WEBVTT 00:00:00.194 --> 00:00:09.919 - I call this meeting to order June 2nd, Jack Hopkins Social Service Grant Committee. I just distracted 00:00:09.919 --> 00:00:20.312 - myself with my own to-do list in my book here. Our debrief session. So how'd it go, everybody? Any thoughts? 00:00:20.312 --> 00:00:24.030 - So should we start from the beginning? 00:00:24.194 --> 00:00:31.517 - beginning of the process and walk through? Or does anybody just have thoughts off the top of their head? 00:00:31.517 --> 00:00:38.491 - I mean, the rubric was the only thing that kind of gave us fits, right? And I think we just need to 00:00:38.491 --> 00:00:45.534 - tighten up scoring for next year for either for us or for whoever else kind of takes over. But other 00:00:45.534 --> 00:00:53.694 - than that, when we went over the rubric and Catherine's stuff was written over, right? That was problematic. It was. 00:00:53.986 --> 00:01:01.027 - Other than that, I think it went pretty well. Yeah, I feel like most of our pains were just because 00:01:01.027 --> 00:01:08.208 - there wasn't a staff. That's what I think that rubric, most of the rubric stuff came from. So I think 00:01:08.208 --> 00:01:15.460 - that was just unfortunate timing. I mean, I want to say I really, I think that the support that we did 00:01:15.460 --> 00:01:21.022 - have everybody chipped in, you know, the fellows, the interns, clerk's office, 00:01:21.410 --> 00:01:29.109 - Larry and even you guys all, everybody just jumping in and trying to save the day. That was remarkable. 00:01:29.109 --> 00:01:36.512 - It was really, really, really helpful and crucial. So thank you everybody. What did you think about 00:01:36.512 --> 00:01:43.989 - the new application this year? Like how it was very different format, different layout than previous 00:01:43.989 --> 00:01:50.430 - years? Digesting it as a committee, I thought that was great because it was a lot more 00:01:51.842 --> 00:01:58.656 - I mean, pages upon pages of stuff. So I thought that was an improvement. I think as it relates to our 00:01:58.656 --> 00:02:05.804 - rubric, it was fantastic because all the most 98% of the information we needed was there super accessible. 00:02:05.804 --> 00:02:12.886 - Yeah. I found the budgets really hard to access and kind of annoying that you had to click onto something 00:02:12.886 --> 00:02:16.894 - else, right? I mean, there was one budget that I'm not sure 00:02:17.122 --> 00:02:23.150 - I can't remember whose it was, but I didn't discover until the final hour that I couldn't see, didn't 00:02:23.150 --> 00:02:29.237 - have access to their budget, which I feel like that was another thing. If we had had the OG staff that 00:02:29.237 --> 00:02:35.266 - was in there, they would have known things that didn't work before we got to it. But I just feel like 00:02:35.266 --> 00:02:41.353 - you could make one change to that form, which has a summary line for budget or something. In the past, 00:02:41.353 --> 00:02:44.958 - we used to get that information. It was like, what would you 00:02:45.154 --> 00:02:50.570 - can you get without funding? And then it's sort of like, yeah, but where is the natural place to cut? 00:02:50.570 --> 00:02:55.933 - So we could see that in the summary. I think they could pretty easily add that to the form, I think, 00:02:55.933 --> 00:03:01.242 - would be helpful. Just at the top level, so you can sort of see the summary of the budget. And then 00:03:01.242 --> 00:03:06.658 - we can dig down or something like that. This was also an annoying nitpicky thing. And maybe I had the 00:03:06.658 --> 00:03:09.950 - view wrong. But we're not being able to see which application 00:03:10.306 --> 00:03:18.573 - You were clicking on, it was annoying having to go through and be like, okay, is this the right one? 00:03:18.573 --> 00:03:26.431 - It took a while to figure out that you could export them all. It was still a mess. Yeah. Sorry. 00:03:26.431 --> 00:03:32.734 - I write slow. Yeah, I feel like something that would be nice is if next year 00:03:33.474 --> 00:03:40.070 - we were able to have staff or one of the fellows or whatever download all of that data and then clean 00:03:40.070 --> 00:03:46.602 - it up for us and then share it all to us in a spreadsheet, then I feel like that would mitigate some 00:03:46.602 --> 00:03:53.328 - of those issues too. The system's kind of a pain. I know that Aria had done a lot of work putting stuff 00:03:53.328 --> 00:04:00.119 - into the spreadsheet for us, but it wasn't everything that we needed for the rubric, but it was a really 00:04:00.119 --> 00:04:00.830 - tremendous 00:04:01.218 --> 00:04:07.674 - to start getting us started. I'm really happy with the new application. I think Kari did a great job 00:04:07.674 --> 00:04:14.130 - getting that put together for us and it's so much easier than digging through, you're right, because 00:04:14.130 --> 00:04:19.947 - it was sheets and sheets of papers that we were scrolling through constantly to try to get 00:04:19.947 --> 00:04:26.339 - all the information we needed to grade them. I'm guessing that it was easier for applicants because 00:04:26.339 --> 00:04:30.622 - it seemed like for the most part the majority of them were hitting 00:04:31.074 --> 00:04:38.686 - a lot of things we were asking for as opposed to a couple years ago where it seemed like applications 00:04:38.686 --> 00:04:46.672 - were incomplete because they misunderstood the application. I'm just inferring, but we had some incomplete 00:04:46.672 --> 00:04:54.284 - stuff that just didn't make sense why it was incomplete as opposed to this year. I think there's some 00:04:54.284 --> 00:05:00.926 - things from last year's feedback that we never really tried or even talked about really. 