so just wanted to share with you some graphics here. we do have services covering the whole of san francisco. there's a focus where the need is greatest, but we have services all around the city, which we're really proud of. additionally, we've been tracking data about race and age of our participants and will continue to going forward, particularly since we have a strong focus on equity. the right size is a range of programs. it's work force development, violence prevention, as well as out of school time and other initiatives we have in place. this information here is related to the '16/'17 years with final reports. we'll have reports done in the upcoming months and then once

we're in the new cycle, five new years of data. so we were asked to discuss any stretch goals about whether there are any unmet needs. i think the answer is, yes, for our area, as well as others today. if we were able to have additional resources, dcyf could approach providing services along with the grants awarded or next most qualified programs. there is some information that we can go into later. we are using a results-based framework. it helps us to figure out how well we're doing the work. children and youth are supported by nurturing communities and families. children and youth are physically and emotionally healthy, ready to learn and succeed in school and ready for college work and productive

adulthood. we have a lot of additional backup slides. if you have any questions for me now or i can get back to you at a later time. >> supervisor cohen: i think we have a room full of overachievers. you get a gold star, too. congratulations, leo. supervisor yee, the floor is yours. >> supervisor yee: thank you. i'm just looking at the sort of overall city programs that you highlighted on the second or third slide, educational, enrichment, blah, blah, blah. there seems to be two categories that are missing for me. and i -- even in the spending piece of the $73 million, there's a category that's missing to me also. maybe there's an explanation. the category of 05 in which the fund was supposed to support.

it's supposed to be part of this program and there's no indication that it's part of the program. the other piece that's missing is in particular for those who are of all ages of children and youth, but for the younger children and for the 0-5 and probably up to elementary -- through elementary school, the paren parents' activities or piece of their development is so important that it should be a part of a strategy. and we all know that the more parents are engaged, the more successful their kids will be. i don't see any strategy on that at all. can you explain those two things? >> absolutely. thank you for asking that question. if we could have the slides back, please, i can talk over that. i thought that might come up, so

i wanted to come prepared with some materials. this is funding growth from the current years, and the next year for 0-5 programming, so the reason the information as well as behavioral health information doesn't show up in r.f.p., those grants are administered by the office of early care and education as well as first five. we put our funds to those departmenteds to make sure that we're working closely in allocation. we're actively involved with the processes. you can see that the early care and education figure does grow over -- from '17/'18. we used one-time money this year and last year to accelerate that growth for 0-5 sooner. we're happy to continue to have conover agency ises with you through the budget process and

that graphic that does not include 0-5 can be confusinconf. i will work with our data team to see that they update that as well. >> supervisor yee: the other question that's related to that. and we can have an offline discussion, but people from early education have for years said that the percentage of funding that has been going to the 0-5 has been relatively low. and i know that when we had the reauthorization of the children's fund at the time that there was going to be some growth and much of the advocacy of the reauthorization at times was to expand the age bracket, so you would take some of the funding to help with that

category. and the other category was 0-5. i don't see that growth there in regards to the amount of funding that's been increased because of the -- i guess every year, we have a higher amount than we're collecting. >> sure. i think -- the way that funds were allocated for the upcoming year were to reflect the service allocation plan, which was approved by the board of supervisors and mayor's office and the allocations we put in were in line with what the services allocation plan proposed. i hear your concern about making sure that we have enough money for 0-5-year-olds, but we're hearing from the school districts about additional kids and so it's a tricky balancing act. if there were more funds

available for 0-5, we'd be happy to use them. i agree they could be put to go use, absolutely. >> supervisor yee: and i -- i really don't envy any of the department's position to allocate the funding, but there's a lot of needs and i get that part. i just want to make sure that -- it seems like the voice of the younger kids are always lost in the mix. so and the family piece, engagement piece? >> sure. we do have a family resource center initiative, in partnership with first five. so in a variety of neighborhoods around the city, i think that there is definitely an interest by our director and deputy director to expand the work going on. i can check with our director to see if there were future

initiatives that she may want to get back to you on. we're always happy to hear about where you think we should be prioritizing in terms of family support. >> supervisor yee: the family support fees, was that part of the last cycle for the five-year contracts? >> i believe that the family resource centers were just r.f.p r.f. r.f.p.'d out. and it's shared funding. we can use that contracting vehicle to increase the level of service for the centers, if there are additional funds needed for them. >> supervisor yee: and i'm not necessarily glued to the family resource centers as the sole beneficiary. there are other programs that may not be part of that. but also with parent engagement.

i wanted to leave that thought with your department. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i have a few questions. quickly, i'm looking at your indicator and dcyf results and sco scorecards. i see that we have an example and year-end results. what i'm concerned about is impact by race. when you look at percentages that students that graduate high school within four years, are you determining your success using racial measures? >> yes. dcyf is looking at the data through a number of lenses, including by race. if i can show you the slides, i will show you how the data is

presented. as part of a results-based accountability process, our team created score cards where they looked at the information about a lot of key -- what became indicators. so this particular example shows our desire to increase the percentage of students that graduate within four years. so you can see that there is specific, colored lines that correspond to asian, latino, whites, black and native-americans and hawaiian and pacific islanders. there is also a come paparison the state. so we have these score cards on our website. there's a whole section. so you can get that information. and our data team would be happy to walk through it with you. >> supervisor fewer: when you

determine whether or not programs are funded for additional years, this is for five years. it's a long funding cycle. are we looking at those programs that actually have had impact for these particular students, meaning, are we using the funds to close the racial achievement rate. we have high graduation rates among white and asian, but very low with african-americans. are we using the money to close the gap of students that graduate and enter college, i could use that for every one of these measures. >> sure. we're looking at the race data. as part of the s.a.t., we called out a need for improved performance and supports for the african-american, latino and pacific islander communities.

>> supervisor fewer: i don't mean to interrupt you, but my question is -- are we funding programs that have impact to close this racial achievement gap? it means not funding overall, all students, but looking at this racial achievement gap and determining the funding of programs about the success they're having in closing the achievement gaps. >> absolutely. the department is looking at race and equity through every step in the process. the slide that was just up and can go back up again just showed some initial, projected information, based on our awardees and who they are planning to serve. you can see our target populations are projected to be at a higher level, more significantly than the pop laugs at -- population at large.

we'll be working on programs to make sure that the re real abilities for agencies that are targeting these to be successful. >> supervisor fewer: i'm not looking at participants. i'm looking at impact. i'm not concerned about number of participants. i'm looking at how it's impactful to close the racial achievement gap. that's the measure. that's not about equality. it's about equity. so that's the question i'm asking. it's not by showing me something that says, this is how many participants we have, but is it being used to show measurement impact on these groups that have historically not had high achievement within the public

schools, so to complement what the schools are doing and what are the outcomes for them around african-american, pacific islander and latino students specifically? do you understand my question. when you show me a slide that says participants, it's not what i'm asking for. i'm not asking for participants in a geographic area. i'm asking about the impact that the programs are having on the three racial groups. >> i hear you. we're on the same page with that. using r.b.a. there's a focus on how much is one step. if you are not serving the community, you are missing the boat, but how well you serve the community is important as well. each agency and each program has performance measures and those will be focused on the areas

you're concerned about and we'll monitor each c.b.o.'s performance. we are providing supports for the community-based groups. we're increasing our technical assistance and technical buildings to make sure they're successful because we view them as partners. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. can you tell me what programs were previously funded but not any longer 1 this five-year cycle? >> i have a seven-page excel sheet. i can send that to you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: do you feel like there were policy gaps in the process? >> i do not think so. i know we've heard prom the

community on priority areas and wanting to be sure that we hear their concerns and being responsive. because we went through a lengthy community needs assessment that did involve going before the community, meeting with department heads and meeting with you all, i have a lot of requests. there's always more we can do with more resources for any age group. i feel like we did the best allocation with what we could do. >> supervisor cohen: let me pose the question a different way. and your answer may be the same. does the dcyf granting system disadvantage citywide programs in favor of neighborhood-specific programs? >> i don't think that it does. we've funded a variety of programs that are city-wide as well as community-based in a

neighborhood. so obviously it doesn't speak to whether there's an advantage or disadvantage, but there was a lot of thought put through the process when the r.f.p. was being developed, trying to make sure that small providers were not penalized and keeping in context who the big players are that are providing service in every district, as well as making sure there are culturally competent neighborhood services. >> supervisor cohen: i appreciate the attention to cultural competency. some community members have mentioned that the parent engagement r.f.p. has not been issued. can you speak to that in the dcyf process? >> parent engagement -- i'm sorry. my brain's not jumping there. >> supervisor cohen: not a problem. some organizations have reached out to my office that have felt

left out of the process. one of which is parent engagement, the other is teen empowerme empowerment, for two examples. >> i'm happy to speak to that. i think teen 'em p-- empowermen should have been covered. if there is something you are hearing, let us know. family enbakement and collaborative health or truancy program and other identity specific programs will have r.f.p.s in the upcoming two years. i think the idea is to get the core programs out and especially for programs that are coordinating or leveraging the existing portfolio of grants, we will wait a year or two so they

will not duplicate and understand where to coordinate. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: thank you, supervisor cohen, for flagging this, the agencies that have been providing services for a number of years, what do they do? if they don't have the funding, the service disappears. >> no services have disappeared because the way that we're administering the items that haven't been granted out yet are continuing the contracts that we have with existing providers for the additional year or two years. so if -- i think there's an intention to increase the level of family engagement services and that increase would not be realized until after the r.f.p. when you look at the

collaborative programs, we're keeping those funding stable, so there is continuity for those programs. in the meantime, we can do that work to get the r.f.p. in order so they are at the higher level with improvements that are made to those programs. >> supervisor sheehy: specifically parents for public schools, which is a tremendous resource. they say their funding will be hurt in july. as a board, i don't know why that's in our lap. you are talking to a parent that's been in public schools and i understand it's the value of the resource and that's in my bucket? how come? >> i think there's a lot of different organizations that have concerns about their funding level. when you do a new r.f.p., there are some that get more and some less and some successful, some

not. we have worked closely for parents with public schools over the past two years and will continue to work with them and attempt to address their concerns. >> supervisor sheehy: the cascade effect. because it can result in less people going to san francisco public schools. that's the way that many people have their first reaction was with the public school process. the lottery process is confusing. so the engagement is gone. saying you will fix it in the future, when you are stopping an ongoing program -- programs should not be falling through the cracks if it has that degree of effectiveness. because you have not let the r.f.p. for that service. >> you are not the only elected official that has brought this up to me and i did some

research. they're on our qualified list for technical assistance and capacity building. what they provide is essentially that kind of service for a lot of individuals. so we are currently -- so the timeline on that process has been the current fiscal year. it's been a few months later than the large grant r.f.p. and r.f.q., we've developed a final technical assistance and capacity building list. and my understanding is that they are one of the qualified providers. if there's a gap that needs to be filled, we can utilize the list. we have a lot of growth in our capacity building programs and my understanding is that the team responsibility for that has

a plan and if that organization were part of it, they should be in communication with them. if they're not part of it, we can have continued conversation about if there's a gap. if there is, how we can meet it, if that's appropriate. >> supervisor sheehy: am i going to have to fund them from here? that's the bottom line. >> supervisor cohen: this is a budget conversation, so we'll take it up. we'll have -- during public comment, we'll hear from folks that will speak to this item. we're going to move on. thank you very much. thank you, supervisor sheehy. mr. chi, appreciate your organization. the next group we'll hear from are the senior services team. is that you, cherine?

thank you. >> supervisor cohen: after this, we'll hear from pedestrian safety. maybe you can get on deck and be ready to go, so we can make the transition more smoothly. after that, street repair and repaving. >> i just had a question about whether the presentation is on here or if i need to load it from the thumb drive? >> supervisor cohen: did you load your presentation on there? >> i sent it over. >> supervisor cohen: okay. then we need to load it up.

>> supervisor cohen: as we get ready, we're going to hear from charine mcfadden. she will present on senior spending, targeting the dignity fund. we may have an opportunity to hear from jessica layman from the senior and disability action. and then paula jones and i think

anne q -- >> quitenze. >> supervisor cohen: for the food security task force.

it is the way we provide services in the first year of proposition i. we got $6 million in new funding to distribute throughout the community. we did it by thinking a little bit about kind of by looking at the existing needs assessments and crafting within put from the community and advisory bodies. it included multiple compoments. the support for veterans. they were highlighted in the campaign. within this we were able to have service connection programs. $100,000 for congregate males. that is one way we use the funding to reach out to the

population. our guiding strategy or policy was two fold. to support and strengthen the existing network that we know exists in san francisco and is fantastic at providing services in the community. we know that people are providingness and important services. our dignity fund needs assessment found evidence of this. we want to be sure providers have the support they need. second was to expand services to less served populations and engage people not accessing services. populations lack parity. we haven't engaged everyone. sometimes people don't see things that work in our models quite yet. this slide really kind of

provides additional contexts for for the first $6 million. nutrition and wellness are the largest overall funding area, particularly nutrition. we were able to use new dignity fund dollars to expand services that haven't seen as much growth. we enhanced it with $1.3 million that went to pilot new activities and programming at community services centers such as evening, saturday hours. people wanting to reach out and try new innovative approaches. so this time last year we have been focused on completing the community needs assessment. this process and timeline is mandated by the legislation showing here. what we really wanted to focus on this year was community engagement getting stakeholders involved. we had 11 community forums which

a lot of you helped with. thank you very much. one in each district. 462 attendees in the 11 forums. 29 focus groups with two 82 participants. we had a survey of 266 providers and 1100 consumers. essentially just a couple notes. i will report the needs assessment to you in a couple weeks or one of the committees. i don't want to go into too much detail. i want to give you a few things we found. we are serving one in four of the older adults through the community-based programs. generally, the equity analysis we did with our consultant indicates the populations are accessing at higher rates than the general population. in particular, it is serving

half of the low income seniors through the community-based organizations. 519 per thousand. serving 40% of the seniors with limited english. we have effective partnership to engage these population this is culturally appropriate services. we have the adviser rebodies for the allocation for this coming year. we are looking at one of the things that came out of the needs assessment was that often people are very confused how to access services or don't know the services exist. as much as we think we are out there we realize they don't know. we want to spend time thinking about public information and awareness and messaging. one of the other things asked for was more inner generational programming. we haven't funded it in the past. we are interested to help build

stronger relationships and support the programming that is there. then thinking about how we currently have an under service to adults with disability population. thinking about expanding home delivered meals to those with disabilities. we have a consultant to help develop ideas for disability cultural center which i am excited about. that is really where we are right now. when we go to the next year, i know i get a gold star if i stop right now. i will say one more thing. that is that we will spend the next year allocating the full $51 million of the dignity fund dollars with public discussion and thinking about values and how we want to serve adults with disabilities in san francisco. it is a good opportunity for us and stakeholders and four all of

you as well. thank you very much. >> we want to here from supervisor yee. perhaps you can weave in more information through your answering of their questions. >> thank you. on page 2, maybe i am adding it wrong at the top it says $6 million new funding. when i look at the initiatives there are only $5 million. what happened to the other $1 million? >> some of it goes to covering the cost of increases for programs. the cost of doing business increases for these programs gets built into that. >> got it. i am having discussions with the different departments in regards to seniors and people with disabilities and how they are probably under employed and many

seniors find themselves not able to support themselves with their ssi and need to go back to work, but they have a hard time finding anywhere to work. is there any funding in these new initiatives where they are supporting that effort? >> well, you know there is a hearing for that. we are excited for that is i am headed for a meeting to discuss how we are approaching older adult employment and people with disabilities. we have a program that we fund called we serve that is focused on providing sub des for older workers with disabilities. our nonprofit provider reaches out to perspective employers to work with them on that.

we are also looking at ways to build in stipendses or part-time positions in the new allocation when we think about messages to the community. we think it takes some guidance to do this correctly. we have been short on that in the past. that is another opportunity that we will build in with the new dignity fund dollars for this year. >> i am not finished. thanks for reminding me i have a hearing issue. the other piece that i have been talking to you about and other departments is the whole independent living and the rc? >> rc. >> the gamut of care people need as they get older and so forth.

is the support housing retention piece, what category is that in your allocation? >> support housing retention is really bathe housing subsidies program. it is different. what we look to do with respect to residential care facilities is really pull together a work group which i know you have talked about as well. we thought that and also i guess smalsimultaneously through the k groups finance and policy work group what we would love to do is figure out if there is a way to expand a waiver or create a new waiver to expand the capacity with respect to that. i think we know that asking the city to take that on is difficult, there are probably things to do locally and we are looking at those as well.

to really penetrate the need, we would need to go to the state and say let's see if we can draw down dollars or restructure something. we will look at that. >> thank you. i am finished. >> thank you very much. thank you for all the work you do especially in my neighborhood with the largest population growth with seniors. my question is how well do you think we are preparing for the increase in senior population. we have heard the senior population is soon to -- one of the largest growing populations in san francisco. >> across the country 10,000 people turning 65 every day. it is a fast growing population. i think that, you know, we can look at it a lot of different ways.

we have the dollars we have and in san francisco we have fortunate. when i talk to my colleagues across the state or country, san francisco, thanks to the generous mayors and board, we have a lot more flexibility to wrap services around people in san francisco. it is going to mean, i think, as the population grows we have to talk about how to target our dollars. what really are our values and how do we make sure we are serving people who are in most kneeled? -- most need. it really needs to be a public conversation. the other ways are looking at new partnerships, look at new partnerships with our for profit as well as nonprofit partners to see if there are new ways to think about things and develop new methods of providing service

or having mean to pay in a different way. it is with the state and federal government. that is difficult. over time really thinking about the three tiered approach, federal, state, local dollars. these conversations are happening all over the place. not just here, at the state level and also with the federal organizations as well. i think some multiple pronged approach. >> i just want to say in your budget presentation where you come before us again. the question i want answered is the budget -- your budget toward seniors growing proportion nat to the growth of the senior population? also, what is the greatest area that has the greatest need in funding to secure -- so that

what i want to ask is what area do you see is the greatest need of funding as the senior population grows. do you see that in housing, in food insecurity, in caregiver support? i know they are coming before us again. i want to prepare you i will ask these questions when you come before us. >> thank you. seeing there are no other questions, i think we will go to jessica layman at this time. >> thank you.

before you run away i have one question. my understanding is that organizations are a requirement of the r.f.p. are being asked to charge membership for the services where they previously had not done so. can you explain the reasoning behind this? >> we have -- when you are referring to is the village model. the village model started in boston and it is a membership model about communities coming together to create their own programming and create a network of support for themselves. one of the reasons that we started funding that program several years ago was really that it came to our attention that lower to middle income people weren't getting the services that people on medicaid can get or weren't using our other services.

in our minds that was always a membership model. when we put the r.f.p. out we created three categories. one is the village model where we asked programs to charge members 120 per year for the service that is the traditional model. we have another model where people do not pay or don't have to pay. we have the traditional community services model. it is those three things we were trying hard to reach across the total population. we know our community services programs about 75% of people in the community services programs are people of color and people who live very low income. which is great. they are very, very well used. we were trying to provide a different model for a population

that doesn't always qualify for those services or use them. next we will hear from jessica layman from senior and disability action. >> thank you so much for taking time t to hear about this. today i am with the coalition of the elderly and justice coalition. >> good afternoon greg mere with budget and case coalition of agencies serving the elderly. >> this is your presentation your slides? >> yes. >> are they loaded on the laptop? >> they are. do you have to work magic? here it is. thank you. >> just a second. do you have an electronic version? >> it is on the tv now. >> this is your presentation?

>> yes. >> please, whoever is next. >> so some facts up about the senior and adults with disability community in san francisco. currently, this population makes up one in four of the san francisco citizens. as was mentioned a few minutes ago, that population is growing rapidly. in 10 to 12 years it will be significantly higher. half of the seniors cannot afford a market rate housing that is significant amount. 16% are below the federal poverty left in the most expensive city in the country with incomes under $12,000. over half of san francisco residents 60 or older do not have basic economic

independence. we will talk about our funding area also for next year's budget. >> i just want to add in light of the facts there. ask a new effort to shift away from the term silver tsunami which i have used in the past, but not to see the growing population of seniors and people with disabilities, they are taking over, what are we going to do, but to recognize this is a huge resource and asset in the community that we have such richness of experience and energy among us. we are going to go over some of the funding priorities that we recommend. i know housing retention already came up. number one on the list is rental subsidies for seniors and people with disabilities. we were delighted the board funded this last year.

we are all seeing from experience this can't employee one-time funding. it works. when people get a subsidy they stay in their homes. they are not as likely to get sick and end up in the hospital, on the streets in the nursing home. they stay in the home and community and the subsidies need to continue. we propose $1.5 million in continued funding and $3 million in new funding to presents housing. we need to fund legal services to prevent elections. this is -- evictions. this is about funding eviction defense attorneys and recognizing that seniors and people with disabilities sometimes need specific support in that process and that seniors are often a target for eviction and buyouts. if they are in rent controlled housing, a landlord or

speculator will see a great opportunity to get them out and bring in someone to pay more represent. >> director mic pad den was talking about the 46 agencies funded by our over 30 members of case is that many, many people, seniors, families of seniors, loved ones do not know about available resources. we do have a tremendous amount of support available to people. if they don't know about it they can't take advantage of it. we are asking for $600,000 for a year around intensive marketing and outreach campaign. this would be a strategic overall campaign in all forms of media as well as funding for individual agencies to do their own marketing and outreach. it would include a small amount

of money. one of the items we have been working on for the past nine months is to create or begin an annual signature city wide event celebrating seniors and persons with disabilities. this funding would help with that in terms of a small amount of funding for part-time event planner. >> behavior health specialist was mentioned. the senior population is growing rapidly. it is also aging rapidly. as that takes place there are ever increasing amounts of behavioral health concerns for which staff at senior centers are not trained and equipped to deal. the $550,000 we are asking would support that with 11 part-time

positions so covering all districts with a variety of direct service, evaluation assessments and with training to staff to better deal with these situations. housing support staff at adrc aiding and disabilities resource center. housing is a huge concern for everyone especially for seniors. an extra challenge for seniors is navigating the system to try to find or get support for housing. $200,000 would provide for some part-time positions that would flow between these adrc centers and be able to use expertise and special training dealing with the senior population. the adult day services, some of

the most frail and at risk seniors and adults with disabilities rely on the day services. these programs are their life through services including males, -- meals, activitiesits. the van wind is underfunded. the agencies are struggling to afford the transportation, two, it is not able to accommodate the needs. the $465,000 would provide approximately 200,000 individual trips for persons. one-time infrastructure support for senior centers. senior serving agencies have for years struggled to keep doors open to offering programming that is appropriate, supportive and needs. we all are aware of the cost of

living, how rapidly it has increased. the funding has simply not been able to keep pace in the elements that suffers is infrastructure. simple things. >> you are at the searc the sevn mintmark. >> funding to support that. >> i guess negative two minutes to finish up. >> the last item is restoring and enhancing village services in the northeast part of the city to make sure people have access to the exciting village model. three things that did not make on it the slide. they are quick. one, you are going to hear from food security. that is a huge need for our populations. employment programs. i appreciate you had conversation with the director

mic spaed den. we see seniors and people with disabilities getting jobs. there is so much that is challenging to work later in life. people can't live on ssi or social security. we are suggesting $500,000 to go to sf reserve and it is currently very effective. lastly, i want to appreciate the board for funding support at home four the middle income population which there is currently an evaluation. i may be speaking out of term. we see a success, what we wanted it to be. seniors are getting on the program and benefiting and people with disabilities as well. it is continuing. i am excited to have that moving along. thank you so much. >> thank you for your presentations and thank you for honoring our time.

i have a couple questions. coal leagues i want to give -- colleagues i want to give you first crack. >> quickly. sorry. a few years ago, about two years ago, i met with people that were using the group ends and trying to improve the system and we talked extensively about it, and the need to increase the number of vans. there were federal grant to allow for that, and it seems like at the time there were some solutions that we were able to increase the rate, able to adjust the rates were sort of

the outer areas like the west side of the city because they were getting the same per pickup as somebody that was picking up on the east side, the services were on the east side. it wasn't worth some of the van people to go out there, then people stopped using it because it took so long to get to the services. i don't know -- i haven't had any recent discussion but is it still the same problem? i thought we were taking care of that. i am not too sure. if it is a problem i would support a group van, but i thought we addressed that two years ago. >> it is not a simple problem. it is a combination of the inability of the existing program to accommodate all of the need that there is. then the other comes into play with the adult day helping

medicare funded and the rate that is contracted not keeping pace with inflation. there has been progress and a lot of work collaborative work for a solution but it will take a lot more. [please stand by]

the dignity fund, it was a huge victory. it's wonderful to have that set a baseline. the reality is, it's not enough. with the huge population of seniors and people with disabilities and growing needs, you saw the dollar amounts needed in housing. so, yes, we're planning on expanding the rental subsidy program. that's about making sure that

people are off the streets and staying in their homes. it's about people that have a home. if we look at that as an existing program, people have housing, and we want to preserve that. it's better for the city, for them, and for all of us, to make sure they stay in their housing. the outreach and marketing campaign is one of the new items of the recognition of the dignity funds. so many people don't know about the programs and people continue to be isolated. isolation is the biggest indicator of death. to make sure people know about those programs and to take advantage of them. >> i want to be open and transparent. new programs like you are suggesting, i understand there's a need for it, but it's highly unlikely that it will be funded. it will not be considered a priority. i'm sorry to share that news,

but i think that's the economic climate we're in now. if there are no other questions, we'll move on and hear from the next presenter. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: we'll hear from paula jones. paula jones is coming from -- what organization are you with? >> i'm chair of food security task force. since we have just our 5 minutes, i thought i would lead the presentation, but we're both available for questions. >> supervisor cohen: great.

>> that should be on the screen and handouts in front of you as well. first, we want to thank everybody here for the opportunity to address one of the most basic needs, which is food. our slide today will start with food security and investment in nutrition, approved health and policy and priorities. we did try to follow the template that you offered. we have a policy. in 2013, our board of supervisors, some of you here, unanimously passed a resolution committing to a food-secure, hunger-free san francisco in 2020. the definition that we've been using is that all people at all times are able to obtain and consume enough nutritious food to support an active, healthy life. we're targeting who we think are

highest risk. we're looking at the federal poverty line, $24,000 for a single person or $41,000 for a family of three. that means we have 226,500 residents at 200% of the poverty line and at-risk for hunger, which most of us can imagine. what the food security task force has been trying to do is maximize federal programs, community partners, creating a local healthy food purchasing supplement and working to increase residents' ability to access food. and that means we want to increase food security and healthy eating for all the low income san franciscans at home and at school and in the community. we agree and we know it improves health. we know it supports seniors and people disabilities to live at