City Non-Profit Contracting Task Force
May 28, 2003
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Minutes
CALL TO ORDER:
Co-Chair Blackwell called the meeting to order at 10:12 a.m.
ROLL CALL:
Representing Non-Profit Community:
Judith Stevenson, Baker Places (representing Jim Illig, Project Open Hand)
Bruce Rice, Huckleberry Youth (representing Salvador Menjivar, Hamilton Family Center)
Tony Michelini, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco
Tiffany Mock-Goeman, Continuum
Sandy Mori, Kimochi, Inc.
Debbi Lerman, Huckleberry Youth (representing Jonathan Vernick, Baker Places)
Representing City Departments:
Judith Blackwell, Office of Contract Administration
Gene Coleman, Mayor’s Office of Community Development
Pauson Yun (representing David Curto, Dept. of Human Services)
Winna Davis, Dept of Children, Youth and their Families
John Haskell (representing Ed Harrington, Controller)
Anne Okubo, Dept. of Public Health
Staff:
Bob Davis, Dept. of Administrative Services
Henny Lee, Dept. of Administrative Services
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motioned, seconded, and approved the May 21 Meeting Minutes.
REPORT OF THE CO-CHAIRS:
The Co-Chair Blackwell reported that she will chair the June 4 meeting, and Co-Chair Rubin will chair the June 11 meeting.
DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS:
Agenda Item 5, Recommendation #1: Implementation Plan – Report to the Board of Supervisors, Report from the Implementation Plan Report Committee:
5.1 Determine the need for an extension from the Board of Supervisors to complete the report.
5.2 Report from the Implementation Plan Report Committee.
The Implementation Plan Report Committee Chair advised that a Task Force extension to complete its report would not be needed. The Committee Chair indicated that a draft should be available by the next meeting for the Task Force to review.
The Committee met on Thursday, May 22. The Committee Chair distributed a working draft of their write-ups for the recommendations to be included in the report, see Attachment A.
The Committee Chair asked for advice on attaching appendixes to the report. The Task Force indicated that appendixes should be included where appropriate but should be minimized to avoid distracting readers from the main body of the report.
The remainder of the meeting was spent on reviewing and discussing the document. Summaries of the discussions are provided below under the appropriate agenda item and recommendation. The Co-Chair pointed out that the recommendations are grouped by categories; monitoring, contracting, and automation and standardized forms. Discussions of any one recommendation speaks, directly or indirectly, to other recommendations within the same category. For example, Agenda Item 6.6, Recommendation #13 below is directly related to Recommendations #4 and #12, and indirectly to the others within the monitoring category.
Agenda Item 6.3, Recommendation #15: Conduct risk assessment of programs or agencies by auditing or monitoring the agency in an appropriate fashion including but not limited to performance, financial stability, staff turnover, leadership, contract longevity, and audit findings with the goal of implementing tiered monitoring based on risks.
The following summarizes the discussions regarding this recommendation:
Risk assessment is unique to each department’s programs, contracts, and contractors.
Non-profits under contract with multiple departments may be considered low risk by one department but higher risk by another department.
There are two aspects of assessing risk; fiscal (citywide concern) – how well run is the agency and its financials, and program (department specific concern) – services provided; goals and objectives, and standards.
Agenda Item 6.4, Recommendation #5: Waive site-monitoring reviews if audits or site monitoring by other regulatory agencies address the department’s site monitoring review objectives.
This recommendation will be folded into Recommendation #11, which is as follows:
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.
Agenda Item 6.6, Recommendation #13: Provide training for monitors to ensure adequate knowledge and understanding of program and services prior to monitoring.
The following summarizes the discussions regarding this recommendation:
The training should be extended to include non-profit contractor staff so that they will know what to expect.
This training should be mandatory for all City employees engaged in monitoring activities and optional for City commissioners and board members .
Experts from each department should meet to review, modify and update monitoring standards used for training across all departments.
Some of the difficulties of citywide training would be the question of leadership and capacity. Should the larger departments include the smaller departments in their training? Should the training be centralized and incorporated into the current curriculum provided by the Department of Human Resources?
There are two training areas that need to be addressed; those that are standardized as in the case of fiscal monitoring, and those that are unique to departments and specific to their contracts as in the case of program monitoring.
Current practice is that separate staffs perform fiscal vs. program monitoring. There are a few departments that been cross training and merging their monitoring staffs to perform both types of monitoring. The tradeoff is that it may be less burdensome to departments and contractors alike however there could be less scrutiny.
The Controller’s Office can assist in the development of training standards as part of Recommendation #4 – Establish accounting principles for non-profits, and Recommendation #12 – Develop standard monitoring protocol, language and definitions in advance with providers for purposes of improving contract to be distributed at the time of contract extension.
Agenda Item 7.4, Recommendation #10: Develop and process documents early in the cycle to assure timely payment for ongoing services.
The award of a contract and certification of funds is necessary for timely payment. However, it is separate from the timely processing of invoices by departments for payments for work performed where funds have already been certified. Problems are compounded when non-profit contractors invoice for work performed and the contract has not been approved and/or funds have not been certified.
7.6 Recommendation #9: Create a review/appellate process for substantive changes to standardized requirements.
The Office of Contract Administration is amendable to creating an ombudsman position within its office to oversee non-profit professional services contracts, coordinate changes across departments and to report each January to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachment: Implementation Plan Report Committee draft document, dated 5/27/03
Agenda Items: See June 4 Agenda
Public Comment: None
Adjournment: 12:02 p.m.
