San Francisco County Grand Jury
2008-2009
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Additional Recommendations
15
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
That measures placed on the ballot by SFUSD to raise money have an Board of Recommendation RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court that it agrees Being Propositioned By The 2008-09 San Francisco Unified School independent review of the wording. Supervisors with Recommendation No. 1 and 2 of the 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Being Propositioned By Implemented District The San Francisco Unified School District." Also, it is important to note that the SFUSD, in its responses, stated that Recommendations No. 1 and 2 have been implemented. (Resolution No. 436-09) Being Propositioned By The
R2:
2.3 because the Board believes that SFERS is applying due diligence to prevent pension Francisco. By adopting a DC plan, the Mayor, BOS and SFERS can do more to Warranted or Not spiking. The Board also disagrees with Recommendation No. 2.2.1 because a working group created by the restore credibility to the public pension plans than any other action they can Reasonable Mayor is already reviewing the City’s Defined-Benefit (DB) Pension Plan and evaluating alternative plans and take. options. (Resolution No. 477-09) 2008-09 Pensions Beyond Our Ability 2.2.1. A task force should be established to evaluate a change to a defined- Office of the Will Not Be CON: City leadership may consider how to manage retirement costs and benefits as part of its overall financial to Pay contribution (DC) plan for all new employees of the City and County of San Controller Implemented: Not planning, and the Mayor and Board of Supervisors may make proposals regarding retirement benefits within Francisco. By adopting a DC plan, the Mayor, BOS and SFERS can do more to Warranted or Not the current system to put before the voters. These considerations already occurr through the City leadership restore credibility to the public pension plans than any other action they can Reasonable and managers' review of pension costs and contribution rates and their financial impacts in the budget process take. and in other settings. Benefits, terms and conditions of SFERS are set in the Charter, and changes to them are a matter for voter approval. 2008-09 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2010 Response 2010 Response Text Required 2008-09 Pensions Beyond Our Ability 2.2.1. A task force should be established to evaluate a change to a defined- Office of the Mayor Will Not Be I believe the SFERS defined benefits plan offers a more secure investment strategy than a defined to Pay contribution (DC) plan for all new employees of the City and County of San Implemented: Not contributions plan. Therefore, it is not necessary to establish a task force to evaluate a change in plans at this Francisco. By adopting a DC plan, the Mayor, BOS and SFERS can do more to Warranted or Not time. restore credibility to the public pension plans than any other action they can Reasonable take. 2008-09 Pensions Beyond Our Ability 2.2.1. A task force should be established to evaluate a change to a defined- San Francisco Will Not Be SFERS is charged with administering the existing defined benefit pension plan and existing "457" defined to Pay contribution (DC) plan for all new employees of the City and County of San Employees Implemented: Not contribution plan. SFERS is not a political, legislative or policy making body. Any initiative to study and/or Francisco. By adopting a DC plan, the Mayor, BOS and SFERS can do more to Retirement System Warranted or Not create a new benefit plan for employees of the City & County of San Francisco must be formulated by the restore credibility to the public pension plans than any other action they can Reasonable Mayor's Office or the Board of Supervisors. take. 2008-09 Pensions Beyond Our Ability 2.2.2. Pension Spiking should be prohibited altogether as an unfair and costly Board of Will Not Be RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court that it agrees to Pay practice that benefits no one, except for the retiring employee. Supervisors Implemented: Not with Recommendation Nos. 2.2.2 and 4.2.2 of the 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Pensions: Warranted or Not Beyond Our Ability to Pay.” Reasonable FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the Mayor to cause the implementation of accepted
R4:
That SFUSD sell the 11 parcels described in Finding 4 to fund the move of Board of FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports that regarding Recommendation No. 4, the Being Propositioned By The 2008-09 San Francisco Unified School SOTA to the 135 Van Ness complex without the use of any further bond Implemented: Not SFUSD is a state agency that is governed by the Board of Education. Decisions about surplus school property Supervisors fall under the purview of the SFUSD, not the Board of Supervisors. However, the SFUSD should bring its District Warranted or Not measures. Reasonable surplus property disposition plan(s) before the Joint City and School District Select Committee in a timely manner for review and consideration. FURTHER RESOLVED, That pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(c), the Board of Supervisors responds to the recommendations to which it agrees by hereby urging the SFUSD to cause the implementation of accepted recommendations.(Resolution No. 436-09) Office of the Mayor Will Not Be Being Propositioned By The
R5:
Departments should use Cost of Reimbursement instead of Units of Service Department of Recommendation The department uses cost reimbursement as a method of payment. as the method of payment in every RFP. Children, Youth, & Bad, The Ugly Implemented Families 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The
R6:
A database of sole source waivers including all cost should be maintained Department of 2008-09 Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not Bad, The Ugly under the oversight of the DCA. oversight of OCA. Warranted or Not Families Reasonable Nonprofits: The Good, The Will Not Be Not DPH
R7:
The practice of targeted Addbacks should be stopped. Board of Will Not Be FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 2008-09 Bad, The Ugly Supervisors Implemented: Not that regarding Finding Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and Recommendation Nos. 7, 8 and 10, the Board of Warranted or Not Supervisors adds programmatic funding to the City's annual budget in major policy areas, such as public Reasonable safety, transportation and affordable housing, but it leaves administration of such funding to the Mayor and his/her department heads in accordance with the San Francisco Municipal Code and City Charter. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the Mayor to cause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through his/her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. (Resolution No. 475-09) Nonprofits: The Good, The
R8:
The City Charter (2.114. Non-Interference in Administration) should be Board of Will Not Be FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 2008-09 Bad, The Ugly enforced to prevent district supervisors from directing funds to specific Implemented: Not that regarding Finding Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and Recommendation Nos. 7, 8 and 10, the Board of Supervisors nonprofits through circuitous means. (For example, naming a street where a Warranted or Not Supervisors adds programmatic funding to the City's annual budget in major policy areas, such as public nonprofit exists or specifying a service offered only by a speCific nonprofit). Reasonable safety, transportation and affordable housing, but it leaves administration of such funding to the Mayor and his/her department heads in accordance with the San Francisco Municipal Code and City Charter. FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges the Mayor to cause the implementation of accepted findings and recommendations through his/her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. (Resolution No. 475-09) Nonprofits: The Good, The
R9:
The Supervisors can have a greater role, in the process, by submitting RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court that it agrees 2008-09 Board of Recommendation budget proposals and funding priorities during a department's normal budget with Finding No. 4 and Recommendation No. 9 of the 2008-2009 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Nonprofits, Bad, The Ugly Supervisors Implemented preparation process, e.g. hearings, commissions and/or citizen advisory The Good, The Bad, The Ugly." (Resolution No. 475-09) committee meetings rather than last-minute adjustments through the targeted add-back process. Nonprofits: The Good, The Will Not Be
R10:
Something to Say, Is Anybody Reviews of large departments by the PM Committee in formal session at least Implemented Listening? Performance monthly and smaller departments not less than every six months. Measurement (PM) in San Francisco City Government 2008-09 The Numbers Have 13f. The PM plan should include at least these components: Office of the Mayor Recommendation Top managers and line managers have been trained in utilizing the performance management system. The Something to Say, Is Anybody Training for department heads and line managers in PM practices. Implemented Controller’s Office will continue their communication and technical guidance for department performance Listening? Performance measurement contacts and will also work with departments to strengthen their performance measurement Measurement (PM) in San efforts. Francisco City Government 2008-09 The Numbers Have 14a. The Jury recommends changes to these metrics that are related to PM: Office of the Mayor Will Be Implemented Currently the 311 system and the Controller’s performance measures system are not able to communicate. Something to Say, Is Anybody The 311 system should be tied into the PM system to establish targets for City in the Future However, the Controller’s Office is currently working with various City departments to capture this information. Listening? Performance services. Pending automating that process, the data should be entered Measurement (PM) in San manually. Francisco City Government 2008-09 The Numbers Have 14b. The Jury recommends changes to these metrics that are related to PM: Office of the Mayor Recommendation As indicated in
R11:
A Consolidated Backroom Unit should be set up with the Office of Contract Department of Will Not Be 2008-09 Bad, The Ugly Administration (Office of Contract Administration) to provide back-office Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not unable to implement because this is an OCA action. Warranted or Not operations for nonprofits. Families Reasonable Nonprofits: The Good, The
R12:
The Office of Contract Administration should be given the task of tracking DCYF is ready and willing to work with OCA in tracking nonprofit grant consolidation; however, DCYF is Department of the compliance rate on nonprofit grant consolidation across all City Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not unable to implement because this is an OCA action. Bad, The Ugly Warranted or Not Families departments. Reasonable Nonprofits: The Good, The
R13:
The Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel should be given the directive to study Board of FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports that it disagrees with Finding No. 7 because the 2008-09 Bad, The Ugly the compliance rate on joint monitoring within and among all City departments Implemented: Not Office of Contract Administration's (OCA) standard waiver request form already requires departments to Supervisors and to make recommendations to bring compliance to 100%. Warranted or Not identify vendors and to describe the products or services to be sole sourced. The Board also disagrees with Recommendation No. 13 because the Controller's Office is already studying the compliance rate on joint Reasonable monitoring within and across City departments. (Resolution No. 475-09) Nonprofits: The Good, The
