Buncombe County advisory committee moves to tighten grant scoring, collect clearer client data

The Buncombe County Home and Community Care Block Grant advisory committee on Aug. 27 spent most of its meeting revising how it evaluates applicants and what data it will ask providers to supply for county-funded grants.

Committee members said they want a clearer statement of mission, a simpler scoring sheet tied to those values, and a compact set of client-level statistics that county commissioners can use when deciding allocations. Members discussed using ZIP-code reports, counts of unduplicated clients, waiting-list figures, basic demographic markers (age ranges, living alone, caregiver status) and whether programs reduce risk or keep older adults safely at home.

The discussion came as staff reported operational details from funded providers: most county contracts were fully executed except for one provider, Maybank, whose contract remained in the county legal office and has delayed invoice submission; Daystate’s contract had been fully executed but staff were still awaiting its invoice; Center for Conscious Living and Dying planned to submit July and August invoices; Mountain Aging Partners reported no July expenditures; Unite’s contract schedules a start in October. Committee members said those timing details matter because returning unspent funds to the county last year complicated requests for additional money.

Members broadly agreed the scoring tool should emphasize program impact and safety-focused outcomes rather than grant-writing quality. Several members recommended retaining project-plan and budget review elements, counting unduplicated clients served, and adding a simple waiting-list question (for example, how many people requested services and how many were served). The committee discussed the trade-off of asking for richer data against the capacity limits of smaller providers that may lack databases.

Staff told the committee that federal Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) rules do not require means testing; programs must allow self-identification of income but not require income-based eligibility. Committee members discussed how that federal guideline limits what the advisory group can mandate, while still allowing the committee to prioritize applicants that serve underserved or high-need areas.

Members also discussed data tools: the county’s geographic information system (GIS) and the ARMS client database contain ZIP-code and basic demographic information that could be used to map service gaps. The county staff offered to share the state HCCBG statement of philosophy and purpose and committee members agreed to draft values and proposed scoring changes for compilation by staff. The committee set an informal deadline of Sept. 19 for members to submit proposed values and scoring revisions for staff to compile ahead of the next meeting on Sept. 24.

What the committee did not do: no formal change to the application or scoring tool was adopted at this meeting. Members agreed to return with proposed language and to use that material at the September meeting to redesign scoring criteria and application questions.

Clarifying details reported at the meeting included approximately six providers with invoices in process, a three-week delay on the Maybank contract due to legal review, an expectation that beginning-of-year service units should be roughly 8% (members noted zeroes often reflect delayed reporting rather than lack of activity), and that the fiscal-year 2025 provider reports are about 96% complete with a few providers still outstanding.