Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12191989 - 2.5 2. 5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _December 19, 1989_, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Powers ABSTAIN: None ---------------------=-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: 1990 Community Service Block Grant Contractors The Board considered the recommendations of the Economic Opportunity Council for the 1990 Community Services Block Grant contractors as set forth in the report of Joan Sparks, Director of the Community Services Department. (A copy. of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. ) Ms. Sparks spoke' on the formal competitive process (as recommended by the State Department of Economic Opportunity) used in considering applications for Community Services Block Grant funds and the ranking of the applications by the Economic Opportunity Council. She noted that the ranking of the applications was based on the capability of the agency to supply services or address the needs of the community. She advised that the procedure used in rating the applications was contained in the Request for Proposal (RFP) documents. She further advised that geographic location was not a factor in the allocations of funds but that need was the primary consideration. Douglas Hargrove, Chair, Economic Opportunity Council, spoke of the work of the Council in evaluating the applications. He advised that many of the Councils decisions were based on need and on the capabilities of the agencies to service the needs in their communities. He urged the Board to accept the Council'.s recommen- dations. Board members expressed concern that several agencies, who had received funding in the past and provided satisfactory services to their respective service areas, may not have received a high enough rating to qualify for funds because of writing deficiencies in the grant application. Ms. Sparks advised that she as well as members of her Department met with directors/representatives of the various agencies and suggested that they secure assistance from an Inde- pendent grant writer on a voluntary basis or contingency basis to assist them in the writing of their applications. She noted that staff could not provide this service since they were involved in the review and analysis of the different proposals and therefore could not participate in instructing applicants how to write grant applications but could make referrals, i.e. , to the San Francisco Foundation to secure a list of potential grant makers. Supervisor Torlakson, noting that this is a new process, proposed that the CSBG RFP process, including the rating criteria for evaluating the applications, be referred to the Internal Operations Committee. Referring to changes in State guidelines relative to the Council' s membership, Supervisor Torlakson also proposed that this matter also be referred to the Internal Opera- tions Committee. Supervisor Torlakson noted that Concerted Services in East County was an agency that had for many years provided services to East County residents but was not ranked high enough to qualify for Block Grant funds. He inquired about using unexpended East County rape crises funds for Concerted Services for this year only. - 1 - Supervisor Torlakson noted that United Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations (UCSSO) has experienced a large funding reduction and requested information on this change. Ms. Sparks referred to guidelines of the State office of Economic Opportunity which do not support duplication of services. She noted that the 1989 contract for $94,000 was for funding four agency offices operating in the County and represented about a 100 percent increase for the funding of the UCSSO Pittsburg Office. She advised that funding was provided for the Pittsburg Office with UCSSO being encouraged to provide community services in the Pittsburg area through that one area office. In response to comments of Supervisor Fanden relative to the lack of a funding allocation for an agency in District II and particularly in the Rodeo area, Mr. Hargrove concurred with Super- visor Fanden' s concern for. her district. However, he noted when . the Economic Opportunity Council was making a determination on the allocation of the funds, funding sources available to the agencies were a major consideration in reaching a decision on the allocation of grant funds. In response to an inquiry of Supervisor Torlakson relative to a $30 , 000 increase in the allocation to Neighborhood House of North Richmond, Ms. Sparks advised that the allocation increase is for increased services in the north Richmond area and that Neighborhood House of North Richmond is willing to negotiate a service contract for the Parker Avenue service area. Suprvisor McPeak commented on the level of services provided to the low-income population throughout the County by UCSSO and expressed concern with the decrease in funds allocated to this agency. She inquired as to the availability of funds in the Family and Childress' Trust Fund not proposed for allocation by FACT. Kathi McLaughlin, Co-chair of FACT, spoke on the availability of a one-time allocation of funds from the Ann Adler Trust Fund which is dependent upon contributions included with property tax remittances. She commented .on the difficulty in predicting a fund balance at this time. The following persons spoke in reference to the services provided by the United Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations: Richard Lugan, Executive President of UCSSO, 516 Main Street, Martinez 94553 ; Drinda Brennan, 3110 Adams Court, Antioch 94509; and Jose M. Lopez, Vice Chair of the Board of Directors, UCSSO, 83 Dolphin Drive, Pittsburg, 94565. Mary Lou Lauscher, Executive Director, Cambridge Community Center in Central. County, spoke about the programs operated by her agency. In expressing support for the recommendations of the Economic Opportunity Council, Supervisor Torlakson spoke on the need to look at the availability of one-time funding sources to allow UCSSO and Concerted .Services the capability to continue their programs for another year. He emphasized that if funds are available to these agencies it would be for this one time only and that next year all applicants would be competing equally for CSBG funds. In addition to the unexpended. East County rape crises money in the District Attorney' s budget, Supervisor Torlakson recommended allocating the financial contribution of the Garrett Corporation relative to their development approved by the Board on April 4, 1989. He requested the Director of Community Development to advise of the amount of the contribution from Garrett that will be made to the County for . its homeless program in East County which could be reallocated for one of these agencies that assist the poor and disadvantaged. Supervisor Schroder noted that there were two organizations who were funded last year who but were not rated to receive funding this year. He affirmed his belief that the RFP process used by the 2 - Economic Council was competitive. He called attention to the documentation provided by the Council with respect to their ranking of applications Nos. 9 through 13 . He expressed his satisfaction with the work of the Council. Supervisor Fanden requested a detailed report on the Bayo Vista application relative to it not receiving a high ranking_. She proposed a program to develop community awareness of the need to. have a community service delegate agency providing programs to assist and address the needs of low-income families in an area. She also requested a specific program description as opposed to a statement of intent relative to the commitment of the Neighborhood House of North Richmond accepting the responsibility of the service area previously served by the Bayo Vista Agency. Staff was requested to obtain information during the recess on funding that would be available for a one-time allocation for two agencies. Supervisor Torlakson announced that during the recess he was advised by staff that $41,000 is available from the District Attorney's budget for unexpended rape crises funds and a, $22 ,000 voluntary contribution from the Garrett Corporation for homeless housing needs in the east county area. Therefore, he recommended that the recommendations of the Economic Opportunity Council be amended to increase funding to UCSSO by $30,000 by decreasing Family Stress Center ($10 ,000) and Battered Women's Alterna- tives($20, 000) ; these two agencies to be funded $30, 000 by unexpended East County rape crises funds. He further recommended that the remaining $11,000 of unexpended rape crises funds (trans- ferred. from the District Attorney to the Community Services De- partment) and the $22,000 contribution of the Garrett Company (transferred from the Community Development Department to the Community Services Department) be allocated to Concerted Services with a contract to be negotiated with them to provide various services to the homeless and the poor. He also recommended that UCSSO and Concerted Services look at the transition of some of their caseloads in compliance with State guidelines and mandates to avoid duplication of services; and to review their respective programs areas to determine how best both agencies can mutually serve needs in the Pittsburg area. He further recommended that the contract with Neighborhood House of North Richmond be negotiated to insure that Neighborhood House would provide services to West County residents no longer served by the Bayo Vista program and the Parker Avenue Family Development Center. In presenting his recom- mendations, Supervisor Torlakson emphasized that the allocation of county funds to continue the programs of Concerted Services and UCSSO is for this one time only. Board members being in agreement, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of . the Economic Opportunity Council as amended and the recommendations of Supervisor Torlakson are ap- proved. As recommended by Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issues of the CSBG competitive selection process and membership on the Economic Opportunity Council is REFERRED to the 1990 Internal Operations Committee. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct COPY of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supero"rs on the date shown. cc: Director, CSD (( 1 �> ar�sTEo: 1990 Internal Operations Cte. PHIL BATCHELOR,clerk of the Board Auditor-Controller of Supervisors and County Administra w County Administrator By 0- �.�,.,,.�.Deputy - 3 - 2-005 I TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: JOAN V. SPARKS, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES (� + DEPARTMENT \./�,�..,n� tr, DECEMBER 12 1989 C��lJ�7lCl DATE: � C`'"^ SUBJECT APPROVAL OF PROPOSED 1990 COMMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT CONTRACTORS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I . RECOMMENDED ACTION APPROVE the recommendation by the Economic Opportunity Council for the 1990 Community Services Block Grant Contractors, and AUTHORIZE the Community Services Department to negotiate agreements, and AUTHORIZE the Director, Community Services Department, to sign agreements, on behalf of the County. II . FINANCIAL IMPACT A total of $199 ,995 . 00 of Community Services Block Grant funds from the Department of Economic Opportunity will be awarded to a total of seven agencies. This amount is already reflected in the Department' s 1989-1990 County Budget. No County funds are involved with this request. III . REASONS FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. On October 2, 1989, the Department of Economic Oppor- tunity, the funding source for the County' s Community Service Block Grant, noted in its quarterly monitoring visit the lack of an annual competitive process for the selection of CSBG Contractors. For at least the past eight years, the same five agencies have been automatically awarded .CSBG contracts without the benefit of a competitive process. As a result, numerous agencies serving the poor in the County have been denied the opportunity to openly compete in a process to obtain CSBG funding. In addition, the traditional allocation process for distri- buting CSBG funds has omitted Central County agencies and the poor they represent. It was recommended by DEO that the County consider the implementation of a competitive process for the selection of future CSBG service providers. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES _ SIGNATURE:' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEN ION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(SI: ION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 BY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: O UPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: ATTESTED County Administrator County Counsel PHIL BATC OR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Servi Department SUPERVISORS A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382/7 BY EPUTY DEO also noted the apparent duplication of CSBG services being provided by two 1989 CSBG Contractors in the Pittsburg area. The two agencies involved were located less than one half block from each other, and were clearly serving the same population base. It was recommended by DEO that the County implement systems to avoid the future duplication of services in this area. The County was also informed at this time to expect a signif- icant reduction in the 1990 CSBG allocation. Estimates for the reduction have varied from seven to 25 percent. The present 1990 allocation reflects a 11. 85 o decrease, and could conceiv- ably get larger, as the 1990 CSBG allocation has yet to be approved by Congress. 2. Based on this data, the Community Services Department developed a three stage proposal review process. Criteria review included proposal. completeness and responsiveness and relevance to the following 1990 CSBG program needs/goals: A. Expansion of information and referral services B. Employment C. Education D. Prevention of Starvation and Malnutrition E. Better Use of Available Income (Weather.ization, housing and payment of utility bills) F. Housing G. Substance Abuse 3 . On October 19, 1989, the Contra Costa County Economic Opportunity Council approved the Request for Proposal process for the 1990 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) . 4 . Said process was reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 31, 1989 . 5 . Public notification was given to the media on October 31, 1989 . In addition, Request for Proposals were mailed to 40 non-profit agencies. 6. Proposals were due on November 27 , 1989 . 7. Thirteen proposals were received, amounting to a total of over $647,000. Only $200,000 ; is available for County-wide funding. 8 . During the period of November 28 through December 6 , 1989 , the EOC Program Development Committee (PDC) reviewed, rated and ranked the proposals. Each of the five members of the PDC individually reviewed and scored the 13 proposals, and on December 6 , 1989, met as a group to select the best proposals, and determine the dollar. amount awarded to each agency. 9. On December 11 , 1989, the EOC was presented with the recommendations of the committee. Based on their review, the EOC is recommending that the following agencies be awarded contracts for the 1990 calendar year: CONTRACT NUMBER ORGANIZATION FUNDING ALLOCATION CS/89-01 Battered Women' s Alternatives $ 20 ,000 CS/89-02 Neighborhood House of North Richmond 63 ,371 CS/89-03 Family Stress Center 10 ,000 CS/89-04 Housing Alliance 5 ,000 CS/89-05 United Council of Spanish Speaking Org. 53 ,740 CS/89-06 Cambridge Community Center 12,000 CS/89-07 Southside Community Center 35,884 $199 ,995 Due to the competitive nature of the RFP process, 'two agencies funded in 1989 were not selected in 1990. Upon approval by the Board of Supervisors, the Department will negotiate 1990 contracts with the above-noted agencies. Upon the successful completion of negotiations with each of the seven agencies, contracts will be approved and signed by the Director, Community Services Department. These contracts are in the process of being approved by County Counsel as to form. No County funds are involved with this request. IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION The State Department of Economic Opportunity requires that the Community Services Department have, before the end of the calendar year, a signed contract listing contract agencies. Without the contract, the Department will be without operating funds. A delay in approving this request would place community agencies in serious financial difficulties and prevent/delay needed services to low-income families.