Continuity Report Have City Agencies Done What They Said They Would Do After the Civil Grand Jury of 2005-2006 Issued

It is desirable that Civil Grand Juries and the Controller’s Office follow a consistent tracking format in reporting on the implementation of the recommendations of Civil Grand Juries. Both the Controller’s Office and the Civil Grand Jury produce documents tracking responses to Civil Grand Jury Reports. The matrices on which the responses are reported are similar but not identical. Although the substance of the Civil Grand Jury’s Continuity Report and the Controller’s Status Report differ, the format should be identical. 5 (cid:190) Recommendation 1: Starting with the reports of the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury, upon receipt of Civil Grand Jury reports, the Controller’s Office should input the basic information contained in the reports on a matrix. This should include the Controller’s summary of each finding, each recommendation, and the required respondent. The matrix should be transmitted to the newly sworn Civil Grand Jury for its use in reporting on its follow-up in the Tracking Document.

The Controller’s Office issues its “Status Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations in Civil Grand Jury Reports” late in the term of a sitting Civil Grand Jury. When preparing its Status Report, the Controller’s Office receives updates on the responses made to the Superior Court within the 60-day period required under the Penal Code. The sitting Civil Grand Jury is not privy to these updates. (cid:190) Recommendation 2: The Controller’s Office should provide the sitting Civil Grand Jury with updates to the responses made to prior Civil Grand Jury reports as it receives them. Responses required from: Office of the Controller (60 days) B. Board of Supervisors The 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury believes that the hearings held by the Board of Supervisors’ Government Audit and Oversight Committee are extremely important in achieving accountability from respondents. The 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury encourages the Board to expand its method of responding to Grand Jury reports, by including substantive written responses to the recommendations. The 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury has had discussions and correspondence with members of the Board regarding the Board’s responses to the Grand Jury reports. Penal Code 933 requires the Board to respond to the Presiding Judge within 90 days of the release of a report to recommendations that address personnel or budgetary issues. Often budgetary issues presented to the Board by the Civil Grand Jury request that the Board take action in the future. For example, a recommendation may request the Board to approve budgetary proposals needed to implement Civil Grand Jury Recommendations. This, in effect, asks the Board to respond to a recommendation regarding a budgetary request that is not yet before them. The Civil Grand Jury understands that requesting a response to a recommendation setting forth a “hypothetical” scenario makes response by the Board complicated. Perhaps due to this awkwardness, the Board did not provide the Civil Grand Jury with responses it was able to use effectively to prepare our Continuity Report. In addition, not all requests to the Board for response fall into this category. For example, both the 2004-2005 and the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury recommended that the Board hold an annual hearing on Civil Grand Jury recommendations that are still pending. The Board provided no 6 response to this specific recommendation: In response to every applicable

Responses by the Board of Supervisors to the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury reports were not sent to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on a timely basis and the responses were not specifically directed to the substance of the recommendation. (cid:190) Recommendation 3: The Board of Supervisors should respond to each individual recommendation directed to it by the Civil Grand Jury. The responses should be made to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 90 days of the release of the report.

The hearing held by the Board of Supervisors on each report issued by the Civil Grand encourages implementation of agreed upon recommendations by officials, agencies and departments of the City and County of San Francisco. (cid:190) Recommendation 4: The Board of Supervisors should continue to hold hearings on the reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury. Responses required from: Board of Supervisors (90 days) C. Future Civil Grand Juries: More importantly, the 2006-2007 Jury encourages future juries to continue a systematic follow-up to prior reports by carrying on the Civil Grand Jury tradition of issuing a Continuity Report. To facilitate this process and enable continuity, the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury proposes to select among its members a volunteer to assist the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury during the 60 day period (or 90 days in the case of the Board of Supervisors) in which responses to the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury are due. The volunteer would coordinate with the Office of the Presiding Judge to keep track of the responses received to the 2006-2007 reports by the Court, provide copies of the Responses to the Controller’s Office, and submit a list of delinquent responses to the Jury to submit to the Judge at the end of the 60-day period. If the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury finds this proposed volunteer system assists it in providing needed continuity, the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury encourages the 2007-2008 Jury to continue the volunteer program into the following year. II. HAVE CITY AGENCIES DONE WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO AFTER THE CIVIL GRAND JURY OF 2005-2006 ISSUED ITS REPORTS? Attached are the Tracking Documents recording the status of the implementation of the Recommendations of the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury. Disaster Planning: The Reality of Emergency/Disaster Medical Preparedness in San Francisco In the Tracking Document recording the implementation of responders to the 2005-2006 report on disaster planning, the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury recommends that future juries continue to monitor many recommendations that have not yet been implemented or have only partially been implemented. Many of these same issues are discussed in the separate investigation of the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury, “Preparing for a Disaster….” Concurrent to the release of the 2005-2006 report on Disaster Planning, the Mayor issued Directive 06-03 on Emergency Medical Disaster Preparedness (see Appendix C to the 2006-2007 Report “Preparing for a Disaster…). Among other Directives, the Mayor directed the formation of the Multi-Casualty Working Group to address the issue of hospital evacuation and develop appropriate response plans and plans to coordinate with regional plans. These plans, and the implementation of other Mayor’s directives, have not yet been completed.

Certain of the Directives in the Mayor’s Directive 06-03, Emergency Medical Disaster Preparedness, have not yet been implemented. (cid:190) Recommendation 5: The Mayor should follow up on the implementation of the actions required in his Directive 06-03. Responses required from: The Mayor (60 days) 8 San Francisco’s Information Technology Highway: Potholes or Possibilities To date San Francisco has yet to coordinate the various computer and technological systems used across departments, partially because of dissatisfaction by departments with the performance of the Department of Telecommunications Services, partially due to the lack of technology expertise, or leadership and authority, and partially due to funding limitations. Before they could be implemented, some of recommendations of the 2005-2006 Jury required changes to the Administrative Code to strengthen the role of the Executive Director of the Department of Telecommunications Services (DTIS), coordinate budget items related to technology across departments, and centralize as much of the City’s information technology as feasible, including outside contracts. At the time 2005-2006 Jury prepared its report, the City Administrator had agreed that changes to the Administrative Code were necessary. At present, changes to the Code have been drafted. They are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors, the City Administrator and the City Attorney’s Office. In addition, before a number of the recommendations of the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury could be implemented, the City had to complete an assessment of the state of information technology in the City, including an inventory. One of the proposals that the Committee on Information and Technology (COIT) is considering is a Citywide Technology Assessment. COIT, however, did not propose such an assessment in the 2006-2007 budget. Instead, several smaller projects, i.e., the Inventory of Core systems and the Technology Equipment budget study, “did come through the budget process.” COIT intends these projects to be part of the ultimate foundational framework for a complete and comprehensive Citywide Technological Assessment. In the meantime, the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury is pleased that the Budget Analyst of the Board of Supervisors is about to embark upon a review of Information Technology throughout all departments and agencies in the City. Implementation of the recommendations of the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury will require funding to attract personnel with adequate expertise and to upgrade current systems. After approval of changes to the Administrative Code and the completion of a comprehensive Citywide Technological Assessment, the Mayor and the Board would have to approve adequate funding to bring about the needed changes. At such time, the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury believes a future jury should undertakes a new investigation of the status of information technology in the City. Office of the Assessor-Recorder: Reducing the 4-Year Backlog The Office of the Assessor-Recorder responded to the 2005-2006 report on August 22, 2006. The Office provided the Jury with further updates on the implementation of the recommendations in June 2007. The 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury has observed progress on the implementation of the Recommendations over the last year. In addition, the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury is pleased to hear that the Controller’s Office will soon conduct an audit of the Office of Assessor-Recorder in relation to the timeliness of assessing new and transferred properties. For that reason, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that future juries wait to follow up on the ability of the Assessor-Recorder to expedite placing assessments of new or transferred properties on- line and reducing its backlog until enough time has elapsed to judge whether the improvements have been adequate. Identity Theft: How Well is the City and County Coping ? Review of the 2005-2006 report on Identity theft indicated that the City does have security measures in place to safeguard against identify theft. According to findings listed by the 2005-06 Civil Grand Jury, City departments do not routinely maintain social security records or credit card numbers in any database that is vulnerable or can be compromised. Nevertheless, in Finding #1, the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury found in its investigation that the contract between the City and the Bank of America concerning cash and credit card operations at the Department of Health did not contain a clause protecting the confidentiality of data. The Mayor responded to this Finding on July 21, 2006, “The San Francisco Treasurer’s Office is aware of the Bank of America contractual data protection issue with the Department of Public health and is in the process of correcting [it].” As of June 5, 2007, no corrective action, i.e., a new Request for Proposal or banking contract has been processed.

