Council Social Services Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Special Social Services Committee met on May 12, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, with Myers presiding. The committee addressed two agenda items during the session: a presentation on a Partner Agencies Funding Proposal and a discussion regarding next steps and the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The presentation was informational in nature, while the discussion on next steps and the RFP was deferred to a future meeting. The committee heard six public comments during the meeting and took one motion to a vote. Overall, the meeting focused on gathering information about the funding proposal while postponing further action on the RFP process.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 12, 2011:

• Myers
• Henson
• Steve Kay
• Chris Ford
• Diane Lawless
• Kevin Stinnett
• Jay McChord

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Proceed with Combined Proposals Discussion

A motion was made by Myers and seconded by Ford to proceed with the next meeting to discuss combined proposals from Bluegrass Community Foundation and United Way. 1:32:14

The motion passed by voice vote. The following members voted in favor:

• Myers
• Henson
• Steve Kay
• Chris Ford
• Diane Lawless
• Kevin Stinnett
• Jay McChord

No members voted against the motion, and there were no abstentions.

Public Comment

Six speakers addressed the meeting with concerns about funding, outcome measures, and collaboration among agencies and funders.

Outcome Measures and Transparency

Lindy Cain spoke in strong support of outcome measures, noting that her agency has used them for 30 years 1:09:40. She emphasized the importance of using data in budget decisions and criticized the lack of access to outcome information during budget deliberations.

Funding Challenges

Karnes highlighted that both city and United Way funding have declined over the past decade, forcing agencies to become more entrepreneurial 1:11:22. He called for better collaboration among funders to increase overall community fundraising.

Walter May raised concerns about grant writing capacity, questioning whether one part-time staff member could effectively manage grant writing for 27 agencies 1:16:51. He stressed the critical need for city funding to support emergency shelter operations, which are not covered by grants.

Jack Birch noted that community organizations bring in far more funds than government appropriations 1:20:43. He warned that federal grant dollars are shrinking and stressed the need for better collaboration and realistic expectations about funding availability.

Solutions and Growth

Kevin Stinnett advocated for a dual focus: improving the current system for allocating existing resources while building mechanisms to grow the overall funding pie through collaboration 1:24:59.

Diane Lawless suggested launching a public donation campaign to increase city revenue, citing strong community support 1:26:37. She encouraged collaboration to find external funding and avoid cutting essential services.

Contested Items

Perceived Lack of Transparency in Funding Decisions [timestamp: unavailable]

A heated discussion arose regarding transparency in the city's funding process. Councilmember Ford challenged Chair Myers' assertion that agencies must have a personal relationship with the mayor in order to receive funding, characterizing the statement as inaccurate and potentially damaging to the city's reputation.

Chair Myers responded by clarifying the nature of the concern. Myers explained that the issue was not one of access to the mayor, but rather the practical difficulty of removing items from the mayor's budget once they had been approved. This distinction addressed the underlying tension about how funding decisions were made and communicated to the public and to city agencies seeking resources.

Presentation: Partner Agencies Funding Proposal

4:30

Commissioner Beth Mills and her team presented a comprehensive framework for reforming partner agency funding. The presentation was delivered by Mills along with team members Craig Benez, Lisa Adkins, and Barbara Fischer.

Key Elements of the Proposal

The funding reform framework emphasized several core principles:

• Alignment with community needs
• Streamlined application processes for partner agencies
• Outcome measurement and accountability
• Enhanced collaboration with external partners

Implementation Strategy

The proposal outlined a multi-phase approach to implementation:

• Advertising of funding opportunities to potential partner agencies
• Pre-application meetings to support agencies in the application process
• Committee reviews of submitted proposals
• Integration with GoodGiving.net as a platform for funding management and distribution

Partner Organizations

The framework included plans for collaboration with:

• UK College of Social Work
• Bluegrass Community Foundation

These partnerships were designed to strengthen the funding process and expand the reach and effectiveness of partner agency support.

Outcome

The presentation was informational in nature, providing the meeting attendees with an overview of the proposed funding reform structure and its intended mechanisms for improving how partner agencies access and utilize funding resources.

Discussion: Next Steps / RFP

1:04:30

Committee members and partner agency representatives engaged in a substantive discussion about improving funding allocation processes and accountability mechanisms. The conversation centered on three primary concerns: the need for greater transparency, the importance of outcome-based data, and the limitations of existing funding models.

Key speakers in this discussion included Myers, McCord, Ford, Lawless, Henson, and Stinnett. Participants emphasized that any future funding approach must prioritize outcome data to demonstrate effectiveness and justify resource allocation. The committee acknowledged that current funding models have inherent limitations that constrain their ability to achieve desired results.

A significant point of discussion involved the necessity of pursuing external grant funding to supplement existing resources. Committee members recognized that internal funding alone may be insufficient to meet program needs and that external grants could provide additional capacity and flexibility.

The committee reviewed two separate funding proposals—one from the Bluegrass Community Foundation and another from United Way. Rather than making an immediate decision on either proposal, the committee determined that a comparative review would be more beneficial. Members agreed to bring both proposals together at the next meeting to allow for side-by-side evaluation and discussion.

Outcome: The agenda item was deferred, with no final decision reached at this meeting. The committee's next steps involve preparing both proposals for comparative analysis at a subsequent meeting.