Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04271993 - 1.78 Q�,�YENTpF- U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development g*NOO���* an Francisco Regional Office, Region IX RECEIVED 50 Golden Gate Avenue o , an Francisco,California 94102-3448 9B�N DEVEpQ APR 191993 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. APR 7 1993 Mr. Tom Torlakson, Chair ®4)DR Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 300 East Leland Road, Suite 100 Pittsburg, California 94565a Dear Mr. Torlakson: Subject: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Monitoring Contra Costa County . B-89-UC-06-0002 B-90-UC-06-0002 B-91-UC-06-0002 This letter is to provide you with the results of the CDBG monitoring review that was conducted during the period of December 7-11, 1992, by Mr. David Sheer, Equal Opportunity Specialist. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the programs funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were conducted in accordance with the civil rights related program requirements (CRRPRs) of applicable nondiscrimination laws and implementing regulations and related HUD equal opportunity guidelines. During the monitoring visit contact was made with various County staff to review data and information pertaining to the CDBG program and related activities. Primary contact was with Susan Griffin, Chief of the Community Development and Housing Division in the County Community Development Department, and Larry Jones, Administrative Services Assistant, in the same office. Based on our review and analysis of all the information gathered during the monitoring process, we have identified those areas of the review which were deemed acceptable and those areas where a Finding was found. A monitoring Finding represents the County's failure to meet specific CRRPRs for which corrective action is required or subsequent sanctions may be imposed. There are also areas of Concern for some issues that will require management or administrative attention. Following are the areas that were covered in the review, and our monitoring conclusions: 2 Equal Opportunity in Services, Benefits and Participation - Monitoring Concern Program Generated Employment - Monitoring Finding Minority & Women's Business Utilization - Monitoring Finding Training, Employment and Contracting Opportunities for Section 3 Residents and Businesses - Monitoring Finding Grantee Employment - Acceptable Performance Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) Implementation ( 1989, 1990) - Acceptable Performance Fair Housing Actions - Monitoring Finding; Concern Citizen Participation - Acceptable Performance Equal Opportunity for Persons With Disabilities - Monitoring Finding Relocation Activities - No determination pending further review A discussion of the monitoring observations, analyses and conclusions for those areas with a Finding or Concern follows: Equal Opportunity in Services, Benefits and Participation - Monitoring Concern This area covered the housing rehabilitation loan programs operated by the County and the cities of Pittsburg and San Pablo; Public Facilities and Improvements projects; and Public Services projects. The identified Concern is in regard to the housing rehabilitation loan programs and various recordkeeping problems, as well as the limited participation by some racial/ethnic groups during the time period covered by the review. All of the rehabilitation loan programs had varying levels of minority participation from different rac-.al/ethnic groups during the three program years. Although there was nothing identified in the application procedures that would have had the effect of limiting the involvement of minorities in the program, the subgrantees must continually review the data on participants to determine whether their procedures are effective in encouraging applications from all segments of the community. There is no specific requirement to meet a particular percentage of program participation but such data can be helpful in assessing whether the subgrantees need to review their advertising and outreach procedures and make any adjustments. The low participation rate of Hispanics in the Pittsburg program during the three years is the type of indicator that should be used to prompt an assessment of their program and procedures. There was also a proportionally low percentage of Asian applicants in some of the years, especially in the San Pablo program during 1991-92, and for all three years in the Pittsburg and County Neighborhood Preservation programs. The relative lack of Asian participants compared to their percentage in the local 3 population may necessitate further consideration for providing advertising materials in some Asian languages, as well as targeting organizations representing the racial/ethnic groups for direct contacts with information about the available housing rehabilitation programs. Based on the data that was reviewed regarding applicants and recipients of housing rehabilitation loans in the various programs funded through the CDBG grant, the grantee needs to implement monitoring activities and recordkeeping procedures to confirm that all subgrantees are meeting their grant agreement obligations, including the maintenance of applicant/participant information. The County needs to assess the overall procedures for outreach and advertising in the housing rehabilitation programs to determine whether some adjustments may be appropriate to . encourage greater participation by all segments of the community. The County also must inform all subgrantees that they must compile racial/ethnic data on all applicants for programs or services, even if applicants do not complete all parts of the application process. Some of the subgrantees only gathered such information for completed applications, although they counted incomplete applications in their overall figures. Another omission identified was that neither the County Neighborhood Preservation Program or the subgrantees of Pittsburg and San Pablo incorporated the HUD equal housing opportunity logo, slogan, or statement in all appropriate program documents. This is required for all advertising/informational materials, and must be incorporated in their written documents, including loan agreements. In addition to the above, the County program and the San Pablo program need to be informed about the proper HUD definitions to utilize for maintaining race/ethnicity of applicants and loan recipients. The County must submit procedures for implementing all of the actions noted above. Program Generated Employment - Finding The grantee has not fully met the CRRPRs regarding maintenance of records, as stated at: 24 CFR 570 . 506 (g) (2 ) - Recordkeeping 24 CFR 1 . 6 (b) - Compliance reports 24 CFR 121.2 - Furnishing data 4 Adequate records have not been maintained on the loans made and the jobs created through the expenditure of CDBG funds by the subgrantee Pacific Community Services (PCS) . Much of the data that was available was from the recollection of the PCS Executive Director, and the County did not have comprehensive data to confirm who was being served or receiving jobs. The County has not ensured that the subgrantee was maintaining appropriate records on applicants, participants, and persons who received jobs as a result of the loans made through the program operated by PCS. Such data must be maintained by race/ethnicity for each loan applicant and recipient, and the jobs created must be tracked for at least three years after the loan has been made, to include the type of job created, and the race/ethnicity of the person(s) holding the position. The Program Monitoring section of the Project Agreement between the County and the subgrantee states that reports are to be submitted by economic development and job creation activity sponsors. This has not been consistently done, and the County has neglected to follow through and require that the subgrantee submit the appropriate reports. A plan must be submitted which describes how the County will ensure that all required data and reports will be routinely submitted. Minority and Women's Business Utilization/Contracting Training, Employment and Contract Opportunities for Residents and Area Businesses (Section 3) - Finding The grantee has not met the following CRRPRs: 24 CFR 570.303 (m) - Certification to comply with other provisions of the Act and applicable laws 24 CFR 570.506 (g) (2 ) , (5) , & (6) - Recordkeeping 24 CFR 570 .607 (b) - Section 3 requirements 24 CFR 570.904 (d) - MBE/WBE requirements 24 CFR 1.6 (b) - Compliance reports 24 CFR 121.2 - Furnishing data It was anticipated that the Community Development Department, as the County agency which administers the CDBG program, would have data and information available to document that programs and activities funded under the CDBG program were meeting Minority and Women's Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) and 5 Section 3 requirements. This could not be confirmed in Community Development records, and there was no evidence that staff had been monitoring either of these areas for compliance, whether for projects conducted by County departments, other cities, or funded nonprofit organizations. In order to provide a response to the request for information regarding MBE/WBE and Section 3 actions, HUD was referred to the County Affirmative Action Officer, who was identified as the staff person who dealt with these areas. Based on information received from the County Affirmative Action Officer, the County has extensive MBE/WBE policies and procedures that apply to specific types of projects. For some projects a bidder must submit forms that include MBE/WBE information and identify whether or not they will be able to meet established County goals for MBE/WBE participation. Good faith efforts as stated in HUD guidelines must be documented and are reviewed by County staff as part of the overall process. The procedures that are implemented in the County for MBE/WBE compliance differ based on the type of project and the subgrantee involved. There are procedures for construction activities conducted by the County General Services Department and the County Public Works Department, both of which implement CDBG projects. In addition, the County Housing Authority has a separate policy of its own. The other CDBG projects completed by the various cities in the County either included their own policies for ensuring MBE/WBE participation, or did not cover the issue, in their contracting arrangements. This could not be fully verified because Community Development does not maintain complete files of the projects in its own office, and the individual project files are located at each project site or in the records of the subgrantee. The review of the County files indicated sporadic references to MBE/WBE procedures. Verification of MBE/WBE activity for projects that were funded directly to nonprofit organizations for construction work could also not be made because of the unavailability of adequate records or documentation. There were inconclusive references to ensure that all subgrantees administered their projects to include MBE/WBE consideration. The arrangements for bidding on project contracts were done by the subgrantees without any direct oversight by the County or the Community Development Department. Since there is not one procedure that applies for all construction projects in the County, various documents were reviewed that included differing instructions. The CDBG projects are all covered by either an Interdepartmental Agreement with the County departments, or a Project Agreement document for subgrantees that are not a County agency. Both agreements specify what is to be completed for each project. Depending on 6 the type of agreement, there are different sections that are included under the headings General Conditions, Performance Standards, and Certifications. Some statements are no longer up to date or the information that is provided is inaccurate or inappropriate for inclusion in the agreements. The County has published a Directory of Minority, Women, 6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, which is used by County Departments to meet their obligations, and is also used by contractors to identify certified MBE/WBE firms to contact for participation in the projects. Firms must submit an application and be formally certified by the County before they can be listed in the Directory. Data from the City of Pittsburg rehabilitation program indicates that there were a total of 24 separate contracts during the three years. Half of the jobs were completed by the same contractor, who was White. There was only one minority contractor who worked on one project; the rest were all White. The City indicated that many contractors are not interested in the relatively small jobs, and that there are not many minority contractors in the immediate area. A list of approved contractors is provided to the applicants, who are responsible for choosing the contractor of their choice. The list has a total of 70 contractors, including 13 who are identified as minority. The identification of minority contractors was done by staff, and contractors do not self-identify their background. The City of San Pablo provides a list of approved contractors to participants in its rehabilitation program. Contractors must submit an application to participate in the program, and if an owner chooses a contractor who is not on the list, the contractor must be screened and approved using the same application form as for those already on the list. There are fifteen contractors on the current list, and ten are identified as minority-owned businesses. The identification was done by staff observation or knowledge, not through any self- identification by the contractor. There were a total of 31 rehabilitation loans made during the three program years, and 13 of the jobs were handled by six minority contractors. The County Building Inspection Department also provides a list of contractors for the participants in its rehabilitation program. A statement on the list informs persons that the list is only for convenience in helping them find a contractor, and is not an endorsement of the contractors. Participants can choose a contractor of their choice, whether on the list or not. All contractors who submit a bid must include a Contractor's Qualification Form as a screening device to ensure that they are appropriately licensed and meet other general program requirements. 7 The list includes 27 firms, eight of which were identified as minority. The identification was done by staff observation, not contractor self-identification. The list that is provided to program participants has an asterisk next to the names of those contractors who are minority as a means of identification, which should be deleted. Cumulative data on the race of contractors completing the rehabilitation projects is not maintained by the County. A sample of files was reviewed to identify the contractors and their races. Once the contract has been awarded the County completes a form which indicates whether the business is minority or female owned, and the designated minority group. Seven individual projects were reviewed to compare the bids received and to identify which contractor was chosen. The program does not require that the lowest bidder be selected. Six of the seven contracts were to non-minority contractors, four of which were the lowest bidders. The one minority contractor was the next-to-lowest bid on the project. There was at least one minority contractor submitting a bid for all of the projects that were awarded to nonminority contractors. The County Housing Authority uses a Contractor Referral List which is provided to all program participants in the Rental Rehabilitation Program. The list is for information only, and participants are able to choose a contractor who is not already on the list. The bid documents that contractors submit includes a form titled Minority Business Certification, where the contractor identifies the minority subcontractors who have been contacted and those who are anticipated to be used. All contractors complete a Contractor's Qualification Statement to provide information