ADOPTED - APRIL 28, 2009

Agenda Item No. 24

 

Introduced by the Human Services and Finance Committees of the:

 

INGHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

 

RESOLUTION APPROVING CRITERIA FOR RANKING 2010 APPLICATIONS FOR

 COMMUNITY AGENCY FUNDING

 

RESOLUTION #09-125

 

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 a total request of over $250,000; 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 #08-116:

 

“The Ingham County Controller/Administrator will score and rank Community Agency applications based on a set of criteria approved by the Board of Commissioners and make a recommendation on specific funding levels for each applicant to the Human Services Committee.”

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners authorizes 2010 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 2010.

 

HUMAN SERVICES:  Yeas:  Tennis, Davis, McGrain, Schor, Dougan, Vickers

        Nays:  None           Absent:  None           Approved 4/20/09

 

FINANCE:  Yeas:  Grebner, Nolan, Bahar-Cook, Tennis, Davis, Dougan

        Nays:  None           Absent:  None          Approved 4/22/09

 

 

 

2010 Community Agency Ranking Criteria

 

These criteria are ranked in the order in which they will be used to judge 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”.
    1. Does the proposal directly address specific challenges faced by Ingham County residents that may be brought on by or exacerbated by the current economic climate; including, but not limited to problems such as homelessness, unemployment, poverty, domestic violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc?
    2. 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, job skills and transportation that are needed by families and individuals?

 

  1. The extent to which the proposal leverages other sources of funding.
    1. What other funding sources are being leveraged, including state, federal, other nonprofit, and private sources?
    2. Will this funding be used as a match for a larger grant or to leverage other funding?

 

  1. 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?

 

  1. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates creativity and innovation.
    1. Does this proposal represent proven “best practices” in its particular subject?
    2. Does the program produce measurable results?
    3. Has this proposal ever been tried before?
    4. If the proposal is not new, then what is the track record of success, has there been a positive impact on the community?

 

  1. The number of years the agency has received County funding (fewer years = higher rating).

a.   This will be a factor from FY 2010 forward.  2009 was a transition year for this criterion, as agencies were put on notice for 2010. 

 

  1. Timeliness in submitting the proposal.
    1. Were deadlines (May 27, 2009) to submit the proposal met to a reasonable standard?
    2. Was the proposal complete when submitted?