We’ve selected seven promising positions in North America on Dezeen Jobs this week including roles in San Francisco, New York and Phoenix.

Dezeen Jobs is currently advertising architecture and interior design roles across the US at well-established practices including SO-IL, OMA and Dattner.

Associate at SO – IL in New York

SO-IL is seeking an associate to join its team in New York. The firm renovated and extended an 18th-century glass factory in France in collaboration with Parisian studio FREAKS.

View all vacancies in New York ›

Project architect at Studio Ma in Phoenix

Studio Ma designed the Museum of the West in Phoenix, which has a textured concrete and timber exterior and contains both contemporary and historical artifacts related to the American West. The studio is looking for a project architect to join their team in Arizona.

View all project architect vacancies ›

Senior interior designer/senior interior architect at Morris Adjmi Architects in New York

Morris Adjmi Architects is seeking a senior interior designer/senior interior architect to join his team in New York. The practice designed the interiors of The Roost East Market hotel in Philadelphia, whose rooms feature an eclectic mix of finishes and soft furnishings to create a home-like atmosphere.

View all senior-level roles ›

Junior interior designer at Dattner Architects in New York

Dattner Architects designed a distinctive garage and salt shed for New York’s sanitation department in collaboration with WXY. The firm is hiring a junior interior designer to join his team in New York.

View all vacancies at Dattner ›

Architectural intern at OMA in New York

OMA has openings for architectural interns at its office in New York to start as soon as possible for its fall (September) and winter (January) intake. The practice designed the Taipei Performing Arts Center in Taiwan, which features three protruding auditoriums.

View all internships ›

Senior design architect at Skylab Architecture in Portland

Skylab Architecture is hiring a senior design architect to join his team in Portland. The studio designed Owl Creek Residence in Colorado, defined by its triangular floor plan and angular projecting roof.

View all roles at Skylab ›

Intermediate designer at Piechota Architecture in San Francisco

Piechota Architecture created Silver Oak Cellars’ Sonoma Valley outpost featuring gabled buildings referencing the area’s vernacular architecture. The practice is seeking an intermediate designer to join his team in San Francisco.

View all intermediate-level roles ›

See all the latest architecture and design roles on Dezeen Jobs ›

The post Seven structure and inside design roles within the US appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excluded Populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions From a Stranger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

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

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

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

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

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

System Under Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post San Francisco Rations Housing by Scoring Homeless Individuals’s Trauma. By Design, Most Fail to Qualify. appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

HDR

Employer:

San Francisco, CA, USLocation:

Thu, Sep 15 ’22Posted on:

full timeType:

About Us

At HDR, we specialize in engineering, architecture, environmental and construction services. While we are most well-known for adding beauty and structure to communities through high-performance buildings and smart infrastructure, we provide much more than that. We create an unshakable foundation for progress because our multidisciplinary teams also include scientists, economists, builders, analysts and artists. That’s why we believe diversity is our greatest strength. HDR is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and an affirmative action employer.

Watch Our Story:‘ https://www.hdrinc.com/our-story’

We believe that the way we work can add meaning and value to the world. That ideas inspire positive change. That coloring outside the lines can illuminate fresh perspectives. And that small details yield important realizations. Above all, we believe that collaboration is the best way forward.

Primary responsibilities

In the role of Interior Design Coordinator, we’ll count on you to:
• Assist Senior Interior Designers with evaluations, selections and applications for interior design concepts
• Work under broad, general supervision
•Require basic knowledge of programming and functional analysis as well as knowledge of space planning principles
•Apply design principles in development and preparation of presentation drawings
•Interpret plans and specifications, and knowledge of interior code requirements, construction administration procedures, and electrical/HVAC systems
• Demonstrate experience in selecting interior details, materials, color selections, furniture and furnishings selections, lighting design, space planning, and detailing
•Perform other duties as needed

Required Qualifications

•Bachelor’s degree in Interior Architecture or Interior Design
• Knowledge or experience in commercial and corporate architectural interiors projects
• Knowledge of MicroStation or AutoCAD and Photoshop
•Experience with Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, Project)
• An attitude and commitment to being an active participant of our employee-owned culture is a must

Preferred Qualifications
• Desire to pursue growth opportunities and obtain registration

Why HDR

At HDR, we know work isn’t only about who you work for it’s also about what you do and how you do it. Led by the strength of our values ​​and a culture shaped by employee ownership, we network with each other, build on each other’s contributions, and collaborate together to make great things possible. When you join HDR, we give you license to do the same. We help you take charge of your career, giving you multiple growth opportunities along the way.

