richmond fund. one position and one thing that has been difficult to get around is that from the district side, on behalf of the people -- these should represent services to the district. the idea being that when the proposition was given to the voters, we will see what is in existence. this was meant to be new and above. what we have done is look at what came on line, and what has been given to the district. we have the sustainability director who works with the reading director. this was a new service that came on three years ago and this was added to the process. this is a negotiation process, and i think it is important to

point out that there was a lot of confusion about this, and it went up slowly in the very beginning. there was a debate about what should and should not count. and then it was agreed upon to fix this at 7.75%. and this has been consistent and we have honored this and put this in place consistently ever since then. >> i think that this would be something if we could follow up on this item, it would be very helpful. especially given that i have not been part of this conversation in the past. and the other thing i would like to ask about, we talk about the partnership for the san francisco unified school district but we have seen a lot of challenges for the partnership. one big challenge is the responsibility. we have a number of facilities

all across the city and we have had problems with allowing for the weekend use of play structures and i understand that there are a lot of liabilities and we have potential damages to the property. and we also have a number of facilities that will be going out of service because of renovations. and we would like to have spaces for people to play and i wonder if there is any desire from the school districts to work in collaboration with us on this? do you believe that there is a need for this? >> there is absolutely the desire, and exploration into how to do this in an effective way. this has been in place since december 2007, and currently there are only six other open, and this is because of the

different construction projects in rendering this unsafe. there is vandalism and graffiti and problems that close this town. we are open to this. this is a difficult ability to progress, and we're wanting daughter the community and make certain that these stay safe. in many cases, this makes things safer because this is open, and this is a more safe area. this is definitely something that we are looking at. i think that what i am doing this summer, it so wanting to see what this would take. this is going on right now. >> we are actively looking at that right now.

>> sunset records is going off line for a year and a half, this is the only facility that we have in the entire district. >> wesupervisor kim: thank you. having been involved on the public enrichment fund budget process since its inception, it is great to see you back here. i have a couple of questions, because some of these -- i was curious -- i know one of the concerns that came up was, a, that the city was not putting in funding, that there were already funding, for the school district. but another concern that also came to us was whether the city would want to contribute in- kind and if it would fit in with the priorities that the school

district. once you get your thoughts around that, and was not familiar with the center of academic recovery and retirement. if you can go into more detail about what use leadership, empowerment, and development programs the in-kind is funding. but i am familiar with the other programs. >> i believe that the center for empowerment is designed for after school. it is in the bayview. supervisor kim: i have never seen it spelled out. this is at bayview care. i want to talk about how the program is doing. that was a conversation in previous years. also, the youth leadership and development. is there a more specific line item below that? a larger category? >> not that i have prepared for you today.

>> the specifics with an id, and cannot have. supervisor kim: and these are all new programs? i know dcyf already funds a lot of youth leadership in our school. this is actually the new service learning initiative that we have. >> thank you. that is all my questions. as always, want to express my thanks to the city for working with the school district on this. also to the voters for passing the public enrichment fund. it is amazing when you visit our schools what an incredible impact these dollars that had on all of our schools better to have libraries open again. to have physical education. to have art class is actually offer, something we have lost. it is important that we in the

city continue to support the entrenchment of our schools, and that makes a huge difference for all of our kids. thank you. >> thank you. >> through the chair. real quickly, less about the budget but more about what we can expect for this summer in terms of what the school district is providing for the summer. programming. >> just broadly? supervisor mirkarimi: probably -- broadly. >> well, we have summer school, which has been drastically reduced, as you are aware of, because of the budget cuts to our district. however, we were able to expand that significantly because of funding from the city that was designed to help our students

who are in the bayview to pass graduation. i think many of you are aware that the district recently passed a requirement that all students must be able to meet the requirements of the uc system in order to graduate. what we have found out in the first year of implementation is that a lot of our at-risk youth between the bayview and the mission, especially in the bayview, are at risk for failure. the problem is that if they fail in the ninth grade, it is very difficult to catch up and be able to graduate. so the city, very generously, was set to give us some -- [no audio] sorry, i stand corrected. is city-wide, not just limited to students in bayview. to provide summer school --

summer school as well as the after-school training that will support those students and support their success in the incoming school year. but i am not aware of any other summer programs going on. i know there is work led by margaret brocken, and we were at the rally the other day for summer day learning. i am not prepared to speak to what she has launched with that program. supervisor mirkarimi: ok, thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. while we have you, do have a presentation for the county education office? >> no, sorry. supervisor chu: all right, i asked maria to stick around a little bit. we're going to try to get their first five as well as cfc before we take our break, then we will resume with juvenile probation and the others. so let me call up a first 5.

>> good afternoon, deputy director of first 5 san francisco. thank you for having us here this afternoon to present our budget. to give you just a bit of context, i know i am probably the thing between you and lunch, so i will be very brief. first 5 san francisco is an agency that focuses on the needs of children, of our youngest children, zero to five, and their families. we have two funding streams. our state funds come from the

tobacco tax, as a result of prop 10. then prop h funds general fund dollars that are linked to our public enrichment fund. first five san francisco funds in question result areas. child health, child development, family functioning, and systems change. in effect what that means is that we really have developed two core service delivery platform speed up our family resource centers and our high- quality preschool sites. so i will very quickly kind of walk you through what our budget looks like. like so many others, it is not particularly happy news. so you get a side-by-side comparison of 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. we experienced a decline in revenue from our state

allocation due to decreased to back a tax revenue. we also, on the prop 10 side, have been very fortunate over the past two years to receive some additional revenues for our preschool for all the initiative. unfortunately, given the reductions at the state level, those are one-time revenues and will be eliminated after 2011- 2012. and the state commission has been pretty adamant about their commitments to ending programs, double-matching programs, i should say, to the county commission. and you will see why as you return to the next slide. there is -- just in general, a reduction, but specifically, we will be, as the controller said,

we will be experiencing a revenue decrease on our prop h side because of the trigger that got pulled because of the city's deficit. on the prop 10 side, we will be a using our reserve fund to try to mitigate the reduction that we foresee coming from the state, just from our overall declining revenues. our next slide -- we just wanted to point out how we are leveraging resources. the $3,000,000.10-time fund from the state is being used -- the $3 million one-time fund from the state is being used. in addition, we have $50,000 in our cares plus. to give you a sense of scope, we use to get approximately $1 million from the state, and now

we're down to $50,000. less see -- i think the biggest -- oh, thank you. i think the biggest change is the fact that now 8099, which would in effect take one believe dollars of the prop h funds, and that is legislation that is being challenged at the state level. with that would mean is reduction of approximately $11 million for san francisco in our funding levels. here, we give you a breakdown of what our budget would be for 2011-2012. i just wanted to take a moment to share with you that our grant community agency item makes up approximately 70% of our budget. we have about 19% of our budget going to work orders to other departments.

and 8% is what we use for administration, and this includes evaluation, which is required expenditures. so we, like other departments, feel very committed to having a very lean apartment and really getting the money out to the community. this gives you a sense of what our work order is in community grants, the breakdown by the results area. i will not go into it unless there are questions. and then, there has been some discussion of around our financial production, so first five has, from its inception, been aware that we are a declining source of revenue. so we have been planning for these revenue shortfalls for

over five years. so the commission, every year, reviews that sustainability plan and makes reductions accordingly. the one thing to point out though, which is a scene of a good change, is if in the event that ab99 actually continues or is found to be legal, then we anticipate a 30% reduction in fiscal year 2012-2013, and a 70% reduction in fiscal year 2015- 2015 on the prop 10 side. as the controller pointed out, our portion of the enrichment fund would actually son said at the end of fiscal year 2014- 2015. our reserve -- the in richmond fund would actually sunset at the end of fiscal year 2014- 2015. our reserve target is $3

million. first five funds are constantly kind of at the bullet, a target to be reduced, to backfill or use for other state funds in terms of revenue. we believe we need a reserve fund to account for any additional reductions that might take place at the state level moving forward. in the next slide, we have, as i mentioned, the way we operate is really through two service platforms. one is our family resource centers, and that is in collaboration with our other city departments, hsa and dcys specifically. this is highlighting the importance of the work that we have been doing. first five is what we call the lead department in that initiative, so we contribute joint leadership, but is in our contract.

we do the contract in for the funds there. the one thing to point out, and if we had more time, we could talk about it, is our commitment to using evidence-based practices in our frc and in all of our work. we're fortunate to know that we're making contributions to the field through the work we're doing here and in san francisco specifically. i will end with brief highlights on our other platform, the high- quality preschool program. it gives you a sense of where we are with respect to increasing -- to our anticipated increase for 2011-2012. we're proud of the fact that we have, even in these very dire times, a focus on serving our lowest income and highest need communities and children. to give you a sense, we have 100% participation of our headstart sites and our preschool initiative.

98% participation by all of our school district sites. 90% participation by our title fight agencies. we have about 90% of children getting screened annually for developmental delays. as we continue to expand, we clearly continue to keep our focus on our highest need neighborhoods and it cites serving the low income children. with that, i am happy to take questions. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i was not sure if you mentioned where you were with regards to the budget analyst recommendation. i know that these are -- generally, we cannot reduce them. can you speak to them? you agree with the principles of them? >> i think, broadly speaking, these are issues that we constantly look at. certainly in terms of staffing,

because of our declining revenue and because of the fact that our prop h revenues will be sunsetting. we have thought about staffing reductions, which is the primary recommendation. it is in line with the way the commission is thinking about our sustainability and our plans in the future to really phase out the program. supervisor chu: thank you. this is a question to the controller's office. you mentioned that there was a balance in the cfc budget. >> approximately $9 million at the end of this fiscal year, which is a combination of funds, including the prop 10 money and other state funds. supervisor chu: is there any reason why we cannot -- i understand there is a desire to maintain a certain level of reserves, given where you believe to back a tax revenue to go in the long term.

but we also know there will be significant cuts among child- care subsidies, among other things, is there any reason why we would be precluded from using any of that fund balance, perhaps to pay for 0-5 child care subsidies or other programs? >> certainly would our interpretation of the city attorneys are that these are funds that are for the implementation or the preschool for all initiative. so that is dedicated funding for those purposes. just to clarify them, there is a very deliberate reason for why the reserve is there. we actually have been planning for -- well, we had not anticipated the 25% reduction, obviously, and the trigger getting pulled. we still have a mandate to create universal access to preschool through the voter mandate. so it has been the commission's

desire to ensure that that actually happens, so that we are able to fulfil the voter's mandate for high-quality access for all four-year olds, which is the intent of what the voters approved. so that is what the funds are being used to support. so part of the thinking here has been that we need to kind of capitalize on these one-time dollars from the state, which would not be available to us moving forward, but really plan -- as i said, we have been developing a sustainability plan that assumed that we would be using all the reserves in order to serve our target population. so -- to go ok, i understand that. but if we are providing a certified service, would there be any reason why we will look at the child care services among other things? >> to clarify, we have been

supporting, through our other prop 10 dollars a child care subsidies, in collaboration with our other partners in it looking at ways in which first five can contribute to the support of a healthy early education system. again, i think that our funds for our prop h dollars are for the intended purpose of the implementation of that initiative. therefore, we are supporting the providers that received subsidies. in that way, we're supporting their continued operation and their ability to function as they deal with pretty dramatic budget cuts. in fact, the fiscal committee is making a recommendation for a revolving grant loan for child care providers on the order of about $1.5 million to ensure that the system stays as intact

as possible. so we're making those kinds of contributions already. supervisor chu: i appreciate that. given that we cannot take action on the budget analyst recommendations, because we are precluded from doing that legally, but i do want to keep the door open on the conversation about the reserve levels. $9 million reserve is significant, and i completely understand the reasons for why you have built it up over time. but given where we might be seeing tigers of -- child care subsidies and other cuts at the state level, i would like to continue the conversation with your department, the budget analysts, the mayor's budget office on that issue. we have to keep our options open. we have been talking about how we need to make sure that the economy continues to grow, that we're able to support working families. in large part of that will be whether people can actually work because their kids are not taken care of. i want to keep that conversation opened. given what we might be seeing at

the state level. >> i would welcome the opportunity to have that conversation. however, i want to underscore that the intent and the work that we have been doing actually enables working families that are both receiving subsidies and that are not subsidy eligible. as you know, a lot of working poor families are not receiving subsidies, so this enables access for those families of a high quality program. so we definitely have a kind of a shared commitment to ensure that that goal of working families being able to have a safe place for their children to continue to be the case. supervisor chu: good. why don't we move on to the next department? child support services.

>> ok, get afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee, and my city colleagues. my name is karen, and i am the department head representing the child support services program for san francisco. we can go to the slides, please. thank you for inviting the department to present before you today. in the interest of time, i will keep my remarks brief. my presentation will provide you with a high level review of our budget proposal for fiscal year 2012, examined future funding challenges, and discuss plan solutions. i will complete today's presentation with a quick look at the department's most significant accomplishments. the collection and distribution of child support to san francisco families.

the department's funding for fiscal year 2012 has been reduced by $1.3 million. the reduction represents the scheduled end of a one-time project. the department anticipated the loss in revenue and took appropriate action to reduce spending during current year, allowing us to absorb the shortfall and live within a reduced baseline. the funding for the program expected to remain at or close to current levels, and growing salary costs. the department has begun to take action to meet the funding requirements for fiscal year 2012 through 2016. savings solutions, it focused on three costly areas. human-resources, workflow, and property leases.

without new money, the department will not request new positions. the department has been defunded in reduced vacancies for a 11 full-time equivalents instituted six remaining vacant positions to lower more appropriate job classifications, saving both the salary and benefit costs. we are now e-filing a majority of our documents to the family court, said everything -- saving everything from paper costs, staff time, to document storage. we're using wireless technology and plan utilization of videoconferencing for off site court appearances by parents and staff. finally, we have renegotiated our office lease to recognize annual savings for the life of the lease. together, these solutions reduce spending and support the

department's ability to meet its budgetary needs for next fiscal year without layoffs. using the projected increases published in at the city's five- year financial plan, the department anticipates a balanced budget through fiscal year 2014, with no cost to the county general fund. however, in fiscal year 2015, we will begin to see the growth of a shortfall that could reach $1.6 million by the end of fiscal year 2016 and is related to future county salary and benefit increases. in response, the department has developed a corrective action plan that focuses on two strategies. further reductions in spending and growing additional revenue. within the