R14:
" Bad, The Ugly DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a Implemented: Not minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program Warranted or Not tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking Reasonable should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 2. Each RFP should specify the qualifications for panel members selected to Department of Recommendation The department's 2010-2013 RFP (issued in January 2010) contains panel member information. In addition, Bad, The Ugly rank the proposals. Children, Youth, & Implemented the department posted panel information in its March 30 newsletter. Families 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 2. Each RFP should specify the qualifications for panel members selected to Department of Will Not Be The current system is working well. DPH selects panel members based on their expertise. Bad, The Ugly rank the proposals. Public Health Implemented: Not Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 2. Each RFP should specify the qualifications for panel members selected to Human Services Will Not Be All panelists selected by HSA have specific knowledge of the services being procured and we strive to Bad, The Ugly rank the proposals. Agency Implemented: Not maintain unbiased qualified panelist. HSA has established criteria for panel selections Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2010 Response 2010 Response Text Required 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 3. The Office of Contract Administration (Office of Contract Administration) Department of Will Not Be DCYF is available to work with OCA in developing a grants tracking system. DCYF is unable to implement an Bad, The Ugly should develop a tracking system for grants. Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not action for OCA. Families Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 3. The Office of Contract Administration (Office of Contract Administration) Department of Will Not Be Not DPH. Bad, The Ugly should develop a tracking system for grants. Public Health Implemented: Not Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 3. The Office of Contract Administration (Office of Contract Administration) Human Services Will Not Be We disagree with this recommendation as written. OCA does not have the authority to award any grants so it Bad, The Ugly should develop a tracking system for grants. Agency Implemented: Not serves no purpose to have OCA track them. These are departmental awards and the tracking rests with the Warranted or Not Departments and their respective Commissions. Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 4. The Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel should develop with each Department Department of Will Not Be DCYF is available to work with the Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel to set uniform set of procedures for Bad, The Ugly a uniform set of procedures for nonprofit grant administration. Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not nonprofit grant administration. DCYF is unable to implement an action for OCA. Families Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 4. The Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel should develop with each Department Department of Will Not Be Not DPH. Bad, The Ugly a uniform set of procedures for nonprofit grant administration. Public Health Implemented: Not Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 4. The Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel should develop with each Department Human Services Will Not Be Grant procedures are very clearly defined in the G-100 grant form instructions as overseen by the City Bad, The Ugly a uniform set of procedures for nonprofit grant administration. Agency Implemented: Not attorney’s Office. Each Department is responsible for the administration of their grants in accordance with the Warranted or Not requirements of the funding source and the City Administrative code. Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 5. Departments should use Cost of Reimbursement instead of Units of Service Department of Recommendation The department uses cost reimbursement as a method of payment. Bad, The Ugly as the method of payment in every RFP. Children, Youth, & Implemented Families 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 5. Departments should use Cost of Reimbursement instead of Units of Service Department of Will Not Be This would increase cost and reduce accountability for units of service. Bad, The Ugly as the method of payment in every RFP. Public Health Implemented: Not Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 5. Departments should use Cost of Reimbursement instead of Units of Service Human Services Recommendation The Department has always based our contracted services on a cost reimbursement basis. Bad, The Ugly as the method of payment in every RFP. Agency Implemented 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 6. A database of sole source waivers including all cost should be maintained Department of Will Not Be DCYF is unable to implement an action that is not under DCYF's purview. Sole Source Waivers are under the Bad, The Ugly under the oversight of the DCA. Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not oversight of OCA. Families Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 6. A database of sole source waivers including all cost should be maintained Department of Will Not Be Not DPH Bad, The Ugly under the oversight of the DCA. Public Health Implemented: Not Warranted or Not Reasonable 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 6. A database of sole source waivers including all cost should be maintained Human Services Recommendation OCA already maintains a database that contains the pertinent information from the Sole Source waiver forms. Bad, The Ugly under the oversight of the DCA. Agency Implemented 2008-09 CGJ Year Report Title Recommendation Response 2010 Response 2010 Response Text Required 2008-09 Nonprofits: The Good, The 7. The practice of targeted Addbacks should be stopped. Board of Will Not Be FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Bad, The Ugly Supervisors Implemented: Not that regarding
