City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: August 24, 2022
Agenda Item: 11.C
1 of 26
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director, Community Services Department, Housing and Human Services
Subject: Approval of Human Services Grants Program FY 2023-27 Request for Proposals
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Approve the proposed FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) Funding Guidelines (Attachment H); and
2. Authorize staff to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the next four-year HSGP funding cycle (FY 2023-27).
Summary
The City’s Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) is administered through the Community Services Department (CSD) and funds an array of safety-net programs for vulnerable and underserved individuals and families in Santa Monica. Services provided through the City-funded programs include, but are not limited to:
• childcare subsidies;
• school-based mental health services;
• job training and placement;
• food assistance;
• legal services;
• programs for seniors; and
• homeless services.
2 of 26
HSGP is a key component of the City’s overall efforts to support our community and provide services that keep vulnerable residents healthy, stable, and housed. With the next funding cycle scheduled to begin in July 2023, staff is seeking Council approval of funding guidelines for a future FY 2023-27 Human Services Grants Program along with authorization to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications for the FY 2023-27 HSGP funding cycle.
This report provides a brief overview of the evolution of the HSGP, including the core values that have defined the services and responses to community needs over the years. While individual grants represent a small portion of the local and regional safety net, as the single largest source of City funds to local non-profit social service agencies, HSGP has shouldered the burden of community expectations to address wide-ranging socio-economic policy issues, including youth violence, homelessness, and behavioral health-related issues, while also being the focus of concerns related to ensuring transparency and accountability. In acknowledging these concerns, the report outlines efforts to solicit community input on future funding guidelines including an outcomes framework, target populations, participant eligibility, agency eligibility, and scoring criteria, as well as staff recommendations based on feedback. The report also describes the processes for identifying and securing an expert review panel to score and rank applications, and recommended guidelines to ensure a well-balanced grant portfolio and greater transparency. The report concludes with a timeline for the RFP process and the awarding of funds.
Background
History of Community Grants
The Human Services Grants Program (HSGP) is designed to address critical community needs and gaps in existing service systems, while also offering funding stability to local social service agencies. Founded in 1974 as the Community Development (CD) Program, the grants program has always prioritized funding for:
• programs that document effective services to target populations including seniors, youth and families, people with disabilities, and other low-income Santa Monica households;
3 of 26
• organizations that demonstrate strong interagency coordination; and • agencies that leverage limited City resources through significant contribution of non-City funds.
As early as 1976, the City Council established program selection criteria to maximize the impact of City-funded social service programs, avoid duplication of efforts, and prioritize high-quality services to Santa Monica residents. What began as four nonprofits has grown, along with Santa Monica’s population and social service needs, into what is now known as the Human Services Grants Program (HSGP), with an $8 million budget and portfolio of 19 agencies and 35 programs (in FY2021-22, see June 23, 2020 Staff Report).
FY2021-22 funding sources for the $8 million HSGP include:
• City General Fund $7.57M (94%),
• Federal entitlement and competitive grants $223K (3%) such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Continuum of Care (CoC) funds,
• Other local revenue sources $248K (3%) including Proposition A transportation.
The current HSGP grant cycle started in FY 2015-16, when Council approved 4-year grants for 22 local non-profits (June 23, 2015) at an annual funding level of $8,165,812 (referenced in past council actions). In FY2018-19, Council adopted the Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing (Attachment G) and departments worked City-wide to align goals and outcomes. CSD brought in Canavan and Associates —a Cambridge, MA-based firm with nearly 15 years of experience working at local, state, federal, and international levels on program engagement and design—to engage the community in a redesign of HSGP performance measures and outcomes to align with Framework goals.
On January 22, 2019, Council granted a two-year extension to the FY2015-19 grant cycle to allow time for meaningful community input in advance of a Fall 2020 RFP release (referenced in past council actions).
4 of 26
RFP development halted in early 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic as staff shifted to focus on emergency response, working with HSGP grantees to pivot local services to respond to pandemic needs, and launching two new programs—the Virginia Avenue Park Food Pantry and the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). Both the City and local agencies adapted to respond to local needs and reprioritize and deliver essential services during a time of limited resources and facing an uncertain future.
Three months into the pandemic, in June 2020, Council adopted a budget for FY2020- 21 that reduced the previously proposed City budget by nearly 25%, including a decrease of over 12% to the HSGP, resulting in a $1.035M cut to local services to vulnerable populations (see June 23, 2020 staff report). A Fall 2020 RFP release became not only unattainable, but unfeasible given the unpredictability of resources and needs. As a result, on January 26, 2021, Council approved a second two-year extension to the HSGP funding cycle— acknowledging the particular hardship of releasing an RFP for a new, multi-year grant cycle mid-pandemic amidst so much uncertainty and setting the new start date for the next RFP funding cycle for July 1, 2023 (referenced in past council actions). Ultimately, the current grant cycle was never intended to be eight years. However, the desire to align HSGP with Citywide goals and outcomes, and then a global pandemic resulted in a prolonged grant cycle, which staff do not anticipate happening again.
Guiding Principles
The following guiding principles have historically shaped the scope and focus of the grants program:
• Multi-year funding: Funding equates to services and jeopardizing the availability of services every cycle creates disruptions in service delivery to people in need.
Program participants need the assurance of knowing that services will be available for more than a year should they need them. Multi-year funding allows for stability in hiring and programming and reduces administrative burden so agencies can focus on service delivery. In 2010, Council approved an extension of the three-year grant cycle to create a four-year cycle to align with the City’s 5 of 26
biennial budget process. Staff also renegotiate contracts every year, which provides an opportunity to revise program plans and pivot to better meet participant needs, and Council approves agency funding levels annually during the Budget process. Shorter grant cycles would limit long-range planning, disrupt services and staffing, and add to agencies’ administrative burden, taking away from resources needed to develop, implement, and run programs. • Defined Santa Monica Program Participants (SMPP): HSGP includes a specific definition of who can be served with City grant funds to ensure local resources are serving local needs. As one of 88 cities in Los Angeles County, the City expects local agencies to use regional resources first to serve SMPP. City funding ensures that SMPP are prioritized by these programs, creating set-aside slots specifically for Santa Monica eligible households, and allowing flexibility in services where County funds are more restrictive. City funding is also used to fill gaps in services for SMPP when non-City funding is fully expended or insufficient due to time/service limits or eligibility issues.
• Depth of Services Versus Breadth of Services: As the cost of delivering services has increased over time and the needs of low-income households have grown more complex, the grants program made intentional changes to focus on holistic programs that can provide deep levels of support and robust comprehensive services to a smaller number of highly vulnerable individuals who are SMPP. This translates into more clinically focused and intensive services (by licensed and certified staff) over a longer period, as opposed to providing lighttouch, short interventions to more people. • Serving Multiple Populations: The HSGP has long sought to preserve the diversity of Santa Monica residents by supporting marginalized and underserved community members. Over the first three decades of the grants program, as the amount of available City funding increased, the grants portfolio evolved to serve many populations including seniors, people with disabilities, youth and their families, low-income households, and people experiencing homelessness. While the needs of these different populations ebb and flow over time, and some populations have surges in need, it is critical that the HSGP maintain a core 6 of 26
stable safety net for all populations rather than attempting to meet the exclusive needs of one group at the expense of others.
• Leveraging Non-City Resources: City funds are insufficient to meet all local needs. The HSGP stipulates a minimum 30% cash match requirement, meaning City funds can only be used to cover up to 70% of the cost of services to SMPP and agencies must secure non-City funding for the balance of those costs. This encourages agencies to use the stability and reliability of annual City grant funds as a positive asset to secure other funding from private and public sources.
Agencies annually match over $14 million in non-City dollars, meaning that the $8 million in annual HSGP grants is used to leverage a total of $22 million in services to SMPP.
Early RFP Development – Community Engagement
From May to October 2019, CSD and Canavan and
Associates held a series of sessions to solicit
community input and feedback in preparation for the
planned upcoming grant cycle. Staff invited over
10,000 individuals via public announcements on social
media, as well as through direct, in-person outreach.
Specifically, staff conducted in-person outreach at four farmers markets, a Twilight on the Pier concert, and
two Meet Me at Reed (Park) events. Canavan and Associates held a total of twentyseven Community and Stakeholder workshops and two Town Halls and presented to five City Commissions. Through these efforts, more than 350 people participated, including executive directors, program participants, service providers, first responders, business and faith community leaders, representatives from Neighborhood Associations, policy makers, educators, youth, and the general public. In addition, staff conducted two online surveys in English and Spanish and collected over 150 survey responses.
41 Engagement
Events
350
Participants
150
Survey
Responses
7 of 26
These community input sessions were guided by a central question:
What does an effective human services system in Santa Monica look like to you? Figure 1. Community Input Collected August 29, 2019, at Santa Monica Institute Canavan and Associates documented and analyzed these conversations and concluded that community members are interested in services that address the following key concerns: behavioral health (inclusive of mental health and substance abuse), vulnerable seniors, youth, people with disabilities, and services for people experiencing homelessness, including homeless prevention services.
The responses elicited from this extensive community engagement process are consistent with more recent comments received from both City Council and the community and include specific areas of interest, such as: increased accountability of service providers, increased capacity for comprehensive and holistic services for youth and their families, and increased funding for high-quality service delivery and decreased staff turnover, as well as addressing homelessness through prevention services.
An additional product of the community conversations about effective human service systems was feedback about the process behind service delivery (funding agencies, monitoring agency performance, strength of partnerships within the network of care, etc.). Community stakeholders identified three areas for process improvement, and City staff have responded in the following ways:
8 of 26
• Transparency
o Held multiple public community meetings to solicit feedback on RFP components
o Publicly posted draft HSGP RFP components on City website o Implemented a public process for identifying the RFP review panel • Accountability
o Revised outcomes to focus on program impacts
o Posted program and fiscal reports from HSGP grantees to City website o Contracted with Moss Adams to conduct a third-party independent audit of current grantees
o Incorporated past performance as a scoring criterion in the RFP • Collaboration
o Partnered with the We Are Santa Monica Fund Advisory Board o Partnered with the Social Services Commission on RFP development, which included an invitation for feedback to all Neighborhood Associations and community stakeholders to elicit a diverse array of resident input o Incorporated collaboration across agencies as a scoring criterion in the RFP Social Services System Needs and HSGP Funding Levels
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, social service agencies regionally and nationally were struggling to meet operating costs as well as recruit and retain staff. This has been particularly true in Santa Monica where agencies face high rent and many staff endure long commutes due to prohibitively high local housing costs, especially on a non-profit salary. The pandemic has only compounded pre-existing stressors, as agencies struggle to meet even higher operating costs and secure staff amidst inflation and an exceptionally competitive job market, all while ramping up services to address the massive increase in social service needs. Results from the 2022 National Non-Profit Fund survey underscore these challenges, with long-term financial sustainability being the top concern amongst non-profits, and over half of non-profits reporting problems employing enough staff and offering competitive pay.
9 of 26
A consistent theme that arose from community feedback was the need to increase funding to meet current needs and address emerging, future needs. While the needs of Santa Monicans have steadily increased during the current 8-year funding cycle (and spiked during the pandemic), funding for the Human Services Grants Program has not risen proportionally. The last substantial enhancement to HSGP funding occurred in FY 2015-16, when Council approved a $550,000 increase, which expanded the total pool of funding available to applicants to $8,166,812. As a result, the reality is that existing funding may be insufficient to address the community’s emerging needs, let alone established needs.
The Review Panel and Council will need to carefully consider proposals to ensure a future grants portfolio that, while far from addressing all local needs, is responsive to current and emerging needs and will continue to provide a range of interventions—from upstream approaches to intensive case management—across populations. Staff recommendations outlined in this report seek to provide guidelines for the RFP to create opportunities for new programs while preserving core safety net services that residents rely upon to meet their basic needs.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
01/23/15
(Attachment A)
Council adopted funding rationale for HSGP based on documented community needs and priorities
05/28/2015
(Attachment B)
Council provided comments on proposed HSGP FY2015-19 funding recommendations as part of the FY2015-17 biennial budget study session
06/23/2015
(Attachment C)
Council awarded four-year grants to non-profit agencies through the FY2015-19 HSGP
01/22/2019
(Attachment D)
Council approved a two-year extension of the FY2015-19 HSGP funding
01/26/2021
(Attachment E)
Council approved a two-year extension of the HSGP funding cycle 10 of 26
06/28/22
(Attachment F)
Council adopted the second year of the FY 2021-23 Biennial Budget, including funding for the final year of the current HSGP cycle
Discussion
CSD staff began updating the HSGP Request for Proposals (RFP) at the start of 2022 with community input received during the Canavan outcomes development process, as well as feedback from City Council members. Staff approached this process seeking to offer multiple opportunities for the community to review and provide feedback on key components of the RFP, including agency and program participant eligibility, proposal scoring criteria, and proposed outcomes. Staff also sought to update the RFP to reflect the City’s efforts to advance equity and inclusion.
