potential implication of the families for the grant awards. item number 2 proposing all expenditures for departments of '71 of san francisco as of may for fiscal years june 30, '14 and 15 >> item number 3 the annual budget and the fiscal year is

. the authority to make certain provisions. item number 10 the ordinance for administrative business to modify when the controller is to conduct varies program audits and this is regarding the cash fund item number 11 to increase the monthly fee to $39 per

month. item number 12 section 8.14 to adjust the american fees. item number 13 ordinance of the administrative code librarian fees. next item to amend the grant fund. item number 15 to remove certain allocations. item number 16 ordinance amendment the fire code for the fire department services >> item number 17 to set partiality rates of public haelth. next item for for the consumer index and next testimony for the department of emergency

management. item number 20 for the fund for the one time purposes for fiscal years >> item number 21 for the fiscal years 2014 and 15 for the human care services fund. item number 22 pravl the university school district for public education enrichment fund. item number 23 resolution proving the family commission expenditure fund for the enrichment fund. item number 24 for the fiscal years 2014 and 15 >> thank you mr. clerk. with that why not have maria for item number one and hearing our department of children youth for

the 2013 award. i want to give supervisor mar and supervisor breed a chance to speak >> thank you we were here so long yesterday. we're very fortunate to have very active parents that advocated for dpaekz for the children fund and for the prop h. and other services in the city to try a make sure we maintain families and doing everything we can to prevent the flight of families from the city. i would expect another supervisor to come later. we have any funds for summer

lunch programs to after school activities. the services are critical and it's a critical part of our safety nest. it gives support to children the opportunities that they need to grow and develop their potential. that's why it's critical we have a transparent process for the funds so that the voices and also the voices of community that have been the most underserved are a key part of the process as well. ms. sue i wanted to say we have tremendous needs but it varies by age and geographic and gender and orientation but especially

income. i know you've provided maps. so i'm hoping this relative short meeting it, help us how the process works. so i think that supervisor breed has some comments >> thank you. i'll be brief. i want to thank maria sue. as a former director i understand the challenges that many of those nonprofit face. in particular we had programming money but unfortunately, because of the challenges we had to redirect funded to hire a case manager to help support the needs of the children. i think it's important 3 we make sure that each and every agency

that's receives fund from d c wifi is held accountable. especially, if their organizations that are doing the work. the support that's received from a lot of this granted monies helps keep people employed. but my goal is to make sure that the programs are focused on children and i will not sacrifice children over employment's opportunity. so if a program is not doing what it should be doing then we need to make sure we're supporting those organizations that are. so i'm really excited about this hearing. of course, with the loss of a significant d c wifi funding i want to make sure that the programs that need funding the

most and that serve the children in those districts receive what they needed in other words, to be effective. thank you very much >> thank you for being here. why don't we get going with your presentation >> good morning chair and members of the committee. i'm director for the department of families and children. it's my pleasure. i'm joined by my staff and others. and then our colleague laura who's the director of the first 5 commissions. today, we want to share with you - today, we want to answer some questions from supervisor mars office. since receiving those questions

there's been more questions. we did not have time to formerly answer the questions in this presentation, however, through walk you through the slides you'll be able to perhaps receive some answers. i'm sorry those are the four questions that was sent to us. and in general it is about how was the process? similar to what you said and how do we insure are the children are and 43 res

participated. we work effectively to deliver the best possible outcomes. as you can see this is building on what's working. we believe in continuity of services and second draw on the data to bring focus to the areas of greatest needs. we will continue to identify our urgent needs. we want to look at age and neighborhoods and risk factors. we were wanting to focus in on the young people living in under housed situations. children who are homeless in

risk or system involved. english language learners and documented young people. the third you principle are to champion places were there gaps. as stewards of the fund we want children to be succeeding in school and living in save communities. however, we really want to hone in and focus in on two prim goals children ready to learn and succeed in school. the strategies we've developed

in the 2013 cycle buildings on the strong work in our department. we remain committed while recognizing that a wide range of supporting outcomes are for all our children. the approach in this slide is intended to be holistic addressing the needs of the children while having healthy families. those outcomes are sponsored through investments in early education and youth empowerment and development. they're including family and school centers health and nutrition services. through our investment we have

reached over 56 thousand children in the city and support over 2 hundred and 50 cb os >> yesterday, i mentioned there's about 1 hundred thousand children in the city and we serve about half that population. >> yes. and this slide shows how we think about our investment speaker we believe that all children should be able to assess our services, however, we realize there's some neighborhood and ninth groups that need more funding

>> so i'm here today to talk about our process and try to provide for transparency around the process. this information has been out

there for the public to assess since decisions have been made. one of the questions is what is the information shared with after the rfp was realized in addition to, you know, making the rfps i want to show you it's a fairly large document we have it on our website and we have it for interested cb thoses to pick up. we have two conferences and we went

of those. i made available for you today something that was in the rfp. it's a table that shows for every strategy the priorities of the strategy how much funding was available in that particular strategy. but we talked about that and then lout for grantees or interested applicants to submit questions. on our application is submitted online so we went over the process on that. and after we did all the q and a we posted that as well so anyone

who was not at the preproposal conference would ask questions >> you have clear priorities and guidelines that your you using and you're saying the information after the allocations were made then you put everything up on line. >> that's correct. so the decision process. i do want to acknowledge again in the hand out. you have 2. the one with the strategy tables is in terms of the selection process and that was made available online. there's a much more detailed document that goes over the decision process in detail.

when we released all the award we put that on our website. so to start with every proposal was read and there were hundreds of scores that had to be recruited for this process. after the reviewers submitted their information we went through the process. this is a procedure we used in the last rfp and it was reviewed through the audit of the process by the controllers. we also create what's called a neighborhood score. and again on our website we provided details on how the neighborhood needs scores. and i know i acknowledge that

zip codes sometimes over generalize but at this point it's one the best processes. there are other ways we go look at needs. any proposal that receives minimum reviewer score of '75 or a combination of a proposal score of 65 and had a high neighborhood need score got to the selection process. the selection process is when folks from d c wifi and our partners sit together and we go through all the proposals that got through to the selection process. some of the things we're looking at is to extent that the program is a priority and the program requirements. we looked at the strength and weaknesses of the program design. we were very specific about the

design of the programs. and for clear grantees we looked at past performances and new ones we visited their programs. every program that gets through to this selection process their program name is written down on a sticky. so everyone gets consideration. sometimes those sticky are grouped by neighborhood and target population because we're trying to reach a pa particular population we want to make sure the

money. so here's many of the numbers in the end. this doesn't include the funding.

excuse me. but 4 hundred and 98 proposals were received and some neighborhoods and some funding strategies have a a lot more strategies so the competition may have been very high. for example, if you were doing arts you had more competition. so at the end 2 hundred and 85 proposals of the 2 hundred 90 those advanced to the selection process that i described and in the end 2 hundred and 89 were awarded funding. we were asked to provide some data this is hot off the press so i haven't had a full

opportunity to review this but we're certainly open to meeting with your staff. this is by the strategies and the actual proposals submitted and awarded. what we're looking at is our funding by district. how it appeared in 2013 and it compares in 2014. we're going to do the match of the district and we know it isn't representative of all district but we know what district were picking you up from. we have the data that a lot of the kids are coming out of

district 5. i want to point out the citywide fund at the bottom is over looked at but that citywide funding is cruel when it comes to target some of the places in the city. the workforce plan for example, we may have a program like one in the mission but their serving kids from across the city and reaching into the other departments like juvenile. so the citywide services some days with not recognized as reaching the kids in our district but they are. other example is my interim went to the bay area and she came to our office everyday to work that would have been citywide

funding. okay. so this the the projection of kids to be served. at any time compared to again consensus 21 data. and here again, it's american people imperfect matching but this is what we have. even when we

district. this is the last question. can i turn it over to you? >> so the last question was around the summer and how do we decide. so in this slide you can see that this is similar to the last rfp in which we partnered with the school district.

we wanted to simplify the application. so really it was in the spirit of trying to simplify the process so they didn't have to submit duplicate applications. and in the last slide in that it describes how the guiding principles we used. once again similar to the last partnership we wanted to leverage the state funding. and this year we were able to allocate more funding for summer programs so we were able to match some of the summer excel

there's so we can do some summer programs we're really excited about. and with that that concludes our presentation. so i'm more than happy to answer questions >> thank you, ms. sue. supervisor mar or breed >> yeah. i want to thank the department. i know it's going to take time to look at this. i appreciate the neighborhood with the most need the clear process you go through and the huge amount of proposals. i'm very supportive of the effort and it gives some capacity building as supervisor breed said really produce strong

results but may not be the best is the drafting the proposals and know how to get our proposal through the process. some neighborhoods are getting the short end of the stick and i do feel that equity means not looking at blanket zip codes but looking at the pockets of poverty that exists. district 1 if you look at 94118 it has poverty and rich folks. some are living in the units crammed behind garages. sometimes, the affluent part of the zip code might hide the poverty in the