Council Social Services & Community Development Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Social Services and Community Development Committee met on March 20, 2012, at 11:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers, with Vice Chair Henson presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the session. The committee approved the minutes and motions from a previous meeting, received an informational update on FY13 Social Services Partner Agency Funding, and deferred consideration of items in committee to a future date. The committee took two votes during the meeting and heard six public comments.

Attendance

Present: - Henson - Kay - Ford - Lawless - Stinnett - McChord - Ellinger - Lane - Crosbie

Absent: - Myers - Peggy Henson - Ed Lane - Chris Ford

Late: - George Myers

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included two votes:

Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the February 14, 2012 meeting were approved by voice vote. Steve Kay moved for approval, and Kevin Stinnett seconded the motion. The motion passed. 0:00

Adjournment

A motion to adjourn the March 20, 2012 meeting was approved by voice vote. The motion passed. 53:47

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting included consideration of funding for Social Services Partner Agency programs in fiscal year 2013. An appropriation of $1,750,000 was proposed for these programs.

Public Comment

Several councilmembers raised concerns about the funding allocation process during the meeting.

Funding Eligibility and Inclusion

Councilmember Lawless expressed concern about the Human Rights Commission's exclusion from the current funding process 12:38. While noting that the commission is not a social services partner agency, Lawless pointed out that it is required to maintain certain staffing levels to preserve eligibility for HUD and CDBG funds, and questioned why it was excluded from consideration.

Fairness in Application Review

Councilmember Crosby raised concerns about potential bias in the ranking process 22:01. Crosby noted that new applicants were ranked lower than long-standing partner agencies and requested transparency regarding how funding decisions would ultimately be made.

Grant Match Funding

Councilmember Lawless questioned why the use of match funds for federal grants was not included in the scoring rubric 25:59. Lawless emphasized that losing match funding could jeopardize broader community services.

Prioritization in Limited Funding

Councilmember Ford asked whether the department would consider prioritizing certain needs over others given insufficient funds 39:48. Ford emphasized the need for policy-level guidance on resource allocation decisions.

Policy Consistency

Councilmember Kay reminded the committee that the council had previously adopted a policy to fund programs rather than agencies 43:35. Kay urged consistency with that established policy during the allocation process.

Councilmember Henson suggested that the committee should review whether the current policy of funding programs over agencies is effective 42:34. Henson recommended examining both the policy itself and its implementation for future funding cycles.

Contested Items

Three significant disputes emerged during the meeting regarding the funding allocation process:

GoodGiving.net Profile Requirement

Councilmember Stinnett raised concerns about the requirement for agencies to maintain a profile on GoodGiving.net. Stinnett argued that this requirement was not formally codified in an ordinance, creating the potential for agencies to be unfairly excluded without clear public rationale or justification. Stinnett called for the rule to be formalized through proper ordinance procedures to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary exclusions.

Funding Allocation Fairness

Councilmember Crosby expressed concerns about potential bias in the scoring system. Crosby noted that new applicant agencies were being ranked significantly lower than long-standing partner agencies in the funding allocation process. While others defended the objectivity of the scoring system used to evaluate applications, Crosby's concerns highlighted a split in council opinion about whether the process fairly treated newer organizations seeking funding.

Grant Match Funding in Scoring

Councilmember Lawless initiated a heated discussion about the scoring rubric's treatment of match funding for federal grants. Lawless questioned why agencies' use of match funds for federal grants was not included as a factor in the scoring system. Lawless argued that excluding this consideration could jeopardize match funding and, in turn, broader community services that depend on federal grants. In response to this concern, staff indicated they would consider adding grant match funding as a factor in future funding reviews.

Approval of Minutes and Motions

The meeting began with approval of the minutes from the February 14, 2012 meeting. 0:00

Steve Kay moved to approve the minutes, and Kevin Stinnett seconded the motion. The minutes were approved by voice vote without dissent.

FY13 Social Services Partner Agency Funding Update

Craig Bencz presented an update on a new funding process for social services partner agencies 1:05. The presentation outlined the results of the first cycle using this revised application and review methodology.

Application Results

The funding process received 41 applications from 26 agencies, with a total funding request of $3.23 million. Applications were submitted electronically and reviewed by independent review panels using a standardized 100-point rubric for program ranking.

Process Components

The new funding process included several components: - Pre-application meetings with interested agencies - Electronic submission requirements - Independent review panels - Standardized scoring rubric

Concerns Raised

Beth Mills and other committee members raised concerns about specific aspects of the process:

• GoodGiving.net Profile Requirement: The committee discussed concerns about agencies that were excluded from consideration because they failed to meet the GoodGiving.net profile requirement. This exclusion raised questions about whether eligible agencies were being denied consideration based on a technical administrative requirement.

• Grant Match Funding: Committee members noted that the scoring process did not account for or consider grant match funding that agencies brought to their programs. This was identified as a potential gap in how the rubric evaluated the full value and sustainability of proposed programs.

Outcome

This agenda item was presented as informational, providing the committee with details about the new funding process methodology and its initial results. The discussion highlighted areas where the process may need refinement in future funding cycles, particularly regarding application eligibility requirements and scoring criteria.

Items in Committee

The committee discussed the implications of the new funding allocation process 53:47. Key participants in the discussion included Councilmembers Crosby, Lawless, Ford, Kay, and Henson.

The discussion centered on several concerns regarding the funding allocation framework:

Fairness and Transparency Committee members raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the new funding process, indicating that these were primary concerns in evaluating the allocation methodology.

Key Policy Debates The committee debated three specific policy questions:

• Whether to implement a cap on funding for individual agencies
• Whether to include grant match considerations in the scoring process
• Whether to formalize the GoodGiving.net requirement through ordinance

Issues Raised Members expressed concerns about the need for policy-level decisions on prioritization, suggesting that the current framework lacked clear guidance on how to weigh competing funding priorities.

Outcome The item was deferred, indicating that the committee did not reach a final decision and will revisit these questions at a future meeting.