Transcripts For SFGTV Small 20240702 : vimarsana.com

Committee meetings. Going forward Public Comment will be taken in person with Remote Access only provided for those who require ada accommodation. Public comment will be taken on each item. When your item comes up and Public Comment is called, please line along the curtain to your right, my left. You may submit Public Comment in writing email to myself, the Budget Finance Committee clerk at brent. Julipa sfgov. Org. If you submit via email it will be forwarded to the supervisors and part of the file. You may also send to city hall, 1 dr. Carlton b goodlett place, room 44, San Francisco california 94102. For those in attenance during the meeting please make sure silence cell phones and Electronic Devices and should you have documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to myself the clerk. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor agenda of october 31, unless otherwise stated. Thank you. Before we call the items and go forward with the agenda we need to excuse supervirez mandelman and want to clarify that board president peskin is joining us for this committee. As a member so we have quorum. On that motion to excuse vice chair mandelmanmember peskin, aye. Chair chan, aye. We have two ayes with vice chair mandelman excused. Thank you. The motion passes. With that, i would like to just kind of let everyone know in the general public and our Department Staff that for the items we have budget and legislative Analyst Reports, which are items 1, 2, 4 and 611 on todays agenda for these items we will have Department Presentation first and follow by the budget and legislative analyst and then take questions and Public Comment and with that, mr. Clerk, please call item 1 and 2 together . Items 1 and 2, resolutions approving amendments to contract for the following programs and city and county acting by and through department of children youth and families with board approval. Item 1 approves a 4th amendment to contract for the Japanese Community Youth Council opportunities for all Intermediary Program between the Japanese Community Youth Council to increase to 3. 4 million for total not to exseat of 13. 7 million and no change to the grant item. 2, resolution approving the 7th amendment to a contract for the ymca urban service truancy assessment Resource Program to increase grant amount by 606 thousand for total not to exceed of approximately 4. 4 thousand and to grant term for one year from july 1, 2023 for new term of july 1, 2013 through june, 30, 2024. These items were heard last week and have questions and i know Department Children youth and families is here to answer questions, but we also have dr. Davis here, director of Human Rights Commission also available for questions. I think today is that if we could have a little bit more update and information about the data that we have requested for from dcyf. I apologize are, one more time. Hello. There we go. Great. Hello chair chan and supervisor peskin. My name is [indiscernible] the director of Strategic Initiative for dcyf. We are going to provide Additional Information for you. We have a presentation about opportunities for all, item 1. We do not is a presentation for item 2, but available for any additional questions. So, we have a power point we provided and while that is pulled up, i am going to note we have directive davis with us today a partner, the lead of this initiative and are going to have her start us off with our first slide. Then ill come back and do the other. You are supposed to pull it up on your computer. Am i . Yes. No one told me that. Apologies. While hes pulling that up, ill say a few things about opportunity for all. 2018 the Program Initiative launched. The contract was leveraged with dcyf. In the initial launch with the program we accepted less then a thousand young people would par tis ticipate. We had over 1200 young people. Jcyc helped to advance and pay those young peopleism this summer we had over 2700 young people going through opportunities for all, specifically through that grant, and it has grown since 2018 to that number. Each year we have had shortfall. Jcyc has leveraged their own dollars and private dollars that had been received for that. We are trying to make sure to make jcyc whole because they make sure the overage of young people get paid during the summer. One thing we are working on collectively is to better coordinate the data. The Human Rights Commission staff and the partners at jcyc are managing and supporting the activation of opportunities for all, and we just need to do a better coordinated effort how we track the data and share that data out. There are additional dollars that we cover outside of even just this grant that support the peep who organize and oversee that come through oewd dollars. I will be more then happy to come back and give more comprehensive report and explanation of the fullness of the opportunities for all programming, but this is just sharing the work done through dcyf and jcyc contract which is under funded and leveraging outside dollars about they are in the hole and like to make sure they are made hole to cover this program the last 5 years. Thank you. Good morning. Nick monard from budget legislative analyst office. So, these two items were at the last budget finance meeting. They were continued because we did not have complete information about program performance. Particular on the opportunities for all grant, we did get revised data from the department of children youth and families and i appreciate their ongoing engagement and providing that data. The initial data showed 800 children participating in the program in fiscal year 22 and about 1200 in the program in fiscal year 23. That was data from Japanese Community Youth Council to dcyf to us. Then we got new data from the Human Rights Commission that showed over 2200 people in the program each fiscal year, so we hadthere is a substantial revision in the number of participants, and in the correspondence from dcyf, the explanation was hrc has been directing jcyc to pay people in the program the past couple years, but hasnt been reporting the participant data to the grant holder, dcyf and we dont have data on the number of hours people participated in the program in the fast two fiscal years. What is going on here is that, there is 3 million paid that exceeded the annual grant budget for this agreement that is now being added to the contract funded by the work order from oewd. This is a kind of very goldburg like contraption of a Government Program owd is funding a program but employer of record is jcyc under a grant from dcyf. I think the entire structure makes it hard to produce high quality data. I think it reduces accountability for actually managing the program, and im concerned that there isthe numbers have changed so much that i really dowe have a updated recommend here that the Controllers Office under take a financial audit of this program to examine whether the financial controls are sufficient and if they arent, to do transaction testing, because i dont feel like i havei think the program is well intentioned, i dont have high confidence the money going out the door13 million is accurately dispersed. For item 2, the ymca program, we did get updated data from dcyf. It shows they have in fact in the program increased the number of participants between fiscal year 22 to 23. We also got updated participation data for 2223 and it shows that people are participating in the program. I will say the objective what counts as full participation is reduced by 70 percent, so it was 15 hours in fiscal year 22, it is now 5 hours in fiscal year 23, so they are high numbers, but the bar has been lowered in terms of what counts as full participation. I think given the comprehensiveness of the data we got, i do feel comfortable recommending item 2 for approval, just clarifying that this resolution approval is retroactive. We have a recommendation to make that amendment. Before i call on supervisor peskin for further questioning, i want to put in context both referencing last week and also in the past when these contracts came before this body and let me start with the easier one i would say is the contracts about the ymca one that specifically about truancy, Intervention Service and it is with the recognition that what is deemed now as truancy for the San Francisco Unified School District during the pandemic has been challenging. I really want to first recognize that. The truancy by definition has significantly changed for the Unified School District, so i understand how this also has changed when it comes to the performance evaluation. Now, when it comes down to the jcyc contract, when it first came before this body because department of children youth and families recognized that the contract with jcyc with Japanese Community Youth Council was supposed to come to the board for approval both in terms of the dollar amount of the contract and terms, the length of the term and duration of the contract really according to charter 9. 118 should have really come to the board for approval first before you continue on with this contract of the continuation of this contract. It is that recognition this contract first came before this body last year, and with that said, building on that, i think it is a continuing reason why it is difficult for it budget and legislative analyst to say this isthat they can recommend this and that it isnt a policy decision of the board. Clearly it is the policy decision of this body to say that we will accept retroactive nature of this contract all together, and with that supervisor peskin. I realize this Committee Heard this before and thankfully i did actually read the item and it was briefed by the budget legislative analyst, and i apologize if this was asked at your last meeting, buti understand there is this goldburg situation here with a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Can anybody dcyf explain why the first set of numbers of 800 and 1200i understand when they are off by 5 percent or 10 percent, but i dont understand how they could be off by a hundred percent. Well, so i think it is helpful to understand the context of the work order and the reason why we have the projection and the actuals look the way they did when we came before you a couple weeks ago, the work order was supposed to come over for fiscal year 2122 and 2223 and supposed to support placement in staffing for jcyc. Now, those dollars did not make it into this grant during those fiscal years and there was several reasons for that. Some of them are process related within our department. We are extending all our grants agreements for over 400 contracts because we added a year to the funding cycle because of the pandemic that created a large backlog. The timing when the dollars came to us had us push into the subsequent fiscal year. While that was the case, jcyc projected numbers on discussion with jcyc. The projections in the system are based on expecting to receive the funds. They are invoicing on the dollars in the grant and pulling the number of par tis paints based on the dollars. The numbers from jc i rks c because we want today show they are paying more then what they are reporting to us. They report what they are paid to do, which is dollars in the contract. These additional numbers really come about as a result of the fact they are actually working with the total number of youth that they were directed to do by hrc, but only reporting to us based what they had within their contracts. Those delays stretched out two years so wewe are in 2324 now, so thats basically the reason the numbers look so different and i think it is important to note what is our cms system is just for the grant itself. It doesnt represent the totality of the opportunities for all initiative. Even the numbers that the bla received from hrc represent the total number hrc works with and there are other cbo that pay young people under ofa as well. The numbersrupt the numbers they paid. The numbers from hrc are the totality of opportunities for all and the numbers in cms are what is reported relative to the grant dollars in the contract now. Maybe this is a question for mr. Osaki. How did jcyc manage to plote this major amount of money without going upside down . So, i think it is also good to note jcyc has been a partner on these programs decades. They have a large capacity to be able to essentially float dollars against all Employment Contracts because they are cost reimbursement based so they have lines of credit and other Funding Sources they use and as a partner on these initiatives, they have a understanding that contracting issues and other things can delay the money going into those contracts. I think thats part of the reason for willingness to continue to work with this initiative. They run the mayor Youth Employment program and San Francisco youth program. Those came about through mayors. They have experience working in these type of conditions and a commitment essentially to provide these type of services. I think thats a large reason for why they were able to do that and willingness to do that. Do you know, did they have to call on a line of credit in order to float this additional Million Dollars . Thats what i have been told, yes. And the cost of that money we reimburse them for because a line of credit aint free . We reimburse for the amount of dollars paid out to the young people. Our expectation is we reimburse for the wages they pay. Having a line of credit is something they maintain regularly. Mainly because they have to float large amounts of money mainly in the summer time when they employ thousands numbers of young people. There are private dollars we have been trying to leverage that is supposed to help with some of these things that we could potentially on the back end help cover some of the cost absorbed from the cost of doing business with city and county of San Francisco. Thank you. I like to have mr. Devon mccally from the Controller Office to help us understand as how we fulfill the recommendation from the budget and legislative analyst. Good morning. Devon mccally, budget manager. The controller Audit Division will be happy to look into this and follow back up with the committee. Thank you. I think the expectation is also please correct if im wrong, but the issuethe rfp for this has gone out the summer of 2023, the expectation is we will have somethingyou will have results of the new rfp in 2024 and i see director sue wants to answer this question. Thank you for the question chair chan. I do want to speak to how complicated this coordinated system is as with most coordinated systems it is quite complicated. What we wanted to do was to move this effort as fast as possible to insure young people had access to all these job opportunities, and as dr. Cheryl davis was building out the Human Rights Commission to hold and manage this work, we partnered together because dcyf can do grant makeic so that is the partnership. Through this rfp, we are going to transfer the management of this work over to hrc primarily because hrc over the last several years has built out the capacity to manage this work now, and this is what we do in City Government and city departments, because we help each other. And thats what this whole initiative is about. We look forward working with the Controllers Office so as they dig into how this initiative was managed, hopefully they see the partnership between the three city departments, including the office of economic and Workforce Development in making sure that we all have a role in supporting our young people in the city. Thank you. I think i want to also flag, for the audits, i think part of the goal is also to figure out i think vice chair mandelman last week indicated and agree, a structurally it is problematic, which resulted in sort of the disconnect between what the numbers submitted by hrc and jcyc as well as with dcyf. There is disconnect between the system reporting back and so i hope that through the audit it is also to reflect back what we can do better as a city with the new rfp going out and to continue to track participation rates and reimbursement rates. With that, supervisor safai. Thank you director. I think you hit on a couple points i wanted to make. I think that it is good intentions departments coordinate one another, but it seems in this situation there wasnt enough transfer quick enough. When i hear more children are served then what were contracted for, i think that is a good thing. I think it also puts non profits in a very difficult situation because they are essentially asked to bear the burden of a initiative that the mayor has and the city has to employ children, which is a worthy initiative, but with haste comes mistakes and so i think that is the importance of having this audit done because i dont think anyone believes there was anything nefarious done, but it is in your wheel house director sue to help work non and have better accountability, but it sounds the responsibility is shifting over to hrc to do direct work wi