HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3478
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3478)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 3/5/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Follow Up - Human Services Needs Assessment
Title: Presentation of Follow up Items From Human Services Needs
Assessment
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) recommends that Council adopt of all
recommendations listed in this supplemental report.
Executive Summary
This report provides the HRC’s response to follow up items requested by the Finance
Committee when the “Human Services Needs Assessment with Special Emphasis on
Human Service Resource Allocation Process Report” was reviewed at its June 19, 2012
meeting.
Background
In April 2011, the Finance Committee requested that the Human Relations Commission
(HRC) provide it with a Human Services Needs Assessment (HSNA) with special
emphasis on the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). At the crux of
the report were the following questions: What is the nature and extent of human needs
in Palo Alto, how well are they being met, and what potential service improvements
may be needed? The HSNA report was presented to the Finance Committee at its
meeting on June 19, 2012 (Attachment A: Human Services Needs Assessment Report,
Attachment B: Excerpt from June 19.2012 Finance Committee Minutes) Based on that
meeting, the Finance Committee had four issues that they asked the HRC to study
further. These issues were:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1. BUDGET: The justification for an allocation of one-time funds to HSRAP for use
in better meeting needs in the community and a review of the HRC’s alternative
recommendation to reduce future grants to current recipients in order to
reallocate the freed funds to meet emerging needs.
2. COLLABORATION: The rationale for and objectives of cooperation and
collaboration among HSRAP grantees to make the human services safety net of
agencies more efficient and effective.
3. FOCUS: A further review of the relative emphasis on a) “quality of life”
considerations and b) a focus on low-income individuals and families as the chief
target of HSRAP funding.
4. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: A discussion as to whether Adolescent Counseling
Services (ACS) and Youth Community Services (YCS) and/or other agencies,
should be considered for award of longer multi-year contracts, as are granted to
Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) and Avenidas.
A productive meeting with HSRAP grantees was held on November 6, 2012, to discuss
budget and collaboration issues. The comments made there and the HRC’s further
deliberations are included in this follow-up report. In addition, the HRC met separately
in August and December of 2012 and January of 2013, to discuss issues of focus and
special relationships.
Discussion
ISSUE #1, BUDGET
For background on this issue, see Attachment A – Human Services Needs Assessment -
Executive Summary, Recommendation #1 - Funding.
After making it clear that the City was in no financial position to increase the HSRAP
budget (original funding recommendation #1) on a permanent basis, the Finance
Committee said it would consider an allocation of non-recurring funds from the interest
on the share of the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Health
and Safety funds. In March 2013, staff anticipates taking a report to the City Council to
outline future uses of these funds, as well as an allocation process. While $34,000 in
interest has been earned through December 2012 for the current fiscal year and
$260,000 in interest was earned last fiscal year, staff would prefer to wait until the City
Council has reviewed and considered that report before bringing forward a
recommendation on the utilization of the interest earnings. Accordingly, the discussion
with HSRAP grantees dealt with general topics rather than specific proposals.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
There are a number of areas where one-time funding can be put to good use in
enhancing the potency of the work of HSRAP grantees, examples include;
1. Building electronic systems that will enable:
a. Patient management infrastructure (a likely requirement of the Affordable
Care Act).
b. Development of a system for tracking and managing volunteers in order to
more effectively leverage volunteering.
2. Purchase of a vehicle for transporting people to be operated by one agency on
behalf of several. Uses could include helping to get people to job interviews, to
hot meals, to medical appointments, etc.
3. Studies of how to meet growing space needs so that agencies can plan
fundraising and grant-seeking to meet those needs.
4. Training of trainers in techniques for more effective management of non-profits,
e.g., human resources management; recruiting, retention, and use of volunteers
(intake screening, training, retention; sharing volunteers among organizations);
developing capacity in one organization that agrees to share with others.
5. Engage an organization such as Compass Point to provide workshops on board
recruiting, development, and retention; CEO and staff coaching and
development; building fundraising capacity; assessing outcomes diagnostically in
order to improve service.
6. Hire consultants on how to better serve people with disabilities.
7. Fund one or more pilot programs on cooperation and collaboration (see
Recommendation #2 below).
8. Direct services to clients- examples include the ability to assist additional patients
with vaccines at a low-income health clinic, additional food for a hungry family,
etc.
Recommendation #1:
The Human Relations Commission recommends that an allocation of non-
recurring funds from the interest on the Health and Safety Funds of the Stanford
University Medical Center Development Agreement in the amount of $100,000 be
approved as one time funding to support one time HSRAP projects.
The HRC believes that if $100,000 was allocated to this effort with, for example,
$25,000 spend each year for a total of four years, that it could be put to effective use
funding projects such as those noted above.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Regarding the HRC’s alternative budget recommendation to cut continuing budgets
(possibly between 3-5%) to free funds for reallocation for new and emerging needs,
the meeting with HSRAP grantees produced a resounding negative assessment of that
option. These were the more telling among many objections:
1. Cutting City money reduces credibility of an agency with other donors.
2. Reductions would reduce services that would, in turn, simply redistribute needs
to be met elsewhere and overstress staff and volunteers.
3. Cuts would simply reduce the number of people served producing more
homeless; more parents without childcare who could not work or advance their
education; and more needs across the spectrum would not be met.
4. Within the spectrum of already aided agencies, emerging needs are assessed
and, as resources allow, met; innovations are tried and successful ones
implemented. Funding for innovation is integral to existing agencies as they
constantly work to improve their effectiveness.
5. When budgets are cut, needs don’t go away; thus, agencies whose budgets are
reduced will reduce the level or amount of their services in order not to abandon
existing clients.
Recommendation #2:
The Human Relations Commission recommends the discontinuance of
consideration of alternative budget recommendation #1 which states that
continuing grants above $10,000 will, at the expiration of present contracts, be
subject to a 3 - 5 percent annual reduction, with the freed funds made available
for new programs and new agencies.
ISSUE #2, COLLABORATION & COOPERATION
For background on this issue, see Attachment A – Human Services Needs Assessment -
Executive Summary, Recommendation #2 - Collaboration and Cooperation.
In preparing its HSNA report, the HRC realized that for differently focused, high
demand, and under-resourced nonprofits, organized and comprehensive
collaboration across varied agencies (as contrasted to focused and specific joint efforts)
would not be essential to the successful operation of the agency, but aspects of
City of Palo Alto Page 5
collaboration would be helpful and desirable. In one area where collaboration is useful
(and already takes place), agencies work with similar agencies on related issues,
address common problems, and influence relevant public policy and private sector
interests.
HSRAP grantees would be interested in cooperation and collaboration across the HSRAP
network that is meaningful and practical, where, for example, activities are sponsored
from which each can derive benefits useful to it. Examples would include:
1. Coordinated gathering one or two times a year for:
a. Topics specialized to Palo Alto, such as current and anticipated needs that
cannot be met within normal scope of the City or schools or the existing
nonprofit community.
b. Presentations by City staff or outside experts on topics such as
1) Disaster preparedness, to better equip nonprofits to contribute to disaster
response and recovery.
2) Energy conservation.
3) Risk management and insurance.
4) Human resource policies and practices.
2. Collaborating on the cultivation, development, and coordination of volunteers.
3. Setting up a “listserv” to enable nonprofits to communicate easily with one
another on topics of mutual interest.
4. Meeting with experts on various aspects of nonprofit best practices in
management, fundraising, assessment, board recruiting and development, and
policy. (It is much too expensive for small organizations to utilize consultants
alone; more economical to bring consultants into the nonprofit community.)
5. Coming together for trainings in practices of broad utility.
6. Having agencies come as guest speakers to gatherings of other agencies for
purposes of cross-fertilization of ideas and in order to build inter-agency
relationships.
7. Convening for other purposes as determined by the HSRAP grantees.
Many of these instances of cooperation and collaboration cost money and could be
assisted by allocations from funds allocated in response to Issue #1, Budget, as
described above.
The HSRAP grantees let us know that the HSRAP solicitation and acceptance process
sometimes puts the agencies in a vendor-like relationship with the City. Because the
HSRAP agencies contribute to the well-being of the City and its residents overall, a
City of Palo Alto Page 6
partnership relationship would be more consistent with the joint goal of the good of
the community. Some of the items noted above reflect sharing of goals and expertise.
Some practices already reflect this partnership relationship, e.g., subsidized space.
Others might include subsidized City-provided utilities; consulting from city staff; and
enabling nonprofits to qualify for purchasing discounts.
Recommendation #3
The Human Relations Commission recommends that the City host a bi-annual
gathering of nonprofits to plan for follow-through on prioritized topics as
identified above by HSRAP grantees.
ISSUE #3, FOCUS
For background on this issue, see Attachment A – Human Services Needs Assessment -
Executive Summary, Recommendation #3 – Basic Needs and Quality of Life Criteria: the
influence of each on HSRAP emphasis.
In the HSNA report, the HRC addressed the broad criteria for describing the target of
HSRAP funds. Loosely categorizing them as “quality of life” and “low-income,” the HRC
meant to call out the ambiguity in “quality of life,” given that it is also satisfied by so
much else that is provided by the City and the school district.
Describing a Palo Alto resident as “low income” is a sometimes useful way of indicating
that the resident may need assistance with food, shelter, transportation, healthcare,
and other human services. However, a more accurate description would be that the
resident lacks the resources required to access human services. In that sense, having a
low income is often a prime indicator of need.
But it is by no means the only indicator. There are other vulnerable populations in Palo
Alto who may have financial means, and yet lack the resources to access necessary
human services. For example:
A depressed adolescent from a well‐to‐do family may need counseling, but be
unable to get counseling because of family pressure, peer pressure, social
stigma, etc. By making low‐cost, confidential counseling services available
through HSRAP, the City gives our youth access to a life‐enhancing or even life-
saving human service without regard to income.
A senior with financial security may become the victim of elder abuse and be
unable to address it independently because of fear, shame, limited mobility,
cognitive impairment, and other psychological and physical factors. By providing
City of Palo Alto Page 7
subsidized legal services through HSRAP, the City helps seniors overcome these
barriers and get the protection they need.
An unhoused individual from an affluent family may struggle with mental health
problems or drug‐ and alcohol‐abuse problems, and be unable to request or
receive treatment without HSRAP‐funded outreach programs such as Momentum
Mental Health and InnVision Shelter Network
Recommendation #4
The Human Relations Commission recommends that in order to sharpen the
criterion and provide for clearer guidance regarding the target of HSRAP funds,
that instead of “low income” vs. “quality of life,” the Finance Committee consider
the financial, social, cultural, psychological and physical barriers that prevent
Palo Alto residents from accessing the human services they need. The HRC sees
the real issue as a lack of resources—which occurs in myriad forms across
income levels. At the same time, we recommend that the Council continue to use
“low income” as a key indicator of need, although not an exclusive one.
ISSUE #4 –Addition of Adolescent Counseling Services and Youth Community
Services (and others) to “special” category of HSRAP recipients.
As requested by the Finance Committee at its June 19, 2012 meeting, the HRC was
asked to explore the compatibility of adding Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS) and
Youth Community Services (YSC) to the “special category” of grantees that includes
Avenidas and PACCC, who, de facto, receive ongoing HSRAP approval due to their
“longstanding” historical relationship with the City and who are on six-year funding
contracts.
The HRC had a robust follow-up discussion on this matter at its December 2012 meeting.
In reviewing this matter for the Finance Committee, the Commission considered the
concept of new “special” relationships in general as there are other HSRAP grantees
who have had relationships with the City that are equal in length to that of ACS and
YCS. Staff provided Commissioners with information from both ACS and YSC as to their
past relationship with the City.
In the end the HRC decided not to recommend to the Finance Committee the concept of a
“special” relationship to ACS and YCS or any other agency. They felt that by taking
another $100,000 out of the HSRAP funding allocations and adding it to a “special”
category would make the “non special” HSRAP allocations so small as to make it
City of Palo Alto Page 8
vulnerable to city cuts and inconsequential as far as influence. They also felt that more
than history should be considered when making such a significant change. As an
alternative to adding additional agencies to a “special” category, the HRC asked staff to
look into the concept of expanding the current two year terms for “non special” grantees
to three or four years instead. This concept was brought back to the HRC at their January
2013 meeting. Various funding concepts were discussed by the HRC including:
Lengthening contracts from two to four years for “non-special” HSRAP grantees
Establishing multiple contract terms for grantees:
o Six years for PACCC and Avenidas
o Four years for existing grantees
o Two years for first-time grantees
Establishing consistent contract terms for all grantees; for example, four years
across the board.
Have extended grant terms with the proviso to revisit scope of services should new
needs emerge.
The HRC and staff also discussed the logistical issues associated with administering
multiple contract terms and coordinating with CDBG funding cycles, which occur every two
years.
In the final analysis, the alternative of revising terms was also rejected for a variety of
reasons: adding more layers into the types of HSRAP contracts would likely be more
confusing, longer terms gave the HRC less flexibility in addressing emerging needs in the
community, and the Commission did not see a compelling need to make a change.
Recommendation #5
The Human Relations Commission recommends that no additional agencies be
added to a “special relationship” category to be given special consideration in
HSRAP funding.
Resource Impact
This report forwards a recommendation from the HRC that HSRAP’s current budget of
$1,110,452 be augmented in the amount of $100,000 from the interest income of the
Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Health and Safety funds.
Policy Implications
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The following areas of the Comprehensive Plan are pertinent to this report:
Policy C-7: Actively work with private, nonprofit, and public community service
organizations to avoid duplication and to coordinate the delivery of services like child
care, senior services, and recreation.
Policy C-8: Welcome and encourage corporate citizenship in the provision of community
services. Goal C-3: Improved Quality, Quantity, and Affordability of Social Services,
Particularly for Children, Youth, Seniors, and People with Disabilities.
Policy C-18: Support and promote the provision of comprehensive senior services in
coordination with senior service providers. Policy C-19: Continue to support provision,
funding, or promotion of services for persons with disabilities through the Human
Relations Commission, the Parks and Recreation Division, and other City departments.
Support rigorous compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Policy C-20: Support and promote services addressing the needs of the unhoused
community.
Policy C-17: Continue to support provision, funding, and promotion of services and
programs for children and youth (e.g., those offered at the teen center)
Attachments:
Attachment A - HSNA ReportFINAL6-12-12 (PDF)
Attachment B - Excerpt from 6-19-12 Finance Committee Minutes (PDF)
REPORT TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
of the
PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
on a
HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS ASSESSMENT
with
SPECIAL EMPHASIS
on the
HUMAN SERVICES RESOURCE
ALLOCATION PROGRAM (HSRAP)
by the
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 2012
2
Table of Contents
Topic Page
Executive Summary………………………………………………………. 3
Introduction—Task and Background…………………………………….. 7
History and Context of HSRAP………………………………………….. 9
Community Profile……………………………………………………….. 10
Other Communities’ Approaches………………………………………… 15
Palo Alto’s Relation to County Programs………………………………... 16
Responding to Human Services Needs…………………………………... 17
Data on Our Sources……………………………………………… 19
Findings from Surveys, Focus Groups, and Stakeholder Interviews…….. 20
1. Children and Youth…………………………………………... 23
2. Clothing………………………………………………………. 24
3. Disabilities……………………………………………………. 24
4. Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse…………………………. 25
5. Food………………………………………………………….. 26
6. Homelessness………………………………………………… 27
7. Mental and Physical Health………………………………….. 29
8. Seniors………………………………………………………... 30
9. Transportation………………………………………………… 32
Recommendations………………………………………………………… 33
1. Funding………………………………………………………. 34
2. Coordination and Collaboration……………………………… 35
3. Basic Needs, Low-income, and Quality of Life Criteria……... 36
4. Simplify the HSRAP Application Process……………………. 36
5. Transportation………………………………………………… 37
6. Recommendations related to findings, by category of need…. 37
Topics for Further Study…………………………………………………. 39
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………. 41
Appendices
A. History of HSRAP……………………………………………. 43
B. History of Community Child Care (PACCC)………………… 50
C. History of Senior Services (Avenidas)……………………….. 55
D. Summary of HSRAP Grantee Evaluation Methods………….. 57
E. Human Needs Assessment Data Sources……………………... 65
F. Non-HSRAP Service Providers (partial list)………………….. 67
G. Santa Clara County Services………………………………….. 69
3
Executive Summary
Introduction: What is the nature and extent of human services needs in Palo Alto, how
well are they being met, and what potential service improvements may be needed? These
are the main questions that this study—prepared by the Human Relations Commission in
response to the interest of the Finance Committee of the City Council—set out to answer.
At the center of this inquiry is the Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP)
through which the City has been allocating funds since 1983. The current year’s
allocation is $1,110,452 to fourteen nonprofits. While HSRAP is at the center, the
Finance Committee was also interested in the larger context of which HSRAP is a part.
Allocations to HSRAP have declined since 2003. This has sharply reduced latitude in
responding to new or growing needs and frustration in the service provider community.
These, too, are factors motivating this study.
Sources: Our sources were results from 495 surveys, (from providers, recipients, and
other residents), eight focus groups (reaching 100 service providers and recipients),
interviews with 25 stakeholders (generally those who led agencies or programs),
statistical, archival, and Web-based research, and inquiries put to professionals in the
field. From these sources, we identified nine categories of human needs for further study.
These were:
1. Childcare
2. Clothing
3. Disabilities
4. Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse
5. Food
6. Homelessness (including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance
needed to get into and remain in housing)
7. Mental and Physical Health
8. Seniors
9. Transportation
Community Profile: The low-income population of Palo Alto is difficult to count but
appears to number approximately 2,500 households below $25,000 annual income and
another 3,000 between $25,000 and $50,000; in total about 21 percent of total
households. (There are approximately 26,000 households in the City.) The overall
population is aging and the poverty rate is increasing in those over 65 for whom it now
stands at 8.1 percent. Nearly 2,500 individuals received Medi-Cal coverage in January
2012. We estimate that HSRAP grantees touch the lives of roughly 7,000 Palo Altans of
which about 3,000 are low-income.
Other Communities: Three near neighbors (Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Mountain
View) and a few other cities were looked at. They were different from each other and
from Palo Alto along many dimensions. All had human service programs but they took
quite different forms.
4
Other Santa Clara County Resources: Some of the County’s social services reach Palo
Alto even though the bulk of the low-income population lives farther south. Among the
benefits provided are grants to build low-income housing, support of adult mental health
programs, food stamps, support to institutions assisting low-income and elderly
individuals, and assistance to those with disabilities. Some counts of Palo Alto residents
served appear in the report.
Public-Private Partnerships Responding to Human Service Needs: Municipal
government-nonprofit provider relationships depend heavily on the experience,
professional training, and judgment of those who lead them. This is nowhere more true
than in responding to human needs. Numerous challenges influence the identification of
needs (e.g., are they single or interrelated, short term or chronic; is the needed response
preventive or reactive?). The same is true about meeting needs (e.g., one visit or a course
of therapy, “cure” followed by relapse, broad reach or focused impact, helping a senior
find a friend or caring for someone abandoned, providing a meal or stocking a larder).
Identifying success presents its own problems (e.g., long term problems generally have
long term solutions, formal research is ferociously expensive, client privacy must be
honored); this leaves surveys, assessments by professionals, case manager evaluations,
staff/board reviews of progress against goals, and similar tools heavily reliant on
observation and judgment, and with limited potential for quantification.
What these challenges add up to is a hugely varied profile of needs and an array of
nonprofits peopled by flexible professionals, trained staff, and volunteers who do their
best to match that profile of needs. These nonprofits are one of Palo Alto’s greatest
resources in maintaining a caring community.
As public and private agencies search for a new equilibrium of shared responsibility for
human needs, the public sector has a special role. It sees things whole. Where private
funds and nonprofit organizations can focus on particular needs and aims, the public
sector is the partner with the biggest signature on the social contract. It needs to step into
gaps and sew up holes in the safety net, be alert to where problems originate, and make
the social investments that improve future possibilities.
The Nine Categories: The largest single section of this report describes the categories of
need and fills in the substance. Each category is organized as follows: definition, needs,
providers, interrelations, and gaps.
Recommendations: The six recommendations that conclude this report take six pages.
This one-page summary captures their essence, but they should be read in full in the
report. The full version of each recommendation includes a rationale.
1. Funding
We recommend that the HSRAP total of $1,110,452 be augmented by 5 percent
annually until it reaches $1,500,000 in approximately 6 years and thereafter by
inflation. At that level, it would approximate 1.0 percent of the City’s General
5
Funds budget which we recommend as an aspirational commitment of the City to
human needs funding.
We also present one alternative recommendation if our principal
recommendation is not approved:
Alternative recommendation #1: If HSRAP receives no funding increase, we
recommend that for the next five years all continuing grants above $10,000 will,
at the expiration of present contracts and if renewed, be subject to a 3 - 5 percent
annual reduction, with the freed funds made available for new programs and new
agencies. (The precise percentage will depend on conditions at the time.) Where
HSRAP funding triggers matching revenue, affected agencies can apply for an
exception to a reduction in order to maintain such revenue.
2. Coordination and Collaboration
We recommend that the Council, in partnership with the HRC, convene a
collaborative to meet at least semi-annually. Its membership would include
representatives of nonprofits, pertinent City departments, the PAUSD, the faith
community, and possibly others. Its role would be to advise the HRC and the
City’s Office of Human Service (OHS) on the current state of basic needs, the
efficacy of the social safety net, increased cooperation among providers, and other
measures to increase the potency of the City and nonprofit community in helping
meet human needs.
3. Basic Needs, Low-income, and Quality of Life Criteria: the influence of each
regarding HSRAP emphases:
We recommend that HSRAP be focused primarily on meeting basic needs,
serving low-income residents, and to a lesser extent benefiting agencies or
projects that make no economic distinctions among beneficiaries. In this latter
category might be grantees that bring a distinctive strength to or meet a critical
need of the community.
4. Simplify the HSRAP Application Process:
We recommend that the HSRAP application process be pared down to essentials
and enable multi-year grants.
5. Transportation:
We recommend that the Planning and Transportation Commission study the
relationship of transportation needed to better connect residents to human services
and, working with the HRC, the VTA, and the Transportation Division of the
City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment, that it propose an
action plan that will make transportation integral to the social safety net.
6. Recommendations related to findings, by category of need:
The recommendations in this category take the form of guidelines to focus
attention in the future.
6
Children and Youth: We recommend continuing attention to the needs of children
and youth at the lower income levels to assure they get the best possible start in life.
Clothing: We recommend having the current providers continue clothing services
and that HSRAP remain open to the work of other agencies responding to this basic
need.
