Board of Supervisors Response

F1

The broad.er public ls barely aware of disagree With it, The City has malntained a robust performance measurement system the performt)nce scorecard (PS) pcirtially (explanation in for.almost two decades, and finding the right medium and right mix of framework, diminishing its utility and next ccilul)'ln} measures ls always a priority. The Mayor's Office has been engaged in a hampering the ability of San number of efforts to publicize the City's constantly improving Francisco's Government (SFG) to performance measurement systems. The Scorecqrd webslte ls a communic('lte progress to San relatively new framework, launched in January 2016. The Mayor's Franciscans. Office updated Its home page t~ Include a di.rect link to the Scorecard website. Additionally, the local media dosely follows the performance reporting done l:;iy the City, and frequently publishes articles based on performance reports ISsued by the. City. The Mayor's Office will continue to publish performance lnformation, including, but not limited to; the Scorecard website to the public. Broad public awareness is always the goal. I•

No recommendations for this finding

F2

Despite the Mayor's role as the disagree with it, The Mayor's Office does performance reporting to the public in accountable executive of the SFG, the partially (explanation the Mayor's Budget Book, DataSF, and in many other ways. The Mayor does not directly report in next column) Mayor's Office works as a partner with the Controller's Office in performance results to the public, as is the development of the citywide performance reporting done in other leading cities. products that our office creates and maintains; they work with us in the development of the Performance Scorecards, and the content of the larger Performance Measurement Database. Organizationally there is value to having the core public reporting function in the Controller's Office. It is our job to provide neutral non-political measurement and reporting as is contemplated in Charter Appendix F. The Controller's Office can carry out stable, long-term development and maintenance of performance reporting in a way that an office more directly affected by election cycles cannot.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2

1 Consistent with other leading cities, beginning in 2018 the The recommendation will not This recommendation should be directed to the Mayor and Board of Mayor should present an annual SFG Performance report be implemented because it is Supervisors, and not to the Controller's Office. The Controller's Office will that concisely communicates SFG performance and progress not warranted or reasonable continue to develop and maintain citywide performance reporting in our to the public; the public transmission of which should consist (explanation in next column) program as mandated under the Charter. We also want to support of: accountability, public reporting and performance management desired and requested by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, in their roles as i. Hosting a public press conference, the first of which would elected policymakers responsible for overall governmental performance. occur not later than January 31, 2019, announcing the SFG's We will work with them to publish materials and provide information for annual performance. public hearings, in the form and process that they establish to promote ii. Posting the SFG Performance report, not later than transparency and accountability. January 31, 2019, on the Office of the Mayor's website homepage. iii. Submitting the SFG Performance report to the Board of Supervisors for comment. iv. 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.

F3

The PS framework encompasses too disagree with it, The Performance Scorecard project -focusing on fewer than 100 many indicators - some of the partially (explanation key performance metrics -is partially in response to the general indicators are of great importance, in next column) observation that both current and past grand juries have made, whereas others are much less and that the Controller's Office concurs with -that too many significant. measures in publically-facing reporting can make it difficulty for policy makers or the public to understand what to focus on and what is truly important. The scorecards measures have been selected through a process that involves review of over 1,000 measures tracked and reported through our performance measurement program. However, San Francisco is a uniquely consolidated government, combining city, county, and many regional functions that in most other places are stand-alone governmental entities. Given this broad scope of services, the Performance Scorecards should report on performance across a larger number of services than the examples provided in the CGJ report. While some indicators are of great importance, some are included to provide educational information to the public and policymakers about the essential functions of government. We regularly review the relevance and importance of this new performance reporting tool and will continue to refine the selection and quantity of performance measures highlighted on the Performance Scorecards website, to eliminate less valuable indicators, while developing those of greater importance. 2016-17 Civil Grand Jury Accelerating SF Government Performance: Controller's Office Responses 2017 Responses # Findings (Agree/Disagree) 2017 Response Text

Related Recommendations (1)

R3

1 In consultation with other SFG entities and community The recommendation will not The Performance Scorecard project -focusing on fewer than 90 key groups, the Office of the Controller should propose a be implemented because it is performance metrics -is partially in response to the general observation narrowed set of PS indicators, likely not exceeding 30 total, not warranted or reasonable that both current and past Grand Juries have made, and that the by October 1, 2017; the Board of Supervisor's GAO {explanation in next column) Controller's Office concurs with -that too many measures in publicly- Committee should be invited to comment on the revised facing reporting can make it difficulty for policy makers or the public to indicators prior to submission to the Office of the Mayor for understand what to focus on and what is truly important. The scorecards review and approval. measures have been selected through a process that involves review of over 1,000 measures tracked and reported through our performance measurement program. However, San Francisco is a uniquely consolidated government, combining city, county, and many regional functions that in most other places are stand-alone governmental entities. Given this broad scope of services, the Performance Scorecards should report on performance across a larger number of services than the examples from other jurisdictions provided in the CGJ report. While some indicators are of great importance, some are included to provide educational information to the public and policymakers about the essential functions of government. We regularly review the relevance and importance of this new performance reporting tool and will continue to refine the selection and quantity of performance measures highlighted on the Performance Scorecards website, to eliminate less valuable indicators, while developing those of greater importance. We continute to seek and welcome input on the specific Performance Scorecard measures from the Mayor's Office, Board of Supervisors, and others, and will continue to solicit feedback on both appropriate scorecard measurments and goals. 2016-17 Civil Grand Jury Accelerating SF Government Performance: Controller's Office Responses 2017 Responses # Recommendations (implementation) 2017 Response Text

