SR-300-002-01 (21)
~> l'. f.
.- -' Lo
c;c ~-t....:
'1--8
MAV 2 6 1987
C/ED:CNS:Bs:srcdp
city council Meeting 5/26/87
~
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Request to Hold a Public Hearing and to Hear Public
Comment on the Proposed 1987-88 Community Development
Plan and to Approve a Resolution Approving the 1987-88
Community Development Plan and Authorizing submission
of the 11 Proposed Statement of community Development
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
INTRODUCTION
This report requests that the City Council hold a public hearing
and adopt the attached Resolution (1) approving the Proposed
1987-88 Community Development Plan, (2) authorizing the city
Manager to negotiate and execute contracts wi th all grantees
specified in the Plan and (3) authorizing the submittal of all
documents required for the implementation
of the 1987-88
communi ty Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to the U. S .
.
,
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
BACKGROUND
On April 27, 1987, the City council received the initial draft of
the Proposed 1987-88 community Development Plan, containing
tentative staff recommendations for all projects to be funded
under the Community Development Program in 1987-88. This plan
conforms to required formats of the local CDBG Ordinance and of
federal HUD regulations.
On May 7th, the City Manager held a
- 1 -
'1-8
MAY 2 6 1981
'~
pUblic hearing for the purpose of accepting comments on the draft
Plan. While helpful comments were received, staff did not change
its initial funding recommendations in light of the fiscal
constraints facing the City in the coming year. Therefore, the
final Proposed Plan attached to this report does not contain
substantial changes from the draft submitted earlier.
On May 12th, Council also received a working document on the
proposed Community Development Program which further explains the
1987-88 funding strategy and funding recommendations.
This
supplemental report is for Council use in preparing for the
Community Development Program Public Hearing scheduled for the
May 26th Council meeting. After hearing public comments, Council
is scheduled to adopt, through the approval of the attached
resolution, the final 1987-88 Community Development Plan and to
authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute contracts
with approved grantees. Contract negotions are further guided by
the specific program requirements and funding mechanisms proposed
for each grantee in the supplemental report dated May 11, 1987.
In addition to approving the Plan, the attached resolution also
requests approval of the "Proposed statement of Community
Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds."
This
document is required by HUD and represents the City's application
for receipt of its 1987-88 CDBG entitlement, along with a number
of standard certifications to be signed by the City Manager.
This document has been published in the Evening Outlook and has
been made available, along with the Plan, for public review and
comment. It is also attached to this report for Council review.
"'
- 2 -
;
Because the city must submit all CDBG documents to BUD by May 30,
1987, it is important that the Council approve the Community
Development Plan on May 26th as scheduled. Most importantly, all
CDBG-funded proj ects must be approved at that time to ensure
receipt of funds in 1987-88.
FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY IMPACT
All
necessary
appropriations
for
reco1ilIl\ended
Community
Development Projects have been included in the City Manager's
Proposed City Budget for 1987-88. Any changes made by the City
Council to the proposed funding levels included in the proposed
Plan will necessitate corresponding changes in the city's budget
prior to its adoption in June of 1987.
REcm1MENDATIONS
city staff recommends that the Council hold the public hearing,
adopt the attached resolution regarding the approval and
submittal of the 1987-88 Community Development Plan, and
authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute agreements
wi th funded grantees pursuant to the program requirements and i
funding mechanisms recommended in the supplemental staff report
dated May 11, 1987.
Prepared by: Barbara stinchfield, Community Development Manager
Department of Community and Economic Development
Attachments
- 3 -
RESOLUTION NO. 7439
(CCS)
(city council Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR 1987-88
AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
FOR 1987-88 CDBG PROGRAM
WHEREAS I the City of Santa Monica desires to undertake a
Community Development Program in Fiscal Year 1987-88 to meet the
community development needs of the City's residents; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held to receive comments on
community development and housing needs and on the proposed
Community Development Plan;
WHEREAS, the proposed Community Development Plan contains
recommendations
for
specific
Community
and
Neighborhood
Improvement Projects and Community service Projects to be
approved by the city Council prior to implementation of the
1987-88 program.
NOW, THEREFORE I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA.
,
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
......-.- ...
SECTION- 1. The City Council of the city of Santa Monica
approves the 1987-88 Community Development Plan on file with the
City Clerk.
SECTION 2. The city Manager is authorized on behalf of
the City Council to negotiate and execute contracts with all
grantees specified in the Community Development Plan.
- 1 -
SECTION 3. The City Manager, as official representative,
is further authorized to submit to the U.s. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) the final statement of COI!11llunity
Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, all
understandings and assurances contained therein,
and any
additional information as may be required.
SECTION 4. All City Council approved projects shall be
included in the 1987-88 city Budget.
SECTION 5. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FOro1:
~~'-
ROBERT }i. MYERS ~-<-
city Attorney
:reso
~
- 2 -
ay, 1987.
Mayor
I hereby certify th ~ the foregoing Resolution No. 7439(CCS)
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on May 26, 1987 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Jennings, H. Katz, Reed, Zane,
Mayor Conn
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: Finkel, A. Katz
ATTEST:
. th.u.(j
cting-c~clerk
I,ll' · ,.II
.
"1 II
I I. ,
. I"
r
i~
PROPOSED
1987-88
CO~1UNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Prepared by
Clty of Santa Monlca
Department of communlty and EconoffilC Development
May 26, 1987
I. The community Development Program
The city of Santa Monica IS 1987-88 Community Development
Program will utilize $4 million in Federal and local funds to
support a variety of community development projects benefiting
low and moderate income residents and other significant segments
of the community in need of community services. These projects
are divided into two major components:
Communi ty and Neighborhood Improvement proj ects - Capi tal
projects benefiting low and moderate income residents and
neighborhoods.
C01'lUl\uni ty Service proj ects - Operating grants to local,
non-profit community service agencies for the provision of
a range of social and community services.
The program outlined in this document is the result of over
six months of planning and review by the City council, City
staff, City advisory commissions, and interested residents.
citizen input was received through a CoInlttunity Needs Workshop,
nIt's Time to Plan" in November of 1986, through various needs
reports by Commissions and Task Forces appointed by the City
Council to advise the City on related community development
issues, and through the scheduled budget hearings in the Spring
of 1987. The result is a 1987-88 community Development Program
which is designed to address the most critical community
development needs identified by this process.
II. Fund Availability
Community Development funds available to support the
1987-88 Community Development Program include:
Gereral Prop. Rental Redevel. ,
,
Total CDBG Fund A Rehab Agency GRS ,
comrnunl.ty & Nelg'1b:.
Irnprovenents l,3B8,913 918,518 145,895 -0- 197,000 127,500 -0-
Co~~unlty SerVlces 2,619,006 125,913 2,150,559 342,534 -0- -0- -0-
4,007,919 1,044,431 2,296,454 342,534 197,000 127,500 -0-
Community and Neighborhood Improvement Project Funding:
Relying totally on Federal Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds and a limited amount of Rental Rehabilitation funds,
this component has suffered the most severe revenue losses in
that past several years. Since 1984-85, reductions in the City'S
annual CDBG entitlement as well as reduced carryover funds from
- 1 -
completed projects have required a corresponding reduction in the
numbers and scope of projects that have been implemented. It is
projected, however, that the level of CDBG funding for 1987-88
will remain approximately the same as 1986-87, giving relative
stabil i ty to the component for one year. However, the
longer-term future of the CDBG program is still uncertain with
various proposals for reductions and targeting in 1988-89.
Community service Funding: The 1987-88 funding base for
Community Service Project reflects, for the first time, the total
elimination of the Federal General Revenue Sharing Program and
the shift to primary dependence on the General Fund to support
these proj ects. The approximately $130,000 in Revenue Sharing
Funds received in 1986-87 represented the last payment pursuant
to this program. In order to mitigate this final loss of Revenue
Sharing dollars, maintain the current total funding base and give
cost-of-living increases to a small number of specified service
providers, the General Fund contribution will increase by
approximately $150,000 over 1986-87. CDBG Public Service funds
and proposition A funds for paratransit services are expected to
remain at 1986-87 levels.
The funding decisions presented in this draft Community
Development Plan assumes that the city's General Fund will
continue to mitigate the cumulative decrease in General Revenue
Sharing funds. However, it is important to note that this
increased level of support is tied to the city's a1:Jility to
generate additional revenues during t.he coming year which are
required to meet these and many other funding needs. Therefore,
the final General Fund contribution for 1987-88 will depend on
the city's overall fiscal situation as determined during the
1987-88 budget process. In the event that General Funds are not
available to maintain the level proposed in this plan, budget
reductions or elimination of proposed programs would have to
occur.
Because this Community Development Plan not only serves as
a planning document for the entire Community Development Program
but also as the document detailing specific uses of CDBG and
Rental Rehabilitation PrQgram funds required by the u.s.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, additional detail on
the availability of CDBG funds for 1986-87 is included in this
Plan as Attachment A. In addition, a copy of the draft Rental
Rehabilitation Program description is available in the Department
of Community and Economic Development for any interested persons.
III. Community Development Program Goals
Representing a substantial annual investment of financial
resources, the City'S Community Development Program provides the
opportunity for City government and community agencies to act in
concert to achieve the following broad goals:
o to maintain and improve affordable housing opportunities
for low and moderate income persons;
- 2 -
o to stabilize and enhance low and moderate income
neighborhoods through revitalization and other community
development efforts; and
o to provide essential community services to residents
most in need.
IV. community Development Program Areas
In furtherance of the above program goals, the 1987-88
Communi ty Development Program focuses on the following program
areas: Housing, Community Revitalization, and Community
Services. This section summarizes community needs in each
program area, outlines the strategy being employed to meet these
needs, and presents those specific projects to be implemented in
1986-87.
HOUSING
Housing Needs
o There is a need to provide new affordable housing
opportunities for Santa Monica's low income families and
senior citizens.
o There is a need to assist low income residents paying
more than 30% of their income on housing.
o There is a need to alleviate overcrowding in existing
units in order to prevent the displacement of Santa
Monica's low income families in the community.
o There is a need for rehabilitation of existing rental
units and single family homes occupied by low and
moderate income residents.
o There is a need to maintain and expand housing
opportuni ties in ~ the pico neighborhood due to the
deterioration o~ the housing stock available to low and
moderate income neighborhood residents.
o There is a need to ensure the availability of housing
that is physically accessible to low-income disabled
residents.
Housing strategy
Consistent with the City's Housing Element adopted in 1983,
a major thrust of the Community Development Program is to ensure
and increase long-term access to affordable housing opportunities
for low and moderate income residents. In coordination with
other City housing projects funded primarily with Redevelopment
Agency funds, priority is given to projects that can effectively
- 3 -
leverage private capital and funds from other governmental
housing sources.
The 1987-88 Community Development Program housing strategy
targets the greatest portion of available funds to support
on-going housing acquisition and rehabilitation efforts in the
pico Neighborhood. In addition to continuing the pico
Neighborhood Housing Trust Fund, the 1987-88 program continues
the pico Neighborhood Residential Rehabilitation Program which
provides grants for repairs to rental units and single-family
homes. Special attention is also given to the needs of
low-income disabled residents through a new city-wide program
which will provide grab-bars, ramps and other accessibility
improvements in order to allow individuals to remain independent
in their own homes. Remaining funds are allocated as a
t1challenge grant to obtain needed funding for a new transitional
housing project.
1987-88 Housing Programs
CD Funds
cHFA Bond Program Fees
$ 37,500
CLARE Transitional Housing
Challenge Grant
10,000
community corporation of Santa Monica
56,605
pico Neighborhood Housing Trust Fund
CDBG funds $ 450,000
Rental Rehab funds $ 97,000
547,000
pico Neighborhood Residential Rehabilita-
tion Program - Neighborhood Resource and
Development Corporation (NRDC)
Residential Accessibility Project (NRDC)
Rental Rehabilitation Program - Citywide
251,382
23,031
100,000
COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION
Community Revitalization Needs
o There is a need to support public works improvements
benefiting low and moderate income persons.
o There is a need to create better access to community
services facilities for disabled individuals.
Community Revitalization strategy
The Community Development program is designed to contribute
to the improvement of low and moderate income neighborhoods
primarily through the initiation of one-time capital improvement
projects. In addition, funds are used to rehabilitate or
- 4 -
"
construct facilities to house important community and human
service programs. community Development funds are used for
projects that will have a sustained impact on lower income
neighborhoods and for community service facilities that serve
significant segments of the community.
In addition to the continuance of an ongoing public works
assessment program for lower income residents, 1987-88 funding is
targeted to reduce those architectural barriers in community
service facilities that prevent disabled residents from fully
utilizing the services that should be available to them. To be
awarded through small grants to non-prOfit service providers and
to the Community service Center, this proj ect is a part of a
continuing effort to create a barrier-free environment for Santa
Monica residents and visitors
1987-88 Neighborhood Revitalization projects
CD Funds
Public Works Assessment Assistance
$ 5,000
Non-Profit Accessibility Assistance
Project
85,000
CO?{MUNITY SERVICES
sommunity Service Needs
o There is a need to support a comprehensive community
service delivery system available to all residents in
need of these services.
o
There is a need to increase access
for those residents who have
underserved because of language,
barriers.
to community services
tradi tionally been
cultural or physical
o There is a need to provide emergency services to those
individuals in ~he community affected by economic
recessions or 'decreases in governmental support for
essential social services.
o There is a need to improve and enhance community
services for youth and families.
o
There is a need to decrease the isolation
community's frail, elderly residents and to
coordinate existing services to this population.
of the
better
o There is a need to encourage citizen participation in
the community and to foster neighborhood involvement by
its residents.
- 5 -
..
community Service strategy
It is the long-term goal of the community Development
Program to sustain important community services through partial
support of a broad-based, multi-funded community service system
that provides access for santa Monica residents. It is the
intent of the program to provide financial resources and
technical support to agencies serving a range of target groups
including low income and minority residents, youth and families,
senior citizens, disabled individuals, and the homeless. Through
its substantial annual investment of operating grants to these
agencies, the Program has the opportunity to improve the overall
quality of human services provided in the community. The Program
promotes services that build upon existing governmental funding
and private funding sources as well as encourages innovative
programs created in response to identified emergency cOIllIllunity
needs.
The 1987-88 strategy is to continue this support to this
broad array of effective and innovative community services.
However, given the decreases in Federal funding to the City and
the increased demand on local funds, partiCUlar attention is
given to those programs that are cost effective, leverage other
funds, share resources with other agencies, and whose city
contribution is proportionate to the benefit derived by the Santa
Monica community. In addition, particular emphasis is given to
services to those most in need -- individuals who (a) lack an
adequate income, (b) experience language or cultural barriers,
(c) are physically vulnerable or (d) lack the informal or family
supports necessary to provide for basic human service needs.
In response to these priorities, there have been a number of
funding reductions in current programs and corresponding "service
enhancements" or new programs selected because they addressed a
current, critical human service need. The 1987-88 program gives
priority funding to new services to low-income youth and families
and to residents in need of legal assistance and representation
due to the implementation of the new Federal Immigration Reform
Act.
1987-88 Community Service projects
CD Funds
counseling/Mental Health:
Family service of Santa Monica
$IOO,454
Jewish Family service of Santa Monica
14,061
New Start
122,434
Ocean Park Community Center (Counseling)
Project Heavy West
28,798
24,19l
Santa Monica Westside Hotline
1,000
- 6 -
to.
Senior Health and Peer Counseling Center
Independent Living Services:
Center for the Partially Sighted
LIEU-CAP - Senior Outreach Program
Westside Center for Independent Living
Wests ide Ecumenical Conference - Meals
on Wheels
Wests ide Independent Services to the Elderly
(WISE) - General Programs
WISE - paratransit
Para transit Set-aside for Possiole
Enhancement of WISE paratransit Emergency
Response services
Legal Services:
city Landlord Legal Services Voucher
program
Neighborhood Justice Center
Neighborhood Justice Center - School
Mediation Pilot Project
Wests ide Legal services
Westside Legal services - Immigration
Assistance Project
Employment/Childcare
ADEPT
Catholic Youth organization
Connections for Children
Health Services:
Senior Health and Peer Counseling Center
Venice Family Clinic
Emergency services:
CLARE Foundation - Sober Inn
- 7 -
13,37l
8,000
32,354
27,489
20,560
262,694
312,534
30,000
2/000
45,504
38,593
144,327
41,387
35/096
75/000
143,338
53,485
43,971
83,200
LIEU-CAP
67,877
Ocean Park community Center
Day Break Center for Women
97,611
91,264
Homeless outreach Team
sojourn
36,581
stepping stone
44,143
Turning Point Drop In Center
90,366
Turning Point Shelter
113,743
st. Joseph's Center
36,400
Salvation Army
West Side Food Bank
8,230
75,815
citizen participation/community Organizing:
Latino Resource Organization
102,048
Radio KCRW
48,369
pica Neighborhood Association
102,718
Additional funding information on all 1987-88 Community
Development Projects is included in Attachment B of this Plan.
This attachment details, by project, the 1986-87 level of
funding, requested funding for 1987-88, recommended 1987-88
funding level and identification of the particular revenue source
for the project. In addition, Attachment B lists those proposals
submitted for 1987-88 funding which have not been included in the
Community Development Program.
- 8 -
Attachment A
1987-88 community Development Program
Availability of community Development Block Grant Funds
Sources
Prior Year Funds Available for
Reprogramming for New 1987-88 Projects
1987-88 Entitlement
$ 129,058
1,OII,987
Projected Program Income
72,750
$1,213,795
Uses
Community and Neighborhood
Improvement Projects
$918,518
Community service Projects
125,913
$1,044,431
Project Contingencies
9,022
Program Administration
160,342
$1,213,795
- 9 -
.j..>
l-<
C >, 0
........0
~- u 5
..; Vl
~
t:
o
0::
::..
C-
o..;
..
p..
~
~
~
o
o-J
<.:J
~
C.
><
E-o
H
Z
=>
::;:
::;:
o
tJ
.....
m
\.0
ID""d
~
o ::J
t;;"-'
...... .
td.:::l
.... 0
;::.=
() 0
O::~
'"
00
I
r-
oo
<J)
......
coO'
co~
..,
.....'"
<:0;::
"':::I
.....[..,
C))....
00 III
I Q)
.....-
co O'
"'(!)
.....~
r-t;-.
roc
1 .-l
""'"
co;::
"':::I
.-;:J..
......
(]J>'
;:. u
(I) ;::
'0(1)
(1)0'
::GO<
Ul
0::
o
Cl
:::i
~.
o
~
;;
~
c <=>
c C
L1' C
r- 0
M r-t
...
c
<=>
u"l
r-
m
<=>
C
L1'
~
<IJ
~
c:
g
A.
~
~I
c
z
.....
U~
c
:<::
;;:
-=
I il
; ';:;1
1Ilr-
1-<<0
t'll
<0
(l)CO
ig'&;
Q
...... ~
...... c
r,j .-l
..em
:..J=>
o
c
o
o
r-t
"
o C'\
o N
o ""
<=> ~
co ...,.
- ,......
I
o
I
0-
r:
~
t,
::;
2:
~
m
;::
o
...
+-'
...
C1
:::;
r;;
"
~
:.:l
<:
o
o
u"l
r-
N
~~
'"
""
~~
<:;"
~
o
o
o
r-
m
L.... 0- N
o 0 co
<D a M
'-=' c: ......
1..0...... \f1 L......
~ -
c <=> ('oJ
o 0 <C
o 0 ...,
or-......
M oo;;y Ln
r ~_..... -..
o
a
o
C"l
~
C 0 C'\
o 0 r-
u"l 0 \0 1
. - . 0
N 0- ~ .
o 1..." -.:::0
N ~ C"\.I
'"
t;
rl
C
"D
:.,
c
;;;
.....
CiJ~
:::I
~-=
<--;a
'j
....,
;::
""
c1
"-'
C
e
o
tJ
3
tr'
C OJ
~g
~iu
j..J;'uC
~~~
cr-:;-o-
... -l
o :J
Z Z "
<::
~ ~ ~ ;1
N
o
~...
<D
..".
<Il
.j..>
[il-< <::1
oS!
Co
.-I;:.
E;o
k!:;
05
"-'..,
-1.1:>
u....
