Additional Housing Employee
-
..
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 2000
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Proposal for Additional Section 8 Employee
Since 1994, the City has provided federally mandated Family Self-Sufficiency Program
services through a contract manager. The need for these and related services has grown
throughout the years. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has
modified their rules this year to provide adequate funding to replace the contracted services
with a staff person who can provide these services and more.
The new position would have the following duties:
1 . Case management for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program.
2. Crisis intervention, assessment and referral for Garfield House residents.
3. Family Advocate Program responsibilities.
The benefits of this change are:
1. Greater accountability.
2. Saving time of other staff members.
3. Save $18,000.
4. The Family Self-Sufficiency Program can be expanded to help more families.
5. Provide time to do preliminary investigation of Section 8 Program eligibility to
reduce the potential for fraud.
I respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval of the addition of one staff person
to the Housing Services Department. ~ k L
MiChael C. Van M~en
MCVM/dd
Attachment
cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel
Tim Moerman, Assistant City Manager
CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
MEMORANDUM
30 June 00
To: Mike V]. Mffiigen, City Manager
~~-
From: David arris, Housing Services Department
Re: Proposal for additional Section 8 employee
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to request an additional staff person for the Section 8
housing activity, to perform as case manager for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program.
Background
Since 1994, when HOD made implementation of an FSS Program mandatory for all new
(incremental.) housing vouchers, the Housing Department has administered a program using
contracted services. We initially funded the program using CDBG funds exclusively. In 1997,
when HOD first made FSS Coordinator grants available, we applied and obtained funding. In
succeeding years, renewals of this funding have been "automatic," with three percent (3%) annual
increases. This year's contract budget is $30 642.
Our mandated FSS caseload is 33 families. However, for the past two years we have carried 45
families on the Program, supplementing the FSS Coordinator annual grant with a $15000 CDBG
allocation.
We contracted with a non-profit agency for case management services for the first two years.
However, that agency's performance was so lacking that we subsequently issued a request for
proposals from other service agencies. For the past two years, we have used a second agency as a
contracted provider.
Additional. Background
The Garfield House SRO (single room occupancy facility) has been in operation since 1990. The
Housing Department wrote the application which provided a ten-year rental. assistance grant to
the owner, for rooms for homeless men. In recognition of the need for monitoring of activities at
this facility, we have provided case management and crisis intervention services to Garfield
residents, since 1992. We contracted with the first non-profit agency for these services, averaging
approximately $6000 annually. Section 8 operating reserves are used to pay these costs. Again,
for reason of poor performance, we terminated that agency's contract, as of the first of this year.
Currently, the Housing Department is not providing oversight functions for this facility, other than
referrals on a case-by-case basis.
A final background note concerns our Family Advocate Program. The Housing Department
initiated this program last year, in response to a need to have a better intervention mechanism for
Section 8 families in crisis. We have contracted with a third agency for this service, with mixed
resuhs. We are budgeted for $1600 annually for this program, using Section 8 operating reserves.
Discussion
We have sought to develop partnerships with area non-profits as a means of meeting our service
needs for the FSS Program and Section 8 families. Initially, we had little choice, as the FSS
Coordinator grant did not provide sufficient funds to pay for additional staff However, this year
the regulations have changed. We are no longer constrained by the annual 3% grant increase;
instead, we are allowed to make a request for renewal funds, based on area agency rates of pay
for social worker/case manager services.
The reason for consideration of adding a Section 8 "caseworker" position is simple: we have not
been able to obtain consistent performance from our contracted provider agencies. Specifically,
the problems we have experienced, over the past several years, include:
I. Timely performance. We can't get agencies to do the work when we need it done.
Often, the nature of the problem is extremely time-sensitive: we need to provide
interventions - and follow-up - on an immediate basis. Agencies often will only
respond according to their own schedule.
2. Accountability. A real source offrustration for us has been our inability to get agencies
to provide required written reports, perform assessments, follow up with quarterly (or
other) periodic visits and reports and maintain files in required formats. Simply put,
these agencies are just not "bureaucratically responsive." As the Housing Department
functions with a high degree of accountability to muhiple state and federal funding
sources, we cannot jeopardize our effective working relationships with these funders
through incomplete or incompetent record keeping regarding expenditures.
3. Staff turn-over. Typical of non-profits is a high rate of staff turn-over. Our staffspend
considerable amounts oftime training contracted agency staff: then have to repeat this
training time and again as new staff appear. This is costly to us in terms of use of our
staff time, as well as contributing to frustration and morale problems as we continue to
see the needs of our client families neglected.
4. Complexity of federal programs. HUn and Congress continually change the regulations
which govern the Section 8 programs. These regulations are complex and require
considerable expenditure of time and funds, on our part, to keep staff trained and up-
to-date. Using our contracted service providers, we have to impart this knowledge in
order to obtain required perfonnance. Our experience has been that, in many cases,
the agency personnel have difficulty comprehending these regulations. Coupled with
the turn-over problem, this results in inadequate performance and additional use of our
statftime in following up on the agencies' work.
We have submitted this year's renewal request for the FSS Coordinator grant in the amount of
$33995. This includes a salary of$25 833 plus fringe benefits. This is in line with the current
Coordinator rate paid to staff by ECIA; their range for this position is $35512-$44 453. This
equates to our GE-27, or "assisted housing specialist" position.
This position would include the following duties:
1. Case management for the FSS Program caseload, of 45 families.
2. Crisis intervention/assessment and referral for Garfield House residents (11 men.)
3. Family Advocate Program responsibilities. Currently, we are referring two-three
families annually for services under this program.
Currently, we have been paying approximately $52 000 annually for these combined services, to
the three non-profit agencies. With this proposal, we have the opportunity to accomplish
basically all these services, with the cost fully under-written with the FSSCoordinator grant. We
will be able to reduce the CnBG allocation by as much as $15000, helping with the cap problem
for the "public services" category and making additional CnBG funds available for other City
purposes.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve this position request. The benefits resulting
include the following:
1. Accountability. With an employee providing these services, we will get the
performance we want, when we want it.
2. Savings of staff time. With an employee, continuous training needs will be reduced,
as the turn-over problem will essentially be eliminated.
Another plus for staff time savings concerns FSS Program financial accounting
requirements. Because the HUD regulations require a complex financial management
system for this program - including the setting up of individual, interest-bearing escrow
accounts for each participating family - we have never been able to turn this functioneover to a contracted provider agency. This in turn takes up a good amount of the
Section 8 Activity Supervisor's time. With adequate training, this accounting function
could be transferred to the new staflPerson, freeing the supervisor for other needed
duties.
3. Cost savings. Based on current costs, we will be able to save as much as $18 000
,
annually - currently paid by a combination of CDBG and Section 8 reserve funds.
4. Additional benefit. As mentioned, we are required by HUD to have an FSS family
caseload only for incremental housing vouchers. This currently totals 33 families. In
recognition of the benefits of this Program, we have expanded this total to 45 families.
However, with an additional staftPerson to handle this caseload, we have the
opportunity to expand the Program in another way. Frequently, we hear appeals of
families who have been proposed for termination of Section 8 benefits, fur reason of
violation of Program regulations. Sometimes, extenuating circumstances merit the
granting of an additional "chance" to the fumily. But to enhance the possibility of
success for that family, we seek to build in additional support services. One ofthose
services is case management.
With the proposed staflPerson, we could make additional referrals, offumilies in crisis,
for "mandatory" FSS Program participation. With the kind of intensive case
management services our staff could provide, we could significantly increase the
probability of success for these families, by making FSS participation a condition of
continued eligibility for benefits.
5. Additional benefit. For many years, we have perceived the benefit of having a "fraud
investigator" on staff, for the Section 8 Program. We know that some applicants
and/or participants do not fully report their income. We know that, if we had a staff to
do the time-intensive investigation needed to document these abuses, we could:
1) reduce fraud on the Program; and 2) realize an additional source of Program income.
(HUD regulations have recently changed, allowing housing authorities to capture 50%
of all fraud penalties as program income.)
Our thinking is that, given the relatively "small" caseload for the proposed position, it
would be possible to allocate some of the Coordinator's time to fraud investigations.
Action Step
The action requested of the City Council is to approve an increase of 1.0 FTE to the Section 8
activity at the Housing Services Department.
cc:
Randy Peck, Personnel Department