The Budget and Finance Committee voted Wednesday in favor of the Department of Children, Youth and Families’ 2010-2013 Children’s Services Allocation Plan.

Titled “Raising San Franciscans Together,” the plan is a guide for making funding cuts, said Maria Su, the executive director.

The city agency has lost $5.7 million, or 8 percent of its funding so far this year. It funds 400 programs and 220 community-based organizations.

Access to health care services and food is most important, said Su. Health and wellness were the only areas saved from cuts.

The plan also gives priority to at-risk children and families such as SRO residents, teen parents, undocumented individuals, residents with special needs, and neighborhoods with the most vulnerable families.

The nonprofits the department funds will see new cuts in January when funding proposals come in and it has to divvy up a smaller pie. Its proposed funding range includes a low estimate of $54.3 million and a high estimate of $70.2 million.

Jill Fox, a spokesperson, said the range is based on what might be expected from property taxes. Those revenues change depending on assessed values, she said.

“We’re hopeful but very realistic,” said Su.

The plan will go to the Board of Supervisors next week.

Two-thirds of the department’s funding comes from the 1991 Children’s Fund — originally signed into law to save children from budget cuts — which gives 3 cents of every $100 of assessed property tax value to the agency. One-third of its revenue comes from the city’s general fund.

The city’s lost revenue means the agency is also asking public and nonprofit service providers to join forces instead of duplicating services. The report cites the example of a recent joint funding request for $10 million from the Department of Children, Youth and Families; the Department of Public Health; the Mayor’s Office of Community Investment; and Juvenile Probation Department to fund 54 nonprofits doing violence prevention and intervention.

When resources and staff time are efficiently pooled, Su said, clients have greater access to direct services.

Su said that before asking others to take cuts, the department first trimmed its own budget with layoffs and cuts to programs that in this climate might be considered less pressing, such as training or events for families.

“We wanted to keep high-quality programs, preserve programs that serve core needs,” said Su. “We looked at performance and neighborhood needs.”

Su said that so far the department has only eliminated a handful of programs.

Follow Us

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *