Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - ASSET Admin Meeting June 7, 2023Minutes ASSET Administrative Team June 7, 2023 @ 12:15pm United Way of Story County @ 315 Clark Ave, Ames, IA 50010 Attendees – Ron Smith, Jean Kresse, Deb Schildroth, Becky Harker, Sandra King, Jenny Schill, and Joel Hochstein Guests: Chloe Jaeger (Intern with Ron Smith), Belinda Meis (YSS), Jennifer Schmit (YSS), Dieter Friton (MGMC), Melissa McGarry (MGMC), and Kathy Pinkerton (TSA) Call to Order: 12:16 pm Approval of May 3, 2023, Minutes: Kresse moved to approve May 3, 2023 minutes, with correction of Schill’s name on page 4. Seconded by Schildroth. Motion carried unanimously. Treasurer’s Report: Smith reported a current balance of $572.78. There was discussion about website training to avoid charges for questions related to the website. Schill will forward monthly invoice for Microsoft to Smith. Schill will send out the invoices for the annual general fund (expenses) of $1000 to all four Funders and the additional invoice for her services to United Way. Schill will have checks mailed to Smith’s address. Old Business: Status of ASSET Reference Manual Review Kresse reported that Funder staff have reviewed it and are waiting to include how agencies will need to upload budgets. It will be ready for the August 10th ASSET Board meeting and agency training on August 14. Status of the ASSET Laptop, Software, and Training Schill has a laptop and the Microsoft programs have been installed. Training needs to be coordinated with City IT staff, so Schildroth asked who is interested and asked for dates and times. RFP for Emergency Shelter Services Update Schildroth announced that one proposal was submitted. Kresse said in the RFP it was stated that the review team would be made up of ASSET Funder Staff as well as members of the Admin Team and potentially members of the Financial Stability Work Team. She requested dates and times for anyone on the Admin Team who is interested in being part of the review. Harker and Hochstein are interested; Smith will participate if the time works. Kresse will send out a Doodle poll to Financial Stability volunteers to see who wants to participate in the review. Kresse let the team know she worked with leadership from The Bridge Home on the Excel workbook for the RFP. Harker asked if submitted proposals don’t fulfill the request what are next steps? Kresse responded that we would need to take a recommendation back to the individual funders.. The Funders would then need to take action. Schildroth pointed out the ASSET Board meeting in August is scheduled with the Joint Funders and the recommendation should be presented at that time. 2 New Business: Global Reach quote for website Kresse said it would be good to do a website refresh, but ASSET does not e have the resources this year to accomplish this. The cost will be $5600 for the overall website update. Hochstein suggested looking for other local services that could do a website for ASSET. Kresse suggested the Admin Team postpone discussion on website until later date. King suggested that we put together a list of what we need updated on the website before we look for options of who could update. Schildroth mentioned the local company, Saltech as an option. Liaison Assignments FY 25 Kresse asked Schill to send out an email to volunteers requesting any conflict of interest with the agencies. The deadline to respond is June 23rd and then Adm Team can make liaison assignments. Schildroth said to include current assignments in the email as a reminder for the volunteers. Schill needs to correct The Community Academy listing on the liaison assignment sheet. Schildroth noted that whoever is the liaison for The Red Cross, will need to postpone scheduling their liaison visit until after the budget submittal deadline to see if they will submit a budget for the next funding cycle. Wings of Refuge Notification Letter Action needed: Policy states that if an agency hasn’t participated in process for two years we need to inform them that they are no longer in the process. Schildroth emailed the draft of a letter to the Admin Team for review. Kresse motioned to send the letter, seconded by Schildroth. Motion carried unanimously. New/Expanded Service Requests: YSS – Youth Employment Kresse pointed out that YSS is proposing changes to the definition of Youth Employment Assistance compared to what is currently in the Reference Manual. She stated that she isn’t opposed to expanding what Employment Services might be for youth but the Reference Manual currently has a different definition of this service. A general definition like this isn’t fulfilling the intent of this service. Instead of changing the definition of the service consideration we may need to add a new service. YSS representatives were invited into the meeting. Schmit stated that they are proposing to include 6th graders in the Youth Employment Assistance program and move to a more skill-based model with this age group and specifically with soft skills. Kresse asked how this program will be delivered. Schmit explained, it will be delivered the same as it currently is but just include 6th grade. The program is currently in Collins-Maxwell, Colo NESCO, Nevada and Ames high schools. Smith asked how YSS determined if they wanted to expand to other high schools instead of expanding to middle schools? King asked how will you measure outcomes? Schmit responded that it is hard to measure the soft skills but they do an oral presentation and a pre- and post-survey. King also asked if they have talked with Mundel about what data to collect for Scorecard and Schmit responded that they have not yet. Meis asked for clarification on whether this meeting was just for approval to submit a request to ASSET and that these questions would be asked and answered if they are approved? Schildroth explained that these questions can be asked now as part of the decision process. Kresse asked how much of the curriculum will be delivered to the kids? Schmit explained that it will be the same as it is now and depends on where the student is and they [YSS] will meet them where they are. Smith stated it seems that if it is critical to reach middle school students YSS should maybe look at reaching all middle school 3 students in the County instead of reaching the older age group that they are currently reaching only part of the County. King asked if they were looking to request the total budget of $50,000 for this service from ASSET? King asked a follow up question that if this was approved, where would YSS be reducing their ask for other services to ASSET? Meis responded that they would have to look at their overall request. Kresse, in addition to the curriculum are you still offering the employment activities that are listed in the service? Schmit responded that yes, this new service is an expansion. Kresse asked if this is a curriculum does that mean YSS is going into a whole class and teaching this? Schmit responded that yes, sometimes it’s a whole class and sometimes it’s with a small group of students. King asked what their current success rate is before expansion. Schmit stated that she didn’t have that answer but would get it and let us know. Harker asked, why YSS is offering this program and not the schools? Schmit responded that the workload of most school counselors does not allow them to do this, or the schools want them to implement other services and let YSS implement this for them. Kresse, asked how referrals from parents get to YSS? Schools reach out to YSS to help facilitate and make those connections. Kresse asked about Scorecard reporting for FY22, and YSS reported that those numbers are not correct. Kresse asked that those numbers be communicated to ASSET with the correct data. Schildroth noted that a lot of the funding for this service is provided through ASSET, she asked if YSS has approached the schools about contributing to funding this service? Meis communicated that they will be meeting with the schools they are currently working with and can discuss how they can contribute to funding these services. Hochstein pointed out that in the request it states that it is hard to measure some of the outcomes related to soft skills but there appear to be a good number of tools that measure these skills. Schmit wasn’t familiar with these tools but will explore them. Schmit and Meis left the meeting. Kresse suggested that YSS be advised to strengthen the current service as written with the current population. Harker motioned to deny this request, seconded by King. Motion carried unanimously. MGMC – ARCH (Smith and his Intern left and weren’t present for this discussion or vote) Melissa McGarry and Dieter Friton joined to present this new service. They gave an overview of this new service. ARCH stands for Alternative Response for Community Health. This is a service to respond to emergency calls that don’t need a paramedic, police or firefighter. These calls go through dispatch and are typically mental health related calls and welfare checks that don’t necessarily need an ambulance. Melissa provided a sheet summarizing the six month pilot program and the numbers served. Funding for the next fiscal year will be provided in partnership with the hospital, City and ISU. MGMC is approaching ASSET for funding because they are looking for community support and funding and ASSET provides that. Kresse asked what the cost of the pilot program was. McGarry stated that for May and June it costs between $35,000-$40,000 for just staff . Kresse then asked what the $308,000 request would cover and McGarry replied that amount is staffing at increase hours. The City is funding part of this program next FY out of their one time funding. and recommending that ARCH find longer- term funding options. Kresse pointed out that since this involves mental health services, the County can’t fund it, therefore, this would be a request to the City, United Way and ISU Student Government. McGarry mentioned that if funding isn’t possible they would look at ongoing grants and possibly look at the need for this service. Schildroth asked if they have had conversations with CICS. Friton responded that yes, and CICS would like it scaled to serve a broader jurisdiction, but ARCH pointed out that each community is different and has different needs and processes. Kresse asked about the relationship with CICS and do