I

I

~!

vOtAMUIvI~

v~ J..~

! III ~~ \~O t -~

~£?

~ ~ r0-o ~ ~~ .1)

I'"

Human Serv1ceS

A Report to the Citizens of Jacksonville. Summer 1981

SCOPE OF THE STUDY=

This study was undertaken to. determige whatmechanism(s) sho~ulabe used to 1mprove the coor-dination o~ human services in Jacksonville.Without good coordination and planning, clientscannot find their way to needed services andhuman service dollars do no~ yield maximumbenefi ts. The scope of the study inc1uded areview and analysis of:

. The shifting roles and funding of humanservices.

--- . The flow of humanservices dollars.

.. . Existing planning and coordination mecha-nisms. ~... - ~- ~""'

-"". ~Howclients can identify and obtain needed

se~vices (information and referral).;>.

. New approaches to human services coor-dinafion from other communities.

~

~

Although human services may refer to allprograms or projects which are designed to helppeop1e improve the economic and soci a1 qua1ityof their lives, in this study humanservices arelimited to income maintenance, employment andtraining, health, recreation, education, andsocial and rehabilitative services. Programswhich consist primarily of bricks and mm"tar,such as public housing and hospital buildings,are omitted. Also excluded are the traditionalprograms of the school system (K-12), and highereducat ion. Because it is probably not feas i b1eto bring about coordination of the profit-makingsector or of churches, their part in human ser-vices receives minimal attentio~ in ~his.s~~gy.

~~,.."" ~ "!" o!!" :,!,,,,:II - --

Coordination involves cooperation and sharing ofinformation at all levels of the human servicesspectrum ranging from the funding sources,planners, and top administrators to the coun-selors and providers of services to clients.

~

HI GH L I G H T S

MAJOR PROS-LEMS '"

. No overall planning and coordil1a~ion~

No formal ongoing communic-ation amongmajor funders

~. A lack of commonterminology

. Different fiscal years

. A lack of dissemination of up-to-dateinformation on available services

- . A lack of clearly identified access ~ointsfor;,.c 1i ents

."..--.. Complicated

requi r,e~ents

. A lack of flexibility and decision-makingability at the local level

~

funding and eligibility

RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS

. A coalition of major funders (State, City,United Way) leading to an ongoing

~ community-wid~vehicle for:

Problem solving

Development of a jointly funded centra-lized information and referral system

Development of common app 1i cat i on formsand hearings for~gencies seeking funds

'"

Examination of service areas for greaterefficiency and effectiveness

=Increased local decision making throughstate/local agreements for administeringblock grants

Improved client access to services

..

FINDINGS

Findings represent the data base of the committee. They are derived from the published materials listedin the references, facts reported by resource persons or from a consensus of committee understanding asreported by resource persons.

The proposed Reagan budget reduces Federalspending for human services. Many categoricalprograms are to be consolidated into large blockgrants to be administered by the states. Inaddition, President Reagan recently appointed a ~Federalism Advisory Committee as a first step in

~ ~~Jr~~,:~"~o=the~l~~O' ~~uman~v~ces were prov~ded' sorting out the roles of Federal, state, andprlmar 11Y"'OYsma11 1ocahgenc TeS=and~th~~lIffit-ed--c-~~~-aJ~gov~r.JIments~.Way. During the Depression, the Federal govern-- . - ~Oc ~ ~'"ment moved heavily into human services with NewDeal reform programs. Social Security, Federalwork programs, and Federal and state cashwel-fare programs were begun at this time. In the60's the Great Society saw the beginning of thenon-cash welfare programs such as food stamps,and a tremendous expansion of Federal categori-ca 1 grant programs and block grants. * The com-munity action agencies, designed to enable thepoor to move beyond poverty, began at this time.

During the 70's the Federal government put intoplace a number of distinct planning mechanismsand coordinating bodies and made efforts toimprove the management of humanservices throughFederal regulations and requirements attached tothe Federal monies. At the same time, there wasalso a trend towards giving local communitiesgreater flexibility in spending Federal monies,primarily through Federal general revenuesharing funds. (These are administered by localgovernments for local public purposes, including

Shifting Human Services Picture

THEHUMANSERVICESFIELD HAS UNDERGONEMAJORCHANGESIN THELASTTWENTYYEARS. As a result,the relative roles of those involved in coordi-nating, funding, planning, or delivering humanservices have been shifting. The actors include:

Government at all levelsMechanismsmandated by government to plan,

coordinate, and/or allocate fundsPrivate nonprofit organizationsPrivate for profit organizationsPrivate practice professionalsThe United WayFoundationsCorporationsFraternal and service clubsChurchesFamilies and individuals

*Categorical grants are those awarded for a spe-cific purpose, as defined in legislation (i.e.,family planning)Block grants are awarded for r e generalpurposes (i.e., health). The grantee then makesplans for dividing the money among specificprograms .

humanservices. In Jacksonville, Federal revenuesharing funds are allocated entirely toUniversity Hospital to supplement and partiallyreplace local funding of that institution. Manycommunities designate at least part of generalrevenue sharing funds for humanservices.)

As an example of the increasing role of govern-ment in human services, the United Wayreportsthat seven years ago it funded 50 percent ofmember agency budgets, on the average. Today,in contrast, United Way funding accounts forapproximately 25 percent of member agency bud-gets with 44 percent coming from public funding,and the remainder from other sources.

Complicated Funding

TODAYTHEFUNDINGOFHUMANSERVICESIS EXTREME-LY COMPLEX,OVERLAPPING,INTERTWINED,ANDOFTENTIED TO REGULATIONSANDELIGIBILITY REQUIRE-MENTS. Monies for humanservices coming intoJacksonville from the Federal government origi-nate from diverse sources such as the Departmentof Labor, the Department of Housi ng and UrbanDevelopment, the Department of Health and HumanServices, the Department of Agriculture, andnumerous others. These Federal funds followmany circuitous routes on their way to clients

. in the Jacksonville area. (See Chart on pg. 3).

Some monies coming from the Federal governmentare blended with state general revenue funds andgiven to the Florida Department of Health andRehabilitative Services (HRS). HRSDistrict IV,which includes Jacksonville, may administer itsshare of these funds directly or pass thesefunds on to the Jacksonvi lle community eitherthrough or to the 1oca1 government or to agen-cies which contract directly with HRS. Incontrast, Community Action funds go directlyfrom the Federal government to the local com-munity acti on agency. Most ComprehensiveEmploymentand Training Act (CETA) funds formanpower development go directly to thecommunity-designated sponsor, rather than

2

r

I

:

f.

fJ

~.1

i.

i

II

~

I.

I-!I

t

L-

FLOW OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO CLIENTS

.....

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

STATE GOVERNMENT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PRIV ATE AGENCIES

CLIENTS

3

through state government. In addition, localprivate agencies often obtain grants from theFederal government directly, without passagethrough the state or local government bodies,except in most cases, through a reviewmechanism. The end result is that individualprograms and staff sa 1ari es may be funded bymany different sources.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that theallocation bodies for these funds, as designatedby the Federal or state governments, representdifferent geographical areas, most of which en-compass more than one county. For example, theFlorida Department of HRS allocates funds bydistricts. District IV includes Nassau, Baker,Clay, St. Johns, Flagler, and Vo1usia counties,in addition to Duval County. The Area Agencyon Aging, which coordinates, plans and allocatesfunds for the aging through HRS, serves thesesame seven counties. But the region served bythe Mental Health Board for District IV of HRSincludes Putnam County in addition to the sevencounties named above. The Northeast FloridaCommunityAction Agency, which allocates Federalfunds for poverty programs, has as its geograph-ic boundaries four counties: Duval, St. Johns,Baker and Nassau. Funds from the ComprehensiveEmployment and Training Act (CETA)are coordi-nated by the Department of HumanResources ofthe City of Jacksonville, for Duval, Nassau, andBaker Counties. CommunityMental Health Fundsare distributed through a geographical deSigna-tion knownas catchment areas. There are threeof these primarily located in Jacksonville.However, the catchment areas spillover thecounty line.

This overlapping of geographical boundaries fordifferent programs and services makes it verydifficult to identify those funds which areexpended only in the Jacksonville area.

Different fiscal years add to the complexity.The Federa1 government's fi sca 1 year runs fromOctober 1 to September 30, as does that ofJacksonville's local government. However, theState of Florida's fiscal year runs from July 1to June 30. And the United Wayand most privateagencies operate on a fiscal year which coin-cides with the calendar year, from January 1 toDecember 31. This creates confusi on and uncer-tainty for agencies in their planning processes.Agency budgets and financial statements aretherefore comp1icated and diffi cu1t to compre-hend.

Differing terms are used by each major fundingbody to describe and categorize human services.Any specific program may be categorized differ-ently by each of the different funding sources.Even when the same term is used, it may have adifferent meaning as defined by each fundingsource. It is, therefore, impossible to comparethe different programs as designated by the dif-ferent nomenclatures.

For example, Hubbard House, an agency which pro-vides temporary shelter and counseling to abusedspouses and their children, receives fundingfrom HRS, the City and the United Way. In HRSHubbard House falls under the Aging and AdultServices Program, while the United Waycategor-izes it as Family Care and Assistance. In citygovernment miscellaneous appropriations toHubbard House are administered by the Divisionof Community Services, Department of HumanResources.

Pine Castle Center, which provides shelteredemployment for mentally retarded adults, is alsofunded jOintly by HRS, City and United Way. HRScalls it vocational rehabilitation; the City,Community Services; while the United Waydesignates Pine Castle as Hea1th/HandicappedCare and Assistance.

The Flow of Dollars

TODAY THE MAJORFUNDERANDPRIORITY SETTEROFHUMANSERVICESIS GOVERNMENT,WITHTHE FEDERALGOVERNMENTPLAYING A PRIMARYROLE. In generalterms, this is where the money for human ser-vices in Duval County comes from:

In 1980/1981 a total of $171.39 million wasexpended on human services in Jacksonville.Federal and state funds coming into Jacksonvilleand used for human services amounted toover $149.88 million, including:

(In mi11ions)$96.82 mixed Federal and state funds (64%

federal, 36%state) through HRS(from U.S. Dept. of Health andHumanServices, Dept. ofAgriculture, Dept. of Justiceand others, plus Florida generalrevenue)

$16.30 Supplemental security income fromSocial Security Administration

$13.60 U.S. Comprehensive EmploymentandTraining Act

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (forschool lunches and breakfasts)

U.S. general revenue sharing(allocated to University Hospital)

U.S. Dept. of Health and HumanServices (to Northeast FloridaCommunityAction Agency,University Hospital andCommunityMental Health Centers)

$ 1.78 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (to City)$ 1.38 U.S. CommunityServices

Administration (to NortheastFlorida CommunityAction Agency)

.21 ACTION(U.S.) .

.12 'U.S. Department of Justice

.06 U.S. Department of Energy

.05 Florida Department of CommunityAffairs (to City)

TOTAL $149.88 MILLION

$ 8.30

$ 7.83

$ 3.43

$$$$

4

In 1980/1981 the City Government allocated localfunds to human services amounting to $17.13million, (including $7.9 million to UniversityHospita 1) .In 1980, the United Way collected and distri-buted to human services private local fundsamounting to $4.01 million in addition to $.36million for United Wayoperations.

(NOTE:These figures are approximations, includ-ing only the humanservices defined in the scopeof this study. The fiscal years of these differ-ent funders vary, geographical areas coveredvary, and funding for certain projects may havechanged since these figures were compiled. Thereader is cautioned not to use these figures inany other context before consulting the fundingsources. They are placed in this configurationin order to give a general picture.

Not included are $24.5 million in Federal fundsfrom the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment nor hundreds of millions throughcontributory programs, such as retirement, disa-bility and survivors benefits through the SocialSecurity Administration, and unemployment pay-ments.)

JACKSONVILLEHUMANSERVICES$ BYSOURCE

U.W.I 2.6\CITY" 10\

STATE- 20.6\FEDERAL-

TOTALFUNDS$171.39MILLION

66.8\

Charts on page 6 indicate where the money frommajor funding sources went as described bybroad program areas. See the appendix for addi-tional information describing funding and a110-cati on of funds by the Northeast Flori daCommunityAction Agency.

Since all Federal funds, with the exception ofgeneral revenue sharing, are designated for par-ticular program areas or populations to beserved or for very specific projects, theFederal government sets the priorities ofoverall human services' spending for theJacksonville community. That is, the Federalgovernment determines the relative amounts whichmay be spent for aging, poverty, employment andtraining, etc. State governments then deter-mine which available Federal monies they willapp1y for and match and how the funds wi11 beallocated with in these program areas. Loca1communities determine how local funds will beallocated within these funded program areas, ifthey choose to comply with requirements for

matchi ng funds. Loca1 and state governmentsalso provide limited funding for programs oftheir choice, independent of the Federalgovernment. Although the United Wayhas no for-mal or legal restrictions on its allocation_offunds, it, too, attempts to make the most ofits dollars by providing matching funds wherenecessary.

Who Does The Planning

THE PLANNINGFUNCTIONFOR HUMANSERVICESINJACKSONVILLEHAS CHANGEDSIGNIFICANTLYIN THELASTTWENTYYEARS.Planning is nowperformed byat least nine different bodies. Most of thesehave been mandated as a part of Federal andstate programs. Nevertheless, planning is donein isolation. There are no ongoing efforts toshare the data (i .e. needs, social indicators)on which plans are based.

I n the 60I s the Communi ty P1anni ng Council wascreated, evolving from a planning mechanism pre-viously contained within the United Way. Itspurposes included the planning and coordinationof human serv ices. It developed plans forspecific program areas and served to bringtogether agencies and citizens for the purposesof sharing information and for problem solving.However, with the i nfl ux of Federal funds forhuman servi ces, the Community P1anning Counci1became involved in seeking Federal funds andadministering Federal programs. This emphasistended to obscure the p1anning function of theagency. The Communi ty P1anni ng Council deve-loped the Information and Referral Service whichwas later assumed by the Central Crisis Center.Similarly, it developed plans for the aged inJacksonville and eventually spun these off tothe new Area Agency on Aging. After p1anni ngand initiating CommunityCoordinated Child Care,the CommunityPlanning Council transferred thisresponsibility to the City of Jacksonville.A new agency, Volunteer Jacksonville, wascreated to coordinate volunteer services.

In 1975, a successor organization, theJacksonville Council on Citizen Involvement,Inc. (now the Jacksonville CommunityCouncil,Inc.) was set up with the goals of fosteringbroad citizen participation and involvement,developing community leadership, and ensuring adialogue amongdiverse elements of the communityaround important community issues.

Meanwhile, planners proliferated in specificprogram areas:

The Northeast Florida CommunityAction Agency(formerly Greater Jacksonville EconomicOpportunity) was created to plan, coordinate,and allocate funds for poverty programs andto empowerthe poor.

5

DISTRIBUTION OF HUMAN SERVICES DOLLARS IN JACKSONVILLE

BY MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES (1980-81)

H.R.S.

Health(including Medicaid)

28%

Social and EconomicServices

45.5%

$96,809,736

~ -=-=-~- - - --

United Way

$17,131,203 6

Developmental Services

Adult and Aging Services

Childrens Medical Services

Vocational Rehabilitation

Mental Health

$4,014,500

CommunityOrganization .3 %Aging .5%-Misce11aneousYouthand FamilyServices )

ill

NOTE: The City does not categorizehumanservices except by departmentsand divisions of City Government.The assignment of programs to thesecategories was performed by JCCI.

The Area Agency on Aging was created to plan,coordinate, and allocate funds for the agingpopulation.

A Manpower Consorti um was mandated by CETAand created by the city to plan, coordinate,and allocate funds for manpowerprograms.

Withi n HRS a process was developed to plan,coordinate, and allocate funds authorized byTitle XX of the Social Security Act, whichincludes programs such as day care, familyplanning, meals on wheels, etc.

The Mental Health Board was created by HRStoplan, coordinate, and allocate funds for thedelivery of mental health services.

The Health Systems Agency was created to planand coordinate health programs and facili-ties. (This agency does not allocate funds.)

The Metropolitan Criminal Justice AdvisoryCouncil was created to plan for, coordinateand allocate funds from the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration. LEAAhas essen-ti ally been dissolved and is operatingthrough 1981 with residual funds. TheCouncil remains intact but inactive.

The United Waycontinued to monltor the plans ofits 54 member agencies and to plan for the allo-cation of its funds.

Within the City of Jacksonville, planning forhuman serv ices is fragmented. The HumanResources Department plans for some communityservices such as day care, children and youthservices, etc., and the Department of Health,Welfare and Bio-Environmenta1 Services plans forits areas. The City P1anni ng Department hasdeveloped a comprehensive plan for Jacksonville,which does not, however, inc1ude a soci a1 orhumanservices element.

There is no overall p1an for human services inJacksonvi lle. Currently, there is no formaleffort to link together the planning processesor information used by these different planningbodies.

Fund Allocations

AS A COROLLARYOF THE PLANNINGFUNCTIONSOCCUR-RING IN A VACUUM,THE DECISION-MAKINGPROCESSESFOR THE ALLOCATIONOF FUNDSALSO OCCURINISOLATION. Each planning body, as listed above,has its own allocation process and operates onits own timetable. It may not be aware of thedecisions of the other a110cators of funds,except perhaps after the fact.

Since most agencies today receive funding fromseveral sources, they must apply to each funding

source at separate times of the year, part i ci-pate in separate hearings, and submit separateapplications and monitoring forms. This meansthat agencies ordinarily cannot plan a budgetfor an entire year with a reasonable degree ofcertainty. Agencies must appear separatelybefore each all ocat i ng body in order to securefunds. Agencies with similar programs are I10tordinarily asked to prepare a comprehensiveproposal. Competition for funds gets in the wayof inter-agency cooperation which is essentialfor 'the effective del ivery of services to theclients.

Although ideally a process for allocating fundsshould be a rational one based on communityneeds, in practice this does not often happen.The definition of needs and prioritization ofneeds is not an exact science. Rather, valuejudgments are i nvo1ved. Who gets what, whenthere is not enough to go around for all, isoften a political decision, although the natureof the politics varies in the different arenas.

The Elusive Big Picture

THEFUNCTIONOFCOORDINATINGATTHEADMINISTRA-TIVE AND PLANNINGLEVEL IS MANDATEDBY THEFEDERALORSTATEGOVERNMENTSFORMANYAGENCIES.The agencies listed as planners and fund a1loca-tors are also coordinators within their servicearea. Most of these admit to performing a lessthan adequate job of coordination for severalreasons. Lack of adequate funding is one.Another is the complexity of coordination due tothe size of some human service bodies such asHRS and the number of agenci es and programs tobe coordi nated. No one coordi nates the coor-dinating bodies.

In 1969, the Federal government created a coor-dinating mechanism for Federal funds coming intoa community. This is known as the A-95 ReviewProcess. In Jacksonville, the Northeast FloridaRegional Planning Council serves as the A-95clearinghouse. All requests for Federal grantsexcept for educational researcn and trainingprojects, must be reviewed by this clearing-house. Appropri ate community agencies arenotified and invited to comment on each grantrequest so that the Federal government can de-termine whether that grant duplicates an exist-ing service and whether it is likely to be wellreceived in the community. There are severalfactors which limit the effectiveness of thisprocess. The A-95 review is limited to Federalfunds. In addition, the Northeast FloridaRegional Planning Council reports that frequent-ly it is not notified by the Federal governmentas to whether proposals are actually funded.Without this information the review of futurerequests cannot be adequately coordinated.

As a result of planning and funding decision-making in isolation, no one seems to have the

7

big picture of humanservices. Because of alack of formal communication regarding budgetarypriorities, actual funding, and needsases sments, areas of needed serv ices whi ch arenot funded are not clearly identified. There isno established formal vehicle with respon-sibility and authority to review the total humanservices effort in Jacksonville. Each fundingand coordinating body has a limited domain. Co-location of ~gencies, a better geographicallocation of services relative to the needs ofc1ie~ts, centralization vs. decentralization ofservices and agencies, sharing of staff orequipment, unnecessary duplication of activitiesby agencies --- such considerations are rarelyexp1ored or acted upon. Agencies themse1ves,having been placed in a competitive posture forfunds, are ~n1ike1y to pursue these concerns ontheir own initiative.

Client-Service Linkages

I:

t..

IN AN EFFECTIVEHUMAN SERVICES SYSTEM, CLIENTSMUST BE ABLE TO LOCATE AND OBTAIN THE SERVICESTHEYNEED. Information and referral servicesexist for that purpose. A centralized infor-mation and referral system compiles thenecessCiry information on available programs andset~jces in the communj:tyand makes this infor-mation available to those~worklng wifR""c1fentsas well as to clients themselves. InJacksonville the Central Crisis Center serves asthe centralized information and referral servicefor the community. That agency began itsoperations to provide suicide and drug hot-linesand counseling, and later added information andreferral to its functions. The training ofvolunteers, the name of the agency, and itstelephone listings still reflect an emphasis oncrisis intervention. As a result, many serviceproviders and clients are unaware of its ser-vices in information and referral.

~

The Central Crisis Center is funded primarily bythe United Wayof Jacksonville but receives someCity funding and some funds through the MentalHealth Board. HRSdiscontinued its purchase ofinformation and referral services in 1978-79.

j,

The Central Crisis Center's budget of $72,000has been supp1emented by CETAworkers and theextensive use of volunteers. Records are main-tained manually. An average of 122 calls arereceived daily and a majority of these are fori nformati on and referraL Information on callsreceived is tabulated but this information isnot detailed or specific enough to providecomprehensive client-based needs assessments.

Potential clients for human services alsomay turn to the City of Jacksonville fordirection and assistance. The Welfare Divisionof the Department of Health, Welfare and

iJ

[

Bio-Environmenta1 Services receives 144 infor-mation and referral calls daily, on the average.The City of Jacksonville also lists a generalinformation number in the Southern Belltelephone directory. However, this informationservice is minimally staffed and does notattempt to provide follow up activity to deter-mine if the caller was successful in obtainingthe desired service.

HRS is s~ large and departmentalized that it isextremely difficult for clients or socialworkers to fi nd the answers they need throughthis agency. There is no centralized infor-mation telephone number at HRS. If a c1i enthappens to know in which program area his needswi11 fall he may be fortunate enough to selectthe right number and to find someone who is ableto refer him. Previously HRSpurchased infor-mation and referral services as indicated above.Following this, it used a decentra1 ized inter-nal information and referral plan which requiredeach HRSstaff person to perform this service.Recently, the program component of SpecializedFamily Services has been designated as the offi-cial information and referral service of HRS.However, this designation is not widely knownwithin HRS nor in the community nor is it solisted in the Southern Bell telephone directoryor the Directory of Community Services. Anaverage of 213 information and referral callsper day are received by Specialized FamilyServices in Jacksonville.

In addi ti on to the Central tti si s Center, HRSand the City of Jacksonvi lle, almost all agen-cies rendering human services provide limitedinformation and referral 5ervices.

In most program areas, inter-agency coordinatingmechanisms or organizations exist at the manage-ment level for the purpose of sharing basicinformation about programs. It is generallyagreed that such organizations provide a usefulfunction in establishing interpersonal contacts.These contacts pave the way for effectivecooperation. The disadvantage of these groupsis that the information is usually shared onlyamong agency directors and does not filter downto staff members who work directly with clients.In addition, agency directors have their ownturf and autonomy to protect. They are re 1uc-tant to share information whfch might threatentheir success in obtaining funds.

There are few organized in-service trainingprograms or formal linkages for social serviceprofessionals and paraprofessionals to keepthem informed about current programs, agencies,eligibility requirements and available communityresources. The Directory of CommunityServices,pub1i shed by the Central Cri sis Center, is themost commonlyused tool for this purpose.

Multi-problem families have the most difficulttime locating and obtaining needed services.The lack of clearly identifiable access points,

8

the 1arge number of spec i a1ized agenci es, com-plex eli gibi 1ity requirements which differ formost programs, and transportation problems pre-sent barriers to these clients. In 1976 HRSpiloted in District IV a case management systemdesigned to help these clients. Speciallytrained social workers were assigned to thesefamilies to guide and support them in obtainingservi ces. Although the program was consi deredsuccessful, funding was not provided by thelegislature.

New Approaches

DURING THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS A NUMBER OF

COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES (i.e,COLUMBUS, OHIO; LOUISVILLE, KY.; ROCHESTER,N.Y.; FRESNO, CA.;) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO IMPROVETHE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF HUMAN

SERVICES. Usually these attempts have includeda coa1it ion of pub1ic and pri vate funders ofhuman services. The vehicles created haveranged from informal meetings for sharing ofdata, plans and funding decisions through use ofexisting staff, to super agencies with broadplanning and coordinating authority and largebudgets.

The benef its res uIt i ng from cooper at i on oftenadd up to savings in money and/or time. InBroward County, luncheon meetings of sevenmajor funding partners were held monthly. Bysharing information and working togethercreatively for the most effective matches ofmoney sources, within 18 months they wereable to parlay $585 million to $750 million.

In Fresno, California, the City, County andUnited Way developed a commonappl ication formfor agencies seeking funding. As a result,agencies now fill out 15 pages of questions andinformation as opposed to the 38 pages pre-viously required. Combinedapplication hearingsheld by the three partners take about three daysas contrasted with 14 days when the hearingswere held separately.

From the success stories as well as the mistakesand disappointments from the experience of othercommunities, a number of guidelines haveemerged:

Each community is different. It isnecessary to identify and capital ize onthe forces and momentumexisting in a spe-cific community.

Communityleaders must be convinced of theneed for such an organization. Broadbased community leadership and support,including business and political leaders,is essential for its success.

It is helpful to have a neutral thirdparty to convene and facilitate collabora-tive efforts.

. The major publ ic and private funders ofhuman services must be included in anycooperative effort.

An organization created with a broad orvague charge will most likely fail.Rather, the organization must have speci-fic tasks or charges to accomplish.

. The development of a comprehensive socialservices plan has usually not been aneffective tool. Rather, issue-focusedresearch and planning is both moreappealing and practical.

. Although needs assessments. may provideuseful information for identifying needs,setting priorities and general planningpurposes, it is wise to recognize thatfunding decisions are basically politicalin nature and based parti ally on valuejudgments.

Staff support must be adequate.

Funding for the cooperative effort shouldbe provided by the major funders ofhuman services. Funding should belocal, rather than Federal, in orderto assure local commitment and inputfor the coalition.

Human services shoulddefined with agreementboundaries.

beon

clearlyservice

. The relationship of the organization toparticipating policy-making bodies must beclear from the beginning. Legal, politi-cal and administrative arrangements mustbe stated.

. The need for autonomy of each par-ticipating organization must be recognizedand dealt with sensitively.

. An incremental approach to collaborationworks well. Success in one step may leadto further areas of cooperation.

It is important to develop a tangible pro-duct or tool as early as possible.Initial success is important.

