City Non-Profit Contracting Task Force
April 23, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Minutes
Present:
Representing Non-Profit Community:
Jim Illig, Project Open Hand
Salvador Menjivar, Hamilton Family Center
Tony Michelini, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco
Tiffany Mock-Goeman, Continuum
Sandy Mori, Kimochi, Inc.
Nancy Rubin, Edgewood Center
Jonathan Vernick, Baker Places, Inc.
Representing City Departments:
Gene Coleman, Mayor's Office of Community Development
Pauson Yun (representing Dave Curto, Human Services)
Artina Lim (representing Winna Davis, Dept. of Children, Youth, & Their Families)
John Haskell, Controller's Office (representing Ed Harrington)
Anne Okubo, Dept. of Public Health
Maria Guillen (representing Larry Ross, Dept. of Aging and Adult Services)
Others: Staff:
Deborah Gordon, Controller's Office Angela Karikas, City Attorney
Debbi Lerman, S.F. Human Services Network Henny Lee, Dept. of Admin. Services Michelle Long Dixon, Dept of Public Health
Judith Stevenson, Baker Places, Inc.
Rich Waller, Office of Contract Administration
Winnie Xie, Dept. on the Status of Women
Co-Chair Nancy Rubin called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.
Consent Calendar
Motioned, seconded, and approved as amended the April 16 Meeting Minutes- see attached.
Report of the Co-Chairs
Ms. Rubin indicated that she would coordinate with Co-Chair blackwell to organize a committee from the Task Force to draft the implementation plan.
The Deputy City Attorney indicated that these committee meetings would have to be noticed consistent with the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance.
Discussion & Possible Action Items:
Agenda Item 5: Implementation Plan - Report to the Board of Supervisors; format, contents and methodology, including establishment of committees where appropriate.
Ms. Rubin led a discussion on the timing, contents and methodology for the development of a report to the Board of Supervisors detailing the task force's plan to implement the recommendations made in their September 27, 2002 report to the Board of Supervisors. The following are comments provided by the task force members regarding the report:
Task force must reach agreement or achieve clarity/refinement on the language of some the recommendations, for example; clarifying "where appropriate" in Recommendation #6 which reads "Consolidate contracts, where appropriate, from various departments." Ask for another extension from the Board of Supervisors so that the Task Force may have enough time to finish its work. Focus on what the Task Force has accomplished and what else needs to be done before the task force sunsets on July 1. Outstanding issues still to be discussed:· Standardized forms
· Ombudsman
· Fiscal impact analysis
Establish a committee to work on the reportThe Task Force reviewed two documents prepared by staff to assist in the development of the report; Minutes Summary and Recommendation Worksheet (incomplete), - see Attachments A & B. It was agreed that the documents are useful, and staff should continue to update and distribute the documents routinely.
Motioned, seconded and approved that the Task Force:
Establish an Implementation Plan Report Committee to draft the report. The committee shall: · Meet each Thursday between the hours of 2pm and 4pm starting May 1, in the conference room at Continuum Inc. at 255 Golden Gate.
· Provide a status report at each Task Force meeting.
· Consist of the following Task Force members and interested individuals;
· Complete a first draft by June 3 for the Task Force to review.
- At the May 28 meeting evaluate the need for an extension from the Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item #6.1, Recommendation #11 Whenever possible, coordinate one joint program monitoring visit per year per contract by a lead City department. Departments will provide timely written notice of 14 days as well as a timely written report back within 30 days, if possible, but not beyond 90 days. Fiscal site visits should utilize other City department visits within a twelve-month period.
- Motioned, seconded and approved that the each departmental representative will provide the following information to the task force for discussion - see April 19 Meeting Minutes:
· Number of full time city employees engaged in fiscal and program monitoring
· Number of professional services contracts with non-profits
· Number of non-profit contractors with professional service contracts
The representative from the Department of Aging and Adult Services, DAAS, presented the above requested information. DAAS worked with data provided by the Controller's Office to provide the following additional information - see Attachments C & D:
· Number of contractor for which DAAS is the only department under contract and where DAAS is 1 of 2, 1 of 3, 1 of 4, etc. departments under contract with the same contractor.
· Identity of those departments and number of contracts with which DAAS shares or co-funds contractors.
· Number of contractors where DAAS based on dollar size might and might not be the lead department.
The representative from the Department of Public Health, DPH, presented the above requested information - see Attachment E.
The Task Force in comparing the information provided by the two departments determined that the following information, in addition what was provided by DAAS, will be required from all reporting departments:
· Staff engaged in conducting audits. If auditing is contracted out, as in the case of DAAS, then annual amount spent on this function.
· Where it is not appropriate to provide the information across departments then provide it across divisions within your department, as in the case of DPH.
· Any additional staff and/or cost for contract management.
· Total dollar value of non-profit contracts.
The following departments will provide the all the above requested information at the next meeting:
- Department on Children, Youth and their Families
- Department of Human Services
- Mayor's Office on Community Development
The Task Force requested that the Controller's representative provide complete report used by DAAS to provide their additional information on contractors across departments. The complete listing would list all non-profit contractors, the departments contracted, dollar amounts, and tiered by the type of non-profit contractors.
The Task Force discussed referring the question of appropriateness and benefits of departments merging staff engaged in contracting with those engaged in program or fiscal monitoring. The Task Force also indicated that in order to explain any fiscal impact of the Task Force's recommendations, the total cost of contract management needs to capture as a basis for comparing any cost saving identified in the report.
Agenda Item 6.2, Recommendation #12: Develop standard monitoring protocol, language and definitions in advance with providers for purposes of improving contracts to be distributed at the time of contract extension.
Controller representative to discuss guidelines for auditing non-profits.
The Controller's representative distributed two draft documents for discussion; Sample Procedures for a Controller's Office Limited Scope Audit, and Comparison of Current Methods of Fiscal Monitoring of Community Based Organizations (Draft for Task Force Initial Feedback) - see Attachments F & G. The Controller's representatives highlighted the following during their presentation:
- The draft procedure is a baseline for conducting audits. Depending on the scope of work in contract other aspects may be audited. For example, it was brought up that auditors checked for volunteers' signatures on contractors' timesheets as a way to verify work performed, as stipulated in the contract. This additional item audited seems to originated from a misinterpretation of the funding source's reporting requirements that then applied to those contract as a requirement.
- With regard to the comparison, an audit does not serve the same purpose of a fiscal site-monitoring visit. An audit is after-the-fact and may result in recovering monies already spent. Whereas, a site visit is live and may result in the avoidance of any monies that may be incorrectly spent.
- A satisfactory fiscal site-monitoring visit does not exempt the organization from an audit.
A Task Force member indicated that the draft comparison is applicable to Recommendation #15 - Conduct risk assessment of programs or agencies by auditing or monitoring the agency in an appropriate fashion...
Agenda Items: The next meeting's agenda was determined see April 30 Agenda
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 P.M.
Attachments:
April 16 Meeting Minutes, Corrected
A. CNPCTF Minutes, Summary from Feb. 20 to Present
B. CNPCTF Recommendation Worksheets (incomplete)
C. DAAS Monitoring Employee Overview FY 02-03
D. DAAS Lead City Dept. Monitoring Model
E. DPH Monitoring and Contract Development Staffing
F. Controller's Sample Procedures for a Controller's Office Limited Scope Audit, draft
G. Controller's Comparison of Current Methods of Fiscal Monitoring of CBOs, draft