.Jj .-I
,-,r-t
0'"
l-<-O
o...~
L-
....'"
Oll)
...... ul
..,u
!l.. '-::
rn
C
M
('oJ
......
.....
o
...,
N
\0
r-
......
N
m
tJ
&
z
-1.1
U
V
r
o
l-<
c..
t"
t1
G
u
<::
'd~
~'~ 001
c: rg ~
;>. ::; I
'-'
.-l
~t.:l
:::ICJ
.,0
.,u
j'8 ....,
c
<:.>
III .....
;fl., ~
,.-i~
~~
... -
" 00
;:; c
0....
c
c
c
c
c
......
c
c
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
<=>
.c
~
">
>.
....
I
S
,1}
x
~
;:..
.:::l
'J
:1
o
-'-'I
:::;i
1
<=>
1
0.;;)
r-
......
C'\
,...,
o
Co
<D
N
N
U
!:l
::G
~
E
'J
\.;
0"
:)
l-<
c..
><
.u
.-l
l-<
::J
u
~
L~
.,
7.
o
,....
~
'"
,....
:.;;
E-<
H
>
"-l
:>:
~
o
c
;;:
C
l!:
~
....
I
I .
til
Ul
Q)
U
tI
l;J
ld
o
4-l
to"
........
U C
(J CJ
,..,E
o Q
1--1 :>-
P..O
I-<
~~
Z"
o
o
<:>
~,
<J)
o
o
o
~"
c:"
o
o
o
I.I1
C'\
.,
.-l
;,1
;,1
<
......
....
...
......
....
..n
.-l
1Il
.,
Q
U
U
...::;
....
....
'"
o
o
Cl
a
u"l
o
c
o I
~ <=>
"'1 l
o
o
o
u"l
o
o
D 1
~ 0
N I
rl
C'
.-I
01
u;
,:;;
....,
C
ill
C
"I
III
U
01
:1
oJ:::
0'
.=.c
H
o
-
u
....
......
o
o
o
o
o
M
oj
U
.-l
C
o
:z
~
-1.1
Cl
UJ
......
o
00
Q
U
.-l
:>
l-<
l;)
Vl
;>..
.-l
! rl A >:'T AC H:1E~J1'
i ~l I I
II-< .
o . ,
!~ ~~ i
Q () ,
""'0 j
.DO
..." C
0'
.-l :3
u:~
>otr
a-
gE;
0'....
..;U
1
C
I
1
C
1
o
o
o
o
l!'
N
I.I1
N
....
~"l
I
C
,
I
o
I
U
-l
C
'"'
r-t
U
>,
......
....
E
u..
~
{)
....
r::
....
......
u
L1
c
C>
E
o
3
.-l
CJ
"0
.-l
OJ
...J
:J
=
J::
B~
I....
r-~
<0"0
;...1:
lI.,:JJ
"
ce
.-10
u
"CCJ
8~
'"
:::1'0"
r-tC
[j.-l
l:;'O
.-ll::
:::I
....'"
o
Z""
<<<0
o
o
o
o
r-t
<<
o
C>
It'>
r-
N
....
If'l
g;
~"
<:'
......
o
o
o
r-
'"
""
....
c"l
:c
C"I
".,
......
C'\
C;)
co
".,
....
".,
C"l
"l
o
......
....
N
+I
. k
C:>OO
+I.j.JQ
'0.-10.
'O0;:l
< tf.l
~
c-
o
~
p"
Eo<
Z
;..:;
-
-
5
..J
;.:&
:>
~
Cl
><
E-<
H
Z
;;:J
~
o
u
cc
'"
I
r-
'"
0)
......
c:..
0':::
l.4
~
tf.l
a:
t.:J
M
':l
....
~~
;:;
~~
rl .
1Il.::J
+J ';]
c:..c
(1)<:.1
C:::~
C)
~
Cl
U
:::>0'
COJ::
I '"
r--rcl
coc
a-.~
.......~
<O+J
c.:ltll
I <:J
r-;:l
000'
01 !II
......c:::
1""0\
OJC
1 '"
'-'>'0
00C:
0'I::l
..,r:<,
tf.l
E-t
U
:::1=
..., E-'
0"':
::>:<:;
p..~
f.Il
~....:l
U<
H;'"
>Z
~~
<<:1:0::
<f} -...
Cl
>OZ
E-tH
H...:t
Z:::I
;:)(f)
,*Z
103
uu
'"
"
""
~
~
'"
""
o
o
......
ll'I
\P
...
...
,....;
""
'"
"'"
o
o
......
l'J
U
.-I
C
C
;:;:
JJ
c:
n:l
1.f)
"-'
o
Ci
U
.-I
:>
\.<
:Ii
tJ'.
2:
.-I
E'-'
rr:;
r.-
+I
o
UQ
Un
CoO
~~
III .
[/} EO ~1 c:
(1)000
~gp.g
C:.-IME;
<:.I I III 0::
O\:o:uu
III 0 .-I
......c:(I'
.2:>.:13
.....Ul'J
..J-I rl
rO~gg
r:l;EOl-l
tJI
C
-I
::>
H
o
[/)
~
....... "C" ~ r-i
\C C""'\ 0\ 0'\
0""'1"" rl
oq' N ~ oc::r
rl N N N
rl
"
'"
o
"'"
<')
....
""'"
,....;
N
N
rl
u
""
01
"' ~
~ N
<') CY)
I""-
......
...... "'"
N-M
rl
.....
\0
o
~ l...I"') 1"""'"'1
N N '"
..... M ......
"'"
M
....... ....... -=r
...... M N
rl
C!
U
--i
::>
H
()
Ul
~
....
E
l'J
u..
..c
+J
....
':}
.j.J
(,1
~,
rl
3
(lJ
t-;
~
Z
-x
cr-.
r--
<Xl
N
0'
C
rl
M
CJ
L~
C
g
U
u
u
o
~
C"\
.-l
...
N
;..:;
rl
00
N
+J
L1
()
3;
>.
:>
<;l
~
....,
u
:J)
c
~
o ....;
o r--
C> M
,....; r'l
,....;
o rl
C I""-
o ,...,
rl '""
,....;
'-'
o
LI'1
t-
o:>
'"
M
o ......
o ,...
o M
rl M
M
~
rl
.-i
+J
8
OJ
'C
rl
:n
.J-I
,,1
tJ
:;::
III
U
.-I
C
C
::;;
<':l
JJ
c
"'l
>
,
'"
......
!:YI
~
rl
.....
Q)
tIl
C
::l
o
U
H
()
Q
p..
<a
..<::
.;.J
rl
'"
o
"'"
u:
~
U
H
>
;:.:
~
U)
CJ
Z
H
:>
H
....:l
Eo<
Z
~
a
z
'.'
Co
;il
a
z
......
0'1
C
C ;;
oC:H
....,,so
:;.,5t1lCJ
~..::; ~ 5
IDl-.rlO
g'9g~
-,IDI
EO g' ~
.-i
GJ 0
;.~ +I;:"
~ .-i
'+1
H nlO
o '0 0
::... ~ ..:: Ei
o
a
o
::0
C>
o
o
0:>
'--'
a
o
.-l
.....
a
a
a
......
rl
oj
CJ
....,
.:::
0'
.-I
f.Il
>.
.-i
rl
III
.-I
.w
I-<
l'J
Co
l-l
o
.....
l-
ID
+I
!;J
U
x
qo
U"\
M
N
M
"'"
<n
M
N
M
'-'
'"
I""
OJ
M
o r-
rl M
rl on
rl '"
M N
'"
III
....
tJ"
o
k
ll.
,...
o
III
Ii!
"'"
+I
;:l
o
I.<
[))
a..
.:;
U
I
~
~
.....
...:i
m 0 ""
co \,Q' 0'\
""" '" <D
r- 0 N
01 N ...,
N
OJ ~
"" 1..,",
r- <:)
N N
<:)
...c
""
M
v
:::
.-I
>
.-I
....:l
C.
Q
'0
C
H
k
o
"-'
s.,
.;..I
U
CJ
'0
rl
(/]
+>
(/]
3
+> I >.1 . I
lJ' u A'I~ ACE:.
. 'C c
1'1 r;.Q 0
"'0 . oj tJ">
III E "3' I->
.-I 0. CJ
-i-Jr-I..aJ(J ;::::: c.
g Q) 50 Iii c
....O.-l(lJ ~~
......cME o~
u.... Qorl r
:n .j.J-wo
Q);: <!.f c tIJ
EiOEa CJ
g.z 8g E S
C.-.: s:: ~ ~
r-i" ,...f. C ~
I~I",~C.
~ ~.-I.c lJ'
C r 0...... ,... O'
~~ ....:ICJ r~~
~
c'"'
<:)
N
<:) qo rl
..., <n rl
LI"I 0'1 N
o ...... .....
N <D M
N M
~1
Q)
Q)
..c
3
s::
o
'1
rl
r.:I
Q)
:;:
~
3
x
..".
C\
~
N
~
N
~
0:>
III
r--
r--
N
(/)
'"
r.i
l-l
u-.
o
H
"-<
....
rj
1-1
<!.f
c:
::I
<.:J
I
~
U)
H
~
qo 0
,..., 0
to 0
N 0
...... ,..,
M
<::'
M
...,
<:)
o
o
N
C>
M
~
,...,
<Xl
C"I
'"
N
qo
'"
N
.....
N
'"
01
N
.....
N
+J
....
.,
C
r:l
1-1
.oJ
r:l
s.,
<;l
Co
I
(,.l
to1
H
3
u
>
1-1
ill
j.j
CJ
E
"-l
I
Q)
<0
.-I
(/]
r:l
+>
ID
(fl
+>
.-I
:Jl
10:
l'J
1-1
+>
III
....
I1l
'"
ENT B
I ">-.~
1-1 ~i::O
CJ J.i .-I 0 l::
:>u u..;j
.-I CI l:: "l::I a J.i n:l
'lJo.-l grJ~...:l
ttitrl1 ,u;;'.8
gl::;;~":'[;~~~
UOOO'O<:J"'CJ
.., 1-1'>:: <:J U U
1-IJ.io..u 0..,)";
Or::; UlCl>U>
1.1-I ....; J.i E'lJ (\II-<
t;J>'gS'g8~o~
l:: E .-10.1 l::.j.J 1-1
.-I 0. 0 .-I l:: 0........
'gg~~~~~g
;l.-lOClOCl(LICl
rz.[/lZ~~...:l.j.lZrl
~
I"'"
tT& m s...~
l:: "Cl c:l 0
.-I l:: ...... 'lJ
:> QI 0....
1-1 0. '<:01
~~j ~~
>.8CJ]J::QI~
g ~ g'~ ~ ~
g,~..;~ua..
r-:l C ~ ~ I-
0~~8~~
J.i..:.j.l~U<l
";"!:.ol-<.o;
~~~.E~~
0>
l::
..;
>
l.l
CJ
CJ] 0
E
>00
U t)
I:: t:;
QI .-l
C'ol
rtI ~
o
0..-1
-iJ :>
ON
.....-iJ
'Ou;
.::g
ATtACE "lEW
C'o tl'1
I:: I::
.-l .-l
:> ::-
l-< 1-1
CJ CJ Cl CJ
rI1 E [/l E
o 0
>OU:>.U
UI::OC:
I:: .-l c: .-l
CJ I CJ t
tr>~tl'1~
n:l 0 n:l 0
..-I ......
o 0
.j.l.:..j.l~
".j..l ..a.J
""'00 flU}
~:ril 21~ g
-iJ
. k
C:>OO
.j.J.j.lQ
'lJ..;Q.
"ClU;l
< Ul
:><:
x
x x
x
><
><
><
x
x
I f
,
-. 0
~ a..
0<
c.' 1-1
0 P.o
A::
p.
~ Ul
Z et:
r... l.:J
~
p.
0
...:r ..... 0 "'" ,..., r- r- "" <Xl co U"l ...... 0
:a III 0 0 0'\ N 00 0'\ ...... M co r- C
::> I-< 0 L."1 U"l M M 0 M M "'" a. N
c.1 ilI'";::l , - - - - - , , - , ,
Q .... .... N L"> CD "" ..-I L"> 0'\ M M M M
- ~
>< o :l "" M "" "'" ,..., "'" "" I U"l "'" co
E-.o Clli.. ...... ...... , .
..... .....
:z Ill.::!
;:l ,j.I r;l
~ c:.c
0 QI Cl
U et:l:t;
. I I
cc N r-
CD CD r-
I t::l 1.0 <Xl
r- c:l , ,
CD Cl L"l r-
0'\ U N 1.0
-
coo> 0 "" M r- r- 1.0 0 <Xl U"l ,...., 0 r-
roc: 0 C C\ N co 0'\ 0 M <Xl c- o r-
: .... 0 '" U"l ,.., M 0 0 M "" 0'\ N ro
c-'O , - - - , , , - , - - -
COl:: N U"l CD "'" ..... It'l ll'l ,..., M M ,.., ,.....
O'\;l ..,. "" "l' '<1' M r- "'" ll'I <:I' co ""
.....t;". ..... .....
cO-iJ 0 <Xl co 0 "'" N 0 ..,. r- r- M ::::
ro:/l 0 "'\I ,..... 0 CD IT} 0 ...... N r- 1.0
I OJ 0 "'" 0'\ III U"l '<1' 0 0 r- ..-I M 00
r-;:I , - - - , , - - - , , -
coO' N "'" ...... 0\ \0 U"l lfl N 1.0 ..-I M r-
0'\(\1 CD '" ..... qo ,..., III N \0 U'1 0'\ r-
....." ...... ..-I
r-tl'1 0 "'" 0'\ 1.0 0 "'" U'1 0 0 1,0
CDl:: C> 0 '" "3' e ...... <Xl <Xl e '"
I .-l e 0 '" ..... e e "'" N 0 N
~'O - , 1 , 1 , , - - . , ,
CD I:: "'" M C> 0'\ Cl M III N IT} N Cl '"
"";:I "'" I 0 I M U'1 N '" "'" ro ""
......"" ..-I ......
~
U . 0'
~ tl' I::
ttl :z ..; .-l c:
:lJ - ~ I:: ...... c:
u 0 (\I H
M 0 ..... ..; Ul
> l4 .j.J I:: c: l4
I-< .j.J Ul I III CJ ;l QI
Q U c: CJ N I-< 0 .0
tIl 0 U . .-I 't:l U 0
<;) .-I .-I Ul r<:I C ..... U o'l
.-I U .j.J > u p:: l'J .-I !-I ..;
n:l .-I rJ l-< > .:r; tl' .<: 0 c: tIl I
0> .j.J M CJ 1-1 U l4 U CI .-I W
III Ul 'lJ tIl U) Q 0 p., ..... u c:
...:lE ;:I ('J H \.0 (J'\ U H 0
tIl n:l ~ :;:: ..... N H .c 0 w 'tl ii: .-I
;:.] ""01-< rJ ';l .j.J .... (J I:: >t .u
U I-<C'o 'lJ ..-I tr> 0- W ;:I H n:l ...... :iI rj
H 00 0 0 (I) CI ....... 0 01 :::- .-I Ul '0
::> .....1-< 0 0 H ...:; E'< >< I:: C<: .c E I::
et: '":Jp., .c J:: Z 0 "-1 .u rj >< ;l
c.1 I-< U CJ CI :::.1 U .-l U) ..-I r... u 0 c..
Ul '"]1-< 0 "'l '0 'lJ ::;; .-I .oJ nl Z r... '"
~E ~ .-I .-I >< ..... U 2 (\I ~ U
1-1 -g 1 "1 01 0 E'< 0 CJ ~ u t:l c.1 I
0::: ;>'(J ... .u ~ Co. .... c: ..... .-l p:: ~ :J
[.) +J;l ... U t(I Ul [;.. J:a ~ C '" 0 c W 0::: c.1
~ "'0 G ~ CJ CJ ::;; Cl 'J 0 ~ ,.. CJ ::.: 1-1 t-t
:.J:;:' z z :;:: :;: .... .-::: u U :::: o'} :::- w u ..J
B
tJl t:J'I IJ'1 '0 '0 v " rrCf!1dT BI
c*" c*" C.j.J
C l: C Ql ~g Ul n e:: ....e:: -ie: AT
ri ri .... -> +l > (l) >0 :> l!l
:> :> > J..l H C .-t .j.J
. H -i H ri l.Iri ...... U
H H l-o Olll i8Cl QJ 1;).... Glr-I Cl.--t
QJ l!l CJ .j.JUl L~ rl . m u Ul tJ enCl 0.. o ill
en en en r-lr :;I .j.J H
, CJ Q) ill '0 (I] ~11 Oc::l Ul :J en 0 tIl CD 'O~fo~
U1~ L~E Ul Eo.j.J 'J QJ E <::I E GI E Ul
QJO QlO CJ o....~ :;:; ~ -i P .-10 rl 0 .s.~ ~ '0 '"
.-tu rlU .-tu oj CJ ~.g ::;: c; g ~ tJ U U U r:l
uC uc U c:: .--t'd E c:: ~ c ~ :> 1-0 :Ji l-o
C... Pr! ~ ...; Cl .-1 o ...; tIlO 0 Ql ,..j tJ .-I g~3 ~ IT>
Q Q QJI H :tl H Ul U g'~ IJ'1I 0\1 0
O'?; 0>3 O'l~ Q) Ql -~ r:l ~ rtl ~ 'tl Ul ~ E;' J..l
rUD rtlO l!l 0 c:: J..l c:: 14 1-1 'j 0 0 0.
..... ..... .--t 0 0 ~... 1-1..... 1-1..... ~ <;I "j
.8~ 0 .3> ri . .-1 . 2~ .3:>- 3::- 00 i-l..., Ul
.j.J:>. ....::e *":E: ..... .... .j.J <:.I
..... .--t .--t U . tJ . ~ . :;: .-l .--t .j.Jc . u
..j.J o+l ..j..l :;IUl ,gUl ~~ ..j.J . .j.J uC Ul"::: ri
r"lr.~ rom n~ '0 j~ nUl .....Ul ::J-"" -::l 0- >
'001'00 '00 lll.... v..... -00 '00 ~+l 5 ~ l-I
<::E o<CE ":::E 0::0 0::0 o<C <:: E <::E $~I~ Z QI
tIl
.j.J
l-o
C:>.O
....4-10 X X ><: X X X X
'O-iP-.
'00::::1
ol: Ul
~ P-
Ool:
c:' 1-1
0 p..
IJ::
p..
Eo< tIl
r.... e>:::
~ t:l
s:.
0
,..J ...... r-I .... r-I C"l \0 <"1 0 <:> l!"l ro J\ CD
r.:l o:l .--t \0 c:o .... \0 ~ 0 M .--t ~ \0 ....;
:::- H \0 N <I'l .--t M t- "" N <Xl <:> ...... t-
U. 0'0 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q c:::: t'- .--t LO "" 0 <"1 \0 CO U"l N co N
o :::l J\ 0'\ ..., "" C"\ r-I <") t- o "" 0
>< 0;'" ,....; .--t ......
0-0
H ...... .
:z: ~..a
::>
~ .j.J rtl
t:..c:
ell QJ
0 e>:::C!:
U
~
(D
1 t:l
t- O
<Xl Q
0'\ 0
....
CDtp ...... "" ...... <") ~ ..., 0 0 <I'l CD 0'\ <Xl
cot:: ,....; '" ro "'" \0 "" 0 <"1 .--t "" LO ......
I ri \0 N lfl ...... <"1 r- "" N co 0 ,.., r-
r-'O . . . . . . . . . . . . I I 1
CD~ t- .....; '" "" 0 ..., \0 co '" N CO N <:> 0 0
"':;I '" C\ C"l "" C\ ..-I M r- 0 "" 0 I I I
......~ .--t r-I ......
