Final Published Csap

FORGING A
NETWORK OF SERVICES
THE 2007 - 2010

CHILDREN’S SERVICES ALLOCATION PLAN
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES
January 2007
www.dcyf.org
DCYF Vision, Mission, Goals, and Values
Vision: All San Francisco children and youth should reach adulthood having
experienced a safe, healthy, and nurturing childhood, prepared to become responsible
and contributing members of the community. Families should be supported by each
other, their neighbors, their community, and government in realizing this vision. Families
with children must be able to thrive in all San Francisco neighborhoods, in a place where
they are welcomed as integral to the City’s culture, prosperity and future.
Mission: The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families mission is to improve
the well being of children, youth, and their families in San Francisco.
Goals: San Francisco has adopted the following goals in its City Charter.
¾ Children and youth are healthy.
¾ Children and youth are ready to learn and succeeding in school.
¾ Children and youth live in safe, supported families and safe, supported, viable
communities.
¾ Children and youth contribute to the growth, development, and vitality of San
Francisco.
Values: Serving our community is the foundation of DCYF’s work.
¾ Diversity. The ethnic, cultural and economic diversity of San Francisco’s

communities and families is an asset. We embrace the wide array of family
configurations that nurture San Francisco’s children and youth.
¾ Equity. All young people must have equal access to supports and opportunities.
¾ Valuing community, family and individuals. The gifts and talents of every
individual, family, and community are valued and built-upon. All services use a
strength-based approach. Parents and caregivers are essential partners and
leaders in all programs.
¾ Empowerment and participation. Youth, parents and guardians are valued and
developed as partners, decision makers, and leaders and thereby experience a
sense of ownership and belonging in the programs in which they participate, and
in their communities.
¾ Collaboration and community. Active collaboration among community-based

organizations and City departments — on the neighborhood level and city-wide
— is essential. All stakeholders must work together to support San Francisco’s
children, youth, and families.
San Francisco
Children’s Services Allocation Plan
2007 – 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND, OVERVIEW, AND GOALS .......................................................................... 2

BACKGROUND ON CHILDREN’S FUND .............................................................................. 2
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF CHILDREN’S FUND, 2003–07 ...................................................... 2
CREATING A NEW ALLOCATION PLAN ............................................................................. 4
GUIDELINES FOR THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES ALLOCATION PLAN ..................................... 5
GOALS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES ALLOCATION PLAN, 2007 – 2010......................... 5
BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ...................................................................................... 7
II. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS IN EACH SERVICE AREA .......................................................... 10
EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION ...................................................................................... 11
OUT OF SCHOOL TIME .................................................................................................. 17
YOUTH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 24
FAMILY SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 30
VIOLENCE RESPONSE AND TRUANCY PREVENTION ........................................................ 34
WELLNESS EMPOWERMENT .......................................................................................... 41
YOUTH EMPOWERMENT ................................................................................................ 46
III. INVESTMENTS TO FORGE A NETWORK OF QUALITY SERVICES ...................................... 48
COMMUNITY BUILDING .................................................................................................. 50
INFORMATION AND ADVOCACY ...................................................................................... 54
ACCESS ....................................................................................................................... 56
ACCOUNTABILITY, CAPACITY BUILDING, TRAINING AND SUPPORT .................................. 58
OTHER ......................................................................................................................... 60
IV. PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICES ................................................ 61
V. MOVING FORWARD ...................................................................................................... 65
VI. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 67
APPENDIX A - CHILDREN’S AMENDMENT ....................................................................... 68
APPENDIX B - OVERALL CITY SPENDING ON CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES ................... 74
APPENDIX C - PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS ................................................................. 89
APPENDIX D - COMMUNITY VOICES – FINDINGS FROM COMMUNITY MEETINGS ................ 93
APPENDIX E - STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 97
APPENDIX F - NEIGHBORHOOD INDEX OF NEED ............................................................. 98
1
I. Background, Overview, and Goals
Background on Children’s Fund
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) was created in 1989 after
over 30 years of community advocacy. The collective vision of advocates was that San
Francisco have an arm within government focused exclusively on ensuring that young
people, ages 0 – 17, become healthy, productive, and valued community members.
Today DCYF achieves this vision by:
• Engaging stakeholders in planning and policy development;

• Providing information and resources;
• Coordinating services in the public and private sectors; and
• Funding a large network of agencies, which provide high quality services and
opportunities.
The funding DCYF administers comes primarily from the General Fund and the
Children’s Fund. The Children’s Fund is generated by an annual tax of 3 cents for every
$100 of assessed property tax value. The Fund was initially established by Proposition
J, known as the “Children’s Amendment,” approved by San Francisco voters in 1991,
and renewed by Proposition D in 2000. The “Children’s Amendment” resulted from the
efforts of advocates and community members and is now considered one of the City’s
major assets. (see Appendix A) The Children’s Fund and DCYF are often recognized as
national models.
One of the key provisions of the “Children’s Amendment” of 2000 is a three-year funding
cycle for DCYF. In the first year of the cycle, DCYF is required to complete a
Community Needs Assessment. This is followed by a Children’s Services Allocation
Plan (CSAP), which establishes funding allocations and outcomes for the overall Fund.
In the third year, DCYF issues a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a three-year
commitment of funding. An RFP based on this plan will be released in February 2007.
Accomplishments of Children’s Fund, 2003–2007
DCYF has achieved a great deal since the last Children’s Services Allocation Plan was
completed in 2003. In 2006, DCYF-funded programs served over 28,000 children and
youth, and 5,000 parents and caregivers. Through partnerships with community-based
organizations and collaboration with other government departments, San Francisco’s
children and youth now enjoy a wide array of child care, afterschool programs,
employment opportunities, as well as exposure to cultural programming. Families
receive support for the challenge of raising their children. High-risk children and youth
have a range of supports and opportunities to help them succeed. DCYF has been
responsive to the needs of homeless children and youth; youth involved in the foster
care and juvenile justice systems, and the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and families.
DCYF provides these services through grants to 177 different community organizations,
and 4 public agencies, including San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). In
addition to grants to individual agencies, we have created (or partnered with other City
departments to create) 20 innovative initiatives that provide coordinated services:
2
• Afterschool for All – Partnership with SFUSD, private foundations, and providers to
expand afterschool slots and create a system-wide training, technical assistance and
cultural enrichment program.
• Beacon Centers – Eight school-based comprehensive programs sponsored by
community-based organizations.
• Community Response Network – Collaboration with the District Attorney to fund
networks in high violence communities to prevent street level violence and support
victims of violence.
• Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Initiative – Collaboration with First Five
San Francisco and Department of Public Health to provide consultation to child care
providers on mental health issues of children in their programs.
• Early Literacy – Initiative to reach all pre-schoolers and their parents in Visitacion
Valley and Bayview Hunters Point with exposure to early literacy activities.
• Gateway to Quality – An assessment and funding program to help all child care
providers achieve quality.
• Jobs for Youth – Public/private partnership with United Way to expand youth jobs in
the private sector.
• MYEEP – Year-round youth employment program in 12 community agencies.
• New Directions – Summer employment program for youth in the juvenile justice
system, a collaboration with Juvenile Probation and Recreation and Parks.
• Rec Connect – Collaboration between community agencies and Recreation and
Parks to enhance the ability of recreation centers to serve as community hubs.
• Safe Start – City-wide project to improve services to young children exposed to
violence in their homes and on the streets.
• School-based violence prevention – Anti-violence program in six schools with high
levels of violence.
• Secure Our Schools – School safety program in four schools using Education
Intervention Specialists to reach out to students and parents.
• SF CARES – Stipend program for child care providers to offer financial incentives to
further their education in the early child care field.
• SF Families Connect – City-wide events to offer families information, entertainment,
and cultural enrichment, as part of SF Connect.
• SF Team – Eleven school-based literacy improvement programs – one per district.
• Shape Up San Francisco – City-wide initiative to promote physical exercise and
healthy eating.
• Special Needs Inclusion Project – Staff training, information, support, and on-site
technical assistance to promote the inclusion of children with special health care
needs and disabilities in community-based programs.
• Wellness Centers – Eleven high school-based health centers, focused on health
empowerment and behavioral health issues.
3
• Youth Empowerment Fund – 3% of the Children’s Fund dedicated to youth initiatives,
currently including philanthropy, organizing and entrepreneurship.
In DCYF’s annual client satisfaction survey, participants indicate that they are highly
satisfied. Youth and parents report that their lives improve; they feel respected; and they
trust staff. In addition, we conduct evaluations of many of our initiatives. For instance,
an independent evaluation of the Wellness Initiative documents that Wellness Programs
in the high schools are effectively enhancing students' capacity to make healthy
decisions, seek services on campus and in the community, strengthen their coping skills,
improve their relationships with family and friends, and improve their connection to and
performance in the school community. The evaluation of our SF Team initiative showed
that 75% of the elementary and middle school youth who participated in the program
improved their reading skill, which resulted in an increase in the percent of students who
scored at or above their grade levels by the end of the school year.
Yet, there is much more to do to improve the lives of all of San Francisco’s children,
youth and families.
Creating a New Allocation Plan
Issued in April 2005 by DCYF, “Mapping the Future of San Francisco’s Services to
Children, Youth and Their Families” identifies the key needs of our constituents and
promising strategies for meeting those needs. This Community Needs Assessment
served as the foundation of the Children’s Services Allocation Plan (CSAP).
During the past year, DCYF has undertaken an extensive process to guide our planning
process for the CSAP. (see Appendix C for more detail on the CSAP process) This
includes:
1) A comprehensive analysis of overall City spending on children, ages 0 – 17 (see

Appendix B)
2) Twenty-three community meetings involving 500 youth, parents, & service
providers (see Appendix D for a summary of the findings)
3) Ten strategic conversations with more than 150 content experts
4) Numerous collaborative conversations with public sector colleagues, including
eight department heads, who provide services to children and youth
5) Two public meetings with DCYF grantees
6) Two public hearings before the Citizen Advisory Committee of DCYF
7) Six public hearings before City commissions and boards – Health, Social
Services, Youth, Recreation and Parks, Juvenile Probation, and Mayor’s Office of
Community Development
8) Research on effective practices to achieve the outcomes prioritized by parents,
youth, and service provider colleagues
Promising practices were filtered by staff to determine the highest impact strategies.
The strategies selected are:
4
• Reinforce the vision, mission, goals and values of DCYF;
• Address key needs;
• Have a solid base of research leading to positive, youth development outcomes;
and
• Build upon local experience.
Guidelines for the Children’s Services Allocation Plan
Celebrate and build upon the strengths of the current system.

DCYF and its partners have a proud and important history of providing high quality,
culturally relevant, empowering services to San Francisco’s children, youth and their
families. San Francisco is home to some of the best practices and programs in the
nation. A sharpened focus on programming and increased accountability are welcome,
but not at a cost to the continuation of current excellent programs. DCYF will place a
high value on program continuity when it best serves the needs of children, youth and
their families. This is consistent with the initial goal of the Children’s Fund, to provide
stability to children’s services which, prior to 1991, lacked a stable funding base.
Leverage resources strategically.

In order to maximize the impact of the dollars spent by DCYF, we will:
• Prioritize spending on areas where there is the greatest potential for impact
based on best practices in the field.
• Prioritize areas where there is no other City department investment.
• Coordinate with, and blend resources with other City departments and the San
Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) in order to mitigate or reduce
inequities, create a continuum of care, and provide opportunities for children and
youth that would otherwise not be funded.
• Make public facilities more available to their communities. Many communities
expressed the desire to more fully utilize schools and/or recreation centers as a
location for providing youth and community services outside of school hours.
Goals of the Children’s Services Allocation Plan, 2007 – 2010
Throughout the development of this Children’s Services Allocation Plan, there were
consistent themes that emerged from the diverse voices of the many constituent groups.
These consistent themes are the basis of the goals of our Allocation Plan.
1. Serve all neighborhoods, all children.

We will distribute resources across all age groups and to all neighborhoods based on
number of children and level of need. We will ensure than every neighborhood has the
essential infrastructure to support families — quality child care options, a diversity of
choices for constructive out of school time activities for school age youth, and job
training and employment options to help transition older youth to adulthood. Family
support services that are vital for helping parents and caregivers meet the challenges of
raising children will be available in all neighborhoods. All neighborhoods will have
services which promote health and wellness, and empower youth and families as key
stakeholders in the community.
5
2. Focus on greatest need.
San Francisco is experiencing an increasing polarization in its child population — with
some of the country’s most well-off and high-performing children and youth as well as
some of the lowest. Race and class are the primary factors fueling this increasing gap.
Within each service area, funds will be targeted toward those populations with the
greatest need. In order to determine where the greatest need lies, we have identified
several risk factors, which we will consider in allocating resources. These include
income level, poverty rates, CALWorks participants, youth on probation, and SFUSD
graduation rates. We also recognize that almost 25,000 (22%) of the City’s children live
in public housing complexes. Their poverty rates, involvement in the child welfare and
juvenile justice systems, and family unemployment are the highest in the City. Services
for these children, youth and their families will receive special attention.
3. Foster inter-departmental partnerships.

DCYF has developed strong agreements and joint programs with other City departments
and the school district in order to effectively serve the City’s children and youth. These
partnerships will be deepened and expanded. The partnerships include joint
programming with Juvenile Probation, Department of Public Health, Mayor’s Office of
Community Development, Human Services Agency, Public Library, First Five San
Francisco, Recreation and Parks, and the San Francisco Unified School District. It is
particularly important that we collaborate with the City’s overall violence prevention
strategies, the emerging differential response network of HSA, and the Communities of
Opportunity.
4. Improve service quality and organizational capacity.

In some instances, the capacity of local organizations to meet changing needs was
questioned and the need for high quality standards was cited by community members.
During the past year, DCYF addressed the difficult and longstanding challenge of
improving accountability of funded programs. In partnership with community-based
organizations and City department representatives, we created a “Standards Initiative.”
We developed minimum and quality standards in each of our service areas and are also
developing high quality standards. The standards are based on youth development and
family support principles and national best practices, as well as the best thinking of
people doing the work on the ground in San Francisco. All currently funded programs
are being assessed to determine their compliance with minimum quality standards. Only
programs that meet these standards will be funded in the next cycle. Newly funded
organizations will also be required to meet minimum standards, and all funded programs
will be required to work toward high quality standards. Programs will be assessed for
their compliance with standards on an annual basis. (see Appendix E for a summary of
DCYF’s Standards Initiative)
5. Increase access.
Agencies we fund will be required to improve the accessibility of their services by
expanding outreach, increasing hours, improving language capacity and cultural
relevance, and serving children, youth and families with special needs as well as LGBTQ
youth and families. Furthermore, agencies will be expected to be accessible to the
diversity of children, youth and families in their neighborhoods even as neighborhoods
change over time and to link neighborhood residents to city-wide services when needed.
Ensuring safety and demonstrating sensitivity to turf lines and other neighborhood
dynamics will be essential. Agencies will also be expected to disseminate information
on important services on behalf of City departments.
6
6. Engage Families.
Because it is widely recognized that effective interventions with children and youth must
involve their entire families, we will be asking children and youth service providers to
develop strategies for reaching out to parents. This will be true even when the service is
primarily centered around the youth, as in employment and afterschool programs. We
will strive to make the service delivery system more family-centric, and engage parents
in supporting their children.
7. Build community.
DCYF is committed to using its leadership and grant making role to help build a sense of
community at the agency, neighborhood and city-wide level. We will work to make
programs to become environments where conflict resolution, tolerance, and diversity can
flourish. We will fund models which create community hubs of involvement and positive
activity in neighborhoods throughout the City. We will work on addressing the racial and
class divisions which challenge our communities.
8. Forge a collaborative system.

Discussion in several neighborhood meetings highlighted the relative wealth of services
in San Francisco, but a lack of coordination of services, particularly on a neighborhood
level. As DCYF and a city, we must create an integrated system of services responsive
to all of San Francisco’s children, youth and families. The goal of a coordinated system
is not new, but remains unfulfilled despite the fact that we are a relatively small town,
both one city and county, and have a strong base of service providers, and a relatively
high level of investment.
Overall, San Francisco invests $365 million (see Appendix B for an analysis) in children
youth and family services but this investment is often fragmented. The challenge is to
focus and align public investment to create a city-wide system. This Plan aims to
progress from funding single, isolated programs to forging a network of services which
are responsive to individual and community needs.
These goals overlay the specific service area strategies DCYF has developed for 2007 –
2010. The forthcoming Request for Proposals (RFP) will require that all agencies meet
the above goals as well as program standards established through DCYF’s Standards
Initiative.
Basic Elements of the Plan
Service categories
For 2007 -2010, DCYF will focus its funding in seven service areas:
• Early care and education for children, ages 0 – 5
• Out of school time activities primarily serving children ages 6 – 13
• Workforce development strategies aimed at youth ages 14 – 17
And for children, youth and families of all ages:

• Family support services
• Violence response and truancy reduction
• Wellness empowerment
• Youth empowerment
7
Neighborhood and city-wide services
The majority of programs funded by DCYF will serve a specific neighborhood, so that
participants can receive services near their homes or schools. This makes services
accessible and allows agencies to create environments and programs to meet specific
neighborhood needs. Strong neighborhood-based organizations contribute to the vitality
of the communities they serve, as stable and familiar neighborhood institutions.
However, services for teen parents, homeless youth and families, children with special
health care needs, new immigrants, LGBTQ youth, and other special populations are
often best provided on a city-wide (rather than neighborhood) level so that resources can
be pooled and unique expertise can be developed. Programs for these populations with
high-needs will be funded in various service categories – primarily through competitive
grants. We anticipate that approximately one-third of the grants from the Children’s
Fund will be allocated for city-wide services, maintaining the current percentage.
Empowerment Strategies
Youth and families must be empowered as stakeholders in their communities.
Organizations will be supported in providing leadership roles for youth and parents.
DCYF will proudly continue a 3% set-aside of the Children’s Fund for Youth
Empowerment. This fund—driven by youth themselves through the Youth
Empowerment Fund Advisory Board—will implement its plan of investing in youth
philanthropy, youth organizing and youth entrepreneurship. Bolstered by the
accomplishments of the Youth Empowerment Fund and the parent action grants of First
Five San Francisco, DCYF will be piloting a family action grant program to enable
parents and caregivers of children of all ages to have the resources to address pressing
community needs and develop their own skills and voice.
Capacity-Building, Training & Support

DCYF will continue to have a formal capacity-building program which will both broker
community resources and provide content specific training to help funded agencies meet
standards and address organizational challenges and opportunities. Some training will
cut across all service categories; some strategies will be specific to a particular funding
category. The most elaborate strategies are in early care and education, which include
a combination of technical assistance, peer support, adherence to national standards,
and stipends (SF CARES) for educational attainment of providers. Funds in each major
service area are allocated to field-led efforts and organizing because such efforts are
essential to forging a responsive system of services. We will also develop several new
strategies: A peer network for youth employment service providers, site-based mental
health consultation for afterschool programs, and a public/private technical assistance
funding pool for afterschool service providers with a focus on training for line workers.
To the feasible extent, we will collaborate with other City departments in our capacity-
building work. In addition, we will be training a core group of youth who will evaluate
programs and assess community need.
Flexibility
While maintaining our focus and overall priorities, we must retain some flexibility to meet
the changing needs of San Francisco’s dynamic neighborhoods and evolving population
of children, youth and families. To respond to emergencies or opportunities, DCYF
proposes will seek to support an emerging needs fund to meet one time critical needs of
8
agencies of up to $35,000 per year; and a youth activities fund to meet one-time, small
expenses of youth activities, trips, and events.
System Level Investments to Forge the Connections

The message in 23 community meetings was clear—community members and service
providers alike do not know the universe of services available and how to meaningfully
connect their services and efforts to a coordinated system. In addition to funding
individual services and programs, our aim is to develop a system of services that is
coherent, coordinated, responsive, and unites all stakeholders. To this end DCYF will
raise the expectations of funded agencies in terms of information and referral and will
fund a variety of system-level strategies:
• Community-based neighborhood conveners – We will fund 20 agencies in

neighborhoods throughout the City to convene public and private service
providers in their neighborhoods to better coordinate and plan services, advocate
for their community, and plan community-wide events.
• Support for “anchor institutions” – In the belief that all communities need anchor
institutions that serve as hubs for community problem solving and leadership
development, as well as a wide range of services for all residents, we are
providing seed money for what we hope will ultimately be an inter-agency pool of
funding for infrastructure needs and community engagement activities.
• User-friendly parent and youth information – DCYF is working to improve its
ability to provide information to the public about resources available to them.
Toward this end, we will be funding a parent-to-parent website, a youth-driven
information system, and a peer-to-peer family ambassador program.
• Family events under the Families Connect banner – In collaboration with our
community of service providers and cultural and educational institutions, DCYF
will sponsor three annual events for the City’s families: Family Festival, Family
Free Day, and Summer Resource Fair.
These investments are critical for forging a system that is responsive to the unique
needs of individuals, families and diverse communities.
9
II. Funding Allocations in Each Service Area
Based on the estimates of the City Controller, DCYF has built a plan anticipating a
Children’s Fund amount of $38,518,333, as well as projected general fund revenues of
$23,431,450; a community development block grant allocation of $850,000 from the
Mayor’s Office of Community Development, and other revenues of $1,794,600. These
allocations are only approximate and actual funding levels may vary. If additional (or
fewer) dollars are available, we will allocate dollars across funding categories in order to
maintain the approximate percentages presented in this plan.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Total Proposed 07-08

Seven Service Areas
Early Care and Education 11,828,650
Out of School Time 15,695,000
Youth Workforce Development 9,655,650
Family Support 3,409,000
Wellness Empowerment 10,015,000
Violence Response and Truancy Prevention 6,324,083
Youth Empowerment 1,070,000
SUBTOTAL 57,997,383
System-wide Investments
Community Building 1,420,000
Information and Communication 1,117,000
Access 650,000
Accountability, Capacity and Training Support 700,000
Administration, Management, and Operations 2,460,000
Miscellaneous Competitive Grants 250,000
SUBTOTAL 6,597,000
TOTAL 64,594,383
Note: Allocations based on best available projections of revenue.
The 2007–2010 proposed allocation presumes nearly a 6% growth rate in the Children’s
Fund and presumes general fund allocations are annualized including supplemental
appropriations.
***************************************************
A discussion of each service area and its underlying strategies follows in a consistent
framework, which addresses:
• Target Population
• Desired Result
• Background
• The Current City-wide Picture
• Community Voices
• DCYF’s Funding Strategies for 2007 – 2010
• DCYF’s Role
• Partners
• Expectations of Funded Agencies
The approximate funding amount for each major strategy is shown.
10
Early Care and Education
Target
Population: Children 0 – 5 and their caregivers
Desired
Result: All San Francisco children have access to quality early care and
education services to support their social, emotional, and
academic development; and their parents/caregivers can
contribute to their households and the City’s economic
prosperity.
Background: Recent advances in the neurosciences have demonstrated what

generations have known intuitively — high quality care for
children from the day they are born pays off in terms of significant
future benefits to society. Theses benefits are both social and
economic. Children who experience high quality early care and
education demonstrate better social skills, and more success in
school. Longitudinal studies show that high quality programs,
particularly for low income children, provide significant economic
gains through increased earnings and decreased public
expenditures on special education, juvenile delinquency, adult
incarceration, health care, and social services. Investment in high
quality early care and education both improves outcomes for
children and reduces overall government spending.
Current City-wide Over the past nine years, San Francisco has built a child
Picture: care/early care and education system that addresses some of the
most challenging issues in a dynamic field: quality of care,
wages, facilities, cost and supply. Through voter passed
Proposition H, San Francisco is working toward providing
universal preschool to all the City’s four year olds by 2010. In the
current year, San Francisco has invested $550,000 in local
dollars to create universal access to child care for homeless
families in shelters; and $1,500,000 to increase the affordability
of infant/toddler care for working families. Bolstered by strong
field-led advocacy, the City’s policies and programs have
become models for the nation.
In the 2005–2006 budget year, overall City spending in early care

and education was more than $49 million — comprised of
spending for direct child care services and system-wide supports.
Four City departments invested nearly $33.6 million in direct child
care services and subsidies for children and their families. The
Human Services Agency is the largest funder of child care
services through the CalWORKS child care subsidy program,
and other state and federal revenues associated with child care
benefits provided as entitlements for high-need families. First 5
San Francisco provides nearly 10% of funding for direct services,
11
followed by DCYF at 4%, and the San Francisco International
Airport at 1%, which partially supports an after-hours child care
center for its employees.
Over $15.6 million is also invested in system-wide supports, and

benefits for child care providers to improve the quality of care,
promote the compensation and stability of the workforce, improve
facilities, and other strategies. The Human Services Agency
provides 47% of this funding, 41% is provided by DCYF, and
12% is provided by First 5 San Francisco.
Early care and education serves as a model for inter-agency

collaboration and aligned funding. Since issuing a joint request
for proposal for child care/early care and education funding in
2003, the Human Services Agency, First 5–San Francisco, and
DCYF have had a formal collaboration to align resources,
monitor contracts, and develop new strategies to support high
quality child care/early care and education opportunities for San
Francisco’s youngest residents.
Despite a relatively high level of investment in early care and

education, challenges remain. In San Francisco, licensed child
care is available for only 42% of children with parents in the labor
force. Only 5% of spaces in child care centers — just 873 — are
available to meet the needs of nearly 20,000 infants and
toddlers.i The cost of child care is prohibitive for most families —
the average cost of infant care in a child care center is over
$1,000 per month, nearly the full annual salary of one minimum
age worker.ii Approximately 4,300 children are currently on
eligibility waitlists for subsidized child care in San Francisco, and
80% of subsidy eligible families seeking infant/toddler care are
unable to find it. iii State funding for subsidized child care is made
available on the basis of a standardized reimbursement rate
which falls significantly short of meeting the full cost of providing
care in San Francisco.
Early educators/caregivers are essential for children’s healthy

growth and development, but face high educational requirements
and low pay, resulting in a high rate of turnover among the early
educators/caregivers. Community members spoke out about the
need for high quality, affordable child care/early care and
education services that were responsive to their needs, providing
a choice of culturally appropriate options, particularly for those
caring for infants and toddlers. DCYF’s strategies to address the
needs in the field seek to respond to these challenges.
Community Participants in community meetings identified availability of child

Voices: care as a top priority. The Chinatown, Mission, Treasure Island,
and West Portal residents identified child care as their number
one priority. Challenges both finding and affording child care
were noted. Service providers voiced the pressing need to
12
expand the supply and affordability of child care for infants and
toddlers, and to address the workforce needs of caregivers.
DCYF’s DCYF will continue its strategic alignment and formal

Funding collaboration with our partners, First 5 San Francisco and the
Strategies Human Services Agency. Early care and education funding will
for 2007 - 2010 be issued in a separate request for proposals developed with
these partners. Subject to further development, DCYF has
identified the following key strategies and tentative allocations in
early care and education.
Strategy 1: Building on a program launched in the current year, DCYF will

Early Literacy fund a collaborative of community agencies focusing on building
Initiative the literacy skills of and resources for families and informal
caregivers of children in public housing developments. This effort
is currently focused in the Bayview/Hunter’s Point and Visitacion
Valley neighborhoods through the Mayor’s Communities of
Opportunity Initiative. If this strategy proves effective, it may
expand to other public housing developments as the Children’s
Fund grows.
Allocation: $300,000
Strategy 2: DCYF will provide funding that can help support the operational
Competitive Grants costs of direct child care services for low income families.
for Early Care and Funding will continue to be made available to agencies providing
Education care in child care centers and homeless shelters and residential
Services treatment programs. For the first time, DCYF will support family
child care homes, through making funding available to family
child care networks. Priority will be given to programs serving
infants and toddlers. Licensed child care programs will need to
have completed or scheduled Gateway to Quality Assessment by
December 31, 2006 and receive an aggregate score of 3.0 or
higher.
Allocation: $1,800,000
Strategy 3: DCYF will continue to provide child care subsidies/vouchers with

Child Care $660,000 for low income working families; $1,000,000 will be for
Subsidies infants and toddlers (children 0-3); and $1,050,000 for children
living in homeless shelters. Our goal will be to create universal
access to child care services for homeless families. These funds
will not be competitively bid but provided by contract to the local
resource and referral agencies for administration to families.
In addition to these investments in direct services, DCYF will continue to support

system-wide investment designed to improve the quality and preserve the supply of
licensed child care services for San Francisco’s working families.
13
Strategy 4: A stable workforce is critical to the quality of care and early
Workforce education. DCYF will support four workforce strategies: 1) DCYF
Investments will continue the high level commitment of $1,529,388 annually to
the SFCARES (Comprehensive Approaches to Raising
Educational Standards) program which provides stipends,
training and technical assistance to the child care workforce; 2)
DCYF will continue to support the WAGES+ program of the
Human Services Agency at $258,019 annually; 3) DCYF will
continue to fund at $260,000 for the Provider Health Benefits
program for family child care providers to have access to health
insurance; 4) In addition, DCYF will support an expanded
substitute reimbursement pool for both family child care providers
and licensed child care center providers. Our hope is that other
funders will contribute to this pool so that child care/early care
and education professionals can obtain critical release time from
teaching responsibilities in order to further their own education
and professional development. DCYF has allocated $112,593 to
seed this effort.
Strategy 5: DCYF remains committed to supporting programs and providers

Gateway to Quality to increase the quality of child care/early care and education
provided through a multi-tiered strategy, based on the research
validated rating scales. DCYF will invest $800,000 in an
organized assessment and support strategy.
Strategy 6: For the last three years, DCYF has supported the Infant/Toddler
Preserve the Sustaining Grants program along with First 5-San Francisco.
Supply and Lower Through community advocacy, this program was recently
the Costs of Infant/ expanded by $1,000,000. DCYF will build on lessons learned
Toddler Care from the current program design, and work collaboratively with its
co-funders and community partners, to revamp and redesign an
effective, efficient program designed to help reduce the cost and
preserve the supply of high quality infant/toddler care. This
revised program may be linked to one or more strategies outlined
here for maximum impact.
Strategy 7: Since 1998, DCYF has supported the Child Care Facilities Fund,
Child Care a public-private partnership formed in order to improve and
Facilities expand the supply of licensed child care facilities in San
Preservation, Francisco. Revenues generated from child care services,
Improvement & whether from private or public sector sources, are often so
Expansion constrained that programs are forced to under invest in their
physical infrastructure. This is particularly troubling, as many
children spend more time in child care than in any other setting,
including their own homes, and when child care environments
14
are critical to supporting and fostering healthy development.
Local funding sources for child care facilities development are not
enough to meet the needs; and creative thinking, policy and
advocacy efforts must focus on long term, high dollar capital
strategies. In the interim, DCYF will allocate the funds it has
available to meeting high priority needs.
Allocation: $700,000 (approximate, based on ongoing

commitments, and funds available in the Child
Care Capital Fund)
Strategy 8: DCYF values the technical assistance and training as key

Competitive Grants strategies for providers to develop professionally, and for to
to Community- programs to raise the quality of services provided to children and
Based families in their settings. With our collaborative funding partners,
Organizations to DCYF has embarked on a participatory process to examine
Provide independent technical assistance strategies in an effort to create
Technical an organized system of technical assistance (TA) for the early
Assistance and care and education field. This system is still under development.
Training
Strategy 9: The City has pioneered a Centralized Eligibility List (CEL) to

Increasing Access efficiently match subsidy eligible families with available child care
to Child Care resources. This provides a vital service to families — who
Services previously had to navigate a range of waiting lists — and
invaluable data for policy and planning purposes. Despite the
support of the CEL, two special populations need additional
support to access child care services to meet their needs.
Allocations will be set aside for enhanced child care referrals and
support for both homeless families and the families of children
with special health care needs. Historic local funding will leverage
approximately $197,823 annual in funding from the California
Department of Education-Child Development Division for the CEL
project.
Strategy 10: Peer-to-peer support, organizing and advocacy are key to the
Funding for Field development of the child care system in San Francisco and will
Building be key to forging an innovative, responsive system in the future.
DCYF will allocate resources to support field-led initiatives and
organizations as a concerted aspect of our strategy.
Strategy 11: Staff is necessary to both effectively steward DCYF’s investment

Staffing in early care and education as well as champion local system
changes and advocate for more resources for early care and
education from the State and Federal Governments. Positions
include: City-wide Child Care Administrator; Program Officer; and
15
Early Childhood Mental Health Services Coordinator.
DCYF’s Role: • Fund direct child care services and system-wide supports
• Coordinate efforts with inter-agency partners for maximum

impact
• Change systems to improve the supply and quality of child

care, including advocating for more state and federal
resources
• Collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of funding

and system change strategies
Partners: Successfully raising children is both a family and community

responsibility. DCYF values parents and guardians as their
child’s first and most important teacher. Extended communities
and service providers are vital partners in helping parents raise
and nurture children. DCYF will continue to work collaboratively
with our funding partners, First 5-San Francisco and the Human
Services Agencies to both align funding and create policy and
systems changes that improve the access to available, affordable
high quality early care and education throughout San Francisco.
Expectations Funded agencies will be required to meet minimum program

of Funded standards for early care and education and will be supported in
Agencies: efforts to reach high quality standards. In order to develop an
effective and coordinated system of services, agencies funded in
early care and education will be expected to form linkages with
local schools to support effective kindergarten transitions; and
with family resources centers and funded family support agencies
in their area in order to provide effective information and referral
services to families. All child care centers funded by DCYF will
be expected to be active participants in the Early Childhood
Mental Health Consultation Initiative (ECMHCI) and participate in
trainings of the SafeStart Initiative.
16
Out of School Time
Target
Population: All children and youth, with a focus on 6 – 13 year olds
Desired All San Francisco children have safe, supportive, challenging and
Result: fun places to be during the out of school hours and in the
summer, freeing their parents and guardians to work without
worry.
Background: San Francisco is home to more than 50,000 elementary and

middle school age youth; and nearly 25,000 high school age
youth who need positive opportunities and activities in the out of
school hours. Out of school time programs are the core of the
service delivery system funded by DCYF. DCYF has adopted
the youth development approach for this work. Youth
development principles emphasize the development and
provision of supports and opportunities for young people to
develop skills and a sense of safety, competence, usefulness,
belonging and empowerment.
Quality out of school time opportunities provide their participants:
• a safe, structured place while parents/guardians work

• the supports and opportunities that they need to become
successful, healthy adults
• learning activities that can complement the lessons of the
school day
• enrichment opportunities designed to explore themselves
and the world around them
• healthy physical fitness and recreational activities
• a place to have fun
Out of school time covers the wide range of programs that

promote learning, take place outside of regular school hours and
enhance the cognitive, social, physical, artistic, and/or civic
development of youth. Out of school time programs provide a
safe, accessible space, operate at both school and community
sites and encourage youth to explore the world around them.
The benefits of quality out of school time programs are many.

Children who experience quality programs have strong social
networks and perform better in school, and are less likely to get
into trouble. Parents and guardians are able to work with the
knowledge that their children are safe and supported. This is
especially true during the summer. Because each child and
family is different, it is essential to have a diversity of out of
school time program options available in neighborhoods and city-
wide.
17
Current City-wide San Francisco is home to vast array and diversity of out of school
Picture: time programs for youth. The overall system of out of school
time services is hard to quantify because many opportunities are
privately provided and funded. Many parents privately pay for
services and foundations invest heavily in youth development
programs. The public sector’s portion of these services is very
significant.
In the 2005–2006 budget year, 12 City departments and SFUSD

supported out of school time programs representing spending
just over $49 million dollars. 90% of out of school time programs
are provided by four major entities. The Recreation and Parks
Department is the single largest funder of out of school time
activities providing 31% of the investment for sports, recreation,
latchkey, and summer camp programs. DCYF is the second
largest funder of out of school time programs (27%) through its
web of funded community-based agencies who provide a variety
of programs and opportunities. The School Health Programs
Department of SFUSD is the third largest provider of out of
school time services (nearly 17%). The Library is also a system
which actively supports the growth and development of youth
during the out of school time hours with a multitude of children’s
programming, clubs, homework help and activities (15% of out of
school time spending).
Nine additional City departments provide the balance of out of

school time investment (10%).
San Francisco’s system of out of school time services is vast,

comprised of public and private programs, and has much to offer
youth and parents. Yet this host of programs and options is not a
coordinated system. San Francisco has many assets on which
to build and is at a stage identified by a recent, national research
report on afterschool programs:
“The programs constitute, in most places, a patchwork of

independent efforts cobbled together by individual
neighborhoods and schools, funded by a hodgepodge of often
unrelated grants and contracts, and certified or evaluated by no
single authority.”iv
Recent focus groups with 200 parents from 9 schools identified

afterschool programming as a top parent priority. “Many parents
said that the afterschool programs at their schools were of poor
quality, unavailable, or failed to provide kids with the homework
support and enrichment activities they needed.”v
In San Francisco, out of school time planning and programming

is ripe for more active, creative, and integrated collaboration in
order to: increase funding for, and availability of, programs;
18
broker enrichment opportunities city-wide; ensure program
offerings meet standards of quality; and centralize information so
parents and youth are informed about the diversity of options
available.
A system-wide approach to providing out of school time services

is underway with San Francisco’s newly formed Afterschool for
All Initiative. Sparked with a policy pledge made by Mayor Gavin
Newsom in October 2005, Afterschool for All is a collaboration of
the San Francisco Unified School District, the City of San
Francisco, foundations and providers. The goal of Afterschool for
All is to provide quality afterschool programs for all San
Francisco elementary and middle school children who want them
by 2010. Currently in its first year of implementation, Afterschool
for All seeks to leverage $3 - $5 million in new state funding for
afterschool programs through Proposition 49. Implementation of
Afterschool for All will be the major focus of DCYF’s out of school
time funding strategy for 2007–2010.
Community Afterschool services were identified as a top priority in community

Voices: meetings by community members in the Bayview, Richmond,
Bernal Heights and city-wide. Parents and youth alike want a
diversity of quality programming choices both at or near school
and in the community. Service providers voiced the need to
allow diversity in programming, and identified great opportunities
to improve enrichment offerings to youth. They requested
training and support to offer strong programs, conduct effective
violence prevention, and meet the needs of participants with
mental health issues.
DCYF’s Funding DCYF will take a leadership role in forging a city-wide system
Strategies and continue its commitment to being a major funder of out of
for 2007 – 2010: school time programs through grant making to community-based
agencies and continuation of major initiatives. Subject to further
development, DCYF has identified the following key strategies
and tentative allocations in out of school time programming.
Strategy 1: In order to meet the policy goal of universal access to quality

Competitive Grants programs by 2010, DCYF will expand funding available to meet
for High Quality 3 – the operational costs of consistent, 3 – 5 day a week afterschool
5 Day A Week Out programs serving elementary and middle school children in a
of School Time variety of settings. Priority will be given to programs with a
Programs Serving proven track record, multiple funding sources, and which meet
6 – 13 Year Olds DCYF’s high quality standards for afterschool programs as well
as year-round programs.
Strategy 2: DCYF will continue to fund enrichment activities for children and
Competitive Grants youth in the out of school hours. Enrichment activities include
for 1 – 2 Days A academics, visual and performing arts, music, cultural awareness
19
Week Academic and understanding, sports and physical fitness, creative
and Enrichment expression and other programming. Priority will be given to
Programs programs with a proven track record, have multiple funding
sources, and meet aspects of DCYF’s high quality standards for
afterschool programs. Priority will also be given to program
serving children and youth 6 – 13 and year-round programs.
Strategy 3: Based on feedback from participants in community meetings,

Teen Programming DCYF will have a specific funding strategy for out of school time
activities exclusively for older teens 14 – 17. This funding will
support a wide array of recreational, cultural, academic services
and safe evening activities (excluding youth employment) and will
be made available on a competitive basis.
Strategy 4: Summer is an important time to engage young people in safe,

Summer Only stimulating, developmental activities. Community-based
Activities organizations are an increasingly key part of the summer
programming puzzle, as parents work more and longer hours and
summer school availability decreases. DCYF will allocate a pool
of funding to support summer programs.
Strategy 5: The San Francisco Beacon Initiative is a public-private

San Francisco partnership that promotes youth and family centers in our public
Beacon Initiative schools. The goal of the Initiative is to offer opportunities,
services and activities that promote the healthy development of
children, youth, families and communities. Eight Beacon Centers
operated by community-based non-profits and housed in public
schools across the City provide youth development opportunities
before and afterschool, on weekends and in summer. The
centers now serve nearly 7,500 youth and adults, every year.
The Beacon Initiative is a broad-based partnership that includes
the San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their
Families, the San Francisco Unified School District, community
organizations, and local foundations, led by the Evelyn & Walter
Haas, Jr. Fund. The Centers offer young people a vibrant array of
programs focused on five different areas that are important to
their future: education, career development, arts and recreation,
leadership, and health.
As community centers, Beacons are designed to be responsive

to the local needs and conditions of specific neighborhoods. The
communities’ ethnic makeup, organizational resources and
specific youth and adult needs shape the Centers’ operations
and offerings. Therefore, each has a unique personality and feel.
20
DCYF’s allocation for the Beacon Initiative includes a $376,000
annual allocation for continuation of the effective Beacon Case
Management program which provides intensive services to high-
risk young people who attend Beacon programs. 20–25 students
at each Beacon site will be provided case management services,
to reduce possible recruitment into gangs, sets, cliques, to be
hooked up into more positive, safe, and legal alternatives both in
school and afterschool in the community, and to develop a
personal care plan that would prevent greater involvement in
disciplinary action at school and possible sustained contact with
the juvenile justice system.
Strategy 6: Launched in December 2005, the Rec Connect initiative expands

Rec Connect recreation, developmental, and fitness programs and activities in
five key recreation sites in high-need neighborhoods benefiting
thousands of children each year. Active collaboration – between
the Recreation and Park Department and DCYF on the public
side, and community organizations and foundations on the
private side—is the hallmark of Rec Connect. Rec Connect
collaborations will impact 5,000 children and youth per year.
Efforts of the Rec Connect pilot will be formally evaluated to
determine increases in the number of children and families
served at each site, and improvements in the diversity of
programs available. Selected through a competitive request for
proposals process, Rec Connect sites [Bayshore/Portola Valley
(Palega); Bayview/Hunter’s Point (Gilman); Mission (Rolph and
Garfield); Western Addition (Hamilton); Sunset (W. Sunset)] will
continue to receive public funding from DCYF 2007 – 2010. This
public funding will leverage $500,000 or more in private funding.
Strategy 7: SF TEAM (San Francisco Together Education Accomplishes

SF TEAM More) is a program that partners schools and community-based
organizations to provide academic support to San Francisco
youth. The main goals of SF TEAM are: 1) Literacy and
Academic Achievement and 2) School-Community Partnerships
to support literacy development and academic achievement of all
students. The program is currently in 16 elementary and 4 middle
schools in each of the eleven supervisor districts in San
Francisco. SF TEAM defines “expanded learning” to include
programs that are not restricted by time and that are not part of
the school’s core instructional activities. Examples include
before and afterschool activities or special support programs
offered during the school day, and literacy-rich summer
programming.
21
Strategy 8: Formal technical assistance and training is a key component to
Technical building a system of quality afterschool and out of school time
Assistance and programs in San Francisco. Agencies to provide technical
Training assistance will be selected by a request for proposal process to
in late 2006 and subject to performance, will be supported
through 2010. Key areas of technical assistance are: training;
neighborhood resource coordination; and peer mentorship
strategies.
Strategy 9: Peer to peer support, organizing and advocacy are key to forging
Funding for Field an innovative, responsive system of out of school time services in
Building the future. DCYF will allocate resources to support field-led
initiatives in the areas of afterschool and out of school time.
Allocation: $55,000

Staffing in out of school time as well as champion local system changes
and advocate for more resources from the State and Federal
governments. Positions include: Planner and Policy Analyst,
and two Senior Program Officers.
DCYF’s Role: • Fund out of school time services.
• Coordinate efforts with inter-agency partners, in order to

realize the goal of universal access to quality out of school
time programs for all elementary and middle school children
who want them by 2010.
• Change systems to improve the supply and quality of

services, including advocating for more state and federal
resources.

and system change strategies.
Partners: Forging a diverse, responsive and high quality system of out of

school time services will take active collaboration with major
providers. DCYF looks forward to increased coordination with
the San Francisco Unified School District, Recreation and Parks
Department, Library, community-based agencies, and
foundations to expand and improve the quality of services for
San Francisco children and youth.
Expectations of Funded agencies will be required to meet minimum standards for

Funded Agencies: out of school time, and will be supported in their efforts to reach
22
high quality standards. In order to develop an effective and
coordinated system of services, agencies funded in out of school
time will be expected to provide timely and updated information
about services for resource and referral purposes; form linkages
with local schools to support effective alignment with school day
activities; and with family resource centers and funded family
support agencies in their area in order to provide effective
information and referral services to families. All out of school
time programs funded by DCYF will be expected to be active
participants in the afterschool mental health program pilot as it
develops. In order to ensure that there is a diversity of high-
quality out of school time choices at the neighborhood level,
funded programs will also be expected to collaborate with other
programs in their communities.
23
Youth Workforce Development
Target Youth 14 – 17, with some programming available to youth as

Population: young as 11
Desired All San Francisco youth will be equipped with workforce

Result: experiences and knowledge of career options by the time they
turn 18.
Background: For young people to thrive as adults, they need a strong

academic foundation and the ability to be successful in a
career. Careers are cultivated from an early age—with a range
of experiences at home, in the classroom, on the job, and in the
community. Quality experiences create an expectation of the
future and a link between a young person’s experiences of today
and a logical next step in a long term career path toward an
economically prosperous adulthood.
Existing employment and career development opportunities are

inadequate to meet the needs of San Francisco’s youth. Thirty
years ago there were over 10,000 federally-subsidized work
experience opportunities for youth. Today, there are less than
200. While the City has responded with significant local
investment particularly in subsidized employment, the City needs
to move beyond subsidized youth employment placements to a
clear and concerted youth workforce development strategy. This
strategy will draw on public and private sector resources to
create a progression of experiences and skill development for
young people in alignment with the City’s growth
industries. Aligning programs, systems, and policy into a youth
workforce development strategy will enable San Francisco to
grow its young people into successful workers of tomorrow.
Current City-wide A city-wide picture is comprised of both funding and policy. In

Picture: the 2005-2006 budget year, the City of San Francisco invested
$6.6 million in youth employment services through the efforts of 8
City departments. In addition, the Private Industry Council
invests approximately $1.6 million in youth employment
services. The vast majority of public investment is targeted to
subsidized job placement most typically provided with some job
training components. Since the completion of data analysis for
this report, a major expansion of the youth employment system
occurred, with more than $2 million dollars targeted to providing
services to youth in the juvenile justice system.
San Francisco has a rich and varied youth employment system

and a high local commitment to investing in young people. The
system has many model programs and provides thousands of
subsidized employment opportunities to young people. Yet,
24
funding strategies can be improved to generate better
results. First, young people need more opportunities to explore
the workplace and be prepared to make the most of a subsidized
employment opportunity. Service learning and other career
exploration activities, and increased, quality job readiness
training are key ingredients. Second, greater counseling and
transition services are needed to create a progression of
experiences for young people within and across programs and to
the private sector. To achieve this, funded agencies should be
resourced and held accountable for transition planning; that is,
helping and supporting a youth identify their own next step and to
make sure that next step is taken. A critical component of
creating a progression of work experiences for young people is
forging opportunities in the private sector. Finally, the quality of
funded services must be improved through implementation of
program standards, assessment of participant skill gains, and
tracking of participants over time.
While San Francisco is home to many successful programs, an

overall strategy which brings together relevant players, sets
standards of practice, and proactively shapes policy is
lacking. Particularly needed are proactive strategies to forge
private sector and school day connections to community-based
services providing services to youth. The Mayor’s Office of
Economic and Workforce Development is poised to take this
much needed and important leadership position.
Community Youth employment was the top priority identified in community

Voices: meetings in the Sunset, SOMA, Tenderloin and Western Addition
neighborhoods. Young people want career exposure and work
to broaden their horizons, develop personally and make ends
meet financially. Youth employment is key for preventing high-
risk youth from joining gangs, or entering or returning to the
criminal justice system. Service providers see DCYF’s role as a
lead funder of subsidized youth employment, and identified
opportunities to increase career exposure, increase transition
planning, and forge connections to the private sector.
DCYF’s Funding From 2007 – 2010, DCYF will seek to align its funding and policy
Strategies work with efforts to forge an overall youth workforce development
for 2007 – 2010: strategy. DCYF will continue and expand its core commitment to
providing high quality, subsidized youth employment
opportunities city-wide, with resources targeted to highest need
young people. For maximum impact, job readiness training and
private sector links will be improved. DCYF’s funding strategy will
continue a commitment to subsidized youth employment, while
creating a broader continuum of experiences for young
people. Efforts will also emphasize increasing the quality and
impact of all services provided.
25
Strategy 1: Based on feedback from the community and Mayoral priority,
Service Learning DCYF will explore the feasibility of establishing a service learning
Initiative initiative in partnership with San Francisco Unified School District
and community members. This allocation presumes six months
of planning and up to six months implementation. Subject to
further planning, the goal will be to establish a city-wide service
learning initiative. Future growth in the Children’s Fund may be
dedicated to fully funding this nascent effort.
Strategy 2: DCYF will continue to provide grants to community-based

Competitive Grants organizations providing youth 14 – 17 job readiness training,
for subsidized employment, and post placement transition services,
Community-Based including placements in the private sector, where possible.
Employment Priority will be given to agencies or collaborations which can
Programs provide this continuum of services for a young person. Youth
with disabilities will be a priority population for these services.
Strategy 3: The Mayor’s Youth Employment and Education Program is a city-

Mayor’s Education wide collaborative of 12 non-profit organizations that provides
and Employment year-round job readiness training, work experience, educational
Program (MYEEP) support and youth leadership development activities to over
1,000 youth from low to moderate income families each year.
MYEEP serves predominantly youth with barriers to employment
such as high truancy/low school performance, involvement with
the juvenile justice system, residence in group or foster care,
limited English proficiency, including youth who have disabilities,
are homeless or are teen parents. Services are provided through
11 neighborhood-based organizations and one organization
which serves youth with disabilities city-wide. Youth receive pre-
employment training, are placed with non-profit or public sector
worksites and work an average of 10 hours per week during the
school year and 20 hours per week during the summer.
Additional trainings and support activities are provided
throughout the program.
Current members of the MYEEP Collaborative:
• Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center – serving outer

Mission/Excelsior
• Community Educational Services – serving Chinatown/North
Beach
• CYC (Community Youth Center) – serving Richmond/Sunset
• Horizons Unlimited – serving Mission
• IT Bookman Center – serving Oceanview/Merced/Ingleside
• Jewish Vocational Services - serving youth with disabilities
city-wide
26
• Morrisania West, Inc. – serving Western Addition
• Potrero Hill Neighborhood House – serving Potrero Hill
• Vietnamese Youth Development Center – serving
Tenderloin/SOMA
• Visitacion Valley Community Center – serving Visitacion
Valley
• Young Community Developers – serving Bayview/Hunter’s
Point
• Japanese Community Youth Council (Fiscal Agent)
Evaluation has established MYEEP as an effective model for

providing job training and subsidized employment. DCYF will
improve on this established model through competitive bidding
and collaboration.
Strategy 4: Youthworks is a city-wide program that enhances youth

Youthworks employability skills and awareness of government careers
through supportive and learning-rich internships in city
government. Annually, San Francisco YouthWorks serves over
350 10th-12th grade students. A core element of the program is
volunteer career mentors, who provide educational, work-based
learning experiences for each participant. This experience is
supplemented by other program activities including: educational
activities, pre-employment and career development training, on-
going workplace monitoring, and leadership development
opportunities.
Strategy 5: The Workreation program is a unique City program designed

Workreation especially for teens ages 14 through 17. Participants work for
minimum wage in a variety of recreational, aquatic, horticultural,
administrative and athletic positions. Teens are provided the
opportunity to develop leadership skills, problem solving, working
along side others and community awareness. They develop skills
such as safety awareness, job retention, program planning and
implementation, communication skills and first aid. Youth work for
10 hours per week during the school year and 20–30 hours per
week during the summer months. 2006 marks the 47th year of
the program. All teens that are 14–17 years of age and attend
school in San Francisco, live in San Francisco or have a
Parent/Guardian that works in San Francisco are eligible.
Admittance into the program is highly competitive and based on
his/her application, interview results and background clearance.
27
Strategy 6: New Directions provides employment and training opportunities
New Directions for youth on Probation by leveraging existing training and
Employment supports and, where appropriate, bringing new ones to the table.
Program for Youth Youth identified by the Juvenile Probation Department (JPD)
in the Juvenile are enrolled in enhanced programs provided by the Mayor’s
Justice System Youth Employment & Education Program (MYEEP) or
Workreation, a city-wide work experience program operated by
the Recreation and Park Department.
Through the program, youth are assigned a worksite with

supervisors specifically selected to provide quality worksite
monitoring and coaching at park facilities and various non-profit
organizations throughout the City. Once enrolled, youth are also
eligible for additional incentives based on the numbers of hours
worked and their performance in the program. Additional
enrichment opportunities include college field trips, community
service projects, recreational outings and career exposure
activities. Skill building workshops addressing job readiness,
conflict resolution, communication, problem-solving, life skills and
banking/financial literacy are also offered.
Strategy 7: DCYF values its participation and support of the School to Career
Funding for program of San Francisco Unified School District. DCYF will
School- Based support a program in the County school system that provides
Workforce internships and training for some of our most vulnerable youth, or
Development alternative school-to-career programming as needs evolve.
Strategy 8: The community and service providers were clear—youth

Jobs For Youth employment needs cannot be met by the efforts of the public
sector alone and that links to the private sector must be forged in
order to employ youth today as well as ensure that education and
training efforts are linked to the economic development strategy
of the City. DCYF will look to improve outcomes of the Jobs for
Youth intermediary and identify other strategies to create private
sector employment opportunities for San Francisco’s young
people.
Strategy 9: Peer to peer support, organizing and advocacy will be key for
Funding for Field forging high quality employment services and a city-wide,
Building responsive system of youth workforce development. DCYF will
allocate resources to support field-led initiatives in the areas of
youth employment.
Allocation: $40,000
28
Staffing in youth employment as well as champion local system changes
to forge a youth workforce development system. Positions
include: Senior Planner and Policy Analyst, and Program Officer.
DCYF’s Role: • Fund youth employment, including career exposure, service

learning, job training, subsidized employment, transition
services, and private sector linkages
• Coordinate efforts with inter-agency partners to leverage

impact and promote standards for programming
• Change systems to move from subsidized youth

employment to a city-wide strategy of youth workforce
development

Partners: DCYF is committed to inter-agency collaboration and partnership

with community-based agencies, SFUSD, the United Way, and
the private sector to improve the youth workforce development
system. Within the context of a city-wide youth workforce
development plan to be led by the Mayor’s Office of Economic
and Workforce Development, DCYF will focus on several key
issues. These include: promoting program quality standards
across publicly funded agencies; forging a city-wide youth
workforce system that looks at the unique developmental needs
of youth 11 – 13, 14 – 17 and 18 – 24; invigorating local school to
career services in partnership with SFUSD; and creating an array
of educational and workforce options that respond to the unique
needs of San Francisco’s youth, especially high-need
populations.
Expectations of Agencies will be required to meet minimum standards for youth

Funded Agencies: workforce development and will be supported in their efforts to
reach high quality standards. Funded agencies will be required
to increase efforts to improve the quality of job readiness training
services provided pre-employment and to pro-actively work with
young people to support them in identifying their next career step
as part of transition planning, with a particular emphasis on links
to the private sector. Agencies will be required to present plans
for how they will be part of a continuum of increasingly
responsible employment opportunities for youth. It is anticipated
that youth will not stay in one program for many years but will
move to higher level opportunities.
29
Family Support
Target
Population: San Francisco families with children ages 0 –17
Desired All San Francisco families with children receive the information,
Result: resources and support they need to survive and thrive in San
Francisco
Family support and resource centers (FS/RCs) ensure the well

being of families in San Francisco by offering an array of
services, resources, and opportunities to assist parents in
nurturing and raising healthy children.
From Landscape Report of Family Support/Resource Centers in

San Francisco, August 2003vi:
“A FS/RC is a center or a network in the community

where families are welcomed and program activities are
tailored and implemented based on the unique strengths,
needs and wants of the families and the community.
Services are designed to be comprehensive and inclusive
and intend to supplement existing resources and services
in the community.”
Most FS/RC’s develop organically in response to community

needs, and thus take several different forms. These agencies
often target their services to specific neighborhoods, or an
identity based community or, in some cases, both. Some
FS/RC’s are quite new, while others have been a part of San
Francisco for generations.
FS/RC’s are staffed in many different configurations, by both

professional and paraprofessional staff as well as community
members as paid staff or volunteers. Common services provided
by FS/RC’s include information and referral; outreach; parenting
education, classes and workshops; counseling; family-child
activities; case management; peer support; child abuse
prevention or intervention; community development and
leadership activities; food; financial literacy training; employment
services; drop in or respite care; child care; emergency services;
and ESL courses.vii
FS/RC’s are diverse in the types of services they provide, but

share a common approach to service delivery framed by family
support principles.
30
PRINCIPLES OF FAMILY SUPPORT PRACTICEviii
1. Staff and families work together in relationships based on

equality and respect.
2. Staff enhances families’ capacity to support the growth and
development of all family members--adults, youth, and
children.
3. Families are resources to their own members, to other
families, to programs, and to communities.
4. Programs affirm and strengthen families’ cultural, racial, and
linguistic identities and enhance their ability to function in a
multicultural society.
5. Programs are embedded in their communities and contribute
to the community-building process.
6. Programs advocate with families for services and systems
that are fair, responsive, and accountable to the families
served.
7. Practitioners work with families to mobilize formal and
informal resources to support family development.
8. Programs are flexible and continually responsive to
emerging family and community issues.
9. Principles of family support are modeled in all program
activities, including planning, governance, and
administration.
Current City-wide Family support services are vital to the health and vitality of San
Picture: Francisco’s families and for the City as a whole. A 2003
landscape report identified 29 FS/RCs operated by 25 community
agencies, in each of San Francisco’s Supervisor Districts.
FS/RC’s are both publicly and privately funded.
In the 2005 -2006 budget year, overall City funding for family
support services exceeded $13.86 million dollars. The largest
funder of family support services is the Human Services Agency
(56%) which targets its resources to low income and high-risk
families, with a combination of prevention and intervention
services. DCYF provides 23% of family support funding, followed
by First Five San Francisco (20%). The Department on the
Status of Women and Mayor’s Office of Community Development
combined represent the remaining 1% of City funding dedicated
to family support services. Across these public agencies, a wide
range of services and activities are currently characterized as
family support.
Families are central to the social and economic health of San

Francisco, and focused family support strategies that help a
diversity of San Francisco families survive and thrive are
essential. Greater inter-agency coordination and collaboration is
needed to ensure that family support resources are used to most
effectively benefit families. The Human Services Agency, First
Five San Francisco and the Department of Children, Youth &
31
Their Families have agreed to begin work to formally align
resources in order to ensure availability of family support services
in most San Francisco neighborhoods, as well as city-wide
services for special populations.
Community Community members voiced the need for family support services
Voices: and parent education and support throughout San Francisco, and
identified a particular need of services for LGBTQ families.
Service providers called for core funding to provide
comprehensive family support services which meet program
standards for family support.
DCYF Funding DCYF will work to coordinate and align its funding strategies with
Strategies the Human Services Agency and First Five San Francisco to
for 2007 - 2010: ensure an adequate funding base to provide high quality family
support services responsive to family needs.
Strategy 1: DCYF will fund direct services, training, support and systems
Competitive Grants change work specifically geared toward addressing childhood
to meet the unique exposure to violence, integrating the success of San Francisco’s
needs of children SafeStart Initiative into our family support and violence response
exposed to strategies. SafeStart was formed with a Department of Justice
violence and their grant, for which DCYF provided local match funding. The
families purpose of SafeStart is to break the cycle of violence which often
(children 0-5) occurs due to childhood exposure. SafeStart: 1) provides
training and support to staff at family support points-of-service
who provide early intervention and treatment to families with
young children exposed to violence; 2) delivers early intervention
and treatment services to children and families; and 3) conducts
policy advocacy and systems change work to promote
coordinated and effective responses to childhood exposure to
violence. This funding is allocated toward initiative leadership
and direct services for children and families. Recipients of
funding will be required to participate in trainings, data gathering,
systems change work, and service delivery team of SafeStart.
Strategy 2: DCYF will move from a diffused approach of funding a wide array
Competitive Grants of family support activities and programs to a more focused
to Community- strategy of funding agencies which can meet the family support
Based principles and our family support program standards. Working in
Organizations to alignment with the Human Services Agency and First Five San
Provide Francisco, DCYF will seek to use its resources to ensure
Comprehensive availability of family support services in key neighborhoods and
Family Support city-wide services including, but not limited to, services for
Services families of children with special needs, homeless families, teen
parents, and LGBTQ families.
32
Strategy 3: Peer to peer support, training, capacity building, and leadership
Funding for Field development are key to cultivating an innovative family support
Building system which is responsive to family needs. Toward this end,
DCYF will continue to support the Family Support Network.
Allocation: $40,000

Staffing in family support as well as champion local system changes.
Positions include: Family Services Outreach Coordinator &
Trainer, and Program Officer.
DCYF’s Role: • Fund family support services
• Coordinate efforts with community agencies and inter-

agency partners for maximum impact
• Change systems to improve the scope and impact of family

support services

Partners: Successfully raising children is both a family and community

responsibility. DCYF values parents and guardians as their
child’s first and most important teacher. Extended communities
and service providers are vital partners in helping parents nurture
children. DCYF will continue to work collaboratively with our
funding partners—First Five San Francisco and the Human
Services Agencies—to both align funding and create policy and
systems change to improve the availability and quality of family
support services provided by community-based agencies in San
Francisco.
Expectations Agencies funded in family support will be expected to form

of Funded linkages with local children and youth service agencies in order
Agencies: to provide effective information and referral services to families.
All funded family support agencies will be required to participate
in trainings and service delivery team of the SafeStart initiative;
and conduct community-based outreach and other strategies to
increase access to and utilization of services. Funded agencies
will be encouraged to participate in the Family Support Network.
33
Violence Response and Truancy Prevention
Target DCYF’s violence response and truancy prevention efforts will

Population: impact children, youth and families throughout the City with a
focus on highly impacted neighborhoods: Bayview/Hunter’s
Point; Chinatown; Excelsior/Outer Mission; Mission; Ocean
View/Merced/Ingleside (OMI); Richmond/Sunset; South of
Market; Tenderloin; Visitacion Valley and Western Addition.
Desired All children and youth are safe within their families, schools and
Result: neighborhoods, attend school, and are able to thrive and reach
their greatest potential.
Background: The fundamental work of DCYF is prevention. We do this by

providing high quality, positive activities for children and youth
throughout San Francisco, especially in the out of school hours
and high-need areas of the City. We believe community-based
organizations that provide services are core to healthy
communities, and we strive to support these groups with the
resources necessary to produce a strong safety net for all of our
communities.
DCYF recognizes that preventative high quality services are not

enough. Violence and truancy are two of the critical issues
facing our children, youth and families, concentrated in a handful
of neighborhoods.
DCYF proposes a newly focused approach to addressing the

continuum of violence, starting with our children and youth while
engaging with their families and communities. Far too many
children and youth of all ages are exposed to violence in their
homes, schools, and community.
SafeStart estimates “at least 11,000 and as many as 16,500

children are directly exposed to domestic violence incidents each
year in San Francisco.”ix Additionally, some children and youth
are witness to homicides and gang violence.
Violence has permeated San Francisco schools. Children and

youth report witnessing fights or other violent behavior and
crimes on their way to school, around school, and afterschool.
Between October and December 2005, 190 violent crimes were
reported to the San Francisco Police Department as having
occurred near San Francisco Unified School District elementary
schools. According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)x
and California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) for San Francisco
High Schools:
y Twelve percent of responding students reported that they
had carried a club, gun or knife as a weapon in the 30
34
days prior to taking the survey, and 7% reported carrying
a weapon (gun, knife, or club) on school property.
y Eight percent of students reported not attending school on
one or more of the thirty days prior to taking the survey
because they felt that they would be unsafe at school, or
on the way to or from school.
y Almost one-third of students reported being in a physical
fight and 9% reported fighting on school property one or
more times during the past year.
Similar challenges have been identified in middle schools.

Together, the threat of or actual violence in the home, in or
around schools, and in the community is greatly impacting the
healthy development of individuals, families and communities.
An equally troubling challenge is widespread truancy among San

Francisco’s school age children and youth. In the 2005-2006
academic year 5,600 students or nearly 10% of the enrolled
students in San Francisco’s public schools failed to attend school
consistently, missing four or more weeks of school. Attendance
problems surface in all grade levels, in the majority of public
schools, and among all ethnic groups. When a young person
fails to attend school, it is most often a sign of stress or other
challenges and creates an opportunity for the City and
community- ased agencies to provide services and support to
address the underlying problem. Truancy is not a problem with a
single solution ─ a range of effective strategies to support
students so they can be successful in school is key.
Current City-wide San Francisco is currently developing a city-wide, coordinated

Picture: system of violence prevention, intervention, and response.
DCYF’s efforts and the analysis for this report focus on
prevention and response strategies specifically geared toward
children and youth, and law enforcement strategies are excluded
as primary protection. DCYF values targeted, community-based
services for youth and families to respond to violence and
prevent truancy.
In the 2005 -2006 budget year, public spending for violence

response and truancy prevention services for children and youth
was nearly $5.5 million. The majority of this funding (55%) is
administered by the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice which
funds a variety of services or supports for children and youth in
the juvenile justice system. DCYF provides 44% of the public
investment in violence response and truancy prevention. The
Mayor’s Office of Community Development provides a small
amount of funding in this area.
In the supplemental appropriation process in Spring 2006, public

funding for violence prevention, intervention and response
services were increased greatly through DCYF, with investments
35
in community-based agencies to provide street outreach,
violence prevention services in the schools, and to expand and
replicate Community Response Networks.
DCYF’s Funding Within the context of a coordinated city-wide strategy, DCYF will
Strategies develop partnerships with community-based agencies in
for 2007 – 2010: high-need areas to build on individual and community
assets to prevent youth from entering the criminal justice
system and/or dropping out of school. DCYF values a
flexibility of approaches to: empower young people, increase
resiliency, reduce risks, build trust, engage parents and
guardians, and promote caring relationships with mentors and
adults over time. DCYF believes that there are multiple
strategies to prevent and reduce violence and that diverse
community stakeholders must be engaged as partners.
Strategies to reduce violence must reflect the communities they
are serving, particularly when attempting to implement conflict
resolution services, cultural affirmation programming, anger
management, mentorship, and peer support. Further, DCYF
believes that youth development principles must drive the work of
those organizations seeking to partner with DCYF to respond to
violence and prevent truancy. Strategies must also target
children and youth within distinct developmental stages.
Strategy 1: SafeStart seeks to reduce the incidence and impact of violence

San Francisco on young children ages 0 – 5 in San Francisco. In order to break
SafeStart the cycle of violence which often occurs due to childhood
(children 0 – 5) exposure, SafeStart 1) provides training and support to staff at
points-of-service who provide early intervention and treatment to
families with young children exposed to violence; 2) delivers early
intervention and treatment services to children and families; and
3) conducts policy advocacy and systems change work to
promote coordinated and effective responses to childhood
exposure to violence. Initially funded by the Department of
Justice as a pilot project, DCYF is proud to support direct
services, training, support and systems change work specifically
geared toward childhood exposure to violence, through our family
support service area.
Strategy 2: With a supplemental appropriation made in Spring 2006, DCYF

School-Based has selected community-based agencies to pilot effective
Violence violence-based prevention practices at five public schools in San
Prevention & Francisco. The focus of the pilot is to introduce community-
Safety based agencies with proven violence prevention and response
experience into the school environment in order to increase
overall school safety through cultural awareness, conflict
resolution, and anger management activities as well as through
providing active support to students who are perpetrators or
victims of violence. In addition, DCYF will continue support of the
Secure Our Schools initiative, a school safety program in four
schools using Education Intervention Specialists to reach out to
36
students and parents. These newly developing efforts will be
continued in the new funding cycle.
Strategy 3: The Community Response Network (CRN) is a collaborative

Community framework that addresses youth gang violence issues by
Response incorporating existing neighborhood services and funded
Networks (children programs and coordinating these efforts across programs and
and youth of all agencies. The CRN was founded in the Mission District over
ages and their three years ago and was built upon the philosophy of its
families) predecessor, the CALLES program. The CRN focuses its work
in three core areas: 1) crisis response; 2) case management
services and development; and 3) street level outreach. The
CRN also serves as a vehicle to interact and coordinate services
with several City departments including the Police Department,
Juvenile Probation Department, the Department of Public Health,
and others. The primary goals of the CRN are to provide a well
developed case management component and delivery of
services, to increase communication and collaboration among
community and City agencies, and to increase coordination
among agencies to better operate during time of crisis. As an
effective strategy for responding to violence, DCYF is partnering
with the District Attorney’s office to replicate the CRN model.
The process allows for varied approaches in line with unique
neighborhood needs organized around the same goal:
responding to and, ultimately, reducing violence. DCYF will fund
central coordination and support, and CRNs in the Mission,
Western Addition, Bayview Hunter’s Point, and Visitacion Valley,
in collaboration with the District Attorney’s office.
Strategy 4: In fall of 2006, DCYF issued a request for proposals for the
Asian Pacific creation of API focused violence prevention street outreach
Islander services to be coordinated with the established and developing
Street Outreach Community Response Networks (CRNs). This project focuses on
linked to CRN’s children and youth in the following neighborhoods/communities
where there is a significant and/or growing API community
presence.
• Bayview/Visitacion Valley
• Chinatown
• Excelsior/Outer Mission
• Ocean View/Merced/Ingleside (OMI)
• Richmond/Sunset
• South of Market
• Tenderloin
37
Strategy 5: Community-based agencies are key partners for effectively
Competitive Grants responding to violence. DCYF seeks to fund community-based
to Community- agencies with a proven track record, cultural competence, and
Based community credibility to provide effective services to children and
Organizations for youth in high-risk communities. Programs will be expected to
Violence Response promote relationships with caring adults over time, and be
committed to and flexible in their strategies for meeting the needs
of young people and their families. The goal of funded services
will be to reduce possible recruitment into gangs, sets, cliques,
and to be hooked up into more positive, safe, and legal
alternatives both in school and afterschool in the community, and
to develop a personal care plan that would prevent greater
involvement in disciplinary action at school and possible
sustained contact with the juvenile justice system. Core
components will be 1) outreach in communities and homes; 2)
individual services including case management and counseling;
3) group services which promote peer learning and support; 4)
strategies which engage parents, guardians and other caring
adults in programming; 5) mentoring services; 6) crisis
intervention; and 6) de-escalation strategies. DCYF’s strategy
will incorporate place-based prevention zones or Safe Havens, to
offer enriched services in highly impacted neighborhoods. In the
coming months, DCYF will develop program standards for
violence response funded agencies.
Strategy 6: DCYF will make funds available to community-based

Competitive Grants organizations to restore gang prevention and girls’ services.
to Community-
Based Allocation: $333,333
Organizations for
Gang Prevention
and Girls’ Services
Strategy 7: Community-based agencies are key partners for effectively

Competitive Grants addressing truancy. DCYF seeks to fund community-based
to Community- agencies with a proven track record, cultural competence, and
Based community credibility to provide effective services to children and
Organizations for youth who are disconnected from school. Programs will be
Truancy expected to promote relationships with caring adults over time,
Prevention and be committed to and flexible in their strategies for meeting
the needs of young people and their families. The goal of funded
services will be to increase school attendance rates of individual
participants.
Strategy 8: DCYF will continue support of the Stay in School Coalition,

Stay in School partnership of the San Francisco Unified School District, the City
38
Coalition and community-based agencies working collaboratively to
children and youth stay in school.
Strategy 9: Peer to peer support, organizing, and advocacy will be key for
Funding for Field forging a high quality, responsive system of violence prevention
Building and response. DCYF will allocate resources to support field-led
initiatives in this area.
Allocation: $40,000
Strategy 10: Staff is required to manage system-wide initiatives, administer

Staffing programs, and effectively monitor DCYF’s investments and
strategies for violence response and truancy prevention.
Positions include: Community Violence Response Coordinator,
and Program Officer.
DCYF’s Role: • Fund community-based agencies providing effective

programs to respond to violence and increase school
attendance
• Coordinate efforts with inter-agency partners as part of city-

wide strategy to respond to violence and prevent truancy
• Change systems to improve the scope and impact of

violence prevention and response and truancy prevention
strategies

Partners: There has been a significant policy and paradigm shift for funding
community programs within the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice
(MOCJ) and the Juvenile Probation Department (JPD) and
increased desire for collaboration and coordination. DCYF seeks
to establish a clearer role and increased accountability for the
department and its funded community partners within a city-wide
strategy for violence prevention, intervention and response.
DCYF is forging stronger links between City departments and
others working on issues of community violence including MOCJ,
JPD, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), District
Attorney’s (DA) office, the Department of Public Health (DPH)
and the Public Defender.
Expectations of With community partners, DCYF will be developing minimum and

Funded Agencies: high quality program standards for violence response and
39
truancy prevention over the next several months. All DCYF
funded agencies will be encouraged to forge cultural
understanding, conflict resolution, anger management, and
attachment to school for program participants.
Agencies funded specifically for violence response will be

expected to participate in the development of a seamless,
integrated and coordinated system of violence and truancy
reduction services for the City's children and youth. DCYF seeks
to establish a "continuum of care" model in partnership with other
City departments (MOCJ, JPD, DPH, etc.) and the San Francisco
Unified School District (SFUSD).
40
Wellness Empowerment
Target
Population: All children 0 – 17
Desired
Result: Children and youth are healthy
Background: Many factors in modern life discourage the healthy development

of children and youth. Opportunities for healthy food and
wholesome exercise are often limited. Youth experience high
levels of stress, are often surrounded by violence, and are
continually exposed to opportunities to engage in risky behavior.
Current In some respects, San Francisco is doing well. Thanks to San

City-wide Picture: Francisco’s Healthy Kids and Young Adults programs, our young
people have the highest immunization and insurance rates of any
major city, and San Francisco is home to some of the most
effective, culturally competent health care for adolescents in the
country. This is in part due to local investment.
In the 2005–2006 budget year, city spending on health for

children and youth exceeded $65.7 million dollars. Seven City
departments support health and wellness. The vast majority of
spending is directed by the Department of Public Health (78%).
DCYF is the next largest supporter of children’s health (11%),
followed by the Human Services Agency (5%) and First Five San
Francisco (3%). MOCJ and JPD provide health services to youth
in the juvenile justice system (3%).
Since this analysis was conducted, San Francisco received its

first allocation of funding from the Mental Health Services Act
(MHSA) or Prop 63. $441,490 in new behavioral health services
will be made available.
Despite City investment in health, challenges remain. The City’s

success in child health has not addressed pressing issues of
obesity and diabetes, nor benefited all children equally. Over the
past 30 years the prevalence of childhood obesity in the US more
than doubled in youth ages 12-19 and more than tripled for
children ages 6-11.xi For US children born in 2000, the lifetime
risk of being diagnosed with diabetes is estimated at 30% for girls
and 40% for boys and even higher among ethnic minority youth.xii
And, in fact, children born today may have a shorter life
expectancy than their parents.
According to trend data collected by SFUSD, San Francisco

middle and high school students are smoking and drinking less,
and overall are involved in fewer risky behaviors. This can be
41
seen as a credit to some of our excellent services. Yet many
students still struggle. 63% of students reported feeling sad or
depressed on one or more days in the month preceding survey
completion. While 19% of middle school students said they
seriously thought abut ending their life, 7% reported that they
actually attempted suicide at some time in their life. The number
of high school students who report having attempted suicide has
increased since 1997, to 11% in 2005, compared to the national
average of 8.4%. While below the national average, 30.5% of
high school students report being in a physical fight one or more
times during a 12 month period.xiii
Community Service providers and health experts identified the behavioral

Voices: health needs of children and youth as a top priority. They
recommended an approach which integrates health and wellness
into the daily activities of children and youth.
DCYF’s Funding DCYF will work to place services in settings where children go as
Strategies a regular part of their day, where they can receive help easily and
For 2007 – 2010: without barriers. And we will require funded agencies to provide
opportunities for healthy nutrition and physical exercise.
Strategy 1: ECHMHCI builds the capacity of child care providers to

Early Childhood effectively identify and address the behavioral health needs of
Mental Health young children 0 – 5 in their care through on-site consultation
Consultation and support. This collaborative project—administered by the
Initiative Department of Public Health, and funded by the Human Services
(ECHMHCI) Agency, First Five San Francisco and DCYF—provides services
to approximately 184 classrooms and 3,370 children, primarily in
low income, high-need areas. DCYF will continue to invest in this
system-wide strategy which meets both our early care and
education, and wellness empowerment objectives.
Strategy 2: Afterschool providers consistently requested support to meet the

Afterschool mental health needs of children in their care and to manage
Consultation challenging behavior in the afterschool hours. Based on the
Program Pilot success of the ECHMCI, DCYF will design and fund a pilot
program to efficiently build the capacity of afterschool providers
to meet the behavioral health needs of elementary school
children in their care. The pilot will seek to focus on the
caregiver, align afterschool supports and strategies with those
used in the school day, and involve families in the
process. Drawing on best practices and community expertise
and participation, DCYF will design the pilot program before the
start of the new funding cycle.
42
Strategy 3: Middle school age youth undergo a tremendous amount of
Middle School developmental change, often without a lot of support. San
Wellness Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has identified unmet
Empowerment behavioral health needs of middle school students as a major
Pilot obstacle to achievement; and an area where SFUSD lacks
funding to address needs. According to SFUSD, middle school is
a critical time to provide support to struggling young people to
prevent them from falling through the cracks in often large middle
schools. With the intent of leveraging other resources from
public or private partners and developing a strategy to be funded
by Prop H over time, DCYF will seed a middle school wellness
empowerment pilot. We will work with our partners in the
successful Wellness Initiative for high school students, SFUSD,
and the Department of Public Health, as well as community
experts, to design a developmentally appropriate, strength-based
program to address the unique developmental needs of middle
school age children using a youth development approach.
Services could include behavioral health, youth leadership,
conflict resolution, violence prevention, and overall school climate
enhancements.
Strategy 4: The Wellness Initiative provides individual and group health

Wellness Initiative services on-site at public high schools. Due to the success of the
program and community advocacy, the Wellness Initiative is
currently expanding from serving 7 to 11 high school campuses
and this year will make services available to more than 12,000
high school students. Through outside evaluation, the Wellness
approach has been proven to increase participant attendance
and attachment to school and to reduce risky behavior. DCYF will
continue its high funding commitment to the initiative and all 11
sites, with the hope of stimulating investment from other public
and private sources.
Strategy 5: It’s hard to stay healthy without access to health care. Insurance
Healthy Kids and is vital to access. Now, in response to community advocacy,
Young Adult youth from 19 – 24 are also covered through San Francisco’s
Program model health insurance program.
Strategy 6: Healthy food and adequate nutrition are essential elements for
Nutritious Food for development. DCYF administers or supports three key
Growing Bodies programs to ensure San Francisco’s children and youth receive
and Minds adequate nutrition. First, each summer DCYF join ranks with
Student Nutrition Services of San Francisco Unified School
District to provide a summer lunch program to ensure that
healthy food is available, particularly for low income children. In
43
the summer of 2006, 105 sites throughout San Francisco
provided an average of 5,500 meals per day. In partnership with
the San Francisco Food Bank, DCYF also administers an
Afterschool Snack Program Pilot, so that children receive free
healthy snacks—not junk food—to fuel bodies in the critical
afterschool hours. Finally, DCYF provides gap funding to the
local administrators of the Child Care Food Program, which
provides reimbursement to family child care providers for healthy
meals. Unfortunately, federal reimbursement rates from the
United States Department of Agriculture do not meet the full
costs of providing these vital programs, so DCYF makes a
modest investment to provide nutritious food to low income
children and communities.
Strategy 7: In an effort to fight growing rates of obesity and chronic health

Shape Up San conditions which can be prevented through good nutrition and
Francisco exercise, Mayor Newsom has issued a challenge to all San
Franciscans: Shape Up! DCYF is an active partner in Shape
Up, along with the Mayor’s Office, Department of Public Health,
Recreation and Parks Department, and the Department of
Human Resources. DCYF’s role is to coordinate and fund
activities focused specifically on children and youth. This year’s
efforts include promoting an SF Walking Challenge in afterschool
programs. This allocation will be internal, and used by DCYF to
support shape up activities for children, youth and their families.
Allocation: $70,000
Strategy 8: DCYF promotes wellness by establishing system-wide strategies

Competitive Grants in places where children are: child care centers, schools, and
to Promote Health afterschool programs. And because community-based agencies
Education and are on the front lines of young people’s health and DCYF will
Wellness provide an allocation to support innovative approaches to
Empowerment empowering young people to take control of their own health and
reduce risky behaviors.
Strategy 9: Staff is required to manage system-wide initiatives, administer

Staffing programs, and effectively monitor DCYF’s investment in wellness
empowerment. Positions include: Child Nutrition Coordinator,
School-Based Wellness Initiative Manager, and Program Officer.
DCYF’s Role: • Fund wellness empowerment services and programs

through community-based organizations and public
partnerships.
44
• Coordinate efforts with public agency partners for maximum
impact
• Integrate opportunities for, and education about, healthy

lifestyles into all DCYF programming
• Collect and analyze data on child well being and measure

the impact of funded strategies.
Partners: We will work with community-based agencies, the Department of

Public Health, and Recreation and Parks Department, as well as
schools, to support parents and providers in empowering young
people to make healthy choices and live healthy lives.
Expectations of Wellness Empowerment minimum and high quality standards of

Funded Agencies: practice will be applied to all funded agencies and initiatives.
Funded agencies will be required to provide healthy food choices
for their participants and prohibited from selling or serving junk
food (as defined by SFUSD) as part of minimum standards. All
DCYF funded agencies will be encouraged to promote physical
fitness activities for their participants. Funded agencies will be
encouraged to promote the Healthy Kids and Young Adults and
Health Access Programs to program participants and their
families.
45
Youth Empowerment
Target
Population: Youth between the ages of 11 – 17 in the city of San Francisco
Desired
Result: Empowerment of all youth participants.
Background: The Children’s Amendment requires that a minimum of 3% of the

Children’s Fund shall be for youth-initiated projects – projects
that young people define and lead.
A group of community and youth advocates worked closely with

DCYF to form the initiative and to define the strands of the
initiative. The fund is currently focused on:
1) youth-led philanthropy
2) youth organizing
3) youth entrepreneurship
Through this three-pronged approach, the Initiative is seeding

youth-led projects and sustainable community change city-wide.
The Youth Empowerment Fund Initiative seeks to develop the

capacity and leadership of young people to define their own
programming, practice leadership and bring about sustainable
community change. Through this fund, young people will be in
charge of granting funds to youth-led solutions to community
problems and unmet youth needs. This mission is founded upon
the following set of values and principles:
• Youth should be at the forefront of making decisions that
affect their lives.
• Youth should have access to resources to define their
own programs and opportunities.
• Youth possess the knowledge and ability to be leaders in
their communities.
Current City-wide Currently over $1 million is invested with nine different youth
Picture: leadership organizations across the City.
Community A solid youth/adult partnership that is supported by a full-time

Voices: coordinator, the Youth Empowerment Fund is a unique entity in
DCYF. Additionally, we have created the Youth Empowerment
Fund Advisory Board (YEFAB) that makes funding
recommendations to the Director of DCYF, evaluates funded
programs, conducts site visits, coordinates trainings, summits,
and other support mechanisms for all grantees. Finally, we have
partnered with the San Francisco Youth Commission to ensure
the highest level possible of youth input and decision making.
46
DCYF’s Funding As much of the Fund as possible will be applied as direct funds
Strategies for youth-led projects and programs. The fund will focus on high-
For 2007 – 2010: need youth from high-need areas.
In order to create the greatest impact for youth possible, the

implementation of the Fund is guided by the following set of
priorities (not in order of importance):
• Youth voice and youth decision-making will be
incorporated at every level of the Fund: RFP
development, grant making, program support/oversight
and evaluation.
• The Fund’s decision-makers (both youth and adults) will
be held accountable to the public and the youth
community.
• There will be city-wide outreach to young people to
ensure accessibility of the grant application process and
broad representation of San Francisco’s youth.
• Funds will be given to projects and programs that have
the active and ongoing support of at least one adult ally;
however, youth will be at the center of all key decisions
and actions.
Funding During the 2005 – 2007 cycle the Fund has supported youth-led
Strategies: philanthropy, youth organizing and youth entrepreneurship as
key funding strategies. After an in-depth assessment – led by
YEFAB and with input from the Department, community partners,
grantees and other recipients of services provided by the Fund –
we will define the funding strategies for 2007 – 2010.
We have achieved a great deal of success with the current

strategies, but may choose to add additional approaches such
as: youth-led events, youth fellowships, youth evaluation or
youth video production.
DCYF’s Role: • Provide staff support to coordinate the activities of the

