San Francisco public‑health hearing: DPH outlines $10M in potential CBO cuts and a shift of soda‑tax funding; community pleads for restorations

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors convened a Belinson hearing on June 25 to consider proposed reductions in the Department of Public Health budget for fiscal years 2024–25 and 2025–26. Department leaders said the proposals are aimed at meeting Mayor’s Office targets for the coming budget cycle while preserving core, matchable clinical services.

DPH Director Dr. Grant Colfax told the board the department presented the hearing "to present proposed public health service reductions in the DPH budget for fiscal year 24–25 and fiscal year 25–26, as well as hear public comment as required by the California Health and Safety Code." He emphasized that many of the proposals would take effect in year two and that DPH intends to work with affected organizations to mitigate harm.

The department’s chief operating officer, Jenny Louie, laid out the headline numbers. "This first set of reductions represents about $10,000,000 as a 5% across‑the‑board reduction to community‑based organization contracts in the second year of the budget," Louie said, adding a breakout that would affect behavioral‑health contracts (about $7.3 million), outreach and population health programs (about $1.5 million), ambulatory programs (~$1.1 million) and a proposed $2.7 million reduction in sugary‑drink‑tax (SDDT) funded grants while leaving roughly $3 million for program continuation. She also said the oral‑health task force funding (~$450,000) and one‑time Healthy Community Supports (~$350,000) would not be continued at the same levels under the proposal.

Board members pressed DPH on how categories for cuts were chosen and why community‑facing grants without federal/state matching funds were targeted. "How did you choose these particular line items?" Supervisor Safaie asked. Louie and Dr. Colfax responded that the reductions stem from mayoral and departmental budget instructions and that the department prioritized retaining matchable clinical revenue and core primary‑care services; they acknowledged the presentation lacked precise client‑level impact figures for many grants and committed to a year‑ahead planning and community engagement process should cuts remain necessary.

A second point of controversy was the proposed transfer of some SDDT funds to the Human Services Agency. Multiple supervisors and dozens of public commenters — including representatives from GLIDE, Florence Fink Community Farm, All My Usos, Horizons Unlimited and other CBOs — said SDDT money had been presented to voters as supporting community‑driven prevention, education and outreach, and urged the board to preserve grants that fund culturally competent health education and prevention work. Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson told the board that the sugary‑drink levy is a general tax and may legally be allocated by the city to general‑fund needs, but commenters argued that doing so would undercut the voter intent and harm long‑running prevention programs.

The proposed reduction to the Street Violence Intervention Program (SVIP) also drew sustained scrutiny. DPH staff explained that some SVIP funding came from the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) and that DCYF’s recent RFP and shift to other youth programming reduced the amount routed through DPH; the net citywide SVIP spending change requires coordination between agencies and further analysis. Supervisors pressed for specifics about which neighborhoods and contracts would be affected, but DPH said those implementation details would be determined through RFP processes and community engagement.

Public testimony was extensive, with many CBO leaders warning that contracts are often structured as three‑year awards and that abrupt cuts would disrupt services for high‑acuity populations, weaken outreach that connects residents to clinical care, and erode trust built over years. "Direct services without effective outreach are like a storefront with no signs," said Gabriela Castellanos of CARESN, describing the threat to oral‑health outreach in Southeast neighborhoods. Speakers urged the board to use alternative funding sources — including opioid‑settlement funds — or to identify other general‑fund reductions rather than cutting prevention and behavioral‑health contracts now.

DPH reiterated that the reductions are largely year‑two targets, that the department will work with community organizations to minimize harm, and that the budget process was ongoing. The board closed the hearing and referred continued budget deliberations to the Budget & Appropriations Committee the following day.

What’s next: DPH committed to additional community engagement and to provide more detailed impact analyses; the Board’s budget committee will consider amendments and restoration requests in its next sessions.