San Francisco Department of
Children, Youth and Their Families
2011 Community Needs Assessment
May 2011 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1
Methodological Approach .............................................................................................................................3
Citywide Data Highlights................................................................................................................................6
Early Childhood (ages 0 to 5) .........................................................................................................................9
I. Demographics ................................................................................................................................................9 II. Early Care and Education............................................................................................................................13 III. Health and Wellness ..................................................................................................................................26 IV. Violence .....................................................................................................................................................29 Elementary School and Middle School Age (ages 6 to 13)............................................................................30
I. Demographics ..............................................................................................................................................30 II. School .........................................................................................................................................................32 III. Out of School Time Activities..................................................................................................................... 38 IV. Health and Wellness..................................................................................................................................49 V. Violence, Crime, and Juvenile Justice System Involvement ....................................................................... 53 Older Youth (youth ages 14 to 18, disconnected transitional age youth ages 16 to 24) ...............................55
I. Demographics ..............................................................................................................................................55 II. School .........................................................................................................................................................57 III. Out of School Time Activities..................................................................................................................... 64 IV. Youth Workforce Activities........................................................................................................................68 V. Health and Wellness...................................................................................................................................72 VI. Violence, Crime, and Justice System Involvement .................................................................................... 78 VII. Disconnected Transitional Age Youth....................................................................................................... 83 Families with Children .................................................................................................................................86
I. Demographics ..............................................................................................................................................86 II. Economic Security.....................................................................................................................................103 III. Parent/Caregiver Services and Information ............................................................................................ 107 IV. Health and Wellness................................................................................................................................111 V. Violence, Crime, and Safety...................................................................................................................... 115 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................117
Appendix A: Map of Planning Neighborhoods ..........................................................................................119
Appendix B: Summary of Aggregate Survey Results..................................................................................120
Appendix C: Summary Meeting Notes ......................................................................................................193
Executive Summary
When Children Thrive, Communities Benefit San Francisco’s prosperity depends on our ability to ensure that all children and youth have the
opportunity to thrive. When children grow up healthy, obtain a quality education, and live in safe,
supportive homes and communities, they have a solid foundation for a productive future. San Franciscans
recognize that communities benefit when children thrive. In 1991, voters made our city the first in the
country to guarantee funding for children by passing the Children’s Amendment. This landmark legislation
set aside a portion of annual property taxes for the Children’s Fund, to be used exclusively for services that
benefit children from birth to age 17.
The Children’s Amendment also called for participatory planning that involves community members in
identifying local needs and resources. To fulfill its own mission and the requirements of the Children’s
Amendment, the San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families (DCYF) engages young
people, parents, service providers, and policymakers in a Community Needs Assessment every three years.
The results inform the development of a citywide action plan and strategic funding priorities.
The 2011 Community Needs Assessment DCYF’s 2011 Community Needs Assessment was informed by a rich set of data and extensive public
engagement. Sources of information included census and population survey data, City administrative
databases, neighborhood meetings attended by 743 residents, a survey of 145 community-based
organizations, conversations with 20 policy and advisory bodies, focus groups involving more than 80
parents and providers, and interviews with key City leaders. All told, DCYF’s commitment to broad
community engagement resulted in the participation of more than 1,000 individuals in this Needs
Assessment.
This report provides an overview of findings from the 2011 Needs Assessment. It begins with a discussion
of the needs of children and youth at different stages in their lives—from early childhood to the elementary
and middle school years to high school and beyond. The section that follows provides insights into key
trends shaping San Francisco families and the supports that parents need in order to be successful. The last
section of this report summarizes Needs Assessment participant perspectives on the role of DCYF in
ensuring an effective system of care for children, youth, and families over the next several years.
i
Early Childhood The first five years of life are critical to healthy development. Science has shown that early experiences
have long-term neurobiological consequences. Given the importance of these first years, what are the
characteristics and needs of San Francisco’s youngest children? The 2011 Needs Assessment portrays a
growing and diverse population of children, some of whom are experiencing poverty, poor health, and low
school readiness.
Early Childhood by the Numbers 
The city’s population of young children is growing. As of 2009, children from birth to age five
accounted for six percent of San Francisco’s total population. The number of children in this age group
has grown in recent years, from an estimated 36,302 in 2000 to 47,988 in 2009. 1

One in three young children lives in a low-income household. Although young children’s
economic security increased steadily between 2000 and 2007, one in every three children 0-5 years old
lives in a low-income household. 2

Latino and African American children are disproportionately affected by poverty. As illustrated
below, an estimated 77 percent of Latino and 74 percent of African American children 0-5 live in a lowincome or very low-income household.
Exhibit 1. Proportion of Low-Income Households with Young Children by Race, 2007 3
26%
50%
20%
48%
31%
27%
20%
7%
African American
Chinese
4%
2%
2%
Latino
Very Low Income
Other Asian, Pacific Other, Multiethnic
Islander
4%
White
Low Income
1
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency. 2010-2014 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan. May 2010.
2
First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children. First 5 San Francisco, February 2010.
3
First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children. First 5 San Francisco, February 2010. ii

San Franciscans make use of a variety of child care options. Most families in San Francisco (63
percent) rely on more than one type of arrangement for child care for their young children. Among
those that rely on a single source of are, primary sources include, care provided by a non-family
member in a home (20 percent), care provided by a grandparent or family member (7 percent), and
preschool or center-based care (5 percent).

While many public school children participate in child care or preschool, not all children enter
school ready to learn. In 2009, 83 percent of San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD)
kindergarten students entered with some pre-kindergarten experience. 4 Despite this promising
statistic, only 57 percent of public school kindergarteners have all of the school readiness skills they
need to succeed in school. 5
The Community Perspective When asked to identify key needs of young children and their families, parents, community members, and
service providers consistently identified affordable, quality early care and education as a priority.
Affordable child care. Affordable child care was highlighted as a concern for many working parents that
cut across all of the city’s neighborhoods. Families living in
homeless shelters, immigrant families, and families with special
“We are losing providers health care needs expressed a particularly strong need for
and licensed care. [It’s] affordable child care. Child care allows parents to work and to gain
education and training necessary to provide for their families,
important to keep the according to Needs Assessment participants. Data on the
pool of providers that we availability of subsidized care affirms the needs expressed by
have and focus on parents. Since 2005, the need for subsidized child care in San
quality.” Francisco has more than doubled. In 2005, a total of 1,340 children
were on the waiting list for subsidized care, compared to 3,558 in
2011. Service providers, in particular, expressed concern about the effect of state budget cuts on the future
availability of subsidized care.
Many parents and service providers also commented on an
acute need for child care services for infants and toddlers.
As one parent stated, “Child care [is the greatest challenge
faced by children and families], especially for children zero
to three.” Some parents feel that access to infant and
toddler care is particularly challenging because it tends to
be more expensive than care for older children.
High-quality early care and education that promote
school readiness. A number of parents and service
providers voiced that early education programs are
essential for preparing children to transition into formal
schooling. One service provider commented, “I’ve talked to
4
5
“[At Head Start,] my granddaughter [has been]…much healthier and happier. They send books home every week. They ask parents to volunteer in class, so I can come in and hang out with her. I hung out with her and read to her for four hours.” First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children. First 5 San Francisco, February 2010.
Applied Survey Research, Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School District, p. 54.
iii
kindergarten and first grade teachers and they say that they notice a huge difference when children are in
preschool.” Similarly, a Bayview parent shared, “When I got my daughter into Head Start, she started
learning so much and her vocabulary started to expand.” Parents highlighted the role that high-quality
early care and education can play in developing school readiness. They noted that such programs help
children develop familiarity with the basics such as colors and letters, learn how to interact with other
children, become accustomed to being apart from their parents, and learn to follow a school schedule.
Positive mental health. The need for early childhood mental health supports was raised by parents as
well as service providers. Particular concern was expressed for young children in households experiencing
domestic violence, as participants believe these children may be at risk for abuse, neglect, or harm by their
families. A representative from one parent-run advocacy organization commented, “Children are often
exposed to violent environments and this has a detrimental impact on the mental health of children.”
Some service providers recommended expanding outreach to parents as a way to increase awareness of
existing services and therapeutic play groups. They also asserted a need for parent education on how best
to meet children’s mental health needs.
iv
Elementary and Middle School Youth Elementary and middle school children between the ages of six and 13 face unique challenges as they
transition from pre-kindergarten to elementary school and from elementary to middle school. Findings
from the 2011 Needs Assessment portray a culturally and linguistically diverse group of young people who
are in need of additional in and out of school supports designed to improve their health, school success,
and general wellbeing.
Elementary and Middle School Youth by the Numbers 
San Francisco’s population of elementary and middle school youth are largely API and White. In
2009, Asian and Pacific Islander (API) youth made up more than one third (34 percent) of children ages
six to 13 in San Francisco. White youth accounted for 30 percent, Latino youth accounted for 20
percent, and African-American youth made up eight percent of the population. 6

Nearly one-half of first and second graders in public schools are English language learners.
Among English Learners in SFUSD kindergarten, children’s primary language are Spanish (39%) and
Cantonese (37%) followed by Vietnamese (3%), Tagalog (3%) and Mandarin (2%). 7

Safety at school is a concern for many young people. In 2006 and 2008, 57 percent of fifth graders
reported that they have been bullied (hit or pushed). Just over half (52 percent) of fifth graders
reported that they feel safe at school all of the time. 8

Since 2005, an average of 459 youth ages 6 to 13 were victims in substantiated child abuse
incidents each year. In 2009, youth ages 6 to 13 represented about 41% of all substantiated cases in
San Francisco. 9 Among substantiated cases involving youth ages 6 to 15, about a third were African
American, about a third were Latino, and about 10% were White.
The Community Perspective Parents, community members, and service providers who participated in the 2011 Needs Assessment
identified free and low cost Out of School Time (OST) programs as the primary need for elementary and
middle school age youth. OST programs include afterschool programs, summer programs, and
extracurricular activities that take place after school hours and when school is not in session.
Afterschool programs. Participants in neighborhood meetings consistently expressed that afterschool
programs were “most helpful” and a priority need because they support their children’s academic success
6
Human Services Agency analysis of American Community Survey 2009 data.
California Department of Education, “Student Demographics-English Learners,” acessed June 9, 2009 via DataQuest,
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/ as cited in First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,”
San Francisco, 2010.
8
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm (accessed 2/11/2011). California Safe and Healthy
Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 20082009, Key Findings,” http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm (accessed 2/11/2011).
9
Note: Child welfare statistics were only available for youth up to age 17. On substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect are cited here,
not total reported cases. Needell, B., et. al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California,” 2009, accessed January 18, 2011, University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research, http://cssr.brekeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
7
v
and overall development. Stakeholders indicated a need for the programs to: (1) include academic support
activities (especially for English Learners) as well as arts activities; (2) extend hours of operation to meet the
needs of working parents; and (3) be accessible to youth. With regard to this last need, stakeholders
suggested that the school assignment system creates some barriers with transportation to programs.
Summer programs. Summer programs were also identified as a need because they provide a safe,
structured learning environment for youth during the summer months when they are out of school, and
because they support elementary and middle school students’ transition into their next level of school.
Stakeholders emphasized the need for free or low-cost summer programs with hours that reflect parents’
schedules. They also suggested that these programs should provide academic support along with
enrichment activities including the arts as well as physical activity/sports.
Extracurricular activities. Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input
sessions articulated a need for extracurricular activities, including tutoring, academic supports,
recreation/physical activity, and the arts. Service providers indicated that one-on-one tutoring was the
most commonly requested service for families with children of this age. Similarly, about 57 percent of
public middle school principals responded that a top need of families was “support in helping their child
with school work.”
vi
Older Youth Older youth face numerous challenges as they enter high school and move on to adulthood. This is a stage
in which they gain greater independence both at school and in their lives generally. The older youth
population is comprised of high school youth ages 14-18 as well as disconnected transitional-age youth
(TAY) populations ages 16-24. In the 2011 Needs Assessment, older youth identified the need for support
in their efforts to mold their future careers and lives as adults.
Older Youth by the Numbers 
Teens comprise three percent of San Francisco’s population. There are approximately 25,000 youth
ages 14 to 17. 10

Some older youth are at high risk for negative outcomes. In San Francisco, officials estimate there
are between 5,000 to 8,000 disconnected transitional-age youth—youth between the ages of 16 and
24 who will not make a successful transition into adulthood. These youth are at risk for a number of
negative outcomes including substantial periods of unemployment, homelessness, involvement with
the criminal justice system and poverty. 11

The majority of older youth is in school or has earned a high school diploma or GED. The vast
majority of youth (97 percent) ages 14-17 are enrolled in school. Most youth ages 18-24 have a high
school diploma or GED (89 percent), with nearly one-half that have some college experience and about
one-quarter that have attained a Bachelor’s
degree or more. 12 Among the disconnected
TAY population, as many as 5,000 lack a high
Community Perspective school degree.
Value of Out of School Time Activities The Community Perspective At community meetings across San Francisco,
youth, parents, community members, and service
providers identified out of school time programs,
youth employment programs, mental health
programs, violence prevention, and disconnected
TAY services as priorities for older youth.

Programs help prepare students for college and financial aid applications. (Immigrant youth) 
Afterschool programs provide needed academic support. (Community member in Ocean View/Merced Heights/Ingleside) 
Youth can express themselves through art, which is a universal language. (Recent immigrant youth) Out of school time (OST) programs for arts,
sports, leadership, community service,
academic support, and college preparation.
According to participants at community meetings,
OST activities serve as an important supplement to
classroom learning for older youth, as well as an escape from stresses in their lives and violence in their
10
San Francisco Human Services Agency analysis of American Community Survey 2009 data.
Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force. 2007.
12
American Communities Survey 2009.
11
vii
communities. Respondents noted that the quality of some OST programs could be enhanced to more
closely align with the needs of older youth. They identified a need for (1) programs that are accessible,
engaging, and provide access to consistent adult figures, and (2) enhanced capacity to serve the needs of
immigrant, LGBTQ, and system-involved youth.
Youth employment opportunities and training programs. Youth, parents, community members, and
service providers emphasized the importance of youth employment for this population. According to
participants, young people need job-readiness training and connections to potential job opportunities. As
one parent explained, “Job training for youth is important because once they graduate from high school,
they have experience and they can find a job.”
Some community participants expressed concern that certain populations will need specialized youth
employment programs to meet their needs: immigrant, disconnected, transitional-age youth, youth with
disabilities, young mothers, and reentry youth. According to Needs Assessment participants, these youth
populations need employers who understand their life situations and programs that have the capacity to
support them. A focus group with transitional-age youth suggested that young mothers in particular face
challenges finding stable employment that also accommodates their parenting responsibilities. As one
youth explained, “They don’t care when I say my baby is sick.”
Mental health. Mental health services were also identified as
a need to help older youth address violence, interpersonal
relationship, and substance use issues.
“Services that are working for transitional‐age youth are services where you can just stop in and get services you need in a safe way and be supported in that. We also need wrap‐around services, counseling, case management, and more social activities.” Violence prevention. Parents, community members, and
service providers who participated in the Needs Assessment
cited violence in the street and at home as a major concern
for children, youth, and their families. While respondents
recognized the value of intervention services that help young
people cope with the violence, they emphasized a need for
more preventive measures—in particular, the availability of safe spaces such as parks, gyms, pools, and
community centers. Parents and community members emphasized also the importance of positive,
supportive relationships in preventing older youth from falling into dangerous activities. SFUSD high
school principals identified conflict mediation as one of the top needs of youth this age.
Disconnected TAY-specific programs and services. Many disconnected, transitional-age youth are no
longer in the school system, or have aged out of most programs and services targeted to children and
youth. As they transition into adulthood, youth in this category face unique challenges and service needs.
Disconnected TAY youth who are no longer in the school system do not have access to many of the
programs that are either school-based or where outreach for the program happens through schools.
According to older youth who participated in the Needs Assessment, safe and supportive drop-in services
may be the easiest way for transitional-age youth to access the services they need.
viii
Families The wellbeing of families is critical for promoting the social and economic vitality of San Francisco. The
family is the basic unit of our communities and the City. It is where adults nurture children and where they
lay the foundation for healthy physical and emotional development so that youth are prepared to become
the next generation to lead San Francisco. Consequently, providing support for families not only benefits
individual family members, it also supports the growth of an entire city. The 2011 Needs Assessment
portrays a culturally and linguistically diverse set of families, some of whom are struggling with the impacts
of the recession.
Families by the Numbers 
Children in San Francisco’s families are culturally diverse. In San Francisco, youth under the age of
18 are more likely to be non-White than adults. This difference is especially pronounced for the Latino
population (representing 14 percent of adults but 23 percent of youth) and the population of two or
more races (representing 3 percent of adults but 8 percent of youth).

Over a quarter of families with children are headed by single parents. There are nearly 64,500
families with children in San Francisco. Twenty-one percent of these families are headed by single
mothers and six percent are headed by single fathers. 13

Families have shouldered the impacts of a deep and prolonged recession. The economic climate
has dramatically shifted since DCYF’s 2008 Community Needs Assessment. In San Francisco, the
unemployment rate more than doubled from 4.2 percent in January 2007 to 9 percent in 2009. 14 A
parent’s job loss can have adverse effects on children’s school success, their emotional wellbeing, and
their economic security.

Many children and youth live in low-income families. In 2008 before the recession, about 40
percent of San Francisco’s four-person families fell below the self-sufficiency standard (meaning below
a “bare bones” budget appropriate for their family composition) and about 14 percent were extremely
low income (meaning they fell below the federal poverty level). Racial disparities appear in the
percentages of children living below the federal poverty level. Based on 2006-2008 estimates, 17.6% of
Latino children, 9.5% of Asian children, and 8% of multiracial children lived in poverty compared to
4.5% of White children.

San Francisco’s child population has declined significantly over the past several decades, while
the overall city population has increased. In 1960, there were 181,500 children in San Francisco, and
by 2010 there were 107,500. The number of children living in the City remained relatively constant
between 1980 and 1990, with a slight decrease in 2000. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the
child population increased by about 10,000 youth between 2000 and 2009, but the latest Census data
suggests a decline of about 5,278 since 2000.
13
14
2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics.
ix
The Community Perspective Parents, community members, and service providers identified the importance of bringing stability to
families, as the recession has placed immense pressure on families and disconnected parents from critical
resources used to maintain the health and welfare of their children and families. Participants identified a
need to support families and parents through support groups and parent education, and to help families
learn about existing programs and services, obtain health-related services, and improve family safety.
Learning about existing programs and services. Many parents who participated in the Needs
Assessment expressed that they find it difficult to obtain information about available programs and
services, and therefore have primarily relied on word of mouth. One parent found that “unless you use [the
programs] or someone tells you it’s there, you just don’t know.” Participants noted that not all parents
have access to computers or have knowledge on how to use computers, and therefore a written guidebook
available in multiple languages would be more broadly accessible. They also acknowledged the need for
specialized outreach to isolated populations such as teen parents, new LGBTQ parents, immigrant families,
families involved with public systems, and those living in public housing or who are under-housed. With
regard to this last population, Needs Assessment participants emphasized that outreach should ideally
come from familiar faces and people they trust. As one participant explained, many residents may be wary
of outsiders: “[Residents] don’t want to be affiliated with you because they think you are the police, or they
think you are going to turn them in for something instead of trying to get [them] into the programs.”
Mental and physical health of families. Participants emphasized the need to ensure that families have
access to affordable mental health services. Parents and service providers expressed concern that families
are experiencing significant stresses in their homes and communities. Poverty, street violence, domestic
violence, substance abuse, and grief and loss were identified as stressors currently affecting many families.
The impact of food security and the lack of healthy foods on the health of low-income families were also
concerns voiced by parents and service providers at community meetings. Food pantries and school lunch
programs were identified as mainstays to some families,
and some participants expressed that more needs to be
“When I had my daughter, I didn’t
done to ensure that families have access to healthy food
know anybody. I didn’t know any
in their neighborhoods.
other moms. The whole preschool
process was kind of a secret…I had
a lot of problems [as a new parent].”
Parent support. Parents and service providers identified
support groups as an important community need,
particularly for new parents. Support groups play an
- Parent from Telegraph Hill
important role in reducing the sense of isolation many
new parents feel and providing families with information about
available services, according to many who participated in the
“For families that live in
Needs Assessment. Some parents expressed that support groups
neighborhoods where it is
helped them establish connections with other parents and build a
not safe to leave home,
system of support. One parent from the Excelsior explained,
[safety] presents barriers to
“Parents [in my group] support each other when there are
access.”
challenges.”
- Service provider
x
A sense of safety for families. Participants across the City consistently identified the need to increase
family-friendly spaces, improve safety on public transit and in communities, and attend to violence in the
home. Violence prevention and intervention programs were also identified as crucial to addressing
violence in communities. In addition, several service providers commented that support services for
families experiencing violence in the home are important for protecting all members of the family,
particularly vulnerable children.
xi
Looking Ahead The 2011 Community Needs Assessment marks a critical time for San Francisco’s children, youth, and
families. Since the last Needs Assessment was released three years ago, San Francisco’s economy has been
impacted by the recession, the unemployment rate has increased, and families have struggled even more
to make ends meet. Availability of publicly-funded services has also declined due to cuts at the local, state,
and federal level. This situation raises new concerns about the ability of children to grow up healthy,
obtain a quality education, and live in safe, supportive homes and communities.
Given this context, participants in the 2011 Needs Assessment were asked to reflect on the role that DCYF
and the Children’s Fund can play during these challenging times. During interviews and meetings,
participants highlighted the following strengths of the Department’s approach, which they believe are
essential to an effective system of care for children, youth, and families.

Strategic significance of DCYF resources. Participants in the Needs Assessment emphasized the
importance of the Children’s Fund to the local system of care for children, youth, and families. As one
City leader noted, “There is a high level of local resources investment in children’s services, largely
because of the Children’s Fund property tax set aside and the children’s baseline requirements.”
Another agreed, and noted that DCYF has used the Children’s Fund to attract additional resources to
San Francisco. S/he commented, “DCYF has done a good job of leveraging local funds with state and
federal funds.”

Collaboration with and across public agencies. DCYF has developed a reputation for being both
collaborative and transparent in its decision-making processes. Several of those interviewed expressed
appreciation for the role the Department has played in bringing City departments and other public
agencies such as the School District together to plan services collaboratively. One City leader
commented, “One good thing in these difficult times is the collaborative work we have done… We
have worked together to fill gaps.”

Understanding of children, youth, and families. DCYF has relationships with a broad spectrum of
community members and nonprofits which makes the Department deeply knowledgeable about the
needs of San Francisco’s diverse children, youth, and families. The Department draws on its broad
network to convene young people, parents, and service providers around developing action plans to
address community needs. DYCF is also successful in using its knowledge to contribute to the overall
development of City programming and the policy process. One person characterized the department
as the City’s “thought leader” for children, youth, and families.
As San Francisco approaches the reauthorization of the Children’s Amendment in 2015, the City and its
service providers face the challenge of meeting increased community need with fewer public resources.
How can the City move forward to ensure that children, youth, and families have access to services that will
help them thrive? City leaders and advocates for children and parents voiced that the following will be key
success factors in the years ahead.
xii

Maintain a focus on quality. Increasing organizational capacity and building cultural competency are
important to delivering high-quality services that are responsive to local needs. Creating standards
and measuring outcomes also promotes quality service delivery, but more importantly, it ensures
accountability to the public. Several Needs Assessment participants emphasized the importance of
DCYF continuing its work toward ensuring only the most effective programs receive funding, and
working to build nonprofit capacity to deliver effective programs where necessary to meet unique
community needs.

Coordinate and align services. San Francisco has an extensive network of nonprofit, private, and
public service providers. Enhancing coordination and aligning strategy for specific target populations
can expand the reach of services to communities in need, decrease duplicative services, and maximize
scarce resources. Several Needs Assessment participants remarked on the importance of DCYF
continuing to play a convening role. As one school leader explained, “DCYF works with multiple
departments and agencies that are part of City government. They have many connections to both
clients and direct service providers. DCYF is at the crossroads of a lot of different needs and services,
and can facilitate coordination.”

Continue to be a leader for children, youth, and families. Needs Assessment participants
highlighted the importance of DCYF’s role in ensuring that policy makers and the general public are
aware of and responsive to the needs of children, youth, and families. They also noted the importance
of maintaining investments in services to San Francisco’s children, youth, and families given perceived
increases in community needs.
Overall, the 2011 Needs Assessment provides rich information about the current needs of San Francisco’s
children, youth, and families. It also highlights the essential role that DCYF and the Children’s Fund play in
supporting their overall health and wellbeing. The information presented here and in the full Needs
Assessment report will inform the development of a strategic plan, called the Children’s Services Allocation
Plan (CSAP) to guide DCYF over the next several years, a critical time in the lives of San Francisco’s children,
youth, and families.
Exhibit 2. DCYF Three-Year Funding Cycle
YEAR 1 Community Needs Assessment YEAR 2
Children’s Services Allocation Plan YEAR 3
Request for Proposals 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012 2012 ‐ 2013
Community Needs Assessment identifies needs Children’s Services Allocation Plan analyzes current spending & identifies priorities for future spending
Request for Proposals to fund programs and services identified in Years 1 and 2 xiii
Introduction
When Children Thrive, Communities Benefit San Francisco’s prosperity depends on our ability to ensure that all children and youth have the
opportunity to thrive. When children grow up healthy, obtain a quality education, and live in safe,
supportive homes and communities, they have a solid foundation for a productive future. San Franciscans
recognize that communities benefit when children thrive. In 1991, voters made our city the first in the
country to guarantee funding for children by passing the Children’s Amendment. This landmark legislation
set aside a portion of annual property taxes for the Children’s Fund, to be used exclusively for services that
benefit children from birth to age 17.
The San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) is a proud steward of the
Children’s Fund and other public funds dedicated to services for children and youth from birth through 24
years of age, and their families. DCYF believes that every child can be a healthy, productive, and valued
member of our community. By supporting programs and activities across every San Francisco
neighborhood, DCYF advances the Quality of Life Benchmarks adopted by the City’s Board of Supervisors
and Mayor to ensure that children and youth are:




Healthy;
Ready to learn and succeeding in school;
Living in safe, supported families and viable communities; and
Contributing to the growth, development, and vitality of San Francisco.
In fiscal year 2010-2011, DCYF allocated $70 million in strategic funding to other city departments and to
about 200 community-based organizations that provide:







Early child care and education programs
Family support programs
Health and wellness programs
Out of school time programs
Violence prevention and intervention programs
Youth empowerment programs
Youth workforce development programs
DCYF also works on citywide policy and planning efforts to leverage the city funds it administers with
private, state and federal dollars, increase access to services, and enhance the quality of services. DCYF also
promotes the sharing of information to support children, youth, and their families. One of DCYF’s funded
projects includes San Francisco’s Official Family Resource Guide located online at www.SFKids.org.
The 2011 Community Needs Assessment In addition to dedicating funds to services, the Children’s Amendment calls for a three-year planning cycle
to determine how the Children’s Fund will be spent. The first phase of the cycle is to conduct an
assessment of the needs of children, youth, and their families. To fulfill its own mission and the
requirements of the Children’s Amendment, DCYF engages young people, parents, service providers,
community members, and policymakers in a Community Needs Assessment every three years. The results
inform the second phase of the cycle which is the development of an action plan, called the Children’s
1
Service Allocation Plan, which analyzes existing citywide spending and identifies priorities for future use of
the Children’s Fund. In the third phase of the cycle, DCYF releases a Request for Proposals to fund
programs and services needed by the community.
Exhibit 1: DCYF Three‐Year Funding Cycle YEAR 1 Community Needs Assessment YEAR 2
Children’s Services Allocation Plan YEAR 3
Request for Proposals 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012 2012 ‐ 2013
Community Needs Assessment identifies needs Children’s Services Allocation Plan analyzes current spending & identifies priorities for future spending Request for Proposals to fund programs and services identified in Years 1 and 2 This report provides a summary of findings from the 2011 Community Needs Assessment conducted by
DCYF with assistance from Harder+Company Community Research. It begins with a snapshot of available
citywide data on children, youth, and families in San Francisco, followed by a discussion of the needs of
children and youth at different stages in their lives—from early childhood to the elementary and middle
school years to high school years and beyond. The last section addresses the needs of families with children.
The appendices include summaries of the surveys and meetings that were analyzed to inform this report.
2
Methodological Approach
The 2011 Community Needs Assessment was informed by a rich set of data and extensive public
engagement. DCYF used a mixed methods design, which coupled quantitative and qualitative data, as
well as secondary and primary data, to develop a comprehensive picture of the needs of San Francisco
residents.
The secondary data provided a high-level overview of community demographics and service utilization.
The analysis of secondary data primarily includes the following sources: (1) US Census Bureau, (2) California
Department of Education, (3) California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, (4)
California Department of Public Health, (5) California Office of the Attorney General, Criminal Justice
Statistics Center, (6) California Health Interview Survey, (7) Center for Social Services Research at U.C.
Berkeley, (8) Adolescent Health Working Group, (9) First 5 San Francisco, (10) San Francisco’s Child Care
Planning and Advisory Council, (11) San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, (12) San
Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), (13) San Francisco City and County departments and task forces,
and (14) DCYF.
DCYF collected primary data through a variety of methods in an effort to understand the depth and
complexity of community needs. Primary data collection to capture community perspectives on needs
took place from August 2010 to February 2011 and included data from: (1) 19 input sessions with
neighborhood-based groups, (2) six input sessions with citywide parent representative groups, (3) five
input sessions with citywide youth representative groups, and (4) 15 input sessions with citywide advisory
groups composed of service providers. Summaries of these input sessions are included in Appendix 3. In
addition, DCYF gathered input from 356 staff at 145 youth-serving community-based organizations, and
from 43 SFUSD school principals and site administrators through online surveys. DCYF also informed the
development of the Youth Vote Fall 2010 survey which was administered to 8,524 SFUSD high school
students from 19 public high schools (14 traditional high schools, one charter high school, two
continuation schools, and two county high schools). Summaries of these survey results are included in
Appendix 2. In addition, interviews were conducted with 15 policymakers and other citywide key
informants and five focus groups were held with hard to reach populations. Data collected through these
methods were primarily analyzed by Harder+Company Community Research, and incorporated into this
Needs Assessment by DCYF.
While limitations in time and resources did not permit a representative sampling of San Francisco residents
to participate in input sessions, DCYF worked with existing neighborhood-based groups, citywide parent
representative groups, citywide youth representative groups, and citywide advisory groups composed of
service providers to gather feedback about the needs of children, youth, and families. Outreach for each of
the input sessions and focus groups were primarily conducted by the entities hosting the sessions.
Through these efforts, about 740 individuals participated in community engagement sessions related to
this Needs Assessment. Of the 714 who completed surveys, about one-third of participants identified as
parents, 26 percent were CBO service providers, 13 percent were concerned community members, and
four percent were youth.
3
Exhibit 2: DCYF Community Input Session Participants’ Self‐Identifications Participants (n=685) Parent Concerned community member Youth Service provider, CBO Other member of a CBO Service provider, Public Agency Other member of a public agency Member of a policy group Other n 206 87 36 176 19 102 24 11 24 % 29% 13% 4% 26% 3% 15% 4% 2% 4% Note: Twenty-nine participants did not respond to this question.
Source: Harder+Company Community Research, 2011.
Exhibit 3: DCYF Community Input Session Participants’ Race/Ethnicity (self‐reported) Participants (n=707) White Asian Latino/Hispanic Black/African American Pacific Islander Middle Eastern Alaskan Native/American Indian Other Decline to State n 240 189 174 127 37 18 13 18 6 % (34%) (27%) (25%) (18%) (5%) (3%) (2%) (3%) (1%) Note: Respondents were asked to select all that apply. Seven respondents did not answer this question.
Source: Harder+Company Community Research, 2011.
In addition to the 740 individuals that participated in community engagement sessions related to this
Needs Assessment, more than 8,900 individuals participated in one of the three surveys that DCYF used to
gather community perspectives on needs. All told, DCYF’s commitment to broad community engagement
resulted in the gathering of more than 9,640 individuals’ perspectives.
Limitations As with any Needs Assessment, certain limitations should be considered when interpreting findings. With
regard to the secondary data reviewed, there were two primary limitations. First, most of the available data
on family income level was collected before the height of the recent economic recession. Second, limited
local data was available from the 2010 Census at the time of this study. DCYF plans to work with other local
partners to analyze trends relevant to children, youth, and families once the 2010 Census data becomes
available. At that time, this report may be updated as necessary.
With regard to the primary data to capture community perspectives, DCYF designed the Needs Assessment
process to gather community perspectives about the services most likely to be funded by DCYF. Therefore,
it is not a comprehensive assessment of all needs of San Francisco children, youth, and their families, rather
a targeted examination to inform the most effective use of the Children’s Fund. In addition, given that the
purpose of the Needs Assessment and the availability of resources, the strategy to gather neighborhoodbased input relied on partnering with existing neighborhood organizations which were willing and able to
4
host input sessions. The meeting notes from neighborhood-based meetings included in this report are not
representative of the needs of each neighborhood in San Francisco.
In spite of these limitations, DCYF believes this Needs Assessment provides valuable insights regarding the
needs of children, youth, and their families in San Francisco.
5
Citywide Data Highlights
San Francisco’s Youth Population Is Declining The child population has declined substantially over the past several decades, while the overall city
population has increased. In 1960, there were 181,500 children under age 18 in San Francisco, and by 2010
there were 107,500. The number of children living in the City remained relatively constant between 1980
and 1990, with a slight decrease in 2000 and 2010. In 2010, children under the age of 18 composed 13
percent of the City’s population.
Exhibit 4: Total Population and Child Population (ages 0‐17) in San Francisco, 1960‐2010 900,000
805,235
776,733
800,000
740,361
723,959
715,674
678,974
700,000
600,000
500,000
Total Population
Child Population
400,000
300,000
181,532
200,000
159,595
116,611
116,883
112,802
107,524
100,000
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: US Census Bureau, Census Data 1960-2010
The US Census Bureau estimated that the child population in San Francisco increased by about 10,000
youth between 2000 and 2009, but the latest 2010 Census data indicated that the child population
declined by about 5,278 since 2000. Data on the number of youth by age is not yet available from the 2010
Census to determine if the decline was evenly distributed across all ages of youth or impacting a particular
age range more than others. 2009 estimates indicated that 41 percent of the population of youth under
age 18 was under five years old, 38 percent was between age six and 13, and 21 percent was between ages
14 to 17. Estimates also indicated that 51 percent of youth under age 18 in 2009 were male. 15
15
Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
6
Exhibit 5: Estimated Number of Youth by Age, 2002‐2009 Note: Census 2010 data by age of youth is not yet available at the city-level.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Data for 2007-2009 is a 3-year estimate.
San Francisco’s Youth Population is Highly Diverse In San Francisco, youth (under the age of 18) are more likely to be non-White than adults. This difference is
especially pronounced for the Latino population (representing 14 percent of adults but 23 percent of
youth) and the population of two or more races (representing three percent of adults but eight percent of
youth).
Exhibit 6: Race/Ethnicity of Youth vs. Adults, 2010 44%
34%
33%
Children under
age 18
27%
23%
Adults ages 18
and over
14%
7%
6%
0.77%
0.20%
0.15%
Latino
White
African
American
0.56%
0.3%
Native
American
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
0.3%
Other
8%
2.5%
Two or
more races
Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2010.
7
A Substantial Number of Youth are from Low‐Income Families In 2008 before the recession, about 40 percent of San Francisco’s four-person families fell below the selfsufficiency standard (meaning below a “bare bones” budget appropriate for their family composition) and
about 14 percent were extremely low income (meaning they fell below the federal poverty level). 16
Estimates from 2005-2009 indicate that a lower proportion—about 12 percent—of children under age 18
lived below the poverty level. These estimates also indicate that most children living in poverty were either
age five and under or between the ages of six and 14. 17
Latino and African American Populations Constitute a Substantial Percentage of Youth Living in Poverty Racial disparities appear in the percentage of children living below the federal poverty level. Based on
2006-2008 estimates, 18 percent of Latino children, 10 percent of Asian children, and eight percent of
multiracial children lived in poverty compared to five percent of White children. 18 While comparable data
from 2006-2008 were not available for African American children, 36 percent of African American children
lived in poverty in 2000. 19
K‐12 Public School Enrollment in San Francisco is Declining Total school enrollment among San Francisco youth has been declining since the early 2000s. Between
2005 and 2009, SFUSD enrollment dropped by almost 2,000 students. 20 Data from 2009 estimated that 72
percent of San Francisco’s children aged 6-17 enrolled in public schools, compared with approximately 25
percent who enrolled in private schools. 21 Children’s age and household income emerge as the most
significant factors that determine whether they are enrolled in a public or private school. In 2009, parents
of children between the ages of six and 13 are more likely to send their children to public school than are
those with children in the upper grades. In addition, four out of five parents with annual household
incomes of more than $100,000 chose to send their children to private schools or schools outside of San
Francisco. 22
16
Diana M. Pearce, “Overlooked and Undercounted 2009: Struggling to Make Ends Meet in California,” United Way of the Bay Area, San
Francisco, 2009.
17
American Communities Survey, 2005-2009.
18
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, as cited by http://kidsdata.org, accessed April 17, 2011,
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
19
Percent of African American youth living in poverty derived from number of African American youth living “below poverty level” (4,350)
and the number of African American youth living “at or above poverty level” ( 7,747) in San Francisco in 1999. US Census Bureau, 2000
Census, “SEX BY AGE (BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN ALONE) [49] Universe: Black or African American alone population.”
20
California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System, accessed August 2009,
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/studentdatafiles.asp, via http://www.kidsdata.org.
21
Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
22
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
8
Early Childhood (ages 0 to 5)
Key Findings 
San Francisco has an estimated 47,988 children ages five and under as of 2009, accounting
for six percent of the city’s population.

Early care and education programs and school readiness are high priorities for families.

Access to care that meets families’ needs remains limited. About 3,600 children were
waiting for subsidized care in early 2011; 43 percent of these children are infants and
toddlers. Access to care is particularly challenging for recent immigrant families, homeless
families, and children with special health care needs.

Affordability of early care and education programs continues to be a challenge for families.
The average cost of care for an infant/toddler is $13,000 per year in a licensed center.

Assessments of licensed child care centers and family child care programs indicate the
quality of care is improving, yet there are concerns about the need to enhance quality
particularly for serving subpopulations.

Parents voiced interest in preschool, school readiness programs, and other supports that will
help them foster their children’s success in school. The proportion of SFUSD
kindergarteners who have attended preschool has increased from 72 percent in 2007 to 83
percent in 2009, although under-enrollment exists among Latinos, African Americans, and
Southeast residents. Only 57 percent of SFUSD kindergarteners enter school proficient in
school readiness skills.

While many children are in good health and have access to health services, stakeholders
expressed concerns about the mental health of children, particularly those exposed to
domestic and community violence.
I. Demographics 2009 Estimates indicated that children age five and under accounted for six percent of San Francisco’s total
population, and 41 percent of the city’s population under age 18. 23 Estimates suggest the number of
children in this age group has increased from 36,302 in 2000 to 47,988 in 2009 due to an increase in the
number of infants and toddlers versus preschool-age children. 24 Estimates also indicate that an average of
8,500 children are born in San Francisco each year. 25 However, data on the number of youth by age is not
yet available from the 2010 Census to verify these estimates.
23
Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children, First 5 San Francisco, February 2010.
25
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
24
9
Exhibit 7: Estimated Growth in Number of Children Ages Zero to Five in San Francisco Year 2000 2005 2007 2009 Population 36,302 43,890 48,743 47,988 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, Data for years 2000, 2005, 2007 as found in First 5 San
Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s
Young Children, San Francisco,” 2010; Human Service Agency,
Analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey,
Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
Children between ages birth to five in San Francisco are predominantly of White (36 percent), Asian/Pacific
Islander (27 percent) and Latino (22 percent) ethnicities.
Exhibit 8: Race/Ethnicity of Children Ages Zero to Five in San Francisco, 2009 White African American Asian/Pacific Islander Latino Native American Other TOTAL Children ages zero to five n % 17,422 36% 2,743 6% 12,729 27% 10,528 22% 64 0.1% 4,502 9% 47,988 100% Total Population (adults and children) n % 367,765 45% 47,719 6% 253,817 31% 117,467 14% 1,934 0.2% 26,873 3% 815,575 100% Source: Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. There were slightly more male children (52 percent) age five and under than female children (48 percent)
based on 2009 estimates.
Exhibit 9: Gender of Children Ages Zero to Five in San Francisco, 2009 Children ages zero to five Total City Population (adults and children) Male
Female Total 24,825 23,163 47,988 414,550 401,025 815,575 Source: Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community
Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
In 2007, 16 percent of children age five and under lived in a household in which there was no adult who
spoke English well, which is also referred to as a linguistically isolated household. 26
26
First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010.
10
Exhibit 10: Young Children in Linguistically Isolated Households by Age, 2000‐2007 Age Less than 1 1 2 3 4 5 Total % of 0‐5 year olds 2000 972 1,394 1,174 1,410 1,428 1,691 8,069 22% 2005 632 1,339 1,587 944 2,381 969 7,852 18% 2007 1,633 1,268 687 1,617 1,290 1,540 8,035 16% Source: First 5 San Francisco, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey, Public
Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2010. Exhibit 11: Children in Linguistically Isolated Households by Race/Ethnicity, 2007 Racial/Ethnic Heritage Linguistically isolated African American Chinese Latino Native American Other Asian or Pacific Islander Other/Multiethnic White Total n ‐ 2,137 4,758 ‐ 920 ‐ 220 8,035 % ‐ 39% 43% ‐ 19% ‐ 1% 16% Source: First 5 San Francisco, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, San Francisco, 2010. One in ten entering kindergarteners in SFUSD is considered an English Learner. Among English Learners in
kindergarten, primary languages spoken by children include Spanish (39 percent) and Cantonese (37
percent) followed by Vietnamese (three percent), Tagalog (three percent) and Mandarin (two percent). 27
More than 99 percent of San Francisco’s children age five and under are US Citizens. 28 Among those in this
age group who are not US Citizens, the majority are of Chinese, Latino and White ethnicities. 29
Exhibit 12: Children Ages Zero to Five with US Citizenship in San Francisco Year
2000 2005 2007 2009 Children ages zero to five who are US Citizens
94% 96% 98% 99% Source: 2000, 2005, 2007 data: First 5 San Francisco, analysis of US Census Bureau, American
Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, in “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San
Francisco’s Young Children, San Francisco,” 2010; 2009 data: Human Service Agency, analysis of
US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
27
California Department of Education, “Student Demographics-English Learners,” accessed June 9, 2009 via DataQuest,
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest/ as cited in First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,”
San Francisco, 2010.
28
Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
29
First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010.
11
The economic security of children under age six has increased steadily between 2000 and 2007. The
proportion of children ages zero to five who live in a household with income that is 300 percent or less of
the federal poverty level (300 percent less of that level would be the equivalent of $66,150 for a family of
four) declined from 48 percent in 2000 to 35 percent in 2007. Overall, in 2007 about 15 percent of children
ages zero to five were living in a “very low income” household, and 20 percent were living in a “low
income” household. Latino and African American children were over represented among the city’s poorest
children age five and under. 30
Exhibit 13: Economic Security of Children Ages Zero to Five by Racial/Ethnic Heritage, 2007 African American American Indian or Alaska Native Chinese Latino Other Asian or Pacific Islander Other/Multiethnic White Total Very Low Income n % 1,092 48% Low Income n % 1,041 26% Self Sufficient n % 1,025 26% 0 0% 0 0% 156 100% 392 7% 1,677 31% 3,369 62% 2,928 933 57 879 7,091 27% 20% 2% 4% 5,460 937 136 348 9,599 50% 20% 4% 2% 2,620 2,910 3,281 18,692 32,053 24% 61% 94% 94% Note: “Very low income” is defined as a household whose income is less than 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($33,075 in 2009
for a family of four), “low income” is defined as a household with incomes between 150-300 percent of the Federal Poverty level
($66,150 for a family of four), and “self-sufficient” is defined as households with incomes greater than three times the Federal Poverty
Level. These adjustments were made to account for the high cost of living in San Francisco.
Source: First 5 San Francisco, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco,
2010. As defined by the federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau, a child with special health care needs is one
“who has an increased risk for chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional conditions and
who also requires health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children
generally.” 31 Utilizing data from the 2000 Census, local experts estimated that, in 2001, some 5,637 to
7,406 children aged five and under had special health care needs, representing about 14 percent to 18
percent of the total population that age. 32
Among a representative sample of Kindergartners enrolled in SFUSD in the Fall of 2009, about eight
percent were identified as having special needs at the time they entered school, which is the same
proportion as was found in 2007. Issues with speech and language were among the most common special
needs. Of the children identified as having a special need, in 2009 60 percent had not received any sort of
professional help for their special need from a pediatrician, school professional, or counselor. About 43
percent of parents learned their child had a special need through a pediatrician, 27 percent from a
preschool teacher, and the rest from other individuals. On average these children’s special needs were
30
First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” analysis of US Census Bureau Public Use
Micro Files, 2007 American Community Survey, San Francisco, 2010.
31
Deborah Parrish and Jennifer Anthony, “Young Children with Special Health Care Needs in San Francisco: Assessing our Reach – A
summary of the findings,” Report developed by American Institutes for Research for High Risk Infant Interagency Council of San Francisco,
2003.
32
Deborah Parrish and Jennifer Anthony, “Young Children with Special Health Care Needs in San Francisco: Assessing our Reach – A
summary of the findings.” Report developed by American Institutes for Research for High Risk Infant Interagency Council of San Francisco,
2003.
12
diagnosed when they were three years old. 33 According to First 5 San Francisco, the number of children
birth to five screened for developmental delay has more than doubled from 2,150 in 2007 to 4,501 in
2009. 34
Since 2005, an average of 432 children under age five has been victims in substantiated child abuse
incidents each year. In 2009, these children represented about 40 percent of all substantiated cases in San
Francisco. The table below indicates the ethnicity of the victims involved in these cases. Among
substantiated cases involving infants under a year old, 42 percent were African American, a quarter were
White, 23 percent were Latino, and five percent were Asian/Pacific Islander. The proportion of
substantiated abuse cases doubles for cases that involved Asian/Pacific Islander youth ages one to two and
older. About 50 percent of the victims in substantiated cases for children under age five were female. 35
Exhibit 14: Children with One or More Substantiated Child Abuse Allegations, 2009 Under 1 1‐2 3‐5 African American 42% White 25% Latino 23% Asian/Pacific Islander 5% Native American 2% Missing 2% Total 100% 38% 34% 10% 16% 39% 36% 10% 12% 1% 2% 2% 100% 100% Source: Needell, B., et. al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California,” 2009, accessed January 18, 2011, University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research, http://cssr..edu/ucb_childwelfare. The number of children ages five and under in foster care has generally dropped in recent years. In 1998,
758 children were in foster care as compared to 269 children in 2010. More than half of the children in
foster care in 2010 were African American (52 percent). Latino children composed the next largest group
(22 percent), followed by White children (16 percent). 36
II. Early Care and Education Types of Early Care and Education
Parents, community members, and neighborhood service providers who participated in DCYF’s community
input sessions consistently identified early care and education or child care as a priority. San Franciscans
use a variety of child care options. Most families in San Francisco (63 percent) rely on more than one type
of arrangement for child care for their young children, 20 percent use only care provided by a non-family
member in a home, seven percent use only care provided by a grandparent or family member, five percent
use only preschool or a center-based setting, and five percent use only some other type of care. Compared
to statewide averages, San Francisco families are less likely to use grandparents or other family members to
care for their children. Families in San Francisco (63 percent) are much more likely to use multiple child
care arrangements than the statewide average (49 percent). Among low-income families in the city, almost
33
Applied Survey Research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School
District and First 5 San Francisco,” San Francisco, 2010.
34
First 5 San Francisco, “2009-2010 Local Evaluation Report: A Report to the Community on Strategic Plan Progress,” San Francisco, 2011.
35
Only substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect are cited here, not total reported cases. Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S.,
Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Williams, D., Simon, V., Hamilton, D., Lou, C., Peng, C., Moore, M.,
Jacobs, L., & King, B., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California,” 2009, accessed January 18, 2011, University of California at Berkeley
Center for Social Services Research, http://cssr.brekeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
36
Center for Social Services Research, University of California-Berkeley, “Child Welfare Database Reporting System,” accessed February 9,
2011, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/.
13
seven in ten families rely on a non-family member providing care in the family’s own home. In contrast,
only 10 percent of self-sufficient families rely on this type of primary care arrangement. 37 Exhibit 15: Type of Child Care Arrangement, 2007
Other single source,
5%
Preschool or nursery
school, 5%
Non family
members in his/her
home, 7%
Non family member
in own home, 13%
Grandparent or
family member, 7%
More than one, 63%
Source: First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010. More recent data on child care arrangements specifically for children the year before they enter
kindergarten found that almost 60 percent attended a licensed child care center or preschool, 21 percent
were cared for by a relative, babysitter or neighbor, six percent were cared for by a nanny, and five percent
were cared for by a licensed family child care provider. The proportion of kindergarteners cared for by
nannies has declined since 2007 from 13 percent to six percent in 2009. In addition, the proportion of
parents who reported that they were a “stay at home parent who took care of the child most of the time”
increased from 54 percent in 2007 to 58 percent in 2009. These trends may coincide with changes in
families’ economic circumstances. 38
“Child care, child care, child care... [It’s] critical to the neighborhood… [and] a high need in the neighborhood.” – CBO representative in Visitacion Valley The proportion of SFUSD kindergarten students who were
enrolled in preschool increased from 72 percent in 2007 to
83 percent in 2009. This increase may be due in part to the
expansion of facilities that serve preschool-age children
and the City’s investment in Preschool for All. Although
preschool attendance is high, there are some differences by
race and ethnicity. About 89 percent of Chinese and 88
percent of White kindergartners had preschool experience,
compared to 80 percent of Latino and 79 percent of African
American kindergarteners. In addition, children with no
preschool experience were more likely to come from
economically disadvantaged families. 39
37
Type of care is presented for children who are in care more than 10 hours per week, based on parent reports. “Low income” families are
defined as families whose income is between 150-300 percent of the federal poverty level, and “Self-Sufficient” families are defined as
families whose income is 300 percent of the federal poverty level or more. First 5 San Francisco, analysis of 2007 California Health Interview
Survey in “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010.
38
Applied Survey Research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School
District and First 5 San Francisco,” San Francisco, 2010.
39
Economically disadvantaged is defined as families who reported they earned less than $32,000 per year. Ibid.
14
Unmet Need for Care
In San Francisco, many families face challenges finding and enrolling their children in early care and
education programs that are available, affordable, and meet their family’s needs. This concern was raised
in several DCYF community input sessions with parents, neighborhood groups, and service providers. In
the words of one parent from the Telegraph Hill neighborhood, “Child care is very important. There are a
lot of young children in this neighborhood. There’s a big need for child care.” San Francisco has a variety
of early care and education programs—some of which receive public subsidies to offset cost to families
and some of which do not. For years, San Francisco families’ demand for subsidized early care and
education has been greater than the available supply. Every five years, San Francisco’s Child Care Planning
and Advisory Council (CPAC) conducts a citywide Needs Assessment specific to child care. Below is a table
from CPAC’s 2002 and 2007 Needs Assessments that indicates the unmet need for subsidized child care for
infants and toddlers (ages zero to two years old) and preschoolers (ages three to five). Next year, CPAC will
be updating this neighborhood-level analysis using 2010 US Census data.
Exhibit 16: Unmet Need for Subsidized Child Care, 2002 and 2007 Hayes Valley/Tenderloin South of Market Financial District Downtown Potrero Hill Chinatown Russian Hill/Nob Hill Inner Mission/Bernal Heights Embarcadero/Gateway Outer Mission/Excelsior/Ingleside Castro/Noe Valley Western Addition Parkside/Forest Hill Haight/Western Addition/Fillmore Inner Richmond/Presidio/Laurel Outer Richmond/Sea Cliff Sunset Marina/Cow Hollow Bayview/Hunters Point West Portal/St. Francis Wood Presidio Treasure Island Twin Peaks/Diamond Heights/Glen Park Stonestown/Lake Merced North Beach/Telegraph Hill Visitacion Valley Unmet Need for 0‐2 Year Olds 2002 2007 Change 258 280 +22 211 212 +1 ‐4 0 +4 3 3 ‐ 173 107 ‐66 199 157 ‐42 502 347 ‐155 Unmet Need for 3‐5 Year Olds 2002 2007 Change 146 236 +90 132 185 +53 2 4 +2 ‐1 5 +6 ‐38 15 +53 ‐62 89 +151 163 310 +147 1,277 977 ‐300 56 804 +748 11 16 +5 ‐4 7 +11 670 955 +285 221 205 ‐16 121 258 148 29 141 246 ‐92 ‐117 +98 ‐15 ‐144 209 22 133 49 +37 +277 ‐160 178 65 ‐113 20 662 +612 193 150 ‐43 117 81 ‐36 240 290 45 405 171 208 35 570 ‐69 ‐82 ‐10 +165 263 118 ‐62 82 141 127 10 224 ‐122 +9 +72 +142 36 76 +40 29 40 +11 ‐15 ‐8 40 0 +55 +8 ‐49 ‐14 14 7 +63 +21 167 131 ‐36 98 29 ‐69 165 221 413 81 198 405 ‐84 ‐23 ‐8 109 9 261 92 1 106 ‐17 ‐8 ‐155 15
Total 6,157 5,600 ‐557 1,616 3,598 +1,952 Note: The numbers in this table indicate the difference between the number of subsidized child care slots and the estimated number of
eligible children, based on income (75 percent of the state median income).
Source: San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007.” The 2007 CPAC Needs Assessment data found that:

Unmet need is greatest for infant and toddler care with 77 percent of eligible children not
receiving government subsidies (which is slightly lower than the 80 percent in 2002), especially in
the Inner Mission/Bernal Heights, Outer Mission/Excelsior/Ingleside, Bayview/Hunter’s Point,
Visitacion Valley neighborhoods and parts of Hayes Valley, Tenderloin, Chinatown, Russian Hill,
Nob Hill, and North Beach.

About 40 percent of eligible children ages three to five did not receive subsidies, with unmet need
highest in the Inner Mission/Bernal Heights, Bayview/Hunter’s Point, Outer Mission/Excelsior/
Ingleside, South of Market, and Outer Richmond neighborhoods, and parts of Hayes Valley,
Tenderloin, Chinatown, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach. 40
The unmet need for subsidized early care and education in San Francisco is also evidenced in the number
of children waiting for child care subsidies. Using data from the San Francisco Centralized Eligibility List
(SFCEL), an eligibility list used for subsidized care, the table below indicates the number of families waiting
for government subsidies for child care as of January 1st of each year. Child care administrators caution that
the SFCEL data under-represents the total number of families in need of subsidized care in San Francisco
because eligibility is based on statewide income levels that do not factor in the higher local cost of living.
Many lower-income San Francisco families may be ineligible for a state subsidy and therefore may not be
on the SFCEL, yet need assistance with obtaining affordable child care. 41 In addition to incompatible
income eligibility criteria for the Bay Area, many low-income families may not apply for services through
SFCEL either due to not knowing about the list or challenges accessing the list. The most recent data from
the SFCEL indicate that at least 3,558 children under age five are waiting for child care subsidies, and
approximately 43 percent of those children are infants or toddlers.
Exhibit 17: Children Waiting for Subsidized Child Care on SFCEL by Age, 2005‐2011 Ages 0‐1 Ages 1‐2 Ages 2‐3 Ages 3‐4 Ages 4‐5 Total 2005 149 206 329 314 342 1,340 2006 183 297 466 422 469 1,837 2007 359 463 563 561 332 2,278 2008 391 577 565 422 294 2,249 2009 563 823 897 807 447 3,537 2010 570 732 847 791 369 3,309 2011 635 717 864 861 481 3,558 Note: All data is for actively waiting children on the San Francisco Centralized Eligibility List (SFCEL)
as of January 1 of the given year.
Source: Children’s Council, “San Francisco’s Centralized Eligibility List (SFCEL),” San Francisco,
February 2011.
While the number of infants and toddlers increased each year between 2005 and 2009, the 2010 data
shows a slight decrease but then a slight increase in 2011 of infants and toddlers. The trend among
preschool-age children has fluctuated between 2005 and 2011. The number of preschool-age children on
the SFCEL increased from 2005 to 2007, decreased in 2008, and then sharply increased again in 2009. The
number of preschool-age children decreased in 2010, but increased to its highest total in 2011. These
40
41
San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
Ibid.
16
trends are due to both an expansion of child care subsidies with new state preschool contracts and a shift
among care givers away from providing care for infants and toddlers due to the higher cost of providing
the care. Overall, the number of children on the SFCEL has increased over time.
During community input sessions, recent immigrant families and homeless families particularly voiced
challenges accessing early care and education due to constraints caused by their work, school, training,
and housing schedules and shared the impact this had on their ability to gain further training, education
and employment. One Chinese parent participant in a DCYF focus group stated, “Even [though] there are
two parents—and only one can go to work because of child care problems. It’s so hard to apply for child
care successfully and be accepted into the program.” Another parent concurred, “We have time, and we
are eager to learn. We know we need basic English skills but we can’t leave kids at home and attend
classes. If I can bring my young child with me, they can play with others while I am learning. I don’t want
to fall too behind from them in the future…at least I can understand what they say in English.”
In another focus group, several homeless parents noted that shelters do not have child care available for
children zero to five years old. Participants reported that sometimes parents need to rest and that even
their children need a break and want to engage in
recreational activities. One homeless parent who
“There is no child care. participated in a focus group stated, “There is no child care.
It’s very hard not having child care because a lot of mothers
It’s very hard not having work and sometimes their work schedule is different from
child care because a lot the shelter’s schedule.”
There is also a demand for child care from employees that
work in San Francisco, but live elsewhere in the greater Bay
Area. A study estimated that five percent of non-resident
employees in San Francisco have children requiring
licensed-based care in the City. Of those needing licensed
care, the analysis also assumes one child per employee is
between ages zero and five. Based on this data,
approximately 11,381 children of non-resident employees
required child care in the City in 2006. By 2025, researchers
estimate this number will increase by approximately 1,509
to a total of 12,889 non-resident children ages zero to five
needing child care spaces. 42
of mothers work and sometimes their work schedule is different from the shelter’s schedule.” – Parent living in a homeless shelter Access and Family Preferences
Concerns related to the affordability, availability, and hours and location of child care were raised by
parents, community members, and service providers in community input sessions. These concerns are
echoed in the available data. In 2005, about 17 percent of San Francisco parents of young children
reported a barrier in obtaining child care, which is comparable to the statewide average. Affordability of
any care is a greater concern for San Francisco parents (25 percent) compared to parents statewide (five
percent), and nine percent reported they could not afford the quality of care they desired. Other barriers
parents reported included providers not having space for more children (21 percent), not finding quality
care (20 percent), and hours and location of care (11 percent). 43 In 2009, only 49 percent of parents in the
labor force with children 0-13 were able to find the licensed care they need. 44 Speaking to many of these
42
Brion & Associates, “Final Child Care Linkage Fee Nexus Study,” in “City and County of San Francisco Citywide Development Impact Fee
Study 2008: San Francisco," 2008.
43
First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” analysis of “California Health Interview
Survey, 2007,” San Francisco, 2010.
44
California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, “2009 Child Care Portfolio,” San Francisco, 2009.
17
challenges, one participant in a parent focus group stated, “(We)…cannot get services despite applying.
(We confront) either full slots or higher cost, or (care) farther way from home that need extra transportation
or adults’ care.” Participants identified in particular, a need for more access to licensed child care and
preschool programs.
Data indicate that parents with the youngest children are most in need of information about their child
care options. Among child care requests to the Children’s Council of San Francisco, one of the county child
care resource and referral agencies, in 2007 about 63 percent were looking for infant information, 15
percent were looking for toddler information, 16 percent were looking for preschool information, and six
percent were looking for school-age care information. Most individuals contacting the agency were
looking for full-time care (95 percent), and employment was the most common reason cited for why care
was needed (77 percent), followed by looking for work (26 percent), and school or training (19 percent). 45
“Spaces for child care and the child care supply are diminishing. Cuts from the State are causing programs to die. When these programs die, it is hard to start over. Once [providers] lose [child care] spaces, it’s hard to get it again…once it’s gone, it’s gone.” Among those families that find child care, a 2006
survey of San Francisco parents who used a referral
agency found that most (90 percent) were satisfied
with the care they found. The survey found that
the largest cited factor influencing parents’
decisions about child care was the convenience of
the location of the care. About 71 percent of
parent respondents preferred care near the child’s
home, 11 percent preferred a location on the way
to somewhere they needed to go, and eight
percent preferred care near work. After location,
parents reported they were most influenced by
price and then by quality. 46
Family use of federal welfare child care vouchers
provides further information on family preferences.
Human Service Agency data found that 58 percent
of vouchers for children under age five were used
– Representative from a for license-exempt care, 27 percent were used for
parent‐run advocacy licensed family child care, and 16 percent were
used for licensed centers. 47 This voucher utilization
organization data also shows that 46 percent of families chose to
leave their home neighborhoods to obtain care.
Bayview/ Hunter’s Point has the highest voucher utilization rate both in terms of families using their
vouchers in their home neighborhood, and as the neighborhood serving the most children with vouchers
(238) from other neighborhoods. 48 Two caveats to consider in this approach are the economic incentive to
use the voucher to compensate a member of the family, friend or neighbor rather than a center-based
program, and the lack of licensed center-based care in many neighborhoods that limits families’ options.
Another impediment to access is the time lag families face in getting care due to using a centralized list.
Conceptually, the SFCEL ensures greater fairness, providing one point of access for families to apply for
45
Ibid.
Survey conducted by the City’s resource and Referral Agencies – Wu Yee Children Services and the Children’s Council of San Francisco. San
Francisco residents who had made child care inquiries in specific months during 2005 and 2006 were contacted. 437 individuals participated
in the multi-lingual survey. San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007,”
San Francisco, 2007.
47
Licensed family child care is care provided in a home licensed by the state. License-exempt child care is care provided in a home that is not
required to be licensed by the state. Licensed center-based care is care provided in a center licensed by the state. San Francisco’s Child Care
Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
48
Ibid.
46
18
subsidized care and ensuring that those families most eligible are offered slots first. However, in utilizing
the SFCEL, some contractors have found the need to personally contact a larger number of families in order
to fill available slots. As a result, it can sometimes take weeks instead of days to fill vacant spots.
Access Challenges for Children with Special Health Care Needs
Challenges accessing early care and education services were a specific concern raised by parents of
children with special health care needs and service providers. Some parents stated that early education
programs were not meeting the needs of children with disabilities or special needs. Parents and service
providers both voiced concerns about the capacity of program staff to deliver developmentally
appropriate services.
Several local public agencies fund projects that seek to make quality inclusive child care the norm in San
Francisco. These projects support families of children with identified and unidentified special needs by
providing onsite specialized services, triage and referrals to services, consultation, advocacy, and support,
as well as delivering trainings to the wider child care community and other professionals. 49 Staff from these
projects indicated that a need exists for more subsidized part-day child care options that are inclusive of
children with special needs, and for more experienced and knowledgeable staff in such programs to offer
individualized assistance to these children. These projects also indicated that a large proportion of the
children that are referred to them have been exhibiting challenging behaviors and social-emotional needs,
but do not have identified or diagnosed special needs or Individualized Education Plans (which are plans
developed by school staff, parents and others that describe the special education services need for a
student). Increased training and support for child care staff and specific therapeutic programs were
identified as a need to address this issue. The Interagency Inclusion Roundtable also identified the need to
develop inclusive practices in both school-based and community-based early care and education
programs, as well as revising and streamlining the referral process. 50
Cost
The affordability of child care was a concern voiced by parents and service providers during DCYF’s
community input sessions. The cost to parents of licensed, center-based care for two to five year olds in
San Francisco is substantially more expensive than the statewide average and has increased steadily since
2003. 51 Based on a 2004-2005 survey of child care providers who accept child care subsidies, the average
annual cost to families for licensed child care in a center setting was $13,300 for an infant or toddler and
$10,190 for a preschool-age child. 52 However, some providers who do not accept subsidies nor receive
public funding can charge much higher rates. Care for children under age three requires a lower ratio of
children to adults, and is therefore more expensive.
Exhibit 18: Cost of Licensed Care for Parents Type of Care Care for one infant/toddler Licensed Family Child Care Home Licensed Center Care for one preschooler Cost $10,049 $13,300 49
Ferris Page, Childcare Inclusion Challenge Project, email correspondence, March 1, 2011.
Ibid; Laurel Kloomok, First 5 San Francisco, personal communication, April 13, 2011.
51
This data is based on the California Child Care Portfolio in 2003, 2005 and 2007 by the California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, as
cited in First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” 2010.
52
Regional Market Survey of California Child Care Providers, 2004-2005 as cited in California Child Care Resource & Referral Network, “The
California Child Care Portfolio 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
50
19
Licensed Family Child Care Home Licensed Center $9,412 $10,190 Source: California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, “The California Child Care
Portfolio 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
While parents of about 7,500 children ages five and under receive government subsidies to help cover their
child care costs, in many cases the government subsidies do not provide enough funding to cover the total
costs parents face. 53 Many of the subsidy funding streams also do not adjust for San Francisco’s high cost
of living which impacts not only the cost of operating care but also families’ income eligibility for subsidies.
Parents and caregivers face high costs for their child care needs for a variety of reasons. The largest
contributing factor relates to higher costs incurred by operating a child care program. Space is in high
demand in San Francisco, which increases the cost of owning, leasing, and renting property. In addition,
average wages in San Francisco are higher than in other counties throughout the state. In an effort to
understand the full costs of operating child care programs in San Francisco, in 2009 DCYF conducted an
analysis that found the average cost of providing these services per child by program type ranged from
$11,552 - $24,161 annually. The average costs by program type are listed below:



Infant care (children aged 6 weeks-24 months): $14,111-$28,788/annually.
Toddler care (children aged 24-36 months): $11,734-$25,456/annually.
Preschool-age care (children aged 3-5 years): $8,810-$18,239/annually.
These estimates were based on the state’s minimum quality standards, and providing higher quality
programs could cost more than twice that amount. The report explains that higher quality care is
financially beyond the reach of most working families. High quality infant care can cost as much as $2,399
per month, toddler care at $2,121, and preschool-age care at $1,520. 54
Quality
Service providers and advocates mentioned concerns about program quality in DCYF community input
sessions. City-funded assessments of licensed child care centers and family child care programs
using standardized quality environmental ratings show that scores related to child care activities and
space indicate the quality of care in these areas is improving since assessments began. A June 2010 report
found that 86 percent of 336 preschool aged classrooms were rated at good or above. For classrooms
serving infant toddler children, 63 percent of 95 classrooms were rated at good or above. In family child
care settings, 35 percent of 136 homes were rated at good or above. 55 Through DCYF’s community input
sessions some participants voiced concerns about the quality of unlicensed child care, which is care
provided by a family, friend or neighbor. One community input session participant voiced a need to
provide training for these types of providers. She stated, “[Unlicensed caregivers] need training to work
with children, such as CPR training.”
Although service providers and advocates mentioned concerns about program quality in DCYF community
input sessions, surveys of parents using licensed programs reveal general overall satisfaction with quality.
Among 20 early care and education programs that received grants from DCYF in 2009, 91 percent of
parents reported programs of high quality. Additionally, 95 percent of parents felt that they could trust the
staff with their child and would recommend the program to friends and family. In terms of the impact
53
San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “Draft Citywide Child Care Plan,” in development.
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Cost Models of ECE/Child Care Centers in San Francisco,” 2009, (updated March 2010).
55
The City has been collecting reliable data about the quality of early childhood environments using the ECERS (Preschool), ITERS (Infant and
Toddler), FCCER-R (Family Child Care) tools for the past several years. Gateway to Quality at the Marion Wright Edelman Institute, San
Francisco State University, “Gateway to Quality HARMS Environmental Assessment Report,” 2010, via email correspondence, First 5 San
Francisco, April 14, 2011.
54
20
these programs on children, 83 percent of parents reported improved ability to play games and interact
with others, 81 percent reported increased vocabulary and ability to use words, and 79 percent reported
enhanced physical skills such as body movement and coordination. 56
Exhibit 19: Quality Scores of Licensed Preschool Child Care Center Classrooms, 2008-2010
(ECERS Composite Scores, N=336 classrooms)
98
103
64
26
4
23
11
7
<1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6 .0-6.5 6.5 -7.0
Inadequate
Minimal
Good
Excellent
Not PFA eligible (11 2 classrooms, 33%)
PFA eligible (224 classrooms, 67%)
Exhibit 20: Quality Scores of Licensed Infant/Toddler Care Center Classrooms, 2008-2010
(ITERS Composite Scores, N=95 classrooms)
25
20
19
12
9
4
4
1
1
<1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6 .0-6.5 6.5 -7.0
Inadequate
Minimal
Not PFA eligible (54 classrooms, 5 7%)
Good
Excellent
PFA eligible (41 classrooms, 43%)
56
There were 1001 respondents from 20 programs to this survey administered in spring 2009. Department of Children, Youth, and Their
Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results for Early Care and Education Grantees,” San Francisco, 2009.
21
Exhibit 21: Quality Scores in Licensed Family Care Center Homes, 2008-2010
(FCCERS-R Composite Scores, N=136 homes)
33
24
23
20
10
8
3
12
2
1
<1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 3.0-3.5 3.5-4.0 4.0-4.5 4.5-5.0 5.0-5.5 5.5-6.0 6 .0-6.5 6.5 -7.0
Inadequate
Minimal
Good
Not PFA eligible (111 homes, 82%)
Excellent
PFA eligible (25 classrooms, 18 %)
Infant and Toddler Specific Issues
With an increasing number of parents with infants and toddlers participating in the workforce, the need for
high quality infant and toddler care grows. The cost of living in San Francisco and high workforce
participation among single parents and both parents in two-parent families make child care a necessity for
most families. Families fortunate enough to be able to afford infant/toddler care must compete for high
quality child care and their choices are limited. Often the unavailability of care and/or the affordability of
care prevent a parent from working even though they would choose to. 57
According to a 2007 comparison of eligible children and the number of government subsidies available for
them, the unmet need for subsidized child care in San Francisco is greatest for infant/toddler care, with
only 23 percent of eligible children receiving subsidies. In other words, 77 percent of eligible children
under three are not receiving needed subsidies.
An acute need for child care services for infants and toddlers from birth to age three was voiced by many
parents and service providers participating in DCYF community input sessions. As one parent stated, “child
care [is the greatest challenge faced by children and families], especially for children zero to three.” Parents
also identified the higher cost of infant and toddler care as a barrier to accessing needed child care. In the
words of one parent, “Child care is very expensive, especially for kids under three. There’s a shortage of
child care.” As another area of concern, citywide service providers voiced that child care providers for
infants and toddlers need further child development training to effectively meet the specific
developmental needs of this age group.
Preschool and School Readiness Specific Issues
At DCYF’s community input sessions, many parents, community members, and service providers
recognized that early education is critical to the developmental success of young children. Some parents
noted that preschools can help their children develop familiarity with the basics, such as colors and letters,
learn how to interact with peers, become accustomed to being apart from their parents and learn to follow
a school schedule. As one grandparent in Bayview shared, “[At Head Start,] my granddaughter [has
been]…much healthier and happier. They send books home every week. They ask parents to volunteer in
class, so I can come in and hang out with her. I hung out with her and read to her for four hours.” Many
57
San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
22
parents also expressed interest in learning more about how they can help ensure their children were ready
for school.
Recent research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco to evaluate kindergarten school readiness has
found that only 57 percent of public school kindergarteners have all of the school readiness skills they need
to succeed in school. The 2009 class of SFUSD kindergarteners scored slightly above the “in progress” level,
which is a three on a scale from one to four, with four representing proficiency across four categories of
school readiness skills and abilities – Self Care and Motor Skills, Self-regulation, Social Expression, and
Kindergarten Academics. On average students scored highest in the “self-care and motor skills” category
and lowest in the “self-regulation” category. As the chart below shows, there has been an increase in
readiness in three of the four categories since 2007. 58
Exhibit 22: Average School Readiness Scores, 2007 and 2009
Proficient 4.00
In Progress 3.00
3.26
3.31
3.51 3.51
3.18
3.19
3.28 3.32
3.21
3.34
Readiness level in 2007
Just Beginning 2.00
Readiness level in 2009
Not Yet 1.00
0.00
Overall
Readiness
Self-care &
Motor Skills
SelfRegulation
Social
Expression
Kindergarten
Academics
According to the Kindergarten Observation assessments in 2009, more than half of the children entering
SFUSD kindergarten classrooms are Proficient Across Domains, entering kindergarten well-rounded across
four dimensions of readiness (57 percent). Some 16 percent of new kindergarten students are Socially
Proficient, with solid social-emotional skills but requiring further progress in Kindergarten Academics. About
16 percent of new kindergarten students display the opposite pattern of readiness. These academically
proficient children do well in Self-Care and Motor skills and Kindergarten Academics, but have needs when it
comes to the social-emotional dimensions of Self-Regulation and Social Expression. Another 11 percent of
early kindergarteners are found to have readiness needs across all of the four domains.
Exhibit 23: School Readiness of Children Entering Kindergarten, San Francisco Unified School District Academically
proficient, 1 6%
Readiness needs,
11%
Socially proficient,
16 %
Proficient across all
4 domains, 57%
Source: Kindergarten Observation Form, 2009
Note: This chart is based on 751 students.
58
Applied Survey Research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School
District and First 5 San Francisco,” San Francisco, 2010.
23
The majority of children were proficient in skills related to performing self-help or self-care, recognizing
primary colors, and recognizing primary shapes. The largest percentage of children were not proficient yet
in skills related to recognizing rhyming words, handling frustration well, and negotiating with peers to
resolve social conflicts with adult guidance. 59 School readiness skills appear to vary by a variety of
demographic and family characteristics. About 85 percent of White kindergarteners met SFUSD teacher
standards for school readiness, compared to 75 percent of Chinese students, 62 percent of Latino students,
and only 53 percent of African American students. Within each type of school readiness skill, variation by
students’ race/ethnicity also appears. For example, Chinese students dominate in academic skills, while
Latino students dominate in social-emotional skills. Differences also appear related to language. About 75
percent of students who are not English learners met teacher standards for school readiness, as opposed to
only 66 percent of English learners. School readiness levels in each category of skills also differ by age,
gender, and maternal education level. Children who are more likely to be proficient across all four
categories of school readiness skills tend to be older, female, and have mothers with post-high school
education.
Exhibit 24: School Readiness Distribution by Neighborhood Areas, 2009
59
Applied Survey Research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School
District and First 5 San Francisco,” San Francisco, 2010..
24
School readiness levels also vary across neighborhoods in San Francisco. Using students’ home address,
researchers found that the South of Market/Mission Dolores/Treasure Island areas had the highest
percentage of students with readiness needs in all four categories of school readiness skills (referred to as
“Readiness Needs” in the table below). In contrast, the Sunset neighborhood had the highest percentage
of kindergarteners who are proficient across all four categories of skills yet the lowest percentage of
students who are socially proficient. Bayview/Hunter’s Point had the lowest percentage of kindergarteners
who were academically proficient. 60 Exhibit 25: School Readiness Distribution by Neighborhood Areas, 2009 Neighborhood(s) South of Market / Mission / Dolores / Treasure Island Potrero Hill / Mission / Bernal Heights Bayview Hunters Point Visitacion Valley Civic Center / Tenderloin / Nob Hill / Russian Hill / Marina / Cow Hollow / North Beach Inner Sunset Western Addition / Haight Ashbury / Cole Valley Excelsior / OMI Inner Richmond / Outer Richmond Duboce / Castro / Noe Valley / West Portal / Twin Peaks / Glen Park Parkside / Outer Sunset / Lake Merced Sample Size Readiness Academically Socially Needs Proficient Proficient Proficient Across Blocks Total 29 37.9% 17.2 31% 13.8% 100% 112 15.2% 11.9% 20.3% 47.5% 100% 59 20.3% 11.9% 20.3% 47.5% 100% 51 15.7% 13.7% 17.6% 52.9% 100% 60 16.7% 15% 15% 53.3% 100% 63 6.3% 17.5% 6.3% 69.8% 100% 29 6.9% 17.2% 10.3% 65.5% 100% 101 5.9% 16.8% 12.9% 64.4% 100% 67 4.5% 16.4% 10.4% 68.7% 100% 44 4.5% 18.2% 15.9% 61.4% 100% 60 3.3% 26.7% 11.7% 58.3% 100% Source: SFUSD data; Kindergarten Observation Form, 2009
Note: “Readiness Needs” students are significantly behind their peers across 23 of the 24 individual readiness skills. “Academically Proficient” students
are proficient in their academic, self-care, and motor skills but are not as prepared in social-emotional skills. “Socially Proficient” students are solid on
their social-emotional skills but not as prepared academically. “Proficient Across Blocks” students are proficient in all four school readiness categories,
also referred to as the Basic Building Blocks of readiness. Source: SFUSD data; Kindergarten Observation Form, 2009.
Kindergarteners who are “least prepared” for school are more likely to come from families earning less than
$32,000 annually than other students. The families of these Kindergarteners also tend to read to their
children less frequently than other students. These students are also most likely to have special needs and
spend more time in front of a screen each day. 61 Children who attended preschool in San Francisco scored
higher in two sets of school readiness skill—social expression and academic—than their peers who did not
attend preschool. The study also found that higher school readiness scores were associated with the
following:
 Being read to;
 Having parents who reported higher levels of social support and coping; and
60
Applied Survey Research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School
District and First 5 San Francisco,” San Francisco, 2010..
61
Ibid.
25

Greater use of local resources such as family resource centers, libraries, parks, and museums.
The study suggests what other research has indicated: the more learning opportunities families can
provide for their children both inside and outside the home, the more ready their children will be for
school. 62 About 92 percent of children age five and under in San Francisco are read to regularly, which is
higher than the statewide average of 86 percent. Research indicates that young children who are read to
regularly “develop better early literacy skills, are better readers when they reach elementary school, and are
more likely to succeed in school.” Only 40 percent of children in “very low income families” are read to
regularly compared to 93 percent of children in “low-income families” and 98 percent in “self-sufficient
families.” 63
III. Health and Wellness Physical Health
Overall, many of San Francisco’s youngest children experience good health. San Francisco’s infant
mortality rate has remained at about 3.6 percent since 2001. 64 In 2009, seven percent of infants born were
at low birth weight, defined as less than 2,500 grams, which is associated with greater risk for physical and
developmental problems. 65 The infant mortality rate for African Americans has been about twice as high as
the rate for Whites for about a decade. In 2009, about 13 percent of African American infants and 12
percent of multi-racial infants were born at low birth weight, compared to eight percent of Asian/Pacific
Islander, seven percent of Latino, and six percent of White infants. 66 In 2007, 87 percent of parents of
children age five and under rated their children’s health as “excellent” or “very good,” which is higher than
the statewide average of 77 percent. However, only 23 percent of parents of children under age five who
were “very low income” rated their child’s health as “excellent” or “very good.” 67
One area of concern is related to healthy weight. Data on SFUSD kindergarteners’ body mass index in
recent years indicates that boys are facing more health concerns related to weight than girls. The
proportion of SFUSD kindergarten girls with a “healthy weight” increased from 53 percent to 60 percent
between 2007 and 2009, while the percentage for boys fell from 62 percent to 54 percent. The proportion
of “overweight” girls decreased from 18 percent to 12 percent, while the proportion of “overweight” boys
increased from 20 percent to 25 percent. 68 Local health data also demonstrates a disparity along
race/ethnic lines in the number of obese children. While nine percent of Asian children ages zero to five
62
Ibid.
Based on 2007 data from the California Health Interview Survey. “Read to regularly” is defined as children who are read to three or more
days per week, according to their parents. “Very low income” is defined as earning between 0-150 percent of the federal poverty level, “lowincome” is defined as earning between 150-300 percent of the federal poverty level, and “self-sufficient” is defined as earning 300 percent of
the federal poverty level or more. First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San
Francisco, 2010.
64
Definition: Number of deaths of children under one year of age per 1,000 live births. (Department of Health Services, Center for Health
Statistics, Vital Statistics Section, “CD-Rom Public Use Birth and Death Files,” accessed January 18, 2011, http://www.kidsdata.org. California
Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Section, “CD-Rom Public Use Death Files; State of California,
Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050,” accessed June 24, 2009,
http://www.dof.ca.gov.)
65
California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Section, “CD-Rom Public Use Birth Files,” accessed
January 18, 2011, http://www.kidsdata.org.
66
Data for Native American infants born at low birth weight was not available. Definition: Percentage of infants born at low birth weight,
which is defined as less than 2,500 grams, by race/ethnicity. Ibid.
67
Based on 2007 data from the California Health Interview Survey. “Very low income” is defined as earning between 0-150 percent of the
federal poverty level. First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010.
68
The body mass index guidelines by age and sex used are from the Center for Disease Control. “Healthy weight” is defined as the 5th
percentile to less than the 85th percentile, and “overweight” is defined as the 95th percentile or more. Applied Survey Research
commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School District and First 5 San Francisco,”
San Francisco, 2010.
63
26
were obese, higher rates of obesity were found among White (13 percent), African American (14 percent),
and Latino (16 percent) children. 69
Physical Activity
While many families are utilizing San Francisco’s parks, many parents and community members who
attended DCYF’s community input sessions expressed a need for more safe open spaces, recreational
spaces, green environments, and affordable programs that promote physical activity among children and
their families. San Francisco residents with children ages five or younger are the most likely frequent
visitors to City parks, with 59 percent saying they did so at least once a week and 27 percent saying they
visited at least once a month (for a total of 85 percent visiting frequently). 70 Compared to parents
statewide, San Francisco parents appear to be more regular visitors of parks or outdoor open spaces. In
2007, 55 percent of parents of children age five and under regularly took their children to a park at least 10
days a month, 41 percent took their children between one and nine days a month, and four percent never
take their children to a park. White parents were much more likely to regularly take their child to a park
than Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander and parents of other racial/ethnic backgrounds. 71 On average SFUSD
Kindergarteners are exposed to 2.3 hours of television, video games, or computer games per day, which is
below the national average of 4.6 hours per day. 72
Mental Health
The need for early childhood mental health supports was raised in DCYF community and service provider
input sessions. Particular concern was expressed for young children in households experiencing domestic
violence; there is an underlying concern that children may be at risk for abuse, neglect, or harm by their
families. As a representative from one parent-run advocacy organization stated, “Children are often
exposed to violent environments and this has a detrimental impact on the mental health of children.”
Some citywide service providers suggested the need for greater outreach to parents to make them aware
that referral services and therapeutic play groups are available for their young children. They also asserted
a need for parent education on how best to meet their children’s mental health needs.
Data on the mental health need of children ages zero to five is not readily available; however data from a
city-funded effort to provide consultation and training to caregivers and service providers who work with
young children provides some insight into the mental health needs of young children. The Early Childhood
Mental Health Consultation Initiative (ECMHCI) is a partnership between the San Francisco Human Services
Agency, DCYF, First 5 San Francisco, the Department of Public Health-Community Behavioral Health
Services, and a number of community programs. Through the program, mental health professionals
provide consultation, training, and support to children, parents, and staff in the settings in which young
children and their families receive care and services. ECMHCI serves young children in child care programs,
family resource centers, permanent supportive housing programs, and homeless/domestic violence
shelters. In the first half of 2009-2010, about 6,600 children between the ages zero and five, 1,400 service
providers, and 4,000 parents/caregivers and family members were served through the initiative. About 36
69
This data is collected for primarily low-income, at-risk children in medical offices/clinics and recorded on a state form. Obese is defined as
equal to our greater than 95th percentile for weight for length for children under two years of age and body mass index for children ages two
and up. California Department of Health Care Services, “2009 Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance, San Francisco, Growth Indicators by
Race/Ethnicity and Age – Children Aged <5 years,” accessed April 2011,
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/chdp/Documents/PedNSS/2009/16B0to5.pdf.
70
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
71
Based on 2007 data from the California Health Interview Survey and are based on parent reports. “Very low income” is defined as earning
between 0-150 percent of the federal poverty level, “low-income” is defined as earning between 150-300 percent of the federal poverty level,
and “self-sufficient” is defined as earning 300 percent of the federal poverty level or more. First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report
on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010.
72
Applied Survey Research commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School
District and First 5 San Francisco,” San Francisco, 2010.
27
percent of the children participating in the initiative were Asian, 26 percent Latino, 15 percent African
American, 11 percent White, nine percent multi-racial, and two percent Pacific Islander. 73 An evaluation of
the initiative found that in 2006, the three most prevalent issues among preschool-age children who were
assessed as a part of the initiative were aggression (11 percent), communication delays (10 percent), and
attention problems (10 percent). The evaluation also found that mental health consultants estimated that
149 children (four percent) showed symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which research has
shown can have a significant negative impact on early development. 74 The chart below lists some of the
other needs identified for participating children.
Exhibit 26: Needs of Preschool‐Aged Children Participating in the ECMHCI (N=3,611) Aggressive problems
11% (411 children)
Communication delay
10% (352 children)
Attention problems
10% (353 children)
Anxiety related problems
7% (242 children)
Depression related problems
5% (168 children)
Issues related to attachment
5% (166 children)
PTSD related symptoms
4% (149 children)
Motor delay
4% (155 children)
Cognitive delay
Other problems
Autistic spectrum/pervasive development disorder
3% (111 children)
2% (63 children)
1% (53 children)
Health and Wellness Services
In 2007, almost all children age five and under in San Francisco had health insurance coverage, which is a
substantially higher proportion than their peers’ statewide average of 43 percent. 75 This trend was echoed
in a study of a representative sample of kindergartners enrolled in SFUSD in the Fall of 2009 which
indicated that 98 percent of students had a regular doctor and 86 percent had a regular dentist. Access to
a medical health provider did not appear to be impacted by family income, although children from
economically disadvantaged families were less likely to have a regular dentist. According to parent selfreports, among 2009 SFUSD kindergarteners, about 80 percent had received medical screenings and dental
screenings and only 20 percent had received developmental screenings. Children from economically
disadvantaged households were less likely to have received a medical or developmental screening than
children from higher income households. Also, kindergarteners who were English learners were less likely
73
S.F. Department of Public Health, Community Behavioral Health Services, data obtained via email from First 5 San Francisco, April 14, 2011.
Akiko Lipton, Tom Bleeker and Deborah Sherwood, CBHS Research, Evaluation, and Quality Management, “San Francisco Early Childhood
Mental Health Consultation Initiative, 2006-2008 Evaluation Report,” San Francisco, 2009.
75
First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” San Francisco, 2010.
74
28
to have received a medical screening, but more likely to have received a developmental screening. 76
During DCYF’s community input sessions, parents and community leaders emphasized the importance of
health insurance programs for young children and
particularly those with special needs.
Children with Special Health Care Needs
Issues of insurance coverage, access to needed
support and quality of health care were raised as
particular concerns for children with special health
care needs during community input sessions.
Capturing a concern raised by many others, one
citywide service provider shared that children with
special needs may be underinsured and unable to
“access therapy and equipment for [their] special
needs.” As another provider stated, “All therapies
must go through insurance first and insurance
companies (are) not even responding…”
“Healthcare reform [in San Francisco]…is okay in some ways because of support for kids, but they may be underinsured [which] can impact access to therapies, equipment.” – Service Provider IV. Violence Violence and crime in the community and in homes remains a concern, according to residents and parents
participating in community input sessions. Participants voiced a need to identify and support families at
risk for potential child neglect and abuse and exposed to violence. Some citywide service providers
identified the need to increase mental health services for young children who are impacted by violence.
Many parents and community members expressed a need for safe spaces outside of the home for young
children to participate in recreation activities and interact with others. “[We need] a place for our younger
kids, not just five and up. We don’t want to keep our young ones [just] in the house because they can’t go
to programs the older ones go to,” explained one Bayview/Hunters Point parent. Another parent described
the local Head Start as a real asset to young children in neighborhoods experiencing violence:
“If Head Start had not come to Hunter’s Point, my child would still be in my house until the
legal age he had to enter school by law. Thanks to Head Start coming here, a very
dangerous neighborhood where they [commit] crimes in daylight, [we have a program]
taking care of our children.”
City officials estimate that between 5,000 and 11,000 children and youth under age 18 are exposed to
domestic violence each year in San Francisco. 77 According to SafeStart, a collaborative that serves families
with children ages zero to six who have been exposed or are at risk of exposure to domestic and
community violence, their family advocates provided intensive case management to approximately 200
families last year, in four different languages (Cantonese, English, Mandarin and Spanish). Also within the
past year, SafeStart reached more than 300 parents throughout the community to teach them about the
effects of violence exposure on young children. 78
76
Economically disadvantaged is defined as families who reported they earned less than $32,000 per year. Applied Survey Research
commissioned by First 5 San Francisco, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School District and First 5 San Francisco,”
San Francisco, 2010.
77
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
78
SafeStart, San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center service data, email correspondence, March 7, 2011.
29
Elementary School and Middle School Age
(ages 6 to 13)
Key Findings 
San Francisco has an estimated 45,000 children and youth ages 6-13 as of 2009, which
accounts for six percent of the city’s population.

Academic achievement gap persists among public school students along lines of
race/ethnicity and English language fluency. Truancy rates are higher among elementary
schools than middle schools. Most families appear satisfied with their child’s public school
but concerns continue to exist with the public school system.

Afterschool, summer, and extracurricular programs are high priorities for families, school
leaders, service providers, and community members. About 94 percent of all youth have
access to afterschool programs, although many families voiced need for extended program
hours and concerns exist about access for children with special needs. Most stakeholders
appear satisfied with the quality of programming.

About 62 percent of all youth have access to summer programming, leaving about 20,000
youth without a summer programming option. Stakeholders voiced a need for affordable
summer options and extended program hours to meet the needs of working families.

About 11 percent of public school parents expressed an unmet need for extracurricular
activities.

Parents and school leaders expressed strong preferences for the types of activities
afterschool, summer and extracurricular programs should offer which included academic
support, arts, physical recreation, and sports.

Stakeholders expressed a need for open spaces and parks for youth to participate in physical
fitness and sports activities and safe places free from neighborhood violence.

Peer to peer relationships, particularly the prevalence of harassment and bullying, remain a
concern, and stakeholders expressed a need for mental health counseling for youth.
I. Demographics 2009 estimates indicated there were 44,867 youth ages 6-13 in San Francisco. They account for six percent
of the city’s total population and 38 percent of the city’s population under age 18. 79 About 53 percent of
these youth are male. The largest proportions are Asian/Pacific Islander (34 percent), followed by White (30
percent), Latino (20 percent), African American (eight percent), and other racial/ethnic groups (eight
percent).
79
Human Services Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011.
30
Exhibit 27: Race/Ethnicity of Children Ages 6‐13 in San Francisco, 2009 Children Ages 6‐13 White African American Asian/Pacific Islander Latino Native American Other TOTAL n 13,591 3,608 15,300 8,996 0 3,372 44,867 % 30% 8% 34% 20% 0% 8% 100% Total Population (adults and children) n % 367,765 45% 47,719 6% 253,817 31% 117,467 14% 1,934 0.2% 26,873 3% 815,575 100% Source: Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. Almost 94 percent of these youth are US citizens, and all report speaking at least some English with only six
percent reporting they do not speak English well.
Exhibit 28: Citizenship Status of Children Ages 6‐13, 2009 Children Ages 6‐13 Citizen Born as citizen Born abroad of American parents Naturalized Not a citizen TOTAL n 42,809 % 95% Total Population (adults and children) n % 719,754 88% 41,383 92% 528,479 65% 951 2% 12,987 2% 475 1% 178,288 22% 2,058 44,867 5% 100% 95,821 815,575 12% 100% Source: Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. Exhibit 29: English Speaking Ability, 2009 Children ages 6‐13 Total City Population (Adults and Children) N/A (Blank) 0 Does not speak English 0 Yes, speaks only English 23,262 Yes, speaks very well 16,079 Yes, speaks well 2,851 Yes, but not well 2,675 Total 44,867 41,868 40,294 437,739 162,568 65,038 68,068 815,575 Source: Human Services Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. Since 2005, an average of 459 youth ages six to 13 were victims in substantiated child abuse incidents each
year. In 2009, youth ages six to 13 represented about 41 percent of all substantiated cases in San
Francisco. 80 Among substantiated cases involving youth ages six to 15, about a third were African
American, about a third were Latino, and about 10 percent were White. Among Asian and Pacific Islanders,
a higher proportion of cases existed among youth ages one to five (19 percent) than youth ages six to 10
80
Child welfare statistics were only available for youth up to age 17. On substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect are cited here, not
total reported cases. Needell, B., et. al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California,” 2009, accessed January 18, 2011, University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research, http://cssr.brekeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
31
(15 percent). About 49 percent of the victims in substantiated cases for youth ages six to 10 were female
and about 55 percent of the cases for youth ages 11 to 15 were female. 81
The number of youth ages six to13 in the foster care system has dropped steadily since 1998, from 1,432
youth to 478 youth in 2010. Mirroring the demographics of youth throughout the county foster care
system, 63 percent of youth ages 6-13 in foster care were African American. Latino youth compose the
next largest group at 19 percent. About 43 percent of youth of this age in foster care are female. 82
II. School Only two percent of youth (n=797) ages 6-13 in San Francisco are not enrolled in school. Almost threequarters (72 percent) of these youth are enrolled in public school and 26 percent (n=11,827) are enrolled in
private school. 83 A 2009 survey of San Francisco residents found that parents of children between the ages
of six and 13 are more likely to send their children to public school than are those with children in the
upper grades. 84
Public School Students
There are 36,314 students enrolled in SFUSD’s 65 elementary, 13 middle, and eight alternatively configured
schools. Enrollment by grade is currently largest in Kindergarten and lowest in 6th grade, with more than
1,200 fewer 6th grade students than Kindergarten students. There are also 835 youth enrolled in three
charter schools that serve K-8 students. 85
SFUSD’s K-5 population consists of 28 percent Chinese students, followed by Latino (26 percent), White (15
percent), and African American (11 percent) students. In middle school, a higher proportion of school
students are Chinese (37 percent), with 23 percent Latino, and nine percent White and nine percent African
American students. 86
In 2009-2010, more than one in ten children enrolled as new kindergarteners in SFUSD were classified as
English Learners (ELs), which indicates a child has limited fluency in English. This number increased
significantly in the first and second grades, with almost half of students designated as English learners. 87
The proportion of English learners generally decreases in each subsequent grade, from 43 percent of third
graders to 19 percent of 8th graders. Accordingly, a higher proportion of elementary students (34 percent)
are designated as English learners than students in middle schools (22 percent). However, there is
considerable variation by school. For example, 63 percent of students at Sanchez Elementary School and
60 percent at Chavez Elementary School are designated ELs, while less than five percent of students at
Malcolm X Academy are ELs. 88 The most prominent primary languages among SFUSD EL kindergarteners
81
Ethnic and gender breakdowns of this data were only available for certain age categories: under 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and 16 to 17. Only
substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect are cited here, not total reported cases. Ibid.
82
Center for Social Services Research, University of California-Berkeley, “Child Welfare Database Reporting System,” accessed February 9,
2011, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/.
83
Human Services Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Microfiles, San Francisco, 2011.
84
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
85
San Francisco Unified School District, “School Site List and Summary, October 2010,” accessed December 2, 2010,
http://orb.sfusd.edu/schmisc/ssls/SFUSD_SSLS.pdf.
86
K-8 schools are not included in this break down of elementary and middle school racial/ethnic composition, based on SFUSD’s reporting.
The nine K-8 or gr. 4-8 schools are included in the district’s “Alternatively Configured Schools” category, along with one high school. Ibid.
87
Data is for 2009-10. Ibid.
88
K-8 schools are not included in this break down of elementary and middle school racial/ethnic composition, based on SFUSD’s reporting.
The nine K-8 or gr. 4-8 schools are included in the district’s “Alternatively Configured Schools” category, along with one high school. Ibid.
32
are Spanish and Cantonese, with smaller numbers of students speaking Vietnamese, Tagalog, and
Mandarin. 89
Within the school district, about 10 percent of K-5 students and about 12 percent of middle school
students are classified as special education students. 90 Across all grade levels in the district, African
American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students appear to be overrepresented in the special education
population. 91 Nearly 46 percent of the district’s K-5 students qualify for free lunch and 15 percent qualify
for a reduced-priced lunch based on family income level, compared to 50 percent of middle school
students who qualify for a free lunch and 18 percent that qualify for a reduced-price lunch. 92
Academic Achievement
Academic achievement of SFUSD students has been increasing over the years, although there are still
substantial differences in academic performance based on race/ethnicity and English language fluency.
The graphic below shows the growth in the percent of all 8th grade students scoring as “Advanced” in the
state standardized tests, California Standards Tests (CSTs), for English Language Arts over the last three
years. 93
Percent of Testing Scores
Exhibit 30: SFUSD California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Grade 8 English‐Language Arts Scores, 2008‐2010 24%
28%
27%
25%
34%
24%
Far below
Below basic
26%
27%
Basic
24%
13%
12%
10%
8%
10%
8%
2008
2009
2010
Proficient
Advanced
Test Year
Source: California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability, and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test
Results,” accessed August 16, 2010, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
Looking at test scores by race/ethnicity, Chinese and White students are generally performing above the
district average while significant numbers of African American, Latino, and Filipino students are performing
89
First 5 San Francisco, “First Steps: A Data Report on the Status of San Francisco’s Young Children,” analysis of “California Health Interview
Survey, 2007,” San Francisco, 2010, 13.
90
California Department of Education, Special Education Division, “Special Education Enrollment by Age and Grade - 3868478 - San Francisco
Unified,” Reporting Cycle: December 1, 2009; accessed January 13, 2011,
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SpecEd3c.asp?Disttype=S&cSelect=3868478-SAN^FRANCISCO^UNIFIED&cChoice=SpecEd3c&cYear=2009-10&cLevel=Dist&ReptCycle=December.
91
This conclusion is based on the number of students in each race/ethnic group that are classified as special education. In 2009-10, 1,484
African American, 85 Pacific Islander, and 1,991 Latino students were designated as special education students. Ibid.
92
Data for 2008-2009. San Francisco Unified School District, “Elementary K-5 Schools Summary,” in “SFUSD District and School Profiles 20082009,” accessed January 13, 2011, http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-104.htm ; San Francisco Unified School District, “Middle Schools
Summary,” in “SFUSD District and School Profiles 2008-2009,” accessed January 13, 2011, http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-107.htm.
93
California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test Results,” accessed August 16, 2010,
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
33
below the district average. For example, 2010 Mathematics test scores for students in Grade 3 reveal that
35 percent of African American students, 27 percent of Latino students and 23 percent of Pacific Islander
scored “Below Basic” or “Far Below Basic,” while only four percent of Asian students and eight percent of
White students had scores at this below-proficient level.
Percent of Testing Scores
Exhibit 31: SFUSD California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Grade 3 Mathematics Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2008‐2010 Below Basic
19%
Far Below Basic
25%
16%
21%
7%
4%
10%
8%
8%
hi
te
Pa
Na
tiv
W
er
nd
ct
i fi
cI
sla
Fi
La
tin
o
lip
in
o
ia
n
As
1%
e
Am
er
ic
an
ica
n
1%
Am
er
ge
Af
ric
an
tA
ve
ra
Di
st
ric
7%
6%
3%
Source: California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability, and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test Results,” accessed
August 16, 2010, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
These disparities along lines of race/ethnicity persist throughout the grades. The chart below outlines the
achievement gap for 8th grade students. The Algebra I scores for students in Grade 8 show that 58 percent
of African American students, 57 percent of Latino students and 64 percent of Pacific Islander students
scored “Below Basic” or “Far Below Basic,” while only eight percent of Asian students and 16 percent of
White students had scores at this below-proficient level.
Percent of Testing Scores
Exhibit 32: SFUSD California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Grade 8 Algebra 1 Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2010 36%
38%
Below Basic
49%
Far Below Basic
50%
34%
22%
19%
7%
15%
5%
0%
African
Native
American American
Asian
11%
Filipino
Latino
Pactific
Islander
White
Source: California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability, and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test Results,” accessed
August 16, 2010, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
34
There are also disparities in achievement based on language fluency. Among 3rd grade English Learner
students, 59 percent scored “Below Basic” or “Far Below Basic” on the 2010 English-Language Arts CST
exam while only 35 percent of their English-fluent peers’ scores failed to meet proficiency in this area.
Percent of Testing Scores
Exhibit 33: SFUSD California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Grade 3 English Language Arts Scores by English Fluency, 2010 35%
Below Basic
Far Below Basic
25%
24%
10%
English Learner
Fluent
Source: California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability, and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test
Results,” accessed August 16, 2010, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.
At DCYF community input sessions, parents, community members, and service providers identified a need
for elementary and middle school-age children to have access to art programming as a component of a
comprehensive education and to learn about college. There are a variety of existing programs offered by
SFUSD to prepare students for college including a new program called Kindergarten to College, which is a
college savings and financial literacy program developed in partnership with the City. In addition,
currently, through the SF Promise program all SFUSD 7th graders take the ACT Explore test, which is
designed to help students explore a broad range of options for their future academic and career options. 94
SF Promise also worked with City College of San Francisco to develop the STEPS career exploration
curriculum, which is integrated into the SFUSD 7th and 8th grade English Language Arts curriculum.
Truancy, Chronic Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism, and Suspension
Truancy is defined by the California Department of Education as: “Absent from school without a valid
excuse three full days or tardy or absent more than any 30-minute period during the school day on three
occasions in one school year.” Chronic truancy was defined by the California Department of Education in
2009-2010 as: “Absent from school without a valid excuse for 20 or more days in one school year,” while
chronic absence is defined as: “Missing 10 percent or more of school over an academic year for any reason
(excused or unexcused).” During the 2009-2010 school year, SFUSD’s overall truancy rate (weighted by
number of students at each grade level) was 24 percent, which is slightly lower than the statewide rate of
28 percent. 95
Based on the definitions above, San Francisco’s public elementary schools tend to have a higher rate of
truancy (28 percent) than public middle schools (21 percent). Truancy rates at both levels vary greatly
94
SF Promise is a partnership between SFUSD, San Francisco State University and the City of San Francisco to help ensure SFUSD students –
starting in the 7th grade – have the support they need to eventually enroll and succeed in college. www.SanFranciscoPromise.org.
95
San Francisco Unified School District, Student Support Services, Claudia Anderson, email correspondence, April 15, 2011.
35
among individual schools. 96 Chronic truancy and chronic absenteeism are also more prevalent at the
elementary school level than middle school level. In 2009-2010, 328 elementary school students were
chronically truant, compared to 123 middle school students and 87 students in kindergarten-8th Grade
schools. While the number of chronically truant students has decreased at the elementary, middle, and
alternatively configured (K-8) public schools since 2008-2009, there are still concerns with the number of
schools experiencing chronic absenteeism and the extent of some students’ absenteeism. 97
Incidences of public school suspension and expulsion vary by school and school level. In the 2009-2010
school year, 667 elementary and middle school students were suspended. While some schools reported no
suspensions, one school accounted for about 30 percent of all reported suspensions, and seven other
schools reported more than 20 throughout the year. In contrast, each middle school reported at least 10
suspensions for a total of 955 suspensions across all schools, with four middle schools reporting more than
100 suspensions per year. In 2009-2010, there were five middle school expulsions across the district, and
one middle grade K-8 student. 98
School Safety, Climate, and Staff
At DCYF’s community input sessions, parents and service providers expressed concerns about safety in and
around schools. In 2008, only about half (52 percent) of SFUSD 5th graders reported they felt safe at school
all of the time, which reflects a one percentage point increase from 2006. 99 School safety trends among
middle school students have also improved slightly since 1997. Fewer middle school students reported
missing school because they felt they would be unsafe on their way to or from school—a drop from 15
percent in 1997 to 10 percent in 2009, and the percentage of students who were threatened or injured with
a weapon on school property also decreased from 11 percent in 2003 to six percent in 2009. In 2009, about
13 percent of middle school students reported they had decided not to go to school because they felt they
would be unsafe at school—a trend that has remained relatively constant since 1997. There has been no
change in the percent of students that were in a physical fight on school property, which has remained at
about 24 percent since 2003, and minimal change in the 34 percent who reported being in a physical fight
in any location. 100
Peer to peer relationships at both the elementary and middle school level are concerning. Parents and
community members voiced a need for positive opportunities for children of this age to interact with each
other through activities such as mentoring and other relationship building activities. Survey data echo
these concerns. In 2010, 48 percent of SFUSD 5th graders and 49 percent of 8th graders reported that
students at their school respect each other. 101 About 34 percent of SFUSD middle school students reported
they were harassed by a racial or ethnic slur. In addition, more than 82 percent of middle school students
reported they have heard other students make harassing remarks based on sexual orientation, and many
students (43 percent) reported never hearing school staff stop others from making such remarks. Almost
30 percent of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer (LGBTQ) middle school students reported
96
These averages do not include alternatively configured schools that serve K-8 or Gr. 4-8 students. The truancy rate measures the
percentage of students who have missed class without an excuse more than three times during the school year. California Department of
Education, Safe & Healthy Kids Program Office, “San Francisco Unified Expulsion, Suspension, and Truancy Information for 2009-10,” accessed
January 13, 2011, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Expulsion/ExpReports/DistrictExp.aspx?cYear=200910&cChoice=DstExp1&cCounty=38&cNumber=3868478&cName=San+Francisco+Unified.
97
San Francisco Unified School District, “Stay in School Coalition Report” October 2010, San Francisco.
98
San Francisco Unified School District, Student Support Services, Claudia Anderson, email correspondence, April 15, 2011.
99
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” San Francisco, 2007. California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation
Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 2008-2009, Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2010.
100
San Francisco Unified School District, “San Francisco Unified School District Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) & National
Survey Results: 1997-2007,” San Francisco, 2008.
101
San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey 2010, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
36
seriously considering suicide, compared to 22 percent of all middle school students. 102 SFUSD staff also
voiced concerns about cyber-bullying becoming more prevalent among SFUSD students.
In 2010, 86 percent of 5th graders reported that their teachers and the other school staff care about all the
students at their school and 77 percent of 8th graders reported that their teachers and the other school staff
care about the success of all the students at their school. 103 In addition, about 50 percent of SFUSD middle
school students reported that they felt highly confident that adults at their school had high expectations
for them—which is slightly above the state average of 46 percent. Eighty-four percent of 5th graders and
61 percent of 8th graders reported that their teachers offer them different opportunities to demonstrate
learning besides tests and quizzes. Almost all (93 percent) of 5th graders reported that their teachers help
them see the importance of what they are learning at school, and 64 percent of 9th graders reported that
their courses are engaging and challenging. 104
Regarding youth development assets, only about 13 percent of SFUSD middle school students report they
experience “opportunities for meaningful participation,” such as deciding on class activities, helping other
people, and engaging in clubs, sports teams or other activities, which is slightly lower than the state
average (16 percent). 105
Student and Parent Satisfaction
Most SFUSD students appear to like their school. In 2010, seventy-six percent of SFUSD 5th graders
reported that they loved their school, and 65 percent of 8th graders reported that they like their school and
would recommend it to other students. Almost 80 percent of 5th graders and 49 percent of 8th graders
reported that what they are learning in school is interesting and fun. 106
Surveys of family members indicate that many parents are satisfied with their child’s public school, yet
parents and caregivers at DCYF community input sessions voiced some concerns with the public school
system as a whole. A 2010survey of SFUSD family members found that 94 percent of elementary school
and 86 percent of middle school respondents would recommend their school to other parents, 90 percent
of elementary school and 79 percent of middle school respondents thought their school offers a variety of
high-quality courses and activities during the school day that their child enjoys, and 91 percent of
elementary school and 79 percent of middle school respondents felt that families are informed, included,
and involved as partners and decision makers in the education of their children. 107 However, parents and
caregivers at DCYF community input sessions expressed concerns with the school district’s school
assignment system, turnover of teaching staff at schools, and the impact of budget cuts on the quality of
educational offering, including arts, enrichment activities, and field trips. Many of the concerns with the
school assignment system related to the long commutes that some students must take to attend their
assigned schools. Many expressed that long bus rides to and from school inhibit children’s ability to
participate in out of school activities or that the distance from home to school creates transportation
challenges for families.
102
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
103
San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey 2010, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
104
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
105
Ibid.
106
San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey 2010, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
107
San Francisco Unified School District, “Family Satisfaction Survey 2010, Elementary K-5 Schools Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
San Francisco Unified School District, “Family Satisfaction Survey 2010, Middle Schools Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
37
III. Out of School Time Activities Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input sessions stated that out of
school time programs are a priority for children, youth, and their families. Some parents voiced the
important role these programs play in supporting their children’s academic success and some described
how these programs keep children safe while their parents work. As one participant from the Western
Addition stated, “Afterschool programs with academic enrichment keep children off the streets and
engage their minds.”
In 2010, most SFUSD school staff and families of students stated that their schools offer youth good out of
school time options. Eighty-three percent of elementary school staff, 86 percent of middle school staff, 73
percent of alternatively configured school staff, and 80 percent of Child Development Program staff
reported that their school provides high quality extracurricular and/or afterschool programs. 108 More than
three-quarters of families at SFUSD elementary schools, middle schools, and alternatively configured
schools reported that their school provides high quality extracurricular and/or afterschool programs. 109
This appears to be an improvement from a 2008 survey of K-8 parents ,in which about 60 percent of
parents reported that it was somewhat or very difficult to find afterschool activities that met their needs,
with parents of children in grades K-2, African American youth, and youth whose first language is Chinese
reporting the highest rates of difficulty. 110 Some parents and service providers at DCYF community input
sessions voiced concerns about access to out of school time programs for children with special needs.
About 16 percent of elementary and middle school principals surveyed indicated that afterschool
providers’ inability to serve youth with special needs was a challenge to meeting the needs of the families
they serve. 111 Although not specific to out of school time programs, nine percent of service providers
surveyed by DCYF reported that citywide service providers’ inability to serve youth with special needs was
a barrier to meeting families’ needs in general. 112
A 2010 survey of students found that about 80 percent of SFUSD 5th graders and 76 percent of 8th graders
reported that they know about afterschool and other extracurricular activities that are offered at their
school. 113
Types of Out of School Time Programming
There are many different types of activities that youth participate in during the hours after school and
when school is not in session. Comprehensive afterschool programs are structured programs for
elementary and/or middle school youth that are offered for at least two hours per day for at least three
days a week during the hours after school on an ongoing basis during the school year. These programs
typically offer a blend of academic support, recreation, and enrichment activities. Comprehensive summer
programs are similar to comprehensive afterschool programs in terms of the types of activities offered and
serving youth for at least three days a week on an ongoing basis. Many youth also participate in
extracurricular activities, which are defined as any other activity that takes place during the non-school
hours and/or non-school days. Extracurricular activities are either offered on a short-term basis or less than
three days per week. Extracurricular activities also typically offer just one type of activity—such as piano
108
San Francisco Unified School District, “Staff Satisfaction Survey 2010, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
San Francisco Unified School District, “Family Satisfaction Survey 2010, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
110
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco-, 2009.
111
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
112
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
113
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
109
38
lessons, a journalism club, or a sports team—rather than a variety of enrichment, recreation, and academic
support activities.
Comprehensive Afterschool Programs during the School Year
Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input sessions articulated the
importance of afterschool programs for children and youth. Additionally, 65 percent of public elementary
school principals and 57 percent of public middle school principals ranked finding afterschool programs as
the most frequently stated need among families. 114
Participation in comprehensive afterschool programs. In 2009-10, citywide estimates indicate that slots
in organized, comprehensive afterschool programs were available for 94 percent of youth (38,298
individuals) who wanted to participate. As discussed later in more detail, not all of the youth and families
accessing existing afterschool programs are fully satisfied with the quality, activities, and hours of
programming offered by their current afterschool program. These programs typically offer a blend of
academic support, recreation, and enrichment activities. Although estimates show the demand for
afterschool programs has increased over the last four years, San Francisco has almost reached its
“afterschool for all” goal through a combination of increases in state and federally funded afterschool
programs, and new strategies to use city funds, and better estimates of private school afterschool
participation. 115 Based on these estimates about 2,600 or six percent of 6-13 year olds who want to
participate in a comprehensive afterschool program do not have access.
Exhibit 34: Changes in Access to Afterschool Programs, 2006‐2010 Source: Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “San Francisco Afterschool for All Initiative, Year End Report
2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
While the hundreds of afterschool programs in San Francisco are operated by a variety of entities, there are
two main types of afterschool programs—those based at school sites and those based at non-school sites.
A survey of more than 1,000 SFUSD K-8 parents illustrated the following trends related to participation in
these types of programs:
114
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
115
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “San Francisco Afterschool for All Initiative, Year End Report 2009-10,” San Francisco,
2010.
39

School-based afterschool programs have lower participation among children in low-income
families, children with “other” ethnicity designation, and children who speak Spanish.

Afterschool programs not on school sites have higher participation among children in low-income
families, African American children, and children who speak a Chinese language.
Exhibit 35: Estimate of Access to Afterschool Programs, 2009‐2010 116 Estimates of Access to Afterschool Programming Total population of youth ages 6‐13 Estimate of children needing formal afterschool 2009‐10 52,726 11,816 Adjusted demand for formal afterschool 40,910 Types of organized afterschool programs Licensed Child Care Centers, serving ages 6‐13c (Not including SFUSD's CDP school‐age licensed slots) Small Family Child Care Home, serving ages 6‐13c Large Family Child Care Home, serving ages 6‐13c Private Schoold (most are not licensed, but we assume 500 slots are which are accounted for in this category) SFUSD ExCEL Programs (ASES/21st Century Community Learning Center funds)e SFUSD Child Development Centerse (1,005 are licensed, but are accounted for in this category) DCYF‐funded programs excluding those captured in the programs listed above: (Includes only OST 3‐5 day grantees and excludes ExCEL and licensed as shown in this row of the table. All DCYF‐funded programs provide for 7,784 slots if funding for ExCEL and licensed slots were included.)f SF Recreation and Parks Departmentg Various agencies (who leverage DCYF funding to serve more youth than their DCYF funding supports)h Total in Organized Afterschool 4,680 1,124 537 13,587 10,450 3,017 2,905 539 1,459 38,298 116
The sources used in the table are as follows:
(a) This number represents the number of K-8 students enrolled in SFUSD according to their California Department of Education CBEDS Oct
2009 count and the number of K-8 students enrolled in private schools in SF according to California Department of Education. San Francisco
Unified School District, “School Site List and Summary, October 2009,” accessed December 2, 2010,
http://orb.sfusd.edu/schmisc/ssls/SFUSD_SSLS.pdf.
(b) 24 percent of K-8 SFUSD parent survey respondents did not need afterschool, which represents an estimated 8,628 students. San
Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” commissioned by Department of Children,
Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009. Although the above survey did not include private school parents, based on DCYF's 2010
analysis of private school afterschool, the number of children in private school who do not need afterschool is estimated at 19 percent of
private school students, or 3,187 students. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Afterschool Programs in Private Schools in
San Francisco,” San Francisco, August 2010.
(c) San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
(d) In 2010, DCYF conducted an analysis of a representative sample of private school afterschool programs from which this estimated data is
based. Based on this research, it is estimated that 81 percent of students enrolled in private school are able to attend on-site afterschool
programs. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Afterschool Programs in Private Schools in San Francisco,” San Francisco,
August 2010.
(e) San Francisco Unified School District data provided via email communications in 2009.
(f) Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, analysis of grantee data, internal data, 2009, unpublished.
(g) SF Recreation & Parks Department data provided via email communications in 2010.
(h) In 2008, DCYF conducted a survey of its grantees to find out how many K-8 youth were served in their program beyond the number of
youth supported through their DCYF grant. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, internal data, 2008, unpublished.
40
Unmet need Percent of Youth Who Want Afterschool Who Have Access 2,612 94% Note: ”Organized afterschool programs” is defined as an afterschool activity that is available for elementary and middle
school-age youth that is offered for at least two hours per day for at least three days a week during the hours after
school on an ongoing basis. “Licensed Child Care” is any program that is licensed by the State of California Community
Care Licensing Division of the State Department of Social Services (ages 6-13) www.ccld.ca.gov
For the sources used in this table, refer to footnote.
Exhibit 36: Participation in Afterschool Programs by Program Type and Race/Ethnicity, 2009 SFUSD Students 49%
43%
41%
44%
42%
42%
40%
36%
34%
School-based
afterschool
27%
19%
17%
African American
Asian
Off-campus
afterschool
17%
White
10%
9%
Latino
Other
No participation
Source: San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of Children, Youth,
and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
The survey also found that many youth who participate in afterschool programs also participate in
extracurricular activities. On average 19 percent of SFUSD students are enrolled in more than one
afterschool activity, and most of those are enrolled in an extracurricular activity and an afterschool
program. 117
About 81 percent of SFUSD K-8 parents whose children attended an afterschool program based at a school
reported the availability of the afterschool program was “very important” in their decision to enroll their
child in the school, while 74 percent reported the quality or reputation of the afterschool program was
“very important.” While there was little variation with subgroups of parents, parents of African American
children appeared to find quality and reputation to be very important and Asian/Asian American parents
viewed availability as more important. 118
Cost and fees of afterschool programs. A survey of K-8 SFUSD parents found that many parents pay fees
for their afterschool programs, especially parents whose children attend programs not on school
campuses. Among parents whose children attend school-based afterschool programs, 49 percent of those
with children in kindergarten through 2nd grade pay a fee, and 28 percent of those with children in grades
3-5 pay a fee. This is likely due to the fact that almost all of SFUSD’s 79 ExCEL elementary and middle
117
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
118
Ibid.
41
school afterschool programs are free of cost. 119 Among parents whose children attend an afterschool
program off-campus, 87 percent of those with children are in kindergarten through 2nd grade pay a fee, and
62 percent those with children in grades 3-5 pay a fee. Very few parents of children in grades 6-8 paid fees.
The survey indicated that the average fee for school-based afterschool was $64/week or $275/month, and
the average fee for an afterschool program off campus was $39/week or $168/month. Across all types of
afterschool activities, 72 percent of parents whose children were currently participating reported that they
would be willing to make a financial donation to the programs. 120
Parent and school staff satisfaction and programmatic preferences. Most parents appear satisfied with
the quality of their child’s afterschool program. A 2009 survey of SFUSD K-8 parents also found that about
94 percent of parents whose children participate in afterschool activities reported that they have observed
that their child has benefited from participation. Most parents reported their child experienced improved
grades/school performance, learned new skills, and met new friends or showed social improvement. The
same survey found that parents’ satisfaction with the quality of afterschool activities was consistently
high—scoring higher than a 3.3 on a 4-point scale for all of the characteristics listed below. 121
Exhibit 37: SFUSD K‐8 Parents Rating of Satisfaction by Afterschool Program Type Program Characteristics Nurturing and caring staff Adequate number of staff Cultural diversity of students Opportunities to meet with staff to discuss child's progress Staff who reflect language and cultural diversity of students Affordability Variety of activities Amount of time provided on most important activities Afterschool Program At School 3.73 3.49 3.65 Afterschool Program Off Campus 3.60 3.44 3.40 3.60 3.60 3.58 3.32 3.63 3.63 3.44 3.45 3.56 3.47 Note: The following were rated on a scale of one to four (highest). N=925.
Source: San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,”
Commissioned by Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009. Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input sessions voiced a desire for
lengthening the hours of operation of afterschool programs both during the week and on weekends. As
one parent living in the Bayview neighborhood stated, “During the week my daughter goes to [her
neighborhood OST program], but on the weekends the club is closed and I don’t want my daughter
hanging outside. They need stuff to do on the weekends or holidays, during the breaks. We don’t have
that.” Almost half of service providers surveyed indicated that families often request extended program
hours, and 30 percent of public elementary school principals cited lack of extended hours as a barrier to
meeting families’ needs. 122
119
SFUSD’s ExCEL afterschool programs are school‐based afterschool programs operated by a community‐based organization on behalf of the SFUSD using state and federal seed grants in addition to other resources. 120
This percentage includes those parents who reported they were already paying fees or making a fiscal donation to their child’s
programming. Ibid.
121
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
122
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010; Department of
Children, Youth, and their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011.
42
Transportation concerns were also raised by both parents at DCYF community input sessions and surveyed
school leaders. More than a third of public elementary school principals indicated that transportation to
and from afterschool programs was a top barrier to meeting families’ needs, and 45 percent of service
providers indicated it as a top barrier for afterschool programs.
School leaders and parents at DCYF community input sessions indicated that afterschool programs should
reinforce what children learn in school and provide academic support activities. Many parents at DCYF
input sessions expressed appreciation for afterschool programs that encourage children to complete their
homework. As one parent explained, “Otherwise, we would get home and it would be 6:30 p.m., and they
wouldn't have opened their packets or books.” Many monolingual parents at DCYF community input
sessions expressed that they rely on afterschool programs to help their children with their school work and
that they would like to see more of such activities in afterschool programs. A survey of public school
parents found that while parents overall did not rank academic support as one of the most important
program characteristics, parents of Latino children did. Parents of Latino children also placed a priority on
help with homework and help with English. 123 Increasing the amount of homework assistance in
afterschool programs was ranked by public school principals as the top request they hear from parents,
with many also indicating families’ interest in more reading, science, and math programming offered. 124
School leaders, parents, and service providers at DCYF community input sessions also indicated that arts
activities were needed in afterschool programs. About 31 percent of service providers reported that
parents requested arts programming and 28 percent of public elementary school principals indicated that
arts were a frequently requested type of afterschool programming. 125
Overall the five most important afterschool program characteristics to SFUSD parents were:





Child's interest or enjoyment in program/activity;
Adequate number of staff;
Hours when child could attend;
Opportunities for child to develop a caring relationship with staff; and
Location of the program in relation to child's school.
The child’s grade level did not appear associated with meaningful differences in parents’ ratings of these
characteristics, yet the race/ethnic group of the child was associated with differences in parents’ ratings. 126
For example, parents of African American children rated characteristics such as the ability to meet with
staff, ability to speak the child’s first language, and cultural diversity higher than parents of all racial/ethnic
groups. In contrast, parents of White children rated characteristics such as opportunities for children to
build relationships with staff, and for parents to be able to meet with staff to discuss children’s progress,
cost, accreditation, and cultural diversity as less important than parents surveyed overall.
Youth satisfaction and programmatic preferences. While there is no single youth satisfaction survey
administered to all youth participating in afterschool programs across San Francisco, both SFUSD’s ExCEL
afterschool program, which served about 10,000 students annually, and DCYF, which provides funding to
nonprofits that collectively served an additional 3,000 youth annually, administer student surveys. Given
their citywide scale, the results of these surveys provide a snapshot of youth satisfaction and programmatic
preferences.
123
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
124
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
125
Ibid; Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
126
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
43
Most students participating in SFUSD’s ExCEL afterschool programs and DCYF-funded afterschool
programs appear to like their programs. About 76 percent of 4th graders and 69 percent of 7th graders in
ExCEL afterschool programs reported that they liked their program and would recommend it to others. 127
Similarly, 84 percent of participants in DCYF-funded out of school time programs reported that they liked
coming to their program. 128 More than 80 percent of both 4th and 7th graders in SFUSD ExCEL programs
reported that their afterschool program is a positive and safe place for learning, and 51 percent of 4th
graders and 55 percent of 7th graders reported that they feel safer in their afterschool program than during
the regular school day. 129 About 85 percent of participants in DCYF-funded programs reported that they
felt safe when they were at their program. In terms of afterschool program staff, 83 percent of 4th graders
and 79 percent of 7th graders in ExCEL programs reported that afterschool staff treats them and all other
students with respect. In DCYF-funded programs, 73 percent of participants on average said an adult in the
program really cares about them. 130
Participants in ExCEL afterschool programs indicated that their favorite activities in their programs are:
sports and games (76 percent of 4th graders and 55 percent of 7th graders, arts activities (42 percent of 4th
graders and 33 percent of 7th graders), life skills such as cooking or bike shop, (41 percent of 4th graders and
40 percent of 7th graders), and technology (30 percent of 4th graders and 35 percent of 7th graders).
Participants also expressed an interest in participating in more of the above mentioned favorite
activities. 131
In terms of youth perceptions about the impact of their afterschool program, an average of 69 percent of
participants in DCYF-funded OST programs reported that their program makes them feel more confident in
their school work and 72 percent reported that the program activities “really make me think.” 132 More than
half of the 7th grade ExCEL participants reported that their afterschool program helps them perform better
during the regular school day and 61 percent said that afterschool makes learning meaningful and joyful.
More than half of ExCEL participants reported they attended the program because their parents want them
to. The next most frequently cited reason for attending among 4th graders was to get help with school
work (39 percent), while among 7th graders having friends attend the program (31 percent) ranked
second. 133
Comprehensive Summer Programs
Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input sessions articulated a need
for more summer programs that are affordable and offer hours that meet the needs of working families.
Participation in Comprehensive Summer Programs. SFUSD’s summer school offerings have declined
over the years due to budget shortages. In summer 2010 and 2011 SFUSD only offered summer school for
students in K-8 if they were receiving special education services, migrant education services, or enrolled in
a court school. SFUSD will offer several academic support programs during the summer of 2011 including
GEAR UP college-preparatory programming and programming at five underperforming schools.
Comprehensive summer programs are similar to comprehensive afterschool programs in that they offer
enrichment, academic support and recreation programs to youth for at least three days a week on an
ongoing basis. Based on citywide estimates, as detailed in the table below, about 58 percent of all youth
have access to summer programming and 61 percent of low-income youth have access to summer
127
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Programs, Spring 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
This average response across respondents from all of DCYF’s out of school time programs includes program participants ranging from age
5 up to age 24, with the majority between ages 10 and 14. Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey
Results, 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
129
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Programs, Spring 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
130
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results, 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
131
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Programs, Spring 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
132
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results, 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
133
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Programs Spring 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
128
44
programs that receive some sort of public support such as a grant from DCYF or are operated by a public
agency. Based on these estimates, at least 22,000 youth do not have access to a summer program.
Exhibit 38: Estimate of Access to Comprehensive Summer Programs, 2010‐2011 Summer Programming in SF Total population of SF youth ages 6 to 13a Total population of low‐income SF youth ages 6 to 13 b 2010‐2011 52,726 34,008 Types of organized summer programs* Not necessarily receiving public support Licensed Child Care Centers, serving 6‐13c (Not including SFUSD's CDP school‐age licensed slots) Small Family Child Care Home, serving 6‐13c Large Family Child Care Home, serving 6‐13c Various Other Summer Programsd Receiving public support or operated by a public agency SFUSD Child Development Centerse (1,005 are licensed, but are accounted for in this category) SFUSD ExCEL Supplemental Grants (ASES/21st Century)f DCYF‐funded Summer Programs ‐ Community‐based Locationsg DCYF‐funded Summer Programs ‐ School Based Locationsg SF Beaconsg SF Recreation and Parks Departmenth Total in organized, comprehensive summer programs Total in organized, comprehensive summer programs that are receiving public support or operated by public agency Unmet need Percent of Youth Who Have Access to Summer Programming Percent of Low‐Income Youth Who May Have Access to Summer Programming 4,570 907 4,500 3,081 3,044 4,590 1,868 635 7,750 30,640 20,663 22,086 58% 61% Notes: *"Organized summer programs" is defined as a summer program that is available for elementary and middle school-age youth
that is offered for at least three hours per day for at least five days a week for at least five weeks during the summer. "Licensed Child
Care" is any program that is licensed by the State of California Community Care Licensing Division of the State Department of Social
Services (ages 6-13) www.ccld.ca.gov
For the sources used in this table, refer to footnote 134. 134
The sources used in this table are as follows:
(a) This number represents the number of K-8 students enrolled in SFUSD according to the California Department of Education Basic
Education Data System (CBEDS) Oct 2009 count and the number of K-8 students enrolled in private schools in San Francisco according to
California Department of Education. This estimate of the K-8 school-age population aligns with the slightly broader population count of 6-14
year olds of 53,647 according to the US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006. San Francisco Unified School District, “School
Site List and Summary, October 2009,” accessed December 2, 2010, http://orb.sfusd.edu/schmisc/ssls/SFUSD_SSLS.pdf.
(b) To estimate the number of low-income youth, DCYF averaged the percent of elementary school students (61%) and middle school
students (68%) eligible for free or reduced price meals within SFUSD (65%). Note: Data for 2008-2009. San Francisco Unified School District,
“Elementary K-5 Schools Summary,” in “SFUSD District and School Profiles 2008-2009,” accessed January 13, 2011,
http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-104.htm ; San Francisco Unified School District, “Middle Schools Summary,” in “SFUSD District and School
Profiles 2008-2009,” accessed January 13, 2011, http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-107.htm.
(c) San Francisco’s Child Care Planning and Advisory Council, “San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment 2007,” San Francisco, 2007.
(d) Estimate only. Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, analysis of 2011 Summer Resource Fair data, 2011, unpublished.
(e) This number does not include sites that also receive a DCYF grant that is in higher dollar amount than their SFUSD contract for a summer
ExCEL program. San Francisco Unified School District, internal data, data provided via email, February 7, 2011, unpublished.
(f) Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, analysis of grantee data, 2011, unpublished.
(g) Recreation and Parks Department indicated that 8,000 youth ages 6 to 17 would be served on any given day by their variety of programs.
With data not available from RPD, DCYF estimated that at least 250 of those youth served were likely to be older than age 13. SF Recreation
and Parks Department, data provided via email, March 9, 2011, unpublished.
45
A third of public elementary school principals and 21 percent of service providers indicated that
competition among summer programs for youth participation was one of the top barriers to meeting
families’ needs. 135 In research conducted by DCYF, some parents and providers described that some
summer programs often receive many more youth applications than they can serve, and that some
summer programs “fill up” in terms of enrolling youth faster than others. Although no citywide data on
summer programs exists to analyze these trends, some parents and service providers reported that
program quality and the types of programming offered varies greatly across summer programs. 136
Costs and fees of summer programs. Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF
community input sessions articulated a need for free and low-cost summer programs. Parents and service
providers mentioned that many summer camps are not accessible to all families due to high fees, and that
many of the most popular camps also fill up before some families know they were available. As a parent
attending a session stated, “The summer turns into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-not’ for what you’re going to
do with your kids.”
Parent and school staff satisfaction and programmatic preferences. School leaders, service providers,
and parents at DCYF community input sessions indicated that academic support, arts, and sports activities
were needed in summer programs. Among public elementary school principals, 65 percent indicated that
more reading programs were the most frequent requests from families for summer programming, and
about 40 percent indicated that tutoring, sports, and arts programming were the most frequent requests.
More than of 40 percent of public middle school principals indicated that the availability of more math,
science, reading, writing, and tutoring activities were the most frequent requests from families for summer
programming. In addition, more than 40 percent of principals also responded that programming to help
elementary and middle school students’ transition into their next level of school was a need they heard
from families, which was also a need voiced at several DCYF community input sessions. 137
Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input sessions also voiced a
desire for lengthening the hours of operation of summer programs so that they can meet the need of
working families. More than half of service providers surveyed indicated that families often request
extended summer programs hours, and 43 percent of public middle school principals cited lack of
extended summer program hours as a barrier to meeting families’ needs. 138
Year-Round Extracurricular Programs and Activities
Participation in extracurricular programs and activities. Extracurricular activities are defined as any out
of school time activity that takes place during the non-school hours and/or non-school days that is either
offered on a short-term basis or less than three days per week. Extracurricular activities can take place
during the week and/or on the weekends. Extracurricular activities also typically offer just one type of
activity—such as piano lessons, a journalism club, or a sports team—rather than a variety of enrichment,
recreation and academic support activities. The 2009 afterschool survey of SFUSD parents found that 11
percent of K-8 SFUSD parent respondents had an unmet need for extracurricular activities. Among parents
that expressed a need for more extracurricular programming, the highest ranking need was for
135
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010; Department of
Children, Youth, and their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011.
136
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, research conducted in summer of 2009, unpublished.
137
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010; Department of
Children, Youth, and their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011.
138
Ibid.
46
sports/physical education (61 percent), followed by performing arts (26 percent), and homework
completion (16 percent). 139
The survey also found that 23 percent of parents reported that their child participates in an extracurricular
activity such as Girl or Boy Scouts, sports, clubs, or classes. These youth participated in such extracurricular
activities for an average of 3.5 hours per week spread over about two days a week. Low-income children
were significantly less likely to participate in extracurricular activities than other children (12 percent for
low-income families compared to 31 percent for others).
Exhibit 39: SFUSD Student Participation in Afterschool Programs by Ethnicity, 2009 Percent of Participants
41%
20%
African
American
20%
19%
Asian
White
Latino
20%
Other
Note: The percentage participating in this exhibit only pertains to youth participating in extracurricular activities. See
Exhibit 36 for participation by type of afterschool programs
Source: San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,”
Commissioned by Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
There are a multitude of extracurricular activities available to youth in San Francisco offered by private
individuals, nonprofit organizations, or public agencies. On SFKid.org, the City’s official family resource
website alone, more than 450 extracurricular activities are listed. Many of these activities are fee-based,
although some are free or offer scholarships or financial assistance.
Supplemental academic supports. According to a citywide survey of residents, 25 percent of parents
reported their child participates in academic enrichment services, and 21 percent reported their child
participates in tutoring. About 30 percent of parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF
community input sessions articulated a need for extracurricular activities, including tutoring, that help
reinforce what children learn in school. Service providers indicated that one-on-one tutoring was the most
commonly requested service for families with children of this age. 140 About 57 percent of public middle
school principals responded that a top need of families was “support in helping their child with school
work.” 141
According to the same survey, 25 percent of parents reported their child participates in academic
enrichment services and 21 percent reported their child participates in tutoring. About 30 percent of
139
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
140
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
141
47
parents reported they do not need academic enrichment services, while 10 percent said they do not use
such services because they are too expensive. African American and Latino parents as well as parents with
lower incomes are most likely to be using tutoring services for their child, while White parents and those
earning more than $100,000 annually are the least likely. About 40 percent of parents indicated they do
not need tutoring services. 142 The same citywide survey also found that 72 percent of respondents rate the
San Francisco library’s programs and activities for children under age 18 as either good or excellent. 143
Sports and physical recreation activities. Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF
community input sessions stated that youth need non-competitive sports and physical recreation activities
beyond school-related activities that often require try-outs or other eligibility criteria. Stakeholders
indicated that youth need access to non-competitive sports and physical fitness extracurricular activities.
During each school year, about 2,600 SFUSD middle school students (54 percent male) participate in school
athletic programs. About 45 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander, 19 percent Latino, 16 percent African
America, 12 percent White, and eight percent other race/ethnicities. 144 Many private schools also offer
school-sponsored athletic programs such as soccer, baseball, volleyball, basketball, and other sports.
Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input sessions also stated that
sports and physical recreation activities are a way for youth to expend excess energy in a positive way, and
are particularly needed in neighborhoods that have limited access to green and open spaces. About a third
of service providers and a third of public elementary school principals indicated families frequently request
sports or other physical activities. 145 About one-third of service providers surveyed indicated that more
sports and physical fitness programming was a frequent request from the families they serve. 146
In 2009, 47 percent of San Francisco households with children were likely users of programs and activities
offered by the City’s Recreation and Parks Department, making them the largest user group of such
activities. Of those who had used recreation programs or activities designed for children and youth, 56
percent reported that they have a positive impression of the quality of activities, which was an increase
from 39 percent in 2007. The Recreation and Parks Department offers a variety of programs and sports
activities during the school year and during the summer at more than 220 parks and other recreational
sites. Offerings have included swimming lessons, golf programs, baseball leagues, skateboarding, disc golf,
and outdoor camps. In addition to the Department’s programs, 47 percent of parents with children ages 613 reported using the City’s parks at least once a week, 29 percent reported using them at least once a
month, and 15 percent report using them several times a year. 147 There are also a variety of nonprofit and
private sports leagues and athletic activities available throughout San Francisco. For example, there are
about 200 listings for sports and fitness clubs, leagues, activities, and programs listed on SFKids.org.
Arts programming. Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF community input
sessions articulated a need for arts programs in out of school time. About a third of the service providers
participating in a survey about families’ needs indicated that arts and music programming were top
requests for services among the families they serve. 148 Stakeholders emphasized that arts programming
can reinforce school day concepts, provide a creative outlet for youth, and expose them to new concepts,
ideas, and cultures. As one service provider stated in an input session, “Culturally-relevant art projects can
be ‘art therapy’ for some children.” Some stakeholders also mentioned that arts programming can be an
effective means of engaging caregivers, parents, and community members in children and youth’s
142
Note: No definitions of “academic enrichment” or “tutoring” were included in the survey. Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor,
“City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
143
Ibid.
144
Personal communication with Don Collins, SFUSD Athletics Director, March 2011.
145
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010; Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011.
146
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
147
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
148
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
48
development. For example, arts programs have successfully used events such as performances and art
assemblies to engage parents and community members in children’s progress in developing skills,
knowledge, or abilities.
The Recreation and Parks Department offers arts programming such as arts and crafts, creative writing,
dance, and theater at recreation centers across the city throughout the year. In addition to funding arts
programming delivered at afterschool programs, DCYF funds several agencies to deliver extracurricular arts
programming, such as the African American Art and Culture Complex, The Marsh Theater, and Northern
California Music and Art Culture Center. The San Francisco Arts Commission also supports several
programs that offer youth opportunities to participate in arts programming, such as WriterCorps, which
offers creative writing workshops, and Daraja Means Bridge, an international cultural exchange arts project.
In San Francisco, there are also many other organizations and institutions that deliver a variety of arts
programming—from museums offering workshops to engage young audiences to performing artists
leading classes for aspiring actors. There are about 50 listings for arts-related classes, programs,
workshops, and clubs listed on SFKids.org.
Cost and fees of extracurricular programs. A 2008 survey of K-8 SFUSD parents found that most parents
pay fees for their children’s extracurricular activities. About 82 percent of parents whose children are in
kindergarten through grade 2, 66 percent of parents whose children are in grades 3-5, and 60 percent of
parents whose children are in grades 6-8 pay a fee for these activities. Parents of White and Asian/Asian
American children were the most likely to pay a fee for extracurricular activities, and parents of African
American children were the least likely to pay for such activities. The survey indicated that the average fee
was $41/week, which was about the same as fees for afterschool programs located off campus, and about
$20 less than average school-based afterschool program fees. 149 Across all types of afterschool activities,
72 percent of parents whose children were currently participating reported that they would be willing to
make a financial donation to the programs. 150
IV. Health and Wellness Physical Health
Parents, service providers, and community members at DCYF input sessions expressed a need for open
spaces and parks for youth to participate in physical fitness and sports activities. Data from the state’s
physical fitness tests indicate that only 24 percent of SFUSD 5th graders and 35 percent of 7th graders met
all six of the state’s physical fitness standards. Among those standards, SFUSD students scored lowest in
aerobic capacity with 34 percent of 5th graders and 33 percent of 7th graders not meeting the state’s
standards. 151 These results are similar to or slightly below statewide averages. About 61 percent of SFUSD
5th graders reported they exercised five days a week or more in 2008, an increase of one percentage point
since 2006. 152 Only 51 percent of middle school students report being physically active “for an hour per
day on five or more days in the past week,” which is a 16 percent increase since 2004. However, 89 percent
of students reported attending physical education classes daily during an average week at school. About
36 percent of students reported they watch television for three or more hours per school day, a trend that
149
San Francisco State University’s Public Research Institute, “Parent Survey on Afterschool Programs,” Commissioned by Department of
Children, Youth, and Their Families, San Francisco, 2009.
150
This percentage includes those parents who reported they were already paying fees or making a fiscal donation to their child’s
programming. Ibid.
151
The physical fitness test includes standards related to aerobic capacity, body composition, abdominal strength, trunk extensor strength,
upper body strength, and flexibility. California Department of Education, “2008-09 California Physical Fitness Report, Summary of Results SFUSD,” accessed February 2011, http://dq/cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
152
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” San Francisco, 2007; California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation
Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 2008-2009, Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2010.
49
has not significantly changed since 2007. In addition, about 31 percent of middle school students reported
playing video or computer games for three or more hours on an average school day. 153
Data indicate concerning trends related to youth’s weight, including racial/ethnic disparities and
inaccurate self-assessment of appropriate weight. Seventy-one percent of 5thth graders and 74 percent of
7th graders were reported at a healthy weight, with Pacific Islander students scoring lowest on healthy
weight. 154 Another local data source also demonstrates a disparity along race/ethnic lines in the number of
overweight and obese youth. While 13 percent of Asian youth ages five to eight were overweight and 12
percent were obese, the rates were higher among African American (20 percent were overweight and 22
percent were obese) and Latino youth (20 percent were overweight and 28 percent were obese). The
patterns of obesity are different for youth ages 9-11. Eleven percent of Asian youth were obese, while 23
percent of African American youth and 37 percent of Latino youth were obese. 155 About a third of SFUSD
5th graders report being teased about how their body looks, and 27 percent of middle school students
describe themselves as overweight, yet only 17 percent of students are overweight according to the Body
Mass Index (BMI) standards. 156 Forty-one percent of middle school students report trying to lose weight,
with significantly more females reporting trying than males. 157
In terms of youth nutrition, in 2008, 87 percent of SFUSD 5th graders reported eating breakfast on the day of
the survey, which is an increase from 84 percent in 2006. 158 In 2006-2008 only 70 percent of 7th graders
reported eating breakfast in the past day. 159 In 2009, 80 percent of middle school students reported eating
fruit and 39 percent reported eating green salad or other vegetables “one or more times in the last seven
days.” 160
Many youth participate in federally-supported afterschool snack programs. About 5,500 youth participate
in the afterschool snack program operated by SFUSD and 800 youth participate in a program operated by
DCYF that serves about 35 sites. In summer 2010, SFUSD students in summer school and an additional
5,000 youth ages six to 13 were served nutritious meals at 132 locations for eight weeks through the
Summer Food Service Program administered by DCYF. In summer 2010, 71 percent of summer food
service providers reported that access to healthy foods is the most pressing nutrition-related need for the
youth they serve. 161 Service providers cited limited availability of nutritious food and a lack of linguistically
or culturally accessible information about eating healthy as the main factors contributing to the lack of
access to healthy foods.
153
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
154
Data was not available for Native American students. Definition: Percentage of public school students in grade nine with body
composition falling within or below the Healthy Fitness Zone of the state’s Fitnessgram assessment. California Department of Education,
“Physical Fitness Testing Statewide Research Files,” accessed June 17, 2009, http://kidsdata.org,
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/pftresearch.asp.
155
This data is collected for primarily low-income, at-risk children in medical offices/clinics and recorded on a state form. Data was not
available for White, Filipino, and Pacific Islander youth. Overweight is defined as a body mass index between the 85th and 95th percentile for
that age. Obese is defined as equal to or greater than the 95th percentile. California Department of Health Care Services, “2009 Pediatric
Nutrition Surveillance, San Francisco, Growth Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Age – Children Aged 5 to <20 years,” accessed April 2011,
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/chdp/Documents/PedNSS/2009/16B0to5.pdf.
156
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” San Francisco, 2007; California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation
Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 2008-2009, Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2010.
157
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
158
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” San Francisco, 2007; California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation
Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 2008-2009, Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2010.
159
California Department of Education, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey,” http://www.wested.org/chks, http://kidsdata.org.
160
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
161
Question asked was, “What is the most pressing nutrition-related need you see facing the children and youth in the communities you
serve? Choose one answer only.” Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Summer Lunch Survey 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
50
In 2007, two youth between the ages five and 14 died due to unintentional injuries. 162 The rate of non-fatal
unintentional injury hospitalizations per 100,000 children significantly decreased for youth ages five to 12
(down from 218 in 2002 to 119 in 2006). 163 In 2006, a total of 65 youth ages five to 12 were hospitalized for
injury. About 83 percent of the cases were unintentional and the remaining cases were due to assault, selfinflicted injury or other causes. 164
Substance Use
Experimentation with substances has declined overall among SFUSD 5th graders in the last few years. In
2006, 20 percent of 5th graders reported trying alcohol and four percent reported trying cigarettes. Those
percentages dropped to 17 percent and one percent respectively in 2008. There was no change in the one
percent of 5th graders who reported ever trying marijuana between 2006 and 2009. More than threequarters of 5th graders reported that the use of cigarettes and alcohol is “very bad for a person’s health” (94
percent and 73 percent, respectively), and 66 percent reported the same perception of marijuana use. 165
Middle school students were more likely to have experimented with substances. Twenty-seven percent of
students reported they have ever had an alcoholic drink, 16 percent reported trying a cigarette, 10 percent
reported they have tried an inhalant (such as glue or spray cans), nine percent reported they have tried
marijuana, three percent reported using steroids without a prescription, and four percent reported having
tried cocaine, ecstasy, and/or methamphetamines. 166 Similar to trends among high school youth, tobacco
use among middle school students has steadily declined since 1997, although there has been no significant
change since 2007 with five percent of students reporting they smoked one or more cigarette in the last 30
days. Significantly more African American students (34 percent) and Latino students (24 percent) reported
trying cigarettes than White students (13 percent) or Asian students (16 percent). Similar to tobacco use,
self-reported rates of alcohol and marijuana use among middle school students have steadily declined
since 1997 but have not changed significantly since 2007. From 1997 to 2009, the percentage of SFUSD
students reporting having consumed alcohol in the past 30 days dropped from 20 percent to 10 percent,
but there were no significant decreases since 2007. Of concern, four percent of middle school students
reported binge drinking in the last 30 days. 167
Reproductive Health
The proportion of SFUSD middle school students reporting having ever had sexual intercourse has
decreased from 13 percent in 1997 to a current eight percent. Significantly more male students (six
162
California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Section, “CD-Rom Public Use Death Files; State of
California, Department of Finance, Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050,” accessed June 2009,
http://www.dof.ca.gov , http://KidsData.org.
163
Definition: Number of non-fatal unintentional injury hospitalizations per 100,000 children, by age group, http://KidsData.org.
State of California Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, California Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development, “Patient Discharge Data,” accessed June 2009, http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/epicdata/default.htm; State
of California, Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050,” accessed June 2009,
http://www.dof.ca.gov.
164
Definition: Number of non-fatal injury hospitalizations for children/youth ages 0-20, by age and cause, http:// KidsData.org. State of
California Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, California Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development, “Patient Discharge Data,” accessed June 2009, http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/epicdata/default.htm; State
of California, Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050,” accessed June 2009,
http://www.dof.ca.gov.
165
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” San Francisco, 2007, California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation
Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 2008-2009, Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2010.
166
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
167
Binge drinking is defined as having five or more alcoholic drinks within a couple of hours during the preceding 30 days. San Francisco
Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators from the 2009
Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
51
percent) than female students (one percent) reported having sex with multiple partners. The percent of
sexually active students that report using condoms (65 percent) has also not changed significantly over the
last 12 years. About 70 percent of students reported they had been taught in school about AIDS or HIV
infection in school, which marks an 11 percent decrease since 1997. 168
Mental Health
During DCYF community input sessions, parents, service providers, and community members expressed a
need for mental health counseling for youth in elementary and middle schools. About a third of public
elementary school principals and 83 percent of middle school principals reported that the families they
serve often express a need for mental health counseling for their child. 169
Self-reported data from SFUSD students about their resiliency, caring adult relationships, and mental
health is concerning. Although less data is available on elementary school age students, one survey
indicated that only 58 percent of 5th graders reported high levels of caring relationships with adults at
school. 170 About 87 percent of 5th graders reported that they receive the help and support at home that
they need. 171 Although caring relationships at home appear in place for a higher proportion of middle
school students, data indicates some are facing significant challenges to their well-being. While about 85
percent of 8th graders reported they have somebody at home who cares about them and supports their
learning, 25 percent of 7th graders reported feeling so sad and hopeless almost every day for two weeks or
more that they stopped doing some usual activities. 172 The percentage of SFUSD middle school students
reporting serious consideration of suicide (22 percent) has not changed significantly since 1997. 173 A much
higher proportion of middle school lesbian, gay, or bisexual students (56 percent) seriously considered
suicide. 174 Of the various ethnic groups, “Other Asian” (i.e. non-Chinese Asian) students reported the
highest rate of considering suicide, at 27 percent, followed by Hispanic/Latino students at 26 percent. 175
This rate is higher among females than males: 26 percent of females and 19 percent of males seriously
considered suicide. In addition, 15 percent of all middle school students had made a plan about how they
would commit suicide, a proportion slightly higher than 2007 reports, and eight percent report ever having
tried to commit suicide. 176
Health and Wellness Services
In public elementary schools, 46 school social workers (Learning Support Professionals, or LSPs) provided
services to 10,487 (37 percent) students, and 13 school district nurses served 6,544 (29 percent) students. 177
In middle schools, 18 school social workers (LSPs) provided services to 4,553 (48 percent) students and five
168
Ibid.
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
170
WestEd, “San Francisco Unified School District California Healthy Kids Survey Key Elementary Findings Report,” San Francisco, 2010
accessed March 2011, http://healthiersf.org/Resources/docs/SanFranciscoUnified_elem0809_kf.pdf.
171
San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey 2010, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
172
Ibid; WestEd, “San Francisco Unified School District California Healthy Kids Survey Secondary Main Report,” San Francisco, 2010, accessed
March 2011, http://chks.wested.org/resources/SanFranciscoUnified_0809sec_main.pdf?1302287094
173
San Francisco Unified School District: Student Support Services Department, prepared by ETR Associates, Middle School Youth Risk
Behavior Survey (YRBS) and National Survey Results: 1997-2009 – “Middle School Trends in the Prevalence of Suicide Ideation and Attempt,”
San Francisco, 2009
174
San Francisco Unified School District: Student Support Services Department - LGBTQ Support Services, “Get the Facts,” San Francisco,
2010; Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “SFUSD Middle School Youth Risk Behavior
Survey Results 2009-2010,” Atlanta: US; 2010.
175
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “SFUSD Middle School Youth Risk Behavior
Survey Results 2009-2010,” Atlanta, US, 2010.
176
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
177
San Francisco Unified School District: Student Support Services Department, prepared by ETR Associates, “Learning Support Professional &
School Nurse Service Log Data Summary (SY2009-2010),” San Francisco, CA, 2010.
169
52
school district nurses served 1,548 (16 percent) students. At alternatively configured schools, 12 school
social workers (LSPs) provided services to 2,217 (50 percent) students and five school district nurses served
289 (seven percent) students. 178 At both the elementary and middle school levels, “student behavior” was
the most common reason for a referral to the social worker, and “physical health issue” was the most
common reason for a referral to the school nurse. 179
In addition, the Department of Public Health’s Community Behavioral Health Services provided mental
health treatment services to 1,229 children between the ages of 5-9 and 1,862 students between the ages
of 10-14 in 2009-10. Youth accessing these services are primarily low-income youth whose families use
publicly subsidized health services and/or are designated as special education students, and must have a
diagnosed mental health condition.
V. Violence, Crime, and Juvenile Justice System Involvement Violence
Participants in DCYF’s input sessions on community needs voiced concerns about the impact of violence
on youth. Most of the concerns related to neighborhood violence. As one parent explained, “The potential
of violence [is an issue]…I can’t let him walk down the street by himself. He’s in 7th grade and I still…the
violence has gotten a lot worse.” Session participants indicated a need for safe spaces for youth in their
neighborhoods where they can participate in activities and socialize with peers. One participant said youth
need “a public park space where they can be out with their friends, a clubhouse, or a meeting space in the
community so kids can get together and do kid things…neighborhood things.”
Indicators of violence among public school 5th graders show that bullying remains the most prevalent issue
at school. In 2006 and 2008, 57 percent of 5th graders reported that they had been bullied. 180 Almost one
in every five 5th graders reported that they have seen someone with a gun or knife at school in the last year,
and three percent reported bringing a knife or gun to school. 181
Overall indicators of youth violence among SFUSD middle school students have generally been declining
since 1997, although there have been some marked increases since 2007. For example, the percentage
reporting carrying a knife or weapon to school as a weapon has increased from four percent in 2007 to 10
percent in 2009, while there has been no significant increase in the percentage of students reporting
carrying a gun to school. Since 2003, there has not been much change from the 24 percent who reported
being in a physical fight on school property, yet the percentage reporting they were threatened or injured
with a weapon on school property has decreased from 11 percent in 2003 to six percent in 2009. 182
178
Ibid.
Ibid.
180
Definition: Bullying as defined by being hit or pushed. “Pushing behavior is a form of harassment or bullying commonly used among
elementary level youth. It is a form of abusive behavior that instills a sense of vulnerability, isolation, and fear in its victims. If pushing
behavior is confronted with conflict, it can lead to physical fights, possibly with weapons. If not confronted, it can lead to isolation from
friends, family and school, depression, and engagement in risk behaviors such as drug use.” San Francisco Unified School District, prepared
by Duerr Evaluation Resources & WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey, San Francisco Unified Elementary 2009-2009 Key Findings,” San
Francisco, 2010.
181
California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: Key Findings:
5th Grade, Fall 2006, San Francisco Unified,” San Francisco, 2007; California Safe and Healthy Kids Survey Program Office, Duerr Evaluation
Resources, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey: San Francisco Unified, Elementary, 2008-2009, Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2010.
182
San Francisco Unified School District, “Youth Risk Behavior Survey, trend sheets 1997-2007,” San Francisco, 2008.
179
53
Juvenile Justice System Involvement
Since 1999, the number of referrals to the Juvenile Probation Department and juvenile hall bookings has
dropped significantly. Of the 1,720 referrals in 2010, less than six percent (95 referrals) were youth under
age 14. About 36 youth under age 14 were booked in juvenile hall in the 2010 calendar year. 183, 184
Violence Prevention and Intervention Services
In San Francisco, there are multiple agencies that offer a variety of initiatives and programs to at-risk youth
and young adults, victims of crime and perpetrators of violence. Most strategies are jointly facilitated by
community and city departments in order to yield the highest impact in reducing violence. These
initiatives and programs address the continuum of violence prevention: prevention, intervention,
enforcement, and re-entry. One initiative that DCYF is involved with is a jointly funded and coordinated
effort with the Juvenile Probation Department and Department of Public Health to address the needs of
young people ages 14 to 24 years old involved in the juvenile justice system. The types of programming
provided through this portfolio vary from alternatives to detention, detention-based services, detention
diversion, alternatives to education, case management, and other services. In 2009-10, 360 youth ages 11
to 13 participated in services provided through this jointly funded effort, accounting for almost eight
percent of all youth served by these funds. Most of the youth served in this age group were 13 year olds. 185
Of these youth, 82 participated in case management services for more than an hour per week on
average. 186
183
The Juvenile Probation Department defines a referral as a “[c]itation issued to youth to appear before a Probation Officer or youth
admitted to Juvenile Hall for allegedly committing a criminal act,” Jose Luis Perla, “San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department: 2010
Statistical Report,” San Francisco, 2010, accessed April 8, 2011, http://sfgov3.org/index.aspx?page=549, and August 19, 2010,
http://sfgov3.org/index.aspx?page=558.
184
For more information about the ethnic/racial, gender, and neighborhood makeup of the youth involved with the juvenile justice system,
refer to the Older Youth section of this report.
185
Refer to the Older Youth section of this report for more information about the numbers of youth ages 14 to 24 served by funds
administered by DCYF.
186
Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, internal data, 2011, unpublished.
54
Older Youth (youth ages 14 to 18, disconnected transitional age youth ages 16 to 24)
Key Findings 
San Francisco has an estimated 24,787 youth between the ages of 14-17, representing about
three percent of San Francisco’s population, and between 5,000 to 8,000 disconnected
transitional age youth as of 2009

Academic achievement gaps persist among public high school students along lines of
race/ethnicity and English language fluency. Truancy and drop-out rates are also of
concern. Drop-out rates are highest among African American, Pacific Islander, and Latino
students. Many stakeholders voiced a need for career and college counseling.

Peer to peer relationships among teenagers, particularly the prevalence of harassment and
bullying, remain a concern.

Youth, school staff, parents, and community members value out of school time activities.
About 70 percent of SFUSD high school students participate in some type of out of school
time activity.

Many youth want more access to employment and job training opportunities.

Many stakeholders voiced a need for mental health services to address violence,
interpersonal relations, and substance abuse issues. Almost half of the students at 15 public
high schools accessed school-based wellness services.

Violence remains a concern, with homicide still the leading cause of death for youth ages
15-24. Fewer youth are involved with the juvenile justice system, yet a significant number of
youth report being a member of a street group. Stakeholders see a need for prevention
programs and safe spaces for youth.

Disconnected transitional age youth have a variety of needs including housing,
employment, and mental health services.
I. Demographics Estimates indicated there are 24,787 youth between the ages of 14-17 in 2009, representing about three
percent of San Francisco’s total population and about 21 percent of its youth under 18. About 47 percent
of these youth are male. Another 60,143 youth ages 18 to 24 accounted for seven percent of the
population. 187 Between 5,000 and 8,000 of these youth face challenges successfully transitioning to
adulthood and are known as disconnected transitional age youth. 188
187
Human Services Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, “2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files,” San Francisco, 2011.
Disconnected transitional age youth are defined in this document as those youth ages 16 to 24 that face challenges successfully
transitioning to adulthood and are asterisk for a number of negative outcomes including substantial periods of unemployment,
homelessness, involvement with the criminal justice system and poverty. Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force, “Disconnected Youth in San
Francisco: A Roadmap to Improve the Life Chances of San Francisco’s Most Vulnerable Young Adults, San Francisco, 2007.
188
55
The racial/ethnic make-up of youth ages 14 to 17 is predominantly Asian/Pacific Islander (43 percent),
followed by White (23 percent), Latino (20 percent), African American (nine percent), Native American (0.5
percent) and other ethnicities (four percent). At this point in time, there is no data available on the
racial/ethnic composition of the disconnected transitional age youth.
Exhibit 40: Race/Ethnicity of Youth Ages 14‐17 in San Francisco, 2009 Children Ages 14‐17 White African American Asian/Pacific Islander Latino Native American Other TOTAL n 5,748 2,196 10,560 5,067 129 1,087 24,787 % 23% 9% 43% 20% 0.5% 4% 100% Total Population (adults and children) n % 367,765 45% 47,719 6% 253,817 31% 117,467 14% 1,934 0.2% 26,873 3% 815,575 100% Source: Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. Ninety-two percent of youth aged 14 to 17 are US citizens, compared to 88 percent of the City’s total
population. The majority of youth ages 14 to 17 are born citizens and about 800 youth gained citizenship
via naturalization.
Exhibit 41: Citizenship Status of Youth Ages 14‐17, 2009 Children Ages 14‐17 Citizen Born as citizen Born abroad of American parents Naturalized Not a citizen TOTAL n 22,687 % 92% Total Population (adults and children) n % 719,754 88% 21,729 88% 528,479 65% 157 1% 12,987 2% 801 3% 178,288 22% 2,100 24,787 8% 100% 95,821 815,575 12% 100% Source: Human Service Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use
Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. Nearly all of the city’s 14-17 year old population speaks English, though some 650 youth struggle with the
language.
Exhibit 42: English Speaking Ability, 2009 Children ages 14‐17 Total City Population (Adults and Children) N/A (Blank) 0 Does not speak English 0 Yes, speaks only English 12,818 Yes, speaks very well 9,428 Yes, speaks well 1,885 Yes, but not well 656 Total 24,787 41,868 40,294 437,739 162,568 65,038 68,068 815,575 Source: Human Services Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Micro Files, San Francisco, 2011. 56
Involved with the Child Welfare System
Since 2005, an average of 218 youth ages 14 to 17 were victims in substantiated child abuse incidents
annually. In 2009, these youth represented about 19 percent of all substantiated cases in San Francisco. 189
Among substantiated cases involving youth ages 11 to 17, more than a third were African American, a near
equal amount were Latino, about 19 percent Asian and 10 percent were White. About 55 percent of the
victims in substantiated cases for youth ages 11 to 15 were female and that percentage increased to 60
percent for youth ages 16 to 17. 190
The number of youth ages 15 to 17 in the foster care system has dropped steadily since 2004, from 573
youth to 407 youth in 2009. Mirroring the demographics of youth throughout the county foster care
system from 2000 to 2009, more than two-thirds of youth ages 15 to 17 in foster care were African
American. Latino teens compose the next largest group at 15 percent. Most teens in the foster care system
remain in care for a substantial time period. In 2009, 70 percent of the youth who either aged out of the
system, became emancipated, or remained in care at age 18, had been in foster care for three or more
years. 191
II. School In San Francisco, 97 percent of youth ages 14 to 17 are enrolled in school, with 72 percent enrolled in
public school and 25 percent enrolled in private school. More than 11 percent appear to be either off-track
in terms of their grade level or have not completed schooling. 192
The vast majority of all youth ages 18-24 have a high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED)
(approximately 89 percent). Nearly one-half have some college experience, and about one-quarter has a
Bachelor’s degree or more. The remaining have either earned a diploma and not attained any further
education (16 percent), earned a GED or alternative credential with no further educational attainment (less
than two percent), or have not yet earned a high school diploma nor a GED or alternative credential (nine
percent). 193 Among the approximately 5,000-8,000 disconnected youth ages 16 to 24, as many as 5,000
lack a high school degree. 194
San Francisco is home to several post-secondary school options. City College of San Francisco (CCSF) is a
public, two-year community college with 10 campuses in the City which serves about 8,500 full-time and
37,800 part-time students, about half of which receive financial aid. CCSF offers courses in more than 50
academic programs and over 100 occupational disciplines. Credit courses lead to the Associate of Arts and
Science degrees, most of which meet the general education requirements of four-year colleges and
universities, and occupational courses and programs prepare students for immediate employment.
Another public option is California State University, San Francisco (SF State), a four-year public university
that enrolled more than 30,000 students in 2009-10, 51 percent of whom received financial aid. SF State
offers Bachelor’s degrees in 115 areas of specialization, Master’s degrees in 97 areas of specialization,
several graduate degree programs, 27 credential programs, and 37 certificate programs. University of
California also has two campuses in San Francisco that offer graduate and specialized programs. There are
also about 20 private colleges and universities that offer a variety of degrees, certificates, and credentials.
189
Child welfare statistics were only available for youth up to age 17. On substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect are cited here, not
total reported cases. Needell, B., et al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California,” 2009, accessed January 18, 2011, University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare.
190
Ethnic and gender breakdowns of this data were only available for certain age categories: under 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, and 16 to 17. Ibid.
191
Center for Social Services Research, University of California-Berkeley, “Child Welfare Database Reporting System,” accessed February 9,
2011, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/.
192
Human Services Agency, analysis of US Census Bureau, “2009 American Community Survey, Public Use Microfiles,” San Francisco, 2011.
193
Ibid.
194
Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force, “Disconnected Youth in San Francisco: A Roadmap to Improve the Life Chances of San Francisco’s
Most Vulnerable Young Adults, San Francisco, 2007.
57
SFUSD High School Students
There are 18,827 high school students enrolled in SFUSD high schools. Of these students, 16,423 are
enrolled in traditional high schools, 434 are enrolled in alternatively configured SFUSD schools and 1,970
are enrolled in charter high schools. 195 There are also 601 students enrolled in schools administered by the
San Francisco County Office of Education, including court schools for youth involved in the juvenile justice
system and Hilltop High School, a school for young mothers.
The racial/ethnic composition of students differs significantly between SFUSD’s traditional high schools,
charter schools and county schools. 196 At comprehensive schools, Chinese students make up the largest
ethnic group, accounting for about 40 percent of the student body, followed by Latino students (21
percent) and African American students (nine percent). By comparison, Latino (about 44 percent) and
African American (22 percent) students are the two largest racial/ethnic groups at charter schools. 197
Finally, schools operated by the San Francisco County Office of Education have the highest proportion of
African American students (43 percent), followed by Latino students (26 percent). 198
About 20 percent of SFUSD’s high school students are classified as English language learners (ELs). Schools
targeting recent immigrant or refugee students have a much higher proportion of EL students than other
schools. For example, about 68 percent of students at S.F. International High School are ELs, whereas only
two percent of students enrolled at Lowell High School are ELs. About 19 percent of charter school
students and 18 percent of county students (of all grade levels) are classified as ELs. 199
Exhibit 43: SFUSD High School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity and English Language Learner Status, 2010 44%
Chinese
43%
41%
Latino
Other Non‐White
African American
Other White
26%
21%
22%
20%
11%
9%
9%
8%
8%
3%
7%
3%
Filipino
19%
18%
Korean
13%
6% 9% 9%
6%
6%
Comprehensive HS
5%
5%
1% 1%
0%
Charter HS
Japanese
2%
4%
1%
0%0%
American Indian
Decline to State
English Language Learner
County HS
Source: San Francisco Unified School District, “School Site List and Summary, October 2009 and 2010,” accessed December 2, 2010,
http://orb.sfusd.edu/schmisc/ssls/SFUSD_SSLS.pdf
195
San Francisco Unified School District, “School Site List and Summary, October 2010,” accessed December 2, 2010,
http://orb.sfusd.edu/schmisc/ssls/SFUSD_SSLS.pdf
196
Data on the racial/ethnic composition of private high schools in San Francisco is not available.
197
Not all charter schools report on the racial/ethnic composition of their student body, so it is difficult to get a conclusive picture of the
composition of the city’s charter school student population as a whole. The numbers included in the chart are averages of the percents
reported for each racial/ethnic group for the five of the eight high school charters in the city. Ibid.
198
These numbers represent all students in the county schools, rather than just high school students, but high school students make up a
sizable majority of the county school student body. Ibid.
199
Unlike the other data, the data for charter schools is 2009-10 data. Ibid.
58
At the high school level, about 11 percent of students in the district are classified as special education
students. 200 Across all grade levels, African American, Pacific Islander, and Latino students appear to be
overrepresented in the SFUSD special education population. 201 In SFUSD traditional high schools, about
32 percent of students qualify for free lunch and 13 percent qualify for a reduced-price lunch based upon
family income level. 202
Academic Achievement
The California Standards Tests (CSTs), which measure student performance on the state’s content
standards, show substantial differences in academic performance among SFUSD students based on a
number of factors, including race/ethnicity and English language fluency. 203 Looking at CST scores by
race/ethnicity, Chinese and White students are generally performing above the district average while
significant numbers of African American, Latino, and Pacific Islander students are performing below the
district average. For example, 2010 Algebra 1 CST test scores reveal that 82 percent of African American
students, 67 percent of Latino students, and 70 percent of Pacific Islander scored “Below Basic” or “Far
Below Basic.” Only 25 percent of Asian students and 41 percent of White students had scores at this belowproficient level.
Percent of Testing Scores
Exhibit 44: SFUSD California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Grade 9 Algebra 1 Scores by Race/Ethnicity, 2010 Below Basic
39%
Far Below Basic
42%
50%
31%
29%
28%
43%
19%
18%
6%
District
Average
African
American
Asian
25%
14%
Filipino
Latino
20%
Pactific
Islander
13%
White
Note: There was no data available for Native American students.
Source: California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability, and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test Results,” accessed August 16, 2010,
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2010&lstTestType=C&lstCounty=38&lstDistrict=68478000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=
1&lstSubGroup=1
200
California Department of Education, Special Education Division, “Special Education Enrollment by Age and Grade - 3868478 - San
Francisco Unified,” Reporting Cycle: December 1, 2009; accessed January 13, 2011,
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SpecEd3c.asp?Disttype=S&cSelect=3868478-SAN^FRANCISCO^UNIFIED&cChoice=SpecEd3c&cYear=2009-10&cLevel=Dist&ReptCycle=December.
201
This conclusion is based on the number of students in each racial/ethnic group that are classified as special education. In 2009-10, 1,484
African American, 85 Pacific Islander, and 1,991 Latino students were designated as special education students. California Department of
Education, Special Education Division, Reporting Cycle: December 1, 2009, accessed January 31, 2011,
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SpecEd/SEEnrAgeEth3.asp?Disttype=S&cSelect=3868478-SAN^FRANCISCO^UNIFIED&cChoice=SpecEd3c&cYear=2009-10&cLevel=Dist&ReptCycle=December.
202
San Francisco Unified School District, “High Schools Summary,” in “SFUSD District and School Profiles 2008-2009,” accessed August 13,
2010, http://orb.sfusd.edu/profile/prfl-108.htm.
203
California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability and Awards Division, “2010 STAR Test Results”, accessed August 16, 2010,
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2010&lstTestType=C&lstCounty=38&lstDistrict=68478000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1
59
There are also disparities in achievement based on language fluency. Among 9th grade EL students, 66
percent scored “Below Basic” or “Far Below Basic” on the 2010 English-Language Arts CST exam while only
25 percent of their English-fluent peers failed to meet proficiency in this area.
Percent of Testing Scores
Exhibit 44: SFUSD California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Grade 9 English Language Arts Scores by English Fluency, 2010 30%
Below Basic
Far Below Basic
36%
18%
7%
English Learner
Fluent
Source: California Department of Education, Assessment, Accountability, and Awards Division, “2010 STAR
Test Results,” accessed August 16, 2010,
http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2010&lstTestType=C&lstCounty=38&l
stDistrict=68478-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1
Graduation, Drop-Out, and Post-Secondary Enrollment Rates
According to the most recent available data, nine percent of SFUSD high school students in a given class
drop out of school between the beginning of 9th grade and the end of 12th grade, which is eight percentage
points below the state average. 204
Exhibit 46: SFUSD Drop‐Out Rates for Grades 9‐12 by Race/Ethnicity, 2008‐2009 American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Pacific Islander Filipino Latino African American White Multiple/No Response Countywide Statewide Drop‐Out Total (n) 5 93 5 20 129 150 26 19 447 89,895 Four‐Year Derived Drop‐Out Rate* 17% 4% 12% 7% 13% 21% 6% n/a 9% 17% One‐Year Derived Drop‐Out Rate* 45% 1% 2% 2% 3% 6% 2% n/a 2% 5% *Four-year rate is an estimate of the number of students who would drop-out in a four-year period, based on drop-out data from one year.
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest 2008-2009 data. 204
California Department of Education, DataQuest 2008-2009 data, “Dropouts by Ethnic Designation by Grade, San Francisco County for the
Year 2008-09 (Reported and Adjusted)”, accessed April 13, 2011;
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DropoutReporting/GradeEth.aspx?cDistrictName=San%20Francisco%20%20&cCountyCode=3800000&cDist
rictCode=0000000&cSchoolCode=0000000&Level=County&TheReport=GradeEth&ProgramName=All&cYear=200809&cAggSum=CTotGrade&cGender=B.
60
For some racial/ethnic groups the drop-out rate is substantially higher than the citywide rate. African
American students have the highest drop-out rate with more than a third of African American students in a
given class dropping out of high school over a four-year period. Other populations with above-average
drop-out rates include Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Latinos. The Asian student drop out rate
appears lowest at four percent, but with students of Asian heritage constituting the largest population
within the city’s schools, this percentage masks that Asian students have the second highest number of
drop-outs among all racial/ethnic groups.
The district’s graduation rate in 2008 was 84 percent, a few points above the state average of 80 percent. 205
Local research on graduation found that 63 percent of a cohort of first-time ninth grade students
graduated within four years and 78 percent of those graduates attended a postsecondary institution the
following year. The data also showed that 54 percent of students who attended a post-secondary
institution earned a credential from a two- or four-year institution within five years. 206 Estimates indicate
that in recent years, more than 1,000 SFUSD 10th-12th graders did not have sufficient high school credits to
graduate within four years. Citywide there are about 6,000 youth ages 18-24 who are not in school and
who have less than a high school degree, and another 12,000 that only have a high school degree. 207
The need to prevent students from dropping out and support them to graduate high school prepared for
post-secondary success came up during DCYF community input sessions. Service providers, parents and
community members articulated a need for more academic recovery and reentry options and alternative
ways to complete high school or obtain a high school diploma for students who have fallen behind or do
not feel safe at school.
Career and college counseling support was a recurrent theme in DCYF surveys of youth, high school
principals, and service providers as well as in DCYF community, youth and, service provider input sessions.
College and career counseling was ranked as the second highest priority among service provider survey
respondents working with older youth (32 percent), and tied for the “highest needs of youth and families”
as reported by public high school principals. 208 In 2009, 31 percent of public high school youth reported
needing more college career counseling. 209 Starting in the 2010-2011 school year, SFUSD launched a
revised college and career course offering for 9th graders called Plan Ahead. The semester-long, required
course exposes students to a range of career options, describes the pathways needed for such careers, and
guides them to chart the steps they need to fulfill their college and career goals. Survey data also indicate
that SFUSD students also need assistance with preparing to pay for post-secondary options. Forty-three
percent of SFUSD high school students reported that they or their family had savings for their college
education, another 37 percent reported that they did not know whether they had savings or not, and 20
percent reported they do not have any savings for college. As another indicator of college readiness in
terms of financial planning, among SFUSD seniors, only 24 percent indicated that they knew how to fill out
a “Free Application for Federal Student Aid” (FAFSA), while 57 percent answered "No" and another 19
percent percent replied “What is a FAFSA form?” 210
One study of SFUSD students found that only slightly more than one in every four 9th graders progresses to
earn a postsecondary credential by the age of 23. The study indicated that more SFUSD students attend a
205
Graduation rate is calculated according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) standard, which divides the number of
graduating seniors by an average of that cohort’s class size in 8th, 9th and 10th grade. California Department of Education, 2007-2008 data,
accessed July 8 2010, data. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
206
Based on a cohort of SFUSD students in 2000-01. John Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities, “Secondary to Postsecondary
Transitions for Youth in San Francisco Unified School District, Youth Data Archive Snapshot,” Stanford University, August 2010.
207
Youth Council of the Workforce Investment San Francisco Board, “Building Our Youth for the Future: Strengthening San Francisco’s Youth
Workforce System,” San Francisco, 2011.
208
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
209
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2009 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2009.
210
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
61
four-year institution (44 percent) than a two-year institution (34 percent), and of those attending a twoyear institution, about 75 percent enrolled in City College. Only one-third of these students who enrolled
in City College completed their post-secondary careers within five years. Similar to graduation rates, Asian
and White students were more likely than Latino and African American students to attain post-secondary
credentials. 211 A new effort called Bridge to Success, which is a partnership between SFUSD, City College
and the City and County of San Francisco, aims to double the number of low-income students who receive
post secondary degrees by aligning curriculum and counseling across SFUSD and City College, improving
students’ access and transitions between institutions, empowering students and families, and providing
workforce and other pathways to increase educational attainment among vulnerable students.
Truancy, Chronic Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism and Suspension
Concerns about truancy were voiced during DCYF’s community input sessions. Participants stated that
truancy interventions are needed and expressed concerns that students may be skipping school because of
involvement in street violence or other issues. Truancy is defined by the California Department of
Education as: “Absent from school without a valid excuse three full days or tardy or absent more than any
30-minute period during the school day on three occasions in one school year.” Chronic truancy was
defined by the California Department of Education in 2009-2010 as “Absent from school without a valid
excuse for 20 or more days in one school year,” while chronic absence is defined as “Missing 10 percent or
more of school over an academic year for any reason (excused or unexcused).” During the 2009-2010
school year, SFUSD’s overall truancy rate (weighted by number of students at each grade level) was 24
percent, which is slightly lower than the statewide rate of 28 percent. 212
Based on the definition above, San Francisco’s public high schools’ average truancy rate in 2009-10 was 31
percent, while at some schools truancy rate is significantly higher. 213 In 2009-2010, 1,075 high school
students were chronically truant. While the number of chronically truant high school students decreased
by 79 students since 2008-2009, there are still concerns with the number of schools experiencing chronic
truancy and chronic absenteeism, and the extent of some students’ absenteeism. 214
Incidences of school suspension and expulsion vary greatly by school, with a total of 15 expulsions and
1,476 suspensions in the 2009-2010 school year. While some schools reported few or no suspensions,
seven schools reported more than 100 and one school reported almost 300 suspensions in one year. 215
School Safety and Climate
Mirroring statewide averages, school safety in San Francisco appears to have improved negligibly since
1997. 216 Between 2006 and 2008, one percent of 9th grade females and nearly three percent of 9th grade
males reported they felt very unsafe at school. During that same time period, four percent of 11th grade
211
Based on a cohort of SFUSD students in 2000-01. John Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities, “Secondary to Postsecondary
Transitions for Youth in San Francisco Unified School District, Youth Data Archive Snapshot,” Stanford University, August 2010.
212
San Francisco Unified School District, Student Support Services, Claudia Anderson, email correspondence, April 15, 2011.
213
The truancy rate measures the percentage of students who have missed class without an excuse more than three times during the school
year. California Department of Education, Safe & Healthy Kids Program Office, “San Francisco Unified Expulsion, Suspension, and Truancy
Information for 2009-10,” http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Expulsion/ExpReports/DistrictExp.aspx?cYear=200910&cChoice=DstExp1&cCounty=38&cNumber=3868478&cName=San+Francisco+Unified, accessed January 13, 2011.
214
San Francisco Unified School District, Stay in School Coalition, “Students with Chronic Absences and Habitual Absences,” San Francisco,
October 2010.
215
San Francisco Unified School District, Student Support Services, Claudia Anderson, email correspondence, April 15, 2011; California
Department of Education, Safe & Healthy Kids Program Office, “San Francisco Unified Expulsion, Suspension, and Truancy Information for
2009-10”, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Expulsion/ExpReports/DistrictExp.aspx?cYear=200910&cChoice=DstExp1&cCounty=38&cNumber=3868478&cName=San+Francisco+Unified, accessed January 13, 2011.
216
San Francisco Unified School District, “Youth Risk Behavior Survey, trend sheets 1997-2007,” accessed July 12, 2010,
http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm.
62
males reported feeling very unsafe at school. 217 In 2009, more than 1,100 students (seven percent)
reported that they skipped school because they felt unsafe and more than 1,000 students reported having
been threatened or injured with a weapon on school property. About 14 percent of 11th graders in SFUSD
reported being “afraid of being beaten up” at school and 10 percent report having actually been in a
physical fight. More 9th graders reported being afraid of being in a fight (20 percent) than having actually
been in a physical fight (15 percent). 218 From 1997 to 2009 the percentage of students who self-reported
carrying a weapon to school dropped from eight percent to seven percent. 219
Concerns about safety in and around schools were identified by parents, community members, and
neighborhood service providers alike in DCYF’s community input sessions. Apprehension about students’
ability to safely travel to and from school without incidences of neighborhood, street, and gang violence
was also voiced in community input sessions. This concern was a particular emphasis for youth living in
neighborhoods on the perimeter of the city due to their need to travel across the city.
Issues of harassment and bullying among peers continue to be a concern. 220 During some DCYF
community input sessions, the need to address verbal conflict between students and bullying, including
cyber bullying, of targeted students was raised. Among SFUSD students surveyed in 2009, more than 22
percent reported they were victimized by a racial/ethnic slur. 221 About 40 percent of students said that
their fellow students do not respect those who are different, and at some schools—including Marshall,
Mission, Wallenberg and Washington high schools—more than half of the students polled believe their
peers are intolerant of diversity and difference. 222 In addition, most high school students (80 percent)
report they have heard other students make harassing remarks based on sexual orientation, and the
number of LGBTQ students who reported seriously considering suicide increased significantly from 25
percent in 2007 to 28 percent in 2009. 223
Student and Parent Satisfaction
More than 80 percent of SFUSD high school students report that they like their school, and a majority
believe that school staff cares about the success of all students. 224 While more than half of students are
close to two or more teachers, another third do not feel close to any of their teachers. About 18 percent
report they are also close with a counselor, 10 percent are close with Wellness Center staff or a nurse, and
eight percent are close with school security guards. Student reports of how close they feel to teachers and
other school staff varied considerably between school sites. For example, students from nine public
schools reported lower than district-wide average rates of close relationships with school staff. 225 Slightly
above the state average, at least 40 percent of SFUSD students reported that they felt highly confident that
adults at their school had high expectations for them. 226 Yet, a fifth of students reported that they do not
217
California Department of Education, “San Francisco County: Perceptions of School Safety," in “California Healthy Kids Survey, 2006-2008
by Gender and Grade Level in 2006-2008” accessed January 18, 2011, http://www.kidsdata.org/data/region/dashboard.aspx?loc=265&cat=a.
218
San Francisco Unified School District, “California Healthy Kids Survey, 2008-2009: Key Findings,” San Francisco, 2009,16;
219
San Francisco Unified School District, “Youth Risk Behavior Survey trend sheets 1997-2009,” accessed July 12, 2010,
http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm.
220
San Francisco Unified School District, “San Francisco Unified School District High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) & National
Survey Results: 1997-2007,” San Francisco, 2008.
221
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
222
San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey 2009, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2009.
223
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
224
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2010; San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey
2009, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2009.
225
YouthVote, “Youth Vote Fall 2010 Student Survey” San Francisco, 2010.
226
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” 2010.
63
have caring relationships with an adult at home or outside their home who holds them to high
standards. 227
Nearly 40 percent of 11th graders report that their teachers fail to make learning “meaningful and joyful,”
and at some schools that number is even higher—nearly half of the students surveyed at Marshall, Mission
and Washington high schools report that teachers fail in this regard. District-wide about 30 percent of
students say teachers fail to connect their coursework to life outside the classroom. 228 Only about 15
percent of SFUSD students report they experience “opportunities for meaningful participation,” such as
deciding on class activities, helping other people, and engaging in clubs, sports teams, or other activities,
which is similar to the state average. The data also suggest that SFUSD students are finding more
meaningful opportunities for participation outside the school day and in the community, than during
school. 229
Surveys of family members indicate that many parents are satisfied with their child’s public school, yet
parents and caregivers at DCYF community input sessions voiced some concerns with the public school
system as a whole. Annual surveys of SFUSD family members found that 84 percent of parents of high
school students would recommend their school to other parents, 75 percent of respondents thought their
school offers a variety of high-quality courses and activities during the school day that their child enjoys,
and 75 percent of respondents felt that families are informed, included, and involved as partners and
decision makers in the education of their children. 230 However, parents and caregivers at DCYF community
input sessions expressed concerns with the school district’s school assignment system, turnover of
teaching staff at schools, and the impact of budget cuts on the quality of educational offering.
III. Out of School Time Activities School Year and Year-Round Options
Participants in DCYF’s community input sessions consistently spoke of out of school time programs for
teens as a need. Specific calls for engaging programs that empower youth and expose them to new ideas
and environments, as well as provide them with sports, recreational activities, and assistance in preparing
and planning for college or other post-secondary options were made during DCYF community input
sessions. Stakeholders also voiced the need for such programs for youth with disabilities, immigrant youth,
youth identifying as LGBTQ, and those involved in the foster care system.
For the last two years, more than 70 percent of SFUSD high school students participated in some form of
extracurricular activity. While many participate in these activities off campus, the highest proportion
participate in activities on their school campus. 231 Participation in extracurricular activities varies across
race/ethnicity differences, with about 60 percent of Latino students reporting participation compared to 79
percent of White students. Older students were also more likely to participate in extracurricular activities,
with 77 percent of 12th graders participating compared to 66 percent of 9th graders. Participation rates also
varied by school, with 65-66 percent not participating at Independence High School, Hilltop School and
county schools, compared to less than 15 percent not participating at Lowell High School or Ruth Asawa
227
WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey, Technical Report: Secondary 2004-05 and 2005-06,” San Francisco, 2006; WestEd, “California
Healthy Kids Survey, Technical Report: Secondary 2006-07 and 2007-08,” San Francisco, 2008.
228
San Francisco Unified School District, “Student Satisfaction Survey 2009, District Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2009.
229
The California Healthy Kids Survey results found that between 2004 and 2007 a smaller percentage ( between 20-30%) of 9th and 11th
grade respondents scored “low” on meaningful participation in the community context than those that scored low on the school context.
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators from
the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
230
San Francisco Unified School District, “Family Satisfaction Survey 2010, High Schools Summary Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
231
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2009 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2009; YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” San Francisco,
2010.
64
“Our mission is to use
San Francisco School of the Arts. SFUSD students living in the Inner and Outer Sunset neighborhoods
reported the highest rates of participation. 232
Sports and Athletic Programs
Although a significant number of youth report
“My freshman year, I didn’t participating in sports or athletic programs, some
youth would like to see more opportunities to
make the team. I was crushed. participate in such activities. For the last several
years, about 40 percent of SFUSD high school
School teams are the only students have reported participating in sports
option [in school], and there and athletic activities. During each school year,
about 3,614 SFUSD high school students (57
needs to be more percent male) participate in school athletic
opportunities for older teens.” programs. Among the high school students,
about 51 percent are Asian/Pacific Islander, 20
–Youth percent Latino, 12 percent African America, nine
percent White, and eight percent other
race/ethnicities. 233 Some youth participants in DCYF’s input sessions identified a need for more sports
programs beyond school administered athletics. They said the selection criteria of school teams limit
participation and therefore they saw a need for other sport activities that have less strict criteria for
participation. Among SFUSD high school students, the largest proportions of students desiring “sports or
other athletic activities” came from the following neighborhoods: Embarcadero/Gateway (48 percent),
North Beach/Telegraph Hill (37 percent), Chinatown (34 percent), and South of Market (34 percent)
compared to a citywide average of 29 percent. 234
Community Service, Volunteering, Arts Programs
After sports and athletics, the next largest proportions of SFUSD high school students reported
participating in community service/volunteering and
then arts programs, such as visual arts, music, theater,
“We give young people and dance activities. In terms of interest in community
service activities, a quarter of SFUSD high school students
agency and a voice. They said they would like to volunteer at a community event
are given the resources and about 20 percent said they would like to tutor
children, help the environment, or work in an animal
to be a leader. It can be shelter. 235 A desire for meaningful community service
transformational in a opportunities was also voiced at several DCYF
community input sessions of parents and service
young person’s life.” providers, and a third of public high school principals
surveyed said their students would like to see such
– A representative from a opportunities offered. 236 Service providers reported that
programming related to the arts and culture, identity,
youth organization and diversity were frequently requested by youth, but
232
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families analysis of “Youth Vote 2010 Student Survey” Question #1, 2011, unpublished.
Personal communication with Don Collins, SFUSD Athletics Director, March 2011.
234
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” 2010.
235
Ibid.
236
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
233
65
ranked lower than youth employment and academic support programs. 237
Youth Leadership Programs
Youth leadership was another area of extracurricular focus that arose in community, youth, and service
provider input sessions, alike. The need for leadership programs for older youth was mentioned at all of
DCYF’s input sessions with citywide youth organizations. The organizations reported that older youth
identify youth leadership programs as a safe space to voice their concerns, learn leadership skills, and
connect with adults who understand them.
Academic Support and College Preparatory Programs
In 2010, just under a third of SFUSD high school students participated in tutoring or other academic
activities. 238 High school principals surveyed by DCYF highlighted homework help as the type of
programming most frequently requested for students, followed by access to vocational/certificate
programs, and one-on-one tutoring. 239 Service providers who serve youth ages 14 to 17 reported that
academic support was the second most requested type of programming by youth ages 14 to 17 (after
youth employment programs). 240 At DCYF community input sessions, both youth and parents articulated
that additional academic support programs were needed, including programs that help youth understand
their college options, share information about financial assistance, and prepare them to be ready for
college. Youth and parents emphasized that academic support programs were particularly critical for
recent immigrant youth who need more access to one-on-one tutoring, small group homework assistance,
and individual attention and support with their language needs. A survey of public high school students
showed that 35 percent of students who live in Chinatown
(zip code 94108) desired homework tutoring/academic clubs
compared to the citywide average 23 percent, even though
“Afterschool programs 20 percent of such students currently participate in such
provide needed programming. 241
academic support.” – Community member from the Outer Mission‐
Ingleside neighborhood More than half of SFUSD students listed at least one of the
following reasons for participating in extracurricular activities:
wanting to hang out with friends, having fun, learning skills,
and enhancing their resume or college applications. 242
Specifically the SFUSD high school students who attend
ExCEL afterschool programs cited getting help with their
school work as one of the top reasons they participate. 243
Students Not Participating in Out of School Time Programs
In Fall 2010, about a quarter of the students not involved in some sort of extracurricular activity expressed
an interest in participating in something. More than a third reported interest in computer/technology
activities. Another third were interested in art, music, theater, and dance activities, and slightly less than a
third reported interest in sports or other athletic activities. This reflects a slight change in preferences over
237
This survey was a self-reported survey open to any CBO in San Francisco and was conducted in the fall of 2010. Department of Children,
Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
238
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” 2010.
239
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
240
This survey was a self-reported survey open to any CBO in San Francisco and was conducted in the fall of 2010. Department of Children,
Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
241
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” 2010.
242
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” 2010.
243
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Program Grade 10 Student Satisfaction Survey 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
66
time. In 2008, almost 40 percent of SFUSD students voiced an interest in having more sports and athletics
programs, with male students in particular expressing interest in team sports. 244
Among those public high school students who do not participate in extracurricular activities, the top
reasons cited include being too busy with homework (19 percent) and lack of interest in the activities
offered (12 percent). Neighborhood safety appears to be a barrier for more June Jordan and Downtown
High School students than the average, and being too busy with a job appears to be a barrier for more Civic
Center, Ida B. Wells, Downtown, June Jordan, and O’Connell High school students. 245 Lack of information
does not appear to be a substantial barrier to participation in extracurricular activities. More than 80
percent of youth reported that they knew how to find an extracurricular activity or program, and this
response was relatively consistent across gender and racial/ethnic groups. 246
Parents, service providers, and youth at DCYF community input sessions also voiced concerns that the
needs of some groups of teens are not met by existing out of school time program offerings. Some
community input session participants stated existing offerings do not meet the needs of teens that are
homeless, pregnant, identify as LBGTQ, or involved with the juvenile justice system. In some cases, they
reported that programs may enroll or conduct outreach to these specific populations of older youth, but
their staff capacity or program design are not suited to meet their needs. For example, one participant
stated, “For the re-entry population, there is a lack of specific programming. The types of programs [being
offered] are not really appropriate for the population because they do not know how to help them
transition back into mainstream society. Programs do not know how to change their style to work with reentry kids, who have different needs than regular kids.”
Summer Options
SFUSD’s summer school offerings have declined over the years due to budget shortages. In Summer 2010
and 2011, SFUSD only offered summer school for high school students if they were receiving special
education services, migrant education services, enrolled in a court school, graduating seniors or failed the
state high school exit exam. In Summer 2011, SFUSD will also offer a credit recovery program and
academic support programming at an underperforming high school. City College and several other local
institutions of higher education also offer credit-bearing summer courses for older youth.
There are many different types of programs and activities that older youth participate in during the
summer, including many of the academic support, sports and athletics, leadership, community service, arts
and cultural identity programs that operate year-round. Some youth-serving organizations and local
institutions of higher education also offer unique opportunities over the summer. While an array of
programs exist, parents, youth, and service providers at DCYF community input sessions voiced a need for
more summer options for older youth. These stakeholders specifically voiced a need for summer youth
employment opportunities, which is addressed in the section on Youth Workforce Activities.
Out of School Time Program Safety and Staff
The importance of safe and comforting spaces during out of school time was a theme in several
community, youth and service provider input sessions. At those sessions, safety was described by
participants to include physical and emotional safety, particularly for immigrant youth,
lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/queer (LGBTQ) youth, and other special needs populations. Cultural
244
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families analysis of “Youth Vote 2008 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2011.
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” 2010.
246
YouthVote, “YouthVote Spring 2009 Student Survey,” 2009.
245
67
competency of adult staff, including being able to speak their language or staff who look like the youth
they work with, was also mentioned as a need.
Based on data from participants in DCYF-funded out of school time programs, most of the youth
participants (90 percent) generally report feeling safe at the programs they attend. 247 Almost threequarters of youth participating in ExCEL afterschool programs reported they felt safer in their programs
than during the regular school day. 248 More than three-quarters of the youth participants in DCYF-funded
teen programs also reported that the adults in their programs “really care about them” and 81 percent
report that they can confide in program staff with issues they experience. In addition, 83 percent of youth
participants reported that “adults in this program believe I will become a success.” 249 These trends were
echoed among high school ExCEL afterschool participants, with about 90 percent of those participants also
reporting that the staff members are knowledgeable, competent, and well prepared. 250
IV. Youth Workforce Activities Workforce training and employment opportunities for older youth were the most consistently mentioned
need for older youth voiced by youth, parents, community members, and neighborhood service providers
during DCYF input sessions. Service providers and high school principals surveyed also ranked
employment as the top area of need for older youth. Participants in DCYF’s community input sessions also
articulated the need for internships, career mentoring/shadowing programs, and meaningful, year-round
(not solely summer) employment opportunities as a factor critical in reducing youth violence. Participants
expressed a need to ensure that immigrant youth and those with disabilities or involvement in the juvenile
justice or child welfare system have access to such programming.
A 2009 citywide survey of community residents indicated that 22 percent of families with youth ages 14 to
17 years old were using workforce development programs (an increase of four percentage points from
2007), and that 50 percent of the remaining families were interested in such services but faced barriers
such as the cost, location, quality or availability of the services. African Americans were most likely to
report using such programs. Comparisons between 2007 and 2009 survey data found that the use of youth
employment and career development services rose by four points to 22 percent of families who have
children 14 to 17 years old. African Americans are the most likely to use these services. 251
Similarly, a survey of 145 service providers found that 66 percent of respondents report youth employment
opportunities as one of the highest needs of youth ages 14 to 18, followed by college and career
counseling. Similarly, 85 percent of the service provider respondents reported that youth in their
communities desire access to jobs and job training. Service providers also reported even higher levels of
need for jobs and job training for youth ages 19 to 24, with 97 percent of respondents reporting that youth
in their communities desire such opportunities. 252
In January 2008, a little less than 20 percent of SFUSD high school students reported having a job. Of those
who had a job, 10 percent worked for less than 10 hours per week, seven percent worked 10 to 20 hours
per week, and two percent worked more than 20 hours per week. Seniors and juniors were more likely to
247
Average responses for Out of School Time program participants that were 14 to 17 years old. Department of Children, Youth, and Their
Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results, 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
248
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Program Grade 10 Student Satisfaction Survey 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
249
Note: Average responses for Out of School Time program participants that were 14 to 17 years old. Department of Children, Youth, and
Their Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results, 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
250
San Francisco Unified School District, “SFUSD After School Program Grade 10 Student Satisfaction Survey 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
251
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
252
This survey was a self-reported survey open to any CBO in San Francisco and was conducted in the fall of 2010. Department of Children,
Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
68
report having a job than freshman and sophomores, and a higher percentage of African American students
(33 percent) reported having a job than other racial/ethnic groups. 253
Percent of Respondents
Exhibit 47: SFUSD High School Students Who Report Having a Job, 2008 33%
er
A
O
th
16%
Ch
in
es
e
17%
sia
n
lip
in
o
19%
Fi
o
Na
ti v
eA
m
an
e
20%
La
tin
21%
er
ic
an
se
22%
Ja
p
hi
te
22%
W
Ra
ce
M
ix
ed
Af
ric
an
Am
er
ica
n
24%
Source: YouthVote, “YouthVote January 2008 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2008.
SFUSD high school students have also expressed interest in workforce programs. When asked what
extracurricular activities they were most interested in, 52 percent of SFUSD high school students reported
wanting to find a job training or internship program and 40 percent wanted to learn job skills—the highest
among all responses. Eighty-four percent of SFUSD students also indicated interest in having a class or
extra-curricular activity that would help them get a job.
Students at Hilltop School (61 percent) and Ruth Asawa
“Job training for youth is San Francisco School of the Arts (59 percent) were most
interested in finding job training or internship programs,
important because once while Gateway High School students showed the lowest
[students] graduate from level of interest (38 percent) followed by Independence
(41 percent) and O’Connell (45 percent) high school
high school they have students. Students living in the Financial District (63
experience and they can percent), West Portal/St Francis Wood (58 percent),
Sunset (57 percent) showed the highest levels of interest
find a job.” in finding a job training or internship program, while
students living in the Western Addition (45 percent),
– Spanish speaking public Castro/Noe Valley (47 percent) and Marina/Cow Hollow
school parent from the (47 percent) showed lower levels of interest. In terms of
areas of interest for future careers, the most popular were
Mission business/finance (70 percent), health care (64 percent),
and information technology/digital media (63 percent). 254
Existing Youth Workforce Activities
Currently, a variety of youth employment and youth workforce opportunities exist in San Francisco. Some
youth secure part-time or temporary formal and informal jobs through their own networks or efforts.
Others participate in school-related internships or career exposure programs that may help them identify
253
254
YouthVote, “YouthVote January 2008 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2008.
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2009 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2009.
69
their career interests and or apply their classroom learning to professional contexts. Some youth earn
stipends or other rewards in leadership or skill-development programs that aim to foster skills that will be
helpful in the workplace. Others participate in city-funded youth workforce activities, such as job training,
workforce, and internship programs.
DCYF is the largest public funder of job training, workforce, and internship programs for youth. While not
inclusive of all of the various types of programs available to youth in San Francisco, DCYF-funded programs
provided more than 6,000 youth ages 14 to 24 with workforce development opportunities in 2009-2010.
Among these participants, just under half (2,800) were placed in actual work experiences (also referred to
as work placements), divided among paid subsidized jobs by City funds (72 percent), paid placements that
were not subsidized (11 percent), and unpaid internships (3 percent). 255 Almost all of the youth in these
programs who were surveyed felt that they would be able to find a job as a result of their participation.
Eighty-four percent reported they learned new job skills that they could take to a new job. When asked
about program improvement, participants most frequently suggested having more internships, career
exposure, job opportunities, activities related to helping enhance skills needed to write
resumes/applications and interview for jobs, and adjusting the length and times for which these programs
are offered. 256
Exhibit 48: Participants in DCYF‐Funded Youth Workforce Activities by Race/Ethnicity, 2009‐10 African American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Multiracial/Multiethnic White Other TOTAL Youth Ages 14 to 17 1,625 (36%) 1,488 (33%) 906 (20%) 220 (5%) 137 (3%) 90 (2%) 4,466 (100%) Youth Ages 18 to 24 373 (34%) 266 (24%) 232 (21%) 94 (9%) 111 (10%) 20 (2%) 1,096 (100%) Note: Percentages do not reflect participants with missing birthdates or race info.
Source: Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, analysis of 2009-10 Youth Workforce Development grantee data, 2011
unpublished. Exhibit 49: Participants in DCYF‐Funded Youth Workforce Activities by Home Neighborhood, 2009‐10 Home Zip Code 94124 (Bayview/Hunters Point) 94112 (Excelsior/OMI) 94134 (Visitacion Valley/Portola) 94110 (Mission) Ages 14 to 17 Ages 18 to 24 796 (18%) 621 (14%) 469 (10%) 455 (10%) 181 (16%) 116 (11%) 96 (9%) 111 (10%) Note: Percentages do not reflect participants with missing birthdates or home zip codes.
Source: Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, analysis of 2009-10 Youth Workforce Development
grantee data, 2011 unpublished. About 15 percent of SFUSD high school students, or 2,400 students, report that they are participating in job
training or an internship, while more than 50 percent would like to participate. Most students participating
in these types of activities are in the higher grades (21 percent of 12th graders as opposed to seven percent
of 9th graders). Korean (27 percent), Samoan (25 percent), African American (24 percent), Native-American
(22 percent), Japanese (22 percent), and Pacific Islander (21 percent) students all had higher rates of
255
14 percent of placements were not categorized due to lack of self-reported data. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families,
analysis of grantee data, internal data, 2011, unpublished.
256
This data is from self-reported surveys of DCYF Youth Workforce Development grantees. Department of Children, Youth, and Their
Families, “Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results, 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
70
participation than the district-wide average. Participation also varied by school. More than half of the
students at Hilltop reported participating in job training or internships (61 percent), compared to the
lowest per-school proportion of only nine percent at O’Connell High School. Of the students participating,
the highest numbers of youth were from the Outer Mission/Excelsior/Ingleside (94112), Visitacion Valley
(94134), Sunset (94122), and Parkside/Forest Hill (94116) neighborhoods. More than half of the SFUSD high
school students with an internship or job reported that they participate because they need to make
money, want to develop job skills, and want to improve their resume or college application. These desires
were echoed in DCYF community input sessions. As one representative from a youth empowerment
agency stated, “From the teen perspective, they want
teen programs that develop skills and leadership. They
“If there’s no opportunity also want career skills…programs that teach teens how
to get into a certain career or field. Teens want jobs
to succeed, then people are and internships. They want to make more money and
drawn to do more gain skills.”
The number of SFUSD high school students involved in
the school district’s Career Technical Education (CTE)
programs (which take place during the school day and
often during out of school time) has grown from 997 in
2007-2008 to 1,701 in 2009-2010. 257 The number of
participants from “underserved populations”
completing the programs have also grown from 25 to
350 in the same time period. 258 Supplemental survey
data demonstrated that participating in CTE programs
increased 19 percent of the students’ school
attendance and almost half felt more involved in their
education. 259 One concern raised about such programs
during DCYF youth input sessions was that some
students do not learn about programs in time to
participate or need more time to explore career options
and therefore cannot take advantage of these
programs.
crime…Kids don’t know that they have other alternatives to violence and crime. So, you gotta have jobs and programs, and the people working at the programs need to understand the people that they’re working with.” ‐Youth The Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) is one of the other major public
funders of youth workforce development programs. OEWD awards grants to community-based
organizations (CBOs) to implement programs with funding from the federal Workforce Investment Act,
Community Development Block Grant, and City General funds. In 2009-2010, about 663 youth ages 14 to
18 participated in OEWD-funded programs (which includes some of the 1,009 youth served through One
Stop Career Centers), and 815 young adults ages 19 to 24 (which includes some of the 2,746 youth served
through the One Stop Career Centers). About 43 percent of the participants in OEWD-funded programs
were African American, 27 percent were Asian, 20 percent were Latino, seven percent were White, and two
percent were Pacific Islander/Hawaiian. African American youth (41 percent) were the largest racial/ethnic
257
San Francisco Unified School District, Program Evaluation & Research Office, “Evaluation Report: Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF)
2009-2010,” San Francisco, 2011.
258
SFUSD defines “underserved populations” for its Career Technical education program as African American and Latino students. San
Francisco Unified School District Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF), “Logic Model and Performance Chart –Career Tech Ed; PEEF
Performance Measures,” accessed December 3, 2010,
http://web.sfusd.edu/partners/enrichment_fund/Spending%20Plans%20%20Programs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fpartners%2fen
richment%5ffund%2fSpending%20Plans%20%20Programs%2fCareer%2dTech%2dEducation&FolderCTID=&View=%7bE3E06355%2d213E
%2d47EF%2d8A91%2d39C1B7117544%7d . Communication with Patricia Theel, Career Technical Education, SFUSD, April 5, 2011.
259
San Francisco Unified School District, Program Evaluation & Research Office, “Evaluation Report: Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF)
2009-2010,” San Francisco, 2011.
71
group to use One Stop Career Centers, followed by Latino (24 percent) and Asian (22 percent) youth. 260
Exhibit 50 outlines OEWD-funded programs for 2010-2011, including projections for the number of youth
to be served. Youth participating in DCYF input sessions stated that they also look for work outside of
publicly-run youth employment programs. Private sector jobs are another avenue for youth to gain work
experience, but these jobs can be hard to find in general and especially in the current economy with high
unemployment rates.
Exhibit 50: Programs Supported by Office of Economic and Workforce Development, 2010 Strategy Description Programs which prepare youth and young adults with basic education and technical skills that are contextualized around a specific industry sector leading Youth to an articulated path to post‐secondary Sector education, further sector training, or Bridge industry‐recognized certification. Programs are offered in Construction, Health, and IT/Digital Media. Education and employment services which provide referrals to academic and employment resources, job search and job readiness skills offered through Targeted individualized and group learning, case Youth management, and barrier removal. Services GED+ Enriched educational instruction and supports to assist youth in addressing educational and workplace challenges. Target Population Served High school youth who are on track to graduate, but do not plan on attending post secondary, and youth who have a high school diploma or GED but who are unemployed or not engaged in formal post‐secondary education. Participants eligible for targeted youth services must be between the ages of 17‐24 and face barriers such as homelessness, current or previous engagement in foster care, teen parenting, involvement in juvenile justice, or being academically at risk of not graduating high school or attaining a GED. Youth ages 17‐1/2 to 21, primarily low‐income. Youth Served 200 per year 80 per year 160 per year Source: Youth Council of the Workforce Investment San Francisco Board, “Building Our Youth for the Future: Strengthening San Francisco’s Youth
Workforce System,” San Francisco, 2011. Service providers who work with disconnected transitional age youth and participated in DCYF community
input sessions voiced concerns about homeless, pregnant or parenting, disabled, LGBTQ, or justice-system
involved youths’ access to workforce development programs. These providers voiced a need for
employers and workforce programs that are aware of transitional age youths’ life circumstances and have
the capacity to support them to success.
V. Health and Wellness During DCYF community input sessions, many community members expressed concern that older youth
are experiencing significant stresses in their lives and surrounding community. Some of the stresses
mentioned by participants may be viewed as characteristic of this age group such as conflicts with their
parents and difficulties adjusting to high school or life after high school. However, more commonly
mentioned stresses during community input sessions involved the impact of street violence, domestic
260
San Francisco’s OEWD operates seven One Stop Career Centers, which are places where individuals who are unemployed, hoping to make
a mid-career change, or looking for their first job can go to receive information and assistance to find and prepare for future jobs. Data
supplied by Glenn Eagleson, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, email correspondence, January 13, 2011 and April 14, 2011.
72
violence, and substance abuse in the community. Community input session participants raised concerns
about how these stresses impact older youths’ health and wellness.
Physical Fitness, Activity, and Nutrition
In the state’s assessment of physical fitness, 38 percent of SFUSD 9th graders met all six fitness standards,
matching the statewide average. Among those standards, SFUSD students scored lowest in aerobic
capacity with 31 percent not meeting the state’s standards, compared to the statewide average of 38
percent. 261
Data indicate concerning trends regarding obesity among older youth, including racial/ethnic disparities
and inaccurate self-assessment of appropriate weight. Only 75 percent of SFUSD 9th graders were reported
at a healthy weight, with both Latino and African American students scoring most poorly on healthy
weight among ethnic groups for which data was available. 262 Another local data source also demonstrates
a disparity along race/ethnic lines in the number of overweight and obese teens. While 13 percent of Asian
youth ages 12 to 14 were overweight and 10 percent were obese, the rates were higher among African
American (26 percent were overweight and 32 percent were obese) and Latino (24 percent were
overweight and 29 percent were obese) youth. A similar trend exists among youth ages 15 to 19. Ten
percent of Asian youth were overweight and eight percent were obese, while 19 percent of African
American youth were overweight and 28 percent were obese and 19 percent Latino youth were
overweight and 21 percent were obese. 263 Thirteen percent of public high school students are likely
overweight as measured by student self-reports of height and weight, yet 31 percent of students perceive
themselves as overweight. Forty-five percent of students report trying to lose weight. 264 This data indicate
that some students’ efforts to lose weight may be detrimental to their health. Though local data was not
available, nationally about six percent of adolescents suffer from an eating disorder, with the average age
of such disorders beginning at ages 12 to 13. 265
The percentage of students who reported watching television for three or more hours per school day
decreased from 45 percent in 1999 to 30 percent in 2009. However, 40 percent of students reported
playing video or computer games for three or more hours on an average school day. Thirty-five percent of
high school students report being physically active for an hour per day on five or more days in the past
week. 266
261
The physical fitness test includes standards related to aerobic capacity, body composition, abdominal strength, trunk extensor strength,
upper body strength, and flexibility. California Department of Education, “2008-09 California Physical Fitness Report, Summary of Results,
San Francisco Unified School District,” accessed February 2011, http://dq/cde.ca.gov/dataquest.
262
Data was not available for Pacific Islander or Native American students in 9th grade. Percentage of public school students in grade nine
with body composition falling within or below the Healthy Fitness Zone of the state’s Fitnessgram assessment. California Department of
Education, “Physical Fitness Testing Statewide Research Files,” accessed June 17, 2009, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/pftresearch.asp.
263
This data is collected for primarily low-income, at-risk children in medical offices/clinics and recorded on a state form. Data was not
available for White, Filipino, and Pacific Islander youth. Overweight is defined as a body mass index between the 85th and 95th percentile for
that age. Obese is defined as equal to or greater than the 95th percentile. California Department of Health Care Services, “2009 Pediatric
Nutrition Surveillance, San Francisco, Growth Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Age – Children Aged 5 to <20 years,” accessed April 2011,
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/chdp/Documents/PedNSS/2009/16B0to5.pdf.
264
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
265
The rates of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, sub-threshold anorexia nervosa , and sub-threshold binge eating
disorder were 0.3 percent 0.9 percent, 1.6 percent, 0.8 percent, and 2.5 percent, respectively, in a nationally representative sample of 10,123
adolescents ranging from 13- to 18-years-old who participated in face-to-face interviews. Walter Kaye, M.D. & Danyale McCurdy, Ph.D,
National Eating Disorders Association, “A Review of ‘Swanson, S., Crow, S., Le Grange, D., Swendsen, J., Merikangas, K. (2011). Prevalence and
Correlates of Eating Disorders in Adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, Online Article, E1-E10,’” Seattle, 2011, accessed April 6, 2011,
http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/uploads/file/Prevalence%20and%20correlates%20of%20EDs%20for%20website(1).pdf.
266
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
73
The nutritional habits of older youth are also a concern. In 2006-2008, only about 60 percent of 9th and 11th
graders and just more than a third of students in continuation and court schools reported eating breakfast
in the past day, 267 and in 2009, nearly one in six students reported drinking soda or pop daily. 268
Substance Use
Tobacco use among San Francisco teens has steadily declined since 1997, and local rates are substantially
below the national average. The number of SFUSD high school students who reported smoking in the past
30 days fell by about half from 19 percent in 1997 to 10 percent in 2009. The number of students smoking
at least 20 days per month also fell from seven percent to about three to five percentage points below the
national average. The rate at which students report smoking differs by race/ethnicity, with the highest rate
among White students. 269 About a fifth of current smokers said they normally acquire their cigarettes from
a store or gas station. 270
In contrast to smoking rates, there has been little to no change in self-reported rates of alcohol or
marijuana use among high school youth. From 1997 to 2009, the percentage of SFUSD high school
students reporting having consumed alcohol in the past 30 days dropped slightly, from 28 percent to 24
percent. This percentage varies by race/ethnicity, with White students reporting the highest rates,
followed by Latino students. 271 The rate of students reporting recent binge drinking and marijuana use
remained relatively constant. In 2009, 12 percent reported recent binge drinking, and 16 percent reported
recent marijuana use. Six percent of students consumed alcohol at least once on school property in the
last month, and six percent had smoked marijuana at school in the last month. About a third of students
reported that they were sold or offered an illegal drug on school grounds at least once. More than half of
SFUSD students in 2009 reported having tried alcohol and about a quarter of students tried marijuana at
least once in their lives. About five percent reported trying cocaine, four percent methamphetamine, and
three percent heroin. 272 Student experimentation with substances before age 15 appears to
predominantly involve alcohol, with more than a quarter of students reporting consumption of at least one
drink by age 15. In self-report of other substance use, 20 percent had smoked a cigarette, 12 percent had
experimented with marijuana, and about two percent reported experimenting with other illegal drugs. 273
High school students’ self-reported use of alcohol and drugs is consistent with data reported by the San
Francisco Department of Public Health’s Community Behavioral Health Services (CBHS). In the 2009-2010,
CBHS provided substance abuse treatment services to 1,466 youth up through age 25. Youth accessing
these services are primarily low-income youth whose families use publicly subsidized health services. All
but six of these youth were over the age of 12. The top five primary substances used by clients aged 12-25
at treatment admission were: marijuana/hashish (26 percent), alcohol (20 percent), heroin (12 percent),
methamphetamines (11 percent), and cocaine/crack (nine percent). Of the youth participating in these
services, 58 percent were male and 41 percent were female. The largest proportion of substance abuse
267
Definition: Percentage of public school students reporting they did or did not eat breakfast that day, by gender and grade level. California
Department of Education, WestEd, “California Healthy Kids Survey,” http://www.wested.org/chks, http://kidsdata.org.
268
San Francisco Unified School District, “High School Youth Risk Behavior and Resiliency Results 2009,”2010, 16, accessed January 10, 2011,
http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm.
269
Adolescent Health Working Group, “A Snapshot of Youth Health and Wellness, San Francisco, 2009,” 2010, 41, accessed January 10, 2011,
http://www.ahwg.net/knowledgebase/nodates.php?pid=53&tpid=6 .
270
The most recent year for available national data is 2007 when eight percent of high school youth smoked at least 20 days per month. San
Francisco Unified School District, “High School Youth Risk Behavior and Resiliency Results 2009,” 2010, 8-9, accessed July 16, 2010,
http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm.
271
Adolescent Health Working Group, “A Snapshot of Youth Health and Wellness, San Francisco, 2009,” 2010, 42, accessed January 10, 2011,
http://www.ahwg.net/knowledgebase/nodates.php?pid=53&tpid=6 .
272
San Francisco Unified School District, “High School Youth Risk Behavior and Resiliency Results 2009,” 2010, accessed July 16, 2010,
http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm.
273
San Francisco Unified School District, Student Support Services Department, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and National Survey Results: 1997-2009, High School Trends in the Prevalence of Cigarette
Use; High School in the Prevalence of Marijuana, Cocaine and other Illegal Drug Use,” San Francisco, 2009.
74
treatment clients was Black/African American (30 percent), followed by Hispanic/Latino (28 percent), White
(21 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islanders (10 percent). Eighty-four percent of the youth clients identified as
heterosexual, 13 percent identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, two percent declined to state, and one
percent were unsure of their sexual orientation. 274 School-based service providers participating in a DCYF
input session identified a need for more community-based substance abuse services for LGBTQ youth
because many do not want to access services specific to LGBTQ populations in schools for fear of being
“outed” about their sexual orientation.
Reproductive Health
The proportion of SFUSD high school students reporting having had sexual intercourse (29 percent) has
remained relatively steady since 1997, and is substantially lower than the national average (48 percent).
The proportion of local youth who are sexually active has also remained relatively constant at about 20
percent, with about 10 percent reporting they have had more than four sex partners in their lifetime.
Among the youth who are sexually active, just over half reported having used a condom during their last
intercourse, and about 15 percent had used birth control pills. Reported condom use dropped nearly 15
percent between 2007 and 2009. More than 20 percent reported that they used drugs or alcohol before
the last time they had intercourse. 275
The teen birth rate has increased from 20.7 per 1,000 in 2006 to 24.5 per 1,000 births in 2007. More than
three times as many teen births occur among females ages 18 to 19, as compared to those under age 17.
Most teen births are to Latino mothers, followed by African American and Asian mothers. 276 Teen birth
rates vary by neighborhood, with the highest numbers in Bayview/Hunters Point, South of Market, and the
Mission. 277 Chlamydia and gonorrhea are the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among
San Francisco and California residents, as reported to local health departments. In San Francisco, African
American adolescents ages 14 to 20 have the highest rates of these two infections. In 2009, the rates of
Chlamydia and gonorrhea among African American adolescents were more than seven times that of White
adolescents. 278 The proportion of youth who reported receiving HIV/AIDS education decreased over the
past decade from 92 percent to 85 percent. 279
In addition, to the above physical health areas, the rate of non-fatal unintentional injury hospitalizations
per 100,000 children increased for youth ages 16 to 20 (up to 316) and decreased for youth ages 13 to 15
274
San Francisco Department of Public Health, Community Behavioral Health Services, Child, Youth and Family System of Care. “Annual
Report Fiscal Year 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
275
San Francisco Unified School District, “High School Youth Risk Behavior and Resiliency Results 2009,” accessed January 10, 2011,
http://healthiersf.org/Resources/chks-yrbs.cfm...
276
California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics Section, CD-Rom Public Use Birth Files; State of
California, Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050,” accessed June 2009,
http://www.dof.ca.gov as cited by http://kidsData.org,“Teen Birth Rates.”
277
Adolescent Health Working Group, “A Snapshot of Youth Health and Wellness, San Francisco, 2009,” San Francisco, 2010, accessed January
10, 2011, http://www.ahwg.net/knowledgebase/nodates.php?pid=53&tpid=6 .
278
Chlamydia and gonorrhea are the most common STIs among the SF population, as reported to the SF DPH according to Title 17 of the
California Administrative Code, which requires all clinicians treating or knowing of a patient with a suspected or documented reportable
sexually transmitted disease (STD) and all laboratories with a test result or isolate suggesting infection by a reportable agent of an STD to
report their findings to the patient's local health department. Department of Public Health, “San Francisco Sexually Transmitted Disease,
Annual Report 2009,” San Francisco, 2010.
279
San Francisco Unified School District, Student Support Services Department, prepared by ETR Associates, “Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and National Survey Results: 1997-2009, High School Trends in the Prevalence of Sexual
Behavior” San Francisco, 2009.
75
(down to 197) from 2002 to 2006. 280 However, the intentional injury hospitalization rate, which includes
both self-inflicted and assault-related injuries, increased slightly for both age groups in 2006. 281
Mental Health
Participants in community input sessions indicated a need for mental health services for older youth. Many
felt that violence in the street and at home can have adverse effects on youth, and they need services that
help them manage these stresses. This concern was echoed in community input sessions focused on
violence prevention where participants articulated a need for mental health services to contend with
trauma related to community violence including loss of family members, exposure to abuse or neglect,
experiences of incarceration, and daily fear of violence. The need for mental health support for transitional
age youth was also highlighted.
In a survey of SFUSD high school principals, they identified both mental health counseling for youth, as
well as support for interpersonal relationships (parents, peers, romantic interests) as the most frequent
requests they hear from the youth and families they serve. Principals’ perspectives mirror data on students
receiving behavioral health services through the Wellness Centers at 15 public high schools. The most
frequent issues students reported in 2009-2010 were (in order of highest to lowest): family concerns,
learning/school concerns, social issues, depression, and
substance use. 282
“Programs for emotional The number of SFUSD high school students reporting
support [are needed] serious consideration of suicide over the past decade
has fallen, but LGBTQ students and other subgroups
because some kids are still face a disproportionately high suicide risk. From
1997 to 2009 the proportion of students reporting that
depressed, using drugs, or they had seriously considered suicide fell substantially,
are rejected and from 20 percent to 12 percent. This mirrors a national
trend of decreased reports of suicidal thoughts among
bullied…mostly in middle high school students. In 2009, 12 percent of SFUSD
and high school.” students reported seriously considering attempting
suicide, but among LGBTQ-identified students this
– Spanish speaking parent number rose to 38 percent. 283 Disparities also exist
among racial/ethnic groups and other sub-populations.
from SOMA Data from 2007 indicate that African American youth
report the highest rate of suicide attempts (15 percent), followed by youth of multiple races (14 percent).
More female students report considering suicide than males (15 percent versus 10 percent) and more
female than male high school students (33 percent versus 22 percent) report depression, which is defined
as feeling “so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more in a row that they stopped doing
280
State of California Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, California Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development, “Patient Discharge Data,” accessed June 2009, http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/epicdata/default.htm;
State of California, Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050” accessed June 2009,
http://www.dof.ca.gov.
281
State of California Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, California Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development, “Patient Discharge Data,” accessed June 2009, http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/epicdata/default.htm;
State of California, Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999, 2000-2050,” accessed June, 2009
http://www.dof.ca.gov.
282
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
283
San Francisco Unified School District, prepared by ETR Associates, “High School Youth Risk Behavior & Resiliency Results: Key Indicators
from the 2009 Youth Risk Behavior and California Healthy Kids Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
76
some usual activities during the past 12 months.” Latino (34 percent) and Filipino (33 percent) students are
more likely to report having “sad or hopeless feelings” relative to students of other ethnicities. 284
Health and Wellness Services
In DCYF community input sessions the need for counseling and wellness services was mentioned. Youth
stated that they generally prefer the convenience of school-based health and wellness programs.
Data indicate that more teens may be accessing counseling services. A citywide survey of residents in 2007
and 2009 found that families reported an increase in the use of counseling services for their children (ages
0 to 17) from 13 percent in 2007 to 18 percent in 2009. Parents with older children and those with annual
household incomes under $50,000 appear more likely to use counseling services. 285 In 2009-2010, CBHS
provided mental health services to 1,886 youth ages 15-18. This age group had the highest number of new
clients receiving services. Youth accessing these services are primarily low-income youth whose families
use publicly subsidized health services and/or are designated as special education students, and therefore
must have a diagnosed mental health condition. 286
In the 2009-2010 school year, 45 percent of the students at 15 SFUSD high schools accessed services
through their school-based Wellness Centers. Of these nearly 7,000 unduplicated users, Latinos were the
largest group of students accessing services, representing about a quarter of all users (27 percent),
followed by Chinese students (24 percent) and African American students (19 percent). 287 Although not all
students may be accessing services, 78 percent of students reported they feel comfortable walking into the
Wellness Center at their school. 288 Wellness Center staff report a need for individual mental health and
substance abuse counseling, as nearly all Wellness sites experienced a waiting list for individual counseling
in the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.
Historically, Chinese students are under-represented among the Wellness student population; some 40
percent of the students at high schools with Wellness sites are Chinese, but in the 2009-2010 school year
only 24 percent of the Wellness client population were Chinese. Research conducted by the Wellness
Initiative indicates this underutilization is not due to a lack of need for mental health services. Rather, the
research found many factors may contribute to the lower utilization, including cultural expectations that
may limit help-seeking behaviors and student and staff perceptions of Chinese youth that may constrain
referrals for services. 289 However, when compared to data from the other city-funded health systems, Asian
youth are more likely to use services at Wellness Centers than services through the CBHS. 290
During the 2009-2010 school year, the most frequently accessed Wellness services were medical services,
which include traditional school nursing services including reproductive health and case management of
chronic health conditions. The next most accessed services were behavioral health (clinical) counseling,
case management, general (non-clinical) counseling, and health education. Female students represented
53 percent of the students receiving services. Outside of the purview of the Wellness Program, at Civic
Center Secondary and Hilltop, two of SFUSD’s County Community Schools, 235 students accessed services
284
Adolescent Health Working Group, “A Snapshot of Youth Health and Wellness, San Francisco, 2009,” accessed January 10, 2011,
http://www.ahwg.net/knowledgebase/nodates.php?pid=53&tpid=6.
285
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
286
San Francisco Department of Public Health, Community Behavioral Health Services, Child, Youth and Family System of Care, “Annual
Report Fiscal Year 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2010.
287
San Francisco Wellness Initiative, “Wellness Initiative Profile 2007-2008,” San Francisco, 2009.
288
YouthVote, “YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
289
Yolanda Anyon, Kelly Whitaker, John Shields, & Heather Franks, (under review), “Help-seeking in context: Reframing Chinese American
adolescents 'underutilization of behavioral health services,” Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research.
290
Adolescent Health Working Group, “A Snapshot of Youth Health and Wellness, San Francisco, 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
77
of the two school-based social workers (LSP), and 170 students accessed the services of two part-time
school district nurses (1.2 FTE). 291
Wellness Center staff, who work with almost half of the public high school population, indicated unmet
community need for services targeting young men, foster youth, LGBTQ youth, bilingual/bicultural services
for Asian youth, programs addressing domestic violence, wrap-around services for families, and services
related to complex trauma (which is a particular clinical diagnosis referring to individuals who experience
multiple traumatic events over a period of time).
Exhibit 51: Students Accessing Wellness Program Services by Race/Ethnicity, 2009‐2010 Other Non-White,
15%
Not Stated, 2%
Other White, 7%
Latino, 27%
African American,
19%
Filipino, 6%
Chinese, 24%
Source: San Francisco Wellness Initiative, “09-10 Wellness Initiative Service Summary,” San Francisco, 2009.
VI. Violence, Crime, and Justice System Involvement Participants in DCYF’s community input sessions identified various challenges to safety in San Francisco.
These include a lack of clean safe spaces for youth, high rates of truancy, lack of mental health services for
exposure to trauma, and lack of information about programs and other healthy alternatives for teens.
Participants also raised concerns about domestic violence, bullying and school violence, and articulated a
need for programs focused specifically on violence prevention. Some community members also identified
concerns related to loitering and drug sales, as well as safety issues related to street violence, turf issues,
and gun violence prohibiting youth and families from feeling safe.
Violence
Over the past decade there have been some small decreases in indicators of youth violence among high
school students. The percentage of youth who reported carrying a weapon dropped from 14 percent in
1997 to 12 percent in 2009, and the percentage who reported being in a physical fight dropped from 27
percent to 22 percent. Decreases were also found among the percentage carrying a weapon to school
291
San Francisco Unified School District: Student Support Services Department , prepared by ETR Associates, “Learning Support Professional
& School Nurse Service Log Data Summary (SY2009-2010),” San Francisco, 2010.
78
(dropped from eight percent to seven percent), and the percentage who reported being in a physical fight
on school property over that period dropped from 11 percent to 10 percent. 292 However, when asked what
issues add stress to their lives, a recent survey of SFUSD high school students found that violence in the
community was “very stressful” for 16 percent of SFUSD students, and “somewhat stressful” for 33 percent
of SFUSD students. 293 In addition, about eight percent of SFUSD high school students and seven percent of
middle school students reported they had been hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their
boyfriend or girlfriend during the past 12 months. Students identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual were
more likely to experience and/or report intimate partner violence than students identifying as
heterosexual. 294 A national study found that one in four teens in a romantic relationship report being
called names, harassed, or put down by their partner via cell phone calls or texts. 295
Homicide is still the leading cause of death among youth ages 15 to 24 in San Francisco, despite an overall
decline in the total number of homicides. In 2007, there were fourteen deaths among youth ages 15 to 19
and twenty-seven deaths among youth ages 20 to 24, with homicide as the leading cause for twenty-one
of the deaths across both age groups. 296 From 2005 to 2008, San Francisco recorded from 86 to almost 100
homicides each year. In subsequent years, the number of homicides decreased markedly with 44
homicides reported in 2009 and 50 reported 2010. A combination of enforcement and prevention
strategies targeting these zones may have contributed to the reduction of homicides and non-fatal
shootings in these areas. Homicides for 2011, however, have shown an alarming increase in the first month
of 2011, with eight reported in the first four weeks of January. 297 Analysis of San Francisco’s homicide
victims in 2009 found that 94 percent of homicide victims under age 25 were high school dropouts. 298
Crime
The number of violent crimes committed by youth and adults in San Francisco has increased since 2005,
although there have been fluctuations from year to year. Aggravated assault violations have increased
most steadily, while robbery and forcible rape have fluctuated throughout the years. 299 Speaking to this
danger, parents and community members participating in DCYF input sessions emphasized the
importance of establishing safe spaces for youth to gather in their neighborhoods, especially in areas
where street violence is prevalent. The San Francisco Police Department has identified the five “hot zone”
neighborhoods most impacted by crime. Those neighborhoods are the Bayview, Mission,
Tenderloin/South of Market, Visitacion Valley, and Western Addition.
From 1999 through 2008, there was a 44 percent drop in arrests of juveniles (youth ages 10 to 17) for
misdemeanors (from 1,745 to 976) and a 14 percent decline in juvenile arrests for felonies (from 1,633 to
1,404). 300 The drop in misdemeanor arrests was driven by an across-the-board drop in arrests for all types
of offenses, while the drop in felony arrests was largely driven by a drop in property offenses (particularly
292
San Francisco Unified School District, “San Francisco Unified School District High School Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and National
Survey Results: 1997-2009: High School Trends in the Prevalence of Behaviors that Contribute to Violence on School Campus,” San Francisco,
2010.
293
YouthVote, YouthVote Fall 2010 Student Survey,” San Francisco, 2010.
294
Department on the Status of Women, “Family Violence Council: Addressing Violence throughout the Lifespan, Comprehensive Report on
Family Violence in San Francisco, 2010,” San Francisco, November 2010.
295
Liz Clairborne and TRU, “Tech Abuse in Teen Relationships Study,” 2007, http://www.loveisnotabuse.com as cited in California Adolescent
Health Collaborative, Family Violence Prevention Fund, “Healthcare Education, Assessment and Response Tool for Teen Relationships
(HEART) Primer,” Oakland, 2011.
296
California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, “Vital Statistics Section, CD-Rom Public Use Death Files” accessed
June 2009, http://KidsData.org; State of California, Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 1990-1999,
2000-2050,” accessed June 2009, http://www.dof.ca.gov.
297
San Francisco Police Department, “Unified Crime Report Stats,” accessed March 7, 2011, http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3534.
298
San Francisco’s District Attorney’s Office. City and County of San Francisco, “Tackling Chronic School Absenteeism,” accessed July 10,
2008, http://www. sfdistrictattorney.org/page.asp?id=70.
299
San Francisco Police Department, “Unified Crime Report Stats,” accessed March 7, 2011, http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3534.
300
Juvenile records include those for youth ages 10 to 17. Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Office of the Attorney General, State of California,
“2008 Juvenile Felony and Misdemeanor Arrest Tables,” accessed July 15, 2010, http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/datatabs.php.
79
motor vehicle theft) and drug offenses. 301 Yet arrests for violent offenses, such as robbery and assault,
remained steady over that decade, and arrests for juvenile homicide grew considerably from 2-3 arrests per
year to 9-10 per year. Arrests for weapons charges more than doubled, from less than 30 per year to 71 in
2008. 302
Exhibit 52: San Francisco Violent Crime Trends for Youth and Adults, 2005‐2009 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Population 749,172 746,085 733,799 798,144 788,197 Violent Crime 5,985 6,533 6,414 6,744 5,957 Percent Change Homicide* 96 4.0% 9.2% 86 ‐1.8% 100 5% 98 ‐12% 45 Forcible Rape 172 154 125 166 179 Robbery 3,078 3,858 3,771 4,108 3,423 Aggravated Assault 2,639 2,435 2,418 2,372 2,310 Note: Homcide includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter only.
Source: U.S Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Uniform Crime Reports (2005-2009),” accessed April, 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/statsservices/crimestats.
Involvement in Street Violence
Concerns about the safety of older youth involved in street violence were also shared in many DCYF input
sessions throughout San Francisco. Street violence is a critical condition impacting the wellbeing of
families, especially young people aged 10 to 24 across the United States. 303 San Francisco street violence
refers to any severe conflict perpetuated by rival territories and may be initiated by gangs, turfs, or other
street associations. 304 The root causes of street violence stem from multiple conditions and are often
correlated to poverty, lack of education, environmental conditions, poor health, trauma, and family
violence.
Estimates indicate that in San Francisco between 1,200 to 1,700 individuals were involved in street violence
and that about 48 percent of the homicides in 2004, 2005, and 2006 were reportedly related to street
violence. Local research has indicated that young people were most likely to become involved with street
violence between 12 and 14 years of age, and that their reasons for getting involved included money,
protection, a friend was part of the group, fun, and to get respect. More than half of males involved in
street violence or some sort of street affiliation indicated this affiliation made them safer. 305
In 2010, DCYF partnered with Davis Y. Ja and Associates to conduct a violence prevention and intervention
evaluation to document the climate and overall environment of San Francisco’s most at-risk communities.
Although San Francisco’s homicide rates decreased in 2009, analysis conducted by Ja and Associates on the
five neighborhood hot zones show that violent crime levels remained the same. The number of shootings
in those neighborhoods remained disproportionate compared to others. The majority of the population in
these impacted “hot zone” neighborhoods is African American and Latino, and is below the poverty line.
301
Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Office of the Attorney General, State of California, “2008 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrest Table,” accessed
July 15, 2010, http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/datatabs.php.
302
Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Office of the Attorney General, State of California, “2008 Juvenile Felony Arrest Table,” accessed July 15,
2010, http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/datatabs.php.
303
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Web based Injury Statistics Query and
Reporting System: 2006,” accessed March 2011, http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe.
304
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, Violence Prevention and Intervention Unit. 2011 Street Violence Reduction Initiative:
San Francisco Plan. March 2011.
305
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
80
Youth involved in street violence groups or those at-risk of involvement with street violence face a range of
interconnected needs and barriers due to poverty, trauma, insufficient education, crime, and street
violence which put them at great risk of not being able to escape from “the life” to become safe, employed,
and economically self sufficient. Poverty and poor academic preparation are key factors that affect a young
person’s likelihood of involvement in street violence and San Francisco’s youth that are at high risk: one in
ten San Franciscans (11 percent) lives in poverty, and poverty rates tend to be higher among young adults
and in communities of color. 306 A 2006-2008 survey of 11th graders in traditional public high schools
indicates that eight percent of male students and three percent of female students reported they are in a
gang, and about one in five (18 percent) of males students and female students (20 percent) in nontraditional high schools report they are involved in a gang. 307 Service providers, youth, parents, and other
stakeholders stated that street violence remains a primary concern among youth in San Francisco. 308
Juvenile Justice System Involvement
Overall rates of youth involvement with the juvenile justice system have decreased since 1999, with
significant racial/ethnic, gender, and neighborhood disparities. 309 The number of unduplicated referrals
per year to the Juvenile Probation Department dropped from 2,146 in 2009 to 1,720 in 2010. 310 Since 2006
there has also been a 37 percent drop in the number of unduplicated juvenile hall bookings, from 1,075 in
2006 to 680 in 2010. Of the duplicated count of juvenile hall bookings in 2010, about 30 percent were
related to robbery, 20 percent were related to assault (including attempted murder), seven percent were
related to narcotics, seven percent were related to weapons, and six percent were related to assault
battery. 311 The remainder of the bookings was about equally split between drug crimes, property crimes,
and public order crimes. Bookings for willful homicide increased from two in 2009 to six in 2010. 312
In 2010 there were substantial disparities by race/ethnicity, sex, and geography in terms of youth involved
with the Juvenile Justice system. African American youth represented about 49 percent of all Juvenile
Probation Department unduplicated bookings, and Latino youth represented about 32 percent, Samoan
youth represented three percent, Filipino youth represented one percent and Pacific Islander youth
represented less than one percent of bookings. White youth represented five percent of bookings, other
Asian youth represented about seven percent, and three percent of the youth booked were of other
racial/ethnic groups. The gender disparity is even greater with males representing about 78 percent of
Juvenile Probation Department bookings. 313
There are also substantial disparities in San Francisco in the numbers of youth living in each neighborhood
involved in the juvenile justice system. 314 In 2010 Bayview/Hunters Point had the largest number of
unduplicated youth (324) who were referred to the Juvenile Probation Department, which accounted for
19 percent of all youth booked that year. Other neighborhoods with large numbers of youth referred to
the department included Ingleside/Excelsior (169), the Inner Mission (159), and Visitacion Valley/Portola
(140). Many of these same neighborhoods had disproportionately high numbers of unduplicated juvenile
306
US Census Bureau,” State and County Quick Facts: San Francisco (city) Quick Facts: 2009,” accessed March 2011,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0667000.html;
307
Kidsdata.org, “San Francisco: Child and Youth Safety,” accessed March 2011,
http://www.kidsdata.org/data/region/dashboard.aspx?loc=266&cat=1
308
San Francisco Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, Violence Prevention Plan Community Input Sessions: 2011.
309
San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department data includes data on youth ages 11 up. For example, in 2009, 55 of the 836 youth booked
in juvenile hall were either younger than 14 or older than 18.Data in this chapter reflect all youth involved with Juvenile Probation
Department. Jose Luis Perla, “San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department: 2009 Statistical Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
310
These are unduplicated counts. The Juvenile Probation Department defines a referral as a “[c]itation issued to youth to appear before a
Probation Officer or youth admitted to Juvenile Hall for allegedly committing a criminal act, San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.
Ibid.
311
Assault is a crime that involves physical force, whereas assault battery involves battery using a weapon. Ibid.
312
Ibid.
313
Ibid.
314
The Juvenile Probation Department designates neighborhoods by zip code. Ibid.
81
hall bookings. Bayview/Hunters Point had 154 youth booked into juvenile hall, accounting for 23 percent
of all bookings that year. Sixty-nine Inner Mission youth, 51 Visitacion Valley/Portola youth, and 50
Ingleside/Excelsior youth were booked in 2010. 315
Exhibit 53. Juvenile Probation Referrals and Bookings 2010, by Race/Ethnicity Source: Jose Luis Perla, “San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department: 2010 Statistical Report,” San Francisco, 2011.
Adult Justice System Involvement
The San Francisco Adult Probation Department is responsible for supervision of approximately 6,341 adults
placed on formal probation by the Superior Court. Of these, approximately 1,243 are transitional age youth
(TAY) ages 18-25. 316 These youth face significant challenges in establishing financial stability, obtaining
and maintaining employment, and maintaining stable housing. Many also face substance abuse, mental
health, medical, and criminal association issues, based on the results of an analysis of the Adult Probation
Department’s 18-25 year old San Francisco probationers. 317 As a state agency stated, “Younger formerly
incarcerated individuals recidivate at the highest rate. Inmates released at age 24 or younger return to
prison at a rate of almost 75 percent.” 318 San Francisco’s overall recidivism rate is 78 percent, which is more
than 10 percent higher than the statewide recidivism rate of 68 percent. Participants in DCYF’s community
input sessions raised concerns for youth and young adults who have been in contact with juvenile and
criminal justice systems, citing the need to support them in clearing their criminal record so that they will
have an opportunity to succeed.
Violence Prevention and Intervention Services
The importance of safe spaces during out of school time was a theme in several community, youth, and
service provider input sessions. Older youth voiced need for access to safe spaces on nights and weekends.
Many communities echoed this need for more safe and open spaces in their neighborhoods for older youth
315
Ibid.
Wendy Still, Chief, San Francisco Adult Probation Department, City and County of San Francisco, email correspondence, March 15, 2011
317
San Francisco Adult Probation Department, “Request for Proposal,” City and County of San Francisco, 2009.
318
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Office of Research, “2010 Adult Institution Outcomes Evaluation Report,”
Sacramento, CA, 2010.
316
82
including parks, gyms, pools, and community centers. In addition, SFUSD high school principals identified
conflict mediation as one of the top needs of the youth and families they serve. 319
In San Francisco, there are multiple agencies that offer a variety of initiatives and programs to at-risk youth
and young adults, both victims of crime and perpetrators of violence. Most strategies are jointly facilitated
by community organizations and City departments in order to yield the highest impact in reducing
violence. These initiatives and programs address the continuum of violence prevention: prevention,
intervention, enforcement, and re-entry. One initiative that DCYF is involved with is a jointly funded and
coordinated effort with the Juvenile Probation
Department and Department of Public Health to jointly
“[CBOs] just have to get you fund and coordinate a portfolio of Violence Prevention
young and make you desire and Intervention grantees to address the needs of
young people ages 14 to 24 years old involved in the
to do things more juvenile justice system. The types of programming
provided through this portfolio include alternatives to
positively...they need to detention, detention-based services, detention
offer alternatives...The diversion, alternatives to education, case management,
comprehensive wrap around services, intensive case
programs are there; they management, the Juvenile Collaborative Re-entry
just have to find a way to Team, , services at Log Cabin Ranch (juvenile
rehabilitation center), and the Community Assessment
get at the kids earlier.” and Referral Center. In 2009-10, more than 3,600 youth
ages 14 to 18 and 700 young adults ages 19 to 24
– Teen participated in this jointly funded initiative. Among
youth ages 14 to 18, about 500 participated in case
management services, and 700 participated in alternative education services. Most of the young adults
ages 19 to 24 participated in alternative education programs and about 120 participated in case
management services. 320
VII. Disconnected Transitional Age Youth In San Francisco, officials estimate there are between 5,000 to 8,000 disconnected transitional age youth
(TAY)—youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who will not make a successful transition into adulthood.
These youth are at risk for a number of negative outcomes including substantial periods of unemployment,
homelessness, involvement with the criminal justice system, and poverty. 321
Below are some data about the number of youth who may be disconnected transitional age youth that are
involved with public systems. Data indicates that a number of youth are involved in multiple systems. For
example, an estimated 28 percent of foster care youth are on probation and an estimated 37 percent of
youth on probation are in foster care. 322 Below are some estimates of this disconnected population:
319
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
320
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, analysis of internal grantee data, 2011, unpublished.
321
Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force, “Disconnected Youth in San Francisco: A Roadmap to Improve the Life Chances of San Francisco’s
Most Vulnerable Young Adults,” San Francisco, 2007.
322
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
83






More than 800 teenage youth live in foster placements because their parent could not provide
adequate care. Each year, more than 200 of these youth turn 18 which typically ends their access
to some services. 323
More than 1,000 youth ages 18 to 24 receive either general assistance or support from CalWorks
each month. 324
Nearly 7,000 youth ages 18 to 24 are neither working nor attending school. 325
About 6,000 youth ages 16 to 24 do not have health insurance. 326
More than 800 youth enter the juvenile justice system each year and many will be on probation
when they turn 18. 327
About 1,440 youth ages 18 to 25 are on probation. About 80 percent of this population lacks a
GED or high school diploma, 80 percent face challenges related to substance abuse, 75 percent
were unemployed, and 20 percent were diagnosed with a mental health illness. 328
Many disconnected transitional age youth also struggle with educational attainment. Citywide there are
about 6,000 youth age 18-24 who are not in school and who have less than a high school degree, and
another 12,000 that only have a high school degree. 329 Within SFUSD, about 1,800 students are age 18 or
older and have fewer than half of the credits necessary to graduate from high school. 330
A significant number of disconnected transitional age youth experience homelessness. An estimated 1,600
youth ages 12 through 24 are homeless at any given time, and an estimated 4,500 to 6,800 youth are
homeless or marginally housed annually. 331 Based on recent focus groups with youth workers between the
ages of 18-25 who work with transitional age youth, the following are some needs of this population that
were identified:





LGBTQ and disability friendly emergency housing;
Transitional housing options that focus on supporting youth into permanent housing options that
meet their needs;
Affordable mixed and supportive housing options;
Culturally relevant and competent housing staff, including bilingual abilities; and
Day-to day household essentials such as bus fare, clothing, food, access to laundry facilities. 332
The top needs for this population as identified by the Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force in 2007 were:
finding affordable and safe housing, health care and its costs, issues of eligibility and coverage, and testing
for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases; employment, academic support; mental services to help in
323
Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force, “Disconnected Youth in San Francisco: A Roadmap to Improve the Life Chances of San Francisco’s
Most Vulnerable Young Adults,” San Francisco, 2007.
324
Ibid.
325
Data is based on an analysis of 2009 American Community Survey estimates. Email communication with Transitional Age Youth San
Francisco, March 24, 2011.
326
Data is based on an analysis of 2009 California Health Interview Survey. Email communication with Transitional Age Youth San Francisco
(TAY-SF), March 24, 2011.
327
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
328
San Francisco Adult Probation Department, “Request for Proposal,” San Francisco, 2009.
329
Youth Council of the Workforce Investment San Francisco Board, “Building Our Youth for the Future: Strengthening San Francisco’s Youth
Workforce System,” San Francisco, 2011.
330
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
331
Mayor’s Transitional Youth Task Force, “Disconnected Youth in San Francisco: A Roadmap to Improve the Life Chances of San Francisco’s
Most Vulnerable Young Adults,” San Francisco, 2007.
332
Based on discussions at the December 2009 Young Adult Advocate Meeting. Transitional Age Youth San Francisco, “What Are Transitional
Age Youth (TAY) Saying About Housing?” San Francisco, 2010.
84
coping with feeling of stress, anxiety, peer pressure, and the negative consequences of living in unsafe
neighborhoods; and safety and violence issues.
Concerns for the TAY population were raised at several DCYF community input sessions. Many older youth
indicated a need for more support in their transitions into adulthood. A formerly homeless youth said, “I
think services that are working for transitional age youth are services where you can just stop in and get
services you need in a safe way and be supported in that. We also need wrap-around services, counseling,
case management, and more social activities.” Such concerns were echoed by service providers working
with the TAY population who identified particular concerns for supporting and finding employment for
TAY youth with criminal backgrounds, disabilities, monolingual communication abilities, and those who
are young parents. Service providers also rated housing as the second highest need for this population
age. 333 Another need highlighted was the ability for TAY youth to access services in general. As one city
representative stated, “For TAY, we have identified them as a group in their own developmental phase.
They don’t access or cannot use youth services, but adult services aren’t necessarily a good fit with them.”
333
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
85
Families with Children
Key Findings 
About one in five households in San Francisco consist of families with children.

Over the past few decades families have been leaving San Francisco, and data indicate that
families with children under five may be the most likely to leave. Estimates indicate African
American families are leaving San Francisco at higher rates than families of other
race/ethnicities.

Families with immigrant and undocumented members, LGBTQ parents, families that are
living in public or affordable housing, homeless, or under-housed, and systems-involved
families face significant challenges. Significant disparities exist in the racial/ethnic
demographics of families in public housing, in the child welfare system, and in the special
education system.

Families of many income levels struggle to make ends meet due to San Francisco’s high cost
of living.

Parents expressed need for parenting classes and informational workshops, particularly
related to managing children’s behavior and supporting their child’s success in school, in
addition to a need for parent support groups.

Families need information about services and resources in multiple languages and
accessible formats, and more accessible and affordable transportation to access services.

Many families have access to health insurance and healthy foods although some expressed
unmet needs. Some families expressed a need for mental health services to help families
and family members cope with a variety of challenges and stressors.

Violence at home and in the community impacts families. Families expressed need for open,
safe places for family-centered activities, violence prevention efforts, and safer public
transportation.
I. Demographics According to the 2000 Census, one in five San Francisco households were families with children under age
18. There were 145,186 family households in San Francisco which accounted for 44 percent of all
households, which was an increase in the number of family households from 1990, but a decrease in the
proportion of households that were families given that the non-family households increased at a more
rapid rate. 334 Of those family households, only 43 percent or 62,468 had related children under the age of
18. 335 Most of those families (54,707) had their own children under the age of 18. 336 If subfamilies are
334
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
335
Definition: ‘‘Related children’’ in a family include own children and all other people under 18 years of age in the household, who are
related to the householder, except the spouse of the householder. Foster children are not included since they are not related to the
householder. US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
336
Definition: A family is a group of two people or more related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together (one of whom is the
householder - the adult who owns, rents, or otherwise maintains the home). Own children refers to any child under 18 years old who is a son
or daughter by birth, marriage (a stepchild), or adoption. Ibid.
86
included, the number of families and subfamilies that had children under 18 years old in 2000 was
64,469. 337 Since the 2000 Census, estimates predicted that the number of families with related children
under age 18 decreased by about 4,000 to 58,287 families, as shown below. This mirrors a trend in the
decrease in the number of families with children since the 1960s.
Exhibit 54: Families with Related Children, 2005‐2009 Married‐couple family with related children under 18 years Male householder (no wife present) with related children under 18 years Female householder (no husband present) with related children under 18 years Total Estimated count Percent 41,241 71% 4,215 7% 12,831 22% 58,287 100% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005-2009. The table below shows that in 2000 among families with their own children, most had children ages six to
17 years old, with less than a third with only children under six years old.
Exhibit 55: Ages of Children in Families with Own Children under 18 years, 2000 Under six years only Under six and six to 17 years Six to 17 years only Total n 14,741 8,837 31,129 54,707 % 27% 16% 57% 100% Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000. The majority of families with their own children (74 percent) were married couples, and 21 percent were
led by women with no husband present. 338 Estimates indicate there may have been an increase in the
proportion of families with children headed by a single mother to 22 percent in 2006-2008, and an increase
of families headed by a single father to seven percent in 2006-08. 339 Within households of married couples,
single female, and single male-headed households, 2009 estimates indicate about two percent of children
under age 18 live with grandparent(s) who are the primary care giver, a slight increase from 2005 and 2007
estimates. 340
Based on 2000 Census data, several neighborhoods have both the highest proportions of families or
subfamilies with children and the highest number of children: Bayview/Hunter’s Point (55 percent of
families had children, home to nine percent of the city’s children under age 18), Mission/Bernal Heights (51
percent of Mission families had children, 41 percent of Bernal Heights families had children, and 12 percent
337
A subfamily is a married couple with or without children, or a single parent with one or more own never-married children under 18 years
old. A subfamily does not maintain their own household, but lives in the home of someone else. Census variables used: ‘Total families and
subfamilies with own children' (FFH0D), Ibid. Geolytics software; Census variables used: ‘Male-headed families with own children under 18
years old' (MHWKID0), ‘Female-headed families with own children under 18 years old' (FHWKID0). Department of Public Health,
Environmental Health Section, Summary File 3, Table P12, February 26, 2011, http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/172.
338
US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
339
Male-headed or female-headed means no spouse is present in the household. US Census 2000, Geolytics software. Census variables
used: ‘Total families and subfamilies with own children' (FFH0D), ‘Male-headed families with own children under 18 years old' (MHWKID0),
‘Female-headed families with own children under 18 years old' (FHWKID0). Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section,
Summary File 3, Table P12, accessed February 26, 2011, http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/172.
340
Definition: Percentage of children under age 18 living with grandparent(s) who provide primary care for one or more grandchildren in the
household. As cited on kidsdata.org, US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, accessed February 26, 2011,
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
87
of the city’s children under age 18 lived in Inner Mission/Bernal Heights), Visitacion Valley (50 percent of
families had children,home to eight percent of the city’s children under age 18), Outer
Mission/Excelsior/Ingleside (45 percent of Excelsior families and 43 percent of Outer Mission families had
children and 14 percent of the city’s children under age 18 lived in this area). 341 The map below indicates
the proportion of families with children under 18. Exhibit 56: Proportion of Families with Children Under 18 Years Old Source: US Census 2000. Created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section.
Family Flight
The child population has declined significantly over the past several decades, while the overall city
population has increased. In 1960, there were 181,500 children in San Francisco, and by 2010 there were
107,500. The number of children living in the City remained relatively constant between 1980 and 1990,
341
Data on proportion of families with children is by planning neighborhood. Planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas then
census tracts. Data on the number of children under age 18 is by zip code. US Census 2000, Geolytics software. Census variables used: ‘Total
families and subfamilies with own children' (FFH0D), ‘Male-headed families with own children under 18 years old' (MHWKID0), ‘Femaleheaded families with own children under 18 years old' (FHWKID0). Summary File 3, Table P12. San Francisco Department of Public Health,
Environmental Health Section; http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/172. US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
88
with a slight decrease in 2000. The US Census Bureau estimated that the child population increased by
about 10,000 youth between 2000 and 2009, but the latest Census data indicated that the child population
declined by about 5,278 since 2000.
Exhibit 57: Total Population and Child Population (ages 0‐17) in San Francisco, 1960‐2010 900,000
805,235
776,733
800,000
740,361
723,959
715,674
678,974
700,000
600,000
500,000
Total Population
Child Population
400,000
300,000
181,532
200,000
159,595
116,611
116,883
112,802
107,524
100,000
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Source: US Census Bureau, Census Data 1960-2010
This decline in the child population over time has been referred to as “family flight.” Most factors
considered to contribute to this trend relate to affordability—many families cannot afford San Francisco’s
high cost of living and high housing costs. 342 For example, more than one in three households (with or
without children) paid more than 30 percent of their income for rent or more than 35 percent for
homeownership costs, which is above the recommended amount of income dedicated to housing for longterm fiscal sustainability. In addition, many residents, including families, face challenges to owning a home
in San Francisco. The median priced home is $706,214, which only 23 percent of San Francisco households
could afford. Nationally, 60 percent of households can afford to buy a home in their area. 343 Accordingly,
forty-four percent of service providers surveyed by DCYF indicated that housing assistance was a frequent
request among the families and youth they serve. 344 Other issues that factor into families deciding to leave
the City include challenges with the public education system and safety concerns.
Current data estimates reveal that family flight continues to be a significant trend among families of color.
A citywide task force examining the out-migration of African Americans in San Francisco found that the
number of African American families in San Francisco declined at a disproportionately greater rate than
342
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Tackling Family Flight: Progress Report on the Mayor’s Policy Council for Children,
Youth and Families, 2005-2008,” San Francisco, 2008.
343
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “Draft 2010-2014 FiveYear Consolidated Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
344
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
89
non-family African American households, a troubling trend considering that the number of African
American households in general declined by 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. 345 Census data shows a
significant drop in the proportion of African American youth from 11 percent in 2000 to seven percent in
2010, in addition to declines in Asian, Native Hawaiian and Native American youth. 346
Exhibit 58: Child Population (ages 0‐17) in San Francisco by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 and 2010 36%
34%
27%
23%
23%
22%
2000
2010
11%
7%
5% 6%
2% 1%
Latino
White
African
Native
American American
8%
6%
1% 1%
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
Other
Two or
More
Races
Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 2010.
Exhibit 59: Likelihood of Leaving San Francisco Among Households with Young Children (under age 6)
40%
40%
37%
2005
2007
27%
25%
21%
18%
16%
19%
2009
24%
20%
16%
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not Too Likely
Not Likely At All
Source: Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
Based on a bi-annual citywide survey conducted in 2005, 2007 and 2009, it appears that “families with
children no longer stand out as more likely to leave the City” than other residents, except families with
children under six years of age who still indicated they are more likely to leave the City than families with
children of older ages. The percentage of parents with children under six years of age who are very or
345
346
Office of the Mayor, “Report of the San Francisco Mayor’s Task Force on African American Out-Migration,” San Francisco, 2009.
US Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 2010.
90
somewhat likely to leave the City has increased from 36 percent in 2007 to 41 percent in 2009—though this
increase remains lower than the 45 percent reported in the 2005 survey. The 2009 survey found that
parents with older children say they are more likely to remain in the City than those with younger
children. 347
Immigrant Families
San Francisco has a long history of being home to immigrants and their families, and has historically had a
large and diverse immigrant population. In 1989, elected officials passed the “City and County of Refuge”
ordinance which prohibits City employees from helping immigration enforcement officials with
investigations or arrests unless required by federal or state law or warrant. This ordinance helps
immigrants access city services. 348 In 2000, the foreign-born population in the City reported more than 70
countries as their place of birth. Immigrants move to San Francisco for a variety of reasons ranging from
pursuing better economic opportunities or reunifying with family members to seeking political asylum
after fleeing their home country. Given the diversity among the City’s immigrant population there is no
one “immigrant experience” in San Francisco. However, data and community input sessions indicated that
some immigrants face similar challenges such as language barriers, legal status, discrimination,
employment, and low educational attainment, all of which can impact their ability to help their children
succeed. 349
According to the 2000 Census, San Francisco was ranked as the fifth in terms of percentage of foreign-born
residents among the 68 US cities with a population of at least 250,000. The 2000 Census found that 37
percent of San Francisco’s population was foreign born, compared to 26 percent statewide. San Francisco
has an estimated 41,546 undocumented immigrants and 48,937 legal immigrants who are eligible to
naturalize. 350 As the table below demonstrates, most of San Francisco’s foreign-born population is adult,
many of whom are parents. Of the foreign-born population, the largest proportions reported the following
countries as their place of birth: 34 percent from China, 11 percent from the Philippines, eight percent from
Mexico, and five percent from El Salvador.
Exhibit 60: San Francisco’s Foreign‐Born Population by Age Group, 2005‐2007 and 2006‐2008 Ages 0‐4 Ages 5‐17 Ages 18‐24 Ages 25‐64 Ages 65 and Above 2005‐2007 2006‐2008 4% 12% 26% 39% 55% 3% 11% 27% 38% 55% Note: Percentage of the population that is foreign-born, by age group (e.g. in 20062008, eight percent of California children ages 5-17 were born outside the US).
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, accessed online at
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en, as cited on kidsdata.org. Based on 2000 Census data, some areas in San Francisco have higher proportions of foreign-born
individuals than others. While this data is not specific to families with children, it provides perspective on
where most foreign-born residents lived in 2000. Some areas with high proportions of foreign-born
347
The demographic of survey respondents considering a move out of San Francisco is not limited to parents with young children. African
Americans, respondents under age 30, and those who work less than 35 hours a week or have had less stable employment are also more
likely to leave than others. Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
348
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
349
Ibid.
350
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
91
residents included Chinatown (76 percent), Financial District (61 percent), Crocker Amazon (56 percent),
Excelsior (55 percent), Outer Mission (53 percent), and Visitacion Valley (50 percent). 351
An estimated 70,000 children under age 18 are either foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born
parent, which represents about 64 percent of the City’s child population. 352 In 2009, SFUSD designated
more than 17,000 students as English Learners (identified as speaking a primary language other than
English), representing 18 percent of their student population. The most prevalent languages spoken were
Spanish (7,056 students) and Cantonese (6,051 students), followed by Filipino (623 students) and
Vietnamese (536 students) as well as several other languages. 353
Limited English proficiency presents a challenge to many immigrant families. Of all San Franciscans in 2000
over the age of five, 46 percent speak a language other than English at home, with the largest language
groups being Chinese, Spanish, Tagalog, and Russian. Of those who speak another language at home, 25
percent, or 186,401 people, reported they do not speak English “very well.” About 62 percent of those who
speak an Asian language reported they do not speak English “very well” and half of those who speak
Spanish report that they do not speak English “very well.” According to the US Census, almost 44,000
households were “linguistically isolated” in 2000, meaning no one over the age of 14 indicated that they
speak English “well” or “very well.” 354 As stated by a recent Chinese immigrant in one of DCYF’s community
input sessions, “Language is the number one challenge…it comes back to that.”
Some immigrant families face challenges finding work due to a variety of factors including legal
immigration status, English proficiency, education, and overall skill level. City officials have found that
individuals with low educational attainment or limited English proficiency, such as some immigrants, are
particularly at risk for unemployment or underemployment. 355 A recent immigrant living in Visitacion
Valley who attended a DCYF community input session stated, “We know how to do many jobs, but we can’t
work because we don’t have English proficiency.” Immigration status can also be a hindrance to securing a
stable job to support a family. As one immigrant who participated in a DCYF community input session
stated, “Immigration status is a challenge. There’s a program that provides training and they help people
look [for] work, but since I don’t have papers I couldn’t go.”
Similar factors impact immigrant families’ abilities to access supports to meet their basic needs, as well as
available social and health services. Parents in several community input sessions stated that language
barriers limit immigrant parent knowledge of what programs and services are available to them and
appropriate for their needs. Parents stated that written information is often not available in their language
and that the program staff members who speak their language are not always available. One parent
commented, “I feel blind and deaf and dumb as [the community center has] no access for monolingual
Chinese speakers.” About 60 percent of public school principals serving families with children in
kindergarten to 8th grade reported that families they serve often or sometimes request support with
translation to access services. 356 An immigrant parent participating in a community input session stated, “I
351
Census variables used: ‘Proportion of population who are foreign born' (SHRFOR0). Summary File 3, P21. Data analyzed by San Francisco
Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section. Data is by planning neighborhood. Planning neighborhoods are larger
geographic areas then census tracts. Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section, analysis of US Census Bureau, Census
2000, accessed February 26, 2011, http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/169.
352
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
353
English Learners are students who have a primary language other than English and who lack the clearly defined English language skills of
listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing necessary to succeed in a school's regular instructional programs. California
Department of Education, “English Learners by Grade and Language Data Files, October 2009,” accessed January 20, 2011,
http://Kidsdata.org.
354
US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
355
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
356
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011.
92
feel that as a new immigrant, I don’t even know what kind of help we can get…We don’t even know what
is available to us. We only know when someone happens to ask us or tell us about it.”
Several immigrant parents also articulated their need for programs and services, such as afterschool,
preschool, and tutoring programs, that will help their children succeed in school if they do not speak
English well or have low education levels. One immigrant parent participating in a community input
session stated, “They can’t wait to learn for success if they don’t receive some forms of learning until age 5,
especially English and social skills that need to begin no later than three years old so they can [get]
accustomed to future school [life].” Some immigrants may not feel capable of supporting their children’s
academic progress on their own. As one immigrant parent stated, “My child’s afterschool program is only a
homework session. It doesn’t teach them something new, and I want someone’s help to advance their
academic performance. I can’t offer help because I know so little…”
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Families
Families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) parents face legal challenges related
to safeguarding the economic, guardianship, and inheritance status for their children, as well as may
encounter challenges related to their physical and emotional safety due to discrimination, harassment, and
prejudice. San Francisco County has the second highest percentage of same-sex coupled households in
California, with 8,902 couples. Same sex coupled households represent 2.7 percent of all coupled
households in San Francisco, which is higher than the statewide average of 1.4 percent of same sex
coupled households. 357
Exhibit 61: Parents in Same Gender Couples with Children by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 Latino, 18%
African American,
3%
Native American,
2%
Asian/Pacific
Islander, 19%
White, 58%
Source: Dr. Gary Gates, UCLA Williams Institute analysis of Public Use Micro Data Sample of the 2000 US Census Bureau, Census
2000, as cited in LGBT Family Collaborative, “Our Families: Attributes of Bay Area Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
Parents and Their Children,” San Francisco, 2007.
357
US Census Bureau, Census 2000 as cited in Adam P. Romero, Clifford J. Rosky, M.V. Lee Badgett, and Gary J. Gates, “Census Snapshot:
California,” The Williams Institute, Los Angeles, 2008.
93
In 2000, seven percent of all same-gender couples in San Francisco had children, which translated into 589
same-gender couples raising at least 825 children. Less than 200 of those couples were male couples and
more than 400 couples were female. Among these same-gender couples with children, the median age of
parents was 43 years old and the median age of children was eight years old. Almost 60 percent of the
parents had a college degree and the median annual household income was $83,060. More of the parents
were White and Asian/Pacific Islander than the children. About 58 percent of the parents were White and
19 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, while 44 percent of the children were White and 17 percent were
Asian/Pacific Islander. About 18 percent of the parents were Latino, three percent were African American
and two percent Native American, compared to 34 percent of the children reported as Latino and five
percent African American. 358
Exhibit 62: Children with Same Gender Parents by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 African American,
5%
Latino, 34%
White, 44%
Asian/Pacific
Islander, 17%
Source: Dr. Gary Gates, UCLA Williams Institute analysis of Public Use Micro Data Sample of the 2000 US Census Bureau, Census
2000, as cited in LGBT Family Collaborative, “Our Families: Attributes of Bay Area Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
Parents and Their Children,” San Francisco, 2007.
Families Living in Affordable and Public Housing
About 2,400 children live in City-managed affordable housing units and 1,700 live in public housing, and
many low-income families are on wait lists for such programs. San Francisco has several types of affordable
and subsidized housing. The Mayor’s Office of Housing and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
manage publicly supported affordable housing that is built by nonprofit and for-profit developers,
affordable units that are integrated into market-rate developments, and City-funded permanent,
supportive housing for homeless individuals and families. This variety of affordable housing efforts
provides more than 6,000 units to approximately 12,000 residents, of which 20 percent, or 2,400, are
358
Dr. Gary Gates, UCLA Williams Institute analysis of Public Use Microdata Sample of the 2000 US Census Bureau, Census 2000, as cited in
LGBT Family Collaborative, “Our Families: Attributes of Bay Area Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents and Their Children,” San
Francisco, 2007.
94
children. In 2007, the average income for households living in one of these affordable housing units was
$19,078, less than 30 percent of the 2007 area median income for San Francisco. 359
Public housing is subsidized by the federal government and in 2009 served local families with an average
income of $13,640, which is just below the federal poverty level for a family of two ($14,570). The San
Francisco Housing Authority manages public housing which serves about 5,500 residents, 1,700 of which
are children. While children comprise only 15 percent of the total San Francisco population, children
represent 31 percent of San Francisco’s public housing residents. Almost half (45 percent) of San
Francisco’s public housing residents are African American, while African Americans comprise only seven
percent of the total population citywide. The San Francisco Housing Authority also provides 20,868 lowincome individuals with federal housing vouchers known as Section 8 vouchers. 360 The waiting list
managed by the San Francisco Housing Authority indicated there is an estimated need for more than
17,000 additional affordable housing units for low-income families. 361 Given that much of the public
housing is physically deteriorating and 60 percent of the families who are in crisis and receive services
through multiple city agencies (Child Welfare system, the Juvenile Probation Department and the Mental
Health system) reside near six specific street corners in and around public housing sites, the City is working
with SFHA and private partners on an effort called HOPE SF to transform the most distressed public
housing into thriving, mixed-income communities. 362
Parents and community members participating in community input sessions stated that services for
families living in public housing sites need to be delivered at the sites, including home visits by
caseworkers and programs for youth and teens. As one resident in Western Addition stated, “When I was
young there were caseworkers that stayed until my mom got off work and they talked to the parent. The
caseworker needs to be able to do in-home services with the parents.” Participants also emphasized that
services need to be delivered by staff that are culturally competent and understand the complexities of
living in public housing in San Francisco, and need to be accompanied by appropriate outreach that builds
trusting relationships between service providers and residents. As one community input session
participant stated, “…. people that don’t live in the complex … come here and try to start a program…they
say it’s not working because nobody want to come out…nobody want to come out because they don’t
know you. They don’t want to be affiliated with you because they think you are the police, they think you
are going to turn them in for something instead of trying to get [them] in the program.”
Families living in public housing, as well as those who are under-housed or homeless who participated in
DCYF focus groups for this needs assessment expressed their frustration with existing housing assistance
programs. Generally, many family members expressed that the programs they have tried to access are still
not enough to address the high cost of housing and living in San Francisco. As one parent stated, “Housing
has been very challenging. We got the housing subsidy and we’ve been looking for housing but the rent is
still high. They tell us to move out of San Francisco, but it will still be very expensive because of
transportation costs. My daughter goes to Mission High School and she’s doing very well so she doesn’t
want to move.”
Under-Housed and Homeless Families
San Francisco is home to a number of families that are under-housed or homeless. These families face a
variety of challenges that impede their wellbeing, development, and health. While the exact number of
359
Affordable housing is defined as housing that is required by government to be priced less expensively for lower income people to afford
and relies on public funds to help support construction and maintenance. Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce
Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
360
Mayor’s Office of Housing, “2008 Annual Housing Report,” San Francisco, 2008.
361
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
362
Mayor’s Office of Housing, “2008 Annual Housing Report,” San Francisco, 2008.
95
families dealing with these circumstances is unknown, data estimate that SFUSD provided support services
to almost 2,200 students who are homeless, under-housed or in transitions in 2009-10, an increase of more
than 700 students from 2007-08. Other data indicate that almost a thousand families are under-housed
living in either Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotels or staying with families or friends, and another 550
homeless individuals are members of a family.
Over the past three years, the number of public school students participating in a district program for
homeless, under-housed, and families in transition has steadily increased by more than 700 students to a
total of 2,174 in 2009-10. 363 District staff attributes the increase to the high unemployment rate, an
increase in foreclosures, and increased program outreach to school sites and community-based
organizations about the program. About half (46 percent) of student participants live in shelters,
transitional housing, or are awaiting foster care placements, 26 percent live in hotels or motels, 26 percent
live in a house or apartment with more than one family, and one percent are unsheltered. 364
Exhibit 63: Number of Students Participating in SFUSD’s Families and Youth in Transition Program (A Program for Homeless, Under‐housed and Families in Transition), 2007‐2010 Pre‐K K‐5th 6th‐8th 9th‐12th Ungraded Total 2007‐08 5 592 401 443 n/a 1,441 2008‐09 12 731 464 548 n/a 1,755 2009‐10 11 887 517 729 30 2,174 Note: Ungraded students are those served in an educational unit that has no separate grades.
Source: SFUSD, Families and Youth in Transition Program, email correspondence, March 2011.
One group of under-housed families is comprised of those living in single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels. A
2009 report found that an estimated 18,500 individuals live in 530 SRO hotels in San Francisco. While data
on all of these individuals was not available, information about a subset of those individuals (the 8,500 who
access a publicly funded human service) revealed that about 11 percent are children (more than 525 are
children ages zero to 10 and about 400 are youth ages 11-20). Of these children, 910 are SFUSD students
and were relatively evenly distributed across grade levels from preschool to 12th grade. Among the SFUSD
students living in SROs, more than half live in Chinatown and close to one-third live in the Tenderloin,
which are the two neighborhoods with the most SROs citywide. More than half of the SFUSD children who
lived in SROs were Chinese and about one-fifth were Latino. Many of these children were likely immigrants
and many are classified as English Learners. The proportion of children in SROs that were designated with
special education status varied across neighborhoods—South of Market SROs had the highest
proportion—but mirrors the district’s overall rate of 10 percent. 365 Although the report did not analyze
trends over time, key informants consulted for the report said there has been an increase in the number of
families living in SROs in recent years, and that families seem to be staying longer. 366
363
The SFUSD Families and Youth in Transition Program is available to SFUSD students who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime
residence and may reside in a shelter, motel, hotel or SRO, house or apartment with more than one family, an abandoned building, car,
campground or on the street, or in temporary foster care with an adult who is not one’s parent/guardian. SFUSD, Families and Youth in
Transition Program, email correspondence, March 2011.
364
This data pertains to 2008-09 program participants only. Equivalent data was not available for 2009-10 program participants. SFUSD,
Families and Youth in Transition Program, email correspondence, March 2011.
365
Aimée Fribourg, “San Francisco’s Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels: A Strategic Assessment of Residents and Their Human Service
Needs-A Study Conducted for the San Francisco Human Services Agency (SF-HSA),” San Francisco, 2009.
366
The City’s Planning Department has classified 530 buildings as SROs. Average monthly rents range from $500 and $600, and these
residential hotels are concentrated in four neighborhoods that have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and racial and ethnic diversity
than other neighborhoods: the Tenderloin (208 buildings), Chinatown (145), South of Market (60), and Mission (50). In the report,
“Chinatown” includes the Planning Department’s Chinatown, Financial District, North Beach, and Russian Hill neighborhoods. Aimée
96
Exhibit 64: Number of SFUSD Children with SRO Addresses by Neighborhood, 2009 Chinatown Tenderloin SOMA Mission Other Total Children in SROs 512 288 37 33 40 910 Source: Aimée Fribourg, “San Francisco’s Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels: A
Strategic Assessment of Residents and Their Human Service Needs-A Study
Conducted for the San Francisco Human Services Agency (SF-HSA),” San Francisco,
2009. Only a very small number of SRO children participated in subsidized child care (29 children) or
programming funded by First 5 San Francisco (30 children), representing less than one percent of children
receiving those services citywide. 367
Another group of under-housed families are those who temporarily live with family and friends, often in
overcrowded conditions, while waiting for a better housing arrangement. Data from Compass Connecting
Point Families indicate that in January 2011, 70 of the 150 families on the long-term wait list for shelter
were currently living with family or friends. 368 Estimates from the US Census Bureau indicate that about five
percent, or 17,274, of San Francisco households are overcrowded, which often occurs as a way to reduce
housing costs. While not all overcrowded households represent under-housed families, the estimate
indicates the scale of which San Francisco’s high cost of living impacts living arrangements citywide. 369
Based on the latest available data, officials estimate that about 550 of the 6,514 homeless individuals, or
eight percent, throughout San Francisco are members of families with children, and that the vast majority
of them are in emergency shelters or transitional housing. The number of homeless individuals overall has
decreased by 25 percent since 2002. Officials found that 549 of those counted (or eight percent) were in a
family, which is defined as a single person or couple with at least one child under the age of 18. All but 25
of those individuals in a family were either in an emergency shelter, a transitional housing and treatment
center, or hospital. The number of unsheltered families (those “living on the streets”) decreased from 66 in
2007 to 25 in 2009. 370
Of the unsheltered persons counted, “families and youth were small percentages of the population (0.9
percent and 0.3 percent, respectively). The majority of unsheltered homeless persons were adults not
accompanied by a child under age 18. It should be noted that, for safety and other reasons, unsheltered
families and youth more typically stay in places not visible to enumerators and are thus underrepresented
in street counts.” 371
Fribourg, “San Francisco’s Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels: A Strategic Assessment of Residents and Their Human Service Needs-A
Study Conducted for the San Francisco Human Services Agency (SF-HSA),” San Francisco, 2009.
367
First 5 San Francisco data probably represents fewer than 30 households, because each child and adult participant is counted separately.
Ibid.
368
Personal communication with Susanna Anderson, Program Director, Compass Connecting Point, March 11, 2011.
369
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
370
The City and County of San Francisco led a community-wide effort to count homeless people on January 27, 2009. San Francisco Human
Services Agency with Applied Survey Research, “2009 SF Homeless Count & Survey,” San Francisco, 2009.
371
The City and County of San Francisco led a community-wide effort to count homeless people on January 27, 2009. San Francisco Human
Services Agency with Applied Survey Research, “2009 SF Homeless Count& Survey,” San Francisco, 2009.
97
Exhibit 65: Homeless Population by Household Status, 2009 and 2007 Unsheltered or On the Street Emergency Shelter Transitional Housing and Treatment Centers Resource Centers and Stabilization Jail Hospitals Total 2009 2007 Single 1,269 In a Family 25 Unknown 1,415 Total 2,709 1,206 310 0 1,047 210 540 394 94 4,550 Single 1,935 In a Family 66 Unknown 770 Total 2,771 1,516 1,175 322 0 1,497 0 1,257 1,076 190 0 1,266 0 0 540 321 0 0 321 0 4 549 0 0 1,415 394 98 6,514 400 122 5,029 0 0 578 0 0 770 400 122 6,377 Source: San Francisco Human Services Agency with Applied Survey Research, “2009 SF Homeless Count and Survey,” San Francisco, 2009; San Francisco Human
Services Agency with Abbott Little Consulting, “San Francisco 2007 Homeless Count,” San Francisco, 2007.
A citywide survey of 534 homeless individuals in 2009 reinforced that families account for a small
proportion of the homeless in San Francisco. The survey found that three-quarters of homeless individuals
lived alone, and of those living with others only six percent lived with a child or children. All six survey
respondents with school-aged children (6-17 years old) living with them reported that the children were
enrolled in school. The survey also found that the loss of a job was the most frequently cited response (25
percent) for the causation of homelessness, which was also the most common response in 2007. The next
most common cause of homelessness offered was alcohol or drug use (15 percent), incarceration (five
percent), family/domestic violence (three percent), and three percent reported that mental health issues
had precipitated their homelessness. 372
Homeless and under-housed families face many challenges due to their living conditions, including health
and well-being issues. Local data on families living in SROs found that children living in SROs had increased
risks for emotional stress, mental health problems, and abuse. 373 SFUSD students living in SROs had high
rates of using public health services, such as Emergency Department and mental health services. In
addition, children who live in SROs had a higher substantiation rate for child abuse reports than non-SRO
residents, although the total number of child welfare referrals made for SRO residents decreased by about
one-third between 2005 and 2008. 374 Parents, caregivers, and service providers participating in
community input sessions for this Needs Assessment voiced concerns about the need for appropriate and
accessible health and wellness supports for homeless and under-housed families. In a focus group with
homeless parents, several mentioned that their ongoing health issues were difficult to manage while living
in a shelter. As one participant stated, “I have lung problems so I use machines to breathe while I’m at the
shelter.” Some focus group participants also discussed their lack of access to healthy meals and areas and
equipment to prepare their own food, which can be particularly challenging for individuals with diet
restrictions.
372
San Francisco Human Services Agency with Applied Survey Research, “2009 SF Homeless Count& Survey,” San Francisco, 2009.
Families are not permitted to live in city-run SROs. Aimée Fribourg, “San Francisco’s Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotels: A Strategic
Assessment of Residents and Their Human Service Needs-A Study Conducted for the San Francisco Human Services Agency (SF-HSA),” San
Francisco, 2009.
374
Ibid.
373
98
Exhibit 66: Homeless Population by Supervisor District, Household Status, and Age, 2009 Family Status In a Unknown Family Status 0 63 0 38 9 66 0 68 1 46 13 525 0 39 0 33 0 55 2 372 0 29 0 81 Age District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 District 10 District 11 Parks & CHP 120 60 189 74 115 1,167 45 92 132 444 43 228 Single Adult 57 22 114 6 68 629 6 59 77 70 14 147 Total 2,709 1,269 25 1,415 1,174 1,490 38 7 4% 1% 52% 43% 55% 1% 0.3% Total % of Total Adult 26 15 108 6 66 602 5 55 70 64 14 143 Unknown 91 44 77 68 45 543 39 36 57 376 29 85 TAY Ages 18‐24 3 `1 1 0 3 20 1 1 5 3 0 0 Youth Ages 0‐17 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 Note: Youth were defined as persons under 18 years of age. Transitional aged youth were defined as 18-24.
Source: San Francisco Human Services Agency with Applied Survey Research, “2009 SF Homeless Count and Survey,” San Francisco, 2009.
Several focus group participants also mentioned that many shelters and housing assistance programs are
not family friendly. Parents mentioned that rules prohibiting smoking and drinking are not always
enforced in shelters, and that shelters are often not safe places to leave their children unattended. One
parent commented that children and youth living in shelters need more positive programming on site.
“Children get really bored in the shelters. They should have programs for children to learn how to use the
computer or something…During the weekend children should have something to do—at least a room
where they can interact. But we don’t have any of that in the shelter,” stated a homeless parent.
Families Involved with the Child Welfare System
Families involved with the child welfare system face a variety of challenges that impede their well-being,
development, and health. In 2009, about 5,600 youth under the age of 18 had documented referrals to the
child welfare system, 20 percent of which were substantiated by the Human Services Agency. 375 General
neglect and physical abuse were the two most commonly reported types of abuse, accounting for almost
60 percent of the referrals. The number of referrals grew by 10 percent between 2008 and 2009, though in
both years the same proportion was substantiated. The neighborhoods that contain the most children
with allegations of abuse and neglect are the Bayview, Ingleside/Excelsior, Visitacion Valley, Mission, Hayes
Valley/Tenderloin, Pacific Heights/Western Addition/Japantown, Potrero Hill, and South of Market. 376
Since 2004, more than 1,000 children and youth under age 18 in San Francisco have been victims in
substantiated child abuse incidents each year. Among substantiated cases, the highest proportion of cases
375
Of those referrals that were not substantiated, 44 percent did not meet the definition of abuse or neglect and were unfounded; 31 percent
were evaluated by Human Services Agency staff and were determined to not warrant further investigation, and six percent were inconclusive
cases. Department of the Status of Women, Family Violence Council, “Comprehensive Report on Family Violence in San Francisco 2010,” San
Francisco, November 2010.
376
Ibid.
99
involved youth ages 11- 15 years old, followed by youth ages six to 10 years old. 377 African American and
Latino children and youth are over-represented among substantiated child abuse incidents. 378
Exhibit 67: Substantiated Cases of Child Abuse and Neglect, 2004‐2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Substantiated Cases 1,245 1,178 1,119 1,070 1,080 Note: Number of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases for children under age 18.
Source: Needell, B. et al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of
California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research,” 2009, accessed January 18,
2011, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare, as cited by http://kidsdata.org. San Francisco has seen a decline in the number of foster care youth over the last several years. Children in
foster care were removed from their parents because county child welfare departments, in conjunction
with juvenile dependency courts, determined that these children could not live safely with their birth
parents. About 1,500 children and youth were in foster care in San Francisco in 2008. The majority of them
were age 11 or older—in 2008, 63 percent were ages 11 or older. City officials report that many
adolescents come into the foster care system for short periods of time often because they may be
exhibiting dangerous behavior that parents cannot manage. Services and support for cases involving older
youth are often focused on how to help parents learn how to contain their adolescent’s behavior. 379
Exhibit 68: Children in Foster Care by Age, 2004‐2008 Age Under 1 Ages 1‐2 Ages 3‐5 Ages 6‐10 Ages 11‐15 Ages 16‐20 Total 2004 82 180 231 477 800 450 2,220 2005 56 154 204 423 700 508 2,045 2006 74 138 207 333 679 492 1,923 2007 57 126 186 318 622 488 1,797 2008 56 115 123 288 531 458 1,571 Note: Number of children under age 21 in foster care as of July 1 of each year, by age group.
Source: Needell, B. et al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social
Services Research,” 2009, accessed January 18, 2011, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare as cited by http://kidsdata.org. African American children are disproportionately represented in San Francisco’s foster care population,
representing two-thirds of all children in foster care or more since 2004. Latino children are also overrepresented compared to children of other racial/ethnic backgrounds. In 2008, about half of the children
and youth in foster care were placed with relatives, about 17 percent were placed in foster family agencies
(a home overseen by licensed nonprofit agencies), and 11 percent were placed in foster homes. 380 The
377
Needell, B. et al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research,”
2009, accessed January 18, 2011, http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare, as cited by http://kidsdata.org.
378
Rate of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases for children under age 18 by race/ethnicity. Ibid.
379
Department of the Status of Women, Family Violence Council, “Comprehensive Report on Family Violence in San Francisco 2010,” San
Francisco, November 2010.
380
Number of children under age 21 in foster care as of July 1 of each year, by placement type. Needell, B. et al., “Child Welfare Services
Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research,” 2009,
http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare, accessed January 18, 2011, as cited by http://kidsdata.org.
100
median length of a child’s stay in foster care in 2006 was 14.6 months, a decrease from prior years.
Approximately 200 youth emancipate from the San Francisco foster care system each year. 381
Exhibit 69: Children in Foster Care by Race/Ethnicity, 2004‐2008 African American Asian/Pacific Islander White Latino Native American Total 2004 n % 1,552 70% 2005 n % 1,427 70% 2006 n % 1,283 67% 2007 n % 1,183 66% 2008 n % 1,027 65% 110 5% 121 6% 140 7% 134 7% 116 7% 162 374 22 2,220 7% 17% 1% 100% 154 326 17 2,045 8% 16% 1% 100% 170 305 25 1,923 9% 16% 1% 100% 154 306 20 1,797 9% 17% 1% 100% 139 272 17 1,571 9% 17% 1% 100% Note: Number of children under age 21 in foster care as of July 1 of each year, by race/ethnicity.
Source: Needell, B. et al., “Child Welfare Services Reports for California, University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research,” 2009, accessed
January 18, 2011, http://kidsdata.org.
Children of Incarcerated Parents
In June 2010, an estimated 1,797 San Francisco children had a parent incarcerated in a California state
prison. 382 Additionally, an estimated 16,196 San Francisco children had a parent in custody for some period
of time in 2010 at San Francisco County Jails. 383 Actual calculations for the number of San Francisco’s
children with a parent in prison, jail or under the supervision of the criminal justice system (probation or
parole) are not currently available. According to national statistics, there is a disparate impact on families
of color, with African American children nine times more likely and Hispanic children three times more
likely than White children to have a parent in prison. 384
The San Francisco Human Services Agency now tracks the number of child welfare cases where a parent is
incarcerated. As of March 2010, 69 incarcerated mothers and 119 incarcerated fathers had an open child
welfare case, which is 15 percent of the overall child welfare caseload. 385 Since HSA began tracking the
number of incarcerated parents with open child welfare caseloads in 2008, this trend has remained
constant while the number of children in the child welfare system has decreased.
Parental incarceration creates additional challenges for children and families often resulting in financial
instability, instability in family relationships and structure, and residential mobility. 386 Research has found
that these factors contribute toward school behavior and performance problems. Familial incarceration
carries shame generated from social and institutional stigma. 387 “Because young children identify with
381
Ibid.
DCYF internal estimate utilizing formula provided by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston, M.D., “Children of Incarcerated Parents,”
Lexington Books, New York, 1998; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Data Analysis Unit Estimates and Statistical
Analysis Section, “Prison census Data Offenders By Commitment County and Gender,” Sacramento, 2010.
383
DCYF internal estimate utilizing formula provided by Katherine Gabel and Denise Johnston, M.D., “Children of Incarcerated Parents,”
Lexington Books, New York, 1998; San Francisco Sherriff’s Department 2010 Annual Unduplicated Population Count, obtained March 18,
2011.
384
Christopher J. Mumola, “Incarcerated parents and their children,” Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 2000, accessed March 17,
2011, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf.
385
San Francisco Human Service Agency, Family and Children’s Services, “CWS Data,” accessed March 17, 2011, LINK?
386
Irwin Garfinkel, Amanda Geller, and Carey Cooper, “Parental Incarceration in Fragile Families: Summary of Three Year Findings. A report to
the Annie E. Casey Foundation,” unpublished, 2007. Creasie Finney Hairston, “Focus on Children with Incarcerated Parents: An Overview of
the Research Literature,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, 2007.
387
Hairston, 2007. Thomas E. Hanlon, Robert J. Blatchley, Terry Bennett-Sears, Kevin E. O'Grady, Marc Rose and Jason M. Callaman,
“Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addict mothers: Implications for preventive intervention,” in Children and Youth Services Review,
2005.
382
101
their parents, they are likely to internalize this stigma, associating themselves with the labels placed on
their parents or blaming themselves for their parents’ absence.” 388
Families of Children with Disabilities and Special Needs
Children with disabilities or special needs face a variety of challenges that impede their wellbeing,
development, and health. Estimates indicate that two percent of children under age 18 had disability in
2000, which means 2,470 children had a “long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition” that
impedes their ability to do activities such as walking, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This is a
slight decrease from the 2008 estimate of 2,528 children with a disability. 389 Estimates of the population of
young children with special health care needs in 2000 were much higher—experts estimated that between
14 to 18 percent of children age 5 and under (or 5,637 to 7,406 children) had special health care needs. 390 A
child with special health care needs is defined as a child who “has an increased risk for chronic physical,
developmental, behavioral, or emotional conditions and who also requires health and related services of a
type or amount beyond that required by children generally.” 391
Exhibit 70: Students with Disabilities, 2007‐2009 Mental Retardation Hard of Hearing Deaf Speech or Language Impairment Visual Impairment Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairment Other Health Impairment Specific Learning Disability Deaf‐Blindness Multiple Disabilities Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Total 2007 422 119 20 1,602 42 387 78 380 2,537 0 79 373 4 6,043 2008 447 126 26 1,524 37 381 89 440 2,293 1 61 454 6 5,885 2009 446 103 31 1,667 34 420 89 541 2,368 1 65 524 7 6,296 Source: Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative Education Development Center, Inc., “An Audit of Programs and
Services for San Francisco Unified School District Students with Disabilities,” September 2010. For public education purposes, a different definition is used to identify students who have a disability or
health conditions that affect their educational needs. In 2009-2010, SFUSD served 6,296 students in
preschool through high school with disabilities, representing 11 percent of the total district population.
The district’s special education enrollment has remained fairly steady, rising by four percent from 2007 to
388
San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents, “Children of incarcerated parents: A bill of rights,” San Francisco, 2003, accessed March
2011, http://www.sfcipp.org/right7.html.
389
US Census defines a disability as a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person
to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from
being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 and 2008.
390
Deborah Parrish and Jennifer Anthony, “Young Children with Special Health Care Needs in San Francisco: Assessing our Reach – A
summary of the findings.” Report developed by American Institutes for Research for High Risk Infant Interagency Council of San Francisco,
2003.
391
Deborah Parrish and Jennifer Anthony, “Young Children with Special Health Care Needs in San Francisco: Assessing our Reach – A
summary of the findings,” Report developed by American Institutes for Research for High Risk Infant Interagency Council of San Francisco,
2003.
102
2009, yet the number of students classified as autistic has increased by 40 percent in the same time
period. 392
In terms of ethnic and racial composition, while Latinos and African Americans together comprised 35
percent of the total SFUSD student population in 2009-10, they constituted 55 percent of the students with
disabilities, while Asians accounted for 27 percent of students with disabilities. A recent report stated, “As a
segment of all students with disabilities, the proportion of students who are African American and
identified as disabled is more than double the proportion of African American students in SFUSD
overall.” 393
Exhibit 71: Students with Disabilities, by Race, Compared to All Students in District by Race
SFUSD is currently redesigning its special education services and programs in an effort to improve
outcomes for students with disabilities. This redesign process is exploring changes to curriculum, student
placements, staff professional development, use of inclusionary practices, communication with families,
and the district’s overall strategic approach to serving students with disabilities. 394
II. Economic Security Income
Parents, community members, and service providers participating in community input sessions articulated
the difficulty most families, but particularly low-income families, face to make ends meet in San Francisco.
As one parent stated, “I work 12 hours a day but still can’t afford to support my family.” Parents also
commented that many families in the City do not qualify for subsidized or free services because they do
not meet eligibility criteria, yet they are not able to access those services without assistance. As one parent
392
Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative Education Development Center, Inc., “An Audit of Programs & Services for San
Francisco Unified School District Students with Disabilities,” San Francisco, 2010.
393
Ibid.
394
San Francisco Unified School District, “Presentation to the Board: SFUSD Special Education Re-design Initial Steps,” September 21, 2010.
103
commented, “There are a lot of programs with income requirements. We hit $5 below so we are ineligible.”
Many parents stated that the fiscal pressure on families to sustain themselves in San Francisco is often an
ongoing stress. As one parent living in Visitacion Valley stated, “I cannot express my frustration and find
others to solve my problems. I am embarrassed to ask for help. I don’t know how to give my family a
better living standard. I can only keep all these worries with me without an outlet.” Underscoring the
broadness of families’ struggles to stay afloat, about one in five public school principals and a third of
service providers surveyed for this Needs Assessment indicated that the families they serve often request
basic needs such as food, clothing, and other necessities. 395
Data underscore stakeholders’ perspectives that many families struggle to be able to afford the high cost of
living in San Francisco, and most of the available data was gathered before the height of our most recent
recession. Given San Francisco’s high cost of living, many public agencies and researchers rely on localized
“self sufficiency standards” rather than the federal poverty level as a more accurate measure of a “bare
bones” budget appropriate for different family compositions. For example, the federal poverty threshold
for a family of two adults and two children in 2008 was an annual income of $21,834, but research found
that a family of four (one infant and one school-age child) would actually need an income of $62,709 to be
self-sufficient in San Francisco. 396 As indicated in the graphic below, about 40 percent of San Francisco’s
four-person families fell below the self-sufficiency standard in 2008, which is the lowest percentage of
households living below the self-sufficiency standard among all counties in the state. 397
Exhibit 72: Continuum of Economic Need Adapted from Coleman Advocates for Children, “Is There a Future for Children in San Francisco?” San Francisco, 2008 and SF Family Support Network, “Family
Economic Success Framework,” San Francisco, 2008.
395
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,”
San Francisco, 2011; Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
396
Insight Center for Community and Economic Development, “The Self-Sufficiency Standard,” Los Angeles, 2008.
397
Diana M. Pearce, “Overlooked and Undercounted 2009: Struggling to Make Ends Meet in California,” United Way of the Bay Area, San
Francisco, 2009.
104
As the graphic in Exhibit 72 depicts, about 14 percent of families in 2008 were extremely low income
(meaning they fell below the federal poverty level). Community input gathered indicates that even families
in the “middle income” or “upper income” working family categories struggle to afford the extracurricular,
child care, and other youth programming, opportunities, and supports they would like to offer their
children.
Estimates indicate the percentage of extremely low income families, or those who fall below the federal
poverty level, may be decreasing. Estimates for 2005-2007 indicated that 13 percent of San Francisco’s
children were living in families with incomes below the federal poverty line and that proportion dropped to
12 percent based on 2006-2008 data. Estimates from 2005-2009 indicate that about 12 percent of children
under age 18 live below the poverty level, which is relatively low compared to many large urban cities
nationwide. These estimates also indicate that most children living in poverty are either age five and under
or ages 6-14.
Exhibit 73: Children Under Age 18 below Poverty Level, 2005‐2009 Age Children age five and under Children six to 14 Children 15‐17 Total n % 5,484 5,667 2623 13,774 40% 41% 19% 100% Source: U.S Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005-2009.
Racial disparities in income are wider in San Francisco than they are nationally, and educational attainment
disparities also exist by race. According to 2000 Census data, the median household income for Whites was
$63,227 compared to $29,640 for African American and $46,883 for Latino households. In 2004, 63 percent
of San Francisco Whites have at least a bachelor’s degree, but only 21 percent of African Americans, 38
percent of Asians, and 25 percent of Latinos. 398 These racial disparities also appear in the percentages of
children living below the federal poverty level, with 10 percent of Asian children, and 18 percent of Latino
children living in extremely low-income families compared to five percent of White children. Data has also
indicated that some areas in San Francisco have concentrated incidences of extremely low-income
households. Parents participating in DCYF’s community input sessions voiced a need to ensure that high
quality services are available in low-income areas. As one parent living the Bayview neighborhood stated,
“I think sometimes because we are in a low-income area, [youth programs] do not put in the effort as they
do in other areas. If we provide our children with low quality things, that is how they will deem themselves.
So, we need to step up and put what every child needs to have in Bayview, Visitacion Valley, or Russian Hill
or any other place in the city.”
More families participate in several public assistance programs than just those families who fall below the
federal poverty level. In 2009, 16 percent of children under age 18 (18,933) lived in a household that had
received at least one of the following public assistance benefits within the last 12 months: Supplemental
Security Income (SSI), cash public assistance income, or Food Stamp/SNAP benefits. 399 In 2007, the
percentage of public school students who were eligible to receive free or reduced price meals based on
their families’ reported income levels was about 45 percent or 32,400 students, and in 2010 it dropped to
42 percent or 31,800 students. 400 In the first quarter of 2010, requests for information about income
398
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
399
US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.
400
California Department of Education,” Free/Reduced Price Meals Program & CalWORKS Data Files,” Sacramento, 2011.
105
supports were the most frequent calls placed in San Francisco to 211 (30 percent of all calls), a toll-free
phone number that connects callers with local community services. 401
Exhibit 74: Children under Age 18 below Poverty Level by Race/Ethnicity 402 African American Asian American White Hispanic/Latino Multiracial 2005‐2007 LNE 9% 4% 20% LNE 2006‐2008 LNE 10% 5% 18% 8% Note: LNE (Low Number Event) refers to estimates that have been suppressed because the confidence interval around the
percentage was greater than 10 percentage points.
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, as cited by http://kidsdata.org,
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
In March 2010, 4,757 families received CalWORKS assistance. Almost half (46 percent) of these families
were single-parent families, six percent were two-parent families, and 18 percent were support for the child
or children only (not for their adult guardians). African Americans are disproportionately represented
among CalWORKS cases (38 percent). Latinos comprise almost a third of all cases, nine percent were
Chinese, nine percent White, three percent Vietnamese, one percent Russian, one percent Cambodian, and
14 percent indicated “other” for race/ethnicity. Most families spoke English, although 17 percent spoke
Spanish, five percent spoke Cantonese, three percent Vietnamese, two percent Russian and three percent
spoke some other language. 403
Employment
With the economic recession, San Francisco’s unemployment rate reached as high as nine percent in 2009,
a marked increase from four percent in 2007 and the highest it has been in 25 years. 404 Data indicate this
increase in the unemployment rate has impacted families with children. A 2007 study of incoming
kindergarteners found that 17 percent of parents indicated they or another primary caregiver in the
household had lost a job in the past year, and that proportion increased to 29 percent in 2009. 405
At community input sessions, parents, school leaders, and community members voiced parents’ need for
assistance in securing employment to help support their family. In addition, 30 percent of public school
leaders surveyed reported that families with children in kindergarten to 8th grade often express that
employment for parents/caregivers is a need, and more than half of all service providers surveyed indicated
it was the most requested support service families need. 406 Many community members indicated a need
401
Although 211 is not a resource solely for families, 211 can provide a sense of general needs for services across the city. 211 is sponsored
by the United Way of the Bay Area and is available to callers 24 hours a day in more than 150 languages Overall, the volume of calls to 211
has increased since 2008 and was highest during the first quarter of 2009, with a slight drop in calls in the first quarter of 2010. 211 handled
about 12,840 calls from San Francisco, Marin, Napa, San Mateo and Solano counties in the first quarter of 2010. United Way of the Bay Area,
“2-1-1/HELPLINK First Quarter Trend Report: January – March 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
402
Percentage of children ages 0-17 living in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, by race/ethnicity. In 2008, a family of two
adults and two children was considered in poverty if their annual income fell below $21,834. LNE (Low Number Event) refers to estimates
that have been suppressed because the confidence interval around the percentage was greater than 10 percentage points. For reference, in
2000 36 percent of African American children in San Francisco lived in poverty. Percent of African American youth living in poverty derived
from number of African American youth living “below poverty level” (4,350) and the number of African American youth living “at or above
poverty level” ( 7,747) in San Francisco in 1999. US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
403
Human Services Agency, “CalWORKs Oversight Committee Meeting,” San Francisco, March 2010.
404
Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year Consolidated
Plan,” San Francisco, 2010; 2007 data: California Employment Development Department, accessed November 2009, http:// kidsdata.org and
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName=Labforce.
405
Applied Survey Research, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School District,” San Francisco, 2010.
406
These results are based on respondents representing 39 of SFUSD’s 69 Elementary and Alternative Grade Span (K-8) Schools for a 55
percent response rate, four of 31 Child Development Program School-Age Afterschool Sites for a 10 percent response rate, and seven of
106
for computer and technology training for parents to enhance their job opportunities. English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes and job training were also voiced as a need for many parents/caregivers,
particularly immigrant populations. As one Chinese immigrant parent stated, “Without income, how can I
live and support my family? We’ll have no place to sleep, no food to eat, and cannot go anywhere.”
Another parent commented on the impact low-wage jobs with non-traditional hours has on home life: “If
we can get a job, we need to work for long hours, unwanted shifts, and unstable schedules. We are
physically and mentally drained; as a result we have so little time and effort to help our families.”
Participants in community input sessions specifically emphasized the importance of available, affordable
child care to help parents participate in job training or secure and maintain employment. Parents
expressed that child care plays an integral role in enabling them to attend jobs, trainings, language classes,
or other opportunities that enhance their job-related skills. Many parents saw child care as an essential
factor in their ability to sustain jobs and remain self-sufficient. One parent explained, “Daycare makes it
easier for me to work the scheduled hours I need, and that helps me.”
III. Parent/Caregiver Services and Information Parents and caregivers participating in DCYF community input sessions for this Needs Assessment voiced a
need primarily for parenting classes, parent support groups, and access to information about resources
available to families. Parents also stated that they need family activities that can help them interact with
their children in positive ways. One immigrant parent stated, “It is hard to communicate with my
teenagers. It would be nice to have outdoor activities we can do as a family.” Parents and caregivers
articulated that the staff delivering services and information needs to be culturally responsive and have the
appropriate language capabilities to be effective. Parents and caregivers described the many stressors that
families in San Francisco experience, ranging from economic insecurity to neighborhood violence to
navigating the web of available youth and school programs. While not much data is available about the
well-being of parents in San Francisco, data from a representative sample of public school kindergartener
families found that while parents’ confidence about managing the day-to-day demands of parenting and
their ability to access social support as a parent is relatively high, there has been a decrease between 2007
and 2009 indicating that parents are struggling more in this area than they were two years ago. 407
In San Francisco, there are a range of programs and services to support families. There are at least 20
programs that provide family support services, including programs that provide services directly to
families; programs that provide information, resources, and leadership development to parents connected
to public schools; child development programs that focus on holistically supporting families; and programs
that focus on education/literacy for children and/or parents. In addition, DCYF, the Human Services
Agency, and First 5 San Francisco jointly fund 24 family resources centers (FRCs). In 2009-2010, these
centers served 7,980 parents (an increase from about 3,700 in 2008-09,) and 4,900 children and youth.
More than a third (34 percent) of the parents and children were not fluent in English. Of the parents and
children participating in FRC services, 36 percent were Latino, 32 percent Asian, 15 percent African
American, eight percent White, five percent multi-racial, three percent Pacific Islander, and less than one
percent Native American. 408
SFUSD’s 13 middle schools for a 54 percent response rate. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs
Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011; Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families,
“DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
407
Applied Survey Research, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School District,” San Francisco, 2010.
408
The increase in parents’ usage of FRCs is attributed to significant changes in how publicly funded FRCs report data. It is believed that
most FRCs were under-reporting parents served in the past. First 5 San Francisco, “2008-09 Local Evaluation Report: A Report to the
Community on Strategic Plan Progress,” San Francisco, 2010; First 5 San Francisco, “San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative
Evaluation 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2011.
107
Exhibit 75 indicates that the most widely used services across FRCs citywide are support groups, activities
for parents and children to interact together, and one-time workshops.
Exhibit 75: Adults Using City‐Funded Family Resource Center Services Type of Service Parent/peer support groups Parent‐child interactive activity One‐time informational workshops Case management Parent education series Activities to Promote Parents' Ability to Support Child's School Success Differential response (supporting families with children that do not need child welfare intervention but need early intervention based in the community) Enhanced visitation for Child Welfare foster children seeking reunification Other Participating Respondents 2,046 2,021 1,962 1,610 1,495 Percent 16% 16% 15% 13% 12% 400 3% 153 1% 87 1% 3,033 24% Note: Parents could use more than one of the types of services listed in this table.
Source: Data from First 5 San Francisco, San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative Evaluation 2009-10, email
communication March 17, 2011.
Recent evaluation data found that parents and caregivers using City-funded family resource center services
report higher levels of confidence in their parenting and access to social supports and coping mechanisms
than other San Francisco parents not accessing City-funded FRC services.
Exhibit 76: City‐Funded Family Resource Center Participant Assessment Survey Results Participant Assessment Survey Question Response of “Definitely” or “Somewhat True” City‐Funded FRC All Other Respondents Participants (n=2019) (n=628) When I need help with problems in my family, I am able to ask for help from others. 95% 87% I feel confident in my ability to help my child grow and develop. 97% 94% I can easily find someone to talk to when I need advice about how to raise my child. 95% 92% I am coping well with the day‐to‐day demands of parenting. 96% 88% Source: Data from First 5 San Francisco, San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative Evaluation 2009-10, email correspondence, March 28,
2011.
108
Parent Education
“[We need] self‐esteem classes for In community input sessions for this Needs
everybody. If I had more self‐
Assessment, parents and service providers
expressed a need for parenting classes,
esteem my children would have particularly for teen parents and parents with
higher self esteem. If you have teenagers, and on topics such as disciplinary
higher self‐esteem you look for practices and helping children succeed in school.
Some parents, particularly immigrant parents,
better, creative ways to outlive as a expressed having trouble connecting with their
person just looking at what is teenage children around difficult issues. One
parent asked, “I am afraid that my son is troubled,
around you. I can go to work for and I cannot help him. Is there someone who
eight hours and make 50 bucks, but I can talk to my son?” The need for parenting
can stand on the corner for an hour classes related to discipline and helping children
succeed in school was echoed by SFUSD
and make 200 bucks, but if they principals and site supervisors. More than half of
have good enough self‐esteem they the principals and supervisors at K-8 schools
will go for the job instead of the reported that families they serve often express a
need for support in helping their child with
illegal.” school work, and a third reported a need for help
– Parent living in the Bayview “managing their child(ren)’s behavior.” 409 More
than half of 356 service providers surveyed
neighborhood responded that one of the main obstacles
preventing the children they serve from entering
school happy, healthy, and ready to learn is parents/caregivers’ lack of access to parenting classes or other
supports necessary to help children reach their developmental milestones. 410
FRCs offer a variety of parent education opportunities that focus on topics that aim to help parents foster
their child’s healthy development. In 2009-10, about 1,500 adults participated in curriculum-based parent
education series offered by City-funded FRCs. These series offered a minimum of eight sequential learning
sessions about parenting skills for a group of parents and caregivers. Almost 2,000 adults also participated
in one-time workshops on topics such as money management, nutrition, housing, employment, dental
health, and other parenting topics through City-funded FRCs. Many parents who have participated in Cityfunded FRC programs are confident in their parenting skills and knowledge. For curriculum-based parent
education series, analysis of parenting practices before and after class participation shows a decrease
between pre- and post-assessment in parents’ use of ineffective discipline styles. 411 In addition, 63 percent
of parents/caregivers accessing City-funded FRCs reported reading to their children five or more times a
week, compared to the citywide average across all parents of 52 percent. 412
409
These results are based on respondents representing 39 of SFUSD’s 69 Elementary and Alternative Grade Span (K-8) Schools for a 55
percent response rate, four of 31 Child Development Program School-Age Afterschool Sites for a 10 percent response rate, and seven of
SFUSD’s 13 middle schools for a 54 percent response rate. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs
Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011.
410
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial
Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
411
This finding is based on assessments of 122 parent participants. First 5 San Francisco, “San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative
Evaluation 2009-10,” San Francisco, 2011.
412
First 5 San Francisco, “2008-09 Local Evaluation Report: A Report to the Community on Strategic Plan Progress,” San Francisco, 2010.
109
Parent Support Groups
Community input gathered for this needs assessment indicated that parents, community members, and
service providers find a lot of value in parent support groups. One parent from the Excelsior explained that,
in her parent support group, “Parents support each other when there are challenges.”
More than 2,000 parents and caregivers participated in support groups offered by publicly funded FRCs in
2009-2010. These groups provide parents and caregivers with the opportunity to support each other and
share information, advice, or problem-solving strategies relating to parenting experiences. Some parent
support groups are shaped by members with a similar demographic or who share a common experience,
such as loss of a loved one, children in crisis, etc. In community input sessions, some parents and
community members expressed a need for more parent support groups. One Telegraph Hill parent shared
that a parent support network would have been really helpful for her: “When I had my daughter I didn't
know anybody. I didn't know any other moms. The whole preschool process was kind of a secret…I had a
lot of problems [as a new parent]. I lived in the same place for 13 years and I couldn't find resources.”
Information for Parents on Programs and Services
Parents, service providers, and community members participating in community input sessions stated that
families need easy access to information about programs, services, and resources. Many parents said they
primarily rely on word of mouth to find out about programs and services. One service provider noted,
“There are so many things in the city that are free for families, but families don’t know how to access them.”
In some community input sessions, participants voiced a need for targeted outreach to families facing
challenges, such as teen, new, and LGBTQ parents, immigrant families, families with members involved
with public systems, and those living in public housing or are under-housed or homeless. Some
participants also articulated a need to enhance outreach efforts targeted to youth to ensure such efforts
are youth-friendly and relevant.
Many community members identified a need for ways for families to access information about available
services and programs in multiple languages and in ways that are not dependent on computer or internet
access. This was voiced as a particular need for families who do not speak English. As one immigrant
parent said, “I’m new in America for only three months. I can’t read English so I can only seek resources
through Chinese media or friends and relatives, but everyone has little or no information.”
There are several existing efforts to share information with parents and families about available services
and programs. For example, the 24 publicly funded FRCs are required to help connect families to the
services they need through sharing information, referring them to services offered by the FRC or other
service providers, and proactively encouraging families to access their offerings through outreach
strategies such as neighborhood flyers, visits to the family’s home, phone calls, written invitations, and peer
referrals. In 2010-2011, SFUSD also employed 41 parent liaisons to work in 41 public elementary, middle,
and high schools to develop and implement engagement structures to support and increase parent
participation in the educational process of their children.
Several websites and call centers are also currently available to provide information about services and
programs available to San Francisco families. A few examples of the variety of resources available include a
DCYF-funded, parent-run website, SFKids.org, that provides information about services, programs,
activities, and resources for families with children of all ages. In one year, this website had 187,249 visits
from 124,931 unique visitors who spent an average of more than two and half minutes on the site. A
survey of SFKids.org users found that about a third of users visit the site at least once a month, and 70
110
percent have attended or enrolled their children in activities they found due to the website. 413 United Way
of the Bay Area and several partners operate a 24-hour, multilingual call center called 2-1-1 which in 2010
provided 218,000 Bay Area callers with information about services such as counseling, youth, and family
services, immigration programs, health care, and temporary financial aid. 414 The city also created 3-1-1, a
24-hour call center with multiple language capacities and website that provides information about
government services. The service receives about 200,000 calls a month with a variety of requests, including
information about health insurance, transportation, and other public services. 415
Transportation to Access Services
Parents, service providers, and community members participating in community input sessions stated that
families need better transportation that is reliable, safe, and affordable so that they can access available
services. Many participants expressed that the lack of better transportation can be a barrier that keeps
children, youth, and parents/caregivers from participating in programs or activities, especially for those
that live in areas on the perimeter of the city. Participants also mentioned that SFUSD’s school assignment
system results in some children spending significant amounts of time commuting from their home to their
school site, which can impact their ability to participate in out of school time activities.
IV. Health and Wellness Health Insurance
“Access to preventative health services should be a priority. As the economy struggles and families struggle with jobs…regular check‐ups, dental work, and glasses get deferred when people are struggling.” San Francisco is fortunate to have a variety of health
insurance and subsidized health care programs
available to low and moderate income families in San
Francisco. Two state programs—Healthy Families and
Medi-Cal for Families—provide free or low-cost health
coverage with full benefits for uninsured, eligible
children in low-income and working families. 416 At the
end of 2010 in San Francisco, about 11,100 children
were enrolled in Healthy Families. San Francisco funds
its own program called Healthy Kids which provides
coverage for undocumented children and those whose
low-income families are not eligible for the two state
– Representative from a City programs. At the end of 2010, about 3,000 children
were enrolled in the program. Over the last several
department years, the number of children enrolled in these
programs has decreased. The decline in the Healthy
Families program was due to an enrollment freeze, while the steady decline in the Healthy Kids program is
attributed to older children aging out of the program and fewer young children enrolling as new
members. 417
413
Note: Statistics for 3/21/10-3/21/11. Survey conducted with 356 respondents in March 2011. Communication with operators of
SFKids.org, March 22, 2011.
414
211 Bay Area, “Calls to 211 Helpline Increased Steadily in 2010,” Press Release, March 8, 2011.
415
City and County of San Francisco, 311 Center. “Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Service Requests and Call Volume Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
416
Medi-Cal is free for children, while Healthy Families charges a monthly premium that varies based on the family’s income. A family of four
with an annual income of up to $55,000 usually qualifies for one of these two programs, but the children must be US citizens or qualified
immigrants.
417
Data from San Francisco Health Plan, email correspondence, April 18, 2011.
111
Estimates indicate about 99 percent of children ages zero to 17 had continuous health insurance coverage
in 2006. 418 Despite the high rate of coverage, officials indicate that health insurance coverage does not
necessarily lead to health service access and utilization. During DCYF’s community input sessions, some
participants expressed concerns with some families’ (particularly those with children with special needs)
access to needed health services. In addition, several participants identified the health coverage provided
by San Francisco’s Healthy Kids program as an important factor for maintaining the health and well-being
of otherwise uninsured children, particularly undocumented children who are typically excluded from
public services.
Oral health insurance is available for 44,606 children ages zero to 18 in San Francisco through Denti-Cal,
but many are not accessing services. For children ages zero to three, less than a quarter (22 percent) use
Denti-Cal services and only slightly more than half (53 percent) of enrolled children ages four to eight use
these services. Teen utilization of these services drops to 41 percent among youth ages 12 to 18. 419
Among SFUSD kindergarteners in 2009-2010, 22 percent had untreated dental decay. 420
Food Security
The number of individuals and families accessing Food Stamps in San Francisco has increased steadily each
year since 2007, as indicated in the table below. Human Services Agency officials attribute the rise in the
number of families accessing food stamps to the economic recession and to improvements in outreach and
access to the program through an online website (www.benefitsSF.org), a call center (415-558-1001), and
extensive community organizing. 421
Exhibit 77: Food Stamps Participation in San Francisco, 2007‐2010 Average number of individuals per month Average number of cases per month Average number of cases with children per month % Change from 2008‐09 % Change from 2009‐10 2007 2008 2009 2010* % Change from 2007‐08 28,354 29,008 36,034 44,185 2% 24% 23% 18,767 19,355 23,378 27,607 3% 21% 18% 6,096 6,488 8,216 10,344 6% 27% 26% Source: San Francisco Human Service Agency
*2010 data includes January through June 2010
In December 2010, 78 percent of food stamp cases were single-person households, 12 percent were twoperson households, and 10 percent were households with three or more people. About 30 percent of food
stamp cases involved children less than 18 years old. Among all food stamp recipients, about 22 percent
418
This data may be overstated due to self-report. Percentage of children ages 0-17 with health insurance coverage in 2007. UCLA Center for
Health Policy Research, “California Health Interview Survey,” accessed March 19, 2009, http://www.chis.ucla.edu/, http://Kidsdata.org.
419
Dental Services is one of many benefits provided under the California State Medi-Cal program for children and adults who qualify by
income limit requirements. The primary objective of the Denti-Cal Program is to create a better dental care system and increase the quality
of services available to those individuals and families who rely on public assistance to help meet their health care needs. Department of
Public Health, Maternal Children, and Adolescent Health, data from CHDP Bay Area Deputy Directors' Dental Subcommittee; Denti-Cal
Utilization Rate by Age Group (All Aid Codes), Including Clinics 2009, Medi-Cal Dental Services, October 26-2010, email correspondence, April
12, 2011.
420
Department of Public Health, Maternal Children, and Adolescent Health, data from 2009 Kindergarten Dental Screening Program, email
correspondence, April 5, 2011.
421
Communication with Leo O’Farrell, CalFresh Program Director, San Francisco Human Services Agency, March 8, 2011.
112
were Chinese, 20 percent African American, 20 percent Latino, 18 percent White, 13 percent other, three
percent Filipino, three percent Vietnamese, and a half a percent Russian. 422
In addition to food stamps, each month the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program administered by
the SF Department of Public Health provides 3,770 women, 3,050 infants, and 8,400 children with healthy
food and nutrition education. There are also a number of community-based programs that use public and
private funds to provide meals to those in need. Officials estimate that 264,900 meals are served per
month through these programs, although no data is available on how many of those meals are served to
families. 423
In addition to food assistance for families, there are several food assistance programs specifically for
children. In the public schools in 2009-10, an average of 22,500 students in kindergarten to grade 12 ate a
subsidized school lunch, 7,500 ate a subsidized breakfast, and 7,500 ate a subsidized snack each day. These
numbers under-represent the level of need for food assistance because more than 30,000 students were
eligible for such meals. 424 Through two federally funded afterschool snack programs during the regular
school year, each school day 6,300 children and youth up to age 18 were served an afternoon snack. 425
During the 8-week Summer Lunch Program in 2010, an average of about 4,220 youth were served a lunch
and 2,173 were served a snack each day. In addition to the above programs, San Francisco has two publicly
funded food assistance programs that serve 149,700 meals per month to youth ages 13 and under through
415 child care homes across the city. 426
Despite the food assistance programs mentioned above, requests for information about food or meals
were the second most frequent calls placed in San Francisco to 2-1-1, a toll-free phone number that
connects callers with local community services, in the first quarter of 2010. Calls seeking such information
represented about 19 percent of all calls that quarter. 427 In addition, parents participating in community
input sessions for this needs assessment voiced concerns about a lack of access to food and healthy foods,
in particular. One in five SFUSD principals and site supervisors surveyed reported that the K-8 families they
serve often express a family need for food and other basics such as clothing. 428
Homeless and under-housed families often do not have access to kitchens, which combined with limited
income can significantly impact their diet and access to healthy foods. In a recent survey of 126 families
living in San Francisco SROs, almost three in 10 cited “Nutritional deficiencies due to lack of access to a
kitchen” as a way their current living situation negatively impacts their children. Data on homeless
individuals in San Francisco indicate that almost 40 percent are likely to be food insecure. 429 About eight
percent of the city’s homeless population is families with children. Findings from a session with homeless
422
Human Services Agency, “Food Stamps Profile,” San Francisco, 2010.
Data on community-based programs was synthesized by the Tenderloin Task Force which includes Glide Foundation, Meals on Wheels,
Project Open Hand, and St. Anthony’s Foundation. Department of Public Health, “Hunger and Food Insecurity On the Rise in San Francisco:
San Francisco Food Security Task Force Annual Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
424
Data are for 2009-10 school year. Department of Public Health, “Hunger and Food Insecurity On the Rise in San Francisco: San Francisco
Food Security Task Force Annual Report,” San Francisco, 2010.
425
DCYF administers a program that serves about 800 snacks a day. SFUSD administers a program that serves about 5,500 snacks a day.
Communication with SFUSD ExCEL Afterschool Office, March 29, 2011.
426
Communication with Wu Yee Children’s Services, March 3, 2011; Communication with Children’s Council, March 1, 2011.
427
Although 211 is not a resource solely for families, 211 can provide a sense of general needs for services across the city. 211 is sponsored
by the United Way of the Bay Area and is available to callers 24 hours a day in more than 150 languages Overall, the volume of calls to 211
has increased since 2008 and was highest during the first quarter of 2009, with a slight drop in calls in the first quarter of 2010. 211 handled
about 12,840 calls from San Francisco, Marin, Napa, San Mateo and Solano counties in the first quarter of 2010. United Way of the Bay Area,
“2-1-1/HELPLINK First Quarter Trend Report: January – March 2010,” San Francisco, 2010.
428
These results are based on respondents representing 39 of SFUSD’s 69 Elementary and Alternative Grade Span (K-8) Schools for a 55
percent response rate, four of 31 Child Development Program School-Age Afterschool Sites for a 10 percent response rate, and seven of
SFUSD’s 13 middle schools for a 54 percent response rate. Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “Community Needs
Assessment Survey, SFUSD Principals and CDP Site Supervisors,” San Francisco, 2011.
429
San Francisco SRO Task Force,”Families Living in SROs: 2010 Survey,” 2010, as cited in San Francisco Department of Public Health, “Hunger
and Food Insecurity On the Rise in San Francisco: San Francisco Food Security Task Force Annual Report,” November 2010.
423
113
families underscored the need for better access to healthy food. As one parent living in a homeless shelter
said, “I would like to have a stable home. That is the most important thing for a human being—to have a
place to sleep, to have a place to cook, to have privacy...and we don’t have that.” Lack of access to a
kitchen and food can be particularly challenging for members of a homeless family that has a health
condition or dietary restriction.
Physical Fitness and Activity
Parents and community members also voiced a
need for affordable programs that promote
physical activity and healthy, active lifestyles
among youth and their families. Data indicate
being overweight and obese is a health concern
affecting 36 percent of youth ages five to 19 in
San Francisco. While all racial/ethnic groups of
youth are impacted, disparities exist in rates of
overweight/obesity between these groups.
While the Asian population has the lowest
prevalence of obesity, almost one in four (23
percent) of Asian youth are overweight or obese.
In comparison, nearly half of African American
(45 percent) and Latino (49 percent) youth are
overweight or obese. 430
“This community has been exposed to so much trauma: loss of family members to violence and incarceration, poverty, abuse, neglect. And people think the best way to deal with that is to tough it up, but until we don’t heal, until we don’t weep and mourn our losses, we won’t be able to move on.” –Service provider and community member A citywide survey of residents indicated that parents with children 17 years old and younger are the most
frequent users of city parks. 431 While many families are utilizing San Francisco’s parks, many parents and
community members who attended community input sessions expressed a need for more safe open
spaces, recreational spaces, and green environments. Some parents did not feel that their neighborhoods
offered safe spaces for their children and family to enjoy outdoor activities together.
Mental Health
Community input gathered for this needs assessment indicated that many parents and service providers
expressed needs for more mental health services for parents and caregivers. Participants expressed
concern that families are experiencing significant stresses in their homes and communities, such as
poverty, unemployment, street violence, domestic violence, substance abuse, grief and loss, and the
isolation of being a new parent.
Although limited, available data on the mental health of parents and caregivers indicates that some
parents and caregivers’ face challenges that significantly impact their mental health. A recent study of
SFUSD kindergarten families found that 19 percent of parents met the screening criteria for possible
serious mental illness. The study also found that sub-clinical levels of parental depression are associated
with lower school readiness in children. 432 In addition, data from two of San Francisco’s hotlines for parents
indicate that some parents and caregivers struggle with family conflicts, parenting challenges, children’s
behavior, as well as other issues that impact their mental health. TALK Line (Telephone Aid in Living with
430
This data is collected for primarily low-income, at-risk children in medical offices/clinics and recorded on a state form. Data was not
available for White, Filipino, and Pacific Islander youth. Overweight is defined as a body mass index between the 85th and 95th percentile for
that age. Obese is defined as equal to or greater than the 95th percentile. California Department of Health Care Services, “2009 Pediatric
Nutrition Surveillance, San Francisco, Growth Indicators by Race/Ethnicity and Age – Children Aged 5 to <20 years,” accessed April 2011,
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/chdp/Documents/PedNSS/2009/16B0to5.pdf.
431
Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor, “City Survey 2009,” San Francisco, 2009.
432
Applied Survey Research, “Portrait of School Readiness 2009-10: San Francisco Unified School District,” San Francisco, 2010.
114
Kids) is a citywide 24-hour year round parental stress counseling and crisis line. During 2010, TALK Line
counselors handled more than 16,000 calls from families. 433 Another hotline for parents and caregivers
targets the Asian Pacific Islander community. The Asian Pacific Islander Family Resources Network (APIFRN)
manages a multilingual hotline, with assistance available in Chinese, Filipino, Samoan, Cambodian,
Vietnamese, and Laotian. In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the hotline managed 563 phone calls from families
and more than half of the calls involved parental mental health concerns. 434 The most common concerns
identified in calls to both hotlines were:






