Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03061990 - IO.3 I0-3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ��•...r °F Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa s February 26, 1990 County DATE: c�sTq co'uK�c4 _ STATUS REPORT ON COMPETITIVE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUBJECT: FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT FUNDS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECO14PIENDATIONS 1. Request the Community Services Director to develop an evaluation program for the current Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) contracts using measurable performance criteria and present the outline of an evaluation program to our Committee on July 9, 1990. 2. Request the Economic Opportunity Council to do the following and present a report to our Committee on July 9, 1990: A. Using all available demographic data, determine which areas of the County, and specifically which census tracts in the County, will have the greatest need for services in the future. B. Determine the most appropriate program focus for the use of CSBG funds for the next three years, recognizing that the amount of funding which will be available in the future is likely to be dramatically reduced, taking into consideration the need to be responsive to the program priorities established by the State and taking into consideration the extent to which similar services are already available in the geographic areas of greatest need which will be served by CSBG funds. C. Based on the recommendations made by the Economic Opportunity Council in its proposed three year CSBG Yes CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR MI EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK TOM POWERS ACTION OF BOARD ON March 6, 3:990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X— OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT IV ) 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 ATTESTED 60, /990 Community Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel . SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Chair, Economic Opportunity Council - � - ' J M382 (10/88) �"�' -� ��� ,DEPUTY -2- plan, develop criteria for the award of contracts for the 1990-91 program year based on available CSBG funds which include giving priority to proposals which meet the program priorities and funding levels established by the EOC, which give priority to providing services in the areas of greatest identified need in the County and which give priority to established agencies which are already serving the areas of greatest need, which have demonstrated their ability to provide the services which are identified as the highest priority for the use of CSBG funds and which demonstrate an ability to leverage funds from other sources. 3 . Request the Community Services Director and Economic Opportunity Council to report to our Committee on July 9 , 1990 on the outcome of the training which is being provided to the EOC on May 12, 1990 by James Masters, President of the Center for Community Futures in Berkeley. The purpose of the training session is to assist the EOC in developing a much needed strategic work plan for program years 1991, 1992 and 1993 . This -plan may suggest a change in direction or a new model for the EOC and Community Services Department to follow. This may also result in a new statement of policy from the Board of Supervisors regarding the EOC and Community Services Department operations relating to community service agencies. 4. Request the Community Services Director to advise all existing contract agencies of the meeting of our Committee on July 9 , 1990 so any contract agencies which wish to be present and participate in our deliberations can do so. BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee questions that had been raised regarding the process being followed by the Community Services Department in contracting with agencies to deliver services funded by the Community Services Block Grant. On February 26, 1990 our Committee met with the Community Services Director, members of her staff and the Chairman of the Economic Opportunity Council. We reviewed the attached report from the Community Services Director. Our Committee is concerned that the shrinking funds available from the CSBG need to be appropriately focused in a much needed change in direction being contemplated by the EOC for the 1990 ' s which will result in the appropriate management and use of CSBG funds to adequately support the County' s own efforts to combat poverty. In addition, our Committee is concerned that available program funding be used in areas of the County which are the most economically depressed and that priority for future funding be considered for agencies which are established and providing services in the areas of greatest