Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - IO.6 TO'. , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I. 0. 6 FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Contra ttra February 27, 1989 Costa DATE'. Recommendation to Cancel Contract with SUBJECT: Superintendent of Schools for West County Regional Program--Private Industry Council SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Authorize the Executive Director of the Private Industry Council, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, to notify the Superintendent of School' s Regional Occupation Program (ROP) in appropriate written form of their failure to perform and allowing ROP 30 days to achieve not less than 65 cumulative positive terminations in order to avoid the implementation of the cancellation of their contract with the County. 2 . Request the Executive Director, Private Industry Council, to report the results achieved by the ROP through April 12, 1989 to our Committee by April 30, 1989 and indicate whether actual cancellation of the contract will take effect and, if so, what alternatives are being pursued to maintain the program in West County. 3 . Request the Executive Director, Private Industry Council, and the Private Industry Council to devise strategies which will insure that such underperformance on a similar contract will not take place in the future and report his and the Council' s recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the time that contract awards for the 1989-90 fiscal year are recommended to the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On February 14, 1989 , the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee the issue of whether the County' s contract with the Superintendent of Schools ' Regional Occupational Program should be canceled because of non-performance. The attached report from the Private Industry Council clearly sets forth the lack of performance under the contract. We met on February 27, 1989 with the Chairman of the Oversight Committee for the Private Industry Council, the Executive Director of the Council and Director of the Regional Occupational Programs for the County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X YES /SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF C ADMINISTRATOR X R OMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNA_TURE(SI: om Powers Sunne W right McPeak ACTION OF BOARD ON March 7, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTEDX98 q Exec. Director, PIC 7' Chair, PIC PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Auditor-Controller BYE ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 Page 2 The Private Industry Council has recommended that the Board of Supervisors cancel the contract for non-performance. This recommendation was made to the Board only after the PIC spent several months monitoring the contract and trying to determine i what was keeping the ROP program from achieving its placement goals which. it had proposed in the contract with the County. The ROP program was allowed to submit a corrective action plan which altered their placement goals in the early months of the contract with the expectation that the eventual total placement rates would be achieved by the end of the contract year. While Performance under the contract is improving, there is still a great deal of work to be done if the ROP program expects to meet its goals by the end of the year. County Counsel has advised the PIC that if notice of cancellation for non-performance is given to the ROP program, ROP must be given an appropriate performance goal and 30 days in which to meet that goal. If the goal is reached by the prescribed deadline, the cancellation of the contract does not take place. If the prescribed goal is not reached by the deadline, the cancellation goes into effect with no further action required on the part of the Board. Our Committee believes that the March 31, 1989 corrective action goal set by the ROP program. is achievable and is the absolute minimum which the PIC and the Board of Supervisors should allow under the circumstances. We have, therefore, recommended that the notice of cancellation be provided to the ROP program along with the goal of 65 cumulative positive enrollments which is to be achieved by the end of the 30-day period, which is estimated to be April 12, 1989 . We are asking that our Committee be notified by April 30, 1989 whether or not the goal has been achieved so we can continue to monitor this problem. Our Committee is very upset that, after the controversy which surrounded the granting of this contract to the Superintendent of Schools last year, the ROP program has not been able to demonstrate a better record of performance. We have, therefore, asked the PIC and its staff to devise some mechanisms to insure that this type of problem does not occur again. ="TRA .COSTA.COLNW MWAil VOUSTRY COMM. 2123 slow LANE, suiTi foo CONCORD. CA 94520 646-5239 DATE February 27, 1989 CC: 70 Internal Operations Committee (Sup sors Powers and McPeak) iROM AIur . Mi�,�'xecutive Director Private Industry Council ZUBJECT PIC REQUEST FOR 30 DAY NOTICE OF NON PERFORMANCE, CANCELLATION OF ROP WEST COUNTY PIC REGIONAL OFFICE CONTRACT BACKGROUND As a result of a competitive RFP process, the Regional Occupational Office (ROP) of the Superintendent of Schools was awarded the West County Regional Office contract for FY 88/89. ROP responded to the RFP with a proposal that promised a significantly higher service level than the previous service provider. The awarding of the contract to ROP was not without controversy. ROP experienced start up delays. They did not hit theground running on 1 July, but they were able to report the West County RegionalOffice was up and