Box 9, Folder 2, Document 18

Box 9, Folder 2, Document 18

\ V vloan Con pr

\ \
\ ATLANTA URBAN CORPS

30 COURTLAND STREET, N.E. / PHONE [404] 524-8091 / ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

MEMO RAN DUM

TO: George Berry, Governmental Liaison DATE: November 12, 1969
Charles Davis, Director of Finance

FROM: Ken Millwood, Director
SUBJECT: Urban Corps 1970 Budget Proposal

There seems to be some question as to the derivation of the
request for $139,693 that the Urban Corps has made of the City
of Atlanta. The budget was derived on a cash income - outflow
basis without assigning specific usages of income to specific
sources. In deriving this budget, we used income sources rep-
resented as the following:

(1) College Work-Study - 80% of salaries of eligible
students

(2) Agencies - 30% of salaries of interns they employ

(3) City of Atlanta - 50% of salaries of interns they
employ

(4) City of Atlanta - Supportive Grant

This plan was suggested by Mr. Berry as a method of deriving

the City's financial participation based on services rendered.
The private agencies were asked to pay only 30% because of their
limited financial position and in an effort to keep the Urban
Corps in a non-competitive situation with the colleges and uni-
versities.

The City of Atlanta has been and is now an active sponsor of the
Urban Corps concept. The summer Urban Corps program was regarded oS
a success by both local and national figures. We requested the
City of Atlanta to share a larger part of the cost of defraying
administrative expenses because it is the type of community activity
a City government should be involved in. Also, quite frankly, the
City can afford it. The City gains benefit through community
service, _publicity, and student involvement from the Urban Corps
ee in total, not only from the students who work directly with
ity departments.

The request of $139,693 can be viewed in a different light than the
50%-grant combination outlined above. The administrative costs of
the 1970 program will be $75,349. Being a City sponsored program,
the City could reasonably expect to absorbs this total cost. The
remaining $64,344 can then be viewed as representing the City's


Memorandum
George Berry & Charles Davis
November 12, 1969

matching share of interns used by City departments. This cost
represents 34% of the salaries of interns assigned to the City
for 1970.

In using this $64,344 in computing cost per man year, the result
is:

$64,344 for 44.1 man years = $1,459.02 per man year

(The 52 man years quoted by Mr. Dan Sweat in his memo of November
5, 1969, is inaccurate because it does not allow for part-time
employment. Using 52 man years, the cost is $1,237.39 per man
year.)

The cost to the private agencies participating is:
93 man years for $116,808 = $1,256 per man year.

Accepting the affgument that the City truly benefits from all the
interns in the Corps, the cost per man year would be:

\BI man years-$139,693 = $1,042 per man year

(This figure does not include the 31 staff members who in total
will contribute some 17 full man years to the operation. )

I believe these computations make the City's involvement more
reasonable in compasison to that of the non-profit agencies. I
feel the key point is not one of finance, but one of purpose. The
Urban Corps, although it has involved financial ties, is not based
on percentages of cost, cost per man year, or who pays how much.
It is based entirely on service to the community and educational
enrichment of the students. It would seem to me that it is worth
at least $140,000 to the City to continue such an enterprise.