the request for proposal processes which is the competitive solicitation process. both the community needs assessment and the application plan mandates within the target, but within our own philosophy, it mandates that we work very closely with community members. both of these processes take up to a year to complete. it makes us go back to the community's many times do that some of these ideas. and within the children's amendment, it requires us to do an assessment of the services. we continue to have high-quality programs that will improve the outcomes of our children. it is mandated to meet four goals. these are in the charter and are called the quality of life benchmarks. they are ready to learn, they

live in state-supported families and viable communities. and contributing to the development and vitality of san francisco. i have highlighted the second bullet. as well as the allocation process, we found that the resonating comments and requests for the communities of from parents and educators was that we needed to make sure that we focus our energies on helping young people get ready to go to school. even beyond that, going into secondary. we made the decision to prioritize this particular goal in our request for proposal. this is just a graphical representation of all the things i just described.

your community needs assessment, the allocation plan, and the implementation of the allocation plan to request for proposal. what is the 2010-2013 allocation plan that we are using right now to guide all of the work that we are doing? many voices and many meetings, everyone said the same thing. this is during a time when the city was going through the really tough economic downfalls that we experienced a couple years ago. the community-based partners were being hit left and right on the state, federal, and other departments. the public partners like the human services agency, also, the private partners.

trying to be as targeted and purposeful as possible. and improving our systems. of the things that guided our thinking and our planning, i apologize for that little thing. it says to serve all families city-wide. it is mandated that we serve all children in the city of san francisco. we made the policy decision to prioritize children that are living in hardship. we prioritize children and families that are involved. they're either in the system, the juvenile justice system, where they are under house. it includes homeless and

families that are living in situations where there are living with other families or other single-room occupancies. and of course, children and families that are experiencing challenges have put them at risk for negative outcome. the statement was to highlight the fact that children and families are extremely resilience. we need to make sure our services are there. we need to be able to react and to support them. and to make sure that these services are there to support families on a daily basis. and to prioritize neighborhoods with the greatest needs. we use lots of different data and indicators that have the highest need. some of the data that we use are the police data and the school district provides free and reduced lunch data.

so once again, from the allocation plan, we created several service areas. at this point, a lot of people are familiar with them. it really focuses on services from birth to five years old. and the focus on services from kindergarten for eighth graders. and a large bucket. , it focuses on young people 14- 24. within the service area, it includes permit funds, they are used lead. , health and wellness, it refers to the wellness center is that are in the public high-school.

these are more focused or specialized team programs that we provide. the area is balanced prevention. it serves 14-24 years old. once again, in implementing the plan, we develop a request or we do in partnership. in the service area, we partnered with the human services agency to put together this particular request for proposal. funding for this proposal and it got to be $2.11 million. we were going through a very

uncertain economic situations. we put a range inside there. the worst-case scenario, we would allocate $9.6 million towards the service area. if it was the best case scenario, we did not have to do the general fund cuts. we would find this particular service area at $12 million. we were able to really partner and leverage the dollars available within the city. going down to the next one. supervisor chu: i want to make sure i understand how they choose to allocate funding. there is a community process to identify needs across the city, it sounds like. that is done through community meetings and other formats.

reorganization determine the allocation based on the service areas. how does that tie in with a guiding principle, the service areas. >> the allocation plan which is the step that happens after the needs assessment, we take what we project to be the available money, the amount of money that we would have. we create priorities based on needs. we make loud and clear that childhood is a need throughout the city. and balancing the amount of money that we have available. we would allocate that way. >> informs you on these service areas how much to allocate? and it just on the estimates that you base that on, what was

the impetus for the low and the high? what was it based on? in >> it was a 40% reduction budget. it was a projection around 40% as well as general fund reduction. what we don't see here is the base. i apologize for not putting the base here. it is similar to what we ended up funding. from the base, there was a low. it sounds like it is where you expect revenues to come in. and from my understanding, you

guys provide- -- you might see reductions or not. the year after, thinking about the joint report of there is a modest amount of revenue growth. there is a modest amount of revenue growth. how does your contract work? the u.s. anticipates providing for those that are funded over time? >> we work very closely with the mayor's office to get that number. the projection numbers for the three years. for us, what we tell -- supervisor chu: and do you fund

for what you expect for the first year? >> and continuing to years 2 and 3. supervisor wiener: thank you for the presentation so far. the low and the high are sort of the worst case scenario? and that is the actual budgets? >> within the final budget, if we took it out, it would fall. we will fall close to the high, but not over the high. supervisor wiener: is that

because of the set aside? you and the been closer? >> we experienced eight children's fund cut. last year, the city -- supervisor wiener: and there would be years away and it would increase more or increase despite cuts elsewhere. >> especially the years before i became director. >> thank you for your presentation. a couple quick questions. there are folks that returned -- referred to the proposed cuts that are being considered that are catastrophic.

potentially, san francisco can lose $20 million of funding programs. how does that affect your department and other departments. >> it is a very important question. i think it is a given that the early care and education service area will take a significant hit. we know that the governor signs the budget for his first budget proposing a $1 billion reduction for california. the impact is really down to approximately $11 million. that is one budget impact. the $11 million, instead of more, it would mean significant

reductions to our mental health services and mental-health consultation to child-care providers. it would be a subsidy to child- care providers. it would be a production to some of our early literacy programs. it would be a reduction to some of our augmentation programs to keep our teachers in place. that would have a catastrophic impact. the other impact that the state budget would have on the city, but not directly with the department would be that the state has contracts with certain providers on their own. they are proposing a reduction to those contracts. what is the actual grant amount itself, but they're also proposing a reduction to the

reimbursement rate. the providers are going to be hit twice. they will not be able to even drawdown of money. it is not enough to cover the actual cost to provide services. >> once we finally understand what the state and federal budget looks like, it is imperative that the founders of for the service area had get together. and yesterday, we started talking about that. they need to sit down and really think about bottom line, what are the priorities for this particular service area? and how we move forward to ensure that there are slots. that is what our families need. the need to be able to go to work and make sure that the children can trust.

supervisor chhiu: the challenge we have is that we have to make budget decisions over the next few months that they are not coincide with the state budget cuts that will have to adapt. any contingency planning to participate with whatever degree of certainty we have, it would be something i would certainly support. the priority area at this something that we care about deeply. one thing i would like to request a view, it would be great to get a break down of what the proposed fiscal year 10-11 numbers were compared to these major categories the last few years to get a sense of a trend. and how funding levels have changed in violence prevention versus family support and the

care center. i would love to get that just as a sense of scale. >> i will bring that next time or send it straight to your office. really quickly, to continue, at this time, we are the primary if not the sole funder for all of these services here. we work very closely with the school district, so this is the first year that we partner with the school district to leverage the after school funding. because we have so little dollars a as a city on the table, we wanted to make sure that we have the quality of programs and the quantity. we partnered with the school district to enhance their after- school programs a week and have

one large after-school program in each of the schools. and the service area. we jointly fund the service area with the office of work force and economic development. >> i know that you started to talk about it, but specifically, for each one of those, if this money is the only city that is being invested or if other entities are doing it, this is not the only budget that has been there. >> for the out of school time, this is all of the city's funding going into it. for early care and education, both the human services agency

are expected to take a budget cut from the states. it would put this particular service area. it is hard to rank this, but in grave jeopardy. for a larger impact. we leverage, we don't land the dollars, but we leverage them with the after-school dollars. the youth leadership empowerment and development services area, they are in use employment, use empowerment funds. we're also the primary funder for everything except for the u.s. work force that would partner with. as you are aware, they have received reductions on the

dollars as well as others. we work very closely with the department of public health to make sure that we continue to have the health and wellness opportunities for other children. >> this service area we partner with the department of public health. we augment the service area to state grants. we are looking at a potential $300,000 reduction from the states. and then family support -- supervisor chu: is there another department that funds this? >> essentially, we are the monitor for all of the contract.

for family support, we work with first five san francisco. we went through a request for proposal to implement these programs. the citywide systems include a healthy kids insurance where we support a portion of the healthy kids insurance costs as well as the partnership with the school district. as well as truancy prevention. >supervisor chu: just to be

clear, the greatest impact is from the of empowerment and development? >> as well as family support. there are potential cuts there. supervisor kim: the program areas that you worked with mentions truancy? >> and arts, transportation, athletics. i can share with you the list of our education partnerships. we provide support for field trips.

the implementation of the allocation plan was all of those dollars and numbers. this gives you a visual of the dollar is connected to the children. the children's population. the small circle shows hall of the children that are in san francisco based on 2009 data. this is by age group, and how the funding breaks down. even though there is a disparity in terms of dollar amounts, it also brings a large amount of money to the table. even though there are 40,000 children in the service area, it allocates a small portion of the

dollars to that. our partners also bring in a large amount of money. it would balance out my statements are around the youth services. that is why you see such a significant investment in youth services. supervisor kim: i just stuck an opportunity to look at it for the year. reflected here is a total of about $58 million. it sounds like your omitting the system wide support and the resource center. is there something you are not including in here? >> the rainy day. >> that is the difference between what you're showing here? the other thing was that a lot of organizations we talked to

ask if we have done enough to scale back on administrative costs. one of the things that i know this, -- notice, wyou spend about $1.3 million on salary and fringe. the other one that was quite significant was $17 million in the service of other departments. it sounds like maybe the service of other departments are probably the work orders that you provide for other agencies for youth services. i just want you to clarify that large component. >> i have a slide on that. from this slide, we are moving into the 11-12 budget.

the numbers are pretty close. 70% of our dollars goes right out to grants to community based organizations and a $70 million, around 24% goes to work orders from other departments. but these are work orders to provide direct services. the $4 million work order to diversify san francisco how to implement and monitor the resource center is part of the $17 million. the work order for the human services agency to fund subsidies for child care providers. and for the well as centers. that makes up the $17 million. supervisor chu: they are not for administrative costs?

>> the 8%, approximately $8 million goes to the department of human resources as well as our own operation. i do have a slide here for administrative and budget reductions that the department has made. in total, the department has cut the positions in the last few years through layoffs and vacancies. that has caught just -- that has caused a huge burden on our department. it has actually increased the length of time the contract gets processed and done.

it has caused us a longer time to get data runs. it causes lumber comes to our general operation. within this cut, we have produced a lot of our children events. that has been a shame that. we have worked through that in a partnership with the library where we work together to talk to some of the providers that participated in family appreciation day. they gave us free passes that we placed in all of the public libraries where families in the city could check out the passes and visit the public attractions. but we don't have that kind of one day celebration deal. and there are the other administrative reductions.

we think the real estate department for helping us renegotiate the rental lease to reduce the cost. we also thank the purchaser to help renegotiate some of the vendors. i can just go back quickly to the budget priorities, because this is how we decided on the cuts that we ended up landing on. as i stated earlier, we prioritize that one goal, children and youth are ready to exceed in school. we wanted to focus our energy on trying to succeed in meeting these goals. as well as maintain the integrity and intent of the allocation plan that we spent a lot of time on. and also the request for proposals.