Council Social Services Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Special Social Services Committee met on August 30, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, with Myers presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items focused on partner agency funding and planning, approving all items brought before it. During the meeting, the committee heard four public comments and took one vote. The session included two presentations: one on a phased plan for partner agency funding and another on the FY 2013 Partner Agency Application. Additionally, the committee considered items referred to it regarding the LFUCG Partner Agency Phased Improvement Plan, which was also approved.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 30, 2011:

• Myers
• Henson
• Kay
• Ford
• Lawless
• Stinnett
• McChord

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included one motion regarding FY13 partner agency funding.

FY13 Partner Agency Funding Application 1:55:49

Myers moved to approve the application for FY13 partner agency funding with amendments to include agencies funded by state statute or local ordinance as a separate category. Henson seconded the motion.

The motion passed by voice vote. Those voting in favor were Myers, Henson, Kay, Ford, Lawless, Stinnett, and McChord. No votes were cast against the motion, and there were no abstentions.

The approval was conditional on the following modifications to the application:

• Removal of the 10-point allocation to council and mayor
• Reflection of feedback provided during the meeting
• Inclusion of comments on programmatic funding

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting included discussion of funding for partner agencies in fiscal year 2013. No specific dollar amounts, vendor or recipient names, or resolution identifiers were provided in the available meeting materials.

Public Comment

Four speakers addressed the meeting with perspectives on the proposed application process and funding evaluation system.

Wallace 1:23:11 raised concerns about the complexity of the proposed scoring system, arguing that it oversimplifies intricate social service issues. Wallace questioned whether student interns were appropriate evaluators for established agencies, comparing the proposal to hiring medical students to certify surgeons.

Stinnett 1:31:49 suggested that the committee should retain final approval authority over funding decisions before the budget is presented to the full council. Stinnett emphasized that this oversight would ensure accountability and meaningful committee involvement in the process.

Ford 1:43:38 expressed support for the application process and proposed that student interns could contribute valuable insights to needs assessments and program reviews. Ford highlighted that student interns bring real-world experience and could help reduce costs.

Henson 1:57:25 stressed the importance of conducting a comprehensive needs assessment prior to making funding decisions, characterizing it as essential for identifying community priorities and informing future funding allocations.

Contested Items

The August 30, 2011 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members.

Use of Student Interns in Program Evaluation

Council members engaged in a heated discussion about whether graduate students should be used to evaluate established social service agencies. The debate centered on qualifications and capability. Some council members argued that student interns lacked sufficient experience to meaningfully assess established programs, while others pointed to successful models demonstrating that students could contribute substantive and valuable evaluation work.

Funding Allocation: Programmatic vs. Administrative

A split vote emerged over the funding allocation process and whether it should permit funding for administrative overhead costs. Council members disagreed about the implications of a programmatic funding focus. Some expressed concern that restricting administrative funding could undermine the long-term sustainability of social service agencies, despite the stated emphasis on directing resources toward programmatic activities.

Role of Council and Mayor in Scoring

A procedural dispute arose regarding the allocation of 10 points to the council and mayor within the scoring process. Council members debated whether this allocation should be removed entirely. Those questioning the allocation argued that it created a double vote and compromised the objectivity of the evaluation process, while the discussion reflected broader concerns about the appropriate role of elected officials in the scoring methodology.

Policy Presentation: Phased Plan for Partner Agency Funding

Craig Benez presented a phased improvement plan for partner agency funding 7:15. The presentation outlined a strategic shift in funding approach, moving from direct agency funding to funding based on community needs.

Key Principles

The plan emphasized several core principles:

• Need-based funding allocation
• Leveraging external grants
• Outcome measurement
• Collaboration with UK (University of Kentucky) and Bluegrass Community Foundation

Implementation Structure

The phased plan is designed for rollout over three fiscal years, allowing for gradual implementation and adjustment of the new funding model.

Outcome

The policy presentation was approved.

Presentation: FY 2013 Partner Agency Application

14:18

Craig Benez presented the new FY 2013 Partner Agency Application process to the group. The presentation outlined significant changes to the application framework designed to streamline the submission process while maintaining rigorous evaluation standards.

Key Components of the New Process:

• Streamlined Application Form: The new application form was redesigned to reduce complexity and improve clarity for applicants.

• Mandatory Pre-Application Workshop: All applicants are now required to attend a pre-application workshop before submitting their formal applications.

• Three-Committee Scoring System: Applications will be evaluated through a structured process involving three separate committees.

Application Focus Areas:

The new application emphasizes several critical elements:

• Program-specific outcomes and measurable results
• Financial transparency and fiscal accountability
• Alignment with designated priority areas, including:
• Senior services
• Mental health
• Youth development

Outcome:

The FY 2013 Partner Agency Application process was approved.

Items Referred to Committee: LFUCG Partner Agency Phased Improvement Plan

1:04:20

The committee discussed the phased implementation timeline for the LFUCG Partner Agency Phased Improvement Plan. The proposed approach includes a one-year pilot program focused on social services agencies before expanding the initiative to all partner agencies.

Key Discussion Points

The committee members Benez, Myers, Ford, and Wallace participated in the discussion. Several concerns were raised during the deliberation:

• Timing of needs assessment: Questions were raised about when the needs assessment would be conducted and how it would inform the implementation timeline.
• Role of university students: Committee members discussed the involvement of university students in data collection and program evaluation, raising questions about their capacity and role in the process.

Outcome

The item was approved by the committee.