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 into the juvenile justice system. in risk means the population in contact with into the justice system. that is the big difference. we have defined it in a different way. not to emphasize where the problem is more severe, but to emphasize what target, who we are targeting. these dollars are supposed to target youth in the juvenile justice system primarily of or involved with criminal justice. >> i just wanted to add the five agencies that provide days after carry entry services include cyc, cjcjc, ymca services.

although these agencies and programs are focused in particular communities, they were all over the city. violence happens all over the city and affects all of us. supervisor avalos: thank you. there are no other questions from the committee, we can go on to public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank the department for your presentation and for your great work on this. it is exciting that we are getting to a level of understanding what types of modalities are going to work in our community. i see the consensus builder around this is key to its success. i'm also excited to hear about and the consensus right now. 57 is not a member i have heard of before.

fighting that is remarkable. now interested in seeing how we can keep that number even the lower. that presents decades of looking at why gc's have worked. preventing over and corporate -- incarceration in general is the key. thank you for your work and look forward to seeing greater success coming out of your departments. colleagues, can remove this item forward with recommendations? without objection. madam clerk, please call our first item. >> item 1 appeared ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code by adding section 2a.84 to set city policy regarding participation in federal cut tourism activities, too, set parameters for police department participation in the

activities of the federal bureau of investigation possum joint terrorism task force and other counter-terrorism activities, 3, urging the chief of police to amend or terminate the current agreement between the police department and the federal bureau of investigation regarding the joint terrorism task force, and for, urging the police commission to direct the chief to amend or terminate that agreement. supervisor avalos: thank you. the author of this legislation is supervisor jane kim. supervisor kim, the mike is yours. >> i first wanted knowledge our committee members here today on the public safety committee. thank you for your post on to ship of this ordinance. on january 24, our office, on behalf of a broad coalition of community advocates, civil- rights advocates, and to do is an ordinance called save san francisco ordinance. our highest restored it is safe communities.

we believe that this ordinance will allow us to achieve safer communities by encouraging an atmosphere that allows communication and collaboration because basic civil-rights and the right to privacy are insured, and that ground as investigations are not tolerated. believe this ordinance will allow us to continue to do work with the fbi joint terrorism task force while comply with local part san francisco laws that require criminal activity, local oversight, and control. this ordinance came to us from the community because there were concerns of racial profiling and intimidation in the city of san francisco. these committee members include neighbors from asian, aaron, and muslim neighborhoods who want to know that police will not engage in infiltration without cause. this has gone through a fairly

long process. this was not legislation that just came out of the air. it happened over two years. the coalition worked starting then with the human rights commission, eventually accumulating in a major hearing in 2010. the result was a comprehensive report endorsed by the board of supervisors last year. the board's resolution stated community members are concerned about criminalization of their identity and go by association becoming the standard for policing and national security strategies. the coalition along with our office work closely with our city attorney to craft an ordinance to restore local control, civilian oversight, and transparency over sfpd participation and intelligence gathering. i have several members of the community here today to talk more about the history, some of the issues they seek for the in place without this ordinance, and also some examples of other

cities and what they have done to ensure civil-rights. i do want to call them forward. i want to make it clear, this legislation is not about blaming any entity for what is going on today. it is merely for ensuring our civil rights and ensuring for our residents that we do not already investigation that do not have a grounds and criminal suspicion of some sort of terrorist or criminal activity, and that we respect the basic civil rights and the rights of privacy for every resident in the city. first, i want to copy -- of the arab organizing center. the organizations coming today have spent hours and months of their time to bring this ordinance together and organizing the community around this measure. supervisor avalos: before that starts, we are going to open up public comment so that we can hear from members of the public.

we are going to open up public comment. we will do three minutes. not everyone has to use all three minutes, but we are available to hear you out on your comments. >> thank you. supervisor avalos: i think we will do it this way. there is a presentation that supervisor kim has with certain people. those people can be ready. then we will have general public come forward. wherever she cause of should come up to the mike.

>> i will call four speakers that will go into the background of this ordinance, the history, current or mids we see, and also the example of what has happened in portland, ore., and then we will open up for general public comment where people can come up and speak. >> thank you. i am and the immigration program coordinator at day care resource and organizing center, a member of the coalition for a safe san francisco. my sincere thanks for holding this hearing today and many thanks for your support of this important legislation. i want to discuss briefly how the community got to where we are today. in march 2010, the san francisco police chief may troubling comments at a fund-raising brunch. he stated that the san francisco hall of justice is not just susceptible to an earthquake, but also to members of the city 's mi e