Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonprofit Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand jury flags weak outcome measurement for city CBO spending; city points to SF OpenBook and joint monitoring
Summary
The civil grand jury urged stronger outcome measurement for roughly $500 million in annual city grants to nonprofits; the Mayor’s Budget Office and Controller defended existing monitoring protocols and SF OpenBook transparency. The committee edited the Board response and sent it to the full Board with a six‑month follow up.
The committee considered the civil grand jury report on the city's use of nonprofit community‑based organizations and whether the city measures long‑term outcomes. Jurors said the city awards about $500 million annually to roughly 900 nonprofits and recommended the Board and Mayor develop an overarching strategy to evaluate long‑term effectiveness and reallocate funds toward programs that demonstrably work.
Pete Gleichenhaus, speaking for the civil grand jury, said the jury found committed city staff but insufficient systematic outcome measurement: "Do any of these programs have a long term effect?" he asked, urging investment in measurement tools and use of results to prioritize funding.
Antonio Guerra of the Mayor’s Budget Office and Peg Stevenson of the Controller’s City Services Auditor described existing city actions: vendor‑level payment transparency via SF OpenBook, a citywide joint fiscal and compliance monitoring protocol led by the Comptroller’s office, coordinated on‑site monitoring for high‑risk or multi‑agency funded nonprofits, and technical assistance and training for nonprofits. They said some grand jury recommendations had been implemented and that departments already monitor contracts against programmatic objectives.
Committee members discussed findings and responses and proposed a Board response that would "disagree in part" with finding 2 (systematic monitoring), note implementation steps for recommendation 2.1, decline recommendation 2.2 as unwarranted, and classify recommendation 3 (additional DPH Avatar resources) as implemented while asking for further analysis and a six‑month revisit. That motion passed and the committee will forward the edited resolution to the full Board with a request for a six‑month status update.
The exchange highlighted two practical tensions: (1) the need for standardized outcome metrics across diverse programs, and (2) the limits of centralized monitoring when departments administer different service types. The committee’s action directs departments to continue monitoring work and return with implementation summaries for the Board to review.
