CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1150, San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 552-9292
FAX (415) 252-0461

POLICY ANALYSIS REPORT
To:
From:
Re:
Date:

Supervisor Fewer
Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office
Analysis of Workforce Development Programs
Targeting the Homeless and other Vulnerable Populations
June 23, 2020

Summary of Requested Action
Your office requested that the Budget and Legislative Analyst conduct an analysis of City-funded
workforce programs that serve the City’s homeless and other vulnerable populations.
For further information about this report, contact Fred Brousseau, Director of Policy Analysis, at
the Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Executive Summary
Homelessness and unemployment:


”Lost Job” was the top reason given for homelessness in a survey of homeless individuals
conducted in conjunction with San Francisco’s 2019 Point-in-Time Count of the City’s
homeless population, accounting for 270 out of 852 responses, or 31.7 percent of all. When
asked to identify the top obstacles to permanent housing in the same survey, nearly one
fourth of the responses (24.3 percent) were “No Job/Income.” The survey shows the
importance of jobs and job training in preventing and solving homelessness.



For the chronically homeless, the ranking of the causes of homelessness and obstacles to
obtaining housing were different, with substance addiction the top response provided,
accounting for approximately 24 percent of responses in the City survey. Lost jobs was the
second most frequent response, at approximately 19 percent. For the chronically homeless
and others, workforce development services in combination with services such as behavioral
health and housing assistance could help address multiple barriers to ending or preventing
chronic homelessness. An estimated 3,028 out of the 8,011 homeless identified in the Pointin-Time Count qualified as chronically homeless.



In the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, chronically homeless respondents reported significantly
lower participation rates in job training and employment services compared to the overall
homeless population (5 percent vs. 11 percent).

Budget and Legislative Analyst

1

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

The City’s workforce development programs and homeless participants


The City and County of San Francisco’s workforce development system provides a wide array
of services andserves many groups designated as priority populations by the City through 294
programs administered by seventeen City departments.



In FY 2018-19, there were a reported 26,142 participants in the City’s various workforce
development programs. Total budgeted expenses were $150.4 million Citywide, of which
$64.8 million, or 43.1 percent, was provided by the City’s General Fund; the rest was federal
and state funding.



Pursuant to Chapter 30 of the City’s Administrative Code, the Workforce Investment San
Francisco board (WISF) provides overall policy direction for the City’s workforce development
rogram, with planning and coordination services delegated to the Office of Economic and
Workforce Development (OEWD).



The City’s Administrative Code established a multi-stakeholder Alignment Committee in 2014
to coordinate workforce development activities among City departments to improve their
effectiveness. This Committee was tasked with preparing a five year Citywide Workforce
Development Plan covering 2017-2022 and annual updates for the WISF Board. The
Administrative Code called for disbanding the Alignment Committee in 2019 but it continues
to meet.



The City’s five year workforce development plan identifies economically vulnerable
populations in the City, including the homeless, to be prioritized for workforce development
services. The plan contains recommendations for addressing the challenges facing these
priority populations in achieving employment.



OEWD conducts a detailed annual Inventory of characteristics and results for the City’s
workforce development programs provided by seventeen City departments, including
collecting data on the number of homeless participants, by department. We compiled the
information collected by OEWD and requested that all departments that participated in the
Inventory confirm or update their homeless participation data. The results of that effort are
shown in Exhibit A in graphic and tabular formats.

Budget and Legislative Analyst

2

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Exhibit A: Exhibit A: Number of Total Participants and Homeless Participants Reported
for City Workforce Development Programs, by Department, FY 2018-19

% of Total Participants

# of Participants
Homeless Participants

HSA

Total Participants

1,164
258

OEWD

5,166

245

DCYF

% of Total Participants

5,544

4,894

% of Total Homeless Participants

HSA

21%

OEWD

20%

15%

DCYF

19%

14%

67%

MOHCD

2,552

MOHCD

10%

0%

SFO

2,514

SFO

10%

0%

PUC

1,203

PUC

5%

0%

DPW*

1,171

DPW*

4%

1%

DHR

1,001

DHR

4%

0%

DPH

951

DPH

4%

0%

APD*

434

REC

328

DA

153

APD*

2%

REC

1%

0%

DA

1%

0%

2%

SHF*

75

SHF*

0%

1%

OCII*

62

OCII*

0%

0%

MTA

58

MTA

0%

0%

ENV

21

ENV

0%

0%

PRT*

15

PRT*

0%

0%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%

Budget and Legislative Analyst

3

60%

80%

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

%
Homeless
of Total
Dept.
Participants
21%

%
Homeless
of Total
Homeless
Participants
67%

Total
Participants

Homeless
Participants

Human Services Agency (HSA)

5,544

1,164

Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD)

5,166

258

5%

15%

Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF)

4,894

245

5%

14%

434

30

7%

2%

75

18

24%

1%

1,171

12

1%

1%

Port of San Francisco (PRT)

15

5

33%

0%

Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs (OCII)
Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development
(MOHCD)
San Francisco International Airport (SFO)

62

4

6%

0%

2,552

-

0%

0%

2,514

-

0%

0%

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC)

1,203

-

0%

0%

Department of Human Resources (DHR)

1,001

-

0%

0%

Department of Public Health (DPH)

951

-

0%

0%

Recreation and Parks Department (REC)

328

-

0%

0%

San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (DA)

153

-

0%

0%

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA)

58

-

0%

0%

Department of the Environment (ENV)

21

-

0%

0%

26,142

1,736

7%

Department

Adult Probation Department (APD)
Sheriff’s Department (SHF)
Department of Public Works (DPW)

Total

Source: BLA analysis of Department Workforce Survey Inventory responses collected
Notes: * Departments with 30 or less homeless participants: APD (30), SHF (18), DPW (12), PRT (5), OCII (4)

100%
by

OEWD.

Participants likely include duplicates since individual participants can enroll in more than one program in a
department or across departments.



As shown in Exhibit A, departments reported 1,736 homeless participants in the City’s
workforce development programs in FY 2018-19, or approximately seven percent of the
26,142 total participants reported Citywide. There is no benchmark to which this level of
participation can be compared as the workforce development five year plan and other
program documents do not set participation targets or goals for the priority populations.



Of the seventeen departments that participated in the workforce development services
Inventory for FY 2018-19, the Human Services Agency reported the most homeless
participants at 1,164, or 67 percent of all homeless participants Citywide. When combined
with OEWD and the Department of Children, Youth and their Families, the three departments
provided workforce development services to approximately 96 percent of all reported
Budget and Legislative Analyst

4

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

homeless participants in FY 2018-19. Nine departments reported no homeless participants at
all.

Limitations of homeless and other participant data in assessing program effectiveness


While the data presented in Exhibit A provides insight in to the magnitude of the City’s
workforce development services provided to the homeless, it has limitations that prevent City
policymakers and managers from fully assessing the effectiveness of these services for the
homeless as well as other workforce development priority populations. The limitations
include:
o

OEWD Inventory participant data counts the same individuals multiple times if they have
participated in more than one workforce development program. As a result, we assume
that the 1,736 homeless participants reported for FY 2018-19 actually represent a smaller
number of unique individuals. Without a reliable baseline count, conclusions about
homeless participation are less meaningful when compared to benchmarks such as the
8,011 reported homeless individuals in San Francisco, the 26,142 total participants
reported, or the number of other vulnerable populations reported to have participated in
City workforce development services.

o

Nine departments reported no homeless participants but it is possible that some of those
were due to not collecting participant information at intake. Though requested as part of
their annual Inventory, OEWD currently does not have the authority to compel
departments to track and report participant data by priority population.

o

Besides homeless participants, many departments do not report the number of other
priority population participants served either. We found that details on participation by
priority population was not reported by City departments for 7,558 of the 26,142 FY 201819 total workforce development participants, or 28.9 percent. The absence of this data
hinders assessment of program effectiveness by City policymakers and managers,
particularly for assessing the relative allocation of workforce development resources
among groups.



