Sunday, August 24, 2008

Cincinnati Human Services Funding Scandal?

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Very quietly in late June, buried in a flurry of pre-vacation business, Cincinnati City Council adopted a plan devised by a closed door committee of Cincinnati’s richest philanthropies, that essentially wipes out City funding for volunteer-driven, neighborhood-based, grassroots-style nonprofits.

The only agencies of sufficient size to compete for City funding will be those with budgets of over a quarter of a million dollars—because the new process states that the smallest grants available will be $25,000 per year, which must be less than ten percent of an agency’s total budget.

This new policy means:

- The Community Action Agency will be able to operate city-funded after-school programs, while Winton Place Youth Center will not.

- The Mental Health Association will be able to provide city-funded mental health education, but NAMI Hamilton County will not.

- Talbert House will be able to provide city-funded drug treatment, but Recovery Resource Center will not.

And who sits on the Human Services Advisory Board?  It includes representatives from Community Action Agency, Mental Health Association, Talbert House, and other nonprofits of similar size. Missing from this process - small groups, “church basement programs,” and volunteer-driven neighborhood groups.

This certainly smells like a back room deal.

Here is the Council vote:

Item #: 200800847
MOTION, dated 06/24/2008, submitted by Vice-Mayor Crowley and Councilmember Bortz, that City Council approve the attached Human Services Commission (HSC) Recommendations; and that the City Manager take all appropriate steps to implement the recommendations and provide quarterly updates on the plans implementation to the Health, Environment and Education Committee.

Item Status/Referral/Recommendations:
ADOPT
*** ADOPTED
MR. THOMAS Y
MR. BERDING Y
MR. BORTZ Y
MS. COLE Y
MR. CRANLEY Y
MR. CROWLEY Y
MS. GHIZ Y
MR. MONZEL Y
MS. QUALLS Y

See all the details in the docs below.  Our view:  money will only go to nonprofits with directors pulling in big money incomes, and not to those run by committed volunteers in the neighborhoods.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Freedom Fighters says:
24 Aug 2008  at  12:47 pm | #

.

Nothing like ‘equal protection’.

You don’t think this process was self-serving do you ?

.

R says:
24 Aug 2008  at  03:15 pm | #

Unreal.  Is this partly to get them away from any close to downtown? I understand the Talbert House connection

Quincy says:
24 Aug 2008  at  07:10 pm | #

Questions:
If an agency has a budget of $300,000, and 75% of the budget is staff salary and 25% for actual programming, is that given any attention?

Are agencies monitored on a scheduled appointment basis? Or on an unannounced basis? ie, you announce that you offer six forms of student programs and 120 children are participating regularly. A visit or two shows only 3-4 children program. Are these forms of accountability looked into?

Is partnering among the smaller agencies that do not have a huge budget, but do provide wider areas of community contact with a larger bank of volunteers get any help?  At this late date in the process, it would seem like the press to partner would be lost for 2 years. 

Is the council looking at affiliations? Nepotism? How many working for one agency also hold similar posts in other large agencies?  Is use of paid lobbyists and their staffs “uder needed” for any agency?

Who, specifically by name and association, served on the committee and who recommended them?

another anon says:
25 Aug 2008  at  01:01 am | #

I was too lazy to read through the whole report, so take this with a grain of salt.

I think this is illegal.

If the funds being used or were comingled with either state or federal funds - they cannot limit competition for grants or funding.  This appears to violate the anti trust rules, and if this reduces the field of possible recipients, and people voted for this who meet those requirements, then the resolution appears to be a violation of the standard conflict of interest rules.

I mean, geez, if an entity has an all volunteer staff and yet provides extraordinary outcomes - they are eliminated from competing for grant funds.  Stupid.

Steve says:
01 Sep 2008  at  08:27 pm | #

I was at one of the meetings and the decision was made that no one should get more than 10% of the entire city budget (i.e one agency couldn’t hog the pot).  Maybe they changed their minds.  Doesn’t that mean that Closing the Health Gap would not be able to get their $250,000?  I seriously doubt they have a budget of $2,500,000.  I think that would be a good thing.

Health Insurance says:
21 Sep 2008  at  05:27 pm | #

I’m really impressed with your article, that was exactly what I was looking for.. it was certainly a great read for me, I’ll be looking forward for more of your articles cause that’s one of the best I’ve read recently. Keep up the good work
Thank you,
Health Insurance

Short Term Health Insurance says:
07 Oct 2008  at  06:55 pm | #

Great stuff.. This was seriously impressive. I never know that this could be the plot for a scam!