Final Draft For Recommendations For Human Services Funding (1) LC Edits

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING
AND INTEGRATION OF SERVICE DELIVERY
Submitted By:
THE FUND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
For information contact – Faith & Community Alliance of Greater Cincinnati

513-910-5985/fcacincinnati@aol.com
Confidential & Proprietary Page | 1 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2
Reason and Background for this Report ................................................................................... 4
Perception of Human Services Funding and the Issue Of 1.5% ........................................... 10
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Human Services Committee .......................................... 10
Strengths and Weaknesses of City Of Cincinnati Leadership .............................................. 12
The Relationship between the City of Cincinnati and the Committee .............................. 20
Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 23

Executive Summary
We believe that the purpose of government is to serve the people. That includes providing
for Human Services that foster public and private efforts to meet residents’ basic
needs in the areas of health, nutrition, education, and housing.
These efforts can be most effective when funding is consistent over time. This
report catalogs the history of the City’s funding for Human Services and efforts to
maintain oversight.
We recommend that a foundation of 1.5% of the General Fund be fixed to allow

agencies to develop effective, long-term programs. We also recommend that
oversight be led by dedicated Human Services professionals, using appropriate
outcome based measurements, to allow the process to work for the service
agencies, without political interference in the short-term.
Further recommendations are provided in the full report that follows.
The organizations involved in this study are representatives of the Cincinnati AFL-
CIO, Baptist Ministers Conference, Cincinnati Labor Council, the Faith Community
Alliance of Greater Cincinnati, and the Human Services Coalition of the FCA. To
the extent there is bias in this study, it is due to the Committee’s general mission -
support for the funding of Human Services.
Introduction
In the course of developing this study, several thousand pages of documents
were examined supplemented by multiple interviews. It is the view of the “Fund
Human Services Committee” that the City of Cincinnati’s management of the
Human Services Fund is muddled by attempted improvements, with a lack of an
over-all perspective on the immediate and potential importance to the city. The
mission of the Fund has been complicated by the changeable barometer of
politics.
This study is an effort in fact-finding into the nature and process surrounding the
human services funding issue. It is neither scientific research nor an all-
encompassing review of the workings of city government. It focuses on the
process involved in the funding of human services through the City of Cincinnati’s
General Fund.

This study is divided into three sections
1. Reason and Background for this Study

a. Concern about appropriate funding for Human Services
b. Concern about fair and equitable administration of funds for Human
Services
2. The findings of the Study
a. Perception of Human Services Funding and the Issue of 1.5% of The
General Fund
b. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Human Services Fund Process
c. Strengths and Weaknesses of City of Cincinnati Leadership
d. The General Relationship between the City of Cincinnati and the
volunteer Human Services Committee
3. Recommendations
The study attempts to:
1. Understand how, if not why, there has been a continual reduction of

human service funds over successive administrations and councils.
2. Learn how the current Council is following the dictates of the 2017
ordinance (law) requiring that, over five years, there be an annual,
incremental restoration of human services funding to1.5% of the City
Cincinnati General Fund.
3. Determine how well the Human Services Committee performs its duties in
the funding and monitoring of the agencies receiving these funds.
4. Determine the strength and weaknesses of the current method of
appointment to the Human Services Committee.
5. Determine the effectiveness in the relationship between City Council and
the Human Services Committee.
6. Understand the strength of the relationship, in general, between City
Government and the volunteer Human Services Committee.
Due to extensive documents reviewed for this study, citations are provided for further research. A
supplement section of additional documents are also provided.

Reason and Background for this Study
Is the Human Services Fund appropriately funded and managed by the City of
Cincinnati?
From about 2000 to 2010, attempts were made to both achieve fair and
balanced oversight of Human Services and attempts to completely remove the
funds from the budget.
When The Human Services Fund was established in 1981, it provided for Human Services
Operating Grants: “Grants fund nonprofit agencies and community organizations to
deliver human services to City residents. Funded services include basic
emergency intervention and treatment services, services that prevent
institutionalization and promote self-care, and services that enhance the quality
of life. All funded programs must be consistent with the City’s Human Services
policy.” By 2014, areas expanded included this was expanded to include street
violence and city youth employment programs. (2001-2002 Approved Biennial Budget
2001-2002, p.166; Motion of October 1, 2014 by Yvette Simpson –catalogued 20140219)
It is not absolutely clear, in the inception of the fund, that members of Council
would add agencies and categories to the fund in addition to those listed. It
appears, however, that Council involvement, whether influenced by the lobbying
efforts of agencies seeking these funds or by personal preference, became a
major concern requiring a more competitive format to award grants
appropriately. Prior to 2003, the recommendations to City Council for the
distribution of Human Services Funding were made by a select committee of
concerned citizens. The Council usually accepted these recommendations, but
had the power to add to them.
The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) is a citizen advisory group

to the City Manager which reviews and recommends City funding for
human service activities. This includes recommendations for human
services operating support in the General Fund. Within the Consolidated
Plan Budget, the HSAC reviews the human services component, the
homeless housing renovation activities, and the homeless shelter activities
funded through the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). (Approved City of
Cincinnati’s 2001/2002 Biennial Budget – p.21)
But, by 2000, as reflected in the Approved 2003/2004 City of Cincinnati Biennial

Budget, the concerns about a fair and objective review and distribution of city

funds had come to a head. An Action (Work) Plan was enacted with the
objective “To conduct Human Services program funding on a competitive
process and on an “outcome-based funding model.” In a significant step
towards improving overall management of city government, action items were
outlined for each department. Each area of government, including the Human
Services Fund, had specific goals, objectives and end dates.
In the initial work plan for the Human Services Fund, the actions were to simply
“Develop new/revised application guidelines.” But the process accelerated so
that within six months The Updated 2003- 2004 City of Cincinnati Biennial Budget
changed the action item to be accomplished from “Modify Human Services
Program” to “Develop and implement a different Human Services grant program
funding approach based on the United Way Logic Model.” It does not seem that,
at the time, the goal was to place review of the Human Services Fund under the
direction of the United Way of Greater Cincinnati but that it was considered the
“best practices” approach to determining the distribution of the fund’s income.
(The Updated 2003- 2004 City of Cincinnati Biennial Budget ,Workplans, 10 & 11)
The process of developing a coherent review for the distribution of these funds
came to an abrupt halt with a decision to completely delete Human Services
Fund from the budget. This response to a downturn in revenues led to continued,
often rancorous, Council meetings with each budget renewal. Public comments
were heated. Eventually, City Council and Administration did reinstate the
Human Services Fund into the budget but at percentages far below 1.5% of the
General Budget. It has not yet recovered. Again, in 2006, with the passing of the
Approved 2005 – 2006 City of Cincinnati Biennial Budget, there was movement
that the Human Services Fund be eliminated from the overall budget. At that
point, the fund became enmeshed in the political process pitting it against other
city programs so as to meet both current and anticipated financial short-falls. This
approach to human services has continued through succeeding administrations
and councils.
Over time, immediate jurisdiction of the Human Services Fund moved though
several divisions of government, starting from 2000 to 2002, with the Department
of Neighborhood Development, answering to the City Manager, to Community
and Economic Development and then to an entity that dealt with trade.
Finally, an attempt was made to bring order to the process. In 2008, a Human
Services Commission was formed by then Vice Mayor, David Crowley and then

