last piece i want to mention is simply a run language access. supervisor chu, you were interested in this, as were others. as a large department serving a diverse population, we typically write very well in terms of the assessment done by the office of civic engagement on language access. you can see that about half of our clients speak a primary language other than english. cantonese and spanish bay and the most prominent. you can see along the spectrum, russian, tagalog, vietnamese, and others. this has stayed steady along -- a long time, which is good and it allows us to remain steady along with staff.

so i know that the department of aging and adult services director has a few slides she wanted to walk through. i can pause here with questions specific, or circle back. supervisor chu: we do have a question. supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: thank you for the presentation. i just want to get your take. i know the culture of homelessness and some providers have come forward with approximately $5 million proposal, part of which would backfill expired federal stimulus money and some other increases to services relating to staffing and security needs. there is a list of services, and i just want to get the department's take -- have you seen that?

>> i have, supervisor. yes. i think it is import but the request into a little bit of context. the administration and the department in terms of addressing homelessness, has really been focusing primarily on permanent solutions and interventions that allow families and single adults to permanently exit homelessness, ostensibly through eviction prevention, rental subsidies, and supportive housing. the mayor 200-2013 and 2013-2014 has proposed a general fund to support 292 units that are mostly in the department of public health budget. 2013-2014, another 338 units will come online with another general investment. as i mentioned, the $500,000 for additional support of housing units for schizophrenics, and then, the human services agency received a million-dollars state grant to open a new shelter in

the bayview to meet the needs of our southeast residents. at present all this to let you know that the administration really has a strong commitment to permanent solutions to ending homelessness and has dedicated a significant amount of money to that end. in terms of the needs in our shelter system, you know, it is always difficult to balance a trade-off between investing in permanent solutions and investing in an emergency system that we know provides temporary relief, but provides somewhat necessary relief and support. there is always a trade-off in terms of unlimited public funds, and it has long been the position of the human services commission and the department that funds that are available should go towards more permanent solutions rather than a significant investment in solutions that are really temporary and not providing the long-term support.

the rapid rehousing program -- this has proved very successful at keeping families housed or immediately getting families and single adults out of the emergency system and back into rapid rehousing because evidence research has shown that the longer someone is in the shelter system, the more difficult it is, frankly, to get them out. our local data show that for every bed in a single adult emergency system, it is about the same cost of general funds as a supportive housing units. so we compare that. it is a compelling argument to continue to support more permanent solutions. the department would be supportive, and again, the other issue is really more about a

trade-off, and i think it is more a policy decision for the board on whether or not a significant investment or shelter system is warranted. supervisor kim: thank you. as to bed. in a former supervisor -- i know former supervisor dufty was here to speak. he said he is available for questions next week. i do want to thank you for your release strong involvement. i was hoping you could give us a historic overview of the level of funding for shelter providers since 2007, 2008. >> i cannot do it off the top of my head, but i could certainly come back next week with the breakdown. in a one of the arguments in the proposal is there has been a

significant decrease. there have been some shifts in funding. there has been some decrease. some shelters have closed. there has been some decreases in state funding for emergency shelters, but it is really a small amount. $500,000 or so. some of it has to do with case management and a policy shift about how we deliver case management services. the older model we operated on in a number of years had worked at the shelter. providing the case management services on-site, certainly, when you look at the dynamics of the homeless population, they tend not to say in a single shelter. they moved from shelter to shelter, in and out, may be housed temporarily, maybe back in theory the model we shifted to is one of case management that is attached to the client rather than attached to a shelter. we think through that, we can better case manage an individual

through the myriad of services and programs that they tend to go through. that is managed largely through the department of public health and, really, we think not only provides better outcomes for individuals, but also gets rid of the notion that someone may have three case managers, so you ask an individual, sort of a single point of contact to navigate the complex system we think is really beneficial. supervisor kim: i think as we struggle with the continued client to shelter drop ratio, the other thing i had to say is that i did think it is important for us to have high-quality support staff. those that are highly trained and skilled to meet the needs of those in our shelter system because those we see in our shelter system are frequently the ones with the most incredible needs and diverse needs, so i think it is

important that quality staffing its emphasis. when you come back next week, it would be great to get information on the. also, a appreciate the dedication. i know one issue for many of our clients has been the difficulty of getting around to all the different services, whether it is the day drop-in centers, or shelters waiting in line to get betts, said the dedication of the van is something i have heard from a lot of folks, and i think will be thrilled to be able to provide that service come illegally given that our shelters and drop-in services frequently run out of tokens, -- frequently -- be able to provide that service, particularly given that shelters and drop-in services tripoli run out of tokens. it is hard when you hear from shelters that they used to have 15, 20, 30 clients per caseworker, and now they have, like 100 per staff, and i think

that seems like a tremendous load on the system, given the reductions that we have had over the last five years. >> just in terms of possibly rephrasing the question around staff, you know, you mentioned it. these are some of the most challenging individuals that we serve in our safety net. but if you look at who we are employing at the shelter, it is a very low wage, entry level classification. many of the individuals hired there have -- monitors, are formerly homeless, recently out of addiction. maybe the question is to reassess who we are hiring and what those positions look like. rather than having more of a low wage individual who may not have the clinical skills necessary, maybe we look at individuals who have at a higher wage rate, more skills rather than having more

