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 City of Seattle has aligned its broad human services goals with those of King County and United Way of King County so that the community may be most effective in improving the lives of lowincome, vulnerable people; and

WHEREAS, the Human Services Department, the Department of Finance and Office of Policy and Management have 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, while the Strategic Investment Plan articulates policies to broadly guide City funding of essential services and identifies goals to be achieved through local City investments in human services, including funding sources from the City's general fund and Families and Education Levy, and funding the City allocates from other fund sources, the Strategic Investment Plan does not purport to alter existing restrictions on or conditions of City or other funds; and

WHEREAS, the Strategic Investment Plan also includes a description of systems to ensure the accountability of programs and services, including specific outcome and performance measures, describes evaluation and financial tools to allow the City to assess the effectiveness of its investments and includes a schedule for updating and evaluating the Strategic Investment Plan for Human Services; and

WHEREAS, while recommending the preservation of the safety net of essential emergency services, the Strategic Investment Plan calls for increasing the percentage of human services resources invested in prevention and in programs that help people achieve social and economic success as a means of reducing, over time, human suffering and the costs of human need;

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 City of Seattle Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan, attached hereto as Attachment 1 ("Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan" dated April 7, 2004) with the exception of Recommendation #4. The Council will review Recommendation #4 during their review of the Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan in spring 2005.

Section 2. Adopted by the City Council the ____ day of _________, 2004, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this _____ day of __________, 2004. _________________________________ President __________of the City Council

THE MAYOR CONCURRING: _________________________________ Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor

Filed by me this ____ day of _________, 2004. ____________________________________ City Clerk

Attachment 1 Human Services Department Strategic Investment Plan dated February 5, 2004.

4/07/04 version #6 ta

HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN 2003-2004

"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 -

Executive Summary

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 in services that promote the health and security of those who most need the community's help. For as a government, the City will be judged in large measure by how we treat our children, our elders and the disabled, our community's most vulnerable members.

The Human Services Department (HSD) is the arm of the City that works to ensure that these vulnerable 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. Our challenge is to fulfill those responsibilities with the limited resources available to local government.

In recognition of this challenge, the City Council adopted Ordinance #120890, which directs the Department to develop a strategic plan to guide the City's investments in human services. Specifically, the Council requested:

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

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

iii) 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;

iv) 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;

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

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

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

The Index identifies the sections of this plan that respond to each of these Council directives. The Executive Summary 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 Plan will also guide HSD's future grant applications and distribution of city resources.

The Context

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. While poverty was not new to Seattle, especially in its African-American and refugee communities, the Boeing recession brought poverty to the attention of policy makers and the general public as never before. 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 experience in managing human service programs. Prior to this period of time, 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 department for human services (initially named the Department of Human Resources) to help the non-profit 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 three decades.

With the election of the Reagan administration, the federal government's role in providing human services began a precipitous decline. During that same period, another regional 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, the first effects of a national epidemic of homelessness were becoming evident in the increasing numbers of people seeking refuge in Seattle's shelters and on its streets. Faced with these realities, Mayor Royer and 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 non-profit partners gained experience, they became more effective in managing the complexities of providing services to diverse populations 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 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 to support other community goals, such as improving the educational system and strengthening families. Under the leadership of Mayor Rice, the City created a "Families and Education Levy" that provided nearly $10 million each year for health care, family support workers, and other services for children and their families in direct support of the public schools.

In the past few years, in recognition of the challenges created by declining resources, the City has placed new emphasis on bringing the City's policies and investments into alignment with those of our partners, including King County and United Way. The goal of that 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.

Hand-in-hand with that alignment is a new focus on measuring outcomes, rather than simply counting the units of service that are provided. For example, if our goal is to reduce the number of homeless families, we should measure the numbers of people who are able to regain a home and a foothold in the economy, rather than counting the numbers of bednights that are 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.

Our Current Challenges

Today our City contributes nearly $29 million annually to human services through its general fund and Families and Education Levy1. Yet these resources, even when aligned with the contributions of King County and United Way, fall well short of the need. In addition, Seattle is funding a disproportionate share of regional human services in comparison to King County and the suburban cities.

Our community is currently facing new manifestations of two recurring challenges that have confronted our predecessors -the human impact of economic recession, and the devolution of federal and state responsibility to local communities. The current economic recession in our region is now in its third year, with unemployment rates in Washington State among the highest in the nation. This economic environment makes the City's role in delivering human services more difficult. It dramatically increases the number of Seattle citizens who are in need of vital services to sustain themselves and their families. Without regular work, more families struggle to put food on the table, and some lose the roof over their heads. The demand for child care, employment and elder care continues to increase.

In addition, the stalled economy, together with shifting priorities, has severely reduced the amounts of federal, state and local resources available to meet those needs. As this community continues to struggle to recover from the recession, the Human Services Department must identify how our limited resources can have the greatest impact on the most critical problems. The Strategic Investment Plan is intended to chart a course for meeting that challenge.

How this Strategic Investment Plan was developed

The Strategic Investment Plan was developed over an eight-month period by HSD, working with staff from the Office of Policy and Management and Department of Finance. Community stakeholders, including clients, other funders, providers and the faith community, contributed valuable perspectives and feedback. (See Appendix F: Community Involvement Process for a summary of stakeholder involvement.)

Highlights of the Plan

The Strategic Investment Plan builds upon progress that has been made in recent years to coordinate the efforts of the major human service funding agencies and service providers, and to concentrate energy and resources on the most critical issues facing our community. To that end, Seattle, King County and United Way have worked together to adopt a common set of community goals and indicators that will be used to measure progress over time. Our first recommendation is designed to focus our City's resources on achieving those shared goals.

Recommendation 1: 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 the United Way.

Community Goals

The City will target 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 aligned with United Way and King County

Community Indicators Reflect progress2 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 and King County

By establishing this community framework for investing funds, City staff will have the ability to prioritize funding based on community goals and indicators. In the future, as we measure the results of our efforts against the indicators, it will be possible to determine which strategies are most effective, and to make the appropriate funding adjustments to achieve the greatest impact. Our second recommendation would commit the City to this rigorous and systematic system for targeting future resources.

Recommendation 2:

The City will establish and fund an improved system of accountability, using 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 goal HSD will:

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

* Fund services that have clearly defined outcomes and performance measures.

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

* Set aside up to 1% of General Funds from every RFP to fund evaluations. Although this will initially be a small sum, by adding to it incrementally and using it to leverage other funds, we will develop our capacity to conduct evaluations to assure the highest possible return on the city's human service investments. Our evaluation strategy will include 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.

As we work with our partners to measure our progress over time, we will begin to see which strategies and programs have the greatest impact on the social, economic and physical well-being of our residents. Funding will be shifted 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. As our programs become more effective, we propose to shift a greater proportion of our City resources from emergency services to strategies that build the abilities of families and individuals to participate in the economic and civic life of the community. Our third recommendation signals the City's intent to move in that direction.

Recommendation 3:

The City 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 social and economic 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 social and economic success.

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

* Objective 1: Helping People Achieve Social and Economic Success

These prevention programs 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

These programs 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 shelters, domestic violence assistance and food banks.

A complete listing of strategies, programs and outcomes by objective and goal may be found in Appendix A1.

Figure 2. 2003 Local Investment

Through this policy, City investments in prevention programs and programs that build a path to long-term social and economic 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 both 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 public safety net services. To help ensure that state and federal funding for human services best complements the City's new direction for human services, we will continue our current policy of advocating to the state and federal government to provide a sufficient level of funding for safety net programs.

Research has demonstrated that early investments in children quality child care 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. Our fourth recommendation reflects the Mayor's commitment to reduce disproportionality and focus City resources on children and youth with the greatest needs.

Recommendation 4:

Future 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.

The City will work to reduce disproportionality in education, health, and safety. By aligning human service investments with specific outcomes such as those in the Mayor's Children and Youth Strategy, 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.

In recent years it has become apparent that the existing system serving children and youth is fragmented, with multiple funders, multiple goals and initiatives, and no clear strategies for children and youth throughout the County.

This fragmentation stands in stark contrast to the community's wellcoordinated approach to services for seniors, in which Seattle, King County, United Way and community agencies are united in their goals and funding strategies. Our fifth recommendation would extend that unified approach to meeting the needs of children and youth.

Recommendation 5:

The City will work with United Way, King County, DSHS, private funders and interested suburban cities to form a new King County Alliance for Children and Youth.

A coordinated system to address children and youth issues, much as we have for senior programs, will enable us to improve investment decisions, become more effective and produce better outcomes for children and youth. In phase one, the partners will focus on clarifying funding roles, accountability measures and outcome reporting. One of the goals of this effort will be to achieve greater equity in funding support across the region. By identifying mutual issues of concern and building off of other community efforts, such as King County's newly formed Citizens Commission on Regional Human Services, we hope to identify opportunities for other players to contribute their fair share of support for human services.

What will change as a result of the Strategic Investment Plan

Building upon strong partnerships and three decades of experience, the Human Services Strategic Investment Plan is designed to create these changes:

* City investments will remain focused on achieving six community goals that have been jointly developed with our funding partners.

* Seattle's investments will focus on influencing 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.

* The City will move away from purchasing units of service and fund programs that measure outcomes.

* The City will dedicate more effort to improving evaluation methods and using the results to drive its funding decisions.

* Dollars will be redirected to programs that achieve the best results.

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

* A new Alliance for Children and Youth will be created to coordinate the actions of the major funders on behalf of the region's young people.

Strategic Investment Plan Index

Appendix A1 Snap Shot of Current Strategies, Program page 1 Areas, and Outcomes by Objective and Community Goal

Appendix A2 Snap Shot of Local Investment by Objective page 16 and Community Goal

Appendix B Community Goals and Findings page 17

Appendix C Investment and Accountability System page 34

Appendix D Schedule for Updating and Evaluating page 38 Strategic Investment Plan

Appendix E Department Mission and Roles page 39

Appendix F Community Involvement Process page 40

Appendix G Human Services Environment page 44

Strategic Investment Plan Council Statement of Legislative Intent Crosswalk

The following crosswalk lists each item on the Council Statement of Legislative Intent and its location within the Strategic Investment Plan.

Statement affirming the City's commitment to Executive Summary page ii investing in human services Programmatic and financial compilation of Appendix A.1 page 1 the City's current investments in human Appendix A.2 page 16 services Appendix A.1 page 1 City's goals which articulate what is expected to be achieved through the City's investment in human services; overall goals, goals for specific lines of business and Appendix B page 17 program areas. (see Appendix A.1 Comprehensive strategies for achieving goals for specific that look at how the City assists human measures) services clients to improve the quality of Appendix C page 34 their lives as well as specific program measures Systems that ensure program accountability Appendix C page 34 including specific outcomes and performance measures at both the line of business and program level. Appendix D page 38 Evaluation and financial tools that will allow the City to assess the effectiveness of its investments in human services; A schedule for updating and evaluating the City's strategic plan for human services.

APPENDIX A1 SNap Shot of Current strategies, program Areas, and Outcomes by Objective and Community Goal OBJECTIVE 1: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS

COMMUNITY GOAL STRATEGY PROGRAM AREA OUTCOMES

Goal 1: Food Prevent homelessness Utility Assistance 10,365 at risk families and individuals to eat and a avoid becoming homeless roof overhead Housing Stability 610 individuals, households and elders avoid becoming homeless

77 families and individuals meet their immediate housing needs 250 women are able to meet basic self-care and other survival needs 100 people in a neighborhood have access to critical services

Mitigate food insecurity, Child Nutrition 1,800 children are able to meet their poor nutrition and hunger nutritional needs 800 children meet their nutritional needs during the summer months

Senior Congregate 12,950 elders meet their nutritional needs Meals

People meet their nutritional needs through Meal Programs 246,784 meals

Home Delivery Services 368 vulnerable people are able to meet their nutritional needs

Food System Supports 16 agencies have improved ability to deliver quality food services 952 phone contacts people access food and community services

Goal 2: Build connections between Community Service 1,419 elders connect to communities through Supportive residents and their Network volunteer and intergenerational programs relationships communities with school age children within 75 elders connect with their community families, Strengthen child neighborhoods development and early Child Care Subsidy 615 children placed in secure affordable and communities learning Program child care settings

Child Care Quality 270 Seattle child care sites and 4,851 Assurance children have quality child care services 885 child care staff have improved ability to deliver quality services 1,606 families access/secure affordable care through information and referral services

Early Childhood 385 families prepare their young children to Education enter kindergarten 10 agencies have improved ability to deliver quality services (health promotion) Out of School Time 332 children succeed in school

Support families by Family Support 205 students succeed in school enhancing 1,548 parents participate in children's parenting/family learning management support for Family Support Centers 2,100 parents/guardians acquire/strengthen their children's learning parenting skills

Goal 2: Support families by Immigrant and Refugee 611 educationally at risk student make Supportive enhancing Parenting Program academic progress relationships parenting/family within management support for Citizenship families, their children's learning 336 people access community services and neighborhoods 302 people obtain legal assistance and communities 160 families/households access critical (cont.) community services

Family Support Worker 1750 parents/guardians at risk of crisis participate in children's learning

Collaborate across systems Capacity Building 19 immigrant and refugee community agencies to ensure coordinated, have improved ability to deliver quality effective community-wide services support for children, youth and families Families and Education 23 schools increase connections with parents to increase participation in children's learning

Goal 2: Develop youth assets to Youth Services 307 educationally at-risk youth make Supportive improve academic success academic progress relationships and job skills/career 180 youth succeed in school within exploration that create 1,132 youth develop/strengthen social skills families, successful transitions to 178 youth develop positive self-esteem neighborhoods adulthood 20 adults are involved in positive peer and communities and/or intergenerational relationships (cont.) 261 youth participate in programs that will connect them to their communities 43 family members have healthy nurturing relationships with one another 50 youth develop mutually supportive Provide interventions to relationships with peers and/or adults juvenile delinquency, 425 youth learn and incorporated behaviors homelessness and poor and skills that foster violence free academic performance interactions and have healthy, nurturing relationships with their family 20 educationally at risk youth make academic progress 4 youth strengthen social skills

Strengthen child Child Care 10 homeless infants/young children meet development and early developmental milestones learning

Goal 3: A safe Educate and train Annual Conference 100 DV staff have improved ability to haven from all residents, providers and Youth Services deliver quality services forms of city personnel on domestic 225 youth learn and incorporate behaviors violence and violence, and abuse and skills that foster violence-free abuse prevention and interactions intervention

Domestic Violence 800 Staff trained Workplaces change to Prevention Training improve/serve victims of domestic violence

150 community residents will participate in Organize the City and Organizing community capacity building because of communities to work community organizing strategies. against domestic violence

Goal 4: Health Promote independence and Disability Information 7,812 contacts for information and care to be as enhance quality of life and Assistance assistance help people with disabilities physically and for elders and people with live as independently as possible mentally fit as disabilities Caregiver Supports 850 caregivers have access to community possible services

Community Information 7,745 people have access to community and Assistance services and activities and 277 individuals are able to maintain the highest possible quality of life

Disability Services 110 people with physical disabilities and/or mental illness are able to live as independently as possible

Social, Health and 5,230 adults are able to maintain the Family Support highest quality of life

Goal 4: Health Caregiver Support 774 caregivers are able to maintain the care to be as highest possible quality of life for elders physically and Senior Day Programs 3,709 elders are able to maintain the mentally fit as highest possible quality of life possible (cont.)

Transportation 3,050 people have access to community services

Increase health of youth Youth Counseling 195 youth and their families strengthen at risk or in crisis coping abilities and 5 families break the through youth counseling dependency of alcohol/drugs for addicted and health awareness youth programs

Goal 5: Increase academic success, Youth Employment/ 950 educationally at-risk students make Education and work based skills, and Upward Bound academic progress job skills to reduce racial 36 youth strengthen concrete job skills lead an disproportionality in independent youth education outcomes life though youth employment Young Parent Support 40 teen parents and 5 youth obtain high and career exploration school diplomas/GED programs

Goal 5: Youth Services 101 youth improve English language, literacy Education and and/or mathematical skills job skills to 151 at-risk youth strengthen job readiness lead an skills independent life (cont.)

Strengthen the economic Senior Employment 235 seniors obtain a livable wage job self-sufficiency of adults 28 seniors are able to retain jobs in over 55 years of age subsidized positions

APPENDIX A1 SNap Shot of Current Strategies, program Areas, and outcomes by Objective and community GOAL OBJECTIVE 2: sAFETY nET

COMMUNITY GOAL STRATEGY PROGRAM AREA OUTCOMES

Goal 1: Food to Prevent homelessness Aging Services 207 vulnerable elders avoid becoming eat and a roof homeless and maintain independence overhead

Housing Services 483 vulnerable adults avoid becoming homeless 272 vulnerable adults and 17 families meet immediate housing needs 150 vulnerable adults secure and establish stable housing

25 people with physical disabilities and/or mental illness are able to live as independently as possible (Payee services Housing for People Living with Aids)

Meet immediate housing, Senior Day Programs 128 homeless elders are able to meet their self care and survival basic self care and survival needs needs to transition people to independence Shelter 15,141 adults, 1,109 families/households, and 342 youth meet their immediate housing needs 2,925 additional bed nights during the Winter overflow months help additional people meet their immediate housing needs

Goal 1: Food to Homeless Services 285 individuals secure and establish stable eat and a roof housing overhead (cont.) 3,035 households are able to meet basic self care and/or survival needs (voice mail and donated household furnishings) 7,696 people are able to meet basic self care and/or survival needs (day and hygiene centers) 673 families/households,143 individuals and 236 youth secure and establish stable housing 750 homeless adults in crisis become more economically self-sufficient (worker's center)

Community Information 26,200 contacts for information and referral Line help people access critical community services

Reduce homelessness Transitional Housing 623 families/households,78 individuals and through transitional and 141 youth secure and establish stable permanent housing housing

Mitigate food insecurity, Senior Day Program 600 vulnerable and homeless elders meet poor nutrition and hunger their nutritional needs Food Banks 135,769 people are able to meet their nutritional needs

Goal 1: Food to Emergency Meals 348 homeless people meeting their eat and a roof nutritional needs overhead (cont.) Homeless people meet their nutritional needs through 72,000 meals

Food System Supports 50 food programs have strengthened capacity and infrastructure in King County (transportation and distribution)

Goal 2: Strengthen child Out of School Time 166 homeless children succeed in school and Supportive development and early develop mutually supportive relationships relationships learning with peers and/or adults within families, neighborhoods and communities

Provide interventions to Youth Services 320 homeless youth develop mutually juvenile delinquency, supportive relationships with peers and violence, homelessness adults and are connected to their and poor academic communities performance 17 households in crisis strengthen parenting skills (youth parents) 6 homeless youth will have increased academic achievement 361 homeless youth strengthen social skills

Goal 3: A safe Educate and train Grant to Encourage 1,000 police staff trained. Systems improve haven from all residents, providers and Arrests to serve/protect victims of domestic forms of city personnel on violence violence and domestic violence and abuse abuse prevention and intervention

972 victims of violence/abuse are able to Fund programs to assist Victim Assistance meet safety needs victims and survivors of 2,298 families and individuals are able to abuse cope with the effects of violence/abuse 92 families who are victims of domestic violence meet immediate housing needs and 2,500 motel voucher bed nights help domestic violence victims meet immediate housing needs. 272 victims are able to obtain legal assistance

1,018 contacts for assistance help survivors cope with the effects of violence/abuse 258 batterers who receive services stop/reduce abusive behaviors

Elder Abuse Prevention 250 older/vulnerable adults live in safety

Goal 4: Health Promote independence, Case Management and 8,818 elders are able to maintain the care to be as enhance quality of life Advocacy highest possible quality of life physically and and choice for elders and 2,628 service hours help people to obtain mentally fit as people with disabilities legal assistance possible through a network of community supports Outreach 173 elders are able to maintain the highest possible quality of life

6,000 caregivers have improved ability to Caregiver Training deliver quality services

In Home Care 2,284 elders are able to maintain the Chore/COPES, Respite highest possible quality of life Care 340 people with physical disabilities and/or mental illness are able to live as independently as possible (respite care)

Health and Mental 116 elders are able to maintain the Health highest possible quality of life

System Supports 13 agencies have improved ability to deliver quality services (Day Center certification)

Goal 4: Health Fund effective youth Youth Services 114 homeless youth are able to maintain the care to be as counseling and health highest quality of life (through public physically and awareness programs to health programs) mentally fit as increase health of youth possible (cont.) at risk or in crisis

Goal 5: (McKinney grant funded Homeless Intervention 260 homeless adults secure and establish Education and program administered by Project stable housing (Employment program job skills to the Workforce Development administered by the WDC, housing outcome lead an Council) required for McKinney funds) independent life

Increase academic Youth Services 85 homeless youth strengthen job-readiness success, work based skills skills, and reduce racial disproportionality in youth education outcomes through youth employment and career exploration programs

APPENDIX A1 Snap shot of current strategies, program areas, AND oUTCOMES BY FUNDING OBJECTIVES AND COMMUNITY GOALS

COMMUNITY GOAL STRATEGY PROGRAM AREA OUTCOMES

Goal 6: Equal Fund programs and Capacity Building community based agencies have improved access to high services that demonstrate ability to deliver quality services quality, sustained progress in Membership of two coalitions have culturally improving service quality strengthened ability to provide housing and competent and efficiency support services services. 750 community based staff have improved ability to deliver quality services (Training)

Increase community based Architect Assistance 30 agencies have improved ability to agency capacity to deliver quality services improve their environment Loan Program 4 agencies will improve ability to for service delivery delivery quality services through construction financing and remodeling projects

Improve access to Help For Working 3,000 people are connected to benefits and services needed to foster Families services improved educational outcomes, job skills, Information and 51,000 contacts people access community strong family relations Assistance services and health

Goal 6: Equal Fund services that make Advocacy 2,500 community members participate in access to high measurable progress legislative advocacy quality, toward the adoptions and culturally implementation of county, 185 low income people access critical competent regional, state and community services and activities services. federal human services (cont.) policies consistent with the city of Seattle's legislative agenda

APPENDIX A2:

Snap Shot of Local4 Investment by Objective and Community Goal This table shows the total amount of local funding allocated to each community goal across the objectives.

Community Goals Social and Safety Net Total Economic Success

Goal 1: Food to Eat and a $1,640,559 $7,693,313 $9,333,872 Roof Overhead

Goal 2: Supportive $10,363,910 $1,778,661 $12,142,571 Relationships within Families, Neighborhoods and Communities

Goal 3: A Safe Haven From all $253,320 $2,212,989 $2,466,309 Forms of Violence And Abuse

Goal 4: Health Care to Be as $2,012,199 $468,129 $2,480,328 Physically and Mentally Fit as Possible

Goal 5: Education and Job $1,656,846 $74,092 $1,730,938 Skills to Lead an Independent Life

Goal 6: Systems Change and $641,254 System Support

Total Local Allocation $15,926,834 $12,227,184 $28,795,272

APPENDIX B: Community Goals and Findings

The Human Services Department, along with United Way and King County, has adopted a common set of community goals. These 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, the sections that follow describe:

* Key strategies for accomplishing goals

* Community indicators that we aim to influence

* Community findings that provide a foundation for our work to address needs, build upon assets, and influence community conditions

* A description of our initiatives or systems change efforts. These efforts are especially critical because we aim not only to provide services, but also to re-shape the very conditions that create the need for services

* A brief description of future directions

GOAL 1: FOOD TO EAT AND A ROOF OVERHEAD

Food and shelter are necessary to move people toward stability and independence. The Department develops programs and systems to prevent homelessness and to connect people in crisis to services that promote transition back to economic self-sufficiency or independence in the community. We support strategies that reduce immediate human suffering, transition people to long-term success and independence, and ensure public health and safety.

Key Strategies

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

* Meet immediate housing, self care and survival needs to transition people to independence or economic success through services such as shelters, hygiene centers, and case management

* Reduce homelessness through transitional and permanent housing programs

* Mitigate food insecurity, poor nutrition and hunger through supplemental and emergency food programs

Community Indicators

* People have adequate food

* People have the resources to afford housing

Community Findings

* Communities Count 2002 reports that within King County 5% of the population states they do not have enough food (at least 27,000 Seattle residents). More than one-third of those served by Seattle food banks were children 18 years and younger. An emerging generation of scientific evidence demonstrates a direct link between inadequate food and poor child development outcomes.

* During the 2002 One-Night Count, 2,040 individuals were found unsheltered and on the streets, a 22% increase over 2001. On the same night, an additional 4,675 people used shelters and transitional housing and services. 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 homelessness to be greater than the cost of housingi.

* The Crisis Clinic received 7,682 calls for emergency shelter assistance during the first ten months of 2002. Another 12,177 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, a broad-based partnership supported by the department, represents stakeholders that have a role in preventing and intervening in homelessness: providers, United Way of Seattle-King County, Seattle King County Coalition for the Homelessness, King County, suburban cities and community advocates. Together, the partners are developing a unified county-wide strategy to end homelessness.

* Safe Harbors, a joint initiative of the City of Seattle, King County and United Way of King County, is designing and implementing an outcome based homeless management information system to facilitate timely, efficient and effective access to services and support for homeless people in Seattle and King County.

The Department 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

The Department 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 mental health, employment and education services. Our Emergency Rent Assistance Program promotes a service model that encourages the use of rental assistance for people who participate in programs that lead to stability and independence.

GOAL 2: SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN FAMILIES, NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES

The Department 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 lowincome 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 / family management support for children's learning

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

* Provide interventions to juvenile delinquency, homelessness and poor academic performance that can decrease racial disproportionality in both juvenile justice and education

* Collaborate across systems to ensure coordinated and effective community-wide support for children, youth and families

Community Indicators

* Increased access to quality affordable early childhood development programs

* Increased academic achievement and high school completion rates for students of color and low-income students

* Reduced juvenile delinquency and youth violence

* 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:

* Nearly 20% of Seattle's children live in families with incomes below 185% of the poverty level (16,947 families). Given the current economic environment, we can expect these numbers to rise.

* 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.

* Youth of color as a whole are three times as likely to be incarcerated for juvenile offenses as White youth.

* Family management was identified as a significant risk factor in a Communities that Care survey of 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th graders in the Seattle School District.

* The Search Institute Survey indicated that for Seattle youth, only 22% report positive communication with parents, 38% report clear parental rules and monitoring, 22% acknowledge parents as positive role models, 28% experience a caring neighborhood, and 14% perceive that adults in the community value youth. Seattle youth have an average of only 16.9 of the 40 developmental assets considered key to young people's healthy development and growth.

* Preschool children in low-quality child care have lower academic achievement in elementary school.

* 82% of working parents report missing work, arriving late to work, leaving work early, or using work time to deal with problems related to child care.ii

Initiatives / Catalysts for Change

HSD provides leadership on a variety of initiatives designed to improve and, when necessary, facilitate policy and programmatic changes in systems that support children, youth and families. These initiatives 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 three such initiatives:

* The Immigrant and Refugee Mutual Assistance Association Capacity Building Initiative is a collaboration between HSD, the Paul Allen Foundation and the Refugee Federation Service Center. The initiative is designed to improve the capacity of small immigrant and refugee community based organizations to serve and represent their communities in the delivery of human services and participation in civic life. These programs are consistent with Goal #4 of the Children and Youth Policy Framework, to create strong communities and neighborhoods that support the healthy development of children, youth and families.

* The Northwest Finance Circle (NWFC) is a countywide collaboration that endeavors to create diverse sources of ongoing funding for high quality child care and out-of-school time care. The NWFC is consistent with Goal # 1 of the Children and Youth Policy Framework, to improve support for school readiness and academic success.

* Reinvesting In Youth (RIY) is a countywide juvenile justice reform effort that strives to reinvest funding from expensive, ineffective, institutional programming into cost-effective, community based alternatives, and with the savings, ultimately expand the availability of funding for prevention and early intervention efforts. RIY focuses on improving the capacity of community-based organizations to reduce the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. Through RIY, we will create effective community alternatives to incarceration and reduce disproportionality. RIY is consistent with Goal # 3 of the Children and Youth Policy Framework, to provide a safe, secure environment and activities for children, youth and families.

Future Work

HSD will continue to invest in the development of healthy children, youth and families. We will work to further align programs with research proven best practices, and ensure that these programs are targeted to the low-income and communities of color that are most in need of services. We will ensure the efficacy of these programs through an assertive approach to quality assurance that emphasizes regular monitoring of program performance and outcomes, technical assistance, and formal program evaluation.

The Department will create additional resources for these programs by utilizing City investments to leverage other public and private dollars. Collaboration and coordination are important to the future of our work. The Department will implement the Mayor's Children and Youth Strategy and Communities that Care with other City departments and private and public funders to create a coordinated regional plan for supporting children, youth and families.

GOAL 3: A SAFE HAVEN FROM ALL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

The Domestic and Sexual Violence Prevention Office (DSVPO) 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. The goals are to improve victim safety and hold offenders accountable.

We take a systems approach; fostering coordination, collaboration, and partnerships; building on and enhancing existing efforts; and incorporating current research and best practices. The Department 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, we participate in research efforts and staff the operation of the City's domestic violence policy body, the Domestic Violence Council. Through the Domestic Violence Council, we work to develop improved approaches, examine best practices, propose new policies, and promote overall collaboration between departments in the work to end intimate partner violence.

Key Strategies

* Organize the City and communities to work against domestic violence

* Educate and train residents, providers and City personnel on domestic violence and abuse prevention and intervention

* Fund programs to assist victims and survivors of abuse. This includes funding a network of providers who offer culturally specific services that improve access and increase service effectiveness. Services include:

Victim assistance to increase the ability of people to cope with the effects of violence / abuse, meet their safety needs and obtain legal assistance

Shelter to meet the immediate housing needs of victims of abuse

Programs to engage youth and other community members to prevent and intervene in violence

Community Indicators

* Decrease violence against women and children6

* Decrease violence and neglect against elders and people with disabilities.

Community Findings

* Domestic Violence in Seattle The Seattle Police Department received more than 12,000 domestic violence 911 calls in 2002.iii Since violent crimes against women and children often go unreported, the actual number of abuse cases is much higher. Drawing from national prevalence studies, we estimate that as many as 48,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend occur in Seattle each year.iv 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.v In addition, almost 50% of the women who receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families cite domestic violence as a factor in their need for assistance.vi Female-headed households are six times poorer than male-headed households.vii

* Homelessness and Domestic Violence Domestic violence is the primary cause of homelessness for women and children.viii

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

* 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.xi

Initiatives / Catalysts for Change

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

* Institutional Capacity Building Projects

The Department conducts ongoing efforts to build effective, appropriate, institutional local government responses to violence against women in the areas of policies, leadership, procedures, training and education, and assessment. These are examples of projects building institutional capacity:

Firearms Forfeiture Project is a planning and implementation effort in the Municipal Court and the King County Sheriff's Office to address the statutory requirement to remove firearms from convicted batterers in misdemeanor cases.

Citywide Domestic Violence Training is a project to train city employees about domestic violence and establish the City as a model employer for its work to eliminate the tolerance of domestic violence in the workplace.

Intensive Supervision Domestic Violence Probation Counselor is a position that will strengthen the misdemeanor domestic violence probation response and enhance victim safety and offender accountability.

* Community Capacity Building Projects

HSD supports community capacity building initiatives in ethnic and hard to reach populations. These efforts include training bilingual community members as natural helpers who can respond to violence against women in their communities, forming community action teams to serve as contact points within the community, and using a community organizing model to focus on people with disabilities, African Americans, and teens. Culturally and linguistically relevant community education efforts teach community members about what constitutes and causes abuse, the effects of verbal and emotional abuse, the effects of domestic violence on children and how to talk to survivors, identify warning signs and help survivors stay safe.

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

The Department is conducting a Domestic Violence Assessment which examines current responses to domestic violence and will create a baseline for year one of the second DV Strategic Prevention Plan for the city.

GOAL 4: HEALTH CARE TO BE AS PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY FIT AS POSSIBLE

The Department plays a unique role in helping seniors and adults with disabilities maintain independence, economic stability and community connections. Examples of recent achievements include the creation of a system for regional senior services with a single point of access, innovations such as the Gold Card to improve access to multiple services, and influencing transportation systems and housing development to address the needs of elders and adults with disabilities.

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, the Department 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.

Although the Department's work within this goal focuses on seniors and adults with disabilities, the Family and Youth Services Division also funds youth and family programs to promote health within the homeless youth population and to reduce youth dependency on alcohol / drugs.

Key Strategies

* Promote independence and enhance quality of life and choice for elders and people with disabilities through a network of community supports. Programs include:

Case management, in-home care and information and assistance to ensure that isolated elders and people with disabilities receive the services they need to remain in the community and maintain the highest quality of life possible

Health promotion programs that reduce chronic illness, improve mental health and lead to independence

Caregiver training and supports for unpaid family caregivers to elders and people with disabilities to ensure that they lead and maintain the highest quality life in the community

* Increase the health of youth at risk or in crisis through youth counseling and health awareness programs

Community Indicators

* Increased percentage of people age 65 years and older have good health and quality of life.

Community Findings

* Seattle's Aging PopulationTwelve 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.xii Nearly one quarter of Seattle's households are home to someone over the age of 65. The population of older adults in King County is expected to grow by 40% between 1990 and 2010, to over 313,000.xiii

* Need for Care Giver SupportLast year, 7,136 family caregivers contacted the caregiver information and assistance lines for support.xiv More than 1,800 family caregivers received in-depth assistance in King County. 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 United States.

* Health Disparities Across Ethnic GroupsHigh incidences of illness and death due to diabetes and heart disease persist for African Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islanders who are 65 and older, despite improvements in the overall health of people living in the U.S.xv Older people of color are more likely to be poor, malnourished, less educated and in worse health than older White people.xvi

* Seattle's Disabled PopulationsThirty 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.xvii

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. Examples of this work include:

* Reducing Health Disparity among Racial and Ethnic Groups: The Department's Division on Aging and Disabilities Services 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. To help clients bring diabetes under control, the Department has worked with the University of Washington and Public Health of Seattle-King County to enhance service provision through diabetes assessment and case management protocols that ensure identified elders engage in exercise, proper diet and medication management.

* Advocacy: The Department engages in advocacy efforts at the state level to improve the system of care for elders and people with disabilities. The Department 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.

Future Work

The Department 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 community-wide priority.

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. The Department directly operates three successful programs: Youth Employment, Upward Bound and Senior Community Service Employment. We focus on services that support academic success, work skills for the present and economic success in the future. These services are critical for disenfranchised youth and seniors to succeed in the work force. Local funding leverages more than $1.6 million of federal funding to support the majority of these programs.

Key Strategies

* Increase academic and work based skills and reduce racial disproportionality in youth educational outcomes through youth employment and career exploration programs

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

Community Indicators

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

* Increased academic achievement for youth, especially low income and youth of color, enabling them to move closer to realizing economic self-sufficiency

Community Findings

* Seattle and Economic Well-Beingxviii: In Seattle 25% of adults do not earn a living wage. In addition, more than 41% of Seattle renters in 1999 paid 30% or more of their income for housing. 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 Seattle School District data show that 23% of Native American, 18% of African American, and 16% of Latino students drop out of school compared to only 10% of white students. This disparity closely corresponds to Seattle's poverty rates: 23% of African American, 29% of Native American, 16.5% of Asian/Pacific Islander American, and 21% of Latino residents are living below the federal poverty level compared to only 8.5% of White residents.

* Demographic shifts may lead to a worker shortage by 2015. 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 1946-1964, will continue working well into their 60s and 70s.

Initiatives / Catalyst for Change

* Mature Workers Alliance: The Department's Employment Resource Center 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.

* Seattle in School Youth Employment Consortium: The Seattle Youth Employment Program is the lead agency for the newly created Seattle In-School Youth Employment Consortium. Under HSD's leadership, the program has shifted to provide year-round employment services (previously only summertime and limited year-round internships), engaged more community partners that resulted in more private-sector job opportunities, and focused policy goals on high-school completion and entry into post-secondary educational institutions.

Future Work

Future directions for these programs include a continued effort to expand program capacity from private foundations, and continued refinement of youth employment services. Service linkages will be enhanced between youth employment with a significant educational component and a year-round case management model. 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: EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY, CULTURALLY COMPETENT SERVICES

The Human Service Department has a strong history of leading and supporting work to change systems that adversely affect low income people and people of color. Systems change, advocacy, capacity building, and innovations in service delivery are critical to provide quality needed services and reduce poverty in our communities. Systems change and human service system supports cut across multiple goals and help to establish sound public policies, strong agencies, effective and efficient service delivery systems and improved access to direct services.

Key Strategies

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

* Fund programs and services that demonstrate sustained progress in improving service quality and efficiency

* Fund services that demonstrate measurable progress toward the adoption and implementation of county, regional, state and federal human services policies consistent with the City of Seattle's legislative agenda

* Increase community based agency capacity to improve their environment for service delivery through construction financing and remodeling projects

Community Findings

Stakeholder groups clients, providers, neighborhoods and community leaders voiced strong themes through the Strategic Investment Plan community involvement process:

* 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, and for culturally relevant providers and services. Data previously described also noted this finding.

* AdvocacyEmphasis was placed on public policies that benefit lowincome community members, especially given current public policy trends and economic factors that concurrently increase the need for services and decrease their funding.

Initiatives/Catalysts for Change

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

* Undoing Institutional Racism Initiative (UIR) is a multicultural, multiracial effort that seeks 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.

* Help For Working Families (HFWF) 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. HFWF reaches people where they live, work and go for help and increases economic security for many families and individuals. HSD is building information technology components into the Help for Working Families initiative that will ease access to a comprehensive set of programs that increase the likelihood for low income working families to achieve economic stability. By linking low-income parents and children to health, utility assistance and other basic needs, HFWF supports Goal #2 of the Children and Youth Strategy.

* Community Facilities Loan Program provides construction and remodeling financing to agencies to improve their service delivery environments. Improving the facilities of non-profit agencies results in benefits for clients, the agency, and the broader social services systems. Agencies can serve more clients, and clients feel valued and respected. A recent studyxix indicated that improved facilities positively affect the attitudes of clients seeking services. The agencies themselves gain an increased sense of legitimacy, pride, and status with a renewed facility, and staff morale is positively affected. Perhaps more importantly, in the eyes of the broader community, the agencies are recognized as professional places that are maintained and updated, as opposed to being ad hoc and makeshift. As the Loan Program evolves over the next few years, the Department is researching and developing ways to make our financing more accessible to smaller agencies and those targeting refugee and immigrant clients. We will experience our greatest impact on the capacity (both physical and organizational) as we help these grassroots agencies become established in the community.

Future Work

The Department will continue to work to establish and strengthen support systems that are accessible, culturally relevant, and that address disproportionality. Systems change and human systems supports are critical to ensure that we have the internal policies and programs to affect change and that community based efforts have the infrastructure and capacity to deliver high quality services.

APPENDIX C: Investment and Accountability System

An on-going cycle of planning, funding, implementing and evaluating is critical to our success. We are continually seeking to strengthen and improve the system. The major components of the system, illustrated in the diagram below, include strategic planning for investments, funding investments via Request for Proposal processes and contract preparation, program implementation, and evaluation, including program evaluation and measurement of community indicators.

Figure 3. Investment and Accountability System

Strategic Investment Planning

Through strategic investment planning, community indicators are identified and program investments are described. 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.

* The Strategic Investment Plan will be reviewed annually and updated every two years to coincide with our biennial budget.

Funding

The Human Services Department conducts Request For Proposal (RFP) processes to identify and contract with the most efficient, quality programs possible. Funding decisions are made through RFP processes and the negotiation of contracts.

Request For Proposal processes are used to make funding decisions within service areas at a minimum of four-year intervals. RFP processes offer the opportunity to assess the ability of a set of organizations to deliver clearly defined outcomes and is a time for the Department to adjust an area of focus if needed. Different service providers are likely to have unique strategies for achieving outcomes. HSD involves community members in funding processes, especially community members who are the recipients of HSD services.

* As of 2002 all program areas will have an RFP process at a minimum of every four years.

During contract preparation, service performance standards and outcomes are determined. These outcomes will later be assessed to determine quantity or quality of performance and other impacts resulting from the service. Contracts are as streamlined and simple as possible for administrative efficiency purposes.

* Department Program Specialists currently receive training and support to ensure the preparation of quality contracts. The Department has aligned our program outcomes with other human service funders, including United Way and King County. We are working to also align the reporting of information to enhance system efficiency.

Program Implementation

Contract monitoring and assessment takes place to ensure compliance with contract requirements, including performance towards achieving outcomes, fiscal accountability, and maintaining relevant standards.

* HSD Program Specialists adhere to Department contract monitoring standards that include standards for contract performance reviews, site visits and procedures for program noncompliance.

Evaluation

The Department will expand program evaluation to include three levels of evaluation: process evaluation, outcome evaluation and community indicator evaluation.

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

* Program outcome evaluations measure the effectiveness of programs at achieving 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 funders and systems to assure that investments measured are at a high enough level to impact community-wide 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.

* Strengthening Evaluation as a tool to assess the effectiveness of investments. In 2004, the Department will implement a five-year evaluation plan. Its purpose is to assure the highest possible return on the City's human service investments. Several mechanisms will be employed, including outcome evaluation and impact on community indicators.

We have developed a set of general principles to guide evaluation efforts. Evaluations will:

Be linked to programs that will be in upcoming RFP processes. Evaluation results will then help to inform funding decisions

Leverage other funders interests in evaluation (United Way, foundations)

Leverage other institutions expertise in evaluation (Public Health and local universities)

Incorporate community based agency and resident input to evaluation design, data collection and analysis

Assess linkages between programs and community indicators

With respect to both outcome evaluation and impact on community indicators, we will work closely with our investment partners to conduct a pilot evaluation of our youth development program.

* The results of the pilot evaluation will be assessed. What we learn will be used to select the next service areas to be similarly evaluated in 2005-2008.

* Process and community impact evaluation will be paid for from a setaside of up to 1% of general funds. Beginning in 2004, up to 1% of each RFP will be set-aside to begin a department-wide evaluation strategy. In order to maximize the purchasing power of these funds, we plan to make use of existing sources of evaluation expertise. We are especially interested in partnering with the Community Research Center, a project of Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities, housed at the Public Health of Seattle-King County's Health Promotion Research Center. 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:

Schedule for Updating and Evaluating Strategic Investment Plan

As noted in Appendix C, we will provide an annual review and a comprehensive update of the Human Services Strategic Investment Plan every two years. The Annual Reviews and biennial updates will include information on:

* HSD's development of an evaluation plan including how much funding was used for evaluation, the type of evaluation conducted and the results.