Councilman Christopher Bortz. According to the 2009 – 2010 City of Cincinnati
Biennial Budget, the Commission convened “… a highly visible group of
stakeholders … asked to lead and oversee the process to evaluating the City’s
current policies and procedures surrounding funding for the selection of human
services delivery agencies.”
It recommended that the Human Services Advisory Committee and the

Community Development Block Grant (CBDAB) be combined, for the purpose of
having, within one committee, the power to establish two sets of criteria for each
funding stream (as well as to recommend the agencies to receive funding).1 The
stakeholders appointed by the mayor were to include representatives from: “…
Human Service and General Funders, Business and Community Executives, Service
Providers, Community Development/Real Estate, Low Income Advocates, Housing
Authorities, Small Business Advocates, Trades/Labor, Community Volunteers,
Community Council/Neighborhoods Leaderships, and Data Analysts.” (City of
Cincinnati Biennial annual Budget 2009-2010, p.34)
Among other things, its recommendations were to add: Gainful Employment,

Reducing Homelessness and Reducing Hunger and Improving Family Stability. It is
unclear if, at the time of these recommendations, the City’s Administration was in
support of returning the Human Services Funding to 1.5% of the General fund. An
observation, here, requiring further study, is that the goal of reducing hunger and
1
Of interest is that some of the criticism of this combination was that it weakened the viability
of the CBDAD and extended also to the Human Services Fund. The Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) is a formula grant from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development Budget Basics (HUD) to local and state governments. The primary objectives of
the CDBG program are to provide decent housing, suitable living environment, and
economic opportunities principally for persons of low and moderate income, or aid in the
prevention or elimination of slums and blight. CDBG funds are a flexible resource which can
be used for a wide range of programs or projects within a broad framework of eligible
activities. Overall, 70% of CDBG expenditures must benefit low and moderate income
persons. (Approved 2001/2002 Biennial Budget p.13)
As with the Human Services Advisory Committee the CDAB board was also comprised of a
volunteer citizen’s group who were to “. . . initially advise the City Manager on the
development of the Consolidated Plan Budget. The CDAB Housing and The CDAB Housing
and Economic Development subcommittees each meet to review requests submitted by the
Departments for funding. The full CDAB considers the recommendations of the
subcommittees and the HSAC and finalizes the recommendations to the City Manager”.
(Approved 2001/2002 Biennial Budget p.13)

improving family stability appears to be a stepping stone toward the mayoral
initiative “Collaborative to End Childhood Poverty.
In-person interviews with the Human Service Committee administrated by The

United Way of Greater Cincinnati indicate that the issues of homelessness and
economic employment were of particular interest to Council members Yvette
Simpson and Mann. To formulate their recommendations, these council members
did fact finding meetings and discussions with community leaders and those
interested in these areas of service needs. (Memorandum of Council Human Services
Fund Priority Working Group, October 1, 2014)
By 2010, the United Way of Greater Cincinnati was asked to take over the process
of review and to advise on allocating revenue from the Human Services Fund. In
a way, the process of overview of the Human Services Fund had returned to the
recommendations that were abandoned by City Government in the 2003-2004
Biennial Budget. The difference instead of instituting a funding model similar to
that of the United Way, the United Way became an integral part of the model.
While the mayor retained the authority of appointment to this committee, it now
reported to City Council rather that the General Manager. The council
committee that has immediate oversight on human services funding has served
as an interim between the committee and the Council as a whole. The role of the
United Way is limited to administrative support to the committee.
The Human Services Fund has not been restored to1.5% of the General Fund since
2006. In 2017, an ordinance (a law) was enacted that required council, to
annually increase funding for human services incrementally until the 1.5% level
was restored in 2021. At the time the Human Services Fund was allocated .9% of
the General Fund. (Proceedings/Minutes of City Council – June 14, 2017 – Item Number
201700885-ORDINANCE)
Although current Council has not deliberated on the 2017 Ordinance, the
budgets currently recommended by the City Manager and Mayor have moved
income for the Humans Services Fund to 1.2% which in line with the gradual
restoration called for by the ordinance.
Under the current system, is the distribution of Human

Services Funds done in fair and equitable manner?

Finding
The current funding of human services, while remaining top-down, is a more

sophisticated process, often complicated by politics.
The Mayor still appoints who serves on the Human Services Advisory Committee
but the committee answers to City Council that dictates the areas of concern for
the overall funding. The committee provides information to potential recipient
agencies on grant opportunities, reviews grant applications and makes its
recommendations to Council, who retains final decisions as to who receives
funding. The Committee then monitors the activities of the funded agencies and
reports on their progress to City Council. Final approval of the funding
recommended by the Human Services Committee resides with City Council.
Currently, there is a discussion within City Council as whether it should abandon

the process administered by the United Way. There appears to be some
discussion of having the Human Services Fund part of the scope of the Childhood
Poverty Collaborative. The Collaborative is a communitywide effort initiated by
Mayor John Cranley with administrative oversight by the United Way.
This debate is occurring at a time when the United Way is embroiled in

controversy over accusations of bias by its board toward minorities. This led to the
resignation of its Chief Executive Officer and, apparently, led to the resignation, of
the Director of the Childhood Poverty Collaborative, both African Americans.
There is also a challenge, led by the Black Agenda of Cincinnati, arguing that all
United Way funding by the City of Cincinnati should cease including fees for
administration support for the Human Services Committee. This involves the Center
for Closing the Health Gap, founded by former Mayor Dwight Tillery, which
concentrates on the health and nutritional issues impacting the city’s African
American community. Initially, funding for the program was provided to the
agency from the Human Services Fund without going through the established
review process. After opposition by Mayor John Cranley, in 2014, Closing the
Health Gap funding was provided by a separate line item. This past year, a
heated debate between the Mayor and the City Council, complicated by other
disagreements, emerged over this particular funding. The Mayor opposed to any
future funding for Closing the Health Gap eventually had his veto overturned.
Compounding the current situation is the concern that some Council members
are considering abandoning the Human Services Advisory Committee seeking full