00:05:01.634 --> 00:05:09.409 - whether last year we had all recommended exploring the idea of having a bipartite fund, where we basically 00:05:09.409 --> 00:05:16.821 - have a fund for big asks and then a fund for more specific things or something like that, or where we 00:05:16.821 --> 00:05:24.088 - came up with a set of high-level targets that we were going to prioritize for this year. I do think 00:05:24.088 --> 00:05:30.846 - that's worth including again in the report, because I do think those are some ideas that are 00:05:32.322 --> 00:05:43.441 - you know, worth us exploring. And I also think the idea of figuring out how to combine, whether with 00:05:43.441 --> 00:05:54.670 - CDBG processes or with whatever the county's Sophia Travis processes, I still think it's just an area 00:05:54.670 --> 00:06:02.046 - that we need to do something about. Yeah. I was just about to ask, 00:06:02.754 --> 00:06:18.637 - something, and it's gone. Sorry. It happens. This wasn't it, I don't think. But what about how we held 00:06:18.637 --> 00:06:32.670 - the follow-ups with those that we asked coming in? Do we still think that's the way to go? 00:06:34.722 --> 00:06:43.269 - unfairly bias us against the people who came in versus the people who we didn't ask in. I don't think 00:06:43.269 --> 00:06:52.068 - so because someone who came in didn't get funded. So that, I think that was helpful to us. I don't think 00:06:52.068 --> 00:07:00.532 - it was necessarily a bias. You know, Ysak didn't make it in person to that one and it was probably a 00:07:00.532 --> 00:07:04.638 - recipient that I wanted to ask questions but the 00:07:06.370 --> 00:07:15.662 - They answered the questions that were given to them, but that opened up more questions, but I didn't 00:07:15.662 --> 00:07:24.862 - think it was fair for me to grill them on things that they may have been unprepared for. So I'm not 00:07:24.862 --> 00:07:34.062 - sure how to open that up to make it fair. And they ended up getting partially funded, I think, very 00:07:34.062 --> 00:07:35.166 - generously. 00:07:36.098 --> 00:07:47.422 - But I think that what we're doing is OK. So just thinking about it, this was a thought that I had that 00:07:47.422 --> 00:07:59.187 - I think is worth us developing, which is perhaps there's an interface between our rubric, the application, 00:07:59.187 --> 00:08:04.574 - and the interviews, and then our responsibility. 00:08:07.714 --> 00:08:13.947 - perhaps we're being a little bit too, I don't know, I'm gonna say this as I'm just thinking out loud, 00:08:13.947 --> 00:08:20.119 - so don't hold me to the exact words, but to the spirit of it. Is it worth us thinking about the fact 00:08:20.119 --> 00:08:26.474 - that if we're having a lot of people that we need to do interviews with in the first place, in the past 00:08:26.474 --> 00:08:32.708 - the interviews served the function which was give people more time on the mic, it was sort of an expo 00:08:32.708 --> 00:08:33.502 - if you will. 00:08:34.018 --> 00:08:41.913 - If we're moving away from that and towards a evaluative purpose to your question about fairness, if 00:08:41.913 --> 00:08:50.598 - we're having to ask for interviews, is that failure stronger? But is that like a failure of us as evaluators? 00:08:50.598 --> 00:08:58.572 - Or is it a failure of our application system? Or is it a failure of the people who are applying? And 00:08:58.572 --> 00:09:00.862 - the answer, I think, changes 00:09:00.962 --> 00:09:06.506 - what we're doing with interviews, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. And I think that I've come at 00:09:06.506 --> 00:09:12.162 - it from the perspective of it being a failure of those applying, in essence, that I'm like, I want to 00:09:12.162 --> 00:09:17.983 - give you every possible chance to answer all the questions that we need answered so that we can evaluate 00:09:17.983 --> 00:09:23.971 - you correctly. But there's a possibility that it's more like we don't know enough about these organizations 00:09:23.971 --> 00:09:29.793 - or something like that. And that's why we're having to ask, sometimes some of the questions we're asking 00:09:29.793 --> 00:09:30.846 - are kind of basic. 00:09:31.426 --> 00:09:40.537 - Or there's a possibility the way we're evaluating them in the first place, like that our rubric is missing 00:09:40.537 --> 00:09:49.393 - something that ends up creating a disadvantage for particular applicants because whatever we're looking 00:09:49.393 --> 00:09:58.334 - for is not clearly aligned with what we're asking for on the application. I saw it as a mixture of both. 00:09:58.562 --> 00:10:07.327 - You know at times it was a failure on their part to communicate clearly, but at times I think it was 00:10:07.327 --> 00:10:16.352 - a failure on maybe our part to understand their organization or to You know because for example We made 00:10:16.352 --> 00:10:25.116 - a rule right at the very get-go if they have not applied to us before we're inviting them in Yeah, I 00:10:25.116 --> 00:10:28.414 - do think you know to your point about 00:10:28.706 --> 00:10:35.815 - while there was one that didn't get funding at all. I think there were a couple of them that actually 00:10:35.815 --> 00:10:43.342 - their presentation, not many, but there were a couple where it did actually dissuade me from maybe granting 00:10:43.342 --> 00:10:50.591 - as much as I might have taken. Oh, I see this a little more clearly now. I don't know that I think this 00:10:50.591 --> 00:10:57.630 - is as important. But maybe my argument is that interview should be a somewhat neutral thing. How so? 00:10:58.434 --> 00:11:04.154 - Well, like, they shouldn't sway us this way or that way. They should be things that are being used for 00:11:04.154 --> 00:11:09.818 - clarifying. And, you know, and again, I mean... But the act of clarifying will sway us. Right, but if 00:11:09.818 --> 00:11:15.371 - we're using a rubric, then swaying shouldn't be part of the conversation. So that then gets me back 00:11:15.371 --> 00:11:20.980 - to the point of, like, we still need to... You know, again, I think it's awesome that we're starting 00:11:20.980 --> 00:11:26.756 - to use a rubric. I think the way we're using a rubric is very useful in the sense that it gives us sort 00:11:26.756 --> 00:11:27.422 - of a common 00:11:27.554 --> 00:11:34.308 - comparator, so I think that that's one of the reasons why our meetings go well and smoothly because 00:11:34.308 --> 00:11:41.332 - we're all starting from the same place and then we can discuss and change each other's minds and adding 00:11:41.332 --> 00:11:48.086 - that human element I think is tremendous. But I just wonder if that gives evidence to the fact that 00:11:48.086 --> 00:11:54.840 - we want to tighten a little bit what the rubric is. I don't know. You mentioned earlier about small 00:11:54.840 --> 00:11:57.406 - grants versus large grants and having 00:11:57.922 --> 00:12:05.035 - two separate, but maybe we should look at, I mean, I'm not sure, like off the top of my head, there 00:12:05.035 --> 00:12:12.859 - were a number of new folks, right? Maybe we should be dividing the grants from people who applied traditional 00:12:12.859 --> 00:12:20.114 - organizations, and then brand new, innovative, blah, blah, blah, right? Or people who haven't applied 00:12:20.114 --> 00:12:27.582 - for a while, and then kind of gives them a playing field that might be more level for those newer folks, 00:12:27.714 --> 00:12:35.389 - versus the organizations that have demonstrated need and success in their field. So just a thought. 00:12:35.389 --> 00:12:43.065 - Wait, in that breakdown, do you feel like the newer ones are less likely to get funded? No. Because 00:12:43.065 --> 00:12:50.740 - I don't feel like that influences our decision as much. I think in some grant settings it does, but 00:12:50.740 --> 00:12:56.190 - I feel like we're really great about not looking at longevity as like, 00:12:56.386 --> 00:13:03.605 - I think we are, but you know, like he's talking about part of the interview process was bringing in 00:13:03.605 --> 00:13:10.246 - new people, introducing themselves, talking about a new project or something. It might give 00:13:10.246 --> 00:13:17.537 - more justification to how we conduct the interview process. Like one where people are showcasing new 00:13:17.537 --> 00:13:24.900 - things, right? Yeah, and then of course there could be a second interview process for people who need 00:13:24.900 --> 00:13:25.694 - to clarify 00:13:26.018 --> 00:13:33.037 - on some things because their application was confusing or unclear or whatever. That kind of touches 00:13:33.037 --> 00:13:40.336 - on something that I felt like was a tension point for me this year, which was we talk about not wanting 00:13:40.336 --> 00:13:47.354 - to be relied on as a funding source for the same things year to year. But we do have certain groups 00:13:47.354 --> 00:13:52.478 - that are literally applying for the same thing every year to your point. 00:13:52.610 --> 00:14:00.161 - What do, and it doesn't mean those needs don't matter, but we do kind of like, try to discourage that 00:14:00.161 --> 00:14:07.711 - in our eligibility requirements. I just don't know where that line is. Like, I guess it's a point for 00:14:07.711 --> 00:14:15.114 - like, technically we need to. Maybe we should change our eligibility requirements because the needs 00:14:15.114 --> 00:14:21.406 - of the community seem to be greater, and probably data will show that. So, you know, 00:14:22.178 --> 00:14:29.163 - good job organization, A, who applies every year, they're going through funding changes and they're 00:14:29.163 --> 00:14:36.289 - serving more people. I don't know if we can really say that we want to discourage funding those folks 00:14:36.289 --> 00:14:43.414 - because they're still helping a lot of people and if they don't get that funding, then they help less 00:14:43.414 --> 00:14:48.094 - people, right? I think that's the hard part about the demographic. 00:14:48.290 --> 00:14:54.778 - of like recipients or applicants that we're serving is that across the board, like maybe that operational 00:14:54.778 --> 00:15:01.204 - funding piece doesn't matter as much. Like we're not looking at like arts organizations, you know, where 00:15:01.204 --> 00:15:07.325 - they feel like the argument's different. I wonder, okay, so like being super provocative and excuse 00:15:07.325 --> 00:15:13.629 - me, like knowingly being provocative. But like, if you thought of the, I mean, and for context and for 00:15:13.629 --> 00:15:17.118 - the record, you know, Councilman Morello and I have both 00:15:17.442 --> 00:15:23.959 - advocated, I think Councilmember Daley has as well, for increasing this fund to a million dollars, for 00:15:23.959 --> 00:15:30.729 - example. I think that our needs, you know, far away, you know, and I think we could do more transformative 00:15:30.729 --> 00:15:37.120 - things, et cetera. Okay, but being provocative, if you look at the types of things we're funding, to 00:15:37.120 --> 00:15:40.030 - your point, versus what we could do as a city 00:15:40.482 --> 00:15:48.809 - towards a lot of these issues with $500,000. So just with this one example, we're having these discussions 00:15:48.809 --> 00:15:57.059 - through the Heading Home initiative of basically funding for one year unsheltered homeless people, people 00:15:57.059 --> 00:16:04.919 - experiencing homelessness who are also unsheltered, for giving them a year of housing that's funded. 00:16:04.919 --> 00:16:09.822 - That would cost about $500,000, right? And so might we address 00:16:09.986 --> 00:16:21.106 - the types of issues sort of as a collective in a way that we're not really doing by giving 27 organizations 00:16:21.106 --> 00:16:31.505 - $5,000. It's just those needs wouldn't disappear just because there was like. But my point is that a 00:16:31.505 --> 00:16:37.374 - lot of them are recurring needs, right? But that's like, 00:16:37.986 --> 00:16:44.326 - big on the assumption side too. Yeah, of course, right. And then also there are fewer voices in the 00:16:44.326 --> 00:16:50.856 - room making the decision about not part of funding versus organizations that are interfacing every day 00:16:50.856 --> 00:16:55.358 - and like, no. Yes. It was my pushback. I see what you were saying too. 00:16:55.554 --> 00:17:02.193 - But the reason I'm being provocative, I don't hold that view. I'm just being provocative in the sense 00:17:02.193 --> 00:17:08.963 - that as to triangulate on your point about do we want to have a tighter bridge where you say, actually, 00:17:08.963 --> 00:17:15.602 - no, if you've applied for this before, we're not going to do this, that to me veers in that direction 00:17:15.602 --> 00:17:18.206 - of we're going to make the decisions on 00:17:18.562 --> 00:17:24.327 - you know, on what impact is or what, in a way that I don't know if I feel totally comfortable. And that 00:17:24.327 --> 00:17:29.981 - policy felt like it was more rooted in not wanting organizations to gain independence on the funding, 00:17:29.981 --> 00:17:35.802 - and less about like, oh, we're doing the same thing, where I feel like I personally don't have a problem 00:17:35.802 --> 00:17:41.456 - because I, because operational funding is so hard to come by that, like, that I think that it's super 00:17:41.456 --> 00:17:47.166 - important that they, like, I think that's really valuable that we are a source of operational funding. 00:17:47.266 --> 00:17:52.832 - And so it doesn't bother me that it's a recurring piece outside of that one conflicting part in the 00:17:52.832 --> 00:17:58.620 - eligibility requirements that I think we should like, like I'm not saying we get more stringent as much 00:17:58.620 --> 00:18:04.409 - as like maybe like mix that part, you know. Just because we are seeing recurring needs, they're telling 00:18:04.409 --> 00:18:10.086 - us what they need and we have to trust them to know what they need. I will say that. I'm sorry, Dave, 00:18:10.086 --> 00:18:11.422 - did you have something? 