Disability: We recommend continued consideration within HSRAP of disability
services to those at lower income levels.
Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse: We recommend that more systematic attention
to this issue become an objective of the coalition of service providers in
recommendation #2 and that consideration of future HSRAP funds be given to
responsive services.
Food: We recommend that HSRAP remain open to the needs of agencies responding
to this basic need.
Homelessness (including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance
needed to get into and remain in housing): We recommend improved coordination
and increased case-management resources coupled with strategically placed
additional funding to continue and increase gains in this area.
Mental and Physical Health: We recommend that the coordinating body proposed
above (see recommendation #2) take as one of its early projects the identification of
healthcare initiatives that can improve the lives of low-income Palo Altans who have
health issues and, as a collateral benefit, increase the effectiveness of other social
support mechanisms.
Seniors: We recommend giving special attention to providing facilities, particularly
in the exploration of a renewed community service center at the Cubberley site, for
senior programs and services. With increased programs and services would come
increased operating costs. Accordingly, we recommend increased collaboration
among the City, Avenidas, local foundations and philanthropists, and Foothill College
to expand senior services as needed in our community.
Transportation: We have recommended (see recommendation #5) that the Planning
and Transportation Commission and the HRC, along with appropriate city and
nonprofit agencies, work together to study and make recommendations on how
transportation can become more integral to the social safety net.
7
Introduction: Task and Background
This report responds to a request from the Finance Committee of the City Council to the
Human Relations Commission (HRC) in April, 2011 to study human service needs and
the resources for responding to them in Palo Alto. Central to this request is an updated
understanding of how well the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP),
through which the City annually allocates funds in priority areas of human needs, is
meeting those needs.
The priority areas, established by the HRC and delineated in the Request for Proposals
(RFP) for 2011-12, were similar to those of previous years. These were as follows:
1. Children
2. Youth
3. Seniors
4. Homelessness
5. Basic needs
6. Social Services coordination
The sum allocated by the City for the two-year cycle (2011-2013) was $1,110,452 per
year, or 0.76 percent of the City’s General Funds budget for 2011-12 ($146.3 million).
The approved allocations for that year were as follows:
Agency Amount % of Total
Avenidas $402,224 36.2
Palo Alto Community Child Care 407,491 36.7
Abilities United 37,642 3.4
Adolescent Counseling Services 87,561 7.9
Community Health Awareness Council 8,930 0.8
Community Technology Alliance 5,432 0.5
Downtown Streets Team 33,666 3.0
InnVision 8,920 0.8
La Comida 30,362 2.7
Mayview Health Center 16,074 1.4
Momentum for Mental Health 24,111 2.2
Peninsula Healthcare Connection 25,000 2.3
Senior Adult Legal Assistance 8,037 0.7
Youth Community Service 15,002 1.4
In addition, the Council had recently asked the HRC to advise on priorities for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations. The CDBG program
allocated just under $720,000 for FY2013, a 29 percent reduction over the previous year.
As this report was being completed, the City Council was considering adding to the
total an increase of $12,825 for InnVision for fiscal year 2013 to compensate for the 29
percent cut to its CDBG allocation.
8
Distribution of this total is influenced by federal guidelines that oblige allocations for
housing, public facilities, economic development, public services, and planning and
administration. There is some overlap, chiefly in the public services area, with HSRAP
priorities.
The Finance Committee expressed its interest in these topics:
1. Review the 30-year history of the HSRAP program.
2. Assess fraction of total allocations going to low-income individuals.
3. Evaluate the relation of HSRAP to meeting basic needs and more broadly to the
quality of life in Palo Alto as a caring and inclusive community.
4. Look closely at the use of funds to empower individuals, to put them on the path
to independence.
5. Assess extent to which problems are interconnected, e.g., homelessness and
mental health or hunger and economic dependency.
6. Study how social services can be better coordinated.
7. Assess cost of administration.
8. Recommend a strategic HSRAP funding plan over periods longer than two years.
What we determined from our research is that, viewed broadly, the list of needs changes
little over time as seen through the eyes of support providers and recipients of assistance.
This list culled from 2011-12 surveys, focus groups, and interviews, reads in alphabetical
order as follows:
1. Childcare
2. Clothing
3. Disabilities
4. Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse
5. Food
6. Homelessness (including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance
needed to get into and remain in housing)
7. Mental and Physical Health
8. Seniors
9. Transportation
The balance of this report will respond to the Finance Committee’s request, emphasizing
what we learned about human service needs in Palo Alto in 2012, about the agencies
working to respond to them, the gaps in coverage, and what might be done to improve
that response.
9
History and Context of HSRAP
HSRAP has a 30-year history in Palo Alto. The HRC currently recommends fund
allocations to the Finance Committee of the City Council for needs not dissimilar to when
it began. The City’s initial allocation to HSRAP was typically augmented by CPI until
2003, when augmentation was “temporarily” suspended. That suspension has remained
in place since, though the total was decreased twice by 5 percent each time, in 2005 and
2009, severely limiting program flexibility. Applications for funding are reviewed by the
HRC, and it makes funding recommendations to the Finance Committee which, in turn,
makes recommendations to the City Council. (The Council recently requested the HRC
also to make recommendations on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program, which overlaps to some extent with HSRAP priorities.)
The administration of the HSRAP program is provided by staff of the Community
Service Department. Total administrative costs run to $55,500 annually.
A brief history of HSRAP follows; a more detailed history of the program can be found
in Appendix A.
What is now HSRAP germinated in the City Manager’s 1981-82 budget message to the
Council calling for a program that would identify needs and establish priorities for
funding social services in the face of shrinking financial resources. After an extensive
review of similar approaches in eleven other California cities and consultation with the
League of California Cities and the International City Managers Association, a Human
Services Plan was developed.
The plan centered around two kinds of service: Meeting an individual’s need; and
providing benefits to individuals for the community’s well-being. Five fields of services
were identified:
1. Health
2. Basic material needs
3. Individual and collective safety
4. Individual and family life
5. Social development and education
The Human Services Plan was not intended to identify specific activities to be funded. It
was a planning approach that enabled key actors, including City staff, representatives of
community groups, and citizens to cooperatively develop priorities for City and contract
services. What then became HSRAP was launched on a pilot basis in 1983-84 and
implemented as a full-fledged program the next year. The first HSRAP allocations went
to these six agencies:
1. Senior Coordinating Council
2. Mid-Peninsula Support Network
3. Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC)
10
4. Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Inc.
5. Adolescent Counseling Services
6. Catholic Social Services/Shared Housing Project
In the early 1990s, the Council affirmed that the Senior Coordinating Council (now
Avenidas) and PACCC had a special relationship to the City. In 2000, the HSRAP base
of $1,192,726 was split into two parts: 86 percent to “multi-year contractors” (Avenidas,
PACCC, Project Sentinel, and Second Harvest Food Bank), and 14 percent to twelve
“limited-year contractors,” five of which continue to apply for and receive HSRAP
funding. Since that time, the program has proceeded in approximately the same pattern.
In the current year, Avenidas and PACCC—due to the special relationship—receive
approximately 73 percent of the total; the balance is divided among twelve other
grantees.
Community Profile
Though HSRAP was our touchstone in this study, Palo Alto’s demographic
characteristics offer additional context in which to situate our findings and
recommendations. Looking at income, age, and public assistance factors and trends helps
reveal the social conditions surrounding human services needs in our city of nearly
65,000 people.
Income
There has been a steady rise in household income over the past decade. As evident below,
there is a high percentage, 29% according to the 2008-2010 American Community
Survey (ACS), of households in the city whose annual income is $200,000 or more.
However, between the ACS of 2007-2009 and 2008-2010, income appears to have
leveled out just a bit, with slightly fewer households earning $200,000 or more, and more
households earning $50,000-$74,999. (Note: ACS publishes small data sets for three-
year intervals rather than for single years; thus the overlap in this graph.)
Project Sentinel was moved from HSRAP and contracts directly with the City.
Second Harvest has ceased to apply for funding.
11
The current Area Median Income, i.e., for Santa Clara County, is $105,000* for a family
of four. We calculate three gradations beneath it to describe Palo Alto income numbers to
accompany the above bar chart. They reveal a substantial number of low-income
households.
When reviewing the chart below, it is important to note that although the population of
children and adults in Palo Alto that are at or below poverty level is relatively low when
compared to Santa Clara County or the State, the poverty rate for seniors is on the rise.
One reason for this rise is the growing number of seniors, especially those over 85 who
may have outlived their savings. In general, income decreases with age. In 2000, one-
third of Palo Alto residents over 75 had incomes of less than $25,000 per year.† Faltering
economic conditions of recent years have only exacerbated these trends.
* According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development FY2012 Median
Family Income.
† As reported by Avenidas’ Executive Director in an email to the HNA report team, May
8, 2012.
Palo Alto
Household (HH)
Income, 2010 Percent
Total
HHs
Below $100,000 43.4% 11,080
Below $50,000 21.5% 5,485
Below $25,000 10.7% 2,723
12
Age distribution
The City of Palo Alto, according to the 2010 US Census, has a relatively l arge senior
population compared to that of Santa Clara County and the State as a whole. Also,
according to US Census data in 1990, 2000, and 2010, there has been an increase in the
number of children, youth, and senior populations while at the same time the population
18 to 59 years has been steadily decreasing.
The age distribution has changed from 2000 to 2010. In 2000, the adult population
accounted for 63 percent of the population and had dropped by 2010 to 60 percent. As of
2010, the senior population (ages 65 and over) and youth population (ages 17 and under)
are nearly split, representing 17% and 18%, respectively, of the total population of Palo
Alto residents.
Public Assistance Programs
According to the Santa Clara County’s “Quarterly Statistical Data of Public Assistance
Families,” from January 2006 through January 2012, the number of Palo Alto residents
receiving Food Stamps has steadily increased, the number of residents using California
Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWorks) has declined and other
services have remained fairly steady. The Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants
(CAPI) provides cash assistance to certain aged, blind, and disabled legal non-citizens
ineligible for Supplemental Payment due to their immigration status. CalWorks provides
temporary financial assistance and employment-focused services to families with minor
children who have income and property below State thresholds relative to family size.
Although these forms of food support are available to residents of Palo Alto who are
eligible, reasons for their inaccessibility are numerous. We will further discuss this,
among other food issues, in our findings.
13
Individuals receiving Medi-Cal jumped in July 2007 and totals have risen slowly since
that time.
Some of the changes in Palo Alto are reflective of changes in Santa Clara County. The
information below was gathered from the County’s Quarterly Reports and gives some
insight into changes in Social Service offerings for low-income individuals in the County,
including residents of Palo Alto.
In 2007, the County of Santa Clara received a grant of $20.7 million annually for thr ee
years from the state’s Medi-Cal Waiver Coverage Initiative (SB 1448). Additionally, the
county launched its new Valley Care Initiative, aimed to supply health care coverage to
approximately 12,500 low-income adults, age 18-64, who are uninsured residents of
14
Santa Clara County. The combination of the Valley Care Initiative and the grant money
received from SB 1448 could help explain the large increase in individuals receiving
Medi-Cal from January to July 2007.
2009 saw the largest annual growth in Food Stamps, which grew by 35 percent. This
could be attributed to the new Benefits Service Center that began servicing most Medi-
Cal and Non-Assistance Food Stamp cases via a call center. This made it possible to
manage existing resources, increase productivity, and better serve clients.
Again in 2010, the largest increase in Public Assistance programs was in people receiving
Food Stamps, which increased by 22% from 2009. The Department of Employment and
Benefit Services (DEBS) also made several changes to its outreach and eligibility
processes for the federal Food Stamp Program. Because the requirement for Californians
to have an in-person interview was waived for those applying to receive Food Stamps, it
allowed for greater ease in the application process and increased program access. In
addition, DEBS pilot tested an online application tool which enables applicants for food
stamps and Medi-Cal to submit applications through a website at their convenience from
any computer with internet access. The combination of the online applications, which
amounted in over 1,100 applications, and the waiver of face-to-face interviews simplified
how clients apply for and, if eligible, receive food stamp benefits.
How Many People Does HSRAP Serve?
Making exact counts of the numbers served by HSRAP presents several challenges.
What to count—attendance at a lecture, participation in a workshop, long-term therapy,
full-time daycare? Aggregate numbers conflate quantity with impact, thereby mixing
quite different social goods. Some agencies keep close count, others less so. The number
of individuals served is different from the number of times they are served. For example,
La Comida serves nearly 40,000 meals a year, but the number of distinct individuals who
eat those meals is closer to a still-formidable 440. Individuals may participate in the
work of several agencies at different time and for different purposes. Those significant
caveats aside, we estimate that HSRAP grants partially support activities, programs, and
services that reach approximately 7,000 people annually.
Determining how many of those 7,000 may be low-income is much more difficult since
definitions of “low-income” vary, many programs don’t make income distinctions, and
tracking attendance at many functions according to the income level would be
impossible. Those even more significant caveats aside, we estimate that HSRAP grants
partially support activities, programs, and services that reach approximately 3,000 low-
income individuals annually. The largest share of that total comes from Avenidas’
programs, many of which are lectures, workshops, classes, and the like.
Both of these estimates are based on reports from grantees. They make no distinctions as
to the kind or intensity of service. Estimates do take into account the kinds of services
provided (i.e., geared to low-income). Also a factor was the judgment calls by providers
where the service is broadly available and access to it is unrelated to income. Again,
Avenidas accounts for a large share of that total.
15
Other Communities’ Approaches
Comparing cities with one another is inexact. They have different histories, categorize
budgets and programs in different ways, reflect size differences, have different priorities
and varied economic, ethnic, age, and educational characteristics. And they experience
the current economic downturn differently. We did not have the time and resources to
visit, interview, or do research into the public record. By Google searches, suggestions
from people knowledgeable in the nature of our quest, phone conversations, and web
explorations, we have, however, gathered some useful information about our near
neighbors and a few other municipalities.
Redwood City, as reported in the Daily Post for May 1, 2012, will be one of the
beneficiaries of a $1.34 million grant to southern San Mateo human service agencies.
The grantor was the Sequoia Healthcare District that allocates funds from property taxes
across a variety of HSRAP-like needs including child, youth, and senior services, food,
substance abuse, homelessness, health education, and counseling. The City participates
in a variety of services to its community, among them several community centers
including the Fair Oaks Community Center, which offers a variety of services, the Red
Morton Community Center which houses a fitness center, preschool, childcare, and teen
programs, the Sandpiper Community Center which offers an after-school program, a
youth & teen center, and the Veterans Memorial Senior Center. The City is eliminating a
modest program of human service grants (generally $5 – 20,000) to nonprofits meeting
basic human needs.
Mountain View annually offers $175,000 in public services grants. Agencies eligible
for CDBG are also eligible for public service grants. Organizations must provide non-
profit service only for City of Mountain View residents. This money goes to
organizations that provide things such as food for seniors, homelessness support, senior
services, counseling, etc. The City runs a Senior Center that provides “programs that
meet the individual needs of seniors, promote personal growth, and socialization and
foster feelings of achievement, companionship and well-being.” Like most cities,
Mountain View also offers a host of youth and teen camps, resource services, after-
school programs, and preschool programs.
Menlo Park, in addition to recreational and cultural programs for children, adults and
seniors, runs two community centers and two child-care centers. One of those centers is
a collaborative effort with several public and private partners to convert Belle Haven
Elementary into a full service school, better known as a "community school.”
Community Schools are a nationally recognized model that combines strong academic
instruction with an array of vital supports and services for students and their families at
the school site.
Moving away from the Peninsula, Boulder, Colorado passed a $0.15 tax producing $2.4
million, added to $0.4 million of existing funding, for human services. This followed the
development of a Human Services Strategic Plan covering a wider range than this report
does. (Boulder’s population is approximately 100,000.) Lakewood, Washington
16
allocates one percent of its general fund revenue for human services. (Lakewood’s
population is 60,000.) Bellevue, Washington (population 122,000) provides upwards of
2 percent of its general fund revenue from a combination of CDBG funds and city
allocations. Raleigh, North Carolina (population just over 400,000) annually awards
grants for the Arts, Neighborhood Improvement Matching Funds, Human Services, and
Community Enhancement. Eugene, Oregon (population 140,000) provides
Neighborhood Matching Grants to facilitate capacity building, physical improvements,
and partnerships.
Palo Alto’s Relation to County Programs
The County of Santa Clara assists with human services needs in the County in several
ways.
Direct service provider, for example Social Services Administration (SSA)
programs such as cash aid, food stamps, etc. Also, a county owned and operated
mobile dental clinic is providing direct service at several locations in the county,
including the Opportunity Center.
Service contracts with community based organizations – A service contract is for
services that the recipient performs on behalf of the County. In most cases, they are
very specific as far as the number of people seen, etc., and are often related to
billable units of service. Services may be restricted to only persons receiving Medi-
Cal, for instance. There are many county departments that extend service in this
manner. The Department of Drug and Alcohol Services operates no treatment
programs, they are all on contract. The Mental Health Department splits its
outpatient services 50/50 as far as county provided or county contracted.
Support contracts - The SSA provides supportive dollars to agencies to do the
work that it usually does in the community, which helps county clients, but also the
population at large. Local recipients include Stevenson House, Palo Alto
University, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at
Stanford, Channing House, Early Learning Institute, Morrissey/Compton
Educational Center, Lytton Gardens, and Family and Children Services.
Grant support of a small number of nonprofits in the County. Local grantees
include VISTA Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Community Health
Awareness Council, Avenidas, Momentum for Mental Health, Family and
Children Services.
Due to the diversity in which the County supports human services needs as outlined
above, we are able to find exact service levels for Palo Alto residents in only a few
programs:
The Board of Supervisors has determined to allocate $3million per year to the
Children’s Health Initiative. These funds help support the premium payments for
children of low-income families to get health care coverage who do not otherwise
meet the financial threshold for other government run health coverage programs.
There are currently 48 Palo Alto children enrolled in this program.
17
Social Service Agency – See Appendix G for services provided. For Palo Alto
usage levels for several of these programs, please see page 13. In regards to
senior nutrition programs, at their three Palo Alto sites, La Comida annually
serves 39,500 meals, or approximately 157 meals a day, to 440 unduplicated
individuals.
Adult Mental Health programs served 10,494 duplicated clients per year (2011
count) of which 116 were from Palo Alto or 1.11% of the total.
In the affordable housing realm, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa
Clara has assisted with low income housing in Palo Alto by approving in 2011 an
additional $3 million (for a total County investment of $5.5 million) in Eden
Housing’s 801 Alma affordable housing development, $2.2 for BRIDGE’s Alta
Terra senior housing at Fabian Way, and $1 million for Palo Alto Housing Corp’s
Tree House affordable housing. In addition, $500K/year was granted to the
Housing Trust, which provides substantial housing services in Palo Alto area. On
June 19, 2012, it is anticipated that the Board of Supervisors will approve another
$4 million to Stevenson House.
Human services are provided to those in need by a combination of public and private
providers and these services often work interdependently to meet an individual’s needs.
A few examples follow, starting with Food stamps (known as Cal Fresh in California).
Even though an individual or family may qualify for food stamps, the allotment given
may not be adequate to feed their household for the entire month. Their income may go
towards other household expenses such as rent and utilities, leaving little or no funds for
additional food. These families depend on the assistance of food provided by Second
Harvest Food Bank and distributed by nonprofits such as InnVision’s Opportunity Center
in Palo Alto. A second example involves a homeless individual with an injury brought to
Valley Medical Center. Upon release, he or she could seek ongoing medical assistance
from Peninsula Health Care Connections or Mayview Health Center. The Board of
Supervisors includes in the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center budget funding for the
Mayview Health Center in Palo Alto. They also allow use of the building at 270 Grant
Avenue as the home of the clinic.
Responding to Human Service Needs
Municipal government-nonprofit provider relationships depend heavily on the
experience, professional training, and judgment of those who lead them. This is nowhere
truer than in responding to human needs.
Consider first identifying needs. Some are obvious, like a broken arm; others not so
much, like depression. Some develop in the shadows and incrementally, like loneliness,
hunger, or frailty. Some follow from events when, for example, job loss leads to
homelessness that in turn can lead to mental health problems. Some can be sought out by
the individual, like counseling; others lie beyond simple self-help, like domestic abuse.
Agencies like those assisted with HSRAP funding are sometimes geared to finding
problems as well as responding to them, such as Adolescent Counseling Services’
18
outreach to identify early signs of depression among teenagers. Other agencies, like the
Mayview Community Health Center, have fewer ways to be proactive and mainly serve
those who present themselves in need of medical care.
Running through any conversation about human needs and despite proactive work by
public agencies and nonprofits is the “invisibility” of many of those needs and the people
who have them. As one police officer remarked, “There’s a disconnect between the
“haves” and the “have-nots” in Palo Alto. Many problems are un- or under-reported,
especially domestic and elder abuse but also many of the deprivations that eventually
break through resiliency, edge-out ambition, and thwart personal and family economic
and educational progress. Continuing vigilance in finding and responding to human
needs remains unfinished business in Palo Alto.
For all these reasons, quantifying need is more an exercise in observing and anticipating
needs or tallying responses to surveys than in counting them in some before-the-fact
objective way. In this study, then, we have relied heavily on the judgment of those in the
fields HSRAP supports to tell us what is working and what is needed.
Consider second meeting those needs. In some cases a simple transaction is the
appropriate step—a meal at La Comida or job interview referral at the Opportunity
Center. In other cases, a client may drift out of reach of a counselor and have to be
reengaged; an alcoholic may regress; or a mentally ill person might go off of his or her
medications. Many needs require long periods of assistance and case management to
make incremental progress in meeting them.
Useful generalizations are hard to come by. Some services can be made available
without attention to precisely defining individual needs. Many of Avenidas’ programs,
La Comida meals, food closets, and the like can work without tailoring to individual
circumstances. Nevertheless, there are few economies of scale in working with human
needs. Meeting them is mostly a labor-intensive matter. Whether the topic is
homelessness, adolescent depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, or childcare,
the service is delivered more according to the rules of effectiveness than efficiency. That
is why more costly alternatives like case workers and one-on-one counseling are in many
cases essential, while more economical alternatives like classroom discussions or group
meetings may be effective for working with other kinds of needs.
Consider third identifying success. Because human needs of the kind that HSRAP and
similar agencies deal with are so various in kind, intensity, and severity, they seldom lend
themselves to research into treatment effectiveness, follow-up studies, or experiments.
Such research is ferociously expensive and the ability to control variables is so daunting
that useful research findings are difficult to locate and apply. Nevertheless, HSRAP
expects evaluation and grantees provide it in terms consistent with the service they offer.
Among the tools they use are these: surveys of clients, assessments by professionals,
case manager evaluations, achievement of desired outcomes, staff/board reviews, and the
like. A summary of the approaches to evaluation by current HSRAP grantees appears in
Appendix D.
19
Finally, consider the substantial asymmetr y between treating symptoms, on the one hand,
and identifying and overcoming causes, on the other. The surface features of many
human needs, like hunger or pain, can be temporarily assisted and suppressed. The
causes of other issues, like homelessness, domestic abuse, mental illness, and the like, are
idiosyncratic in origin and those origins are not practical for agencies to study in any
scientific way. Remedies, then, are often the result of trusting the experience,
professional training, and judgment of those leading and staffing the agencies HSRAP
supports.
These observations suggest a mental model of the HSRAP approach to responding to
human needs. It has three elements:
1. HSRAP responds to needs that have been identified over time and reassessed
regularly.
2. Nonprofits, the HRC, and Community Services Department staff possess the
expertise, experience, and commitment to assess needs, develop and implement
strategies, and continuously assess the effectiveness of those strategies. The two
key feedback loops are between agency and individual, on the one hand, and
among agencies, the HRC, and Community Services Department staff, on the
other.
3. The essence of the social contract that HSRAP reflects lies in this public/private
partnership for meeting human needs in caring and strategic ways.
The lynchpin of this model is the second element. At the interface between agency and
individual, it is the agency that is constantly assessing the profile of needs, the strategies
and tactics for responding to them, and the changes in thinking and acting that keeps
approaches fresh and effective. And in the relationships among agencies, the HRC, and
community services staff we can cultivate collaboration in policies and practices that
keep improving the efficacy of the work. Ultimately, however, it is these human service
agencies on which Palo Alto must rely.
This relationship is why HSRAP is such a vital part of the social safety net and why it
needs to respond to a set of competing forces—to be a dependable fund source to existing
providers yet open to new agencies and emerging needs; to help grantees keep up with
rising costs yet help the City balance its budget; to work within a largely static program
budget and a shrinking administrative budget to facilitate interrelationships among
providers in the interests of meeting multiple client needs. This report and the study on
which it is based offer some recommendations for reconciling some of these forces and
finding leverage and synergies.
Data on Our Sources
In addition to the City Staff’s and HRC’s existing knowledge of the HSRAP program and
familiarity with grantees, we gathered data in four additional ways. Below we
characterize them; relevant lists of who is in each category are contained in Appendix E.
20
1. Survey: Through a survey administered to various groups of individuals, we
received and tabulated 495 responses. This was not a scientifically drawn
sample, so we have interpreted its results cautiously. Where we cite survey
results in the text, we will take care to interpret them accordingly.
2. Focus groups: Eight groups totaling approximately 100 people were expertly
led and notes taken on behalf of the HRC by members of the Palo Alto
Mediation Program.
3. Individual stakeholder interviews: As part of the HRC’s normal process of
staying in touch with grantees and in specially scheduled interviews related to
this study, we spoke with 25 individuals, generally those who led agencies or
programs.
4. Statistical and Web-based research: Review of archival materials and similar
background surveys, and inquiries to and conversations with professionals in the
field.
Findings from Survey, Focus Groups, and Stakeholder Interviews
Describing our needs as human beings depends on the angles from which they are
appraised. A hungry individual, a troubled teen-ager, professional city staff, a trained
social worker, an experienced non-profit manager—each sees a different hurt or need,
feels a different sense of optimism or pessimism regarding remedies, assesses causal
factors differently, or weighs community significance on differing scales. Because of
these various angles, the facts seldom support generalizations. This summary of findings,
then, is a qualified one. Our generalizations are tentative and subject to refinement in
light of new information.
The particular findings recorded here come from sources in which we have confidence
and appear generally consistent with other studies that we assessed. Our interpretations
of those findings come from our best efforts to study, critique, and reflect on what we
heard from those we consulted. In brief, our principal research tool was listening.
That said, we can add that we were much impressed as well as informed by those from
whom we heard. Palo Alto benefits greatly from the experience, intelligence, and
commitment of those who are part of its human services community.
Though our study centered on HSRAP’s domain, we found outside as well as inside that
domain a broad range of nonprofits, large and small, that understand community needs.
They provide expert services free of charge or on a sliding scale to those who cannot pay
the full cost. A partial list of non-HSRAP human-needs-serving agencies in or available
to Palo Alto can be found in Appendix F.
To find a more comprehensive list of San Mateo and Santa Clara county agencies, these
websites are available:
1. www.cip.plsinfo.org (San Mateo)
2. www.helpscc.org (Santa Clara) [This site is run by the Community Technology
Alliance, a HSRAP grantee.]
21
3. www.211.org (United Way of Santa Clara County)
4. www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/community_and_family_resources/default.asp
(The City’s Family Resources program)
Before moving on to a more systematic overview of our findings, we want to call
attention to the significant economic importance of Palo Alto’s nonprofits. As
employers, purchasers, rent payers, service providers, productivity enhancers,
entrepreneurs, and contributors in still other ways, nonprofits add in vital measure to the
economic robustness of the community. The combination of this added value, as well as
their social contribution, makes nonprofits assets that the City should support with
tangible and intangible assistance similar to its engagement with the business community.
HSRAP is one means of sustaining this economic energy.
Relying on public funds, philanthropy, private gifts, fees, corporate donations, and other
means, these agencies necessarily see fundraising as a constant preoccupation in a time
and place that, though relatively prosperous, suffers from donor fatigue. We don’t want
to overstate this matter, but we note it to acknowledge that nonprofits must be both
strategic and shrewd if they are to successfully tap into roughly the same set of funders
year after year.
Funders frequently press recipients to increase other sources of income, including earned
income, hoping recipients will be able to show how they can become more financially
independent. We understand the impulse leading to this request and believe it to be, in
some cases, reasonable. But as one provider noted,
“That priority on their [funders’] part doesn’t change the reality on the
ground, namely, that there is no way to self-generate income for an
agency whose role is to help those who can’t seem to help
themselves.”
A 2010 study for the Bay Area Safety Net Funders Network, “Strengthening the Safety
Net,” looked into these elements:
1. Food
2. Housing/Shelter
3. Financial and In-kind Assistance
4. Domestic Violence Shelter
5. Mental Health Crisis Intervention
6. Information and Referral
This list has many overlaps with Palo Alto’s, though ours also emphasizes longer-term
responses and community building efforts. Like this Study’s results, our findings
indicate the desirability of building collaborative links. As matters presently stand, most
Study conducted by Cassandra Benjamin and Sara Kimberlin of csp consulting,
published May, 2010.
22
collaborations have been catalyzed by entrepreneurial agency directors, funders who
want to stimulate new working relationships, and problems whose presenting features
argue for collaboration. Of the 15 HSRAP and CDBG groups involved in two of our
focus groups, the average number of other agencies with which each collaborated was
more than 7.7.
Sustained collaboration, however, is not necessarily a natural outcome of working in a
similar field. Organizational independence is not difficult to understand. An agency has
a focus, a staff committed to its purposes, a cadre of supporters—from board to
volunteers to a loyal donor base—and a clientele that is its first priority. Collaboration
among agencies, though not necessarily contrary to nature, requires high levels of
intention, is labor intensive, and tends to peter out if not funded, cultivated, and
demonstrably successful. Collaboration on behalf of particular clients often has to be
brokered by gifted individuals who gain and hold the trust of those participants. These
individuals, like patient advocates in medicine, help those needing services negotiate the
support landscape. Where a client needs a connection to stay on course, agencies will
often execute a “warm hand-off,” whereby the staff of one agency makes a connection
and paves the way with the staff of another agency. We address being both deliberate
and realistic about interagency collaboration in recommendation #2, toward the end of
this report.
Though our focus in this study is about what can be made to work better through
HSRAP, our hats are off to Palo Alto’s highly capable and effective nonprofit
community.
In this section, we report our findings by category of need, as noted below. Categories
are in alphabetical order, and we want to acknowledge that there are many overlaps and
interactions among the agencies that respond to them. We do not recommend attempting
to prioritize these categories in the abstract. The noted needs have different significance
for different people; meeting some needs is a prerequisite for meeting others; the salience
of needs rises and falls over time. Those who need to respond to changes are the support
providers. Giving them the flexibility to do so should be a characteristic of the program.
In its periodic recommendations to the Finance Committee and the Council, the HRC
does prioritize on the basis of information pertinent at the time and to the extent that
funding permits.
1. Children and Youth
2. Clothing
3. Disabilities
4. Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse
5. Food
6. Homelessness (including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance
needed to get into and remain in housing)
7. Mental and Physical Health
8. Seniors
9. Transportation
23
1. Children and Youth
Definition: Starting at the level of the City Council, our community has a major focus on
youth well-being. Project Safety Net (PSN) is the largest umbrella group within this
focus. The Council’s multi-year budget allocation to PSN alongside PSN’s network (that
includes some HSRAP-supported agencies) will add a good deal of horsepower to focus
on youth well-being. The HRC has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with PSN,
so will be engaged in and supportive of its work. Unique to this category is subsidized
childcare, a need partially met by PACCC, which has a 40-year relationship with the City
(see also Appendix B).
Needs: In addition to basic needs, other issues and needs brought to our attention
include: counseling in schools that does not distinguish by income level (as that would
create distinctions antithetical to the objectives of the service), affordable child care,
tutoring, recreation for special needs kids (noted below in the sections on disabilities and
transportation), seeing youth as community assets, safe places for youth to hang out, and
other aspects, many of which are associated with the 41 Developmental Assets. HSRAP
grants here will often be complementary to other youth-serving initiatives and
organizations.
Our findings from focus groups and survey respondents strongly indicated needs for
children across the income spectrum. One significant finding was that youth counseling
and after-school programming were two of the top needs among all the groups surveyed.
Providers: Currently there are three HSRAP agencies meeting some of these needs –
Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS), Youth Community Service (YCS), and PACCC.
ACS provides counseling and therapy for children and their families in our city
regardless of their income level. Professionals at ACS not only help the youth who need
assistance but also the families to learn how to provide emotional and psychological
support for their children. ACS charges on a sliding fee scale. The HSRAP -ACS grant
supports ACS counselors based at each of the secondary schools. YCS engages youth in
Palo Alto and surrounding communities in service learning projects during the school
year and summer. PACCC, which serves some 900 children overall, provides with its
HSRAP support subsidized childcare for 32 early childhood and elementary-age children.
This care enables parents in Palo Alto’s lowest-income families the support to enroll in
educational programs and to be fully employed, something they could not do without this
subsidy. Such a subsidy helps families gain financial independence, need fewer services
of other kinds, and provides their children with a strong start in their education.
Interrelations: The most significant interrelationships are those between the City and the
PAUSD, now augmented by PSN. In additions, other HSRAP providers work with
children and youth when their needs fall within their ambit, and some that are age-
specific (e.g., YCS and Avenidas) are able from time to time to arrange intergenerational
projects. Within the City’s General Funds budget, the Community Services Department
offers a broad variety of programs for children of all ages. It emphasizes the 41
Developmental Assets in the design and execution of its programs.
24
Gaps: Gaps in the area of youth well-being have been under close study especially since
the start of PSN in 2009. Focused initially on suicide prevention, PSN has expanded its
reach to enhance the community’s and school district’s skill in suicide prevention and to
expand the community’s emphasis to youth well-being more generally. Seen through a
HSRAP lens, grants to agencies in this category are not so much focused on basic human
needs as they are on problem solving, problem prevention, and the civic commitment that
comes from engaging youth in good works.
2. Clothing
Clothing is critical for both adult’s and children’s physical and mental well -being and is a
key component of independence. This need is not currently well met by formal
programs. The Opportunity Center is the primary agent in town that provides clothing. Its
Clothes Closet is open weekdays to distribute clothing as needed. As an instance of
supportive interrelationships, it is supplied with clothes by Lucile Packard Children’s
Hospital Charter Auxiliary and by special events sponsored by students at Santa Clara
University and San Jose State University, among others. More ample sources are
GoodWill, the Salvation Army, and other low-cost outlets. Providing vouchers at service
providers for distribution as needed to families and individuals could enlarge the supply.
At present no HSRAP grants specifically target clothing.
3. Disabilities
Definition: A developmental disability is defined by Abilities United as a condition that
originates before an individual reaches age 18, continues, or can be expected to continue
indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial impairment in three or more areas of major life
activity. Developmental disabilities include mental retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy,
autism and disabling conditions closely related to an intellectual disability.
The services needed for those with physical and cognitive disabilities span a wide range.
For children, this can include early intervention, socialization, therapy (occupational,
speech, physical and behavioral), education, respite care, and after school programs. For
adults it can include socialization, respite care, job training, mentoring, independent
living training, and integration into the community.
Needs: According to providers in the community with whom we spoke, the greatest
needs for children and youth with special needs include early intervention for them and
respite care for parents and care-givers. For adults the greatest need is for employment in
the community and mentoring programs. For both groups, but especially for youth,
recreational opportunities are significant as is transportation to reach them on a consistent
basis. For facilities like the Abilities United warm water pool, there is a great need across
the age spectrum.
Providers: There are several providers in Palo Alto or nearby for adults and children
with special needs; of these only Abilities United currently receives HSRAP funding.
Other providers are noted in Appendix F.
25
Interrelations: In a specialized service community such as this, most of the agencies
know about each other and cross-refer clients as appropriate. For all of the specialized
agencies, the San Andreas Regional Center is a starting point for parents of children with
disabilities up to age 22. A thorough assessment is performed on each applicant and an
Individual Performance Plan is created that includes eligibility for state provided services
and other services in the community.
Gaps: The key gaps in services for the disabled were reported to us as affordable
housing, transitional housing, adult day programs, adult mentoring programs, and
recreation activities.
4. Domestic violence and elder abuse
Definition: The abuse or exploitation that occurs within families is viewed among
professionals as widespread and affecting all economic levels of society. It seldom
comes to public attention, however, except when police are involved. Even then,
resolution may be indeterminate because of an unwillingness to press charges. Thus it
goes un- or under-reported.
Needs: The silence of those abused correlates to some extent with economic well-being.
Because finances are so important in middle and higher income families, and because in
cases of domestic abuse it is often the male who is the abuser and possesses the economic
power in the family, reporting by those abused is a high-stakes decision. Thus the
incentives are to hide it since there is so much to lose—custody of children, college
support for them, economic security, and the like. One experienced service provider
estimates that 80 percent of domestic violence goes unreported.
Like domestic violence, much elder abuse also goes unreported. The reasons are many,
including embarrassment and self-blame. According to Palo Alto police officers we
interviewed, elder abuse, both physical and financial, is on the rise, and, as the city’s
senior population grows, is expected to continue to increase. The police are normally
better able to stop financial than physical abuse of elders. Police are “mandated
reporters” so must refer abuse cases that come to their attention to County Adult
Protective Services.
Providers: Avenidas provides counseling that can include abuse situations. Senior Adult
Legal Assistance (SALA) provides free legal assistance across a spectrum of senior legal
needs including securing restraining orders. But, aside from a few pro bono seminars that
NextDoor Solutions to Domestic Violence provides under the auspices of the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation, abuse stays undocumented and the need for interventions unmet.
Through CDBG, some support is provided to the YMCA/Support Network to assist
victims and to Catholic Charities in partial support of an ombudsperson who looks into
claims of abuse at board and care homes.
Interrelations: Many counseling, mental health, and similar organizations touch on
domestic and elder abuse in the course of their primary work. For the reasons noted
above and the confidentiality of much of this work, little information about the frequency
26
and intensity of abuse and its treatment comes to public light. Nor were we able to
determine how these elements of the social safety net interact.
Gaps: Based on the soft evidence of professional judgments rather than the hard
evidence of documented cases, and because of the relative economic well-being of many
Palo Alto residents and the growing number of seniors and the elderly, Palo Alto has a
problem of domestic and elder abuse that exists but cannot be confidently assessed.
Members of the Police Department reported to us that it is a frequent subject of
departmental conversation. Parents who are aging-in-place may have a caregiver or child
who is untrustworthy. Where child abuse is the issue, the police have options, but with
adults there are few legal sanctions to intervene. When the police do get involved, they
are not informed about follow-through by others, so they have no means to judge the
efficacy of even the few available options. Among all those we surveyed, nearly 70
percent considered dealing with domestic violence important or very important.
5. Food
Definition: Food is the most essential of basic human needs. A term often used in this
field is “food security” which is defined as the availability of food and one's access to it.
While the issue in some communities may be about the availability of healthy food in
one’s neighborhood, for those that it affects in Palo Alto the issue is more about
affordability in the light of other household expenses and living situations.
Needs: As a basic need, food is a prerequisite for physical and mental health, as well as
other related needs. More than 70 percent of those surveyed considered hunger relief
important or very important. Looking at just low-income respondents, that survey
response grew to more than 80 percent. (Low income respondents—roughly defined as
those with family incomes of less than $50,000—comprised 58 percent of those
surveyed.) Securing food at no cost frees family funds to apply to other basic needs, e.g.,
a Second Harvest survey found that among those receiving food aid 85 percent reported
having more money to apply to rent and other basic needs.
We heard from several sources that community education is lacking in accessing food
assistance programs such as the Cal Fresh (food stamp) program. In regards to Cal Fresh
—a program administered through the County of Santa Clara Department of Social
Services that helps single people and families with little or no income to buy food—a lot
of people that are eligible are not enrolled. Reasons include the time it takes to apply, the
onerous amount of paperwork, the mixed immigrant status of some families who don’t
think they are eligible, myths about food stamps such as a need to pay back, potential
effects on immigration sponsorship, fear of repercussions, etc. Turn-around time for Cal
Fresh has become quicker with more people applying; however, with no new agency
staff, getting food stamps is still taking a long time.
In most cases, the fresh food itself is available through the Second Harvest Food Bank
(SHFB), but the agencies at the “retail” interface need money to buy additional canned
foods beyond the amount given free by SHFB and to manage the food program and
27
maintain necessary staff in addition to volunteers. Second Harvest provides food at no
cost to 15 Palo Alto nonprofits including several HSRAP grantees.
Providers: Appendix F lists several providers of food programs and other interrelated
services. HSRAP provides support for InnVision’s food program and helps La Comida
in its provision of low- or no-cost meals to Palo Altans annually.
Gaps: Because seeking HSRAP funding is burdensome, only food providers InnVision
and La Comida have applied since 2008. Second Harvest applies for government
programs only when the anticipated grant would equal or exceed $25,000. Below that,
the cost of application and accountability is seen as a net negative.
There is a redundancy among programs, and the clients are sometimes perplexed about
how to access them to get services. Transportation to get to meal programs is another
issue, e.g., for seniors to the La Comida program and homeless to meal programs at
places of worship.
6. Homelessness (including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance
needed to get into and remain in housing)
Definition: Estimates vary of the number of homeless in Palo Alto from 200 – 400.
Homelessness takes a number of forms, of which these three predominate:
1) Situational or transitional: This is when someone is forced into homelessness
because of uncontrollable circumstances such as losing a job and loss of the
main breadwinner (father, husband, wife), etc. Also in this category are those
with an urgent need for temporary shelter because of domestic abuse.
2) Episodic or cyclical: This is when a person repeatedly falls in and out of
homelessness, as often happens with drug addicts and with people
experiencing mental health issues. A person might live with episodes of
severe depression and fall back in homelessness when these occur.
3) Chronic: This is when an individual is on the street for a long period of time
and has very few or no resources at his or her disposal to modify their
situation. Often, these people will suffer from mental health issues. They
won’t have the ability to modify their situation without the support of others.
Needs: Of the basic needs, emergency and permanent housing for low-income residents
is in the shortest supply. What is available for permanent housing in Palo Alto (rental
and for purchase) has come from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Community
Working Group, Opportunity Center, CDBG- and other publically-assisted low-income
housing, and Section 8 vouchers through the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. The
Opportunity Center also provides emergency shelter through the Hotel de Zink program
with a 15-bed rotating-shelter for men, hosted by Palo Alto area faith communities. This
year there was also a Hotel de Zink for women, run by a Stanford student group called
Night Outreach. It operated under the auspices of the Opportunity Center. Students
raised the money, but there is uncertainty about whether they can come up with the
money to do so again. It closed at the end of April.
28
There are no other homeless shelters in North County; the Clara-Mateo Shelter at the VA
in Menlo Park closed last year. The closest resource is the National Guard Armory in
Sunnyvale that provides 125 beds, but is only open from November – March. Most other
homeless shelters are in San Jose and have waiting lists.
One key area where HSRAP enters the picture is through the services that help qualify
individuals for such housing. That involves primarily mental and physical health care,
employment, treatment and control of substance abuse, and other supports unique to
individuals.
Right next to housing itself is the interpersonal support to get homeless individuals into it
and to provide the encouragement, assistance, and, as necessary, interventions to keep
them in it. This is where case management or a comparable framework is crucial. Case
management combines expertise, trust, and commitment to deal with issues such as
landlord disputes, bouts of joblessness, regression regarding substance abuse, and the
like—and to provide encouragement, to pave paths to increasing independence, and to
move someone out of dependence so that another can be helped. A prime Palo Alto
example of a program that amplifies case management is the Downtown Streets Team
(DST) where a job, housing, and personal support can lead to increasing independence.
Through its collaboration with Manpower, Inc., the DST links individuals with
potentially permanent jobs and the coaching and guidance to capitalize on the
employment opportunity.
Because Palo Alto is generally seen as a generous community, where temporary
assistance, panhandling, and respectful police enforcement attenuate the pressure on the
homeless to take initiative toward independence, our community is perceived on balance,
as friendly to those who are un-housed. This does not mean it is problem-free, or that
homeless individuals don’t need assistance to move toward self-sufficiency. But it does
explain why, compared to neighboring towns, Palo Alto appears to have greater numbers
than they of homeless and panhandlers. Downtown merchants have longstanding
concerns about this, and the Police Department has assigned a special patrol to insure
safety and cleanliness in the University Avenue area and associated parks and parking
lots.
Providers: Four agencies have programs in Palo Alto serving the homeless. All are
HSRAP grantees. The InnVison-Opportunity Center’s services include assistance for
singles and families in need, providing for basic needs, case management, food, showers,
laundry, computer lab, health care, lockers, and children’s activities, and oversees the
“breaking bread” program (which is a free hot meal program at local churches), a food
closet at a local church, permanent housing for singles and families, and temporary
rotating shelter program. Downtown Street Team (DST) members work in a variety of
capacities in exchange for vouchers for food and other necessities. DST also provides
participants with case management, transportation assistance, temporary and permanent
housing as available and job search skills to work toward greater skills and independence.
Momentum for Mental Health, a county-wide agency, provides a variety of mental health
services. HSRAP funding supports a 20-hour homeless outreach specialist who is
29
employed by Momentum. Peninsula Health Care Connections provides free medical,
psychiatric and intensive case management for the homeless and those at risk of being
homeless.
Interrelations: The agencies in Palo Alto listed above work very closely together. The
City’s Office of Human Services facilitates a bi-monthly meeting of North County
homeless services providers called the Off the Streets Team, where the discussion usually
centers on the needs of clients. The Police Department facilitates a monthly meeting
called North County Alternative Services, comprised of personnel from the Police
Department, Office of Human Services, District Attorney’s office, Veteran’s
Administration, and County Mental Health service providers, among others. This group
works on a restorative justice model to work with the homeless who are in frequent
contact with the criminal justice system to connect them with housing and services.
Gaps: All of the agencies working with the homeless are dealing with the basic needs of
a very vulnerable segment of our population. A key finding of this report is the
importance of meeting basic needs first and is highlighted by Philip Dah, Executive
Director of the Opportunity Center who said “Basic needs are, indeed, food, clothing, and
shelter. Those needs need to be met before a person can pay attention to medications,
physical and mental health, looking for work, etc., and before a case worker can get an y
traction on other problems.” Beyond basic needs, homelessness requires special, usually
one-on-one, relationships with case workers or similarly dedicated professionals to move
from homelessness to independence and housing. Finally, the housing needs to be there
as do services that enable the formerly homeless to maintain this new level of
independence.
7. Mental and Physical Health
Definition: The essential health care issues are whether healthcare is available,
accessible, and affordable. Basic health care for those who are un- or under-insured is
hard to come by. There are several types of organizations that provide mental and
physical health services. Some of these services are broken down by income or age, such
as youth counseling, or clinics that provide free care to low-income individuals. While
the term “healthcare” covers mental and physical health and dental care, agencies tend to
specialize.
Need: Maintaining mental, physical, and dental health, like other basic needs, is a
prerequisite to successfully working on other life issues. When compared with basic
needs like food, clothing, and shelter, the importance of healthcare settled near the top for
most survey respondents (with 71 percent of all respondents and nearly 90 percent of
low-income respondents considering it important or very important) as well as in focus
groups and interviews with professionals. Youth counseling services rank among the top
three needs among all respondents of our survey, and it came up during several
discussions in our focus groups and interviews. Dental care is perhaps the most difficult
care to get at low or no cost for low-income individuals. Seniors and the distinctive
ailments that attend aging are a growing subject for human services attention.
30
Providers: HSRAP grantees in this area are five in number. Regarding mental health,
Adolescent Counseling Services (ACS) assists teens and families, regardless of income
levels. It offers a safe place for teens to discuss problems and get guidance from
professionals without requiring parents’ presence. HSRAP funding contributes to ACS
satellites in each of the five Palo Alto secondary schools. ACS has been a HSRAP
grantee since the program began. Momentum for Mental Health provides mental health
services to homeless adults. Regarding physical health, Mayview Community Health
Center provides health service to children and adults who are low-income; they may be
insured or un-insured. Providing both mental and physical care is Peninsula HealthCare
Connection which targets its services to homeless adults, and Avenidas, with its
counseling and support groups for those suffering from dementia (and their caregivers).
Avenidas also provides a variety of health screenings. Dental care is available at the
Opportunity Center on Wednesdays from the Valley Health Center’s Dental Van for
individuals who qualify under the County’s Ability to Pay guidelines. (The Foothill
College dental hygiene program offers cleanings for a $30 charge at the College, but no
dental work, as it trains hygienists, not dentists.)
Other services are also available to residents of Palo Alto that do not receive HSRAP
funds. These are noted in Appendix F.
Interrelations: Regardless of age, income, or race, healthcare services were among the
greatest need. It is difficult for most individuals to pay for healthcare if they are not
covered through an employer, and employer-provided insurance is a near-certain casualty
of the loss of one’s job. When this occurs, the stresses of caring for loved ones can
exacerbate mental and physical ailments. This is why clinics, such as Mayview
Community Health Center, which serves people who have become un-insured or are low
income, plays an important role, providing healthcare for those in their most vulnerable
circumstances.
In addition to providing healthcare to those of low income and who are uninsured, the
City has also placed among its top priorities services for youth. Adolescent Counseling
Services, by encouraging youth to seek counseling, aims to prevent future physical harm
to themselves or others. ACS is an integral partner in Project Safety Net.
Gaps: Because Palo Alto is not considered a medically underserved area, we are not a
priority for public funding. This leaves our local health agencies increasingly dependent
on local funds and, to the extent funds are not forthcoming, unable to shorten waiting lists
and expand treatments. This is also another category of service where those who need it
often lack transportation to reach the providers in San Jose or other parts of the County.
8. Seniors
Definition: A good proxy for the issues and priorities of seniors and the elderly is the list
of Avenidas’ programs. The range and variety of its offerings deal with intellectual
stimulation, physical, social, and emotional health, support groups, counseling,
transportation, social work services, and much else. For many Palo Altans, old age is a
time of engagement, enjoyment, and, with allowances for the vicissitudes of aging, good
31
health. But for others, old age is a time of loss—of a spouse, a child, a career; hearing
and sight fails, balance becomes problematic, memory dims, cognitive ability is shaky,
mobility is unreliable. Frailty only develops in one direction. Many speak little English
and are isolated (with only Chinese or Russian) from others who don’t speak their
language. Some of the elderly have no family or a family that that pays them no
attention. As with all segments of the population, problem prevention is much better—
economically, psychologically, and socially—than having to deal with developed
problems. Perhaps the most delicate balance of aging is maintaining independence while
securing the services one needs to do so for as long as possible. Though most will
discover the complexity of aging in normal course, any human services assessment has to
acknowledge that, as the life span lengthens, so too does the need for the community to
acknowledge this complexity.
Needs: As part of the social ecology of the community, seniors’ needs are, in large
measure, the age-appropriate versions of everyone’s basic needs. But where younger
ages are more naturally social in character, aging tends away from normal connections
and more toward isolation that can incubate depression and other problems that
accompany isolation. Opportunities to socialize around food, exercise, intellectual
events, games, wellness programs, and the like are essential for good physical, social, and
emotional health. Having such opportunities distributed around the city and accessible
through inexpensive transportation are likewise key. The lower one’s income, the more
at risk a senior’s well-being becomes; and, according to census data, income decreases
with age. In addition, seniors can be more vulnerable to fraud, abuse, and neglect.
Providers: As the community’s preeminent provider of services to seniors, Avenidas
covers a broad range, from the purely personal to group and community-wide programs
(See also Appendix C). Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) offers a range of legal
services including end-of-life and incapacity planning, receipt of public benefits, and
elder abuse. La Comida provides meals and socialization opportunities. Other HSRAP
agencies offer health and mental health services. County programs, which are mainly
focused in the south central parts of the County, offer senior nutrition, in-home
supportive services to frail or disabled adults, and other protective or financial and
personal assistance.
Interrelations: Of the many ways to interact, the one that appears to take precedence is
where one agency reaches out to connect with those who have something to offer to its
clients. Stevenson House, for example, has working relationships with La Comida, the
Y, Kara, Avenidas, the Palo Alto Community Fund, and others in support of its residents.
And those named agencies themselves connect with other agencies to give or get
services.
Gaps: The most frequently mentioned gaps were the lack of geographically distributed
gathering places or service-delivery locations around the city; the slim transportation
resources to travel around Palo Alto for social or other reasons; the crowding at Avenidas
that restricts program expansion; the lack of capacity to respond to needs going forward;
and the absence of adequate preparation for the ongoing growth in the senior population.
32
9. Transportation
Definition: Converging from all corners of our inquiry—surveys, focus groups, and
stakeholder interviews—was a call for more free or low-cost bus transportation. This
need refers to public transportation, routes and stops, and paratransit for those with
disabilities. The very metaphor of a safety net implies the connective tissue of
transportation to get to needed services, classes, programs, and friends.
Needs: For a set of services or a safety net to function for an individual, she or he needs
to be able to get to them in a timely and economical way. For the referring agency or
caseworker to meaningfully refer a client elsewhere, that client must not be easily
thwarted in getting there. But the individuals who make their way to a helping agency
are often fragile in their intention to follow through on a recommended course of action.
The more barriers in their way, the lower the probability of a successful outcome. The
lack of transportation is, we heard, a “huge” barrier. Whether the issue is acquiring food
or therapy, a doctor visit, a job interview, connecting with a new friend, attending a class
or an event that will provide useful information, enable a connection, or brighten a
downcast day, everything depends on showing up—and that requires transportation.
A population sometimes neglected in discussions of transportation are children and teens
from low-income families who could benefit from after-school and summer programs.
These programs, including tutoring and other academic opportunities, are not something
that a family with a single car or two working parents can get their children to. A bicycle
will sometimes suffice, but not always. Without other means of reliable transportation,
those most in need of such programs will miss out. The lack of transportation falls with
special force on those with disabilities for whom steady engagement in academic
enrichment or exercise or therapy is essential for their maximum development.
Providers: Public transportation is expensive to provide. Such costs lie well outside any
reasonable HSRAP boundaries. Here, then, is a case for interagency collaboration to
explore routes, potentials for subsidies, and conceiving transportation as a human service
provider as well as a commodity made up of miles traveled between bus stops. Training
drivers to know where key agencies are located and to assist passengers to find the right
stop could, for example, make travel a more substantive part of the safety net. The
routes, stops, and charges of VTA busses and the Palo Alto Shuttle, and collaborations
between them and agencies that need to refer clients to other agencies, are lynchpins in
the safety net. Bus passes, for example, for the trips that are critical to effective human
services would go a long way to open up options for lead agencies to implement. To
some extent, bus transportation is available. The Valley Transportation Authority
provides passes to the Opportunity Center and the Downtown Streets Team for use by
homeless individuals. The Opportunity Center receives 75 two-month passes and could
use 150 more. The DST receives 45 for its Palo Alto and San Jose centers.
Interrelations: The transportation rubric offers an opportunity for human service
providers and the HRC to work with the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission
to make bus transportation integral to the social safety net that HSRAP helps to maintain.
If support providers had a confident grip on transportation options, they would have a
33
potent tool with which to work to capitalize on the distributed expertise among
nonprofits.
Gaps: It is nearly a given that those most in need often do not have access to cars or the
cash to pay for gas. For them to traverse the safety net to get what they need to enter and
stay on a course for recovery or development requires reliable and affordable
transportation. For isolated and lonely seniors to venture into more social space, they,
too, need reliable transportation. The transportation that exists helps some, but it needs to
be assessed against the multiple goals of the agencies that aim to assist those with needs
they cannot meet on their own.
After-thought cutting across all categories
Getting Started and Staying Connected: As part of this description of our findings, we
want to emphasize that for many support providers the biggest challenge is getting an
individual into a helping relationship. Central to this is information and assistance in
making needed connections—how to access services is one of the imperatives in meeting
human needs. Individuals in need of help often are poorly equipped to know how to help
themselves; they do not know how to self-refer, or where to find assistance. When
assistance is found, that’s a start but no more. For many who make it onto the first rung
of support, they may need continuing assistance in landlord relationships, health issues,
education, and navigating through job-seeking (and keeping), the kinds of challenges
where case workers are often needed in order to assure progress. Without that help, some
will fall through one of the many holes in the safety net, causing him or her, and those
who help, to have to start over again. This revolving door phenomenon is one of the
chronic discontents of human service providers.
Recommendations
A major aspect of the problem leading to this study is the lack of flexibility in the current
HSRAP program. For the past several years, HSRAP funds have been unchanged or
decreased and have simply flowed from the Council’s allocation to a substantially fixed
set of grantees. Thus it functions more as a reliable source of funds to a limited set of
providers than as a program that can be responsive to emerging needs and improved
delivery systems. Any new allocation from within the fixed total can only come at the
expense of an existing grantee. This zero-sum character is not only disheartening to the
agency losing the funds, but it suppresses the desire of potential applicants to apply,
knowing that their success will punch a hole somewhere else in the social safety net. Our
recommendations need to deal with this issue. If they don’t, it’s not clear to us what else
we might propose beyond administrative arrangements that might produce some small
synergies that enable existing funds to stretch a little bit farther.
A second aspect of this study attempts to respond to the changing relationship between
the public and the private sectors in regard to human services. As human services
becomes an increasingly shared public responsibility, arrangements—financial but not
only financial—need to take account of a sea change rather than a short-term perturbation
34
in the flow of public funding. The potential of more public funds is slight in the present;
if the same becomes true of private funds, the outlook for an adequate social safety net is
grim.
Thirdly, we believe that the Council should reexamine how it wants to conceive of
human services. Are they designed to equalize opportunities by providing for basic
human needs and services to those who cannot provide them for themselves? Are they
also designed to enhance the quality of life in areas not provided for elsewhere in the
City’s budgets, facilities, and programs? Is the Council’s funding designed to support
ongoing operations of nonprofit agencies, launch new organizations with some start-up
funding, rotate funding among organizations over time, or create public/private
partnership for as long as the money lasts? Or some combination of these and other
options?
In the recommendations below we attempt to address these issues and others that we raise
in the body of the report.
1. Funding
We recommend that the HSRAP total of $1,110,452 be augmented by 5 percent
annually until it reaches $1,500,000 in approximately 6 years and thereafter by
inflation. At that level, it would approximate 1.0 percent of the City’s General
Funds budget which we recommend as an aspirational commitment of the City to
human needs funding.
Rationale: Beginning in 2003, HSRAP has had no budget increase and two 5
percent cuts. The consequences of a flat or decreased budget for HSRAP are
three: 1) the program is locked into, at best, a zero-sum equation whereby any
increase to one HSRAP agency requires an equal decrease to another; and the
program has no latitude to bring in new agencies to respond to growing or
emerging needs; 2) the purchasing power of grantees decreases every year as they
have to cover inflation within unchanged grants; and 3) nonprofits generally are
hard pressed to maintain their operations while competing in a limited pool of
funding sources. These, we believe, are serious consequences. Because Palo Alto
is considered a wealthy city, county and other public programs generally focus
elsewhere, where need is more readily demonstrable. Our City has needs that
register weakly in the public mind. Individuals needing services are squeezed out
as the purchasing power of grant funds declines. Responding to declines with
quick and cheaper fixes or more thinly spread resources leads to revolving doors
and people returning again and again. Services must go deeply enough to repair
the social safety net and build individual resiliency, skills, and self-confidence.
For lack of funds, opportunities to improve the quality of life for those living at
the community’s margins are foregone.
As public and private agencies search for a new equilibrium of shared
responsibility for human needs, the public sector has a special role. It sees things
whole. Where private funds and nonprofit organizations can focus on particular
35
needs and aims, the public sector is the partner with the biggest signature on the
social contract. It needs to step into gaps and sew up holes in the safety net, be
alert to where problems originate, and make the social investments that improve
future possibilities.
Alternative recommendation: If HSRAP receives no General Funds funding
increase, we propose:
Alternative recommendation #1: If HSRAP receives no funding increase from a
non-General Funds source, we recommend that for the next five years all
continuing grants above $10,000 will, at the expiration of present contracts, be
subject to a 3 - 5 percent annual reduction, with the freed funds made available for
new programs and new agencies. (The precise percentage will depend on
conditions at the time.) Such an arrangement gives agencies lead-time to respond
to the series of cuts; and it gives the overall HSRAP program some flexibility to
reallocate the freed funds to increasing or emerging needs. Currently funded
agencies would be entitled to apply for these newly available funds for new or
expanded programs. Such applications would be evaluated on their merits with
all other applications. Where HSRAP funding triggers matching revenue,
affected agencies can apply for an exception to a reduction in order to maintain
such matching revenue.
2. Coordination and Collaboration—with the goal of harnessing the talent in the
community to jointly address social issues, develop deeper relationships, and
encourage and support collaborations among nonprofits, the city, and the
community.
We recommend that the Council, in partnership with the HRC, convene such a
collaborative to meet at least semi-annually. Its membership would include
representatives of nonprofits, pertinent City departments, the PAUSD, the faith
community, and possibly others. Its role would be to advise the HRC and the
City’s Office of Human Service (OHS) on the following:
a. Assessing the extent of basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, health care,
etc.) and other needs of low-income members of the community.
b. Assessing the efficacy of the social safety net in meeting those needs.
c. Developing strategies for the optimal use of HSRAP funds in
strengthening that social safety net.
d. Considering strategies beyond HSRAP for strengthening the social safety
net.
e. Exploring ways for non profits to share resources, recruit volunteers,
board members, coordinate fundraising efforts, network, conduct joint
trainings, joint purchasing of supplies, and look for areas of over-lapping
responsibility or gaps in services that could be addressed cooperatively.
f. Hosting training forums on topics that could include capacity building,
fundraising, volunteer management, and the like.
g. Introducing new nonprofit leaders to the community.
36
Rationale: The voices of both providers and beneficiaries are fragmented and no
one has responsibility for seeing this arena whole and advising on the provision of
social services in Palo Alto. For the most part, many City agencies and
nonprofits are working effectively in their areas of prime focus. But there are
gaps, overlaps, evolving needs, and degrees of program effectiveness to be
assessed on a regular basis.
Because collaboration requires a scarce resource—time—and must return a
benefit for the investment of that time, the charter and operating arrangements of
a consortium would need to be drawn up by stakeholders. Staffing needs
appropriate to its charter and how they will be paid for must be determined. The
HRC seems an appropriate body to represent the Council’s interest in social
services, though it is the consortium itself that is at the heart of our
recommendation. Finally, we suggest that if this recommendation is accepted, it
be initiated on a trial basis to determine its effectiveness and whether it can be
appropriately managed with the resources made available to implement it.
3. Basic Needs, Low-income, and Quality of Life Criteria
The influence of each regarding HSRAP emphases: We recommend that
HSRAP be focused primarily on meeting basic support service needs of low-
income residents, and to a lesser extent benefiting agencies or projects that make
no economic distinctions among beneficiaries. In this latter category might be
grantees that bring a distinctive strength to or meet a critical need of the
community. Even in such instances, we recommend that the case for a HSRAP
grant emphasize how the benefits affect those who are less privileged.
Rationale: The Finance Committee’s guidance to us emphasized basic needs and
also called out quality of life considerations. Quality of life, because it is integral
to a caring and inclusive community, applies to all income levels, ages,
backgrounds, and circumstances. For the most part, quality of life initiatives and
services seemed to us to be more the province of other agencies and programs,
such as the PAUSD, parks, recreation, libraries, cultural institutions,
environmental agencies, and the like. Because HSRAP has generally emphasized
basic needs, its association with quality of life considerations has inclined us to
emphasize those aspects associated with low income.
4. Simplify the HSRAP Application Process
We recommend two approaches to making the process easier on applicants and
grantees:
a. Simplify the application process by subjecting each aspect to a rigorous
review of its necessity and how economically that necessity can be
satisfied.
b. Encourage applicants to apply for 4 and 6 year grants (subject to annual
budget review and appropriation). Renewal will be subject to City budget
capacity and appropriate progress by agencies toward their objectives.
37
(Metrics for measuring progress will be built into initial grant
agreements.)
c. Depending on the Finance Committee’s and City Council’s response to
this report, revise HSRAP policies and practices accordingly.
Rationale: We recognize that City funds must be granted and accounted for with
scrupulous regard for their wise use. Care in grant justification and oversight
should be built into HSRAP policies and procedures. At the same time, we
appreciate the need to keep administrative expenses low, especially for nonprofits,
and to streamline processes to the maximum extent possible. The opportunity this
study affords the City to stop and examine its grant-making and accountability
processes will, we hope, be welcomed and seized in order to make leaner both
City and agency administrative requirements.
5. Transportation
We recommend that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) study
the relationship of transportation needed to better connect residents to human
services. Working with the HRC, the VTA, and the Transportation Division of
the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment, the PTC should
propose an action plan that will make transportation integral to the social safety
net.
Rationale: Social service providers grow up over time and locate themselves
where space is available, affordable, and, insofar as possible, easily accessible.
Transportation that is free or low cost within the City and between the City and
regional social service providers is what helps integrate this array of locations into
a human needs ecosystem. We realize that this is not a new consideration and that
we didn’t hear about those situations where transportation is working well for
those who need it. But we were surprised by the frequency with which
transportation came up as a problem for agencies and their clients. By giving the
issue standing as a recommendation, we signal that elements of the social safety
net are to a notable extent inadequate, underused, and probably not as effective as
they might be if the public transportation linkages were improved.
6. Recommendations related to findings, by category of need
In this section our recommendations take the form of guidelines or signposts on
what to watch for in the future. The landscape of human needs has its constant
elements and its evolving elements, its persistent challenges and its new ones.
This section is as much a reminder to ourselves about what the HRC should be
alert to as it is a set of signals to the Finance Committee and the Council about
what to attend to on Palo Alto’s human services terrain.
Children and Youth
The City’s welcome and extensive emphasis on youth and teens through Project
Safety Net holds considerable promise for assuring their wellbeing. Other City
services, especially those planned in connection with Library improvements, are
also a rich resource to children and youth. We should not, however, default to
38
PSN and current and planned programs for all services benefiting the City’s
young people. We recommend continuing attention to the needs of children and
youth at the lower income levels to assure they get the best possible start in life.
Clothing
Although clothing is identified as one of the basic needs, significant concerns
were seldom raised indicating that this need is being met more by informal means
than formal programs. We recommend having the current providers continue
clothing services and that HSRAP remain open to proposals from other agencies
responding to this basic need should it increase beyond present levels.
Disability
As a category that cuts across all income levels, disability service providers can
rely to some extent on user fees and gifts from those whose lives are touched by
disability. Moreover, certain responses for school-age children are, by law, a
responsibility of the public education system. Services such as early intervention
and therapy for infants, respite care for parents and other caregivers, aquatic
therapy for seniors, and the like remain important elements of a caring
community. We recommend continued consideration within HSRAP of
disability services to those at lower income levels.
Domestic Violence and Elder Abuse
Domestic and elder abuse is beset by a perverse set of social, personal, and
financial incentives that keep much of it out of sight. Discovering and treating it
requires sophistication and delicacy. We recommend that more systematic
attention to this issue become an objective of the coalition of service providers in
recommendation #2 and that consideration of future HSRAP funds be given to
responsive services.
Food
Public appreciation of the fundamental nature of food is strong and helps enable
food providers’ success in fundraising and access to free supplies from
government and private sources. A continuing need of food agencies, however,
pertains to the staffing and logistics of managing their enterprises, especially
regarding distribution. Though HSRAP food-oriented grants are few, we
recommend that HSRAP remain open to the needs of agencies responding to this
basic need.
Homelessness
(including permanent and temporary housing and the assistance needed to get
into and remain in housing).
Currently, less than 7 percent of HSRAP funds are allocated to the needs of the
homeless. Together with other County and private funds, the total falls far short
of going beyond ameliorating daily challenges to deal with overcoming root
causes and sustaining those willing to move out of homelessness. We
recommend improved coordination and attention to case management coupled
with strategically placed additional funding to continue and increase gains in this
area.
39
Mental and Physical Health
The twin objectives of maintaining wellness and treating sickness are held in an
unstable balance in Palo Alto. When funding for the former is insufficient, needs
for the latter increase, launching a spiral away from wellness toward sickness.
For those whose lives are for a variety of reasons precarious, mental and physical
health is a precondition for successfully working toward independence. We
recommend that the coordinating body proposed above take as one of its early
projects the identification of healthcare initiatives that can improve the lives of
low-income Palo Altans with health issues and, as a collateral benefit, increase the
effectiveness of other social support mechanisms.
Seniors
As a large and growing part of our community, seniors are pressing the limits of
what Avenidas and smaller senior-serving agencies can provide. Avenidas is
space- constrained at its principal location and unable to offer services in other
locations in the City. To respond to the increase in older populations, we
recommend giving special attention to providing facilities, particularly in the
exploration of a renewed community service center at the Cubberley site, for
senior programs and services. With increased programs and services would come
increased operating costs. Accordingly, we recommend collaboration among the
City, Avenidas, local foundations and philanthropists, and Foothill College to
expand senior services as needed in our community.
Transportation
Transportation, though its significance was repeatedly stressed to us, lies well
outside the current and foreseeable reach of HSRAP. Therefore, we have
recommended (see recommendation #2) that the Planning and Transportation
Commission and the HRC, along with appropriate city and nonprofit agencies,
work together to study and make recommendations on how transportation can
become more integral to the social safety net.
Topics for Further Study
In the course of our work, trends, issues, and challenges came up that we lacked the time
or expertise to incorporate into this report. We list them here for future reference—for
ourselves on the HRC and for other groups or agencies into whose bailiwicks they may
fall.
1. Enrichment programs for the children of low-income families and for those
with disabilities. Such programs are important elements in child and adolescent
development. Many exist in Palo Alto, particularly through PACCC, and more
are needed to level the field for academic and social progress. Equally important
are the transportation resources to get to them, whether sponsored privately,
municipally, or by the school district. For children and youth living in low and
moderate income housing—a number anticipated to grow as such housing is
increased—meeting such needs is especially important.
40
2. The growing proportion of seniors and the complexities of longevity. As
more residents live longer, many of them much longer, the impact on the social,
economic, and physical ecology of the City will be significant. As a 2006 study
prepared jointly by the City and Avenidas showed, Palo Alto residents in high
proportions desire to retire here. While Avenidas is a foresighted and effective
resource for seniors, the City’s cultural, medical, public safety, infrastructure,
recreational, and other services will need to adapt.
3. Affordable housing. Housing for the homeless and those identified as extremely
low income, very low income, and low income is in short supply. With economic
decline, such housing as exists is becoming even less affordable for families
affected by job loss, reduced hours of work, expiration of unemployment benefits,
and related reductions in their economic capacity. As the housing supply grows,
as we anticipate it will, so also will the need for the services to which low income
families and individuals need access. Vigilance on low-income housing—both
increasing the supply and providing the support to fully incorporate those who
live there into the community—will be a priority for some time to come.
4. In-kind subsidies. At present, there appears to be no City policy regarding
subsidies that take the form of reduced rent or utilities expenses, or other reduced-
cost access to City-owned assets. This may become problematic as the City
increasingly relies on the nonprofit sector to implement what, in different
economic times, might have been City-operated programs. Avenidas and PACCC
are the largest current examples of such in-kind relationships, but there may be
still more. A worthwhile two-pronged future project could 1) develop policies
that regularize such subsidies so that they play a purposeful role in nonprofit
support, and 2) explore ways to use such subsidies as incentives for incubating
and sustaining civically beneficial nonprofits.
41
Acknowledgements
This report was made possible thanks to the assistance of many individuals and agencies.
Human Services Needs Assessment Sub Committee of the HRC:
Ray Bacchetti
Jill O’Nan, HRC Vice Chair
Sunita Verma
Human Relations Commission:
Dolores Bernardo (former member)
Theresa Chen
Claude Ezran, HRC Chair
Diane Morin
Daryl Savage
Focus Groups:
HSRAP & CDBG recipients
o Adolescent Counseling Services
o Avenidas
o Palo Alto Community Child Care
o Community Technology Alliance
o Community Health Awareness Council
o Downtown Streets Team
o Inn Vision
o La Comida de California
o Mayview Health Center
o Momentum for Mental Health
o Peninsula Healthcare Connections
o Senior Adult Legal Assistance
o Youth Community Services
o Project Sentinel
Palo Alto Housing Corporation residents
o Kate Young – Resident Services Director
Avenidas program participants
o Kari Martel, Director of Marketing & Communications
Senior Friendship Day
o Thanh Nguyen, Program Coordinator
La Comida Lunch Group
o Mary Ruth Batchelder, Site Manager
PTAC Board Members
o Louise Valente – PTAC Co-Chair
Off the Streets Team & North County Homeless Service Providers
Ventura YMCA teen center participants
o Ana Valencia, Associate Teen and Outreach Director
42
Palo Alto Community Child Care Subsidy Recipients
o Diana Paulding, Subsidy Coordinator
Special Assistance:
A very special thank you goes out Ric Rudman, Program Director, and the
volunteer mediators from the Palo Alto Mediation program who facilitated and
took notes at each of our focus group sessions.
Stakeholder Interviews:
Patricia Bennett, Program Director, NextDoor Solutions to Domestic Violence
Eleanor Glass Clement, Silicon Valley Community Foundation and Palo Alto
Community Fund
Philip Dah, Executive Director, Opportunity Center
Shamina Hassan, CEO, Mayview Community Health Center
Lisa Hendrickson, President & CEO, Avenidas
Linda Lenoir, PAUSD District Nurse
Frank Motta, Project Manager Government Relations and Planning, Santa Clara
County Department of Social Services
Gabby Olivarez, Division Director, Adult and Older Adult Services, Santa Clara
County Mental Health Department
Dr. Lars Osterberg, Director, Arbor Free Clinic
Jackie Owens, Client Services Assistant, Ecumenical Hunger Project
Palo Alto Police Department Police officers (3 agents, 1 sergeant, and 3
lieutenants)
Tom Pamilla, Executive Director, Stevenson House
Janice Shaul, Executive Director, Palo Alto Community Child Care
Lynda Steele, Executive Director, Abilities United
Susan Takalo, Director of Programs and Services, Second Harvest Food Bank
Roberta Uebbing, President of the St. Thomas Aquinas Parish of the Society of St.
Vincent de Paul
Pat Vicari, Director of Programs, PARCA
Lanie Wheeler, Chief Financial Officer, Palo Alto Community Child Care
Data Assistance:
Pattie DeMellopine, Chief of Staff, Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss
City of Palo Alto Staff
Debbie Park
Renae Stavros
Minka van der Zwaag
A concerted effort was made to thank all organizations and individuals who assisted with
this report. If a name or organization was accidentally omitted, we apologize.
43
Appendix A
Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) History
This history will include pertinent information on the formation of HSRAP and key
changes thereafter.
1982-1984
Setting up the HSRAP Process
Background
The preparation of a Human Services Plan (later in implementation process changed to
the Human Services Resource Allocation Process - HSRAP) was proposed by the City
Manager in his 1981-82 budget messages to the Council:
The proposal called for an approach that would identify needs and establish
priorities for the funding of social services in the face of shrinking financial
resources.
The proposal also indicated the need for a collaborative planning approach using
the skills and knowledge of City staff, community groups and the Human
Relations Commission (HRC).
Service and Funding Approach prior to the Proposed Human Services Plan:
Social services were provided by the City in several ways:
1. Direct services provided by City departments. (i.e. special recreation programs
for the disabled, emergency medical services and various types of library
services)
2. Other services were provided under contract with non-profit organizations (i.e.
these include child care, senior services, adolescent counseling and fair housing
services funded with combinations of general fund and CDBG funds)
3. Third group of services were those provided by appointed groups and volunteers
in the areas of rental housing mediation, disabled awareness and community
based crime prevention.
All of these activities and services had been incorporated into separate departmental
budgets operating as discrete activities. However, the effective use of these
resources required an integrated planning and resource allocation approach which
reduced competition and increased cooperation and coordination among affected City
departments and community groups.
Proposed Human Services Plan
The proposed Human Services Plan was developed after an extensive review of similar
efforts in eleven California cities, League of California Cities and the International City
Manager’s Association (ICMA) materials, planning documents of non-profit social
service agencies and appropriate City of Palo Alto documents, including past planning
efforts and financial information.
44
The experiences of the eleven cities have helped to develop an overall approach that is
prudent and workable.
The League of California Cities and ICMA material provided a foundation for some of
the issues that may surface in the development of funding policies and priorities under the
Plan.
The Proposed plan had 5 major parts:
Human Services Defined
Fields of Service Defined for Existing City Services
Objectives of the Plan
Policies and Programs (activities)
Planning and Allocation System
Human Services Defined:
The definition establishes the framework in which planning and allocation considerations
are to be made.
The definition incorporates 2 levels of service;
1. The delivery of the good to an individual or
2. Individuals largely for the community’s well being.
Field of services classification consisted of 5 fields:
1. Health:
Nutrition programs
Day Health Care
Substance abuse counseling
2. Basic Material Needs
Housing services
Fair housing services
Housing counseling
Home repair services for senior
Tenant/landlord information and referral
Tenant/landlord services
3. Individual and Collective Safety
Domestic violence victim support
4. Individual and family Life
Disabled awareness
Information and referral
Support services for adults
Mental health services
5. Social Development and Education
Community relations
Youth in government
Child care
45
Senior programs and activities
Employment services for young adults
Objective of the Plan:
The policies and programs of the plan were guided by 2 objectives:
1. The development of a framework within which the City of Palo Alto to define its
role and funding priorities in responding to identified community problems and
needs.
2. The development of a basis for collaboration with other funding and service
provider groups (public and private) to enhance the capacities of systems of
human service delivery.
Policies and Programs:
5 policies that are the core of the plan:
1. Develop Demographic and Services Information.
2. Analysis of Information for Priority Setting
3. Development and Adoption of Policies and Priorities
4. Allocate City Resources for Human Services as Part of the Annual Budget
Process Based on Adopted Policies and Priorities
5. Collaboration with Public/Private Sector
Planning and Allocation System:
These policies were the blueprint for identifying service priorities, allocating resources
and, where necessary, encouraging collaboration and integration of services.
Human Services Plan was not intended to identify specific activities to be funded. It was
a planning approach that enabled key factors, including City staff, representatives of
community groups and citizens to cooperatively develop priorities for City services and
contract services.
Implementation
There was an abbreviated application of the HSRAP in the preparation of the 1983-84
budget and full application in 1984-85 and ensuing fiscal years.
Abbreviated Application: The abbreviated application involved the first 3 policies in
modified form. The priority setting activities were used only to examine proposals for
new or expanded services.
Information developed by the HRC served as guidelines in the review of new and
expanded contract funding requests.
Full Application: The first opportunity for full application of the HSRAP process
occurred in development of the 1984-85 budget.
46
1984
First HSRAP allocations:
Senior Coordinating Council
Mid-Peninsula Support Network
Palo Alto Community Child Care
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, Inc.
Adolescent Counseling Services
Catholic Social Services/Shared Housing Project
1992
Noteworthy comments by Council:
Mayor Fazzino said that the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC) and PACCC
were two special programs because the City, with the strong support of the
community, initiated those programs. He believed those special relationships
needed to be recognized in the budget process.
1993
The following change was made to HSRAP policy.
1. Changed to a 2 year budget cycle for the HSRAP, to coincide with the City’s 2
year budget process. In the 2nd year of each 2 year budget cycle, agencies would
receive the CPI or the average of City salary increases, whichever is less.
Noteworthy comments by Council:
Council discussed the two services: Senior Services which were part of the City
staff in the early 1970s, and when the senior services were spun off into the
Senior Coordinating Council (SCC), the City Council at that time made a very
clear commitment to the fact that senior services would continue to be an essential
City service but felt those services could be provided to the public in a much more
cost-effective manner by an independent agency.
The City set up a special citizen committee with respect to the child care, and
there had been serious consideration that those services would be handled by
staff. The Council made a decision that Palo Alto Community Child Care
(PACCC) would provide those services.
There were other outstanding services which had been granted City funds, but in
no other case did the City provide those services through the use of the City staff.
It was a special relationship with those two groups.
1994
1.9% CPI
47
1995
1.6% CPI
1996
2% CPI
1997
2.6% CPI
1998
4.2% CPI
1999
The following improvements to the HSRAP process were approved and were
implemented in the next FY 2000 HRSAP cycle:
1. Expanding the sources of information utilized by staff and HRC to include current
demographic and other trends in the region, when making HSRAP funding
recommendations.
2. Broadening the community’s participation in the HSRAP process by increasing
the number of HRC community forums on community needs.
3. Establishing an annual HRC prioritization of community needs based on local
demographic information and community input prior to the HSRAP Request for
Proposals (RFP) process.
4. Including a member of the HRC on the HSRAP RFP funding panel.
Safety Net/Multi-year contracts
Staff also established a “safety net” of services/Multi-year contracts, basic services that
provide a baseline of services for Palo Alto residents. The services examples of services
that would meet the funding criteria for multi-year, ongoing contracts for the fiscal year
1999-2000 HSRAP funding cycle were;
Child care,
Youth
Seniors,
Food
Case management, and
Mediation services
These services will receive funding through multi-year, ongoing contract upon meeting
one of the following 3 criteria:
1. Services having a historical relationship with the City of Palo Alto by
either having been created through City efforts or having traditionally
received Council’s high priority for funding over the years;
2. Services meeting critical basic needs such as food, clothing, emergency
housing, case management, personal care and rehabilitative services; or
3. Services addressing emerging socioeconomic indicators such as needs of
special populations.
48
Agencies that meet the criteria for multi-year funding would have more time to plan and
budget their financial and staff resources with a greater degree of certainty about future
City funds and improve service delivery.
Limited/Annual Funding
Staff believed that in addition to providing funding for a basic “safety net” of services,
funds should be made available on a limited/annual basis for services that meet a second
set of criteria: “meeting a critical service need in the community, based on the HRC’s
annual priority of community needs, as originally intended by Council.”
Agencies requesting limited/annual funding would compete for an annual appropriation
through the HSRAP Request for Proposal process. The annual funding cycle will
encourage new and existing nonprofits to apply for funding that address the community’s
annual priority of needs and emerging issues. Additional resources would support critical
human service needs as identified by the HRC’s annual priority of community needs.
All agencies funded through the HSRAP process are required to raise additional funds to
augment funds provided by the City.
3% CPI approved
2000
HSRAP base budget split into 2 components:
Multi-year contractors $1,028,672 and limited-year contractors $164,054 for total
base funding of $1,192,726.
o Multi-year contractors: Avenidas, Palo Alto Community Child Care,
Project Sentinel, Second Harvest Food Bank
o Limited-year contractors: Adolescent Counseling Services, Alliance for
Community Care (now Momentum for Mental Health), American Red
Cross, Clara Mateo Alliance, Community Association for Rehabilitation
(now Abilities United), Family Service Mid-Peninsula, La Comida de
California, May View Health Center, Peninsula Center for the Blind &
Visually Impaired, Social Advocates for Youth, Support Network for
Battered Women
Two new bases will be adjusted annually in future years by the CPI.
2001
3% CPI increase approved
2002
3% CPI increase approved
2003
Temporary suspension of the CPI increase
49
2004
Continued suspension of the CPI increase
2005
Continued suspension of the CPI increase and an additional HSRAP funding decrease of
5%
2007
Palo Alto Mediation Program (PAMP) removed from the HSRAP process and was
funded through a contract with the City of Palo Alto.
Project Sentinel administers the Palo Alto Mediation Program requested that they
not be part of the HSRAP process as they are contracted to operate and implement
a City ordinance: Mandatory Response to Request for Discussion of Disputes
between Landlords and Tenants Ordinance
Continued suspension of CPI increase due to city budget shortfall
2009
Continued suspension of the CPI increase and an additional HSRAP funding decrease of
5%
2010
Continued suspension of the CPI increase
2011
Continued suspension of the CPI increase
Report prepared by Debbie Park based on City Manager Reports and City Council
minutes.
April, 2012
50
Appendix B
History of Child Care in Palo Alto and Relationship with
Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC)*
Past history with PACCC
Palo Alto has a long history of support for child care and related services for working
parents in the community. Following World War II, a group of women tried to form a
child care center that would address the needs of low-income families in what was then
known as the Mayfield area. Many reasons, among them the problem of finances, finally
brought these efforts to a halt.
Meanwhile, as Palo Alto grew, a number of private full-time “day care schools” were
started in at least three areas: north Palo Alto, the Midtown area, and Barron Park.
In 1964, the Community council of Northern Santa Clara County asked the school district
to help with an informal survey of the need for child care, and the response of many
indicated there was a need at that time.
Early in 1967, a citizens’ committee set up by the organization that ultimately became the
local Office of Economic Opportunity conducted a more extensive survey, including
school district statistics, welfare figures, and a small survey of industry. As a result of this
survey, the Board of Education of the Palo Alto Unified School District requested
permission of the State Department of Education to open a children’s center. The Besse
Bolton Children’s Center opened in February 1968, with one building.
In 1969, students, employees, and other concerned citizens of the Stanford community
opened a small day care center at the edge of the campus. When the Stanford Elementary
School building became available in 1970, the center was moved there, and an additional
program to accommodate infants and toddlers opened on that site.
The Unitarian Church opened a child care center in 1971 known as the Ellen Thacher
Children’s Center and accommodated twenty-four children ages 2 3/4 to 7. While
operating under the aegis of the church, the program was a separate private non-profit
organization.
Child Care Now, an organization concerned about expanding child care facilities for low
income working parents, opened its center in 1971. A room at Mayfield School was made
available by the Palo Alto School District to the Sojourner Truth Children’s Center for a
token payment of $25 a month. It accommodated twenty-four children, ages 2 1/2 to 5.
Assessment of child care needs and recommendations was commissioned by the City
Council in spring of 1972. It was completed by City staff, a Citizen’s Community
* Source: Adapted From history document provided to the City by Janice Shaul,
Executive Director of PACCC, July 2011.
51
Resource Group, and the Social Planning Council in July of 1972. The results of the
needs assessment found that all of the existing child care centers in Palo Alto had long
waiting lists and were not able to meet the demand for care of children of working
parents.
In 1973, the City Council established a Task Force to develop a plan for the
implementation of the recommendations included in the report on Palo Alto Child Care
Needs and Resources. The City Council designated the following priorities in the order
listed for consideration by the Task Force: (1) an extended day care program, (2) an
additional preschool day care center, and (3) an infant care center. In considering these
priorities, the Council has stated that the City should not be considered the primary
source of funds, but that City funds might be available for pilot projects or to provide
matching funds for federal or state programs. The Task Force was viewed as a working
committee to develop the recommended plan of action.
In order that the City have an official positive position on child care, the Task Force
recommended that the City Council adopt a policy recognizing child care needs and
accept responsibility to be actively supportive of the following: Promoting legislation,
providing funds within its means, and assisting the Board of Directors of the non-profit
corporation in its efforts to improve and expand child care. In essence, the policy
statement read as follows:
“The City Council recognizes the growing need for quality child care for all those who
live and work in Palo Alto, with priority determined by needs and payment dependent
upon economic ability. The City Council here-by accepts a major responsibility to
support the development, implementation, and coordination of a comprehensive child
care program in Palo Alto and assigns to child care a high priority in terms of the
commitment of local resources.”
The Task Force recommended that the City of Palo Alto take an active and supportive
role in the provision of child care and related services and that a non-profit corporation be
established to implement and coordinate the Task Force recommendations, to appoint a
Child Care Mobilizer, to administer disbursement of money, and to develop community
understanding and support of child care.
During the next two years, Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC) was created and
incorporated as a 501c3 organization and on March 25, 1974, City Council approved a
contract with PACCC which allocated funds for the various components of the Task
Force Plan. They were:
Sick Care Program: This component was already operating under a grant from the US.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This was a program for sick children who
would normally attend other centers. Future funding of this component would be from
City funds and County revenue-sharing moneys.
52
Infant-Toddler Center: A second component of the proposal was creating an infant-
toddler center for 20 children.
Part-Time Centers: Creating two part-time child care centers was a third component of
the proposal. The centers would serve children of parents who have part-time jobs,
perhaps half of a day two to three days a week. Each center would have twenty children
with a ratio of five children to one adult. Two sites were arranged for these centers. One
at All Saints Episcopal Church would house the Downtown Children’s Center.
Licensed Day Care Homes: This fourth component of the proposal would add
approximately 35 licensed day care homes.
Subsidies of Existing Centers: A fifth component of the proposal was to use Palo Alto
funds to subsidize low-income children at two centers which were not part of the PACCC
program. From five to eight children were subsidized at Sojourner Truth Center located at
Mayfield School and at Ellen Thacher Center located at the Unitarian Church on
Charleston Ave. Start-up funds for other independent centers were also made available.
Pre-School Center: The sixth component of the child care proposal was the creation of a
pre-school center for twenty-four children at the College Terrace Library. Children ages
2-1/2 to 5 would attend this center with staff ratios of 1 staff to 6 or 7 children.
Remodeling of the meeting room in the library was necessary.
Office of Child Care Mobilizer: The seventh component included opening an office on
the third floor of City Hall for the Child Care Moblizer and PACCC. The Child Care
Mobilizer also assumed the role of Executive Director of PACCC.
By 1978, PACCC was operating College Terrace Pre-school, Afternoon Children’s
Center, Downtown Children’s Center, Extended Day Center, Palo Alto Infant Toddler
Center, 7 independent “affiliate” programs and a network of 25 Family Day Care Homes
(14 of the home care providers were PACCC employees). PACCC employee benefits and
staff trainings were offered to affiliate programs and Home Care Providers as part of the
mobilizing effort. PACCC had also established itself as the City’s expert on Child Care
and related services with the Executive Director serving on local committees related to
child care.