needed to participate in the program. There are 31 contractors on the list, including six who were identified by staff as minorities. The contractors do -not self-identify their race. The Section 3 activity was very limited and there has not been specific monitoring of the various subgrantees to confirm that they are complying with this requirement. Some of the individual documents included references to Section 3, and there were some projects that had appropriate Section 3 clauses as part of their package, with a signature block for the contractor to indicate their intent to comply. The County Building Inspection Department included the appropriate Section 3 references and information in its package of documents that has been used for contractors. There is no overall County process to monitor Section 3 compliance, and the Community Development Department needs to take the lead role in confirming that the appropriate language is incorporated into the documents used by all its CDBG subgrantees. 8 The Project Work Program section that is part of the Interdepartmental Agreement used by Community Development includes a reference to an Equal Opportunity/Section 3 Compliance Form, but no such form was identified. Most projects were completed by firms located in the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (Alameda-Contra Costa County) , which is the Section 3 area for the County CDBG program. Due to the number of subgrantees that were involved, the extent of incomplete data, the differing procedures that were involved, and the lack of oversight, we conclude that this issue has not been adequately covered by the County. The various subgrantees involved in the construction projects must be informed of the basic requirements for MBE/WBE and Section 3 for the CDBG program. Even if there are some different procedures used by the subgrantees, there must be a standard Project Agreement that covers both requirements, and the County must conduct adequate monitoring to ensure that the subgrantees are fulfilling their obligations, including the maintenance of proper records. The County must develop a process for uniformly informing its subgrantees of the requirements pertaining to MBE/WBE and Section 3. The Project Agreement documents must be updated to include the appropriate language to cover the MBE/WBE and Section 3 requirements, and the data that must be maintained. Assistance must also be provided to subgrantees operating the housing rehabilitation loan programs to help them develop their lists of contractors to include adequate numbers of MBE/WBE firms for possible participation in the rehabilitation projects. The County is to submit a plan to implement all of the actions described above. Fair Housing Actions - Finding: Recordkeeping Concern: Fair Housing Actions The grantee has not fully met the CRRPRs as follows: 24 CFR 570.506(g) ( 1 ) & (2) - Recordkeeping The County has relied on three CDBG subgrantees to implement actions to affirmatively further fair housing. The subgrantees that have been funded are Pacific Community Services (PCS) ; Shelter, Inc. , (formerly the Housing Alliance) ; and Contra Costa County Legal Services Foundation. In reviewing the specific services that have been provided during the three year period, there is some uncertainty regarding the fair housing component. Although all three subgrantees provided housing-related services to their clientele, there has 9 not been a distinct separation of the fair housing activities from the ongoing activities that the subgrantees routinely provide. Although there were numerous services provided by all three subgrantees, the way that data has been maintained does not permit a clear examination of who received services and what activities were focused more directly on affirmatively furthering fair housing. The various reports that have been submitted by the subgrantees are not a description of the actions taken based on the CDBG grant and the specific Project Agreement, but are a summation of the subgrantee's ongoing performance, utilizing all its sources of funding and its established functions. All subgrantees were to submit quarterly reports but the County files did not indicate that such reports had been routinely received, nor was there indication that the County has been regularly monitoring the subgrantees for compliance with their Project Agreements. Reports maintained in the County files for the subgrantees were not comprehensive and did not provide full yearly data for their activities broken down by race/ethnicity. In addition, the County has not conducted any type of analysis to determine whether there are impediments that may exist to fair housing choice, nor have they assessed the best means to implement their obligations for affirmatively furthering fair housing. The County has relied upon the subgrantees to conduct fair housing activities, rather than specifically prescribing the types of services that will best further fair housing and meet the CDBG requirements. Even though the subgrantees have provided valuable and appropriate services, there has not been a defined focus from the County regarding what its fair housing program should entail. In regard to the Recordkeeping Finding, the Project Agreements need to be revised to specifically identify the fair housing services that are to be provided, including the data that is to be maintained. The County must submit a procedure to ensure that all required reports will be submitted by the subgrantees, and include a monitoring component which will routinely confirm that the Agreements are being properly implemented. The Fair Housing Actions Concern calls for the County to define more clearly the services that it wants to implement in regard to affirmatively furthering fair housing. It should consider conducting an analysis to impediments to fair housing to assess the needs ,in the County, and then provide or contract for the appropriate services. Further discussion will be conducted with Community Development staff on this issue. 10 Section 504 Compliance - Finding The County has not complied with the CRRPRs as follows: 24 CFR Part 8 - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 24 CFR 570.303(m) - Certifications 24 CFR 570.602 (c) - Section 109 of the Act The County was reviewed to determine whether it was complying with the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the HUD implementing regulation that became effective on July 11, 1988. The review of the material made available regarding the County's Section 504 compliance activities indicates that they have not fully complied with all the requirements of the regulation, and further actions are necessary. There were no specific policies or procedures regarding Section 504 that have been implemented by the County's Community Development and Housing Division, which has administrative responsibilities for the CDBG program. No monitoring has been conducted to ensure that the requirements of Section 504 have been met in the operation of the CDBG program. . The Affirmative Action Office was referred to as the location where any activity related to Section 504 may be taking place. The Affirmative Action Officer provided some information that was intended to respond to the information that was requested in the HUD notification letter for the review. Following is a listing of those sections of the 504 regulation which require further action by the County: Self-Evaluation 24 CFR 8.51 The County has not completed the required self-evaluation of its policies and practices pertaining to handicapped persons. The self-evaluation must be conducted with the involvement of interested persons or organizations representing the disabled. Information provided by the Affirmative Action Officer indicated that there has been some Section 504 actions prior to the effective date of the HUD Section 504 regulation, but nothing specifically focused on the County's policies regarding handicapped persons. There has been some action taken in regard to meeting the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) , and a document was provided dated November 1992 which details some of the County's tasks to meet ADA standards. 11 Although some of the ADA requirements are similar to, or the same as, Section 504, nothing had yet been completed for the ADA that could also satisfy the Section 504 obligation. Reference was made to completing a self-evaluation by January 26, 1993, and the status of such a document needs to be clarified. Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures 24 CFR 8.53 The County's Affirmative Action Officer is the designated official responsible for ensuring compliance with the various equal opportunity regulations. There is no reference which designates the Affirmative Action Officer as responsible for administering Section 504, although she served as the Chairperson of the Section 504 Committee which developed the disabled program. This requires further clarification from the County. The document Contra Costa County Program For The Disabled includes two discrimination complaint procedures which apply to persons who are disabled. One is based on a Board of Supervisors order adopted January 19, 1985, which covers discrimination in services and programs provided by agencies in the County. The procedure itself is appropriate to cover persons who participate in the CDBG program as recipients. The problem identified is that there is no indication that the procedure has been publicized and therefore persons would not be aware of its existence. One of the provisions in the procedure states that each department will "designate a representative to receive complaints of service or program discrimination. " There was no evidence that the CDBG staff were aware of this procedure or knew who, if anyone, was the representative for the Community Development Department who would receive complaints from beneficiaries of the CDBG program. The other procedure involves employment discrimination complaints by .current employees of the County. This procedure was distributed to all County personnel in their paychecks during December 1992, which was a satisfactory means of informing existing employees about the available complaint procedure, and should be publicized at least on an annual basis. In summary, a grievance procedure is required which provides protection to all persons who may be employees or recipients of the program. The County can use its existing procedures but revisions are needed to expand their scope. Such a procedure must be publicized so that persons are aware of its existence. This can be accomplished through incorporating a reference in the required nondiscrimination notice, as detailed below. 