Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.9 Updates to the Human Services Grants ProgramCELEBRATING DUBLIN CALIFORNIA STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Agenda Item 4.9 DATE: October 18, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SU B.FCT : Updates to the Human Services Grants Program Prepared by: Judy A. Miller, ManagementAnalystll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider modifications to the Human Services Grants Program guidelines and allocation process, as recommended by the Human Services Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and approve the program modifications. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Human Services Grants Program is supported by several funding sources, including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund, General Fund, Affordable Housing Fund, and additional sources as available, such as the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Each year the grant funds vary based on what is available from each source. The total amount is included in the City's budget for that fiscal year. DESCRIPTION: Background At its April 19, 2022, meeting, the City Council requested the Human Services Commission review the Grants Program and recommend revisions to guide it going forward. Specifically, the Commission was asked to address the following: • Handling multiple funding requests from one organization, considering factors such as limited funding availability, prioritization, and the individual tracking of services. • Reviewing applications from organizations for any overlap of services. • Determining if a reasonable cost per person should be on a per capita basis or a program basis, and how to evaluate when intensive services require more money per capita. • Revising the rating process to ensure the program remains competitive. Page 1 of 3 124 Human Services Commission Review and Recommendations At its July 28, 2022 Special Meeting, the Commission reviewed the Grants Program, specifically the items listed previously, and recommended program modifications. These include revised rating criteria, a standardized scoring system to rate each application, and guiding principles to ensure the program is fair and equitable in allocating funds. The recommendations fall into four general categories, as discussed below. 1. Do not limit organizations on the number of applications that can be submitted, as there are organizations that offer services for several critical Human Service needs. However each application must serve a separate need and should be evaluated on its own merits. o There are many critical Human Service needs in the community, and organizations are responding to the needs of the populations they serve. Households may have more than one need and require multiple services from the same or different organizations. Non-profit organizations are working in the community daily and are evolving and responsive to current needs. The Commission was concerned that if prescriptive limits are in place, it could prohibit organizations from continuing to meet the changing needs of the community. o Applications will be rated on their own merits and reviewed for any overlap of services. Each application must be in response to the population being served, address critical priorities, and serve different needs. 2. Track clients as unduplicated in each program from which they benefit. o Clients may receive assistance in more than one area; however, this should be clearly defined in data collection, tracking, reporting, and monitoring. 3. Update the rating sheet to demonstrate how well the applicant meets each funding criterion. o To ensure each application is fairly and competitively evaluated, the rating sheet has been revised to provide a clear structure and point system to score the applications. It was requested the rating sheet have two sections: one for Staff to review and confirm the organization complies with requirements, and another for Commissioners to rate the applications based on how well they meet the established criteria. 4. Do not base funding considerations on per capita or cost per client as different needs require different levels of support and expertise (i.e., single meal delivery vs. legal casework). o To ensure appropriate funding, applications with high per capita costs should identify the critical human service need and demonstrate an overwhelming likelihood of addressing that need. The application must be clear on the actual costs needed to provide these services. The measurable outcomes should be clearly articulated, and the impact on residents of Dublin demonstrated. The recommended guiding principles of the Human Service Grants Program (Attachment 1) establish a framework in the allocation of funds and prioritize the applications addressing critical Page 2 of 3 125 needs in the community. The revised rating sheet (Attachment 2) provides a clear structure and point system to rate how well the application meets the scoring criteria. Lastly, efforts will be made to raise awareness of the Grants Program to reach more non-profit organizations in the community. Current efforts include joint outreach, a grant workshop with Pleasanton and Livermore, legal notices, and notification to existing grant recipients (going back five years). To increase awareness, Staff will develop a master list of known providers in the area and be diligent in ensuring they are aware of the Program. Staff will be available to answer questions from new organizations that may assist them in the grant application process and survey organizations that receive the information but do not apply. The Human Services Commission recommends these changes be approved and implemented starting with the Fiscal Year 2023-24 grant cycle. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Human Services Grants Program Guiding Principles 2) Revised Human Services Grants Rating Sheet Page 3 of 3 126 Attachment I II DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Human Services Grants Program Guiding Principles The City of Dublin Human Services Grants Program provides financial support to local non-profit organizations serving Dublin residents. The grant program is typically funded through three sources: • The City General Fund • Affordable Housing Fund • Federal Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Other funding sources are also used as they become available. The principles listed below will provide guidance for each funding source. 1. All applications submitted must: a. Address at least one of the City Council's Funding Priorities b. Address at least one of HUD's Strategic Goals and Policy Priorities c. Address at least one of the 14 Areas of Concern in the Eastern Alameda County Needs Assessment Report (https://bit.ly/14areasofconcern) 2. All funded programs must benefit low-income or high -risk individuals or households in Dublin. 3. All agencies receiving funds cannot discriminate in selecting clients or proselytizing when providing services. 4. Organizations may apply for more than one grant. Each funding request must address a separate program or project and fulfill a different need. Each application will be evaluated on its own merits. 5. Households/individuals may be experiencing more than one critical need. A household/individual will be counted as an unduplicated client in each program that fulfills a different need. 6. The rating sheet will evaluate each application against a specific set of criteria and receive a score on the extent to which those criteria are met. 7. Grantees must submit demographic data on clients, board members, and staff to inform and support City Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. City Council's Funding Priorities to fund programs that specifically address critical human service needs: • Food and Nutrition • Healthcare • Homelessness • Childcare 127 US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Strategic Goals • Increase homeownership • Promote decent affordable housing • Strengthen communities • Ensure equal opportunities in housing • Promote participation of grass -roots faith -based and other community -based organizations US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Policy Priorities • Provide increased homeownership and rental opportunities for low and moderate - income persons, persons with disabilities, the elderly, minorities, and families with limited English proficiency. • Improving the quality of life in our Nation's communities. • Encouraging accessible design features. • Participation of minority -serving institutions in HUD programs. • End chronic homelessness within ten years. • Removal of barriers to affordable housing. Tri-Valley Needs Assessment Findings by Area of Concern: • Behavioral Health (mental health and substance abuse) • Affordable Housing • Healthcare • Workforce Development • Homelessness • Transportation Services and Access • Domestic Violence and Child Abuse • Disabilities • Food and Nutrition • Senior Services • Youth Services • Childcare, Early Childhood Development, and Education • Changing Demographics and Growing Diversity • Financial Assistance 128 Attachment 2 CITY OF DUBLIN HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS RATING SHEET Organization: Program: City Staff Section Organization/Management (1 point each, maximum of 5) The organization previously received funding from Dublin and has fully complied with the City's management procedures, including invoice and report deadlines. The organization, as presented in the application, is able to achieve the stated goals and outcomes. The organization and its staff are qualified and have the capacity to provide for the program. (non-profit status, resumes for staff, Board of Directors, information on clients served) The organization has completed all required aspects of the application process. The proposed program has a successful proven track record (not a new program). Total Points: The estimated total number of unduplicated Dublin Residents to be served: Qualifies for: CDBG ❑ General Fund ARPA ❑ Other Commission Member Section Need — Rate the need for this program/service. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The applicant does not articulate a clear need for the project in their application and is unlikely to address that need. Mid 3-5 The applicant identifies a clear need, but it is not a critical human service need, and/or the applicant does not demonstrate a high likelihood of addressing that need. High 6-10 The applicant identifies a critical human service need in Dublin that other organizations do not and demonstrates a high likelihood of addressing that need. Comments: Benefit — Rate the benefit to low-income or high -risk individuals/households in Dublin. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 Applicant demonstrates a low number of low-income or high -risk Dublin individuals/households who will benefit from the project, and the application fails to identify any outcomes or ways it will measure project success. 129 Mid 3 5 Applicant demonstrates a moderate number of low-income or high -risk Dublin individuals/households who will benefit from the project. The application identifies outcomes but is unclear or unlikely to demonstrate a project impact. High 6-10 Applicant demonstrates a high number of low-income or high -risk Dublin individuals/households who will benefit from the project. The application identifies clear and measurable outcomes to demonstrate project impact. Comments: Funding — Rate the applicant's funding request. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The funding request is unreasonably high given the project's proposed impact, and the number of people served; the project budget is unrealistic. Mid 3-5 The funding request is reasonable but does not demonstrate a high impact or cost effectiveness given the proposed number of people served and/or the project budget has significant questions or flaws. High 6-10 The funding request is a reasonable amount demonstrating high impact and cost effectiveness given the proposed number of people served; the project budget is feasible and sound. Comments: Funding Sustainability — Rate the diversification of the project's funding sources. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The Grant request is the only source of funds for the applicant's proposed project. Mid 3-5 The applicant has identified more than one funding source to support the proposed activity/service, but this grant request would be the main source of funds, and the long- term sustainability of the project is questionable. High 6-10 The applicant has identified multiple funding sources to support the proposed activity/service and ensure sustainability. The organization produces other income that may be used to support this program (fundraising). Comments: City Funding — Rate the necessity of City funding for this project. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The project is not appropriate for City funds and will not reduce demands on other City resources. Mid 3-5 The project is an appropriate use for City funds but will not reduce demands on other City resources and/or other types of funding sources would be a better fit for this project. High 6-10 City funds are critical to the project, and funding request is appropriate for City sources and reduces demands for other City resources. 130 Comments: Consistency with Policies — Rate the proposal's consistency with the HUD Strategic Goals and HUD Policy Priorities. (To determine CDBG eligibility) Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The proposal does not address any of the HUD Strategic Goals or HUD Policy Priorities. Mid 3-5 The proposal addresses one of the HUD Strategic Goals or HUD Policy Priorities. High 6-10 The proposal helps address multiple HUD Strategic Goals or HUD Policy Priorities. Comments: City Council Priorities — Rate the extent the proposal addresses one or more of the City Council's priorities. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The proposal does not address any of the Council's priorities. Mid 3-5 The proposal addresses one or two of the Council's priorities but does not have a high likelihood of doing so effectively. High 6-10 The proposal demonstrates a high likelihood of addressing multiple Council priorities. Comments: Alameda County 14 Areas of Concerns — Rate the extent the proposal addresses one or more of the 14 areas of concern as identified by the Alameda County Needs Assessment Report. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The proposal does not address any of the 14 areas of concern. Mid 3-5 The proposal addresses one or two of the 14 areas of concern but does not have a high likelihood of doing so effectively. High 6-10 The proposal is highly likely to address multiple areas of the 14 areas of concern. Comments: Innovation — If funds were allocated last year for the same project/activity, rate the extent to which the applicant adequately responds to changing community conditions. If the proposal is for a new project, rate the extent to which the project uses a new and innovative approach to solve an identified problem. Rating Description Score 131 Low 0-2 The applicant does not demonstrate an ability to adapt the project to changing needs or is not using an innovative approach. Mid 3-5 It is unclear how the project will respond to changing community conditions identified in the application or use an effective but not particularly innovative approach. High 6-10 The applicant demonstrates a high likelihood of responding to changing conditions and/or using an innovative approach. Comments: Access — Rate the extent to which the project will ensure non-English speakers, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, seniors, low-income families, and/or youth can access the proposed program or activities. Rating Description Score Low 0-2 The proposal does not mention accessibility concerns and does not describe how it will remove barriers or help community members access its services. Mid 3-5 The proposal addresses accessibility concerns but does not identify concrete or impactful ways the project will remove barriers for priority populations. High 6-10 The proposal describes concrete and impactful ways the applicant will improve language, technology, and/or transportation access for priority populations. Comments: Proposal Total Score: Recommend Funding: Yes n No Total Requested: Total Recommended: Commissioner Name Suggested determination of allocation amount: Date Points Percent Qualifies For 80+ Points 80-100% of request 60-79 Points 50-80% of request 59 and below 0-50% of request 132