HomeMy WebLinkAbout0143.093~'
I .. .'
~ ,,' . -"-, -.-
5
.•.. ~
February 18, 199)
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Re!ilponse by Sta£f anC HymalL_ Relations Commission to Pr~'p5>.lL"".4
changes to tbe Human §~ryiees ~asource Alloeatiqn_P~Q~e99 (xSRAP)
Kembers of tbe Council:
The City council reque:;ted that the Human Relations Commission
(liRe) and City sta.ff reviev a proposal submitted by two council
Members regaraing changes to the Human Services Reuource Allocation
Process (HERAP). 'T lis report su.mmarizes the findings of the HRC
and staff recommen,' 'ltions regarding this propos3.1, and recommends
that these be referred to the Finance Committee tor further
discussion.
At the City Council 1TLeeting of september 21, 1992, Council directed
staff to worK. '''ii th the HRC in consideraticn of the follO\.ring goals
~ith reqard to the HSRAP:
l~ Increase the total a~ount of funding for Human service con
tracts by a fixed arec ~t each year I such as the Consumer Price
Ir,dex (CPIl or tt-e average percentage increase in employee
salaries fer the prior year, INhiche~ .. 'er is 1 !=!5S.
2.
3.
Recogni ze the special relationship that the Senior Coordinat
ing Council (sec) and Palo Alt~ Community Child Care (PACCC)
have with the C1ty and ensure that both organizations
automatically receive whatever increase is gr~nted to Human
Service contracts as a whol~. Review separating sec and PACCC
froM the HSRAP and adding them to the HllJ:1an services Division
internal City budget proc~ss.
Funding for !"lew agencies could be considered as "seed lnon<::yl!
for new prog1.-ams; th€re ""Quld then be no guarantee af funding
in future years, but if the HSRAP determines it sh':)uld be
funded, the second year would be at a maxi~um of 75 percent of
the first year funding and the third year would be at a
maximum of 50 percent of the first year funding. consideration
could be given to a three year funding limit_
CMR: 14 3: 93
•
" . ..;.-,
Page ~o
4. If money is available as the "seed money" conce~t tak~s hold.
consideration could be given to build into the HSRAP a~ded
"points" for agencies that provide matching funds for tr-~e
city's investment in their programs.
5. For existing agencies, i.e.r funded in 1992-93, options are:
a) Treat the~ as a "new" agency after 1992-9):
b) Consider any increases above the 1992-$3 "base" on a
~matching funds" basis; and
c) Allow SCC and PACCC to apply for more than their base on
a "matching funds~ basis.
Narrative
Tl:e HRC considered these general goals at th:cee meetings, two
general meetings held on November 12 and December la, 1992, and one
subcommittee meeting held on November 25, 1992~
Based on these meetings, the HRC recO'Ir.mends the follmollng:
The BRC r.commen~s that optiOD '1 be impleme~te~.
Rational e for the mot:.ion recommending implementation of this opthm
is that it would provide clarity to the City's human se!"Vice ccr'.
tractors regarding the total amount OT funding available from the
City on a year-to-year basis. This 'Would not ffpromise" a certain
contract arr.ount for any agency. but provide a ballpark figure to
assist them in preparing grant reqlJ.ests~ Individual contract
amounts still 'Would be cetenr,ined based en performance of the scope
of services stated in the contract and the level of need prevalent
in the cO:mJ!'lunity. Knoll.'ing the total a;-:,ount of funding avai lable
early in the process would allo.... for better planning ~')~ the
agencies, and by city staff and ':orr,rr.issioners, as well. This
option would also provide stability to the HSRAP funding process.
The HRC does not support Option ~2.
The rationale for opposition to this concept includes the percep
tion among other human service agencies, man:t of \Jhich also have a
long-standing relation$hip with the CitYI that they would feel
slighted not to enjoy the IIspecial relationship" status that see
and PAC'CC 1oIou1d.
The HRC feels that it is difficul t to dra' .... the 1 ine between sec and
PACCC and many of the other agencies in terms of a "special
relationship" as the nRC defines it. It can be argued that
Peninsula Area Informaticm and Refer-ral Service (PAAIRS),
Cc,mrnunity Association tor the Ret6.r-ded (CAR), Adolescent Counseling
Services (ACS). Young Women's Christian As~ociation (YWCA). and
CMR:14J:9J
-~ ..
rage Threo:.
Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), all could ~~~e
legitimate argumer.ts ci't-inq their sL-'ecial status ..... ith the City.
By removing two major cont.racto,:,s frorr, the HSRAP Process and 76
percent of the funding, the HR(' believes that this might lessen the
influence of the other 14 contracted agencies and endangpr their
future funding.
