i know i sped through it quickly. we want to leave some time for your questions so that we can drill down on anything that is of particular interest to you. commissioner lee: i found your number is very interesting, particularly with the african- american population being so small. according to your chart, african-american youth in poverty has dropped more than 60%, which is an astounding number if you consider the popular perception that people half -- that people have. in fact, the largest population, white children. it shows after 2000, number is climbing back up to the 1990's, if i am meeting to chart correctly. and latinos are your largest group of youth population in the

city along with asians. also, what is striking is when you look at your map of need in this city, and i would suspect if you overlay that with the service providers and where service providers are based, there is a disconnect there because i do not think you are finding a lot of service providers based in the hunters point area or in the areas where their clients are, but if you look at, say, south of market for even chinatown for the tenderloin area, you have a high concentration of service providers there. this has, i think, real implications for how you are awarding funds, wh kind of populations you are targeting. and, it also says that the city

-- the popular perception of where need is may not be a reality. i do not know what you are doing about that. you look at the population of youth in the sunset and park side. that population is large. you have a large population there, how they are being served by your program. are you finding service providers in the communities that need them? >> we are eagerly awaiting the senses to get a better understanding of where those indicators are, but -- and that will inform our funding that will take place two years from now in terms of our three-year cycle. in our last cycle, the request proposals that took place last year, one of the factors we used in terms of determining which

providers to award was looking at indications of need. so we have a deposit called the index of need, which we have on our website, but it looks at things like poverty, high school dropouts, crime statistics, california works usage, and it comes up with a deposit measure to show, based on all of those measures, which are the neighborhoods in need. in our proposal, we ask for writers to project how many from each neighborhood they would be serving. that was factored into grant reward decisions, the number of youths living in these guys need neighborhoods that would be served, so that was something we plan to continue to refine and use in the future. >> i think that is important, that service providers are serving the communities that have the greatest need, and perhaps even based there. you just wonder, given the high concentrations in the northeast part of the city, and you look at your maps and numbers, and

the need is not where your providers are. they tend to be further south, if you look at your blocks. the other is the language access, which, i think, is apparent in this. you have a very large asian youth population, according to your numbers, and as far as your adult population, much older population, among asians, so i would think that the language access would be very important in all your funding and programming priorities. >> definitely something we could consider in terms of cultural competency, language. then the commissioner, you mentioned -- anyways, i cannot find a slide now. the declining rate of african- american children in party. i think once again, waiting for the 2010 census data -- it will

actually show us why. it could be a lot of the african-american families have left san francisco, and that could explain the reasons why we are now seeing a smaller number of african-american families in need. >> that is dramatic, to go from 76, 72, and 90, down to just 3000 people, in 2005. i mean, that is incredible. and then, the white population. it is quite dramatic. more than tripled from 2000. again, to this idea of popular perception, you would think that would be the reverse, when in fact, your numbers indicate the the opposite is true, and i wonder how many people and policy makers in this building know that. >> we are sharing our findings with five different commissions

throughout the city. we are also presenting at the board of supervisors, so, hopefully, we will get this into the hands of many policy makers here once again, making sure that we all acknowledge that these are not 2010 census data. so it is just a slight caveat, that there might be some shifts in the numbers. >> commissioner, -- commissioner bonilla: i have several questions. one of them has to do with after-school related programming activity. at the state level, there were some propositions -- propositions out providing more funding for school activities.

perhaps with the downturn in the economy, the -- or the economic downturn, the level of funding available and the level of advocacy for this type of a program has kind of petered out. i do not know. is there still -- do you still see that there is an interest at the state level to provide support for after-school activities in the county's? or can you give me an update, basically, on what is happening at that level? because we have not really heard much about that in a while. >> it is a great question. 2007 is when proposition 49,

which was arnold schwarzenegger 's proposition about after school funding -- that is when it was triggered. funding did flow. it is now at $550 million across the state of california for that school-based after-school program. in terms of the impact in san francisco -- the funding, because it was created through a ballot initiative at the state level, is actually more protected than the core funding for k-12 schools. for the legislature or anyone in sacramento to make changes to that money or to the amount of money, it would have to go back to the voters, so it is quite expected. there have been proposals in the last few years from the legislature to put it back to the voters. are all schwarzenegger was an advocate for not letting that happen. it remains to be seen how our new governor will respond to those proposals. at this point in time, there is no concrete proposal to put it

