30.844
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM Miti 1: Front Street & Soquel Avenue 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 262 47 510 314 79 48 529 247 193 652 75 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 262 47 510 314 79 48 529 247 193 652 75 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 285 51 554 341 0 52 575 268 210 709 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 347 301 54 656 355 55 680 474 258 821 95
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1544 276 3456 1870 1585 42 1362 950 653 1646 190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 0 336 554 341 0 463 0 432 210 0 791 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1821 1728 1870 1585 823 0 1531 653 0 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 0.0 21.7 18.4 21.5 0.0 14.3 0.0 23.4 36.0 0.0 45.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 21.7 18.4 21.5 0.0 59.4 0.0 23.4 59.4 0.0 45.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.11 0.62 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 347 0 355 656 355 445 0 764 258 0 917 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.95 0.84 0.96 1.04 0.00 0.57 0.81 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 347 0 355 656 355 445 0 764 258 0 917 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.88 0.00 0.88 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 0.0 47.3 46.5 47.8 0.0 30.3 0.0 20.8 42.6 0.0 26.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 36.0 7.8 31.8 0.0 50.8 0.0 0.8 16.0 0.0 7.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 13.3 8.6 13.1 0.0 19.6 0.0 8.4 7.4 0.0 20.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 0.0 83.3 54.3 79.5 0.0 81.1 0.0 21.6 58.6 0.0 33.8 LnGrp LOS D A F D E F A C E A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 412 895 A 895 1001
Approach Delay, s/veh 75.6 63.9 52.4 39.0
Approach LOS E E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.2 64.0 27.8 64.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.6 59.4 23.2 59.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.5 61.4 23.7 61.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
30.845
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumuatlive+Proj PM Miti 4: Front Street & Laurel Street 05/11/2022
530 Front St Synchro 10 Report
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 168 996 29 227 830 198 4 229 254 204 367 264 Future Volume (veh/h) 168 996 29 227 830 198 4 229 254 204 367 264 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 183 1083 32 247 902 215 4 249 276 222 399 287 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 1142 34 271 1017 242 7 302 478 246 553 617 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.15 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1603 3160 93 1603 2537 604 1603 1683 1318 1603 1683 1315 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 548 567 247 568 549 4 249 276 222 399 287 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1603 1599 1654 1603 1599 1541 1603 1683 1318 1603 1683 1315 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 39.0 39.0 17.7 38.7 38.8 0.3 16.7 20.2 15.9 24.4 17.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 39.0 39.0 17.7 38.7 38.8 0.3 16.7 20.2 15.9 24.4 17.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 578 598 271 641 618 7 302 478 246 553 617 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.60 0.83 0.58 0.90 0.72 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 233 587 607 287 642 618 55 302 478 260 553 617 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.1 36.3 36.3 47.8 32.6 32.6 58.2 46.3 31.4 48.7 34.6 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.9 24.8 24.3 30.1 14.1 14.7 64.1 22.0 5.0 30.5 7.9 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.9 18.9 19.5 9.3 17.1 16.7 0.2 8.8 7.1 8.4 11.1 5.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.0 61.1 60.6 77.9 46.7 47.4 122.3 68.3 36.5 79.2 42.5 24.5 LnGrp LOS E E E E D D F E D E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1298 1364 529 908
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.3 52.6 52.1 45.8
Approach LOS E D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.0 25.0 23.8 46.3 4.5 42.5 19.2 51.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 21.0 21.0 43.0 4.0 36.0 17.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.9 22.2 19.7 41.0 2.3 26.4 15.1 40.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 2.6 0.1 3.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.4
HCM 6th LOS D
30.846
Appendix C
Volume Spreadsheet
30.847
530 Front Street TIA AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 1
Synchro Node Number: 2953
Intersection Name: Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 20 133 18 50 78 238 66 230 9 23 57 25 947 Project Trips 0 1 0 0 0 7 11 18 4 1 0 0 42
Existing + Project 20 134 18 50 78 245 77 248 13 24 57 25 989 Intersection Number: 2
Synchro Node Number: 2955
Intersection Name: River Street & Soquel Avenue
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 44 0 65 91 324 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 659
Project Trips 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 18
Existing + Project 48 0 65 91 327 0 0 0 0 0 146 0 677
Intersection Number: 3
Synchro Node Number: 2952
Intersection Name: Front Street & Cathcart Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 62 323 0 0 0 0 0 281 17 8 0 32 723
Project Trips 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 14
Existing + Project 62 334 0 0 0 0 0 284 17 8 0 32 737
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
5/11/2022
AM
530 Front St - Volume Spreadsheet_2022-05-11
30.848
530 Front Street TIA AM Conditions
Intersection Number: 4
Synchro Node Number: 2950
Intersection Name: Front Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 34 163 33 91 532 279 198 134 5 13 356 56 1894 Project Trips 4 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 13
Existing + Project 38 165 37 92 532 279 198 135 5 13 356 57 1907 Intersection Number: 5
Synchro Node Number: 2954
Intersection Name: Front Street & Cooper Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 23 176 0 0 0 0 0 206 44 41 0 50 540 Project Trips 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 19
Existing + Project 23 177 0 0 0 0 0 224 44 41 0 50 559
Intersection Number: 6
Synchro Node Number: 2931
Intersection Name: River Street & Water Street
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 2 91 73 283 770 255 136 186 31 18 323 10 2178 Project Trips 0 3 0 0 0 1 4 11 2 0 0 0 21
Existing + Project 2 94 73 283 770 256 140 197 33 18 323 10 2199 Intersection Number: 7
Synchro Node Number: 2930
Intersection Name: Pacific Avenue/Front Street& Mission Street/Water Street Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 119 51 9 1 658 126 0 0 0 65 348 88 1465 Project Trips 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
Existing + Project 119 51 9 1 660 126 0 0 0 66 348 88 1468 05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
5/11/2022
AM
530 Front St - Volume Spreadsheet_2022-05-11
30.849
530 Front Street TIA PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 1
Synchro Node Number: 2953
Intersection Name: Front Street & Soquel Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 35 279 101 49 107 370 124 285 15 64 160 53 1642 Project Trips 0 3 0 0 0 14 4 6 2 3 0 0 32
Existing + Project 35 282 101 49 107 384 128 291 17 67 160 53 1674 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 75 649 193 79 314 496 243 523 46 44 262 70 2994 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 75 652 193 79 314 510 247 529 48 47 262 70 3026 Intersection Number: 2
Synchro Node Number: 2955
Intersection Name: River Street & Soquel Avenue
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 185 0 293 122 358 0 0 0 0 0 378 0 1336 Project Trips 8 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 19
Existing + Project 193 0 293 122 365 0 0 0 0 0 382 0 1355 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 161 0 445 178 620 0 0 0 0 0 602 0 2006 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 169 0 445 178 627 0 0 0 0 0 606 0 2025 Intersection Number: 3
Synchro Node Number: 2952
Intersection Name: Front Street & Cathcart Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 141 544 0 0 0 0 0 339 24 20 0 85 1153 Project Trips 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 11
Existing + Project 141 548 0 0 0 0 0 346 24 20 0 85 1164 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 317 805 0 0 0 0 0 569 116 111 0 193 2111 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 317 809 0 0 0 0 0 576 116 111 0 193 2122 05/20/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/14/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
7/28/2022
PM
530 Front St - Volume Spreadsheet_2022-07-28
30.850
530 Front Street TIA PM Conditions
Intersection Number: 4
Synchro Node Number: 2950
Intersection Name: Front Street & Laurel Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 143 308 95 108 414 217 244 165 11 18 517 78 2318 Project Trips 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 12
Existing + Project 145 309 97 111 414 217 244 166 11 18 517 81 2330 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 262 366 202 195 830 227 254 228 4 29 996 165 3758 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 264 367 204 198 830 227 254 229 4 29 996 168 3770 Intersection Number: 5
Synchro Node Number: 2954
Intersection Name: Front Street & Cooper Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 35 352 0 0 0 0 0 320 39 111 0 64 921 Project Trips 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9
Existing + Project 35 355 0 0 0 0 0 326 39 111 0 64 930 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 78 680 0 0 0 0 0 511 79 148 0 148 1644 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 78 683 0 0 0 0 0 517 79 148 0 148 1653 Intersection Number: 6
Synchro Node Number: 2931
Intersection Name: River Street & Water Street
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 23 255 222 211 601 224 316 264 95 61 614 38 2924 Project Trips 0 7 0 0 0 3 2 4 1 0 0 0 17
Existing + Project 23 262 222 211 601 227 318 268 96 61 614 38 2941 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 58 427 312 346 934 204 252 393 111 62 1112 82 4293 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 58 434 312 346 934 207 254 397 112 62 1112 82 4310 Intersection Number: 7
Synchro Node Number: 2930
Intersection Name: Pacific Avenue/Front Street & Mission Street/Water Street Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:
Count Date:
Scenario: 530 Front Street TIA
Movements
North Approach East Approach South Approach West Approach Scenario: RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
INDEX 7 6 5 13 12 11 4 3 2 10 9 8
PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 User Adjustment 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Existing Conditions 191 109 11 1 582 126 0 0 0 143 675 153 1991 Project Trips 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Existing + Project 191 109 11 1 583 126 0 0 0 144 675 153 1993 Cumulative Baseline Conditions 210 365 45 37 827 157 0 0 0 157 1025 250 3073 Cumulative + Proj Conditions 210 365 45 37 828 157 0 0 0 158 1025 250 3075 05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
05/20/19
05/14/19
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
7/28/2022
PM
530 Front St - Volume Spreadsheet_2022-07-28
30.851
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Zoë Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 4:24 PM
To: City Council
Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] SCCBC Letter of Support 530 Front Street Attachments: SCCBC Letter of Support_530 Front Street_04212023.docx Hi there.
Please find the attached letter of support for the 530 Front Street project coming to Council on Tuesday.
Thank you so much!
‐Z
‐‐
Zoë G. Carter
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Business Council
831-588-6173
Sign up for our newsletter!
30.852
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, California 95060
[email protected]
April 21, 2023
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Business Council, I write to express our support for 530 Front Street and respectfully request your “aye” vote for the project.
The Santa Cruz County Business Council (SCCBC) was founded in 1996 to provide a collective voice for countywide business owners and executives. Our large and growing number of members practices informed advocacy for countywide businesses and communities. As Santa Cruz County undergoes a profound period of recovery and growth, we strive to be leaders of projects, policies and practices that promote economic and community vitality. 530 Front Street is one of those projects.
During a past Board of Directors, members, and guests heard directly from the project application and engaged in a rich discussion on housing needs in Santa Cruz ‐ one of which is apartment rental units consisting of studios, one‐bedrooms, and two‐bedrooms for students, young professionals, and very low income and low‐income residents, among others. The Board unanimously voted to endorse the project on the basis that it supports these needs and fulfills several City objectives including the promotion of “sustainable and compact community within defined urban boundaries” as stated in the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan.
The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element also calls for “transit‐oriented housing...redeveloping underutilized sites with the Downtown and along major corridors, increasing density, and facilitating housing at key opportunity sites.” The project meets the mark on each of these objectives, adds 37 affordable units to contribute to the fulfillment of our RHNA goals and provides housing that is critical to attracting and retaining qualified professionals for a sustainable local workforce.
We are grateful for strong and enlightened leadership in addressing our local housing crisis. Approval of 530 Front Street will set enormous precedent for smart development, affordable and walkable cities, and a thriving Santa Cruz economy. We urge you to support this important project.
Sincerely,
Zoe Carter
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Business Council
30.853
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dusten Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 12:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Front and Soquel Project Approval- Reject Planning Commission Balcony Restrictions Hi City Council,
Please approve the Swenson development at Front and Soquel but DO NOT impose the suggested balcony restrictions on the project. I believe this is a logical site for this development and but to limit what residents put on their balcony is over‐regulating.
Thanks,
Dusten Dennis
920 Cayuga St.
30.854
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Santa Cruz YIMBY <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 8:00 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 30 - Support for 530 Front Street
Attachments: 2023-04 - SCCC - 530 Front St Project.pdf
Good morning,
Our letter of support for Item 30 on the April 25th agenda is attached.
Best,
Ryan Meckel
Santa Cruz YIMBY
30.855
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Date: April 24, 2023
We are writing in support of the 530 Front Street Project, Item #30 on your April 25, 2023 agenda. This mixed-use development will bring 276 much-needed homes to the City of Santa Cruz including 37 deed-restricted affordable homes ranging from micro units to larger 1+- and 2- bedroom family homes. This project, with restaurant and commercial space, is intended to draw visitors to the levee, making it a more inviting space. It also includes publicly accessible open space per the Downtown Plan.
Santa Cruz YIMBY seeks to build a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home. 530 Front St. is the sort of infill housing that we need to address our city’s housing affordability crisis. The project is located close to Downtown, providing easy walking or biking to services, shopping and a major transit center. We must respond to the climate crisis by seizing these opportunities to build housing near jobs and schools, with options for public transit, biking and walking.
We urge you to adopt the staff recommendation that allows this project to move forward.
Sincerely,
Ryan Meckel
Janine Roeth
Rafa Sonnenfeld
Santa Cruz YIMBY leads
Santa Cruz YIMBY Mission: We envision a community where our neighbors of all ages, cultures, abilities, and incomes, can make Santa Cruz County their home. In response to the ever-increasing cost of living, we advocate for more affordable housing to meet the needs of our growing population.
30.856
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 2:46 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Item 30 -- Letter of support for the 530 Front Street Project.
Attachments: Letter of support for the 530 Front Street Prroject .pdf Bonnie Bush, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831‐420‐5035
Begin forwarded message:
From: Casey Beyer <[email protected]>
Date: April 24, 2023 at 2:36:59 PM PDT
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>, Renee Golder <[email protected]>, Sandy Brown <[email protected]>, Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>, Shebreh Kalantari‐Johnson <SKalantari‐[email protected]>, Scott Newsome <[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>
Cc: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 30 ‐‐ Letter of support for the 530 Front Street Project.
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Golder, Councilmembers Brown, Brunner, Kalantari‐Johnson, Newsome and Watkins:
On behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to offer our support of Item 30 — the 530 Front Street Project that is on tomorrow’s city council agenda. At a critical time where the city faces many challenges to address our housing shortage, this is a project that will provide that much needed housing while also revitalizing Front Street and the Riverfront.
Nearly a century ago back in the 1920s, city leaders joined together to promote our riverfront. In 1926, George P. Becknell was the President of the Chamber whose ideas to grow Santa Cruz tourism prompted lively conversation throughout the town. In January 1926, two hundred people attended a forum to heartily endorse extending the Boardwalk from the West side of the San Lorenzo River from Kay to Water Streets. Becknell told the crowd, “The San Lorenzo Rive as it courses through the City could and should be made the most beautiful attraction in the city. Building a River Boardwalk will do more towards making the City a year‐round resort than any other one improvement…” Here we are 98 years later finally moving projects forward that make vision of our former city leaders a reality. The Chamber appreciates the hard work of the city staff, the planning commission and the city council to get to this point. Please approve this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey
30.857
2 Casey Beyer
Chief Executive Officer
Santa Cruz County
Chamber of Commerce
(831) 457‐3713
30.858
April 24, 2023
Santa Cruz City Council
City Hall
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Item 30 — Support of City Staff’s recommendation for the approval of the 530 Front Street Project O. CP2—0098
Dear Mayor Keeley, Vice Mayor Golder and City Council members Brown, Brunner, KalantariJohnson, Newsome and Watkins:
I am writing on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce in support of the city staff’s recommendation with amendments from the Planning Commission requesting approval of the Lot Line Adjustment, Non-Residential Demolition Authorization Permit, Special Use Permit, Design Permit, Additional Height Request, Density Bonus Request, Revocable License for Outdoor Extension Area, and Heritage Tree Removal Permit with Design Variations to Downtown Plan Development Standards to City Council based on the environmental determination, findings listed below, and the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit “A”.
The Chamber Board of Directors has reviewed the project submitted by Swenson Builders several times over the past few years and recently voted unamiously to support this projects. We believe the mixed use housing project meets the standards set forth in City’s general plan as well as meets the criteria for the state’s bonus density law. The Downtown Plan’s Land Use Plan for the Front Street/Riverfront area encourages active ground level commercial uses facing Front Street and the Riverwalk. The plan specifies that ground floor residential lobbies are allowed with active, common spaces publicly visible. The plan also allows other ground floor residential uses when they are internal to a block and do not front on any street. The proposal includes a large commercial space at the corner of Front Street and Soquel Avenue and a residential lobby along the southern end of the Front Street frontage. While much of the lobby can be considered an active space, a resource room proposed along the building frontage is not considered active.
While there is some concern that a building height needs to conform to city planning standards, however, the Additional Height Request brings the building height to 70 feet (prior to density bonus) and adds 64 more units above the 120 units within the 50-foot building base height. The number of additional units created by the additional height allowance is provided by the Density Bonus, which creates 50 percent additional units beyond the total allowed with the Additional Height Request. The result is a project that provides 276 new housing units in a location adjacent
30.859
to the Riverwalk and walkable to many businesses in the downtown, generating economic and social activity in both of these areas. We all understand that access to affordable housing is a deep concern and this project addresses the shortage directly at a time when more housing is essential for our community.
Approval of 530 Front Street will move the city that much closer to meeting the state’s RNHA goal. This is the type of mixed use development that the City needs to address our housing shortable and it promotes and a thriving Santa Cruz economy — a corner stone mission of the Chamber. We urge you to support this important project. On behalf of the Chamber’s Board of Directors, I encourage your approval of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey Beyer
Chief Executive Officer
Santa Cruz County
Chamber of Commerce
cc: Chamber Board of Directors
Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce * 7960 Soquel Drive, Ste B112, Aptos,CA 95003 831-457-3713 Phone
The SCACoC is a 501c (6) non-profit corporation * Employer ID 94-0841660
30.860
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 4:50 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Item 30 - MBEP Support Letter for 530 Front Street Project Attachments: Item 30 - MBEP Support Letter for 530 Front Street Project.pdf Bonnie Bush, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
831‐420‐5035
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gabriel Sanders <[email protected]>
Date: April 24, 2023 at 4:18:16 PM PDT
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>, Bonnie Bush <[email protected]> Cc: Tahra Goraya <[email protected]>, Matt Huerta <[email protected]> Subject: Item 30 ‐ MBEP Support Letter for 530 Front Street Project Dear Mayor Keeley and Clerk Bush,
You will find attached MBEP's letter of support for the 530 Front St. Project which is up for discussion in tomorrow's Santa Cruz City Council Meeting in Item 30.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
Thank you,
‐‐
Gabriel Sanders (he/him) | Director, Housing and Community Development Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
3180 Imjin Road, #153
Marina, CA 93933
(707) 239‐1958 cell
30.861
April 24, 2023
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Subject: Support for 530 Front Street Project, Agenda Item 30 Dear Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP), I write to express our support for the 530 Front Street mixed-use development from Swenson Builders. The project consists of 276 units, including 37 deed-restricted for very low and low-income households, along with dozens more that will be affordable by design for households in the moderate income category earning up to 120% of AMI.
The project represents a significant contribution of housing units for the City, which faces a 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation of 3,736. Within half a mile of a major public transit hub and Santa Cruz High School, 530 Front Street not only meets Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals for the affordable housing it will provide across several income categories. Work opportunities abound in the area immediately surrounding the proposed development, and the project itself includes several commercial spaces that will provide both work and entertainment.
Trader Joe’s and CVS are only minutes away on foot, as is San Lorenzo Park across the river.
In addition to meeting AFFH standards, Swenson’s 530 Front Street also meets the standards of the Downtown Expansion Plan. The project meets all of the City’s objectives for creating additional affordable and market-rate housing in the downtown, greater connectivity along the San Lorenzo River, and economic opportunities for local businesses and workers.
Since 2017, MBEP has been actively tracking and supporting efforts related to the Downtown Plan, especially those that create significant new housing opportunities. Our Housing Initiative supports an increase in housing of all types and income levels in the region, advocating for infill development near transportation hubs and commercial corridors to optimize land use for housing, community services, and climate resilience. The expansion area creates a unique opportunity to plan for more, much-needed housing in one of the most sustainable sites in our region for growth due to its close proximity to jobs, amenities, transportation, and other key resources.
Sincerely,
Tahra Goraya, MA, MPA
President & CEO
3180 Imjin Road, Suite 102
Marina, CA 93933 831.915.2806
30.862
City Council | April 25, 2023
530 Front St.
Mixed Use Project
30.863
2 Community Engagement
Community meeting: May 19, 2020
Community meeting: April 13, 2022
Planning Commission meeting: March 2, 2023
• Design for climate change/solar panels
• Automobile and bicycle parking
• Unit size and affordability
• Project timeline and building lifespan
• Accessibility to open spaces
• Bird safe design
• Flooding potential
• Bicycle parking on the site
• Bicycle lanes on Front Street
• Building design
• Programming along the levee
• Design of artistic light bollards
• Landscaping plants
• Water supply
• Unit affordability
• Developer profit
• Wage standards for construction workers
• Exterior color/material changes require
prior approval by Planning Director
• Planning Commission subcommittee to
review significant revisions
• Mural coordination
• EV charging spaces increase to 20%
• Storage of items on balconies
30.864
3 Project location
30.865
4 Building Height and Density Bonus
30.866
5 Building Height and Density Bonus
Bldg. height # stories Total units Low Income Very Low
Income
Base Height 44’ 4 120 24 0
Add’l Height 63’4” 6 184 37 0
Density Bonus 92’6” 8 276 9 28
30.867
6 30.868
7 30.869
8 30.870
9 30.871
10 Revised Conditions
11. The applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for ensuring that any existing buildings approved for demolition or conversion remain occupied by a tenant or, if any buildings are vacant or become vacant prior to demolition or conversion, that these buildings are adequately secured to prevent break-ins and other vandalism. All windows, doors, and other openings into vacant buildings shall be completely covered and a six-foot tall chain link fence shall be installed around the perimeter of the property. Graffiti shall be removed or painted over within 72 hours. If a break-in occurs, the applicant and/or property owner shall, within 24 hours, clean the site of trash and debris, and re-secure the site and building(s). Additionally, following a break-in, the applicant/property owner shall provide the Planning Department, SCFD and Fire Marshall and SCPD with a copy of a signed contract with a private security company to provide ongoing monitoring of the site. If a break-in or other public safety concern related to the vacant status of the property/space occurs at the vacant site/space that requires an emergency response, the applicant and/or property owner shall be responsible for paying the fully burdened hourly rates for Police, Fire, Code Compliance, or other City Staff to respond and follow up as abatement costs, civil penalties, and/or pursuant to all other rights and remedies the City has. The City will not issue the certificate of occupancy/final permit until all fines, fees, civil penalties, and/or costs are paid.
30.872
11 Revised Conditions
12. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant shall submit a noise study addendum or letter from the noise consultant that provides any additional recommendations for noise attenuation within the building considering the effects of a pump station on the northeastern property line that meets the City General Plan noise standards of 65 dBA assuming that the pump station will comply with Zoning Ordinance noise standards. The Public Works Department additionally commits to completing a noise study for the future pump station when that design is known and to implement measures to attenuate noise from the pump station consistent with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance noise standards as recommended by that study.
30.873
12 Questions
30.874
Five30 Front Street:
Santa Cruz City Council
April 25, 2023
30.875
Timeline
2020:
Pre-Application
Submittal -170
Units
2020:
Full Application -
170 Units
2022:
Full Application
Revised – 184 Units
Conforming Model,
276 Units Density Bonus
Model
2022:
276 Units -
Deemed
Complete
30.876
2020 Pre-Application
30.877
2020 Full Application
30.878
2022 Full Application – Density Bonus
30.879
2022 Full Application – Deemed Complete
30.880
City of Santa Cruz Inclusionary Requirement: 20%
Conforming Model
184 Units at 20% = 37 BMR Units
CA State Density Bonus Scale
15% Very Low Income & 5% Low Income = 50% Increase in Base Units (184) 184 x 50% = 92 Units
Density Bonus Model
276 Units with 28 Very Low Income Units and 9 Low Income Units Density Bonus
30.881
Five30 Front Program Info:
Density Bonus Model
Residential Units: 276
Commercial Units: 6 (including 1 restaurant w/ deck)
Parking Spaces: 181 (Parking Stackers / Puzzle Lift)
Unit Mix: 2 bdr (5), 1 bdr w den (68), 1 bdr (34), studios (169) BMR: 37 Units
30.882
100% Electric Building
PV Solar on the Roof
36 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Bicycle Parking:
Class 1: 372 Spaces
Class 2: 12 Spaces
Five30 Front Program Info:
Density Bonus Model
30.883
Stepbacks =
Conforming Model: Stepbacks occur at 5th and 6th Floors (Above 50 feet) Density Bonus: Stepbacks to occur on 7th and 8th Floors in order to accommodate Density Bonus Units (Above 63 Feet)
Height = 2 additional stories to accommodate the Density Bonus Units
Top Floor to be 60% of Floor Below: Development requesting to allow 74% for to floor in order to accommodate Density Bonus Units.
Top Floor Frontage to be 62% instead of limited to 60% standard.
Density Bonus Waivers Applied
30.884
Floor Plan: Level 1
30.885
Floor Plan: Level 2
30.886
Floor Plan: Roof Top
30.887
Visual Overview
30.888
Height Discussion
30.889
Height Discussion
85’
70’
85’
80’ 88’
68’
84’
30.890
Height Discussion
85’
84’
30.891
Estimated Project Impact Fees
Green Building Education Fund: $50,000
Traffic Impact Fees: $201,690
Unified School District Fees: $746,311
Childcare Impact Fee: $102,628
Public Safety Fire Dept. Fee: $176,546
Public Safety Police Dept. Fee: $179,001
Sub Total - $1,460,147
30.892
Minor Modification Concept
30.893
Questions? / Discussion:
Contact: [email protected]
30.894
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/04/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Santa Cruz Children’s Fund Oversight Committee Appointments (CC) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint two at-large members to the City of Santa Cruz Children’s Fund Oversight Committee, with terms ending January 31, 2026.
BACKGROUND: Due to resignations, there are two at-large vacancies on the Children’s Fund Oversight Committee. The appointees will finish up the previous members’ terms and will be eligible for reappointment.
DISCUSSION: The following people are seeking appointment:
Aracely Contreras
Ryan Coonerty
Allison Guevara
Carolyn Livingston
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Bonnie Bush
City Clerk
Submitted By:
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. APPLICATIONS.PDF
31.1 31.2
31.3 31.4
31.5 31.6
31.7 31.8
31.9 31.10
31.11 31.12
31.13 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/12/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Collective of Results and Evidence-Based (CORE) Progress Report (CM) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Accept Santa Cruz County’s Human Services Department CORE Five-Year Lookback, Lessons Learned, 2022 Mid-Year Assessment, and Alternative Funding Sources Summary update; and
2) Direct staff to coordinate with the Human Services Department to return on or before December 12, 2023 with a progress report of the FY 2022-23 annual summary of CORE Investments-funded programs with an update on community engagement; and 3) Approve the proposed Timeline and Next Steps for the RFP process.
BACKGROUND: The Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments is a funding model and movement designed to improve the well-being of Santa Cruz residents equitably. The City of Santa Cruz has partnered with the Human Services Department (HSD) to share the funding of CORE programs while the County manages the CORE contracts.
On June 28, 2022, the motion was carried to approve the FY 2023 CORE List of Recommended Awards and execute agreements for all final awards before September 20, 2022. Additionally, the motion approved three (3) months of transitional funding, also known as Bridge Funding, for all FY 2022 CORE programs that applied and were not recommended for FY 2023. City staff was directed to return in August to provide recommendations for Bridge Funding.
On August 23, 2022, the City Council approved the list of recipients for the bridge funding contracts and adopted a resolution amending the FY 2023 budget to appropriate $90,000 from the City’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) as part of its contribution.
In addition, the HSD was directed to return before December 13, 2022 to provide an update on the 3-month Bridge Funding, newly established contracts, performance tracking mechanisms, resources for other funding sources, progress on lessons learned on the Request for Proposal (RFP) process and estimate of costs for consultants and administrative staff time for FY 2023 CORE funding process.
32.1 DISCUSSION: HSD was initially scheduled to update the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and City Council before December 13, 2022. However, the BOS rescheduled the item to Spring 2023 to allow staff additional time to provide further analysis and a comprehensive overview of the CORE results-based collective impact model's first funding cycle outcomes, address data gaps, and complete the Lessons Learned Report; this resulted in the City also postponing the item.
HSD has now completed the reports that provide a comprehensive analysis, overview, and updates on the recently completed 5-year funding cycle and Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
The following is an analysis of the reports:
Five-Year Lookback Report
The Five-Year Lookback Report (Attachment A) provides the context on why and how CORE Investments came to be to understand the progress and results achieved during the first CORE funding cycle. The report outlines key themes that emerged over the five-year CORE contract cycle:
-Strengthened the ability of CBOs to track data and outcomes -Discovered how programs made a difference in the lives of individuals and families -Faced challenges meeting and reporting on performance goals -Implemented and learned more about EBPs to improve services -Increased collaboration among CBOs to support the community, despite COVID and fires -Identified how recruitment and retention of staff impacted programs -Uncovered technical assistance needs by CBOs and offered training by the CORE Institute Through the first RFP process, a total of 44 agencies representing 74 programs received funding for a 3-year cycle. However, due to unprecedented local fires and the COVID-19 pandemic, these contracts were extended to five (5) years through June 2022.
HSD has sought to understand the outcomes and results of implementation and worked with Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) to enhance data collection. Over the last five (5) years, significant strides were taken to move towards a results-based accountability model of data collection to answer the questions of, “Who are we serving?” “How well are we serving the community?” and “Who is better off as a result of the services provided?” The CORE Institute, HSD, and CBOs have worked collectively during this period to build the capacity to report on data and outcomes and implement evidence-based services. As a result, in FY 2022, COREfunded programs served 55,678 unduplicated community members.
The capacity-building efforts and the continuous improvements noted in the report demonstrate the substantial growth and learning accomplished as a community. The second RFP was completed in 2022 and integrated lessons learned from the first RFP to improve the process. In the second RFP, nearly half of the applications (47%) were from new organizations that have not received CORE funding in the past. This report demonstrates the commitment and courage of the community to move forward with a funding model that will achieve the shared goals of advancing equity and collective impact to improve the well-being of all in Santa Cruz County.
Lessons Learned Report
32.2 The CORE initiative believes continuous improvement is foundational to achieving collective impact. HSD completed a Lessons Learned report (Attachment B) of the RFP process completed in 2022 to improve the collective impact model. The analysis revealed key areas for improvement and acknowledgment of what worked well. This report details the findings of the RFP evaluation, which include the following:
-Continue to engage community-based organizations and stakeholders in the creation of the next CORE RFP process
-Keep equity dimensions
-Use an online application portal
-Keep panel format and enhance support and training for panelists -Continue to provide TA for applicants and look for ways to expand offerings -Celebrate successful applicants and services
-Have a values conversation to create alignment among stakeholders -Identify funding priorities before the next RFP
-Start the RFP process earlier and provide more time between RFP release and funding awards -Provide more detail on the RFP review and scoring process -Recruit more panelists and increase panelist diversity This report, in combination with the Five-Year Lookback, provides actionable steps to improve the RFP process and continue the equity-focused collective impact investment of the CORE initiative.
FY 2023 Mid-Year Progress Report
The most recent CORE contracts have been executed, and mid-year reporting for FY 2023 has been received and analyzed. The FY 2023 Mid-Year Assessment (Attachment C) summarizes the improvements in data reporting and capacity building, demonstrates the implementation of evidence-based practices, and provides the next steps for the remaining fiscal year. Highlights include that 84% of programs have started tracking participant data. The remainder is asking for and participating in technical assistance to collect that data, demonstrating continuous improvement within the collective impact model.
Alternative Funding Sources
Due to the competitive RFP process, some historically funded programs were not awarded CORE funding in the second CORE cycle. As a result, HSD was directed by the BOS and City Council to explore and connect CBOs to alternative funding opportunities. Attachment D documents efforts made by HSD to identify funding within the department and new or expanded funding within other County departments for unfunded programs. Additionally, HSD intends to convene local funders by early Fall to discuss coordination and communication of funding opportunities to non-profit partners.
Bridge Funding and Contracts
With the BOS’ approval on June 28, 2022 and City Council’s approval on August 23, 2022, HSD executed agreements with FY 2022 CORE recipients who applied for funding in FY 2023 but were not awarded funding in this cycle. These agreements allowed for the Bridge Funding totaling 25% of their FY 2022 award amount through September 30, 2022. This allowed
32.3 recipients to adjust their staffing and identify or lessen any potential client impacts in these programs. Of the 39 programs eligible for this transition funding, 34 accepted the funding, as outlined in Attachment E.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Emeline Nguyen
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:
Laura Schmidt
Assistant City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. ATTACHMENT A - FIVE YEAR LOOK BACK REPORT.PDF
2. ATTACHMENT B - CORE LESSONS LEARNED.PDF
3. ATTACHMENT C - 2022 MID-YEAR ASSESSMENT.PDF
4. ATTACHMENT D - ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES SUMMARY.PDF
5. ATTACHMENT E - CORE 22-23 BRIDGE FUND AWARDS.PDF
6. ATTACHMENT F - CORE AWARDS BUDGET 22-25.PDF
32.4 The Five-Year Lookback:
Results from the
Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments April 2023
32.5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
32.6 1
Five Years of Discovery
✓ Strengthened the ability of CBOs to track data and outcomes ✓ Discovered how programs made a difference in the lives of individuals and families ✓ Faced challenges meeting and reporting on performance goals ✓ Implemented and learned more about EBPs to improve services ✓ Increased collaboration among CBOs to support the community, despite COVID and CZU Fires
✓ Identified how recruitment and retention of staff impacted programs ✓ Uncovered technical assistance needs by CBOs and offered trainings by the CORE Institute Executive Summary
The Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments funding process reflects ongoing improvements in a decades-long partnership among community-based organizations (CBOs), public agencies, and local funders in Santa Cruz County. This commitment to community began as a result of the 1970s Federal Revenue Sharing known as Community Programs. The most recent iteration began in 2016 as CORE Investments with a focus on evidence, results, and collective impact. The evolution of community funding in Santa Cruz has been decades in the making and in the last five years significant strides have been made.
The Board of Supervisors (Board) and Santa Cruz City Council (Council) recognized that the transition to a results-based, collective impact funding model would require an incremental, iterative process, with a commitment to continuous improvement over multiple funding cycles.
The Board and Council also recognized the consistent challenge of deploying limited funds to address significant, persistent needs among Santa Cruz County residents. This report assesses progress and opportunities for continuous improvement during the five-year period between the 2018 - 2022 Fiscal Years (FY) while recognizing the disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, the CZU fires, and other challenges.
Requests for Proposals: 2017 and 2022
The first Request for Proposals (RFP) for CORE investments, released in November 2016 and funded in 2017, focused on 18 result areas drawn from nine countywide strategic plans. This resulted in 44 agencies representing 74 programs receiving funding for a three-year period, FY 2017-18 through FY 2019-20. These contracts were extended twice: in December 2018 to align with the County’s new two-year budget cycle, and again in May 2020 to acknowledge the impact of COVID-19.
A second RFP was released in November 2021, informed by a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process and lessons learned during the first RFP. A total of 78 organizations submitted proposals for 128 programs, seeking over $15 million in funding, this was approximately three times the funds available. Demonstrating advances in community interest, nearly half the applications (47%) were from new organizations that had not received CORE funding in the past.
Progress Made
32.7 2
Results-based, collective impact approaches rely on data to yield insights about whether anyone is better off and funding is making a difference. Between the initial funding cycle in FY 2017-18 and the most recent in FY 2021-22, the most notable improvement was in reporting quality measures, which increased by 23 percentage points over the five-year period. Despite a drop during FY 2020-21 attributed to COVID-19 effects including staff shortages and capacity constraints, the majority of funded organizations were able to measure whether or not they met their annual goals. Notably during FY 2021-22, 59% of funded programs had collaborated with a fellow CORE program. By the end of the first CORE funding cycle programs served a total of 55,678 unduplicated participants and 50,160 duplicated participants in FY 2021-22.
The Movement- CORE Institute for Innovation and Impact
On behalf of the County and City, HSD engaged consultants who worked with the community to develop a CORE Investments framework, the CORE Institute. The Institute has increased knowledge of collective impact and developed a
vision, mission and values statements for CORE
Investments. Importantly, convening partners to
identify goals and results to serve as a “North
Star” for different agencies and sectors has
supported Santa Cruz County with advancing,
centering, and operationalizing equity.
An important byproduct of developing tools and
building capacity to measure outcomes and
implement Evidence Based Practices with multiple
partners has been an expansion of CORE
Investments beyond a funding model to a broader movement to achieve equitable health and well-being. This spurs greater alignment that amplifies individual agency efforts, examines and addresses the systems and structures that perpetuate inequitable opportunities and outcomes, and engages a broader community of partners in this collective work.
Looking Ahead
This report demonstrates the journey from traditional funding practices towards an innovative, equity-driven approach that promotes collective impact in Santa Cruz County. Despite the process being impacted by global and local events, the foundation of collective impact has been firmly established and CBOs are demonstrating increased understanding and movement towards results driven practices. While room for improvement remains, agency partners have increased their capacity to design, measure, and report on their impact and outcomes. HSD will continue to work closely with funded organizations to collect data on performance measures, as well as strengthening capacity and partnership among all CORE Investments stakeholders.
The continuous improvement approach will help Santa Cruz make steady progress towards our shared goal of creating opportunities for equitable health and well-being, across the lifespan, for everyone in Santa Cruz County.
CORE Tools and Support
✓ CORE Conditions for Health & Well-being
✓ Results Menu of indicators
✓ Skill building training
✓ Training and Technical Assistance
✓ CORE Coffee Chats
✓ CORE Conversations
✓ Community forums and convenings for
collective impact capacity building
32.8 3
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 Looking Back ................................................................................................................................... 5 The Origin of Community Programs ........................................................................................... 5 A New Approach: The Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments................. 6 The Model ................................................................................................................................... 6 2016 Request for Proposals (RFP)............................................................................................... 7 Programs Funded Through CORE Investments........................................................................... 7 Progress and Results of CORE-funded Programs from 2017 – 2022.............................................. 8 City and County Monitoring of Outcomes and Results............................................................... 9 Assessment of Outcomes and Results....................................................................................... 10 Continuous Improvements in Results Based Accountability ..................................................... 17 A “Movement” to Achieve Equitable Health and Well-being ...................................................... 18 Continuous Improvement of the CORE Investments Model...................................................... 18 Capacity building through the CORE Institute for Innovation and Impact ............................... 23 2022 CORE Investments Request for Proposals........................................................................... 25 Applying Lessons Learned and Continuous Improvements To Date ......................................... 25 Looking Forward ........................................................................................................................... 28 Continuing to Advance Equity and Collective Impact ............................................................... 28
32.9 4
Introduction
Community-based organizations (CBOs), public agencies, and local funders in Santa Cruz County have a history of partnering to solve complex and interrelated issues that affect the well-being and quality of life of Santa Cruz County residents. The County of Santa Cruz (County) and City of Santa Cruz (City) are among the local funders that share a long-standing commitment to invest in programs and services that address pressing community needs. This commitment to investing in community well-being began as a funding approach called Community Programs and continues today through the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments, a new approach adopted in 2016.
To understand the progress and results that have been achieved through CORE Investments from 2017–2022, it is important to understand why and how CORE Investments came to be. In turn, this “look back” on the past, paired with an understanding of how CORE Investments has continued to evolve in concept and practice, will inform future partnerships, investments, and continuous improvement efforts.
This 5-year report is organized by the following sections:
1. Looking Back
o The Origin of Community Programs
2. A New Approach: The Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments o The model
o 2016 CORE Investments Request for Proposals (RFP)
3. Progress and results of CORE-funded programs from 2017 – 2022 o Monitoring Outcomes and Results
o Assessment Findings
o Continuous Improvements in Results Based Accountability
4. A “Movement” to Achieve Equitable Health and Well-being o Continuous improvement of the CORE Investments model
o Capacity building through the CORE Institute for Innovation and Impact
5. 2022 CORE Investments RFP
o Applying lessons learned and continuous improvements to date
6. Looking Forward
o Continuing to Advance Equity and Collective Impact
7. Appendices
32.10 5
Looking Back
The Origin of Community Programs
The County’s partnership with CBOs dates back to the 1970s, when the County awarded Community Programs grants for various social and health services using federal revenue sharing funds. When this federal funding ended in the 1980s, the County and the four cities developed a joint strategy to fund Community Programs using their respective General Funds, and each jurisdiction administered their Community Programs grants independently.
CBOs provided valuable programs and services with Community Programs grants, which offered agencies more flexibility in spending and reporting than most State and Federal grants. At the same time, the Community Programs funding process largely remained static for over three decades, leaving little room for new programs or agencies to apply or for existing grantees to propose new or expanded services. Although the Community Programs application process was considered “open” because any program or agency could apply, in reality, the grantees and funding amounts remained largely the same from year to year.
This structural inequity in the funding model concerned and frustrated some CBOs and policymakers, while others expressed concern or hesitation over changing the model. In addition, inconsistent guidelines and approaches for measuring results of Community Programs grants led to a growing desire among jurisdictional funders/policymakers to answer the questions, “Is anyone better off as a result of our community investments?” and “How do we know whether the funding is making a difference?”
At multiple points over the last few decades, elected officials directed staff to conduct discussions, studies, and collaborative planning processes with the goal of improving the Community Programs funding processes and results. A summary of these historical efforts is included in Appendix A. In April 2015, the Board adopted a phased-in approach to transforming the County’s Community Programs funding process into a results-based collective impact funding model, as recommended by the Human Services Department (HSD) in the report, Effective Planning & Funding Models: Relationship to Community Programs Funding Process (Appendix B). The Board directed HSD to lead a collaborative process to design the new funding model with other local funders and stakeholders to provide an interim report (Appendix C), which was presented and accepted by the Board in October 2015.
As noted in the interim report, funders and other stakeholders shared a strong interest in working together to solve the community’s most pressing problems and increase capacity to implement evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs). They expressed support for implementing a new funding model built on two main themes:
1. Invest in What Works: Ensure that policies and interventions have the highest possible likelihood of success by selecting those that are backed by sound evidence, and
2. Invest Together: Collectively address community needs by focusing on shared goals and processes.
32.11 6
A New Approach: The Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments
The Model
In August 2016, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (Board) and Santa Cruz City Council (Council) adopted a new funding model, named the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments, which was developed after extensive research and collaboration, as summarized in the CORE Status Report and Recommendations (Appendix D). CORE Investments was built on the principles of collective impact, 1 which at the time emphasized five
conditions for success:
1. A Common Agenda: A shared vision for change that includes a common understanding of the “problem” or need and a joint approach to solving it through agreed upon actions.
2. Shared Measurement: Agreement on the ways success will be measured and reported at both the community level and organizational level. This helps maintain alignment, create shared accountability, and use data to continuously learn and improve.
3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: Each partner is committed to the specific activities that it excels at, in coordination with the actions of others.
4. Continuous Communication: Regular communication and meetings to build common language, trust, and agreements that are essential for collective action.
5. Strong Backbone: Support to keep partnerships and processes moving forward.
These principles were applied to the CORE Investments funding model, as well as these six critical actions that were common among effective collective impact funding models:
1. Collaborate for collective impact
2. Focus on community needs and results
3. Use evidence-based practices
4. Provide support on key concepts
5. Monitor outcomes and results
6. Use clear and effective review processes
The Board and Council authorized staff to operationalize the new CORE Investments funding model through the issuance of a joint Request for Proposals (RFP), described below. Both bodies recognized that their combined resources would not be enough to meet all community needs, and other funders and partners would need to share a commitment to the purpose and principles of CORE Investments in order to achieve collective impact.
In addition, the Board and Council acknowledged that transitioning away from Community Programs to a results-based, collective impact funding model would be an incremental and 1 Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.48558/5900-KN19
32.12 7
iterative process that would require support and continuous improvement over multiple funding cycles. As such, the Board directed HSD to seek foundation funding to support early implementation of CORE Investments, including training and technical assistance to build local capacity related to collective impact. This commitment to continuous improvement and capacity building laid the foundation for “the CORE movement”—the ongoing learning, collaboration, and integration of the CORE model into other collective impact efforts, regardless of whether they were funded by the County and City’s CORE contracts. 2016 Request for Proposals (RFP)
In the fall of 2016, the Board and Council authorized the issuance of an RFP to provide evidence-based safety net services that would collectively impact the well-being of community members facing the greatest needs. The RFP represented an approach to funding services that differed significantly from Community Programs. In particular:
• The RFP was the first time the County and City used this type of open, competitive application process. Applicants submitted proposals based on the criteria and questions contained in the RFP, and independent panels reviewed and scored proposals and made funding recommendations to County and City staff.
• Applicants were required to implement at least one Evidenced-Based Program or Practice (EBP) and measure program outcomes.
• The County and City allocated specific amounts of CORE funding to 18 result areas selected from nine strategic plans addressing two issues (Health, Homelessness) and two populations (Seniors, Children/Youth).
Additionally, on November 26, 2016, the Board directed staff to return with a plan to administer funding set aside from CORE Investments in the amount of $150,000 for emerging needs, one-time only projects, or to meet other safety net needs. Staff released a solicitation for Letters of Interest (LOI) for the Set Aside funds on March 16, 2017. The solicitation provided a simple, short, and straightforward application process inviting proposals for $1,000 to $35,000 for services and materials to be provided during FY 2017-18.
To support agencies applying for CORE funding, HSD contracted with Optimal Solutions Consulting to provide training and individualized technical assistance to applicants on concepts and tools related to collective impact, EBPs, program planning, and measuring outcomes, as many of these concepts represented new or unfamiliar terrain for some CBOs. Funding for technical assistance during the RFP process was provided by The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County ($14,000) and the Monterey Peninsula Foundation ($14,000).
Programs Funded Through CORE Investments
Fifty-one agencies submitted 95 proposals for CORE funding, requesting approximately $10 million per year—two times the amount available. HSD convened four expert panels to review proposals: Children/Youth, Homelessness, Seniors, and Health. The review panels were composed of qualified researchers and practitioners with content expertise in the strategic plan area, strategic plan representatives, community leaders who were not applicants for CORE
32.13 8
funding, and County and City staff. After the conclusion of the expert panel process, City and County staff applied a community safety net lens to the panels’ funding recommendations to assess: 1) geographic representation of services for people in poverty, 2) level of impact to programs that were the sole proposals focusing on particular safety net need areas, and 3) level of impact on agency and program budgets. Ultimately, 74 programs within 44 agencies were recommended for collective funding by the County and City. Of the 74 programs awarded funding, 74% were previously supported by the City or County Community Programs funding and 26% were new programs (15% within previously supported agencies and 11% were new programs in new agencies).
On May 16, 2017, the Board accepted the staff report on the CORE Investments funding process, approved the CORE funding recommendations, and approved the County Set Aside funding recommendations. That same day, the City Council also approved the staff report and funding recommendations. Although the funding decisions were made collaboratively, the County and the City established separate CORE contracts with funded agencies based on their respective procurement practices and legal counsel.
While the initial funding cycle was set for three years, FY 2017-18 through FY 2019-20, in December 2018, the Board approved the extension of the CORE Investment contracts through FY 2020-21 to align with the County’s new two-year budget cycle. In November 2019, the Board approved aligning the Set Aside awards with the CORE RFP and extending the existing Set Aside agreements through the end of the current funding cycle. In May 2020, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board approved the delay of the second CORE RFP for a year and extended the existing agreements for both CORE and Set Aside for a fifth year.
Progress and Results of CORE-funded Programs from 2017 – 2022 The CORE Investments RFP process resulted in a selection of programs aligned with existing countywide strategic plans and primed for collective impact. Agencies awarded CORE Investments committed to the following actions:
• Achieve measurable positive outcomes for the County and City’s most vulnerable, • Monitor outcomes and results, and
• Work collaboratively with HSD by reporting on outcomes, challenges, and technical assistance needs, as well as participate in capacity development opportunities.
HSD assumed lead responsibility for monitoring programs and reviewing their progress, identifying technical assistance needs, and coordinating technical assistance and training opportunities through the CORE Institute.
During this contract period, agencies served many in the community and strengthened their ability to track data and outcomes. While CORE and agencies made significant improvements, this review also shows that reporting on outcome data and the collective impact of CORE can be improved. The accomplishments of the first five years of CORE Investments are detailed in the following areas:
32.14 9
• City and County monitoring of outcomes and results
• Assessment of outcomes and results
• Continuous improvements in Results Based Accountability City and County Monitoring of Outcomes and Results
Agencies funded through CORE were required to submit annual mid-year and year-end reports to HSD and the City of Santa Cruz (for agencies solely funded by them). Agencies reported on performance measures (implementation of contracted activities, populations served), quality measures, and outcomes, as well as program accomplishments, challenges, and other updates.
For the first three years of the CORE funding cycle, FY 2017-18 through FY 2019-20, HSD produced an annual assessment of agency progress reports to identify key themes and shared a summary of those findings with the Board and Council. For FY 2020-21, the annual report and assessment was suspended due to the need to dedicate HSD staff resources to the COVID-19 and CZU fire response. Additionally, the Board approved HSD’s request to defer the annual FY 2021-22 report to allow HSD staff to dedicate resources to the development of the RFP process for the second CORE funding cycle and provide a final five-year report on the first cycle of CORE-funded agreements.
In addition to annual assessments for the first three fiscal years, HSD and an external evaluation consultant collected and summarized data across the full five-year CORE funding cycle. Data sources for this evaluation included:
• CORE funded programs’ end-of-year progress reports,
• CORE event records, and
• HSD annual assessments for FYs 2017-18 thru 2019-20.
The team used a mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative and qualitative data from these sources, relying on the following methods to identify themes across programs:
• Descriptive statistics to summarize program’s reported outcomes and scope of work (SOW) performance measurement achievement
• Data review of programs’ reported successes, challenges, EBP implementation, technical assistance needs, and views on CZU Lightning Complex Fire and COVID-19 impact.
For the annual assessments, evaluation focused primarily on qualitative data and percent of programs successfully reporting data in end-of-year reports. For the five-year analysis, whenever possible, past progress reports were revisited to note consistent themes as well as changes over the five-year contract cycle. An important limitation to this assessment is that annual report formats were adjusted over time to better meet the needs of HSD and agency partners. This adaptation, while representing growth for both HSD and the reporting system overall, limits the ability to compare data over time. Additionally, staffing limitations throughout the service delivery system impacts the quality and consistency of the data collected. Despite these limitations, the findings of annual and the five-year analyses are grounded in agency data.
32.15 10
87% 88%
97% 89%
99%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 17-18
(n=67)
FY 18-19
(n=64)
FY 19-20
(n=67)
FY 20-21
(n=65)
FY 21-22
(n=70)
% of Programs Reporting Data for Activities
91% 91% 97% 92%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 17-18
(n=67)
FY 18-19
(n=64)
FY 19-20
(n=67)
FY 20-21
(n=65)
FY 21-22
(n=70)
% of Programs Reporting Data for
Participants
Assessment of Outcomes and Results
1. Agency partners demonstrated growth in their ability to collect data and to report on and monitor outcomes.
The County and City implemented more systematic reporting on activities and outcomes with CORE Investments. Through its administration of CORE Investments, HSD sought to strengthen the capacity of funded programs to monitor and report on program activities and outcomes. In parallel, HSD’s own monitoring and evaluation procedures evolved over time. The ability of service providers to measure and report on outcomes is an essential part of the collective impact model. This capacity represents an important step forward in understanding how well programs are working. It positions service providers, HSD, and the City to achieve the dual goals of improving programs and outcomes in the communities served by CORE Investments funding.
Each CORE-funded program scope of work included targets for primary service activities, numbers and characteristics of participants served, programmatic quality measures (e.g., client satisfaction results, consistency of program delivery with curricula or evidence-based practice), and program outcomes (e.g., percentage of program participants reporting positive behavior change or attainment of learning objectives). Outcomes were agency- and program-specific.
These data were a consistent part of agency reporting for the first five years of the CORE Investments model.
Data shows that agencies began with a relatively strong ability to report on process-related data such as the numbers of activities provided and participants served, but more agencies had difficulty reporting on quality and outcome measures. While this disparity persisted across the five years of reporting, all areas showed improvement. Importantly, programs reporting quality measures made the most notable improvement over the funding cycle, increasing by 23 percentage points between FY 2017-18 and FY 2021-22. This increase suggests an improved ability to understand how well programs are being delivered and therefore make informed decisions about how to improve the quality of service to the community. Improving the delivery of EBPs should increase the likelihood of attaining positive program outcomes. In the next funding cycle, HSD staff will monitor agency data collection and provide technical assistance to agencies that have difficulty collecting data.
Charts 1-4: CORE-Funded Program Data Collection
32.16 11
73% 73% 69% 74% 76%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 17-18
(n=67)
FY 18-19
(n=64)
FY 19-20
(n=67)
FY 20-21
(n=65)
FY 21-22
(n=70)
% of Programs Reporting Data for
Outcomes
63%
73%
84%
74%
86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 17-18
(n=67)
FY 18-19
(n=64)
FY 19-20
(n=67)
FY 20-21
(n=65)
FY 21-22
(n=70)
% of Programs Reporting Data for Quality
Measures
As shown in Chart 5 below, in FY 2021-22, 73% of programs reported data for every performance measurement in their contract. Between FY 2019-20 and FY 2021-22, the rate of programs reporting data for every performance measurement increased by seven percentage points. Reasons for not reporting data included inability to collect data due to staffing shortages, COVID-19 impact, and changes in measurement tools.
Chart 5: CORE Investment Program Data Measurement
While early in the funding cycle, HSD and agencies did not track aggregate client counts and program outcomes, by the end of the cycle agencies reported data on who was being served and their outcomes by CORE Investment programs. During FY 2021-22, programs served a reported total of 55,678 unduplicated participants. In addition to this total, two programs reported that they only had the ability to collect data on duplicated program participants. One of these programs served 50,000 duplicated participants and the second of these programs served 160 duplicated participants. Lastly, one program reported serving seven programs as opposed to participants. Six in seven programs reported Improved Outcomes for the majority of their participants and described their evaluation activities (86%). Additionally, six percent of programs reported Improved Outcomes for the majority of their participants but did not adequately describe their evaluation process (6%).
2. Agency partners made important differences in the lives of individuals and families, and the majority of programs achieved their performance goals; however, some agencies faced challenges achieving or reporting on their performance goals. 66% 65% 73%
0%
50%
FY 19-20 (n=67) FY 20-21 (n=65) FY 21-22 (n=70)
Percent of Programs Reporting Data for Every Measurement
32.17 12
In addition to the data described above, CORE-funded agencies’ annual progress reports included questions on program progress and accomplishments, challenges and next steps, personnel or other organizational changes, and other topics. Data were also analyzed to determine the extent to which programs achieved their intended performance goals.
Through the FY 2017-20 interim and annual progress reports, agencies shared stories about the kinds of impacts their programs had on community members. Although more anecdotal, these stories provide important insight into CORE program offerings and demonstrate the breadth and vital importance of CORE-funded programs to the community. Representative examples are included in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Examples of Impact of CORE-Funded Programming on Individuals and Families Community Voices & Success Stories, FY2017-18
• A 24-year-old young adult was raised in a crowded home. He joined a gang, and he is currently on felony probation. During his stay at a group home, he became a father.
While at Alcance, he has found a job, attained a copy of his birth certificate, mentored others and met the requirements of his probation. He’s doing this so that he can spend each weekend with his son and be the father he didn’t have. (Alcance Street Outreach Program, Community Action Board)
• A frail 90-year-old woman had her daughter as a live-in caregiver. She had a joint bank account with her daughter who became emotionally abusive and removed her life savings.
Senior Citizen Legal Services (SCLS) told the senior of possible legal claims of elder abuse, fraud, embezzlement, and theft. SCLS filed and she was granted an Elder Abuse Protective Order. The funds were returned within 5 days. Now, due to the efforts of SCLS on her behalf, she can peacefully live in her home and has begun to rebuild her finances. (Senior Citizen Legal Services)
• “I’m calling to thank you because it feels good to be full.” (Meals on Wheels for Santa Cruz County, Community Bridges)
Community Voices & Success Stories, FY2018-19
• “L” is an LGBTQ+ youth who joined our Watsonville Youth Group. When they first arrived in our Friday afternoon support group, they wouldn’t talk to anyone, and wouldn’t even introduce themself to our Youth Program Coordinator. But after about two months, they began to grow comfortable, and their demeanor completely changed. In fact, at our Queer Prom later that year, they ended up doing a drag performance for the other attendees. They eventually told us that they had been suicidal before beginning the program and had now built such a support group that they were coming out at school.
They are still not safe to come out at home, but they now feel they are able to cope with that dynamic and live fully outside. (Youth Program, The Diversity Center) • “I have felt so alone in my life and in my suffering. At points in my life, I would have rather not be living and contemplated suicide. This space, facilitator and group have given me a safe place where I am not alone. And maybe most importantly, my children have a mom
32.18 13
that has a safe place.” (Group Participant, Survivors Healing Center, Family Service Agency of the Central Coast)
Community Voices & Success Stories, FY2020-22
● Donald came into Dientes because he was giving a friend a ride. Upon entering the clinic, our staff asked if we could help him with anything. He jokingly said, “No, you can’t help me because I don’t have any teeth.” Right there and then, we booked him an appointment. Donald had been living without teeth since 2013. He previously had a set of dentures, but they broke and were never fixed because of how expensive it was. Donald had been homeless and barely could afford to find a place to live, let alone pay for dentures. He spent most of his meals eating soft foods, like mashed potatoes and meatloaf. A little over a year ago he was able to find a new place to live and is getting back onto his feet. Now that he was able to get a new set of dentures, he is learning how to eat with them and wants to become socially connected. Donald said, “Dientes came to my rescue.” (Integrated Dental Care for Our Community, Dientes Community Dental Care) ● “No se que haria sin la ayuda de ustedes.” (“I don’t know what I would do without your help.”) – Participant, Watsonville, age 71 (Healthy Food Program, Grey Bears) ● California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA) helped a single mother with three children to preserve her Section 8 Housing Voucher. She had experienced domestic violence in her home, which jeopardized her voucher just as she went into the recertification process.
CRLA helped her to address the issue head-on with the Housing Authority and, after advocating for her rights and protections, the Housing Authority advised that no further action would be taken, and her Voucher was recertified. The client and her three children were able to retain affordable housing and due to our advocate’s thorough approach to the matter, counseling services were also secured to support the client in combating further abuse. (Santa Cruz Housing Program. California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.) From FY 2019-20 to 2021-22, HSD staff analyzed data on whether programs reported successfully meeting annual performance goals; chart 6. While the majority of programs met their goals, about 20% did not. Data were fairly static over the period of analysis, with a decline in performance in FY 2020-21 that some programs linked to COVID-19-related challenges. For example, due to COVID-19, the number of enrolled participants was often lower than expected or scheduled in-person events were canceled. It is possible the magnitude and complexity of the COVID-19 and CZU fire disaster and response adversely affected what might have been a more positive trajectory of improvement over time. Performance data will need to be closely monitored in coming years to determine if performance improves or if agencies need assistance in meeting their goals.
32.19 14
Chart 6: Percent of programs meeting annual performance goals About 10% of programs each year did not have available data to assess success on this goal.
Due to staffing shortages, in FY 2020-21, HSD was unable to complete individual follow up with the programs regarding missing data. This may have contributed to a higher rate of agencies reporting unavailable data and a lower rate of performance measurements meeting their annual goal.
3. Implementing evidence-based programs and practices provided learning opportunities for agencies and a path to improved services.
CORE-funded programming represented the first time many programs had implemented an EBP. These programs needed to put in place training, new processes, and new ways to measure outcomes. For some, this was challenging; however, many programs reported increased capacity to implement EBPs over the 5 years.
In mid-year and annual progress reports, agencies described ways they had learned from EBPrelated processes and enhanced their services throughout the funding cycle. Agencies reported increased capacity to use data to inform program planning and service delivery. Agencies noted increased ability to adapt EBPs as necessary and/or improved fidelity to a model. For example, one agency described how a curriculum designed to prevent disease was being used with adults with severe mental illness and did not fully address the needs of this population. Program staff analyzed the issues and added additional curriculum to support their participants to succeed.
Many programs attributed positive outcomes and improved evaluation processes to their use of EBPs. One program noted that implementation of an EBP had “increased organizational cohesion, efficiency and improved services and activities.” 72% 66% 73%
19% 22% 20%
9% 12% 8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FY 19-20 (n=643) FY 20-21 (n=616) FY 21-22 (n=665)
% of Performance Measurements Meeting Annual Goal
Data Unavailable for Measurement
Measurements Not Meeting Annual Goal
Measurements Meeting Annual Goal
32.20 15
4. Although the COVID-19 pandemic and CZU wildfires affected agencies’ ability to achieve outcomes, agencies demonstrated that they could collaborate and adapt services to continue to address local needs.
COVID-19 and the CZU wildfires presented significant and diverse challenges for individuals and organizations. Agencies reported the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected CORE programs and the participants they serve, as well as staff. In addition to participants contracting COVID19 and requiring increased support to meet acute and basic needs, agencies noted that program participants experienced an increase in mental health and associated challenges. One agency summarized this impact, “The pandemic added increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges across all socio-economic communities, including our youth.” Another pointed out the pandemic caused “isolation from support systems and added stress.” The pandemic also presented significant practical challenges for in-person service provision, fidelity to standard EBP delivery, and program monitoring and evaluation. For example, one program reported their EBP was based on a group modality, which was difficult to continue due to school closures and low virtual engagement rates. Another program described challenges with virtual service delivery since the EBP required providers focus on participant facial expressions and body language. Another program described needing to cancel plans to conduct focus groups on program successes and opportunities for growth.
Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, most agencies described key successes related to their rapid and collaborative response to COVID-19. Programs quickly responded to community needs and implemented new programs/services, such as those focused on helping residents purchase essential items like food. Agencies also reported adapting service delivery approaches. In FY 2019-20, the most frequently noted program adaptations (reported by 80% or more programs) were social distancing with clients/staff (94%), providing services via phone (90%), furnishing personal protective equipment (88%), and shifting to remote staffing models (85%). During the pandemic, many agencies also reported increased collaboration and greater awareness and engagement on issues of equity. In FY 2021-22, for example, 59% of funded programs reported collaboration with a fellow CORE program. Nearly all—94%—engaged staff on issues of equity.
Most agencies shifted to virtual services during the pandemic, and these modifications often led to unexpected improvements in service delivery and capacity. For example, several agencies noted that transitioning in-person offerings to online classes, presentations, and support groups made services more accessible to the community. For example, families and individuals without transportation were able to participate more easily in virtual programming. Another agency reported shifting staff professional development to all online resources, which led to success in professional growth and the ability for staff to focus on areas of interest. Additional reported successes included programs providing participants with assistance in finding permanent housing, employment, legal aid, education, and behavioral health services.
32.21 16
While online and phone outreach were successful for some programs, not all participants found those methods easy to access or preferrable to in-person services. A few programs reported a decrease in participation rates due to changes in service delivery. Common challenges included participants’ lack of technology devices (e.g., laptops, hot spots), challenges with internet connection, lack of digital literacy, and lack of private space for discussion. One program in FY 2021-22 explained, “While seniors were able to attend Zoom events who wouldn’t have been able to find transportation to the Center, many seniors aren’t as comfortable with technology even if they have a computer.” Some programs connected with fellow nonprofit, government, and foundation partners to strengthen services and COVID-19 response. One program addressed technology challenges by providing participants with take-home activities and exploring the availability of equipment, such as hot spots, in collaboration with schools and other partners.
5. Staffing issues (recruitment and retention) led to difficulties in maintaining program service levels and staff adherence to EBPs.
Staffing issues were and remain a persistent challenge for agency partners. In FY 2017-18, a third of programs noted that staff turnover adversely impacted service provision. In FY 2021-22, programs most frequently reported employee recruitment as a challenge (49%), with a similarly high percentage of programs reporting employee retention challenges (48%). Programs noted that turnover requires additional training activities and disrupts existing rapport between staff and participants.
COVID-19 exacerbated staffing challenges. Specific challenges included difficulty finding qualified staff, high numbers of staff requiring family health leave (thus hindering the agencies’ ability to provide the required level of programming and adherence to EBPs), and staff experiencing burnout and elevated levels of stress. Another program described taking steps to explore ways to address burnout: “We are participating in a national technical assistance collaborative group to learn how to better address burnout and staff health and wellness, and we are encouraging staff to use PTO (paid time off) to take more time off for self-care.” Staff challenges persisted into FY 2021-22. As one program described, “COVID-19 continues to present challenges. The biggest challenge is staffing; we have had increased staff callouts due to exposures, symptoms, childcare needs, etc. We need healthy staff to provide care, and when we are short-staffed, we sometimes have to cancel patient appointments, limiting the number of people we reach.”
6. Agencies identified capacity development needs related to program delivery and appreciated training and technical assistance to address those needs.
Annual progress reports identified areas where agency partners would benefit from additional training and technical assistance. Given the implementation of new data reporting requirements and EBPs, agency partners identified needs for technical assistance and training in areas such as data collection and measurement as well as EBP implementation. Common
32.22 17
issues included difficulties with designing or implementing new measurement tools, challenges using databases with other data collection systems, and limited capacity and time to conduct analysis of the information collected. Interest in training on how to develop program evaluation tools and measure impact continued throughout the funding cycle.
Other key operational issues noted by agency partners included challenges engaging participants or serving all the clients in need. For those where lack of engagement was cited, many programs identified a need to redesign outreach practices. In response to COVID-19, several agencies also requested training and technical assistance on using virtual modalities to assist and engage clients. In annual progress reports, programs shared their appreciation for the ongoing technical assistance and training provided through CORE. Many comments reflected enthusiasm for continuous improvement and recognized it is essential to ensure quality services. A theme of several comments from agencies was that CORE training promoted collaboration and movement towards collective impact. More details on CORE training and technical assistance are provided in the section below.
Continuous Improvements in Results Based Accountability During the first 5-year CORE funding cycle (2017-2022), data collection and reporting improved, but the current system needs improvement to better measure the collective impacts of COREfunded programs. Over this time, agencies were required to collect and report on their data on a semi-annual basis based on the Results Based Accountability (RBA) framework.
As noted earlier, agencies matured in their data collection capabilities and by the end of the five-year period, 73% of programs reported data for all their performance measurements.
Because of the wide variety of program types and outcomes, it was difficult to aggregate and report on the outcomes of CORE programs regarding such items as unduplicated clients, demographics served, quality measures, or funding impact. These difficulties led to significant changes in the current CORE Contract Cycle from FY 2022 to 2025.
With CORE Investment moving into its second contract cycle, the County is now working with agencies to collect more data using the RBA framework that can be aggregated to better report on the collective and equity impact of programs. Agencies were again required to submit RBA measures based on how much the program accomplished, how well it was accomplished, and whether anyone is better off because of the program. In addition to these program outcomes, during this funding cycle, CORE-funded agencies are required to collect three pieces of information that will help illustrate CORE Investments’ impact in the community:
1. The unique number of clients served by each program
2. The demographics of the unique clients served (ethnicity, gender, language, age, and geographical location)
3. A quality measure about each program- a survey asking participants about their satisfaction with the program
32.23 18
Along with these reporting requirements, the County is now resourced to conduct site visits of CORE-funded agencies to identify needs and provide technical assistance. In addition, the CORE Institute will continue to hold regular technical assistance sessions for funded and non-funded programs during the current funding cycle on topics such as collective impact, measuring program outcomes, RBA, grant writing, and equity.
The data collected from CORE funded providers will be used to better understand the collective and equity impact of CORE Investments in Santa Cruz County. Additionally, it will be used for ongoing quality improvement efforts in line with the County’s commitment to continuous process improvement. All of the information gathered will be used to create reports to the community, Supervisors, and Council.
A “Movement” to Achieve Equitable Health and Well-being Throughout the transition from Community Programs and the implementation of CORE Investments over the last five years, the County and City of Santa Cruz have recognized that collective impact initiatives require a commitment to continuous improvement. The shifts in capacity, data, and program outcomes described in this report do not occur quickly—nor do the desired community-level (or collective) impacts. However, the opportunity to review five years of results shows that steady, incremental changes do lead to progress toward equity and collective impact.
This section of the report describes:
• Continuous Improvement of the CORE Investments Model
• Capacity building through the CORE Institute for Innovation and Impact Continuous Improvement of the CORE Investments Model
In November 2017, the Board directed HSD to establish a contract for a consultant to design and implement a process to continuously improve CORE Investments, including capacity building and technical assistance to increase collective impact utilizing grant funding HSD secured from the Monterey Peninsula Foundation (MPF). Following a competitive RFP process a consulting team (Nicole Young, Optimal Solutions Consulting, and Nicole Lezin, Cole Communications, Inc.) was selected to facilitate a collaborative planning and capacity-building process designed to result in:
• Increased knowledge of collective impact
• Vision, mission, and values statements for CORE Investments • Goals and results to serve as a “North Star” for different agencies and sectors, as well as a methodology to align CORE Investments results across current and future countywide strategic plans
• Increased capacity to implement evidence-based programs (EBPs) and measure program outcomes, including certification options
• A plan to develop the necessary infrastructure to sustain the CORE Investments model, including oversight, funding, leadership, and backbone functions and roles
32.24 19
The work began immediately after the Board
approved the consultant contract in February 2018. In
addition to achieving the desired results the process
also addressed the findings from the evaluation of the
2016 RFP and was grounded in eight principles that
reflected the evolution and evaluation of collective
impact efforts across the country.
Key activities and results are summarized below, and
multiple progress reports were provided to the Board,
Council, and community over the years.
1. Established a CORE Steering Committee to
provide strategic guidance.
The Steering Committee consisted of 19 members
representing organizations of varying sectors, sizes,
roles, geographic focus, and areas of expertise on specific issues (e.g., health, housing, education) and/or populations (e.g., children, youth, older adults, and Black, Latino and other communities of color). The role of the Committee was to provide strategic guidance as CORE Investments continued to evolve, serve as a sounding board for the consulting team, and support and share the CORE vision, mission, and values within and across their respective organizations and networks. The Steering Committee did not have any formal decision-making authority by design since several members were awarded CORE contracts and/or were likely to be applicants in the next CORE funding cycle. Membership of the Steering Committee remained consistent over time, with occasional changes. Please see Appendix F for a list of members.
2. Convened multiple community conversations (CORE Conversations) to increase knowledge about collective impact and engage a broad array of public and non-profit partners in co-designing the CORE Investments strategic framework.
Elements of the equity-centered CORE Investments framework included:
• CORE Vision: Santa Cruz County is an equitable, thriving, resilient community where everyone shares responsibility for ensuring the health and well-being of all people, at every stage of life.
• CORE Mission: To inspire and ignite collective action to ensure Santa Cruz County is a safe, healthy community with equitable opportunities for all to thrive. • CORE Values: Equity, Compassion, Voice, Inclusion, Collaboration, Transparency, Accountability, and Innovation.
• CORE Conditions for Health & Well-being: An organizing structure and visual representation of the interconnected community-level impacts CORE Investments aspires to achieve. The CORE Conditions were intentionally designed to align with existing countywide strategic plans, including the County’s strategic plan, and provide a common language and 8 Principles of Collective Impact
1. Place a priority on equity.
2. Include community members.
3. Co-create with cross-sector
partners.
4. Use data to continuously learn,
adapt, and improve.
5. Cultivate leaders with unique
system leadership skills.
6. Focus on program and system
strategies.
7. Build a culture that fosters
relationships, trust, and respect.
8. Customize for local context.
32.25 20
framework to increase alignment in future strategic plans, funding processes, and collective impact efforts—including and beyond County-led efforts.
3. Centered and operationalized equity across CORE Investments activities and materials.
Examples of how CORE Investments operationalized equity with partners include:
• Facilitated assessments and dialogues with Steering Committee members and colleagues from their organizations on how equity could be operationalized within their own agencies and systems;
• Convened CORE Institute events to explore progress and challenges and promote peer learning about equity among nonprofit agencies and county departments; • Modeled language access through bilingual offerings of training, TA, and materials, as well as training and TA in best practices for interpretation and translation; and • Joined DataShare Santa Cruz County’s efforts to make more disaggregated data that highlights equity dimensions in local data available to the public. Also, collaborated on training sessions that explored equity considerations about missing data, stories, and the CORE Conditions.
4. Engaged partners in refining the “Results and Evidence-based” frameworks, definitions, and tools used for CORE Investments.
Tools developed or updated through a collaborative process included the CORE Results Menu, Strategies and Program Outcomes menu, CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence, and Promising Practices (“library” of EBPs)—collectively referred to as the CORE tools.
The CORE Conditions provided the structure for defining multiple dimensions of well-being and linking them to community-level impacts, measurable community indicators, and local data in a CORE Conditions for Health & Well-being
32.26 21
tool that is now known as the Results Menu. The Results Menu is a comprehensive yet flexible and “living” tool that is housed and updated on DataShare Santa Cruz County, an online platform for community-level data that is jointly managed by five Administrative Partners: the County of Santa Cruz (County Administrator’s Office, Health Services Agency (HAS), and HSD), Santa Cruz County Office of Education, United Way of Santa Cruz County, Community Health Trust of Pájaro Valley, and CORE Investments (represented by the CORE consultants).
A related Strategies and Program Outcomes tool (also housed on DataShare) was developed to accompany the CORE Results Menu and help connect broader strategies and approaches (e.g., where efforts are focused) to more specific short- and intermediate-term program-level outcomes (i.e., whether anyone is better off as a result).
The EBP framework used in the first CORE RFP (which some applicants viewed as cumbersome and limiting) was also updated through a collaborative and iterative process and is now known as the CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence (CORE Continuum). This tool, available in English and Spanish, is designed to broaden the definition of what constitutes “evidence” and increase capacity to implement EBPs and measure program outcomes.
In 2021, in preparation for the release of the second CORE RFP, the CORE Continuum was updated to more closely align with the terminology and rating criteria used in Promising Practices, another searchable database housed on DataShare Santa Cruz County.
All of the CORE tools were referenced in the second CORE RFP and were featured in a series of training and TA sessions during the fall of 2021 and in early 2022 to assist applicants applying for funding through the CORE RFP process.
5. Increased capacity to apply the CORE Investments Strategic Framework as both a funding model and a broader movement to achieve equitable health and well-being.
Collective impact, as a type of collaboration that brings people together in a structured way to achieve social change, has been a helpful way to describe both CORE’s vision for change and greater impact as well as how to organize, structure, and align current work towards that vision. CORE Investments serves as the vehicle for collective and connected efforts that are more likely to yield lasting impacts that affect populations and generations.
This movement-building approach is reflected in the current description of CORE Investments as both a funding model and a movement to achieve equitable health and well-being in Santa Cruz County, using a results-based, collective impact approach.
As a funding model, the CORE Investments strategic framework, CORE tools, and training and TA provide common language, approaches, and structures to:
• Align funders’ strategic priorities and investments with communitywide goals and long-term impacts,
32.27 22
• Co-invest resources in a portfolio of effective programs, practices, partnerships, and policies that contribute to achieving community wide goals and long-term impacts, • Develop and implement funding and procurement processes that reflect results-based, collective impact, equity-centered principles and practices, • Measure program-level outcomes and demonstrate the cumulative effect on long-term, community-level impacts, and
• Attract additional, sustainable social impact investments.
As a movement, the CORE Investments strategic framework, CORE tools, and training and TA provide common language, approaches, and structures to:
• Align and amplify efforts and impacts of multiple systems, collaboratives, and collective impact initiatives in Santa Cruz County that often work in close proximity—and yet still compete for resources— with one another,
• Examine and address organizational, systemic and individual practices and structures that perpetuate inequitable opportunities and outcomes, and
• Engage new, diverse formal and informal leaders, influencers, and co-investors in examining and addressing disparities and achieving equitable health and well-being.
While the County’s and City of Santa Cruz’s joint RFP and CORE contracts are the primary example of applying CORE Investments as a funding model, several other organizations and collaboratives have demonstrated their interest in and commitment to aligning with CORE Investments—outside of any funding relationship or specific funding process—as evidenced by these examples:
• The countywide Thrive by 5 initiative (formerly known as Thrive by Three; co-led by HSD, HSA, and First 5) uses the CORE Conditions as a framework for identifying priorities, assessing community and systems-level strengths and gaps, recruiting Advisory Committee members from different sectors (CORE Conditions), and articulating an equity-centered theory of change.
32.28 23
• The City of Santa Cruz uses the CORE Conditions and selected community-level indicators from the CORE Results Menu as the organizing framework for its Health In All Policies Community Well-being Outcome Indicator Metrics.
• The Santa Cruz County ACEs Network of Care aligned its purpose and priorities with the CORE Conditions of Health & Well-being.
Through the CORE Steering Committee and other partnerships, the aim is to engage multiple partners and organizations across sectors to feel shared responsibility, ownership, and commitment to CORE Investments’ evolution as both a collective impact funding model and movement.
Capacity building through the CORE Institute for Innovation and Impact The County and City of Santa Cruz have recognized the importance of continuous improvement and capacity building ever since the launch of the CORE Investments model. In addition to the initial grants provided by the Monterey Peninsula Foundation and the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County during the 2016 CORE RFP process, other public and private partners (HSD, HSA, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, First 5 Santa Cruz County, City of Santa Cruz) have co-funded the technical assistance and capacity building provided by the consultants.
Over the last five years (2017-2022), the consulting team facilitated or coordinated 172 trainings and TA events to approximately 1,785 unduplicated participants to build local capacity to apply the CORE framework and tools described above. The early successes of the training and TA led HSD, the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, the consulting team, and other partners to initiate discussions about how to collaborate to provide ongoing opportunities for learning and applying the results-based, collective impact tools and approaches customized for Santa Cruz County. The CORE Institute was borne out of these discussions and envisioned as a public-private partnership that serves as:
• A learning hub for building shared knowledge, skills, and capacity to apply the CORE framework across public, private, non-profit, and community-based groups and organizations in Santa Cruz County, including CBOs that do not receive CORE funding, and • A learning lab for testing, evaluating, and spreading innovative, results-based approaches to achieve equitable health and well-being in Santa Cruz County.
Initially focused on helping local partners using the CORE tools described above, the CORE Institute offerings now take many forms, including:
• Skill-building trainings on topics such as developing theories of change/logic models, measuring program outcomes, implementing EBPs, visual storytelling with data, finding and making meaning of local data in DataShare Santa Cruz County, how to use Zoom effectively, and virtual facilitation;
• Training and TA to assist CBOs with preparing applications for the CORE RFP (the second RFP lessons learned process evaluation documents the training and TA specifically linked to the CORE RFP);
32.29 24
• CORE Coffee Chats that feature local guest speakers on topics such as how to apply for COVID-19 relief loans, Targeted Universalism (setting universal goals pursued by targeted processes to achieve those goals), Collective Impact, and understanding the CORE Conditions for Health & Well-being;
• CORE Conversation forums to discuss collective impact, racial equity, and antiracism; • Other forums, town halls, and convenings co-hosted by CORE Investments.
Nearly all CORE Institute events have been offered bilingually (English and Spanish) since September 2020. Sessions generally are conducted in English with Spanish interpretation and recorded in both languages, then shared via the CORE Investments website and YouTube channel. This expands the audience beyond those who are able to attend live events.
The CORE Institute continues to gain recognition as an accessible, inclusive, and responsive “container” or catalyst for change that supports systemwide application of the CORE Investments framework with an equity lens. CORE Institute events provide multiple, ongoing opportunities for people in nonprofits, public agencies, grassroots groups, private philanthropy, and the business community to build knowledge, skills, and collaboration across local organizations and sectors. A variety of topics are covered in areas such as:
• Programs and Practices (e.g., local resources, community engagement, program planning, evidence-based programs);
• Data and Evaluation (e.g., theory of change, logic models, outcome evaluation, data visualization);
• Infrastructure and Sustainability (e.g., leadership, change management, leveraging resources, organizational policies and practices);
• Policy and Systems Changes (e.g., advocacy, evidence-based policymaking, social impact investing, collective impact approaches, Health in All Policies—a collaborative approach that integrates and articulates health considerations into policymaking across sectors to improve the health of all communities and people); and
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Antiracism (e.g., understanding key concepts, using data with an equity lens; operationalizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility strategies in strategic plans; funding/procurement processes; hiring practices, etc.).
The CORE Institute has been supported by various grants and local funders over the years, and continues to gain recognition as an accessible, inclusive, and responsive “container” or catalyst for change that supports systemwide application of the CORE Investments framework with an equity lens. CORE Institute events provide multiple, ongoing opportunities for people in nonprofits, public agencies, grassroots groups, private philanthropy, and the business community to build knowledge, skills, and collaboration across local organizations and sectors.
The growing interest and participation in the CORE Institute has led to innovative and collaborative partnerships. Other entities expressed interest in collaborating with the CORE
32.30 25
Institute as a way to share information; engage partners and community members; align efforts; and reach a wider, cross-sector, county wide audience. Examples include:
• #LIVE Pájaro Valley Initiative— Convened two community forums in Watsonville and used the CORE Conditions to illustrate the connections among different aspects of health and well-being and the social and structural determinants of health. • Health in All Policies (HiAP)— Two CORE Institute events were hosted with the City of Santa Cruz in FY 2020-21 to introduce the City’s Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach to improve the well-being of all people by incorporating health, sustainability, and equity considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. • Housing for a Healthy Santa Cruz: A Strategic Framework for Addressing Homelessness in Santa Cruz County— Focus Strategies utilized the CORE Institute to ensure alignment between their technical assistance on the County’s homelessness system assessment and improvement plan, the CORE Conditions, and the CORE Results Menu. 2022 CORE Investments Request for Proposals
Applying Lessons Learned and Continuous Improvements to Date In the fall of 2017, HSD conducted a process evaluation of the 2016 RFP process, shortly after the new contracts were established (Appendix E). Key findings presented to the Board included:
Funding Process
• Funders and strategic plan representatives appreciated the changes in the local process for funding safety net services and felt the planning and RFP process was inclusive and transparent.
• The RFP was perceived as open to everyone, and applicants (and funders) appreciated that all agencies now had an opportunity to participate in the process. • Some applicants encountered challenges completing the application itself, such as:
o Difficulty aligning their existing programs with the 18 result areas selected from the strategic plans,
o Difficulty finding EBPs in online clearinghouses (criteria for Model EBPs, as defined in the RFP) and/or difficulty aligning existing programs with the criteria for Promising or Innovative EBPs as defined in the RFP,
o Lack of clarity about the RFP and application form, and o Concerns about the length of time required to complete the application relative to the amount of funding available.
• Several applicants and review panelists wanted greater clarity about how the panelists’ scores and recommendations related to final award amounts. • The perceived transparency of recommended funding decisions varied by role. Strategic plan representatives and funders felt the portfolio of funded programs represented what they expected, while some applicants did not feel it was transparent. • Stakeholders wanted more community conversations, clarity, and specificity regarding the funding allocation methodology (by strategic plan results).
32.31 26
Training and Technical Assistance
• Many applicants found the trainings and technical assistance helpful, with the individualized TA rated as being the most helpful form of support.
• Some applicants also wished for more direct communication with County staff during the application process to get timely responses to technical questions about the RFP and application.
• Several applicants requested more TA in various formats, both in person and recorded webinars, to ensure that all staff had an opportunity to receive the information even if they could not attend a one-time in-person meeting.
• Applicants also expressed a desire for ongoing TA, not just at the time of an RFP.
Collective Impact
• Funders, strategic plan representatives, and service providers were generally interested in continuing to work toward achieving collective impact.
• Ongoing communication and updates to countywide strategic plans would be needed to realize the full potential of CORE as a results-based collective impact funding model.
These lessons learned set the stage for continuous improvement of the CORE Investments model (described above) and the 2022 CORE Investments RFP process (summarized below and described in further detail in the accompanying Lessons Learned report).
On February 23, 2021, HSD and Nicole Young of Optimal Solutions Consulting conducted a study session for the Board and presented the timeline and process to build the second CORE Investments RFP. The Board directed HSD to engage with other funders, including jurisdictional partners, to pursue alignment of funding for safety net services and to return with an update on engagement efforts and the proposed framework for the RFP.
HSD, the City of Santa Cruz, and the CORE consultants conducted a series of engagement sessions with community partners and funders to gather input on how to apply the CORE framework and operationalize equity in the CORE procurement process. While there were varying ideas and input from stakeholders, there was also an appreciation for the complexity of operationalizing the CORE framework into the RFP process.
On September 28, 2021, HSD presented to the Board and Council on the RFP framework and stakeholder engagement process and the feedback received. Some common themes regarding the application included keeping the application simple and streamlined and having a different process for small versus large funding requests. Feedback regarding data and evidence acknowledged their importance while also wanting to allow space for innovation. Some of the key feedback on equity included making equity part of the scoring criteria and recognizing that operationalizing equity is an ongoing process, with agencies in different stages of learning and implementing program and organizational changes.
32.32 27
Based on the review of the lessons learned process evaluation from the first RFP and feedback from stakeholders, HSD developed a set of recommendations that were adopted by both the Board and Council. These recommendations included:
• Contract Term- 3-year contract term
• Base Funding- An increase to the CORE base funding of $500,000; folding the $150,000 Set Aside allocation into the base allocation; removing $131,000 from the CORE base allocation that will be provided as the local match to the Seniors Council of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties for administrative support to the Area Agency on Aging (AAA). • Tiered Funding- A tiered approach to funding, where application requirements increase with the size of the funding request.
o Small: $5,000 - $25,000
o Medium: $25,001 - $150,000
o Large: $150,001 - $450,000
• Hybrid Allocation Approach- A hybrid funding approach that is primarily broad but would include one deeper investment (Targeted Impact). A portion of the funds available for award ($750,000) would be targeted towards this collective impact approach to contribute to equitable health and well-being, in one or more of the eight interconnected CORE Conditions.
On November 9, 2021, the Board and City Council approved the release of the CORE RFP that included application parameters that were informed and influenced by the feedback gathered from stakeholder engagement.
For the first time, the CORE Investments RFP explicitly incorporated equity, with applicants in the Small, Medium, and Large tiers selecting an equity dimension of their work to highlight, and those in the Targeted Impact tier asked to address racial equity explicitly, with the option to address additional equity dimensions if they chose. This, in turn, led to discussions about equity within and across programs, among reviewers, and in training and technical assistance sessions.
As with the first RFP, the CORE consultants provided training and technical assistance. A regularly updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document was also provided to support agencies throughout the application process.
As the application deadline for the RFP approached, the COVID-19 Omicron surge was impacting the community, including service providers applying for CORE Investments funding. In response to requests from community service providers, HSD requested, and the board approved a month extension to the RFP due date, pushing it to March 4, 2022. As a result of the new deadline, HSD was not able to return to the Board as originally planned to provide an update on the applications received and obtain any additional direction from the Board prior to recommending awards.
• A total of 128 applications representing 78 organizations were received across all four funding tiers, with a total of $15,179,382 worth of requests. Forty-seven percent (47%) of applications were from new organizations, representing 42% of total applications.
32.33 28
• HSD, in partnership with the City of Santa Cruz, strived to create diverse, representative panels in line with the goals of the RFP. The design of the recruitment efforts and panel process was informed by the stakeholder engagement process that occurred before the RFP was published. Recruitment efforts targeted community partners, county departments, local cities, educators, regional partners and community groups, current and former community leaders and researchers from across the county and region. A process was established to ensure panel members did not have a conflict of interest with the applications they reviewed. Review panels were organized by funding tier and CORE condition.
• A careful and deliberative panel review process was followed to ensure that the process was executed in an objective, informed, and fair manner. The average panelist score for each proposal was used to rank applications within each tier.
The CORE RFP was a very competitive process, and the applications represented a broad array of existing and new programs. Funding recommendations were based on the score and rank of proposals within each tier and the dollar amounts available. A total of 41 agencies representing 57 programs were funded in the current CORE funding cycle. Two programs serving seniors had their funding “carved out” from the RFP process: Seniors Council AAA- received $131,000 and the AAA Senior Meals provider selected in their RFP (Community Bridges- received $436,500).
As part of continuous improvement efforts to streamline the administrative process for vendors, HSD and the City of Santa Cruz agreed that HSD would administer the CORE Contracts for the new funding cycle.
Looking Forward
Continuing to Advance Equity and Collective Impact
As noted in the introduction to this report, the current version of CORE Investments reflects the most recent point in a longer arc of improvement and movement towards more results-based approaches, as directed by the Board and Council. In comparison to the Community Programs funding of the past, the current process is more open and inclusive, centering equity and its many dimensions in Santa Cruz County with more clarity and emphasis than in the past. Even in comparison with the prior CORE Investments funding cycle, the most recent 2022 funding cycle builds on a framework and tools for alignment that were not available five years ago. It considers evidence-based programs, practices, and policies more broadly, inviting organizations to place themselves on a continuum in ways that meet their needs for understanding where they are and where they might want to go next. Aligning with DataShare Santa Cruz County and other local and regional partnerships, CORE Investments makes it easier to see and act in ways that connect the dots across formerly separate efforts.
32.34 29
These alignments and connections are expanding in Santa Cruz County, but they also are underway in many other places, including at the national level (such as the federal plan for Equitable Long-Term Recovery and Resilience, based on the vital conditions for health and wellbeing on which the CORE Conditions are based). Shifts towards results-based frameworks are ambitious and challenging, seeking transformational changes across systems and sectors.
Because they lead to resources being distributed in different ways and often to different groups, they elicit resistance, especially in the short term.
From the perspective of transformational change, the story unfolding in this report is still in its early chapters. Plenty of room for improvement remains, but the interplay of the CORE Investments funding model and movement already have increased the focus on equity and results, opened the process to many new partners, and created many new opportunities for alignment. They indicate that as both a funding model and a movement, CORE Investments is moving in the direction the Board envisioned, towards a greater emphasis on results and, ultimately, on impact.
Next steps include maintaining the CORE training and TA events offered through the CORE Institute to build capacity as well as connection for CORE-funded grantees and the broader community; launching the CORE website for easier access to the portfolio of tools described in this report and to the library of past training/TA events; continuing to work with DataShare Santa Cruz County to extend the relevance and comprehensiveness of local data; and responding to requests to use the CORE Investments framework to share information, engage individuals and organizations, and align local initiatives to continue making progress towards our shared goal of creating opportunities for equitable health and well-being, across the lifespan, for everyone in Santa Cruz County.
32.35 30
APPENDICES
A. History of Community Programs
B. Report on Effective Planning & Funding Models
C. Report Back on Results Based Collective Impact Funding Model for Community Programs
D. CORE Funding Model Report
E. CORE Process Evaluation
F. CORE Steering Committee 2018-2022
G. CORE Related Websites
32.36 31
Appendix A: History of Community Programs
1990 – 1999
● The Board demonstrated its commitment to equity by establishing the Latino Equity Initiative and allocating additional funds to a variety of Community Programs that provided services to the Latino community, which was significantly under-served. ● Subsequently, the Board adopted Standards of Accessibility for Latino Services in 1992 (revised in 1994) and eligibility criteria and minimum qualifications to apply for Latino Equity funds (1997). The history, purpose, and Latino Equity fund allocations are described further in the Latino Equity Report to the Board. ● As the amount of the County's discretionary funding became increasingly scarce, other State and Federal funds were channeled through the County to local CBOs and enabled the County to leverage scarce local resources and maintain or even grow its partnerships with health and social service programs through contracts established outside of the Community Programs funding process.
2000 – 2009
● The Board held a Community Programs Study Session in November 2001 and directed the Human Resource Agency (HRA) — now known as the Human Services Department (HSD) — to annually collect information on how Community Programs services were addressing community-wide goals and strategies; amend the standard Community Programs contract to incorporate cultural competency standards; and develop suggestions for strengthening the Community Programs funding process and return at a later point with a report and proposal.
● Between 2003-09, the County and the four cities collaborated with local CBOs and other funders to establish the cross-jurisdictional Contract Management Center (CMC) with a common online application and standardized reporting system. Planning began in 2003 at the direction of the Board, and the CMC launched in FY 2008-09. ● In May 2009, the Board directed HSD to convene a Community Programs Funding Task Force to establish a set of priorities that could be used to guide subsequent funding decisions related to Community Programs.
2010 – 2015
● The Board accepted the Final Report of the Community Programs Funding Task Force in February 2010 and adopted a statement about the Board’s investments in the social safety net, as well as the Funding Principles for Community Programs outlined in the report. Additionally, the Board directed HSD to lead a community-driven process to strengthen the Community Programs funding model and invite the four cities to participate in the process.
● Between 2010 and 2014, the Board provided direction and approved reports prepared by HSD that summarized ongoing community-driven processes, analyses of local data, and recommended approaches and timelines for improving the Community Programs funding process (November 2010, April 2011, November 2011, August 2013, December 2013, November 2014).
32.37 32
● During that same period (of 2010 – 2014), the City of Santa Cruz’s Community Programs Committee (CPC) began to explore improvements to the City’s Community Programs grant allocation process.
o The full Council approved a Strategic Allocation Framework in November 2010. o In 2014, the City of Santa Cruz hired the consulting team of Nicole Lezin (Cole Communications) and Nicole Young (Optimal Solutions Consulting) to review its Community Programs grants process and make recommendations for improvements. A summary report provided three options for the Council to consider, ranging from maintaining the status quo to charting an entirely new course using a collective impact approach, with a middle ground that offered a phased-in plan. In January 2015, the Council accepted the report and agreed to schedule a City Council study session to discuss long-term modifications to the Community Programs grant process in the overall context of City support for safety net and human services.
32.38 33
Appendix B: Report on Effective Planning & Funding Models for Community Programs Funding Process
https://sccounty01.co.santacruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/Minutes/2015/20150421- 655/PDF/047.pdf
Appendix C: Report Back on Results Based Collective Impact Funding Model for Community Programs
Include Oct 2015 interim report?
https://sccounty01.co.santacruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2015/20151027- 672/PDF/032.pdf
Appendix D: Implementing a New Community Programs Funding Model http://santacruzcountyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=10757&highlightTerm s=Collective%20of%20Results
Include HSD’s report on the proposed CORE Investments model? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fvq4kv5ZiT8-7yDx9p02zq5jg1wb_2r5/view?usp=sharing Appendix E: CORE Process Evaluation
http://santacruzcountyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=13451
32.39 34
Appendix F: CORE Steering Committee
CORE Steering Committee: 2018 – 2022
The CORE Steering Committee was established in February 2018. Most members have remained on the Steering Committee, with occasional additions or changes, primarily due to leadership and staff changes within organizations. The Steering Committee did not meet while the 2022 RFP process was active to prevent possible conflicts of interest.
Composition
Up to 20 individuals representing funders, service providers, public agencies, nonprofit agencies, geographic areas of county, CORE Conditions, and populations (e.g., children, youth, older adults, etc.).
Role
▪ Provide strategic guidance as CORE Investments continuously improves and evolves ▪ Be a “sounding board” for the CORE consulting team
▪ Support the CORE vision, mission, and values
▪ Engage other staff, partners, and networks in CORE
▪ Maintain a spirit of partnership, even when disagreeing or offering alternate points of view Members
▪ David Brody, First 5 Santa Cruz County
▪ Keisha Browder, United Way of Santa Cruz County
▪ Caitlin Brune, formerly of Community Health Trust of Pa jaro Valley; Community Member
▪ Jim Brown, Arts Council of Santa Cruz County (joined 2019) ▪ Maria Cadenas, Santa Cruz Community Ventures
▪ Raymon Cancino, Community Bridges
▪ MariaElena De La Garza, Community Action Board
▪ Willy Elliott-McCrea, Second Harvest Food Bank
▪ Leslie Goodfriend, Human Services Department
▪ Mimi Hall, Health Services Agency
▪ DeAndré James, Community Health Trust of Pa jaro Valley ▪ Clay Kempf, Seniors Council & Area Agency on Aging
▪ Julie Macecevic, Human Care Alliance and Walnut Ave. Family and Women’s Center ▪ Laura Marcus, Dientes Community Dental
▪ Rayne Pérez, County Administrative Office; HSD – Housing for Health ▪ Monica Martinez, Encompass Community Services
▪ Susie O’Hara; Tiffany Wise-West, City of Santa Cruz
▪ Elisa Orona, Health Improvement Partnership
▪ Greg Pepping, Coastal Watershed Council
▪ Dr. Faris Sabbah, Santa Cruz County Office of Education ▪ Susan True, Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County ▪ Betsy Wilson, Mid-Pen Housing (joined 2019)
32.40 35
Appendix G: CORE Related Websites
Websites/Documents Related to CORE Investments
DataShare Santa Cruz County
Home - https://www.datasharescc.org/
CORE Results Menu - https://www.datasharescc.org/tiles/index/display?alias=CORE Strategies and Program Outcomes -
https://www.datasharescc.org/tiles/index/display?id=210411274189905155 Promising Practices -
https://www.datasharescc.org/index.php?controller=index&module=PromisePractice&action=i ndex
CORE Investments
https://www.corescc.org/
Resources - https://www.corescc.org/resources
CORE Continuum - https://www.corescc.org/resources/core-continuum-of-results-andevidence YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@coreinvestments_scc Thrive by 5
Thrive by 5 - https://www.first5scc.org/thrive-by-5
Theory of Change -
https://www.first5scc.org/_files/ugd/e000f0_9b6c3869997346de83cd8e8a3528b298.pdf City of Santa Cruz Health in all Policies
Community Well-Being Outcome Indicator Metrics -
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/91445/6380538977178300 00 Health in All Policies - https://www.cdc.gov/policy/hiap/index.html Targeted Universalism
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/targeted-universalism
32.41 CORE Investments Request for Proposals (RFP) 2022
LESSONS LEARNED
PROCESS EVALUATION:
REPORT OF FINDINGS
APRIL 2023
32.42 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
32.43 3
Executive Summary
In 2015, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (BoS) and Santa Cruz City Council (Council) approved a results-based collective impact model named the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) Investments. The evolution of CORE has been community informed, Board and Council approved, and staff implemented. The 2022 CORE Request for Proposals (RFP) marked the beginning of the second CORE funding cycle and is the focus of this report. In June 2022, the BoS and Council awarded approximately $5.9 million in contracts to 41 agencies representing 57 programs that address community needs across the CORE Conditions for Health and Wellbeing.
To ensure that the CORE initiative remains true to its principles of collective impact and continuous improvement, the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (HSD) conducted an evaluation of the 2022 RFP process. The evaluation used data from the RFP process and conducted surveys, focus groups, and interviews with a broad range of stakeholders including elected officials, service providers, applicants, County and City staff and consultants, CORE Steering Committee members, and community members. High-level findings are summarized below. Details of methods and individual findings are presented in the full report.
What Worked?
✓ The RFP and funding process provided equitable
opportunities for current and new programs to
receive CORE funding.
✓ The RFP introduced equity dimensions into the
application and scoring process, which was widely
supported by stakeholders.
✓ All elected officials said the funding recommendations reflect the needs of the communities of Santa Cruz
County, while acknowledging there is not enough
funding to address all unmet needs.
✓ Stakeholders appreciated the community engagement
process that informed the development of the RFP,
almost 2/3rds of survey respondents said they were
satisfied with their opportunities to participate in the creation of the RFP.
✓ Applicants appreciated technical assistance (TA) provided to support the application process and had positive experiences using the online platform Reviewr to submit their applications.
Lessons Learned on What Worked
o Continue to engage communitybased organizations and
stakeholders in the creation of
the next CORE RFP process
o Keep equity dimensions
o Use an online application portal
o Keep panel format and enhance
support and training for
panelists
o Continue to provide TA for
applicants and look for ways to
expand offerings
32.44 4
✓ The panel review process was well organized. Panelists appreciated the support and training they received. Panelists, in particular, valued the structure of the scoring review process.
Areas for Improvement
❖ Programs funded through CORE should be
celebrated and recognized for their
positive impacts.
❖ Identification of CORE funding and
allocation priorities, with direction from
elected officials, must happen before the
RFP is released. Developing these priorities
should be transparent, participatory and
informed by a data- and equity-centered
discussion among stakeholders.
❖ The RFP process needs a longer timeline to
account for unexpected events (e.g., Omicron
surge) and allow for deliberation between
award recommendations and funding
decisions.
❖ Make the CORE application process easier. The level of difficulty and amount of time needed to complete the application was a concern for the majority of applicants. ❖ The scoring process was detailed in the RFP; however, many applicants would prefer more details around scoring to be provided earlier in the application process. ❖ Recruiting more panelists and increasing the diversity of the panelist pool, both in experience and community representation, could reduce the amount of time needed for application review per panelist and further represent community voices of Santa Cruz County.
Moving Forward
The County, City, and our partners are committed to advancing equitable health and wellbeing through CORE funding and its alignment with other investments. This process evaluation offers insights into aspects of the CORE RFP process that worked well and areas for improvement. We look forward to continuing this conversation with the community, and, together, fulfilling the CORE vision of an equitable, thriving, resilient community where everyone shares responsibility for ensuring the health and well-being of all people, at every stage of life.
Thank you to all who participated in the lessons learned process evaluation.
Lessons Learned for Improvement
o Celebrate successful applicants and
services
o Have a values conversation to create
alignment among stakeholders
o Identify funding priorities prior to the
next RFP
o Start the RFP process earlier and
provide more time between RFP
release and funding awards
o Provide more detail on the RFP review
and scoring process
o Recruit more panelists and increase
panelist diversity
32.45 5
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
I. EVALUATION GOALS 6
II. REPORT STRUCTURE 6
III. BACKGROUND & IMPLEMENTATION 7
IV. METHODOLOGY 9
A. SOURCES 9
B. CORE LESSONS LEARNED SURVEY 9
C. FOCUS GROUPS 11
D. INTERVIEWS 11
E. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH 11
V. RESULTS 12
A. FUNDING PROCESS 12
B. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COMMUNICATION SUPPORT 26
C. COLLECTIVE IMPACT 29
CONCLUSION 31
APPENDIX A. LESSONS LEARNED SURVEY RESPONSES 32
APPENDIX B. PANELIST CODE OF CONDUCT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS 34 APPENDIX C. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 38
32.46 6
I. Evaluation Goals
In alignment with the values and principles of collective impact and continuous improvement, the Human Services Department (HSD) completed a lessons learned process evaluation of the 2022 Collective of Results and Evidence-Based Investments (CORE) Request for Proposals (RFP). Based on feedback that HSD received from stakeholders, including City and County elected officials, the lessons learned process was designed to evaluate the following questions:
1. How well did the RFP process reflect the values of the CORE framework and stakeholder engagement?
2. During the RFP process, to what extent did service providers demonstrate knowledge or capacity, especially in the use of data, collective impact and a focus on equity?
3. What worked well that should be continued in the next RFP process?
4. What unexpected outcomes resulted from the RFP process?
5. How can the RFP process improve next time?
The purpose of the findings in this report are to inform and contribute to the development of the next phase of CORE Investments.
II. Report Structure
This report evaluates the RFP process from its development through the completion of the contracting process.
The report proceeds as follows: Section III: Background & Implementation provides an overview of the development, implementation and funding outcomes of the 2022 CORE RFP; Section IV: Methodology describes the methods and data sources used to complete the lessons learned report; Section V: Results provides all the findings from the lessons learned process evaluation. The findings are organized according to three overarching themes:
• Funding Process
• Technical Assistance (TA) and Communication Support
• Collective Impact
Sections provide a list of individual findings, considerations for stakeholders, quantitative data, and illustrative quotes.
32.47 7
III. Background & Implementation
The 2022 CORE Investments RFP was informed by lessons learned from the previous RFP, community input, the CORE framework and related tools developed over the last five years, and direction from the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors (BoS) and Santa Cruz City Council (Council). In 2017, the County of Santa Cruz and City of Santa Cruz issued the first CORE RFP, which was based on a results-based collective impact model. After the 2017 RFP, the County undertook a formal lessons learned process evaluation, which had several findings that contributed to the development of the 2022 CORE RFP:
1. Stakeholders suggest gathering feedback more broadly on the RFP and application form prior to release
2. Applicants would benefit from a simpler application
3. The length of time to complete the application was a concern for many applicants
4. Stakeholders suggested having more support for identifying evidence-based programs and practices (EBPs)
This CORE RFP was developed to reflect the evolution of CORE over the last five years. This includes integration of the updated CORE framework (vision, mission, values), inclusion of the CORE Conditions for Health & Well-being, and centering equity in the RFP. Multiple CORE tools that were developed to support results-based approaches to achieving collective impact were available as resources to the applicants. Tools included the CORE Results Menu which provides access to community level data, results and indicators that illustrate needs and strengths in each CORE condition. Another tool, the CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence, is designed to broaden the definition of what constitutes “evidence” and increase the capacity of agencies to implement EBPs and measure program outcomes.
The CORE RFP was informed by several study sessions with the BoS and Council. In February 2021, HSD went before the BoS and conducted a study session on the CORE RFP.
At that meeting ,the BoS asked HSD to engage with other funders and with the community on the development of the RFP. In September 2021, HSD presented to the BoS and Council and received approval for the RFP framework.
In response to the first RFP process evaluation, HSD and the City of Santa Cruz engaged community-based organizations and other funders as thought partners during the design of the RFP. Between June and October 2021, eight meetings were held to provide information on the CORE RFP process and solicit input and advice on how to operationalize equity and apply the CORE framework in the upcoming funding process. In total, 159 individuals from 77 organizations participated in these meetings. The input collected during and after the meetings were used to inform the CORE RFP process. To address the process evaluation finding regarding a simpler application, HSD introduced the tiered RFP approach, which
32.48 8
varied the complexity of questions based on the amount of funding requested, moved the RFP process online, and provided TA to applicants.
Based on the feedback from various stakeholder groups, the RFP framework was centered on advancing equitable health and well-being for all people, across their lifespan, using a results-based, collective impact approach. CORE Investments represents a shared commitment of the County and City to create equitable opportunities for all county residents to thrive, expressed by the eight interconnected CORE Conditions of Health and Well-being. Equity is central to this effort and compelled the County and City to require applicants to identify populations within the county who may face particular obstacles to their health and well-being, to create solutions tied to their needs, and to address the root causes of inequity.
Both funders approved distributing CORE funds using a hybrid model approach, in which most of the funds would support a broad base of direct services and a portion would focus on one collaborative, targeted impact investment. The funds were allocated across four tiers -small, medium, large, targeted impact, based on the amount of funding requested, with the intent to promote applications from agencies of different sizes. Importantly, in response to the first lessons learned report, the tier system was designed to help simplify the application process, by having application requirements increase with increased funding requests. Meaning that applying for funding in the small tier had the least requirements, and the targeted impact tier had the most requirements.
Proposals across all tiers would be driven by community needs as defined and articulated by the applicants. Applicants would describe how the needs they plan to address contribute to equitable health and well-being in one or more of the eight interconnected CORE Conditions and select a target result area and proposed program outcomes.
Additionally, the Board and Council approved HSD’s proposed plan to provide Technical Assistance (TA) to applicants, which was done in one-on-one and group sessions. In total, 64 training and TA opportunities were provided to 298 participants.
In total, 128 proposals were submitted seeking over $15 million in funding. The dollar amount of funding requested exceeded the $5.9 million that was available for the CORE RFP by approximately $9 million. Ultimately, the County and City awarded funding to 41 agencies representing 57 programs that address community needs throughout the county and across the CORE Conditions for Health and Well-being. Thirty-four of the 57 funded programs received CORE funding for the first time.
Twenty-two organizations had programs that were previously awarded CORE funding that were not awarded funding this CORE cycle. In order to help these organizations recalibrate their program needs and services, the BOS and Council made three and a half months of
32.49 9
transitional “bridge” funding available to them. Eighteen organizations received “bridge” funding, with four programs choosing to not accept the additional funds.
IV. Methodology
The lessons learned process evaluation was completed by HSD staff with support from the CORE consultants.
The evaluation used a mixed methods approach to collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data. Basic statistics were used to analyze survey data. A deductive content analysis was used to analyze interview and focus group transcripts. The results from the survey analysis and content analysis were synthesized in the findings presented in this report.
A. Sources
Stakeholder input was collected through a combination of surveys, structured interviews, and focus groups. The process evaluation also reviewed BoS and Council memos, CORE Progress Reports, and RFP proposals.
B. CORE Lessons Learned Survey
HSD developed a survey that asked a broad set of questions about the RFP process. A link to the survey was emailed to 333 unduplicated individuals from the following stakeholder groups: service providers, applicants, elected officials, CORE Steering Committee members, County and City staff, and panelists. A total of 112 survey responses were received, a response rate of 34%.
The broad range of stakeholders surveyed meant certain questions did not apply to many stakeholders. This resulted in an overrepresentation of Not Applicable/No Opinion responses for various questions. These responses were excluded from the final analysis of the survey data. When data are presented in the report, the number of respondents or “n” who answered the question is included.
Respondent characteristics
Graph 1 shows that out of 92 survey respondents, 60 (65%) identified as woman/female, 20 (22%) man/male, and 3 (3%) non-binary.
32.50 10
Graph 1: The majority of survey respondents identified as woman/female. (n=92) Table 1 shows the distribution of survey respondents according to their stakeholder group.
Service providers made up the largest group of respondents and grant writers were the second largest group.
Table 1: The majority of survey respondents were service providers and grant writers. (n=103) Stakeholder Group Participants
Service Provider 52
Grant Writer 29
Panelist 21
County or City Staff 20
Community Member 13
CORE Steering Committee Member 10
Elected Official 6
Total 157*
* Some survey respondents belong to multiple groups, so this count has duplication and does not equal the total number of survey responses received.
51 survey respondents provided the location of their main office, approximately half are located in North County and 1 in 4 have their main office located in South County.
Graph 2: The main office location of survey respondents. (n=51) Woman/female 65%
Man/male 22%
Decline to state 10%
Non-binary 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
51%
18% 25% 4% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
North County (Santa
Cruz, Scotts Valley,
Davenport)
Mid County (Capitola,
Soquel, Aptos)
South County
(Watsonville, Freedom)
San Lorenzo Valley
(Felton, Ben Lomond,
Boulder Creek)
Outside of Santa Cruz
County
32.51 11
Forty-two of 57 applicants (72%) who responded to the survey question “What was the outcome of your agency’s CORE proposal(s)?” had some or all of their proposals funded.
Table 3: Nearly 3/4 of applicant respondents had all or some of their proposals funded. (n =57) Number of Applicants
All
Proposals
Funded
Some
Proposals
Funded
No
Proposals
Funded
Decline to
Answer
Grand
Total
n=57 35% 37% 23% 5% 100%
C. Focus Groups
The stakeholder focus groups were conducted on the online meeting platform Zoom. The CORE consultants facilitated the focus groups and HSD staff were present to take notes and provide support as needed. See Appendix C. for details about the focus group sign-up process, and focus group procedures.
Eleven focus groups were conducted with four different stakeholder groups. The questions asked during focus groups were tailored to each stakeholder group. For example, the Panelist focus group questions solicited responses about their experience reviewing and scoring applications.
Table 4 shows that in total 53 stakeholders participated in focus groups, with the majority (31) being applicants.
Table 4: The applicant/community member focus groups had the most participants.
D. Interviews
HSD completed a total of 14 structured interviews with 4 members from the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, 6 members of the Santa Cruz City Council, 3 individuals from County and City executive leadership, and one interview with the CORE Consultants.
E. Limitations of the Research
The low survey response rate (34%) means survey results are not generalizable and therefore may not be representative of the opinions of all stakeholders. With all focus groups there is the potential for a self-selection bias towards individuals that have stronger feelings about the process that may not be representative of all stakeholders. As well, the Focus Group Type # of Focus Groups # of Participants
Applicants/Community Member 6 32*
Panelists 2 8
Staff/Contractors 2 7
CORE Steering Committee 1 6
* A community member who did not apply for CORE funding participated in an applicant focus group.
32.52 12
presence of HSD staff and the CORE consultants may have influenced the opinions that stakeholders were willing to share.
The process evaluation primarily relied on information that was collected and analyzed after funding recommendations were announced, so the strong relationship between funding outcomes and applicant experiences with the RFP limit the overall explanatory power of the findings in this report.
To address these limitations, HSD used a mixed methods research design and triangulated survey responses with the feedback that participants provided during focus groups and interviews. In general, there was convergence between the opinions of survey respondents and the comments made by focus group participants. To avoid some of these limitations, future evaluations should collect and analyze data throughout the RFP process in order to minimize the influence of funding outcomes on applicant opinions.
Despite these limitations, the findings provided in this report offer valuable insight about the RFP process and should be taken as a starting point for community engagement and dialogue about the next steps for CORE Investments.
V. Results
A. Funding Process
Finding 1: Timing for the development and release of the RFP was not ideal. The COVID-19 Omicron variant significantly impacted several aspects of the RFP process.
When the RFP was developed and released, the City, County and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) were experiencing high turnover, staffing shortages, and difficulties recruiting new staff.
Due to the Omicron surge, several CBOs requested that the application due date be extended. In order to accommodate the requests, HSD extended the RFP application due date from February 5, 2022 to March 5, 2022. The extended CORE RFP application due date coincided with the application due date for another local funder, Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County. Several elected officials described that the coinciding application due dates made it difficult for organizations who were applying for both sources of funding.
Additionally, City and County leaders reported that planned meetings with the BoS and Council to review the results of the RFP did not occur because the deadline for the RFP was extended.
The extended deadline also shortened the time that panelists had to review applications and delayed the announcement of CORE funding recommendations. This shortened the time that organizations had to prepare for not being funded or being funded.
32.53 13
Considerations for stakeholders: County and City staff recommend starting the RFP development process as early as possible. Several stakeholders suggested using a nonbinding letter of intent to identify potential applicants and the types of panelists needed earlier in the process. A further recommendation included coordinating with other funders to avoid coinciding application due dates.
Finding 2: The tier system helped simplify the application process and increased access to CORE funding.
The tier system was designed to distribute funding broadly to programs of varying sizes, and to make it easier for organizations to apply for CORE funding.
Table 5 shows that 41 (52%) out of 79 survey respondents who replied to the question “In your opinion, did using funding tiers (small, medium, large, targeted impact) make it easier for agencies and programs of different sizes to receive funding?” felt that the tier system made it easier.
Several stakeholders stated that the tier system simplified the application process by providing agencies a concrete frame for identifying their proposal funding needs.
Additionally, some applicants expressed that the tier system provided clarity around where their proposed services fit in the broader scope of collective impact.
Although the majority of stakeholders, including elected officials, felt that using the tier system made it easier for agencies to apply for and receive CORE funding, several stakeholders expressed concerns that allowing organizations to apply across different tiers potentially favors larger organizations who have the resources to for multiple proposals.
Table 5: The majority of stakeholders found the RFP tier system easy. (n=79) Tier system made it Easy -
Very Easy
Neither difficult
nor hard
Difficult –
Very Difficult
Total
n=79
% of Respondents 52% 28% 20% 100%
City leadership: “COVID really impacted the timeline and I do not see how it could have been different this time around.”
County Staff: "But, you know, coming out of COVID, and then being instructed by the Board or the leadership at HSD, we need to do the RFP. It was quite challenging and a lot of pressure."
Elected official: “The revised due date of the RFP application coincided with the due date for Community Foundation. This created a hardship for smaller organizations who were trying to complete applications for both CORE and Community Foundation at the same time.”
32.54 14
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend maintaining a tier system and suggest exploring ways to make it easier for agencies with different capacities to apply for CORE funding.
County staff: “I think that the tiers were a really good idea. In part because you didn't have like massive requests by, you know, lots and lots of programs and it just sort of channeled that a little bit better.”
Elected Official: “The tiers worked well. In particular the small tier made the application process less complicated for smaller organizations/programs.” Finding 3: Stakeholders were satisfied with the number of opportunities they had to participate in the creation of the RFP and felt the RFP process reflected the values of equity.
A key finding from the first RFP process evaluation was that stakeholders wanted to be more frequently involved in the creation of the RFP.
This funding cycle, the majority of survey respondents (64%) were satisfied with their opportunities to participate in the creation of the RFP (n= 73). Additionally, Table 6 shows that 2/3 of survey respondents felt the RFP process did a good to excellent job incorporating the values of equity (n=83).
During focus groups, stakeholders expressed strong support for using CORE funding to address historical inequities in Santa Cruz County. The strong support stakeholders expressed about centering equity in the CORE RFP framework suggests that stakeholder input was incorporated in the resulting RFP. The majority of elected officials expressed support for including equity in the CORE framework and also expressed that the RFP process reflected the values of equity.
Graph 3: The majority of stakeholders were satisfied with opportunities to participate. (n=72) Dissatisfied 8%
Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 26%
Satisfied 64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
32.55 15
Table 6: The majority of survey respondents felt the RFP process reflected the values of equity. (n = 83) How well was equity
utilized throughout the RFP
process?
Good –
Excellent
Fair Poor Total
n= 83
% of respondents 67% 17% 16% 100%
Considerations for stakeholders: The high level of community engagement was appreciated by stakeholders and should be maintained. Consider the creation of a CORE public dashboard that provides information about the development of the CORE RFP and why certain decisions are made.
County Staff: “Centering DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) was so important in this application. I want all applications to have a section that asks agencies how they operationalize equity within their agency.”
Applicant: “I was extremely impressed and inspired by the whole idea of focusing on those who are marginalized in our community and having an equity focus. That I think was really inspiring.”
CORE Steering Committee member: “Yeah, absolutely. I think there was plenty of opportunities to have discussions. And I think that there was a lot of input that kind of helped shape the RFP.”
Finding 4: Elected officials and other stakeholders support the RFP Process.
The majority of elected officials acknowledged the progress that was made in this RFP in comparison to the first RFP. In general, elected officials expressed that this funding cycle helped solidify the RFP process as the preferred method that the County and City want to use to distribute general funds to address community needs.
Two elected officials expressed that more information about community needs and how funded programs are addressing those needs would improve the funding recommendation process. One of the two elected officials also expressed concerns about the costs associated with the CORE RFP process and suggested the County and City should reestablish the Community Programs funding model.
In order to gauge stakeholder support for the CORE RFP process, survey respondents were asked to suggest alternative public funding models that the County and City should explore.
Of the 28 responses received, the overwhelming majority 25 (89%) recommended improving the RFP process rather than shifting to alternative funding models. Stakeholders’
32.56 16
recommendations centered around including past performance and the impact of services in the scoring criteria, prioritizing certain services, and increasing the amount of CORE funding available.
Two stakeholders suggested that the City and County should explore participatory budgeting and participatory grantmaking. One stakeholder suggested that the County and City should discontinue the CORE RFP.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders, including elected officials, support continuing the RFP process and recommended that the BoS, Council and stakeholders should continue to engage in discussions to find ways to improve the RFP process.
Elected Official: “The RFP is the correct method. The issue is not with the method rather it is with improving the execution of the RFP process.”
Elected Official: "The current process has done well in shifting away from the previous process. And there is now starting to be recognition of the change in culture regarding how the County wants to fund certain social services."
Finding 5: We need to have a discussion about values that is equity and data- centered.
The RFP process without directives about funding priorities, is a competitive process where the best proposals will get selected based on scoring criteria. HSD leadership and staff said the absence of CORE funding priorities made several aspects of the RFP more difficult, including the application, recruiting review panelists, and making funding decisions.
Additionally, the majority of elected officials, and several stakeholders expressed the need to prioritize certain CORE Conditions to ensure that they are funded. Several elected officials and stakeholders expressed concerns that certain “basic social safety net” services do not align with the competitive structure of an RFP process. The majority of elected officials and some stakeholders also suggested creating a carve out to ensure that certain services are funded.
Even with these concerns, the majority of survey respondents felt that the RFP process reflected the value of equity. In general, stakeholders expressed that HSD and the CORE consultants incorporated the feedback they provided during engagement sessions into the RFP process. Similarly, the majority of elected officials recognized that HSD and the CORE consultants followed the directives they were provided by the BoS and Council. As well, stakeholders and elected officials generally agreed that funding recommendations meet the needs of the community.
Considerations for stakeholders: The comments made by elected officials, stakeholders, and County leadership and staff reflect a need for more engagement and dialogue about the
32.57 17
services and priorities that the County, City, and partners want to target in the RFP.
Stakeholders, the BoS and Council should engage in data driven, equity-based discussions with the public to identify the values that they want to operationalize in the RFP process.
Identification of CORE funding and allocation priorities, with direction from elected officials, must happen before the RFP is released.
CORE Steering Committee member: “I think I've struggled just like everybody else with figuring out the right balance between sort of predetermining the priorities and the allocation of funding prior to an actual release. And then how much of that happens through the submission and the scoring process”
Elected Official: “It is important to recognize that certain services do not fit within a competitive structure (RFP). It does not make sense to have some safety-net services be included in the competitive process. We need to identify which social services we want to be competitive vs non-competitive.”
Applicant: “this relates back to what I said earlier, I think the County, the supervisors need to work with, you know, with the staff and decide what they consider to be essential services for seniors in the community, there has to be a baseline established otherwise, we're going to continue to have these frustrating conversations and different expectations about the outcome of funding.”
Finding 6: Applicant satisfaction with the RFP process was mixed.
Similar to the findings from the first RFP process evaluation, this report finds that the experience of applicants was mixed. Approximately half of applicants (45%) who responded to the question, “How satisfied are you with the RFP process (regardless of the outcome of your agency’s proposal) were satisfied to very satisfied with the process, approximately 1 in 3 (37%) were dissatisfied to very dissatisfied, and 18% were neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (n=56).
Although, the majority of applicants felt included in the creation of the RFP and felt the RFP process reflected the values of equity, applicants also found the RFP application challenging to complete, and some applicants wanted more clarity about the scoring process. More significantly, applicant opinions about the RFP process were most influenced by the funding results of their proposals. Graph 4 shows that applicants who had all their proposals funded were the most satisfied, applicants who were not funded were the least satisfied, and applicants who had some proposals funded were generally split.
32.58 18
Graph 4: Applicant satisfaction with the RFP process followed the funding of their proposals. (n=56) Considerations for stakeholders: Future evaluations should collect and analyze data throughout the RFP process in order to minimize the influence of funding outcomes on applicant opinions.
Elected Official: “There seemed to be a lot of negative blow-back because some agencies assumed that they would receive funding but did not.”
County Leadership: “It would make sense to collect feedback throughout the process and not just after recommendations are made when individuals’ feedback about the process is influenced by whether or not their program was funded.” Finding 7: The CORE application process should be simplified.
After the first RFP, applicants expressed their desire for a simpler application. However, following the 2022 CORE RFP process, the difficulty of the CORE RFP application process continues to be a concern for the majority of applicants. 75%
41%
8%
10%
27%
15%
15%
32%
77%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All of our agency's proposals were
funded
Some of our proposals were funded
and some were not funded
None of our agency's proposals were
funded
Satisfied-Very Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied nor satisfied Dissatisfied- Very Dissatisfied
32.59 19
This funding cycle, approximately 2/3 of survey respondents who answered the question “In general, how easy was it to apply for the CORE RFP?” described the application process as difficult or very difficult (n= 65).
Graph 5: The majority of survey respondents with an opinion felt the application was difficult. (n=65) In general, applicants expressed the structure of the application was confusing. Some of the suggestions that applicants provided for simplifying the application process are limiting the number of questions asked in the application, simplifying the structure of the questions, and only requesting information that is going to be scored. Several stakeholders recommended allowing applicants to select up to 3 CORE Conditions for their proposals.
Several applicants struggled finding local data to describe community strengths, needs, and inequities. Additionally, in their proposal, some agencies had difficulty identifying where their program fell on the CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence.
Applicants who did not find local data or examples of Promising Practices, including Evidence Based-Practices (EBPs), in DataShare seemed to struggle the most with developing their applications. In general, applicants who could not find relevant information in DataShare to help build their proposals expressed frustration about the amount of research and time the application required.
Although, trainings and group office hours were provided and recordings were made available online, the difficulty of the RFP application and the struggle that some applicants experienced in articulating where their programs fell on a spectrum of data and evidence suggest the need for additional support. Personalized TA was rated as the most helpful, however, it was limited to one session per application in order to ensure assistance was available to all applicants who requested it.
Difficult or very difficult
64%
Neither difficult nor easy 23%
Easy 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
32.60 20
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend simplifying the structure of the application, limiting the number of questions asked, and prioritizing the information that is going to be scored. In addition, applicants would likely benefit from including links to multiple publicly available online data sources and EBP repositories in the RFP document.
Increasing the availability of personalized TA beyond one session would likely benefit applicants.
Applicant: "I think that, you know, it was labor intensive, time consuming…. you know, we did participate in TA and made use of that, as well. But I'd say overall, it was a good process, fairly straightforward for us. But we definitely have experience, you know, writing grants of this size and nature, and took advantage of technical assistance and support as well. And I want to say that we added on a part time person who helped us with other efforts in the past, to help us with grant writing. And so that was also very important and critical for capacity for us as well."
CORE Steering Committee Member: " You know, just being mindful of what are we asking? And why are we asking that? Do we really need to know that? Is that something that we're going to weigh heavily on and if it's not, then take it out”.
Applicant: "And sometimes there wasn't a distinct separation between the content of certain needs assessment related questions and outcomes related questions and other kinds.”
Finding 8: The use of Reviewr helped streamline the application process.
This funding cycle, applicants were allowed to submit their proposals via the online portal Reviewr.
Applicants appreciated the option to submit their applications online and generally reported Reviewr was straightforward and easy to use.
Some applicants reported the character limit for responses did not allow them to fully reply to questions. Some panelists struggled navigating multiple windows in Reviewr. One elected official reported that a constituent was unable to apply because the online portal did not accept their application.
Considerations for stakeholders: Applicants and panelists recommend the County and City continue using an online portal. Explore how Reviewr, or other software, can customize the structure of the RFP application to meet applicants and panelists’ needs. Ensure that applicants are provided verification of their submissions.
32.61 21
Applicant: "I actually really liked Reviewr. Entering everything in was actually really smooth for me.”
Finding 9: Applicants displayed a greater understanding about the CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence and Evidence Based-Practices.
In the previous RFP funding cycle, applicants struggled to understand Evidence BasedPractices and levels of evidence as defined in the RFP. This funding cycle the CORE RFP incorporated the CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence (CORE Continuum) into the RFP application. In general, comments made by applicants during focus groups showed a good understanding of EBPs and the spectrum of evidence on the CORE Continuum. Some applicants particularly appreciated the flexibility the CORE Continuum allowed around the rigors of what is considered data, and data collection methods.
The amount of research that several applicants reported doing in developing their proposals suggests that they may not have fully understood how to use the CORE Continuum as a planning tool, rather than a prescriptive requirement to make their programs “fit” the traditional definition of an EBP.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders support continued trainings through the CORE Institute for Innovation and Impact. Applicants would be aided by a deeper understanding of evidence levels and more sources of EBPs to be included in the RFP document In between funding periods, applicants would benefit from attending ongoing trainings. Specifically, trainings could focus on how to use the CORE Continuum as a planning tool when vetting, selecting, implementing, and evaluating programs, practices, and policies.
Applicant: “I actually really liked the CORE Continuum of Results and Evidence. I thought that made a lot of sense. Now whether or not I could get my application to actually fit. That was quite a question, but that that in and of itself made a lot of sense to me.” Finding 10: The review process was well organized.
In total, 59 individuals served as panelists. Panelists were assigned to review applications in the CORE Conditions that best matched their personal and/or professional experience.
In order to serve as a panelist, individuals were required to sign a Conflict of Interest Form and a Code of Conduct Form. Both forms are available in Appendix B.
32.62 22
To help prepare panelists, each was required to attend or watch a training on how to score the proposals and make comments on their scoring decisions. Each of the small, medium, and large proposals was reviewed by three panelists and the Targeted Impact proposals were reviewed by four panelists.
Panelists expressed appreciation for the training and support they received during the review process. The majority of panelists expressed appreciation for the reconvening process. In particular, panelists felt that reconvening to discuss the application scores helped them better understand the applications they personally reviewed. Panelists also expressed appreciation that they “never” felt pressured to change the scores they had given to an application.
Although applicants felt the review process was well organized, several panelists reported that the amount of time they needed to complete their reviews was more than the 10-20 hours the County communicated. Some applicants also said it would be helpful to have County or City staff available to answer their questions outside of traditional office hours.
Several panelists also said that the time frame to complete the review process was too short. The shortened timeframe is an example of how the Omicron variant impacted the RFP process. Initially, panelists were expected to review proposals in March. However, when the RFP application due date was extended, the panelists review was moved to April, which impacted the time available to review the proposals.
Considerations for stakeholders: Panelists reported the reconvening procedures worked well and should be maintained. Explore different options for responding to panelists’ questions outside of traditional work hours. Consider stakeholder suggestions for recruiting additional panelists such as using panelists’ networks to increase the number of panelists and reduce individual workload. Consider revising the time commitment hours listed on the panelist recruitment material.
Panelist: “I had a positive experience. It was a pretty straightforward thing.” Panelist: “The time commitment asked of the panelists (10-20 hours) was not realistic and was probably significantly exceeded by most panelists.” Panelist: “And so I appreciated having the discussion. You know, knowing that we do have different opinions and different experiences, and honoring that. Yeah, so it’s important to make sure that is maintained.”
Finding 11: The pool of panelists should be grown and include more diversity.
Review panels were comprised of individuals who were subject matter experts, researchers, professionals working in a particular CORE Condition, county and city staff,
32.63 23
members of the community, community leaders, and individuals with lived experience. To maximize panel diversity, panelists were randomly assigned a panel and then staff ensured that all panels had a mix of individuals with lived experience, race/ethnicity, and other characteristics.
The majority of stakeholders recognized the concerted effort the County and City made to recruit a diverse group of panelists that reflected the diversity of Santa Cruz County residents. However, they also recognized the need for more diversity on the review panels, in particular for individuals with lived experience.
County staff and contractors commonly felt that the Conflict of Interest policy limited the panelist recruitment process. Specifically, County staff identified that two years was too long of a time period for a panelist to not have any association with an applicant.
Several stakeholders recommended using panelists’ networks to recruit potential panelists, recruiting more panelists with lived experience, recruiting more people of color, and narrowing the Conflict of Interest policy.
Considerations for stakeholders: Several stakeholders suggested that using a nonbinding letter of intent could help the County and City identify the necessary number of reviewers with the background expertise needed earlier in the RFP process. The County and City should reconsider the conflict of interest rules and utilize existing panelist networks to recruit potential panelists and increase diversity.
Contractor: “Do not make the conflict of interest policy so broad.” Finding 12: Stakeholders would benefit from additional clarity about the review and scoring process.
Scoring was completed according to the criteria listed in the RFP document. Applications for the small, medium, and large tier were assigned for review according to the CORE Condition the applicant selected. To assist the panelists who were reviewing and scoring the proposals and promote consistency, HSD created a scoring matrix based on the soring criteria published in the RFP document as well as the application questions. During the review and scoring process, panelists wrote comments on the strengths and areas that could be improved in each proposal. Applicants were provided the comments from their proposals upon request. In total 24 applicants requested and were provided the comments from their proposals.
Although the RFP document detailed the scoring criteria and 72% (n=90) of survey respondents found the scoring process clear, a substantial minority of survey respondents found the score process was not clear. Approximately 1 in 4 (28%) stakeholders who
32.64 24
responded to the question “Was the RFP application review and scoring process clear and easy to understand?” felt the scoring process was slightly or not at all clear.
In particular, some applicants did not seem to understand how their proposals were assigned for review. During a focus group, County staff reported that various applicants were unclear about how their proposals were going to be assigned for review. Specifically, some applicants did not seem to understand that their proposal would be assigned for review according to the CORE Condition they selected.
Additionally, some applicants also seemed to incorrectly believe that the level of evidence of their proposals was being scored, and this was also reiterated by a CORE Steering Committee member.
Althought the scoring criteria was included in the RFP document, several applicants expressed that having access to the scoring matrix that was provided to panelists would result in a clearer understanding of the scoring process and better proposals.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend releasing alongside the RFP document the methodology for assigning panelists to proposals as well as the panelist scoring matrix.
County Staff: “I remember a lot of agencies were concerned about having to pick only one CORE Condition. There were a lot of questions about how the CORE Conditions factored into the review process. I don't believe that it was clear to applicants that they were going to be separated into panelist groups based on the CORE Condition they selected.” CORE Steering Committee member: One of the comments that I heard a lot around the time when people were working on their proposals was a lot of fear around what was based on the previous CORE application process, not this current one, the one before where the different levels of evidence based practices were introduced for the first time, and there was a lot of fear around well, if I'm not at this level, I'll be scored lower….I know it was attempted to be made abundantly clear…. that's not going to impact the score.
Finding 13: Funded programs should be recognized for the important services they provide.
In general, stakeholders felt that funding recommendations reflected the needs of the community. All elected officials stated that the funding recommendations reflected needs of the community.
Several stakeholders expressed that programs who received funding need to be recognized for the important services they provide for the communities of Santa Cruz County.
32.65 25
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend that the County and City explore ways to promote and increase public recognition about the important services that are funded through the CORE RFP.
Elected Official: “Yes, the funded proposals address the community’s needs. The programs that were funded provide a wide variety of services. Funding a wide variety of services is difficult to achieve and the RFP was able to achieve that.” Applicant: “We did our part. We did everything we were supposed to do. Everything, showed up at the TAs, learned, studied that application, we did everything, and we deserved it. We did everything. And there's just some healing that definitely needs to take place in this community. Because that moment for us to celebrate, that was taken from us and it was taken from other awardees. And it wasn't fair nor was it right. So I just really hope that this county can help the current awardees and learn the lessons so that nobody else has to experience this in the next round.”
Finding 14: The amount of time required to complete the contracting process was longer than anticipated.
Programs that were approved for funding were provided a Scope of Work (SoW) template and budget form to complete and submit to the County. County staff followed up with applicants as needed in order to align their SoW and budget with the Results-Based Accountability framework and program reporting requirements. To support funded applicants during the contracting process, the CORE Consultants and County staff jointly provided two trainings on how to complete the SoW. County staff also provided a total of 8 drop-in office hours to answer questions that applicants had about their SoW and the contracting process.
The majority of funded applicants expressed frustration with the amount of time that it took to complete the contracting process. As well, some applicants felt that significant changes were made to their proposal outcomes in order to fit the RBA framework.
The lack of clarity about program data reporting requirements in the RFP document made the contracting process longer and more difficult than anticipated. Comments made by funded applicants suggest that they were not clear about program reporting requirements when the contracting process begin.
County staff reported that the proposed outcomes and measures for some programs did not easily align with the RBA framework, and that various applicants struggled to simplify their proposed outcomes to align with the RBA framework.
Considerations for stakeholders: County contracting staff reported that revisions were better communicated and completed by phone or an online meeting. Therefore, the
32.66 26
contracting process would likely be shortened by scheduling appointments with applicants after funding recommendations are approved by the BoS and Council. Applicants would benefit from including the program reporting requirements in the RFP document and incorporating the RBA framework into the application process.
Applicant: “I just want to echo that the scope of work contracting process took way more time than we thought it was. Because there was a lot of like, Wait, we propose this, you're asking for this.”
Applicant: But I think the scope of work should have just been included in the original application process.
B. Technical Assistance and Communication Support
In addition to data from the Lessons Learned survey, this section of the report contains data from an evaluation survey that the CORE Consultants completed and submitted to HSD in May 2022.
Finding 1: The support that applicants are provided is unique to the CORE RFP, and applicants appreciated the quantity and quality of technical assistance.
Between December 2021 and February 2022 the CORE consultants and County and City staff provided multiple trainings on the CORE framework, application tools and how to use Reviewr. Trainings offered by the CORE consultants included: Developing a Theory of Change and Logic Model with an Equity Lens; Using CORE Tools to Develop Your Proposal; Refining Program Outcomes and Evaluation Tools with an Equity Lens; and Using Data and Stories for Continuous Learning and Improvement. The CORE consultants also offered multiple group office hour sessions and individualized Technical Assistance (TA) to support applicants throughout the application process. In total, 64 trainings and TA sessions were provided. Trainings and office hours were recorded and made accessible to applicants.
Trainings were interpreted into Spanish with bilingual materials available, and Spanish interpretation was also made available upon request for the individualized TA sessions.
In general, stakeholders expressed appreciation for the quantity, quality, and variety of TA that applicants are provided. The majority of applicants found all forms of TA helpful for developing their proposals. The individual one-on-one sessions were the highest rated and several applicants appreciated the flexibility that having access to recorded trainings provided.
32.67 27
Graph 6: The majority of training participants found Trainings and TA helpful. (n varies by type of support) Some applicants recommended that TA should be aligned with the scoring criteria. Several stakeholders and elected officials recommended developing TA that is more geared towards meeting the needs of smaller organizations such as developing their grant writing skills and helping them to identify other sources (non-CORE) of funding.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend the quantity and quality of technical assistance, including providing recordings of the trainings in English and Spanish, should continue. In order to build organizational capacity, the County and City should coordinate with the CORE Institute to provide agencies a series of trainings on grant writing and identifying other sources of funding that will further advance the collective impact services provided by CBOs outside of CORE funding. Consider conducting a community survey to identify the specific needs of small organizations and develop trainings accordingly.
Applicant: "I think the number of opportunities, the different types of opportunities, the consistency, the regular reminders that those opportunities were available. All of those things were fantastic. I think you guys did a great job.” Applicant: "I would say for me, from when the RFP came out, and all the training, which was thoughtful and excellent. That part went I'm going to say smoothly and predictable, like really predictable.
Applicant: “Yeah, so the group sessions, prior to the RFP were very helpful for us, me and the other person who wrote the grants for our organization found them helpful and both utilized that resource."
8%
13%
7%
6%
5%
4%
8%
7%
5%
12%
8%
4%
25%
5%
28%
8%
32%
6%
48%
63%
50%
63%
85%
Applicant Conference
Workshop(s) on How to Use Reviewr
Structured Trainings
Group Office Hours
One-on-One TA Sessions
Helpfulness of Training and TA Events
Very Unhelpful Somewhat Unhelpful Neutral Somewhat Helpful Very Helpful
32.68 28
Finding 2: Stakeholders were satisfied with the communication process.
Table 7 shows that the majority of Lessons Learned survey respondents (67%) were satisfied to very satisfied with the amount of communication they received throughout the RFP process (n=79).
Table 7: Satisfaction with the amount of communication. (n=79) How satisfied are you with
the amount of
communication?
Satisfied
– Very
Satisfied
Neither
dissatisfied
nor satisfied
Dissatisfied –
Very
Dissatisfied
Total
n= 79
% of respondents 67% 18% 15% 100%
Additionally, the majority of respondents in the CORE Consultant’s survey summary rated the frequency and quality of communication about the trainings and TA as excellent.
Graph 7: The majority of survey respondents rated both the frequency and quality of communication about the trainings and TA as Good or Excellent (n=39).
Although stakeholders were satisfied with the communication process, during interviews all elected officials as well as City and County leaders expressed the need for an update after the RFP applications are received. This funding cycle, the meetings that were planned did not happen because the RFP application due date was extended due to the Omicron surge.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend continuing the current frequency and high quality of the communication process. The County and City should ensure that there is enough time built into the CORE RFP timeline to update the BoS and Council about the results of the RFP process prior to announcing the funding recommendations.
Elected Official: "It would be helpful if the Board was provided a report between when the RFP applications are received, and the funding recommendations are made." Elected Official: "There was a large gap in communication between when the RFP was released and when funding award recommendations were made. There needs to be more 31% 33%
67%
59%
3%
8%
Frequency (how often) Quality (usefulness, clarity, and level of detail) Poor
Good
Excellent
Don't know or NA
32.69 29
communication during this period. Perhaps this can be done through providing CORE RFP updates during the Community Programs Commission meetings." Contractor: “the communication to announce that here's the RFP and any (ensuing) changes, I thought that was done very well. I thought it was widely communicated which was specifically focused on to be sure to reach a broad audience and that was done quite well.”
C. Collective Impact
Finding 1: More clarity about CORE as a funding model and a movement is needed.
The relationship between using the CORE framework to design and implement a funding process (e.g., County and City’s RFP) and using the CORE framework to advance resultsbased, collective impact efforts above and beyond the County and City’s funding (“the movement”) is unclear to many stakeholders. Several stakeholders commented on the lack of understanding the public has about the CORE Movement and CORE in general.
One way to understand the model and the movement is Collective Impact (CI), a type of collaboration that brings people together in a structured way to achieve social change. CI has been a helpful way to describe both CORE’s vision for change and greater impact as well as how to organize, structure, and align current work towards that vision. This movementbuilding approach is reflected in the current description of CORE Investments as both a funding model and a broader movement to achieve equitable health and well-being in Santa Cruz County, using a results-based, collective impact approach.
Several elected officials and stakeholders also acknowledged the contribution CORE has made in raising awareness about equity in Santa Cruz County. Multiple stakeholders expressed support for the movement and recommended that the BoS and Council be more engaged with the movement in between funding cycles.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders report that more understanding is needed about the CORE Movement. Consider engaging multiple stakeholders in defining and understanding “the movement” - e.g., how CORE Investments can be a vehicle to advance equity and greater collective impact through and beyond the County’s and City’s General Fund investments. Explore ways to communicate the efforts of the CORE Investments Funding and Movement to the public, such as through the CORE website.
County Leadership: “The current RFP engrained the CORE movement into the CORE framework. Also, I am now starting to hear more positive feedback about the CORE framework in meetings.”
City Leadership: “The messaging and the language used by CORE needs to be simplified so that the average person can understand it”.
32.70 30
Finding 2: Stakeholders want outcome data and the development of evaluation processes to better understand the collective impact of CORE funding.
The process evaluation after the first RFP found that stakeholders wanted the development of processes to evaluate CORE as a collective impact model. Similarly, this report finds that in general stakeholders and elected officials want more data, and better evaluation of CORE and the impact that CORE funding is having in Santa Cruz County.
The majority of elected officials and several stakeholders expressed the need to better evaluate the impact CORE funding is having as a collective impact model. In particular, elected officials requested that more “objective,” “quantitative” data about community needs and CORE funding be included with the recommendations for funding.
Several elected officials expressed their appreciation for the community stories that were used to identify needs in this RFP and recommended that they be accompanied by more objective sources of data. Several stakeholders also expressed the need to complete a community impact assessment of CORE funding.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders recommend improving the available outcome data for CORE funded agencies. This CORE funding cycle (FY2022-FY2025), funded programs are required to collect unique participant counts, and participant demographics data. The data that is now starting to be collected should provide elected officials and stakeholders a better understanding about the communities that CORE funding is serving. Using this data as a starting point, elected officials and stakeholders should engage in a discussion about what data they want to collect from CORE funded programs.
Consider including the data reporting requirements that were implemented this funding cycle in the next RFP. Continue to develop organizations’ capacities to collect and report data.
Elected official: “Including more metrics and data in the application process will provide a better sense of the people being served, and the quality of the services being provided." County Leadership: "Moving forward, we need to make sure that we are tracking who is being served by CORE funding and that funded agencies are meeting their goals. I know that this time around we are having agencies report participant demographics data, that is a good development."
Finding 3: The early signs of collective impact are starting to develop.
Collaboration and building organizational capacity are primary objectives of the CORE collective impact model.
32.71 31
During focus groups, statements made by funded and unfunded applicants reflected their growing knowledge of EBPs and the CORE Continuum. Several applicants commented that going through the RFP application process helped build organizational capacity. Several applicants plan on using their CORE application to apply for other grants.
Several applicants expressed a desire to improve their data collection methods and requested assistance, partnership and patience from the County and City as they do so.
Multiple applicants also spoke about finding ways to collaborate with the County, City and other organizations. One applicant expressed an interest in finding ways to collaborate with other organizations to collect county-wide data.
Considerations for stakeholders: Stakeholders suggest the BoS and Council should consider the capacity building and collaborative spirit that has been developed when making decisions about changes to the CORE RFP and CORE more broadly. Continue to invest in collective impact efforts, including the CORE Institute and CORE Investments.
Explore ways to increase the capacity of CBOs to engage in collective impact efforts.
Applicant: “we have a data team at our work, and we talk about it at the leadership team level every month, we're focused on it, but we're tracking the data just for our organization.
So something that, you know, maybe that's a thought for another county grant that would support us in working collaboratively as nonprofit organizations to track and collect county data.”
Conclusion
This report is part of the continuous improvement process that is central to the collective impact model and CORE Investments. This process evaluation offers insights into aspects of the CORE RFP process that worked well and areas for improvement.
The findings and considerations in this report should be taken as a starting point for community engagement and dialogue about the evolution of CORE Investments. We look forward to continuing this conversation with the community, and, together, fulfilling the CORE vision of an equitable, thriving, resilient community where everyone shares responsibility for ensuring the health and well-being of all people, at every stage of life.
32.72 32
Appendix A. Lessons Learned Survey Responses
I. Applicant satisfaction with the RFP process. (n =56) II. Stakeholder satisfaction according to difficulty of the application (n=63).
Satisfied - Very
Satisfied 45%
Neither
Dissatisfied nor
satisfied 18%
Dissatisfied -
Very
Dissatisfied
37%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
38%
5%
32%
8%
9%
18%
54%
86%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Neither Dissatisfied nor satisfied Dissastified Satisfied-Very Satisfied Neither difficult nor easy
Easy
Difficult or Very Difficult
32.73 33
III. The review and scoring process lacked clarity for some applicants (n=90).
Review and Scoring Process was slightly, moderately, or not at all Clear 63%
Very or Extremely Clear 37%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
32.74 34
Appendix B. Panelist Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Forms I. Panelist Code of Conduct Form
RFP Proposal Review Committee
Code of Conduct
RFP# HSD1-2021
CORE Investments
The RFP Process
These rules of conduct are designed to protect panelists as well as the funders and to avoid any unnecessary delays that may result from any appearance of impropriety. 1) Please refrain from discussing this RFP process with anyone outside this committee. 2) Refer all questions from a vendor or applicant to the CORE Investments team regarding this process. Do not speak directly to the RFP respondent. 3) If you or a close family member have volunteered, worked, or received services from an applicant, please disclose to the CORE Investments team before starting your review. The list of agencies who have applied is on pages 3 and 4 of this document. The CORE Investments team will decide if there is a conflict of interest. 4) The initial round of scoring will be complete by March 31, 2022, 5 PM PST. 5) After applications are selected for award, refer all inquiries regarding the selection process to the CORE Investments team at [email protected].
Thank you for your time and participation in this process. Please feel free to contact the CORE Investments team with any questions regarding this selection process at [email protected].
NAME
SIGNATURE DATE
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
32.75 35
II. Panelist Conflict of Interest Form
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PURCHASING DIVISION
CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
RFP HSD1-2021
FY 21/22
I acknowledge that I have been appointed to conduct a review of proposals submitted under the above titled Request for Proposals. I further acknowledge my responsibilities relating to conflict of interest and non-disclosure of information obtained during these reviews.
I do not have any conflict of interest, personal or organizational, real or apparent, in participating in the procurement process. If during the course of reviewing the proposals I become aware of an actual conflict of interest, I will notify the County of Santa Cruz CORE Review team at [email protected].
I understand conflict of interest to include any of the following situations:
The panel member or immediate member of their family has volunteered or worked for an applicant (please see the list of applicants on page two of this document); The panel member or immediate member of his/her family has a financial interest in the procurement;
A business organization in which the panel member or any member of his/her immediate family has a financial interest pertaining to the procurement; and Any other person, business or organization with whom the panel member or any immediate family member is negotiating, or has arrangements concerning prospective employment, is involved with the procurement.
Further, I will disclose no information obtained in reviewing proposals to anyone not also participating in the review. Specifically, I will not disclose the number of respondents to the solicitation; the names of the individuals and organizations that respond; nor will I disclose any information from technical or cost/pricing submissions of the offerors; except to other reviewers officially assigned to the review panel.
Finally, if anyone outside the official review chain seeks information about the procurement, I will not supply any information but will refer the person to contact the CORE Review Team at [email protected].
NAME (Please Print)
SIGNATURE DATE
32.76 36
Please mark an agency you believe you have a conflict of interest with Participating Companies /Organizations
Acupuncturists Without Borders
Advocacy Inc.
Arts Council Santa Cruz County
Association of Faith Communities of Santa Cruz County
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Santa Cruz County
Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Cruz County
California Rural Legal Assistance
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Monterey
Center for Farmworker Families
Central Coast YMCA
Coastal Watershed Council
Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc.
Community Bridges
Community Foundation Santa Cruz County
Conflict Resolution Center
Court Appointed Special Advocates of Santa Cruz County
Dientes Community Dental Care
Digital NEST, Inc.
Eat for the Earth
Encompass Community Services
Families In Transition of Santa Cruz County, Inc
Family Service Agency of the Central Coast (FSA-CC)
First 5 Santa Cruz County
FoodWhat, Inc
FRIENDS OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PARKS DBA COUNTY PARK FRIENDS Girls Inc. of the Central Coast
Grey Bears
Harm Reduction Coalition of Santa Cruz County
Homeless Garden Project
Hospice of Santa Cruz County
Housing Matters
Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services
Janus of Santa Cruz
Just in Time for Foster Youth
Latin Advocacy Network
Live Earth Farm Discovery Program
Mental Health Client Action Network
MENtors Driving Change for Boys, Men and Dads
Monarch Services - Servicios Monarca
NAMI Santa Cruz County
New Life Community Services, Inc
Nourishing Generations Educational Project
Pacific Elementary School District
32.77 37
Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance
Pajaro Valley Shelter Services
Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Parents Center, Inc.
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Presbytery of San Jose
PVUSD/Healthy Start Program
Recovery Cafe Santa Cruz
Rise Together
Safe Families for Children Santa Cruz
Salud Para La Gente
Salud y Cariño
Santa Cruz Barrio Unidos, Inc.
Santa Cruz Children's Museum of Discovery
Santa Cruz City Schools
Santa Cruz Community Health Centers
Santa Cruz Community Ventures
Santa Cruz County Office of Education
Santa Cruz County Office of Education (SCCOE)
Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center
Santa Cruz Museum of Natural History
Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center
Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County
Senderos
Senior Citizens' Legal Service (SCLS)
Senior Citizens Organization of the San Lorenzo Valley
Senior Network Services, Inc.
Seniors Council of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties
South County Triage Group
Sweaty Sheep: Presbytery of San Jose
Teen Kitchen Project
The Free Guide
UCSC - Sociology Department Dr. Rebecca London
UCSC Blum Center
United Way of Santa Cruz County
United Way of Santa Cruz County - Cradle to Career (C2C) United Way of Santa Cruz County - Youth Action Network
Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County
Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center
Watsonville Wetlands Watch
Wings Homeless Advocacy
Your Future Is Our Business
YWCA of Watsonville
32.78 38
Appendix C. Data Collection Tools
I. CORE Lessons Learned Survey Email to Stakeholders
Hello,
The CORE RFP Lessons Learned process is kicking off! We are asking all who participated in the CORE process (applicants,
funders, panelists, grant writers, elected officials, County/City staff) to complete a brief survey
https://www.research.net/r/CORELessonsLearned by October 21, 2022. We have attached a copy of the RFP for your
reference.
In addition, we are setting up virtual focus groups to gather more detailed information about your experience. You can
sign up for the focus groups through the link in the survey or here https://www.research.net/r/CORE_Focus_Groups .
HSD will reach out to firm up the details of your focus group participation.
Our goal is to encourage thoughtful, respectful, and candid dialogue. No matter what role you played during the CORE
RFP process, we hope you will share your perspective and continue to be part of the broader CORE community.
The feedback collected from the survey and focus groups will be used to inform and improve future CORE funding process efforts. We look forward to learning from your experience as part of our commitment to continuous
improvement.
Thank you for helping CORE with the lessons learned process. If you have any questions, please contact
[email protected].
Sincerely,
The CORE Team
32.79 39
II. CORE Lessons Learned Survey
The County of Santa Cruz Human Services Department (HSD) is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the CORE Request For Proposal (RFP) process and welcomes your feedback on all aspects of the RFP.
County and City staff were asked to create a competitive procurement process that was consistent with the values and intent of CORE Investments, namely achieving equitable health and well-being in Santa Cruz using a collective impact, results-based approach. To do this staff met multiple times with elected bodies and community stakeholders to gather input on how best to develop the RFP. In response to this input, the RFP incorporated equity requirements and a tiered approach that included small, medium, and large awards, with an additional, larger Targeted Impact award. Once the RFP was released, technical assistance opportunities were made available to applicants and a total of 64 tech assistance sessions were provided. Additionally, HSD, in partnership with the City of Santa Cruz, created robust scoring criteria and trainings for a diverse and representative set of panelists to review and score proposals.
Based on the panelist scoring, funding recommendations were made to the City and County of Santa Cruz for adoption.
1. Please describe your relationship to CORE (select all that apply) Service Provider
CORE Steering Committee Member
Elected Official
County or City Staff
Panelist
Community Member
Grant Writer E Lessons Learned
2. Did you or an agency you are associated with apply for CORE Funding?
32.80 40
Yes
No
CORE Lessons Learned
3. What was the outcome of your agency's CORE proposal(s)? All of our agency's proposals were funded
Some of our proposals were funded and some were not funded None of our agency's proposals were funded
Decline to state
4. In which tier(s) did you apply for CORE funding (select all that apply)? Small
Medium
Large
Targeted Impact
5. Was your agency previously funded by CORE
Yes
No
Decline to state
I don't know
6.Primarily, where do the residents your agency provides services to live in Santa Cruz County?
North County (Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Davenport)
Mid County (Capitola, Soquel, Aptos)
South County (Watsonville, Freedom)
San Lorenzo Valley (Felton, Ben Lomond, Boulder Creek)
The entire county
32.81 41
7. Where is your agency's main office located?
North County (Santa Cruz, Scotts
Valley,
Davenport)
San Lorenzo Valley (Felton, Ben Lomond,
Boulder
Creek)
Mid County (Capitola, Soquel,
Aptos)
Outside of Santa Cruz County
South County (Watsonville,
Freedom)
No main office
32.82 42
8. Please describe your race/ethnicity (please select all that apply) White or Caucasian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian or Asian American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Another race
Multiracial
Decline to State
9. Please describe your gender.
Woman/female
Man/male
Non-binary
Trans-Female
Other
Decline to state
Trans-Male
10. Please select your age group
11.How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities CORE provided for community stakeholders to participate in the creation of the CORE RFP? Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Not Applicable/No Opinion
Under 18 45-54
18-24 55-64
25-34 65+
35-44 Decline to state
32.83 43
12.How satisfied are you with the amount of communication CORE provided to community stakeholders about the creation of the RFP and the application process?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Not Applicable/No Opinion
13. In general, how easy was it to apply for the CORE RFP? Very difficult
Difficult
Neither difficult nor easy
Easy
Very easy
Not Applicable/No Opinion
14.For the RFP process CORE Investments defined equity as, "fairness or justice in the way people are treated, specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism. A program built on equity will address the needs of specific populations most likely to be affected by inequities by providing resources and opportunities such that they may thrive alongside other residents in the county." How well was this definition of equity utilized throughout the RFP process? Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
Excellent
Not Applicable/No Opinion
15.In your opinion, did using funding tiers (small, medium, large, and targeted impact) make it easier for agencies and programs of different sizes to receive funding?
Made the process very difficult
32.84 44
Made the process difficult
Made the process neither difficult nor easy
Made the process easy
Made the process very easy
Not Applicable/No Opinion
16. Was the RFP application review and scoring process clear and easy to understand? Not at all clear
Slightly clear
Moderately clear
Very clear
Extremely clear
Not Applicable/No Opinion
17.To the best of your knowledge, do you feel each scoring category was weighted correctly?
Completely Incorrect Completely correct
Slightly incorrect Not Applicable/No Opinion
Slightly correct
18.The RFP application review panels were designed to reflect the county/city in terms of equity dimensions, such as race/ethnicity, geography, age and/or experience with specific CORE conditions.
Do you feel the design of the panels led to an equitable scoring process? Not at all equitable Extremely Equitable
Slightly equitable Not Applicable/No Opinion
Very equitable
32.85 45
19.CORE is a competitive public process (RFP) open to everyone, do you have suggestions for other public processes or approaches that could be used to fund programs?
No
I do not know/No opinion
Yes, please write your suggestion(s) below
20.How satisfied are you with the CORE RFP process (regardless of the outcome of your agency's application)?
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither Dissatisfied nor satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
Not Applicable/No Opinion
21. Do you have any additional feedback that you would like to provide about the RFP process?
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. If you are interested in participating in a CORE RFP Focus group please click on the link below to fill out an interest form. Thank you.
https://www.research.net/r/CORE_Focus_Groups
32.86 46
III. CORE Focus Group participant sign up process
Three methods were used to recruit focus group participants 1) HSD emailed service provider associations to inquire about scheduling focus groups for their members during regularly scheduled meetings. Two associations requested focus groups be provided to their members: The Human Care Alliance and the Aging & Disability Services Providers. 2) 314 unduplicated stakeholders including service providers, panelists, grant writers, CORE Steering Committee members, County and City staff, and community members were emailed a link to an online Focus Group Interest Form. 3) The link to the Focus Group Interest Form was also provided in the CORE Lessons Learned Survey.
The focus group interest form asked stakeholders to provide their contact information, their relationship to CORE, and their availability too attend a focus group. Stakeholders were assigned to focus groups according to the stakeholder group they identified in their relationship to CORE.
Prior to participating in a focus group, all participants were emailed the CORE RFP document, the focus group question and a link to a Focus Group Participation Agreement form. All potential focus group participants were required to review, sign and submit the agreement prior to attending their scheduled focus group.
The participation agreement form provided participants the purpose and procedures of the focus groups, and in order to encourage open, honest dialogue the agreement asked that the confidentiality of all focus group participants be respected.
All focus group participants submitted a signed form. One stakeholder opted to not sign the form and did not participate in their scheduled focus group. To ensure that this stakeholder’s feedback was included as part of the process evaluation, HSD provided the stakeholder the option to submit their feedback via email. The stakeholder submitted their written response to the CORE Lessons Learned email account and their feedback was included in the process evaluation.
32.87 47
IV. CORE Focus Group Interest Form
As part of the CORE Lessons Learned process, we are asking individuals to participate in a focus group to provide their opinions on the CORE RFP process. Our goal is to encourage thoughtful, respectful, and candid dialogue. No matter what role you have, we hope you will share your perspective and will continue to be part of the broader CORE community regardless of funding status.
We will be scheduling these focus groups to be an hour in length and will reach out to you when we have days and times confirmed. Thank you.
1.What is your name?
2.What is the best e-mail address to contact you?
3.What is the best phone number to contact you?
4. Is this a cell phone that can receive texts?
Yes
No
5. Please list any organization(s) you are associated with.
6. Are you able to attend an online meeting (e.g. Zoom, Teams, WebEx)?
32.88 48
Yes
No
7. What is your relationship to CORE (select all that apply)? Service Provider
CORE Steering Committee Member
County or City Sta
Panelist
Community Member
Grant Writer
Other (please specify)
8. Please describe your race/ethnicity (please select all that apply) White or Caucasian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
32.89 49
Asian or Asian American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Another race
Multiracial
Decline to state
9. Please describe your gender.
Woman/female
Man/male
Non-binary
Trans-male
Trans-female
Other
Decline to state
32.90 50
V. Focus Group Participation Agreement Form
CORE Lessons Learned Focus Group Participation Agreement Purpose
The purpose of this focus group is to explore stakeholders’ experiences with the CORE Request For Proposal (RFP) process in order to improve future CORE RFP process efforts.
The focus group will cover the following topics:
• Framework of the RFP
• RFP application
• Proposal review process
• Communication and Technical Assistance
Focus Group Procedures
The focus group will be facilitated by Optimal Solutions Consulting with Human Services Department (HSD) staff in attendance. As the facilitators of the focus group, Optimal Solutions will ask questions for discussion and moderate the conversation to ensure that every participant has an equal opportunity to share their experience.
The information collected from all focus groups will be combined with other data collected to develop a CORE lessons learned report to improve and inform future CORE RFP efforts. The focus group discussions will be recorded and transcribed. All data collected, including recordings, will be stored on secure computers, remain accessible only to the HSD lessons learned team, and will be deleted upon completion of the lessons learned report. The report will be shared with the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, Santa Cruz City Council and will be made available to all CORE stakeholders in Spring 2023.
Your participation today is voluntary. You can choose whether or not to provide feedback on any or all of the focus group discussion topics. You are not required to provide responses to any of the discussion questions, and you may choose to stop participating and leave the focus group at any time.
Confidentiality
Participant and agency names or other individually identifying information will not be used in any report that is produced as part of the CORE Lessons Learned Process. While quotes may be used to illustrate findings, no quotes will be used that contain information that is identifying information. We also ask that participants respect the confidentiality of others in this group and not repeat what has been shared during this focus group.
By signing this form, you are agreeing to participate under the conditions stated above
32.91 51
VI. Applicant Focus Group Questions
Overall Experience
with CORE RFP
• How would you describe your overall experience with the CORE RFP process?
Use of CORE Tools,
Training & TA
• Let’s talk about your experience with the CORE tools, training and technical assistance that were available during the RFP process.
The CORE tools are:
o CORE Results Menu on DataShare
o CORE Continuum of Results & Evidence
o CORE Strategies & Program Outcomes Menu
o Promising Practices database on DataShare
• What worked well, or what was useful, about the CORE tools? What was challenging about using the CORE tools?
• What could be improved about the CORE tools?
• What worked well, or was useful, about the training and TA opportunities? What was challenging about participating in the training/TA?
• What could be improved about the training and TA in the future? Application Process We’d like to hear about your experiences with the entire application process, which could include the RFP document, the application questions, the online application portal (Reviewr), and the communication with the County throughout the application process (Q&A, feedback on proposals, appeals).
• Please share your experience during the application process. What things did you find helpful, useful, or easy to understand? What was most challenging about the application process?
• What could be improved in future application processes? • How clear/understandable were the instructions provided in the RFP?
RFP Framework
(Funding
Approach)/Scoring
The CORE RFP asked applicants to use data and community stories to illustrate both community strengths and needs and to articulate proposed services and outcomes for whichever CORE Condition or Conditions they selected rather than prioritizing certain CORE conditions. Additionally, equity was a key value of CORE. Applicants for small, medium, and large tiers were allowed to select any dimension of equity they wished to address – such as inequities by race/ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, sex, gender identity and so on. Targeted impact proposals were required to address issues of racial equity and could include additional dimensions of equity if they desired.
• What was your experience using this approach?
32.92 52
• What scoring criteria should be kept for future procurements and what, if any, additional criteria should be considered? Additional
Feedback
• What is the most important piece of advice you’d like to give the County and the City of Santa Cruz about the next CORE funding process?
• What is the most important piece of advice you’d like to give people in nonprofit agencies about how to prepare for the next CORE funding process?
• Do you have any final thoughts or recommendations, on any topic, that we have not discussed?
32.93 53
VII. CORE Steering Committee Focus Group Questions
Stakeholder
Engagement
We’d like to start by hearing your thoughts about the stakeholder engagement opportunities. The meetings and survey for funders and community partners were designed to gather input from multiple perspectives on two “Big, Hairy Questions”: 1) How can we center equity in the CORE funding process in concrete, actionable ways for both funders and service providers? and 2) How can the CORE Conditions be used as a framework for making decisions about funding allocations? Participants were asked and encouraged to share suggestions about how the County and City should handle dilemmas about flexibility and simplicity in a public procurement process (simple is not always easy for applicants or funders), whether to establish broad or targeted funding priorities, and how to center equity in the RFP, knowing that there’s a wide spectrum of organizational readiness, skills, and capacity in public and nonprofit agencies.
1. In your opinion, were there sufficient opportunities to participate in the development of the RFP?
2. What suggestions do you have to improve the stakeholder engagement sessions when RFPs are being developed, without creating conflicts of interest or unfair advantages?
RFP Framework
(Funding Approach)
The City and County agreed to distribute CORE funds using a hybrid approach, in which most of the funds would support a broad base of direct services and a smaller portion would focus on one collaborative, or collective, impact. The funds were allocated across four tiers — small, medium, large, and targeted impact – based on the amount of funding requested.
The CORE RFP asked applicants to use data and community stories to illustrate both community strengths and needs and to articulate proposed services and outcomes for whichever CORE Condition or Conditions they selected rather than prioritizing certain CORE Conditions.
Additionally, equity is a key value of CORE. Applicants for small, medium, and large tiers were allowed to select and describe any dimension of equity they wished to address – such as inequities by race/ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, sex, gender identity and so on. Targeted impact proposals were required to address issues of racial equity and could include additional dimensions of equity if they desired.
32.94 54
3. From your perspective as a Steering Committee member, what are your thoughts about this approach – meaning, the use of funding tiers and allowing applicants to select their CORE Conditions and equity dimensions?
4. What suggestions do you have for ensuring future RFPs reflect the values and intent of CORE, particularly equity?
Review & Scoring
Process
We want to hear your perspectives as Steering Committee members about the panel review and scoring process that informed the funding decisions.
5. What are your thoughts about the scoring criteria and matrix provided in the RFP and the scoring rubric provided to panelists?
6. What scoring criteria should be kept for future funding cycles and what other criteria, if any, should be considered?
7. What recommendations do you have for recruiting a diverse set of non-conflicted panelists?
Communication &
Support for
Applicants
Our last topic is the communication and support that was available to applicants during the RFP process. Individual and group training and technical assistance (TA) sessions were offered to help applicants understand the RFP, the application questions, the CORE framework, and the CORE tools. The County also published a Questions and Answers document three times during the application period and maintained all the critical information and links on HSD’s website.
8. Based on your observations or direct experiences, what are your thoughts about quality, frequency, and/or relevancy of the communication and support offered to applications during the RFP process?
What worked well? What could have been improved?
Additional
Feedback
9. What is the most important piece of advice you’d like to give the County and the City of Santa Cruz about the next CORE funding process?
10. What is the most important piece of advice you’d like to give people in nonprofit agencies about how to prepare for the next CORE funding process?
11. Do you have any final thoughts or recommendations, on any topic, that we have not discussed?
VIII. Contractor/Staff Focus Group Questions
RFP Framework (Funding
Approach)
The RFP framework used a hybrid approach, in which most of the funds would support a broad base of direct services and a smaller portion would focus on one collaborative, or collective, impact.
32.95 55
The funds were allocated across four tiers — small, medium, large, and targeted impact – based on the amount of funding requested.
The CORE RFP asked applicants to use data and community stories to illustrate both community strengths and needs, and to articulate proposed services and outcomes for whichever CORE Condition or Conditions they selected rather than prioritizing certain CORE Conditions.
Additionally, equity is a key value of CORE. Applicants for small, medium, and large tiers were allowed to select and describe any dimension of equity they wished to address – such as inequities by race/ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, sex, gender identity and so on. Targeted impact proposals were required to address issues of racial equity and could include additional dimensions of equity if they desired.
• Please share your thoughts on this approach. What worked well and should be kept as part of future RFP’s? What could be improved, and how?
• What suggestions do you have for the development of the next RFP framework?
Application Process We’d like to hear about your experiences with the entire application process, which could include the RFP document, the application questions, the online application portal (Reviewr), and the communication throughout the application process (Q&A, feedback on proposals, appeals).
• Please share your thoughts on the application process. What worked well? What could be improved?
o How was your experience with Reviewr?
o How could we align the RFP process to include scopes
of works that could be used in contracts?
• How clear was the Q&A process? What suggestions, if any, do you have to improve the process?
• How clear was the appeals process? What suggestions do you have for the next RFP appeals process?
Review, Scoring, and
Application Selection
Process
We want to hear your perspectives about the panel review and scoring process that informed the funding decisions. This includes all the steps to develop the scoring rubric, analyze scores, resolve variances between panelists, and select final awards.
• What are your thoughts about the scoring criteria and matrix provided in the RFP and the scoring rubric provided to
panelists?
• What scoring criteria should be kept for future funding cycles and what other criteria, if any, should be considered?
32.96 56
• What did you think about the process to resolve variances between panelists? Should this approach be retained? What adjustments, if any, should be made?
• How well did it work to make decisions based exclusively on panelist scores? Are there other criteria or approaches to be considered? If so, why?
Panelist recruitment and
selection
We’d like to hear about your thoughts about panelist recruitment and selection. This includes all the steps to identify reviewers, screen them for eligibility, including conflict of interest, and select panelists to review applications.
• What worked well in this process?
• What could be improved?
• What suggestions do you have for recruiting a diverse pool of non-conflicted panelists for future funding cycles? Internal
Communications,
Coordination, Staffing
Let’s discuss the internal communications, coordination and staffing within and across the teams managing and implementing the RFP process.
• What worked well?
• What could be improved?
• What are your thoughts on the CORE Leadership Committee (referred to as CORE Steering during the RFP process) and its decision-making process?
• What impact did the CORE RFP have on your workload? What are your recommendations for staffing the process in the future?
Additional Feedback • What is the most important piece of advice you’d like to give the County and City of Santa Cruz about the next CORE
funding process? To nonprofit agencies?
• Do you have any final thoughts or recommendations, on any topic, that we have not yet discussed?
32.97 57
IX. Panelist Focus Group Questions
Question 1:
Review and
scoring process
First, we want to talk about the process to review and score applications. In particular, we’re interested in your views on the RFP document and application questions, the web-based scoring platform (Reviewr), the scoring matrix, and the small-group panel reconvening meetings to discuss scores, if you attended one of those. We’ve posted these items in the chat. Please tell us:
• What worked well in the review and scoring process?
• What was challenging? What could be improved, and how? Question 2:
Communications
and panel support
We’re particularly interested in hearing your views on the panelist training, general communication about the process, and HSD response to any answers to specific questions you asked. As before, those topics are posted in the chat. Also as before, please tell us
• What worked well about the communications and panel support? • What was challenging? What could be improved, and how? Question 3: Time
commitment
As you might guess from the questions in the poll, we’d like to hear about your experiences with the amount of time you spent on this process and the time allotted to review applications.
• How well did it align with your expectations?
• What could be improved, and how?
Question 4:
Applicant-driven
process, including
equity
For our final discussion question, we want to explore some of the unique aspects of the CORE RFP. As you recall, unlike some RFPs that have a narrow set of priorities defined by the funders, the CORE RFP asked applicants to articulate community needs, strengths, proposed services and outcomes for whichever CORE Condition or Conditions they selected. Additionally, equity is a key value of CORE. Applicants for small, medium, and large tiers were allowed to select and describe any dimension of equity they wished to address – such as inequities by race/ethnicity, age, socio-economic status, sex, gender identity and so on. Targeted impact proposals were required to address issues of racial equity and could include additional dimensions of equity if they desired.
Focusing on your experience as a reviewer, [Facilitator ask first question, get/invite responses before moving to next question, repeat] • What do you feel worked well about this approach?
• What was challenging? What could be improved, and how? Final thoughts
and closing
Do you have any final thoughts or recommendations, on any topic, that we have not yet discussed?
32.98 58
Answer any final questions. Restate process next steps, timeline, confidentiality agreement, and offer to accept additional comments by email. Thank and dismiss participants.
32.99 CORE Mid-Year Progress Report: July 2022 – December 2022 84% of programs have begun tracking participant data, the remainder are asking for technical assistance.
The majority of agencies are taking advantage of technical assistance opportunities.
Background
In fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023 the
Collective of Results and Evidence-based
practices (CORE) Investments portfolio is
comprised of 41 organizations
representing 57 programs.
Each CORE funded program is required to
submit semiannual progress reports. All
57 CORE funded programs submitted
their first semiannual report. This report
summarizes their progress and challenges
for the period July 1, 2022 – December 31,
2022.
Data Reporting and Organizational
Capacity Building
In order to better evaluate the collective
impact that CORE Investments is having
in Santa Cruz County and to help
programs build organizational capacity,
this CORE funding cycle each program is
required to collect unique/unduplicated
participant counts, and participant
demographics data.1
While the majority of programs did not
report any significant issues
implementing a data tracking system,
some programs reported difficulties
developing their data collection
1 Programs are only required to report participant
demographics data on their End of Year Progress
Report.
procedures. Importantly, these programs
remain committed to meeting their data
reporting requirements and requested
assistance from the County to help them.
HSD is currently in the process of meeting
with programs to help identify solutions
to their data reporting issues.
In addition to the assistance from HSD,
CORE funded programs are encouraged,
but not required, to attend trainings
provided by the CORE Institute for
Innovation and Impact (CORE Institute).
The CORE Institute offers a variety of
ongoing trainings on equity, collective
impact, and data collection that help build
programs’ organizational capacity.2
2 Programs that are not funded by CORE may also
register and attend CORE Institute events.
16%
84% Started tracking
unduplicated participants
10% 30% 50% 70% 90%
Has not started tracking
unduplicated participants
More than 80% of programs are tracking
unique/unduplicated participants. (N =57)
Graph 1:
Highlights
32.100
The majority of CORE funded programs
attended a CORE Institute event between July
to Dec. 2022. (N =57)
Graph 2:
Program Implementation and
Evidence Based- Practices (EBP)
All 57 programs reported they
successfully implemented their CORE
funded programs and had begun making
progress towards achieving their FY 2022
– 2023 contracted outcomes.
The majority of programs reported that
using EBPs improved their ability to track
program outcomes and contributed to the
development of better program
evaluation procedures. Several programs
specifically reported that they are now
using various types of quantitative and
qualitative data to track and improve
program objectives and outcomes.
Additionally, multiple programs reported
that they used CORE funding to either
develop or acquire evidence-based
curriculum to help improve their services.
Programs also reported the challenges
they experienced implementing their
programs and EBPs. The primary
challenges that programs reported are
staffing shortages and continuing to
adjust to how COVID affects their
workforce and delivery of services.
Program Challenge
“Staffing is an ongoing challenge,
particularly with the need to staff an
additional clinic. We have had difficulty
recruiting staff for clinical positions at
all levels. As a service provider, our staff
is our biggest resource and being fully
staffed is critical to our ability to serve
our patients.”
Moving Forward
❖ HSD staff will continue meeting with
CORE funded programs to help them
address program challenges and
build organizational capacity.
❖ Prior to the end of the FY 2022 -
2023 reporting period HSD staff will
begin conducting site visits to help
identify programs’ strengths and
needs.
❖ CORE funded programs will
complete their first fiscal year in
June 2023 and will submit program
outcome data and participant
demographics data. HSD will use this
information to complete and publish
the CORE annual report in the Fall of
2023.
❖ CORE Institute will continue to
provide training to support
collective impact and program
capacity building.
54%
Attended a
CORE
Institute
event
46% Has not
attended a
CORE
Institute
event
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes No
Program Success
“With CORE funding, we were able to
purchase a new evidence-based
curriculum (Creative Curriculum) for our
PreK and Preschool classrooms… our
staff were so impressed by this evidencebased practice that they have decided to switch from using the old curriculum to
using Creative Curriculum in the Infant
and Toddler classrooms too.”
32.101
Attachment D-Alternative Funding Sources:
Funding Opportunities for Previously Funded CORE Programs not Funded in Second CORE Cycle
As directed by the Board, the Human Services Department (HSD) worked to identify other funding opportunities for programs that were previously funded by CORE but were not awarded funding in the second CORE cycle. HSD is also planning to convene other County departments, local jurisdictions, and other funders to coordinate identification and communication of funding opportunities to community-based organizations.
In reviewing the unfunded CORE programs and its own budget, HSD identified one-time funding within the department’s Adult and Long Term Care Services Division that could support Advocacy Inc. Long Term Care Ombudsman Program for FY 2022-23, and the Seniors Council has agreed to fund the program for FY 2023-24. Additionally, as part of the current contract with HSD, Advocacy Inc. will be developing a sustainability plan which will describe how the Ombudsman Program will become self-sustaining to continue to provide Case Coordination services in the future.
Recognizing that other County departments also contract with community-based organizations to provide services, HSD reached out to Health Services Agency (HSA), Probation, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, and Parks to identify any new or expanded agreements for FY 2022-23 for any of the unfunded CORE programs. The table on the next page provides the information that was collected from County departments.
Community-based organizations are valuable partners in providing services to the community.
As new grants and state/fed allocations become available, HSD will continue to determine if service needs can be better met through collaboration with local non-profit service providers and pursue those opportunities. For example, in the current fiscal year, HSD worked with local partners to submit two collaborative funding applications:
• Farmworker Resource Center Grant – submitted in collaboration with Community Action Board
• Guaranteed Income Pilot Program- submitted in collaboration with Salud Para La Gente, and additional coordination with Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, Monarch Services, Santa Cruz Community Ventures, Community Action Board, Community Bridges and Encompass Community Services
As part of the development of the most recent CORE RFP, HSD convened an engagement session with local funders which included local jurisdictions, County departments, and philanthropy. Participants appreciated the opportunity to connect with other funders and suggested that future meetings would be beneficial. In order to ensure that non-profits are aware of available funding from local funders in addition to CORE funding opportunities, HSD plans to convene the funders group by early Fall to discuss coordination and communication of funding opportunities to non-profit partners.
32.102
Attachment D-Alternative Funding Sources:
Funding Opportunities for Previously Funded CORE Programs not Funded in Second CORE Cycle
New/expanded funding for previously funded CORE programs not funded in second cycle Collaborative funding applications HSD submitted with local non-profit service providers Agency/Program CORE
2021-22
Amount
CORE
Transition
Funding
2022/23 NonCORE FunderNonCORE
Funding
Amount
Comments
New Life
Community
Services- Gemma
$60,000 $17,500 Probation - AB109 $43,800 In place for the last 2 funding cycles
Health Services
Agency
$169,580 Funding for 21-22 was $156,609.
Funding for 22-23 is $169,580.
An increase of $12,971
Advocacy Inc - Long
Term Care
Ombudsman
Program
$57,500 $16,771 Human Services
Department Adult
and Long Term
Care Services
Division
$80,717 One-year term: contractor to
provide a sustainability plan
Seniors Council to provide funding
for FY 2023-24
Family Service
Agency of the
Central CoastSenior Outreach
$22,000 $6,417 Health Services
Agency
$20,203 Funding for 21-22 was $9858.
Funding for 22-23 is $20,203.
An increase of $10,345
Pajaro Valley
Prevention &
Student AssistanceSeven Challenges
$172,000 0 Health Services
Agency
$386,024 Funding for 21-22 was $277,036.
Funding for 22-23 is $386,024.
An increase of $108,988
MHCAN - The
Center
$35,300 $10,296 Health Services
Agency
$268,735 Funding for 21-22 was $202,656.
Funding for 22-23 is $268,735.
An increase of $66,079
MHCAN - PHF
Contract Peer
Support
$40,300 $11,754 Health Services
Agency
$113,506 Funding for 21-22 was $106,000.
Funding for 22-23 is $113,506.
An increase of $7,506
Program / Funder Amount
Requested
Application
Date
Awarded Partner Applicant(s)
Farmworker Resource Center Grant –
NOFA through Dept of Community
Services and Development
$833,000 12/21/2022 No Community Action Board of Santa
Cruz County, Inc
Guaranteed Income Pilot Program $2,869,196 9/6/2022 No Salud Para La Gente
32.103
Agency Program Contract #
3.5 Month
Runway
Agency Total
Bridge Comments
Advocacy, Inc. Long Term Care Ombudsman Program B02886 16,771.00 $ $ 16,771.00 Central Coast YMCA Afterschool and Day Camp Program/YF4L B02887 4,958.00 $ $ 4,958.00 Child & Adult Care Food Program W4012 4,375.00 $ Child Development Division W4012 61,454.00 $ Elderday W4012 42,292.00 $ Lift Line W4012 4,375.00 $ La Manzana Community Resources W4011 47,542.00 $ Live Oak Community Resources W4011 17,500.00 $ Mountain Community Resources W4011 44,917.00 $ Nueva Vista Community Resources W4011 18,288.00 $ Court Appointed Special Advocates B02888 30,042.00 $ Juvenile Justice Program B02888 2,917.00 $
Diversity Center Connexiones and the Transgender Program Declined Transition Funding: $2,917 Mindfulness‐Based Medication Assisted Treatment Program B02908 20,417.00 $ $ 20,417.00 TAY (Transition Age Youth) Youth Advocacy Project Declined Transition Funding: $15,371 Families in Tranistion Family Housing Stabilization B02889 19,979.00 $ $ 19,979.00 I‐You Venture B02892 4,375.00 $ Counseling Services B02892 15,779.00 $ Senior Outreach B02892 6,417.00 $ Survivors Healing Center B02892 7,292.00 $ WomenCARE B02892 4,375.00 $ Survivors Healing Center & Suicide Prevention Services Granted 22‐25 CORE award Housing Matters 180/2020 W4019 50,021.00 $ $ 50,021.00 Janus of Santa Cruz Co‐occurring Disorder (COD) Capable B02893 5,833.00 $ $ 5,833.00 Drop‐In Center B02894 10,296.00 $
Motivational Interviewing Peer Support Counseling B02894 11,754.00 $ New Life Community Services Gemma B02895 17,500.00 $ $ 17,500.00 Pajaro Valley Prevention & Student Assistance (PVPSA) Seven Challenges Declined Transition Funding: $50,167Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) Healthy Start Program B02890 12,542.00 $ $ 12,542.00 Parents Center Parents Center ‐ paid through HSD No response from Agency regarding bridge fundingPlanned Parenthood Mar Monte (PPMM) PPMM: Westside & Watsonville Health Centers No response from Agency regarding bridge funding Salud Para La Gente Coordinated Care Program W4029 58,333.00 $ $ 58,333.00 Barrios Unidos Productions Team A B02905 2,333.00 $
Educational Outreach Program B02905 11,667.00 $ Kids Club B02905 7,000.00 $ Child Care Services B02880 1,313.00 $
Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center B02880 20,767.00 $
Senior Citizen Org of San Lorenzo Valley (SCOSLV) Senior Outreach and Activities B02881 4,375.00 $ $ 4,375.00 YWCA of Watsonville YWCA State Preschool B02903 5,833.00 $ $ 5,833.00 Grand Total $ 598,007.00 $ 598,007.00
Community Bridges $ 112,496.00Community Bridges ‐ Family Resource Centers $ 128,247.00Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) $ 32,959.00 Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center $ 22,080.00Encompass Community ServicesFamily Servicer Agency of the Central Coast $ 38,238.00 Mental Health Client Action Network (MHCAN) $ 22,050.00 Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Inc $ 21,000.00
32.104
Organization / Contractor / Vendor Program 22‐25 Award Total
Annual Budget
Acupuncturists without Borders AWB CARE Project $ 73,122.00 $ 24,374.00 Acupuncturists without Borders Total $ 73,122.00 $ 24,374.00 Arts Council Santa Cruz County Mariposa Arts $ 108,000.00 $ 36,000.00 Arts Council Santa Cruz County Total $ 108,000.00 $ 36,000.00 Association of Faith Communities (AFC) of Santa Cruz County Safe Spaces $ 313,632.00 $ 104,544.00 Association of Faith Communities (AFC) of Santa Cruz County $ 313,632.00 $ 104,544.00 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Santa Cruz County Big Brothers Big Sisters of Santa Cruz County $ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Santa Cruz County Total $ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Cruz County Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Cruz County ‐ Project Learn $ 283,500.00 $ 94,500.00 Boys & Girls Clubs of Santa Cruz County Total $ 283,500.00 $ 94,500.00 Coastal Watershed Council Watershed Rangers $ 189,000.00 $ 63,000.00 Coastal Watershed Council Total $ 189,000.00 $ 63,000.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Alcance ‐ Links2Work and Day Worker Center $ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. CAB ‐ Davenport Resource Service Center $ 216,000.00 $ 72,000.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. CAB ‐ Rental Assistance Program $ 337,500.00 $ 112,500.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. CAB ‐ South County Housing Collaborative $ 943,650.00 $ 314,550.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Santa Cruz County Immigration Project/Thriving Immigrants Initiative $ 402,300.00 $ 134,100.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. Youth Homeless Response Team $ 403,650.00 $ 134,550.00 Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc. $ 2,573,100.00 $ 857,700.00 Community Bridges Meals on Wheels for Santa Cruz County (MOW) $ 1,215,000.00 $ 405,000.00 Community Bridges Total $ 1,215,000.00 $ 405,000.00 Dientes Community Dental Care Dientes Community Dental Care $ 582,120.00 $ 194,040.00 Dientes Community Dental Care Total $ 582,120.00 $ 194,040.00 Eat for the Earth Community Rx $ 264,006.00 $ 88,002.00 Eat for the Earth Total $ 264,006.00 $ 88,002.00 Encompass Community Services Health Equity for All $ 403,251.00 $ 134,417.00 Encompass Community Services V.O.I.C.E. (Valuing Our Individual Client Experiences) $ 392,157.00 $ 130,719.00 Encompass Community Services Heath & Housing $ 73,422.00 $ 24,474.00 Encompass Community Services $ 868,830.00 $ 289,610.00 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast (FSA‐CC) Suicide Prevention Service of the Central Coast $ 127,575.00 $ 42,525.00 Family Service Agency of the Central Coast (FSA‐CC) Total $ 127,575.00 $ 42,525.00 FoodWhat, Inc Food What?! $ 94,704.00 $ 31,568.00 FoodWhat, Inc Total $ 94,704.00 $ 31,568.00 Girls Incorporated of the Central Coast College Bound $ 67,500.00 $ 22,500.00 Girls Incorporated of the Central Coast Health and Wellness $ 31,500.00 $ 10,500.00 Girls Incorporated of the Central Coast Total $ 99,000.00 $ 33,000.00 Grey Bears Healthy Food Program $ 367,374.00 $ 122,458.00 Grey Bears Total $ 367,374.00 $ 122,458.00 Homeless Garden Project Transitional Employment for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness $ 75,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Homeless Garden Project Total $ 75,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Housing Matters Community Conversations on Homelessness $ 319,803.00 $ 106,601.00 Housing Matters Total $ 319,803.00 $ 106,601.00 Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services Comprehensive Grief Support Services for Low Income Families of Children with Cancer
$ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00
Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services Total $ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Live Earth Farm Discovery Program Live Earth Farm Discovery Program $ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Live Earth Farm Discovery Program Total $ 270,000.00 $ 90,000.00 Monarch Services Positive Solutions $ 308,706.00 $ 102,902.00 Monarch Services Therapeutic Services $ 404,799.00 $ 134,933.00 Monarch Services Total $ 713,505.00 $ 237,835.00 NAMI Santa Cruz County Free Mental Health Services in Spanish $ 259,200.00 $ 86,400.00 NAMI Santa Cruz County Total $ 259,200.00 $ 86,400.00 New Life Community Services, Inc New Life Community Services ‐ Self‐Pay Program $ 148,500.00 $ 49,500.00 New Life Community Services, Inc Total $ 148,500.00 $ 49,500.00 Nourishing Generations Educational Project Nutrition, Culinary, Fitness Education $ 66,000.00 $ 22,000.00 Nourishing Generations Educational Project Total $ 66,000.00 $ 22,000.00 Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (PVPSA) Familias Unidas‐United Families $ 404,445.00 $ 134,815.00 Pajaro Valley Prevention and Student Assistance (PVPSA) Total $ 404,445.00 $ 134,815.00 Salud y Carino Inc Harbor High School Girls Group $ 58,572.00 $ 19,524.00 Salud y Carino Inc Total $ 58,572.00 $ 19,524.00 Santa Cruz City Schools Computer Science for All $ 279,414.00 $ 93,138.00 Santa Cruz City Schools Total $ 279,414.00 $ 93,138.00 Santa Cruz Community Health Centers Inegrated Behavioral Health ‐ Healthy Steps $ 402,300.00 $ 134,100.00 Santa Cruz Community Health Centers Total $ 402,300.00 $ 134,100.00 Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County $ 673,149.00 $ 224,383.00 Second Harvest Food Bank Santa Cruz County Total $ 673,149.00 $ 224,383.00 Senderos Las Artes Culturales de Senderos $ 67,650.00 $ 22,550.00 Senderos Total $ 67,650.00 $ 22,550.00 Senior Citizens' Legal Service (SCLS) Increased Service Capacity SCLS 2022 $ 216,000.00 $ 72,000.00
32.105
Organization / Contractor / Vendor Program 22‐25 Award Total
Annual Budget
Senior Citizens' Legal Service (SCLS) Total $ 72,000.00 216,000.00 $ Senior Network Services, Inc. Aging in Community (AIC) $ 405,003.00 $ 135,001.00 Senior Network Services, Inc. Santa Cruz County Aging & Disability Resouce Connection (ADRC) Capacity $ 47,250.00 141,750.00 $ Senior Network Services, Inc. Total $ 182,251.00 546,753.00 $ Seniors Council of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties Foster Grandparent Program 69,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ Seniors Council of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties Total $ 23,000.00 69,000.00 $ Sweaty Sheep ‐ Presbytery of San Jose Worries to the Wind 49,500. $ 16,500.00 00 $ Sweaty Sheep ‐ Presbytery of San Jose Total $ 16,500.00 49,500.00 $ Teen Kitchen Project Home‐delivered Medically Tailored Meals for Vulnerable Populations $ 405,000.00 $ 135,000.00 Teen Kitchen Project Total $ 405,000.00 $ 135,000.00 The Diversity Center The Diversity Center's Health and Wellbeing Initiative $ 334,800.00 $ 111,600.00 The Diversity Center Total $ 334,800.00 $ 111,600.00 United Way of Santa Cruz County Cradle to Career $ 2,146,500.00 $ 715,500.00 United Way of Santa Cruz County Total $ 2,146,500.00 $ 715,500.00 Ventures Alas $ 402,300.00 $ 134,100.00
Ventures Semillitas College Savings Account Program $ 1,215,000.00 $ 405,000.00 Ventures Total $ 1,617,300.00 $ 539,100.00
Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired Vision Loss Rehabilitation Program $ 68,400.00 $ 22,800.00 Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired Total $ 68,400.00 $ 22,800.00 Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Healthy Connections $ 74,055.00 $ 24,685.00 Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Restorative Justice Programs $ 125,550.00 $ 41,850.00 Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Empowered Aging Programs $ 121,500.00 $ 40,500.00 Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County YouthServe $ 75,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Volunteer Center of Santa Cruz County Total $ 396,105.00 $ 132,035.00 Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Space for Change $ 75,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Walnut Ave Early Education Center $ 135,000.00 $ 45,000.00 Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Youth Prevention Program $ 81,000.00 $ 27,000.00 Walnut Avenue Family & Women's Center Total $ 291,000.00 $ 97,000.00 Wings Homeless Advocacy Vital Documents $ 75,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Wings Homeless Advocacy Total $ 75,000.00 $ 25,000.00
32.106
Colle ctive of Re sults a nd
Evid e nce - b a se d (CORE)
Inve stm e nts
Ap ril 25, 2023
Co u n ty Bo a rd o f Su p e rvis o rs
Sa n ta Cru z City Co u n c il
32.107
Ag e n d a
• Re c o m m e n d e d Ac tio n s
• Le s s o n s Le a rn e d
• Co m m u n ity Vo ic e s
• Pro p o s e d Ne xt Ste p s
32.108
Re c o m m e n d e d Ac tio n s
1. Mo tio n to a c c e p t Sa n ta Cru z Co u n ty’s Hu m a n Se rvic e s De p a rtm e n t CORE Five - Ye a r Lo o kb a c k, Le s s o n s Le a rn e d , 20 22 Mid - Ye a r As s e s s m e n t, a n d Alte rn a tive Fu n d in g So u rc e s Su m m a ry Up d a te ;
2. Dire c t s ta ff to c o o rd in a te with Hu m a n Se rvic e s De p a rtm e n t to re tu rn o n or b e fo re De c e m b e r 12, 20 23 with a p ro g re s s re p o rt o n th e FY 20 22- 23 a n n u a l s u m m a ry o f CORE In ve s tm e n ts fu n d e d p ro g ra m s with a n u p d a te o n c o m m u n ity e n g a g e m e n t; a n d
3. Ap p ro ve th e p ro p o s e d Tim e lin e a n d Ne xt Ste p s fo r th e RFP p ro c e s s .
32.109
Le s s o n s Le a rn e d
Mis u n d e rs ta n d in g s
Wha t Worke d
Pro p o s e d Ad ju s tm e n ts
32.110
Mis u n d e rs ta n d in g s
• RFP Pro c e s s
• Se rvic e s fo r Old e r Ad u lts
• Sa fe ty Ne t Cu ts
• Ro le o f Co n s u lta n ts
32.111
Wh a t Wo rke d
• Co m m u n ity En g a g e m e n t
• Eq u ity a t th e Ce n te r
• On lin e Ap p lic a tio n Po rta l
• Pa n e l Fo rm a t a n d Tra in in g fo r Pa n e lis ts • Te c h n ic a l As s is ta n c e fo r Ap p lic a n ts
32.112
Pro p o s e d Ad ju s tm e n ts
• Ce le b ra te Su c c e s s fu l Ap p lic a tio n s
• Sta rt RFP Pro c e s s Ea rlie r
• Id e n tify Va lu e s a n d Prio ritie s Prio r to Ne xt RFP • Ma ke CORE Ap p lic a tio n Pro c e s s Ea s ie r
• Pro vid e Ap p lic a n ts with Mo re De ta ils a ro u n d Sc o rin g in RFP • Re c ru it Mo re Pa n e lis ts a n d In c re a s e Pa n e l Dive rs ity
32.113
Co m m u n ity Vo ic e s
32.114
Pro p o s e d Ne xt Ste p s
Su m m a ry o f Pro c e s s Ad ju s tm e n ts
• Mo ve p ro c e s s up 6 m onths
• Va lu e s a n d p rio ritie s d is c u s s io n b e fo re RFP re le a s e d • Pu b lic h e a rin g a fte r p ro p o s a ls s u b m itte d , b e fore s ta ff re c om m e n d a wa rd s Brin g Dra ft RFP
to BOS a n d SC
City Co u n c il
Ap p lic a tio n s
Du e
Pu b lic He a rin g
to Re vie w
Su m m a ry o f
Pro p o s a ls
Re c o m m e n d
Awa rd s
Sum m e r- Win te r
2023
Co m m u n ity
En g a g e m e n t &
Pu b lic
He a rin g s
Be g in
Contra cts
Sp rin g
2024
Sum m e r
2024 J u ly 1, 20 25 Su m m e r / Fa ll
2024
Fa ll / Win te r
2024
32.115
Qu e s tio n s &
Dis c u s s io n
32.116
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
SUBJECT: Tobacco Product Waste Update (CN)
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation update from staff and Councilmembers from the Health in All Policies (HiAP) Committee (Committee) and direct staff to continue working with the Committee, the County, and stakeholders on community engagement, and provide feedback as needed.
BACKGROUND: On April 27, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. NS-29,807, recognizing the public health and environmental threat tobacco product waste (TPW) poses to the City and its residents. The resolution focused on the negative impacts of cigarette butts, from littering and toxic chemicals to health equity and harmful waste, and called for the development of policies to address these issues. It also requested that the Mayor write a letter to local legislative representatives encouraging the California State Legislature to ban plastic cigarette filters.
On March 22, 2022, the City Council directed the Mayor to send a letter of support for AB 1690, the California Smoking Waste Pollution Prevention Act, introduced by Assemblymember Luz Rivas. AB 1690 focused on banning the sale of single-use smoking products like cigarette filters, non-biodegradable products, and non-rechargeable vaping devices to reduce the exposure of hazardous materials to the environment.
On September 27, 2022, the City Council received an informational presentation from the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education regarding the policies that were being explored (TPW Policy Options Matrix):
TPW Sales
Restrictions
Hazardous Waste
Regulation
Environmental
Justice
Other Approaches
Prohibit the sale of all
single-use plastic
tobacco products
Require hazardous
waste tracking,
handling, and signage
for nicotine and
electronic waste at
point of sale
Remedy
disproportionate
exposure to TPW
through density
restrictions in lowincome and minority
communities
TPW mitigation fee on
tobacco products
Prohibit the sale of
single-use cigarette
Deposit/Return
programs on ESD
33.1 filters (i.e. cigarette
butts)
products (Extended
Producer Responsibility
or EPR)
Prohibit the sale of
Electronic Smoking
Devices (ESD)
or
Prohibit the sale of
single-use ESD
Prohibit the sale of
other tobacco products
that create plastic waste
(e.g. lighters,
packaging, cigar tips,
etc.
At the closure of the presentation, the work was directed to the Committee and staff to work with Councilmembers on the Committee, the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education, and stakeholders, including The Cigarette Surfboard, Save the Waves, Save Our Shores, and Surfrider Foundation. There was also a request to provide recommendations to Council in April.
DISCUSSION: The Committee met on November 28, 2022 to establish a project timeline for an engagement plan that involves community and stakeholder outreach and ordinance development (TPW Timeline and TPW Community Partners).
Staff returned to the Committee on January 26, 2023, to discuss the next steps for TPW options and the engagement plan. The direction was to receive public feedback on policy options at a series of community events hosted at various times and locations, both virtual and in-person, to ensure maximum participation. Interpretation and translation services were available, and staff created a landing page, put together a survey, posted it on several media platforms, and sent newsletters to all businesses in the City; 48 of those were tobacco retailers.
Staff updated the Committee on April 4, 2023 on the project charter (TPW Project Charter), results of the surveys, and community meetings.
Community Meetings:
Meeting #1: March 7th from 9:30-11:15 am
• Webinar
• Interpretation/translation available
• Facilitated discussion of policy options
• 31 registered/~18 attendees
Meeting #2: March 18th from 11-12:30 pm
• In-person
• Interpretation/translation materials available
• 6 attendees/40-50 engaged from the State of the San Lorenzo River Symposium Meeting #3: March 20th from 5-6:30 pm
33.2 • In-person
• Interpretation/translation materials available
• 6 attendees
Survey Results
• 171 responses
• 137 (80.1%) are Santa Cruz residents / 33 (19.3%) are not Santa Cruz residents / 1 (0.6%) Other
• 16 (9.4%) are Santa Cruz business owners / 155 (90.6%) are not Santa Cruz business owners • 96 (56.1%) think cigarette butt litter is a big problem in the community / 51 (29.8%) are neutral / 24 (14%) don’t think it’s much of a problem
• 155 (90.6%) are likely to support policies that reduce cigarette butt litter / 6 (3.5%) are neutral / 10 (5.8%) are not likely
• Top ranking policies with responses (#) by order: Prohibit the sale of single-use cigarette filters (140); Tobacco product waste mitigation fee on tobacco products (126); Prohibit the sale of all single-use plastic tobacco products (123); Deposit/return programs on ESD products (119); Require hazardous waste tracking, handling and signage for nicotine and electronic waste at point of sale (112); Prohibit the sale of single-use ESD devices (110); Remedy disproportionate exposure to tobacco product waste through density restrictions in low-income and minority communities (98); Prohibit the sale of other tobacco products that create plastic waste (94); Prohibit the sale of Electronic Smoking Devices (ESD) (87); Other (5); None of these (1) The key takeaway from the survey responses and policy questions that were answered by the Santa Cruz County Tobacco Education staff was that there was a possibility many of the respondents may not have a complete picture or understanding of all the policies and their implications, some may not have attended a community meeting to receive the information, not enough data are available, and local jurisdictions that have passed similar policies as case studies. With all those factored in, the Committee recommended having additional engagement with local businesses and to continuing work with County staff. It was also suggested that greater support from Santa Cruz County and neighboring cities is necessary to make a more significant impact.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Submitted By:
Martine Watkins
Councilmember
Submitted By:
Sonja Brunner
Councilmember
Submitted By:
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Councilmember
ATTACHMENTS:
1. TPW TIMELINE.PDF
2. TPW COMMUNITY PARTNERS.PDF
3. TPW POLICY OPTIONS MATRIX.PDF
4. TPW PROJECT CHARTER.PDF
33.3 TASK / DESCRIPTION JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
CITY COUNCIL HIAP COMMITTEE STAFF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
REVIEW THE COMMUNITY PARTNERS LIST & TIMELINE WITH
HIAP
DEVELOP PROJECT CHARTER AND RESOURCE & COST
ESTIMATES FOR POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS
REVIEW PROJECT CHARTER & SURVEY RESULTS WITH HIAP
REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL WITH HIAP RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSS NEXT STEPS FOR TOBACCO PRODUCT WASTE
OPTIONS & ENGAGEMENT PLAN WITH HIAP
TOBACCO PRODUCT WASTE (TPW) TIMELINE
NEXT STEPS PER COUNCIL DIRECTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MILESTONES (TENTATIVE)
CORE COFFEE CHAT
SMALL GROUP MEETINGS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
33.4 Community Bridges
Latinx Groups
NAACP
Santa Cruz County Black Health
Matters
UC Santa Cruz (POC Collective)
BIPOC
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. City School District
Green Schools Committee
College-based Environmental
Groups
County of Education
K-12
UCSC Student Union
EDUCATION
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
Benchlands Estuary Stewardship
Team
Black Surf Club Santa Cruz
Cigarette Surfboard
Coastal Watershed Council
Downtown Streets Team
Homeless Garden Project
O'Neil Sea Odyssey
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Save Our Shores
Save the Waves
Surfrider Foundation Santa Cruz
Textured Waves
United Way of Santa Cruz County
(United 4 Youth)
LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. 12.
13. 14.
Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Association
Local Tobacco Retailers
7-Eleven (3 locations)
88 Gas
Arco/AM PM
Bayside Marine
Beach Liquors
Beach Market
Boro Max, LLC dba Pipeline
Brady's Yacht Club
Chevron (3 locations)
Cigar Palace
Circle Market
Discount Cigarettes
DJ's Mini Mart
Ernie's Liquor
Graffix Pleasure
Green Smoke Shop
Hernandez Market
Hushpuff
Lloyd's Liquors
Metro Market
Mission Liquors
LOCAL TOBACCO RETAILERS & CUSTOMERS
1. 2.
3. COMMUNITY PARTNERS | PART 1
Needful Things
Ocean 76
Ocean Market & Deli
OM Group Oil Soquel
One Double Oh Seven Club & Smoking
Parlor
Puff-N-Pass
Quality Market
Rite Aid
Rotten Robbie
Safeway Store (2 locations)
Santa Cruz Chevron (3 locations)
Santa Cruz Market
Sav-On-Gasoline
Star Zone Smoke Shop
The Grog Shop
The Jury Room
The Rush Inn
Walgreens
U Save Liquors
US Pro
33.5 Health Improvement Partnership
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
1. City of Santa Cruz
Economic Development
Police: Enforcement
Public Works: Stormwater,
Waste Reduction, Solid
Waste
Santa Cruz County
County of Education
Friday Night Live
Health & Human Services
Health Services Agency:
Santa Cruz Tobacco
Education Coalition
PUBLIC ENTITY
1. 2.
The California Tobacco Control
Program
Public Health Law Center
TOBACCO POLICY
EXPERTS
1. 2.
San Diego State University
UC San Francisco
TOBACCO WASTE
CONTENT EXPERTS
1. 2.
California Marine Sanctuary
Foundation
Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary
WATER QUALITY EXPERTS
1. 2.
COMMUNITY PARTNERS | PART 2
33.6 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
1 Policy Pros Cons
Tobacco Product Sales Restrictions
Prohibit the sale
of ALL single-use
plastic tobacco
products
• Upstream solution that reduces the
problem at its source
• Prohibits the sale of the majority of
tobacco products
• Highest impact source reduction
for microplastics
• Can enforce through existing Tobacco
Retail License (TRL)
• Places responsibility on the industry
• Helps to meet California Clean Water
Act trash amendment requirements
• Potential for positive public
relations/tourism impact (family friendly,
pro-environment)
• Fiscal savings for city services for cleanup efforts (storm and wastewater maintenance, anti-litter group efforts)
• Fiscal savings for healthcare related
services if policy reduces cigarette use
and tobacco-related
death/disease/health disparities
• Most likely to invite industry pushback
including legal challenges
• Loss of tobacco sales tax revenue
• High impact on tobacco retailers
• No jurisdictions have enacted such a policy
• Need to write strong definitions to incorporate
all intended products; poor definitions could
lead to limited efficacy or industry
manipulation
• Does not stop smokers from using or
improperly disposing of products purchased
out of jurisdiction
• Potential negative impacts on tourism for
tourists who want to purchase certain tobacco
products
Prohibit the sale of
single-use cigarette
• Upstream solution that reduces the problem
at its source
• Likely to invite industry pushback
including legal challenges
33.7 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
2 filters (i.e., cigarette
butts)
• Essentially prohibits cigarette sales
• High impact source reduction for
microplastics– most littered item on the
planet
• Can enforce through existing protocols
(TRL)
• Places responsibility on the industry
• Helps to meet California Clean Water Act
trash amendment requirements
• Potential for positive public relations/tourism
impact (family friendly, pro-environment)
• Fiscal savings for city services for cleanup
efforts (storm and wastewater maintenance,
anti-litter group efforts)
• Fiscal savings for healthcare related
services if policy reduces cigarette use and
tobacco-related disease/death
• Loss of cigarette sales tax revenue
• High impact on tobacco retailers with high
percentage of cigarette sales
• No jurisdictions have yet enacted such a
policy
• Does not include all tobacco products that
contribute to plastic waste
• Does not stop smokers from using or
improperly disposing of cigarettes purchased
out of jurisdiction
• Potential negative impacts on tourism for
tourists who want to purchase cigarettes
1. Prohibit the sale
of Electronic
Smoking
Devices (ESD)
or
2. Prohibit the sale
of single-use ESD
• Upstream solution
• Medium impact source reduction (does not
include cigarettes)
• Can enforce through existing protocols
(TRL)
• Places responsibility on the industry
• Potential for positive public relations/tourism
impact (family friendly, pro-environment)
• Loss of ESD sales tax revenue
• High impact on tobacco retailers with high
percentage of ESD sales
• Does not stop smokers/vapers from using or
improperly disposing of ESD products
purchased out of jurisdiction
• Doesn’t reduce cigarette butts, the most
littered product
33.8 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
3 (e.g., Puff Bar, Ello,
VaporLax, etc.)
• Less likely to invite industry pushback/legal
challenges
• Precedence: 30+ California jurisdictions
have enacted
• Fiscal savings for city services for cleanup
efforts (e.g., stormwater and wastewater
maintenance, anti-litter group efforts, etc.)
• Fiscal savings for healthcare related
services if policy reduces ESD use and
tobacco-related disease/death
• Option 2 would still allow non-single use
ESDs to be sold
• Potential negative impacts on tourism for
tourists who want to purchase ESDs
• Will have less of an environmental impact
than a policy to prohibit the sale of cigarette
filters or all ESDs
Prohibit the sale of
other tobacco
products that create
plastic waste (e.g.,
lighters, packaging,
cigar tips, etc.)
• Upstream solution
• Can enforce through existing protocols
(TRL)
• Flexible in terms of products included
• Places responsibility on the industry
• Less likely than a filter or ESD ban to invite
industry pushback/legal challenges
• Low impact source reduction
• Does not stop smokers from using or
improperly disposing of products purchased
out of jurisdiction
• No jurisdictions have yet enacted such a
policy
• Doesn’t directly address the tobacco products
themselves and therefore doesn’t reduce the
largest contributors of TPW
• Minimal fiscal savings for city services for
cleanup efforts
33.9 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
4 Hazardous Waste Regulation on Tobacco Products
Require hazardous
waste tracking,
handling, and
signage for nicotine
and electronic waste
at point of sale
• Upstream Solution
• Minimal loss of sales tax revenue
• Helps to meet California Clean Water Act
trash amendment requirements
• Precedence: state and federal laws on the
handling of other hazardous waste materials
• Places responsibility on the tobacco retailer
• Doesn’t address cigarettes, the largest form of
tobacco waste
• Doesn’t get tobacco products off the market
and out of the environment
• Requires new and significant enforcement
protocols
• Requires cooperation from tobacco retailers
for hazardous waste compliance, training,
signage, disposal, etc.
• Potential upfront cost to tobacco retailers to
comply with new protocols
• Requires cooperation from hazardous waste
agencies
• Requires working with licensing agencies or
training enforcement agencies
• Potential cost for city to enforce these new
regulations
33.10 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
5 Environmental Justice in Tobacco Retailer Location and Density Remedy
disproportionate
exposure to TPW
through density
restrictions in lowincome and
minority
communities
• Upstream Solution
• Limit location and density of future
tobacco retailers
• Can be enforced through existing
protocols (TRL)
• May reduce youth tobacco access,
marketing and consumption
• Precedence for density and zoning policies
• Policies reducing the number of tobacco
retailers close to youth sensitive areas are
often politically viable
• Significant environmental justice benefits if
policy prohibits retailers from locating in
certain high impact communities or if caps
on density spread the geographic burden
equally
• No impact to current tobacco retailer
density or improper disposal
• Minimal responsibility on the industry
• Potential loss in tobacco sales tax revenue
• GIS mapping of a retailer landscape can be
expensive and difficult
• Density/zoning policies can take years before
having an impact
33.11 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
6 Other Approaches
TPW mitigation fee
on tobacco
products
• Provides revenue stream for existing
cleanup efforts (i.e., collects funding for
proper disposal and administration of
program)
• May help lower tobacco purchase and use
rates if tax is high enough to deter
purchase
• Midstream solution
• Does not eliminate tobacco product waste or
stop users from purchasing tobacco products
in other jurisdictions
• No responsibility on the industry
• California Prop 26 requires 2/3 super majority
approval of the local electorate on any local
fees/taxes (so fee would need to be
structured accordingly)
• Potential legal challenges as California law
prohibits the imposition of local tobacco taxes
• Keeps responsibility for physical cleanup on
government and voluntary groups
• Potential impacts to tourism as tax would be
born on anyone purchasing tobacco products
• Regulatory framework would need to require
money collected from fee to be used on
tobacco waste cleanup and collection
Deposit/Return
programs on ESD
products (Extended
Producer
Responsibility or
EPR)
• May help lower ESD purchase rates and
tobacco use rates if deposit is high enough
to deter purchase
• Deposit and return programs have
been successful for other types of
products
• Midstream solution
• Does not place responsibility on the industry
• Doesn’t work for all tobacco products
(including cigarette butts or all types of
ESDs)
• Requires new and significant enforcement
protocols
33.12 Tobacco Product Waste (TPW) Policy Options Chart
7 • Requires cooperation of tobacco retailers and
users for proper collection and disposal
• Needs significant staff oversight
• Difficult to administer due to complications of
disposing of used ESDs
• May need to develop hazardous waste
protocols for product return and disposal
• Fee would need to be accurately set to
encourage return of the devices
• No existing data to show efficacy of such
a policy Risk of putting the returned
product out of sight/out of mind and thus
encourage continued consumption and
use
33.13 TOBACCO PRODUCT WASTE (TPW) PROJECT CHARTER
Request Overview
Request City Council
Created By Emeline Nguyen Date
Executive Sponsor Councilmember Watkins Additional Sponsor Councilmember(s) Brunner and Kalantari-Johnson
Raison d’Etre (Reason for Being)
What’s is the
practical problem
that your request
will solve?
The purpose of this project is to reduce the amount of tobacco product waste in the City of Santa Cruz. Tobacco product waste, including cigarette butts and other tobacco-related litter, is a significant environmental and public health issue. This project is recognized and requested by the City Council to address the issue and implement effective policies/strategies to reduce tobacco product waste across the city and state.
What happens if we
do nothing?
If a policy is not adopted, the amount of tobacco product waste in the city is likely to remain high or even increase over time. This could lead to several negative impacts, including:
1. Environmental pollution: Tobacco product waste is the most common form of litterin the world and can take years to decompose, during which time it can pollute waterways, harm wildlife, and create an unsightly and unpleasant environment.
2. Public health hazards: Tobacco product waste can contain toxic chemicals that can seep into the environment and harm public health. In addition, cigarette butts are often mistaken for food by animals, which can cause them to become sick or die.
3. Economic costs: The cleanup of tobacco product waste can be expensive, and taxpayers may end up bearing the cost of cleaning up public spaces and waterways.
4. Social costs: Tobacco product waste can create an unsightly and unpleasant environment that can reduce civic pride and deter tourism and economic development.
Why is your request
important? Why
should it prevail?
Per the City Council’s request, by adopting a policy/policies to address tobacco product waste, the city can help reduce these negative impacts and create a cleaner, safer, and more attractive environment for their residents and visitors. Some effective policies from the County of Santa Cruz includes:
1. Tobacco Product Sales Restrictions
a. Prohibit the sale of all single-use plastic tobacco products b. Prohibit the sale of single-use cigarette filters(ex: cigarette butts) c. Prohibit the sale of Electronic Smoking Devices (ESD) d. Prohibit the sale of single-use ESD
e. Prohibit the sale of other tobacco products that create plastic waste (ex:
lighters, packaging, cigar tips, etc.)
2. Hazardous Waste Regulation on Tobacco Products
a. Require hazardous waste tracking, handling, and signage for nicotine and electronic waste at point of sale
3. Environmental Justice in Tobacco Retailer Location and Density
33.14 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 2
a. Remedy disproportionate exposure to TPW through density restrictions in low-income and minority communities
4. Other Approaches
a. TPW Mitigation Fee on tobacco products
b. Deposit/Return programs on ESD products (Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR)
“Line of Sight” – Relevance of the Request to Key City Priorities (Score = 1, 4, or 7, where 7 = Very Relevant) Criterion Score Criterion Score
Community Safety & Well Being 7 Environment, Sustainability & Well Managed Resources
7 Housing Economic Vitality 1
Infrastructure Organizational Health
Financial Stability Engaged & Informed Community 4
Personnel Involvement
Will this request impact all city
departments?
Most
33.15 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 3
If it is not city-wide, which departments
will be impacted and/or will need to
participate?
CITY
1. City Attorney’s Office: May be responsible for finalizing the policies and ensuring that they comply with local and state laws.
2. City Manager’s Office: Coordinate efforts across all departments to ensure an effective and efficient
implementation of these policies.
3. Economic Development: Responsible for engaging with
local businesses and providing resources to help them
comply with the policies. They may also be responsible
for monitoring the economic impact of the policies on
local businesses (data).
4. Public Works: May be responsible for coordinating
proper disposal; depending on the specific policies.
5. Police: May be involved in implementing and enforcing policies to address tobacco product waste, depending on the specific policies and local needs.
COUNTY
6. County Administrator’s Office: Responsible to
coordinate efforts to reduce the amount of tobacco
product waste in the County/City.
7. Environmental Services: Responsible for hazardous
materials and environmental cleanup.
8. Health and Human Services: Responsible for overseeing the health impacts of tobacco product waste and
promoting public health by reducing exposure to
harmful cigarette butt litter.
9. Public Health: Responsible to coordinate efforts on
public education and outreach campaigns.
Who are the Executive Sponsors? Councilmember(s) Watkins, Brunner, Kalantari-Johnson What does this request include?
33.16 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 4
Scope The scope of work to address tobacco product waste in Santa Cruz will depend on the specific policies (Amendment to the Tobacco/Retail Licensing Ordinance 6.07) and goals set by the City Council. However, some potential pre- and post-components could include:
PRE-COMPONENTS
1. Conduct research: Research is needed to understand the background and timeline of the project, identify key stakeholders, and case studies of other cities who have successfully passed policies.
Currently, the cost is city staff time.
2. Engage with stakeholders: The city will need to engage with stakeholders/community partners who will be affected by the new policy/policies. Groups include BIPOC, education, local environmental groups, local tobacco retailers & customers, medical professionals, public entity, tobacco policy experts, tobacco waste content experts, and water quality experts. This may involve holding a series of public meetings and workshops to gather input and feedback on the policies.
The cost will depend on the resources required to hold public meetings and workshops, as well as the resources required to respond to stakeholder feedback. This may include the cost of city staff time and the cost of providing refreshments or other materials.
These costs could range from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars.
POST-COMPONENTS
3. Conduct research: Per Council direction, additional research and professional expertise may be needed to better identify best practices and language for reducing tobacco product waste.
The cost is city staff time and resources available to the city.
4. Develop policy/policies: Based on City Council direction, the city may need to develop policy/policiesthat address tobacco product waste, such as(refer to County’s Policy Options Chart):
a. Prohibit the sale of all single-use plastic tobacco products b. Prohibit the sale of single-use cigarette filters (ex: cigarette butts) c. Prohibit the sale of Electronic Smoking Devices (ESD) d. Prohibit the sale of single-use ESD
e. Prohibit the sale of other tobacco products that create plastic waste (ex:
lighters, packaging, cigar tips, etc.)
f. Require hazardous waste tracking, handling, and signage for nicotine and electronic waste at point of sale
g. Remedy disproportionate exposure to TPW through density restrictionsin lowincome and minority communities h. TPW mitigation fee on tobacco products
i. Deposit/Return programs on ESD products (Extended Producer Responsibility or EPR)
During this process, stakeholder input is needed in developing the policy/policies.
33.17 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 5
The cost of developing policies will depend on the resources available to the city and the complexity of the policy/policies. Drafting new regulations or ordinances could require the time and expertise of the City Attorney’s Office or outside consultant, which could cost tens of thousands of dollars or more.
5. Establish implementation & enforcement plans: Once policy/policies are developed and adopted, the city will need to establish a plan for implementing and enforcing the policies. This may involve identifying the city departments responsible for various aspects of implementation and enforcement, as well as developing a system for monitoring compliance.
The cost of establishing implementation and enforcement plans will depend on the resources required to develop and implement a new system. This may include the cost of training city staff, hiring additional staff to enforce the policies, and the cost of developing a system to track compliance. These costs could range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the city and the complexity of the policies.
6. Provide education & outreach: The city will need to develop an education and outreach campaign (collaborate with the County Department of Public Health) to inform the public about the new policies. This may involve creating informational materials, updating the landing page and/or social media campaign, and working with community organizations to reach a broad audience.
The cost will depend on the resources required to develop and implement on effective campaign. This may include the cost of creating and printing informational materials, developing a website or social media campaign to inform the public, and cost of outreach events. These costs could range from a few hundreds to a few thousand dollars, depending on the scope of the campaign.
7. Monitor progress: Depending on the policy, the City/County will need to monitor the effectiveness of the policies over time to ensure that they are achieving their intended goals by doing observation surveys or enforcement checks. This may involve tracking what products are for sale and enforcing the policy/policies.
The cost will be staff time.
Keep in mind that the policy/policies to address tobacco product waste in the City of Santa Cruz will be multifaceted and may involve coordination across multiple city departments and key stakeholders.
Overall, the cost of policy/policies to address tobacco product waste is to be determined and will vary depending on the specific policy/policies and goals set by the City Council, as well as the resources available to the city. It will be important for the City Council to carefully consider the costs and benefits of these policy/policies to ensure that they are effective and sustainable over the long term.
Software Description N/A
Costs N/A
33.18 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 6
Hardware Description N/A
Costs N/A
Professional
Services
Description City Attorney’s Office: Legal expertise, developing the policy, and potential lawsuits.
Costs Will vary depending on the specific policy/policies and goals set by the City Council. Depending on the policy, there’s a possibility that the City may be sued, Other Description
Costs
33.19 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 7
How Long Will It Take?
Duration The timeline for implementing a policy/policies will depend on a number of factors, such as the specific policies developed, the size of the city, and the resources available to the city. However, here is a rough estimate of the timeline for each component:
PRE-COMPONENTS
1. Conduct research: This will depend on the scope of the research, the availability of resources, and the complexity of the study (Ex: a survey of cigarette butt litter in the city may take several weeks, while a more extensive study on the environmental and health impacts could take several months).
2. Engage with stakeholders: This depends on the resources required to hold public meetings and workshops, as well as the resources required to respond to stakeholder feedback. This may include the time required to plan and implement meetings, and the time required to review and respond to stakeholder feedback. These timelines could range from several weeks to several months.
POST-COMPONENTS
3. Conduct research: Per Council direction, additional research and professional expertise may be needed to better identify best practices and language for reducing tobacco product waste.
4. Develop policies: This will depend on the complexity of the policies and the resources available to the city (Ex: Developing regulations or ordinances could take several months to a year or more, depending on the scope of the policies and the level of stakeholder engagement).
5. Establish implementation & enforcement plans: This will depend on the complexity of the policies and the resources required to develop and implement a new system. This may include the time required to train city staff, hire additional staff to enforce the policies, and the time required to develop a system to track compliance. These timelines could range from several months to a year or more.
6. Provide education & outreach: This will depend on the scope of the campaign and the resources available to the city. This may include the time required to develop and print informational materials, develop a website or social media campaign, and the time to plan and implement outreach events. This could range from several weeks to several months.
7. Monitor progress: This depends on the resources required to collect and analyze data, as well as the resources required to report on progress. This may include the time required to develop and implement a system to track compliance, the time required to collect and analyze data, and the time required to report progress to city officials or the public. This could range from several months to a year or more.
Overall, depending on the specific policies developed, the size of the city, and the resources available, will affect the timeline from several months to a year or more.
Start Date
33.20 Tobacco Product Waste Project Charter | 8
Schedule End Date
Details about Schedule - Anticipated Phases and Dates
Date -
Date -
Date -
33.21 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 04/13/2023
AGENDA OF: 04/25/2023
DEPARTMENT: Police
SUBJECT: Receipt of AB 481 Annual Military Equipment Report and Renewal of SCMC Chapter 9.90 Pertaining to AB 481 Military Equipment (PD) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Receive the Santa Cruz Police Department’s (SCPD) Annual Military Equipment Report; and 2) Adopt a resolution renewing Chapter 9.90 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (SCMC) pertaining to AB 481, Military Equipment.
BACKGROUND: California State Assembly Bill (AB) 481, effective January 1, 2022, establishes requirements for the funding, acquisition and use of items deemed “military equipment” (Gov’t Code § 7070(c)) in law enforcement and state agencies. AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval from their governing body via ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy prior to purchasing, raising funds for, or acquiring military equipment. Gov’t Code § 7071(a)(1). A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment policy must submit to their governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. Gov’t Code § 7072.
AB 481 also requires the governing body to review the ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at least annually and to vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to the Brown Act. Gov’t Code § 7071(e)(1). The governing body must determine, based on the annual military equipment report, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in in Government Code section 7071(d), including the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
34.1 (D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
If the governing body determines that certain military equipment identified in the annual military equipment report has not complied with the above standards, the governing body must either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance. Gov’t Code § 7071(e)(2).
DISCUSSION: On May 10, 2022, the City of Santa Cruz City Council (City Council) adopted SCMC Chapter 9.90, approving the military equipment use policy set forth in SCPD Policy 705.
The City Council approved the purchase of an additional Recon Robotics Throw bot via Ordinance 2023-05 on April 11, 2023, amending Chapter 9.90 of the SCMC to include a revised SCPD Policy 705.
SCPD is providing the attached Annual Military Equipment Report pursuant to AB 481. The annual report includes the following information for each type of military equipment, as required by Government Code section 7072(a), for the 2022 calendar year:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. (2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. (3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.
(4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
The SCPD Annual Military Equipment Report provides available data for each type of military equipment approved by the Santa Cruz City Council for the 2022 calendar year (January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022). Because the SCPD’s Military Use Policy was adopted during the middle of the reporting period, May 10, 2022, the SCPD did not have mechanisms in place to track all data required under AB 481 for the entire reporting period. The SCPD has utilized available data and existing documentation to provide information contained in the annual report. The SCPD is working to ensure sufficient tracking mechanisms are in place for future annual reports.
Pursuant to AB 481, the SCPD is requesting that the City Council receive the SCPD Annual Military Equipment Report for the 2022 calendar year and adopt a resolution renewing SCMC
34.2 Chapter 9.90 pertaining to AB 481 Military Equipment pursuant to Government Code section 7071(e).
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Prepared By:
Catherine Brothers
Principal Management
Analyst
Submitted By:
Bernie Escalante
Chief of Police
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. AB 481 RESOLUTION.DOCX
2. AB 481 EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE NO. 2023-05.PDF
3. AB 481 EXHIBIT B - AB 481 ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT REPORT.PDF
34.3 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ RENEWING CHAPTER 9.90 OF THE SANTA CRUZ MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO AB 481 MILITARY EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2022, the Santa Cruz City Council (“City Council”) adopted Ordinance 2022-09, adding Chapter 9.90 to the Santa Cruz Municipal Code (“SCMC”) and adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy pursuant to Assembly Bill (“AB”) 481; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the City Council approved the purchase of an additional Recon Robotics Throw bot via Ordinance 2023-05, amending Chapter 9.90 of the SCMC to include a revised Military Equipment Use Policy and AB 481 Equipment List; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 7071(e)(1), the City Council has reviewed SCMC Chapter 9.90 along with the Santa Cruz Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy, both attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 7072, the City Council received an annual military equipment report on April 25, 2023 for each type of military equipment approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the annual military equipment report, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz as follows:
A. The AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance shall be, and hereby is, renewed so that the ordinance will remain in effect until the next reporting period required under AB 481; and B. The City Council finds that each type of military equipment identified in the report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Government Code section 7071(d), including the following:
(a) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (b) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(c) The military equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (d) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
34.4 RESOLUTION NO. NS-XX,XXX
2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of April, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
APPROVED: ______________________________
Fred Keeley, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________________
Bonnie Bush, City Clerk Administrator
34.5 EXHIBIT A
34.6 34.7
34.8 34.9
Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 1
Military Equipment
705.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
705.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body – The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code §30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
Policy
705
34.10 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 2
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
705.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Santa Cruz Police Department that, with respect to military equipment, members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071, Penal Code § 13652 (AB 48), City of Santa Cruz Resolution No. NS-29,862, and Council Policy No. 29-16.
705.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Santa Cruz Police Department (Government Code § 7071). e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
705.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
See attachment: 2023-04-11 Santa Cruz Police AB 481 Equipment List_FINAL.pdf 705.5 APPROVAL
34.11 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 3
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by
way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the
Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 705.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 705.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory.
705.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
34.12 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 4
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
705.9 PUBLIC SUBMITTAL OF COMPLAINTS, CONCERNS AND/OR QUESTIONS Any member of the public wishing to submit a complaint, concern, or question regarding the Department's use of each specific type of military equipment, should contact the Department's Professional Standards Unit, call (831) 420-5800, or visit the Department's website at https:// www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/police and select the "Community Feed Back Form." Complaints, concerns, or questions can be submitted in any form (i.e., in person, telephone, email, etc.). The Department will work diligently to timely respond to the public submittal of complaints, concerns, and/or questions regarding the Department's use of each specific type of military equipment.
34.13 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 5
Santa Cruz Police Department Military Use Equipment List Pursuant to AB481.
1. Robot (Category 1)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
I. Recon Robotics “Throw bot.” Purchase cost: $9,000 in 2013. Quantity: 1.
This equipment is a battery powered, remote operated device. It is equipped with a color camera as well as infrared capabilities that allow for use in low or no light situations. It does not have audio capabilities, nor is it capable of creating audio or video recordings. The Throw Bot is designed to be carried and operated by one person and can be thrown a significant distance without damage. It cannot traverse stairs on its own and it does not have any arm, claw or other type of manipulation attachment. The Throw Bot has no ability to have a weapon or other device affixed to it, nor is the Throw Bot capable of delivering a weapon or other device. This equipment is for use during high-risk incidents or incidents where its use may enhance officer or civilian safety. These include but are not limited to: a high-risk search warrant, barricaded subject or hostage negotiation/rescue. This equipment can provide officers with the location of a subject inside of a structure or room. It can assist officers in locating suspects, determining whether the suspect armed, and can provide the locations of injured persons or hostages. This equipment can provide critical tactical information without placing officers at undue risk. This equipment has been used in numerous high risk and dangerous incidents.
II. Recon Robotics “Throw bot 2.” Purchase cost: $16,270. Quantity: 1. This equipment is a battery powered, remote operated device. It is equipped with a color camera as well as infrared capabilities that allow for use in low or no light situations. It is capable of one-way audio (Listening only).
The audio and video captured by the Throw Bot 2 can be recorded onto an SD card via the remote device. The Throw Bot 2 is designed to be carried and operated by one person and can be thrown a significant distance without damage. It cannot traverse stairs on its own and it does not have any arm, claw, or other type of manipulation attachment. The Throw Bot 2 has no ability to have a weapon or other device affixed to it, the Throw Bot 2 is incapable of delivering a weapon or other device. This equipment is for use during high-risk incidents or incidents where its use may enhance officer or civilian safety. These include but are not limited to: a high-risk search warrant, barricaded subject or hostage negotiation/rescue. This equipment can provide officers with the location of a subject inside of a structure or room. It can assist officers in locating suspects, determining whether the suspect is armed, and can provide the locations of injured persons or hostages. This equipment can provide critical tactical information without placing officers at undue risk. This equipment has been used in numerous high risk and dangerous incidents.
34.14 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 6
III. AVITAR II by Robotex. SCPD has access to two AVITAR II robots maintained by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office. The AVITAR II is a heavyduty robot, controlled by remote operation with a camera attachment owned by the Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office.
b. Purpose:
To be used to remotely search areas and gain visual data. c. Authorized Use:
The SCPD Emergency Service Unit (ESU) Tactical team has primary control over the Throw Bot. It is available for use by any SCPD officer in any situation where it would enhance officer or civilian safety. The AVITAR II Robots are entirely owned and operated by Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Office personnel. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable SCPD policies, including but not limited to, Search and Seizure312, Missing Persons-316, Emergency Services Unit-404 and Recordings 426.5. Any use of SCPD robots will be for official law enforcement purposes, pursuant to State and Federal law, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community.
e. Required Training:
I. The SCPD conducts department specified training for personnel to use the Throw Bot. This includes set up, deployment, safe and effective use of the Throw Bot and Throw Bot 2. This includes set up, deployment, safe and effective use of the Throw Bots.
II. Training required for the use of the AVITAR II robots is in accordance with the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s policy.
f. Expected Lifespan:
I. Throw Bot: The Throw Bot is designed to be in service 8-10 years. The Throw Bot will be used until repairs are no longer supported by the manufacturer, the Throw Bot has been in service since 2013. It has been repaired by the manufacturer once.
II. Throw Bot 2: The Throw Bot 2 is designed to be in service 8-10 years.
The Throw Bot 2 is covered under the manufacturer’s warranty for one year. Once the warranty expires any repairs required will be done by the manufacturer at SCPD’s cost.
III. AVITAR II: Not a consideration for SCPD.
g. Fiscal Impact
I. Throw Bot: No known annual maintenance costs.
II. Throw Bot 2: $16,270 (Homeland Security grant funded). No known annual maintenance costs.
III. AVITAR II: No fiscal impact for SCPD.
2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Category 1)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost.
SCPD does not currently possess any unmanned Aerial Vehicles. SCPD does have access to several Unmanned Aerial Vehicles maintained by the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. The Sherriff’s Office possess several different unmanned aerial vehicles that can provide higher altitude aerial views of locations or search areas. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles can also provide interior search capabilities in areas that are impassable for SCPD’s Recon Robot and in
34.15 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 7
situations where officers entering would be unsafe.
b. Purpose:
To be deployed when its capabilities would provide officer or incident commanders with an aerial view of a location or the interior of a specific location.
The unmanned aerial vehicles may be deployed in situations that include, but are not limited to, a search for a missing person, natural disaster management, tactical or other public safety and life preservation situations. c. Authorized Use:
Only operators assigned to the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s department may operate the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The Santa Cruz County Chief Deputy must authorize all requests for use by outside agencies. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
Use is established under the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office Policy 606 and FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107. During their use, all other SCPD policies remain in effect, including but not limited to, Search and Seizure -312, Missing Persons-316, Emergency Services Unit-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize Unmanned Aerial Vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, pursuant to State and Federal law, and in a manner that respects the privacy of our community..
e. Required Training:
No required training for SCPD officers as only operators assigned to the Santa Cruz County Sherriff’s department may operate the equipment. f. Expected Lifespan:
Not a consideration for SCPD.
g. Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact for SCPD.
3. Armored Personnel Carrier, vehicle with entry apparatus attached (Category 2&3) a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
Lenco Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV). Purchase cost $230,378. Quantity: 1.
The ARV is designed to provide ballistic protection during tactical events, and is designed to withstand multiple bullet strikes from small arms fire and low level explosions. The ARV is equipped with remote operated spotlights, emergency lights, siren and a public address system. Common uses for the ARV include citizen and officer rescues, evacuations and the deployment of officers and chemical munitions. The ARV has been used in numerous high-risk and critical incidents including use by allied agencies in Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County and San Mateo County.
b. Purpose:
To be used in response to high-risk or critical incidents to enhance officer and community safety, assist in scene containment and to assist in resolving critical incidents.
c. Authorized Use:
Only the Watch Commander or the ESU commander may authorize the use of the ARV. Deployment must be based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. The ARV was purchased through a BUASI grant. The terms of this grant require that SCPD make the ARV available to any allied agency with the BUASI area as long as the situation the ARV is requested for meets the
34.16 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 8
criteria for deployment set forth in SCPD Policy 702. SCPD generally sends at least one member of the ESU tactical team with the ARV if one is available. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable SCPD policies including but not limited to Vehicle Use -702, ESU Tactical Team-404. It is the policy of the Department to utilize armored vehicles only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.
e. Required Training:
Members of the ESU team train officers in the use of the ARV. This training includes capabilities of the ARV, safety considerations, conducting civilian and officer rescues as well as other deployment considerations. f. Expected Lifespan:
20 years.
g. Fiscal Impact
$4,312 per year (parts, labor, and fuel).
4. Ford F350 transport vehicle (ESU Truck, category 5)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost. 2008 Ford F350 transport vehicle. A standard Ford F350 truck chassis with a large box type compartment attached to the chassis from the cab back. Purchase cost: $65,000. Quantity: 1. The interior of the compartment is fitted with shelving and seats. The outsides of the compartment are fitted with multiple storage boxes. The vehicle contains various equipment, spare ballistic shields, breeching tools, small tools, medical supplies, pens, writing tablets, power inverters etc. b. Purpose:
The Ford F350 is deployed during critical incidents or any other instance where it can be utilized to transport personnel and equipment.
c. Authorized Use:
Any member of the SCPD is authorized to drive the vehicle if directed to do so.
The vehicle is used primarily by the ESU team.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable SCPD policies including but not limited to Vehicle Use -702 and Emergency Services Unit-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to use the vehicle only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.
e. Required Training:
All driver/operators shall receive training in the safe operation of the vehicle. f. Expected lifespan:
20 Years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$1,158 per year (parts, labor, and fuel).
5. Command and Control Vehicles (Category 5)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
Chevy Tahoe Patrol Vehicle. Purchase cost: $60,000 each.
Quantity: (1) 2017 Model (Lieutenant), (3) 2018 models (Sergeants). These vehicles can act as a Mobile Command Center. The vehicle is equipped with file cabinets, dry erase board, medical supplies and additional mapping equipment.
34.17 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 9
b. Purpose:
The Mobile Command Center is commonly utilized during incidents which involve the use of the Incident Command System (ICS). The Mobile Command Center assists with creating a set of objectives and overall goals, developing appropriate tactics, ensuring the allocation of appropriate resources, reviewing plans, communicating goals, tactics, expectations, and establishing accountability. c. Authorized Use:
The Mobile Command Center is used when deemed appropriate by the field supervisor or Watch Commander.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable SCPD policies including but not limited to Vehicle Use -702. It is the policy of the SCPD to use the vehicle only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.
e. Required Training:
All driver/operators shall receive training in the safe operation of the vehicle. f. Expected Lifespan:
I. Chevy Patrol Vehicle: 10 years.
II. The Mobile Command Center does not have a minimum or maximum lifespan and can be transferred to other vehicles.
g. Fiscal Impact:
I. There is no annual maintenance cost for The Mobile Command Center.
II. Vehicle maintenance cost is approximately $1,575 per year, per vehicle (parts, labor, and fuel).
6. Firearms of Greater than .50 caliber (Category 8)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
Mossberg 590 12 gauge pump action shotguns. Purchase cost, approximately $1,400 each. Quantity: 2. These shotguns are built on a standard Mossberg 590 action. They have a 13.5 inch barrel with a breaching muzzle brake affixed to the end of the barrel.
b. Purpose:
These shotguns are specifically designed to be used as breaching tools in situations where rapid entry into a structure is required, such as a hostage situation. They are used to defeat the locking mechanism or the hinges of door by firing a breaching shotgun round into these areas.
c. Authorized Use:
Only members of the ESU Tactical team who have completed a breaching school and are trained in the use of these weapons are authorized to use them. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable department policies, including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Firearms-306, Search and Siezure-312 and Emergency Services Unit-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:
Only officers who have completed a department authorized breaching school may use these shotguns. The school must include specific training related to the
34.18 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 10
breaching shotgun.
f. Expected Lifespan:
No expiration date. The shotguns may need replacement parts when serviced or replaced if they break.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0-$1,400 per year.
7. Firearms of Greater than .50 Caliber (Category 8)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
Remington 870 12 Gauge pump action chemical agent launching shotgun.
Purchase cost: $700. Quantity: 1.This shotgun was repurposed from an out of service shotgun that SCPD already had in inventory. This shotgun is specifically designed to launch a specific type of chemical munition. Though based on a standard 12 gauge shotgun, it is not designed or capable of firing lethal shotgun rounds. The buttstock and fore-end are bright orange and it is marked as a “Less Lethal” weapon. It has a purpose built launching cup permanently affixed to the muzzle.
b. Purpose:
This shotgun is designed to launch a specific type of launchable CS (2- chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) chemical agent canisters approximately 25 yards away. It allows officers to deploy chemical agents during critical incidents from behind cover or in a situation where hand delivering the agents would be unsafe. It allows officers the ability to deploy chemical agents in second and third floors of structures where it would be impossible for officers to hand deliver the agents. c. Authorized Use:
Only officers assigned to the ESU Tactical team are currently authorized to use this launching shotgun.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Firearms306, Control Devices and Techniqies-302, Search and Seizure- 312 and ESU Tactical team -404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:
Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.
Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, noise, flash, diversionary devices (NFDD) and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications.
The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department.
f. Expected Lifespan:
No expiration. The shotgun may need parts when serviced or replacement if it breaks.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0-$700 per year.
34.19 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 11
8. Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater (Category 9).
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
12. Gauge launching Cartridges Defense Technologies part number 1210.
Purchase cost: $371.25. Quantity: 55. These are blank shotgun cartridges that utilize black powder as the propellant.
b. Purpose:
When used with launching shotgun, the pressure created in the barrel by the expanding gasses of the black powder propellant provide enough force to launch the chemical agent canister from the shotgun. Though this ammunition is designed and is advertised for other uses, the SCPD only uses it as a launching cartridge for the launching shotgun.
c. Authorized Use:
Only officers assigned to the ESU team who are trained in the use of the launching shotgun are permitted to use these shotgun-launching rounds. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Firearms306, Control Devices and Techniqies-302, Search and Seizure- 312 and ESU Tactical team -404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition
34.20 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 12
only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:
Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.
Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, NFDD and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications. The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:
5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0-$500 per year.
9. Specialized Firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber (Category 10) a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
The department maintains a Precision Rifle team within the ESU Tactical team.
These officers are trained in the use of precision rifles that are specifically designed to stop lethal threats at various distances and through barrier mediums that a carbine rifle would not. These rifles are chambered in .308 Winchester.
This is a .30 caliber round that is highly accurate and used during potentially lethal encounters. The .308 is capable of defeating soft body armor at greater distances.
I. Defiance bolt action precision rifles. Purchase cost: $15,609. Quantity: 3.
II. Accuracy International AT series bolt action rifle. Purchase cost: $4,462.
Quantity: 1.
III. Hornady .308 155 grain ELD Match TAP ammunition. Purchase cost:
$6,720. Quantity: 3,200.
b. Purpose:
To provide officers with the ability to address lethal threats with more precision, at greater distances than a Carbine rifle or handgun are capable. c. Authorized Use:
Only those officers assigned to the ESU Tactical team, and who have been selected as members of the Precision Rifle team may use these weapons. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable department policies, including but not limited to, Use of Force-300, Firearms-306 and ESU Tactical Team-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:
Officers assigned to the Precision Rifle Team are required to attend and pass a POST certified basic Precision Rifle course before they are permitted to use these weapons.
f. Expected Lifespan:
34.21 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 13
I. Defiance Precision Rifles, no expiration date. They will need parts and service as they become worn or break.
II. Accuracy International AT Series Rifle, no expiration date. It will need parts and service as they become worn or break.
III. Hornady 155 grain ELD Match TAP, no expiration date. g. Fiscal Impact:
I. Precision rifles, $0-$1,000 per fiscal year.
II. Hornady Ammunition, $0-$6,720 per fiscal year.
10. Flashbang, Teargas and Pepper balls (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
Noise, Flash, Diversionary Devices (NFDD) commonly referred to as “flashbangs” are single use devices that emits a loud bang and a very bright flash. They are designed to disorient and distract dangerous subjects by overwhelming their senses and provide a window of time, approximately 6-8 seconds, for officers to take control of dangerous or high-risk situations.
Additionally, the SCPD possess “Stinger Grenades.” This device is a rubber ball that contains a small NFDD in addition to 60 .32 caliber rubber balls. When used, the grenade separates along its hemisphere and expels the balls while simultaneously giving a loud bang and bright flash. These are useful in crowd control or riot situations as a means to disperse groups of violent individuals in addition to the disorienting effect of the NFDD component to mitigate dangerous behavior. These can be purchased in configurations that include OC/CS (2chlorobenzylidene malononitrile/Oleoresin Capsicum) agent dispersing capabilities, inert powders or simply the .32 caliber balls.
I. 8902NR 12 gram low roll NFDD. Purchase cost: $2,426. Quantity: 40.
II. 7007 4 gram NFDD training reloads. Purchase cost $955. Quantity: 26.
III. 1090 Stinger Grenades. Purchase cost $523. Quantity: 10. b. Purpose:
To produce a loud noise, overpressure and a very bright flash, that can cause temporary psychological and physiological deprivation and give officers an advantage in high-risk tactical situations. Generally, NFDD (not including stinger grenades) are not a primary device used in riot situations, however there are narrow instances requiring authorization of the incident commander where they could be used.
c. Authorized Use:
Only those officers who are trained in the use of the devices are authorized to use them. Currently the only officers trained in the use of these devices are members of the ESU Tactical team. Use of NFDD is controlled by SCPD policy and best practice. Situations where an NFDD may be used include but are not limited to: hostage or barricaded subject situations, high-risk warrant service (arrest/search) where risk to officers is extremely high; during any other high risk situation where use of an NFDD may increase officer safety or training. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable department policies, including but not limited to Use of Force-300, ESU tactical Team-404, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize these devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and
34.22 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 14
pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:
Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.
Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, NFDD and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications. The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:
I. 8902NR 12 gram low roll NFDD- 5 years.
II. 7007 4 gram NFDD training reloads- 5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
I. 8902NR 12 gram low roll NFDD-$0-$2000 per year.
II. 7007 4 gram NFDD training reloads $0-$832 per year.
11. Chemical Agents “Teargas” (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
The SCPD uses chemical agents, commonly referred to as “teargas” as less lethal tools to disperse rioting subjects or on barricaded subjects. The two agents the SCPD uses are CS (2-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile) and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum). CS is an irritating agent and a lachrymator. It irritates the eyes and causes tearing while also irritating the respiratory system causing coughing.
These reactions are temporary and quickly subside especially if the subjects remove themselves from the area where the chemical agent has been deployed.
The U.S Army has tested CS extensively. There are no known allergic reactions to CS. OC is an, inflammatory agent. It causes a burning sensation, involuntary closure of the eyes and tightness in the chest. These symptoms generally subside within an hour or less of exposure. OC is legal for civilians to possess in certain quantities.
I. 1082 Riot Control CS Canister. Purchase cost: $352. Quantity: 12.
Pyrotechnic device used in outdoor situations to disperse rioting crowds, should not be used indoors due to risk of fire. Releases 75.6 grams of CS in 20-40 seconds.
II. 1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister. Purchase cost: $647. Quantity:
14. Pyrotechnic device designed to be used indoors and presents a minimal risk of fire. Hand delivered only. Releases 20 grams of agent in 20- 30 seconds.
III. 5230B Baffled Launchable CS canister. Purchase cost: $416. Quantity:
10. Pyrotechnic device, designed to be launched from the launching shotgun. For use indoors and presents minimal risk of fire. Releases 25 grams of agent in 20-40 seconds.
IV. 1026 Triple Chaser separating canister. Purchase cost: $1,047. Quantity:
20. Pyrotechnic device, designed to be used outdoors in riot control situations. It is a canister, that when deployed separates into three smaller canisters. It allows officers to deploy chemical agents over a larger area with less munitions. Releases 92 grams of agent between
34.23 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 15
three separate smaller canisters over 20-30 seconds.
V. 56854 Aerosol OC Fogger. Purchase cost: $89. Quantity: 4. Nonpyrotechnic canister. This canister sprays OC with the aid of compressed air. It is designed to be used indoors or in vehicles. It has no risk of fire. It will release a 1.3% OC spray over 15-25 seconds.
VI. 2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret projectile. Purchase cost: $1,238. Quantity:
44. Non-pyrotechnic launched projectile. This munition is fired from a 40mm less lethal launcher. It is a hardened projectile intended to be used to defeat barriers such as glass and thin wooden barriers. When it penetrates or impacts a hard surface, it disperses liquid CS agent into the area. These are not for use against people.
VII. 2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret projectile. Purchase cost: $289. Quantity:
10. Non-pyrotechnic launched projectile. This munition is fired from a 40mm less lethal launcher. It is a hardened projectile intended to be used to defeat barriers such as glass and thin wooden barriers. When it penetrates or impacts a hard surface, it disperses liquid OC agent into the area. These are not for use against people.
b. Purpose:
To limit escalating situations where lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
Situations where these munitions would be deployed include, but are not limited to: self-destructive, dangerous or combative individuals; riot or crowd control situations or other violent civil unrest; situations where use of the munitions would provide a tactical advantage; training or authorized demonstration. A “tactical advantage” could include but is not limited to: deployment into a structure or vehicle where an armed violent/self-destructive subject is barricaded; or a riot situation where, deployment can either create an environment that causes violent persons to disperse or leave the area or limit the advance of a violent group or deny a violent group access to specific areas or law enforcement. c. Authorized Use:
Only officers trained in the use of these munitions may use them. This includes officers assigned to the ESU Tactical team and officers assigned as “grenadiers” during a crowd control or violent civil unrest situation. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies, including but not limited to Use of Force-300, ESU Tactical team-404 and Control Devices and techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize chemical agents only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:
Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.
Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, NFDD and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications. The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train the other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:
34.24 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 16
I. 1082 Riot Control CS Canister-5 years.
II. 1032 Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Canister-5 years.
III. 5230B Baffled Launchable CS canister-5 years.
IV. 1026 Triple Chaser separating canister-5 years.
V. 56854 Aerosol OC Fogger-5 years.
VI. 2262 40mm CS Liquid Ferret projectile-5 years.
VII. 2260 40mm OC Liquid Ferret projectile-5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
All chemical munitions $0-$5,000 per fiscal year based on fiscal budgeting.
12. Pepper Ball Guns and Pepper Balls (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost.
I. Pepper ball guns. Purchase cost. $1,399. Quantity: 4. Pepper ball guns are a compressed air powered launcher, almost identical in manufacture to a common paintball gun. It fires .68 caliber plastic balls that contain an irritant powder. The pepper ball gun can fire pepper balls up to 60 feet and can launch pepper balls farther to saturate an area.
II. Pepper Balls. Purchase cost: $967 (per container). Quantity: 4 (containers of 375 pepper balls). Pepper Balls are .68 caliber projectiles.
They are a plastic shell that contains an irritant powder that consists of PAVA, a pepper derivative. This powder causes a burning sensation and involuntary eye closure when coupled with the impact of the projectile. It is used for pain compliance and disorientation.
b. Purpose:
To limit escalating situations where lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
Situations where these munitions would be deployed, include: Self destructive, dangerous or combative individuals; riot or crowd control situations or other violent civil unrest; situations where use of the munitions would provide a tactical advantage; training or authorized demonstration. A “tactical advantage” could include but is not limited to: deployment into a structure or vehicle where an armed violent/self-destructive subject is barricaded, or a riot situation where, deployment can either create an environment that causes violent persons to disperse or leave the area or limit the advance of a violent group or deny a violent group access to specific areas or law enforcement.
c. Authorized Use:
Only officers who are certified to use the pepper ball system. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize pepper ball guns and pepper balls only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:
Officers must attend a manufacturer specific training course to be certified to use the pepper ball systems.
f. Expected Lifespan:
I. Pepper ball guns, no expiration. They will need parts and service as they
34.25 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 17
wear out or break.
II. Pepper Balls, 2 years.
g. Fiscal Impact
Pepper ball guns, $0-$500 per year. Pepper
Balls $0-$500 per year.
13. Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) (Category 13)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
GENASYS Inc. LRAD-100X. Purchase cost: $8,179.77. Quantity: 1. This device is a self-contained, lightweight, battery operated hailer that communicates with great intelligibility up to 600 meters. It emits acoustic sound pressure levels up to 140db. It provides clear unmistakable, intelligible communications and stunning alert tones and can play pre-recorded audio messages, mp3 audio files and live broadcasting via a handheld microphone. It can broadcast tones at a volume that causes discomfort to those who hear the tones. The device provides directional sound capabilities allowing the user to direct the uncomfortable tones at a specific person or group of persons.
b. Purpose:
To serve as a notification/communication system during critical incidents, where the user is conveying a message to a person or persons. To be used during violent or riotous situations as a means to advise participants that they are involved in legally prohibited activities. To be used to broadcast alert tones in a directed manner at persons involved in riotous or destructive behavior as a means of dispersing the crowd and stopping the behavior. This device provides the SCPD with the ability to address violent persons or groups of persons during a riot or other violent crowd control situation without the use of kinetic less lethal weapons such 40mm launchers or chemical agents, allowing SCPD to attempt de-escalation via less forceful means.
c. Authorized Use:
Only officers who are trained in its use, with the authorization of an incident commander, may use this device.
d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize the LRAD only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law.
e. Required Training:
Officers must attend a department specified training to use this device. f. Expected Lifespan:
20-25 years. Repairs completed as needed.
g. Fiscal Impact:
No known fiscal impact, the device is new.
14. 40mm Projectile Launchers (Category 14)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
The 40mm projectile launcher is a Less Lethal platform. It is not a firearm and is not capable of firing any military grade explosive projectile. It is designed to fire a projectile designed to be used against persons in situations where lethal force is
34.26 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 18
prohibited. It allows officers to use Less Lethal Direct Impact spins stabilized munitions at distances up to 120 feet. The munitions cause pain compliance via blunt force impact. They can incapacitate violent subjects armed with weapons that are not firearms, allowing officers to safely take a subject into custody. The standoff capabilities allow officers to apply force via the impact rounds and assess if further application of force is required. This mitigates the need for officers to approach a violent/armed subject, reducing the chances of a lethal force scenario.
I. Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-single barrel launchers. Purchase cost: $11,620. Quantity: 14. (No longer manufactured)
II. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1425 40mm single barrel launchers.
Purchase cost: $12,450. Quantity: 15.
III. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1440 40mm 4 shot multi launchers.
Purchase cost: $3,798. Quantity: 2.
IV. Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm 6 shot multi launcher. Purchase cost:
Approximately $3,000. Quantity: 1.
b. Purpose:
To be used as a less lethal tool, to apply pain compliance to self-destructive, armed or combative/resistive persons, to prevent the person from causing harm to themselves or others. Also used during violent riots or large crowd control disturbances. They can be used to mark persons engaged in the above activity making the person(s) identifiable for arrest.
c. Authorized Use:
Only officers who have completed a department training course may deploy these less lethal tools. Every patrol vehicle has a single launcher in it for use by patrol officers. Only officers specifically trained in the use and application during a crowd control or riotous situation may use them in those instances. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies, including but not limited to, Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302 and Emergency services Tactical Team-404. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize these devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force. e. Required Training:
Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.
Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, NFDD and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications. The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:
I. Defense Technologies DT1325 40mm-single barrel launchers: No expiration. No longer manufactured. Will be serviced or repaired as long as viable.
II. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1425 40mm single barrel launchers: No expiration. Will need parts and service when they wear out or break.
34.27 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 19
III. Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT) 1440 40mm 4 shot multi launchers: No expiration. Will need parts and service when they wear out or break.
IV. Penn Arms PGL65-40 40mm 6 shot multi launcher: No expiration. Will need parts and service when it wears out or breaks.
g. Fiscal Impact:
For all of the listed launchers: $0-500 per year.
15. 40mm ammunition: (Category 14)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
40mm ammunition meant to be used in 40mm Projectile Launchers described above. All of the 40mm rounds in this section are approved for use against people if the force is justified. SCPD has three impact munitions, the Exact Impact is a less lethal projectile made of a foam rubber often called a “sponge round” with a consistency similar to a sponge. It is fired using smokeless powder and is designed to incapacitate people through pain compliance and impact. It is blue in color and can be fired from ranges between 5’ and 120’. The Direct Impact round is an impact munition that carries a powder payload within the projectile.
The payload can be a chemical agent powder or it can contain an inert marking powder. These munitions provide the same less lethal pain compliance/deescalation/violence mitigation functions as the Exact Impact munitions, with the added benefit of an irritant powder, or the ability to make a riotous subject identifiable for arrest. The SCPD also uses reusable training ammunition that allow true to real training at lower cost.
I. eXact Impact 40mm: Purchase cost: $4,011. Quantity: 140.
II. Direct Impact 40mm OC. Purchase cost: $732. Quantity: 24.
III. Direct Impact 40mm Marking. Purchase cost: $970. Quantity: 32.
IV. Training Sponge ammunition 24 round kit. Purchase cost: $2,537.
Quantity: 7.
b. Purpose:
To be used as a less lethal tool in situations where lethal force is prohibited. To assist officers in intervening in violent or potentially violent situations by use of pain compliance. To allow officers the ability to apply less lethal force from distance or behind cover, which provides time to assess the effect of the force used and re-apply or discontinue force as the situation allows. c. Authorized Use:
Only officers who are trained in the use of these projectiles are authorized to use them. Situations where use may be authorized include but are not limited to:
armed self-destructive individuals, violent resistive individuals, violent riotous individuals, situations where use would increase safety and mitigate the need for higher uses of force, authorized training or demonstrations. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
To be used in accordance with Penal Code section 13652 (AB 48). All applicable policies including but not limited to Use of Force-300, Control Devices and Techniques-302. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize these devices only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
34.28 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 20
e. Required Training:
Officers must attend department training regarding the use of these items. This training includes SCPD policy, legal obligations and reporting requirements.
Instructors must attend a 40 hour POST certified instructor course regarding the use of chemical agents, NFDD and deployment platforms, in addition to manufacture specific instructor certifications. The SCPD maintains officers who are POST certified as instructors of chemical munitions, NFDD and launching platforms. These officers in turn train other members of the department. f. Expected Lifespan:
I. eXact Impact 40mm-5 years.
II. Direct Impact 40mm OC-5 years.
III. Direct Impact 40mm Marking-5 years.
IV. Training Sponge ammunition 24 round kit-5 years.
g. Fiscal Impact:
$0- 5,000 per year. Given the 5 year life span of these munitions, the SCPD may not need to purchase more every fiscal year.
16. Other Specified Items/Equipment (Category 15)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities and purchase cost:
The department currently issues AR-15/M4 style Carbine rifles to its officers as a means of addressing potential lethal force situations. The department issues two brands, Colt and Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT). The Carbine rifle is a lightweight, gas operated, air-cooled, shoulder fired, semi-automatic, magazine fed weapon. It is capable at providing accurate fire at various distances. The Hornady 5.56x45mm NATO, 75 grain BTHP (Boat Tail Hollow Point) TAP (Tactical Application Police) is the current standard issue rifle ammunition for all carbines in the department. This ammunition type is a medium caliber rifle round.
It is capable of defeating soft body armor a subject may be wearing, as well as other intermediate barriers. The duty round is specifically designed to limit over penetration thus mitigating danger to innocent persons or other officers. SCPD uses ammunition of the same caliber ammunition for training purposes.
Generally, the training ammunition is 55 grain full metal jacket ammunition. This type of ammunition is solely for training purposes. The cost of the training ammunition is less than that of the duty ammunition.
I. Colt Carbines. Purchase cost: $33,250. Quantity: 35.
II. LMT Carbines. Purchase cost: $49,000. Quantity: 35.
III. Hornady 5.56x45mm NATO, 75 grain BTHP TAP. Purchase cost:
$4,560. Quantity: 5,700. SCPD does not have to order duty ammunition every fiscal year.
IV. .223/5.56 55 grain full metal jacket is the standard training round the department uses. The manufacturer of the ammunition varies based on what is available at the time the department needs to make an order. Quantity: 35,500. Cost: $12,070.
b. Purpose:
34.29 Santa Cruz Police Department
Santa Cruz PD-CA, Policy Manual
April 2023 Military Equipment - 21
The Carbine rifle provides officers the ability to employ a more precise weapon in potential lethal force encounters. It provides officers the ability address armed violent subjects at a greater distance than with a handgun. It provides officers with the ability to defeat soft body armor and intermediate barriers when addressing armed violent subjects.
c. Authorized Use:
Only officers who have completed a POST required 16 hour training course are authorized to use the carbine rifle and associated ammunition. d. Legal and Procedural Rules:
All applicable department policies, including but not limited to, Use of Force-300, Firearms-306. It is the policy of the SCPD to utilize firearms and ammunition only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
e. Required Training:
All officers are required to attend a POST required 16 hour Patrol Rifle course before they are permitted to use these weapons. Currently this course is mandatory for all officers after graduating the Academy, before beginning the Field Training Program
f. Expected Lifespan:
Carbine Rifles, approximately 20 years. Service is performed as needed and parts are replaced as they become worn or break.
Hornady TAP 75 grain 5.56x45mm NATO, no expiration.
.223/5.56x45 training ammunition, no expiration.
g. Fiscal Impact:
Carbine Rifles: $0-$12,000 per fiscal year.
Ammunition: $0-$40,000 per fiscal year.
34.30 EXHIBIT B
34.31 Santa Cruz Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Report