Social Services & Community Development Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Social Services & Community Development Committee met on March 18, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., with Ford presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking two votes and hearing five public comments.

The committee approved the Committee Summary and received an informational presentation on FY 15 Partner Agency Budget Review Committee Recommendations. Two items were deferred: Workforce Development and Items Referred to Committee, indicating these topics will be revisited at a future meeting.

Attendance

Present: Ford, Ellinger, Kay, Lawless, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, Lane, Clark

Absent: Akers

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included two motions that were brought to a vote.

Motion to Approve the Committee Summary 3:00

Ellinger moved to approve the committee summary, with a second from Beard. The motion passed by voice vote.

Motion to Amend the Timeline for the Administration's Policy Recommendation on Increasing Partner Agency Funding 1:07:19

Myers moved to amend the timeline for the administration's policy recommendation on increasing partner agency funding, with a second from Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting addressed fiscal year 2015 partner agency funding recommendations totaling $2,300,000 in grant funding under Resolution 557-2013.

Public Comment

Five speakers addressed the council regarding funding decisions for various social service organizations.

Janice James 1:12:48 spoke about emergency shelter funding, expressing concern that the Hope Center's emergency shelter was not funded for the first time in 12 years. She questioned the city's commitment to basic human needs and asked for guidance on how to sustain the service with reduced funding.

May Cermick 1:23:44 addressed funding for the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center. She shared that her agency was recommended for 0% funding despite serving 17 counties and providing critical trauma services. She emphasized the impact on victims and the community.

Bruce Simpson 1:29:47 spoke about funding for the Children's Advocacy Center. He argued that the center performs unique, law enforcement-related services and should be evaluated differently due to its statutory role in supporting criminal cases.

Mark Royce 1:36:24 discussed funding for AVOL. He noted that AVOL was funded at 51% last year and is now excluded despite similar scoring. He cited increased need due to federal funding cuts and emphasized the importance of HIV prevention services.

Phil Gunning 1:41:38 highlighted concerns about mental health services funding for NAMI Lexington. He noted that mental health services are underfunded relative to substance abuse and emphasized the need for peer support and recovery services, especially amid managed care challenges.

Contested Items

The March 18, 2014 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members and presenters:

Funding for Emergency Shelter

Janice James raised concerns that the Hope Center's emergency shelter would not receive funding for the first time in 12 years. This sparked a heated discussion about budget priorities, with the core disagreement centered on whether basic human needs services should be prioritized over other programs in the funding allocation process.

Scoring System and Multiple Applications

Council Member Stinnett identified a potential flaw in the evaluation process, arguing that agencies submitting multiple applications could gain an unfair advantage in the scoring system compared to organizations submitting only a single application. This concern prompted debate about whether the current methodology adequately leveled the playing field among applicants of different sizes and capacities.

Evaluation of Law Enforcement-Adjacent Agencies

Attorney Bruce Simpson argued that agencies performing specialized government-oriented work—specifically citing the Children's Advocacy Center—should be evaluated using different criteria than general social service organizations. Simpson contended that these agencies' unique roles warranted a distinct assessment approach. This disagreement led to discussion about potential policy changes for how such specialized agencies would be evaluated in future funding cycles.

Committee Summary

The committee approved the summary of the previous meeting without discussion or dissent. Council Member Ellinger made the motion to approve, which was seconded by Council Member Beard. The summary was adopted by the committee 3:00.

FY 15 Partner Agency Budget Review Committee Recommendations

Commissioner Beth Mills and Craig Benz presented the FY 15 partner agency funding recommendations to the committee 4:03. The presentation covered the application review process, application data, scoring methodology, and proposed funding tiers for partner agencies.

Presentation Overview

The funding work group reviewed 73 applications and recommended funding for 30 of them. The recommendations included a tiered funding structure with three levels: 95% funding, 80% funding, and 75% funding, determined by applicant scores.

Key Discussion Points

The committee discussed several important aspects of the funding process:

• Transparency and fairness: Committee members raised concerns about the transparency of the scoring process and whether the scoring methodology was fair to all applicants.
• Funding levels: The discussion addressed the appropriateness of the proposed funding percentages and how they were determined based on application scores.
• Need for increased funding: Committee members expressed concern about the need to increase overall funding for partner agencies, given the number of applications received and the competitive nature of the process.

Speakers

In addition to Mills and Benz, the discussion involved input from committee members Kay, Myers, Stinnett, Akers, Scutchfield, Clark, and Beard.

Outcome

This agenda item was presented as informational, providing the committee with details on the partner agency funding recommendations and allowing for discussion of the process and concerns before any formal action.

Workforce Development

The committee discussed workforce development matters and decided to defer action on this item pending further information. 1:48:13

Key Participants

Council Members Ford, Myers, and Clark led the discussion on this agenda item.

Discussion and Concerns

The committee's deliberations centered on the need to reestablish leadership in workforce investment and the role of the Bluegrass Workforce Investment Board. Council Members Ford, Myers, and Clark emphasized these priorities during the discussion.

The committee's decision to keep the item in committee was contingent upon the release of the State Auditor's report on the Bluegrass Area Development District, indicating that this external review was considered essential to informing further action on workforce development matters.

Outcome

The workforce development item was deferred, remaining in committee pending the availability of the State Auditor's report on the Bluegrass Area Development District.

Items Referred to Committee

1:54:31

The committee discussed items referred for further review. Ford, Beard, and Scutchfield participated in this discussion.

The committee agreed to retain the workforce development item for further review. No additional items were discussed during this agenda item.

The outcome of this discussion was deferred, allowing the workforce development matter to remain under committee consideration for continued examination.