W.j.J ~ ;;;: ~ ~ <::l ~ ~ "<;' .::> '" <T> 00 CXl '" D
COUl ~ CXl "" u"l ro t- O '" LO .-l CO N 0
I 0 \0 \0 '" <J\ "'" 0 CD U'l LO . 0'\ ,.., r- oo ~ 0
r-:;I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CD 0' 0 to M t- .... "" M <Xl co CD CO M r- "" \0
"'<II <"1 <Xl "'" \D .-l ..., '" a- <"1 .... <:> 0 "" CXl
....0:: .-l ...... .--t ...... ...... r-I
r-t:J'I ,.., \0 r-I r-I C'\ ..,. <:) ... LI"l (T') 0'1 CD O'l 0\
cae; U'"l N "'" ...... r- N 0 ...... ...... ...... '" ...... 0 '"
I -i .--t co 0 \tl '" ro <:) C'\ Ql r-I '"" r- U"l CD 1
ID'(l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <:>
co~ co C'\ .... .... .--t 0 l!"l t'- 1fl <Xl cD N C'\ "" I
"':;I co r- M \0 .-l 0::> ...... ,..... C\ "'" <:> L') ..,.
.-J~ .-l .-J
j I
1-1 X
E .j.J 0 c:: C
rU U c:: 0 0
I1J 0 -i .-I
E-o ~ H :::;: .-4 +' +J
H III "" .j.J l!l III
.c I .v (5 'o"J .... Ul .-I
U 0.. P""I U N U (l) U
III 0 0 ....... rl 0 ...... 0
CJ ID .... .c z ~ Ul CJ t~
i-l c:: Q <Il 0 'tS ~~ 0' ~1
.... 0 H IJ'1 .0: ~ .:::
;l .j.J .!.: E-< ,.. tIl
0 U) .j.J .u 14 C < 0 '1J '0 i-l
0. Po I1J ~ 0- 0 Ul 0 0
..><: Ul 0- .j.J llJ H CI 0 0 0 -0
'Il Ul C C O'l 1:1' c:: :>, u 0 .c ~ ~ -g
0 U '-> or'! s::: t: I1J <= 'd H '-> l-l l-l
J..l ...... ~ a. rl ri 0 j:; 0 E-< :;I 0 ..... 0 rl
,;:j GJ 0 0- C c:: <I: 0 IJ:: 0 ..a 0 ~ (I
:>. '" ..... CJ 1-1 ... ..c: ~ <:: VI 3: ..c: Q ,C*" ;;::
"" a 0 .j.J :;I :;I 0.. C 0- j) ex:: 0> til '0 O>l: J;
C In U) E-< .... 0 0 1l) c::. U rl 0 .... ....(1)
tIl .-I 'd Z x: Q) z <:: ~~
r I I I I I 0 .j.J .... w g Z :::J .-I
"'J "" ;JJ N 0 U. ...... 0 u
u u v u u u > +' H -i .... 0 rJ 8Ji I
~ U ';? ::i u u ...... ,~ E-< ...., ,..., U H l:r' '"0
0- S 0- ~ 0. .j.J "j (.! ..... ~ ~ "" b CJ .-I E ....
0 0 0 0 <Il cP. 3: U i: ::.. z ...:i ::Lo:.J :z::
I
rn';'to to U1
O'l ~1
L' A" ':'A9R":EJ '!' E" I
G
l..; tJ
S>
, , s::~
:;j a;
UJ
..,
. . ~.-I
(.' "'j
Ec-
Q) 0
So-1
:; G
.ere
C ..,
~ UJ
+'
CJ tr
CJ C)
III ~
....
~
C >0 0
..,...,0
'0..,0-
'OU::l
.::;: r.tl
;e P..
'" o<t
t:' \.l
0 ~
'"
"'"'
E-t UJ
Z ~
~ U
""
0
,..J .-I
r.:J r::l "
> ~
t;:1 ~'g
Cl
>< Q :J
E-t :.:)r...
H .....
Z
:;. ~.!J.
~ ..,ej I
s::..c::
~ 0 I
0 "':::::
{)
cc
co
I 0
r- t:l
co Cl "
'" u
....
OJ 0>
cor::
: ..,
""''0 I I I I I I I
OJC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
"'::l I I I I I I I 0
......"" I
"".I-> C' " '" co '" 0
<DLll "" ,.... C'> .... r- c- o 0
I 0 tll <D N C C'1 l/"1 0 C'1
r-;J , , ~ ::l , ~ ,
<DC" "" .-I N C N .-I '-" '"
"'Ill 0 "'" r- o <= N <D N
....e:: .-I Z..,;
r-l;Il
<Dr::
I .-l I
00'0 I I 1 I I I I
COr;:: 0 0 c 0 0 c 0 0
"'~ I I I I I I I I
......r...
C
0 ~
.-l I
....
.., :ll ~
.-I 01 tJ
<:I ~ .... ~ .
~
III a ::l ... :> ......
III U .-I " !..l 0 J
;:l '0 U 0 0 ]
0 c ~ .c
::c ..., 0 () ::r: .-It 0
.-I U M ill 'iJ
() ~ <:J .... H III <j ~
...... CJ UJ CJ .., tr>u H
'Cl ~ ...... <j :1l 0 (Ii
'tl s:: ..c:: r... 0-1> +' ~
.-l r::l 0 +' 'C .....
:<: III ...; (> CJ< A;
1.1 P. 'Cl '0 .ii
I <C :;. CJ ... ..,.., I {j
1 tJ III l~ C
U P.. .-l .., +'c G
u :;:: ~ ~ "' lil C -~
i::. .., CJ CJ Q)~ ~
0 UJ UJ > ;l: ::: - u
.
.,.
n
If'\
N
"'"
M
I
o
I
C\
"
LIl
,
o
If'\
.-I
N
o
C'1
.-I
en
"
N
.-I
<D
o
C>
C\
.-I
'"
N
.-I
<D
'"
\D
'"
"'"
M
City of Santa Monica
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
I. DESCRIPTION OF USE OF CDBG FUNDS EXPENDED IN 1986-87 AND HOW
THE CDBG PROJECTS RELATE TO COf1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
The following describes the use of CDBG Entitlement funds expen-
ded during Fiscal Year 1986-87. Included also is an assessment
of how these activities are meeting community development objec-
tives adopted by City Council. By the end of this fiscal year it
is projected there will be $1,308,160 expended for CDBG projects
and programs. Of these expenditures, 100% is being used for ac-
tivities which meet the national objective of primarily benefit-
ting low and moderate-income persons.
o 89% of the program funds were expended for housing projects
and programs funded in response to stated housing needs and ob-
jectives to maintain and expand the housing stock affordable to
low and moderate-income residents. Major housing activities in-
eluded: the Pico Neighborhood Residential Rehabilitation program
providing grants for minor ~ehabilitation to lower-income tenants
and homeowners in the pico Neighborhood area; a total of 75 units
are projected to be completed; the use of the Pico Neighborhood
Housing Trust Fund for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 14
family rental units and site acquisition for new construction of
6 family rental units on 17th street which will improve living
conditions for 20 low and moderate-income households; implementa-
tion of a shared housing program to provide more opportunities
- 1 -
for affordable housing for elderly residents; the development of
housing programs and identification of potential sites for acqui-
sition by Community Corporation of Santa Monica (CCSM); par-
ticipation in the california Housing Finance Agency (CHFA) Bond
Program which provided low-cost financing for affordable housing
projects; and the Residential Security Installation Program pro-
viding home improvements designed to aid in the prevention of
crime and to improve security in the homes of lower-income resi-
dents; a total of 125 installations are projected to be
completed.
o 1% of the program funds expended were for Community and
Neighborhood Improvement Projects. The continuation of the
Public Works Assessment Assistance Program is an activity which
supports neighborhood revitalization efforts through public works
improvements in low and moderate-income neighborhoods.
o 10% of program funds expended provide resources to community
service programs designed to ensure the provision of important
services to those residents most in need. They are designed to
promote self sufficiency and provide opportunities to members of
the community to better ~niluence decisions that affect their
personal lives and quality of their living environment. These
activities included youth and adult employment programs; social
service information, referral and advocacy services. Emphasis
was given to promoting affirmative action to minorities, dis-
abled, and female heads-of- household.
- 2 -
II. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES FOR FY 1987-88
o To maintain and improve affordable housing opportunities for
low and moderate income persons.
o To stablilize and enhance low and moderate income neighbor
hoods through neighborhood revitalization and other community
development efforts.
o to provide essential community services to residents most in
need of these services.
III. PROPOSED CDBG ACTIVITIES FOR 1987-88, THEIR LOCATION AND
ESTIMATED COST
community & Neighborhood
Improvement Projects
$ 918,518
community service Projects
125,913
Project Contingencies
9,022
Program Administration
160,342
$1,213,795
Sources of funds in support of the above activities include:
Prior Year Funds
$ 129,058
1986-87 Entitlement
1,011,987
Projected program Income
72,750
$1,213,795
- 3 -
Specific projects recommended for funding include:
Housing
$251,382 PICO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM -
Residential Rehabilitation Grant Program (pico Neigh-
borhood Area)
$ 23,031 RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT - Minor accessibility
improvements to residences of lower income households
(Citywide)
$450,000 Plea NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING TRUST FUND - Purchase &
rehabilitation of affordable housing (pico Neighborhood
Area)
$ 56,605 COMMUNITY CORPORATION OF SANTA MONICA - Operating bud-
get in support of CCSM's non-profit housing acquisition
& rehabilitation program (Citywide)
$ 37,500 CHFA Revolving Loan Fund - which provides low-cost
financing for affordable housing projects. (Citywide)
Neighborhood Revitalization
$ 5,000 PUBLIC WORKS ASSESSMENT ASSISTANCE - Assistance to low-
income homeowners and tenants for public works improve-
ment fees assessed by the City (Citywide)
$ 95,000 NON-PROFIT ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT - Provides for acces-
sibility improvements to local community service
facilities, including minor improvements for non-prOfit
social service agencies and accessibility features for
the Community Service Center (CDBG project No. 1108).
Community Services
$125,913 EUPLOYMENT PROGRA}iS & SOCIAL SERVICE ADVOCACY - Job
adv6cacy, youth employment programs, child care
scholarships and direct social service delivery (City-
wide, pico Neighborhood)
Project Contingency
$ 9,022 CO~muNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CONTINGENCY
- 4 -
Administration and Planning
$160,342 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION - General administration of the
overall CDBG Program.
IV. PROPOSED ~IOUNT OF FUNDS TO BENEFIT LOW/MODERATE INCOME
PERSONS
100% of the activities proposed for the 1987-88 CDBG Program
will primarily benefit low and moderate income persons.
Project funding for this purpose totals $1,053,453.
ANN SHORE,
city Clerk
Approved As To Form
~M.
~
Robert M. Myers
City Attorney
pscdopufjREj 5 -8 7
- 5 -
€<-
\
Approved 1987-88 community Development Program Grants
.
Agency - Project
ADEPT - LI~ 34
Catholic Youth organization- ~ C12 ~
Center for the Partially Sighted - ~ q .3 (p
CLARE (Sober Inn)- L1 q .2'1-
Connections for Children -- vq 3g"'
Family Service of Santa Monica - L/ c; ~c;
- ./Ir- ./ t 0
Jewish Family Service q- S :,~I v. '.....k"...., - ~ '-1 --
Contract
Number
$Amount
35,096
75,000
11,000
83,200
143,338
100,454
14,061
Latino Resource organization- LIe, J I
Legal Aid Foundation Of L. A.- L)t1~ ~
~ /-, ---
LIEU-cAP - i-J"'7 --.i~
102,048
59,509
100,231
-. r 1
Neighborhood Justice Center - - ~~'~-ILf
General Program
Neighborhood Justice Center - -- )/'1t;lZ;-
In-School Mediation Program
New Start -' ~(-j-l(&;
OPCC - Daybreak - I-/q L) 7
opec - Homeless Outreach Team - '-Ie:; L/ y
oPcc - Sojourn- '-/--/4'1.
, L/IC' .c--r...
opec - stepping Stone - f~U
oPcc - Turning Point - LI4 ~{
Drop-in Center
OPCC - Turning Point Shelter - L.l'i ~:2-
Pico Neighborhood Association - Llq~2S
Project Heavy West- L/454
Radio KCRW - LJ <15~
St. Joseph's Center - LI{~ Sfo
45,504
38,593
122,434
97,611
91,264
36,581
44,143
90,366
113,743
102,718
24,191
48,369
36,400
- 1 -
..-
salvation Army - L{1 ~7
Senior Health and Peer Counseling -
venice Family Clinic - L-/ '1 b;
westslde Center for Independent
8,230
4~
66,856
51,171
Wests ide Ecumenical Conference -
Meals on Wheels
westside Food Bank - W q t;:.A
westsi'de Legal Services - - L-/q 1.o3
General Support
L'~~j - L./1iR'D
- L/ q &, (
27,489
20,560
75,815
109,659
Westside Legal Services - tJc / _II
Immigration project 7U/~
41,387
WISE
- General Support - 4q ~
- paratransit - l..{ q fp p
262,694
WISE
312,534
other Community Development Allocations ~ ~T)
Agency/Project $Amount
city Landlord Voucher Program
santa Monica Westside Hotline
2,000
1,000
Emergency Transportation Setaside
30,000
- 2 -
OJ
r f
~
~
~
~
o
~
=
o
~
OJ
rI:J
o
r f
Cfj
~
=
OJ
~
.~
CIJ
OJ
~
~
~
~
c.
N 0
.... ....
ell
:::s:::~
E
~ -
.....~
"'Cg)....
Q) - ClI
~-:::-:5
N..... 0
I:~-
3: - .....
o -.g)
_-0....
'" Q) Qj
-0-
ill-C -
..oCll~
"CQl";
-..c'"
:l Qj
O......c
..c:l....
<IJ..c Q.l
b.o
....:.:: -c
.. -0 <ll
ClIi:a..c
~<IJ<:'>
~~ ~
...c: C__
.... ::I..llIl
"Ccil~
<I) ~ g)
.......c....
0.... :l
C<lla
~--:5
ClI "'.-
:::s:::"33:
..QQl
-f"'C;
Qj3Qj
Xo...c
<:..l....
c"cC;;
ClI <Il a >
e go.... 0
-a~c~
1:>(1)0.
::I Q) E ClI
~ '"C ....
r-':: "'>>
'-'Qj<ll....
..Cj ~-
....ClI<:.>
~ u~.fS1 ~ ~"'O
::I"EC~J:i;
o o~ Q) C'>I
(",I c;....,-o.... ~
1!<ll.....30c
.... tlIl C Q.) Qj
Qj.5a;~"'9~
::I "'C 00 .... g) '"C
'" ClI C .... ClI ..
!!lf3:0gjC~
o s:oQj
Ef~=...c: ~.-I
- .... CII~ 4) ..... ::I
C..:; al..s:::<.s;
o - Q,)...,oI ~
N C-::::Z:: C
...os: C;P-ClI
<Il"t;l "t;l 0 - ~
.L: Q).... C; bl:~ C
'O>~ClIC<I)O
::~....-,;:..c::;?;
ClI Co ~... -
cc.~a~~~
OCl:Sc~ ~c
"'::: CCI - Q.~ as
<.lCXOiflcn
t2;>.:. 3: (Ij 0"';= "'C"I:I . C;
Ql-<IlO'Oc?,.... Q)C OCll
... ~ l>O..c Q) -..... gj ClI 0 Q)
........1:1 ...1Il0'5. III .DC.)
g) ClI",(ljIll... ..._ 0
3: ~ "0 -..s::: g) Q,"O 0. (Ij 0
OC"'IIl....-<Il~ loI"":':: .......
.. 0 -- ;:J =.- Q) 5 <1.l ~
... '" ",.- ,,;..c. Qj ~ :c ....
~bIl~!!l3:..!ot....f~ ~ ClIIIl
c; 0. '" va 0 <Il"tl,.."O ~::I~
~...= It) 0 _ ....,.;. -5- 0 ~ - ~
:p~.8~-g.D02::c11~ 0-
> <II b/)" 0 bIl C"l:l III CO: .3
"C=1::c CJCb/)"'~ '"'
~ 00:>,"C.....a C >>,;; E s::: Q) Q)
>.!!l .. 1:: iii ;:: l:: :>, E ffi .;; Q) ~ ~
~ ~",<IJ:;,g:il"CGJ~.5 :->!!l
5] ~CQ)'" tU..c",- C
o::lCll8CJcQ)........c... ON"'oo
:eN 0 oll ~.8_ 1:1 ~ 5'til~...2
..5 bO_- s:U.... lo( C.... 0-::: ai::l::"C....
Ox .0.>. >'-o-~EU ....0.
g" -5"C ..;; g) ~.... Q)OO ;;;-- ell
.J ~; g 8 = ~..5':= $< ~
~cciJ c-:;;c>>..!i..!. =.3~g'C
~f @...~ -0 .0
QIlo. (",IQl>><:!~:l -a,<<Iz-:;;
1::0. aC~~'"' S .,gQ)3:~Q)
_0"'<1) ...0<1)3:
>,... <.l-cIIlC... 0<1):::::
=0 Q.lC<Il~~....o ....-tU<I)"'C
1>).... ..c:>-o - =::lc
"'...... v "0';; Qj";;: =
.:c obllfO"i <Il-..s:::-
wO ~oo w C "3=....(1)"0
=gj -5...2=.L:50 ~cQ)ti~
5.~ .00;+-><1)'" ..coo=>
00_ ,",,"N__Q.)ClJ~ t.l..i::='6~
Q)O e <Il"''''CO::l
Q)~ >::ill..cO= ",C~lCO
~ ~ t) ts '5 ~..c ~ * ~ ~ ... 1 ~
-:> g Ql...c 00 l>ll,,:,:.?;> ::l CJ ... 0 .... CJ
-.. ....c....-Q.'l:e:~ -
':"'00..; 0 _ = 8..c- ::I Ql ~'Cp..
Ql --......c<.l" "'=ocQ)
~= ~iiLc ::l....1!!....,;; <.l blJ8 -'0
o '- Ql <I) bO"t;l 0 C <Il C N >>
-;"'0-5 Q) Qi l: ;;~....~...c;:: c~..c
>:; bOX c ~ ~ ~ ; E-< tU 3: J:: ='
~8= 'O!:o;;Sf ~.g~~
Q) l< <II bO' Q) C..c ~.~ "'0 tl(J. e
..0;... 5E~ObOQC G.lC::l
o - <:! s::: C. = ~ Qi Q)'() <il .;3 .-
... 0: '"' C; ~ 0 E C Q. s: 8. ~ .5
_::l ...... G.l CooS
.!!l .... e ..; s::.,g:E::o Q) = ~ =... 0
... 00 a Q O...c: ::l o..c ... .... 0 c,"S!
t.l..._2,CJtlQo...'O'>G.l ...
il)o'<:!O _~C,Q)IOC; ..c::.....0
....Qll'i...<ll(l) bO - 3:0<:.>
E~Q)C.(5l:tJ~5-gtl Ql
c. ::l-5 ~ .:: ..; G.l ,,;...a =..9 cr= ..c:::
C" C-ill..... ctU...
CD .rx1 ~ :::I ....... E 0.., :a Q ""' = o..c ~
..J::_O.Ql o.Q,-Q)ClI (I,) 0
E-<a:......;;o.~ ~tlS u-.o....
a':I_~";..J:: Q)"g~f!oo ~J::1l
CllM..cS....Q-5tU...."'... <:!o....o
> <IJ - '-' <tl..c: Ql. I:i
<"'....ca3:-...~ t.l..c::: =...>
CQ)... CCll'-~ .... ....,0,.
"'0 0 Qj :: "'0 <lI.L:'" 0.<1) 0 Q) <IJ
C c..1:.-Q)..c.-,;llf::~.... e:65
"''''CQ)'''OS-' ....a:lOcE >.....0
:::c .s ~ ill ... Ql -g Ql J::..2 -' ell Q....c
:P~::I~<d:::c;"#.c;<Il...c ::E<l.l~
:r:..9~5- E3E:i~~;:. -5~
<<I ...., >.--
.... ~, ~s
~"':: aI I I .0
r" ~ e~. ~
~ B!! !.s .~]] a a:~ ~
o QoS...... ....c...
_<Il>> 00-0 !:CIl=,Q)
.- ..c::: ~ <tl _, U.... <:! a Ql bIl
0.... c; ~~ 00 I'i ..._
CC::l cr-:>.Qlo-o;.........
.::l08 -Efl"':.....:::~ ()00~..5
~8EdE E - G.l-c"
'"' ~~="'C....~"'Oc.~a
311 ~ 8, ~~ ~"'O ~ c Goo tU 0 tU'()
....+><ll ""<<1"1:1 al (",Ie.
o _ ...!Ie: 8 ..c: ClI ~ c.b"l:l CIl ~
QjC:Puo. C.)",:_-OQ)- ~oo_(I,}
..t:o...= QI:IQlG.l~ "'I:=C
.....- ... - g) bII I:: Q) .... A..... <Il 0 ....
...'0 <<I..c..c C::l> = ... '- s::: I\)
ad O-a CJ"'O=<IlQ,Q)..s:::
'"' :> <Il ...., "'0 <:.> Q).,S =IJ,., "0....., e...
"0 .....c Q) C ..c:-..s::: _-'
-oo~......c:::::I(I,}....a:s 1\)_, 1::"0
~:::-:> +-'.....J:: ..c CJc,...Q)
w~Q.}+-' ...._....... l::illO..c2il
-...11:...==.. .~c=... ='.......3:0.
Qjc -5 ~<lJa':IQ)5oor.f.} 0
~ti:tU ~ ...E~Cll .... CJbII8'Ll"'O
~- Q) "'0 0 = ~ .J:j ~.. Q) C al - =
~c1l5:;l s:::SDEfl ~.J::.t;blCllQ)
.~O ... m~ -< C Q)"C . m E-< C 0 c..c
~ E;> ~ ~ 5 5.-511 ~o .2 0.";.3
~ '<1)-'-- --==<1;)='''0(1) Q)"
on >,.... a:I... =:::: 0 ...c !3 c..c bllS'2
~;j:~~3: C.......~.CIl.... ~-::I
C~ "0 ::l0 C3: d
V . ......-c;Q)"'S! 0....800 -0 ~~'"'
c; S Q) tltl'" < Q c .0 - -c +-' 8 ~ g
5! "'0 <Il ~.;:; ~ _<ll 00.... ..
. , ~S';j-ll~ ~c~ u>. I:Ic<II!!lu
~ "'0 t;;!...~ ..c:o>.o-:::1:=... .L:
C<I)Ql<l) - d=OOCJobll~"'a~
::I 11):> a:l c~ $l"C '"' :l: <t.l Q)..c <<l"'C _ C
o;!~..c_Q)cGJ =<..c::..cooNCCCll
t... ~. 4> Q):::: al !:::l tltl ... tltl..c I: w e ~
"E ~ ~ ~ g"i ~.~ ~ ~ g !3 ~.~ ~ ~ E:t
<( <Il Q E ~ Sot ~ 1o'.o,..c c. 0) 0 ... 0 Ql
_ ->>!C Co 00 = .... 0 .. ::l >>C'\I .... <.l...c
aloa iii...>> ......oo~~...cc...ll:....
~ s::: bIl 0 ~ till I;,) ~ cE c..J:j ~ 5 '<f' ~ ~ <.l c;
~ ~iii"" e ec;; ..c~>>c~ 0 ~ =
.... =' .!!l "0 Q. 0 <I) 0 - -:: - :>< ~ ..Q -:5
o Ql ~ m i ~~ ~ ~ .....z 5 e = ~ (5 jl ....
:::-5Ql~ ~as~1:1J E ~bl)O"O""'C;
= ..Q><I) ..-Ql....O Q)c~ al
..J:: bII ~ ... ~ s.e er..::::: ::I Q E 8 ':; ~;-' 'til t
~ ::.c Jj :; tU '0 8 ~c: 8 8 t,1u -:5 g,
CI)
~
c=
~
'\j
:(
en
V
~
o
~
en
Q)
~
~
.~
U
~
~
o
u
=s
cr.;
00 tU .
Ql.o.>Q)
:Qi...:l
~oo Q) ~
ill ..c-
<I) .... <I>
-50~
~ +-><(
~.5"Cl <I)
bIlCQ)O
c=~.....:l
_c............
"'0 (I,}<Il 0
-"'Q)
> ... C
E 1l c.Sl
o.l>ll~~
...tU..c-c
0.... C
....C<I)::I
tIll<<ltUo
5~..ct...
-c = ="'C
c.!!l U _
='''02<
~ 0_
.s::i: :r,
~1:]'iJ ~.!l8 urcr;
.!!!P= ~~ ~ 0 >-c:
CC'"Cl.....:l"C:l:~~.......:!
Q)>>-4>~"""''''~'''
...!Ie:..g<"'Oo~~a:;-:;;.8
<<SctJ -....--b.O
...., III a:; .5 0. bI:.5! ~ CIl bD
='bO<I:lc.Ca:l ..J::
CE-<CIl<l;)ell.;; ~E-<=
5!_~:::ootUtU "'0
....- 0> "n>>C
~go"oc"'O..:::<.>::I
:l.....2;..;- ~ ~~...
coO) ~ OCbIIO
<ll:I U 0 l>ll..... m - 0 = C
'<':1. E - ~ '0 <.l
bl)~0':l "'0 8 ~.... 0 ~ "'0
=c:51.l'J I:: o~_... bOQ)
"'0 ~Z.t:""'uc5]
cQ)"'C EflCOUlIll
-..cQl"'O<I)o::lZ_E
C.)........Q)Q).o.>OCll-
~......ell<.>!:!..:.::CJ"Oce
,...-CJ:l> s::: 0
- a:..s:"'C ~ :E Q) Q) <:.>::!
Eta:; foo Et-E e gj f<
u ..1 jiig :it >.~
a !..!! ""'"'3 !
~ ~ ..c....<Il ai' b ; ~ Gl 'i
~ () .-..c: .....lll-o
~ :1 fiI ~':~CI)S~
~ .........c ..s ;.... ~ ~"'C-g 'til
~ U !-t l::>OS>a::I
4.l 0 ..c:: a 00 Ul
~ bIl m~...CiCll~
O .." C ..2:! Q)';: ..63 .-
\L..I -0 G)Z~ :.:::~
~ 1:: b/) If) ....- GJ
O >C'\$ ~~c=.ol;:eoo
~Q3< ....2........ ~
~ .---" > bIl lQ.s U c'" .J:j
....... I\)CQ....O<llGJos
ifJ ~ 1Il<...:l=:~J.o""'Qj
/1, r"\ ~~.!1l2.g.2i~9
\V ~ "'.....:lE-oC-S;;;=C
>- ....... .5 - ~ g; ~ <1)8 <Ile g
o ~." .~: ... = g C
p:,.o !."i~s8
= l&I ~ l&I
.~ :i -g -:5
CI -
0.....0 '"CI
:;sos::=
bid 11II
.s .- -:5 .0
Q~ Cll;:t
=uc-
oo.eou
.,
C.Q =
.- 0 "'C III
~ ell Q)OO
.B.8gj"l:l
..e -9 C
Q II) ~'=..c
..c::_ _
S+>Q)"I:I'::::
= Q) ~ aU
.:: "0 < 00 ...c
... ::l <.>
ll."()8Q)~
5 ...:l -:5 co
;~~e!s!
..
.,
'ii
z:.
-
I:
.
~
o
~
.
c
c
C
<t.l C
= 0
~
0'"
...c~
~!;:::
-Ql
CIl..c:
~....
ti:"C
4>
"C -
:> ~
<<l":'::
oa:
c ~
=
e....
:=:
u-
l::....
::l C
0<1)
u...
.J:j
=
}.I
.,
01: '
-
.
.,
to
o
~
.,
.
c:
01(
I
. ... .
~ "S !:it
ADJOURNMENT
--6/2/87
JAMES B. MAXWELL
Former C~v~l R~ghts
leader.
Santa Monica recalls early
black leader, dead at 102
James 8. Maxwell IS dead at 102
much intere8ted and Involved in civil rights and
the black experience. Even at 101, he was keen of
mmd and very alert"
Monroe B Allen Jr, a former NAACP umt
president, called Muwell "a real gentleman ..
"Just the fact he was able to hve as long as he
did and be Il8 alert was wonderful," said Allen
"He III Bomeone we are aU gomg to miss an awful
lot, JUllt to sit around and talk to."
Dr Alfred Qumn, who went to 8chool WIth
Max.well's younger son, called Maxwell "a very
qUIet, intellectual penon, llerioualy proud. He
was one of those everybody could respect."
A tuneral Mass was to be held today &:t Samt
Anne's Catholic Church. WIth bunal (allOWing at
Holy Cross Cemetery In Culver City.
Maxwell, born an Lebanon, Ky, on July 4.
1884, was educated at F18k University and served
as a hIgh school prmcipal in Lebanon before
commg to Santa Momca In 1920.
He was oIle of the organlzerll of the NAACP
.
By Will Thorne z.. c.? c... _ , - ')',
STAFF WRITER
James B. Muwell, one of Santa Monica's early
black pioneers and a founder of the Santa MOnl-
ca-Vemce Chapter or'the National AssoclatlOn
for the Advancement of Coll1red People. was
remembered by frIends yesterday as a compas-
sionate man who was concerned with the phght
of his people
Maxwell, a sCIon of one of the city's first black
families, dIed last week Bf~r he was hospltahzed
(or a broken hip. He was 102
Neighbors and friends yesterday recalled Max-
well as an alert, active member of the commumty
whose presence will be ml8sed, espeCIally at the
NAACP
"He was one of the mOst Interestmg men I
have ever met," said Octavia Miles, a longtime
member of the CIVil rIghts group "He was very
compasSionate, very concerned and very, very
III
chapter. formed shortly after hiS arrival here,
and was the Unit's preSIdent from 1930 to 1937
In an interview several years ago, Maxwell
recalled how.. black woman earher had Bought to
have a relatlve buried In B local pubhc cemetery
but was told It waa "against the law"
"The NAACP worked to change that law," he
said
After retiring from his airport Job In 1954, he
dId volunteer work for the Veterans Admlnlstra-
tlOn and the Catholic Legion of Mary, logging
more than 2,000 hours of service.
He was honored by a number of organizatIOns,
receIved the NAACP Humanitarian Award in
1983 and awards: from the Philamathean and
GEMS Clubs of Santa Monica
He 18 survived by his 80ns. Thomas and Frank-
1m Maxwell; daughters, Elizabeth McCampbell
and LUCIlle Kendricks; six grandchIldren, four
great-grandchIldren; four great great-grandchll-
dren, and 8. niece
INFOR11ATION
CjED:CNS:BJS
May 11, 1987
5,.Lt-J Q-<, V\.A-o t b
~-J...:..A.--t ,--,--<-J-z ~
:;/ /' "- In
K. U. ..u.: c2-t.... '.AL.-
1
I J<. tT7t.: <'-<,-~"u...t.r
t.~tj CLi.-~
Xct L.. J:L T .LU
~ ?~;tJ
J" -.;I' -87
. .
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
SUBJECT:
-city staff
Transmittal of Supplemental Information -
1987-88 Community Development program
FROM:
This report transmits information for Councilmembers' use in
reviewing the proposed 1987-88 community Development Plan and
grantee funding recommendations. Because of the large number of
funding proposals and the amount of materials being transmitted,
this supplemental information has been divided into the following
sections to simplify the Council review process:
I. 1987-88 Community Development program Funding strategy
This section outlines the overall funding strategy used in
developing funding recommendations for 1987-88.
It provides an
update on sources of funding
for 1987-88 I outlines proposed
recommendations,
and
presents
a
rationale
for
these
recommendations.
-~
II. 1987-88 Funding Recommendations and proposal Assessments
For the program's two components (Community Service Grants
and Community & Neighborhood Improvement Projects), this section
provides the following information:
- 1 -
o an alphabetical listing of all proposals, the 1986-87 level
of funding, the requested 1987-88 level, and the
recommended 1987-88 level: and
o a brief assessment of each proposal, including a summary
description of the proposed project, an explanation of any
funding increases or decreases, a list of any major program
requirements to assist in developing final Grantee
workp1ans and budgets, and a designation of the type of
funding mechanism proposed for that agency (i.e., one-year
operating agreement, renewable operating agreement or
contingency contract).
III. commission Comments
Consistent with the city's commitment to involve the public
and City Commissions in the review of the Community Development
Program, a series of opportunities were available for citizen
participation prior to submission of the final proposed
recommendation to the Council.
This section transmits any
written comments or formal action taken by City conmissions
involved in the review of 1987-88 proposals. These co~r.ents have
been carefully reviewed by staff and considered in fi~alizing the
proposed funding recommendations and program requl~ements.
Additional input by these Commissions and any othe:!:" interested
parties may be made directly to the Council during the scheduled
public hearing on May 26.
IV. Proposal Summaries
Proposal summaries submitted by each grant applicant as a
part of the proposal package are transmitted in this section. A
summary of the request, an applicant description, proposed
workplan and summary budget is included for each applicant.
While applicants were asked to propose a realistic workplan and
budget, decisions on actual workplans and budgets to be included
- 2 -
in grantee contracts will be made after funding levels are
approved by the Council.
A set of complete proposals submitted by all applicants are
available in the Council Office. In addition to the information
described above, City staff will be available to answer any
additional questions regarding the process of specific funding
decisions.
Prepared by: Barbara stinchfield, Community Development Manager
Rey Espana, CDBG Coordinator
Sandra DuVander, Grants Administrator
Department of Community and Economic Development
- 3 -
SECTION I
1987-88 CO~illU~ITY DEVELOPMENT PROG~N~ FUNuI~G STRATEGY
,
.
THE CO~rnUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The city of Santa Monica's 1987-8B Community Development program
will utilize $4.0 million in Federal and local funds to support a -
variety of community development proj ects .
divided into two major components:
These proj ects are
-~
o Community service proj ects - Operating grants to local,
non-profit community service agencies for the provision of
a range of community and social services.
o Community and Neighborhood Improvement projects - capital
projects benefiting low and moderate income residents and
neighborhoods.
The program outlined in the fOllmdng sections represents the
final funding reco~~endations of City staff after six months of
planning and reVlew by City staff,
Clty Co~mlssions and
interested residents.
community input l'las received through a
range of activities including:
a Co~munlty Needs Forum held in
November of 1986, various recommendations developed by the Social
services Commission and the com~ission on Older Americans, grant
applicant meetings scheduled in March and April of 1987, and an
administrative hearing held by the City Manager on I1ay 7, 1987.
The result is a proposed 1987-88 Community Development Program
which is designed to address critical community needs, maintain
stability for effective ongoing programs yet also focus attention
on specific program improvements and new or enhanced services.
- I -
FUND AVAILABILITY
As discussed
in previous
reports,
local
governments and
non-profit organizations have experienced a serious erosion of
Federal support for the provision of local community development
and human service programs. In the past several years, the city
has direct'ly suffered serious decreases in the two traditional
sources of funding for the community DevelopIDent Program. This
has included a 30% decrease in Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds and the total elimination of the General Revenue
Sha~ing Program.
In addition, important so~~ces of funding
received directly by Santa Monica's soc~al serv~ce agencles fro~
either Federal, State or County sources also con~lnue to decline.
And, most notably, this year united Way has joined the list of
funding sources unable to provide increased support to important
programs.
Based on this funding outlook and an inltlal assess~ent of the
city's own fiscal position, proposed funds available to support
the 1987-88 Program include:
General Prop. Rerta1 I Pedevel. I
Total CDSG Fund 10. Rehab Agency GRS
Co.;nunl.ty I; Nel.ghb. I
Improvements 1,388,913 918,518 145,895 -0- 197,000 127,500 -0-
Co~~un~ty SerV1ces 2,619,006 125,913 2,150,559 342,534 -0- -0- -0-
4,001,919 1,044,431 2,296,454 342,534 197,000 127,500 -0-
CDBG.
CDBG
funds
(including
the
annual
entitlement,
carryover funds from previous years available for new projects
and program income) should remain relatively stable for 1987-88
- 2 -
<.
in spite of recent Presidential actions to defer up to 25% of the
coming year IS entitlement. while this deferral action was not
approved by Congress for 1987-88, recent action by the Senate to
reduce the 1988-89 program by 25% points to a continuing struggle
to maintain the current level of funding. It is also important
to note that, even is efforts to maintain existing CDBG funding
levels are successful, the ability of the City to sustain current
programs is only due to the fact that adequate carryover funds
and locally-generated program income have been available.
Hm.,rever,
longer-term projections do not provide for scch
carryovers.
General. Fund.
with the phasing out of the Ci::yfs annual
General Revenue Sharing allocation of approximately $900,000, the
city has increasingly used General Fund dollars to support the
community service Projects funded under the co~~u~i~y Development
program.
In 1986-87, $130,000 in General Revenue Sharing Funds
were available as the final payment under that prograM. with the
elimination of the progra71 on September 30, 1986, all Revenue
'.
Sharing payments ceased.
The proposed Community Developnent Plan requires a $145,156
increase in the General Fund contribution over 1986-87 due to the
following:
Mitigation of final GRS cuts
Partial support for proposed
cost-of-living increases
$129,837
15,319
$145,156
Total General Fund increase
- 3 -
It is important to note that, except for a small amount of funds
applied toward cost-of-living adjustments, this increase serves
to maintain the total funding base at the 1986-87 level.
Therefore, all new programs or service enhancements are possible _
only through program reductions or eliminations.
It is also
important to note that this increased level of support from the
General Fund is tied to the City's ability to generate additional
local revenues during the coming year which are required to Meet
these and many other funding needs. Therefore, the final General
Fund contribution for 1987-88 will depend on the City's overall
fiscal situation as determined during the 1987-88 budget process.
In the event that General Funds are not available to maintaln the
level proposed for the Program, budget reductions or eliminations
of proposed programs would have to occur.
proposi tion A.
Proposition A funds will rel".aln relatively
stable for 1987-88. Funds are dedicated to paratrar.sit programs
for the elderly and disabled.
Rental Rehabilitation Program.
The level of support from
this Federal program to the Community Development Progran remains
constant from 1986-87 and is restricted to very specific rental
rehabilitation uses.
Redevelopment Agency.
This level of support for the coming
year approximates the level of support available in prior years
to support housing program operating costs.
'.
- 4 -
1987-88 CO}lliUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FUNDING STRATEGY
The strategy for the 1987-88 Community Development Program
departs significantly from the strategy used for the 1986-87
program.
In 1986-87, given the extreme uncertainty regarding
Federal funding, the Council approved a "maintenance of effortll
program for the year which continued all currently-funded
projects.
While
attention
was
given
to
program
design
improvements as well as cost-effectiveness, the goal of the
1986-87 program was to provide a year of relative stability for
agencies experiencing funding cuts from a range of Federal, state
and local sources.
It was a "transitional" year -- l"laintainJ.ng
current programs while making the transition f=on a program
primarily dependent upon Federal funds to a program that relied
more heavily on local resources.
The 1987-88 funding rationale, approved by the City Council in
January of 1987 and used to guide the development of "Requests
for
Proposals"
,
and
the
revie~'l
of
applicant
proposals,
acknowledged the need to noVI reevaluate the mix of services
funded by the Program.
To ensure that the city \vas supporting
programs that addressed the most critical and pressing needs, the
1987-88 application process was competitive and open to all
qualified non-profit organizations providing services in Santa
Monica.
Applicants were asked to fully justify the proposed
programs in terms of identified needs in the community and to
further document program and cost effectiveness.
- 5 -
In addition, acknowledging the fiscal constraints on the Program
and also the pressure to respond to unmet or neT,vly-emerging
com.."'nuni ty needs, the City Council approved several specific
areas of need in order to guide difficult funding decisions.
These priority areas are identified later in this section and
have been used in developing the staff's recommendations for new
or enhanced programs.
The overall strategy emphasizes the need to provide both
operating and capital support to a broad-range of services to
significant segments of the Santa l-fonica CO:i.t::lUnl ty, especially
those without basic econo:aic, physical or eootional supports.
This strategy "squeezes" existing resources to allm-l for new or
expanded programs without increasing the need for an overall
increase in the funding base. Special attention "-las g1ven to
programs indicating a high degree of innovation,
cost-effectiveness and responsiveness to these cormunity
residents most in need. The strategy calls for the reduction of
City support to programs if the level of that support was greater
than the benefit derived by the Santa Monica cOIT~unity and the
consolidation of services in clear cases of duplication. It
highlights needed program improvements and outlines
contingencies required in order to receive City funding.
The strategy also introduces a neT,'/ feature to the Community
Development Program -- ia range of II funding mechanismsll to be
used for making awards to the recommended organizations.
Approved in concept by the Council as a part of the coming year's
funding rationale, these represent different adaptations of the
- 6 -
currently-used Standard Grantee Operating Agreement. Under this
standard Agreement, the agency is awarded a grant amount and
agrees to perform a range of activities within a specified
budget. The Grantee tvorkplan outlines specific quantifiable,
activity levels and also includes any specific program
requirements identified by the City during the program review
process. Yor 1987-88, three types of funding mechanisms will be
used:
(1) One-year Agreements where agencies are guaranteed funding for
that year but must reapply, in a competitive process, for
continued funding in the subsequent year. This is ~ost
appropriate for new prcgrans or programs that have recently made
management or program design changes. In addition, it may be
used for agencies having experienced so~e performance
difficul ties in the past but making substantial progress with
reasonable assurance that identified program requi~ements can be
met in the coming year.
(2) Renewable Operating Agreements where agencies are guaranteed
funding for the coming year and also \"ill receive priority for
funding in 1987-88. Receipt of second-year funding will be
contingent upon the availability of City funds as well as
documented evidence of successful performance in the first year.
Grantees will be required to submit a concise renewal application
during the next year I s review process. This mechanism is most
appropriate for effective, proven agencies or for programs that
should remain stable pending an overall evaluation of that
service delivery area. While this does not result in a guarantee
- 7 -
of two year funding for the agency, it does prioritize specific
agencies for funding in the second year.
(3) contingency Contracts where agencies receive funding for one
year, pursuant to specific program or budget contingencies. This
mechanism is most appropriate for those agencies whose mission is
to meet c~~tical community needs, yet are experiencing difficulty
in develop the leadership, administrative or programmatic
capability to meet those needs. Another application may be for
agencies whose program in general is adequate but whose program
performance in a very specific area must be changed in order to
'\Tarrant the level of city funding. This contract :May be used
where other incentives for improvement have not been successful
but there is evidence that the organization may be able to
improve in the time period negotiated. This is espec1ally useful
when there is currently only one agency available to provide a
very needed service and, absent that agency, a gap in the
provision of that service would occur. with this contract, comes
the City's commitment to provide technical assistance in areas
identified for improvement. If specific contingencies or
performance standards are met within the specified time periods,
the agency will be considered for funding in the coming year
pursuant to that year's funding rationale.
This move toward a modified bw-year "funding cycle," provides
more time for much-needed long-term planning, program evaluation
and support for those programs most in need of technical
assistance and monitoring.
- 8 -
1987-88 CO}ll1UNITY SERVICE PROJECTS
Proposals Received
Total Funding Requests
Total Funds Available
41
$3,496,961
$2,619,006
(1) Proposal Review Process: The process for reviewing the 41
Community ~~ervice proposals began with an analysis of each
specific proposal
determined to meet minimum eligibility
requirements. Proposal review included:
o an analysis of the extent to which the proposal met the
funding priorities and selection criteria approved by the
council for 1987-88. These prlorit18s and criteria are
included as Attachment I at the end of thlS Sec~ion.
o an analysis of the proposed line item budget to determine
if the requested resources are consistent wlth the progran
design and level of servlce proposed. In addition, an
analysis was done to ensure that the budget is cost
effective, utilizing a substantial portion of resources for
direct service delivery as opposed to administ~ative costs.
o an analysis of the proposed funding anount to ensure that
the level of City fund~ng is consistent wlth the level of
services provided to the Santa Monica community as compared
to surrounding communities also served by the applicant
agency.
o an analysis of the proposed funding aMount to ensure that
the maximum allowable contribution from the City of Santa
Monica was not exceeded and that the remainder of funds
could be raised from non-City sources. (New programs were
evaluated on their ability to provide an even higher level
of support from other sources.)
o informal discussions with all grant applicants during
scheduled proposal review meetings attended by City staff
and interested city Commissioners.
o review of recommendations on proposed programs provided by
the Social Services Co~mission and the Commission on Older
Americans (see section III for Commission reports).
o review of input received during
Administrative Hearing held on May 7.
the
Program's
- 9 -
While the analysis of each separate proposal as described above
constituted the "corell of the revievT process and is further
detailed in individual project assessments included in Section II
, the most difficult decisions came in determining how the large
"gap" bett'leen the funding requests of acceptable proposals and
the amount of available funds could best be reduced.
This
necessitated an overall analysis of the desired mix of programs
and decisions regarding the most cost effective use of total
grant funds. The following questions were posed:
o Are there any current program duplications that could be
eliminated?
o Are there ways to provide the same serVlces wi thin ferTer
agencies to reduce the amount of total progra-:l nmdi:1g
going to administrative costs and to bet~eY serve program
clients?
o Does the total "program mix" prov lde sut:Dort to a broad
range of service areas and segments of the community to
ensure access to services by those in need?
o Does the total "program mix" also reflect the targeted
priorities approved by the Council as a par~ of the 1987-87
funding rationale?
o Are there gaps in service that have not yet been addressed?
o Are there ways to better coordinate funded programs that
provide related services? Are there creative partnerships
that can be established to mutually share limited City
resources?
(2) 1987-88 Community Service Project Funding Analysis: All of
the above questions were considered when arriving at final
funding recommendations and the recommended program mix. The
following matrix illustrates this mix and reflects the extent to
which service areas and target groups have been addressed.
- 10 -
ORGANIZATION
RECO~1I1ENDED
FurWING
r I 1537-88 t
ADEPT
CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION
CENTER FOR PARTIALLY SIGHTED
CITY LANDLORD VOUCHER PROGRAM
CLARE FOUNDATIO~ - SOBER IN~
CONilECTIONS FOR CHILDREN
FM11LY SERVICE OF SA~TA MO~ICA
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE OF SM
LATINO RESOURCE ORGANIZATION
LIEU-CAP
r,EHjHEGRHOGD JUSTl CE CEiHER. <t'IJCl
NJC - SCHOOL ~EDIATIOU PKOGRAM
liEW START
OPCC - CLIUICAL COUNSELI~G
OPCC - DAY BREAK CENTER
opec - DROP-IN CENTER
OPCC - HOtiELESS OUT"C:AGI TEA~I
opec - SOJC:JRa
opec - STEPP I rIG STC:;E
opec - TURim~G PO I NT SHELTER
PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
PROJECT HEAVY WEST'
RAD 10 KCRf!
ST. JOSEPH'S CENTER
SALVATION ARNY
SA~TA MONICA/WESTSIDE HOTLINE
SENIOR HEALTH & PEER CDUNS. CENTER
VEI'HCE FAt-illY CUNIC
WESTSIDE CEln. FO R I tm . LIVI r,.G
WEe - ~EAlS ON ImEELS
~ESTSIDE FOOD BANK
:IESTSILE II~j). SERVICE TO THE ELDERLY
III SE - PAR'; Tfi.r,ilSIT
- PARAT rt;",jSIT SET -ASIDE
~ESTSI~E LCuAl SERVICES (~LS)
:ILS - I;~ill::i~ATIOJ( ASSISTMCE
$ 35,096
75,000
8,000
2,000
83,200
143,338
100,l154
14,061
102,O!l8
100,231
4,,50'-\
38,~93
122~~34
28..JS3
97,611
90,366
9L2E4
3o,SEn
/.;4,143
113,743
102.113
24,191
48,359
36,400
8,230
LOOO
66,856
43,971
27,489
20,560
75,815
262,69lj
312,534
30,oao
1l.lLi,327
~L387
IS2,619,CC6 I
)
'~
1/\
J
0
)
1~
IC~I
...-...
-....J
'\
../
81 0
~
\-,
(~
,;~
Ii
1\
0
I 0
(j
)1
('"~I
IU~
0' I If'\'
rv
I()
I ,)
1(\
'\
,
)
) ) ""'I
n
0
)
<::,
0
1t:D I
~ ~o~
1010111 I
I , I I 0 I
'0.
I I
'0'
o
~)t~1
I ()I
B,p
~iO
,101
etOI
POb\O
I 0
I ip
n'
l'-JU
II I
do
op
h r
0101 C~()Db
J bll
op b
hi I 01
I ~~ ~
lli~~1
o CONTI NUED FUIID trIG
a.
Pbl
1/ I
~~ i
1(\
'V
61
01
I.. I
I
. I
L
The overall result of these funding recommendations is the award
of grants to twenty five organizations for the implementation of
34 programs. Of the total funding amount of $2,619,006, 90.5% of
funds are targeted to sustain currently-funded programs, 2.4% to
provide cost-of-living increases to current programs, and 7.1% to
expand sery~ces through service enhancements and new programs.
As indicated in the matrix on the preceding page, the following
is being achieved through this proposed allocation of funds:
o Support is still being maintained to a broad range of
services and target groups.
o Two duplicative serVlces
(low-income tenant/landlord
employment) .
have
legal
been
assistance
consolidated
and youth
o Three innovative nevi programs have been added to meet
critical community needs (immigration legal assistance,
school conflict nediation program, and a pllot court
diversion project providing tenant/landlo~d mediation
services) .
o Three additional programs have been expanded (child care
scholarships for low-inco~e pico Neighbor~ood families,
youth employment stipends for pico Neighborhood youth, and
a set-aside for an expanded emergency response capability
within ,the paratransit program for the disabled and
elderly).
o Of the approximately $190,000 allocated for new or enhanced
programs, 99% ,.,ill be used for Im'l-income residents or
targeted to lower income neighborhoods.
o 97% of the funds for enhancements and new programs , will
be used for direct service delivery as opposed to
administrative overhead.
o $64,068 will be applied to cost-of-living adjustments to
those agencies serving a mininum of 75% low-income clients.
Due to City fiscal constraints, similar adjustments to
other currently-funded programs are not recommended.
o For every dollar of city funding, other sources contribute
approximately $4.00, effectively leveraging limited local
resources.
- 12 -
o 64% of proposed agencies rely on City funding for less than
50% of their total program budget.
o with the exception of a small increase to partially cover
specified cost-of-living increases, all enhancements have
been made within existing funding levels.
In order to achieve these results, some very difficult trade offs
had to be made.
Support for 9 currently-funded programs was
either reduced or eliminated.
As mentioned previously, these
decisions were made after careful consideration of the overall
funding strategy and the extent to which these prograns competed
wi th other service priori ties.
Additional information on how
specific decisions were reached is included in the individual
proposal assessments in Section II of this report.
(3)
Planning and Advocacy Issues:
While the 1987-88 strategy
as described thus far has focused pr~marily on hew the city can
best allocate its fiscal resources, it is "strateglcll to also
consider other ways in WhlCh the City, its Cc~~isslons and
community agencies can act in concert to achieve overall,
long-term improvements to the delivery of social services. During
this year's review process, City staff and co~~issions have
identified a nUMber of issues that \'larrant careful evaluation,
planning and advocacy during the next two-year period. Whenever
feasible, these issues have been integrated into 1987-88 program
requirements for relevant agencies. However, additional efforts
are identified below.
Youth Service Delivery.
While there are a number of
effective youth services in the community, Santa Monica's "youth
services network" as a whole continues to be fragmented and
- 13 -
without adequate resources to meet critical youth needs. Future
planning efforts will include: developing a city Working Group
on Youth to make recommendations to the City on the "state" of
youth services in the community and on what role the city can
play in supporting and improving these services: increased
legislative advocacy on the state and Federal level for funding
for programs for "at-risk" youth; and increased communication
with the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District and non-City
funded youth agencies to identify issues of mutual concern and to
coordinate efforts on behalf of youth.
In addition, special attention ~lill be given to the follO\ving
youth service areas: (1) youth employment with an emphasis on a
coordinated program of employment and training opportunities fo~
low-income yout~; (2) teen pregnancy, and (3) teen parenting.
Information
and Referral
(I&R)
and Hotline services:
Recognizing that a nUr.lber of o:l::"ganizations provide information
and referral services and telephone hotline or
crisis-intervention services, planning efforts Hill focus on:
an assessment of the need for these services including the
identification of any duplication: determination of the
feasibility of coordinated or consolidated I&R and/or hotline
services with a special emphasis on consolidating appropriate
functions in the new Community services Center: coordination with
United Way and other funding sources to discuss the feasibility
of a joint venture in improving services.
- 14 -
Senior services: ~ihile a number of new programs for seniors
(especially isolated and frail, elderly residents) have been
funded by the City over the past several years, efforts should
continue to assess service needs in the fallowing areas:
(1)
emergency response capability for paratransit services, (2)
affordable
legal
services,
and
(3)
a
more
formalized
"case-finding" program for the homebound frail elderly. Special
-
emphasis will be given to utilizing existing resources to better
respond to these needs
as well
as
identifying funding
opportunities from non-City sources.
Adult Employment and Training:
Given the limited amount of
Federal funds now committed to the Santa Monica area through the
Job Training Partnership Act, the employment needs of low-inco~e
residents continue unmet. While the City has played a role in
IDeeting these needs in the past several years,
the ability of
local resources to "make a dent" in the problem is minimal.
Future efforts
should focus on legislative advocacy by city
Council and city Commissions to increase Federal support for such
programs. Additionally, efforts should be made to link planning
efforts for youth and adult employnent and training programs to
ensure a IIcontinuum of services",
services to the Homeless: Again, while the City has greatly
expanded its support for services to the homeless, the coming
year may yield opportunities for agencies to receive funding from
new state or Federal sources. Efforts will be made to identify
all new sources of funding and to coordinate with service
providers to respond with funding proposals.
- 15 -
'.
./
Increased Technical Assistance to Non-Profit organizations: The
effective use of city funds invested in community service
organizations depends in large part on the strength of each
agency's leadership I administration and direct services. The
city will continue and expand technical support activities to
city-funded grantees through its training reimbursement program,
resource llbrary and consultant/training services. Further, in
conjunction with planning for the new Community Services Center,
additional services will be explored, including a support center
for shared administrative functions in order to reduce operating
costs for non-profit organizations in the co~nun1ty.
- 16 -
1987-88 COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Proposal Received
Total Funding Requests
Total Funding Available
12
$2,100,233
1,388,913
--
(1) Proposal Review Process. The review process for the twelve
Conununi ty ~~nd Neighborhood Improvement proposal s received for
1987-88 funding included:
o a review to determine project eligibility based on Federal
guidelines for CDBG funds
o an analysis of the extent to which each proposal met
funding priorities and selection criteria approved by
Council in January of 1987. The priorities and cr~teria
are included in Attach~ent I at the end of this section.
o a detailed budget and funding analysis sim~lar to the one
implemented for review of Co=munity SerVlce proposals.
Expanding the 1986-87 strategy which prioritized support to
ongoing affordable housing programs, the 1987-88 strategy for
Community and Neighborhood Improve~ent Projects atte~pts to also,
in a limited way, support other co~munity development activities
that address unmet community needs.
To do so, particular attention was given to cost-effectiveness,
the ability to leverage funds, the amount of funds requested for
administration versus project costs, and current or potential
duplication of services. However, unlike the Community Service
strategy which allocates funds to a broad range of services,
Community and Neighborhood Improvement funds are targeted to
fewer more-resource intensive programs.
- 17 -
(2) 1987-88 community and Neighborhood Improvement project
Funding Analysis. The following matrix indicates the extent to
which available funds ",ill meet stated community development
needs:
- ..
PROJECT/ORGANIZATION
CHFA BO~D PROGRAM
CLARE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CHALLE~~GE GfWn
co;r,i'1Unny COR-PORATl O~~ OF SANTA i'1ONl CA
NO~-PROFIT ACCESSIBILITY ASSISTA~CE
PICa nEIGHBORHOOD HOUSI~G TRUST FU~D
PICa NEIGHBORHOOD RES. REHAB. PROGRA,'.j U:RDC)
PUBLIC ~ORi<S ASSESSr:Ei"iT ASSISTMJCE
RESIDE~TIAL ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT (NRDC)
RE~TAL REHABILITATIC~ PROSKA~ - CITYWID~
-FUNDED FRO~ 1986-87 A?PROPRIATIO~.
..
RECOM1",ENDED
FUNDING
1937-3&
HOUSING
$ 37,500
10,000.
33D,COO
95,['JO
547,C:00
25L332 I
5,0::)0
23,831
.lCJ,QCO
-D
I I
b
l~l Z"~ r.,-
~":'J-"''::''''''':::_)
funds:
The following is achieved through this proposed allocation of
o Support is still being maintained to ongoing programs at
current or expanded levels.
o 94% of all funds are targeted to affordable housing
programs, identified as a top priority for the use of CDBG
funds in both Federal and local documents.
o 82% of all
Neighborhood.
o 100% of all funds will substantially benefit lower
individuals and neighborhoods, meeting local
requirements and exceeding Federal requirements.
CDBG funds
- 18 -
are
targeted to the pica
incor::e
CDBG
o Two important new city-wide programs for disabled residents
are proposed (Non Profit Accessibility Program and the
Residential Accessibility Program) to continue the City's
commitment to a "barrier-free" community.
o 75 affordable housing units will be rehabilitated and 20
units will be acquired and rehabilitated or
newly-constructed.
o For every dollar of city funding, other sources will
contribute $3.50, thus effectively leveraging limited local
resO!lrces.
Individual project assessments and any recommended program or
proj ect requirements for Community and Neighborhood Improvement
Projects are included in Section II of this report.
(3) Planning and Advocacy Issues. On behalf of sustaining and
expanding needed Community and Neighborhood Improvement Projects
in the future, the following planning activities will be pursued
in 1987-88:
community Development Block Grant F~nding.
As r.tentioned
previously, the CDBG Program continues to be vulnerable to
further cuts in the coming years.
Continuing effor~s begun in
1987, communities are being encouraged to expand and sustain
community a~vareness of the benefits of the program.
continued
efforts will be made locally to involve city Commissions,
community groups and residents in support of the CDBG Program.
Shelter and Transitional Housing for the Homeless. Pursuant
to Council direction in the current year, efforts will focus on
the identification of additional shelter opportunities. In
addition, transitional housing opportunities \vill be explored.
Special efforts will be made to identify new state and Federal
funding opportunities, especially those pursuant to the proposed
- 19 -
"Urgent Relief for the Homeless Act" currently under reVlew in
the House and Senate, and to coordinate these efforts with local
service providers.
Community Service Facilities. The need for affordable,
stable facilities to house non-profit social service providers
continues ~in Santa Monica. Efforts ,."ill continue to identify
creative uses within the net." Community Services Center and to
further identify opportunities for those community agencies in
need of space. Special attention will be given to
neighborhood-based service delivery.
- 20 -
Attachment A-I
CQZ1HUNITY SERVICE PROJECTS
1987-88 Selectlon criteria and Targeted Pr~or~ties
...
\
selection Criteria
Each el~gible proposal will be assessed accard~ng to the exte~t
~ .to wh.l.ch:
o
The organ.l.Zatlon clearly ident1f1es the target populat1on
in Santa Xon1ca and fully docunents the need for proposed
servJ.ces.
o
The servlce is appropr.l.ate for the target populat~on to
be ~rved.
o
A:;::prc:;::rlate access to serVlces 1s prcvlded In ter:-s of
geograp~lc lcca~~on, hou:::s of operatlcn, convenle~ce ~o
cllen~s, phYSIcal accesslb.l.l.l.ty, b.l.llng~al capabll.l.~Y and
cultu:::al sens~tlv1ty.
o
T~e orca,1zatlon ef=ect~vely se~Jes lrdlvlcuals -ost In
reed of these serv1ces lrcludlrg ~1~or1ty, lOd-lnc~-e and
d~sabled resldents.
o
The organlzat1on ShO.dS strong eVldence 0::: .ln~e:::a::renc~..
cooperatIon ard s~ar~rg 0: resources wlth ot~er cc-,ur~~y
groups and age'c~es ~n oreer to ~a~~~lze reso~~~es.
o
The o~gan1za~~on prcv~des ev~dence t~a~ ~he p~~;osed
p~~g=a~ does ro~ CU~!lc~te o~her serv~c~s 1n ~~e
cO-lr\.l:-~1ty. If a ~~..,t:er cf sl-~lar prC;:f=~""S ex~s:'. t"'i.e
o~~an~za~1o' fu~~y ~ust1=~es t~e ex~s~ence of l~decerde~=
p~cgrars ~~s~ea~ cf one cO~5cllda~2d Ser{lce.
o The o~ca~~za~icn eX~lb~~s a h~stcry 0= ef~~ct~ven~ss a~~
success I~ t~e cel~very of se:::Vlces to the cc~~n~ty.
o
The prcgram is supported by ~~al~fled ac~~n~st:::a~~ve and
p=cgran s~af: to ensu~e CC~5~St2~t and e=:e=t~ve del~very
of se~vlces to ~hose ~n need.
o
T~e organ1zat~on is gu~ded by an act1ve. bread-based
Board of Olrectors Wlt, eVldence 0: prov~dl-q aFp:::opr~ace
. leadership to tr.e or~anlzat~on.
The progran shows co~~un1ty 5UPPO:::t thro~gh ~ts abllity
to procure CO~~U~lty resources (e g., co~:un~~Y
fundra1s1ng, use of volunteers, do~atcd serv1ces).
~-
o
o
The organ~zatlon ~as max1'1zed opportu~1t~es for fu~d~rq
iron a range of non-Clty sources to ma~e U~ a ~lH~-U' af
20% of its proJected Santa Monlca budget, t~us le~dl-g to
its f~nanc~al stab1l1ty and t~e abl11ty to sUsta~n ~tself
as a part of the co~un1ty serv~Ce network.
If a new scrvlCC, the org~niz~tlon nrov1d~s a h.l.ch level
of natchlng f~~ds for the proposed ~cr~1ce from ncn-Clty
sources, exceed~~g tr.e 20~ nln~~Um.
o
o
Tt-e level of funding requested' is consistent w~t~ the
level of servlce prov~dcd to Santa Hon1ca res~dents and
C~ty fund1ng 15 crltlcal to the SUccess of the proqran.
The organization proposes a bUdget that reflectS
cost-effect1ve admlnlstrat1ve and program act~VItles.
o
Attachment A-2
Targeted PrioritLes
Spec~al cons~deration w~ll be given to ~nnovat~ve proposals
that:
o provide for the effect~ve ccord1nat1on and posslble
future consolidation of youth cou:'sellrg servlces,
espec1ally on-slte counseling programs at Sa~~a Mon~ca's
schools.
o provide for a contlnUU'l'l of services for Santa }fonica I s
low-1nco~e and rn~norlty youth, e~phas~z1ng progra~s t~at
provlde posltive and preventative actlVltles.
o provide coord1nated and enhanced services to d::.sabled
res~dents of Santa Mon1ca, enphaslz1ng prcgra..s that
enable lndiv~duals to I1ve lndependently.
o
provide
servl.ces
difficulty
servlces.
for improved "information and assistar.ce't
to those res~dents that experlence the nose
in learnlng about and using avallable social
Agencles cay prcpose new progra~ areas and targe~ grou~s t~ro~g~
th13 C01l0et:..::.tl.ve process. Any new areas and grO'..:r::s 1l1l1 be
consJdered ~n llg~t of a balanced ~atrlx of servlces, ava~lab:e
fund~ng and the conpe~1t1veness of the appl~ca~~cn.
!~e C1.ty s~!:'ct"'qly eJ'lcou=-ac;es 10int O~ ccl:!.abcYa't1~1'~ 1',)~c=osa!.s.
~-
Attachment A-3
com1U?-JITY AN'D NEIGHBORHOOD D1PROVEL'lE:JT PROJECTS
1987-88 Selection Criterla and Targeted prlorities
Selection Crlteria
o The proJect will result in lon-::r-ter-l benefit to low and
moderate inco~e resldents.
o The appllcatlon provides evidence that the proposed pro-
qr,~or proJect does not duplicate other progra~s or p=O]-
ects ln the co~~unlty.
o The proposed funding structure leverages City funds ~ath
non~ funds.
Go. f'j
o The proJect shows long-term potentlal for a cash return on
the CD3G lnvest~ent and does not requlre ongolr.g COBG or
qovernment support for malntenance.
o If the pro] €let is to be ill'.plenented by an outslC!.e or-
gan:!.zat:!.cn, the proposal appl1cat:!.on lnc~t:des doc'J"l'er<;a-
t1C~ of current ad~lnlstrat:!.ve capac1ty to ~~ple~ent co,-
InUn1ty develcp--ent proJects and to sus-::a::.n tr.e proJect.
operatlo~s throug~out the life of the proJect. as well as
exper~ence wlth slD1liar govern~ent-asS1sted progra-s.
o The ir.?lement~rg agency presents a progra~ that ~rclt:des
bot~ ad=lnlstratlYe procedures and a v1a~le i-ple~en~at~~n
plan for t~=ely eXeC~tlcn of the pro]ec~.
In a~=~t1on, due to
ellg:.ble for fund1-ng 1
fOllo....s:
the soec1flC nat~re of three pro]ec<;s
adc.lt~-o;-al crl~er~a wlll be appl~ed as
E=~Sl~~ Re~ab~12~at~on P~o~r~~s
o The pro~osed progra. cc~fcr-os to hTD lJrCGra, perf:::=:-ar::::e
stanc.a=cs 'iollt'1 an ad~ln.l.S~=a~lve cost C2.:p o~ 15% of 'the
total f~nds re~~ested.
One-ti~e Housina ACCUls~t:.O~ ard Rehab1lltat:'O"l ?rOlects
o The total project cost 1S reaso"lable Wl.th t!:e S:l!:lsl=Y
re~~est not exceedlng 33% of the to~al deYelcp~ent cost or
$35,000 per un~t, whlc~ever 15 less;
-.:a.. .
o The proJect location is located 1n tre C1-ty of Sa~ta Ponl-
ca and is free frD~ adverse envlror,ental l~pacts, e.g.,
nOlse, or the rehab1lltat1on actlv1t1es must successfully
mlt1gate these iDpacts:
o At least 7S% of the eXlstlrg te,ants in a proposed
rehab1lltation proJect ~us~ aff1~ ln wrltlng 1nterest 1n
particlpat1ng in the progran:
o The proJect bp-~flts a hlgh percentage of very low and low
Inco~e households.
Bar:-ier..Re.,oval for pr:.vate Non-pro!:.t A'1e.,cles Soc:'31 SE'r
Vlce Aqe'lCleS
o The total pro) ect cost is reasol"able to acl"-leve mi'1il"'uJ:1
accesslblllty standards.
o Th~~ro)ect site is located in the City of Santa Mon~ca.
o The pro] ect benefits a high percentage of persons w1th
disab.1l1t1eS.
Q The ability of the applicant to
owner par~lClpatlon agroenent
il"1pro"cments.
secure a long tern tenant
~lth the Clty for S.1te
Attachment A-4
Targeted Priorlties
(l) Funding decisions will be based on the prem~5e that highest
prJ.orJ.ty should continue to he given to prov:!.de cr::. tical
support to the City's affordable hous1ng program. However,
these decis:!.ons should be ~ade in the con~ext of the total
housJ.ng program, cOmbJ.ning CDS::; funds W1 th othe.; sources,
whenever poss~~le, in order to develop a cons:!.stent furdJ.ng
~trate9Y.
(2) Based on assess~ent activJ.ties throughout the year, specJ.al
consJ.deratJ.on "'J.l1 1:>e 9J.ven to proposals that. address the
housJ.nq needs of very-low incone, as well as lower or moder-
ate inco~e, persons and fam:!.lies in Santa ~on:!.ca. .
(3) Other eligible capital proJects w111 be consJ.cered J.f they
can be sho~n to Meet a clearly ident:!.f1ed and crJ.tJ.cal co,-
mun:!.ty need. SpecJ.al consJ.deratJ.on may be gJ.ven to elJ.gJ.~le
pro) acts that ....ould J:::enefJ. t disabled resJ.cents thr-ot:g'l 't1:.e
reroval of arc:utect:ural barr~ers J.n soc~al se.:.-v~ce
facJ.l~ties.
~.,..-
~
SECTION II
1987-88 FUNDING RECO}~lENDATIONS
AND
PROPOSAL ASSESSMENTS
CO}rnUNITY SERVICE PROPOSALS
ADEPT
Catholic Youth Org.
Center for 'the
Partially Sighted
City Landlord Legal
Voucher Assistance
CLARE (Sober Inn)
Connections for
Children
Family Service of
Santa Monica
Jewish Family Servo
of Santa Honica
Latino Resource Org.
Legal Aid Foundation
of Los Angeles 59,509
LIEU-CAP 96,376
Mid-City Neighbors -0-
Neigh. Just. Ctr.-General 43,004
" In School Mediation -a-
New start 117,725
OPCC - Clinical Counseling -0-
OPCC - Campion counseling 31,325
Project
OPCC - Daybreak
OPCC - Drop-In Advocacy
OPCC - Homeless outreach
Team
opec - Hiddle House
opec - sojourn
OPCC - Stepping stone
opec - Turning Point
Shelter
PNA - Core
PNA - Employment
Project Heavy West
Radio KCRW
St. Joseph'S Center
Salvation Army
Organization/Program
Funding
1986-87
33,746
55,000
11,000
4,000
80,000
122,014
100,454
14,061
98,123
88,153
111,279
79,826
-0-
33,041
64,511
80,324
102,718
44,829
24,191
48,369
35,000
7,914
Requested
1987-88
35,432
55,000
11,000
2,000
93,363
122,014
144,656
17,949
138,922
107,888
116,487
86,000
84,428
61,978
121,365
-0-
34,320
130,641
114,440
88,640
104,549
42,616
67,986
134,056
102,718
44,829
28,122
48,369
63,881
8,574
Recommended
1987-88
35,096
75,000
8,000
2,000
83,200
143,338
100,454
14,061
102,048
-0-
100,231
-0-
45,504
38,593
122,434
28,798
-0-
97,611
90,366
91,264
-0-
36,581
44,143
113,743
102,718
-0-
24,191
48,369
36,400
8,230
Organization/Program
8M Area Hlth.Action Coal.
SM Wests ide Hotline
Senior Health and PCC
So. Bay Youth Servo Ctr.
step Up on Second
Venice Athletic Club
Venice Family Clinic
WCIL
Wests ide Ecumenical
Conference (WEe)
Wests ide Fair Housing
council
Wests ide Food Bank
WISE - Case Management
and Respite Care
WISE - General Support
WISE - In-Home support
WISE - paratransit
westside Legal - Gen'I
If " Immigration
" " Tenant Adv.
YWCA
SUBTOTAL(S)
paratransit Setaside
TOTALS
Cd3
Funding
1986-87
-0-
1,000
66,856
-0-
-0-
-0-
42,280
26,537
20,560
-0-
75,815
37,583
128,371
96,000
331,211
109,659
-0-
-0-
-0-
Requested
1987-88
41,675
3,500
83,409
23,302
72,294
N/A
51,177
34,603
20,560
22,378
98,600
-0-
277,581
-0-
294,984
119,500
46,584
61,596
5,000
3,468,966
27,295
3,496,261
Recommended
1987-88
-0-
I,OOO
66,856
-0-
-0-
-0-
43,971
27,489
20,560
-0-
75,815
-0-
262,694
-0-
312,534
144,327
41,387
-0-
-0-
2,589,006
30,000
2,619{006
1987-88 COffi1UNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:
COMMUNITY SERVICE PROPOSALS
ADEPT: Recommended for funding ($35,096)
Organization requests funds to conduct an employment program
for the disabled.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of living increase.
The Agency has achieved high retention rates with a dif-
ficult to place population.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the ADEPT receive
a Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-88. Priority for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 and subject
to availability of funds.
CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION: Recommended for funding ($75,000)
Organization requests funds to conduct a youth employment
program for 14-15 year old youths.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with an additional stipend amount of
$20,000 dedicated to provide work-experience opportunities
for low-income youth from the Pico Neighborhood.
The program is very cost-effective, matChing city dollars
",ith funds from JTPA, and has improved its enrollment of
black youth in the program, as stipulated in the 1986-87
contract.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
include: (1) Expansion of job sites to include both non-
profit and private sites for youth employment; (2) continued
outreach efforts to increase black youth participation
equivalent to their representation in the Pico Neighborhood;
(3) development of a pico Neighborhood outreach plan for
the additional $20,000 award (to be developed in conjunction
with pico Neighborhood Association, LIEU-CAP and Latino
Resource Organization; (4) an evaluation of current program
design to ensure adequate pre-employment orientation and on-
site training opportunities for employed youth..
Funding Mechanism: Given the City I s plan for a ttvo-year
study of youth services, it is recommended that CYO receive
a Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-88. Priority for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 and subject
to the availability of funds.
- 1 -
CENTER FOR PARTIALLY SIGHTED: Recommended for funding ($8,000)
Organization requests funds to provide a program of compre-
hensive low-vision care.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
a reduced level. While city funds are not critical to the
delivery of services to Santa Monica residents, the or-
ganization is able to leverage a variety of funds because of
the City's funding participation.
Program Requirements: Requirements for 1987-88 funding
should include: (l) continued outreach efforts to the
minority community with particular emphasis on efforts to
increase participation by black residents, and (2) applica-
tion of city funds to outreach staff rather than to multiple
positions.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the Center for
the Partially Sighted receive a One-Year Operating Agreement
for 1987-88.
CITY LANDLORD LEGAL VOUCHER ASSISTANCE: Recommended for funding
($2,000)
City program requests funds to conduct a legal assistance
program for landlords who are income-eligible.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
a reduced level based on the past years' experience of pro-
gram usage.
CLARE - SOBER INN: Recommended for funding ($83,200)
Organization requests funds to continue the work of the
Sober Inn daytime drop-in Center and meal program.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of living increase.
CLARE has had a significant increase in the numbers of home-
less clients being fed.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that CLARE receive a
Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-88. Priority for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 and subject
to availability of funds.
- 2 -
CONNECTIONS FOR CHILDREN: Recommended for funding ($143,338)
Organization requests funds to provide childcare information
and referral services, to conduct a daycare scholarship pro-
gram for Santa Monica children, and other support services
for day care providers.
This currently funded program is recommended for a net in-
crease in funding based on the following: a small reduction
in the 1986-87 level of funding based on level of service to
Santa Monica residents, a continuation of $5,000 in funding
for expansion of family day care homes, and an additional
amount of $24,829 dedicated to provide childcare scholar-
ships to lower-income families of the Pico Neighborhood.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (I) use of funds for continuance of exist-
ing programs and for pico Neighborhood Scholarship Program
not for other new services included in the grant proposal,
(2) use of existing City-supported Scholarship funds only
for persons residing in the City of Santa Monica in 1987-88
(currently they are also used for those persons working in
the city of Santa Monica) and (3) development of an outreach
Plan for the enhanced scholarship program for the Pico
Neighborhood (to be developed in conjunction with the pico
Neighborhood Association, LIEU-CAP, Latino Resource Or-
ganization and United Community and Housing Development
Corporation) .
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that Connections for
Chlldren rece1ve a Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-88.
Priority for 1988-89 funding will be given based on docu-
mented evidence of effective grantee performance during
1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
FN1ILY SERVICE OF SANTA MONICA:
($100,454)
Recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to conduct a counseling program
to individuals, youths and families in Santa Monica as well
as to expand services to pregnant teenagers.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level. However, the expansion of services is
not recommended, because it did not meet selection criteria.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) Continuance of efforts to serve the
bilingual, bicultural counseling needs of the Santa Monica
Latino population, (2) use of City funds for 1 full-time
bilingual, bicul tura1 social worker to serve Latino youth
and families, and a match of an additional .5 bilingual,
bicultural social worker from non-City funds, and (3)
development of a plan for the summer activities of school
counseling staff and submittal of the plan to the city.
- 3 -
Funding Mechanism: Given the City's plan for a two-year
study of youth services, it is recommended that Family Ser-
vice receive a Rene",able Operating Agreement in 1987-88.
Priority for 1988-89 funding will be given based on docu-
mented evidence of effective grantee performance and subject
to availability of funds.
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF SANTA MONICA (Y-CARP): Recommended for
funding ($14,061)
Organization requests funds to conduct a counseling program
for school-age youth and their families at school sites as
well as at the agency.
This currently funded agency is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level.
Program Requirements: Proposedequirements for 1987-88 fund-
ing include: (1) development and implementation of a plan
for increased referrals of minority and low-income students
(in conjunction with School District counseling staff), (2)
consideration of changing on-site counseling to schools more
reflective of the overall minority representation in the
school district, and (3) development of a plan for the sum-
mer activities of school counseling staff and submlttal of
the plan to the city.
Funding Mechanism: Given the City's plan for a two-year
study of youth services, it is recommended that Jewish Fami-
ly Services receive a Renewable Operating Agreement ln 1987-
88. Priority for 1988-89 funding ",ill be given based on
documented evidence of effective grantee perofrmance during
1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
LATINO RESOURCE ORG~~IZATION: Recommended for funding ($102,048)
Organization requests funds to conduct a program of advoca-
cy, leadership development, information and assistance and
health education for the Latino community.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of living increase.
Program Requirements: This Agency has made progress in be-
coming a stable and viable organization during 1986-87.
However, since the Agency is still growing and solidifying
its direction, proposed requirements for 1987-88 funding
include: (1) a joint City/agency review of the workplan and
budget to further refine activities and directions for 1987-
88, (2) continued strengthening of the agency's management
capability, board leadership, staffing stability and fund
raising capability, (3) continuance of leadership develop-
ment activities with Latino families and enhancement of in-
take and outreach capabilities during 1987-88. City funding
should not be used for research and development, additional
- 4 -
children's program staff or for the young adult leadership
program activities.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the Latino
Resource organization receive a One-Year Operating Agreement
for 1987-88. The city will also provide specialized techni-
cal assistance activities during the coming year.
LEGAL AID FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES: Not recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to conduct a program of legal
assistance counseling and representation for low-income San-
ta Monica tenants and intake and initial counseling services
for Santa Monica landlords. Additional funds are requested
to increase the services from part-time to full-time.
The duplication of tenant legal services to Santa Monica
residents has been an area considered by the city for some
time. In analyzing the current efficiencies of the legal
service delivery system and the cost effectiveness of all
proposed programs, it is recommended that this currently-
funded program not be funded in 1987-88. Funds to support
the same level of low-income tenant/landlord legal assis-
tance have been transferred to Wests ide Legal Services and a
small amount to the Neighborhood Justice Center for a court
diversion tenant/landlord mediation project.
LIEU-CAP: Recommended for funding ($100,231)
Organization requests funds to conduct a program of social
service advocacy in the pico Neighborhood, emergency food
services and social, cultural and educational activltles for
isolated senior citizens.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of living increase.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) Improvement of the agency's internal
management and operations including election of a duly-
constituted permanent Board of Directors and the designation
of a staff person in the Santa Monica office as Santa Monica
Program Coordinator, (2) development and implementation of a
staff training program, (3) a j oint city/Agency review of
service targets for the neighborhood and, (4) once nego-
tiated, successful attainment of targeted activity levels.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that LIEU-CAP receive
a contingency Contract for 1987-88 requiring that the agency
meet the above performance standards in order to be con-
sidered for 1988-89 funding. ci ty staff will continue to
work with the Agency for the successful achievement of the
stated standards through a specialized Technical Assistance
Program.
- 5 -
MID-CITY NEIGHBORS: Not recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to conduct a program of citizen
participation and advocacy in the mid-city neighborhood.
This is a program not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding at this time because of planning
efforts unden-Iay by the ci ty Manager I s Working Group on
Neighborhood Associations to develop a recommended model for
city support of neighborhoods.
NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTER: Recommended for funding
DISPUTE RESOLUTION: ($45,504)
Organization requests funds to conduct a dispute resolution
program plus an enhancement for information and referral
services.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 levels and an additional $2,500 for a pilot
court diversion mediation project for Santa Monica tenant
unlavlful detainer cases, operated in cooperation ~.lith the
Santa Monica Court. The enhanced information and referral
program is not recommended for funding because it did not
meet selection criteria and the City's plans in 1987-88 to
study the needs of Santa Honica residents for information
and referral/hotline services.
Program Reouirements: proposed requirements
funding inciude: (I) an equivalent cash match
support of the pilot Court Hediation proj ect
receive City funding for that project.
for 1987-88
of $21500 in
in order to
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the Neighborhood
Justice Center receive a Renewable Operating Agreement for
1987-88. Priority for 1988-89 funding will be given based
on documented evidence of effective grantee performance
during 1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
IN-SCHOOL MEDIATION: ($38,593)
Organization requests funds to conduct an in-school media-
tion and dispute resolution program.
This is a new program supported by the Santa Monica Board of
Education and is designed as a pilot project directed toward
resolving school disruptions, improving problem solving and
enhancing youth's ability to deal with conflict often at the
school site.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) strong evidence of match funds from
non-city sources to help support total program costs during
- 6 -
1987-88, (2) use of City funds to support bvo staff posi-
tions and printing of program materials, and (3) continuance
of strong school District support.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the Neighborhood
Justice Center receive a One-Year Operating Agreement con-
sistent with the need to determine the effectiveness and the
merit of the program after one year.
NEW START: Recommended for funding ($122,434)
Organization requests funds to provide counseling services
to adult clients and youths, and to provide drug education
and short-term crisis counseling to youth at school sites.
This currently funding agency was rated highly and is recom-
mended for funding at the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of
living increase.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that New start receive
a Renevlable Operating Agreement in 1987-88. Prior~ty for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance and subject to availability
of funds.
OCEAN PARK COI~1UNITY CENTER (OpeC): Recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to provide a variety of compre-
hensive services to the homeless and to low income and spe-
cial need residents of Santa Monica.
While there have been reductions and enhancements to indi-
vidual OPCC programs based on the service to Santa Honica
clients, the recommended overall agency funding is at 1986-
87 levels with a 4% cost of living increase. Included in
the reallocation of funds is partial funding of a new admin-
istrative position to support the entire agency structure.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that OPCC receive a
Renewable Operating Agreement for 1987-88. Priority for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 and subject
to availability of funds. This does not include Daybreak
which is recommended for a One-Year operating Agreement,
given the need to review the effectiveness of this new pro-
gram after approximately one year of operation.
The individual programs of OPCC are described below:
CAMPION COUNSELING PROJECT: Not recommended for funding as
a separate project, however, $28,798 is recommended for
counseling staff.
Organization requests funds to conduct a counseling program
for clients in need of affordable counseling services with
- 7 -
special emphasis on victims of domestic violence and the
homeless.
This currently funded program is not recommended for funding
as a separate project. Hm..rever it is recommended that a
clinical counseling position be funded to work with clients
of other opec programs in need of clinical supervision or
mental health counseling.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) development and implementation of a
plan to provide this clinical counseling support to the
relevant programs, and (2) use of funds for needed support
to opec programs serving a high number of low-income Santa
Monica residents or homeless (excluding Sojourn and stepping
stone).
DAYBREAK WOMEN'S DAY CENTER:
($97,611)
Recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to provide a day center for
chronically homeless women.
This currently funded program is recommended for increased
funding due to a reallocation of total opec funds based on
the level of service to Santa nonica and a 4% cost of living
increase.
DROP-IN ADVOCACY CENTER: Recommended for funding ($90,366)
organization requests funds to operate a drop-in crisis
intervention program that provides comprehensive needs as-
sessments and multi-dimensional social services.
This currently funded program is recommended for a decreased
allocation based on the number of Santa Honica clients it
serves.
HOMELESS OUTREACH TEM1: Recommended for funding ($91,264)
Organization requests funds to identify and assist homeless
clients in the field tolho have not accessed available ser-
vices and to assist Santa r10nica businesses and residents
who come in contact with the homeless.
This currently funded program is recommended for increased
funding due to reallocation of total OPCC funds which in-
cludes an enhancement for the number of Santa Monica clients
served and a 4% cost of living increase.
- 8 -
MIDDLE HOUSE: Not reco~~ended for funding.
Organization requests funds to provide a transition shelter
to 16 and 17 year old youths who would otherwise remain
homeless.
This is a program not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because it did not meet selection
criteria.
SOJOURN: Recommended for funding ($36,581)
Organization requests funds to operate a shelter for bat-
tered women and their children, a 24-hour hotline, and to
provide individual, family and group counseling.
This currently funded program is recommended for a small
increase due to the reallocation of total OPCC funds based
and a 4% cost of living increase.
STEPPING STONE: Recommended for funding ($44/143)
Organization requests funds to provide residential services
to runaway youths and individual, group and family counsel-
ing services.
This currently funded program is recommended for a decreased
allocation based on the number of Santa l10nica clients it
serves.
TUIDfING POINT SHELTER: Recommended for funding ($113/7~3)
Organization requests funds to continue to operate a shelter
for the homeless.
This currently funded program is recommended for increased
funding due to the reallocation of total OPCC funds based on
the number of Santa Monica clients served and a 4% cost of
living increase.
PICa NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION: Recommended for funding
CORE ORGANIZING ($102,718)
Organization requests funds to continue
citizen participation, crime prevention,
referral and leadership training.
its program of
information and
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) Use of up to $58,209 of the grant award
during the first six months of 1987-88 to ensure that there
will be full funding for the four full-time staff positions
- 9 -
for the first six months of the contract year, with no
m.atching funds required for this period), (2) use of the
remaining grant amount during the second six month period in
accordance with the City's overall plan for providing sup-
port to neighborhood associations, (3) improvement of inter-
nal management and operations including staff oversight and
training and Board development, (4) joint city/Agency review
to develop a workplan that reflects needed activities and
appropriate activity levels, to ensure broad-based resident
participation in PNA activities, and (5) once negotiated,
successful attainment of these activity levels in 1987-88.
Funding Mechanism: Until such time as the City develops
organizational criteria and general performance standards
for city-supported neighborhood associations, it is recom-
mended that PNA receive a contingency Contract pursuant to
the performance standards stated above. Staff will continue
to work with the agency for the successful achievement of
these standards through a specialized Technical Assistance
Program.
EMPLOYMENT: Not recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to continue its programs of out-
reach and advocacy to local enployers and residents in need
of jobs and to provide stipends for tasks performed by youth
participants.
This currently funded program is not recommended for funding
because the program did not meet the selection criteria.
However, the funding has been transferred for related ser-
vices to the Pico Neighborhood. Recommendations for spe-
cially targeted employment-related services have been in-
cluded under recommendations for Catholic Youth Organization
(eYo) and Connections for Children.
PROJECT HEAVY WEST: Recommended for funding ($24,191)
organization requests funds to conduct a truancy reduction
program.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
fund1ng include: (1) development and implementation of plan
to increase the non-City funding match in future years in
order to eliminate the need for city funding for counseling
staff during summer months ~Ilhen truancy services are not
needed by the School District and Police Department, and (2)
development of a plan for use of counseling staff during
summer of 1987 and submittal to the City (city funding will
be available for this summer in order to give the agency
sufficient lead time to procure the needed funding).
- 10 -
Funding Mechanism: Given the City's plan for a two-year
study of youth services, it is recommended that project
Heavy West receive a Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-
88. Priority for 1988-89 funding will be given based on
documented evidence of effective grantee performance during
1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
RADIO KCRW: Recommended for funding ($48,369)
Organization requests funds to continue to broadcast the
regularly scheduled City Council meetings.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that Radio KCRW
receive a Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-88. priori-
ty for 1988-89 funding will be given based on documented
evidence of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 and
subject to availability of funds.
ST. JOSEPH CENTER: Recommended for funding ($36,400)
Organization requests funds to provide essential emergency
services to the homeless and low income fanilies in the San-
ta Monica/Venice area. Also requested is an enhancement of
an employment effort with focus on the homeless.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 with a 4% cost of living increase. The enhance-
ment is not recommended because it is not a targeted pro-
gram priority for 1987-88, and it did not meet selection
criteria.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that st. Joseph's Cen-
ter receive a Rene\vable Operating Agreement for 1987-88.
Priority for 1988-89 funding ,,;ill be given based on docu-
mented evidence of effective grantee performance during
1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
SALVATION AID~Y: Recommended for funding ($8,230)
Organization requests funds to conduct a meal program five
days a week for homeless individuals.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of living increase.
Funding Mechanism: Due to the nature of the feeding pro-
gram, it is recommended that the Salvation Army receive a
One-Year operating Agreement, consistent with the ongoing
need to review the effectiveness for a limited feeding pro-
gram at an extended location.
- II -
. .
SANTA MONICA AREA HEALTH ACTION COALITION: Not recommended for
funding.
Organization requests funds to conduct a Medicare ID10 proj-
ect which would assess the quality of care being provided by
Santa Monica Medicare ID10s to enrollees and to educate and
assist Santa Monica residents.
This is a program not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because it is not a targeted program
priority for 1987-88 and it did not meet selection criteria.
SANTA MONICA/WESTSIDE HOTLINE: Recommended for funding ($1,000)
Organization requests funds to conduct a crisis-intervention
hotline.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level. An increase is not recommended at this
time due to the City's plans in 1987-88 to study the needs
of Santa Monica residents for information and referral/
hotline services.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the Santa Monlca/
\'iestside Hotline receive funding through a purchase order
arrangement because of the small funding amount involved.
SENIOR HEALTH AND PEER COUNSELING:
($66,856)
Recommended for funding
Organization requests funds to conduct free preventive
health care program for seniors including health screening
health education and peer counseling. Also requested is an
enhancement for homeless seniors.
This currently funded organization is recommended for fund-
ing at the 1986-87 level. The enhancement is not recommen-
ded because of the unavailability of funds and it is not a
targeted program priority for 1987-88.
Program Requirements: This is a highly rated program.
However, proposed requirements for 1987-88 funding include:
Additional outreach efforts to the black community and to
low-income persons.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that Senior Health and
Peer counseling Center receive a Renewable Operating Agree-
ment for 1987-88. Priority for 1988-89 funding will be
given based on documented evidence of effective grantee per-
formance during 1987-88 and subject to availability of
funds.
- 12 -
. .
SOUTH BAY YOUTH SERVICE CENTER: Not recommended for funding.
organization requests funds to operate an employment program
for hard to serve, disadvantaged youth in Santa Monica.
This is a program not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because the program did not meet the
selection criteria.
STEP UP ON SECOND: Not recommended for funding.
Organi"zation requests funds to provide a weekend drop-in
center for the mentally ill homeless.
This program is not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because of the unavailability of
funds and because it is not a targeted program priority for
1987-88.
VENICE ATHLETIC CLUB:
Not reco~~ended for funding.
Organization requests funds for youth football.
This program is not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because the proposal did not meet
the selection criteria.
VENICE FA}IILY CLINIC: Recommended for funding ($43,971)
Organization requests funds to maintain free health care
delivery services to loitl-incor.e residents of Santa uonica
and to homeless persons in Santa Monica, including triage in
the field and visits in the clinic.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level with a 4% cost of living increase. This
is a highly rated agency ivhose patient load has increased
significantly.
Funding Mechanism: It is recoMmended that Venice Family
CI~nic recelve a Renewable Operating Agreement in 1987-88.
Priori ty for 1988-89 funding will be given based on docu-
mented evidence of effective grantee performance during
1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
WESTSIDE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING: Recommended for funding
($27,489)
Organization requests funds to provide a comprehensive array
of support services for people with disabilities, 18 or
older, who need assistance in order to maintain or increase
their level of independence.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
approximately the same level as 1986-87.
- 13 -
. .
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
fund~ng include: (1) Use of City funds to support the agen-
cy's comprehensive services for disabled Santa Monica resi-
dents, (2) continued advocacy to ensure adequate and appro-
priate housing for disabled individuals and (3) evaluation
of current outreach efforts to Santa Monica seniors to en-
sure access of welL services by this population.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that welL receive a
Renewable Operating Agreement for 1987-88. Priority for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 and subject
to availability of funds.
WESTS IDE ECUMENICAL CONFERENCE - MEALS ON WHEELS: Recommended
for funding ($20,560)
Organization requests funds to conduct a program of home-
delivered meals to homebound Santa Monica residents.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level.
Program Requirements: This is a cost effective program and
has a h~gh use of volunteers. HO~lever, based on prior
years. funding stipulations, proposed requirements for 1987-
88 funding include: (1) re-establishment of a 9th delivery
route to serve low-income, minority neighborhoods and resi-
dents, (2) an increase in outreach to minority communities,
(3) an increase in participation by minority volunteers and
clients, and (4) an increase in participation by low-income
clients.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that WEe receive a
Contingency Contract requiring that the agency meet the
above performance standards to be considered for the same
leve of funding in 1988-89. City staff will work with the
agency for the successful achievement of the stated stan-
dards through technical assistance activities.
WESTSIDE FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL: Not recommended for funding.
Organization requests funds to provide a fair housing inves-
tigation program for victims of housing discrimination in
Santa Monica.
This program is not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because it is not a targeted program
priority for 1987-88 and it did not meet selection criteria.
The City Attorney's Fair Housing Program annually determines
its need for additional investigative and testing services
and contracts with other providers as needed.
- 14 -
WESTSIDE FOOD BANK: Recommended for funding ($75,815)
Organization requests funds to operate a food bank serving
agencies which provide services to the homeless and low-
income Santa Monica residents.
This currently funded program is recommended for funding at
the 1986-87 level. Included in this recommendation is
$10,608 to establish an account with a food wholesaler for
purchases by the Salvation Army Meals program.
Program Requirements: While the agency meets a non-
duplicative and critical need, proposed requirements for
1987-88 funding include: an increased level of service to
Santa Monica's homeless service providers equivalent to the
level of City funding that supports the organization's
operating costs (the City is currently funding a dispropor-
tionate share of the organization's administrative costs.
Santa Monica's funding contribution to the administration
and operation of the program is 63% as compared to a current
rate of 36% of all food being distributed to Santa Monica
agencies.)
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that the Wests ide Food
Bank receive a contingency Contract requiring that the agen-
cy meet the above performance standard in order to be con-
sidered for the same level of funding in 1987-88.City staff
will continue to work with the Agency to achieve agreement
on food distribution.
WISE - GENERAL SUPPORT: Recommended for funding ($262,694)
Organization requests funds to provide services to address
the continuum of care for the elderly. These include case
management services, information and referral assistance,
in-home assistance, registry of in-home workers, adult day-
care through Olive stone Center and Alzheimers Day Care,
caregiver and family support, Ombudsman services, RSVP, com-
munity education and outreach programs.
This currently-funded program is recommended for funding at
a reduced level from 1986-87 due to the elimination of costs
of the Shared Housing program. It also includes a 4% cost
of living increase for continuing programs.
Program Requirements: The Agency has recently changed its
management structure and responsibilities which should have
an impact on its administra ti ve effectiveness. Hmvever,
proposed requirements for 1987-88 funding include: (1)
verification of services to 75% or more low-income clients
(using CDBG income guidelines) in order to receive the pro-
posed cost-of-living increase, (2) negotiation of an accept-
able administrative cost allocation plan to be included in
the grant budget, (3) significant increases in the level of
service to minority seniors in Santa Monica, and (4) use of
- 15 -
. .
existing outreach staff for increased "case-finding" activi-
ties to identify isolated seniors not yet aware of available
services.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that WISE receive a
Renewable operating Agreement of 1987-88. Priority for
1988-89 funding will be given based on documented evidence
of effective grantee performance during 1987-88 (in particu-
lar, the increase in minority participation) and subject to
the availability of funds.
WISE - PARATRANSIT: Recommended for funding ($312,534)
Organization requests funds to provide a transportation ser-
vice for the senior and disabled residents of Santa Monica.
The current paratransi t service is providing a variety of
modes of transportation for Santa Monica residents, includ-
ing taxi appointments, group shopping trips in vans, and
lift-equipped van service.
This currently funded program is recommended at a reduced
level. The amount includes reduction of one tine capital
costs and a 4% cost-of-living increase.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) the formation of joint City/Agency
review committee to conduct an assessment of the most ef-
fecti ve ways of meeting Santa Monica resident's needs for
paratransit services, (2) development and implementation of
plans for the most cost effective use of vehicles and for an
emergency response capability for services during the
weekend and after business hours, (3) increased minority
participation in the program, and (4) development of an ad-
ministrative cost allocation plan reflecting the 15% ceiling
in keeping with L.A. County Transportation Commission
requirements.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that tHSE receive a
Cont~ngency Contract for 1987-88 requiring that the agency
meet the above performance standards to be considered for
1988-89 funding. City staff will work with the agency for
the successful achievement of the stated standards through
participation in the joint CitY/Agency review committee.
PARATRANSIT SET ASIDE: Recommended for funding ($30,000)
It is recommended that funds be set aside pending approval
of a plan for improved and enhanced emergency response
transportation services for disabled and senior residents.
- 16 -
. .
WESTSIDE LEGAL SERVICES: Recommended for funding
GENERAL LEGAL SERVICES: ($144,327)
Organization requests funds to provide legal assistance to
low-income residents of Santa Monica.
This currently-funded program is recommended for increased
funding which includes a 4% cost of living increase and an
enhancement for tenant/landlord advocacy services previously
performed by Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles in an ef-
fort to consolidate similar services.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding for ongoing activities include: (1) the use of
"maintenance of effort" Ci ty funds to maintain the ap-
proved 1986-87 staffing levels of two full-time attorneys,
(2) 63% of clients receiving direct legal representation to
be Santa Monica residents in order to justify the proposed
level of city funding to the organization, and (3) a joint
City/Agency assessment to determine the unmet legal service
needs of Santa Monica senior residents.
Requirements for 1987-88 funding for enhanced tenant/
landlord legal assistance should include: (1) the use of
the additional city funds for legal services to Santa Monica
residents only, (2) evidence that the agency can provide a
minimum of 20% of the total cost of enhanced services from
non-City sources, and (3) the provision of intake and ini-
tial counseling of low-income landlords and referral to the
City'S Landlord Legal Assistance Voucher Program.
Funding f1echanism: In order to allmv sufficient time to
evaluate the effectiveness of non-duplicative legal services
in Santa Monica, it is recommended that the westside Legal
Service receive a Renewable Operating Agreement for 1987-88.
Priority for 1988-89 funding will be given based on docu-
mented evidence of effective grantee performance during
1987-88 and subject to availability of funds.
IMMIGRATION:
($41,387)
Organization requests funding to provide legal services spe-
cially designed to serve the needs of Hispanic i:m..'nigrants
under the new Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
This is a new program that very successfully met selection
criteria. The proposal demonstrated a clear and urgent need
for Santa Monica residents.
Program Requirements: Proposed requirements for 1987-88
funding include: (1) evidence of the agency's ability to
raise sufficient matching funds to ensure the viability of
the project, (2) negotiation with the City regarding program
design and timeline, and (3) development of memoranda of
- 17 -
understanding between WLS and other related agencies working
with immigration issues for the same population: inc~uding,
but not limited to Catholic Social Services at st. Anne's,
Latino Resource Center, st. Joseph Center and LIEU-CAP.
Funding Mechanism: It is recommended that westside Legal
Services rece~ve a One-Year Operating Agreement consistent
with the need to evaluate the need for and effectiveness of
this program after a year's operation.
TENANT ADVOCACY: Not recommended as a separate project.
Organization requests funds to operate a specialized housing
unit specifically designed to provide comprehensive legal
services to Santa monica's low-income tenants.
This is a program not recommended for funded as a special-
ized unit in this Agency. Part of this service has been
included in the recommendation's for Westside Legal Services
General Legal Services Program.
YWCA: Not recommended for funding.
Organization requests funds to purchase computer equipment
for children at the after school/summer Day Camp program.
This program is not currently funded in 1986-87 and is not
recommended for funding because the proposal did not meet
the selection criteria.
:proposal
- 18 -
SECTION III
CO}~lISSION REPORTS
(
(
l
SOCIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
SUMMARY REPORT OF ASSESSMENTS
COMMUNITY SERVICES PROJECT APPLICATIONS 1987/1988
At a speclal meeting held on Saturday, May 9~ 1987, the $oc1al Service
Commiss1on approved the follow1ng recommendations for cons1deratlon by the
Santa Monica City Council toward funding dec1s1ons for the 1987/1988
Commun1ty Service Grants:
I. OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Init1ate a study of the potential for consolidation of the various
Cri sis Intervention and Informatlon and Referral "Hotl ines" currently
being offered and proposed by varlOUS city funded agencies. Such a study
should look to the opportunlty for central izing such activ1ties in one
program~ perhaps at the Clty I S new mul ti -serV1ce center. The Comml 5S1 on
wl1l establish a task force to consider these actlvlt1es w1th Clty staff.
B. Develop an equitable, un1form fundlng formula for nelghborhood
organlZatlons. Such a plan should allow for baS1C overhead of locat1on
and minimum staff to identlfy local nelghborhood needs, estab11sh
pr1or1tie5, and sol iClt membershlp and resources to meet those needs.
ThlS recommendation supports the working group we understand has formed to
look into the lssue.
C. The Commission feels that although some programs are trying to
address employment needs in the community, a study should be undertaken to
determine the extent of the problem and aSslst ln the development of some
approprlate models for Work Experlence, Job Tralnlng, and Employment
Service. We plan to make a more speclflc recommendation after a reVlew
wlth City staff.
D. If the City Council can identlfy additlonal funding resources, we
recommend expendltures based on the following priorlties:
1. Cost of Llvlng increases should be extended to ALL currently
funded programs meetlng current contract obJectlves.
2. The fol1owlng speclflC agencles should be consldered for
funding as noted 1n our Speclflc Recommendatlons:
*Step Up On Second Street (Weekend Program)
*Mld-Clty Nelghbors
*Westslde Hotllne
. ,
II. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Commission generally agrees with city staff funding and type
of contract recommendations, with the following specific comments
and major exceptions as noted by asterisk(*):
Agency
Overall Contract
Assessment Recommendation
High 2yr.
ADEPT
Recommended for funding. The agency should be aware that the
Commission is recommending an overall study of the effectiveness
of employment programs.
Catholic Youth organization
Medium
Contingency*
This program does insufficient outreach and the 30%
population of the pica Neighborhood is underserved.
with School District's WorkAbility program does not
in evidence.
black
Coordination
appear to be
It is recommended that a contingency contract be offered and an
overall assessment of activities of youth training and employment
be fully evaluated. Any increase in funding over last year's
level should be contingent upon the agency meeting it's stated
goals.
The Commission split 3/2 in favor of a contingency contract
versus a 2 year contract as proposed by City staff.
Center for the Partially Sighted
High
lyr.
This program is rated high and represents the type of services
sorely needed in our community. There is concern about the lack
of a black outreach worker for that population. Despite
improvement in the number of people served since last year's
total, it is felt that funding be made contingent upon the
certainty of providing a black outreach worker.
CLARE Foundation
High
2yr.
The proposal, while highly thought of, did not clearly define
what added service would be provided by the added cost.
Connections For Children
High
2yr.
This agency's proposal and record rates highly in our jUdgment.
However, this agency should not utilize City funding to study
teen parenting, pregnancy, child support and divorce. These
subjects should be referred to appropriate existing agencies.
- 1 -
r .
Family Services of Santa Monica
Medium
2yr.
This agency provides needed services and is well thought of.
However, it is felt that the agency's priorities should be
revised to encompass the urgency in the field of teenage
pregnancy counseling at existing funding level.
Jewish Family Service
Medium
2yr.
It is strongly recommended that funding be approved as long as
they accept the restriction that a priority should be established
for low-income community residents.
Latino Resource Organization (LRO)
High
lyr.
The proposal was rated highly and defines desirable objectives.
However, it is felt that a more realistic reappraisal of
priorities by the agency to be in order.
Legal Aid Foundation of
Los Angeles (LAFLA)
Low
No
We feel that our most appropriate recommendation would be to not
fund this agency. We feel that this represents a duplication of
services and is not cost effective.
LIEU-CAP
Low
Contingency
We propose the unusual procedure of recommending the separation
of LIEU-CAP to a separately funded operation of LIEU-CAP as a
purely Santa Monica entity.
It is recommended that a new director be assigned; that a new
Board of Directors be developed~ that the employment/training
activities be, for the present, halted; that the entity be
reorganized and a proper budget be developed for its activities.
Mid City Neighbors
Medium
Contingency*
conceptually the Commission feels that neighborhood associations
are in general worthy of support, although not to the level
requested here. It is felt and recommended that support be
allocated to provide overhead cost coverage and that the
additional funds as may be required come as a result of more
neighborhood participation, membership, fundraising etc. We
recommend some funding to all agency operation, pending the
outcome of a study toward a suitable model for City support of
Neighborhood Organizations.
Neighborhood Justice Center (NJC)
NJC (General)
High
2yr.
Despite the high rating it is felt that the doubling of budget
request is not justified in terms of what NJC states as program
- 2 -
. .
enhancement. The proposal seems to represent a reduction of
services to the community. City staff should look carefully at
the current contract to insure level of service currently
provided.
NJC (In-School Mediation)
L~
lyr.
Despite the indicated rating, it is felt that the program as
outlined is meritorious but lacks the obvious financial support
of the School District whose population will directly benefit.
The design of the program is in question in that it is felt that
a longer range program development in the elementary schools
would be more effective than dealing with an already stratified
population existing in the John Adams school.
High
Hlgh
2yr.
2yr.
New start - Adult
New Start - Youth
Their services are highly regarded. Their proposals are most
responsive and clearly defined.
New Start's Hotline activities should be eliminated and
consolidated along with other hotlines to a single 24 hour, 7 day
a week hotline, such as the Westside Hotline. See overall
recommendation on Hotlines.
Ocean Park Community Center (Opec)
opec (campion)
Low
lyr.
Funding as requested is recommended with the proviso that clients
shall be those in no/low-income categories. Clients capable of
paying for services on a sliding scale should be referred to
alternate agencies.
opec (Daybreak)
Medium
lyr.
While the need for for this function is obvious, it is felt that
any increase in funding over last year's allocation is
unwarranted. There is much confusion in the budget and the need
shown by the client numbers are not satiSfactorily supported.
The projected income from fund raising as stated is highly
questionable in light of prior activities.
oPcc (Drop-in Service Center)
Low
2yr.
This center appears to be the intake operation for all other opec
functions. As such it reflects a duplication of service already
present within OPCC operations and would appear to be overstaffed
for those functions. Reduced funding is recommended.
- 3 -
. .
OPCC (Homeless outreach Team)
Low
Contingency*
This proposal is not recommended for funding. Sadly, the
original direction of this activity did not satisfy the original
objectives and has now grown to involve uncalled for case
management of the contacted homeless. However, rather than a
clean cut-off of funds and in consideration of those homeless now
under case management, it is recommended that they be funded for
a maximum of six months or less, within which period those
clients can be properly transferred to existing agency activity.
The Commission split 3/1 in favor of this recommendation over a I
year contract.
opec (Middle House)
Low
No
This proposal is not recommended for funding. What is described
is basically a duplication of services and other areas overlap
with existing services.
OPCC (Sojourn)
H~gh
2yr.
Funding approval recommended.
OPcc (stepping stone)
Medium
2yr.
Recommended for funding as requested.
opec (Turning Point Shelter)
Medium
2yr.
It is recommended that no additional funding be approved in that
their basis for such an increase has not been clearly developed.
PNA (Organizing)
Low
~ontingency
The low rating by this Commission does not in any way diminish
the need for such an organization. However, its staffing is most
inadequate from every standpoint: be it organization, membership
or aggressive leadership regarding pressing needs in the
neighborhood it represents.
Rather than full cut-off funds it is recommended to maintain
facilities with funds for one quarter, and minimum staff be
approved while proposals for needed staffing and reorganization
be aggressively pursued. The balance of funds should be set
aside until such time as staff and board are effectively
reconstituted.
The Working Group should be developing a model which will guide
future support to all neighborhood associations.
PNA (Employment)
Low
No
Not recommended for funding.
- 4 -
project Heavy West
Medium
2yr.
We feel that they are providing services useful to schools and
police, and it is felt that the schools should contribute some
funds to this program in view of the fact that they gain
financially from services provided by this agency. We recommend
no increase in funds.
St. Joseph's Center
High
2yr.
This agency's activities are highly regarded and are supported by
this Commission. However, this notwithstanding it was strongly
felt that their activities in the area of employment, placement
and training be abandoned and that such activity be restricted to
more appropriate agencies by referral. If funding for this
activity was a part of their request, staff should review this
request and adjust the funding accordingly.
Salvation Army
High
lyr.
A cost effective program despite the fact that no progress
appears to have been made to join with other feeding programs for
overall coordination.
S.M. Area Health Action coalition
Lm.;
No
While the direction and objectives of this group are laudable, it
is felt that this advocacy function is, in the main, already
covered by other agency activities. As such, we feel that the
proposal should not be funded.
Santa Monica Wests ide Hotline
High
lyr.
The service of this organization is cost-effective.
It is strongly recommended that City staff and Commission review
the true nature of UHotlines" to determine ~.;hich is a bona fide
Hotline or an I and R function.
senior Health and Peer
Counseling Center (SHPCC)
High
2yr.
This program is rated high and represents desirable activities
and goals. However, there persists a reality of poor outreach in
the black population, although they appear to have responded
appropriately in the Latino community. This problem should be
addressed.
In addition it is felt that the senior homeless program with st.
John's Hospital not be funded in that currently funded programs
already address this population.
- 5 -
. <
s~uth Bay Youth Services
Low
No
This application is not cost effective; and represents a
duplication of services already existing in Santa Monica, we
question the ability of staff to perform.
s~ep Up On Second
High
1yr.*
This agency is recommended for the services performed to the
mentally ill homeless population.
It was felt-that the funds requested for their weekend operation
might be somewhat excessive for that need, although their weekend
operation was found desirable and non-duplicated.
Venice Athletic Club
Low
No
Whereas the request for funds was initiated upon their recent
need for funds, and they did not heretofore include Santa Monica
youth participation of any numbers, we recommend no funding.
venice Family Clinic
High
2yr.
The performance of this agency is outstanding and its growth and
financial independence represents the ultimate goal that we would
like to see in other such agencies. However, as an obvious
restraint in fiscal resources faces us in the city, we recommend
that this request be funded but reduced in amount from that
requested.
WCIL
High
~yr.
Highly regarded programs in an area of great need and continuing
attention. It is felt that while additional funding for the 1.5
employees is supported, there are specific items that must be
addressed as a contingency to item funding approval.
welL has not been able to show constructive results in the area
of housing for the handicapped. It is felt that more aggressive
advocacy should be undertaken in an approach to the Santa Monica
City Council, City staff and Housing commission, even to the
extent of advocating changes to the Community Corporation
mandate, making a reality of providing housing for the
handicapped as well as low/moderate income citizens.
westside Ecumenical Conference (WEC)
Meals on Wheels
High
Contingency
The program is highly thought of and deserves the requested
support. However, there is strong feeling that additional
emphasis should be placed on WEC to bring about the reality of
the 9th route. In addition, more outreach is required and that
the appropriate ethnic volunteers be sought to support this added
route. The hospital should be contacted to discuss the
possibility of a more appropriate menu for the designated area.
- 6 -
.
Wests ide Fai~ Housing Council
Low
No
Recommend no funding.
Wests ide Food Bank
High
contingency
It is recommended that requested funding be approved with the
explicit agreement that the opec Day Break and CLARE Teen Center
be supplied with food.
WISE
Medium
lyr.*
It is felt that this agency, providing needed services to City
elderly, should be requested to review their budget request in
view of the fact that two specific agency activities have been
eliminated by their own direction, despite their request for
increased funding. Their unilateral decision to establish a
senior I/R phone service should be held in abeyance until it is
determined that a consolidated hotline cannot accommodate this
need.
Their financial budget submitted was not clear and should be
revised for Clarity.
This is one of other agencies that staff should review as to the
presence of adequate management skills required by the agency's
broad activities.
WISE - paratransit
Medium
continaencv
- .
In a rather unusual procedure, this Commission discussed in great
detail the subject of transportation for senior disabled, and
find much discontent with the manner in which this program is
being run. It is strongly recommended that staff review the
operations and related cost as to the cost-effectiveness of this
service.
There are significant omissions in this current service in that
no service is available after 5:00 p.m. on Fridays for the entire
weekend. Additionally, after 5:00 p.m. every day of the week, no
service can be programmed even for emergencies or specified
necessities.
There is reason to believe that this function could best be
operated on a more professional basis and that competitive
proposals from appropriate entities should be sought.
We recommend a prompt internal review and in the interim
recommend the amount of funds for no more than a six month period
during which such a review and evaluation be completed.
- 7 -
Westside Legal Services (WLS)
WLS (General)
High
2yr.
It is recommended that the general funding requested be approved
with the clear understanding that the Tenant Advocacy activity,
separately proposed be incorporated herein. We consider the
Tenant Advocacy service as a high priority.
WLS(Tenant Advocacy)
Low
No
It is felt that this activity was originally included in the
presently funded general program and as such should not be funded
as a separate new program.
WLS(Immigration)
High
lyr.
In view of the complexity and need for such services to a large
segment of our community we feel it timely to fund this proposal.
YWCA
Low
No
Not recommended for funding by virtue of the fact that there are
more pressing social problems in need of support.
sum
- 8 -
CITY OF SAiVTA ill0iVICA
CO.lLlllSSIOS ov OLDrR Al1LRIC t \'S
C/TYH4LL.1685 lf4ISSTRLTT. 'd\T-1lfQ\/CI Cl/1JOR\/-1 (jl).JIJ!
April 14, 1987
TO:
City staff
FROM:
Task Force on Grant Funding, Commission
on Older Americans
SUBJECT:
Review of 1987-88 Community service Grants
We have received and reviewed the following requests for 1987-88
Community Service Grants:
Center for the Partially Sighted $11,000
Low Income and Elderly United community Assistance Project
$116,487
Santa Monica Area Health Action Coalition $41,675
Senior Health & Peer Counseling Center $83,409
. .
westside Center for Independent Living $34,603
Westside Ecumenical Conference $20,560
westside Independent Services to the Elderly (General) $277,581
Westside Independent Services to the Elderly (Paratransit)
$294,984
Wests ide Legal Services $119,500
We reviewed these requests with the objective to keep the grant
level at approximately the same level as 1986-87, whether for
- 1 -
, .
~
ongoing or new programs. This was done in view of the
uncertainty of fund availability.
Once again, we strongly recommend that staff review all requests
to eliminate duplication of services. And again, we urge cross
pollenization from the larger, established and more sophisticated
agencies to. the smaller, less sophisticated agencies to assist
them in areas such as fundraising, proposal writing,
administration, cost controls, etc. There was a beginning this
year in this area, but it must be improved and expedited.
Furthermore, in December, 1986 we recommended to staff the need
for a well-defined, accountable case-finding program. The
homebound, isolated and frail elderly, many of ethnic minority
groups, must be identified before they can receive the needed
services. We feel the need for such a program in and of itself.
We further recommend that funds be set aside for this purpose for
mid-year funding, and we hope that the City will issue RFP's for
this program for the mid-year.
~
Also, the issue of discounted taxi services at nights and on
weekends needs to be further addressed. The WISE paratransit
program does not properly address this problem as we will
indicate further on in this report.
The following are our specific recommendations in regard to each
of the grant requests which we reviewed:
1. The Center for the Partially Sighted -- Request $ll,OOOi
1986-87 grant $11,000.
- 2 -
.
An excellent unduplicated program, serving a definite need
in Santa Monica. While the Center still needs more
extensive/effective outreach into the ethnic minority population,
we strongly recommend funding as requested.
-:;;.
2. LIEUCAP -- Request $116,487; 1986-87 grant $96,376
LIEUCAP's request represents an increase of approximately
22%. This increased request is in spite of the fact that
LIEUCAP's performance does not meet the standards and criteria as
spelled out in "selection criteria II as follows:
a. Need for an effective, working board
b. Reliable and effective documentation of provided
services
c. Need to show strong evidence of interagency cooperation
d. Duplicates services already available
e. Does not exhibit a history of cost-effective management
f. staff is not qualified to give consistent and effective
delivery of scheduled services
g. Minimal provision is made for fund raising
As a result of our findings, we strongly recommend that City
staff work closely with the LIEUCAP board and staff to improve
their administrative capabilities, their cost-effectiveness,
their case management, and their overall efficiency, so that this
neighborhood organization can use the existing Santa Monica
agencies for services to their neighborhood people.
We therefore recommend that funding be at a reduced level
from the $96,376 of 1986-87, but that the difference be set aside
- 3 -
,
for mid-year grant to LIEUCAP provided that satisfactory progress
has been made in the areas outlined above.
3. Santa Monica Area Health Action Coalition -- Request $41,675;
1986-87 -0-
Since this is a new program request, which we feel is a
complete duplication of existing services, we recommend no
funding for 1987-88.
4. Senior Health and Peer Counseling Center -- Request $83,409;
1986-87 $66,856
We feel that this agency does a very effective job of
serving the needs of senior citizens in Santa Monica, and in an
efficient, cost-effective manner. Their outreach into the ethnic
and minority population areas has been effective and is
improving. The new program for the homeless elderly is extremely
worthwhile. To enable them to effectively continue all of their
programs, especially the homeless elderly project, and their
outreach to the frail and isolated elderly and to the minority
communities, we recommend funding as requested.
5. westside Center for Independent Living (WelL) -- Request
$34,603; 1986-87 $26,537
WelL needs better outreach for seniors, especially Santa
Monica residents. They also need to demonstrate efficient
administration and more cost-effective management. Santa Monica
residents are only about 8% of the people they serve. We
strongly recommend that their funding be at the same level as
- 4 -
1986-87, about $26,000 with an admonition to improve their
outreach into Santa Monica.
6. Westside Ecumenical Conference - Meals on Wheels -- Request
$20,560; 1986-87 $20,560.
Once again, an excellent cost effective service, not a
duplication. Does effective fund raising and makes excellent use
of volunteers and good case management. We recommend approval of
this grant request for $20,560. In addition, we recommend an
additional grant for 1987-88 of $6,000 for the specific purpose
of adding another staff person to recruit volunteers and do the
outreach into the minority communities to add two more routes.
7. westside Independent Services to the Elderly (WISE) - General
request - $277,581. 1986-87 grant $261,954.
WISE is requesting an increase of $16,000 in spite of the
fact that two programs (shared housing and employment) have been
discontinued. We are pleased with their proposed program to get
private funding. We are also pleased with the new staff people
for ethnic minority outreach. We expect their performance in
this are to improve, because in 1986-87 only 5% of their services
were for minorities, which shows the need for effective outreach.
Because of the proposed new programs to replace those
discontinued, we recommend funding at the same level as in
1986-87, namely $262,000.
8. WISE - paratransit Program. Request $294,984. 1986-87 grant
- $331,211.
The 1986-87 grant included the provision of the funding for
- 5 -
the acquisition of a new van and its attendant costs. An
additional van has been donated by Kaiser Permanente. This may
be very expensive in terms of administration, driver provision,
insurance, maintenance, etc. In our opinion, the overall picture
of the paratransit service is one of ineffectiveness. We
strongly recommend a joint study by City staff and WISE of this
-
service to recommend better, more cost-effective services. The
existing service for emergencies, for evenings and weekends is
poor. There is a great need for more low priced taxi services.
The use of the vans seems to be quite inefficient since most
trips are for one or two people. The study referred to above
could easily show that more use of taxis and less use of vans
would be cost effective. We recommend withholding a portion of
the requested funds pending the completion of the City staff-WISE
study.
9. Westside Legal Services - Request $119,500. 1986-87 grant
$109,559.
This agency was supposed to target services for seniors. In
spite of assistance from the Commission on Older Americans,
almost no activity took place in this area. In their new
proposal, they do not even target seniors for services. We
therefore strongly recommend a substantial reduction from their
1986-87 funding of $109,559 be approved. We further request that
the moneys saved be set aside for a midyear grant for an agency
with a proven track record of providing legal services to senior
citizens. Further that City staff solicit applications from such
- 6 -
. ~
agencies to provide legal services to Santa Monica senior
citizens.
Respectfully submitted,
J~~ 8 (lVe-CL4~
Florence Cardine
JfrG~rtif
/~-
V~i;d Gross .....
for Task/Force on Grant Funding, commission on Older Americans
PLEASE NOTE: Judy Gewertz was excused form participating in the
interviews, discussions, deliberations and decisions on the
requests from Santa Monica Area Health Action Coalition, Senior
Health and Peer Counseling center, and Westside Center for
Independent Living because of conflicts of interest.
Report to be presented at the April 15 meeting of the Commission
on Older Americans.
VR: lb
coa grants
. .
- 7 -