The City of Murfreesboro Grants Committee reviewed final reports from last year’s grantees and identified reporting gaps and geographic ambiguities that prompted the committee to ask staff to follow up with certain organizations.
The committee’s review singled out a few large recipients whose reports did not clearly show how funds were spent within Murfreesboro city limits. Committee members asked staff to request clarification from those grantees and to communicate that insufficient reporting may affect future funding decisions.
Why it matters: The grants program pays out taxpayer-funded awards that the committee expects to be used for projects benefiting the city. When large, multi-branch nonprofits submit summary reports that do not specify how city funds were spent locally, the committee said it cannot evaluate whether the awards met the terms of grant applications or the committee’s expectations.
Committee members described examples from the final reports they found informative and others they found unclear. The committee said the CASA final report provided a clear impact summary and was a good model for recipients. By contrast, the committee said the American Red Cross and Second Harvest reports did not clearly identify how and where city funds were spent in Murfreesboro. The committee also noted that some recipients grouped multiple activities without showing how award dollars were allocated across those activities.
The committee discussed two separate concerns: whether funds were spent outside Murfreesboro city limits and whether final reports were too vague to confirm that the award supported the activities described in the application. Members asked staff to contact organizations they expect might reapply and request additional substantiation where needed.
The committee agreed that staff should: follow up with specific organizations to request clearer accounting tied to Murfreesboro activities; send a general reminder to all past and future applicants that grant funds are intended for use inside city limits; and make clear that future awards may be affected by poor reporting. Committee members emphasized they were not seeking to recover funds from closed grants but want better documentation going forward.
Less-critical details: Committee members also discussed smaller instances where final reports were incomplete or appeared to have been drafted by lower-level staff or interns. Members said such shortcomings should be corrected in future reports and that applicants should be given explicit guidance on the level of detail expected.
Ending note: Staff agreed to contact the organizations the committee identified, summarize responses for the committee, and consider adding clarifying language to future application and reporting materials.