HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03121996 - P1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
0., " PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: f/ Costa
March 7, 1996 s �J
County
�•�- '�4
DATE:, r_coon
ENDORSEMENT OF THE REGIONAL DEMONSTRATION EFFORTS IN
SUBJECT: SUPPORT OF COLLABORATING IN AREA-WIDE ECONOMIC AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ENDORSE the efforts of the Bay Area Committee for Systems Redesign, as
outlined by the Northern California Council for the Community (formerly the
Northern California Community Services Council, Inc.) to identify and
encourage new approaches to serving the community that:
❑ focus on outcomes, not just on providing "services",
❑ are oriented to identifying and building on family and community assets,
rather than on identifying needs and deficits,
❑ emphasize supporting the family in accomplishing its identified
objectives,
❑ involve "clients" and neighborhoods as "customers'' and
❑ link such approaches to economic and neighborhood revitalization
strategies which have shown significant promise of achieving greater,
results than has the present system of delivering services.
2. SUPPORT in concept strategies which, maximize the usefulness and
application of such initiatives for the benefit of all our residents.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON- March 19. PAR APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
Following a presentation by Sunne Wright McPeak, Chair of the Northern
California Council for the Community, and President and Chief Executive Officer
ofrthe(.Bay Area Economic Forum, on a proposal on which the Council is working
with counties in the greater Bay area to better link the deliver of human
services with the economic vitality of the Bay Area, Supervisor DeSaulnier
recommended a fuller presentation on the matter on a future agenda so that
it coul=d be broadcast on Contra Costa Television for the public, and he
moved approval of the above recommendations .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 3 ) 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.
ATTESTED March 12 , 1996
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 3 SUPERVIS RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
0
BY DEPUTY
3. AUTHORIZE County staff to participate in these efforts and dedicate sufficient
staff resources to meaningfully participate in the effort now being undertaken.
4. REFER to the Family and Human Services Committee ongoing oversight of
the County's participation in these efforts with other counties, other public
jurisdictions, private sector businesses, private foundations, community
organizations, the Bay Area Economic Forum and the Northern California
Council for the Community and REQUEST the Family and Human Services
Committee to report back to the Board of Supervisors on this subject as
events warrant the need for further reports.
BACKGROUND:
About a year ago, the Northern California Council on the Community (formerly the
Northern California Community Service Council, Inc, a spinoff from the United Way
of the Bay Area) sponsored a workshop on "What Works" in an effort to identify
innovative projects going on in the Bay Area that seemed to be successfully
integrating services, working directly with the community on a local geographical
basis and empowering the family and the community to use their strengths to assess
their needs. Some of our County staff attended one or more of those workshops.
The County's Service Integration Teams in Bay Point and North Richmond fit these
criteria well, and the East Bay Corridor Project apparently has the potential to share
many of these same goals.
In the last year, the Council, which is chaired by former Supervisor Sunne Wright
McPeak, has worked on ways to help advertise and support these and other projects
in the Bay Area and stimulate the development of additional projects on the twin
goals of working toward additional economic stimulation to create jobs in the Bay
Area and to tie those economic stimulation efforts to new ways to assist communities
and neighborhoods to focus their efforts on programs which embody these
principles:
o- Build on Assets - not just needs and deficits
4 Focus on outcomes - not only provide services
4 Include jobs and economic opportunities
4 Encourage and utilize community energies
O Help the community govern itself instead of imposing government from
outside
� Integrate and focus community and organizational resources
These principles seem to underlie many of this County's service integration efforts.
As a result, some County staff have been working with a group of elected and
appointed officials from counties, private sector business leaders, private foundation
executives, United Way representatives and others to see where this effort might go.
It is hoped that with the support of the boards of supervisors in the nine-county Bay
Area, it will be possible to proceed on a two-pronged strategy:
✓ Begin to approach the State of California and the Federal Government,
indicating the level of support which exists for an effort to identify, encourage
-2-
i
and stimulate the development of more strategies which embody these
principles and seek the cooperation of the State and Federal Governments in
making it possible to facilitate innovative ways of working with the community
to implement these principles and do so in cooperation with the private sector
in order to combine innovative ways of healing our communities with
innovative ways of stimulating economic vitality in the Bay Area.
✓ Approaching other local government jurisdictions (cities, school districts and
others), private sector business groups such as the Contra Costa Council and
Contra Costa Economic Partnership, non-profit community-based
organizations, community leaders and other concerned individuals and
organizations in an effort to seek their cooperation in joining with us in various
efforts to further these principles.
Attached is a draft document which represents the work of the Bay Area Committee
for Systems Redesign to date. This is truly a "Draft" document because it is subject
to expansion and refinement as we are joined by more partners and as our thinking
takes us in new directions. We do not know precisely what type of a demonstration
project we may want to approach the Federal Government with, except that we want
to support local efforts which seem to be furthering the principles outlined above and
want to expand and build on these efforts.
Also attached is a set of charts which briefly and graphically outline and summarize
the other document which is attached.
We believe that the regional effort can properly fulfill the following roles:
1. Attract and mobilize resources.
2. Share ideas, lessons and experiences tried and tested locally and elsewhere.
3. Forge a formal partnership with Federal and State policy makers and
administrators.
4. Strengthen public awareness, understanding and support for what is working.
Based on the work done to date and the level of leadership and interest which has
been shown, we are making the above recommendations.
cc: County Administrator
Health Services Director
Social Services Director
Community Services Director
County Probation Officer
-3-
b3
VIA
Lot
4
n
•c
o �
� y
a
lot
ct
tnt
tz
tsS
tz
tit.
tt
-�
. C�
o � � �
vo-
O 'd 0 rte, O GZ I .
IPA
lop
vt c
th
tp ;4 tit
Irt, U) %, ' 4 O tit
° v4
oC� �`
t
CODM OV
C? Oc-� y
a �, � ►� r
r .
y0-3
o a ro
r
m
m '
ITI r-Ip y Imdyy
n � t� C �nhh � ybd cn Q
;z.
rt
rtopt �010
►- G
ow
o
En
ow
cn
04 p
ro
Cl4
x
ci
a m Con
b
O d 1
a
m C/) cot �.
In
a �
'..� roll
0-3 o
C/) IITI '
o
0
b � �
'� cn
�r
0
UP
. o
-s
b
0
co
1 �
� y �
y
� y �
y
C p �
C'Z
r
to
tz
O �.
a �
0
y
. o 0
. o m
o
Cs"Slz
et
4� V;t c
tit
ve d
d y �
IZ
tit
n -t.
y 0 O rt to
vz to
'Zo
VZtorl
lrZ
d
lZ
y "z-
d
C+
l
. ls_
jT\\
i
Ilz tit
> tai G-,
0 tit
� t7"
tit y
ct ..
r I
d
a d �
i
M
�+1J
� o
b
y
�, � y ►� C '� tri �'� `�
I'. Op p
A. A �C 4
• '7
ZonCIS
c
con
c� �
b
�o
V4,
titLn
roll
C1 ct� o
0
cnC� � cvo a• o3 ,d a� R,
coo a w � .,, -, �. � ., ,.� ,-- .�• ,� � �
0 <v i �. � n t'J+ TJl
G
O '�.� .t, � y Q� � W a co O
►Ij "flU r' N
tp
cor $tp
o Co. Q �
rn
0
b
0
co
Z Cn x m �o C) �v M cry v�
O ry 0 0 0 0 0 0, CD M 0 0 A, w 0 o w
c ?' CD r , o -
P w : . cr
X 0 0 0 43 i 0 0 CD [/� CD CD !V
(� Za Q
AD
CD
.-h �,
�. C
O CD 0 '17 O C,)o
r CD En �- CD
Q 0 e�
CD Oxy
G 0 cn
CD qQ
CD y`� o
o' C7 y o C)
0o-
0 o -� ,� o CD
CD CD
C ° ZD
ZD n
LLI (Dy
ci
�' e-..
.�' a o
(D
rol
O
[7
H•
. V
t'�V•
.............
........ ...
..........................
........................
....................... ...... .... ......
Building Healthy and Self-Sufficient
Communities for Economic Prosperity
Moving from "Services to Outcomes, Dependence to Self-Sufficiency
and Needs to Assets!"
Concept Paper and Design for a Bay Area Demonstration Project
Bay Area Community for Systems Redesign
(February 23,1996)
............
.......... ......
PREFACE
This paper is the product of the thinking of a variety of Bay Area public, academic, private
sector, community and other leaders committed to a new, more effective approach to the way
our society thinks about, works with and helps communities, families and individuals. (See
the Roster of Participants)
It signals a shift from services to outcomes, dependence to self-sufficiency and needs to
assets!" It proposes a dramatic regionwide initiative to improve the effectiveness of human
services, link its work to economic, education and training opportunities and create a working
framework in which various major institutions can work more collaboratively to improve the
lives and circumstances of neighborhoods and communities.
As the foundation for a collaborative effort among Bay Area counties, communities and
organizations, this paper contains:
a commitment on the part of a broad spectrum of public, private and community
leadership in the region to move in a new direction;
a set of principles and assumptions about how communities in a region can be
supported through a concerted linkage of human service, education and economic
opportunities;
a foundation for a new set of working relationships between public entities, community
residents, foundations, businesses and service organizations;
a plan to act collectively through a Bay Area wide demonstration project to: promote
the principles, learn from extensive efforts already underway, mobilize additional
resources and create new relationships with Federal and State government based upon
these principles;
a set of outcomes to be achieved through the concerted regional effort; and,
a strategy for county governments and others throughout the region to "sign on" to the
project.
Most important, however, under the leadership of Grantland Johnson, Regional Director of
Department of Health & Human Services and Sunne McPeak, President and CEO of the Bay
Area Economic Forum, this paper is a reflection of action already underway in individual
communities and organizations to do things differently.
Vp There are a significant number of efforts - many supported by public sector
policy makers - many others emerging outside the public systems - all geared to
targeting neighborhoods and communities; tapping community assets, energies
and decisionmaking; integrating resources and services and reaching commonly
agreed upon community goals and outcomes.
(continued next page)
County Boards of Supervisors are reviewing and moving to adopt resolutions in
support of the project, the principles and collective action in the first quarter of
the year.
Community leaders are briefing local public officials, school district and other
community leaders on the principles and the plan.
Additional Federal department leaders.are being briefed.
Current initiatives reflecting the principles are being identified and"catalogued.
Undoubtedly, the design for the project will receive further attention, elaboration and detail.
Increasing numbers of community and neighborhood groups will become part of the network
of prejecf participants and leaders. A detailed project workplan,will be put in place.
In the meantime, this document will suffice as a description of the groups' commitment, its
proposed plan and its strategy for getting there.
For further information please contact Ed Schoenberger, President, Northern California
Council for the Community, Suite 200, 50 California, 94111, (415) 772-4430. Or contact
Grantland Johnson, Regional Director, Region IX, U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services or Sunne McPeak, President and CEO, Bay Area Economic Forum.
Edward Schoenberger, President
Northern California Council for the Community
Staff to the Bay Area Committee fnr.Svctem.c Rede, ij!
San Francisco, California
-i
February 23, 1996
(t:kaocepti.lro)
F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction: Commitment to A Different Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
U. The Proposed Demonstration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
M. Implementation: Five Steps to Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
EXHIBITS
1. Outcomes, Roles and Responsibilities
2. Lift-Off Plan and Timeline
3. Proposed Outcomes
4. Board of Supervisors: Model Resolution
5. Rosters
(a)Bay Area County Public Officials
(b) Ad Hoc Committee on Systems Redesign
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
Building Healthy and Self-Sufficient Communities for
Economic Prosperity
Concept Paper and Design for a Bay Area Demonstration Project
Moving from: "Services to Outcomes,Dependence to Self-Sufficiency,and Needs to Assets!
I. Introduction: Commitment to a New Approach
We propose a significant change in the way in which we all think, plan and act with
regard to the well being and revitalization of the communities in which we live and
work. This new approach is based upon a fundamental commitment to outcomes -- not
services, to communities, neighborhoods and families --- not just individuals and to
integrated --- not categorical, services. It regards residents as actively involved on
their own behalf-- not as clients or passive recipients.
The paradigm shift to which we are committed is one in which people in communities
and neighborhoods develop and utilize the capacity, the enthusiasm and the resources
present there, to design, guide and carry out efforts to accomplish their goals and in
which needed external programs - public, private and non-profit - respond to these
local initiatives.
The experiences of the past 30 years - particularly those of the federal and state
governments' programs designed to improve the social health of America's
communities and their residents - have led us to a recognition that particular programs
and services, however constituted, are not the ultimate answer. .We have come to
believe that programs and services - especially if they are designed, funded and
administered from afar - may often be impediments to community development at
worst or at best palliatives that may distract from longterm solutions.
Making this new paradigm a reality will require a set of long term changes and a good
deal of patience and considerable learning among all of us. The shift will require
resident, community and neighborhood-level involvement and empowerment. It will
build on the assets, energies, resources and talents of the community. It will require
the closer collaboration of current funders and providers and the integration of today's
patchwork of categorical services. It will be tied to and focus upon opportunities for
economic self-sufficiency. It will lead to a variety of neighborhood and community
governance mechanisms. It will mean new partnerships and new roles among
residents, business and community organizations.
We recognize that many of the concepts we describe are not new. What is new is the
commitment to implementation. The commitment to community health, educational
results,family support and preservation is an insistence upon practical, concrete
implementation measures that cut across program and service lines. There is an
increased awareness that only through "on the ground" actions in which all significant
sectors and institutions of the community participate will the concepts be "made real".
We know that there are many initiatives currently underway that reflect commitments
to local action using principles of this new paradigm. We believe in identifying,
supporting and learning from them. We acknowledge this work will take time but, if
successful, will lead to outcomes all of us seek particularly in the most vulnerable low-
income communities with which we are particularly (although not solely) concerned.
Our Commitment
We are committed to work together to create healthy and sustainable communities
throughout our region.
Next to the family, the community, with its web of personal, business, cultural, social,
governmental and other ties and interactions, is the cornerstone of a society's capacity
for providing satisfying, fulfilling and sustaining lives for its citizens. The tremendous
impact of national, state, county, regional and even international forces, systems and
policies, only serves to highlight the essential and often ignored role of neighborhoods
and communities as essential,primary ingredients in the prescription for a renewal of
America's social health.
Our vision is of a Bay Area healthy and sustainable communities in which:
1. Children are prepared to learn
2. The frail, disabled and chronically ill are assured dignity and support
3. The cycle of violence is ended
4. Families of all kinds are strengthened and preserved
5. People achieve and retain economic independence and access to affordable
housing
6. Discrimination and inequality are eliminated
7. People achieve and maintain optimal mental and physical health
8. Individuals and neighborhoods are prepared for, and can respond to,
emergencies and disasters
:1
9. People play an active role in community life
10. The physical environment supports-and enhances a high quality of life.
The Challenge
There is a growing gap between those participating in the workforce and those unprepared
to participate and potentially dependent on public services. This trend threatens economic
competitiveness for the future. At the same time, the Bay Area Region, with its access to
the Pacific Rim, its diverse population, academic institutions, financial, technological and
transportation facilities and infrastructure has vast potential to provide economic stability, .
growth and sustainability for its communities and their residents. Bridging the gap is the
key to successful community building.
Page 2
Our Hypotheses About "What Works!" in Meeting This Challenge
• Economic competition occurs between regions in the global marketplace.
Economic competitiveness, therefore, should be tackled from a regional
perspective. Thus, human capital and economic infrastructure challenges
should also be addressed regionally.
• The old paradigm in human services delivery tends to reinforce dependency
instead of fostering self-sufficiency. Economic competitiveness demand a
more effective and efficient human services system that results in more
families being able to support themselves.
• A job is the best form of family economic self-sufficiency. However, we do
not have the kind of linkage between the human services system and
education and training resources that will provide employment for those
that can perform and want meaningful work. Human services should be
focused on preparing and enabling children to learn and assisting parents
and heads of households in securing the education and training needed to
become gainfully employed.
• Regional economic trends, resources and strategies can be linked with
the strengths and needs of particular communities to enhance the
requirements of both -- especially if the two disciplines
„(community/human service and economic development) can be brought
into close working teams and relationships.
• Government roles, in general, and their relationships with major private
and non-profit institutions will move from an emphasis on control,
regulation and service operations to one of facilitation. Community
residents, leaders and organizations will take on more responsibility for
defining local outcomes and building the partnerships and other
arrangements, involving a host of existing local resources, for achieving
them.
• Intervention models, structures and systems cannot be successfully.
proscribed from above, outside or a book. The most successful community
building efforts are those in which communities take the opportunity to
design and implement themselves. Thus none of the examples and models
described below should be interpreted as proscriptive or "requirements for
participation".
• What does seem to work is a particularly inclusive and collaborative way of
carrying out the decisionmaking process. This approach involves a
commitment to:
the achievement of community outcomes
Page 3
building relationships with community residents,
stakeholders, funders, providers and policymakers..
focus on community assets, values and goals.
• Finally, there are a host of existing initiatives already underway in every
corner of the Bay Area. They come in a variety of types, shapes and sizes
and are driven by many forces and opportunities. The challenge is to learn
from them, support them and bring them to scale.
Basic Principles of Action
Based upon these assumptions and.hypotheses, the participants have adopted the
following principles as the foundation of a more successful approach to building
communities and the best context for understanding the necessary approaches to health
and human service system improvement.
Fundamental Beliefs About "What Works!"
1. Community Assets: Build on a community's strengths, assets and resources --
do not just consider its needs and deficiencies.
2. Outcomes and Results: Focus on desired results and outcomes -- do not start
with services, programs and "presumed" solutions.
3. Jobs and Economic Self-Sufficiency: Strengthen opportunities for
employment and other chances to participate in the economic and social
mainstream.through relevant education, training and capital formation.
4. Social Fabric: Discover what residents can achieve for themselves and each
other using existing resources and informal support systems as essential tools for
building the enthusiasm, optimism and sense of confidence essential to and
characteristic of healthy communities.
5. Community Governance: Support community residents and their ideas, .
concerns and commitment to achieving community and neighborhood
decisionmaking mechanisms which institutionalize the capacity for such
empowerment. Strengthen effective connection between units of local
government, neighborhoods and communities.
6. Service.Integration: Integrate the administration, management, access to and
delivery of formal services needed by the community and its residents through
local multi-disciplinary mechanisms.
Page 4
Operational Strategies for Planning Action
1. Collaboration and partnerships: Increase and invest in cooperation and joint
and mutual communitywide decision-making among social institutions,
foundations, local governments, neighborhood associations and local service .
providers to ensure that rommunity wide outcomes are identified and achieved.
2. Knowledge and understanding of local conditions. Base decisions are based
on direct knowledge and understanding of the.circumstances in the area and
among the people affected.
3. Participation: Those affected should be centrally involved in defining, shaping
and delivering solutions that incorporate maximum usage of their resources and
assets.
4. Equity and Cultural Strength:. Honor and enforce "equal access", assure
cultural competence and build respect for the diversity of backgrounds,
perspectives, experiences and values of all.
5. Families: Support and preserye families in all their forms.
6. Prevention: Invest in approaches that recognize and address problems in their
earliest stages and that, over time, will prevent problems from occurring.
7. Public Policy and Advocacy: Advocate and work for needed changes in public
policy and practice that support these principles and strategies.
Ways To Make it Happen
1. Accountability: Ensure that all share and take maximum personal
responsibility for contributing to the well being of the community.
2. Leadership: Foster and support leadership from all sectors based upon our
collective and personal responsibility.
3. Solutions: Remember that solutions (outcomes, impact) are the goal, not
particular services or programs.
4. Active Players -- Not Clients: Recognize that all involved in planning,
operating and receiving are residents, taxpayers, voters and participants -- not
just clients or recipients.
5. Inclusion: Involve those who both deliver and receive services in design,
evaluation and improvement decisionmaking.
Page 5
i
6. Systems- Not Projects: Initiate efforts that will affect the way current
organizational and systems operate - not separately funded and operated
programs not rooted in "the way things are done!"
U. Proposed Demonstration Project
The following is an outline of a proposed demonstration project in the Bay Area that will
build healthy and self-sufficient communities prepared for the economic competition of the
21"century. It would be a federal-state-regional-local public-private partnership that
requires bold executive leadership and administrative directives from the U.S.
Departments of Health&Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education,
Commerce and Labor. This would be matched by creative and imaginative collaborative
new approaches among local public officials, community residents, foundations and
community leaders.
Purpose: Proposed then is a demonstration project whose purpose is: To assist,
support and enable Bay Area local governments, foundations, United Ways,
community-based organizations, neighborhoods and businesses committed to these
principles and hypotheses to implement them through cooperative efforts to:
1. Attract and mobilize resources;
2. Share ideas, lessons and experiences tried and tested locally and
elsewhere;
3. Forge a formal partnership with Federal and State policy makers and
administrators; and,
4. Strengthen public awareness, understanding and support for what is
working!
The cornerstone of this effort currently being put in place are:
• Local community agreement to apply these principles.
• Federal and State concurrence with local decision-making flexibility
in achieving agreed-upon outcomes.
Proposed Outcomes: As a result of the proposed work, the following Overall and
Intermediate Outcomes will be achieved:
Overall Project Outcome: In each county there will be in place a series of interventions
employing the principles to achieve agreed upon outcomes as the foundation for policy
and operations within the public, community and philanthropic institutions operating there.
These new operating approaches will have been enhanced, made feasible, better informed
and both politically and technically supported as a result of the collective efforts of those
committed to and active in this regional demonstration. Specifically, this means:
Page 6
• Initiatives now underway will be further advanced.
• Initiatives under consideration will be underway.
• Reforms being tested will be advanced to the institutionalized stage.
• Partnerships now being formed will be the basis of formal operating
relationships.
These local developments will be supported by a network of Federal, State and regional
funders and other resources providing training, technical assistance, funding and policy
support principles.
Additional Intermediate' Project Outcomes Essential to Long-Term Success:
1. County and Local Integrated Systems
Formal agreements among county,city, schools, neighborhood, business,
association and foundation organizations in each county/neighborhood or
community that provide the mechanism for operating common, integrated funding
decision making and service delivery pursuant to the systems redesign principles.
2. Federal and State Integrated Funding Streams
Formal operating agreements among Federal and State Departments (U.S. Health
&Human Services, Housing&Urban Development, Education, Labor and
Commerce) that provide for decategorization, integration and blending, as
appropriate, of funding streams related to the achievement of agreed upon local
outcomes through the Systems Redesign Principles.
3. Defining, Tracking and Using Outcomes Information
Local policies and practices providing for:
a) locally defined community and program outcomes;
b) collection and maintenance of community and program
outcomes information; and,
c) decisionmaking processes based upon progress towardi
achievement of community and program outcomes and
best strategies for achieving them
4. Systems Change Assessment and Decision-making
Agreed upon implementation plans and outcome measures for needed institutional
and infrastructure actions, reforms or changes among local parties.
Intermediate Outcome is defined as a result considered to be a steping stone or a integral step in the process toward
a long term goal or objective.
Page 7
5. Operating Employment and Neighborhood Linkages .
Increased access of local support teams to business, job training and
employment information and opportunities.
6. Regional Commitments to New Outcomes,Based Approaches
Policies and programs that enhance the success of local models adopted by
Regional funding and support organizations such as the United Way,
foundations, regional federal and state agencies including regional economic
strategies that support and complement local revitalization.'
Key Strategies: Economic Development Linkages and Local Governance Roles:
The two Key Strategies that underlie the project design are:
The Importance of Regional Economics to Local Self-Sufficiency: The feature
that sets this initiative apart is the intimate and unique relationship between the
community objectives related to family support, children and self-sufficiency and a
regional economic development strategy and mechanism.
The essential fact is that the key trigger for increased demand for services and
related costs is poverty. The existence of uneven and unequal distribution of
economic prosperity is reflected and exacerbated in pockets of severe and
continuing neighborhood poverty and perpetuated by continued patterns of
inequity as well as the drain of successful individuals and families from such
neighborhoods. A fundamental assumption of this initiative is that it is essential
that a regional mechanism be in place to address these inequities and to facilitate
the availability of economic information and opportunities for particular families
and individuals.
The most opportune way to accomplish this is for the general expansion of
economic opportunities -throughout the region and in the neighborhoods in
particular. A comprehensive and well thought out strategy can achieve it in both
' places by capitalizing on the region's major economic assets (e.g., technology,
transportation, information services) and local businesses that support and rise
with these core economic clusters. Neighborhoods and communities not directly
benefiting from macro developments can play a role in business and support
systems for the macro trends which can then, on a more local scale, begin to
provide the economic opportunities needed for revitalization.
Action steps: While these principles have been tried in individual instances it has
not been done successfully on a Bay Area wide scale. Proposed are opportunities
for business, economic and community development leaders and human service
and community leaders to share and identify strategies and approaches that Work.
Y��s
There is no cookbook or simple method for this. An effort that relies on the
expertise of those affected, involved and committed to the principles and
successful community building outcomes can start to construct the approaches
from which communities can learn and succeed. The relationships established
among these groups through the project can lead to the development of new
relationships at both the regional and-local levels to achieve the best linkages in
"each county. Benchmarking can establish useful models which can be shared
among participating neighborhoods, communities and counties.
Whatever models are applied, this linkage will provide increased employment
and training opportunities, through local teams, by providing:
• economic development and labor market information;
linkages with key regional and local business and economic
development initiatives;
• the opportunity for pinpointing local business developments, job
generation activities; and,
0 upcoming business action trends and opportunities.
Moreover, the potential to attract increased investment and funding to support
such opportunities is significantly increased by the regional aggregation of
economic development data, organizations, resources and perspectives.
The Governance Role of,Local Leadership: A second Key Strategy is the
emphasis on local leaders participating in the governance process - already
underway in many areas - by which different levels of government, business,
community organizations, service agencies, citizens and others make and help
implement the decisions and programs that they determine will work. These may
include:
• How the Principles are to be applied.to the development,
design and implementation of action strategies and
programs.
• Convening of diverse, cross sector, representative groups of
residents and organizations to create and take responsibility
for,the decision making process and its outcomes.
• Negotiation and approval of a cooperative agreements
between the county, cities and school districts within the
county to coordinate efforts for a specific set of outcomes,
including Goals 2000' (educational) performance objectives
as well as the State Department of Education and others.
'National education goals,published by the U.S.Department of Education.
Page 9
• Organization of county teams of cross-disciplinary workers
from social services, public health, alcohol and drug abuse,
mental health and probation assigned to school attendance
areas. Parents would also be member of the teams. City
and school resources are added to some existing teams.
The teams would be held accountable for specific outcomes
for the children and their families in their assigned school
attendance areas. The federal government would provide
approvals and/or waivers to allow the teams to function
effectively. The state would also provide approvals,
• Community involvement in the collection and presentation
of local asset, resources and basic data and in the
determination of goals, objectives and desired outcomes.
Program Elements Found in Local Initiatives
Following are six major operating and programmatic approaches characteristic of
local initiatives:
1. Local and Neighborhood-Based Decision making
Community and neighborhood collaborative decision making mechanisms
involving schools, city, county, residents, business, labor and community
organizations and individuals.
2. School, Neighborhood or Other Locally-Based Teams
School based strategies for strengthening families and children through
teams of county and non-profit agency, community(including parents and
children) and service workers backed by related public sector recreation,
community policing, housing, community and economic development
services.
3. Outcomes and Outcome Measurements
Agreed upon community and program outcomes and methods for
measuring and using them in the decision making process.
4'. Integrated Linkages with Regional and Local Economic Development
The application of business and economic development strategies, plans
and opportunities to neighborhood and community building,work.
PW 10
5. Regional Networking, Technical Assistance, Training and
Dissemination
Intercounty and community networking and project leadership activities
through a Project Council and series of regional information sharing and
skill development opportunities. Review and evaluation by communities
(residents, business, professionals) of outcomes and impacts.
