SR-300-002-01 (74)
/
/1-/1
.J cO- X> 2-0/ JUl 2 4 \984
CP8~ 200
Iq gL}-g S
Santa Monica,
b-A
<3 - It.f - 8 i
Cal~forn~a
. - j clEO: CNS :MK: sh
~ Counc~l Meet~ng 7/24/84
j
It
I
;
TO: Mayor and C~ty Council
FROM: C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendatio~ to Approve the FY 1984-85 Community
Development Program Contract Language and Grantee
WorKplans and Budgets and to Authorize the City Manager
to Execute the Community Development Program Contracts.
Introduction
This
transmits
the
1984-85
contract
language
FY
CDBG
(Attachment I) and the FY 1984-85 grantee workplans and budgets
for
30 Communl. ty
SerVl.ce programs
and 3
Community and
Neighborhood Improvement projects (Attachment II) that were
negotiated and are adnl1.nl.stered by the Department of Community
and Economic Development.
It further d~scusses the process
c,. undertaken by staff in evaluating and negotiating the contracts,
-1!
't - grantee workp1ans and budgets and detal.ls the C~S Division I s plan
. ~,
- Co
..
for program manl.toring, reporting and prov~sion of technl.ca1
ass~stance ~n FY 1984-85.
Background
In the course of approvl.ng the FY 1984-85 Commun~ty Development
Plan and the City's FY 1984-85 budget, the C1ty Counc11 approved
fund~ng -for 32 Commun1ty SerVl.ce Programs, 3 Community and
Ne1ghborhood Improvement ProJects and 2 set-asl.de awards.
Since
that t~me staff has been engaged in the development of contract
/ I-IS
0t\
'" t-:r :~~
'/.," -\ }
JUL 2 4 1984
- 1 -
language for the current fiscal year and in contract negot~at~ons
~ w1th the approved grantees.
.
.
A. Contract Development and Ne90t1at~ons
The Commun1 ty Development Program represents a roul ti tude of
community service programs and nelghborhood improvement
projects that are 10 operat1on or undertaken to address the
~dent1fied needs of the commun1ty. Because a grantee1s
contract, workplan and budget serve to ensure that these
needs are met during the year and provide an agreed-upon base
from WhlCh both the Cl ty and the agency can operate, the
negotiation of these contracts has been a top pr10rity for
staff dur~ng the past several weeks.
The contract language was reviewed by the Department of
Community and Economic Development and the City Attorney's
Office and revisions were made to update any provisions
required by fundJ.ng sources as well as to streaml~ne and
strengthen the grants-reporting and mon1toring process. Each
grantee's proposed workplan and budget were compared to its
FY 1983-84 workplan and budget as well as its third-quarter
program-status report. In all cases staff was looking for an
appropriate level of service to Santa Mon~ca resJ.dents g1ven
the City's level of support and a realistic target for each
objective given the program's performance J.O FY 1983-84.
Throughout the contract development and negotiation process
every attempt was made to effectJ.vely address the community1s
need for comprehensl. ve social serVl.ces and to continually
---
- 2 -
.
.
.
improve the grants-mon1tor1ng funct~on. Dur1ng the course of
these act1vities, the following 1ssues were addressed.
(1) Percenta~e of Low-Income Residents Served. In
respond1ng to Counc1l's desire expressed during a review of
the FY 1983-84 contracts to identify the percentage of
low-income res1dents served by the City-funded community
serV1ce agenc1es, staff surveyed the currently-funded
agencies to determine Wh1Ch agenC1es recorded client income
data. It was learned that approx~mately two-th~rds of the
agencies collected th~s 1nformat~on and that implementing an
appropr1ate data collect1on system would be possible for the
remaining applicable agencies.
In an effort to begin to gauge the impact that the Community
Development Program has on the low-income citizens of the
City, the FY 1984-85 program quarterly report has been
rev1sed to include the percentage of low-income residents
served (80% of L.A. County median ~ncome). Unlike a workplan
objective which has an annual target and is tracked against
this target over the course of the year, the quarterly
report~ng of the actual level of service to low-1ncome
res1dents will not have a proJected target. Instead, th1s
statist~c will be used by staff 1n planning and ref1n1ng the
Community Development Program in the future.
(2) Non-City Sources of Funds. Because of the w~de range in
serv~ce, size, longevity, and fundra1sing capab1lit~es, 1t 15
very diff1cult to set a standard amount of non-City funds to
- 3 -
.
.
.
be ra~sed by all agencles. However, In order to begln to
address Council's expressed deslre of hav~ng agencies become
lncreaslngly less dependent on C~ty funding, except for the
employment program WhlCh is viewed as a targeted proJect of
the City, each agency is being requ~red to ra~se a mln~mum of
20% of ~ts program budget (15% in the case of ne~ghborhood
assoc~ations who have fewer avenues open to them) from
non-Clty sources. Whlle many agencies are currently raising
much more than 20% of their operating budgets, several
agenCles are lagg~ng behlnd ~n their fundraising efforts.
Therefore, the identiflcatlon of this "bottom-line" target is
the first step of a multi-year plan that staff will be
developing for requiring agencies to raise a greater
percentage of their program budgets from non-Clty sources.
The tracking of this requ~rement for non-City fundra~sing
wll1 occur in two ways: (1) the quarterly flscal status
report will deta~l the actual percentage of City versus
non-City expenditures and (2) the quarterly program progress
report will record the actual percentage of non-C~ty revenues
recelved versus those proJected ln the budget.
(3) POll tical ACtl Vl ty. As in previous years, pOll tlcal
act~vlty is prohibited by the Clty'S contract. Wh~le a
comprehenslve deflnltlon of "pol~tl.cal activlty" is a
difficult one to develop, any activ~ty that ~s "electoral" in
nature has been defined as poll. tical and is therefore not
perrnlssible under the terms of the Comrnunlty Development
Program's contract. Throughout the course of the year, staff
/'
- 4 -
.
.
.
mon~tors the l~terature produced and d~stributed by agencies
for any ~nd~cat1on of po11tical activity. Dur1ng the annual
site reV1ews, m~nutes from the Board of Directors meetJ.ngs
and staff meetJ.ngs are spot-checked for contract violatJ.ons.
Add~tionally, the quarterly fJ.scal status report requires
each agency to J.dentify the percentage of program
expenditures spent on lobbying. These monJ.torJ.ng and
reportJ.ng measures will contJ.nue in full force throughout FY
1984-85.
(4) Budget-Related Issues. In the actJ.on taken by Council
on June 19, 1984, each continuing Community Service Grantee
was awarded a 4% cost-of-living increase. To ensure that a
portJ.on of this J.ncrease was passed on to agency employees,
each FY 1983-84 staff position and annual salary was compared
to the proposed FY 1984-85 comparable staff posJ.tJ.ons and
annual salar1es. In all cases the annual rate includes at
least a 4% increase and J.n no case did there appear to be an
excessive increase in the annual rate. Addit~onally, the
proposed grantee budgets were analyzed to ensure that funds
being provided by the City were applJ.ed to dJ.rect servJ.ce to
the greatest extent possJ.ble and that the level of serv~ce
provided to the residents of Santa Monica was consistent with
or exceeded the City's contr1bution to the program.
(5) Use of CombJ.ned Revenue Sources. The Commun~ty
Development Program is funded by a variety of sources
~ncluding CDBG and Redevelopment funds. One of the CommunJ.ty
and Neighborhood Improvement proJects, CommunJ.ty
- 5' -
.
.
.
Corporation-Core Funding, w~ll rece~ve both CDBG and
Redevelopment funds, thereby necess~tat~ng the approval of
two contracts. This report transmits and recommends the
approval of the CDBG contract~ the Redevelopment contract and
enabling resolut~ons will be submi tted for the next
Redevelopment Agency meeting for Agency approval.
B. FY 1984-85 Grantee Report~ns, Monitor1ns and Technical
Assistance
While the development of a set of comprehensive,
well-designed obJectives 1S necessary to ensure a solid base
for any program, staff recogn~zes that this acttyi~y alone is
not enough. Therefore, a plan for ong01ng oversight and
assistance 1S being developed for 1ffiplementation in FY 84-85.
It will consist of the follow~ng components.
( 1) Reporting. At the end of every quarter, each grantee
will be required to subm1 t a program status and a f1scal
progress report. These 'reports w111 be carefully reviewed by
staff and follow up will occur on any questionable act1V1t~es
or expenditures before the next quarter's advance 15 issued.
Add1 t1onally, ~n keeping with the requirements of the CDBG
Ordinance, staff will conduct a sem1-annual and an annual
progress reV1ew of all Conununi ty Development programs and
projects.
(2) Mon1torins. To ensure that agencies are 1n compllance
wi th the terms of their contracts as well as to avert any
problems that may develop, staff wlll contlnue 1n the
- 6 -
.
.
.
implementation of a comprehensl.ve monitoring program.
Thl.S
year staff hopes to refl.ne the process to l.ncrease the
effectl.veness of the mool.toring process whl.le decreasing the
amount of paperwork involved.
As in the past, on-site reviews of each of the agencies will
be conductedr however, unlike prl.or years, for the more
establl.shed, stable agencies, these reviews may consist of
staff attending and participating in the activities of the
program rather than undertaking a structured, formal review
of the agency's programmatl.c, adrnl.n1.strative and fiscal
procedures.
For agencies that are less well established,
-
staff W1.11 undertake the necessary monitoring of 1.nternal
systems as well as program activities.
Further, in FY 1983-84 the Department of Community and
Economic Development contracted the services of a consultant
to conduct a detailed program evaluation of two categories of
services:
counsel1.ng programs and citizen part1.c1.pation
programs.
Thl.s year staff will be targeting addit10nal
categories of serVl.ce for intensive evaluation.
( 3 )
Techn1.cal Ass1stance.
In FY 1983-84 a conslderable
amount of time was spent in the development of a ser1es of
workshops and seminars that were attended by all grantees.
In FY 1984-85, staff is workl.ng on develop1ng a new approach
to techn1cal assistance.
Technl.cal assistance, through the
use of consultants W1.th expertlse in issues related to
non-profit organizatl.ons, w1.11 be made available to agencies
- 7 -
.
.
.
on a one-to-one basls and tailored to the indlvidual
technical asslstance needs of the agencles.
ThlS approach
would de-emphasize the general group seminar and highlight
the specific areas for improvement that agencles need to
address. ThlS request for technical aSslstance could be made
by elther the agency or the City after identifYlng areas of
need through mon1toring and on-going program assessment.
Addi tlonally, the Communl ty Development Resource Center, a
collectlon
of
fundralsing
mater1al
and
management
information, will c~ntinue to be expanded and made available
to all agencies.
Finally, staff will be available for one-an-one consultation
with each agency on an as-needed bas1s. Staff has identified
several agencies in need of intensive individual assistance
and will be working closely wlth them throughout the fiscal
year.
Budget/FlnanClal Impact
Because the amount of funding for the Community Service agencies
and the Community and Ne1ghborhood Improvement ProJects detailed
herein has previously been approved by Councll, no addl tlonal
appropriation is required.
Recommendation
It lS recommended that the Clty Councll:
1. approve the FY 1984-85 grantee workp1ans, budgets and
contract language as transmitted to Council; and
2.
authorize the Clty Manager to execute
Community Development Program contracts.
FY
1984-85
the
/'
- 8 -
.
.
.
Prepared by:
Attachments
IX
Magg~e Kennedy, Grants Administrator
Commun~ty and Ne~ghborhood Services D~v~s~on
community and Economic Development Department
- 9 -