need and have displayed an ability to provide the types of services which are most needed in the County. We believe that in this way we will be able to insure that the best use possible is made of the funds which will be available. Our Committee was advised by the Community Services Director that the County must go out to a competitive bid on CSBG funds each year. While we are prepared to comply with the provisions of the law, ,,our Committee is also concerned about the stability of our contract agencies. We do not believe it is wise to change contractors on an annual basis unless an agency demonstrates it is unable to perform in accordance with the terms of its contract -3- and/or unless future CSBG funding is no longer capable of continuing support. We believe that adoption of the above recommendations will focus our CSBG funds in such a way that they will produce the highest quality service for those of our citizens who are the most needy in the most cost efficient manner possible. f Community Services DepartmentContra O� i' Community Services 646-5544 C 1 a Head Start 646-5540 2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 120f��+a Energy Programs 646-5544 Concord,California 94520 Costa Human Services 646-5540 (415)646-5544 County Joan V.Sparks, ( Y Director February 16, 1990 -' sra•c'U f{ To: Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors Through: Claude Van Marter From: Joan Sparks irector Subject: Report the Internal Operations Committee on the Competitive Selection process for Awarding Contracts and on the Membership of the Economic Opportunity Council GENESIS On 1.0-2-89, during its quarterly monitoring review of CSD, the State of California Department of Economic Opportunity (our funding source) issued its set of findings. We should note over past years DEQ has given CSD other negative findings relating to our agency which were not signif- icantly acted upon, hence their (DEO) strong demand for corrective action for these current findings. The findings were: 1. CSD had not used a competitive process in the award of DEO funds to subcontractors for over an eight (8) year period. In this time period the same five agencies had been automatically awarded contracts. Results - Many agencies serving the poor in this county did not have a chance to compete for CSBG funds. Further, the traditional allocation did not consider the entire county. 2 . There was a duplication of services in one area of the county (Pittsburg) by two contractors. -1- Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer 3. EOC membership was out of compliance with its By-laws. 4. The By-laws of the EOC needed to be revised to conform to present standards and codes under the law. CSD.,ACTION TO FINDINGS Problems indicated in the findings have been acted upon and approved as necessary by DEO or the Board of Supervisors as in the competitive awarding of DEO funds to subcontractors, and acted upon in terms of EOC membership and the revision of By-laws, the former with the assistance of County Counsel. On . 10-19-89 members from the low-income sector were seated on the EOC. Head Start parents will serve on an interim basis, as provided for in the EOC By-laws* and sanctioned by DEO. By-laws revisions are presently underway. *(EOC By-laws, Page 9, Section 4.8 Vacancies, subsection b. ) Issues of CSBG Competitive Process 1. The act of a competitive process itself creates tension/anxiety in the bidding population. This is a by-product of a process which seeks equity or fairness to obtain the best possible mix of programs of service for our low-income population in response to the State Department of Economic Opportunity' s State Plan. 2. The compression of time, i.e. , the need/demand to design and complete a competitive RFP process through the Board of Supervisors award decisions. 3 . The feelings of the 189 subcontractors that they should receive greater consideration than any new bidders for contract consideration, regardless of any other consideration. 4. The total amount of funds requested by agencies at $647,202. The total amount of funds from DEO to let to subcontractors, $199,995. 00 . 5. CSD was told by DEO to expect at least an 8% cut in the level of ' 89 funding for 190, when we actually received a 20% cut in gross terms when the award was announced. -2 ' e RFP-Pr=ess T'hroudh Recommendations to Supervisors The Request for Proposal process used an organizational development method of problem-solving, whichiviewed the process from start to finish as a unitary whole. The start point was EOC's priority ranked Needs/Goals for the Budget Year 1990, as listed with CSD's contract to . with the State DEO Plan and as stated in the RFP. Direction The EOC, through its Director, mandated that the RFP process be open for consideration to all Contra Costa County non-profit organizations serving the low income residents of this county. Notification 1989 subcontractors were notified in writing of the end of their contracts on 11-6-89, and were ,invited to bid on the RFP, without any special consideration. Approximately 40 RFP's were sent out by CSD, using as a reference point the "Directory of Human Services of Contra Costa County". (See letter attached, dated 11- 1-89. ) Further, on 10-31 and 11-1-89, press announcements informing the public of the RFP were sent to the Contra Costa Times (each division) , Richmond Post, Asian Weekly, El Hispano, and to the East' Bay Monitor (see attached listing) . Demographic Studies CSD analyzed data from the "Contra Costa County Social Area Analysis", the Head Start Needs Assessment and other studies to determine location of need (see fact sheet) , and funds disbursement recommendations which was changed by the Supervisors. RFP Technical Assistance Technical assistance was offered and provided to prospective and actual bidders for contracts. This technical assistance was in the following forms: 1. Answering questions and meaning of terms in the RFP. 2. RFP instructions. -3- 3. Training relating to ranking and rating of proposals to the Program Development Committee, EOC, and the general public attending the EOC meeting. 4. Three-stage proposal review process, i.e. , 1st stage for form and completeness, 2nd stage rating 14 elements of the RFP or criteria entitled Proposal Review Score Sheet, 3rd or end stage review containing seven criteria and to use the individual and collective wisdom of EOC to make their recommendations. 5. Individual conferences with Directors or represen- tatives of bidding agencies, etc. Technical assistance was not designed to prepare proposals for bidding agencies, which would have represented conflict of interest. Items Reviewed Because of limited resources now and in the future for CSBG-funded agencies, EOC looked for the following: Ability to communicate in writing Organizational development Formal organization Board of Directors Contract assurances Financial viability' through financial statement Agency description/function/people and area served Statement of need, scope of work, method of evaluation of services rendered Annual budget, other financial support, ratio of administrative to service cost Agency stability (see copy of rating tools) The EOC determined this criteria taken together with a perfect review score would produce the ideal community service agency. While it is recognized these rating tools are mechanistic in nature, it also provides a more objective method of rating (see copy of final rating by PDC) . It didn't matter where the individual member rated high or low; the objectified judgment using the tool, the standard, or collective judgment, was similar. -4- With this RFP process EOC chose essentially the stronger organizations bidding who had thi ability to obtain dollars from other sources, use more of their dollars for services as opposed to administration, better link dollars and programs within their agency for greater community services impact, etc. Supervisors Concerns not ]Answeredin12/19/89 Board Order Question: Writing deficiencies in grant application? Answer: Writing deficiencies generally mean lack of organization and communication skills. , With reduced resources, writing skills may save an agency. Board wants RFP including rating criteria for evaluation of applicants (see attached #4) . Question: Why the reduction in UCSSO funding? Answer: (see memo to Board of Supervisors from Joan Sparks, 12-14-89, attachment #5) CSD respectfully submits this report and stands ready to answer any items of your concern not covered or missed in this report. EOC and CSD are aware of the Board of Supervisors' sensitivity to the low income residents in this county, and thanks them for taking extraordinary steps in providing additional County resources to alleviate some elements of poverty. -5- ATTACHMENTS I. Letter, dated 11/1/89, notification of RFP Process II. List of Press Announcements and Advertisements III. Fact Sheet IV. Review Committee RFP Process V. Program Development Ranking VI. UCSSO Proposal Rational VII. Economic Opportunity Council Membership (several communications dealing with that issue) Community Services Department Community Services 646-5544 Contra Head Start 646-5540 2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 120 Costa Housing Energy 427-8396 Concord,California 94520 415)646-5544County November 1, 1989 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: Enclosed is a Request for Proposals from the Contra Costa County Community Services Department. The funding comes from the Community services Block Grant Program. This program requires 10% matching funds from those wishing to respond to the RFP. This match may be in-kind services or goods