prevention and intervention efforts. we are working with the mission analytics group, an independent evaluation firm, to create an overall framework that connects all of our violence prevention and intervention in a portfolio. we are also looking at including an hour from mark a circle of care model which have traditionally put been part of the local action plan. that looks at providing service to youth and prevent them from three incarcerating, refunding, and moving them into a more productive framework. finally, something that is fairly new in this year's framework of the lap is a restorative justice principle. we want to follow the principles of restorative justice. it was also a recommendation that was strongly recommended by not only the jjcc, but by our community partners. most of the principles follow the rules of the san and cisco unified school district. we tried to align ourselves with

the vision of san francisco of restorative justice. in this sense, restorative justice is at the forefront of the remark. following that is community input and the evidence of best practices that dictate the way that our lap is shaped. our target population is 10 to 25 years of age. we are predominately focusing on three major target populations. one being at risk, two being highly at risk, and 3 being in risk. the definitions which are more details are in the action plan. we are more than happy to go through any other question that he might have about the target population. supervisor cohen: i wanted to go back over the definition. at risk, in risk, and highly at risk? you said it is in the packet, but in terms of those who are listening and watching, for those who do not have the

information in front of them, could you go over the distinction of each definition? >> absolutely. at risk are you involved in some sort of violence but are not necessarily involved with the system necessarily. that is kind of the broad definition that you can think about. highly at risk refers to more youth that are exhibiting more delinquent behavior that have had some sort of contact with the police or law enforcement entities but have not been incarcerated. in risk means you are in custody, actually inside an adult or juvenile prison setting, on probation, parole. that is the difference between the three categories. and again, more extensive detail is included in the plan. in layman's terms, that is the general definition. some of the major findings that we had, what we did an extensive

literature review and we found some really concerning challenges that relate to the juvenile and adult population. one of the thing that i want to highlight was coming in 2010, we found most of the referrals -- juvenile referrals were between the ages of 15 and 18 years of age. most of the individuals referred to us are disproportionately represented. 40% are african-american, 17% are latino males. and when we also found, and our findings, most of the bookings, most of the offenders, yes, there is an increase in the amount of bookings, but there is an increase -- decrease in the amount of bookings, but there is a incn increase in the seriousness. also wanted to highlight the criminal justice challenges that we found. when we spoke to our colleagues

in adult probation, we found for this population, there was an 80% percentage of and need to address education. 75% were dealing with issues of unemployment. 20% dealing with issues of mental health inez's. 80% dealing with substance abuse issues. 70% with criminal associations. these major findings are alongside many other findings to we have included in the plan. it wanted to highlight the major findings because it was really important for us to look at what are some of the current trends of the population we are speaking to. following that, on the flip side, we also wanted to present the major achievements at our portfolio has funded in the past. that is also included in the lap, like what has happened with the local action plan, and the funding, a question that most

supervisors and individuals in the community have. some of the achievements are highlighted here. in 2009 through 2010, we found around 511 youth were diverted from detention and enrolled in the community as a set -- assessment and referral center, a major initiative funded to work out of huckleberry programs, working in collaboration with juvenile department. in terms of specific programs, we wanted to highlight a around 374 women received a gender- specific services. out of the 395 youth served in total, 374 were part of jpd's database. that meant that this amount of women were given a comprehensive

program and were also enrolled in jpd's database. these agencies work closely with the youth at the juvenile level. following that, our case management strategy, we wanted to highlight the jjccp funding of this goes tomb a lot of amazing programs. eight served 823 youth, 85% of which demonstrated a positive outcome. that could of been the obtaining an education, completing school, going to some type of girl that is necessary, whether it is employment, life skills. these are some of the major outcome that we wanted to highlight in terms of the funding and what has been produced. following that, to the side, you see the strategies and services we funded over all in fy10-fy11.

these are the strategies that we produced out of our lap, and from that, 5044 youth in total served by this portfolio. this year, when we wanted to do, after all the input, we realize it was important for us to define similar but refine and define strategies. we have similar strategies, but they're only six this upcoming round. the strategies are presented on top. they are secondary prevention, diversion, detention alternatives, the tension-based services, after care reentry, and after care services. the difference between the color coding is the agreement focuses on mostly at risk and fiat -- highly at risk youths. the red focuses on in risk, custody young adults.

what you see on the far right is all the activities that we fund. once again, what we did was collect all the information from the community, look at the need, the data, and look at what 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 som