CDAC Subcommittee Grant Process

10/9/2020
1
Grant Allocation Process 
Subcommittee Update
October 15, 2020 Community Development Advisory Committee Meeting
Background
2
• May 26th – Government Services Committee 
requested grant allocation process improvements
• August 1st – CDAC retreat discussion
• August 20th – CDAC adopted goal 
– Improve the grant solicitation, review, and award process 
to ensure strategic alignment with City Council
• Impacts all Community Planning & Development 
funding sources (see reference material)
1
2

10/9/2020
2
3
Existing Grant Allocation Process
Process Challenges
4
• 20 distinct subprocesses
• 14-month full cycle timeline
• Overlapping cycles for annual plans
• Firm regulatory and contractual deadlines
• Regulations vary by funding source
• Typically generates 40+ applications
• No screening process to identify top applicants
• All applicants are required to present to CDAC
3
4

10/9/2020
3
Allocation Challenges
5
• Open call process, but limited funding
• Outcomes determined by subrecipients, not the City
• Frustrating for applicants that do not get funded
• Attempts to fund all requests result in “peanut 
butter effect” 
• Hinders agile response to current conditions
• Lack of service integration impedes effectiveness
• One-year outlook for long-term issues/needs
• Subrecipients lack opportunity to leverage award to 
secure additional funding resources
6
5
6

10/9/2020
4
1. Request for Proposal/Qualifications
7
• Align with existing city procurement processes
• Develop specific scope for services needed
• Utilize results-driven contracting strategies 
focused on expected outcomes
• Establish clearer expectations
• Specifically target Council priorities
• Prioritizes current community needs
2. Multi-year Subrecipient Contracts
8
• Improved contract management
• Ability to manage/track performance over time
• Reduces complexity of administration
• Additional time to explore other initiatives
• Subrecipients can use grant award as catalyst 
for additional resources/investment strategies
• Creates stronger community partnerships
• Increased vested interest in community success
7
8

10/9/2020
5
3. Master Services Agreement
9
• For strategic, long-term programs and services
• Layer multiple funding sources in one agreement
• Secure multiple services in one agreement
• Create strategic community partnerships to 
advance performance outcomes
• Address a spectrum of needs under one 
umbrella
10
Homeless Services
Master Agreement
Homeless Services
Master Agreement
CDBG
CDBG
HOME
HOME
ESG
ESG
Street Outreach
Housing Navigation
Rapid Rehousing
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Shelter Services
Case Management
Education/Workforce
Financial Literacy
9
10

10/9/2020
6
4. Citywide Physical Improvements
11
• One allocation
• City-delivered infrastructure/physical improvement 
projects
• Eliminates individual department requests
• Develop prioritization matrix similar to Capital 
Improvement Projects
• Ensures alignment with Council priorities
• Shovel-ready smaller projects
– Ex:  Lighting, sidewalks, accessibility etc.
5. City-delivered Programs/Services
12
• Invest in existing city programs
• Leverage investment with other funds or 
partnerships
• Examples:
– Rent assistance investment paired with Community 
Services Block Grants (CAP)
– Rapid rehousing paired with Foster Youth to 
Independence Vouchers (Housing)
– Home repair, demolition, etc.
11
12

10/9/2020
7
6. Public Services
13
• Open application process exclusively for public 
services
• Target services for vulnerable populations:
– Seniors
– Youth
– Disabled
– Victims of Domestic Violence
• Future discussion on screening and presentation 
process
CDAC Engagement Reimagined
14
• Review and recommend grant awards for public 
services
• Subcommittee/s may assist with the 
development of RFP scope or selection panel
• Provide feedback on physical improvement 
program
• Make investment recommendations based on 
Council priorities
13
14