hello, emily. we have emily cohen. >> good morning, supervisors. i am here to report back on the additional $450,000 that our department received in the budget process this year for the family -- the new base family subsidy program. the department of homelessness and supportive housing had a contract to administer the similar program, the same program with the homeless prenatal program. so this additional funding went to complement the existing funding for that and to extend the needs-based subsidies for the families enrolled in the program. with the additional funding, we expect to serve up to 35 families who are unsheltered, and homeless and of particularly

high needs. this is a very unique subsidy program in our community. is designed to target highly vulnerable families with children who have documented reasons to need to stay within the city of san francisco. and two are not necessarily eligible for other programs. the average rental subsidy for this program is approximately $33,000 annually per family. we measure success for this program through our ability to stabilize the household during the subsidy period, which we aim for about three years, and then to achieve stable exits for those families when the subsidy expires. i'm happy to take any questions about the family subsidy program >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. now we have maria sue.

>> sorry. good morning, supervisors. thank you so much for this opportunity to share with you what we have done with our allocation. if we can switch to the computer thank you. in fiscal year 2018-2019, we received $3,851,000 in additional -- thank you. in additional funding for community-based services from the board of supervisors.

thank you very much. with these dollars, we were able to support our nonprofit agencies to close much-needed service gaps in our community. we started this process in late july by working with our board of supervisors to identify any specific areas or target populations that you wanted us to focus in on. we then took the month of august to draft a r.f.p. to submit to our community for competitive solicitation. we then issued the r.f.p. in mid-september and then we just announced decisions for that r.f.p., which we called our community grants r.f.p. a week ago. just a few numbers here. once again, the total amount that was allocated was $3.8 million. we had allocations in 29 different program areas.

in total, we received 68 proposals from community-based organizations. we ended up funding 31 proposals it will be administered by a 25 different agencies. here is a list of all of the categories that we receive funding for and the list of agencies that ended up receiving those funds. it is pretty long. i will just toggle through those so you can see that we receive funding from every district, actually. one of almost every district. one, three, four, district five, district seven, eight, nine, ten , 11, and then citywide allocations. there was a specific question regarding performance measures and how we will ensure that the programs that we fund will meet the standards that is expected

by ourselves but then also of our residents. we use performance measures to support agencies to improve their quality and ensure that the highest quality of programs and services are provided for children, youth, and families. we also provide stakeholders with an understanding of what the programs are doing. so we use the performance measures to communicate to our communities about what choice of services are available and how people can access them. we use our performance measures to identify grantees that are in need of technical assistance, and then provide those additional assistance and support to them, and in the key indicators of grantee performance -- performance measures are one of a multiple indicators for us to identify

success for a grantee. it is not just based on performance. it is based how they do it, how they run their programs, how they engage our community. we do and number of monitoring of our nonprofit agencies. we have a database system that we use. it is called the c.m.s., contract management system. we provide -- we ask the nonprofit agencies to submit surveys to us and that is done by transportation. we also do fiscal monitoring and partnerships with the controller 's office. and then we foot do focus groups and interviews of participants and key stakeholders in the community. i do want to integrate that this whole monitoring process is truly part of an iterative, continuous improvement process for us. we firmly, firmly believe that

with additional support, the nonprofit agencies will be able to provide the highest quality of programs and services for our community. we came up with performance measures to -- through a process called results based accountability where we ended up identifying 26 unique performance measures across 24 different strategies within six different service areas. and in a nutshell, it helps us to answer these three top questions. how much programming is the agency providing, how well are they doing it, and if anyone at the end of the date is better off? as we can see, each one of these categories have their own performance measures and if you can look at the is anyone better off, there are the most number of performance measures in that category. finally, here is a sample of the

