The County of Santa Clara


Consider recommendations relating to proposed provisions for community-based nonprofit contractors. (Office of the County Executive)


Department:Office of the County ExecutiveSponsors:

Multiple Recommendations

Possible action:
a. Receive report from the Office of the County Executive relating to a living wage policy for community-based nonprofit contractors.
b. Receive draft proposed revisions to Board Policy Section, Living Wage Provisions in County Contracts, relating to a living wage policy for community-based nonprofit contractors and forward to the Finance and Government Operations Committee for consideration.



At the August 22, 2017 special meeting of the Children, Seniors, and Families Committee (CSFC), Committee members requested that the Administration report back to an appropriate meeting in October on a clear definition for trainees, further clarification on the limited-term waiver process, and timing for implementing the remaining provisions of the policy.


There are no impacts to the General Fund as a result of accepting this report.  The adoption of the proposed policy amendments would result in unknown General Fund impacts.


The Administration’s prior report to the CSFC detailed proposed policy recommendations for the inclusion of community-based organizations (CBOs) into Board Policy, Living Wage Provisions in County Contracts as well as a brief background on the Problem-Solving Process leading to those recommendations.

Since the August 22, 2017 special CSFC meeting, the Office of Countywide Contracting Management (OCCM) has worked to clarify the definition of trainees, further explain the limited-term waiver process, and develop a timeline for implementation of the remaining provisions of the policy.


OCCM reviewed the living wage policies of 18 municipalities that included exemptions for trainee programs. Of these 18 municipalities, five include a definitive time limit for trainee programs varying from 120 days to one year in duration. Additionally, OCCM reviewed current County contracts for the Parolee Reentry Services Program, which has a maximum duration of 12 weeks. Based on this review, the Administration recommends limiting the duration of the trainee exemption to three months to accommodate variations in potential program length.

Limited-Term Waiver Process

A select number of CBOs may be unable to raise their wages to meet living wage rates in the proposed timeframe and may petition for a conditional waiver for a specific contract. If granted, the conditional waiver would establish agreed-upon timelines that would, among other things, allow a CBO to come into compliance with the required wage rates on a longer timeline based upon an analysis of that CBO’s audited financial statements.

Evaluation criteria would include whether implementing provisions of the living wage policy will have a significant and detrimental effect upon that CBO.  In assessing that detrimental effect, the County would consider the following:

·        Current Net Assets to Current Net Debt Ratio: A financial ratio that measures whether an organization has enough resources to pay its debts over the next 12 months.

·        Debt to Net Asset Ratio: A measure of the total amount of debt divided by the amount of net assets, which provides an indication of leverage and how much of the organization’s capital structure is due to debt.

·        Surplus or Deficit: respectively, a measure of excess revenue over expenses or excess expenses over revenue during an accounting period.

The County will provide additional consideration to audit findings on an entity’s risk level, including past noncompliance with laws and regulations or a determination of serious deficiencies in internal controls that may lead to such noncompliance.

Implementation of Remaining Policy Provisions

OCCM met with County Counsel to discuss a proposed timeline for implementation of the targeted hiring, local hiring, worker retention, fair workweek, and labor peace provisions defined under the Living Wage ordinance but not yet effectuated in the Living Wage policy. OCCM and County Counsel have begun developing language to address these outstanding provisions and will meet with labor representatives to review the proposed implementation plan. Outcomes will be shared with members of the CBO community for additional feedback. Administration aspires to work with community partners to implement all five provisions by July 1, 2018, so they are implemented concurrently with the living wage policy for CBOs, but recognizes that each provision will require its own coordination and legal review.


The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on children and youth.


The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on seniors.


The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications.