Fund, including: contract management, RFP
development, grant selection, coordination of program
assessments, providing technical assistance and support.
Partners: Our core partners are the San Francisco Youth Commission,
United Playaz, Youth Making A Change, CPA/PODER, Samoan
CDC, HOMEY, Chinatown CDC, Center for Young Women’s
Development, California Youth Connection, and CHALK.
Expectations of All Funded agencies will: provide high quality services, supports and
Funded Agencies: experiences for youth participants; monitor grant budget and
ensure proper allocation of funds; participate in development of
the overall Initiative; and participate in the development and
implementation of assessment of the Initiative.
47
III. Investments to Forge a Network of Quality Services
Target San Francisco children, youth, families, and the community-

Population: based agencies, government departments, and community
leaders who serve and support them.
Desired All San Francisco children, youth and their families know about
Result: and take advantage of high quality services and opportunities
designed by and for them. Toward this end, all San Francisco
service providers are part of an interconnected network charged
with providing services, supports, information and referral for
children, youth and families across agencies.
Communities are strengthened as a result of the work of

agencies providing services to children, youth, and their families.
Current City-wide The message from 23 community meetings was clear. From
Picture & very different areas of the City, consistent themes emerged.
Community Community members called on DCYF and its partners in order
Voices: to:
Increase information and communication. Both parents and

service providers alike lack information about the range and type
of services available. Increasing information and referral activities
of funded agencies, centralized as well as neighborhood-based
resource guides, and resource fairs on the neighborhood level
were suggested. Cultural competence and language capacity for
services and information is still greatly needed, particularly in
neighborhoods that are changing demographically. Street
outreach, peer to peer outreach, word of mouth, and
neighborhood newspapers were suggested as effective
strategies for reaching parents and youth.
Promote collaboration and decrease duplication among

service providers. Discussion in several neighborhoods
highlighted the relative wealth of services in San Francisco, but a
lack of coordination of services, particularly on a neighborhood
level.
Promote access. Several communities expressed the desire to

utilize schools as a location for providing youth and community
services outside of school hours. Increasing cultural
competence, and extended service hours to accommodate the
needs of working parents was cited. More services and supports
for special populations were voiced, as well as the need for
strategies to increase access for special needs populations and
LGBTQ youth and families in all services. Transportation was
cited as a barrier to access for many families.
48
Improve Organizational Capacity. In a few instances, the
capacity of local organizations to meet changing needs was
questioned. The city-wide meeting cited the need for technical
assistance and capacity building for organizations to provide
effective services which are responsive to community needs.
Build Community and Address Inequity. Strong communities

have the capacity to solve problems and create a sense of
belonging at the neighborhood level. In order to strengthen
communities, racial and class divisions that challenge both
community development and access and quality of services must
be addressed. Turf and gang issues are core to this challenge,
particularly for teenagers.
DCYF’s In response to this valuable community feedback, DCYF revisited

Funding its past practice of funding primarily direct services at a program
Strategies level. We realized that our funding strategies—which focused
for 2007 – 2010: primarily on programs without much consideration about the
overall agency or other services available on the neighborhood
level (DCYF funded or not)—were contributing to the challenges
outlined by community members. Based on this feedback, we
will shift our strategies and investments to some extent. We saw
the opportunity to invest in strategies which will result in a
coordinated, responsive network of services, and to seed efforts
which we hope will become interdepartmental overtime. Since
no one strategy will address the many challenges to creating a
coordinated service delivery system, DCYF will support a range
of strategies, building on efforts of the past. In order to reach the
goal of forging a more coordinated, responsive, network of
children, youth and family services in San Francisco, DCYF will
pilot a range of strategies in the following areas:
• Community Building
• Information and Advocacy
• Access
• Accountability, Capacity Building, Training & Support
We will also continue to respond to emergencies and

opportunities as they arise with an Emerging Needs Fund.
49
Community Building
DCYF’s Funding All children, youth and families should live in neighborhoods that
Strategies are friendly, welcoming and organized to best address family
For 2007 – 2010: issues. Agencies often tell us that they do not have the
resources to staff a service coordination effort. DCYF will
experiment with three new strategies to strengthen the ability of
neighborhoods to support families: creating a coordinated
approach to services and activities at the neighborhood level,
and strengthening institutions whose primary mission is to build
community, and funding family action grants.
Strategy 1: DCYF proposes to fund a convening and coordination function in

Community-Based key neighborhoods throughout the City. Through the upcoming
Conveners and Request for Proposals process, agencies will apply to perform
Coordinators of the following functions at the neighborhood level:
Children, Youth &
Family Services • Regularly convene children, youth and family service
providers in the neighborhood, including public agencies
(such as Libraries, Recreation Centers, social service
workers, MONS), schools, faith-based services, and
others.
• Facilitate the local service provider network in developing
strategies to share resources, refer families and children
to appropriate services, identify unmet needs, develop
new programs, and learn from each other.
• Facilitate the implementation of the network’s
recommendations and strategies.
• Meet regularly with key neighborhood stakeholders, such
as businesses, law enforcement, and neighborhood
activists to maximize resources and ensure positive
working relationships.
• Plan inter-agency neighborhood events and functions.
In collaboration with DCYF, neighborhood conveners will form a

city-wide partnership that would meet periodically to share
information, identify unmet needs, and provide a mechanism for
implementing city-wide strategies and policies.
DCYF proposes investing significant resources, $800,000, to

provide the following funding to each neighborhood. The funding
amounts will range from $25,000 to $70,000 depending on the
size of the neighborhood, as well as the number of organizations
to be convened. The funds would allow the successful applicant
to hire either part-time or full-time staff to perform this important
coordination function. Applicants would demonstrate their skill,
history, and neighborhood credibility to provide this service.
Existing neighborhood networks or collaborations, and new
efforts will be eligible for funding.
50
• BayView Hunters Point
• Bernal Heights
• Castro
• Chinatown
• Excelsior
• Glen Park, Diamond Heights, NoeValley
• Haight
• Mission
• North Beach, Telegraph Hill
• Ocean View/Merced/Ingleside (OMI)
• Portola
• Potrero Hill
• Richmond, Presidio, Pacific Heights
• South of Market
• Sunset
• Tenderloin
• Treasure Island
• Visitacion Valley
• West of Twin Peaks, Merced, Miraloma
• Western Addition
Strategy 2: Government relies on community-based institutions to meet

Seed A neighborhood needs and perform functions that are essential to
Coordinated building strong communities. But often, funding levels and
Strategy of support are targeted to specific programs or activities within
Support for organizations, and do not adequately address the institutional
Community infrastructure needed to effectively address the multi-dimensional
Building aspect of community building and community problem-solving.
Organizations While no single organization or type of organization is positioned
to play this role in a given community, every neighborhood needs
organizations which have the following characteristics:
• Community-based, non-profits
• Place-based, neighborhood-focused
• History of leadership, stability, trust and credibility in the
neighborhood
• Accessible, helpful and welcoming to all members of
neighborhood – multi-racial, multi-purpose, multi-cultural,
multi-generational
• Engaged in community problem-solving and leadership
development
• Community-driven structure and programming
• Provide a variety of core direct services to meet
community needs, as determined by community residents
• Work collaboratively with other neighborhood agencies
and institutions
51
Over the past two decades, many organizations which meet the
above criteria have been weakened – partly by neglect and lack
of leadership, partly by inadequate funding, and partly by
neighborhood challenges related to demographic transitions,
violence, housing issues, and other challenges. San Francisco
currently has a network of community organizations that the City
relies on to address community-level problems of all kinds that
are often not equipped to fulfill their important missions.
DCYF proposes to seed the funding of a resource pool to

strengthen the organizational capacity of key neighborhood
organizations that are hubs of community-building activities. We
will seek foundation and City department support in this
endeavor. We will focus our funding on the weakest aspects of
these institutions – meeting basic infrastructure needs and
improving their capacity to promote leadership and community
problem-solving.
We will develop a council of organizations to more specifically

define the characteristics of a community-building organization,
which functions as a community anchor; to develop a short and
long-term strategy to advocate for, and strengthen these
organizations; and to develop a pilot implementation strategy for
the seed funding that is being provided by DCYF. The council
will also work with other City departments to identify the ways the
City requires support from these organizations to meet important
City priorities.
We will set aside funds for the first phase of planning, and use
the council to guide the specific funding strategy.
Strategy 3: Inspired by the success of First Five San Francisco’s Parent

Family Action Action Grant programxiv, DCYF will design and implement a
Grants Family Action Grant program for parents with children 6 – 17 to
support the efforts of parent groups and cultivate parent
leadership. The program will support key parent-led activities
including organizing, parent education, peer support, and family
activities. DCYF will explore partnership or collaboration with
First Five San Francisco to efficiently administer the program.
These grants will be designed and phased in during the first year
of the funding cycle. If demand for the program is high, future
growth in the Children’s Fund could be dedicated to expanding
the program.
DCYF’s Role: • Coordinate efforts with community-based service providers

and inter-agency partners for maximum impact
52
• Provide technical assistance to anchor institutions
• Collaborate with other City departments to develop a

strategy to support anchor institutions.
Partners: All DCYF grantees providing services at the neighborhood level,

as well as all other public and private providers of children, youth
and family services in the above 23 neighborhoods. Other City
departments include Mayor’s Office of Community Development,
Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services, Human Services
Agency, Department of Public Health, Public Library, Recreation
and Parks and Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice.
Expectations of All neighborhood-level funded agencies will participate in their

Funded Agencies: community convenings. All appropriate programs, such as family
resource centers, Beacons, multi-service centers, and Rec-
Connect sites will strengthen their ability to serve as community
hubs.
53
Information and Advocacy
DCYF’s Funding The most consistent message from 23 community meetings and
Strategies from our ongoing dialogues with service providers is that City
For 2007 – 2010: residents and agency personnel alike have inadequate
information about the services the city and community-based
agencies offer. Parents and youth say that they do not know
enough to make maximum use of services, and agency providers
say that their lack of information limits their ability to make
referrals and connections for their program participants.
DCYF will address this problem through multiple coordinated

strategies (some contracted out and some done in-house),
recognizing that the diversity of our population requires equally
diverse approaches.
Strategy 1: Parent to parent strategies are some of the most effective ways
Parent-to-parent to connect people to each other and to services. Because no
outreach and single strategy works with the diversity of parents in San
information Francisco, DCYF will allocate funding for both parent to parent
outreach; and a website.
Building on the Family Ambassador program developed by First

Five San Francisco, DCYF will fund teams of trained parent-to-
parent outreach workers in the City’s hardest to reach
neighborhood enclaves, starting with the most isolated parts of
Bayview Hunter’s Point. If the outreach strategy proves effective,
it could be expanded as the Children’s Fund grows.
In addition, DCYF will continue the development of a multi-

cultural, multi-lingual website, created by and for San Francisco
parents. The website will not only feature services, but also
events, free entertainment opportunities, and advice from fellow
parents. The website will be widely advertised through the media
and schools. While many parents do not have access to the
web, many others do, and increasingly our public institutions and
agencies are making the internet available to lower income
families.
Strategy 2: Culturally competent information about youth services and youth-

Youth-to-youth to-youth outreach and information strategies are vital. Currently,
outreach and DCYF supports YOUTHLINE, a phone and internet information
information system for young people, combined with aggressive in-person
outreach. The program also functions as a training and
employment program for youth. DCYF will allocate funding for
youth-to-youth information strategies in the upcoming request for
proposals. We will encourage innovation, collaboration with
54
other youth information efforts, and the use of youth-friendly
technology in order to create a more seamless and coordinated
system of reaching young people with information about
resources. Our goal will be to increase utilization and youth-
friendly information strategies.
Strategy 3: DCYF will expand our production of a variety of types of service

Information Guides guides (electronic and published) to reach as broad a group of
and Families interested residents as possible. This will range from small
Connect pocket guides for youth, to an extensive handbook for parents
Events about afterschool programs. This will also include a district-by-
district fact sheet about services available. In addition, DCYF will
continue to bring resources to numerous community fairs, and
sponsor its own series of city-wide events and activities under the
Families Connect banner. Family Fest (fall); Family Appreciation
Day (January); and Summer Resource Fair (spring).
Strategy 4: DCYF staff is necessary to effectively develop, deliver and

Staffing update high quality information, and support better
communication and coordination of services. Positions include:
communications coordinator and IS Manager.
DCYF’s Role: • Develop high quality information resources and events
• Fund information and advocacy efforts of community-

based agencies
• Collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of

information strategies
Partners: DCYF will rely on its government and community-based partners

to help develop, disseminate, and update useful information
about the array of services and supports available; and build
more coordination on the neighborhood level and city-wide.
Expectations DCYF will require all funded agencies and programs to have
of Funded developed its own outreach and information dissemination
Agencies: strategy, to be described more fully in the upcoming Request for
Proposals. Funded agencies will be expected to participate in
local or city-wide services networks, as appropriate.
55
Access
DCYF’s Funding One of our highest goals is to make services accessible to all
Strategies who need them. One of the most frequent criticisms of services
For 2007 – 2010: by community members is that programs are not accessible –
either because of transportation, how they are organized, or
because of the particular and unique needs of individuals who
seek help. We recognize that addressing this problem will mean
making some shifts in how agencies will organize their services:
through new requirements of all agencies, a transportation fund,
and through specialized services to groups which require
services targeted to meet their needs.
Strategy 1: Available data and the community meetings highlighted special

Increasing Access populations of concern. Populations identified include:
for Special • Children and youth with special health care needs and
Populations disabilities;
• Transitional youth;
• Youth involved in the juvenile justice or foster care
systems;
• Homeless children, youth and families;
• LGBTQ youth and families;
• Residents of public and subsidized housing; and
• Undocumented youth and families.
DCYF believes that to effectively meet the needs of special

populations will take a multi-faceted approach: 1) Resources
within each service area will be targeted to special populations of
concern, either for provision of services within a broader
program, or through development of specialized services to meet
unique needs. 2) All services should be made accessible to
special populations. This requires vision and, in some cases,
concerted capacity building, training, support and technical
assistance to make access a reality. In order to increase broader
access, DCYF will invite proposals from community-based
agencies to develop or implement broad-based systems change
strategies to increase the access of special populations to
children, youth and family services available in the community.
Strategy 2: Transportation is a challenge for youth and families and is often

Community-Based cited as a barrier to services. DCYF will make available a small
Transportation competitive fund for innovative community-based proposals for
Strategies transportation strategies to increase access to services.
56
Expectations of DCYF funded agencies will be expected to offer services at times
Funded Agencies: and locations that provide maximum access to their targeted
recipients. In addition, agencies will be expected to have an
outreach plan, as well as a plan to ensure the cultural
competence to serve their target populations. This could mean
anything from changes in language capacity of staff or new
weekend hours, to outstation services.
57
Accountability, Capacity Building, Training and Support
DCYF’s Funding The fundamental charge of DCYF is to ensure that the needs of
Strategies San Francisco’s children, youth and families are being met. This
For 2007 – 2010: requires accountability—from government funders and
community-based agencies alike—to ensure that services are
high quality and are able to evolve overtime.
DCYF will place increased emphasis on program accountability,

continue to improve our model Contract Management System
(CMS), implement new standards for grantees, and involve
young people in program evaluation and needs assessment
work. We will continue to expand the resources for training and
technical assistance to grantees, as well as seed a collaborative
funding pool to increase the capacity of key anchor institutions.
Strategy 1: DCYF’s primary accountability mechanism will be the full

Standards Initiative implementation of our Standards Initiative. Developed with the
Implementation support and participation of 50 community organizations and 6
City departments, the Standard’s Initiative (see Appendix E) has
established minimum program standards for all funded agencies
and is establishing high quality standards to which all funded
agencies will be encouraged and supported to strive towards.
DCYF’s Contract Management System (CMS) is a vital tool for

Standards Initiative implementation and for monitoring the scope
and impact of services provided by DCYF funded agencies.
Strategy 2: To complement the Standards Initiative and data collected

Youth Team through the CMS, DCYF will fund a Youth Team to actively
Assessment integrate consistent youth feedback into departmental efforts.
and Led by a community-based agency with expertise in youth-led
Evaluation evaluation, Youth Team members will collaborate closely with our
internal staff in program evaluation and needs assessment. A
team of 10 – 12 young people will be trained to evaluate program
quality and make recommendations to DCYF about program
modifications. We believe that a team of young people will allow
us to institutionalize a youth voice into the Department’s core
mission and on-going quality improvement process for service
delivery and systems change.
Strategy 3: DCYF’s Coordinator of Training and Capacity Building will

Training and cultivate and lead a strategic training and technical assistance
Capacity Building program for our grantees. DCYF will seek to fill key gaps, not
Strategies addressed by other public and private resources, to meet the
58
particular needs and challenges of children and youth-serving
agencies. DCYF’s overall strategy will complement those within
each service area and initiative, and align with the Standards
Initiative outcomes. Key activities will include: core
competencies workshops; peer learning networks; conferences
and summits; intensive one-on-one work with organizations
facing unique challenges or opportunities; and coordination and
collaboration with other public and private funders to align
resources and strategically address common challenges.
Strategy 4: For the first time, DCYF will establish a small grant fund focused
Special Capacity specifically on building the capacity of community-based
Building Fund organizations. The fund will target neighborhoods where the
presence or capacity of community-based organizations is low.
Flexible, small grants will be available to support strategic
planning, organizational development, trainings, or other needs
that will create or improve organization capacity. DCYF will seek
match funding for this effort from private foundations.
Allocation: $50,000
Strategy 5: DCYF staff is necessary to effectively manage data, promote

Staffing accountability, and provide leadership to collaborative training,
technical assistance, and capacity building efforts. Positions
include: Coordinator of Data and Evaluation; and Director of
Training.
DCYF’s Role: • Implement the Standards Initiative to promote

accountability, increase capacity and improve program
quality
• Coordinate efforts with other public and private funders,

explore contracting efficiencies to benefit both community-
based agencies and government
• Collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of strategies
Partners: Community-based organizations are DCYF’s primary partner for

delivering high quality services to children, youth and families.
Consumers of services, particularly youth, are key stakeholders
for making services accountable. Other City departments and
foundations are allies in bolstering the effectiveness of CBOs.
Expectations DCYF will require all funded agencies to meet minimum program
of Funded quality standards, as well as to engage in quality improvement
Agencies: strategies to strive for high quality standards of practice
established for their service area.
59
Other
Miscellaneous Funding
A small amount, $250,000, will be allocated and included in the upcoming Request for
Proposals to fund worthwhile programs and agencies which do not easily fit in the other
strategies outlined.
Emerging Needs
The three-year funding cycle established by the Children’s Amendment provides a

tremendous amount of stability and time to fully develop and implement
programs. However, while we maintain our focus and overall priorities, we must retain
some flexibility to meet the changing needs of San Francisco’s dynamic neighborhoods
and ever-evolving population of children, youth and families. DCYF maintains a small
fund to respond to emergencies, opportunities, or emerging ideas that occur after the
RFP process is complete. DCYF will consider one time “emerging needs grants” to
agencies of up to $35,000 per year, subject to fund availability.
Just as critical needs sometimes arise between funding cycles, so do opportunities for
youth to participate in activities, trips, and events to spur their development. Subject to
fund availability, DCYF proposes formalizing past practice by applying funds (up to
$100,000) per year toward a Youth Activities Fund to meet one-time, small expenses of
youth activities, trips, and events.
60
IV. Proposed Geographic Distribution of Services
Background
Finding the right geographic distribution of services is a particular challenge in San

