we were already funding and what we had stated in previous lap's, and moved into this new refined products that you see today. this is a product of the extensive work that has been done. from this point on, this strategy really informs our current rfp which we announced in the last couple of weeks. we want to also highlights some of the major changes that were included from the previous lap and current lap. what we found in our research, you are being impacted by violence at a number of -- you are being impacted by violence at a younger age -- youth are being impacted by violence at a younger age. a couple of things that i mentioned before, really defining some of our strategies.

in that work, what hope to dubai of the dividing our strategy is is to look at defining our activities that we are funding and looking at outcomes that support our overall work. figuring out, telling the story of what do we get for the money -- what do we produce for the money that we allocate for services? in that effort, we have redefined some of the strategy is like case management as an actual activity versus a strategy, so that it is clear in terms of what products we would like to see. finally, we have included gender responsive services throughout the spectrum. we see gender responsive services as an important component in all areas. it is a service that should target the entire population. not only a specific cohort. in past years, we passed gender specific services on the juvenile population.

this time, we will focus on the three target populations. in a nutshell, these are the three major changes that you will see in the upcoming lap. from that point on, as i mentioned, we have strategies that are connected to a target population and that really allow us to look at an allocation distribution. this is the allocation -- proposed allocation for our 18- month cycle for the upcoming year of fy10 -- a 2012 through 2013. what i want to highlight is the allocation is about $15.5 million. we hope to fund 80 programs in total that do violence prevention and intervention work through all the strategies that are listed. as i mentioned, the rfp was released august 30. this local action plan dictated the way that rfp was articulate,

the way it was presented. we had a proposal conference on september 8 that was attended by many agencies, a total of 62 agencies that attended the bidders conference. proposals will be due on monday october 3. we hope to then go through a thorough process where recruiters can review and then we will be looking at trying to have reviewers that our experts in the field of violence prevention locally and outside of counties. finally, we hope to announce the awards in december, negotiate around the same time period, any type of contracts to finalize by december and begin to grant in january, and then the term of funding january 30, 2013. i know that was a lot of information. and i do apologize, i went through it fast. i wanted to get to the major content.

and i also wanted to hear any question that you might have. i know we put an e-mail out to see if your interested in asking questions beforehand. it appears that most of you were familiar with the plan. again, i am here, along with the rest of the department directors, if you have any questions. supervisor mirkarimi: on the 5044 youth served, is there a breakdown of neighborhoods, and demographics of where those 5044 come from? >> there is and i can share that with you individually. i can definitely share that. there is a breakdown included. i do not have it right now, but i can definitely share that with you. supervisor mirkarimi: it would be useful to see what is working and what is not, where trends

are in the various neighborhoods. that would be helpful. anecdotally, just by experience, i think we can guess which neighborhoods are in the pecking order, where you might be coming from, but is important is that accurate. -- we stay accurate. maybe you or juvenile probation can speak to this, but it does not mention any stats on repeat offenders, recidivism. i am very interested in this issue. considering the fact that the precursor to our adult issues exactly is this orbit right here, where is that information? >> supervisor, we talked about this earlier.

we expected this to come up. certainly, something the jjcc needs to do. i would also encourage your participation. we need to come up with a common definition of recidivism. some folks may think multiple bookings would qualify as recidivism, where others would say, not until the adjudication process is complete and the child is -- a disposition has been made. so we are trying to come up with some common definitions of what do we mean when we say recidivism? when somebody is booked, and does not necessarily mean that they are going to go through the adjudication process and a disposition will be found. it is an important distinction and we need to get to a port and we talked about recidivism, we talk about the same thing. supervisor cohen: just for clarification, what definition are you working from?

