San Francisco County 2007-2008 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (5)

June 26, 2008 — The 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury for the*

32 pages 10 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: The SFUSD's school choice process and its Diversity Index are unnecessarily complex and confusing, time consuming, alienating to the families the District purports to serve and, most damning, fail to deliver a diversified school population. D. Back into the Ring for Round Two and Beyond Round Two applicants found out the results on April 27, 2008, and, if they received an acceptance, had until May 9, 2008, to register. There will be additional computer runs during the summer for those still holding out hope. Since it has been six months since the Round One registrations, one would think the process would be finished when the bell rings for the first day of school. Instead the bell marks the start of yet another round, because the SFUSD does not actually know who will be showing up when school starts. On the first day of school, the District now needs to count heads at each school. When it discovers that there is space available, children from the Waiting Pool can transfer in and out of class through the month of September. Last year 136 children left the kindergarten where they had started school and transferred to their more desired school. Moving children in and out of the class may mean that those who stay have to change teachers or classrooms. This shifting enrollment puts many families on edge and, worse, can unsettle a child just starting school. Applies to staff who have at least three years of full time work at that school "The uncertainty created by the current school assignment system has made it unpopular with many parents, some of whom have advocated for a school placement system based on a family's neighborhood."8 As might be expected with a system that is as complicated and opaque as School Choice, members of the Jury heard parents comment that they suspected the presence of hidden agendas and behind the scenes manipulation in the process. Some parents felt that the District and the Board of Education pulled strings to gain admittance for some children. Others were concerned that the District has no way to verify the honesty of the answers to the four determinant characteristics on the application. For example, rumors swirled around admittance to McKinley, because some families who had not requested McKinley were directed to the school, while others who had requested it had been turned away. Discussions with School District officials concerning the McKinley issue indicated that while there had been some mis-assignments, the cause involved technical elements that were difficult for lay persons to comprehend. Adding to some parents' anxiety is the fact that the Enrollment Application form asks for the child's racial/ethnic identity as well as parents' education level. While the District gives assurances that the information does not affect placement decisions, some parents are not reassured. They wonder if this is the case, why are the questions on the form.

F2: Questions about race/ethnicity on the Enrollment Application lead families to conclude that race/ethnicity are Diversity Index factors and in spite of denials by the District, will affect admissions. E. The Education Placement Center Runs Admissions The SFUSD's Educational Placement Center (EPC) tries to explain the School Choice system to parents, administers the Diversity Index, and registers students. EPC staff fans out through the City to some 150 events during the year to answer questions and to announce that soon after New Years, kindergarten parents (as well as parents of 5th graders and 8th graders) need to fill out School Choice forms for Round One. As an indication of the number of questions raised by the enrollment process, the EPC receives 500 phone calls a day during the various application deadlines. To run the EPC requires a staff of 29 and costs the District over $2 Million a year. The work of the EPC is complemented by the efforts of volunteers from the Parents for Public Schools San Francisco (PPSSF) who deserve acknowledgment for helping with the enrollment process and successfully promoting some of the less well-known schools. PPSSF started the first enrollment fair. Now it connects parent volunteers whose children are currently enrolled in schools with those who are looking at those same schools. Its work 8 Beth Winegamer, SF EXAMINER 3/6/08 goes on year round, but just in October alone it organized 50 preschool enrollment events reaching 2000 parents. Its work points up the complexity of the enrollment process and the help the District/EPC needs to explain the process to parents and the community.

F3: Even with the expenditure of $2 Million and a diligent outreach and volunteer effort the District cannot explain an inexplicable enrollment system. F. The Current System Has Reintroduced Racial Isolation Since the District can no longer legally use race to assign students to achieve diversity due to the Supreme Court ruling in Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, it appears to have attempted to achieve the same result by developing surrogate identifiers such as families in compromised economic circumstances and those living in extreme poverty. This effort has not been successful in part because of the realities associated with families living in San Francisco. For example some 53% of district students qualify for free or reduced cost lunches according to the Office of the Superintendent of Schools. A significant portion lives in subsidized housing. Both of these factors are determinants of whether a child is from an economically challenged family or one living in extreme poverty. When the preponderance of the school population falls into the "economically challenged" category, use of that category as a method of achieving diversity is futile. Efforts to "spread out" children from these circumstances simply has not worked as evidenced by the District's own data. While the poverty definitions used by the District may apply to too many families, the efforts by EPC to recruit for School Choice reach too few. Last year a third of Hispanic families and half of African American families did not participate in Round One. By comparison nearly all Chinese and White families participated. In the most recently available information (three years old) it was revealed that 30 of the 71 San Francisco elementary schools had classrooms containing 60% or more of students of the same race/ethnicity and each of the schools was in a neighborhood of that same dominant ethnicity even though the District does not give preference to neighborhood school assignment. This is evidence that School Choice and the Diversity Index are not succeeding at achieving diversity. Some examples are the following: African American: 78% at Charles R. Drew in Bayview/Hunter's Point Chinese: 81% at Gordon J. Lau in Chinatown Hispanic: 86% at Bryant in the Mission11 9 Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education. U.S. __ (2007). In San Francisco's 'School Choice' System, What Are Parents Really Choosing?; Amanda Johnson; Policy Matters, Vol.4, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp. 13-21. SFUSD School Profiles 2007-2008

F4: The Jury's research revealed that a simple school selection lottery would result in only a slight difference in the racial mix of the classroom. G. The Current System Creates School Disparity, Not Diversity Some schools are over-subscribed: last year 84% of the classes (including bilingual • and general education) received more total requests than seats available. Some 27% received more first choice requests than seats available. 13 (Applicants are asked to choose seven schools which accounts for the high totals.) Other schools are unpopular: 25 of last year's kindergarten classes received 10 or fewer first-place choices among the 3,972 children who participated in Round One. Overall, SFUSD has the highest test scores of any of the seven largest school districts in the state. However, African American students in this City test lower than in any of these • other districts.14 Aware of that statistic, an African American civic leader told the Jury, "If our kids • are failing in school, I'd rather have them fail in the neighborhood than in a school across town." A promising report from racially mixed Potrero Hill centers on low demand Daniel Webster. In 2007-08, it had a total of only 18 requests for admission. A group of local parents, planning on raising their children on Potrero Hill and realizing they will likely gain admission to the undersubscribed school, has agreed that when their children reach school age they will attend the school. By starting now to be involved in the school, they expect to see some school improvements by the time their children enroll. If, however, the parents are successful, the school's reputation improves, and word begins to spread, it will be only a few years before the school is fully subscribed and a wait list forms. Then ironically, the Diversity Index will kick in and Potrero Hill families with younger children will lose any assurance that they can get into nearby Webster.

F5: Parents who know that their child can go to school in the neighborhood where they live are good candidates to work to make that a successful school for all neighborhood children. ^{12} School official’s testimony to the Grand Jury and Recommendations for Student Assignment in the SFUSD, prepared by the Community Advisory Committee on Student Assignment, February 22, 2005, p. 6 13 Student Assignment Update SFUSD 3/28/2007, p. 15 14 Office of the Superintendent SFUSD

F6: San Franciscans identify with their neighborhoods. Most neighborhoods have a local school that local residents, merchants, and parents have known about and perhaps attended, and provided support. With the District's current non-attendance area policy most children now go to school outside their neighborhood and as a result support for neighborhood schools has diminished. A senior school official told the jury, "We could create additional great schools in the neighborhoods and that would go a long way towards helping relieve pressure on the high demand schools." H. Alternative Schools Alternative Schools is a term local school officials use to describe schools without attendance areas. Many have specialized programs such as bilingual education. According to a senior staff member, "Some are so small that educational and cost efficiencies cannot be maintained." There is also an apparent lack of parental support for bilingual classes. Eighteen of the 25 least popular or least selected kindergarten classes were bilingual programs. These programs are the result of a class action lawsuit brought against the officials of the school district by non-English-speaking Chinese students. The Court ruled that the SFUSD must provide a program of "bilingual, bicultural education" for Learning English Proficiency (LEP) students. Most, if not all, Alternative Schools have specialized programs such as bilingual education, which may go through eighth grade. Some Attendance Area Schools also have specialized program areas. (See "Attendance and Non Attendance Area Schools" in the Appendix.) For example, both types of schools offer specialized learning programs. One of the goals of Alternative Schools should be to attract students by placing "high demand programs in low demand schools."17

