BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BUDGET ANALYST
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642
FAX (415) 252-0461

August 2, 2007

Honorable Tom Ammiano,
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Room 244, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

Dear Supervisor Ammiano and Members of the Board of Supervisors:

The Budget Analyst is pleased to submit this Management Audit of San Francisco's Workforce Development Programs. This management audit of the City's workforce development programs was conducted by the Budget Analyst, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors powers of inquiry as defined in Charter Section 16.114. The purpose of the management audit has been to: (i) evaluate the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the workforce development programs implemented by City departments; and (ii) assess the appropriateness of established goals and objectives, strategies and plans to accomplish such goals and objectives, the degree to which such goals and objectives are actually being accomplished, and the appropriateness of controls established to provide reasonable assurance that such goals and objectives will be accomplished. The scope of the management audit includes all direct workforce development services, as defined by the respective City departments, including services provided in-house and by contractors.

The management audit was conducted in accordance with Governmental Auditing Standards, 2003 Revision, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office. The management audit staff presented applicable draft report findings and recommendations to each of the respective departments included in the audit on July 26, 2007. Subsequent to careful consideration of the additional information provided by each of the departments after submission of our draft report findings and recommendations, the management audit staff prepared final report. The Human Services Agency, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and the Department of Public Health have provided written responses to the Budget Analyst's Management Audit of San Francisco's Workforce Development Programs, which is appended to this report, beginning on page 122.

Workforce Development Programs in San Francisco

The Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation of funds in the FY 2006-2007 Department of Economic and Workforce Development budget, authorizing the creation of the Office of Workforce Development. According to the Department of Economic and Workforce Development, the Office of Workforce Development serves as the oversight and policy-making body for employment and training programs and services in San Francisco, including implementation of a comprehensive city and county-wide workforce strategic plan that will coordinate all city department resources connected to workforce development. The City's workforce development initiatives are intended to provide life skills and job training and associated services to people who have barriers to employment, such as educational, mental health and physical health, and other issues, bringing these people into the labor force for an extended period of time.

In FY 2007-2008, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development will reconstitute the membership of Workforce Investment San Francisco, which is the governing board for workforce development programs required by the Federal Workforce Investment Act, and expand the role of Workforce Investment San Francisco to oversee all of the City's workforce development programs. This governing board currently has 49 members appointed by the Mayor. At the same time, two major actions are pending before the Board of Supervisors:

• During the FY 2007-2008 budget review, the Board of Supervisors reserved six-months of the Human Services Agency's Workforce Development Division's FY 2007-2008 salary and fringe benefits budget pending discussion of transfer of the Division from the Human Services Agency to the Department of Economic and Workforce Development.

• A proposed ordinance is now pending before the Board of Supervisors (File 07-1056) that would amend the Administrative Code to (a) require the Mayor to centralize the City's workforce development efforts under the Department of Economic and Workforce Development or a successor agency; (b) require the Mayor to manage all General Fund expenditures on workforce development, create Citywide workforce development policy, submit all grant applications to the State or Federal government for workforce development funding on behalf of the City, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors, and annually report to the Board of Supervisors on workforce development policies, and related matters; and (c) require City departments to enter into Memoranda of Understanding with the Mayor's Office as a condition of funding for workforce development dollars.

The Budget Analyst reviewed the workforce development programs of the eleven City departments and agencies that have workforce development programs, which include the (1) Human Services Agency, (2) Department of Public Works, (3) Department of Public Health, (4) Public Utilities Commission, (5) Mayor's Office of Community Development, (6) Department of Economic and Workforce Development, (7) Redevelopment Agency, (8) Airport, (9) Port, (10) District Attorney's Office, and (11) Department of the Environment.

Overall, the Budget Analyst has found that the City's workforce development system is fragmented, with inconsistent planning and coordination of resources and inadequate monitoring of programs to ensure that the programs' goals and outcomes are achieved. The Budget Analyst has formulated recommendations to correct these deficiencies, improve planning and policy oversight, coordinate programs and resource allocation and improve monitoring of program performance and outcomes.

This report has six findings and 32 associated recommendations. The eleven City departments' workforce development programs were estimated to cost at least $29.1 million in FY 2006-2007. However, City departments can not demonstrate that the primary purpose of the workforce development program, placing economically-disadvantaged individuals into permanent jobs that lead to financial self-sufficiency, has been accomplished. Job placement is not well-defined, and does not require that the jobs be permanent or at a living wage as defined by City ordinance. Improving the City's workforce development program performance by just ten percent, a realistic and achievable objective, would yield a value of approximately $2.9 million, either in direct cost savings or improved effectiveness. An estimated $1.46 million of the $2.9 million would be General Fund or other local revenues.

The following sections summarize our findings and recommendations.

Section 1. Planning and Coordinating Workforce Development Programs

The City's delivery of workforce development services is fragmented and lacks central planning and coordination, which results in inadequate policy and management oversight and inefficient delivery of services with resulting deficient measurement of performance effectiveness. Workforce Investment San Francisco, the City's local workforce investment board established by the Federal Workforce Investment Act and currently consisting of 49 members appointed by the Mayor, has provided planning and oversight of programs funded by the Federal Workforce Investment Act only, which was approximately $4.6 million in FY 2006-2007.

In FY 2007-2008, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development's Office of Workforce Development plans to reconstitute the membership of Workforce Investment San Francisco, which is the governing board for programs funded by the Federal Workforce Investment Act, increasing participation from the business community, and spearheading a new strategic planning process, required by the Workforce Investment Act. Workforce Investment San Francisco and the new strategic plan need to encompass all City workforce development resources and programs.

In order to encompass all City workforce development resources and programs, the Board of Supervisors should amend the Administrative Code, to define Workforce Investment San Francisco's role in planning and coordinating locally-funded as well as federally-funded programs.

The Workforce Investment Act authorizes the Mayor to appoint members¹ to Workforce Investment San Francisco to oversee programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act. The Board of Supervisors plays a key role in creating and directing the City's workforce development policies and programs. In amending the Administrative Code, the Board of Supervisors should define their role in providing policy oversight of the City's workforce development programs, including appointing designated members to Workforce Investment San Francisco and approving workforce development programs funded by local revenues, subject to applicable Federal and State law.

To ensure coordination of workforce development programs and resources, Workforce Investment San Francisco should develop an annual work plan to complement the strategic plan and identified funding in the fiscal year which would then be subject to the Board of Supervisors appropriation authority.

Section 2. Workforce Development Programs for Adults

Overall, City programs do not universally demonstrate that individuals receiving services are eventually placed into permanent jobs leading to financial self-sufficiency, which should be a primary goal of any workforce development program.

The City's three One-Stop Centers² established by the Federal Workforce Investment Act, two of which are operated by the Human Services Agency and one of which is operated by the State Education Department, are job centers intended to provide employment and support services to cash-aid recipients and general job seekers. The One-Stop Centers primarily provide basic job services, including self-directed job searches. Few persons are directly placed into jobs by these Centers. In FY 2006-2007, the three One-Stop Centers reported 13,157 clients receiving a range of services from casual contact to self-directed job searches and more intensive staff-assisted job services. Of the 13,157 clients, including walk-in clients, CalWORKS and Personally Assisted Employment Services referrals, and referrals from community-based organizations and other programs, only 2,054 clients found jobs, or 15.6 percent. According to the June 2007 Business Services Monthly Report, 4,273 of these clients received more intensive services. Only approximately 33 percent, or 1,398 of the One-Stop Centers' clients who received more intensive job services were placed into jobs that paid 125 percent of the San Francisco minimum wage, short of the targeted goal of 45 percent job placement. However, there was no evidence to indicate that the jobs were permanent jobs.

Community-based organizations, which make up $15.4 million of the FY 2006-2007 funding of $29.1 million, also do not place many individuals into jobs. In a review of 32 community-based organization contracts for which job placement data was available, 10,530 individuals were served but only 2,256 were reported to receive job placement. Further, there was no evidence to indicate that these jobs were permanent. Not all services provided by community-based organizations are expected to lead to job placement, but even when outcomes other than direct placement are a reasonable goal of the program, City departments do not routinely move participants from pre-employment programs provided by community-based organizations to programs providing job training and placement.

Because the City's workforce development system lacks coordination, City departments implement workforce development programs on their own initiative, resulting in duplication of services to some communities and significant gaps in services to others. Planning for and providing services in specific City neighborhoods is not based upon a Citywide plan, or funding formula based on need, but rather is based on the discretion of each department or the availability of community-based organizations to provide services. For example, at least four City departments have workforce development programs targeting the City's southeast neighborhoods without collaboration with one another or participation in Citywide programs, such as CityBuild which provides job opportunities for low-income residents with the City's construction contractors.

Community-based organizations have more capacity to provide services in some economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to others, resulting in uneven distribution of workforce development programs provided by community-based organizations and funded by City departments. In FY 2006-2007, combined funding to programs provided by community-based organizations in the Mission/Potrero Hill and Tenderloin/ South of Market neighborhoods of $3.4 million was approximately 55.0 percent greater than combined funding to the Western Addition, Bayview Hunters Point, and Chinatown neighborhoods of $2.2 million.

City departments' workforce development programs target specific groups or populations needing services rather than targeting programs directed to available jobs. Service delivery is highly fragmented, with multiple programs for different populations and groups and insufficient links between workforce development programs and job opportunities. Further, this uncoordinated approach has resulted in uneven funding to different populations regardless of need. Differences in funding is compounded by lack of clarity in what constitutes workforce development programs. For example, in FY 2006-2007, funding for programs defined as workforce development programs targeted to individuals needing mental health services was approximately $3.0 million but funding for programs defined as workforce development programs targeted to individuals with disabilities was less than $100,000.

As another example, very few City programs address workforce development for young adults under 25 years, yet this population has significant needs. Of 3,412 youth and young adult clients seeking services at the One-Stop Centers, only 140, or 4.1 percent, were actually placed into jobs.

In FY 2006-2007, Community-based organizations received $15.4 million, more than one-half of all funding for the City's workforce development programs, but City departments providing funds for such programs cannot determine if this funding is effective in placing the City's economically disadvantaged residents into permanent jobs. In FY 2006-2007, City departments awarded $15.4 million in contracts to 59 different community-based organizations, or approximately 52.9 percent of the estimated funding of $29.1 million for workforce development programs, providing a range of workforce development services, from basic education, job readiness, and life skills training to more focused job training preparing participants for permanent placement. As noted above, only an estimated 2,256 of 10,530 individuals served were reported to receive job placement, or 21.4 percent. Again, there was no evidence of permanent job placement.

City departments do not consistently measure or ensure the effectiveness of programs provided by community-based organizations, nor do they have a comprehensive plan to ensure that all aspects of adult workforce development (e.g., soft and hard skills development, subsidized jobs, access to work supports, etc.) are provided and linked together. Consequently, clients do not receive the full range and depth of training and employment services that are needed to maintain a permanent job and ultimately achieve self-sufficiency.

The performance data collected by community-based organizations, which primarily includes program participation and job placement data, is very limited and varies from program to program. City departments lack a common definition of successful outcomes for workforce development programs and methods to measure (1) if programs providing services other than direct job placement eventually result in job placement, and (2) if job placements are permanent and financially self-sufficient.

As a result, City departments and community-based organizations are unable to determine the overall effectiveness of the workforce development services in terms of providing their clients with long-term, financially self-sufficient employment.

The City departments contracting with community-based organizations for workforce development services lack consistent oversight of community-based organizations. There is no formal process to identify organizations that fail to meet performance goals across several funding sources. Having sufficient, consistent, and on-going oversight of community-based organizations is essential in order to ensure that such community-based organizations are effectively performing their contractual obligations and to establish a system of accountability and standards for the City's workforce development efforts.

The Human Services Agency is required to provide workforce development programs and services to certain individuals receiving public assistance benefits, including food stamps and cash aid. Additionally, as a partner in the City's one-stop system, the Agency must provide workforce development services to other eligible San Francisco job seekers.

The Human Services Agency provides workforce development services both in-house and through contractual services. The FY 2006-2007 estimated expenditures of $10.2 million for direct workforce development services included $3.5 million for services provided in-house and $6.7 million for contractual services.

Despite average job placement costs ranging from $1,614 per placement for in-house services to as high as $6,106 per placement for community-based services, the Human Services Agency failed to meet its job placement goals in FY 2006-2007. For example, based on the information reported to SF Stat by the Human Services Agency, the One Stop Centers failed to meet their performance targets in FY 2006-2007 to place 45 percent of One-Stop Center clients receiving intensive services into jobs, especially jobs that pay 125 percent or more of the San Francisco minimum wage. Only approximately 33 percent of the One-Stop Centers general clients and 36 percent of the CalWORKS and Personally Assisted Employment Services clients met the 45 percent job placement goal.

According to the Human Services Agency, "placement" indicates only that a client was placed into post-training employment and does not indicate if the placement was a permanent job at a living wage. The Human Service Agency's definition of "placement" is clearly inadequate in that it does not meet the workforce development program goals to place individuals into permanent jobs.

The community-based organizations under contract with the Human Services Agency do not meet their performance goals. Of eight community based organizations reviewed, six did not meet their enrollment targets; seven did not meet their target for the number of participants to complete the program; and seven did not meet their target for the number of participants placed into jobs. For example, in FY 2006-2007 the eight community based organizations had total (a) enrollment targets of 1,351 individuals and actual enrollment of 1,164 individuals, a reduction of 184 or 13.8 percent, and (b) program completion targets of 814 individuals and actual completion of 699 individuals, a reduction of 115, or 14.1 percent. Job placement targets of 543 individuals were generally in line with actual job placement of 532 individuals.

The City has two Citywide programs that make jobs with City contractors available to the City's low-income residents: the First Source Hiring Program, which is managed by the Human Services Agency and requires City contracts to make entry level jobs available to low-income City residents, and CityBuild, which is managed by the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and places low-income residents into construction jobs with City contractors.

Because the First Source Hiring Program does not have a formal system to identify all City contractors who are required to make entry level jobs available to low-income City residents, and lacks an effective program to enforce compliance, the First Source Hiring Program does not ensure that all employers required to participate in the Program by the First Source Hiring Ordinance actually do so and that job opportunities for low-income City residents are maximized. Although the number of reported job placements through the First Source Hiring Program increased in FY 2006-2007 to 299 placements, compared to 142 placements in FY 2007-2008, an increase of 110 percent, only 128 City contractors posted non-construction jobs with First Source in FY 2006-2007. However, the Controller's database lists more than 20,000 vendors, indicating that many more contractors are subject to requirements.

Also, the First Source Hiring Administration, which is made up of representatives from the Department of Economic and Workforce Development, Human Services Agency and other departments, as established by the Administrative Code, and which governs the First Source Hiring Program, has not even met since 2004. In the absence of an effective First Source Hiring Administration, City departments have not developed First Source Hiring implementation and monitoring plans nor has a Citywide system been developed to ensure that all City departments include First Source Hiring agreements in contracts, leases, and permits.

Although the First Source Hiring Program has a mechanism to enforce compliance, no City department has assumed responsibility for enforcement. In the absence of systems to identify all employers and entry level positions subject to the First Source Hiring Program and an effective enforcement mechanism, First Source cannot ensure that jobs are made available to low-income City residents.

The CityBuild program has been able to place low-income residents into jobs at a lower cost than community-based organizations were able to do previously. Before the establishment of the CityBuild Academy, which provides pre-employment training to low-income residents prior to placement in City construction jobs, the City provided an estimated $700,000 to approximately six community-based organizations to provide construction training services for economically disadvantaged City residents. However, this funding only trained an estimated 90 participants at a cost of approximately $7,777 per participant. Further, only an estimated 25 individuals were placed into post-training construction employment at a cost of approximately $28,000 per placement. In FY 2006-2007, approximately 113 CityBuild Academy graduates received job placements at a total cost $5,930 per student.

However, job placement has been uneven, with far more residents of the City's southeastern neighborhoods placed into jobs than in the City's other economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Job placements for CityBuild can vary in terms of substance and duration with some construction project jobs lasting for only two days. 452 City residents have been placed into construction jobs through CityBuild between September 2005 and May 2007. Of these 452 residents, zip code data was available for 230, listing 139 of the 230, or 60.4 percent, as residents of Bayview Hunters Point and Visitacion Valley.

