Social Service Contracts Proposal
Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2026 10:09 am
Colleagues,
Since our sub quorum's earlier post, staff has released its detailed recommendations on social service contract reductions — $5.42 million across 77 of the 155 contracts reviewed. My office looked closely at the contracts that serve Austin's children and families. Two things stand out, and both come from the July 31 memo.
First, there isn't a clear explanation for the decisions. “Strategic alignment” is listed as the reason to reduce 49 contracts and, at the same time, to leave 77 contracts carrying that same label untouched. The memo does not show how the review produced one result rather than the other. Council should be able to see that reasoning before it adopts the reductions.
Second, staff flags real harm in cutting or eliminating several of these programs — unique services with no alternative provider, programs that the City funds entirely, and families who would lose support mid-service.
As I said at the Audit & Finance Committee meeting in discussing the audit: "This is an audit of the City's system for purchasing, monitoring, and assuring the delivery of essential services." We did an audit to see if we were getting the services we are paying for. That's not the same as saying we don't want the services. In fact, it's the opposite.
Austin should expect accountability from every organization that receives public funds. We should fix weak performance, end genuine duplication, and retire outdated scopes.
But, very importantly, what we SHOULD NOT do is let a contract cleanup quietly reduce our overall investment in children and families without deciding to do so on purpose. Making sure we're getting the service we're paying for should not result in a de facto determination to eliminate the service altogether.
The audit was meant to show us where services weren't being provided well. It was not meant to determine that we don't need or want the services.
The children-and-family contracts proposed for reduction or elimination total roughly $2.2 million in cuts — about 40 percent of the $5.42 million in total reductions. The final tax roll produced around $4.7 million in new ongoing revenue. I propose the following: 1) Setting aside an amount equal to the verified reductions in these services and holding it while the City resolves each contract. This would be a single funding action. It is not a restoration of individual contracts. 2) Direct the manager to return with recommendations for each affected contract: maintain it, modify it, or reduce it--stating the specific reason, any documented performance concern, whether any provider can absorb the service, and the expected impact on children and families. We should recognize that if we're reducing a contract for whatever reason, that money may be well (maybe even better) spent elsewhere to serve children and families. It may need to be redirected to create a stronger investment in children and families.
This is the purpose of the IFC our sub quorum described last Thursday.
Our aim is to protect and preserve the needed investments that advance the priorities Austin has set for its children.
This is not calling for a blanket restoration of every contract. Where the evidence supports a reduction, the City should make it. Where a contract needs to be improved, the City should improve it. Where the case for a cut to important services is not clear (services that we have previously determined we need and want), the City should maintain the service — and keep any real savings invested in better outcomes for children and youth.
While I have been focused on child and family services, this proposal can also apply to other social services contracts.
Simply put: Preserve the investment. Improve the contracts.
We’re asking staff to discuss this at the meeting tomorrow.
Thanks--
Kirk
On Behalf of Mayor Watson
Since our sub quorum's earlier post, staff has released its detailed recommendations on social service contract reductions — $5.42 million across 77 of the 155 contracts reviewed. My office looked closely at the contracts that serve Austin's children and families. Two things stand out, and both come from the July 31 memo.
First, there isn't a clear explanation for the decisions. “Strategic alignment” is listed as the reason to reduce 49 contracts and, at the same time, to leave 77 contracts carrying that same label untouched. The memo does not show how the review produced one result rather than the other. Council should be able to see that reasoning before it adopts the reductions.
Second, staff flags real harm in cutting or eliminating several of these programs — unique services with no alternative provider, programs that the City funds entirely, and families who would lose support mid-service.
As I said at the Audit & Finance Committee meeting in discussing the audit: "This is an audit of the City's system for purchasing, monitoring, and assuring the delivery of essential services." We did an audit to see if we were getting the services we are paying for. That's not the same as saying we don't want the services. In fact, it's the opposite.
Austin should expect accountability from every organization that receives public funds. We should fix weak performance, end genuine duplication, and retire outdated scopes.
But, very importantly, what we SHOULD NOT do is let a contract cleanup quietly reduce our overall investment in children and families without deciding to do so on purpose. Making sure we're getting the service we're paying for should not result in a de facto determination to eliminate the service altogether.
The audit was meant to show us where services weren't being provided well. It was not meant to determine that we don't need or want the services.
The children-and-family contracts proposed for reduction or elimination total roughly $2.2 million in cuts — about 40 percent of the $5.42 million in total reductions. The final tax roll produced around $4.7 million in new ongoing revenue. I propose the following: 1) Setting aside an amount equal to the verified reductions in these services and holding it while the City resolves each contract. This would be a single funding action. It is not a restoration of individual contracts. 2) Direct the manager to return with recommendations for each affected contract: maintain it, modify it, or reduce it--stating the specific reason, any documented performance concern, whether any provider can absorb the service, and the expected impact on children and families. We should recognize that if we're reducing a contract for whatever reason, that money may be well (maybe even better) spent elsewhere to serve children and families. It may need to be redirected to create a stronger investment in children and families.
This is the purpose of the IFC our sub quorum described last Thursday.
Our aim is to protect and preserve the needed investments that advance the priorities Austin has set for its children.
This is not calling for a blanket restoration of every contract. Where the evidence supports a reduction, the City should make it. Where a contract needs to be improved, the City should improve it. Where the case for a cut to important services is not clear (services that we have previously determined we need and want), the City should maintain the service — and keep any real savings invested in better outcomes for children and youth.
While I have been focused on child and family services, this proposal can also apply to other social services contracts.
Simply put: Preserve the investment. Improve the contracts.
We’re asking staff to discuss this at the meeting tomorrow.
Thanks--
Kirk
On Behalf of Mayor Watson