F7: The number of Alternative Schools has grown to 15 and the difference between them and attendance area schools has blurred over time. Five year comparison of Round 1 Demand, SFUSD, March 16, 2007 Lau v. Nichols. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 563 (1974) 17 SFUSD Student Assignment Report, November 28, 2006 I. At 57 of 71 Elementary Schools It Is "Get on the Bus!" Historically, busing was used as part of the consent decree to desegregate the City's schools. SFUSD's transportation system has not been updated in over a generation. It is based on an old, out-dated student assignment process. Long after race became an impermissible factor in school assignment, buses continue to bring children from distant parts of the City to schools assigned to them as their "neighborhood schools" in an attempt to achieve diversified classrooms. Since neighborhood schools are not a priority in the SFUSD's School Choice Program, some 4,600 out of a total of 25,000 general education elementary students are transported to school in District-provided buses. Bus routes do not provide service equally between schools and different sections of the City. For example there are seven routes bringing children west from Bayview, Hunter's Point and Visitacion Valley where many schools are under attended to the Sunset and Richmond where many schools are oversubscribed. Only one route goes to schools in the other direction. Excluding the cost of busing for special education students, the annual toll is $5.3 Million. It would be even more expensive if all elementary and middle schools started at the same time. The demands of the busing schedule require separate cycles of starting and dismissal times for elementary schools, as well as a separate dismissal schedule for kindergartens. This further complicates a family's daily routine - trying to juggle various times to wake up and feed children of varying ages, attending different schools, and coming home at different times. Parents must adjust their work schedules to the unyielding demands of bus and school timing. "... Some of our K-5 students are on the bus for up to 70 minutes each way. Very young children, required to be at the bus stop at 6:20, often come to school sleepy and without breakfast."19 As an important corollary, the more distant the school the less likely the parents are to be involved in school support activities. Children who ride the bus are denied the opportunity to participate in after school activities and form friendships with school mates. Busing also requires families to make special arrangements to get their children to and from the bus. The Jury wondered if students who ride buses might have a higher rate of truancy, but did not find any research from the District regarding that possibility.

F8: Schools have not improved or become more diverse, even with the use of busing. Busing further erodes parental and/or neighborhood involvement in schools Buses carry nearly 5,000 children to elementary school and cost the District over $5 Million annually. For each bus not deployed the District saves $100,000.20 18 http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/home/2_Full%20Doc_SERR_Plan.pdf p. 75 19 http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/AcademicPlans/acad-79601.pdf p. 4 20 http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/home/2 Full%20Doc SERR Plan.pdf p. J. Other Factors Politics 1. With fewer children and parents involved in the schools compared to other cities, San Francisco's school staff, elected officials, and activists do not usually work in the spotlight. As a result, those who are politically ambitious take up issues that resonate with voters, not necessarily or directly those that address educating the City's children. For example, members of the Board of Education continue to discuss the expensive, divisive idea of being the lead school district in challenging last year's Supreme Court decision regarding the issue of race in school assignment. If this action is pursued it would bring legal costs estimated by the District at $500K.21 2. Demographics Parochial and private schools enjoy widespread support in the City. Nearly 30% of all of the City's school age children are not enrolled in SFUSD schools, nearly four times the state average.22 San Francisco is believed to have the lowest percentage of households with children among the 50 largest cities in the U.S. Beginning with such a small number of prospective students, the public schools need to be able to successfully compete to enroll children in San Francisco.23 To this end, it would be instructive if the District were to address the question of why 17% of the children who applied to public schools in 2006 chose not to enroll. This is especially important since nearly half of them were applying to kindergarten, and nearly half had been assigned to their first choice school.24 Perhaps the best news on this front is that between 2000 and 2005 the number of pre-school aged children in San Francisco increased by 14%.25 After several decades of declining enrollment and the concomitant loss of $20 Million in state funds in just five years, the number of children enrolling in grade school in 2007 grew over the previous year. This spring the number of grade school applicants increased again. Tempering this good news is 21 SERR Full Report, p. 67 22 "Schools Gone Wild," Diana Kappa, San Francisco Magazine, October 2007 23 Ilene Lelchuk, SF Chronicle, May 30, 2006 24 SFUSD Student Assignment Report, p. 11, 11/28/06. Getting Behind the Headlines: Families Leaving San Francisco, September 21, 2005, Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University, p 2 that improving school quality topped the list of parents' suggestions for how to improve San Francisco for families.26 3. Facilities Forty years ago some 90,000 students attended San Francisco public schools. Today there are just 55,000. "The cost of maintaining this excess capacity draws resources away from programs and services that serve students' needs."27 A member of the Board of Education told the Jury that many District schools are too small and fixed costs are claiming a disproportionate share of available revenue. The Board seems unwilling to face and to withstand the protests that come when a school closure is calendared. While declining enrollment and academic achievement are factors, there are no fixed criteria for closing a school. This contributes to the public's concern and misapprehension. At this writing an agreed upon checklist is being considered by the District in an effort to help the public understand the reason for school closures. Last fall the District received a $20 Million bid for the vacant school on Font Boulevard. "The cash-strapped San Francisco Unified School District is looking into unloading eight properties that could pump upwards of $100 Million into the schools and potentially free up land for as many as 917 housing units."28 Until new legislation is passed in Sacramento proceeds from the sale of surplus property must be spent only on school facilities. K. New Leaders, Big Challenges...an Opportunity to Tackle School Enrollment This report coincides with the introduction of new leadership at the SFUSD. The question now for the leadership is whether they will take the District in a new direction or will past rancor continue only with new names on the jerseys? The Jury sees hope in the fact that a year ago, Carlos Garcia became the Superintendent of Schools. He has brought in Dr. Anthony Smith as a new Assistant Superintendent with duties specifically focused on issues of instruction, innovation and social justice. The Director of the Educational Placement Center, Darlene Lim, in charge of all school assignments, has been on the job for a year. New members of the Board of Education will be elected in November 2008 to replace two proponents of the current admissions policy who are leaving the Board. Within the next two years 47% or 33 elementary school principals will be eligible to retire according to the office of the Superintendent of Schools. With these dramatic changes in leadership the Jury believes that there is the opportunity for the Board of Education and District leaders to correct the deficiencies inherent in the School Choice program. Ibid 27 Student Enrollment, Recruitment and Retention, Full Report, SFUSD 28 "SF schools to market 8 properties", JK Dineen, San Francisco Business Times, Friday, May 2, 2008. During the Jury's interviews, a long-time elementary school principal stated, "Actions of some members of the Board of Education give the impression that their priority is diversity rather than improving the level of education." This is in sharp contract to numerous statements made to the Jury that the number one priority should be quality schools throughout the city.

