Travis County Commissioners Court
October 28, 2008
Item 9
9 is consider and take appropriate action on the options for investment of $450,000 available for fiscal year 2009. That amount was approved on the budget process.
>> that is correct. Sherry fleming, executive manager for veteran services. Before I talk about why we're we're, here not here requesting the court's approval on these options we've submitted. What we're looking for is direction from the court, and we have provided you some detail in your backup that lets you know the direction that we're headed. And so if that direction is appropriate, we would like to hear that today. If you have other direction that you wish to give us, we would like to hear that today. And then advise you of our intent to meet with constituent groups, namely our -- many of our social service partners and others to sort of fine tune what will then become a recommendation for your approval on what a potential request for proposal might look like in this area. So with that said, I'll just go through just briefly and remind you that when we had this discussion during the physical 2009 budget process, staff said to you that there were four areas that we thought it appeared that new investments were warranted. First in the area of basic needs, both in direct services, but also in the access to federal benefits. And many of you may have heard through various sources yourself that our community is not currently drawing down the amount of federal benefits that we could access. The second area was literacy and english as a second language as it impacts people's ability to access employment and housing in our community. The third area was community based mental health. Looking to provide services and support to keep residents in the community and hopefully avoid those more costly instances such as hospitalization. And then a broader category which would be piloting or evaluating service delivery approaches for special population. And those special population have yet to be determined, but certainly some that could be considered would be the issue of youth aging out of foster care, it could be reentry. Many of the things that you might possibly have already been investing in in that area. So we've sort of expanded on those basic concepts to offer some more specific options, but yet again these are options that still are at a very high level and certainly open to input and additional direction, but we have learned from some work that through an investment in -- with cdbg dollars that there is significant gaps in services to our residents who are in the areas outside of the city of Austin. If you remember, we invested in social services projects with cdbg dollars and that social worker has been on the job a little more than six months now and has made significant progress, quite frankly, in identifying families who have not been seeking or receiving services throughout our traditional source. And so because of that, that new information, it has informed some of the recommendations that we are formulating for the use of this money. So basically we have sort of four overarkhing goals or themselves. The first would be special emphasis on placing or making services accessible to residents in the outlying areas of the county. We know that a lot of the services that we invest in are centralized within the city of Austin, within the geographic area of the city of Austin as opposed to the unincorporated areas and those areas outside of Austin. Utilization of evidence based practices. We would like to see programs that could demonstrate that they would be employing evidence based practices. Cooperation with accounting funded third party evaluation. We've said to you time and time again several years ago when you put in new developments for workforce development, you funded an evaluation that ran alongside that new investment. That process gave us good information about the impact of our investments and so we would ask you to consider that again with this project. And that we anticipate would be about $50,000 of the allocation that you've set aside already. With those overarching, focusing on low-income residents and outlying areas and that would be a mix. A flexible funding where of that could actually work with families on an individual basis to look at what their needs are. So it's not a pure rent or utility program, for example, it may include a mix of workforce training or it may include, you know, some type of other educational component. Community based mental health will be also focused on low-income residents in outlie be areas of the county with identified mental health needs. We also are recommending a look at basic needs one time assistance plus case management, which would mirror the work that we have been doing with the best single source project with the community. And then also a literacy and e.s.l. Project which would be an investment in recruiting and training volunteer instructors. If you are familiar with our master gardener program in the agrilife program where we have a single volunteer who then can train a group of -- a larger group of volunteers. So that's what we're looking at is sort of a train the trainer model whereby we can create more e.s.l. And literacy volunteers in the community. So again, this is staff's effort at tries to fine tune the investigation for how we would expend these dollars. And so any direction that you would like to give us, we would then incorporate in where we are and go to our constituent groups to talk about these investments as we promised that we would. And then come back to you with a fine-tuned recommendation that represents not only staff work but the work of our community constituent groups.
>> two questions. The first is do our -- the social services agencies that we contract with have geographic limitations? Do they exclude unincorporated areas?
>> they do not exclude residents from outside of the city of Austin, but their ability to access them if those persons do not have transportation I would say be limited.
>> did we help address the transportation issue? Do we give those same residents access to more services from agencies that we already contract with? Good question for next time.
>> I would say theoretically yes, but it's a little more complex than that.
>> simplify it for us. Now, when I looked at this backup, my first thought was that we had worked with some workforce development agencies over the last year.
>> yes.
>> and had sort of promised them that at some point we would issue an r.f.p. For workforce development services. Now, does this $450,000 include money that we had available at that time?
>> it does not. There is a separate pot of money. That r.f.p. Is actually prepared and waiting to be released. And there's a separate pot of money that the court identified, and if you recall, we rolled over about $400,000 from the department's budget in '06, and I believe 225,000 of that is for workforce development. So that is outside of this $450,000.
>> I feel a whole lot better. County judge ought to keep his word, in my view.
>> absolutely.
>> questions?
>> what is the r.f.p. Going out? Because I know that there are a number of folks wondering when and why is it taking so long.
>> well, it has taken long because other projects interfered with it during the development phase. And then at that point when it was obvious that the department would be making a recommendation to do an r.f.p. In social services, we basically made the decision there could be economies of stale to do it at one time because of the necessary advertising and to engage the purchasing staff in all of that. So we prepared the r.f.p., ran it through purchasing, ran it through legal and it's sitting at the ready, but it's just, you know, it was just the interference of other projects that delayed the implementation of it. And then once we sort of reached a point where we were hopeful there would be an opportunity to do an additional r.f.p., then he gossipped to save a little bit of money.
>> when is this going to be ready?
>> we're hoping to have it on the street in -- at the first of 2009.
>> so it's going to be another two months.
>> this or their workforce development?
>> it would be all of it. It would be the 450,000 plus the 225. The r.f.p. Process to get the r.f.p. On the street.
>> will you be spread too thin having to do an r.f.p. Process and workforce development now and having to do r.f.p. Process for health and human services in the beginning of 2009?
>> so you mean to put the r.f.p. Out now for workforce development? I think -- I think it could be done. I think that we would incur the advertising costs and all of the related expense to do that and then we would incur those same costs again to put this money out. But we certainly could do that. I would have to check with purchasing to see about their availability to get it out. But I think the r.f.p. Has been approved by everyone except the court. We could get it on the agenda and have it out within the next two weeks.
>> we know that everybody is asking for it. You know that and they've been asking for a long time. So go back and tell them they are going to have to wait another 60 days is not going to be -- I mean it's not going to be acceptable for folks. Especially since they thought for a long time it should go out.
>> I think this would make a whole lot more sense if we were to see what was in the workforce development. Can we put workforce development on the agenda on November 18th?
>> yes.
>> next Tuesday is election day. The Tuesday after that is veterans day. A holiday. So our next full work session, full session is November 18th.
>> that's what I suggest. And on this, I mean it looks good, but it will probably look better once we know exactly what we're doing with the other piece. So if we delay a decision on this until November 18th, is that okay?
>> well, what we were hoping for today was an indication of your comfort level with the direction so that we could begin our talks within the community. Because that would -- we did not want to go out and talk about what we thought the r.f.p. To include without some indication from the court that we were on the right track. So if we could have your approval to go out and discuss this preliminary plan with the community and certainly bring back to you any -- any comments or any additional considerations that our community partners would have you to consider, then that would keep us moving on this piece while we are --
>> how comfortable are you with that? The workforce if that's coming back
>> [inaudible].
>> I can be comfortable with a couple of questions.
>> okay.
>> it appears from page 2, the four bullets you've laid out, in terms of our real add value to the service community as a community that has through no fault of the service -- the health and human services community, have by necessity, by funding necessity have siloed to various expertise. I think our real add value is provide the scaffolding so we can optimize those services. In looking at the four bullets, I would like to explore with you some difference between the first bullet and the final three bullets. It appears that the first bullet is an opportunity to calibrate in the field the distribution of services based on the cases that we encounter. Whereas the other three bullets are a target of specific need, we go out looking for people who have that need and put that round peg in the round hole.
>> that is absolutely correct, Commissioner. Number 1 or the first bullet, if you will, will be more of a model akin to our children's partnership model whereby we have a wrap-around approach that we design services that tallly meet the family's needs. Whatever they are. They are not pegged to any particular service area. I believe and I'm looking at staff for them to shake their heads, but I believe it's more akin to that model and we've been very successful with working with families in that way because families actually get to help identify what needs they feel would help provide some progress.
>> let me throw out my prejudice and you tell me whether it's sound and best practices. In terms of the county's add value, my concern with the other three bullets is that -- and I don't mean this to sound pejorative, bit it seems in some respects with the other three bullets we serve a broker function to the service providing community. We find clients for their particular service. It seems with the first bullet we are much more -- we serve a more holistic social worker model in the first. Is that -- is that bead an appropriate bead on this -- on these four options?
>> yes. And it is a matter of, you know, your level of comfort with different models of service delivery because that's what it boils down to. The three other bullets are more traditional service delivery models as opposed to the first bullet being a little, you know, innovative and sort of cutting edge, in my opinion.
