HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1983.03.30 - 11645Date March 31, 1983 Miscellaneous Resolution #83086
RE LEE
BY: PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - James E, Lanni, Chairperson
IN RE: FY 1983 PLANNING FUNDS - TITLE IV-C SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (SYEP)
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners by Miscellaneous Resolutions
NO. 6546 and 8883 applied for and was granted the designation as Prime Sponsor by the
U.S. Department of Labor to administer the provisions of the Comprehensive Ehiployment
and Training Act of 1973 and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act Amendments
of 1978; and
WHEREAS the Department of Labor through CETA Letter No. 83-2 identifies a
Title IV-C Summer Youth Ebployment Program planning allocation; and
WHEREAS $1,939,774 of this allocation has been reserved for program purposes;
and
Wilt* S $131,170 of the 1,939,774 has been reserved for applicant services,
thus leaving $1,808,604 for participant wages, fringe benefits, and services; and
an additional maximum of $90,426 in Title IV-C SYEP funds is re-
served for subrecipient administration; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners by Miscellaneous Resolution
No. 82167 approved a FY 1983 Title rv.--c SYEP subrecipient allocation formula, which
mandates that "75% of the SYEP program allocation will be based on the subrecipient's
number of unemployed persons" and that "the remaining 25% of the allocation will be
based on the subrecipient's FY 1982 SYEP performance" (Attachment D); and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners by Miscellaneous Resolution
No. 82167 also approved FY 1982 Title IV-C SYEP subrecipient evaluation criteria, which
includes an Expenditure Rate, a Return to or Continue in Full-Time School/Transfer to
another Youth Program Rate, and an Unsubsidized Employment Placement Rate (Attachment D).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
approves, contingent upon receipt of the federal funds, those Title IV-C SYEP amounts
delineated in Attachments A and B.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approves,
contingent upon receipt of the federal funds, to contract these Title IV-C SYEP amounts
with the subrecipients in accordance with Attachment F.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, if the Title IV-C SYEP funding amount is increased
or decreased, those percentages identified in Attachment F will be utilized to allocate
funds to subrecipients, not to exceed the amount requested in their funding proposals.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a written quarterly report for review of performance
objectives will be submitted to the Public Services Committee and the Oakland County
Board of Commissioners,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairperson Of the Board of Commissioners be
and is hereby authorized to execute said contracts.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Public Services Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
PUBLIC SERVICES OOMMI
Attachment A
FY'83 TITLE TV-C
SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM*
FUNDING SUMMARY
Title IV-C SYEP Program Allocation $1,808,604 **
Title IV-C SYEP Subrecipient Administration
Grand Total
90,426
$1,899,030
*According to Section 680,200 of the May 20, 1980 Federal
Register, the Summer Youth Employment Program will assist
"youth to develop their maximum occupational potential and
to obtain employment not subsidized under the Act." Ad-
ditionally, the program will encourage youth to remain in
or return to school. These objectives will be realized by
providing participants a quality work experience at private
or public non-profit agencies. To supplement this work
experience, participants will also receive a variety of
transition services, including, at a minimum, guidance
and counseling, career information and placement. Approxi-
mately 1,500 economically disadvantaged youth, ages 14
through 21, are expected to enroll in the program.
**As the text of this resolution indicates, a total of
$1,939,774 is available for Title IV-C SUP program
purposes. Of this amount, a total of $131,:70 has been
reserved for applicant services; the remaining $1,808,604
is, therefore, available for participant wages, fringe
benefits, and services. After these program dollars
have been allocated (and enrollment numbers determined),
the applicant services funds will be distributed.
Attachment B
FY 1983 TITLE IV-C
SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
BUDGET SUMMARY
Participant Wages and
Fringe Benefits* (minimum) $1,537,318
Participant Services* (maximum) 271,286
Total Program Dollars $1,808,604
Suhrecipient Administration** 90,426
Grand Total $1,899,030
*Participant wages, fringe benefits, and services represent 95% of the
total.
**Administrative dollars represent 5% of the total.
Allocation rY!82 SYEP
2.8098
1.9054
6.8593
6.3769
5.4339
19.2815
19.2815
9.2760
6.0344
5.7595
16.9818
100.0000%
38,114
' 25,846
93,043
86,500
80 $ 40,191 8.8889 $ 78,305
80 40,191 8.8889 66,037
85 42,703 9.4444 135,746
80 40,191 8.8889 126,691
$ 88,527
66,500
153,466
143,229
137,290
338,284
304,259
142,600
140,817
95,000
198,632
900 $452,151- 100.0000% $1,808,604 $1,808,604
' 05% of the program (columns 3 6 5)(100% of the
.allocation) proL;ranl alloc.)
>
P
0
$1,356,453
(75% of the program
allocation)
.FY 1983 SUMER -YOUTH EMPLOYMIT PROGRAM
SUBRECIPIENT ALLOCATION CRITERIA***
(.:olumn
flubrecinient
# of .
Unemolovn
# of Unemployed
of Total
4 5 6
Allocation'A of
of Unemployed) Perform ,Sore (Performance) Total Allocation****
Total Revised
,crklcy Community Placement
-:Jraadon School District
:erndale Project Jobs
e1 Park Placement Service
Oak Park C.E-S.
,cntiac Schools Job Placement
uthfield Community Placement
Fouthvest CES
-roy VIP
TOTALS
1,165 -
790
2,844
2,644
2;253
7,99445*
7,994.5*
3,846
2,502
2,388
7,041
41,462**
73,708 95 47,729 10.5557 121,437
261,544 75 37,679 8.3333 299,223
261,544 75 37,679 8.3333 299,223
125,825 80 40,191 . . 8.8889 166,016
81,854 85 42,703 9.4444 124,557
78,125 85 42,703 9.4444 120,828
230,350 80 40,191 8.8889 270,541
Attachment CI
*The number of Pontiac's unemployed persons was evenly divided be-
tween Pontiac Schools and Olhsa.
**Represents the number of unemployed persons in each subrecipient's
primary service area.
***Title IV-C SYEP subrecipients were chosen according to a competitive
bid process, which included such selection criteria as program design
and administrative capability. To qualify for funding consideration,
an offeror's bid must have received a minimum score of 70 (out of a
possible 100) points. The offeror's proposal score, however, had no
impact in the size of its allocation. (Please see below),
A list of the FY 1983 SYEP offerors and their respective proposal
scores follows:
Offeror Proposal Score
Berkley Community Placement 73
Brandon School District 90
Ferndale Project Jobs 89
Hazel Park Placement Service 71
Oak Park C.E.S. 94
OLHSA 70
Pontiac Schools Job Placement 83
Southfield Community Placement 91
Southwest C.E.S. 71
Troy VIP 90
Waterford Community Placement 92
Recommendations for SYEP allocations are based on a specific fund-
ing methodology,wbich the Public Services Committee recommended and
the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approved by Miscellaneous
Resolution No. 82167. (For your information, a copy of this reso-
lution is included. Please see Attachment D, pages 6 through 12.)
In accordance with Resolution No. 82167 (page 4), seventy-five percent
(or $1,356,453) of the SYEP program allocation is based on the subre-
cipient's number of unemployed Oakland County residents. (Source:
December, 1982 MESC data.) To calculate this portion of the allocation,
the following steps were taken: 1.) the number of unemployed persons
who reside in each subrecipient's primary service area was totalled;
and 2.) each subrecipient's percentage of this total was computed and
an allocation based on this percentage was determined. Oak Park, for
example, has 5.4339% of the total and, as a result, it received 5.4339%
(or $73,708) of the $1,356,453.
Resolution No. 82167 further mandates that the remaining twenty-five
percent of the allocation will be based on the subrecipient's FY 1982
SYEP performance." The performance evaluation criteria, which the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners also approved by Miscellaneous
Resolution No. 82167 (pages 8 and 9), includes 1.) Expenditure Rate,
2.) Return to School/Transfer to Another Youth Program Rate, and
3.) Unsubsidized Employment Placement Rate.
To compute the perfolmance portion of the subrecipient's allocation,
the following steps were taken: 1.) FY 1982 SYEP subrecipient per-
formance scores were computed (Attachment E); 2.) these scores were
totalled; and 3.) each subrecipient's percentage of this total was
calculated and an allocation based on this percentage was determined.
Ferndale, for example, received an evaluation score of 85 (or 9.4444%
of the total); as a result, it also received 9.4444% (or $42,703) of
the $452,151.
Attachment Cl,
****Program dollars, only.
*****After they were determined, allocations were compared to the program
amounts each subrecipient requested in its funding proposal. The
following list reveals these amounts:
Sub recipient
Berkley Community Placement
Brandon School District
Ferndale Project Jobs
Hazel Park Placement Service
Oak Park C.E.S.
OLHSA
Pontiac Schools Job Placement
Southfield Community Placement
Southwest C.E.S.
Troy VIP
Waterford Community Placement
TOTALS
Program
Request
$ 122,086
66,500
180,000
195,950
159,622
760,679
304,259
142,600
166,276
95,000
198,632
$2,391,604
Five subrecipients--Pontiac Schools Job Placement, Brandon School
District, Southfield Community Placement, Troy VIP, and Waterford
Community Placement--requested less money. As a result, Pontiac's
unrequested funds were added to Olhsa's (the other Pontiac subre-
cipient) allocation, and Southfield's, Brandon's, Troy's, and Water-
ford's surplus was distributed among those subrecipients which re-
quested more money than they were allocated initially. (Thus, no
program allocation exceeds the amount a subrecipient requested in
its funding proposal.)
hi (7: ..1; (r.-.
and
Attachment D
t,
rin
, and
Ciatrity Board of Ccunissionors h ceI.Lous T...?oso1.:12]..1.1
NO. 6340 and 2333 applied for and was granted the designation as Prime Spmsor ha the
L1. S. px.:rant of Labor to administer time provisions of the Comprehensive F;Tiploaci.e.at .
and Training Act of 1913. and he Comprhensive aTaoyment and Training Act .Laend:7..ents.
of 1.97S: arid.
1%.1T7. the OnIdand County Board of Cm-nissioners by Miscellane:-T)us 17-olutioa
No. 8271.6 2.7:7;rovr ,d the FY 1932 Title IV-C Soarer Youth Thrient ProgTa:n allocation;
TTIE"..77AS the Oakland County Board of Co.n:assioners by Misceliar,o]Js 17-',esolution
No. 82116 also approved the BY 1932 Title IV-C SYEP subreciriients and their aIlo-
cat ns and
pi‘uedent program 7:2:11.1,g --:", 7.!::nt dictates that these sz_tbrecipien Ls
for=ce he evaluated; and
the Oahiarai County Board of Can ,.2'.1sionors by nisc,ellaneais
No. 32118 rasd red that the n- 1912 Title _TV-C ,8711:P subrecipient per.for„.--ance .evaluatien
criteria include expenditure rates, placement rates, and return to schr -,r31; and
I7J-7=1--LS the °al-Jan:1 County Board of Cemnissioners by :,-11s:cellanc-ous fleE-.2:olu.fion
No. 82116 also resolved that BY 1933 Title TV-C SYED subrecipient allocations be based,
- in tart, on r...)-72:..rform,r-leracc"; and
on May 18, 2932 ., the Employment and Training (hiniJ rcer-r-r -end,':d by
unarrir,cri:J vote, 17 1932 Title TV-C SVEP subrecipient ev:aluatjon criteria (1,-21i2ni-.2,...aLE.:d, in
oction X of th 5VLP Stato:w2ht of Bork (Attachment A); and _
on 7.-Tf--tv 18, 1982, the 171m)loyrrent and Training C.c.-.)uncil 2:c.T.:c.xl-nended, by
unrr.ors vote,
_
thr, FY 1933 sulin.7:ciple•rat aliosca Lion fo7aa
in Section XT thP 61t170 $tnteent or ( t acT A) .
11 JJJTTi2ID th;:.! t:dO OLLL-.1nn:i
Thln IV-(J
!!''
Attachment 0, con't.
1M
57:T.7
(A1 •
1-71.7:177,
tted f:J. 'I -v r: 1.1 7.;
-1..C17,017'S
oi ti-7,1-,,a1_1: of the Jf1 ic .F.1•,r-viees Cc-7.',-171.1.t.tec., I Irra\,-.
ado,,-.)t-ioc of the forc-z•-oirtgrcsol.ut ion.
PUBLICSFRVICES Cgr:TITEE
EFU,BY APPROVE TH: R7SOLUTI3N
, f _
-7-
Attachment 0, con' t .
y_ Evaluation
Sercoipients will be offiefellv evaluated. after the proz,ram The ee-
ation will be bao:-.1 on cumulative data and will consist of a wfitfea report', wEich
will be sent to and discussed with the subreeipient, The. su LDeO ciii be
evaluated on the following criteria:
Points •
1. Expenditure Rate 50 •
2. Return to or Continn,:. in Full-Time School/
Transfer to Another Youth Program Rate 25
3.- Unsubsidized Employment Placement Rata 25
100
1. Fpenditura Rate - The subrceipient's actual participant wage an-1 fringe
•benefit e:.,ponditures (as recorded on the final, anproved reimbur3ement
request) will be compared to its plahnad participant wage and iciagc
benefit expenditures (as recorded on its Appropriation Planned Expendi-
ture Summary). Points will be awrded/Ocordinc,- to the follo-.4-dn scale:
50 points - Actual participant wage and fringe benefit
expenditures equal at least 952 of D12,,E-a
participant wage- and fringe benefit ex-
penditures.
45 points - Actual participant wage and fringe benefit
expenditures equal at least 90-942 of .
planned participant wage and fringe bene-
fit expenditures.
30 points - Actual participant wage and fringe benefit
expenditures equal at least..85-892: of
planned participant wage cci fringe bean-
fit expenditures.
2. Return to or Continue in 7121.1-Tie School/Transf-er to Another Youth _
Program Rate. - This crite.cion reflects the pereentage of participants
who, at the time of their termination, 1.) return to or continua in a
full-titan elementary, secondary, or post secondary school or, 2.) trace-
for to another Oakland County CETA Youth Program. This data will, be
compiled by and obtained from the recipient's Central Records Unit and
the subrecipient will be measured according to the following scale:
25 points - At least 302 of the termin -Iteil participants
returned to school, continued in school, or
transferred to_ahother CEYA youth
20 points - 25-292 of tl-e tea caned ;..n articipans
turned to school, continued in school, or
transferred to another CFTA you th ronran.
10 points - 20-242 of the terminated particip a nts re-
turned to school, continued in school, or
transferred to anoth ,YrrCyufh_erom.
5 points - 15-197: of the terrain:fed participants re-
turned to Fehool ocianned in 5%h-,7,1, or
tie r-Feranci to aooth:.z (77 2, yout
Attachment D, cont.
3. F7-7 -)10y, - Ti i cr reflentn Lho
partioaats et thn ef the..7:r terniaation, nro in
emrployment. leeans tho aot of
Eooraon for or by a participant, Unnnhdi7.-.o,-7: „n
ployment not financed frc.n1 funds piovided un:lor thy Act.)
Additionally, subrcrpints which transfer by PeM',,er 30, 192
partilpants to either an Oakland County Prime Spaoc on-the-job train
or occupational skill training program will receive credit for an
sidized employment placement if one of the earocondi. To eencien ,, 1..=;
met:
1. The participant at the time of his/her transfer is enroll ed
in SYEP.
2. The 12articioaat was transferred frym t(7), (F_Lad, is onro led
rTA in) a 171 C Oakland County r ...,n-. ioah at.
t r.:111S for into an oa-th ,-_
skill traiuins prozram.
.Such a transfer, in other words, will eount as a placemen; a subrecioieet,
then, which places 30 participants in unsubsidized employment and t r=s -
fers an additional 30 minority oarticipaats in occupational skill training
or OJT will receive credit for. 60 placelilents.
The above data will be compiled by and obtained from the re:cipiont's
Central Records Unit and the subrecipient will be measured according to
the following scale:
25 points.
20 points
10 points
5. points
- At least 207 ofthe terminated participants
were placed in unsubsidi7med employment.
15-19A of the terminated particiants ilere
placed in unsubsidized employment...
- 10-V,7 of the torminted participants were
placed in unsnidized e=ployY:lent_.
- 5-97 of the ter7inate3 paLticipnnt:s weac
placed in unsebsidzed. emplenymn,
,
4. Points from each criterion will be totaled, alter which tln si:,breciple,at
will be assigned to one of four categories:
100-90 points = Excellent
89-80 points = Good
7-9-70 points Average
6.9-0 points ='Poor
XI. FY 1981 Allocation Formula
Subreeipient allocations for the 1933 Summer .Youth Em?loyment Progrea will be based
on two criteria, need and a.,erformance. Seventy-five percent of the SYEP pro7.-;:aaA
allocation will be based on tho.subreeipieats numhor of unemployed pe rsons 27-ci
Oakland County. The remaining twenty-five percent of the allocation will he based
on the suhrecipient's FY 1932 SYEP perfortlance. This perfor=ce will be ;cmtsured
acroring to the crIteria. and point totals delineated in Section X. A specific
bro,ek ,:onn for the allocation formula follows::
Attachment D,
Perform:Ance:
Exp ,,,nditure Rate
Return to or Continue in .
Full-Time School/TransEer
to Auoth ,?r Youth Proram Rate
Unsul)sidized Employment .
Placement Rate
12.,507,
6.25%
6.257,
Total 1007.
-10--
Attachment D, cont.
EVALUATION CKT=TA IEOi THE
FY 1932 517-ER YOUTH EZ.TLOYNENT
A RATIONALE -
As the attached resolution indicates, the Oakland County Board of Co=issioners,
by Resolution No 82116, decreed that TY 1982 STEP subrecipient parfol ,:nance will
be measured according to expenditure rates, placement rates, and the un --lber of
youth who retura to or continue in school. A ratiolla-4. for this c_ialuaicn
criteria
Expenditure Rate - To impact youth unemployncnt, a successful program
operator must 'spend its allocation and, In the process, serve a suf-
ficient nuLber of Oakland County economically disadvantaged yo u th.
By measuring a subrecipient e s p a rticipant wage and fringe benefit
expe nditures, the recipient can ascertain if, in fact, an appropriate
numloer of youth have particilaated,
2. R.eturn, to or Continue in Yull-Time School Rate - A youth who is grad-
uated -from school clearly enhances his/her employment prospects,
Thus, perfor,7ance assessment must, in part, reflect the number of
participants who are encouraged to remain in or return to school,
3. Unsusidimed Placcnt - Section 630.200 of the nay 70,
1980 Fderal Reter a•.,=adctcs that /I th e Sumer Youth F.nploymen7a
Program... sha ll assist" participants "to obtain eplor.-:cat not .ub-
sidized under' the Act." Conseeuently, placem e nt statisics l_u ,;t be
measured. Prime Sponsor records, however, reveal that
participants are placed in Tr:Joh lo',:cr numbers than their white
counterparts. These records also reveal that participants who an
roll in either oa-thc-job training or occupational shill trit':ng
are more likely to secure unsubsidized employment because th='y have
acquired a specific skill, As part of an overall strategy to Annrove
its minority unsubsidized employment rata, then, the Prime Sponsor
will offer placement credit for minority participants who transfer
from SIFF to one of these prngra3.
reY-
AYES: ;'Th!-II:Jiti
C r: 7. o : , ,
ni
(0)
A s;Ifffticmt r:Thjorty 3. 3
n 6.1 ,1
;
,
.ALtachment D,
)1r—
11,
STATE OF MICHICAM)
CJ1;TY OF OMAN))
• • .
1, Lynn 0, Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland arld h7lving a sez
do hereby certify the L! have co:ard the anxed copy of
ad()D1f,:j hY Cc,u_Djy uL
on at tl--wir
wit)-. the orf!in7a1 rec-ord th-of ;iow t-,7nin:; in
C-1:At it is J.1 true and cc.---rect trdn:4CiPt the
In T=i7,7.--,n; I L
Seel of rnlle!:y
3 1-c!
c-d el
Att_acr.mlenti
FY 1982 Title TV-C SYFF
Subrecipient Evaluation Results
Expenditures Placements
Yoency 50 25
School/Transfers
25
Total
100
Oak Park .50 20 25 95
Ferndale 50 10 25 85
.. — -- --
Southwest 50 10 25 85
Troy 50 10 25 85
Berkley 45 . 10 . 25 80
Brandon ' 50 - 5 25 80
Hazel Park 50 5 25 80
Southfield 50 5 . 25 80
Waterford 50 5 25 80
OLHSA 50 0 25 75
Pontiac 50 0 . 25' 75
.PROGRAM ALLOCATION SUBRECIPIENT ADMINISTRATION ALLOCATION
TOTALS ,537,318 $271,286 $1,808,604 $90,426 $1,899,030 100,0000% luounlae4v FY 1983 TITLE IV-C SYEP SUBRECIPIENT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
Staff PSC
Recom- Recom-
mendations mendations
TOTAL 2•OF ALLOCATION -TOTAL
Participant
Wages & Benefits
(Minimum)•
Participant
Services Total
(Maximum) Program
Total
Admin.
Berkley Community Placement
Brandon School District
Ferndale Project Jobs
Hazel Park Placement Service
Oak Park C.E,S,
OLHSA
Pontiac Schools Job Placement .
Southfield Community Placement
Southwest C.E.S.
Troy VIP
Waterford Community Placement
$ 75,248
56,525
130,447
121,745
116,697
287,542
258,621
121,210
119,695
80,750
168,838
$ 13,279
9,975
23,019
21,484
20,593
50,742
45,638
21,390
21,122
14,250
29,794
88,527
66,500
153,466
143,229
137,290
338,284
304,259
142,600
140,817
95,000
198,632
$ 4,426
3,325
7,673
7,161
6,864
16,914
15,212
7,130
7,040
4,750
9,931
92,953
69,825
161,139
150,390
144,154
355,198
319,471
149,730
147,857
99,750
208,563
4.8948
3.6769
8,4853
7.9193
7.5909
18.7042
16.8229
7.8846
7.7859
5.2527
10,9325
#83086 March 31, 1983
Moved by Lanni supported by Rewold the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, McConnell, McPherson, Moffitt, Moore,
Nelson, Olsen, Pernick, Price, Rewold, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro, Doyon, Foley,
Fortino, Geary, Gosling, Hobart. (23)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resolution #83086 adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
at their meeting held on March 31, 1983
with the orginial record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
31st day of
and affixed the
1983 this