Travis County Commssioners Court
June 1, 2004
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 22
Number 22, consider and take appropriate action on recommendations for the 2005 joint social services investment strategy.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> this is an item that is a follow-up to the work session we had week before last where we came to you with recommendations regarding the social services investment strategy. This is where Travis County and the city of Austin contract with community-based organization to provide human services. We have six recommendations and I think there was consensus actually on five of the recommendations with a lot of the discussion on the sixth recommendation. And basically we want to continue in a joint social services investment process with the city of Austin. Renegotiate with the existing providers who meet programmatic and investment requirements. Stab an investment framework that will sustain our safety work, bill, deliverance of care in a variety of areas and respond to changing needs. We want to continue with the programmatic and administrative changes to even has accountability and efficiency. Continue community planning through the community action network to guide ongoing improvements to the social -- to social services across the community. And number 5, we do continue to recommend that we create a request for information for tpraegsz whom the city and county do not currently purchase services. That will also allow an opportunity to identify agencies that provide services that could fill an identified need or gap, which means we would actually add them to the vendors list and this is something I think purchasing does anyhow and other service agencies. We will also invite those agencies to expand the -- under the service model. That means that if they are not a provider within our substance abuse managed contract or within our managed service contract for the youth and family assessment center, that they can actually enroll in those networks. And also engage new participants in the community assessment and planning process. Those are the three reasons why we're continuing to recommend r.f.i.
>> move approval of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now let's discuss 6.
>> basically what we're saying is that -- I know the concern seemed to be that we would create expectations about agencies who respond to the r.f.i. Would have. I think that we can clearly communicate in r.f.i. Whether or not they are available funds. If they are not, we would -- we would, you know, state that in the request for information on agencies. But if you look at the actually positive things that could happen as a result of this, if we are currently not contracting with an agency and we find out that they are a possible fit in our substance abuse network or our network for youth and family assessment center, then without additional funds, those agencies can enroll in those networks, and if the families or individuals believe that the service that they provide is appropriate, then they can be selected as a provider, because in tphaout and family assessment center, that is the family's choice.
>> in that case, why -- [indiscernible] to be the same thing without a formal r.f.i. Being issued? Couldn't we do exactly what you said without issuing --
>> we can do that. We can.
>> and have no problem. I real think really think the second and third bullets are something we should be doing anyway. And if we can get the first bullet done without issuing a formal r.f.i., It makes all the sense in the world to me. I just think issuing a formal r.f.i. You are holding out [indiscernible] contract with a city or the county when in fact there are no [indiscernible]. But if our goal is identify agencies that we really think give out valuable services and we are the eye and ear toward the opportunity to bring them into the loop well, ought to be about that.
>> I have an idea.
>> here's my only thought, judge. The 2 and 3 are easy. I think that absolutely makes sense. The second bullet. Sorry. It's that what if you have something that doesn't fit into substance abuse or youth and family or child care? And the one that I keep coming back to is what happened on sickle cell. Sickle cell would not have been on any of these things. The whole idea of the r.f.i., The only thing I can think is comparable to this, why do we continue to do market salary surveys in years when we're not giving out pay raises and we're not adding new employees? It's because we still want to keep up to date with what's going on out there so that when the opportunity comes if there is possibility for expansion or there's money, et cetera, we've got the information already at hand. And that's what the whole idea about the r.f.i. That is not intended to be something that is going to take an agency a long time. I would presume it would be the same kind of thing they are already filling out for the united way. It just to find out who else is out there. And I think we can very clearly the same way we've done with our market salaries. Weaver not said, oh, county employees, there's money to end of these market salary things when we finish our work. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do it to have the most comment information and so see who else is out there in case, like we had today, an agency falls off the a map or we can actually get them involved in others that are working in collaborative ways.
>> well, the big difference between the [indiscernible] is our employees don't have to fill out all of these forms.
>> we're not talking about all of these forms.
>> I think with social service agencies, I really want them to not have to do that. And not have the expectation. And I’m just think that any time we put out any kind of document from purchasing, there's some hope that there's going to be some money.
>> I think that that --
>> [indiscernible] did not get sickle cell. A form will r.f.i. May well have eliminated sickle cell. Sickle cell basically represented a service goop that historically we had overlooked.
>> right.
>> and now, it doesn't -- I guess I see more negative resulting from the issuance of a formal r.f.i. Than positive -r, but I think we ought to aggressively advocate for providers of various services to keep us informed about what they do.
>> think that there is a way to do this. We're saying a formal r.f.i. Through purchasing. We could actually have our research and planning group to conduct this. That way -- and it could be more in the line of a survey. So that we won't give the impression that there's money available.
>> right.
>> it would be people actually responding to a request that we make broadly to the communities for information regarding agencies that are currently not doing business with the city and county.
>> I would expect that research and planning could, as you research about other issues and other needs in the community, that this -- this kind of issue would surface. And then it goes through c.a.n. And it's addressed by city and county and the united way, and we would -- then we would fund those agencies.
>> let's integrate the three bullets under 6 and do those in health and human services through the city and through the community action network.
>> okay.
>> what we do with purchasing, somebody is like who is out there and we either try and find them of trying to find folks that fit or folks that just say hi, please be aware of me. So I think we can get there without it being so formal. I see that as kind of a blending of the two. We want to get to the same place hofplt else is out there, what can you do with it.
>> move approval of the con ensus. Does the motion need to include anything else?
>> that's sufficient.
>> any more discussion? All in favor say aye? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 2, 2004 7:47 AM