Application
For an application, please contact Claire Alexander at 941-861-2882
or
calexand@scgov.net.
Application Review Process
Review of the programmatic merits of Contracted Human Services
applications are made by the
Human Services Advisory Council
(HSAC).
The objective of the advisory council is to
recommend
Contracted Human Services funding to the Board of County
Commissioners for services that are
identified and prioritized as being most critical or
strategically effective to the well-being of the community.
The members of the Human Services
Advisory Council have adopted a specific rating criteria to be
used to evaluate the requests for Contracted Human Services
funding.
FY 2012
CONTRACTED HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM
PROPOSAL RATING CRITERIA
-
AGENCY
CAPACITY, ADMINISTRATION, AND GOVERNANCE (5 points)
-
Is the
background and previous experience of the agency
administrator/director consistent with the responsibilities
of the position? [Source: Agency Narrative Question 3]
-
Does the agency
have an effective governing board, i.e. one that meets on a
regular basis, with active members that are knowledgeable of
the agency’s operations? Does the governing board have a
significant role in establishing policy for the agency; in
monitoring operations and service quality; in reviewing,
approving, and overseeing the agency’s budget? [Source: Site
Visit]
-
Does the agency
make effective use of advisory committees? Do clients have
an opportunity to participate through these committees or
otherwise have a voice in the agency’s policies and
procedures? [Source: Site Visit]
|
5 points = |
Agency director has
relevant education and experience for the position;
agency director has been in his/her position for at
least two years; governing board meets regularly and
is actively engaged in the agency policies, service
quality, oversight, and fiscal operations; advisory
committees have client participation and have a
voice in agency policies and procedures. |
|
4 points = |
Agency meets most, but
not all, of the standards listed above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency meets at least
half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency meets some, but
less than half, of the standards listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency meets at one of
the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency meets none of the
standards listed above. |
-
JUSTIFICATION
OF NEED (5 points)
-
Does the
proposal provide sound documentation that the program meets
an identified need in the community? How was the need for
the program identified? (cite source data) [Source: Program
Narrative Question 4]
-
What are the
anticipated adverse effects of not providing services to
meet the unmet needs? [Source: Program Narrative Question
4]
-
Is there a
formal waiting list for the services to be provided? If yes,
how many persons are on the list and what is the average
wait time to receive services? [Source: Program Narrative
Question 9]
|
5 points = |
Agency clearly
articulates the community’s need for the program and
the adverse effects to the community of not
providing the service; and cites local source data
to document the need. A waiting list exists for the
program’s services and the agency effectively
manages the waiting list. |
|
4 points = |
Agency meets most, but
not all, of the standards listed above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency meets at least
half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency meets some, but
less than half, of the standards listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency meets at one of
the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency meets none of the
standards listed above. |
-
TARGET
POPULATION (5 points)
-
Does the
proposal clearly identify the target population to be served
by the program and is the basis for the selection of the
target population reasonable and logical? How many clients
are to be served? Where is the target population located?
[Source: Program Narrative Question 5]
-
Does the agency
have previous successful experience in serving this target
population? [Source: Program Narrative Question 5]
-
Will the
program be readily accessible to the target population? Is
the facility located in an area which is convenient to the
program’s clients? Is the facility accessible by public
transportation? Are the program’s services offered at times
which are appropriate and convenient for the target
population? Does the program make accommodations for persons
with special needs? [Source: Program Narrative Question 7]
|
5 points = |
The
target population for the program is clearly
identified, reasonable, and logical; the agency has
previous successful experience serving the target
population; the program’s services are delivered in
a location, manner, and time that is appropriate and
convenient for the target population. The proposed
number of clients impacted by the program is
significant and reasonable. |
|
4 points = |
Agency
meets most, but not all, of the standards listed
above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency
meets at least half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency
meets some, but less than half, of the standards
listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency
meets at one of the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency
meets none of the standards listed above. |
-
PROGRAM
RESOURCES (5 points)
-
Is the agency’s
proposed staffing plan for the program sufficient to operate
the program? What is the proposed staff/client ratio, and is
it reasonable? [Source: Program Staffing Plan]
-
Is the agency’s
staff culturally diverse, consistent with the population
served? [Source: Program Staffing Plan and Program Narrative
Question 8]
-
Are the minimum
job requirements (education, training, and experience) of
program staff appropriate for their responsibilities?
[Source: Program Staffing Plan]
-
Do new employees
receive orientation/training at the beginning of their
employment? [Source: Site Visit]
-
Do program staff
receive pre-service training regarding their job
responsibilities? Do they receive in-service training?
[Source: Site Visit]
-
Does the agency
utilize volunteers? Is there an effective plan describing
how volunteers will be recruited, what skills and
qualifications will be expected, and how volunteers will be
utilized to supplement the work of agency staff? [Source:
Agency Narrative Question 2]
|
5 points = |
The
program’s staffing plan is appropriate and
reasonable; the staff members are culturally diverse
and consistent with the population served; the staff
members’ education, training, and experience is
relevant and appropriate for their responsibilities;
and staff orientation and training is provided. The
agency has developed an effective plan for
recruiting, training, and utilizing volunteers. |
|
4 points = |
Agency
meets most, but not all, of the standards listed
above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency
meets at least half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency
meets some, but less than half, of the standards
listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency
meets at one of the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency
meets none of the standards listed above. |
-
PROGRAM
DESIGN (5 points)
-
Does the program
goal clearly state what the program is intended to
accomplish? Is the program goal consistent with the agency’s
mission statement? [Source: Program Narrative Question 1]
-
Is the program
performance accountability plan complete (outcomes,
indicators and targets, data source and tool, and
frequency), clearly stated, meaningful, and reasonable?
[Source: Performance Accountability Plan]
|
5 points = |
The
program’s goal is clearly articulated and is
consistent with the agency’s mission statement; and
the program’s logic model and outcome measurement
plan are clearly stated, meaningful, and reasonable. |
|
4 points = |
Agency
meets most, but not all, of the standards listed
above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency
meets at least half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency
meets some, but less than half, of the standards
listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency
meets at one of the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency
meets none of the standards listed above. |
-
COLLABORATION
(5 points)
-
Does the
proposed program represent a collaborative effort with other
agencies or organizations? If yes, does this collaboration
involve joint funding with other partners and/or
coordination of service delivery? Is there evidence that the
collaborative efforts can be expected to produce better
results and/or lower costs? [Source: Program Narrative
Question 10]
-
How would the
proposed program work with other provider agencies to better
serve the target population? Does the agency have formal
linkages with other agencies to accomplish this? [Source:
Program Narrative Question 11]
-
Does the
applicant have a plan to minimize duplication between the
services offered by this agency and those of other
organizations? [Source: Program Narrative Question 11]
|
5 points = |
The
program represents a collaborative effort with other
agencies that produces better results and/or lower
costs; the agency has developed formal linkages with
other agencies in order to better serve the target
population; and the agency has developed a plan to
minimize duplication of services that is reasonable
and appropriate. |
|
4 points = |
Agency
meets most, but not all, of the standards listed
above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency
meets at least half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency
meets some, but less than half, of the standards
listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency
meets at one of the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency
meets none of the standards listed above. |
-
PROGRAM
EVALUATION
(5 points)
-
If this is an
existing program, has there been a formal program evaluation
completed in the past two years? If yes, has the agency made
effective use of the evaluation results? [Source: Site
Visit]
-
Are clients
and/or direct care staff involved in the evaluation of
services? How is the feedback utilized to improve services?
[Source: Site Visit]
-
Does the agency
have an effective mechanism for determining client
satisfaction with the programs and services it offers? How
is the client feedback utilized to make program
improvements? [Source: Site Visit]
|
5 points = |
The
program has been formally evaluated and the agency
can demonstrate how it has made effective use of the
evaluation results; clients and direct care staff
are involved in the evaluation of services and the
agency uses their feedback to improve services; the
program’s client satisfaction survey is well
constructed and appropriate; and the agency
effectively utilizes client feedback to make program
improvements. |
|
4 points = |
Agency
meets most, but not all, of the standards listed
above. |
|
3 points = |
Agency
meets at least half of the standards listed above. |
|
2 points = |
Agency
meets some, but less than half, of the standards
listed above. |
|
1 point = |
Agency
meets at one of the standards listed above. |
|
0 points = |
Agency
meets none of the standards listed above. |
-
PREVIOUS
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
(5 points)
|
5 points = |
The
program met or exceeded all of its outcomes and
reported accurately and on time. |
|
4 points = |
The
program met or exceeded all of its outcomes but did
not complete reports accurately and/or on time. OR,
the program met or exceeded at least 75% (but not
all) of its outcomes and reports were completed
accurately and on time. |
|
3 points = |
The
program met or exceeded at least 75% (but not all)
of its outcomes but did not complete reports
accurately and/or on time. OR, the program met or
exceeded at least 50% (but less than 75%) of its
outcomes and reports were completed accurately and
on time. |
|
2 points = |
The
program met or exceeded at least 50% (but less than
75%) of its outcomes but did not complete reports
accurately and/or on time. OR, the program met or
exceeded at least 25% (but less than 50%) of its
outcomes and reports were completed accurately and
on time. |
|
1 point = |
The
program met or exceeded at least 25% (but less than
50%) of its outcomes but did not complete reports
accurately and/or on time. OR, the program met or
exceeded at least 1 of its outcomes and reports were
completed accurately and on time. |
|
0 points = |
The
program did not meet or exceed any of its outcomes. |
FINANCIAL
ASSESSMENT RATING CRITERIA
-
AGENCY FISCAL
CAPACITY (5 points)
-
Does the agency
have the financial capacity to provide and manage the
program? (Operating Efficiency)
-
Has the agency
developed a diversified funding base? Would
programs/services be critically affected if one funding
source were to be reduced or eliminated? (Funding Diversity)
-
Has the agency
demonstrated successful (consistent or growing) fund-raising
efforts? (Funding Diversity)
-
Has the agency
actively sought out funding from governmental sources
(local, state, federal) and/or private or public
foundations? (Funding Diversity)
-
Does the agency
have a foundation? If yes, does the foundation generate
funds for operations? If yes, how are these funds used?
(Funding Diversity)
-
Does the agency
demonstrate a history of stable income and expenses?
(Operating Efficiency)
-
Has the agency
been audited within the past two years? Were significant
audit exceptions reported? (Fiscal Controls)
-
Does the agency
maintain adequate fiscal controls? (Fiscal Controls)
-
Are there
significant changes in the agency’s budget? (Significant
Changes in Budget)
-
Does the agency
have fiscal reserves? (Conclusion)
-
PROGRAM
BUDGET (5 points)
-
Is the proposed
budget complete, accurate, and adequately explained?
(Significant Changes in Budget)
-
Has the agency
secured funding for this program from other sources in order
to leverage the Contracted Human Services Program funds
being requested and reduce dependence on County funds?
(Funding Diversity)
-
Are the proposed
revenue projections from other funding sources clearly
defined and are they realistic? (Funding Diversity)
-
Are fees charged
to clients for the services provided through this program?
If yes, are the fees based on a means test [sliding fee
scale]? (Funding Diversity)
-
If this is an
existing program, are the variances between the current year
budget and the proposed budget for FY 2012 adequately
explained and are they reasonable? (Significant Changes in
Budget)
|
