A RESOLUTION adopting the Seattle Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan Update 2008-2010 for the City of Seattle.

WHEREAS, Ordinance 120890, adopted August 19, 2002, directed the development of a strategic plan to guide the City's investments in human services; and

WHEREAS, the Human Services Department, the Department of Finance and Office of Policy and Management developed the Strategic Investment Plan which includes a programmatic and financial compilation of the City's current investments in human services, states the City's goals for what is to be achieved through local investments and recommends comprehensive strategies for achieving the goals; and

WHEREAS, by Resolution 30654 the City Council adopted the original Strategic Investment Plan in 2004; and

WHEREAS, the Strategic Investment Plan Update continues to articulate policies to broadly guide the City, without altering existing restrictions on or conditions of City or other funds; and

WHEREAS, the Strategic Investment Plan Update 2008-2010 continues to describe systems to ensure the accountability of programs and services, including specific outcome and performance measures; evaluation and financial tools to allow the City to assess the effectiveness of its investments; and a schedule for updating and evaluating the Strategic Investment Plan for Human Services; and

WHEREAS, the Seattle Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan Update 2008-2010 incorporates work done in recent years to coordinate the efforts of the region's major human services funding agencies and service providers, and to concentrate energy and invest resources on the most critical issues facing our community; and

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THE MAYOR CONCURRING, THAT:

Section 1. The Seattle City Council hereby adopts the Seattle Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan Update 2008-2010, attached hereto as Attachment 1 ("Seattle Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan Update 2008-2010").

Section 2. Adopted by the City Council the ________ day of _____, 2008, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this ______day of _____, 2008.

_________________________________

President _____ of the City Council

THE MAYOR CONCURRING:

_________________________________

Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor

Filed by me this ____ day of _________, 2008.

____________________________________

City Clerk

(Seal)

Attachment 1 Seattle Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan Update 2008-2010

Betsy Graef/nh

LEG, SIP Update Adoption, Resolution

May 1, 2008

Version # 1

Strategic Investment Plan Update

2008-2010

Updated May 2008

City of Seattle

"The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped."

Hubert H. Humphrey

Strategic Investment Plan

Update: 2008-2010

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Policy Statement 3

Historical Context: Human Services 3

Historical Context: Public Health 5

Race and Social Justice 6

Today's Climate and Challenges 6

2008-2010 Plan and Recommendations 8

Appendices (A-F) (following page 13)

Introduction

In late 2002, the Seattle City Council directed the Human Services Department (HSD) to develop a strategic plan to guide the City of Seattle's investments in human services.

Specifically, the plan was to include:

* A statement affirming the City's commitment to investing in human services;

* A programmatic and financial compilation of the City's current investments in human services;

* The City's goals, which should articulate what is expected to be achieved through the City's investments in human services; overall goals; and goals for specific lines of business and program areas;

* Comprehensive strategies for achieving these goals that look at how the City assists human service clients to improve the quality of their lives, as well as specific program measures;

* Systems that ensure program accountability including specific outcomes and performance measures at both the line of business and program level;

* Evaluation and financial tools that will allow the City to assess the effectiveness of its investments in human services; and

* A schedule for updating and evaluating the City' strategic investment plan for human services.

Over an eight-month period, HSD worked with staff from the Office of Policy and Management and Department of Finance to develop a Human Services Strategic Investment Plan (SIP). Community stakeholders, including clients, other public and private funders, human service providers and the faith community, contributed valuable perspectives and feedback. In early 2004, the SIP was approved by Mayor Nickels and adopted by the City Council via Resolution 30654.

Today, the SIP provides high-level policy direction for the City's investments in health and human services, helps identify the most effective strategies and programs, and encourages collaboration with funders, community-based service providers, and other partners.

Since its adoption in 2004, HSD has provided yearly status reports on progress towards implementing the recommendations included in the SIP. This 2008 2010 Strategic Investment Plan Update summarizes our progress and incorporates new priorities and initiatives, reflecting the current social and economic climate in our region.

To ensure our ability to assess the impact of our current policies on moving community indicators over time, this update does not include significant policy changes. It does incorporate policy initiatives that were adopted by the City since the original document was adopted, including the City's Race and Social Justice Initiative, the Healthy Communities Initiative, the Immigrants and Refugees Initiative, the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in King County, and the 2004 Families & Education Levy.

The following Policy Statement section of the SIP Update provides the context for the City's human services investments and charts the strategic direction we intend to pursue to meet the challenges of our times. The appendices provide more detailed information about the strategic direction and SIP framework.

Policy Statement

Through their city government, the people of Seattle invest in many different assets that together build a strong, vibrant community. They invest in public utilities to provide clean water and electrical power, in fire and police forces to protect public safety, and in streets, parks, libraries and other resources that enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Among the most important investments our city makes are services that promote the health and well-being of our community's most vulnerable members -children, elders and those in need.

The Seattle Human Services Department (HSD) is the City department that works to ensure that our most vulnerable community members are free from hunger, safe in their homes, obtain education and job skills to be economically self-sufficient, and maintain adequate health to live independently and with dignity. To fulfill this mission, HSD acts as leader, funder and service provider.

As a leader, HSD believes that government can and should be a catalyst for change. Initiatives undertaken by the department include a focus on social justice that targets racism and disproportionality in communities of color, and addresses other root causes of poverty. As a funder, HSD makes strategic investments in the community. We contract with more than 200 community-based organizations to provide high quality programs and services designed to achieve specific outcomes. As a direct service provider, HSD limits its role to situations in which the fund source requires a municipality to serve as a provider; when no viable community-based organization is available to provide a service; or when City administration is necessary to access another City resource.

Our challenge is to fulfill these responsibilities with the limited resources available.

Historical Context: Human Services

The City of Seattle's involvement in providing human services began in earnest during the Boeing recession of the early 1970s, when tens of thousands of factory workers were laid off, unemployment reached near-record levels and thousands of families lost their homes because they could not afford to pay their mortgages. Poverty was not new to Seattle. Many civil rights activists, concerned about poverty, housing and equity issues, created grassroots community-based organizations to address these issues and advocate for their communities with the City government. The Boeing recession, however, brought the issue of poverty into sharp focus with policy makers and the general public. In response to that crisis, volunteer food banks, health clinics, and community action agencies sprang up to meet the urgent needs of Seattle's people.

The City did not have a legal mandate to provide human services, nor the experience in managing human service programs. Previously, human services were viewed as a state and federal responsibility. However, Seattle's leaders could not ignore the hardships that were so evident among the populace, and organized a City department for human services (initially named the Department of Human Resources) to help the nonprofit community agencies that were taking the lead in responding to the challenge. At first, the City's role was as a conduit for federal funding, secured by Seattle's legendary senators Magnuson and Jackson, for the city's poor and unemployed. In this role, the City helped to reduce the human impact of the recession and, in the process, built strong partnerships with community-based organizations that have endured for more than three decades.

With the election of the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, federal funding for human services began a precipitous decline. During that same period, another recession gripped the Seattle area, and the combination resulted in tremendous pressures on the city's food banks, health clinics, and other human service agencies. To make matters worse, increasing numbers of people without homes sought refuge in Seattle's shelters and on its streets local evidence of a national epidemic of homelessness. Faced with these realities, Mayor Charles Royer and the Seattle City Council decided in 1984 to begin using the City's own General Fund resources to provide the "survival services" necessary to help those most in need.

As the City government and its nonprofit partners gained experience, they became more effective in managing the complexities of providing services to the increasingly diverse populations of Seattle and in creating strategies for preventing poverty, as well as treating its symptoms. Working together, these partners began to shift the emphasis from simply providing shelter, food, and basic medical care to a broader spectrum of services designed to reintegrate disadvantaged populations within the social and economic life of the community, and provide them with the tools to succeed.

