HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04121988 - 2.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on April 12 , 1988 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Challenge Grant Allocations
The Board received the attached report dated April 5,
1988 from the Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC) , recom-
mending allocation of $175, 000 in Challenge Grant funds to support
eleven proposals submitted by ten non-profit agencies.
Reverend Mac Stanley, Chairman of HSAC, commented on the
selection process utilized by the. Consortium of Human Services
Advisory Boards, Committees and Commissions. He urged the Board to
approve the allocations as recommended by the Consortium.
George Johnson, County Administrator's Office, commented
on the procedures for the solicitation and evaluation of proposals
for use of the funds. He stated that the Consortium had received
30 detailed applications for funds, and after evaluation of the
proposals, had selected eleven proposals for funding allocation.
Supervisor Sunne McPeak inquired about the source of
matching funds for the proposals, and expressed concern about using
existing funding for the match rather than obtaining new contribu-
tions.
Supervisor Robert Schroder stated that the intent of the
Challenge Grant was to provide incentive for the agencies to
develop new outside funding sources.
Reverend Stanley noted that the time constraints of the
Program had allowed the agencies very little time to contact
outside organizations or foundations to obtain new funding. He
stated that in future years the agencies would have more time to
pursue new funding sources to match the Challenge Grant alloca-
tions, and thus adhere more closely to the original intent of the
Challenge Grant Program.
Pamela Williams, 1440 Broadway, Suite 206, Oakland
94612, representing the East Bay Consortium for Elder Abuse Pre-
vention, expressed the belief that there was an inequitable dis-
tribution of funds in West County, and requested that the Board
review the proposal from her organization.
Deborah Janke, 1153 Kelvin Road, El Sobrante 94803,
representing the West County Adult Day Care Center, commented on
the need for more respite care and urged the Board to review their
proposal.
Supervisor Tom Powers recommended that the proposed
allocations be referred to the Finance Committee for review.
1
Supervisor McPeak requested that the HSAC Staff provide
the Finance Committee with information on new money obtained by the
agencies in response to the Challenge Grant Program.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that the
allocation of $175,000 in Human Services Challenge Grant funds is
REFERRED to the Finance Committee to review and report back to the
Board on April 26, 1986.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Administrator's
Office, Human Services Advisory Commission staff, is REQUESTED to
provide information to the Finance Committee on new money obtained
by the' agencies.
cc: Finance Committee
George Johnson, HSAC
County Administrator
thereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: AXAA. /s;, /988
R-iat. 0A s CHEt_OR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM;
George Johnson, Director vim+' ra
Human Services Advisory Commission Costa
DATE: April 5, 1988 C ^
SUBJECT; l
Challenge Grant Allocation Recommendations
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) a BACKCsROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize allocation of $175,000 in Human Services Challenge Grant Funds for
support of eleven proposals, as recommended by the Human Services Advisory
Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Board of Supervisors allocated $175,000 of General Fund monies in the
1987-88 FY Budget in support of the Human Services Challenge Grant Program.
The recommended action will allocate these funds to support eleven proposals
submitted by ten non-profit agencies. These agencies will contribute in
excess of $1,250,000 of non-County funds as match in support of the County's
contributions.
County costs will be incurred in support of this program to the extent that
existing County staff will be required to develop contracts, evaluate
compliance and process demands.
BACKGROUND
Proposals Being Recommended For Support From Challenge Grant Fund
HSAC recommends that the eleven proposals be 4unded in the amounts as shown
on Attachment A. No allocation will be in excess of $30,000. Short form
contracts will be executed and administered by the County Administrator's
Office.
Potential Appeals
The Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC) received three appeals from
organizations whose applications are not being recommended for funding.
After review, HSAC voted to sustain the original recommendations as they
found that administrative procedures were followed consistently throughout
the review process. The summary of the appeals is shown in Attachment B.
Review Process
The Board .of Supervisors created the Human Services Challenge Grant Program
in the 1987-88 Budget by the appropriation of $225,000; $175,000 for
Challenge Grants, $25,000 for Library materials; and $25,000 for
administration. The Human Services Advisory Commission (HSAC) was
authorized by the Board of Supervisors on August 10, 1987, to consult and
plan with other Board appointed advisory boards, committees and commissions
in the preparation of a process to solicit proposals for the use of t
funds.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA 1 N OF IVOARD MITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S :
A ON OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 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: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED
PHIL BAMOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY Y,
J
To: Board of Supervisors
Date: April 5, 1988 -2-
HSAC organized the Consortium of Human Services Advisory Boards, Committees
and Commissions to the Board of Supervisors (Consortium). Together, HSAC
and the Consortium developed the procedures and time schedule for the
solicitation and evaluation of proposals for use of the funds.
The Board of Supervisors approved these plans on October 13, 1987. Notices
were mailed to approximately 300 human services programs conducted by
non-profit organizations within the County. Follow-up telephone calls were
made to insure that,the organizations were aware of the grant application
process.
Organizations submitted 118 letters of intent for approximately $1,780,000
in grant funds. The Consortium evaluated the letters of intent. Then, 28
sponsoring agencies were invited to submit final detailed applications for
33 proposals. Of these, 30 were submitted for approximately $500,000 in
grant funds.
The Consortium then evaluated these 30 proposals and selected 11 for funding
recommendation. These proposals showed matching funds in excess of
$1,250,000 (a 7:1 ratio of County to non-County funds). HSAC reviewed and
approved the recommendations of the Consortium pending the resolution of any
appeals from agencies submitting proposals that were not selected for
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for funding.
HSAC received three appeals and invited representatives of these
organizations to a hearing of their appeals at a meeting held on Tuesday,
April 5, 1988. After review of the written letters of appeal and the verbal
presentations, the members of HSAC in attendance at the hearing voted to
sustain the original action by HSAC to accept the selections presented by
the Consortium for recommendation to the Board. In addition to adopting
this action, HSAC directed staff to provide the Board of Supervisors with a
copy of the attached minutes. These minutes reflect: (1) the concerns of the
appellants; (2) the findings of HSAC that the administrative procedures were
followed and that the original actions of HSAC in approving the
recommendations of the Consortium be sustained; (3) the summary of concerns
expressed by both the representatives of appealing agencies and HSAC
regarcff.ng certain aspects of the Challenge Grant Program. These concerns
included the following items:
- Directions for evaluating ratings should be more specific
- More explanation of qualitative terms (e.g. , "equitable")
should be given
- More definition of criteria
- Broader geographic representation of the review panel
- Shorter time-frame (turnaround time)
CONCLUSIONS
The Human Services Challenge Grant has developed into a truly unique program
to increase the level of human services to those in need within the County.
The first year's results f this program include the provisions of new or
enhanced services to more than two thousand individuals by non-County
agencies; the provisions of drug- and alcohol-free activities for more than
110,000 young adults; and the raising of more than 1.2 million dollars from
the private sector to match the $225,000 allocated by the County to support
these activities.
Members of HSAC and the Consortium are available to discuss these matters
with your Board.
EAST BAY CONSORTIUM FOR ELDER ABUSE PREVENTION .
1440 Broadway, Suite 206 • Oakland • California 94612 415 1465-9371
165 Lennon Lane • Walnut Creek • California 94598 • 415 1 945.4910
April 11, 1988
Board of Supervisors .
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA.
DEAR SUPERVISOR:
The East Bay Consortium for Elder Abuse Prevention wishes to
appeal the .recommendations for funding under the 19.8.7-88
Challenge Grant Program. Our appeal is based on the failure of
the Proposal Review Committee (called the Consortium) to follow
the procedure they established to review and select proposals
for funding. We, believe, this resulted in inequitable
distribution funding by geographic region, . target population,
and size of program.
Procedure for reviewing and selecting proposals developed then
disregarded by the Consortium
Prior to reviewing the proposals submitted for funding, the
Proposal Review Committee (Consortium members.) developed a
selection process. Selection of proposals for funding was to be
based on six (6 ) factors which are outlined in the Consortium.' s
"Instructions" , of which a copy is attached. The six factors to
be considered were:
(1 ) Average rank scores of the proposals
(2 ) Content of proposals
(3 ) Equitable distribution among major geographic ,
subdivisions of county
(4) Equitable distribution among target populations
(5 ) Number of grants in two tiers of funding
(6) Number of projects submitted by a single agency.
The selection of programs for funding under the Challenge Grant
Program was based solely on. the average rank scores. of the
proposals. The other factors were totally disregarded in
selecting proposals for funding. We, believe, this dramatically
affected the decisions made for funding and unfairly penalized
programs such as ours. A discussion of our reasoning follows.
Lack of criteria for ranking proposals resulted in high potent-
ial forbias
The first factor .to be considered .in reviewinq .and selecting
proposals. - ..was I the rank score of the ,proposals. The Consortium.
did, not. establish any criteria for ranking the .proposals. We,
believe, .there is a high liklihood, that the, rank ordering, would
be influenced by the reviewers knowledge (or lack of knowledge)
of geographic and target populations outside, of their. area. We
are especially concerned because the Consortium members -were
primarily comprised. of Central County residents .who. may be more
aware of. the- needs and programs in Central County.
Criteria .for, rating. proposals developed .then ,disregarded-: in
selecting .proposals for.: funding
The second, factor - to be- considered in selecting proposals was,
the .content .of the proposal., The Consortium developed a rating
sheet to review each proposal.. Proposals were to be rated using
eleven. criteria . which corresponded to the content of .the ,
proposal. However, when proposals .were selected for funding
this rating was totally disregarded.
We, believe, this rating was more objective than .tbe rank
ordering of proposals and should have been, considered -as, was .
originally intended in selecting. proposals for funding. We,,.
especially believe, .that those proposals that received high rank
order but low rating. scores and those. that received. low rank
order but high rating. scores should be re-evaluat6d for funding
by the, Board. of Supervisors. (A sample of this . da,ta hasalready
been . developed by the. staff .for HSAC. )
Selection of proposals did not insure. equity among the geograp-
hic regions
The third factor to beconsidered in selecting proposals for
funding was. equitable .distribution by geographic subdivisions...
Yet, when. one. examines . the proposals that were selected for
funding, it would appear . that this factor was disregarded.
A total of 30 proposals were reviewed for funding under the
Challenge Grant program.. Fourteen (14.) .of , the proposals
indicated they would serve the entire county. The vast majority
of these programs are based in Central County. Ten (10) of the
proposals indicated they would serve West County. Two (2 ) of ,
the programs indicated they would serve Central County. One. (l)
proposed to serve East County. of the .three (3 ) remaining
proposals, one plannedtoserve Concord,. anotherMartinez, , and
the remaining would have served Central-East County. . .
-2-
None of the ten , proposals which proposed to serve West County
were selected for funding. Of the proposals selected for
funding, a disproportionate number were based in Central County;
only two (2 ) were based in West County.
We would argue that a disproportionate number of West County
residents experience critical social and economic. needs as
compared to other regions of the county or the county as a
whole. We believe the .programs funded under Challenge Grant
should have recognized this and taken this into account when
selecting proposals for funding.
Selection of proposals did not insure equitable distribution. to
diverse target populations
The fourth factor to be considered by the Consortium. in select-
ing proposals for . funding. was equitable distribution by, tar.get
population. We do not believe the proposals selected for
funding reflect , an equitable distribution .by target population.
It would appear that . the vast .majority of the programs selected
for funding propose to serve. families and children. O.f. the
eleven progects selected for funding, only one, an intergen-
erational project. submitted by Cambridge Community Center,
proposes to serve seniors as .well as youth.
Selection .of..pro osals . for funding favors larger programs, and
proposals
The fifth factor to be considered in. selecting proposals for
funding was the number of grants in the two (2 ) tier..s of
grants. While no specific criteria for evaluating this factor
was developed, it would appear that there was . a desire. to.
equitably distribute the Challenge Grant Fund between smaller
programs and larger programs.
Of the thirty (30) proposals submitted .for funding, nine ( 9 )
proposals were in the higher tier of funding. requesting.. between .
$15, 000 and $30, 000. Twenty-one (21 ) proposals were .submitted
for grants ranging from $3 , 000 and $14,999. Of the nine, (9 )
larger requests, four were selected for funding for a total of
$114, 900. Of the twenty-one (21 ) smaller requests, only seven
(7 ) were selected for funding. These grants totaled only
$60,100.
We, believe, the proposals selected for funding disportionately
favor larger programs. This had the added effect of fewer
programs being selected for funding and defying the very intent
of the Challenge Grant Program. We would .argue that. a more ,
equitable distribution of funding among smaller and larger
-3-
programs would have enabled the programs to leverage more money
from. the private sector and to. establish a greater number. of .
innovative programs.
Criteria for programs submitting more than. one , proposal unclear
The sixth factor to be considered .in selecting proposals for
funding was the number of proposals submitted by. a single
agency. Again, no specific criteria for evaluating this factor .
was developed.. Therefore, it is unclear whether this .was .,.to be
evaluated positively or negatively.
Summary and Request. for .Action
We believe the failure of the Consortium to .follow ..the . review
and selection process it established resulted in. the inequitable
distribution of funds in a number of ways. This failure .is
further tainted by the lack of clear and. objective criteria for
evaluating and . selecting. proposals for funding.
We respectfully ask that the Board of Supervisors : ._..
(1 ) Provide direction and take appropriate steps to insure
the .process . in subsequent years is clearly. def .ned, .
objective, and consistent with the intent of . the
Challenge Grant.
(2 ) Consider allocating an addition amount to the Challenge
Grant Fund to allow each of the programs that . submitted .
a proposal to receive some funding. This would allow
programs such as ours., which proposed,. to, .provide .
financial management to low income seniors . in West—
County, to become..operational. Through a partnership
of. public and - private agencies and AARP' s Legal. Counsel
to the Elderly we are confident we .could. leverage..money
from the private sector to meet. the critical needs. of .
our clients.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Challenge
Grant Program and ask for ,your careful consideration..
Sincerely,
Pamela J. Williams,
Executive Director
-4-
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CHALLENGE GRANT FUND ALLOCATION PROCESS
INSTRUCTIONS
FINAL APPLICATION RATING FORM
1 . Rate only those proposed projects where you have no conflict Of
interest.
2 . mark your rating for each item by placing a checkmark above the
score you feel best represents how well the proposed project
meets the intent of the question.
3 . Enter the total of the scores in the large box on the front
page-
4 . Mark Item 12 if project should be funded or NOT.
5. mark Item 13 regarding equitable distribution of funds.
6 . Rank all rated projects. A rank score of 1 is the highest
ranking and indicates that you believe the proposal is the most
deserving of funding from among all the proposals you have
rated. Number 2 is next, then 3 , and similarly, all the rest ,
in decreasing order. .
RANKING SUMMARY FORM
7 . Use the Ranking Summary Form to record your ranking for each of
the proposals you have rated. Do not enter a ranking for those
you did not rate due to conflict of interest.
PLACE THE I .D. NUMBER OF EACH RATED PROPOSAL
NEXT TO THE RANK SCORE YOU HAVE GIVEN IT
8. Please turn in your rating 'sheets and Ranking Summary Form,
2425 Bisso Lane, suite 103 , prior to 5:00 p.m. , Monday, March
21, 1988.
SELECTION PROCESS
9 . Staff will calculate the average rank score for each proposal. .
The average will be the sum of the ranking, divided by the
number of members ranking that proposal.
10. Staff will complete the Challenge Grant Average Ranking Score
Sheet and distribute it at the March 22 meeting.
2
11 . At the March 22 meeting, members will. review this array of
average rank scores and select projects to be referred to HSAC
and the Board of Supervisors for [ending. This selection is to
be based upon the average scores, content of, projects ,
equitable distribution of grants among target population 'Ind
major geographic subdivisions of the County, number of grants
in the two tiers of funding, number of projects being submitted
by a single agency, and other factors that may be determined by
the Consortium at that time.
Please note calendar of Challenge Grant events :
Thursday, March 3 7 : 00 p.m. Review of Rating Forms
Monday, March 7 11 :00 a .m. Deadline for receipt of Final
Applications
Wednes. , March 9 1 : 00 P.M. Pick-up of Applications for
to Thur . , March 10 5 : 00 P.m. rating from FISAC Offices
Monday , March 21. 5 : 00 P.m. Tut. n in eating forms at. 11SW*
offices
Tuesday, March 22 7: 00 p.m. Consortium Meeting-Rooms A&C for
Selection of Proposals
Wednes. , March 23 7 : 00 p.m. HSAC meeting; action on
recommendation
First week of April Referral of Recommendations to
Board of Supervisors
GWJ : cvd
021 . 25 8 8
A
aN CO
m co O
E-+ o r - % > o ;° &4 o n a04
N O N 0•rq U4 V 0
> b to 4 •0 U
•
r- to O a) w O aJ O N &4 U o0 0 co to
•-+ a) a 0 ko U �i m to0 0 ao • 4a Co 0
U t: a 4-1 t: v4'i a s �`' a, to , a r-
4J
Ei •.�-A U rn M x r-1En •ri b r-1 0 U �c A
14 � � b 0 U N 44 0-H 1.1 b b N 09 "W b
a 401� 4-) O io 04J i� a) U (a
En rd•r1 0 &4 3 0 Eo 4 r-I 0 O
O 4.1 4J o O 0 4LJ rd b a •r1
a rd o 44 b4-4 •r
41 0
O ro a a)-HO 3 'C! >+ r
x O•r-I o 0 E to •H U O En Eo
A4 b-H � 04 $4 a Q) -- Ii b U ani b
0Eb0 rd p
A w •rqb .0 0 � E a3 � m 4JW V
waU Oa) a) O s� 0a A
0 0 rd o -HE 4J o ra *jE a qw 0 0 o aJ
W o •n- a) o to U) 1 o O C �i rn U U o •3
x o Oto )-r o x400) o > rdtv0, � rn
U Ln � W to o > LO O Ln b 0) •-1 cri •rri b ch )-r
C14 a)a .0 44 Abp ifs wp0 � � ro to 1 44 4J
1 U) b a) 4J >~ a) Un a r0-I � 3 a ro
0 4J aro > 044 0 o .aJ A V
p 0-ri -4 0 a) En 0 to to
a) O O o 1 to 0 9: ri w --I 4J 4J 0 .° � rd � >u
C7 > 4J $4 P m rn•ri 0 r-1 0 to I~ r-i aJ X a.0 b U
O •r-I as w Ax p 0 0 0 o0 r1 is tor. C; rd
x a d 0 wOxx 4 aJEU4 Ea) a) 0 (a -H v $4
a a) 00 wEE Eor-iEu rd 4J00 0 0 4o 0b Ol4J
aJ 0 aJ A to rd Q 0 rd b U >•i En 1 $4 r-I �4 I4 C;
A - m p a a) r-I> E r-I 0 b a) i a a) 44 .0 0 0 0 0
of = •ri b is ba) O •-1 r >+ 0 $4 �4 0 w U r1 41 E O E U
•r4 rns~ 00 0b � 0 AU r-4 4J af4G 0 oU 0
z 0 b O )4 A 44 a) --, 0 U O b r1 0 0 to tow !~
c� E+ b •ri a 1 >, > r-I b0 0 0 0 P 4J �, p •�,
U >I rn a) 4J x m 0 0 O 0 a) •ri > (d W 5 a) 44 0 >r 0 to
W W 0 O •ri CO 4J •ri 0 h 4 m U •ri EJ) I to 44 O 0 r-1 4J (a
C7 h to O 4J A 0 to &i O 0 w r-I aJ •rl M 44 0 9: •H •ri C; a) a)
z O •H &4•r1•r•I O a) • b O U &4 O r-I U 0 r-i 00 C r-I a) V •ri
W G4 f 4 is to > W E rd 4J r-I •ri r•i W w •ri a) r-I 3.1 0 U U O U U b r f
r-7 W w O•ri•r1 W 1-1 •ri Q 3 44 (d b to •H w )-r •ri
a �ir-I 4J v0 .09: 440 W4a OE
Q 04r4U ro000 Eoa) tTr-1 9: O ab
x O rd •ri U .•,I rts rd 044
U rd U > 4a aJ •ri b r-i C; a En
() 0000 1 1 4:) r. rA &-I
ao w is a) 3-1 .0 W M O �+ •ri rd rd a) W 4) � rn
co .r .1 0 s4 04 4J to a) Ed u > w 4-1 a) rd a)
1 V •r1 4i W U A P-4 $4 -HC; U rd • ro C: • r-I
r U a) > r-1 4a a) 3-1 aJ 0 4 W 4J 0 > E rn 0 U 0 0
0o U >.11 0) r-I O A rd P 0 U•r1 O C.," rd 44 0 a) E
rn •ri >r 0 •ri U ri•ri Ei W 0 rd 4� 44 H O H a O
r1 44 ab �4 3 w 5 0 oar O U (a a) 0 0 0 04
O b b0 •r1 b440k aJU4V r
00
4.) b +► 3-r to b 0 U•rA P N 8 •ri O .
F-IIc 0 ro v b -P >r ++ �4 0 44 a) .0 O 4j •ri a r-i o
1 i•.I m rd 0 0 3 0 3-1 C •r1•ri U 41 U (d aJ • •ri 44
A V •ri rd 0 •n rd rd 0 4) 'MO aJ • 0 r-I aJ b W 3
5 z o0nco ow 01 to k0to (1) rota OU • rn
�tl a C: r•I P r•1•ri to It a U PC 01 E 0 O 14 v•ri H aJ a)
O >r•r•I O 04-r-I 44 a) 44 H E•+ 10 a) v 0 S44 •
r-i U rd 9 4 Gq 0 •ri U 0 41 r•I E4-r-I r-I 0 0 -r-I 1a N •rrii
O b r~ O to a) >~ w u to A Gw A to r1 r-1 34 •n >
.00 •H-HU .0 •ri > ts0 44) u\ U 40) 00 to 14 •
FA v ru-1 w 'd b c E'0-r •�.v�i � a+ .00 Q 4J a o 0 0 H U p� a Ea
N c4
El %
d' 3.1 .4" M aJ O N to tr1 tr1 3-1 O
Ln a) U 00 a N In N rl oo O %D
N r-i ,C to In E O tT crrl U r-i r-i r-1 O O
• r-1 W U 3. to ..� rd
r--I •rl O N iJ N 3.1-r-I •r1 r-i > N .�." In r-♦ 41 m
Ln 3 M 4J r-i Id 3.1 .0 M Id $4 dr b :5 N
rd rd O O 4J N w a) V aJ O w
a) v). V to a vl. O
a) cd O O - .1J 4a 3. Id H 4J r•i
•ri aJ to O Ri O 0 r-i to I.
>+r-I • b a) *J O d U cd cd O 4)
A-ri W r-1 U) > G A r4 iJ •r4 a) o
E 41 -r-I i-►-rl rd U O d 0 U r-t O
Ln rd rd U 4 C En 44 o cn > O N -ri a) 00 W O ` �
Ln a) 44 U 00 b O O N Ln p, M t.D Ln Q o
N 34 U) Ln 44 (1)-r-I O a) O a) to rn r-I a) er r 1D
• 3-1 a) E N 9 4J r-i w > • a) O
�D U to a) r r •ri C.' 4) m rd r-I 0 r-I -ri tf1 Ln 4J M 419.
cn 44 a) 3.1 N r-I •ri N rd cd E O r-q 0 m v
Ln
14 H H EEn int O •`r-4 � to rd � •� � A4 rd �CD : N
to >10 FA 04 .0 >o � Q E w ri
• r-I >~ O i44-r-I a
>,•ra 41 O 0 r-I to cd
aJ 5
a� a A o to 34 a) O to a) a 4-) rd
w•ri rd 4J a-► a w o 0 •r-I � rd E
A a) +-) r~ b aJ N E 3 U U
w cd A b-ri to 0.'1 O •H 0 U)
cr1 aJ rd a) 41 41 3 A to 44 b
a% r•-1 m 0 O1 > 3•i 4' O iJ •ri O >r Ln 44 M a) 1-)
01 0 aJ rd m r-I 0 rd O cd a) O I4 It 00 O N 3'4 cd O
m 4J•ri (0 -1 rn O a 4a o U >c o O rd rn r o
` U) aJ > •t > a) 0 • to•ri cd • 44 • O •Q >r O
dr Id A rG O • dr C 34•ri m U) > 4J O O1^ W .IJ r-I O 4J `
r-i a) a) 4J 3-1 0 r-4 r4 cd 34 M cn ON%D to •ri to
r-I (dA 04 En 4) vi a 419. L)W 0 -rq W E ai �o •i r-i
4Ja (1) :$ 0 ,, a) 41 to oto +04- U
cd `A O -r-i O U >r >r d 44 4 d cd
to w U) U rd cd U 4.) aJ E O O 44 4a
a) O •ri a) r-i U w b •H •ri () 34 A a) x 4J O
U) 4J a) U r-I 34 O 0 >+ l~ 9: A 4-J a) to O r-I U ri
U) A w •11 :1 U •rl O aJ :J :J 4J U r4 4J U 4 -H 9: a) 4J to
b • 4j d 3 0 .>~ •r1 aJ b 3: > a A cd •n to r. a
U ba) Ento 4-) O 0 000 3a OUa) a) E �4 •H E4
w > O _5N O •ri U En U a) a Ul 41 O
• 0 QW) N rd 3 4J Ww a r-1 a 4J a) 3. •ri•ri rd A a) rd H
4J W ri r~ r~ 4) o O a b • a •ri 4 (L) to 4a to 0 w (L)
rd 9: a r-I U b O C a) A U •ri W :3 E 4J b •ri 44 44 0 - 34
w O E cd m o E4-J tr m 0 En 0 a P O oto •ri 0+ U 4J
3.1 -ri U a) a) -ri En 0 4J 1~ tT 3-1 En rd 4J a) U a) +) •ri a) O
4-) b -ri 4 iJ aJ iJ to E U •ri 0 :3 N >r w b a a) G U cd 3-I w 0
3. w O 4J 4-J a) 3. O N a) 0•ri 0 cd r-4 4J 0 4 H O •rl a) O E
U 4)-ri r-I rd a) En 34 n 34 W A r-1 •ri a) rd aJ •ri •ri > W — 0 a
W 44 3.1 is a 44 > to a) o Id O U �d m > 1~ d A 4-) W U is UJ •-I
U r.
co O • E 3; >-1 4 4J f-1 a) a) - •ri •ri -ri 00 cd a) a) o :3
04 rn •ri O H a) to a a 4J to 3-1 W r-4 >+ E r-1 En P4 a t7"
• Uk �4U 4J o 0 .00 W 4J rA tea)
to > a) 0 �" • 44 a) :J 4J H 0 I~ s~ rd to
f4 to A rd r-I •ri 3a A r4 :3 0 cd w ^ aJ•ri ^ 04 r-I
r. aJ 1-4 a) 4a aJ o 0 M U 0 to En d I rd
a) O a) —1 E4 O > >+ a) a) b >I 0 C•ri >4 to -ri O
o > wa : $4 -W E 3-1 UtoE 41 ; •H 4J ;l 4J0
00 •ri O rd Id a) a) m 0 >+ a) to a) 31 d 0 U 0) 0 r-I -ri
3•i 4-) 4J U U) aJ 4J is 0 k A 4 O 0 aJ •ri a) •ri 0 rd •P4 W d 4J
44 U aJ 0 1 0-r-1 4a Ei .4-1 •ri 3•i ri a � 3: A ri E b
) b b r.
4) O a 0) a-► .N 0 +) rn a 3.1 O•ri cd aJ 0a)
a 4J a) r-i a) � 3-1 -ri •ri .0 S-1 •ri � a g a) � � :3 En
o 7.1 fa
4) • ok-HW >rrd iJa 0 > 0o 0
u awwAcd 4r-, 3.1 00 � En 044 4) o > :3oar
-ri a U U a U) •ri 4J 04 0 rn En •r-1 � •r l d b �
N E 4a C H+ E >4 ++ CO 4•l a) ,� ,C to 44 A 4J
to In `D 0 rd 0 • to O a) 0 r-I 0 >,A U W to >4 O i� En W
- M a) 44 > aJ u - > a) U r-♦ E-1 cd a) O o
N C." U) r-i r-i H > •ri C." •rl U to •ri to • > >r to • 0
4J a) a) a) a) ri p4 -ri a aJ a) Q) U) 4J ri N a 44 0 4J - 44 a rd
to ro >-I A •-I a) rC to a) 3a EtT •ri U a) cd 0) • r-i q•H 0.'1 •H O 0
-ri rd U .0 U rr 0 a) O w b N w ^.3 A •ri d W (d w 4) r-1 U r-i d r-i r-I -ri
>I > r-I O 0 +-) +) d m a U •ri 0 rd aJ U +) aJ A {� Id —4 H CO a)
r-I O -ri to 0 >I H 41 a cd H +) 41 O a) 5 a) w 'C u O U u > 'd
Odr'l 0 aWiJa a
• kAHis4a HId O 400 r-4d r-44rQ) 93
a U 0 0 0 N x H aJ En a '� 4) = a b to o P U aJ ri 4 Ei 4.1 ri o a rd
>
• • O 1
r 0o rn r-4 ri
STAFF SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE GRANT APPEAL
1. APPLICANT: Right Directions (21)
2 . PROJECT TITLE: East County Expansion
3. AMOUNT REQUEST: $12,500 5. GEOGR. AREA: East County
4. AMOUNT MATCH: $12 ,500 6. PRIORITY AREA: Access to
System
7. FINAL RANKING: 14 8. AVER. RANK SCORE: 13 . 58
9. SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
Agency states that the "all or nothing" policy of recommending full
funding to selected proposals and nothing to the remaining
proposals is incorrect in that it deprives vitally needed funds and
recognition from programs whose very livelihood depends upon this
funding and recognition.
10. RECOMf4iNDATION OF APPLICANT:
Return funding recommendations to Consortium with recommendation to
develop a proportional funding plan that would allocate a lesser
amount of grant to a larger number of proposals.
STAFF SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE GRANT APPEAL
1. APPLICANT Greater Richmond Interfaith Program ( 13)
2. PROJECT TITLE West County Adult Day Care Center Services
3. AMOUNT REQUEST: $10,000 5. GEOGR. AREA: West
4. AMOUNT MATCH: $17,743 6. PRIORITY AREA: Respite Care
7. FINAL RANKING: 19 8. AVER. RANK SCORE: 15.67
9. SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
Agency bases appeal on three factors:
9. 1 The need: High need and no Challenge Grant funding for any
proposal providing senior services.
9. 2 Lack of funding for agency: Agency is receiving no County
funds; $5,000 from City of Richmond; and the lack of Challenge
Grant may seriously jeopardize chances for additional funding
from other agencies.
9. 3 Matching Funds/Challenge Grant Ratio: States ratio of 1.78 is
K igher than minimum requirement and the agency would expect to
faise additional funds.
10. RECOMMENDATION OF APPLICANT: None
STAFF SUMMARY OF CHALLENGE GRANT APPEAL
1. APPLICANT: East Bay Consortium For Elder Abuse Prevention ( 11)
2. PROJECT TITLE: Financial Management for Elder
3. AMOUNT REQUEST: $14,999 5. GEOGR. AREA: West County
4. AMOUNT MATCH: $25 , 964 6. PRIORITY AREA: Child/Elder
Abuse
7. FINAL RANKING: 18 8. AVER. RANK SCORE: 15. 25
9. SUMMARY OF APPEAL:
Agency bases appeal on three factors:
9. 1 Inequitable distribution of funding by geographic region:
State that (a) of total of 30 final proposals submitted, 10
indicated that they would serve West County and (b) of the 11
to be recommended, all are designed to serve the whole County
and only two are located in West County.
9. 2 Inequitable distribution of funding by target population to be
served: State that majority of proposals selected appear to
serve families and children.
9. 3 Failure of Proposal Review Committee and follow the
established review process: State that instructions gave no
criteria for assigning rank scores; that there was not
necessarily a correlation between score of proposal ( 11 to 44)
and its rank ( 1 to 30 ) . Believe that the number of proposals
with differences between rank scores and sum of ratings is
significant. Finally, state that the composition of the
rating committee is made up of mostly members living in
Central County and therefore, more familiar with proposals
from Central County.
10. RECOMMENDATION OF APPLICANT:
State that HSAC should:
1. Determine whether high-rank/low-rating, etc. should be
reconsidered for funding; and
2. Determine whether there is an equitable distribution of funds
by population and geographic regions.
Contra
Costa i
County
J
HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
SPECIAL CALL MEETING OF HSAC
April 5, 1988 at 7 : 00 p.m. , Room A
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman, Rev. Mac Stanley, called the meeting to order
at 7: 10 p.m. , and acknowledged the four visitors in
attendance.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Rev. Mac Stanley, Chairman
Matthew Barnes
Joe Goglio
Barbara Keyes
Members Excused: Joan Lautenberger
Carl Hanson
Mary Lou Laubscher
Richard Marchoke
Mary L. Fujii
Staff Present: George Johnson
Connie De Ramo
III . COMMENTS `FROM CHAIRMAN
The Chairman asked the visitors and the HSAC members and
staff to introduce themselves. He then summarized the
history of the Challenge Grant and the allocation of funds
to assist human services agencies within the County. He
described the foundation of the Consortium and its three
committees: Evaluation, Application, and Funding. He
concluded his opening remarks by describing the process
used to mail out over 250 invitations which resulted in the
receipt of 119 Letters of Intent. Consortium members
worked independently of each other in rating and scoring
the Letters of Intent. Then it was necessary to rate the
complete application forms for the highest 30. When the
results were gathered, it was found that the general
uniformity of ratings was astounding. Mostly all the bases
which had been designated by the Board were covered.
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR . 2425 BISSO LANE,SUITE 103 • CONCORD,CA 94520 9 (415)646-5661
1
The Chairman stated, "Now we have come up with $175,000 to
give to 11 agencies and we' re open to suggestions from you
(the three agencies who are appealing) ; we need feedback
from you; we can use all this information next go-around to
increase our awareness of the concerns which you may have
and work toward refining the process to an even greater
degree."
IV. COMMENTS FROM STAFF
George Johnson reiterated Fr. Mac' s words regarding the
hard work put into this process by the Consortium and the
applying agencies. He stated that, "We need to build upon
this first year of Challenge Grant and utilize the acquired
expertise next year. The recommendation from this meeting
will go to the Board of Supervisors on the Agenda of April
12." He added that it was his understanding that the item
would be referred to the Finance Committee, and he will
make every effort to have it put on the Agenda of that
Committee as soon as possible. "After Finance Committee
reviews, they will come back with a decision, which will
then be referred to the Board (hopefully soon) so that we
can get started on the process. " In answer to an inquiry
from one of the appellants, staff replied that Supervisors
Powers & Fanden are two of the members on the I .O.
Committee.
V. PRESENTATION OF APPEALS BY APPLICANT AGENCIES
The' Chairman called on representatives to present their
appeals.
A. Judge Patsey spoke on the Right Direction Project: He
feels that outside funding sources will see this action in
a negative manner. He spoke of the problems in obtaining
funds from other sources when they see that the County will
not fund their proposal. It is important that the County
recognize the bona fide purposes of the Right Direction
program. All key players in the Juvenile Justice System
and the Board have looked upon this particular program as
something of a new development and worthwhile cause. Those
who know the Juvenile Justice system deem it extremely
valuable; not getting funds places the program in serious
jeopardy. He is very concerned about the outcome of their
appeal. He concluded by stating that "a half or a quarter
loaf is better than none at all. "
-3-
After indicating that HSAC members had not read the
proposal, the Chairman thanked Judge Patsey for his
presentation and then led a question and answer session
regarding the appeal. In response to a question regarding
his opinion on the administration of the grant process,
Judge Patsey indicated that he could find no fault in the
design or implementation of the process.
B. Deborah Jenke spoke in in behalf of the Adult Day Care
Center of West County (GRIP) . She indicated that she had
received the rejection letter on Good Friday; as she had
been in the hospital. She gave a description of the
organization; the advantages of having people with
"dementia" diseases cared for by professionals during the
day in a familiar environment, rather than subject them to
convalescent homes. She sees the program as a way of
postponing this as long as possible. The cost per day for
an individual is $25 . 00, while convalescent homes charge
between $60-$80 per day. They thought they were really
meeting all the criteria. A match of 6.84 to 1 was shown
on their first letter; but on the second letter, they used
a reduced match because of a change in administering the
funds. She stated it could have been her error in making
this change. She urged that more funds be given to West
County. The need is to low-income clients who are unable
to pay for their services. If HSAC rejection of their
application had to do with low match, perhaps the
application should have been worded in a clearer manner.
They were hoping to use some of this Challenge Grant money
foX- future grants from government agencies. She stated
that they had a deficit in 1987 but were rescued by a
Chevron grant, and added that this is a very needed project
and they will do their best to administer it.
C. Pamela Williams spoke in behalf of the proposal
submitted by the East Bay Consortium for Elder Abuse
Prevention. United Way has been helping the organization.
Staff is trying to expand agency services so as to provide
financial management assistance to elders in West County.
She then said she is going to take a more critical approach
regarding the process used; their appeal is based on three
issues: the Consortium failed to follow its own
instructions. No instructions were given to the rater as
to the ranking methods to be used by the Consortium. Only
one rater from West County was in the group that ranked the
applications. Reviewers were asked to rank the
applications, but several questions in the proposal were
not evaluated on the criteria sheet. This was totally
overlooked in the final scoring. All 11 proposals to be
submitted are from all over the County; none from West
County were funded.
-4-
She indicated in her written appeal that she asked that
people look at the needs in West County; funds are not
equitably distributed. West County submitted about 20
proposals and none were accepted. She has concerns that
perhaps not every population group was given equal weight
in looking at the needs. The number of grants in the
two-tier structure should be reviewed so that consideration
will be given to small agencies such as ours and not just
the major groups who have many other sources of funding.
She feels that results were ranked solely on "numbers" --
not on need.
She concluded her presentation by expanding on her letter
of appeal. She discussed in detail the lack of 'equity and
consistency in the selection process. She questioned the
final decisions which were made on subjective rankings when
the reviewers had already made a more objective rating
based upon the objective scores to eleven questions.
The Chairman and members of HSAC thanked Pamela Williams
for such a thorough and well considered presentation.
After replies to questions, she then asked that they look
at the geographic and financial need of small agencies the
next time funds are available. "It takes someone like
ourselves who did not get any money to perhaps see through
the difficulty of some of these problems. I live in
Richmond and I feel that this program is so wonderful that
thq. County should be doing something; others will only
validate these programs when they see the County helping
through funding. " HSAC members indicated that they want
the Consortium to be aware of these concerns.
V. CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS
At the request of the Chair, staff presented a summary of
the allocation process and distribution of grant funds. He
indicated that:
County-wide 7 Proposals $ 97, 101
West County 2 Proposals $ 44, 999
East County 1 Proposal $ 29,900
Concord 1 Proposal $ 3 ,000
Size Distribution:
- Tier I ( $ 2,000 to $14,999) 7 Proposals $ 60,100
- Tier II ( $15,000 to $30, 000) 4 Proposals $114,900
-5-
Human Services Needs Priorities:
- Homelessness 2 Proposals $59,900
Hunger 0 Proposals -0-
Substance Abuse 3 Proposals $44,999
Child/Elder Abuse 2 Proposals $ 8,708
Respite Care 0 Proposals -0-
Access to System 1 Proposal $13 ,394
- Out-of-Home
Placement 2 Proposals $44,999
Intergenerational 1 Proposal $ 3 ,000
Staff then referred to a series of charts showing
relationship between ( 1) individual and group average
rankings, and ( 2 ) individual ratings scores ( 11-44) and
individual ranking ( 1-30) . He showed that there was a very
high correlation among these scores.
During this presentation, Pamela Williams pointed out that
she had a great deal of difficulty understanding the
instructions given to the raters and the basis for using
both rankings and scores. She stated that it was difficult
to look at and organize the process.
In answer to questions regarding the possible
causes/results of the small number of cases when there were
"High Rank Score/Low Rating Score" and "Low Ranking Score
anal- High Rating Score. " George showed that there were 25
out of 290 possible scores in the final rankings from 10
reviewers. These were related to 17 proposals and showed
that 12 were associated with proposals from West County and
13 with proposals from the rest of the County.
At the conclusion of the presentation by and a series of
comments from HSAC members and visitors, the Chairman
called for a motion. At this point, Rev. Stanley remarked
to Pamela Williams that he thought she would be a good
person to have on the Consortium as she demonstrated many
areas of expertise.
The following motion was made by Goglio and seconded by
Barnes:
Moved to sustain our (that is, HSAC's) original action
(taken on March 23, 1986) to submit the proposals
selected by the Consortium to the Board of Supervisors
with recommendation for funding.
M/S Yes(3) No(1) Abstain(0)
-6-
HSAC members, staff and visitors discussed the Challenge
Grant process in detail with a view toward improving the
process if the Board would provide funds to continue it in
the future. The following items were identified as needing
review and clarification:
Directions for evaluating ratings should be more
specific
More explanation of qualitative terms (e.g. ,
"equitable" ) should be given
More definition of criteria
Broader Geographic representation of the review panel
Shorter time-frame (turnaround time)
The following motion was then made by Barnes and seconded
by Barnes:
Moved to provide the Board of Supervisors with a
copy of the Minutes of this meeting.
M/S/Unanimous
Staff assured visitors that he would notify them of the
date when the Board of Supervisors is to take action
regarding the allocation of funds.
VII . OPEN
None.
VIII .
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the
meeting at 9 : 35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
4umV v
W. John o Director
Services dvisory Commission