Pursuant to Attachment C of the original policy recommendation for Living Wage Provisions in County Contracts, the Administration and the Office of Supervisor Cindy Chavez hosted the first Public Forum on Living Wage Policy for Community-Based Nonprofit Contractors on October 24, 2016. At the first of two public forums, the Administration presented an overview of the County’s Living Wage Ordinance as well as a review of the legal, policy, and economic considerations relating to application of the Living Wage Policy to community-based nonprofit contractors. Supervisor Chavez led the discussion and public comment on the development of a living wage policy for Nonprofits, and the convening closed with a potential timeline for policy development. The process also included a call for additional input from stakeholders via letters submitted to a designated County email addresses. OCCM also surveyed current CBO service providers to obtain wage data to inform the development of a draft Living Wage Policy for Community-Based Nonprofits for the Board’s consideration.

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017, the Office of Supervisor Chavez and the Administration hosted the second public forum. This meeting included discussion of the development of the Living Wage Policy for Nonprofits, and a presentation of the proposed draft policy. Significant time was allocated for public comment to ensure the Administration captured concerns and suggestions from all community stakeholders. This forum concluded with a recommendation for the Administration to present its proposed policy revisions at a special CSFC meeting.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at the special meeting of CSFC, the Administration presented proposed provisions relating to a living wage policy for community-based nonprofit contractors. The Committee requested that the Administration report back to an appropriate meeting in October on a clear definition for trainees, timing for implementing the remaining provisions of the policy, and further clarification on the limited-term waiver process.


The Committee will not receive the report on a Living Wage Policy for Community-Based Nonprofits and the proposed provisions will not be considered by the Board of Supervisors for adoption.



Meeting History

Oct 11, 2017 2:00 PM Video Children, Seniors, and Families Committee Regular Meeting

Taken out of order after Item No. 4.

Five individuals addressed the Commission.

Chairperson Chavez requested that Administration report to the Committee prior to forwarding proposed living wage policy provisions to the Board of Supervisors, relating to guidelines used to evaluate living wage waiver requests submitted by community-based nonprofit contractors.



Oct 11, 2017 2:00 PMChildren, Seniors, and Families CommitteeRegular Meeting


3:18 PMWe have three slides,so it should go pretty quickly--
All right.>> unless there's some questions. So, the recruitment plan budget,what we referred to as ourfoster parent recruitment, and retention,and support budget is $2. 5millions,and we have specific categories that we're budgeting and-- forthis effort. Once it-- one item is enhancedrecruitment, placement, support services, advertising,foster parent appreciationevent. Unfortunately, for the fiscal year 2016-2017,we were not able to reach ourgoals due to many complicationsaround the county appropriation process,the competitive solicitation,and so our expenditures were alittle below $500,000. The vast majority of the fundingfor-- that was used in fiscalyear 2017 has gone to both theenhancement of our recruitment website and the recruitmentplan. We-- there's a challenge in thatthe manner in which-- that we're now working,trying to recruit resourcefamilies, is very different. By losing, through the continuum of carereform,by losing the-the group homesettings and having a very short supply, if you will,of the short-term residentialtreatment programs,we have to recruit resource families that are willing andable to receive children andyouth with very high needs,and so that takes a different type of recruitment and strategyto try to encourage people tostep up to the plate and provideservices to our kids and care and supervision. If you wanna move on to the nextslide-- we currently have,as of September of 2017, a total of 1,026 children in out-of-homeplacement. Of those youth, 191 are in a restrictiveplacement. By that,we mean a group home or a foster family agency. Per the continuum of carereform,youth in restrictive placement have to be transitioned to ahome based care,and what we have done isanalysis of our resources. Through natural attrition,approximately 70 licensedapproved homes close each year. This varies. The reasons vary. It could be from they've adopteda child and have chosen to nolonger continue providing care, relocating, or an illness. What we are seeing with regardto the 191 that we have inout-of-home care, plus the 70 licensed approvedhomes that are closed each year,we need to recruit at least 261placements in santa clara county. This recruitment will help usaccommodate the number ofchildren that are currently in out-of-home-- excuse me--out-of-county. So,you'll see that the 191 includes children that are out of homeplacement,the license approved homes thatwe are losing, and we have a number-- we haveabout 120 of those youth thatare in group homes that we willbe able to find additional homes to place them in. We currently have 120 new homes,and we have 158 homes in theprocess of being recruited. One of our strategies iscollaborating with our fosterfamily agencies to share theresources for recruitment efforts. We have to upgrade the databasesystem to enable the recruitersto share information and manage the perspective resourcefamilies and generate reports. We have to also strengthen ourcommunication and our coordination between therecruiters and the rfa workers. One of the concerns that we haveis, although we were earlyimplementers for the resourcefamily approval process,the new process, there are systems in-- that wecurrently have in place that arenot working and are kindaslowing down our process in order to process the new peoplethat we are recruiting. We have a large need to recruitfrom a diverse population. We need families that arespanish speaking, vietnamese,and that are willing to take avariety of youth with various different needs,as we well as strengths,but needs. We are making concerted efforts to print all of our informationin the-- in spanish, vietnamese,and english. We're turning to the media, the radio. We're considering going to cableto try to recruit. We are also working with foster the bay one help-- excuse helpone child and other-- developingother new relationships with thefaith based organization to try to increase awareness of ourneed for resource families. The consulting agency, mig,provided a timeline for the work that we need to be doing,and we are going to-- we need tobuild awareness andopportunities to attract the families to become thecaregivers. We have to make someenhancements to our internal processes to support therecruitment and retention of ourresoruce families. So, one of the budget items for nextyear will be to actually createa support system for our fostercare parents on a 24-hour basis so that they have someone tocontact should they have anyparticular questions. The other is family finding is adding a family findingcomponent to our recruitmentprocess because as children arecoming in, and although 50% of our-ourchildren are placed withrelatives,there May be a need to continue to search for relatives in orderto improve permanency. We have to continue building ourpartnerships with both internal and external organizations. One of the charges that i'vegiven the social workers is,what if you recruit one person to become a resource family? You know,what would that look like if wehave 300-- or excuse me-- 600-plus social workers oremployees? If everyone recruits someonejust for information, we might be able to obtain thenumbers of families withinthe-the-the county to be able toprovide the services. We have too many children thatare in-- outside of our county,and they need to come-come back. You May know that i'm doing what I refer to as meet and greets incommunity. In fact, next week,i believe it's the 16th or the 17th,i'll be out in milpitas andconducting a meet and greet withthe filipino community. So,i'm going to all of thedifferent communities,targeting definitely the-the six zip codes and asking forcommunity help. I'm asking that they open theirheart and their homes to the children that are comingfrom-from their communities. So,we have to be able to strengthen our communication and our needin the community as to what itis that we need so that we cankeep our children within and, hopefully, reunify soon.
3:25 PMSo,i wanna-- i'm gonna stop youthere and just make a couple of quick observations. One is that I have not-- I mean,i-i looked at the report,and what I am struck by is how critical a need this is andhow-- i-i believe that,given a lot of the work thatwe're doing within this system, that this body of work needs tobe prioritized in a-- in-in away that maybe-- that reallyrequires us to-to think backwards,and here is what I mean by that. I have two friends that would--that would like to adopt and be foster parents,and one of them had a-achallenging interaction with ourdepartment already, and-and I would say would,you know,probably would-would have been avery good foster home but was really perplexed by the-theapproach that we took,the way we applied rules,when we did and when we didn't apply rules, and, in any case,i don't wanna be anecdotal. I only point that out because itmade me think about another person that I ran into who hadheard that we had the fosteryouth task force who said,"you know, I was so disappointed to knowthat my husband and I wouldn'tbe a good foster home. We bought this big house. " and they're-they're nesters now,and i-- and she said,"but our home is notappropriate. " and I said, "really? "and she said, "yeah,we live in"-- they live inalmaden valley, and they just bought a new home,which really exceeded theirbudget,so they're not able to do anything to the home to improveit. And I said, "well,what was the improvement you needed? "and they said, "well,we've been told that we wouldn'tbe able to have foster children because there's a swimming poolthat's unfenced, you know,and it's fenced in the yard butunfenced. " and I thought about that,and I thought, wow, like,this is a really-- these are--this is a-a doctorate in nursing and a retired-- I don't know--some kinda-- I don't know whathe did, but he's retired now,very young, with money, and-- or had money until theybought this home. But, nonetheless,i-i-i would really like us to do a better job of understandinghow we can prioritize what weneed in homes,and what do we need to change about the system overall toincent people who want kids tobe with? For example, I don't think we give these--the families that are bloodrelated enough resources. Like, sometimes you have really poorextended families,and we're asking them to take onsomeone else. So,i don't even understand how thefinancing works in a-- in aproper way. So,what I wanted to actuallysuggest is that we accept thereport, but I would like to figure out away to agendize this,maybe even for the foster youthtask force, because it feels to me like thisis such a hard edge of helpingkids succeed that we could talkabout the foster youth task force until the cows come home,and if we don't have greatplacement--
3:28 PMRight.
Then we just have mooing.>> supervisor chavez and-and--i-i wanna say that there aremany challenges with the process in the way that it is. I have spent ten months tryingto address those issues. We are making some changes because of the issues thatyou're talking about.
3:29 PMSo,can we put it in that task force, then?we'll accept the report and moveit over to the task force.
Absolutely, yes.
Okay.dave,do you have any comments orconcerns about that? bob, do you?okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you.>> and thanks.i know this is uphill and reallyappreciated the body of work that came before us today.
Thank you.>> all, we're gonna take ten and eighttogether,and then we will take nine,and then eleven and twelve together. And i'm sorry. I'm keeping people so late. We're gonna get through this. I think we had to move somestuff from our last agenda.
Thank you, and thank you.oh, francesca, are you gonna help?kingston can do that. Thank you. Good afternoon, supervisors chavez,supervisor cortese,committee members. My name is jim ramoni. I'm the director of thedepartment of aging and adultservices. I thank you for the opportunity to consolidate the three itemstoday sequentially,and i'm also-- i've got my phoneout, but i'm being very mindful ofthe timeframe,so i'm gonna set a timer so thatwe will speak for five minutes on these topics. So,i'd like to start by introducingthe in-home supported services report. Terri possley,our program manager for-- fromihss will lead you through the powerpoint presentation,but I would just quickly like tohighlight that the ihss programcontinues to be a huge resource for our low income elder anddisabled here in the community,and this past year was a realstruggle due to the maintenance effort budget issues with thestate following the dissolutionof the coordinated careinitiative. The ihss program was not able torequest any additional staffingthis past fiscal year. Despite no additional staffing, miss possley and her staff havedone a fantastic job of beingable to maintain service qualitythroughout the community and maintain compliance rates invery critical areas of bothinitial intakes andreassessments, and i'd like to give her creditwhere credit is due. So, with that,i'm gonna turn it over to miss possley,who will now walk you throughthe ihss report that waspresented for today's committee. Thank you.
3:31 PMThank you.good afternoon, chair chavez,vice-chair cortese, and members of the committee. I'm also accompanied by kingstonlum. He's-he's over there with the powerpoint. He is our manager who overseesthe coordinated care initiativeunit, fair labor standards act unit,and application readiness unit. Thank you for allowing us toquickly highlight the hard work completed this past fiscal year. Next slide shows the two typesof assessments we have at ihss. The first one is the initial assessments. We also call them intake. And the second is the annualreassessments, where we see our recipients onceper year. Most of our recipients arenon-english speaking, and those are matched with staffwho are certified bilingualstaff,and we worked really hard this year to make sure that thatis-is happening. More than 70% of our staff arebilingual certified and are matched with recipients whospeak their language. Next slide talks about thetermination of the quarter nation care initiative pilotproject. The maint-- the maintenance ofeffort, otherwise known as the moemodel,under the cci has beeneliminated. The cancellation of the cci moemeant that the additional $592million in funding costs willneed to be shifted from the state to the counties. To mitigate the financialhardship and cash flow problems,senate bill 90 was approved by governor brown in june,and the bill instituted a newmaintenance of effort fundingmodel that modified the cost sharing arrangements between thestate and the counties. Senate bill 90 establishes a newstatewide county moe base at $1. 769 billion and appropriates$400 million general fund infiscal year '18,$330 million general fund in fiscal year '19,$200 million in fiscal year'19-- '20--i'm sorry-- and $150million in fiscal year '21 and annually, therefore,to offset the additional ihsscosts being shifted to thecounties. For fiscal year '18,santa clara county's--
3:33 PMCan i-- can I stop you forjust a minute?
Sure.>> can you-- what-what does thatmean?i mean, i-i've-- i-- yeah.
And-and that is why I broughtkingston lum with me.>> oh, okay.>> he's very well versed on the maintenance of--
3:34 PMAnd if I can interrupt.>> yes.>> yeah, thank you.
And I hate to put you on thespot, bob,but Mr. Menicocci is veryfamiliar with our budget issues with respect to moe. So, between kingston and bob,we might be able to answer yourquestion.
Yes.>> and I appreciate you're's just that i-- so, thank you, by the way.
You're welcome.>> I mean,i think the short of it was, you know,the-the-the state had realizedthat they had a loser offinancial deal, so they unraveled the cci pieceof it and put the cost back onthe counties. The counties advocated for themselves and said, hey,this is unreasonable. There's a much higher share ofcost. We can't afford to do that. So,the administration did step upand fund that in the interim for the next couple years,but this is what the reopenerpiece of language is,is they kicked the can down the road. The problem isn't solved,and the counties are still onthe hook for potential higher liability as the cost for thisprogram increases and the sizeincreases.
3:35 PMSo, that-that window was intended tobe a-a cushion for the m-- forthe maintenance of effort todaypre any bargaining.
Yes.>> okay.>> yes,it's pre-pre any bargaining and post-post next election for thegovernor.
I'm seeing the pattern here.okay, thank you. that's helpful. Thank you. You can keep going. I'm sorry.
Thank you.i'll go to the next to ihss this year was theconcept of unit based teams, which we call ubt,and what-what that involves islabor and management workingside by side on a project to complete within 90 days withouthiring any additional staff,and beginning in February ofthis year, we formed a committee of linestaff to complete the project,and the ideas came from thebottom up so from line staff all the way up to management,and our committee went to all ofthe ihss' unit meetings to askthem what they thought would work in ihss to work on aproject,and the staff came up with theidea to reduce the phone wait times at ihss. We agreed that that was thenumber one problem that weneeded to fix in 90 days, and so our committee met twiceper month,and we chose the smart goal,which is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant,and timely to reduce theprovide-provider phone wait timeby 25%, and we actually exceeded--surpassed that goal and broughtit down to about 20 minutes,and we've never seen the phone wait time down to 20 minutesbefore,and we would actually like tosee it reduced even further. So,we-we did that by implementing avoice mail option where callerscan press pound to leave a voice mail. We plan to implement emailoption in the future whereproviders, and recipients, and stakeholders can send anemail to ihss in addition tocoming to our lobby,and calling us, and leaving a voice mail. I would like to conclude bysaying that,for a social services agency-- next slide-- that we have avision to serve, empower,and transform,which aligns with the county's vision of being customerfocused,providing operation excellenceand innovation, and our work this year has beenaligned with our vision,and I just wanna highlight somequickly. So,we have worked on the unit basedteam project to improve callerwait times. We have non-english recipientswho are assigned to certifiedlanguage social workers,and we are identifying and improving best practices. To empower,we are maintaining ourcompliance with reassessments. We are now at about 86%compliance when the state asksthat we be minimally 80%,and we are providing constant and continual training to ourstaff,and we are strengthening ourassessment documentation. For transforming,we are still designing a robustqa web application,quality assurance. We are giving enhancements toour lobby to improve theappearance,which we believe is related to the unit based team projectproviding the lower phone waittimes,and we are-- we implemented the voice mailbox,and we are also implementing theemail option,hopefully this month. If not, later next month.and we're happy to answer anyquestions you have at this time.
3:38 PMThank you very much. I just have two questions. One is,i-i think this is just a reallycritical service, so thank you for all your hardwork,and I know that you're talkingto people when they're really stressed out,and they're very high need. When it relates to getting-- so,being able to answer a call or respond to someone in 20minutes, will you have,for email and voicemail,a-a goal in terms of how quickly you get back to people?
3:39, ideally,we would like to respond to their requests immediately,and the-the problem with that inour office is,different classifications such as social workers versusclerical versus payroll havedifferent response times becauseof their union limitations, i-i guess,and so it-it's hard to say thatwe're gonna give them a specifictimeframe to respond because most of their phone calls do notrequire a call back. It requires an action to takeplace such as they need a timesheet mailed out or acorrection to be made,and we won't necessarily returna call. We'll take care of the matterand address it so that it'staken care of immediately.
But how does the person know that you've taken care of it?
3:40 PMIt depends on the call.if it's payroll related,where we're issuing a-a timesheet,we will usually call them,but what's happening is,with the implementation of the voicemail,we're noticing that it's createda different workload for staff,and so they are now receiving all of these voicemails,which takes away from the workof sending out timesheets andhandling their tasks. So,it's something that we're stillmanaging-- juggling in theoffice, right now. So, that's helpful. You know,one thing that-- actually,just having ignacio here is reminding me of this-- that iwonder if-if there isn't a timethat we have to rethink how thecall center component of this works because i-- you know,and i'm-i'm not sure of theanswer to that,but as you get deeper into what you learn,i think it would be of value toknow whether or not we'restructured properly to respond to requests. Meaning that if a certainpercentage of the calls, emails,or voicemails are really focused on those actions that are,in fact, clerical in nature,does it-- are we-- do we havethe right team answering the phones? And I appreciate the point aboutcaseload and all of that,which I would just say, in the future,we should also have those up onthe screen by role,if we need to, just so that we can betterunderstand that 'cause I dothink that one thing that i'veobserved with the changes that ignacio made in his shop is thati think we've improved customerservice dramatically. And, frankly, the-the organization that heused didn't require us to laypeople off,so I don't wanna scare anyone who's listening to this orthinking about this. It really did require us torestructure the way we did work, and, frankly,i think it took pressure offof-- off of the staff who had adifferent level of work to do instead of being caught up withthings that really were quickcalls. So, I would just recommend, jim, if you have a chance,just to talk to ignacio a littlebit about that. And then, you know, as we move forward with yourunit based project,it May be worth discussing withhim, as well.
3:42 PMI will do so.thank you.>> thank you.>> mm-hmm.
Thank you.>> thanks.all right, next.>> thank you.
Oh, sorry, dave.>> I just wanna interjectsomething.can-can we get just off agenda, in the future at some point,what all the compliancerequirements are,if there's a document that's--
Actually,one of the documents that'sattached to this report,supervisor cortese, is our annual audit from thestate department of socialservices that highlights severalof the compliance indicators that we are-- that all countystaff are responsible for. So,if-if that is-- I can certainly talk with your staff followingyour review of that,and if you'd still like moreinformation, we'll be happy to provide that.
3:43 PMI saw some of them in here,but they were just-- they werekind of listed as-- I thought they were just examples,but maybe i'm-i'm--
The biggest compliance issueis around overdue reassessments, and that is a-- that is ahighlighted issue specificallyhere within this report because,several years ago, we were woefully out ofcompliance,and the state did put us on acorrective action plan. That has changed dramaticallyover the last few years to wherewe are no longer in a-- in andout of compliance status with the state,and we're actually not-- we arenot required to-- we're notunder a corrective action plan any longer.
3:44 PMWhat is-- what is required todo a reassessment?>> well, a-a reassessment should becompleted within a year of theinitial assessment or thesubsequent reassessment.
Basically, an in-home visit?>> an in-home visit to reassessthe individual's needs for ihssservices. yes.
Okay.i mean,i-i want you to know in case it sounded like stupid questions. I think all of us have visitedthe program, visited homes,visited caregivers. I just didn't know how thatreassessment actually occurs,and it sounds like it's--
It-it is a required home visit. It-it is required where there'sa face-to-face contact with therecipient of the services.
And is that done witheverybody?>> everybody.>> even if they're permanently disabled?
Yes.>> yes.>> and will never get better.
3:45 PMCorrect.>> we visit them to see if theystill need the service?>> we-we see them every year to assess whether they need morehours of service,potentially hours of service.
Oh, okay.
The vast majority of theclients,once they are assessed and havebeen assessed, you know, routinely over several years,will likely be receiving thesame number of hoursconsistently, but that can change. Circumstances, of course,can change for an individual. But, yes, an annual reassessment is arequirement.
But one of the things thatwe're also looking at and talking with other counties isapproaching the state aroundsome relief around some of that.
And what-what is of concernis, there's a high's very hard to do-- achievethe benchmarks that they're asking,and some of what we know is,it's not the best use of time togo out checking on people like you just mentioned. So,we're-we're approaching thestate to see if there's any appetite to seek relief on thatwhere we can streamline some ofthe process for some of thosecases so that we can have a higher threshold of--
3:46 PMEven if we visited them everytwo or three years would makemore sense.
Yeah.>> there's something similarwith outreach for vta,where we take-- we still check if people are permanentlydisabled to use outreach.
Some of our clients we seeevery 18 months because they are relatively stable. They have to meet a veryspecific criteria that isoutlined by the state, and some of our clients we dosee 18 months. It's with supervisor approvalthat that happens-- social work supervisor approval.
Oh,we might wanna think a littlebit about how to push the envelope on when we do and don'tdo that. I mean,it May be worth having a little bit of an argument with thestate. Like, the value,one value I see in it is that we make sure that the situation issafe for them in their homes,and there's an outside set ofbis, which I think that's fabulous,but I don't think that servesquite the same purposenecessarily and might be able to be handled in a different way.
3:47 PMXx has-has just pulledtogether an ihss reformsworkgroup of which supervisor yeager is actually chairing thatcommittee.
So, we know who to bug.>> i'm also on that committee, as well.
Oh, good.>> so,, there's-there's-there'sopportunities for us to haveconversations about just whatbob was mentioning.
And-and within the state--well, good luck and let me know,and i'll-->> thank you.
Next time I see you,i'll-i'll bug you about that.>> okay.>> dave, did you have other questions?
3:48 PMNo, i-i think i-- yes,i think I found the documentyou're referring to. is it the-the one that says"monitoring review summary?"is that it?
It's green.>> oh, that's correct.yes.>> thank you. I didn't realize.
That's okay.>> thank you.>> thank you.
Perfect.>> all, the next time,to terri possley's left is ross graham from the ihss publicauthority. Ross is here today on behalf ofmary tinker, the public authority director. The ihss public authorityadvisory board historicallypresented an annual report to the children, senior,and families committee, but,unfortunately,due to budget cuts after a few years back,they were unable to do so. They've restarted that effort,and so ross is here today to present briefly the ihssadvisory board's report back tothis committee.
Great. thank you.
3:49 PMThank you, ross.>> thank you.good afternoon. ross graham with publicauthority, as jim has mentioned. Am i-- is the microphone on?it doesn't light there. Excuse me.
Yes,i can hear you crystal clear.yeah.
Okay.>> and, ross, here's your time.>> thank you very much.yeah, i'm-i'm very happy to take youthrough the highlights of theannual report from the-- fromthe public authority-- certainly to provide partnership very muchwith the-the ihss program herein the county. First item on the slide is, we do training for the careproviders-- classroom in and-andhands on type training for,as you can see, 121 classes in the past year andpractically almost to 1,900 care providers. We feel that's very important. We were able to expand that to anumber of locations and a numberof languages throughout thecounty.