The proposed HSGP funding rationale details this updated process and seeks to ensure that the HSGP continues to support a range of services—from early intervention (for children 0-3) to intensive case management—across underserved Santa Monica populations and to leverage non-City funds to maximize impact.
Community Input
Staff held three public information and feedback sessions hosted by the Social Services Commission (SSC) in February, March, and May of 2022. Each meeting covered a different set of recommendations:
• February—participant eligibility and scoring criteria • March—program outcomes
• May—review panel development and protocols, and funding allocations by population Staff advertised these meetings to residents via the City’s social media channels, City media alerts, and City-wide email distribution lists, including SaMoNews, which reaches over 47,000 recipients. Meetings included real-time closed captioning, American Sign Language interpretation, and Spanish language interpretation. Additionally, staff 11 of 26
reached out directly to Santa Monica Neighborhood Associations, inviting them to participate and offering presentations to each neighborhood group on the topics covered. Recordings of the meetings and associated materials are available at the Social Service Commission website: smgov.net/ssc.
Staff invited the public to view draft RFP materials on the HSGP website (https://www.santamonica.gov/human-services-grants-program) and submit public input via email through June 15. Staff received 4 written comments during that time. A summary of community feedback is also available on the website.
Proposed 2023-2027 RFP
Staff used the feedback received during the community engagement process to inform the development of the new RFP. The following sections describe the specific RFP components in more detail.
Santa Monica Program Participant (SMPP) Eligibility
As included under Guiding Principles above, the HSGP relies on Council-adopted criteria for Santa Monica Program Participants (SMPP) to ensure that local funds serve local needs. Applicants have flexibility in determining the population(s) they propose to serve, as long as they can demonstrate an unmet current need, and the proposed participants meet SMPP eligibility.
SMPP Eligibility
• Individuals or households with a permanent address in Santa Monica • Students enrolled in a Santa Monica public school (for school-based services)
*See Attachment H, Section 1 for additional criteria for at-promise youth and people experiencing homelessness
12 of 26
There are additional SMPP criteria for two populations, at-promise youth and people experiencing homelessness, to further ensure that HSGP funds are maximized and focused on community-identified needs. “At-promise” youth have great potential and experience personal and academic risk factors that can hinder their success. Programs with this focus provide assertive case management for identified high-risk children, youth, and their families; and lead coordination of system-wide case conference meetings with local social service providers to respond to their holistic needs. The additional SMPP criteria for at-promise youth can be found in Attachment H, Section 1.
Staff are not proposing any major changes to SMPP criteria for at-promise youth.
Due to the limited resources discussed earlier, for programs proposing to serve households experiencing homelessness (individuals or families), Council adopted a more specific set of criteria for determining who should be prioritized for local services.
These criteria ensure that HSGP-funded programs prioritize services for people most likely to die on the streets without intervention, people generating the most calls to Fire and Police, and people who became homeless in Santa Monica. Under the current criteria, an unhoused person or family who recently arrived in Santa Monica or who only occasionally stays in Santa Monica would not be considered an eligible SMPP. Any person experiencing homelessness who does not fall under one of the additional criteria for PEH would instead be served by County or other regional resources.
Community feedback included recommendations to expand the definition of homeless SMPP. However, without significant additional funding, expanding the current eligibility would only dilute available services, and move away from the research-supported prioritization of people by name and by vulnerability. Therefore, staff recommends maintaining existing SMPP criteria for People Experiencing Homelessness.
A complete list of all proposed participant eligibility criteria can be found in Attachment H, Section 1.
13 of 26
Agency Eligibility
A consistent theme that arose during community feedback was that the HSGP feels like a “closed” system and the process does not encourage or facilitate applications from new agencies. Staff worked to respond to this feedback while still ensuring that future HSGP-funded agencies have the organizational capacity to administer public funds and operate quality programs in compliance with fiscally responsible best practices and local, state, and federal regulations. The proposed criteria for agency eligibility reflect standard practices in the non-profit field.
Qualifying agencies must be a non-profit registered 501(c)(3) organization with a board of directors or a hospital/educational institution with a governing board and maintain an accounting system in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Agencies must also certify that they are and will remain in compliance with federal legislation, as well as non-discrimination in hiring or provision of services, and are in good standing with the State of California Office of the Secretary of State.
If awarded funding, agencies must: possess a current and valid Santa Monica business license for each Santa Monica location where services are provided, have an established Grievance Procedure/Policy for participants, and submit Good Neighbor Agreement(s).
Staff are proposing a change from past agency eligibility criteria that required proposing agencies to be located or operating in Santa Monica already to ensure programs were accessible to SMPP and familiar with local community needs. Given the limited number of social service non-profits in Santa Monica, and in response to community feedback to expand eligibility criteria, staff revised the requirement to allow agencies not currently located within the City to describe their planned service delivery model, including supporting documentation of how they plan to provide services accessible to SMPP and/or locate themselves in the city. For example, an agency might consider co-leasing space in Santa Monica with an established organization or identify a new space to co- 14 of 26
lease with a partner agency. In their application, this agency would provide a letter of agreement or MOU with the collaborating organization(s).
Even with this expanded eligibility criteria, there may still be newer agencies with innovative ideas that do not yet have a track record of using public funding effectively or otherwise do not qualify. Staff received consistent community feedback on the desire to ensure newer agencies have opportunities to apply for funding. With the goal of helping agencies build capacity for a future funding cycle, the HSGP RFP will include information about other local and regional funding opportunities that might be a better fit, including the We Are Santa Monica Fund. The RFP will also include available grant resource hubs to guide agencies to other funding sources. The City encourages agencies to apply for these opportunities in addition to or instead of HSGP funding as applicable. The complete proposed agency eligibility criteria can be found in Attachment H, Section 2.
Outcomes
New Outcomes Framework
Core to the HSGP is understanding the difference that programs can make in the lives of participants, which can have a positive impact on the community at large. Outcomes are key tools in assessing this impact. Outcomes data inform program planning and help identify where things are working and where improvement is needed, and support data-driven decision making.
Given the essential role that outcomes play in the grants program, the 2023-2027 HSGP RFP is an opportunity to re-imagine and standardize outcomes to incorporate current research, reflect the needs of underserved populations, and be responsive to Council and community priorities. Using information gleaned from the community engagement process, Council priorities, and current best practices and research, staff reframed how outcomes are structured into a new framework to guide the HSGP and ensure grantees address the most important needs identified through these processes.
The proposed framework provides uniformity across agencies and programs to clearly measure and report performance, while also allowing flexibility for HSGP programs to 15 of 26
be nimble and innovative in the way they address the community’s most pressing needs.
The revised outcomes framework is organized in three components: community impact areas, goals, and indicators.
Figure 2. Outcomes Framework
New to the RFP are the community impact areas of lifelong learning, stability, and health and wellness. Staff identified these impact areas using the results of the community engagement process and they reflect Council and community priorities. The proposed areas also provide a new, outcomes-focused way for applicant agencies to think about their proposed programs and services. Attachment H, Section 3 shows the complete outcome framework as proposed for inclusion in the RFP, including the specific framework components which are defined in more detail as follows:
Community Impact Areas
Staff divided the key, high-level priorities emphasized throughout the community input process into three areas: 1) lifelong learning, 2) stability, and 3) health and wellness.
Lifelong Learning
Overview
Lifelong Learning describes programs that facilitate access to high-quality education and training for individuals of all ages. Programs that support Lifelong Learning focus 16 of 26
on supporting access to childcare and early learning, improving the school experience, enhancing key transitions from pre-k through college, and/or increasing access to education among adults and throughout the community.
Program Examples
• Tuition assistance
• Programs that support attendance,
academic performance, and access
to school-based mental health
services
• Programs that support academic
transitions from preschool through
college and beyond.
Stability
Overview
Stability captures a broad range of needs that impact individuals’ and households’ economic and social stability. Programs that address housing stability focus on increasing the number of vulnerable households that receive appropriate supports to maintain stable, quality housing and/or expanding access to interim and permanent housing solutions. Programs that address economic and social stability focus on improving economic wellbeing, expanding access to affordable transportation, and/or increasing parent and caregiver support.
Program Examples
• Legal services that prevent eviction
• Home modifications
• In-home supportive services
• Case management
• Employment services
• Financial literacy services
• Adult day services
• Paratransit services
Health and Wellness
Overview
Health and Wellness focuses on achieving physical, mental, and emotional health and wellbeing. Programs that support participants’ health and wellness aim to improve behavioral health, including mental health and/or substance abuse; advance physical health; increase food security (i.e., access to affordable, healthy food); and/or support connections between residents and their community.
17 of 26
Program Examples
• Behavioral health treatment
• Provision of medical services
• Food pantries and food banks
• Programs that support enhanced
interpersonal interactions, community
events, and connections through
technology
Goals
Each community impact area is aligned with a series of goals, which describe a program’s intended impact and the big picture outcomes they aim to achieve. These goals are intentionally broad and applicable to a wide range of services and populations.
Indicators
Each goal has several associated example indicators that assess progress towards that goal. Agencies have the option to select from the example indicators defined by the City or to propose their own. Indicators should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART) and clearly support the program’s goals. All indicators will assess progress made during the program year (i.e., annually). The Citydefined example indicators for each goal are included in Attachment H, Section 3.
Outcomes Selection Process
Agencies are required to submit outcomes for each program for which they apply for funding. Staff propose that agencies adhere here to the following outcomes selection process to identify relevant impact area(s), goal(s), and indicators for their program:
Figure 3. Agency Outcomes Selection Process
The following section walks through the outcomes selection process by providing a description of each step and offering an example of how a potential HSGP applicant 18 of 26
might select their community impact areas, goals, and indicators. The example applicant in this scenario is an interim housing program that provides shelter, case management, mental health services, and supports individuals experiencing homelessness in securing permanent housing.
Step 1: Community Impact Areas
Agencies select one or more community impact area on which their program will focus.
They must select Lifelong Learning, Stability, and/or Health and Wellness.
Step 2: Goals
Agencies select one or more goals associated with each impact area. They must select from the goals listed in Attachment H, Section 3 and can select as many goals from this list as appropriate for their program.
Step 3: Indicators
Agencies propose up to three primary indicators that will measure progress towards their program’s annual goal(s), using the example indicators in Attachment H, Section 3 Interim Housing Example Applicant: Community Impact Areas The program might select Stability and Health and Wellness as their community impact areas because they provide housing and mental health services.
Interim Housing Example Applicant: Goals
The program might select:
1. Increase the number of vulnerable households who access interim and permanent hosing solutions
2. Increase economic wellbeing
3. Improve behavioral health
Interim Housing Example Applicant: Indicators
The program might propose three primary indicators and one secondary indicator.
They might select three primary indicators from the example list, including:
1. Sixty percent (60%) of unhoused households obtain interim housing
2. Forty percent (40%) of unhoused households obtain permanent housing
3. Ninety percent (90%) of participants maintain or increase their income The program might also propose one secondary indicator that they create:
1. Seventy-five (75%) of participants with a mental health diagnosis demonstrate improved coping skills, as measured by the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale. 19 of 26
as a guide. Indicators should reflect both services received (e.g., number of participants who receive independent living assistance) and more substantive changes in participants’ lives (e.g., percent of participants who remain in their home for six months or longer). Agencies can also propose up to three optional secondary indicators (for a total of six total indicators). These optional indicators can illustrate their program’s services but will not be used to directly measure performance.
Outcome Statement and Participant Impact
The Community Impact Area, Goal, and Indicator all tie together to form one outcome statement that summarizes the program’s impact on participants. Each indicator will form one outcome statement
Outcomes Community Impact
While HSGP program outcomes are purposefully framed to measure a program’s ability to positively impact participants’ lives, the collective impact of achieving these individual goals results in benefits to the community at large. Considering the interim housing example applicant, this program would have positive impacts not only on program participants, but also contribute toward maintaining equitable access to safe, healthy open spaces for the broader community.
Scoring
Community feedback was clear on the importance of a transparent proposal scoring process. As a result, staff redesigned the proposed RFP to include a detailed scoring chart that connects each component of the application to elements to be scored and the corresponding point value. A complete application packet will consist of a program plan, Interim Housing Example Applicant: Outcome Statements
This program will impact participants' health and wellness by improving their behavioral health, as demonstrated by at least 75% of participants with a mental health diagnosis showing enhanced coping skills (measured annually by the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale).
20 of 26
a program budget, and supporting documentation, and will be scored under two categories: program and fiscal.
Program Scoring
Members of the review panel will score the program category based on the applicant’s description of the proposed program; organizational capacity, policies, and procedures; and proposed participant outcomes. Below is a description of each area along with its point allocation:
• Program Summary (30 points): Applicants will specify the target population they intend to serve, how, and why. The panel will review this section to see whether the program is serving a population relevant to the community and the services are addressing an identified local need. The panel will also assess how the program is leveraging best practices, how it promotes equity, and whether the program is accessible to the target population, particularly under the limitations of the pandemic.
• Past Performance and Organizational Capacity (50 points): The RFP will require all applicants to submit reports from the agency’s largest funder for the last two fiscal years which will be reviewed for whether the organization has a track record of providing high impact, fiscally sound services. The review panel will assess submitted program plans and proposed staffing structure to determine whether the agency has the infrastructure in place to effectively implement the proposed program. Reviewers will also assess organizational policies and practices to see whether and how equity is integrated. This section will also ask about agency partnerships to ensure that the agency is integrated within its system of care, and that the agency has cultivated partnerships regionally and especially within the City.
• Proposed Outcomes (20 points): Here agencies will describe the intended impact of the proposed program. (An applicant agency’s past outcomes performance will be assessed within the Past Performance section above.) 21 of 26
These outcomes should be clearly identified and align with the guidelines described above and in Attachment H, Section 3. Agencies should also specify a plan to collect data and measure progress.
Focus on Equity
Program scoring also reflects a focus on equity, asking agencies to demonstrate their policies and practices related to promoting equity within their organization and in their work.
Agencies funded by the HSGP should have established
policies and procedures around Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) and specify how they will provide coverage and outreach to underserved populations and/or geographies within the City.
Under the scoring sub-section for Program Summary, reviewers will assess whether proposed services are culturally appropriate, relevant, and sensitive to serve economically, ethnically, and socially diverse populations. Review panel members will score the Program Summary based on items that promote service accessibility to diverse populations, for example: employing staff who self-identify with the target population and/or fluent speak relevant languages.
Under the scoring sub-sections for Past Performance and Organizational Capacity, the review panel will score agency/program policies and practices based on how they address DEI for participants and staff, including opportunities for program participants to inform program evaluation and design, and for staff to participate in relevant and ongoing professional development.
Fiscal Scoring
The review panel will score the fiscal category based on the applicant’s program budget, most recent audited financial statements, and monitoring reports for the last two fiscal years from the agency’s largest funder. Below is a description of each area along with its point allocation:
Programs Should
Demonstrate their
Commitment to Equity
22 of 26
• Program Budget (30 Points): Program budgets should outline all anticipated expenses associated with the program and will be reviewed to see if overall costs are reasonable, salaries are adequate, and non-city funds are sufficiently leveraged.
• Audited Financial Statements (10 points): Applicants will submit their three most recently completed audited financial statements which the panel will review to identify any outstanding findings or concerns.
• Historical Financial Performance (10 points): The panel will review the agency’s most recent monitoring reports from the agency’s largest funder for items including concerns around spend-down issues, returned funds, ability to meet cash match requirements, and/or any other fiscal-related findings.
An additional resource that will be available to the review panel is a report by the City’s internal auditor, Moss Adams LLP, which is completing a review of agencies currently funded by the HSGP. Findings from the Moss Adams report may inform future funding recommendations.
Guidelines for Application Review and Funding Recommendations In addition to the revised RFP components reviewed so far, staff updated the procedures used to review applications and develop funding recommendations to invite more community participation and ownership, while providing guiderails to ensure a balanced safety net of services to a broad array of populations. Staff made these changes in response to requests from the community and Council to increase transparency.
Proposal Review and Evaluation
Historically, HSGP proposal review panels have been comprised of a combination of City staff, members of City boards and commissions, and external subject-matter experts from Santa 23 of 26
Monica and beyond. City staff would solicit and select reviewers from the community and from regional and national organizations based on their knowledge of non-profit social service systems, non-profit management, public policy, or specific subpopulations.
For the 2023-27 HSGP RFP, staff proposes to work with the We Are Santa Monica Fund (WASMF) Advisory Board to conduct an open solicitation for qualified individuals to submit a statement of interest to join the review panel. The WASMF Advisory Board is well-positioned as an advisory body to the City with current responsibility for awarding WASM funds. That role, combined with their diverse composition of Santa Monica residents with backgrounds in non-profit management, demonstrate that they have both the fitness and relevant expertise to lead the recruitment and selection process for qualified HSGP proposal raters.
Members of the HSGP Review Panel will be subject matter experts in the fields of youth and families, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, seniors, and other underserved populations in Santa Monica—understanding the needs of these populations and the landscape of evidence-based programs that meet their needs.
These experts should be a diverse group representing the fields of social services, financial and assurance services, non-profit management, marginalized populations, and equity and inclusion. Additionally, panelists will include those with lived experience as consumers of local social services. Potential panelists will be required to submit a statement of interest form (Attachment I) which will be reviewed by an ad hoc group formed by the WASMF Advisory Board.
To further aid the proposal review process, the City will contract with an independent facilitator to manage the scoring and evaluation of proposals submitted in response to the HSGP RFP. The facilitator will organize panelists, allocate proposals for review, guide the scoring and ranking of eligible proposals, and oversee the development of final 2023-27 HSGP award recommendations for Council’s consideration in spring 2023. 24 of 26
40% Cap and Balanced Portfolio
The HSGP portfolio is broad by design, and members of the public at several community meetings raised the question of how funding will be allocated across populations and programs in a way that is balanced, serves a range of vulnerable and underserved populations, and focuses on a spectrum of interventions, including prevention and direct client aid. Rather than valuing the needs of one population over another, the HSGP recognizes the interwoven nature of the community.
The infant who receives subsidized childcare (while their parents work and contribute to local economic recovery) will grow up to have available mental health supports in their public school and fresh produce to supplement their meals if needed. As countless studies have shown, the earlier and more comprehensive the intervention, the higher the return on investment. At the same time, this does not mean that all funding should be allocated to early childhood programs, or even youth and families, and ignore the challenges faced by local seniors, people with disabilities, and those experiencing homelessness. As a result, the HSGP should continue to maintain a balanced portfolio of agencies and programs, focused on serving the diversity of needs in Santa Monica to the extent that limited funding allows.
HSGP is not the only source of social services funding in this community, however, as the largest source of City funding, staff want to be responsive to community members who have emphasized the importance of HSGP continuing to have a broad reach.
Operating with the framework that the HSGP seeks to provide services to the City’s vulnerable, low-income residents and that the range of programs that meet the needs of these populations is diverse, staff recommend that no population receive more than 40% of the total HSGP funding amount. Staff based this recommendation on an analysis of the current grants portfolio when sorted by primary population served (Table 1). Assigning each program in the current HSGP portfolio to one population served is challenging since most programs serve a range of populations, and a single individual or family often represents multiple populations (e.g., a senior who is disabled and experiencing homelessness). Given this complexity, the RFP will ask applicants to indicate the primary population they intend to serve on each program application. The selected population will be used to determine where programs fit within the 40% cap. 25 of 26
Table 1. FY 2021-22 HSGP Funding by Primary Service Population Primary Service Population Funding Amount % of Total Funding People Experiencing Homelessness $2,251,607 28%
People with Disabilities $214,618 3%
Seniors $1,302,155 16%
Youth & Families $2,920,526 36%
Underserved Populations not Otherwise Specified $1,349,735 17% TOTAL $8,038,641 100%
The HSGP, as currently funded, cannot meet every need, for every community member, and fund every program that applies. The HSGP RFP recommendations staff have outlined in this report are designed to provide accountability for public funds, foster a healthy and sustainable social service safety net, and support a balanced array of services to maintain a diverse and inclusive community.
Next Steps
Dependent on Council input and approval, staff will release the FY2023-27 HSGP RFP in fall of 2022. Staff will hold a bidders’ conference and the RFP will stay open for a few months. In Spring of 2023, staff will return to Council with initial grant funding recommendations. Staff will include funding awards in the budget study session in May 2023, and final HSGP funding awards will be made as part of final biennial budget adoption in June 2023. The FY2023-27 HSGP funding cycle will start July 1, 2023.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommendations in this report. For FY 2022-23, the total amount allocated to the HGSP is $8,235,685, a nominal increase of less than 1% from FY 2021-22. As City revenues improve, additional funding for the HSGP would enable the City to better address the growing needs of its most vulnerable residents. Staff will return to Council with proposed HSGP funding recommendations in the Spring of 2023 in preparation for the FY 2023-25 biennial budget process.
26 of 26
Prepared By: Aliya Buttar, Senior Human Services Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. January 26, 2015 Staff Report
B. May 28, 2015 Staff Report
C. June 23, 2015 Staff Report
D. January 22, 2019 Staff Report
E. January 26, 2021 Staff Report
F. June 28, 2022 Staff Report
G. Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing
H. Proposed HSGP RFP Funding Guidelines
I. Draft HSGP RFP Review Panel Statement of Interest
J. Written Comment