12 Notice 24 CFR 8.54 As required by the regulation, the County has not notified all participants, employees, and professional organizations of its policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap and the identity of the Section 504 Coordinator. The initial notification was to be made within 90 days of the regulations's effective date of July 11, 1988. The notice must inform participants, beneficiaries, applicants, and employees, including those with impaired vision or hearing, and unions or professional organizations holding collective bargaining or professional agreements with the County, that it does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in its programs and activities. The notice must be initial and continuing. It should include a statement that the County does not discriminate in admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. The Section 504 Coordinator must be identified and a reference should also be made regarding the existence of the grievance procedures and the process for filing a complaint. The notice is to be included in relevant general information publications, either through revisions and reprinting, or the use of inserts. Lastly, a process must be established for ensuring that persons with visual or hearing impairments are provided with the information necessary to understand and participate in the program. Communications 24 CFR 8.6 The Program For The Disabled document includes a reference to Telecommunication Devices and lists four County departments that have a telecommunication device for the disabled (TDD) . The CDBG program office does not have a TDD, and has not been complying with the requirements to ensure that hearing impaired persons can communicate by telephone regarding the program. During the on-site review technical assistance was provided to clarify the communications requirement and the need to establish a means for hearing impaired and deaf persons to have telephone access to the program. Information regarding the use of the California Relay Service as a means of meeting the communications requirements was discussed, and the Community Development Department has now incorporated the number into their notices regarding the CDBG program. The County must provide a response indicating the current procedures that will be used for meeting the communications requirements. This requires publication of the number on all 13 informational materials and notices pertaining to the CDBG program, and includes subgrantees. Program Accessibility & Transition Plan 24 CFR 8.20 & 8.21 The County was to determine whether its existing non-housing programs and activities were accessible to persons with handicaps. Various methods can be used to meet this requirement, including structural and non-structural changes. If any structural changes were necessary, the County was to develop a transition plan as required by the regulation. All of these requirements were to be completed within six months of the regulation's effective date of July 11, 1988. There has been no assessment of the CDBG subgrantees for this issue. In order to meet its ADA requirements the County has recently been conducting building surveys, which were to be completed by December 30, 1992. Further information needs to be clarified to determine whether the actions that have been taken may meet the Section 504 requirements. The survey may be used for part of the requirements, but the County must still review its programs and activities to determine access. In addition, subgrantees need to be reviewed to ensure that their programs are being operated in facilities that provide access to handicapped persons. If the County determines that a transition plan involving structural changes is necessary to provide program accessibility, it must complete an updated assessment. of its non-housing facilities, identifying those buildings which are and are not accessible. The plan must be developed with the involvement of interested persons who are handicapped or represent handicapped organizations. Relocation Activities - No determination pending further review One relocation activity was identified regarding the River House Hotel in Martinez. Additional data and information is required from the County in order to complete a determination for this area, including confirmation on the recipients of relocation payments, the extent of services that were provided, and the locations where persons moved for relocation. Upon receipt of the necessary information for this area, a separate assessment will be made and a letter will be forwarded with our conclusions. A response to the Findings and Concerns described above is required within 30 days of the date of this letter, providing the appropriate documentation for each identified area. The Section 14 504 evaluation must be completed within 60 days of this letter, and a copy submitted by that date. Technical assistance is available from our office to help the County meet its obligations and to clarify any of the issues described in this letter. Please extend my appreciation to those personnel who assisted Mr. Sheer throughout the monitoring review process. Ms. Griffin and Mr. Jones have been especially helpful, and we appreciate their courtesy and professionalism. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Harold Redic, Director, Program Operations Division, at (415) 556-3840. Very sincerely yours, e Gilles e Director Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity cc: Susan Griffin Jimmy Prater, 9CMA