performance measures that we measures the agency against. they rate health of the agency based on a fiscal and compliance monitoring tool,% of survey participants, cultural competency, there are compliance of grant requirements, just different programmatic components of an agency. with that, my presentation is complete. >> thank you. i appreciate your presentation. just a couple of questions. maria, doctor sue, for those of you who don't know maria, you changed your strategy midstream. this is a change of strategy. what that meant is a lot of the

previously funded organizations came into our budget and our budget committee asking for support. and to be identified a few different priorities, in particular, out of school time, as the programming -- as a programming gap. and this body allocated just over $125,000 annually to the department of children, youth and their families. and what i am still receiving some feedback on, particularly from african-american organizations, is that there is a perception that they feel like they are being discriminated against. they are not getting funding. and the reason why i am -- we have spoken about this, so i know this is not just -- not catching you off guard, but i would appreciate it if you could be very public and be on the record, and talk about your

methodology, and the criteria that you have used, and then also the support you have offered organization so that they can be competitive in the r.f.p. process. >> yeah. thank you for that question. in terms of us changing strategies made process, we actually change the strategies based on the change in our charter. through the forward thinking of this body of the board of supervisors, you actually changed our charter amendment, the charter legislation to require us to do an equity analysis. and so with that change, we then spent the last 20 years designing and developing, and eventually implementing an equity analysis that complements how we think about the allocation of resources. through that equity analysis process, we identified our three target population, our highest need target populations in the city that has a very limited

access to all the wonderful things that we keep talking about in terms of the financial success of the city. access to education in the city, and -- >> can you share with us those three target areas class. >> they are african-american, latinos and pacific islanders. these are the three populations within our city that still struggles to access and higher education in general and higher education that enters into our workforce services and workforce sector. it has really high disparity in health outcomes. and has very high disparities in housing stability. so these are the three target populations that we have made sure, through at the funding process, that we allocated what we called equity points to ensure that programs that served more than 70 5% of their

clientele, will receive additional points so that we can make sure that these programs are funded. there are other risks factors that we identified as high need in our r.f.p. process such as young people whose parents were incarcerated, young people in the foster care system, young people involved in the justice system. so those agencies that serve those target populations also received what we called equity points. >> thank you. i'm glad i asked the question. i think it was really important information that needs to constantly be put out there because of the new change and the new changes created to enhance -- again, i was advocating the african-american community in my question, but the vulnerable communities, african-american, latino, and pacific islander.

next up we will have a representative from the department of public health. >> public health, in particular, mental health services, are an essential part of our homeless strategy in the city. and the spending plan designated just over $800,000 annually for mental health services as well as behavioral health services. as you begin to go into your presentation, i am going to frame the presentation with a question. how do we measure the efficacy of the program? and how long are these contracts for? is there a performance-based aspect -- aspect in them, you can make a presentation hopefully you'll be able to answer these questions. thank you. >> afternoon.

i am a d.b.h. budget director. i'm here to report on our discretionary spending programs. specifically we are here to report on two initiatives under this spending plan. the first is the mental health services for the homes of 335,000. we are in the process of reviewing our current outreach program and we are finalizing the details of the vendor. our goal is to have 335,000 of ongoing services to be delivered in shelters to include coordinated and integrated services to support behavioral health recovery, outreach and engagement, assessment and case management, referral and linkage and crisis intervention for homeless adults and families. i think there was an oversight on the slide to pick i think it was homeless adults and families

we will be legislating an r.f.p. that we issue for mental health programs, we will be enabling these funds to be awarded, hopefully effective january 1st of next year. how success is measured, this will be finalized, but we do track outcomes through all of our contracts. we have individualized assessments for all of our clients pick we have client satisfaction surveys. and we will speak more about the specific criteria. in addition, we received a 500,000-dollar outback for integrated behavioral health services. this is a one time ad back and is specifically to support jobs to support the merger of three nonprofit programs. it allow them to stabilize their programming, and specifically, they use the funding to develop

and expand their employment services computer lab located at the new facility. these dollars have been approved the board approved the contract amendment in september. and trc is in the construction phase right now. we are measuring success as a completion of the lab, of the utilization of the lab. specifically the questions about the contract term -- >> again. how long are these contracts for class. >> i will defer to my colleagues >> and is there a performance-based aspect to them >> hello. i'm from d.b.h. the solicitation itself typically dictates the maximum length of the contract. it is often five years with options to extend, usually not more than ten years. we rarely do a contract longer

than five and a half years to begin with. all of our contracts are subject to annual monitoring process that we have and depending on what the service category is, dictates what the standardized objectives are. for example, if it is an outpatient and mental health treatment program, than clients, both youth, kids, and adults would have a different tool, that but they would be assessed periodically to determine their own achievement in meeting their treatment plan goals. so that is an example of a measure. we also look at the agency itself and their compliance with different requirements, particularly with behavioral health that we have -- we are part of the mental health plan. we have a mental health plan and a substance abuse plan. many requirements dictated by the state. we monitor compliance by the agencies of those, for example,

like posting grievance policies, letting clients -- >> i will cut you off. the answer is yes. there is a performance-based aspect. >> correct. >> thank you. how are we measuring the efficacy of these programs? is there data? >> yeah. >> okay. >> each year we do a monitoring report. it is an annual monitoring report that takes all of the objectives that are included within that agency and scores them. we get a score of how they are doing, and that covers programmatic performance outcome it is compliance with the other requirements that they have and then we also do a fiscal and monitoring compliance process in partnership with the controller 's office. if vendors are underperforming, aren't meeting -- aren't using up all their contracted dollars, then we look at that and move dollars around. our first goal is to help an

agency to address the problems through technical assistance. if they are falling short, because they are not able to deliver the services that we have contracted for. >> okay. just to clarify, was the mental health service r.f.p., has it already been issued? >> we have already issued it and we just finished 20 for behavioral health. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. next we will hear from -- are you done? okay. we will hear from oewd and i believe josh is here from the office of economic and workforce development. workforce development and particularly the pipeline to city jobs was a major priority for the committee. we also had a very robust discussion on which populations are best served and by workforce development plan adds this includes the reentry population.

this includes people experiencing homelessness and also includes our youth and transitional age to young people we designated $1 million annually to additional workforce to go towards quote vulnerable populations, ". that is a definition that you guys have come up with and i would love for you to start your presentation by defining vulnerable population. >> absolutely. thank you so much. i am the director of workforce development in the office of workforce development, i am joined by our deputy director for whom our agency is very indebted to enter the work she did to bring us to this point that i am very excited to present and share with you.

>> thank you. >> i to the question, if you would like me to continue, thank you. to your question, as far as definition when the board provided direction to our agency to implement a strategy to address vulnerable populations, we looked at three of our most vulnerable sets of communities of being left behind by the opportunities generated by this major economic boom and those who are in fact consistently left behind, whether it is boom or bust in the city and county. so the three categories we focused on where homeless, community members at risk of homelessness, residents of public housing, and that is the public housing in the broadest

sense that public housing shows subsidize housing, hope s.f. and all of our public housing community in the broadest sense possible, as formerly incarcerated committee members. so we administered these resources in a way that i can report out step-by-step in this presentation here. so if we were to -- if i can pause there, if you would like to further elaborates on how we took the direction from the board in terms of defining and administering resources to vulnerable populations. >> r.h. thank you. no need to pause. you can continue. >> thank you pick when it comes to homeless community members and those at risk of homelessness, $328,000 of the 1 million was allocated with respect to this population and in the way that we did so is in

the five areas that you see here and these are, in some cases, new programming, but in most cases, especially in this set of community members, it was deepening the investment of those who need service and more support to get economic opportunities out there. that was with respect to the tenderloin neighborhood access points making an investment his. and readiness services. tenderloin transitional youth access point and then front desk occupational skills training for the opportunities that are focused on. as we are mentioned, community members and those at risk, and culinary occupational skills training which is an industry that has a lot of opportunities. i can say off the bat, because i know it is important to you and the committee to know what services were r.f.p. just by virtue of looking at the slide, there is an asterisk. those were programs where there was an r.f.p. where there is not an asterisk,

