- I call this meeting to order June 2nd, Jack Hopkins Social Service Grant Committee. I just distracted
- myself with my own to-do list in my book here. Our debrief session. So how'd it go, everybody? Any thoughts?
- So should we start from the beginning?
- beginning of the process and walk through? Or does anybody just have thoughts off the top of their head?
- I mean, the rubric was the only thing that kind of gave us fits, right? And I think we just need to
- tighten up scoring for next year for either for us or for whoever else kind of takes over. But other
- than that, when we went over the rubric and Catherine's stuff was written over, right? That was problematic. It was.
- Other than that, I think it went pretty well. Yeah, I feel like most of our pains were just because
- there wasn't a staff. That's what I think that rubric, most of the rubric stuff came from. So I think
- that was just unfortunate timing. I mean, I want to say I really, I think that the support that we did
- have everybody chipped in, you know, the fellows, the interns, clerk's office,
- Larry and even you guys all, everybody just jumping in and trying to save the day. That was remarkable.
- It was really, really, really helpful and crucial. So thank you everybody. What did you think about
- the new application this year? Like how it was very different format, different layout than previous
- years? Digesting it as a committee, I thought that was great because it was a lot more
- I mean, pages upon pages of stuff. So I thought that was an improvement. I think as it relates to our
- rubric, it was fantastic because all the most 98% of the information we needed was there super accessible.
- Yeah. I found the budgets really hard to access and kind of annoying that you had to click onto something
- else, right? I mean, there was one budget that I'm not sure
- I can't remember whose it was, but I didn't discover until the final hour that I couldn't see, didn't
- have access to their budget, which I feel like that was another thing. If we had had the OG staff that
- was in there, they would have known things that didn't work before we got to it. But I just feel like
- you could make one change to that form, which has a summary line for budget or something. In the past,
- we used to get that information. It was like, what would you
- can you get without funding? And then it's sort of like, yeah, but where is the natural place to cut?
- So we could see that in the summary. I think they could pretty easily add that to the form, I think,
- would be helpful. Just at the top level, so you can sort of see the summary of the budget. And then
- we can dig down or something like that. This was also an annoying nitpicky thing. And maybe I had the
- view wrong. But we're not being able to see which application
- You were clicking on, it was annoying having to go through and be like, okay, is this the right one?
- It took a while to figure out that you could export them all. It was still a mess. Yeah. Sorry.
- I write slow. Yeah, I feel like something that would be nice is if next year
- we were able to have staff or one of the fellows or whatever download all of that data and then clean
- it up for us and then share it all to us in a spreadsheet, then I feel like that would mitigate some
- of those issues too. The system's kind of a pain. I know that Aria had done a lot of work putting stuff
- into the spreadsheet for us, but it wasn't everything that we needed for the rubric, but it was a really
- tremendous
- to start getting us started. I'm really happy with the new application. I think Kari did a great job
- getting that put together for us and it's so much easier than digging through, you're right, because
- it was sheets and sheets of papers that we were scrolling through constantly to try to get
- all the information we needed to grade them. I'm guessing that it was easier for applicants because
- it seemed like for the most part the majority of them were hitting
- a lot of things we were asking for as opposed to a couple years ago where it seemed like applications
- were incomplete because they misunderstood the application. I'm just inferring, but we had some incomplete
- stuff that just didn't make sense why it was incomplete as opposed to this year. I think there's some
- things from last year's feedback that we never really tried or even talked about really.
- whether last year we had all recommended exploring the idea of having a bipartite fund, where we basically
- have a fund for big asks and then a fund for more specific things or something like that, or where we
- came up with a set of high-level targets that we were going to prioritize for this year. I do think
- that's worth including again in the report, because I do think those are some ideas that are
- you know, worth us exploring. And I also think the idea of figuring out how to combine, whether with
- CDBG processes or with whatever the county's Sophia Travis processes, I still think it's just an area
- that we need to do something about. Yeah. I was just about to ask,
- something, and it's gone. Sorry. It happens. This wasn't it, I don't think. But what about how we held
- the follow-ups with those that we asked coming in? Do we still think that's the way to go?
- unfairly bias us against the people who came in versus the people who we didn't ask in. I don't think
- so because someone who came in didn't get funded. So that, I think that was helpful to us. I don't think
- it was necessarily a bias. You know, Ysak didn't make it in person to that one and it was probably a
- recipient that I wanted to ask questions but the
- They answered the questions that were given to them, but that opened up more questions, but I didn't
- think it was fair for me to grill them on things that they may have been unprepared for. So I'm not
- sure how to open that up to make it fair. And they ended up getting partially funded, I think, very
- generously.
- But I think that what we're doing is OK. So just thinking about it, this was a thought that I had that
- I think is worth us developing, which is perhaps there's an interface between our rubric, the application,
- and the interviews, and then our responsibility.
- perhaps we're being a little bit too, I don't know, I'm gonna say this as I'm just thinking out loud,
- so don't hold me to the exact words, but to the spirit of it. Is it worth us thinking about the fact
- that if we're having a lot of people that we need to do interviews with in the first place, in the past
- the interviews served the function which was give people more time on the mic, it was sort of an expo
- if you will.
- If we're moving away from that and towards a evaluative purpose to your question about fairness, if
- we're having to ask for interviews, is that failure stronger? But is that like a failure of us as evaluators?
- Or is it a failure of our application system? Or is it a failure of the people who are applying? And
- the answer, I think, changes
- what we're doing with interviews, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. And I think that I've come at
- it from the perspective of it being a failure of those applying, in essence, that I'm like, I want to
- give you every possible chance to answer all the questions that we need answered so that we can evaluate
- you correctly. But there's a possibility that it's more like we don't know enough about these organizations
- or something like that. And that's why we're having to ask, sometimes some of the questions we're asking
- are kind of basic.
- Or there's a possibility the way we're evaluating them in the first place, like that our rubric is missing
- something that ends up creating a disadvantage for particular applicants because whatever we're looking
- for is not clearly aligned with what we're asking for on the application. I saw it as a mixture of both.
- You know at times it was a failure on their part to communicate clearly, but at times I think it was
- a failure on maybe our part to understand their organization or to You know because for example We made
- a rule right at the very get-go if they have not applied to us before we're inviting them in Yeah, I
- do think you know to your point about
- while there was one that didn't get funding at all. I think there were a couple of them that actually
- their presentation, not many, but there were a couple where it did actually dissuade me from maybe granting
- as much as I might have taken. Oh, I see this a little more clearly now. I don't know that I think this
- is as important. But maybe my argument is that interview should be a somewhat neutral thing. How so?
- Well, like, they shouldn't sway us this way or that way. They should be things that are being used for
- clarifying. And, you know, and again, I mean... But the act of clarifying will sway us. Right, but if
- we're using a rubric, then swaying shouldn't be part of the conversation. So that then gets me back
- to the point of, like, we still need to... You know, again, I think it's awesome that we're starting
- to use a rubric. I think the way we're using a rubric is very useful in the sense that it gives us sort
- of a common
- comparator, so I think that that's one of the reasons why our meetings go well and smoothly because
- we're all starting from the same place and then we can discuss and change each other's minds and adding
- that human element I think is tremendous. But I just wonder if that gives evidence to the fact that
- we want to tighten a little bit what the rubric is. I don't know. You mentioned earlier about small
- grants versus large grants and having
- two separate, but maybe we should look at, I mean, I'm not sure, like off the top of my head, there
- were a number of new folks, right? Maybe we should be dividing the grants from people who applied traditional
- organizations, and then brand new, innovative, blah, blah, blah, right? Or people who haven't applied
- for a while, and then kind of gives them a playing field that might be more level for those newer folks,
- versus the organizations that have demonstrated need and success in their field. So just a thought.
- Wait, in that breakdown, do you feel like the newer ones are less likely to get funded? No. Because
- I don't feel like that influences our decision as much. I think in some grant settings it does, but
- I feel like we're really great about not looking at longevity as like,
- I think we are, but you know, like he's talking about part of the interview process was bringing in
- new people, introducing themselves, talking about a new project or something. It might give
- more justification to how we conduct the interview process. Like one where people are showcasing new
- things, right? Yeah, and then of course there could be a second interview process for people who need
- to clarify
- on some things because their application was confusing or unclear or whatever. That kind of touches
- on something that I felt like was a tension point for me this year, which was we talk about not wanting
- to be relied on as a funding source for the same things year to year. But we do have certain groups
- that are literally applying for the same thing every year to your point.
- What do, and it doesn't mean those needs don't matter, but we do kind of like, try to discourage that
- in our eligibility requirements. I just don't know where that line is. Like, I guess it's a point for
- like, technically we need to. Maybe we should change our eligibility requirements because the needs
- of the community seem to be greater, and probably data will show that. So, you know,
- good job organization, A, who applies every year, they're going through funding changes and they're
- serving more people. I don't know if we can really say that we want to discourage funding those folks
- because they're still helping a lot of people and if they don't get that funding, then they help less
- people, right? I think that's the hard part about the demographic.
- of like recipients or applicants that we're serving is that across the board, like maybe that operational
- funding piece doesn't matter as much. Like we're not looking at like arts organizations, you know, where
- they feel like the argument's different. I wonder, okay, so like being super provocative and excuse
- me, like knowingly being provocative. But like, if you thought of the, I mean, and for context and for
- the record, you know, Councilman Morello and I have both
- advocated, I think Councilmember Daley has as well, for increasing this fund to a million dollars, for
- example. I think that our needs, you know, far away, you know, and I think we could do more transformative
- things, et cetera. Okay, but being provocative, if you look at the types of things we're funding, to
- your point, versus what we could do as a city
- towards a lot of these issues with $500,000. So just with this one example, we're having these discussions
- through the Heading Home initiative of basically funding for one year unsheltered homeless people, people
- experiencing homelessness who are also unsheltered, for giving them a year of housing that's funded.
- That would cost about $500,000, right? And so might we address
- the types of issues sort of as a collective in a way that we're not really doing by giving 27 organizations
- $5,000. It's just those needs wouldn't disappear just because there was like. But my point is that a
- lot of them are recurring needs, right? But that's like,
- big on the assumption side too. Yeah, of course, right. And then also there are fewer voices in the
- room making the decision about not part of funding versus organizations that are interfacing every day
- and like, no. Yes. It was my pushback. I see what you were saying too.
- But the reason I'm being provocative, I don't hold that view. I'm just being provocative in the sense
- that as to triangulate on your point about do we want to have a tighter bridge where you say, actually,
- no, if you've applied for this before, we're not going to do this, that to me veers in that direction
- of we're going to make the decisions on
- you know, on what impact is or what, in a way that I don't know if I feel totally comfortable. And that
- policy felt like it was more rooted in not wanting organizations to gain independence on the funding,
- and less about like, oh, we're doing the same thing, where I feel like I personally don't have a problem
- because I, because operational funding is so hard to come by that, like, that I think that it's super
- important that they, like, I think that's really valuable that we are a source of operational funding.
- And so it doesn't bother me that it's a recurring piece outside of that one conflicting part in the
- eligibility requirements that I think we should like, like I'm not saying we get more stringent as much
- as like maybe like mix that part, you know. Just because we are seeing recurring needs, they're telling
- us what they need and we have to trust them to know what they need. I will say that. I'm sorry, Dave,
- did you have something?
- discussion, I don't want to necessarily interrupt, but I wanted to comment on a couple of things that
- were said. So do you want to just continue for a minute? No, no. You're part of this conversation. It's
- unfortunate that we forgot that the Zoom was on. Thank you for your honesty, Eddie. With everything
- that's been said, I would say that the applications were really helpful this time around.
- Regarding the follow-ups, I think they're really useful to kind of drill down. I think that we should
- continue it as an option. It's like, I mean, I'm not sure I agree with thinking of them as a failure
- necessarily. Or is it more just a means to understand the organization or the needs of the organization?
- Because obviously some are self-evident.
- because they're, you know, they're well-established organizations. They come back and they, you know,
- we know about them and we know their needs. Others, new organizations, so it's entirely clear exactly
- what they need and for what reason. And as Eddie said, I don't think it really biases because we didn't
- fund, at least one of the organizations I think that came in, you know, to elucidate more of their,
- of their needs. I did want to say that the rubric, the rubrics I found a little challenging just simply
- because it seemed I was, maybe it's me, I was over-inflating the scores. So it didn't really discern
- between the different applicants so well. But you know, it's good to have that comparator certainly.
- And then lastly, I just wanted to say that it's like back to what you said,
- You know, I'd like to, clearly the need is out there in the community and we're not needing it entirely.
- I mean, I think we do a pretty good job. I think this group has done a really good job. And Courtney,
- I think you did a fantastic job chairing. Absolutely. Thank you. Your organization, you know, because
- this is really kind of a tough group, you know, to kind of, you know, get through it, get through it all.
- You know, I think at the council level, I think we ought to be at least thinking of Jack Hopkins raising
- the amount every year. Looking at it almost like an employee salary. Because the inflation cost over
- just over the last few years has cut what we're allotted, about 10%. It's being cut and eroded just
- because of inflation. So we ought to at least keep up with inflation.
- And therefore, look at it as like a COLA increase for the Jackery every year in the budget. I think
- you consider that. So anyway, great discussion. Thanks, everybody. That's all I got. Thanks, David.
- Thank you, Dan. I have one more provocation on this thread, which is, and this is, I think, building
- off of something that Cam and I have said the last couple of years.
- on this thought of like increasing the amount, seeing the needs, impact, et cetera, we've tried a little
- bit to get people to coordinate. For example, when they do homelessness, we're like, are you doing the
- heading home plan or like whatever, right? We have things of that nature that we've attempted that.
- But what if you took an approach where you basically said, you know what? We are going to fund one thing
- relevant to homelessness
- And whether that's a collaborative thing or an individual thing, and it can be up to $100,000 or something
- like that, where we actually push people to, because of the fact that we have a lot of overlapping needs,
- I do find it interesting that, just to think of last year, because it's an offensive example, where
- it's like you have two organizations that basically want to do
- things with horses and recovery or something like that. And it's great. That's a fantastic approach.
- Wonderful. But then we end up basically comparing the two of them and then evaluating those in relation
- to each other when would it be better for us to say we're going to consider these in some type
- of complementary way? Is there some way to sort of actually, and the comment that I'm provoking here
- is we've talked about
- I always find it really interesting how few collaborative applications we get. And I don't know, especially
- because people couldn't do a collaborative and another. I mean, we had two this year. I was going to
- say, this was our lowest year. Yes. And last year we had four. So we always get such a small amount
- of collaborative applications. And so I don't know if that's a...
- Outcome that we want to work towards trying to in again. I was being provocative I'm not necessarily
- saying the way you do that is say we only gonna do one thing for homelessness So work together and ask
- us something But maybe maybe there's something like that that we should be thinking about as a committee
- Well, just kind of there are a couple threads there but one of them so silver linings and I'm on their
- board they applied this year and I was like not I
- in that process at all until I got a panic message from the ED at the last minute and was like, I got
- into the system. But we had talked about a collaborative project with MCHA and Silver Linings and how
- that would be more powerful than we're leveraging funds for a similar cause, blah, blah, blah. But a
- lot of it was the timing of when I knew about Jack Hopkins, obviously, but so it doesn't
- This example is kind of a poor one, but I almost wonder if the runway leading up to the application
- period, if that was longer, it would provide, I think, more time for innovation and collaboration if
- we were able to get that in front of them.
- earlier? Because we could start as soon as we have the budget allocation. Like as soon as council votes
- on the budget in September, right? I mean, is that right? When do we vote on budget? I think do we finalize
- it in October? But we do the first vote. But basically we could have our first Jack Hopkins meeting
- then, you know, like where you start organizing and, you know, starting to reach out to organizations and
- telling people that it will be open at this time. There's a lot of things we could do early on. I will
- say that collaborations should be happening before Jack Hopkins. Well, there's that too. I run a big
- organization, right? So maybe my experience is different from others, but I'm reaching out, my team's
- reaching out to individual organizations and saying, hey, there's
- a property that we share or there's something that we can do and we wanna work together on something.
- And then maybe Jack Hopkins comes around and we apply for something, right? So I think that, I don't
- think Jack Hopkins should be the incentive to collaborate. I think maybe that's something that the nonprofit
- network, I mean, there's a nonprofit alliance or something that carry brings people together. Maybe
- we should be coming together
- as organizations to speed date. I mean, yeah, that would be amazing. But the counter to that is that
- using the example of homelessness, we know that a lot of these organizations are collaborating. So why
- aren't they applying for knock it out at the park? Probably because they don't have the bandwidth. Like
- I said, I run a big organization. But then they're all playing individually. It still takes more work
- to collaborate. Collaborating and working on a project is difficult.
- What we could do is, in the rubric, just flat out say, don't differentiate collaborative projects and
- individual projects, and just give, get five more points for being a collaborative project. So you get
- bumped to the top. That's what I was gonna say, do we want to prioritize? I mean, I think that would
- be a way where people are like, hey, I'm gonna call, so what I'm just gonna call NCHA right on the phone
- and say, let's just work on that. But then it does end up being the incentive. So to use that, like.
- I'm fine with the incentive.
- I just think that, but I just don't, I just think that if, like saying, hey, Jack Hopkins, we put the
- money out there, why don't you collaborate? We'll see what happens. But if we flat out say, hey, you
- get five points for a collaboration, like you don't even have to. Is there a moral hazard there that
- I just think it's clever? I was gonna say that gets tricky, though, if it's not a great collaborative
- project. Well, if it's not, well, yeah. Kind of like forcing themselves into it. Well, I mean, or if
- it's just something that we're like,
- this isn't the best use of our funds. Maybe five points isn't the right amount of point. But just like
- weighting it. Yeah, the merit of the project still needs to. Well, there's another part of this phenomenon
- though, which is that people are doing a collaborative project and they don't apply as a collaborative
- project. So they'll in their description be like, oh, we're working with this group and this group and
- this group. And that'll just be like,
- But we're asking for the money. That's why I had originally built community partnerships into the first
- draft of the rubric last year because we were seeing so much of that and it felt like worth acknowledging
- like they don't have a formal collaboration, but they are collaborating. Maybe it's a headache. I mean,
- it might be a headache for an organization to say, hey, we'll apply for the money and we'll work with
- you versus like, hey, let's apply for the money.
- split it up and say, hey, you know, your organization gets XML. I mean, we do a lot of that, and then
- we end up subgranting. But like, also, I feel like something that wasn't like we took that community
- partnerships question out of the rubric, but I still think it's important for this reason, too, because
- I feel like even if it's not a formal collaborative project, if that's a question we add to the application,
- then and they're talking about like,
- exactly who they're working with on the specific thing they're asking for money for, then I feel like
- they do get, they can get bonus points on a version of the rubric that includes that as something that
- we care about. And it wouldn't be a bonus, it would just be like points that they get, you know? I do,
- so my take on the rubric, you know, I had a lot of, last year when we did the rubric, I felt that there
- was a few areas that were really,
- subjective, where I was kind of interpreting them maybe different than Cam would, and Esau was interpreting
- it differently. We all had our own different interpretations. And I think that was ultimately okay,
- because it still helped us get to where we wanted to make our recommendations. But I still felt a little
- uneasy about that last year.
- We tightened it up this year. I think that really helped. I think we can go a little further with the
- rubric, too. We neglected the scoring, tightened up our criteria, but then forgot about updating the
- scoring. But yeah, I mean, every year, they all do come within a very small range within each other.
- It does help to see my priorities then, to see how it all kind of comes together. But yeah, it should
- lead us, I think, a little bit further than it does.
- and really kind of set some of them further apart than they do. So I would love to relook at that rubric,
- and then yeah, think about things like putting the collaborative elements on there. Well, and I nerd
- out about this right now anyway, because I taught grant writing this past spring, and at the end, I
- had them all write applications for social service organizations, and then they had to, they were divided
- into four seven-pupil panels, and they had the same rubric that they worked from, and they all interpreted
- those things differently, which was okay. Like it wasn't necessarily like no rubric is gonna be perfect,
- but it wasn't necessarily like a flaw in the rubric. We developed it together as a class. It was like
- more just like we're all gonna see things differently no matter what. No rubric is ever gonna be neutral.
- Like I think anytime we're bringing it to the table for conversation that it is doing its job, I guess.
- And like it's more just like I think maybe the eligibility cutoff of like we want this amount of impact
- to be demonstrated
- for them to be even considered, like that binary almost. I just think it's really hard, like a rubric
- is just gonna look different and be interpreted differently always based on. Yeah, so that's why I don't
- wanna like, I don't know, wring my hands over it too much, because like I said, it really did, I think,
- help each of us at least kind of get that base priority to be like, okay, now I have a better,
- organizing of the grants and now I can go through an order from like top to bottom or bottom to top
- or whatever. Like I see, you know, they're lined up a little bit more. That's kind of how I feel about
- it too. Any other areas that we haven't mentioned? This, I'm not even proposing this as much as just like one
- offered up as a point of discussion. I've been in a couple other grant panel processes and something
- that happened for those they had I mean there were more applications but it was like everyone like was
- assigned like a chunk of the applications that they did a deep dive on versus being responsible for
- deep diving on all of them and so like a subset of us would be responsible for doing like a
- 17 and then there would be multiple that did the same 17 but then like another group would do another
- 17 and then whenever the discussion period came it was like Like we all are familiar like you're responsible
- for coming to the table familiar with the applications so that way like you can have the discussion
- but some people in the group know
- like these applications inside and out and can like contribute to the discussion. Some of those questions
- that come up that maybe we feel like we have to call them in later. And it's like buried somewhere deep
- in our application. I love that. So like maybe something to consider. You've become a subject expert
- on a couple. Yeah. So you can really kind of present to. Because I feel like that's the part that gets
- hard is there's so many, so much content to go through. Yeah. And so I just wonder if like that's something
- that would be helpful. I like that idea. So one.
- You know, there are several categories that seem to come up that we find in what is food insecurities,
- a lot of housing instability stuff, which would include homelessness, children's stuff, right? Therapy,
- CASA, Boys and Girls Club. You know, you mentioned arts, but we didn't have
- I don't think we had anything with arts in there. Is Jack Hopkins arts? No, we don't fund arts. We don't
- fund arts. But I feel like the conversation gets different whenever you're like, it's not a basic need
- being that, you know. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So maybe we should think about saying, hey, you know, I agree
- with Dave that, you know, if we can increase Jack Hopkins, that's great. But say we're playing $500,000,
- then we can say that,
- $100,000 goes to child welfare. $100,000 goes to food insecurities. And if one category doesn't have
- as many applicants, then it gets split between the other categories. And then we fund accordingly. That
- would play into, hey, we can have a few people deep dive on a subsection of applicants. But it makes
- sense, right? All the housing insecurity folks can
- take a deep dive on that, food insecurity, as opposed to like, hey, just take one through five, and
- then I'll take the next five or whatever. Right, read them up by topic. Yeah. And you may be able, if
- you do it that way, if people cycle off of here, you can bring in a food insecurity expert in on this,
- so that way they can take the deep dive on that section. You can bring in someone who is a child therapist,
- to go into, hey, why is having a court appointed special advocate important? This makes a lot of sense
- in a lot of ways, right? Yeah. I don't know, though. I think it's hard to anticipate what the needs
- are going to be. It seems like we hit a lot of these categories. Yes, but the distribution of them.
- And so then it becomes arbitrary. You end up defaulting back.
- A third of our thing is homelessness. We'll get that many requests. And so you can't say, well, five
- requests is the minimum before it gets redistributed because you might have five people all asking for
- $100,000. So it just puts us back in this essentially you're reducing the fund because people have less
- of a space to move around in. I also feel like,
- I also feel like based on how things are going economically, like to your point, I think we do know,
- like for the most part, but I do think like the asks, even within the types of organizations that are
- requesting funds, the asks are looking different, like thinking about like Susie's place and like these
- places that lost funding, federal funding this past year, and like things that like we don't know until
- they tell us, but that need, like those are big asks.
- that they had that maybe, like, we wouldn't have the funds to fund if we were, like, breaking up our
- fund into something smaller because we would be like, okay, we're used to only getting, like, $50,000
- worth of asks for youth services organizations or something, but, like, Suzy's Place asks for, like,
- whatever, $40,000 or whatever. Maybe we need to put a soft cap on what people can ask for again. We
- have to talk about that, which is, like,
- You sort of say this is the whole amount and then the expected amount of rewards because that gives
- somebody a sort of idea of your average, what you expect to give out. That's something we could communicate
- a little bit better. A lot of these organizations that ask for a big amount of money, the actual project
- description was, they broke it down.
- a lot of them did, but still there's a lot of vagueness in there. But I think it's been the other way
- because I think our problem has actually been on the other side and this is what I'll call the tandem
- problem, the same thing with New Hope for Families, where they'll apply for $5,000 and then tell us
- that they have this
- $50,000 deficit when they come to the presentation, we'll be like, why did you apply for more? And we
- have to sort of tell them, no, we would have considered you for $50,000. And so I do think that some,
- which isn't to say that we are saying we're going to give all of our awards this amount. Or it's just
- a saying, in general, we expect to give 20 awards at $20,000. So it puts people in the right ballpark
- or something like that.
- Also, I just wonder like how because Jack Hopkins has been around so long and this of these organizations
- have been applying for so long if in like certain years like it was like an all-or-nothing approach
- to funding that then they were like oh shoot like I would rather apply for less and get less than apply
- for more and not get anything kind of deal like if that's ever been like at the way that like the It's
- hard when it changes every year. Yeah. Yeah, so it's like yeah, that's why I love the idea of us starting
- to message
- early so that before they do the application, they know really what expectations are for that year so
- that they can look at that and start thinking about, okay, how are we going to then match? They've told
- us what they're looking for. They told us what we need to do. I think if we do a better job at communicating
- earlier, that gives them more time to kind of get their cards right.
- And I think now that we know this online system works and is more accessible, this is something else
- I noticed just from another state grant panel that I was on, is that in each question, they had it really
- broken down really specifically what they were looking for. And so I think that could help us too with
- that kind of a dilemma of bringing them in is giving them more definition of what we want their answer
- to look like.
- to like tailor it to the information we feel like we need. Because actually that is funny and I feel
- like you might have said this earlier, but that is funny in the same way that we look at like lasting
- impact or whatever, all of us think about it differently when they're answering that question, they're
- thinking, they're all thinking about it differently too. Yeah, that's true. All right. We covered a lot.
- Any last thoughts? Any other new can of worms we want to open up? Yeah, I've got a can. I knew someone
- would. I want to talk about food for a minute, but growing food. We only had one applicant this time
- that was proposing funding for food. And I thought it was a good applicant because they were not only
- uh, producing food that they were teaching how to grow. Yeah. And I think that's a, that's a wonderful
- thing. It's a great skill that people can learn, especially kids for self-reliance and you know, plus
- they get nutrition. Um, anyway, I, you know, I'm surprised we only have one applicant. Um, maybe we
- have more next year, but that's going to compete with other needs that are going to be probably continual.
- Maybe greater, as was said with the federal government shedding it to locals, local government. And
- maybe this is another argument for more funding. Yes. Because I think that it's, I'd like to see that
- happen. I think that there are communities where, like in Detroit, where communities, they're growing
- food in the neighborhood.
- And they're helping to, there's so many benefits for it. I don't need to go into all the benefits from
- that. But I'd like to see that happen here. And I think it could really take off. But then again, we
- have a lot of other needs. And we were talking about different categories. But this is another category
- that's sort of, maybe we haven't seen it very much in the past. But maybe it will grow.
- Just that comment. I also just wanted to say, I learn so much from this group every time I participate.
- And I just want to thank everybody for their collective knowledge adding to the group group. Because
- I really learn a lot in the process. And I also wanted to thank Sophia for being there and her help.
- Always. Definitely. Yeah.
- Thank you, Dave. You brought up some good points. I mean, I agree. I think we're in a... I want more
- money for this. Yeah, I think we're in a period right now where we know we're going to keep getting
- more and more need, right? And it's the unexpected fluctuations are coming up probably more than any
- other period like in the Jack Hopkins era, at least in the past many years. So I think we do need to
- Look for more money and be more nimble, right? And recognize we're gonna have a lot more ask, I think,
- and need. I wonder what studies about this exist, like projecting what this is gonna look like, because
- I don't even think we've gotten to the point where we're truly seeing the impact of federal cuts yet.
- And I feel like that is what we're gonna start seeing next year and like in the subsequent years. And
- I wonder if there are like any, if anyone has done like projections on. I don't know, but with state
- cuts too, on top of all of it.
- with SB1, there's going to be just a lot of tightening of belts and a lot more pain, unfortunately.
- I had one more application thing that I just wanted to put on the radar. This was like the e-verify.
- I think there were a lot of groups that didn't end up getting the e-verify through, but since we didn't
- have like CARI
- looking at that stuff, it didn't end up mattering. I think that's really hard. From what I heard from
- Rachel, the executive director of Silver Linings, who dropped out because she couldn't get e-verified
- because it's an organization without a staff. It's super, that's a really, really hard, if there's another
- way that we can go back to having them submit their IRS paperwork or something, I feel like that would
- be way better than e-verify for the future. Yeah, that was,
- A pain point, as some may say, for sure. I mean, I want to just give some thank yous for this whole,
- this is my favorite committee, this is my favorite part of city council, hands down, like in general.
- So I'm so grateful to be able to be part of it. Thank you all for your patience with me as I chaired
- this time, because we had really bad timing with losing all of our staff. So I went into a huge panic.
- I did not think we were going to pull this off. And because of Sophia's help and Larry's help and our
- interns and our fellows and then you guys, everybody just carrying everything. I think everybody pitched
- in remarkably. And I think I said this at the beginning, but I am very grateful and relieved that we
- pulled it off. But thank you to everybody. And I'm about to adjourn unless anybody wants to say anything.
- Just thank you again, Courtney, for being our fearless leader. I love working with you guys. This has
- been such a great experience for the past few years. So, meeting adjourned. Thank you.