F9: Some members of the Board of Education appear to have made student diversity their first priority for the District.

F10: The District needs to make crucial decisions about surplus school property, updating 30 year old and now obsolete school attendance zones, and establishing policy to guide decisions to shut failed schools. Voters faced with future requests for funding from the District will react favorably to the District's efforts to streamline their property management activities and to convert these non-performing assets into resources that support District educational activities. L. How Other Districts Successfully Enroll Students As noted, the San Francisco School Assignment Process with its use of multiple "diversity" factors is unique. This Jury can find no other urban districts anywhere else with the "School Choice" enrollment process that begins in kindergarten. Even districts that offer some form of open enrollment seem to also operate a concomitant or parallel neighborhood system. 1. Sacramento The Sacramento Unified School System provides neighborhood schools for its elementary ... school pupils while also operating an open selection, lottery based system. The Sacramento and San Francisco Districts are close in many important comparables: Sacramento Unified (in the 2006-07 School Year) had 64 elementary schools, 27,283 pupils and 1421 teachers compared to San Francisco's 71 schools, 25,713 pupils and 1428 teachers. In Sacramento, students are presumed to be enrolled in their neighborhood schools. A parent, however, can request participation in the Open Enrollment Program. On-line applications are permitted. At a specified point (February of this year) all applications are processed through a lottery system. Based on space availability in the requested school with first priority given to siblings of enrolled students, children of school employees and children with unique special considerations, school assignments are offered. Once a non- neighborhood school assignment is accepted then the new school becomes the "neighborhood" school. Participation in the Sacramento Open Enrollment program is voluntary and transportation is not provided. For more information about enrollment go to: www.scusd.edu/open_enrollment/index.htm. ٠, 2. San Diego The San Diego Unified School District is larger than SFUSD. There are 118 elementary schools and 3,678 teachers serving 63,685 students. It is the second largest school district in California and the eighth largest in the United States. The student population includes 15 ethnic groups and over 60 languages and dialects. The SDUSD provides parents with the initial opportunity to send their children to a neighborhood school. Parents are also presented with the option to send their child to another school outside their residence area by the use of an Enrollment Option Application. A web site will be available for online applications for the 2008 - 2009 school year this fall. Currently, two out of three students attend neighborhood schools and a third go to alternative schools. The SDUSD believes in preserving the vitality and core values inherent in neighborhood schools. What follows is a quote from a fact sheet that the District created indicating how neighborhood schools benefit children and their families: As a resident of the neighborhood, it is your right to attend that school. There is no waiting list, no special application deadlines. You have first priority to enroll. Families have a greater sense of community ownership; more of a neighborhood ٠ feeling. You may develop stronger relationships with your neighbors. You can walk next door and have discussions with your neighbors about school ٠ issues or concerns. You will spend less time driving your child to school. More convenient for volunteering and attending parent meetings. Your child will have more time to spend with his/her friends rather than riding to • and from school on a bus or in a car. Your child will be able to go to school with the same children he/she plays with, ٠ and they can study and do homework together The San Diego enrollment website: http://www.sandi.net/enrollmentoptions/ 3. Seattle Seattle Public Schools (SPS) are about the size of SFUSD. The SPS approved their Student Assignment Plan on June 20, 2007. Elementary students start with an assignment to a school in their local reference area, which is the area immediately surrounding the school. This provides predictability for families. If they want to keep this assignment, the family would not have to do anything else. The City is divided into nine clusters. Each cluster has four or more elementary schools. Families could exercise school choice for another school in their cluster or at any Alternative School. If they choose to go outside the cluster they may have to provide their own transportation. Seattle Public Schools states that it believes this plan enables stronger family engagement with schools, provides equitable access to programs, continues to offer opportunities for school choice and fosters diversity. Seattle website:www.seattleschools.org/area/newassign/current_assignplan.html#top IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS: 1. The SFUSD school choice process and its Diversity Index are unnecessarily complex and confusing, time consuming, alienating to the families they purport to serve and, most damning, fail to deliver a diversified school population. 2. Questions about race/ethnicity on the Enrollment Application lead families to conclude that race/ ethnicity are Diversity Index factors and, in spite of denials by the District, will affect admissions. 3. Even with the expenditure of $2 Million and a diligent outreach and volunteer effort the District cannot explain an inexplicable enrollment system.