fully operational on 11 July. Unfortunately, they were only able to enroll two participants between 11 and 31 July. The ROP contract is performance based; payment is tied to job placements. Even acknowledging the delay in start up, the PIC became very concerned about the level of West County services being providing as ROP fell further and further behind the levels established in its RFP. PIC staff utilizes a projection model to identify possible under performance. This model, not as optimistic as ROP's RFP, also identified potential performance problems. ROP's lack of performance has became a standard review item for the monthly PIC Oversight Committee meetings. The Oversight Committee made an on-site visit at their October meeting to appraise the situation. ROP's October enrollment figures did show some improvement, which was not sustained in November. Therefore, PIC staff was directed to conduct an operational audit of ROP's stewardship of the West County Regional Office. Attachment #1 is a copy of that report. During the December review, ROP presented PIC staff with a corrective action plan establishing new enrollment and placement goals for the remainder of the year (through 6/30/89) . The Oversight Committee again visited ROP in January to review the staff report with staff and ROP representatives. The PIC Chair and Executive Director subsequently met with the ROP Director and West County Coordinator to discuss the report and ROP's performance. Schedules A through D on pages 12 and 13 of that report clearly identify ROP's lack of performance during the first 6 months of the program year. After much discussion, at its January meeting the PIC decided to accept the ROP correction action plan, modifying the planned RFP figures and our projection model, conditional upon the contract being amended to incorporate the monthly figures as minimum performance levels necessary for continuation of the contract beyond 28 February. ROP declined to sign that amendment for the reasons stated in attachment #2. REQUESTED ACTION Therefore, in accordance with the termination clause of the existing contract, the PIC is requesting the Board to authorize notification to ROP of a written notice specifying the failure to perform and allowing ROP 30 days to correct such failure after the sending of notice, to avoid termination of the contract. If the Internal Operations Committee concurs and the Board accepts its recommendation, such authorization could be granted 7 March. Assuming the notice would actually be prepared and delivered 13 March, the 30 day period would end 12 April. Due to normal delay in counting and processing forms, we would not expect to have a final count of activity through 12 April until the end of April. Accordingly, staff formulates the following time lines: Board Action 7 March, Formal Notification on 13 March that if a specified performance standard is not met by 12 April the contract will be cancelled as of 1 May. ANALYSIS County Counsel has advised that a minimum level of performance must be specified in the 30 day notice. Achievement of that level would allow contract continuance. The position of the PIC Executive Committee is that level should be based on the original RFP submitted by ROP. That would be 142 enrollments and 94 placements. An alternate consideration would be for the Board to utilize the ROP corrective action plan level of 134 enrollments and 73 placements. (Both these sets of figures are derived by extrapolation. ) Since the contracts are performance based, and JTPA is targeted to adult job placements and youth positive terminations, a third alternative would be to establish a single criteria of positive terminations of either 65, the ROP corrective action figure for end of March activity or 73, a slightly higher extrapolated figure. The lower more liberal figure of 65 would eliminate any problems of near misses, since ROP's own corrective action plan would require 73 positive terminations by 12 April. The establishment of just a termination figure is consistent with JTPA outcomes. Enrollments only become an issue because there were negligible ROP placements; the PIC has therefore had to focus on enrollments as a proxy for placements. EVALUATION Attachment #3 contains a summary of ROP performance. Schedule A is placement activity, Schedule B is enrollment. The first column of schedules A and B are ROP actual cumulative performance (February figures are not complete; final February figures will not be known until approximately mid March). The second columns are ROP's RFP, the basis for the contract award. The third columns shows the actual performance as a percentage of the RFP planned levels. The fourth columns are ROP's revised plan or corrective action plan, the submittal of which constitutes defacto acknowledge by ROP that they had failed to perform. The fifth columns are ROP's actual performance as a percentage of their corrective action plan. Notice that ROP has not been able to approach its corrective action placement goal, and did not achieve its enrollment goal until February. Schedules A and B clearly show ROP failed to achieve what it promised to achieve in its RFP. The PIC is very concerned that ROP's performance not negatively influence next years program. Schedule C of attachment #3 is a comparison of the RFP plan and corrective action plan. Obviously, the corrective action plan is back loaded. In their RFP, ROP planned to achieve 65% of their placements by the end of February, in their corrective action plan - which they have not achieved - they are planning for less than 40% of the placements by the end of February. Significant negative performance by ROP could cause us to miss earning an incentive award, approximately $190,000 or about 8% of