HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04261988 - FC.1 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM Finance Committee ca ft
April .25, 1988
O:ATE ca"' "J
SUBJECT; Challenge Grant Allocation Recommendations
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve final recommendations of Human Services Advisory Commission
regarding:
The allocation of $175,000 in Human Services Challenge Grant funds
as developed by the Consortium and reviewed by HSAC; and
The review of the appeals received from three agencies and
subsequent actions of HSAC not to make any changes in the final
recommendations.
2. Acknowledge receipt of background information regarding monies obtained
by agencies in response to the Challenge Grant Program.
3. Request that in the event that the Board allocates Challenge Grant
funds in the 1988-89 Budget, HSAC and the Consortium report to the
Finance Committee within six months regarding recommendations to:
• Involve cities, schools, community groups, program networks and
others in the assessment of needs that would be used in
establishing service priorities in the various geographic areas of
the County; and
• Establish criteria for the evaluation and selection of proposals
for recommendation of funding from Challenge Grant funds; and
• Establish criteria for the selection of agencies to be considered
for funding, particularly in relationship to financial needs,
sources of past funding, relationship to the community and
uniqueness of programs being provided.
BACKGROUND E
The Board of Supervisors at its meeting of April 12, 1988, referred the
recommendations from HSAC for allocation of human services Challenge Grant
funds to the Finance Committee for review. Included in the review of the
allocation is the consideration of the appeals submitted by two agencies in
response to recommendations made by HSAC. At the same time, the Board has
requested HSAC staff to provide the Finance Committee with information on
new money obtained by the agencies. The following information is submitted
in response to the above Board action:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE;
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNT �►?DMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE _-OT R
SIGNA E S : T m Powers �a.cyland
ACTION OF BOARD N April 26, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOAMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYESI NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: A13STA1N: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: George Johnson, HSAC ATTESTED
Auditor-Controller PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY 'DEPUTY
I. Allocation of Funds
A. Appeals
HSAC has recommended eleven proposals for funding from the Human
Services Challenge Grant funds.. A review and allocation process
was developed by the Consortium of'Human Services Advisory Boards,
Commissions, and Committees ,(Consortium) and HSAC. Built into
this process was an opportunity for agencies to appeal the
decisions and recommendations resulting from this process. Three
agencies appealed the final recommendations made by the Consortium
and approved by HSAC. Two of these agencies (the East Bay
Consortium for Elder Abuse and the Adult Day Care Center of Contra
Costa) have appealed the recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors. Spokespersons for the two agencies made
presentations to the Board. One agency (Right Directions) did not
make•a presentation before the Board.
HSAC reviewed the appeals of the three agencies at a meeting held
on April 5. After consideration of the presentation made by the
spokespersons of the three agencies, it was the action of HSAC to
advise the Board that HSAC sustains its earlier actions and voted
not to make any changes in its final recommendations.
Copies of the written appeals, HSAC summaries, and Minutes of the
April 15 HSAC Meeting are attached. (See Attachment A)
B. Allocation
The Consortium and HSAC developed a process for asking over 300
agencies to submit Letters of Intent if interested in applying for
Challenge Grant funding. From these agencies, 118 Letters of
Intent were received and of these, 33 were selected to submit
detailed final applications. The Consortium evaluated the 30
that were submitted, and selected eleven for recommendation for
funding. HSAC reviewed these recommendations and after hearing
appeals, recommended to the Board that the eleven be funded. (See
Attachment B)
During the review process, HSAC staff developed the following
analysis of the distribution of funds (taken from the HSAC Minutes
of April 5, 1988):
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
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
II. New Monies Obtained by the Agencies
One of the goals .of the Human Services Challenge Grant Fund is to
obtain resources from non-County contributors in support of projects to
be funded from the Challenge Grant. The 'material submitted to the
Board on April 12, 1988 shows an amount, of match associated with each
recommended grant allocation. No background data was supplied. HSAC
staff has .been asked to provide the Finance committee with information
on the new money obtained by the agencies.
This additional information has been collected from the agencies (See
Attachment C). Revised totals resulting from this new information is
shown on the revisions ,to the table: "1987-88 Challenge Grant Program
-- Recommended Proposals" (See Attachment B).
This information is summarized in the following Table:
Existing New
Resources Resources
Agency/ Grant Before Resulting From
Project Request Challenge Challenge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol :& Drug.Abuse $ 25,000 $ 24,000 $162,780
Council of C.C.C.
Friday Night Live
Youth Homes 30,000 -0- 258,948
Probation Asess. Prog.
March of Dimes Birth
Defects Found. as Fis-
cal Agent for_A/DA&PTF 5,000, -0- 11,792
Alcohol/Drug Abuse &
Pregnancy Task Force
Mental Health Consumers .
Concerns, Inc. 13,394 -0- 21,190
Self-Help Promotion/Consu-
mers Speak Conference
S.H.E.L.T.E.R., Inc.. 29,900 305,469 485,907
Family Homeless Center
Coordinator
Family Stress Center 14,999 21,255 23,085
Parent' Edu. Classes
Early Childhood Mental
Health Program 14,999 2,485 15,100
Infant Bond
Cambridge Community Ctr. 3,000 -0- 9,020
Project Community
Volunteers of America 30,000 -0- 201,302
Family Support Center :
Children's Home Society
of Calif. (Sherman House) 6,985 23,118 12,020
Youth Crisis Svcs/Mobile
Office Project
Children's Home Society 1,723 34,720 8,740
of Calif. (Sherman House) (1)
Recreation Project
TOTAL $ 175,000 $411,047 $1,209,884
(1) Original request of $6,500 reduced to meet $175,000 Total
A review of the data will show that the total of match has been reduced from
the initial presentation of $1,254,060 (ratio 1:7.17) to the new total of
$1,209,884 (ratio 1:6.91). Please refer to Attachment C for details of the
changes reported by each agency that has resulted in this 3.54% decrease in
claimed'match.
C 1
A T T A C H M E N. T S
Attachment A - Written Appeals from Agencies and
Staff Summaries
. Right Direction, (HSAC Only)
. Adult Day Care. Center of West Contra
Costa (HSAC and Board of Supervisors)
. East Bay Consortium for Elder Abuse
Prevention (HSAC and Board of Sup'vs. )
Attachment B 1987-88 CHALLENGE GRANT PROGRAM -
RECOMMENDED PROPOSAL (as revised 4/25/88)
Attachment C - Source of Matching Funds - Eleven Proposals
j
AWACEDEW A
JO
(�V %D N ale, -
t'V O r>I O r-IV
�!1 E > 40NVNE N CO k 4) N
30.1 4 word r-U�1 r-I C tT
w� C W4 01 -4) 30.1 -
!� N ooIADO 4J O N 34 U 4) ISD (4
4) %D U 3.1 0% N O O qo 4 • 4a co O
x 40 -.i 45 r` 04 a) a r- a) N >r C r O o
41C - Na - v0 V 0 W. .0
-rl-H U IT - is X r-I r-1 -A 0 b C U kb�.
N ao r-I U er «i 4s C :1) coId r I > r-I
0 � r� to C u N 4►J 44 -r-I $4 PU Id o V, �� ro
a M v 0 w N N •R ai d► u N �- C
N Id-ri O 3a 3 C N .0 r-I 4) O
O 44 4J o O a) 41 rd to
0
FO 0
W Id o 44 4a-r1 V (n 41
o b a - (D-1 o 310 >I N -ri
a C•r1 O 4) EN -r1 U O N (a
a Idr E04) 41C > c u $4 C
-.i O .0 is C 4)-r.1 b C) b
A H N i b x 4) E ra
W 0
-r01 Id .a C C a 3-� m N
3� a v o 4) 4) 0
o 0 Id o -ri E 4 o r-4 4 a qr O 0 0 Ai
W O -m- 4) O N N 1 O 4) C Q1 U U O -r•1
a o CNsa o 34N0' o > (d4) to C" ON 3
• - C 4) a) C ft 4) C 4.) C C >r
U ri Ln 4) N O > N O Ll ro m -ri I"1 -r1 b 0% k
W N 4) 4) Id M «-I to r-I U tT is r--1 V N 4)
a 0 � 4 *W A Id •R w ft aob "' a 1 4W A
( C9 104) 9 V 1-1 C4) 0 r4 03 4) b
4) 41 C Id > C 44 O 0 .1) A 41
w o is a) •,I -ri O 0 N C 34 34 N N
O O O O 1 W C C r-1 0 -rq � 4 .O tT Id 41 >r U
C9 > k (n N•r1 U r-♦ O CO C ri 4J x 044 b U
o -H 0404 N 4) a s Id x is (1) a) o o to r-I 01 N C C to
a 0 b 4) to) 0Xx N 41 UA E4) O0 (o•r+ 4) w
+dao 004 40 vb 04.)
a' bI4Q! wb aQOO 0H 4) aIbU w 1 34 r-4 34 NC
a 14 > E r-+ 0 b 4) a) r-4 W 4) 444 4) O 4) O
y is -ri rd, tT b 4) 0•r1 34 >+ =1 $4 k b N U r-( 41 E 0 E U
Irr�Wg�r -4 N a a o ro m C A v r+ 41 a w C 1 4) o U 4)
�•1 z 4) 0 0 3-1 44 4) --� Q v 010 r-4 4) 4) N to ',1". C
U U >+ N0 va ?GCAC0 r-I It
-rr4 rl > V (d .'10" 4)) wC >1C)14 Ov
W W 0 C•ri Id J•1 -H 4) h .0 tT U -r-I (a I N 44 O 4) r♦ V N
U) h 10 O V A C N w O O w r1 V-r-I M 44 C C -r1 •.•I C 4) a)
O -ri 3.1-r1-r-I O 4) •ro (-. U w O rl U :3 r-4 00 C r-4 4) 4J •r4
a 34 t3+ N > w E (d iJ r-♦ -r1 ri W W -ri 4) r-I 34 a) U U O U 9 u to r-q
I-a A4 W O-r1•r1 W 34-4 a 3 44 Id b 0) -ri W k•H
1.7 m ra V 4) O.0 C 44 0 N44
a Ar-+ v x000 N4) mr-I Co
x o Id -r+ U •r 4 4) Id to 044
U Id U > 44 V -rib r-1 C a N
4) 0 4) 0 to 1 V C r-4 34 k 10 b N
OD N tr a) 3-I .0 $4 N o t7+ -r1 (d Id 4) W O C to
00 —4 A w 044.) N 4) (d v 0 > 34 V 4) b 4)
1 (� -ri 44 w U ,C r-1 34 -H C 4) Id b C • ri
r� V a) > r- 44 v k 41 C R A V o > E N C v C a)
Go C? >•r1 tT r-i O b 3.1 0 U•r1 O b 44 C 4) E
ON ai is 0 -1 Ur-1-HN W 4) 0 4.) 44 O N a O
V-1 44 010 w 3 N C 41 0 v Id 4) 0 aJ C 0 .0
H1 0 V IO to 41 b 0 •H t4 00 44 900 O U-V H N G -0r1 O • ra is
.-+ .c C b U It 4J >+ D4 4) 44 .o O ••i tx r+ O
y•.•1 b1 Id C 4) 3 C w A 3: "M."I U U Id V -r-1 44
A V -r1 b to -n b co O 4) A 04-) • C r-I Aj (d 04 3 N
z o (L) vN ARItr to 1-ICNO to CU
w C ri @ w H•r-1 N Oc CT b a a E d is -r1 H O
0 >1*r4 O p 04-H 44 4) 44 N 4 v m 144 v U
ri b x A x C-rf U 0 4J rl H-r, r-I a) 0"4 a 4) -r1
O Ila C0 NQ) C4) 0toQ 04 a AN r-1 riH -r, >
•r1-r-I U .G
f "4 > M A o 0v� � a 4) 0 C Id ro as o k
o wb :1-ri r. v � c14 o : r1 ia)ro � 0 -i00v0 u NaLI)
A
o
a r1 N en et In
t ti
Lo � ''.,� N
.� .'j -.4 ... b
c�0 -ri 0 i� N )-1-H-H > N :9 �Ln ri v
.4 00CQ k 0 (�� W 4L* C MO
0 b 0 0 - r-IVw C td E4 V
:0-1"4 w 41 W 090 O 0
r-I C
A"-1 $4 r-I to >C .00 r-i-I V . -� � O
41-.•I V•r•I b U O 0 C U r-4 o
�o �u � bc� N N > o •'off', o� ate► a
14Q &IW L. w a•rl O 4) O 4) M� W W H O 0 �
14 4) W N ►` C V W > 0 4 1-
0 W 0 r- [ �� -.i C 0 er b r-4 0 tri tm + V rn r► •
1,9444) HN -rlN bcdE r4 s 1 0
« N P A ro p
W 401). o - z In b V + k a)) 0
>eo WaA 0oro w4) 0 E 0
• r-1 14 $4 U ed >•ri ZT U N
C >1•ri a 0 v 0 C r-I W ed 0 C
4) 41 � a .colo N00 WO a V Id
$4-rl b v 11 a W 0 0 r-I W
Id r-IW 0 O .G r-1-r4 10
Q,-,4O x A U 0 A 4) 4) 0
A 0 V C ed V W E 3
D 904 b.,I W O-H
m 4-) b 0v *) 3 C .0 W w « ro
C7% .•-1 m 0 rn > $4 C o V •.-I o >, Ln w r, 0 v
e % C V b (7% r-1 O Id O ed O O $4 b CO 0 N k ed O
o► v-r1 0•r-I m 0 0444 O U >r O Oro eT t- O
W4.) > •• > O C W-r-I R) ft w ft 0 %0 >1 O
q r Id C .0 0 • "W C 34-rl rt W > 4.) O O %D 4 ri O v •
V-1 0 0 iJ is 0 r-4 -H ed )-1 W (n Im%0 in -ri Ln
aR rl $4 0 0414 +11- I •..N er► r-I 0 p C 4011. 0 w ft r-I I-
LO A 14 O W a L) W 0 -r1 $4 E 0 LD -r1 e-1
VO4 4) 0 C 41 Wo 0 40k U w
gooAU -roSw �
ul wtbU VE OO w w
0 0•r1 4) r-i U w b -ri-rl O w A 14 -n 4) '�' 0
W V O U r-1 S•+ O C >v C C -C 41 O W O r-I U r-I
W .0 )4 -14 O U•.i 0 4-► 0 0 4J U 1-4 41 U w -ri C 0 v Id
Id • 030 .0 •r-� +' EE .0Z yae of oa o a
r-4 o O . 0.0 w 3 C 14 E 3 +� C O
U roOEll W 410 O 000 N 0UO O Es-1 w :1 -rl
W > 0 W O -ri W a U r-I O -r+ U W U 0 44 0' V
0k -it N to 3: 4.) w a r-4 4.) 0 C -ri•r1 ed .0 0 ed
V w r-I C C a) 0 o n to a -r, .c 0 W w v) C w a)
b a a ri � b 0 C 0 v -r+ W 0 W 4J 10 -r1 w w w o . "
0 E .
W m m O E 41 0) W O N C C 1•+ O 0 W -rl 01 U J-i
w -ri U O 0 "A W O 41 C IM )•4 W ed 41 4) u 4) 4.)-H 4) C
ed -ri .C4-) 41 41 to U +ICo (a k (da 1 0 CU 'd 34 k4)
a 040414LJ0 C C4) 0 C"AoId r4 41 0 Ar-I 0-r4 0o E
Q) a.►-H r1 Id a) W to •n k W .0 r-4 -r4 0 b V•rl "A > $4 — 4) a
4 w k 0104 w > W O O ed 0 U 9 W > C O .0 v m U « W •r.4
ed 0 • U C E C 14 a V w 4) 0 - -r1-ri-r4 00 (d 0 a) 0 0
a W -rl O H a) W W OV W $4 W r-+ >+ � r-I N a a w
• U w 14 U V o a4 ed k a-► r-4 $4 0
W > a) 0 C • 44Oo41r-I a) CC Ldw o
w w .9 rd r-I -.-I w A r-I o o ed 0 ^ •rl
.0 v r-) 4) 44 41O Om CUC 0 W W 0 I R)
0 0 0•ri E A O > >1 (L) 0 ed >1 W C-r-I >1 W -r1 G
O > Ia 3 r-i* )a 4 E $4 U W E 4J 0 -ri >a AJ 0 V O
Go -r-I o ed b a) O 01 O >+ a b 0 W 4) 0 U 0 0 r-I- 4
w V U W V 41 b1 C $4 A .0 0 U i.1-,1 0 -ri m 'd �.� 0 V
44 U 4 C I O-r-I >1 w E-4 4J •r-I w r-4 a G.0 u E b
+) 0 a) b b G C C V V W 1.1 0•rr4 ed 4jv a)
4) V0 rl a) 11 •cd -r1 .0 0 -9-4 � a Rf > � C o No U
v C $4 $4 .cro� Ar--I14 001aW 0440 0 1>+ 00
-4 a W-r+ •N a) U a 0.0 -r1 0 -r-4 0 b )-e
to E w w O W N>r AJ b w 04 4 Ww A v
00 _W0 10 �+ ` g0 0Cr-I 0 >44U WN w0 ON 0 $4
0
64 . rr w
n " v 0 > + 0) C) - > U r--1 E-4 cd 0 r 0 O
14 C Wr-I r-i w > -ri C .1-4 U IA -ri FA • > >1 fA O
0 0 0 0 r1 a .1-4a V 4) 0 W w r-4 94 � a w C V - w a b
N b A•r 10 W 0 -ri U 0 1d • r-I C•r-i 0".4 C•94 . O C
-ri b U .0 64 c a) 0 0 rd w $4 o A --1 W ed 0 4) r-I U r40 r-1 r-1-H
> r-40C +� V 0xaU - 44) rvVU �+ v M00u '� > b
e-i 0 -r-I W 0 �r- 41 a b w 41 V 0 0 4) W ri
ac'ciroUNo 0 H ° ww � = arovai 14 -I OUO ° 8 ° cd r-4
9w " o a1d
C; rI
1
Contra
Costa
County
01
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 9 2425 BISSO LANE,SUITE 103 • CONCORD,CA 94520 0 (415)646-5661
-2q.
1e
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. "
y .
-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
for 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 amore 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.
i
,i
-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
Ridhmond and I feel that this program is so wonderful that
the 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
and 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.
N/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 submitte
4ge W. John o Director
Services dvisory Commission
ATrACEKTr.B
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. SU14 KARY 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. RECOMMENDATION 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.
OR
CiAI�
SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
COURTHOUSE
MARTINEZ.CALIFORNIA 94553
RICHARLD L. PATSEY
JUDGE
DEPARTMENT Ii
April 1 , 1988
Contra Costa County Haan Services AdVisory Cor_mitt`e
2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 103
Concord, CA 94520
Gentlepersons:
The Right Direction Project appeals the decision of the
Human Services Advisory Commission to deny it any portion of the
Challenge Grant Fund Program funds made available by the County
Board of Supervisors. We take this action reluctantly for we
did not wish to become embroiled in a dispute with other worthy
agencies as to which ones should receive public funding. Yet,
when the action of the Commission denies funding to ninety-one
percent of those applying and when_fh'aI action threatens the .
very existence of the Right Direction Project, we feel compelled
to act.
The decision of the Commission to prioritize funding
requests on an "all or nothing" basis was incorrect for the
-------------
following reasons: The Right Direction Project and, we suspect,
many other projects like it live or die on funding from outside
sources . Those outside sources , especially foundation .and
corporate benefactor-s , base their 'Un-ling decisions in large
part on whether the County has demonstrated tangible support for .
the project in question. In fact, I have been told by a number
of potentional donors that they will give to the Right Direction
Project when this County shows its support by some type of funding
of our Project. Thus , to turn the Right Direction Project away
with nothing not only deprives us of our matching fund , it may
effectively sound the death knell to the Project itself.
Sae submit that a far better approach to distribution of
the Challenge Grant Project funds is through proportional funding.
A half loaf (or even a quarter loaf) is better than no loaf at
all. This is especially so when that half a loaf will provide
Contra Costa County Human Services Advisory Committee
Page 2
April 1 , 1988
worthwhile projects with demonstrable support from Contra Costa
County, support which is necessary if these projects are to
attract the funds essential for their survival.
For these reasons , we ask that the Human Services Advisory
Commission return the funding process to the Consortium of Human
Services Advisory Boards , Committees and Commission for -action
consistent with this appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD L. PATSEY
Superior Court Judge
RLP:tb
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
Iiigher than minimum requirement and the agency would expect to
raise additional funds.
10. RECONNENDATION .OF APPLICANT: None
fid, °� 9�r3oa
(4f5) 035-6--76-
March
35-6--76March 7 , 1988
Challenge Grant Application Review Committee
c/o George Johnson, Director
Human Services Advisory Commission
2425 bisso Lane, Suite 103
Concord, CA 99526
Dear Mr . Johnson :
I would like to follow up on our challenge grant application
submitted on Monday with a clarification regarding our matching
contributions for the grant.
When we submitted our preliminary letter of intent we were
counting all other funds and in-king contributions which will
make it possible for us to add an additional day of service for
an entire year . This includes the funding sources , both
committed and pending , which are listed in #35, page 8 of our
application . Thus our letter of intent claimed a much higher
ratio of matching funds to County challenge grant funds than is
claimed on the application submitted this week. This is due to
our decision to expend all of the county funds in four months and
to limit county funds to those items specifically listed in the
challenge grant budget . Thus the matching funds are
correspondingly lower than in the original letter of intent .
This in no way reflects a lower level of matching funds -- the
county funds would simply be spent in a shorter period of time
(four months instead of 12) and on a limited number of items
rather than all budget items for the year .
I trust this clarifies any confusion about the matching
funds claimed by our proposal . If there are questions , please
call me.
Thank you .
Sincerely,
Deborah Price-Janke
Executive Director
DP-J:sf
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.
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 1945.4910
April 4 , 1988
Contra Costa County
Human Services Advisory Commission
2425 Bisso Lane , Suite 103
Concord , California 94520
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
The East Bay Consortium for Elder Abuse Prevention wishes to
appeal the recommendations for funding under the 1987-88
Challenge Grant Program. Our appeal is based on the following :
(1. ) Inequitable distribution of funding by
geographic region
(2) Inequitable distribution of funding by
target population
(3) Failure of the Proposal RevicTl= Committee_,
to follow the established proposal review
process .
inequitable distribution of services by geographic region
A total of 30 proposals were reviewed for funding, under. thl-
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 probrams
indicated they would serve Central County . One (1 ) proposed to
serve East County . Of the three (3) remaining proposals , one (1 )
planned to serve Concord another Martinez and -
p� the rema:�ning
wou.id have served Ceritral-East County .
We believe the proposals recommended for funding were dispropor-
tionately based in Central County . None of the ten (10) programs
which proposed to serve West County were selected for funding.
Only two (2) of the programs selected to serve the entire county
were based in Wast County .
We would argue that a disproportionate number of West County res-
idents 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. the Challenge Grant Program
should have recognized this and taken this into nc,count when
seleci=ing proposals fo.- funding.
2 _
Inequitable distribution by target population served
It would appear that the vast majority of the proposals selected
for funding propose to serve families and children. Of the
eleven (11 ) projects selected for funding, only one (1) - - an
intergenerational project submitted by Cambridge Community Center
proposes to serve seniors as well as youth.
We believe the Challenge Grant Program should have endeavored
to fund a broad spectrum of target populations and funding should
be equitably distributed.
Failure of the Proposal Review Committee to
follow the established review process
The Proposal Review Committee was instructed to rate each proposal
on a scale of 1 to 4 for each of eleven criteria. Each proposal
was given a score between 11 and 44. Then each reviewer was asked
to assign a rank score for the proposal . No criteria for the
ranking of proposals was established and there was not necessarily
a correlation between the score of the proposal and its rank. Thus ,
a proposal could receive a high rating but low rank order or a
low rating and high rank order. We are concerned because only the
rank assigned was considered in making the decisions about funding.
The score which was derived from the more objective criteria was
totally disregarded in the process. A correlation between ranks
and scores had not been prepared by the Proposal Review Committee
until after we requested it in preparation for our appeal . We
believe the number of proposals that were in "low rate , high category
rank" and "high rate , low category rank" is significant and worthy
of consideration.
We are especially concerned since the. Proposal Review Committee
was primarily comprised of Central County residents who may be more
familiar with the programs located in Central County. The possi-
bility that this influenced the more subjective rank ordering can-
not be overlooked.
f
3 -
It is on this basis that we respectfully request that the
Human Services Advisory Commission:
(1) Determine whether the "high rank, low rating" or
"low rank, high rating' proposals should be
reconsidered for funding.
(2) Determine whether the programs selected for
funding represent equitable distribution of
services by population and geographic region.
We look forward to meeting with you to discuss our concerns .
Respectfully,"- —
PAMELA J. WILLIAMS
Executive Director
PJW:vk
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 1945-4910
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 1987-88
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 for bias
The first factor to be considered in reviewing and selecting
proposals was 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 the 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-evaluated for funding
by the Board of Supervisors. (A sample of this data has already
been developed by the staff for HSAC. )
Selection of proposals did.-not insure equity among the geograp-
hic regions
The third factor to be considered 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 (1 )
proposed to serve East County. Of the three (3 ) remaining
proposals, one planned to serve Concord, another Martinez, 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 target
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. Of 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 proposals 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 ) tiers 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 :
n
(1 ) Provide direction and take appropriate steps to insure
the process in subsequent years is clearly defined,
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,
1
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 funding. Th-Is,�selection is to
be based upon the average scores, content of projects,
equitable distribution of grants among target population and
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 HSAC Offices
Monday, March 21 5: 00 p.m. Turn in rating forms at HSAC
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
02 . 25 . 88
ATTACHMERr C
i 0o
r4
A b
•,4
ca 93
04 W
41 co C N
in 94
Z A 0 y4 p b b b b b
p A X0-1 p a b a a a a a
p .-+ 00 U Wv d G O R1 O O O O W
r O W N w U co r4 u •,a 1-4 '-4 -4 4
H -A W b ¢ O b > O Q) W > > > >
N
N 00 �O a) L V1 a) G b a) b 11 w a) a) a) a)
¢ > H U H 1+ u r4 •,a DO a m o0 00 N 00
tin U P4 owa O u y (L) G o Q) � Z G G O
p a r4 u u r4 3 3 3 •,4 •� •,4 44
r-4 O z W v v Q) z z as a0) pa) ra
O
z
H0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '.
WW O O 00 O o 00 o O O 0 O O O O
z Com.) UU a O a H o o 00 p o 00 0 Ln o o -17 0 o rn
vtwn >. t/: a
o H A ¢ wcn
o w 14r- cppz � W
a s EW+ 0 k, E-4 L)n Q
¢ H z cn w A p o 0 00 {�
H H W r.+ 9 z m m OO m m m 00 00 m m m Cl) m m m 0 0 0
¢ O > x H A
H U O ¢v W N N O N N T, .
A x 0
w H n a x x x x x x x x x x x
x U U w C,
U 0 0 E..4
< CJ
L);Q x x x
' � u
G
0 .ca z Z A V' o O O O O O O O O O o o O O O
yi H O w c O O O 00 O O 0 0 o O O O O O O
vcn N 0 rte•+
•
C) o O 00 0 O o o Lr) O O O O O O
O � aC c1 N O u1 NW O
O
t/A, t?
Q
O x H x x x x x x x x x
U
p W H
u ZE- x x x x x x
G
O
O
U 4-1
bD u
G A
O
d o w
to >+ >~
0
Acc 3 u 4u, U) • 4 o
O 0 H > I,
`rs 41 u o i a v d c7
rr 1 W a •,4 a k •,4 u a
O U G n1 O b -+ I u m H O
p 14 O b a)
O O E ri O U] m a) O > d b
A v G a W A Z) v ,q w w 3
v) 1J 1a H >> U O u •b H H >i
Q) ¢ >+ v >. c >a w U) 0
w o u O w 0) co v 4-1 •r4 w w 1r
c� W ca Cl. •4 G 41 ¢ 3 ca >, O ,4 W 44
a ca r+ O Cl v +1 O co z ¢ d 0
cn A O x 3 a ¢ z cr A w 44 cn U) U
o f ¢ x u A w w o x x a z o
C4
lk
=.
co P
ItA
to
tA
4rjr COO
CO
tz
IPA
00
tg
PA
ICA 10
-
YOUTH HOMES
A United Way
Serving children and families since 1965 Agv.nr_y
Ee 1537 Sunnyvale Avenue 22 Martin Street, P.O. Box 338
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-9860 Gilroy, CA 95021
(415) 933-2627 (408) 842-0301
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Chairman.Jan Zimmerman April 15, 1988
Asst.Vice President,
Union Bank
Vice Chairman.Anne Campbell
Attorney. Human Services Advisory Commission
Crosby.Heafy.Roach&May Contra Costa County
Treasurer.Jon Christensen 2425 B i s s o Lane
Certified Public Accountant Concord, Ca. 94520
Blanding.Boyer&Ryan
Attn. Mr. George Johnson
Secretary.Opre Wilson
Attorney
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Joanne Browne
Human Resources Consultant
Michael Miller Enclosed you will find completed copies of the requested financial
Vice President, information. I have also enclosed a budget narrative which
Wells Fargo Bank clarifies exactly the nature of the funds we were using as a match
JoAnnSche:nayder in your challenge grant. I hope that this provides your committee
President. with the information you need to evaluate our proposal, however if
Youth Homes Auxiliary
you do need more clarification, please contact Youth Homes
Cathy Oliver Executive Director Mr. Richard Pryor at 933-2627. I will be on
Co-Manager vacation until the 26th of Aril so he will represent Youth Homes
Gilded Cage Thrift Shop P p
Richard Pryor at your 25th meeting.