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: 1983 Consent Decree During the late 1970s in San Francisco dissatisfaction with the public schools, where children tended to be clustered by race or ethnicity, reached the Court system, culminating with the 1983 Consent Decree approved by the US District Court. The essence of this decree, to last through the 2000-01 school year (SY), required the School District to follow an enrollment process, whereby a student would automatically be assigned to his or her Attendance Area (Neighborhood) School unless the parents requested another school for good reason (the Optional Enrollment Request). The latter assignment would be random, by lottery. A maximum percentage of students based on race/ethnicity was set both for Attendance Area تزز and Alternative Schools (45% and 40% respectively). The decree was a voluntary, carefully negotiated, and judicially supervised compromise. The two primary and related goals of the consent decree were to desegregate the City's schools and to improve academic performance. In an effort to increase diversity, attendance areas were not necessarily near a child's home. For example, the Attendance Area School for part of the Mission neighborhood was (and still is) on Nob Hill.

R2: Settlement Agreement of 1999 In 1994 the Consent Decree process was challenged in a lawsuit filed by Brian Ho. On the day the trial was to begin in 1999, a court-approved settlement was reached. This settlement specified that for the 2001-02 school year, a random computerized process would be used in There would no longer be automatic assignment to student assignment to schools. Attendance Area Schools, and the use of race would no longer be used. The 45% and 40% caps were abolished.

R3: Settlement Agreement of 2001 In 2001, a further Settlement Agreement specified that for the 2002-03 SY and to be in effect for a total of five years, a school choice system based on a Diversity Index would be implemented. The Diversity Index is a complex system wherein, among other things, parents select as many as seven schools for their kindergarten, 6th, and 9th grade children, while siblings are automatically assigned to the same school as their older sisters and brothers. This Settlement Agreement expired at the end of 2005, but the Diversity Index and its associated procedures are still being used.

R4: Community Dissatisfaction From its inception the new system has been perceived as cumbersome, ineffective, and unsatisfactory. In 2005, a Community Advisory Committee on Student Assignment, appointed by the Board of Education, studied the issue of school assignment and recommended that assignments based on neighborhood proximity be coupled with a lottery for students who had good reason to wish another school. The Board of Education never acted on the Committee's report. The School Choice/Diversity Index as practiced in San Francisco continues to be unsatisfactory. The latest available data looking at kindergarten placement show that there were 4330 families participating in the 2008-09 process. Over a third did not get their first choice and nearly a fifth did not get any of their choices. Put differently, 1602 families did not get a first choice for their kindergarten child and 822 families did not get any of their original choices. B. Civil Grand Jury Inquiry In preparing this report, the Grand Jury held more than 30 interviews during an eight-month period. School officials, child welfare experts, school proponents, students, and parents - each person was courteous, cooperative, forthcoming, and helpful. The Jury is grateful and must remark when looking back on the 1999 Grand Jury report on schools (see the

R5: Parents who know that their child can go to school in the neighborhood where they live are good candidates to work to make that a successful school for all neighborhood children.

R6: San Franciscans identify with their neighborhoods. Most neighborhoods have a local school that local residents, merchants and parents have known about, perhaps attended, and provided support. With the District's current non-attendance area policy most children now go to school outside their neighborhood and as a result support for neighborhood schools has diminished. A senior school official told the jury, "We could create additional great schools in the neighborhoods and that would go a long way towards helping relieve pressure on the high demand schools."

R7: The number of Alternative Schools has grown to 15 and the difference between them and attendance area schools has blurred over time.

R8: Schools have not improved or become more diverse, even with the use of busing. Busing further erodes parental and/or neighborhood involvement in schools. Buses carry nearly 5,000 elementary children to school and cost the District over $5 Million annually. For each bus not deployed the District saves $100,000. RECOMMENDATIONS:

R9: Some members of the Board of Education appear to have student diversity as their first priority for the District.