Please apply at: https://hdr.taleo.net/careerse…

The post Inside Design Coordinator – (169481) – San Francisco, CA, US | Jobs appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Note: GJEL Accident Attorneys regularly sponsors coverage on Streetsblog San Francisco and Streetsblog California. Unless noted in the story, GJEL Accident Attorneys is not consulted for the content or editorial direction of the sponsored content.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo is concerned about a projected $3 billion cost overrun for the BART extension to downtown San Jose, attributed to designs that use a controversial single-bore, 85-foot-deep subway concept pushed by VTA.

Nevertheless, VTA is moving forward. From a San Jose Mercury News story about the VTA Board’s decision Thursday to award contracts for the project. “VTA approves $235 million San Jose BART extension contract — so why is it also reviewing its controversial design?”:

The unanimous vote from the board puts the VTA in the unusual position of awarding a $235 million contract that moves forward with the extension’s “single-bore” tunnel plan, while simultaneously launching a new analysis of the contentious design.

A map of the extension. Image: VTA

As reported previously, in an attempt to eliminate disruption to merchants, VTA had decided on a $9 billion deep, single-bore subway plan–which analysis shows could cost some $3 billion more than conventional tunneling–to construct the six-mile BART extension under downtown San Jose. VTA’s preferred design would place the two tracks stacked one above the other inside a super-large, single tunnel (see comparative diagrams below). This single-bore construction technique can make sense in cities that need to avoid underground obstacles such as legacy subway tunnels (think London, Tokyo, etc). But, of course, there aren’t any subways, crooked streets, or other such obstacles in San Jose.

VTA’s design for a single, very deep bore through downtown San Jose. This concept is supported by merchants because it minimizes temporary surface disruptions. Image: BEARD
The traditional, twin-bore configuration would have a max depth of 55 feet for riders, versus 85 feet for single-bore. Image: BEARD

But merchants always want transit in a subway, the deeper the better, with the belief that if it’s deep underground construction will have no impact on their businesses. It also, however, means when the subway is finished riders will have longer trips to and from the platforms. It also complicates construction, fire safety, and operations, since trains can’t switch from track to track without building complicated ramps between the two levels.

Nevertheless, it seemed San Jose politics had all but locked in the controversial, single-bore design, despite pushback from transit advocates. But at Thursday evening’s VTA board meeting, as reported in advocate Adina Levin’s Green Caltrain blog, Mayor Liccardo submitted his memo calling for reviews of the project to explore:

• Better connections at Diridon Station
• Entrances on both sides of Santa Clara Street at the downtown station
• Support for very high density transit oriented development

…and, most notably, an independent analysis comparing single-bore and dual-bore options, building on an earlier analysis done in 2017. Also from Green Caltrain:

“…the tradeoffs of the single and dual-bore options with regard to “passenger safety, rider access and experience, cost, and construction delay.” The previous analysis in 2017 had focused on constructability and operability, but did not compare the construction techniques for the ability to support better rider access and dense transit oriented development.

The memo from the Mayor is co-signed by San Jose Council Member and VTA board chair Chappie Jones, and Council Member Raul Peralez. Earlier this year, San Jose City Council had approved a resolution calling for improvements to the project relating to transit connections, multiple entrances, TOD, and alleviating construction impacts on businesses.

Since VTA originally made the decision in favor of the single bore option in 2018, concerns have grown regarding limitations in the project design and increasing cost estimates. SPUR and grassroots advocacy organizations such as the Transbay Coalition and Friends of Caltrain have called for passenger-focused improvements to the project, including adding entrances on both sides of the street, better passenger flow, better transit connections, and better support for transit-oriented development. A conventional subway design, with the train tunnels built side-by-side and far closer to the surface, makes it easier to accommodate such improvements.

Read more on the Green Caltrain blog and check out the coverage in the SJ Merc News.

The post Memo Requires Reconsideration of BART Extension Design – Streetsblog San Francisco appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excluded Populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions From a Stranger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

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

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

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

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

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

System Under Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post San Francisco Rations Housing by Scoring Homeless Folks’s Trauma. By Design, Most Fail to Qualify. appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excluded Populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit:
Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions From a Stranger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit:
Daniel Liévano for ProPublica

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

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

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

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

System Under Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Advocates Sue New York Over Proposed Shadow Foster Care System

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

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

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

The post San Francisco Rations Housing by Scoring Homeless Individuals’s Trauma. By Design, Most Fail to Qualify. — ProPublica appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Image courtesy of Andreas Strandman / Unsplash

Between the pastel tones and gold leaf decorations, one can see more and more a striking juxtaposition: 125-year-old houses painted in the tones of a nuclear warhead from the Cold War or a dormant cinder cone. In neighborhoods like Mission and Haight, this phenomenon reads for some residents as the eradication of the Latino community or the ongoing counterculture. – The guard

Gentrification has fundamentally changed what New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio once called the “crisis of desirability”.

As in the Big Apple, many high-paid workers have begun to return to their former wasted enclaves, contrary to a trend that initially seemed to shrink the city’s tech population significantly due to the pandemic, leading to even more reluctance among the locals.

“I’m not moving. I’m not going anywhere. I have my roots,” a lifelong resident told the Guardian. “Working with kids, teaching kids music without asking for money. It’s about giving back to the community. Latin- Rock music originated here in the mission district, so my aim is to keep it alive. “

Related Articles About Archinect You May Be Interested In …

The post ‘Gentrification grey’ is the most recent design pattern sweeping San Francisco’s as soon as colourful rowhouses | Information appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Ann Sacks San Francisco Showroom

The showroom is the place where we have the most intensive contact with our customers, ”said DeeDee Gundberg, Director, Product Development and Design.

PORTLAND, Ore. (PRWEB)
November 03, 2021

ANN SACKS, an industry leader in luxury tile and stone, is pleased to announce the reopening of ANN SACKS San Francisco at 2 Henry Adams Street, Suite 125, San Francisco, CA 94103, phone (415) 252-5889. The redesigned showroom, located in the San Francisco Design Center, is the first in a series of ANN SACKS showroom renovations that will extend over the next few years and offer customers a new way of seeing the full range of products in a service-oriented, interactive environment. In addition to ANN SACKS San Francisco, renovations are currently underway in the showrooms of ANN SACKS Los Angeles and Orange County, California.

The redesign of ANN SACKS San Francisco is based on a new merchandising and sales model that represents months of planning and development by ANN SACKS, culminating in an innovative design that is intended to improve the customer experience in all showrooms. “The showroom is the place where we come into most intensive contact with our customers,” said DeeDee Gundberg, Director, Product Development and Design. “We wanted to strengthen this connection by offering our customers the opportunity to experience our products and brands in a way that they will not experience anywhere else. The entire concept was built on this basis. “

Customers enjoy a full range of products from ANN SACKS and the sister brands Robern and KALLISTA. In addition to the existing collections, new washbasins, linen cupboards and decorative mirrors by Robern, exclusive designs by KALLISTA Sanitary and selected KOHLER Lighting exclusively for the showroom channel will be on display, stimulating creativity at every turn.

ANN SACKS San Francisco presents itself in a gallery-like setting in the heart of the San Francisco Design District, a renowned destination for retailers and design-conscious consumers for over a century. With window sills at the front of the building that offer plenty of natural light and an open floor plan that allows for a smooth flow of traffic and an unobstructed view of the designs, ANN SACKS San Francisco presents an active, engaging environment with all the tools and an experienced sales representative, in order to seamlessly implement a project from concept to the smallest detail into reality.

The exterior of the red brick showroom with its towering 18-foot lattice windows leads across the street-level entrance of ANN SACKS San Francisco and offers a first glimpse of the redesign, which begins with an open, lobby-style retail lounge. From floor to ceiling, pillars wrapped in marble are overlaid with smaller tile slabs, which give dimensions and a structural effect, while at the same time offering visitors a unique opportunity to present the impressive selection of natural stones. The reception area also includes comfortable seating, two bistro tables with chairs, and a full display of the latest branded materials and collection information.

Opening up the larger showroom was important to the redesign, with a floor plan that encourages exploration and a smooth flow of traffic for visitors to easily access and engage with the products spread across the space. The linchpin within the showroom is the new ANN SACKS Design Studio, a fully equipped activity center from a single source that is well organized to bring all the tools you need together in one central location. Spacious Calcatta Zebrino marble work tables with plenty of seating are surrounded by walls of white shelves that approx. Better imagine what the tile will look like in a room. The sample shop that was outside the showroom is now part of the design studio to keep creativity flowing without interruption. Magnetic mood boards designed to inspire are constantly updated to showcase the latest market trends. The design studio will also offer basic color, furniture and surface samples to better realize the potential of a project from a more holistic point of view.

In addition to the smaller vignettes, there will also be larger, self-designed suites, including a fully functional bathroom, two kitchens, two fireplaces and the first reveal of the seven inspiration suites behind ANN SACKS ‘new immersive merchandising program, which will be launched in September 2021 Level introduced. Most of the products selected for the program’s traditional and contemporary bathrooms are new to the market. Created by a talented team of designers

ANN SACKS, Robern and KALLISTA remind the interiors of crucial epochs that influenced or changed the design of the 19th and 20th centuries and influential, emerging trends on the world market.

To keep the showroom au courant, a clip wall system was chosen to make room and vignette redesigns easier and to reduce the disruption, hassle and cost involved in seasonal renovations. Other well thought-out details for the consumer include a combination of the latest 90 percent energy-saving LED track, recessed and linear downlight lighting to complement the abundant natural light, and cozy chairs, conversation seats and other work tables distributed practically anywhere in the room are.

Download images

About ANN SACKS

ANN SACKS was founded in 1981 and has made a name for itself by offering the best in tiles and stones. The Portland, Oregon-based company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kohler Co., along with sister luxury brands Kallista Sanitary and Robern mirror cabinets and vanities.

About KOHLER CO.

Founded in 1873 and headquartered in Kohler, Wisconsin, Kohler Co. is one of America’s oldest and largest privately owned companies with more than 38,000 employees. With more than 50 production sites worldwide, Kohler is a global leader in the design, innovation and manufacture of kitchen and bathroom products; Luxury furniture, tiles and lighting; Motors, generators and clean energy solutions; and owner / operator of two five star hotel and golf resort destinations in Kohler, Wisconsin and St. Andrews, Scotland. Kohler’s Whistling Straits Golf Course recently hosted the 43rd Ryder Cup. The company also develops solutions to pressing issues like clean water and sanitation for underserved communities around the world to improve the quality of life for present and future generations. Further information is available at www.kohlercompany.com.

More information about the opening of the ANN SACKS San Francisco showroom or the

ANN SACKS and the product offerings of its sister brands, consumers can call the toll-free 1-800-278-TILE or the

ANN SACKS website at http://www.annsacks.com.

The post Ann Sacks San Francisco Showroom Opens Its Doorways To a Inventive New Method In Lavatory and Kitchen Design appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

A creative new approach to bathroom and kitchen design

PORTLAND, Ore., November 3, 2021 / PRNewswire-PRWeb / – ANN SACKS, an industry leader in luxury tile and stone, is pleased to announce the reopening of ANN SACKS San Francisco at 2 Henry Adams Street, Suite 125, San Francisco, California 94103, phone (415) 252-5889. The redesigned showroom, located in the San Francisco Design Center, is the first in a series of ANN SACKS showroom renovations that will extend over the next few years and offer customers a new way of seeing the full range of products in a service-oriented, interactive environment. Next to ANN SACKS San Francisco, renovations at ANN SACKS Los Angeles and Orange County, California. Showrooms are now underway.

The redesign of ANN SACKS San Francisco is based on a new merchandising and sales model, which represents months of planning and development by ANN SACKS, culminating in an innovative design that aims to improve the customer experience in all showrooms. “The showroom is the place where we connect most strongly with our customers,” said DeeDee Gundberg, Director, Product Development and Design. “We wanted to strengthen this connection by offering our customers the opportunity to experience our products and brands in a way they will not experience anywhere else. This was the basis on which the entire concept was built. “

Customers enjoy a full range of products from ANN SACKS and the sister brands Robern and KALLISTA. In addition to existing collections, new washbasins, linen cupboards and decorative mirrors from Robern, exclusive designs from KALLISTA Sanitary and selected CHARCOAL BURNER Lighting designed exclusively for the showroom channel will also be on view to stimulate creativity at every turn.

ANN SACKS San Francisco presents itself in a gallery-like setting in the heart of the San Francisco Design District, a renowned destination for retailers and design-conscious consumers for over a century. With window sills at the front of the building that offer plenty of natural light and an open floor plan that allows for a smooth flow of traffic and an unobstructed view of the designs, ANN SACKS San Francisco presents an active, engaging environment with all the tools and an experienced sales representative, in order to seamlessly implement a project from concept to the smallest detail into reality.

The story goes on

The exterior of the red brick showroom with its towering 18-foot lattice windows leads across the street-level entrance of ANN SACKS San Francisco and offers a first glimpse of the redesign, which begins with an open, lobby-style retail lounge. From the floor to the ceiling, pillars wrapped in marble are overlaid with smaller tile slabs, which give dimensions and structural effect, while at the same time offering visitors a unique opportunity to present the impressive selection of natural stones. The reception area also includes comfortable seating, two bistro tables with chairs, and a full display of the latest branded materials and collection information.

Opening up the larger showroom was important to the redesign, with a floor plan that encourages exploration and a smooth flow of traffic for visitors to easily access and engage with the products spread across the space. The linchpin within the showroom is the new ANN SACKS Design Studio, a fully equipped activity center from a single source that is well organized to bring all the tools you need together in one central location. Spacious Calcatta Zebrino marble work tables with plenty of seating are surrounded by walls of white shelves that approx. Better imagine what the tile will look like in a room. The sample shop that was outside the showroom is now part of the design studio to keep creativity flowing without interruption. Magnetic mood boards designed to inspire are constantly updated to showcase the latest market trends. The design studio will also offer basic color, furniture and surface samples to better realize the potential of a project from a more holistic point of view.

In addition to the smaller vignettes, there will also be larger, self-designed suites, including a fully functional bathroom, two kitchens, two fireplaces and the first reveal of the seven inspiration suites behind the new immersive merchandising program from ANN SACKS, launched at national level in September 2021. Most of the products selected for the program’s traditional and contemporary bathrooms are new to the market. Created by a talented team of designers

ANN SACKS, Robern and KALLISTA remind the interiors of crucial eras that influenced or changed the design of the 19th and 20th centuries and influential, emerging trends on the world market.

To keep the showroom au courant, a clip wall system was chosen to make room and vignette redesigns easier and to reduce the disruption, hassle and cost involved in seasonal renovations. Other well-thought-out details for the consumer include a combination of the most modern, 90 percent energy-saving LED track, recessed and linear downlight lighting to complement the abundant natural light, and cozy chairs, conversation seats and other work tables that are practically everywhere in the room.
Download images

About ANN SACKS
ANN SACKS was founded in 1981 and has made a name for itself by offering the best in tiles and stones. Based in Portland, Ore., the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kohler Co., along with sister luxury brands Kallista Sanitary and Robern mirror cabinets and vanities.

Above CHARCOAL BURNER CO.

Founded in 1873 and headquartered in Kohler, Wisconsin, Kohler Co. is one of America’s oldest and largest privately held companies with more than 38,000 employees. With more than 50 production sites worldwide, Charcoal burner is a world leader in the design, innovation and manufacture of kitchen and bathroom products; Luxury furniture, tiles and lighting; Motors, generators and clean energy solutions; and owner / operator of two 5-star hotel and golf resort destinations in Kohler, Wisconsin, and St. Andrews, Scotland. Kohlers The 43rd Ryder Cup recently took place at Whistling Straits Golf Course. The company also develops solutions to pressing issues like clean water and sanitation for underserved communities around the world to improve the quality of life for present and future generations. Further information is available at www.kohlercompany.com.

For more information on the opening of the ANN SACKS San Francisco showroom or the
ANN SACKS and the product offerings of its sister brands, consumers can call the toll-free 1-800-278-TILE or the
ANN SACKS website at http://www.annsacks.com.

Media contact

Robin Richter, Ann Sacks, (920) 457-4441 x.72340, robin.richter@kohler.com

SOURCE Ann Sacks

The post Ann Sacks San Francisco Showroom Opens Its Doorways To a Artistic New Method In Toilet and Kitchen Design appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

After growing 41 percent in business in the fourth quarter of 2020 and winning leadership and diversity awards, Calix continues to be recognized for high performing teams and a collaborative culture, making it one of the best companies to work from anywhere in the world

Calix, Inc. (NYSE: CALX) announced today that it has received six awards for outstanding corporate culture and team performance from leading culture and compensation monitoring website Comparably. Calix is ​​recognized for its top business prospects, its “A +” rating for culture, and one of the best places to work in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition, three of his teams – engineering, product and design, and sales – have been recognized as leading companies among the world’s leading companies. In 2020, Calix won two more awards from Comparably: Best Diversity Companies and Best CEOs based on anonymously collected employee feedback.

“Calix has once again proven to be an incredibly desirable place to work with a strong corporate culture that employees recognize and value,” said Jason Nazar, chief executive officer of Comparably. “From their point of view of the overall direction of the company and their affinity to their individual teams, the employees clearly see Calix as much more than just a workplace. It’s a diverse and collaborative environment that enables them to maintain balance in their lives while delivering immense achievements. “Career Opportunities.”

Calix’s employee sentiment gives the company an overall culture rating of “A +” with a 4.7 out of 5 star rating, placing Calix in the top five percent of similar-sized companies in categories such as work culture, leadership, career development, Work-life balance, benefits and more. The comparable dataset for these awards represents millions of reviews from 60,000 US companies over the past year.

The story goes on

Calix took 26th place for the best corporate outlook among large companies (based on the Net Promoter Score of employees and the assessment of future company success) and placed it next to the technology giant Apple (22nd) and ahead of Amazon (34th) among the am top rated company. Much of the optimism comes from the “collaborate, create, and communicate” culture the company has built in its global presence and in the top 50 for best global culture among companies with 500+ employees and 13th work in the San Francisco Bay Area in companies with at least 25 employees.

“Calix is ​​growing remarkably, adding more than 10 percent to the team in the last 12 months after a decade of revolutionizing technology that delivers modern broadband services and unmatched customer experiences,” said Carl Russo, Calix chief executive officer . “Given last year’s global pandemic, our customers’ responsibility to connect their communities has been critical to maintaining their way of life. Calix staff have demonstrated a relentless focus on customer service and we look forward to continue to produce results. ” . “

A trio of individual Calix teams was also recognized for their success among top companies of all sizes. Calix employees from the fields of engineering (23rd place), product and design (36th place) and sales (21st place) rated the company highly in almost 20 categories, including leadership and employees, work-life balance and career opportunities.

“Calix has always been a leader among virtual and hybrid work organizations, and the pandemic has made the Calix workplace norm a global norm, allowing our teams to go faster while constantly improving our culture with a better, better, never-best mindset “Said Michael Weening, President and Chief Operating Officer of Calix. “As proud as we are of what we have achieved, the future looks even better, and that is proof of the hard work and talent of our team members. We’re hiring to meet our growth goals and we’re excited to add top talent from around the world to our team. “

Would you like to be part of the Calix team? We are hiring more than 100 positions in our company. Learn more about careers at Calix.

About comparable

A premier workplace culture and compensation monitoring website that offers the most complete and fairest representation of work in an organization. Employees can anonymously rate their employers in nearly 20 different job categories, giving the public a transparent and in-depth view of the experiences workers have based on their gender, ethnicity, age, department, experience, location, education and training their company size. Since its launch in 2016, Comparably has collected 10 million reviews from 60,000 North American companies. The platform has grown into one of the fastest growing SaaS employer branding solutions and a trusted third-party workplace and salary data site, including their annual Best Places to Work series, which publishes 16 different categories of workplace culture annually (four per Quarter). .

About calix

Calix, Inc. (NYSE: CALX) – Calix cloud and software platforms enable innovation and transformation for service providers of all types and sizes. Our customers leverage real-time data and insights from the Calix platforms to simplify their business and deliver experiences that their subscribers love. The resulting growth in subscriber acquisition, loyalty, and revenue creates more value for their businesses and communities. This is the Calix Mission; to enable broadband service providers of all sizes to simplify, inspire and grow.

This press release may contain forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and that are inherently uncertain. Forward-looking statements are based on information available to us as of the date of this publication and we assume no obligation to revise or update such forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this publication, unless required to do so as of Law. Actual results and timing of events could differ materially from current expectations due to risks and uncertainties affecting Calix’s business. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements in this press release. Additional information about potential factors that could affect Calix’s results, as well as other risks and uncertainties, are contained in the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC and available at www.sec.gov are available.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210408005663/de/

contacts

Press inquiries:
Dale Legaspi
408-474-0056
dale.legaspi@calix.com

Investor inquiries:
Tom thing
408-474-0080
tom.dinges@calix.com

The post Calix’s Progress Tradition Wins Six New Awards From Comparably for Engineering, Gross sales, Product and Design, “Greatest Place to Work,” and Extra appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.