Slingshot Memphis proposes data-driven overhaul of Shelby County's Milton Community Enhancement Grants

Slingshot Memphis presented a plan to Shelby County's Milton Community Enhancement Grant subcommittee to redesign how county discretionary grants are awarded and evaluated, saying clearer goals and stronger measurement would increase the program's impact.

The presentation, delivered by Jared Barnett, president and CEO of Slingshot Memphis, John Donovan, senior vice president, and Lara Bullock, activation manager, recommended four front-end changes — define program objectives, analyze the existing grant portfolio, refine the application, and document the process — plus ongoing measurement to track impact year to year.

"We were created here in Memphis. We're a local homegrown organization to help our community understand what's effective at fighting poverty," Barnett said, describing Slingshot's work evaluating local nonprofits and publishing impact results.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they want more transparency and clearer evidence that grant dollars produce measurable results. Slingshot told the panel it could help the county identify which sectors and geographies receive funding, set a baseline of who currently receives support, and design reporting that produces useful, not burdensome, data for review.

Slingshot described three core services: program evaluation for nonprofits (including an "impact study" methodology), advising funders on effective funding choices, and strategic consulting to help organizations adopt evidence-based practices. Barnett said Slingshot works with more than 50 local nonprofits, covers roughly 90% of county districts through its partners, and since 2017 has raised nearly $8,000,000 to allocate via its Accelerated Impact Fund, which it said produced an estimated $16,000,000 in poverty-fighting benefits.

The organization's recommendations for grantmaking infrastructure were offered as largely one-time changes to reduce ongoing maintenance: set a clear "North Star" objective for the program; map current grantees and service areas; tighten and clarify application questions (including conflict-of-interest filters and eligibility statements); install focused reporting mechanisms; and publish the process for transparency and continuity.

On measuring impact, Slingshot proposed portfolio analysis (by geography and sector), return-on-investment and benefits-cost analyses for funded organizations in its portfolio, and an adaptable evaluation approach for organizations outside its current network.

Commissioners asked detailed questions and raised concerns. Commissioner Thornton criticized the potential for centralized evaluation to favor larger or better-resourced nonprofits over neighborhood-based groups. "I take a lot of issue in us cherry picking people for their social connections without building capacity for them to have their own infrastructure," Thornton said, arguing the county should pair evaluation with capacity-building so smaller neighborhood organizations are not penalized for lacking infrastructure.

Commissioner Wright asked about requiring receipts and invoices for compliance and noted that the subcommittee had discussed making receipts mandatory. "Could we make the the receipts and the invoices make that a mandatory piece?" he asked. Slingshot's John Donovan responded that the group wants to avoid a reporting regime that is overly burdensome to small nonprofits and said receipts can be manipulated and may not capture program outcomes; instead he recommended aligning on what funds are intended to accomplish and measuring outcomes against those aims. The chair said she had since spoken with grant coordinator Tanya Blunt, who indicated that many recipients already provide receipts.

Other points from the meeting: Slingshot said it can work either as a one-time consultant to redesign the application and reporting or as an ongoing evaluator; it suggested starting with a pilot to learn at smaller scale and expand if useful. Commissioners also asked for data sliced by district or ZIP code so the county can see which neighborhoods are served and to identify service gaps. Several commissioners expressed concern that Milton grants (often modest awards discussed in the meeting) represent a small share of need and that the county should consider Milton grants in the context of other funding streams and county initiatives.

No formal votes or motions were taken. Staff agreed to circulate an email to commissioners listing the four categories discussed (application process, compliance, implementation, evaluation) and to collect suggested changes ahead of a follow-up subcommittee meeting planned in roughly two weeks. Presenters were encouraged to return with a written scope outlining one-time and ongoing options and estimated costs.