|
-
Budget review
-
Robin Gierer compared the FY2001 budget with the original FY2002
budget and with the final FY 2002 budget, which is adjusted for the reduced
appropriations, as follows (rounded, in millions of dollars).
-
| Program |
FY 2001 |
Original
FY 2002 |
Adjusted
FY 2002 |
|
Caring Communities | 6.1 |
5.3 | 3.5 |
|
Welfare to Work | 1.4 |
1.1 | 1.0 |
|
Sustainable N'hoods | 1.5 |
2.4 | 1.1 |
|
Health Care | 0.2 |
0.3 | 0.3 |
|
Early Childhood | 2.4 |
2.7 | 2.3 |
|
Data / Evaluation | 0.2 |
0.8 | 0.1 |
|
TOTALS | 11.8 | 12.6 | 8.3 |
-
The adjusted Caring Communities budget includes $300,000
in funds
reallocated from other initiatives. The original budget for
Sustainable Neighborhoods included adding more neighborhoods; that is not
going forward under the adjusted budget. The sweeping change in the
data and evaluation budget results from relocating evaluation duties
to each initiative. Also, a plan for a case-tracking system for
Caring Communities has been abandoned.
-
Lynn Broeder noted that the Caring Communities portion of
the budget
was 45% and asked how that compared state-wide. Robin guesstimated
that in out-state areas the CC portion might be as much as 80%
while Kansas City and Columbia were more likely to have figures like
those for St. Louis.
-
FACT draft on accountability
-
Don Wolff led a discussion about FACT's draft accountability
statement.
At Wolff's request, Robin explained the layout of the draft
and noted that the definition of "accountability agreement" was
new.
In the column for state/local system changes, the last item
for partnerships was "fundamentally new." That item: "Communicate
needed system changes to state and work with state to effect changes
at the state level." Also, the items in the same column for FACT
represented an "effort towards FACT leadership." Those items are: "Train
Partnerships on their roles in effective system changes; Facilitate the
development and dissemination of state-wide data to help Partnerships assess
need for system changes; Help design appropriate measures to
help Partnerships track progress on system changes." There was some
discussion.
Further suggestions should be sent to Don Wolff.
-
Caring Communities (CC) / Sustainable Neighborhood (SN) integration
-
The board discussed an interim plan to support Caring Communities.
Included in the agenda item were proposals to:
-
establish Caring Communities as an ARCHS initiative; establish
ARCHS
board co-chairs responsible for the initiative;
- empower
a subcommittee of Caring Communities Advisory Board to act as
governing
body of the initiative until a proposal comes forward; and
-
to dedicate coordinator staff to the Caring Communities Initiative.
The agenda comments included notations that:-
a model was presented to and approved by the board on February 28,
2001;
- it will take several more months to implement
the
model because of the complexity of integrating Caring Communities
and Sustainable Neighborhoods;
- in light of the budget
cuts
since February, staff and contract employees have been reduced;
-
board support for immediate restructuring was critical; and
-
the board needed to address issues around budget priorities,
site
assessment, and job functions to allow current activity.
-
Comments made during the discussion were (not verbatim):
- Nance:
- Conflicts existed in the CC-SN integration
effort.
- Gierer:
- ARCHS is the CC partnership
in St. Louis; the state thinks CC is the partner, with the site
councils and neighborhood leadership teams providing the guidance.
- Nance:
- It was problematic to have two boards
[ARCHS and CC].
- Gierer:
- There is a clear interrelationship
of the boards.
- Boyd:
- FACT says to integrate ARCHS and CC; ARCHS
says integrate SN and CC; the ARCHS integration would dissolve the
CC connection to the ARCHS board; CC is the community, and
lots of people in the community are not connected with the ARCHS
board.
- Ginsburg:
- It is important that the ARCHS
board not lose the long-standing grass roots involvement in CC.
- Boyd:
- This should not be an integration
but a partnership between ARCHS and CC; the February board decision
was made without the information needed for a logical vote; CC does
social service while SN does bricks and mortar; the CC board is not
accepting the integration; the CC community is different than community
represented by the ARCHS board.
- Wells:
- We will not rush to judgment; I recognize
the deep, passionate emotions involved; SN will not be the same
either after any integration; we want strong site councils and will
trust the board's committee to hear the community.
- Wolff:
- I hope the community recognizes that
the board is listening to the community.
- Nance:
- I am sorry to hear what sounds like
a gridlock tone; the board members have to accept the possibility
of change.
- Burns:
- It seems that FACT's intention is
for St. Louis to be as similar as possible to other areas in the
state.
- Boyd:
- Caring Communities desires to work
through the frustrations with ARCHS, with development of communication
being the key.
-
Draft audit, Caring Communities
-
Copies of a draft audit of Caring Communities were distributed.
Wells observed that the challenges were framed around state-agency
action and that increased accountability was in common with
other state areas.
-
Announcements
-
Wells met with Kathy Martin, the new Social Services Director.
-
Wells announced a community forum on the ARCHS plan, tentatively
scheduled for October 30.
-
The board will have an Advance (renamed from "retreat"), sometime
in the first quarter of 2002, after the new executive director
is named.
-
The board will not meet in October. The next meeting is November
27, 2001.
| |