Section 6:
- Estimated FY 2006-2007 funding for youth employment programs Citywide was $12.6 million. Although a number of City departments provide youth employment programs, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families is the lead department for such programs.
- In a March 2005 report, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families declared the City's youth employment system to be "rich but fragmented". Much of that fragmentation has continued, with several City departments funding or operating programs, and often funding the same community-based organization to provide programs. Youth employment programs show some of the same gaps in services found in adult workforce development programs, including uneven distribution of programs among neighborhoods.
- As is the case with workforce development programs for adults, the City lacks policy direction and governance for youth workforce development programs. In the March 2005 report, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families recommended reconstitution of the Youth Council, which is a committee of Workforce Investment San Francisco in accordance with Workforce Investment Act requirements. The current Youth Council is made up of representatives from non-profit organizations, City departments and labor unions, but significantly the San Francisco Unified School District does not have formal representation.
- The Department of Economic and Workforce Development should play a lead role in rebuilding the Youth Council, and providing oversight over the City's youth employment programs. To achieve this, the Board of Supervisors should define the roles and responsibilities of the Department and the Youth Council, as a component of Workforce Investment San Francisco, when adopting an ordinance to amend the Administrative Code, as recommended in Section 1 of this report.
City Funding for Youth Employment Programs
In FY 2006-2007, City departments spent approximately $12.6 million for workforce development programs for youth under the age of 18. The Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families oversaw most of these programs, receiving funds from the Children's Baseline, City departments, and other funding sources, and awarding contracts to community-based organizations. The Private Industry Council also awarded a large number of contracts in FY 2006-2007, funded by Workforce Investment Act funds.
Table 6.1
City Funding for Youth Employment Programs
FY 2006-2007
Department | Total Funds |
Department of Children, Youth and Their Families | 8,135,168 |
Private Industry Council/ Workforce Investment Act | 2,045,962 |
Youth Works | 1,031,000 |
Mayor's Office of Community Development | 850,000 |
Juvenile Probation Department | 400,000 |
Project Pull | 114,500 |
Department of the Environment | 17,604 |
$12,594,234 |
Funding for youth programs under the Workforce Investment Act has decreased significantly over the past few years. Prior to FY 2005-2006, the Workforce Investment Act provided a Youth Opportunity Grant to San Francisco as well as general funding for youth programs. As shown in Table 6.2, Workforce Investment Act funding for youth programs has decreased by $7.4 million, from $9.4 million in FY 2003-2004 to $2.0 million in FY 2006-2007.
Table 6.2
Workforce Investment Act Funding for Youth Programs
FY 2003-2004 to FY 2006-2007
FY 2003-2004 | FY 2004-2005 | FY 2005-2006 | FY 2006-2007 | Decrease | |
Youth Opportunity Grant | $5,779,130 | $4,296,586 | $203,414 | $0 | ($5,779,130) |
Title 1B Youth | 3,325,195 | 2,377,056 | 2,109,121 | 2,045,962 | (1,279,233) |
Youth Crime Prevention | 330,856 | 0 | 0 | 0 | (330,856) |
Total | $9,435,181 | $6,673,642 | $2,312,535 | $2,045,962 | ($7,389,219) |
Source: Private Industry Council Annual Report
Funding to City Departments
As federal funding has decreased, the City has funded youth workforce development programs from local revenues. The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families is the lead agency in San Francisco for youth workforce development programs funded by the Children's Fund and the General Fund. Coordination between the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families and other City entities varies. In a March 2005 report, Toward a Coordinated System of Workplace Learning and Job Opportunities for San Francisco's Youth, the Department declared the City's youth employment system to be "rich, but fragmented".
Much of that fragmentation has continued. The March 2005 report recommended that City departments consolidate contracts and contract monitoring for youth employment programs. The report found that 12 City departments funded and operated 80 youth employment programs, with multiple departments funding the same community-based organization to provide programs.
Since the March 2005 report, the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families has begun some consolidation of contracts.
- The Mayor's Office of Community Development directly allocates Community Development Block Grant funds to the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families for award and management of contracts providing youth employment programs, totaling $850,000 in FY 2006-2007.
- For several years, the Department has been funding the Recreation and Park Department's program for high school students, providing work experience in recreation and park programs. In FY 2006-2007, the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families provided $684,000 for Recreation and Park Department programs, including the Workreation program for high school students and a work experience program for youth in the juvenile probation system.
- In FY 2006-2007, the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families awarded a $1.7 million contract to the Japanese Community Youth Council to provide programs for youth in the juvenile probation system.
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families has work order agreements with 27 City departments to provide paid internships to high school students in the respective departments as part of the Youth Works program, with a FY 2006-2007 budget of $1,031,000.
Other City departments operate youth workforce development programs independently. The Department of Public Works and the Public Utilities Commission operate Project Pull, providing paid summer work experience to high school students. The Department of the Environment supports the Healthy Lifestyles Program, which employs teenaged interns to operate a fresh produce home delivery service for Bayview residents. The Human Services Agency has begun a program for homeless youth, but has not yet awarded a contract for services.
According to the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, some consolidation and coordination of youth programs with the Private Industry Council had begun prior to the dissolution of the Private Industry Council in June 2007. The Department of Economic and Workforce Development assumed responsibility for the program in FY 2007-2008, assessing the performance of community-based organizations providing workforce development services funded by the Workforce Investment Act and funding 11 organizations to provide services.
Workforce Development Services to Youth
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, in partnership with the Private Industry Council, City College of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Unified School District, mapped youth workforce development services in San Francisco, reporting their findings in January 2004. The report found that more than one-third of the City's 16- and 17-year old residents participated in youth workforce development programs.
The largest concentration of youth participating in workforce development programs was in the southeast neighborhoods and Mission District, largely due to the location of the City's for Youth Opportunity Centers funded by the Workforce Investment Act Youth Opportunity Grant, which has now terminated. The City's more central neighborhoods - Tenderloin, Chinatown, South of Market, Western Addition and Haight Ashbury had fewer participants.
Table 6.3
Youth Participation in Workforce Development Programs
January 2004
Neighborhood | Total Participation | Percent Participation |
Southeast Neighborhoods | 2,779 | 35.0% |
Sunset/ Richmond | 1,827 | 23.0% |
Mission/ Potrero Hill | 1,422 | 17.9% |
Western Addition/ Haight Ashbury | 582 | 7.3% |
Mid Market/ South of Market | 571 | 7.2% |
Tenderloin/ Chinatown | 562 | 7.1% |
Other | 215 | 2.7% |
Castro/ Upper Market | 208 | 2.6% |
7,951 | 100.0% |
Source: Analysis prepared by Budget Analyst based on zip code information provided in the Report on the Findings of the San Francisco Youth Employment Resource Mapping Initiative, January 2004
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families' inventory of youth workforce development services in FY 2004-2005 showed than more than one-half of the programs provided work experience, of which two-thirds were paid experiences.
Table 6.4
Workforce Development Programs
FY 2004-2005
Type of Program | FY 2004-2005 Funding | Percent of Total Funding |
Case Management, Leadership and Development, Job Readiness, Educational Support | $4,274,993 | 42% |
Work Experience in Unskilled Jobs | 3,793,045 | 37% |
Work Experience in Professional, Technical, Skilled, and Cultural Jobs | 1,831,500 | 18% |
Other | 285,201 | 3% |
Total | $10,184,739 | 100% |
Source: Analysis prepared by Budget Analyst based on Survey of Youth Workforce Programs Citywide conducted by the Department of Families, Youth and Their Children
More than one-half of the programs in the FY 2004-2005 survey provided Citywide services to high school students and the remaining programs provided services to specific communities or populations.
Table 6.5
Youth Served by Workforce Development Programs
FY 2004-2005
Programs' Target Populations | FY 2004-2005 Funding | Percent of Total Funding |
High School Students Citywide | $5,517,167 | 54% |
Out of School, Foster and Homeless Youth, Pregnant or Parenting Teens, At Risk to Enter Juvenile Justice System | 1,759,157 | 17% |
Economically Disadvantaged | 1,064,678 | 10% |
Youth with Disabilities | 553,478 | 5% |
Youth in the Juvenile Justice System | 446,666 | 4% |
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth | 426,593 | 4% |
Immigrant Youth | 260,000 | 3% |
Asian American Youth | 157,000 | 2% |
$10,184,739 | 100% |
Source: Prepared by Budget Analyst based on Survey of Youth Workforce Programs Citywide conducted by the Department of Families, Youth and Their Children
Policy and Coordination Citywide
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families' March 2005 report, Toward a Coordinated System of Workplace Learning and Job Opportunities for San Francisco's Youth, stated that, although the City has funded numerous employment, training, and career development opportunities for youth, there is little coordination of funding or services or agreement about the types and quality of services provided. The report made several recommendations which have only been partially implemented.
As is the case with workforce development programs for adults, the City lacks policy direction and governance for youth workforce development programs. The Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families serves as a grant-making and operating entity but does not consider its role to set policy or plan programs Citywide.
The Department of Economic and Workforce Development has assumed responsibility for administering the Workforce Investment Act grant in FY 2007-2008, including managing contracts with community-based organizations providing services for youth. The Department's FY 2007-2008 budget has a youth policy manager position funded by the Workforce Investment Act grant, who is intended to manage the Citywide youth workforce program and policy, as well as support the Youth Council and manage the contracts with community-based organizations.
One recommendation of the March 2005 report was to reconstitute the Youth Council, which is a committee of Workforce Investment San Francisco in accordance with Workforce Investment Act requirements. The current Youth Council is made up of representatives from non-profit organizations, City departments, and labor unions. The San Francisco Unified School District does not have formal representation on the Youth Council, and although City agencies and the School District work together on projects, the link between the schools and City programs is not strong.
The March 2005 report envisioned that the Youth Council would develop and oversee implementation of youth workforce development policies. The report recommended that the Youth Council be reconstituted to broaden its membership and partake in a strategic planning process for Citywide programs.
Although the Department of Economic and Workforce Development proposes to rebuild Workforce Investment San Francisco and the Youth Council in FY 2007-2008 and develop a Citywide strategic plan, the Department faces significant tasks in the coming fiscal year. The Department's Office of Workforce Development is increasing from five staff persons to 18, assuming management of the Workforce Investment Act grant and community-based organization contracts, and rebuilding Workforce Investment San Francisco.
The respective roles of the Departments of Economic and Workforce Development and Children, Youth and Their Families needs to be clearly defined. Section 1 of this report recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance, amending the Administrative Code to define the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and Workforce Investment San Francisco. The Administrative Code provision should be expanded to include roles and responsibilities for planning and implementing Citywide youth workforce development programs.
The Department of Economic and Workforce Development should work with the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families to define responsibility for managing community-based organization contracts and programs. Once the transition of responsibility for Workforce Investment Act programs from the Private Industry Council to the City has been completed, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development should determine the feasibility of transferring grant administration to the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families in order to streamline the City's administrative functions.
Conclusion
Funding and oversight for workforce development programs for youth are fragmented Citywide. Although the Youth Council, as a component of Workforce Investment San Francisco, should reasonably play the leading role in setting policy and ensuring oversight, the Council will need to be reconstituted in FY 2007-2008, expanding beyond the current membership of City department, community-based organization, and union representatives. The roles and responsibilities of the Youth Council and the Department of Economic and Workforce Development for planning and overseeing workforce development programs for youth should be set forth in the Administrative Code in the same manner as programs for adults.
Recommendations
The Board of Supervisors should:
6.1 Adopt an ordinance amending the Administrative Code, in accordance with Recommendation 1.1, to establish the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and the Youth Council, as a component of Workforce Investment San Francisco.
The Director of Economic and Workforce Development should:
6.2 Submit a report to the Board of Supervisors prior to December 31, 2007 on the status of the Youth Council and planning process for youth workforce development programs, including the role and participation of the San Francisco Unified School District.
6.3 Work with the Director of the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families determine the feasibility of transferring grant administration to the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families.
Costs and Benefits
These recommendations are intended to consolidate policy responsibility within the Department of Economic and Workforce Development, providing support to the Youth Council. The Department's FY 2007-2008 budget contains a new youth policy manager position to coordinate Citywide youth programs. The intent of these recommendations is to ensure that youth workforce development programs are cost-effective, providing services and reaching the desired outcome at