HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1988, 4 - CONSIDERATION OF HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRANTS-IN-AID FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,004. THESE FUNDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO TWELVE AGENCIES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1988-89. e MEETING DATE:
����h�i�i►�IVIIIIIIIIIP° I�III city Of San tuts OBIS130 �a
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU
FROM: Steve Henderson, Assistant to the City Administrative
Officer
SUBJECT: Consideration of Human Relations Commission's
recommendations for Grants-in-Aid funding in the amount
of $66, 004. These funds would be distributed to twelve
agencies during fiscal year 1988-89.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Approve recommendations of the Human Relations
Commission, and direct staff to prepare agreements
with each agency to be funded. �_���
"J
BACKGROUND: '
The HRC began the Grants-in-Aid process for fiscal year 1988-89
by advertising in the local media for grant proposals. A mandatory
workshop for all prospective applicants was held on February 5, 1988.
This workshop was attended by over twenty agencies, with eighteen of
those actually submitting proposals for consideration.
The total funding request of all of the proposals was $156,752 .
This figure constitutes approximately a 61 percent increase over the
previous year's requests, and was nearly three times the alloted
$66, 000 which Council budgeted for this year's GIA Program.
ANALYSIS•
The Grants-in-Aid Budget Committee met for fifteen hours to
review and assess the current group of proposals. Given the unusual
level of funding requests, the Committee attempted to strictly adhere
to both the published criteria for the Grants-in-Aid Program
(Attachment A) , and the approved HRC Goals and Objectives contained
in the 1987-89 Financial Plan (Attachment B) .
The specific goal which relates to the GIA Program states,
"provide support to private human service agencies, with an emphasis
on those serving the homeless and/or potentially homeless, and those
providing basic services to the needy of the City. "
At a special meeting of the Human Relations Commission, held on
April 27, 1988, the Budget Committee reviewed each proposal before
the full HRC, answered Commissioners' questions, and submitted a
written report of its recommendations (Attachment C) . This report
included a detailed description of the rationale and criteria used to
arrive at the recommendations. A copy of the Committee's
recommendations was also sent to each applicant agency on April 28,
1988.
T�/
t
�IIII�I�IIII�I��������Illll=1111111 CTCy of san Luis OB1 Sp0
U COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
On Wednesday, May 4, 1988, a public hearing was held in the City
Council Chamber (Attachment D) . At this time, the Grants-in-Aid
Budget Committee formally presented its recommendations to the full
Human Relations Commission. Comments were then heard from each of
the eighteen agencies requesting funding (see minutes: Attachment
E) .
The total funding requested was $156,752. The GIA Budget
Committee recommended funding to eight agencies for a total of
$66,000. After extensive deliberation, the full HRC voted to
recommend funding twelve agencies for a total of $66,004. Those
recommendations are as follows:
AGENCY AMOUNT REQUESTED GIA SUBCOMMITTEE HRC
1. Family Services
Center $ 61000 $ 3,000 $ 31000
2. American Red
Cross $ 61000 $ -0- $ -0-
3. Long Term Care Ombudsman
Services $ 51000 $ 2,500 $ 21000
4. Children's Home
Society $ 7, 164 $ -0- $ 11000
5. SLO Transitions
$ 71300 $ 4,745 $ 4,745
6. Central Coast Neurobehavior
Center $ 51000 $ -0- $ -0-
7. Hotline $ 6,500 $ 4,225 $ 41225
8. SLO ALPHA $ 11800 $ -0- $ -0-
9. Salvation
Army #1 $25, 000 $18,750 $18,750
10. Salvation
Army #2 $15,000 $ -0-** $ -0-**
11. EOC $ 81109 $ -0- $ 4,000
12. Women's Shelter
Program $10, 629 $ 61909 $ 6,909
����►�►�►�ii�IIIIIIIIIP� q��Ull city of San tins osIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
13a. AAA Caring
Callers $ 750 $ 375 $ 375
13b. AAA RSVP $ 41000 $ -0- $2, 000
14. SLO Child Development
Center $10,500 $ -0- $5, 000
15. Casa
Solana $101000 $ -0- $ -0-
16. Hospice $ 81000 $4 , 000 $4, 000
17. People's
Shelter $20,000 $ -0-** $ -0-**
** The HRC voted separately to set aside $10, 000 for a long term
homeless shelter currently being recommended by the SLO Coalition for
the Homeless and the Salvation Army. The Commission wishes this
amount be awarded to the agency which is to be responsible for the
overall operation of that shelter.
CONTRACTS:
Staff expects to prepare and approve contractual agreements by
the middle of August, 1988.
The contracts with each agency are monitored by staff and the
Human Relations Commission, for compliance with the guidelines set
forth in the agency's proposal and/or additional Council motion.
Monitoring is accomplished through monthly reporting, detailing of
agency program activities, and tracking of statistical information
related to the expenditure of the City's grant. Additionally, each
agency is assigned a liaison--a Commissioner who attends that
agency's board meetings, receives reports, and delivers periodic
updates to the full HRC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Accept the recommendations of the Human Relations
Commission, and direct staff to prepare agreements with each of the
funded agencies. These contracts would not exceed $66,004.
2 . Review the Human Relations Commission recommendations, and
make adjustments regarding funding levels and funded agencies.
Authorize staff to prepare, and the CAO to execute, contractual
agreements with each of the funded agencies. This may be done
without further review by the HRC.
3. The City Council may return the recommendations to the HRC
for further review and investigation, based upon the Council 's
specific concerns with the existing decisions.
-3
����H�►rllil�lllll�1111►i`I������I city of San Luis OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
The Human Relations Commission advertised its GIA Request for
Proposal in the local media. A mandatory workshop for all applicants
was held, in which the specific requirements, concerns, and HRC goals
and objectives were outlined for the participants. Two public
meetings were held, including a public hearing specifically devoted
to GIA applicant concerns. Each of the applicants was afforded the
opportunity to publicly address its proposal. Staff provided
technical assistance to both applicants and Commissioners throughout
the process.
FISCAL IMPACT•
If the Council approves the recommendations of the Human
Relations Commission and directs staff to execute agreements with the
funded agencies, an amount of $66,004 will be expended from the
Grants-in-Aid line item of the HRC Program Budget for fiscal year
1988-89.
This amount is consistent with the approved 1987-89 Financial
Plan. If the Council chooses to reject or alter the Human Relations
Commission recommendations, then appropriate adjustments to the above
expenditure would be necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council accept the recommendations of the
Human Relations Commission, and authorize staff to prepare, and the
CAO to execute, contracts with each of the funded agencies.
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Grants-in-Aid Criteria
(B) 1987-89 HRC Goals and Objectives
(C) Grants-in-Aid Budget Committee Report
(D) Grants-in-Aid Budget Committee Recommendations
(E) Minutes of HRC Public Hearing of May 4, 1988
(F) HRC/GIA Applications (Council Reading File)
HRCI:giareport
rwv/lijuly88
�������►►►►►�������iiii��ii►�� cityo son tins OBISPO
e ^fix's=_-.i onn yw..rux�-r liii' •
>.Y„'a 990 Paim Street/Post Office Box 8100 San Lui00
s Obispo, CA 93403 81
ins.
GRANTS-IN-AID
CRITERIA FOR FUNDING
1 . At least one appropriate representative from each applicant agency
will be required to attend a workshop which details the application
process.
2. The application must be completed in full and on time. Late or
incomplete applications will not be considered.
3. Applicants must have the status of a non-profit organization (Articles
of Inc. . 501 C3 status, Federal ID number and Tax Exempt
Notification) , prior to submitting proposals for funding.
4. Applicant proposals must be compatible with the current goals and
objectives of the Grants-In-Aid program.
5. Applicants must demonstrate they have the managerial and fiscal
competence to complete the proposed project.
g. Applicants must show what percentage of the total agency budget the
represent,requested city funds
of agency
clients/participants/userswill be t
cityandrCountyeresidents.
7. Applicants should be aware that there is no guarantee that funding
ure
will be available to them in future fiscal years. Dependency
on city funding is discouraged.
g. Applicant agencies must identify designation of any reserves in excess
of lob of their annual budget. This information may be used in
evaulating the applications.
9. Preference will be given to those agencies that provide direct
services to •residents and that provide a clear description of how they
intend to use the City funds.
ts
ich
10. The City is rel licant must shownto fund new pthatcthishparticularaprogramtisgin
programs. The appapP
some way unique or needed by city residents.
11. Applicants should be able to demonstrate clear attempts at
coordination with related agencies and a high use level of existing
community resources.
12. clear atte ptsuat obtaining funding from f ourcesiothersthan the City.
. LEISURE, CUL.LTJRAL & SOCIAL SERVICES
SERVICE PROGRAM: Human Relations Commission (0107)
FUND: General
DEPARTMENT: City.Council and Advisory Bodies
PROGRAM COSTS: ACTUAL BUDGETED REQUESTED PROPOSED
1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989
STAFFING $2.944 $2.100 $0 $0
OPERATING EXPENSES 4.398 6,700 6.850 6.750
MINOR CAPITAL 0 0 0 0
TOTAL $7.342
$8.800 $6,850 $6.150
SIGNIFICANT MENDTTURE AND
STAFFING CHANGES:
None.
RPROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
The Human Relations Commission is a twelve
member body which serves the City Council and City
Administrative Officer in an advisory capacity by
offering recommendations on various social and
human issues.
It is the goal of the Human Relations Commission to
improve the climate of human relations and the
human condition by advocating equal opportunity
for access to community resources for all city
residents. The Commission proposes to accomplish
this goal by: establishing and maintaining an open
line of communication with the Community; provid-
ing education and promoting values and ideals
related to human rights; aiding and educating people
in the process of problem-solving and conflict resolu-
tion: serving as a catalyst to stimulate individual and
community action.
MAJOR 1987-89 OBJECTIVES:
1. Ongoing: Establish and maintain an open line of
communication between the Commis-
sion and the Community for the pur-
poses of providing ongoing needs assess-
ment and promoting an awareness of the
existence and function of the Commis-
sion.
2. Ongoing: Sponsor forums and educational
workshops designed to increase public
I awareness and knowledge of individual
rights and responsibilities.
3. Ongoing: Develop an in-house capability for train-
ing commissioners and volunteers as
I mediators.
4. Ongoing: Provide support to private human service
agencies with an emphasis on those serv-
ing the homeless and/or potentially
homeless and those providing basic ser-
vices to the needy of the City.
— D-42 ��
���Ildlll�ill IIIIIII����� �IIII II II
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
Apri , 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
To: Human Relations Commission
From: HRC GIA Committee
1988-89 Grants-in-Aid Summary and Recommendations
This year, the Human Relations Commission received eighteen
grant requests, totalling $156,752 . The amount budgeted in the
1988-89 City Financial Plan for the entire Grants-in-Aid program was
$66, 000.
The total requested this year is the highest ever; in fact, the
above figure constitutes approximately a 61% increase over last
year's total. This is likely due to at least two maior factors.
First, the loss of federal revenue sharing funds, which have
historically been distributed to local human services agencies
through the County, has had a significant impact upon the fiscal
profiles of many of the applicants. Additionally, there has simply
been an increase in need--as the community has grown, local agencies
have seen their case loads expand accordingly.
It should be stated at the outset that all of the applicants
were certainly worthy of funding, and the GIA Committee regrets that
sufficient monies were simply not available for this purpose. All of
these agencies provide valuable services to the community, but with
the amount of money available standing at only about one-third of the
total requested, the committee found it neccesary to adhere closely
to the published goals and objectives of the 1988-89 HRC Financial
Plan. These are the same objectives which were presented to the
applicant agencies at the mandatory GIA workshop held in February.
The above mentioned goals and objectives of the HRC were,
specifically, "to provide support to private human service agencies,
particularly those serving the homeless, and those providing fuel,
food and shelter to the needy within the city. " Thus, the primary
criteria which were used during the grant review process were the
degree to which, a) the applicant agency serves the homeless or
potentially homeless, b) the applicant agency is engaged in the
direct disbursing of unduplicated services, and c) the applicant
agency serves City of San Luis Obispo residents. Additionally,
secondary criteria used, which were fully discussed with applicants
at the mandatory February Workshop, included the agency's fiscal and
managerial abilities, the extent and nature of any financial reserves
it holds, and the agency' s future and current fund-raising
activities.
After the committee had reviewed each proposal in light of the
established criteria, the proposals were ranked as either "high, "
i "medium, " or "low. " Agencies placed in the "high" category were
those which demonstrated a strong commitment to the primary
criteria--essentially, these were the agencies providing direct
services to the homeless and/or potentially homeless.
1988-89 Grants-in-Aid Summary, page 2
The committee at this point was faced with two proposals
requesting start-up funds for a long-term homeless shelter. These
requests came from the Salvation Army and the People's Shelter, and
had a combined total of $35,000. While the committee was strongly in
favor of funding a long-term shelter, these proposals obviously
constituted some duplication of service. Given this duplication,
the commitee's solution was to "set aside" $25, 000, which would be
earmarked for funding of a long-term shelter. These funds would not
be awarded to any particular agency, but would rather be awarded to
whatever agency proved to be the one which would actually operate a
shelter once a site was found, etc. .
The next step the committee took was to look more closely at the
agencies which had fallen into the "low" category. These were once
again examined in light of the primary criteria--principally the
homeless/potentially homeless function, as well as the possible
duplication of existing services. Regrettably, several agencies did
not adequately meet these criteria.
The agencies which had fallen into the "medium" category were
then scrutinized more closely. Two sub-categories were created--
"medium-homeless" (those agencies which had at least some component
of direct homeless services) , and "other-homeless". The "low"
category having been eliminated, there then remained four categories
to be funded: "long-term shelter, " "high, " "medium-homeless, " and
"medium-other. "
It was decided that, in order to fund all of the remaining
agencies at least partially, the following percentages of each
agency's requested amounts were assigned:
"high" category: funded at 75% of requested amount
"medium-homeless" category: funded at 65% of requested amount
"medium-other" category: funded at 50% of requested amount
These levels of funding, along with the $25, 000 which had been
previously been set aside for a long-term shelter, gave the commitee
a grand total of $69, 503 . This was still $3 , 503 more than was
alloted for this year's program, so it was decided that this amount
would be subtracted from the funds alloted to the long-term shelter.
This left the shelter fund at $21,497, and allowed the program to be
brought in at the mandated $66, 000 level.
All of the above decisions were made by consensus at the
committee meetings, and the recommendations have received the
unanimous approval of all Commissioners involved in the review
process. The HRC staff concurs with these recommendations as
well.
In summary, it is the belief of the committee that, given the
$66,000 funding limit for the GIA program, the HRC as a whole can
feel confident that it has taken several positive steps toward
accomplishing its 1988-89 objectives, as well as toward meeting the
human and social needs of the City of San Luis Obispo.
411-91
1-9
INITIAL RANKING
HIGH
Salvation Army #1 $ 25,000
Hotline 61500
LONG TERM SHELTER
Salvation Army #2 15, 000
People's Shelter 20, 000
MEDIUM
Family Services Center 6, 000
LTC Ombudsman 5, 000
SLO Transitions 7, 300
A.L.P.H.A. 1,800
EOC 8, 109
Women's Shelter 10, 629
AAA Caring Callers 750
Child Development Center 10, 500
Casa Solana 10, 500
Hospice 8, 000
LOW
American Red Cross 61000
Children's Home Society 71164
C.C. Neurobehavior Center 51000
AAA R.S.V.P. 4 , 000
�-9
SUBSEQUENT RANKING
HIGH
Salvation Army #1 $ 25,000
LONG TERM SHELTER
Salvation Army 2 25, 000
People's Shelter
MEDIUM-HOMELESS
Hotline 6,500
SLO Transitions. 7,300
Women's Shelter 10,629
MEDIUM-OTHER
Family Services Center 6,000
LTC Ombudsman 5,000
AAA Caring Callers 750
Hospice 81000
FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
HIGH (75%) TOTALS
Salvation Army #1 $ 18,750 $ 18,750
LONG TERM SHELTER
$_ 21, 497 $ 21,497
MEDIUM-HOMELESS (65%)
Hotline 41745
SLO Transitions 4,745
Women's Shelter 6,909
$ 15,879
MEDIUM-OTHER (50%)
Family Services Ctr 31000
LTC Ombudsman 21500
AAA Caring Callers 375
Hospice 4, 000
$ 9,875
GRAND TOTAL $ 66, 000
. I
��►I!�I IIII!II IIIIhII ll�������� �Illllll�llll� IIciof sAn WIS OBI�IIIII III SPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
GRANTS-IN-AID
CRITERIA FOR FUNDING
1 . At least one appropriate representative from each applicant agency
will be required to attend a workshop which details the application
process.
2. The application must be completed in full and on time. Late or
incomplete applications will not be considered.
3. Applicants must have the status of a non-profit organization (Articles
of Inc. . 501 C3 status. Federal ID number and Tax Exempt
Notification) , prior to submitting proposals for funding.
4. Applicant proposals must be compatible with the current goals and
objectives of the Grants-In-Aid program.
5. Applicants must demonstrate they have the managerial and fiscal
competence to complete the proposed project.
g. Applicants must show what percentage of the total agency budget the
requested City funds represent, and what percentage of agency
clients/participants/users will be City and County residents.
e is
guarantee that
ng
7 willts should be beto themeinhfuture at rfiscal oyears. Dependencyuonl
lbefuture
city funding is discouraged.
8. Applicant agencies must identify designation of any reserves in excess
of 10% of their annual budget. This information may be used in
evaulating the applications.
9. Preference will be given to those agencies that provide direct
services to residents and that provide a clear description of how they
intend to use the City funds.
10. The City is reluctant to fund new projects which duplicate existing
some
rway uniqueapplicant
neededmust
cityshow
residentsS particular program is in
11. Applicants should be able to demonstrate clear attempts at
coordination with related agencies and a high use level of existing
community resources.
12. Applicants should be able to show their fundraising history as well as
clear attempts at obtaining funding from sources other than the City.
PROPOSAL #: _
NAME OF AGENCY:
AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQESTED:
Primary Criteria
A. Does the agency provide direct services to the homeless or potentially
homeless?
B. Does this agency duplicate a service already being offered to San Luis
Obispo residents?
C. Does this agency provide a large percentage of its services to San
Luis Obispo City residents?
Secondary Criteria
D. Does this agency posess the managerial and fiscal capability necessary to
accomplish its goals for 1988-89?
E. What is the nature and percentage of reserves in excess of 10% of the
agency's budget?
F. What are the additional sources of funding which this agency anticipates?
Will the agency seek future funding from the City?
PRIMARY SECONDARY
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
A D
B E
C F
COMMENTS:
��IIIIII I II I�� ������IIIIII��IIIII I�II� II
of sAn citoBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
M I N U T E S
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Meeting of May 4, 1988
Grants-In-Aid Public Hearing
I. WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Leigh
Willard in the City Hall Council Chamber. Chairperson Willard
welcomed the audience to the meeting and the Commissioners were
introduced.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Blank, Fay Potashin, Leigh Willard,
Gwen McNamara, Leola Rubottom, Shelley Aleshire, John Downes, Jeanann
Forsyth and Barbara Gauntt. ABSENT: George Brudney and Jean Seitz.
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Henderson, Bob Van Sickel and Lois Barton.
II. MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1988 MEETING:
The minutes of the April 27, 1988 meeting were not submitted for
approval at this time.
III. REVIEW OF GRANTS-IN-AID PROCEDURES:
Steve Henderson gave a brief presentation regarding the Grants-In-Aid
procedures.
IV. 1988-89 BUDGET COMMITTEE GRANTS-IN-AID RECOMMENDATIONS:
Commissioner Blank explained the process used by the GIA Committee in
determining which agencies would be funded and at what percentage of
the requested amounts. (See letter of April 18, 1988 re: GIA
Recommendations, Fiscal Year 1988-89. )
V. PUBLIC HEARING: GRANTS-IN-AID APPLICANT AGENCIES:
Representatives of the following Agencies were introduced and made
presentations to the Commission:
*1. 3
HRC Minutes
5-4-88
Page 2
1. FAMILY SERVICES CENTER: Sandy Scott, Chairperson of the Board
of Directors and Cindy Griffith, Executive Director spoke on
behalf of the agency requesting funds for mental health services.
2. AMERICAN RED CROSS: Chairperson of the 'Board, Erwin Willis asked
the commission to reconsider their recommendation of -0-
funding. He added that the agency does not duplicate services
offered by other agencies.
3. LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN SERVICES OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY:
Executive Director, Shirley McIntyre-Bird thanked the Board for
their recommendations and explained that funding is crucial for
the agency at this time.
4 . CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY: Field Representative, Carolyn Mitchell
asked the__HRC to reconsider their recommendation of -0- funding.
She felt the agency's services are not duplicated by other
agencies.
5. SLO TRANSITIONS S INC. : Executive Director, Ron McMaster, thanked
the HRC for their recommendation asking that it not be reduced as
services would have to be decreased.
6. CENTRAL COAST NEUROBEHAVIOR CENTER: Administrator, Michael Manot
and Cindy Mills felt that brain impaired individuals should be a
priority consideration. They noted that there are no other
services of this type in the city.
7. HOTLINE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY INC. : Executive Director,
Gwen Guyre-Powe complimentedt e HRC in their efforts and
requested the full amount of the grant highlighting the
after-hour services to the Salvation Army and the Women's Shelter
Program.
8. SAN LUIS OBISPO A.L.P.H.A. INC. : Coordinator, Liz Clark
explained reasons why fun ing for this agency should be
reconsidered and thanked the HRC for their efforts.
41Z-14Z
HRC Minutes
5-4-88
Page 3
9. THE SALVATIONARMY (1) : Captain Dan Hughes presented the range
Zf services offere by agency relating to shelter, i.e. ,
rental assistance, food, fuel and lodging. Capt. Hughes noted
the agency's interfacing with the EOC.
10. THE SALVATION ARMY (2) : Toni Flynn, Program Developer with the
Shelter Program made a presentation on behalf of this agency
explaining the long-term shelter project.
11. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: Executive Director, Biz
Steinberg, explained the efforts of the EOC relating to the
homeless and asked the Commission to reconsider their
recommendation of -0- funding. A counter-proposal was submitted
to the commission requesting $4, 149.
12. WOMEN'S SHELTER PROGRAM: Marianne Kennedy, Executive Director
and Mickey Feuer, President of the Board of Directors made a
presentation to the Commission with emphasis on the services of
the shelter noting that homeless women are a priority.
13. (a. ) AAA-CARING CALLERS: Director, Mary Emily McCormack asked the
Commission for Chir support on behalf of the frail and elderly
population. The agency is requesting the full amount of the
Commission's recommendation.
13. (b. ) AAA R.S.V.P. : Chairperson of the Advisory Board, Cliff
Baker stated that the Agency does not duplicate services and
asked for the full amount of the request.
14. CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER: Director, Andrea Schacht and Family
Counselor, Sandy Scott spoke on behalf of the agency. A packet
was submitted containing letters of recommendation as well as
additional information.
15. CASA SOLANA: President of the Board, Jack Lanigan, Board member,
Erna Powell and Interim Executive Director Mary Ann LaFever,
spoke on behalf of the agency and asked for continued support.
HRC Minutes
5-4-88
Page 4
16. HOSPICE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY INC. : Stephen Lamb, President
of the Board of Directors and Marcy Villa, Interim Coordinator
spoke on behalf of the agency and thanked the HRC for their
recommendation.
17. PEOPLE'S SHELTER: Beverly Stewart, Program Director asked that
the Commission reconsider their recommendation of -0- funding and
fund the shelter beginning July 1, 1988.
VI. COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
After a great deal of deliberation, the Commission voted to submit
the following recommendations to the City Council:
1. FAMILY SERVICES CENTER $ 31000. 00
2. AMERICAN RED CROSS -0-
3. LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN SERVICES 21000. 00
4. CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY 1.000.00
5. SLO TRANSITIONS 41745.00
6. CENTRAL COAST NEUROBEHAVIOR CENTER -0-
7. HOTLINE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, INC. 4,225. 00
8. SLO A.L.P.H.A. , INC. -0-
9. THE SALVATION ARMY #1 18,750.00
10. THE SALVATION ARMY #2 *10,000.00
11. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 41000.00
12. WOMEN'S SHELTER PROGRAM 6,909.00
13. (a. ) AAA CARING CALLERS 375.00
13. (b. ) AAA R.S.V.P. 21000.00
14. SLO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER 5, 000.00
15. CASA SOLANA -0-
16. HOSPICE OF SLO COUNTY, INC. 4,000.00
17. PEOPLE'S SHELTER OF SAN LUIS OBISPO See #10
Total Recommendation: 66,004 .00
*The Commission voted separately to set aside $10, 000.00 for the long
term shelter presently being considered on South Higuera Street.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Chairperson Willard asked for any comment the public may wish to
make.
ADJOURNMENT: Due to the late hour, it was moved that the meeting be
adjourned to the special meeting of May 18, 1988. The meeting was
adjourned at 11: 00 p.m.
GIAMINUTESLJB
�a�
��iii►►IIIIIIIIIIIIIII pllUl ►�
1111111
� city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
April 15, 1988
To: Human Relations Commission and all GIA Applicant Agencies
From: HRC Grants-in-Aid Committee
Re: Grants-in-Aid Budget Committee Recommendations, FY 1988-89
This year, the Human Relations Commission received eighteen
grant requests, totalling $156,752 . The amount budgeted in the
1988-89 City Financial Plan for the entire Grants-in-Aid program was
$66, 000.
The total requested this year was the highest ever; in fact, the
above figure constitutes approximately a 61% increase over last
year's total. This is likely due to at least two major factors.
First, the loss of federal revenue sharing funds, which have
historically been distributed to local human service agencies through
the County, has had a significant impact upon the fiscal profiles of
many of the applicants. Additionally, there has simply been an
increase in need-- as the community has grown, local agencies have
seen their case loads expand accordingly.
It should be stated at the outset that all of the applicants
were certainly worthy of funding, and the GIA Committee regrets that
sufficient funds were simply not available for this purpose. All of
these agencies provide valuable services to the community, but with
the amount of money available standing at only about one-third of the
total requested, the committee found it necessary to adhere closely
to the 1988-89 Financial Plan. These are the same objectives which
were presented at the mandatory GIA workshop held in February.
The above mentioned goals and objectives of the HRC were,
specifically, "to provide support to private human service agencies,
particularly those serving the homeless, and those providing fuel,
food, and shelter to the needy withing the city. " Thus, the primary
criteria which were used during the grant review process were the
degree to which, a) the applicant agency serves the homeless or
potentially homeless, b) the applicant agency is engaged in the
direct disbursing of unduplicated services, and c) the applicant
agency serves City of San Luis Obispo residents. Additionally,
secondary criteria used, which were fully discussed with the
applicants at the February workshop, included the agency' s fiscal and
managerial abilities, the extent and nature of any financial reserves
it holds, and the agency' s future and current fund-raising
activities. The committee reviewed each application in light of
these criteria, as well as the other published requirements, such as
non-profit status, duplication of services, and so on.
The Grants-in-Aid Committee thus submits the following
recommendations for the consideration of the entire Human Relations
Commission:
Grants-in-Aid Recommendations, FY 1988-89, page 2
1. FAMILY SERVICES CENTER
REQUESTED: $6, 000
RECOMMENDED: $3, 000
This agency provides a valuable, non-duplicative service to the
community. Donated professional services enhance each dollar
granted. This agency has consistently met its budgetary, intake, and
outreach goals.
2. AMERICAN RED CROSS
REQUESTED: $6,000
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
While this agency provides a valuable service, it does not
directly address the needs of the homeless and potentially homeless
on a regular basis. The HRC would prefer to fund agencies which
provide direct services to the targeted populations. Additionally,
it does not serve a significantly high number of City
residents.
3. LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN SERVICES
REQUESTED: $5, 000
RECOMMENDED: $2,500
This agency provides a non-duplicative service. A large number
of its clients are San Luis Obispo residents.
4 . CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY
REQUESTED: $7, 164
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This agency does not directly assist the homeless or potentially
homeless living in San Luis Obispo. The committee believes that this
agency duplicates some services which are offered by other groups in
the community. The agency does not seem to seek funding from a
variety of sources.
5. SLO TRANSITIONS
REQUESTED: $7,300
RECOMMENDED: $4,745
This agency provides direct services to the homeless and
potentially homeless mentally ill. The residential long-term
treatment it offers is essentially unavailable elsewhere in the
County. This agency has a proven history of successful management of
a difficult and often-neglected program type. The vast majority of
the agency' s clients come from within the city limits.
Grants-in-Aid Committee Recommendations, FY 1988-89, page 3
6. CENTRAL COAST NEUROBEHAVIOR CENTER
REQUESTED: $5, 000
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This agency does not meet the primary goals and objectives of
the GIA program. Though its services appear to be largely
unduplicated, it does not serve the populations targeted in the
HRC Goals and Objectives.
7. HOTLINE OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
REQUESTED: $6,500
RECOMMENDED: $4,225
This agency continues to provide a vital service to all citizens
of San Luis Obispo. It is the primary referral service for persons
in need in the community. It has demonstrated outstanding fiscal
management and fundraising capabilities.
8. SLO A.L.P.H.A. , INC.
REQUESTED: $1,800
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This agency does not serve the populations targeted in the GIA
goals and objectives. Its services may be duplicated by several
other agencies in the County.
9. SALVATION ARMY #1 (Rental Assistance, Eviction Prevention)
REQUESTED: $25,000
RECOMMENDED: $18,750
This agency continues to be the sole provider of many important
services to the needy of San Luis Obispo. It fulfills the criteria
set forth for the GIA program.
10. SALVATION ARMY #2 (Long-term Shelter Funding)
REQUESTED: $15,000
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This request is one of two which address the establishment of a
long-term homeless shelter (the other request is from the People' s
Shelter) . These have been set aside pending further progress toward
such a facility. The wish of the Committee is to fund one agency,
which would oversee the operation of such a shelter.
11. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
REQUESTED: $8, 109
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This program serves an important community need, but does not
address the targeted populations of this year's GIA goals and
objectives.
Grants-in-Aid Recommendations, FY 1988-89, page 4
12. WOMEN'S SHELTER PROGRAM
REQUESTED: $10, 629
RECOMMENDED: $6,909
This program is largely unduplicated, and serves potentially
homeless women in an efficient and effective manner. The agency has
a proven record of fiscal management.. The vast majority of its
clients are City residents.
13A. AAA: CARING CALLERS
REQUESTED: $750
RECOMMENDED: $375
This agency provides a non-duplicative service to many City
residents. It has a proven history of good fiscal management, and
does a good job of seeking funding from a wide variety of sources.
13B. AAA: R.S.V.P.
REQUESTED: $4,000
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This agency' s services appear to be duplicated by some other
agencies in the area. Additionally, This agency does not serve the
populations designated in the GIA goals and objectives.
14. SLO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
REQUESTED: $10,500
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This agency does not provide direct services to the homeless or
potentially homeless. There seems to be a slight duplication is the
nature of the services offered. The agency does not seek funding
from a wide variety of sources.
5. CASA SOLANA
REQUESTED: $10,000
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This agency does not primarily serve City of San Luis Obispo
residents. Though it does provide a valuable, largely unduplicated
service, the Committee has some reservations about the agency's
ability to meet its budget projections for the coming year.
16. HOSPICE OF SLD COUNTY, INC.
REQUESTED: $8,000
RECOMMENDED: $4,000
Hospice provides a very important service, primarily to local
residents. Its services are largely unduplicated, and it has a
proven history of effective fiscal management, especially in its
efforts to secure funding from a wide variety of sources.
Grants-in-Aid Recommendations, FY 1988-89, page 5
17. PEOPLE'S SHELTER OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REQUESTED: $20,000
RECOMMENDED: $ 0
This request is one of two which address the establishment of a
permanent homeless shelter (the other request is from the Salvation
Army) . These have been set aside pending further progress toward
such a facility. It is the preference of the Committee to award
funding to the particular agency which will oversee the operation of
such a shelter.
1- .7/
Illry�ly►►�IIIIIII�I IIUIII MEETING DATE WONEENW-ft
N I►` city o san lugs oBispo August 2. 1988
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NU
ADDENDUM TO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION (HRC) STAFF REPORT
On July 18, 1988, the City Council considered several issues related to the
homeless including recommendations by the Human Relations Commission and requests
by the Coalition for the Homeless.
The Council took several actions related to the Commission's recommendations
(attached memo dated 7-26-88) and referred two matters to the HRC for further
review and consideration.
First, the request for funding by the Salvation Army for shelter program services
during the months of July through December 1988 be considered within the context
of the Grants-In-Aid component of the Commission's budget. The Commission also
considered a request by the People's Shelter for shelter services for the same
period of time.
The HRC considered the original applications submitted in February 1988 by the
Salvation Army and the People's Shelter. Although relevant in February, the
Salvation Army and the People's Shelter asked consideration of funding for their
recent applications.
The Commission voted unanimously to recommend funding to the Salvation Army and
the People's Shelter in the amount of $18,300 and $13,500 respectively. These
shelter services are for the months of July through December 1988 and total
$31,800.
This recent recommendation by the HRC of $31,800 for shelter programs and
subsequent decisions by the HRC are as follows:
July through December 1988 Salvation Army request $18,300.00
July through December 1988 People's Shelter request $13,500.00
Total 6 month request $31 ,800.00
January through June 1989 Salvation Army
Comprehensive Shelter Program $22,500.00
Total 1 year request $54,300.00
Minus $10,000 set aside
Grants-In-Aid 1988-1989 $10,000.00
Increased Grants-In-Aid $44,300.00
\ HRC Recommended
1988-89 Grants-In-Aid $66,004.00
� 1 Total Grants-in-Aid
Request 1988-1989 $110,304.00
441 -a �
��►►►�� uulllllll�ll�' ��B�ll city of San tins OBISPO
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The $66,004 previously considered by the HRC in May is to eleven agencies providing
a variety of services to older people, rental assistance/eviction prevention, child
abuse, crisis intervention and terminal care.
Secondly, the City Council asked the HRC to consider funding a long-term shelter
program and possibly augment the Grants-In-Aid budget with additional permanent
homeless shelter funds.
The Commission voted unanimously to fund the long-term shelter program, beginning
in January 1989, in an amount of $22,500 for six months of shelter services. This
amount reflects half of the annual projected expense of the shelter program. The
action brings the total Grants-In-Aid package to $110,304.
After considerable discussion, the HRC voted to designate a maximum of 40% of all
future Grants-In-Aid budget allocation to the comprehensive, long-term shelter
serving a broad base of the homeless population.
Attachments: Memo from Steve Henderson to Human Relation Commissioner dated 7-26-88
HRC Minutes of July 26, 1988
SH:rs
Y
��III IIIII ���� IIIIIIII�IIIIIIN I�
t
city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
M I N U T E S
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday July 26, 1988
7:00 P.M. , City Hall Hearing Room #9
I. WELCOME/INTRODUCTIONS
The Special Meeting of the Human Relations Commission was
called to order by Chairperson Leigh Willard at 6:05 P.M. , with the
following persons in attendance:
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: George Brudney, Barbara Gauntt, Jeanann
Forsyth, Fay Potashin, Mike Blank, Leola Rubottom, Jean Seitz.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Gwen McNamara, Shelly Aleshire.
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Henderson, Toby Ross, Roger Picquet, Bob
Van Sickel, Janet Zalewski.
GUESTS: Toni Flynn, Beverly Stewart, Connie Hanretty, David
Ion, George Moylan, Penny Rappa, Marianne Kennedy, Gwen Guyre-Powell,
Dana Lilley, Micki Feuer, Karen McMurphy.
Chairperson Willard requested that Councilmember Rappa review
the Council's recent actions and position on the City's level of
commitment toward the homeless in the City of San Luis Obispo. Rappa
gave a brief overview of the Council's recent actions of July 18,
1988, and followed by answering questions presented by Commissioners.
II. CONSIDERATION OF SALVATION ARMY SHELTER FUNDING REQUEST
Steve Henderson gave a brief report updating the HRC on recent
actions taken by the Council. The report included items for
consideration by the Commission (see attached staff report dated July
27, 1988) .
