Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dcyf Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DCYF proposes eliminating board 'add‑backs' to meet 20% target; providers warn of service losses
Summary
DCYF director Maria Su told the committee she proposes eliminating $7.5M in board 'add‑backs' to meet the Mayor's 20% target and hold $1.8M pending state/federal budget clarity. Community groups, especially LGBT youth and after‑school providers, urged preserving restorations and requested prioritized reallocation.
Maria Su, director of the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, described DCYF's three‑year planning cycle, the children's fund (a property‑tax set‑aside created by the voter‑approved children's amendment) and service‑area priorities used to allocate grants through competitive RFPs.
Su said DCYF expects approximately $42.4 million from the children's fund and $22.8 million in general‑fund support for FY 2011–12. To meet a Mayor‑directed 20% planning target (10% required plus a 10% contingency), DCYF proposed eliminating $7.5 million in the Board's prior add‑back restorations and holding $1.8 million in reserve until state and federal budget impacts are clearer.
"We are proposing to eliminate the entire add back of $7,500,000," Su said, explaining the department’s rationale that removing the add‑back pot avoids creating many small contracts and preserves integrity of the recent competitive RFP outcomes.
Supervisors probed the equity of that choice. Some members asked whether a partial restoration or targeted redistribution could better protect high‑priority populations, such as transitional‑age youth and early‑care services, since DCYF leverages other city and state funds (First 5, Human Services Agency, and the school district) in several service areas.
A steady stream of public commenters told the committee the proposed cuts would hit vulnerable populations. Rebecca Ralph of the San Francisco LGBT Community Center and Roberto Urbana argued the elimination of add‑backs would remove transitional‑age LGBT services and school‑based supports, estimating roughly "300 homeless LGBTQ youth" could lose access to critical services. Representatives from Boys & Girls Clubs, Lyric, Mission Learning Center, Asian Women's Shelter and others described likely program reductions to after‑school tutoring, summer slots, workforce training and violence‑prevention services.
DCYF said its add‑back list was largely composed of programs that had recently participated in competitive RFPs; Su said most add‑back recipients already had active or prior DCYF grants and that the department prefers to reallocate the held $1.8M based on clarified state/federal impacts and board input. She also agreed to supply supervisors with a breakdown of historic funding trends across major service categories and the department’s administrative savings history.
Action and follow‑up: DCYF committed to provide supervisors with a comparison of recent DCYF funding levels by major service area and to return with more detailed impact analyses; the mayor’s budget office said it would engage departments, providers and the public before finalizing contingency choices.
What this means: If adopted as presented, the add‑back eliminations would reduce a pot of locally restored funding that advocates and providers say had been used to mitigate earlier, deeper cuts. Supervisors signaled they will press for further analysis and collaboration before the mayor’s final proposals are released.