there are services where there was an increased investment to reach into even deeper to serve community members. if there's any questions here, i can elaborate on any of the different investments with respect to homeless community members and those at risk of homelessness or i can continue to public housing residents. at any point, i'm also happy to answer questions you might have about how we measure the success in these investments. >> thank you. i do have a couple questions and i just wanted to pivot off of what supervisor fewer things. we were looking for some impact. how are we able to quantify that the monies that were allocating our having an impact, and in all fairness, this is a new position for you. i thank you started out a couple months ago, if i'm not mistaken. >> that is right. >> i know you are getting up to speed, as well as putting your team together. may be you could talk more about the impact.

>> yeah, absolutely. i've been around the block, it is safe to say. we benefit from having a great team. i would not use that as an excuse not to answer any and all questions that you have. this does just being a new person here and working as a director of workforce development. what i would say is that the success can be measured qualitatively and quantitatively is that the word? quantitatively. we can measure both and we will seek to do so. for the committee members coming in, we know the barriers that they have coming in the door. we are able to know the type of barriers where we need to help break down for folks to be able to go to work and start the jobs and start a career. particularly in areas where we have apprenticeship which is a key workforce development tool. we are able to say what are the number of barriers that were removed. what were the barriers that we have had challenges to remove that date get removed big in the case of the new programs of which does have some of the cases where the access points,

we see public housing and formerly incarcerated community members. they are job seekers and community members who enrolled in the training and get placed into a job opportunity that leads to career. it is a mix of the two. knowing, are we serving community members that we sought to serve collectively with our community partners and our labour partners, that may be we didn't get further enough and that led to the board investing in this way, we now know that we are serving. we will put the numbers on that in terms of barriers removed and increase placement opportunities >> thank you very much. i am particularly really interested in this funding because i really pushed hard in the ad back process. >> do you have any numbers of participants in these programs, and also, i am on the reentry

consults. i am completely interested in the formerly incarcerated. it is my understanding that as a member of the reentry consults, that when people who are formerly incarcerated are coming out of incarceration, they have a lot of skill training. that is one thing within our jail system that they have a lot of opportunity for. many come out with certificates and what they really need is a connection to jobs. i wanted to know, did they get any of this funding, because that is specifically what they do is actually, when people are leaving incarceration to connect to the jobs. and i think that is probably one of the best things that we can do would be for this money. can you please expand on that? >> the answer, with respect to the particular question is with the resources that have been invested for date and the

particular grantee, the answer is no. the reasoning is because two of the programs, one was recently put out for proposals. that was a program specific to an area to having an experience with the justice system that is in driving the grantee third opportunity to take direction to you, all of the information and to answer your questions have to do with now and we have to elaborate on the incarceration components. exciting opportunity is the resources that have been allocated but not yet put out to r.f.p. for in custody, in the jail, reentry construction training program. this is something that has been discussed by a number of us for many years with members of building trades, with charter

schools, the sheriff, and our organization and advocates. this is a potential for the initiative that could be inclusive of c.j. c.j. and other grantees. we would have to have a competitive process. certainly with your direction, it is something we would be mindful of to make sure we are included in the conversation. >> what i am hearing from you and correct me if i am wrong, we are trying to get people who are formerly incarcerated to get into living wage jobs in the trades. is that what i'm hearing from you? >> absolutely. what is the mechanism that is going to actually be the vehicle to have them access these challenges. this is why they come in. i know it is a specific organization. but this connection is a pathway to a job. i think even within dutch as you

