Gran Jurado del Condado de San Francisco

2007-2008

4 informes

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 (4)
Recomendaciones adicionales 11

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R1: The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors must provide an Will Not Be RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court that it agrees with Board of adequate budget and direct the Division of Real Estate to find permanent, Implemented: Not
R2: Human Services is working with DPH to standardize outcome measures between the two agencies. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Department of Will Be Implemented DCYF is ready and willing to participate in any efforts lead by our city colleagues to develop and monitor performance Will Be Implemented in DCYF is ready and willing to participate in any efforts lead by our city colleagues to Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Children, Youth in the Future criteria for its supportive housing programs that support children, youth and families. DCYF does not provide capital the Future develop and monitor performance criteria for its supportive housing programs that Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and and Their funding for supportive housing. Our particular area of emphasis is related to service funding for residents – on site support children, youth and families. DCYF does not provide capital funding for outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of Families and in the community—to improve outcomes for children, youth and families. We will be participating in a meeting supportive housing. Our particular area of emphasis is related to service funding for emergency services and increase in client incomes). convened by HSA to discuss this issues in the next 60 days. residents – on site and in the community—to improve outcomes for children, youth and families. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Public Health Implemented Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2009 Response (1) 2009 Response Text (2) 2010 Response (1) 2010 Response Text (2) Required 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Human Services Recommendation See answers to # 2 and #3. Note that there are challenges with tracking use of emergency services and other Recommendation HSA has established a baseline of contract objectives and outcomes that emphasize Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Agency Implemented, Will confidential and protected health services by clients in HSA housing programs. Confidentiality and HIPPA Implemented the efforts supporting tenants to maintain housing stability. SASH Process analysis Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and Be Implemented in requirements will have to be considered when tracking or sampling for such data. covers leasing (for master lease sites), operating and support services costs. HSA outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of the Future works jointly with the Department of Public Health, Mayor's Office of Housing and the emergency services and increase in client incomes). San Francisco Redevelopment Agency regarding capital costs; the later two agencies are responsible for managing capital investments. DPH and HSA fund cost of services. All are involved in funding operating expenses. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Mayor's Office of Will Not Be MOCI does not fund supportive housing programs. ** Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Community Implemented: Not Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and Development Warranted or Not outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of Reasonable emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Mayor's Office of Recommendation The Citywide Loan Committee, which MOH chairs, evaluates capital loan requests on the basis of comparisons ** Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Housing Implemented between costs and performance of developers. HSA and DPH have separate evaluation processes for services and Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and opearating support that take into account outcomes. outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing San Francisco Requires Further SFRA has a process for evaluating building capital costs and building operating costs including a peer review and Will Not Be See 2009. DPH and HS have the lead. HS has implemented rec. Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Redevelopment Analysis approval by the Citywide Loan Committee. SFRA staff work with HSA and DPH to review supportive housing Implemented: Not Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and Agency programs and incorporates those findings in the loan evaluations. Warranted or Not outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of Reasonable emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Department of Will Be Implemented Benchmarking is a performance management best practice employed by DCYF generally. DCYF is ready and willing Requires Further Benchmarking is a performance management best practice employed by DCYF Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Children, Youth in the Future to participate in any efforts lead by our city colleagues to undertake benchmarking across agencies, sectors, and Analysis generally. DCYF is ready and willing to participate in any efforts lead by our city Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. and Their funding sources specific to supportive housing.We will be participating in a meeting convened by HSA to discuss this colleagues to undertake benchmarking across agencies, sectors, and funding sources Families issues in the next 60 days. specific to supportive housing. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Public Health Implemented Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Human Services Recommendation Human Services outlines its benchmarks in all negotiated contracts with each provider. The benchmarks are then ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Agency Implemented monitored in quarterly reports and a yearly-required monitoring process conducted by program and fiscal staff. We Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. know of no private sector contractor, willing to work in the non-profit arena. Additionally, given the different set of constraints and requirements that the for-profit and non-profit sectors operate under, comparisons across the two sectors must be used with caution. Many outcome measures are already comparable among various housing programs and the supportive housing workgroup is developing recommendations to further that. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Mayor's Office of Will Not Be MOCI does not fund supportive housing programs. ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Community Implemented: Not Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. Development Warranted or Not Reasonable 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Mayor's Office of Recommendation MOH uses cost benchmarking data to make its funding decisions. This includes for-profit and non-profit agencies. ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Housing Implemented There are not any agencies that we know of that provide comparable supportive housing without government subsidy Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their San Francisco Recommendation SFRA already benchmarks performance of non-profit housing developers each and against private sector. SFRA ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Redevelopment Implemented reviews the cost of housing production as part of its loan evaluation process. SFRA also reviews the performance Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. Agency among licensed HOPWA service providers. There are no for-profit HOPWA service providers. . 2007-08 The Homeless Have 6. City Departments and Agencies should base decisions about renewing or Department of Will Be Implemented DCYF policy currently requires funding decisions to factor past and current performance in renewals or new funding Requires Further DCYF policy currently requires funding decisions to factor past and current Homes, But They Are terminating supportive housing contracts solely on the outcomes of the Children, Youth in the Future awards. This practice will continue if improved or new performance measures are developed specifically for Analysis performance in renewals or new funding awards. This practice will continue if Still on the Street enhanced performance measures. and Their supportive housing and are applicable to any agencies DCYF funds. improved or new performance measures are developed specifically for supportive Families housing and are applicable to any agency DCYF funds. 2007-08 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2009 Response (1) 2009 Response Text (2) 2010 Response (1) 2010 Response Text (2) Required 2007-08 The Homeless Have 6. City Departments and Agencies should base decisions about renewing or Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are terminating supportive housing contracts solely on the outcomes of the Public Health Implemented Still on the Street enhanced performance measures. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 6. City Departments and Agencies should base decisions about renewing or Department on Will Not Be The decision to renew or terminate supportive housing solely on the outcome of the enhanced performance measures ** Homes, But They Are terminating supportive housing contracts solely on the outcomes of the the Status of Implemented: Not is not reasonable, because such measures are not the only way, or even the best way, to know if supportive housing Still on the Street enhanced performance measures. Women Warranted or Not is working. Quantitative measurements do not take into account the human condition or the unique and disparate Reasonable influences on the lives of individuals. Setting measurable objectives and outcomes can provide baseline data and assist in tracking trends. However, to ascertain whether a program is successful, qualitative factors also must be taken into account. Any decision-making process should include site visits, interviews and/or other evaluative tools. We support a model similar to the Office of the Controller’s Standard Fiscal and Compliance Citywide Non-Profit Monitoring Committee, an interagency body that employs site visits, self-evaluations, interviews, and group
R3: The DOE should publicly establish a date certain by which Sequoia must Department of Will Not Be Recommendation applies to previous election receive the Secretary of State's certification regarding the counting of RCV Implemented: Not Elections for the Elections ballots. This date should be no later than September 15, 2008. City/County of San Warranted or Not Reasonable Francisco 2007-08 A Year of Five
R4: Provide a venue for supportive housing providers to exchange knowledge and share best practices and resources with peers, HSA and subject matter experts. H.S.A. anticipates a July 2009 date to implement the recommendations coming of the workgroup. 2007-08 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2009 Response (1) 2009 Response Text (2) 2010 Response (1) 2010 Response Text (2) Required 2007-08 The Homeless Have 2. The City should order that comprehensive cost/benefit analysis be Mayor's Office of Will Not Be MOCI does not fund supportive housing programs. ** Homes, But They Are performed on current supportive housing programs to include: (A) costs of Community Implemented: Not Still on the Street the supportive programs for various homeless populations compared to the Development Warranted or Not cost avoidance through reduced use of emergency services, hospitals, jails, reasonable etc., and (B) comparative analysis of specific programs and supportive housing models to assess reasons that the cost of providing supportive housing differs substantially between different programs that seem equally successful in outcome. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 2. The City should order that comprehensive cost/benefit analysis be Mayor's Office of Will Not Be Refer to HAS response. ** Homes, But They Are performed on current supportive housing programs to include: (A) costs of Housing Implemented: Not Still on the Street the supportive programs for various homeless populations compared to the Warranted or Not cost avoidance through reduced use of emergency services, hospitals, jails, Reasonable etc., and (B) comparative analysis of specific programs and supportive housing models to assess reasons that the cost of providing supportive housing differs substantially between different programs that seem equally successful in outcome. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 2. The City should order that comprehensive cost/benefit analysis be Office of the Will Be Implemented Agree. Please see my previous response. Will Be Implemented in Agree. Please see my previous response. Homes, But They Are performed on current supportive housing programs to include: (A) costs of Mayor in the Future the Future Still on the Street the supportive programs for various homeless populations compared to the cost avoidance through reduced use of emergency services, hospitals, jails, etc., and (B) comparative analysis of specific programs and supportive housing models to assess reasons that the cost of providing supportive housing differs substantially between different programs that seem equally successful in outcome. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 2. The City should order that comprehensive cost/benefit analysis be San Francisco Requires Further Please see HSA’s response. SFRA is the capital provider for many of the City’s supportive housing projects. SFRA Will Not Be See 2009. DPH and HS have the lead. HS has completed cost study. Homes, But They Are performed on current supportive housing programs to include: (A) costs of Redevelopment Analysis will participate in the efforts of HSA and DPH is analyzing and making recommendations to improve the supportive Implemented: Not Still on the Street the supportive programs for various homeless populations compared to the Agency housing system. Warranted or Not cost avoidance through reduced use of emergency services, hospitals, jails, Reasonable etc., and (B) comparative analysis of specific programs and supportive housing models to assess reasons that the cost of providing supportive housing differs substantially between different programs that seem equally successful in outcome. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 3. The Department of Health and the Human Services Agency should Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are develop and apply simple input/outcome measures of the success of Public Health Implemented Still on the Street supportive housing programs. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 3. The Department of Health and the Human Services Agency should Human Services Recommendation 1. H.S.A. already has input/outcome measures defined in all contracts. Input objectives include target population and ** Homes, But They Are develop and apply simple input/outcome measures of the success of Agency Implemented eligibility, targeted outreach/service engagement, property management standards, and on site case management Still on the Street supportive housing programs. and supportive services. Outcome measures are housing retention/stability, and client satisfaction/input. The supportive housing workgroup process referred to in #2 above will further develop the measures, quality of life objectives and outcomes reported, and tracked. 2. Human Services is working with DPH to standardize outcome measures between the two agencies. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Department of Will Be Implemented DCYF is ready and willing to participate in any efforts lead by our city colleagues to develop and monitor performance Will Be Implemented in DCYF is ready and willing to participate in any efforts lead by our city colleagues to Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Children, Youth in the Future criteria for its supportive housing programs that support children, youth and families. DCYF does not provide capital the Future develop and monitor performance criteria for its supportive housing programs that Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and and Their funding for supportive housing. Our particular area of emphasis is related to service funding for residents – on site support children, youth and families. DCYF does not provide capital funding for outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of Families and in the community—to improve outcomes for children, youth and families. We will be participating in a meeting supportive housing. Our particular area of emphasis is related to service funding for emergency services and increase in client incomes). convened by HSA to discuss this issues in the next 60 days. residents – on site and in the community—to improve outcomes for children, youth and families. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Public Health Implemented Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2009 Response (1) 2009 Response Text (2) 2010 Response (1) 2010 Response Text (2) Required 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Human Services Recommendation See answers to # 2 and #3. Note that there are challenges with tracking use of emergency services and other Recommendation HSA has established a baseline of contract objectives and outcomes that emphasize Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Agency Implemented, Will confidential and protected health services by clients in HSA housing programs. Confidentiality and HIPPA Implemented the efforts supporting tenants to maintain housing stability. SASH Process analysis Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and Be Implemented in requirements will have to be considered when tracking or sampling for such data. covers leasing (for master lease sites), operating and support services costs. HSA outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of the Future works jointly with the Department of Public Health, Mayor's Office of Housing and the emergency services and increase in client incomes). San Francisco Redevelopment Agency regarding capital costs; the later two agencies are responsible for managing capital investments. DPH and HSA fund cost of services. All are involved in funding operating expenses. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Mayor's Office of Will Not Be MOCI does not fund supportive housing programs. ** Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Community Implemented: Not Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and Development Warranted or Not outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of Reasonable emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing Mayor's Office of Recommendation The Citywide Loan Committee, which MOH chairs, evaluates capital loan requests on the basis of comparisons ** Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Housing Implemented between costs and performance of developers. HSA and DPH have separate evaluation processes for services and Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and opearating support that take into account outcomes. outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 The Homeless Have 4. The City should develop performance criteria for its supportive housing San Francisco Requires Further SFRA has a process for evaluating building capital costs and building operating costs including a peer review and Will Not Be See 2009. DPH and HS have the lead. HS has implemented rec. Homes, But They Are programs that emphasize inputs (e.g., intake criteria, building operating Redevelopment Analysis approval by the Citywide Loan Committee. SFRA staff work with HSA and DPH to review supportive housing Implemented: Not Still on the Street costs, and capital construction costs or master lease payments) and Agency programs and incorporates those findings in the loan evaluations. Warranted or Not outcomes (in particular, housing retention rates, reduction in use of Reasonable emergency services and increase in client incomes). 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Department of Will Be Implemented Benchmarking is a performance management best practice employed by DCYF generally. DCYF is ready and willing Requires Further Benchmarking is a performance management best practice employed by DCYF Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Children, Youth in the Future to participate in any efforts lead by our city colleagues to undertake benchmarking across agencies, sectors, and Analysis generally. DCYF is ready and willing to participate in any efforts lead by our city Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. and Their funding sources specific to supportive housing.We will be participating in a meeting convened by HSA to discuss this colleagues to undertake benchmarking across agencies, sectors, and funding sources Families issues in the next 60 days. specific to supportive housing. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Public Health Implemented Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Human Services Recommendation Human Services outlines its benchmarks in all negotiated contracts with each provider. The benchmarks are then ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Agency Implemented monitored in quarterly reports and a yearly-required monitoring process conducted by program and fiscal staff. We Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. know of no private sector contractor, willing to work in the non-profit arena. Additionally, given the different set of constraints and requirements that the for-profit and non-profit sectors operate under, comparisons across the two sectors must be used with caution. Many outcome measures are already comparable among various housing programs and the supportive housing workgroup is developing recommendations to further that. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Mayor's Office of Will Not Be MOCI does not fund supportive housing programs. ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Community Implemented: Not Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. Development Warranted or Not Reasonable 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their Mayor's Office of Recommendation MOH uses cost benchmarking data to make its funding decisions. This includes for-profit and non-profit agencies. ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Housing Implemented There are not any agencies that we know of that provide comparable supportive housing without government subsidy Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 5. The City should require non-profits and city agencies to benchmark their San Francisco Recommendation SFRA already benchmarks performance of non-profit housing developers each and against private sector. SFRA ** Homes, But They Are performance against each other, against the private sector, and against non-Redevelopment Implemented reviews the cost of housing production as part of its loan evaluation process. SFRA also reviews the performance Still on the Street profits which operate without significant government funding. Agency among licensed HOPWA service providers. There are no for-profit HOPWA service providers. . 2007-08 The Homeless Have 6. City Departments and Agencies should base decisions about renewing or Department of Will Be Implemented DCYF policy currently requires funding decisions to factor past and current performance in renewals or new funding Requires Further DCYF policy currently requires funding decisions to factor past and current Homes, But They Are terminating supportive housing contracts solely on the outcomes of the Children, Youth in the Future awards. This practice will continue if improved or new performance measures are developed specifically for Analysis performance in renewals or new funding awards. This practice will continue if Still on the Street enhanced performance measures. and Their supportive housing and are applicable to any agencies DCYF funds. improved or new performance measures are developed specifically for supportive Families housing and are applicable to any agency DCYF funds. 2007-08 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2009 Response (1) 2009 Response Text (2) 2010 Response (1) 2010 Response Text (2) Required 2007-08 The Homeless Have 6. City Departments and Agencies should base decisions about renewing or Department of Recommendation Implemented ** Homes, But They Are terminating supportive housing contracts solely on the outcomes of the Public Health Implemented Still on the Street enhanced performance measures. 2007-08 The Homeless Have 6. City Departments and Agencies should base decisions about renewing or Department on Will Not Be The decision to renew or terminate supportive housing solely on the outcome of the enhanced performance measures ** Homes, But They Are terminating supportive housing contracts solely on the outcomes of the the Status of Implemented: Not is not reasonable, because such measures are not the only way, or even the best way, to know if supportive housing Still on the Street enhanced performance measures. Women Warranted or Not is working. Quantitative measurements do not take into account the human condition or the unique and disparate Reasonable influences on the lives of individuals. Setting measurable objectives and outcomes can provide baseline data and assist in tracking trends. However, to ascertain whether a program is successful, qualitative factors also must be taken into account. Any decision-making process should include site visits, interviews and/or other evaluative tools. We support a model similar to the Office of the Controller’s Standard Fiscal and Compliance Citywide Non-Profit Monitoring Committee, an interagency body that employs site visits, self-evaluations, interviews, and group
R5: The DOE should keep the public apprised of the status of the Secretary of Department of 2007-08 A Year of Five The Department of Elections issued memoranda and press releases regarding the certification of the voting system Recommendation Elections for the State's certification of the Sequoia voting machine for counting RCV ballots | Elections by the Secretary of State. Implemented City/County of San and the status of the contingency plan if required. Francisco 2007-08 A Year of Five
R6: For a partisan primary election, where separate ballots are used based on Elections The Commission cannot implement this Recommendation, as doing so would exceed its chartered authority to set Implemented: Not Elections for the a voter's patty affiliation, the DOE's training and voter outreach programs policy for elections and would infringe on the Director of Elections' statutory responsibility to conduct the day-to-day Commission City/County of San Warranted or Not operations. (S.F. Charter Secs. 13.103.5, 13.104.) However, the Commission is mindful of these concerns, and will need greater emphasis on the fact that in order to vote for a candidate in Francisco Reasonable have public discussions with the Director and discuss publicly among its members to determine whether greater another party, voters must re-register and change their party affiliation by efforts in these areas - necessarily at the expense of other things - would be expected to achieve significant the voter registration deadline. improvement in the areas the Jury describes. The Commission acknowledges that while some aspects of voting requirements are not intuitive for all voters, it is also true that all of this information is publicly posted, and it is worth noting that the overwhelming majority of voters managed to comply with the requirements. (1) "--" Department did not respond with one of the four required actions. "**" Response not required: Recommendation has been fully implemented or abandoned. Office of the Controller Status of the Recommendations 2010 Department Responses by the Civil Grand Jury 2007-08 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation 2009 Response Text (2) 2010 Response Text (2) 2009 Response (1) 2010 Response (1)
R7: The DOE's poll worker training needs to emphasize the Ranked-Choice Department of Recommendation The Department of Elections does emphasize ranked-choice voting when training poll workers. Elections for the Voting process. Implemented Elections City/County of San Francisco 2007-08 A Year of Five
R8: The DOE's outreach program needs to improve voter instructions on the Will Be Implemented The Department of Elections will continue its review of outreach materials as it does before every election. Recommendation The next ranked-choice election is in November and the Department is concentrating Department of Elections for the Ranked-Choice Voting process and the use of Absentee Ballots. in the Future Implemented Elections currently on the June primary election. The Department's outreach team does focus City/County of San on informing people of how to complete applications to request vote-by-mail ballots. Francisco Also, the outreach team explains to voters that if they choose to become "permanent" vote-by-mail voters that they will receive a ballot in the mail before every election. The Department also places a link on the front page of its website prior to every election allowing voters to complete an online form to request vote-by-mail ballots. Further, on the back cover of every voter guide is an application for vote-by-mail ballots and which also provides for voters to choose whether they want to become permanent vote-by- mail voters. 2007-08 A Year of Five
R9: In addition to its established communication approaches, the DOE should Department of The Department has implemented a newsletter and has begun a public service announcement program that includes |* Recommendation Elections for the explore enhanced techniques to communicate information on the less Elections Implemented these topics. City/County of San understood aspects of voting such as partisan primary elections, Ranked- Choice Voting and Absentee Ballots. Francisco 2007-08 A Year of Five
