Statement of Problem/Need Being Addressed

City of Lawrence

Outside Agency Funding

APPLICATION

General Information: Each year, the City Commission considers requests for the allocation of dollars to a number of agencies that provide services benefiting the Lawrence community. The decision on funding a request will be made during the City’s annual budgeting process. The decision will be based upon the availability of funds, the need demonstrated through the agency’s application, the stated objectives of the applicant’s program, past performance by the agency in adhering to funding guidelines (as appropriate), and the ability to measure progress toward the program objectives.

Instructions: Applications for 2008 funding must be complete and submitted electronically to the City Manager’s Office at cliebst@ci.lawrence.ks.us by the deadline of 5:00 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

Questions? Contact Casey Liebst, Budget Manager at cliebst@ci.lawrence.ks.us or at 785-832-3409.

Section I. Applicant Information

Legal Name of Agency:		The Shelter, Inc.
Name of Program for Which Funding is Requested:			Juvenile Intake
Primary Contact Person:		Judy Culley
Address:	105 W. 11^th, P.O. Box 647
Telephone:	785-843-2085		Fax:	785-843-2086
Email:	jculley@theshelterinc.org

Section 2. Request Information

A.	Amount of funds requested from the City for this program for calendar year 2008:	$34,737
B.	Will these funds be used for capital outlay (equipment or facilities) in 2008? If so, please describe: No
C.	Will these funds be used to leverage other funds in 2008? If so, how: These funds help to leverage a grant that provides a limited amount of “Flex Funds” and case management funds from the state, the grant’s goal being specific to prevention of state custody only. The goal of that grant is similar to these funds but more limited in scope.
D.	Did you receive City funding for this program in 2007? If so, list the amount and source for funding (i.e. General Fund, Alcohol Fund, etc.): $34,737 General Fund
E.	If you are requesting an increase in funding over 2007, please explain exactly how the additional funds will be used: NA

Section 3. Agency and Program Budget information

A.	How many paid full time employees work for your agency?	34	Volunteers?			Approx. 25

B.	What percent of your total 2007 budget goes to employee salaries and benefits?				58.7% (FYE 6-30-07)

C.	What percent of your total 2007 budget is used for operating expenses?			97.8% (FYE 6-30-07)

D.	What is the total estimated cost to provide the program in 2008?			$263,250 (CY 2008)

E.	What percent of 2008 program costs are being requested from the City?			13.2% (CY 2008)

F.	List other anticipated sources of funding and funding amount for this program in 2008:
	Anticipated Funding Source				Dollar Amount
	Juvenile Justice Authority				$147,093
	Douglas County				$66,636
	Fees				$10,655
	JABG (Federal Funds)				$4,129

	(Note: Responses to D, E, and F above relate only to services available through our Juvenile Intake Program.)

	TOTAL 2008 PROGRAM BUDGET				$263,250

Section 4. Statement of Problem/Need to Be Addressed By Program

A. Provide a brief statement of the problem or need your agency proposes to address with the requested funding and/or the impact of not funding this program. The statement should include characteristics of the client population that will be served by this program. If possible, include statistical data to document this need.

The funds that we receive from the City are administered by our Juvenile Intake Program, which provides services to children as they are identified by law enforcement as well as providing prevention and diversion services designed to help children avoid system involvement. Through our core Juvenile Intake service, we have staff on call to law enforcement on a 24/7 basis, with a 15 minute response time, to assist with any case involving a child. That service is funded through the Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA), as indicated above. Through Juvenile Intake, we also provide our Pre-Filing Diversion/Conditions of Release Supervision service (PFD/COR), which provides an opportunity for first time or low level offenders to be diverted from prosecution as well as providing supervision for alleged offenders from the time of arrest until they appear before a judge, all in an effort to keep alleged offenders from re-offending and help them avoid court contact. PFD/COR is funded by Douglas County, a small federal JABG grant, and client fees, all indicated above.

The funds that we receive from the City, then, allow us to provide what we believe to be the primary prevention service that we offer through Juvenile Intake. We use our City funds to pay for Family Services for children and families, many of whom have come through Intake, with the goal of preventing or minimizing involvement with the court system, either for an offense or for a family problem. For families meeting certain criteria for financial need, we have paid for such services as tutoring, drug/alcohol evaluations and treatment, and various other specific needs to enable individual children to remain out of the system, in school, and productive. Eligible families are identified not only through our staff, but also through other specified agencies in the community, such as Bert Nash (WRAP), Douglas County Youth Services, the SRS Truancy Diversion Program, infant/toddler programs, the schools, and others, all of those agencies being in a position to see children and families who are at high risk for being involved with the court.

We believe that this service is extremely important because it addresses individual needs for children at a time when it is still possible to intervene positively in a way that may provide enough support to allow children to stay with their families without assistance from the court. All of this money, with the exception of a small administrative cost, is used directly for families, not staff. The consequence of not funding this request, then, would be that approximately 150 children and families would not receive help and would be at significant risk, as we have served an average of 150 families per year for the last three years with City funds.

B. How was the need for this program determined?

We have been doing the core Juvenile Intake Service since 1987, and the need for Family Services funds has been apparent to our staff virtually since the inception of that service. Because a part of our responsibility in providing the core service is making referrals to SRS for at risk families following a law enforcement contact, we regularly saw the crisis situations these families are in and the types of help that they needed. In 1997, then, the funding for the core service was shifted from local government to the state, at which time we asked permission from local government to use local funds to invest in the families we see, with the hope that we could make less referrals to SRS and perhaps reduce the numbers of children with law enforcement/Juvenile Intake contact. We received permission at that time to use both City and County funds to pay for Family Services. In 1998, then, the number of Intakes we did with law enforcement started to decrease, going from 994 in 1997 to 951 in 1999 to 847 in 2001. While we don’t know that providing funds for services to families was the direct cause of the Intake numbers going down, we do know that the number of Intakes continued to go down in subsequent years, and has now leveled off at approximately 700 per year. We believe that this decrease can be attributed at least in part to our Family Services funds, combined with other prevention efforts developed by other agencies. Due to loss of federal funds, we are now using our County funds to pay for our PFD/COR Program, which makes the funds that we receive from the City for this purpose extremely important.

C. Why should this problem/need be addressed by the City?

We believe that prevention is an ideal role for the community to play in the lives of children and families who are at risk. The primary financial responsibility for the “system” surrounding children who can no longer live with their families rests with the state, which is appropriate, as the law provides for the state to take custody of these children and provide services to them. Because these children are first identified as at risk in the community when they are seen in school, by law enforcement, and by other community agencies, the community has a chance to intervene early with services that are less intrusive and more individualized, with the hope that state custody can be avoided. We believe that, through our Family Services funds, our community is making an attempt to “take care of our own,” with the hope that the state will not need to be involved.

Section 4. Description of Program Services

A. Provide a brief description of the service you will provide and explain how it will respond to the need you identified in Section 3. The description should include how many clients will be served, and should describe as specifically as possible the interaction that will take place between the provider and the user of the service.

In order for a family to access our service, we ask that they are referred on our written referral form completed by a professional who knows the family, which may include our own Intake staff, other staff from our agency, or staff from other designated agencies. We ask for another professional’s referral in an attempt to include only families who have a real need that, if met, will help prevent or minimize system involvement. (For the few families who contact us directly, we help to connect them with other services and get significant information about their situation. We may then require them to take steps on their own prior to approving their request). Generally, the amount of money available per family is between $200 and $250, with the idea that we hope to provide a bridge for the family to deal with their immediate crisis and get set up for a long-term plan to deal with their situation. It is notable that in the last two years we have received a higher percentage of requests for utilities than in previous years, perhaps due to increased costs for utilities. We believe it is important to consider these, as lack of utilities clearly puts children at risk, and it is difficult for a family to focus on functioning well if their basic needs are not met. We do not generally consider multiple requests from the same family for the same crisis situation. However, if, over time, a family experiences more than one emergency but appears to be making an honest attempt to implement a reasonable long-term plan, we will consider a repeat request on their behalf.

After we receive a referral, we meet face to face with the family to get more information about their need. Often this meeting involves some crisis intervention, after which we get the specific information about their identified need, including appropriate documentation. We also go over their financial situation, including a budgeting sheet to help them understand and plan for their on-going needs. As a part of that budgeting discussion, we ask about other agencies that are providing any help for the family. Following that initial meeting with the family, we make collateral contacts with the referring professional, and, if there are other agencies also involved in helping the family, we also do collaborative work with them. At the point that we determine that we will fund the request, we authorize payment to the service provider directly rather than giving money to the family, and we get receipts from the provider.

B. Describe any efforts your agency has made to explore the community to determine if there are any other agencies providing similar types of services. What efforts have you made to coordination services?

There are certainly other agencies and funds in town that help meet individual or family needs by paying for various services. As indicated above, we ask the family about any other agencies involved when we meet with them, and we contact those agencies as appropriate. The agencies we work with most frequently include ECKAN, Salvation Army, Ballard Center, the Leo Center, and our own agency’s Flex Funds, with SRS being the agency with the most long-term resources for these families. While it would appear, on the surface, that efforts may be duplicated among these agencies, the goals for each one of them are different. Their funding sources are different as well, some of them having access to federal funds and state funds, all of which can affect their funding criteria and limits. We are very committed to the goal of prevention or minimization of system involvement for at risk children, and we think we are in a very good position to provide for a family’s crisis needs and then facilitate a workable long-term plan to achieve our goal, coordinating with other agencies to maximize the help available for the family in the community.

Section 5. Program Objectives

Please provide three specific program objectives for 2008. Objectives should demonstrate the purpose of the program and measure the amount of service delivered or the effectiveness of the services delivered. A time frame and numerical goal should also be included. Examples include, “75% of clients receiving job training will retain their job one year after being hired,” “increased fundraising efforts will result in a 15% increase in donations in 2008,” “credit counseling services will be provided to 600 clients in 2008,” “new digital arts program will serve 275 students in 2008” etc. Applicants will be expected to report their progress toward meeting these objectives in their six month and annual reports to the City.

	Program Objectives

1.	We will serve 150 families with these funds in 2008. (Note: The number of families that we serve is artificially limited by the amount of money that we receive and the amount of money that we are willing to consider per family. Our goal, then, is to serve the same number of families that we have averaged in the recent past, in keeping with our request at the same funding level as recent years. We count families served at the point that the case is closed, so we are anticipating 150 closed cases in 2008.)

2.	In 2008, at least 85% of families will get help with budgeting following our receipt of a referral on their behalf for these funds. (Note: We are setting this as a goal based on our recent experience with these requests. At the beginning of 2007, we started requiring families to come in to discuss their budget following the submission of an application on their behalf. To date, we have had a small number of families who have not met with us to receive budgeting help because it was difficult for them to come in due to transportation, a medical condition, or the like. We have, of course, funded their request if it was appropriate, but we can individualize our procedure so that they can also receive budgeting help. Beyond those families with individual issues, it appears to us that this requirement has discouraged a limited number of families from pursuing our help, perhaps because they don’t have time or don’t take time to come in. We have not funded requests for these families. While we believe that this is a reasonable requirement that will ultimately be of benefit to these families, we also do not want to discourage them from asking for help. We set this goal, then, with the hope that we can encourage those families to come in for budgeting help and also receive help with their families’ needs. Again, we count families served at the point that the case is closed, so for purposes of this goal, we will count the number of closed cases in which families received budgeting help after we received the referral. We set this percentage as a guess, as we have very little history on which to base our goal.)

3.	In 2008, at least 85% of families who have received these funds will not have a child go through Juvenile Intake within 6 months after their case is closed. (Note: We are setting this goal because we believe that contact with Juvenile Intake after receiving these funds is a step toward system involvement rather than away from it. That is, then, contrary to our goal of preventing or minimizing involvement with the court system. Due to confidentiality restrictions, we will not be able to check the number of children who go so far as actually going into the custody of the state. Again, we count families served at the point that the case is closed, so we will check our Intake records six months after case closure to see if the children have been seen through Juvenile Intake in that period of time. We set this percentage as an educated guess, as we have not tracked this data over time in the past.)

Please return completed application electronically to cliebst@ci.lawrence.ks.us by

5:00 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

Office Use Only