Travis County Commissioners Court
February 3, 2009, 2009
Item A1
A1. Consider and take appropriate action regarding potential expenditures of new county funding for social services: a under a 1 is proposals received in response to a request for services for workforce development projects; and b, various community partner investments and public comments related to the proposed use of $450,000 budgeted in fiscal year 2009. And we will call a 2 up next. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners, sherri flemming, executive manager for health and human services and veterans service. We do have a brief presentation for you for today represented to the request for services that was issued in late 2008 for additional investments in workforce services. We do need to note for you that we are talking about -- about $215,000 of one-time money. And there's -- there's another 50,000s of ongoing money. But primarily we're talking about a pot of $215,000 in one-time money. And with that, I will pass the mic to lawrence lyman.
>> thank you, planning manager of Travis County health and human services. Really -- over the past several months, the court did approve a general direction for this investment, identifying so that we identified some outcomes we want to purchase both education and employment outcomes, work with purchasing to complete and get that released. It was released in November of 2008. Responses closed December 23rd. Of 2008. We received seven responses for a total of just over one million. Ranging from $100,000 to a high of 15,000. Our review panel met and complete our scoring on January 9th, 2009. Criteria we looked at were -- first just a description of the program and services that they are offering in general. Second was to -- identification of the target outputs and outcome goals we expected to see. We looked very closely at the rationale behind the design, whether it was a research based study, their own or someone else's or at least give us some kind of logic about why we would believe what they were selling us on would work. Look at the cost per participant. How the program works with local employers. Obviously if we are looking at jobs we complaint just train in isolation, we are looking at whether it would involve employers in curricular design, job placement after training, creating work time or getting flexibility in work time to participate in training, whatever things those might look like, asking for day to day response and how they would target client population, we have identified, which include a recipient of public assistance, including those coming to our centers. Offender reentry. Children aging out of foster care a variety of things like that. Also very much particularly in the budget situation how -- to what degree they would leverage other resources to make these programs work. The last slide on this we have the summary of how the scoring did come out. After our review. The highest score was a proposal from workforce solutions. Then you can policy that down.
>> [reading graphic] Austin academy. I think that I can speak for the review panel we were very, very pleased with all of the responses we got. A very strong field to choose from and a very difficult decision. We did come out with the workforce solution with a clearly first on our list by the scoring. Again, we felt very good about all of them, I think very much wish that we had the full 100 one million -- to do all seven of them, that not being the case, this is where we laid it on it.
>> at this point what we would need to hear from the court is how you would like purchasing to proceed in awarding the available dollars. It's my understanding from purchasing that the r.f.s. That we prepared does allow you to award more than one award, if you chose to do that. Keeping in mind the available dollars that we have set aside for this purpose at this time.
>> so we have 200,000?
>> 215,000, yes, sir. Do we know what or how -- let's say we decided to fund or contract with the top two, do we know how they would use roughly half the amount they proposed for?
>> well, the -- the workforce solutions proposal is very relatively easily scalable investment. Very clear for client costs. In their case it's essentially they propose roughly 100 people for the 204,000, so we are just kind of proportionately down from there. If we had half of that, we would probably serve half of the participants. That way is pretty straightforward. Ventana is more complicated. Their proposal did include specific staffing or investments around their facilities, maintenance, supplies, equipment things like that, so we have a little more complicated negotiation to see exactly what kind of lesser investment, how that would be applied.
>> here's what I think we ought to do, I think we ought to try to do the top two. But I would -- I would go to them first and find out exactly how they would use it. If in fact -- workforce solutions agrees with you, then their description should be pretty easy. But on ventana del sol, it's a good program but I will find out how they would use it and make sure we agree with it. Workforce solutions gets state and federal money.
>> correct.
>> do we think that they would be able to leverage an additional 100,000?
>> the leverage again fairly proportionate. What -- in calculating the leverage, they have looked at what are their expenses with the costs attached to clients going through their system. The case management, the screening, assessment, intake. All of those kinds of things. There's a relatively fixed amount per client that's going to be attached to that. That's what they -- what they quantified for our purposing this proposal. They also alluded to what didn't count pretty much more individualized thing, additional services that individuals will require being able to receive specific to their circumstances. So they did not calculate out child care, for example, or transportation because it's -- you never really know about that until you actually get the specific clients to see what their needs are. But so we probably look at if we were investing a lesser amount, we look at a smaller program.
>> I think on child care we ought to plan to access the city and child care dollars that we send to them in another, should have been another pot. The other thing is that I think that we should be able to refer ex-offenders in need of assistance to whatever we contract for. I know the number of ex-offenders seeking employment is -- is a large one. Ms. More ran already helped about 400 ex-offenders, it kind of surprised me the numbers were so large. This is how you get it done. Workforce solutions is on the record supporting us trying to give ex-offenders a better opportunity to get trained and also get a job. That's what I think. I think we ought to know exactly what it is. One of the measures that we should look to is basically job placement. In both cases, in most -- most trying to think.
>> most of the response primary outcomes, what we have done historically workforce development, are we getting job placement, getting retention. Much more emphasis on earnings game, post placement, not just getting in and staying, getting in hopefully seeing the advancement. The experience that we have with them, direct employment model to see what can we do targeting those specific populations particularly reentry. In gianting the job paths, making sure there are opportunities in this new investment that would be viable for ex-offender population.
>> part of their regular mission I take it is to assist those who are laid off area employers.
>> yes.
>> not -- not as part of this project. Their regular mission, those are my ideas? Any others?
>> judge, I want to try to determine -- try to determine when would be a good time to -- if these are awarded accordingly, as far as what's being suggested, when will we actually be able to see where -- where they are in measuring the effectiveness of this particular investment. Is there in way to return jobs, job retention, all of the other -- as far as doing what they need to do per client. How -- how and when will we actually be able to see the results of what we are doing here today.
>> two answers.
>> all right. First, we do have a formal evaluation ongoing much one of the requirements in the r.f.p. Is any progress funded through this investment would have to continue participating origin participating sharing information required to keep up with that. We will have that as a more longer term tracking mechanism.
>> okay.
>> in fact we will hopefully be coming back later this month with the evaluation results that we have over the past year.
>> what lawrence is referring to is the work that we have been doing with the ray marshal center, tracking our -- our workforce investments over the last few years. You have seen one presentation from -- from the ray marshal group against -- it's probably about last November, about a year ago, yes. So we do have updated evaluation information to present to you. Continuing to track that investment over the last few years. And so this group of investments would become a part of that tracking and evaluation mechanism that we have with ray marshal, so we will also be coming back to you with the amendment to their contract to include these new projects in what they are working with us to continue to evaluate.
>> and the second answer is we can always write into our contract more frequent individuals reporting from the individual providers as -- as needed. I know in the experience working with workforce solutions, we are taking advantage or a well established system that's already in place there, pretty much have -- have on demand access so I can call today and say hey what's -- what's their status on our current model enrollment and have data back tomorrow or the next day. We have a similar situation, similar response, but I think if there's a strong interest or anything on the part of the court we could ask for a monthly or other short interim if that is -- if you think that's warranted.
>> okay. I just -- I just want to know what mechanism we had in place to ensure that -- that this particular effort will -- will -- would
>> [indiscernible] every time we move because of the fact that employment is a very, very important situation right now in the day's economy. I just wants to make sure what we do here actually hit that bull's eye for those that need this type of employment.
>> in both cases.
>> concern.
>> we are looking at relatively short term interventions, ventana is proposing -- longer than what we have done with them in the past with the rapid employment. But still within in most cases a few months, so we should be able to see a pretty quick response and see a quick impact for clients getting in and out and through with where they did in fact create an impact.
>> thank you.
>> anything else? Have it back on next week, see what kind of responses you get.
>> certainly can, yes.
>> okay. Let's cover -- that was a. Are we ready for b?
>> yes.
