Nonprofits The Good, The Bad,*

R1

City government has established a broad system of collecting community input, with opportunities to provide input regarding goals and priorities for funding of local discretionary dollars.

R7

Past experience and performance on previous grants are not always considered during the selection process.

R4

The Controller maintains a database of nonprofits that do business with the City. Contracts with nonprofits fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Contract Administration, whereas grants to nonprofits are not tracked citywide.

R12

The Office of Contract Administration should be given the task of tracking the compliance rate on nonprofit grant consolidation across all City departments.

R16

The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

R2

7. CREATE STANDARDIZED AND SIMPLIFIED CONTRACT FORMS (STANDARDIZED AND SIMPLIFIED FORMS) ✓ Milestone: TBD by Interdepartmental Working Group (In Process) Interdepartmental Working Group will meet to begin evaluating standardized forms (scope of work, budget, invoice, monitoring reports), and begin drafting best practice models to be distributed to other City departments and posted on OCA's website. The Interdepartmental Working Group will develop contract format and forms for outcome driven services that define: (1) language and service definitions; (2) monitoring protocols; and (3) reporting requirements (recommendation #10). ✓ Milestone: Fall 2006 (In Process) The Review/Appellate Panel will review the progress of implementing standardized forms (or development of alternative standardized forms) by other City departments. ✓ Milestone: September 2006 (In Process) The Review/Appellate Panel will evaluate draft best practice model and consider nonprofit feedback. (Done, but need NP feedback.) ✓ Milestone: To Be Determined: (In Process) The Interdepartmental Working Group will develop form for contractors to provide feedback on definitions and monitoring of outcome driven services (recommendation #10). ✓ 8. ESTABLISH ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR NONPROFITS CONTRACTORS (ACCOUNTING STANDARDS) - Completed The Controller's Office has published and disseminated a Finance Guide for Nonprofits Attachment A: Milestones 11/03/06 in November of 2004 and provided two training sessions on the Finance Guide for approximately 70 nonprofit contractors in April 2005. In June of 2005, the Controller's Office coordinated another training session on cost allocation procedures, which was attended by over 100 nonprofits. As a follow up to this training, and to further clarify the City's expectations regarding cost allocation practices, the Controller's Office has developed written cost allocation guidelines for nonprofits contracting with the City. The Cost Allocation Guidelines, the Finance Guide and all related materials from these trainings are available online at www.sfgov/controller (see Resources for Nonprofits). 9. COORDINATE JOINT PROGRAM MONITORING (JOINT PROGRAM MONITORING) ✓ Completed in September 2005 (Completed) • Since September 2005, the Controller's Office has been facilitating monthly working group meetings with representatives from DCYF, DPH and HSA to discuss monitoring results and refine standard monitoring procedures. This process is ongoing. Milestone: June 2006 √ • Sixty-seven organizations with multiple contracts across DCYF, DPH and HSA will undergo a standard fiscal and compliance monitoring by June 30, 2006. (Completed) A similar or greater number of contractors will experience this standard monitoring in • FY 06-07 with expanded participation from other City departments who were not participating in the efforts this fiscal year. (This item is separated from the above bullet point for this report.) Milestone: FY 06-07 √ • The Controller's Office will transition the leadership/facilitation of the monthly working group meetings to the departments during FY 06-07. (In Process) √ • HSN will assist to provide feedback to the Review/Appellate Panel from the contractors' perspective, on the experience and efficacy of the shared monitoring process. (Completed) √• Coordinated monitoring will be further enhanced by a shared master calendar and shared access to monitoring forms and reports on COOL. (Completed and On- going) √• Departments will prove timely written notice of at least 14 days prior to the monitoring visit date as well as a timely written report back on the results of the monitoring visit back to the contractor , if possible, but not beyond 90 days. If the program report is not completed , then the department conducting the monitoring will issue a notice indicating that the program report was not completed as scheduled. (Completed, developed new timelines and procedures) Attachment A: Milestones 11/03/06 10. DEVELOP STANDARD MONITORING PROTOCOLS, LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS TO CLEARLY DEFINE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS (STANDARD MONITORING PROTOCOLS) ✓ Milestone: FY 06-07 (In Process) Upon renewal, each contract will be revised to include clear language and service • definitions, clearly defined monitoring protocols (specifically what will be monitored and when), and clearly specified reporting requirements. The above will be contained in the scope of services document and will be mutually agreed upon by both the funding agency and the service provider. During the period following the renewal (fiscal year) the above revisions will be analyzed to develop outcome driven services to be implemented in subsequent renewals or RFPs. The lengthy service objectives narratives currently contained in many scopes of services shall be streamlined to contain the mutually agreed upon outcomes and methodology for measuring progress towards meeting those outcomes. Protocols for standard fiscal & compliance monitoring were completed and are being used with multi-departmental contractors in FY 05-06; ongoing efforts are focused on program monitoring protocols. The contract renewal/negotiation process should allow departments and contractors to determine what will be monitored and how. Departments should focus monitoring on what is specifically agreed to in the contract, and will adopt findings of Federal or State monitoring, when appropriate. 11. PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL WHO MONITOR CONTRACTS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON PROTOCOLS (TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL) ✓ Milestone: June 2006 (Completed) The Controller's Office, in collaboration with the monitoring working group, will conduct a year-end survey of the 67 multi-departmental contractors to get their feedback on their fiscal, compliance and program monitoring experience in FY 05-06.

R9

The lack of coordination and different reporting and compliance procedures for each department (even within departments) was identified as a key problem in the report of the Nonprofit Contracting Task Force (2003) because it adds time and overhead to non-profit work. Progress was later made to make fiscal compliance methods more consistent between departments.

R8

DPH has a billing method based upon a Unit of Service reimbursement, while other city departments operate under Line Item Cost reimbursement of actual expenses incurred.

R5

Only DPH has authority to issue Sole Source Waivers from the competitive bidding requirements of the City without previous consent of the City. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has a list by department of the number of Sole Source Contracts.

R14

The Board of Supervisors has violated the Charter by making direct contracting decisions though targeted Addbacks. Through this procedure, the Board of Supervisors has continued the longstanding practice of allocating some City funds directly to specific contractors. Recommendations

R14

The Board of Supervisors has violated the Charter by making direct contracting decisions though targeted Addbacks. Through this procedure, the Board of Supervisors has continued the longstanding practice of allocating some City funds directly to specific contractors. Recommendations

R11

A Consolidated Backroom Unit should be set up with the Office of Contract Administration (OCA) to provide back-office operations for nonprofits. Back Office Operations 15 11

R15

Consolidation of backroom operations would save the City money. Recommendation

R12

The Office of Contract Administration should be given the task of tracking the compliance rate on nonprofit grant consolidation across all City departments.

R16

The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

R13

The Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel should be given the directive to study the compliance rate on joint monitoring within and among all City departments and to make recommendations to bring compliance to 100%.

R16

The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22