HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12041984 - T.5 TO: �° BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ?
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Contra
WSta
DATE: December 4, 1984 County
SUBJECT: Human Services Advisory Commission Workshop on
Allocation Review Process
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Refer Human Services Advisory Commission's Allocation Review Process to the County
Administrator for implementation whereconsidered feasible in Fiscal Year 1985-1986
budget process and remove as referral item to Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND:
About three years ago, the Human Services Advisory Commission began work on the
Allocation Review Process (ARP) being presented before the Board as a means of responding
to the Board's direction that the Commission prioritize the County's Human Services'
needs.
On March 5, 1984, the Commission presented an outline of the ARP to the Internal Operations
Committee during a review of the Commission's 1983 Annual Report. At that time, the
Commission advised a final report on the ARP would be presented to the Board in July,
1984.
On Jane 12„, 1984, the Board received the ARP and referred it to the Finance Committee
and the County Administrator. During the discussion, Supervisor Schroder suggested that
the Commission meet with the Board to discuss the ARP in a workshop session. Subsequently,
the Order was omitted from the Finance Committee referrals and the matter has not been
heard by them. The Commission prepared a review for the Board which, because of the
Board calendar, found the earliest opportunity for presentation to be December 4, set
as the date of the workshop. Mrs. Mary Lou Laubscher, Chair of the Commission, led the
discussion.
The Commission recommends that the Allocation Review Process presented here be used to:
1 . establish a format for County and private program proposals to County
departments;
2. establish a basis for County human service departments in preparation of their
annual budget;
3. establish a framework for presentation of human service department budgets by
the County Administrator to the Board of Supervisors.
For optimal performance, the ARP should be integrated into the basic department planning
process. Once instituted at the program level , the department head and/or program head
can clearly see the strengths and weaknesses of the various programs. The ARP will enable
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON December—4, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
i
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator 6ry-/
CC: HSAC ATTESTED DVif�LlY) L�G/� i 7 6 /`
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board o
Supervisors and County Administrator /9/
M382/7-83 BY (�/ , DEPUTY
-2-
the department head to present a budget based on criteria which everyone
understands.
When the recommended format is used by a department in preparing its budget, the
County Administrator and the Board will be in a position to review and evaluate
programs relative to each other based on consistent criteria.
This ARP is designed to make the allocation of fiscal resources more visible and
understandable; to provide for broad input, and to give the Board of Supervisors
an agreed-upon tool to use when making very difficult decisions.
The ARP was developed to be a part of, and not replace, the current budget process,
and is intended to operate in concert with the budget process.
The process is to be used in comparing and prioritizing needs between and within
departments and contracts with nonprofit agencies. It brings into focus mandates,
political realities , legislative weaknesses, etc. The ARP answers these six basic
questions:
1 . What does your program/department do? What are your goals and
objectives?
2. Wh.o does your program/department serve?
3. How much does it cost to operate your program?
4. What other program/department provides a similar service?
5. How could you provide the same quality of service at less cost?
6. How do you measure your effectiveness in achieving your goals and
objectives?
The Commission is willing to assist advisory boards, department heads, and
administrators in the use of the ARP. It is intended to be a very flexible process
capable of adapting to the varying needs of the large departments. The Process
forces management to be explicit about goals which help everyone make more appropriate
management decisions.
Rod Libbey, Drug Abuse Program Director, reviewed the experiences of his program
while used as the demonstration project for the ARP. Of particular value were the
required needs assessment, input from the Drug Abuse Advisory Board and staff,
and the uniformity of criteria upon which judgements are made. It was felt the
process did work in this case; was useful to the Director, and had little opposition
from contractors. While the first year will require additional effort in areas
where needed information or data is not currently being provided, this effort will
be reduced in subsequent years.
In approving the Allocation Review Process concept, Board members noted:
1 ) . The ARP is one vehicle to guide the Board in spending limited
Human Services dollars:.
2) . There needs to be a process to more clearly aid in determining which
existing programs could be curtailed or eliminated and which new
programs should be funded:
3). A process should not cause undue additional administrative burdens
that would interfere with service delivery.
4) . An evaluation should be made over a period of time to determine
which criteria proved to be valuable.
00 19.1 -�j
-3-
5) . The County Administrator should determine in which departments the
process might be implemented, with priority to those with advisory
boards and/or those which administer contracts with agencies providing
related or supportive services.
6). That the concept of using the process to review mandated programs be
considered in its implementation.
7) . Services provided to the same person or family members by several
departments , programs , or agencies might be identified as a result of
this process and streamlined so as to be more effective and efficient.
8). That the Human Services Advisory Commission continue its involvement
with the process in such areas as aiding department heads, administrators,
and advisory boards in its use and assisting in any reviews where such
involvement may be indicated.
The Board also noted that inasmuch as this was on referral to the Finance Committee,
and that this Workshop served in clarifying the issues and providing sufficient
information with which the Board could take action, it was determined that this
matter would be removed from the Finance Committee agenda.
00 192
l
00 193