Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Children Youth Families topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DCYF outlines RFP process and district distribution after 2013–16 grants
Summary
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families told the budget committee it ran a multi-stage RFP process for 2013–2016 grants—498 proposals submitted, 285 advanced, and 239 funded—and defended use of neighborhood needs scores while acknowledging ZIP-to-district matching limits.
The San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and Their Families on Friday told the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance Committee how it allocated 2013–2016 grant awards and defended the department’s review procedures.
"My name is Maria Hsu, Director for the Department of Children, Youth and Families," DCYF Director Maria Hsu told the committee, describing a three‑year planning cycle that began with a neighborhood needs assessment and reached roughly 1,000 residents through meetings, surveys and focus groups.
The department’s grants director, Laura Moyer, walked supervisors through the Request for Proposals process and scoring rules used to pare the applicant pool. She said DCYF required each proposal to be read by three reviewers, posted pre‑proposal Q&A online and used a Neighborhood Needs Score derived from an index of need. "498 proposals were received," Moyer said, and of those, "285 advanced to that selection process, and in the end, 239 were awarded funding." She also described cutoffs used to advance proposals (a minimum reviewer score of 75, or a combined 65 plus neighborhood‑needs score of 75).
Why it matters: Supervisors pushed DCYF for clearer geographic targeting and asked for more granular analyses than ZIP‑code matching. Supervisor Eric Marr and others said ZIP codes can mask concentrated poverty within districts; Marr asked the department to explore census‑tract measures. Hsu and Moyer acknowledged the limitation and offered to provide richer data to supervisors’ offices.
The presentation also addressed how DCYF balanced strategy priorities and citywide programs. Moyer said some programs are intentionally citywide—workforce programs, for example—to reach high‑need youth across district boundaries. The department reported it currently funds more than 2,50 community‑based organizations and reaches over 56,000 children citywide, and said it had increased summer funding and planned to run school site summer programs matching existing "Excel" dollars.
What was not decided: The committee did not take a substantive vote on funding allocations at the hearing; Chair Mark Farrell said the DCYF budget item will return to the committee as part of the department’s budget review. Supervisors asked for additional detail on neighborhood and risk‑factor targeting and on program performance used in selection of incumbent grantees.
Next step: DCYF agreed to provide the committee with more detailed district‑ and tract‑level analyses and to meet with supervisors’ staff for follow‑up data requests. The committee filed the hearing for further review and will consider the department’s budget when the item returns on the calendar.
