Travis County Commssioners Court
May 13, 2003
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.
Item 4
4. Consider fy 03 budget for health and human services department, increasing demands in health care and basic needs, and take appropriate action.
>> good morning.
>> basically, I would like to start off with a review of the questions that was presented to you as additional backup for this agenda item. Basically, we talked about in previous court sessions, that the first phase of discussion hopefully will focus on the policy directions that I have proposed for you. And the second phase of discussion hopefully will center on some of the fiscal challenges that we are facing. In the memo from me to you dated may 5th, it starts by basically responding to issues that you raised or clarifications of questions. And we have recommendations as a result of some of that discussion. First as it relates to definitions, and marietta was very helpful in actually changing out policy to state our preferences of course it's your decision as to whether or not you adopt those. For elderly what the policy would read, changing elderly definition from age 55 to 60 years or older. For residency, after reviewing tt, as you can see, we would really narrow the definition of those persons able to receive assistance to individuals and household members who can show proof of having live understand Travis County for a minimum of 60 days prior to application for assistance with the intent of remaining in Travis County permanently. Basically, that is a tighter definition than the definition that we are currently operating under. Actually, we -- we really consider those individuals eligible under current policy who have really expressed an intent to live in Travis County without having lived here for -- for -- prior to showing up for services for us. Participation of workforce development activities, you wanted us to really refine that and be more specific. And so what you see in -- in the last couple of bullets is that we would look for documentation of ongoing participation and -- in any city of Austin Travis County workforce activity and you're documentation of current enrollment of any accredited educational institution with studies in an area that would lead to self sufficiency. Copies of payroll checks or other documentation of current employment, documentation ... Would lead to employment and self sufficiency, any other documentation or evidence approved by the county as meeting these requirements. Basically, what we are trying to see here is that a person is truly taking some concrete steps towards self sufficiency. Which will lessen the likelihood of -- of those individuals needing to -- to -- to show back up for -- for services from us. The next area that we presented to you was the notion of the $700 cap. And that reads: maximum assistance provided to any eligible applicant household under these policies around procedures -- and procedures during any one year period shall not exceed a total of $700 in either payment, cash or voucher. Now, this limitation would not apply to non-monetary direct assistance such as recipients of actual food items, which means that we would continue to give people food assistance, but terms of vouchers or any other payment atmosphere tans it would be limited to $700. This is for Travis County general fund dollars. There are other issues that -- that were raised. One was related -- to -- services to persons identified as ex-offenders or persons recently released from correctional institutions. We went back and looked at the number of individuals that had actually -- we could tell were ex-offenders or had been recently released from a correctional institution. Actually we could only document 131 out of 13,000 individuals that were served in 2002. Basically, what we are looking at are those individuals who report a living in some transitional housing program or program that we know that is for ex-offenders specifically. And what we are recommending here, currently we don't screen, we don't have any screening questions related to person's criminal history, probation or parole status, we are recommending that we not add those questions, because this 131 actually represents 1%. Now, remember in the policies that we have proposed, we are saying that we -- that we do not want to assist individuals that are living in transitional homes, even -- if they are ex-offenders if we have a separate contract with that agency or institution. We won't serve both the -- we won't have a contract with the individuals -- excuse me, we won't have a contract with the agency as well as serve the individuals because we believe that that would be double dipping.
>> we do plan for our assistance to help those individuals access agencies that we have contracts with, right?
>> yes.
>> so I -- our thinking is that we have already funded agencies that ought to provide the assistance that you need. So we ought to refer them to those agencies.
>> yes, we do that on a routine basis.
>> right.
>> and not through here.
>> no, not through here. If we know that we have a contract with a certain agency and that individual is living at that facility, we then will not serve that individual except for foodstuffs.
>> if we approve this, part of our action will be to place those agencies on notice of the policy change.
>> yes. Actually --
>> and our expectation of --
>> yes.
>> okay. There was some question as to how long it would take us to implement the policies. On the last page of our memo, you see what we could accomplish in 30 days. We could change th program literature with new eligibility information, we can change our website, we can post an advertisement on channel 17 with new eligibility information. We can post signs at all of the emergency assistance sites and we can, of course, train staff on the new policies. In addition to that, we can also send fliers and those other -- basic information out to -- to possibly the city's community centers. Within 120 days of any court action, if you choose to accept the policy recommendations, we would also train partner agencies. We would produce an infomercial for channel 17 and we would have videos that we would distribute to all of the emergency assistance centers so that they can play them during the -- in their lobbies to increase -- to -- to increase the knowledge and information level of those people who are seeking services at our site. And primarily, turning back to -- to the backup information that I presented on April 9th, I'm suggesting that you approve the programmatic directions that -- that were relative to public health, mental health, basic needs and emergency assistance, workforce development, children and youth, community planning and program development and administrative services. Those be just a category -- those are just a category. This is not all inclusive of everything that we do. But we believe that these are strategic directions that we really need to take, not only because -- because some of the fiscal challenges that we are facing, but we believe that we would operate a better business by aadopting this strategic direction.
>> I have two questions. What is the source of the 60 day requirement for residency?
>> 60 day?
>> residency?
>> basically, it was the judgment call on our part.
>> okay. What's the residency requirement for state and federal programs?
>> the indigent health care is just that they live here and intend to say.
>> we don't like that one.
>> that was the problem judge in terms of people coming here straight out of prison and basically immediately accessing when they may or may not have any intention of coming here for any length of time. Even to register to vote you have to live here 30 days to establish your residency here in Travis County.
>> but I guess the other thing, though, is even if you came straight here, if we approved this policy that regardless of how long they have been here and they come straight to our offices, to ask for assistance, we would refer them to a contract agency right away.
>> we could also --
>> so we don't have to have the residency requirement.
>> we could also do that. But from a practical standpoint an individual that's presenting for services for assistance would have had -- in order to qualify for assistance would have had to stay here from 30 to 6 -- to 60 days anyhow, if they are looking for rental assistance we want them to present with an eviction notice. Therefore they would have had to have been in a place of residence for at least 30 days in order to receive that. More likely than not they wouldn't stay just a month and then get evicted.
>> how do you approve that? In other words that requirement, do you really substantially verify that that is really the case? As far as the eligibility is concerned?
>> they will either have the notice in their hand and the date, it would be at least one day past the due date for an -- they will have the notice in their hand or we also contact the landlords. We look at actual documentation that that exists. I don't believe that the 60 day requirement would actually prohibit us from actually serving people that need it. Actually, in just thinking about it --
>> it's a long time to go without food, shelter, medication.
>> that's why I think if we refer them right away to a contract agency, then they don't have to wait.
>> is that part of the strategy.
>> yes. On a regular basis, we do referrals. If people don't meet our eligibility requirement. But as I said earlier, from a practical standpoint, I don't think that it's going to make much difference in the people that we serve.
>> would you want to add a discretionary ability of someone through the department to waive that requirement in a -- in -- if some situation should occur? That's a -- that's a possibility.
>> I just think there ought to be language that allows a hardship situation as determined by county staff.
>> okay. Actually, in talking with the division director and i've -- I did want that language added because sometimes there are just cases once you -- once you hear . They, even though they don't meet the letter of the requirement where you see there's an actual need, that doesn't happen every day, but I do have cases that come across my desk, or across the division manager's desk where I think there needs to be some -- some discretion or latitude.
>> I think we ought to add a hardship exception with the understanding that we -- if we can access services through a contract agency before the county assists, then we will be back. But at least we will try to make the effort and I'm thinking in a hardship situation would be where we determine that in fact circumstances are dire, and assistance is critical, and not that we necessarily ought to provide it, but we or one of the contract agency that's we fund ought to in order to close that gap. I'm thinking this should be the exception rather than the rule. But at least that -- -- can we capture those two.
>> yes.
>> the other thing is that on the employment situation, it would make sense to me, I'm sitting here thinking that the -- that the -- that this presumes that workforce development slots are available. For jobs. For the individual who can document actual efforts to achieve admission to a workforce development program or to get a job, we leave that person out. So in my view, it's -- if there is evidence of a good faith effort to enroll in a program, obtain a job and like if you've been working with work source, I assume somebody at worksource can document in writing those efforts and if you can come and say, look, i've applied for admission to the four or five programs that the county and cit fund -- city fund, but all of them told me to wait and get on the waiting list, you see what I'm saying?
>> yes.
>> it's under county control. One of the other things that I'm hearing, one of the complaints about the workforce program at some times -- if you are in remedial education and trying to get to a level where you can get an admission to a workforce program, you pick -- big into remedial program, does that qualify you?
>> yes.
>> documentation of ongoing participation ... Workforce development activity. We consider that a workforce development activity.
>> well, I feel I ought to put that in because there's a serious literacy problem. What's clear is that even in order to get into some of the workforce programs you have to read, if you can't then -- if we can make sure that I understand that if you are in some remedial program, short of some formal workforce development program, we consider that to be workforce development effort, then I'm covered.
>> okay. I think that's qualifies --
>> I'm thinking of real-life situations, not hundreds of them, but a few where the situation really has been just that.
>> uh-huh.
>> judge --
>> any objection to that.
>> those two, the hardship exception along with the employment situation as far as literacy, having that documented to show that those persons are actually attending some type of a literacy experience to -- for them to get credit before what we are trying to do here, those are the only two that you had? Because I have a question [indiscernible]
>> yes, sir, those of my two.
>> okay. Then mine is that, you know, when we look at the definition -- of senior citizens as far as the age is concerned, how do we notify those persons that the rules are -- may change as far as who we define as senior citizens? How will they be notified? In fact how will all of these things that we are talking here, putting on the table today, notification process, so it won't be unexpected consequences of people making adjustments to the change in policy. How will you do that?
>> on the last page, [indiscernible] the form, you will see the steps that we will take within 30 days.
>> okay.
>> also, understand that in changing the policy, we have not really changed policies relative to elderly and disabled. So if an individual is -- is 55 or -- or below and disabled, then they would still qualify for a program.
>> stephen is the intent that anybody, say, has already triggered assistance under the old division of what elderly was, would they be i'll say grandfathered --
>> yes, yes. [multiple voices]
>> we are not going to say I'm sorry you now have to wait another four years until you get it. Basically anybody that triggered the definition under the old definition, but anybody new presenting would have to do it.
>> we would set that date in advance.
>> okay. That's -- this date would be implemented.
>> what I'm trying to get to is how will that impact the senior citizens and because definitely -- I know a lot of these things won't affect them -- [multiple voices]
>> stephen wasn't there an inconsistency, we had a different definition of elderly as compared to what the city around others did. We are actually making our definition now consistent with what is in the regulations.
>> yes. We are making them consistent just to give you a feel if we were looking at last year's statistics, there were less than 200 people impacted, that would have been impacted under the fiscal year 2002 rules. And actually none of those individuals presented again for assistance.
>> okay. If you are going to say something come up to the sniebl sherri walker. I wanted to remind the court that the difference with the elderly folks that we serve is that the policy, the current policy would allow persons who were -- who fit that elderly age population to see [indiscernible] to seek assistance the second time if there were a crisis throughout the 12 month period. Currently we serve folks 12 months a year ... If you fit that age population 55 or older, then you could come back and request assistance a second time, even though you might still be in the same 12 month period. When stephen mentioned that we didn't have anyone who fell in the category of actually coming back a second time in that age group. So -- that's over the last 12 month period. We didn't have anybody who fit in the category of coming back a second time.
>> okay. And so -- on the -- my only other question is did we get any feedback as far as faith based grant moneys that -- I know you all went to waco or somewhere -- [multiple voices]
>> actually, training in June in Austin --
>> in June?
>> yeah.
>> okay. Other funding source that's we can -- that we can maybe look at.
>> we are pursuing that. They are having the training in Austin in June. So we didn't go to waco, I think it was last month. We -- we will be attending that training. We are continuing with our faith based organizations.
>> anything further.
>> one clarification. If we refer people coming from prison to the contract agencies that we work with, does that make room for those additional 131 for the other basic services. That makes for additional people who are assisted.
>> if you chose not to serve those individuals, yes, that would open it up. But because it was only one percent of 13,000, we didn't think that it made any difference.
>> just in these real tough times, every little bit hurts -- helps. Every little bit it.
>> it could. But on the other hand if you asked our workers to -- to add additional questions to the screening process --
>> no, we're not saying that. We're just saying that, you know, when you find out that they are eligible for -- for assistance from a contract agency that we already fund, or we already purchased services from, then it opens up these 131 slots for -- for people in the community. Who need this assistance, right?
>> it could. If it chose to.
>> okay. Just didn't want to assume.
>> four or five years ago, we did. After learning that contract agencies did not do a good job of serving sex offenders, I think the record showed that we didn't either, we did encourage them to be more receptive so this would not be new. At the same time, I think that there are ex-offenders, ex-offenders who are really seriously trying to put their lives back on the right track. It seems to me for those trying to do the right thing, it becomes a right -- become upright citizens, then they ought to be able to access the programs that the city and county fund.
>> the only thing is that we have done the right thing by contracting with those social agencies that work with that population.
>> I agree.
>> who have, you know, additional needs than the ordinary community person. We have done the right thing, too.
>> my only point is that the contract agencies should not see this as a surprise.
>> right.
>> as we said we would --
>> actually in the contracts that we have within -- the ex-offenders are listed as a priority population.
>> any other policy? Issues that we need to discuss? I move we accept the changes, do we need a separate motion to the changes? Consensus.
>> in light of what we discussed judge, I think they need to be included.
>> second the motion.
>> with those changes I move approval of the policy r@commendations. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> ... Emergency assistance line item.
>> right.
>> that -- if the trend continues, that -- those resources will last through July.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner requests that we look at the fiscal requirements in two weeks. My question is do you have enough money now to get through the next two weeks?
>> yes.
>> if there's no objection from the court, we'll have the aspect on two weeks from today.
>> okay. That would be great. Thank you, judge. Anything else today, mr. Reeves?
>> no, sir, thank you.
>> that will be may 27th.
>> just a request, can you go ahead and repackage that into separate backups so we're not having to pull...
>> what I will do is focus on the fiscal issues.
>> that will be helpful thank you.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 13, 2003 7:52 PM