SR-301-004 (24)~~r
~ c~tY of
Sa~tta Monica~
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: April 25, 2006
Agenda Item: 3~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Barbara Stinchfield, Director, Community and Cultural Services
~
Subject: Agreement with the Urban Institute for a System and Program Evaluation
of Santa Monica's Homeless Continuum of Care
Recommended Action
It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute a professional services agreement with The Urban Institute in an amount not to
exceed $~26,000 for a system and program evaluation of Santa Monica's Homeless
Continuum of Care.
Executive Summary
To improve homeless service delivery in Santa Monica, the Community and Cultural
Services Department's Human Services Division engaged in a process to select a
consultant to conduct a system-wide evaluation of Santa Monica's homeless continuum
of care. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued on November 14, 2005. On
January 31, 2006 a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to four qualified
respondents and three proposals were received by March 1, 2006. An interdepartmental
evaluation team reviewed the three applications and selected The Urban Institute as the
finalist. Following meetings with the evaluation team, City staff and representatives of
1
the local homeless service providers, The Urban Institute was recommended to conduct
the evaluation at a cost of $126,000.
Discussion
Background
The Community Priority adopted by City Council in the FY2005-06 Budget Paddressing
the impacts of homelessness on the community includes "a system-wide evaluation of
Santa Monica's continuum of care" as an element of the work plan. Funding in the
amount of $200,000 for a one-time Continuum of Care Evaluation was included in the
City's FY2005/06 Budget. This is the first time the City's homeless delivery system will
be comprehensively evaluated since its inception in the 1980s.
In August 2005 City staff met with local homeless service providers to solicit input on
the proposed evaluation and its scope of work. On November 14, 2005 the City of Santa
Monica released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to over 80 professional, research
and academic organizations nationwide. Information on the RFQ was posted on the
listserv for the American Evaluation Association and on the Human Services Division
website. The RFQ was also sent to national homeless advocacy groups. In response,
eleven consultants submitted resumes and relevant work samples. Human Services
Division staff reviewed all of the responses and interviewed seven respondents by
phone. On January 31, 2006 four consultants were invited to submit a full proposal.
2
The Request for Proposals (RFP) asked for a qualitative and quantitative description of
Santa Monica's homeless service delivery and an evaluation of Santa Monica's system
in light of best practices across the nation. The goals of the evaluation were articulated
as:
1) Refining the strategy for homeless service provision and the effective
management of resources;
2) Results-oriented recommendations against which the effectiveness of the
programs and the system can be measured;
3) Recommendations for specific action steps to be carried out within the next
five years; and,
4) Recommendations for increasing and/or reallocating resources to carry out the
action steps. The evaluation timeline has been set at nine months so
sufficient progress will be made in time to inform grant funding decisions for
the 2007-2010 Community Development Program. It is anticipated that
Council consideration of the grantee selection criteria, followed by issuance of
the Request for Proposals to local non-profit agencies, will occur in January
2007.
Consultant Selection
Three of the four invited consultants responded to the RFP and outlined evaluation
methodologies, plans, timefines and project budgets. An evaluation team consisting of
representatives from Community and Cultural Services, Police and Housing and
Redevelopment engaged in efforts to address homelessness was convened. The team
3
reviewed applicants' qualifications, evaluation plans and proposed budgets. A Senior
Behavioral Scientist from RAND, acting as a volunteer to the project, offered a written
critique of each proposal.
The evaluation team considered three applicants: The Lewin Group, Resource
Development Associates, and The Urban Institute. The Lewin Group, an Arlington, VA-
based research and consulting firm with experience evaluating welfare reform,
employment and homeless programs, proposed a methodology that was deemed useful
for a description of the current system but lacking as a tool for developing
recommendations for future actions. Resource Development Associates, a Bay Area
social research and consulting firm, was determined to have less experience with
evaluating homeless services. The Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based
nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization that has completed
numerous evaluations of homeless programs and continuums of care, are considered
experts in the field and emerged as the preferred applicant. Subsequently, The Urban
Institute was invited to Santa Monica to interview with members of the interdepartmental
evaluation team and to meet with local homeless service providers. On April 10, 2006,
the principal consultants from the Urban Institute team met with members of the
evaluation team, City staff and representatives of the local homeless service providers.
As a result of this selection process, The Urban Institute is recommended as the project
consultant.
4
The Urban Institute is recommended based on the following considerations:
1. Professional qualifications including experience with relevant topics and projects
of similar scope;
2. The demonstrated competence, ability, capacity and skill of the principals to
employ a variety of inethodologies that will sufficiently address the goals of the
evaluation and produce a high-quality, results-oriented final report that is
accessible to a wide range of readers;
3. A realistic and achievable timeline;
4. The sufficiency of the firm's resources;
5. The character, integrity, reputation and judgment of the principals;
6. The ability of the principals to provide such future service as may be needed; and
7. The price which the firm proposes to charge, including whether the price is fair,
reasonable and competitive.
Consultant Background
The Urban Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan economic and social
policy research organization. The Urban Institute and the project's principal evaluators,
Dr. Martha Burt and Laudan Aron, have completed numerous evaluations of homeless
services programs and continuums of care, surveyed best-practices and are considered
experts in the field. Prior evaluations have used agency and project surveys; sampling;
literature review; site visits; fieldwork; focus groups and data analysis.
5
Dr. Burt and Ms. Aron have extensive experience developing evaluation plans with local
stakeholders, which include clearly articulated goals and feasible mechanisms for
measuring progress. They are currently working on a five-year project to reduce long-
term homelessness, especially among people with serious mental illness, sponsored by
the Corporation for Supportive Housing and the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation; and are
evaluating a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Department of Labor
homeless demonstration project for the City of Los Angeles' Community Development
Department. Other past clients include: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the
Melville Charitable Trust, The Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation, Fannie Mae,
numerous Federal departments and agencies, and local jurisdictions across the nation.
Staff contacted three of the Urban Institute's references - the Corporation for
Supportive Housing; City of Los Angeles Community Development Department; and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - and received very positive
feedback.
6
Budqet/Financial Impact
The contract amount to be awarded to The Urban Institute is $126,000, this includes an
8% contingency for potential additional costs related to issues which may arise during
the course of the evaluation. This could include additional data collection and analysis
and extra on-site briefings to local officials, services providers and community residents.
Funds are included in the FY2005/06 budget at account 012627.555060.
Prepared by:
Danielle Noble, Sr. Administrative Analyst - Homeless Services
Approved: Forw to Council:
-~.,c..~ ~+~ ;~ ,..._. ~ -'
,
- ~ , - _ ,:;
Barbara Stinchfield, Director, . L t Ewell
Community and Cultural Services Cit anager
7
Local Homeless Init~atives
E valuation of Home le s s
Servrces System &
E xpans ion of the Chronic
Homele s s Program
Apri12006
Sys te m and Program
E valuation of Santa.
Monic a's Home le s s
Cont~nuum of Care
1
E valuation De s ign
^ Provide an action plan going forward:
- How do we measure and ma~~imize success?
- How do we build on existing strengths and
build capacity where needed?
- What do we need to do differently?
- What do we need to diseontinue?
- What new things should be tried?
- What can we learn from the experience of
others?
9
~
Selection Process
^ RFQ to 80 organizations nationwide
^ 11 responses received; 7 interviewed
^ 4 invited to submit a full proposal
^ 3 proposals received
^ RAND senior researcher critiqued proposals
^ Inter-departmental team selected The Urban
Institute ~
^ Non-profit provider agencies had an
opportunity to meet IJI staf f and give comments
,o
5
Community Input
^ Interviews with regional stakeholders
^ Public f orums
- Community expectations and issues (Ju1~
- Draft findings and recommendations (Dec)
^ Council meeting to present findings (Dec)
^ Community Voices process
13
Final Results
Final Results
^ Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the
current continuum of care
^ Recommendations f or changes or ref inement
^ Suggestions on how to best achieve, and
measure, desired outcomes
^ Specific action steps to be implemented over 5
years
14
7
Inter-agency Collabora~ive
^ CLARE Foundation
^ OPCC
^ St. Joseph Center
^ New Directions
^ Step Up on Second
^ LA County DMH
^ Police, Fire, Housing Authority, Human
Services
,~
Curt~ent Proposal
^ Create a three-person, interdisciplinary team
dedicated 100% to the C~-~'
^ Continue to work with the current inter-agency
collaboraxive to:
- Continue ef f orts
Oversee implementation of the new team
- Develop the long-term structure
18
9
Program Cost
^ Contra,ct with Community Partners $189,000
($168,000 ongoing)
^ While the interdisciplinary team is available to
support all C~-iP participants, they will have a
core caseload of 30 individuals. For the first
year, this represents $6,300 per person for
services (this excludes housing)
^ Conservative estimaxe of average annual cost for
one client in Police, Jail and Paramedic calls is
$8,800
2,
Community Partners
^ Provides administrative support to incubate
community programs and straxegic initiatives
^ Previous and current partner to the City (CC~
and EPV~
^ Will be able provide technical assistance
regarding the long-term viability of the project
22
11
•