Though homeless participant data is collected at least for some departments through OEWD’s
annual inventory of Citywide workforce development programs, the data for this priority
population is collected differently than it is for twelve other priority populations who
participate in workforce development programs.



Participant data for twelve priority population groups is collected for each of the 264
programs offered Citywide, enabling analysis of participation for each of these populations by
program type (e.g., apprenticeships), service type (e.g., employment support) and other
characteristics such as total funding level and General Fund support. Unfortunately, such
analyses cannot be readily prepared for homeless participants because they are only
identified at the department level through address collection, but not at the more detailed
Budget and Legislative Analyst

5

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

program level. Collecting participation data for all priority populations in a uniform manner
would allow for better management assessments of program effectiveness.

Conclusion: policy goals and integrated services


1,736 workforce development program participants were identified as homeless in FY 201819, or approximately seven percent of all 26,142 reported participants. Though the City has
analyzed the various populations that would benefit from workforce development services,
and the homeless have been designated as a priority population, there is no program policy
goal for the number or relative proportion of all participants that should ideally be
participating.



An additional complexity for workforce development services for the homeless, particularly
the chronically homeless, is the need for integrated job training and counseling with other
services such as behavioral health and housing services to comprehensively address
participant issues.



Separate from the City’s workforce development services, there are a number of programs
that provide integrated services combining job training and counseling with other support
services, notably a number of programs operated by the Behavioral Health division of the
Department of Public Health and through some Community Development Block Grant-funded
programs. Unfortunately, participation in these programs by the homeless is not tracked to
determine the extent to which they are being used or to report the results.



Though not evaluated for this report, combining an integrated approach to workforce
development services with existing housing solutions (such as Rapid Rehousing or Problem
Solving) may prove effective in assisting homeless individuals, particularly the chronically
homeless, obtain employment in conjunction with addressing other issues that are serving as
barriers to employment. A new collaborative initiative underway between the Human
Services Agency, OEWD, and the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing is
intended to address this approach by incorporating participant workforce readiness
assessments into the Coordinated Entry homelessness response system administered by the
Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

Budget and Legislative Analyst

6

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Policy Options
The Board of Supervisors could consider the following policy options to enhance
workforce development services for the homeless and other vulnerable populations:
1. Consider amending the Administrative Code to: a) mandate that all departments
providing workforce development services provide results data to the Office of
Economic and Workforce Development in the format requested for its annual
Inventory of Citywide programs, as was required in previous versions of Chapter
30, b) reinstate the Alignment Committee that was subject to a sunset provision
in 2019 but could continue to maintain its previously authorized role of planning
and coordination of Citywide workforce development services, and c) include the
Department of Public Health as a member of the Committee.
2. Request that the San Francisco Workforce Investment Board and/or the
Alignment Committee clarify the priority populations being served by San
Francisco’s workforce development programs to more explicitly define the
priority ranking of the homeless and other vulnerable populations, and to
consider setting targets or relative ranges for the number of participants for each
group for each budget year based on an assessment of need.
3. Request that OEWD report back to the Board of Supervisors on the costs
associated with de-duplication of participant data within and across departments
and establishing a standardized approach to collecting participant data for all
priority populations, including the homeless, across all participating departments.
4. Request that the Department of Public Health Behavioral Health Division begin
tracking and report back to OEWD and the Board of Supervisors on the number
of homeless served and the results of its integrated services programs that
combine workforce development and behavioral health services.
5. Consider additional funding for workforce development services that are serving
the homeless and have demonstrated effectiveness in assisting homeless
individuals attain employment and address other issues such as behavioral health
and housing needs.
Project staff: Mary Lindeblad-Fry, Cody Xuereb, and Fred Brousseau

Budget and Legislative Analyst

7

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Introduction
The most recent figures from San Francisco’s Point-in-Time Count, the City’s annual
count of the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population, show that the
homeless population increased an estimated 20 percent since 2015 (from 6,686) and
17 percent since 2017 (from 7,499) to 8,011 in 2019, in spite of the City’s
approximately $138 million 2019 budget for homeless outreach, intake, program
administration, and shelter (but excluding housing). Although the recent surge in
wealth that the City has experienced over recent years prior to the COVID-19
pandemic has resulted in historically high rates of employment and low rates of
poverty, it is clear that structural barriers to obtaining affordable housing remain
extremely challenging for the City’s homeless population.1 Given the economic
decline corresponding to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, this situation can only be
assumed to have worsened.

Joblessness and Homelessness
Although the correlation between the rate of homelessness and the City’s current
housing crisis is well-documented, the relationship between individual-level
homelessness and lack of employment is less well understood. Fortunately, results
from the 2019 Point-in-Time Count’s survey, which involved surveying a sample of
1,054 homeless individuals from the total 8,011 counted, shed additional light on
this relationship.
Out of the 852 top responses provided by surveyed homeless individuals regarding
the primary reasons for their homelessness, approximately 31.7 percent identified
job loss as their primary cause of homelessness. Exhibit 1 presents a summary of the
top six reported primary causes of homelessness.

1

Li, Roland. “California, SF unemployment rate falls to record lows.” San Francisco Chronicle. October 18, 2019.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-unemployment-rate-falls-to-record14544719.php#:~:text=San%20Francisco's%20unemployment%20rate%20fell,the%20lowest%20in%2050%20years
.df
Budget and Legislative Analyst

8

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Exhibit 1: Top Primary Reasons for Homelessness among Homeless Surveyed, 20192
Reasons for Homelessness

Total
Responses

Percent of
Responses

Lost Job
Alcohol or Drug Use
Eviction
Argument with Family/Friend
Mental Health Issues
Divorce/Separation/Breakup
Total

270
187
135
125
83
52
852

31.7%
21.9%
15.8%
14.7%
9.7%
6.1%
100.0%

Source: San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey 2019, Applied Survey Research

Additionally, nearly one fourth (24.3 percent), or 382 responses to a survey question
asking for respondents to identify their top obstacles to permanent housing cited a
lack of job or income as a primary contributing factor to their lack of stable and
permanent housing. Overall, only about one-tenth (11 percent) of respondents
indicated that they were currently employed, compared to 89 percent of
respondents who reported being unemployed. Exhibit 2 presents a summary of the
top reported obstacles to obtaining permanent housing.
Exhibit 2: Top Obstacles to Permanent Housing among Homeless Surveyed, 20193
Total
Responses
650

Percent of
Responses
41.4%

No Job/Income

382

24.3%

No Money for Moving Costs

196

12.5%

Housing Process Too Difficult

186

11.9%

No Housing Available

155

9.9%

1,569

100.0%

Obstacles to Housing
Can’t Afford Rent

Total

Source: San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey 2019, Applied Survey Research

2

1,039 individuals were surveyed and 852 responses were provided to the six choices listed. This was a multiple
response question. The PIT report only includes the top six reported reasons; reasons with fewer responses were
excluded.
3
1,032 individuals responded, many with more than one response. This is a multiple response question, totals may
not add to 100%.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

9

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

The income difference between the employed and unemployed homeless is stark. Slightly
over one-third of unemployed survey respondents (36 percent), or 321 individuals,
reported living off of $99 or less per month, compared to only one-tenth (11 percent) of
employed survey respondents, or 13 individuals. Conversely, 36 percent of employed
respondents reported making at least $1,100 per month, compared to only 7 percent of
unemployed respondents. See Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 3: Employment and Mean Monthly Income among Surveyed Homeless, 2019
Monthly
Income
Category

Total Employed

Total Unemployed

Percent
Employed

Percent
Unemployed

$0-99

13

321

11%

36%

$100-449

12

214

10%

24%

$450-749

27

134

23%

15%

$750-1,099

23

160

20%

18%

$1,100-1,499

26

36

22%

4%

$1,500-3,000

15

18

13%

2%

>$3,000

1

9

1%

1%

116

891

100%

100%

Total

Source: San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey 2019, Applied Survey Research

Among the unemployed population, the primary reported barriers to employment for the
surveyed homeless individuals included the lack of a permanent address (26.7 percent),
some form of disability (22.8 percent), substance use issues (18.1 percent), health
problems (17.2 percent) and a lack of transportation (15.3 percent). Reported barriers to
employment range from the seemingly clear-cut to complex. See Exhibit 4 for a summary.

Budget and Legislative Analyst

10

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Exhibit 4: Top Obstacles to Employment among Surveyed Homeless, 2019
Obstacles to Employment

Total

Percent

No Permanent Address

253

26.6%

Disability

217

22.8%

Alcohol or Drug Use

172

18.1%

Health Problems

163

17.2%

No Transportation

145

15.3%

Total

950

100.0%

Source: San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey 2019, Applied Survey Research

Unemployment as Cause of Homelessness for Chronically Homeless
The situation is different for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are more
likely to attribute their homelessness to reasons other than job loss. 4 Based on Point-inTime County survey responses, an estimated 3,028 (or 38 percent) of the homeless
population in San Francisco fit the definition of chronically homeless. A total 334 out of
the 1,054 individuals surveyed who were administered a more in-depth survey were
considered chronically homeless. Only about one-fifth (19 percent) of chronically
homeless individuals in the survey sample reported job loss as their primary reason for
homelessness compared to 26 percent for the overall homeless population surveyed.
Instead, about a quarter (24 percent) of chronically homeless indicated that substance
addiction was the primary cause of their homelessness. Additionally, chronically homeless
respondents reported lower participation rates in job training and employment services
compared to the overall homeless population (5 percent vs. 11 percent). While the
chronically homeless may still need job training, this data indicates that other causes of
homelessness, such as substance addiction, may need to be addressed first or combined
with job training.
Analysis of Los Angeles County homeless services client data from early 2020 reflects the
significant gap in employment between the overall homeless population and the

4

“The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a chronically homeless individual as someone
who has experienced homelessness for a year or longer—or who has experienced at least four episodes of
homelessness totaling 12 months in the last three years—and also has a disabling condition that prevents them from
maintaining work or housing.” San Francisco Homeless Count & Survey 2019, Applied Survey Research
Budget and Legislative Analyst

11

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

chronically homeless.5 Clients enrolled in more intensive supportive services designed to
support those with a history of chronic homelessness or disability (such as interim housing
and permanent supportive housing) had much lower rates of employment in the two
years prior to service enrollment (approximately 32 percent and 33 percent, respectively),
compared to the population enrolled in less intensive programs (such as diversion and
rental subsidies) who were employed at a rate of 67 percent and 56 percent for the same
time period. 6
Findings from the Los Angeles County study also demonstrate that although a significant
portion of the homeless population has had some form of employment prior to
experiencing homelessness, by the time they enroll in services they are much less likely
to have been recently employed. Specifically, the majority (74 percent) of homeless
individuals receiving services in Los Angeles County had some record of employment prior
to becoming homeless: nearly half (47 percent) were employed within four years of their
first bout of homelessness but only one-fifth (19 percent) were employed in the quarter
in which they became homeless.
Homeless individuals that were employed at some point had an average of six years of
earning records, however median duration since last employment at time of being
enrolled in homeless services was less, just over two years. These results suggest that a
substantial proportion of the homeless population has successfully maintained some
form of employment in the past. However, it is less likely that they had been recently
employed by the time they are enrolling in services.
Physical health, mental health and substance abuse issues were linked to lower rates of
employment prior to experiencing homelessness. In the Los Angeles County analysis, 29
percent of a sample of clients enrolled in homelessness services between 2010 and 2018
were employed in the year prior to service enrollment, compared to 24 percent of
individuals reporting substance use disorders, 20 percent of individuals reporting mental
health issues, and 17 percent of individuals reporting physical disabilities.7
For those adults aged 25-54 who did not report any of these issues, the overall
employment rate one year prior to enrollment was 37 percent compared to 29 percent
for the overall population (including those outside the age range of 25-54, and those with
the various conditions previously listed).

5

“Employment and Earnings among LA County Residents Experiencing Homelessness.” California Policy Lab. Policy
Brief 2020. Wachter, Till von et al.
6
“Employment and Earnings among LA County Residents Experiencing Homelessness.” California Policy Lab. Policy
Brief 2020. Wachter, Till von et al.
7
“Employment and Earnings among LA County Residents Experiencing Homelessness.” California Policy Lab. Policy
Brief 2020. Wachter, Till von et al.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

12

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

In both Los Angeles County and the City and County of San Francisco, homeless adults in
families seem to be employed at a somewhat higher rate than single homeless adults. In
Los Angeles County, 86 percent of adults in families had some recorded earnings prior to
homelessness service enrollment, compared to 75 percent among single adults and 61
percent among Transitional Aged Youth (TAY). Additionally, 94 percent of the San
Francisco chronically homeless population, who are overall less likely to attribute their
homelessness to a lack of employment, were single adults without children.
Though this report examines current City-funded services designed to support the
homeless population through employment and workforce development programs, those
homeless residents suffering from chronic homelessness, substance addiction or
disabilities would likely benefit from a more integrated and individualized approach
towards mitigating the unique challenges that they face.

City Workforce Development Programs and Homeless Participation
The City’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) has primary
responsibility for planning and coordination of workforce development services in the
City and County of San Francisco, pursuant to Chapter 30 of the City’s Administrative
Code. OEWD’s Workforce Division functions to connect job seekers with employment
opportunities, provide training and access to job search assistance, and works with
employers to “attract, grow and retain a diverse workforce.”8
Workforce development services are provided through 294 programs administered by
OEWD and sixteen other departments Citywide for a total of seventeen departments
providing workforce development programs. In FY 2018-19, these departments served a
reported 26,142 participants. We assume the actual number of unique individuals served
is a lesser number because the count of participants is not de-duplicated to account for
individuals who participate in multiple programs.
Homeless individuals have been identified as a priority population for workforce
development programs in various City and OEWD workforce development planning
documents. Their participation in the programs is recorded by at least some departments
and reported to OEWD as part of the Office’s annual Citywide Inventory of workforce
development programs. We have collected and verified with provider departments the
number of participants that identified as homeless primarily through program intake
processes when participants are asked to provide home addresses including their home
zip code. Participants that don’t have a permanent address and meet the Department of

8

“San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development: About Us.” https://oewd.org/about-workforce
Budget and Legislative Analyst

13

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Homelessness and Supportive Housing’s definition of homeless can be reported as such
in the Inventory.
The results of our compilation of homeless participants in workforce development
programs are shown for FY 2018-19 in Exhibit 5 in table and graphic form. As can be seen,
City departments reported 1,736 homeless participants out of a total of 26,142 total
participants, or approximately seven percent. Note that this count is not of homeless
individuals because it has not been “de-duplicated” to adjust for participants enrolled in
more than one program either in the same department or across departments.
Exhibit 5: Number of Total and Homeless Participants in City Workforce Development
Programs, by Department, FY 2018-19
%
Homeless
of Total
Dept.
Participants
21%

%
Homeless
of Total
Homeless
Participants
67%

Total
Participants

Homeless
Participants

Human Services Agency

5,544

1,164

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

5,166

258

5%

15%

Department of Children, Youth and Families

4,894

245

5%

14%

434

30

7%

2%

75

18

24%

1%

1,171

12

1%

1%

Port of San Francisco

15

5

33%

0%

Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs

62

4

6%

0%

Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development

2,552

-

0%

0%

San Francisco International Airport

2,514

-

0%

0%

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

1,203

-

0%

0%

Department of Human Resources

1,001

-

0%

0%

Department of Public Health

951

-

0%

0%

Recreation and Parks Department

328

-

0%

0%

San Francisco District Attorney’s Office

153

-

0%

0%

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

58

-

0%

0%

Department of the Environment

21

-

0%

0%

26,142

1,736

7%

100%

Department

Adult Probation Department
Sheriff’s Department
Department of Public Works

Total

Budget and Legislative Analyst

14

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

% of Total Participants

# of Participants
Homeless Participants

HSA

Total Participants

1,164
258

OEWD

5,166

245

DCYF

% of Total Participants

5,544

4,894

% of Total Homeless Participants

HSA

21%

OEWD

20%

15%

DCYF

19%

14%

67%

MOHCD

2,552

MOHCD

10%

0%

SFO

2,514

SFO

10%

0%

PUC

1,203

PUC

5%

0%

DPW*

1,171

DPW*

4%

1%

DHR

1,001

DHR

4%

0%

DPH

951

DPH

4%

0%

APD*

434

REC

328

DA

153

APD*

2%

REC

1%

0%

DA

1%

0%

2%

SHF*

75

SHF*

0%

1%

OCII*

62

OCII*

0%

0%

MTA

58

MTA

0%

0%

ENV

21

ENV

0%

0%

PRT*

15

PRT*

0%

0%

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%

Source: OEWD’s FY 18-19 Workforce Services Inventory, and through individual department contacts.
Note: Participants likely include duplicates since individual participants can enroll in more than one program in a
department or across departments.

As shown in Exhibit 5, the Human Services Agency (HSA) served the highest proportion
and largest total number of homeless participants with 1,164, or 21 percent, of all FY
2018-19 department participants reported to be homeless. This level of participation
amounted to 67 percent of the homeless participants reported Citywide. After HSA,
approximately 15 and 14 percent of the homeless participants served were in programs
administered by OEWD and the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF),
respectively. These three departments thus accounted for 95.5 percent of homeless
participants reported as served in FY 2018-19 by all seventeen departments that OEWD

Budget and Legislative Analyst

15

60%

80%

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

tracks. As can be seen in Exhibit 5, nine departments did not report having any homeless
participants in their workforce development programs.9
While the data presented in Exhibit 5 provides some perspective on workforce
development services provided to homeless individuals, it cannot be considered a reliable
count of the number of homeless individuals’ participation in the programs because:
1) the count of all participants includes duplicates, or individuals who participated
in more than one program in a department and/or across departments and thus
likely overstates the number of individual participants , and
2) some departments or their providers do not report any information on
participant addresses and/or homelessness and thus may be understating
homeless participation rates.
The absence of reliable measures of the numbers of homeless and other individuals
participating in the City’s workforce development programs makes assessing program
effectiveness difficult.
Our source for homeless participant data was data from each City workforce development
provider department as reported to OEWD in their most recent annual Inventory and
verified by our office. We either verified the information provided to OEWD or, in cases
where departments had not provided that data, we requested the information directly
from the departments.
The homeless data collected through OEWD’s annual Inventory does not necessarily
provide a full picture of homeless participants as those participants may also decline to
give a home address and the zip code for their place of residence can simply be recorded
as “data not available”.
Discussions of the workforce development system in San Francisco, funding levels and
allocations, and how the homeless and other vulnerable populations are identified for
services are presented in the next sections.

Overview of the Workforce Development System
The San Francisco Workforce Investment Board (WISF) oversees and sets policy direction
for the City’s workforce development system. The WISF Board has 25 active members,
including representatives of the Board of Supervisors and industries and occupations as
mandated by the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which
9

According to OEWD managers, this may be due to issues with reporting data at identifiable levels, not collecting
addresses at intake, or otherwise non-reporting of sensitive populations in the Inventory. Departments are currently
not mandated to track this information nor to report it to OEWD for the Inventory.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

16

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

provides a primary source of funding for the City’s workforce development services.10 11
OEWD and the WISF Board maintain primary responsibility for planning and coordinating
the City’s workforce development efforts administered by the seventeen City
departments, as well as administering the City’s federal workforce funding provided
pursuant to the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.12
In 2014, the Board of Supervisors amended Chapter 30 of the City’s Administrative Code
to establish an Alignment Committee to coordinate workforce development services
across City departments in order to increase program effectiveness. Comprised of
representatives of the Board of Supervisors, Mayor’s Office, and five City departments
that provide workforce development programs, a key responsibility of the Alignment
Committee was preparation of a five year plan for the WISF Board that assessed the City’s
workforce development needs and opportunities and was to recommend goals,
strategies, and funding needed to meet the challenges identified. The Administrative
Code included a sunset date for Alignment Committee of June 2019. OEWD reports that

10

“As mandated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the WISF will be comprised of the
following mandated entities:
 Business: 51%
 Workforce - Labor and Community Based Organizations: 20%
 Economic Development: One (1) member
 Higher Education: One (1) member
 WIOA Title II – Adult Education and Literacy: One (1) member
 Title III – State Employment Service Office: One (1) member
 Title IV – Vocational Rehabilitation Program: One (1) member
Section 30.4 of the City’s Administrative Code authorizes the Mayor to appoint members to the WISF Board
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors unless the Mayor has appointed two members of the Board of
Supervisors to the WISF Board, in which case confirmation by the Board of Supervisors is not required. The Code
also includes language that strongly urges the Mayor to appoint at least one member of the Board of Supervisors
to the WISF Board. The OEWD website reports that City legislation and policy stipulates that the Mayor appoint
two (2) members of the Board of Supervisors to the WISF with the intention that they represent relevant
committees of the board such as Budget & Finance and Land Use & Economic Development. WISF Board Members.
https://oewd.org/wisf-board-members
11
The 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which represents the “first legislative reform of the
public workforce system in 15 years,” coordinates the “core programs of federal investment in skill development:
Employment and training services for adults, dislocated workers, and youth and Wagner-Peyser employment
services administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) through formula grants to states; and Adult education
and family literacy programs as well as State Vocational Rehabilitation Services programs that assist eligible
individuals with disabilities in obtaining employment; both core programs are administered by the U.S. Department
of Education. WIOA also authorizes programs for specific vulnerable populations, including the Job Corps,
YouthBuild, Indian and Native Americans, and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs as well as evaluation and
multistate projects administered by DOL.” U.S. Department of Labor: Employment and Training Administration.
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: About. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/wioa/about
12
“San Francisco Citywide Workforce Development Plan: 2017-2022.” Prepared by the Committee on Workforce
Alignment. Published 2017.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

17

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

the Committee continues to function but it has not been reinstated in the Administrative
Code.
The Alignment Committee published the Five-Year Citywide Workforce Development Plan
(“The Plan”) in 2017, spanning the five years through 2022. The Plan provides an
assessment of the City’s workforce and its workforce development programs and
establishes corresponding recommendations for its improvement.13 The Plan and its
annual updates rely on data collected by OEWD in its annual Workforce Services
Inventories (“The Inventory”). To conduct the annual Inventory, OEWD, in collaboration
with key stakeholders, created an extensive data collection instrument used to annually
survey and collect program information from the seventeen City departments that
administer workforce development and employment programming. We reviewed the
Inventory results for FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The Inventory data collection instrument provides a potentially rich source of data about
many aspects of the City’s workforce development programs. The Administrative Code in
effect at the time the five year Plan was adopted required that all City departments
engaged in workforce development services provide information requested by the
Alignment Committee in the format and within the timeline requested by the Committee.
That requirement has since been removed when the Administrative Code was amended
in late 2019.

Citywide Workforce Development Funding and Expenditures
OEWD’s Inventory for FY 2018-19 provides a snapshot of most workforce development
programs in the City for the year, including comprehensive budget, demographic,
provider details, and performance data for all programs. The Inventory reports that across
17 surveyed departments, the City budgeted $150.4 million on workforce development
services in FY 2018-19. Of this total, $64.8 million, or 43.1 percent, was provided by the
City’s General Fund.
To supplement the budget data collected for the Inventory, we collected data on actual
expenditures and confirmed the number of homeless participants from eleven City
departments: the eight that reported having some homeless participants and three
enterprise departments that did not report homeless participants (Airport, Port, and the
PUC).
Budgeted funding for those eleven departments surveyed amounted to approximately
$132 million, of which $111.9 million, or 84.8 percent of the total amount budgeted, was

13

“San Francisco Citywide Workforce Development Plan: 2017-2022.” Prepared by the Committee on Workforce
Alignment. Published 2017.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

18

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

actually expended in FY 2018-19. Of the $132 million total budgeted amount,
approximately $56.3 million, or 42.7 percent, was General Fund monies. Of just the $56.3
million General Fund budgeted amount, approximately $44.1 million, or 78.3 percent,
was actually spent in FY 2018-19.
See Exhibit 6 below for an overview of budgeted and actual workforce development
expenditures for the eleven departments that we surveyed for FY 2018-19.14
Exhibit 6: Budgeted and Actual Expenses for 11 Surveyed Departments that Provide Workforce
Development Services, FY 2018-19
Total
Budgeted

Total Actual
Expenses

Actual %
Total
Budgeted

General Fund
Budgeted

General Fund
Actual
Expenses

General Fund
Actual % Total
Actual

$40,289,406

$32,720,958

81%

$15,712,172

$13,541,615

86%

21,403,156

19,085,807

89%

12,133,562

10,544,690

87%

20,203,867

19,377,890

96%

930,430

1,696,640

182%

17,530,833

11,707,465

67%

16,045,833

8,544,296

53%

13,840,529

10,856,897

78%

7,213,189

6,570,166

91%

10,334,392

10,296,882

100%

-

-

-

3,638,124

3,517,982

97%

2,205,686

2,120,830

96%

1,884,840

2,555,995

136%

-

-

-

1,750,851

875,942

50%

1,750,851

857,914

49%

Port of San Francisco (PRT)

754,072

644,443

85%

-

-

-

Sheriff’s Department (SHF)

350,140

267,238

76%

350,140

267,238

76%

$131,981,209

$111,907,499

85%

$56,341,863

$44,143,389

78%

Department
Human Services Agency (HSA)
Office of Economic and Workforce
Development (OEWD)
Department of Children, Youth
and Families (DCYF)
Department of Public Works
(DPW)
Department of Public Health
(DPH)
San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (PUC)
Mayor’s Office of Housing and
Community Development
(MOHCD)
San Francisco International Airport
(SFO)
Adult Probation Department
(APD)

Total

Source: OEWD’s FY 18-19 Workforce Services Inventory, and through individual department contacts

14

The Recreation and Parks Department, the Department of Human Resources, the Office of Civic Engagement and
Immigrant Affairs, the Municipal Transportation Agency, the San Francisco Public Library and the Department of the
Environment were excluded from this analysis due to having fewer than five reported homeless participants served
through their workforce programs, and did not indicate in their Workforce Inventory Survey data that they had any
workforce programming that prioritized the homeless population.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

19

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

As can be seen from Exhibit 6, HSA (Human Services Agency), OEWD, and DCYF
(Department of Children, Youth and Their Families) combined were responsible for
approximately 62 percent of the FY 2018-19 budgeted expenditures for these eleven
departments. Approximately 15 percent of the total budgeted funding was unspent and
approximately 22 percent of the total General Fund budgeted funding was unspent for FY
2018-19. OEWD reports that unspent funds from a single year cannot be carried over for
subsequent year expenses unless they are part of a multi-year contract.
While the conditions that contribute to unspent funding vary among departments, OEWD
reports that some of the underspending may be attributed to having to initiate new
procurements midyear in order to incorporate addbacks or other enhancements, pushing
back start dates for some services and resulting in unspent funding within that program
year.15 Deficient contract provider staffing levels was also cited by OEWD as a cause of
underspending in some cases. Additionally, there were was some difficulty posed by the
transition to the City’s new financial system that was established in 2017, as well as
challenges associated with the single-year contracting process.16
As seen from Exhibit 7 most of the services provided by the top three departments serving
homeless individuals in their workforce development programs is provided by contractors
with $48.1 million, or 78.3 percent of the $61.8 million total, budgeted for contract
services. The emphasis on contracted service providers reflects the approach by many
City departments that community-based nonprofit providers are more deeply embedded
in the community and may be better suited towards serving the needs of constituents
(rather than City government staff).17
Consistent with total program spending presented in Exhibit 6 above, actual expenditures
on contract workforce development services were less than budgeted amounts in FY
2018-19. As shown in Exhibit 7, $42.7 million of the $48.1 million budgeted for contract
services for the top three departments that reported homeless participants was actually
expended in FY 2018-19, leaving approximately $5.4 million in planned expenditures
unspent. The three departments with the largest workforce development expenditures
left between 4 and 21 percent of the budgeted funding unspent in FY 2018-19. Actual
spending for in-house staff was the same as budgeted amounts, which is likely due to City
staff being on board and regularly paid without dependence on various contractors being
fully staffed and contracts being executed timely.

15

According to OEWD management
Interview with OEWD managers. May 29, 2020.
17
Interview with OEWD managers. May 29, 2020.
16

Budget and Legislative Analyst

20

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Exhibit 7: HSA, OEWD and DCYF Budgeted vs. Actual Expenditures for In-House Staff vs. Contracted
Services for Workforce Development Programs, FY 2018-1918
In-House Staff

Contracted Services

Budgeted v. Actual

InHouse

Contracted

$20,205,124 $17,912,449

$0

$2,292,675

14,623,235

21,403,156

19,085,807

0

-2,317,348

19,377,890

20,203,867

19,377,890

0

-825,977

$13,684,213 $13,684,213 $48,127,934 $42,691,934 $61,812,147 $56,376,146

$0

$5,436,000

Dept.

Budgeted

Actual

Budgeted

Actual

HSA

$9,221,640

$9,221,640

$10,983,484

$8,690,809

OEWD

4,462,573

4,462,573

16,940,583

DCYF

0

0

20,203,867

Total

Difference:

Total
Budgeted

Actual

Source: OEWD’s, HSA’s, and DCYF’s FY 18-19 Workforce Services Inventory, and through individual department
contacts

In addition to HSA’s approximately $2.3 million in contract services underspending in FY
2018-19, the agency separately underspent approximately $5 million for “wages and
stipends,” which refers to “funds allocated for subsidized wages or stipends for program
participants.”19 This represents a lost opportunity to improve the income of program
participants, including homeless individuals in the affected programs.

How Vulnerable Populations are Prioritized by the City’s Workforce
Development Programs
Workforce development services in San Francisco are governed by a complex set of
federal, state, and local laws and regulations. At the broadest level, the purpose of the
federal WIOA is to serve individuals with “barriers to employment” that are defined in the
Act to include 13 specific groups, including homeless individuals. The full list of these
thirteen designated populations is as follows:

18

Totals in Exhibit 7 may not match the totals in Exhibit 6 due to the exclusion of the wages and stipends category
in Exhibit 7.
19
2018-2019 Workforce Services Inventory conducted by OEWD.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

21

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Populations prioritized for workforce development services by the federal
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act20
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Displaced homemakers
Low-income individuals
Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians,
Individuals with disabilities,
Older individuals,
Ex-offenders,
Homeless individuals,
Active or former foster-care youth,
Individuals who are English language learners, have low literacy and/or are
facing substantial cultural barriers,
Eligible migrant and seasonal farm workers,
Individuals within 2 years of exhausting lifetime eligibility under TANF,
Single parents, and
Long-term unemployed individuals.

(emphasis added)

These federal priority populations can be overridden by other provisions of WIOA that
allow for priority of service to be provided to veterans and public assistance recipients.
The federal laws also allow for state and local workforce analyses and plans that can
identify other groups that warrant priority services. Such analyses and plans that have
been prepared by the State of California and the City and County of San Francisco have
identified the homeless along with other vulnerable populations as target populations to
be prioritized for workforce development services. For example, the City’s FY 2018-19
Workforce Services Alignment Plan Update reports that,
“In addition to the priority populations identified by state and federal mandates,
Alignment departments continue to facilitate partnerships to prioritize San Franciscospecific economically vulnerable populations, including individuals experiencing
homelessness…” (emphasis added).

The City’s Plan Update document goes on to identify other populations to be separately
addressed by the City’s workforce development programs including individuals
experiencing mental health or substance use treatment, the LGBTQ+ community,
survivors of domestic violence, people with disabilities, veterans, older adults, and
participants in vocational training programs.

20

Workforce
Innovation
and
Opportunity
Act,
Section
https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_19-16_acc.pdf

3(24)

&

DOL

TEGL

19-16

Budget and Legislative Analyst

22

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Between federal and state funding provisions and local priorities, City departments have
many specialized populations to serve with their workforce development programs. In
the Citywide Workforce Development Plan 2017-2022, the following nineteen vulnerable
populations are identified as priorities in the following order. These priority populations,
including the homeless, are also identified in other planning and policy documents
prepared by OEWD and other workforce development stakeholders.

Priority Populations Identified by the City and County of San Francisco for
Workforce Development Services
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

English Language Learners
Foster care youth
Homeless or formerly homeless households
Individuals lacking right to work documentation
Individuals re-entering civilian life from prison
Individuals with disabilities
Individuals with less than a high school degree or GED
Justice-involved individuals
Long-term unemployed individuals
Older individuals (55+)
Public benefits recipients (including Project 500)
Public housing residents (including HOPE SF)
Residents below 100% Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
Residents between 100% to 200% FPL
Residents between 200 to 300% FPL
Transitional-aged youth (18-24)
Underemployed individuals
Unemployed individuals
Veterans

(emphasis added)
Source: Citywide Workforce Development Plan 2017-2022, City and County of San Francisco

Participation data is collected for most, but not all, of the priority population groups
above in OEWD’s annual Inventory of seventeen City departments’ workforce
development programs. For each program, information is collected about its
programmatic classification, type of services, funding level and sources, whether the
program is provided by a contractor or in-house staff, and other characteristics. Number
of participants by priority population group and program is collected but only for twelve
of the priority populations identified above, unfortunately excluding homeless
participants.

Budget and Legislative Analyst

23

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Unlike most of the program’s priority populations, homeless participation in the City’s
workforce development programs is tracked by department rather than by program, and
without the level of detail collected for most of the other priority populations. While the
homeless participant data collected allows for a count of the gross number of homeless
participants by department (as presented above in Exhibit 5 of this report), it does not
allow for a more robust analysis of homeless participants by type of program, funding
level, service type, and other characteristics, analyses of which can be readily conducted
for twelve of the priority population groups.
Further, the City’s workforce development planning documents do not establish goals for
participation levels by the priority populations, so there are no benchmarks for
comparison to actual participation to measure program effectiveness. If participation
data were collected in a consistent manner for all priority population groups and
compared to established participation goals, it would allow for a comprehensive
assessment of resource allocation by group and for comparisons of resource allocations
between groups to determine if they are receiving an adequate allocation of workforce
development resources relative to need.
More than one priority population can be served by a program (e.g., a program could
target individuals who are adults, unemployed, and public benefits recipients). However,
with the way the Inventory data is currently structured, it is not possible to determine
how many homeless participants might also be included within the other “vulnerable
populations” categories.
While federal and state funding comprised $75.6 million of the $131.9 million total
budgeted amount by the eleven departments surveyed for this report for their workforce
development programs in FY 2018-19, or 57.3 percent, the remaining approximately
$56.3 million, or 42.7 percent, was provided by the City’s General Fund. A portion of the
City’s General Fund support may serve as required matching funds for the federal and
state monies received but some of it may also provide greater spending flexibility to allow
the City to target other vulnerable populations including the homeless.

Limitations of Other Vulnerable Population Data Collection
Participation in workforce development programs for twelve priority vulnerable
populations is supposed to be tracked by program by each service providing department
and reported to OEWD each year in its Inventory surveys. The estimated number of
participants in each of the twelve priority population groups for FY 2018-19 is presented
in Exhibit 8. As discussed above, the data in Exhibit 8 does not include the homeless
population and some other groups because data about those participants is not collected
in the same way as data about these twelve priority populations. In addition, the reliability
Budget and Legislative Analyst

24

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

of the data that is collected and reported about these twelve populations groups in
uncertain as OEWD management reports that data collection methods by different
departments and contract providers may vary.
As shown in Exhibit 8, public benefits recipients and the unemployed comprised the
largest two priority populations served in FY 2018-19 according to the data reported to
OEWD for its annual Inventory. Due to difficulties posed by inconsistent data collection
methodologies across departments, it is not possible to determine the extent of overlap
between categories, and how many workforce program clients in these categories
participate in multiple programs across departments.
As a further indicator of the limitations of this participant data, many departments do not
collect and/or report priority population data for their participants at all. As shown in
Exhibit 8, 7,558 of the 26,142 participants reported for FY 2018-19, or 28.9 percent, were
not assigned to any of the priority population groups by the service providing
departments, adding to the difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of the City’s workforce
development programs. As OEWD representatives have pointed out, departments are not
mandated to collect or provide participant information to OEWD and the Office does not
currently have the authority to compel provision of such data. OEWD’s role is defined in
Administrative Code Section 30 as “planning and coordinating”.

Budget and Legislative Analyst

25

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Exhibit 8: Twelve Priority Populations whose Participation is Tracked by Workforce Development
Program, FY 2018-1921

Number of
Participants
5,980

Population
Public Benefits Recipients
Unemployed

4,871

Individuals with Disability

1,807

English Language Learners

1,559

Active or Formerly Justice-Involved Individuals

1,151

Long-term Unemployed (age 25 and older)

1,086

Public Housing Residents

745

Employed

642

Underemployed (age 25 and older)

276

Veterans (age 25 and older)

264

HOPE SF Residents

112

Active or Former Foster Care Youth

91

Unknown

7,558

Total Participants

26,142

Source: FY 18-19 Workforce Services Inventory, all participating departments
Note: Participants likely include duplicates since individual participants can enroll in more than one
program in a department or across departments.

Overview of Three Departments Providing Services to Most Homeless
Individuals
This section contains profiles of services provided by the three departments that reported
providing services to the highest number of homeless individuals in FY 2018-19. In
contrast to the limitations on data collected and reported to OEWD by service providing
departments, some departments, notably HSA and OEWD, are collecting more detailed
information about their workforce development programs and participants and analyzing
21

According to OEWD management, there are significant data quality issues regarding the priority population data
collected in the Inventory. Departments tend to report priority populations consistent with their service delivery
strategy (e.g., all participants in a program serving reentry clients may be coded as justice-involved). The participants
listed in each priority population category reflect duplication within the programs, departments, and across the City
system, and do not total the baseline participant count for City programs.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

26

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

their results in more meaningful ways than can be done Citywide. Even with these
superior analyses, the measures used are not uniform among the three departments,
limiting comparisons and cross-department analyses.

HSA Workforce Development Programs
As discussed above, the City’s Human Services Agency (HSA) expended the highest dollar
amount of all City departments providing workforce development services and had the
highest number of reported homeless participants.
For FY 2018-2019, HSA operated 32 workforce development programs which served
5,544 participants, of which 1,165, or 21 percent, were reported to be homeless. HSA’s
workforce participants are all public assistance recipients and 15 of their 32 programs are
classified as Job Readiness programs. Eight other programs are classified as Career and
Educational Advancement, six provide Subsidized Employment, and three provide
Unsubsidized Employment.22
HSA’s biggest program, the Public Service Trainee (PST) program, provides subsidized
internships at City & County of San Francisco agencies and departments for CalWORKs
and General Assistance clients. HSA also offers a Community Jobs Program, which is
a three to six month program that provides work experience, job search, General
Education Development certificate (GED) preparation, and professional development and
computer skills training for CalWORKs and General Assistance clients, and Wage Subsidy
programs that reimburse employers for hiring CalWORKS and General Assistance clients.
HSA also began a contract with four community-based organizations in February 2018 to
provide vocational training, job placement, and job retention services to formerly
homeless individuals and those currently at risk of homelessness. While the providers
were contracted to serve a combined total of 409 participants annually, the enrollment
has been low in the first two years of the program despite the collaborative and ongoing
outreach and recruitment efforts reported by HSA and the providers. The four
organizations enrolled a combined 236 clients into their programs in FY 2018-19 and 166
in the current fiscal year. HSA states that challenges reported by the providers include
persistent barriers faced by the target population, anecdotal evidence that clients prefer
22

The “Job Readiness” category refers to programs where “the primary goal is to prepare participants to be
successful job candidates for employers industry wide, not necessarily geared toward a particular job placement.”
Job Readiness can be general or sector-specific. Career and Educational Advancement are not defined in the
Inventory. Unsubsidized Job Placement refers to facilitating “employment in which wages are paid fully by the
employer,” and Subsidized Job Placement refers to “employment in which “wages are paid fully or partially to the
employer by public funds, a private foundation, or another third-party source. HSA 2018-2019 Workforce Services
Inventory.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

27

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

subsidized employment to unpaid vocational training, and lack of interest due to the
healthy pre-COVID local labor market. 23
Beyond its workforce programs, HSA reports that they also provide a variety of services
to homeless individuals receiving General Assistance and CalWORKs benefits, including
housing assistance, behavioral health counseling, outpatient substance abuse treatment,
and job readiness training. These services may be provided to individuals while they are
participating in a workforce development program.24

OEWD Workforce Development Programs
For FY 2018-19, OEWD reported operating 23 workforce development programs. Of these
programs, 10 were classified as Unsubsidized Employment, seven have the primary goal
of Career and Educational Advancement, five are dedicated towards Job Readiness, and
one provides Subsidized Employment.25 OEWD combines industry-aligned job-training
with targeted job search assistance through community Access Points, with the goal of
providing employers with sufficiently skilled workers.26 27

DCYF Workforce Development Programs
For FY 2018-19, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) operated 51
workforce development programs. Of these programs, all of them have the primary goal
of Job Readiness. All DCYF programs are focused on serving youth, either under 18 or ages
18-24. The Mayor’s Youth Employment and Education Program (MYEEP) is one of their
biggest programs, and has the goal of providing “job readiness training, work experience,
academic support, and personal development to youth who are challenged in their
attempt to access employment.” 28 DCYF also funds and oversees YouthWorks, which is
administered by the Japanese Community Youth Council. YouthWorks is an internship
program for high-schoolers that provides participants with paid internships at City
agencies.29 MYEEP is funded at a significantly higher amount than the other top DCYF

23

According to HSA managers
According to HSA managers
25
OEWD FY 18-19 Workforce Services Inventory. Only 23 of the 24 programs identified were specified in the
document.
26
OEWD: About Us. OEWD.org/workforce
27
OEWD Access Points provide job search assistance, career planning, access to education and other services. OEWD
Workforce Programs: Overview.
28
“San Francisco Citywide Workforce Development Plan: 2017-2022.” Prepared by the Committee on Workforce
Alignment. Published 2017.
29
“San Francisco Citywide Workforce Development Plan: 2017-2022.” Prepared by the Committee on Workforce
Alignment. Published 2017.
Budget and Legislative Analyst
24

28

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

programs. Overall, MYEEP utilizes nearly a third (28 percent) of the total DCYF workforce
development budget of approximately $20 million.

Integrated Services
Besides the workforce development programs detailed above, the City also separately
offers services that combine job training and internship/employment programs with
other support services such as behavioral health counselling and support. As the Los
Angeles County study cited earlier in this report has shown, homelessness is often
accompanied by other conditions such as physical or mental disabilities that can make
sustaining employment impossible.30 The programs and initiatives highlighted below are
examples of City employment services that integrate other intensive and supportive
services designed to address possible extenuating physical, mental or emotional health
conditions and may provide a more effective means of providing workforce development
services by also addressing co-occurring conditions affecting homeless participants in
particular. This is not necessarily a fully comprehensive inventory of City services, but
should be viewed as examples of some workforce services that integrate employment
training and other types of supportive services.
A number of integrated service programs are administered by the Behavioral Health
Services division of the Department of Public Health and combine behavioral health
services and/or case management with job training. Another initiative highlighted below
is a collaborative project between the Department of Homelessness and Supportive
Housing (HSH), OEWD and HSA, currently in design, which is intended to incorporate
workforce opportunities into the City’s existing Access Points, the City’s centralized points
of entry for its Homelessness Response System. Additionally, there are a number of job
readiness and occupational-sector training programs delivered through homelessnessfocused nonprofits that are funded primarily through Community Development Block
Grant funding.

Behavioral Health Services
The San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Behavioral Health Services division
provides workforce, employment and training services in combination with behavioral
health counselling and support services, funded under the Mental Health Services Act

30

“Employment and Earnings among LA County Residents Experiencing Homelessness.” California Policy Lab. Policy
Brief 2020. Wachter, Till von et al.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

29

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

(MHSA).31 Several MHSA Service Categories are designed to provide, promote and
facilitate employment among clients (or family members of clients) of the City’s
behavioral health services while simultaneously providing intensive case management
and/or targeted mental health support. In spite of administering such vocational training
and workforce programs, the Department of Public Health does not currently serve on
the Alignment Committee.
MHSA-funded program providers report on various demographic and outcomes metrics
in their Year-End reports. However, the number of homeless participants or other
vulnerable populations for each program is currently not tracked, which means that there
is currently no way to determine the number of homeless clients participating in these
programs. However, the MHSA FY 2019-20 Annual Update prepared by the Behavioral
Health Services Division states that an estimated 50 percent of participants in MHSAfunded programs are either homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.32 Furthermore,
there is a dedicated MHSA Service Category for Housing, which focuses on helping
individuals with “serious mental illness who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness
secure or retain permanent housing.”33
A brief summary of integrated workforce development and other support services funded
by the MHSA and administered by the Behavioral Health Services Division are presented
in Exhibit 9. As can be seen, Peer to Peer Employment Training had the most participants
and the second largest budget in FY 2018-19.

31

“The Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) was approved by California voters in November 2004 to provide funding
to create fundamental changes to the access and delivery of mental health services throughout the state. Once
enacted into law in January 2005, it became known as the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). The MHSA called
upon local counties to transform their public mental health systems to achieve the goals of raising awareness,
promoting the early identification of mental health problems, making access to treatment easier, improving the
effectiveness of services, reducing the use of out-of-home and institutional care, and eliminating stigma toward
those with severe mental illness or serious emotional disturbance.” San Francisco Department of Public Health: Our
Programs. Mental Health Services Act. https://www.sfdph.org/dph/comupg/oservices/mentalHlth/MHSA/default.asp
32
MHSA FY 19-20 Annual Update.
33
MHSA FY 19-20 Annual Update.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

30

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

Exhibit 9: Examples of Services available to Homeless Integrating Workforce
Development and Behavioral Health Services, FY 2018-19
Program

1

Peer to Peer
Employment
Training

2

Dept. of
Rehabilitation
Vocational
Co-op

4

Peer Specialist
Mental Health
Certificate &
Leadership
i-Ability
Vocational
Technology
Program

5

TAY Vocational
Career
Connections

6

1st
Impressions
UCSF

3

TOTAL

Agencies

(DPH) Behavioral
Health Services
Division
DPH Behavioral
Health Services
Division in
collaboration with
California Dept. of
Rehabilitation

DPH Behavioral
Health Services
Division
DPH Behavioral
Health Services
Division
DPH Behavioral
Health Services
Division in
collaboration with
SFUSD, DPH clinics,
Juvenile Probation
DPH Behavioral
Health Services
Division in
collaboration with
UCSF

Budget

$3,352,404

#
Participants Description

2,53434

A subsidized employment program for behavioral
health consumers or their families to provide
entry level direct service to other consumers or
administrative support service work as interns.
Subsequent to internships, higher paid peer
counseling and outreach service positions are
available.