F4

Having performance indicators without disagree with it, We concur that performance measures are most meaningful if associated goals goes against practice partially (explanation goals, targets, or projections are established as a benchmark in other leading cities, and limits the in next column) against which to evaluate actual results. The majority of public's ability to understand how the scorecard indicators report and track results against a target SFG is progressing. established through the City's budget process. In limited instances, policymakers have not yet identified a goal for a given measure which we have begun tracking using this tool; we expect continued improvement in this area in coming cycles as this new performance tracking tool becomes more broadly utilizied, and have added targets for measures formally without them in the prior year during this year's cycle. However, in other limited circumstances, we have chosen to track high public interest measures in the scorecard format where goals are not likely to be established in the nearer term, or where to do so would not be practical, such as for certain economic or demographic information. FS Citizens have almost no means by disagree with it, wholly The Controller's Office publishes performance benchmarking which to regularly and systematically (explanation in next reports, including a new FYl 7 Citywide Annual Benchmarking assess the SFG's performance relative column) report, comparing San Francisco to similar jurisdictions across to other leading cities; in contrast, seven policy areas. This report is very broad and other leading cities provide this methodologically rigorous and is a best in class example of information to their citizens. government benchmarking data. One of the two examples provided in the CGJ report as a best practice for comparison reporting is the national index for major road quality. As mentioned previously, this dataset is misleading in the quality of San Francisco's streets as it combines reporting with Oakland and highways managed by the State, both of which have lower results in road quality. We were unable to find results of the other example mentioned regarding the Austin performance reporting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4

2 The Controller's Office should ensure that by January 1, 2018 The recommendation has not The addition of trend data and indicators are features for the site which the PS framework includes comparative performance figures been, but will be, are under development. We intend to complete this work in the year against prior year goals alongside the current year goal and implemented in the future ( ahead. progress, so citizens can understand the trend of SFG timeframe for progress. implementation noted in next column) RS The Controller's Office should identify the top 3-5 The recommendation Concurrent with the development of the Performance Scorecard program, rankings/indices relevant to each scorecard, and add these requires further analysis we have revised our approach to annual benchmark reporting, and now to the PS framework by January 1, 2018. (explanation of the scope of have a broad and comprehensive benchmarking report that, for key that analysis and a timeframe measures such as street conditions, includes review of scorecard measures for discussion, not more than versus other jurisdictions. We anticipate increasing the linkages between six months from the release these two related projects, where possible and valuable, and will continue of the report noted in next to do so in the coming fiscal year and beyond. The specific use of 3-5 column) jurisdictional comparisons and completion by the specific date recommended are not feasible or advisable, from our perspective.

F7

The specific indicators used within the agree with finding We regularly evauate the relevance of performance measures SFG's PS framework to track included in the Performance Scorecard website. As this is a new performance in the areas of the gravest tool, we are still collecting ideas and input in how to best refine public concern should be updated to what is included and have made changes by adding or revising better reflect what the SFG is doing to measures as better performance reporting is identified. Several address the public's gravest concerns. new measures have been added or are in development for the new fiscal year --including transit ridership, housing production, and new measures for homeless services in the City --while other measures of more limited importance have been eliminated. Continued feedback on measure selection from the Mayor's Office, Board of Supervisors, department leadership, and CGOBOC will assist in this ongoing process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7

1 The Controller's Office should update, by January 1, 2018, The recommendation has not Our office concurs that improved housing production and affordability the current housing affordability indicators based on been, but will be, measures are needed, and has been working with appropriate recommendations from the Director of the Mayor's Office of implemented in the future ( departments to develop them. We intend to complete this work on the Housing and Community Development, and submit the timeframe for recommended timeline. revisions to the Office of the Mayor for review and approval. implementation noted in next column)

F8

Noting the severe economic inequality agree with finding Our original direction with the Performance Scorecards has been within and between various to show the level and effectiveness of public services of SF as is neighborhoods and communities in the mandated under Charter Appendix F. We agree that the City has City, and consistent with the City's long- policy goals directed at addressing social, gender and racial standing reputation for socially equity and will work to include measures of these issues in inclusive policies, the PS framework future development efforts. We will work to include new should more directly gauge SFG measures with these goals in mind in the coming fiscal year. progress in addressing social, gender 2016-17 Civil Grand Jury Accelerating SF Government Performance: Controller's Office Responses 2017 Responses # Recommendations (implementation) 2017 Response Text

No recommendations for this finding

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings