but not the grantee? i'm not exactly sure what you meant by that. >> the original language that has been part of the law that we have administered and had our grantees administer it applied to grantees lobbying the federal government. that's part of the underlying law. what is added to our appropriation bill in 2012 and what i was trying to explain is that no new prevention grants have been issued under this new language and we are retraining grantees is that prohibition for grantees to lobby at the local level or the state level is now an additional piece of the law that was not part of the underlying statute. that's new. we will administer the directives to grantees to comply with that. there have been no funds that have been issued under the new law and i think the pages of examples which began to be recited were grantees who are lobbying at either the state or local level, not lobbying the federal government. >> okay. well, it says -- the current law that you cannot use the grant money, and in my mann

for example, in one town in california, baldwin park, they're using these -- the entity, the grantee is using this money to reduce the density of fast food restaurants and convenience stores. for example. and we have seven pages of this and it looks to me just on the surface that it's explicitly violating the law as set out in the appropriation act. >> again, mr. whitfield, the new language in our budget for fy-2012, we have not issued any new grants where the new language would be applicable. we are updating the grantee advice, but the prospective language has not impacted any of the grants in place. the language that has been statutory applied to our use of our federal funds. we have also complied with that law for years. so i can assure you that the new language attached to the fy budget and it did go beyond statutory language is one that we are updating grants about. >> well, ms. chairman, i will make the comment that it was understanding that this prohibition applied to fy-2010-11. >> it applied to us, but not the grantees. >> the gentle lady from illinois is recognized. >> just

, this is the first year of our department's new allocation plan, essentially this will have new grantees in programs. we will manage to make that cut, if at the end of the day we have to make that cut, or if there is growth in the children's fund we can make other solutions. but if we can make that target, it will be through the rfp process. in terms of the first year allocation plan, will the process for driving allocation plans be released in the coming budget year? >> after i finish my budget presentation i will give you a preview of the children's service allocation plan. supervisor chu: ok. >> so, this next slide, i wanted to show you a historical representation of the budget for the past three years and two years coming forward. as you can see, fiscal year-10 -- fiscal year 10-11, it impacted the budget. given the great news from our controller today, and the mayor's office, we are seeing an upward trend in the children's fund. we hope to see an upward trend in our children's fund revenue. supervisor chu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: do you have the change in general fund

we have a contract management database which requires all of our grantees to enter and monthly data into our system, data that is just general, how many kids in the program, but also updates along the lines of how many hours they spent in that particular after-school program. but we really want to do is correlate the hours of what we call structured activities because we believe national data and research shows it is not just a young person showing up at a program, it is about them participating in something that is structured and enriching. that system is connected to our invoicing system. a nonprofit cannot invoice us until they enter that data. in a way, we guarantee we collect that data. another way we make sure we are providing the appropriate oversight for the provider is we have our program officer go out and do program observations, as well as fiscal and contractual monitoring. that happens on a yearly basis, more if necessary. finally, we work with research and entities in the city. these are consulting organizations or universities, such as stanford, uc berkeley, to help us des

finally, our evaluators are working with our portfolio of 70 grantees who were instrumental in and forming our local action plan. from that point forward, they defined 5 questions that would inform whether the work was effective or not. finally, there's a couple of of accomplishments -- we are at the point where the action plan has been implemented, so we have revised the local action plan briefly but it's been awhile since we published the plan were here in front of the public safety committee in august, so there have been some accomplishments we have seen so far. we have also got a lot of accolades from our state partners to have seen this plan. they have requested for us to come in front of the board once again to have an updated resolution and demonstrate the support of the current year. however, from the last hearing and those results that were favorable, the state acknowledged our plan and we worked with their state to highlight the work that has come out of the action plan and may have seen the way san francisco structured their strategies and activities as an ideal way the state sh

strategies like these allow grantees to leverage resources of other agencies to identify and serve children with sustaining tbi. opportunities for such collaboration is a key focus of the inner agency committee. they will have assess bl and appropriate services and support and nih are making strides in areas of research and surveillance and behavioral health working to ensure that efforts are complementary and strategy e strategic levering of resources. this completes my prepared remarks. thank you for the opportunity to testify today and provide an overview of our program. >> we recognize mr. ditto for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you very much. chairman and ranking member from new jersey, just to clear things up. i am the retired director of the division of disability services in the new jersey department of human services. since i've been given a variety of interesting previous titles when i was introduced. i'm really here today not so much in that role but more in my role as chair of public policy committee for the national association of safe head injury administra

is the utilization of a competitive-risk based model to make these decision and also, requiring grantees to develop and sustain core capabilities and those criteria on the face of it raise certain issues because you're consolidating programs here that that have had somewhat different rationales and different criteria for funding decisions. the two largest are the state homeland security security program and the urban area security initiative. these are two very different programs. one is intended to build corp capacity across the country. the other is intended to protect the most at-risk areas of the country. i wonder if you could indicate up front, your estimate of how much money will go toward those two basic programs. and then, how are some of the current guidelines likely to apply when you're providing -- you're going to still provide as the 9/11 act requires, you'll still provide a minimal level of funding to each state. are you going to follow the current guidelines? how's that going to work? after you allocated the funds for the minimums, what is your next priority? i assume it's

i appreciate that effective for grantee to have skin in the game, it is often overlooked that the skin that the ports provide is the on going operations and maintenance cost of the grant funded equipment or systems. this is particularly true with technology solutions where the annual operating cost can be as high as 10% of the project cost. another hurd sl the environmental and historic preservation review. while other fema programs must go through these reviews, there isn't the threat of a loss of funds because there is no timetable associated with these programs. while ehp streamlined some of the reviews, there still are major reason why many of the grant projects require an extension. the fy-2012 grant announcement includes improvements to the program by expanding the use of funds for maybe tennance and allowing the limited use of grants for personnel. we are also pleased to see that despite the funding cuts, all ports continue to be eligible. restricting funding to the highest risk ports would leave a soft underbelly of unprotected ports for terrorists to exploit. we appreciate the

and your way of doing that is that you're going to require grantees to complete project within a shorter designated period of performance. so what is going to be the practical effect of that? are you going to be by shortening this time frame, are you going to be in effect eliminating certain capital projects, certain longer term projects such as tunnel hardening? there, too, you might want to give us a more detailed answer for the record. but my main concern here in this open setting is just to get a sense of how this is going to work. how your agency is going to proceed to take these formerly desperate funding streams and administer them as one. >> well, let me work backwards. on the $8 billion that is outstanding that has not been drawn down? disaster grants, i'm not saying we're not going to be granting more extensions. part of that is the authority to grant the extensions and also i found that as much people hate deadlines, they get stuff done. but we also recognize that in giving them the mission to get those moneys drawn down on projects, as much as it already work is under way. ge

is an nbc foundation grantee that is clearly making good use of funds donated to make a difference. now strive d.c. needs your gently worn business clothes, your suits, your dresses. so if you have those clothes don't throw them away. consider donating them to strive d.c. >> great program. >>> d.c. native duke ellington is back home in the district. tonight a statue of the jazz great is being installed at ellington plaza right next to the historic howard theater. the statue is called encore. it's 20 feet tall and it has a musical theme that shows ellington sitting on a treble clef while playing the piano. the statue was created by artist zachary oxman. of course, treble clef is above. >> middle c. >> middle c as you would well know. thank you. >> you play a piano, you know that. news 4 at 4:00 continues. charlie sheen apologizes for his erratic behavior last year. >> very exciting. very exciting. >> he's back. stay classy, san diego. will ferrell makes it official. >> and lottery fever is rising. so is the largest jackpot ever. that story >>> charlie sheen is trying to make a comeba

public feedback is being sought on whether or ot these clemency's should be grantee.has denied early release for 57 inmates that have been recommeded over the years ... sounds like thissis more serious-merits of why each should / should not be released-mark farley grant ... 14 at the timee... botched strret robbery... evidence shows another mmn was prosecutor, victim'' relative and innocence project advocating for his ... given life in prison ...served nearly 30 years so far-tamara settles... lured man from a bar to a place where her boyfriend robbed him... boyfrienddkilled man in the process... boyfriend got 9 years .... she got significantly more time .. in jail nearly 30 years-talk about puupose and need being able to grant cleemncydifferent than what haley barbour did that &pcaused so uch coming up... it's a double "no, no." no."an american idol contestann covers whitney houston.... by singing her signature song!find oot if the always love you".. aid off contestant. you're watching fox 45 morning news.. all local.. all mooning. cigarette dangerss the public smokin

one is the utilization of a competitive risk-based model, but also requiring grantees to develop and maintain capabilities, and those raise certain issues because you are consolidating programs that have had different rationale for funding decisions. as the two largest are the state's program and the urban initiatives. these are different programs. one is intended to build capacity across the country. the other is intended to protect the most at risk areas of the country. i wonder if you can indicate how much money will go towards those basic programs, and how are some of the current guidelines likely to apply, given that you are still going to provide a minimum level of funding to each state. after you have allocated, what is your next priority? i presume it is increasing capabilities in times areas, but how do these objectives coexist, and finally, when we are looking at some of the other programs, how are you going to grasp onto the is the use of the competitive risk-base model that has applied to programs like transit? how would seem a compare of port project to a transit project

also requiring grantees to develop capabilities.ou are consolidating programs that have had somewhat different rationales and different criteria for funding decisions. these are different programs. one is intended to build capacity across the country. the other is intended to protect the most at risk areas of the country. i wonder if you could indicate how much money would go toward those two basic programs? how are some of the current guidelines likely to apply? you are still going to provide a minimum level of funding to it states. are you going to follow the current guidelines? how is that going to work. after you have allocated funding, what is your next priority? how do these two objectives: this? finally, when we are looking at some of the other programs, how are you going to graft onto this the use of a competitive risk based model that has applied to programs like the transit and poured grants. for example, how would thema -- fema compare a port project to a transit project in an urban area? >> the shortest answer is to cave

the utilization of a competitive risk-based model for making funding decisions, but also requiring grantees to develop and sustain core capabilities. and those criteria just on the face of it raise certain issues, i think. because you're consolidating programs here that have had somewhat different rationales and, certainly, different criteria for funding decisions. the two largest are the state homeland security grant program and the urban area security can initiative. these are two very different programs. one is intended to build core capacity across the country, the other is intended to protect the most at-risk areas of the country. so i wonder if you could indicate how much would go towards those two basic programs and then how are some of the current guidelines likely to apply when you're providing -- your going to still provide as the then act requires, you're -- 9/11 act requires, you're going to provide a minimal level of funding to each state. are you going to follow the current guidelines? how is that going to work? and after you've allocated funds, what's your next priority? how

getting some of this money out the door, and your way of doing that is that you are going to require grantees to complete project within a shorter designated period of performance. so what is going to be the practical effect of that? are you going to be, by shorting this timeframe, are you going to be in effect eliminating certain capital projects, certain longer-term projects such as title hardening? there to gym i want to give us more detailed answer for the record. but my concern here is in this open said is just to get a sense of how this is going to work, how your agencies are going to proceed to take these formerly desperate funding streams and to administer them as one. >> well, congressman, let me work backwards. on a budget has come a outstanding has not been drowned -- drawn down, i'm not saying will be grading more extensions are part of that is distorted to grant those extensions and also i found that is much people hate deadlines, it gets stuff done. we also recognize that in getting them the nation to get those moneys drawn down on projects, as much as work is already done, gett