SR-300-002-01 (41)
...
C/ED:CNS:BJS:wp
CounCIl Mtg. 1-24-84
e
e
/ /-C-
300--ooz-0/
JJHJ 2 4 1984
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
TO:
Mayor and CIty CouncIl
FROM:
City Staff
SUBJECT:
RecommendatIon to Approve 1984-85 Co~munlty Develop-
ment Program FundIng Rationale for ReceIpt and
ExpendIture of Federal and Local Fu~dIng
IntroductIon
ThIS report ?resents a proposed fundIng ratIonale for the CIty'S
1984-85 Com~unlty Development Program.
It fIrst summarIzes the
hIstory of th8 progra~, outlInes the proposed fundIng schedule
and cItIzen partIcIpatIon process, and then presents grant
ratIonale ond selectIon crIterIa for the two components of the
program -- CommunIty SerVIce ProJects (operatIng grants to
commuDIty serVIce organlzatlo~s) and COMmunIty and NeIghborhood
Improve~ent ProJects (CDBG capItal proJects).
Background
I. HIstory of the COMmunIty Development Program
The CIty'S CommunIty Development Program represents an
IntegratIon of prevIously separate grant progra~s of the CIty
IncludIng the CommunIty Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
Genera I Revenue Shar 1 ng (GRS) progra:ns as well as mIscellaneous
funds fro~ state or local sources. ThIS IntegratIon was achieved
In the 1983-84 fIscal Y2ar and, because of Its success 1n
streamll n1ng the appllca t Ion and grants management process, has
1 !/-c
j.'UI 2 4 '984
e
proven to be a effectIve
.
"ulTlbrella" for funds earmarked for
communIty development and communIty serVIce proJects.
The fOllowIng table summarIzes the sources of revenue avaIlable
for approprIatIon In 1983-84, IncludIng Federal entItlements from
CDBG and General Reven<.1e SharIng, ffiIsCellanGous State and local
revenues earmarked for specIfIc programs such as crIme
preventIon, paratransIt and emerg~ncy housIng, and the amount of
contrIbutIon from the CIty'S General Fund.
In addItIon, the
table shows a one-tIme Federal allocatIon under the Emergency
Jobs BIll Program WhICh supported proJects desIgned to address
employment and housIng needs IntensIfIed by the recent receSSIon.
FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR NEW PROJECTS AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
h'ord s
CDBG EntItlement
CDBG Progra~ Income
General Revenue SharIng
General Fund
MIscellaneous Revenues
$ Amount
1,254,066
27,300
885,Hl6
491,101
157,097
Annual Funds AvaIlable
Jobs BIll Funds (1 tIme only)
TOTAL ~vaIlable for new
ProJects and Program Adm.
$2,814,670
476,000
$3,290,670
The combIned I~pact of these funds IS the InItIatIon of 16
Com~unlty and NeIghborhood I~provement ProJects (CDBG capItal
projects beneflttlng lower Inco~e residents) and 35 Com~u~Ity
SerVIce ProJects (35 operatIng grants to soclal and communIty
serVIce agencIes and 2 Clty-ul'plemented communIty serVIce
programs) .
In addItIon,
9 CommunIty and Nelghborhood
Improvement ProJects approved In prIor years and contInUIng Into
2
e
e
the present year are currently beIng Implemented. IncludIng
carry-over COBG funds for these proJects, the current year budget
In support of communIty development proJects totals $5.3 mIllIon.
An assessment of the current program In relatIonshIp to programs
In prIor years IndIcates a definIte trend toward a larger
program WhICh Includes an Increased number of proJects and
IdentIfIed needs. For example, the amount of resources conmItted
to CommunIty SerVIce ProJects In 1979-80 totalled $460,000 for 15
grants, whIle In the current year, $1.9 mIllIon has been Hw~rded
for 35 grants.
ThIS Increased flnancIal support has resulted In a WIde range of
benefIts for reSIdents and the communIty at large. However, It
has also created an Increased need for accountabILIty for the use
of these funds and for a very clear ratIonale for awardIng funds
to speCIfIed proJects. ThIS IS especIally crItIcal due to the
Increased number of requests by communIty agenCIes for CIty
assistance 10 mItIgatIng substantIal Federal and state cuts to
theIr programs. In makIng crItIcal fundIng deCISIons for 1984-85,
a balance between the CIty's eXf)ressed comm1.tment to these
actIVItIes and Its own resource constraInts WIll have to be
reached. The follOWIng fundIng ?rocess and fundIng ratIonale for
the comIng year IS deSIgned to prOVIde clear gUIdelines for use
In arr1.VIng dt these dIffIcult deCISIons.
II. FundIng Process
T~e ?roposed process for developIng thG 1984-85 CoromUTIIty
3
e .
Development Program has been desIgned to:
o maXlmlze cltlzen partIcIpatIon wIth a specIal emphaSiS
on InvolvIng lower Income resIdents, users of communIty
serVIces, a00 CIty Board and CommIssion members
o Integrate applIcatIon and reVIew procedures WIth the
CltylS general budget process for 1984-85 In order
to gIve the CIty Councll the opportun1ty to assess
the proposed CD Program In the context of all City
progra~s and serVIces
o meet all the reqUirements of Federal fundIng sources
and local ordInances to ensure continuance of these
maJor sources of fundIng for the progra~
A. FundIng Schedule
Activity
Date
Workshop on CommuDlty Development Needs
1-14-84
CounCIl Approval of CD Program FundIng
RatIonale
1-24-84
"Reques ts for Proposa 1 5 >I Ava 11 able
1-27-84
Workshop on Proposal PreparatIon
2-1-84
MaIlIng of CD Progra~ InformatIon Packet
2-HJ-84
Deadline for SubmIttal of FundIng Proposals
3-9-84
Proposed CD Plan Draft AvaIlable to PublIC
and CIty CommISSIons
4-20-84
AdmInIstratIve HearIng on CD Plan Draft
5-3-84
TransmIttal of Proposed CD Plan to Council
5-8-84
Budget Hearings and CounCIl Approval of
CD Plan and CDBG Statement of ObJectIves
5-29-84
5-30-84
B. CItIzen PartICipation Process
The actIvlt1es descrlbed above provIde the framework
for an extenSIve CItIzen partICIpatIon process deSIgned to
Involve reSIdents In the development of the 1984-85 program. The
4
e
.
fIrst step In the process was the "\\orkshop on CommunIty
Development Needs" WhICh was sponsored by the City's Social
SerVIces CommISSIon with the asslstance of other relevant
CommlSSlons. ApprOXimately
100 resIdents, Commissioners and
users of social serVIces provided Input on a range of communIty
development and communIty serVIce needs uSing a small-group
for~at orIented toward speCIfIc serVIce areas. The comments fro~
thIS workshop have been taken Into conSIderatIon In creatIng thIS
docu~ent and will be further utillzed throughout the proposal
assessment process.
In addition, a Co~munlty Development Program Information Packet
WIll be dIstributed to a range of cItlzens and agenCIes,
notIfIcatIon of all publIC hearings WIll be WIdely advertlsed and
CIty CommiSSions Will be encouraged to review relevant proposals
and the dcaft CommunIty Development Plan. rl'he SOCIal Services
CommiSSion has fInalIzed ItS plan for reviewIng community serVice
prOJEct proposals and has also reviewed the COM~unlty SerVIce
ProJect funding ratlonale proposed In thIS report.
p;,.oposed FundIn9 RatIonale for 1984-85
City staff has reviewed a range of documents WhiCh has
also
served as the basls for toe proposed fundIng ratIonale and
subsequent assessment and reView actIVIties. These documents
Include:
o CIty CommunIty ~eeds A5sess~ent, 1983
o LatIno Resource Organization Needs Assessment, 1983
o Health Care Needs Assessment, NHeLP, 1982
o HOUSIng Element, 1982
o Proposed Land Use Element
5
e .
o NeIghborhood PlannIng Task Force Report, 1982
o SOCIal SerVIces Com~ISSIon Report on PrIorItIes, 1983
Based on a reVIew of these documents and the Input receIved from
CommISSIons, reSidents and City staff, a proposed ratIonale has
been developed that Includes the follOWIng SIgnIfIcant changes
from the 1983-84 process:
o There are no restrIctIons on the number of applicant
agenCIes that ~ay apply for funds -- proposals from
agenCIes currently not funded Will be accepted.
The 1983-84 process for CommunIty SerVIce ProJects
was limIted to currently funded grantees only.
o Two major types of CIty support have been Identified
for the Co~munlty SerVIce ProJect COMponent In order
to prOVide a clearer ratIonale for dIsburSIng lImIted
funds. Two ~ethods for program accountabIlIty are also
proposed, IncludIng"performance-basedcontractlng"
for speCified SerVIces.
o Proposals for speCIfIC comMuDIty serVIce proJects and
communIty and neIghborhood Improvement proJects have
been targeted to ensure that proposals WIll be re-
ceIved In areas of IdentIfIed need.
Because of the dIfferent reqUIrements and functIons of the two
proJect components, a separate sectIon IS devoted to each--
IncludIng a prOJectIon of revenues for each component as well as
the proposed fundIng ratIonale and selectIon criterIa. As
mentIoned ?revIously, these two components are:
(1) Communlty
SerVlce ProJects (operatIng grants to qualIfIed communIty-based
serVIce prOVIders for a range of social and communIty serVIces
whIch are funded from CDBG,
General
Revenue SharIng,
!11lscellaneous State and local funds, and the CItylS General
Fund); and (2) Com n: ~lty and Nelghborhood Improvement ProJects
(CDBG-ellglble capItal proJects deSIgned to benefIt low and
moderate Income resldents and funded totally from avaIlable CDBG
tunds) .
6
e
I. CommunIty SerVIce ProJects
.
A. 1984-85 Revenue ProJectIons
ProJectIons of the VarIOUS sources comprIsIng communIty
serVIce fundIng IndIcates that approxImately $1.3 mIllIon In
Federal and speCIal revenues wIll be avaIlable. Because Congress
recently reauthor I zed both the CommunI ty Devopment Block Grant
a~d General Revenue SharIng programs, a stable source of fundIng
for communIty serVIces IS assured for 1984-85.
General P~venue S~arIng funds are proJected to be somewhat higher
In 1984-85 due to a SlIght Increase In the entItlement to be
receIved for that year and also $42,000 In 1983-84 funds WhICh
Were not proJected durIng the 1983-84 budget process.
COBG
entltleITent funds available for communIty serVIces WIll also
remaIn relatIvely stable.
WhIle the CIty WIll receIve a 3.2%
cecrease In total COBG entItlement funds, the subsequent decrease
In funds avaIlable for allowable communIty serVIces WIll be
al~ost offset by new legIslatIon WhICh wIll allow 15% of the
entItlement to be used for thIS purpose, as opposed to the
currently negotIated rate of 12% for Santa ~onlca.
One major decrease In communIty serVIce funds fro~ FY 1983-84
WIll occur, ho~ever, WIth the loss of the eDBG Jobs Bl11 Progra~
-- a one year program WhICh wIll In all probabIlIty not be
renewed.
ThIS wIll result In a $234,000 loss In funas avallable
for communIty services (from the total award of $476,000). In
addItIon, the City's SenIor CrIme PreventIon Grant, funded ',oIIth
$37,530 In State funds durIng the current year, wIll not be
renewed as th~ state-WIde program will not be refunded.
7
e
.
The followIng table IndIcates the amount of contrIbutIon by
revenue source In sup~ort of current year proJects.
In addItIon,
proJ2cted revenues are Included for the 1984-85 fIscal year. In
order to maIntaIn the current level of funding support (excludIng
support for the School Nurse Program WhICh was to be a one-tIme
grant of $125,440 to the school dIstrIct), $54,784 In additIonal
General funds WIll be needed.
PrOJected 1984-85 Co~munlty Service Grant Fundlns
Budgeted
1983-84
PrOJected
1984-85
General Revenue SharIng
CDBG - COffiffiunlty SerVIces
CDBG - AdmIn. avaIlable for CS
CDBG - Jobs BIll for CS
State CrIme PreventIon
PrOposItIon A for Paratranslt
VItale GIlpIn Settle~ent
General Fund - ongOIng
$885,106
IB7,0gg
410,000
233,784
37,530'
60,0010
59,567
405,093
$1,908,1030
$979,172
183,590
40',000
-0-
-0-
60',000
60',000'
459,878
~1,782,64rJ*
It IS Important to note that despIte the substantIal loss of Jobs
BIll and State CrIme PreventIon funds, the CIty 'Nlll be able to
sustaIn its current level of support WIth only a $54,784 Increase
to the General Fund, which IS less than a general cost of liVIng
Increase for the program.
Because non-CIty sOurces of revenue have remaIned relatIvely
constant In prIor years, additIonal proJects approved by the
CouncIl In the past two years have drawn support fro~ the CIty'S
*ThlS t.otal represents the current level
excludIng the one tIme grant for the
($125,440) .
of support ($1,9:38,030)
School Nurse Program
8
--
.
General Fund.
It IS eVlcent the CIty support IS necessary and
has become a permanent part of the program's revenue structure.
However, It IS Important to stabIlize t~e General Fund
contrIbutIon In future years and therefore the followIng steps
WIll be InstItuted:
(1) If one tIme grants are receIved by the
CIty (e.g., Jobs BIll), they wIll be utIlIzed for one-tIme
communIty serVIce or capItal proJects WhICh do not reqUIre
ongOIng fInanCIal support from the City; and (2) whIle
recognIZIng the constraInts of current Pederal and State fundIng
for communIty development actiVItIes, the CIty WIll nevertheless
attempt to IdentIfy addItional sources of funds, IncludIng Income
from any potentIal Urban Development ActIon Grants.
In add It 1 on, ptocedu res W III be developed to ensure that funded
agenCIes take all steps to secure fundIng from other avaIlable
sources,
IncludIng technIcal aSSIstance on avaIlable
opportunItIes and a reqUIrement for 1985-86 that all applicants
must show docurTJentatIon of successful and unsuccessful fundIng
SolIcltatlons for the proposed program.
O~e word of cautlO~ 1S necessary at thIS Juncture. The dlScussIon
thus far has Included two recommendatlons: (1) that proposals not
be lImIted to currently funded agenCIes WIth the ObVIOUS result
that there will be increased competItIon for avaIlable dollars;
and (2) that CIty fundIng be l1mIted to the current year's level
of support. If these recommendatIons are approved by the Councll
and new pro;:>osals successfully compete for funds, It WIll
necessarIly result In a realIgnment of funding for current
progra:ns, Includ Ing reductIons In those programs deterr:llned not
9
e
.
to meet selectIon criterIa as successfully as others. WhIle thIS
IS the proposed staff recommendatIon, It 15 Important to
recognIze the ImplIcatIons of these actIons and that to maIntaIn
presently-funded programs, plus addIng new programs, would
necessItate a correspondIng Increase In the General Fund
contrIbutIon.
B. 1984-85 FundIng RatIonale and SelectIon CrIterIa
In the Fall of 1982, the CIty CouncIl approved a Policy
on HUillan SerVIces WhICh '..,as st..:bmItted by the CltylS SOCIal
SerVIces CommISSIon. The basIc premIse of thIS POlICY was that
the City, as the closest unit of govern~ent to Santa V,onlca
res Idents, must assume responslbII i ty for the dell very of human
serVIces to Its residents. A number of roles, IncludIng that of
advocate and funder, were outlIned. The followIng ratIonale for
CIty fundIng of SOCIal serVIces IS predIcated on thIS very broad
commItment. In addItion, the pressure to unplement thIS
commIt~ent has been IntenSIfIed by the decrease In fundIng fro~
the Federal and County governmental agenCIes tradItIonally
respons 1 ble for th IS fund 1 ng. Thus, CI ty government faces the
dIffIcult task of meeting IncreasIng demands for fInanCIal
support of communIty WIthIn the CIty'S own budget constraInts.
GIven the need to balance these llillitatlons and commItments,
CIty staff proposes that avaIlable CIty resources be utIlIzed In
the form of two types of fInanCIal support: (1) Support to
ensure the contInuance of a broad-based communIty servIces
network In Santa MonIca; and (2) targeted support for speCIal
proJects or serVIces approprIate [or CIty fundIng. A descrIptIon
10
e
.
of each follows:
(l)
Support For the CommunIty SerVIces Network:
The Santa
MonIca communIty benefIts from a very effectIve network of
community serVIce agencIes, servIng a wIde range of target groups
and provIdIng multI-dImenSIonal serVIces. Because IndIVIduals
seekIng socIal serVIces often have an array of needs, only
through an effectIve coordInatIon of serVIces can these needs be
met.
The ~arshallIng of resources from a number of agencIes
creates a synergIstIc effect that could not be accomplIshed If
serVIces were given by each program In IsolatIon from the others.
If a vIable agency is elIminated from thIS network, the entIre
delIvery system suffers -- a referral source IS lost, staff
expertIse is no longer available to other agencIes and most
Importantly a "lInk In toe chalnn of serVIces IS no longer
avaIlable to reSIdents In need.
In essence, residents, agencIes
and the communIty 10 general suffer.
In assessIng how the CIty should support thIS network, the
followIng ~atrlx should be used In order to ensure breadth of
serVIce based on geographIcal and demographIC conSIderatIons.
~
ptt~ I borii. I
.,..a.'A.r..'R'JI l:RnrfP!l=l
I I ~dult/L I ~inor/I Low/ r
Youth i~- r-nior,D.bld~ Ingo.,
Social/Human Services
Legal
Citizen partic1pation
Cr1me Prevention
~ EmployaeJl.t
B(t.erqenay Aaat. ~nd I/R
11
e
.
ThIS matrIx should not be Interpreted as proposIng that the CIty
"be all thIngs to all people.1I
WhIle the scope of serVIces
IndIcated In the ~atrIx IS broad, some programs are more crItIcal
In addressIng IdentIfIed communIty needs, some target groups are
more In need of these serVIces, and Some progra_lls are more
approprIate for CIty fundIng than others.
All these factors must
be taken Into conSIderatIon when evaluatIng WhICh agenCIes WIthIn
thIS network are most approprIate for CIty fundIng.
To gUIde
these deCISIons, the follo\'lIng ffiInI;tlUm elIgIbIlIty reqUIrements
and deSIred selectIon crIterIa are proposed:
MInImum ElIgIbIlIty RequIre~ents
o The applIcant has maIntaIned non-profIt, tax-exempt status
under SectIon 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue SerVIce
Code or SectIon 2370l(d) of the CalIfornIa State Fran-
chIse Tax Code at the tIme of applIcatIon.
o The grantee IS In complIance WIth the CIVIl RIghts Act
of 1964 and the RehabIlItatIon Act of 1973, as a~ended,
WhICh bars dIscrImInation In the hIrIng of staff or
prOVISIon of serVIces on the baSIS of race, relIgIon,
sex, age, natIonal orIgIn or dIsabilItIes; and prOVIdes
assurances that It WIll comply WIth all Federal and
local prOVISIons regardIng polItical and lobbYIng
actiVity.
o The grantee IS a prIvate, non-profIt organlzatlon loca-
ted I~ or serVIng citlzen of Santa MonIca.
o The grantee has formal approval of Its Board of DIrec-
tors to submIt a proposal for CIty support.
SelectIon CrIterIa
Each ?roject WIll be assessed according to the extent
to WhICh:
o The organIzatIon offers coordlnated serVlce delIvery
rather than one-dImensIonal SerVIces.
12
e
.
o The organIzatIon shows strong eVIdence of Interagency
cooperatIon and sharIng of resources wIth other com-
wunIty grou?s and agenCIes In oreer to ~aXIWIze
resources.
o The organIzatIon prOVIdes eVIdence that the proposed
progra~ does not duplIcate other serVIces In the com-
munIty.
o The organIzatIon possesses the abIlIty to prOVIde out-
reach to IndIvIduals most In need of these serVIces.
o The proJect results in one or more of the followIng
benefits:
IndIViduals served ~ave an Increased abilIty
to sustaIn themselves In the communIty and
to become self suffICIent as a result of these
serVIces.
VIctIms of dIscrImInatIon are prOVIded better
access to the resources and serVIces In the
communIty.
The co~munlty as a whole, a SIgnIficant seg-
ment of the community are better able to
Influence the deCISIons that affect theIr
personal lIves and the qualIty of theIr lIVIng
enVIronMent.
o The organIzatIon exhIbIts current and past effectIve-
ness and success In the delIvery of the proposed
serVIces to the communIty.
o The program shows communIty support through Its
abIlIty to procure communIty resources
(e.g., com~unlty fundraIsIng, use of volunteers,
donated serVIces).
o Based on the avaIlabIlIty of dIfferent sources of
fundIng for the proposed program, the organIzatIon
has maXImIzed opportunItIes for fundIng from a range
of sources, thus lendIng to Its financial stabilIty
and the abIlIty to sustain Itself as a part of the
communIty serVIces network.
o The organIzatIon proposes a ~udget WhICh reflects
cost-effectIve admInIstratIve and program actIvitIes
and utIlIzes CIty fu~dIng to enhance fundIng from
other sources.
(2 )
Sup?ort for Targeted SerVIces:
In addItIon to thIS
broad-based support, It IS approprIate for the CIty to foster
13
e
.
special programs for one or more of the following reasons:
o A dramatIC and unforseen decrease or elImInation
of the tradItional funding source for a partI-
cular actIvIty Jeopardizes the eXIstence of the
program; City support would be used to allow tIme
for the agency to development a long-term plan
for mItIgating the decrease.
o An IdentIfied gap In serVIce IS well-documented ana
City support would provIde "seed money" for a speCI-
fIed period of tIme.
o An Identified need IS documented and because the pro-
posed serVIce assists In the effectIve delIvery of
ongoing City serVIces, targeted City funding IS
approprIate.
o A SIgnIfIcant environmental condItIon (e.g., the re-
ceSSIon, phYSIcal dIsaster) overburdens existIng
serVIces. Because the City IS the closest govern-
mental agency to the problem, it will be called upon
by the communIty to assist In its mitigatIon.
o The CIty receIves funds from other sources which are
earmarked for targeted serVIces and therefore must be
allocated in conformance with relevant guidelInes.
GIven the "unpredIctable" nature of some of the above factors, It
is not always poss lble to identl fy these targeted services well
in advance of the occurrence creating the need. However, given
informatIon gathered from needs assessments and input from the
recent ~vorkshop on CommunI ty Development Needs held on January
14, 1984, CIty staff sees the following areas of need WhICh
proposals could address:
o Housing Information and Referral (The CIty Department
of CommunIty and EconomIC Development currently pro-
vides informatIon and referral services for senIors,
the dIsabled, and other IndIviduals In need of hOUSIng.
Because thIS IS an i~portant direct service, not a
planning or adminIstrative functIon, It could better
be prOVIded by a communIty-based organIzation as a part
of an ongOIng, CItY-WIde Information and referral, housing
aSSIstance proJect.)
14
o CommunIty c~e PreventIon (The CIty c~rentlY provides
crime preventIon services through the Police Department
and the OffIce of Community and NeIghborhood Services).
In addItIon, needs assessment documents have identified
the need for communIty-based support and involvement ~n
crime prevention actiVItIes (especIally Neighborhood
Watch) which can best be ~mplemented by community-based
organIzatIons In conJunctIon WIth CIty serVIces.)
o SOCIal ServIce Advocacy and InformatIon and Referral
Services in Low-Income Neighborhoods (CDBG funds are
earmarked for community services to low income reSI-
dents. Based on needs assessments, this serVIce in
the Pico Neighborhood is mInImal and should be fostered.)
o Employment Advocacy and Job Development (Because of
hIgh unemployment coupled WIth the opportunity to work
closely WIth the prIvate sector on job creating op-
portunIties, City support should foster viable actI-
VItIes to ensure employment for lower income resi-
dents. This support should not be a substItute for
Job traInIng programs supported WIth Federal funds
but should complement these programs.)
o Tenant ASSIstance and Counseling (As descrIbed In a
staff report in December 1983, a set aSIde for this
program was reallocated to other proJects because
staff did not feel there was a provider that could
develop such a program In 1983-84; however proposals
for 1984-85 should be reVIewed.)
o ParatransIt for the Elderly and DIsabled (Proposition
A revenues received by the City for local transporta-
tIon InitiatIves may be earmarked for paratransit ser-
vices which should be fostered to work in conJunction
WIth the CIty'S regular publIC transportatIon services.)
o DemonstratIon Grant for Revenue-Producing InItIatIves
(Consistent with the City's desire to promote stable
sources of revenue for communIty organizations, It IS
recommended that one grant, not to exceed $25,000, be
awarded to an agency presentIng a VIable proposal for
start up of a revenue-producIng venture to support Its
ongOIng program.)
Proposals for these targeted serVIces WIll also be evaluated
based on the extent to which they meet the eligibIlIty and
selectIon crIterIa descrIbed on pages 12 and 13. ~hIle proposals
for these serVIces do not necessary assume priorIty over other
15
e
proposals submItted,
.
they are IdentIfIed In thIS sectIon to
ensure that proposals are receIved for consIderatIon.
II. CommunIty and NeIghborhood Improvement ProJects
Proposals from organl za t Ions des 1 r 109 to implement CDBG-
elIgIble capItal proJects or requests for elIgible capItal
Improvements to be Implemented by City forces will be reviewed
USIng the follOWIng revenue proJectIons and fundIng ratlonale.
A. 1984-85 Revenue ProjectIons
The sole source of funding for thIS component is the
CommunIty Development Block Grant entItlement recei,ed each year,
any program income generated from that program, and prior year
CDBG funds unexpended and not committed to a continuing project.
WhIle It is diffIcult to proJect the amount available for new
proJects SIX months prior to the end of the current year before
fInal expendItures of current year proJects are known, It ~s
estimated that approxImately $830,000 in CDBG funds will be
avaIlable for new CommunIty and NeIghborhood Improvement
ProJects. In addItion, If staff determInes prior to the end of
the current year that the currently approved multi-service center
proJect IS not VIable, an additional $508,000 In proJect funds
could be avaIlable for reprogramming.
B. FundIng RatIonale and Selection CrIterIa
The baSIS for selectIon of these proJects WIll be the
extent to whIch these projects comply with the priorities set
forth In the CIty's CDBG OrdInance, WIth applIcable federal
regulatIons, and WIth the fOllOWIng selection crIterIa. All
16
e
e
requests, whether inItIated by City departments, cItIzens or
community organizatIons wIll be revIewed utilIzing these
crIterIa:
MInImum EII9IbIIIty RequIrements
o If the proJect IS to be Implemented by an outside agency,
the agency meets the baSIC elIgIbility requIrements for
grantees detailed on pages 12 and 13 of this report.
o The proJect primarily benefIts low and moderate Income
persons by ensuring that at least 75 percent of Its
direct beneficiaries are of low or moderate income, or
o The proJect prImarIly benefits low and moderate lncome
persons by ensurIng that at least 51 percent of the
populatIon of the proJect area benefited by the project
are low and moderate icome persons.
o The proJect does not replace actIvIties currently con-
ducted wIth support from the General Fund.
Selection CriterIa
o The proJect will result In lon9-term benefIt to
low and moderate lncome reSIdents.
o The proJect proposes a cost-effective program for
maIntaIning and Improving hOUSIng opportunIties
for low/moderate Income persons, or
o The proJect wIll result In the improvement of the
abIlIty of low and ~oderate Income residents to
pay for decent housIng through economIC develop-
!!'lent actIvItIes.
o The proJect promotes economIC development In
deterIoratIng areas that provIde serVIces of
benefIt to low and moderate Income residents.
o The proJect stablIllzes or enhances low/moderate
income neIghborhoods, conSIstent with the CIty'S
General Plan.
o The proJects promotes the removal of barrlers to
dIsabled reSIdents and visitors and meets crIteria
approvej In the CIty'S MultI-Year BarrIer Removal
Plan.
17
e
.
o The proJect ensures adequate and stable facilIties
for sOClal service agencles servIng low and moderate
Income resIdents.
o The proposed fundIng structure leverages non-CDBG funds.
o The proJect shows long term potentlal for a cash return
on the CDBG lnvestment and does not reqUIre ongOIng
CDBG or government support for maIntenance.
o If the proJect IS to be Implemented by an outside
organizatIon, the proposal includes documentatIon of
current or planned admInIstrative capacIty to Imple-
ment communIty development proJects and experience
wIth Federally-assIsted programs.
o The implementIng agency or department presents a
program that Includes both admInistratIve proce-
dures and a vlable Implementation plan for timely
execution of the project.
Because there are several needs not currently being addressed by
the ongOIng program, proposals are encouraged In the folloWIng
areas. SOlIcIting proposals 1n these areas, however, does not
represent a priorItizatIon of these projects over other
IdentifIed needs but is Intended to promote Innovative proposals
In preVIously under served areas.
o ProJects that prOVIde for congregate or shared housing
alternatIves for senior cItizens and the disabled.
o ProJects that support acceSSIbIlIty modIfIcatIons
In reSIdences of disabled citizens or In pUblic
faCIlIties.
o Programs that result In the preservatIon or expanSIon
of needed commerCIal, retaIl serVIces In or serVIng
low and moderate income neIghborhoods.
III. Grantee AccountabIlIty and Method of Payment
WIth Increased staff support In 1983-84, a comprehensive
monItoring and evaluation system has been Implemented for all
fun-:.led pro) ects.
This includes a detaIled reVIew of quarterly
18
fIscal and progr41 reports, sIte VISIts a~ wrItten follow up
reports for all grantees, reVIew of complIance wIth applIcable
provIsIons on lobbYIng and polItIcal actIvity, and IntensIve
monItorIng or program evaluatIon for specIfIed grantees WhICh are
determIned on a case-by-case baSIS. NegotIated workplans are
monItored through thIS process, WIth followup and technIcal
aSSIstance performed as necessary. In evaluatIng proposals for
1984-85, the CouncIl will be provided with the results of this
process.
However, in a continuing attempt to further refIne accountabIlIty
procecures, staff has identIfied two different methods of fund
payment to ensure continued and Improved accountability: (l)
Grants for Geneneral Program Support, and (2) Performance Based
Contracts.
A. Grants for General Program Support
The fIrst method represents the current procedure where
the CouncIl awards a set grant amount and requires that the
program meet speCIfIed program obJectIves which are indIcators of
the actIVIties Intended for CIty support. Unless legal contract
VIolatIons occur or serIOUS program defICIenCIes develop, the
grantee receIves the total award by the end of the year. ThIS
method of payment IS most approprIate for agenCIes WIth proven
track records of prOVIdIng needed services and/or represents a
multI-dImenSIonal program WhICh receives funds from the City for
general program support.