R10: The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors not only should Will Not Be Board of Implemented: Not Recommendation Nos. 2, 4, 8 and 10 of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Fits and Starts: The Response of San ask at budget time but also require a routine report from the Police Supervisors Francisco Government Department that shows trend data regarding civilian employment progress. Response of San Francisco Government to Past Civil Grand Jury Recommendations" (Resolution No. 414-08) Warranted or Not to Past Civil Grand Reasonable FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the Mayor to cause the implementation of accepted recommendations through his/her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. Jury Recommendations 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The 10. The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors not only should Office of the Recommendation Agree. Please see my previous response. Mayor Response of San ask at budget time but also require a routine report from the Police Implemented Francisco Government Department that shows trend data regarding civilian employment progress. to Past Civil Grand Jury Recommendations 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The
R11: (Resolution No. 414-08) to Past Civil Grand Board should follow up by not approving budgets unless these Reasonable recommendations are addressed. Jury Recommendations 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The 1. As a standard practice, the Office of the Mayor should include in the Office of the Will Not Be Disagree. The Civil Grand Jury has an existing response process in which all relevant departments, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor's Office engage. The Mayor's Office responses to Civil Grand Jury reports provide annual budget instructions a request of each affected department to Response of San Mayor Implemented: Not Francisco Government address Civil Grand Jury instructions in their budget proposals. Also, the Warranted or Not direction to departments about specific Civil Grand Jury recommendations, which the departments take into to Past Civil Grand Board should follow up by not approving budgets unless these Reasonable consideration when creating their budget proposals for the following year. However, in the 09-10 budget instructions, recommendations are addressed. the Mayor's Office included a specific request that departments consider independent reviews and audits – such as Jury Civil Grand Jury reports, audits by the Controller's Office, and reports by the Budget Analyst's Office – in developing Recommendations their budget submissions. RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court that it agrees with 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The 10. The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors not only should Will Not Be Board of Implemented: Not Recommendation Nos. 2, 4, 8 and 10 of the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Fits and Starts: The Response of San ask at budget time but also require a routine report from the Police Supervisors Francisco Government Department that shows trend data regarding civilian employment progress. Response of San Francisco Government to Past Civil Grand Jury Recommendations" (Resolution No. 414-08) Warranted or Not to Past Civil Grand Reasonable FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the Mayor to cause the implementation of accepted recommendations through his/her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. Jury Recommendations 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The 10. The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors not only should Office of the Recommendation Agree. Please see my previous response. Mayor Response of San ask at budget time but also require a routine report from the Police Implemented Francisco Government Department that shows trend data regarding civilian employment progress. to Past Civil Grand Jury Recommendations 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The 10. The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors not only should The Department regularly prepares civilianization information as part of its budget The Police Department now produces a routine report that shows trend data regarding civilian employment progress. Recommendation Police Recommendation ask at budget time but also require a routine report from the Police The Department is committed to the continued civilianization of appropriate positions; this process, however, is Response of San Department Implemented, Will Implemented presentation. Francisco Government | Department that shows trend data regarding civilian employment progress. Be Implemented in impacted by the budget process. to Past Civil Grand the Future Jury Recommendations 2007-08 Fits and Starts: The 11. The Office of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors should include in Board of Will Not Be FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports that it disagrees partially with Recommendation Nos. 1 |** and 11, as follows: The Mayor's office does not agree to Recommendation 1, however the Board of Supervisors may their review of City budgets each department's loss run history to be Response of San Supervisors Implemented: Not Francisco Government provided on a timely and consistent basis by the City Attorney. This request such information during Budget Committee hearings; and funding issues need to be addressed regarding Warranted or Not discussion would include a mandate for each department to work with Risk to Past Civil Grand
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
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
Recomendaciones adicionales 4

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
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),
Recomendaciones relacionadas (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),
Recomendaciones adicionales 3

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

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

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.