2018-02-22 Minutes
Non-County Agency Funding Committee
2/22/2018 Meeting Minutes
Present: Damien Buchanan, Elizabeth DeBiasi, Neal Lewis, Bruce Mason, Randy Reeves, Shannon Winslow
(on the phone) and Fred Gainey
Staff/Administrative Support: Beth Schrader (facilitator), Scott Steinhilber, and Gwen Hill
1.Review the agenda – The group reviewed the agenda and work plan.
2.Housekeeping Items
a.Adoption of Meeting Minutes - The Committee reviewed the 2/14/18 meeting minutes.
Damien made a motion to accept the 2/14/18 meeting minutes as written. The motion
was unanimously approved.
b.Emails to Non-County Agencies – Beth provided an update on the email invitations sent
out to all of the Non-County Agencies. Answers are due back from the agencies by 2/25
by 5 pm.
3.Feedback on Existing Recipients – Gwen shared the compliance tracking forms for both the
current (FY17-18) fiscal year and prior (FY16-17) fiscal year. She explained that because there
were no hard and fast dates outlined in the contracts, agencies were either compliant (have
turned in all documentation) or non-compliant. Last year, all agencies were compliant. This year,
so far, all agencies have returned their renewal forms and measures. Some have submitted
th
financials, others have not done so yet. However, they have until June 30 to be compliant.
4.Discussion Regarding Preliminary Scores – Committee members were asked to score all the
applications using the draft scoring rubric. In addition, they were asked to also place the
applications into “tiers” based on their individual determination. Each application was placed into
a category (1 lowest, 4 highest) based average rubric score and “tier”, and then plotted on a four
box chart (see attached).
The committee reviewed where each application fell in the matrix.
Top Right Box - programs with the highest scores on both the rubric and individual “tiers”
Lower Left Box - programs that scored lowest on both the rubric and the individual “tiers”
The committee discussed the programs where there were significant differences in the rubric
scores (some committee members ranked it very high, some ranked it very low) and programs
where there were significant differences between the rubric ranking and the individual “tier”
rankings. The conversation helped to identify:
a)Criteria that the group felt should be weighted more heavily than the other criteria;
b)Criteria that is missing from the current rubric, but should be added;
c)Activities or categories of requests that the committee does not feel appropriate to
fund (which will also provide guidance for next year’s process and application);
d)Additional values or considerations that need to be considered in the process;
e)Additional data / information that was needed (which was requested in the
questions to the agencies, may also be asked at the interviews, and which will be
included in the application for next year)
The committee agreed to re-score all applications using a modified scoring rubric after 1)
reviewing the answers to their questions and 2) after the interviews.
Weighting
Alignment with Strategic Plan / Goals
Collaboration
Need for Funds
Missing Criteria
Needs Analysis – How effectively the agency communicates how big the problem is / the
magnitude of the unmet need (Is it growing? By How much? How many are served relative to
the need? Etc.)
Is the service addressing the symptom or solving the underlying problem?
Duplication w/:
a)Another applicant (who does it better)
b)Another agency providing the service in the community
Activities The Committee Prefers Not to Fund
Funds for buildings
Marketing $
Administrative salaries (vs. salaries for staff that are providing services to clients)
Intermediaries (Do not provide a direct service impact)
Values / Other Considerations
Is there a better / more efficient way to use the funds?
Degree to which the population being served is currently unserved or underserved
Quality and strength of historical measures and / or projected outcomes
Is the service something that is necessary to exist in the community?
5.Statutory and Other Services – Beth reviewed services and answered questions from committee
members about that are required by statute, federal or state programs, are grant related
(HCCBG, SSBG, JCPC) or provide specific services for/on behalf of the county that the county is
responsible for, or fill a specific gap in county services.
Meeting Minutes Prepared by: Beth Schrader
The 4 Box Matrix