Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Delay asked for status of Titles 11-0 and VI, public service and <br />employment projects. Mr. Miller responded that Title VI has a very good 4It <br />performance record right now. In regard to Title II-D, the City would <br />prefer to change the structure, as people are not getting their needs <br />taken care of the way it is currently being' handled. Eighty percent of <br />these people have college educations or more. With the structure the <br />County is currently using there is no distinction between Title 11-0 and <br />Title VI. In regard to Title II-D, a 29-percent job placement rate is not <br />good. Staff is sure they could improve the performance of that group. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay asked how Mr. Miller saw contracting as being more effective. <br />Mr. Miller responded that one way this could be done would be to explore <br />with the local school district a contracting option for a delivery system <br />for youth services as an example. Mr. Delay asked if there was a sufficient <br />number of non-profit agencies to handle the delivery of services. Mr. <br />Miller responded that there are many non-profit agencies and the City <br />staff is sure they could provide services. Mr. Lieuallen asked if in-house <br />staff versus "contracting" has been a big stumbling block in discussions <br />with Lane County. Mr. Miller responded that at first the County was <br />absolutely opposed to this idea because they did not feel adequate accounta- <br />bility could be assured with contracting. Toward the end of negotiations, <br />there was some indication that the County felt contracting might be a <br />possible option under a consortium. This would be a staff reduction for <br />the County. Mayor Keller stated. he did not feel that the discussions with <br />the County had reached any conclusions and both remain far apart on this <br />issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen stated that the County program has been criticized and he <br />would like clarification on what is wrong with their outreach and how the <br />City could do better. Mr. Miller responded that new regulations have <br />been enacted to cut down on people who are not eligible and this has <br />created some complaints. He further stated the County has had a policy <br />which requires people to wait in line. Not many handicapped people nor <br />women with children could stand in line for a long period of time; there- <br />fore they are not considered for positions. He added that the City is <br />concerned, as earlier stated, that the County does not differentiate <br />between Title VI and II-D. Mr. Lieuallen stated he felt the County had <br />made good arguments for Option C and asked if the County has reached <br />a consensus in regard to contracting. Mr. Long responded that the <br />County might be open to that, but did not feel that is a very good possi- <br />bility. Mr. Lieuallen stated he would like a response from the County <br />staff to some of these accusations being made since they are pretty <br />severe. Mr. Obie stated he is ready to make a decision. Mr. Lieuallen <br />stated he would like information on how the County feels about the contract <br />issue, the residency issue, their intake process, and their outreach. <br />Mayor Keller stated that there may have been harsh words but that the City <br />staff, while critiquing the County program, was trying not to make it <br />be a "blood bath." <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />tit <br /> <br />3/26/80--10 <br />