ago showing the overall population in san francisco has increased by 3.7%. but it looks like the youth population has declined by about 5000, under the ages of 17, since 2000, which is a different direction than the midcourse estimates were pointing to. there was expected to be a growth in europe as well, but the census data does not show that. unfortunately, the only data available for the census is time-limited. we do plan to submit something later, when more of the data is available from the census. this shows that the youth population is declining, unfortunately. you can see estimates from 2002 through 2009 that show the fluctuation by age group, but we will not have any definitive data until the release of the census data. our next slide shows a trend

that we have been seeing over the last decade, the population of you is more diverse than the adult population, which is, again, at a trend of no surprise. on the next slide, we are looking at the change in the number of low-income children by race and ethnicity. again, we are anxious for that census data because we know some of the estimates are over estimating the population. this shows a decrease in the number of asian american and african american low income youth. the next slide looks at some neighborhood data. this is from the 2000 census. it shows how the six neighborhoods in san francisco with the highest number of youths, aged breakout. as mentioned in the previous presentation, the excelsior has the largest in each of the categories. the five other top categories

are listed. the next slide shows the huge proportion. the darkest eras are where there is the highest proportion. you will see some differences in the presidio, which has a small population in general, so it seemed like a higher proportion of youth. the next segment looks of families living in poverty. again, this the data taken from 2000. we are anxious to see what has happened in the past decade. our last slide is a snapshot of how public school students kindergarten through 12th grade, how they are doing on academic achievement. the darkest eras are where the scores are the lowest. again, the southeast sector, lots of similarities with poverty statistics as well. i am going to move quickly through these next few slides

and highlight thing that might be of interest to you so that we can have time for your feedback and questions at the end. generally, we are organizing our needs assessment looking a different age groups. the first one looks at ages 0 through 5. what we heard from community input in this group is that finding quality, affordable, accessible child care continues to be an issue for many families in san francisco. there is also concern around mental health issues, early screening of those issues with children and youth of these populations. we also heard concerns around parents concerned about their children being ready for school. what can parents do to increase their child's readiness? how can i find qualified preschools? we know that enrollment is increasing, things to this city and district working together, but it is still an issue.

only 57% of students entering kindergarten in the public schools are considered to have school readiness skills. moving on to the next age population, ages 6 through 13, kindergarten through eighth grade, a lot of what we heard an hour sessions was focus on out of school time. after-school and summer programs continue to be a priority for this age group. some of the data we gathered city-wide show about 94% of students who would want access to an after-school program, there should be a slot available for them. it does not mean that the family would be satisfied with the allocation, but we feel there is a substantial amount of after school programs. however, community input and input that we are gathering paints a bleak picture. only 52% of students of this age group would have access to a publicly funded program.

we are working on the many programs that do not receive public funding to understand the need there more. more need for summer programs, especially those that meet the needs of the day working family. there were types of activities, strong emphasis on academic support as well as a peer relationship building, physical activity, science, math, and reading. we also heard this age group wanted more safe, open spaces for physical opportunities and other sports. skipping over to the next group, the older youths, ages 14 through 24. in this age group, our department focuses mostly on the 14 through 18 population, high school. in terms of the older, our focus is on those who are disconnected. those who are facing a challenge that may pose a threat to their

successful transition into adulthood. in this population, one of the biggest concern we heard was around the employment opportunities, job readiness opportunities. we have some data that shows how many are supported through office funds. we know 70% of families surveyed with high school students said that they are facing some sort of barrier to accessing these programs. whether it is location or cost. we also heard a loud and clear that these people now live out of school program, whether it is athletics at their school, club, other activities. 70% of high-school youth are participating in some kind of extracurricular activity currently. this population also voiced concerns around mental health services, and related to that, concerns around violence. there were quite a few parents,

school and administrators, community members, who talked about the stresses on this population as they transition into adulthood, as well as the factors of living in an urban environment that really drew out the need for mental health services as well as activities and intervention that would help to prevent violence. our last session focused on families with children, looking at families as a unit. one of the take away from the data continues to show families of almost every income level continues to struggle, due to the high cost of living here. it looks like from recent data, and the idea of family fight or flight is leveling off, but if it is continuing, it is affecting those families most with children of the youngest ages. we're hoping that the census will help us understand those trends clearly. we did hear from parents and community members that they were in more -- in search of more support for parents and skills

as well as healthy lifestyles. we heard from parents that they sought out services such as support groups, parenting classes, workshops that help them manage their children's behavior, helping their children prepare for school, and that they were seeking more access to information that was not dependent on computers, and that was in multilingual formats, to know what their resources are and what is available to them. in terms of supporting a healthy lifestyle, many different things on mental health, access to healthy food. also, families were desiring more open spaces for recreational opportunities as a family unit. lastly, we heard concerns around violence. one of -- community violence. one of the themes that came up in these sessions was parents wanting access to open spaces

that were safe for families to concrete and the safe from any community violence issues. that is a brief overview. 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