what the controller went over at the beginning, showing you the projected deficits for the next four years. starting at $170 million and increasing of to a possible five under million dollars. -- $500 million. the mayor issued budget instructions to department back in december, requesting 5% reductions. 5% is worth $58 million. if we were to receive all of those reduction targets, that would make a dent in those deficits. year two remains challenging. at this point, my office is working for the proposals from departments. i will say that while some departments have submitted proposals that meet those

targets, there are many departments that are proposing significant increases to their service levels, to funding levels. there is more work to be done on that issue. either of us are happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor kim: i have a quick question on slide 10. i was curious on the background. what is that? why was there a decrease? >> the city has a policy that was passed as part of prop c several years ago, which requires that any funds that are on spent by the park department are deposited into a reserve. that reserve has been available

for the department through the budget process. last year, there were funds available in that preserved -- reserve. supervisor kim: when you say a decrease, that is $4.4 million, it was used in the reserve last year? do we know what they were used for? >> i do not have a list of the top of my head, but we can provide that to you. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, if there are no questions, why don't we open the item up for public comment? >> supervisors, we are lucky to

have a controller who i have observed for many years who has the best interests of this city. having said that, the controller and others cannot describe in detail the disparities that we find all over the city and county of san francisco. they may say unemployment rate is around nine, eight, or whatever. in the southeast sector, we have hot spots where we have 50% unemployment. that affects the whole budget.

in this city, we have the filthy rich, the 1%, and the 99%. at one time, you supervisors made $38,000. today, 116 +. in a way, you are part of the filthy rich. so, in all this budget talk, we need to find compassion. we need to find ways to think outside the box to help those who are suffering daily. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak?

public comment is closed. before we move on, i should offer our budget analyst any opportunity to speak. this is a report that was done jointly. is there anything you would add to it? >> we did work with the mayor and budget office and we do concur with these numbers. we will be monitoring the budget and presenting recommendations in the main engine budget review. supervisor chu: thank you very much. do we have a motion to continue item one to the call of the chair? [inaudible] item 2. we have a motion to do that. and a second and we can do that

without objection. thank you. item three, please. >> item #3, hearing to receive update on the department of children, youth, and their families. supervisor chu: thank you very much. last, we have the department of public health who came before us and a hearing on the status of the ryan white finding. -- funding. it provided us an opportunity to provide feedback. this is a series of departments coming forward to us about we can provide that early feedback. today, we have ccyf. i will turn it over to you.

>> good afternoon. i am the director for the department of children, youth, and their families. it is my pleasure to be here today to share with you the budget that our department submitted to the mayor's office in late february. as you already heard from the mayor's budget director, the mayor and mandated that all of our department submit a 5% ongoing general fund production for fiscal year 12-13 and 13-14. in addition to all that, the department needed to also propose a 2.5% contingency plan that could be matched -- met any

time over the two-year budget cycle. are 5% general fund reductions equates to $1.4 million. once again, for our general fund budget reduction, it equates to $1.4 million. for fiscal year 13-14, it equates to $2.4 million. that is because we are supposing to use one time savings to meet the target for 12-13. as a result, in 13-14, we would need to -- to meet the fiscal year 12-13 target, we are proposing to use savings

because we do not feel that it makes sense to reduce our contracts at this moment in time. all the contracts are in their last year of a three-year contract cycle. we believe that we will be able to meet the 1.4 reduction through savings based on historic fiscal year's spending patterns of our department will work orders. there are usually of moneys that remain in each one of the grants or work order accounts. as a result, we are proposing to use those funds to meet the 12- 13 target. using these funds will allow us to continue to focus -- supervisor wiener: in the past, the department has proposed to

eliminate all of the add backs. are you not doing that this year? >> we are not proposing to eliminate any funding toward services this year. we are proposing to meet our 12- 13 budget target through savings left in grants as well grants, as well as department work orders. supervisor wiener: is it your sense that the department has moved away from that philosophy, or is it just happenstance? >> we are fortunate that the target is so low. it is sad to say that $1.4 million is low, but in comparison to previous years where we had to make budget cuts of up to $6 million to $10 million, this seems doable. in terms of a policy conversation for restorations or

augmentations for budgets, we can definitely engaged in that conversation. i think that within the charter mandate there is a three-year planning process. we set out our funding priorities and, as a result, we really rely on that policy to guide funding during an supervisor wiener: -- funding. supervisor wiener: when the board of supervisors may repeatedly add back in for a repeated priority, it probably sends a particular message to the board, budget parity as policymaker. i just wanted to put it out there. at some point, a pattern emerges. supervisor chu: thank you. a quick question.

given the news that we have seen on the joint report, did dcys receive an additional allocation? i imagine that it did, in the amounts that get allocated. >> can i just say that for us, we are basing the presentation today and what we submitted to the mayor's office in february. let's supervisor,hou childrense fund is a property -- sued -- >> supervisor, the children's fund is a property tax fund. it should lead to good news in the projections in the fall in the library preservation fund. i do not have those numbers at my fingertips, but could easily find them out. supervisor chu: ok, thank you.

thank you. anyway, in order for us to meet our fiscal year 13-14 target, this is the first year of our department's new allocation plan, essentially this will have new grantees in programs. we will manage to make that cut, if at the end of the day we have to make that cut, or if there is growth in the children's fund we can make other solutions. but if we can make that target, it will be through the rfp process. in terms of the first year allocation plan, will the process for driving allocation plans be released in the coming

budget year? >> after i finish my budget presentation i will give you a preview of the children's service allocation plan. supervisor chu: ok. >> so, this next slide, i wanted to show you a historical representation of the budget for the past three years and two years coming forward. as you can see, fiscal year-10 -- fiscal year 10-11, it impacted the budget. given the great news from our controller today, and the mayor's office, we are seeing an upward trend in the children's fund. we hope to see an upward trend in our children's fund revenue. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: do you have the change in general fund support from 10-11 through --

sorry, 9-10 through 10-11? the children's fund increase in the general fund, do you have any idea what that was related to? >> the number? but it was related to? -- what it was related to? >> in 9-10, it was 20, the next year it was 28.5. generally supported by the board of supervisors. and then in 9-10 for children's fund it was $47.2 million, the next year it was $41.4 million. we have seen a decrease in the children's fund that was probably because of decreased property values. does that offset the decrease in property tax?

is that essentially what was determined? i do not remember. >> so, in fiscal year 10-11, the department, we had to make some severe cuts to children's services programs. because of that decrease it was a devout -- desire of the board of supervisors to prioritize children's services. we were able to offset the children's fund deficit cut restoration to our budget. >> that is correct. >> in this slide i just wanted to show you what our total budget was for the department. it totals $120 million.

this includes $40 million of the sfufc past use funds. you will see that our department may show $120 million, although we do not program all $120 million, it is the $120 million minus the $43 million. this is the actual breakdown of the budget without school district transfer funds. as you can see, children's fund continues to be the largest portion of the budget. childrens fund continues to decrease slightly, augmented with state and federal grants. as you can see, those are staying consistent. this is the breakdown of our budget by category. the main point for this slide is to show you that the bulk of

our funds continues to go to community-based organizations, approximately 66% of our budget goes to cbo's. 27% of the budget goes to department to work orders to provide direct services to children, and families. a 11% goes to operation support. operations support includes things such as evaluation and assessment, capacity building and technical assistance for our community based organizations. so, that concludes the portion of my budget presentation portion. i wanted to take the opportunity to share with members of the budget and finance committee our children's services are 2013- 2016 children's allocation plan. unless there are any questions?

>> [inaudible] >> so, one of the key provisions of the children's amendment, the charter amendment that increased the department, is for us to have a three-year planning process. last year, many of 2011, became before the board of supervisors to present our community needs assessment, which is a process where we went into all 20 neighborhoods in the city and prosecuted stakeholders in different providers, getting them to assess the need within the city for children, youth, and family services. we are in our second year of that planning process. over the past several months we have also gone out to our community and key stakeholders to discuss what we should do with all the identified needs that we found within the

community. within the past several months we have presented at various community meetings, particularly within the department, the outcomes of those planning processes. so, we have now created our children's services allocation plan. we will not talk to and present this plan to five commissions within the city. the department of public health, humans -- human services agency, probation department, as well as the youth commission, to vet the plan yet once again. we will come back to the board of supervisors for approval of the final plan. when dcy started building this plan, we wanted to set key guiding principles. i wanted to address the supervisors questions around what guides the allocations. these are the principles that we

believe our court to supporting children's services in the city. and we want to memorialize all of these principles in our document. particularly at a time of finite resources decreasing or perhaps even increasing, we want to be able to go back to these principles to guide us through those decisions and how we allocate funding. so, these are the four guiding principles with a mind based on what is working. honestly, it is continuity of services. if we can continue the great work we are doing through our partnerships with public sector entities, as well as our community based organizations, drawing on data to make sure that we are doing makes sense. we continue to use a primary lends to look at the work we're doing. one of them is by age,

primarily first in five. school-age, five years old to 18 years old, and then transitional age use of 18 to 25. looking at our work through the lens of neighborhood to make sure that we are clear that when we talk about services that are citywide, ought to be sure that we are also clear when we are talking about services that are concentrated in to specific neighborhoods. finally, to look at our work through the lens of risk factors. some of the children in the city have higher needs, such as the needs for children who have disabilities, lgbtq youth, homeless youth, english language learners, and undocumented immigrant youth. the third principle is to champion strategies that events

that. we want to invest in proven approaches, drawing on our successes to date, to make sure that we leverage the expertise already within the community. finally, we want to focus resources where we have maximum leverage and impact. that means we need to continue to partner with public departments and community-based organizations. supervisor kim: can i ask a question? basing it unavailable areas for data of greatest need, do we have census data about where kids 70 -- 0 to 17 are living? with a breakdown of other needs? >> part of the planning process for this creates what we call it an in-depth need, which i can show you, as we have an index of

needs broken-down by zip code. children population is page 9. and -- so -- >> [inaudible] >> so, this is just a pictorial representation. the darker colored areas show the highest need in the city. the lighter ones show the lowest need. the need matrix that we use is comprised of a children's population, as well as data from the human services agency, data from the school district, as well as census data. what took the data from the

census -- supervisor kim: through what used to -- do you determine need? >> median income, referrals, school district graduation rates, and total population. supervisor kim: wou. -- wow. >> actually, this is the document i was looking for. the colors represent both the number of kids and the need of each child. the kids get waited. on a certain level. the neighborhoods get waited. >> [inaudible] supervisor kim: \ / \ / \>> it t is ranked by need, but i can

share this document. basically, the tenderloin neighborhood gets 38.79 out of a point system of 60. it is pretty high for bayview. so, bayview is 73.61 in terms of indexes and need. this is out of 100. supervisor chu: i think that that would be helpful for us to get a copy of. that is information we are all interested in. i wanted to comment, in terms of the map of being put up earlier, i am not really pleased, but i am glad that there is a recognition that there is a need in sunset. we have long been talking about the seven kids out there, the folks that do not really get the

services. ironclad to see that there is a recognition of the level of need. supervisor chuthere are actuallf children out there. supervisor cohen: i have one more question, that i am done. i am glad that we are able to use data to map out needs it, it is incredibly important as we branch out future funding as the cycle comes up to allocate where needed. i assume that we're working closely with a school district, just making sure that we are enhancing and leveraging as well. i know that it is often hard for agencies to share information and i am curious how you called data from page essay, being they were able to do that, was that

less of an issue? how do we work out the kinks in data sharing? >> we still are. for the purposes of building the index of need matrix, this is just large, high number data. in terms0 of the school district, we are highlighting a data sharing mlu, which is exciting, because for the first time our providers will be able to get access to -- not specific, private student data, but things like their homework in school attendance, perhaps they're great in that classroom, which is crucial for us to go back and support them in, in getting them ready to learn and attending school, the core goals for us. supervisor kim: i would love to

continue to hear about the work. it is so important that we are able to share data. be used to have hearings on kids in multiple systems and how challenging it is for adults to share information on the same children so they can more effectively serve them. i'd like to hear more about how we can continue to do that and that there are a number of privacy and legal issues around that complication, with what we can do is a city to get that telling. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener: -- supervisor cohen: thank you very much. the index by indeed, the data is very pronounced. and that speaks volumes. i wanted to hear from you a statement of assurance that the data that you have collected data that you have collected will drive your department's