Proposition J: Funding Programs Serving Children, Youth, and Families

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now:

  • The City funds services for children, youth and their families through the Children and Youth Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Fund and the Student Success Fund, and other programs.
  • The San Francisco Unified School District (School District) is separate from the City and operates the San Francisco public school system. The School District receives some funding from the City.

Children and Youth Fund

  • Supports services for children and youth through 24 years of age.
  • The Charter requires the City to contribute a dedicated portion of annual property tax revenues to this fund.
  • The City uses these funds to provide services, including child care, health services, job training, social services, educational, recreational and cultural programs, and delinquency prevention services.
  • The City must spend more than the amount it spent in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 to fund these services. This amount is referred to as the "Children and Youth Fund Baseline."

Public Education Enrichment Fund (PEEF)

  • Supports early childhood education programs and general education programs, including art, music, sports and libraries.
  • The Charter requires the City to contribute a certain amount to this fund each year, adjusted annually.
  • The City must spend more than the amount it spent in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 to fund these services. This amount is referred to as the "PEEF Baseline."
  • The Board of Supervisors and Mayor may provide additional funding to the School District.

Student Success Fund

  • The City grants money from this fund to the School District and individual schools for programs that improve student academic achievement and social/emotional wellness.
  • The Charter requires the City to contribute money to the fund each year through Fiscal Year 2037-2038.
  • In Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the City must place $35 million into this fund, with the amount increasing each year.
  • The City may place less money in the fund under certain circumstances.

The Proposal:

Proposition __ would:

  • Create an Our Children, Our Families Initiative (OCOF Initiative), led by the Mayor and the Superintendent of the School District and staffed by employees of the City and School District, to ensure that related funds are used effectively.
  • Require the OCOF Initiative to evaluate expenditures from the Children and Youth Fund and the PEEF and prepare an annual report for the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.
  • Require the School District to report on PEEF funds and spending to the OCOF Initiative each year.
  • Require the School District to submit a proposal every five years describing how it plans to use PEEF funds.
  • Stipulate that money spent from the Student Success Fund cannot replace money included in the Children and Youth Baseline, the PEEF Baseline or other similar provisions.
  • Not change the minimum contributions by the City to the Children and Youth Fund, the PEEF or the Student Success Fund.

What Your Vote Means:

  • A "YES" Vote: You want to amend the Charter to create an Our Children, Our Families Initiative to ensure that related funds are used effectively.
  • A "NO" Vote: You do not want to make these changes.

How We Fund This

  1. The proposed Charter amendment (Proposition J) could have a significant financial impact on San Francisco, potentially costing up to $35 million in FY 2024-25, increasing to $83 million by FY 2037-38.

  2. It creates an Our Children, Our Families Initiative to align city spending on children and youth, with potential annual staffing costs ranging from $140,000 to $570,000.

  3. The amendment revises the Student Success Fund, clarifying that it cannot replace other funding requirements for children, youth, and the School District, potentially requiring additional city funding.

  4. Over 14 years, the total costs could range from $490 million to $930 million, depending on the city's financial health and budgetary decisions.

  5. The proposal is not in compliance with a non-binding voter-adopted policy that seeks to limit set-asides reducing General Fund dollars allocatable by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors.