Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Handwriting on the wall for city’s anti-graffiti bid
Audit blasts weakened enforcement, watered-down vendor contract
To outsource or not to outsource seems to be the question for new GOP mayor Kevin Faulconer, generally a privatization proponent, in the wake of a report by the city auditor's office on failures in the city's graffiti-control program.
According to the March 5 audit report:
The City of San Diego’s Graffiti Control Program, which encompasses graffiti abatement, law enforcement, and community outreach efforts, has undergone significant downsizing and restructuring in recent years.
To address these issues, we recommend that the City centralize responsibility for graffiti abatement report intake, routing, and field abatement in the Street Division.
While this may include the use of a third-party vendor to provide field abatement services, the City has never formally studied whether graffiti abatement in the field can be most efficiently and effectively performed by a vendor or City crews.
The report goes on to suggest that taxpayers may not be getting their money's worth from its current outsourcing deal.
The City’s oversight and management of the graffiti abatement vendor’s contract is limited, and the City cannot ensure that the vendor is fulfilling performance obligations or reporting accurate performance statistics.
We recommend that the City enhance contract oversight and management to guarantee vendor performance.
According to the audit, the anti-graffiti contractor, Urban Corps, "is only required to provide monthly totals of graffiti abatement work completed by source of complaint and property type. These reports contain only aggregate numbers, and do not contain information about individual work orders completed, which makes it impossible to determine response times."
"Furthermore, we found that the graffiti abatement totals reported by Urban Corps...were consistently higher than the totals reflected in the log forms."
Graffiti incidence map
Threatening to make matters worse, the auditors say, is a new contract being negotiated with Urban Corps that waters down city oversight even more.
The City’s 2006 contract with Urban Corps contained quantifiable performance measures, including a requirement for the vendor to remove graffiti within three working days after receiving a service request, and to remove any obscene, racist, or extremely threatening graffiti within 24 hours.
However, the City is in the process of finalizing a new contract with Urban Corps that eliminates these performance standards, and only states that graffiti removal should be completed “in a timely and efficient manner.”
In addition, several other requirements from the 2006 contract have been eliminated in the new contract. Specifically, while the 2006 contract required Urban Corps to maintain a 24/7 reporting hotline that is staffed by a live operator from noon to 4pm, Monday through Friday, the new contract does not require the hotline to be staffed.
Those aren’t the only problems, the auditors assert, saying, "The City dedicates fewer resources to graffiti control efforts in comparison to other jurisdictions. As a result, the City may not be able to employ adequate outreach efforts or abate graffiti as quickly as possible."
Since FY 2008, budgeted expenses for graffiti control have declined by nearly 50 percent, and staffing has declined by approximately 40 percent during that time.
Other jurisdictions tend to allocate significantly more resources per capita to graffiti control than the City of San Diego — with San Francisco and Riverside spending approximately seven times as much.
Given that the City’s goal is to abate graffiti to avoid its detrimental impact and to prevent more graffiti from appearing, the City may need to consider bolstering the resources it provides for graffiti control.
"We found that in many cases customers reporting graffiti over the phone cannot speak to a live operator," the auditors say, adding that callers to a "graffiti hotline listen to a lengthy message before leaving a voicemail with their complaint information."
In a March 4 memo to city auditor Eduardo Luna, Tony Heinrichs, the city's deputy chief operating officer for Infrastructure/Public Works generally agreed with the auditors' findings, mapping out an eight-month to two-year timeline for action to address the many problems cited by the report.
"Final recommendations may vary depending on the results of the Graffiti Study, Graffiti Pilot Program and recommendations and proposal presented by the Graffiti Task Force."
Here's something you might be interested in.
Handwriting on the wall for city’s anti-graffiti bid
Audit blasts weakened enforcement, watered-down vendor contract
Handwriting on the wall for city’s anti-graffiti bid
Audit blasts weakened enforcement, watered-down vendor contract
To outsource or not to outsource seems to be the question for new GOP mayor Kevin Faulconer, generally a privatization proponent, in the wake of a report by the city auditor's office on failures in the city's graffiti-control program.
According to the March 5 audit report:
The City of San Diego’s Graffiti Control Program, which encompasses graffiti abatement, law enforcement, and community outreach efforts, has undergone significant downsizing and restructuring in recent years.
To address these issues, we recommend that the City centralize responsibility for graffiti abatement report intake, routing, and field abatement in the Street Division.
While this may include the use of a third-party vendor to provide field abatement services, the City has never formally studied whether graffiti abatement in the field can be most efficiently and effectively performed by a vendor or City crews.
The report goes on to suggest that taxpayers may not be getting their money's worth from its current outsourcing deal.
The City’s oversight and management of the graffiti abatement vendor’s contract is limited, and the City cannot ensure that the vendor is fulfilling performance obligations or reporting accurate performance statistics.
We recommend that the City enhance contract oversight and management to guarantee vendor performance.
According to the audit, the anti-graffiti contractor, Urban Corps, "is only required to provide monthly totals of graffiti abatement work completed by source of complaint and property type. These reports contain only aggregate numbers, and do not contain information about individual work orders completed, which makes it impossible to determine response times."
"Furthermore, we found that the graffiti abatement totals reported by Urban Corps...were consistently higher than the totals reflected in the log forms."
Graffiti incidence map
Threatening to make matters worse, the auditors say, is a new contract being negotiated with Urban Corps that waters down city oversight even more.
The City’s 2006 contract with Urban Corps contained quantifiable performance measures, including a requirement for the vendor to remove graffiti within three working days after receiving a service request, and to remove any obscene, racist, or extremely threatening graffiti within 24 hours.
However, the City is in the process of finalizing a new contract with Urban Corps that eliminates these performance standards, and only states that graffiti removal should be completed “in a timely and efficient manner.”
In addition, several other requirements from the 2006 contract have been eliminated in the new contract. Specifically, while the 2006 contract required Urban Corps to maintain a 24/7 reporting hotline that is staffed by a live operator from noon to 4pm, Monday through Friday, the new contract does not require the hotline to be staffed.
Those aren’t the only problems, the auditors assert, saying, "The City dedicates fewer resources to graffiti control efforts in comparison to other jurisdictions. As a result, the City may not be able to employ adequate outreach efforts or abate graffiti as quickly as possible."
Since FY 2008, budgeted expenses for graffiti control have declined by nearly 50 percent, and staffing has declined by approximately 40 percent during that time.
Other jurisdictions tend to allocate significantly more resources per capita to graffiti control than the City of San Diego — with San Francisco and Riverside spending approximately seven times as much.
Given that the City’s goal is to abate graffiti to avoid its detrimental impact and to prevent more graffiti from appearing, the City may need to consider bolstering the resources it provides for graffiti control.
"We found that in many cases customers reporting graffiti over the phone cannot speak to a live operator," the auditors say, adding that callers to a "graffiti hotline listen to a lengthy message before leaving a voicemail with their complaint information."
In a March 4 memo to city auditor Eduardo Luna, Tony Heinrichs, the city's deputy chief operating officer for Infrastructure/Public Works generally agreed with the auditors' findings, mapping out an eight-month to two-year timeline for action to address the many problems cited by the report.
"Final recommendations may vary depending on the results of the Graffiti Study, Graffiti Pilot Program and recommendations and proposal presented by the Graffiti Task Force."
Comments