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. so in terms of funding sources,

this is projected for a 11-12, i think the comptroller and the budget director for telling us that there might be good news here. from what we had available, we expect to receive $42.4 million. and $22.8 million of general fund. and there are $10 million of other funds. the california department of education and gives us a grant to run the summer lunch program. and the juvenile justice crime prevention act provides us with the dollars for the prevention work. this makes up the 10% of other dollars. supervisor chu: be you predict

any potential cuts? or is this a conservative estimate of what you think will come from the state? >> we just found out that the juvenile justice crime prevention act is proposing a $300,000 cuts. so the funding source at least for the other might be less than that. but there is good news that within that, we also were with private foundations. we have been aggressive in sending out applications to wherever we can and whoever will listen to us. we have a lot of programs that are going to be in pain pretty soon. if at all possible, can you do a bridge rent to them or somehow find some of those augmentations supports? this is a trend breakdown, and i am not sure if president chiu,

this was alluding to a little bit of what you're talking about. but it refers to the general fund over the years starting in 2007-2008. the reason that we did not put the of the grant is because the of the grant is not stable. and it fluctuates. and the largest funding source is the general fund. it has slowly increased over the years, and last year, there is the significant drop. and right now, the instruction that we are hearing from the budget office is for all departments to really plan for the 20% total cut. so the full 20% cut will translate to a $5.7 million reduction.

i have talked about how the budget breaks down. what we are planning to do. to meet the general fund cuts, we are proposing to meet those. the reason we are doing that, who have worked very closely with the community in developing that. not only our proposal, but the funding city department's proposals as well. we are proposing to 118 the entire -- eliminate the entire add-back.

it doesn't make sense to have the remaining contracts -- it would be an administrative burden for us to do contracts like that. supervisor wiener: finish what you're going to say that i will ask the question. >> we're working with the mayor's office to understand the impact of the state and federal budget. b. significant impact on child care, her work force, -- the significant impact on child- care, work force, there is a

remaining $1.8 million. we are choosing to hold that until we understand the impact of the state and federal budget so we can allocate. i made this public to the community partners. i feel strongly that we need to prioritize early education and services. i also have been made very keenly aware that there are special populations that we also need to take into consideration. particularly, populations that never received funding from state or federal dollars. it is also something that we want to make sure that we prioritize. supervisor chu: it sounds like that the targets that your department has put forward and the contingency plan, the

thought process that you made towards the reduction wasn't really a judgment about the vendors or bad vendors, it wasn't a judgment about whether the services it were necessary or good, it sounds like it was driven more by the fact that you guys had a competitive process that you wanted to stay true to the competitive process. is that right? >> that is exactly what i am saying. supervisor mirkarimi: do any of the funding and programs apply without process? >> all but five agencies did not receive any grants. of all the recipients, most of the people, most of the

recipients received a grant whether it was through an rfp just completed. they received a grant. supervisor wiener: of the $5.7 million reduction, taking that pool of grants, how much of that be you think was made up? not made up, but how much money from the competitive process is going to those organizations? in other words -- >> the add back? supervisor wiener: the $7.5 million. for those organizations, how

much are you proposing that they received through the competitive process? >> a majority. many of them were early care and education. the large one that we just completed included the team programs. those had added categories combined. it was close to half of that add-back. supervisor wiener: are there any of the organizations or categories that are being

impacted beyond other categories? >> i do have to say that last year, which suffered a $10 million reduction. $8 million at the end of the day of reductions in the budget that came from both the children's fund and the general fund. because of that, we had $8 million left to give back to the community. we could not fund all the programs that we thought needed to be funded. we had a $20 million available for funding and we had $70 million. we only funded hundred and 50 of those.

we are more than happy to pick up some of those agencies. it really helped some of the agencies how that did not receive funding. or enough funding. but most of the programs in the less received some form of funding. either through the big rfp we had or others we had done. supervisor wiener: for example, keeping 1.8 million. i understand the desire to not have minuscule grants, but was there any thought given to funding some of them that were cut?

>> i would love to have the authority to redistribute the money to priority areas that we feel. once again, some of the special populations. supervisor wiener: i know that that is going to be a significant impact. can you talk about what the impact will be? >> i do believe there is a significant impact on traditional use in the city. once again, during the development, during the publication plan, we had conversations with the department of housing. because there was limited

funding, it would prioritize funding for children under 18. it could prioritize funding where we knew that there were more under 18 votes than there were over 18 folks. because of that, we shifted a little bit of our priorities and policies. we move forward and we ended up funding programs that serve the population. we did not prioritize the traditional pay each youth population. we believed the office of house and was going to do that. we never imagined that it was going to be cut by 40%.

because of the, the department's head of a very painful decisions. it was either to continue funding, supervisor wiener: you went in under the assumption that it would be under another area. >> we are asking for authority to reallocate the remaining $1.8 million. based on working with the mayor's office and working with members of the board to prioritize. supervisor chiu: if i understand things correctly, you're going to eliminate 100 percent of the

board's add-back from last year. obviously, during the budget process, we had a pretty significant conversation and a lot of community-based advocates that were trying to determine priorities. and we thought that what we gave back was important to the community. i hope that as we work out the budget, we will have to have a more collaborative conversation. the priorities as far as cuts, i am not sure how that will go over with my colleagues. it is a little unsettling. i also absolutely think that it is a conversation that we can