Ultimately, success depends upon per-sona 1it i es and the wi11i ngness and eager-ness of each funder or organization to beinvolved.

9

GUIDELINESFORINFORMATIONANDREFERRALSYSTEMS

Dr. Lisa Lekis, the developer of a computerizedinformation and referral system in Ft.Lauderdale, was the primary resource person inthis area. Dr. Lekis also serves as the UnitedWay of America's consultant on information andreferral.

Ideally a centralized computerized informationand referral system can provide:

Telephone referral and follow-upclients to appropriate agencies.

An up-to-date directory of human servicesprograms for use by counselors and socialworkers in making referrals.

A data system yielding client-based needsassessments which serve as a planning toolfor human services funders and programplanners. This is one of the few ways inwhich unmet needs can be clearlyidentified.

Before beginning a computerized system it isnecessary to develop a commonclassification

of

system of tasks and programs. Tasks shoul d beequated with client needs.

It is essent i a1 to deci de what i nformat i on ordata are needed from the computer and how thatinformation will be used before deciding oninput. One should resist the temptation toover-computerize as expenses increase rapidly.

Since agency cooperation is essential in pro-viding the data, agencies must be convinced thatthey will benefit from the system.

A midd1eman or interpreter is needed betweensocial workers and data processors. They speakdifferent languages.

Even after computerization it is necessary toretain the use of a complete and detailedresource directory. Many agencies will not beable to afford computer terminals.

It is preferable to use aggregate data only andnot to identify clients or to become involved ina client-tracking system. This kind of systemis extremely expensive and may conflict withregulations for client confidentiality.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions express the value judgments of the committee, based on the findings.

There is no centralized mechanismresponsiblefor providing planning around specific issuesand problems, coordination, assessment of needs,and establishing priorities for effective, andefficient delivery of human services inJacksonville. Although needs assessments areperformed in specific service delivery areas, nooverall community needs assessments areperformed.

There is currently no regularly scheduledexchange of information amongthe major fundersof human services (HRS, the City, the UnitedWay) regarding funding priorities, needsassessments, or the provision of services.A public/private partnership of the fundingsources is necessary for a coordinated humanservices system.

A vehicle for coordination at the local level isessential to facilitate the most effective useof private and public resources. Current andprojected cutbacks in the Federal funding ofhumanservices and planning will intensify thisneed.

To be successful, a coalition for planning andcoordinating humanservices should:

capitalize on existing forces and momentumin the community.

i nvo1ve the major funders of human ser-vices.

have broad-based community support.

be funded on a shared bas i s by the majorfunders at a 1oca1 or reg iona1 1eve1, toassure commitment.

be adequately staffed.

initially develop clear relationships toexisting policy-making bodies.

be based on an incremental approach,starting with a limited number of tasksand building to additional areas of mutualconcern.

have specific tasks to accomplish, ratherthan an emphasis on broad long-range goalsof comprehensive planning and coordination.

10

concentrate on issue-focused planning,rather than the development of a compre-hensive social services plan.

be sensitive to the need for autonomy ofeach organization, most particularly inthe area of funding.

Major funders of human services operate onseveral different fiscal years, and require dif-ferent application forms and procedures forfunding. This complicates funding decisions,agency bookkeeping, and the understanding ofagency budgets and financial statements.

Funders (HRS, the City of Jacksonville, theUnited Wayand private sources) categorize humanservices in different terms. This makes it dif-fi cult to compare the serv ices prov i ded and todetect duplicate services or unmet needs. Thisalso creates additional feelings of frustrationand helplessness in the client community.

The domination of human services funding andpriority setting by the Federal government andto a lesser extent by state government results

in very little room for flexibility and decisionmaking on a local level. Local communitiesshou1d have a greater degree of contro loverdecision making for human services in order tobe able to mold local services to local needs.

Professionals and paraprofessionals who workdirectly with clients, while often able toattain some measure of comprehensive knowledgeabout community resources, have no -source ofreadi ly avail ab1e current informati on, despitethe limited efforts of the Central Crisis Centerand its directory.

Clients in need of services frequently do notknow where or how to begin. * The Central CrisisCenter, which performs some centralized infor-mation and referral services for Jacksonvi lle,is known more for suicide and crisis counselingthan for information and referral.

* NOTE:This is not unique to Jacksonville.Many cities with exemplary efforts in coor-dinating human services report that theproblem of linking clients with servicesremains unsolved.

RECOMMENDATIONS"" "" '!!O~... ~- ~:!if

Recommendations are the committee's specific suggestions for change, based on the findings andconclusions.

1. Top 1eve1 repres ent at i ves of three majorfunding sources of human services (thestate of Florida, the City ofJacksonvi lle, and the United Way) shouldconvene in regularly scheduled meetingsto provide for issue-focused planning,coordination, assessment of needs, and theestablishment of priorities"'for effectiveand efficient delivery of human servicesin Jacksonville.

Included should be: from the State ofFlorida, the District Administrator of HRSand the Chairman of the Duval LegislativeDelegation; from the City of Jacksonville,the Mayor and the President of CityCounci1; and from the United Way ofJacksonville, the President and ExecutiveDirector. The services of an outsideconsultant (with a background in humanservices administration and planning andconsiderable experience in similar coali-tion efforts) should be engaged initially.The consultant I s fee should be shared bythe funding partners. Included amonginitial tasks to be accomplished are:

(a) Agreement on a definition of the scopeof human services to be included inits domain.

(b) The use of a commonterminology todescribe and categorize humanservicesso that comparable information can beexchanged.

(c) Bringing about greater uniformity offiscal years.

This group should form a permanent and ade-quately staffed body with broad communityparticipation, to:

(a) work together on mutual, specific,timely human services problems toenable the most efficient use ofavailable resources to fill humanneeds (for example, planning formeeting the needs of poor people forfuel and household heating during thewinter months).

11

(b) develop commonapplication forms foragencies seeking funding, a commonhearing process for fund applications,and the sharing of funding priorities,a lthough each agency wi11 retain. itsautonomy and criteri a for fundingdecisions.

devise methods to allocate funds fromFederal block grants to local communities.The distribution method should beequitable and local communities shouldhave greater decision-making ability indetermining how funds are spent.

3. Immediately, the following more specificand limited improvements can and shouldbe made in information and referralservices:

(c) address the problem of insufficientinformation for social workers andparaprofessionals through in-servicetraining programs developed by educa-tional institutions and professionalassociations such as the FloridaAssociation for Health and SocialServices and the National Associationof Social Workers.

(d) Periodically examine given areas ofhuman services (Aging, Welfare, etc.)to determi ne whether greater effi-ciency and effectiveness and avoidanceof duplication could be obtained bysuch options as shared equipment, co-location of agencies, or administrativemergers.

(a) The Southern Bell Telephone Companyshould be asked to include in itsdirectory a guide to human services,preferably color-coded, to make iteas i er for persons to locate neededservices.

(b) The Central Crisis Center shouldreview its TV spots, telephonelistings and other advertising to givegreater emphasis to its informationand referral function.

(e) Improve the existing central izedinformation and referral system withthe ultimate goal to be a computerized,centralized information and referralsystem with fund ing by all threepartners.

(c) HRS should provide a general infor-mation telephone number to be listedin the Southern Bell directory and inthe Community Services directory sothat its c1ients can determi ne whereto call for direction to serviceswithin HRS.

(d) The City of Jacksonville shouldimprove the quality of informationprovided by its Information Center.

2. The Duval Legislative Delegation shouldinitiate action by the State of Florida to

REFERENCES

Delahanty, Delores, Lessons Learned - A Guide toSocial Service Coordination, - Sharln~Project Share, Vol. 1, No.1, Winter1976-77

Mastrine, Barry, The Development andImplementation of the Metropolitan HumanServices CommisSlon--Qf Columbus/FraOkTlnCounty, Ohio, Coordinating HumanServices at the Local Level: Proceedingsof the First National Network Building.Conference, Denver, Colorado, 1980,pp. 144-166

Austin, David M., I & R: ~ !W:l~ fQ,L ~Social Services, Public Welfare, 1980,pp. 38-43

Fresno Tri-Funding Review Process: ~ CaseStudy, Institute for Local Self-Government,Berkeley, California

Lekis, Lisa, Using .L~~ Data for Planning:The Process, Problems, and Potentials,Journal of the Alliance of-ynformation andReferral Systems, Vol. II, No.1, Fall1980, pp.15-29

And numerous unpublished documents and data fromHRS, the City of Jacksonville, the Mental HealthBoard, the United Wayand others.

12

RESOURCE PERSONS TO THE COMMITTEE

The JCCI".Study Process relies upon information supplied by knowledgeable resource persons, in addi-tion to published reference materials. Wewish t1) thank the following resource persons for theirvery valuable contributions to this report.

Virginia BorrokExecutive Director, Mental Health Board

~ie Bowdenem or Coordinator-P 1anner, Area Agency on Aging

Betty CarleySupervisor, Client Support ServicesDepartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services

Daniel H. CookExecutive Director, Daniel Memorial

Coralie ChronisterRegional Planner for Housing, Northeast FloridaRegional Planning Council

George W. CorriGk, Ed.D.President, Jacksonville CommunityCouncil, Inc.

Richard Covey(xecutive Director, United Wayof Jacksonville

Patricia Cowdery, M. D.Director, Department of Health, Welfare andBio-Environmental Services, City of Jacksonville

Rudolph DanielsDirector, HumanResources Department, City ofJacksonville

Tony FolcarelliExecutive Director, United Wayof Fresno County

Stephanie FoxSupervisor, Special Family UnitDepartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services

Moses FreemanDirector, Northeast Florida CommunityActionAgency, Inc.

Sallie GarlingtonSocial Worker, Children's HomeSociety

Kenneth GoldmanDirector of Plan Development, Health SystemsAgency

Richard GrayPresident, Mental Health Board

Virgil GreenChief, Welfare Division, Department of Health,Welfare and Bio-Environmental ServicesCity of Jacksonville

Sk itch Ho11and

Chief, Division of Training and Development,Department of Human Resources, City ofJacksonvi lle

Fred HuerkampDirector, Health Systems Agency

Lynne Gabbe-HarkcomAdministrative Assistant, SpringfieldNeighborhood Housing Service, Inc.

Bonnie H.JacobExecutive Dire~tor, Central Crisis ~ente~

Geneva JohnsonSenior Vice-President, United Wayof America

Lisa Lekis, Ph.DConsultant, United Wayof America

Barry MastrineExecutive Director, Metropolitan HumanServicesCommission

Reverend Gene ParksUrban Minister, Jacksonville District, TheUnited Methodist Church

Pat PhillipsDistrict Intake Counselor, Department of Healthand Rehabilitative Services

Don PierceFresnQ County Department of Social Services

John StokesberryDistrict Administrator, Department of Health andRehabilitative Services, District IV

David Swain, D.P.AChairperson, Social and Behaviorial SciencesDivision, Edwards Waters College

13.......

APPENDIX

EarlyChildhoodDevelopment57%

$4,970,000

NORTHEAST FLORIDA COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY

Allocation of Funds to Jacksonville 1980-1981

FUND SOURCES:

U.S. Community Services AdministrationU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Labor - CETAU.S. Department of Health and Human

ServicesU.S. ACTIONState of Florida (Several Departments)City of Jacksonville

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND WORK

Chairman: Pat Hannan

The full committee met weekly from December,1980 through May, 1981, for a total of 24meetings. It received information from 28resource persons, plus additional materials pro-vided by JCCI staff research. After gaining apicture of existing coordination and problems inJacksonville, the committee heard from a numberof cities with experience in collaborativeefforts toward human services coordination. InApril and May, conclusions and recommendationswere formulated.

Membersof the Committee:

Pat Hannan, Management TeamDavid Busse, Management TeamCarolyn Gentry, Management TeamDavid Hicks, Management TeamAmyMcCombs, Management TeamAnne Ross, Management TeamFrank Satchel, Management Team

Jacquelyn BatesArthur BolteVirginia BorrokJani s Bri 11Sarah BowersBarbara BrooksJ. Shepard Bryan, Jr.Ida CobbWilliam ColledgeRichard CoveyFrances DavisLarcie DavisMargo FugemanLynne Gabbe-HarkcomSallie GarlingtonDale GatzGay GoldLois GraesslePat Griffiths

Ercel D. HanleyGail HenleyDaniel HoffmanFran IsabelleSusan JaskwhichAnne McIntoshAdrian OliverPamela Y. PaulGloria RinamanKerrean SalterRando1ph SilasLiese SteinhausJohn SulikI. M. SulzbacherWilliam SulzbacherDavid SwainLee Van Va1kenburghJoyce Weather upTheodore Wendler

JCCI Staff Support:

Marian Chambers, Executive DirectorLavada C. Dockery, Secretary

14

THE JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC.

The Jacksonville CommunityCouncil, Inc. (JCCI)was formed to anticipate, identify and addressthe complex issues of urban life. JCCr is acommunity-based nonpartisan, nonprofit organi-zation providing the vehicle for in-depth,objective, citizen analysis of communityproblems and issues. It seeks broader communityawareness and understanding of the issues andprovides Jacksonville a diverse citizen forumreaching across the traditional dividing linesof a complex and diverse urban community.

The primary goal of JCCI is a better quality oflife in Jacksonville through positive change.It has a short but impressive record for thequality, objectivity, clarity, and practicalityof its studies of community problems, andits advocacy for the solutions it develops.Jacksonville has experienced the benefits ofnumerous improvements growing from these citi-zen studies.

Other JCCI goals grow largely from its focus onpositive change. High on the list are the edu-cation and dialogue the studies themselves pro-vide to participants. The work of JCCIstrengthens citizen competence and awareness,provides for ongoing dialogue amongdiverse ele-ments of the community, and serves as a catalystfor bringing together decision-makers.

JCCI is founded on a deep faith in the abilityof citizens to set aside their differences andjoin together to learn and reason about problemsof mutual concern. Its growth and success offerrenewed hope for this basic democratic conceptas a means of addressing the complex issues ofmodern urban communities.

JCCI receives funding from the United WayofJacksonville, the City of Jacksonville, corpora-

tions, and individual members. Occasionalgrants have been obtained for specific projectsor conferences.

The JCCI membership now exceeds 450 citizensrepresentative of all parts of the Jacksonvillecommunity.

JCCI Reports Chairperson

Local Government Finance Robert D. Davis

Housing Thomas Carpenter

Public Education(K-12) Robert W. Schellenberg

Public Authorities HowardGreenstein

--Strengthening the Family Jacquelyn Bates

Capital Improvementsfor Recreation Ted Pappas

Citizen Participation-- in the Schools Susan Black

-- Youth Unemployment Roy G. Green

Civil Service MaxK. Morris

Planning in Local Government .. I. M.Sulzbacher

But Not in MyNeighborhood Pamela Y. Paul

The Energy Efficient City Roderick M. Nicol

JCCI BOARD OF MANAGERS

George w. Corrick PresidentHowardGreenstein President-ElectBetty S. Carley SecretaryRobert T. Shircliff Treasurer

Jacquelyn BatesJames BorlandPatricia CowderyRobert D. DavisEdward W. DawkinsGeorge FisherMoses Freeman

Daniel L. LaurayFlo Nell OzellEspie PatrinelyPamela Y. PaulJames RinamanRobert SchellenbergSuzanne SchnabelStephen Wise

JCCI STAFF

Marian Chambers, Executive Director

Annette BrinsonCathy CarticaLinda Collins

Lavada DockeryJohn HamiltonFrances KlingKay Nelson

15

~

.,

= ~, ;~ ""C ~~~ --, -~ '" e ~~ 1IIi!~,"

JACKSONVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL, INC.

1045 Riverside Avenue, Suite 180

Jacksonville, Florida 32204

(904) 356-4136

_." ---, ~ -"",---

Dr. David Swain5400 LaMoyaAvenue, # 17Jacksonville, FL 32210

...........

'-

~ ~

A JCCI Study: Coordination of Hl,IlTIan ~~;Hvrces~ :,~

~'"- - --

~.- --;'

J

"

f

' Non-ProfitOrg.,U. S. POSTAGE I

PA, 0, Permit No.1999! i'1cksonvil~,Fl' .

United Way