Indianapolis Foundation proposes two‑year Elevation Grant cycle, cites declines in shootings; council presses for past‑performance data

The Indianapolis Foundation and the city’s Office of Public Health and Safety presented proposed changes to the Elevation Grant Program and preliminary program outcomes at the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee meeting. Presenters said the program will shift from one‑year grants to two‑year awards that combine 2025 and 2026 funds, prioritize capacity building for grassroots organizations and set aside at least $1,000,000 for programs serving youth and young adults.

Josette Robinson of the Indianapolis Foundation told the committee the change to a two‑year grant cycle is intended to “ensure that grantees have enough time to implement their programs and that they can demonstrate efficacy.” She said the foundation will provide technical assistance and evaluators to help grantees define and track outcomes before funds are disbursed.

The presentation said the Elevation Grant Program has awarded about $40,400,000 over six rounds and supported 46 grantees. Presenters reported that 77% of funds went to grassroots organizations with annual operating budgets of $750,000 or less; round 3 — dedicated to the “thriving neighborhoods” priority — awarded $800,000 across six organizations. Robinson and Rachel McIntosh cited reported outcome figures from grantees, including that among adults tracked for arrest and recidivism 73.6% of 13,634 participants had no arrests during the grant period and that youth program evaluations showed skills gains for roughly 81.5% of 14,470 participants they tracked. The presenters also pointed to countywide trends they described as coincident with the program: from July 2022 through June 2025 reported murders declined about 55% and nonfatal shootings about 44% (presenters noted these are correlational figures and said “correlation does not equal causation”).

The program’s scope of work and timeline were summarized in four phases: (1) preparation and application, including technical assistance contracts and information sessions (an information session was scheduled at Martin University the next day at 10 a.m. with an evening option at 6 p.m.); (2) review and selection, including interviews and site visits; (3) capacity building and onboarding; and (4) implementation with monitoring and reporting. The foundation said it will not accept fiscal sponsorships for the new cycle, citing prior difficulties, and that Indianapolis Foundation administrative fees would be 15% in the proposed budget.

Council members repeatedly pressed presenters for past‑performance data from rounds funded with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars. Councilor Dan Boots and others asked when the third‑party evaluation of ARPA‑funded rounds would be provided to council staff. Presenters said evaluations for rounds 1–4 have been completed and submitted to OPHS and that round 5 reporting is in progress; OPHS staff said the city contracted an external evaluator (CRISP at Indiana University) to complete the ARPA evaluations and that those reports are forthcoming. OPHS staff also said city staff will sit on the selection committee for the upcoming round and that a designated OPHS staff member (listed in the presentation materials as the city’s chief violence prevention officer) will oversee the program going forward.

Several councilors asked for more granular, organization‑level performance data before additional city dollars are committed. Councilor Michael Paul Hart and others stressed that with roughly $40.4 million already distributed, the council needs clear evidence on which programs produced measurable impact before continuing city funding. Presenters said they will share historic program reports and that the upcoming two‑year cycle will require grantees to work with evaluators from the outset and to develop metrics and data systems during an orientation and preparation phase.

The committee heard a brief statement from Ahmed Young, newly installed president and CEO of the Indianapolis Foundation, who acknowledged a recent issue involving fiscal sponsorship at one grantee and said the foundation was working to “make those two entities whole” and to address short‑ and long‑term fixes.

What’s next: the foundation plans to launch the request for proposals and application process, finalize technical assistance and evaluation partners, and select grantees under the two‑year model. Council staff and OPHS will have seats on the review committee and will be able to participate in site visits. Committee members asked staff to provide the completed third‑party evaluations for rounds 1–4 and to share organization‑level performance data when available.