📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

Findings & Recommendations

17 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 20
The broader public is barely aware of the PS framework, diminishing its utility and hampering the SFG’s ability to communicate progress to San Franciscans. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to ensure broader public access to the PS platform, and consistent with the practice of other leading cities, a clear link to the PS website should be placed on the SFG website homepage, the Office of the Mayor’s homepage and the Board of Supervisor’s homepage by January 1, 2018 (P).
F2 Page 20
Despite the Mayor’s role as the accountable executive of the SFG, the Mayor does not directly report performance results to the public, as is done in other leading cities. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 2.1: Consistent with other leading cities such as New York, beginning in 2018 the Mayor should present an annual SFG Performance report that 20 ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE concisely communicates SFG performance and progress to the public; the public transmission of which should consist of: i. Hosting a public press conference, the first of which would occur not later than January 31, 2019, announcing the SFG’s annual performance (P). ii. Posting the SFG Performance report on the Office of the Mayor’s website homepage (P). iii. Submitting the SFG Performance report to the Board of Supervisors for comment (P). iv. Within 30 days of the Board of Supervisors response, the Controller’s Office should update the PS website to reflect annual SFG performance, with comments from the Board of Supervisors and responses from the Office of the Mayor included online for the public’s reference (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 2.2: Commencing in 2018, the Controller’s Office should prepare quarterly updates of the PS framework, inclusive of: i. Submission of the quarterly update to the Board of Supervisor’s Government Audit and Oversight Committee (GAO) and the Office of the Mayor, inviting comment (N). ii. Posting a quarterly update on the PS website homepage, with comments from the Board of Supervisors and Mayor’s Office included for public reference (N).
F3 Page 21
The PS framework encompasses too many indicators – some of the indicators are of great importance, whereas others are much less significant. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 3.1: In consultation with other SFG entities and community groups, the Controller’s Office should propose a narrowed set of PS indicators, likely not exceeding 30 total, by October 1, 2017; the Board of Supervisor’s GAO Committee should be invited to comment on the revised indicators prior to submission to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 3.2: In consultation with other SFG entities and community groups, the Controller’s Office should evaluate, no later than July 1, 2018, the feasibility of including district level reporting for some or all indicators and posting this information within the online PS platform, enabling citizens to understand progress in their own neighborhoods (N).
F4 Page 21
Having performance indicators without associated goals goes against practice in other leading cities, and limits the public’s ability to understand the SFG’s progress. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 4.1: The Mayor’s Office should ensure that by January 1, 2018 every PS indicator has a linked goal, with all goals approved by the Mayor – these goals comprise the SFG’s overarching annual operational plan (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 4.2: The Controller’s Office should ensure that by January 1, 2018 the PS framework includes comparative performance figures against prior year goals alongside current year goals, so citizens can see the trend of progress (P).
F5 Page 21
Citizens have almost no means by which to regularly and systematically assess the SFG’s performance relative to other leading cities; in contrast, other leading cities provide this information to their citizens. ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE ❖ RECOMMENDATION 5: The Controller’s Office should identify the top 3-5 rankings/indices relevant to each scorecard, and add these to the PS framework by January 1, 2018 (N).
F6 Page 22
The PS framework is not formally integrated into the SFG’s planning process other than occasional budget discussions, whereas its true value is the extent to which SFG planning and budgeting is directly linked to achieving the goals within the PS framework. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 6: Beginning in fiscal year 2018 the revised PS framework should be formally incorporated into the SFG department strategic planning and budgeting process – in particular, the Office of the Mayor should require each department to: i. Specify within their departmental strategic plans which initiatives directly support the SFG’s PS goals most relevant to their operational mandate, and what improvement they project in achieving that goal (N). ii. Specify within their departmental budget submission how their budget request is directly supportive of improved SFG performance against the PS goals most relevant to their operational mandate (N).
F7 Page 22
The specific indicators used within the SFG’s PS framework to track performance in the areas of the gravest public concern should be updated to better reflect what the SFG is doing to address the public’s gravest concerns. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.1: The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current housing affordability indicators based on recommendations from the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, and submit the revisions to the Mayor’s Office for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.2: The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current homelessness indicators based on recommendations from the DHSH Director and the examples of other leading cities, and submit the revised indicators to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.3: The Controller’s Office should update, by January 1, 2018, the current crime and street safety indicators based on recommendations from the Chief of Police and the examples of other leading cities, and submit the revised indicators to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval (P). ❖ RECOMMENDATION 7.4: Consistent with Recommendation P4 above, the Office of the Mayor should ensure that, by January 1, 2018, each of the primary housing, homelessness and crime indicators have associated goals (P).
F8 Page 22
Noting the severe economic inequality within and between various neighborhoods and communities in the City, and consistent with the City’s long-standing reputation for socially inclusive policies, the PS framework should more directly gauge SFG progress in addressing social, gender and racial equity. ❖ RECOMMENDATION 8: In consultation with other SFG entities and community organizations, the Controller’s Office should ensure that, by January 1, 2018, one or more PS indicators are amended or added to ensure the SFG is tracking and reporting on the equitable distribution of government spending and services (N). ACCELERATING SF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE REQUEST FOR RESPONSES

Recommendations 8