they see overlap with the Mobile Crisis Response Team. Friton 4 responded that it is evolving and that there isn’t much overlap but more of a complimentary service to the Mobile Crisis Response Team. Kresse asked how the budgets from MGMC would be submitted moving forward. Would they submit their Home Health Services. McGarry responded that they could submit them however ASSET wanted. It could be submitted with Mary Greeley Home Health or as a separate budget. Kresse pointed out that it would probably go under service code 3.09 Crisis Intervention. King asked if there were any portions of this service that could be separated from mental health so that some of the request could go to the County. Friton responded that he thought it would be too difficult because there is too much crossover. Kresse doesn’t think it will fit under public health so it would need to be a separate MGMC request. McGarry and Friton left the meeting. Further Admin team discussion on how this service is different from already existing services in the community. Schildroth clarified that the City funding for this program for FY24 is from the ending fund balance in the General Fund. Monies from this source are for one time expenditures. Schildroth further explained there are grants available from Federal sources that MGMC could be eligible for. Harker motioned to deny accepting this as a new service and the motion was seconded by Kresse. Kresse mentioned that approving this service to be invited into the process does not approve funding. Questions can be asked during the hearings about the viability of the program if ARCH isn’t able to get all of the funding requested through ASSET. Schildroth said that this program does meet some of the Funder priorities. Vote: Opposed unanimously. Kresse motioned to approve the service and the ASSET team work to determine service code this falls under and the motion was second by Harker. Motion carried unanimously. TSA – Temporary Emergency Shelter Kathy Pinkerton gave an overview of the Temporary Emergency Shelter. She is making the request because of the amount of requests they are receiving for this service. She does have another service, What If’s, she is submitting for a new service but it wasn’t included in the initial submittal. Pinkerton will send the new and expanded service form that has been completed for this service, and she will be invited back to the next Adm Team meeting to discuss that service. Pinkerton explained that when people request emergency shelter, she sees if the other providers have room or if those other providers have even been approached. If they have and they are not an option, then TSH will provide hotel nights. Kresse asked about the referral process of when someone requests shelter. If the client says TBH is full Pinkerton will call and follow up to confirm. Schildroth asked about staff time committed to this service. Pinkerton responded that it is only her. Pinkerton is unsure how the RFP for Emergency Shelter will affect the need for this service in the next FY. Pinkerton left the meeting. Kresse motioned to approve this service applying to ASSET and the motion was seconded by King. Schildroth expressed concern about increasing services and not staff there could be service delivery issues. She hopes that TSA realizes this and will make adjustments. Motion carried unanimously. Returning Service Form: Hochstein asked if it would be possible to make all of our ASSET forms fillable PDFs? Kresse motioned to approve and adopt the new form and the motion was seconded by Harker. Motion carried unanimously. Schill will send it to Hochstein to make a fillable PDF and then post it to the website. Additional Items/Concerns: 5 Kresse asked for an update on the Butterfly House. Schill said she emailed a response that to apply to become a new ASSET agency, the deadline has passed, and they will need to apply next year. Schildroth updated that she will be taking Policies and Priorities to Council next week. YSS is requesting to reallocate about $70,000 of funds for this fiscal year so she will be talking with Andrew Allen to discuss further. She also let the team know that there were 41 applications for the Assistant City Manager position. Phone interviews were done this week and from there they will narrow it down to virtual interviews and then onsite interviews. She estimates that it will be end of August or early September before they get someone onboard. Hochstein asked who will be the contact person for ASSET in the interim and Schildroth responded that no one has been appointed yet. Kresse reported that the United Way board did approve the Policies and Procedures. King reported YSS requested over $67,000 for Teen Maze and submitted a claims for over $40,000 for Teen Maze. If approved, the total cost for Teen Maze would be over $108,000. YSS confirmed that 48% of the Teen Maze participants were from Story County. King told Allen that she would be considering 48% of those bills since that was the number that participated in the program. King talked with Allen about the program and funding and communicated future conversations need to happen around this program and future funding. Adjournment at 3:37pm