provided, or a cash/ dollar match. Eligible organizations wishing to bid for these funds must be based in Contra Costa County and be non-profit, serving the poor and low-income people of this county. The Community Services Department will accept proposals for these funds from November 1, 1989, through November 25, 1989, at 5:00 p.m. Proposals received later than this time period will not be considered. If you have any questions regarding this RFP you may call Bruce Webb, Coordinator of Community Services Block Grant programs at (415) 646-5546. He will provide technical assistance. You are to send your proposal to: Review Economic Opportunity Council Program Development Committee c/o Community Services Department 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 120 Concord, CA 94520 Respectfully Submitted, Bruce Webb, Coordinator Community Services Block Grant BW/jm Press Announcements for the Contra Costa County Community Services Department were sent to the following news organizations: Sent 10-31-89: Contra Costa Times FAX # 9778480 (Each Division) Richmond Post FAX # 7639670 Asian Weekly FAX # 3977258/397-0220 Sent 11-1-89 • El Hispano FAX # (916)4469221 Ad message sent to: East Bay Monitor waiting for confirmation NOTE: Contact was made with the following: . Mr. Jose Edmond - Hispanic Chamber of Commerce re: their monthly newsletter. We missed their dateline for press. * They must have copy by the 20th of each month. Phone 689-2500. Hispanic Hot Line (916) 448-7594 - We missed their press dateline. Must have copy in by 22nd of each month. (is a monthly) East Bay Monitor 833-8667 - Have missed their dateline, which is 15th of every month. Paper is a monthly. We missed the publication dates for November because we had to wait for approval of process and fund disburse- ment from the Board of Supervisors. The approval was given on 10-31-89. The time frame for proposal comple- tion and submittal is from 11-1 through 5:00 p.m. on 11-24-89 . Press Phone #'s: Contra Costa Times 935-2525 Richmond Post 763-1120 Asian Weekly 397-0220 E1 Hispano (916) 442-0267 Pedro Chavez Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 689-2500 Jose Edmond East Bay Monitor 833-8667 Carlos Alexander Com 544 Community Services Department Contra Head tart Services •646-SW c Head Start 646-5540 2425&sso Lane,Suite 120 Costa Housing Energy 427-8396 Concord,California 94520 t Couny (415)646-5544 i Ccmmuni tv ?-`J10ES I:.Ocr.rt(n2?..z a z li n% . -117, +"'- - - -_ . ^fc . Cd _ _ i=. waCCf b _are. Fact Sheet in Support of Community Services Department Recommendations Approximate amount of funds to be distributed. . . . . . .$200,000 Contract Range from . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$10,000 to 40,000 for individual contracts Insure that any offeror who bids in the low range, if any, has other sources of funds to make the bid feasible. CSD has used data from the "Contra Costa County Social Area Analysis", as well as the newer developed Head Start Needs Assessment. CSD is using Social Area G: Poverty Areas; and Social Area F: Low Income Households in the listing of the following facts using the Area Analysis nomenclature: Social Area G: • Contains 8 census tracts out of 150 in this county • Contains the poorest population by all meaures • Highest proportion of Blacks at 85% • Lowest mean family income of $14,348, or 54% of county mean 0 25% have incomes below the poverty level • A majority of 52.8% live on less than 200% of the poverty level incomes • Has the highest proportion (in the county) receiving Public Assistance over 32% • Population projection is expected to rise from 32,605 in 180 census to 38,586 by 190 census Sub Area Gl: West Richmond • Contains 7 census tracts . Mean family income $16,572 0 32% of population receive Public Assistance Sub Area G2: No. Central Pittsburg . Contains 1 census tract • Mean family income $9,491 o 44% of population receive Public Assistance Social Area F: Low Income Households • Contains 24 census tracts Fl: Richmond-San Pablo 6 census tracts F2: Downtown Martinez I census tract F3: West Concord -- 3 census tracts F4: West Pittsburg-Antioch -- 8 census tracts F5: East County Rural -- 6 census tracts • 37% did not finish high school • Mean family income $21,339, or 30% below county- wide average . • Mean household income $17,319 • 18% receive Public Assistance • 13% below the poverty level REVIEW COMMITTEE PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS Proposals received by the Review/Program Development Committee of . the Economic Opportunity Council, Contra Costa County, will go through a three-stage process of selection and recommendation. The first stage will be a cursory review of porposals, looking for completeness. The second stage involves a closer method of scoring of fourteen items listed as criteria in the RFP. The third stage refines the review/selection process and may be considered the end state of a reasonable objective process. First Stage Proposal Review 1. Review proposal responses for form and completeness. • is organization of material in our requested format • is proposal clear and concise are all forms and requests for material included, e.g. , financial statement, list of Board of Directors, etc. Notice: Eliminate those responses not conforming to our format, or not complete, or lacking in content. 