00:18:14.210 --> 00:18:21.693 - discussion, I don't want to necessarily interrupt, but I wanted to comment on a couple of things that 00:18:21.693 --> 00:18:29.323 - were said. So do you want to just continue for a minute? No, no. You're part of this conversation. It's 00:18:29.323 --> 00:18:36.659 - unfortunate that we forgot that the Zoom was on. Thank you for your honesty, Eddie. With everything 00:18:36.659 --> 00:18:43.262 - that's been said, I would say that the applications were really helpful this time around. 00:18:43.906 --> 00:18:52.453 - Regarding the follow-ups, I think they're really useful to kind of drill down. I think that we should 00:18:52.453 --> 00:19:00.916 - continue it as an option. It's like, I mean, I'm not sure I agree with thinking of them as a failure 00:19:00.916 --> 00:19:09.714 - necessarily. Or is it more just a means to understand the organization or the needs of the organization? 00:19:09.714 --> 00:19:13.150 - Because obviously some are self-evident. 00:19:13.314 --> 00:19:20.809 - because they're, you know, they're well-established organizations. They come back and they, you know, 00:19:20.809 --> 00:19:28.304 - we know about them and we know their needs. Others, new organizations, so it's entirely clear exactly 00:19:28.304 --> 00:19:35.946 - what they need and for what reason. And as Eddie said, I don't think it really biases because we didn't 00:19:35.946 --> 00:19:43.294 - fund, at least one of the organizations I think that came in, you know, to elucidate more of their, 00:19:43.394 --> 00:19:51.155 - of their needs. I did want to say that the rubric, the rubrics I found a little challenging just simply 00:19:51.155 --> 00:19:58.693 - because it seemed I was, maybe it's me, I was over-inflating the scores. So it didn't really discern 00:19:58.693 --> 00:20:06.230 - between the different applicants so well. But you know, it's good to have that comparator certainly. 00:20:06.230 --> 00:20:11.902 - And then lastly, I just wanted to say that it's like back to what you said, 00:20:12.962 --> 00:20:19.300 - You know, I'd like to, clearly the need is out there in the community and we're not needing it entirely. 00:20:19.300 --> 00:20:25.458 - I mean, I think we do a pretty good job. I think this group has done a really good job. And Courtney, 00:20:25.458 --> 00:20:31.615 - I think you did a fantastic job chairing. Absolutely. Thank you. Your organization, you know, because 00:20:31.615 --> 00:20:38.014 - this is really kind of a tough group, you know, to kind of, you know, get through it, get through it all. 00:20:38.274 --> 00:20:46.021 - You know, I think at the council level, I think we ought to be at least thinking of Jack Hopkins raising 00:20:46.021 --> 00:20:53.472 - the amount every year. Looking at it almost like an employee salary. Because the inflation cost over 00:20:53.472 --> 00:21:00.850 - just over the last few years has cut what we're allotted, about 10%. It's being cut and eroded just 00:21:00.850 --> 00:21:06.014 - because of inflation. So we ought to at least keep up with inflation. 00:21:06.754 --> 00:21:14.168 - And therefore, look at it as like a COLA increase for the Jackery every year in the budget. I think 00:21:14.168 --> 00:21:21.581 - you consider that. So anyway, great discussion. Thanks, everybody. That's all I got. Thanks, David. 00:21:21.581 --> 00:21:29.069 - Thank you, Dan. I have one more provocation on this thread, which is, and this is, I think, building 00:21:29.069 --> 00:21:34.110 - off of something that Cam and I have said the last couple of years. 00:21:34.530 --> 00:21:40.996 - on this thought of like increasing the amount, seeing the needs, impact, et cetera, we've tried a little 00:21:40.996 --> 00:21:47.339 - bit to get people to coordinate. For example, when they do homelessness, we're like, are you doing the 00:21:47.339 --> 00:21:53.497 - heading home plan or like whatever, right? We have things of that nature that we've attempted that. 00:21:53.497 --> 00:21:59.963 - But what if you took an approach where you basically said, you know what? We are going to fund one thing 00:21:59.963 --> 00:22:01.502 - relevant to homelessness 00:22:01.634 --> 00:22:09.382 - And whether that's a collaborative thing or an individual thing, and it can be up to $100,000 or something 00:22:09.382 --> 00:22:17.058 - like that, where we actually push people to, because of the fact that we have a lot of overlapping needs, 00:22:17.058 --> 00:22:24.300 - I do find it interesting that, just to think of last year, because it's an offensive example, where 00:22:24.300 --> 00:22:28.862 - it's like you have two organizations that basically want to do 00:22:28.994 --> 00:22:35.747 - things with horses and recovery or something like that. And it's great. That's a fantastic approach. 00:22:35.747 --> 00:22:42.701 - Wonderful. But then we end up basically comparing the two of them and then evaluating those in relation 00:22:42.701 --> 00:22:49.054 - to each other when would it be better for us to say we're going to consider these in some type 00:22:49.054 --> 00:22:55.807 - of complementary way? Is there some way to sort of actually, and the comment that I'm provoking here 00:22:55.807 --> 00:22:57.278 - is we've talked about 00:22:57.442 --> 00:23:03.265 - I always find it really interesting how few collaborative applications we get. And I don't know, especially 00:23:03.265 --> 00:23:08.711 - because people couldn't do a collaborative and another. I mean, we had two this year. I was going to 00:23:08.711 --> 00:23:14.103 - say, this was our lowest year. Yes. And last year we had four. So we always get such a small amount 00:23:14.103 --> 00:23:17.662 - of collaborative applications. And so I don't know if that's a... 00:23:17.730 --> 00:23:23.277 - Outcome that we want to work towards trying to in again. I was being provocative I'm not necessarily 00:23:23.277 --> 00:23:28.933 - saying the way you do that is say we only gonna do one thing for homelessness So work together and ask 00:23:28.933 --> 00:23:34.700 - us something But maybe maybe there's something like that that we should be thinking about as a committee 00:23:34.700 --> 00:23:40.356 - Well, just kind of there are a couple threads there but one of them so silver linings and I'm on their 00:23:40.356 --> 00:23:43.102 - board they applied this year and I was like not I 00:23:43.682 --> 00:23:49.546 - in that process at all until I got a panic message from the ED at the last minute and was like, I got 00:23:49.546 --> 00:23:55.410 - into the system. But we had talked about a collaborative project with MCHA and Silver Linings and how 00:23:55.410 --> 00:24:01.217 - that would be more powerful than we're leveraging funds for a similar cause, blah, blah, blah. But a 00:24:01.217 --> 00:24:06.334 - lot of it was the timing of when I knew about Jack Hopkins, obviously, but so it doesn't 00:24:06.658 --> 00:24:13.699 - This example is kind of a poor one, but I almost wonder if the runway leading up to the application 00:24:13.699 --> 00:24:20.810 - period, if that was longer, it would provide, I think, more time for innovation and collaboration if 00:24:20.810 --> 00:24:23.838 - we were able to get that in front of them. 00:24:24.162 --> 00:24:30.889 - earlier? Because we could start as soon as we have the budget allocation. Like as soon as council votes 00:24:30.889 --> 00:24:37.874 - on the budget in September, right? I mean, is that right? When do we vote on budget? I think do we finalize 00:24:37.874 --> 00:24:44.342 - it in October? But we do the first vote. But basically we could have our first Jack Hopkins meeting 00:24:44.342 --> 00:24:51.198 - then, you know, like where you start organizing and, you know, starting to reach out to organizations and 00:24:51.810 --> 00:24:59.340 - telling people that it will be open at this time. There's a lot of things we could do early on. I will 00:24:59.340 --> 00:25:06.724 - say that collaborations should be happening before Jack Hopkins. Well, there's that too. I run a big 00:25:06.724 --> 00:25:14.181 - organization, right? So maybe my experience is different from others, but I'm reaching out, my team's 00:25:14.181 --> 00:25:19.006 - reaching out to individual organizations and saying, hey, there's 00:25:19.490 --> 00:25:26.328 - a property that we share or there's something that we can do and we wanna work together on something. 00:25:26.328 --> 00:25:33.099 - And then maybe Jack Hopkins comes around and we apply for something, right? So I think that, I don't 00:25:33.099 --> 00:25:40.406 - think Jack Hopkins should be the incentive to collaborate. I think maybe that's something that the nonprofit 00:25:40.406 --> 00:25:47.110 - network, I mean, there's a nonprofit alliance or something that carry brings people together. Maybe 00:25:47.110 --> 00:25:49.054 - we should be coming together 00:25:49.634 --> 00:25:55.773 - as organizations to speed date. I mean, yeah, that would be amazing. But the counter to that is that 00:25:55.773 --> 00:26:02.034 - using the example of homelessness, we know that a lot of these organizations are collaborating. So why 00:26:02.034 --> 00:26:08.356 - aren't they applying for knock it out at the park? Probably because they don't have the bandwidth. Like 00:26:08.356 --> 00:26:14.556 - I said, I run a big organization. But then they're all playing individually. It still takes more work 00:26:14.556 --> 00:26:18.750 - to collaborate. Collaborating and working on a project is difficult. 00:26:19.618 --> 00:26:25.047 - What we could do is, in the rubric, just flat out say, don't differentiate collaborative projects and 00:26:25.047 --> 00:26:30.530 - individual projects, and just give, get five more points for being a collaborative project. So you get 00:26:30.530 --> 00:26:35.906 - bumped to the top. That's what I was gonna say, do we want to prioritize? I mean, I think that would 00:26:35.906 --> 00:26:41.494 - be a way where people are like, hey, I'm gonna call, so what I'm just gonna call NCHA right on the phone 00:26:41.494 --> 00:26:46.870 - and say, let's just work on that. But then it does end up being the incentive. So to use that, like. 00:26:46.870 --> 00:26:48.414 - I'm fine with the incentive. 00:26:48.514 --> 00:26:54.105 - I just think that, but I just don't, I just think that if, like saying, hey, Jack Hopkins, we put the 00:26:54.105 --> 00:26:59.642 - money out there, why don't you collaborate? We'll see what happens. But if we flat out say, hey, you 00:26:59.642 --> 00:27:05.178 - get five points for a collaboration, like you don't even have to. Is there a moral hazard there that 00:27:05.178 --> 00:27:10.769 - I just think it's clever? I was gonna say that gets tricky, though, if it's not a great collaborative 00:27:10.769 --> 00:27:16.306 - project. Well, if it's not, well, yeah. Kind of like forcing themselves into it. Well, I mean, or if 00:27:16.306 --> 00:27:18.334 - it's just something that we're like, 00:27:18.882 --> 00:27:24.740 - this isn't the best use of our funds. Maybe five points isn't the right amount of point. But just like 00:27:24.740 --> 00:27:30.825 - weighting it. Yeah, the merit of the project still needs to. Well, there's another part of this phenomenon 00:27:30.825 --> 00:27:36.683 - though, which is that people are doing a collaborative project and they don't apply as a collaborative 00:27:36.683 --> 00:27:42.541 - project. So they'll in their description be like, oh, we're working with this group and this group and 00:27:42.541 --> 00:27:44.702 - this group. And that'll just be like, 00:27:45.058 --> 00:27:49.974 - But we're asking for the money. That's why I had originally built community partnerships into the first 00:27:49.974 --> 00:27:54.984 - draft of the rubric last year because we were seeing so much of that and it felt like worth acknowledging 00:27:54.984 --> 00:27:59.900 - like they don't have a formal collaboration, but they are collaborating. Maybe it's a headache. I mean, 00:27:59.900 --> 00:28:04.722 - it might be a headache for an organization to say, hey, we'll apply for the money and we'll work with 00:28:04.722 --> 00:28:07.038 - you versus like, hey, let's apply for the money. 