Travis County Commissioners Court
June 23, 2009,
Item 10
And number 10.
consider and take appropriate action on improving the grants process and coordination including reporting for future years.
>> thank you judge and Commissioners.
we talked last week about a grant reporting process that we were putting in place to track contracts that were pending and awards that have been received specifically related to
>> [indiscernible] funds and other large grant funds.
what we would do is provide you with a snapshot of what the current county requirements would be as well as a long-range picture of what the county's requirements would be for both those contracts that have been awarded and those that are pending.
what you have before you today is a -- is a beginning document that is a work in process.
we -- we have collaborated with the auditor's office and we have some additional items that we would ultimately like to include in this document, specifically as it relates to some of the workload issues for the auditor's office.
and some other -- some other areas.
but -- but this is a -- this is what I believe to be a good start, it gives you a good opportunity to -- to take a look at -- at commitments, both in -- in the current fiscal year and in future years and hopefully we will -- we will be a good basis to begin a dialogue or for reporting purposes.
i'm going to turn it over to travis, we're going to touch on just a few grants that we have identified here.
we want to talk about the summary and then answer any questions that you might have.
>> judge, Commissioners, before you is the planning document, it's separated between those contracts that you have already approved for american recovery or for multi-year grants and at some point once the ara grants get approved by you, they will be moving over to the contract sheets.
the other pages are for applications for ara grants and multi-year grants that you have already approved but still awaiting notification if the county will actually be awarded the funding.
but let me start with the contracts, which those are things that have already been committed to by the county and just to highlight a couple of grants on this sheet, kind of walk you from left to right so you can kind of better understand how the worksheet works.
i would like to start with number one, which is the criminal justice planning grant, which -- which began in fy '07, which established the nation's first stand alone mental health public defenders office.
if you look in the fy '09 column, you will see that the county is receiving 375,000 in grant funds this year.
and if you look in the additional county impact, that $250,000 represents the county's cash mass commitment.
as you move forward to fy '10 and '11, you will see that grant amount decreases by 125,000 per year while the county's commitment for the cash match increase is 125,000 per year.
in fy 12, no longer receiving the grant but certainly the expectation that the county continues the program, so the full funding has been moved over to the county impact column.
at that point moving forward into the future, you will see that the grant amount is 0 and the county impact shows that full amount.
even though the sheet before you ends in fy 13, we are tracking to fy 15.
once fy '10 begins, fy '09 will be removed from the spread sheet and we will pull in future years.
other ones to touch base on.
parenting recovery grant.
currently in year two of a five year grant that's currently providing $500,000 in federal funding to serve families in the child welfare system with substance abuse issues.
we follow that same methodology.
the county is receiving $500,000 this year, there's a $7,700,000 cash match.
additional match requirements met internally by the department or through in kind from partners, for simplification purposes, we have elected not to show those, but we have that information available.
if we move over to the right, we will see that fy 12 is the final year of the grant and there would be a $580,000 commitment required by the -- potentially required by the county in fy 13, provided that the program is meeting expectations, funding available and the county ends up taking the full requirements.
there's other partners involved for the potential existing for those partners to contribute as well.
but we have taken the conservative approach and assumed that the county is applying for the grant there's going to be an expectation at least from the people maybe either the grant tore or the people receiving the services that those programs would continue forward.
lastly on that one page is the cdbg which you are familiar with.
you will see that we are receiving about 800,000 per year.
additional county impact there's not actually a cash match requirement, but two staff added for health and human services, one in the auditor's office, the staff in the auditor's office not only supports the community development block grant but also other federal grants like the parenting and recovery but simplification purposes I have shown it under community development block grant rather than trying to divide certain percentages up throughout these other large federal grants.
there are any questions on the first page or how the spread sheet works?
>> very useful spread sheet.
>> thank you.
>> let me ask you this question: in some of these -- we are led to believe up front that there will be savings or cost avoidance in other areas.