* Funding goal, funding objective and program area from all sources allocated by HSD for human services e.g. Community Development Block Grant.

* Funding changes in existing resources from safety net services to social and economic success services.

* Funding by goal, funding objective and program area from all sources allocated by HSD for human services. Funding and program area information will describe the continuum of services within each goal.

This schedule will be coordinated with the budget cycle. The schedule for the next four years is:

* Annual Review Spring 2005 * Plan Update Spring 2006 * Annual Review Spring 2007 * Plan Update Spring 2008

APPENDIX E: Department Mission and Roles

The City of Seattle Human Services Department leads the City's work to find and fund solutions for human needs so that low income and vulnerable residents can live and thrive. The Department works closely with the community and other funders to assess emerging human services needs and develop responsive, proactive policy and program strategies to address these needs. Strategies utilize current "best practice" knowledge in the field of human services, build upon inherent strengths within the community, and are geared toward maximizing the potential of residents to live full, productive and independent lives.

The Department fulfills this mission through its roles as leader, funder and provider.

Leadership

The Human Services Department (HSD) is a leader in making strategic investments in the community. Our investments create opportunity and provide critical services to residents that are often marginalized and disenfranchised. Just as HSD recognizes the important responsibility government has in the provision of human services, we also recognize the critical and ongoing need improving the quality of our strategies to better serve the community. We believe that government can and should be a catalyst for change; HSD provides leadership through a variety of initiatives such as the Healthy Aging Partnership, Reinvesting in Youth, the Committee to End Homelessness and Project Lift-Off. These initiatives include a focus on social justice that targets racism, disproportionality in communities of color and other root causes of poverty.

Funder

The Human Services Department contracts with over two hundred community-based organizations to provide programs and services to clients. As a funder, the Department funds efficient, quality services that have clearly defined goals, outcomes, performance measures and service levels; makes funding decisions based on Request for Proposal (RFP) processes within service areas in four-year intervals; and involves community members in funding processes.

Service Provider

The Department limits its role as a provider of services to those situations where the fund source requires a municipality to serve as a provider, when no viable community based organization is available to provide a needed service, or when City administration is necessary to access another City resource7.

APPENDIX F: Community Involvement Process

Stakeholder Groups and Major Themes

Community involvement is critical to the successful development of sound human service policy and programs. We have developed partnerships with human service stakeholders because of the complexity of human service issues and the extent of human service needs our community faces. The stakeholder involvement process for the Strategic Investment Plan included over 40 focus group discussions across six stakeholder groups (clients, funders, employees, providers, neighborhoods / residents, and faith, business and other community leaders).

We met with existing groups at their regular meeting times to the maximum extent possible. A list of community stakeholders is attached. Each focus group included a brief overview of the Department and the framework for the Strategic Investment Plan, as well as discussion on key options for considerations. We agreed to take the actual plan back out to interested groups.

The following summary describes major themes across community stakeholders and key themes amongst the Department employee focus groups:

1. Major Themes Community Stakeholders

Cross Community Stakeholder Groups:

* There was appreciation for the department's community involvement process and interest in continued dialogue with the department.

* There was strong support for the department's continued funding for both Safety Net and Prevention/Economic Self-Sufficiency Programs.

* Services most often mentioned as priorities included shelter with services (employment and case management), education and employment, youth activities, child care subsidies and services, culturally relevant services especially for immigrant and refugees, and domestic violence services and shelters.

* Access to information about and delivery of coordinated holistic services was a noted concern.

* Interest in culturally relevant, community-based information, outreach and access to services was also discussed across groups.

Additional themes within Community Stakeholder Groups:

Funders

* Appreciated the system approach, expressed interest in aligning resources. A number of funders were interested in collaborating on evaluation, goal setting and regional funding.

Clients

* Noted appreciation for Seattle's good services, though there is not enough to meet all of the needs.

* Homeless families prioritized education programs to help their children and, at a meeting with forty homeless men, the group's consensus was that shelter for women and children should be prioritized over shelter services for single men.

* Clients also discussed the importance for programs and staff to be accountable, treat clients with respect and understand their needs. Comments in this area included a need for training and increased outreach to communities of color.

* In relation to ongoing relationships with stakeholder groups, there was a common theme for homeless population focus groups: more City departments should hold focus groups and that HSD should meet with the community more often.

Providers

* There was focused concern for increased cost of tracking outcomes and a need for streamlined reporting and user friendly technology.

* Need for increased agency capacity building was mentioned across providers (e.g., staff training to improve services, information technology and fund development).

* Agencies also spoke to the need for HSD to collaborate more with large entities such as Parks and Recreation, the School District and Public Health.

* Across providers, HSD was viewed as needing to strengthen its advocacy role at the state and federal level. Survival services providers recommended increasing funding for community education and organizing.

2. Employee Focus Group Themes

* Strong themes across the employee focus groups were to place a greater emphasis on prevention and to help people make meaningful change in their lives for the long-term.

* There is strong sentiment that HSD needs to increase accountability to the community and that the Department needs increased community leadership and involvement.

* Coordinated and holistic approaches to working with customers and more services for immigrant and refugee groups were most mentioned in terms of service needs.

* Increased private sector involvement in human services was the most mentioned partnership issue mentioned by groups. This includes educating, organizing and facilitating strategies to increase understanding of the value of human services and inclusion of private sector representatives on a human services advisory council.

Community Stakeholder Focus Groups

Consumers / clients * Seattle Youth Employment students * Upward Bound / Rewarding Youth Achievement students * Seattle Jobs Initiative Office and Manufacturing Classes * Aging and Disability Services Advisory Council sub-committee * Early Childhood Education (parents & providers) * WHEEL * Hammond HouseWomen's Shelter * SHARE * Sacred Heart Shelter * Self Sufficiency Project East Cherry YWCA * St. Paul's Shelter

Faith Communities / Businesses / Other Community Leaders * Downtown Ministerial Association * A Philip Randolph Association (Central)

Neighborhood / Residents * Native Action Network * Community Alliance for Youth * Central Neighborhood District Council * Southeast Weed & Seed

Funders (Key Informant Meetings) * United Way * Casey Family * Allen Foundation * Seattle Housing Authority * Gates Foundation

Providers * Seattle Human Services Coalition * Minority Executive Director's Coalition * COREC (Communities of Refugee Empowerment Coalition * Family Support Workers * West Seattle Providers Coalition * Family Support Centers, Directors * Steering Committee / Coalition for the Homeless * Family Services homeless families * Meals Partnership Coalition * Seattle Food Committee * Asian-Pacific Islander Director's Coalition * School's Out Washington

APPENDIX G: 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.

DEMOGRAPHICS

With a population of 568,100, the City of Seattle is a vital, diverse community and the 24th largest city in the United States.xx During the 1990s, Seattle grew by only nine percent. However, it has become more 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 contrasted with 25% in 1990. Asian / Pacific Islanders compose the largest racial group at 13.6% of the population, followed by African Americans at 8.4%. Between 1990 and 2000, racial demographics also shifted between many neighborhoods across the city. The percent of people of color decreased in the Central Area and increased at the southernmost and northernmost parts of the city.

Seattle, along with its neighboring cities, also has become the new home of many refugees and immigrants. Between 1996 and 2000, 24,650 refugees resettled in the state. Approximately, 41% of these arrivals settled in King County.xxi According to the 2000 US Census one of six Seattle residents (94,683 individuals) is a refugee or immigrant. Further, in Seattle, the percent of the population over five years of age speaking a language at home other than English is now 20.2%.