back on the ballot just yet, but i would imagine it will come up in the next couple of years. in terms of the impact the funding had on san francisco, the funding -- the first dibs on the funding are for school districts, and san francisco unified has been doing a great job of pulling down both federal and state resources for after- school programs. when the new funding at the state program was released, we saw a bit of an increase in funding that came to our school districts, but not the same you have seen in other counties because our school district was already pulling down so much of the funding. for the school district, there is about $11 million of state after school funding, and they have about $6 million of federal funding. but there was definitely something that is at this point in time very secure. but there are threats kind of looming, just given the state's fiscal crisis. >> we did see some funding coming in, and there is still a likelihood that there will be

more advocacy down the road for after-school programs. >> yes, this is about maintaining. >> ok, and i had another question. with this extensive study that you have done, which i really commend you for, is it your intent -- and this is following up on some of the questions raised by commissioner lee -- is it your intent to use this as a guideline for prioritizing future funding? once the dust settles and you have the real numbers to work with. and i know that it will probably be a while, probably not this year, but in the next couple of years, it will really

be looking at this more in an earnest, so is it -- what is your intent? are you really going to use this as a tool for establishing your priorities in the future? and for this year, do you see any kind of impacts where you might, in terms of establishing your core values and setting your priorities, where you would use this to guide you? >> we definitely plan to use this. as we mentioned in the beginning, and i think there is a slide on this powerpoint, it talks about we had a mandated three-year cycle. then the second year is use the needs assessment to come up with exactly what you're talking about, the action plan. so what will our department specifically do in terms of prioritizing what populations, what types of services, and that

is a public document called the children service allocation plan, which we do then present to commissions, just like we do with the needs assessment, to get feedback, that sort of thing. part of that process is also gathering information from each of the city entities about how much money they spend on services, so there can be a mapping of resources. then, looking at what departments are currently spending on children, youth, and families, we can look at the children's fund to figure out where the gaps are, where are the needs that are not being addressed by existing expenditures. that is something that will be out next year, called the children service allocation plan, and that is what we used to then inform the next year of the cycle, which is drafting a proposal for administering funds to a nonprofit agencies. >> thank you for your outstanding work. >> i have one question. i'm curious. in the ages 14 to 24, under mental health and violence concerns, the number of

referrals to the juvenile probation department are on a decline. 33% drop in the last 10 years. is there any empirical data on that that would inform us on that? >> yes, actually, this is the question that comes up at many of our meetings. one of the reasons why -- for the drastic decline was because back in the early 1990's, the city and community advocates, the community partners came together and really worked on policies and legislation around a desire and a principle that the city will not detain young people with low-level crime, and instead, we created something called a community assessment and referral center. we covered all those low-level crimes into this community- based assessment center that we at that time had -- the d.a. had a juvenile probation

officer, a share, represented a, as well as a public defender working together to really provide services to that young person. over the years, with funding, active list, and particularly in the last couple of years, under dcyf work, we have been trying to revitalize the partnership again. but specifically for that declining trend, is primarily because of those initiatives that we did 10 years ago. >> thank you very much, and thanks for the very enlightening presentation. appreciate it. >> thank you so much for having us. and if you have any other questions for us or if members of the community have questions for us or any feedback, the last slide of our presentation, there is our contact information for our extremely able policy analyst, who clearly can go through this data much better than i can. if you have any questions, please call her, or better yet,

send her a quick e-mail. for us, in terms of this is the third commission hearing that we have presented. we have two more commission hearings -- two more commissions we will present to, and in april, we will be presenting the presentation to the board of supervisors. hopefully with full approval so we can then move into our next phase, which is allocation of funding and prioritizing phase. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this was discussion only, so we are now on item 12, trust for public land. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i would just like to present jessica of the trust for public land. she is director of the parks for people bay area program. the trust for public land has

been doing tremendous work with the department over many years, since the 1970's, in fact, and they have contributed many millions of dollars to renovating our parks and playgrounds on behalf of the department. i thought you should get a better overview of the work they have been doing because they are one of our most extraordinary partners. with that, i would like to introduce jennifer. >> good afternoon. thank you for having me, and i will just reiterate -- my name is jennifer, not jessica. you said it right the second time. but for the record. i would love this opportunity to reintroduce you all to our longtime partnership. and remind us all of our share accomplishments together because it has been pretty expensive. and a little bit about our core services. and thank you for your continued support for our work in san francisco. for nearly 40 years, the trust

