Page 2 of 3
Wednesday, Oct. 21, 11 a.m. - Budget & Finance Committee
Based on my admittedly limited encounters with John Avalos, I've gotten the impression that he's the kind of man who shows up at a happy hour and wonders what everyone's smiling about. But even so, I have to give him this: He has a marvelous gift for keeping his committee busy.Today the Budget Committee will go over measures authorizing $19 million in bonds for Broadway Family Apartments; approving the procurement and installation of SFPUC's new "Advanced Meter Infrastructure System" (sounds dangerous!); amending various Treasure Island agreements; and more.
None of it is very interesting, but all of it has to be done. Much like today's hearing on the outcome of the competitive process for Budget and Legislative Analyst services to the city. It has to be done, but don't expect anyone to enjoy it. The reason there are no jokes that begin "a budget analyst walks into a bar" is because when you factor in the chance of not being funny, amortized over the life of the joke, it's just not worth the risk.
Even if people do laugh, they'll never go for your "How many legislative analysts does it take to change a light bulb" routine. John Avalos know that. He's not a comedian.
But he thinks he can dance...
Thursday, Oct. 22
1 p.m. - Government Audit and Oversight Committee
Did you know there's a San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market? Because I didn't. I'll admit that: I'm not proud, but I've got nothing to hide, especially produce. Well okay, I am hiding a few heirloom tomatoes, but only because they're tender and delicious and I'm afraid that you'll bruise them. It's nothing personal. They're heirlooms.
Assuming that the San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market does really exist, the mayor, Sophie Maxwell, and Bevan Dufty have a proposal to expand it. This looks to be a very big deal, coming in between $76.7 million and $88 million (according to estimates, which are almost always wrong), potentially using public money and public buildings.
The budget analyst is not making a recommendation at this point on the project, noting that it's still vague and the mechanisms for project structures and governance, financing, revenues, and construction costs are not yet nailed down. That could be a big, flashing warning sign -- but when has it ever stopped us before?
This discussion will be followed by a hearing on the First Offender Prostitution Program (FOPP) (the much-discussed "School for Johns" that tries to educate first-time Johns out of buying, and provides services to keep Janes from selling) which the city's budget analyst just finished examining.
The former supervisor who called for the report, Jake McGoldrick, had suggested at the time that FOPP was misusing government funds and lacked oversight and direction. The report under discussion today is the warmed over echo of those complaints.
Yes, the Budget Analyst report acknowledges, a two-year, independent, federal Department of Justice study found that FOPP reduces the recidivism rate among Johns by almost 50 percent. But that's not the IMPORTANT thing. No, the IMPORTANT thing is that FOPP "lacks well defined goals" because "the District Attorney's Office lacks a single document, such as a mission statement or strategic plan, that defines the specific purpose of FOPP and the goals to be achieved."
Busted! How can any program, no matter how successful, possibly be successful without a mission statement?
The Budget Analyst drives home the stake into FOPP's heart: "In the absence of a specifically defined purpose and goals consistent with FOPP's program design, the District Attorney's Office can not determine if FOPP is an effective program."
How could it? Except for that independent federal study finding that it IS extremely effective the DA's got nothing. Nothing! Not even a strategic plan!
I'd conclude that this report is a hatchet job, but that would give it an impression of effectiveness that it really hasn't earned.
On the plus side, the report does contain some potentially useful suggestions -- such as the notion that police stings for Johns ought to move from the streets to the Internet -- and some facts that, in another time and place, might be considered scandalous.
It is true, for example, that FOPP uses the money it makes from its "Johns School" to pay for social services to working women ... and that it doesn't track the outcome of those services. That's a flaw.
But it's a sadly common flaw. Who in San Francisco DOES track outcomes? Nobody, that's who. Care Not Cash spends millions each year on social services for the homeless people it puts in SROs -- and doesn't track any of their outcomes. Communities Of Opportunity (price tag: over $5 million) offered social services to people in all five San Francisco public housing complexes ... and has nothing but anecdotal evidence to show for it. Even the Department of Children, Youth, and Families -- San Francisco's gold standard for tracking outcomes -- has four goals that it insists all the programs it funds meet ... but it only bothers to track the effectiveness for two of them.
In my happiest dreams, the ones where I'm riding a unicorn with the cast of Dollhouse, I would love to be able to accuse FOPP of not adequately tracking results. But sadly, they'll just have to wait in line behind everything else San Francisco does.
We don't track results. That's our thing. It's what we don't do.