Regardless of length of time, all job placements hold equal weight for the purposes of CityBuild job placement tracking. As a result there is no way to evaluate or classify the type of projects for which contractors are requesting CityBuild workers. Nor does CityBuild have a robust retention tracking system in place to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of CityBuild in helping low-income clients to secure long-term employment in the construction industry. Contractual agreements with community-based organizations established after June 1, 2006 will provide additional job retention data for CityBuild Academy graduates up to nine months after program completion. However, efforts to obtain job duration information regarding the long-term employment outcomes for non-CityBuild Academy graduates remain limited at best.

FY 2006-2007 funding for employment programs for youth under 18 years of age Citywide was $12.6 million. Although a number of City departments provide youth employment programs or participate in Citywide programs, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families is the lead department for such programs.

In a March 2005 report, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families declared the City's youth employment system to be "rich but fragmented". Much of that fragmentation has continued, with at least four City departments funding or operating programs independently, and often funding the same community-based organization under separate agreements to provide similar programs. Youth employment programs show some of the same gaps in services found in adult workforce development programs, including uneven distribution of programs among neighborhoods.

As is the case with workforce development programs for adults, the City lacks policy direction and governance for youth workforce development programs. In the March 2005 report, the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families recommended reconstitution of the Youth Council, which is a committee of Workforce Investment San Francisco in accordance with Workforce Investment Act requirements. The current Youth Council is made up of representatives from non-profit organizations, City departments and labor unions, but significantly the San Francisco Unified School District does not have formal representation.

The Department of Economic and Workforce Development should play a lead role in rebuilding the Youth Council, and providing oversight over the City's youth employment programs. To achieve this, the Board of Supervisors should define the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and the Youth Council, including the participation of the San Francisco Unified School District, as a component of Workforce Investment San Francisco, when adopting an ordinance to amend the Administrative Code, as recommended in Section 1 of this report.

The Human Services Agency's Written Response

The Human Services Agency presented a written response to the Budget Analyst on August 1, 2007. In the written response, the Agency makes several assertions that the Budget Analyst would like to address.

• On page 3 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that "the Budget Analyst fails to properly distinguish between the One Stop Centers and the One Stop System". In the Introduction to the report and on page 11 of Section 2, the Budget Analyst identifies the one-stop system as the local workforce investment system established by the Federal Workforce Investment Act, intended to coordinate and provide services through physical one-stop centers, the local community college and educational system, municipal agencies, and community-based organizations. Sections 2 and 4 of the report discuss the role of the three One-Stop Centers, two of which are operated by the Human Services Agency and one of which is operated by the State Employment Development Department. As noted on page 83 of the report, "because most Human Services Agency clientele served by in-house workforce development programs must interact with the One Stop Centers for job search, placement and other services, all in-house workforce development client tracking occurs at the level of the One Stop Center." Therefore, the Budget Analyst used One Stop Center data to evaluate the effectiveness of the workforce development programs targeted to this clientele.

• On page 3 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that "the Budget Analyst also fails to note the extent to which nondiscretionary social service funding streams have been leveraged to bolster the City's workforce development system." The Budget Analyst does not consider this to be within the scope of the management audit, and therefore, did not address the issue in the report.

• On page 4 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that "the Budget Analyst erroneously equates the total number of One Stop enrollments (13,157 clients) with the number of clients directly served by HSA's Workforce Development programs". On page 12 and page 83 of the report, the Budget Analyst states, "In FY 2006-2007, the three One-Stop Centers reported 13,157 clients receiving a range of services from casual contact to self-directed job searches and more intensive staff-assisted job services." On page 84 of the report, the Budget Analyst provides details of these 13,157 clients.

• One page 4 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that "the Budget Analyst calculates job placement rates in two different ways: by taking the number of placements as a percent of total clients enrolled in an employment program (e.g. Table 4.8) and as a percent of the total clients who completed an employment program (e.g. Table 4.9)85We feel that the method used to calculate job placement rte in Table 4.8 and elsewhere results in a misleadingly low rate." For the workforce development programs in which job placement was the objective or expected outcome, he Budget Analyst appropriately analyzed and reported on the number of clients participating in the workforce development program, the number of clients completing the program, and the number of clients placed into jobs to provide a full and accurate assessment of the program.

• On page 4 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that, "the HSA strives to achieve a number of client outcomes that must be attained prior to job placement, none of which are mentioned by the Budget Analyst." The Budget Analyst discusses workforce development programs that have goals other than job placement in Sections 2 and 3 of the report. On page 17 of the report, the Budget Analyst states that outcomes other than job placement are a reasonable goal, such as programs providing life skills training or mental health services. On page 30 of the report, the Budget Analyst discusses the mix of services provided by community-based organizations that are targeted to individuals who have significant skills development needs, including language and basic educational skills, or significant social issues, such as homelessness or mental health issues.

• On page 4 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that, "the Budget Analyst calculates a cost per client served by Human Services Agency in-house programs and a cost per job placement for HSA in-house programs, in both instances using the 13,157 One Stop visitors as the denominator." On pages 83 and 84 of the report, the Budget Analyst analyzed program participation rates and costs based on data provided by the Human Services Agency and considers the cost per client estimates to be an accurate representation, based on that data provided.

• On page 5 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that "the Budget Analyst's report suggests that workforce development services and funding are inequitably across City neighborhoods and among City residents". In Section 2, the Budget Analyst analyzes all workforce development programs provided by City departments. The conclusions in Table 2.1, which shows the neighborhood distribution of programs provided by community-based organizations, with total contract amounts of $15.3 million in FY 2006-2007, and in Table 2.2, which shows the populations served by workforce development programs provided by eleven different City departments, are supported by the data provided to the Budget Analyst from the City departments.

• On page 5 of the written response, the Human Services Agency states that "the report refers to the First Source 'hiring requirement'". On page 99 of the report, the Budget Analyst states that "the First Source Hiring Ordinance ("First Source") was intended as a means to connect low-income City residents with entry level employment opportunities available through City contracts. Essentially, First Source mandates that contractors who work for the City, and who meet certain threshold contract, lease, and permit amounts, give first right of referral for entry-level positions to economically-disadvantaged individuals participating in the City's workforce development system." The Budget Analyst does not refer to a First Source "hiring requirement".

In their written response in regard to recommendation 4.1, the Human Services Agency states that "HSA disagrees with the Budget Analyst's conclusion (underline added) that the PAES program is constrained by the CalWORKs regulatory framework". However, as noted on pages 74 and 75 of the management audit, Welfare-to-Work activities provided under the CalWORKs program are constrained by state and federal law. As such, the Budget Analyst believes it is wholly appropriate that the Human Services Agency evaluate whether or not workforce training opportunities for Personal Assisted Employment Services clients have been unduly constrained by the CalWORKs regulatory framework, and if so, to explore other workforce training activities that may be better suited for this client population.

As noted above, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and Department of Public Health provided written responses that are attached to this report.

We would like to thank the staff of the Human Services Agency and the Department of Economic and Workforce Development, and various representatives from other City departments for their cooperation and assistance throughout this management audit.

Respectfully submitted,

Harvey M. Rose

Budget Analyst

1 The Federal Workforce Investment Act, which requires the establishment of local workforce investment boards (called Workforce Investment San Francisco in San Francisco) to oversee Federal Workforce Investment Act funds and outlines the different constituencies to be represented on the board, does not specify how many members should be appointed, although the existing Workforce Investment San Francisco has 49 members. Under the recommendations presented in Section 1 and Section 2 of this report, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development will need to work with the City Attorney's Office, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor to determine the total number of members to be appointed to Workforce Investment San Francisco. The Board of Supervisors will need to work with the City Attorney to define their authority to appoint members to Workforce Investment San Francisco subject to applicable State and Federal law.

2 The two One-Stop Centers operated by the Human Services Agency are located in the Mission District and on Oakdale Avenue in southeast San Francisco, and the One-Stop Center operated by the State Employment Development Department is located at 801 Turk Street.