Francisco, with its strong neighborhood identities, and more recently with its turf
boundaries that impact some of our most needy young people. Although the City
appears to have embraced the general principle that services be funded in all parts of
the City, with the highest level of services available to those with the greatest need, the
implementation of this policy is difficult. Advocates in the Richmond and Sunset contend
that those neighborhoods have the fewest city-funded services per child. Agencies in
Chinatown point out that Chinese families come from throughout the city to their doors.
Residents of neighborhoods on San Francisco’s Southeast borders point out the highest
risk indicators are in their neighborhoods. Western Addition leaders point to a high
crime rate as evidence that what they receive is not enough. Latino leaders say that
agencies for their families are clustered in the Mission, but that families have spread out
to many neighborhoods, such as Bayview, where their needs are not met. Families on
Treasure Island feel so isolated that they need special services on the island itself. And
so on. Although all are right in their claims, responding to these issues with limited
resources is challenging.
DCYF’s Charge to Serve All Neighborhoods
The Children’s Fund is mandated in the charter to serve children and youth throughout
the City. In evaluating the neighborhood distribution of services, we will ensure that
every neighborhood has access to services in the following core areas: child care, out-
of-school time programs, youth training and employment, family support, wellness
empowerment, youth empowerment, and information and referral. In making this
determination, we will review the entirety of children and youth services – not just those
funded by the Children’s Fund. We will also ensure that we have some core services
available to all families – such as information and referral, family events, parenting
education, and general educational services.
Focus on Highest Need
San Francisco has traditionally focused the most resources on its highest need children,
youth and families. As previously stated, DCYF uses economic and social indicators to
define high-need, including median family income, rate of poverty, participation in the
state’s welfare program, CalWORKS, involvement in the juvenile justice system, and
graduations rates. Some of the programs serving high-need children, youth and families
are neighborhood-specific (located in neighborhoods with the highest level of need);
some are city-wide and targeted to specific populations, such as teen parents. We will
continue the emphasis on high-need children, youth and families. We anticipate, based
on history and new initiatives proposed, that about two-thirds of the clients served
through the Children’s Fund live in neighborhoods that show the greatest need for
services based on the indicators described above.
61
Addressing Turf Issues
Tragically, turf issues limit the ability of young people in some areas to move freely
throughout the City. We are working in partnership with MTA and the SFPD to minimize
the dangers, but we will fund, to the maximum extent possible, in a pattern that does not
require crossing unsafe turf lines.
City-wide Services
Almost one-third of current services funded by DCYF are provided by agencies

that help residents city-wide with specific types of needs. We plan to continue this
pattern, as it has effectively allowed us to address the needs of populations that are not
defined by neighborhood. This includes: teen parents, homeless children and families,
children and youth with special health care needs, LGBTQ youth and parents, victims of
domestic violence, and those in need of substance abuse treatment. There are also
youth and families of specific cultures that want service hubs that can serve city-wide. In
addition, some programs have been set up to support service providers throughout the
City, such as various child care training, worker support and enrichment initiatives. As
described throughout this document, we intend to continue to provide services city-wide
when that is the most effective strategy for meeting need.
Reach of Children’s Fund by Neighborhood
To ensure that the Children’s Fund is reaching the children and youth that are likely to
have the greatest need for services, DCYF requires funded-programs to report the home
ZIP code of the children, youth and families they serve. This information allows DCYF to
ensure that funded-programs are reaching children and youth from across San
Francisco, including children and youth from neighborhoods that are identified as having
the greatest need for services. In fact, given that many children and youth attend schools
outside of their neighborhood, the home ZIP code of the participants lets DCYF identify
those children and youth receiving services outside of their neighborhoods. The table on
the following page includes a breakdown by home ZIP of children and youth receiving
services through the Children’s Fund in the current funding cycle. As shown in the table,
DCYF-funded programs are reaching the children and youth from the neighborhoods
that ranked highest on the index of need. (See Appendix F for a description of the need
index and the target distribution of children and youth by neighborhood for 2007-2010.)
The next table shows the race and ethnicity of recipients served demonstrating the
Fund’s far-reaching impact.
We project that the next funding cycle will have a similar reach by neighborhood with
small increased percentages in some neighborhoods based on new initiatives. For
instance, new general funds for violence prevention and related services augment the
percentages of children, youth and families served in the Bayview/Hunters Point area,
Western Addition and Mission. Anticipated new state funds will allow for significant
augmentation of afterschool programming in the Sunset, Richmond, West of Twin
Peaks, Haight, Tenderloin, and Outer Mission (because they were previously under-
62
served by state standards). Anticipated federal funds will allow for significant
augmentations of violence prevention services in Visitacion Valley and the OMI. New
family-centered recreation programs will serve Portola, Mission, Western Addition,
Sunset and Bayview.
Distribution Distribution of
of San population
Francisco served by
ZIP Index of Population DCYF-funded
Neighborhood code Need a Under 18 b programs c
Bayview/Hunters Point 94124 82.47 8.9% 14.0%
Castro/Noe Valley 94114 19.42 1.9% 1.0%
Chinatown 94108 40.35 1.1% 1.0%
Chinatown/Russian 94109 40.51 3.4% 3.0%
Hill/Nob Hill
Downtown 94105 4.29 0.04% 0.20%
Embarcadero/Gateway 94111 28.14 0.1% 0.3%
Haight/Western 94117 28.83 2.5% 3.0%
Addition/Fillmore
Hayes Valley/Tenderloin 94102 56.72 2.7% 5.0%
Inner Mission/Bernal 94110 55.88 11.7% 14.0%
Heights
Inner 94118 21.06 4.7% 2.0%
Richmond/Presidio/Laurel
Marina/Cow Hollow 94123 1.66 1.4% 0.003
North Beach/Telegraph Hill 94133 39.57 2.6% 0.3%
Outer 94112 43.92 13.5% 15.0%
Mission/Excelsior/Ingleside
Outer Richmond/Sea Cliff 94121 26.81 5.5% 4.0%
Parkside/Forest Hill 94116 22.24 6.6% 4.0%
Potrero Hill 94107 61.47 1.7% 2.0%
Presidio 94129 26.27 0.3% 0.1%
South of Market 94103 45.23 2.3% 4.0%
Stonestown/Lake Merced 94132 29.61 3.6% 0.3%
Sunset 94122 24.45 7.1% 5.0%
Treasure Island 94130 27.34 0.1% 1.0%
Twin Peaks/Diamond 94131 27.71 3.0% 1.0%
Heights/Glen Park
Visitacion Valley 94134 52.93 8.4% 10.0%
West Portal/St. Francis 94127 14.19 3.2% 1.0%
Wood
Western Addition 94115 58.39 3.2% 4.0%
a
Index of need is based on family median income, poverty rates, CalWORKs receipt, referrals
to Juvenile Probation, and 2005-2006 SFUSD graduations rates. The higher the need index
number, the greater the need.
b
Sources: Census (2000)
c
Source: DCYF Contract Management System, funding cycle 2004-2005
63
The following table provides the race/ethnicity breakdown of children and youth
participating in DCYF-funded programs. Although this breakdown is from data collected
in 2004-2005, we expect these percentages to remain consistent throughout the current
funding cycle, which ends June 30, 2007.
Race/Ethnicity of Children and Youth

Participating in DCYF-funded Programs, 2004-2005 and
San Francisco Children & Youth
% of San
% of participants
Francisco
Race/Ethnicity in DCYF-funded
Population under
programs
18a
African American 24% 11%
Asian Pacific
34% 37%
Islander
Hispanic/Latino 27% 22%
White 6% 23%
Multiracial 6% 6%
Other 3% 1%
a
Source: Census (2000)
Note: Native American children and youth are reflected in other categories.
What will be in the RFP?
1. Applicants to the Children’s Fund will be asked to describe whether services are
neighborhood-specific or city-wide, and why the particular modality proposed
best meets the needs of program participants.
2. Applicants for neighborhood-specific programming will be asked to state how
their services fill important and needed gaps in their neighborhood.
3. Applicants for neighborhood-specific programming will be required to
demonstrate how their services will be accessible to all children, youth and
families in that neighborhood.
4. DCYF will use actual data from applicants funded by DCYF in the past to
identify programs that have been successful in reaching and serving children and
youth from the neighborhoods listed in the table above.
64
V. Moving Forward
Through the in-depth community engagement and research process conducted for the
Children’s Services Allocation Plan (CSAP), the Department of Children, Youth and
Their Families (DCYF) has determined three important and inter-related roles to play in
improving the well-being of San Francisco’s young people from 2007 – 2010:
1) Effectively stewarding the Children’s Fund and other public investment in

children, youth and family services for maximum impact
2) Convening stakeholders, and innovating policy solutions to current problems; and
3) Forging a responsive network of services in neighborhoods and city-wide.
While DCYF has been playing these multiple roles since its inception, the CSAP further
details the actions the department will take to perform each role successfully.
Effective Stewardship of the Children’s Fund – Drafting an RFP
Based on the allocations and strategies articulated in this CSAP, DCYF will develop a
competitive Request For Proposals (RFP) for community-based organizations (CBOs).
To ensure that these dollars have the greatest possible impact, DCYF will be consulting
community and governmental partners to refine the high-level strategies outlined in this
plan and developing performance measures against which all activities will be monitored
over the three-year period. The RFP is due to be released in February 2007, which will
determine grants for a three-year funding cycle starting July 1, 2007.
In the RFP process, DCYF will distribute funds according to this plan, seek to establish
an equitable geographic distribution of resources, and continue to ensure that all age
groups will be funded equitably to the maximum extent possible. As in the past, DCYF
will include community members in the proposal review process and will actively utilize
information on current performance of grantees in the proposal review process. Results
from DCYF’s fall 2006 assessments of current grantees’ compliance with minimum
program standards and performance in the current funding round will be taken into
account. All organizations that receive grants in the 2007 -2010 funding cycle will
actively participate in the Standards Initiative to in order to ensure that services are high
quality and linked to overall performance measures.
It is clear, however, that investment alone, will not realize our vision for San Francisco’s
children, youth and families. Equally important is DCYF’s continued work as a convener
of stakeholders.
Convening Stakeholders and Innovating Policy Solutions
As a city-wide coordinator, DCYF aims to maximize the impact of all City dollars invested
in services for children and youth by promoting greater coordination and collaboration
among City agencies, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), private
foundations and state and federal institutions. To this end, DCYF will continue to
orchestrate collaborative planning efforts; facilitate the Mayor’s Policy Council on
65
Children, Youth and Families; lead the Mayor’s Cluster on Children, Youth, Arts and
Education; participate actively in Communities of Opportunity; lead the CBO/SFUSD
Task Force; staff the Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force; and leverage a wide array
of resources to support city efforts for young people. Such coordination efforts were
highly valued throughout the stakeholder discussions, and the Citizens’ Advisory
Committee (CAC) and other partners have also expressed strong support for this role.
DCYF further supports city-wide coordination through efforts to learn as much as

possible about the needs of San Francisco’s young people and to create strategies that
best meet those needs. Ongoing engagement with the community is key to this process
and the CAC plays a large role in ensuring that DCYF’s efforts truly reflect the lives of
San Francisco’s residents and honor their needs.
Forging a Responsive Network of Services in Neighborhoods and City-wide
The concept of creating a “continuum” or network of services is not new; in fact, many
past documents issued by DCYF call for such a change. How is what we have proposed
different? We will shift course slightly and increase the amount of funding provided to
individual service providers or programs so they have more internal resources to build
connections with other providers in the community, and provide active information and
referral services for requests beyond their scope. We will take a more concerted strategy
to not only fund direct services, but allocate some funding for system-wide strategies to
support the creation of this network. We hope that these two approaches—larger grant
sizes and system-wide investments—will increase knowledge and utilization of services,
and reduce duplication. In the coming months, we will be actively working on
performance measures to assess, if and to what extent, investment in the described
system-wide strategies have moved San Francisco closer to a responsive network of
services for children, youth and families in each neighborhood and city-wide.
Conclusion
In creating the Children’s Fund, the voters of San Francisco demonstrated a unique
commitment to the needs of children, youth and families and DCYF will continue to
collaborate with partners throughout the City — parents and youth, schools, other City
departments, community-based organizations and private foundations — to promote
innovative thinking and approaches.
This plan lays the foundation for a system that ensures public dollars are invested in
service areas that address the true needs of San Francisco’s young people, while
allowing individual organizations the flexibility in designing and implementing programs.
DCYF is also firmly committed to developing a stronger, more coordinated system that
addresses these needs in an inclusive and transparent manner.
Acknowledgements
DCYF thanks the many organizations and individuals who provided invaluable support in
the creation of this Children’s Services Allocation Plan. Over 1,000 people participated;
their active participation resulted in an allocation plan which we hope weaves the many
voices of San Francisco into a shared vision to make San Francisco a city where
children, youth and families thrive.
66
VI. Appendices
Appendix A: Children’s Amendment
Appendix B: Overall City Spending on Children, Youth & Families, 2005-2006
Appendix C: Process and Participants
Appendix D: Community Voices
Appendix E: Standards Initiative
Appendix F: Neighborhood Index of Need
67
Appendix A
Children’s Amendment
SEC. 16.108. CHILDREN'S FUND. [Effective July 1, 2001]
(a) Fund for Children's Services. Operative July 1, 2001, there is hereby
established a fund to expand children's services, which shall be called the Children's
Fund ("Fund"). Monies in the Fund shall be expended or used only to provide services
for children as provided in this section.
(b) Goals. The goals of expenditures from the Fund shall be:
(1) To ensure that San Francisco's children are healthy, ready to learn,
succeed in school and live in stable, safe, and supported families and
communities;
(2) To reach children in all neighborhoods;
(3) To the maximum extent reasonable, to distribute funds equitably among

services for infants and preschoolers, elementary school age children and
adolescents;
(4) To focus on the prevention of problems and on supporting and

enhancing the strengths of children, youth and their families;
(5) To strengthen collaboration between the City and County of San

Francisco and the San Francisco Unified School District;
(6) To fill gaps in services and to leverage other resources whenever

feasible; and
(7) To foster projects initiated by San Francisco youth.
(c) Amount. There is hereby set aside for the Fund, from the revenues of the
property tax levy, revenues in an amount equivalent to an annual tax of three cents
($.03) per one hundred dollars ($100) of assessed valuation for each fiscal year
beginning with July 1, 2001—June 30, 2002, and ending with July 1, 2015—June 30,
2016. If the 2010 U. S. Census shows that children make up a percentage of the
population of the City and County that is at least two percentage points more than their
percentage as shown in the 2000 U. S. Census, then the amount of the property tax levy
set aside under this section shall be increased for each fiscal year beginning after
publication of the 2010 Census. The increase shall be in an amount equal to: one-
quarter cent ($.0025) per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation, for each two full
percentage points of increase in the percentage of the City and County population that is
made up of children. The Fund shall be maintained separate and apart from all other
City and County funds and appropriated by annual or supplemental appropriation.
(d) New Services. Monies in the Fund shall be used exclusively for the costs of
services to children less than 18 years old provided as part of programs that
68
predominantly serve children less than 18 years old, above and beyond services funded
from sources other than the previous Children's Fund prior to July 1, 2001. To this end,
monies from the Fund shall not be appropriated or expended for services that received
any of the funds included in the higher of the Controller's baseline budget covering July
1, 2000—June 30, 2001 appropriations, or the Controller's baseline budget covering July
1, 1999—June 30, 2000 appropriations, whether or not the cost of such services
increases. Nor shall monies from the Fund be appropriated or expended for services
that substitute for or replace services included or partially included in the higher of the
two baseline budgets, except and solely to the extent that the City ceases to receive
federal, state or private agency funds that the funding agency required to be spent only
on those services. The Controller's baseline budget shall mean the Controller's
calculation of the actual amount of City appropriations for services for children that would
have been eligible to be paid from the Fund but are paid from other sources.
(e) Eligible Services. Services for children eligible for Fund assistance shall
include only:
(1) Affordable child care and early education;
(2) Recreation, cultural and afterschool programs, including without

limitation, arts programs;
(3) Health services, including prevention, education, mental health, and pre-
natal services to pregnant women;
(4) Training, employment and job placement;
(5) Youth empowerment and leadership development;
(6) Youth violence prevention programs;
(7) Youth tutoring and educational enrichment programs; and
(8) Family and parent support services for families of children receiving
other services from the Fund.
(f) Excluded Services. Notwithstanding subsection (e), services for children paid
for by the Fund shall not include:
(1) Services provided by the Police Department or other law enforcement

agencies, courts, the District Attorney, Public Defender, City Attorney; or
the Fire Department; detention or probation services mandated by state
or federal law; or public transportation;
(2) Any service that benefits children incidentally or as members of a larger

population including adults;
69
(3) Any service for which a fixed or minimum level of expenditure is
mandated by state or federal law, to the extent of the fixed or minimum
level of expenditure;
(4) Acquisition of any capital item not for primary and direct use by children;
(5) Acquisition (other than by lease for a term of ten years or less) of any
real property; or
(6) Maintenance, utilities or any similar operating costs of any facility not
used primarily and directly by children, or of any recreation or park facility
(including a zoo), library, or hospital.
(g) Baseline. The Fund shall be used exclusively to increase the aggregate City
appropriations and expenditures for those services for children that are eligible to be
paid from the Fund (exclusive of expenditures mandated by state or federal law). To this
end, the City shall not reduce the amount of such City appropriations for eligible services
(not including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures mandated by
state or federal law) in any of the fifteen years during which funds are required to be set
aside under this section below the amount so appropriated for the fiscal year 2000-2001
("the base year") as set forth in the Controller's baseline budget, as adjusted ("the base
amount"). The base amount shall be adjusted for each year after the base year by the
Controller based on calculations consistent from year to year by the percentage increase
or decrease in aggregate City and County discretionary revenues. In determining
aggregate City and County discretionary revenue, the Controller shall only include
revenues received by the City and County that are unrestricted and may be used at the
option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. The
method used by the Controller to determine discretionary revenues shall be consistent
with method used by the Controller to determine the Library and Children's Baseline
Calculations dated June 20, 2000, which the Controller shall place on file with the Clerk
of the Board in File No. 000952. Errors in the Controller's estimate of discretionary
revenues for a fiscal year shall be corrected by an adjustment in the next year's
estimate. Within 90 days following the end of each fiscal year through 2014-2015, the
Controller shall calculate and publish the actual amount of City appropriations for
services for children that would have been eligible to be paid from the Fund but are paid
from other sources, separately identifying expenditures mandated by state or federal
law.
(h) Three-Year Planning Cycle. To provide time for community participation and
planning, and to ensure program stability, appropriations from the Fund for all fiscal
years beginning after June 30, 2004 shall be made pursuant to a three-year planning
cycle as set forth in subsections (h) through (l). During every third fiscal year beginning
with the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the City shall prepare a Community Needs Assessment
to determine services eligible to receive moneys from the Fund. During every third fiscal
year beginning with the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the City shall prepare a Children's
Services and Allocation Plan ("the Plan"), based on the Community Needs Assessment
approved during the previous year. The Board of Supervisors may modify an existing
Community Needs Assessment or Plan, provided that any modification shall occur only
after a noticed public hearing. All appropriations from the Fund shall be consistent with
70
the most recent Plan, provided that the Board of Supervisors may approve an
amendment to the Plan at the same time it approves an appropriation.
(i) Community Needs Assessment and Children's Services and Allocation

Plan.
(1) The Community Needs Assessment and the Plan shall be in writing,
shall be made available to the public in draft form not later than January
31 of each fiscal year in which they are required, shall be presented by
March 31 of each such fiscal year to the commissions listed in subsection
(m)(3) for review and comment, and by April 30 of each such fiscal year
shall be presented to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
(2) Prior to preparation of each draft Community Needs Assessment, the

City shall hold at least one public hearing in each geographical area
defined in Charter Section 13.110. The City shall also make available
opportunities for parents, youth, and agencies receiving monies from the
Fund to provide information for the Community Needs Assessment. The
Community Needs Assessment shall include the results of a city-wide
survey of parents and youth to be conducted by the Controller every three
years.
(3) The Plan shall include all services for children furnished or funded by the
City or funded by another governmental or private entity and administered
by the City, whether or not they received or may receive monies from the
Fund. The Plan shall be outcome-oriented and include goals,
measurable and verifiable objectives and measurable and verifiable
outcomes.
(4) The Plan shall state how all services receiving money from the Fund will
be coordinated with other children's services. The Plan shall specify
amounts of funding to be allocated: (i) toward achieving specified goals,
measurable and verifiable objectives and measurable and verifiable
outcomes, (ii) to specified service models; and (iii) for specific populations
and neighborhoods. The Plan shall also state the reasons for the
allocations and demonstrate how the allocations are consistent with the
Community Needs Assessment. A minimum of three percent of the
funding allocated under the Plan shall be for youth-initiated projects.
(j) Evaluation. The Plan shall include an evaluation of services that received
money from the Fund at any time during the last three fiscal years. The evaluation shall
involve those who use the funded services and other parents and youth.
(k) Failure of Board to Act. If the Board of Supervisors has not approved a
Community Needs Assessment before the first day of the fiscal year during which the
Plan is to be prepared, the Plan shall be based on the Community Needs Assessment
as originally submitted to the Board of Supervisors.
(l) Selection of Contractors. Except for services provided by City employees, the
Fund shall be expended through contractors selected based on their responses to one
71
or more requests for proposals issued by the City. The City shall award contracts to
coincide with the City's fiscal year starting July 1.
(m) Implementation.
(1) In implementation of this section, facilitating public participation and

maximizing availability of information to the public shall be primary goals.
(2) So long as there exists within the executive branch of City government a
Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, or an equivalent
department or agency as its successor, that department shall administer
the Children's Fund and prepare the Community Needs Assessment and
the Plan pursuant to this section. If no such department or agency exists,
the Mayor shall designate a department or other City body to administer
the Children's Fund pursuant to this section.
(3) In addition to all other hearings otherwise required, the Recreation and
Park, Juvenile Probation, Youth, Health and Human Services
Commissions shall each hold at least one separate or joint hearing each
fiscal year to discuss issues relating to this section. The Department of
Children, Youth and Their Families, or other agency as described above
in section (m)(2), shall consult with the Recreation and Park Department,
Arts Commission, Juvenile Probation Department, Unified School District,
Health Department, Department of Human Services, Commission on the
Status of Women, Police Department, Library Department and Municipal
Transportation Agency in preparation of portions of the Community Needs
Assessment and the Plan that relate to their respective activities or areas
of responsibility.
(4) The Board of Supervisors may by ordinance implement this section.
(n) Advisory Committee. There shall be a Children's Fund Citizens' Advisory

Committee ("the Committee") that shall consist of 15 members, each appointed by the
Mayor to a three-year term, to serve at the Mayor's pleasure. At least three members of
the Committee shall be parents and at least three members shall be less than 18 years
old at the time of appointment. For each of the following areas, there shall be at least
one Committee member with professional expertise in that area: early childhood
development, child care, education, health, recreation and youth development. The
Committee shall meet at least quarterly, and shall advise the department or agency that
administers the Children's Fund and the Mayor concerning the Children's Fund. The
Committee shall convene by July 1, 2001. Each member of the Committee shall receive
copies of each proposed Community Needs Assessment and each Plan (including the
evaluation required as part of the Plan). Members of the Committee shall serve without
pay, but may be reimbursed for expenses actually incurred.
(o) Unspent Funds. All unspent funds in the Children's Fund created by former
Charter Section 16.108 shall be transferred to the Children's Fund established herein.
(p) Effect of Procedural Errors. No appropriation, contract or other action shall

be held invalid or set aside by reason of any error, including without limitation any
72
irregularity, informality, neglect or omission, in carrying out procedures specified in
subsections (h) through (n) unless a court finds that the party challenging the action
suffered substantial injury from the error and that a different result would have been
probable had the error not occurred. (Amended November 2000)
73
Appendix B
Overall City Spending on Children, Youth and Families
2005 – 2006 Budget Year
In collaboration with the Controller’s Office and City Departments, DCYF conducted an
analysis of City spending on children and youth in order to identify current funding levels,
gaps, and opportunities for leverage. This served as a key data point for identifying
areas of focus for DCYF and Children’s Fund investment.
DCYF gathered and analyzed data from 16 City Departments and the San Francisco
Unified School District to quantify overall City spending on children and youth. The City
Departments include:
• SF Airport
• SF Arts Commission
• SF Board of Supervisors
• Children and Families Commission (First 5)
• Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families
• Department of the Environment
• Department of Public Health
• Department of Public Works
• Department on the Status of Women
• Human Services Agency
• Juvenile Probation Department
• Library
• Mayor’s Office of Community Development
• Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice
• Port of SF
• Recreation and Parks
The City Departments and SFUSD were asked to provide and categorize their spending
on children and youth ages 0-17 based on 2005-2006 budget data. The resulting
information breakdown and analysis follows.
DCYF collected data for every program serving children or youth sponsored by each
participating department and SFUSD. Over 560 programs were included using the
criteria outlined below:
Services Included in the CSAP
• Services to children younger than 18 in programs that predominately serve

children younger than 18;
• Affordable child care and early education programs;
• Recreational, cultural and afterschool programs, including arts programs;
• Health services, including prevention, education, mental health and prenatal
care;
• Training, employment and job placement programs;
• Youth empowerment and leadership development programs;
74
• Youth tutoring and educational enrichment programs; and
• Support services for families with children.
Services Not Included in the CSAP
• Services provided by the police department or other law enforcement agencies,

the District Attorney's Public Defender’s Office, the City Attorney or the fire
department; detention or probation services mandated by federal or state law; or
public transportation services.
• Any service that benefits children and youth incidentally or as members of a
larger population including adults.
• Acquisition (other than by lease for a term of ten years or less) of any real
property or capital item not for primary and direct use by children and youth.
• Maintenance, utilities or any similar operating costs of any facility not used
primarily and directly by children and youth; or any recreation or park facility
(including zoos), library or hospital.
The data collected included the following information:

Program name: Departments submitted a brief description of the mission and activities
for each of their programs.
Total budgeted amount: While actual dollars would have painted a more realistic picture
than budgeted amounts, actual figures will not become available until the end of the
2005-2006 fiscal year, which is beyond the CSAP deadline.
All revenue sources comprising a program’s total budgeted amount: Departments broke
down the program’s budget by using the following sources of income:
General Fund: The General Fund consists of all revenue collected by the
City and County of San Francisco, including revenue sources such as
property tax, business tax, sales tax, property transfer tax, hotel room tax
and others.
Children’s Fund: The Children’s Fund is a special fund that receives a
percentage of property tax revenue collected each year for the support of
children’s services. While the vast majority of these funds are awarded to
community-based organizations through a competitive bidding process, a
portion is allocated to other City departments to provide children’s
services.
Children’s Baseline: The Children’s Baseline is a subcategory of the
General Fund consisting of discretionary General Fund revenue that is
appropriated to support children’s services. Baseline expenditures are
tracked separately in the budget to ensure that the City does not reduce
the level of General Fund discretionary spending below that required by
the Children’s Amendment.
Federal: Funds provided by federal agencies for specific purposes as
authorized by federal legislation.
State: Funds provided by state agencies for specific purposes as
authorized by state legislation.
Private: Funds provided by private philanthropic organizations.
Other: Funding not meeting other category definitions.
75
Service Areas: Departments were asked to categorize their programs and funding by
service areas:
• Early care and education (direct services and provider support)

• Out of school time
• Youth workforce development
• Family support
• Health and wellness
• Violence prevention
• Youth empowerment, advocacy and one time funding
• Child welfare and protection
• Shelter/supportive housing (supportive services)
• Other services
The analysis also included City funding for public schools, provided through the Public
Education Fund which is administered through DCYF and managed by the Controller’s
Office.
Data Limitations
While helpful as an overview of the City’s investment in children’s services, the data
have limitations that are important to keep in mind when reading the CSAP.
• The data provide a picture of where the City is spending its resources
within children’s services but do not show the impact of those dollars on
children and youth. Evaluating the quality or effectiveness of programs
was beyond the scope of this project.
• The data reflect budgeted amounts for the 2005-06 fiscal year. They do
not reflect recent budget changes that may increase or decrease some of
the programs listed here.
Data Presentation
The following section presents a quantitative overview of City-funded children’s
programs, categorized by City Department, Service Area and Revenue Sources based
on budget data from 2005-2006. The individual service areas are further broken down
by City investment.
76
Total City Investment in Children and Youth Ages 0-17
By City Department 2005-2006
City Department Amount Percentage

DPW $54,825 0.02%
Port of SF $76,750 0.02%
Board of Supervisors $209,071 0.06%
Environment $275,930 0.08%
Airport $314,000 0.09%
DSW $456,208 0.13%
Arts Commission $526,059 0.14%
MOCD $1,323,060 0.36%
MOCJ $5,077,410 1.39%
JPD $5,167,541 1.42%
Library $7,415,531 2.04%
SFUSD-SHPD $8,069,808 2.21%
First 5 $10,926,458 3.00%
Rec&Park $15,462,605 4.24%
DPH $51,247,173 14.07%
DCYF $64,046,551 17.58%
HSA $193,689,519 53.16%
Total $364,338,499 100.00%
Allocation of Funds by City Dept

Budget Year: 05-06
HSA
53%
DCYF DPW, Port of SF, BoS,

18% Environment, Airport,
DSW, Arts Comm, MOCD
1%
DPH JPD
Rec&Park MOCJ
14% SFUSD-SHPD 1%
4% First 5 1%
2% Library
3%
2%
77
By Service Area, 2005-2006
Service Area Amount Percentage

Other 2,388,183 0.66%
Violence Prevention 5,493,442 1.51%
Youth Workforce Development 6,629,976 1.82%
Shelter/Supportive Housing 10,002,726 2.75%
Family Support 13,868,593 3.81%
Child Care - Provider Support 15,637,859 4.29%
City Funding for Schools 22,888,000 6.28%
Child Care - Direct Services 33,590,268 9.22%
Out of School Time 49,106,320 13.48%
Health and Wellness 65,720,569 18.04%
Child Welfare and Protection 139,012,562 38.15%
Total 364,338,499 100.00%
Allocation of Funds by Service Area

Budget Year: 05-06
Child Welfare and

Protection
38%
Health and Wellness

18% Other
1% Violence Prevention
2%
Youth Workforce
Development
2%
Out of School Time
13% Shelter/Supportive
Housing
Child Care - 3%
Direct Srvcs Child Care - Family Support
City Funding for Schools
9% Provider Support 4%
6%
4%
78
By Revenue Source, 2005-2006
Revenue Source Amount Percentage

Private 374,487 0.10%
Other 4,275,904 1.17%
Children's Fund 28,763,261 7.89%
State 72,734,087 19.96%
Children's Baseline 75,592,955 20.75%
General Fund 79,011,764 21.69%
Federal 103,586,040 28.43%
Totals: 364,338,499 100%
Allocation of Funds by Revenue Source

Budget Year: 05-06
Children's Baseline
21%
General Fund
State 22%
20%
Children's Fund
8% Other
Private
1%
less than 1%
Federal
28%
79
Early Care and Education
Child Care – Direct Services
Program General Children's Children's
Federal State Private Other
City Dept % Budget (0-17) Fund Baseline Fund
Airport 0.74% 250,000 - - - - - - 250,000
DCYF 4.58% 1,539,700 - 239,700 1,300,000 - - - -
First 5 9.92% 3,333,333 3,333,333 - - - - - -
HSA 84.75% 28,467,235 147,040 2,348,741 - 20,587,945 5,383,509 - -
Totals: 100.00% 33,590,268 3,480,373 2,588,441 1,300,000 20,587,945 5,383,509 - 250,000
Distribution of Revenue Sources

Child Care (Direct Svc)
Budget Year: 2005-2006
HSA
85%
Airport
First 5 DCYF 1%
10% 4%
Child Care – Provider Support

First 5 11.83% 1,850,000 - - - - 1,850,000 - -
DCYF 41.24% 6,448,278 - 3,220,178 2,268,100 - - - 960,000
HSA 46.93% 7,339,581 - 4,811,345 - 2,174,283 353,953 - -
Totals: 100.00% 15,637,859 - 8,031,523 2,268,100 2,174,283 2,203,953 - 960,000

Child Care (Provider Support)
Budget Year 2005-2006
First 5
12%
HSA
47%
DCYF
41%
80
Out of School Time
JPD 0.09% 44,908 - 44,908 - - - - -
Port of SF 0.11% 55,250 - - - - - - 55,250
DSW 0.30% 147,307 63,741 83,566 - - - - -
Environment 0.56% 275,930 - - - - - 275,930 -
First 5 1.06% 521,000 - - - - 521,000 - -
Arts
Commission 1.07% 526,059 70,000 - 250,000 30,000 - 88,375 87,684
MOCJ 1.56% 766,000 249,086 - - 190,000 326,914 - -
MOCD 1.72% 846,450 - - - 846,450 - - -
HSA 3.46% 1,697,113 117,279 813,872 - 609,524 156,438 - -
Library 15.10% 7,415,531 1,099,851 6,315,680 - - - - -
SFUSD-SHPD 16.43% 8,069,808 - - - 2,130,200 5,939,608 - -
DCYF 27.04% 13,278,359 - 1,539,720 11,738,639 - - - -
Rec & Park 31.49% 15,462,605 650,921 12,109,821 - - - - 2,701,863
Total 100.00% 49,106,320 2,250,878 20,907,567 11,988,639 3,806,174 6,943,960 364,305 2,844,797

Out of School Time
Budget Year: 2005-2006
JPD, Port of SF,

Rec & Park
DSW & Environment
31%
1% First 5
1%
Arts Commission
1%
MOCJ
2%
MOCD
DCYF HSA 2%
27% 3%
Library
15%
SFUSD-SHPD
17%
81
DSW 0.05% 3,200 3,200 - - - - - -
Port of SF 0.32% 21,500 - - - - - - 21,500
DPW 0.83% 54,825 - - - - - - 54,825
Airport 0.97% 64,000 - - - - - - 64,000
MOCD 3.75% 248,610 - - - 248,610 - - -
MOCJ 4.52% 300,000 300,000 - - - - - -
HSA 14.62% 969,341 113,212 - 4,242 630,574 214,949 3,182 3,182
DCYF 74.94% 4,968,500 - 1,705,900 3,262,600 - - - -
Totals: 100.00% 6,629,976 416,412 1,705,900 3,266,842 879,184 214,949 3,182 143,507

DCYF
75%
DSW, Port of SF
DPW & Airport
2%
MOCD
MOCJ 4%
4%
HSA
15%
82
Family Support
DSW 0.49% 67,535 29,223 38,312 - - - - -
MOCD 0.55% 76,500 - - - 76,500 - - -
First 5 20.33% 2,820,000 - - - - 2,820,000 - -
DCYF 23.09% 3,202,428 - 261,689 2,770,954 169,785 - - -
HSA 55.54% 7,702,130 2,266,112 2,054,437 - 2,405,587 975,995 - -
Totals: 100.00% 13,868,593 2,295,335 2,354,437 2,770,954 2,651,872 3,795,995 - -

Family Support
HSA
56%
DCYF
23%
First 5 DSW &MOCD

20% 1%
83
Wellness Empowerment
MOCD* 0.12% 76,500 - - - 76,500 - - -
JPD 1.16% 764,043 194,000 570,043 - - - - -
MOCJ 1.54% 1,011,028 327,970 - - - 683,058 - -
First 5 2.94% 1,932,000 - - - - 1,932,000 - -
HSA 5.43% 3,565,712 278,353 1,177,286 - 1,474,684 635,389 - -
DCYF 10.84% 7,124,113 - 4,165,500 2,958,613 - - - -
DPH 77.98% 51,247,173 228,475 27,892,466 - 11,396,174 11,723,058 7,000 -
Totals: 100.00% 65,720,569 1,028,798 33,805,295 2,958,613 12,947,358 14,973,505 7,000 -

Health and Wellness
DPH
78%
JPD
1%
MOCJ
First 5
HSA 2%
3%
DCYF 5%
11%
84
Violence Response and Truancy Prevention
MOCD 1.37% 75,000 - - - 75,000 - - -
DCYF 44.02% 2,418,060 - 610,060 1,808,000 - - - -
MOCJ 54.62% 3,000,382 1,699,231 - - 627,793 673,358 - -
Totals: 100.00% 5,493,442 1,699,231 610,060 1,808,000 702,793 673,358 - -

Violence and Truancy Reduction
DCYF
44%
MOCJ
55%
MOCD
1%
85
Youth Empowerment, Advocacy and One-Time Funding
DCYF 91.25% 2,179,112 - 102,000 2,077,112 - - - -
Board of Supes 8.75% 209,071 209,071 - - - - - -
Totals: 100.00% 2,388,183 209,071 102,000 2,077,112 - - - -
*includes DCYF Emerging Needs $400,000

Youth Empowerment, Advocacy and One-Time Funding
DCYF
91%
Board of Supes
9%
86
Child Welfare and Protection
City Dept % Federal State Private Other
Budget (0-17) Fund Baseline Fund
HSA 97.59% 135,664,578 39,792,778 2,383,325 - 59,770,379 33,718,096 - -
JPD 2.41% 3,347,984 - - - - 3,347,984 - -
Total 100.00% 139,012,562 39,792,778 2,383,325 - 59,770,379 37,066,080 - -

Child Welfare and Protection
JPD
2%
HSA
98%
City Funding for Schools

DCYF 100.00% 22,888,000 20,000,000 2,563,000 325,000 - - - -
87
Shelter/Supportive Housing
DSW 2.38% 238,167 137,279 23,288 - - - - 77,600
First 5 4.70% 470,125 - - - - 470,125 - -
JPD 10.10% 1,010,606 - 518,119 - - 492,487 - -
HSA 82.82% 8,283,828 7,701,610 - - 66,053 516,166 - -
Totals: 100.00% 10,002,726 7,838,889 541,407 - 66,053 1,478,778 - 77,600
*Does not include $833,333 from HSA for THP Plus Transitional Housing for Emancipated
Youth

Shelter/Supportive Housing
DSW
First 5
2%
5%
JPD
10%
HSA
83%
88
Appendix C
Process and Participants
CSAP – The Process
Phase I – Data Collection

DCYF gathered and analyzed data from 16 City Departments and the San Francisco
Unified School District to quantify overall City spending on children and youth. The City
Departments include:
• SF Airport • Department on the Status of
• SF Arts Commission Women
• SF Board of Supervisors • Human Services Agency
• Children and Families • Juvenile Probation Department
Commission (First 5) • Library
• Department of Children, Youth, • Mayor’s Office of Community
and Their Families Development
• Department of the Environment • Mayor’s Office of Criminal
• Department of Public Health Justice
• Department of Public Works • Port of SF
• Recreation and Parks
The City Departments and SFUSD were asked to provide and categorize their spending
on children and youth ages 0-17 based on 2005-2006 budget data. The resulting
information breakdown and analysis can be found in Appendix B.
DCYF collected data for every program serving children or youth sponsored by each
participating department and SFUSD. Over 560 programs were included using the
criteria outlined below:
Services Included in the CSAP

• Services to children younger than 18 in programs that predominately serve
children younger than 18;
• Affordable child care and early education programs;
• Recreational, cultural and afterschool programs, including arts programs;
• Health services, including prevention, education, mental health and prenatal
care;
• Training, employment and job placement programs;
• Youth empowerment and leadership development programs;
• Youth tutoring and educational enrichment programs; and
• Support services for families with children.
89
Services Not Included in the CSAP
• Services provided by the police department or other law enforcement agencies,
the District Attorney's Public Defender’s Office, the City Attorney or the fire
department; detention or probation services mandated by federal or state law; or
public transportation services.
• Any service that benefits children and youth incidentally or as members of a
larger population including adults.
• Acquisition (other than by lease for a term of ten years or less) of any real
property or capital item not for primary and direct use by children and youth.
• Maintenance, utilities or any similar operating costs of any facility not used
primarily and directly by children and youth; or any recreation or park facility
(including zoos), library or hospital.
The data collected included the following information:
Program name and description: Departments submitted a brief description of the mission
and activities for each of their programs.
Total budgeted amount: While actual dollars would have painted a more realistic picture
than budgeted amounts, actual figures will not become available until the end of the
2005-6 fiscal year, which is beyond the CSAP deadline.
All revenue sources comprising a program’s total budgeted amount: Departments broke
down the program’s budget by using the following sources of income:
General Fund: The General Fund consists of all revenue collected by the
City and County of San Francisco, including revenue sources such as
property tax, business tax, sales tax, property transfer tax, hotel room tax
and others.
Children’s Fund: The Children’s Fund is a special fund that receives a
percentage of property tax revenue collected each year for the support of
children’s services. While the vast majority of these funds are awarded to
community-based organizations through a competitive bidding process, a
portion is allocated to other City departments to provide children’s
services.
Children’s Baseline: The Children’s Baseline is a subcategory of the
General Fund consisting of discretionary General Fund revenue that is
appropriated to support children’s services. Baseline expenditures are
tracked separately in the budget to ensure that the City does not reduce
the level of General Fund discretionary spending below that required by
the Children’s Amendment.
Federal: Funds provided by federal agencies for specific purposes as
authorized by federal legislation.
State: Funds provided by state agencies for specific purposes as
authorized by state legislation.
Private: Funds provided by private philanthropic organizations.
Other
Outcomes: Departments selected from a prescribed list of measurable outcomes within

nine theme areas. By using outcomes, DCYF was able to create a common language
across programs and departments that clearly identify the City’s collective effort in each
area.
90
Budget by themes: Departments allocated their budget by theme so as to show the
City’s investment in each area.
Demographics: Staff members submitted the total number of children served in each
program with a breakdown by age, targeted population and ZIP code.
Data Limitations
While helpful as an overview of the City’s investment in children’s services, the data
have limitations that are important to keep in mind when reading the CSAP.
• The demographic data are incomplete, as not all programs collect the
information presented in the CSAP.
• There may be duplication of numbers, meaning the same child may be
counted more than once. While departments made every effort to avoid
counting the same child more than once within a program, there was no
way to avoid duplication across programs or departments.
• The data provide a picture of where the City is spending its resources
within children’s services but do not show the impact of those dollars on
children and youth. Evaluating the quality or effectiveness of programs
was beyond the scope of this project.
• The data reflect budgeted amounts for the 2005-06 fiscal year. They do
not reflect impending budget cuts that may decrease or eliminate some of
the programs listed here.
Phase II – Community Input
In order to provide ample opportunities to gather public input in identifying constituent

priorities for funding, 23 community meetings were held during January through March
2006 to which more than 500 people attended. The goal of gaining neighborhood-based
input from parent, youth and community constituents is one key element of the
Children’s Services Allocation Plan.
Meetings were held in nearly every neighborhood throughout San Francisco, as well as
special focus meetings for youth, LGBTQ community, and city-wide. Neutral (meaning
not DCYF-funded) locations were chosen as the meeting venues, such as local libraries,
schools, and recreation centers. The meetings were held in the following
neighborhoods:
• Bayview • Potrero Hill
• Bernal Heights • Richmond
• Chinatown • South of Market (SOMA)
• Excelsior • Sunset/Parkside
• Haight • Tenderloin
• Marina • Treasure Island
• Mission • Visitacion Valley
• Noe Valley • West Portal
• Ocean View/Merced/Ingleside • Western Addition
(OMI)
• Portola
91
Outreach for the meetings were achieved via emails and flyers through DCYF’s base of
existing CBOs, Board of Supervisors, schools, libraries, as well as a variety of new
networks including parents, neighborhood associations, and media.
Four DCYF staff served as ambassadors at each community meeting that consisted of a
spending exercise which allowed participants to “spend” the children’s fund on
previously identified service categories to determine constituent priorities for City
spending as listed below:
• Academic Support and Literacy

• Afterschool Programs/Child Care 6-13 yrs.
• Behavioral Health/Wellness
• Child Care/Early Care and Education
• Cultural Enrichment
• Family Support
• Sports and Physical Fitness
• Supporting school attendance
• Violence Prevention
• Youth Employment
• Other (participants were allowed to add categories)
The meetings focused around discussion of neighborhood needs and opportunities, key
under-served populations, and suggested improvements. The findings from the 23
meetings are described in detail in Community Voices (Appendix D).
Phase III – Content Expert Input

In June and July 2006, DCYF hosted strategic conversations with more than 100 content
experts from community-based agencies, foundations and City departments in 8 service
areas in order to develop specific funding strategies. A broad base of representatives
from currently funded agencies provided feedback on the framework.
Phase IV – City Department Input

DCYF consulted the leadership of key City departments to receive strategic guidance,
specific feedback and align strategies wherever possible.
Phase V – The allocation of the Children’s Fund

DCYF’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee provided strategic guidance and support
throughout this process.
This ten month, data driven process involving nearly 650 stakeholders and content
experts has resulted in this draft CSAP which seeks to:
• Describe the public sources of funding of all children’s services in San Francisco;
• Articulate community priorities for systems reform and funding;
• Identify opportunities to leverage non-City funding;
• Propose investment strategies to achieve measurable outcomes or results; and
• Suggest opportunities to partner with and engage City Departments in a common
children, youth and families agenda.
92
Appendix D
Community Voices – Findings from Community Meetings
Community Voices:
Constituent Priorities for City Spending on Children & Youth
2007 -2010
Summary
Based on input from more than 500 youth, parents and community members, youth
employment, afterschool programming, and early care and education are top
priorities for City spending on children and youth. Secondary priorities are family
support, and programs specifically focused on violence prevention, academic support
and literacy, and cultural enrichment.
Populations of special concern include:

• Special needs youth;
• Transitional youth;
• Youth involved in the juvenile justice or foster care systems;
• Homeless youth;
• LGBTQ youth; and
• Undocumented youth
Additionally, meeting participants expressed the need for the following improvements
in the service delivery system: increase information and communication about
available services; promote collaboration and access; build community across race
and class; and improve the capacity of organizations to meet the needs of their
constituents and neighborhoods.
Background
This past January through March, DCYF conducted 23 community meetings in

neighborhoods across San Francisco to gather input from parents, youth and other
community members on what children and youth services should be prioritized for
City spending. Results of these meetings are a component of developing the
Children’s Services Allocation Plan (CSAP) for 2007-2010. The CSAP is the strategic
plan for City spending on children and youth ages 0-17 with a particular focus on the
Children’s Fund. The needs and priorities expressed by constituents at the
community meetings are a vital component to developing the plan. The plan also
factors in:
• Data from the Community Needs Assessment, the current DCYF grant
portfolio, and other sources;
• Current City spending;
• Mayoral priorities;
• Ability to leverage other funding; and
• The extent to which an expressed community need may be effectively met
by another City Department or funding stream.
Process
Meetings were held at neighborhood libraries, schools, or recreation centers during

the evening or on weekends to promote accessibility. Over 500 participants attended
93
the community meetings, which were held in 20 neighborhoods. In addition, a special
youth focused meeting, an LGBTQ focused meeting, and a city-wide meeting were
held. Refreshments, translation and child care were available for all meetings. A
team of four DCYF staff people served as ambassadors of the Department and
facilitated an interactive spending exercise, and both large and small discussion
groups to gain data on three key issues:
• Constituent priorities for City spending;

• Key populations on which to target resources; and
• Suggested improvements to current service delivery.
A summary of the results is presented here.
Findings – Constituent Priorities for City Spending
Participants were given five DCYF dollars (votes) to spend on 11 predetermined

service categories as outlined in the table below. The table below shows two things:
The cumulative votes each category received out of the 23 meetings as well as how
many times (frequency) each category was voted the top spending priority in a
particular meeting.
Cumulative
Service Category Frequency
Votes
Youth Employment 5 248
Afterschool
Programs/Child Care 6-13 5 222
yrs.
Child Care/Early Care and
4 279
Ed
Family Support 2 232
Violence Prevention 2 197
Academic Support and
2 165
Literacy
Cultural Enrichment 2 148
Supporting school
1 100
attendance
Sports and Physical
0 141
Fitness
Behavioral
0 134
Health/Wellness
Other 0 70
Youth employment was a top priority in the Sunset, SOMA, Tenderloin, and Western
Addition, as well as in the youth focused meeting. As with afterschool, many
participants voted for youth employment as a means to get youth off the streets and
into productive activities. From the youth perspective, they see youth employment
programs as means to obtain extra income as well as gain some work experience.
Many agreed that more slots need to be made available due to long waitlists, as well
as more outreach about youth employment opportunities. Some pointed out that more
pre-employment preparation, such as resume help and training, would be useful.
Suggested improvements include: raising the wage of some programs or mandating
94
wage parity for all youth employment programs; and more employment opportunities
for at-risk youths and youths involved in the juvenile justice system.
Residents from the Bayview, Richmond, Bernal Heights, and the City-wide meeting
considered afterschool programs to be of top priority. Many linked academic
support/tutoring as an important component to afterschool, especially for immigrant
families who have limited English language capacity and cannot help their children
with schoolwork. Others considered afterschool to be essential to giving children and
youth the support they need that may not be available at home, often due to the long
work hours of parents.
Neighborhoods that cited child care as their top priority included: Chinatown,
Treasure Island, the Mission, and West Portal. Participants cited lack of affordable
and quality child care as a major need. Long waitlists were problematic for many
parents. Suggestions on improving child care included expanding child care hours
and on weekends.
Family support was also heavily stressed, especially in the Haight and LGBTQ
focused meetings. Overall, meeting participants expressed the need for
comprehensive family support with a focus on young mothers and immigrant families.
The LGBTQ community highlighted a need for more inclusive LGBTQ family support
that aims to make the City more LGBT friendly as a whole. Improvements included
more outreach, as well as addressing language and cultural capacity issues.
Other needs arose from the community meetings including: transportation,

maintaining existing or making additional neighborhood facilities available, teen
exclusive programming, parent education, affordable housing, and more affordable
(or free) activities and events for families (such as Family Fest and Family
Appreciation Day) throughout the year. Programs located in certain neighborhoods
were points of contention for many youth in their decision to participate because they
did not want to cross turf lines. Meeting participants cite staff development and hiring
members of the community as vital components to a successful program.
Findings – Key Populations on Which to Target Resources
Discussion revolved around increased services or having a special focus within each
of the mentioned categories dedicated to special populations that include: special
needs youth, transitional youth, youth involved in the juvenile justice or foster care
systems, homeless youth, LGBTQ youth, residents of subsidized and public housing,
and undocumented youth. Programs and services tailored for the 18 and older youth
were also mentioned as many concurred that this population are often overlooked.
Youth engagement and youth-led programs were also highlighted as well as the need
to involve more youth input in public policy decisions.
Findings – Suggested Improvements to Current Service Delivery
Despite the diversity of neighborhoods and discussion groups, there was amazing
consistency in the suggestions for improving service delivery. These include:
Increase information and communication. Both parents and service providers

alike lack information about the range and type of services available. Increasing
information and referral activities of funded agencies, centralized as well as
neighborhood-based resource guides, and resource fairs on the neighborhood level
were suggested. Cultural competence and language capacity for services and
95
information is still greatly needed, particularly in neighborhoods that are changing
demographically. Street outreach, peer to peer outreach, word of mouth, and
neighborhood newspapers were suggested as effective strategies for reaching
parents and youth.
Promote collaboration and decreasing duplication among service providers.

Discussion in several neighborhoods highlighted the relative wealth of services in San
Francisco, but a lack of coordination of services, particularly on a neighborhood level.
Neighborhood-based collaborations, resource directories and fairs were suggested.
Promote Access. Several communities expressed the desire to utilize schools as a

location for providing youth and community services outside of school hours.
Increasing cultural competence, and extended service hours to accommodate the
needs of working parents was cited.
Improve Organizational Capacity. In a few instances, the capacity of local

organizations to meet changing needs was questioned. The city-wide meeting cited
the need for technical assistance and capacity building for organizations to provide
effective services.
Build Community and Address Inequity. In nearly every meeting, racial and class
divisions were expressed as challenges to both community development and access
and quality of services. Turf and gang issues are core to this challenge, particularly
for teenagers.
96
Appendix E
Standards
Background on the Development of DCYF Minimum and High Quality Standards
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families awards grants to over 200
community-based programs. These programs provide direct services to San Francisco’s
children and youth to support their social, emotional and physical development; they
support parents and caregivers to raise healthy and vibrant children; and they work with
their communities to create safe and supportive environments where children, youth and
families can thrive. These programs collectively touch the lives of over 35,000 of the
City’s children, youth, parents and caregivers each year. DCYF is committed to creating
a shared understanding of quality and supporting funded-programs to continuously
improve quality so that San Francisco’s children and youth have the opportunity to
achieve their fullest potential.
As part of this commitment, DCYF launched the Standards Initiative in June

2005 to develop quality program standards to guide the work of the Department and our
funded partners. This initiative brought together over 50 stakeholders from DCYF
funded-programs, other City agencies, and professional development intermediaries to
develop program standards that serve as benchmarks of quality. To facilitate this
process, DCYF created five service clusters: Afterschool, Early Care and Education,
Family Support, Wellness Empowerment and Youth Employment. Each cluster was
made-up of a stakeholder advisory group that led the charge to create minimum and
high quality standards for their respective cluster.
The spirit of the Standards Initiative is about working together to provide the best
possible services to children, youth and their families. In this spirit, research and best
practices were used to identify standards that are linked to the positive outcomes we
want for children and youth. In addition, when developing minimum program standards
the advisory groups used a common set of criteria to create a baseline for quality that all
funded programs could embrace. These criteria required that a minimum program
standard be 1) an essential foundation to building quality, 2) attainable by programs at
various stages of development, 3) measurable with minimum subjectivity, 4) and
applicable to all or a large majority of the programs in the cluster. The high quality
standards, which will be released over the next six months by cluster, are standards of
exemplary program practices that all programs should strive to achieve. As DCYF
dedicates resources to other service areas or issues, such as violence and truancy
reduction or special needs inclusion, minimum and high quality standards will be
developed in partnership with stakeholders.
The complete list of Minimum Compliance Standards can be downloaded from

www.dcyf.org
97
Appendix F
Neighborhood Index of Need
DCYF uses a neighborhood index of need to identify the neighborhoods where

children and youth are likely to have the greatest level of need for services. (For the
purpose of developing the index of need, neighborhoods are defined by ZIP codes.)The
index of need is comprised of five measures that are related to need: median family
income, percent of children in poverty, participation in the state’s welfare program,
CalWORKS, involvement in the juvenile justice system, and high school graduation
rates. The table below provides the values for each of these measures by neighborhood.
These five measures were combined into an index of need using the following
formula, which standardized the values of the measures:
X = ((y-ya)/(yb-ya))*100
where:
x = standardized value to be created for measure for each neighborhood
y = value on the specific measure of need for each neighborhood
ya = value of y for the neighborhood with least need on the measure
yb = value of y for the neighborhood with greatest need on the measure
After each measure in the index was standardized, the values for the measures were
summed for each neighborhood to obtain a total index value for the neighborhood. The
index value was then averaged by dividing the total index value for each neighborhood
by the number of measures. The resulting index value is presented in the table below. A
high value in the need index corresponds to a higher-level of need and a low value to a
lower-level of need. If a neighborhood had the greatest level of need on each measure in
the index, their maximum average for the index would have been 100.
DCYF used the index of need along with the distribution of children and youth across
San Francisco’s neighborhoods to set a targeted distribution by neighborhood for the
children and youth served by DCYF-funded programs in 2007-2010.
To arrive at the formula for DCYF’s targeted distribution, each neighborhood’s need
index was divided by the city-wide average index of 36.66. As a neighborhood’s
percentage of need to the city-wide need increases, the percent of children and youth
targeted increases, and as the percentage of the neighborhood need to the city-wide
need decreases, the percent of children and youth targeted decreases. The following
formula was used to determine the final targeted distribution for children and youth
served by DCYF-funded programs presented in the table below.
- For neighborhoods with a need index 150 percent or greater of the city-
wide need index, a multiplier of 1.75 was applied to the city distribution of
children and youth for the neighborhood.
- For neighborhoods with a need index between 100 and 150 percent of
the city-wide need index, a multiplier of 1 was applied to the city
distribution of children and youth for the neighborhood.
- For neighborhoods with a need index less than the city-wide need index,
a multiplier of .5 was applied to the city distribution of children and youth
for the neighborhood.
98
Measures Used to Determine the Neighborhood Index of Need
Median Percent of
family population Snapshot of Target
% of JPD SFUSD Distri-
income, under 18 CalWORKs Index
ZIP Referrals Graduation
Neighborhood families with years Families, of bution
code in 2005 Rates
own children below October Need 2007-
N=1480 d 2006-07 e
under 18 poverty 2005 c 2010
(1999) a (1999) b
Hayes Valley/Tenderloin 94102 $ 22,343 34% 5% 4.9% 83.1 56.72 4.8%

South of Market 94103 $ 31,510 22% 4% 2.6% 83.3 45.23 2.3%
Financial District 94104 $ 16,250 30% 0% 0.0% 100.0 37.57 0.0%
Downtown 94105 $ 134,035 0% 0% 0.1% 100.0 4.29 0.0%
Potrero Hill 94107 $ 48,750 31% 5% 3.5% 60.7 61.47 3.0%
Chinatown 94108 $ 31,071 26% 1% 0.9% 88.7 40.35 1.1%
Chinatown/Russian Hill/Nob
Hill 94109 $ 41,488 24% 2% 2.6% 90.2 40.51 3.4%
Inner Mission/Bernal Heights 94110 $ 47,341 18% 10% 10.7% 79.1 55.88 20.4%
Embarcadero/Gateway 94111 $ 81,969 7% 0% 0.1% 75.0 28.14 0.1%
Outer
Mission/Excelsior/Ingleside 94112 $ 59,550 7% 8% 11.1% 85.2 43.92 13.5%
Castro/Noe Valley 94114 $ 108,394 5% 0% 0.4% 84.4 19.42 1.0%
Western Addition 94115 $ 46,319 24% 6% 8.0% 70.7 58.39 5.7%
Parkside/Forest Hill 94116 $ 77,083 3% 2% 2.4% 91.9 22.24 3.3%
Haight/Western
Addition/Fillmore 94117 $ 81,072 12% 3% 2.8% 89.4 28.83 1.2%
Inner
Richmond/Presidio/Laurel 94118 $ 84,250 5% 2% 2.0% 91.8 21.06 2.4%
Outer Richmond/Sea Cliff 94121 $ 70,263 8% 3% 2.2% 91.2 26.81 2.8%
Sunset 94122 $ 75,208 7% 3% 2.8% 93.5 24.45 3.6%
Marina/Cow Hollow 94123 $ 165,386 2% 0% 0.1% * 1.66 0.7%
Bayview/Hunters Point 94124 $ 32,338 28% 21% 22.6% 83.5 82.47 15.6%
West Portal/St. Francis Wood 94127 $ 120,214 1% 1% 0.9% 87.9 14.19 1.6%
Presidio 94129 $ 54,643 19% 0% 0.0% 100.0 26.27 0.2%
Treasure Island 94130 $ 81,623 13% 0% 1.4% 85.7 27.34 0.1%
Twin Peaks/Diamond
Heights/Glen Park 94131 $ 98,563 5% 1% 1.7% 73.7 27.71 1.5%
Stonestown/Lake Merced 94132 $ 67,386 7% 2% 3.5% 86.5 29.61 1.8%
North Beach/Telegraph Hill 94133 $ 39,804 20% 3% 2.1% 88.0 39.57 2.6%
Visitacion Valley 94134 $ 52,154 17% 12% 10.6% 86.6 52.83 8.4%
a
Source: Census (2000). Figures are for families with "own" children only; an own child includes a biological child, step child, or
adopted child.
b
Source: Census (2000). Poverty figures are for children under 18 living with a parent or guardian, includes 96% of children under
18. The 1999 national income threshold that defined the poverty rate for a family of four was $16,895.
c
Source: SF HSA, October 2005 CALWORKS SNAPSHOT, percents total to less than 100%, because 7% of families are homeless
or the ZIP is unknown.
d
Source: Juvenile Probation Department 2005 Annual Report; figures are for San Francisco youth only
e
Source SFUSD. Grad rates = Graduates/Enroll. Students who did not graduate include students still active in the district,
legitimate withdrawals from district and dropouts. A student must satisfy the California State High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
requirements to have graduated.
* Graduation rate for 94123 was dropped from index due to the small number of students in this ZIP code; the index for this ZIP
code was adjusted to reflect this deletion.
99
Endnotes
i
The 2005 California Child Care Portfolio, for San Francisco County, prepared by the Child Care
Resource and Referral Network.
ii
Average rate for full time child care center for children birth to 24 months is $1,071.46 per month
as published by the California Department of Education, Reimbursement Ceilings for Subsidized
Child Care. 2006.
iii
According to the Centralized Eligibility List (CEL) as of September 1, 2006. The Economic
Impact of the Child Care Industry in the City and County of San Francisco, Department of
Children, Youth & Their Families, January 2006.
iv
“After- School Grows Up, A Report to the After School Project of the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation”, by Tony Proscio and Basil J. Whiting
v
Steinheimer, Kate “School Beat: The Parent Advisory Council- Bringing Parent Voices to the
School Board,” Beyond Chron, September 21, 2006.
vi
Jenkins, Yolanda & Tara Ryan, Eds. Landscape Report: Family Support/Resource Centers in
San Francisco. August 2003.
vii
Activities identified in “Funding Models of Existing Family Resource Centers” prepared by
Andrew Murray of the Office of the Legislative Analyst for Supervisor Bevan Dufty, May 9, 2006.
viii
Family Support America,
http://www.familysupportamerica.org/content/learning_dir/principles.htm, 2005
ix
Shields, J.P. (2006). I tried to stop them: Children’s exposure to domestic violence in San
Francisco. Education, Training, & Research Associates: San Francisco, CA.
x
YRBSS is a standard tool developed by the Division of Adolescent and School Health, United
States Centers for Disease Control and administered by SFUSD locally.
xi
NHANES 1971-74 and NHANES 1999-2000
xii
Institute of Medicine, Preventing Childhood Obesity: Heath in the Balance. 2005.
xiii
San Francisco High School and National Youth Risk Behavior Survey: 1997 : 2005 published
by San Francisco Unified School District, School Health Programs Department.
xiv
Parent ACTION (Achieving Change Together in Our Neighborhoods) grants were first issued
by First Five San Francisco in summer 2001. Currently First Five supports 32 parent-led projects
with grants ranging from $4,000 - $5,000 through a nonprofit fiscal sponsor.
100
Please visit www.dcyf.org for more information.
Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

1390 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-8990
www.dcyf.org

Final Published Csap

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Published Csap

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FORGING A

THE 2007 - 2010

¾ Children and youth are healthy.

¾ Children and youth are ready to learn and succeeding in school.

Values: Serving our community is the foundation of DCYF’s work.

¾ Diversity. The ethnic, cultural and economic diversity of San Francisco’s

¾ Collaboration and community. Active collaboration among community-based

I. BACKGROUND, OVERVIEW, AND GOALS .......................................................................... 2

Background on Children’s Fund

• Engaging stakeholders in planning and policy development;

Accomplishments of Children’s Fund, 2003–2007

Creating a New Allocation Plan

1) A comprehensive analysis of overall City spending on children, ages 0 – 17 (see

Guidelines for the Children’s Services Allocation Plan

Celebrate and build upon the strengths of the current system.

Leverage resources strategically.

Goals of the Children’s Services Allocation Plan, 2007 – 2010

1. Serve all neighborhoods, all children.

3. Foster inter-departmental partnerships.

4. Improve service quality and organizational capacity.

8. Forge a collaborative system.

Basic Elements of the Plan

And for children, youth and families of all ages:

Capacity-Building, Training & Support

System Level Investments to Forge the Connections

• Community-based neighborhood conveners – We will fund 20 agencies in

PROPOSED EXPENDITURES Total Proposed 07-08

The approximate funding amount for each major strategy is shown.

Background: Recent advances in the neurosciences have demonstrated what

In the 2005–2006 budget year, overall City spending in early care

Over $15.6 million is also invested in system-wide supports, and

Early care and education serves as a model for inter-agency

Despite a relatively high level of investment in early care and

Early educators/caregivers are essential for children’s healthy

Community Participants in community meetings identified availability of child

DCYF’s DCYF will continue its strategic alignment and formal

Strategy 1: Building on a program launched in the current year, DCYF will

Strategy 3: DCYF will continue to provide child care subsidies/vouchers with

In addition to these investments in direct services, DCYF will continue to support

Strategy 5: DCYF remains committed to supporting programs and providers

Allocation: $700,000 (approximate, based on ongoing

Strategy 8: DCYF values the technical assistance and training as key

Strategy 9: The City has pioneered a Centralized Eligibility List (CEL) to

Strategy 11: Staff is necessary to both effectively steward DCYF’s investment

• Coordinate efforts with inter-agency partners for maximum

• Change systems to improve the supply and quality of child

• Collect and analyze data on the effectiveness of funding

Partners: Successfully raising children is both a family and community

Expectations Funded agencies will be required to meet minimum program

Background: San Francisco is home to more than 50,000 elementary and

Quality out of school time opportunities provide their participants:

• a safe, structured place while parents/guardians work

Out of school time covers the wide range of programs that

The benefits of quality out of school time programs are many.

In the 2005–2006 budget year, 12 City departments and SFUSD

Nine additional City departments provide the balance of out of

San Francisco’s system of out of school time services is vast,

“The programs constitute, in most places, a patchwork of

Recent focus groups with 200 parents from 9 schools identified

In San Francisco, out of school time planning and programming

A system-wide approach to providing out of school time services

Community Afterschool services were identified as a top priority in community

Strategy 1: In order to meet the policy goal of universal access to quality