Plaintiffs-appellants represent the class of "all present and future pretrial detainees, and all present and future sentenced offenders within the Multnomah County [Oregon] justice system." In 1982, we affirmed an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 to plaintiffs as prevailing parties in an action seeking injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The action was brought to remedy conditions of confinement at the Rocky Butte Jail (RBJ) and to challenge proposed conditions at the Downtown Detention Center (DDC), which was planned to replace RBJ. Plaintiffs had also challenged population limits and length of stay limits at the Multnomah County Booking Facility (MCBF). See Jordan v. Multnomah County, 694 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir.1982)(per curiam).

Plaintiffs now appeal the district court's award of attorneys' fees for legal services rendered on behalf of the plaintiff class between September 28, 1982, and October 26, 1983. These services were for the purposes of preventing the early opening of I-205, a freeway constructed adjacent to RBJ, and of obtaining an order holding defendants in contempt for violation of the injunction limiting population and length of stays at MCBF.^[1]

Plaintiffs contend that the district court abused its discretion in awarding them attorneys' fees in the amount of $43,500, substantially less than the $160,130 that they requested.^[2] We affirm in part, and reverse in part and remand.

The I-205 Issue. Plaintiffs submitted a fee application that requested compensation for 110.9 hours for the time of their lead attorney, Mr. LaBarre, at the rate of $140 per hour. They sought compensation for 72.7 hours of associate time at $80 per hour. The total request was for $19,382 before application of a multiplier. The district court awarded $7,500, finding that much of the work undertaken by plaintiffs' counsel was not "legal in nature."^[3] The court found that the range of time necessary for the type of work performed by counsel on the I-205 issue was 50 to 150 hours and that the fees for work of this nature ranged from $65 to $100 per hour. The court's finding was based in part upon rates paid to plaintiffs' counsel in the past for similar services. The court denied the request for a multiplier.

Contempt Proceeding. Multnomah County violated the court's order with regard to the length of stay and population limits at MCBF. Plaintiffs' counsel instituted contempt proceedings and eventually prevailed. Plaintiffs requested compensation for 403.4 hours at hourly rates of $80 per hour for associate time and $140 per hour for Mr. LeBarre's time. The total fee request on the contempt issue was $45,544 before application of the requested multiplier. The district court awarded $30,000 in attorneys' fees, finding

that the number of hours for which plaintiffs seek recovery is high. However, far fewer hours would have been spent had the County been more cooperative in the investigative phase of the case. I find that the range of hours reasonable to be spent in such a matter is from 300 to 400 hours. I find that $100 to $125 an hour is a reasonable hourly rate for compensation in such matters.

The court denied plaintiffs' request for a multiplier.

Attorneys' Fees Applications. Plaintiffs sought compensation for time expended by counsel in pursuit of their attorneys' fees applications on the I-205 and contempt matters. Plaintiffs' counsel initially submitted an application for 36.3 hours of time on attorneys' fees matters. However, the district court requested additional documentation on the I-205 issue because that matter had been handled outside the purview of the court. Plaintiffs' counsel spent a substantial amount of time preparing the requested documentation. After voluntarily reducing the fee request by over 37 hours, plaintiffs requested compensation for a total of 153.6 hours for fee application matters. The requested fee totaled $19,059 at $80 per hour for associate time and $140 per hour for Mr. LeBarre's time. The district court found that 50 to 75 hours was a reasonable amount of time to expend on this matter and awarded a fee of $6,000. The court did not grant plaintiffs' request for a multiplier.

In a federal civil rights action or proceeding, "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988. We review the district court's determination of the amount of attorneys' fees awarded pursuant to Sec. 1988 for an abuse of discretion. See Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. City of Salem, 752 F.2d 1394, 1396 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1028, 105 S.Ct. 3503, 87 L.Ed.2d 634 (1985); Sethy v. Alameda County Water Dist., 602 F.2d 894, 897 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1046, 100 S.Ct. 734, 62 L.Ed.2d 731 (1980). The district court's discretion to award attorney's fees under Sec. 1988 has, however, been narrowly construed, Ackerley Communications, 752 F.2d at 1396, and is circumscribed by decisions of the Supreme Court and this circuit. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951, 96 S.Ct. 1726, 48 L.Ed.2d 195 (1976). The district court should clearly and concisely explain the grounds for its decision. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941; Probe v. State Teachers' Retirement System, 780 F.2d 776, 785 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2891, 90 L.Ed.2d 978 (1986).

I. Reasonableness of Attorney's Fee.

Congress provided for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to successful civil rights plaintiffs "to ensure 'effective access to the judicial process' for persons with civil rights grievances." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429, 103 S.Ct. at 1937 (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, p.1 (1976)). While Sec. 1988 does not explain what constitutes a reasonable fee, the legislative history expressly endorses the guidelines developed by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974).^[4] See S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976); H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 8 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, p. 5908; City of Riverside v. Rivera, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2686, 91 L.Ed.2d 466 (1986).