00:28:07.362 --> 00:28:11.980 - split it up and say, hey, you know, your organization gets XML. I mean, we do a lot of that, and then 00:28:11.980 --> 00:28:16.552 - we end up subgranting. But like, also, I feel like something that wasn't like we took that community 00:28:16.552 --> 00:28:21.260 - partnerships question out of the rubric, but I still think it's important for this reason, too, because 00:28:21.260 --> 00:28:26.195 - I feel like even if it's not a formal collaborative project, if that's a question we add to the application, 00:28:26.195 --> 00:28:27.870 - then and they're talking about like, 00:28:27.970 --> 00:28:33.802 - exactly who they're working with on the specific thing they're asking for money for, then I feel like 00:28:33.802 --> 00:28:39.691 - they do get, they can get bonus points on a version of the rubric that includes that as something that 00:28:39.691 --> 00:28:45.580 - we care about. And it wouldn't be a bonus, it would just be like points that they get, you know? I do, 00:28:45.580 --> 00:28:51.526 - so my take on the rubric, you know, I had a lot of, last year when we did the rubric, I felt that there 00:28:51.526 --> 00:28:53.470 - was a few areas that were really, 00:28:53.890 --> 00:29:00.184 - subjective, where I was kind of interpreting them maybe different than Cam would, and Esau was interpreting 00:29:00.184 --> 00:29:06.012 - it differently. We all had our own different interpretations. And I think that was ultimately okay, 00:29:06.012 --> 00:29:12.132 - because it still helped us get to where we wanted to make our recommendations. But I still felt a little 00:29:12.132 --> 00:29:13.822 - uneasy about that last year. 00:29:14.402 --> 00:29:20.531 - We tightened it up this year. I think that really helped. I think we can go a little further with the 00:29:20.531 --> 00:29:26.600 - rubric, too. We neglected the scoring, tightened up our criteria, but then forgot about updating the 00:29:26.600 --> 00:29:32.668 - scoring. But yeah, I mean, every year, they all do come within a very small range within each other. 00:29:32.668 --> 00:29:38.797 - It does help to see my priorities then, to see how it all kind of comes together. But yeah, it should 00:29:38.797 --> 00:29:41.982 - lead us, I think, a little bit further than it does. 00:29:42.178 --> 00:29:48.081 - and really kind of set some of them further apart than they do. So I would love to relook at that rubric, 00:29:48.081 --> 00:29:53.705 - and then yeah, think about things like putting the collaborative elements on there. Well, and I nerd 00:29:53.705 --> 00:29:59.273 - out about this right now anyway, because I taught grant writing this past spring, and at the end, I 00:29:59.273 --> 00:30:05.176 - had them all write applications for social service organizations, and then they had to, they were divided 00:30:05.176 --> 00:30:11.134 - into four seven-pupil panels, and they had the same rubric that they worked from, and they all interpreted 00:30:11.650 --> 00:30:17.075 - those things differently, which was okay. Like it wasn't necessarily like no rubric is gonna be perfect, 00:30:17.075 --> 00:30:22.345 - but it wasn't necessarily like a flaw in the rubric. We developed it together as a class. It was like 00:30:22.345 --> 00:30:27.822 - more just like we're all gonna see things differently no matter what. No rubric is ever gonna be neutral. 00:30:27.822 --> 00:30:33.195 - Like I think anytime we're bringing it to the table for conversation that it is doing its job, I guess. 00:30:33.195 --> 00:30:38.568 - And like it's more just like I think maybe the eligibility cutoff of like we want this amount of impact 00:30:38.568 --> 00:30:39.550 - to be demonstrated 00:30:39.650 --> 00:30:46.828 - for them to be even considered, like that binary almost. I just think it's really hard, like a rubric 00:30:46.828 --> 00:30:54.217 - is just gonna look different and be interpreted differently always based on. Yeah, so that's why I don't 00:30:54.217 --> 00:31:01.536 - wanna like, I don't know, wring my hands over it too much, because like I said, it really did, I think, 00:31:01.536 --> 00:31:08.222 - help each of us at least kind of get that base priority to be like, okay, now I have a better, 00:31:08.770 --> 00:31:17.295 - organizing of the grants and now I can go through an order from like top to bottom or bottom to top 00:31:17.295 --> 00:31:26.076 - or whatever. Like I see, you know, they're lined up a little bit more. That's kind of how I feel about 00:31:26.076 --> 00:31:35.454 - it too. Any other areas that we haven't mentioned? This, I'm not even proposing this as much as just like one 00:31:36.002 --> 00:31:41.698 - offered up as a point of discussion. I've been in a couple other grant panel processes and something 00:31:41.698 --> 00:31:47.506 - that happened for those they had I mean there were more applications but it was like everyone like was 00:31:47.506 --> 00:31:53.146 - assigned like a chunk of the applications that they did a deep dive on versus being responsible for 00:31:53.146 --> 00:31:58.334 - deep diving on all of them and so like a subset of us would be responsible for doing like a 00:31:58.818 --> 00:32:04.238 - 17 and then there would be multiple that did the same 17 but then like another group would do another 00:32:04.238 --> 00:32:10.030 - 17 and then whenever the discussion period came it was like Like we all are familiar like you're responsible 00:32:10.030 --> 00:32:15.343 - for coming to the table familiar with the applications so that way like you can have the discussion 00:32:15.343 --> 00:32:17.150 - but some people in the group know 00:32:17.314 --> 00:32:22.683 - like these applications inside and out and can like contribute to the discussion. Some of those questions 00:32:22.683 --> 00:32:27.952 - that come up that maybe we feel like we have to call them in later. And it's like buried somewhere deep 00:32:27.952 --> 00:32:33.068 - in our application. I love that. So like maybe something to consider. You've become a subject expert 00:32:33.068 --> 00:32:38.285 - on a couple. Yeah. So you can really kind of present to. Because I feel like that's the part that gets 00:32:38.285 --> 00:32:43.756 - hard is there's so many, so much content to go through. Yeah. And so I just wonder if like that's something 00:32:43.756 --> 00:32:46.238 - that would be helpful. I like that idea. So one. 00:32:46.370 --> 00:32:54.335 - You know, there are several categories that seem to come up that we find in what is food insecurities, 00:32:54.335 --> 00:33:02.377 - a lot of housing instability stuff, which would include homelessness, children's stuff, right? Therapy, 00:33:02.377 --> 00:33:08.254 - CASA, Boys and Girls Club. You know, you mentioned arts, but we didn't have 00:33:08.354 --> 00:33:14.912 - I don't think we had anything with arts in there. Is Jack Hopkins arts? No, we don't fund arts. We don't 00:33:14.912 --> 00:33:21.344 - fund arts. But I feel like the conversation gets different whenever you're like, it's not a basic need 00:33:21.344 --> 00:33:27.714 - being that, you know. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So maybe we should think about saying, hey, you know, I agree 00:33:27.714 --> 00:33:34.272 - with Dave that, you know, if we can increase Jack Hopkins, that's great. But say we're playing $500,000, 00:33:34.272 --> 00:33:35.646 - then we can say that, 00:33:35.970 --> 00:33:43.755 - $100,000 goes to child welfare. $100,000 goes to food insecurities. And if one category doesn't have 00:33:43.755 --> 00:33:51.771 - as many applicants, then it gets split between the other categories. And then we fund accordingly. That 00:33:51.771 --> 00:33:59.555 - would play into, hey, we can have a few people deep dive on a subsection of applicants. But it makes 00:33:59.555 --> 00:34:03.486 - sense, right? All the housing insecurity folks can 00:34:04.354 --> 00:34:11.505 - take a deep dive on that, food insecurity, as opposed to like, hey, just take one through five, and 00:34:11.505 --> 00:34:18.798 - then I'll take the next five or whatever. Right, read them up by topic. Yeah. And you may be able, if 00:34:18.798 --> 00:34:26.163 - you do it that way, if people cycle off of here, you can bring in a food insecurity expert in on this, 00:34:26.163 --> 00:34:33.886 - so that way they can take the deep dive on that section. You can bring in someone who is a child therapist, 00:34:34.402 --> 00:34:42.763 - to go into, hey, why is having a court appointed special advocate important? This makes a lot of sense 00:34:42.763 --> 00:34:50.880 - in a lot of ways, right? Yeah. I don't know, though. I think it's hard to anticipate what the needs 00:34:50.880 --> 00:34:58.997 - are going to be. It seems like we hit a lot of these categories. Yes, but the distribution of them. 00:34:58.997 --> 00:35:04.030 - And so then it becomes arbitrary. You end up defaulting back. 00:35:04.514 --> 00:35:12.784 - A third of our thing is homelessness. We'll get that many requests. And so you can't say, well, five 00:35:12.784 --> 00:35:21.217 - requests is the minimum before it gets redistributed because you might have five people all asking for 00:35:21.217 --> 00:35:29.732 - $100,000. So it just puts us back in this essentially you're reducing the fund because people have less 00:35:29.732 --> 00:35:33.662 - of a space to move around in. I also feel like, 00:35:36.450 --> 00:35:42.162 - I also feel like based on how things are going economically, like to your point, I think we do know, 00:35:42.162 --> 00:35:47.932 - like for the most part, but I do think like the asks, even within the types of organizations that are 00:35:47.932 --> 00:35:53.814 - requesting funds, the asks are looking different, like thinking about like Susie's place and like these 00:35:53.814 --> 00:35:59.696 - places that lost funding, federal funding this past year, and like things that like we don't know until 00:35:59.696 --> 00:36:02.750 - they tell us, but that need, like those are big asks. 00:36:03.330 --> 00:36:09.975 - that they had that maybe, like, we wouldn't have the funds to fund if we were, like, breaking up our 00:36:09.975 --> 00:36:16.685 - fund into something smaller because we would be like, okay, we're used to only getting, like, $50,000 00:36:16.685 --> 00:36:23.330 - worth of asks for youth services organizations or something, but, like, Suzy's Place asks for, like, 00:36:23.330 --> 00:36:29.909 - whatever, $40,000 or whatever. Maybe we need to put a soft cap on what people can ask for again. We 00:36:29.909 --> 00:36:32.606 - have to talk about that, which is, like, 00:36:33.122 --> 00:36:41.642 - You sort of say this is the whole amount and then the expected amount of rewards because that gives 00:36:41.642 --> 00:36:50.844 - somebody a sort of idea of your average, what you expect to give out. That's something we could communicate 00:36:50.844 --> 00:36:59.790 - a little bit better. A lot of these organizations that ask for a big amount of money, the actual project 00:36:59.790 --> 00:37:02.942 - description was, they broke it down. 00:37:03.170 --> 00:37:09.989 - a lot of them did, but still there's a lot of vagueness in there. But I think it's been the other way 00:37:09.989 --> 00:37:16.808 - because I think our problem has actually been on the other side and this is what I'll call the tandem 00:37:16.808 --> 00:37:23.493 - problem, the same thing with New Hope for Families, where they'll apply for $5,000 and then tell us 00:37:23.493 --> 00:37:24.830 - that they have this 00:37:24.962 --> 00:37:31.565 - $50,000 deficit when they come to the presentation, we'll be like, why did you apply for more? And we 00:37:31.565 --> 00:37:38.167 - have to sort of tell them, no, we would have considered you for $50,000. And so I do think that some, 00:37:38.167 --> 00:37:44.770 - which isn't to say that we are saying we're going to give all of our awards this amount. Or it's just 00:37:44.770 --> 00:37:51.372 - a saying, in general, we expect to give 20 awards at $20,000. So it puts people in the right ballpark 00:37:51.372 --> 00:37:52.926 - or something like that. 00:37:53.090 --> 00:37:58.875 - Also, I just wonder like how because Jack Hopkins has been around so long and this of these organizations 00:37:58.875 --> 00:38:04.332 - have been applying for so long if in like certain years like it was like an all-or-nothing approach 00:38:04.332 --> 00:38:10.008 - to funding that then they were like oh shoot like I would rather apply for less and get less than apply 00:38:10.008 --> 00:38:15.629 - for more and not get anything kind of deal like if that's ever been like at the way that like the It's 00:38:15.629 --> 00:38:21.414 - hard when it changes every year. Yeah. Yeah, so it's like yeah, that's why I love the idea of us starting 00:38:21.414 --> 00:38:22.014 - to message 00:38:22.242 --> 00:38:28.692 - early so that before they do the application, they know really what expectations are for that year so 00:38:28.692 --> 00:38:35.269 - that they can look at that and start thinking about, okay, how are we going to then match? They've told 00:38:35.269 --> 00:38:42.162 - us what they're looking for. They told us what we need to do. I think if we do a better job at communicating 00:38:42.162 --> 00:38:46.526 - earlier, that gives them more time to kind of get their cards right. 00:38:46.786 --> 00:38:53.189 - And I think now that we know this online system works and is more accessible, this is something else 00:38:53.189 --> 00:38:59.908 - I noticed just from another state grant panel that I was on, is that in each question, they had it really 00:38:59.908 --> 00:39:06.437 - broken down really specifically what they were looking for. And so I think that could help us too with 00:39:06.437 --> 00:39:12.967 - that kind of a dilemma of bringing them in is giving them more definition of what we want their answer 00:39:12.967 --> 00:39:13.854 - to look like. 00:39:14.114 --> 00:39:21.395 - to like tailor it to the information we feel like we need. Because actually that is funny and I feel 00:39:21.395 --> 00:39:28.748 - like you might have said this earlier, but that is funny in the same way that we look at like lasting 00:39:28.748 --> 00:39:36.173 - impact or whatever, all of us think about it differently when they're answering that question, they're 00:39:36.173 --> 00:39:43.742 - thinking, they're all thinking about it differently too. Yeah, that's true. All right. We covered a lot. 00:39:46.050 --> 00:39:55.280 - Any last thoughts? Any other new can of worms we want to open up? Yeah, I've got a can. I knew someone 00:39:55.280 --> 00:40:04.330 - would. I want to talk about food for a minute, but growing food. We only had one applicant this time 00:40:04.330 --> 00:40:13.470 - that was proposing funding for food. And I thought it was a good applicant because they were not only 00:40:14.146 --> 00:40:21.201 - uh, producing food that they were teaching how to grow. Yeah. And I think that's a, that's a wonderful 00:40:21.201 --> 00:40:28.188 - thing. It's a great skill that people can learn, especially kids for self-reliance and you know, plus 00:40:28.188 --> 00:40:35.037 - they get nutrition. Um, anyway, I, you know, I'm surprised we only have one applicant. Um, maybe we 00:40:35.037 --> 00:40:42.366 - have more next year, but that's going to compete with other needs that are going to be probably continual. 00:40:43.522 --> 00:40:52.054 - Maybe greater, as was said with the federal government shedding it to locals, local government. And 00:40:52.054 --> 00:41:00.757 - maybe this is another argument for more funding. Yes. Because I think that it's, I'd like to see that 00:41:00.757 --> 00:41:09.460 - happen. I think that there are communities where, like in Detroit, where communities, they're growing 00:41:09.460 --> 00:41:11.678 - food in the neighborhood. 00:41:12.802 --> 00:41:20.508 - And they're helping to, there's so many benefits for it. I don't need to go into all the benefits from 00:41:20.508 --> 00:41:28.065 - that. But I'd like to see that happen here. And I think it could really take off. But then again, we 00:41:28.065 --> 00:41:35.846 - have a lot of other needs. And we were talking about different categories. But this is another category 00:41:35.846 --> 00:41:42.430 - that's sort of, maybe we haven't seen it very much in the past. But maybe it will grow. 00:41:43.778 --> 00:41:52.488 - Just that comment. I also just wanted to say, I learn so much from this group every time I participate. 00:41:52.488 --> 00:42:00.946 - And I just want to thank everybody for their collective knowledge adding to the group group. Because 00:42:00.946 --> 00:42:09.405 - I really learn a lot in the process. And I also wanted to thank Sophia for being there and her help. 00:42:09.405 --> 00:42:11.582 - Always. Definitely. Yeah. 00:42:12.418 --> 00:42:19.186 - Thank you, Dave. You brought up some good points. I mean, I agree. I think we're in a... I want more 00:42:19.186 --> 00:42:25.886 - money for this. Yeah, I think we're in a period right now where we know we're going to keep getting 00:42:25.886 --> 00:42:32.654 - more and more need, right? And it's the unexpected fluctuations are coming up probably more than any 00:42:32.654 --> 00:42:39.422 - other period like in the Jack Hopkins era, at least in the past many years. So I think we do need to 00:42:40.930 --> 00:42:46.417 - Look for more money and be more nimble, right? And recognize we're gonna have a lot more ask, I think, 00:42:46.417 --> 00:42:51.956 - and need. I wonder what studies about this exist, like projecting what this is gonna look like, because 00:42:51.956 --> 00:42:57.390 - I don't even think we've gotten to the point where we're truly seeing the impact of federal cuts yet. 00:42:57.390 --> 00:43:02.823 - And I feel like that is what we're gonna start seeing next year and like in the subsequent years. And 00:43:02.823 --> 00:43:08.203 - I wonder if there are like any, if anyone has done like projections on. I don't know, but with state 00:43:08.203 --> 00:43:09.854 - cuts too, on top of all of it. 00:43:10.050 --> 00:43:17.549 - with SB1, there's going to be just a lot of tightening of belts and a lot more pain, unfortunately. 00:43:17.549 --> 00:43:25.122 - I had one more application thing that I just wanted to put on the radar. This was like the e-verify. 00:43:25.122 --> 00:43:32.921 - I think there were a lot of groups that didn't end up getting the e-verify through, but since we didn't 00:43:32.921 --> 00:43:34.046 - have like CARI 00:43:34.178 --> 00:43:40.609 - looking at that stuff, it didn't end up mattering. I think that's really hard. From what I heard from 00:43:40.609 --> 00:43:47.039 - Rachel, the executive director of Silver Linings, who dropped out because she couldn't get e-verified 00:43:47.039 --> 00:43:53.785 - because it's an organization without a staff. It's super, that's a really, really hard, if there's another 00:43:53.785 --> 00:44:00.279 - way that we can go back to having them submit their IRS paperwork or something, I feel like that would 00:44:00.279 --> 00:44:04.062 - be way better than e-verify for the future. Yeah, that was, 00:44:04.482 --> 00:44:11.199 - A pain point, as some may say, for sure. I mean, I want to just give some thank yous for this whole, 00:44:11.199 --> 00:44:17.983 - this is my favorite committee, this is my favorite part of city council, hands down, like in general. 00:44:17.983 --> 00:44:24.700 - So I'm so grateful to be able to be part of it. Thank you all for your patience with me as I chaired 00:44:24.700 --> 00:44:31.550 - this time, because we had really bad timing with losing all of our staff. So I went into a huge panic. 00:44:31.746 --> 00:44:38.604 - I did not think we were going to pull this off. And because of Sophia's help and Larry's help and our 00:44:38.604 --> 00:44:45.664 - interns and our fellows and then you guys, everybody just carrying everything. I think everybody pitched 00:44:45.664 --> 00:44:52.455 - in remarkably. And I think I said this at the beginning, but I am very grateful and relieved that we 00:44:52.455 --> 00:44:59.582 - pulled it off. But thank you to everybody. And I'm about to adjourn unless anybody wants to say anything. 00:44:59.746 --> 00:45:04.355 - Just thank you again, Courtney, for being our fearless leader. I love working with you guys. This has 00:45:04.355 --> 00:45:08.286 - been such a great experience for the past few years. So, meeting adjourned. Thank you.