During the 1990s, the City began to focus its human services funding to support other community goals, such as improving the educational system and strengthening families. Under the leadership of Mayor Norm Rice, the City created a Families and Education Levy, approved by Seattle voters in 1990, that provided nearly $10 million a year for health care, family support workers, and other services for children and their families in direct support of the public schools. Today, the Families and Education Levy continues to fund many of the programs instituted in past levies. Under the leadership of Mayor Greg Nickels there is a sharper focus on preparing children to be ready for school, improving academic achievement, reducing disproportionality, and helping students complete school. Emphasis is placed on serving students and schools that have historically underperformed.

In the past several years, the City has focused on bringing City policies and investments into alignment with those of our partners, including King County and United Way of King County. The goal of alignment is to focus the community's resources on the most critical issues, and avoid duplication or wasted effort, so that more can be accomplished. An example of this effort is the Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. The Ten-Year Plan provides a framework for how the region will work together to address the issues that cause homelessness, and create the housing and supportive services needed to end homelessness. The plan is endorsed by City of Seattle, the Metropolitan King County Council and suburban cities throughout the county representing 84% of the county's population, as well as service organizations and faith communities throughout the county.

Hand-in-hand with that alignment is a focus on measuring outcomes, rather than simply counting the units of service provided. For example, if our goal is to reduce the number of homeless individuals, we should measure the number of people who find a permanent home, rather than counting the number of "bed nights" provided in our shelters. By focusing on outcomes, we can more accurately gauge what is working well and what must be improved, and make adjustments to become more effective.

Historical Context: Public Health

The City has long been involved in funding and overseeing public health services and activities in Seattle. For many years, the joint Seattle-King County Department of Public Health was administered by the City of Seattle. In the early 1990s, Washington State defined public health as county responsibility and King County assumed operational authority for the Health Department. Although it operates as a department of the King County government, Public Health Seattle & King County remains a joint City-County department with both the King County Executive and the Mayor of Seattle appointing the director, with the concurrence of both the City and County councils.

King County has responsibility for core, regional public health services. The City's public health investments are voluntary and fund enhanced services for Seattle residents that King County does not provide as part of its regional core responsibilities. City funds also support greater service levels to increase the number of people in Seattle who are served.

In 2006, the City adopted the Healthy Communities Initiative Policy Guide that guides the City's public health efforts and investments. The Policy Guide outlines a vision, "The People of Seattle will be the healthiest of any major city in the nation," and four goals: 1) Eliminate health disparities; 2) Promote access to clinical and preventive health services; 3) Protect and foster the health and well-being of communities; and 4) Support the fulfillment of other City goals.

In 2008, the City endorsed the King County Public Health Operational Master Plan, which establishes broad policies to prioritize and guide decision-making regarding public health services. The Master Plan is consistent with the City's Healthy Communities Initiative Policy Guide and reinforces the importance of addressing health disparities.

Race and Social Justice

In 2002, Mayor Nickels launched the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI). The RSJI emphasizes the need to understand the historical and institutional factors that affect health and wellbeing, and how these factors may result in disparities and disproportionality in services to racial and cultural groups. The RSJI also promotes anti-racism and multiculturalism as assets and mandates that City departments examine programs and policies, including City investments, from an equity and anti-racist lens. HSD actively works towards developing an anti-racist, multicultural approach to policy and program development with the aim of reducing disparities and disproportionality, increasing access to our services, and treating all Seattle residents with dignity and respect.

Today's Climate and Challenges

In 2008, our City contributes nearly $68 million annually to health and human services through its General Fund and the Families and Education Levy1. Yet these resources, even when combined with the contributions of King County and United Way, fall well short of the need.

In the early part of the new millennium, our community faced two recurring challenges -the human impact of economic recession, and the devolution of federal and state responsibility for funding human services programs. The 2008 economic forecast indicates that the Puget Sound region will have slow but still positive economic growth in the next few years. However, the lack of affordable housing in Seattle, challenges for many to access living wage jobs particularly jobs with health care benefits sufficient to meet family needs, the growth of our elder population, and the increasing complexity of human services needs, make the City's role in delivering human services challenging. Moreover, federal, and to a lesser extent state, responsibility continues to devolve to local communities, adding additional burdens on local funding. For example, federal Department of Labor funding for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), a major source of funding for employment and training programs for low-income youth, has experienced significant reductions in the last five years due to federal cuts and formula driven changes impacting Seattle. Seattle's high employment rate and other factors are leading to an overall reduction of approximately 15% in WIA youth funding. Total reductions since 2003 are 25%. The Workforce Development Council has indicated that another 5% to 18% reduction in funding can be anticipated for 2008-09 fiscal year.

With a 5% increase in 2007 in the price of food and beverages locally (which translates at the grocery store to price increases of 29% for eggs, 7.4% for bread, and 23% for milk) more families struggle to put food on the table.2 The demand for quality child care, employment, affordable housing, health care and elder care all continue to increase. In addition, the number of Seattle residents in need of vital culturally relevant and language-appropriate services to sustain themselves and their families continues to increase.

HSD must identify how its limited resources can have the greatest impact on the most critical problems. The SIP is intended to chart a course for meeting that challenge.

2008-2010 Plan and Recommendations

The 2008 2010 Strategic Investment Plan Update builds on work done in recent years to coordinate the efforts of the region's major human service funding agencies and service providers, and to concentrate energy and invest resources on the most critical issues facing our community.3 What follows are highlights of the plan and revised policy recommendations. The recommendations are primarily the same as those in the 2003 2004 plan with the following changes: the former Recommendation 5 is eliminated because the community partnership necessary for success did not materialize, and a new recommendation focusing on children has been added in its place.

In 2003, Seattle, King County and United Way worked together to develop a set of community goals and indicators. HSD continues to use these goals and indicators as a measure of our progress over time. Our first recommendation continues to focus the City's resources on achieving these goals.

Recommendation 1:

The City of Seattle targets its investments in human services to meet six community goals and will seek to influence a set of community indicators, mutually developed by the City, King County and the United Way in 2003.

Community Goals

The City of Seattle targets its investments in human services so that community members have:

* Food to eat and a roof overhead

* Supportive relationships within families, neighborhoods and communities

* A safe haven from all forms of abuse and violence

* Health care to be as physically and mentally fit as possible

* Education and job skills to lead an independent life

* Equal access to high quality, culturally competent services

Figure 1. Relationship between Goals, Indicators, Strategies and Outcomes

Community Goals

Six goals developed with United Way & King County ? Community Indicators

Reflect progress4 toward community goals ? Strategies

Action to influence community goals ? Programs

Implement strategies

All programs measure results via outcomes; outcomes are contractually negotiated and aligned with United Way & King County

By using the above framework for investing funds in human services, City staff are able to prioritize funding based on community goals and indicators.

Our second recommendation (below) continues HSD's commitment to a rigorous and systematic evaluation process for targeting future resources. As we measure the results of our efforts against the community indicators, we can determine which strategies are most effective, and make appropriate funding adjustments to achieve the greatest impact.

Recommendation 2:

The City of Seattle uses rigorous evaluation and performance-based contracts to ensure that City investments are achieving their intended results (See Appendix C: Investment and Accountability System).

To accomplish this, HSD will:

* Work with United Way, King County and other public and private funders to set specific targets for influencing a common set of community indicators.

* Invest in services that have clearly defined outcomes and performance measures.

* Set aside 1% of General Funds from every Request for Investment to fund evaluations. Our goal is to increase our capacity to conduct evaluations to assure the highest possible return on the City's human service investments. Our evaluation strategy includes both program area outcome evaluation to measure the effectiveness of various programs at achieving intended outcomes, and community indicator evaluation to measure the overall health of our community and the types of investments most effective in improving community conditions.

* Implement a program evaluation model designed in partnership with community stakeholders who will assist in developing evaluation questions, collecting data and analyzing results.

As we work to measure our progress over time, we will see which strategies and programs have the greatest impact on the social, economic and physical well-being of our residents. Investments will be redirected to reflect those findings. Becoming more disciplined in our analytical approach should also provide us with the knowledge to intervene earlier, when families and individuals first begin to experience difficulties, rather than when they must rely on emergency services.

Our third recommendation (below) has not changed and continues to signal the City's intent to shift a proportion of our City resources from emergency services to strategies that help families and individuals participate in the economic and civic life of the community.

Recommendation 3:

The City of Seattle recognizes the dual importance of the following funding objectives: preserving a safety net of essential emergency services and investing in programs that help vulnerable persons achieve economic and social success. The City will work to preserve a safety net of essential emergency services, and over time, strive to increase the percentage of its human services resources that are invested in programs that help vulnerable persons achieve economic and social success.

To that end, all City human service investments will focus on two objectives:

* Objective 1: Helping People Achieve Economic and Social Success

The City will invest in prevention programs that help vulnerable persons build a path to long-term success and self-sufficiency and address crisis prevention i.e., those services which prevent the kinds of problems that lead to crisis. Program examples include child care, youth and senior employment, rent and utility assistance, and health promotion.

* Objective 2: Preserving the Safety Net

The City will invest in programs to help vulnerable persons maintain their physical or economic independence and stability or address crisis intervention, i.e., those services that help people move out of crisis and towards independence. Program examples include supportive services for chronically homeless people, domestic violence assistance, and food banks.

A complete listing of strategies, programs and outcomes by objective and goal may be found in Appendix A.

Figure 2. 2007 City of Seattle Investment, including Public Health

Note: When public health funding is not included, the percentages are 43% for Safety Net and 57% for Economic and Social Success, figures which have held steady since 2004.

Through this policy, City investments in prevention programs and programs that build a path to long-term economic and social success will increase, and over the long term, the need for "safety net" services will be reduced.

For this strategy to be successful however, the state and federal government must continue to provide funding for safety net programs that they alone have the resources to provide. They must also support local efforts to develop innovative approaches to prevention that will ultimately reduce the need for safety net services. To ensure that state and federal funding for human services complement the City's direction for human services, we will continue our current policy of advocating at the state and federal levels to provide a sufficient level of safety net funding.

Our fourth recommendation is new (below). It reflects the City's commitment to focus resources on children and youth with the greatest needs. Research has demonstrated that early investments in children quality child care and early learning that supports school readiness and early health care result in a high rate of return. A strategy that emphasizes prevention and early intervention must begin with children and youth.

Recommendation 4:

Future City of Seattle investments in children and youth services will focus resources on children and youth with the greatest needs in order to reduce disproportionality in education, health and safety.

The City will work to reduce disproportionality in education, health, and public safety. By aligning human service investments with specific outcomes, we will be able to better target our investments to influence community indicators for low-income children and children of color. Specifically we will strive to increase rates of school readiness, academic achievement and high school completion and reduce rates of youth arrest and recidivism.

The City is now preparing to take the next step towards achieving the goal of school readiness of all children in Seattle. High quality, culturally relevant preschool for four-year-olds, set in the context of an early learning system, will be the centerpiece of the initiative. Seattle's Early Learning Initiative will align and utilize existing City investments and leverage state and philanthropic investments to achieve the goal of school readiness for all young children.

Our fifth recommendation (below) focuses on the Mayor's commitment to reduce disproportionality and racial disparities among children, youth, families and communities.

Recommendation 5:

The Seattle Human Services Department will incorporate anti-racist, multicultural perspectives in developing and evaluating policies and programs, and determining where its investments in health and human services will have the greatest impact.

Evidence shows that historical and institutional racism and lack of cultural competence impact the health and well-being of children, families, elders and entire communities. By analyzing and understanding these factors, we can work to eliminate their negative impact on our community. Incorporating anti-racist, multicultural practices into our policy and program investments will allow us to better serve our racially and culturally diverse community and create effective changes in the lives of our most vulnerable members.

Expected Accomplishments

Building upon strong partnerships and more than three decades of experience, the 2008 2010 Human Services Strategic Investment Plan will:

* Continue to focus City of Seattle human services investments on achieving six community goals, enabling HSD to measure progress over time.

* Influence a set of community indicators, e.g., increased academic achievement and high school completion rates for students of color and low-income students, and increased percentage of people 65 years and older who have good health and quality of life.

* Invest in human service programs that measure outcomes rather than simply units of service.

* Improve evaluation methods and use the results to drive City human services funding decisions.

* Redirect funds to programs that achieve the best results.

* Increase the percent of funds invested in programs that lead to economic and social success, resulting in a reduction in human suffering and long-term financial savings.

* Guide HSD's policies and programs to create equity in access and outcomes, decrease disproportionality and disparities, and treat all members of our community with dignity and respect.

Appendices

Contents

Appendix A Current Strategies, Program Areas, and Outcomes by Objective and Community Goal page 1

Appendix B Community Goals and Findings page 18

Appendix C Investment and Accountability System page 36

Appendix D 2003-2004 SIP Accomplishments page 39

Appendix E Human Services Environment page 41

Appendix F Community Involvement Process page 46

Appendices A-F

APPENDIX B: Community Goals and Findings

In 2003, The Human Services Department along with United Way of King County and King County, developed and adopted a set of community goals. These six goals are as follows:

1. Food to eat and a roof overhead

2. Supportive relationships within families, neighborhoods and communities

3. A safe haven from all forms of violence and abuse

4. Health care to be as physically and mentally fit as possible

5. Education and job skills to lead an independent life

6. Equal access to high quality, culturally competent services

For each community goal listed above, the sections that follow describe:

* Key strategies for accomplishing the goal

* The community indicators that we aim to influence by our investments in the goal area

* Community findings that support our work to address needs, build upon assets, and influence community conditions

* A description of the City's initiatives or systems change efforts related to the goal.

* A brief description of future work

GOAL 1: FOOD TO EAT AND A ROOF OVERHEAD

Food and shelter are basic human needs and also necessary to move people toward stability and independence. HSD develops programs and builds systems to prevent homelessness and to connect people in crisis to services that promote transition back to economic selfsufficiency. We support strategies that reduce immediate human suffering, transition people to long-term economic success, and ensure public health and safety.

Key Strategies

* Prevent homelessness through housing stability programs such as rental, legal, and utility assistance

* Move people from homelessness to housing by transitioning people to independence or economic success through services such as emergency shelters, hygiene centers, and permanent supportive housing

* Reduce hunger through supplemental and emergency food and meals programs

Community Indicators

* People have adequate food

* People have the resources to afford housing

Community Findings

* Communities Count 2005 reports that within King County 10.4% of the population reported that their household money for food didn't last the full month. More than one-third of those served by Seattle food banks were children 18 years and younger. An emerging body of scientific evidence demonstrates a direct link between inadequate food and poor child development outcomes.

* During the 2008 One Night Count of Homeless People in King County, 2,631 individuals were found unsheltered and on the streets in King County, with 1,916 of them in Seattle. The 2007 One Night Count6 shelter survey showed an additional 5,680 people used shelters and transitional housing and services. Children age 0 17 made up 31% of those in shelters. In addition, people of color were disproportionally represented: while people of color represent approximately 27% of the population of King County, they accounted for 57% of those using emergency shelters and transitional housing.

* Homelessness and the reasons for it if left unchecked seriously impact both the individuals who are homeless and the larger community. National studies report the cost of chronic homelessness to be greater than the cost of housing7.

* The 2-1-1 Community Information Line received 14,612 calls for emergency shelter assistance in 2007. Another 13,496 calls were for eviction prevention mortgage assistance and help finding affordable permanent housing.