for public land has been conserving land for people to enjoy as gardens, parks, and natural areas. and it was founded right here in san francisco in 1972 and has grown into a national nonprofit conservation organization with about 40 offices around the country. our model basically comprises three elements. there is a conservation vision in model, conservation finance, and on the groundwork for transactions and park design and development. with conservation visiting, this is mostly work that we help cities around the country map parks and open space deficiencies and to fund conservation priorities for new parks and open space. we identify lance to be protected and help plan networks of conserve plan that meets public need. something we have not done too much with the city of san francisco i think is an opportunity for us as we move forward. for conservation finance, will help agencies identify and generate funds for conservation from federal, state, and local sources. hear, cpo was the sponsor of the

neighborhood safe and clean park fun. we were the sponsor of the park development and revitalization act and responsible of making sure that $400 billion was in proposition 84 for urban parks statewide. actually, we have the city, and we have all gotten some grants as part of that. our federal staff is now working in washington with the obama administration to create similar programs at the federal level. as far as transactions go, structures negotiate and complete land transactions that create parks and playgrounds in natural areas. our first urban transaction was here in san francisco, actually. in 1976. in addition to that, we have played a role in the acquisition or facilitation of dl sol park, alioto park, michelangelo part,

the parcels of the visitation valley greenway, and the gardens. mostly early, from the 1970's to the 1990's on most of this. and for part design and development, which has become an apartment, which transfer newly acquired sides in existing city parks into thriving parks and playgrounds. we played an extensive -- employed extensive community outreach and purchase of the tory design process and manage design through construction to insure that the projects are built. we worked very closely with the department, with phil's staff. we appreciate your contributions to the project. because we not just want to create parks that are going to last for a long time, that are going to meet city standards and be something the city is proud of, but we want to try to help communities connect with recon park said they can support the department and the ongoing stewardship after a park is built. some of the past projects

include we are the sponsor and fiscal agent for the renovation of to the elkhart, and work in the southeast neighborhoods. master planning in visitation valley freeway and design and construction of two parcels. india basin shoreline park, and then for charo hill playground where commissioner martin was at the grand opening. our current work includes just a few comments, and our current work includes a $15 million initiative to rebuild his belly playground in the hayes valley western addition neighborhood of the ballpark in the excelsior neighborhoods. sounds like that will be a great addition to other wonderful things going on there, and part of the wonderful heart of the tenderloin. the city's contribution towards this project have leverage $12.2 million that were raised as partner with the city to raise in private and public funds, and

we are working quickly in cooperation with the department to fund a remaining million- dollar gap. we appreciate fills generosity, to meet with some of our potential donors and speak to the strength of our partnership. we are also doing about $500,000 in master planning and community services for grant canyon park, which was the recipient of on funding for trigger for improvement. we are thrilled to be involved in this exciting project. it is such a great treasure of san francisco. we want to help nurture the department -- one of the best examples of wilderness in the city. we will offer design reviews to the city on the trails and produced a comprehensive community-supported park improvement plan that can help the city figure out how to identify projects for the bond funding and projects that we can all fund raiser for for the long term. we also are currently working with staff to develop a role

that maybe we can play in helping to continue fund raising to a woman some of those projects. in summary, the fundamental mission of our parks for people bay area program is to ensure that every child lives within walking distance of a great part, a natural area. we have had a great success and partnership with the department. we look forward to continued success together. a few months ago, someone introduced me to -- somebody found the city and introduced me as the silent partner of the city. in preparing this list of accomplishments we have made together, i think why? why should we be so silent? from our end, it is because we're working hard to get this stuff built, but we have really accomplished a lot together, and we would like to have this overview so we can start thinking more about how we can be useful, how we can add value to the city, not just for part design and development, but these other areas as well, so i

would encourage you to come to us if you have ideas for potential projects. and also, we appreciate your help connecting with reporters as we continue this work. i'm just going to leave you with a couple of fun reading materials that kind of capture a summary of our work in sentences, and this test came out, which is from that distance to the medical lyle, how urban park system can promote health and wellness. in d.c., they do a lot of research on park standards, park statistics. healthy parts is obviously a key issue in parts right now, but there is a nice little blurb about san francisco in here that i thought you would like to read, and maybe it is something we could talk about later. with that, thank you very much. then and many thanks, and thanks for all the worked you do for san francisco. you have a great reputation. family are pleased to do it and

could look forward to continuing to work with you. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this was discussion only, so we are now on item 13, which is public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session 15a one and two. is there any public comment on this part of a closed session. being none, public comment is closed. commissioners, you do need to vote again whether to go into closed session. commissioner buell: entertain a motion. has been moved and seconded. all those in favor? >> for members of the public, we will be adjourning into the back room for a closed session at this time. commissioner buell: might be fewer people leaving this room if we -- oh.