Finally, Seattle is a diverse community with respect to age. Nineteen percent of our population is younger than 20 years old. Another 19% is older than 55 years. Adults between 20 -34 years of age and adults between the ages of 35-54 years are equally represented at 31% of the population.

POVERTY IN SEATTLE

Research on new measures for economic well beingbasic family budgets and the self-sufficiency standardxxii 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. For the City of Seattle, the rate could actually exceed 250% of the poverty level, particularly for families with infants and preschoolers requiring child care.xxiii In 1999, 135,911 individuals (23.9% of the population) in Seattle had incomes at or below 200% of poverty.

Regionally Seattle remains the home for a significant percentage of the County's poorest residents.8 According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Seattle has the fourth highest poverty rate in the County (as measured by the Federal poverty level) at 11.8%, exceeded by White Center at 14.7%, Auburn at 12.8% and Tukwila at 12.7%. At this poverty level, Seattle is home to 54% of the county's poorest individuals and 41% of the poorest families in the county. In addition, Seattle is home to over 58% 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, has pushed many individuals and families closer to, if not into, poverty. During this period, the state's economy lost 86,900 jobs, including the 30,000 Boeing layoffs. Economic recovery is slow with only 20,000 jobs added since March 2002. The 7% unemployment rate in the State remains among the highest in the nation, second only to Oregon. Recent reports indicate that it could take an individual at least six months to find a new job. Analysts do not expect full recovery until 2004, perhaps 2005. xxiv

RACIAL DISPARITIES

The Department is intentional about understanding and addressing the root causes of racial inequity. Racial inequity is apparent in many systems (e.g., healthcare, 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, 23% of African American, 29% of Native American, 16.5% of Asian/Pacific Islander, and 21.6% of Latino residents are living below the Federal poverty level, while only 8.5% of Whites are living below the Federal poverty level.

* In the Seattle School District, 23% of Native American students, 18% of African American students, and 16% of Latino students drop out while only 10% of White students drop out.

* People of color, especially African Americans, Native Americans and Latinos are over represented among sheltered homeless population in Seattle. Native Americans make up just over 1% of the population and 6% of the people in shelters. Latinos constitute 5.4% of the population and 8% of the people in shelters. African Americans are the most over-represented group, making up 8.4% of Seattle's population but 30% of people in shelters.

* While only 5.4% of the population of King County is African American, 35% of the county's prison population is African American.

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. In fiscal year 2002 federal and state funding in King County was $940 million and $885 million, respectively.xxv Seattle residents and human service providers also access state and federal services directly.

Though the state and federal governments continue to be major partners, it appears that they may be stepping away from their historical commitment to supporting a safety net for all citizens. At each level, proposals under consideration for 2004 and beyond will reduce funds available for Seattle residents and the City's ability to provide services, should they be adopted.

Federal Government

The House and Senate recently approved a final budget resolution that calls for $1.3 trillion in tax cuts through 2013. These cuts, as well as spending increases for defense, a prescription drug benefit, and interest payments on the debt, add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and national debt between now and 2013. With the exception of health care programs, funding levels for domestic discretionary programs are set below the 2003 baseline and over 10 years will represent a reduction of $168 billion.xxvi

Tax cuts and spending reductions at this time are unresponsive to growing human need. Social services discretionary programs that could be adversely impacted by the current budget strategy are Child Care Development Block Grant TANF, the Community Development Block Grant, some emergency food assistance programs, senior nutrition programs, and violence against women programs.

State of Washington

In recent years, the State has faced significant budget short falls. Even with no new programs and services, the State's budget would increase based on caseload growth, cost-of-living increases, increased medical costs, and higher enrollments. In addition to the revenue losses associated with a declining economy, the State's capacity to develop a budget that adequately addresses human needs has been impaired by a number of voter-approved initiatives that reduce revenue or require specialized spending.

Poor working families are among those who are most adversely affected by the State's budget woes. Two recent examples of changes in state programs that adversely affect poor working families occurred in Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

As a result of 2003 legislative action, the state will now require families who are eligible for Medicaid, that is families with incomes between 100 and 200% of the federal poverty level, to pay premiums. It will also increase eligibility verification. An estimated 6,783 children will lose or drop out of Medicaid in King County due to these changes.xxvii

During the last 18 months, the Governor has cut or allowed spending reductions in the welfare budget totaling $89 million.xxviii One specific changed involved reducing eligibility for the state's child care subsidy program, Working Connections, to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, down from 225 percent. As of May 2003, 200 families have lost access to the state service and have turned to the City of Seattle's care subsidy program for assistance.

King County

King County is another major partner, funding regional services, (e.g., homelessness services, mental health, alcohol and substance abuse services and domestic violence and sexual assault service.) In 2002, its Health and Human Services budget was $424 million or 14 percent of its budget. About $33 million of this amount comes from the county's general fund. The county has significant budget difficulties; discretionary human services are being squeezed due to two factors decreasing revenue (property and sales taxes) due to I747, incorporations and annexations, and the recession, as well as rising criminal justice costs.

Conclusion to Public Funding

In the final analysis, any significant reduction in human services funding at the federal, state or county level, including the failure to adjust for inflation, is a matter of concern for Seattle. Residents will 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. 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.

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

ii Project Lift Off, 2000

iii Seattle Police Department

iv Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Research Report. Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, GA: National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

vi 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

vii Strategy Alert, Community Information Exchange, Spring 1996

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

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

x 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

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

xii US Census 2000

xiii Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, Living Longer Staying Healthy: The Health Status of Older Adults in King County, January 1995

xiv Human Services Department, Aging and Disability Division contract performance data

xv Health People 2010 Objectives: Draft of Public Comment, U.S. Department of Health and human Services, Office of Public Health and Science, 1998

xvi Friedland, Robert B., Demography is Not Destiny, 1999.

xvii Human Services Department, Area Plan on Aging

xviii Communities Count 2002

xix Susan Showalter and Vicki Itzkowitz,. Building Stronger Organizations: The Impact of Capital Projects Lessons for Human Services Agencies and Their Funders. Archibald Bush Foundation, St. Paul, Minnesota 2002

xx US Census 2000

xxi King County Refugee Planning Committee, 2001

xxii 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.

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

xxiv Washington Research Council, Policy Brief: Revenue Forecast Reduced, March 3, 2003.

xxv Public Funding for Health and Human Services in King County, Washington Research Council, 2002

xxvi Friedman, Joel, Overview of Final Budget Resolution Agreement, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 17, 2003

xxvii Number of Children Expected to Lose Medicaid by County, a report by the Children's Alliance, July 2003.

xxviii Washington's Welfare Budget: How recent cuts affect low income working families, a report by the Children's Alliance, June 2003

Size of 100% 175% 250% Family Unit

1 $9,310* $16,293 $23,275

2 12,490 $21,858 $31,225

3 15,670 $27,423 $39,175

4 18,850 $32,988 $47,125

5 22,030 $38,553 $55,075

6 25,210 $44,118 $63,025

7 28,390 $49,683 $70,975

8 31,570 $55,248 $78,925

data derived from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2004 Federal Poverty Guidelines, http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

*annual income

ta April 7, 2004