Title
A. City of Columbia Social Services Funding Allocation Process
Hollis asked what the commission liked about the funding process and if there are any suggested changes. The commission unanimously agreed that they enjoy the site visits. Ford said the site visits seemed to go even more smoothly this year with Hollis also attending each visit. Hollis reviewed the proposal rating system. No changes were suggested.
Hollis said the Apricot for Funders system is no longer being supported by the vendor, so the Boone impact Group partners are exploring other funding management software options. The partners plan to keep the proposal and report forms the same for this year while a new product is being selected. Hollis said he will keep the commission posted don’t he process and he is certain his replacement will involve the commission in the design of the new system and forms. The commission acknowledged the current system's limitations and hopes to have something less clunky.
Hollis said he was not recommending any changes the social services funding guidelines except removing the three-payment option, which was left in the guidelines while the FY2022 contracts were in effect. Hollis discussed the change in the payment process for social service contracts from three payments to monthly payments implemented with FY2023 contracts. Under the old the payment process, there were initial, interim, and final payments. With the conclusion of the FY2022 contracts, the old payment method will be phased out and fully replaced with the new monthly invoicing process.
Hollis explained the positives and negatives of both payment options. The positive with the old system was that agencies received funding on the front end as small organizations may struggle to handle governmental contracts without the initial payment. But, the payment up front was a risk for the City because issues with deliverables weren’t identified until the submission of interim reports. The monthly invoices allow issues be identified early and issuing monthly payments aligns the City with the other local funders as the County and United Way have always issued monthly payments. Hollis said the only downside to the monthly process is that it is more work for staff. Hollis said the monthly invoicing and payment process is going well with the FY2023 contracts, with no concerns expressed by providers. The FY2022 contracts, which included the prior three payment system, are being wrapped up as year end reports are reviewed.
Hollis said if the micro-contract approach is adopted he would recommend removing the three-payment option from the information about the standard social services contracts.
Hollis said he outlined the concept of micro contracts in his staff report. This would be similar to the Grass Roots funding process that the County is implementing. The goal of the micro contracts would be to make the City’ s social services funding more accessible to small nonprofits and to provide capacity building for the contracted entities so that they have the capacity to apply for the regular funding. Hollis said his initial thinking is that one-time micro contracts, up to $10,000, would be available to small organizations that have not received City social services or ARPA funding. Hollis said that if adopted, he recommends the micro contracts be paid in the three installments, like the previous social service contract payment system.
Hollis said he inquired about additional $50,000 in funding for the micro contracts, but was told that was very unlikely in the FY2025 City budget. So, Hollis said a certain amount of funding would need to be carved out of a RFP for the micro contracts. Hollis said he would recommend this be done with the Opportunity RFPs as there are fewer proposals and the funding available for basic needs services would not be reduced. Hollis said that there would need to be significant work done by staff to develop the process and the application and report forms. He said this is probably doable by this summer, but he was more concerned about staff capacity to provide ongoing capacity building for the contracted providers. Hollis said he likes the idea of the micro contracts, but he is concerned about the workload and he said the City does have a long history of contracting with very small providers. After discussion, there was consensus to not move forward with micro contracts.