know, that there are challenges to create a pathway for formerly incarcerated into these jobs. they are highly competitive. some of the processes may not be too open to formerly incarcerated folks. i worked on this with great concern with project labour agreements. so just tell me how this is actually going to be implemented because i think that that is very helpful and i think it is a very good plan. i just think that we have a limited amount of time and a limited amount of resources. i am more interested in getting people immediately after incarceration into a living wage job and a job where they can actively self-support. just explained to me the process

in which we are going to do this >> the vision is this. >> the first six months are the most critical time period to break the cycle of recidivism and the number 1 thing that we all consider and look at is economics. joblessness within the first six months can lead to getting stuck in the cycle of the failures of the criminal justice system. subdivision here, and just to share this is something that something that i and others have worked on and we are hopeful to be able to move forward. the vision is to be able to provide preapprenticeship curriculum based on the craft core curriculum inside the jail. we have even toured with the sheriff and partners and potential space to train inside. we would like to focus on the women's pod to do this and to provide a curriculum that makes the participants eligible to get their union card and go out and

work as an apprentice on day one of coming home. there is so much opportunities there. it is a way to get employers on the table. you check and then you go to work. it is something that we have a lot of hopes for and we like to get your guidance and and roll it out. >> what you are saying to me is it is direct hire from incarceration. direct hire into these labour trades. is that correct? >> absolutely. >> do we have any numbers about participants of these programs, that up to this point, and i realize it is only half your funding, what do we have any numbers and data about how many participants that we are actually serving with this money >> i can tell you with respect to the class b. driver his and occupational skills training component because we do -- i am using this.

we just procure the services entered into the conversation with the grantee. i can tell you what the outcomes would be. i'm just turning to the deputy director for a breakdown. i will give you some specifics for the driver occupational skills training. we can provide a deeper breakdown with respect to some of the outcomes around the hospitality. we can tell you what is projected with respect to the in custody construction training program. we can save at least 60 community members on the inside to go to work on the outside. with respect to the driver's training component to, what we anticipate, particularly because we are in conversations to connect this program to a driver 's apprenticeship program that was established by teamsters, joint council seven which is a great opportunity. we believe it is an apprenticeship key component workforce development. we are proposing this instance to propose 60.

so the objective is half of whom will get the class b. drivers license. this is important because empty able to tell you they need over the next year 250-350 drivers. if you come in with a class b. drivers license, you have a leg up to go to work in these drivers positions. if you meet the minimum requirements go from pre apprentice to apprenticeship, that opens up really good paying jobs and companies like ups, chariot, and other companies who have embraced high road and good paying jobs with benefits working with jointly managed apprenticeship programs. it is a good thing to have. and the third thing we have talked about is it is also just a value add to have the driver his license. it is something i know you worked on a number of years, supervisors, the driver his license is a big barrier for jobseekers jobseekers. >> absolutely. i think that we are -- we are in early november -- in early november, the funding was held in the fiscal year.

before we revisit it does revisit the next budget cycle, if i could set up a meeting to get some real numbers on it, i would like to see the impact, quite frankly. this is something i think that has great potential and also i have been interested in it for a very long time. my participation on the reentry council too. i have taken a deep interest in how do we get people from incarceration to a living wage job and they are able to support themselves and reenter into society with a lot of support? thank you very much. >> absolutely. thank you. and to the time and place will be there. would you like me to elaborate on public housing investment? >> i do. >> that is a total of $293,200 and the investment is in a new hope s.f. access point for public housing residents within the hope s.f. site. and a technology occupational

skills training component, healthcare, occupational skills training. these are considered with all the different languages and these are training programs pertinent to the sector which you see which is the first road in front of the long title. there is an overlap with respect to public housing residents served by the drivers apprenticeship training program and outreach to rad housing site that is what we know. that is -- working with the nonprofit sector through that program. so that it is important because we are really working hard to address some of the inherent challenges with respect to the system. we know we are really trying to address the fact that there are some ways where there is an unfortunate challenge around living in public subsidized housing because some times you can, especially around community members in public housing, it can be a concern that if you make more money, then your rents will go up, could go up and will

go up. and you run the risk of getting such a good job that you could income disqualify yourself and make too much money and not be able to qualify to live in public housing. so we really try to address two things pick one of which is if you do make more money, you -- your rents will go up but for every dollar that you pay an extra rent, it is two more dollars in your pocket. we talk about that and think it is an opportunity to elevate the conversation around doing what we can as a city to get every tool. and their good tools out there. i will not go down this path to fire but there are tools to keep folks and subsidize housing as

they make more money until they are able to make the jump up to and i'm subsidize housing situation for folks to stay longer and continue to make more resources. >> thank you very much. does not conclude your presentation? >> if you want me to go really quick, the total investment and formerly incarcerated community members is 225,000. they will provide to the committee a detailed breakdown with respect to the outcomes we anticipate. this is also a deepening of serving in an even more deeper way and a more meaningful way with memories of some of the services that are there today. and a last slide, there is an additional hundred $64,000 that went out to benefits. this is available for supportive services for all community members within the three sets of the most vulnerable populations that we seek to serve with the investment from the board of supervisors. as well as workforce program, technical assistance and training and all of our service providers who are eligible to

use these resources to cover expenses, materials, equipments and get to your union card, uniforms, any kind of training expenses and transportation child support and child care. anyway you can help ensure the continued path to success. we will be looking at what this does to existing requirements and outcomes we predict. we will go further with respect to the community members we serve. and lastly, one little worried about the technical assistance. this is something we provide in response to the community members. the agencies that serve community members. we need more support in terms of really building resilient organizations if the organization itself a stronger. it would follow that they will serve the community members that we are looking at through the lens of the most vulnerable populations. they will be served in a more meaningful way. >> a question about the

allocations. what was your internal process to determine which systemwide, how did you determine 164 thousand. >> in the case of this -- >> that is just an example. formerly incarcerated, you have 225. i just want to know how that allocation, how you came to those allocations. >> i have to say, i have to give credit to the deputy director daniel who led this process of conversations. it is a very robust one. i was a participant with impacts of the city build program. i was previously director of the city build program. i got to witness firsthand the process that she put in place with meaningful conversations with the agencies that serve today. these most vulnerable populations and then in respect to the new services, they are thinking through a really

community feedback driven approach to the new programs. i would have to say that the dollar amounts themselves, we are probably based off of standard practice in terms of if we have to save this more. a number of individuals within the categories of the most vulnerable community members, of what is the customary amounts that we are typically going to fund to save those community members. after that, would be a conversation in terms of what you will see, if i were to go back a slide is to relatively trying, as best as we could get close to equal almost thirds with respect to the three buckets. but with formerly incarcerated community members, some of the hope is to the extent, to too many slides kick. the extent you see 328 and 225 and hundred thousand dollars delta between homeless community members and at risk of homelessness community members and formerly incarcerated members.

it will really be something that we would really target the agencies that are serving formerly incarcerated community members. >> we have to keep moving. i appreciate your thorough presentation. next we will hear from the mayor touch office of housing and community development. mo c.d. is the largest funding recipient and the citywide spending plan. it includes a hundred $50,000 for capacity building for risk populations. million dollars for flexible housing subsidy pool and 300,000 4 barrier removal increasing access to affordable housing. there is a significant investment in eviction prevention, defence funds, in line with the prop f. approval that was passed in june. and mr chiu was here to tell us about their spending plan.

thank you. >> thank you. i have the power powerpoint set up on the laptop. >> san francisco government t.v. , we will need the powerpoint. there is. >> as other departments discussed, we went through similar requests for proposals process with the majority of our discretionary funds. we had a total of 17 allocations directed to us and we also had an additional 12 to allocations that game to other departments but decided to have us administer them. they were administered through a competitive r.f.p. process, for four of the allocations. we are able to add them directly onto existing grants because we had done a previous procurement of the year before for the same amount and for the same purpose. one of our discretionary funds

was specifically for staffing, and another one was distributed through a ground lease because it was directed to a specific affordable housing building for the buildout of the space connected only to the building. you can see, we did one r.f.p. on august 20th to award 12 grants, starting on october 1st , and then we did a second r.f.p. october 3rd for one more grant awarded to, and then we had to four allocations are added exec exactly to existing grants. you can see on the next a number of pages they are in the service areas of access to housing. eviction prevention, legal services, housing services, community building, job readiness, skills building, capital improvements to

community facilities and cultural districts for the $1 million that was noted for the flexible housing subsidy pool, we awarded it to two founding asian housing alliances and we are working with them now and we anticipate that we will be able to distribute approximately 80 deep rent subsidies on an ongoing basis. the primary recipient is likely to be a senior and people with disabilities. this amount was supported in large part by members of the senior and disability community. we have worked with a long-term coordinating council. there will be a portion of these dollars. they are low income individuals who will those who have been high enough in the process but they need that little bit extra to have them qualify income -wise for the b.m.r. units.

there will be a small portion for that, but we anticipate the majority of those funds will be toward seniors and evil with disabilities. the $500,000 you see next for the defence collaborative is combined with the 1.4 million through the budget rebalancing process to create a total of $1.9 million in this budget year for the second half that will go towards the right to civil council program. it will be a unique collaboration amongst all of the significant legal services providers to allow for full scope legal representation. we have been happy to really luck at a structural change with that change. we are also partnering with the san francisco superior court in order to make sure that those services are put out in the way that the voters who supported the prop f. really intended.

i will go to the next page. for the hundred $50,000 that was noted for the access point, we worked with them the year previously. you can see the variety of funds that we have for legal services, tenant services, the million dollars that we talked about before, and then $300,000 for access to housing. it is split up into two grants. $1,400,000 to the homeless prenatal program, which will be specifically working with homeless families. they anticipate working with about 200 families to assist them accessing our housing. and a new hunter edition of the 200,000 that we give into the housing development corporation with a subgrant of the youth

development corporation. we anticipate that they will be able to serve about 145 vietnamese speaking individuals who we found have not been able to access any of the existing services because of the language capacity and another 95 folks will be served by s.f. hdc targeting the african-american community. and with this grant, we really, we hope it will support the efforts of supervisor brown to react devise the space. they will be operating out of the fillmore space and will be providing direct tenant counselling and access to housing counselling out of the space that we are excited about the opportunity to energize that space, once again. yes, please.

>> i have a question that pertains to the last slide. what do they look like, and how were those organizations selected? >> what did it look like? >> for all of the use. >> for all of them, but these are specifically for the ones you highlighted in the presentation. >> we put out, in each round, we put out one r.f.p. that had each of the separate service areas set out to. for example, in access to housing, we put out the requirements of each service area. we sent it out to all of the access to housing organizations and to all of the neighborhood organizations for the access to housing fees for the 300,000, we included an interview process. we met after the poll was submitted with each of the

applicants to better understand what they were proposing, because honestly, you don't always get a sense of the true ability of the organizations to serve in a culturally competent way through paper. so we met with some specifically to determine did they have the staffing capacity to add onto the existing system? in the past, we have received different discretionary budget allocations and we wanted to make sure that these dollars would fill in the gaps that were not being covered by certain other allocations. in the past, we have received specific dollars for access to housing the district nine. >> it sounds like you had a carefully worded it does worded r.f.p. >> yes, we did. >> in order to capture folks that are not currently being served. >> for this one in particular, we made it clear that these dollars were not intended to supports, to fill in gaps in

their existing budget which would mean that if we did it that way, they would not actually be serving additional folks. this had to be new people served they had to be new individuals served. sometimes organizations come see you trying to fill in a loss of funding which is not actually mean that more san francisco his will be served. >> please continue. >> for the million dollars for the rental subsidies, similarly, we put out a specific r.f.p. for that, particularly the request for proposals. we had anticipated perhaps a number of individuals. we did not receive, we do not receive a large number. i think we have only received one application for that. what we do for all of these is we go through a comprehensive

conference and at those conferences, we offer opportunities for any interested parties to ask questions for all of us. we also encourage organizations to speak with each other and in many cases, is beneficial for us if those organizations can partner in a more effective way. and for the hundred 50,000 for the children services. for that one, we only received one application. again that was an organization that we had funded previously that was already providing the service and supervisor peskin's district. any other questions? >> i don't think so. thank you for your presentation. we will continue moving forward with our hearing. >> thank you. >> we will hear from denise who has recently joined the office of early childhood education. welcome.

so the office of early childhood education received $2 million to support the ece programming and also an additional $200,000 to support family service centres, particularly those serving the latino community. thank you. tell us a little bit about it. [please stand by]

we have regular communication with them and look at -- look at monthly projection reports and see what is going on so we can work together as to how best reach our families in san francisco. so this particular response is going to the scholarship fund. we can address the wait list. if you have questions. >> we don't have questions. >> the second part is the $200,000 discretionary fund for

family resource centers. this was allocated to support family resource centre. it is based on community reports. there is concerns about displacement of the families. this will allow the family resource center to help support families. and so this money will be supporting the family research centre and we are working closely to make sure the funding is appropriately spend and we look at the measures and so on. >> all right. so again thank you so much for the opportunity. and we certainly appreciate the funding that helps support the

youngest children. i do not think we have questions. we will move on with the presentation. thank you. i want to call up the next speaker. he will have a presentation for us addressing the senior population. we also received a bulk of discretionary funding, particularly around food security. we asked the director mcfadden to speak to specific allocations for residential care facilities. and then second, the skill and capacity building for seniors, the people with disabilities. thank you. >> yes. >> good afternoon.

thank you for the opportunity. and i will start out by talking about the two initiatives. i wanted to give you a brief update on the other ones which will be very fast. so the first one is that -- during the development for funding for residential care facilities for the elderly, this funding was called in a board hearing. based on alternatives for seniors. who are unable to stay home on their home but do not need a skilled nursing level of care. due to a variety of factors including increased regulations and labour costs the supply is decreasing. we lost a 29% decline. this funding will be used to alleviate the infrastructure costs in san francisco with a goal of supporting facility

sustainability. it is $300,000. the procurement process, the funding is currently going to a competitive -- we are hoping to get the rrsp by september and october. and in this case, we needed -- we tried to, we tried to get the money out quickly. in this case, we had a conversation about the best avenue to implement the funding. and to do an rsp. this is not something we put up this way before. and thinking about measuring success. the program has objectives on long-term sustainability and specific to the infrastructure project proposed.

for example, staff completion of training. behaviour and cognitive issues. that is where we are on that. march, 2019. the second big initiative is $600,000 for skilled capacity building for older people, people with disabilities. this funding was part of the board hearing in 2018. and the funding is being used to expand training and job placements. specifically for older people and people with disabilities. in this capacity, we will add to our current program that we fund. which is operated by the campaign and it is something we have been doing for a couple of years now where the living campaign, the reserve, they work with non-profits to pay for wage subsidies and they are hoping

that the non-profits will be able to continue providing care for individuals beyond the scope of the subsidy. in addition to that, at this time, they wanted to spend money on the services side. it is a big infrastructure. the workforce development and we wanted to really try to focus on their efforts on serving the elder population. we are working with them to build -- to expand their capacity to older adults. it will expand the capacity for workforce and about 60% will go directly to the community based provider. >> how did you come up with those -- that allocation? the percentages that you just -- >> we came up with that really by sitting down and having a discussion about how we could start something and support the community based organization in