6. Regional Governance and Communication Relationships
Regional support, training and communication linkages to share
knowledge, experience and technique; and to facilitate resolution of key
design issues. Implementation of dissemination strategies for successes and
lessons.
Communication, Governance and Management
The ultimate design of the project structure and the mechanisms for project leadership and
decision making will be developed by the participating partners in the second quarter of
1996. It will involve at least two dimensions:
• Local: Inclusive decisionmaking opportunities in a variety of forms for all
organizations and people involved.
• Regional: Forum for guiding intra county/intra community information
exchange and assistance, for issues identification and resolution and for
needed action planning.
One possible plan would involve the activities of local implementation teams tied into
regional economic development activities based upon existing collaboratives and
partnerships in each county and an overall Project Council based upon local leadership as
well as key regional stakeholders.
I. Local Implementation Teams -Made up of representative members of local
collaboratives in the county and of needed resource allocation, policy making and
community leadership bodies including appropriate city, county, school district,
United Way, community foundation and business as well as labor, professional,
resident, business and family representatives.
The function of these teams is to make sure that:
• key local (neighborhood and countywide) players are brought
together
9 necessary level of organizational cooperation is achieved
Page 11
• community outcomes, resource allocations and program
strategies are based upon the principles and locally driven.
needed assistance, training and inter county linkages are
identified and completed.
• technical, program and policy issues are brought to overall
Project Council
• the initiatives are, in fact, the foundation of community
infrastructure and operational change - at the county as well
as the private and community sector levels.
2. Project Council = The purpose of the Council is to facilitate communication
and transfer of information among partners, to identify imperatives for common
decisionmaking and to guide actions that will make the project successful such
as:
>::;� • Outreach to the counties and communities within the Bay Area
to facilitate action.
Linkage of economic competitiveness analyses and workforce
preparation conclusions to Education 2000 (and other
appropriate standards) performance objectives and training
needs within,the community.
• Mobilization of private funding resources within the region.
• Identification of priorities for new regional funding.
• Monitoring and evaluation of performance and progress.
• Review and analysis of Outcomes information.
F • Public information and education about the program.
• Provision of basic,demographic and related data and technical
assistance to communities.
Facilitation and organization of community meetings, as
appropriate.
• Convening and liaison assistance to communities.
• Facilitate development and use of learning network techniques
among counties and communities and made up of Representatives
of County Project Implementation Teams and Major Regional
Stakeholders.
G Each County: 3 Selected from each county from county
implementation teams (which include county, city, business,
community, school and community-based organizations.
[9 Counties = 27]
Major Regional Stakeholders: School Linked Services Consortium,
United Way, Urban Strategies Council, Central Labor Councils (2),
Business (2). [Up to a total of 18] '
Page 12
3. Regional Implementation "Caucuses": Provide opportunity for regional
interest groups: Federal, State, Foundation, Business and other stakeholders of
a regional nature to plan the ways they would deal with project policy and
implementation questions and issues.
4. Regionwide Assistance Network Brokers and provides formal training, technical
assistance and information dissemination.
5. Management: The initiative would be co-managed by the Northern California
Community Services Council, Inc. And the Bay Area Economic Forum. The
secretariat supported by the two groups.will provide staff support for the
development of agreements among the parties, the work of the Project Advisory
Council, coordinating local assistance and building communications linkages
among the county/community and neighborhood based initiatives and for
communication among various regional and local participants.
Outcomes and Project Evaluation:
The project will use two distinct types of evaluation tools:
1. Compile Local Program and Community Outcome Information
As each county partnership defines desired outcomes and begins to collect
outcome information through its agreed upon methods, there will be a collective
compilation of such information with an analysis of the circumstances and
conditions affecting both the achievement of individual program and community
outcomes.
2. Explore Validity of Demonstration Project Proposed Outcomes and Strategies
The best research shows that there are no simple and easy mechanisms for
measuring the outcomes of community wide comprehensive initiatives such as that
envisioned for this project. The best and most productive evaluation approaches
proposed by the field, especially when the creation of inter-departmental, inter-
sector infrastructure is underway is to turn the project design's underlying beliefs
and assumptions into hypotheses which can be tested against the experiences,
processes and results of the project.'
See Connell, Kubish, Schorr and Weiss, New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives:Concepts, Methods and
Contexts (Aspen Institute, 1995)in particular the Carol Weiss article,pp. 65-92. See also Wholey, Hairy and Newcomer,
editors, The Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, in particular the article by Joseph Wholey, Assessing the
Feasibility and Likely Usefulness of Evaluation,"pp. 15-39.
Page 13
The project's proposed outcomes are based upon a series of assumptions and
beliefs about what works gleaned by project leadership from its own experiences
and research which can be considered and used as hypotheses for the initiative.
Among them include the following:
1. When individuals and families tackle problems which they have
selected with solutions they have agreed to and help implement, they
focus on the results, their personal investment and commitment to the
goal is higher making the chance of success greater.
2. Collaboration among funders, residents, public entities and others
creates a critical mass of energy, focus and resources that have an
impact greater than the sum of the individual investments.
3. A conscious focus on outcomes as a starting point for decisionmaking
and collaboration can create more efficient, direct and focused use of
resources and a higher level of concentration on the ultimate result
desired.
4. Increased implementation and design decision making capacity at the
most local level increases the effectiveness of the resources involved -
especially if done in conjunction with the collaborative and
involvement principles above.
5. The systems redesign principles,when applied together create a more
effective set of guidelines for community decision making than when
considered and applied separately.
6. Direct linkage of regional and local economic development activities,
information and opportunities will improve effectiveness and success
of community and neighborhood community building work.
The Project's evaluation component will assess these and other basic hypotheses
related to the project's strategies and accomplished outcomes. What has been
learned about achieving impact and the systems redesign principles?
III. Implementation: Six Steps to Moving Forward
There are six basic steps needed to make this idea a reality:
1. Collective Agreement To Move Forward Together:
Based upon existing initiatives, county governments and their local school,
municipal and community partners agree on the demonstration project as a means
to further the "Systems Redesign" principles and to learn and act collectively to:
promote the principles, attract resourcesm work with other units of government.
Page 14
(Attached is a proposed "lift off'plan designed to pinpoint the work that is
required to move this project to the point of Bay Area wide local support)
2. Create a Bay Area Decision Team of Implementers - Partners and Participants
who will sign on and develop the Implementation Plan for the Project.
• State and Federal Officials
• Local Officials
• State and Local organizations and networks
• Business and Foundation Leadership
• Community and Neighborhood organizations
• Community-Based and Public Sector Human Service Leadership
3. Catalogue "On-the-Ground" and Successful Models
These are just a few of the efforts already in existence which apply the
principles related to partnerships, community involvement, services integration
and the use of community assets. Each has unique experiences and insights to
inform the larger "redesign" work.
