Fairfax staff recommend changes to Consolidated Community Funding Pool; advisory suggests caps and third‑party administration

Fairfax County officials on Tuesday presented recommended changes to the Consolidated Community Funding Pool (CCFP), the county’s competitive grant process for nonprofit human‑service providers. Presenters urged separating emergency food and emergency housing awards from the CCFP, capping the total amount any single organization can receive in a funding cycle, and exploring use of an experienced third party to administer aspects of the grant process.

Neighborhood and Community Services Director Lloyd Tucker and Cross‑Systems Prevention Manager Marla Zemecky summarized the staff and consultant review of the CCFP process. Patricia (Pat) Matthews of PNM Consulting, who led the external review, told the committee her two highest‑priority recommendations were limiting the total award an organization can receive in a single cycle and “exploring the possibility of using a seasoned third‑party vendor to do this work.” Matthews said the goal of a cap would be to stretch limited dollars to more nonprofit organizations in the county and reduce concentration of awards.

Zemecky and staff recommended removing RFP2 — the county’s emergency food and emergency housing solicitation — from the CCFP and moving those services to a traditional procurement process. Staff said the CCFP would then focus on RFP1 categories such as self‑sufficiency, non‑emergency food and nutrition, non‑emergency housing, positive behavior and healthy relationships, literacy, and financial stability.

Presenters provided a fiscal snapshot to show scale. County staff said that in FY2024 the county contracted roughly $114 million with nonprofit organizations and allocated about $14.4 million through the CCFP; staff also noted other in‑kind and categorical funding streams outside the CCFP process. During questions, Deputy County Executive Chris Leonard said the historical split between emergency and non‑emergency pools (the reason for RFP2) accounted for approximately a $9M/$5M division of the $14.4M cycle in prior rounds, a figure staff said would be refined with historical accounting.

Matthews proposed that an experienced third party — she cited the Community Foundation of Northern Virginia as an example of the type of experienced entity — could help create a donor‑advised fund or similar vehicle that would coordinate community review and reduce the county staff burden, while remaining subject to county accounting and oversight standards. She also urged simpler RFP language and more robust training for resident scoring panels (SAC) and technical advisory committees (TAC), and recommended using census tracts rather than ZIP codes to target need.

Staff said several process improvements are already underway: better data tools for SAC/TAC reviewers, simplified RFP language, revised submission timelines, additional SAC/TAC training and embedding TAC subject‑matter reviewers in SAC deliberations as non‑scoring advisors. Staff also proposed limiting the total award an organization can receive during a cycle — details on mechanism and thresholds (for example a percentage of an organization’s operating budget or a fixed maximum) will be analyzed further before being brought back to the board.

Supervisors asked for more detail on the cap recommendation and on the third‑party option. Several raised concerns about unintended consequences: whether a cap would penalize large providers that serve many clients, whether organizations might reorganize to avoid a cap, and how the county would preserve service continuity for populations that rely on larger providers. Leonard and staff said they will perform deeper analysis on cap mechanisms, equity impacts, and vendor options and return to the board with a more detailed design.

Committee members and presenters also emphasized continued engagement with nonprofit partners and community stakeholders as any changes are developed. Staff said the next CCFP RFP cycle would begin in the fall and that any structural changes would be implemented for the next cycle after additional board guidance and technical work.

The committee did not take any formal vote during the update; staff will return with follow‑up analyses and recommendations for board consideration.