Initiatives/Catalysts for Change

These initiatives call for sustainable changes to the underlying systems that create and perpetuate homelessness:

* The Committee to End Homelessness King County, a broad-based partnership, represents stakeholders that have a role in preventing and intervening in homelessness: the City of Seattle, King County, United Way of King County, providers, the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness, suburban cities, the faith community and community advocates. In 2005, the partners developed a county-wide strategy to end homelessness, The Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness. The plan details how the region will work together to confront the issues that cause homelessness, and create the housing and supportive services needed to end homelessness.

* Safe Harbors, a joint initiative of the City of Seattle, King County and United Way of King County, is an outcome-based homeless management information system that facilitates timely, efficient and effective access to services and support for homeless people in Seattle and King County. Safe Harbors provides information that will allow the Committee to End Homelessness in King County and the broader community to:

* understand the workings of the existing homeless services system and the needs of homeless people;

* coordinate systems and funding to efficiently deliver the long-term housing and support services that homeless individuals and families need to stabilize their lives, get healthy, find work, and live independently; and

* measure our progress in ending homelessness.

HSD also plays a role in developing culturally relevant and competent services. Because a disproportionate number of people of color are homeless, we engage communities of color impacted by homelessness in planning and developing services and strengthening outreach to ethnic organizations.

Culturally appropriate services are critical to ensure that people especially Seattle's diverse immigrant and refugee senior population meet their nutritional needs. City General Funds supplement state and federally funded senior food programs.

Future Work

HSD is strengthening the connection between crisis services and services that move people toward economic success and independence. We pair human service funding with other critical services, such as housing placement, mental health treatment, employment and education services. Seattle's implementation of the Housing First model demonstrates how HSD integrates human services funding with permanent housing investments. Good examples of the model are Plymouth Housing's Second and Stewart Building, which includes 20 units for chronically homeless individuals, and Downtown Emergency Services Center's 1811 Eastlake Building, which includes 75 units for chronically homeless public inebriates.

GOAL 2: SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN FAMILIES,

NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES

HSD invests in a continuum of services that help children and youth attain a sound education and training for adult life; assist parents and families in providing economically stable, safe and nurturing home environments; and strengthen community, provider and system supports. HSD supports children and families across all age groups because we recognize that raising healthy, capable children is a developmental process fraught with challenges. We strive for maximum return on our investments by focusing services on the low-income and communities of color who are most negatively impacted within our economic, educational and justice systems.

Key Strategies

* Strengthen child development and early learning to prepare children for school

* Develop youth assets to improve academic success and job skill/ career exploration that create successful transitions to adulthood

* Support families by enhancing parenting skills and family engagement which supports children's learning

* Build connections between residents and their communities to influence positive outcomes for children, youth, adults and families

* Provide interventions to youth violence and poor academic performance that can decrease racial disproportionality in these areas

* Collaborate across systems to ensure coordinated and effective communitywide support for children, youth and families

Community Indicators

* Increased access to high quality and affordable preschool and early learning programs

* Increased academic achievement and reduced school drop-out rates for students of color and low-income students

* Reduced youth violence and criminal involvement

* Increased youth asset and leadership development

* Increased strong and resilient families

* Stronger communities/neighborhoods that support the positive growth of children and youth

Community Findings

HSD services and initiatives are designed to address key community needs:

* More than 11% of Seattle families with children under 18 have incomes below the poverty level.8

* 55% of parents with a child ages birth through age 5 using regularly scheduled child care expressed dissatisfaction with at least one aspect of their child care. The highest number indicated that they were dissatisfied with the quality of the care (staff competence, rations, curriculum, consistency, etc.).9

* In national studies, children who attend quality preschools have higher rates of school readiness, better language ability and math skills, and fewer behavior problems.10

* Children in households with incomes $50,000 or higher were more likely to be read or told stories everyday than children in households with incomes between $15,000 and $24,999.11

* Students of color score disproportionately lower on WASL tests than white students and are 11/2 to 21/2 times more likely to drop out of school.12

* 26% of 10th graders and 31% of 8th graders reported being in a physical fight. 10% of 10th and 8th graders reported carrying a weapon in the past month.13

* 18.8% of Seattle residents are immigrants and refugees.14

* Seattle Public School reports enrolling students from more than 70 countries and more than 129 languages are spoken in their schools.15

Initiatives/Catalysts for Change

HSD provides leadership on a variety of initiatives and services designed to improve and, when necessary, facilitate policy and programmatic changes in systems that support children, youth and families. These typically respond to critical system equity issues such as racial disproportionality, access to affordable services, and capacity building within marginalized communities. HSD currently is leading change efforts in three areas:

* Universal Pre-school -Early Learning System A team of City and community partners are guiding the design and development process for enhancing its existing early learning initiative for children, birth to five years of age. The objective is to improve school readiness as measured by assessments of children's development and cognitive learning.

* Immigrant and Refugee Family Support provides high quality, culturally and linguistically appropriate services for parents and their children to overcome multiple barriers in order to achieve necessary skills to be successful with their new life in the U.S.

> The focus for students is on culturally specific after-school services, coordinated with school-based services to help children succeed in school and reduce disproportionate test scores.

> Services for families are targeted to equip parents with English skills, knowledge about the American school system and gain skills to be engaged in their children's education.

> Capacity-building services provide ethnic community-based organizations with organizational skills to address community needs.

* Youth Violence and Gang Prevention encompasses neighborhood and countywide efforts to prevent and reduce youth violence and gang participation. Addressing youth violence, gangs and criminal involvement of youth requires close coordination among human services, recreation, law enforcement and employment and training services. It also must recognize that young people are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators and address underlying conditions in the community that put young people at-risk. Current work builds on neighborhood-based efforts designed to address youth violence and criminal involvement and engage youth in positive recreational and employment activities. HSD is also a member of the Seattle/King County Gang Prevention and Outreach Work Group which is looking to develop effective community strategies throughout King County.

Future Work

HSD will continue to invest in the development of healthy children, youth and families. We will continue to work to further align programs with research-proven best practices, promising local programs, and ensure that these programs are targeted to the lowincome, communities of color, and immigrant and refugee communities that are most in need of services. HSD will continue to create additional resources for these programs by using City investments to leverage other public and private dollars. Collaboration and coordination are important to the future of our work.

GOAL 3: A SAFE HAVEN FROM ALL FORMS OF VIOLENCE

AND ABUSE

Improving victim safety and holding offenders accountable are two essential elements in creating a safe haven from all forms of violence and abuse. The Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention (DVSAP) division in HSD provides leadership and coordination across City departments through education and training, coordination of policies and procedures, and ongoing assessment of the City's response to violence.

HSD takes a systems approach: fostering coordination, collaboration, and partnerships; building on and enhancing existing efforts; and incorporating current research and best practices. HSD provides systems analysis and planning, resource development, contract administration for City-funded services, grants management and evaluation, and special project development and administration. In addition, HSD participates in research efforts and staffs the operation of the City's domestic violence policy body, the Domestic Violence Prevention Council (DVPC). Through the DVPC, HSD works to develop improved approaches, examine best practices, propose new policies, and promote overall collaboration among City departments in the work to end intimate partner violence.

Key Strategies

* Support the safety and well-being of victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by funding a network of providers who offer culturally specific services that improve access and increase service effectiveness. Services include victim assistance, enhanced shelter and supported transitional housing, and programs to engage youth and other community members to prevent and intervene in violence.

* Hold batterers accountable through batterers intervention programs, and facilitating co-location of key criminal justice positions to enhance charging and prosecution of batterers.

* Strengthen the system response to domestic violence and sexual assault by engage the community in planning efforts to identify and enact systems change to enhance victim safety and batterer accountability.

* Build community support to end domestic and sexual violence by educating and training residents, providers and City personnel on domestic violence and abuse prevention and intervention.