folks who may not have the training to be equipped to deal with the population. i personally support that. i would love to see trained counselors, social workers, and nurses actually in our shelters. if we have staffing availability, which i know the stretch, but i do think the important thing is i think that the on site, if there is a way to share our staffing with shelters, i completely agree. our minimum wage workers in our shelter system are not given the training or have the training they need to work with this client population. frankly, there's so much turnover, again, because it is such a tough job, that the training we invest in can be so challenging. >> i do not want to be up here say they do not do good work. they do the best job they can, but it is a population with a lot of barriers and a lot of issues to titer navigate through, and it is very difficult work, and they are not compensated at a very high

level. so many complex issues that came to the board and to us that was developed over a number of months, maybe we get everyone together, and i hate to say other stakeholder groups, but something to look at the issues you are talking about. we have access, the quality of care in our shelters, with the roving case management looks like, what we might be trying to do, where we might be falling short, a copper hit -- comprehensive look at discussion, rather than jumping in with both feet that may not be exactly the right investment. supervisor chu: -- supervisor kim: thank you very much, and a very much appreciate the change in models as opposed to being stationary. i think it is a good change, so i want to thank you for that explanation why don't we go to the adult services presentation.

>> good afternoon, madam chair and committee members. i want to start by saying the we're divided into four divisions. we have the protective service is part of our apartment, which is where adult protective services, the public guardian, a situated. we also have a community-base programs division, which contains our veteran services office. our intake counseling and screening office as well as our office on aging, and then we have ihhs and long-term care. i think in your pack, it is page 8. as you know, ihhs is the publicly funded program that goes into people's homes and provides those -- both personal care as well as chore services. when you look at the chart, you

can see that we have had a lot of growth since 2007. some years it was up words of 10%. you can see that it is starting to level off. this number shows you through december 11, and it looks like it took a little dive, but by the end of -- it went up in subsequent months, but again, it is growing very, very slowly. that is probably due to the fact that most of the people in our community at this point are probably in the program, so we will continue to see some steady growth, but not the steep climb we saw in the past. page nine of your package shows the community living fund. this is the fund that the mayor and board set up some years ago. this is the fund that helps people exit institutional care and come back into the community by providing a case management and purchasing goods and services that are not provided

from other sources. it also is the fund that helps people remain at home who may be headed towards institutional care. there has been steady growth in this program. certainly steady growth in the number of referrals. certainly changes in our economic climate at what has been happening with adult day health care and what has been happening with other medical benefits leads people to seek help for other kinds of services as well. we have also spent the last couple of years focusing more on the d-is the socialization of books from laguna honda and less on the community side. we are starting to switch that. the major initiatives on page 12, that are relevant to our department. the first is related to what was

called the adult day health center. the dollars that are in our budget related to that are to help. you may know that as the day cares were changed into this new model last year, consumers were evaluated as to whether or not they could stand -- stay in the program or not. initially, consumers in san francisco were told that they were going to qualify. there were a lot of people losing the service in southern california, but in san francisco, we saw a lot of people being told that they would stay. suddenly there was a reversal on that, and the state has been coming in and reviewing these clients and saying that they may not qualify. people have to then go to an appeal, so this money would help people stay in the program for a few months in the year we are in. the broad spread initiative is something we have been doing

with the housing authority for the last several years in conjunction with a community- based organization, and what we have done is really leverage federal funding to help us get service coordinators in to 17 out of 21 buildings. as about 2200 folks in this 2100 buildings, and probably not surprisingly, many of them are very isolated within the buildings. either because of where the building is in the neighborhood, or just things that go on within the building itself, so the service coordinators have not only brought services in. social services in, but they have also done things like bringing able to bring in fresh food, produce. they brought activities to buildings, and what we see now is a sense of community being developed. the third item on the list was nutrition services. the federal government -- the way nutrition programs work

actually all over the country is that there is a federal fund that helps to fund local nutrition programs, and the state puts in-the locally we put in more money as well. we received some reduction in the we are in or notification would be losing, and that is primarily because the federal government has shaved some funding of that program, so this is money that would help us maintain that. that is about 28,000 meals in the year. that equates to about 140,000. i think that is it. supervisor chu: thank you very much for the presentation. there are no questions at this time in terms of the department's response. >> we continue to work with the budget analyst office to provide additional information that they are requesting and hope to come to agreement by next week. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. for the apartment, there's a number of legislative items that do follow your budget. items eight, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. would you be able to speak to them? >> i do not have the original in front of me. if you give me the title, i'll speak to them. supervisor chu: all of these items will not be acted upon today. we just wanted to hear them today. item eight is the children's council of san francisco contract modification. >> yes, the children's council provides the child care subsidies to low-income families who were recently offered our program. either 3 general fund, or through -- directly from state department heads. and the last, they are provided for our compensation initiative

