CONTENTS

San Francisco Enterprise Community: Fact Sheet, Governance Structure, Schedule, Process, and Map Funding Principles Neighborhood Program Priority Areas San Francisco Enterprise Community Press Clippings Foundation Participation

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY FACT SHEET

What is the Enterprise Community Program?

San Francisco's Enterprise Community program stems from the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise (EZ/EC) Community Program, a national competition created by the Clinton Administration last year. In essence, the EZ/EC program is about revitalizing low income neighborhoods, supporting grassroots and community-based planning, creating new partnerships between neighborhoods, local government and the federal government.

The key principles of the EZ/EC program include:

Economic Opportunity

Sustainable Community Development

Community-Based Partnerships

Strategic Visions for Change

The Clinton Administration advised local communities that only 6 urban cities would receive Empowerment Zone status, while 65 urban cities could receive Enterprise Community status. In order to qualify, certain economic/demographic requirements had to be met, and the competing cities had to submit innovative and comprehensive strategic plans for revitalization of the targeted areas.

How San Francisco Got Enterprise Community Designation?

• Because of San Francisco's unique demographics and economic composition, and because of the City's desire to be as inclusive as possible, we were able to apply for Enterprise Community (EC) status for six neighborhoods, Bayview-Hunter's Point, Visitacion Valley, the Mission, South of Market, Chinatown and the Tenderloin. Because of federal regulations, we had to split our application into two, with the first four neighborhoods comprising one application and Chinatown and the Tenderloin the other.
  
  
• San Francisco's application consisted of ten year strategic plans/visions for each of the six neighborhoods. The strategic plans were developed through one of the most extensive neighborhood-based planning processes in the history of the City. Widely publicized meetings were held in all six neighborhoods over a two month period. More than 700 individuals participated in 13 meetings in the various neighborhoods. More than 500 public and private entities are represented in the plans, and City departments were active collaborators in the process as well.
  
  
• Each neighborhood's plans built on the principles outlined above, and looked specifically at the areas of economic development, housing, public safety, education and training, physical environment, and human services. The application also called for the creation of an Enterprise Community Council, with representation from each neighborhood, City officials, and private funders, to oversee implementation of the strategic plans.
  
  
• As a result of our inclusive process and the quality of the strategic plans submitted to HUD, San Francisco received official Enterprise Community designation in late December, 1994. The official designation only covered the four neighborhoods of Visitacion Valley, Bayview-Hunter's Point, the Mission and South of Market. However, HUD has advised us that they understand our EC program to consist of the six neighborhoods (though some of the benefits can only go to the four formally designated areas). San Francisco is committed to working with all six of the neighborhoods in the implementation of their strategic plans.

What Does Enterprise Community Designation Mean?

• With designation come some very specific new resources:

$2.95 million in Social Service Block Grant funds;

Tax exempt bonds (up to $3 million per business);

Preferences for a wide variety of other federal grant competitions; and

$3 million in matching funds from the Local Support Initiatives Corporation (LISC), and pledges of support from other funders and organizations, including the Equal Opportunity Council (EOC).

• In addition, many City agencies and departments are integrating the Enterprise Community strategic plans into their decision-making process for existing resources.

What's Next?

• Each neighborhood is now in the process of refining and prioritizing their strategic plans. By fall of 1995, specific programs and projects that meet the neighborhood-determined priorities and objectives will be solicited by each neighborhood for submission to the Enterprise Community Board.
  
  
• Each of the six neighborhoods has three representatives on the 25-person EC Board. In addition, there is representation from private funders, a few City departments and related agencies, the Mayor's Office and the Board of Supervisors. The EC Board is the policy and decision-making body whose job it is to help each neighborhood implement their strategic plans by matching available resources to specific proposals.

*******************************

For more information on San Francisco's Enterprise Community program, please contact the Mayor's Office of Community Development at (916) 554-8767.

---

SAN FRANCISCO ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY BOARD

• Three Elected Representatives from each Neighborhood (Business, CBO, Resident)
• Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)
• Private Industry Council (PIC)
• Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD)-Director
• SF Unified School District
• SF Redevelopment
• Agency-Executive Director
• Representative from SF Board of Supervisors
• Local Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC)

Policy and Decisions

Establishes policies and approves guidelines for funding, implementation, timelines, and benchmarks;

Reviews and approves/disapproves EC Work Group funding, and implementation recommendations;

Requests funding and/or waivers from federal/state/local/private funders;

Writes reports to HUD, funders;

Establishes process to assure neighborhoods receive funding to meet neighborhood priorities;

Solicits City and Private funders input and assistance.

ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY WORK GROUP

• One Representative from each Neighborhood
• City Department Staff
• SKMG (and related technical assistance providers)

Analysis

Analyze neighborhood planning body recommendations for feasibility, legality, practicality, and report to EC Board;

Make recommendations to EC Board and/or Planning Bodies;

Access technical assistance as necessary;

Identify projects across neighborhoods;

Identify opportunities to leverage other funds.

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING BODIES

• Bayview/Hunters Point
• Mission
• South of Market
• Visitacion Valley
• Chinatown
• Tenderloin

Priorities

Establish process to continue broad neighborhood representation for strategic planning; Develop and refine neighborhood strategic plans;

Establish benchmarks/timetables for implementing proposed projects;

Prioritize proposed project and make funding/implementation recommendations to EC Board through EC Work Group;

Elect three representatives to EC Board;

Select representatives to EC Work Group.

Bill Lee Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Steve Arcelona Private Industry Council (PIC) Larry Del Carlo, Director San Francisco Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) Waldemar Rojas San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Clifford Graves, Executive Director San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) Susan Leal San Francisco Board of Supervisors Thomas Mills, Program Director Local Initiatives Support Corp. (LISC)

TO: San Francisco Enterprise Community Board

FROM: Monica Wilson, SKMG

DATE: September 20, 1995

SUBJECT: Summary of Funding Principles from the September and July Enterprise Community Board Meetings

This memorandum provides a summary of the San Francisco Enterprise Community Board's discussion about funding principles at the September Board meeting. The September Board meeting was dedicated to the completion of the funding principles discussion, focusing on the four remaining issues: Equity, Funding Cycles, Minimum Funds Threshold/Maximum Impacts; and Existing vs. New Programs.

In addition, information concerning the three funding principles categories discussed at the July Board Meeting, Inter-Neighborhood Collaboration, Leveraging Resources, and Existing Agency Linkages have been included.

Again, please review this summary and the attached graphic records to ensure that the Board's consensus was appropriately documented. Also, please be prepared with recommendations from your neighborhood to address the possible development of neighborhood- specific funding principles. As we discussed, we anticipate that each neighborhood will individually tailor a more detailed set of funding principles unique to the neighborhood's needs (e.g., minimum Funds Threshold/Maximum Impacts).

INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD COLLABORATION

• Fund neighborhood priority programs that demonstrate and encourage inter-neighborhood collaboration and shared resources.

LEVERAGING RESOURCES

• Fund projects that promote and stimulate a sustainable neighborhood economic base (e.g., linkages between business development and employment needs of neighborhood residents; spin-off business opportunities generated for neighborhood businesses; leveraging private sector funds or resources within the neighborhood).

EQUITY

• Allocate the Enterprise Community funds ($2.95 million) equally between designated communities. Thus, the four designated communities will each receive approximately $740,000 of Enterprise Community funds to invest in their neighborhoods' priority programs.
• Promote equity between the six communities and recommend to LISC that grant and equity investment funds ($1.5 million) committed to San Francisco's Enterprise Community's program are equally divided between Tenderloin and Chinatown. Thus, Tenderloin and Chinatown will each receive approximately $740,000 in grants and equity investment funds.

EXISTING ORGANIZATIONAL LINKAGES

• Provide preference to proposals that demonstrate linkage to neighborhood organizations with meaningful resident representation and involvement.
• Require funding applicants to demonstrate or commit to ongoing participation in the Neighborhood Planning Bodies.
• Require funding applicants to demonstrate positive prior track record in the neighborhood, based upon service standards created by each Neighborhood Planning Body.

EXISTING VS. NEW PROGRAMS

• Provide funding to proposals for existing and new organizations that demonstrate competence and commitment to their communities, including the meaningful representation by the community in their organization.

FUNDING CYCLES

• Allocate the Enterprise Community funds in two cycles (January 1996 and fall 1996). 2
• Promote the equal distribution of funds in each funding cycle (50 percent January 1996 and 50 percent fall 1996). However, allow flexibility in the distribution of funds to take into account projects that may require greater up-front funding or one-time funding.
• Request for continued funding during the second funding cycle, fall 1996, will be evaluated based on the program's success in achieving its desired outcomes and in the funding recipients' accountability to the community.
• Promote a flexible allocation of funds. Specifically, allow short-term (one funding cycle) programs to compete with programs seeking funding in both cycles.

MINIMUM FUNDS THRESHOLD/MAXIMUM IMPACT

• Consensus was not reached on this funding principle. The issue of setting a minimum funds threshold will be reviewed at the neighborhood level by the Neighborhood Planning Bodies. Neighborhoods may agree to include a minimum funds threshold as part of the development of neighborhood-specific funding principles.

Today's workshop is intended to inform you of the progress that has been made in the Enterprise Community program since the last neighborhood meeting, and to get your feedback on the proposals which your elected representatives are recommending should be submitted for funding.

First, here are some important facts for you to know:

Our neighborhood, as one of the four federally-designated Enterprise Communities in San Francisco, is eligible to receive approximately $740,000 in grant funds to support local projects.

The monies will be allocated in two funding cycles: one begins in March 1996, the other begins around September 1996.

Local organizations and groups will be invited to submit proposals for these funds.

We are also eligible to receive a portion of the $50 million in low-interest loans available to promote housing and business development in our area.

At previous Community meetings, we developed a list of "benchmarks," or goals for our neighborhood. In July, we voted on these benchmarks to see which ones seemed to be the most critical to improving the Mission area.

Although every one of the goals is important, we know we can't fund them all through the Enterprise Community program. We have to decide which of the benchmarks are the most strategic -- those which will give us the most bang for our buck, which will meet the needs identified by the community, and which are most appropriate to the goals of the Enterprise Community program. And we have to submit these to the Enterprise Community Board soon in order to ensure our share of the funding.

Your elected representatives are proposing five projects to submit to the Enterprise Community Board. Today, we want to discuss these proposals and get your ideas for making them stronger before taking them to the Board.

1. Welcome
   1. Introductions
   2. Workshop Purpose
   3. Agenda Overview
   
   
2. Overview of the Enterprise Community Program
   
   
3. Criteria for Prioritizing Benchmarks
   
   
4. Identifying Priority Projects/Outcomes
   
   
5. Summary and Next Steps

Close

---

What are the 18 benchmarks?

---

Here is a list of the eighteen benchmarks selected at the Community meeting on July 11 in order of the number of votes each received. (xx) refers to a number that has not been determined yet.

Benchmark

1. Retain and rehabilitate (xx) existing housing "at risk" units (lead abatement, code enforcement, etc.).

2a. Create (xx) additional slots for Mission youth in existing and new recreation/sports programs.

2b. Create a comprehensive outreach/education program addressing the need for school retention so as to increase the number of Mission High School graduates by (xx).

2c. Develop a program/strategic plan for retaining existing business and attracting (xx) new business ventures in the Mission to include technical support and merchants associations' input.

3. Create (xx) new jobs for Mission District residents.

4. Graduate (xx) Mission residents from current job training/job readiness programs.

5. Create (xx) additional child care slots/facilities to accommodate Mission District children.

6. Provide assistance and support to local youth to create a recycling program that will create jobs and improve the local environment.

7. Provide Mission residents with the necessary information and support to enable an additional (xx) Mission residents to enroll in existing education opportunities, i.e., vocational schools, community college and universities.

8. Establish a first-time home ownership assistance/housing counseling program and provide (xx) Mission District residents with home ownership opportunities.

9. Create (xx) slots in arts programs for Mission District children, youth and young adults.

10. Create (xx) community park/gardens in the Mission along with community based landscape design and maintenance programs.

11a. Develop new and support existing private and public sector and community based tourist arts programs.

11b. Work with existing organizations and city agencies to improve the physical security of the Mission District.

12. Establish a community-defined police priorities list regarding their enforcement and presence in the Mission community.

13. Maintain/restore (xx) Mission District murals and support arts programs that will produce (xx) new murals for the Mission.

14. Develop a "Safe Places" program for (xx) Mission District children and youth.

15. Create/expand a comprehensive landlord school and residential hotel management training seminars and empower (xx) Mission residents in management, legal issues, etc.

---

How did we get from
18 benchmarks to 5 projects?

---

Following the July Community Meeting, the Working Group developed a list of criteria by which the benchmarks could be evaluated and prioritized.

The Group felt that priority projects should be ones that:

• Incorporate benchmarks which received the highest number of votes at the July neighborhood meeting;
• Incorporate more than one benchmark, where possible;
• Leverage existing resources by building on successful programs;
• Provide a "ripple effect," by permitting or facilitating progress on other community goals, such as public safety and economic development;
• Address in particular the needs of:

Children, youth and families

Merchants and business owners

Tenants of dilapidated housing

---

What are the projects that are being proposed for
Enterprise Community funding?

---

Based on the criteria outlined on the previous page, the Mission Enterprise Community elected representatives recommend the following projects for submittal to the San Francisco Enterprise Community Board (numbers in parentheses refer to the benchmark[s] incorporated in the proposed project):

PROPOSAL A: Create an enterprise that employs youth to clean the Mission's streets and sidewalks on a regular basis and has as one of its goals involving as many youth as possible in the management and ownership of the business. Self-sufficiency within two years is an additional measure of success. This project could be developed in conjunction with an existing business. (2c, 3, 6)

PROPOSAL B: Establish a school retention program. This program would create a model for Latino and Asian families targeted to keep youth, at risk of dropping out, in school. Support services could include increasing parent involvement in the school, case management for at-risk youth, assistance with legal documentation, job training and parent support groups. The focus of the program would be to comprehensively address school retention for at-risk youth. (2b, 4)

PROPOSAL C: Create a 24-hour childcare facility in the Mission District. Allow working parents with evening and weekend shifts to leave their children in safe, licensed child care. (3, 4, 5)

PROPOSAL D: Implement a strategy for the eventual purchase and rehabilitation of all of the Mission's residential hotels by non-profit entities. (1, 2c)

PROPOSAL E: Increase tourism and enhance cultural and historical awareness by expanding existing mural tour programs. Create new positions for paid youth guides and direct proceeds to the restoration and maintenance of this Mission's murals. (3, 11a, 13)