HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1982.04.29 - 13783RE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners NOW MLR)
approves those Title rv-c amounts delineated in Attachments A and B.
Miscellaneous Resolution 82116 Date April 29, 1982
BY: PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - James E. Lanni, Chairperson
IN RE: FY 1982 PLANNING FUNDS - TITLE TV-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 EMployment
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. 82-13 identifies a
Title rv-c Summer Youth Employment Program planning allocation; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, by Miscellaneous Resolution
No. 82084, transferred $484,449 of this allocation to the Title IV-A Youth Employment
and Training Program; and
WHEREAS $1,550,238 of the remaining Title IV-.0 SYEP allocation has been
reserved for program purposes; and
WHEREAS an additional maximum of $77,506 in Title TV-C SYEP funds is reserved
for sUbrecipient administration; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 1982, the EMployment and Training Council recommended,
by an 18 to 3 vote (with two members abstaining), those Title TV-C SYEP amounts
delineated in Attachments A and B; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 1982, the Employment and Training Council also recommended,
by an 18 to 3 vote (with two members abstaining), those Title rv-c SYEP subrecipient
allocations delineated in Attachment E.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approves
to contract these Title IV-C SYEP amounts with the subrecipients in accordance with
Attachment E.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if the Title TV-C SYEP funding level is increased
or decreased, those sUbrecipient allocations identified in Attachment E will be
adjusted on a percentage basis.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a minimum enrollment level will be stated in each
stbrecipient's contract. Participant wages and fringes, client services, and admin-
istrative dollars will be proportionately recaptured when the reported enrollment
level is less than the contracted minimum based on June 30, 1982 data (Attachment F).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the services portion of those allocations identified
in Attachment E be used, in part, or, if necessary, in total, to retain subrecipient
personnel who might otherwise be released due to reductions in other CETA activities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as the Employment and Training Council recommended
by a 22 to I vote, a part of the FY 1983 SYEP allocations will be based on performance,
including not only expenditure and placement rates, but also return to school.
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 Cbmmittee, I move the adoption
of the foregoing resolution.
PUBLIC SERVICES COMITME
ATTACHMENT A
FY'82 TITLE IV—C
SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM*
FUNDING SUMMARY
Title IV-0 SYEP Program Allocation $1,550,238
Title 1V-C SYEP Subrecipient Administration 77,506
Grand Total $1,627,744
*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." Additionally, 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 re-
ceive a variety of transition services, including, at a minimum, guidance
and counseling, career information and placement Approximately 1,400
economically disadvantaged youth, ages 14 through 21, are expected to
enroll in the program.
ATTACHMENT B
FY'82 TITLE IV-C
SUMNER YOUTH ElY2LOYMENT PROGRAM
BUDCET SUMMARY
Program:
Participant Wages and
Fringe Benefits (minimum)* $1,228,038
Participant Services*
(maximum) 216,706
Applicant Services 105 ,494
Total Program Dollars $1,550,238
Administration**:
Program
Administration 72,240
Applicant Services
Administration 5,266
Total Subrecipient Administration 77,506
Grand Total $1,627,744
*Participant wages, fringes, and services represent 88.7% of the total.
**Administrative dollars represent 5% of total program dollars.
FY 1982 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
SUBRECIPIENT ALLOCATION CRITERIA***
Column # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
# of # of Unemployed Allocation FY'81 SYEP Allocation % of Total Revised Subrecipient Unemployed % of Total (# of Unemployed) Perform. Score (Performance) Total Allocation**** Allocation*****
Berkley Community Placement 859 2.7914 $ 32,455 95 $ 54,259 14 $ 86,714 $ 95,563
Brandon School District 583 1.8945 22,027 65 34,880 9 56,907 62,714
Ferndale Project Jobs 2,097 6.8144 79,230 90 54,259 14 133,489 147,111
Hazel Park Placement Service 1,949 6.3335 73,638 75 38,757 10 112,395 123,864
Oak Park C.E.S. 1,661 5.3976 62,757 95 54,259 14 117,016 128,957
OLHSA 5,893.5* 19.1515 222,670 65 34,880 9 257,550 304,217
Pontiac Schools Job Placement 5,893.5* 19.1515 222,670 65 34,880 9 257,550 239,052
Southfield Community Placement 2,836 9.2159 107,151 20 15,502 4 122,653 135,169
Southwest C.E.S. 2,060 6.6942 77,832 65 34,880 9 112,712 124,214
Troy VIP 1,760 5.7193 66,497 10 15,502 4 81,999 90,366
Waterford Community Placement 5,181 16.8362 195,751 20 15,502 4 211,253 99,011
TOTALS 30,773** 100.0000 $1,162,678
(75% of the program
allocation)
$387,560 100
(25% of the program
allocation)
$1,550,238 $1,550,238
(columns 3 & 5)(100% of the A
program alloc.)
