Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Performance Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller office outlines CSA work plan as Civil Grand Jury urges broader visibility for performance scorecards
Summary
CSA leaders presented a work plan emphasizing interactive performance scorecards, mobile inspections and four GO bond expenditure audits; the Civil Grand Jury urged improved public visibility and clearer links between performance metrics and budget, and the controller pledged follow‑up.
Peg Stephenson, director of the performance section at the City Services Auditor (CSA), told the Citizens' General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee on July 12 that the office will publish a final work plan on its website after today’s meeting and highlighted the office’s shift toward interactive performance reporting and targeted audits. "The annual operating budget that's coming to us ... is $17,400,000," Stephenson said as she described resourcing and scope for the year.
The CSA described three major public‑facing efforts for the coming fiscal year: the performance scorecards (about 80 measures available on DataSF), mobile inspections (which made park inspections more actionable), and a program of bond‑expenditure audits. Tanya Ledijou, CSA audit director, said the office is staffing up and will conduct focused performance audits — including a capital construction audit at SFMTA and a citywide fleet management review — and reported that the office’s follow‑up work historically sees a 97% implementation rate for recommendations.
The Civil Grand Jury’s government performance committee, represented by chair Lawrence Grew, told the committee the city’s scorecard framework is not reaching the public and recommended steps to raise visibility and link performance reporting to budget and planning. "The broader public is barely aware of the performance scorecard framework," Grew said, arguing that stronger placement and presentation could increase public understanding and trust.
Committee members asked for follow‑up on several targeted items: whether CSA audits should analyze general‑fund spending tied to public frustration topics (homelessness, affordability, street safety), how CSA will handle customer service plan reporting, and whether CSA will provide a breakdown of performance measures by supervisor district. CSA staff said they will incorporate liaison feedback, publish quarterly updates and finalize a written response to Grand Jury recommendations. Ben (Controller’s Office) staff noted agreement with many recommendations and said the office will finalize its formal response in early August.
The committee did not take formal action on the CSA work plan at the meeting; members asked CSA to circulate the finalized work plan and to follow up on outstanding technical questions (contractor debarment sharing, MTA complaint categorization and metrics benchmarking). The CSA committed to circulate draft materials and to include the controller’s marketing and outreach efforts in its next quarterly update.
