ADOPTED - JUNE 22, 2010
Agenda Item No. 10
Introduced by the Human Services and Finance Committees of the:
INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION APPROVING CRITERIA FOR RANKING 2011 APPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY AGENCY FUNDING
RESOLUTION #10-206
WHEREAS, since 1978, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners has provided financial support to various non-profit community organizations that provide a broad range of services for the purpose of advancing the County’s adopted long-range objectives; and
WHEREAS, over the years the community agency process has grown to over 30 applicants requesting funding, with total requests of approximately $300,000 annually; and
WHEREAS, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners desires to make the process of awarding community agency funding more efficient and effective; and
WHEREAS, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners desires to continue the Community Agency application process as identified in the following area of priority emphasis from Resolution #10-130:
“Community Agency funding will continue, but at a reduced level within available funds, and possible through a different mechanism.”
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes 2011 applications for community agency funding to be evaluated based on the attached ranking criteria.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Controller/Administrator is authorized to evaluate, rank, and determine funding levels for each applicant as a recommendation for approval by the Human Services Committee.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, no agency shall receive more than 10% of the total available funding for community agencies in FY 2011.
HUMAN SERVICES: Yeas: McGrain, Tennis, Nolan, Koenig, Vickers
Nays: None Absent: Davis Approved 6/14/10
FINANCE: Yeas: Grebner, Tennis, Schor, Holman, Dougan
Nays: None Absent: Bahar-Cook Approved 6/16/10
ADOPTED - JUNE 22, 2010
Agenda Item No. 10
RESOLUTION #10-206
2011 Community Agency Ranking Criteria
These criteria are ranked in the order in which they will be used to evaluate each proposal - #1 is most important, #6 is least.
1. The extent to which the proposal directly contributes to addressing the County’s long-term priority of “Meeting Basic Needs”.
a. Does the proposal provide basic necessities for those in need, such as food, clothing, and shelter or help to provide assistance in obtaining such things as household utilities that are needed by families and individuals?
2. The extent to which the proposal leverages other sources of funding.
a. What other funding sources are being leveraged, including state, federal, other non-profit and private sources?
b. Will this funding be used as match for a larger grant or to leverage other funding?
3. The degree to which the proposal demonstrates collaborative approaches to program and service delivery.
a. What other agencies and organizations are participating in the proposed project?
4. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates creativity and innovation.
a. Does this proposal represent proven “best practices” in its particular subject?
b. Does the program produce measurable results?
c. Has this proposal ever been tried before?
d. If the proposal is not new, then what is the track record of success, has there been a positive impact on the community?
5. The number of years the agency has received County funding (fewer years = higher rating).
6. Timeliness in submitting the proposal.
a. Were deadlines to submit the proposal met to a reasonable standard?
b. Was the proposal complete when submitted?