The confidentiality clause in the City’s Contract with the Bank of America has not been added. New Requests for Proposals or banking contracts including confidentiality clauses have not been drafted. (cid:190) Recommendation 6: The Mayor’s Office and the Treasurer should explain to the Civil Grand Jury why the confidentiality clause has not been corrected.

The fact that the confidentiality clause has not been corrected indicates a lack of commitment on the part of the City to protect identity, despite the responses made to the 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury report on Identity Theft. (cid:190) Recommendation 7: The Mayor’s Office in cooperation with the Controller, should review security procedures to ensure the security of all personal information regardless of how it is maintained, manually or electronically. This would include employee information as well as that of the public. Responses required from: Treasurer, Office of the Controller, and the Mayor (60 days) 10 Affordable Housing Bond Program: The Down Payment Assistance Loan Program The 2005-2006 Civil Grand Jury reported on the state of the Affordable Housing Bond Program to provide low-income first time homebuyers down-payment assistance. When the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing appeared before the Board of Supervisors at the August 14, 2006 hearing on the Civil Grand Jury report, he testified that the balance of the fund was reduced to $1.6 million at that time. In the meantime, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor have competing proposals to assist low-income homebuyers. Future Civil Grand Juries should follow the progress of the Mayor’s Housing Proposal and the Supervisors’ Housing Proposals and consider making further recommendations regarding low-income housing programs. San Francisco Jails: An Investigative Visit On August 17, 2006, members of the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury spent a full day inspecting jail facilities of the City and County of San Francisco, including, Jails #1 and #2 located at the Hall of Justice, and Jails #5 and #7 in San Bruno. During the one-day on site interviews with inmates, members of the Jury heard many inmates request more in-jail programs to prepare them for post-release and more follow-up community programs to assist them after they are released. The Jury observed some training facilities, including facilities for training in culinary and laundry skills. Only a culinary certificate is offered. The Jury also observed some Charter school educational classrooms. The Jury deemed neither the vocational training nor the Charter school programs adequate to the needs of the inmates. The Charter Schools, for example, were only available to inmates without a high school diploma. The Jury understands that most inmates in the County Jail system are not incarcerated at the facilities run by the City and County of San Francisco for a long time, which makes developing consistent ongoing programming difficult. Despite this, the Jury believes that even a start in educational and training program could provide continuity to further training and education once an individual is released, increasing the opportunities for an inmate to function outside the system and decreasing the chance the individual will be incarcerated again. Many of those released from the jails need post-release assistance to prevent recidivism, often including drug recovery, violence prevention or both. According to the Mayor’s Office, as of September 2006, it has provided funds to the Sheriff and community agencies to support re-entry programs. The Sheriff’s Department has set aside $600,000 to create a comprehensive re-entry program for recently released individuals, called the No Violence Alliance. The Sheriff’s Office reports that, as of 11 March 2006, 100 ex-offenders had been served. Statistics measuring effectiveness of the program to prevent recidivism are being collected. Future Civil Grand Juries should monitor the No Violence Alliance program to assess the percent of recidivism of those in the program as compared to the general population of released individuals to judge whether the program is working and is adequately funded.

Educational and trade programs, both inside the jails and in the community should reduce recidivism. Measurement statistics are being gathered and analyzed on the No Violence Alliance program begun in September 2006. (cid:190) Recommendation 8: If the No Violence Alliance program successfully reduces recidivism, the Sheriff, coordinating with governmental and community agencies, should expand the program, and develop and propose additional programs. The Mayor and Board of Supervisors should approve funds for those projects. Responses required from: Sheriff, Board of Education, Adult Probation (60 days)

A Charter school in the San Bruno Jail offers classes to some eligible inmates without high school diplomas. (cid:190) Recommendation 9: The School Board should extend the Charter school program in the jails to reach more of the eligible inmates.

The Charter School cannot offer educational opportunities to inmates who have a high school diploma. (cid:190) Recommendation 10: San Francisco Community College should offer programs within the jails, combined with a post-incarceration program, to inmates with a high school diploma to encourage individuals to take advantage of community college programs when they are released. Responses required from: Sheriff, Board of the Community College, Adult Probation (60 days) Continuity Report: Cooperation + Collaboration + Communication = Continuity The issues raised in the above-entitled 2005-2006 Continuity Report regarding accountability in City government as to the implementation of Civil Grand Jury