Family conflicts, including relationship and marital problems, separation and divorce, domestic
violence, and stress management;
General parenting, including difficulty with sharing parenting responsibilities with a spouse or
former partner, struggles balancing the demands of work with those of parenting, the desire of
single-parents to connect with other parents, and issues related to child abuse and neglect;
Children’s behavior, including discipline, boundary-setting, school attendance, their children’s
use of social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, etc.), sexual promiscuity, shoplifting, and
substance use/abuse;
Children and parents’ mental health, including requesting formal mental health services for
themselves and/or for their children in their initial call;
Legal issues, including divorce, domestic violence, custody, and immigration issues; and
Adjustment issues for parents living in new environments, culture, and/or family situations. 435
V. Violence, Crime, and Safety Community input gathered for this Needs Assessment indicated that parents, community members, and
service providers voiced concerns about the impacts of violence at home and in the community on
children, youth, and families. For example, 47 percent of surveyed service providers who work with
children under the age of five indicated that exposure to violence at home or in the community is one of
the largest obstacles preventing children from entering school happy, healthy, and ready to learn. 436
Service providers and parents who participated in focus groups voiced a need for supports for families
experiencing violence. As one member of a parent-led group stated, “Children are often exposed to violent
environments and this has a detrimental impact on the mental health of children.”
Violence at Home
City officials estimate that 5,000 to 11,000 children and youth are exposed to domestic violence each year
in San Francisco. 437 Over the last three years, there has been an increase in the number of 911 calls related
to domestic violence. In 2007-2008, dispatchers fielded 6,583 calls and in 2009-2010, they fielded 7,311
calls related to domestic violence. The San Francisco Police Department received and assessed about 4,000
domestic violence cases in 2009-2010, a slight increase from 3,850 cases in the prior year. In 2009-2010, 43
percent of those cases were investigated by the department’s Domestic Violence Response Unit. 438
433
Larry Yip, San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center, email correspondence, April 7, 2011.
Amy Yu, APA Family Support Services, email correspondence, April 1, 2011.
435
Amy Yu, APA Family Support Services, email correspondence, April 1, 2011. Larry Yip, San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center, email
correspondence, April 7, 2011.
436
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, “DCYF Provider Survey, 2010 Initial Results,” San Francisco, 2010.
437
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
438
Department of the Status of Women, Family Violence Council, “Comprehensive Report on Family Violence in San Francisco 2010,” San
Francisco, 2010.
434
115
In San Francisco, there are three emergency shelters for victims of domestic violence and their children,
with a combined total of approximately 75 beds. In 2007-2008, the city funded 5,927 night stays for 117
women and 11 children at those three shelters, and 630 women and children were turned away primarily
for lack of space. That same year, the three shelters and the W.O.M.A.N., Inc. domestic violence crisis line
responded to more than 24,600 hotline calls, of which about 4,400 where crisis calls and 2,700
informational calls. 439 In addition in 2009-2010, SafeStart, a collaborative that receives City funds to serve
families with children age 0-6 who have been exposed to or are at risk of exposure to domestic and
community violence, provided intensive case management to approximately 200 families in four different
languages and educated more than 300 parents about the effects of violence exposure on young
children. 440
Some citywide service providers identified the need for mental health services for young children who are
impacted by violence at home. A City department representative identified the need to make sure children
have as much stability as possible by having “specialized services to those families to quickly reunite the
children to their families, or to identify another permanent placement for the child.”
Violence in the Community
Community input gathered for this Needs Assessment indicated that parents, community members, and
service providers find community violence and crime a concern in many neighborhoods throughout the
city. Some participants in community input sessions expressed a need for better relationships between the
police and the community to help keep children and youth safe in their neighborhoods.
Some community input session participants voiced a need for more violence prevention efforts and safe
alternatives for families. As one Treasure Island parent stated, “Everybody wants to fight against everybody
else. We are all neighbors, and the island isn’t big enough for that.” In reference to the community
violence, a parent living in the Bayview neighborhood stated, “Our younger children see the older kids out
there living the wrong way.” Many parents emphasized the importance of safe spaces for youth to gather
in their neighborhoods, especially in areas where street violence is prevalent. Safe spaces such as
community clubhouses, libraries, and parks can be used by youth at a low or no cost to participate in
constructive activities or to congregate with peers. As a representative from a parent-led group explained,
“Right now, there’s nowhere for kids to be...Violence has led families to become concerned that they can
simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Safe Transportation
Some community input session participants voiced a need for increasing the safety of public
transportation. Specific concerns voiced included concerns with safety of younger children and children
accompanied by seniors during peak commute times. As one parent from Visitacion Valley explained,
“MUNI sometimes can be a challenge for senior citizens and grandparents. A lot of the parents work, so the
grandparents bring the children to programs…I don’t let my mother-in-law get on the bus with my kids
because I see how the high school kids act and what they are capable of. I would go crazy if something
happened to her.”
439
San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Housing, Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Redevelopment Agency, “2010-2014 Five-Year
Consolidated Plan,” San Francisco, 2010.
440
Robin Pry, SafeStart, San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center, email correspondence, March 7, 2011.
116
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the numerous organizations and individuals throughout San Francisco and our regional
partners who contributed time, information, and energy to this Community Needs Assessment process. In
particular, DCYF would like to thank the following organizations for hosting input sessions:
Neighborhood-group hosted sessions
BMAGIC
Chinatown Families Economic Self-Sufficiency Coalition
Excelsior Family Connections and the Mission YMCA
Friends of Noe Valley & Upper Noe Neighbors
Holly Courts Residents Council
Mission Community Council
Mo’MAGIC
Neighborhoods West of Twin Peaks
OMI Neighbors in Action
Portola Family Connections
Potrero Hill Neighborhood House
Richmond District Neighborhood Center
South of Market Community Action Network
Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Center
Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative (with Catholic Charities CYO and Boys & Girls Club of San
Francisco)
Visitacion Valley Citizen’s Advisory Committee of the SF Redevelopment Agency
Parent-group hosted sessions
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco, Latino Parent Group
Parent Voices
Samoan Community Development Center
School of the Epiphany in partnership with the BASIC Fund
Second District of the California State PTA, San Francisco
Youth-group hosted sessions
San Francisco Wellness Initiative, Youth Outreach Worker Program (YOW)
Transitional Age Youth SF Young Adult Advocates
Youth Empowerment Fund Advisory Board (YEFAB)
YEFAB facilitated focus group with immigrant youth
Youth Advisory Council facilitated focus group with the San Francisco Youth Commission
117
Sessions hosted by citywide advisory groups composed of service providers
Adolescent Health Working Group
Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Initiative’s Provider Network
High Risk Infant Interagency Council
New Day for Learning SFUSD CBO Partnership Committee
San Francisco Afterschool for All Initiative
San Francisco Beacon Steering Committee
San Francisco Child Care Planning and Advisory Council
San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership, One Family Working Group
San Francisco Family Support Network
San Francisco Improving Transition Outcomes Project (ITOP) Interagency Council
San Francisco Wellness Initiative
Work Investment San Francisco (WISF) Youth Council
Shape Up San Francisco
Transitional Age Youth SF Service Provider Network Meeting
San Francisco Youth Employment Coalition
Additionally, DCYF would like to thank everyone who participated in key informant interviews, and the
following for sharing information and providing feedback and suggestions for this report: the Board of
Supervisors and their staff, Mayor Edwin Lee and his staff, SFUSD staff, First 5 San Francisco staff,
Department of Public Health staff, Human Services Agency staff, Recreation and Parks Department staff.
DCYF would also like to thank the following entities for their insights and reactions to the draft initial
findings of the needs assessment which helped enhance this final report: Board of Supervisors, DCYF’s
Citizen’s Advisory Committee, Health Commission, Human Services Commission, Juvenile Probation
Commission, Recreation and Park Commission, SFUSD’s Cabinet, and the Youth Commission.
This study was completed with the assistance of several consultants: Ethan Jacobs, Maria Porter, and the
staff of Harder+Company Community Research.
118
Appendix A:
Map of Planning Neighborhoods
119
Appendix B:
Summary of Aggregate Survey Results
120
DCYF
Department of Children, Youth & Their Families
DCYF Provider Survey
2010
Initial Analysis
1
DCYF 2010 Provider Survey Overview
The Survey included 6 general identifying questions and 7 to 12 questions
for the different age groups
We sent out 700 surveys targeted to our funded providers and 356
surveys were completed – a response rate of about 50%
At least 145 unique agencies responded out of a possible 172 – an
agency response rate of 84%
186 different programs responded to the survey!
QUESTION TOPIC BREAKDOWN
#
6
TOPIC
Identifying Questions
12* Questions for Ages 0 to 5
10* Questions for Ages 6 to 13
7*
Questions for Ages 14 to 17
7*
Questions for Ages 18 to 24
* Topic includes Open-ended Question(s)
2
Respondent Information
356
Respondents
3
Respondent Information
Survey respondents
represent a
balanced collection
of perspectives
356 respondents
4
Respondent Information
Respondents
averaged 17
years of
experience
serving San
Francisco
children, youth
and families.
5
Children Ages 0 to 5
85
Respondents
6
Children Ages 0 to 5
85
Respondents
7
Children Ages 0 to 5
85
Respondents
8
Children Ages 6 to 13
210
Respondents
9
Children Ages 6 to 13
210
Respondents
10
Children Ages 6 to 13
210
Respondents
11
Children Ages 6 to 13
210
Respondents
12
Youth Ages 14 to 17
231
Respondents
13
Youth Ages 14 to 17
231
Respondents
14
Youth Ages 14 to 17
231
Respondents
15
Youth Ages 14 to 17
231
Respondents
16
Youth Ages 18 to 24
129
Respondents
17
Youth Ages 18 to 24
129
Respondents
18
Children Ages 18 to 24
129
Respondents
19
Community Needs Assessment Survey
SFUSD Principals & CDP Site Supervisors
Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families
January 2011
1
Introduction

DCYF is a city department that administers approximately $70 million in
funds each year to entities that deliver services for children, youth and
f ili
families.
IIn 2010-11,
2010 11 DCYF ffunds
d more than
h $5 million
illi iin programs
administered by SFUSD and funds more than $12 million worth of services
delivered on SFUSD sites by CBOs.

DCYF must conduct a Community Needs Assessment of San Francisco
children's services every three years as a requirement of the legislation that
created the local funding set aside to fund youth services.

SFUSD Principals and other administrators at all schools serving K-12
students and Child Development Program Site Supervisors were surveyed
Report
Administered
January
2011,
online
p
is divided in
to three
sections,
byy ggrade level.
2
Elementary School,
School K-8
K 8, School-Age
School Age CDP Highlights
Families' most common needs




Finding affordable afterschool/summer programs
Finding available slots in afterschool/summer programming
Support in helping children with school work
Principals' perspective on most common needs
Principals




Accessing counseling for child
Support for parents in helping children with school work & managing
their behavior
Finding affordable afterschool programs
Families want more homework help in afterschool and
Families'
more reading in summer programs
Lack of p
program
g
space
p
is the topp barrier for both
afterschool and summer break providers


3
Middle School Highlights

Families' needs vary greatly by school site

Principals' perspective on most common needs





Accessing counseling for child
Support for parents in helping children with school work
Accessing health care
Child’ss safety
Child
Families' want more homework help in afterschool and
more math or science in summer programs
High School Highlights
Most common needs of families & youth






Employment
p y
for yyouth & jjob trainingg
Mental health counseling
Support with interpersonal relationships
College/Career counseling
Sexual health and substance abuse services
Principals' perspective on most common needs
Principals



Employment for youth
Mental health counseling for youth
Top challenges for CBO partners



5
Maintaining youth interest in programming (retention)
Providing programming that attracts youth
Elementary, K-8, and
CDP School-Age Afterschool Sites
6
The Sample: -Elementary & Alt. Grade Span: 39 of 69 sites, 55% response rate*
-School-Age CDP: 4 of 31 sites
sites,10%
10% response rate
rate*
1.
Alvarado
17.
John Muir
33.
Sunnyside
2.
Argonne
18.
John Yehall Chin
34.
Sunset
3.
Carver
19.
Lawton
35.
Sutro
4.
Chinese Education Center
20.
Malcolm X
36.
Taylor
5.
Chinese Imm. School at De Avila
21.
Marshall (ES)
37.
Tenderloin Community
6.
Cl
Clarendon
d
22.
M C
McCoppin
i
38.
Vi i i Valley
Visitacion
V ll (ES)
7.
Cleveland
23.
Miraloma
39.
Yick Wo
8.
Cobb
24.
Mission Education Center
9.
Commodore Sloat
25.
Monroe
10.
Fairmount
26.
Paul Revere
11.
Francis Scott Key
27.
Redding
1.
Cooper CDC
12.
Garfield
28.
Rooftop Alternative
2.
Jefferson CDC
13.
George Peabody
29.
Rosa Parks
3.
Key CDC
14.
Grattan
30.
SF Community
4.
Webster CDC
15.
Hillcrest
31.
Sherman
16
16.
Jefferson
32
32.
Spring Valley
7
Child Development Centers:
g to fill
*17 additional sites began
out the survey, but did not
continue to describe their needs
Elementary School,
School K-8
K 8, School-Age
School Age CDP Highlights
Families' most common needs




Finding affordable afterschool/summer programs
Finding available slots in afterschool/summer programming
Support in helping children with school work
Principals' perspective on most common needs
Principals




Accessing counseling for child
Support for parents in helping children with school work & managing
their behavior
Finding affordable afterschool programs
Families want more homework help in afterschool and
Families'
more reading in summer programs
Lack of p
program
g
space
p
is the topp barrier for both
afterschool and summer break providers.


8
Respondents experience level at current site
Less than 1 year:
1-2 years:
33-5
5 years:
6-10 years:
11-15
11
15 years:
16-20 years:
21+ yyears:







9
11 sites
10 sites
7 sites
12 sites
2 sites
0 sites
1 site
Please indicate how familiar you are with DCYF and its
role: (N
(N=43)
43)



Nott familiar:
N
f ili
Somewhat familiar:
Very familiar:
 Only
role.
10
3 sites
it (7%)
28 sites (67%)
12 sites (29%)
29% of sites were very familiar with DCYF and its
If DCYF were to share information with you about its work
and the work of the nonprofit programs it funds, which of
the following would be most helpful to you in your role?

“General information about services throughout the city available for children, youth &
families.”

81%
“Contact information for the programs funded to work at my school or site.”
 86%

“Information about the services delivered to students from my school/site, including the
number of youth served, etc.”


“Information about which youth in my school participate in DCYF-funded programs”


81%
“Information about funding opportunities for my nonprofit partners.”


74%
60%
Open-ended response:

11
“Services that my students and families could access (and how to access these services and how to
make sure that there is room)”
)
How often do the families you serve express to you their
need in the areas listed below: (N=43)
(N 43)
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
3
22
17
1
13
18
11
1
9
18
11
5
Accessing health care
11
20
12
0
Finding affordable afterschool programs
28
12
3
0
Finding transportation to and from afterschool programming
12
17
12
2
Finding child care during school break
13
19
8
3
Finding affordable summer break programming
24
12
6
1
Finding available slots in afterschool programs
25
11
5
2
Finding available slots in summer break programming
21
13
8
1
Access to counseling for child
14
25
4
0
8
20
12
3
Support with translation to interface with other services
10
14
18
1
Support for their children with special needs and disabilities
10
23
10
0
Support navigating the SFUSD systems
12
22
6
3
Support in helping their child with school work
23
16
3
1
Getting help managing their child(ren)’s behavior
13
23
7
0
Housing
E l
Employment
t (f
(for parents/caregivers)
t /
i
)
Basic needs: clothing, food, etc.
Child’s safety
How often do the families you serve express to
you their need in the areas listed below: (cont.)

Open-ended comments: (categories were not included in the survey instrument)

Parental Support:








Immigrant & ESL:








“Support with attendance and tardiness issues”
“Support in finding transportation to school”
Other


13
“Dental care”
“Nutrition education”
“Counseling:
Counseling: specifically mental health for children and their families
families”
Attendance


“Help navigating legal systems (immigration, family law)”
“Help in supporting child with English homework”
“Help in teaching child English”
“H l in learning
“Help
l
English
E l h for
f parents””
Health


“Training and educational programs for parents”
“Parentingg classes”
“Parent Education”
“Family support and counseling”
“Access to family therapy & parenting”
“Childcare before school for working families”
“Before school care for students who parents who need to be at work early”

“Lack of support systems in their personal lives”
“Ways to support student discipline/behaviors at school”
“Support in getting their voices heard by SFUSD”
What do you see as the three areas of need that come up
most often for the children and families you serve? (N=43)

High Need Areas:





Mid-Need Areas:





Access to counseling for child: 16 sites
Support in helping their child with school work: 15
Fi di affordable
Finding
ff d bl afterschool
f
h l programs: 14
Getting help managing their child(ren)’s behavior: 13
Employment
p y
((for pparents/caregivers):
g
) 10
Finding available slots in afterschool programs: 10
Finding transportation to and from afterschool programming: 8
Finding affordable summer break programming: 8
Less Common Need Areas:
Less-Common










14
Support for their children with special needs and disabilities: 6
Housing: 5
Accessing health care: 5
Basic needs: clothing,
g food, etc.: 4
Finding available slots in summer break programming: 4
Child’s safety: 3
Support navigating the SFUSD systems: 3
Finding child care during school break: 2
S
Support
with
h translation
l
to interface
f
with
h other
h services: 2
Help in supporting child's English language development: 1 (write-in)
What age groups at your school have the greater
afterschool programming needs: (N=43)
Kindergartners
Grades 1 to 5:
Same needs for all ages:



7 (16%)
20 (47%)
16 (37%)
What age groups in your school have the greater
summer break programming needs: (N
(N=43)
43)



15
Kindergartners
Grades 1 to 5:
Same needs for all ages:
1 (2%)
22 (51%)
20 (47%)
Select the three most frequent requests you hear from your
families about afterschool programming options? (N=43)

More Homework Help: 41sites

More Reading programming: 19

More Sports & Games: 13

More Arts programming (music, dance, art): 12

More Writing programming: 11

More pprogramming
g
g related to buildingg positive
p
relationships
p amongg peers:
p
9

More Math or Science programming: 8

More Opportunities for Leadership/Community Service/Service-Learning: 7

More Technology
gy pprogramming
g
g (video,
(
, media,, etc.):
)6

More programming for Elementary to Middle School transitions: 2

World Language Instruction (Chinese-Mandarin or Cantonese): 1 (write-in response)

More Environmental/Outdoor pprogramming:
g
g 0
16
Select the three most frequent requests you hear from
your families about summer break needs? (N
(N=43)
43)

More Reading programming: 28

More 1 on 1 Tutoring: 18
More Sports & Games: 17
More Arts programming (music, dance, art): 16
M
More
Math
M h or Science
S
programming: 14
More Writing programming: 7
More Opportunities for Leadership/Community Service/Service-Learning: 6
More Technology programming (video, media, etc.): 6
More Environmental/Outdoor programming: 6
More programming related to building positive relationships among peers: 5
More programming for Elementary to Middle School transitions: 3
Summer program opportunity for general ed. Students: 1 (write-in response)
World Language Instruction (Chinese-Mandarin or Cantonese): 1 (write-in response)
Learning English: 1 (write-in response)












17
What are the top three barriers that keep your existing
afterschool providers from meeting the needs of the
youth & families at your school? (N
(N=43)
43)

Lack of program space: 25


Restrictions for students to participate: 16
Too few staff: 16
Lack of transportation to/from program site: 15
Lack of qualified staff: 13
Lack of expanded hours: 13

C
Competition
i i with
i h other
h programs ffor youth
h participation:
i i i
8

Inability to serve youth with Special Needs: 7

Lack of language capacity of staff: 7

Lack of parent involvement/support for program participation: 6

Students not feeling affinity with staff: 1

Ineffective outreach: 0

N/A - my site does not offer afterschool programming: 0

Write-in responses:

Lack of funds/Lack of financial resources to serve enough students (4 responses)

Cost of the p
programs
g
(2
( responses)
p
)

Presently, we serve grades 2-5 in the afterschool program. We need the money and the space to serve ALL the students!

Need to develop the afterschool program so that is more than babysitting

Lack of quality pay to retain exceptional after school program employees

Parents Want More Sports Programs

Opportunities
pp
for 2-wayy communication between regular
g
dayy and after-school p
programs
g

Funding based on Excel guidelines means our families must stay until 6:30 in order to participate in onsite after school program
(too late for most families)



18
What are the top three barriers that keep your existing
summer providers from meeting the needs of the youth &
families at your school during the summer break? (N
(N=43)
43)














N/A - my site does not offer summer programming: 16
Lack of program space: 16
Competition with other programs for youth participation: 13
Lack of qualified staff: 11
Lack of transportation to/from program site: 11
Inability to serve youth with Special Needs: 9
Restrictions for students to participate: 8
Lack of expanded hours: 8
Too few staff: 7
Ineffective outreach: 6
Lack of parent involvement/support for program participation: 6
Lack of language capacity of staff: 5
Students not feeling affinity with staff: 1
Write-in responses:

At Jefferson SA CDC, there is no problem with enrollment. At Daniel Webster SA CDC, the student count drops from 100 to 30
students since families return to their home country during summer months.

CEC's physical space limitations make it not the best summer program site.

Limited enrollment capacity; Program cost.

New service provider: hopefully it will be better run this year.

Financial-cost of program while reasonable is too high for many families

Need to develop the program to be more enriching

Budget does not allow for all families who desire summer programs

Last year was a last minute decision to offer summer programming resulting in a good first start but not as effective a summer
program as it could have been
19
Approximately how many CBO partners does your school
work with throughout a typical year? (N
(N=43)
43)

1 to 5:
28 sites (65%)

6 to
t 10
10:
10 sites
it (23%)

11 to 15:
5 sites (12%)
20
What percentage of those partners deliver
services on your school campus? (N
(N=43)
43)

18 sites:

1 site: “75-90%?
75-90%? “
4 sites: 90%
4 sites: 80%
4 sites: 50%
2 sites: 25%
3 sites: 20%
1 site: 10%
1 site: 0%








100%
Non-numeric replies:
 “We
“W have
h
two
t
after
ft school
h l programs on a d
daily
il bbasis.”
i ”
 “One site wrote: “2 (much to my frustration it is only CYC who delivers services
through the ExCEL and Leap Artist)”
 “2 p
partners” ((from one respondent
p
representing
p
g 2 sites.))
 “Unknown”
21
How would you describe the current status of your site's
partnerships with CBOs? (Indicate all that apply.)
apply ) (N=43)

We are satisfied with our partners: 20

We have some great partners but they do not offer services in all of the
areas that our students & families need: 15

We do not have enough partners to bring the services our students &
f ili need
families
d tto th
the site:
it 12

We would like to bring in new partners with a broader focus and scope of
services: 11

We would like to bring in new partners with a narrower focus and scope of
services: 6

We have too many partners, which impacts overall effectiveness of
programming: 2

We are not satisfied with the quality of services delivered by all a majority
of our partners: 2
22
Middle Schools
23
The Sample = 7 of 13 schools (54% response rate)







Everett
Giannini
Hoover
Li k
Lick
Mann
Roosevelt
Visitacion
Respondents experience level:

2 respondents with 11-15 years experience at their
current site.

1respondent has 6-10 years experience

1 respondents have 3-5 years experience

3 respondents have 1-2 years experience
*4 additional sites began to fill
y but did not
out the survey,
continue to describe their needs
24
Middle School Highlights…

Families' needs vary greatly by school site

Principals' perspective on most common needs





Accessing counseling for child
Support for parents in helping children with school work
Accessing health care
Child’ss safety
Child
Families' want more homework help in afterschool and
more math or science in summer programs
Understanding of DCYF

4 of 7 respondents are “very
very familiar”
familiar with DCYF’s
DCYF s role

3 of 7 respondents
p
are “somewhat familiar.”
26
If DCYF were to share information with you about its work
and the work of the nonprofit programs it funds, which of
the following would be most helpful?
helpful?*

10 of 11 sites selected: “General information about services throughout the
city available for children, youth & families.
families.”

9 of 11 sites selected: “Contact information for the programs funded to
work at my school or site.
site ”

9 of 11 sites selected: “Information about which youth in my school
participate in DCYF-funded programs
programs.”

8 of 11 sites selected: “Information about the services delivered to students
from my school/site,
school/site including the number of youth served,
served etc.
etc ”

8 of 11 sites selected: “Information about funding opportunities for my
nonprofit partners.
partners ”
27
*4 additional sites responded to this questions: Denman, Francisco, King,
and Presidio.
How often do the families you serve express to
you their need in the areas listed below: (N=7)
(N 7)
Not all respondents replied to each need area.
 Presidio, Francisco, Denman, & King.

Housing
Basic needs:
Employment (for
clothing, food,
parents/caregivers)
etc.
Accessing
health care
Finding
affordable
afterschool
programs
Finding
transportation to
and from
afterschool
programming
Finding child
care during
school break
Finding
affordable
summer break
programming
Everett
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Giannini
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Often
Hoover
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Rarely
Sometimes
Lick
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Mann
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Roosevelt
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Visitacion
Valley
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Often
28
How often do the families you serve express to
you their need in the areas listed below: (cont.)
Finding
available
slots in
afterschool
programs
Finding
available slots
in summer
break
programming
Access to
counseling for
child
Everett
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Giannini
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Hoover
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Lick
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Mann
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Roosevelt
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Rarely
Visitacion
Valley
Often
Often
Often
Often
Rarely
Rarely
Often
Often
Often

Support for
Support with
Support
their children
translation to
Child’s safety
with special navigating the
interface with
needs and SFUSD systems
other services
disabilities
Getting help
Support in
helping their managing their
child(ren)’s
child with
behavior
school work
Also mentioned:

Visitacion Valley: Incarcerated parent programs, PTSA Counseling for students/families, Counseling for victims of
violence.

Mann: Help in getting child to school

Lick: Therapy/counseling (child and family), Parent education services (language, computers, etc.).

Hoover: Immigration issues.
29
What do you see as the three areas of need that come up
most often for the children and families you serve? (N= 7)

Four sites selected:



Three sites selected:



“Accessing health care.”
“Child’s safety.”
Two sites selected


“Access
Access to counseling for child.
child ”
“Support in helping their child with school work.”
“Employment (for parents/caregivers).”
Selected once:





30
“Basic needs: clothing, food, etc.”
“Finding affordable afterschool programs.”
“Finding available slots in afterschool programs.”
“Support
Support navigating the SFUSD systems.
systems ”
“Getting help managing their child(ren)’s behavior.”
Select the three most frequent requests you hear from your
families about afterschool programming options? (N
(N= 7)

Five sites selected:


Three sites selected:




“More Math or Science programming.”
“More
More Reading programming
programming”
“More programming related to building positive relationships among peers”
Two sites selected:


“More Homework Help.”
“More Technology programming (video, media, etc.)”
Selected once:





31
“More
More Writing programming.
programming ”
“More Arts programming (music, dance, art).”
“More Sports & Games”
“More Opportunities for Leadership/Community Service/Service-Learning”
“More programming for Elementary to Middle School & Middle School to High
School transitions
In your opinion, select the three most frequent requests you
hear from your families about summer break needs? (N= 7)

Four sites selected: “More Math or Science programming.”

Three sites selected:




“More Reading programming.”
“More 1 on 1 Tutoring.”
“More Writing programming.”
“More
More programming for Elementary to Middle School & Middle School to High School
transitions.”

Two sites selected: “More Technology programming (video, media, etc.)”

One site selected:




More Sports & Games.
More Environmental/Outdoor programming.
More programming related to building positive relationships among peers.
peers
No sites selected:


32
More Arts programming (music, dance, art)
M
More
O
Opportunities
t iti ffor LLeadership/Community
d hi /C
it SService/Service-Learning
i /S i L
i
What are the top three barriers that keep your existing
afterschool providers from meeting the needs of the
youth & families at your school? (N
(N= 7)

Chosen by three sites




Chosen by two sites:






“Lack
Lack of program space
space”
“Restrictions for students to participate”
Lack of qualified staff
Lack of expanded hours
Lack of transportation
p
to/from program
p g
site
One site chose:



Too few staff
“Lack off parent
arent involvement/support
in l ement/s
rt fforr program
r ram participation”
artici ati n”
“Competition with other programs for youth participation”
Ineffective outreach
lack of collaboration with the school
No sites chose:




33
Lack of language capacity of staff
Inability to serve youth with Special Needs
Students not feeling affinity with staff
N/A - my site does not offer afterschool programming
What are the top three barriers that keep your existing
summer providers from meeting the needs of the youth &
families at your school? (N
(N= 7)

Three sites selected:




Two sites selected:



Too few staff
Ineffective outreach
One site selected:





Lack of pprogram
g
space
p
Restrictions for students to participate
Lack of expanded hours
Lack of transportation to/from program site
Lack of language capacity of staff
Lack of parent involvement/support for program participation
Competition with other programs for youth participation
No sites selected:



34
Lack of qualified staff
I bilit tto serve youth
Inability
th with
ith SSpecial
i lN
Needs
d
Students not feeling affinity with staff
Approximately how many CBO partners does your school
work with throughout a typical year? (N
(N= 7)


6 to 10 CBOs: Five sites
1 to 5 CBOs: Two sites
35
What percentage of those partners deliver
services on your school campus?






One site selected:100%
One site: 95%
One site: 90%
Two sites: 50%
One site: 40%
One site: 5%
36
How would you describe the current status of your site's
partnerships with CBOs? Indicate all that apply.
apply (N
(N= 7)

3 sites selected: “We have some great partners but they do not
offer services in all of the areas that our students &
families need”

3 sites selected: “We do not have enough partners to bring the services
our students & families need to the site”

2 sites selected: “We would like to bring in new partners with a
narrower focus and scope of services”

1 site selected: “We
We are satisfied with our partners
partners”

1 site selected: “We are not satisfied with the quality of services
delivered by all a majority of our partners”

1 site selected: “We would like to bring in new partners with a broader
focus and scope of services”

No sites selected: “We
We have too many partners
partners, which impacts overall
effectiveness of programming”
37
High Schools
38
The Sample = 12 of 19 (response rate of 63%*)












Balboa High School
Civic Center Secondary School
Independence Continuation High School
International Studies Academy
Lincoln High School
Lowell High School
Mission High School
O'Connell High School
C
Court
SSchools
h l (Principals' Center, Woodside Learning Center, Early Morning Study Academy, Log Cabin)
School of the Arts
Thurgood Marshall Academic High School
W hi
Washington
High
Hi h School
S h l
*Response rate represents the 12 schools out of 19 total schools. However, the various court schools were categorized as one
school for the rest of the survey results given their small enrollment sizes. Also, School of the Arts and the Academy of Arts and
Sciences were considered one site because of similarities in school administration. Charter schools are not included in the
t t l
total
39
*2 additional sites began to fill
out the survey, but did not
continue to describe their needs
High School Highlights

Most common needs of families & youth






Principals' perspective on most common needs
Principals



Employment
p y
for yyouth & jjob trainingg
Mental health counseling
Support with interpersonal relationships
College/Career counseling
Sexual health and substance abuse services
Employment for youth
Mental health counseling for youth
Top challenges for CBO partners


40
Maintaining youth interest in programming (retention)
Providing programming that attracts youth
How many years have you been working at
your school or site? (N=
(N 12)

Less than one year: 1 site

1-2 years: 3 sites

3-5 years: 5 sites

6-10 years: 3 sites
41
Please indicate how familiar you are with
DCYF and its role:

9 of 12 sites: Very familiar

3 of 12 sites: Somewhat familiar

0 of 12 sites: Not familiar

75% of sampled HS sites are very familiar with DCYF and
its role.
role
42
If DCYF were to share information with you about its work
and the work of the nonprofit programs it funds, which of
the following would be most helpful to you in your role?

10 of 12 sites: “General information about services
throughout the city available for children,
children youth & families.
families ”

10 sites: “Information about which youth in my school
participate in DCYF-funded
DCYF funded programs
programs.”

10 sites: “Information about the services delivered to students
from my school/site
school/site, including the number of youth served,
served
etc.”

9 sites: “Contact
Contact information for the programs funded to
work at my school or site.”

7 sites: “Information
Information about funding opportunities for my
nonprofit partners.”
43
How often do the youth and families you serve express to
you their need in the areas listed below: (N
(N= 12)
Finding affordable
Finding affordable
summer break
Employment
Accessing afterschool/extrac
programming/extra
health care urricular/sports/clu curricular/sports/cl (for youth)
bs/classes
ubs/classes
Housing
Employment
(for parents/
caregivers)
Basic needs:
clothing, food,
etc.
Balboa
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Civic Center
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Independence
Often
Often
Often
Often
I.S.A.
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Lincoln High
School
Sometimes
Sometimes
Lowell
ll
Rarely
l
Mission
College/
Career
counseling
Transportation
to and from
programming
Sometimes
Often
Rarely
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
l
Rarely
l
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
i
Sometimes
i
Rarely
l
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
O'Connell
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Often
Often
Sometimes
Court Schools
Rarely
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
SOTA
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Thurgood
Ma shall
Marshall
Rarelyy
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Often
Sometimes
Washington
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
44
45
How often do the youth and families you serve express to
you their need in the areas listed below: (cont.)
(cont )
Support with
interpersonal
Mental health Substance
relationships
Sexual health
counseling
abuse
(parents,
services
for youth
services
peers,
romantic
interests)
Physical
Safety
Support with Support for
Turf/Set
Support in
translation to youth with
Interventioninterface with special needs interacting
Conflict
other
and
with SFUSD
M di ti
Mediation
services
disabilities
Support in
interacting
with the
Juvenile
J ti
Justice
System
Balboa
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Civic Center
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Independe
nce
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Rarely
Often
Often
Often
Often
I.S.A.
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
Lincoln
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Lowell
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Rarely
Mission
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Rarely
Often
Sometimes
Often
O'Connell
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Court
Schools
Often
Often
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
SOTA
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Thurgood
Marshall
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Often
Sometimes
Often
Washington
Often
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Often
Often
Often
Sometimes
Sometimes
What do you see as the three areas of need that come
up most often for the youth and families you serve? (N
(N= 12)

7 sites selected



“Employment (for youth)”
“Mental health counseling for youth”
4 sites selected:


“College/Career counseling”
“Turf/Set Intervention-Conflict Mediation”

3 sites selected: “Basic needs: clothing, food, etc.”

2 sites selected :



“Support
pp
with interpersonal
p
relationships
p (p
(parents,, peers,
p
, romantic interests)”
)
“Support for youth with special needs and disabilities”
1 site selected:







“Finding affordable summer break programming/extracurricular/sports/clubs/classes”
T
Transportation
t ti tto and
d ffrom programming
i
No sites selected:
Substance abuse services
- Housing
Sexual health services
- Employment (for parents/caregivers)
Physical Safety
- Accessing health care
Support
pp
with translation to interface with other services
Finding affordable afterschool/ extracurricular/sports/
-Finding
clubs/classes
Support in interacting with SFUSD
- Support in interacting with the Juvenile Justice System
46
What are the top three types of programming outside of
the instructional day that the high school students at
your school would like to see offered? (N
(N= 12)

9 sites selected: “Access to Jobs/Job Training”

5 sites selected:


4 sites selected:




“College/Career
College/Career Counseling
Counseling”
2 sites selected:


“Access to vocational/certificate programs”
“1 on 1 Tutoring”
Opportunities for Leadership/Community Service/Service-Learning projects
3 sites selected:


“Homework help”
“Support to obtain a GED”
1 site selected:





47
Arts programming (music, dance, art)
Sports & Games
Environmental/Green Programming
Culture, Identity & Diversity Programming
Counseling (write-in response)
No sites selected:
- Technology programming (video, media, etc.)
- Science or Math programming
- Reading programming
- Writing programming
What are the top three challenges that your CBO
partners face in terms of trying to address the needs and
desires of your students? (N
(N= 12)

9 sites selected: Maintaining youth interest in programming over time (retention)

7 sites
i selected:
l
d Providing
P
d programming that
h attracts youthh

4 sites selected: Ineffective outreach

2 sites selected






Lack of program space
Restrictions for students to participate
Lack of qqualified staff
Lack of expanded hours
Lack of parent involvement/support for program participation
1 site selected:






48
No sites selected:
- Violence/Safety/Bullying issues
- Too few staff
- Inability to serve youth with Special Needs
Lack of language capacity of staff
Students not feeling affinity with staff
Lack of transportation to/from program site
Competition with other programs for youth participation
We need programs that address the needs of our students (write-in)
Budget
Why do you think youth do not complete programs offered
by your CBO partners that take place either on campus or
that you refer students to for off
off-site
site services? (N
(N= 12)

7 sites selected: “Competing responsibilities (Job, Family, School)”

6 sites selected: “Lack of interest in program”

3 sites selected: “Inability to follow program rules/expectations”

3 site indicated that “Retention of youth in our program is not an issue.”

2 sites selected: “Transportation
Transportation issues”
issues

1 site selected:



Negative peer pressure
Program eligibility (Minimum GPA, SF Residency restrictions)
No sites selected:


49
Youth relocate outside San Francisco
Inability to connect with other youth in program
Approximately how many CBO partners does your school
work with throughout a typical year? (N
(N= 12)

1 to 5 CBOs: 3 sites:

6 to 10 CBOs: 5 sites:

16 to 20: 1 site
21 to 25: 1 site
26 to 30 : 1 site
more than 30:1 site



50
What percentage of those partners
deliver services on your school
campus?
• Five sites said 100%
• Two sites said 90%
• Each of the following selected by 1 site:
• 80%
• 75%
• 60%
• 25%
How would you describe the current status of your site's
partnerships with CBOs? Indicate all that apply.
apply (N
(N= 12)

5 sites selected: “We are satisfied with our partners”

4 sites selected:


“We have some great partners but they do not offer services in all of the areas
that our students & families need”
“We would like to bring in new partners with a broader focus and scope of
services
services”

3 sites selected: “We do not have enough partners to bring the services our

1 sites selected:
students & families need to the site.”



“We would like to bring in new partners with a narrower focus and scope of
services”
“We are not satisfied with the quality of services delivered by a majority of our
partners”
No sites:

51
We have too many partners, which impacts overall effectiveness of programming
For more information

DCYF will be releasing its Community Needs Assessment report in the
Spring of 2011. Check www.DCYF.org to download a copy of the report.

To view a list of DCYF-funded programs at SFUSD sites and across the city,
ggo to www.DCYF.orgg and click on the “Funding”
g tab.

To view DCYF’s program quality standards and other resources for
pprograms,
g
go
g to www.DCYF.orgg and click on the “Grantee support”
pp
tab.
Want to stay abreast of DCYF’s efforts?
Sign up for our monthly newsletter by sending an email to [email protected] .
THANK YOU!
52
YOUTH VOTE FALL 2010
Student Survey Results
E t
Extracurriculars
i l
&P
Programs
Extracurricular Involvement
“What extracurricular programs and afterschool activities are you currently involved in and which
would
o ld you
o like to participate in?”
Currently participating
Would like to
participate
Art/music/theater/dance
33.7%
30.2%
Computer/technology
16.4%
35.5%
Sports or other athletic activities
38.4%
28.8%
Community service and volunteering
37.4%
25.9%
Political activism
6.2%
23.3%
Homework tutoring/academic clubs
27.5%
22.9%
J b training/internships
Job
t i i /i t
hi
14 8%
14.8%
51 5%
51.5%
Motivations for Involvement
“What motivates you to participate in these programs and afterschool activities?”
It looks good on my college application/resume.
52.1%
I learn skills through the activity
50.8%
The activities are fun.
57.3%
I am paid to be there.
9.4%
My parent/guardian makes me go.
8.2%
It keeps me out of trouble.
trouble
14 6%
14.6%
I want to make new friends.
40.6%
I like the adults who work there.
12.8%
I want to hang out with friends.
57.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Extracurricular Involvement
“If you are not participating in programs and afterschool activities, which reasons below best
d
describe
ib why?”
h ?”
My parent/guardian won't let me go.
2.7%
They don’t have staff that speak me my home language.
1.5%
The program is too far away from home.
6.0%
The bus/train takes too long/doesn’t go there.
4.8%
I am too busy with home responsibilities
6.7%
The program is in an unsafe neighborhood
2.0%
y with a jjob.
I am too busy
3.4%
I don't like the people who run the program.
2.5%
I am too busy with homework.
19.3%
Th program is
The
i ttoo far
f away ffrom school.
h l
3 0%
3.0%
None of the available activities interest me.
12.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Internship
p Opportunities
pp
“While you are in school, what do you hope to get from an internship or other job?”
I want to be able to develop job skills.
53.1%
I need to make some money.
57.1%
I want to improve my college application/resume.
51.5%
I want to explore a career.
45.8%
I am not interested in an internship/job right now.
10.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Ad lt A
Adult
Assets
t
Closeness to Teachers
“How many teachers do you feel close to?”
35%
30%
29.9%
25%
23.5%
20%
17.5%
15.5%
15%
10%
8.6%
5%
2.1%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5 or more
Closeness to Other Adults
“Other than teachers, what other adults do you feel close to?”
Other
16.7%
None
13.0%
Police officer
2.3%
Staff at extracurricular program
11.9%
Team Coach
15.3%
Security Guard
8.3%
Other Family member (non-parent)
38.2%
Religious mentor
4.7%
Administrator (principal, dean)
5.8%
Parent/Guardian
59.7%
Couselor
18.1%
Wellness center staff/nurse
9.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
S h l Setting
School
S tti
School Overall
“I like my school (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
22.8%
60.5%
11.1%
5.6%
Comfort in Health Centers
“I feel comfortable walking into the Wellness or Health Center at my school.”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
We don’t have one
17.9%
60.3%
15.5%
3.8%
2.4%
Ci i
Civics
Approval
pp
Ratings
g
“II am happy with the job President Obama has done.
done.”
“I am happy with the job Mayor Gavin Newsom has done.”
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
I don’t know
President
8.7%
40.4%
13.3%
5.9%
31.7%
Mayor
7.3%
34.6%
11.6%
4.7%
41.8%
“I know what the Board of Education does.”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
5.1%
43.4%
38.1%
13.3%
School Newspapers
p p
“II would enjoy reading a student
student-run
run school newspaper.
newspaper.”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15.9%
51.9%
23.1%
9.1%
Helping
p g the Community
y
“How
How would you like to help the community?
community?”
Volunteering at a religious institition
Cleaning a local street
Working at an animal shelter
Volunteering at a community event
Working with the elderly
Helping the environment
Helping special-needs children
Tutoring children
Working at a homeless shelter
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Fi
Finances
& Planning
Pl
i
FAFSA Knowledge
g
“Do you know how to fill out a FAFSA form?”
Yes
No
What is a FAFSA form?
70.0%
57.2%
30.0%
15.6%
10.0%
7.9%
43.4%
11.8%
20.0%
18
8.8%
24.0%
41.10%
37.3%
34.6%
40.0%
43.3
3%
50.0%
41.1%
15.5%
50.9%
57.5%
60.0%
0.0%
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
Checking
g or Savings
g Account
“Do you have a checking or savings account with a bank or credit union?”
21.5%
46.3%
Yes
No
I don’t know
32.3%
College
g Savings
g Account
“Do
Do you or your family have any savings for your college education?
education?”
37.3%
43.0%
Yes
No
I don
don’tt know
19.7%
THANK YOU
Any questions?
Appendix C:
Summary Meeting Notes
193
Table of Contents
Bayview Neighborhood .......................................................................................................................................................................1
Chinatown Neighborhood.................................................................................................................................................................4
Excelsior Neighborhood ......................................................................................................................................................................7
District 8 Neighborhoods.................................................................................................................................................................11
Bernal Heights Neighborhood......................................................................................................................................................14
Mission Neighborhood......................................................................................................................................................................16
Western Addition Neighborhood...............................................................................................................................................19
Twin Peaks Neighborhood..............................................................................................................................................................22
Outer Mission/Ingleside Neighborhood.................................................................................................................................25
Portola Neighborhood.......................................................................................................................................................................28
Potrero Hill Neighborhood..............................................................................................................................................................30
Richmond Neighborhood ...............................................................................................................................................................32
South of Market Neighborhood...................................................................................................................................................35
Sunset District..........................................................................................................................................................................................38
North Beach/Telegraph Hill Neighborhoods.......................................................................................................................40
Tenderloin Neighborhood ..............................................................................................................................................................43
Treasure Island ........................................................................................................................................................................................45
Visitacion Valley Neighborhood...................................................................................................................................................48
Chinese Parents......................................................................................................................................................................................50
Public School Parents: Latino Parents.......................................................................................................................................53
Parents: Parent Voices ........................................................................................................................................................................56
Parents: Pacific Islander/Samoan Community ....................................................................................................................59
Private School Parents........................................................................................................................................................................62
Public School Parents .........................................................................................................................................................................65
Youth: Youth Outreach Workers Program .............................................................................................................................68
Youth: Transitional Age Youth SF Young Adult Advocates ........................................................................................70
Youth: Youth Empowerment Fund Advisory Board........................................................................................................73
Youth: Immigrant and ESL Youth Focus Group .................................................................................................................76
Youth: Youth Commission Focus Group ................................................................................................................................79
Citywide Service Providers Network: Adolescent Health Working Group.........................................................81
Citywide Service Provider Network: Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Initiative’s
(ECMHCI) Provider Network............................................................................................................................................................85
Citywide Service Provider Network: )JHI3JTL*OGBOU*OUFSBHFODZ$PVODJM ...........................90
Citywide Service Provider Network: New Day for Learning SFUSD CBO Partnership Committee......94
Citywide Service Providers Network: Afterschool for All Initiative ..........................................................................98
Citywide Service Provider Network: Beacon Steering Committee...................................................................... 102
Citywide Service Providers Network: Child Care Planning and Advisory Council...................................... 106
Citywide Service Provider Network: San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnerships
(SFCIPP)..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
Citywide Service Provider Network: Family Support Network ............................................................................... 115
Citywide Service Provider Network: San Francisco Improving Transition Outcomes Project
Interagency Council ......................................................................................................................................................................... 120
Citywide Service Provider Network: Wellness Initiative - Wellness Coordinators....................................... 124
Citywide Service Provider Network: Workforce Investment SF (WISF) Youth Council ............................ 127
Citywide Service Provider Network: Shape Up San Francisco................................................................................ 130
Citywide Service Provider Network: Transitional Age Youth Service Provider Network Meeting.... 134
Citywide Service Provider Network: San Francisco Youth Employment Coalition.................................... 137
Bayview Neighborhood
Hosted by BMAGIC Community Convener on November 23, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Provider, Public Agency
6
(50%)
Service Providers, CBO
2
(17%)
Other
2
(17%)
Concerned Community Members
1
(8%)
Other Member of Public Agency
1
(8%)
White
5
(42%)
Black/African American
3
(25%)
Latino/Hispanic
2
(17%
Asian
Alaskan Native/American Indian
1
1
(8%)
(8%)
12
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A neighborhood input session was hosted by the
BMAGIC Community Convener and was
attended by 12 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
The majority of those in attendance were public
agency service providers who comprised 50
percent of the session.
Respondents submitted their thoughts in
response to questions regarding the helpful
existing programs available, barriers, challenges,
and future needs of children youth and families
in the Bayview in writing. Below is a summary
of the key ideas and themes identified by
meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the
summaries from the most frequently mentioned
to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Diverse recreational opportunities. Participants felt places where youth can be constantly engaged and
empowered through recreational, educational, and creative activities were beneficial, and they allow
children to escape their homes or other environmental factors.
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Participants emphasized the need for afterschool programs that offer tutoring
and help with homework.
ƒ
Other programs mentioned included free healthy snacks, health programs, job training and
fairs, and violence prevention. Participants also mentioned free healthy snacks, culturally relevant arts
projects, backpack giveaway, health programs, summers jobs, job training and fairs, and violence
prevention programs as being beneficial for children and youth.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Insufficient outreach. Participants would like to see broader outreach to the community on the
availability of services. They do not feel that families living in public housing are receiving information on
citywide services.
ƒ
Accessibility can be limited by a lack trust in providers and language barriers. Participants
explained accessibility may be hampered by a lack of trust in service providers. They expressed that they
would like to see programs with more follow-through and more staff who are from their neighborhood.
For some, language can be a significant barrier to access.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 1
ƒ
Other barriers include parent education on program benefits. Participants also mentioned that not
all parents see the importance of program participation for their children.
Challenges facing children youth and families
ƒ
Violence and safety concerns. Participants also mentioned that violence and gang activity prevent many
residents from leaving their homes. Violence was mentioned as a serious challenge to youth in the
Bayview.
ƒ
Children and youth feel discouraged about the possibility of future success. Participants explained
that many families feel shut out from paths to success, and this has been very discouraging for children and
youth in their community.
ƒ
Other challenges include lack of coordination and collaboration among existing programs.
Participants expressed that they would like to see more coordination and collaboration among existing
programs. They feel that greater collaboration would strengthen programs and enable broader outreach to
the community on available services.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Health specific programs. Participants
noted that they wanted to see more health
programs, specifically programs promoting
healthy eating and living. Sports programs,
mental health programs, and food security
were also highlighted as future needs.
Afterschool and summer school
programs. Participants mentioned a need
for free afterschool programs for children
and youth, free summer camps for children
ages five through 12-year-olds, and
afterschool programs that are communitybased.
Youth-focused programming.
Participants noted they would like to see
college counseling, youth development
programs, youth empowerment programs,
and more social events for youth.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top five were…
ƒ Family support (58%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent classes
and other services that strengthen families.
ƒ Out of school time. (42%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
ƒ Health & Wellness (42%). Programs that
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Youth Empowerment (42%). Opportunities for
youth to build skills in leadership and community
organizing.
ƒ Transitional age youth (42%). Services to
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers in
becoming successful independent young adults.
Other future program areas include
LGBT programs, civic engagement programs, truancy enforcement, parent education, art
therapy, housing, and jobs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 2
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve
Ages 10-13
6
(67%)
Ages 14-15
6
(67%)
Ages 18-24
6
(67%)
Ages 0-2
2
(22%)
Ages 16-17
5
(56%)
Ages 6-9
4
(44%)
Ages 25 and up
4
(44%)
Ages 3-5
3
(33%)
10
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with
Community-based organizations
12
(100%)
San Francisco Unified School District
10
(83%)
Elementary schools
10
(83%)
Middle schools
10
(83%)
High schools
9
(75%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
8
(67%)
and their Families
Child care programs
8
(67%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
6
(50%)
Recreation
San Francisco Dept of Public health
4
(33%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
3
(25%)
Other
2
(17%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in
Family Support
7
(58%)
Out of School Time
7
(58%)
Youth Empowerment
6
(50%)
Youth Employment
5
(42%)
Early Care & Education
4
(33%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
4
(33%)
Transitional Youth
4
(33%)
Health & Wellness
3
(25%)
Specialized Teen
3
(25%)
The neighborhood service providers
participating in this input session primarily
serve children and youth between the ages of
ten and twenty-four. All service providers
present report working with parents.
Nearly all service providers report
collaborating with other CBOs.
Additionally, over 80 percent of service
providers report collaborating with the
school district in their work.
Service providers at the BMAGIC session
reported that they were involved in a variety
of program areas. Over half of providers
reported that they were involved in family
support and out of school time programs.
Providers also reported involvement in
youth empowerment, youth employment,
early care and education, violence
prevention and intervention, transitional
youth, health and wellness, and specialized
teen.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 3
Chinatown Neighborhood
Hosted by Chinese Families Economic Self-Sufficiency Coalition
on November 18, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Providers, CBO
11
(55%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
4
(20%)
Other Member of a CBO
2
(10%)
Other Member of Public Agency
2
(10%)
Parents
1
(5%)
Asian
18
(90%)
Multiracial/multiethnic
Other
1
1
(5%)
(5%)
English
19
(95%)
Cantonese
1
(5%)
A neighborhood input session was held at
Chinese Families Economic Self-Sufficiency
Coalition and was attended by 20 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. The majority of
those in attendance were representatives of
community-based organizations (CBOs)
comprising 55 percent of the session.
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Language of Supplemental Survey
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
of children youth and families in Chinatown.
Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Ideas are
ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Services for monolingual immigrant families. Participants mentioned a high need for Chinese
language support services for residents of Chinatown. These program areas included English as a Second
Language (ESL) tutorials, translation services, and legal services. Legal services help residents understand
their rights with regard to employment, immigration, and domestic violence.
ƒ
Mental health and social support services. Several participants expressed that family resource centers
and family-focused community events have been helpful for the community, and they feel that that mental
health counseling and case management has been successful.
ƒ
Other program areas include job training, volunteer opportunities, and assistance in gaining
residency, housing, and food assistance. Participants also mentioned other existing program areas
include job training for youth and adults, working with children and youth to “green” communities,
assistance in gaining residency, housing programs, and a food pantry program.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Uniqueness of Chinatown and its needs. Participants expressed that people from all over the city come
to Chinatown for services because of its language capacity and familiarity. New immigrant families face
difficulty navigating services due to a lack of knowledge of services, limited English proficiency, and
concerns with deportation. Some neighborhood service providers are concerned that they have become a
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 4
“one stop” for many Chinese immigrant families, which does not seem ideal since they become
overstretched and may not have expertise in all the residents’ areas of need.
ƒ
Lack of resources. Participants, particularly service providers, reported that a shortage of funding has
limited their programs and reduced the number of children, youth and families that can be served.
ƒ
Other barriers mentioned included program length and a lack space for programs. Participants
felt some programs have been forced to close after a short time, creating barriers to service for those who
have to find alternatives. Service providers expressed that there is a lack of physical space for their
programs.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Accessibility of services for middle-income families. Participants expressed the difficulty faced by
some middle income families that do not qualify for many programs, but who still require services. One
example mentioned was that middle-income families often lack access to quality, low-cost health care.
ƒ
Communicating with people from other cultures. Participants felt that language is a significant barrier
for people living in Chinatown, making it difficult to communicate with people of other cultures.
ƒ
Limited educational resources. Participants believe a lack of education and resources to connect to
other opportunities are a challenge. They also mentioned how a lack of civic knowledge, such as legal
rights, creates challenges for the community.
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned included physical safety, lack of open space and green
environments, and child care. Participants also mentioned challenges such as physical safety, lack of
economic opportunity and jobs, limited open space and green environments, and child care. Child care is
especially challenging for parents trying to find employment or take night classes.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Affordable, high quality child care.
Participants said that they wanted see high
quality child care. They expressed that
child care can be a significant factor in
enabling parents to access job training
services.
Low-cost or free health care for
immigrant families. Participants
mentioned that quality low-cost or free
health care was needed, especially mental
health and social support for immigrant
families.
ƒ Other future program areas included
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top four were…
ƒ Out of school time (42%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
ƒ Early Care and Education (42%). Child care for
children age five and under, including preschool.
ƒ Family Support (42%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent classes
and other services that strengthen families.
basic ESL training, subsidized housing,
ƒ Health & Wellness (42%). Programs to promote
employment and basic computer skills
mental and physical health.
for youth, parenting classes and family
support programs. Participants stated a need for ESL training and vocational ESL to help families
develop functional English skills. They also wanted to see more family support programs such as
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 5
parenting. Additional areas of need include subsidized housing, youth employment, and basic computer
skills training.
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number
Percent
11
61%
Ages 3-5
7
39%
Ages 18-24
6
33%
Ages 0-2
6
33%
Ages 16-17
5
28%
Ages 10-13
5
28%
Ages 6-9
5
28%
Ages 14-15
4
22%
16
84%
Age groups that CBOs serve
Ages 25 and up
Work with Parents
Yes
No
3
16%
Organizations CBOs collaborate with
Community-based organizations
18
95%
San Francisco Human Services Agency
11
58%
San Francisco Department of Public
10
53%
Health
Child care programs
10
53%
San Francisco Unified School District
9
47%
San Francisco Department of Children,
9
47%
Youth and their Families
High schools
5
26%
Elementary schools
5
26%
San Francisco Department of Parks and
4
21%
Recreation
Other
4
21%
Middle schools
2
11%
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in
Family Support
8
53%
Youth Employment
6
40%
Early Care & Education
6
40%
Youth Empowerment
6
40%
Transitional Youth
5
33%
Out of School Time
4
27%
Violence Prevention & Intervention
4
28%
Specialized Teen
3
20%
Health & Wellness
2
13%
The majority of participants in attendance
reported that their CBO serves adults ages 25
and up. A number of service providers also
noted that they serve children between the
ages of zero and five and youth ages 18
through 24. The majority of CBOs (84
percent) reported interacting with parents in
their work.
Nearly all service providers reported
collaborating with other CBOs in their work.
Additionally, over 50 percent of CBOs
reported collaborating with city departments
such as the Human Services Agency (58
percent), and the Department of Public
Health (53 percent). Many also report
collaborating with child care programs, the
San Francisco Unified School District, and
DCYF. Additionally, participants reported
that they collaborate with high schools,
elementary schools, and the Department of
Parks and Recreation.
Participants reported that they were involved
in a variety of DCYF program areas. Over
half of service providers reported that they
were involved in family support services. A
notable proportion (40 percent) reported
that they were involved in youth
employment, early care and education, and
youth empowerment. Participants also
mentioned being involved in program areas
regarding transitional youth, out of school
time, violence prevention and intervention,
specialized teen, and heath and wellness.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 6
Excelsior Neighborhood
Hosted by The Excelsior Family Connections and the Mission YMCA
November 12, 2010 and January 22, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants attending session identified as...
Concerned community
member
9
36%
Parents
6
24%
Youth
Service providers, Public
agency
4
16%
2
8%
Member of a policy group
2
8%
Service providers CBO
1
4%
Other member of a CBO
1
4%
8
33%
White
Black/African American
8
3
33%
13%
Asian
2
8%
Middle Eastern
1
4%
Multiracial/Multiethnic
1
4%
Decline to state
1
4%
English
21
84%
Spanish
4
16%
*Self-Reported Ethnicity
Latino/Hispanic
Language of Supplemental Survey
Two neighborhood meetings were held in the
Excelsior neighborhood. The Excelsior Family
Connections and the Mission YMCA hosted
these neighborhood meetings. A total of 25
people participated in these sessions.
Meeting participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic characteristics
and future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. Among the 25
participants, 36 percent stated they were
concerned community members and 24 percent
identified as parents. Additionally, 16 percent of
participants were youth, this was followed by
eight percent identifying as service providers
from a public agency and members of a policy
group. Four percent identified as service
providers from community based organizations.
In order to obtain valuable information from
diverse community members and parents, the
neighborhood meetings were facilitated in
English, Spanish and Cantonese. The majority of
supplemental surveys were completed in English
(84 percent) and 16 percent were completed in
Spanish.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs for their children youth and families in the Excelsior
neighborhood. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are
ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
* One participant did not answer this question.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs and youth centers. Community members and parents reported that
afterschool programs in the neighborhood help children stay engaged in recreational activities. Youth
centers were also mentioned as helpful programs for youth living in the neighborhood, but participants
commented that not everyone can access services provided by these youth centers.
ƒ
Support for family centered services. For meeting participants support for family centered services
such as family connections centers have been instrumental in providing families, especially Latino
families and Chinese families, with child care and early learning opportunities for their young children.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 7
Additionally, parents pointed out that through these services, parents have the opportunity to socialize
with other parents in support groups and access information about community resources and events.
ƒ
Early learning opportunities for children under five. Participants discussed the importance of
providing young children with early learning opportunities. Parents reported that through early
learning opportunities children learn to interact with one another and they learn about structured play.
Parents also emphasized that early learning programs allow children to transition from child care to
preschool.
ƒ
Summer school opportunities. Community members and parents noted that summer school is
beneficial for many children in the neighborhood, but with recent budget cuts it is no longer available in
the Excelsior.
ƒ
Youth employment. Meeting participants singled out youth employment opportunities as being
helpful for youth in the Excelsior.
ƒ
Other helpful programs mentioned were libraries, drop-in centers, community activities, low
cost programs, peer financial trainings, hobby classes, and basic life skills trainings. In addition
to the programs and services stated above, meeting participants identified an array of services that are
helpful for families living in the Excelsior. Some of these programs include neighborhood libraries,
drop-in centers for families, peer financial trainings, hobby classes and life skills trainings. Community
members and parents also stressed the importance of low cost programs and services for families.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited program capacity. A key barrier for families living in the Excelsior is program capacity.
Participants voiced that families are turned away from programs and that out-of-school time programs
do not have enough slots for children wanting to access these services. Furthermore, parents also voiced
that family connections centers need more staff, longer hours and space to serve a greater number of
families in the neighborhood. Additionally, participants stated that community events and programs are
wiped out due to lack of funding and funding priorities.
ƒ
Limited program options for families. Meeting participants were very vocal about the limited
program options available for children, youth and their families in the Excelsior. Participants felt that
there is a gap in the current services available in their community and would like to see a range of
programs in their neighborhood.
ƒ
Lack of outreach to families living in the neighborhood. For meeting participants, incorporating
the voice of diverse parents in program development and in the community as a whole is crucial. For this
reason they were quick to point out that a major barrier in the Excelsior is community outreach.
Participants stressed that service providers in the Excelsior need to find effective ways to hear directly
from parents and to conduct community outreach. Other meeting participants pointed out that outreach
efforts also need to be focused on stay at home parents. In order address this issue, meeting participants
suggested developing a local resource guide for families, while others emphasized that word of mouth is
the best way to reach certain families.
ƒ
Tensions arising from youth who do not live in the Excelsior accessing local services.
Community members expressed concern over children and youth who do not live in the Excelsior
accessing local services. Several participants voiced a need to prioritize services for youth living in the
neighborhood, while others noted that thinking about services in a citywide perspective is important.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 8
Additionally, participants noted that having youth who are not residents of the Excelsior accessing local
services may cause safety issues for youth and families.
ƒ
Language barriers prevent families from accessing services. Meeting participants noted that
language barriers prevent families from accessing services since most services tend to be provided in
English.
ƒ
Access to technology. Participants stated that limited access to technology is also a barrier for families
trying to access services in neighborhood.
ƒ
Lack of parent engagement in services. A major concern discussed by several meeting participants
was that some parents in the neighborhood do not want to participate or engage in services. Participants
noted that when programs are started parent involvement is crucial. Parents play a major role program
development in terms of allowing their children to enroll and participate in community programs and
without the support of parents programs cannot meet enrollment requirements which may prevent
programs from getting started.
ƒ
Other barriers mentioned included access to child care, lack of services for children under five,
transportation, and lack of safe spaces. Community members and parents also discussed the lack of
child care services in the neighborhood and the barriers of accessing these services. Additionally,
participants commented that there are limited services for children under five, especially child care and
playgroups. Transportation was also singled out as a major barrier for families in the neighborhood.
Parents feel that public transportation is not family friendly and that there is not enough transportation
dedicated to children attending public schools. Besides, lack of child care and transportation, meeting
participants stated that there are limited safe public recreational spaces and limited community meeting
space.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Safety and gang culture issues. Meeting participants emphasized that safety is a concern for families
in the Excelsior. Meeting participants were concerned about security in schools as schools in the
neighborhood have been vandalized. Participants were also concerned about the gang activity taking
place in schools and in the neighborhood.
ƒ
Cultural tensions among diverse ethnic groups. Due to the ethnic diversity in the Excelsior,
meeting participants reported that cultural tensions or differences arise among different groups.
Participants noted that these cultural tensions pose challenges and impact families’ desire to access
services.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Youth employment and job training programs. Community members and parents spoke of
creating employment opportunities for youth 14 to 18 years old. Meeting participants suggested that
community organizations should partner up with local businesses to provide youth living in the
neighborhood an opportunity to work. Another idea cited by participants was to hire local youth to help
with translation services. Participants also stressed that youth in the neighborhood need job training
programs in order to develop professional skills. Several participants felt that by creating employment
opportunities for youth would reduce violence and substance abuse issues in the neighborhood.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 9
ƒ
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Participants
reported that additional after school programs
are needed for youth and children living in the
Excelsior. Additionally, community members
and parents requested the creation of arts
programs where children and youth can
engage in dance, music and arts classes.
Meeting participants also felt that increasing
the number of afterschool programs and arts
programs in the neighborhood will give
engage youth in the Excelsior.
Increase programs for young children
under five years old. Meeting participants
also called for more programs and activities
for children under five years old. Community
members and parents would like to see toddler
programs, programs that provide play time
and structured early learning activities for
young children in the neighborhood.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their three highest
priority areas in the survey and the top three
included…
ƒ Out of School Time (52%)
Afterschool and summer programming
that offers academic support,
enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Youth Employment (52%)
Opportunities for youth to gain work
readiness skills and job experience.
ƒ Violence Prevention and
Intervention (44%). Programs that
respond to and prevent violence
among youth.
ƒ
Family centered services. Meeting participants explained that the Excelsior neighborhood needs
family centered services where parents can access support groups, parenting classes and parent
breastfeeding groups. Additionally, participants also wanted to see more safe areas for families in the
neighborhood and additional playgrounds for children. Participants also expressed a need for more
programs that focus on the entire family and that create opportunities for youth and parents to interact
with each other.
ƒ
Community strengthening programs that also foster collaboration among service providers.
Community members were vocal about the need to increase communication within the community and
even requested a mandatory community meeting. In addition, community members would like more
neighborhood residents to get involved in community organizations, in order to hear the voice of the
community in the implementation of services and programs. Participants would also like to see more
collaboration and interaction among local community organizations and service providers in the
neighborhood. Participants would also like to see programs that convene the entire community.
ƒ
Other future needs mentioned included school transition programs, translation services, safe
spaces for families, sports programs for children, recreational programs for families, volunteer
opportunities, developing local newsletter and services for older adults. Community members
and parents expressed that they would like to see school transition programs for children exiting
elementary school and entering middle school. To meet the diverse language needs of residents in the
Excelsior, community members and parents expressed that translation services are needed in the
community. Participants would like to see safe spaces for families, recreational programs, sports
programs and volunteer opportunities. In addition, participants would like to see services that address
truancy issues and that help youth who are out of school and lack parent supervision. Participants would
also like to see a local news paper or news letter for families living in the Excelsior. Lastly, participants
explained that more services, specifically for the older adult population, are needed in the Excelsior.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 10
District 8 Neighborhoods
Hosted by Friends of Noe Valley and Upper Noe Neighbors on
January 27, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Parents
9
50%
Service providers, CBO
3
17%
Youth
2
11%
Other
2
11%
Concerned community
member
1
6%
Member of a policy group
1
6%
A neighborhood meeting was hosted by Friends
of Noe Valley and Upper Noe Neighbors, and
was attended by 18 people. The meeting was
comprised of residents from District 8. There
are a total of ten neighborhoods located in this
district including: The Castro, Noe Valley,
Diamond Heights, Glen Park, Corona Heights,
Eureka Valley, Dolores Heights, Mission
Dolores, Duboce Triangle, and Buena Vista
Park.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
White
13
72%
future priority areas for programming for
Latino/Hispanic
3
17%
children, youth and families. Fifty percent of
Asian
1
6%
meeting participants identified as parents,
Multiracial/Multiethnic
1
6%
followed by 17 percent of participants who
Language of Supplemental Survey
identifed as service providers from communityEnglish
based organizations (CBOs). Additionally, 11
18
100%
percent of meeting participants identified as
youth. Concerned community members and members of policy groups comprised six percent of those in
attendance. The meeting was led in English and all of the supplemental surveys for this meeting were
completed in English.
Self-reported ethnicity
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs for their children, youth and families in District 8 neighborhoods. Below is a
summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the
summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Afterschool programs were pointed out by meeting participants as helpful
programs for families. Mainly, participants noted that high quality programs and free afterschool
programs have been most helpful for families.
ƒ
Youth programs. Participants felt that youth programs such as theater and arts programs have been vital
for families. In addition, participants also expressed that tutoring and library services have been helpful
for youth and their families.
ƒ
Summer programs and sports. Meeting participants discussed that summer programs and athletics
programs have benefited older youth and teens in the community.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 11
ƒ
Reading programs for elementary school and middle school age children. Meeting participants also
commented that reading programs for elementary school and middle school age children have helped
children feel more connected to their neighborhood and community.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Lack of programs for homeless youth. Meeting participants pointed out that while there are programs
available for LGBT and transitional age youth, meeting participants felt there are no programs that target
homeless youth.
ƒ
Lack of program funding. Participants noted that limited funding and funding constraints place a limit
on the number of youth that can be served, especially for programs serving LGBT and transitional age
youth. Furthermore, participants voiced that there are limited neighborhood-based services.
ƒ
Families do not know about services available in the community. Participants stressed that parents
and youth are not getting information about services available in the community. Other participants also
revealed that the lack of communication between the city and the school department hinders parents’
ability to find out about services.
ƒ
Youth seek services outside of their own neighborhoods. Meeting participants explained that youth
are unable to access services in their neighborhoods because they attend schools located in communities
far from home, and the commute limits the time available to participate afterschool. Furthermore,
participants voiced that local programs are mainly providing services to youth from different
neighborhoods and feel they are not providing sufficient outreach within their own community.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Lack of safe spaces for youth. Most meeting participants agreed that San Francisco lacks safe and free
open spaces for older youth and families. For example, participants expressed that due to traffic the streets
are unsafe and dangerous for children and youth playing outside.
ƒ
Child care services for children under three years old. Participants noted that finding child care for
very young children, particularly those under age three, is a major challenge for families.
ƒ
Housing. Participants felt that finding housing is a challenge for transitional age youth.
ƒ
Health and wellness services for the uninsured. Participants were quick to point out that for
uninsured individuals it is a great challenge to access health and wellness services, especially in San
Francisco.
ƒ
Limited service options for pre-teens. Participants felt that although there are many programs available
for younger children, there are limited service options for pre-teens and teens in San Francisco.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Increase affordable housing for low-income families and transitional age youth. Meeting
participants stressed that affordable housing is a great need among families and transitional age youth
living in San Francisco.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 12
ƒ
Youth-focused sports programs and other spaces for physical activity. Participants reported that
they would like to see sports programs for youth.
Participants also discussed other types of physical
Future Priority Areas
activity including youth-focused swimming
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
lessons. Participants expressed concerns that
and the top three were…
community pools currently do no offer youthfocused activities.
ƒ Transitional Youth (44%). Services to
ƒ
Summer school programs. Meeting participants
expressed concern over the elimination of summer
school programs and stated that summer school
programs are needed in their community.
ƒ
ƒ
Employment and job training for transitional
age youth. In addition to the services mentioned
above, participants voiced that employment
opportunities are needed for transitional age
youth. Moreover, in order to prepare these youth
for jobs, participants requested the creation of
more job training programs to help transitional age
youth obtain skills to help them in the workforce.
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face
barriers in becoming successful
independent young adults.
ƒ Youth Empowerment (44%).
Opportunity for youth to build skills in
leadership and community organizing.
ƒ Out of School Time (33%). Afterschool
and summer programming that offer
academic support, enrichment and
recreation opportunities.
Increase neighborhood community centers. Lastly, meeting participants called for more community
centers in the District 8 neighborhoods.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 13
Bernal Heights Neighborhood
Hosted by Holly Courts Residents Council on January 20, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Parent
5
50%
Service provider, Public agency
4
40%
1
10%
Multiracial/Multiethnic
Black/African American
5
46%
4
36%
Latino/Hispanic
1
9%
White
1
9%
Other
Self-Reported Ethnicity
A neighborhood meeting was held at the Holly
Courts Residents Council and was attended by
11 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
Fifty percent of participants identified as parents
and 40 percent identified as service providers
from a public agency. The meeting was led in
English and all of the supplemental surveys for
this meeting were completed in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
Language of Supplemental Survey
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
English
11
100%
for their children youth and families in the
*One participant did not respond
Bernal Heights neighborhood. Below is a
summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the
summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Programs that engage youth outside of school hours were pointed out as being
helpful by meeting participants. Participants also highlighted that afterschool programs that incorporate
sports and tutoring have been helpful for older youth who reside in Holly Courts.
ƒ
Employment programs for youth. Participants were also vocal about the importance of youth
employment programs in San Francisco. Participants felt that youth employment programs sponsored by
the city and other community organizations have been helpful for older youth.
ƒ
Summer programs. Summer programs were singled out by participants as important services in their
neighborhood.
ƒ
Juvenile justice programs. In addition to the services highlighted above, meeting participants felt that
juvenile justice programs were helpful for youth and families.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Lack of program funding. Limited program funding was singled out by participants as a barrier to
accessing services. Participants commented that even though good programs are started, they are often
terminated because of funding issues. In addition, limited financial resources also prevent collaboration
among service providers in the community.
ƒ
Families are unaware of services available in the community. Participants commented that another
barrier faced by families is not knowing about programs and services available in their community.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 14
ƒ
Fees and cost of programs and services. Costs and fees associated with programs and services were
also pointed out as key barriers for accessing services. Participants commented that for many families it is
difficult to afford program fees and equipment.
ƒ
Lack of child care prevents parents from accessing family support services. Meeting participants
voiced that residents of Holly Courts do not have access to child care and this prevents them from
accessing services they need for their families.
ƒ
Unique needs of Holly Courts residents. Meeting participants explained that Holly Courts residents
have unique needs that have not been addressed, and this is a constant barrier they continue to face. Many
meeting participants felt that Holly Courts residents do not have access to the same services and programs
as residents living in the Bernal Heights neighborhood. As a result, Holly Courts residents feel isolated
and frustrated. According to participants, the lack of services available specifically for children, older youth
and families living in Holly Courts only adds to their isolation and frustration.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Lack of services available for children, older youth and families. Participants felt that there are no
services for families in their neighborhood. Participants described the lack of opportunities for older
youth to participate in afterschool and summer programs. As a result, older youth are often a bad
influence on the younger youth of the neighborhood. Also, participants explained that two local
recreational spaces (a local playground and a neighborhood park) have closed. Mainly, participants
expressed that there are disparities in the amount and type of services available in San Francisco
neighborhoods.
ƒ
Staff turnover rates prevent youth from development meaningful relationships with service
providers. Participants expressed that programs experience high rates of staff turnover which prevents
youth from creating stable and meaningful relationships with local program coordinators and service
providers.
ƒ
Access to affordable transportation. Transportation costs were identified as a major challenge by
meeting participants. In addition, participants noted that transportation costs also prevent families from
accessing services.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Increase access to free or affordable
child care. Participants reported that there
is a high need for free or affordable child
care for families in the neighborhood.
Violence prevention programs.
Participants would like to see violence
prevention programs because community
safety as a major issue in the neighborhood.
Mentoring programs for youth. In the
future, meeting participants would like to
see mentoring programs for youth in the
neighborhood.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Family Support (73%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parenting
classes, and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Youth Employment (64%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and
job experience.
ƒ Health & Wellness (64%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
Appendix C - 15
Mission Neighborhood
Hosted by Mission Community Council on January 27, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers, CBO
7
(58%)
Concerned Community Members
2
(17%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
2
(17%)
Other Member of a CBO
1
(8%)
5
(42%)
Latino/Hispanic
Multiracial/Multiethnic
3
2
(25%)
(17%)
Black/African American
1
(8%)
Alaskan Native/American Indian
1
(8%)
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
13
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
White
*1 person did not respond
A neighborhood input session was hosted by the
Mission Community Council and was attended
by 13 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
The majority of those in attendance were
members of Community-Based Organizations
(CBOs) and comprised 58 percent of the session.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
of children youth and families in the Mission.
Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Ideas are
ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Programs that serve low-income and immigrant families. Participants mentioned programs that
serving and advocating for low- to medium-income families and immigrant families were important assets
to families in the neighborhood.
ƒ
Other program areas included child care, violence prevention, job programs, and college-related
supports. Participants mentioned that other important services include child care options that enable
parents to participate in programs and services, violence prevention for youth, job opportunities that help
youth and parents build skills, and college-related supports for youth and parents.
Barriers and challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Limited funding. Participants noted that limited funding has led to long wait lists for services. They feel
that programs for transitional age youth and violence prevention services have been particularly impacted
by budget cuts.
ƒ
Language barriers and a lack of culturally competent programs. Participants expressed that there is
not enough language capacity and cultural capacity in programs serving children, youth, and families, both
in and out of schools.
ƒ
Difficulty in reaching services outside the neighborhood. Participants reported concern that services
located outside the neighborhood are not easily accessible to children and youth. They may find it difficult
traveling to programs and school.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 16
ƒ
A lack of identification may prevent children, youth, and families from accessing services.
Participants mentioned that immigrant status and requests for identification have created barriers to
families who are homeless or recent immigrants.
ƒ
Children and youth need more supports in education, safety, job readiness, and financial
education. Some participants noted that schools are not meeting the educational and safety needs of
young children. They also voiced that youth need support in terms of job readiness training and financial
education.
ƒ
Other challenges and barriers include violence in their neighborhoods and limited knowledge of
services available. Participants also noted that violence, racism, and oppression can lead to negative selfidentity of teens. They also mentioned families lack awareness of the services available to them.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Future Priority Areas
Health services. Participants said that
they wanted to see more health clinics,
mental health services, and substance
abuse programs. They also noted the
importance of food pantry programs.
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top five were…
Afterschool and arts programs.
Participants also mentioned wanting
afterschool and weekend activities for
youth, including arts programs.
ƒ Transitional age youth (50%). Services to
Other future program areas include
youth run businesses, supports for
male youth, and more CBO conveners.
Participants noted that youth-run
businesses have been helpful in providing
youth with working experience, and they
expressed a need for programs that
specifically support young males, as well as
a need for more CBO conveners.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
ƒ Out of school time (50%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers in
becoming successful independent young adults.
ƒ Youth employment (42%). Opportunities for
youth to gain work readiness skills and job
experience.
ƒ Family support (42%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parenting
classes and other services that strengthen families.
ƒ Violence prevention and intervention (42%).
Programs that respond to and prevent violence
among youth.
Appendix C - 17
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 6-9
7
(58%)
Ages 3-5
6
(50%)
Ages 10-13
6
(50%)
Ages 14-15
5
(42%)
Ages 16-17
5
(42%)
Ages 18-24
5
(42%)
Ages 25 and up
5
(42%)
Ages 0-2
3
(25%)
10
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
11
(92%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
8
(67%)
and their Families
San Francisco Unified School District
7
(58%)
Elementary schools
6
(50%)
Child care programs
5
(42%)
High schools
4
(33%)
Middle schools
4
(33%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
3
(25%)
San Francisco Dept of Public health
3
(25%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
3
(25%)
Recreation
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Out of School Time
5
(50%)
Early Care & Education
4
(40%)
Family Support
3
(30%)
Specialized Teen
3
(30%)
Youth Employment
1
(10%)
Health & Wellness
1
(10%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
1
(10%)
Youth Empowerment
1
(10%)
Transitional Youth
1
(10%)
The majority of participants in attendance
report that their community-based
organizations (CBO) serve children ages six
to nine. A notable proportion of providers
report that they serve children three to five
and ten to thirteen. All service providers
present report that they interact with parents
in their work.
Nearly all CBOs report collaborating with
other CBOs organizations. Additionally, well
over half of the service provider participants
report collaborating with the school district.
Collaboration with DCYF was also common
and was mentioned by 67 percent of
providers .
CBOs in attendance reported that they were
involved in a variety of DCYF program
areas. The participating service providers
come from programs that pertain to out of
school time, early care and education, family
support, and specialized teen. Providers in
attendance also mentioned being involved in
program areas regarding transitional youth,
youth empowerment, violence prevention
and intervention, youth employment, and
health and wellness.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 18
Western Addition Neighborhood
Hosted by Mo’Magic Community Convener on December 9, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers, CBO
15
(71%)
Service Providers, Public Agency
2
(10%)
Youth
2
(10%)
Concerned Community Members
1
(5%)
Member of Policy Group
1
(5%)
White
9
(43%)
Black/African American
7
(33%)
Asian
Multiracial/multiethnic
2
2
(10%)
(10%)
Latino/Hispanic
1
(5%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
A neighborhood input session was hosted by the
Mo’Magic Community Convener and was
attended by 21 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
The majority of those in attendance were service
providers from community-based organizations
(CBOs) and comprised 71 percent of the session.
Service providers from public agencies and
youth comprised 10 percent of the meeting. A
member of a policy group and a concerned
community member also attended the meeting.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers to accessing programs, and
Language of Supplemental Survey
challenges faced by children youth and families
English
21
(100%)
in the Western Addition. Below is a summary
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
of the key ideas and themes identified by
meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least
frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
High quality early childhood education that is culturally sensitive. Participants felt early childhood
education for children under five that is culturally sensitive is the most helpful. However; participants also
believed early childhood education in the neighborhood was not very accountable to city and state quality
standards.
ƒ
Summer and afterschool programs. Participants emphasized academic support programs during the
summer and afterschool, as well as targeted arts programs that are focused on one specific component.
ƒ
Other programs mentioned included youth employment programs, parent support, and
improved organizational collaboration. Participants also mentioned youth employment programs,
services to parents so they can support their children, and programs aimed at improving the collaboration
between CBOs serving the Western Addition. Participants also mentioned that programming should
address the changing makeup of a gentrifying neighborhood.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Lack of support for parents. Participants felt parents and families need more support to help increase
parental involvement in their children’s education and to encourage them to allow their children to
participate in programs being offered in the neighborhood.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 19
ƒ
Limited opportunities to access information and interagency collaboration. Participants
mentioned that centers do not connect with parents in the neighborhood and that there does not exist a
pipeline to share information about services to parents. The disconnect between CBOs and the school
district was also mentioned as a challenge.
ƒ
Other barriers included a lack of financial resources, security and transportation. Participants
expressed that many families cannot afford programs being offered. In addition, they mentioned poor
transportation and security concerns as serious barriers to accessing services in the neighborhood. Finally,
participants felt some programs did not always provide the service they advertised would be available.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Neighborhood instability. Participants explained that because the Western Addition is a rapidly
gentrifying neighborhood, many residents
are uncertain if they will be able to reside in
Future Priority Areas
the area on a monthly basis.
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
Limited support for education and
the top three were…
families. Participants believed parents and
ƒ Out of school time (65%). Afterschool and
families needing educational and job
summer programming that offers academic
support face challenges, and that being
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
educated and employed could help increase
parental involvement in youth activities.
ƒ Youth Employment (45%). Opportunities for
youth to gain work readiness skills and job
Other challenges included truancy and
experience.
security. Participants expressed that
security could be improved in schools and
ƒ Health & Wellness (40%). Programs that
for afterschool programs. They felt at
promote mental and physical health.
present, the security situation at times can
be “chaotic” leading to issues of truancy.
Participants also felt there was no plan for transitional age youth in the neighborhood.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 20
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 6-9
15
(83%)
Ages 10-13
15
(83%)
Ages 14-15
13
(72%)
Ages 16-17
13
(72%)
Ages 3-5
5
(28%)
Ages 18-24
4
(22%)
Ages 25 and up
3
(17%)
Ages 0-2
1
(6%)
15
1
(94%)
(6%)
Work with Parents
Yes
No
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
15
(88%)
Elementary schools
14
(82%)
San Francisco Unified School District
13
(77%)
Middle schools
12
(71%)
High schools
10
(59%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
9
(53%)
and their Families
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
9
(53%)
Recreation
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
3
(18%)
Child care programs
2
(12%)
Other
2
(12%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
1
(6%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Out of School Time
10
(63%)
Youth Employment
6
(38%)
Health & Wellness
4
(25%)
Youth Empowerment
4
(25%)
Family Support
3
(19%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
2
(13%)
Early Care & Education
1
(6%)
Transitional Youth
1
(6%)
Specialized Teen
1
(6%)
The majority (83 percent) of service
providers report that they serve children ages
six to nine and 10 to 13. Additionally, a
notable proportion of providers (72 percent)
report that they serve children between the
ages of 14 to 15 and 16 to 17. Over 90
percent of service providers present report
working with parents.
A large proportion (88 percent) of service
providers report collaborating with other
CBOs. Additionally, over 75 percent of
CBOs organizations report collaborating
with the school district in their work.
Collaboration with high schools, DCYF, and
the Department of Parks and Recreation,
was also common and was mentioned by
over half of providers. Fewer report
collaborating with the Department of Public
Health (18 percent), child care programs (12
percent), other organizations (12 percent),
and San Francisco Human Services Agency
(six percent).
Service providers in attendance reported that
they were involved in a variety of DCYF
program areas. Over half of providers
reported that they were involved in out of
school time programs (63 percent). A
number of providers also reported that they
were involved in youth employment (38
percent) and health and wellness (25
percent) and youth empowerment (25
percent).
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 21
Twin Peaks Neighborhood
Hosted by the Neighborhoods West of Twin Peaks Community
Convener on January 13, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...˜
Service Provider, Public Agency
6
(40%)
Service Providers, CBO
4
(27%)
Concerned Community Members
3
(20%)
Other Member of Public Agency
1
(7%)
Other
1
(7%)
White
7
(47%)
Multiracial/multiethnic
3
(20%)
Asian
2
(13%)
Alaskan Native/American Indian
Other
1
1
(7%)
(7%)
15
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*˜
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*One person did not respond
˜Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A neighborhood input session was held by the
Neighborhoods West of Twin Peaks
Community Convener Meeting, and was
attended by 15 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
Public agency service providers comprised the
largest proportion of those in attendance at 40
percent.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
of children youth and families in Twin Peaks.
Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Ideas are
ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool and summer programs, including programs for children and youth with special
needs and disabilities. Participants highlighted the benefit of current afterschool and summer
programming for all children and youth. Programs for children with disabilities were noted as being
particularly helpful. Participants also emphasized the need for summer school programs in light of San
Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) budget cuts.
ƒ
Arts programs. Arts programs for youth were mentioned as helpful and participants expressed the desire
for expanded opportunities. Free art programs were mentioned as being especially beneficial.
ƒ
Programs for youth with special needs, particularly Autism and Asperger’s syndrome.
Participants mentioned that specific programs have benefited youth with special needs, particularly
Autistic youth and youth with Asperger’s syndrome. Participants noted, however, that the capacity of
these programs is limited.
Barriers and challenges facing children youth and families
ƒ
Transportation. Participants mentioned the lack of transportation in San Francisco effects everyone from
children, youth and teens using programs to program staff. The cost of transportation was cited a barrier
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 22
to low-income youth utilizing services that may be available outside their neighborhood. Finally, safety on
the city transportation system was a stated concern.
ƒ
Qualified staff, particularly for programs serving special needs youth and non-English speaking
families. Finding and having the funding to retain highly qualified staff was cited as a challenge by
participants. Many stressed the role language plays as a barrier to services, and the need to find or train
staff to work with non English speakers.
ƒ
Lack of coordination and collaboration among existing programs. Participants expressed that there
is currently a lack of coordination and collaboration among existing programs. Some felt greater
collaboration would help inform the community of services being offered. Additionally, participants
suggested centralizing information about existing programs to prevent underutilization and noted that
other programs could benefit from more collaboration.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Programming for children with special
needs. Participants said that they wanted
to see integrated preschool and early
childhood education for children with
disabilities. Free programs for children
with learning disabilities were also
mentioned as a future need.
Increased access to testing for learning
disabilities. Participants mentioned that
greater availability for testing for learning
disabilities is a need as it is difficult for
low-income children to get tested.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top three were…
ƒ Out of school time (73%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
ƒ Youth employment (47%). Opportunities for
youth to gain work readiness skills and job
experience.
ƒ Early care & Education (40%). Child care for
ƒ
children age five and under, including preschool.
More collaboration with the school
district. Participants felt the school district
is often a roadblock to serving youth. They mentioned SFUSD could be a great partner for communitybased organizations (CBOs) who lack facilities for programs and reduce overhead costs.
ƒ
Other future program areas included greater opportunities for afterschool and summer
programs and increased collaboration between service providers. Participants stated they would
like to see more funding for public education to provide subsidized afterschool and summer programs.
Participants also felt that offering CBOs government funding would be an incentive to collaborate, since
each is currently competing for funding.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 23
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 14-15
8
(80%)
Ages 16-17
7
(70%)
Ages 10-13
7
(70%)
Ages 25 and up
6
(60%)
Ages 6-9
6
(60%)
Ages 3-5
4
(40%)
Ages 18-24
4
(40%)
Ages 0-2
3
(30%)
Work with Parents
Yes
10
(100%)
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
Middle schools
9
(90%)
Community-based organizations
8
(80%)
High schools
8
(80%)
Elementary schools
7
(70%)
San Francisco Unified School District
6
(60%)
San Francisco Department of Children,
5
(50%)
Youth and their Families
San Francisco Human Services Agency
4
(40%)
Child care programs
3
(30%)
Other
3
(30%)
San Francisco Department of Parks and
2
(20%)
Recreation
San Francisco Department of Public
1
(10%)
Health
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Family Support
4
(57%)
Health & Wellness
4
(57%)
Youth Employment
3
(43%)
Out of School Time
3
(43%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(29%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
2
(29%)
Early Care & Education
1
(14%)
Transitional Youth
1
(14%)
Specialized Teen
1
(14%)
The majority of service providers (80
percent) reported serve youth ages 14 to 15.
Additionally, a notable proportion (70
percent) of providers reported serving youth
between the ages of 16 and 17 and 10
through 13. Over half (60 percent) of service
providers, reported serving those over age 25
and children ages six to nine. Forty percent
reported working with children ages three to
five and youth ages 18 to 24. All service
providers present reported working with
parents.
Most service providers (90 percent) reported
collaborating with elementary, middle and
high schools as well as the school district.
Additionally, 80 percent of service providers
reported collaborating with CBOs in their
work. Collaboration with DCYF was also
common and was mentioned by half of
providers.
Service providers in attendance reported that
they were involved in a variety of DCYF
program areas. Over half (57 percent) of
providers reported that they were involved
in Family Support and health & wellness
programs. Forty-three percent of providers
reported that they were involved in youth
employment and out of school time.
Providers in attendance also mentioned
being involved in program areas regarding
transitional youth, youth empowerment,
violence prevention and intervention,
specialized teen and early care and
education.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 24
Outer Mission/Ingleside Neighborhood
Hosted by OMI Neighbors in Action on January 27, 2011
Session Overview
Number
Percent
Participants identified as...
Concerned Community Members
8
(53%)
Parents
2
(13%)
Service Providers, CBO
2
(13%)
Other Member of a CBO
1
(7%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
1
(7%)
Member of Policy Group
1
(7%)
Black/African American
7
(41%)
White
Latino/Hispanic
5
2
(29%)
(12%)
Other
2
(12%)
Asian
1
(6%)
18
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A neighborhood meeting, hosted by OMI
Neighbors in Action, was held at the
Temple United Methodist Church. The
meeting was attended by 18 people.
Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. More than half of the
participants identified as concerned
community members (53 percent),
comprising the majority of the session.
Other participants included parents,
service providers, members of a
community-based organization (CB0),
and a member of a policy group. The
meeting was led in English and all of the
supplemental surveys for this meeting
were completed in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs for their children youth and families in the Outer Mission/Ingleside (OMI)
neighborhood. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes
are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Family support services. Participants reported that programs that support families are helpful, such as
parenting classes provided in multiple languages. Through parenting classes, parents receive support and
education, and learn a number of parenting skills, including different strategies for disciplining their
children. In addition, parents are offered useful incentives such as stipends, dinner, and child care.
Participants talked about the usefulness of programs such as family resource centers and school-based
youth and family centers where a myriad of support services and enrichment activities for families are
offered.
ƒ
Afterschool programs, particularly those with academic support. Participants mentioned that
afterschool programs for elementary school age children that offer academic tutoring is helpful.
Participants noted that academic enrichment programs that have a strong focus on math and sciences is
especially important.
ƒ
Youth employment programs. Participants reported that youth employment programs are helpful.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 25
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Lack of information about resources. Participants reported that residents do not know where to go for
services and are unaware of the types of services that are available. First, participants noted that there is
currently no central place for residents to access information about resources. Second, many organizations
lack the capacity to conduct effective outreach to inform the community of the programs and services it
offers. For example, there are many organizations that offer scholarships for children and youth to
participate in their afterschool or summer programs. Unfortunately, many parents are unaware of these
opportunities.
ƒ
Long waitlists for programs. Participants added that many programs have limited capacity to serve
children, youth, and families, and thus, must often implement a waiting list for everyone interested.
ƒ
Language barriers. Participants noted that many services are not accessible because of language barriers.
Because OMI has a diverse community, participants explained that there is a strong need for translation
services, especially in Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian. Unfortunately, many
organizations do not have funding to provide translation services and multilingual resources. Several
participants pointed out that while the community has a resource manual, it was not made available in
other languages aside from English due to lack of funding.
ƒ
Other barriers mentioned by participants include high cost of programs and transportation.
Participants mentioned that many programs and services are not affordable for most families, and are not
accessible because of location or lack of transportation.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
ƒ
Domestic violence. Participants reported that
domestic violence is prevalent in the
neighborhood, and that there is a lack of support
services for families and children facing
domestic violence.
Lack of life skills among young adults.
Participants commented that young adults lack
job readiness skills and general life skills. Foster
youth, in particular, are in need of transitional
services after emancipation, to help them thrive
and lead independent lives.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Academic support and summer programs.
Tutoring, summer programs to engage children
and youth when they are out of school, and
programs that help youth transition to college
were noted as future needs. Additionally,
participants mentioned that they would like to
see programs to connect youth to career paths.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top five were…
ƒ Out of school time (47%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Health & Wellness (47%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Youth Employment (35%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and
job experience.
ƒ Family Support (35%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(35%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
Appendix C - 26
ƒ
Early education programs and low-cost child care services. Participants expressed the need for lowcost child care services and early childhood education programs. They noted the lack of availability for
most of the existing subsidized child care programs in the city.
ƒ
Health care and mental health services. Participants mentioned the need for more health clinics and
mental health services in the neighborhood.
ƒ
Other future needs mentioned by parents included violence prevention programs and
intergenerational programs. Participants reported that violence prevention programs, including
programs addressing domestic violence, were needed. Participants also mentioned that grandparents who
are primary caregivers need support and resources through intergenerational programs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 27
Portola Neighborhood
Hosted by Portola Family Connections on January 14, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Parents
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Asian
Multiracial/multiethnic
3
100%
1
33%
2
67%
3
100%
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A neighborhood meeting was held at Portola
Family Connections and was attended by three
people. Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic characteristics
and future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. All meeting
participants identified as parents. The meeting
was led in English and all of the supplemental
surveys for this meeting were completed in
English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs for their children, youth and families in the Portola neighborhood. Below is a
summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the
summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Parents expressed that afterschool programs have been helpful for children and
their families, especially programs that incorporate homework time. In fact, homework time was singled
out by parents as an essential component in afterschool programs. Parents emphasized that homework
time provides children with an opportunity to get their homework done earlier in the day. Additionally,
parents who work late also benefit from homework time because they feel supported and less stressed.
ƒ
School readiness programs. Parents identified school readiness programs that prepare their young
children for preschool and kindergarten as assets in their community. Parents voiced that these programs
have allowed their children to gain literacy skills and social skills. Moreover, parents noted that due to
school readiness programs their children have gained a sense of security and independence.
ƒ
Community events. Parents noted that community events, such as street fairs, are helpful for families in
the neighborhood. Through street fairs families gained knowledge about family activities, health resources
and even have the opportunity to engage with local businesses.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Work responsibilities. Parents mentioned that the economy has forced many parents in the
neighborhood to seek multiple jobs. As a result, parents and families have less time to access the services
and supports they need.
ƒ
Hours services are offered. Parents stated that most family oriented services are provided during the day
during work hours. For parents with multiple jobs, accessing services during the day is extremely difficult;
so parents stressed that evening services need to be available so that parents can begin to access services.
ƒ
Lack of services for middle school and high school age children. Limited program options for
children who are 11 years of age and older is a major barrier in the community. Parents stated that most
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 28
services offered in the neighborhood tend to be for younger children and this is a barrier for older children
who want to access services and participate in programs.
ƒ
Limited funding and services. Parents reported that limited program funding and the limited number of
slots available for services can be challenging for parents trying to access services in the neighborhood.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Lack of family time. Parents revealed that due to work responsibilities and their busy lifestyles it is
challenging to spend quality time with their children and families.
ƒ
Lack of services for older adults. Parents commented that the Portola neighborhood is home to a large
older adult population that is in need of programs and services. Parents felt that their neighborhood does
not have programs to meet the needs of older adults. According to parents, older adults need programs
that offer recreational activities and that provide care services.
ƒ
Diversity of services. A major challenge parents reported is the lack of service options available for
families. Parents stressed that the Portola neighborhood has only one central organization that provides
services and they would like to see more programs and services created in the community.
ƒ
Lack of safe transportation. While accessing transportation is not a challenge for adults, parents voiced
that older adults and young children are not safe while using public transportation due to violence caused
by youth in the neighborhood.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Parents voiced the need
to increase the number of afterschool programs
for all children in the neighborhood.
Youth employment and empowerment.
Parents highlighted that youth employment and
youth empowerment are crucial for youth
graduating high school.
College preparation programs for all school
age children. Parents stressed that it is never
too early to prepare children for college, so they
would like college prep programs to be available
for all children in their neighborhood.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Early Care & Education (100%). Child care
for children age 5 and under, including
preschool.
ƒ Health & Wellness (67%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Out of School Time (33%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ
Parenting classes. Participants felt that
parenting classes for young parents and classes
focusing on discipline practices would be beneficial for families in the neighborhood.
ƒ
Sports programs. In addition to afterschool programs, parents felt that sports programs for all children
are needed in the neighborhood.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 29
Potrero Hill Neighborhood
Hosted by Potrero Hill Neighborhood House on December 22, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*˜
Concerned Community Members
20
(43%)
Parents
7
(15%)
Youth
6
(13%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
6
(13%)
Service Providers, CBO
1
(2%)
Other Member of a CBO
1
(2%)
Member of Policy Group
1
(2%)
Other
5
(11%)
Black/African American
21
(40%)
Asian
White
17
7
(32%)
(13%)
Latino/Hispanic
3
(6%)
Multiracial/Multiethnic
2
(4%)
Middle Eastern
1
(2%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity˜
A neighborhood input session was held at the
Potrero Hill Neighborhood House and was
attended by 53 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth, and families.
In this survey, participants also were given a
chance to express their thoughts on the greatest
needs for children, youth, and families in the
upcoming years.
The majority of those in attendance were
concerned community members, comprising 43
percent of the session. Parents, youth, service
providers from public agencies and communitybased organizations (CBOs) also attended the
meeting. Five individuals also identified as
“Other” which included seniors and volunteers.
Participants from the Potrero Hill
Neighborhood House meeting were also diverse.
Other
1
(2%)
Approximately 40 percent of participants were
*5 participants did not respond
Black/African American, while 32 percent were
˜Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
Asian. Participants also identified as White,
Latino/Hispanic, Multiracial/Multiethnic, and Middle Eastern.
Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the
summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Greatest needs for children, youth and families in the upcoming years
ƒ
Programming for youth, particularly youth employment programs.Participants noted that youth
employment, youth empowerment programs, and programs for transitional age youth were particularly
needed. They also expressed that more opportunities for community involvement were needed for youth.
ƒ
Community spaces for children and youth. Participants highlighted the need for safe spaces for
children and families. Specifically participants noted the need for spaces that promote physical activity
including playgrounds and pools. Participants additionally noted the need for a community center or
clubhouse for children that give children and youth access to a safe space and computers.
ƒ
Promoting health and wellness for youth and families. Participants expressed that health and
wellness promotion were needed for youth and families in Potrero Hill. Health care for parents and
mental health programs for youth were highlighted as needs. Participants also noted the need for access to
free medical care for parents and families.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 30
ƒ
Family support programs, including job training and parent education classes. Participants noted
that their future needs included parenting classes and employment assistance for parents.
ƒ
Affordable afterschool programs. Participants mentioned the need for afterschool programs offering
art and educational support. Programs with
Future Priority Areas
a mentoring component were also noted.
Participants expressed that afterschool
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
programs keep youth engaged, safe and off
the top three were…
the streets.
ƒ Family Support (55%). Programs that help
Other programs noted as needs in the
parents raise their children, such as parent
upcoming years included early care and
classes and other services that strengthen
education, cultural programs, religious
families.
education, and increased affordable
food options. Participants additionally
ƒ Violence prevention & Intervention (55%).
noted that in the upcoming years they would
Programs that respond to and prevent violence
need increased access to early care and
among youth.
education for young children as well as
ƒ Health & Wellness (48%). Programs to
cultural programs. Religious education and
promote mental and physical health.
increased affordable food options in Potrero
Hill were also noted as future needs.
ƒ
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 31
Richmond Neighborhood
Hosted by Richmond District Neighborhood Center
on January 21, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers, CBO
13
(62%)
Parents
3
(14%)
Other Member of Public Agency
2
(10%)
Concerned Community Members
2
(10%)
Other
1
(5%)
White
11
(55%)
Asian
Pacific Islander
5
3
(25%)
(15%)
Black/African American
1
(5%)
21
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
**One participant did not respond
A neighborhood input session was held at
Roosevelt Middle School and attended by 21
people. Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic characteristics
and future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. The majority of
those in attendance were service providers from
community-based organizations (CBOs),
comprising 62 percent of the session.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
of children youth and families in the Richmond.
Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Ideas are
ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Programs that keep youth of all ages engaged during out of school time. Participants mentioned
that out of school programs and activities have been beneficial for youth of all ages, particularly afterschool
programs.
ƒ
Health and mental health services. School-based wellness and mental health programs were
mentioned by participants as a useful service. Participants also specifically mentioned the importance of
health services and clinics that focused on pregnancy prevention and sexual health.
ƒ
Other program areas included youth employment services, teacher support services and
translation services. Participants also noted other useful services such as youth employment programs,
teacher support services, and translation services for monolingual immigrants. The neighborhood’s
language needs include Cantonese, Russian, Vietnamese, and Spanish.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited funding for program staff to serve population in need. Participants expressed that currently
the needs of children, youth, and families are far greater than the supply of services and programs that are
available. As a result, they have faced challenges with limited program hours and staff, concerns over
program quality, lack of space to run programs, and limited resources for outreach.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 32
ƒ
Lack of information and communication strategies. Participants mentioned a need for more
information about programs and services. They suggested ethnic media and youth-relevant marketing as
ways to more effectively to get information to residents and reduce the stigma of publicly-funded
programs.
ƒ
Cultural competency and language barriers. Participants reported a need for more multicultural
services that can alleviate language barriers for monolingual families. They do not feel that many
programs have adequate capacity to address translation needs.
ƒ
Limited child care. Participants explained child care was needed so residents can access services.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Challenges of poverty. Participants expressed poverty, in general, is the greatest challenge facing
children, youth and families in the neighborhood. Specifically, a lack of affordable housing, the family
structure breaking apart and the prevalence of single family households, and limited access to technology.
ƒ
Other challenges included underdeveloped collaboration of service providers, access to health
care, competing priorities and a lack of mentoring and summer programs. Participants mentioned
other challenges included collaborative efforts between service providers that are not fully developed,
limited access to health care, and a lack of summer and mentoring programs. Participants also felt
children and youth are faced with competing priorities between the demands of school and other
obligations.
Looking to the future
ƒ
More programs that promote health
and well being. Participants said that they
wanted to see mental health services for
adults and children. One participant
suggested mandating mental health checkups as a way to connect youth and families
to other services. Participants also
mentioned that they wanted to see
nutrition and gardening programs.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top three were…
ƒ Early Care and Education (43%). Child care for
children age zero to five, including preschool.
ƒ Youth Empowerment (43%). Opportunities for
youth to build skills in leadership and community
organization.
ƒ
Opportunities to engage youth outside
ƒ Out of school time (42%). Afterschool and
of school. Participants mentioned wanting
summer programming that offers academic
extended out of school programs, free and
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
affordable summer programs, and
mentoring programs. Participants also felt youth and families could be engaged though community events
that increase civic participation.
ƒ
Create more violence prevention programs and safe spaces. Participants voiced they would like to
create more teen drop-in centers and safe spaces for youth to gather. They also expressed a need for
violence prevention programs, especially those that address family violence.
ƒ
Increase coordination of service providers. Participants felt there should be more funding for
community conveners so they can implement a more integrated approach to serving children.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 33
ƒ
Other future program areas included outreach life-skills programs for foster youth,
intergenerational programming, and micro-funding. Participants also mentioned a need for
outreach and life-skills programs for foster youth, family programs that provide opportunities for more
cross-generational connections, and micro-funding for locally-relevant programming.
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 10-13
14
(93%)
Ages 14-15
9
(60%)
Ages 16-17
8
(53%)
Ages 6-9
7
(47%)
Ages 18-24
6
(40%)
Ages 3-5
6
(40%)
Ages 25 and up
5
(33%)
Ages 0-2
3
(20%)
15
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
Middle schools
13
(87%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
12
(80%)
and their Families
Community-based organizations
11
(73%)
San Francisco Unified School District
11
(73%)
High schools
11
(73%)
Elementary schools
10
(67%)
Child care programs
5
(33%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
4
(27%)
San Francisco Dept of Public health
4
(27%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
4
(27%)
Recreation
Other
1
(7%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Out of School Time
13
(87%)
Youth Empowerment
7
(47%)
Health & Wellness
6
(40%)
Family Support
5
(33%)
Youth Employment
4
(27%)
Transitional Youth
4
(27%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
3
(20%)
Early Care & Education
2
(13%)
Specialized Teen
2
(13%)
Nearly all of the participants in attendance
(93 percent) reported that their CBOs serve
youth ages 10 to 13. Sixty percent of service
providers reported serving children between
the ages of 14 to 15, and 53 percent work
with youth ages 16 to 17. All service
providers reported working with parents.
The majority of service providers (87
percent) reported collaborating with middle
schools in their work. Collaboration with
DCYF was also common and was mentioned
by 80 percent of participating neighborhood
service providers. Over 70 percent of service
providers reported collaborating with CBOs,
SFUSD, and high schools. Over 65 percent
of CBOs reported collaborating with
elementary schools. One-third of service
providers reported collaborating with child
care programs.
The majority of service providers in
attendance (87 percent) reported that they
were involved in out of school time
programs. Forty-seven percent reported
involvement in youth empowerment and 40
percent reported involvement in health and
wellness. Other program areas represented
include family support (33 percent), youth
employment, and transitional youth (27
percent for each).
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 34
South of Market Neighborhood
Hosted by South of Market Community Action Network on
January 4, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Parent
Concerned community
member
42
75%
9
16%
Service provider, Public Agency
4
7%
1
2%
Latino/Hispanic
45
78%
Asian
Multiracial/multiethnic
10
3
17%
5%
Other member of a CBO
Self-Reported Ethnicity
A neighborhood meeting was held at the South
of Market Community Action Network
(SOMCAN) and was attended by 56 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. Parents comprised
the majority of the session and 75 percent of
participants identified as parents. The meeting
was facilitated in both Spanish and English and
81 percent of the supplemental surveys were
completed in Spanish.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
English
11
19%
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
Spanish
48
81%
for their children youth and families in the
South of Market neighborhood. Below is a
summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the
summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Language of Supplemental Survey
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool and summer programs are helpful because they allow parents to work. Participants
reported that afterschool programs and summer programs were very helpful and allowed parents to
increase their work hours. Sports, including swimming, and homework help were mentioned as key
components of such programs.
ƒ
Assistance in obtaining low-income housing. Receiving low-income housing was noted as a major
help for families.
ƒ
Welfare benefits for families. Participants highlighted the benefits of programs that helped increase
family income. Participants noted that they have recently encountered job loss and reduced income, and
that services providing supplemental income opportunities can help.
ƒ
Other helpful programs mentioned were child care, violence prevention, reduced-cost bus
passes, English classes, and wellness programs. Other programs that have been helpful include child
care, which allows parents to work and generate more income. Additionally, programs for youth have
been helpful as a means of violence prevention. Participants reported that the reduced the cost of
transportation for children in the form of Fastpasses were helpful. Family support services, English classes
and health and wellness programs were also mentioned.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 35
Barriers to accessing services
Participating parents and community members report that they have been able to access the services they need.
Access to services was made easier by the child watch services available, and staff members who possess the
Spanish-language and cultural competency skills needed.
ƒ
Limited program capacity. Participants mentioned that certain programs had limited space and
capacity. Long waiting lists also contributed to the problem, particularly for low-income housing.
ƒ
Lack of information about services. Participants noted that at times people are not aware of what
services are available. Additionally participants suggested that some people do not seek out programs until
they are in desperate situations.
ƒ
Youth in charter schools may not be eligible to services such as reduced-cost bus passes. Parents
voiced that program restrictions pose a challenges for some families. For example, youth attending charter
schools are not eligible for reduced-cost bus passes, regardless of income.
Challenges faced by children youth and families
ƒ
Basic needs such as housing and income. Families face challenges meeting their basic needs, including
a lack of affordable housing, and generally making ends meet. Issues of housing were particularly acute for
families trying to raise children in multi-family living situations.
ƒ
Violence in high schools, on the streets of their neighborhood, and on public transit. Parents
reported that violence in high schools and safety on public transit posed a challenge for their children and
families. Safety concerns are further amplified by the lack of coordination between bus schedules and
school schedules, leaving youth out on the streets for a longer duration. Parents mentioned that gang
violence also posed a threat for their families.
ƒ
Immigrant families face challenges relating to language, discrimination, and fear of deportation.
Parents mentioned that immigrant families face challenges such as language barriers, racism,
discrimination, difficulties interacting with
different cultures and fear of accessing programs
Future Priority Areas
due to their immigration status.
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
Health support for middle school and high
and the top three were…
school students. Other challenges participants
ƒ Out of school time (59%). Afterschool and
noted included: challenges of single-parent
summer programming that offers academic
families, and mental health support for middle
support, enrichment, and recreation
school and high school age children.
opportunities.
ƒ
Looking to the future
ƒ
More afterschool and summer programs to
compensate for cuts at the school district.
Parents reported that afterschool and summer
programs for elementary school age children
were needed as many summer affordable
summer programs have been cut. Specifically,
sports and one-on-one tutoring were highlighted
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
ƒ Family Support (49%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(41%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
Appendix C - 36
by participants as priority areas.
ƒ
Programs for older youth are important ways to prevent violence in the community. Programs for
youth including youth employment, sports, job training, mental health and emotional support, college
preparation programming, programming, and youth empowerment were noted as future needs. Programs
for youth were mentioned to have key implications in violence prevention, particularly to prevent youth
from joining gangs.
ƒ
English language and computer classes for parents. Parents mentioned English classes and literacy
classes were needs. Additionally parents mentioned the need for classes to help them use computers.
ƒ
Other priority programs mentioned included affordable housing, health and wellness and
transportation. Parents mentioned other future needs including more low income housing, health and
wellness programming, and greater access to reduced-cost bus passes for middle and high school students.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 37
Sunset District
Hosted by Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition on
January 13, 2011
Session Overview
Number
Percent
Participants identified as...*
Parents
6
(33%)
Service Providers, CBO
4
(22%)
Concerned Community Members
2
(11%)
Youth
2
(11%)
Service Providers, Public Agency
2
(11%)
Other
2
(11%)
White
10
(56%)
Asian
Multiracial/multiethnic
4
2
(22%)
(11%)
Middle Eastern
1
(6%)
Other
1
(6%)
English
17
(94%)
Cantonese
1
(6%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Language of Supplemental Survey
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A neighborhood meeting was held at the
Sunset District Neighborhood Coalition
and was attended by 18 people.
Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. Over one-third of the
participants identified as parents (33
percent), followed by community-based
organization (CBO) service providers (22
percent). Additional participants
included concerned community
members, youth, and public agency
service providers. The meeting was led
in English, and Cantonese translation
was provided. All but one of the
supplemental surveys for this meeting
was completed in English. One person
completed the supplemental survey in
Cantonese.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs for their children youth and families in the Sunset District neighborhood. Below
is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool and weekend programs for children and youth. Participants reported that afterschool
and weekend programs have been helpful for children and youth. Additionally participants noted the
benefits of these services for teen and at-risk youth.
ƒ
Services and resources provided by the city. Participants also mentioned that the programs offered by
the San Francisco Park and Recreation Department and the San Francisco Public Library are useful.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Lack of program funding. Participants expressed that budget constraints and the decreasing number of
program slots, due to lack of funding, are major barriers to accessing services.
ƒ
Lack of space for young children. Participants also mentioned that there is a lack of space in the
neighborhood where young children can play.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 38
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Lack of programs in the neighborhood. Participants reported there are few services in the Sunset
District serving children, youth, and families, and that there are not enough activities in the neighborhood
for residents to engage in. Participants explained the overall need for affordable programs, particularly for
middle-income families, such as summer programs and activities.
ƒ
Lack of coordination between service providers. Specifically, participants noted the lack of
coordinated services for youth with mental health issues, and the lack of coordination between schools and
service providers.
ƒ
Safety issues. Participants reported that many families face safety concerns in the neighborhood.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Increase services for children, youth and
families available in the neighborhood.
Participants would like to see more services
available in the Sunset District in general for
children, youth, and families. Participants noted
that there is a need for afterschool programs, as
well as job training and housing for transitional
age youth. Additionally, participants noted the
need for services for high-risk and at-risk youth.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Early Care and Education (56%). Child
care for children age five and under,
including preschool.
ƒ Out of school time (50%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
Additional needs identified by participants
support, enrichment, and recreation
include space for neighborhood service
opportunities.
providers, more effective communication
about services available, and improved
ƒ Youth Employment (50%). Opportunities
coordination of mental health services.
for youth to gain work readiness skills and
Participants suggested that CBOs and service
job experience.
providers need additional space to sufficiently
serve the neighborhood. Participants also
suggested that in the future, they would like to see more effective communication to residents about
services available, and improved coordination of mental health services for youth and their families.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 39
North Beach/Telegraph Hill Neighborhoods
Hosted by Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center on January 19, 2011
Session Overview
Number
Percent
Participants identified as...*
Parents
10
(53%)
Service Providers, CBO
5
(26%)
Service Providers, Public Agency
3
(16%)
Youth
1
(5%)
White
8
(44%)
Asian
Multiracial/Multiethnic
5
3
(28%)
(17%)
Black/African American
1
(6%)
Latino/Hispanic
1
(6%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity**˜
A neighborhood meeting was held at the
Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center and
was attended by 20 people. Participants
completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics
and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and
families. Over half of the participants (53
percent) identified as parents. The
meeting was also attended by service
providers and one youth community
member. The meeting was led in English
and all of the supplemental surveys for
this meeting were completed in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided
discussion regarding the helpful existing
English
20
(100%)
programs available, barriers, challenges,
*One participant did not respond
and future needs for their children youth
**Two participants did not respond
˜Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
and families in the North
Beach/Telegraph Hill neighborhood. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting
participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
Language of Supplemental Survey
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs and child care services. Participants noted the importance of afterschool
programs and child care services. Participants mentioned homework assistance, day camps for children in
Kindergarten through 5th grade, and preschool for children two to six-years-old to be particularly
beneficial. Other services for children and youth that were helpful for participants include mentoring
programs for youth.
ƒ
Recreational activities. Participants also found recreational activities, such as swimming at the
neighborhood pool and sports programs offered by the community center, to be useful.
ƒ
Neighborhood community centers and hubs. Participants mentioned that neighborhood centers were
helpful and housed several programs for children, youth, and families. Participants shared, however, that
unfortunately some neighborhood community centers have closed due to lack of funding.
ƒ
Other helpful programs mentioned were the library, homeless services, and counseling or
mental health consultations. In addition to the library, homeless services coordinated by concerned
community members were important among participants. Counseling or mental health consultations
were additionally noted by participants as being helpful for youth and families.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 40
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Lack of community meeting space. Participants expressed concern over the lack of a community
meeting space in the neighborhood. Participants noted a need for an affordable facility where community
groups can meet and host programs.
ƒ
Lack of information about resources. Participants noted that residents, including long-time residents,
are not aware of the services and resources available, or “do not know the system.” Non-English speaking
individuals face particular challenges when information about resources is not accessible in multiple
languages.
ƒ
Digital divide. Participants mentioned that one of the reasons people may not know about services and
resources available is that much of this information is only available online. Participants noted that many
families do not have access to a home computer. Additionally, the library has limited computers available
for public use.
ƒ
Lack of resources for youth. Participants voiced that there is a lack of programs for middle school and
older youth. In particular, summer programs and a youth space for teens are needed in the neighborhood.
ƒ
Other barriers mentioned were high cost of child care services and language barriers.
Participants discussed the need for affordable child care services and noted that there are few options
available for child care for children under three. Participants also mentioned that language barriers
prevent families from accessing services.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Poverty and meeting basic needs of families. Participants expressed that poverty, as evidenced by the
fact that that 92 percent of children in the neighborhood receive free or reduced lunch, is a major challenge
for children, youth, and families. Participants observed that many children come to school hungry and
lack basic needs. Large immigrant communities and additional public housing in the neighborhood has
increased the need for more services targeted towards basic needs.
ƒ
Lack of youth employment and leadership opportunities. Participants reported that there are few
opportunities for youth to work, volunteer, and be involved in the neighborhood. Such opportunities are
important for leadership development for youth.
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned were pedestrian safety and traffic. Participants noted other challenges
faced by children, youth, and families including pedestrian safety and traffic issues.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Restore funding to community centers that provide services, recreational activities, and
community meeting space. Participants were adamant that community centers serve an important role
in the neighborhood by providing needed services and recreational activities for children, youth, and
families, and by serving as a community meeting space. Participants suggested that the city secure funding
to restore a community center in the neighborhood and ensure that much needed services continue to be
offered.
ƒ
Provide low-cost child care services. Participants reported that they need more options for affordable
child care services, especially for children under three-years-old.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 41
ƒ
Affordable summer programs for youth. Participants expressed that they would like to see more
summer programs available for youth.
Future Priority Areas
Participants were particularly interested in
summer programs that offer academic
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
enrichment and physical activities.
and the top four were…
ƒ
Youth leadership development and
mentoring programs. As mentioned earlier,
participants suggested offering leadership
development opportunities for youth in the
neighborhood. Additionally, participants
expressed a desire to provide youth with more
male role models.
ƒ
Other future needs requested by
participants include expanding library
and public swimming pool hours, and
creating a neighborhood newsletter.
Participants suggested that the city expand the
library, add more computers, and extend
library hours. Additionally, participants
would also like to see the public pool extend its
hours on weekends, and a neighborhood
newsletter to share information.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
ƒ Out of school time (79%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Early Care and Education (63%). Child
care for children age five and under,
including preschool.
ƒ Family Support (37%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Health and Wellness (37%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
Appendix C - 42
Tenderloin Neighborhood
Hosted by Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Center
January 20, 2011
Session Overview
Number
Percent
Participants identified as...*
Parents
18
(75%)
Concerned Community Members
3
(13%)
Other Member of a CBO
1
(4%)
Service Provider Public Agency
2
(8%)
Latino/Hispanic
18
(75%)
Middle Eastern
Black/African American
4
1
(17%)
(4%)
Multiracial/multiethnic
1
(4%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
A neighborhood meeting was held at the
Tenderloin Neighborhood Development
Center and was attended by 25 people.
Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. Seventy-five percent of
participants identified as parents,
comprising the majority of the session.
The meeting was led in English and
Spanish and 76 percent of the
supplemental surveys for this meeting
were completed in Spanish.
Language of Supplemental Survey
Participants then engaged in a guided
discussion regarding the helpful existing
English
(24%)
6
programs available, barriers, challenges,
*One participant did not respond
and future needs for children youth and
families in the Tenderloin neighborhood. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by
meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least
frequently mentioned.
Spanish
19
(76%)
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Participants valued afterschool programs that provide a safe place for children
and youth while engaging them in tutoring and a range of fun activities.
ƒ
Academic support and homework help. Participants noted that programs providing academic support
and homework assistance for their children were very helpful.
ƒ
Other helpful programs mentioned were child care services. Participants explained that child care
programs for young children were helpful, although difficult to obtain.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited youth programs. Participants agreed that the existing afterschool programs in the neighborhood
are accessible and offer high quality services. However, participants are interested in additional resources
such as youth sports programs which are currently not available in the Tenderloin.
ƒ
Limited child care services. Similarly, participants expressed the need for additional child care services
in the neighborhood. Programs for young children, particularly those under three-years-old, participants
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 43
reported, are useful, but not available for families because they are either difficult to obtain or located far
away. Participants noted that there is a generally lack of openings in most affordable child care programs.
ƒ
Other barriers mentioned were limited program hours and lack of Spanish language capacity for
programs in the Tenderloin. Participants find it difficult to access programs with limited hours and
would like services to be offered during accessible times such as weekends. Participants noted that most
programs with Spanish language capacity are located in the Mission District, and that they would like to
see more programs with Spanish language capacity offered in the Tenderloin.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Safety issues. Safety was echoed by many participants as one of the greatest challenges and concerns of
the Tenderloin community. Participants shared their concerns for safety on the streets as well as on
violence on public transit. Some participants also mentioned that illegal drugs are openly sold on the
streets.
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned were limited bus service in the neighborhood and poor public
sanitation. Participants noted other challenges including limited bus service to help youth get to
afterschool programs, and quality-of-life issues such as public urination.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
More youth programs and the expansion of
existing youth programs. Participants were
very satisfied with certain existing afterschool
program available in the Tenderloin. They
emphasized the need to continue and expand
support and resources for such programs.
Additionally, several parents expressed the need
for a neighborhood-based sports program for
youth. Participants noted the lack of outdoor
sports programs in the Tenderloin.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Health & Wellness (68%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Early Care & Education (60%). Child care
for children age five and under, including
preschool.
ƒ Out of school time (56%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
Low-cost child care services. Participants
support, enrichment, and recreation
expressed the need for low-cost child care
opportunities.
services. They noted the lack of availability for
most of the existing subsidized child care programs in the city.
ƒ
Tutoring and academic support for youth. Participants would like to see more programs in the
Tenderloin that provide academic support for their children. Particularly, participants were interested in
programs that help youth graduate from high school and prepare them for college.
ƒ
Academic support, English language, and computer classes for parents. Participants mentioned a
need for English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, as well as GED classes for parents aiming to finish
high school. Additionally, participants noted a need for classes for parents to gain computer skills.
ƒ
Other service needs mentioned by parents include literacy support for their younger children,
transportation for youth, and scholarships for private schools. Participants noted the need to help
younger children learn to read, transportation assistance in order for youth to get to afterschool programs
located outside of the Tenderloin, and scholarship assistance for private schools.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 44
Treasure Island
Hosted by Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative (TIHDI)
on January 6, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Providers, CBO
4
(40%)
Parents
3
(30%)
Concerned Community Members
1
(10%)
Other Member of a CBO
1
(10%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
1
(10%)
Black/African American
4
(40%)
White
Latino/Hispanic
3
1
(30%)
(10%)
1
1
(10%)
(10%)
9
(90%)
1
(10%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Other
Multiracial/multiethnic
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
Spanish
A neighborhood input session was held at
Treasure Island Homeless Development
Initiative and was attended by 10 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. The majority of
those in attendance were representatives of
community-based organizations (CBOs) who
comprised 40 percent of the session.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
of children youth and families on Treasure
Island. Below is a summary of the key ideas and
themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas
are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Afterschool programs. Participants voiced that afterschool programs allow parents to work while their
children are supervised and that afterschool programs help youth stay out of trouble.
ƒ
Youth employment and empowerment programs. Several participants stated that youth employment
programs provide youth with summer employment and activities which keep youth out of trouble.
ƒ
Child care services. Participants stated that access to child care for parents who live on Treasure Island is
helpful, especially for parents who also work on the island.
ƒ
Access to Food Pantry. Participants praised the availability of the food pantry.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Transportation isolation. Participants expressed that transportation to access services on Treasure
Island and to access services off the island is a challenge. Furthermore, they mentioned transporting their
children to schools in San Francisco is a major challenge because of the distance, and since many parents
on the island do not have access to transportation, this makes it difficult for them to attend school related
activities. The mechanical break-down of buses places further difficulty on families getting children to
schools and activities outside Treasure Island.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 45
ƒ
Lack of community unity. Participants felt some families do not want to access services and some
families are not even aware of some of the services offered on the island. They also believe some of these
families may not be accessing services because families are not coming together and unifying.
ƒ
Limited service options for youth. Participants voiced that youth on the island feel isolated and get
bored because there are only a small number of places to go.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Transportation and isolation. Participants once again noted that transportation to access services for
their children to attend school is a major challenge because they are isolated from San Francisco.
ƒ
Duplication of services. Participants felt that the organizations providing services to children, youth and
families in the island are duplicated and uncoordinated. This is most noticeable for services provided to
youth where more coordination is needed.
ƒ
Limited opportunities for community building and strengthening. Participants stated it is difficult
for families to come together and participate in activities. Parents called for more community
strengthening activities.
ƒ
Gentrification. Participants also voiced that because of new developments on Treasure Island, they
cannot access recreational spaces. This further limits the number of activities their families and children
can engage in.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Violence prevention and intervention.
Since youth have limited service options,
Participants felt that violence prevention
programs centered on youth and families is
critical in order to avoid the formation of
gangs and violence.
Youth employment and empowerment
programs. Participants also commented
that youth need vocational training and
opportunities for employment in order to
stay out of trouble and prevent violence.
Participants also stressed that youth are
“outgrowing” the island and need more
activities and programs.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top three were…
ƒ Out of school time (80%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
ƒ Early Care and Education (50%). Child care for
children age 5 and under, including preschool.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention (50%).
Programs that respond to and prevent violence
among youth.
ƒ
Opportunities for community building and strengthening. Participants stressed that more
community-building opportunities need to be provided for families in order to create more neighborhood
unity. Participants also mentioned wanting opportunities to lead activities to engage their children and
other families.
ƒ
Other programs and services mentioned include programs for transitional age youth, family
support and extended hours of existing programs. Participants also mentioned they would like to see
more programs and services for transitional age youth and family support for families with children older
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 46
teens. Finally, they mentioned the need for extended hours for afterschool programs and other services as
participants reported that most programs do not have evening or weekend hours.
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 25 and up
7
(88%)
Ages 10-13
5
(63%)
Ages 16-17
4
(50%)
Ages 14-15
4
(50%)
Ages 18-24
4
(50%)
Ages 6-9
4
(50%)
Ages 3-5
3
(38%)
Ages 0-2
3
(38%)
8
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
Child care programs
7
(88%)
Community-based organizations
6
(75%)
San Francisco Unified School District
6
(75%)
Elementary schools
6
(75%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
6
(75%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
5
(63%)
and their Families
High schools
5
(63%)
Middle schools
5
(63%)
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
5
(63%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
1
(13%)
Recreation
Other
4
(50%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Family Support
6
(86%)
Transitional Youth
4
(57%)
Out of School Time
3
(43%)
Youth Employment
3
(43%)
Early Care & Education
3
(43%)
Youth Empowerment
3
(43%)
Specialized Teen
3
(43%)
Health & Wellness
2
(29%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
2
(29%)
The majority (88 percent) of participants in
attendance reported that their CBO serves
those older than 25. Additionally, 63 percent
of CBOs reported that they serve children
between the ages of 10 and 13. Half of the
CBO participants reported serving youth
ages 6-17. All of the CBOs reported working
with parents.
Most CBOs reported collaborating with
child care programs in their work.
Additionally, 75 percent of CBOs reported
collaborating with other CBOs, and city
departments such as the Human Services
Agency and San Francisco Unified School
District. Collaboration with DCYF, high
schools, middle schools, and the Department
of Public Health was also common and was
mentioned by 63 percent of respondents.
Participants reported that they were involved
in a variety of DCYF program areas. Most
CBOs reported that they were involved in
family support. Over half (57 percent) also
reported being involved in transitional
youth. A notable proportion (43 percent)
reported that they were involved in out of
school time, youth employment, early care
and education, specialized teen and youth
empowerment. Participants also mentioned
being involved in program areas regarding
violence prevention and intervention, and
heath and wellness.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 47
Visitacion Valley Neighborhood
Hosted by Visitacion Valley Citizen’s Advisory Committee of the
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on January 11, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Concerned Community Members
7
58%
Service Providers, CBO
2
17%
Service Providers, Public Agency
1
8%
Other Member of Public Agency
1
8%
Parents
1
8%
White
5
42%
Black/African American
Asian
2
2
17%
17%
Multiracial/multiethnic
2
17%
Latino/Hispanic
1
8%
12
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A neighborhood input session was held at the
Visitacion Valley Citizen’s Advisory Committee
of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
and was attended by 12 people. Participants
completed a supplemental survey highlighting
demographic characteristics and future priority
areas for programming for children, youth and
families. The majority of those in attendance
were concerned community members and
comprised 58 percent of the session. The
meeting was led in English and all supplemental
surveys were completed in English
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
of children youth and families in Visitacion
Valley. Below is a summary of the key ideas and
themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas
are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Environmentally focused outdoor programming and “green” programming. Participants
mentioned how outdoor and environmentally focused programs have benefitted the community including
children, youth and families. Participants mentioned that often these programs have violence prevention,
nutrition and college preparation components. Participants also voiced support for environmental
education programs and community gardens.
ƒ
Youth programming including youth employment and internships. Youth employment programs
and mentoring were mentioned by participants as being helpful. Additionally, participants mentioned that
such programs could promote civic engagement and youth empowerment.
ƒ
Other program areas included child care, mental health, arts programs, sports and trips for
youth to learn about the city. Participants mentioned other existing program areas including child care,
mental health programming, arts programming, and access to government programs for non-native
English speakers, physical activity and sports, and trips to other parts of the city.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 48
Barriers and challenges facing children youth and families
ƒ
Lack of coordination and collaboration among existing programs. Participants expressed that there
is currently a lack of coordination and collaboration among existing programs and that they felt there is
need more information. Additionally they mentioned centralizing information about existing programs to
prevent underutilization because some other programs could benefit from more collaboration.
ƒ
Lack of resources. Participants expressed the need for expanding resources, particularly funding.
Participants recounted instances of programs are that were cut and or were not implemented despite the
demand. Participants also expressed the desire to keep funding community-based and to ensure that
children from Visitacion Valley have access to programs.
ƒ
Difficult to do outreach. Participants, particularly from community-based organizations (CBOs),
reported that outreach was challenging for programs not affiliated directly with a particular school.
Participants mentioned a need for greater awareness of services offered in Visitacion Valley.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Afterschool and summer programs
with an environmental focus.
Participants said that they wanted to use
the natural resources that Visitacion Valley
has to offer, like San Bruno Mountain and
John McLaren Park. Participants
additionally noted environmental
education programs
Increased arts specific programs for
youth. Participants mentioned that arts
specific programs are lacking in Visitacion
Valley.
Inclusion of youth in new program
development. Participants mentioned
that it would be helpful to include youth in
the development of new programs.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top four were…
ƒ Out of school time (42%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
ƒ Early Care and Education (42%). Child care for
children age 5 and under, including preschool.
ƒ Family Support (42%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent classes
and other services that strengthen families.
ƒ Health & Wellness (42%). Programs to promote
mental and physical health.
Other future program areas include parent support groups, inclusion of intergenerational
families, language classes, and afterschool and weekend programs. Support groups for new parents
and play groups were also mentioned by participants as future priority areas. Participants also noted the
presence of intergenerational and extended families in Visitacion Valley and the desire to develop more
programs that integrate grandparents and seniors. Language classes, afterschool and weekend programs
were also highlighted as key future program areas.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 49
Chinese Parents
Hosted by Chinese for Affirmative Action on January 14, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Parents
5
62%
Concerned Community
Members
3
38%
8
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Asian
Language of Supplemental Survey
A parent meeting was hosted by Chinese for
Affirmative Action and was attended by eight
people. Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for children,
youth and families. Parents comprised the majority
of the session and 62 percent of participants
identified as parents. Concerned community
members comprised 38 percent of the meeting. The
meeting was conducted in Cantonese and all
participants completed a survey in Cantonese.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs available,
barriers, challenges, and future needs for their children and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and
themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently
mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Cantonese
8
100%
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Centralized locations that have resources to help families. Participants noted that having a
centralized location for resources, such as a community recreational center, was helpful in that it provided
families a place to go to get wrap around services. Participants also highlighted the benefits of bilingual
staff to provide referrals and explain applications for other programs.
ƒ
Afterschool and recreational activities for elementary and middle school students. Participants
expressed that afterschool school programs and recreational activities have been helpful for children and
families.
ƒ
Programming for youth including academic support and skill building opportunities. Participants
mentioned that programs for youth with skill-building, volunteer and leadership opportunities have been
helpful for children and families. Tutoring programs and academic support for older youth were also
noted as helpful programs.
ƒ
Other helpful program areas included parent development classes and child care. Parenting skills
training and classes were reported to help parents develop effective communication and appropriate
methods of discipline. Parents additionally noted that child care had also been helpful.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Language barriers prevent families from receiving information about programs. Participants
emphasized the language barrier for Chinese speaking families in terms of verbal and written
communication because it prevents them from obtaining information. Participants noted that there was
often a lack of bilingual staff that could help monolingual new immigrants.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 50
ƒ
Lack of resources. Participants noted that there were insufficient resources for families from city
departments and from community-based organizations. Participants also felt that these resources were
not distributed equally among the neighborhoods of San Francisco.
ƒ
Limited availability of services and programs. Participants highlighted that they encountered barriers
to accessing programs such as inaccessible hours of operation and limited availability. Participants noted
that a lack of qualified and experienced staff impacts the availability of programs.
ƒ
Safety was also expressed as a barrier. Participants also felt that safety presented a barrier to accessing
services and programs.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Cost of private education for children. Participants highlighted challenges posed by the high cost of
private education due to reduced financial aid and school funding. Participants also mentioned that these
challenges were exacerbated further by overall concerns about the difficult economic climate and job loss.
ƒ
Lack of mental health services for children, youth and families. Participants felt that there is a lack of
culturally appropriate mental health services. Participants also noted that stress on families is high due to
economic hardship and job loss, and that families are in need of mental health services more than ever.
ƒ
Violence and safety concerns in school, on public transit and in the community. Participants
expressed concerns about safety in their communities, violence in schools and on public transportation.
ƒ
Cross cultural interactions and communication. Participants felt that interactions and communication
across cultures was a challenge. Participants noted that these interactions were challenges for children
both in schools and for families in communities. Participants noted that racial tension exists in their
communities which further contributes to the challenges they face interacting with people of other
cultures.
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned were truancy, reduced academic support services,
intergenerational communication and substandard living conditions. Participants noted that
truancy and school dropout rates were a challenge for youth and their families. Participants additionally
mentioned that reduced academic support services like counseling and case management posed challenges
for children and youth. Intergenerational communication between children and parents was also noted as
a challenge for families. Additionally challenges of substandard living conditions, including limited space,
were noted by meeting participants.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Afterschool programs for elementary school age and middle school age children. Participants
expressed the need for afterschool programs for children in elementary school and middle school.
Cultural programs, language support tutoring programs, and recreational activities were highlighted as
specific programmatic needs for their children. Additionally participants would like to see health and
wellness programs for young children integrated into other programs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 51
ƒ
Other future priority program areas
include resource centers, bilingual and
bicultural programs, and community
safety programs. Participants mentioned
that their future priority areas included
resource centers, bilingual Cantonese speaking
staff and bicultural programs. Additionally
participants want to see community safety
programs to address violence and safety in
their communities.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top two were…
ƒ Out of School Time (88%). Programs
providing activities, tutoring and enrichment
programs outside of school hours.
ƒ Family Support (75%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
Appendix C - 52
Public School Parents: Latino Parents
Hosted by Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco, Latino Parent
Group on December 10, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Parents
4
44%
Concerned Community
Members
2
22%
Service Providers, CBO
1
11%
Other Member of a CBO
2
22%
9
100%
9
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Latino/Hispanic
Language of Supplemental Survey
Spanish
A parent meeting was hosted by the Parents for
Public Schools of San Francisco, Latino Parent
Group and was attended by nine people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. Parents comprised
the majority of the session and 44 percent of
participants identified as parents. Participants also
identified as concerned community members,
members of community-based organizations
(CBOs) and a CBO service provider. All
participants reported being Latino and the meeting
was held in Spanish.
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers, challenges, and future needs for their children and
families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are
ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Academic support and tutoring for children of all ages, including children with special needs.
Parents expressed that afterschool school programs focused on tutoring are extremely helpful for children
and families. Tutoring programs give children academic support independent of a parent’s educational
background, and allow parents to work longer hours. Parents also noted that these types of programs are
important for families with children with special needs as they often fall behind academically.
Additionally, parents mentioned the need in their communities to have academic summer programs.
ƒ
Sports and summer programs to motivate older youth and keep them engaged. Participants
highlighted the benefits of sports programs for older youth in that they provide motivation to maintain
higher grades and keep them engaged and off the streets. Summer programs were also mentioned to
engage youth particularly during the summer when parents noted that violence increases. Sports
programs and academic summer programs were also noted to prevent violence in their communities.
ƒ
Parent support groups in public schools. Participants noted that through school-based parent support
groups they learned about the school system and how to better support their children in school.
Additionally, participants noted that parent support groups provide parents with a forum to pass along
helpful information and get advice from other parents.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 53
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Lack of information from and difficulty communicating with staff at children’s school.
Participants stressed that parents are often unaware of what is available at their child’s school and are
unable to communicate with school representatives and teachers. Parents noted that they struggle with
communication because it is mostly in English and is predominantly disseminated via the internet, and
many do not have access to a computer. Participants expressed that parent support groups are the most
effective way to get information about their children’s school.
ƒ
Lack of funding in schools. Participants noted that there is a lack of funding at the school level which has
prevented many children from accessing programs and services.
ƒ
Other barriers to accessing services include a lack of qualified school staff, lack of outreach for
parents. Participants noted that a barrier to accessing services is a lack of qualified school staff to work
with children who are struggling in school. Additionally, parents described the elimination of a successful
program that connected Spanish speaking parents to schools and provided a source of contact and
communication.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Language and lack of cultural competency of school staff is a challenge for Spanish-speaking
families. Parents reported that they could not communicate with school staff and teachers which
prevented their involvement in their children’s education. Additionally, parents reported that in their
experience ESL teachers lacked cultural sensitivity and cultural competence.
ƒ
Violence and gang activity among youth. Participants expressed concerns about violence and gang
activity. Parents were particularly concerned about the safety of their children and youth during the
summer months and during vacations because there were not sufficient activities to keep youth engaged
and “off the streets.”
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned were the economy, immigration status, racial tensions in
neighborhoods where parents lived, and the quality of teachers. Participants mentioned that the
economy was a challenge to the wellbeing of children and families. Immigration status and racial tensions
were noted as challenges. The quality of teachers
Future Priority Areas
was also noted as a challenge.
Looking to the future
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ
ƒ Transitional Youth (80%). Collaboration
ƒ
Programs for transitional age youth,
especially job training. Parents expressed that
transitional age youth need programs that will
provide them with direction and support.
Participants noted that such programs should
include job training, which will help youth
become independent and successful. Youth
employment programs were mentioned as being
beneficial to help youth obtain experience and
future employment.
More parent support groups and
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
with the Mayor’s Office and Youth
Commission to meet the needs of transitional
youth in San Francisco.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(50%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
ƒ Out of School Time (40%). Programs
providing activities, tutoring and enrichment
programs outside of school hours.
Appendix C - 54
opportunities for parents to interact. Parents also voiced that school based parent support groups are
needed to share information and better support their children’s education. Participants expressed that such
programs would keep parents connected to their child’s school and stay informed.
ƒ
More tutoring programs. Parents reported that their children needed more opportunities for tutoring
and academic support.
ƒ
Mental health and wellness for children and families who experience violence. Participants
reported that future priorities should include mental health programs for children and youth who are
facing family issues or violence, both in the community or at home.
ƒ
Other future priority program areas include expanded afterschool programs and college
preparation programs. Participants mentioned that their future priority areas included more afterschool
programs, particularly sports and music programs. Additionally participants noted that programs that
teach youth and families applying to college were needed to help navigate the college application process
and successfully complete a post-secondary education.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 55
Parents: Parent Voices
Hosted by Parent Voices on November 19, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants as...
8
89%
1
11%
Multiracial/multiethnic
Asian
3
33%
2
22%
Latino/Hispanic
2
22%
Pacific Islander
1
11%
Decline to state
1
11%
English
8
89%
Spanish
1
11%
Parents
Other*
Self-Reported Ethnicity**
Language of Supplemental Survey
*Other indicated “Grandparent”
**Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A parent meeting was held at Parent Voices and
was attended by nine people. Participants
completed a supplemental survey highlighting
demographic characteristics and future priority
areas for programming for children, youth and
families. The majority of meeting participants
identified as parents (89 percent), while one
participant identified as a grandparent. The
meeting was led in English and 89 percent of the
supplemental surveys for this meeting were
completed in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the helpful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs
for their children, youth and families. Below is a
summary of the key ideas and themes identified
by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in
the summaries from the most frequently
mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Family support services. Participants identified parent support programs, including parenting classes
and family support services, as being beneficial for children and families. In addition, participants noted
that parent support programs give parents the opportunity to teach and learn from one another.
ƒ
Mental health services for parents. In addition to family support services, participants highlighted that
programs that provide mental health support to parents have been vital in the community. These
programs provide parents with therapy, enabling them to address stress-related issues.
ƒ
Subsidies for child care. As the cost for child care increases, meeting participants stressed the
importance of providing families with subsidies for child care and respite care. Participants emphasized
that subsidies for child care prevent families from slipping into poverty. Moreover, participants stated that
Stage 3 child care provided through CalWorks has been an essential support for families.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Location of services and access to transportation. Meeting participants pointed out that the location
of services is a barrier for most families trying to access services. Participants also commented that families
have a difficult time accessing transportation and commuting to obtain services. Meeting participants
proposed that the creation of satellite services would help families access services they need in their own
communities.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 56
ƒ
Limited availability of culturally competent services. Meeting participants expressed that the limited
availability of culturally competent services prevents families from accessing services they need.
Additionally, the lack of language capacity, particularly in Spanish, in programs is also a major barrier for
families.
ƒ
Lack of resources and program funding. Participants noted that limited funding has impacted many
programs, especially when it comes to program size and capacity. Participants also voiced that programs
do not have enough space and staff to accommodate the needs of clients.
ƒ
Lack of community support. Participants voiced that isolation, fear of judgment, and lack of community
support are major challenges for new parents. To begin addressing these challenges, participants felt that
more supports specifically for new parents are needed in the community.
ƒ
Immigration status. A major barrier highlighted by meeting participants was immigration status.
Participants commented that immigrant families fear accessing services and as a result lack knowledge
about services available in the community.
ƒ
Duplication of services. Participants reported that the duplication of services provided by community
organizations is an additional barrier as it prevents streamlining of service delivery.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Child care services for children under three years old. Meeting participants voiced that the lack of
child care for children under three is a major challenge for parents in San Francisco due to high costs and
requirements for programs.
ƒ
Lack of family friendly transportation. Participants also revealed that for many families San Francisco
is not a family-friendly city, especially when it comes to public transportation. Participants suggested that
MUNI should coordinate with school schedules in order to make transportation more accessible to
children and parents. Additional challenges parents face with public transportation include breaking
down strollers, and simply not having enough transportation.
ƒ
Lack of afterschool programs. Afterschool programs are crucial for keeping children engaged in
recreational activities and academics, but as meeting participants expressed not all students have access to
these programs. Meeting participants explained that there are limited afterschool programs, especially for
middle school age children.
ƒ
Criminalization of youth. Participants emphasized that youth are being criminalized and this is a
challenge for families in the city.
ƒ
Truancy presents issues and challenges for youth and families. Meeting participants felt that parents
and students need more support to combat issues of truancy. Participants stated that with more support
children would feel encouraged to attend school.
ƒ
Employment and economic challenges. Finding employment is a major challenge for parents,
especially in a difficult economic climate. Participants felt that employment is a major issue for families
and youth in San Francisco. Additionally, participants suggested that employment for bilingual
individuals needs to increase so that these individuals can take advantage of their language skills.
ƒ
Lack of cultural competency in schools. Participants felt that school administrators and school staff do
not know how to connect and work with students of different cultures and backgrounds. Participants felt
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 57
that training around cultural sensitivity is needed in schools for administrators to learn how to understand
the needs of diverse students.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Family support services. Participants voiced
the need for more family services that include
free transportation to schools, parenting classes
and parent support groups. Additionally,
participants called for more mental health
services for parents. Meeting participants also
expressed a need for services that help families
on multiple levels and that help families through
the entire process of obtaining services.
Increased access to subsidized housing.
Participants reported that there is great need for
subsidized housing among families and
transitional age youth.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Early Care & Education (89%). Child care
for children age five and under, including
preschool.
ƒ Out of School Time (44%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Family Support (44%). Programs that help
ƒ
Child care services. In addition to family
support services and housing, participants
stressed that child care, including respite care,
are needed in the community.
ƒ
Medical care and dental care services. Participants felt that high quality medical care services are not
available for low-income families. Often, to access high quality services, families need to fight and
advocate for themselves.
ƒ
Services for undocumented youth. Participants also felt that services focusing on undocumented youth
are needed. Mainly, participants stated that undocumented youth should have access to scholarships.
ƒ
Increase recreational classes for low income families. Meeting participants emphasized the need for
recreational classes, including art classes, for low income families in the neighborhood.
ƒ
Encourage cultural sensitivity when working with immigrant families. Participants stressed the
importance of providers being culturally sensitive when enforcing Child Protective Services (CPS)
guidelines, especially with immigrant families as CPS records can follow parents an indefinite period of
time.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
Appendix C - 58
Parents: Pacific Islander/Samoan Community
Hosted by Samoan Community Development Center on
January 25, 2011
Session Overview
Number
Percent
Participants identified as...*
Parents
5
(31%)
Youth
5
(31%)
Concerned Community Members
2
(13%)
Service Providers, CBO
2
(13%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
2
(13%)
15
(94%)
1
(6%)
16
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Pacific Islander
Asian
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A parent meeting was held at the Samoan
Community Development Center. The
meeting was attended by 16 people.
Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. About a third of the
participants identified as either parents
or youth (31percent each). Other
participants included concerned
community members and service
providers. The meeting was led in
English and all of the supplemental
surveys for this meeting were completed
in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the challenges facing children, youth and families
and future needs of the Pacific Islander community in San Francisco. Below is a summary of the key ideas and
themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently
mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Greatest challenges faced by children, youth and families
Participants spoke at length about the greatest challenges faced by Samoan children, youth, and families living
in San Francisco, as highlighted below.
ƒ
Gang violence and substance abuse. Participants reported that gang violence and substance use are
challenges faced by youth. Participants mentioned that there are not enough activities in the community
to engage youth, leading many to seek alternative and harmful activities such as alcohol and drug abuse,
and gang involvement. Participants noted that many parents are also facing issues with substance use.
ƒ
Lack of family stability. Participants also noted challenges posed by broken homes and unsupportive
family environments which also exacerbate challenges of gang violence and substance abuse. Participants
observed that the divorce rate is high in the community, which in turn, is driven by unemployment and
lack of family support. Youth, participants noted, are not supported in their homes and they seek
acceptance from gangs and resort to alcohol and drug use.
ƒ
Poverty and unemployment. Participants noted that the unemployment rate is high in the community
which has taken a tremendous toll on family stability. Participants added that a lack of job opportunities is
a major challenge for many individuals trying to support their families.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 59
ƒ
Lack of educational attainment. Participants reported that youth are not graduating from school and
pursuing higher educational opportunities.
ƒ
Lack of role models. Participants observed that there is a lack of community role models for Samoan
youth, and that the community is not well-represented, in terms of jobs, in the schools, public agencies,
and in the government. Participants expressed a need for more role models, such as teachers, counselors,
and individuals who work in government and public agencies, people who share their culture, who have
attained higher education, and who are serving the community. Participants added that in addition to
serving as an important role model, teachers and counselors who share and understand the Samoan
culture are able to better serve and guide their youth.
ƒ
Environment that imposes judgments and stereotypes of the culture. Participants expressed
frustration about being judged simply because of their culture. Samoans, participants explained, are often
stereotyped as being “bullies.”
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Family support services. Participants
expressed the need for family support services to
ensure that families are strong and stable. The
cornerstone of the community, participants
shared, is the family, the home. Participants
noted that family stability is strongly tied to
cultural identity and needs to be heavily
supported. Whether through parenting classes
or marriage counseling, participants noted that
programs for the Samoan community should
focus on strengthening the family and the home
environment.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(64%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
ƒ Youth Employment (50%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and
job experience.
ƒ Family Support (43%). Programs that help
Culturally-sensitive wrap around services.
parents raise their children, such as parent
Participants discussed the need for culturally
classes and other services that strengthen
sensitive wrap-around services that addresses the
families.
multiple needs of children, youth, and families.
Participants mentioned the need for funding for
Samoan churches to provide culturally sensitive programs to the community. Coordination between the
home, schools, church and other organizations would be important in ensuring that families are receiving
the services and support they need.
ƒ
Community building and cultural programs. Participants emphasized the need for programs that
strengthen the community as a whole and that encourage community members to work together to
address the needs of children, youth and families. Participants mentioned that programs which tie culture
to services would be particularly successful in the Samoan community. Cultural identity is an important
part of the community.
ƒ
Leadership and job opportunities. Participants would like to see more leadership opportunities in city
government and agencies for Pacific Islanders. As mentioned earlier, participants noted that there is a
need for Samoan teachers in public schools to serve as role models for youth.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 60
ƒ
Educational support and scholarships. Participants voiced that families need educational scholarships
and financial assistance for college. Parents expressed that they want their children to attain higher
education so they can become leaders, role models and representatives of their community. Participants
added that parent involvement in schools is also important and that parents need support and
encouragement to be more involved.
ƒ
Community empowerment and advocacy. Participants discussed the need for capacity building for
community members to become advocates and leaders. Participants expressed the need for training and
workshops where church leaders, community members, and youth can become informed of the political
process, learn grant writing so that they can create culturally relevant programs, and gain advocacy skills so
that they can be empowered to have their voices heard. Participants emphasized the importance of
empowering the community to help themselves.
ƒ
Other service needs mentioned by participants included translation services, academic tutoring,
and computer access. Translation services, academic tutoring and access computer were also noted as
needs by participants.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 61
Private School Parents
Hosted by the School for the Epiphany on January 19, 2011
A parent meeting for private school parents
citywide was held at the School for the Epiphany
Number Percent
through a partnership with the BASIC Fund, an
Participants identified as...*
organization that aims to help low-income
5
71%
families afford the cost of private school in the
Parents
Bay Area. Participants each completed a survey
1
14%
Concerned Community Member
highlighting demographic characteristics and
1
14%
Other Member of a CBO
future priority program areas for children, youth
Self-Reported Ethnicity
and their families. Among the seven
Latino/Hispanic
6
86%
participants, 71 percent identified as parents,
Asian
1
14%
and 14 percent (n=1) identified as a concerned
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
community member or a community-based
organization (CBO) service provider. Nearly all of the participants (86 percent) self-reported their ethnicity as
Latino/Hispanic, and one person (14 percent) identified as Asian.
Session Overview
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs for children youth and families citywide. Below is a summary of the key ideas and
themes identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently
mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Sports programs for elementary and middle school age children. Participants identified that sports
programs have been most helpful for young children in kindergarten through sixth grade. One participant
also shared that these programs could also serve pre-kindergarteners.
ƒ
Out of school arts programs. Participants reported that afterschool and weekend programs that offer
arts programming have been most helpful. One respondent specified that art projects which focus on
beautifying the community, such as mosaic and mural projects, are helpful.
ƒ
Subsidized child care with flexible, extended hours. Providing subsidized daycare for children under
five and afterschool care for elementary age children were noted to be helpful services. Programs with
extended hours after school and on weekends are especially important, as are programs that offer drop-in
services.
ƒ
Other helpful programs mentioned were music and cooking programs, and recreation centers.
Participants described out of school activities, including music and cooking classes as being helpful.
Recreation centers were also identified.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited knowledge and difficulty accessing information about programs and services.
Participants expressed difficulty finding information about programs and resources, and suggested
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 62
establishing a comprehensive or centralized resource for accessing information. In particular, participants
referenced mono-lingual families who face linguistic barriers, making it difficult to access information.
ƒ
Deterioration of community infrastructure. Participants reported that community parks and fields are
not being maintained, noting that they are filled with trash and gopher holes. Participants also identified
that community parks and gardens are not welcoming for youth because they lack youth oriented activities
or resources.
ƒ
Lack of affordable programs and services. Parents denounced the high cost of out of school
programs, including summer programs and sports programs. One participant specifically cited the lack of
available subsidies for such programs.
Challenges faced by children youth and families
ƒ
Safety in the community. Participants shared that safety is a salient issue in the community. Parents
explained that the threat of gang violence makes them uncomfortable allowing their children to roam
freely in the neighborhood. Drug activity was also a noted safety concern. Participants mentioned that the
police are ineffective with their policing practices, doing little to keep the violence and at bay.
ƒ
Police are disconnected from the community. Participants reported that police are not engaged or
integrated with the community, which leaves residents feeling disconnected.
ƒ
High housing costs impacts families’ ability to afford services. Participants reported that low- and
middle-income families pay a large portion of their income toward housing, making it difficult to afford
programs for children and families. Parents added that middle-income families may not qualify for
financial assistance, making it difficult for them to access services.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
A centralized place to access information.
Parents suggested creating a centralized source
of information about resources and services.
This might take the form of a manual or
guidebook, or this could be a resource center
that is accessible to community members.
Housing this information in libraries is
another option, provided the library has
extended hours of service.
Physical spaces or events that bring the
community together. Parents voiced a need
for physical spaces, such as a neighborhood
community center, where youth and families
can gather to socialize and engage in a variety
of services. Community events and festivals
were also suggested as a way to bring the
community together. One participant
requested programs that enhance youth civic
participation.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top four were…
ƒ Out of school time (57%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(43%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
ƒ Youth Employment (43%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and job
experience.
ƒ Health & Wellness (43%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
Appendix C - 63
ƒ
Other priority programs mentioned include employment programs, afterschool tutoring
programs, and affordable summer programs. Parents mentioned that job programs for youth, and
free afterschool tutoring are important future priority areas. One participant also mentioned the need for
affordable summer programs for families.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 64
Public School Parents
Hosted by Second District of the California State PTA, San Francisco
on January 22, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Parents
11
79%
Other Member of a CBO
1
7%
Service Provider, Public Agency
1
7%
Member of Policy Group
1
7%
Black/African American
4
33%
Asian
Latino/Hispanic
3
2
25%
17%
White
2
17%
Multiracial/multiethnic
1
8%
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
*2 people did not respond
A parent meeting for public school parents was
hosted by the Second District of the California
State PTA, San Francisco, and was attended by
14 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
Parents comprised the majority of the session
(79 percent). A member of a community-based
organization (CBO), a service provider from a
public agency, and a member of a policy group
were also in attendance. Attendees identified as
Black/African American (33 percent), Asian (25
percent), Latino/Hispanic (17 percent), White
(17 percent) and Multiracial/Multiethnic (8
percent).
Parents then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the helpful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs for their children and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned
to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Community-based out of school time programs for older youth. Participants noted that communitybased programs for older youth, particularly for male youth, were helpful in engaging these youth outside
of school. In particular, sports programs and teen drop-in centers were highlighted by participants as
helpful types of programs.
ƒ
Youth employment programs. Participants highlighted the benefits of programs that provide
employment opportunities to youth. Additionally, participants emphasized the benefits of such programs
that allowed youth to work in their communities.
ƒ
Other helpful programs mentioned were in-school wellness programs, summer enrichment
programs, and collaborations with the Parks and Recreation department. Parents also noted that
school-based wellness programs were helpful for youth in middle school and high school. Summer
enrichment programs were also highlighted for older youth. Additionally, collaborations with the Parks
and Recreation department were noted as high quality programs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 65
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited program capacity. Participants mentioned that certain programs have limited space and
capacity. Parents noted that particularly for youth employment programs there was not enough space to
meet the demands of the many youth who wanted to participate in the program.
ƒ
Lack of information about services, particularly for non-English speaking families. Participants
expressed that, at times, parents are not aware of services that are available for children and families
throughout the city. Participants mentioned that those speaking languages other than English and recent
immigrant families have additional challenges receiving information about programs and services.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
High cost of raising children in San Francisco. Parents reported they were concerned about the cost of
living in San Francisco for families and the impact that this has on family stability. Participants also noted
that many families move and leave the city once their children reach school age.
ƒ
Children have to travel long distances on unsafe public transportation. Participants highlighted
that many children and youth rely on public transit to get to school and afterschool programs, yet parents
voiced concerns that public transit is not safe for youth and children. Additionally, parents stressed that
more community-based afterschool programs are needed so children and youth do not spend as much
time on MUNI because many children travel far distances to and from school.
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned were high stress of children and families, and a lack of positive role
models. Participants noted that stress on families due to high workloads of homework and other
educational factors contributed to family stress. Additionally, participants noted that there are a lack of
positive role models, especially for male youth.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
More affordable afterschool and programs.
Parents reported that more low-cost afterschool
programs were needed in neighborhoods that have
typically been viewed as middle income because
many single-parent families rely heavily on these
services and programs. Affordable sports, arts, and
language programs were types of afterschool
programs mentioned by participants.
In-school Violence prevention and antibullying activities for children and youth.
Violence prevention, in the form of anti-bullying
education in schools, was expressed as a need for
children and youth. During the discussion,
another parent expressed the benefits of a similar
intervention that occurred in her neighborhood.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Out of school time (50%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Family Support (43%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(43%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
Other programs mentioned as future
priorities included summer programs for children with special needs, kindergarten readiness
programs, and support for families in English language learning programs. One participant noted
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 66
that summer programs for children with special needs were not available. Additionally, one participant
mentioned the need to increase access to kindergarten readiness programs. Child care for parents who are
enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes or other parent development programs was noted
as a need to facilitate program participation and allow more parents to take advantage of such programs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 67
Youth: Youth Outreach Workers Program
Hosted by the San Francisco Wellness Initiative, Youth Outreach
Workers Program (YOW) on January 27, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Youth
5
83%
Other Member of Public Agency
1
17%
4
67%
1
1
17%
17%
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Asian
White
Black/African American
Language of Supplemental Survey
A youth meeting was held with the San
Francisco Wellness Initiative, Youth Outreach
Worker Program (YOW) and was attended by
six people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey to report demographic
information and to identify future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. Youth comprised the majority of the
session, accounting for 83 percent of all
participants.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
focusing on helpful programs, barriers,
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
challenges, and the future needs of children,
youth, and families. Below is a summary of the
key ideas and themes identified by participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
English
6
100%
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Community-based health programs are integral in meeting the health needs of families.
Participants reported that Wellness Centers provide children and youth with access to health practitioners
(i.e., counselors and nurses) and services to address mental and physical health needs. Health clinics and
other community-based health programs were also identified as being important, as they provide free
services, such as HIV and STD testing and women’s health services that are important to maintaining
personal health. Nutrition programs were mentioned as another helpful health program for families.
ƒ
School-based youth and family programs are important for providing access to resources and
promoting the healthy development of families. Participants identified that school-based afterschool
and evening programs for children, youth, and adults increase opportunities for all family members to be
engaged in activities and services that promote lifelong development.
ƒ
Alcohol and tobacco awareness programs are important for children and youth. Participants
highlighted the benefits of media campaigns and peer education to raise awareness about the health
impacts of alcohol and tobacco use.
ƒ
Drop-in health services are important for accessing services. Participants emphasized that drop-in
hours are critical in helping them access health services for routine care, as well as for emergencies.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited outreach and marketing towards youth. Participants reported that people are often not aware
of existing services. Limited outreach and advertising were reported as being barriers to accessing services.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 68
Additionally, participants voiced that programs often do not speak to the interests of youth, leaving many
youth disinterested in existing programs.
ƒ
Limited drop-in hours make it difficult to access services. Participants perceived that healthcare
appointments are too restrictive. Given the limited availability of drop-in hours, participants believed that
it would be difficult to access services to meet their healthcare needs.
ƒ
The high-cost of college deters students from continuing their education. Participants reported
that students are often discouraged by the high cost of post-secondary education and have a lack of
knowledge about financial aid and other funding opportunities.
ƒ
Program requirements prevent interested youth from participating in programs. Participants
noted that some youth are unable to access programs because they do not or are unable to meet program
requirements, such as minimum GPAs.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Job availability. Participants emphasized that the job market will be one of the greatest challenges faced
by youth and their families. Youth reported that they have limited work experience and limited skills to be
competitive in a tight job market.
ƒ
Quality of teaching in public schools. Participants reported that they are concerned about the quality of
teaching in schools. They identified teacher motivation, teaching methodologies, and student-teacher
relations as challenges that impact the quality of education that children receive.
ƒ
Transitioning into adulthood. Youth expressed uncertainty about their ability to transition into
adulthood. They were concerned about having the necessary skills and knowledge to live independently.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Increase access to transportation.
Participants identified the need to expand the
public transportation system to meet the needs
of transit-dependent residents.
Expand community health programs and
services. Health clinics and programs that
address sexual health were identified as priority
areas of need for children, youth, and families.
Increase outreach to and programming for
under-served populations. Participants
expressed particular concern for the LGBTQ
population, reporting that more outreach and
programming must be targeted for this
population.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Youth Employment (100%).
Opportunities for youth to gain work
readiness skills and job experience.
ƒ Health & Wellness (83%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Transitional Youth (67%). Services to
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers
in becoming successful independent young
adults.
Improve neighborhood safety. Additionally, participants noted the need to improve safety in their
neighborhoods and communities.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 69
Youth: Transitional Age Youth SF Young Adult
Advocates
Hosted by TAYSF on December 10, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Youth
2
67%
Other Member of Public Agency
1
33%
3
75%
1
25%
4
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Latino/Hispanic
White
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*One person did not respond
A youth meeting was held with the Transitional
Age Youth San Francisco-Young Adult
Advocates (TAYSF-YAA) and was attended by
four people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey to report demographic
information and to identify future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. Youth comprised the majority of the
session, accounting for two-thirds of all
participants. The meeting was led in English
and all supplemental surveys for this meeting
were completed in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
focusing on helpful programs, barriers, challenges, and the future needs of children, youth, and families. Below
is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries
from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Helpful programs for children youth and families
ƒ
Job training and career development for youth. Skill building, resume writing, and job placement
were emphasized as important services for youth.
ƒ
Other specialized programs for youth. Participants identified various useful programs that target
youth. These specialized programs include art programs, legal services for youth, “green” community
development programs, financial planning, support for homeless youth, and programs focused on young
women’s health.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Youth face various barriers when trying to secure job opportunities. Participants reported that
English language proficiency, skill deficiencies, physical and mental disabilities, and histories with the
criminal justice system are factors that make it difficult to secure employment.
ƒ
Program requirements often prevent interested youth from participating in programs.
Participants commented that some youth are unable to access programs because they do not or are unable
to meet program requirements. Notable barriers include age requirements, immigration status, and
stringent admission requirements.
ƒ
Parenting responsibilities prevent young parents from participating in programs. Participants
expressed that young parents often cannot access programs and services because of child care
responsibilities.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 70
ƒ
Homelessness and housing insecurity are barriers to accessing services. Unstable housing was
identified as a substantial challenge impacting some youth.
ƒ
Lack of educational support. Participants noted that there is a lack of educational support services to
ensure the success of students.
Challenges faced by children youth and families
ƒ
Personal and community safety. Drug and gang activity were identified as major challenges impacting
the safety of children, youth, and families. Participants noted that families are often fearful to leave the
security of their homes.
ƒ
Decreasing levels of services. Participants expressed concern about the impact of budget cuts on the
availability of services to the meet the increasing needs of children, youth, and families. Limited services
and program closures were among their primary concerns.
ƒ
Unemployment and a lack of affordable housing. High levels of unemployment, limited job
opportunities, and a lack of affordable housing were mentioned as overarching challenges impacting the
welfare of children, youth, and families.
ƒ
Limited access to transportation. Participants commented that children and youth often lack access to
public and private modes of transportation to effectively engage in services and programs.
ƒ
Educational support and access. Participants identified that students at-risk of falling out of the
education system need additional support. They also noted that institutional barriers (i.e. enrollment
difficulties) at City College increase the risk of student attrition.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Increase opportunities for youth
employment. Connecting youth to jobs, skill
building, and job search strategies were
identified as critical services for youth.
Increase access to healthcare. Access to
health services was identified as being critical for
promoting the healthy development of children,
youth, and families.
Ensure educational success. Participants
identified high school graduation and
persistence in college as critical areas of need.
Educational support and financial support were
identified as essential services to ensure students’
success.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Youth Employment (75%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and
job experience.
ƒ Health & Wellness (75%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Transitional Youth (50%). Services to
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers
in becoming successful independent young
adults.
ƒ
Expand growth opportunities for youth. Participants mentioned the need for youth empowerment and
youth development programs to increase opportunities for personal development. Counseling, mentoring,
and cultural programming were indentified as useful services.
ƒ
Transitional planning and programming. Participants identified that it is important to prepare youth
for the next stage of life as they enter adulthood and age out of certain systems of services.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 71
ƒ
Expand services for vulnerable populations. Participants expressed that it is critical to meet the needs
of vulnerable populations, particularly homeless youth and immigrant populations.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 72
Youth: Youth Empowerment Fund Advisory
Board
Hosted by YEFAB on December 20, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Youth
4
67%
Concerned Community Members
1
17%
Service Providers, CBO
1
17%
3
50%
2
1
33%
17%
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Multiracial/Multiethnic
Asian
Latino/Hispanic
Language of Supplemental Survey
A youth meeting was held with the Youth
Empowerment Fund Advisory Board (YEFAB)
and was attended by six people. Participants
completed a supplemental survey to report
demographic information and to identify future
priority areas for programming for children,
youth and families. Youth comprised the
majority of the session, accounting for twothirds of all participants. The meeting was led in
English and all supplemental surveys for this
meeting were completed in English.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
English
focusing on helpful programs, barriers,
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
challenges, and the future needs of children,
youth, and families. Below is a summary of the
key ideas and themes identified by participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
6
100%
Helpful programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Employment programs connect youth to jobs and growth opportunities. Programs that offer job
readiness training and employment opportunities were identified as being important for supporting the
growth of youth. Participants reported that youth need opportunities to build skills and gain tangible
work experience.
ƒ
Youth empowerment and development programs promote personal growth and civic
engagement. Participants emphasized the benefits of programs that focus on empowering youth by
developing their leadership skills. Such programs were reported to increase civic participation, provide
opportunities for youth-lead community projects, and equip youth to make positive change in their
communities. Additionally, a participant noted the benefits of gender-specific youth development
programs that focus on at-risk young women.
ƒ
Cultural community centers play an important role in supporting youth. Participants highlighted
the benefits of cultural spaces and cultural programming in supporting the development of youth outside
of their homes.
ƒ
College preparation programs expand access to post-secondary education opportunities.
Participants reported the importance of programs and services that provide college information, offer SAT
preparation classes, and inform students about financial aid and scholarship opportunities.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 73
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Limited outreach and marketing towards youth are factors that contribute to low participation
rates. Participants reported that youth are often not aware of existing services. While the most engaged
youth are involved in multiple programs, participants noted that there is a large share of youth who are not
involved in any programs because they do not know about them. A participant explained that students
who have dropped out of high school are particularly disconnected from information about available
opportunities. Additionally, participants voiced that programs often do not speak to the interests of youth,
leaving many youth disinterested in existing programs.
ƒ
Geographic isolation and access to transportation are barriers to accessing services. Participants
voiced that people living in neighborhoods like the Bayview and Sunset are geographically isolated and
have difficulty accessing services. Proximity to services, a recent decline in the number of bus routes, and
the rising cost of public transportation were identified as notable barriers for families living in outlying or
under-served neighborhoods.
ƒ
Competing responsibilities and time limitations prevent youth from participating in programs.
Household obligations (i.e., watching younger siblings), school responsibilities, and pressure from other
sources were reported as factors that limit youths’ ability to access programs and services.
ƒ
Program requirements often prevent interested youth from participating in programs.
Participants noted that some youth are unable to access programs because they do not or are unable to
meet requirements, such as age restrictions and minimum GPAs.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Decreasing supply of services to meet the increasing needs of children, youth, and families.
Participants were particularly concerned about the impacts of budget cuts and unemployment on the
availability of and the demand for services. Participants noted that budget cuts were already impacting the
availability of services, such as after-school programs.
ƒ
Access to post-secondary education. Participants expressed numerous concerns about being able to
acquire a college education. Among their concerns were cost, major requirements, overcrowding,
competitive admissions, and obtaining financial aid.
ƒ
Decline in the quality of public education. There was a perception among participants that the quality
of public education in San Francisco is declining and that it will be challenging for students to get a highquality education. Academic support programs (i.e. tutoring programs) and raising academic standards
were identified as being important for raising student performance and decreasing gaps in educational
outcomes.
ƒ
Healthcare, community redevelopment, and crime were mentioned as other challenges faced by
children, youth, and families. Participants identified access to healthcare, impacts of community
redevelopment, and neighborhood crime as other general challenges faced by low-income residents in San
Francisco.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 74
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Increase outreach efforts to youth.
Outreach was identified as a useful way to
understand the needs and interests of youth, as
well as an important opportunity to increase
youth’s awareness of existing programs and
services.
Expand programs focused on helping
children and youth transition from
different grade levels and developmental
stages. Participants voiced the need for ageappropriate programs and services that
support students as they transition from
elementary school to middle school, middle
school to high school, and high school to
college or work. Counseling services,
expanded support for high school seniors, and
a step-by-step process to getting into college
were identified as useful services.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Youth Employment (50%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and
job experience.
ƒ Violence Prevention & Intervention
(50%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
ƒ Family Support (50%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
Expand growth opportunities for youth. Participants mentioned the need to expand youth job
opportunities and youth empowerment programs to increase opportunities for skill and leadership
development.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 75
Youth: Immigrant and ESL Youth Focus Group
Hosted by Youth Empowerment Fund Advisory Board
on January 24, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Youth
14
100%
The Youth Empowerment Fund Advisory Board
(YEFAB) organized a focus group with
immigrant and English as a Second Language
(ESL) youth. Fourteen youth attended this
session, which was conducted in English.
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Participants engaged in a guided discussion
focusing on successful programs and efforts
Asian
6
43%
supporting children, youth and families, and
identified barriers, challenges, and future needs. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by
participants. Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
Latino/Hispanic
8
57%
Successful efforts for supporting ESL and immigrant youth
ƒ
Employment programs for youth. Programs that offer job readiness training and employment
opportunities were identified as being important for supporting immigrant youth.
ƒ
College-based cultural programs and support services. Participants commented that culturally
specific programs and services at City College provide immigrant youth with academic and personal
support necessary for success. Youth reported that they are often able to communicate and identify with
staff from these programs. Support for AB540 students was identified as being particularly important for
undocumented students.
ƒ
Programs that promote academic success and college access. Programs that offer English and math
tutoring, field trips to college, information about financial aid, and assistance with college applications
were identified as being helpful. Participants also noted that they find programs that provide access to
computers and books to be particularly beneficial.
ƒ
Programs with multilingual staff. Participants emphasized the benefits of programs that have
multilingual staff. Language capacity was reported as being important for bridging the cultural gap that
often exists between clients and service providers.
Barriers to accessing services
ƒ
Immigration status. Participants reported that documentation is a major challenge faced by many
immigrant youth. Without proper documentation, participants noted that youth are unable to participate
in certain services.
ƒ
Language capacity. Limited English proficiency was identified as a substantial barrier for immigrant
youth. Without a firm grasp of the English language, participants reported that it is often difficult to access
services. Participants also noted that service providers often do not have a diverse staff with the language
capacity to meet the needs of immigrant youth.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 76
ƒ
Limited access to transportation. Participants commented that the cost of public transportation and a
lack of transportation options make it difficult to effectively engage in services and programs.
ƒ
Program requirements often prevent interested youth from participating in programs.
Participants noted that some youth are unable to access programs because they do not or are unable to
meet requirements such as age restrictions.
ƒ
Difficulty navigating system of services. Participants noted that they often find it difficult to find
services and resources in the expansive network of service providers.
Challenges faced by children youth and families
ƒ
Academic preparation of ESL/ELD students. Participants commented on the numerous challenges
faced by students in ESL or English Language Development (ELD) educational programs. There was a
strong concern about whether or not these students would be academically prepared to enter college or
acquire quality jobs. Curriculum, academic rigor, and quality instruction were among some of the primary
challenges that participants identified.
ƒ
Immigration status. Participants expressed particular concern for undocumented youth and the
challenges that they face on a daily basis. Participants commented that undocumented youth are often
fearful of immigration raids and are hesitant to reach out for assistance because of their immigration
status.
ƒ
Program closures and reduction in available services. Participants were concerned about the impact
of budget cuts on the availability of programs and services. They expressed concerns about school closures
and cuts to educational programs.
ƒ
Acculturation and transitioning into American society. Participants noted the challenges that
immigrant youth face in adapting to life in a new country. They identified culture shock and transitioning
into a new educational system as being particularly challenging.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Expand outreach to immigrant youth. Participants identified the need to expand outreach efforts to
raise awareness about resources and services that are available for ESL and immigrant youth.
ƒ
Expand programs that focus on immigrant rights. Participants voiced the need to expand programs
that teach youth about immigrant rights, focusing on policy and current debates that directly impact them.
ƒ
Increase wellness programs that focus on sexual health. Participants expressed that the cultural gap
between youth and parents often makes it difficult to discuss sexual health. They stated the need for safe
spaces to learn about and discuss matters of sexual health.
ƒ
Increase language capacity and cultural competency of program staff. Diversifying program staff,
increasing cultural competency, and increasing multi-lingual staff were identified as being critical for
meeting the needs of immigrant youth.
ƒ
Increase academic support services. Tutoring, homework support, and language programs were
identified as being important for promoting the academic success of ESL and immigrant students.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 77
ƒ
Expand leadership and empowerment opportunities. Participants identified the need for
empowerment and leadership training programs to strengthen the voice of youth. Youth are seeking
opportunities to share their perspective and organize their peers.
ƒ
Increase opportunities for youth to explore and express their heritage. Participants commented
that ethnic studies programs and art programs can help youth understand and express their cultural
background.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 78
Youth: Youth Commission Focus Group
Hosted by Youth Advisory Council on January 29, 2011
The Youth Advisory Council (YAC) organized a focus group with youth. Participants engaged in a guided
discussion focusing on successful programs and efforts supporting youth, gaps in city programming, and
future priorities in funding. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by participants.
Themes are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts supporting youth
ƒ
Free programs and drop in programs. Youth mentioned common themes of successful programs
which included free programs and drop in spaces.
ƒ
Employment programs for youth. Programs that offer job readiness training and employment
opportunities were identified as being important for supporting youth.
ƒ
Afterschool and summer programs. Youth highlighted the importance of afterschool and summer
programs which included outdoor programs, sports programs, programs that focus on literary arts and
academic support. Additionally, youth mentioned that tutoring programs were beneficial.
ƒ
Youth development programs. Participants mentioned that programs that offer leadership
development, mentoring and community service were also beneficial for youth. Youth also noted that
such programs helped them develop life skills, including financial literacy.
ƒ
Programs targeted for LGBT and homeless youth. Participants emphasized the benefits of programs
that are targeted to lesbian gay bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth and wrap around services targeted
towards homeless youth.
ƒ
Health and wellness programs. Programs that provided health services for youth were also noted as
being successful.
ƒ
Restorative justice alternatives for youth. Youth additionally highlighted the importance of restorative
justice alternatives.
ƒ
Other successful programs included violence prevention programs. Youth noted the benefits of
violence prevention programs, particularly those that work with younger youth.
Gaps in current city programming
ƒ
Need for more youth employment programming. Participants expressed that funding has been
reduced for youth employment programs and this prevents youth from accessing these helpful programs.
ƒ
Affordable health care. Youth noted the need for increased access to affordable health care.
ƒ
Mentoring programs for youth. Participants highlighted the need for mentoring programs for youth,
including opportunities for mentoring at low performing schools and recreational centers. Additionally,
youth would like to see more opportunities for older peer mentoring.
ƒ
Increased services needed for low income, recent immigrant, and LGBT youth. Youth mentioned
that low income youth, recent immigrant youth, and LGBT youth currently lack sufficient services.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 79
ƒ
Specific neighborhoods need more services. Youth identified that the Tenderloin and “downtown”
neighborhoods need more services for children, youth and families.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Youth development programs. Participants highlighted the benefits of youth development programs,
noting that these programs should be expanded in the future. Specifically, youth mentioned that these
programs promote leadership skills, self discovery and provide job training opportunities.
ƒ
Support for public education. Youth noted the need for increased funding and support for public
education. Participants noted that future youth will benefit from efforts to support public education.
ƒ
Awareness for youth with disabilities. Participants mentioned that awareness is needed to support
youth with disabilities.
ƒ
Programs that promote social justice. Participants noted that programs that promote social justice and
awareness were also future needs.
ƒ
Family centered programs. Youth also mentioned the need for programs that parents and youth can
both access.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 80
Citywide Service Providers Network:
Adolescent Health Working Group
Hosted by the Adolescent Health Working Group on
November 12, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*˜
Service Providers CBO
5
28%
Service Provider Public Agency
4
22%
Other Member of Public Agency
3
17%
Other Member of a CBO
1
6%
Member of a Policy Group
1
6%
Other
4
22%
White
14
74%
Asian
Multiracial/multiethnic
2
2
11%
11%
Black/African American
1
5%
19
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity˜
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A citywide service provider convening was held
with the Adolescent Health Working Group
(AHWG), and was attended by 19 people.
Participants each completed a survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority program areas for children, youth
and their families. Among the 19 participants,
over one quarter (28 percent) identified as
community-based organization (CBO) service
providers. Thirty-nine percent identified as
service providers or other members of a public
agency. One participant did not respond to the
question.
The majority (74 percent) of participants
identified as White, followed by Asian and
Multiracial/multiethnic (11 percent each), and
Black/African American (five percent).
*1 participant did not reply
˜Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the successful existing programs and
efforts supporting children, youth and families, and the barriers to accessing programs, challenges facing
children, youth and families, and future needs. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by
meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least
frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
Wellness Centers in schools. Participants reported that in-school Wellness Centers have been
successfully supporting children and youth by acting as a hub for a variety of services, including mental
health services. Wellness Centers can also provide referrals for students to receive outside health and
wellness services.
ƒ
Violence prevention programs. Providers shared that community-based violence prevention programs
are beneficial for children, youth and families, particularly in neighborhoods such as the Western
Addition, Bayview Hunters Point, and the Mission.
ƒ
Programs that target Transitional Age Youth (TAY). Participants noted that growing concern around
the wellbeing of TAY has prompted the city to fund more initiatives aimed at supporting TAY. However,
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 81
providers expressed concern that TAY programs are often the first to lose funding during budget cuts and
suggested maintaining more targeted funding for this population.
ƒ
Other successes include providing support to CBOs and citywide service providers, establishing
collaborations between San Francisco Unified School District, DCYF, and CBOs, and the
development of the DCYF minimum compliance standards for programs. Participants reported that
capacity building support for CBOs, and support for citywide service provider groups in the form of
funding staff and program space have been helpful for service providers. Participants also mentioned that
existing partnerships between San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), DCYF and CBOs have been
successful at working toward a seamless and comprehensive system of support for children, youth and
families. One participant voiced that DCYF’s development of minimum compliance standards is
important for the monitoring, evaluation, and the overall improvement of programs.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Program grants do not reflect the added expense of serving high need or hard to reach youth.
Participants shared that it is more costly to serve children who are high need or who do not seek out
services. Request for proposals (RFPs) and grants do not reflect this reality, yet there is an expectation for
organizations to serve high need youth.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Difficulties obtaining stable housing. Participants shared that families face challenges obtaining stable
housing due to the high cost of living in San Francisco. Participants noted that a lack of adequate and
stable housing can affect the physical and mental health of families and youth.
ƒ
Criminalization of youth. Participants expressed concern that providers and city government agencies
often adopt the mentality of blaming youth for community issues instead of providing support.
Participants cited the newly established Sit/Lie law in San Francisco which criminalizes youth for sitting
and lying on sidewalks between 7a.m. and 11p.m instead of providing supportive services or safe spaces for
youth.
ƒ
Registration fees prevents TAY from accessing healthcare. Participants reported that self-supporting
TAY are often unable to afford the fee to enroll in Healthy San Francisco, a San Francisco-based program
that provides health care services for uninsured
residents.
Future Priority Areas
ƒ
Other challenges include difficulty accessing
programs and the rising cost of higher
education. Participants noted that youth face
difficulty accessing programs. Participants also
mentioned that the cost of higher education is a
challenge, and can prevent youth from achieving
post-secondary success.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Health and wellness programs, including
mental health services and sexual health
education. Participants voiced that mental health
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Participants selected their highest priority
areas, and the top three were…
ƒ Health & Wellness (74%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Violence Prevention & Intervention
(47%). Programs that respond to and
prevent violence among youth.
ƒ Transitional Youth (47%). Services to
support youth ages 18 to 24 that face
barriers in becoming successful
independent young adults.
Appendix C - 82
services are a critical need for children, youth and families in the next three years. They also identified a
need for sexual health education in schools.
ƒ
Youth job training programs. Participants identified youth job training programs as a critical service
need. Such programs prepare youth for future employment by teaching them job skills.
ƒ
Address low rates of high school graduation. Participants also emphasized the need for more effective
strategies, programs and services to address the low high school graduation rates in San Francisco.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 83
Overview of Services Offered by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 14-15
16
(84%)
Ages 16-17
16
(84%)
Ages 18-24
16
(84%)
Ages 10-13
10
(53%)
Ages 25 and up
6
(32%)
Ages 3-5
4
(21%)
Ages 6-9
4
(21%)
Ages 0-2
3
(16%)
Work with Parents
Yes
11
(69%)
No
5
(31%)
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
High schools
19
(100%)
Community-based organizations
18
(95%)
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
18
(95%)
San Francisco Unified School District
17
(90%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
17
(90%)
and their Families
Middle schools
10
(53%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
10
(53%)
Elementary schools
4
(21%)
Other
4
(21%)
Child care programs
3
(16%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
2
(11%)
Recreation
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Health & Wellness
13
(68%)
Transitional Youth
8
(42%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
5
(26%)
Youth Employment
4
(21%)
Youth Empowerment
3
(16%)
Specialized Teen
3
(16%)
Early Care & Education
2
(11%)
Family Support
1
(5%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
The majority (84 percent) of service
providers reported that their organization
provides services to youth ages 14-24. Over
half (53 percent) of the providers reported
serving children ages 10-13, and 32 percent
serve young adults ages 25 and up. Less than
one quarter serve children under age nine,
with 21 percent serving children ages three
through five and six through nine, and 16
percent serving children ages two and under.
Most participants (69 percent) shared that
they work with parents as well.
All providers reported collaborating with
high schools, and 95 percent identified that
their organizations collaborate with CBOs
and the San Francisco Department of Public
Health. The majority (90 percent) also
reported collaborating with SFUSD and
DCYF. Just over half (53 percent) of the
respondents shared that they collaborate
with middle schools and HSA. Compared to
middle and high schools, the percentage of
providers who reported collaborating with
elementary schools is lower at 21 percent.
Fewer providers reported collaborating with
child care programs (16 percent) and the
Department of Parks and Recreation (11
percent),
The DCYF program area that organizations
are most involved in is Health and Wellness
(68 percent), followed by Transitional Youth
(42 percent). Twenty-six percent of
participants reported being most involved in
Violence Prevention and Intervention, while
21 percent reported being most involved in
Youth Employment. The program areas that
were identified by the fewest number of
respondents include Early Care and
Education (11 percent) and Family Support (five percent).
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 84
Citywide Service Provider Network: Early
Childhood Mental Health Consultation
Initiative’s (ECMHCI) Provider Network
Hosted by Early Childhood Mental Health Initiative Provider
Network on December 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
8
(100%)
White
4
(44%)
Black/African American
Other
2
2
(22%)
(22%)
Asian
1
(11%)
9
(100%)
Service Providers, CBO
Self-Reported Ethnicity**
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*One participant did not answer this question
**Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A citywide service provider convening was
hosted by the Early Childhood Mental Health
Consultation Initiative’s Provider Network and
was attended by nine people. Participants
completed a supplemental survey highlighting
demographic characteristics and future priority
areas for programming for children, youth and
families. All participants in attendance were
service providers from community-based
organizations (CBOs). Forty-four percent of
meeting participants identified as White,
followed by Black/African American (22
percent), other (22 percent) and Asian (11
percent).
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the successful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs of children, youth and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to
the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ Support for mental health consultations. All meeting participants agreed that DCYF’s support for
mental health consultations has been successful in supporting young children and families living in San
Francisco.
ƒ DCYF’s continued support for afterschool programs. Meeting participants discussed the key role the
DCYF is playing in supporting afterschool programs when it comes to capacity building, fostering
creativity and bringing in mental health consultations to afterschool programs. Additionally, participants
noted that DCYF’s effort to develop policy for afterschool programs has also been helpful for children,
youth and their families.
ƒ Funding for violence prevention. Service providers believed that violence prevention funding,
specifically for mental health services, allowes children and families impacted by violence to receive
services. Such funding was most helpful to homeless families residing in San Francisco due to the ease of
eligibility requirements.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 85
ƒ Community convenings. Community convenings were cited as playing a key role in communities.
Service providers noted that when funding was available, community convenings allowed service providers
and community members to engage and to think critically about community issues.
ƒ DCYF’s support of policies that focus on children and other critical issues. Service providers
mentioned that DCYF has been successful in giving a voice to policies that focus on children and families,
especially when it comes to supporting access to child care.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ Funding requirements in programs exclude some families from services. Service providers
explained that funding requirements exclude some families from receiving services or from participating
in programs. As a result, service providers feel tension around program funding.
ƒ Lack of culturally competent services. Participants were vocal about the lack of culturally competent
services available in San Francisco. Service providers pointed out that most of the families receiving
services do not feel empowered to access services and don’t feel they have a right to access services. For
this reason, participants stressed the importance of understanding the diverse needs of families in San
Francisco.
ƒ Immigration status prevents families from seeking services. Service providers commented that
immigration status is a significant barrier that prevents families from accessing services. Service providers
explained that due to immigration status many families are afraid to seek services or to reach out to
programs.
ƒ Language barriers among Cantonese and Mandarin speaking families. Service providers asserted
that language barriers continue to prevent families from accessing services, especially Cantonese and
Mandarin speaking families. Additionally, service providers pointed out that written materials are not
available for Cantonese and Mandarin speaking families due to lack of translation services available.
ƒ Limited program capacity to meet the needs of families. Some participants were concerned about the
increasing number of families trying to access services and the saturation that programs are experiencing.
Service providers discussed the importance of addressing this issue and how to make decisions about
program limitations.
ƒ Lack of line staff involvement in program decision making. Meeting participants voiced that
involving line staff who work directly with children and families in decision making is essential. Service
providers voiced that oftentimes line staff are not included in conversations around funding and
programming. Service providers insisted that this issue needs to be addressed and that line staff need to be
part of the decision making process.
ƒ Other barriers include contract compliance, cumbersome paperwork and service providers
feeling unappreciated and overwhelmed. In addition to the barriers highlighted above, service
providers mentioned other issues that service providers face when trying to provide services to families in
need. Service providers mentioned that contract compliance leads service providers to conform service
delivery models in ways that are not family friendly. Contract compliance also requires service providers
and families to complete cumbersome paperwork that further alienates and disempowers families.
Meeting participants also stated that service providers rarely receive positive feedback for their work.
Instead, service providers receive a greater demand for services while feeling overwhelmed and
underappreciated.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 86
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ Limited program funding leads to short term services and fewer resources. A major challenge
mentioned by service providers was limited program funding for services geared toward children, youth
and their families. Due to funding constraints, programs resort to providing short-term services. While
short-term services allow families to at least get some support, service providers stated that these services
are not beneficial in the long run because it is difficult to develop relationships with families and to support
success. Service providers also stressed that due to program cuts programs have fewer resources and often
lack support to make successful referrals.
ƒ Accessing high quality child care services. Service providers noted that accessing high quality child
care services is becoming increasingly difficult for families living in San Francisco. Meeting participants
stressed that families often rely on relatives for child care.
ƒ Families and service providers have a feeling of hopelessness, grief and loss. Service providers
revealed that families and service providers feel grief and loss, especially when it comes to mental health.
Besides grief and loss, service providers noted that there is also a sense of hopelessness among families.
According to service providers these feelings stem from the state of the economy and having to adjust to a
new socioeconomic status.
Looking to the future
ƒ Strengthen transition programs for all
children attending San Francisco public
schools. Meeting participants stated that
strengthening transition programs for prekindergarten, kindergarten, middle school and
high school is essential. Service providers noted
that it is critical to support these crucial
transition points to ensure students do not fall
behind.
ƒ Continue to support family resource
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Early Care and Education (78%). Child care
for children age five and under, including
preschool.
ƒ Family Support (67%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
centers. Service providers discussed the key role
of family resource centers in communities and
ƒ Health and Wellness (67%). Programs to
requested that they continue to be supported.
promote mental and physical health.
Additionally service provider pointed out that
family resource centers provide families with
free resources and most importantly, they connect families with services they need.
ƒ Support services for transitional age youth. Meeting participants would like to see an increase in
support services for transitional age youth living in San Francisco.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 87
ƒ Other areas of need included capacity building for programs, increased reimbursement rates for
child care, support for programs that promote the inclusion of children with special needs in
schools, and domestic violence support and education. Service providers would like to see additional
support around capacity building for CBOs. Additionally, service providers would like to see an increase
in reimbursement rates for child care and additional support for programs that promote the inclusion of
children with special needs in schools. To conclude, service providers also mentioned that families need
support services and education around domestic violence.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 88
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 0-2
8
(89%)
Ages 3-5
8
(89%)
Ages 6-9
7
(78%)
Ages 10-13
7
(78%)
Ages 14-15
4
(44%)
Ages 16-17
4
(44%)
Ages 18-24
3
(33%)
Ages 25 and up
1
(11%)
9
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Child care programs
9
(100%)
Elementary schools
8
(89%)
Community-based organizations
8
(89%)
San Francisco Unified School District
8
(89%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
8
(89%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
8
(89%)
and their Families
San Francisco Dept of Public health
8
(89%)
Middle schools
4
(44%)
High schools
4
(44%)
Other**
2
(22%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
1
(11%)
Recreation
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Early Care & Education
7
(78%)
Family Support
6
(67%)
Health & Wellness
2
(22%)
Transitional Youth
1
(11%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
1
(11%)
In order to gain an understanding of the
work service providers are currently
engaging in, they were also asked to identify
the populations they serve, the organizations
they collaborate with and the DCYF priority
areas their programs are involved with.
Nearly all participants in attendance
reported that their CBO serves children ages
two and under (89%). Similarly, 89 percent
reported serving children ages three to five.
Additionally, a large proportion of meeting
participants (78%) reported working with
children ages six to thirteen, and 44 percent
reported serving youth ages 14 to 15. All
service providers also reported serving
parents.
All service providers reported collaborating
with child care programs. A majority of
service providers (89 percent) also reported
collaborating with elementary schools,
CBOs, the San Francisco Unified School
District, San Francisco’s Human Services
Agency, DCYF, and the Department of
Public Health. Approximately 44 percent of
meeting participants collaborate with middle
schools and high schools, while 22 percent
reported working with agencies like First 5
and the special needs community. Lastly,
eleven percent of participants reported
collaborating with the Department of Parks
and Recreation.
The majority of participants (78%) reported
being involved in the early care and
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
education program area, while 67 percent
**Other responses include: First 5, Special Needs Community
reported being involved in family support.
Less than a quarter of participants are involved in health and wellness. In addition, eleven percent of service
providers are currently involved in DCYF’s transitional youth and violence prevention and intervention
program areas.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 89
Citywide Service Provider Network:
High Risk Infant Interagency Council
Hosted by the High Risk Infant Interagency Council on
December 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
*Participants attending session identified as...
4
Service Providers CBO
Parents
Service Provider Public Agency
Other Member of Public
Agency
Self-Reported Ethnicity
White
(50%)
2
1
1
(25%)
(13%)
(13%)
10
(100%)
A citywide service provider convening was held
at the High Risk Infant Interagency Council
(HRIIC) and was attended by 10 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. Half of participants
in attendance were service providers from
community based organizations (CBOs). All of
the meeting participants identified as White.
Language of Supplemental Survey
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding successful efforts and programs in
supporting youth, children and families,
* 2 Participants did not respond to this question
barriers, challenges, and future needs. Below is a
summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries
from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
English
10
(100%)
Successful efforts and programs in supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
DCYF funded programs. Participants mentioned the success of programs DCYF funds such as Out of
school time programs, summer programs, afterschool programs at Edgewood, youth employment
programs, special education advocacy and Support for Families. Finally participants felt DCYF has done a
good job leveraging local funds with state and federal funds.
Capacity building for programs. Participants also stressed funded capacity building, allowing programs
to learn more about including kids with mental health disabilities.
Systems improvements. Participants noted that they believed DCYF pushes systems to work better
which positively impacts how these systems serve families.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ Inability of programs to serve youth with highest needs. Participants mentioned that families with
children with the most severe problems sometime feel unwelcomed in programs, meaning these parents
feel isolated.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 90
ƒ Institutional and cultural barriers faced by monolingual and immigrant families. Participants
stressed that barriers exist with San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and for nonEnglish speaking and immigrant families. They explained families that do not speak English
do not always know they have a right to services and experience difficulty accessing them.
New immigrants are reluctant to talk to government agencies. Finally participants mentioned
teachers and program staff may not be aware of additional services available due to
insufficient communication.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Challenges faced by special needs youth in the foster care system. Participants acknowledged
ƒ
foster care youth face their own unique set of challenges. Many foster youth have been
exposed to violence and have behavioral issues. More vocal parents get better care for their
children and foster parents may not be as vocal in advocating for the needs of youth with
special needs. Additionally, foster parents might change over the course of a child’s life
preventing foster parents from being a consistent advocate.
Institutional accountability. Participants felt policy makers have denied responsibility saying
the challenges faced by children are not the city’s problem, they are the SFUSD’s problem,
then when youth graduate from high school, become the state’s problem.
Bullying of children and youth with special needs. Participants stressed bullying of children
and youth with special needs is a major issue. Participants also mentioned that while some of
the youth they serve are the targets of bullying bullied, other are the biggest bullies.
ƒ
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned included, housing and disabled housing, limited sex education for
special education students and limited employment programs and options. Participants also
mentioned other challenges and barriers facing youth and families including housing, especially housing
for disabled youth. They also mentioned sex education for special education students are not presented in
an appropriate matter. Finally, participants stressed the lack of employment programs and the lack of
employment opportunities for youth once
Future Priority Areas
they graduate high school.
Looking to the future
ƒ Family support programs. Participants felt
families need information, advocacy and
support and that parent education might be
the most critical need for the future.
ƒ Comprehensive out of school
programming, especially for youth with
special needs. Participants stated that while
there are afterschool programs available it
does not adequately address children with
special needs, since in some cases these
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Participants selected their highest priority areas in
the survey and the top three were…
ƒ Transitional Youth (90%). Services to
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers
in becoming successful independent adults
ƒ Youth Employment (50%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and job
experience.
ƒ Family Support (40%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
Appendix C - 91
children and youth need to develop their social skills. Participants also felt DCYF should adopt a city-wide
inclusion policy for children with special needs and advocate for a seat on the CAC for people.
ƒ Reexamine funding processes and standards. Participants mentioned DCYF funded a lot of new
programs while cutting existing , and they felt DCYF shouldn’t test new ideas at the expense of programs
that work. In addition, participants stated that if building program capacity was a goal of DCYF they
should provide larger grants.
ƒ Other areas of need included mental health services, more collaboration on youth employment,
involving the private sector more effectively. Participants would like to see additional support
around mental health services for youth. Participants also mentioned the need for additional city
collaboration on youth employment. Finally, participants believed DCYF could use its unique position to
encourage more involvement from the private sector.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 92
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 18-24
7
(70%)
Ages 16-17
5
(50%)
Ages 25 and up
4
(40%)
Ages 0-2
3
(30%)
Ages 3-5
3
(30%)
Ages 6-9
3
(30%)
Ages 10-13
3
(30%)
Ages 14-15
3
(30%)
8
(100%)
In order to gain an understanding of the
work service providers are currently
engaging in, they were also asked to identify
the populations they serve, the organizations
they collaborate with and the DCYF priority
areas their programs are involved with. A
majority of participants in attendance, 70
percent, reported that they serves youth 18
to 24. Half reported serving youth 16 to 17.
Additionally, 30 percent of meeting
participants reported working with children
ages under two, three to five, six to nine, 10
to 13 and 14 to 15.
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
8
(80%)
San Francisco Unified School District
6
(60%)
San Francisco Human Services
6
(60%)
Agency
Department of Children, Youth and
5
(50%)
their Families (DCYF)
Department of Parks and Recreation
4
(40%)
High schools
3
(30%)
Department of Public Health
3
(30%)
Child care programs
2
(20%)
Other
2
(20%)
Elementary schools
1
(10%)
Middle schools
1
(10%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Transitional Youth
6
(60%)
Family Support
4
(40%)
Youth Employment
3
(30%)
Early Care & Education
2
(20%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(20%)
Health & Wellness
1
(10%)
Out of School Time
1
(10%)
Specialized Teen
1
(10%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
1
(10%)
Other
1
(10%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
All service providers also reported serving
parents.
A majority of service providers (80 percent)
also reported collaborating with other CBOs.
Over half, 60 percent, reported working with
the San Francisco Unified School District
and the San Francisco Human Services
Agency. Half of providers reported working
with DCYF. Forty percent report working
with the Department of Parks and
Recreation, while 30 percent report working
with high schools and the Department of
Public Health. Fewer service providers (20
percent reported collaborating with child
care programs and other organizations.
Over half of participants, 60 percent,
reported being involved in transitional
youth, while 40 percent reported being
involved in family support. Thirty percent
reported being involved in youth
employment. Less than a quarter of
participants are involved in early care and
education and youth empowerment. In
addition, ten percent of service providers are
currently involved in health and wellness,
out of school time, specialized time, violence
prevention and intervention.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 93
Citywide Service Provider Network: New Day
for Learning SFUSD CBO Partnership
Committee
Hosted by the CBO Partnership Committee on November 22, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Providers, CBO
Other
Service Provider, Public Agency
Other Member of Public Agency
Parents
Concerned Community Members
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
White
10
(63%)
2
1
1
1
1
(13%)
(6%)
(6%)
(6%)
(6%)
9
(56%)
A citywide service provider convening was held
at the New Day for Learning San Francisco
Unified School District (SFUSD) CommunityBased Organization (CBO) Partnership
Committee and was attended by 16 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. More than half (63
percent) of participants in attendance were
service providers from CBOs.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the successful efforts to support
school-community partnerships, barriers,
challenges, and the biggest priorities to
strengthen these partnerships. Below is a
16
(100%)
summary of the key ideas and themes identified
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in
the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Black/African American
Asian
Latino/Hispanic
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
3
2
2
(19%)
(13%)
(13%)
Successes of efforts to support school-community-city partnerships
ƒ
District efforts to collaborate with CBOs. Participants stressed increasing the visibility of the taskforce’s
work with CBOs by making connections for families to programs that are supported by SFUSD has been a
significant success. They mentioned specific types of collaboration including bringing data to CBOs about
students and schools to help align the work of service providers with educational outcomes; and
organizing around the downtime of schools buses to maximize these resources for field trips. Participants
also mentioned overall collaboration has improved collaboration generally.
ƒ
Other successful efforts mentioned were funding, the CBO task force, the summer learning
network, and city and SFUSD collaboration. Providers also mentioned the benefit of core funding
from DCYF to support afterschool partnerships and the Gates grant to help city, district and City College
partnerships. Additionally, providers stressed the benefit of a summer learning network. Finally,
providers voiced the success of the city and district working together.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 94
Barriers to effective school-community-city partnerships
ƒ
SFUSD contracting process continues to be a barrier. Participants explained the processes for the
SFUSD contracting system has gotten more complicated and is confusing. Participants additionally
expressed difficulty navigating the system as an organization.
ƒ
Differences of organizational cultures. Participants mentioned the organizational differences between
CBOs and SFUSD and how little time is available for each to learn how to work together. Participants also
mentioned the lack of communication between school principals and CBO partners.
ƒ
Insurance difficulty. Service providers commented that insurance issues that come with collaborating
with others CBOs has made securing insurance complicated and costly.
ƒ
A lack of structures to facilitate alignment. Service providers asserted that there could be
improvements around communication and data sharing systems between CBOs and the district. Providers
also mentioned that there are a lot of programs in the city, but there is a real lack of coordination between
services.
ƒ
Funding. Providers commented on the current funding challenges faced by CBOs and mentioned how
services have decreased significantly. Providers also felt that some funders are only focused on what they
would like to achieve and not the actual needs of children and families. Finally, providers believe that
without SIG funding, their work would be limited.
ƒ
Issues of mutual accountability. Providers voiced some confusion around the relationship between
CBO scopes of work and SFUSD’s obligations. Providers also highlighted DCYF-SFUSD accountability
issues and felt there is not enough transparency when working with SFUSD.
ƒ
Other barriers mentioned included a lack of consistency in enforcement and standardized
testing. In addition to the barriers highlighted above, participants mentioned other issues such as the
subjective enforcement of standards for CBOs (CBOs are treated differently and there is not a consistent
set of standards). Participants also described barriers around standardized testing, where teachers are
encouraged to teach to the test.
Challenges to creating effective school-community-city partnerships citywide
ƒ
DCYF priorities. A challenge mentioned by participants was that DCYF determines the priorities and
whether they will align with the community schools model. Providers also voiced that there is tension
between programs that represent partnerships with schools and programs that work outside of schools
related to the Children’s Fund. Providers felt that there is a great amount of excitement, focus, and
synergy around school partnerships right now, but were concerned about the future of other programs that
do not operate within the community schools model.
ƒ
Addressing the achievement gap. Participants mentioned the need to nurture the performance of low
performing students, especially African Americans. Participants additionally noted that the challenge of
drawing additional resources to address the achievement gap might be higher in the face of the shifting
priorities of SFUSD.
ƒ
Reorganization of SFUSD and staffing. Service providers questioned the pending reorganization of the
zone system. Providers also commented that turnover was a challenge, especially with principals, since
much of the work they do depends on building relationships.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 95
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned include funding and grant making, reauthorization of federal
education policy and the economy. In addition to the challenges highlighted above, participants
mentioned other issues such as the lack of funding for programs once the SIG grant ends and a lack of
collaboration around grant-making. Additionally, providers commented on the challenges of
reauthorizing federal education policy and the overall challenges the current economic climate poses for
programs.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Develop a process for community input.
Providers stated schools need to obtain input
from the community and parents about the
needs of families. Providers also mentioned the
need to develop a system to hear what school
communities want from the SFUSD. Finally,
providers felt community school coordinators
have great potential, but need to be staffed by
CBOs and not just SFUSD.
Continue youth employment programs.
Service providers discussed the need to
continue and expand youth employment
programs in schools. Providers also stated the
need to reestablish funding for preemployment programs that teach youth job
skills.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Out of School Time (69%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Violence prevention and intervention
(50%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
ƒ Health and Wellness (44%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ
Explore ways to reduce duplication. Providers commented there is a fair amount of duplication, and
collaboration among CBOs should be encouraged. Providers suggested developing a database to share
information about services for individual students, which, participants noted, could maximize resources
and better serve students.
ƒ
Other future areas of need include protecting the Children’s Fund, doing more with available
funding, avoiding pressure from DCYF to run programs, supporting schools that embrace the
community model, secondary transitions, and moving the Citizens Advisory Council to a level of
commission. Service providers would like to see additional support around protecting the resources of the
Children’s Fund and better utilizing available funding opportunities in San Francisco. Providers also
mentioned increasing pressure for DCYF to run youth gang violence prevention initiatives and hoped
DCYF would remain a funding organization not a program organization. Providers felt if CBOs are
expected to have stronger educational outcomes, schools must have stronger community outcomes; more
should be done to support schools that embrace the community school model. Providers also mentioned
secondary transition programs like technical training. Finally providers expressed a desire elevate DCYF’s
Citizens Advisory Council to the level of a commission.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 96
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number
Percent
Ages 14-15
12
(75%)
Ages 16-17
12
(75%)
Ages 6-9
11
(69%)
Ages 10-13
11
(69%)
Ages 3-5
5
(31%)
Ages 18-24
4
(25%)
Ages 0-2
2
(13%)
Ages 25 and up
2
(13%)
10
(91%)
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Work with Parents**
Yes
No
1
(9%)
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
13
(81%)
San Francisco Unified School District
12
(75%)
Middle schools
12
(75%)
San Francisco Department of Children,
11
(69%)
Youth and their Families
Elementary schools
11
(69%)
High schools
11
(69%)
San Francisco Department of Parks and
6
(38%)
Recreation
Child care programs
5
(31%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
5
(31%)
San Francisco Department of Public
5
(31%)
Health
Other
1
(6%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Out of School Time
10
(63%)
Youth Empowerment
5
(31%)
Specialized Teen
5
(31%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
5
(31%)
Health & Wellness
4
(25%)
Youth Employment
4
(25%)
Family Support
3
(19%)
Transitional Youth
3
(19%)
Early Care & Education
1
(6%)
Other
1
(6%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
** Five participants did not respond to this question
In order to gain an understanding of the
work service providers are currently
engaging in, they were also asked to identify
the populations they serve, the organizations
they collaborate with and the DCYF priority
areas their programs are involved with. The
majority (75 percent) of participants in
attendance reported that they serve children
age 14 to 17. Similarly, 69 percent reported
serving children ages six to 13.
Approximately 31 percent of meeting
participants stated serving youth ages three
to five. A quarter of providers report serving
youth ages 18 to 24. An equal percent (13
percent) of service providers also reported
working with youth ages two and under and
25 and up. Nearly all service providers (91
percent) also reported serving parents.
The highest number of service providers, 81
percent, reported collaborating with other
CBOs. Three quarters of service providers,
75 percent, also reported collaborating with
the SFUSD and middle schools. Over one
half of providers in attendance (69 percent)
reported collaborating with DCYF,
elementary and high schools. One third
reported working with the San Francisco
Human Service Agency, the San Francisco
Department of Public Health and child care
programs. Other organizations that service
providers collaborate with include First 5
and the Special Needs Community.
The majority of participants (63 percent)
reported being involved in the out of school
time programs, while 31 percent reported
being involved in youth empowerment,
violence prevention and intervention, and
specialized teen. One quarter of participants
(25 percent) are involved in health and
wellness and youth employment. In
addition, 19 percent of service providers are
currently involved in family support and
transitional youth programs. Finally, six percent were involved in early care and education.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 97
Citywide Service Providers Network:
Afterschool for All Initiative
Hosted by the San Francisco Afterschool for All Initiative on
December 15, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers, CBO
5
33%
Service Provider, Public Agency
4
27%
Parents
2
13%
Other Member of a CBO
1
7%
Other Member of Public Agency
1
7%
Youth
1
7%
Other
1
7%
White
7
47%
Asian
Black/African American
Multiracial/multiethnic
3
2
2
20%
13%
13%
Middle Eastern
1
7%
Self-Reported Ethnicity
A citywide service provider convening was
hosted by the San Francisco Afterschool for All
Initiative (AFA), and was attended by 15 people.
Participants each completed a survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority program areas for children, youth
and their families. Among the 15 participants,
one third (33 percent) identified as communitybased organization (CBO) service providers, and
27 percent identified as public agency service
providers. Thirteen percent were parents.
Nearly half (47 percent) of participants
identified as White, followed by Asian (20
percent). Black/African American and
Multiracial/multiethnic participants each made
up 13 percent of the group. Additionally, one
participant identified as Middle Eastern.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the successful existing programs and
English
15
100%
efforts supporting children, youth and families,
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
barriers to accessing programs, challenges and
future priorities for children, youth and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by
meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least
frequently mentioned.
Language of Supplemental Survey
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
Prioritizing funding to serve children, youth and families. Participants commended how the city of
San Francisco prioritizes funding aimed at the wellbeing of children, youth and families. Participants
specifically noted DCYF’s decision to match state funding dedicated to federal and state funds
administered by the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) for afterschool programs.
ƒ
Capacity building grants for CBOs. Participants expressed appreciation for capacity building grants,
which serve to build skills, competence and performance ability. But, participants added that such grants
often take a back seat to direct service funding when budgets are tight, and thus cannot be accessed by
many CBOs.
ƒ
Coordinating efforts with city departments and CBOs. Participants commented that the collaborative
efforts of DCYF, nonprofit providers, and SFUSD have been a positive step toward improving the
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 98
wellbeing of children, youth and families in San Francisco. Participants were also appreciative of DCYF’s
effort to reach out to a variety of stakeholders as part of their 2011 Community Needs Assessment to help
inform future funding priorities.
ƒ
Innovative CBO practices. Participants voiced that some CBO sites have been innovative in their
approaches, and suggested establishing a system to better document and share best and promising
practices.
ƒ
Utilizing existing infrastructure for services. High rent prices in San Francisco often consume the
bulk of a CBO’s budget, leaving less funding available for the actual services provided. Participants
mentioned that CBOs have made a commitment to utilizing existing community infrastructure, including
school sites, for new services. Respondents noted that there have been recent investments put into
improving these physical spaces.
ƒ
Providing a comprehensive resource guide on afterschool programs in San Francisco.
Participants shared that an online resource guide for locating afterschool programs has been hugely
beneficial to families because it offers an easily accessible, comprehensive list of services.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Program grants do not reflect the added cost of serving high need or hard to reach youth.
Participants shared that it is more costly to serve children who are high need or who do not seek out
services. Request for proposals (RFPs) and grants do not reflect this reality, yet is an expectation for
organizations to serve high need youth. This creates challenges for organizations serving youth.
ƒ
Afterschool programs are not fully integrated into schools. Participants felt that afterschool
programs need full support from school administrators in order to be fully integrated into schools and
more accessible to students. Providers recalled difficulties getting some principals to engage with their
CBO.
ƒ
Children are unable to access community resources because they attend schools outside of their
communities. Participants identified that many children attend schools far away from their
communities, which creates a barrier to accessing community-based services.
ƒ
Insufficient benefits impact retention rates of program staff and teachers. Participants expressed
concern that the inability of programs and schools to offer their staff sufficient benefit packages can affect
staff retention rates. One person noted that without the incentive of adequate benefits the long-term
career ladder is not there for teachers and program staff.
ƒ
Lack of accessible program hours. Limited program days and hours of operation can prevent some
youth and families from accessing services. Providers shared that they would like to have the flexibility to
offer weekend and evening programming.
ƒ
Lack of coordination among city departments. Providers expressed a desire to more effectively
leverage resources by combining funding streams from different city departments who share aligned
project goals. Participants noted that increased coordination among city departments would potentially
increase the quality and quantity of programs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 99
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Safety riding public transportation. Participants noted that safety is an issue for children riding public
transportation, particularly during the winter months when it gets dark out earlier.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Offer employment training programs at
educational institutions. Participants suggested
utilizing already established educational
institutions, including City College of San Francisco
(CCSF), to hold baseline employment training
programs for youth. Participants also suggested
forming a committee to coordinate and guide the
development of such programs to ensure that
funding is being used efficiently and that efforts are
not being duplicated.
Connect students to on-site school services.
Participants mentioned that offering coordinated
services on-site at schools would be beneficial to
children and youth. Such services should include
supplemental education services, mental health
services, and juvenile justice programs.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Out of School Time (93%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation
opportunities.
ƒ Family Support (67%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Health & Wellness (47%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ
Create a list of best practice models and programs. To avoid reinventing the wheel, participants
suggested DCYF create a menu of successful models and programs that service children and youth for
schools and CBO providers to use as a reference guide. Being informed of already established best
practices would save time, effort and money, and could potentially contribute to the development of more
successful programs.
ƒ
Need for professional development of afterschool program staff. Participants noted a desire to see
professional development opportunities for afterschool program staff to improve the quality of services
offered. Participants also noted that part of the professional development could include establishing times
for staff to adequately plan service activities and to debrief situations with students.
ƒ
Align academic enrichment programs to the needs of students. Participants voiced that
instructional programs should be better aligned to the academic needs of students in order to best meet
their needs.
ƒ
Other future priorities include providing transportation, and establishing a standard around
permits and fees at SFUSD. Participants noted that SFUSD has become aware of inconsistencies among
school site processes regarding permits and fees when working with CBOs. Participants commented that
SFUSD is moving towards establishing a more systematic practice and standards which they felt should be
continued. Participants also shared that providing transportation for children and families is an area that
should be prioritized for the future.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 100
Overview of Services Offered by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve
Ages 10-13
11
(73%)
Ages 6-9
10
(67%)
Ages 14-15
7
(47%)
Ages 16-17
6
(40%)
Ages 18-24
5
(33%)
Ages 3-5
5
(33%)
Ages 0-2
3
(20%)
Ages 25 and up
0
(0%)
12
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations service providers collaborate with
San Francisco Department of Children,
13
Youth and their Families
Community-based organizations
11
San Francisco Unified School District
11
Elementary schools
10
Middle schools
9
Child care programs
7
High schools
7
San Francisco Department of Parks and
6
Recreation
San Francisco Human Services Agency
5
San Francisco Department of Public
5
Health
Other
1
DCYF program areas organizations are
most involved in
Out of School Time
11
Family Support
4
Youth Employment
4
Youth Empowerment
4
Early Care & Education
3
Health & Wellness
3
Violence Prevention & Intervention
3
Specialized Teen
1
Transitional Youth
1
Other
1
(87%)
(73%)
(73%)
(67%)
(60%)
(47%)
(47%)
(40%)
(33%)
(33%)
(7%)
(73%)
(27%)
(27%)
(27%)
(20%)
(20%)
(20%)
(7%)
(7%)
(7%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
Most (73 percent) of service providers
reported that their organization provides
services to children ages 10-13, and 67
percent provide services to children ages six
to nine. Less than half provide services for
youth ages 14 and older, with 47 percent
providing services for youth ages 14-15, 40
percent providing services for youth ages 1617, and 33 percent providing services for
transitional age youth ages 18-24. One third
of providers offer services for children ages
three to five, and 20 percent provide services
for infants and toddlers under two years old.
All of the providers reported that they work
with parents as well as children.
The majority (87 percent) of participants
reported collaborating with DCYF, and
nearly three quarters identified that their
organizations collaborate with CBOs and
SFUSD. Many participants reported
collaborating with elementary and middle
schools (67 percent and 60 percent,
respectively), while fewer than half (47
percent) shared that they collaborate with
high schools and child care programs.
Additionally, 40 percent of participants
reported collaborating with the Department
of Parks and Recreation, and 33 percent
reported collaborating with HSA and
SFDPH.
The DCYF program area that organizations
are most involved in is Out of School Time
(73 percent). Less than 30 percent of
participants are involved with Family
Support, Youth Employment and Youth
Empowerment program areas (27 percent
each). Twenty percent of organizations
reported being involved with Early Care and
Education, Health and Wellness and
Violence Prevention and Intervention.
Seven percent (one person) reported that
they are involved in Specialized Teen and Transitional Youth.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 101
Citywide Service Provider Network: Beacon
Steering Committee
Hosted by Beacon Steering Committee on January 14, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Providers, CBO
3
(75%)
Other Member of a CBO
1
(25%)
Black/African American
2
(50%)
White
Multiracial/Multiethnic
1
1
(25%)
(25%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity
A citywide service provider convening was held
at the Beacon Steering Committee and was
attended by four people. Participants completed
a supplemental survey highlighting
demographic characteristics and future priority
areas for programming for children, youth and
families. All four of the participants reported
that they were service providers or members of a
community-based organization (CBO).
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding successful programs and efforts for children, youth and families, barriers to accessing services,
challenges faced by children youth and families, and future needs. Below is a summary of the key ideas and
themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently
mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts for children, youth and families
ƒ
Community-based family services. Participants highlighted the successes of community-based family
services. Often these programs have family support services, parent education, and computer classes.
Additionally, participants noted that programs support schools and the community at large.
ƒ
Afterschool and summer programs. Participants mentioned the benefits of afterschool and summer
programs for children and youth. Community-based summer programming was mentioned as being
successful, particularly because San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) no longer has the capacity
to offer summer school.
ƒ
Collaboration and aligning of priorities. Participants noted that the alignment of priorities and the
interagency collaboration that DCYF has promoted have been helpful at the systems level. Additionally,
participants noted that DCYF’s role has changed to that of a convener, commenting that this has been a
positive shift.
ƒ
Other successful programs and efforts include capacity building for CBOs. Capacity building and
training for CBOs, particularly training on DCYF’s contract management system have been successful.
Barriers to accessing programs
ƒ
Time spent travelling to and from school. Participants expressed that children have to travel far
distances to and from school and often miss opportunities to participate in programs because they spend
most of their time travelling. Participants noted that these barriers particularly impact children in the
Bayview.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 102
ƒ
Neighborhood safety. Participants highlighted that safety poses a barrier to accessing programs as
children and families may not access services if there is violence in their neighborhood. Participants also
noted that service providers need to create a safer atmosphere and ensure that their facilities are well lit so
that children and families feel safe accessing them.
ƒ
Lack of information for families and community engagement. Participants mentioned that families
lack information about services and programs available to them. Additionally, participants noted that
there is a lack of community input in the development of programs, and mentioned that they would like
programs to be more responsive to the communities they serve.
ƒ
Lack of coordinated services. Participants noted that there is a lack of coordinated services and, as
result, some families fall through the cracks. Participants also expressed that sometimes service outreach is
targeted to a small sub-group of children and families while others are not reached at all.
ƒ
Limited capacity. Participants mentioned that program waiting lists are full due to funding shortages.
Providers expressed that they have had to prioritize programs and cut some programs that have been
helpful for families.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lack of qualified and experienced staff. Participants expressed that families face challenges due to a
lack of qualified and experienced staff. Participants noted that reduced resources in low income
communities have put a major strain on service providers, staff and teachers have to provide services for
which they are not qualified. Additionally, issues of staff turnover exacerbate these challenges as changes
in staff leadership impact programs and
Future Priority Areas
prevent children from developing
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
relationships with staff.
and the top three were…
Unsafe schools and bullying. Participants
ƒ Out of School Time (100%). Afterschool and
highlighted that unsafe schools and bullying
summer programming that offer academic
are major challenges facing children and
support, enrichment and recreation
youth.
opportunities.
Other challenges include the lack of
effective outreach, competition among
ƒ Family Support (75%). Programs that help
CBOs, and a need for more effective
parents raise their children, such as parent
strategic planning. Participants mentioned
classes and other services that strengthen
other challenges including the lack of effective
families.
outreach for children and families.
ƒ Youth Employment (50%). Opportunity for
Competition among CBOs for funding and
youth to gain work readiness skills and job
children was also noted as a challenge for
experience.
service providers as it prevents collaboration.
Additionally, participants mentioned that
there is a need for more effective strategic planning, including aligning opportunities with schools and
SFUSD.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Youth development and employment programs. Participants highlighted the need for youth
development and employment programs. Youth internships and mentoring programs were noted as
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 103
specific types of programs that participants would like to see in the future. Youth employment programs
were cited as particularly needed because of the lack of summer school opportunities.
ƒ
Summer school credit recovery. Participants expressed the need to implement programs to help
students recover credits and help youth complete high school.
ƒ
Increase family support services, including family empowerment. Participants mentioned the need
to increase family support services as families are struggling in the current economic climate. Programs to
promote family empowerment were also mentioned.
ƒ
Coordination of priorities and collaboration among systems. The coordination of priorities was
mentioned as a future need by participants. Additionally, participants highlighted the need for systems
collaboration around service provision and initiatives.
ƒ
Capacity building. Participants mentioned the need to increase capacity and staff development among
CBOs and other service providers.
ƒ
Other future program needs included a restorative justice framework and class integration in
schools. Future program needs include a restorative justice framework, which includes working with the
San Francisco Police Department and class integration in schools.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 104
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 10-13
4
(100%)
Ages 14-15
4
(100%)
Ages 16-17
4
(100%)
Ages 6-9
3
(75%)
Ages 18-24
3
(75%)
Ages 25 and up
3
(75%)
Ages 3-5
2
(50%)
3
(100%)
Work with Parents**
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
High schools
4
(100%)
Community-based organizations
4
(100%)
San Francisco Unified School District
4
(100%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
4
(100%)
and their Families
Elementary schools
3
(75%)
Middle schools
3
(75%)
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
3
(75%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
2
(50%)
Recreation
Child care programs
1
(25%)
Other
1
(25%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Family Support
4
(100%)
Out of School Time
4
(100%)
Youth Employment
4
(100%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
3
(75%)
Health & Wellness
2
(50%)
Specialized Teen
2
(50%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(50%)
Early Care & Education
1
(25%)
Other
1
(25%)
All service providers reported that they serve
children and youth ages 10 to 17.
Approximately three of the four service
providers reported that they serve children
ages six to nine, youth ages 18 to 24 and
those over age 25. Two providers report
serving children ages three to five. All
service providers, reported working with
parents.
Service providers each reported
collaborating with high schools, CBOs,
SFUSD, and DCYF. The majority of
participants (n=3) reported that they
collaborate with elementary schools, middle
schools and the Department of Public
Health. Half of providers reported
collaborating with the Department of Parks
and Recreation. One provider reported
collaborating with child care programs and
other organizations.
All service providers reported that they are
most involved in family support, out of
school time, and youth employment. The
majority (n=3) reported that they were
involved in violence prevention and
intervention. Half of providers reported that
they were involved in health and wellness,
specialized teen, and youth empowerment.
One provider reported being involved in
early care and education and other program
areas.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
**One participant did not respond
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 105
Citywide Service Providers Network: Child Care
Planning and Advisory Council
Hosted by CPAC on December 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers, CBO
15
(52%)
Concerned Community Members
4
(14%)
Other Member of a CBO
3
(10%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
3
(10%)
Parents
2
(7%)
Youth
1
(3%)
Other Member of a Public Agency
1
(3%)
White
16
(55%)
Asian
Latino/Hispanic
8
2
(28%)
(7%)
Black/African American
1
(3%)
Middle Eastern
1
(3%)
Multiracial/Multiethnic
1
(3%)
29
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A citywide service provider convening was held
at the Child Care Planning and Advisory
Council (CPAC) and was attended by 29 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey
highlighting demographic characteristics and
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. A little over half of
the participants (52 percent) were service
providers from community-based organizations
(CBOs). Approximately 14 percent of meeting
participants were concerned community
members, and ten percent were other members
of a CBO or service providers from a public
agency. Additionally, three percent of
participants identified as youth and another as a
member of a public agency.
Over half of meeting participants (55 percent)
identified as White, followed by Asian (28
percent) and Latino (7 percent). Three percent
of participants were Black/African American,
Middle Eastern, and Multiracial/Multiethnic.
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the successful existing programs available, barriers, challenges, and future needs of children, youth
and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are
ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
Support programs that provide affordable child care for families living in San Francisco. Meeting
participants pointed out that the DCYF has played a key role in sustaining programs that provide
affordable and subsidized child care. More specifically, participants mentioned that DCYF’s support for
state sponsored child care program operations has allowed more families to access child care.
Additionally, participants identified the benefits of increasing staff capacity for child care programs.
ƒ
Commitment to child care advocacy. Participants felt that DCYF’s commitment to child care advocacy
and the promotion of accessible child care has been vital for service providers and families. Participants
felt that DCYF is persistent in promoting and advocating for child care policy, noting that DCYF has been
successful in giving a voice to policies that focus on children and families, especially when it comes to
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 106
supporting access to child care. Additionally, participants were quick to note the benefits of DCYF’s
continued support for increasing staff capacity in programs that advocate for child care.
ƒ
Continued support for the promotion of afterschool programs. Meeting participants highlighted the
DCYF’s support of high quality afterschool programs for children in San Francisco, nothing that DCYF
has played a key role in supporting afterschool programs and service providers.
ƒ
Support for early childhood mental health consultations. Meeting participants asserted that DCYF’s
continued support for early childhood mental health consultations have been a successful service for
providers who support families living in San Francisco.
ƒ
Other successes include continued funding for family support programs, contribution to quality
improvement of early childhood education, increased access to health insurance for children,
and DCYF’s role in facilitating contract management. Participants also voiced a range of other
programs and efforts that have been helpful for families in need. Specifically, service providers and
community members pointed out that continued funding for family support programs has been vital for
families. DCYF’s contributions to programs that improve quality of early childhood education were also
pointed out as a success. Meeting participants felt that programs to increase access to health insurance
have been successful in enabling young children to obtain medical services. In addition, meeting
participants explained that DCYF’s contract management system has made it easy to work with DCYF and
to administer their programs.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Lack of funding for programs targeting middle school age children. Meeting participants explained
that limited funding is available for programs specifically targeting middle school age children.
Furthermore, meeting participants emphasized that not enough resources are spent on trying to assess the
needs of this age group.
ƒ
Lack of family centered programs. Service providers and community members pointed out that
meeting the needs of infants and toddlers is often a challenge due to limited family centered services,
parent education, and home visiting services.
ƒ
Limited supports for families with special needs children. Participants voiced that families of
children with special needs face challenges because they have limited access to services. Furthermore,
participants stressed that single parents sometimes feel isolated and do not reach out to programs.
ƒ
Families do not know how to navigate the service system and have difficulty accessing
information about services available in the community. Meeting participants explained that due to
the complexity of the service system, many families have a difficult time accessing and navigating services.
Meeting participants stressed that information available online is difficult for parents to access and
understand. Service providers insisted that parents need someone to direct them to services, to help them
understand and access these resources. Additionally, service providers expressed that parents lack
information about services available in the community, especially when it comes to health care.
ƒ
Income eligibility requirements prevent families from accessing needed services. Service
providers and community members also reported that families just above the poverty line are not eligible
for services. As a result, working parents are struggling to meet the needs of their families, yet at the same
time they are not eligible for support.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 107
ƒ
CBOs do not have a centrally located guide to resources for families with special needs children.
Participants expressed that numerous resources exist, but there is no central location to find resources for
children with special needs. Participants commented that creating a website with resources for children
with special health needs specifically for CBOs would help alleviate this issue.
ƒ
Limited program capacity to service the high number of immigrant families. Participants explained
that in the next three years the number of immigrant families will increase and programs may lack the
capacity to serve these families.
ƒ
Lack of data available on children entering public schools. Participants mentioned that CBOs need
data on children entering schools. Specifically, service providers would like data on reading readiness and
other educational milestones. Access to this information would allow service providers to better support
childrens’ needs and improve the quality of services.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Lack of affordable and high quality child care for families. Service providers and community
members voiced that access to affordable and high quality child care is critical for families. Participants
revealed that child care centers only have the capacity to serve about 47 percent of families and, in the face
of increasing financial constraints, many centers will be unable to sustain their quality or capacity.
ƒ
Limited program funding reduces support to families in need. Participants voiced that with
shrinking program funding it is difficult to support families that are most in need of services. Service
providers mentioned that programs are receiving fewer resources to support their efforts and it is
challenging to pay adequate salaries to program staff, thus making it difficult to retain high quality teachers
and staff in programs. Participants stressed the importance of finding new funding support for services.
ƒ
Families face additional stress due to the current economy. Meeting participants expressed that
many families are feeling impacted by the current economic climate. Participants stressed that high costs
of living and high child care costs are driving families out of San Francisco. Additionally, a lack of
employment opportunities also creates additional stress for families living in San Francisco.
ƒ
Lack of affordable housing for low income families. Meeting participants noted that access to
affordable housing is a challenge for families living in San Francisco.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Ensure equitable funding for programs. Meeting participants called for equal funding opportunities
for all programs serving diverse age groups in San Francisco.
ƒ
Continue to support CBOs and program evaluation. Service providers and community members
stressed the importance of supporting CBOs that give a voice to young children and their families.
Additionally, participants stated they would like to see programs evaluated to monitor their effectiveness.
ƒ
Increase affordable housing for families. Meeting participants stated that San Francisco should
prioritize affordable housing for low-income families.
ƒ
Support policy and advocacy for family and children. Meeting participants would like to see more
work around policy and advocacy for family and children. In addition, participants discussed the need to
have a citywide policy centered on family and children to give young children and their families a voice in
planning.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 108
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Continue to support child care services and child care providers. Participants would like to see
continued support for child care services and child care providers. Moreover, participants asked for
additional support in child care operations
and would like the city to help maintain high
Future Priority Areas
quality child care providers.
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
Encourage collaboration and integration
and the top four were…
among CBOs. According to meeting
ƒ Early Care and Education (97%). Child care
participants, service integration and
for children age five and under, including
collaboration among CBOs is essential,
preschool.
especially during these tough economic times.
ƒ Family Support (72%). Programs that help
Participants reported a need to learn and
parents raise their children, such as parent
know about resources available through the
classes and other services that strengthen
different community organizations in order to
families.
increase the quality of services for families.
Meeting participants also stated that CBOs
ƒ Out of School Time (38%). Afterschool and
should focus on quality, efficiency and
summer programming that offers academic
accountability.
support, enrichment, and recreation
Access to transportation for school age
children. In order to provide additional
support to low-income families, participants
stressed that students from low-income
families should have the opportunity to ride
public transportation at a free or reduced cost.
opportunities.
ƒ Health & Wellness (38%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
Continue to support afterschool programming. Meeting participants stressed the importance of
supporting afterschool programs for children living in San Francisco.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 109
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 3-5
21
(72%)
Ages 0-2
14
(48%)
Ages 6-9
8
(28%)
Ages 10-13
8
(28%)
Ages 14-15
4
(14%)
Ages 16-17
3
(10%)
Ages 25 and up
3
(10%)
Yes
20
(91%)
No
2
(9%)
A large proportion of service providers (72
percent) reported that their CBO serves
children ages three to five. Approximately
48 percent of meeting participants work
with children under age two. A total of 28
percent of service providers stated that they
work with children ages six to thirteen, and
10 percent stated that they work with youth
ages 16 to 17, and young adults age 25 and
older. The majority (91 percent) of
participants stated that they work with
parents.
Work with Parents
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Child care programs
20
(69%)
Community-based organizations
20
(69%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
17
(59%)
and their Families
San Francisco Unified School District
16
(55%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
14
(48%)
Elementary schools
10
(35%)
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
8
(28%)
Other
6
(21%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
5
(18%)
Recreation
Middle schools
4
(14%)
High schools
2
(7%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Early Care & Education
22
(76%)
Family Support
9
(31%)
Out of School Time
4
(14%)
Health & Wellness
3
(10%)
Youth Empowerment
1
(3%)
Other
1
(3%)
Over half of service providers (69 percent)
reported collaborating with child care
programs and CBOs. A large majority of
participants (59 percent) collaborate with
DCYF. The breakdown of additional
organizations that service providers
reported collaborating with is as follows:
San Francisco Unified School District (55
percent), San Francisco Human Services
Agencies (48 percent), elementary schools
(35 percent), Department of Public Health
(28 percent), other (21 percent),
Department of Parks and Recreation (18
percent), middle schools (14 percent) and
high schools (7 percent).
The majority of participants (76 percent)
reported being involved in the early care
and education program areas, while 31
percent reported being involved in family
support. In addition, 14 percent of
participants indicated being involved in out
of school time, followed by health and
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
wellness (10 percent). Less than five percent
of participants reported that they were most involved in youth empowerment.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 110
Citywide Service Provider Network: San
Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents
Partnerships (SFCIPP)
Hosted by the One Family Working Group on November 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Providers CBO
4
(57%)
Service Provider Public Agency
2
(29%)
Other Member of Public Agency
1
(14%)
Black/African American
3
(43%)
White
Multiracial/Multiethnic
2
2
(29%)
(29%)
7
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A citywide service provider convening was held
with the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated
Parents Partnerships (SFCIPP) and was
attended by seven people. Participants
completed a survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority program areas
for children, youth and their families. Among
the seven participants, over half (57 percent)
identified as providers from community-based
organizations (CBOs), and 29 percent identified
as service providers or other members of a
public agency. The majority of participants (43
percent) identified as Black/African American,
followed by White and multiracial/multiethnic
(29 percent each).
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the successful existing programs and efforts
supporting children, youth and families, and the barriers and challenges they may face. Below is a summary of
the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
Increased awareness and commitment to the needs of children of incarcerated parents.
Participants reported that an increase in awareness and commitment to the needs of children of
incarcerated parents has been successful. Efforts and programs, including youth advocates and private
foundations, have brought the needs of children and families to the attention of multiple city departments.
Participants additionally highlighted successes achieved due to the commitment of San Francisco jails.
Participants noted that awareness at the state and national level seems to be growing and is promising.
ƒ
Collaboration among city departments. Providers shared that collaboration and champions within the
city departments have been successful. Participants noted, in particular, that collaboration among San
Francisco Unified School District, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, the Dependency Drug court,
the Adult Probation Department, Police, Housing Services, the Sheriff’s Department, and the San
Francisco Department of Public Health have been positive in supporting the needs of families with
incarcerated parents.
ƒ
Programs that facilitate visitation and reunification of families. Providers noted that programs that
give children of incarcerated parents an opportunity to visit their parents have been successful.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 111
Additionally, facilitating the reunification of families with an incarcerated parent was also mentioned by
participants as being a successful program strategy.
ƒ
Other successes include youth violence prevention programs, child care, curriculum for
incarcerated parents, and housing. Participants noted that other successful programs include violence
prevention programs, child care, parenting curriculum for incarcerated parents and affordable housing.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Families with incarcerated parents face stigma which prevents them from accessing available
services. Participants noted that the stigma of having an incarcerated parent impacts children and youth
and may prevent them from coming forward and accessing services. Participants shared that a lack of
awareness of the needs of families with incarcerated parents creates barriers. Additionally, parents who are
incarcerated face stigma from the justice system. Participants noted that more awareness is needed to
combat the barriers of stigma.
ƒ
Lack of information about programs to support children of incarcerated parents. Participants
reported that children and families often are unaware of programs and services to support children of
incarcerated parents. Participants commented that they often do not have the infrastructure or staffing to
conduct necessary outreach.
ƒ
Barriers to re-entry create a cycle of crime and poverty. Participants expressed that institutional
barriers at the federal and local level prevent families from accessing services. Participants explained that
felony drug convictions prevent families from welfare funding and public housing.
ƒ
Other barriers include a lack of trust of services, limited visiting opportunities, financial barriers,
and transportation. Participants additionally noted that children of incarcerated parents face barriers to
accessing programs due to a lack of trust of services. Participants noted that children and families
encounter barriers of limited visiting opportunities. Additionally, participants mentioned that financial
burdens, such as phone calls and transportation, are also barriers to accessing programs and services.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Sustainability of existing programs providing services. Participants shared concerns about the future
sustainability of providing services for children of incarcerated parents. Participants noted the need for
planning and infrastructure support to ensure sustainability. Additionally, participants suggested that
funds should specifically be allocated for children with incarcerated parents to ensure that programs can
continue providing services.
ƒ
Stigma of having an incarcerated parent. Participants expressed that stigma is a major challenge for
children with incarcerated parents and that more awareness and education is needed to combat this
stigma.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Collect and share data to coordinate services. Participants noted that collecting and sharing data
about children with incarcerated parents will help different agencies coordinate the services they provide.
Additionally, participants note that sharing information could help once families are reunified.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 112
ƒ
Provide more information for parents. Participants voiced that parents need more information about
services and programs available. Additionally, participants suggested that information and resources for
families with incarcerated parents be centralized.
ƒ
Other needs mentioned by participants
included expanded funding for parenting
skills training for incarcerated parents,
support for caregivers of children,
evaluation support for service providers,
and increased awareness of the needs of
children of incarcerated parents.
Participants also emphasized expanded funding
for parenting skills training for incarcerated
parents. Support for the caregivers of children,
including respite care, babysitting, and financial
support were also highlighted as a future needs.
Evaluation support was additionally noted by
participants. Finally, participants mentioned the
need for increased awareness about the needs of
children of incarcerated parents for both city
government agencies and the larger community.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority
areas, and the top three were…
ƒ Family Support (86%). Programs that
help parents raise their children, such as
parent classes and other services that
strengthen families.
ƒ Early care and education (43%). Child
care for children age five and under,
including preschool.
ƒ Health & Wellness (43%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
Appendix C - 113
Overview of Services Offered by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve
Ages 16 - 17
6
(86%)
Ages 14 - 15
5
(71%)
Ages 0 - 2
4
(57%)
Ages 3 - 5
4
(57%)
Ages 6 - 9
4
(57%)
Ages 10 - 13
4
(57%)
Ages 18 - 24
4
(57%)
Ages 25 and up
3
(43%)
Work with Parents
Yes
5
(71%)
No
2
(29%)
Organizations service providers collaborate with
Community-based organizations
6
(86%)
San Francisco Department of Children,
5
(71%)
Youth and their Families
San Francisco Human Services Agency
4
(57%)
San Francisco Department of Public
4
(57%)
Health
High schools
2
(29%)
Other
2
(29%)
San Francisco Unified School District
1
(14%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Family Support
3
(43%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(29%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
2
(29%)
Early Care & Education
1
(14%)
Health & Wellness
1
(14%)
Youth Employment
1
(14%)
Transitional Youth
1
(14%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
The vast majority (86 percent) of service
providers reported that their organizations
provide services to youth ages 16 to 17. Over
70 percent of service providers serve youth
ages 14 to 15. Over half (57 percent) of the
providers reported serving children ages
under five, transitional age youth and
children between the ages of six and thirteen.
Additionally, 43 percent of service providers
reported serving those over age 25. The
majority (71 percent) of service providers
reported that they worked with parents.
The vast majority (86 percent) of service
providers reported that they collaborate with
CBOs. Most (71 percent) reported that they
collaborate with DCYF. Over half (57
percent) of service providers reported that
they collaborate with the San Francisco
Human Services Agency and the San
Francisco Department of Public Health.
Fewer service providers reported that they
collaborated with high schools, San
Francisco Unified School District, and other
organizations such as the courts and the San
Francisco Sherriff Department.
The DCYF program area that organizations
are most involved with is Family Support (43
percent), followed by Youth Empowerment
and Violence Prevention and Intervention
(29 percent each). Fourteen percent of
respondents reported that they were most
involved in Early Care and Education,
Health and Wellness, Youth Employment
and Transitional Youth.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 114
Citywide Service Provider Network: Family
Support Network
Hosted by Family Support Network on November 15, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers CBO
15
(79%)
Other Member of a Public Agency
2
(11%)
Service provider, Public agency
1
(5%)
Member of a policy group
1
(5%)
White
11
(61%)
Black/African American
Asian
4
1
(22%)
(6%)
Latino/Hispanic
1
(6%)
Multiracial/Multiethnic
1
(6%)
20
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity**
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*One participant did not answer this question.
**Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A citywide service provider convening was held
at the Family Support Network and was
attended by 20 people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families.
A large proportion of participants (79 percent)
were service providers from community-based
organizations (CBOs). A total of 11 percent of
participants identified as other members of a
public agency. Additionally, five percent of
participants identified as service providers from
a public agency and member of a policy group.
When looking at the ethnic breakdown, over
half of the meeting participants (61 percent)
identified as White and 22 percent identified as
African American. Additionally, six percent of
meeting participants (one person) identified as
Asian, Latino/Hispanic and
Multiracial/Multiethnic.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion regarding the successful existing programs available, barriers,
challenges, and future needs of children, youth and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to
the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
DCYF’s continued support for children, youth and families. Meeting participants expressed that
DCYF plays a critical role in creating a system of care in San Francisco so that children, youth and families
can reach their full potential. Participants commented that DCYF’s intentional support to increase family
services through health and wellness programs has been helpful. Meeting participants also pointed out
that DCYF’s commitment to families living in San Francisco is crucial to ensure families and children are
successful. Participants mentioned that allowing service providers and programs the flexibility to tailor
programs to client’s needs is important when thinking about family centered services. Meeting
participants also discussed the importance of including the voice of the community, especially youth, when
making decisions around program priorities.
ƒ
Summer programs for children. Participants agreed that summer programs play a key role in providing
children with nurturing and a structured learning environment.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 115
ƒ
DCYF’s commitment to program capacity building. Participants discussed the important role DCYF
has played in supporting program capacity building, especially when it comes to afterschool programs. As
a result, service providers commented that they are seeking and reaching out for more training
opportunities.
ƒ
DCYF’s work in funding alignment. Meeting participants also asserted that DCYF’s work in aligning
Family Support funding with programs and agencies that support children, youth and their families has
been successful. Most importantly, this effort has allowed for increased resources and communication
across programs.
ƒ
Support for family resource centers. Meeting participants noted that continued support for family
resource centers has been critical. Continued support for family resource centers has allowed families to
go to school, to work and be healthier. Meeting participants stressed that continuing this effort is
important to ensure families and children are healthy.
ƒ
Support for out of school time. Community members and service providers stressed the importance of
focusing specifically on building supports for out of school time. When speaking about out of school time,
meeting participants specifically referred to supports for summer time and holidays.
ƒ
Other successes include continued support for immigrant families, and services for transitional
age youth. Meeting participants appreciated DCYF’s approach towards providing services for immigrant
families in San Francisco. Mainly, meeting participants were thankful for being able to serve families
regardless of their immigration status. Additionally, participants stated that funding for transitional age
youth (TAY) has been beneficial for youth.
Barriers and challenges to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Limited funds for programs serving families. Throughout the convening, meeting participants voiced
that limited program funding affects families and service providers. Mainly, participants voiced that
programs serving children, youth and families in San Francisco are facing difficult times, especially with
depleting funds and the potential elimination of safety net services. Meeting participants stressed that
funds from all sources, including government and foundations, are depleting. Furthermore, participants
worried about potential cuts affecting children and families most in need. Additionally, service providers
noted that as funding and programs get cut, it is difficult to maintain and develop strong relationships with
families.
ƒ
Families do not know about services available in the community. Meeting participants also pointed
out that many families needing services do not know about resources that exist in San Francisco.
Participants highlighted that during these times of limited resources, information on existing services is
easily lost.
ƒ
Families face additional stress due to the current economy and immigration status. Throughout
the community convening, participants spoke of the many challenges families face due to the current
economy. Meeting participants noted that low-income families and families of color are most affected by
these challenging economic times. According to meeting participants, many families have experienced job
loss and lost their homes; these families are now trying to rebuild what they lost in the recession. As a
result, families are stressed and trying to survive in order to pay bills and meet family responsibilities.
These stresses are further compounded by immigration status. Meeting participants noted that many
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 116
families are afraid of being deported and are experiencing real fear. Meeting participants asserted that all
of these pressures families are facing may increase family violence, community violence and child abuse.
ƒ
High costs prevent families from accessing access mental health and legal services. According to
meeting participants, mental health services are critical for families in need. However, many families face
challenges accessing these services because they are expensive. Similarly, participants also stressed that
many families need of legal services, but due to high costs many families cannot access these supports.
ƒ
Lack of supportive services for previously incarcerated individuals. Meeting participants pointed
out that there are few supports available for previously incarcerated individuals. According to meeting
participants, due to this lack of supports, these individuals have a difficult time reunifying with their
families and accessing services like affordable housing.
ƒ
Lack of affordable housing for low-income families. Participants emphasized that the lack of
affordable housing options has pushes families outside of San Francisco and once families move out of the
city they cannot access critical services. Meeting participants felt the lack of affordable housing in San
Francisco further destabilizes families.
ƒ
Lack of employment and summer programs for youth. Participants also voiced that there is great
need to create employment opportunities and summer programs for youth. Additionally, meeting
participants stated that drop-in centers are also essential services for youth, but due to financial constraints
these programs have been cut or closed.
ƒ
Families of children with special health needs are impacted due to program cuts. Meeting
participants expressed that families of children with special health needs also been hit hard during the
economic recession. With program and funding cuts, these families face challenges finding high quality
care for their children.
ƒ
Individuals with special needs and the LGBT community face discrimination when accessing
services. Participants also felt that individuals with special health needs and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (LGBT) community face discrimination when accessing services, mainly due to the
complicated application process. In addition, meeting participants felt that oftentimes the service system
is set up to be judgmental.
ƒ
Populations cited as facing the greatest barriers included homeless families, teen parents, single
parents with young children, families with mental health issues, immigrant populations and
transient families. Through the citywide convening meeting participants identified populations facing
the greatest barriers. Meeting participants stated that homeless families and teen parents encounter
barriers accessing services and programs. In addition, meeting participants stated that single parents with
young children and families with mental health issues also face barriers and challenges when accessing
services. Lastly, meeting participants pointed out that immigrant populations and transient families face
barriers as well when trying to access services for their families.
ƒ
Other barriers and challenges include family violence, community violence, child abuse, food
security, lack of transportation, child care, the impact of redevelopment and closing the
achievement gap. In addition to the barriers and challenges highlighted above, meeting participants
described that family violence, community violence, child abuse and food security are key barriers for
families living in San Francisco. Lack of transportation was also cited as a key barrier for families.
Meeting participants expressed concern over redevelopment in neighborhoods and felt that families will be
impacted. Meeting participants also expressed that many families may distrust the redevelopment process
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 117
taking place in their neighborhoods. Participants also pointed out that there are pressures around
reaching the achievement gap in schools.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Continue to support family centered
services. Community members and service
providers stressed that San Francisco should
focus on families and programs that support
families. Mainly, participants would like to
see services and programs that focus on
family stabilization.
Increase affordable housing options for
families. Community members and service
providers would like to see families not
continue to live in San Francisco County
and stressed that there is a crucial need for
affordable housing.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Family Support (95%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ Early Care and Education (65%). Child care
for children age five and under, including
preschool.
ƒ Health & Wellness (55%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ
Increase out of school time supports for
youth. Meeting participants would also like
to see programs and services that nurture and support young people.
ƒ
Continue to support mental health services. Meeting participants emphasized the need for increased
mental health services.
ƒ
Increase employment opportunities and summer programs for youth. Participants expressed that
employment opportunities for youth are needed in San Francisco. Additionally, meeting participants
emphasized that there is great need for engaging summer activities for youth.
ƒ
Increase supports for previously incarcerated individuals. Meeting participants would like to see a
greater number of services for previously incarcerated individuals. Participants believe that a business
start-up program would benefit these individuals as they often have a difficult time finding stable
employment opportunities.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 118
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 0-2
17
(85%)
Ages 3-5
17
(85%)
Ages 14-15
14
(70%)
Ages 16-17
14
(70%)
Ages 25 and up
14
(70%)
Ages 6-9
13
(65%)
Ages 10-13
13
(65%)
Ages 18-24
12
(60%)
Yes
18
(90%)
No
2
(10%)
In order to gain an understanding of the
work service providers are currently
engaging in, they were also asked to identify
the populations they serve, the organizations
they collaborate with and the DCYF priority
areas their programs are involved with. The
majority of participants (85 percent)
indicated serving children ages two and
under and children ages three to five.
Seventy percent reported serving youth ages
14-17 and 25 and up. Most participants (65
percent) also reporting serving children age
six through 13.
Work with Parents
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
19
(95%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
18
(90%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
16
(80%)
and their Families
Child care programs
13
(65%)
Elementary schools
13
(65%)
San Francisco Dept of Public health
13
(65%)
Middle schools
12
(60%)
San Francisco Unified School District
12
(60%)
High schools
10
(50%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
6
(30%)
Recreation
Other
2
(10%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Family Support
15
(75%)
Early Care & Education
9
(45%)
Out of School Time
6
(30%)
Health & Wellness
5
(25%)
Specialized Teen
2
(10%)
Youth Employment
2
(10%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(10%)
Transitional Youth
1
(5%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
1
(5%)
Nearly all meeting participants (95 percent)
reported collaborating with CBOs. This was
followed by 90 percent who indicated that
they are involved with the San Francisco
Human Services Agency. Approximately 80
percent of participants collaborate with
DCYF. The breakdown of additional
organizations that service providers reported
collaborating with is as follows: child care
programs (65 percent), elementary schools
(65 percent), the Department of Public
Health (65 percent), middle schools (60
percent), San Francisco Unified School
District (60 percent), high schools (50
percent), the Department of Parks and
Recreation (30 percent) and other (10
percent).
The majority of participants (75 percent)
reported being involved in the family
support program area, and 45 percent
reported being involved in early care and
education. A notable proportion (30
percent) of participants engaged in the out of
school time program area. Approximately a
quarter of participants (25%) are involved in
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply.
health and wellness. An equal percent of
participants are involved in the following program areas: specialized teen (10%), youth employment (10%) and
youth empowerment (10%). Less than ten percent of participants are involved in the transitional age youth
and violence prevention and intervention program areas.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 119
Citywide Service Provider Network: San
Francisco Improving Transition Outcomes
Project Interagency Council
Hosted by San Francisco Improving Outcomes Project Interagency
Council on December 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*˜
Service Providers CBO
Parents
Service Provider Public Agency
Other Member of Public Agency
Self-Reported Ethnicity
White
4
(50%)
2
1
1
(25%)
(13%)
(13%)
10
(100%)
10
(100%)
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A citywide service provider convening was held
at San Francisco Improving Transition
Outcomes Project (ITOP) Interagency Council
and was attended by 10 people. Participants
completed a supplemental survey highlighting
demographic characteristics and future priority
areas for programming for children, youth and
families. Half of the participants in attendance
were service providers from community-based
organizations (CBOs). All of the meeting
participants identified as White.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding successful efforts and programs in
˜Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
supporting youth, children and families,
barriers, challenges, and future needs. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting
participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently
mentioned.
*2 Participants did not respond to this question
Successful efforts and programs in supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
DCYF funded programs. Participants mentioned the success of programs DCYF funds such as Out of
School Time programs, summer programs, afterschool programs at Edgewood, youth employment
programs, special education advocacy and Support for Families. Finally participants felt DCYF has done a
good job leveraging local funds with state and federal funds.
ƒ
Capacity building programs. Participants also stressed funding capacity building, allowing programs to
learn more about children with mental health disabilities.
ƒ
Systems improvements. Participants noted that they believe DCYF pushes systems to work better,
which positively impacts how these systems serve families.
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
Inability of programs to serve youth with highest needs. Participants mentioned that families with
children with the most severe problems sometime feel unwelcome in programs, making these parents feel
isolated.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 120
ƒ
Institutional and cultural barriers faced by monolingual and immigrant families. Participants
stressed that barriers exist with San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and for non-English
speaking and immigrant families. They explained families that do not speak English do not always know
they have a right to services and experience difficulty accessing them. New immigrants are reluctant to
speak to government agencies. Finally participants mentioned teachers and program staff may not be
aware of additional services available due to insufficient communication.
Challenges faced by children, youth and families
ƒ
Challenges faced by special needs youth in the foster care system. Participants acknowledged foster
care youth face their own unique set of challenges. Many foster youth have been exposed to violence and
have behavioral issues. More vocal parents get better care for their children and foster parents may not be
as vocal in advocating for the needs of youth with special needs. Additionally, foster parents might change
over the course of a child’s life preventing foster parents from being a consistent advocate.
ƒ
Institutional accountability. Participants felt policy makers have denied responsibility saying the
challenges faced by children are not the city’s problem, but they are the SFUSD’s problem. Then, when
youth graduate from high school, they become the state’s problem.
ƒ
Bullying of children and youth with special needs. Participants stressed bullying of children and
youth with special needs is a major issue. Participants also mentioned that while some of the youth they
serve are the targets of bullying, others are bullies themselves.
ƒ
Other challenges mentioned included, housing and disabled housing, limited sex education for
special education students and limited employment programs and options. Participants also
mentioned other challenges and barriers facing youth and families including housing, especially housing
for disabled youth. They also mentioned sex education for special education students are not presented in
an appropriate matter. Finally, participants stressed the lack of employment programs and the lack of
employment opportunities for youth once they graduate high school.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
Family support programs. Participants felt
families need information, advocacy and support
and that parent education might be the most
critical need for the future.
Comprehensive out of school programming,
especially for youth with special needs.
Participants stated that while there are
afterschool programs available, they not
adequately address children with special needs,
since in some cases these children and youth
need to develop their social skills. Participants
also felt DCYF should adopt a city-wide
inclusion policy for children with special needs
and advocate for a seat on the Community
Advisory Council for people.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Transitional Youth (90%). Services to
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers
in becoming successful independent adults
ƒ Youth Employment (50%). Opportunities
for youth to gain work readiness skills and job
experience.
ƒ Family Support (40%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
Appendix C - 121
ƒ
Reexamine funding processes and standards. Participants mentioned DCYF funded a lot of new
programs while cutting existing programs, and they felt DCYF shouldn’t test new ideas at the expense of
programs that work. In addition, participants stated that if building program capacity was a goal of DCYF
they should provide larger grants.
ƒ
Other areas of need included mental health services, more collaboration on youth employment,
and involving the private sector more effectively. Participants would like to see additional support
around mental health services for youth. Participants also mentioned the need for additional city
collaboration on youth employment. Finally, participants believed DCYF could use its unique position to
encourage more involvement from the private sector.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 122
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 18 - 24
7
(70%)
Ages 16 - 17
5
(50%)
Ages 25 and up
4
(40%)
Ages 0 - 2
3
(30%)
Ages 3 - 5
3
(30%)
Ages 6 - 9
3
(30%)
Ages 10 - 13
3
(30%)
Ages 14 - 15
3
(30%)
8
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
8
(80%)
San Francisco Unified School District
6
(60%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
6
(60%)
San Francisco Department of Children,
5
(50%)
Youth and their Families
San Francisco Department of Parks and
4
(40%)
Recreation
High schools
3
(30%)
San Francisco Department of Public
3
(30%)
Health
Child care programs
2
(20%)
Other
2
(20%)
Elementary schools
1
(10%)
Middle schools
1
(10%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Transitional Youth
6
(60%)
Family Support
4
(40%)
Youth Employment
3
(30%)
Early Care & Education
2
(20%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(20%)
Health & Wellness
1
(10%)
Out of School Time
1
(10%)
Specialized Teen
1
(10%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
1
(10%)
Other
1
(10%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
In order to gain an understanding of the
work service providers are currently
engaging in, they were also asked to identify
the populations they serve, the organizations
they collaborate with and the DCYF priority
areas their programs are involved with. A
majority of participants in attendance (70
percent) reported that they serve youth ages
18 to 24. Half reported serving youth 16 to
17. Additionally, 30 percent of meeting
participants reported working with children
ages two and under, three to five, six to nine,
10 to 13 and 14 to 15. All service providers
also reported serving parents.
A majority of service providers (80 percent)
also reported collaborating with other CBOs.
Over half (60 percent) reported working
with SFUSD and the San Francisco Human
Services Agency. Half of providers reported
working with DCYF. Forty percent reported
working with the Department of Parks and
Recreation, while 30 percent reported
working with high schools and the
Department of Public Health. Fewer service
providers (20 percent) reported
collaborating with child care programs and
other organizations.
Over one half of participants (60 percent)
reported being involved in transitional youth
services, while 40 percent reported being
involved in family support services. Thirty
percent reported being involved in youth
employment. Less than a quarter of
participants (20 percent) are involved in
early care and education and youth
empowerment. In addition, ten percent of
service providers are currently involved in
health and wellness, out of school time,
specialized time, violence prevention and
intervention.
Appendix C - 123
Citywide Service Provider Network: Wellness
Initiative - Wellness Coordinators
Hosted by Wellness Coordinators on December 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Provider, Public Agency
12
(92%)
Other
1
(8%)
White
9
(69%)
Asian
Multiracial/Multiethnic
2
2
(15%)
(15%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
A citywide service provider convening was held
at the Wellness Initiative—Wellness
Coordinators meeting and was attended by 13
people. Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic characteristics
and future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. The majority of
participants reported that they were service
providers from a public agency (92 percent).
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding successful programs and efforts for
children, youth and families, barriers to accessing services, challenges and future needs of children, youth and
families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered
in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
*Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
Successful programs and efforts for children, youth and families
ƒ
School-based health and wellness programs. Participants highlighted the importance of health and
wellness programs for youth, particularly those that are based in schools. Service providers noted that
nurses in schools and sexual and reproductive health services have been particularly beneficial for youth.
Participants further described that health and wellness programs help youth stay healthy and in school.
Additionally, participants noted that behavioral health programs address issues of violence prevention.
ƒ
Restorative justice programs. Participants expressed that programs that promote restorative justice are
beneficial for youth.
ƒ
Programs that integrate parent involvement and have family services. Participants mentioned that
parent workshops on insurance and health have been helpful. These types of programs, participants noted,
have been able to connect families and school.
ƒ
Support for teachers on adolescent health. Participants mentioned that programs to educate teachers
have been helpful to educate staff about the link between health and education.
ƒ
Other successful programs and efforts include youth employment. Youth employment programs
were also noted by meeting participants as being successful programs.
Barriers to accessing programs
ƒ
Linguistic and cultural barriers. Participants expressed that programs often do not have the language
capacity to provide services to youth who are English Language Learners. Providers noted that there are
few bilingual and bicultural programs for Asian youth.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 124
ƒ
Stigma and fear accessing health programs. Participants expressed that youth face stigma when trying
to access health programs. Specifically, male youth and youth affiliated with gangs do not access health
services due to fear and stigma.
ƒ
Truancy. Participants highlighted that truancy is a barrier to accessing services. Difficulties at home often
contribute to truancy, and as a result, these students do not access services.
ƒ
Limited capacity to provide services that are in high demand. Participants noted that services are
often overburdened as they are in such high demand and accessible in schools. Participants explained that
due to reduced funding community-based organizations (CBOs) have not been able to serve as many older
youth. Additionally, participants noted that youth with special needs face barriers as providers cannot
always come to the school site.
ƒ
Other barriers include lack of transportation, stress, poverty, and challenges related to offering
Wellness Centers in schools. Participants noted other barriers including a lack of transportation, stress
and poverty. Participants also identified that offering Wellness Centers in schools can create challenges for
youth who, at times, must leave class to access services. Participants further explained that Wellness
Center program staff are often expected to take part in other school projects that are outside of the scope of
their work, simply because they are stationed in school facilities.
Challenges and future needs of children, youth and families
ƒ
ƒ
Need for substance abuse services.
Participants expressed that youth need programs
to address substance abuse beyond traditional
prevention programs. Addressing drugs in
schools, treatment for substance abuse, and
interventions for drug dealers were suggested by
participants.
Obesity and nutrition programs. Programs
that fight obesity and promote healthy eating
habits were mentioned as needs by service
providers. Participants also mentioned that
action needs to be taken to address the poor
quality of school lunches. Participants further
suggested providing safe spaces for physical
activity.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Health and Wellness (92%). Programs to
promote mental and physical health.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention
(77%). Programs that respond to and prevent
violence among youth.
ƒ Family Support (39%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
ƒ
Economic challenges and a lack of job opportunities for youth and families. Participants
highlighted that families face economic challenges and a lack of job opportunities. As result of these
economic challenges families are struggling to meet basic needs including housing, and some families must
leave San Francisco because of the high cost of living. Participants reiterated that family stability is
impacted by these economic challenges.
ƒ
Need for programs to address domestic violence. Due to the stress of economic challenges and family
instability, participants noted that youth are facing more instances of domestic violence. Participants
noted that wrap-around and mental health services are needed for youth and their families.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 125
ƒ
High drop out rates among youth. Participants highlighted the need to address the high rates of youth
dropping out of high school, in part due to the lack of opportunities for youth to regain credits in summer
school. Additionally, participants noted the challenges faced by immigrant youth who face pressure to
work instead of pursuing an education.
ƒ
Increase services for young men, foster youth and LGBT youth. Participants noted the need to
increase services for young men and foster youth. Participants mentioned that some lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT) youth, specifically homeless youth, are not always able to access certain services,
and they may not feel comfortable seeking services at school. Providers commented that there are a large
number of homeless LGBT youth who also need affordable housing services.
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve
Ages 10-13
2
(15%)
Ages 14-15
10
(77%)
Ages 16-17
13
(100%)
Ages 18-24
9
(69%)
13
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with
High schools
13
(100%)
Community-based organizations
13
(100%)
San Francisco Unified School District
13
(100%)
San Francisco Dept of Public health
12
(92%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
11
(85%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
11
(85%)
and their Families
Middle schools
4
(31%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
4
(31%)
Recreation
Other
1
(8%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Health & Wellness
13
(100%)
Youth Empowerment
10
(77%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
10
(77%)
Family Support
9
(69%)
Transitional Youth
8
(62%)
Youth Employment
7
(54%)
Out of School Time
5
(39%)
Specialized Teen
5
(39%)
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
All service providers reported that they serve
youth ages 16 to 17. The majority of service
providers reported that they serve youth ages
14 to 15 (77 percent), and youth ages 18-24
(69 percent). Approximately 15 percent of
service providers reported that they serve
children ten to 13. All service providers
reported working with parents.
All service providers reported collaborating
with high schools, CBOs, and San Francisco
Unified School District. Most participants
(92 percent) reported that they collaborate
with the Department of Public Health.
Eighty-five percent of service providers
reported collaborating with San Francisco
Human Services Agency and DCYF. Fewer
service providers reported collaborating with
middle schools, and the Department of Parks
and Recreation (31 percent each).
Service providers each reported being
involved in the health and wellness DCYF
program area. A large proportion (77
percent) reported being involved in youth
empowerment, and violence prevention and
intervention. Over half of participants
reported that they were involved in family
support (69 percent), transitional youth (62
percent), and youth employment (54
percent). Fewer providers reported being
involved in out of school time and
specialized teen.
Appendix C - 126
Citywide Service Provider Network: Workforce
Investment SF (WISF) Youth Council
Hosted by Youth Council on December 8, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Other Member of Public Agency
1
(50%)
Member of Policy Group
1
(50%)
Latino/Hispanic
1
(33%)
White
Multiracial/Multiethnic
1
1
(33%)
(33%)
3
(100%)
Self-Reported Ethnicity**
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A citywide service provider input session was
hosted by the Workforce Investment SF (WISF)
Youth Council and was attended by multiple
people. Three of the participants completed a
supplemental survey to report demographic
information and to identify future priority areas
for programming for children, youth and
families. Two of the three participants provided
information about their professional affiliation:
one participant was a member of a public agency
and the other was a member of a policy group.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
*One participant did not respond
focusing on helpful programs, barriers,
**Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
challenges, and the future needs of children,
youth, and families. Below is a summary of the key ideas and themes identified by participants. Themes are
ordered in the summaries from the most frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts for children, youth and families
ƒ
Outreach to communities and implementation of needs assessment. Participants stated that
DCYF’s outreach efforts have led to an increased understanding of the needs of children, youth, and
families. They noted that engaging community members in the needs assessment process has helped
service providers to be more responsive to the needs of communities.
ƒ
Strategic planning. Participants noted that DCYF has been strategic in its attempts to meet the needs of
children, youth, and families. The three-year strategic plan was identified as a principle comment of their
efforts. Participants also noted that DCYF has made a concerted effort to support service providers by
helping them focus on outcomes and to think strategically about their programming.
ƒ
Preservation of funding. Participants commented on DCYF’s important role in preserving the budget to
serve children, youth, and families. They stated that budget cuts were minimized due to DCYF’s advocacy
efforts at the community and City level.
Barriers and challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Access to quality education. The difficulty of acquiring a quality education was identified as a
substantial challenge faced by children. Participants commented that with limited access to high-quality
educational opportunities, children will not have the skills to attain jobs or move on to a post-secondary
education.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 127
ƒ
Language capacity. Limited English proficiency was identified as a significant barrier for some children,
youth, and adults. Without a firm grasp of the English language, participants reported that residents have
difficulty accessing services and finding jobs. Participants also noted that many service providers do not
have enough multi-lingual staff members to meet the needs of their diverse clients.
ƒ
Immigration status. Participants expressed particular concern for undocumented immigrant populations
and their ability to access needed services. Expanding outreach and increasing opportunities, particularly
job opportunities, were identified as being important for promoting the wellbeing of this vulnerable
population.
ƒ
Limited mental health services. Participants commented that there are limited services for people with
severe mental health needs. Participants also noted that service providers often do not have enough
training to meet the needs of this population.
ƒ
Program requirements restrict participation. Participants noted that sometimes people with high
levels of need are unable to access services
or are kicked out of programs because they
Future Priority Areas
are unable to meet program requirements.
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
This was identified as a problem for people
the top three were…
with substance abuse issues and behavior
problems.
ƒ Youth Employment (100%). Opportunities for
youth to gain work readiness skills and job
Difficulty navigating system of
experience.
services. Participants noted that there are
ƒ
many people who are involved in multiple
systems, yet they still have difficulty
accessing needed services. It is important
to identify these individuals and guide
them though the process of finding services
that best meet their needs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
ƒ Health & Wellness (67%). Programs to promote
mental and physical health.
ƒ Transitional Youth (67%). Services to support
youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers in becoming
successful independent young adults.
Appendix C - 128
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve
Ages 16-17
3
(100%)
Ages 14-15
2
(67%)
Ages 18-24
2
(67%)
Ages 0-2
1
(33%)
Ages 3-5
1
(33%)
Ages 6-9
1
(33%)
Ages 10-13
1
(33%)
2
(67%)
Work with Parents
Yes
No
1
(33%)
Organizations CBOs collaborate with
Community-based organizations
3
(100%)
San Francisco Unified School District
3
(100%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
3
(100%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
3
(100%)
and their Families
High schools
2
(67%)
Child care programs
1
(33%)
Elementary schools
1
(33%)
Middle schools
1
(33%)
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
1
(33%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
1
(33%)
Recreation
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Youth Employment
3
(100%)
Health & Wellness
2
(67%)
Specialized Teen
2
(67%)
Youth Empowerment
2
(67%)
Transitional Youth
2
(67%)
Early Care & Education
1
(33%)
Family Support
1
(33%)
Out of School Time
1
(33%)
Two of the three participants in attendance
reported that their organizations serve youth
between the ages of 14 and 24. Additionally,
one participant reported that his or her
organization provides services to children as
soon as they are born. Two of the three
participants reported that their organizations
also work with parents.
All participants reported collaborating with
community-based organizations (CBOs),
San Francisco Unified School District, San
Francisco Human Services Agency, and
DCYF.
Participants in attendance reported that they
were involved in a variety of DCYF program
areas. All of the participants reported that
they were involved in youth employment.
Two of the three participants were also
involved in health and wellness, specialized
teens, youth empowerment, and transitional
youth.
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 129
Citywide Service Provider Network: Shape Up
San Francisco
Hosted by Shape Up SF on January 12, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...
Service Providers, CBO
4
(50%)
Service Provider, Public Agency
2
(25%)
Other Member of Public Agency
2
(25%)
White
4
(57%)
Asian
Multiracial/Multiethnic
2
1
(29%)
(14%)
8
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity*
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
A citywide service provider convening was held
at Shape Up SF and was attended by eight
people. Participants completed a supplemental
survey highlighting demographic characteristics
and future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. Half of those in
attendance were service providers from
community-based organizations (CBOs). Other
participants were also service providers and
members from public agencies. Over half of the
participants (57 percent) reported being White,
followed by Asian (29 percent), and
Multiracial/Multiethnic (14 percent).
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding the successful existing programs
available, barriers, challenges, and future needs of children youth and families. Below is a summary of the key
ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
*One participant did not respond
Successful programs and efforts supporting children, youth and families
ƒ
Nutrition programs both in-school and out of school. Participants mentioned that in-school nutrition
promotion programs, such as salad bars and programs to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages, have been successful. Participants additionally highlighted the benefits of nutrition programs
that encourage healthy nutrition after school and during the summer. Participants added that efforts from
the city of San Francisco to promote health and nutrition have also been helpful
ƒ
Programs promoting physical activity. Programs that promote physical activity were mentioned by
participants as successful programs, including programs promoting physical education in-school, as well
as encouraging active transportation (through biking and walking) for children.
ƒ
Civic engagement programs for youth. Participants highlighted the benefits of civic engagement
programs for youth. These programs give youth a voice and encourage civic participation among youth.
ƒ
Environmentally focused programming. Programs that focus on the environment, including
environmental conservation and community gardening, were mentioned by participants.
ƒ
Other program areas include food security, Wellness Centers, community-building programs,
truancy prevention programs, CBO capacity building, and afterschool programming. Participants
mentioned other successful program areas which included health and wellness programming including
food security and Wellness Centers. Additionally participants mentioned other successful efforts were in
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 130
the areas of community-building, truancy prevention programs, CBO capacity building and collaborative
afterschool programming with San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).
Barriers to accessing programs and services
ƒ
The distribution and shortage of resources impact the continuity of services and programs.
Participants expressed the need for expanded funding to maintain the continuity of service provision.
Additionally, participants mentioned that the lack of resources limits the continuity of staffing and creates
instability for both the organization providing services and children and families that rely on those services
and programs. Participants noted that the distribution of resources was not always equitable, and that
some areas of the city and age groups lack resources.
ƒ
Difficult to do outreach. Participants reported that engaging parents was challenging and more effective
parent outreach is necessary. Participants also mentioned a specific need to conduct outreach for parents
who are monolingual in a language other than English. Additionally participants noted the need for more
outreach of families in public housing and transitional age youth.
ƒ
Limited capacity of certain CBOs. Participants noted that in some neighborhoods there are barriers
faced as CBOs do not have the capacity to address the needs of the communities they serve. Participants
mentioned that this barrier will be exacerbated due to the current economic climate and reduced funding.
ƒ
Other barriers included the lack of collaboration with other city agencies and unsafe
environments. Participants also noted a lack of collaboration with other city agencies, including the
Department of Recreation and Parks, as a barrier to expanding service provision. Pedestrian safety and
unsafe environments were also mentioned as a barrier to children and families accessing services.
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Reduction of services available will have severe implications for families. Participants stressed that
the cuts in services will severely impact the families that depend on these services, such as child care for
economic stability. Participants noted that cutting programs, such as prevention and mental health
services, are likely to have huge future consequences that may be overlooked during funding cuts.
ƒ
Other challenges facing children youth and families include family supports for early childhood
education, foster care, a lack of physical activity for children, violence, and a lack of
comprehensive coordination across funding departments. Participants additionally mentioned that
family supports for early care and early childhood education, foster care, lack of physical activity for
children, and community violence pose challenges for children, youth and families. Additionally,
participants noted that the lack of comprehensive coordination across funding departments poses a
challenge and more community advisory groups with a focus on families are needed.
Looking to the future
ƒ
Increased collaboration across CBOs. Participants noted that in light of the shortage of resources,
increased collaboration among CBOs is necessary. Participants suggested that DCYF act as a convener to
bring organizations together and ensure equal representation from CBOs across the city.
ƒ
Environmental health and school gardening programs. Participants mentioned that they would like
to see the promotion of environmental health. Additionally, participants noted that a component of such
programming would integrate school gardens and address nutrition education.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 131
ƒ
Other future program areas include
support and capacity building for CBOs of
all sizes, and development of
neighborhood-based school
environments. Participants would like to see
support and assistance for both small and large
CBOs to prevent them from closing and
creating service gaps for children and families.
Participants noted that future program areas
include the development of neighborhood
school environments, particularly with an
emphasis on promoting active transportation
to and from schools.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top five were…
ƒ Health & Wellness (63%). Programs to promote
mental and physical health.
ƒ Out of school time (38%). Afterschool and
summer programming that offers academic
support, enrichment, and recreation opportunities.
ƒ Early Care and Education (38%). Child care for
children age five and under, including preschool.
ƒ Family Support (38%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent classes
and other services that strengthen families.
ƒ Violence Prevention and Intervention (38%).
Programs that respond to and prevent violence
among youth.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 132
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 6-9
6
(75%)
Ages 10-13
5
(63%)
Ages 14-15
4
(50%)
Ages 3-5
3
(38%)
Ages 16-17
3
(38%)
Ages 0-2
2
(25%)
Ages 18-24
2
(25%)
Ages 25 and up
1
(13%)
4
(67%)
Work with Parents**
Yes
No
3
(43%)
Organizations service providers collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
8
(100%)
San Francisco Unified School District
8
(100%)
Elementary schools
6
(75%)
San Francisco Dept of Public health
6
(75%)
Middle schools
5
(63%)
High schools
5
(63%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
5
(63%)
and their Families
San Francisco Human Services Agency
4
(50%)
Child care programs
2
(25%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
1
(13%)
Recreation
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Health & Wellness
5
(63%)
Family Support
2
(25%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
2
(25%)
Early Care & Education
1
(13%)
Out of School Time
1
(13%)
Transitional Youth
1
(13%)
Other
1
(13%)
The majority of service providers reported
that they serve children ages six to nine (75
percent). Additionally, 63 percent of service
providers reported that they serve children
between the ages of 10 and 13. Half of
service providers report serving youth ages
14 to 15. A notable proportion of
participants (38 percent) reported serving
children three to five and youth ages 16 to
17. One quarter of service providers
reported serving children under age five and
transitional age youth, while 13 percent of
service providers report serving those ages
25 and older. The majority of service
providers (67 percent) reported that they
work with parents.
All participants reported collaborating with
CBOs and SFUSD in their work.
Additionally, 75 percent of service providers
reported collaborating with elementary
schools and the Department of Public
Health. More than half (63 percent) of
service providers reported collaborating with
middle schools, high schools and DCYF.
Collaboration with the San Francisco
Human Services Agency was common and
was mentioned by 50 percent of service
providers. Fewer participants reported
collaborating with child care programs (25
percent) and the Department of Parks and
Recreation (13 percent).
The majority (63 percent) of service
providers reported being involved in the
health and wellness DCYF program area.
Additionally, 25 percent of service providers
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
reported being involved in family support,
** One participant did not respond
and violence prevention and intervention.
Fewer service providers reported that they were involved in early care and education, out of school time,
transitional youth and other program areas (13 percent each).
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 133
Citywide Service Provider Network:
Transitional Age Youth Service Provider
Network Meeting
Hosted by Transitional Age Youth San Francisco on
January 13, 2011
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*
Service Providers, CBO
5
100%
White
4
67%
Multiracial/Multiethnic
2
33%
Self-Reported Ethnicity**
A city-wide service provider meeting was held at
Transitional Age Youth San Francisco (TAYSF) and
was attended by six people. Participants completed a
supplemental survey highlighting demographic
characteristics and future priority areas for
programming for children, youth and families. All
respondents in attendance identified as service
providers from a community-based organization
(CBO).
*One participant did not respond
**Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
regarding successful programs and efforts, barriers to
accessing programs, challenges and future needs of children youth and families. Below is a summary of the key
ideas and themes identified by meeting participants. Ideas are ordered in the summaries from the most
frequently mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful efforts and programs for children, youth and families
ƒ
Partnerships and collaboration focusing on the needs of Transitional Age Youth. Participants
mentioned that DCYF has played a crucial role in establishing partnerships with the Board of Supervisors
and other city departments to provide services for Transitional Age Youth (TAY). Specifically,
participants noted that these collaborations have included violence prevention and intervention programs.
ƒ
Commitment to providing services and programs for TAY. Participants expressed that they have
appreciated DCYF’s commitment to providing services for TAY who have unique and distinct needs.
Additionally, participants noted that DCYF has made positive strides in promoting the needs of younger
TAY. However, participants pointed out that at times funding gets diverted to schools, and more efforts
are needed to ensure that DCYF continues to support TAY who are not be in school.
ƒ
Ensuring funding for essential programs that lose other city funding. Participants highlighted that
DCYF has been successful in supporting essential programs that have encountered budget cuts from other
city departments.
ƒ
Promotion of youth led projects. Participants noted that support and funding for youth led projects,
beyond youth philanthropy, has expanded these projects and made them more open and creative.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 134
Barriers and challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Lack of programming for particular groups of high need youth. Participants felt that there was a lack
of services for pregnant youth or youth who were parents, homeless youth, undocumented youth, and
foster youth. Participants expressed that pregnant youth or youth who are parents face immense
challenges and currently programs are not available to serve their unique needs. Additionally, participants
felt that there are a lack of services for homeless youth, undocumented youth and foster youth.
ƒ
High need youth require more resources. Participants expressed that high need youth face a variety of
challenges and require more resources. Participants mentioned that services are needed to help youth
while they are in crisis. Additionally, participants explained that providers are receiving fewer state
resources to serve these TAY.
ƒ
Lack of a clear system of prioritizing high need TAY. Participants felt that there is not a clear system to
prioritize high need youth that incorporates the variety of city agencies that TAY are involved in.
Participants explained that certain agencies are connected into a system of prioritization while other
agencies are not. As a result, participants felt that high need TAY are not being prioritized.
ƒ
Limited opportunities for older TAY. Participants expressed that older TAY encounter additional
barriers to accessing services because certain programs do not provide services for youth over 21.
ƒ
Other barriers and challenges include a lack of peer networks, mental health issues, and a lack of
culturally competent services. Participants mentioned other barriers faced by TAY including a lack of
peer networks and social resources for youth. Participants further noted that TAY with mental health
issues cannot access programs, and instead will often they end up in the juvenile justice system due to their
unmet mental health needs. Finally, a lack of culturally competent services prevents TAY youth from
accessing programs.
Future needs of children, youth and families
ƒ
ƒ
More accountability and evaluation of
programs. Participants said that they
wanted see more accountability and
transparent evaluation of programs.
Participants noted that they appreciate that
DCYF is making more of an effort to make
evidence-based decisions, but that these
should be more transparent in the process.
Additionally, participants noted the need to
include the perspective of TAY who are not
in school when collecting community input.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas,
and the top three were…
ƒ Transitional Age Youth (100%). Services to
support youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers
in becoming successful independent young
adults.
ƒ Family Support (50%). Programs that help
parents raise their children, such as parent
classes and other services that strengthen
families.
Expand employment and skill building
programs for TAY. Participants mentioned
ƒ Violence Prevention & Intervention (50%).
that TAY need more employment
Programs that respond to and prevent violence
opportunities. Additionally, participants
among youth.
identified the need for TAY to build
interpersonal skills and conflict resolution
skills which, participants noted, are essential to maintain jobs.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 135
ƒ
More resources for older youth. Increased funding for programs that serve older youth was a need
mentioned by meeting participants.
ƒ
Stronger system of support and collaboration between DCYF and CBOs. Participants noted that
stronger systems of support and collaboration between DCYF and CBOs to serve TAY were future needs.
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 16-17
6
(100%)
Ages 18-24
6
(100%)
Ages 14-15
4
(67%)
Ages 10-13
1
(17%)
Ages 25 and up
1
(17%)
6
(100%)
Work with Parents
Yes
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
6
(100%)
and their Families
Community-based organizations
5
(83%)
San Francisco Dept of Public Health
4
(67%)
San Francisco Unified School District
4
(67%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
3
(50%)
High schools
3
(50%)
Other
2
(33%)
Middle schools
2
(33%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
2
(33%)
Recreation
Programs
1
(17%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Transitional Youth
6
(100%)
Specialized Teen
3
(50%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
3
(50%)
Youth Employment
2
(33%)
Family Support
1
(17%)
Youth Empowerment
1
(17%)
All providers reported that they serve youth
ages 16 to 24. Over 65 percent of
participants additionally reported that they
serve those ages 14 to 15. Approximately 17
percent of participants reported serving
children ages 10 to 13 and those over 25. All
participants reported working with parents.
Service providers all reported collaborating
with the DCYF in their work, and most
participants (83 percent) reported that their
organization collaborates with CBOs.
Collaboration with city departments is
common; 67 percent of providers reported
collaborating with the San Francisco Unified
School District and the San Francisco
Department of Public Health. Half of
providers (50 percent) reported
collaborating with the San Francisco Human
Services Agency and high schools. Fewer
CBOs report collaborating with middle
schools, Department of Parks and Recreation
and child care programs and other
organizations such as Child Protective
Services, Juvenile Probation Department
Office and Office of Economic and
Workforce Development.
All providers reported that they are involved
in the transitional youth program area of
DCYF. Half of providers reported that they
were involved specialized teen, violence
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
prevention and intervention. Fewer
participants reported that they are most involved in youth employment, family support and youth
empowerment.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 136
Citywide Service Provider Network: San
Francisco Youth Employment Coalition
Hosted by Youth Employment Coalition on November 17, 2010
Session Overview
Number Percent
Participants identified as...*˜
Service Providers, CBO
18
64%
Service Provider, Public Agency
7
25%
Member of Policy Group
1
4%
Other Member of Public Agency
1
4%
Other member of CBO
1
4%
White
10
35%
Latino/Hispanic
Asian
6
5
21%
17%
Multiracial/multiethnic
5
17%
Black/African American
3
10%
29
100%
Self-Reported Ethnicity
Language of Supplemental Survey
English
*One participant did not respond to this question
˜Percents do not add up to 100 due to rounding
A citywide service provider input session was
held with the San Francisco Youth Employment
Coalition and was attended by 29 people.
Participants completed a supplemental survey to
report demographic information and to identify
future priority areas for programming for
children, youth and families. Community-based
organization (CBOs) service providers
comprised the majority of the session,
accounting for 64 percent of all participants.
Participants then engaged in a guided discussion
focusing on successful programs and efforts
supporting children, youth and families,
barriers, challenges, and future needs. Below is
a summary of the key ideas and themes
identified by participants. Themes are ordered
in the summaries from the most frequently
mentioned to the least frequently mentioned.
Successful programs and efforts for children, youth and families
ƒ
Youth employment opportunities. Participants stated that employment programs that connect youth
to skill-building opportunities, internships, and other job opportunities are helpful, particularly for highrisk youth and transitional age youth. Participants also stated the need to expand employment programs
so that they are inclusive of younger youth.
ƒ
Coalitions and inter-organization collaboration. Participants emphasized the benefits of collaborative
models to strength the system of services for children, youth, and families.
Barriers to accessing programs
ƒ
Limited access to transportation. Participants expressed that children, youth, and families often have
limited access to transportation, making it difficult to utilize the programs that they need. They stated the
need to strategically locate programs within communities and schools, and suggested that programs offer
free bus passes to increase access.
ƒ
Difficulty navigating the system of services. Youth and families find it difficult trying to navigate the
system of services available to them. Participants stated that there are a lack of “one-stop shops” to learn
about existing programs and services.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 137
Challenges facing children, youth and families
ƒ
Disconnection between students’ goals and high school curriculum. Participants stated there is
often a mismatch between students’ personal goals and the curriculum that is offered in their schools. Due
to a lack of vocational education offered at schools, students who have a strong desire to pursue a job after
graduation do not receive appropriate training. Participants expressed the need to connect students with
this interest to a vocational curriculum or programs that offer job training services.
ƒ
Lack of support systems. Participants stated that students generally lack support systems in their homes,
schools, and communities that are integral for promoting their success.
ƒ
Limited job opportunities for youth. Participants stated that youth are having difficulty accessing jobs
in their areas of interest. Many of these jobs are in the private sector.
ƒ
Immigration status. Participants noted that undocumented youth often face significant challenges when
trying to access services and employment opportunities.
Looking to the future
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Strengthen youths’ connection to
employment opportunities.
Participants reported that it is important to
connect younger youth (ages 14 to 15) and
older youth (ages 18 to 20) who are not in
college to employment services. Some
participants suggested that it is important
for SFUSD to develop and offer vocational
education to students who have a strong
interest in pursuing work after high school.
Focus on the needs of special
populations. Participants mentioned that
it is critical to expand outreach to and
services for vulnerable populations,
including children with disabilities and
foster children.
Future Priority Areas
Participants selected their highest priority areas, and
the top three were…
ƒ Youth Employment (93%). Opportunities for
youth to gain work readiness skills and job
experiences.
ƒ Transitional Youth (66%). Services to support
youth ages 16 to 24 that face barriers in becoming
successful independent young adults.
ƒ Youth Empowerment (41%). Opportunities for
youth to build skills in leadership and community
organizing.
Restore funding for drop-in programming. In order to increase accessibility to programs and services,
participants identified the need to restore funding for drop-in programming.
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 138
Overview of Services Provided by CBOs in Attendance
Number Percent
Age groups that CBOs serve*
Ages 18-24
23
(79%)
Ages 16-17
22
(76%)
Ages 14-15
15
(52%)
Ages 13-17
3
(10%)
16
59%
Work with Parents
Yes
No
11
41%
Organizations CBOs collaborate with*
Community-based organizations
29
(100%)
High schools
19
(66%)
San Francisco Dept of Children, Youth
19
(66%)
and their Families
San Francisco Unified School District
18
(62%)
San Francisco Human Services Agency
9
(31%)
San Francisco Dept of Public health
7
(24%)
Middle schools
6
(21%)
San Francisco Dept of Parks and
6
(21%)
Recreation
Other
4
(14%)
Child care programs
2
(7%)
Elementary schools
1
(3%)
DCYF program areas organizations are most involved in*
Youth Employment
26
(90%)
Family Support
14
(48%)
Transitional Youth
12
(41%)
Youth Empowerment
11
(38%)
Out of School Time
7
(24%)
Health & Wellness
6
(21%)
Violence Prevention & Intervention
5
(17%)
Specialized Teen
4
(14%)
Over three-quarters of participants in
attendance reported that their organizations
serve clients between the ages of 16 and 24.
Additionally, just over half (52 percent) of all
participants reported that they serve children
between the ages of 14 and 15. Nearly 60
percent of participants reported their
organizations also work with parents.
All participants reported collaborating with
CBOs in their work. Additionally, over 60
percent of participants collaborate with high
schools, the DCYF, and the San Francisco
Unified School District.
Participants in attendance reported that they
were involved in a variety of DCYF program
areas. Ninety percent of participants
reported that they were involved in youth
employment. Notable shares of participants
were also involved in family support (48
percent), transitional youth (41 percent), and
youth empowerment (38 percent).
*Respondents were asked to check all that apply
DCYF Community Needs Assessment
Appendix C - 139