for workers in the ece field. this is simply a modification of the contract to carry us through 2017. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose, did you have any recommendations on item 8? and madame chair and members of the committee, on that item, we suggest a not to exceed amount of $240,869,365, and we recommend to approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: ok, let's go to the next item. >> human services care fund? annually with our budget, we are required to report on our care fund and get approval approving our expenditure plan. this is, of course, the funding mechanism for care not cash, as laid out by initiative

proposition n. it allocates four -- what is the total expenditure? $14 million, i believe, towards all of our initiatives under care not cash, which is largely single occupancy supportive housing sites. single adults on public assistance. the sources of the funds are from a caseload decline that we have experienced since 2004 as well as the reduction in grants for individuals who are in our shelter system. supervisor chu: great, and i believe this is not have a budget analyst items or recommendations? >> so item 12 is our contract with connor house. connor house is a provider of supporters -- supportive housing

services for single adults and seniors. they recently, through an rfp process were selected to take on sites that were able to provide services in coming due to the organizational capacity. again, because they won the rfp, they were selected for the contract, even though it is $19 million still in excess of the amount needed to go to the board. supervisor chu: ok. items 14 and 15. >> episcopal community services and st. vincent de paul. it will provide services in our emergency shelters. episcopal has two emergency shelters, totaling over 500 beds. st. vincent de paul has msc south, which has over 300 beds.

we are seeing approval of those contracts. supervisor chu: bank appeared for and saul, 14, 15, mr. rose, i believe your recommendation is just to include not to exceed amount. >> that is correct. supervisor chu: the department has requested we continue this to the call of the chair. >> that is correct. supervisor chu: thank you. given that we have gone through the department presentation, we thank you for your presentation and look forward to seeing you next week. ok, let's move on to the next department, which i believe is the children and families commission. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the executive director. we are continuing with our overarching goal the -- that all

children in san francisco our school ready when they enter kindergarten and that they access high-quality services, delivered by well-trained staff. next year will be the first year of our three-year strategic plan. wii -- rewrote it last year over this year and will be implementing it next year. you are going to see a lot of numbers in front of you. these are our two-year budget outlooks. as you can see, our property -- prop. h revenue has increased, which is a great surprise for us. sadly, our copy -- prop. 10 allocation is decreasing, as expected. both budgets include the use of our sustainability fund.

i'll talk to you a little bit later about those that include that filling or supporting a four-year of for the next three years as a result of state budget cuts. this money does not include two funds that we are hoping for. they are raised to the top funds, and children services project bonds, which i will talk to you about later. supervisor chu: remind me, i believe there's a fund balance of $9.7 billion? >> we have been working really hard to figure exactly how much it is so we can to send it to you. the commission approved a sustainability plan of $9.7 million about two years ago. subsequently, there is more money in the pot. the total is about $13.4 million, which we are pretty sure that that is the accurate

amount. some of that is because we have been using our state power of preschool money to put into the pot, so we do have a pretty nice reserve. i will talk to you about how we are going to spend that. supervisor chu: that is before this coming year allocation? >> is that right? it is projected to be. >> by the end of this year? and similar question for proposition 10 funds. >> i will go through that in detail. at the end of this fiscal year, $21.9 million. supervisor chu: thank you. >> ok. so our initiatives and programs, major initiatives and programs for the following year i'll go through, but 87% of our

funding goes to programs with administration of about 8%, and evaluation of about 1%. many of our major initiatives are jointly funded with dcyf and hsa. our total expenditures is $24.7 million. so our major initiatives, of course, are preschool for all, and you can see the majority of that money is going into subsidies. we're currently serving 3100 children and will increase to 3200 next year. we also invest with our partners in capacity building. that is a lot of technical assist. we do an assessment of the center to measure their quality, and then we are targeted a gene targeting quality improvement, technical assistance, and coaching. we also are contributing to the

program with hsa and dcyf, and we also support a family supports and curriculum enhancements. we do some major initiative funding in child health, again in partnership with dcyf and hsa. our amount is about $1.8 million. we are in almost all of are subsidized child care centers. mental health consultants, and this money is work ordered over to dph. our new initiative is around inclusion. we really want to expand options for families that have children with special needs so they can be served in our community-based programs. this has a lot to do with helping families access and understand what inclusion is,

and then lots of technical assistance and coaching for centers that have children either that they want included or are interested in, and then we are going to find two or three demonstration sites where we go very deeply into building inclusions. that includes on-site specialized services of occupational therapy and speech. so that is our new initiative. we are continuing to fund comprehensive screening of young children through the public health department. they are doing hearing, vision, nutrition, and -- there is one other. vision, hearing -- i cannot remember the last one, but they are doing screening. we are also finding development of screening and featuring the evidence-based practice, called ages in stages. that is happening in our preschool sites and in our family resource center sites. we will contribute in helping

kids. the next major initiative -- >> just a question on inclusion. is there anything that is available from first by that can go for training of educators around inclusion? and i think in the school district, the, experienced people have, children with special needs do not often get the understanding they need to get from educators in the system. that has been something -- >> we actually are finding that. we are developing a center for inclusion their practices, and it is going to be about professional development and training of educators, and we are doing that in partnership with the school district, so we will jointly train our early childhood educators around inclusion.