>> okay. The next portion is to talk briefly with the court about the expanded social service investment. As you recall, you -- you budgeted $450,000 in funding no new investments in social services and staff came to you and -- and described for you what we thought might be a good -- a good investment and -- and basically said we would go out and get some comments. That's what we want to talk about today. So just briefly we have been engaged in the process with the city and united way almost a year now, analyzing current community conditions, conducting focus groups, looking at outside funding requests that we receive during the fiscal year '09 budget process and also looking at the department's priorities and interestsment during the budget process we identified basic needs, literacy and english as a second language, community based mental health, then pilot or evaluate service -- evaluative service delivery. We also wanted to share with you also during the fiscal year '09 process the city of Austin increased their investment in social services by three and a half percent. They have considered similar targeted investments in the similar broad areas as we proposed to the court. They have implemented an across the board increase for existing services and agencies and they are currently working on a procurement process to reassess their investments in social services. This is by way a reminder, the united way back in 2007 completed a transition to a new system of investments, which included a focus on education, early childhood and youth, health, financial stability and they are also continuing to make limited targeted investments in what they are calling emerging needs. They are on tap for a new rfs process in 2010. So based on your budget process, you allocated $450,000 for new targeted investments in social services. You have already reviewed a range of options offered by staff. And directed the department to gather further input from across the community before final decisions were made. We've -- we've included in your backup again a summary of those options and I want to go over each one -- I won't go over each one but basically in the areas we previously identified. Community based mental health, basic needs, literacy. During our community, receiving community input since the last time that we were here before you, I believe it was in early November. We have solicited input from the c.a.n., resource council, administrative team. They were both televised meetings so there was greater exposure there. From the Austin area human services association, as you know a lot of our partner agencies participate in that entity. The basic needs coalition of central Texas and the Austin dispro portionnalty committee all received specific presentations from staff. Also numerous listservs we were able to take advantage of and send information about, about the potential for new investments. To date we received 20 responses and we provided you previously the actual e-mail letters that we received from various persons who commented about how the court might consider spending these new resources. 17 of the responses were in support of lit rest and esl capacity building that option associated with the literacy coalition of central Texas. We received one in support of the comprehensive model that we have proposed. Also with maybe consideration for increased investment in the basic needs, best single source model that you previously and that you continue to invest in. There was one in support of community based mental health services from the samaritan mental health counseling center. One letter in the group for advocating for foreclosure prevention counseling. Then we are expecting -- still expecting to receive feedback from the funded partner group in the basic needs coalition about -- about basically requesting additional consideration for investments in basic needs. So that's a summary of the community input that we have received. And then finally, we would ask just for the court's feedback as we move forward in drafting what would be the final recommendation for your approval, if there are any additional, if there's any additional staff direction that you would want to give, for example, in the evaluation criteria, in the length of the awards that you would like us to make, one year, ongoing, are there -- would there be renewal options that you would want us to consider. The viability or sustainability of the project beyond county funding. Prioritizing of special populations might be something that you watch to give direction on. Reentry, children aging out of foster care would be some examples if they are involved in c.p.s. Disabled populations. Would you want to identify particular qualified recipients, single agency or single
>> [indiscernible] requests. We wanted to have an opportunity to receive any additional feedback from you as we go forward and work with purchasing and legal to put together a document that would we would ultimately request your approval and would release to the community to solicit proposals in much the same way that we have received proposals in the workforce area.
>> if I may add since we put the backup together for y'all, we received two additional comments from folks associated with the Austin dispro portionnalty community. Those are in the packets that you received on Thursday but aren't reflected in the powerpoint slides.
>> okay.
>> that concludes our presentation, any feedback the court would like to give us as we move forward in drafting our requests for services.
>> in regard to the evaluative service delivery model, I'm -- I'm -- in terms of -- of putting out a request for proposals, actually strike that, I think that I just answered my own question, never mind.
>> I did a good job.
>> apparently.
>> [laughter] so -- so how can we best assist you now?
>> well, if you have any comment about anything particular that you would like to see us focus on as we -- as we prepare the request for services, because clearly we have to give our community some sense of what it is we want to purchase. If you have a preference in terms of, you know, maybe you want staff to focus solely on basic needs and that's not necessarily a recommendation, it's an example. If you have had any thought since we've started this process, that might help us to -- to fine tune what it is that we're asking for or what it is we're asking people to -- to submit proposals for, that would be the feedback that we would need. We do have a process that we have to go through with purchasing and legal to -- to prepare a document that you will then get to review. But there's some feedback that you would like to give us, that would be very helpful to us as we move in this process.
>> well, the one thing that occurs to me is that the economy -- it's really, really affecting people and families. It's affecting people who have jobs, so you can imagine the effect on people who do not. They need those basic needs, shelter, food, clothes and the kiddos need all of those things in order to go to school and learn. And I'm wondering because of that impact of the economy, and then the -- the -- what people are saying that it's going to be a tough 2010, it's going to be a tougherrer 2011, I wonder if we shouldn't think about what we would do what I guess in the past judge what we did was set aside some money for hard times like this. And I'm wondering if this isn't, you know, a really serious thing that is on us. And if we shouldn't kind of look at the -- the basic needs and there's a coalition in place already that -- that can address those needs right away. That's kind of what I'm really thinking. Especially when families have small children who need all of those things and especially going to school the next day. It's tough.
>> can we document a significant increase in the number of residents that need basic services?
>> we can certainly let you know what's happening in our programs and we can -- we could survey some of our partners that -- that significantly served, provide basic needs and get some feedback to you.
>> why don't we do that? My inclination would be to follow you. Do we have data that connects -- that connects the provision of literacy services to -- to that person's ability to -- to -- to find a job?
>> I'm -- we don't have it with us here today, but I'm sure we can work together with the literacy coalition to provide that data.
>> let's just see what the data is in both of those. I agree. Seems to me with this amount you want to have the most impact. The last report that I saw showed a great number of local residents who really can't ride or write.
>> yes, sir.
>> and so I would -- you know, literacy from time to time you sort of forget it when you think of the universities and colleges around here. But if in fact there is a -- there is a strong correlation there, then I think -- I would say basic needs and literacy, if we think we can make an impact.
>> uh-huh.
>> certainly staff can give you lots of options to react to. But the reason why I think the discussion is important is because it does require resources of the agencies to prepare proposals for us. So the more specific we can be about what it is we want to purchase, then it allows the agencies to sort of self select. Does this meet our mission, something we want to be able to provide or maybe we wait for the next go round. So we want to make the best use of the agency's time.
>> would you -- would you have -- I guess have there been any additional -- involvement even with this one time I guess this -- even if you set aside for what we are talking about here today to look at those shortcomings, whether it's literacy or basic needs or whatever, where we end up landing, has there been any inkling of what additional one-time money that may be made available from some of this stimulus package money coming from the federal government? I think there -- there kind of may be a shotgun approach where they are hitting the whole bull's eye. Some of this money. I don't really know if that is going into some of the arena of our health and human services needs for Travis County, but it just may, I'm just wondering if that window has been opened, do we know if there's a possibility of any one-time, because it is one-time money, that may be coming down to also assist in some of these endeavors?
>> well, it's my understanding from mr. Eckstein that -- we have committed things that we think would be appropriate, both in workforce development and in expansion of programs, in house as well as maybe additional investments to some of your partners, so we have included those on the list of potential projects. For the stimulus package. The first round was bricks and mortar, the second round has looked at some of the programmatic issues that may or may not be related to bricks and mortar.
>> that's why I basically posed the question. If we can define what we're doing here today, maybe hopefully, there no guarantee at all about this stimulus package, we don't really know. If there is availability for one-time resources to deal with some of the services that even on that list you just pointed to, I think that we need to engage in that, look at what the possibilities are and maybe at that point, Commissioner Gomez and judge, that we can maybe even bring and corral more of the opportunities within a common corral and then address them accordingly.
>> we certainly will -- will stay on top of that and I think mr. Eckstein has done a really good job of keeping us inform. If I may propose that staff will go back and get some data that we can share with you related to not only your programs around basic needs and -- and the demand that we are seeing in house, but also some of our major partners and what their numbers look like. We will also come back to you maybe with some options that -- that you can respond to which may -- may help you to decide which -- which direction that you would like to go, but what I'm hearing from you right now is potential to look at projects related to basic need and literacy.
>> I have another plug. I would like us to explore the evaluative service delivery model because my feeling regarding the federal stimulus as well as the uncertainties of the economic downturn and how it's going to impact us, that one of the evaluation criteria that I would find most instructive is the ability to remain reflective and responsive to the needs of -- of the asker. I'm a little concerned about pigeon holing this money into a specific category only to find further into the economic downturn or with more information from the federal stimulus package that we could leverage it better for those most in need in the community. I'm very incontributioned by requiring our service providers to -- the alto reach out to people and identify what they need to achieve self sufficiency or to get over the hump. Rather than to categorize it specifically for literacy or for basic needs. If it turns out that a particular instance requires something beyond that.
>> the data is compelling. The data is compelling that we spend this money.
>> sure.
>> I'm not suggesting that we not spend it. You can't be flexible with money that you don't have.
>> but to that point, also, I recall that this additional money was identified because of an inadequacy of funding in the social services community even before the downturn. So I would be -- I'm reluctant to say -- to address the economic downturn. I feel like this money we identified irrespective of economic downturn and we may have a subsequent conversation about identifying an economic downturn fund. But this actually was to address an inadequacy that came to light even before the crash.
>> I don't know that that's true. Every year we go through the budget process. This past year was just another one. We basically see a need whose size is much greater than available resources. And recently during the budget cycle we have tried to step up to the plate and do a little bit more. We have been gradually increasing the amount. So -- so economic downturn is fairly recent. I'm talking about two, three, four, five years ago, during the budget process, us working with the city and united way to the extent possible, community action network, seeing that we really need to do better but the question is always where and how much better. So my thing about the data was that if there's a compelling need and basic needs area for literacy and I'm generally recalling reports that I have seen but they have -- they are kind of dated, then -- then, you know, we ought to use this money to cover that gap, growing gap. If not, I agree with you. We ought to just hold it. And that -- that would give you flexibility to address what are the needs are. If we agree that the need is compelling or needs are compelling, then I think that we should go ahead and spend it. Our attention was to spend it this year. But to spend it as wisely as possible and hopefully have the most impact. We may be saying roughly the same thing except I'm not tying this to the downturn in the economy because it's been for these people it's been downturn forever. It's basically us taking this modest amount of money but using it wisely and having the most impact in an area that -- that occupies a lot of our vulnerable citizens, so -- so providing them more basic services on the one hand and two if literacy really will help you struggle for yourself much, much better, then I think it would be wise for us maybe to increase the investment in that area. But if the data don't support that, then, you know, I can live with that.
>> if I might also add, you will see in some of the comments that you have, and there's been discussion, I know the court members who participate in the community action network have heard this information regarding the number of people who are eligible for our food stamps and other public assistance programs versus those in our community who actually receive them. That is another area that may be iran for considering. We find out yesterday staff hasn't really had a chance to develop this thought yet. We found out yesterday there may be some potential for if we were to allocate some funding for outreach efforts, for food stamps in particular, that we might be able to secure about 1.76 per dollar that we spend in dollars from the usda. That is certainly I think a significant way to make our money go a little bit further so we may a small investment but get almost two dollars back. We help encourage the enrollment in the program so that doesn't cost our county or state any money.
>> somewhere, though, along in all of this, I think everyone else, I can't speak for nobody but me. It's my intent to make sure those folks we are out there helping we are able to make them whole, literacy is -- if that's part of making them hole, fine, but right now it's a crisis situation as far as basic needs. At the end of the day self sufficiencies is important. The most -- the more self sufficient person that we have, the demand won't be as great. So -- so I -- I think that it's all intertwined as I stated earlier in what we do here. Hopefully we can get there. To make some folks whole in this community.
>> okay. If I hear your direction, you would like us to request some data from our partners and look at the data from our programs to determine what our demand is and what it's getting to be now in our community. Also to look at literacy numbers to determine the impact of investing in literacy -- literacy. So that we determine what the contact would be to making an additional investment in that area. Then staff will come back to you not only that information about with -- with options that you might consider for how you might want to move forward with the 450,000 that is currently in the budget.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> I think we might need, two, judge to give our partners a little bit of time to turn around their information.
>> food stamps would be in the basic needs category, right?
>> yes it would.
>> that makes sense to me if we can accomplish that.
>> yep.
>> any other bright ideas you can come up with between now and February 17th.
>> thank you very much.
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, February 3, 2009 2:36 PM