>> I for one am very intrigued by the first bullet, the house call model, as it were. I do think that there are communities in the county that we have no idea they exist.
>> I would give us more time to discuss it.
>> okay.
>> it's kind of like the mental health piece. We are spending -- there are major pieces at work elsewhere of which we are a part. The other thing is that there is a possibility of us being asked for a million -- for half a million dollars depending on where the strategic team goes. And so on that, I would work with Austin-Travis County mr and the health care district to make sure we do a better job of reaching out to these individuals. So if we know about them, then I think we are duty bound to make sure they get services they need. But I would first try to exhaust existing services by working with the entities as provide them and as last resort step up to the plate ourselves. The other thing is that, you know, we may well be asked for half a million dollars. For mental health related stuff. We've been chatting lately about having a whole lot more cash than capacity. But as soon as we can hire mental health professionals, I understand the capacity void will be filled and so we'll spend the money that we have and also need additional cash is what we're told.
>> that's correct.
>> but I do think that if residents in unincorporated areas are not being served, then we ought to figure out a way to keep collaborating with correct providers to get that address mentd. Addressed. Ours meaning we fund it. So, you know, I think -- I never assumed that they would just be in Travis County. I thought they would be in all -- in Austin, but all of Travis County. So if we need to make sure that they go to certain locations because there is a need there, then I think we ought to communicate it.
>> and I think that part of it is outreach and certainly outreach when you are -- there's a limited capacity when you have staff, there's a limited capacity in resources. So outreach sort of tempered by those two things that drive everything that we do. But the other thing is is certain members of our community who it is not their orientation, if you will, to seek services directly. Whereas as some persons in our community would be more direct and deliberative about seeking services. So it's sort of the marriage of outreach and how we do out reach, but also being able to go into communities and be a little more hands on and that's what we've been able to do with the cdbg problem. And I think house call is a very good analogy for what we're talking about.
>> it may be that this ought to be done, but I would certainly try to figure out a way to get it done without this investment from us first. And if we have to do it, we have to do it. But I'm sitting here thinking, you know, half a million dollars is a big hit. But the other partners, if they do their part and they are contributing mightly, then I would feel duty bound to step up to the plate on that too. It's just a matter of months on that where we'll know how it shakes out.
>> can do.
>> I didn't say.
>> real quickly, I mean just at first blush wherever you read the recap on this thing, sherry, it's like so many other things that we do. There seems to be a smaller percentage with direct results delivery than what you have to do with staff and administrative costs. I mean like -- in your comprehensive service model. You've got -- out of $400,000, you've got $150,000 that goes to the direct services. But you got 150, you know, staff and administrative. That's not a new f.t.e., is it?
>> no. All of this money would be out to the community. That is just our estimate of what types of costs the service providers who will respond would put into their proposals. So it's not necessarily hiring county personnel.
>> okay, well, I mean whatever. I mean it just seems like there's so much money that goes into administrative. I mean an all of these things that it eats up so much. When you really look at who is really getting something, it jumps off the page at me. And that's whether you are talking about the comprehensive service, the community based mental health. I mean, you know, I really wonder how much can you really get out of 150 literacy instructors for $55,000. That's $366 a person. I don't know what you -- I don't know what you can get out of $366 a person. I mean I guess for $366 a person, you can train somebody to go and hold classes and do training.
>> and they will then train others to be e.s.l. Instructor: and I would just say to that, Commissioner, social services is a hands-on business. So certainly it requires staff to deliver the services that our community needs. And so I agree with you, administrative costs seem pretty cold comfort to the amount of money that we want to get out to actually serve people, but without those staff, we have no mechanism to get the money out.
>> it's like the cdbg. There's a lot of money administrative for what actually gets out on the street and that's unfortunate. So that's something that if we can work on that somehow, I mean because then you can deliver a lot more to the client.
>> give ourselves an opportunity for followup discussion.
>> yes. And I wanted to be clear just briefly that we're coming back on the 18th with the workforce development r.f.p. For the course review, and you are asking staff to hold off on our community discussions related to the $450,000 until you've had an opportunity to see what we will be asking for in the workforce development r.f.p.
>> both of them.
>> and I would just say to that we are happy to do that and certainly we can plan health and human services time, but we will also have to include the time that purchasing and the county attorney's office will need. And so we will do our best to stay on track.
>> if you come to me and tell me you have $100,000 and you think that I might be able to use it, I will be mad at Commissioners court for not following through on that. That's why I'm a little reluctant to get out there on front of it. When we take action, we ought to be committed to go ahead and do it.
>> okay. Very good.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> and welcome back. Move we recess to 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:38 PM