Accountability and oversight would be reduced by not continuing the
biddir::g and publ ic hearing process fClr all agencies. 'l'his proposal
would not necessarily decrease the advocacy and lobbying pursuits
by the t,,·o "spec1.al r-elationship" age.ncies, because the agencies
'Would st ill ha ..... e the optior to lobby the City Council at the public
budget hearings if their funding .... ere to be recommended for
"'eduction by city 'staff during the internal budget procoass.
The HRC recommends that scc and PACCC receive whatever increase is
granted to HUman Service contracts .3S a -whole. u!11ess mi tigatir.g
circumstances are present ... ·hich call for special increases or
decreases. A current example of mitigating circumstances is the
agreement between the city and P~.CCC, whereby their administrative
support fu,1ding is being decre-ased over the ,cou.rse of three years,
to be replaced in year four by an indirect cost percentage factored
by their tota 1. S"·'-.lbsidy amount. This indir-ect rate will be ut il i2ed
by the agenc:f to manage the subsidy program contract. Anothe:
potential scenario ~ollld be it sec requested the addition of a ne ....
program element to their service component ~hich would necessitate
an increase over and above a cost of liVing increase.
City staff and the HRC need the flexibility available in the
current ~SRAP Process in order to deal -with such aforementioned
examples and in order to respond to changing human service needs in
the community. The HRC does not recommend se~arating sec and PACCC
from the current HSRAP process.
The HRC does not support option f3.
Rationale for opposition to this option includes tl'1.e principle that
the City is funding services, LQt agencies, and these service needs
do not diminish after three years. Therefore ....... hy should the
funding commitment cease if the need is still prevalent?
The HRC asks the question "DO T.,.'e really .... ant to el imi:-tate the
City1s support of the information a~d r~ferral func~ion of PAAIRS.
the Community outreach and Therapeutic S· .. ·im Program of CAR, the
Rape Cr-isis Center of th:-= YWCA, tne high school counseling progralll
operated by the PAl!SD, the Battered Women's Shelter of Mid
Peninsula Support Networ-k (MPSN), the homeless programs of Urban
Ministry, et a1? The potentially volatile politics of this
approach in the community .... ·ould eXdcerbate the advocacy and
lobbying pursuits that this proposal is designed to diminish.
CMR:143:9J
•
Page Four
In mar"Y cases, the agencies currently receiving f'...Inding would not
surviv~ ~ithout City support. This policy, if i~plemented, CQuld
lead to the demise of roomy nonprofit agencies in the community. or,
at least, curtail their ability to offer these comm~ni~y-supported
programs. What new agencies are poised to assume these resp0nsi
bilities and 'What track record .",'ould they haY€. in ope::-ating these
ongoing s~ccessful programs?
This option ~ould duplicate funding streams that are available irJ
the community as there are numerous funding op~ions from founda
tions and corpcrations for pilot proj~cts. Verj' few entiti€:s fund
ongoing programs, salaries or subsidies. In many cases, the. city
is the only source for this type of funding. Why duplicate funding
sources that are prevalent and at the same time remove a unique
source?
The last concern expressed by the HRC is that the.re are net many
qualified agencies in the community available to provide the
services that the HSRAP "Areas of Interest" recommend. If
currently-funded agencies are providing th.e services in a profes
sional cost-effective 'IDanner £ why lock ourselves into deflJ.nding
them?
The HRC ~06S not support option 14.
This inCentivE' is not r,eeded and could lead to fiscal pledges that
are beyond our ability to honor because all but two of our funded
agencies have fund-raising plans in place ·.o'hich have resulted in
garnering revenues that exceed the City's contribution.
Also, in many cases~ the delivery of services that Palo Alto
residents receive from the contractors far exceeds the funding
provided. For example, 'the Mid-Peninsula Support Network for
Battered Women provided 1 .. 720 Palo Alto residents 'With 3,882 units
of service last year~ This s-ervice level cost MPSN ,~pproximately
$60 ,!Joa ~ yet our contract lo.st year prov ideO. '$20.900. 'l'l'_e HRC is
not saying th2t the city should shoulder the burden of funding the
",'hole array of services 'Which are ava i lable to Palo Al to residents.
but that the City's contracted agencies should continue their
current practice of leveragin<3' tt..e City' 5 ccntra-:t dollars wi tIl
ancillary sources of funding to a high degree.
Another example of the City' s contracted agencies' fund-z-aising
acumen is the sec, ,",'hich has raised m:)l"e rnoi"'.ey dur-ing each ot the
past two years from theIr fund-raising endeavors than the $332,000
currently provided by the city.
The HRC thinks that the city should continue to promote these types
of premiere fund-raising activities among our nonprofit partner$~
without tying additional sums of money to the practice.
CMR:143:93
;:;ij~~~'f: -... ~ ... -.......... . '''-~
~';-
Page Five
Th. HRC dnes Dot support Option .5.
The PoRe is of the opinion that treating these agencies as a ":1eW'"
agency in order to implement this proposal could lead to the demise
ot many of our nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit agencies have
limited options f~r procuring the types of ongoing pro~rarn funding
which the City provides~
If we do r.ot d.astically lind t the amoUilt of money ava i lable frem
the City on a matching basis! t.he City cO'uld suffer fiscal d.istress
because most of the City-fu:1ded agencies are very active in fund
raising endeavors. This P.l0pos;3.1 could lead to promising large
additional amounts of fu~ding from the City.
This option would be attractive if the City were to limit the
amDunt ot additional funds available from the City by establishing
a ~capft, regardless of the amount matched by other funding sourc~s.
In addition, staff might loIant to instit".Jte a ratio fDrmula of
<!ollar-s provided by the City, to be matched 'Ji th dollars rec€:h'ed
(e.g~, $1 offered for every $10 received) from outside sources.
~h. numan Relations Commission voted to support the above
recolUllendations at their December 1Q regular meeting ('-0-1).
(HCConnell vas absent.)
staff m~es the ~ollowinq recommendations:
1. Staff agrees that the agencies spend an ino~dinate amount of
time complying o.rith the RSRAP PrO<'.ess annually and, therefore.
reconunends a two-year budget cycle for the age:1cies to
correspond with the City's own t~o-year budget cycle.
This change 'Would ~ecessitate implementing a ne ..... policy tor the
off-year, whereby incre.l9.ses .. auld be b2:scd on the cpr 0: an average
of City staff salary increase.:;, v,rhicheve:o: is less. If staff v .. ere
to find tha.t a cantract was not being upheld sat:isfactorilYI
adjustments could occur in the off-year. Short of an ur.satis
factory performance review, the agencies 'Jould know what to expect
in year two of each two-ye,ar budget c~'cle.
The rationale for this recorr.mendation is that most of the fU!1ding
provided to the contractor is salary-based and, therefore, d cost
of living increase in the funding provided will allow the agencies
to remain compe:'itive .... ·ith the nonprofit sector in providing
compensation packages for their err.ployees.
Additionally~ for the agenci~s, this would cut in half the ti~e
consuming process of prepar:.ng the RFP corltract applications,
attending Finance Comr.1ittee and City Council meetings, and pursuant
advocacy and lobbying practices. This proposed change ..... ould also
allo\l{ for more effective short and long-tern1 planning for the
agencies, City staff and ~he HRC.
C'MR:143:9J
•
•
Pag'='! Six
2. Staff agrees in concept '..rith adding flexibility to the HsRAP
by initiating new pilot projects fDr a ti:!:'lp.-limit~d duration.
On.e option for fur,ding new pilot programs ' ... ould be to request,
during the budget process; that the hU1'l1an services contract
allocation be augmented by a certain a~ount 'e.g~; 1.5 percent of
the total amount of funding expended; $lJ,695 based on this year1s
total) for innovative pilot pr0g~ams, ~ith the under-standing that
fun-Jing for ongoing operational costs would not be committed be}:'ond
the second year. The agency could compete ..... ith the other
contract:ors fer continued funding after the second year. but no
additional funding ",ould be added to the total available. This
policy would allow flexibility in responding to the changing human
service needs in the com-munity. Based on statf and agenc~z' revieW'
of this implenlented policy, staff could request this practic~ be
continued, adjusted or discontinued in future years.
3. Staff also recommends that the amount of funding provided for
the t,,'o-j'ear pilot project be consistent in each year. As no
project under ~his program yould be promised continued City
funding beyond year two. this would strongly encourage 'the
agency to pursue other funding sources after year two if
program effectiveness was determined.
If the HSRAP Process .... er-e to become a tl¥o-year process, funds ,",ould
be allocated during the tlrlo-year budget process for one project at
1.5 percent of the total contract dollars. For the off-year of the
t~o-year process; the pilot prcject would receive the same cost of
living adjustment as the other contractor.c:;,. No additional City
dollars would be guaranteed in ensuing years.
This recommendatton incorporates part of Council Members Andersen
and Fazzino's proposal ~ithout leading to the deleterious effects
... hich co\.'ld be exper fenced by the City's current funding part,ners
a~d their ~ervice populaticn.
Staff recommends that Co~ncil refe~ the fo1lo~in9 changes to the
current HSRAP policy to the Council ?inance committee:
L Approve a two-year budget cycle tor the HSRJa.P, to coincide
with the City 's two-year budget process. In the second year
of edch t~o-year budget cycle. agencies ~ould receive the cpr
or the average of City salary increases, whichever is less.
2. Direct staff to return with a plan regarding establishment of
a pilot project funding policy before t:he HHC makes its
funding recommendations for the 1994-95 fiscal year.
CMR:l~3:93
.~.
"~
/
Page Seven
3. oirect staff to review ~he HSRAP fo~ the pu~pose
strengthening the process.
Respectfully submitted,
David F. Martin
Administrator of Human Services
Paul Thiltgen
"00'0' ~""'" ""'00,
, " ::::.:r-o