• North Richmond Services Integration and Bay Point Family
Preservation Programs
• Del Paso Heights Community Governance
• Oakland Schools, County Departments and Neighborhoods
• Success by 6 in Richmond
• Base Closure initiative in Napa-Solano
• San Mateo Services Integration and Local Collaboratives North
Vallejo Project: Neighborhood Association
San Francisco Homeless Continuum of Care Plan,
• San Francisco Neighborhood Initiatives
• Healthy Start Programs in a Variety of Communities
4. Develop the Resources and Tools for Supporting and Accelerating the Work
Identify or develop decision making tools and techniques needed to make this
approach successful; e.g., Community Assets Mapping, Services Integration
Training, Skills Curricula, Neighborhood and Resident Decision making and
Support Skills as well as mobilize and catalogue existing training and technical
assistance capacity; e.g.. Systems Reform Learning Network, University of
California School of Social Welfare, etc.
5. Create Economic Development and Neighborhood Links
Establish linkages between economic development leaders, business and
professionals and those involved in neighborhood revitalization and
community building work.
Page 15
6. Design Locally-Based Implementation Plans and Actions
Identify ways to build upon and strengthen work already begun or well
underway in,each County by strengthening collaborative relationships, building
on additional community assets, identification of key challenges and lessons and
identification and mobilization of additional resources.
(t:l conceptp.rl l I revised:l!26/96)
Page 16
Building Healthy and Self-Sufficient Communities for
Economic Prosperity
"Moving from Services to Outcomes, Dependence to Self-Sufficiency and Needs to Assets!"
Exhibit 1 - Outcomes, Roles and Responsibilities
Outcomes Strategies Involvement and Assistance
Responsibility of...... and Support
COUNTY AND Strategy 2 Project Implementation Secretariat
LOCAL Teams in Each County and
INTEGRATED Assistance
SYSTEMS Network
INTEGRATION OF Strategy 6 Project Council Federal,
FEDERAL AND State Project
STATE FUNDING Leadership
STREAMS
Regional
Directors
and
Department
Heads
DEFINING, Strategy 1,2, 3 and 5. Project Implementation Secretariat
TRACKING AND Teams in Each County and Regional
USING AGREED Assistance
UPON LOCAL Network
OUTCOMES
CHANGED Strategy 2 and 5 Project Implementation Regional
SYSTEMS Teams in each County Assistance
Network and
Secretariat
EMPLOYMENT AND Strategy 1,2, 4 and 5 Project Implementation Regional
NEIGHBORHOOD Teams in each county Assistance
LINKS Network and
Secretariat
REGIONAL Strategy 6 Project Council and Regional
COMMITMENT TO appropriate Regional Assistance
LOCAL OUTCOMES Caucuses Network and
APPROACH AND Secretariat
PRINCIPLES
(t:conceptp.rl l l updated:2/21/96)
Exhibit 2: Lift-Off Plan and Timeline
Step Action Party Date
1. Identify Board of Supervisor Appointee from Each Ed & County 12/20-
County Contacts 12/29/9
5
2. County Chair(incoming) Ratifies Existing Appointee New/ 2/20/95-
and Adds Additional Representative, if needed Continuing BOS 1/9/96
Chair
3. Bay Area County Elected Officials and Senior Staff See Attached 1/5/96
Meet to Act On Plan for Demonstration Project Roster
Identify Municipal and School Officials
Identify Key County Initiatives&Leadership
' - Adopt Time Line and Targets
4. Counties Follow Up and Complete 3 Elements of Step Lead County 1/5 - 2/9
#3. Representatives
5. Identification of Regional Stakeholders: Business, Ed and System 1/25
Labor, School Linked Services, Foundations Redesign
Committee
6. Working Group Refines and Revises Design Elements Ed and System 1/31
Paper Redesign
Working Group
7. Follow up Meeting of Key County Participants: Ed Coordinates 2/9
Elected Officials and Key Representatives- 3 Per Participation
County with Lead
County Person
8. County based Meetings to Build Support for Action Lead County 1/15 -
Plan and Project Staff 2/15
9. Final Meeting of Elected Officials and County Ed Coordinates 3/8/96
Community Representatives Participation
and Agenda
with Lead
County Person
10. County Boards of Supervisors Formally Act to Proceed Boards of 3/12/96
Supervisors of
3/19/96
(tooncrptpA I\updatod:2/21/96)
Exhibit 3: Proposed Outcomes
PUBLIC LEADERSHIP AWARENESS AND COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY-BUILDING AGENDA
ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CAPACITY NEEDS AND ACTIVITIES
BODY OF LEARNINGS ABOUT COMMUNITY BUILDING-WITH INCREASED ACCESS BY
DECISIONMAKERS
IMPROVEMENTS IN OUTCOME-BASED AND COMMUNITY BUILDING DECISIONMAKING TOOLS
CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY BUILDING: SERVICES INTEGRATION, NEIGHBORHOOD AND
COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE
COMPACT-BASED UPON PRINCIPLES AND LEARNINGS
RESEARCH MATERIALS -REPORTS, BRIEFING PAPERS
INFORMAL VISITS AND ROUNDTABLES
CREATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA NETWORK
(tAconceptp.rll\updated 2/21/96)
Exhibit 4
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT OF COLLABORATING IN AREA-WIDE
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
WHEREAS, the County is committed to.the best practices for the Health and Welfare of its Residents,
WHEREAS, there is ample evidence that the resources spent by our nation, state and communities have not
achieved the level of well being, self-sufficiency and sustainability that we expect we can and should achieve,
WHEREAS, recent research and experience has pointed to the importance of new approaches that are focused
on outcomes,oriented to family and community assets, emphasizing family support, involving "clients" and
neighborhoods as "customers" and linking such approaches to economic and neighborhood revitalization
strategies have shown significant promise of achieving greater results.
WHEREAS, our county has begun to use these concepts and approaches in a (N—of project,geographic—,problem or issue}
WHEREAS, a group of Bay Area counties has begun to benchmark best practices, share information, lessons
and experiences and support the development of such learnings and efforts particularly in preparation for
negotiations with the State and Federal governments.
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Economic Forum and the Northern California Council for the Community offer their
support in staffing and supporting our work.
WHEREAS, these two organizations are partners with and supported by the Bay Area Council, ABAG and The
United Way.
And, In Order To:
Better serve our residents
Continue to improve the effectiveness and impact of our services
Build Economic Vitality and Sustainability of all the Communities and Neighborhoods
Improve our knowledge of what is working in the Bay Area and elsewhere
Inform and strengthen our communications and relationships with the State and Federal Governments,
Now, Therefore it is resolved that the Board of Supervisors of County supports and
encourages:
I Collaboration with our colleagues in the Bay Area to identify the best economic and community
development practices and share such information and lessons with one another; and
2. Supports in concept strategies which maximize the usefulness and application of such initiatives for
the benefit of all our residents.
Dated this day of 1996.
Chief of the Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
(1:1brdresot.131--3rd draft,1131196)
BAY AREA COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS ROSTER
2/9/96
CAlameda County Marin County (continued)
Supervisor Gail Steele Jane Chopson,Director
Alameda County Board of Supervisors Marin County Department of Social Services
1221 Oak Street,Suite 536 20 No.San Pedro Road,Suite 2028
Oakland,CA 94612 San Rafael,CA 94903
(510)272-6692 (510)271-5115 [FAX] (415)499-6950 (415)499-3791 [FAX]
Alison Lewis San Francisco County
Administrative Aide
Supervisor Gail Steele's Office Deborah Alvarez-Rodriguez,Director
1221 Oak Street,Suite 536 Founder/CEO
i Oakland,CA 94612 Every Child Can Learn Foundation
(510)272-6692 (510)271-5115[FAX] 225 Bush Street,Suite 350
San Francisco,CA 94104
Roger Lum,Director (415)955-5790 (415)955-5799 [FAX]
Alameda Social Services Agency
401 Broadway,Room 500 Pam David
Oakland,CA 94607 S.F.Enterprise Community Program Coordinator
(510)268-2002 (510)268-7366[FAX] Mayor's Office of Community Development
25 Van Ness Avenue,#700
Contra Costa County San Francisco,CA 94102
(415)252-3167 (415)252-3110[FAX]
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors San Mateo County
651 Pine Street,Room 108
Martinez,CA 94553 Supervisor Mary Griffin
(510)646-2080 (510)646-1396[FAX] San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
401 Marshall Street-The Hall of Justice
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Redwood City,CA 94063
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (415)3634571 (415)599-1027[FAX]
2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 110
Concord,CA 94520 Supervisor Ruben Barrales
(510)646-5763 (510)646-5767[FAX] San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
401 Marshall Street-The Hall of Justice
Karen Mitchoff,Chief of Staff Redwood City,CA 94063
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier's office (415)3634570 (415)599-1027[FAX]
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors —
2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 110 Maureen Borland,Director
Concord,CA 94520 Human Services Agency-County of San Mateo
(510)646-5763 (510)646-5767[FAX] 400 Harbor Blvd.
Belmont,CA 94002
Claude Van Marter,Assistant County Administrator (415)595-7555 (415)595-7516[FAX]
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Nana County
Martinez,CA 94553
(510)646-2602 (510)6464098[FAX] Terry Longoria,Director
Napa County Health&Human Services
Mary Foran,Director P.O.Box 329-2261 Elm Street
Office for Service Integration Napa,CA 94559
Contra Costa Department of Health Services (707)2534279 (707)253-3062[FAX]
597 Center Avenue,Suite 365
Martinez,CA 94553 Gail Feldman,Administrative Analyst
(510)313-6256 (510)313-6708 Napa County Administration
1195-3rd Street,Room 310
Marin County Napa,CA 94559
(707)2534821 (707)2534176[FAX]
Dr.Tom Peters
Director,Health&Human Services
County of Marin
20 No. San Pedro Road,Suite 2028
San Rafael,CA 94903
(415)499-3696 (415)499-3791 [FAX]
m
(continued neat page)
4
Santa Clara County Solano-Napa Human Services Leadership Councit
Supervisor Dianne McKenna Cynthia Kay
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Chair,Formal Systems Committee
County Government Center Solano-Napa Human Services Leadership Council
70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor 101 Caughlin Street
San Jose,CA 95110 Vallejo,CA 94590
(408)2994321 (408)280-0418[FAX] (707)642-6167 (707)644-0320[FAX]
Katie Ryan Dan Corsello
Administrative Aide 2541 Dorset Street
County of Santa Clara Napa,CA 94558
County Government Center (707)255-8276 (707)2534155
70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor
San Jose,CA 95110 Co-Chairs.Ad Hoc Committee on Systems Redesign
(408)2994321 (408)280-0418[FAX]
Sunne McPeak
Solana County President&Chief Executive Officer
Bay Area Economic Forum
Supervisor Barbara Kondylis 200 Pine Street,Suite 300
Solano County Board of Supervisors San Francisco,CA 94104
321 Tuolomne Street (415)981-7117 (415)981-6408[FAX]
E Vallejo,CA 94590
(707)553-5363 (707)553-5672[FAX] Grantland Johnson
Regional Director-Region DC
Donald Rowe U.S.Dept.Of Health&Human Services
Director,Solano County Health&Social 50 United Nations Plaza
Services Department San Francisco,CA 94102
i 1735 Enterprise Drive,Bldg.#3 MS-3-220 (415)556-1961 (415)556-1023 [FAX]
Fairfield,CA 945534090
(707)421-6643 (707)421-6618[FAX] The United Way
Sonoma County Candy Rose,Ed.D.
Vice Chair,The United Way Board of Directors
Supervisor Tim Smith &President,Contra Costa College
County of Sonoma'Board of Supervisor 2600 Mission Bell Drive
575 Administration Drive,Room 100-A San Pablo,CA 94806 ,
Santa Rosa,CA 94503 (510)235-7800•x205 (510)236-6768[FAX]
h (707)527-2241 (707)527-3778[FAX]
Anne Wilson
Alison Sanford Executive Vice President
Administrative Aide The United Way
County of Sonoma Board of Supervisor 50 California Street,Suite 200
575 Administration Drive,Room]00-A San Francisco,CA 941114698
Santa Rosa,CA 94503 (415)7724346 (415)291-8392[FAX]
(707)527-2241 (707)527-3778[FAX]
NCCSC
Ben Stone
Economic Development Director Ed Schoenberger
County of Sonoma President
401 College Avenue#D Northern California Community Services Council
Santa Rosa,CA 95401 50 California Street,Suite 200
(707)524-7170 (707)524-7231 [FAX] San Francisco,CA 941114698
(415)7724304 (415)391-8302[FAX]
Becky Park DeStigter
Research Director Mary Suloway
County of Sonoma Executive Vice President
401 College Avenue#D Northern California Community Services Council
Santa Rasa,CA 95401 50 California Street,Suite 200
(707)524-7170 (707)524-7231 [FAX] San Francisco,CA 941114698
I (415)772-7316 (415)391-8302[FAX]
i
(Page 2)
Ad Hoc Committee on Systems Redesign
Exhibit 5 (b)
ROSTER
2/1/96
Deborah Alvarez-Rodriguez Maureen Borland
Founder/CEO Director, Human Services Agency
Every Child Can Learn Foundation County of San Mateo -
225 Bush Street, Suite 350 400 Harbor Blvd.
San Francisco, CA 94104 Belmont, CA 94002
(415) 955-5790 (415) 595-7555
(415) 955-5799 [FAX] (415) 595-7516 [FAX]
Kathy Armstrong Connie Busse
Executive Director Executive Director
Zellerbach Family Fund Greater Bay Area Family Resource Network
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2125 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 224
San Francisco, CA 94104. San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 421-2629 (415) 247-6555
(415) 421-6713 [FAX] (415) 247-6559 [FAX]
Professor Michael (Mike) Austin Carol Callen
School of Social Welfare Lifeline Coordinator
University of California--Berkeley The San Francisco Foundation
120 Haviland Hall 685 Market Street, Suite 910
Berkeley, CA 94720-7400 San Francisco, CA 94105
(510) 642-7066 [W] (415) 923-9929 [H] (415) 495-3100
(510) 643-6126 [FAX] (415) 442-0495 [FAX]
Larry Baack Maria Casey
Senior Vice President President
Solem & Associates Urban Strategies Council
550 Kearny Street, Suite 1010 672 13`h Street
San Francisco, CA. 94108 Oakland, CA 94.612
(415) 788-7788 (510) 893-2404
(415).788-7858 [FAX] (510) 893-6657 [FAX]
Arthur Bolton Jane Chopson, Director
Director Marin County Department of Social Services
Center for.Integrated-Services County of Marin
for Families and Neighborhoods 20 North San Pedro Road, Suite 2028
A Project of the Western Consortium San Rafael, CA 94903
for Public Health (415) 499-6950
University of California -- Sacramento y (415) 499-3791[FAX]
1620 6`� Street ✓
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446-9238 [Phone & FAX]
[r:�W-hoc\"tcf, Page 1
Ad Hoc Committee on Systems Redesign
Judy Chynoweth Supervisor Mary Griffin
Executive Director County of San Mateo
Foundation Consortium for 401 Marshall Street
School-Linked Services Redwood City, CA 94063
1321 Garden Highway (415) 363-4571
Sacramento, CA 95833 (415) 599-1027 [FAX]
(916) 646-3646
(916) 922-4024 [FAX] Joseph Hafey
Executive Director
Fran Cooper Western Consortium for Public Health
Partner 2001 Addison Street, #200
Communications Sciences Group Berkeley, CA 94704
140- 2nd Street, Suite 600 (510) 644-9300
San Francisco, CA 94105 (510) 644-9319 [FAX]
(415) 541-9551
(415) 995-8196 [FAX] Michael Howe
Executive Director
Pam David East Bay Community Foundation
S.F. Enterprise Community Program 501 Wickson Avenue
Coordinator Oakland, CA 94610
Mayor's Office of Community Development (510) 836-3223
25 Van Ness Avenue, #700 (510) 836-3287 [FAX]
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 252-3167 Henry Izumizaki
(415) 252-3110 [FAX] Executive Director
Urban Strategies'Council
Nancy Faass, MSW, MPH 672 - 13' Street
1550 California Street, #195 Oakland, CA 94612
San Francisco, CA 94109 (514) 893-2404
(415) 922-6234 (510) 893-6657 [FAX]
(415) 775-0634 [FAX]
Grantland Johnson.
Mary Foram,Director Regional Director- Region Ix.
Office for Service Integration U.S. Department of Health &Human Services
Contra Costa Department of Health Services 50 United Nations Plaza
597 Center Avenue, Suite 365., San Francisco, CA 94102
Martinez, CA 94553., (415) 556-1961
(510).313-6256. :, (415) 556-1023 [FAX]
(510)313-6708 [FAX]
Elaine Lee
Stephen Graham Program Coordinator, Koshland Awards
Director of Community Health Partnerships The San Francisco Foundation
Kaiser Permanente 685 Market Street,.Suite 910
975 Sereno Drive San Francisco, CA 94105
Vallejo, CA 94589 (415) 495-3100
(707) 648-7688 (415) 442-0495 [FAX]
(707) 648-6459 [FAX]
Page 2
Ad Hoc Committee on Systems Redesign
JLIISe Maisano Ginny Puddefoot
Program Officer Senior Program Analyst
S.H. Cowell Foundation Foundation Consortium for School-
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2570. Linked Services
/ San Francisco, CA 94104 1321 Garden Highway
(415) 397-0285 Sacramento, CA 95833
(415) 986-6786 [FAX] (916) 646-3646
(916) 922-4024 [FAX]
John Maltbie, County Manager
County of San Mateo Liz Resner
County Government Center Coordinator, Continuum of Care
401 Marshall Street Mayor's Office, City & County of San
Redwood City, CA 94063 Francisco
(415) 363-4121 401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 329
(415) 363-1916 [FAX] San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-6466 [W] (415) 252-3138 [H]
.Sunne McPeak (415) 554-6108 [FAX]
President & Chief Executive Officer
Bay Area Economic Forum Candy Rose, EdD
200 Pine Street, Suite 300 President, Contra Costa College
San Francisco, CA 94104 2600 Mission Bell Drive
(415) 981-7117 San Pablo, CA 94806
(415) 981-6408 [FAX] (510) 235-7800 X205
(510) 236-6768 [FAX]
Ed Nathan
1159 Arch Donald Rowe
Berkeley, CA 94708 Director, Solano County Health &
(510) 524-3948. Social Services Department
1735 Enterprise Drive,
Richard Navarro Bldg., #3 MS-3-220
Senior Vice President Fairfield, CA 94533-4090
The United Way (707) 421-6643
P.O. Box 5010 (707) 421-6618 [FAX]
San Mateo, CA 94402
(415) 525-3501 Bruce Seaton, Chair
(415) 570-6307.[FAX] The United WayBoard of Directors
os
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 911
Jahn G. Ott San Francisco, CA. 94104
President (415) 291-1961
Partners in Innovation (415) 291-1966 [FAX]
1023 W. Trinity Avenue
`.A Durham, NC 27701 Joan Sparks
(919) 956-8285. Director, Community Services Department
(919) 988-7533 [FAX] County of Contra Costa
1220 Morello Avenue, #101
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 313-7360
(510) 313-7385 [FAX].
Page 3
Ad Hoc Committee on Systems Redesign
'I Supervisor Gail Steele NCCSC" Resource People/Staff:
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak Street, Suite 536 Paul Harder
Oakland, CA 94612 Principal, Harder+Company
(510)272-6692 444 DeHaro Street, Suite.202
(510) 271-5115 [FAX] San Francisco-, CA 94107
(415) 522-5400
Betty Times .(41,5):522-5445 [FAX]
�j Director
F Marin City Project Fred Persily. _
620 Drake Avenue Consultant
Marin City,'CA 94965 50 Ridge Road
(415) 331-0183 Fairfax, CA 94930
(415) 331-6774 [FAX] (415).453 0124 :
j
(415),453-0125 [FAX]
Joan Twiss,Director
' California Healthy.Cities " Ed Schoenberger
{ Mailing Addretci P.O. Box 942732 . President
..Mail Station 675 -:Sacramento, CA :942344320 Northern California Community.
Office Address: , 601 North r Street Services Council, Inc.
Sacramento, CA .94234-7320 50 California Street;.Suite 200
}, (916) 327-7017 San Francisco, CA 94111-4696
(916) 324-7763 [FAX] - - (415) 772-4304
(415)I91 8302 [FAX].
Claude Van Marter
Assistant Connt `,Administrator
Count of Contra`Costa F Execut ve Vice President
y
Y?
y
65f Pme"Street, 11'�*Floor Northern California Community
Martinez CA:--i,94553.',`, Services Council Inc
(510) 646-2602'' S0 Califorma'Street, Suite 200
(510):646-4098'.[FAX] } _ < x San Francisco, CA 94111 4696
S •; ..
(415) 772 7316 °.
Anne Wilson ' xr (415) 391 8302 [FAX]
Executive Vice President
County Leadership s: £ 1y.:: rr David S. White
The United Way of the Bay Area Associate Vice President
50 CaLforma S Street; Suite 200 _ Northern California Community
San yFranc�sco; CA 94111 X4696 f Ser"vices Councd, Inc.
(415) 772-4346' 50 California'Street, Suite 200
r(415) 291-8392 [FAX] Saw, rancisco, CA'94111 4696
(415)x-772 4467
[F
148),301-83 02 AX]
:
,r:�ad-hw\nwtcr) Page 4