>> we are not really working with a common definition either. we know in 2010, there are about 608 bookings in juvenile hall. unduplicated. about 18% of those came in multiple times, had one or more bookings. 18% of the 600-plus booked cayman multiple times. but that is only 2010. so we would have to run a full analysis year after year to follow those individuals through time to see today come back into the juvenile system, do they come back into the adult system? we certainly want to do that, are willing to do that, and i think it would help everybody, in terms of clarifying what recidivism actually means for us in san francisco. supervisor mirkarimi: the reentry council has been

grappling with this and they have zeroed in on this question. one that we have to for our own local needs, but that is being accelerated to answer this larger question because of present realignment, which commences in two weeks. that needsthat needs to be lineh the juvenile side of it. based on the adults definition of recidivism, we're losing that age gap between 18, 19 to 27, because we're noticing that the repeat offender rate is substantial in san francisco, but if there is not that linkage to the juvenile sort of analysis consistently, or as consistent as the juvenile system can allow for this, then that is not going to help us try to figure this out. >> absolutely. and one of the real downside to having a separate juvenile probation department and an adult probation department is we're not able to really follow

those individuals as one department would in other jurisdictions because of confidentiality and everything else we really struggle with that. we have been working with adult probation. i hate to bring this up, but one way is to re-elect at justice and juvenile's interaction with the justice process -- we relook at justice. it would help us in running some of those analyses. we're trying to better partner with adult probation in terms of case planning and looking at new systems to see how we can better link our information to adjust to what you're talking about. we are very aware of it. supervisor mirkarimi: this is a very lively topic. supervisor cohen: vienna, supervisor mirkarimi was talking about trends as it relates to

the framework of the model you and your department have decided to work there. is this a cookie cutter approach? or models that have been successful in district 5, district 9, 11, or wherever across the city -- are they able to be duplicated across the city or is it sounded that needs to be individualized to understand better the complexity of the individual districts, all the way down to the neighborhoods, to the unique nuances? it is a very convoluted question. >> in terms of the rfp, what we have decided to do is really enforce that would like evidence-based practices and best practices to be proposed. so that is as far as we have gotten at this point because we're in the rfp phase. in a local action plan, we have included some of the highlight

initiatives, recommendations in terms of best practices. given our current models that we have, which is a reentry team that looks at a comprehensive way of looking at when you come out and how you actually engage with the juvenile hall at the community-based level and providing initial services. we have best practices that have been recognized nationally, and we have also highlighted other best practices throughout the nation. and we have been looking at some of the outcomes in evaluating our current set of programs. you know, some of the details are guidelines in the upcoming rfp is that we are going to be looking at past history of a community-based agency performance. that is part of the criteria that we have included, or some of the areas that will be scored that have been defined in the rfp. in terms of looking produce strict, what we're going to do -- currently, we're doing

analysis of what the current street violence pulse is a beach district. we look at the population changes, and then trying to see if we can look as some of the current juvenile probation at that and the current provision data, so we can make better- informed decisions. that is as far as we have gotten so far. again, we do encourage ongoing communication to sharpen the work, to accommodate the cultural and diversity needs of every district. our program officers were really closely with the agency to make sure that is going on. we do have that commitment once the words are awarded, and we go through contract negotiations. we will be emphasizing that. >> does your analysis or the action plan take into consideration those people that are part of san francisco's community but are immigrants and

taking into consideration their status? how do you begin to even address that? >> i think the reality is that it is a high percentage are in san francisco. in terms of the portfolio that we have, what we have done technically is to really look at what funding streams require maybe an ssi number and which ones do not and looking a comprehensive or creative ways to blend the funding to make sure we fill the needs of our federal reporting, but also to fulfil the needs of our locality. that is something we have been tried to work with agencies. and we promote all agencies to make sure they serve all residents of san francisco. that is an obvious need in san francisco, and we really support that. >supervisor cohen: how long have you been working to move in that direction? >> i know that mary i can

probably speak to the department's commitment, but i have only been in a position for two years. supervisor cohen: -- >> one of the reasons and benefits of lending our resources to this department is so that we can then in fuse very discretionary funds throughout the service area. i made a comment about every door being the right door. we will not turn away young people who need the services, including young people that have different statuses. so we strategically use of general funds to make sure that recover any gaps that restricted funds will not be able to cover. supervisor cohen: ok, thank you, maria. one last question. this goes to the major changes per up -- from the previous local action plan. the second bullet, you said you're broadening the age range of the turkish population that you serve -- of the target

population that you serve to incorporate a 10-year-old to 25- year-old. in the past it was 13 to 24. i want to know, may be statistically as well as anecdotally, what did you see the focus group? what did you hear that actually led to this change? 10-year old -- that is a fourth grader. >> part of the reason why is because what we saw first that the juvenile probation data is that the youngest booking is at 11 years of age. so that was one of the hard data points a week elected, one of the points that influenced our decision to go down to 11. in terms of 10-year-old, what we found in a lot of the focus groups with community-based providers, they kept telling us that middle school age is very important to focus on, because that is when we can prevent

young people from further incarcerating are being detained or engaging in violent behavior. given our work with the agencies that work with the younger population, you know, the focus on the first upcoming high school age, we wanted to not only listen to them, but we thought, let's take it out to the community to see how far we should take our target population when it comes to dealing with violence prevention issues. time and time again, we heard the same thing. we need to focus on a middle school age. we got the most appropriate age we could probably go down to is tan. in terms of the 24 and 25 change in years of age, our decision is that we found there was a lot of 25-year olds that reading service and that cannot transition out of our portfolio. there were a lot of committee- based partners that said someone

is 25 -- there usually 25 when they leave our case management, our work in general, our ged program, so i think you should consider that when you do the new round of rfp funding. given all those factors, we thought the most appropriate way to move forward was to reduce the age from 13 to 10 and to increase to at least 25. when we look at overall statistics in terms of how individuals be fine it, transitional age huge -- youth is usually between 18 to 25. so for other city what initiatives the support that age specifically, we thought it would be best to be able to expand our scope in general. supervisor cohen: there was an article not too long ago where there were talking about how the definition of an adult has actually expanded. several years ago, maybe when our parents were coming through,

at 25, most people were married. they were purchasing their home and were starting their family. now what you find, people are at the very least 30 years old before they are finishing their advanced degree or any kind of an education or training program, getting married, settling down, just later in life. through healthy living in good practices, we extend our life. as a it is interesting -- to the other side. that is maybe a more positive spin on things, that we have to expand our reach on folks that we need to continue to support. i am speaking anecdotally, but i think that this expansion is timely, and i would not be surprised if in years to come -- granted the economy does not turn around, that we will probably continue to see service providers saying that you might need to expand to 30.

it is an interesting trend. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank everyone for the excellent presentation. it looks like white was the color of choice today. i am sorry i am not wearing it. maybe you will be bringing h beats. -- maybe you'll be bringing back hats, and i think that is a good trend. but thank you for the presentation. a couple questions. one of the things that we saw with the consolidation of the funding iran public safety -- around public safety was that there was a reduction in the overall amount that was being spent by the city. i am wondering if you can maybe say -- i do not know if it is the director, but if someone could talk a little bit about where we are in terms of where we were three, four, five years ago, because even though there

are a lot of great changes happening, at the end of the day, how many resources do we have, and how much money we're spending is also important. >> i 100% agree. thank you for the question. the main reason that prompted the conversations among the three departments back in 2008 was the budget reduction in the city. through reductions on our state funding level and local reductions, i think it's that time each department was looking at summer between $4 million to $6 million reductions across the city for prevention services. and of course, each department went about a process to figure out how to make this reduction within our respective departments. and then we decided and realized, wait a minute, we're

actually -- there are multiple departments that fund the same agencies, so it made sense for us to get together and say, well, this is how dcyf will approach the reduction, so how are we doing that? and the mayor's office of criminal justice was also doing that. what we realized is what the proposals that we were considering, we would actually essentially take down or dismantle a lot of crucial and needed services in the city. so at that point, we said, well, let's really think about this. we realized that we were actually finding a lot of the same agencies. and in some situations, we were actually increasing their capacity. in some situations, we were actually funding duplicative work. so we decided at that point to go through an rfp process to do two things. one was because we had to make that very painful reduction in

