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 is really detrimental for a violence prevention providers. even if it is the same agency.

even if it was the same agency. there are resources that the agency needs to dedicate to work with our office, but the contract together, to negotiate with us, to redo all of their hiring things, and all of these things. and you have that happen during the summer months where there is limited summer school, young people are out on the streets and have more time, so it just does not make sense. which is why we requested and were approved to extend the current contracts that all of our contractors are on by six months, which will then take their current contract to end in december of 2011. so that we can then have that transition happened during the winter months of december to january. hersupervisor campos: i want to thank you for that, because that was going to be my follow-up. i am all for having systems and

making sure that we have accountability measures and that we try to make the most of every dollar. but i do worry that, you know, when that happens, because i know that, for instance, in commission, for december, the summer, for whatever reason, has been that very difficult time when is violence politian -- prevention workers are the police department, their job is even tougher. so i want to thank you for that flexibility, because i do think that it goes a long way, and i think it shows the level of responsiveness on the part of the department. so thank you for that. >> and then the other comment of us making sure that we continue to check in with our cbo's and on the ground folks to make sure our policies and strategies makes sense. makes sense for the case managers, the social support providers. i believe, and i would like to believe, that we do that on a

regular basis and that we connect with our providers on a regular basis but i definitely acknowledge that my level of communication and frequency of communication might be different from others, but i do want to put out there that our doors are always open for more feedback. and in terms of specific efforts out in the mission, i would defer that to dee anna. >> i think that there is a series of purposeful meetings that we have orchestrated in this last year to be up to make sure that there is ongoing communication on the ground level, so we have tried to go to the peace collaborative. we have tried to talk to agencies. we have also really look at our team's specifically, trying to make sure that we communicate with the school district and treader have the ongoing communication with the actual community residents. i think those are efforts that

our team has done. in terms of specific meetings, we attended the peace collaborative. in terms of visitation valley, we created its service provider coalition, and we facilitated it for quite some time and passed it over to mercy housing, and other community partners where it was more than a community entity would lead a community meeting. we provide a capacity-building on that. we try to eat -- a jindal events and community gatherings. we are invested in making sure that we're there the ground level. we also communicate with our police partners. the police department, ongoing. most of the time when there is a critical incident like a homicide, which recently occurred in the mission, a couple of homicide, we're often communicating with our crn's and case managers. we talk to the police. we try to provide any kind of

linkage is necessary in order to be responsive to the homicide. those are a couple of areas on what we do ongoing. >> there is a great model for this work. dph, jcpp, and jpf me monthly with all of our providers. it allows us to see whether the expectations, requirements, and policies are actually aligned with what our front line workers are doing. there's a continuous feedback loop, which is very helpful. supervisor campos: if i may say -- and we have a lot of other things to cover, but i simply want to say that i look forward to continuing to work with all departments. i think it is one of the things that we should do, and we're trying to set up a community meeting in the next few days, and we want to make sure that others in the community know what we're doing.

what i have heard from many folks in my neighborhood is we hear what is happening from reading the chronicle or the examiner, and it is always on something that happens, but there's not enough information about all the positive things and pro-active things that are being done. i think we can all play a role in making that happen. thank you again, and i look forward to continuing to work with you. supervisor mirkarimi: if it is ok, why don't we go to public comment? another has been a lot of partners here who would like to chime in. one after the other, and we look forward to hearing from you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dr. terry delane. i run life learning academy. i am here in support of the local action plan to the life learning academy is a model school. we have been there for 13 years. we're on treasure island. we deal with the answer all of the populations that have been

described. all three at-risk groups. we have never had a fight in our school, and the kids that we deal with come from all neighborhoods which we pick them up from. we pick them up. we have a van service, which makes a huge difference. the kids that are from rival areas, not only just coexist -- we have a delancy street model school where we teach kids not to just coexist, but we create a community of non-violence. our hope is that they take it back into their communities once they graduate from our school. so i just wanted to say we are in support of this initiative, and that is it. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is liz jackson since then, executive director of the

youth guidance center improvement community, which is a nonprofit corporation that lives on campus said the juvenile probation department and has been around about 30 years. we provide alternative education, employment services, and that version services to young people who are engaged in the juvenile justice system. we have been intimately involved in the entire local action planning process, pretty much since its inception. i just want to commend the departments for coming together and thinking about how to strategically plan and realign the resources to help support this very in-risk population. we, too, focus on young people who have been engaged in the juvenile justice system. and this comprehensive process has enabled us to be able to get input not only from key stakeholders in the department or even community-based organizations, but the young people and their families

themselves. so i applaud dcyf for their efforts in ensuring that. it has been a tremendous -- it takes really all the collection of resources and a comprehensive service strategy to support our young people. they get to us when the normal system's did not work or going to a comprehensive high school did not work. they need comprehensive solutions to make it. we are intimately involved in the entrance to reduction initiative, so many of the young people to go to our school have been truant for a long time and are not providing was some of the basic orders of probation to go to school, and we support the model in helping young people to get engaged and connected to employment. so we applaud and want to support this strategy and this plan, because it takes the mental health services -- i cannot encourage the people to

go to school or get a job when their basic needs are not being met. when the have mental health challenges our substance-abuse challenges. we have referrals to some of the other service strategies in order to support our students and our young job-seeker speed up again, we're glad that this effort is complete, and we support and applaud you in approving this plan. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you very much. and good to see you toygat ycg. it was good. >> thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. director sue -- i know this is just a hearing, but why don't we sum it up -- it is really critical information you are sharing with us in terms of what the action plan is. the cautionary tales about budgeting, as supervisor campos

was discussing, are very important. so that the city does everything it can to obligate itself to the triad here of organizations that are working together. and i really want to put an emphasis on it the new category that you have now decided on, and that is on reentry and after care. as much as i am optimistic, yes or extraordinarily nervous about what is coming down the pike for san francisco. and all systems have to be in place on the adult side, but again, looking at the recidivism figures, the repeat offender figures for young adults, the carry over is undeniable in terms of the recidivism on the juvenile site. so i do not know how that gets modified, whether in the