Ugly Picture for Funding for Local Non-Profits

1. Brenda,

   This list is a bit deceiving. For some of these programs, the amount listed is in addition to money already allocated in the “A-List” portion of our allocations. For others, it is the only money being considered for the program. This list is only a small fraction of the programs and funds that have been under consideration throughout this process.

   I did not hear the Mayor’s comments about being “held harmless,” but I would venture to say that perhaps he was referring to community services funding as a whole and not individual agencies or programs.

   The Community Services Committee completed a revamping of priorities this year that opened the door to many new program proposals, some from agencies already receiving city funding and others from agencies not receiving funding in the past. The CSC also revamped the process by which we allocate the funds. I know you were at some of these meetings at which we clearly stated that this could mean significant changes for some programs previously funded.

   As you know, funding is limited, and we receive far more requests than we can fund. We are charged with considering the needs and priorities for community services throughout the city and making funding decisions accordingly. An RFP process is used for agencies to apply for funds. While the process of rating and ranking and making funding decisions is a complicated one, I don’t think anyone has been kept in the dark about the fact that funding for individual programs or agencies may be different than in the past.

   While we received numerous applications for quality programming, we don’t have the money to fund them all. We established a process by which we will best meet the needs of the city in the area of community service programming. And to best meet these needs, we needed the ability to add new programs which naturally means some existing programs will not be funded or will be funded at a lower level than in the past. I firmly believe that this is a much better process than automatically funding programs that may no longer be the highest priority simply because we have always funded them before.

   If you are looking for more information about the process or what has and has not been decided to date, feel free to let me know. I will be in my office most of the afternoon and would be happy to let you peruse the information.

   For what it is worth, I empathize with the organizations that feel their funding is being cut, but I stand firmly behind the process we are using to determine how to best meet our community service programming needs.

   -Lisa

   PS – I speak only for myself and not for the Community Services Committee as a whole or for any other members of the committee.

2. Yup and Yup.

   Any idea how I can get a list of agencies, what they had funded last year and what they are getting this year. The list had TRC listed wrong. But its the only information I have. I asked staff for it MULTIPLE TIMES! and I’m losing my freaking patience. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to come to your office to look at it, it should be available on line, somewhere. Here’s where I got my information from, but I agree, its problematic. http://legistar.cityofmadison.com/attachments/368f0a14-d276-4201-8c9c-67d2cafba8c8.pdf It’s just the best info I could get . . . as I said.

   Also, I’m quite certain the mayor was talking about agencies as a whole and has not clue about all the changes going on. Even tho we have tried to tell him.

   I realize you got double or more requests compared to the money you received. I just wish I could get decent lists and information to try to get out good information.

   As far as your process goes, I think there are serious questions about your rankings and then not following them. Example: TRC is ranked 3rd, why aren’t we fully funded? Why are we on the B list to get the rest of our funding when others ranked lower than us got their full funding right away. Either you follow your process or you don’t. The process is more confusing than ever this year and it still seems like random funding making decisions are going on.

3. One correction: Animal Crackers did not receive any funding through the City’s Community Development Funding Process last year. The $15,000 is new.

4. Brenda,

   I don’t know where you can get a list of funded so-far programs other than from city staff. For some program areas, I have notes, but you would have to be able to read my chicken scratch, and I can’t promise 100% accuracy.

   Regarding 2010 funding levels and requests, it is all available at http://www.cityofmadison.com/cdbg/cddAppCmte.htm. You mention that TRC’s 2010 level was inaccurate so I can’t speak to the accuracy of these documents. However, I believe them to be accurate.

   Regarding the rankings, it was stated clearly at a meeting where we established the ranking/rating system that it would be just one part of the decision making process. The rankings play a role, but we also have to look at meeting needs across the city, across the program area, at various priority levels, etc. That doesn’t get captured in the rankings. For example, if all middle school programs scored higher than any high school programs, do we fund only middle school programs? Or do we figure out how to allocate funds to high ranking middle school programs that serve youth across the city while still utilizing some funds for high school programming?

   And the rankings don’t address the dollars requested in any way. For example, a neighborhood center’s case management program could rank number 1 in Access to Resources. If it requested more than half of the funding available for that entire program area, should we just give it to them because they ranked number 1? Or should we look at how to fund that program at part of its request and spread the resources throughout the city rather than in just one neighborhood?

   While it would have been great if it could have been as simple as ranking the programs then assigning the dollars by rank, it would be a disservice to the community to do so. The reality is that in rating/ranking these programs, we were in some cases comparing apples to oranges, which cannot be done on such a simplistic level.

   I’ll let you know if I locate an electronic version of what has been allocated so far.

   -Lisa

5. Thanks for catching the mistake Joanne!

   And Lisa, all the info doesn’t include the recommendations.

   And, on the decision making process. I guess I understood it wouldn’t be done strictly on scoring, but . . . it does seem like the decisions were totally ad hoc, nothing to do with priorities, but rather how someone on the committee felt about something or other . . . not the needs in the community or how much money was being spent on various things. And, it seemed that as you started off in our category, you didn’t consider additional funding until you did for one, then you did for others, and then you went back to the top of the list as an after thought . . . and only cuz one member noticed and stopped the committee from pushing forward.

6. I was glad to see parents and kids from the Boys and Girls Club come to the hearing last night to stand up for their funding. They had at least 100 people their last night and I was impressed by their delegation.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.