HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03281989 - 1.73 1—w3 0
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Contra
JAMES A. RYDINGSWORD, DIRECTOR Costa
Social Service Department
DATE: March 9, 1989 County
SUBJECT: GAIN PROGRAM CHILD CARE PAYMENTS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the report from the Social Service Director in response
to the November 1, 1988 Board of Supervisors' inquiry
regarding GAIN Child Care Payments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None. 100 per cent State funds.
BACKGROUND:
On 10/11/88 the Board authorized a contract for GAIN-client
Child Care Services between the County and Community Services
Department. That contract calls for making the child care
payments directly to the GAIN recipients, and it is based
upon strong advice from County Counsel.
The Board asked our Department to explore this matter further.
Our review still leaves serious liability questionsifor the
County were direct payments to be made to the Contract Agency.
We recommend the Board establish:
. . . in cases of provider contract services, payments are
to be made directly to the clients to eliminate the
potential for the County to be considered the employer.
Specifically, County Counsel advised us that "the county's
liability is great if the courts determine that such persons
(Contract Agencies) are County employees" . Counsel pointed
out that a court or jury decision "on this point will be
almost certainly influenced by its desire that the injured
party is recompensated, especially when a public agency is one
of the defendants" . Counsel further pointed out that
"situations where actual supervision does not occur may,
nevertheless, be found to involve. . .a sharing of liability" .
While direct payment to the Contract Agency could encourage
participation by community agencies bec U use payment would be
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:_/_ YES SIGNAT
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR R COMM NDATIQN OF OARD COMM TEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON marcn 71, 77tl: arc _
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
The report is referred to the Internal Operations Committee .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT — ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: _ AND CORRECT COPY AF eM ACTIOTe�rE _.,.,_,___„_
NT: ABSTAIN: - AND'ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Social Service Department ATTESTED March 28, 1989
Internal Operations Committee -
. .Fh(► 8atrh>;I�1, Clefs ct the Board of
Supe t'ISCr$ai]d Couni Ag,,,7II i. !D
M382/7.83 B • / #'
Y DEPUTY
assured, the county's liability would be too much at risk.
With payments made to GAIN recipients, the recipient takes the
role as employer rather than the county.
For additional background, County Counsel 's memos of Jzl.y 7,
1988 and October 31, 1979 are attached.
The Social service Department believes the existing contract,
and its payment procedure, best serves the County's and the
client's interests.
LA:mlb
Disc 10 - BO-GAIN.LA
I
l