (in knowing) that they will be okay ultimately.  But in order for them to achieve the “ok”, they need opportunities that lead to something promising.  So the federal and city dollars can be combined to support the various job training programs that already exist or create more job training programs.  This would enable the women (some who are entering the job market for the first time) to get job skills and improve their situations, and eventually move toward financial independence and stability.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you. 

 

Emberly Cross, Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m Emberly Cross from the Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic (CROC).  I want to thank you for holding this very important hearing on the impact of the current economic crisis on (SF’s) women and girls and I want to congratulate Emily on her legislative recognition this evening. 

 

All of your speakers painted a very vivid and stark picture of the impact on women of this economic downturn.  This impact is even greater on victims of violence against women.  In general victims of violence against women have fewer resources than other women.  When you have to worry about your batterer or your rapist or your stalker finding you and your children, you have a much smaller universe of options for your job search, your housing search, your search for social services.  As the economy worsens, that already small universe shrinks even further.  The domestic violence and sexual assault crisis lines and legal services, the (DV) shelters, and the direct service organizations for victims of violence against women in (SF) have always provided a safety net for these women when all else failed.  Now the safety net is being stretched to the point that it’s going to start to rip and women are going to start to fall through that.  CROC, for example, saw a 21% increase in clients seeking our restraining order services in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared to a year prior.  Just recently, one of my clients whose perpetrator beat, sexually assault, and stalked her, and then filed his own malicious request for a restraining order against her, came to me and asked if I could write a letter to her landlord for her to explain how the violence and the repeated court appearances  have created such trauma for her that she’s been unable to leave her house to go to work and that’s why she can’t pay her rent next month. 

 

More broadly speaking, we know that economic dependence often keeps women in relationships with their batterers.  We know that (DV) often causes homelessness.  We know that victims of violence against women need a lot of emergency healthcare, including emergency contraception.  In summary, I would just say that when we consider the impact of the economic crisis we need to remember the women, and especially those who are victimized by (DV), sexually assault, and stalking.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you, Emberly. 

 

Beverly Upton, SF Domestic Violence Consortium and Partners: Good evening, Commissioners and Department.  Beverly Upton, (SF) Domestic Violence Consortium and Partners Ending Domestic Abuse.  I don’t think I can restate what’s already been stated in here tonight.  I think you’ve hear the bleak realities.  But I do want to talk about some of the messages that we’re all receiving in this economic crisis.  We’re receiving the message that we all need to sacrifice.  Well, we do, but (SF’s) women have already sacrificed.  When times were good, they did not get their share; and now they’re still sacrificing and expected to take on as much or more in the cuts.  They’ve already sacrificed because when there was money available, this department didn’t grow, the services did not grow.  So we’re faced now with yet another sacrifice on behalf of (SF’s) woman.  We’ve been asked, basically, to take the hit.  I’ve actually been asked to do that at City Hall - “Let’s just take the hit.”  Well (SF’s) women have taken the hit.  They take the hit every day.  They end up in shelters.  We have to keep our shelters open and viable, and we need your leadership and the political will of the women in the city, the Commission On the Status of Women, and the Department On the Status of Women, to keep this city a safe place for women and their children.  This is not going to be the first time that you’ve heard this but this is really going to be a tough season.  We are going to need our department; we do not want to see it merged; we do not women not become a priority in (SF); and we want to keep our Commission alive and viable so we can keep our women alive and viable.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you.

 

Roberta Toomer, WOMAN, Inc.: My name is Roberta Toomer.  I’m the Executive Director of WOMAN, Inc. and I want to thank the Commission for actually holding this discussion.  There is a lot of information that you have given and I know that there’s a lot that you’re going to gain from all of this as well, as I.

 

I just want to express what we see at WOMAN, Inc. in terms of the economic impact that has occurred and has it has affected WOMAN, Inc.  Everybody knows that our core service is the crisis line.   In Quarter 2 of 07/08 we had about 6,875 calls.  In Quarter 2 of 08/09 we had 8,414 calls.  So we see an increase of 1,537 calls.  Now this doesn’t necessarily give you the real impact of how the DV has changed.  What we have seen is increase in the intensity of the DV survivors that come to us.  For the last week we’ve had two women to come into our office, who normally wouldn’t be there.  It just happens that maybe one of the two in this relationship has lost their job.  So the DV changes from ridiculing the woman, making her feel like she is worthless.  The other part of it is that these women come to our office with fear, which is something that they haven’t had to deal with in the past.  It’s kind of hard to say what it was in the past, but for sure the intensity has changed.  For sure, our numbers have increased in all the different services that we’ve had and I just wanted to say it’s important for the Commission to continue supporting all these agencies and the survivors that have actually come to the organizations to get help and get service.  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you, Roberta.   And our last public commenter is Bonnie Henriquez.

 

Bonnie Henriquez, Tradeswomen, Inc.: Thank you so much.  Bonnie Henriquez, director of Tradeswomen, Inc. and I want to talk about jobs, because jobs and money and benefits and pension plans let women get away from abusive men and lets women buy houses and take care of their children and have benefits.  This is like this little window of opportunity we have right now.  With all this federal stimulus money there’s an Executive Order – 11246 is the number – that had federal goals and time lines.  It says 6.9% of those people out there need to be women.  The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was gutted under the Bush administration.  I’ve been talking to them for the past month.  There have been women’s organizations all across the country writing letters to their legislators and everything.  (The compliance officer and I) talked today and he said that there will be money and they will be working with women’s organizations.  So Catherine Dodd talked about City Build, the pre-apprenticeship training program here, and what I see is the (inaudible) project (Doyle Drive - $20 million+ - however much it is) – why can’t we have an entire class of women, pre-apprenticeship women, that will go into an apprenticeship program in California.  (Applause)

 

Thank you for hearing me.  Executive Order 11246 – 6.9% women!  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Great.  Thank you very much.  Are there any other public comments?  Kathy Perry.

 

Kathy Perry: Thanks. I just wanted to be last so I’m sorry I didn’t get my card I earlier.

 

I just wanted to say that we’ve done Step1 tonight; we’ve identified some of the challenges.  Step 2 would be echoing our voices when you make a report to the (BOS) and the Mayor, and when you have the supervisors further provide us with a hearing.  Step 3, though – which is the work I’m looking for – is to prioritize our needs.  Step 4 is to ensure that every woman is aware of the resources and that her needs are met.  Step 5, we need to develop a creative (and) out of the box plan to ensure that every woman who needs help can get it.  And when I say every woman (I’ve heard a lot about women in dire straits), there are a lot more women in dire straits who don’t even know that they need to be speaking here tonight.  So my hope is that when you present your report, you will do it in the stages of life (and) consider age brackets.  We know that there are girls from 0 to 18; 18 to 24; 25 to 30; 36 to 46 and then there’s this other group that’s about 47 to 60 and these people are in between where they’re taking care of their grandkids (they are first-time grandparents), they’re also taking care of their parents.  They’re at the center of their households.  And then there are seniors.  So I hope that when you do the report, that for those groups that weren’t reached tonight or didn’t come out, or didn’t submit anything in writing, you’ll do due diligence in finding out what there needs are and I’ll give you one example:  We contract with a person who used to work for The Chronicle.  I’m 50 years old.  This person’s a little bit older than I am.  So she’s looking for some income just in case our paper folds and we’re not able to contract her and her other work folds.  She says to me, “Well, they talk about all these jobs.  I have been a graphics artist and layout person for The Chronicle and this is what I know.  Can I see myself digging a ditch?”  These are questions that people are asking.  And I ask the same thing:  “What would I retrain (for) if I weren’t doing the newspaper?”  Thank you.

 

President Shorter:  Thank you so much, Kathy.

 

Very much appreciated everyone’s comments.  I’ll just say one thing on that note: I think that all of the testimony, everything that’s been said, is of utmost critical importance in terms of moving forward.  We don’t know exactly what kind of policies will be fashioned but I think that we have a pretty good idea and the top priority is to make sure that women (we) get our fair share of the resources so that we can make sure that we can take care of ourselves and families who contribute to the greater good.  But one thing that I noticed that was not mentioned, speaking of demographics:  We are living longer.  So the longevity issue in and of itself for women and people having to look at (as you were expressing, Kathy) “What would my life be like if I had to start another career and be trained?”  That is becoming so much more often the stories.  I’m in my forties and I do not expect that I will be able to retire by age 65.  That is a foreign concept to my mother, who right now, thank goodness, is in a position where she will be able to retire, but is actually considering a separate career for her own reasons.  But, none-the-less, I am hearing more and more from my peer set of parents and elders that are in the community now having to look at other options.  So longevity?  The economic crisis that we are in is a disaster; it is not a crisis – I’m sorry – it’s a disaster.  It’s a spectacular disaster.  So for eight years we’ve had no response, nothing to move us forward.  So we are in a very, very tremendously hard situation on many levels…and I know that doesn’t sound encouraging, but I’m going to tell it like it is.  So not only are people looking a their pensions (here President Shorter makes the argument that people have also been scammed, as in the case with Bernie Madoff), which are gone.  So we have a whole separate issue just in terms of what people are going to be doing without their pension plans, their retirement plans, and so on.  So it is a very different day in the year 2009 moving forward into this new millennium.  So gone are the days (right now) that people will be able to look forward to retiring by 60, 65, whether you are a City employee, whether you work for a Fortune 500, or what have you.  So far women in particular, with all the information that we have tonight, we have to start putting it together; and we do have to have a plan, and we will have to have everyone’s input, and we thank everyone for being here.