Henderson's report clarified requests for funding from the
Salvation Army and the People's Shelter, noting three separate
requests:
Salvation Army $18,300 July - Dec. 1988
People's Shelter $13,500 July - Dec. 1988
Comprehensive
Shelter Program $22,500 Jan. - June 1989
jq-Ay
The report also included a request that the HRC consider
augmenting the Grants-In-Aid budget for fiscal year 1989-90 with an
additional $45, 000, to help fund a long term shelter program.
III. CONSIDERATION OF PEOPLE'S SHELTER FUNDING REQUEST
A. presentation was given by Beverly Stewart, Director of
People's Shelter. Stewart clarified that the current request for
funding is for operating expenses to provide sheltering services and
that 65% of service recipients are local residents. Commissioner
Blank emphasized that the current request is for start-up costs,
noting the need for People's Shelter to establish credibility to
qualify for additional funding by the State. Stewart answered
questions asked by both Commissioners and guests.
II. CONSIDERATION OF SALVATION ARMY SHELTER FUNDING REQUEST
Toni Flynn, Director of the Salvation Army Shelter Project,
specified that the current request for $18,300 is to insure continued
operation. Flynn stated that her immediate focus is for the Salvation
Army to continue operations through December 1988 but also urged the
Commission to provide funding for the comprehensive shelter program.
After further discussion and questions from Commissioners,
George Brudney moved that the HRC ask the Council that $44,300 be
added to the Grants-In-Aid request for fiscal year 1988-89 to fund
the Salvation Army and People's Shelter requests. Second, Fay
Potashin. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
IV. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE GRANTS-IN-AID SHELTER FUNDING LEVELS
Councilmember Rappa requested that the Commission make a
recommendation to the Council on the percentage of Grants-in-Aid
which should be allocated to a long term shelter program.
Commissioner Blank stated that he was hesitant to commit to a
percentage of GIA because the Council may reduce the total GIA budget
in the future. Commissioners discussed at length whether to
recommend that a percentage or a fixed amount be allocated to a long
term shelter program. Commissioner Brudney moved that an amount not
to exceed forty percent (40%) , be allocated to the Salvation
Army/People's Shelter/other broadly-based shelter provider on an
annual basis, for the operation of a comprehensive, long-term
sheltering program. Second, Leola Rubottom.
Vote: AYE: GAUNTT, SEITZ, FORSYTH, RUBOTTOM, WILLARD, BRUDNEY.
NO: POTASHIN
MOTION PASSED.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
VI. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT
None.
VII. STAFF REPORT
Henderson encouraged attendance at the next meeting of the City
Council, which will take place on Tuesday, August 2, 1988. The
Council will formally consider the HRC Grants-In-Aid and homeless
sheltering requests at that time.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Willard adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M. , to be
reconvened on Wednesday, August 3, at 7:00 P.M.
��III�INI�IIIIIflflIIIIIII �IpIIIICIN
CIty o son tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
July 26, 1988
TO: Human Relations Commission
FROM: Steve Henderson, Assistant to the CAO
RE: Homeless Issues
BACKGROUND
At the regular City Council meeting July 19, 1988, the Council took several actions
related to recent recommendations by the Commission and the Coalition for the
Homeless.
Essentially, the Council considered three requests by the Coalition for the
Homeless and three recommendations by the Commission.. These items have been
previously discussed at length by Commissioners at the special meeting in May and
the monthly meetings in June and July.
The items discussed by the Council are identified below and the action taken noted .
A. A request by the Coalition for the Homeless to be the official "clearinghouse"
and community-based organization advising the City Council on matters related
to homelessness. The Council authorized this request and asked the Coalition
be responsible directly to the County of San Luis Obispo.
B. A policy consideration and recommendation regarding the City's role in a long
term shelter project in San Luis Obispo and whether funds to manage a long term
shelter program should be from the annual Grants-In-Aid monies or a separate
emergency shelter program account.
The Council did not adopt a resolution committing assistance to the Salvation
Army and the San Luis Obispo Coalition for the Homeless in the establisment of
a comprehensive, long term shelter program in San Luis Obispo.
The Council did direct staff to return to the Commission and ask for their
input on what percentage of annual Grants-In-Aid funds should go towards
homeless shelter programs.
The Council also believes any requests for funding of shelter programs should
be submitted and considered during the annual Grants-In-Aid deliberations..
y-a�
C. A request by the Coalition for the Homeless and the Salvation Army to
temporarily place a long term shelter program on a site located at the corner
of Prado Road and South Higuera Street.
The Council postponed a decision on a specific site for a temporary emergency
shelter program until co-application by the Salvation Army and the Coalition
for the Homeless has been reviewed by the Community Development Department and
the Planning Commission.
D. A consideration of a Change-of-location in the pick-up and drop-off points of
the Salvations Army's shelter program.
The Council directed staff to work with the Salvation Army in changing the
location for loading and unloading participants of their shelter program.
Previously, they had been utilizing Mitchell Park as the pick-up and drop-off
points. The Salvation Army will now be using the City Hall area as a point of
boarding and unloading.
E. Consideration of request by the Coalition for the Homeless asking the City to
initiate zoning changes for permanent shelter programs in San Luis Obispo.
The Council directed planning staff to begin reviewing the Zoning Ordinance in
an effort to identify appropriate locations for a permanent shelter in San
Luis Obispo. Council asked staff to contact other local municipalities and
ask them to begin a similar review of their zoning regulations.
F. Consideration of funding the Salvation Army's interim shelter program from
July through December 1988 in the amount of $18,300.
The Council directed staff to return to the Commission and asked the HRC to
review the request by the Salvation Army within the Grants-In-Aid context,
along with the People's Shelter request for funds. The Council members
indicated that they would consider augmenting funds available for
Grants-In-Aid. They did not specify on how much.
ANALYSIS
Staff is asking the Commission to consider two items related to the City Council 's
actions.
1 . Review the requests by the Salvation Army and the People's Shelter for interim
shelter funding from July through December 1988. This review will include the
initial Grants-In-Aid applications submitted by the Salvation Army and the
People's Shelter in February 1988.
As you'll recall , the Army asked for $15,000 in operational expenses; and the
People's Shelter requested $20,000 for personnel costs. Although these
requests for funding are seven months old, they may be helpful in ascertaining
and comparing the existing proposals.
The Salvation Army and the People's Shelter are expected to state their
present requests. Since January 1988, many elements concerning a long term
shelter have changed.
The charge of the Commission is to review the applications which best reflect
current needs of all parties involved. The HRC needs to recommend to the City
Council an amount of funding that should be awarded to the Salvation Army and
the People's Shelter for Shelter program services from July through December
1988.
2. Previously, the HRC recommended to the Council that a long term sheltering
program in San Luis Obispo should be a line-item account separate from the
Grants-In-Aid budget of the HRC. The Commission recommended an amount of
$10,000 for fiscal year 1988-1989 be used for a comprehensive shelter program.
The Council has asked the Commission to consider funding a long-term shelter
program within the Grants-In-Aid program, and possibly augment the
Grants-In-Aid budget with additional homeless shelter funds.
Since November 1987 and through June 1988 the Salvation Army/Zedakah House
shelter program has received $17,172 from the City of San Luis Obispo. The
People's Shelter has received $10,300 for their shelter program services from
November 1987 through June 1988. This funding represents a city contribution
of $27,472 for shelter services.
By comparison, the County of San Luis Obispo has funded the Salvation Army and
the People's Shelter at $31 ,958 and $10.300 respectively. This total of
$42,258 represents the county's share of shelter services from November 1987
through June 1988.
In all, the Salvation Army and the People's Shelter have received $69,730 from
city and county government. The Salvation Army is currently requesting
$18,300 and the People's Shelter $13,500 from the City for shelter program
services from July through December 1988.
The County has committed approximately $45,000 to the Salvation Army for their
shelter program for the period of July through December 1988. They have also
authorized funds to the People's Shelter Program for the same period in the
amount of $30,000. This would bring the total amount of funds awarded by the
City and the County to $145,000.
This does not include the current requests of $31,800 from the City. If the
Commission recommends and the Council approves the present request, the total
figure for the operation of shelter program services is nearly $177,00.
Original Current Projected
Request Request Long-Term Shelter
Salvation Army. $ 15,000 $ 18,300 $ 45,000
e
Peoples Shelter 20,000 13,500
The present task before the Commission is to attempt to identify a percentage
level of Grants-In-Aid monies which should be allocated for shelter programs
annually.
The proposed budget of the comprehensive shelter program offered by the
Salvation Army is projected to be $309,000. The request by the Army from the
City is $45,000 and this represents about 14% of the total costs associated
with the project.
The Commission set aside $10,000 for a comprehensive shelter program during
the Grants-In-Aid discussions for fiscal year 1988-1989. The HRC will need to
determine if they wish to re-affirm their commitments to a long-term shelter
program and how much money through the Grants-In-Aid program needs to be
recommended for that use.
For instance, if $100,000 were available for Grants-In-Aid in fiscal year
1989-1990, what percentage should be set aside for yearly use for general
shelter programs such as the Peoples Shelter and the Salvation Army programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the projected share of the comprehensive program by the Salvation Army to the
City is $45,000, the increase to the Grants-In-Aid budget for fiscal year 88-89
would be $22,500 for January through June 1989. This amount does not include the
set-aside funds of $10,000.
If the Salvation Army is recommended for funding for July through December in
the amount of $18,000, the Peoples's Shelter for $13,500 for the same period;
and the comprehensive shelter is awarded $22,500 for January through June
1989, the Grants-In-Aid budget would need to be augmented by $54,300. This
does not include the previously set aside $10,000, meaning a grand total of
$44,300.
Attachments:
Please bring your:
1988-1989 Grants-In-Aid Application Workbook
Salvation Army request for funding (Agenda material from July 6, 1988) .
People's Shelter request for funding. (Attached)
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
alpha
1I60 Marsh Street. Suite T, San Luis Ob I-3367
1.Denies action by Lead Person
July 20,1M R pond by:
xvincil
Mayor Dunin CAO
City Council Members ❑City Any_
990 Palm Street Clerk-orifi.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 -g OAA.detso.v
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members: F k °L,
Last February,ALPHA submitted a pro requesting$1800.00 from the Human Relations
Commission's Grant-In-Aid program. This was the amount needed to pay for additional office space
over the period of one year. Until February,we had been struggling to operate out of one small office.
When clients would overlap,the later one would have to stand in the public hallway(not a comfortable
situation when a woman thinks she's pregnant--and is usually not happy about it!). And when the
phone would ring in the middle of the counseling session,our volunteer would have to interrupt a
sometimes sensitive or emotional conversation. So,it appeared essential to acquire the adjoining office
which became available then,even though it doubled our monthly rent—quite a risk for a small non-
profit organization.
In April,I was notified that our request was turned down. The explanation stated that priority
was given to those organizations which provide the basic necessities of food and shelter to the very
needy segments of our society. I went before the May 4th meeting of the HRC to point out that
ALPHA does indeed work with many low-income women and their families,including several who are
using the People's Shelter but are in need of additional support. No questions were asked of me,and
ALPHA was selected as one of the agencies to be reconsidered
After the hearing was closed to further public comment,two members of the Commission
stated,inaccurately,that our services were duplicated by other agencies such as Planned Parenthood,
EOC Family Planning,the County Health Department,Children's Home Society,and the Tree of Life.
Our request was again rejected
Since it was not possible to rebut those statements then,I plan to appear before the August 2
City Council meeting to point out that ALPHA provides unique and invaluable services in the city of
San Luis Obispo. Nowhere else can.a woman go to obtain support,both emotional and practical,in
carrying through with a pregoanry. No other aeency offers non-judgmental counseling for women
suffering from post-abortion trauma. No one else provides educational programs for schools and
organizations on the wonders of prenatal life. And all of these services are offered free of charge.
ALPHA has been supported completely by private donations for over nine years. In granting
our request,the city of San Luis Obispo will not only be supporting the much needed services which we
offer,but will be demonstrating its acceptance of our role in the community.
Sincerely,
LizC>arke RECEIVED
ALPHA coordinator J U L 2 7 1988
CrrY CLERK
SAN LUIS OMSPO.GA
acceptance life professional help alternatives