*The number of Pontiac's unemployed persons was evenly divided between Pontiac Schools and OLHSA.
**Represents the number of unemployed persons in each subrecipient's primary service area.
(Oont'd, on Tie?a page)
cT
ATTACHMENT C
***Title IV-C SYEP subrecipients were chosen according to a competitive bid process, .
which included such selection criteria as need, program design, and administrative
capability. Program allocations are based on two criteria, need and performance.
These criteria were chosen for several reasons. Due to funding reductions, for
example, it seems prudent to allocate a large portion of CETA dollars where need
is substantial. At the same time, however, the Department of Labor increasingly
stresses performance as a criterion for future funding. Program operators, then,
ought to be recognized for positive results. Accordingly, Oakland County's sub-
recipients have been rewarded for expenditure rates and unsubsidized employment
placements, both of which are totally objective.
Seventy-five percent (or $1,162,678) of the SYEP program allocation is based on
the subrecipient's number of unemployed persons in Oakland County. (Source:
January, 1982 MESC data.) To calculate this portion of the allocation, the fol-
lowing steps were taken: 1.) the number of unemployed persons in each subre-
--cipient's area was totalled; and 2.) each subreclpient's percentage of this total
was calculated and an allocation was determined. If, for example, a subrecipient
had 5% of the total, it received 5% of the $1,162,678. The remaining 25% ($387,560)
of the SYEP program allocation is based on the subrecipient's FY 7 81 SYEP performance.
To complete these amounts, the following steps were taken: 1.) FY 7 81 subrecipient
perfo/mance scores were computed (Attachment D); and 2.) depending on its score,
each subrecipient received a specific percentage of the "performance dollars". A
subrecipient which received an evaluation score of 65, for example, received 9% of
the $387,560.
****Performance dollars, only.
*****After they were determined, allocations were compared to the amounts each subre-
cipient requested in its funding proposal. Two subrecipients--Pontiac Schools Job
Placement and Waterford Community Placement--requested less money. As a result,
Pontiac's unrequested funds were added to OLHSA's (the other Pontiac subrecipient)
allocation, and Waterford's surplus was distributed among those subrecipients which
requested more dollars than they initially were allocated. For your information,
a complete list of each subrecipient's funding request follows:
Berkley $ 130,000
Brandon 345,800
Ferndale 190,000
Hazel Park 180,000
Oak Park 177,500
OLHSA 497,772
Pontiac 251,000
Southfield 160,303
Southwest 176,000
Troy 213,255
Waterford 103,960
Total $2,425,590
Expenditure Placement
Points Points
(65) (35) (100) Subrecinient
Total
65
65
60
65
65
30
30
30
10
0
95
95
90
75
65
0
0
0
20
20
10
65
65
65
20
20
10
Points
65
35
100
1. Expenditures
2. Placements
Fl '81 SUMER YOUTH EMPLOYIENT PRO CRAM
SUERECIPTENT EVALUATION RESULTS
Berkley Community Placement
Oak Park C.E.S.
Ferndale Project Jobs
Hazel Park Placement Service
Brandon School District
Oakland Livingston Human
Service Agency 65
Pontiac Schools Job Placement 65
Southwest C.E.S.
Southfield Community Placement
Waterford Community Placement
Troy VIP
As its contracemandated, each FY I 81 SYEP subrecipient was evaluated on the
following criteria:
65
0
0
0
1. Expenditures - 65 points - 95% and above of planned participant-
wage and fringe expenditures
60 points - 90-94% of planned participant wage
and fringe expenditures .
