Not currently. I'm trying to see. When Safe and Sound was first started, it was all City. They 90 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 were all City employees. Secretary Richman served on the Board for a while up until a couple of years ago. But we currently do not have any City employees.
What role does the Board play in the evaluation of the programs that you fund?
The Board meets quarterly, although in the last four, five months it's probably been more like one and a half times a month, given all that's been going on. We receive periodic reports from Anne as to the quality of the programs. We get a complete explanation of what the programs consist of. We don't as a Board go in and actually try to measure ourselves the success or failure of any of the programs. We do ask, I think, the right questions and think we do get sufficient information from the staff, but we don't do a hands-on evaluation.
In its 91 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 current relationship with the City, does Safe and Sound submit proposals to DHS? Are all contractual services between Safe and Sound and the City based on a specific request from DHS?
Yes. In the monthly meetings that we have with the City Budget and Program staff, we review -- those meetings are used to define the scope of work for each of the contracts that we have each year, and then every month we review that scope of work and where we are both in terms of the programmatic implementation as well as the financial expenditures. We provide very extensive information on the expenditures. We provide a specific provider-by-provider list of payments and tracking related to the invoices that providers submit. So all of the things that we've done with respect to starting the curfew 92 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 centers, hiring the parent truant officers, taking over the youth worker portion of the Adolescent Violence Reduction Partnership were all done at the request of the City.
Yeah. I just want to underscore, we don't prepare a proposal and submit it to the City and say, Fund this. It generally works the other way around. They decide what activities they want Safe and Sound to engage in in the upcoming fiscal year, put a dollar figure on it and say this is -- and I might add, this has caused some consternation among Board members, because some Board members do not like this process, felt that we were simply taking what the City was throwing our way without full regard as to its implication to Safe and Sound and its original mission. I took the position, however, that we're there to help the Administration. It was founded to do that, and I feel unless it's illegal or 93 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 it is something completely out of our mission, if the Administration says, We want you to handle this for us next year, we will, and we have done that.
You weren't there, Ms. Shenberger. You were there. When the organization was set up, you had the City -- I'm not criticizing. I'm just trying to be clear. The City needed a 501(c)(3) to manage the program, so they set up Safe and Sound so that the money could flow to them and they could contract out rather than going through DHS to run these programs, which are basically programmatic activity.
Yeah, but when you use the word "quasi" government, I think we just worked on a mission statement, and I think out of that process came the statement that we are an independent 501(c)(3) organization. So we don't view ourselves as -- we view ourselves as an intermediary, an organization that helps the City, but we are certainly not part of City government.
Well, you might be better off as a quasi-City agency, because then you're going to open yourself up to competitive bidding for the program.
Because you're a 501(c)(3), and now the contracts have to be competitively bid. So you might want to determine what you want to be. I have some questions for 95 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 Ms. Shenberger.
I wanted some clarification going back to some of the questions that I made to the previous panel. During this whole discussion around an increase of over 100 percent in your budget, it was very public both Council's objections to the allocation. I'm assuming and -- not assuming, but in the previous panel, they talked about the discussions that happened periodically and the fact that we were entering non-compliance on the City's part, and since we're partners in this, what was the discussion at your Board around accepting money that publicly Mayor-elect Nutter had said he would question, and I think at one point he even cautioned Safe and Sound in taking? What was the 96 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 discussion at the Board level at that time?
To be honest with you, it wasn't until recently that I knew or found out that the money was to be taken from protective services, the 8 million you're talking about. What we 9 knew when the City said -- 10
From the protective 13 services -- is that the right 14 terminology -- program. I found that out recently. The discussions at the Board level consisted of, We know we got 54 million. And we kept asking Anne, Is it more than that? If not, let's just make a budget for the 54 million. Anne says, No, the City wants us to do 75. And when she produced to us the $75 million budget signed by the City, it sort of made it a moot issue. But I'll tell you, I don't 97 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 recall any discussions at the Board level -- let me back up for a minute. There was a discussion at the beginning when we were asking where is the additional money coming from, and there were some groups that we thought, some Board members thought, were going to get cut out as a result of that. It wasn't these groups that we're talking about now. At least that wasn't my understanding. But then we were assured, and one Board member asked Anne to make sure that that was not going to happen, because if that were the case, he would vote not to take the money. Anne talked them, and they assured her the money was not being taken out of these groups. So the Board voted. But we didn't know the specifics of the 14 million at the Board level.
Well, I just want to echo what Ernie said. I didn't 98 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 know until I heard from providers that a letter had been sent out to the foster care providers.
I guess my question is, since September, there was some discussions around this increase of budget of over 100 percent. There was a lot of contention. Council took public positions, very public positions, in saying that they would not authorize the appropriations, for the money to be moved. You knew the Mayor was going to the State. You knew the State was not approving the money based on our needs assessment criteria. Mayor-elect Nutter is saying he has some questions about it, he would hope that the Administration did not move forward. All of this stuff was happening in the public venue, but you still proceeded to entertain the --
No. That's not what we did. We went back to them. Anne went back to them and said, Given all of 99 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 this, let's get the budget down to 54 and let's do the cuts now. The City said, No, don't do that. I mean, we actually -- but let me just say this: I've entered into contracts, over 100, in my professional life. I have never questioned the City. If they said you've got X number of dollars for a contract and they give you a contract, I figure it's up to them to decide where the money is going to come from. But given the uncertainty of the money -- and I kept telling Anne, Don't spend money we don't have -- she went back to the City and said, Let's get it down to the 54, and they said, No, you keep it up at 75 and we've got a transfer ordinance going that they thought was going to go through.
The people that we dealt with at the City went all the way up to the Mayor's Office. So at 100 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 all levels, at the DHS Commissioner level, at the DHS budget level, at the Managing Director's level. And when the initial -- just to give you sort of the parallel chronology to what Dr. Evans talked about, we sort of had a chronology parallel to theirs. We submitted several budgets in May that were consistent with the $54 million allocation that we understood we had, and, in fact, we did get an award letter for that amount initially, and after submitting several budgets and options to the Administration, they rejected all of them and decided -- and asked us to do a scope of work in a budget for the 75 million, which we did, and we got an amended award letter in July and a signed contract in August. And then as the situation started to unfold with the transfer ordinance, I was in communication with Ernie and the Board. When the transfer ordinance initially was not introduced, that's when we sent a letter out to our 101 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 providers suggesting that all might not be well and that they would be well-advised to look at their own spending, that Council had not introduced the ordinance, that it did affect funding that had been designated for us. And we began then the internal belt-tightening. At the same time, I sent that letter to the Managing Director asking for direction in terms of whether we should curtail any of our activities, and again received direction to continue and to begin programs, to continue to issue award letters. Again, we submitted three or four different budgets between October and the beginning of December, all of which were also rejected.
Councilwoman Tasco referred earlier about members of your Board, and I notice that you have some providers that are also on your Board, and part of the problem with all of this is this image thing, and, unfortunately, the great work gets caught 102 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 up in the imaging. Do you not find that a problem, that some of the people that are on your Board are also receiving money?
We have a conflict of interest policy. There are two, John Chin from the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation and Patricia DeCarlo from Norris Square. They do not participate in any of the deliberations as it relates to their program. In fact, one of them was on the hit list -- two of them to be eliminated. So, I mean, I think the Board is -- and I hope they're not here right now, but, I mean, we recognize the appearance of a conflict and I think we go out of our way to avoid that, but, again, in our bylaws, we have a provision that says -- because this is a child welfare agency, to really get the best thinking, you're going to wind up getting people who do this day in and day out, and that's why we have them on the Board. 103 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 They both are good Board members and they contribute a lot to the organization.
You talk about your budget. You say that only five percent is administrative, although some of the folks that you contract are also umbrella organizations for on the ground. So what part of their on-the-ground budget is reflected? Because you contract with several organizations, the Archdiocese, the Congresos, who are also umbrella organizations. What percentage of your contractor budgets go to administrative costs versus services?
We have an administrative cost standard, but I would need to get back to you to make sure I'm being accurate on what the standard percentage is.
We do. We do, but I don't want to tell you that I know 104 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 that off the top of my head. I think I do, but I want to make sure.
In all these discussions going back to the previous panel, were you part of the discussions with the Department of State, Department of Welfare?
Was there any interaction at any point by Safe and Sound with the State based on their denials for needs assessment?
At any point during all of this stuff that's going on, was Safe and Sound -- when they were contracting with the contractors from the beginning -- your fiscal year for your contractors run from when to when?
Very efficiently. Are we that efficient in all 105 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 departments? Very efficiently you got your award letter. At what point did your contract start with your providers?
Depending on the different type of provider. I actually have a list here, which I can provide for you.
What I want to know, when all of this stuff is transpiring with Council not approving the ordinance, when you issued those contracts, at any point did you amend any of those budgets for your providers?
We issued the award letter and then we held the contract.
When you issued the contract to the provider and 106 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 you knew this was not going on, were they notified in writing that there was no -- that the Council had not approved the appropriation?
I have copies of the letters, which I can give to the Committee. The letters say that the transfer ordinance was not introduced and there may be funding problems, that currently we have a fully executed contract with the City. The City has not instructed us to reduce or eliminate any programs at this time, and that we will monitor the situation with the City closely and update them as we get more information.
When you began the process of cutting back, how was that handled? Were the providers brought in and discussed around their cuts? Did you give an opportunity for 107 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 the providers to --
We were asked to provide a revised budget within a week. So it was -- it would have been very problematic for us to actually have the time. I think that that would have been -- obviously the preferable process would have been more deliberative.
When you issued letters informing providers that there might be cuts, at any point did you say to them, If this came to a halt January 7, 2008 when the new Administration came in, do we have a plan of action? Did those conversations happen with providers?
Not in that context, no, because we were continuing to submit those revised lower budgets, which were continuing to be rejected.
There was a meeting 108 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 at some time with the providers.
Yes. We did meet with providers and tell them directly that we had concerns, but we did not use the language you just used. We used -- we said beware --
So we never gave them, the contractees, what is contingency plans if January 7, 2008 -- since the Mayor-elect had already said that he has some concerns, we never said, What's your contingency plan?
Only to the extent that we suggested to them that they would take the same actions that we were taking, to review their costs and to be frugal about their decision-making.
So when you made some recommendations on the cuts -- because you're saying back in September you were making provisions for 109 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 a $54 million budget?
And that wasn't shared with providers around how you scale back in case that doesn't happen. When you made your reductions, was that based on your initial $54 million budget?
No, no, because so much time had elapsed. Our original submissions would have been much less drastic, because they all had implementation dates that were either full fiscal year or even six months. Several of the budgets that we submitted would have had some cutback starting in January. So when we got the information that we needed a new budget, we needed to achieve a certain target level and could only start March 1st, because we needed to give 30 days' notice. So we had to make -- the decision-making criteria were quite different.
When you 110 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 developed your criteria for resubmission of this reduced budget, what were some of the factors that you were looking at?
We were looking at the extent to which the agencies' allotted slots were used, was a significant factor, as well as the results of the quality assessment, the SACERS scores, as well as the qualitative assessment of our staff that worked with the providers, and then the geography.
So in some cases -- and I'll speak specifically to the ones in my councilmanic district that I'm aware of. When you had somebody who had a Beacon, somebody who had a curfew and potentially had PTO, in that analysis, did you figure what the financial impact would be so that if you're eliminating a program, you're not taking out the core 111 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 and then they can't provide the other two programs? Was any of that taken into account?
We tried to look at that, but in terms of the amount of time that we had to make the assessments and to produce a budget, a week is a challenge. So we would have preferred to have had more time and we would have really preferred to have been able to sit down both with the Administration and with our providers, because I think that had we been able to sit down with the providers, we would have gotten much -- we have a very good relationship with our providers and I think we would have gotten some very good advice from them had we had the time to be able to do it.
I would just add on that point, when we finally got word from the current Administration that there was no more money, the Board got together on a Saturday. We gave up half of our day 112 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 on a Saturday to have Anne go over in mundane detail the criteria she used for eliminating different programs. And I can tell you, the Board -- there was not unanimity on the Board as to whether or not that was the best way of doing it. Some people argued that you ought to put it where the greatest need is, regardless of how well the program is doing. There was some that said we want the most effective programs. There's no easy way to do that, and as Anne said, if we had more time, we probably could have involved the providers in a different way, but we were told to get a budget together.
In a letter dated July 2nd, which is real fast -- I'm telling you, I never saw anybody else work that fast -- from Dr. Evans, it states that the allocation of 75 million to Safe and Sound is contingent on availability of City and/or State funding. What did you understand 113 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 that to mean?
That's their standard award letter. So it's the same award letter that's issued every year.
Yes. They're told that it's subject to the availability of funding.
Who told you to receive provider services when you knew the funding was not available?
That came from both the Finance Office and the Managing Director's Office.
Who was the Managing Director? 114 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139
I guess you answered the next question. It says why did you proceed with funding commitments without having the funding. Because?
Well, one, because our contract has two signatures from the Budget Office on it that clearly say that the funding is appropriated and encumbered. So one is because of those two signatures. And the other is because we were directed to do so. And, again, I think in Ernie's testimony, the issue is, to some extent, ours, because we have the contract, but the Administration would have ordered those services be delivered whether we were the conduit or not. So it wouldn't have changed the financial situation that providers are in right now, because the Administration wanted to deliver the service.
It seems 115 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 that you really, based on your experience of working with the City Administration, you had not had any problems in the past, so you didn't see that there was any problem this time --
-- with that? Let me ask you a question. I think Councilwoman Sanchez asked it. Going back to if you really had the $54 million and you knew that was your budget, then you wouldn't have sent letters asking for new Beacon programs; everybody would have received the same funding for the same programmatic activities that they had?
But based on the letter stating you were going to get $75 million, you proceeded to allow for the providers to implement -- or see to increase their budget, expand their 116 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 programs and then set up new programs?
But the difference in that is, we didn't just decide that with the extra $21 million we could decide on our own what it was going to be spent on, as if we wanted to build a house. We could not have done that. With the extra $21 million came very specific instructions from DHS as to how you spend it. They wanted these number of Beacons schools increased and the other sort of -- FAST program, the other services. So, again, the point I want to make is, we don't get money. I mean, they don't just dump money in our lap and say, Go spend it. The money and funding come with very specific instructions, almost sometimes on what staff you need to oversee the programs, and this comes from DHS. So we're not a loose cannon out there just running around. 117 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139
Were you ever told which programs to fund specifically?
In terms of the curfew centers, the way that RFP was issued, we issued the RFP and a joint group reviewed the proposals, and then the final decisions were made by DHS, and they notified us of their final selection. So in that case, yes, we were told which providers.
I have a question related to the curfew centers. In the case -- because I notice that in the last six months, there were lines that were redrawn because there was additional money available, and I want to talk specifically to the case of Lighthouse that began the program in the second round and had a very effective program in their boundary lines, and then 118 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 the boundary lines were changed. And the reason I bring this up is because it has an issue with if they're not meeting their numbers. So they went from serving the district that they physically lived in to serving two districts that they physically don't live in, and this happened within months of when all this stuff was going on with additional funding to accommodate new providers. So we took agencies who spent a lot of time setting this up and, because we wanted to redraw the lines, gave them another territory that then they have to start from scratch from stakeholders, and then we go back and we cut them because they don't have numbers. I mean, who was involved in some of those discussions?
Those discussions were primarily conducted within DHS and between DHS and ourselves, but in terms of the driver, I guess, of the curfew policy-making is with DHS.
Who from 119 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 DHS was making those decisions specifically?
The Curfew Manager is a guy named Ron George, and he, up until the Administration changed, worked very closely with the Managing Director's Office and the Division of Social Services and then also obviously with us.
I think it will be important if they can stay around as we hear from the providers just in case we have some additional questions that might arise.
I just made a little snide comment, Mr. Jones, on your testimony on . You say the million budget addition that brings us 21 here today was one of those difficult and complex situations. It is important to set the record straight as to precisely what transpired, not to blame others or absolve Safe and Sound, but to help you 120 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 understand the dynamics of the past several months and possibly suggest procedures that could avoid future occurrence. And my snide comment is, don't trust outgoing Mayors. Thank you. Would you stay around?
Thank you. I often wondered the comments that were made at a curfew center opening in my district, one of the few programmatic activities I attended with the former Mayor, he kept saying that Councilwoman Miller and Councilwoman Tasco would not let these curfew centers close, and I think he understood clearly what he was doing with the $21 million. 121 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 Next we have Margaret Zukoski, Diane Cornman-Levy. Are you here? (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Would you state your name for the record, please.
You may proceed. And then we'll let you introduce yourself, ma'am, and proceed with yours.
Good afternoon again. I am Margaret Zukoski and I am pleased to offer testimony to the Public Health and Human Services Committee today as the Associate Director of the Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services, a statewide membership association of private providers of services to children, youth and families. Again, we thank 122 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 Councilwoman Tasco and members of the Committee for convening this hearing. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Administration for restoring some of the cuts and programs like the Beacons, curfew, after-school and Adolescent Violence Reduction Partnership, which were put into place on February 1st. Providers support efforts to ensure that public dollars are used efficiently and effectively in the delivery of services. The Pennsylvania Council represents more than 130 providers of child welfare, juvenile justice and prevention services. In total, our member agencies employ 20,000 Pennsylvanians. The majority of our member agencies serve Philadelphia children, youth and families through purchase of service agreements with the Philadelphia Department of Youth and Services directly and its intermediaries, like Philadelphia 123 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 Safe and Sound. Our member agencies deliver a broad array of services, including high-end services for children and families involved with the child welfare system, those children who have been abused and neglected or placed in foster care, group home and residential facilities, as well as youth in the juvenile justice system. Many of our member agencies also have as part of their primary mission the delivery of services aimed at supporting children and families at risk for involvement with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems through the delivery of prevention services. These providers are keeping Philadelphia children safe in after-school programs, safe by keeping them off the streets. They're supporting permanency in families and ensuring the overall well-being and health of our children. Today, I would like to address 124 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 three points relevant to recent events: The role of private providers in the delivery of prevention services, concerns that the private provider community has about the notification and response to funding concerns, and, finally, make some suggestions for how we can move ahead to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of prevention services to support our City's most vulnerable children and families. We cannot take our eyes off the next funding year beginning July 1, 2008. Since the year 2000, Philadelphia has been in the forefront in our state of delivering prevention services through contracts with private providers. It should be noted, however, that for decades preceding the creation and expansion of publicly funded prevention services, providers recognized the value of these services and were delivering them with private dollars. Because there was no overarching plan or 125 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 support for services, there was an absence of consistent programs throughout the City. Some neighborhoods were fortunate to have programs; others not. With the commitment of public dollars, services were expanded and targeted to the City's neediest neighborhoods and their children. With these dollars, providers were afforded access to evidence-based programs, technical assistance and training. Family and children now access programs that were well resourced based on best practice and were expected to deliver defined outcomes. Citywide programs have stemmed youth violence, truancy and kept kids safe. Even with the advent of public support, however, private providers continued to contribute both funding and in-kind services to support programming.
For example, the curfew centers provide space at no cost for the City program, and Beacon programs contribute at least 126 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 percent of program costs. Private contributions to services, although significant, are seldom, if ever, acknowledged. I'd like to talk now about providers' experiences with the recent cuts. There are a number of providers here who will speak in much more detail and more eloquently about the impact on children and families with regard to the cuts. Private providers first became aware of potential funding shortages last year in August when they became aware that the transfer order of $34 million, million of which was designated for Safe and Sound funding, was not going to be forthcoming. They asked questions about this and did receive a letter from Safe and Sound indicating that they should be cautious and look for cost-saving methods within their own agencies. In December, providers of 127 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 mandated services, over 200 of them, received letters from the Department of Human Services, suspension notices, advising them that they would have to because of funding shortages terminate mandated services to almost 14,000 children receiving these services as of April 30, 2008. Although this has been characterized by the City as an accounting artifact, this did not provide providers in our system with the confidence that the City could move forward to protect its children. Providers have not been privy to the internal conversations and dialogues that you have heard about today between Safe and Sound and DHS and the City Administration. Although we asked questions, we were often met with few answers and no good responses. When information finally became available, it did not come from DHS, the City or Safe and Sound, but from a news report that appeared in the February 1st edition of 128 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 the Philadelphia Inquirer. Families and children who rely on these services, Beacon, after-school, parent truant officers and the AVRP program and staff working in these programs, read about the cuts and terminations of programs in the morning edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer on the way to their jobs. Private provider administrators were faced with distraught families and staff asking about whether services they relied on would be available, would they have jobs. The provider administrators could not answer the questions, because they themselves heard about the cuts and terminations at the same time in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In the late afternoon of February 1st, DHS convened a meeting of the affected providers. They were brought together and heard for the first time about the situation that resulted in the cuts facing them. Even then, on 129 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 February 1st, at 3:30 in the afternoon -- it was a Friday afternoon -- providers had not received any definitive information regarding who was cut, to what degree they were cut. Providers were told letters were in the mail --
Providers were told by City leaders that the letters to their individual agencies detailing the degree of their cuts were in the mail. That was not true. Late Friday evening, February 1st, and early Saturday morning, February 2nd, providers received faxes telling them what the degree of the cut was to their agency. When they finally arrived, many providers had questions based on unclear and conflicting information in the letters. In the week following the announcements, we struggled to get clear 130 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 information about the impact of the cuts. Providers wanted to ensure that when they were laying off staff and informing families, that they had correct and accurate information. Providers, when they did receive information, began laying off staff and telling families about the closing. However, the information has been shifting. Last Monday, February 11th, providers were alerted that the AVRP program Youth Worker component was not going to be cut as they were originally told. Providers heard this from DHS, not Philadelphia Safe and Sound. And when they tried to get clear direction again about the scope of the cut, they are still waiting for that information. This past Friday, before the long weekend began, rumors began to surface that other programs would be preserved. Although welcomed news, it was not confirmed. Providers who had not 131 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 already done so were giving layoff notices to staff on Friday to meet the March 1st deadline for program closing and downsizing. When we finally did hear that rollbacks in the cuts were forthcoming, once again, it did not come from the City, DHS or Safe and Sound. We learned about it through press releases. We're still waiting to receive letters relevant to the rollbacks in the cuts. Providers are reluctant to rescind layoff notices because they, to date, still do not have accurate information with regard to the degree that their programs are being preserved. (Applause.)
I just heard within the last 15 minutes that providers are receiving voicemails and text messages from the DHS staff asking them to look at making cuts in their AVRP center-based programs and to get the information to DHS by Sunday. This is 132 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 pretty consistent with how information has come to the provider community over the past several weeks. We, the provider community, we, those who are responsible for delivering direct services, those who are living in the community, serving the families and children, ask one simple thing. We ask that we be part of the planning and decision-making process, that we be provided with accurate and timely information. (Applause.)
We have felt caught in the middle of what we characterize, frankly, as a political battle, with no access to reliable information on which to act. (Applause.)
As a result, consumers have lost confidence in our commitment, and experienced and qualified staff are leaving our programs. Who would stay? They're frustrated and 133 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 disillusioned with our City. You will hear more from our providers about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified staff. Programs are being restored. Will we have the staff to man them at this point? We face huge challenges filling jobs. We will face huge challenges filling these jobs when funding for the next fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 is still so undetermined. I would like to make some suggestions about how the City should proceed as we work our way through this current dilemma, and I want to reiterate that while providers are supporting and making every effort to keep their programs going through the end of the year, we have to keep our eye on what is going to happen to prevention services beginning July 1, 2008. You heard Dr. Evans reference the Needs-Based Plan and Budget process, and I would like to talk about that a 134 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 little bit here, as this will form the basis for funding in the next few fiscal years. In 1991, the Commonwealth enacted Act 30, which established a funding mechanism for county children and youth agencies based upon their identified financial needs and certified by DPW. Act 30 of 1991 created a process that was intended to provide adequate funding to meet the wildly differing needs of Pennsylvania's 67-county children and youth agencies in an equitable manner using consistent standards. Each county children and youth agency, including DHS, is required annually to submit a Needs-Based Plan and Budget to the DPW Office of Children, Youth and Families. The plan includes a funding request for the following fiscal year in which it is submitted, as well as a request for any changes in the current fiscal year. It is intended that this document accurately reflect the needs of 135 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 each county and be a product of a collaborative county planning process involving children and youth, juvenile court and Council. The act also requires that community input be actively solicited and incorporated into the process. The total DPW certified amount for all the counties is the basis for figures presented to the budget, to the Governor for the state budget. Each county is required to make its plan and budget available for public review and comment before submission. For the past two years, the Needs-Based Plan and Budget process in Philadelphia has fallen far short of the legislative intent. Provider and community input has not been solicited or incorporated in a meaningful way. In July 2006 and again in July 2007, plans were submitted for public review without the budget information attached. In July 2006, after public comment was given, the 136 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 plan was significantly revised behind closed doors, not incorporating public comment, and submitted to DPW. In July 2007, once again, a plan was made available for public comment without the budget attached. Comment is significantly limited when information about how public dollars will be distributed is not available. There has been no transparency in the system. And as we heard earlier from Richard Gold and Dr. Evans, DPW did not fully fund or appropriate the dollars necessary to support the prevention programming. It was based on the Needs-Based Plan and Budget submitted in these past years that we see ourselves here today. As the City and DHS look ahead to the upcoming fiscal year and the next fiscal year, Pennsylvania Council recommends that consumers and providers be included in this planning process in a meaningful and thoughtful way. We must 137 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 begin to look at how prevention services will continue to operate in Philadelphia.
We are quickly approaching the new fiscal year, and this discussion about the scope, funding and management of prevention programs cannot be delayed. DHS is relying on a comprehensive system of prevention services as part of its redesign of in-home protective service and the alternative response system. Before plans to redesign DHS's children and youth component can proceed, the prevention services system must be secured. While the City continues to focus on Philadelphia Safe and Sound and its role as an intermediary, we urge you that the City does not lose sight of the bigger picture and include the provider community and consumers of services in planning efforts. This concludes my testimony. Thank you very much. 138 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. )
Thank you very much for that testimony. We'll come back to you with questions.
Good afternoon. My name is Diane Cornman-Levy. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to provide testimony. I am the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Federation of Settlements, an umbrella organization with a mission to develop safe, healthy and thriving communities by creating high-quality capacity-building opportunities for its network of settlement houses and neighborhoodöööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö 139 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 serving as an incubator for creating new approaches. Since 1906, the Federation has worked with its affiliate agencies to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of children, youth, adults and families. Many of these community-based centers, some of whom you will be hearing from today, have served multiple generations of families. Collectively, our member agencies have well over 500 years of direct services to children and families in Philadelphia. Currently, our network is composed of 15 affiliate community-based 17 settlement houses that collectively provide services to more than 100,000 children, youth and families per year in 45 economically challenged neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia. Programs and activities include, but are not limited to, parenting classes, out-of-school youth development activities, summer camps, adult education classes, domestic 140 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 violence prevention programs, senior centers, emergency assistance, family center, case management, intensive behavior wellness, workforce development and professional development for those who work with youth. Today, I would like to speak on behalf of our network -- and, again, you're going to hear more from some of our affiliate members -- about the financial and social impact that the Philadelphia Safe and Sound cuts has had on the Federation and our affiliate agencies. I would also like to address the manner in which the agencies were informed about these budget cuts. 5 million of revenue for six of our affiliate agencies, as best as we understand it. One of these agencies alone has lost over $600,000 of revenue. That translated into individuals 25 losing their jobs and more than 300 141 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 individuals losing services. Another member agency lost just under $600,000 of revenue, resulting in individuals losing their jobs, and 6 they have already been notified of their 7 jobs being terminated. We still don't 8 know the impact of how many children and 9 youth have lost services, because there's 10 still unclear information about the 11 amount of budget, how much money is being 12 cut at this point. 13 For the Federation, we lost a 14 significant amount of funding for our 15 youth development training program that 16 allows for the professional development of youth workers, many of whom are in great need of research-based training that improves their effectiveness in youth development practice. Research has shown that youth workers who are not properly trained to work with youth are not only often ineffective but often cause more harm to youth with respect to their emotional and social development. 142 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 The funds that we receive through Philadelphia Safe and Sound, which was originally from DHS, were supporting this professional development training program. We are now no longer able to provide that training.
During a time of escalating rates, of poor health, depression, suicide, high school dropouts, truancy and functional illiteracy among youth across our City and nation, cutting funds for prevention -- and I would rather call it investment in our youth -- has a potentially devastating impact on the lives of thousands of children, youth and families. )
Thank you. With respect to the social impact of these cuts, receiving notices in the midst of the school year and the providers' fiscal year has resulted in turmoil and anxiety within the agencies and for those receiving services. In 143 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 addition, many children and families our affiliate members serve have been emotionally hurt due to violence in their lives. As such, building trusts with those we serve is critical to helping those heal and for building healthy communities. Cutting services to them without much notice or without any back-up plan is not only cruel, but potentially devastating to the emotional well-being of the individual and the health of the community. By cutting services, we are sending another message to those who have been hurt many times that we do not value them, that they are dispensable and that they do not belong. These acts feed into despair -- (Applause.)
-- and hopelessness that many youth and families feel, ultimately resulting in greater violence. For those affiliate agencies that lost funding, they're doing their 144 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 best to keep programs open, because they are deeply committed to serving the needs. They are doing this by cutting supplies, assigning more youth to each youth worker, and using volunteers who have no experience working with youth. This results in compromising the quality of their programs and increasing the risk of burnout and turnover among their staff, which you just heard. We are losing a lot of good staff. We should not and cannot afford to keep asking the health and human service providers to do more with less, as the needs of those they serve continue to increase in both number and complexity. With respect to how we were notified about the budget cuts, I must admit that the process was disorganized, disrespectful and deeply confusing. The Federation and its six affiliate agencies received notices via fax from Philadelphia Safe and Sound on February 145 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. m. Many of the letters, including the one addressed to me, had wrong addresses, incorrect spellings of names, and vague or no 6 information about how much money was going to be cut. With no clear or accurate information from Philadelphia Safe and Sound, our affiliate agencies were left hanging with unanswered questions. As such, they could not make any plans for the immediate future and could not answer the many questions that children, youth and families were asking them. It is now February 21st, and the questions are still unanswered, as you just heard. Frankly, I think this is inexcusable. If funders expect service providers to be transparent, then the City administrators and others need to be transparent, too. With respect to what criteria Philadelphia Safe and Sound used to determine which program services would be 146 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 cut, Anne Shenberger responded with, We cut those programs that were either not functioning at full capacity and/or were located in the vicinity of another organization that provided similar programs. Out of the programs that 9 were either terminated or received less 10 funding amongst our affiliate members, 11 ten programs were functioning at full capacity and five programs had a waiting list of people to join their programs. For the affiliate agency in which cuts resulted in a loss of 300 individuals losing services, there were no other programs in the vicinity that could accommodate those children and youth. As such, families were and continue to scramble to find a place for the children to go after school. So my question about the decision-making process remains. What was their source of data with respect to identifying those programs that were cut 147 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 or received less funding? From our experience, the data was either grossly inaccurate or the decision-making process was capricious. My final comment has to do with the notion that funding is no longer there to support these programs and services. From our perspective, this does not make sense. Many of the programs that lost funding were originally funded by DHS. The allocated funds were transferred to Philadelphia Safe and Sound in May and June of 2007. On October 30, 2007, we received a letter from Anne Shenberger stating that organizations that were originally receiving fundings from DHS for Fiscal Year 2008 -- I'm sorry. Anne Shenberger sent a letter to organizations that were originally receiving funds from DHS for Fiscal Year 2008 that Philadelphia Safe and Sound had signed a contract from DHS for Fiscal Year 2008. In the letter she wrote, The contract is sufficient to 148 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 support the operation and management of existing programs.
The Federation programs that were terminated -- and ours and others in some of our affiliate agencies were existing programs, as were many of the programs that were cut among our member agencies. If this is the case, then why is there suddenly not enough funds to support these existing programs for Fiscal Year 2008 if the funds were merely transferred to and from Philadelphia Safe and Sound? Where did the money go? So I hope that this testimony provides you with a better understanding of the impact Philadelphia Safe and Sound cuts have had on the service providers and the many children, youth and families who benefit from these services. I hope that our questions are answered quickly. I hope that the money will be quickly restored to providers as soon as possible. Speaking of that, we received a 149 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 letter from DHS stating that we were getting our funding back. I talked to our affiliate agencies. They haven't heard anything yet. I hope we all learn from this incident that communication between City officials, funders, service providers needs to be timely, clear, open and honest. As we move forward as a city, we need to invest in the people in our city by investing in organizations that are accountable, reliable, transparent and effective. I have great faith that the new Administration will ensure that no child and no family is truly left without essential care services. Thank you very much, and this is the end of my testimony. )
For both of you, you're both providers and receive 150 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 funding. How much of your funding was cut? What percentage of your budget?
The Pennsylvania Council is a membership organization. We do not receive any funding from Philadelphia Safe and Sound.
And you don't have an assessment of what your provider organizations were cut?
Because the information with regard to the degree of the cuts, the confusing information, the inaccurate information, we have not been able to secure definitive information about the dollar amount. It's changing day to day.
We are in the same situation. I can tell you right now they've been told with the letters it was about $1.6 million collectively. For a couple of these agencies it was a large percentage. But, again, the information is changing, it's not accurate, so we can't even give you accurate information 151 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 at this time.
For example, we have one member agency who received a letter indicating that there was a cut in the number of slots for an after-school program, but the dollar amount for their contract was raised. This was the confusing and conflicting information that we're trying to get answers for.
Ms. Shenberger -- is she still here? We asked her to stay because there might be questions. Would you stay? We're going to proceed with further testimony. Ms. Zukoski, you talked about Act 30 and you're saying that the county has to present a Needs-Based Budget?
Needs-Based Plan and Budget. It's under state statute. Every county children and youth agency in the state, all 67 of them, submit a plan and budget on an annual basis to DPW. It's based on their identified need for 152 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 services that the State determines the level of funding, what they're going to fund, and presents a budget, the total budget, to the Governor.
I have one more question related to that. So what you're saying is that in the past -- because I know there have been some issues with DHS, and obviously the leadership transition and instability hasn't helped. In the past, providers have not been part of the development process of our needs assessment --
Correct. Not in a meaningful way. We are -- and the Pennsylvania Council annually provides comments on the Needs-Based Plan and Budget at a public hearing hosted by DHS. In the past two years, we had to comment on a plan without any budget attached. 153 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 The budget was released later and submitted to the state without any public comment.
So since 1991, you haven't had any community input --
I can only speak to my tenure in the City, and I would say at least going back eight years, there has not been a meaningful and collaborative effort with the City to engage, I believe, consumers and providers of services who are on the ground, who are delivering services, who have a wealth of knowledge and expertise that they could share with the City. There has not been a meaningful dialogue with the City to inform the plan.
And you've been aware that up to about last year we were turning away between $60 and 154 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 $80 million in preventive money that was unused?
Thank you. Ms. Shenberger, would you come back to the table, please. (Witness approached witness table.)
Some questions have been raised relative to the insufficient communications about the cuts, what would be cut, why the cuts. You may have heard the questions that were raised. Could you respond to that, please?
I didn't hear the specific questions, but I can say that given the time frame that we had to prepare the budget and notify providers, I can fully understand their concern about the lack of communication and the need to sit down and talk about what the 155 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 letter said. So it certainly was not an optimum process and not one we would want to repeat if we had the opportunity. It should have been a much more deliberative process and involve the providers and others who had knowledge of the communities in a much more direct way, but given the time frame that we had to work in, it was extremely challenging, and then once the budget recommendations had been decided upon, then the request for notification of providers was immediate. So we were really operating under a lot of time constraints, and that's one of the reasons that we wanted to be responsive to providers, because we expected lots and lots of questions once the letters went out, and we're still -- we've scheduled meetings with providers. Our executive staff had a call list of providers to make sure that everyone got a phone call to make sure they got the letter, to see if they had any questions about it, to offer a meeting, because we 156 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 knew it wasn't an optimum process.
We have -- it depends on how you phrase the question, because we have over 200 programs, but we have about 100 different providers, but for this process, we sent out over 300 letters.
Because individual providers might have more than one program. So all told, we sent out over 300 letters. So some providers got four or five letters because they had four or five programs, which then I think added further to the confusion, because they were trying to sort out what does the letter mean. There were three different template letters. One was very clear, your program needs to close March 1st. But then there were two others, one of 157 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 which was a slot reduction and one of which was just a budget reduction with the same slot numbers. So imagine yourself being an agency that provides five different services contracted through Safe and Sound and getting a variety of these letters for different sites saying slightly different things, because the impact on each site might have been different. So it was not an optimum process all the way around, and we would hope that as we go forward, we're able to sit down more deliberatively with the Administration and make sure that we're all clear on what the budget is that we're implementing and how it impacts on the providers and that we do have sufficient time to make sure that people are properly notified in a respectful way.
I may have misheard Ms. Zukoski. It seemed to me that she said most of the communication 158 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 came from DHS. Did you say that most of the correspondence you --
Right. And that was another complicating fact that I think neither the City nor we had any control over, that there was information that got out to the media ahead of any of the meetings with the providers, which was very problematic.
Was it too difficult or too confusing to have sort of a meeting of all the providers to give an explanation or would that have been too confrontational?
I think that it would be helpful, but almost as soon as the letters went out, then the discussion about what the impact was and the discussion with Councilmembers 159 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 started. So now at this point, if we had a meeting with all providers, I'm not sure what specifically we could tell them, because we need to get clarity on what the revised City position is. So things have just been moving very rapidly.
Right. We don't yet have a revised award letter from the City.
Do you have a range? I mean, in all these discussions on Tuesday, the Mayor made an announcement. Were you given a range of a budget allocation?
Well, we got a phone call from the DHS budget staff saying this is the number that you're going to get in an award letter, but what it's for specifically in terms of the 160 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 number of slots to be restored, the actual total budget line item amounts for AVRP and the curfew centers, we don't have that kind of detail.
My understanding was that the Administration, when this whole chaos started, the Administration asked Safe and Sound for recommendations on cuts. What were the recommendations that you had made as it relates to going back potentially to the 54?
Many of those recommendations are what the providers received, but we also went back to our evaluation process and there were some additional recommendations that we made that the City did not accept, and one of 161 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 those is one that came out in the newspaper ahead of time and that was regarding the curfew centers. And one of the issues with the curfew centers had to do with the fact that for a number of them there are a number of days where there are no kids being picked up, so that the utilization of the centers is not as high as had been predicted. So that was one suggestion that we thought the City would want to consider in terms of the expenditure versus the number of kids being picked up. And there are issues with the availability of police to be able to have the time to pick the kids up, and I think that was their choice, was that with more attention on the police side, that the centers themselves would be more effective. They'd get more kids because the police would be picking more kids up.
Are those centers where I mentioned earlier we redrew the lines on them like two 162 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 months ago?
So when you were working on a $54 million budget and everybody was going along with the 54 million and then you were told you were going to get million and letters went 10 out to the providers that there will be 11 additional money coming in and then you 12 funded new schools, were you asking -- 13 I'm trying to get this in my head. If 14 you had a $54 million budget here and 15 people sort of expanded, did you ask them 16 to cut back their expansions and let's 17 get back to the 54 million? 18
In most cases, 19 that -- in the after-school programs, 20 that's what we did. We recommended in 21 this most recent revision that the expansion of after-school programs be closed March 1st, because some of them were slow in getting started and we felt that the impact there would be less 163 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 severe.
The new Beacons, what we did with those was, we ranked all 40 Beacons according to the criteria that I talked about earlier, whether they were expansion or existing, and looked at those that ranked in the bottom ten based on the utilization and the SACERS scores, the geography and the internal assessment of their administrative capacity.
So a Beacon school that had been open for a long period of time could find itself closed?
The utilization is a significant factor, because if we're paying for kids and families to use slots where the utilization is less than 60 percent, then the research shows that kids need to be going to programs more than once a week 164 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 and consistently over a period of years to achieve an impact that's positive on their behavior and their academic performance. So the number of kids who use the slots is really an important criteria. So that was weighed very heavily. So a program that had been in existence for a long time but only had maybe percent utilization would be 11 more at risk for being closed than a new 12 program that was up at 80 or 90 percent 13 utilization already. 14
But for 15 the cuts, though, they would have 16 remained open? 17
Well, at 19 some point, I think maybe you want to get 20 together with some of the -- the two ladies who testified who offered testimony regarding communication. I think that needs to be better improved --
-- so that 165 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 people understand what's happening to them.
Now, I noticed that from the Mayor's fact sheet from his testimony on Tuesday that you've been asked to look at your salaries and benefits of your organization. Have you done that? I mean, what would the impact be on your salaries, your staffing?
Well, we did reduce our -- I actually have that information in my cheat sheet, so I can provide that to you. But we had a budgeted staff in the $75 million budget of about 103 positions and as of today, we have 73. So that's in my testimony. I talked about what we did is a belt-tightening process. And we laid off a number of people at the beginning of February as well. So with respect to the actual salaries and benefits when I first came 166 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 to the organization, I engaged a compensation firm to do a salary study and establish a compensation plan for the organization. So we implemented that in the fall of 2006, the fall and winter of 2006. So we've had a compensation plan that's based on industry standards since that time.
Also in this fact sheet -- maybe you can answer if you want to -- the Nutter Administration's FY08 actions announced February 19th hold children harmless while directing Philadelphia Safe and Sound to reduce its administrative budget, preserving all after-school programs, including Beacon after-school programs, preserving all curfew centers, preserving FAST, truancy and parenting programs, preserving AVRP services, directing of Safe and Sound to identify additional savings elsewhere in its budget, particularly in administration so as to maximize services for children, 167 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 administration seeking funding sources elsewhere in DHS, installing a City monitor with Safe and Sound to monitor its use of City funds, and preserving foster care and protective services for 14,000 children and youth by restoring 200 contracts cut by the Street Administration, to provide Safe and Sound with funding above the level approved by City Council and the State. Now, what do you think about that?
Well, that's a mouthful to comment on. So we're looking forward to sitting down with the Administration and making sure that we're both on the same page in terms of the restorations and what they'll cost, and certainly we will be looking at our own costs to see where else we can reduce them as well.
Well, that's not for you to answer. I mean, because you can't answer it. That's the 168 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 Mayor's promised commitment to these actions. So based on this, I would not send out any other announcements until you had a discussion to see --
-- how all of this is going to take place, because it further exacerbates all of the pain and anxiety that the providers are experiencing at this time.
I'm going to add one thing to that that's not on here where I'm in disagreement with the Administration, and that is of the PTOs, because in all these discussions -- and I'm sure we have some testimony from PTOs -- I have a big concern around how we lay off 300 parents that we've engaged 169 2/21/08 - PUBLIC HEALTH - RES. 080139 in our school-based prevention program. (Applause.)
So that if the number is 57.9 million, or whatever it is, that we really look at how do we reduce things in a way so that we can preserve what we can until at least June 1st, almost at the end of the school year, but that we also look at what is going to happen next year and that we, again, impact that needs assessment program. But I will put on the record that I will continue to push the Administration to revisit the PTO situation in a way just like we've done with the kids. And while I understand that the focus is the kids, these are parents of those kids. So it's still -- (Applause.)