The Social Services Grants Committee of the City of Topeka on a meeting date not specified voted to affirm the review board's scoring and funding recommendations, rejecting an appeal from CASA of Shawnee County over its application for city grant funds.

The committee's chair, Sherry, said the committee would move forward with the review board's recommendations after hearing CASA's presentation and questions from committee members. The committee approved the action by voice vote (2–0). The committee also approved minutes from its June 26 meeting earlier in the session (voice vote 2–0).

CASA of Shawnee County representatives told the committee they sought review of the committee's scoring because their application data and budget presentation were misunderstood by reviewers. “The capacity grant funds... were listed under United Way with the impression that the grant was under the umbrella of the United Way. It's clear that it is a City of Topeka grant. That was just a mistake,” said Mika Chuller, who introduced herself as the citizens review board coordinator with CASA of Shawnee County.

Brett, representing the committee/review staff, summarized the review committee's reasons for the score: some performance measures in CASA's application were seen as vague or not directly aligned with the proposed program; the budget presentation listed a grant source under United Way rather than City of Topeka, which made the program budget harder for reviewers to parse; and reviewers judged the program would be difficult to sustain without the city grant because the grant appeared to represent more than 80% of the program's budget as presented. Brett said reviewers also applied the rubric's requirement that applicants meet at least three of four leadership/evaluation criteria; CASA did not meet the community representation criteria on gender and race/ethnicity, and therefore received 0 out of 5 points in that category.

CASA staff said they learned of the grant late and had leadership turnover during the grant-writing period. “We were aware of the grant about two weeks before it was due,” said a CASA representative, who said she submitted the application the day she learned of it and watched earlier meetings online but did not attend in-person pre-submission review sessions.

Committee member Marcus raised a potential conflict and asked to continue the appeal until another individual, Neil Doba, could be present; Marcus said his wife is on the organization's board and that he would abstain from any vote. Chair Sherry declined to delay, noting the application portal was closed and that the committee has previously denied applications that did not use the pre-submission review process. Sherry said the committee will work with applicants next year to ensure they are aware of pre-submission review opportunities.

Committee staff said the approved review board recommendations will be forwarded to the governing body in August as part of the budget process; contracts will be prepared this fall for execution on Jan. 1, and the committee plans a debrief in September with the scheduling contact Tanya.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded a voice vote (2–0) approving the review board's scoring and funding recommendations and a voice vote (2–0) approving the June 26 meeting minutes. No amendments or alternative funding decisions were adopted at the meeting.

The committee discussion stressed that the RFP/application process includes a pre-submission review window (noted in the RFP) intended to catch budgeting and alignment issues before scoring; applicants who do not use that process risk lower scores when reviewers interpret budgets or performance measures as unclear. The committee did not change award amounts at the meeting and sent the recommendations forward for final action by the governing body.