3,844,484

509

348,750

54

1,337,748

40

Services for behavioral health consumers
including vocational assessments, job coaching,
and job placement and retention. Homeless
individuals are among the target populations
served for this program.
Trains behavioral health consumers and/or family
members to provide specialist and counseling
services in systems of care. Participants are not
paid but become eligible for paid positions
through Peer to Peer Employment Training
program (see #1 above)
Prepares behavioral health consumers to provide
IT support in BHS Division's IT department.
Participants receive classroom instruction & paid
on-the-job training.

18

Behavioral health consumers between the ages of
15-25 are provided coaching and guidance for
internships and potential post-program job
placements

n.a.

Support services for behavioral health consumers
interested in pursuing positons in construction
and building maintenance

184,600

361,305
$9,429,291

Source: Mental Health Services Act FY 2018-19 Year-end Demographic Data and Narrative Reports

34

This total includes 75 Peer Workers/Interns and 2,525 BHS clients who are served by the Peers themselves.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

31

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

CDBG-Funded Programs
Additional integrated workforce development services separate from those listed above
are provided through homelessness-focused nonprofits by the Mayor’s Office of Housing
and Community Development (MOHCD), with a focus on serving homeless and housingunstable clients. MOHCD work-orders a portion of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding to OEWD, which in turn funds a number of employment and workforce
services programs that are administered by homelessness-focused contract nonprofit
providers. Since the client data for these programs is maintained in a separate database,
the data is not reported at the same level of detail as provided in OEWD’s annual
Workforce Development Services Inventories. As a result, some basic demographic
information is reported for these participants but there is no additional information on
the number of homeless participants or other vulnerable populations participating in
these programs.35 It is not possible to determine how many of the participants served by
these programs belong to any of the WIOA or OEWD-stated priority populations
(including homeless individuals).
OEWD reports that workforce development programs provided by homelessness-focused
providers offer comprehensive services such as individualized case management,
individual employment planning, and other services designed to help individuals
overcome barriers to post-secondary or employment success. Further, OEWD reports
that case management for this population goes beyond workforce development services,
as participants are also in need of shelter, housing, food, mental health support, etc.,
much of which is also provided by their contract service providers. Barrier remediation is
reported to be integrated into service models to address barriers that may prevent a
participant from successfully entering the workforce. Job Readiness Training is also
integrated into workforce programming through workshops or individual counseling to
equip participants with effective workplace and classroom survival skills, attitudes, and
behaviors.
Most of these CDBG-funded contractor nonprofits provide sector-specific occupational
skills training. For instance, Episcopal Community Services provides culinary training and
then works with clients to place them in culinary jobs; additionally, Community Housing
Partnership provides front-desk hospitality training, and many of the individuals who
graduate this program obtain employment as front desk workers at public housing sites.
While a number of these programs do help facilitate successful unsubsidized employment
for participants, OEWD reports that their primary focus is on the removal of significant
barriers.
35

OEWD program data is tracked in the Workforce Central Data System and MOHCD program data is tracked in the
General Management System (GMS). MOHCD data is held in GMS, because most of their programs are funded
through CDBG and these funding requirements necessitate the use of a different data system. Source: OEWD.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

32

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

New Initiative: Workforce System Alignment Collaboration to Alleviate
Homelessness
As mentioned previously, while the five year Citywide Workforce Development Plan
currently in effect provides a comprehensive overview of how the workforce system
operates as a whole and identifies the homeless as a priority population to receive
workforce development services, it contains little reference to how homeless individuals
will be engaged and participate in the City’s workforce development services. According
to OEWD, it is the intent of a funded collaboration with the Department of Homelessness
and Supportive Housing (HSH), HSA and OEWD to address this issue.
An initiative to integrate workforce development and other supportive services for the
homeless received notice of funding in March 2020. As of June 2020, OEWD has
negotiated and finalized the contract with the State and is now working with their
partners to implement this program. The goal of this intra-departmental collaboration
between OEWD, HSA, and HSH is to incorporate a workforce readiness assessment into
HSH’s Coordinated Entry homelessness response system.
This initiative was granted funding through the State of California’s Workforce
Development Board Workforce Accelerator Fund.36 The total amount of funding granted
was $150,000 and the project will receive a $150,000 cash match from HSA, for a total
project budget of $300,000. The funding will go towards hiring a consultant to conduct a
“discrete planning project aimed at helping OEWD, HSA, and HSH analyze the best
method to identify work-ready individuals at the HSH Access Points, assess the OEWD and
HSA workforce network in order to identify workforce provider referral partners that are
best able to provide effective and culturally competent workforce services to individuals
who are experiencing homelessness, and to make recommendations for trauma-informed
training for workforce providers.” 37
The bulk of the work for this specific project will entail the development of an assessment
tool that will allow for an accurate determination of client “job readiness,” including
whether the client requires other stabilizing services before they are directed to
workforce services. Upon completion of this assessment tool, the third party vendor will
work with OEWD, HSA, HSH and Coordinated Entry Access Point providers to determine
the best way of incorporating this tool into the current Coordinated Entry protocol, and
develop objective measures of assessing and determining which community based
organizations that currently provide workforce services are best suited for serving this

36

California Workforce Development Board. Workforce Accelerator Fund 8.0. Exhibit D: Project Narrative.
Application for San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development. Received from OEWD.
37
OEWD management representations.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

33

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

particular population. 38 This project scope is the result of several years of discussions
between HSH, HSA, OEWD and the nonprofit providers that comprise the Homeless
Employment Collaborative about how to better engage the homeless population through
workforce services.39

Policy Options
The Board of Supervisors could consider the following policy options to enhance
workforce development services for the homeless and other vulnerable populations:
1. Consider amending the Administrative Code to: a) mandate that all departments
providing workforce development services provide results data to the Office of
Economic and Workforce Development in the format requested for its annual
Inventory of Citywide programs, as was required in previous versions of Chapter
30, b) reinstate the Alignment Committee that was subject to a sunset provision
in 2019 but could continue to maintain its previously authorized role of planning
and coordination of Citywide workforce development services, and c) include the
Department of Public Health as a member of the Committee.
2. Request that the San Francisco Workforce Investment Board and/or the
Alignment Committee clarify the priority populations being served by San
Francisco’s workforce development programs to more explicitly define the
priority ranking of the homeless and other vulnerable populations, and to
consider setting targets or relative ranges for the number of participants for each
group for each budget year based on an assessment of need.
3. Request that OEWD report back to the Board of Supervisors on the costs
associated with de-duplication of participant data within and across departments
and establishing a standardized approach to collecting participant data for all
priority populations, including the homeless, across all participating departments.
4. Request that the Department of Public Health Behavioral Health Division begin
tracking and report back to OEWD and the Board of Supervisors on the number
of homeless served and the results of its integrated services programs that
combine workforce development and behavioral health services.
5. Consider additional funding for workforce development services that are serving
the homeless and have demonstrated effectiveness in assisting homeless

38
39

OEWD management representations.
OEWD management representations.
Budget and Legislative Analyst

34

 Report to Supervisor Fewer
June 23, 2020

individuals attain employment and address other issues such as behavioral health
and housing needs.

Budget and Legislative Analyst

35