Coastal Workforce Investment Board
Youth Council
PY2013 Youth Services Proposal Review Committee
December 5, 2012
MINUTES
Members Present: William Miller, Vince DelMonte, Curly Green, Monifa Johnson, Monica Hardin
Members Absent: Tara Jennings
Staff Present:
Marsha Carter, Karen Barnes
Call to Order: the meeting was convened at 9:15 A.M.
The Committee met to compile score sheets from their individual reviews of the youth services proposals,
and discuss the results and information presented on past performance, as well as program and fiscal
issues.
Eleven proposals were submitted for the following areas:
Bryan/Liberty/Long
Paxen, Telamon, ResCare
Bulloch/Effingham
Paxen, Telamon, ResCare
Camden/Glynn/McIntosh
Paxen, ResCare
Chatham
Paxen, SIP, ResCare
All proposals were generally rated as acceptable and well presented. However, each was felt to propose
more activity than feasible to expect with the limited staff proposed. The conclusion reached was that all
proposers know WIA requirements and program designs, indicating that less emphasis needs to be placed
on the written proposals and future review functions should include emphasize on researching and
reporting actual service delivery, whether WIA or other youth program designs. With the exception of
Telamon, the proposals were considered to be lacking in local data to support needs statements.
Each area was discussed individually; however, similar concerns were noted with each contractor’s
proposal:
Paxen responded well to the Youth Council’s desire for the provision of in-school services
throughout the region. Size and conditions of existing facilities is of concern, as well as the high
cost of proprietary materials. Case Management and follow-up activities need to be fully
implemented in Chatham County. Increased emphasis is needed on placements prior to or after
exit. GED results are good, especially in Camden/Glynn/McIntosh, while program
implementation in Chatham was slow to develop. In general, the committee felt that Coastal’s
increased monitoring and technical assistance would enhance future efforts if funded.
Telamon is very strong on case management activities and well-integrated into their
communities. The Academy programs were seen as a positive program component. The
Bulloch/Effingham location functions very well, while the Bryan/Liberty/Long site needs
improvement in staff engagement with the community and case management. Bulloch and
Effingham staff has been very responsive to monitoring recommendations. The committee saw no
compelling reasons to change contractors in these areas.
SIP has been plagued with staffing issues since their first contract; however, the new proposal
includes changing case managers from temporary status to permanent staff with benefits.
Additionally, management has experienced a turn-over and the committee views these changes as
an indication of renewed emphasis on program enhancement. The primary remaining weakness is
fiscal management. SIP has experienced difficulty in developing and implementing budgets and
has been unsuccessful in meeting spending requirements. The new staff has been very receptive
to monitoring and technical assistance from Coastal. SIP was commended for their work with
high risk populations. The committee felt that the program would be improved by increasing the
40% of Chatham funds awarded in PY2012 to 60% for PY2013 in the event they are awarded the
contract.
ResCare submitted applications for all four areas of the Coastal Region. Their proposals were
professional and thorough with two notable shortcomings: proposed activities were considered
well beyond the capacity of proposed staff and no area specific data or community contacts were
mentioned in the applications. While recognizing that ResCare has no previous experience in the
Coastal region, the committee felt that community contacts should have been made that could be
built upon during program implementation should they be funded and that data should have
reflected some research into area conditions.
Recommendations: The committee reviewed the attached summary of scores of the applications,
concluding that were no compelling issues to warrant changing contractors except to offer
Chatham to ResCare at 40% of the funding. Therefore, the committee recommends awarding the
following contractors:
Bryan/Liberty/Long – Telamon
Bulloch/Effingham - Telamon
Camden/Glynn/McIntosh – Paxen
Chatham – ResCare @ 40% and SIP@ 60%, noting that in the event ResCare
declines the 40% funding, the entire contract will be awarded to SIP.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 P.M.
MMC 12/6/2012