Community Indicators

Decrease violence against women and children16

Community Findings

* Domestic Violence in Seattle Annually, the number of domestic violence-related 911 calls received by the Seattle Police Department exceeds 121,000. Of these, 6,514 resulted in written reports by the responding officer, including 1,933 arrests.17 Since violent crimes against women and children often go unreported, the actual number of abuse cases is much higher. In 2003, there were a total of 4,694 domestic violence offenses reported to the Seattle Police Department. Seattle has the highest reported rate of domestic violence in King County.

* Costs of Domestic Violence Domestic violence is costly. In a national research report, the Center for Disease Control estimated that each year, $5.8 billion of health-related costs and $727.8 million of lost employee productivity are associated with intimate partner violence.18 In addition, almost 50% of the women who receive Washington State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) cite domestic violence as a factor in their need for assistance.19 Female-headed households are six times poorer than male-headed households. 20

* Homelessness and Domestic Violence Domestic violence is the primary single cause of homelessness for women and children.21 In the 2007 One Night Count, 19% (1,098) of the people accessing shelter and transitional housing programs in King County had experienced violence or abuse within the past year.

* Gender Ninety to 95% of domestic violence victims are women22 and as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.23

* Children Forty to 60% of men who abuse women also abuse children, and each year an estimated 3.3 million children nationwide are exposed to violence by family members against their mothers or female caregivers.24

* Sexual Assault25 [HSD1]More than one-third of women in Washington have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Almost 20% of these women have been victimized on different occasions by different offenders. Women who were sexually assaulted were six times more likely to be diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and three times more likely to suffer from a major depressive episode. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman is raped every two minutes.

Initiatives/Catalysts for Change

These initiatives focus on changing systems and organizing communities to more effectively prevent and respond to victims of violence.

* Capacity Building Projects Examples of public sector projects building capacity include: an intensive supervision domestic violence probation counselor that strengthens the misdemeanor domestic violence probation response and enhance victim safety and offender accountability; the One Call to Safety program that allows domestic violence shelter providers access to a Web-based real-time shelter bed inventory so they can link callers seeking shelter to services in one call; and the co-location of a King County Assistant Prosecutor in the City Attorney's Office which will lead to more effective handling of misdemeanor and felony cases between jurisdictions, resulting in better batterer accountability.

* Community Capacity Building Projects HSD supports community capacity building initiatives in ethnic and hard to reach populations. Initiatives include culturally and linguistically relevant community education efforts, training teens as peer advocates in schools and other youth settings and community mobilization efforts in specialized or marginalized populations. In addition, the Multilingual Access Project is a collaborative planning process designed to create a comprehensive, culturally and linguistically competent plan to ensure that immigrant, refugee and non-English speaking victims of domestic and sexual violence in the greater Seattle area have greater access to intervention and prevention services.

Future Work

HSD will be preparing the 2008 Towards Safety and Justice report documenting the state of domestic violence in Seattle this report will be finalized mid-2009. In addition, HSD is working with the City Attorney's Office, the Seattle Police Department, and community stakeholders to determine the feasibility for Seattle to have a Family Justice Center (FJC). An FJC is a model where police, prosecutors and community-based agencies are co-located to provide comprehensive, one-stop services for victims of domestic violence. HSD is also working with a consultant and a group of stakeholders to enhance the regions coordinated community response to youth involved in prostitution. Finally, HSD is working with domestic violence agencies that serve limited English speaking domestic violence clients to implement a 1-800 number for callers who are seeking services in their own language. This system will allow these callers to link directly, through one call, to the agency best prepared to meet their language and cultural needs.

GOAL 4: HEALTH CARE TO BE AS PHYSICALLY AND

MENTALLY FIT AS POSSIBLE

HSD plays a unique role in helping seniors and adults with disabilities maintain independence, economic stability, and community connections. For the past 30 years, HSD's Aging and Disabilities Division has been the designated Area Agency on Aging for the Seattle-King County region. In this capacity, HSD contracts for services, as well as directly serves the Seattle-King County region. Programs enhance the health, socialization and stability of vulnerable elders and adults with disabilities to maximize the quality of their lives and independence in the community.

In addition to work with seniors and adults with disabilities, HSD's work within this goal area also includes enhanced public health services. HSD has the responsibility to oversee the City's investments in public health and community health services. The City works in partnership with Public Health-Seattle & King County. King County has the responsibility to provide core, regional public health services.

The City recognizes that a continuum of public and community health services is necessary. This continuum addresses health needs identified in public health data across the lifespan including very young children, adolescents, pregnant women and older adults. The City's efforts and investments focus on eliminating health disparities, promoting access to clinical and preventive health services, and protecting and fostering the well-being of communities.

Key Strategies

* Meet the basic needs of seniors and people with disabilities through a network of community supports. Programs include case management, chronic care management, health promotion, and caregiver training and support for unpaid family caregivers to elders and people with disabilities.

* Increase health and wellness of vulnerable populations through health promotion activities at senior and community centers, chronic conditions and medication management for seniors and disabled adults, and family caregiver programs that includes in-home and out-of-home respite care services.

* Increase senior social engagement opportunities through senior centers and senior volunteer programs.

* Improve independence for frail older adults through outreach, case management, adult day care and other services designed to provide a safety net for frail older adults.

* Enhance the public's health through public health services designed to supplement core services provided through the Public Health Department.

Community Indicators

* Increased percentage of people age 65 years and older who report being in good to excellent health

* Increased quality and years of healthy life, and reduced health disparities.

Community Findings

* Seattle's Aging Population Twelve percent of Seattle's population are 65 years of age or older Seattle is fourth in the nation for concentration of people in this age bracket.26 Nearly one quarter of Seattle's households are home to someone over the age of 60.27 The population of older adults in King County is expected to grow by 40% between 1990 and 2010, to more than 313,000.28

* Need for Caregiver Support Last year, 7,136 family caregivers contacted the caregiver information and assistance lines for support and more than 2,295 family caregivers received in-depth assistance in King County. 29 More people are requiring care, while the number of available caregivers is decreasing. Seniors in Seattle are more likely to live on their own than those in the surrounding region, Washington State, and the U.S.

* Health Disparities Across Ethnic Groups Public Health data analysis shows that there are significant disparities in health outcomes based on race, ethnicity, income immigrant/refugee status, health insurance status, and neighborhood. These disparities are consistent across most health indicators. There are also major disparities based on gender, affecting both women and men. In addition, disparities tend to be interrelated; for example, there is a correlation between race and income level. People who are part of more than one disadvantaged group that experiences disparities may experience greater health problems.

* Seattle's Population of Adults with Disabilities30 Thirty percent of Seattle residents report some type of disability, including sensory, physical, mental, and self-care disabilities. Individuals between the ages of 16 and 64 account for 65% of all reported disabilities. The rate of growth in disabling conditions for younger adults is increasing.

Initiatives/Catalysts for Change

* In addition to direct and contracted services, the Area Agency on Aging also engages in systems change efforts that have lasting impacts on systems that support elders and people with disabilities. For example, HSD has made deliberate funding decisions to provide outreach and case management activities to reduce the health disparities that persist among racial and ethnic groups and to fund programs that modify risk factors associated with chronic disease and depression.

* HSD engages in advocacy efforts at the state level to improve the system of care for elders and people with disabilities. HSD recently worked with groups statewide to increase the wages of long-term care workers by $1 an hour, which supports both the quality of care for elders and addresses social justice issues. Long-term care workers, often women and/or people of color, historically have not earned a living wage.

* The City invests in enhanced public health services for the purpose of improving health outcomes for Seattle residents and communities, outcomes that could not be expected from providing core, regional public health services alone. The Healthy Communities Initiative (HCI) guides the City's public health efforts and investments, providing the policy framework for the City's role in public health. The HCI outlines four broad strategies for the City: 1) investments; 2) partnerships with Public Health-Seattle & King County, the University of Washington, and other public, community-based and private health-related organizations; 3) City services and policies that affect the public's health; and 4) opportunities to promote promising community-based and collaborative strategies to achieve better health outcomes.

Future Work

HSD will work to ensure that the Seattle-King County region is an "Elder-Friendly Community," one that provides elders' basic needs of food, shelter and safety; promotes health, social connections and systems that support access to services; and furthers civic engagement that can make aging issues a communitywide priority.

HSD is also supporting development of strategies that will help ensure that Seattle is a good place for baby boomers to retire. Actions will include policy, programmatic, and communications strategies for multiple departments in order to create an agingfriendly community where baby boomers can stay healthy, afford to live, and use time in meaningful ways, including participation in lifelong learning and recreation.

GOAL 5: EDUCATION AND JOB SKILLS TO LEAD AN

INDEPENDENT LIFE

Education and job skills are critical to building a path to individuals' long-term success and to the economic vitality of the city. HSD directly operates a successful senior employment program. In addition, we support employment services for homeless individuals.31

Key Strategies

* Strengthen the economic self-sufficiency of homeless adults and adults over 55 years of age through job search, counseling, education and training assistance and referral services

Community Indicators

* Increased living wages that enable seniors and homeless individuals to become economically self-sufficient

Community Findings

* Seattle and Economic Well-Being32: In Seattle, 23% of adults do not earn a living wage. In addition, approximately 40% of King County renters in 2003 paid 30% or more of their income for housing. Moreover, the lower the income the more likely a household will spend 30% or more of its income on rent. People who pay a higher percentage of their income for housing have little left for other necessities to support themselves and/or their families.

* Poverty and Racial/Ethnic Disparities: 2006 census data indicate that there is great disparity in rates of poverty in Seattle: 35% of African Americans, 29% of Native Americans, 16% of Asian/Pacific Islander Americans, and 17% of Latino residents are living below the federal poverty level compared to 9% of white residents.

* Many mature workers are finding themselves back in the labor market to obtain health insurance and needed income due to no or inadequate pensions, as well as to seek socialization with peers. Up to 77 million baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, will continue working well into their 60s and 70s.

Initiatives/Catalyst for Change

* Mature Workers Alliance: HSD's Employment Resource Center for seniors is a driving force and major partner in the Mature Worker Alliance of Puget Sound, a newly created alliance with the Department of Labor, Washington State Work Source, Social Services of King County, and others to assist mature workers find employment.

Future Work

Future directions include a continued effort to expand program capacity with support from private foundations. Senior employment program staff will continue developing collaborative efforts with a long-term goal of creating a regional approach to fostering 55+ employment programs with partnerships in private industry.

GOAL 6: SYSTEMS CHANGE AND SYSTEM SUPPORT

HSD has a strong history of leading and supporting work to change systems that adversely affect low-income people, people of color, and immigrants and refugees. Systems change, advocacy and capacity building are critical to increasing access to information and services and building strong communities. These efforts cut across multiple goals.

Key Strategies

* Improve access to information and services needed to foster improved educational outcomes, job skills, strong family relations, and health

* Increase community-based agency capacity to improve their administrative, management and leadership through technical assistance and support, and their environment for service delivery through construction financing and remodeling projects

* Advocate on the state and regional level for increased funding for human services. Despite funding by King County and suburban cities, a disproportionate share of human services are located in and funded by the City of Seattle.

Community Findings

Stakeholder groups clients, providers, neighborhoods and community leaders voiced strong themes through the 2003-2004 Strategic Investment Plan community involvement process in 2003: These themes remain true today.

* Access to Information and ServicesPeople want and need information and coordinated service delivery systems that help neighbors and providers share information about programs across service systems and provide easy community access points for clients to learn about and receive needed services.

* Culturally relevant servicesA need exists for both culturally relevant community outreach and access to services. Data previously described also noted this finding.

* AdvocacyEmphasis was placed on state and regional public policies that benefit low-income community members and encourages regional partners to contribute their fair share to the cost of human services.

Initiatives/Catalysts for Change

HSD's initiatives and programs focused on systems improvements cut across all of our community goals.

* Undoing institutional racism has been a part of HSD's work for more than 20 years. HSD has sought to undo racism by identifying and addressing institutional practices and policies that afford privilege to white people over people of color. As City employees, members of HSD's staff tackle racism within our own department. This requires ongoing analysis of practices, personnel, programs, planning and implementation and recommendations for new ways of doing our work.

* The City's Immigrants and Refugees Initiative is designed to promote the full and active participation of immigrant and refugee communities in Seattle's civic, economic and cultural life.

* The New Citizens Initiative provides services and support to individuals seeking citizenship. Gaining citizenship contributes toward the security and unity of families, and increases access to employment, education, mobility, civic participation, and services.

* PeoplePoint is a service delivery initiative that provides comprehensive access to multiple public benefits, including low-cost health insurance, child care subsidies, basic food programs, utility rate assistance and the Earned Income Tax Credit. PeoplePoint reaches people where they live, work and go for help, and increases economic security for many families and individuals. HSD has built information technology components into the PeoplePoint program that allow for easier access to a comprehensive set of programs that help low-income working families to achieve economic stability.

* The Community Facilities Loan Program provides construction and remodeling financing to agencies to improve their service delivery environments. HSD continues to develop new ways to make our financing more accessible to smaller agencies and those helping refugee and immigrant clients. We will experience our greatest impact on capacity (both physical and organizational) as we help these grassroots agencies become established in the community.

Future Work

HSD will continue to work to ensure that Seattle residents have easy community access points to learn about and receive needed services through programs such as People Point and the 2-1-1 community information line. In addition, through the ongoing outreach work of the Immigrants and Refugee Initiative, HSD will work with immigrant and refugee communities to meet both the needs of community-based organizations, and to meet the needs of individuals in accessing services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate. Finally, HSD will continue advocating with regional partners to find an equitable balance in sharing human services costs for our region.

APPENDIX C: Investment and Accountability System

Maintaining an ongoing cycle of planning, funding, implementing and evaluating programs is critical to HSD's ability to be an effective human service funder. The major components of the cycle, illustrated in the diagram below, include strategic planning for investments; funding investments via Requests for Investment processes and contract preparation; program implementation; and evaluation, including program evaluation and measurement of community indicators.

Figure 3. Seattle's Human Services Investment and Accountability System

Strategic Investment Planning

Through strategic investment planning, HSD identifies relevant community indicators and makes corresponding investments in human services programs. Strategies and program investments are based on assessment of community needs and strengths, along with best practices. Program investments are outcome-based (programs often consist of multiple agencies working to achieve the same outcomes). Strategic investment plans include a sound policy framework to connect services and programs to desired community impacts.

Funding

HSD conducts Requests for Investment (RFI) processes to identify and contract with the most efficient, quality programs possible. RFI processes are used to make funding decisions within service areas at a minimum of every four years. The processes offer the opportunity to assess the ability of a set of organizations to deliver clearly defined outcomes; it is also a time for HSD to shift desired outcomes or redirect funds if needed. Different service providers are likely to have unique strategies for achieving outcomes. HSD typically involves community members in funding processes.

During contract preparation, HSD staff, in conjunction with the contracting agency, determine service performance standards and outcomes. These outcomes will later be assessed to determine quantity or quality of performance and other impacts resulting from the service provided. HSD makes every effort to streamline contracts, so as not to place an administrative burden on the contracting agency.

HSD has aligned our program outcomes with other human service funders, including United Way and King County. We have also aligned our internal reporting of information to enhance the efficiency of our contracting and financing systems.

Program Implementation

HSD staff monitors and assesses contracts to ensure compliance with contract requirements, including performance towards achieving outcomes, fiscal accountability and standards of quality. Contract monitoring standards include contract performance reviews, site visits, and procedures for program noncompliance.

Evaluation

HSD's evaluation process will include three levels: process evaluation, outcome evaluation, and community indicator evaluation.

* Process evaluations help determine which service delivery models are most likely to deliver the desired results and outcomes. Process evaluations include identification of best practices, as determined by objective criteria (such as benchmarking) and input from customers/clients.

* Program outcome evaluations measure how effectively a program achieves the intended outcomes.

* Community indicators measure the overall health of our community and are useful for guiding funding decisions. Public investments should be made in programs that effect community change in the desired direction. Both safety net and economic and social success programs should be aligned to influence community indicators; e.g., do emergency food programs affect the percentage of adults who report concern about food? Do programs that move individuals from unemployment to employment translate into more people having a living-wage income? This type of evaluation requires partnership with other public and private funders to ensure that investments are at a high enough level to affect communitywide indicators.

An HSD priority is to enhance our capacity to do all types of evaluation with a focus on process and community indicator evaluation. Additional detail may be found in the section that follows.

HSD aims to strengthen evaluation as a tool to assess the effectiveness of investments. In 2008, HSD will continue to implement an evaluation plan. The overall purpose of the plan is to ensure the highest possible return on the City's human service investments. A set of general principles guides our evaluation efforts. Evaluations:

? Are linked to programs scheduled for upcoming RFI processes. Evaluation results will help to inform funding decisions.

? Leverage other funders' interests in evaluation (e.g., United Way, private foundations)

? Leverage other institutions' evaluation expertise (e.g., Public Health Seattle & King County and the University of Washington)

? Incorporate community-based agency and resident input in evaluation design, data collection and analysis

? Assess linkages between funded programs and community indicators

HSD will fund program outcome evaluations from a set-aside of 1% of General Funds allocated for RFIs. Every year, 1% of each RFI will be set aside to fund evaluations. In order to maximize the purchasing power of these funds, we will use existing sources of evaluation expertise. For example, we will use a staff epidemiologist, in partnership with Public Health, who can help design and implement our evaluation plan. We will also leverage funds from our investment partners, such as United Way, who share our interest in assuring that children, youth and families have opportunities to more fully benefit from and contribute to the community.

Appendix D: 2003 2004 SIP Implementation and Accomplishments

HSD has made significant progress in implementing the SIP as a policy, program and budget framework, and using it to analyze the impact of our investments.

Progress on Recommendations

The City will target its investments in human services to meet six community goals and will seek to influence a common set of community indicators mutually developed and adopted by the City, King County and United Way.

* HSD has aligned its Strategic Investment Plan with the budget, and financial and contracting system.

* The investment framework uses a multi-level approach aimed at change at the community, program and contract/service level.

* Community indicators, outcomes performance commitments and milestones allow us to measure the results of our efforts.

The City will establish and fund an improved system of accountability, using rigorous evaluation and performance-based contracts to ensure the City's investments are achieving their intended results.

* An evaluation plan has been drafted and approved.

* Process evaluations have been conducted in selected program areas.

* As available, best practices are identified for each program area and incorporated into RFI processes.

* HSD supports Communities Count, which assesses and reports on movement in community indicators.

The City will work towards two main human services funding objectives: Preserving the safety net, and increasing, over time, investments in programs that help people achieve economic and social success.

* The City has maintained the safety net, but has not significantly increased the investment in programs that help people achieve economic and social success. The proportion of funds devoted to each objective has remained steady at 43% safety net and 57% economic and social success (when controlled for the addition of public health funds).

City investments in children and youth services will focus resources on children and youth with the greatest needs in order to reduce disproportionality in education, health and safety.

* City investments in children and youth with the greatest needs focus on youth violence prevention and gang intervention, increased access to quality child care, supporting immigrant and refugee families, and funding enhanced public health services to children, youth, and young families.

* General Fund programs for children and youth complement or are aligned with Family and Education Levy academic achievement outcomes.

Work with the new King County Funders Alliance for Children and Youth to :

o Align goals and strategies

o Improve funding decisions

o Develop more efficient delivery system

o Ultimately improve health and education of children and youth

The community partnership necessary for the success of this effort did not materialize and the Alliance was never formed.

APPENDIX E: The Human Services Environment

Four important environmental factors influence the demand for City investments in human services. The following factors shape the way we do business and the services we provide.

DEMOGRAPHICS33

With a population of approximately 562,000, Seattle is the 24th largest city in the U.S. Over the past few decades, Seattle has become increasingly diverse. This diversity is manifested in three ways. First, with respect to racial/ethnic diversity, people of color now represent about 30% of the population. Asian/Pacific Islanders compose the largest racial group at 13.6% of the population, followed by African Americans at 8%. Between 1990 and 2008, racial demographics have also shifted among many neighborhoods across the city. The percentage of people of color has decreased in the Central Area and increased at the southernmost and northernmost parts of the city.

Seattle, along with its neighboring cities, has become the new home of many refugees and immigrants. More than one of six Seattle residents (105,834 individuals) is a refugee or immigrant. Further, in Seattle, the percentage of the population over five years of age speaking a language at home other than English is now over 22%.

Finally, Seattle is a diverse community with respect to age. Twenty percent of our population is younger than 21 years old. Another 23% is older than 55 years. Adults between 20 and 34 years of age and adults between 35 and 54 are equally represented at 31% and 32% of the population respectively.

POVERTY IN SEATTLE

Research on measures for economic well-beingbasic family budgets and the self-sufficiency standard34 indicates that families and individuals may need an annual income of at least twice the federal poverty level to cover basic needs such as food, housing, health care, child care; this is referred to as a living-wage income. For the City of Seattle, the necessary living wage could actually exceed 250% of the poverty level, particularly for families with infants and preschoolers requiring child care.35

Regionally, Seattle remains the home for a significant percentage of the county's poorest residents. According to 2000 census data, Seattle has the fourth highest poverty rate in the county (as measured by the Federal Poverty Level) and is home to the largest percent of the county's poorest individuals and poorest families in the county. In addition, Seattle is home to more than half of the county's seniors living at or below the Federal Poverty Level.

Washington State's 15-month recession, which occurred from December 2000 to March 2002, pushed many individuals and families closer to, if not into, poverty. During this period, the state's economy lost 97,800 jobs, including the 27,200 Boeing layoffs. In 2004, Seattle and the state experienced an economic upturn and in January of 2008, the unemployment rate in the State was 4.5%. Economic forecasts for 2008 indicate that Seattle's economy will continue to experience growth, although predictions also indicated that it is slowing. Early economic forecasts also indicate that Washington State's economy is slowing. The U.S. economy is predicted to be in a mild recession during the first two quarters of 2008 with the unemployment peaking in the second quarter of 2009. Housing prices are dropping across the nation, reducing household wealth.36

Regardless of the economic forecast, a significant number of Seattle residents still struggle to make ends meet with wages that do not match the increasing cost of living and raising families in Seattle.

RACIAL DISPARITIES

HSD is intentional about understanding and addressing the root causes of racial inequity. Racial inequity is apparent in many systems (e.g., health care, housing, employment, education, criminal justice). The following sampling of statistics provide a glimpse of the magnitude of the challenge that we face in addressing human needs that result from such inequities.

* In Seattle, there is great disparity in rates of poverty: 35% of African American, 29% of Native Americans, 16% of Asian/Pacific Islander Americans, and 17% of Latino residents are living below the Federal Poverty Level compared to 9% of white residents37.

* In the Seattle School District the dropout rate38 for Native Americans is 18%, Samoans 18%, African Americans 14%, Latino 14%, and Southeast Asians 14%, compared to 8% for white youth.39

* People of color, especially African Americans, Native Americans and Latinos are over represented among sheltered homeless population in Seattle40.

* In King County, 39.5% of Latinos, 27.9% of Native Americans, 25.5% of African Americans, and 16.5% of Asian/Pacific Islanders were without health insurance. The rate for white county residents was 11.4%. Research shows a relationship between lack of health insurance and increased risk of death and hospitalization from causes that may be preventable.41

OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING FOR HUMAN SERVICES

The state and federal governments are major partners in the funding of human services. State and federal government have a primary funding responsibility for housing, community development, health care, mental health, welfare (TANF), child care, food and nutrition, employment and training, child protection and aging and disability services. Seattle residents and human service providers access state and federal funds both indirectly from City and county services, and directly from state and federal services.

Federal Government

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Between fiscal year 2001 ... and fiscal year 2008, funding for domestic discretionary programs has been more constrained than any other area of the budget and has shrunk both as a share of the budget and as a share of the economy."42 The President's FY 2009 budget proposal continues this trend, cutting or flat-lining programs, such as the Community Development Block Grant, Child Care Block Grant and other social safety net programs, while increasing federal defense spending. This trend is particularly troubling given the recent downturn in the economy and the expected strain that this downturn will put on these programs.

In addition, the Bush Administration is engaged in rulemaking efforts to limit reimbursements of Medicaid for certain activities, as well as limiting expansion of State Children's Health Insurance Program. The continuing divestment by the federal government in these programs means that state and local governments will be asked to bear these costs.

State of Washington

In response to federal cuts, the State has appropriated additional general funds to buffer the effects on families. In recent years, no cuts have been made to the "welfare (TANF) box". In 2005, $50 million in state general funds were appropriated to ensure that benefits would not be reduced.

In 2007, $8 million was appropriated for post-TANF enrollees with jobs to fund additional training to increase potential for increased future earnings. An additional $500,000 was added for sanctioned TANF families to reduce risk to children. That same year, $85 million was appropriated for increased child care subsidies, for additional provider training, and limited health care coverage. As are result of added SCHIP funding for outreach, increased numbers of children are receiving health care.

King County

King County is another major human services partner, funding and administering public health services, housing and services for homelessness people, mental health and chemical dependency treatment, services for people with developmental disabilities, and domestic violence and sexual assault programs. The County prioritizes funding for services provided on a regional basis, as opposed to local services. In 2007, King County's Health and Human Services budget was $497 million or 13 percent of its budget. $45.5 million of this amount comes from the County's current expense fund. In 2008, the total is $560 million or 14% of King County's 2008 budget. $48.9 million of this is from the Current Expense fund.

The County has faced significant budget difficulties over the last several years, putting pressure on discretionary funding for human services. Budget challenges stem from caps on property taxes under statewide Initiative 747, incorporations and annexations of unincorporated areas of the county, lower sales tax collections resulting from the 2001 recession, and rising costs in other areas such as criminal justice.

In 2005, County Executive Ron Sims convened the Healthy Families & Communities Task Force (which included HSD Director Patricia McInturff) to look at the regional human services funding gap in King County and recommend options for filling that gap. To date, two of the recommendations to fill the estimated $83 million gap have been enacted: voter approval of a Veterans and Human Services Levy in 2005, which provides approximately $13.3 million annually for six years to help veterans and others in need; and a 0.1% increase in the local sales tax to provide mental health and chemical dependency treatment and services for people who are homeless or involved in the criminal justice system. This tax increase will generate approximately $48 million annually.

Despite funding by King County and other jurisdictions, a disproportionate share of human services are located in and funded by the City of Seattle. Seattle continues to work with the County and suburban cities to ensure that they fund their share of human services, particularly housing and services for homeless people.

Conclusion to Public Funding

In the final analysis, any significant reduction in human services funding at the federal, state or county levels, including the failure to adjust for inflation, is a matter of concern for Seattle. Residents lose access to county, state and federally funded services. Human service providers lose access to revenue to cover the cost of services. Seattle will experience pressure to backfill state and federal budget cuts. It is imperative that Seattle works with its partners to influence other levels of government to maintain their commitments and responsibilities for human services funding.

APPENDIX F: Community Involvement Process

Community involvement is critical to the successful development of sound human service policy and programs. Whenever possible, HSD involves its community partners and stakeholders in developing new policies, programs and initiatives. While there are no major policy changes in the 2008-2010 SIP Update, we engaged community stakeholders in discussion about the Update and solicited input on the analysis of data we have collected so far. Moreover, all of the major initiatives undertaken by HSD and referenced in this 2008 2010 SIP Update involved intensive community processes.

1 This dollar amount refers to General Fund and Families and Education Levy dollars in the City's 2008 Adopted Budget.

2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007

3 See Appendix D for implementation and accomplishments of the 2003 2004 SIP

4 Indicator evaluation is done in partnership with other funders and service providers through the Communities Count initiative to ensure investments evaluated are at a scale large enough to impact community-wide indicators. (See Appendix C: Investment and Accountability System).

5 Goal 6 systems change and system supports cut across both funding objectives.

6 2008 One Night Count shelter data not available as of publication time.

7 Culhane, Dennis, (1998) The Public Cost of Homelessness Versus Supported Housing In New York City. Research Report. University of Pennsylvania, see also www.csh.org Why Supportive Housing

8 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

9 2005 Communities Count

10 Bowman, B., Donovan, M. & Burns, M. (Eds.) (2001). Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press

11 2005 Communities Count

12 2007 Seattle Public Schools' Data Profile District Summary

13 2006 Healthy Youth Survey for King County

14 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

15 Project Lift Off, 2000

16 This indicator is difficult to measure. We know that violence against women is under-reported. In addition, reports of violence may actually increase through HSD's work to increase domestic violence awareness and develop policies to hold offenders accountable.

17 City of Seattle Human Services Department: Toward Safety and Justice: Domestic Violence in Seattle, 2006

18 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Research Report. 2001

19 Homebase, Infusing Humanity into Welfare Reform: A Statement of Principles for a New Social Compact, 1995, "Welfare Reform: No Reform and No Reality," CLWC News, Summer 1995, California Women's Law Center, Raphael, Jody, Welfare Women, Violent Men, The Christian Science Monitor, April 20, 1995

20 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

21 The United States Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities: December 1999

22 Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings; Violence Between Intimates (NCJ-149259), November 1994

23 A Report of the Violence Against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995

24 American Psychological Association, Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family . 1996

25 Berliner, L., Fine, D., Moore, D. (2001). Sexual Assault Experiences and Perceptions of Community Response to Sexual Assault: A Survey of Washington State Women. Office of Victims Advocacy.

26 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

27 Ibid.

28 Public Health Seattle & King County, Living Longer Staying Healthy: The Health Status of Older Adults in King County, January 1995

29 City of Seattle Human Services Department, Aging and Disability Division 2007 contract performance data

30 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

31 HSD funds or administers a number of other programs that focus on employment for youth and academic achievement; these programs are found under Goal 2.

32 Communities Count 2005

33 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

34 Boushey, Heather, et. al., Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families, Economic Policy Institute, 2001 and Pearce, Diana, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State, Washington Association of Churches, 2001.

35 Pearce, Diana, The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Washington State, Washington Association of Churches, 2001.

36 Washington Research Council, Policy Briefing: Revenue Forecast Lowered, 2/08

37 2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau

38 This is the yearly drop out rates for youth. The 4-year cohort rate, which is the federal standard for grants, more accurately portrays true drop out rates. These rates are not available broken down by Asian communities however so it is difficult to assess true drop out rates for this racial category. The 4-year cohort rate for Native Americans is 54%; African Americans 37%; Latinos 38%; and white 27%.

39 Seattle Public Schools Data Profile for 2007/08

40 2007 One Night Count

41 Communities Count 2005

42 Kogan, Richard. FEDERAL SPENDING, 2001 THROUGH 2008: Defense Is a Rapidly Growing Share of the Budget, While Domestic Appropriations Have Shrunk, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. http://www.cbpp.org/3-5-08bud.htm

[HSD1]

2007 Actual Achieved

2008 Outcome Projections