our Title IIA allocation to serve the economically disadvantaged. If the ROP contract runs full term and is a disaster, due to the need to start up again in West County and transition unplaced carry in participants into next year, it is possible that we could miss earning an incentive award next year also. Both the PIC and staff fervently hope ROP achieves its goals and is successful. However, given their first six months performance, and their refusal to sign a contract amendment that would have established their corrective action plan levels as minimum requirements, the PIC believes it is imperative to establish an interim level of performance which must be met for the contract to continue to the end of the year. Although PIC has received verbal assurances the contract goals will be met, its experience has been that the performance has not been there. Enrollments are beginning to look more promising, but placements - the actual program objective - continue to be low. High enrollments with limited placements are hazardous; we are at risk for a significant level of negative terminations. The greatest danger to earning an incentive award is ROP failing to meet the performance standards positive termination rate of 72%. Beside the effect on the performance standards, the PIC is concerned about West County service levels. There were only two intakes during the month of July, only 6 during December. Significantly fewer West County residents have been placed in jobs than anticipated, and it is difficult to project adequate end results. Certainly to establish a moderate level of positive termination required by 12 April is a minimal appropriate prerequisite for allowing active continuation of a contract with a goal of 118 positive terminations by 30 June. The PIC Executive Committee believes an appropriate level would be ROP's initial commitment in the RFP of 94. The RFP was the basis for the contract award. ACM:baj Attachments CbkTRA f=TA 1, ONTY POW' TfE*NbUSTRY COUNca. ,9���,Y� 7- / 2425 big= LAi4t. SUITE 1.00 CONCORD. CA 94520 949-5229 DAW January 4, 1989 cc: C. Priest, Office of Education J T. Thomason, PIC Chair To PIC Oversight Committee ' '��4.,f, FROM A. C. Miner, Executive Director sUBJECT WEST COUNTY REGIONAL OFFICE REPORT As requested by the PIC, staff has conducted a review of the current and projected status of program operations at the West County Regional Office. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE & ORGANIZATION The West County service provider is the Regional Occupational Program (ROP) , a division of the County Office of Education. Staff's understanding' of the chain of command is: Superintendent of Schools (Stewart) Assistant Superintendent of Schools (Williams) Director, Occupational Preparation Program (Priest) ROP West County Coordinator (Davis) ROP Special Projects Coordinator (Elster) PIC Regional Office Coordinator (Pin) 2 Counsellors/Job Developers & Clerk (Devriendt, vacant, Hartfield) The ROP West County Coordinator and Special Projects Coordinator split their time between the Regional Office and Central Office in Pleasant Hill. One or the other attempts to provide on-going coverage. The Regional Office Coordinator is the first level manager exclusively dedicated to PIC contract services. That is a recent change, originally she functioned as the on-site supervisor for other programs as well. One of the counsellor/job developer positions recently became vacant. ROP anticipates backfilling it in early January. The function is now being covered by other program counsellors/job developers. The office also houses other Office of Education programs: ROP registration, ETP, Refugee, and TEPY. The latter three programs all have job counselors/developers, providing backup coverage. The office facility then is not dedicated only to JTPA Regional Office services. In theory, grouping several related services should allow for close coordination and ease of referral, enhancing the ability of all programs to obtain participants. To date, that 1 does not seem to have happened. The chain of command is no more hierarchical than many government agencies and large private firms. However, it is more bureaucratic than the organization of the previous JTPA service provider, where there was an on-site program manager with what appeared to be autonomous program authority. The Occupational Preparation Program Director also supervises the NYC Director, who operates our TEPY Program. PARTICIPANT ENROLLMENT/PLACEMENT DATA As requested, staff has reconciled its MIS participant data with the ROP figures presented at the December Executive Committee meeting. The discrepancy was that ROP inadvertently included JTPA 3% participants in its count. The figures presented by PIC staff accurately represent the status of ROP' s 78% activity. Attached are several schedules. The top portion of Schedule A compares ROP participant enrollments against the model we 'use to identify potential problems. The first column is cumulative model enrollments, the second is incremental. The next two columns are actual cumulative and incremental. The last two compare the difference between the cumulative and incremental model projections and ROP' s performance. The break ref lects• that we have performance data only through December. ROP started behind and only in October did it make progress toward closing the gap. At the end of November, ROP was 31 participants shy of our enrollment goal of 90, and during the month of November it only enrolled 10 new participants, 2 short of our projected goal of 12. The lower portion of Schedule A contains the same tabular display of ROP's performance compared to its RFP projections. Schedule B is the same analysis as Schedule A, only it compares placement activity. None of the ROP monthly placement figures have met the model or ROP projections. Schedule C is ROP' s revised plan against their performance to date. Obviously, through November the plan coincides with their actual performance. Schedule D compares the cumulative and incremental enrollments and placements of ROP's RFP, the model staff uses for projection purposes, and ROP' s revised plan. At the end of December, ROP' s RFP projected 76% of the participants would be enrolled, the model identified 65% as the amount of enrollments desirable, and ROP' s revised plan is that 46% of the participants will be enrolled. During the month of December, the ROP RFP projected 11% of the placements would take place, bringing cumulative December placements to 430. The model identified 8% of the placements being 2 desirable, for a cumulative end of December placement rate of 310 of the total. The ROP revised plan is for 3% of the placements to happen in December, increasing the cumulative placement rate at the end of December to 8%. The revised ROP plan is significantly back ended. Applying a straight 75% positive termination rate to the ROP revised enrollment plan, and assuming a 2 to 3 month participant program term, the positive placement rate falls between 105 - 113 . So the revised ROP plan is achievable if the enrollments are consistent with their revised plan. Under their revised plan, ROP' s ability to sustain that enrollment can not be forecasted until the end of February, and not known until the end of April. Attached is the ROP recruitment strategy for January - March 1989. ON-SITE REVIEW At the last Oversight Committee meeting at the West County Regional Office, it was suggested that ROP have a sign added to the front of the building and change its participant recruitment material to specify that JTPA participants had to be low income and that Richmond City residents were not eligible for our program. ROP has been working with the property manager to obtain a sign so potential participants can easily find the facility. ` However, they have chosen not to add the limitations into their recruitment literature as they do not want any one to screen themselves out. (There are two JTPA recruitment strategies: either to publish restrictions up front and risk losing some potential eligibles to incorrect self screening, or to screen out ineligibles when they apply - increasing the selection process effort. ) ROP may be pursuing the best strategy in their situation, particularly since other Office of Education programs are on-site for instant referral. It is not surprising therefore that they have found it necessary to screen many people for the number of participants achieved. ROP staff exhibited ever interest in pursuing a quality program. At the time we visited they reported 13 participants in OJT and 17 in classroom training. At their request we are adding a truck driving school in Vallejo to the individual referral (IR) list, because it is more convenient for a participant than the Fremont truck driving school we currently have on our IR list. ROP appears to be very interested in participants achieving educational objectives as well as vocational objectives. We found no indication of pursuing numbers as an end in themselves. Counselling notes in participant folders were of high quality and very thorough. Program services being provided to participants are judged to be of high quality. The only deficient noted was the low enrollment figures. If additional funds become available, ROP would be interested in sharing the allocation with the other 3 regional offices. Estimated accrued DTPA allowable expenditures at the end of November were under .$7500. CARRY-IN ROP staff has raised the question of if they are treated different than either Regional Offices relative to carry-in participants. Since there is a question of equity, we have included it in this report. Initially the Oversight Committee reports were prepared displaying only ROP data. The committee requested we include the participant counts from the Worldwide West county Transitional office. Worldwide was not allowed to intake new applicants after 1 July 1988, enrollment activity was frozen before that, new enrollments after the ROP award were limited to those to whom commitments had been made and placement was expected to be completed by 30 September 1988. To meet the Oversight Committee's request, staff displayed West County data by adding the Worldwide carryover performance to ROP goals. Attached are three displays (NOTE; These are for illustration the December performance data is not complete, it includes only three weeks of activity) . The first display is for ROP only, 118 placements are projected as the required goal to meet their share of the performance standards. The second labeled West Regional Office has a required goal of 128, ROP's 118 plus the 10 that Worldwide accomplished with its carryins. Staff believes this is the best manner to most equitably display West County Regional Office activity in total and by contractor. It is true that the other Regional offices and TEPY do get credit for carryins, but carryin activity also counts against their contracts. Carryin for the other offices is: Central - 9; East - , 3 : Far East - 16; TEPY - 5; all Employer Based - 19. In West County there• were 18 carryins, of which 10 were positive terminations. By adding the transition expenditures of Worldwide West to the ROP budget, staff has calculated .an integrated model. In theory, to the extent that Worldwide exceeded performance standards, the ROP goals would be reduced; conversely to the extent Worldwide's transitional activity failed to meet performance standards, ROP's goals would be increased. In fact, the Worldwide transitional activity was more cost effective than the performance standards. Hence, on an integrated basis the number of placements required of ROP would drop from 128 to 123 . Staff does not believe the integrated figures should be used, since ROP is not accountable for the Worldwide West transition activities. 4 LATE START-UP A Second equity type issue has been raised by ROP staff - the indication that by allowing Worldwide to transition the Regional Of f ice for 3 months, ROP' s of forts to start-up its program were hindered. That is a difficult issue to address, since it is an intangible. Staff ' s observation is that the Worldwide West Office was truly transitional, all recruitment activity stopped, the office was not open on a full time basis, and the only services provided were to the 18 carryovers. ROP was slow to start. Rather than establishing a dedicated West County PIC Office, they chose to consolidate West County programs in a new location - which may prove to be an astute move with the perspective of time. But their new office was not reported to be fully operational until Monday afternoon, 11 July 1988 . Staff's observation is that this delay negatively impacted on initial enrollment. This of course was not a normal start-up. On 23 May ROP was formally notified of their award by the PIC of the West County contract, and their right to appeal, as were the other three bidders. On 13 June there was a hearing held on that award. On 29 June, ROP was formally notified of the Hearing Officer' s. Report and Proposed Finding - which upheld the award of the West County contract to ROP. On 30 June ROP received formal notice of our intent to contract - as did the other Regional Office contractors. This letter of intent allowed them to incur expenses as of 1 July with the expectation of payment. Both ROP' s and Worldwide ' s notice of intent referenced the grievance and the possibility of the PIC's decision being overturned for both the West and Central Regional Office contracts. The final State decision was not published until 20 September. Although that level of uncertainty may have affected ROP, it is unclear it actively confused participants. CONTRACT TERMS The $332, 588 contract requires ROP to establish and operate a West County PIC Regional Office establishing goals of 31 participants to be enrolled in JST only, 62 in classroom vocational training and 82 in OJT. Performance goals are to achieve outcomes that equal or exceed the performance standards (which are specifically listed) . The contract budget provides compensation for 68 adult and 13 youth training related placements plus an additional 31 Job Search only training participants. That totals 112. The additional 6 positive terminations could come from over performance of training related placements, positive youth competency terminations when the participant is not employed, non training related placements and/or placements that occur before training is completed. 5 Contract termination clauses are as follows: i GENERAL CONDITIONS (Purchase of Services) 5. Termination. a. Written Notice. This Contract may be terminated by either party, at their sole discretion, upon thirty- day advance written notice thereof to the other, and may be cancelled immediately by written mutual consent. b. Failure to Performance. The County, upon r` written notice to Contractor, may immediately terminate this Contract should the Contractor fail to perform properly any of its obligations hereunder. In the event of such termination, the County may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses. The cost to the County of completing Contractor' s performance shall be deducted from any sum due the Contractor under this Contract, without prejudice to the County' s rights otherwise to recover its damages. c. Cessation of Funding. Notwithstanding Paragraph 5.a. above, in the event that Federal, State, or other non-County funding for this contract ceases this Contract is terminated without notice. SPECIAL CONDITIONS (DTPA Program) 6. Termination, Further Provisions. This Contract may be terminated as specified in Paragraph 5. (Termination, page 2, of the General Conditions, subject to the following: a. County's termination for failure of Contractor to perform (General Conditions. Paragraph 5.b. ) may not be exercised until 30 days after Contractor has been sent by County a written notice specifying the failure to perform and Contractor has failed to correct such failure of performance within said 30 days after the sending of said notice. b. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 5.a. (Written Notice) and 5.c. (Cessation of Funding) of the General Conditions, this Contract may be terminated by County in its sole discretion in the event that State or Federal funding for this Contract ceases, or in the event that the legal authority under which this contract is entered into expires, upon seven day advance written notice thereof to contractor by 6 the Contra Costa County Private Industry Council Director. J It should be noted that the contract is between the County and the Office of Education. Cancellation of the contract would require Board concurrence and action. Liability - if any - for such action would remain with the Board. PERFORMANCE STANDARD PROJECTIONS The PIC has requested staff to project the possible effect on the incentive standards if ROP fails to achieve its goals. There may be too many variables for an accurate prediction. Assuming that all other Regional Offices and TEPY just achieve their placement goals at a 90% expenditure rate, and assuming the Unit Sized Training Program in aggregate achieves 65% of their positive terminations, of a 65% expenditure rate, then we calculated our ability to achieve the performance standards if ROP falls one month short on placements at an 80% expenditure rate or two months short at a 70% expenditure rate. ROP is currently about two and one half months behind on enrollments and placements. We therefore analyzed the effect on performance standards if they did not catch up and remained two months behind and if they only partially caught up and ended the year one month behind in placements. Previous experience with the current TEPY and Regional Office contractors is that they equal or exceed the placement goals but never totally expend all the funds. Unit sized contractors tend to significantly under achieve placement goals and more than proportionately under expend their funds within the initial time frame. Given those assumptions and everything else being equal, int would appear we would meet the performance standards system wide even if ROP was one to two months behind in their placements, achieving 85 or more. At this time we are meeting performance standards system wide. Other things being equal may not be a valid assumption. The numbers are small, but ROPs positive termination rule of 570 ( 8 positive terminations from 14 separations) will need to increase. If they maintain that low a rate and achieve 95 or more placements, it could significantly impact on either the adult or youth positive termination performance standards. STAFF ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend any attempt be made to cancel the ROP •contract. Staff does recommend that the ROP contract only be extended for 6 months, at half the regional allocation, into FY 89/90, with our ability to limit new enrollments beyond the first quarter. If FY 88/89 performance is inadequate, staff recommends the second ranked service provider, Worldwide Educational Services, be awarded the West County contract effective 1 January 1990. 7 Further, if additional current year (FY 88/89 ) 78% funds become available (from the close out of the last cycle unit sized training or%delays in this years) staff recommends none of those funds be allocated to the West County Regional Office. To date ROP' s performance has been disappointing. They had a slow start-up, for which there may be some validity to their excuses. They appeared to have started sequentially, i.e, locate space, assign staff and recruit participants, rather than dual or triple tracking those three start-up functions. They did not hit the ground running on 1 July. However, they brought up a regional. office and services are being provided in a manner beneficial to participants. Whether they will achieve the placement goals will not be determined until late in the program year, and probably not until July or August of 1989. There has been considerable concentration on enrollment figures. Without enrollments, there cannot be placements, but enrollments are still a proxy measure for anticipated placements. The West County enrollments are below the projection model we utilize to identify potential problems, and significantly behind the RFP submitted by ROP. A revised plan - which could be considered a corrective action plan - has been formulated. It appears coherent and achievable. The unknown is ROP's ability .to execute. ROP is very confident - although perhaps a little more humble than earlier - and the West County ROP Coordinator told the December Executive Committee he could unequivocally state they would meet their goals. Review of Schedule A shows July enrollment was 31 behind what we projected as ideal, August enrollment 6 behind, September enrollment 2 behind, October enrollment 10 ahead and November enrollment two behind. At the time this is being written, we do not have final December figures, but it appears ROP' s December enrollment will be slightly behind our model and even their revised plan. Their October spurt followed an intensified enrollment effort, which was not continued in November and December because of the negative effect the holiday season is perceived to have on enrollments. ROP does plan to repeat and expand upon their October promotional efforts. Again, enrollments are a proxy for placements, which lag enrollments by 2 to 3 months. They will have to get placements and they will have to increase their positive termination rate from 60% to 75%. They will also have to' cover the vacant job developer position or they can be expected to have considerable difficulty placing the projected third quarter participant inflow. In fact staff believes it crucial that position soon be stabilized so the ROP JTPA effort can exclusively focus on participant enrollment and placement. The dedication of a manager to full time JTPA activity is an improvement, full benefit requires the job developer position be stabilized and the ' manager position be given sufficient program autonomy. 8 Although an NYC - TEPY counsellor/job developer works out of the office, staff did not gain the impression there was a significant exchange of management expertise. The parents of TEPY participants should be a potential source of Regional Office participant enrollment. NYC also has recruitment expertise that may be beneficial to ROP JTPA activities. That suggestion was made by staff at our initial on-site visit for this report, ROP indicated they would pursue it. There also has to be considerable fiscal pressure for the ROP JTPA activities to begin to generate placement revenues. To date they have to be experiencing a significant negative cash flow. ROP was chosen as the West County service provider after much review and discussion. The assumption was they .would provide as good if not better program support than the previous service provider - which had been successful. In essence, $180,000 of incentive funds were bet on ROP's ability to