Executive Director
Youth Homes I certainly hope that the Finance Committee and the Board of
Deborah Roessler Supervisors follow the recommendations of the Human Services
Asst.Vice President Advisory Commission as Youth Homes and the Department of Probation
Wells Fargo Bank are very eager to see this program get off the ground.
Lou Rosas
Disbursement Specialist
Pacific Bell Thank you for your time and consideration.
S' ely,
Richard Pryor
Executive Director
Paul Gibson Paul Gibson
Director of Development
Director of Development
Martha L.Timmers
Business Manager
Robert L.Ping
Regional Administrator
Ronald Ober,L.C.S.W
Regional Clinical Director
A Founding Member of California Association of Children's Homes
BUDGET NARRATIVE
HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
CHALLENGE GRANT PROPOSAL
PUMSE OF NARRATIVE: In order to clarify the nature of the funds
Youth Homes is using in their Challenge Grant Proposal,the following
descriptions are provided. The letter preceding each funding category refers
to the letter code utilized in form s 2 'Source of Matching Funds.'
•A Anderson Contribution
Mr. Anderson was approached at about the same time that the challenge
Grant Proposal was being developed. Several factors caused us to be seeking
the contribution of a residence.
❑ Knowing that this Grant Proposal would be announced soon,we
were eager to have developed funds eligible for a match.
❑ As a result of discussions with County Probation officials we were
aware of the desperate need for the proposed
Intervention/Assessment Program.
❑ As the Armstrong Report indicated, the county had determined it to
be a very high priority to develop new group home programs,
especially ones that might divert children from long term
placement
❑ Our Board of Trustees had set as a goal in their Long Range
Corporate Plan that we develop strategies for purchasing 3
residences over the next five years. As Development Director, I
determined that an excellent strategy for meeting one-third of
this Board directed goal would be to develop a proposal for the
Challenge Grant program.
Last fall Mr. Anderson had approached Youth Homes about the donation of
some furniture. In discussions with Mr. Anderson he revealed that he was
interested in selling his home. He also mentioned that he had no family. Our
Executive Director, Richard Pryor, and I determined that Mr. Anderson
would be an excellent candidate for a bargain sale of his home. At the time
that Mr. Pryor and I first considered soliciting the donation of the Anderson
residence we discussed how this contribution might well qualify as a match
for a proposal to start a new program.
As the agreement (to be forwarded) indicates, the sale is structured to
include a $55,000 contribution to Youth Homes. The Assessment home will
be named Anderson House in honor of Mrs. Anderson, a former social
worker who is terminally ill. While it is certainly the case that Mr. Anderson
would now contribute the home to Youth Homes regardless of the Board of
Supervisor's decision on this match grant, the donation was solicited in the
first place with the idea in mind of using it as a match for starting a new
R=am. Therefore it should qualify as "new' money.
: B AFDC-BHI Funds
AFDC-BHI funds are funds coming from three sources. The Federal and State
Government each contribute 48.75% and the county contributes roughly
2.52. The amount of AFDC-BHI funds that would be new revenue to Youth
Homes and, by extension,to the county was based upon our monthly "board
rate" of $2 981 per child. We computed a 902 occupancy of a sig bed facility
over 12 months to arrive at the figure of t 193,168.
These funds would not be available to Youth Homes without the match grant
proposal. If for any reason Youth Homes does not receive the HSAC match
grant funds,we will not be beginning a new program. Therefore none of the
AFDC-BHI funds would be received. In this event we would move one of our
current programs that is currently located in a leased home into the
Anderson Home. Thus failure to receive HSAC funding would result in no
increase in group home beds for children,,no Probation Assessment Program
and no new AFDC-BHI funds. As the narrative on the Clorox Grant indicates
it would also involve the loss of their $5,000 grant.
The added feature of AFDC-BHI funds is that the match will continue
indefinitely. Therefore, not only in 1988, but for the forseeable future Youth
Homes (and county children) would benefit from at least this much new
AFDC-BHI funding on an annual basis.
C. Clorox Grant
These funds were requested after the Match Grant was announced with the
specific intention of being used in this proposal. Therefore, the $5,000 being
considered by Clorox can only be considered new money directly responsive
to the Challenge Grant Program. As the enclosed letter indicates, we are
being seriously considered for the award. We have passed the first two
hurdles and will receive a site visit on April 26th. Should we not receive the
Match Grant we would not be considered for the Clorox award unless we
were able to develop alternate start up funds. Regretably, this would be an
unlikely occurence.
D. Youth Homes In Bind
Youth Homes in-kind contribution represents our computation of roughly the
number of volunteer hours that would normally be expended in the
operation of one of our programs. In truth,was would most likely be able to
direct any of our volunteers to other programs, so this does not represent
'new' money. Nonetheless, the opening of a new program generates
publicity and interest among the community and therefore attracts new
volunteers who would not have gotten involved had the new program not
attracted their interest.
SUMMARY:
Funding sources s A-C provide a county match far in excess of the amount
required by the Match Grant Proposal. In creating a new Assessment
Program Youth Homes would be meeting two widely identified program
needs for children: new group home beds and a diversion program. At the
same time we will be relieving the overcrowding of the juvenile Hall facility.
Finally, in utilizing HSAC funds to start up this program we will be creating a
permanent funding stream that will draw approximately $200,000 of federal
and state money to our county on an annual basis.
Youth Homes has demonstrated in both Solano and Contra Costa County that
once start up funds are received, we are capable of maintaining programs
that serve our children indefinitely. (In the last nine years we have
received start up funds for three Contra Costa and one Solano County
programs.
All four are still in operation.
We hope that the Board of Supervisors agrees with the HSAC and the
Department of Probation that in funding this proposal the county will be
making a wise investment in the future of the children of our community.
71he
Clorox
Col. ny
FoLltidadon
March 29, 1988
Mr. Paul Gibson
Youth Hairp-s, Inc
1537 Sunnyvale Ave.
Walnut creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Board of Trustees of The Clorox company Foundation, at their meeting of
March is, 1988, reviewed your request for a grant submitted to our office,
and decided to table your request until their May 19, 1988 meeting pending a
-future site visit to your agency.
The above action is necessary in order for the Trustees to more effectively
review your request.
You will be notified by mail of the Trustees' decision.
If You have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at
271-7747.