The Supreme Court has adopted a "hybrid approach" to the question of the proper manner by which to determine a reasonable attorneys' fee. See Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3097; Hensley, 461 U.S. 424, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40. This approach combines elements of the Johnson 12-factor analysis and the lodestar method of calculation developed by the Third Circuit in Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir.1973).^[5] The lodestar determination has emerged as the predominate element of the analysis. See Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3098.

" 'The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.' " Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3097 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. at 1939). This product may then be adjusted on the basis of "other considerations." Id. at 3098 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940). Hensley viewed the "other considerations" to include the Johnson factors, but noted that "many of these factors usually are subsumed" within the lodestar calculation.^[6] A "strong presumption" exists that the lodestar figure represents a "reasonable" fee, Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3098, and upward adjustments of the lodestar are proper only in "rare" and "exceptional" cases, supported by specific evidence on the record and detailed findings by the district court. Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-901, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-49.

Consequently, a critical inquiry in determining a reasonable attorneys' fee for purposes of Sec. 1988 is the reasonable hourly rate. Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 1547 n. 11. The prevailing market rate in the community is indicative of a reasonable hourly rate.^[7] Id. at 895, 104 S.Ct. at 1547. The fee applicant has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation. See id. at 895-97 and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 1547-48 and n. 11. If the applicant satisfies its burden of showing that the claimed rate and number of hours^[8] are reasonable, the resulting product is presumed to be the reasonable fee contemplated by Sec. 1988. Id. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1548; Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3098.

Plaintiffs presented the district court with evidence in addition to the affidavits of Mr. LeBarre to show that the claimed rates were in line with those prevailing in the community.^[9] Plaintiffs also submitted records "sufficient[ly] detail[ed] that a neutral judge [could] make a fair evaluation of the time expended, the nature and need for the service, and the reasonable fees to be allowed." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 441, 103 S.Ct. at 1943 (Burger, C.J., concurring). Yet the district judge made no finding on the sufficiency of the evidence. He applied an unsupported "range" hourly rate to a "range" of hours to arrive at a fee that he deemed reasonable.^[10] While the district court is in the best position to judge the reasonableness of the fee award, see Harmon v. San Diego County, 736 F.2d 1329, 1331 (9th Cir.1984)(Harmon II ), such a position does not mean the trial judge can remain silent as to how she or he reached the "reasonableness" conclusion. The record must inform us of the trial court's basis for determining reasonable attorneys' fees in order for an appeal to be meaningful.^[11] We therefore reverse the award of attorneys' fees and remand for redetermination of a reasonable fee in accordance with this opinion.

II. Multiplier.

Plaintiffs requested that the court upwardly adjust the fee awards by applying a multiplier of two. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a multiplier on each matter because the issues were unpopular in the community and because of the risk that counsel would not be paid if plaintiffs did not succeed. The district court refused to award an upward enhancement, finding that one was not required. Although the district court did not explain the basis for this conclusion, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, because, based on the record before us, plaintiffs "failed to carry [their] burden of justifying entitlement to an upward adjustment." Blum, 465 U.S. at 901-02, 104 S.Ct. at 1550-51. See also Pennsylvania, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-3100.

Plaintiffs introduced no evidence that an enhancement was necessary to provide fair and reasonable compensation. See Blum 465 U.S. at 901, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 (upward adjustment is appropriate only where enhancement is necessary to provide fair and reasonable compensation). The I-205 and the contempt matters sought enforcement of the protections provided by injunctive relief that plaintiffs had previously obtained. The risk^[12] of non-payment due to lack of success was accordingly low. Public anger that the opening of a much-needed freeway section might be delayed by the prisoners' opposition does not constitute the sort of unpopularity that entitles a civil rights plaintiff to fee enhancement in the absence of evidence that plaintiffs or their counsel were adversely affected by that unpopularity. See Planned Parenthood v. Arizona, 789 F.2d 1348, 1354 (9th Cir.1986). Plaintiffs have failed to show by specific evidence on the record that receipt of a reasonable hourly rate times the number of hours reasonably spent on these matters does not constitute a fully compensatory fee. See id. See also Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-900, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-1549. We, therefore, affirm the denial of a multiplier.

This matter is remanded to the district court for a redetermination of a reasonable attorneys' fee to compensate plaintiffs' counsel for their efforts in the I-205, contempt, and fee application matters. Plaintiffs are also entitled to a reasonable fee for their attorneys' services in prosecuting this appeal. On remand, the district court should determine the time spent and fees to be awarded on this appeal. See Probe, 780 F.2d at 785-86; Williams v. Alioto, 625 F.2d 845, 849-50 (9th Cir.1980)(per curiam), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1012, 101 S.Ct. 1723, 68 L.Ed.2d 213 (1981); Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 519 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir.1975)(allowing compensation for services rendered solely to obtain the allowance of attorney's fees). See also Manhart v. City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Water & Power, 652 F.2d 904, 909 (9th Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 461 U.S. 951, 103 S.Ct. 2420, 77 L.Ed.2d 1310 (1983).

Appellants are entitled to costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.