The Evanston Social Services Committee approved application questions and an evaluation rubric to score requests for case-management and safety-net grants and voted to open the application in July, cancelling the committee's July meeting in favor of an Aug. 14 session.

Staff told the committee it had added a scored component to the application evaluations and recommended a 10/5/0 point spread for three-tiered criteria: fully met (10 points), partially met (5 points), and not sufficiently met (0 points). Staff said the total possible score would be 170 points for case-management applications and 160 points for safety-net applications; the safety-net form includes a non-scored service-category classification.

Why it matters: The committee's scoring rubric and application questions will guide how the city evaluates and ranks agency requests for social-services funding. Committee members said clearer scoring and requested quantifiable outcomes should make comparisons between proposals more consistent.

Staff presentation and committee discussion

An unnamed staff member presented the revised documents, saying, "staff suggests that of the 3 options, that we weight them the highest 1 for 10 points, the second for 5 and the third option which I will review momentarily for 0 points." The staff member said an administrative-review section will be a pass/fail check ("meets" or "does not meet") to identify applicants that cannot manage reporting or are ineligible; ineligible applicants will still be presented to the committee with staff's explanation.

The committee discussed the safety-net form's service categories, which staff listed as: basic needs, direct poverty reduction, crisis prevention/interruption, long-range poverty prevention, and enrichment/engagement. Members debated whether to combine long-range poverty prevention and enrichment; several members said they preferred keeping four or five categories for now and using an applicant-selected category question to reduce ambiguity.

Committee members pressed for more quantifiable outcomes. One committee member said the added questions should "encourage applicants to quantify their responses" and noted that follow-up interviews with agencies will give the panel a chance to dig deeper into staffing, language access, and long-term impact.

How the committee voted and next steps

The committee voted in two separate voice votes. Paul Streit moved to approve the application questions and Alderman Harris seconded; the chair announced, "The ayes have it," and the application questions were approved to allow staff to open the application in July. A subsequent motion to approve the evaluation sheets for safety-net and case-management applications was seconded by Alderman Harris; the chair announced the motion passed by voice vote.

The committee also voted to cancel the scheduled July meeting and hold a meeting on Aug. 14. Staff told the committee the August meeting will include an ESG review, updates on a mental-health provider program, and possibly an overview of incoming applications and total requested amounts.

Public comment and community notes

A public commenter, Laurie Martin, suggested the rubric could be used to differentiate renewal or bonus funding by awarding higher-scoring applicants larger increments. Another resident urged committee members to consider the impact of growing fear in immigrant communities, saying that fear was already reducing service take-up and could affect agency caseloads and outcomes.

Ending

Staff will open the application in July, collect agency submissions, and present agency materials and any requested clarifications at future meetings; the committee said it will revisit weighting or other refinements after reviewing scored applications and hearing agency presentations.