Council control of human services funding. This has been criticized by Council
member Mann, on the grounds that it could lead to political cronyism. (Black
Agenda Cincinnati wants Cincinnati to halt funding to United Way: 'No more of our tax dollars
being shipped off', Lucy May, December 3, 2018, WCPO)
Public Perception of Human Services Funding and the Issue

Of 1.5%
Findings:
1. The public is unclear as to what Human Services Funding at 1.5%

actually represents.
2. There is a broad misconception by the public as to the distinction
between what the City Government refers to as the “General Fund” as
opposed to the “Annual Budget.”
The fact that the General Fund is a subset of the Annual Budget is obscured,
particularly when the overall city budget is being determined. The result is that for
much of the public, the General Fund and the Annual Budget are seen as
interchangeable terms. The City of Cincinnati funds Human Services through the
General Fund. The General Fund is 22% of the budget making Human Services
somewhere below .3%. (See Definitions in supportive documents)
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Human Services Fund

Process
Finding
There is a lack of understanding that the 1.5% limit on funding the human services
fund will allow the real dollars to self-adjust with the changes in the economic
situation of the City of Cincinnati.
The 1.5% is a fixed percentage of a yearly changing amount provided to the

General Fund. At a fixed percentage, allocations to the fund will automatically
rise and fall with changing revenue available to the General Fund. It does not
compete with other city departments that depend on the General Fund as a
supplemental source of income. As the City’s finances grow, the General Fund

grows, as does the Human Service Fund. If City finances are diminished, likewise,
funds available to the General Fund and human services fall.
Finding
Support for Human Services Funding has a built-in disadvantage.
A review of the biennial budgets from 2001 to 2019 for the City of Cincinnati show
that the largest share of the budget goes to salaries. Many budget requests,
especially in later budgets, are to offset losses in order to maintain salaries and
staffing levels when revenues fall short of budget projections. Since it is not a line
item of the city government budget, the Human Services fund has no internal
advocate to maintain funding for external social service agencies. Over the
years, nongovernment supporters, such as the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the
Homeless, have served as the Fund’s advocates. This has led to the appearance,
and accusations that the service organizations are self-serving for their own
interests. In addition, it opens the Fund to attack by those against government
involvement in social service issues.
To help address this situation, a number of recipient agencies created the Human
Services Chamber to advocate for funding. Not all recipients of human services
funding are members and the Chamber acknowledges a need to do more
outreach to these organizations. It is felt, that under the current Council,
communication between city and the agencies has substantially decreased. In
an interview last October, It is a sentiment shared by the Human Services Advisory
Committee.
Finding
The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC), as now constituted, is the

strongest component in the city’s funding of human services.
The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC), as to its oversight and review of
the grant funding for the City of Cincinnati, is the most consistent component of
the Human Services fund process. Its current members have shown great
commitment to the duties entrusted to them, vetting agencies requesting funds,
monitoring funding recipients, making personal visits and reporting on their
activities and findings to City Council. The United Way has provided, to the fullest
extent possible, a hands-off approach to the activities of the Human Services
Committee. Providing assistance and support insures that the record keeping

and reports are provided to the City Council and the committee has competent
assistance in the implementation of the directives from City Council.
There is debate as to whether the application process could be modified so that

smaller agencies could more easily apply for funding. However, because these
are public tax dollars, a receiving agency must be able to demonstrate
accountability, not only to the city but, should it become necessary, to the State
of Ohio and the U.S. Department of Treasury.
Finding
A need to improve the process of future Mayoral Appointments to HSAC.
While the current administration has appointed dedicated and effective

committee members, given past discussions, there is no mechanism in place to
avoid the potential for cronyism and favoritism by future administrations. The
process, recommended to city government by the United Way, should be
reviewed and a more impartial method for selecting members be considered. In
past administrations, there were comments that those appointed to the
Committee were chosen for who was known in the community as opposed to
who knew the “on the ground needs” of the community. In addition comments
suggested that applications were given to potential committee members at “the
last minute” leaving little time for a clear and unbiased decision on the merits of
the candidate.
Strengths and Weaknesses of City of Cincinnati Leadership

Findings:
There are contradictory views as to the importance of Human Services Funding

within city government.
Succeeding City Councils and Administrations have differing views as to whether

the Human Services Fund is a vital service to the city.
The shrinkage of the Human Services Fund can be traced, in part, to 2006, with a
settlement involving Hamilton County, with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The settlement had an enormous impact on the city’s finances--
ordering the City to improve, repair and update its sewer system. The impact of
this decision still affects city and county government, as they continue to debate,

in federal court and in public media, how to cover the cost of repairs, properly
manage the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), and fairly cover the extraordinary
costs. These costs are a tremendous burden on our homeowners with the least
resources. The cost of repairs and modernization has had a chilling effect on the
entire city budget.
There were other unexpected stresses on the city’s resources. 2008 saw the onset
of a protracted national recession. Throughout this period, there were demands
for the City to meet increases in salaries and benefits for city employees. Police
and fire services also required upgrades and additional funding, while the taxing
base, which funds the General Fund, decreased. Although designed to be
outside of conflict with the needs of other city services, the Humans Services Fund
became a bargaining chip in heated, often, midnight debates at the closing of
the fiscal year. This began with the 2006 recommendation by the City Manager
that the Human Service Fund be completely cut from the budget.
For the 2007 – 2008 City of Cincinnati Biennial Budget: “The City Works” provided
an interesting defense on the city’s approach to The Human Services Fund.
1. - The Human Services Fund conflicts with other services areas that depend on the
General Fund
Funding under the Human Services Policy for the 2005 and 2006 budget
years was reduced in order to offset increased expenditures expected
during the periods. The City Administration recommended eliminating
human services funding for 2005 budget year, but City Council restored
approximately $2.5 million to the human services budget. This level of
funding was duplicated for the 2006 budget year. Funding human services
at the established 1.5 percent level would have resulted in additional
General Fund expenditures of approximately $2.3 million during 2005 and
approximately $2.6 million during 2006. In order to administer this program
effectively, B&E recommends that the Human Services Policy funding also
cover the administrative function.
2. - The Human Services Fund serves a unique need.
The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) advises the City on the
allocation of funds for human services activities by making
recommendations to the City Manager. The HSAC is currently in the
process of meeting in order to determine which human services-oriented
projects and organizations should receive an allocation of the 2007 human
services budget.
(Approved City of Cincinnati Biennial Budget 2005 – 2006, pages 13-14)

3. – It was not a politically opportune time to remove the Human Services
Fund
Human Services Policy: Human Services are those services provided
directly to individuals or families for meeting their basic human needs
for physical survival; for adequate preparation for and help in sustaining
gainful employment; for social support and interaction, especially in
times of personal or family crisis; for assistance in overcoming specific
pathologies; and for help in gaining access to available, appropriate
services. These services may be either preventative or remedial in
nature, but are delivered in such a way that recipients of the services
are not rendered unnecessarily dependent on the services, but rather
are helped to achieve the greatest possible level of independence
and self-determination. The City of Cincinnati’s current Human Services
Policy states that a minimum of 1.5 percent of the City of Cincinnati’s
General Fund revenue shall be allocated annually to provide funds for
Human Services program grants for service providers. Policy funding
also formerly supported administrative costs for Human Services staff
members, but this was eliminated beginning with the 2005 budget year.
The historical annual funding related to the Human Services Policy over
the past six budget years is as follows:
Historical Human Services Policy Annual Funding

Budget Year Human Services Estimated Funding as
Policy Funding General Fund Percentage
Revenue of General
Fund
Revenue
2001 $ 4,791,720 $ 316,803,000 1.5%
2002 $ 4,860,390 $ 324,026,000 1.5%
2003 $ 4,630,350 $ 307,615,000 1.5%
2004 $ 4,724,410 $ 315,522,000 1.5%
2005 $ 2,471,000 $ 318,005,000 0.8%
2006 $ 2,471,000 $ 337,065,000 0.7%
The public debate on the restoration of the Human Service Funds, and attempts
to save or minimize its significance continues.2
2
Of note, in the 2011-2012 City of Cincinnati Biennial Budget, the itemization of the
agencies receiving human services funds, with the amounts received, was not published.
It reappears in subsequent budget year (Appendix - )Also, warranting further inquiry is
that during this period Council members Chris Bortz, Leslie Ghiz and had James
Berding had sought to eliminate the Human Services fund replacing it with
annual contribution of $1,000,000 to the United Way.

Findings
Will City Council take control of human services funding or eliminate it altogether.
Though an ordinance exists that requires restoration of the fund to 1.5%, there is
some confusion as to whether current Council intends to abide by the ordinance.
The current City Council, led by Greg Landsman and Tamaya Dennard, raised the
Human Services Fund allocation to 1.0% of the General Fund. But this was not part
of any meaningful annual plan. In fact, the prior Council, whose terms ended in
December of 2017, laid no groundwork to restore the funding to the 1.5% level by
2021.
In opposition, Councilman David Mann has expressed concern that such a move
would encourage future cronyism in the distribution of the funds (possibly this was
meant as a reminder of the concerns of Council involvement that was addressed
in the2003- 2004 budget. (Black Agenda Cincinnati wants Cincinnati to halt funding to United
Way – Lucy May, WCPO-TV, December 03, 2018)
Findings
1 – There is a lack of consistency of successive City Councils’ approach to the

Human Services Fund
A review of documents leaves the impression that recent and previous Councils
have differing concepts as to how the Human Services Fund should be managed.
As a particular City Council comes to a decision on the fund (depending on the
issue, the time frame it occurs and the particular Council) it could appear
proactive or reactive (better stated “post active”) in addressing a human service
need.
How Human Services Funds are distributed, essentially, is a top-down process. City
Council dictates the areas of concern that the fund should address to the Human
Services Advisory Committee. The HSAC informs agencies on grant opportunities.
The Committee reviews grants submitted by applicant organizations and informs
the Council of their recommendations for approval. Council retains final
approval.
Council has been proactive on the homeless issue, championed by Councilman

David Mann. Council also took proactive action on employment issues, brought

to their attention by former council member Yvette Simpson. Both Council
members took time to meet at the community level, with neighborhood leaders
and concerned citizens to develop their recommendations for inclusion in Human
Services Funding. Current council appeared to be following a pattern existing
from 2006 and 2014.
2- The methodology of City Council in studying community needs appears

inconsistent
At times, how Council comes to a decision on funding is at best confusing. Over

the years, in post budget periods, as additional funds become available, there is
a scramble to determine how to allocate them. Senior citizen issues have not
been under the purview of the Human Services Fund for a number of years. Yet,
one example allows some insight into the Council processes.
But, a situation involving the summer and fall of 2018, saw the potential closing of
a senior center in the Over the Rhine neighborhood. This community’s
revitalization is viewed from two perspectives. From one point, it is a major
achievement in the renewal and preservation of a historic community, resulting in
its economic revival from a state of immense poverty and crime. The other
perspective is that the revitalization did little to enhance the economic and social
conditions of the residents, but transplanted its blighted conditions to other
neighborhoods and replaced its residents with those who are younger, wealthier,
and whiter.
A long-standing, senior citizens facility, serving mainly African American, poor, still
living in the neighborhood, was cut from the budget and scheduled to be closed.
White funding for senior citizen centers have been cut, there appears to be no
planning to provide an alternative program for this demographic. The center
became a public issue, much discussed in the news media. Once the controversy
started, additional funds were found, and the facility became part of a larger
service program. Councilmember P.G. Sittenfield found excess funds in the
budget to sustain the center and continue its existence by sharing facility space
with another agency. (Santa? No, it was P.G. Sittenfeld's plan that keeps Over-the-Rhine
Senior Center open. Sharon Coolidge, Cincinnati Enquirer, December 25, 2018)
Considering the public scrutiny and controversies surrounding the Over the Rhine
development, there is the lingering question as to why the Council, in the first
place, was unaware of the ramification of cutting the funds for any service
agency the center? It wasn’t the first time the center’s existence was challenged.

“ . . . .In 2007, the city fully supported the center's operations, earmarking
$132,000. That was cut in half to $67,000 in 2010. The center then received $19,000
in 2015. . . . The city provided $0 in 2016 and 2017, which created a perfect storm
because the United Way cut funding to center in half in 2017. (OTR Senior Center
to shut down due to lack of city funds (no author cited), Cincinnati Business
Courier, November 16, 2018)
Of one area, however, under the review of the Human Services Fund, there is
Council’s response to the opioid addiction issue. While addiction is not a newly
discovered problem, opioids have been ravaging the city for years. To provide
further insight to the decision-making process the following questions were
included in the survey presented to members of City Council. Was your office
involved in the decision of the amount and categories to be funded to deal with
the latest opioid and related drug epidemic? Yes _____ No _____
1. If so, what were the City’s sources in reaching its decision?

2. Are there minutes or reports related to these decisions? Yes ____No ____
3. If yes, are these documents available? Yes ___ No _____
4. If yes, are they available from the Clerk of Council’s office? Yes ___ No___
(See supplemental documents)
As stated in the beginning of this report, only two council members responded to
the study’s questionnaires. Neither really answered these questions.
This study has found that the entire process of determining the use of human
services funds to combat addiction began with an initiative started by then
Council member Yvette Simpson in the summer of 2017, chair of the council
committee overseeing human services funding. Responding to our inquiry, she
explained -- that her intention was to develop an across the board committee or
coalition to provide comprehensive measures to attack the opioid problem
affecting the city. She wrote a resolution to this effect In June of 2017,
“… WE MOVE that the City, United Way and other community partners begin
the process of setting Drug Addiction and Substance Abuse as a priority of the
Human Services Fund. … The Co-Chairs will work with the United Way and
Human Services Advisory Committee to convene a representative group of
service providers, organizations, and government entities that provide
addiction treatment to participate in the Working group….” (Budget & Finance
Committee, Joint with Human Services, Youth and Arts Committee, July 12, 2017 -
Motion (Simpson) File # 20170129)

This was countered by a resolution, from Council members Amy Murray and
Christopher Smitherman restricting funding to prevention. The latter motion
was adopted. (Budget & Finance Committee, Joint with Human Services, Youth and Arts
Committee, July 12, 2017 - Motion (Murray, Smitherman, File Number 201701071)
By the 2017 Special Council Meeting of July 12, attended by a large audience of
community members in support of the Center for Addiction Treatment, ”CAT,”
the city’s only treatment facility, the Council stepped back from a strictly
prevention approach towards the opioid epidemic. “CAT” received half of the
$300,000 allocated to this effort. (Fight to reduce opioid abuse or violence? City decides on
funding priorities. JEFF HIRSH, WKRC, July 12th 2017)
There was obviously a division of opinion on Council as to address the issue. It is

perplexing to understand why. Experts in the field would argue with Council
member Simpson’s approach was sounder approach. The National Institute on
Drug Addiction states that to successfully address an illegal drug issue, particularly
as serious as the current opioid epidemic, a successful approach requires
treatment and intervention as well as prevention. (See supplemental documents)
Yet, in the summer of 2018, Council, again, contemplated removing funding for
addiction treatment. This time, an ordinance proposed by Council member Mann
passed limiting funding to prevention. (As the opioid epidemic continues, Cincinnati could
end the funding it provides this addiction treatment center, Nick Swartsell, June 18, 2018, &
Proceedings/Meetings of City Council - August 1, 2019, Item Number: 201801286 – Ordinance
{(Emergency}),
The Ordinance was presented by Council member Mann was through the Budget
and Finance Committee. At first, considering this the law was of a budgetary
nature, being presented through this committee would not seem unusual. In fact,
it would be expected that several committees, dealing with different aspects of
an issue, for example - service needs vs. funds available, would be involved. This
is what occurred in 2017 in regard to the opioid issue. But, this was not the case in
regard to the opioid epidemic in the 2018 City Council.
The Equity, Inclusion, Youth and The Arts, the current Council committee that
oversees the Human Services fun, based on the minutes reviewed, only met once
with HSAC on the opioid issue, October 9, 2018. The reason for the meeting was
to report on how to implement the full City Council directive to address the opioid
issue through prevention. This is to say, it was not a fact finding mission on the
opioid epidemic but to comply with its directive of the August 1, Ordinance.

HSASC, to develop this plan sought the assistance of the Task Force on Addiction
established by the Health Initiative and University of Cincinnati Medical Center.
Outside of this contact by HSAC and this meeting, there had been no further
inquiries by members of Council regarding how to address the opioid epidemic.
(Equity, Inclusion, Youth, and the Arts Committee, October 9, 2018, Presentation 201801578)
In addition to the Task Force on Addiction, there is the Hamilton County Heroin
Task Force comprising various levels of government and civic leadership seeking
an overall plan to combat the epidemic. Some members of Council and of the
administration have participated in its meetings but information on its decisions do
not appeared to be shared in the deliberative processes of Council as a whole.
3 - Does Council have an overall strategy to fund Human Services?
In the summer of 2018 an amendment to the city charter was proposed by

Council member P.G. Sittenfeld, with support of Council member Mann. The
amendment would have required a tax on entertainment tickets as a mechanism
to fund human services. Affordable housing was also to receive part of the funds.
(Council Members: Increase Admissions Tax To Fund Human Services And Neighborhoods, Jay
Hanselmann, June 21, 2018, WVXU)
When questioned during a meeting of interested social service agencies if there

should also be an accompanying amendment to permanently establish the
Human Services Fund, the response was the belief that future members would
continue the current body’s commitment to Human Services Fund as it now
stands.
This reasoning leads us to these questions:
a) Why would any current or future member of Council, truly believing in

funding for human services, support an amendment to the Charter to
secure its future funding?
b) Why protect potential future council members, who may be in
opposition to the Human Services Fund, from publicly stating their
opposition?
c) If the proposed entertainment ticket tax had passed, who’s to say a
future Council would simply replace human services revenues from the
General Fund with those of the tax levy?

d) With expanded human service needs why also add affordable housing
(with its own revenue source), would such a tax be adequate to meet
future demand of both?
Confusing: why create a proposal within Council to help benefit human services
agencies but not provide these agencies opportunity to give input into its
development? Again, why call a meeting after a press conference announcing
amendment effort to inform these agencies they were alone in providing
leadership to see it pass?
4 - The Mission of the Human Services Fund is unclear
Finally, the Council committee that oversees human services funding has gone
through several name changes but, until the present, always had Human Services
in its title. On November 28, short surveys that were specifically addressed to
each Council member on that committee asked:
It is understood that the Council Committee that oversees human services has
changed its title (now Equity, Inclusion, Youth and The Arts) and unattached
Human Services from its title. To the best of your knowledge, please explain
the reasoning for this change. (see supplemental documents)
With only two replies from Council members, the answer is inconclusive. The best
that can be said is speculation that Human Services was dropped from the
subcommittee’s title due to the wishes of its chair.
Notably missing in our review of the records was any true discussion of an overall
plan on the city’s involvement in addressing the human services needs of its
citizens. This would include:
1. compliance with the 2017 Ordinance to return the Human Services Fund to
its 1.5% level of the General Fund, and
2. resolution to the bitter battling over funding for Closing The Health Gap as
opposed to agencies that receive support through the Human Services
Fund, and
3. to explore why the meetings to provide overview of work by the HSAC had
little to no participation by Council members or their staff (particularly
members of the Council’s Equity, Inclusion, Youth and The Art Committee.)

The Relationship between the City of Cincinnati and the
Human Services Advisory Committee
Findings:
1. Public records on the work of the volunteer Human Services Committee are
difficult to find.
Locating the HSAC reports through city government has been difficult. They were
not available at the Clerk of Council nor through the Budget Department, though
both did make significant attempts to track them down. The United Way
understood that the reports were at the Clerk of Council’s office, since they
forward the Human Services Committee’s information, minutes and reports to the
City. The confusion over custody of the records was discovered by first hand
observation during the research for this study. It is also known that a local news
organization was, at the same time, attempting to get the records from the City
Manager. Finally, after several months of effort, the information was provided
from a third source in City Government - the Director of Communication.
There are discrepancies in the records. The public list of Human Services
Committee Members on file at the Clerk of Council’s Office differs from that of the
actual list of those on the committee as presented by the United Way.
Public records on public spending should be available when requested by the

public.
2. The City’s Management of the Human Services Committee Obscures its

accomplishments
The city government decision that the Human Services Committee membership
not be made public was to insure that its members would be free from the
pressure of particular agencies seeking funding. In several ways, this decision
defies logic.
 First, members of the committee do in-person site visits of funded grantees

to determine how the services are progressing. With these site visits,
committee members identify themselves.

 Second, the secrecy leaves an unintended impression that those
appointed lack integrity and their decisions can be easily influenced.
 Third, this is a committee empowered to make decisions on public funds
and, consequently, as public servants, even as volunteers, they are not
immune from public scrutiny. In fact, it may be a violation of public records
sunshine laws.
Recommendations
 The Human Services Committee should continue its service to the
community, with guidance of an outside agency such as the United Way,
to ensure it is above undue political pressures and influence.
 All findings of the committee should be developed into a community report
and, periodically, made public, preferably as a work product outcome of
the granting cycle.
 The Mayor’s office should heed the committee’s advice and set open,
logical, common sense criteria and qualifications by which to choose future
candidates for the committee. To ensure the integrity of the process,
Council should not fund any agency from the 1.5% Human Services monies
without following the stated process. An agency that cannot provide, or
will not allow, the level of scrutiny required to assure the integrity of the
process is to be excluded from this particular funding source; Council
should establish a clear process on how the Public can review human
services fund records and grants. A second committee, commission or
board should be created to provide the City with information, advice and
recommendation concerning the current and anticipated human service
needs of Cincinnati.
 It is understood that appointment to such a body would be made by
City Government but it is stressed that these appointments be as far
removed from politics as possible.
 For the first term for such a body, the City should contact leaders in
various areas of social and human service. From their
recommendations, it should then decide the initial membership.
 As each member’s term of service ends, the members of the committee
should make recommendations on their successors.
 Membership should be of recognized experts, not necessarily agency
directors, in these interrelated areas: Affordable Housing --- Community
Structure - - -Crime and Crime Prevention --- Drug abuse and mental

health --- Education --- Employment and job skills --- Health and Health
Delivery --- HIV-AIDS --- Immigration --- Poverty --- Race and ethnicity
 Membership, to avoid accusation of bias, would not include agencies
receiving or applying for human services funds.
 Duties:
 Hold fact finding meetings in Cincinnati communities in the
categories of expertise
 Work closely with the agencies and organizations providing studies on
these issues
 Each year, produce a report on the state of current and anticipated
issues on human services need of the city.
 Recommendations of the committee to Council will be within a
framework of at least 1.5% of the General Fund.
 It should always be made clear to the public that the intention of funding
for human services would be 1.5% of the General Fund not the overall
Annual Budget.
 Pass an amendment to the City Charter to fund Human Services at least at
1.5% of the General Fund
A Suggestion: due the similarity of social service issues throughout Hamilton

County, it should be considered the proposed body work in unison with county
government.
Conclusion
The City of Cincinnati has significant resources. Yet not all social issues can be
addressed to save every person in need. But improvements can be made,
allowing the community to make the necessary steps to reduce pain and
uncertainty for more families and individuals. A general fund allocation of 1.5% is
a reasonable amount to devote to providing support for the basic needs of our
citizens facing significant challenges. In the spirit of “None of us is as smart as all
of us,” a community can effectively utilize the knowledge available and more
precisely target its resources to better prepare and better protect its citizens.
It is highly recommended that the City of Cincinnati incorporate the

recommendations of this study to address the human services needs of its citizens.

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS

Definitions from City Documents
BIENNIAL BUDGET
In Cincinnati, the City Council approves a Biennial Budget which covers a two-
year period. The primary advantage to a Biennial Budget is that the multi-year
horizon provides an opportunity to enhance planning for City programs and
services. With a view toward the future, issues can be anticipated and resolved
before they reach a crisis point. Programs can be phased in or out more readily
and fluctuations in resources can be better managed. Another advantage of the
Biennial Budget is the saving of time and effort by the City staff and the City
Council in the second, or “off” year of the biennial cycle.
Although the City Council approves a multi-year Budget, the State of Ohio
requires cities to appropriate funds annually. For the first year of the biennium the
budget is “appropriated” by the City Council and the budget for the second year
of the biennium is “approved” by the City Council. Subsequently, for the second
year of the biennium, the City Council must formally appropriate … (the Approved
City of Cincinnati 2001/2002 Budget Update. p.12)
GENERAL FUND
In 2000
The City Income Tax is a 2.1% locally levied tax applied to gross salaries,
wages, and other personnel service compensation earned by residents
both in and out of the City and to earnings of non-residents earned in the
City. It also applies to net income of business organizations for business
conducted in the City. The income tax is the largest single source of
General Fund revenue. The receipt of 1.55% Income Tax revenue over
the fixed allocation to the General Fund is recognized as revenue in the
Income Tax Permanent Improvement Fund at the end of the year. This
amount is carried forward for subsequent year capital or operating
needs. (Approved City of Cincinnati’s 2001/2002 Biennial Budget p. 13)
General Fund and Its Uses - The General Fund is a fund that can be used
for any general public purpose. This is the primary fund in the City
Operating Budget and is used to deliver basic municipal services such as
police and fire protection, park maintenance, street repair, trash
collection, and the operation of recreation centers and health clinics.
City employees’ salaries (personnel services) are paid from the General

Fund, as are supporting costs such as supplies (non-personnel services)
(ibid, p.14)
The financial sources for the General Fund changed little by 2009:
The fund accounts for the current assets, current liabilities, revenues, and
expenditures that arise from the general government operations. The
main revenue sources of this fund are income and property taxes.
Biennial Budget Approved City of Cincinnati’s 20009/2010 – In section
titled Definitions
HUMAN SERVICES
Human Services Component, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

funds are provided for the operation of various programs, primarily for at-risk
youth, providing counseling, surrogate parenting, and youth employment. CDBG
funds are also used to provide social service agencies with assistance to
rehabilitate their service-delivery facilities. (Approved City of Cincinnati’s 2001/2002
Biennial Budget p.19)

