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 licy 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 except those that are initial draft reports because that represents a narrowing of the scope that the budget analyst has been in discussions with so that at least that will be part of the but the -- a public document that goes forward to the board of supervisors the public can look at, and i would be happy to send it forward with recommendations that -- without recommendation so we can hear from the project sponsor. supervisor mar: sounds like there is no objection to the friendly amendment as an amendment as a whole, and also, there is a motion to move this forward without recommendation to the full board. is there any objection to that motion? seeing none, we are going to move this as amended to the full

board without recommendation. any other comments, colleagues? did we open this up for public comment? no, we have not, so before taking action on this, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak >> -- that would like to speak? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to speak out in opposition to this, so in a certain sense, i am agreeing with supervisor daly. the reason i'm opposing this is that it seems to me that this organization was very well run, and according to the newspaper reports, she was removed and necessarily, so if we are going to do any audit of that agency, i think we ought to start with why she was removed.

according to my research, everyone agreed that she had done such a fine job, but somehow, she met the same fate as myself. in other words, if you are an able city employee, somehow, they find a reason to remove you. anyway, back to this motion, i think it is more relevant since ms. newman repeatedly says that she has so many hours to do audits. as a public service to san francisco, especially the poor and disabled, we ought to be doing it on san francisco general hospital, and if ms. newman feels she has enough time, we ought to do the whole department of public health. it's still baffles my mind why almost every supervisor has opposed any formal inquiry into san francisco general hospital and department of public health. according to ms. newman's own words, she said she had plenty of ours, and in order to maybe

expedite the process, since i myself work for 20 years at general hospital, i would gladly donate unlimited number of hours to point the budget analyst's office into areas where they should be checking this out. there was a 2003 financial audit done and presented to the board of supervisors. i'm still wondering why there is still opposition on the board level to doing a review to see whether those recommendations are carried out. doing something like that, i think, is far more helpful to the poor and disabled in san francisco who depend on the hospital's services rather than doing it on an agency, according to my research, that has not really had any problems. i have not seen any reports lately saying that there were problems with that agency. for the record, i did speak with supervisor alioto-pier

regarding an audit of general hospital back in 2007, and she politely refused to support that idea, so i agree with supervisor daly that maybe her thinking is a little off on this matter. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. there is a motion to amend this that has been moved without objection, and then we are going to move this forward to the full board without recommendations, without objection. so move. is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, there are no further items. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone, for coming. meeting is adjourned.