In 1981, the City of Palo Alto leased the old Ventura School site to PACCC rent free in
exchange for managing the facility and providing child care on the site. Sojourner Truth
Preschool became a PACCC center and relocated to Ventura. PACCC also opened an
extended day program for elementary school children and the Ventura Infant Toddler
Center. Space at Ventura was also leased to Heffalump Preschool Co-op, an independent
PACCC Affiliate Center.
In 1984, the City began to reduce the administrative subsidy to PACCC. The remaining
administrative money was to be used for administering the subsidy program for income
53
eligible families and coordinating child care efforts in Palo Alto. The central
administration for the PACCC child care centers was to become self supporting.
PACCC responded to this reduction in support by reducing the central office staff and
eliminating the child care coordination, resource and referral at a time when the City was
expecting PACCC to take the lead role in developing employer support for child care.
PACCC was unable to assume that role. The City responded by creating a Child Care
Task Force by action of the City Council on March 3, 1986.
The Task Force was asked to recommend to the City ways of encouraging more active
participation by local employers in assisting employees with their child care needs. In
addition the Task Force was to determine the most effective way of establishing a child
care resource and referral service for people who live and/or work in Palo Alto.
Two of the recommendations from that report were to establish an ongoing Child Care
Task Force and draft a Master Plan for child care in Palo Alto.
By 1989, with the passage of the utility users tax, after school care was being developed
at every elementary school site. PACCC became a major provider of school age care
which increased the number of PACCC centers from 7 to 15. However, PACCC did not
adjust any of its administrative processes to accommodate this growth and reduced
further its involvement in child care coordination for the City even though PACCC was
still receiving financial support from the City for those services. The Master Plan was
completed and the City hired a Child Care Coordinator to work with the ongoing Task
Force and coordinate school age care with PAUSD and the Providers.
By 1993, PACCC was at a major crossroads. The agency structure in place at that time
did not allow for proper administration of the 15 centers or the City’s Subsidy Program,
the financial viability of the organization was questionable at best and support for the
agency from the community was decreasing. The question being asked by the Board of
Directors was not where is PACCC headed but whether it should exist at all.
In the fall of 1993, after much soul searching, the Board of Directors of PACCC
committed to the major task of rebuilding the agency into again being a healthy and
viable community resource that provides and advocates for high quality child care and
related services for the Palo Alto Community. In October, 1993 the City issued PACCC
a loan in the amount of $75,000 as well as the services of City accounting personnel so
that PACCC could meet its financial obligations. The loan was subsequently paid off in
1995.
Currently, PACCC is contracted with the City of Palo Alto to administer the City’s child
care subsidy program. The other services listed below are those that PACCC offers to the
child care community at large in Palo Alto.
The Provider Connection: The Provider Connection (PC) brings professional and
educational opportunities within reach of local providers. The PC, located at the Ventura
54
facility and funded by PACCC, provides learning opportunities to over 125 child
development professionals in the Palo Alto community. CPR is offered at least 5 times
each year at a much lower cost than most other agencies.
In addition to the great services offered, the PC is a partner agency to CARES which is a
program designed to monetarily support early educators pursuing a college degree.
Funding for CARES is provided by FIRST 5 (through Proposition 10 tobacco tax dollars,
FIRST 5 sponsors essential services for young children and families across the State) and
WestEd E3 (E3 promotes educational obtainment and professional development of early
childhood educators in Santa Clara County). The PC staff support CARES applicants on
their path to a college degree. The rental subsidies received by the City for administrative
offices, child care facilities and PAUSD classrooms supports PACCC to offer the
services of the PC to the educational community in Palo Alto.
Health Insurance Services: PACCC enables other child care providers in the City,
including those operating out of their homes, to purchase their health insurance through
PACCC’s policies. This allows providers to access lower-cost health benefits to their
own employees.
Current City relationship with PACCC
The current relationship with PACCC can be categorized through a series of contracts
and lease agreements listed below.
Contracts:
HSRAP:
Current Grant Amount is $407,491.
o 15% of grant spend on subsidy program administration.
o 85% of grant spend on tuition subsidy for 34 low income children in
preschool and afterschool care.
o PACCC leverages HSRAP contract funds with other funding sources,
(such as the State of California), including its own fundraising, to offer
subsidized child care to more of the community’s families.
Extended Child Care Services
o Under contract with the City to provide after-school child care services at
11 of the 12 elementary school sites serving approximately 600 children.
Lease Agreements:
Sub Lease – Portables - In collaboration with PAUSD for after school child care,
the City underwrites leases to the child care providers on all PAUSD Elementary
School Sites (12). PACCC is the sub lessee on 11 of these sites.
Lease - Ventura Community Center and a space by the College Terrace Library
are provided free of charge in exchange for providing a variety of services as laid
out in the scope of services. PACCC is responsible for all of the maintenance and
upkeep, the City maintains the roof and exterior. Current lease expires in 2014.
55
Appendix C
Short History of Senior Services in Palo Alto and the
Relationship with Avenidas*
Past History with Avenidas
The Senior Coordinating Council’s relationship with the City covers a twenty-
plus year period. Several significant events and changes occurred during that
time period:
The City established its own Senior Adult Services in 1971, based on a study of
Palo Alto senior residents completed by the SCC, and witnessed an expansion of
those services over the next few years.
The City funded the SCC administration, Senior Day Care (now Day Health)
program and Home Repair Service prior to the establishment of the Senior Center
of Palo Alto, while concurrently funding its own Senior Adult Services.
After lengthy discussions over time, the City agreed to offer the Old Police/Fire
Station building to the SCC at a nominal yearly fee, provided the SCC raised the
necessary funds ($1.2 million) to renovate the facility. Implicit in this agreement
was a commitment to help the SCC with operating funds for the Senior Center as
well as continuing support for its other programs.
In 1978, the City transferred its Senior Adult Services to the SCC and first
provided funds for the Operation of the Senior Center.
The City and the SCC agreed that the SCC would always make substantial efforts
to secure community support and other non-city public funds. That objective has
remained part of the SCC’s contract Scope of Services.
A 1986 evaluation of the SCC conducted by a City-retained outside consultant
reported that the SCC had become an established part of the community and that
the SCC’s administrative component represented one of the most important tools
for leveraging the dollars the City puts into senior services.
The Senior Coordinating Council changed its name to Avenidas in 1996.
Avenidas has been a HSRAP grantee since its inception in 1984, prior to that it
received funding as part of a grant administered by the Community Services
Department starting in 1978.
* Source: Adapted From Presentation to the City Council on June 18, 1992, by
Kathleen Gwynn, President/CEO of the Senior Coordinating Council of the Palo
Alto Area; current data prepared by Minka van der Zwaag, April, 2012.
56
Current City relationship with Avenidas
Contract:
HSRAP
Current Grant Amount is $ 402,224
Supports staff salaries and a variety of senior programs and services including
case management, counseling, handy man services, and fitness classes among
others.
Lease Agreement:
Senior Center facility on Bryant Street in Palo Alto for $1/year. Current lease
expires in 2027. Avenidas is responsible for all of the maintenance and upkeep,
the City maintains the roof and exterior.
Avenidas is responsible for all of the maintenance and upkeep of the
facility at an annual cost of approximately $60,000. The City maintains
the roof and exterior.
57
Appendix D
AGENCY PLANS FOR EVALUATING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
PROGRAMS*
Agency Agency's plan for evaluating the
degree that program goals and
objectives are being met
Plan for evaluating the needs of
the target population
Abilities
United
Programs are evaluated monthly,
quarterly, and annual reporting of
financials to the Board. Each
service center provides the Board
with a full annual management
report of its progress.
An annual consumer
satisfaction survey
Regular communication with
the Regional Centers and
Dept. of Rehabilitation
Communication with medical
professionals and
medical/social service
organizations in the Bay Area
Staff attendance at
professional conferences and
training workshops
Abilities United participates in
the CARF (Rehab.
Accreditation Commissions)
accreditation process every 3
years.
ACS Students in counseling for 5 or
more sessions are evaluated for
progress using the Infinite
Campus reports for grades, the
Global Assessment Functioning
(GAF) Scale to report level of
functioning, the Mental Status
Exam to report depression, and
a final session to report whether
counseling was helpful to them.
Parents of students in counseling
for 5 or more sessions are
surveyed on change in their
child’s behavior, school
involvement and any positive
changes observed.
When students visit the OCC
program, therapists complete
a clinical assessment in the
first therapy session.
Therapists employ the Mental
Status Exam and their clinical
training to accurately assess
the nature of the problem, the
emotional, psychological and
social functioning of the
student and determine
whether additional evaluation
or intervention is necessary
ACS therapists establish a
diagnosis and treatment plan
ACS also tracks the top
* Summarized from more extensive reports submitted by current HSRAP grantees, May
2012.
58
presenting issues of all
clients. This information is
shared with school staff and
administration to keep them
up to date with the challenges
that youth are dealing with.
ACS uses this information to
create ad-hoc group
counseling on an as needed
basis.
Avenidas Uses a comprehensive database to
track the utilization of all of its
services and attendance at
activities. Each program tracks
utilization to assure that annual
goals can be met. Surveys are used
to assess customer satisfaction and
the impact a program has had on
participants. Participants are
assessed semi-annually
Avenidas’ understanding of
the needs of PA seniors and
caregivers comes from
information received from
participants over many years.
Information Assistance –
assist by phone or face-to-
face meeting. Each inquiry is
tabulated
Formal intake for case
management clients
Various surveys conducted
Community
Health
Awareness
Council
(The
proposal
does not
distinguish
between the
2 headings)
Outlet program utilizes both quantitative and qualitative measures to
better understand the needs of youth
Intake form for basic information
Outlet activities are recorded by tracking the number of participants
Attendance sheets are recorded in a series of centralized outlet
program spreadsheet
Every six months, participants complete a survey assessing their
feelings of comfort with their orientation and gender identity, etc.
Intake forms assess counseling needs to help guide the counseling
sessions
Attendance is recorded by tracking the number of participants
Every 6 months, youth participating in the support services complete
a survey
Surveys are recorded onto an excel spreadsheet used by Outlet staff.
Youth receiving counseling complete additional intake forms with a
mental health therapist
For sensitivity training, administer pre and post-training surveys
measuring changes in knowledge and attitude and solicit feedback
Community
Technology
Alliance
Case manager meets with client and
together they determine the goals
and document. This is used as an
instrument for outcome
measurement
Conduct annual survey for end
users (intake workers)
Case managers and agency
administrators gather
information on their HMIS
59
Client’s data is entered into
HMIS anonymously.
Voice mail use are noted both in
a custom database and in HMIS
SCC
After the client either has
reached the personal objectives
or no longer needs the service,
the case manager documents the
results of usage.
The form is then forwarded to
office for tracking
A successful outcome is
counted when a client meets
their predetermined personal
goal.
experience to help determine
next steps
Downtown
Streets
Team
Currently the most valuable plan
for evaluating the program goals is
the number of individuals who have
found employment and housing and
no longer living on the streets.
Working with Downtown
Business Improvement District
and various business owners to
effectively track results
Track number of team members
recruited, graduated, employed
and housed
Keep detailed records of
individuals entering the program
Supervisors generate weekly
reviews of each person
Supervisors work closely with
each team member to address
their needs.
Records include when the
individual finds a job, secures
housing, when a person
entered and left the program.
This allows to continue to
evaluate the program and
evolve when changes are
needed
InnVision Monitors the number of people who
utilize the food services through
swiping HMIS cards for a meal or
collect groceries
This system helps in collecting
the data which tracks the
information needed
This process overseen by the
program director on a weekly
basis to determine progress and
is then reported to the Sr.
Director of Program services
who provides HMIS reporting
information. This information
InnVision utilizes both qualitative
and quantitative measurement
tools to evaluate the effectiveness
of the project.
Maintains daily records of
program usage at the
Opportunity Center,
Emergency Shelter, Food
Closet and other basic service
programs
Statistics are recorded into
HMIS, a certified managed
information system to provide
accurate numbers of people
60
is routinely reviewed by the
Senior Director of Government
Compliance
using agency services
Monthly reports are generated
to review the data
Case manager fill out an
intake application of people
who come to the OSC for
daily meals and maintains case
notes that track the progress of
clients’ goals
La Comida Board receives monthly report
submitted by the Site Manager
for evaluation by the Board
Representatives from Santa
Clara County and the Council
on Aging inspect on a regular
basis and evaluate the program
Board members occasionally
attend the lunch program and
circulate among the participants
to gain their input on the
program
Participants fill out and submit
an annual satisfaction survey
The number of meals served is
closely monitored and reported
to the Council on Aging
There is a quarterly review of
staff performance as well as a
more complete annual appraisal
A semi-annual report is
submitted to the City of Palo
Alto. This report provides
statistics
An annual Participant
satisfaction Survey prepared
by the Santa Clara County
Senior Nutrition Program
Each client must complete an
intake form that includes
Nutrition Risk Assessment
To track goals of attracting
additional seniors, count both
the numbers of diverse
individuals each day and
numbers of meals served
MayView
Direct services monitored and
evaluated by quarterly review of
service performance by the
CEO and annual review of
service performance by the
Board of Directors. Quality
improvement is monitored by a
Q1 committee, which meets
monthly under the supervision
of the Medical Director.
Quality Improvement plan uses
HEDIS measures to compare
MCHC’s performance in
Need assessment is conducted
to review community needs
and to set program priorities.
This need assessment includes
a thorough review of studies
done in the community
including the Santa Clara
County Behavioral Risk
Factor Survey
A consultant also interviews
stakeholders to get their
assessment of MayView’s role
in the community
61
relation to standards of care set
by Medi-Cal Managed Care
Health Plans and the federal
goals set in “Healthy People
2010”
Data collected and reported to
the City of Palo Alto
demonstrating the success of the
direct service program for low-
income and homeless Palo Alto
residents
Patients surveyed annually
about their satisfaction with the
services provided
Each quarter, MCHC submits a
Quality Improvement Report to
Valley Health Plan, which
describes how MCHC is
meeting quality improvement
goals and objectives.
MCHC conducts an annual
patient survey
Use the survey results/patient
feedback to design and track
quality improvement over
time.
Momentum
for Mental
Health
Primary tool for evaluation is
the statistical data (SAL) and
computer generated reports of
data collected. This has been
the tool for measuring effective
outcomes in homeless outreach.
The Momentum measurement
include the tally of contacts
and the code specifying the
outcome of the referral/service
provision, including whether a
referral was made and whether
or not the referral was
followed through. This
measure is compiled by the
Homeless Outreach Specialist
and entered into Momentum’s
data system.
PACCC Utilize subsidy database to
ensure maximum leveraging of
all funding sources
Annually survey affiliate
programs to ensure the program
requirements are understood
Monthly review of sign-in
sheets to ensure eligible
families are proving the need
for child care services
Annually recertify families
using income and need criteria
Periodically review the CEL to
ensure families living in Palo
Documentation of household
income
Verification of parent’s work
and school activities
Verification of Palo Alto
residency
Individualized Education
Plans for children with special
needs
Annual parent surveys used to
identify parent satisfaction and
suggestions for program
improvement
Analysis of CDE Desired
62
Alto are not duplicated on the
City waiting list
CDE Desired Results
Development Profile for child
assessment –twice per year
CDE Desired Results Parent
Survey-annually
CDE Environment Rating Scale
– observation annually
Parent Conference –twice per
year
Results Development Profile
to determine necessary
environment or curriculum
changes necessary to
accomplish age appropriate
proficiencies
Analysis of CDE Desired
Results Environment Rating
Scale to determine program
improvement goals
Peninsula
HealthCare
Count the number of
community members who
receive the program services
Track all data extensively each
month as presented to the Board
of Directors by the Managing
Medical Director
Outreach worker performs an
intake interview
Outreach then meet with
medical/psychiatric doctors,
social workers and other
professionals at PHC to
discuss the best course of
action
Each client has an action plan
tailored to them to address
their unique needs
The document generated by
the outreach worker serves as
the baseline used to measure
how the client’s needs are
being met
Once a client becomes a client
of PHC, therapy, and
treatments, etc. are
documented in detail and
reviewed, at a minimum, once
a week to ensure best course
of action
Senior
Adults
Legal
Assistance
Quantitative performance
evaluated
Quality and impact of services
evaluated
Participants given surveys to
complete
Directing attorney reviews all
surveys and prepares a written
summary of results quarterly
Survey sent to Avenidas and
Stevenson House directors to
SALA gathers information on
a monthly basis as to the
primary legal problem
presented by each client
Information is compiled
according to intake site within
the 12 Community Service
Areas (CSA) designated by
Council on Aging
SALA also relies upon
responses to questionnaires to
63
evaluate the effectiveness of the
services and to assess the needs
of their senior participants
assess the needs of the target
population, including: client
surveys, senior center director
survey.
SALA also relies upon
external data in needs reports
by Council on Aging and
Santa Clara County to assess
the needs of the target
population
Youth
Community
Service
Student Evaluation
Students provide anecdotal
evaluation of all service projects
and program events through
regular reflection activities
Students provide quantifiable
feedback through
comprehensive pre- and post-
surveys which measure
students’ perceptions of
community, and critical
feedback on program
effectiveness
Community Service Self-
Efficacy Measure to document
the growth of self-efficacy
among middle school student
participants in service learning
programs; measurement of ;1)
significant gains in self-efficacy
and leadership skills assessed
by pre- and post measure
assessment, 2) description by
student of community issues
they can impact , 3) specific
awareness the students have
gained about stereotypes and
about diverse cultural assets
Program Staff Evaluation
Staff members keep logs of
service projects
Narrative records in the form of
correspondence, description of
activities are maintained by the
staff
Program staff meets regularly
Gather student feedback
through survey
Teachers and principals offer
written and verbal suggestions
of the specific types of
activities needed
Collaboration, consortium and
partnerships with middle and
high school serving youth
organizations
YCS Service Learning
Director and the program
director will lead YCS
program managers and after-
school and summer program
staff in a process to rework
planning, execution and
evaluation process
64
Parent Evaluation
Sampling of parents are
interviewed to determine how
YCS activities meet their
child’s need
Partner Agency Evaluation
YCS utilizes an agency
evaluation form to elicit
information from organizations
that use YCS young people as
volunteers
65
Appendix E
Study Data Sources
1. Surveys
a. 124 surveys were completed by those attending focus groups, homeless
lunches, and a Ventura teen group.
b. 371 surveys were accessed at libraries and online.
c. A total of 495 surveys were completed and tabulated via Survey Monkey.
2. Focus Groups
a. HSRAP & CDBG recipients, Oct. 26, 2011, 7 participants
b. HSRAP & CDBG recipients, Oct. 27, 2011, 10 participants
c. Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Nov. 7, 2011, 20 participants
d. Avenidas, Nov. 11, 2011, 5 participants
e. Senior Friendship Day, Nov. 16, 2011, 15 participants
f. La Comida Lunch Group, Dec. 2, 1011, 21 participants
g. Parent Teacher Association Council Board Members, Jan. 4, 2012, 15
participants
h. Off the Streets Team & North County Homeless Service Providers, January
10, 2012, 6 participants.
3. Individual Stakeholders (interviews are listed; in addition, there were continuing
and specific follow-up communications with several)
a. Senior staff at Silicon Valley Community Foundation and Palo Alto
Community Fund, Dec. 27, 2011.
b. Linda Lenoir, PAUSD District Nurse, Jan. 14, 2012.
c. Frank Motta, Project Manager Government Relations and Planning, Santa
Clara County Department of Social Services, Jan. 18, 2012.
d. Gabby Olivarez, Division Director, Adult and Older Adult Services, Santa
Clara County Mental Health Department, Feb. 28, 2012.
e. Philip Dah, Executive Director, Opportunity Center, May 5, 2011
f. Tom Pamilla, Executive Director, Stevenson House, Jan. 31, 2012
g. Shamina Hasan, CEO, MayView Community Health Center, June 16, 2011
h. Janice Shaul, Executive Director and Lanie Wheeler, Chief Financial Officer,
PACCC, April 23, 2012.
i. Lynda Steele, Executive Director, Abilities United, Oct. 27, 2011
j. Seven police officers (3 agents, 1 sergeant, and 3 Lieutenants) held between
Dec. 8, 2011 and Jan. 9, 2012.
k. Jackie Owens, Client Services Assistant, Ecumenical Hunger Project, Dec. 7,
2011
l. Susan Takalo, Director of Programs and Services, Second Harvest Food Bank,
Jan. 18, 2012
66
m. Patricia Bennett, Program Director, NextDoor Solutions to Domestic
Violence, Jan. 20, 2012
n. Roberta Uebbing, President of the St. Thomas Aquinas Parish of the St.
Vincent de Paul Society, Jan. 23, 2012
o. Pat Vicari, Director of Programs, PARCA, Feb. 2, 2012
p. Dr. Lars Osterberg, Director, Arbor Free Clinic, Feb. 3, 2012
q. Lisa Hendrickson, President & CEO, Avenidas, Feb 26, 2012
4. Statistical, Archival, and Web-based sources.
a. Agency websites
b. Municipal websites
c. County databases
d. Topical websites
e. City of Palo Alto records and minutes of pertinent Council or committee
meetings.
f. Census reports
g. American Communities Report
67
Appendix F
Non-HSRAP Providers Active in Palo Alto (partial list)
Children and Youth
Cleo Eulau Center (Palo Alto) - Supports both educators and youth through the work of
its two core programs: the Resilience Consultation Program and the Collaborative
Counseling Program.
Family and Children’s Services (Palo Alto) - Dedicated to increasing the strength, safety,
and self-sufficiency of children, adults, and families in the community. They offer a
range of innovative, accessible, and integrated programs and services addressing critical
health and human services needs.
Jeremiah’s Promise (Palo Alto) - Works to Love, Challenge and Equip Foster Youth,
ages 17 to 24, for a Better Future.
Jewish Family and Children’s Services (Palo Alto) – A wide variety of services for all
age spectrums including parent education, information and referral, senior programs,
counseling, food pantry, etc.
Palo Alto Family YMCA (Palo Alto) - Health, fitness and wellness programs, youth
programs, camps, family activities, swimming and aquatics, and other activities for
people of all ages, incomes and abilities.
Disabilities
Achieve Kids (Palo Alto) - Serves children, aged 5 to 22, with emotional and/or
developmental disabilities including mental retardation, autistic spectrum disorder, mood,
disruptive behavior, anxiety, and psychotic disorders.
Vista Center (Palo Alto) – Serves children adults who are blind or visually impaired.
Children’s Health Council (Palo Alto) – Education, autism spectrum, learning challenges,
counseling, therapy.
San Andreas Regional Center (Campbell) - San Andreas Regional Center is a
community-based, private nonprofit corporation funded by the State of California to
serve people with developmental disabilities as required by the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Act. Eligible conditions are: Mental Retardation, Cerebral
Palsy, Epilepsy, Autism, and other conditions closely related to mental retardation.
Learning Ally (Palo Alto) - Promote personal achievement when access and reading are
barriers to learning by advancing the use of accessible and effective educational
solutions.
68
Morrissy-Compton Education Center (Palo Alto) - The agency provides both diagnostic
and treatment services for children and adults with learning disabilities, as well as
professional consultation to agencies and community organizations.
Food
Ecumenical Hunger Program (East Palo Alto) - Works with families in East Palo Alto,
East Menlo Park, and Palo Alto to eliminate their hunger and to break the cycle of
poverty by providing food, clothing, household essentials, social advocacy, and referral
services.’
The South Palo Alto Food Closet (Palo Alto) - A grocery program located at the
Covenant Presbyterian Church designed to help families with children by assisting them
in their weekly food needs. Adults who are unable to use the services of the Downtown
Food Closet are also served, provided they have a referral. Referrals can be obtained from
a social service agency, any church.
St. Vincent de Paul (Palo Alto) - Provides emergency assistance to people in need,
including clothing vouchers, rent, rental deposit and utility assistance, food for homeless.
Second Harvest Food Bank - Distributes surplus and non-marketable food to nonprofit
agencies that provide meals or food boxes to low-income families and individuals
through programs such as Brown Bag and Family Harvest. Second Harvest gives to 15
nonprofits in Palo Alto. All food given to recipient agencies by Second Harvest is free.
They have a lot of free fruits and vegetables and there is no limit to the order, but there is
limit on items that the food bank purchases such as canned foods (this is where additional
funds or food drives in the community are useful). Hot meals are provided on a rotating
basis among Palo Alto churches.
Physical and Mental Health
Arbor Free Clinic (Stanford) – Operated by the Stanford University School of Medicine,
the Arbor Free Clinic is an acute care clinic providing free medical care for adults who
lack health insurance.
RotaCare Bay Area (Mountain View) – This agency is a volunteer alliance of medical
professionals, organizations and community members dedicated to providing free
primary, quality healthcare services to uninsured families and individuals with limited
ability to pay for medical care. The Clinic serving Palo Alto is located at El Camino
Hospital in Mountain View.
Kara (Palo Alto) - Kara provides compassionate support to people of all working through
grief so that they can move toward renewed hope and meaning. Its clients include those
who are grieving a death as well as those coping with a terminal illness (their own or
another's).
North County Mental Health (Palo Alto) – Provided by Santa Clara County Mental
Health Services. Outpatient mental health services for adults and older adults. Services
include crisis intervention, case management, mental health supportive counseling, and
medication management.
69
Appendix G
This graphic and tabulation developed by the County to show the range of Social
Services in Santa Clara County in 2011 is included here to round out the picture of what
is available for the County at large. Some of these services respond as needs arise, e.g.,
Child and Adult Protective Services, while others are proactive elements in the County’s
safety net, e.g., cash assistance; educational, employment, and training services.
70
Luke Leung, Acting Agency Director
FY2011 Fact
Sheet
Mission-“a culturally sensitive and socially responsible public agency providing high quality,
professional, financial, and protective services for residents of Santa Clara County.”
71
Santa Clara County Social Services Agency Fiscal Year 2011 Fact
Sheet Luke Leung, Acting Agency Director
Mission
Statement
The Social Services Agency is a culturally sensitive and socially responsible public
agency providing high quality, professional, financial, and protective services for
residents of Santa Clara County.
County
Population
Has a diverse ethnic population of approximately 1.78 million residents in 2009.
Categorized by race: White 50.4%; Asian/Pacific Islanders 31.3%; Black/African
American 2.6%; American Indian/Alaska Native 0.5%, and other race alone
10.9%, two or more races 4.4%. Categorized by ethnicity: Hispanic 26.3%. (U.S.
Census Bureau projected data for 2009)
Funding
One of the largest public agencies in county government, representing 14.8% of
the County budget or $600.6 million of a $4.06 billion dollar budget.
Receives 94.1% of its funding from federal and state revenues.
Work Force
Manages a workforce of 2,577 budgeted staff.
Has a highly diverse cultural and ethnic staff: White 19.8%; Hispanic 40.8%;
Asian/Pacific Islanders 30.6%; African American 6.1%; and American Indian
0.3%; mixed race 1.7%. (June 30, 2011)
Language
Capacity
Has contract staff provide interpreter services in 21 languages. In addition, the
Agency has access to the Language Line Services, which provides translation
over the phone services for over 170 different languages.
Community
Partnerships
Supplements funding to 50 community organizations in the amount of $5,646,276.
These community agencies provide essential services to poor, minorities,
disabled, homeless, and at risk populations. Services include food, counseling,
and domestic violence intervention, child abuse prevention; day care, senior and
legal services; emergency shelter; health care and immigration counseling; job
training, education, and social adjustment programs.
Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) Lee Pullen, Director
(408) 975-4811
Adult
Protective
Services
Provides protective services to an average of 414 elder and dependent adults per
month.
Receives and investigates an average of 230 reports of elder and dependent
abuse per month.
In-Home
Supportive
Services
Provides In-Home Supportive Services to an average of 17,220 frail or disabled
adults per month.
Public Guardian
/Administrator
/Conservator
Assists more than 875 conservatees with their personal needs and financial
affairs, and administers 269 decedents’ estates.
Senior
Nutrition
Serves 564,375 meals to senior citizens at 35 sites, in addition to providing
600,362 home-delivered meals to homebound seniors during the fiscal year.
72
Department of Employment & Benefit Services (DEBS) Katherine
Buckovetz, Director (408) 491-6732
Cash Grant
and
Employment
Supportive
Services
Serves an average of 8,668 adults and 29,338 children per month, through the
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalW ORKs) program.
Grants $8,278,872 in cash assistance per month to 16,189 needy families with
dependent children.
Provides $30,788 in Homeless Assistance payments to 42 homeless families per
month.
Provides educational, employment and training services to 6,203 recipients
monthly, through the CalWORKs (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to
Kids) program.
Issues an average of $1,002,217 in childcare payments per month to families while
the parent is in training or newly employed.
CalFresh
(Food Stamps)
Provides $14,105,374 per month in CalFresh (Food Stamps) assistance to 97,039
persons or 44,165 households.
Medi-Cal
Provides publicly supported health insurance to 235,449 low or moderate-income
individuals per month with 47% of these clients being children.
Outstations staff at eight health center sites to assist low-income pregnant women
to receive prenatal care.
General
Assistance
Provides $861,168 in General Assistance cash and in-kind benefits to 4,641
persons per month.
Assists 512 General Assistance and Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants
recipients in obtaining approval for SSI benefits.
The General Assistance (GA) Vocational Services unit provides employment
related services i.e., Work Projects, Job Club and Job Search/Job Placement
assistance to 2,740 employable GA clients per month and about 58% are Able
Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWDs).
Refugee Provides Refugee Cash Assistance to 124 refugees per month.
Immigrant Assisted an average of 634 individuals receiving Cash Assistance Program for
Immigrants (CAPI) benefits monthly.
73
Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS) Lori Medina, Director (408) 975-5710
Abuse Reports
and
Deposition
Received 15,599 child abuse and neglect reports.
Filed 458 petitions with the Juvenile Court, making 490 children Dependents of the
Court who are served by the Family Reunification Program or Family Maintenance
Program.
Provided 359 new children and families with court ordered Family Reunification
Services and placed 156 children in adoptive homes.
Supervised
Foster Care
Services
Has the 12th largest out of home child welfare caseload in California as of January
1, 2011.
Supervised 419 licensed resource homes monthly and continually recruits new
resource families throughout the community. As of January 1, 2011, 1,026 children
were placed in supervised foster care placements. The top three placement types
are Relative Home, Foster Family Agency Home, and County Licensed Resource
Home.
Supportive
Services
Facilitated 54 Family Conferences, 60 Family Team Meetings, 364 Emancipation
Conferences (MYTIME) allowing families, relatives, and child welfare professionals
to jointly make decisions on the care, protection and reunification of their children,
and helping youth to plan for their future. In addition, 651 Team Decision-Making
(TDM) meetings were held to provide a strength-based, family focused setting for
reaching consensus on child placement and removals decisions.
Operates four culturally diverse neighborhood Family Resource Centers, which
provide prevention, intervention, and support services to families of ethnic
communities.
Agency Office (AO) Luke Leung, Acting Agency Director (408) 491-6800
Department of
Administrative
Services
The Department of Administrative Services is responsible for the overall financial
and administrative services of the Agency. The individual divisions that make up
this department manage and administer the budget, reimbursements and
payments, automation, human resources, security, civil rights, and facilities.
Additionally, the department provides oversight to the implementation of Agency
operational policy and procedures.
Department of
Development
&Operational
Services
The Department of Operational Services includes the departments of Contracts
Management, Governmental Relations and Planning, Staff Development and
Training, Information Systems and CalWIN Division. The division is responsible for
providing agency-wide leadership, direction, and management for evaluation and
planning, staff development and training, contracts administration, public
information and communication, information and telecommunication services, as
well as overall maintenance and operations of the CalWIN system.
Fiscal Year 2011 statistics reflect a 12-month period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. For
additional information, please contact, Lydia Romeo, Evaluation and Planning Project Manager, Santa
Clara County Social Services Agency at (408) 491-6738.
EXCERPT ONLY
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
Finance Committee
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
Special Meeting
June 19, 2012
Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. in the
Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Price, Scharff, Shepherd (Chair)
Absent:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Review of Human Needs Assessment
Minka van der Zwaag, Manager, Office of Human Services explained that
Staff and the Human Relations Commission (HRC) conducted a Human
Needs Assessment as a result of questions that had arisen from the Finance
Committee during the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP)
allocations discussion in 2011. The project was a major component of the
HCR work over the past year.
Ray Bacchetti, HRC Commissioner discussed the history of the HSRAP
funding. He reviewed a presentation where he noted that the overall
funding had declined since 2003 and roughly 73 percent of the funding
responded to the special relationships the City had with Palo Alto Community
Child Care (PACCC) and Avenidas. The allocation of the $1,110,000 was
divided between 12 other agencies that split the remaining 27 percent. He
showed 20 percent of Palo Alto's households had incomes below $50,000,
with half of that percent below $25,000. HSRAP reached out to people of all
different ranges, from those able to attend a lecture, to those being a major
impact in their lives. One example was assisting a homeless person in
finding a safe place to stay. HSRAP touched the lives of 7,000 people
Page 1 of 43
MINUTES
annually, 5,000 of which were living in poverty. The county programs varied
in character and resources, which shifted over time. The assessment
determined nonprofits were not only socially significant, but also
economically significant. They were employers, purchasers, and fundraisers;
they were small but collectively they were substantial. The assessment
contained nine categories: first was that children and youth be included in
the childcare, counseling, and tutoring, second was clothing, third dealt with
the subject of disabilities and was inclusive of early intervention, housing,
and mentoring, fourth dealt with domestic violence and elder abuse, which
was drastically underreported, fifth was food, sixth dealt with homelessness,
where the objective was to achieve a relationship with a provider, seventh
dealt with mental and physical health, which needed to include dental
health, eighth dealt with seniors and how they were a vulnerable part of the
community, becoming a growing proportion of low income, due to them
outliving their assets, and ninth dealt with transportation, which had a
connection through all of the previous categories. The recommendations
included funding, they saw one percent of the General Fund budget as an
aspirational goal, second was to convene on a collaborative basis for greater
efficacy of the program, third was to provide meaningful guidance and
objectives to the providers through support of low income residents, fourth
was to simplifying the process, fifth was to make transportation more
integrated, at the request the Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC)
to review the HSRAP process for assistance on social safety, and sixth was to
set a general guideline for future providers and the HRC. Topics for further
study included enrichment programs for children, growth in senior
populations, affordable housing, and in -kind studies.
Council Member Price felt the domestic violence and elder abuse issue was
detailed well. She thought a key concern was in the underreporting. She
pursued the information of police intervention and lack of follow through.
Mr. Bacchetti said many people had not pressed charges, which made the
situation disappear, while the circumstances still dwelled. There was not
much the police were able to do once the complaint was dropped. The
police were mandated reporters, so once an act of violence against a child or
elder was known, they reported the situation to the District Attorney.
Council Member Price inquired into healthcare recipients of HSRAP and
wondered whether they had been consistent in requesting assistance
through the City.
Ms. Van der Zwaag said the Mayview Health Center had been consistent in
their request for $16,000 to meet or exceed their given HSRAP requirements
and service numbers.
Page 2 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Council Member Price asked if other healthcare providers or clinics had
applied for HSRAP.
Ms. van der Zwaag said not recently. Peninsula Health Care Connections
was a new grantee this year, they provide health services to the homeless at
the Opportunity Center. The HSRAP support was to support a case
manager's position to help the homeless population with housing.
Council Member Price was surprised that others had not applied for the
limited amount of funds, especially with the high demand.
Ms. van der Zwaag said each additional recipient reduced the amount
received by the current recipients.
Council Member Price suggested Staff confer with Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) to help with the transportation issue. VTA had a program
that assisted with a door -to -door -transportation to medical services.
Recently VTA applied for a grant with Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) to reduce rate fares for those in need. There were
services available but the main issue seemed to be that the persons in need
of services were unaware of their existence. She asked if the community bus
service was utilized by individuals.
Ms. van der Zwaag said Staff had reviewed the route map for the community
bus service; mostly the timing did not match the needs of the individuals.
Staff was hopeful that the Committee would request the P&TC review the
transportation portion so that they could possibly delve deeper into a
resolution. She would like a dialogue with members of the non-profit
community involved so that she could see when changes that might benefit
all involved. In discussions with the Outreach individuals, the VTA services
were not always accurate in timing and were frequently late to their
appointments.
Council Member Price suggested Staff communicate those issues to the VTA.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with Staff on the zero sum issues. The biggest
frustration seemed to be lack of flexibility and a yearly reduced figure.
Mr. Bacchetti agreed. There were growing needs but reduced availability.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what else had to be cut in order to increase funds
and whether they discussed with the current recipients, with regard to
Page 3 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
providing services. He also wanted to know what would happen if there
were a 3-5 percent reduction in their grant amount.
Mr. Bacchetti said they wanted to know where Council stood on the Staff
suggestions prior to working with the community. The reason for the 3-5
percent reduction was that small increments could be better planned for.
The special relationship the City had with PACCC and Avenidas required
direction from Council. PACCC informed Staff that if there was a reduction in
funds, they would serve fewer kids and Avenidas would also have to limit
their programs.
Vice Mayor Scharff had not wanted anything cut from childcare, or seniors,
but if there was a need demonstrated, he would give the service funds over
to reduce the current recipients funding. He wanted clarification on the
community needs so he could weigh the importance of the groups being
serviced. He questioned what would be ample enough time to inform
recipients of a three percent reduction, to give them enough time to increase
their budget through fund raising or other means.
Mr. Bacchetti said establishing priority ranking was difficult. It was not a
question of an infinite amount of money, because he believed a limited
amount was a positive process. The question was whether there was a
possibility of greater synergy that could provide a higher level of flexibility
because the current structure essentially locked the hands of Staff and the
HRC.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if funds were limited to low income participants,
would there be any current recipients that would no longer qualify.
Mr. Bacchetti stated there were two agencies, Adolescent Counseling
Services and Youth Community Services, that did not have income
guidelines but provided services for low income individuals. He mentioned
that funds needed to be taken away from current providers to free up funds
to provide funds for another group. The fear was no new ideas would be
brought forward to generate new funds.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Committee had implemented option three,
would those two groups no longer qualify.
Ms. van der Zwaag noted that Adolescent Counseling Services did not ask
for income verification from the children because that would set up a barrier
for children, and they may not seek help.
Page 4 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Committee had accepted the
recommendation of a new rule being created and if they had fit within the
new rule. He expressed concern that the creation of a specific rule might
eliminate Adolescent Counseling Services from eligibility.
Mr. Bacchetti asked whether those who were currently in the HSRAP
program had a grandfather clause implemented. The question was why the
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) had not supported Adolescent
Counseling Services, being that they were a school based program.
Vice Mayor Scharff questioned the grandfather clause because there might
be a organization equally diverse that needed the funding, but did not meet
the income verification and were not accepted. The grantees should base
their decision off of necessity, not on being grandfathered in.
Mr. Bacchetti said the notion of grandfathering was to be able to move
forward with new situations without eliminating the current or previous
assistance mechanisms.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if anything was lost in simplifying the HSRAP
process.
Ms. van der Zwaag said no.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for an explanation on the suggested coordination
and collaboration.
Mr. Bacchetti reported that there was no clear concept as of yet. The Staff
Report mentioned the need to coordinate collaboration of groups to benefit
the needs of the community. The first step was to show there was a benefit
to the community in working together. There was presently collaboration
occurring, but surrounding specific people. The goal was to have all
organizations helping individuals know what else was available, and how
they could better serve the individuals by sending them to another
organization that would better serve their needs.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the coordination and collaboration was
organization driven or Staff driven.
Ms. van der Zwaag said there would be a pilot program to help gain interest
from the non -profits in the HSRPA circle of social services agencies. She
agreed that the Office of Human Services was taxed with a number of items
and a full-fledged program would not be within the scope of their abilities.
Page 5 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Staff and the HRC were interested in getting more non -profits connected to
one another, and with the community.
Chair Shepherd commented on the new question in the application process
and how the non-profit would coordinate this with others.
Ms. van der Zwaag said yes, it had been in the process last year and
continued this year.
Chair Shepherd said the goal was to have the organizations leverage
themselves rather than have Staff maintain the burden.
Ms. van der Zwaag agreed and noted that there were a couple agencies that
embraced the idea. The Downtown Streets Team made contacts during an
RFP (Request for Proposal) process and based their application on that
contact.
Council Member Price said the technical assistance model for non -profits was
a common model in terms of trying to support associations. She asked if in
the current application there was a question asking what kind of technical
assistance would help the organization better create and develop services.
Ms. van der Zwaag stated they did not have anything at this point in time.
Council Member Price felt incorporating that type of question in the
application process would be of benefit. She worked with a non-profit called
Compass Point and noted that they have a lot of expertise and services
available. She discussed including the VTA and workforce development as
part of the collaboration.
Ms. van der Zwaag reiterated the idea was to start small. She suggested
having Compass Point come to the City, rather than the organizations
individually go through them.
Council Member Price said there was a group in the Stanford community that
may be able to assist with elements of engagement.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted Palo Alto was doing nine times more than what
other communities were doing. Mountain View was at $175,000, while Palo
Alto was at $1.1 million in assistance funding. He asked if Mountain View
provided the entire amount to a single organization, or if it was divided
amongst different groups.
Page 6 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Mr. Bacchetti said the question went beyond what Staff looked into. The City
of Mountain View did supply community centers, youth centers, and a
variety of things that Palo Alto would categorize under Avenidas or some
other organization. He did not necessarily feel Palo Alto was doing more, but
was doing it in a different manner.
Vice Mayor Scharff said it appeared through Staff Report comparisons that
there were no other cities that were providing monies through grants.
Chair Shepherd said Menlo Park had several child care centers and senior
centers.
Ms. van der Zwaag agreed that some were funded through General Fund
dollars, as were Mountain View's senior and child care centers.
Chair Shepherd asked how the role of government played out in those areas.
She believed the agreement with Avenidas was a positive solution. She
understands there needs to be a place for residents to be able to go to;
although the City did not need to own, but supply the facility.
Ms. van der Zwaag said each community handled their services differently,
which made it difficult to compare. The City was funding in many of the
same services in 1983 and merged them into the unified process approach
of HSRAP. She saw the collaboration between the City and HSRAP as a
collaborative and positive approach. The City had taken on the responsibility
to support non -profits in that manner. A number of non -profits experienced
difficulty in receiving funding because they were located in Palo Alto, which
was viewed in financial arenas as an affluent community. She suggested
reviewing the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, both the existing and
proposed versions.
Chair Shepherd stated that if there was not an organized mechanism on how
the City supported homelessness and at -risk community members, it could
become a burden to the merchants and neighborhoods. She was surprised
to see over 20 percent of the community was under $50,000 income. She
calculated 20 percent of the 65,000 residents and realized there was a gap
because only 7,000 low income individuals or families were being served out
of the 13,000. She suggested adding a category for women in their services
because when women had their needs met, usually the children went with
them.
Ms. van der Zwaag agreed to look into the matter further.
Page 7 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Chair Shepherd asked if there was any coordination or collaboration with the
Palo Alto Community Fund. She understood their mission was equally
important to closing the gap. A component of their organization focused on
youth and children.
Mr. Bacchetti noted that the HRC had been in contact with the group.
Chair Shepherd agreed that the transportation portion was of major concern.
She mentioned bringing the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) into the equation.
Caltrain was working well but it could be expensive for those in need.
Mr. Bacchetti suggested the HRC may not be the correct commission to
handle transportation issues. They understood there was a need and a gap,
which was why there was a request for the Committee to bring the P&TC
into the situation.
Chair Shepherd believed the issue was in the spot light by a number of
boards and commissions for different considerations.
Mr. Bacchetti said the main goal for the HRC, in connection with the
transportation issues, was to have them noticed by those who could make
changes.
Chair Shepherd mentioned a book titled "The Network Non -Profit" that would
be beneficial for ideas. The Staff Report captured the right questions in the
right way but the two groups growing in need were seniors and young
people.
Council Member Price asked how widely the Staff Report was being
distributed.
Ms. van der Zwaag said every participant in the process, the stakeholders,
the staff member of each focus group, all of the HSRAP agencies, and all of
the Santa Clara County Health and Human Services contacts received a
copy.
Council Member Price asked how many participants of the services were
interviewed during the process of writing the Staff Report, and where the
results of those conversations would be within the report.
Ms. van der Zwaag said most of the focus groups were with recipients of
services, or with the demographic of recipients of the services. They
received a high level of response from the survey, close to 500 responses.
Page 8 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Vice Mayor Scharff said in 2009 there were 300 people in Palo Alto receiving
food stamps. When the regulations changed, the amount of people jumped
to 600. He asked what the income level was in order to receive food
stamps.
Ms. van der Zwaag said for a family of one, the gross monthly income was
$1,100; a typical family of four received approximately $500 in food stamps.
Vice Mayor Scharff said most of the population under the threshold of low
income was seniors and single mothers with children.
Chair Shepherd asked for an overview of the Family Resources Program.
Ms. van der Zwaag mentioned over a year ago, the Family Resources
Foundation discontinued the relationship with. Palo Alto to support Staff
Member that performed the updates for the data base and the hard copies
for the web site. The calls that were received were answered by herself and
Management Assistant, Debbie Park. There was a college summer intern
who had been assigned the responsibility of updating the web site.
Chair Shepherd asked about the Ambassador Program.
Ms. van der Zwaag said she had not had the capacity to make the
Ambassador Program happen last year. She was hopeful in having the
program start next year.
Chair Shepherd thought there was hope that Project Safety Net would pick
up some of the work load of the Family Resources Program. She asked if
that was still possible.
Ms. van der Zwaag said the situation had not materialized, and she did not
see it being a part of Project Safety Net in the future.
Chair Shepherd said the first recommendation was for the HSRAP, a total of
$1,110,452, be augmented by five percent annually, or until it reached
$1,500,000; this was to happen approximately six years thereafter,
including inflation. At that level, it was to take approximately 1.0 percent of
the City's General Funds budget, which was recommended as an aspirational
commitment of the City toward human needs funding.
Mr. Bacchetti said that was correct, and the five percent equated to $55,000
annually.
Page 9 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Council Member Price confirmed the $55,000 would be an additional amount
billed.
Chair Shepherd clarified that this was to be for the beginning of the 2013
budget.
Ms. van der Zwaag said the City was currently in the second year of the
HSRAP process, so the five percent did not need to happen until 2014.
Council Member Price asked how the financial piece would work if the
Committee approved the recommendation.
Chair Shepherd mentioned the Cost of Services Study, which was not
discussed, and how that applied to the HSRAP funding.
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services said since the HSRAP
program was an ongoing item, the funds would be granted to them while
there was a cut taken from another area. The second option was the Cost of
Service Study, where there were several components that would be
reviewed by the Council, and the services portfolio would be prioritized. At
that point, the funds could be redistributed based on policy decisions. The
options were to change the level of services, reductions,. and change in the
delivery of services. An option he had not thoroughly discussed with the City
Manager was the Stanford monies; $4 million in the Community Health and
Safety Program. Some of the funds had been allocated previously. He noted
the money was receiving a 2.5 percent rate of return. Depending on the
amount of funds requested, there was approximately $50,000 available from
the interest earning, to supplement HSRAP without touching the capital.
Vice Mayor Scharff said $50,000 was the asking price for the first year,
$100,000 the second year, and $150,000 the third year; the $50,000 in
interest would only cover the first year.
Mr. Perez understood. He was attempting to provide options, not necessarily
the entire fix. He asked if he was correct because one of the
recommendations was to achieve $1.5 million.
Chair Shepherd said it was one percent of the budget.
Mr. Bacchetti asked if there was any way to lay claim to the development
fees.
Mr. Perez noted Staff was reviewing that as an option. They needed to
verify there was a legal nexus.
Page 10 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Council Member Price asked for confirmation on the reference to the
Stanford monies.
Mr. Perez said they were Stanford Development Agreement funds.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what the upcoming budget deficit were for the
next five years, beginning with 2014.
Mr. Perez said his Staff had not fully updated the budget numbers since the
last Council direction. According to the Long Range Financial Forecast for
the General Fund, if all of the cuts were made in the proposed budget, and
for the most part, with the exception of the frozen positions, they had been
agreed to. The 2014 deficit was approximately $1 million; the 2015 deficit
was $3 million but did not include potential concessions from the non -safety
groups or CaIPERS negative position.
Chair Shepherd said CaIPERS had been at 7.75 percent.
Mr. Perez stated that was the assumed rate of return.
Chair Shepherd asked if they were going to be below zero.
Mr. Perez said he was afraid so. The latest article he read was good through
the third quarter of the fiscal year where they were at positive 1.9 percent,
based on current projections. There was another week or so left in the fiscal
year, but it looked like they were at a negative 4.8 percent; that was not
what Staff was counting on.
Vice Mayor Scharff said when the City lowered the discount rates on the
medical issues, the Annual Required Contribution (ARC,) by .25 percent, it
was $1.5 million per quarter.
Mr. Perez said yes, $1.5 million citywide.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked what it meant to the budget if CaIPERS lowered
their discount rate of return by a .25 or .50 percent.
Mr. Perez was unable to answer the question right now. Staff would compile
research and make some assumptions but the Chief Actuary was the one
who had been pushing for the lowering of the rate. He discussed not
smoothing the downturns any longer. The last downturn of 23 percent was
smoothed over a three year period. The budget would be affected based on
how aggressive he was with the negative 4.8 percent.
Page 11 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if there was a sense of magnitude to expect.
Chair Shepherd believed it could easily be $10 million.
Mr. Perez said the information had not yet been communicated with Staff.
He brought the matter to the Committee's attention so they would be aware
if the budget numbers changed and were mindful of the background.
Chair Shepherd clarified CalPERS was approaching a negative 4.8 percent for
the close of fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Perez confirmed yes.
Chair Shepherd said the City was expecting a return of 7/75 (I think it is
"point") percent.
Council Member Burt said no, the 7.75 percent was the anticipated annual
average rate, which was different from the expectation for a particular year
and the impact of the change in a specific year.
Mr. Perez clarified that CaIPERS said, until the deep downturn over the last
20 years, that they averaged 7.75 percent, with slight variances from year
to year. They had made changes in their approach to investments and were
less aggressive in their policies. In those two scenarios, it was the drivers
that changed the rate of return.
Council Member Burt clarified that the City had an individual year where
there might be a spike up or down and wanted an explanation of how that
affected the near term and longer term contributions.
Mr. Perez said the Actuary for the State of California that managed the City's
pension used the assumptions of 7.5 percent, and then trued the numbers
up to the actual rate of return. In the past, as a result of agencies notifying
the Actuary, the hit was occurring at the worst time of the downturn. The
Actuary had spread the rate of return over three years, which basically
divided the percentage by three, which incrementally increased the annual
required payment. His concern was the Actuary had no longer spread the
current negative 4.8 percent over a three year period, making the increased
payment due in one lump sum.
Vice Mayor Scharff voiced his thought that earmarking on an annual $50,000
increase was a bad budgeting practice. He believed the City attempted to
achieve more funds for HSRAP, but with the uncertainties in the fiscal
Page 12 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
numbers, creating a policy may not help because it may not be able to
sustain itself. He was not convinced the alternative recommendation was the
best option but he felt it needed more consideration. He asked if the HRC
was recommending the Committee adopt an alternative one that stated: for
the next five years all continuing grants above $10,000 will, at the
expiration of present contracts, be subject to a three to five percent annual
reduction, with the freed funds made available for new programs and new
agencies, or were they requesting the Commission to explore the option
further.
Mr. Bacchetti said if the Committee directed the HRC to explore further
details for alternative one to achieve a better understanding of what the
consequences might be with various ways of structuring, they were capable
of doing so. He noted a second alternative where the Council, in partnership
with the HRC assembled at least semi-annually. Its membership would
include representatives of non -profits, pertinent City departments, PAUSD,
community faith groups, and possibly others who were available for
consideration, if the Committee did not agree with the initial
recommendation.
Vice Mayor Scharff clarified it was the preference of the HRC that if the
Committee did not approve the recommended increase of the annual
funding, the second choice was going to be the direction for exploration.
Mr. Bacchetti said if the Committee directed the HRC to explore further
details, they would. He mentioned the third alternative was to leave the
situation the way it was presently set-up.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Price
that the Finance Committee direct the Human Relations Commission (HRC)
explore alternative recommendation number 1; the next five years all
continuing grants above $10,000 will, at the expiration of present contracts,
be subject to a 3 - 5 percent annual reduction, with the freed funds made
available for new programs and new agencies, and that they look at as many
alternative ways as possible in terms of finding new resources for the Human
Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP).Council Member Price
confirmed her second was for the original Staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed but said the goal would be to not be locked in,
but to look for alternative resources. He felt the report was well thought out
and he understood the need for flexibility. He was concerned with the notion
of serving less children and seniors; he was hesitant to cut those budgets.
He believed spreading out the reduction over a number of years provided
adequate planning on the part of the organizations. He was not satisfied with
Page 13 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
an absolute recommendation for earmarking on certain amounts of funding
on uncertain budgets. He felt the Motion expressed the desire for additional
funding for HSRAP, the Committee was supportive of HSRAP and the
organizations involved.
Council Member Price preferred the idea of exploring the alternatives in
detail. The alternative recommendation was troublesome, with the
significant cuts, although perhaps necessary. She recommended different
formulas for locating a similar but perhaps more affective percentage. She
was mainly concerned with the recommendation and that the two largest
recipients of the funds had not been actively engaged in the conversation.
She believed they should be involved in brainstorming ideas to assist the
City in assisting them.
Council Member Burt brought up the $4 million Stanford Hospital
Development funds. He asked for Mr. Perez to identify the categories the
funds were designed for.
Mr. Perez said they were for the community health and safety programs.
Council Member Burt stated a portion of the funds had been utilized for the
Project Safety Net staffing.
Mr. Perez said that was correct.
Council Member Burt asked what the amount was and where it was drawn
from.
Mr. Perez said $65,000 was used in 2012; $45,000 for the Project Safety
Net (PSN) Coordinator, $20,000 for supplies, and in 2013, there would be
$118,000 expenditure for the PSN Coordinator, totaling $218,000.
Council Member Burt asked if the earnings came off of the principle.
Mr. Perez said the earnings were at 2.7 percent.
Council Member Burt was concerned that the estimated earnings for 2.7
percent on $4 million were $100,000 not $50,000.
Mr. Perez apologized for the miscalculation.
Council Member Burt said the amount taken for the PSN was described by
taking a $2 million fund and extending it over a period of time. If the
interest was being used for HSRAP on an ongoing basis and was considered
Page 14 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
an endowment, there would not be sufficient funding remaining to cover the
PSN. However, for the purposes of this conversation, the $2 million was set
aside for an ongoing principle and a declining principle for the other amount.
There was $2 million dedicated to PSN, where $100,000 of this amount,
annually, would decline in principle. Over a period of time, it would continue
to earn interest at a declining rate based on the principle amount. He asked
how the budget treated the interest income.
Mr. Perez stated Staff had recommended allocating the interest earned to
the Community Health and Safety programs category.
Council Member Burt clarified that the budget had not included the spending
of interest earned.
Mr. Perez agreed and noted there was no Council policy on expenditures of
earned interest.
Council Member Burt asked for clarification on the 2013 budget for PSN.
Mr. Perez confirmed $153,000.
Council Member Burt said there was approximately $105,000 being earned
in interest. The initial conversation was to utilize the principle of the $4
million to pay for the PSN functions; there was a backfill of two thirds of
what would be bleeding down in principle with interest.
Mr. Perez noted there was a projection of $65,000 that would be spent.
Council Member Burt calculated there was $150,000 being spent and a little
over $100,000 gained on returned interest. Initially the spending was to
come from the principle. The Committee could allocate $50,000 of interest
from $2 million of the Fund and still withhold making the long term
budgetary commitment. This idea was an option for ongoing income,
without encroaching on the principle amount. If the interest earned on the
second half, and the $2 million was untouched, then the principle would be
bleeding down to a lower rate than projected.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked if additional distribution was to begin in 2014.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER
that Staff consider one source of revenue could be the interest income off of
the Stanford Hospital Community Health and Safety Fund.
Page 15 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Council Member Burt was unclear as to the direction of the Motion. He
asked if the Motion was directing Staff and the HRC to implement an
alternative recommendation number one.
Vice Mayor Scharff clarified no, the Motion was specific not to make
alternative recommendation number one operational. They were to explore
revenue options and return with a plan.
Mr. Bacchetti agreed that was his understanding.
Council Member Burt asked if the Motion might include some hybrid of the
initial recommendation and alternative number one.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated that was not clear in the Motion but he would be
accepting to amendment, assuming there was more money located.
Chair Shepherd felt it was a good time to evaluate the HSRAP funding,
especially since the City was beginning the distribution of the General Fund
resources in the upcoming year. She mentioned there were two embedded
non -profits, PACCC and Avenidas. She requested the HRC evaluate
Adolescent Counseling Services and Youth Counseling Services (YCS) to see
whether or not the City should place them in a similar category. She
requested that be added to the Motion.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked Council Member Shepherd to specify her request
for an addition to the Motion.
Chair Shepherd she asked Ms. van der Zwaag to provide the type of
organizations in question.
Ms. van der Zwaag said they considered Multi -year Contracts or Sole Source,
but both of those terms were used for a longer funding cycle. Avenidas and
PACCC contracts could be renewed for up to five years, whereas Adolescent
Counseling Services and YCS were under a two-year contract.
Chair Shepherd stated her interest was to have the HRC explore both
organizations as longstanding historical relationships with HSRAP to see the
possibility of changing their category; she wanted to compare it with
Avenidas and PACCC.
Mr. Bacchetti acknowledged the HRC explore the organizations and their
possible changing roles. He suggested a Motion.
Page 16 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Vice Mayor Scharff recommended incorporating the recommendation into the
Motion.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER
that the Human Relations Commission (HRC) explore the compatibility of
Adolescent Counseling Services and Youth Counseling Services (YCS) to
Avenidas and the Palo Alto Child Care Center (PACCC) to verify if they could
be placed in the same longstanding category under Human Services
Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP).
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Chair Shepherd was uncertain whether the Committee desired to review the
remaining recommendations in the same detail with the funding
recommendations. She was aware that Staff was moving forward with the
simplification of the HSRAP process but was requesting a formal Motion.
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by xxx that the Finance
Committee adopt Staff recommendation numbers two through 6.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked about the Coordination and Collaboration
recommendation regarding Council, in partnership with the HRC to convene
at least semi-annually. Its membership would include representatives of
non-profit agencies, pertinent City departments, PAUSD, people in the faith
community, and possibly others. Its role would be to advise HRC and the
City's Office of Human Service (OHS). He was uncertain as to the amount of
Staff time that would be necessary and how the concept would look in the
end; he agreed to explore it further. In discussion of the basic needs and
low income, his understanding was that the approach was to cut out two
groups that were already receiving funds.
Ms. van der Zwaag said several groups did not ask for income qualifications,
including Avenidas.
Vice Mayor Scharff stated he would not be supportive of such a large
change. He was not sure what the unintended consequences were and that
made him uncomfortable with the effect it may have on the current people
being served.
Mr. Bacchetti wanted the City Council to understand how the HRC projected
reasonable guidance in the field when quality of life was an expansive
Page 17 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
notion. They merely wanted to ensure there was a strong bias towards lower
income needs.
Council Member Price supported the concept as a core element of how
HSRAP defined the distribution of funds and their use. She mentioned that
the Committee had not asked Staff, or the HRC, to return with detailed
specific elements, but with an overall assessment. She suggested approving
the recommendations in concept, then requiring them to return with more
elaborate ideas and a plan of action.
Vice Mayor Scharff said Avenidas provided a broad range of senior
programs. The City had a special relationship with them and it was of grave
concern to cut the programs simply because they did not meet income
qualification questioning.
Ms. van der Zwaag had conversations with the Avenidas staff and was aware
that, although they did not inquire as to the participants' income levels, a
majority of them were low income.
Vice Mayor Scharff confirmed that this was his fear. By making this
recommended change, the City could be hindering the ability for Avenidas to
broaden their programs participant base.
Ms. van der Zwaag indicated the HSRAP program only supported a small
portion of the programs Avenidas offered. They supply the City with a Scope
if Services, and if the recommendation was to pass Avenidas, this may alter
their scope of services.
Vice Mayor Scharff said the HSRAP supported 75 percent of the income, and
if the program was not broken, why would you force them to change.
Council Member Burt wanted to revisit what HSRAP was historically designed
for. There was a fundamental purpose around basic needs and low income.
He asked if there was an actual reference or if it was an understanding.
Ms. van der Zwaag clarified there was historic language that had the duality
to the current language referring to basic needs and quality of life.
Council Member Burt asked if there was guidance in the funding source
around the issue of the basic needs and low income.
Vice Mayor Scharff noted there was a reference to the question on page 16
of the Council packet; the plan centered around two kinds of service:
Page 18 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Meeting individual needs and providing benefits to individuals for the
community's well-being. Five fields of services were identified as:
1. Health
2. Basic material needs
3. Individual and collective safety
4. Individual and family life
5. Social development and education.
Chair Shepherd said there was a chronology at the end of the Staff Report
that said in 1992 preference was given to, what was then, Senior
Coordinating Counsel, to, what were now, Avenidas and PACCC.
Ms. van der Zwaag clarified they were observations and not patterns.
Council Member Burt said there did not appear to be any basis in the policy
but the Committee was reviewing historic context to determine whether
there should be greater clarity in the policy. He believed the Finance
Committee was not the appropriate level to create policy. He recommended
the Committee either approve to bring the matter to the full Council or
include the Policy & Services Committee for the policy portion. The
Committee could re -review the financial aspects of the policy once it was
drafted. There was a related question around the policy asking whether
Avenidas and PACCC should be a consideration of means in testing for what
was allocated. There were two sub -populations of seniors and children.
Within those sub -populations, he questioned whether they were to be
treated equally, or with a greater emphasis to those with need. He felt the
funds should be tilted towards programs that supported individuals with a
greater need.
Mr. Bacchetti noted there was a more defined line that could be drawn with
PACCC because the HSRAP funds went to a specific area, whereas Avenidas
had a variety of programs.
Council Member Burt stated Ms. van der Zwaag said Avenidas had programs
that were more need -based.
Ms. van der Zwaag clarified that the programs supported by HSRAP did not
have means testing.
Council Member Burt said when the item returned to the Committee, he was
interested in having more information on what programs were needs -based.
MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd that
the Finance Committee request Staff return to the Committee to provide
Page 19 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
guidance on whether the funds for Avenidas could have an emphasis on
serving those in greatest need but not an exclusive allocation to that driver.
Chair Shepherd said the information in the Motion appeared to be covered
under recommendation number three. She noted there was no Motion to
move the remainder of those items forward.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for clarification on the Motion. He recommended
that Avenidas be informed of the meetings to submit input on the discussion.
Council member Burt stated that was part of his understanding of the
guidance.
Council Member Price asked for clarification in the course of the Motion. He
wanted to know if there was support in the concept or principle statement
recommendation number three, and whether HSRAP be focused primarily on
meeting basic needs, serving low-income residents, or, to a lesser extent,
benefiting agencies or projects that make no economic distinctions among
beneficiaries.
Council Member Burt thought that was a good point but it was not stated in
the Motion. He would like to have it returned to the Finance Committee for a
decision, rather than a specific direction tonight.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Chair Shepherd that the
Finance Committee approve Staff recommendations number four: that the
HSRAP application process be pared down to essentials and enable multi-
year grants, and number five: that the Planning and Transportation
Commission study the relationship of transportation needed to better
connect residents to human services and, working with the HRC, the VTA,
and the Transportation Division of the City's Department of Planning and
Community Environment, that it propose an action plan that will make
transportation integral to the social safety net.
Chair Shepherd supported the Motion, if the Maker had included
recommendation numbers two and six.
Vice Mayor Scharff asked for clarification on recommendation number six.
Mr. Bacchetti said the recommendations covered under number six were in
the form of guidelines for categories of children and youth, clothing,
Page 20 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
disabilities, domestic violence and elder abuse, food, homelessness, mental
and physical health, seniors, and transportation.
Vice Mayor Scharff preferred to handle recommendation number two
separately.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
MOTION: Chair Shepherd moved, seconded by xxx that the Finance
Committee approve Staff recommendation number two: that the Council, in
partnership with the Human Relations Commission (HRC) convene a
collaborative to meet at least semi-annually. Its membership would include
representatives of non -profits, pertinent City departments, the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD), the faith community, and possibly others.
MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
the Finance Committee direct Staff to return to the Committee with a plan
and an understanding of how the implementation would be executed, and
the amount of Staff time would be involved in implementing such a plan.
Vice Mayor Scharff believed the recommendation was worthwhile to explore.
It was a good suggestion but he needed more detail for an accurate
direction.
Chair Shepherd saw recommendation number two as necessary for HSRAP.
Staff was to return to the Committee with concepts on how to proceed with
the ideas and the Committee would approve them.
Vice Mayor Scharff agreed Staff would return with the conceptual plans and
whether they felt there was ample time and ability to accomplish the tasks.
At that time the Committee would determine whether or not to approve
them.
Chair Shepherd did not understand why Staff would spend time exploring
the possibilities if the Committee might not accept the concept.
Council Member Burt said the Motion was looking for greater analysis and
information that would better enable the Committee to make a decision.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Page 21 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12
MINUTES
Chair Shepherd noted there were further topics for discussion on enrichment
programs for children, growth of senior population, and affordable housing.
She asked if Staff and the HRC wished to develop the topics further and
return with recommendations for review.
Ms. van der Zwaag stated they may become future agenda items for the
HRC.
2. Palo Alto History Museum's Business Plan for a Roth Building Lease
Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services explained the Palo Alto
History Museum (the Museum) had the option to lease the Ross Building.
One of the components to the option demonstrated was whether there was
funding available to renovate the building. One of the components being
proposed was the use of Federal Historic Tax Credit (FHTC), Program tax
credits. The Finance Committee (the Committee) reviewed the matter in
October of 2011. They requested further information, such as having the
Museum return to the Committee with a Business Plan and to suggest a
budget.
Council Member Burt questioned whether At -Place items were duplicated or
had different performance results.
Mr. Perez stated they were the same.
Chair Shepherd pointed out to the Museum that there were two new
Committee members since there previous discussion. She informed the
Museum members that they may be requested to repeat information from
October, information that the new members may not be aware of.
Gail Woolley, Vice President for the Palo Alto History Museum was present to
request the Committee recommend to all Council members that they go
forward with the investment tax credit process and to amend the lease to
include profit tenants. She explained that the investment tax credit process
was complex but it was a positive opportunity to make a Public/Private
Partnership, which then made it possible to bring private funds for public
benefit. The potential was for $1.2 million to come to Palo Alto to create
another exceptional resource for the community. The initial tax credit law
was passed in 1976 and was first used in Palo Alto by City Manager, Bill Cox
to demolish the building where MacArthur Park currently sits. The agreement
with the investor was no longer than five years, which was federal law. The
City Council and the investors needed to know the recommendation to insure
that profit tenants would succeed. There was a term called the "75 percent
rule," which meant investors could specify revenues to equal at least 75
Page 22 of 43
Finance Committee Special Meeting
Minutes 5/17/12