SR-300-002-01 (64)
'~
CNS:BS:sd ~
Council Mtg. 7/26/8~
e
'300- 1002-0/
~-
"- D
JUL 2 6 1983
Santa Monlca, Callfornia
TO: Mayor and Clty Councll
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve 1983-84 Grantee Agreements for
Implementatlon of Communlty Development ProJects
Introductlon
This report transmits proposed Grantee Workplans and Budget Summarles
for Councll reVlew and approval and also presents minor changes to
the standard contract language included in all Communlty Development
Program Grantee Agreements.
Background
On June 21, 1983, the Clty Councll approved the 1983-84 Co~~unlty De-
velopment Plan WhlCh lncluded 36 grants to 26 non-proflt communlty
organlzatlons successfully meetlng approved program crlteria. Since
that tlme, Clty staff has completed a number of actlvlties lntended
to develop meaningful contract documents which not only serve as the
legal and blndlng authorlty for the proJects but also serve as the
baS1S for proJect lmplementatlon and evaluatlon durlng the year. The
attached Grantee Workplans and Budgets for 24 of the approved grants
have been analyzed by staff of the Department of Community and EconomlC
Development ln conJunctlon with grantee staff. These documents repre-
sent the culmlnatlon of contract development actlvities lncludlng a
workshop on workplan develop~ent, lndlvidual negotlatlon seSSlons wlth
each grantee, and redraftlng by grantees as necessary. Documents for
the remaining grants are stlll In the process of belng finallzed and
wlll be transmitted for Councll approval on August 9, 1983.
11- f)
JUL 2 6 19B3
~
e
e
Mayor and City CounC11
-2-
July 26, 1983
Discussion
In rev1ew1ng the attached documents, it 1S 1mportant to note the
follovnng:
1) Workplans
Grantee workplans were developed (a) to provide a clear p1cture
of the scope and depth of actlvltles funded by the Clty, (b) to pro-
vide a conslstent format among grantees for reporting program status
to the C1ty on a perlodlc bas1s, and (c) to serve as a basls for pro-
gram evaluat10n to occur durlng the 1983-84 f-iscal year. All arantees, wlth
some mlnor exceptlons, were asked to develop obJectives In the follow-
lng categorles:
Program obJectlves - This section constltutes the major program
obJectlves for the actlvlt1es funded by the City. In some cases
where the City provldes partQal support for the organizatlon's
overall program, the obJectives include all activlties performed
by the organization. Proposed obJectlves have been developed to
provlde a comprehenslve "plcture" of the serVlces provlded, utll1-
zlng a number of measures that, when comblned, glven an accurate
program descrlption.
Santa Monlca Benefit - In cases where grantees serve only Santa
Monica resldents, this category may be combined wlth the program
obJectives described above. However, ln many cases grantees serve
a wider geographlcal area and therefore additlonal measures 1ndl-
catlng the beneflt to the Santa Monlca community rave been Ineluded.
These b~neflts may lnclude dlrect serVlces to residents, lmpacts
OP signif1cant segments or target groups in the commun1ty, services
~
e
Mayor and Clty Councll
-3-
e
July 26, 1983
~
to other organlzatlons ln Santa Monica, or general benefits to
the communlty as a whole. It lS lnterestlng to note that
many programs, in addltion to serVlng dlrect clients, provide a
range of benefits to the communlty that only became clear to
Clty staff after dlScuss10ns w1th each grantee. Only ln dlSCUS-
slng program operatlons 1n depth dld many lmportant beneflts
surface -- beneflts that grantee staff assumed to be apparent.
Th1S sectlon provldes the opportunlty for these areas to be detalled.
Outreach obJective - ObJect1ves 1n thlS sectlon are meant to
clearly state the intent of special outreach to those most 1n need
of each partlcular serVlce. The target populatlon and method of
outreach varies based on the specific service and needs of each
program.
Evaluation obJective - In the past, all grantee program reviews
performed by the City have included a reVlew of evaluatlon proce-
dures used by grantees to determlneprogram effectlveness. When
approprlate, flndings and recommendations were transm1tted to the
grantee. However, 1983-84 represents the f1rst year the Clty 15
focus1ng on evaluatlon by requir1ng that all grantees have an
evaluatlon component ln place which will produce written results
by March, 1984. Whlle the level of SOphlsticatlon varles among
grantees based on the length of tlme such procedures have been
lmplemented or the Slze of the program, all workplans lnclude tar-
gets for evaluat10n ln the cOffi1ng year.
Networklng obJect1ve - While network1ng wlth other organizatlons
1S an ongolng process for most grantees, thlS seetlon requires that
1n addltion to part1c1pation 1n these actlvlties, the grantee take
'~ayor and C1ty coun~
-4-
e
July 26, 1983
an in1t1at1ng role 1n provid~ng resources, techn1cal assistance
or other serV1ces to agencles ln the communlty. The intent of
requiring thlS Ob]ectlve is to create a "synergistlc" effect
where the use of City funds creates more benef1ts than Just those
der1ved from direct program serV1ces. It is meant to encourage
"experts" with1n agencies to share valuable knowledge 1n spec1flc
program or adm1nlstrative areas w1th those who experlence slmilar
situat10ns in the operatlon of thelr organ1zatlons. In review1ng
this sectlon of the workplans, the result is clear. Workshops on
speclf1c lssues are belng planned; commun1ty meeting space lS
being offered; and direct consultation by various staff members
wlll be provlded.
Fundra1s1ng Ob]ectlve - All grantees were asked to submit targets
for communlty fundraiS1ng and private donations. As wlth the
evaluation sect10n of the workplan, fundraislng obJectives
have been developed In the past and monltoring and staff reV1ews
have prevlously resulted In recommendatlons to agencies in th1S
area. 1983-84 1S the first year, however, that spec1f1c fundralsing
goals w1ll be closely monltored. A general guideline used In devel-
op1ng these targets was that programs should raise at least 10%
of the C1ty grant amount 1n communlty fundra1sing or pr1vate dona-
tlons. Then, based on the prevlous fundra1s1ug record and current
capacity of the organlzatlon, lndlv1dual targets were der1ved. In
cases where the fundraising target lS lower, var1ables such as the
income of the organiz~tion's "constituency" or the need to further
develop capaclty for fundra1slng, was taken into cons1deratlon.
All targets exceedlng 10% were developed at the optlon of the
grantee.
e
~ayor and C~ty Counc~l
-5-
e
July 26, 1983
While thls approach does not represent a requlrement for "matchlng
funds" In the pure sense, it does represent a commltment by the
agencies to contribute to Clty-funded actlv~tles from other sources.
To ensure thlS, all targets for fundraislng included ln -the work-
plan have correspondlngly been included In the total Grantee Budget.
A reVlew of the Budget Summarles attached to this report and the
line ltem detail avallable ln the Council Offlce therefore not
only ldentlf~es the use of Clty funds but also the proJected uses
of funds ralsed from other sources.
Whl1e the above structure has been utll1zed in the development of
all proposed workplans, ~t is important to note that each document
was developed on a case by case bas~s thus allowlng for fleXlbillty
in thlS structure when necessary. It is lmportant, at the onset of
the program year, that both the grantee and the C~ty view the work-
plan as the bas~s for evaluation and reportlng durlng the year. In
that llght, the process of workplan development has been a cooperative
and developmental process between both partles.
2) Budgets
The attached Budget Summaries ldentlfles program budgets by the
sources of lTICorne (lncluding but not limited to Clty funds) and by
specifled line item categories. As rnentlvnec prevlou51y, li~e ltern
detall of each budget 15 In the Councll Offlce for more thorough review.
In revlewlng the proposed budgets, Clty staff assessed (a) the
degree to WhlCh the proposed expendltures wereconslstent wlth the
stated obJectlves lnthe workplan, (b) the appropriateness of allocatlon
plans as requlred by Federal fundlng sources, (c) the appropriateness
Mayor and C1ty COtll1l
-6-
e
July 26, 1983
of spec1f1c levels of expend1tures for maJor 1tems such as staff
salar1es, contracted serV1ces, faC1l1t1es expense, and (d) the specl-
f1C way City funds are to be util1zed within the context of the entire
program or proJect budget. Spec1al attent10n was glven to this last
1tem when analyz1ng programs that rely heavily on the C1ty for fund1ng.
In some cases, budgets were restructured to 1ntroduce the use of non-
C1ty funds for staff salar1es or other maJor expenditures on a phased-
In bas1s over the year (e.g., 20% of staff salar1es w1ll be paid from
non-Clty sources by the end of the second quarter). Wh1le the total
amount of C1ty fund1ng rema1llS the same, the reallocat1on of C1ty
funds w1ll serve as an incentive to develop stable and ongoing sources
of alternat1ve funding. ~~lle not 1ntended to be unduly restr1ct1ve,
these changes have been made 1n some cases to ensure that the comm1t-
ment to leverage C1ty funds 1S ~a1nta1ned. Aga1n, grantee budgets
have been developed to serve not only as legal documents but also to
serve as f1scal plann1ng documents WhlCh may result In gradual changes
1n agency f1nanc1ng.
After rev1ew1ng specific workplans and budgets for each agency, lt
16 also 1nterest1ng to note the aggregate effect of C1ty fund1ng on
the del1very of serVlces to the commun1ty. For the 24 programs assessed
1n this report, approx1mately 23,300 cl1ents w1ll rece1ve some k1nd
of dlrect commun1ty serVlce from the programs or projects to be funded.
In addltion, a w1de range of other benefits are derived as prev1ous1y
specif1ed. Of the $1.177 m1llion 1n City funds contributed to these
24 proJects, an addit10nal $2.589 m1ll1on 1S contr1buted from other
sources. Therefore, for every dollar of C1ty funds lnvested in these
programs, $2.20 1n other funds 1S be1ng generated. These general mea-
sures certalnly lndicate the large lmpact the C1ty'S contrlbutlon has
on the del1very of 1ffiportant serV1ces to area resldents.
Mayor and City coU4lt~1
-7-
e
July 26, 1983
3) Contract PrOV1Slons
The standard contract "bollerplate" for COP'1ffiunity Development
Program grantees was submitted to the Councll for actlon on July 12,
1983, ln the form of a proposed contract wlth Ocean Park Communlty
Organlzatlon. Subsequent changes were made by the Clty Council on that
date. In add~t~on, the followlng mlnor changes (as underlined) are
recommended for lnc1usion ln all future contracts:
Sectlon 22. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Substltute subsectlon C wlth the followlng:
"In accordancewith the City' 5 i'Jomen and Minority Business Enter-
prlse niMBE) Program approved by Clty Councll on March 8, 1983,
Contractor agrees to reVlew the City's W~illE Library of Dlrectories
and Mlnorlty Vendors Llst and conslder such sources in the pro-
curement of equipment, materials, supplies and professional ser-
Vlces, and to the greatest extent practlcable, assure that women
and mlnor~ty buslnesses are soliclted whenever they are potentlal
sources."
Sectlon 31. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Substitute subsection C with the following:
"Contractor shall not expend any funds provlded under thlS Agree-
ment nor use or cause the use of staff tlme, faclllties, premlses,
equlpment, mater1als or supplles WhlCh are provided or deslgnated
as a part of the program funded under the terms of th~s Agreement
for lobbYlng actlvlty that 1S prohlblted by Sectlon SOl (C) (3) of
the Internal Revenue SerV1ce Code or by regulatlons and leg1slatlon
set forth ln Sectlon 2 of this Agreement. The C1ty shall provlde
the Contractor wlth admlnlstrative lnstructlons regarding relevant
Internal Revenue SerV1ce Code deflllLtions and provlsions. Contrac-
tor 1S lndependently respons1ble for complYlng with all statutes
and regulatlons."
Recommendatlons
City staff recommends that Clty Councll (1) approve the changes to the
standard Grantee Agreement as noted above, (2) approve all workplans
and budgets for grantees as attached, and (3) authorlze the City Manager
to execute Grantee Agreements, lncludlng the approved workplans and
e
Hayor and City Councll
e
-8-
July 26, 1983
budgets, for these agencles ~n furtherance of the C~tyls 1983-84
Commun~ty Development Program.
Prepared by: Barbara Stlnchfleld, Grants AdNlnistrator