R10: The District needs to make crucial decisions about surplus school property, updating 30 year old and now obsolete school attendance zones, and establishing policy to guide decisions to shut failed schools. Voters faced with future requests for funding from the District will react favorably to the District's efforts to streamline their property management activities and to convert these non-performing assets into resources that support District educational activities. RECOMMENDATIONS:

May 27, 2008 — Continuity Report What Has Happened to Recommendations Made by Prior Juries? After reviewing Jury reports from the past*

Continuity Report 25 pages 3 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: At a time when the City is looking for revenue, the Jury finds it counter productive to reduce the ability to assess and collect property taxes.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 2 ХX Response Mayor Х CIO X Director of Risk Management Assessor/Recorder The Continuity Committee reviewed the report by the 2005-2006 Jury on the Assessor/Recorder. The Committee looked only at the statement in that there was a four year backlog in assessing new properties and properties that had changed ownership. The Office of the Assessor/Recorder has been affected by the economic downturn with a large number of requests for informal review of current assessments. Informal review is a negotiation between the City and the property owner that occurs before a formal hearing at the Assessment Appeals Board. It requires less time as a method of reaching agreement. There is a statutory requirement that reassessment be completed within twelve months of the filing date. As a consequence all resources were diverted to deal with the 1600 requests that were filed affecting the ability to reduce the backlog. Prior to the economic downturn, the backlog had been reduced to two years and has remained at about two years. By the end of the next fiscal year (2009-2010) the Office of the Assessor/Recorder expects to reduce the backlog to a few months with a few assessments, such as those for large commercial properties, requiring as long as twelve months. The current number of employees in the Assessor/Recorder's Office is 118. Due to the 2009- 2010 budget deficit the Mayor has asked all departments for a 25 percent cut, which would further reduce the staff available to address the backlog. Since nearly the entire budget of the Assessor is personnel this would translate into a significant reduction in staff. Twenty-five percent of 118 is almost 30 staff members. The compensation cost of each employee is a very small portion of the revenue produced by that employee's work. To reduce staff would mean a reduction in revenue to the City greater than the savings achieved.

F2: 1 Χ Response Mayor Director of Risk X Χ Management

F3: 1 2 5 4 6 1 X X SFUSD X X X X Response Х

July 09, 2007 — Continuity Report Have City Agencies Done What They Said They Would Do After the Civil Grand Jury of 2005-2006 Issued

Continuity Report 72 pages 10 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: 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.

F2: 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

F3: 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.

F4: 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.

F5: 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.

F6: 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.

F7: 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.

F8: 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)

F9: 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.

F10: 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

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Should be increased by at least Have implemented policies and 15% and place available funds procedures to increase price limits ($3.4 million) into community accordingly. Section 2: APPLICANT BASIS

R2: Civil Grand Jury MAYOR Implemented Implemented, but if confidentiality recommended City clause has not been corrected in continue to handle Bank Contract, this should be sensitive data with reviewed. the same care that is currently the practice

R3: A clause protecting Not Implemented Yet Not Implemented Yet9: Working confidentiality of on new banking contract (Request City’s data should be for Proposals-- RFP) has not been included in the started. Department of Public Next CGJ should inquire from Health’s contract with Treasury Department if new RFP Bank of America with confidentiality clause is in place.

R4: These past reports should be filed Will not be Implemented: Bond with the Board. legislation does not require these reports. 2005-2006 AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND 56 REPORT VI. SAN FRANCISCO JAILS: AN INVESTIGATIVE VISIT JAIL Findings/ Responding Pertinent Responses Recommended Follow-up INSPECTION Recommendations Department to 2005- for Future Juries 2005-2006 CGJ 2006 CGJ Section 1: FACILITIES

July 09, 2007 — Parking for the Disabled--abuse or Over-use?

13 pages 10 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: used by someone who transports the blue placard holder, if the holder is not present; and, if the authorizing documentation accompanies the registered holder, when the

F2: blue placard is displayed. California Vehicle Code Section 4461 specifies the possible penalties for the misuse of a blue placard. These possible penalties, including a criminal misdemeanor charge, are printed directly on the documentation a blue placard holder is supposed to carry; the severity of these possible penalties is meant to deter misuse. Because blue placards are issued to persons with permanent disabilities they become a permanent benefit. They are reissued every two years in order to reduce the unauthorized use of such placards, in the event the authorized holder has died or moved out of California. Blue placards are a State program without any control or restrictions by local jurisdictions. The most a local jurisdiction is authorized to do is set up a local oversight monitoring committee. This oversight committee, with access to DMV data, would be able to track whether any of the many health care providers authorized to certify eligibility are authorizing numbers of blue placard applications far out of proportion to their professional colleagues. The DMV acts only as a passive custodian of the information contained in blue placard applications. It is up to each jurisdiction whether to set up such a local oversight monitoring body and then do its own research into DMV records. In an effort to address the problem of abuse the City's Board of Supervisors is currently considering proposed ordinance amending the City's Traffic Code to provide for the establishment of the "Disabled Parking Review Panel" to monitor applications for placards and the health practitioners who certify them. Board of Supervisors proposed ordinance File No. 070409, introduced March 27, 2007. The Department of Motor Vehicles also issues "red" placards to those with a temporary disability. These red placards automatically expire after six months. Though the red placard allows for the same parking privileges as a blue placard, the six months maximum makes it much less likely to be subject to abuse. Accordingly, this report will not address any aspect of red placards. IV. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND STATISTICS ON DISABILITY According to information published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 26, 2007, which was gleaned from data at the DMV and at the California Department of Finance, approximately 50,000 blue placards have been issued to residents of City of San Francisco. That is more than double the approximately 24,000 assigned to San Francisco residents in 1996. This, according to statistics from DMV and the California Department of Finance, is slightly less than 7% of the City's population. This 7% is statistically very close to the ratio for each of the other Bay Area counties and for the State of California as a whole. The other eight Bay Area counties have also experienced a doubling in the numbers of authorized blue placards in the past ten years. United States Census Bureau statistics from 2000, and the estimates for 2004, indicate that the percentage of people age five or older with a disability in each Bay Area county ranges from 15 to 20%. The data indicate that the number of people in the Bay Area with any form of disability (15-20%) is more than double the number of currently-authorized blue placards in each of the Bay Area Counties (7%). These statistics do not bode well for citizens who routinely engage in the competition for curbside spaces. In other words, if everyone with a permanent disability also acquired a blue placard, then practically overnight there could be another doubling of blue placards issued. Additionally, the aging of the population in San Francisco, as well as the longer life expectancy, means there could be even more people who would qualify for a blue placard under current criteria. Misuse of a blue placard by the able-bodied makes it harder for the disabled to maintain independence and mobility, if they cannot find convenient parking. V. ENFORCEMENT DIFFICULTIES The portability of blue placards may have unintended consequences. Because not every disabled person with a blue placard also drives, a caregiver may put the blue placard in the vehicle's glove compartment, ready to be used when transporting that person. This very portability makes blue placards easily available to family members or friends, who borrow them to avoid paying parking meter fees and/or obtain multi-hour parking near their own destination -- even though the authorized holder is not being transported. Often, a person has a disability not readily apparent due to the absence of evidence -- such as a cane, crutches, walker, wheelchair, prosthesis, and/or guide dog. For instance a person with pulmonary or circulatory impairment can meet the criteria for permanent disability, yet not fit the visual stereotype of "disabled." Both the portability of blue placards and law enforcement's need to directly observe a failure of compliance, sometimes results in the decision of non-disabled people "to borrow" a blue placard from the holder and to take their chances on evading observation and enforcement. In some parts of San Francisco, such as downtown and nearby areas, curbside spaces are frequently filled throughout the work day with cars displaying blue placards. Census data indicate that rates of full-time employment (25%) and of under-employment (66%) of people with disabilities are so low as to call into question whether all such cars displaying blue placards in the crowded central business district are actually transporting the disabled holders of the placards. Legal requirements more cumbersome than those required for issuing normal parking violations impede the issuance of citations for violations of blue placard laws. Any enforcement action must be based on "probable cause," i.e., some observed violation of parking laws -- such as overtime parking at an expired meter. The requirement of the actual observance of a probable violation of blue placard compliance means that any jurisdiction seeking to enforce compliance must allocate substantial resources of staff and time to the effort. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's Department of Parking & Traffic (DPT) has developed a special unit for enforcement. Working in this special unit also requires additional training -- in conflict resolution and in sensitivity to people with disabilities. DPT's policy requires the presence of two Parking Control Officers for the issuance of a citation regarding blue placard laws. One officer interacts with the driver, while the other officer is there as a potential witness, in the event the citation is challenged. This burdensome process results in the issuance of fewer citations for blue placard violations than for any other type of parking offense. This DPT unit also engages in "stings", whereby City blocks observed to have a disproportionate number of people using blue placards are the object of a stakeout by DPT enforcement staff who watch for violations. While somewhat successful, the sting operations are limited to two a month, until more Parking Control Officers are hired and trained. VI. APPLICATION PROCESS AND IMPLICATIONS State law authorizes many and various health care practitioners – from audiologists all the way through to some categories of social workers -- to certify someone as eligible for a blue placard. This very multiplicity of types of certifiers also makes it easier for anyone to shop around for a practitioner who will quickly sign one's application for a blue placard. Further, since certification does not automatically require an actual full-scale exam by the practitioner, the application can be completed by office staff -- figuratively rubber-stamping the application. There is little incentive for practitioners to say no, but considerable incentive to agree to the certification. Practitioners might worry that their failure to sign the authorization may result in the loss of their patient to another practitioner. VII. CONCLUSION Misuse of placards hurts people with disabilities. Misuse also lessens cash revenues for both the City's General Fund and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), which includes the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). Blue placards allow people to park all day -- and all night -- without paying a fee, without risk of a citation. The unusual benefits of blue parking placards -- free and nearly unlimited parking at a metered space, for up to 72 hours make them attractive in a City with limited curbside spaces, practically guaranteeing misuse. The low staffing levels at DPT impede all enforcement efforts, such as citing individuals and conducting neighborhood stings. This difficulty of enforcement, plus the wide-open eligibility criteria, the multiple types of health care providers authorized to sign-off on eligibility – all contribute to the probability of abuse -- first, in the issuance of and, second, in the use of blue placards. Furthermore, California's blue placard provisions were enacted in the 1980s, prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since the initial legislation, the State of California has never entertained any significant revisions, either to the qualifying criteria, or to the free and practically unlimited time for which a blue placard can be used at any one space. The Civil Grand Jury does not know if DPT collects data from blue placard citations or analyzes data for whether: Blue placard citations are fined at the maximum levels possible;

F3: There is consistency in imposing fines for blue placard misuse; and/or

F4: There are actual guidelines for hearing officers and others involved in

F5: levying fines for blue placard citations. The Board of Supervisors Ordinance File No. 070409, discussed earlier, also amends the Traffic Code to add a $100 local surcharge to some of the existing fines for abuse of disabled parking laws. The additional collected revenue would be used for the purpose of improving enforcement of the disabled parking laws. VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding I: San Francisco has no direct control over the issuance of blue placards to residents. Finding II: San Francisco can only monitor the issuance of blue placards for apparent compliance. Finding III: State law allocates to local jurisdictions only a small percentage of the fines collected for citations for blue placard abuse. Finding IV: The Board of Supervisors has before it a proposed ordinance which appears to address abuse in the issuance and the use of blue placards. The Office of the Mayor(60 days), Responses required from Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days)

F6: the Americans With Disabilities Act are still fully appropriate for California's changing population, or whether blue placard eligibility criteria should be changed; Consideration of whether there should be any time limitation[s] on curbside meter parking. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), Responses required from The Office of the Mayor (60 days), San Francisco State Legislation Committee (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days),

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: Consideration of whether eligibility criteria, written prior to the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act are still fully appropriate for California's changing population, or whether blue placard eligibility criteria should be changed;

R3: Consideration of whether there should be any time limitation[s] on curbside meter parking.

F7: There is consistency in imposing fines for blue placard misuse; and/or

F8: There are actual guidelines for hearing officers and others involved in

F9: levying fines for blue placard citations. The Board of Supervisors Ordinance File No. 070409, discussed earlier, also amends the Traffic Code to add a $100 local surcharge to some of the existing fines for abuse of disabled parking laws. The additional collected revenue would be used for the purpose of improving enforcement of the disabled parking laws. VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding I: San Francisco has no direct control over the issuance of blue placards to residents. Finding II: San Francisco can only monitor the issuance of blue placards for apparent compliance. Finding III: State law allocates to local jurisdictions only a small percentage of the fines collected for citations for blue placard abuse. Finding IV: The Board of Supervisors has before it a proposed ordinance which appears to address abuse in the issuance and the use of blue placards. The Office of the Mayor(60 days), Responses required from Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days)

F10: the Americans With Disabilities Act are still fully appropriate for California's changing population, or whether blue placard eligibility criteria should be changed; Consideration of whether there should be any time limitation[s] on curbside meter parking. Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) (60 days), Responses required from The Office of the Mayor (60 days), San Francisco State Legislation Committee (60 days), The Board of Supervisors (90 days),

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Authorizing and requiring DMV to affix to the back of a blue placard a photo of the certified disabled user, so as to make easier and faster any determination of appropriateness of use.

R4: ● ● Parking and Traffic (MTA's DPT) San Francisco State Legislation Committee ● Office of the City Attorney ● 9

R5: Office of the City Attorney

July 09, 2007 — Preparing for a Disaster:

82 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.