>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning supervisors, my name is ryan and i'm speaking today as a concerned san franciscans and professional social worker. a point i want to make first regarding the psychological issues concerning the grand jury's report. one thing i want to highlight is the information came from informational interview us with various city employees. most of whom were from parks and recreation. i don't want to highlight that. most of those employees are not educated and trained to assess and diagnosed mental health and come up with issues. however there were in the reports stated that many of the individuals who dwell in golden gate park come from drug

abuse and mental health issues. chemical dependent issues weren't consulted on this report. this is about homeless people in golden gate park an they were not surveyed. there are a lot of suggestions and recommendations on how to move forward but not addressed. i believe that much can be done to make our services better and more coordinated efforts to support people. another point that i want to highlight that was mentioned in the report is that so sfpd does reach homeless outreach training and services, in the report park employees do not receive training and information on

outreach on homeless and that's another potential policy issue to provide better services to homeless in the park. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, government audit. i had a request and i'm going to do it once. this civil grand land is your land to my land. from the sunset district to the richmond over there, this grand land was made for you and me. we are going to have a place to live now and we are going to make it fun somehow.

because some seem to know what to do about homelessness. in this civil land is going to be grand. we are going to make it work and we are going to work the government audit woman and men. >> thank you. thank you very much. anybody else want to comment? okay. seeing no more public comment is closed at this time. we don't have a response for this item. can i have a motion to file this item. supervisor tang and campos. this item is filed. >> please call items 4 and 5 together. >> on the signing and recommendation of the 2012-2013 civil grand jury report using

non-profit community organizations and urging the mayor for implementation through department heads of annual budget. >> thank you very much. i think you know the format. why don't we begin with you. you are very welcome. thank you for being here. >> my name is pete gliechen house. thank you for providing this opportunity to tell you about what we did. as you know, along aboutw about half a dozen of my fellow jurors who are with me today, john anderson and anglo who are attorneys, leslie who is a librarian and dan who is a banker. we investigated a portion of the system grants and contracts between our city and

not-for-profit community based organizations. the matter in again has been visited in the past by a host of grand jury and groups. during our tenure, we have learned that about 900 different organizations altogether annually receive from the city and county of san francisco a total of about 1/2 billion dollars in grants and contracts. while most of the money comes from state and federal sources, all the dollars are public monies. they originate with you and me. all findings are clear. what i'm going to do is highlight some key issues and findings. this we hope would assist the board in focusing on areas we believe can be improved to make our government more effective. first, the clear message of

approval. we found the individuals or the staffs of the agencies we visited at the mayor's office on housing, department of public health and human service agencies are committed and dedicated workers. they were helpful working diligently to assist the community organizations with whom he or she works. next we found people in contact at the not-for-profit and working careful on the grant of the city and working to accomplishment what they believe to be the task, feeding and helping people overcome unfortunate circumstances. the clients in this organization are less advantaged people in our community, immigrants and

people suffering from a variety of behavioral challenges and suffering from serious challenges and in need of help. next we found fiscal track and non-compliances. the audits are valuable. we are aware the corrective action process are in place an we understand the implementation correction maybe difficult to ask. so why did we do an investigation and write the report you have in your hands? as we report, we wonder what is the long-term impact of $500 million in funding and is there a process in place to measure the impact of individual programs against citywide social services objectives. providing meals to seniors as a human service agency is

contracted is good. providing homes to avoid homelessness is good, providing counseling to individuals who do not speak english or who are challenged by the immigration system as is done by grants on the mayor's office on housing is good, assist for mental health care for needs of services as the department of public health programs is good, however while all the above service examples are good. do any of these have any long-term effect. it's easy to see how this is going. what are the outcomes? longer terms of the program. are some of the grants more effective than others and are some of the

contracts of jobs, employees and community organizations have no real outcome of significance to the client. in the future there will be funding and state services to which program will this provide additional support. best practices as defined by academics call for a front end process where desired the outcomes are identified and construction of community based programs is targeted to deliver the desired outcomes and structured to facilitate the evaluation of the short and long-term benefits of each specific program. and there is a rigorous back end evaluation process of those programs. additional funding is given to effective programs and

ineffective programs are no longer funded. we did not find all elements of this rigorous best practice method in places of the organizations we reviewed. in congress if one were to invest $1 billion it would seem to wonder what is the best investment. measurement of the investment seems prudent. when we refer to measure, we don't refer to counting the money or the number served, we rather mean the discern whether it's possible whether the investment is having the effect we think they are making. such measurement is not easy. it's much simpler to count, count the number of heads, county the number of council treated. it's much easier to do that than to verify what was provided should

have a long term affect. and those that don't should we not promote those programs and modify those that are not having great outcomes. as you may recall, the 2012 grand jury's concern in this regard extending for non-profit reward for community programs for those that are funded. the grand jury's report for auditor's report what you consider on october 10th, focus on what we found city's current failure the measure for evaluation of city programs as required by proposition c. in conclusion, we found the city staff's fully engaged in administering the program and found it fully occupied in

auditing the programs. our view is no one is analyze with a long-term outcomes merit the investment. where we or our city to invest a modest amount of resources and focus attempts to do that analysis are available. we appreciate that mayor lee has rejected our recommendation 2.2. we suggest the board of supervisors can consider our recommendation and take action if you agree. thank you very much. >> all right. this you very much. supervisor tang, any questions so far? okay. let's move to our city response. i believe we have three responses from the departments that will be presented by antonio ger era. >> good morning, my name is

antonio guerra from the budget office from the grand jury civil report. first since this is the final civil grand jury hearing. i would like to thank them for all of their hard work not only on this item but all the work this year. the mayor cites the value of these report. first i'm going to talk about these, recommendation 3 has already been implemented. kelly home tr dph is available to answer any questions on this topic. for finding no. 1. we respectfully disagree that information on cbo spending is

not easily access you -- accessible to the public and has already been implemented. members of the public have many ways to access the information through the mayor's budget book and the departmental website. i have the budget appropriation ordinance and a slide show as to where members of the public can find information online. if i can bring that up. the first slide shows the mayor's budget proposal and the status on women and it highlighted the line for the amount of grant funding that goes to the department of status on women.

the second page shows a pie chart that goes towards grants. additionally in the actual adopted appropriated ordinance all the information is found online and the reason that the numbers are different is because obviously the board of supervisors makes additional changes to the proposed budget. additionally departments often will post information on known websites, dcyf has information for the grand recipients during the last award cycle. here is the recipients awards page. you can find the amount of award they were granted for fiscal

year 2013-2014. so, additionally, i'm going to mention that the city doesn't budget at the level because of the competitive process. the department issued funding through competitive process, they issue rfp's, if a member of the public wanted to find the amount on the project, they wouldn't be able to find it on the -- but they can go online. this information has been available for some time online and now can be found at the controllers book to shed light on the annual performance. it's by the control thor and there is a link for vendor payment on the website. if you click on that button, you go e to the

screen. you can download a report in the file format of your choice. this slide right here shows the pdf report listing every vendor that received payment in the last few years. as mentioned in the civil grand jury report. so that's finding one. finding two, the consolidated parks disagrees with the grand jury. i think it's to the degree that where we respectfully disagree is the statement that there is no systemic mop -- monitoring outcomes delivered by the process. this dealt with non-profit monitoring and the

consolidated response going into great detail of this process. it was already implemented and 2.2 would not be implemented since it was unwarranted. the controllers office audited division and has coordinated the development and implementation of the citywide fiscal and compliant and using the same utilized. she is here to talk about the monitoring process in greater detail. >> good morning supervisors, i'm peg stevenson from the controllers performance group. the joint monitoring process has been in place for several years. it's largely an out

growth of 2009 task force in measuring how to city improves and manages the community base non-profit organizations. in essence, it's characteristics are that i this i we now have 9 city departments who administer and grant the bulk of the money that goes to non-profit community organizations work together. there is a quarterly steering committee process. all non-profits that receive granting from more than one of those agencies together and they are over a certain threshold dollar value and into a pool, all of those contracts are listed. some organizations have more than within as you might imagine and the city department goes through the process of allocating to one of those agencies to conduct the monitoring process. they look at whether or not the cbo has

received an on-site visit within the last couple of years. in some cases we allow an organization that we have received a visit submit their report online. they go through an assessment where they discuss the work and put together a team to the respective agencies and review the sites. the standards are available online and resources on our website. very broadbrush as you might imagine, consolidated budgets. sunshine requirement to have the minutes available to the public, tax reports, ada complains, processes and the intent was to reduce duplications both for the city agencies that monitor

this funding and for the cbo's that administer the funder that were or before the process subject to multiple visits by multiple city agencies essentially looking at the same document that presented a big burden on everyone involved. this works very well. we have a working relationship with everything doing this. people in all agencies who know these agencies well and the contracts. in addition to the high monitoring there is a fair amount of discussion about the non-profits and delivered the services. we have developed trainings for the city staff to do the monitoring and the non-profit organizations that need some kind of assistance in bringing the organization up to city standards and to surveys both through our non-profit

clients we discovered a particular trainings on request. we have general governance for non-profits, what kind of committees you should have and we are doing one on executive director responsibilities. we have a technical assistance program where if an individual non-profit is having a problem, we can provide them targeted assistance. we work through a well-known organization compass point non-profit services that does a lot of training and development for non-profits in this area so our controllers office can send technical experts into agencies that are having an issue. the progress on this i really think it used to be the city would not be able to spot a non-profit until it was too late and by this time the service was already at risk or

the organization or both and it was called for an audit and by that time it was too late to intervene. we don't feel that anymore. we are able to do outreach and provide assistance to non-profits that are critical to the city for this provision very often it's scale ability, regional competency. that's a long description of the program. the other thing i wanted to mention that is new fiscal year as we started it last year. this survey of this organization just to look at the commonality among agencies in that geographic area and providing service to them an we are now starting to do that in the bayview which was a long standing request and we need to

meet with supervisor cohen's office as we get started. it has been suggested that there is organizations providing where the geo location is important. >> i have a question. how did you handle the organization that a corrective action plan? >> corrective action is a plan if an organization has more than one finding in the fiscal year where they have asked them to provide a corrective action plan to describe by whatever time they are going to correct that. there is a series of deadlines. if an organization fails to meet those standards then we have a couple of steps including meetings with the board of directors to go above

the e d and staff level and speak directly to the board of directors. to my knowledge, the ones i have been involved with the couple organizations has disallowed from receiving grants because they were not meeting the standards. this is to enforce the standards and cities in that way to helping them come into compliance. >> thank you very much. >> okay. thank you miss stevens. civil grand jury, you can take 5 minutes or 1 minute to highlight everything and tie it together. >> we applaud the work of miss stevenson and their organization and the mayor's office in so far as the things that were discussed. as we

learned during our year as grand jurors, there are a number of processes in place here in the city where the grand jury can look at them because nobody else wants to. there is a process that is available to supervisors called the add on process in the budget system where by specific activities are identified and as a result of those specific add-ons, a grant or -- contrat is specifically given. a number of them start as an add on back in 2005 and 20:06 a.m. 06 -- and some were not reviewed. that was what we are

trying to identify. if you count the people going through line from unlock or other agencies, that's great. they are feeding them and they will continue to come back for a meal until they are not there any longer. that's okay for a program. we don't know how much this city pays, how much of the $500 million is spent on mental health and what metrics have changed and how many people treated after treatment are better or someway affected in a positive fashion by this treatment? bill gates said, measurement is a big part of mobilizing for impact. you set a goal and use

that to make sure you are making progress towards it. it's just as important in the fight against poverty and disease and other government programs. i will provide the copy of the article to use. we thank you for your attention. we this i if we are going to spend all this money, somebody ought to look into whether it's having any effect. >> thank you. thanks for the article. i have a question for you. finding no. 3 you found that the department of public health has not been able to take advantage of the "avatar" electronic information management system. it's curious to know if this is a similar, first can you describe to us what is the "avatar" system? >> it's a system used in the department of public health to view in all of their activities and able to manage their total

resources as it affects specific aspects of their activities. jerry drad ler is here with me and he was able to look at the department of public health. i would let him address that specifically to give you that answer. >> bvr -- before you go, is this the same "avatar" system you found in dbi? >> no. >> yes, please, bring jerry. john anderson. >> "avatar" for our purpose was a system collecting medical and some cost data. it's a current state of the art system for managing these very complicated matters. what interest us in particular is a system will generate metrics to evaluate the efficiency and the good

performance of all of appointments of medical treatment being provided by the city. that's very important because looking at the non-profit entities, these are mainly concerned with memo health issues, substance health abuse. it seemed to us based on our discussions that you can track the various performance techniques. that's why we wanted to ensure that "avatar" got in the service. >> the "avatar" system is it in existence? >> it's in existence and has been used at some level and the report we got that it's very difficult and contractors are having problems of the system of the data entry problems. in that sense it's like any system starting up, but