50 points - 85-89% of planned participant wage
and fringe expenditures
2. Unsubsidized Employment Placements - Placement data was compiled.
by and obtained from the recipient's Central Records Unit, The
subrecipient was measured according to the following scale:
35 points - 20% and above
30 points - 15-19%
20 points - 10-14%
10 points - 5-9%
Percentages . were calculated by dividing the number of participants who received
unsubsidized employment by the total number of terminated participants.
41.
*Page 6, Section X of the Statement of Work
SUBRECIPIENT
Participant
Wages & Benefits
(Minimum)
% OF
TOTAL
TOTAL
ALLOCATION
FY 1982 TITLE IV-C SYEP SUBRECIPIENT ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
Applicant
Services*
PROGRAM ALLOCATION
Participant
Services
(Maximum)
ADMINISTRATION ALLOCATION
Applicant
Total Program Services
Program Admin. Admin.
Total
Admin,
$ 95,563 $ 4,457
58,504 2,925
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
$ 75,756
49,729
116,520
98,128
102,142
240,904
189,302
107,106
98,425
71,549
78,477
$1,228,038
$ 13,368
8,775
20,562
17,316
18,024
42,512
33,406
18,900
17,369
12,626
13,848
$216,706
$ 6,439
0*
10,029
8,420
8,791
20,801
16,344
9,163
8,420
6,191
0,896**
$105,494
147,111
• 123,864
128,957
304,217
239,052
135,169
124,214
90,366
103.221
6,854
5,773
6,008
14,171
11,136
6,301
5,790
4,209
4.616
$ 321
0*
501
420
439
1,039
816
457
420
309
544*
$ 4,778
2,925
7,355
6,193
6,447
15,210
11,952
6,758
6,210
4,518
5,160
$77,506
$ 100,341
61,429
154,466
130,057
135,404
319,427
251,004
141,927
130,424
94,884
108.381
6.1644
3.7739
9.4896
7.9900
8.3185
19.6239
15.4204
8.7192
8.0126
5.8292
6.6583
$1,550,238 $72,240 $5,266 $1,627,744 100.0000
*Tha applicant services allocations will be used to recruit, assess and do intake on Title IV-C eligible youth. The allocations were calculated by
multiplying each subrecipient's anticipated enrollment by $130 (the average cost of enrolling an individual into CETA).
**Since Resolution No. 81363 decrees that only subrecipients with a minimum total of $170,000 in other CETA program allocations will provide applicant
services, the Brandon School District has not been assigned an applicant services allocation. Instead, its designated applicant services agency,
Waterford Community Placement, has received an additional $4,420; these funds will be used to provide applicant services for Brandon,
ATTACI-ZENT F
Subrecipient
FV82 TITLE IV-C
SYEP SUBRECIPIENT
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT DATA
Enrollment
Level*
Total
Enrollments**
Berkley Community Placement 53 86
Brandon School District 35 0
Ferndale Project Jobs 82 133
Hazel Park Placement Service 69 112
Oak Park C.E.S. 72 117
Oakland Livingston Human 170 276
Service Agency
Pontiac Schools Job Placement 133 217
Southfield Community Placement 75 122
Southwest C.E.S. 69 112
Troy VIP 50 82
Waterford Community Placement 55 147
TOTALS 863 - 1,404
*To spend its entire allocation, the subrecipient must maintain this number
of active participants.
**Since some participants will terminate during the program, this number
exceeds the enrollment love.
this 29th day of 19 82
ALLE
Counfy Clerk/Register of Deeds
#82116 April 29, 1982
Moved by Lanni supported by Cagney the resolution be adopted.
Discussion followed.
Vote on resolution:
AYES: Geary, Gosling, Jackson, Kasper, Lanni, McDonald,. Moffitt,
Montante, Moore, Olsen, Patterson, Perinoff, Pernick, Peterson, Whitlock, Aaron,
.Caddell, Cagney, Calandro, DiGiovanni, Doyon, Fortino, Gabler. (23)
• NAYS: None, (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
- COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a sepl,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
diss...e.lian.e.gua_ft—e.soiti_tion_±..32.116, adopted .byhfiallansi_aum_t_y_fiaarsLo_f_aimiiiissinoers
. , ---
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 and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan