supervisor chu: thank you. i want to thank the civil grand jury for your work on this issue, and in addition, i want to thank the mayor's office of disability, the disability council, and all the departments to have taken the time to review and respond to the document as well. at this time, we do have item two, also, which has been called. it is the response of the board of supervisors to the 2009-2010 grand jury report. if we look at the actual underlying document, there actually is no response to findings yet from the board of supervisors, so if we take a look at page four of the legislation, beginning on line 18, is really just sort of a place holder for us to put in our findings as well. mr. share, after hearing from the departments, if i could make a motion -- mr. chair, we are

responding to items one, two, four, five, and 6. i would make a motion that we adopt the city attorney response to finding number 1 and to recommendation on the one -- recommendation number 1. i also recommend we adopt the mayor's department of responsibility's response to finding two, four, and six, as well as their response to the recommendations for items two, four, and six, and also make a motion to adopt the department of public works' response to recommendation 5 and finding five. supervisor mar: thank you. any objections? then we have adopted those responses to the findings and recommendations. supervisor chu: i will make a motion to send this out, to send item two out, as amended, to the

full board with recommendation, and to file item one. supervisor mar: without objection, so moved. is there anything else on this item, supervisor chu? thank you. thank you, everyone, for coming up, and the activism around complying with the 88. could you call the next item? >> item 3, motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to audit the department of children, youth, and their families. supervisor mar: item 3 is also called by supervisor alioto-per. is there someone from her office -- supervisor alioto-pier. is there someone from her office? no one is here from the office. let me just say that this is a motion that direct the budget

and when it -- and legislative analyst's office to audit the department of children, youth, and their families. is there someone from the budget and legislative analyst's office? thank you, ms. newman. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm here to discuss this motion. however, i would note that we have had discussions with supervisor alioto-pier's office, regarding this audit, and we had prepared with them if an amendment that is to my understanding they were going to approve this morning to narrow the focus of that audit, to not do really an audit of dcyf, but rather to revise it to a direct and more interdepartmental audit of the cd's program to provide early childhood care and

education services. i do have one version of what i understood they were going to be presenting this morning. i could go over that, but i have understood that they were going to be submitting it and presenting a this morning. i will take your direction on how to proceed on this. my understanding is that it was a more narrow focus, and to work with the early childhood programs. we had prepared a report to the committee today on the revised scope. and i can go over that if you want. supervisor chu: if i could make a recommendation, my understanding is that supervisor alioto-pier's office would be coming to make a presentation to also explain what the change in scope would be, the limited scope would be, so maybe if we

could do for this item to later in the agenda so we could allow for supervisor alioto-pier's legislative aide to come by, and maybe we could ask the clerk. supervisor mar: great. we will delay action on this item. can you call item four? >> item four, motion directing the budget and legislative analyst to conduct a review of police practices -- of aging in place practices and resources. supervisor mar: this is an item from my office urging the budget -- requesting the budget and legislative analyst's office to further delve into the issue of aging in place practices and resources in the city to implement the proposed additional research. legislative analyst would determine the approximate number of aging adults on affordable housing and public housing, collective summarized demographic information about aging adults in san francisco,

review independent living programs and models, including shared housing programs, volunteer health advocacy programs, and the nonprofit retirement village models. that is aging in place retirement village models. also provide legislative recommendations for incentives that encourage property owners to make residential upgrades that increase accessibility and safety for aging adults. that is the proposal. i would like to ask ms. newman to also make some comments. >> certainly. again, debra newman from the budget analysts office. let me give -- let me step back and maybe just give a little overview of where we are on our audit program. as you know, as part of our budget and legislative analyst contract, one of the functions that we do provide for the board of supervisors is audit services.

these generally, as requests from the members of the board. to date this year, we have conducted the mta, the first phase analysis of that, the revenue analysis, and concluded the small business audit. we have approximately 4500 hours each year to dedicate to audit services. we have expended to date about 1500 hours on the, so this applies to both this audit and the earlier one that i will not go into detail right now, but we have more than sufficient capacity currently between now and the rest of the year to all the audit assignments that are before us. this is within the scope of our existing contract. in fact, even if both of these audits were assigned to us, we

still have sufficient capacity to move forward with other audits. i would encourage you to move forward would definitely the audit of supervisor mar pose a presenting on the seniors in place. we have done some additional work -- initial work for the office that has brought us to this place that we realize that the elderly community is growing at a faster rate in san francisco, and we are attempting to look at some of the demographics about that aging community in terms of income, ethnicity, languages, and to look at independent living options to be able to encourage the aging in place that the elderly will be able to stay in their homes, live more independently, say as members of

the community, so that we will also be looking at best practices that are currently in use in san francisco as well as other communities and coming forward with legislative recommendations for incentives that would encourage property owners to make this necessary residential upgrades to increase accessibility and safety for aging adults. we estimate that this audit will require approximately 255 hours to complete and that we could complete this audit and present it to you in september. as you know, the board is going on recess in the near future, and much of our legislative work does slowdown in, and is a perfect opportunity to begin work on an audit such as this. supervisor mar: thank you. let me give a bit further background. there has been a group of senior

organizations and add it -- advocates and activists that have been working with my office, so a lot of the questions and framing of the previous report by the budget analyst office and then these new questions and research issues and areas have been driven by activism of senior organizations, but also people like me that our baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, the 72 million people in the u.s. that came about after the end of world war ii and that will be entering a very rapidly the senior ranks and demographic group within the city and around the country. the data that the previous report shows that 20% of the city put the population as people over 65 years old, but i think within 20 years, the population will increase, i think, 60%. the senior population will

increase by about 60%. that is why it is critical to understand the housing needs and to develop stronger policies and to implement other task force recommendations of different offices of the mayor and task forces from previous years so that we become an aging friendly city in the future. but 255 hours to do this work by september, and this information should be very valuable for the task force an alliance of individuals that are working for stronger the gene-friendly city legislation for the future, so i urge support by my colleagues. -- the aging-friendly city legislation. supervisor chu: in our package, i see the motion on the legislation, but i do not have with me what the scope of the work might be. do you happen to have a copy of that anywhere? >> we did prepare a report for today's meeting. hopefully, you received that. we are now electronically

sending all reports, so i am sure it will be sent to you. i can get a copy of that to you this afternoon, and there are a number of bullet points there that identify what the scope of services would be. supervisor chu: thank you. i would be happy to support this going forward, but if i could in the intervening week asked the budget analyst to send the document to me that has the scope of work as well as the hours. >> absolutely. supervisor mar: other questions? ok, let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak out in support of this measure. i count myself as part of that

aging baby boomer population, and i expect to live in san francisco and see the final demise of this once great city. i'm expecting to be proven wrong, but most of the information i have seen over the last four years indicates that i may be wrong or right. i think that i'm right. anyway, back to the subject matter, one of the recommendations as part of the listing here on the page mentions of the seniors getting proper services as they age. since so many seniors have to go to san francisco general hospital for necessary care, i would like to reiterate my request that san francisco general the audited financially based on the financial recommendations of the 2003 report which was issued by the board of supervisors.

i'm still confused as to why a request to reexamine those recommendations is still meeting opposition on the board level because i think, realistically, if an audit was done of general hospital, it would make seniors feel more comfortable using the services there. as everyone knows, there was a recent horrible incident involving a disabled chinese man at san francisco general hospital, who was, in my opinion, traded very maliciously by the staff. as far as i can see, there has been a follow-up public report to explain why this victim lay bleeding in his bed and was ignored allegedly by the staff until the wife came later that night. things like that are an indication that there are problems at the hospital, so one would suspect that that needs to

be checked out if seniors like myself have to go to general hospital and -- in the future for care, so i think if we are going to support this item, we need to examine closely services that need to be used by seniors as they get older. most of us seniors by the time we get to be 70, 80, and maybe 90 years old -- we are not going to have a choice as to where to go for service. most likely, most of us will be taken to general hospital, and then, i kind of hope that it is going to treat me and the others fairly rather than have that unfortunate incident happened to that disabled chinese man who incidently could not speak english. thank you. supervisor mar: 90. is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion on this item? so move, without objection. why don't we go back to item

three? on the dcyf of it -- audit. i do not see supervisor alioto- pier. by their recommendations? should we continue this to the call of the chair? >> the clerk has just advised me that she has just heard from alioto-pier's office. >> bill barnes is recommending that you put it forward. supervisor mar: can you give a brief overview of how the scope has been narrowed significantly sell it is not a full audit of dcyf but as a very narrow one? >> certainly i can explain. our conversations with supervisor alioto-pier's office and her staff, and i do have, which i can submit to the clark, are our language on the

rewording of the motion that is before you that it is my and a standing they were going to present today. supervisor mar: supervisor daly is suggesting that someone from dcyf, that we try to get comments from dcyf as well. >> should i finish? i do believe there are representatives from dcyf present also. there was concern about doing an entire audit. our understanding is that the controller's office has just completed some work looking at some of the programs and nonprofits that are provided. we have begun looking at that, and that will be one of the starting point. because of that, there was also concerned about early childhood education and care, and that area in specific is what we

would be looking at. we would identify those city departments that actually provide early childhood education and care. these would include dcyf, human services agency, the first five commission, department of public health, recreation and park, and other city departments. we would also evaluate if the city policies and standards for providing early childhood care and education are contradictory or inconsistent. we have some understanding that there are different programs that are going on by different city agencies, and we would look at that. we would then identified as best practices -- identify those best practices for citywide early childhood education. this would be for san francisco and elsewhere. we would evaluate the duplication of services among city departments, and also those gaps in any program services, those services that were

utilized and in underserved communities within the city and county. we would then also look at federal, state, local, or private foundation funding sources for programs for early childhood education service, and look at the city departments that are applying for these funds and how they are using this funding sources. we would also look at any potential overlaps or gaps in providing funding for these various early childhood education and care programs, and look at the department's oversight of the funds and the providers. we would not actually look at the nonprofit providers of these services, but look at it only from the city's perspective in providing that oversight. in terms of consistent criteria for evaluating the program performance, the use of the program evaluation and making program funding decisions. we will also evaluate the city's early childhood education care

coordinate with child health programs. this could be a potential problem. we would also identify opportunities for improved coordination and consolidation of the department's early childhood care and education program. we estimate that this audit or study would require approximately 1000 hours of our staff time and that we could complete it by the end of october. again, as i indicated from the earlier audit, we have the capacity within our existing contract to take on this study of early childhood care and education at this time. we would commence it immediately, especially during supervisors break when we will have available staff to place on

this assignment, and even if both of these assignments were given to us at this time, we would have additional capacity to take on other work when the committee and the board resumed. on that note, i would indicate that in discussions with the chair, we have talked about coming back before this committee in september to talk about the overall work plan moving forward. in terms of other projects, we would welcome other projects and assignments from this committee and other members of the board as we come back to you in september after your break to talk about our additional assignments going forward. supervisor mar: thank you. we have comments from representatives from dcyf.

>> good morning, supervisors. thank you very much for inviting us to comment. in general, our office is actually ready to respond to the audit. in particular, we look forward to the narrowing the scope of this audit. when we first heard about the dcyf study and audit, we were curious to know in what ways we could participate further. since we play a smaller role in the larger investment, we are glad to hear that this will be an interdepartmental effort, and we look forward to your further guidance to cooperate with the office. >> it is active in, i guess. city-wide child-care administrator, and to echo that

comment, we really welcome the opportunity to work with the departmental audit as we jointly fund, joint discussions around policy and planning and services, and also work with eph. it will be a welcome opportunity to dialogue about how we might be able to interconnect with services and programs. supervisor mar: can i just ask a question? i know that through the early childhood education funds, there has been an effort to try to urge the city to look at better coordination of early childhood education program in. could you talk a little bit about what is currently going on with dcyf and hsa and first five and other early childhood education in duties? >> are you speaking of the mayor's proposal to online the two city departments?

at this time, dcyf and hsa have been hosting community forums. we had two. they were duplicates of one another, where we shared the background and history of the effort to align city departments around early care and education policy planning and financing. we spoke about the vision for early care education in the city. we also spoke about objectives and the next community forum will be held next month in august. first 5 has been present, but again, the mayor's directive was city departments, so they are engaged in the conversation and have shed their commitment to be a strategic partner. that is where we are today. -- shared their commitment to be a strategic partner. supervisor mar: sounds like this 1000-hour service of it and study, to be completed by halloween some time, should be helpful in this process of increasing efficiencies within

our departments and better communication for early childhood education, so i think this is a very good use of the powers of the budget analyst, and i think this will help inform and guide some of the efforts already going on as well, but thank you for the great work. supervisor chu: just a clarification to the budget analyst -- from my understanding, this will now be an audit that is not necessarily only focused on dcyf. it will be a number of other departments. >> department of public health, because of some of the child health programs. supervisor chu: ok, so the document we have before us will have to be changed then. i'm imagining we will have an amendment as a whole, particularly if we do send this out to the full board of supervisors, but from my understanding, the scope of the audit has changed such that now,

we will no longer be focusing solely on dcyf. we'll also be concentrating on first five, hsa, and and organizations in the city that do have a hand at early childhood education in the city, correct? >> that is correct, but my understanding it is actually a narrowing of the focus. supervisor chu: right, and in terms of the population, the population now is early childhood, so we are talking about zero to five, i would imagine? >> i believe that is correct. that would probably be one of the first tasks we would do, define the scope. >> when we talk about the joint founders, and we primarily talk about early childhood, but we also fund child care, which goes up to 12, so many of our programs that serve the 05 population also did after-school time, so some time there are

linkages, but i would imagine that the scope of the work, because the program serves children up to that age, that it will cover children older than five -- programs that serve the zero to five population. supervisor chu: one of the issues is that the lines on page two, lines 1214, authorizes the use of the commission to recommend programs and areas of importance to be reviewed. that probably would not be relevant, given the fact that we are concentrating on 05, i would imagine -- on zero to five, i would imagine. ok, that is all my questions. supervisor mar: supervisor, were you suggesting those as amendments that should be added this language into our motion? supervisor chu: i was actually trying to make sure that i do have clarification because the document before us does not have reference to any of the other departments.

if we are focusing on the 025 population, then the youth commission would not necessarily be the best organization to provide programmatic descriptions -- on the zero to five population. supervisor mar: this is amended language? >> that was the motion that was handed in earlier. >> that is the language we drafted and submitted to the supervisor's office. i believe that will be an amendment as a whole that we will submit. i do not know if they are going to make additional edits to the prior to submission. i suspect that is most of the changes that would be made. supervisor daly: i would actually make a motion to forward this item to the full

board without recommendation. i am interested in hearing from the sponsor of the item was the impetus for this audit is. it seems to be looking for work and in trying to craft its so that it makes sense, so -- as opposed to there being a clearing call from the public or some crisis of confidence or something that was found through budget deliberations or engagement with the community that brings us to hear, so i'm not opposed to the item or this being done, but i would like to hear from the sponsor why she thinks we should be going in this direction. so that would be my motion. supervisor mar: ok, and i think that is a valid point. supervisor chu: i'm wondering if we could -- just a friendly suggestion. perhaps what we could do is make an amendment as a whole and

excet