HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2012 - Minutes °C�L2f���`�!��>
Renton Human Services Advisory Committee
2013-2014 Funding Deliberations (Notes)
June 19, 2012
Advisory Committee Members present:
Linda Smith, Chair
Elyn Blandon
Shannon Matson
Adria Krail
Elizabeth Stevens
Alicia Glenwell
Robin Jones
Rob Spier
Absent:
Margie Albritton
Charles Gray
Observations and comments re: process:
• Easy process for members because they knew how feedbacic is assessed. It helped to know
what members were looking for, and what the desired result would encompass.
• Community impact is challenging to quantify. It's too discretionary on how points are assessed.
• Some questions are answered by taking information from one or more of the other questions
that have written responses. Is the rating based strictly on the one answer,or is it appropriate
to read more into it by using other responses in addition to the direct response? If just on the
direct response, an agency could be rated much lower than the totality of all the responses
might suggest.
• Additional questions for the application: Which populations are served, and who is not served?
Are fees charged to the client for services?
If fees are charged, how are they assessed? Sliding scale? Other?
• A cheat sheet for answers would be helpful—Examples of what a good response is.
• Good to have zero on rating scale for an absent or incomplete answer.
• Impact of word-smithing on some grants by experience grant writers—Difficult not to bias a
rater because of a grant-writer°s skills, or lack thereof, when it is obvious that an agency has
merits that have been overlooked or possibly omitted by an inexperienced grant writer. No
room for discretionary analysis.
• Has to withstand public scrutiny.
• Expand evidence of success.
• More supporting data in responses.
• Helpful to have an addition question of how will your agency be impacted if you do not get all of
the funding you are requesting? Useful to know about program impacts if funding not available
at the requested amount. Would programs be partially cut, or would less people be served,or
hours of service reduced, or is it the end of the program?
• Some agencies submitted poorly rated applications but there is a need in the community for
their services. There should be a mechanism in place to help mentor these agencies.
• City improves outreach to agencies that got poor scores—in helping them prepare a better
grant application.
• Some Committee members were assigned applications in areas where they have a great deal of
professional knowledge of the topic. It was felt by staff that this was not a conflict and would be
Human Services Advisory Committee
2013-2014 Funding Deliberations(Notes)
June 19,2012
Page 2 of 2
• Some Committee members were assigned applications in areas where they have a great deal of
professional knowledge of the topic. It was felt by staff that this was not a conflict and would be
beneficial in the reading and rating of applications. One committee member pointed out that
while this was true; it also was very challenging—as she knew far more about the agencies than
was just in the application. She felt it was somewhat counter-productive to be assigned to a
result because of her knowledge—and then she could not use that knowledge in the rating
process as the rating was only based on the responses in the applicatian.
The subcommittees reported on their funding recommendations. Observations:
• Basic Needs covers many categories of service. It is very broad. It was challenging to try to
make sure that all areas were covered in terms of services—clothing,food, medical care, mental
health, counseling,elder care.
• One agency was recommended for more funding than requested. It was clarified that it had
been agreed to fund the highest ranked agency the same dollar amount they were funded for
2012, at a minimum—so the group followed this.
• A potential conflict of interest in one group was discussed. It was deemed that it was not a
conflict of interest.
• One result area had excess funds. The funds were moved into another result area. Need clarity
as to if it goes to the whole committee to reallocate, or if the subcommittee gets to decide
where it goes.
e The committee reviewing homelessness would like to prevent homelessness, rather than using
"band-aids"to help individuals already at that stage. They also believe the cost/benefit ratio
would be better used to help keep families in a home environment instead of shelters.
• The norm in the past has been to fund new agencies at the$5,000 level. The whole committee
did not agree to this norm in this funding process, and several members were not aware of this
norm. Norms or guidelines need to be spelled out at the beginning of the process, as much as
possible.
• Five agencies that had gotten funding in the past were not recommended for funding in this
cycle. There was discussion as to why their scores were low.
• It was agreed by the group that new agencies would be allocated$5,000.
o It was agreed by the group that agencies would not be funded for more than their requested
amounts.
Alicia moved to accept the recommended 2013-2014 funding recommendations as presented at the
conclusion of the meeting. The motion was seconded by Shannon;all ayes; motion carried.
Alicia moved to adjourn; it was unanimously seconded. Chair Linda thanked everyone for their
participation and concluded the meeting at 1:50 p.m.
;
�a��gna ure
