Council Social Services & Community Development

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Social Services and Community Development Committee met on September 27, 2011, at 10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers, with Myers presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items focused on partner agency funding policies, including an overview of proposals, committee member feedback, implementation timelines with student involvement, and funding categories and eligibility requirements. During the meeting, the committee heard five public comments and took two votes. One agenda item—Funding Categories and Eligibility—was approved, while the other three items were handled as informational presentations.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 27, 2011:

• Myers
• Henson
• Kay
• Ford
• Lawless
• Stinnett
• McChord
• Ellinger
• Lane
• Crosbie

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Amend Funding Categories 2:02:33

A motion was made by Stinnett and seconded by Henson to amend the funding categories to include shelter, food, and economic security to ensure inclusivity of agencies like the Salvation Army. The motion passed by voice vote. The following members voted in favor: Myers, Henson, Kay, Ford, Lawless, Stinnett, McChord, Ellinger, Lane, and Crosbie. No votes were cast against the motion, and there were no abstentions.

Motion to Withdraw RFP for Needs Assessment 1:48:51

A motion was made by Myers and seconded by Henson to withdraw the RFP for a needs assessment and instead pursue an internal collaboration with UK College of Social Work. This motion was withdrawn and did not proceed to a vote.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting addressed two financial commitments to support needs assessment and external funding efforts.

Third-Party Firm Contract

The group approved funding of $40,000 to $60,000 for a contract with a third-party firm to manage needs assessment and leverage external funding opportunities. The specific vendor will be determined through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.

UK College of Social Work Grant

A grant of $10,000 per year was approved for funding a needs assessment through collaboration with the UK College of Social Work.

Public Comment

Five speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, raising concerns about proposed funding and assessment initiatives.

Jack Birch 1:21:33 opposed hiring a grant writer, arguing that city agencies already leverage funds effectively. He contended that the city should not spend money on external grant writers when internal efforts have already proven successful.

Walter May 1:24:46 spoke in favor of leveraging city funding through nonprofit operations. He shared examples of how the Hope Center has used city funding to build new facilities and expand services, demonstrating strong success in securing external funding.

Janice James 1:28:29 raised concerns about needs assessment and funding sustainability. She noted that existing needs assessments are already being used and warned that removing funding from a functioning program could recreate the need it was originally designed to address.

David Stevens 1:30:35 expressed uncertainty about the Salvation Army's eligibility for the proposed funding. He requested clarification on whether the Salvation Army fits into the proposed funding categories and raised questions about potential competition with United Way.

Lawless 1:38:07 expressed skepticism about the need for a new needs assessment. He noted that numerous needs assessments already exist and questioned whether a new assessment would yield meaningful new data, citing past experiences with redundant assessments.

The public comment period reflected concerns about the efficiency and necessity of proposed new initiatives, with speakers emphasizing existing successful funding mechanisms and assessment tools already in place.

Contested Items

Third-Party Needs Assessment

A heated discussion emerged regarding whether the city should issue a new request for proposals (RFP) for a third-party needs assessment. Members Stinnett and Lawless argued that the city already possessed sufficient data and that commissioning a new assessment would be redundant. In contrast, Myers and McCord contended that an independent third-party assessment was necessary to ensure objectivity in the evaluation process and to identify new funding opportunities that might otherwise be overlooked. [timestamp unavailable]

Funding Categories and Inclusivity

The proposed funding categories became a point of contention, with concerns raised that the framework would exclude essential services such as emergency shelter. The Salvation Army specifically raised eligibility concerns about how the categories would apply to their operations. Following this debate, a motion to amend the categories was introduced and passed, resulting in broader inclusion criteria to ensure that vital services would not be inadvertently excluded from funding consideration. [timestamp unavailable]

Overview of Proposals: Partner Agency Funding Policy

5:00

Elizabeth Chatterton presented two proposals focused on improving partner agency funding policy through enhanced allocation methods and evaluation practices.

First Proposal

The first proposal was developed collaboratively by the United Way of the Bluegrass, UK College of Social Work, and Martin School of Public Policy. This proposal emphasized improving funding allocation through needs assessments and outcome-based evaluations.

Second Proposal

The second proposal came from the Department of Social Services in partnership with the Bluegrass Community Foundation. This proposal similarly aimed to strengthen funding allocation processes while also focusing on leveraging external grants to supplement available resources.

Common Goals

Both proposals shared core objectives of enhancing how funding is distributed to partner agencies. The proposals prioritized:

• Conducting needs assessments to identify funding priorities
• Implementing outcome-based evaluations to measure effectiveness
• Securing external grant funding to expand available resources

Outcome

This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, providing an overview of the two distinct approaches to improving partner agency funding policy.

Committee Members' Feedback and Questions about Proposals

31:31

During this discussion segment, committee members Myers, Stinnett, Henson, Lawless, and Ford raised several substantive questions and concerns about the proposals under consideration.

Key Issues Discussed

Committee members identified the need for a needs assessment as a foundational requirement for moving forward. The role of student involvement in the process was also examined, with members considering how to meaningfully incorporate student perspectives into the proposals.

A significant point of debate centered on the removal of the 10-point scoring allocation for the mayor and council. Members discussed the implications of this change to the evaluation framework.

Funding Concerns

A primary concern raised by multiple committee members was whether the proposed process would actually bring new money to the table. Members questioned the distinction between funding programs versus funding agencies, seeking clarity on how resources would be allocated and whether existing funds would simply be redirected rather than supplemented.

Outcome

The discussion remained informational in nature, with no formal decisions or resolutions reached during this segment. The feedback and questions raised by committee members identified areas requiring further clarification and development before the proposals could advance to a decision-making stage.

Implementation Timeline and Student Involvement

34:48

The committee discussed the implementation timeline for the initiative, with particular focus on accelerating student involvement in needs assessments and program evaluations.

Key Speakers and Discussion

Myers, Stinnett, and Ford led the discussion on this agenda item. The committee considered whether to move the timeline forward to include students at an earlier stage in the process.

Main Focus

The central question addressed whether the implementation timeline should be accelerated to bring students into needs assessments and program evaluations sooner than originally planned. This reflected a desire to increase student participation and input in the initiative's development and evaluation phases.

Outcome

The discussion was informational in nature, with no formal decision recorded. The committee examined the feasibility and benefits of advancing the student involvement timeline but did not reach a binding conclusion on whether to proceed with acceleration.

Funding Categories and Eligibility

The committee discussed proposed funding categories and their scope of eligible services during this agenda item 1:49:55.

Discussion and Concerns

The committee debated the proposed funding categories, with particular concern raised about whether critical services would be adequately covered. A key issue centered on the potential exclusion of emergency shelter from the eligible categories, which prompted discussion among committee members Mills, Stinnett, Henson, Ford, and Kaye.

Public Input

David Stevens, representing the Salvation Army, provided public input during the discussion, contributing perspective on the funding categories under consideration.

Outcome

Following the debate and public input, the committee voted to amend the funding categories. The amended categories now include shelter, food, and economic security as eligible funding areas. The agenda item was approved.