2. Stability of agency, i.e. , length of time in business, personnel and program experience. Use Likert scale -- 1 best to 10 worst 3. Other sources of funds, i.e. , grants, gifts, other sources of fundraising, with the ability to leverage funds for program services. Note: Likert scale, 1 best to 10 worst The ability to obtain and link other sources of funds is to be considered the most positive. 4. The degree CSBG funds will be used for: (1) services to the poor, (2) seed money to help raise funds from other sources, (3) administration, ( 4) start-up cost. Note: #1 is top rank, 2 is second, etc. 5. Ratio of organization funds between Administration and Service. Note: Scale 1 to 10, with Service being the 1. 6. Bidders' method of evaluating their performance in both program services and administration, as they state. Note: Scale High, Medium, Low 7. Evaluate the Bidders' Statement of Work, i.e. , is it feasible, reasonable and in line with the personnel, given the constraints of time and dollars available to the project. Note: Scale High, Medium, Low C7 1Q OC E4 (n o -t; "z>E-4 cn»r E4 H(n(n E E-40 0 u 0 0 z 004 4 0 H:D W Kn g=�owcu>4 0 z 0 fu 64 0 OCC H V W W t34 r.9 OOR u I rn to E w E-4 Z Dk W LM H2 W °z w to E-4 2: Z 10 W 0 Ai A 0 64 z En 94 b4 lz 94 P4 a4 to Uaoz r-4 En 0 asy 04 0 P4 > aw z 0 H L)occ V.Q E-4 0 U4 f W 0 E-40 E) g4 to E-4 as 0$4 rA w $4 C; EA v Ix 1 0 91 0 r- (n w In U Lo m 0 tn u a 0 to.11 w z 8o-CU) H V 4d-4 4 '"mow 1-4 0 4) 0 La 14 E ri U � z M 0 in 0 w w 0 E-4 44 0 4) En H 43 z 1+4 > U u 1-4 4)41 0 Id w Cd m 1 0 0 tyl k OHZ to 0 0) 0) �A to 0 4)V 4J GUUCWON F� 4) 0) 4444 $4 E O 4) > 0 uj to z V E 4J cc 0­4 EO tl 0 CQ x 4 z k ■ . § 2[§m Vo ■ o 1-4§ §- ■e 2 § 9� )Co� § . . � ° X2 § 2 ■ wo44M PA Q4) ( ■ / 0H2 �§ 2-4 2 §�2 vA §-4 k w -® u �axc - w� > E § J q . » t §Q u 0 w Cd Q . 1 >M $4 > H to 242 4) > kqA 41 o 43 ( k §zk E �2 En e ■A�4 > $ 4 ¥ Aj r-4 j0®§ /`-44 � § maw f0.oe,t o ■ r. om■ ■ ce m . 9: to E2 �� k1-4 j\ / 2 � 4 64$4 � k- \ul d _ § §cn� f��. � 0wmaZeAJ4) § § k2 ) k § S t ■ ■ � � w � 0�§§ \ _ \ to 0 \ D \ \tn 0§\ E § u o . § m o o V ■ ■ w14 \ § 0 ® 2 2 c g o w c . ` 0 2 2 2 U § ■tn R q ■ ■ § 2 ®c 2 \ § E E 9:k ® 3 t o ® to 10 � t ■ w W ■ § V \ k 2 ( k � k 0 6 \ § © 2 k D4 j k k 2 44 2 2 k /k �/ § 0 0 2 ® 2E ® t § o § . z] 4j2 § 2 © w § § § t o 2 U q a ¢ w Q \ 4 Q 2 Q 4 E W O •U Hx> E EHu1ti) 9AOU a •a 14 0 04 z 04 w � E W Dow a w >. to A � = 4400 w0 OC EH £ W awa a00i 000 W WE 0 W EZwW to (n Ca-EEOZ b t/] C W b a U Aj Z M >4 01I W � W adWZ •� a IM >4 H Z cj as 0 a Z U H iC W M E 9-1 O 0 41 W W .d—4 a � � ra 3> azHE EO 4 Gr E-4 E Aj Cd W -4 bd ,d Ow I u! UV EOwa aai.wi U) •94 a oQa a o m w ►a o 0E-4CnU0 00-ul 4J 144 m� U r4r-4 H r-4 O 4) C7 � W EidE) 54 £ to O m O Hp� wz ww > Ul 3UU � O � O+ tvwgogo 1 U O Olw �CZHZ010 :C > tlH d� 4 � WON A04) go 94444 d z C (D d)$4 E O off a .caH WN H zn w a 0 z tk7 � N En d � z0 Z �..� 0 E+ .H7 %+ O 3 • m to .fir• lu -r4 Zia H iR 14 a � 0 >� > w o U Ccn 94 ra M Z E a? O E d r W r m 41 O O - cn a4*v o z a a W 41 0 ►N-+ EEna c dHacw 41 to 00 - ►-+ EHa o 4 z as G o cn o c a� OHcnW E aHaw o U E 4l WO > ° wacn W4 w E-4 cn x a 4 0z00 � d W M U .d G W � E+ m6 G 401-:D b W > b G O ?+ OH 4 1 zOAC a +� o a r-i 0 41 N r1 M N C h N to ri t11 t0 tl' 01 O o a o N N cn cn h N OE) H ri ri ri r-4 r-1 r-i 1-4 ri ri ri r-4 V-4 .h-+ �4 V O arn OO OD to rn cn o 0 0% o o to a N N N m N N ti0 t0 M %0 b' to t'J > O 34 tP %0 m m o h to al d h ep &4 ri ri r-i N N r4 N N ri M N cn •� td x A 0 34 tp d a% t,0 %0 r-I 00 to Ln N CO to tri CCd ri N r-I N N (In r1 N N ItT N N N to z A H aG E td m CS CO to O 0) W Q N N N N N m +-1 cn N N IT N N W H H h H E O U � 34 co h r- h h C to Q1 Oo .-t N h r- 0 ri r-1 ri r-4 r-i m ri N rl N N qw t^ H A EQ -r1 .0 > A to to CC � O U z � > n $4 O Eu b C 4J q) $4 o a 44 EU 0 U v U v td cd to O 1 O �4 a -ri a N 0 En a w a �-+ v o w H >+ �4 En-ri ,Q 4J E d � x O -.1 OEE wtV «c b H Q :1 w O 54 Q) >+ )a C RC O bt tT of U .� O U O >+ v4.) tU z W O O >1 x 4-4 4.) 0a 4-Jr-I0 � a � > 9rt EU Eta -*i b 0 C O .r► A O k -rq a b °d E rn ri C •r♦ O O O z U CA td •rq C) H O C O O -a =% r.{ U U U G C V 4J rn It 00 3 W v 41 r-i &4 :1-4 C to (d (f d ,C 4-) G is d10 O O O x td 010 'd 4.) E- $4 b W 0 O tb M W U 4d U O W EO S OU W 004 tT a 0 rq ::$ 4) rtC A 34 >, U 04 E: O EQ -.i �4 A O 0 O 4J E Eu v E r~ -r♦ U C >+ a) td �o o O to v c r-I O O m z w w w x En v a Q U U c�a December 14, 1989 TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Joan V. Sparks, Director, Community Services Department SUBJECT: UCSSO and Concerted Services Proposals (applications) Several elements or criteria for reviewing proposals were designed to determine how CSBG funds would be used within an organization. The State of California Department of Economic Opportunity' s (CSD's funding source) highest priority was that funds be used for' services to the poor and not for administrative costs. This application is basically for administrative costs, i.e. , funding four offices within this county. Further, DEO monitors in October 189 instructed CSD to prevent duplication of services. The EOC, after reviewing competing applications, recommended that UCSSO use their award in the Pittsburg area of need for the . following reasons: 1. Concerted Services was recommended for defunding and no longer would serve that area. UCSSO's Pittsburg office is less than a block away from that agency. 2. Other contractors were recommended to serve the other geographical areas of need in the county. 3. The award to UCSSO on the division of their 189 contract of $94,000 for four offices represents also a 100% increase for funding their Pittsburg office. UCSSO's, proposal would use, to quote their application, 1187% of its CSBG funds to operate their program" . The EOC and Community Services Department is asked to fund 85% of its CSBG funding allocation for contract services, to this one agency. Translation, interpretation and-' immigration are the services other contractors with CSD do not provide, however these services provided by UCSSO are funded by other sources and should not appear on their Service Plan as part of CSD funding. In their proposal budget, UCSSO is charging an indirect cost of $10,019. CSD funds allocation is for direct cost only. UCSSO' s total assets for fiscal year 188 were $1,269,433 . This represents stability to CSD and was one of the 14 criteria used in EOC's assessing contract awards. As listed in the UCSSO financial statement, agency funds are from the following sources: Transportation J.T.P.A. HCDA Head Start Home Delivery Migrant Head Start Paralegal Immigration Donations Nutrition Individual and Corporate Concerted Services Project' s proposal . did not meet the criteria of the EOC Program Development Committee' s first stage review process. Item one of that process states: 111. Review proposal responses for form and completeness. • is organization of material in our requested format • is proposal clear and concise • are all forms and requests for material included, e.g. , financial statement, list of Board of Directors, etc. Notice: Eliminate those responses not conforming to our format, or not complete, or lacking in content." In the first instance, CSP's proposal was incomplete. It did not have an independent financial statement or audit, nor proof of insurance for liability, workers ' compensation, etc. In spite of the above facts the Program Development Committee did review, rank and rate CSP' s proposal. The committee consisted of five EOC members, or more that one-fourth of that body' s member- ship. The committee recommended, and EOC approved unanimously, to drop this organization, along with five other organizations, from further consideration for funding. Committee' s reasons for dropping CSP: • No liability or other insurance proof was in the proposal. • No independent financial statement or audit. • CSP has had a limited ability to raise funds from other sources. • Agency would or has become dependent on CSBG funding • Agency has been marginal through 1989 . They have had three Directors in this year. • There is a duplication of services in this service area. • The method of evaluation for the program is very limited. • There is a fundamental question about this agency' s ability to deliver mandated services. JVS/jm Cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Phil Althoff , County Counsel' s Office Bruce Webb, CSD Staff =ES- 1 - 90 THU 9 1 1 CLERK OF THE BOARD pra a October 23, 1989 Memorandum Tos Members of the Board of Supervisors Prom: Joan Sparks, Director Community Services Department Subjects Economic Opportunity Council This memo is in response to concerns raised by Supervisor Torlakson on actions taken affecting the Economic Opportunity Council. I. Concerns Whether or not n tubers whose terms had aspired had sufficient notice. State of California Department of Economic Opportunity representatives were in attendance at the August 17, 1989 regular meeting of the BOC. The State, at this meeting, informed the members that the EOC by-laws were no longer in compliance with state law since the by-laws do not reflect current law and that the ROC appeared out of compliance with its own by-laws