know you got a presentation on, was a presentation finding and was a significant effort for the city. i will turn the microphone over to tonya to touch on the major things planned for 2011 on the audit side. >> good morning. some of the things that we have planned on the audit side, we will be doing a performance audit for the mta unsustainable streets division operation. that comes as a result of the reform for mta. it is require that there is a major operations at audit performed within mta on an annual basis. so we will start with this division first. we will be doing an audit but with regard to dollars we received from the american recovery and reinvestment act. we have two audits that we will be performing for the redevelopment agency western

addition and bayview hunters point. we started a new program within our audit division for looking at city-wide cash transactions. we did a major survey. we've partnered with the treasury department and sent out a survey to all our departments. we had a 100% response rate. from that data, we have done a risk assessment and we are endeavoring to do 12 cash audits per annual for each fiscal year. we will be doing a mandated audit, as required by adnan code every three years. we have also started another code within the audit function, payroll audit. that does fall in line with the charter and we are looking at practices across the city. this year, we are going to do human services agency and fire department. last year, we did the police

department. we are endeavoring to do capital recovery projects as a result of bond money. we are to look at san francisco general hospital, rebuild the sea water system improvement programs, where we currently have two of its going on for the water system program. clean and safe neighborhoods park bond. branch library improvement program. supervisor mar: could i ask, if passed the stimulus -- are those standard for any local entity that gets federal money? >> yes. as you know, the federal government comes in and they have been doing various audits on the funding that we received. the government accountability office has been publishing audits. part of our process in being transparent with those funds is

doing an internal city audit as well with some of the funding that we receive at various departments. >> paralleling the discussion for the product side, this is a short list of some of our largest initiatives in this fiscal year. primary care and mental health integration. this is working with the city's public health department to integrate mental health into primary care. it requires a significant effort in terms of training, licensing, intake, billing, patient record management, lots of things that happen in a health clinic. we have staff time devoted to it and a consultant to contract with expert traders to -- who supports it. substance abuse evaluation program. this has been a long desire to look of the efficacy of our substance abuse programs. that is under way now. we will be releasing some results of this fiscal year. by next fiscal year we will have

finished the major part of it, and 18-month test of clients of ours. citywide contract and process improvements. this is an effort we are working on together with oca and the human rights commission to look at professional services contract in and how we might streamline some of the requirements and look at some of the vendor relationships with the city and make it easier to acquire professional services and to open up the markets to that to more vendors in a more straightforward way, improve the website, submissions, those types of things. i will touch on two other things. public safety analysis and problem-solving. we have done some analytical work with the police department. there is implementation work underway now with several things in the previous studies for them. problem-solving efforts in a couple of stations, a new way of working for the police

department. there are some datasets that we are having them build now to support their constat process. this is just a list of things that are somewhat programmatic that are ongoing. part inspections, using data on the city's street and sidewalks and in this and reporting. we have had a proposition a analysis. by next july, the board will be approving a five-year financial plan. our office is doing work on that to do projections. many of which will be city-wide. a level of detail that is somewhere between the mayor's budget report and the joint report. large departments will have specific schedules to look at during a period of time to look at the service cost delivery and how we expect it to change, given demographics, federal

funding, other things that we will know in the five-year horizon. supervisor maxwell: will then document be available to the public, will it be on line? >> we will probably put drafts of it on line as we are developing. we are also working on a communication stakeholder part of it. we do not anticipate a lot of town hall meetings or anything like that. but we will do some interviews, outreach, and have a road show that lets anyone of us on the city team working on it discuss it with labor organizations, community organizations, anybody else with interest. that is the end of our presentation, discussion. the document which includes our narrative discussion of high- level priorities ends at the $50,000 above lull.

at the posted on the controller website for some time. we certainly ask for your questions and comments. as you discussed the budget analyst program, there are a couple of areas where there might be some duplication and overlap which we should endeavor to clear out. we are happy to help with that. any other comments that tonya wanted to make -- >> i have no further comments. supervisor mar: thank you. any questions? supervisor maxwell: i guess -- the five-year plan was something that the voters voted on. that was just recently. proposition -- >> proposition a. you have already seen some of the outcomes. new policies on reserves were

elements of a proper a as well. this is sort of the next element. supervisor mar: could i ask the two of you, where are there areas of potential duplication with the budget analysts office that you have identified? >> on the first page we have premium pay. as i mentioned, we have implemented a premium pay payroll audit program, which would include two audits annually, looking at payroll practices, as well as the fact that on the project side of the house, they have done a lot of work with regard to premium pay, bargaining units. supervisor mar: maybe we should

just do with this when the next item comes up. >> that will be fine. supervisor mar: ms. stevenson? >> we invite your questions to our list. we know that it is a lot of information. in general, the audit program has a lot of different parameters they are trying to meet, contract requirements, i grant requirements, increased emphasis on performance auditing, capital programs -- probably some of the hawaii features of the year. on the performance side, we take the transparency, the affirmative notion in the appendix to push out information to the public seriously. that is why we did the government barometer. we want to make city information

more available to a layperson. every report we issue has a one- page summary in the front. that is true for everything. if you only have time for one page, highlights and recommendations. we will try to do that consistently as a public service. if there is not a to this committee for having a hearing, we would be happy to do that. some of the products are long- term horizons and the interim updates on the content would be welcome as well. supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up to public comment. is there anybody from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is a hearing from the comptroller's office updating us on their work plan for 2010, 2011. thank you. could we call -- supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: are we going to continue this item? supervisor mar: yes, continue

the item, without objection, to the call of the chair. please call item no. 5, the last item on did -- on the agenda. >> hearing to consider the budget and legislative analyst's schedule for conductin performance audits, special projects, or other studies for the remainder of calendar year 2010 and for calendar year 2011. supervisor mar: we have someone from the budget analysts office. >> good morning, chair mar, supervisors. i provided a memorandum to you and other members of the board to talk about our audit work plan for the remainder of calendar year 2010 and calendar year 2011. the board of supervisors approves our work plan every year. in 2010, they allocated 45 under

hours to audits and projects. there was not an approved plan yet, of course, for calendar year 2011. we would assume that given the contract it would be similar. we have to date completed, or in the process of completing five or six audits in this calendar year. we could not contact how many could be done in a year. we carried forward from 2009. we viewed the city's small business functions and concluded that in january. prior to the budget, we completed a limited scope audit of the mta and a review of the city's general fund revenues. we currently have three projects going that we intend to complete and sent to the board of supervisors and october. we are in the process of completing our project on the alameda farmers' market which will be -- which we will be submitting. we are completing a project on

aging in place, allowing the seniors to stay in their homes. we're also doing an audit on early childhood education. we also -- beyond that, we have about 1000 hours to conduct audits or assignments for which we do not have one yet. i presented what i would call a laundry list of audits. we have not established any priority. this would be -- our recommendation would be that this committee select what they consider their priority for the full board to approve. we would like to see at least projects selected to complete in 2010 begin in 2011. the board can always adopt another audit or if the new party. this list was compiled based on three criteria. it is the board's rule to have

an audit of the city department every eight years. we have gone back and evaluated all of the audits conducted by the department since 2002 and look at areas that we thought still needed attention. we have solicited information from members of the board on what they considered priority issues. we have a lot of work on the budget and legislative work. i think a lot of what you see here comes from problems that we have identified that we cannot really address in a weekly legislative item. a couple of these were identified as working on other projects, issues that needed further evaluation. would you like to ask me questions, did you want me to walk you through this? supervisor mar: i think we have

the information before us and we each probably have an idea of what priorities would be. you are asking us to think about, through the end of the fiscal year, about 1000 hours of projects and prioritizing a couple and then beginning the next fiscal year, which ones we should start with, so we should prioritize a little more than 1000 hours, based on the projects that you listed? >> yes, i would recommend a minimum of three projects. members of the board, and submit a motion and we change the audit schedule as we go. supervisor chu: through the end of this current fiscal year, how many budgeted hours do we still have with the budget analyst that we have not yet expended? >> for audits, at least 1000. we also have special requests for supervisors. we should have additional hours

that we can transfer from that. supervisor chu: so through the end of the fiscal year, we have a minimum of 1000 hours that we can dedicate to audits that we have not yet extended, including others from supervisors, if people do not extend their pots, they can be reallocated. what happens if we do not spend the 1000? we are not build? >> right. supervisor mar: there is always some duplication between the comptroller's office and budget analysts office. i wanted to ask you if you could address why some projects may not be duplicative, maybe we need the independence of the budget analysts office to do certain audits because the independent function of your office is important in an objective audit. >> yes, we put together the process of putting together

these priorities -- first of all, looking at what the budget analyst and comptroller's office have done over the last few years. i have an ongoing update of a matrix to look at what projects have been done. when they publish their work plan, i called to discuss with them -- there were two projects where i thought there were duplications, which we thought required is for us, which we then withdrew. what we were recommending was to do with it. i do not think anything else on the list duplicates the work of the office. by charter, the comptroller is a different function from the budget legislative analyst. we work directly for the board. the way that we address the audit topic and approached the question may very well differ from the mandate that the comptroller's office has. supervisor mar: thank you. supervisor maxwell: just to make sure that everybody at home -- just so that we cannot hear it come back to us.

the two programs that you thought were duplicative, you took out. you discussed them and decided not to do them? >> that is correct. supervisor mar: ms. stevenson. >> there are two lines that i want to call your attention to, just for your thought process. in healthy san francisco, there is a good size valuation calling under way. she could speak to where the city is spending money on some of those same the valuation questions. if i were in your shoes, i would probably decide not to make that a priority because there are meat -- near term outcomes from the evaluation. on premium pay, questions listed on the bottom of the box, we have standard reports that we run on those things often.

most of the analytical questions are pretty straightforward and easily answered. again, if you had other priorities that you wanted to move up higher, we could support a lot of the questions on premium pay with standard analytical processes we already have under way. >> yes, as a follow up, if you want to discuss healthy grant -- san francisco, we have a representative from the program. however, i would like to disagree with the control is representation of the premium pay question. i think it is an important topic. i know they have been doing work, both through looking at their mou's when they come forward, and in their payroll audit. however, both question we are addressing, our approach, we both have a specific -- i think we can benefit from the work that the comptroller has done, especially through their payroll audit. i would call the second one a

related item, memorandum of understanding. this is very much in the structure of various pay practices in the city. i believe the board needs to look at an address that from a policy direction and to really give guidance, especially when the city goes into negotiations, give guidance to the department of human resources, in terms of what their priorities are, what the criteria are. so i would actually disagree that for us to look at the premium pay would duplicate the work of the comptroller's office. supervisor chu: with regard to the premium pay practice, what exactly do you mean by that? >> the city has a multitude of memorandums of understanding that covers different classifications. in most of these probably the premium pay is in addition to base wages. we have over time identified

through various audits and reviews, some that we think are obsolete, some that we think perhaps do not address the issue so we are looking at the structure, what is the goal of premium pay, how does it in flight city cost, how does it perhaps misallocate where you want your resources to go? supervisor mar: i was sharing with one of the custodians on the graveyard shift -- i am embarrassed to say that i was here until 10:00 last night. as somebody is away from their family and kids, because they're working a graveyard shift, they might get a bit of a premium pay. i would say something like that is pretty justified. there are also archaic premium pay categories that are probably one that we will look at closely, maybe eliminate, and make more modern? >> that is correct. premium paid does serve a purpose.

if someone is working with skills above the job classification, working hazardous situations, working on a night shift creates a burden for the person. so it is not that premium pay, in an of itself, is a bad thing. however, there are practices that have gone on for a long time that need to be modernized and streamlined, or reconsidered. that is what this approach is. i think we could benefit a lot from the work that the comptroller's office has already done, particularly in apparel audit, that could tell us how some of these practices are being implemented. i think this is an important issue the board could look at. supervisor chu: we are not making any decisions today about which one we prioritize, but i agree with the office. the question then are encompassed in the first portion of the audit question, the various questions of premium pay, classifications that incur

the highest pay -- a lot of these things are probably pretty easily obtained through the comptroller's office. i would probably, if we were to decide to choose this one, i would look at the second paragraph, bring it down and focus on the component, rather than getting it from the comptroller's office. supervisor mar: so a suggestion of combining number one and two. as well, focusing on the second paragraph of analyzing other municipalities and jurisdictions as opposed to the more standard question that might easily come from the comptroller's office. that sounds like a great suggestion. colleagues? ms. stevenson. >> as a piece of information, the second paragraph which refers to surveys of other

municipalities -- this is something that dhr does do. this is a standard business practice. the updated pretty frequently and always in great detail just before bargaining, because these things are subject to what is on the bargaining table. we have labor contracts next year. so this probably would not happen in the same way this fiscal year, but again, it is standard practice on their part to survey municipalities, and they do it in great deal just before bargaining. supervisor chu: thank you for that information. the recommendation, as we approach how we prioritize future audits -- we will just talk with the department's ahead of time to coordinate to make sure we are not duplicating the gathering information that we get. >> i would like to address -- and i appreciate the concern here about duplicating work. i still must disrespectfully --

respectfully disagree with the comptroller's office. one of our audit tasks is always to look and what information is already available, to consider other studies and audit that have been performed, not to repeat the work that has been done, but to incorporate it into the larger question that is being addressed. hawaii yes, the department of human resources does collect a lot of data. it is something that we would very much use in our approach. do they address the question in the way that we believe we are asking the question? i do not believe so. it is really up to the board where they want to put their party, in terms of resources, but i still very much disagree with the comptroller's office's representation that this is a duplication. supervisor maxwell: i am not getting that it is duplicative. i am getting the sense that the information exists already. when we think about ours, how we are spending the money, we have to consider that.

that is what i hear from the comptroller, about resources. i know through your work a lot of the information that you get is through the department. so why should we have to pay for that again when we have the information? i am also very much in favor of you looking at this from a different perspective. that is something that we need. however, we are just talking about the information and how we spend our dollars. that is what i am getting from the comptroller's office, not that that part -- the way you're looking at it is not duplicative. it is different. information and how you are getting it -- that is all i am hearing. so i am in favor of you doing this. i am just understanding what you are saying. supervisor mar: i did want to ask ms. brigham to come up to

discuss help the --hea- healthy. >> hello, supervisors. the department has from the very beginning been clear that we need external review of the help the san francisco program, in part, because it is a model program that we want to learn from. in addition to producing a range of data, from enrollment data, service data, we have had two independent reviews of the program. first was the satisfaction survey done by kaiser family foundation, which looked specifically at what our participants and their participants are going through in the program. secondly, and this is ongoing

-- in march of 2009, we issued a competitive rfp and retain mathematical quality research, a national organization that does a lot of the evaluations on health care programs on the local level, and on the state level, to do a comprehensive evaluation of healthy san francisco, looking at enrollment data, service utilization data, administrative data, and cost data. this is a two-year evaluation. it started in july 2009, will end in to it -- june 2011. during this two-year period, mathematical will be producing for the department of public health -- and these will be presented to the health commission, put on our website, certainly be presented as a formal report to the board of supervisors. the first looks at the medical home model, what we know about that.

the second one relates to employment trends. -- i am sorry, enrollment trends. the third relates to provider satisfaction, participation in the program. the fourth relates to service utilization. are we meeting our outcomes? do we see as more people are moving -- using more primary care services? are more individuals going to the hospital? if they are going to the emergency room, that it is for an emergency, and not for ambulatory care. comparing the data with other populations. and then cost. they will get our cost data and also get a sense of how much of the business is replicable. supervisor mar: supervisor chu and needs to leave quickly. the comptroller's office is in the process of -- let me look at my notes. from our communications with you, there are