you mentioned there was no clear , can you provide this process. >> oca has provided a waiver for the process, what is an admin-code -- i apologize, it's in the admin-code that aprovides for allowance for dph to have a different kind of bidding process. they belong to a medical group where that group is bidding for services. >> we talked about that for medication as well. >> right, in order to be effective for dph they need this centralized method to assess what they need. so we are buying at a better rate. >> but they have not done any comparison to determine how it

actually is a better rate? there is no comparison, for example, one rate against another outside of the department specifically. >> she worked on the audit form. >> the issue, their system has really excellent reporting tools. and as part of that system -- >> sorry, can you introduce yourself. >> i am kat skogin, the auditor that led this audit. in this system they had great reporting tools, and part of the contract had someone come in from the vendor that has their reporting structure to look at their pricing and to make sure they were maximizing the pricing tiers, and maximizing the leverage with the individual contracts. but there was not a comparison with the vendors outside of this group of the organization. that's what we were asking for to periodically look at is this

comparable to what you get outside of this group organization. or are we just trusting them to get the best price. >> okay, i got it, thank you. and you are saying that process will take between 12-18 months? >> for the entire organization, it's in place for two locations. to share those tools and to leverage that volume across the department and achieve the maximized savings. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions? >> no thanks. >> now i would like to highlight some field follow-up work as related to a 2010 audit, two audits, sfp release division.

release audits were hanson and aggregate rock in alameda county, lease to operate a public golf course, and they located the facilities in the county. the audit sounds serious with the leases. the real estate division did not have compliances for leases and did not verify payments and did not consistently assess late charges. as a result they had a combined 248,000 and more in unpaid rents and improperly charges. my office conducted a report on

both of these this year. as reminder we gather evidence and whether protective actions resolve the issues with the underlying recommendations. as a result of that audit, collecting funds beyond the leases, and resolved the issues causing the problems. the department affected changes with a new director in 2011. the division implemented changes for the staff. the director shifted to a system to increase accountability internally. the contractor had a technology solution that will monitor some tasks and enhanced controls, in the reporting procedures. and seeking advice with the city

attorney whether they can pursue certain payments. because of these findings with systemic changes, we report all reports resolved. in our final part of the presentation, i would like to highlight two recently issued reports. the first is audit of parks and rec of lease of a city-owned building, the lease began in 1997, looking at whether beach chalet had adequately obtained their lease. and we found that beach chalet owed 53,000 in late fees and $33 in interest. and found that rec and park did

not assess for the late payments and monthly payments over the three-year period. rec and park has collected these funds from beach chalet. and we found that there is a lack of clarity about water uses and janitorial services. the lease allows for beach chalet to allow for water for the rent, with a portion of the facility use of the facilities. rec and park accepted beach chalet with reduction of 40%, with over $97,000 for the three-year audit period. if our test results are typical of the lease overall, the 20-year impact would be over $650,000. however the lease does not state how the deduction should be calculated. and neither beach chalet or rec

and park could provide for this reduction. rec and park expected to have completed the implemented database percentage for the water usage credit by the end of last month. we will check back in on the status of what the percentage should actually be. and the lease does not state that beach chalet with deduct janitorial expenses for its rent. on an average they are deducting $236 per month. in our six-month period that we test in the audit. if the test results are accurate, it would be $26,000, we have asked rec and park to further investigate this process. and determine if there are any additional funds owed by the end of the calendar year from rec

and park to beach chalet. and i want to highlight our audit of human services agency, $19 million contract with guards mart to provide security at the buildings. the audit had findings and most were agreed but one significant finding that i would like to discuss. because of the value of this contract, approved by the board of supervisors. the contract has expired and sha has entered in a contract with the same vendor, requiring guards mart to provide for services. however as approved by the board, it does not require sha to pay guard marts for security services in other departments, and due to cancel of buildings

closed for city holiday. as a result sha paid security services that it did not need or receive at cost of $600,000 for the contract five-year term. and you see on the slide how sha came to that figure. paying for 11 holidays for 12 guards for five years. sha agreed in earlier negotiation meetings to pay for the holidays. however this agreement is not reflected in the contract approved by the board of supervisors, sha is here today to discuss this finding. >> good morning, chairman breed, supervisors, dave corto, director of contracts for human services. though we agree with the findings that our contract was

silent about the closure on holid holidays, we did negotiate with the contractor early on that we would account for these hours by assigning straight time for those times. the holiday time was clearly not in the rate negotiated. we purposely decided on this term, to ensure that only security officers at that site would receive the holiday pay on the days that the city buildings were closed. >> sorry, i am confused what you said. >> let me explain a little further. so in this type of contract, you have a billing rate. a rate per hour that you are charged for security officers services. the holiday pay required by the ordinance was not paid in the billing rate accounted for the total hours in the contract. we accounted for straight-time

hours for the guards for those 11 days. >> so the city was still charged for holiday pay. >> the city was still charged for holiday pay and we authorized each payment. we had a specific method of payment with the contractor of how to enforce it and authorize the payment. the contract of the method of payment did not detail this. that's a purely oversight of what we agreed to and what we put in the contract. >> so you guys messed up. >> in the contract, yes. it should be delineated and accounted for in the contract that the board of supervisors approved but not delineated in the pay. >> so you are work on the change. >> the new contract has it clearly delineated and we will go forward on that basis. the new contract will be before the board shortly. >> what does the city attorney

say about the payment issued and the contract that doesn't coinside with the payment. >> when the controller officer looked at it and audited. i am thinking about past payment, is there something to rectify that situation? because it was delineated in the contract. >> it was acquired and the method we agreed to. >> i understand that, but i want to make sure that the past of what was done in terms of the mistake, as result of what you are doing moving forward is resolved. or is going to be resolved. >> yes, the new contract will be approved by the city attorney before it gets to the board for final approval. so it has been addressed. >> and they are saying there is nothing else we need to do? >> no, because the contract acknowledges that we should have compensated them for holiday pay

and we did consistently throughout the five-year contract. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> that ends our presentation. unless you have other questions of me. >> i just want you to, when you come back to us the next time, if you can give us an update on these particular items and the resolution to these items. >> i will do that. >> colleagues, any other questions? if not, we will open this item to public comment. if any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please do so now. seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> i definitely would like to speak. >> okay. >> can i entertain a motion to reopen public comment. okay, without objection, public comment is open. >> thank you, i thought i put a card in.

as you see in this meeting, sometimes things slip through the cracks. >> you have two minutes. >> i am work it. these audits, everyone appreciates it. but i am here to say that this is just a sample, of the audit, the housing authority. that we are here to talk about, ocii that is redevelopment, that you used to be a commissioner on. and gtis, that controls the television that goes on here. which i had to be a large part of creating something of the san francisco government channel, which i don't get the credit, i don't need it. the oversight board, i was at a meeting with the redevelopment agency, okay $50,000 for the budget, and that committee is the most that councils more meetings than anywhere in city hall. what do they need $50,000 for,

you need to check that out. and the planning commission that happens in our black community. they are trying to do a study on us now, talking about african-american history. we don't need more studies about us, there is not of us to do studies on. and another agency, the human rights commission, they need to be audited. the last time they came to the community, they had their hands spanked and a lot of their activity put off in other departments. and the puc needs to be monitored. i am very happy and tickled black that you are having this commission, but it doesn't mean a damn thing, because things go on and on. what needs to do, if the f.b.i. is still here at city hall and try out what is happening with the city hall, you call it city

hall and i call it silly hall. >> thank you, any other members of the public that want to speak on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to file this -- we don't. >> madam chair, do you want on continue this to the call of the chair. >> yes, we do, do we have a motion to continue to the call of the chair. >> so moved. >> thank you, without objection continued to the call of the chair. next item. >> item 3, hearing to understand the needs for services for victims of violent crimes including domestic violence whose perpetrators are directly supervisored by the adult probation baptidepartment. >> a couple of weeks agos i asked for a hearing for victims of domestic violence who

perpetrators are under the supervision of our adult probation department. dozens of those in active probation have committed violent crimes, and half of them are crimes of sexual assault. and if you add other family members, the number could just to several of thousands. apd is mandated under the law to require the reports for defend defendents, that is to include a condition of probation need to pay restitution to a victim. unfortunately there is no services in place for courts to determine restitution and for victims to have a voice in the p

proceedings. and at this time there is a lack of fair restitution or effects of victimization. moreover, those victims adjudicated don't have services to the road of restoration. adp is considering a restitution program for the victims and the community. this new program could be an opportunity, because adp has the longest relationship with those that commit violent crimes. i want looking to support the need for those who need services for victims of violent crimes. and to better understand the opportunities of adp and look at

how can coordinate with those working with victims and offenders in our system. today we have a number from city department consist, from the san francisco d.a. office and department of status of women, and sheriff's department. and i want to thank and welcome the chief for an initial presentation. >> thank you, president chiu and committee members for providing me the opportunity to speak today. and to keep with our efforts to protect the community and serving justice and changing lives. the adult probation department working to reduce victimization and make our victims whole and decrease victim accountability. we have worked with domestic partners and we have done a lot to support our services to victims.

but there is a lot more to be done. in 2012 there was a unit where an individual of child abuse is referred to adp, in a 52-week program through the violence program that complies with the california statute. and the program supported by adp and we audit to ensure that the program complies with the requirements. and we also as with domestic violence cases and warrants are issued that violate their probation, we hold them accountable in their motion to evoke. in addition we have enhanced our efforts in 2012-13 to revise our audit tool. and we conducted a comprehensive

audit of the bip programs. the review that was critical in programs and ensure compliance with the california penal code and adp standards that ensure accountability. this is an an ongoing bip accountability. with bip classes in 10 programs, and two failed to comply with the programs. and the remaining nine will be held accountable. but the bip review uncovered gaps for the victims of violence. they will discuss now and leads to where the gaps are related to survival restoration and offender accountability. there are approximately 4800 people under adp supervision.

conservatively thousands victims of crime, and that grows when you look at family and children of the victims. >> if you could go through those numbers. >> now we supervisor 540 clients under the domestic violence cases. and we supervisor 126 sex offenders. and in addition to that we have significant number of individuals that have been convicted of violent crimes. just on those pure numbers there is over 1,000 individuals that have violence-related crimes. and in addition to that is the children and the victims to the crimes. there are several thousands of individuals that have been impacted by crimes in san francisco. and typically a person is on

probation for average of three years. and adp has the longest relationship with those that commit those violent acts. and in addition adp has an obligation to the court that a defendant of restitution is to provide for the victim impact statement. what that means on the front end of the process, we are the statutory agency that is obligated to one, assess if is there a victim restitution or damage amount owed to that victim. as well as what is the impact personally. and in the report and recommendation to the court, we make our recommendation. but as the process stands now, we have no resources related to the actual victimization, assessing damage, doing forensic

accounting. the reporter has 2-1/2 weeks to conduct that process, which is not nearly enough time to identify with the victim and the costs and to work with the district attorney's office that is processing the crime and introduce that recommendation to the court. if that doesn't happen, then what happens, the restitution order becomes a general order of restitution and a low dollar amount. a majority of the victims do not receive restitution in direct orders. and in penal codes 12.25 and 12-b, and the restitution to be paid to the victim, we are obligated to ensure that the actual offender is paying the probationer. and in fact we have to prepare a report which is called a cr-110,

that is a victim statement in order of economic loss and cr-15 -- >> could you slow down just a second, right now we are in violation of state law in regards of how we are not taking care of our victims. >> correct. we have minimal efforts. i guess you could say that we comply with the letter of the law. we send out a letter to the victim at the same time of 2-1/2 weeks that we are work on interviewing the perpetrator and gathering the information for pre-sentence report. but there are no resources to get in front of that 2-1/2 weeks to ascertain that damage and bring that information back so it's put together and can be included in the report. over 80% of the reports that go

to the court do not include direct orders. it's a lack of time and resources to get on the front end. we send a letter that we are required to, but there is no follow up to the victim, it's a cumbersome process, and that's why 80% of the reports go without feed-back to the victim. >> you are saying if we had the resources to do this, we could get five times as much by way of restitution to the victims. >> absolutely. >> do you have an estimate of what we currently get as far as restitution to victims if you had to guess? >> i would say on average, the general orders are about $200, and our victim's crimes, they can experience in the thousands of dollars of damage. but that victim doesn't get the benefit of having that direct

order that holds that specific offender accountable because we don't have that information to provide to the judge. and therefore the judge cannot order that. and a significant part of problem, without that direct order there is a minimal amount that, that offender must be required to repay prior to be released from probation. if we have a direct order, we can also before an individual is through with their probation, we can notice the court. and there is a civil order that can long exceed what the supervision amount is. guaranteeing that victim another avenue in order to recoup what their losses are. >> i did a back of the envelope calculation, and of the thousand offenders and 800 don't have

restitution and we are leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars left on the table. >> absolutely. and in addition to that, in this county there is only 1800 orders of restitution. and to put that in perspective, there is 5,000 individuals under community supervision. out of those 1800 cases, only 60 individuals are paying on those 1800 restitution orders. so while the front end is important, it's important to monitor the process, and they are in terms of meeting basic obligations. and their time is invested in that.

having these additional resources to not only identify what those resources are to be owed restitution to the victims. is having those resources to follow up with forensic and accounting and to communicate to bring individuals back into court. and to put additional restrictions and requirements on probation if they fail to comply. one innovative piece is to create a restitution work-through. for a lot of individuals they have limited access to monetary means. what we propose to do also is to create a restitution work group where we do community related projects, and create a fun that we would pay. not the offender directly but pay into the fund and directly pay through the court, so that

victim would receive their direct order compensation. that is an important factor to lead to change of behavior. >> and it's important of what restitution that is calculated and not collecting, to have an idea of the size of the problem. and i would want to support a budgetary expenditure to do exactly that. >> thank you. the other aspect also of our population that needs to be addressed the offenders of this trauma that represent a rapid growing segment of addressing mental health and