R15:
The Board of Supervisors should give the Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel Board of FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors reports that Recommendation No. 15 requires further 2008-09 Bad, The Ugly responsibility for developing a monitoring and performance measurement Supervisors Analysis analysis./ (Resolution No. 475-09) system based on a taxonomy of nonprofit outcomes for human and health services' programs provided by nonprofits and their indicators as developed by the Urban Institute/The Center for What Works or a similar system. Nonprofits: The Good, The
R16:
The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on Will Not Be DCYF is unable to implement this action for other city departments. However, DCYF is available to work with 2008-09 Department of Bad, The Ugly DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a Children, Youth, & Implemented: Not other departments in developing a comprehensive contract management system. minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program Warranted or Not Families tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking Reasonable should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Nonprofits: The Good, The
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
A non-punitive truancy mediation program under the direction of the District Attorney's office would encourage school attendance and eliminate the need for many SST and SART hearings.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Resolve the stakes are high enough and the evidence strong enough to warrant greater involvement by the Board of Supervisors in the fight against truancy.
F2:
SFUSD employs talented persons whose interests, for whatever reason(s), do not lie in marshaling the district's resources to ensure that every child gets to school.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 3(A) 3(B) 3(C) 3(D) 4 Response Board of Supervisors Χ Х Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ
F3:
Collection of reliable data and proper distribution of such data is a prerequisite for understanding the true nature and extent of the truancy crisis. SFUSD is not collecting nor distributing to appropriate SFUSD personnel and outside agencies data from which it can be determined the reasons for truancy, the demographic information, the interventions attempted and the outcomes of such interventions. Using aggregate data does not violate student privacy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
SFUSD should work with the District Attorney's office or the Chief Probation Officer to establish a non-punitive truancy mediation program.
F4:
Parents primarily are responsible to get their kids to school. When parents fail to do so, the school district, with the assistance of other agencies, has the ability and the responsibility to take corrective action. SFUSD is not using the tools available to it and is not providing in a timely fashion to other agencies the information necessary for them to intervene.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Direct the Joint City and School District Select Committee to ensure Recommendation Numbers 2 and 3 (above) are implemented. Recommendation 2 1 3(A) 3(B) 3(C) 3(D) 4 Response Board of Supervisors Χ Х Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ Endnotes
F5:
Despite the efforts of the Mayor, the District Attorney and the Superintendent of Schools, neither the Board of Supervisors nor the Board of Education have determined which of them will take the lead in creating and implementing a truancy reduction policy. Finding 2 1 3
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
SFPD and SFUSD should increase, not curtail, the number of SROs to serve all middle schools. SRO responsibility should include (1) serving as part of a homeroom team for habitual truants, and (2) having SROs deliver the first written warning for the truant to take home and be signed by a parent or guardian.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R6:
SFUSD should establish attendance award programs in all schools.
Findings & Recommendations
22 findings
F1:
There is no coordinated effort to determine overall citywide needs or strategies for distributing funds to nonprofits, other than the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds distributed through the Mayor's Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
City government has established a broad system of collecting community input, with opportunities to provide input regarding goals and priorities for funding of local discretionary dollars.
F2:
There are no formal qualifications for individuals serving on the panels that rank competitive grant proposals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Past experience and performance on previous grants are not always considered during the selection process.
F3:
Unlike contracts there is no systematic tracking of grants.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
The Controller maintains a database of nonprofits that do business with the City. Contracts with nonprofits fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Contract Administration, whereas grants to nonprofits are not tracked citywide.
R12:
The Office of Contract Administration should be given the task of tracking the compliance rate on nonprofit grant consolidation across all City departments.
R16:
The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
F4:
The magnitude of money and the lack of tracking and coordination of grants provide a potential for abuse in the allocation of grants.
F5:
Lack of coordination and different procedures for each department within and among departments adds to time and overhead for departments and nonprofits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
7. CREATE STANDARDIZED AND SIMPLIFIED CONTRACT FORMS (STANDARDIZED AND SIMPLIFIED FORMS) ✓ Milestone: TBD by Interdepartmental Working Group (In Process) Interdepartmental Working Group will meet to begin evaluating standardized forms (scope of work, budget, invoice, monitoring reports), and begin drafting best practice models to be distributed to other City departments and posted on OCA's website. The Interdepartmental Working Group will develop contract format and forms for outcome driven services that define: (1) language and service definitions; (2) monitoring protocols; and (3) reporting requirements (recommendation #10). ✓ Milestone: Fall 2006 (In Process) The Review/Appellate Panel will review the progress of implementing standardized forms (or development of alternative standardized forms) by other City departments. ✓ Milestone: September 2006 (In Process) The Review/Appellate Panel will evaluate draft best practice model and consider nonprofit feedback. (Done, but need NP feedback.) ✓ Milestone: To Be Determined: (In Process) The Interdepartmental Working Group will develop form for contractors to provide feedback on definitions and monitoring of outcome driven services (recommendation #10). ✓ 8. ESTABLISH ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR NONPROFITS CONTRACTORS (ACCOUNTING STANDARDS) - Completed The Controller's Office has published and disseminated a Finance Guide for Nonprofits Attachment A: Milestones 11/03/06 in November of 2004 and provided two training sessions on the Finance Guide for approximately 70 nonprofit contractors in April 2005. In June of 2005, the Controller's Office coordinated another training session on cost allocation procedures, which was attended by over 100 nonprofits. As a follow up to this training, and to further clarify the City's expectations regarding cost allocation practices, the Controller's Office has developed written cost allocation guidelines for nonprofits contracting with the City. The Cost Allocation Guidelines, the Finance Guide and all related materials from these trainings are available online at www.sfgov/controller (see Resources for Nonprofits). 9. COORDINATE JOINT PROGRAM MONITORING (JOINT PROGRAM MONITORING) ✓ Completed in September 2005 (Completed) • Since September 2005, the Controller's Office has been facilitating monthly working group meetings with representatives from DCYF, DPH and HSA to discuss monitoring results and refine standard monitoring procedures. This process is ongoing. Milestone: June 2006 √ • Sixty-seven organizations with multiple contracts across DCYF, DPH and HSA will undergo a standard fiscal and compliance monitoring by June 30, 2006. (Completed) A similar or greater number of contractors will experience this standard monitoring in • FY 06-07 with expanded participation from other City departments who were not participating in the efforts this fiscal year. (This item is separated from the above bullet point for this report.) Milestone: FY 06-07 √ • The Controller's Office will transition the leadership/facilitation of the monthly working group meetings to the departments during FY 06-07. (In Process) √ • HSN will assist to provide feedback to the Review/Appellate Panel from the contractors' perspective, on the experience and efficacy of the shared monitoring process. (Completed) √• Coordinated monitoring will be further enhanced by a shared master calendar and shared access to monitoring forms and reports on COOL. (Completed and On- going) √• Departments will prove timely written notice of at least 14 days prior to the monitoring visit date as well as a timely written report back on the results of the monitoring visit back to the contractor within 30 days, if possible, but not beyond 90 days. If the program report is not completed within 30 days, then the department conducting the monitoring will issue a notice indicating that the program report was not completed as scheduled. (Completed, developed new timelines and procedures) Attachment A: Milestones 11/03/06 10. DEVELOP STANDARD MONITORING PROTOCOLS, LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS TO CLEARLY DEFINE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS (STANDARD MONITORING PROTOCOLS) ✓ Milestone: FY 06-07 (In Process) Upon renewal, each contract will be revised to include clear language and service • definitions, clearly defined monitoring protocols (specifically what will be monitored and when), and clearly specified reporting requirements. The above will be contained in the scope of services document and will be mutually agreed upon by both the funding agency and the service provider. During the period following the renewal (fiscal year) the above revisions will be analyzed to develop outcome driven services to be implemented in subsequent renewals or RFPs. The lengthy service objectives narratives currently contained in many scopes of services shall be streamlined to contain the mutually agreed upon outcomes and methodology for measuring progress towards meeting those outcomes. Protocols for standard fiscal & compliance monitoring were completed and are being used with multi-departmental contractors in FY 05-06; ongoing efforts are focused on program monitoring protocols. The contract renewal/negotiation process should allow departments and contractors to determine what will be monitored and how. Departments should focus monitoring on what is specifically agreed to in the contract, and will adopt findings of Federal or State monitoring, when appropriate. 11. PROVIDE TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL WHO MONITOR CONTRACTS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF PROGRAMS, SERVICES AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON PROTOCOLS (TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL) ✓ Milestone: June 2006 (Completed) The Controller's Office, in collaboration with the monitoring working group, will conduct a year-end survey of the 67 multi-departmental contractors to get their feedback on their fiscal, compliance and program monitoring experience in FY 05-06.
R9:
The lack of coordination and different reporting and compliance procedures for each department (even within departments) was identified as a key problem in the report of the Nonprofit Contracting Task Force (2003) because it adds time and overhead to non-profit work. Progress was later made to make fiscal compliance methods more consistent between departments.
F6:
Billing by Unit of Service could allow budgeted costs, which were not actually spent, to be included in the invoice charged to the City, because the invoice is based on number of clients served (at agreed estimate of cost) not by the actual cost of serving those clients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
DPH has a billing method based upon a Unit of Service reimbursement, while other city departments operate under Line Item Cost reimbursement of actual expenses incurred.
F7:
Sole Source Waivers issued are tracked by number of waivers issued to a department and not to whom the waivers were given or for what purpose.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Only DPH has authority to issue Sole Source Waivers from the competitive bidding requirements of the City without previous consent of the City. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has a list by department of the number of Sole Source Contracts.
F8:
Targeted Addbacks to the city budget are taking place, even though they are against Procurement Rules: City Charter (2.114. Non Interference in Administration)
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Board of Supervisors has violated the Charter by making direct contracting decisions though targeted Addbacks. Through this procedure, the Board of Supervisors has continued the longstanding practice of allocating some City funds directly to specific contractors. Recommendations
F9:
Targeted Addbacks are often a result of lobbying by special interest groups.
F10:
Targeted Addbacks circumvent the contract process established by the city departments.
F11:
Targeted Addbacks negate the expertise of the city departments.
F12:
Targeted Addbacks do not follow the budget amendment process established by the City Charter and circumvent the regular competitive solicitation processes that City departments must follow, sometimes causing departments enter sole source contracts.
F13:
Targeted Addbacks impede the ability of city departments to hold nonprofit contractors accountable for poor performance. (Partnering with Nonprofits in Tough Times: Recommendations from SF Community Based Task Force, April 2009)
F14:
The Board of Supervisors has violated the Charter by making direct contracting decisions though targeted Addbacks. Through this procedure, the Board of Supervisors has continued the longstanding practice of allocating some City funds directly to specific contractors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
The Board of Supervisors has violated the Charter by making direct contracting decisions though targeted Addbacks. Through this procedure, the Board of Supervisors has continued the longstanding practice of allocating some City funds directly to specific contractors. Recommendations
F15:
Consolidation of backroom operations would save the City money.
Related Recommendations (2)
R11:
A Consolidated Backroom Unit should be set up with the Office of Contract Administration (OCA) to provide back-office operations for nonprofits. Back Office Operations 15 11
R15:
Consolidation of backroom operations would save the City money. Recommendation
F16:
The monitoring/oversight of the fiscal component of contract/grants between the City departments and nonprofits has improved since the 2000-01 recommendations identified the problems.
F17:
The City Nonprofit Task Force focused on the fiscal monitoring of the contracts/grants between the City departments and nonprofits. Joint monitoring of nonprofits in fiscal matters is efficient for both the City departments and the nonprofits in that staff time utilized is reduced.
F18:
The Office of Contract Administration does not track grants made to nonprofit organization.
Related Recommendations (2)
R12:
The Office of Contract Administration should be given the task of tracking the compliance rate on nonprofit grant consolidation across all City departments.
R16:
The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
F19:
DCYF's CMS is admired by other departments and could be incorporated into their monitoring of nonprofits.
F20:
There are few performance measurement systems being used by City departments to monitor and evaluate nonprofits' goals and objectives.
Related Recommendations (2)
R13:
The Nonprofit Review/Appellate Panel should be given the directive to study the compliance rate on joint monitoring within and among all City departments and to make recommendations to bring compliance to 100%.
R16:
The City should develop a comprehensive software system (modeled on DCYF's CMS) that can monitor and track all grants and contracts citywide. At a minimum, the system should contain three functions: fiscal tracking, program tracking and performance metric tracking. Fiscal tracking and program tracking should be administered by departments but accessible citywide. Metric tracking should be a function of the Office of the Mayor. Monitoring and Performance Measurement 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
F21:
DCYF has a system that tracks program goals and objectives on a monthly basis.
F22:
Systems have been developed that enable nonprofit performance to be evaluated using common outcome indicators.
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R3:
The City "leverages" local money to obtain more federal and state dollars. Many grants come from outside funding sources with their own priorities that may not be in line with local goals and objectives. Most federal and state grants require matching funds from the City.
R6:
A contract and scope of work are negotiated with the nonprofit after it has been selected to receive a grant
R10:
The Controller expressed concern about the procurement process in the 2003 report "Sole Source Contracts", .
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F1:
through 15 1 and 10 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
through 14 8 13.b and 13.c [P.C. 933.05(a)] requires a response to each finding of either: “agree with the finding”, or “disagree wholly or partially with the finding” with appropriate explanations and corrections. [P.C. 933.05(b)] requires a response to each recommendation of either: “has been implemented”, “will be implemented”, or “will not implement”, with appropriate summaries, times and explanations.
Additional Recommendations
14
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Mayor should establish key metrics for key departments and report quarterly to the citizens on progress.
R3:
Annual staff evaluations should be based on PM metrics.
R4:
The Mayor should ensure that heads of departments reduce the number of metrics used within their departments to a manageable number that support the goals the Mayor has given to the department.
R5:
The Mayor should delegate PM leadership to his Chief of Staff (COS).
R6:
The COS must be educated in Performance Measurement to drive the PM program.
R7:
A CPO should be appointed from within the existing PM qualified staff, reporting to the COS.
R8:
The CPO should select two assistants from within the existing qualified staff.
R9:
All three PM professionals must be fully dedicated to PM and not have any responsibilities to the Controller.
R10:
The Mayor should appoint a Performance Measurement review committee to include at least the COS, the Controller and the PM Unit.
R11:
The reporting chain could look like this MMaayyoorr CChhiieeff ooff SSttaaffff CCPPOO PPMM SSttaaffff PPMM CCoommmmiitttteeee BBiigg DDeeppaarrttmmeennttss SSmmaallll DDeeppaarrttmmeennttss UUnniittss
R12:
The CPO should write a Performance Measurement plan for the City, derived from best practices in PM from around the country.
R13:
The PM plan should include at least these components: a. The use of Efficiency Plans such that strategic goals, plans and programs give rise to metrics that can be included in the PM system. b. Metrics that are set by the Mayor for department heads, by department heads for their managers, and by managers for their staff. c. Metrics that reflect the Mayor’s goals for departments. d. Metrics that are for the fiscal year and are not to be changed. e. Reviews of large departments by the PM Committee in formal session at least monthly and smaller departments not less than every six months. f. Training for department heads and line managers in PM practices.
R14:
The Jury recommends changes to these metrics that are related to PM: a. The 311 system should be tied into the PM system to establish targets for City services. Pending automating that process, the data should be entered manually. b. Managers should link PPA objectives to PM metrics where that makes sense. c. MEA bonuses should be rolled into regular compensation.
R15:
The Jury recommends this Performance Measurement implementation schedule a. The CPO should implement an abbreviated PM Plan containing at least metrics assigned by the Mayor to department heads by 31 December 2009. b. The CPO should fully implement PM by 1 July 2010. Responses are required from: The Mayor The Controller Director, Human Resources
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
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R4:
DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Program) Officers participating in DROP would continue to receive their regular pay and benefits. DROP participants would begin accumulating their regular retirement payments, frozen at the level that the officer had earned upon entry into DROP. These payments would be placed in a tax deferred DROP account maintained by the City’s Retirement system. At the end of the DROP period, officers would begin receiving their regular monthly retirement payment, as well as their retirement benefits that had accumulated in their DROP account, in a lump sum. An officer can earn a salary and a retirement pension at the same time from the same employer, a practice some call “double dipping”. For example, a 55-year-old police officer who enters the program while earning $100,000 annually could receive a lump sum of $225,000 after three years. The Proposition provides that the City should not incur any overall cost increase due to the creation and operation of the DROP. This Charter amendment requires periodic evaluation by the City of the costs of the program to ensure its cost neutrality. PENSIONS, BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO PAY, A REPORT BY THE 2008-2009 SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL GRAND JURY
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
17
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Roger Lowenstein, While America Aged, The Penguin Press, New York, 2008
R2:
Philip LaVelle, “New board for pension has tough task ahead”, San Diego Union Tribune, April 14, 2005
R5:
See Figure 10 for the historical and projected increase in CCSF Employer Contribution Rates.
R6:
Task force created against pension fund abuse (Global Pensions May 5th 2009). Thirty-six attorney general's offices are set to create a multi-state task force to explore pension fund abuse across the country, New York State attorney general Andrew Cuomo has said, “The task force is intended to enable states to share vital information to prosecute wrongdoing and facilitate nationwide reform. The task force will allow us to have a unified, efficient method for gathering information as we fight to combat corruption and restore transparency and integrity to public pension funds.”
R8:
Present value calculation for SFFD was $107 million and SFPD was $24 million. See
R9:
A Lieutenant was temporarily assigned to a rank of Battalion Chief during the course of the last year of before his retirement. This action was authorized by the Fire Chief and sanctioned under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the San Francisco Firefighters Union (Local 798) dated July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011. As a result of being assigned to Battalion Chief, the Lieutenant contributed a onetime amount of $1,915 into the pension fund during his last year of employment. This payment increased his pension amount by $25,542 per year. The effect of the “spike” was to increase his pension by 22% a year over the pension amount that he would have received at the rank of Lieutenant. The value of a $25,542 increase over his actuarial lifetime (29.6 years) was calculated to be $296,000. If one deducts his original contribution and the contribution the City made to the fund, the liability incurred by the City and the active members of the SFERS was $293,000. The above example was based on the actual retirement record of a 52 year old Fire Lieutenant, who started his career in 1981 and worked for 26.5 years for the Fire department.
R10:
The practice permitted an officer making $88,000/year in his final year of service to retire at an initial pension of $110,000/year, due to an assignment that allowed him to earn a rate of $111,000/year for the last 3 months prior to retirement. Cost of living and other increases in his pension benefits have boosted his current retirement pay to $113,000. This pension benefit is 121% higher that it would have been if he retired without any change in rank.
R11:
Email received from SFERS Deputy Director. Final Compensation is defined in Charter citations A8.595-1 and A8.559-1 for “Old Plan” members and A8.596-1 and A8.585-1 for “New Plan” members. There are specific Safety Pay Types that are included/excluded in PENSIONS, BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO PAY, A REPORT BY THE 2008-2009 SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL GRAND JURY Final Compensation as outlined in a final judgment to a lawsuit won by SFERS in the Superior Court. We found the Pay Type of “WDO” – Work Day Off was not indicated as a pay type to be included in Final Compensation. We contacted the Executive Director and the Deputy Director of SFERS for an explanation of why the WDO pay type was included in the determination of this employee’s Final Compensation and the resulting increase in his retirement benefit. The Executive Director and the Deputy Director have not responded to our specific inquiry.
R12:
Email dated June 19, 2009 from SFERS Deputy Director SFERS.
R14:
State of California, Funding Pensions & Retiree Health Care for Public Employees- A Report of the Post-Employment Benefits Commission, 2008.
R15:
SFERS Annual Reports – 2003 to 2008.
R16:
Dave Umhoefer, “Pension Twist Costs County Millions”, Journal Sentinel Watchdog Report, Milwaukee County, July 29, 2007.
R17:
Email From Deputy Director SFERS, July 24, 2009 o “The policies regarding the DROP program have been developed and implemented (see DROP booklet previously provided). The systems for calculation and accounting for DROP are approximately 80 to 85% complete.
R18:
SFCGJ Internal Analysis 55 DROP members deferred compensation provided by SFERS.
R19:
People’s Advocate Research Report, “30 Ways to Spike your Pension.”
R20:
Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions (Issued 6/04)
R21:
SFERS administers a 2 tier benefit system. Employees who became plan members before 11/2/1976 are said to be Old Plan members while Employees who became members after 11/2/1976 are said to be New Plan member. Each of the plans have had subsequent voter approved Charter Amendments. PENSIONS, BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO PAY, A REPORT BY THE 2008-2009 SAN FRANCISCO CIVIL GRAND JURY
* 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.