the service area. and two, to make sure that we were allies and the core services that the three departments felt were needed at that time. at the end of the day, we made approximately $4 million in reductions, because the board of supervisors graciously reallocated some funds back to our department to make sure that we cover some of the crucial services. i am sad to say that over the years since then, for the past three years, we have continually receive reductions from the state. whether it was reductions primarily through vehicle license fees, because that is the primary source of our funding for a violence prevention work in the city, or because we were not allowed to apply for state grants for whatever reason. however, i am produce a that the three departments, including the department of public health, has

made the policy decision to keep our funding for the service area as protected as possible. so the three departments have actually not made reductions to be funding service area. so, in a way, because the three of us walked into the budget office and say, look, we have to do this together, and we're going to do this together to protect its service area to protect the budget. in terms of the state level, i cannot speak to that. we, unfortunately, are somewhat at the mercy of the state, as you all are very aware of. and unfortunately, you know, if i am reading things correctly, we will see even more painful reductions, even after the realignment of the public safety entities on the state level. it feels as if the state is advocating their responsibility and sending some of their

responsibilities in taking care of our citizens back to the local government, which will stretch our services even thinner. if you notice in this local action plan, we called out a new service category called reentry and after care, because we want to make sure that we truly acknowledged that is a need. when our young people, whether they are in juvenile hall or in mandated out of home placement, and when they go back into our communities, we want to make sure that we help them make that transition as well. supervisor campos: well, thank you for that. i agree with everything you said. i wanted to put that out there, because even though i think a lot of great things are happening, we also want to be very clear about the fact that even though we're doing these things, we're talking about, in the last few years, the city reducing its expenditures on a

violence prevention. as you noted, the rfp that went out with these three departments had a combined $4 million less than it did before. and i think that we need to remember that as we are moving forward with the budget process for this coming fiscal year. i personally think that these departments and this kind of funding should be among the very last things that we touch, if we touched at all. and hopefully as the economy improves that we do not lose sight of this reduction and we come back to the issue that we're always talking about, the issue of what the proper level of funding is. i just want to make sure that we are aware of that, and i do not think that enough people know that we are, in fact, talking about millions of dollars in last funding in just a matter of two, three years.

this second point that i wanted to make is the point, something that i am dealing with as a supervisor for district 9 and something that has to be our top priority, and that is the safety of our neighborhoods and our districts. as you know, there has been an increase in violence in the mission, and if it is something we have to take very seriously. my office, we have been working very closely with our partners in not only your department, but also the police department and violence prevention workers to make sure that they have the resources they need to not only deal with what has happened but also to prevent more crime, and i do feel that we're doing everything we can with the resources we have. but one of the things that i worry about as you're going

through these processes and getting the rfp and everything else that is happening is making sure that we are also keeping a focus on what is happening on the ground. and so, i am wondering if you can say a little bit about that? i think it is important for us to have systems in place, to maintain accountability, to have transparency, but i do think that at the end of the day, the priority has to be, you know, what is happening on the ground, especially with these young people. i am wondering if you can talk a little bit about how you balance this process with that, and also, more specifically on what is happening within the mission to address some of the incidents that have taken place? >> i am going to attempt to answer your question, supervisor. before that, i wanted to make a comment about -- one of the reasons why we're being very

strategic in crafting up the particular populations of at- risk, highly at-risk, and in- risk is because with knowledge that the level of funding in the types of services that are required to truly meet a particular outcome that we are going to lay out for our cbo's are actually differ for each one of these populations. actually, maybe not, but we do not know because we do not have that level of data. what we have now someone saying that we serve young people in the bay view or the mission, but we do not know what some of the risk factors are that these young people have. or, where are they on this continuum of need? now that we have broken apart this way -- and i realize that means a little bit more work for our community partners, but it will definitely help us in terms

of gathering that type of data. so that we can say, in order to serve as a young person here as in-custody contact, it actually costs us this must -- this much money. for us to truly serve the population, we need to truly invest in this population. and invest in the types of services that will produce that type of outcome. so we hope to get there through this rfp and through this process. in terms of meeting the needs of on the ground, street level, and ensuring processes have been, one of the reasons why -- there was a comment that this is funding for 18 months. this is an 18-month rfp. a couple of reasons. one is that through our committee process, we have realized that making the shift, making a funding shift or a contractual shift during the summer months