Travis County Commssioners Court
October 1, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Agenda Item 9
Number 9, steven, is to consider request to negotiate county/city social service contracts for 2003 classified as exempt, hiv-related contracts, the contract for operation of the Austin resource center for the homeless arch facility, and a newly developed model for direct child care contracts and take appropriate action.>> good morning. Basically what we're trying to do with this item is get permission to start our social services contracting process. There are certain social services contracts that are classified as exempt contracts, and we have reviewed that criteria with you over the last three or so years. Since we are -- we're not anticipating any changes in those contracts, we're asking for your permission to start negotiating and preparing those specific contracts with the individual agencies. As it relates to child care services, what we want to do is use a new model. Basically it's similar to the service organization models that we've used for other contracts, substance abuse, for example. We want to actually have our funds flow through the work source organization to child care solutions, which is the current -- and child care solutions is the current. [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> and that stands for what.
>> child care management systems, which is basically the state. They in turn will contract with our current child care centers. The current child care centers that are under contract with us now already have an established relationship with the child care solutions. There are a couple of things that we're trying to accomplish with this. And the primary thing is really take advantage of the fiscal monitoring and accountability that's already in place with the work source agencies. We're trying to reduce duplication of effort by the child care providers because right now they're having to report to us as well as the child care solutions. So this would reduce the level of effort that they would have to actually engage in in order to maintain certain slots for child care.
>> do we have a list of those?
>> I don't have a list. There are about four current providers, but those won't change. Also --
>> could I have a list at some point so that I can have it as part of my record?
>> yes.
>> thanks.
>> steven, in the effort to become augmented versus -- automated versus manual and bringing this up under the organization that you had proposed, other than the way it's operating now, would the savings on that automated effort, has there been a projection, a cost out to see what the savings would be.
>> you're going to experience some efficiencies. The contract of staff with the city of Austin who monitor these contracts would basically be able to focus their efforts on monitoring parent surveys, responding to specific complaints.
>> okay. Okay. So just for the manual evaluation process, per se, to an automated type, in automated those things that you were doing manually.
>> yes.
>> all right. And I have this prepared to give you. I know the situation of how the money would flow and also they listed about six or seven advantages of -- at least reasons that we should probably do that. There is only one advantage that is not necessarily a advantage, and that's related to the certification of these child care dollars that we receive reimbursement for.
>> explain that to us, steven?
>> basically by certifying what we spend locally in child care dollars we're able to draw down more federal child care and in turn use those dollars to actually go back into the child care system. Either they come directly to us or to the work source.
>> so the dollars will be reimbursed in the future, but not come to the Travis County general fund?
>> right. That's my understanding.
>> the dollars will instead go to -- will they go somewhere?
>> actually, they eventually go back to buy more slots for child care. And what you see -- what we basically want to do is basically not lose control over what we might consider through the contracts and the developing of the contract with work source we will be able to stipulate how that money will be used.
>> but the federal reimbursement has to be to a certain level?
>> yes.
>> and child care solutions is a public entity. [everyone talking at once]
>> the work source development board?
>> yes.
>> I don't know. I do know that I learned last week for the first time that the reimbursement program requires a match that public funding be reimbursed, right? And the amount -- what I didn't know either is that that amount comes to the Travis County general fund. I thought it went to work source or some kind of child care agency. We don't want to lose those dollars. It doesn't bother me that they go back into child care. We need to find out what it is on that and explain it if we can. And I listened to it and I was -- I didn't know that and I didn't know that if they match us -- let's say we get $150,000 reimbursed, it doesn't really go to a child care agency or work source, it goes to the Travis County general fund is what ms. Flower said, right?
>> a major portion goes to -- excuse me. A major portion goes to the work source board, and a portion of that -- a portion of what they get back goes back to the public entities.
>> your name for the record?
>> I'm vince from health & human services.
>> I would hate to be charged with losing those dollars locally because of this action, so we'll make sure that doesn't happen.
>> no, that's not going to happen. Those dollars will come back locally.
>> so the child care agencies that we contract with now know about the proposal.
>> yes.
>> and what's their position again?
>> it's my understanding they're -- I 've only talked to one agency, and this is probably more than a year ago. And they actually supported it. I hear there might be only one agency that might have some issues with it.
>> but this would benefit them.
>> it would benefit them in that they will not have to duplicate their efforts in reporting to two different funders.
>> and I guess the only question would be make sure that we're not skipping a step that would hurt the dollars coming back. And I think it's great that it will go to buy more slots. I think -- I'm aware, as the judge is, that we're not skipping a step in order to make it easier for the providers, but also that we not lose any. We don't want it to go to the wrong place. Okay.
>> we don't know whether we agree or not.
>> okay.
>> now, we are sure that we will gain additional child care slots and not lose any as a result of this action.
>> yes.
>> I think that the -- we're already going through this process, so it really will be no change as far as more or less child care slots.
>> and how do we demonstrate that?
>> we won't lose any. I'm sorry?
>> how do we demonstrate that? And you don't need to do it today.
>> you'll see the demonstration and the contracts themselves. Now, let me qualify that. If the cost of those slots actually go up and we're still contracting for the same amount, you will lose that, but we will -- what we will demonstrate is that you're not losing any slots because of this action.
>> we need to see that.
>> okay.
>> I have a couple of -- on this backup list, and this is just a clarification I want to do every year because it's important. It shows the children's advocacy center and shows only the city of Austin has a social service contract. We love to remind everyone that we don't do a social service contract with the chirp's advocacy center, we do a direct general fund appropriation to them. So you are a partner in that, we just do it in a different way through our budget so. In a way we're sole sourcing it in another way.
>> the second question, steven of of those agencies you have list heared, which of them, if any, would also be an agency that might -- that was involved in what I 'll call the basic needs package that we did last year. That extra appropriation, if any of them. Was meals on wheels part of that?
>> meals on wheels was the only one.
>> they were the only one. My point is this: if there are still other things that are out there in the community -- and I agree with that that it was really just the technique for how do we get there -- it's locking down the exact same amount of money that we did last year as opposed to a re-examining of all of our priorities and all of our mandated goals within health & human services. And whether this is the correct number or it ought to be something different. This is just an automatic assumption that we're going to do exactly what we did last year without going through a reexamination of what the community conditions are that might say, do you know what, we ought to be doing more on meals on wheels or we ought to be doing more on safe place or we ought to be doing more on xyz, go through them. These are just the sole source one. I guess what I'm trying to get to is at what point will we be able to sit down and review all the things that we need to cover within the health & human services budget. Those that are under this item that are sole source and the x number of other social service contracts that are going to be out there. The later we wait, the more that there will be an expectation by those agencies they're getting exactly the same amount of money, which would not respect the process that we want to have happen, and that is to rank and to reevaluate the community conditions and make the appropriations in that light.
>> actually, if the court approves this action, just to respond to your concerns, I could tell people and explain the process that we're going through to them so that they would at least be on alert. But just -- to answer your question directly, I'm anticipating the second week in November to get everything laid out. We've already started the process.
>> but in terms of telling people. Because that funding is effective January first. That is the -- that is not very much notice to any agency. That their numbers may be going up or their numbers may be going down or in some cases their numbers may be eliminated because there is such a small amount of money that perhaps we are investing in that particular agency that it's not doing what we hoped it would.
>> I agree it is not that much notice, but on the other hand you're limiting that notice to a select group of agencies if you approve this.
>> say that one more time because we've got like 64 social service contracts and this is taking care of what? There's probably about 10 of them that are county related.
>> plus about five child care contracts.
>> but we've still got a lot of agencies out there. I'm just trying to get to a place where we can get people certainly to what their financial situation is going to be in terms of the investment that Travis County will choose to make over this next year, in the same way that the city of Austin will choose to make certain investments over the next year. And it needs to be done in the context of today, right now, current community conditions with us taking in all of our mandated responsibilities through health & human services and veterans services and making that as opposed to that it's just an automatic rollover of dollar amounts that we did in the previous three years. And I'm just wanting to make sure that the process is an appropriate one that reflects current reality and not that's the way we've been doing it for the last three years. Irk given the limited amount of resources we have in health & human services, it can't be the way it was. If I'm limited to the dollars you've already approved, we know there will be some changes, especially with your direction that I am sure that we would have enough resources for health care as well as basic needs. And so therefore I don't know that we can assume that things are going to be the same. In fact, there will be a reduction in services.
>> and the conditions that you're referring to I think are probably have been also talked about by the groups out in the community. Any baby can I think worked together to go with some other groups to go with the one stop shop approach. And they're finding that basic needs and the pharmaceuticals, which is what the information you brought to us, that those continue to be at the top of the list of needs. And perhaps it's sounding more and more like basic needs and pharmaceuticals are going to be the top priorities in the year 2003, sand they're saying even 2004. So it could be that Travis County deals with only basic needs and form suit celz for 2003 and 2004. And what's wrong with that? That strengthens the safety net that we -- county government is responsible for. That's our mandate. And so, you know, that's what I'm hearing from the community. And in their work that they're doing in researching the needs for this community. And I think those refer to the current community conditions. And so what is wrong is Travis County does really, really a good job in basic needs and pharmaceuticals.
>> if we do this --
>> do you want to take another week on this?
>> I think we need to move forward on this.
>> this piece is not the piece that worries me. It basically sets in stone that if we do this -- owe and I think this is appropriate that there ought to be sole source contracts.
>> exempt contracts.
>> thank you. The exempt contracts, it does leave x amount of dollars out there if you make the assumption that's the same amount of money we'll be dealing with. And what I'm trying to encourage, hoping that we act on this today, is that the rest of it is not just what's left on the social service pie, but it needs to be balanced and weighed with everything else going on in health & human services along with the additional $500,000 that we put into that budget to find out where the priorities need to be made and to make those decisions, and we move on.
>> you're going to get that.
>> okay.
>> are you asking seven to bring back that comprehensive analysis at the time that he brings back these contracts? Others I don't know that it -- otherwise I don't know that it helps to execute these contracts when it comes back and then review the analysis and the other issues.
>> the assumption that we're making --
>> steven, hold on. The question is what are we asking steven to do, if anything?
>> I think we need to move ahead in terms of the exemptions related to those contracts, and simultaneously on a parallel path steven needs to be bringing us recommendations related to everything else that's going on related to the nonexempt social service contracts so that we have a clear path over the next 11 months.
>> before we approve these contracts.
>> I would.
>> that's what I'm saying. I think we need to see it if we're going to look at it.
>> and I think it will have to be sooner than the second week of November.
>> wait a minute. I'm confused now. You're asking that at the same time that we bring back these specific contracts for approval, that I also bring back to you a list of the priorities that would be resulting from the process that we're currently undertaking. Actually, you were probably -- you will probably get that list, that priority list before these contracts come back. These contracts expire December 31st. I assume that you probably wouldn't have them ready prior to the first of December, right?
>> right.
>> so that means you will get this list, including this -- you're going to get my list long before you actually see the individual contract.
>> you're saying list, I'm saying analysis. We're saying the same thing.
>> is it the same thing?
>> basically --
>> I think we need to see an analysis. I don't know that a list is going to help us.
>> when I say list, from my perspective, I 've already done an analysis. I 've already said what we thought was going to happen for next year. Your response to that was these are the resources you have, steven. Come back to us with the priority list of how you would spend those resources on your services, ensuring that you're taking care of health care and basic needs, which needs that there are some things that we're currently doing that would fall out.
>> but even on basic needs, some of that stuff is discretionary basic needs and some is non-ditionnary -- non-discretionary. I know we are using coded language here, but there are some things we do in regard to rental assistance, housing assistance, etcetera. Some of the stuff makes a difference and some of it doesn't make a difference other than make that one day a good day.
>> when I come back will be my recommendations to you. You can do whatever you want once I put them on the table. Because I don't know that we'll be on the same page when we start looking at that, some of the specifics of that. I think we have some differences of opinion of that. So I'm going to give you my recommendations and rationales for why it was at number 10 versus number 20. And y'all can say okay, move this one down below the line and not fund it because we don't want to do that.
>> in addition to that I think your analysis will show us what needs go unaddressed and what impact that will have.
>> and those will be the things that would fall below the line which would not be funded in the current budget that I have.
>> how much time do you need to prepare what's been suggested here today?
>> we're already on track. We had first work group yesterday with an outside facilitator that we brought in from a&m. We're scheduled to schedule that by the end of this month. So November seems timely.
>> I would like to set it a little earlier than that. By the end of October?
>> we've already scheduled groups of people that are actually involved in this process, and the process also -- it involves my going out and actually getting other people's impressions of what's important because there are some things that we do that have impact on other parts of the community social services, delivery systems, including parts that are in the county system itself. So --
>> your schedule has you sharing that with us when?
>> in November. The first part of November. If you want to move it up, I can go out --
>> I think it ought to be the -- I think we need to start at least the last week of October.
>> can it be ready by then?
>> if you want me to --
>> I would like -- can you be ready?
>> if you tell me to do it that way, I will do it that way. It is not the process that I 've outlined already.
>> what do you mean by short-circuiting?
>> because of the way I try to manage my department it's pretty much inclusive and I use groups to do things. Because I have to assemble groups of folks, we've already made schedules.
>> can we have a blending of the two things? I think you've not done your entire process without us knowing anything about what's going on. If you can share maybe the progress that's occurred by the end of October, just share the progress. I mean, this is me. If we share the progress that's already been made up to that point, then we get a first blush. We get a sense. So we can throw in our own input in terms of where we think it's head and you can continue on. We're not -- I don't want to see it after you've already gone through the process without getting a formal indication from this commissioners court about whether we think you're headed in the right direction or not.
>> okay.
>> my motion is to approve this agenda as requested and to direct mr. Williams and his people to be ready to prepare -- be ready to share with us their analysis on October 29th. And that is a full four weeks.
>> second.
>> realizing that their presentation may not be perfect on that day.
>> but this gives us an opportunity to look at it and give input.
>> right.
>> we're saying we need a little bit more time to respond to whatever it is you're bringing back. That was seconded. And in terms of discussion, the little chart that we were given, child care solutions, current vendor is Texas might grant council. What on -- my grant council.
>> what does that mean?
>> that means that -- [papers shuffling - audio interference] it's just like the program that I would have.
>> is that the host agency?
>> yes.
>> so the people who are really doing the work?
>> yes.
>> the allocation of child care slots is Texas migrate council.
>> yes.
>> our contract will be with...
>> work source.
>> their contract will be with child care solutions?
>> yes.
>> whose contract is with Texas migrant council?
>> yes.
>> who is actually contracting with them.
>> work source is contracting with them for both their resources as well as our resources.
>> so child care solutions, although on this chart, is really out of the picture?
>> no. Well, they're at arm's length from this agreement. And the reason that they are is because they're the current vendor for the state system. In two years that vendor might change. And that's why we chose to go with work source rather than with the specific vendor because we will change as our area vendor changes.
>> we have heard of late, mainly during the last 10 years, that at some point we need to move toward quality child care, which I'm told means baby-sitting that really stresses more education. Right? Rather than baby-sitting, more education. Getting kids ready to enroll in elementary school. In our view the Texas migrant council has that focus. Does that matter to us? Should it matter?
>> yes, it does matter to us and that's one of the reasons why this function goes out on contract every couple of years. There's criteria they have to meet. What you're also looking at too is that they do have a set of standards in contracting with the individual child care centers that we're cferbl with.
>> one of our questions will be what is our focus on education for the preschoolers? Everybody is saying that if you've got a child in your care, five years old who is going to school next year, you really ought to start stressing reading, writing and arithmetic, basic stuff, in order to help this child be ready for elementary school. And I guess I'm just asking the simple question does our contract contain that component?
>> yes.
>> as a matter of fact, I think when they're infants there should be stimulation. You don't just leave a baby laying, you know, in the -- wherever they have them, just leave them there all day long. So the stimulation occurs from birth.
>> if they don't get it at home and we pay for it, it seems to me -- when you come back, that will be your question then.
>> I'm going to explain the purchasing. You have other slots that actually focus more specifically.
>> the slots are for child care centers and those child care centers provide different things and we need to he know what those things are.
>> and just because I can't wait to see the list, is the Austin community nursery in this?
>> yes.
>> great.
>> we have some good centers in our neighborhood.
>> we're not changing the current providers, y'all. We're just using a different process.
>> it's just that it's so much better if you have that documentation attached and I could see for myself what's included and what isn't.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM