HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10011996 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS F&HS-01 Contra
r t,
FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
nCosta
: g
0: Z
Count
DATE: September 23, 1996
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF A CHILDREN'S
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. DIRECT the County Administrator to schedule a meeting of the Policy Forum
with the Family and Human Services Committee during the month of
November at which the measurable outcomes as identified below can be
discussed, along with the impact of welfare reform, block grants, and other
opportunities such as a community foundation for Contra Costa County and
similar public/private opportunities.
2. REQUEST the members of the Policy Forum, in preparation for this meeting
with the Family and Human Services Committee, to each come up with half
a dozen or a dozen measurable outcomes or benchmarks related to children
that would be of value to the individual departments, keeping in mind the
holistic impact on other departments, including the need to identify what
information a department needs from other departments in order to get its job
done.
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee
which included the following recommendations:
1. RECEIVE the following summary of our initial meeting on this subject with
County staff.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARTE
JE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): MARK DeSAULNIER TH
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 1, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED Oe/"�" U ' 19
` 9
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
See Page 3
BY 0 DEPUTY
F&HS-01
2. REQUEST each affected Department to prepare a brief (one or two page)
commentary on the subject of outcome measurements and what positive
features the Department sees in the use of outcome measurements, what
administrative or other practical problems the Department would have in
implementing outcome measurements for the programs the Department
administers and what problems there would be in preparing a Children's Impact
Statement prior to the Board's taking action on selected major program issues.
REQUEST that these commentaries be filed with the County Administrator's
Office by June 1, 1996.
3. REQUEST that the affected Departments meet with the Family and Human
Services Committee and representatives from Children Now during the month
of June 1996 to continue the dialogue on this subject.
We had to cancel the June meeting at which this matter was to be reported back to
our Committee. However, we met with staff from Children Now, the Probation
Department, Sheriffs Office, Health Services Department, Private Industry Council,
Social Service Department, District Attorney's Office, the County Counsel's Office,
the County Superintendent of Schools, Supervisor Smith's Office, Supervisor
Bishop's Office, Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office and the 1996-97 Grand Jury on
September 23, 1996,and reviewed the attached memos and reports.
Supervisor DeSaulnier introduced the subject and noted the possibility of making use
of the Family and Children's Services Budget as a vehicle for identifying the number
of clients who are served, goals, outcomes, impacts and financing. One of the
possibilities is to dedicate a percentage of the budget to children's services. He
asked whether we could do this for new funding so it would trigger an impact
statement.
Amy Abraham from Children Now noted that no one in the State is as far ahead as
Contra Costa County is. She noted the work done by the State of Oregon in
establishing benchmarks and trying to achieve goals. She suggested making sure
the goals identified in the Budget are real and that as new money becomes available
the County look at how it fits with the goals and outcomes that have already been
identified. The other possibility is to look at what the impact is going to be on a
particular population of children and determine how we can measure what we have
accomplished with a particular funding source. Ms. Abraham noted that Oregon has
had its benchmarks since 1989 and developed them through a statewide process.
Lynda Kilday noted the passage several years ago of Proposition J in the City and
County of San Francisco which has made more money available for children and
has helped to stop agencies from fighting with each other over funding.
Dr. Brunner agreed with the concept of setting benchmarks. He noted that
establishing a priority for children can help us look for funding which will advance
that priority. He noted the importance of looking at the impact of our programs,
rather than simply cataloging how much money we spend on programs for children.
John Cullen suggested the need to get baseline information on the services we
already provide. We need to let the public know what we do that is important and
available and quantify the information. We can then more easily apply for grants and
participate in regional activities. He noted the importance of the Family and
Children's Budget as a base for identifying what we are doing and categorizing the
programs we provide. This is the first year his Department is trying to identify
budget initiatives that identify what they are trying to accomplish and what we have
to do and whether new staff is required or whether new prioritization of services are
required.
-2-
F&HS-01
Supervisor DeSaulnier noted that these concepts can be combined with the Charter
proposal. Benchmarks could be put in a charter, be voted on by the people and then
be reviewed again in five years or so.
Gayle Graham from the District Attorney's Family Support Division noted the
importance of taking responsibility for deciding not to fund a program. We should
focus on setting goals and then reviewing whether we made our goals. John Cullen
suggested that departments be asked to agree at the beginning of the year on what
they are going to accomplish that year and not be asked to focus on imposed goals
and objectives that are not consistent with what the department is doing. Those
should be what the department is evaluated on.
Danna Fabella indicated that it would be important to use data which is already
being gathered. We also need to look more broadly at what impact the actions of
one department have on the programs administered by other departments. Suzanne
Strisower suggested the importance of having similar data systems among
departments.
Dr. Joe Ovick indicated that the school districts are now identifying what their
expectations are in each of the curriculum areas in terms of what children need to
know and what they should be doing with that information. They are also looking at
schools that are low performers. What the County is talking about doing for family
and children's services is entirely consistent with what the schools are doing.
Supervisor DeSaulnier noted the importance of getting multiple school districts and
cities to coordinate their programs with each other and interacting with other
agencies. He also noted the importance of refocusing part of the discussion on the
Policy Forum and asking the members of the Policy Forum to identify some areas
in which they are currently able to account for some of these benchmarks.
Dr. Brunner noted the importance of having the County set some goals and priorities
focusing on children's issues and how the departments can focus their programs and
resources on those goals and priorities.
Terry Starr noted the difficulty of drawing a hard line between a delinquent child and
a dependent child and the need for coordination and collaboration between
departments. John Cullen noted the challenge that the new welfare reform block
grants will present to states and counties. He also noted that the outcomes we are
discussing are not one-year goals--they are generational and must be viewed in that
perspective.
cc: County Administrator
Health Services Director
Public Health Director
Social Service Director
County Probation Officer
Sheriff-Coroner
District Attorney
Executive Director, Private Industry Council
Community Services Director
Superintendent of Schools
-3-
r` "CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
2425 BISSO LANE, SUITE 100
CONCORD,CA 94520
(510)646-5239.........FAX(510)646-5517
DATE: May 6,1996 cc: Board Members
TO: Claude VanMarter, Assistant County Administrator7TRASTA COUNTY
County Administrator's Office EIVED
0 1996
FROM: A. C. Miner, Executive Director
Private Industry Council OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: CHILDREN'S ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
This memo, as requested by Supervisor DeSaulnier, is to record and expand
upon my comments to the Family and Human Services Committee regarding
implementation of a Children's Accountability Act.
The Children Now proposal lacks specificity to the extent it mixes infants,
children, youth and young adults. The different age groups have different
needs over a developmental scale that would have to be more quantified as
those needs are not interchangeable. The Children Now proposal also
references the family relationship without specifically acknowledging the
variance of that relationship with the age of the child - many youth are
emancipated by mid to later teens.
The concept of using the environmental impact system as a model for a
Children's Accountability Act is intriguing. However, recently the
environmental impact statement system has come under attack for real or
perceived shortcomings. Presumably the issue is one of balance, how to
balance competing needs for limited resources. I would suggest it would be a
mistake to attempt to blindly replicate the environment impact model.
However, to the extent it is perceived that children and their needs are not
appropriately represented or addressed by the current economic and political
systems - and there is reason to believe that children and their representatives
lack political and economic power to influence decisionmaking - then a
Children's Accountability/Impact review system becomes more than desirable.
Ultimately we would end up empowering children and family advocates
through their ability to obtain judicial review - something that has both pluses
and minuses.
If the Board were to implement their concept at the local level, it is suggested a
two tier strategy be pursued One would be to coalish the various public and
private entities in the County to pursue a common community approach. The
problem of children - and by extension families - are such that broad based
focused community efforts should have maximum impact. The County is in an
ideal position to be a catalyst if not a facilitator.
v'3
Also the ability to lead is somewhat contingent upon the ability to do. As a
major service provider, County government could begin implementation within
its programs. I would be very concerned that this be done in a cost effective
manner within the current system, not by establishing another independent
requirement and system. My worst fears were sparked by Supervisor
DeSaulnier's (hopefully tongue in cheek) comment that a position could be
established on the eleventh floor funded by current operating departments, to
coordinate such a program. I do not think I could think of a worse
implementation strategy than adding another level of review within an existing
bureaucracy; I would instead suggest reassigning current eleventh floor
resources to operating departments.
In terms of County implementation, a good place to start is with the current
program budget procedure. The program budget material does a good job of
explaining and informing the Board of departmental operations. As such it is a
valuable tool for policy decisions and the allocation of resources. However,
programs are not consistently defined across departments, making it difficult to
maintain a broad County perspective, or to establish standardized benchmarks;
a more uniform program budget approach would identify duplicative and
complementary efforts. Children's Services might be a good place to start what
is possibly a natural evolution of our current program budgeting process.
Another aspect of the Children's Accountability Act is the concept of
measurement. It is difficult to access effectiveness without having baseline data
and measure of improvement or outcomes. The JTPA system is very
performance oriented, much more so than most publicly funded programs.
From that experience, I would make a few observations. As soon as you start to
count and report something, you have made that something important. Hence,
it is critical that caution be exercised in selecting outcome measures. The
danger is otherwise programs can be driven to produce unanticipated outcomes.
There is a real risk of identifying quantifiable measures that, in an effort to
exceed them, lead to goal displacement and a loss of quality.
In summary, focusing on children-the future of our society - is very attractive.
That focus should be specific and accommodate the different developmental
needs of children at different stages of their life cycle. I am very leery and
concerned about any additions to the existing County administrative
bureaucracy; I am also concerned that this initiative could just become one more
process. I would suggest the County pursue a dual strategy of implementation
on a broad based community scale and on an internal County basis. A first step
would be to select and focus on specific goals, incorporate the goals into
departmental program budgets on a Countywide standardized basis, and
establish a base line measure against which to measure progress. A second step
would be to encourage other community entities to join the effort.
ACM:bj
y:letters\children
Z9,3
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
Contra Costa County
Administration Division
646-2402
Date: June 4, 1996
To: Claude L. Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator
From: Robert R. Henderson, Undersheriff PK01
Subject: Follow-Up to the Report from the Family and Human Services Committee
on the Proposal for a Children's Accountability Act
I have reviewed your May 28, 1996 memo regarding a follow-up on the Family and Human
Services Committee Proposal for a Children's Accountability Act. Specifically, I considered
the request that individual departments prepare a brief commentary on the subject of
outcome measurements for that department's programs. Unfortunately, I do not believe
we would be able to comply with the request for such measurements.
The bulk of programs we offer that impact children also impact a number of groups not
included within the scope of the Family and Human Services Committee study. It would
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to single out and measure the impact on children
only. In fact, in most cases, it would be difficult to impossible to quantify program impact
for any group.
The second request is for department personnel to continue meeting with the Committee
on this subject. We are certainly willing to do so. Although we may not be able to provide
the kinds of data the Committee desires, I believe we are in total agreement with them on
their goal of providing substantial, positive services to the children of our community.
Please let me know if I may be of further service regarding this matter.
RRH:cb CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I
RECEIVED
JUN 0 4 1996
t
OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
t/
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department
DATE: June 4, 1996
TO: Family & Human Services Committee
FROM: John Cullen, Direcor
SUBJECT: Outcome Measures
The Social Service Department believes that incorporation of outcome measures into our
program planning, operations, and evaluations would be an appropriate action. The subject of
outcome measures has been under discussion for many years, particularly within the child
welfare field. National roundtables have been held with professionals from across the country
debating this issue. The,National Association of Public Welfare Administrators as well as the
Child Welfare League of American and Child Welfare Research Center have all been actively
involved in these debates. In general, it is agreed that it is important for the field to become
more outcome driven. However, many questions remain as to what to measure, how to measure
it, collection, storage and use of data. Many of these organizations point to.the need for
outcome and performance indicators to be developed by specific program components, i.e.,
emergency response, reunification, family maintenance, foster care, etc., and that indicators
attempt to quantify and qualify program outcomes. These same national authorities have also
debated the difficulty of developing performance indicators that address client satisfaction,
community appreciation, and the well-being of children and families. As policy makers and
funding authorities continue the inevitable push toward using outcome measures, leading
organizations suggest that simplicity be a guiding principle. Start slow, try to be specific, utilize
existing data where available, and do not jump to any conclusions based on early findings.
The Social Service Department does believe that outcome measures would be of benefit to:
• Clarify to the public the objectives and value of,our services;
• Quantify and qualify the results of our interventions;
• Provide funding agencies with information that support financial commitments; and
• Present policy makers with impact data which documents program results, accountability
and cost benefit.
Locally there have been and are a number of efforts to promote the use of outcome measures
in family and human services. The Family &Human Services Committee has brought together
a number of entities involved in this issue, including the Bay Area Foundation, Children Now,
our Policy Academy, and SIT Programs. Most recently, development of our local Family &
Children's Services Budget is being redesigned to focus on broad goals to promote healthy
children, healthy families, and healthy communities. In support of the move to outcome versus
process measures, the Social Service Department has begun to align its established programs
r D3
MEMO TO: Family & Human Services Committee June 5, 1996
SUBJECT: Outcome Measures Page 2
with one or more of the key goals within this years Family & Children's Services Budget. We
will start developing general outcome objectives for each program area which will then lead us
to specific outcome indicators and measures within each program area; means to collect data will
also need to be developed. It is our hope to tie this evolutionary move to our budget
development processes in 96-97 and 97-98. We will, of course, dovetail our efforts with those
of the County in the upcoming years.
JBC:sjb
ouwomo.fhs