>> sure.
for example on the creation of the -- of the children's and -- and parents representation offices?
we look at what we are spending on court appointed lawyers.
in my review reasons that we can spend part of that pony to fund a public defender office or defender type.
i'm hoping to see at some point as our -- as our commitment to the public defender office increases, whether or not there is a similar decrease in the amount spent for court appointed lawyers in the same category.
see what I'm saying, so where do we get that information?
>> that information will -- will be one of those things that is a continuation of this -- of the development of this spread sheet where we will identify those areas and then give you that information.
regarding that particular office, as you know, there was a rampup period that took place and so, therefore, the actual savings in reality has not been realized as we thought they would be initially because of that ramp up period, which we knew going in that -- that -- would be the case.
it is our hope that in the future years as you said we will be able to identify that and have that as a reflection on this worksheet.
>> I think that we ought to see it.
>> yeah.
>> because I was amazed at the amount of -- that we were spending for court appointed lawyers and the -- the increases per year.
so --
>> well, that -- those kinds of performances, judge is absolutely right.
as we were discussing the implementation of that grant it was predicated on if not a replacement perhaps even a reduction in our overall cost and also predicated on the possibility of an increased quality of service.
so will reductions in cost and quality of service be -- reflected in individual performance criteria rather than on this spread sheet or will they also be somehow captured by this spread sheet.
>> it would be our recommendation that be done on an individual program by program basis and not here.
this is intended really to show from a big 30,000-foot look, if you will, what the overall impact to the county might be -- for current year grant activities as well as future year grant activities.
really, it's more as I said last week, it's more for us a planning tool to begin to -- to -- to reserve adequate dollars to address those future year requirements.
to give the Commissioners court a summary snapshot of what we have currently got obligations for, what we could have obligations for, then how much those obligations might either grow or go down as the years go by.
>> in regard to the office of parent representation and obvious of child representation, I'm assuming that any cost savings that we -- that we believe have been achieved to some degree are speculative in comparison to this.
>> right.
>> so in that regard, we would see those in documents later on tracking our prague and drawing reasonable conclusions based on -- on financial information, but the reasonable conclusions aren't as objectively clear as the information on this --
>> developing good performance measures with strong outcome indicators to -- to report back in terms of caseload, in terms of reduced costs for our attorneys outside attorney's costs, all of those things are really to be developed and to be reported on a program by program basis.
>> the problem is if -- if I'm to look at this sheet, see fiscal impact, I'm interested in seeing net fiscal impact.
so if I -- if let's say the feds are out of the picture and locally we've had to pick up $580,000 in fy 13, if in fact we have saved 250,000 in court appointed lawyer fees, the net impact really is 580 less 250.
>> that is the number that you should -- you should be seeing here.
>> right.
it would help me to see that number.
>> in addition to that, I understand when you chat about next year's budget, we want to talk about number of cases, quality representation, because we looked at money and those two other things when we collaborated with the state and district judges and the defense bar, so the full picture is important.
i don't know that it necessarily has to be here.
but -- but I -- I think leaving the impression that it's a -- it's a $508,000 hit when in fact it's 580 less 250 I'm uneasy doing that.
other things if we look at them during the budget process and can see that during budget markup or something like that, I mean I'm happy with it.
i just think that we need to make a mental note that we need to see that somewhere.
>> also for those two offices, judge, I did put in I guess in the note section that the county impact is expected toed -- we need to --
>> at some point there will be a number.
the number may be zero, but I hope not but if it is I can live with it because then we know we have got to look at quality of representation and really quantity number of cases.
our thinking was if we had this office of experts then on all of the routine stuff we should be able to move in a lot more efficiently.
>> yeah.
the idea again, this -- this spread sheet was developed with the idea to give the court a -- a fiscal impact as we know it today.
and obviously those numbers are subject to change and probably will as it relates to f.t.e.
because you will notice there are as we go across in years the numbers stay flat for the county contribution, where there might be f.t.e.
involved we know that those numbers will probably end up going up somewhat based on benefits costs or pay increases and things like that.
there will be definitely some adjustments as we go along.
but as we know it today, this is kind of our best stab at it in terms of a reporting mechanism.
>> this does illustrate, tell me if I'm wrong about this.
one of the points of this is to illustrate our needs to -- to plan in the up front as we go into these grants so that question know what the fiscal impact will be three or four or five years from now.
>> yeah.
that's exactly what the intent is to demonstrate to the court that fiscal impact and for us to be able to begin to plan for that fiscal impact, in any given year, I will give you a good example, if you flip over to the summary section on page 2, if you look at the county's commitment in fiscal 12 to fiscal 13, that commitment grows by 1.78 million.
so in that particular incidence we would want to be proactive and plan for that impact going into 2013 and begin to reserve some type of grant -- grant obligation.
reserve or -- of some sort.
as we go forward.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> if we turn to page 3, I'll take a couple of simple, maybe one or two simple ones, then two bigger ones, we will see that the second grant down is -- is one in criminal justice planning where they work closely with the constables, records management, adult probation, juvenile probation, court administration and the
>> [indiscernible] police department for one time technology purposes.
you will see that the grant is in fy '10, likely to be fully expended then 11, 12, 13, beyond there's a roughly
>> [indiscernible] expense agreements and fees associated with the one-time technology purchase.
even though it's a one time grant there's a small incremental cost associated with receiving that funding.
i know that was something that Commissioner Davis asked about.
in those cases where those can be easily identified we have put them on the sheet.
the second from the bottom is an emergency food and shelter program, which is american recovery act.
it's a fairly simple grant.
we currently receive funding that's not ara related.
this is for $58,000, we're -- we've actually received this is the first grant that we have notice that we have been awarded, ara, we are going to receive and spend the money.
that's the end of the grant.
you see going forward zeros, just to highlight the one on the bottom of page 3 which is the 21st century community learning centers grant, this is something that we work with aisd on that went to court.
probably about a month and a half ago where we could receive $1.9 million for a three year period then the grant starts stepping down.
that would provide after school programs in high-risk economically disadvantaged schools.
last but not least, turn to page 5, the second from the bottom, as I mentioned earlier, the cops hiring program grant sheriff's office funding 12 law enforcement f.t.e.
you will see in fy 10, 11, 12, receives about $760,000, that ends in fy 12, going forward again in fy 13 the county would have a substantial commitment.
>> okay.
>> if this format is acceptable to the court, what we would like to do is include this in the grant summary package that you receive each week in your court packet and have it available to you and -- or we can do it any way that you would prefer.
but -- but hopefully that will provide you with just a snapshot summary of where we are.
>> and we will also be updating this sheet as new grants are approved or applications or contracts.
earlier today you approved two ara grants as part of the weekly grant amendments.
this sheet has already been updated to reflect that.
provided you want to see this as far as a weekly grant packet that be in the packet for the 7th of July.
>> questions?
go for it.
>> okay.
i guess at some point you need to let us know how much effort it takes to update it week to week.
>> no effort.
it's very easy.
>> okay.
if you change your mind about that, let us know.
>> do we want to discuss that additional page that was included in the packet in terms of the process, the grant process that -- that I had submitted for consideration?
>> okay.
>> this is just kind of a brainstorming session that we had in terms of how our current process works.
we kind of broke it down into three pieces, preapplication I would like to focus a little bit of attention on in terms of how we go about the application process.
this isn't intended in any way to slow down the process but is intended to have an impact on the grant opportunities that are available to have a cross collaboration between the departments to ensure that the grant opportunities are -- are touching in every department and are available within every department.
academic that we are communicating that so that when grant opportunities and in particular the stimulus funding comes through, the ara funding, in particular when it comes through, where -- where hopefully there is -- there is a -- a mechanism in place where for example its might be able to have an opportunity or will be able to weigh in on the implications -- implications long term for their grant.
as we were talking about it from an internal perspective, as I mentioned last week, there is a great deal of internal resource requirements that take place in order to -- to pull these grants off for those user departments.
and that -- it not only touches the auditor's office, purchasing office, p.b.o., the county attorney, but also touches on its from a maintenance perspective if there's any technology as travis pointed out in the summary sheet so this -- this kind of a -- kind of a three step process is intended to maybe stir some discussion.
maybe seek court direction on some ideas if this makes sense or doesn't make sense, hopefully maybe think about consideration a small group of individuals that could put together maybe a normal refined policy that the court could adopt as it relates to the grant process.
>> in regard to that cough cross matrix thing, it seems in the up front, what we have seen through this arra process, perhaps even before but with a less high profile time frame, is that -- is that we're seeing big impacts on the auditor's office.
we are seeing big impacts possibly in purchasing.
what about the other departments that are involved no matter what division is looking for the grant money?
>> well, p.b.o., purchasing, auditor's office, county attorney's office, to some extent its, if there's a technology related question.
maintenance, if there's additional hardware, software that's acquired, what it takes in order to operate that.
so that there's some issues there.
potentially hrmd, if there are new f.t.e.
required that do not currently fit within some type of classification.
so there are a number of internal support departments that are ultimately impacted or could be.
>> what would be the minimum departments that would need to be involved in the small working groups to -- to look at whether or not policy needs to be changed with regard to -- to the -- to the pursuit of grants.
>> I would probably say the -- the auditor's office, p.b.o., purchasing, intergovernmental relations as kind of internal support folk, and then maybe external users, maybe larger grant offices, hhs, I can't read your writing.
>> juvenile probation and the sheriff's office, maybe a representative from each of those might be helpful as well and -- and kind of talking about some of the issues or concern that they face.
>> uh-huh.
>> we have found over us getting to these grants over the last -- last couple of months, that administrative operations departments are very heavily involved.
whether it's finding space or hiring new folks or -- or making sure that -- that there is equipment, telephones, lease, using existing space, all of those areas we are involved in, especially when it's a big project or an expansion of a particular office.
>> with facilities come energy issues.
>> uh-huh.
>> so --
>> so the running list that I got so far is auditor, p.b.o., purchasing, heavy users, whether they are under Commissioners court or under an independent elected official,.
>> county attorney.
>> igr, county attorney.
and admin ops.
>>
>> [indiscernible] under the criminal court criminal justice planning, I failed to mention that, but they work closely with the -- with the parental public defenders office and mental health public defenders office, another thing to consider.
>> would the goal of such a group as far as representation from the -- from the high users would it be appropriate to have -- to have all of the high users represented or a representative for the high users or how are you all thinking about this?
>> I think that each perspective that those users that have been identified might be able to bring to the table would be very helpful in terms of what they face in -- you know, timing, obviously are issues that we hear about all of the time in terms of how grants are, you know, the tight time lines to get grants applied for.
you know, watching the -- the grant opportunities when that grant filing period opens up, for example, is -- is very, very important from the standpoint of being able to get all of your ducks in a row, make sure that everybody has had a chance to review, weigh in on the process.
all of that really will come into play.
there's no doubt about it.
but I think having those -- those end users input will be extremely helpful.
>> uh-huh.
>> I imagine there might be a difference in the perspective for -- for those end users who are under the Commissioners court versus end users who are not in terms of -- of the way they approach grants.
i mean, I don't know.
maybe there's not.
>> I don't really know that there's a great deal of difference to be quite honest with you.
>> asked and answered then.
>> what do you hope to get from the court on this today?
>> just direction whether you think it's worthwhile or not.
whether you think the idea merits further discussion.
if the group, working group makes sense.
is really what I was hoping to accomplish.
>> should we authorize you to put the working group together --
>> yeah.
>> take a close look at it, come back with recommendations.
>> if that's the court's desire, we will be happy to.
>> that's my desire.
>> I don't think it's too big of a group.
when we talk about the benefits committee, that's a larger group, but it takes in everybody's, you know, needs and abilities to -- to lend to the discussion.
so I mean this sounds like a good place to start.
>> I think it's a manageable group, no doubt about it.
>> the one idea that I thought that I would throw out in addition to what's here is that there are many groups in our community that are doing what I would call stimulus watching.
it amazes me how many e-mails I get from them advising me of different grant opportunities.
now, they don't have a good way of knowing whether Travis County is interested or not.
so what I have been trying to do is to forward those e-mails to county managers that I think may be interested.
but if the small group could give that some thought.
>> okay.
>> make sure we stay in touch with them and it's especially important I think, in like the weatherization which is health and human services here, justice and public safety, just a whole lot of grants and some of that money is coming directly from the federal government, other is being funneled through the state of Texas so you have got to kind of watch both places.
but we say requirements here.
requirements, conditions and there's some other words that are probably -- that will probably capture exactly what your responsibilities are if you receive the money.
so ...
those two things are the ones that I would highlight for us.
>> okay.
>> otherwise, it's really us trying to efficiently determine up front whether we should be interested, whether we can meet the requirements, whether we ought to apply and what responsibilities we agree to if we do.
then of course there's the labor, f.t.e.
impact on us.
and how we will meet that.
as alicia says, this notion of space is kind of big, too.
the greater the amount of money that you might receive, typically the more space and f.t.e.'s you need to really implement it.
the other thing is that on some of this if we plan to apply, we need to touch base with different people in the community who might assist.
you know, subrecipient agreements I guess I'm talking about.
but every time we mention that, susan, I guess we ought to think auditing, financial reporting requirements pick up.
>> yeah.
>> yeah.
>> I think susan wasn't there some -- some grant difficulty kind of a gauge that you guys are working on to identify the difficulty
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> work session, our way of trying to really quantify workload.
the other thing, which kind of fits into this discussion, from our viewpoint, our own offices viewpoint, it makes a difference whether departments are doing their job with a grant.
in other words if everything comes to us clean, met the deadlines, kept the records, met the agreements, that's one thing.
if it's a department where it's always come in late, what we get is incomplete.
we have to keep going back and forth to getting things, that makes a difference, too.
so the quality of work coming up really does impact on our workload.
i think internally, that's probably something that we ought to be working on, you know, rather than --
>> let's do that and share that back as how we got with this committee.
>> that's something that maybe we can also incorporate into the summary is the level of difficulty from an internal perspective that it would take in order to -- to maintain this.
>> touch on some some degree in the memo in number 7 point in the first phase and speak to it to some degree because I hear what you are saying susan, resources and training for grant writing could be made available to those who have not had much experience with writing grants.
i imagine that some of that could be explained by lack of experience.
not all.
>> [laughter] but --
>> for all of those reasons and, you know, we don't have a financial system that handles grants real efficiently.
we are doing as best we can.
that's not much -- much solace, but we will have a new system that will handle them better down the road.
those things will all can be impacted.
i think that we've talked numerous times about the worksheets that we have put together, you have got the facts.
maybe, judge, you want to lay another column money saved.
maybe you don't want a net.
you may want to just sit it out there.
just to see what that is.
>> kind of a reminder of why we got into it in the first place, you know.
>> I think it's just a thoughtful way of the county prioritizing what it has and have it fit into -- you wouldn't want to make a whole lot of commitments of things well it was nice if we got the money but isn't that important, find out it squeezes out things that you really think are very important.
i think that it's a good tool.
>> uh-huh.
>> whether or not administrative costs can be taken for the grant funds is a good question.
can we get them a copy of the --
>> sure can.
>> backup from the work session.
>> sure can, yeah.
>> anything else on this one?
>> no, sir.
>>
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, June 23, 2009 1:31 PM