Sincerely,
Cannella J. Johrlsoh
Contributions Administrator
CJJ:el
F.O.rox2lt9-1 O:dhnidj,\95623 415-271-77,47
........................... ..........................
cu C> 0
0
on 0i
.............
cn 00
C:)
co
C:) cla
C>.
iF
tn
r4w
4 P. V. W 1 0 .............
. r- c E t" V to 1- 0— 1 C) ...................
O $3; E.4
E-4 Da
2A
ZIA 670- 04
0
..........
4 ul C)
............
co, cla
M10 7- co V-4
r+ CD
Cl OD C-1
4 p tr C:)
0 C-i
0 LO
................. ..........
I ro 06 ,u,,
7.
U
C:
toO ~ aL ..........
0
L-
Ln
,d) 4--� 1
U
O 4
CL)
f+- (1) S-
W CO a)
Cl
0
0
C13
tp
O 0 ai
W I--
C:)
C- S.- c0'3 til
0 0
cn .............
...............
10 V
0
W C3
�
er C
> t
V%A
Qk X--
cer
W
QP
r4
...............
P+ '04 P. 11.,
A tA
VOA
i-4
.............
At
Pll
v�
As
Irk.
t.A
to
PATIENTS' RIGHTS ADVOCACY is TRAINING
a program of Mental Health Consumer Concerns, Inc.
25M Alha.6ra Ave. TR-3
UarUnex. Calif. 94353
(415) 646-4ZZA
April 18, 1988
Mr. George Johnson
Human Services Advisory Commission
2425 Bissell Lane, Suite 103
Concord, California 94520
Re: Challenge Grant/Matching Funds
Dear Mr. Johnson,
As requested at our meeting of April 13, 1988, enclosed you will find
completed Forms 1, la and 2 which analyze our organization's Challenge
Grant matching funds.
If you have any questions regarding these forms, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. Lyon
Office Coordinator
bl
Enol.
cc: Jay Mahler, Director
C •r -0
O Nm i
CD
Q01 C +-)
cl
iZ. to
o.
vL � CO � "
.�
c a)
Q � N O
o.
r
J
n � 9 0 G� ro
.0NI b4 H ba � � U
� o
w o O d o 0
N O O N O C O O O
V V �€ � O �•7 � H 1 1 I
V N < W � Ln .-q
.--1 .-
pL t� tst � 4.4
i i 0 i
O
C h a i a) i a) •�
•F•) O O 4-) r a) O ice-)
a C Ixi
IRE... d 4- aa) C)� U) (D o 4-) rn v
t7 d OlU Q)-o i U I 1 1 I I O O -0 i U
O a) i %D a) O O i +J a) O
a 1•r H W 04 cc � > O >) d• > .0 >> O O O O O a) +�.0 >)
• Fa LO i 0 r— U N
r
6
R a.l co Q) N •� O aJ .a..) •r 1 1 1 1 1 C '0 a) +) •r
N N +-) E .4 N +J E •r C i d E
SLI V O a v OG b4 a) a.-) ro +tr a)•r ro b9 =.r ro
N i•r LL i d LL �.LL•p a- L.L
H O Ott �Z
W o , X x x x x X
a
� wr .� p. C i� e► x
I>.
so
IxI A C C) m . 0 O O O O
o ^ N o 0 o d o
V i ~ a Ln 0 LO Ln .-a Q
4J 06 co
y 0 C N N1f+ yam} H4 64 64 Eb4 b4
a,
U �
•r
C
Q1 O = � X X X X X x X
C •r
N N •r
• O O O
v C S n .-)
C N a)
f-r (A r i Y
a) rO O N U
^r C 4 C .r- i
a) O (C 'a O F-- (1)
'� C C •r •C
• O +3 i p O +-) i N
LAJ S •r
O t6 LL. ro a a)
F— C C O a) +-) O •r J a••) aJ
• O (6 O h-) d' N M rp C .0 r C
•J i U C O i (p a) t0 O
Ly U ~ v ro'a i -0 •a a) •r C
x ZE LL •a 4-) S-
4-O co O O C O •i-) ro O U CO
CM.— co O .0 S m N
S
U r a
0)4.) J •a) •(Ij
EV!'' �, N C to i o 3 0
�i 4-3.r •r- U C 3
W C O O -) 0) m i
Z >>
a 0 O N O Q O r r •1R i C i .F.)
U Q 2 Q = CG Ln (D U
siz A
O Q CD U p W LL C'3 S
V Oj
O C'3 40
O)
n O+� eCf •fl +� CU
.O C N i-► r �
C H y �" • Q C1
•U 4J 00 Q1 ri0 O Imo. N
i-) 00 C N a N-0 i'S\
•r CT CU•r "a •1.3
' .a• 4-) r d E' 4 r (A 00 C
G•C�
C ) ^ ^O �' NCU 0
i
wU C N -4U 3 r0 OL
LO A' j C3 r0 4.a 4-► C t N 2
N CA 00 - - - - r C C CU U N
t M b4 6] r r0 Cl r O i CU(0 N i.) U i
•� C O N t6 O
�' CONN V pG3 - _ _ _ = z 3 O U L7 CU E r- 4-
Cl
O O LOC)O C
V V O ha W F•1 ^ '^ O O C, u O w
.-1 1-4 Ln Lf) M LD O 00
404
C) qdlG LA
fi+ C9
p p p o p p
sc R «. w ~ r r r r r r r m a`-+ C
ow
to Z G lo
H y w rZ x x x x x x x
iamol �
s mac
z 040, 09 4
r,
� E+
! a r 4- r-
0
r
O O C to r0
O IZ•d Q C ^ rt O O p m I (L)'45 N CTO C O
.--i LD O O LO ct > t CU w C Li Y 0 0
r O O CV LO O (0 4-) N >> O N •- C
l0 1 U • •4-) r •i- N •i4-)LO Lf� M E
' .•+ E C r N •r p
Q p' 3•r N s- O t i O'a wIt
� vJ N VY
uN •r f1000.74.3 t0 to
� g
LL.
413
�.
rn o a x >x x x x x x
N •r
N � N
U C C1S-
C N r S.. w
+� O 0)
►� N _ _
N C 41 C r0 N +-> i0
N •� a
E •^ N i O
N
Y N •r Cl) C C
• O r- (0 N 4-) 4-) (0 .0
W S N i r •r r0 r0 i •r
N C r0 O i r0 C N > 1- +�
• O i U O i i CLI •S- r0
W U0 LL- r-Cr •> CU -.., o
•r
>� 4-) O fl rt3 •r- O E
Cn 4- O O i i d->' N r C N r C N
O N C •r U r-� N C O
V N N O E fZ C1' •r .
•r•� O •'-'Q r i �G L71
.y i i U f1 0 CU U Cu N r
a c t 4-J il S- C C C O O
N O = r0 O o t •r •r = p O
Cn Lt_ W to U to U 3 Li-
0-4
S S
O W ►-r
Soo
OFFICE ON HOMELESSNESS
�-� C/O UNITED WAY OF THE BAY AREA
1070 CONCORD AVENUE, SUITE 270
CONCORD, CA 94520
(415) 827-3598
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TASKFORCE ON HOMELESSNESS
yrri1 19 , 1988.
George Johnsoln , Director
Contra costa Count',-
Human Services Advisor'`- Commission
2425 Pisco Lane , Suite 10
Concord , California 91020
1')ear Geor s�,e :
7 art.. i ritin'? coneerni.ri� the mat!_- i ;.ns6 flir-ids seC'Ltr'red 'by SNF_LTER ,
Inc . al-ld allocated to the PittsbUr'5 Family- Cent er as an
e ! io ihi i -t�. ra,qui 1r='Il:r.'i.t for f u i dirlg Tfil-•r.::Cri. +-1-1 r U!lt- i?;1 �nno•r.•
--
1� nt_ c,, .•I . Tl.,r + rli-al am� u—� r_1 m ir+ 11 t; fUS,ds �.l i ,i I kjz
S}1r1 TTR , i27_ i ri 01-)1' Oi'l2�ill a1 rl n:f o t1 t c;$ of
-h c1 t:a r a i sr'ry in the nr it-ate sector that 1 Considered tc: be
r1 CJt':-C'CLICIC :,lel lg •.r::: _iLt':. n _ i - r•eJ, ler! t-1t :1 Gf a
')it.tsb,.Ir'_. - anvil , TI•an t ._orr,,,l (:anter _sS ! 91 8if
C;4;'- 'G t f 11ich ??'C r;_ rl ?I1 c'r_ltltt � :t'-•= - -. -nd L pi-it. ate _:nr fir r•r_, )
- -
fuI.
7 !•° is o.1 t h;,- jr..ei!i-)r rr {' 'FiSAt_ anal t h ( 11_iiiC—r l sari �.on'c;CrtiLtll':
tha +_i:r _r-_, t , assisted. funds" rn nrHe_ th
e
U_U pl'-ogl.alil and the Housins° Bond Trust Fund , t:r-"e e-i-_.k
c-ounted s matching? fi.lnds. sin(_°_' th, rcleas- of t.}lest' funds to the
f? tLSh'_i]:'e: F ..Ii 1� i_r•nCErr .2'�, it !_ iCeC?%1� C''"i'_ 1!i 1.'•ari t_Ir;rrs nLtr
dl i.1.11 t=n jii .. =. U "1tt.S 1,,U rc� _T:a lt` !_.c+llt nt t•nir,r�t �nr::'i'i.:i.__rti r•r
t I, ( ,r_ 1 i t rl- t_ r, r� ri
the _ u C t�rllctl, Gr•_in: un _ T l s _ _ -. -_
Pr 1t. i _-, 1` _-r:' to o ass_ t. _!' ;.i?r= '.'I:1na mr nt r f +lir, r-1,;31.
1)2'0<_'C'C' , (._";�;i'aIIlinnrj.-=int I _ r•pr,i.,n_i!-ii ?'C•-_ -?' _ -
�, t r• ;r.r, n f' +L r. r r { 7, r•o': i I -
_— . =};rr e I: =� _-. _ . _ ' r :.I _ I r In ,! )i u r:•_.4 I e s
I h r _11_•r• pr• nr jt the C`BG and 1+Ut-1c i I1� n'tn�{ T: .':s Ft_ln=.. _IL
3S l2?_1 ='Iii _ fLlnds , Ii^t, e filjr_:T.I'_Ff Tt'C c .i i m tile.
M:; trh .i r'= 1 r_lil Y'itCr is [<i t_11 L' i _i1 t -.L•,_ r _,I'i-. .._ :fir-c t:_. t�?
i•_, :.i O f }-1" ='1? li Fut,_,, tn 1i"_',nt =,.mou',iOi
T i"I Ct"-r? t' °• li�..� :.1 t 11 1 lam _.it the 1' - = -
c^^.}=1' i ,-i_�_ 1C�: & - !`}�? O(l;'_i _'al:t ±'I'_.:;) _'"i1 * lir��tl�•li tfiF' ;,_
T 5z—i _na i'j t_l�'. i.l 'iem iis _?'-.t:li?? - - - .i s."- t Tn thi._ ai.• .•1 . _ _.t.l. _ n
_.,:, _:t_ln 1 hn` U U' '� --:.--pe-c-t-ed. rC!1 0 11 _ nU::t
Ch:aIje, -.s•F_o Grath F'?'o;= aT ac-: a critiCfll mat;.'h for 11';D ' s oi•-i
r='sE' i n`j`ar -i. fUr'd:- , li Sr =Lt l' 2,4 i:4
t Lt'"i . �'_t t`_ } _I Ill 1 t I? P r �l v P:':C 1 E s _.'r z-t:'=....
SHELTER Inc. is a charitable, non-profit corporation, fiscal agent for the Task Force on Homelessness.
j it11 u ) t:; 5+-' or-rc^ati n� F•`._?=.enses and rehab costs carried over
t �E nF":t. J --ars . Z1?. ha+ ional an; licat? _n process is t_�ic h i �
^ol'i,C., ivC. and, the �oUnt," ClialiEn i��c Cirlanr match I,: l i 'r_.a1L
� III: 1 _ t_n_r.t I-- toys riZal rr= r_:= eCil1'111 t r dr'r?! a'_ cZp.^c f'r:r
1 thanJ% -:,u and zh,= (._ r.!tso tJun; erg' :-.mu 1•.^_,r :r:?g_ effol-•tS on
-;�,j.. 1 - ,1 1• Ia�.. ,r. _ 7'.?[_{ t 1 P l n,.c r? I F. _ f• m i o� L' 1 :i
_. .. ..._. _. .. ._._L i. _ ..._ y _ _ i �._�.. _ a.:.. 1 a _ -J.C; �._ _ �.1 C
C'�. ` '_ .� l.iti
r �`" [il T•:�r_ _ 2
til r_L. E al_'i-1 t_ '_ _. 1 o e
N
G N
s a
0 0 N @
+� V Aj
• 4 G N NCA) C
jO • /'�•/-
O � �t0
p(+�w � 3
co
0. d
oPw .A u, yco
Ln
O
N
c4 E"' a J
N d)r
LA Lr%
O O O
<tr
p ? GPC ij� N
tA
W •+ � W � N
to, `
Q �, c .
Q v N
x
t.
c A o
m
N U
ti- 7
O `4
►- U ti' ►�
0) -00 ❑' N
J 1)
N
i N N p.SAN y
m
WZ V
v �
r
: ..a .wzt:a:..w»,_._ ..::... .oa.xsv;e:,�,r„ k.;.. ns0.YxF.,,a:+n rw.-or°,g':� -.ss.� ..:,mei .... ...&.'us3r,.k"`�. ""e�:.b�3Y k..>`�a�.' '.'t� ;'.. „�..?ti�++:-J:'•:�......--:,:.:Gh3sil v't.*
k
FAMILY
r
STRESS
CENTER y
A
J
{
April 19 , 1988 F, s
r r '
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Contra Costa County
'>
Ed Best Human Services Advisory Commission ;
3 'F
a
Jack Dawon Ph.D. 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 103 y
'
David Dolder Concord CA 94520
AnnFletcher
Eric Hasselline
Virginia Hooper
Helen Kelly Attention : Mr. George Johnson , Director
N .
Lynn Motley
Melinda Pate r
Carol Rosenblum Dear Mr. Johnson
Gary Snyder
Carol Walsh t
l; Enclosed please find the completed Family Stress Center Parent
Education Challenge Grant Source of Matching Funds Form.
{
' t
Please note that the 14 original Parent Educator volunteers and the 4 .
expenses of operating the program were already in existence and are F _
being donated by the Family Stress Center.
