| Home > Government > Boards and Commissions > Human Services Advisory Commission > 2010 > April 13, 2010 Meeting Minutes |  |
Human Services Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
April 13, 2010
7:35 - 9:30 p.m
Rockville City Hall
| Members Present: | ||
| Rachel Carr Bob Dorsey Scott Robins | Tina Cheatwood Cindy Griffiths Agnes Saenz | Kim Dawkins David L’Heureux |
| Members Absent: | ||
| Daniel Flowers | Stephen Huang | Eric Wang |
| Staff Present: | ||
| Sarah Gicale |
Re: Call Meeting to Order/ Introductions
Cindy Griffiths called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Re: Approve March 9 Meeting Minutes
Rachel Carr moved that the minutes for March 9 be approved; Bob Dorsey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Re: Update on State/County Funding for FY 2011
Cindy introduced this topic by referring to a chart that Mary Lou Jacobs had created showing the budget cuts that each Caregiver agency was anticipating as a result of the County’s proposed budget. Bob Dorsey said that his shelter, Montgomery Avenue Women’s Center is seeing a 20% increase in clients. He said that the word on the street is that some shelters are already having difficulties financially. Agnes Saenz said that the County has to cut $750 million overall which is a significant amount. All shelter programs will sustain a 7% cut in County funding. The reimbursement rate for health clinics is also being cut which will mean, for example, a $35,000 - 67,000 loss in funding for CMR’s Mansfield Kaseman Health Clinic. CMR’s senior services and ESOL programs are also affected. Right now, according to Agnes, there is a lot of advocacy taking place and the County Council could restore some of the cuts. The final decision will be made the last week of May. Revised budgets have already had to be submitted which Agnes does not consider a good sign.
Tina Cheatwood asked if there was anything the Commission could do. After discussion, there was agreement that no role was seen for the Commission outside of communicating the County budget information to the Mayor and Council. Cindy said that Mary Lou’s chart had already been distributed to them. Sarah Gicale advised Commission members that there would be a budget worksession on April 19 at which time the Mayor and Council would examine the proposed Recreation and Parks budget, which includes funding for the Caregiver agencies. She suggested that Commission members monitor the worksession to determine if any changes to this funding were under consideration.
Re: Update on Caregiver Agency Grant Review Process
Tina Cheatwood explained that two panels had reviewed the grant applications. One was made up of City staff; the other (of which she was a member) was made up of community representatives. The two panels met separately and had no information concerning the other panel’s recommendations. The only information presented for their consideration was what was in each grant application. Tina said her panel also looked at how each program was evaluated. She estimated that it took her approximately 50-60 hours to read through all the grant applications. She found it to be a difficult process where each decision on funding often came down to exactly what had been included in the grant application itself. Her panel chose not to fund any new programs. For those programs asking for increases, she felt that many applications did not adequately justify the increase. For example, she said, simply including a statement such as, “Our operating costs are higher” was not sufficient justification. Tina said that the evaluation component of each application can be a real challenge but one she considers critical. She also sees evaluation as essential in applying for any additional funding. She suggested that all the Caregiver agencies partner with local colleges and universities where there are students and staff that can assist with evaluations at no cost. Scott Robins asked if there should be benchmarks. Tina responded affirmatively saying that it is not enough to survey clients; the survey must first be validated.
Agnes Saenz said that the City’s proposed increase to the Caregiver programs was 7% overall—including the contingency fund; but it was actually just 2.6% to the Caregiver agencies themselves. Agnes wanted to recommend that the contingency funding should be allocated effective July 1; she would like to see it distributed to the Caregiver programs and is concerned that without an application procedure it could go unused and be lost to human services. Tina responded that decisions on additional funding for individual programs were made based on the detail included in each application as to the precise need for increased funding. She feels that with public monies, people have a responsibility to justify its spending. If any agency/program has a need for more funding, they can apply for contingency funding.
Agnes said that the Caregivers are planning to testify at the April 26 budget hearing. Four clients will testify and some programs that did not receive the increases they wanted will ask that the contingency funding be made available immediately. Tina agreed that the Human Services Advisory Commission could recommend that an application procedure for contingency funds be developed and that the funds be kept in human services. Rachel Carr added that any agency’s request for contingency funds should be carefully evaluated.
Re: April 26 Mayor/Council Budget Hearing
Cindy said that the Human Services Advisory Commission would testify at the budget hearing as well. After listening to the discussion she thought the testimony should include these points:
She said she would write up the testimony and email it to everyone.
Re: Report from Caregiver Reports Review Committee
Scott said that his goal in this subcommittee is to develop a methodology. He will look at how Rockville residents are being served in terms of the numbers served and dollars used. He will consider any red flags, e.g., the way surveys are conducted, missing narrative in reports, etc. Stephen Huang has agreed to assist him so they will meet and develop the details. Overall, their purpose is to help the Caregiver application process
Re: Report on Rainbow Place Shelter Site Visit
Agnes said that she had been present at the site visit. She thinks Rainbow is running very well under the leadership of Ingred Manfredo who has been the director for just a year. As an example of improvements at the shelter, staff now checks the bags of clients daily looking for weapons or alcohol. When this new procedure was implemented, five women left the shelter and never returned. Another improvement has been to observe a real curfew. Women must return to the shelter by 9:45 p.m. and lights are out at 10 p.m. Rainbow has been known to have their own rules and to not be part of the County system. They are now more a team player. They are using Service Point for their data system and ensuring that each client enters the shelter system through Crisis Services.
One challenge to Rainbow is case management. Agnes said that the site visit team learned that Rainbow has never had an in-house case manager. There seems to be a lack of communication between the company that does the case management and Ingrid. Rainbow now has as a goal hiring an in-house case manager.
One issue of concern to Agnes was that Rainbow employs 27 part time staff members. Agnes said she advised Ingrid to pare down this number. She understands this may take some time as this is a church-run shelter, used to doing things in its own way. Overall Agnes thinks that Ingrid is doing a good job for having been in her position for just a year. Also, Ingrid had mentioned the need for an evaluation and Agnes was able to provide her with some resources for this at no-cost.
Re: Old Business
Community Services Division Monthly Reports
There were no questions or comments.
Follow-up Discussion on March 9 presentation from JSSA
Cindy asked what the Commission could do with Julia’s information. Agnes suggested inviting her to a Caregivers meeting so that the information would be disseminated to potential consumers. She said she would add JSSA to the mailing list for Caregiver agencies.
Commission Networking with other Community Groups
Cindy had brought her laptop to the meeting and looked up the names of County commissions, reading through a long list. Members liked the idea of networking and suggested that they start with a group that is nearby as, for example, Gaithersburg. It was decided to invite Crystal Carr to the next meeting in May and ask for details of Gaithersburg’s new funding system for nonprofits, human needs in Gaithersburg, information on Gaithersburg’s Human Services Commission and ways they could work together. Agnes will extend the invitation.
Obesity
Cindy wanted Commission members to know that she had contacted Betsy Thompson and Jon McLaren of the City’s Recreation and Parks Department about this topic. They had assured her that obesity is a planned component of all their activities. Neither was available to speak to the Commission this evening but Cindy was going to suggest that Eric Wang follow up with Recreation and Parks if he was interested in pursuing this topic. Cindy herself does not think it should be a responsibility of the Human Service Advisory Commission.
Re: Plan Agenda for May 11 Meeting
Re: Adjourn
David L’Heureux moved that the meeting be adjourned; Rachel seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
The next meeting of the Human Services Advisory Commission will be held Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. in the Black Eyed Susan conference room at Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue.