City Council Meeting: February 6,
2007
Agenda Item:8-C
To: Mayor and City Council
From:
Subject: Approval of Proposed FY 2007-10 Community
Development Grant Program Funding Rationale
Recommended
Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve
the Proposed FY 2007-10 Community Development Grant Program (CD Program) Funding
Rationale, including proposed funding guidelines and selection criteria, and
authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the next
three-year grant funding cycle.
Executive
Summary
Community Voices is the process City staff undertakes to engage community
members in identifying emerging and critical human service needs and funding
priorities. In the summer of 2006, staff
initiated Community Voices 2006, a
community assessment update that reviewed existing data and identified new
needs and trends. In addition, program
evaluations for homeless services, City and grantee-provided services for seniors,
and school-based mental health and support services have been conducted during
the current fiscal year, 2006-07. Information
gathered through these efforts provides a framework for developing the budget
for the Department of Community and Cultural Services, as well as the proposed
Community Development Program grant funding rationale for FY 2007-10. There are no immediate budget impacts
proposed in this report. Staff will
return for City Council approval with specific grant recommendations in the FY
2007-08 Proposed Budget to be released in May 2007.
Discussion
Background
The City collaborates with public and private organizations to
improve the quality of life for
CD Program funding is guided by three fundamental principles:
Provide stable funding to service providers – Funding from the
Community Development Grant Program has been a stable resource for
well-performing local organizations for years, and in some cases, several
decades. The CD Program is structured in
multi-year cycles to help organizations provide uninterrupted, continuous
services and focus on program development and implementation. Through their own efforts and in response to
City funding requirements, these agencies continually refine and improve their
service delivery to meet new or emerging community needs.
Act as a “gap funder” – The City is able to fund programs and
particular costs within programs which are critical locally but are either
ineligible or noncompetitive to other funders (e.g. administrative expenses).
Provide City funds to leverage other funding sources – A diversified funding
base is essential to the long-term survival and success of nonprofit
organizations. City funds are used, to
the greatest extent possible, to leverage other funding sources. By offering City funds as a match for other
funding sources, the City encourages partnerships that promote the development
of more efficient, coordinated service delivery.
The CD Program has historically offered both operating and capital
grants to nonprofit human service agencies that assist
1)
through operating grants to local service providers ($6.7 million annually
to 29 nonprofit human service and housing development organizations supporting
over 53 different programs to meet the needs of infants, children, youth and
families, people with disabilities, seniors, victims of domestic violence and
low-income people, including those who are homeless); and
2)
through City-administered capital improvement and public works projects that benefit
low-income individuals ($1.2 million in City funds support capital projects,
including public facility improvements and accessibility improvements) and
through non-profit grants depending on fund availability in any given year. The CD Program is the major City resource
available to address the findings of Community Voices, program evaluations and
long-range planning processes.
Funding levels for grantees have remained relatively constant,
with an annual 2.5% in cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) in FYs 2005-07, which
is consistent with what the department received for its base budget. FY 2006-07 funding sources include:
80% from the City’s General Fund;
14% from federal entitlement and competitive grants,
administered by the City, such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Supportive Housing Program,
Housing Authority and HOME (Home Investment Partnership) programs;
2% Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds targeted for redevelopment
areas; and
4% from other local revenue sources, such as Proposition A and
the Los Angeles County Area Agency on Aging.
In FY
1999-2000, an intensive community planning process, Community Voices, created a profile of the
Past
practice would have the City open the next grant funding cycle by issuing a RFP
in January 2006. Because a number of
Council-approved formal evaluations were being launched in FY 2005-06 and
continuing through FY 2006-07, staff proposed to extend funding for the current
grantees for one year and postpone the next grant cycle, to begin in FY
2007-08, rather than FY 2006-07. In
the summer of 2006, staff launched Community
Voices 2006, a community assessment update that reviewed existing data and
identified new needs and trends. Community Voices 2006 also took a
special look at the interests, needs and priorities of
The proposed FY 2007-10 CD Program funding rationale assumes a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funding level equivalent to FY 2006-07 with a cost-of-living–adjustment (COLA) equivalent to what the department will receive for its base budget. As in the previous funding cycles, staff proposes a three-year term in which organizations must submit a renewal application and semi-annual reports for continued support in each of the two following years. The minimum eligibility guidelines and selection criteria to help guide FY 2007‑08 funding recommendations for CD Program grants are provided in Attachment I.
A summary of findings and
recommendations from Community Voices
2006, evaluation of
Funding Rationale
The following funding rationale is proposed to guide the City’s
next three-year CD Program funding cycle:
Ensure
effective services through programs that are coordinated and collaborative and
designed to provide a more seamless delivery of services to people who most
need them.
„ For Homeless
Services, special consideration will be given to programs with the
primary target populations identified below, are consistent with
recommendations from the evaluation or fill an identified gap in services. Existing programs within the continuum of
care that have demonstrated effectiveness in linking people to long-term case
management; mainstream benefits; specialized case management (e.g., mental health,
substance abuse, employment, benefits advocacy); emergency shelter, temporary
and permanent housing; will be a funding priority.
„ For Children,
Teens and Families, special consideration will be given to programs
that partner with other organizations to coordinate services for Santa Monica
families most in need. Organizations
that commit to coordinating case management and mental health services;
developing case management and internship standards and protocols; establishing
interagency agreements; and providing well-developed information and referral
services; will be a funding priority.
„ For Senior
Services, special consideration will be given to programs that provide
a more cohesive approach to delivering a range of services. Organizations that demonstrate a
consolidation of fragmented service delivery and an approach to a “one-stop
shop” model for delivery of social services will be a funding priority.
„ For Disability
Services and Community Services, special
consideration will be given to programs that develop innovative outreach
strategies and/or collaborate with other community agencies to ensure clients
are aware of the full scope of services available to them, regardless of their
point-of-entry into the system.
„ For Housing
Development, special consideration will be given to housing providers
that collaborate with local social service providers. Providing housing is often only one piece of
the solution for households in need.
When housing is provided to vulnerable populations, such as seniors,
people with disabilities and homeless people, social service supports are
needed. Housing providers who are able
to find innovative strategies for providing clients with social services
through local agencies, in an arrangement that is beneficial to the housing
provider, the social service agency and the client, will be prioritized.
Improve
community awareness of, and access to, the rich array of community programs.
Special
funding consideration will be given to grant proposals that include outreach strategies and service delivery to
connect Santa Monica residents most in need to existing community resources
including, but not limited to, utilizing appropriate venues such as Virginia
Avenue, Police Activities League, Senior Center and other local human services
agencies.
Incorporate
documented best practices and/or propose to introduce an evidenced-based
practice that has clear and measurable outcomes.
„ For Homeless
Services, special consideration will be given to programs offering innovative
best practices designed to prevent or end homelessness including, but not
limited to, integrated service teams with assertive, wrap-around services;
permanent supportive housing including post-placement, housing retention
services; and homeless prevention for seniors.
„ For Children,
Teens and Families, special consideration will be given to programs
that incorporate best practices to prevent or address gang violence, alcohol
and drug abuse and other mental health risk factors. These include, but are not limited to, the
use or pilot of an evidenced-based, goal and outcome-driven practice or most
current modes of prevention and treatment, close coordination with other
service providers, and the provision of intensive case management services.
Further, programs which demonstrate focus on strengthening families and
supporting parents – including families with young children – will be given
priority.
„ For Senior
Services, special consideration will be provided to programs that
incorporate best practices in the areas of service coordination, case
management of seniors, particularly those with multiple issues or needs, and
independent living or helping seniors continue living in their homes.
„ For Disability
Services, special consideration will be given to existing or new
programs that incorporate documented best practices to serve the target
population and are able to demonstrate measurable success. Best practices include approaches that give clients choice
and self-determination as they gain and maintain their independent living
skills. Programs providing client
assistance with independent living, medical health or mental health needs, case
management, housing placement and retention, educational opportunities and/or
employment assistance, in a manner that promotes choice and self-determination,
will be prioritized. Programs that
advocate for and assist with integrating persons with disabilities into the
larger community, through housing, employment, recreational and other
opportunities will also be given special consideration.
„ For Community
Services, special consideration will be given to programs that
demonstrate measurable success in increasing household income, stabilizing
housing tenure, and/or improving the physical, psychological and material
well-being of the household. Programs
that include a component which enhances community building or improves access
to information will also be given special consideration.
„ For Housing
Development, special consideration will be given to programs that
increase the number of affordable units in
Incorporate
regional strategies into agency planning efforts.
„ For Homeless
Services, special consideration will be given to programs that include strategies
that promote a “fair share” approach to homelessness. Some of these strategies include: restricting use of brief services to a set
time or number of visits that can occur without the client seeing a case
manager, and thereafter, without showing progress on a plan that leads back to
housing; and for people who recently became homeless or arrived in Santa
Monica, determine where they were living when they lost their housing, or
before coming to Santa Monica, and work toward linking them with services in
the community they came from. In
addition, regional funds secured by
„ All proposed
programs should also include consideration of regional and “fair share”
strategies. Proposals must demonstrate
an approach to service delivery which directly benefits
Implement
a phased-in approach to address key findings and recommendations of recently
completed community assessments and evaluations.
At
this point in time, the evaluations referenced above are just being
completed. Short-term and medium range goals
for the current homeless service delivery system, school-based mental health
and support services system and senior programs will be phased-in in the
upcoming three-year funding cycle, FY 2007‑10. This gives staff an opportunity to work with
the community’s nonprofit organizations throughout the process, which is
consistent with the City’s philosophy of partnership with those that provide
services.
Leverage non-City funding to serve
A diversified funding base is essential to the long-term
survival of nonprofit organizations. The
proposed funding rationale specifies that the program provide a minimum of
25% of the total budget for the
To improve support to the network of
community-based programs, staff recommends to fund the following types of
grants:
„ Operating
Grants: The CD Program is structured in three-year
funding cycles, in order to provide stable funding to effective programs that
continue to meet documented community needs.
Respondents to a CD Program RFP will require successful applicants to
document how their programs meet the needs articulated in the funding
rationale, in Community Voices 2006,
evaluations, other recent planning efforts and overall Council established
budget priorities.
„ Capital and
One-Time Funding: While the continuing and expanded program
needs for ongoing funding are significant, there are also significant needs for
capital and infrastructure improvement and capacity building and equipment purchases
for nonprofits to better serve the community.
One-time funds may leverage other sources to improve capacity and
service delivery. If funds are requested
for a facility expansion, the applicants would certify that this will not place
demands on the City for future staffing or operating costs. Staff proposes to issue an RFP for capital
and one-time grants for projects to be undertaken during the next three years
to address priority needs. Decisions
will be contingent upon available funding.
Public Outreach
Several outreach strategies were used to gain input from a wide
range of stakeholders. Community
members, consumers/clients and service providers were invited via flyers,
emails and the City’s website to participate in Community Voices 2006, evaluations and other recent planning
activities.
An RFP for the FY 2007-10 CD Grant Program will be released in early
February with a March deadline. Staff
will hold a pre-submittal conference to provide interested applicants with an
orientation to the application process, including an overview of the minimum
eligibility requirements and selection criteria outlined in Attachment I. Notice of the conference will be sent to currently-funded
nonprofit organizations, nonprofit organizations in the department’s RFP
mailing list, as well as posting a notice in the newspapers and on the
division’s website.
Budget/Financial Impact
There
are no immediate budget impacts proposed in this report. Projected FY 2007-08 funding levels for the
CD Program assumes a maintenance-of-effort funding level equivalent to FY
2006-07 with a cost-of-living–adjustment (COLA) equivalent to what the
department will receive for its base budget.
Staff will return for City Council approval with specific fund
allocation recommendations in the FY 2007-08 Proposed Budget to be released in
May of 2007. A budget adoption hearing
will take place in June of 2007 when Council will make final funding decisions.
Prepared by: Julie
Rusk, Human Services Manager
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Director,
Community and Cultural Services
Department |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachments:
Attachment I: Minimum Eligibility Requirements and Selection Criteria
Attachment II: Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Community Voices 2006, Evaluation of Santa Monica’s Homeless Service Delivery System, Evaluation of City-funded School-based Mental Health and Support Services, and Other Recent Planning Efforts
ATTACHMENT I
Minimum
Eligibility Requirements
Applicants are eligible to apply for grant
funding through the City’s Community Development Program if they meet the
following Council-approved minimum eligibility requirements:
Eligible applicants include
educational institutions, hospitals or nonprofit organizations with tax-exempt
status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code or Section
23701(d) of the California State Franchise Tax Code.
The applicant is in compliance with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (as
amended), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended), Age
Discrimination Act of 1974, Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (as amended), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of
1990. Applicant does not discriminate in
the hiring of staff or provision of services on the basis of race, religion,
sex, age, national origin, disabilities, HIV status, political affiliation or
beliefs, or sexual preference.
The applicant has an active Board of
Directors or governing board and must receive formal approval of its Board of
Directors or governing body to submit a proposal for City funding.
The applicant must implement an accounting
system that is in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP). Further, the applicant must have
an agency audit performed annually by an outside independent Certified Public
Accountant (CPA). Applicants that do not
currently implement an accounting system in accordance with GAAP Standards or
perform an agency audit must submit a plan and time line for developing an
appropriate accounting system and conducting an annual agency audit as part of
the application.
The applicant must target services
to residents of the City of
Selection Criteria
Applications for the City’s Community
Development Program will be reviewed according to how effectively applicants
demonstrate how the proposed program meets the following selection criteria:
Addresses a clearly
documented need in Santa Monica as identified through
Demonstrates a strong history of
program, fiscal and administrative performance;
Demonstrates participation in a
collaborative planning process, working with a broad range of partners,
including relevant community-based organizations, and private and public-sector
resources, residents and program participants, with the goal of improving
service delivery in a specific service area;
Provides access to services and promotes public awareness through
information to residents and other service providers regarding service
availability, including a strategy for outreach to residents who have not
previously used social services; appropriate geographic location; responsive
hours of operation outside of a traditional 9-5 weekday schedule (including
weekends); and physical accessibility;
Provides culturally appropriate and sensitive programming that
includes bilingual capacity and culturally relevant services;
Implements specific and relevant outcome
indicators to measure program effectiveness;
Promotes principles of
self-help and leadership, with client participation as an integral part of the
decision-making process in program development, operation and evaluation;
Provides a minimum of 25% of the
total budget for the Santa Monica program from non-
For affordable housing development organizations,
demonstrates strong, proven track record in developing and maintaining a wide
range of affordable housing types or special needs and supportive housing
(special funding consideration will be given to organizations meeting HUD’s
For homeless services programs, the
applicant must enter (or be willing to enter) data into
ATTACHMENT II
Summary
of Findings and Recommendations from
Community Voices 2006,
Evaluation Of Santa Monica’s Homeless Service Delivery System, Evaluation Of
City-Funded School-Based Mental Health and Support Services and Other Recent
Planning Efforts
Community Voices 2006
Much of the data
collected in Community Voices 2002 are
still highly relevant, particularly since the core demographic information was
from the 2000 Census and the survey and focus group data were gathered
only four years ago. Community Voices 2006 built on these
existing data and updated them where needed.
In addition, the current process took a special look at the interests,
needs and priorities of
Several methods of
information gathering were used to gain input from a wide range of stakeholders: surveys; focus groups; meetings of City
commissions, advisory boards and task forces; and a roundtable discussion group
of agency leaders.
Community Voices 2006 Surveys – The surveys were distributed
using a three-pronged approach. Surveys
(printed in English and Spanish) were mailed to a random sample of 5,000
residents in
Focus Groups – This
year, a new strategy was used for recruitment of focus group participants. In 2002, focus groups were held with
pre-existing groups (i.e., clubs, networks, and associations). In 2006, attempts were made to diversify
participants and reach residents who may not readily participate in community
activities by conducting focus groups with individuals who were not necessarily
a part of an existing group. Residents
were invited via flyers, emails and the City’s website to participate in focus
groups at convenient City locations.
Increased efforts were also made to obtain perspectives from a larger
range of stakeholders, including baby boomers, seniors and parents of young
children. Upon the completion of the
focus group discussion, participants were asked to complete the $10 Survey and
were invited to talk freely about other general matters of concern to
them. The $10 Survey asked
respondents to hypothetically allocate $10 among a number of programs for
targeted populations within the community including seniors, homeless, persons
with disabilities, families with children and youth, low-income households, and
other programs. Twenty-one focus groups were conducted, of which eight were City
commission and advisory board meetings.
A total of 197 individuals participated in the focus groups. Focus group participants completed a total of
157 $10 Surveys.
City Commission, Advisory
Board and Task Force Meetings – Special sessions were held with City
commissions, advisory boards and task forces to discuss the needs of community
members and the spending priorities of the City. Meetings
with six City commissions and two advisory boards and task forces were conducted for this purpose.
Agency Roundtable
Discussion – In September, the City sponsored a roundtable discussion with
both executive directors and program managers of City-funded agencies to engage
these important community leaders in discussions about human service themes and
issues, collaborative efforts and planning for the next funding cycle beginning
in FY 2007-08.
An overview of the
general characteristics of the survey respondents is as follows:
|
|
Total
Number of Respondents (# = 457) |
2000 Census
Data for City of |
|
Ethnicity |
|
|
|
Latino |
7.8% |
13% |
|
African
American |
5.9% |
3.6% |
|
Caucasian |
72.8% |
72.3% |
|
Asian
Pacific Islander |
3.8% |
7% |
|
Native
American |
1.1% |
.2% |
|
Multiracial/Multiethnic |
6.5% |
3.1% |
|
Other |
2.2% |
.4% |
|
Language Spoken* |
|
|
|
English |
98% |
71% |
|
Spanish |
9% |
5% |
|
Other |
11% |
-- |
|
Gender |
|
|
|
Male |
34.7% |
48% |
|
Female |
64.5% |
52% |
|
Transgender |
.5% |
-- |
|
Household
Size |
|
|
|
Average |
2.31 |
1.83 |
*Percentages sum to more than 100% due to multiple languages
spoken in the home.
**Data for the City of
Where appropriate,
comparisons are made between the study sample and the City’s demographic profile
as determined by 2000 Census data.
Although the survey demographic data revealed that Latinos were
underrepresented in the survey by approximately 5%, they were over-represented
in focus groups. Survey data indicate
that 5.9% of survey respondents identified themselves as African Americans,
higher than the 2000 Census reports (3.6%) for City residents.
Through Community Voices 2006, the three most
pressing needs for each target population were identified in the survey
responses of almost 500 community members:
Seniors and Older
Individuals
Increased transportation services/options
Affordable housing
Independent living assistance
Low Income Households
and Families
Affordable housing
Employment and job training
Access to health care
Homeless Individuals
Access to mental health/counseling
Emergency shelter services
Employment and job training
Persons with
Disabilities
Increased transportation services/options
Independent living assistance
Affordable housing
Children, Youth and
Families
Youth / Young adult employment services, mentoring and
apprenticeships
Childcare and after school programs for school-age children
Financial assistance for children in low income families to
participate in early education, childcare, and after school programs
Across both survey and
focus group data, three major themes emerged:
Building a sense of community among all residents and with City
entities
Improving access to information about services
Increasing access to and improving the coordination of services
A number of major
concerns about the following services emerged across data collection strategies
and respondent groups. These included:
Transportation
Affordable housing
Access to health care
Recreational opportunities
Public safety
When community members
who completed either the survey or who participated in focus groups were asked
to advise the City on how they would spend limited public funds across eight
service areas, the following three ranked highest:
Programs for seniors
Programs for homeless individuals
Programs for low-income households/families
Since there was
over-sampling of seniors in Community
Voices 2006, interpretation of these findings should take that into
account. It should also be noted that
programs for families with school-aged children ranked a close fourth behind
programs for low-income households/families.
Most importantly, overall, participants in Community Voices 2006 allocated a greater amount of funds for
programs addressing populations they perceived to have the greatest need. Therefore, there was general consistency
between identified needs and how to spend public funds.
Evaluation of
In FY 2006-07, the City
engaged the Urban Institute, a non-partisan, social and economic policy
institute, to conduct an evaluation of
91% of
80% have substance abuse issues, with 56%
with substance abuse only
38% have a mental illness, with 14% with
mental illness only
24% have both substance abuse and mental
illness
6% are without either substance abuse or
mental illness
15% are 55 and older
10% are veterans
33% are chronically homeless
23% have been connected to
Based on these findings, the primary target populations for the FY 2007-10
Community Development funding are:
Chronically homeless individuals
Persons with substance abuse and/or mental
health issues
Older homeless persons (55 years of age and
older)
Homeless veterans
For all of the categories above, an emphasis should be placed on serving
those people who have been homeless on the streets of
The evaluation made
numerous recommendations relating specifically to service providers funded
through the CD Program. Some of these
recommendations have been incorporated into the funding priorities above, and
others may be incorporated into grant agreements, as appropriate. These recommendations include:
Establish Good Neighbor
Agreements for homeless facilities;
Incorporate best
practices designed to prevent or end homelessness including, but not limited to:
integrated service teams with assertive, wrap-around services; permanent
supportive housing including post-placement and housing retention services; and
homeless prevention for seniors;
Restrict use of
brief services to a set time or number of visits that can occur without the
client seeing a case manager, and thereafter, without showing progress on a
plan that leads back to housing;
Gather better
information on where people came from and why; determine where they were living
when they lost housing and work towards linking them with services beyond
Develop
transportation arrangements to get people to services beyond
Increase use of
Project Homecoming, the city’s bus ticket program which reunites people with
families and friends out of
Provide adequate
levels of supportive services to help people keep their housing and to maintain
relationships with landlords to assure units continue to be available;
Participate in the
selection, design and use of an integrated, real-time case management and data
management system, including consideration of improved approaches to data
sharing between agencies;
Ensure that
services funded with regional dollars are prioritized for homeless people currently
in
Participate in
community stakeholder processes related to homeless service delivery at the
local and regional level, including assessing entry points and system
structure;
Participate in
community stakeholder processes related to addressing the impacts of
homelessness on the community.
Further refinements and
changes to service delivery may come out of the Community Roundtable
process.
Evaluation of City-Funded School-Based Mental
Health and Support Services
A major funding area of
the CD Program includes programs supporting children, youth and families, which
includes funding of school-based mental health and support services in the
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). The CD Program supports eight programs in six
non-profit agencies that provide counseling, parent support, case management,
crisis intervention, peer conflict mediation and tutoring services. On June 28, 2005 City Council awarded a
contract to WestEd, a research, development, and service agency, which works
with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and
improve learning for children, youth, and adults, to conduct an evaluation of
City-funded school-based mental health and support services. Key findings include:
Profile of SMMUSD
Students
Ethnicity – 53% White, 30% Latino, 10% African American, 4%
Asian/Pacific Islander
Fewer
(30% to 40% fewer) African American and Hispanic/Latino students met or
exceeded state standards
Fewer
(10% to 15%) students in Title I elementary schools, which most Latino and
African American students attend, met or exceed state standards compared to
students attending other SMMUSD elementary schools
Increase
in high school suspensions over two years
Patterns of Risk and
Mental Health Factors Among SMMUSD Students
Higher levels of alcohol and other substances than state
averages
Lower perceptions of harm of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana
than state averages
Decline in percentage of students feeling safe at school
Improvement
with respect to resiliency (e.g., feeling more connected to school)
Interviews: Key
Informants (School and Agency staff) indicated the following:
Strengths of Services
– Availability
of individual and group counseling on the school campus
– Community
Liaison program and bilingual staff at schools
– Positive
relationship between agency and school staff and agency participation on
Student Study Teams
Areas in need of Improvement
– Scope
of school-based mental health services is limited; not comprehensive
– Coordination
by SMMUSD needs improvement to address service fragmentation
– Limited
collaboration among agencies and between agencies and schools
– Lacks
standardized, consistent procedures and protocols for identifying, referring,
screening, tracking, and serving students
– Lacks
a consistent model and clear standards for training and supervision of interns
– Reliance
on outdated or traditional mental health practices
– Minimal
quality assessments are conducted and efforts to refine services are limited
Focus Groups with
parents and students provided the following insights:
Parents
– Appreciation
of and satisfaction with counseling services; yet seemed generally unaware of
the range of services
– Limited
and inconsistent involvement in treatment and support services
– Want
more family therapy, psycho-educational and support services
Students
– Concerns
about their safety and well being; particularly related to gang violence and
peer substance abuse
– Want
more school-based mental health services but stated some concerns about
stigmatization and confidentiality
WestEd’s recommendations
are:
Need
early collaboration and buy-in
of stakeholders
Develop
process for effective
coordination of services and continual collaboration
Increase the comprehensiveness of services
along the prevention to intervention continuum
Update and improve quality of services
Increase access to culturally competent
services, which requires agencies to more actively recruit bilingual and
bicultural staff and provide more cultural competency training
Establish quality standards and formal
guidelines for supervision and training of interns who provide a large
proportion of mental health services
Use valid and reliable outcome measurement
and evaluate services continually, using the information to improve services
The City, SMMUSD, service providers and community members have begun to
meet to consider those recommendations that can be addressed relatively soon,
and will begin planning for more extensive, long range improvements to the
system of school-based mental health services. During recent meetings with the
City, District and City-funded agencies, several overarching issues that need
to be addressed were identified. They include balancing out the need for more
in-depth services for a relatively small number of higher-risk students and
families with the demand for serving larger numbers of students, looking more
closely at the stronger role community-based, rather than school-based,
services can play in more effectively meeting the intensive, longer term mental
health needs of students and families, and the role funding plays in
contributing to fragmentation of services. These are issues not likely to be
fully addressed in the short term, but will be considered in ongoing
collaborative meetings.
A phased-in approach will be taken to addressing the key findings and
suggested improvements to the current system, with the upcoming CD Program RFP
process encouraging proposals that address recommendations for improving
school-based mental health services that can be introduced over the upcoming
grant cycle. More specifically, special
consideration will be given to grant proposals that include at least one of the
following: intensive, well-coordinated
case management services for high risk
Other Recent Planning Efforts
Children, Teens and
Families
In 2005, the City
co-sponsored two youth violence forums with Senator Sheila Kuehl intended to
clarify the role of individual organizations, or “action partners,” in reducing
youth violence in
A consistent theme in
gang violence forums held in 2005 and 2006 is the need to improve the
coordination of youth services. Other forums
in which residents have expressed similar sentiments include the meetings of
the Pico Neighborhood Association, Virginia Avenue Park Advisory Board, and the
Community Violence Prevention Coalition.
Similarly, many residents used the Community Voices 2006 process to ask
the City to develop care plans for incarcerated youth prior to their release
back into the community.
To facilitate the
coordination of youth services among multiple service providers, the City and
Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) jointly created the Youth Resource Team
(YRT). The YRT is an interdisciplinary
group of representatives from youth-serving organizations that meets regularly
to coordinate case plans for high risk youth.
Team members include representatives from the City’s Human Services
Division/Virginia Avenue Park; PYFC; Santa Monica Police Department; Santa
Monica-Malibu Unified School District;
Since the YRT is
focusing on youth with intense, multiple risk factors, the team has chosen to
start by coordinating comprehensive service plans for 15 youth. These youth tend to have frequent contact
with law enforcement; require a multitude of services; and experience multiple
risk factors that include substance abuse, academic failure, a lack of
employment skills, gang affiliation, counseling needs, prior incarceration,
learning disabilities, and poverty. The
YRT is also helping City staff to implement
In 2006, the City took a
major step toward providing a range of services when it reopened
The Westside Domestic
Violence Network (WDVN) held a roundtable with community leaders following
their 10th annual conference, Beyond the Black Eye: Addressing Gender, Violence and Coercive
Control in Families. Themes arising from
the facilitated discussion included the need to ensure that school staff at all
grade levels are armed with sufficient training and information to be able to
identify and respond to children being victimized by domestic violence; the
importance of supporting and developing prevention and early intervention
efforts; the recognition that children who learn to use violence in the home
are likely to become accepting of other forms of violence (including gang
violence) as they grow older; and the need to ensure effective coordination and
collaboration among agencies responding to the crisis of domestic violence. As a result of the conference, the WDVN has
implemented trainings in the school district and has formed a Family Court
Advocacy Task Force. They have also
recommended that the City support collaborative meetings to increase stakeholder
communication and awareness of domestic violence in the community; form a
system of consultation in which the community can use the WDVN to provide
training and information; and support the collaborative development of an
integrated approach to prevention and early intervention of child abuse,
domestic violence and youth violence.
In December 2006,
Seniors
Several local and regional planning efforts are in
progress in the area of services for seniors. Two months ago,
In addition to Community Voices 2006, which had a
special focus on the needs of current and future seniors, the City contracted
with Lodestar Management/Research, Inc. to conduct an in-depth evaluation of
senior services in
The Life Long Learning Older
Adult Task Force (OATF) is focusing this year on improving awareness of and
access to services for seniors in