win%place/show. Through the Office of Education, ROP has significant reserve resources available if committed by the Superintendent of Schools. In staff ' s opinion the issue is ROP' s ability to successfully serve the needs of economically disadvantaged adults and emancipated youth. Since staff does not foresee that question being answered with certainty before June 1989, it is recommended that the contract be continued into PY 89/90. That should eliminate distraction and possible loss of key staff in May or June. It would also allow, if necessary, three to six months to transition West County services to another service provider. We are not recommending additional funding allocations; their current commitments appear substantial. If ROP achieves only 85 to 100 placements, that in itself should not cause us to fail to achieve the performance standards system wide. We will however not have fully served potential West County eligibles. Attempting to switch service providers on an ad hoc basis at this time is more likely to cause us to miss performance standards than fully giving ROP its opportunity. ACM: baj Attachments 9 J x U OC Q m m W W W F- V•• LL- L 1 m Z Z Z Z Z • Q d Q Q Q 7 7 7 7 7 N W U C9 of W W M J CL F- \ m i S- - - I N N O N N ..s >- d' >- OO N •r •r 4 •r i-) F- F- = r- Z > > N > C to Z N ce Q O (0 fC - ' m •r r =:) O d d CL D W p Q- W C) CD U- Z 1 N U Z d ►-+ W Y ,C C Y >t C i-) - 0) F- N .... -- t0 r (0 +- N ►-+ Q Z L i r L t0 r W - CL O LL• LL- W LL. CL W 3 F- N W 7 tY CL N C O i _ •r C 4-) O TS to r N i-t N Q O r r (0 - r f0 W L �� C +� Q f0 •r S.- 0 N N M r V) d -4j to L r L •r N i-) N 4-) (D O O -0 E to +•) C — 4-) O to •r -0 O 4-) 0) to C L 0) L F- ¢ r- N E 7 Z al v H a> Z >> N 3 L U N O U N m CC H 4-) C QI O C •a >> QI >1 r' N C :3 Z +) O •r W >> i r- L. i. cn r� C O (0 F- i (6 m O CC CO N S C F- O •r i C CL F- F- (0 i-) � O U 4J •r •r O OJ C � W 7 C I= L C i C •r W N F- .0 C 4 Z N J C O F- U M AI e0 7 4-) �;- CX 4J E (0 Q O — N O E N N r i t6 O W t/1 N m E Q ►-� ►" _0 3 U N � N •r d -0 O C) CC CL N t t O N M N (o W N — O L t r •r O M O Q3F- US CLL U ZN W CLU W .JCjLtJ :2o W CL O � CIC O 3 . . . . 0 J N � . . . . . . . 00 W W co Q CL Z tY F- CL LL. p F- ' N -l0 - m W H LL. a 17) z z W ..J m I - L N to v1 4) dm to .r r-- V) a a a. W W � ac -,Ac >> C Z c6 ep 4-)rte— O L L f6 r•— cc _T W r a. th a) r— V L � ar p V) 4-> Qts z C> u a c:s a ¢ cn w 0-4 w w z o as cn >- o W o- > M J 4j p to = .— U- -* r— 4J W U 4J W ,1 L Rf a) 0. fr +-+ aJ [L bL 4J S- C: C O O Q :3 r^ to L 00a — LA- Oa — W #— WNCi OCtY ¢ ¢ W . . . tn ui GY ¢ •••� N en �O�O en n r•e O h T O co.•-� 1 1 I 1 1 I C I I .•� 1 •-� 7 u 7 u I I N C u C d m m O m e aj ej NNO n1de4 en m 8 > 0 1 1 1 1 B 1 .+ N end u > u U 0N0••+e+1N u ONO••-i enN C C •rl A 6 U 7 ONNen�D aO `� E 8 O N Nen�p o0 a u U 7 1q C u 0 0a m o a .e ac oc A m u Ntel%0 n ao ON c404 ends W C C u ONO1 ti._e en -�rN eV aV ens .••�ti.r.r.r.r x .N .,� R .••e.r.r .r •••e.•e.-e.r U 6 N w 0! V Q N n m O aD t` T.r I n .r co Q O r— w r. N n CN.r d aD ' 01 a u •••�N N �O n ao O., 7 N en kn �O n ao O .••�.r > W .•e.-e u ..e A a .+ O w m .• 60 M 11 > u C C ►. w > C .. tC 0.w > U C A ►. ►+ A C 0 0 0 0 u o to m v m o. m 0 0 0 w u o w m 0 m a m 0 a n m m O G v ."44 g m g•n n m m O C v n w m 6•n .•+ .•-��ONONn N en en enNOen m en 1 I •-e I I m N.•e.•e I i 7 u I 7 u I l t u C u C .+ u•m u.� d m m •O •-e n ON 0%.•/co en%0 T.•r 'r s O m en en on N en cn m 8 N e+1 d u•1 en en > 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 u u u 04 C-4 en0U9 u NN Nen Oen C .-e.•e N ...e N .r a a e a 5 0 H 8 Nd�D aO�.Y E Q Nd�O aO+S U 0 N d en•0 U 7 .+N ee%•G a u < u 6 a a w o 0 a a a a A u en oo It en NN O%ao u In en w%w% 0G nao n en to Ln W C en————— ...e.r C N N N N.-� ZI N •.e U y m m i/ y C en•••e en as ON en en NOaO C 8 en 0%n0 O oo hen Oho Ln 01 7 en en1On C,O .rNen.7Inen d 7 N enn0.•..r Nen It Ln Ln u ...r ...�.. .+ .r OO 0p wwa0 C .+ a0 M u > C .+ 0a G•a+ > u C A w W 7 7 W u 0 V m 07 m 0. m 7 w 01 u 0 N m al m a c 0 •n m m 0 C•O •nw 0 m 0. 1 •n m 0 0 C •O •nw p m p•.� � z d d a +t ae.e ae a,e ie �e ae at re:e re a a<re K en rK K rK aK aK K>K as W .rano .rn�0 0MNaen0 W ON Ne+1h - wf-WLn NaO .-y en en.7 %0 r,aD aOa0 - .m en Les nao0 W W a a ' aKaK04 IKK���:sK a -. N .•r anen NaDs a 1^0 a N%0.r ns .rN Nm 10O w Ncn 11 s Ln 10 nfl-a0 coa0 W ••r .rN Mstn 10 r,w0 A ^•e A .� O O rn x F y z Fr A w z x k4bA04 s,e•e t itKKaK>s w �t�t�trert aKKatK�Ka� w as '0 Neo en r%0 .r'0Osn0 a 010Itc1N m VnU1en•on0 aoa '"`y' s r,r, aoaoaaao ww ..c4 4en%0 WaO A a 6a m w a U h w w > > N H F pr d d a a a o - x 4j ;I v e x � aoau > u as wI. >,C a y o w u o v co d m a co 7 0 7 7 w u 0 d mw m a co 0 U •n a m o C v •n w B a B•"e U •n m m O C b —144 B a B•n -+ 00000ao . � 00000N eo I to 1 y o u o o u aJ a. C W u C m N•.+ m U•.+ .., e0 .,, Co > OOOOOaO > OOOOON d m B 1 d m B I w > 7 M > 7 u u a a d u N NN P1 O k1 d u O N O.r C.,c4 '.7 C .r•••� N.r `J C U U d d W B Nslo aas a B ONN(n to e0 N.t a6 u a u U m e W O a .+ A ?. u NNNmom enow%o Oao z u 0N0.r e'Is Ov1OOO cn W d C ••r - N .r.r N N .•r-.•r C d C .r N N N 04 .•r x a a •+ U a Ba y m w .+ a va C O B aV s'o a s a4 en en cc o e0 e+ 0 B 0 c4 04 m a O 0 in•n Ln en o w ad 7 c4't v1n a- ofsen w% a 7 - Ns0 O.+ B u .+.+.r.r.r 0 u ....� .r A > A .r w ••+ W O co a+ an w ►r •.. N C > as 0.Y > v C ff w w >.C m > to 0.u > u C fa w w T C a1 W 0 7 W u O N W 6) ea 6 ea 7 O W 7 7 W v O 0 m W m o,m 7 C n co m 0 0 •O •n w 13 a1 B•n p•ad •n 0 m 0 C O n w B ea B Model versus Actual Enrollments 160 *rest ROP Only 150 71 140 130 1,�d 1 10 102, 1 • "" 1 I /I i /1 1 /1 1 /� 1 it J-/I r a ,A r A r A A Y .I r a A 1 8d a V I 1/ 1/• \I 1/ I V 1/ / "1 va 1 1/A r A, 4I/1 1/1 111 I 40 Y �� rel [/I . rel r� JA 1 3u 3/' JZ \� ��i�� /t v i L i 7 vii v i I J/1 % �r ,� V �� r ' ;� ; I^10 -{ rA' I\ i 11 /�\ /1'. I 1 /11 v Z ;1N VlJ VI IN a ./q4 Alwy egg MIN tt00 Jan. 11-20 Adw Apr A[ay Jun- rr—T i r , at— ,), s Alo thS I tmVY9t fY�M WM IYO%Mr7 Ay y��y SIM VMS/YO�MV i�n_` i ver s us Af`' L ul l r l:4v rrt Farr 1 ,.: w es, eivi t?7ily Lid 1 Xf1 i Ito �I I 1 dd -9d 80 7d sd 7-1 � 50 - 40 - a4d 37 71 20 ac Z y z1-6 a A&I Asap L.e1r Oct N•oV Bee Jan Feb Afar Apr Aiwy dw- Aloraths Abdel Ptacsrnents ® ActuaZ PLacmwt-ts Model versus Actual Enrollments' Vest Reeton,al DfPce 7816 j76 f8 -71 f J t'50 f4o .4 130 7— ol 20 lot) po 1 80 —i f "o ell r r SG t x rr V 10 r V V K 'o V , o"A A A A I A -- oo f V jtq %;pp (?nl Yaw L)j?- Jiwi- Fob Nar A M&-, A I pr w Jun AfwnMa at" Almr-741 r ,!:s ArALC9-,;jz Model versus Actual Placements vest Raeor-al Qfl-ice 7,YX ! to A 11 (7-1 J I V .1 V .1tit V Itft V A I 7U tri -j 3 f i t / t.fd I I L Ij J,u-I Aug Sop 0--t YOW Doe Jon Fob Afar Or NOV %n- NolUft Alod.0; p2acems.M4, = Actual Placements Model versus Actual Enrollments 170 Yes t ROP1107 Integr ate d 160 - 150 - V 60f5D 100 i ea -� ks 11 70 47 50 . 10 4D �3G � /�� �/• � / � I 3t} 20 011\ Jta Aug Sep Oo' YOU Dec Jan- Feb Mw Apr Ma V .Fara ® dconKE ModelsPrirollm�ts � Act�ua.L Is'ra'oLlmercts Model versus Actual Placements 1 40 � �'es t RUP/li'� Intept-ata d 1Z3 120 - Ito - 100 ,20f1D100 � sa 80 7-1 70 60 �+ 50 40 30 31 ,20 21 13 10 L � 7 ♦ D � Jul AW Sep Oct Nov De: Jan. Feb Mw Apr Ataxy Jun- Atontft © No del Placements —�G EE Actusl Placements December 21, 1988 J Frank Davis Contra Costa County Office of Education 77 Santa Barbara Road Pleasant Hill, California 94523 Re: 2523 El Portal Drive, San Pablo Dear Frank: Per our discussions, this letter will confirm the status of the fol- lowing items : A. Parking lot: The contractor for the restiping of the parking lot has had the authorization to proceed for some time now. All of the construction people I am dealing with now are very busy. If he doesn't complete it by the end of the year, I will hire someone else. B. Project Sign: Our sign contractor, Issac Ewing, has just left me several options for the main project sign after repeated requests . The other tenants are anxious to get this sign going also. I will review the sign proposals and get it going. Thank you for your patience with these matters . I am sorry it is taking so long. It seems like it takes 90% of the effort to get the last 10% of the work done. Please bear with us . Sincere `!Patrick Project Manager eLLWOOD COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE 1345 Grand Avenue, Piedmont, California 94610 415-658-7918 — /r7— Ronald L. Stewart, Ed.D., Superintendent CONTRA COSTA • 77 Santa Barbara Road • Pleasant Hill, California 94523 OFFICE EDUCATION (415) 944-3388 D Mr. Arthur Miner FEB 171989 Executive Director Private Industry Coun i1 PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL 2425 Bisso Lan uite 100 Concord, 4520 Dea I ave reviewed Contract Amendment #19-1102-2, which Bob Whatford sent -to Charlie. I cannot recommend that we sign it. As I told you in our telephone conversation two weeks ago, we were seeking legal counsel regarding the contract amendment as it would be forthcoming following the January 27 PIC meeting. Counsel review has been completed. Any proposed amendment to our contract to provide a self- cancellation procedure would place the County Office of Education in an untenable position. The County would be able to terminate the contract if specified enrollments or placements were not reached without- affording -the -County Office of Education the opportunity to explain the reasons for not reaching either of those specifications. The absolute nature of those specifications, as discussed at the January meeting , contrasts markedly with the term "approximately" that is presently used in the contract regarding the number of JTPA participants enrolled in vocational skills training. Further, such a provision would place sole emphasis on enrollment and placement and disregard the other, aspects­ o-f -service we •are providing under the contract. The present contractual agreement provides adequate protection to the County in the event of alleged non-performance. I want to remind you that even you did not recommend cancellation in your January 4 report to the Oversight Committee. I want to remind you further that as late as November 28, 1988 we were given additional funding. under the contract. We would be agreeable to amending the contract to modify the performance levels as stipulated in amendment #19-1102-2. I would be more than agreeable to discussing this matter with you in more detail and to speaking to the Council as appropriate. :0-t; �C. Williams , Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent, Student Services February 16, 1989 SCHEDULE A ROP POSITIVE ROP ROP ROP ROP CUMULATIVE RFP PERFORMANCE CORRECTIVE PERFORMANCE TERMINATIONS PLAN % OF RFP ACTION % OF CAP PLAN JUL i 0 0 100% 0 100% AUG 2 7 29% 2 IOU% SEP 2 16 13% 2 100% OCT 3 27 11% 3 IOU% NOV 6 38 16% 6 100% DEC 10 51 20% 10 IOU% JAN 14 65 22% 20 70% FEB 24 77 45 MAR 89 65 APR 101 85 MAY 114 105 JUN 118 118 SCHEDULE B ROP ROP ROP ROP ROP CUMULATIVE RFP PERFORMANCE CORRECTIVE PERFORMANCE ENROLLMENTS PLAN % OF RFP ACTION % OF CAP PLAN JUL 2 25 100% 2 IUO% AUG 14 5U 28% 14 100% SEP 26 75 35% 26 100% OCT 49 100 49% 49 100% NOV 59 110 54% 59 100% DEC 66 118 56% 72 92% JAN 94 125 75% 95 99% FEB 124 133 115 MAR 140 130 APR 145 140 MAY 150 150 JUN 155 158 SCHEDULE C CUMULATIVE POSITIVE CUMULATIVE ENROLLMENTS TERMINATIONS RFP REV PLAN RFP REV PLAN JUL 0% U% 16% 1% AUG 6% 2% 32% 9% SEP 14% 2% 48% 16% OCT 23% 3% 65% 31% NOV 32% 5% 71% 37% DEC 43% 8% 76% 46% JAN 55% 17% 81% 60% FEB 65% 38% 86% 73% MAR 75% 55% 90% 82% APR 86% 72% 94% 89% MAY 97% 89% 97% 95% JUN IOU% 100% lU0% 100%