Opioid Overdose Crisis
Revised January 2019
Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids.1 The misuse
of and addiction to opioids—including prescription pain relievers, heroin, and synthetic opioids
such as fentanyl—is a serious national crisis that affects public health as well as social and
economic welfare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the total
"economic burden" of prescription opioid misuse alone in the United States is $78.5 billion a year,
including the costs of healthcare, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and criminal justice
involvement.2
How did this happen?
In the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies reassured the medical community that patients would
not become addicted to prescription opioid pain relievers, and healthcare providers began to
prescribe them at greater rates. This subsequently led to widespread diversion and misuse of these
medications before it became clear that these medications could indeed be highly
addictive.3,4 Opioid overdose rates began to increase. In 2017, more than 47,000 Americans died
as a result of an opioid overdose, including prescription opioids, heroin, and illicitly manufactured
fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid.1That same year, an estimated 1.7 million people in the
United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers,
and 652,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder (not mutually exclusive).5
What do we know about the opioid crisis?
 Roughly 21 to 29 percent of patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain misuse them.6
 Between 8 and 12 percent develop an opioid use disorder.6
 An estimated 4 to 6 percent who misuse prescription opioids transition to heroin.7–9
 About 80 percent of people who use heroin first misused prescription opioids.7
 Opioid overdoses increased 30 percent from July 2016 through September 2017 in 52 areas in 45
states.10

 The Midwestern region saw opioid overdoses increase 70 percent from July 2016 through September
2017.10
 Opioid overdoses in large cities increase by 54 percent in 16 states.10
Quarterly rate of suspected

opioid overdose, by US region
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.10
This issue has become a public health crisis with devastating consequences including increases in
opioid misuse and related overdoses, as well as the rising incidence of neonatal abstinence
syndrome due to opioid use and misuse during pregnancy. The increase in injection drug use has
also contributed to the spread of infectious diseases including HIV and hepatitis C. As seen
throughout the history of medicine, science can be an important part of the solution in resolving
such a public health crisis.
What are HHS and NIH doing about it?
In response to the opioid crisis, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
focusing its efforts on five major priorities:
1. improving access to treatment and recovery services
2. promoting use of overdose-reversing drugs
3. strengthening our understanding of the epidemic through better public health surveillance
4. providing support for cutting-edge research on pain and addiction
5. advancing better practices for pain management
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of HHS, is the nation's leading medical
research agency helping solve the opioid crisis via discovering new and better ways to prevent

opioid misuse, treat opioid use disorders, and manage pain. In the summer of 2017, NIH met with
pharmaceutical companies and academic research centers to discuss:
1. safe, effective, non-addictive strategies to manage chronic pain
2. new, innovative medications and technologies to treat opioid use disorders
3. improved overdose prevention and reversal interventionsto save lives and support recovery
In April 2018 at the National Rx Drug Abuse and Heroin Summit, NIH Director Francis S. Collins,
M.D., Ph.D., announced the launch of the HEAL (Helping to End Addiction Long-term) Initiative,
an aggressive, trans-agency effort to speed scientific solutions to stem the national opioid public
health crisis.

FAITH COMMUNITY & ALLIANCE
OF GREATER CINCINNATI
9395 Canary Court, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
November 28, 2019
Honorable John Cranley, Mayor

City of Cincinnati
801 Plum St., Suite 150
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Dear Mayor Cranley
This year is a coalition of 36 agencies and organizations (non-recipients), formed in support of the
City of Cincinnati Human Services Fund’s continuation and final restoration to its initial level of
1.5%. Faith Community Alliance is a member of its steering committee. For the past nine months,
the steering committee has been fact finding the structure, decision making as to amount of Human
Service’s funding as well as the implementation of those funds. The study is near completion but is
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As the Mayor of the City of
Cincinnati, your perspective is unique and important.
Each elected member of city government is being sent a request. Attached you will find our questionnaire
that will provide us a more clear understanding of the human services funding process. Also find a return
envelope. Please return the questionnaire by December 15. If you or your staff would like to meet with the
steering committee to discuss your answers, feel free to contact us to set up a meeting time. We plan to
have our findings completed before Christmas.
Thank you for you kind attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director
cc: the steering committee: Peter McLinden, Executive Secretary – Cincinnati AFL-
CIO, Aaron Greenlea, Political Chair – Cincinnati Baptist Ministers Association, Brian
Garry, Chairman – Fund Human Services Coalition (FCA), Brian Griffin, Communications
Director – Cincinnati AFL-CIO)
also cc: President Ennis Tait, President and Executive Committee - Faith and Community
Alliance of Greater Cincinnati

HUMAN SERVICES REVIEW QUESTION
Please Return by December 15 to the Community Alliance of Greater Cincinnati – 513-910-5985
1. It is understood there were several briefings by the city established Cincinnati Human
Services Committee.
a) Did members of the administration attend this event? Yes ___No _______
b) If Yes, who represented the administration?_________________________
c) How many meetings did they attend?______________________________
2. It is understood that the Council Committee that oversees human services has changed its
title (now Equity, Inclusion, Youth and The Arts) and unattached Human Services from its
title. The latest iteration no longer has the title Human Services attached to its title.
a) To the best of your knowledge, please explain the reasoning for this change
3. Was your office involved in the decision of the amount and categories to be funded to deal
with the latest opioid and related drug epidemic? Yes _____No _____
a) If so, what were the City’s sources in reaching it decision?
b) Are there minutes or reports related to these decisions? Yes ____No ____
c) If yes, are these documents available? Yes ___ No _____
d) If yes, are they available from the Clerk of Council’s office? Yes ____ No ____
Please return by mail to:

Faith Community Alliance of Greater Cincinnati
or scan and email to fcacincinnati@aol.com

November 28, 2018
Honorable Christopher Smitherman

Vice Mayor
Cincinnati City Council
801 Plum Street Suite 356,
Dear Mr. Smitherman:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As Vice Mayor of the City of
Cincinnati Council, your perspective is unique and important.
Each elected member of city government is being sent a request. Attached you will find our
questionnaire that will provide us a more clear understanding of the human services funding
process. Also find a return envelope. Please return the questionnaire by December 15. If you or
your staff would like to meet with the steering committee to discuss your answers, feel free to
contact us to set up a meeting time. We plan to have our findings completed before Christmas.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director
cc: cc: the steering committee: Peter McLinden, Executive Secretary – Cincinnati AFL-

Services Committee.
d) Did members of your staff attend this event? Yes ___No _______
e) If Yes, who was your representative? _________________________
f) How many meetings did they attend?______________________________
a) It is understood that the Council Committee that oversees human services has
Human Services from its title. The latest iteration no longer has the title Human
Services attached to its title. To the best of your knowledge, please explain the
reasoning for this change


November 28, 2018
Honorable Christopher Smitherman

Vice Mayor
801 Plum Street Suite 356,
Dear Mr. Smitherman:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As Vice Mayor of the City of
Cincinnati Council, your perspective is unique and important.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director
cc: cc: the steering committee: Peter McLinden, Executive Secretary – Cincinnati AFL-

Services Committee.
g) Did members of your staff attend this event? Yes ___No _______
h) If Yes, who was your representative? _________________________
i) How many meetings did they attend?______________________________
a) It is understood that the Council Committee that oversees human services has
Human Services from its title. The latest iteration no longer has the title Human
Services attached to its title. To the best of your knowledge, please explain the


November 28, 2018
Honorable Tamaya Dennard

President Pro Tem/Chair
Equity, Youth & The Arts Committee
801 Plum Street Suite 348
City of Cincinnati 45202
Dear Ms. Dennard:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As Chair of the Equity, Youth
and The Arts Committee, your perspective is unique and important.
process. Also find a return envelope. Please return the questionnaire by December 15.
If you or your staff would like to meet with the steering committee to discuss your answers, feel
free to contact us to set up a meeting time. We plan to have our findings completed before
Christmas.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

November 28, 2018
Honorable Greg Landsman, Vice Chair

Equity, Inclusion, Youth and the Arts Committee
801 Plum Street Suite 346B
Dear Mr. Landsman:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As Vice Chair of the Equity,
Youth and The Arts Committee, your perspective is unique and important.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

November 28, 2018
Honorable David Mann

City of Cincinnati 45202
Dear Mr. Mann:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As a member of the Equity,
Inclusion, Youth and The Arts and long supporter of funding for human services, your perspective
is unique and important.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director
Alliance of Greater Cincinnati of Greater Cincinnati

November 28, 2018
Honorable P.G. Sittenfeld

Dear Mr. Sittenfeld:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As a member of the Equity,
Inclusion, Youth and The Arts, your perspective is unique and important.
Each elected member of city government is being sent a similar request. Attached you will find
the questionnaire and a return envelope. Please return the questionnaire by December 15.
Christmas.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

Services Committee.
a. Did you or members of you staff attend these sessions? Yes ____ No _____
b. If Yes, who was your representative?__________________________
c. How many meetings did they attend?_______________________________
d. It is understood that the Council Committee that oversees human services has
Human Services from its title. To the best of your knowledge, please explain the
with the latest opioid and related drug epidemic? Yes _____ No _____
a. If so, what were the City’s sources in reaching it decision?
b. Are there minutes or reports related to these decisions? Yes ____No ____
c. If yes, are these documents available? Yes ___ No _____
e) If yes, are they available from the Clerk of Council’s office? Yes ___ No___


November 28, 2018
Honorable Amy Murray

Dear Ms. Murray:
need of your assistance in obtaining some clarifying information. As a member of city council who
makes decisions on human service funding, your perspective is unique and important.
Each elected member of city government is being sent a similar request. Attached you will find
the questionnaire and a return envelope. Please return the questionnaire by December 15.
Christmas.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

November 28, 2018
Honorable Jeff Pastor

801 Plum Street Suite 346A
City of Cincinnati
Dear Mr. Pastor:
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

November 28, 2018
Honorable Christopher Seelbach

801 Plum St., Suite 350
Dear Mr. Seelbach:
Each elected member of city government is being sent a similar request. Also find a return
envelope. Please return the questionnaire by December 15. If you or your staff would like to meet
with the steering committee to discuss your answers, feel free to contact us to set up a meeting
time. We plan to have our findings completed before Christmas.
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

November 28, 2018
Honorable Wendell Young

Dear Mr. Young:
Sincerely,
Charles Wallner
Executive Director

Services Committee.
j) Did you or members of you staff attend these sessions? Yes ____ No _____
k) If Yes, who was your representative?_______________________________
l) How many meetings did they attend?_______________________________
9. In making your decision on the amount and categories to be funded to deal with the latest
opioid and related drug epidemic, where you provided a report to assist you in this
decision? Yes _____ No _____
a) If yes, is there a copy of this document? Yes _____ No _____
b) If yes, are these documents available? Yes ____ No _____
c) If yes, are they available from the Clerk of Council’s office? Yes ____ No _____

Final Draft For Recommendations For Human Services Funding (1) LC Edits

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Draft For Recommendations For Human Services Funding (1) LC Edits

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING

AND INTEGRATION OF SERVICE DELIVERY

THE FUND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

For information contact – Faith & Community Alliance of Greater Cincinnati

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 1 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Reason and Background for this Report ................................................................................... 4

Perception of Human Services Funding and the Issue Of 1.5% ........................................... 10

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Human Services Committee .......................................... 10

Strengths and Weaknesses of City Of Cincinnati Leadership .............................................. 12

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 2 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

We recommend that a foundation of 1.5% of the General Fund be fixed to allow

Further recommendations are provided in the full report that follows.

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 3 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

1. Reason and Background for this Study

The study attempts to:

1. Understand how, if not why, there has been a continual reduction of

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 4 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC) is a citizen advisory group

But, by 2000, as reflected in the Approved 2003/2004 City of Cincinnati Biennial

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 5 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 6 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

It recommended that the Human Services Advisory Committee and the

Among other things, its recommendations were to add: Gainful Employment,

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 7 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

In-person interviews with the Human Service Committee administrated by The

Under the current system, is the distribution of Human

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 8 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

The current funding of human services, while remaining top-down, is a more

Currently, there is a discussion within City Council as whether it should abandon

This debate is occurring at a time when the United Way is embroiled in

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 9 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Public Perception of Human Services Funding and the Issue

1. The public is unclear as to what Human Services Funding at 1.5%

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Human Services Fund

The 1.5% is a fixed percentage of a yearly changing amount provided to the

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 10 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Support for Human Services Funding has a built-in disadvantage.

The Human Services Advisory Committee (HSAC), as now constituted, is the

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 11 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

There is debate as to whether the application process could be modified so that

A need to improve the process of future Mayoral Appointments to HSAC.

While the current administration has appointed dedicated and effective

Strengths and Weaknesses of City of Cincinnati Leadership

There are contradictory views as to the importance of Human Services Funding

Succeeding City Councils and Administrations have differing views as to whether

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 12 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

2. - The Human Services Fund serves a unique need.

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 13 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Historical Human Services Policy Annual Funding

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 14 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

1 – There is a lack of consistency of successive City Councils’ approach to the

Council has been proactive on the homeless issue, championed by Councilman

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 15 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

2- The methodology of City Council in studying community needs appears

At times, how Council comes to a decision on funding is at best confusing. Over

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 16 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

1. If so, what were the City’s sources in reaching its decision?

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 17 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

There was obviously a division of opinion on Council as to address the issue. It is

Confidential & Proprietary Page | 18 Tuesday, May 21, 2019

3 - Does Council have an overall strategy to fund Human Services?

In the summer of 2018 an amendment to the city charter was proposed by

c) If yes, are these documents available? Yes _ No ___

c) If yes, are these documents available? Yes _ No ___

c) If yes, are these documents available? Yes _ No ___