in the length of terms of individuals who were serving on the Council. The State representatives . requested a list of SOC members with their current length of tenure on the Council. On August 21, 1989, this office sent a form letter requesting that all ROC members self certify their length of service on the EOC. The certification form had a requested return date of September 15, 19 89. This off ice received only three responses to this request none of which was returned by the six members of the ROC whose terms had expired. On September 18th, the State notified this office that the EOC was out of compliance with the by-laws (copy attached) . In consultation with County Counsel, the Department prepared a memorandum for the Economic Opportunity Council members, which included a copy of the State's letter and was delivered at the Economic Opportunity Council regular meeting on September 21, 1989 (copy attached) . Phil Althoff of the County Counsel's office attended the EOC meeting and explained the memorandum. Accordingly, the members serving in excess of their terms had been advised of that problem more than a month prior to the September 21 meeting. E - 1 - 9 0 T H U 9`. 1 2 C L E R K, ., O F T H E B O A R D,' P 0 4 Board of Supervisors 2 October 23, 1989 2. Concerns Whether or not the EOC will have low Income representatives serving tramp East County and whether or not the NOC aembers whose terms had expired can be appointed or selected by Head Start Parent Councils as their representatives. The Department worked with the State to implement a process to fill the vacant positions. The State agreed that the vacant positions could properly be filled in accordance with Section 4.8 of the EOC by-laws. This section allows Head Start Parent Councils to select persons to fill vacant positions in the low income sector. The Head Start Parent Councils are comprised of Individuals who have children ages 3-4 in Head Start and who meet the low income criteria. Each Head Start Council has selected its -representatives to the EOC, to fill the vacancies, subject to revision of the by-laws. As currently constituted, the BOC has low income representatives from East County. The selection process for the current EOC membership is complete. 3. Concerns Nether or not ambers whose terms had expired can be elected or selected to serve on the SM. The EOC held its regular meeting on October 19, at which BOC members agreed to serve on the Rules Committee. The Committee's immediate task is to rewrite the by-laws to comply with state regulations. The plans of the EOC are to submit revised by-laws to the Board of Supervisors within six months for approval. Those members whose terms had expired will probably be eligible for election under the revised by-laws, absent disqualifying factors such as conflict of interest. 4. Concerns What authority did the EOC have to suspend the by-laws at the October 19, 1969 meeting. The former chair of the EOC was one of the individuals whose terms has expired, and the BOC by-laws call for elections of new officers in November. The by-laws in Section 11.4 allow for suspension of the rules. The EOC members voted unanimously to suspend Section 6.1 of the by-laws which states in part," . . .The Ad Hoc Nominating Committee shall present its report at the October EOC meeting. . . .Election of officers shall take place at the November EOC meeting. . . " . The 130C discussed the rewriting of the by-,laws, and for continuity and practicality designated the current First Vice President and Second Vice President as Acting President and Vice President pending the development and approval of revised PE8 — 1 — 510 YHU 9 1 3 CLERK OF= -t rst asuer< i.. r- iaa Board of Supervisors 3 October 23, 1989 by-laws. . When the by-laws have been revised and the new members of the ROC are elected/selected from the community, election of new officers will be held. RES — 1 - SO T ►-II.I '3 : 1 1 CL- ERK OR THE BOARD p � * u MM BOARD OF StTPIO=S= OF COli'I'!tA COSTA COUNW s CALIF IA Adopted this Order on November 7, 1989 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, MCPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Powers, Schroder ABSTAIN:' None SUBJECT: Economic Opportunity Council Membership As recommended by Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the issue of membership on the Economic Opportunity Council is REFERRED to the County Administrator and County Counsel for review. cc: County Administrator County Counsel Community Services Director I hereby osrttty that We is a Ma and correet dopy of an e0011 Man Vrb *MWW on the Mftlaa of the Board of supervt on the date shown. ATTESTED; zit.Ifi PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of SuPervtaore and C ounty AdrntnitVgW FES — 1 --''30 7HU 9 1 CL_ E:RK ;, 0P THE 80ARa P.�: fdB Community Services Departmentcontra Comm' unitySvvicea "G-55" + Hoad Stan a4G.&Uc 2425 Sim lane,suite 120 �1"1i+tF1mmn9eFrW9Y 427-8396 CCosta,California NWO County September 20, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Economic Opportunity Council FROM: Joan SparVDirector SUBJECT: EOC Membership On September 18, 1989, this office received notification from the State of California Department of Economic opportunity (DEO) citing our Department as being out of compliance with our by-laws. The State is concerned that there are members of the EOC representing low income residents who have served for more than two year terms without being re-elected. In addition, there are members who are representatives of private sector organizations who have served for more than four years. The EOC By-Laws state in part: «A term of office shall be for a period of two years. After the completion of one term, low-income representatives and their alternates must stand for re-- election/selection. Private sector organizations may serve two consecutive terms, or a total of four (4) years, after which time the organization may rotate off the council." On August 21, 1989, this office sent a for letter requesting that members self certify her/his length of service on the EOC. The certification form should have been returned to this office by September 15, 1989. As of this date we have received only three replies to this request. - It is imperative that the form be returned to this office by September 29. The State has requested a complete list of all EOC members and length- of service, by date of appointment to the Council. The State has scheduled a program review of our office for October 2 and 3 and we will be expected to produce the requested documentation. .P E•3jr­- 1 — 90 THu 9 1 6 iCl_.ERK op THE HdARD P 9 a Page 2 Economic opportunity Council September 18, 1989 It will be necessary for the Economic opportunity Council to address this issue as an emergency agenda item at the EOC meeting scheduled for September 21. The State, by law, has the authority to require compliance with their regulations. Therefore, it is necessary for the EOC to address the following: 1. Establishment of a procedure to notify members that their tenure on the EOC has exceeded the time as set forth in the by-laws. 2. Appointments of new members to the EOC. Your understanding and cooperation is appreciated. cc: County Administrator's Office County Council Board of Supervisors 1 , r1= M:ECONOMIC OPPORTLHITY TO: 4156465902 SEP le. 1989 3:01PM P.02 srATE OF CAUFORNI/► GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN.Gnw.nsr DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 1000 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO.CA 95814 •�' f (916) 322-2940 (916) 327-3153 FAX ` September 18, 1989 d SEP 181999 COMMUNTY Joan Sparks SE?�VICES DEPARTMENT Executive Director Contra Costa County Community Services Department " 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 120 Concord, CA 94520 Dear Ms. Sparks: This is in response to my previous visit of August 17 and 18, 1989 to your agency to provide Training and' Technical assistance. In reviewing your agency's by-laws and by attending the Board meeting of your council, the following observations were made: Section 4.3 of your by-laws Target Area Representatives Item (c) , states representativies of the poor will be elected each year in the month of May in accordance with the election Selection Plan in five of the 10 target areas. One representative and one alternate will be chosen. Section 4 .5 Term of Office (a) states "A term of office shall be for a period of two years. After the completion of one term, low-income representatives and their alternates must stand for re-election/selection. Private sector organizations may serve two consecutive terms, or a total of four (4) years, after which time the organization may rotate off the council." Inasmuch as maintaining a tripartite Board is a part of State Law SB 161 it is also necessary for your agency to be in compliance with its own by-laws. , It appears at this time and as stated in previous monitoring visit reports that CSD is not in compliance with it's by-laws in regards to the two year rule. FROM:ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY TO: 4156465902 i8. 1989 3:82PM P.03 Therefore, it would be greatly appreciated if you submit a copy of your current Board members, which addresses the fact that the Board members have not served more than the above stated term. If the Board members have served more than the allowed term please note the situation must be rectified so as to be in compliance with CSD's own by-laws. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the contents of this letter, please feel free to contact me at (916) 323-8825. Sincerely, JoAnn M. Dias Senior Field Representative - i i i ..