The new match money is $15 ,000 from Target Stores and the nine volun-
teer Parent Educators we have just recruited and. are training as a
match of the $14 ,999 Challenge Grant. We hope that all nine new
volunteers will complete the Parent Educator Training, but estimate
that at least seven will both complete the training and teach Parent
Education classes for one year. This results in the new money match
being valued at $23,085.
Please telephone me if you need more information. Thanks for all
your help.
Sincerely,
Barbara Bysiek, L.C.S.W
Executive Director
sa BB/zd
Enclosure
200 A HARRIET DRIVE PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 (415) 827-0212
cuo via w
Vi
Ira
-•. Ed,, v ,� � v o 0
£A
v'r
c--1 0-Olt
•
IS
(� yo
Q O
o Ll 4'
oPA
U ur }c
U
® CA
.�
JL
L wv c
Ikll
s.
� C,J
w
p N
O Wj
U
•' m 4'
1
Q
+
w v v v
W ri r-1 r-1 r-4 r-I 1; U Ft 010 ^
W Q to > m d v m N a0 d d d d 4)
o w A H > > > > '� •r1 hO•r7'0 OO"+J
c� w '� Ts '� b 10 v a .n a 0
Eltto<
r R V '� r I >ti S r-•1 a r•�I
~ �
rl r 1 •ri 0 r-I
N v r-I N Pr
N O v m 0 14 10 r-1 'G' r-I -r1 '0 6
Pq tC m Pq E-1 A. O :R: 3 R 3 3 •r•1
UQQ Q Q
zz 8 S MC r5 0 ZS 002
I
a ~ < 06.U
o f Ipc zw
as a
E-4 Hwv
oz O O O O O O O O O
ao > xH
czH � w
Uo < at
sn ca z cm N o
�
Na ��
¢ w ail
low
Cd
U
E-�
C -I H k z C O
0.4 C 8 g o o
a 04 94
Z)La � G v or rn r11 rr�
t4
z
w � 6-4
bo
v
04 � � a
m
a� 4.>
Ur4
si0
r,
r-f 'rq
d (O
U N O U U O i1 x
•ri .D OO WOO OO :>a k IO O la
O O 4J :3 00 -P OO OO d 4.) 4-1 P O N
11 tO rl ppI -P 1 OO 1 GO ri i O
'd W to bO N N� � 0 'Od
;r 00 CO- 1~9 4J 1.�If1 U bD O r-1
U 0 > N Ul.''t'. O 4-4 r '✓ O
O •r1 9
U14 U - 4.) U •r1
P *rq4:3: OWOU0cds J. fr r! k N a
O .�.
Fti W bD Fr' 14 •ri +)
t� v ;:s k4.3
Q y of 41 O 0 O x ++ �°{' OEj
° �� r1 4)i 4)i
zO � C) vga �1' r- U Uc0 as z z
cr; d
pW
Q W U A W W L'3
L) 04
� - � ° �
w O = 1�
1 N w W W 'C J N
O O O � X0,7 ,gyp U U •r-I (Os,
O N NN �j�j10
O W W tJ aJ a) b d cd U) w d
10
C 'n oo H " 41 d 41 O g q p 41
O r) r-1 t61-4
� V' w ri -H O •r1 11 O p H -H
M, O O H H
N N 0 as G H O b
>
vr, arvN HOWw v v 4 v A a0 .� c °)
tnUAGW
p p O O O O O O O O O
z O O O O O O O O O
V H W W 000 rn O 00 O O O O O
r r, r4 r 1 �O N N
vi to D- v: a
O " c ¢ wcn
¢ HU � cHi, WW
~ ~ w 1-4 94
x " 9 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z o >
0-4 czE~+ � wk' i 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1
wo ¢ a
� A o w `� �z
H via >c >e >e 5e
� C9 U 00cz
' U`
Lx d0. Ute ? DC
a3 U
aHg
j U. 6 2 G N O o O O O O O O O
x rn -1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
C
t.4
O H a.C CO m O 00 O O Ln Ln M
{x oz ¢ W. n N M M u1 O
T O O -4
V a' f� I� '-I N M O
cq
b A
O 5C ~ 1-4
DC DC >C
U
M z a >e >e
� H
w ca
U 0 kv r
O r. r1 p 'r
w x a co 0 1~ v 0 m
>1 ai
�4 ° > 0 c a x +°
(1) fs+ Q) 0 P u i-+ O 0
a) 4; A x v " ° O 0 c.) O
41 a Fj w U r-1 a) U
� —1° °0 � o o°Jo
O w w cd 0 . v a) a7 q cd
o ox a ° aaa)) A u r w -4 0
AG W V �4 O A o0 a4 w r-I 41
iL UH 44uH A Gr�1 H4H
.n on 0� •H a 0 cn
d v' u cu
� w Aix C°� A doa' 3
v: [ate
O H ¢ q U A W W
U r1
00 00 • .. W
c'1 C1 N En00
aoMcn OA W O L r
P4 x a
OCO r
0 E4 E-HHHH qW e— OC
� 1H+ wc� u u u u A u eLLi@ p„ mE
0 0 0 H H z ,QQ+ ,gg� ,� ,-I b p —vF
00 N O W W 0 O O 0 0 0 Uw ce. '� Q
tf) V W U U U U U Pq V Q CL -
HH 3 - ----- - - — -- -------C-- -C�----C—
c� z
EW zElXw3w o 0
p N O a O O N O �O
0 �4
N H C O O O O Lr) u'1 O
C> M
G+ -- —
to
F4 C a Q
r.` a W O a C 7 cn
aHc� wzq
H z " z 00 `
0
H �t :L! HO rn N r
O > cn [-- ON O O O O O'
H CD 1-1 r--+ t- v1
m 0 zO d xz1 M
x A z A C--
zo w >-
E-4 En
z z x x x x x x x
4.I 1 C L-' O —,
iN E-4a O 2 U —---- --- ------- --- ---—
daVc� �
U)
W -- -- —
U ..,p
za p cn 00 O O
M O O ;2' 0 (7N O O O N O O
O) O O N r 1 V')
U I q
zz
0U
� W H -----
>+ --
E-4
X: x x
u
o — - ----- -- ---- — —-- -
la
d o
0 u
z �4 o > s
U) -H cd
d
~ .0 m ccd -O-I co U t�'i x 4!
{ V U
to 00 4.1 rl 41 rl
t ~7 w w O 0 a cd U 41 .—>1
V O 41 v f] X
U00cd
A+ O W RI .-4 Ul r4 O w
U x O 4-1 b -H w U (" $4 O —1 41
CW7 O H U .0 O - cd G r j � O
N O v> >+ �.44 H W
W x Q tYa V A W L=+ C9
A H
O W
• U a
5-•
L
r bD .►
cp O S
00
_ me Q
1"' '^Yw� '� rte- rt', r-� • '� � � t`
E' N O rW+ �
O 0 E' 0 P 0 a
w
O
rte+ W W w M �-r'-/•�
al
a�
P
N
c1 N
vcLN V
N N
Po
M
of N d
tn ;%a
p V ��
. N � 0
o a
PA
0ds1N
7" N
w d
to o
tt) y ^d N N U O
N NF+
N V a>
.G � O O N
`A n 0CA 0 •dd 6p
�• w v 0 r
d
P
0 u.
0