turned on. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity of presenting the in-depth work we have been doing with joint funders. it's an honor to step here before you and talk about the work that has been done for the last couple of years. it has been a combination of stakeholder and put and a series of meetings, hard conversations and defined conversations at the end of the day that outlined the plan and then to be able to inform the rfp we published in august. it's not just a policy document but a document that informs our funding in general. i will start off describing the purpose of the local action plan and you should have slides you can follow as i go on with the presentation.

the local action plan -- the purpose is to establish funding strategies and recommendations for community violence prevention and intervention efforts that target youth and young adults between the ages of 10 and 25. the reason for that is is very difficult to intervene with a large range in age. we have to target to demonstrate positive outcomes and be more specific on the types of results we would like to see. the target population is 10 to 25 year olds. we defined the three main at risk populations impacted by the juvenile justice system. we defined them as at risk, highly at risk, and in risk. the difference is at risk refers to a population that might be demonstrating some risk factors or testing the waters a around

alcohol and drug abuse or aggressive behavior but are not touching the juvenile justice system. next is the highly at risk population which targets the use that are more involved with- street associations or more serious substance abuse, dealing with a higher level of health issues and what not. the last target population we are looking into is the in-risk population that targets youth and young adults in custody or exiting the juvenile justice or criminal justice system. that is the target population of our local action plan. it's important to be targeted since we're looking at this plan and informing some of the dollar's weak and up with. in terms of the framework, one of the key areas is the theory

of change we have worked closely with evaluators to develop. this emphasizes that at the end of the day, what we would like to do, if i can concentrate your attention to the top box, what we would like to do is create living space for meaningful and can't -- and productive lives. this explains about the way our theory of changes constructed and promotes a way of looking at how important intervention, prevention and comprehensive approaches can reach to promote a healthier lives for young people. this model has been part of the local plant since its inception. this is a diagram that demonstrates what we're trying to promote with the services they get funded is to use

prevention mechanisms to have young people, if they have to go into restrictive settings, they add up in areas where you see these two circles are more preventative, are exiting the system. we look at the different layers that exist if you have to be detained, but we are trying to emphasize a circle of care is necessary to decrease the tension and decrease recidivism for juveniles and adults. finally, the other three areas of the framework emphasize the restored of justice principle. we modeled after new sampras's their unified school district and work with our criminal justice partners to emphasize restorative justice practices are essential to the plan and we need to look at them and there are many evidence-based

practices that are important to reduce youth violence. the other areas are around community input. we conducted a series of focus groups and a key stakeholder meetings. there was over 300 pieces of data that came in that our team collected and inform this plan with. moving on -- our priorities were informed by evidence-based practices and community input. we look at the data and wanted to continue having the local plan ensure all of them are responsive to use, young adults, sexual gratification. that is a big piece to emphasize. we also emphasize that there needs to be tools or standardize tools that provide assessments and quity of work on the front

end to have outcomes that are organized and evaluated at the end of our services. these are the strategies that came out of our input. there are six strategies we emphasized in this plan. secondary prevention, diversion, detention alternatives -- these strategies were defined and organized by the input that came in during the data collection effort and were proved and lot of our staff did a lot of research on trying to define specific strategies proven to work and that were effective to intervening with youth violence. on the right hand side, what you see is the activities that are funded under each strategy. this time around, we felt it was necessary to define the strategy

to have service providers really understand the intervention they're using to decrease use violence or intervene in youth violence. the allocation was informed by this plan. we came up with an allocation that was abetted by our joint funders and this is a breakdown of the target population, strategy and allocation assumed alongside with the number of programs that were funded for with this planned information and what you see here is a breakdown of an 18-month cycle. we published this in august and had a bidding process. we ended up getting a series of applications and at this point, we have finalized the awards and a lot of agencies have applied under these strategies. you see a breakdown of the programs to do this kind of

work. we worked closely with independent evaluators to emphasize in this round of funding and with this effort that we were very detailed in terms of understanding their needed to be specific outcomes with each strategy. this time around, we did not want to be open-ended and fund activities or strategies. we wanted to attach specific outcomes to tell the story at the end of the cycle whether or not these programs were effective. what you see here are the outcomes associated with every single strategy we ended up publishing. finally, our evaluators are working with our portfolio of 70 grantees who were instrumental in and forming our local action plan.

from that point forward, they defined 5 questions that would inform whether the work was effective or not. finally, there's a couple of of accomplishments -- we are at the point where the action plan has been implemented, so we have revised the local action plan briefly but it's been awhile since we published the plan were here in front of the public safety committee in august, so there have been some accomplishments we have seen so far. we have also got a lot of accolades from our state partners to have seen this plan. they have requested for us to come in front of the board once again to have an updated resolution and demonstrate the support of the current year. however, from the last hearing

and those results that were favorable, the state acknowledged our plan and we worked with their state to highlight the work that has come out of the action plan and may have seen the way san francisco structured their strategies and activities as an ideal way the state should be performing which was a really big accomplishment. those are some of the details we have seen and the state highlighted the life of learning academy in one of their reports to the governor. it finally, our next steps are to continue working closely to really look at trying to move toward the implementation of our local action plan. if the resolution is passed, we would like to attach it to application impacted for funding. we would like to continue working with state partners highlighting what we have with

the evaluation and to continue looking at the local action plan as a policy framework or a direction on the way lead to intervene and prevent use violence. the last thing i will mention is the local action plan as part of the entire revision process for the city and county. another really high accomplishment is we have completed phase two of the revision. at this point, we have completed the street violence reduction which was a piece of the entire revision of the city and county plan. we are very proud of just getting to this point. the other work we will continue is identifying with the mayor's office how we would like to prevent violence for all age ranges. we hope that will be seen as an ideal way of targeting other age

groups. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. it's great to see there is a great deal of consensus not just with the departments but a lot of organizations providing service and have a close relationship with a lot of young people who are affected by violence and affected by communities that don't have a lot of support or are still growing in their support for young people in not getting incarcerated. i have a quick question where you have different levels of funding for strategies and interventions. how is that -- knowing you have labeled a lot of these strategies, how has that changed if you were to look at past years of funding -- is it an

approval of what you have done in the past or is there a change we are seeing in the modality of supporting young people? >> it definitely captured what was already working. the allocation that the money needed to be emphasized in the in-risk population. some services in the past had done that work, but it has been very much narrowed so it is more defined. yes, it does capture some of the quality of work that has been done but it emphasizes that in order to decrease in violence, we need to aim at the in risk population and the funding needs to be prioritized. while there are many ways to intervene, the different phases to get there are very

important, this funding is specific to work in risk populations. it is more targeted and captures the success and that the neat we see with the population. all of the funding here is more organized under after care reentry which is one of the newer strategies that we have. that was done purposely because we see a lot of young people need support to re-enter back into the communities. those are some of the changes we did see. >> thank you. supervisor mar: thank you for the great work. we appreciate that the youth and family voices have been incorporated. i would actually like to be a co-sponsor of the legislation. i know the budget crisis makes it very difficult and i do have

a concern. i appreciate the plan and being strategic, using resources as strategically as possible but i know that in december, i was alerted by one community-based group that closed its door as of yesterday or two days ago, a great model of restored of justice, training middle school students and others to empower themselves and look at the justice in communities. the funding cuts have been severe but i'm wondering how the action plan can be implemented. >> first, this is just the first piece. it's difficult to make targeted funding decisions. in terms of making funding decisions, we looked at various areas, including performance and

the numbers. restored of justice is a very important, especially a peer court model. we are trying to figure out if there is future funding, how we would use it to actually increase or design an effective, community-based approach for 2 miles. that is one area of work that we foresee. we have not heard any news around cuts at the state level. we have maintained the budget at this point, but if we are going to confront some budget cuts, we will go back to our key stakeholders to figure out the priorities focus on the main target population of this plan. supervisor olague: this may be

for a different conversation, but i would like to understand how the at risk use that are targeted in this program, some of the work done with a family's to help them integrate not just into the communities, but what kinds of resources are provided as far as the family is concerned and the dynamics of the family and what impact it has on certain behaviors of that kind of thing. >> we are looking forward to working closely with the family resource centers to increase their capacity around the violent research work. that is something i'm sure our director can answer in detail. there is going to be actual bridge because the need is there to create an avenue to address these families go through at we are working to that. our hope this we can test the

waters of how these strategies can be implemented that we will figure out funding at strategies more specifically and modalities to afford. in the meantime, we encourage all our providers to assess family dynamics and use the system in place to do effective referrals at work with parents so there is ongoing communication. we are trying to bridge some of the existing resources out there that emphasize parenting and development. that is some of the work that is ongoing and we see it as a priority. >> the outside resources are critical, but the family also needs some kind of assistance establishing a different dynamic. everyone grows from the experience of performing oneself and the family and the person who is at risk. i would also like to sponsor this.

>> we have one more partner who would like to present on behalf of the department of public health briefly to emphasize the support of cohesiveness of the joint partners. supervisor avalos: ok. >> i am a psychologist that oversees programs for probation- involved use with serious behavioral health problems. i want to talk about how the partnership works on the ground to meet the needs of san francisco's most formidable use and their families. in 2009, we launched the intensive supervision and clinical service program with funding from federal and state that a cow and the award through

the after care reentry strategy. since then, over five record youth and families were caregivers have utilized the program provided by five of our community-based programs. this is an intensive, community- based service which means the families have three or more clavicle contacts per week and it is designed for probation use and serious behavioral health problems. the program is designed to reduce sentences by increasing life skills, engagement and positive community activities. our city needs the program because nationwide and here in san francisco, over 70% of use in the juvenile justice system have a behavioral health problem. and other 25% of that 70% -- 25%

have a serious mental illness like posttraumatic stress, mood disorders and or substance dependence. usually they have more than one disorder. we know repeated exposure to violence places our children and youth at risk for serious mental illness and deeper penetration into the juvenile justice system. we provide these youth and families accommodation structure, on a tree, and it an array of critical service that targets the needs of strength to help them stay safe and get -- and help them say -- stay safe and get used back on a positive path. the partnership is critical to this work in the following ways. it requires best practices close use and family prevention and behavioral health collaboration

and communication. it it hanses service quality with data-driven plane, across trading at problem-solving support to our staff from all partners. it stretches dollars and increases service capacity by leveraging state metical with local dollars and blunts funding to provide critical services for those which would not be reimbursable. when families find it difficult to engage in services, our teams can hang in there until the front door opens on a third or fourth attempt at a home visit. you cannot build metical for that. it provides immediate access to intensive, therapeutic and psychiatric services for youth. those who are under ensured, pre-adjudicated or with extended legal proceedings due to an

incompetent finding that would phase barrier to treatment. monitors quality and out comes by chordate evaluation efforts across these three city agencies and breaks down the silos and reduce cost of a waste, and encourages the creation of a logical and effective city-wide service are re that prioritizes the needs of the youth and families over the needs of our agencies for the program so that our youth are living safe, meaningful and productive lives. thank you. supervisor olague: you can provide the information at a later time, but i'm wondering if there is a tendency to criminalize use in lower income areas and some of these issues related to mental health are responded to differently in

higher-income brackets? >> that is a great question and i think there is some evidence that there is bias and some of the behavior's youth get arrested for are related to behavioral health problems. >> in some instances, the response might be is obviously a health issue and then bring in mental-health professionals for the evaluation or i'm wondering in lower income areas if be rash would be criminal justice -- >> is a problem that has been identified, but we only have 57 youths detained in san francisco and certainly there is a disproportionate minority contact and all lot of that use

that to go through juvenile hall are from the southeast section of our city. but you can see we are all working hard to create a diversion alternatives and detention alternatives and recently, about a year-and-a- half ago, san francisco established a juvenile well this court so we are focusing on rehabilitation and not punishment and i think that is truly the focus of our work. we want these kids to be successful and go back to their communities and become healthy adults. supervisor mar: i know we have a lot of people waiting for the next item, but i want to thank you for your work. i have a one key question on terminology because i know people assume the west side or

the sunset might not have a similar says seo economic crisis issue that those on the east side have but i know many agencies that serve pockets of poverty and low-income kids, they need to be acknowledged, but the term and-frisk was used and at times we call it at risk populations. is that ethnic, racial or class term? what do we need we say at risk for in-risk populations? who are we targeting to address youth violence and the root causes of the problem? >> that is a great question and to fully explore it would require much more time.

i think it has to do with the risk factors associated with violence. one of the risk factors is poverty, certainly. we do find poverty is more prevalent in certain groups and our cities and others. but we are not targeting based on these services are available to any use, regardless of their ethnic or racial background as long as they have these risks which have to do with violence exposure or being exposed to gangs or being in communities where there might be more drug

activity, those kinds of things are risks. maybe communities with less resources so there are not available activities for supporting use or those things. those are the things we look at at this particular program, it is a collaborative program and it is a behavioral health program, it also does serve youth at risk who need that kind of support and clerical and for -- intervention to divert them from the juvenile justice system. i hope that answers some of your questions. i would be happy to send you more materials if that would be helpful. >> we are trying to be targeted where there are areas impacted by violence in general.

we work with key stakeholders to identify those areas, but we are also looking at a target population. if there are indicators embedded with a specific client, we are looking at opening our service to the population because violence is trending. violence crosses borders and crosses bay area lines. we are very much open to focusing on san francisco and using our data, but with an understanding that we need to look at the polls on the street and look at what is going on day to day. >> is there any distinction between at risk and in risk? >> yes. in the local action plan, we have to find high-risk and in- risk. the high-risk population does not tap