B. Performance-Based Contracts
Pi. "performance-based cont~act" repesents a legal
19
e
.
agreement between the City and a provlder of a specIfIc service
that the CIty WIll "purchase" these services at a negotIated
"unlt cost". Whlle a maximum contract amount IS IdentIfIed, thIS
full amount IS pald the serVIce provIder only if a maXImum amount
of serVIces are also provIded. Otherwise, reImbursement is made
based on the actual level of serVIce provIded.
In developing
such a contract, the follow i ng procedure I s followed:
DetermIne contracted serVIce
Step Example
DetermIne the "unIt of serVIce"
Define the "unit of serVIce"
Determine the cost for that
unIt of serVIce
Total proJect budget inclu-
dIng reasonable administra-
tive costs
Total number of unIts of ser-
VIce
Total cost/Total unIts
Cost per unit of serVIce
DetermIne the level of service
to Santa MonIca reSIdents
Set level of SUbSIdy by the
CIty based on avaIlabIlIty of
funds from other sources and
approprIateness of proJect
cost relatIve to SImilar ser-
VIces by other organIzations
Calculate City-subsldlzed
cost per unit of serVIce
Day care for frail elderly
Santa Monica residents
One clIent VIsit
4 hours of supervIsed
care/vIsit
$90,000/year
20 clIents, 4 VISIts/week,
50 weeks = 4,000 ViSIts
$90,000/ 4,000 VISIts
$22.50
50% or 2,000 VlSItS
50% of thIS program is funded
WIth funds from Federal Older
AmerIcans Act grant, 10% from
prlvate contrIbutIons -- CIty
subsidy = 40%
40% of $22.50 = $9.00 per VIsit
20
e
.
Therefore, the maXImum contract a~ount IS calculated on the
negotIated unIt cost and the total number of unIts contracted by
the City.
In the example above,
thIS would be $18,J00 (2,000
VISIts @ $9.00).
Based on actual serVIce provIded during the
year, the prov lder: IS tnen re 1 mbur sed for the number of unI ts of
serv ice prov Ided.
ThIS method of payment would be approprIate for a number of
proJects:
(I) for a large agency which provIdes a number of
serVices and the City wIshes to target Its support to one segment
of the program (e.g., a senior multIpurpose program, offering day
care to the elderly as the one service the CIty wIshes to fund);
(2) for an agency that primarIly serves IndivIduals from outside
Santa MonIca but also provIdes a much needed serVice to the
smaller group of Santa MonIca residents and to ensure that these
reSIdents are served, the CIty contracts for serVices (e.g., a
large family cliniC based In West Los Angeles but serving a small
percentage of Santa MonIca lOW-Income reSIdents); (3) for an
agency WhICh provIdes a needed serVIce but the CIty wishes to
ensure that a speCI fic target group is served (e.g., low-income,
mInorIty, spanIsh-speakIng, dIsabled); or (4) for an agency that
has been IdentIfIed, for speCIfIC programmatIc reasons, to need a
performance based incentive to ensure prOVISIon of speCifIed
levels of serVlce.
The Impact on agenCIes partlcIpatIng In this type of contract is
the necessity to negotIate an adequate "cost of servlce" and
"level of 3ervlce" to ensure that both fIxed and variable costs
21
11
tit
of operatlng the progra~ are covered.
.
In adoltlon, because these
contracts are usually negotlated on a rellnbursement basis
(although they can be modIfled to lnclude an InItlal advance
Whlch IS reconclled at speclf1ed periods), It is most appropriate
for larger agencIes that have adequate cash flow.
Because of
these complexItIes in InstItutIng thIS type of contract, staff
recommends that thIS procedure be lnstltuted on a lImIted basis
for 1984-85, using the criterIa specifIed on page 21 for
selectIng proJects for thIS type of contract.
BUdget/Flnanclal Im~act
Recommendations Included 1n this report wIll have no budget or
fInanCIal 1mpact on the current year's budget. All
recommendatIons for specifIC fund1ng allocat1ons wIll occur in
the context of the 1984-85 budget process.
Recommendations
CIty staff recommends that the CIty CounCIl {I} approve the grant
ratIonale and selectIon crIter1a as specified in thIS staff
report; and (2) authorIze the CIty Manager to implement the grant
fundIng process wIthIn the tImelines speCIfied.
Prepared oy: Barbara J. StinchfIeld
Community and NeIghborhood SerVIce Manager
Department of Com~u~Ity and EconomIC Development
22