Sarasota commissioners back removing financial scoring, move toward multi‑year human‑services contracts

Sarasota County commissioners signaled broad support May 23 to remove the financial scoring component from the county's contracted human‑services application and to pursue longer contract terms for funded providers.

Chuck Henry, director of health and human services, told the Board of County Commissioners the staff recommendation is to "retain the application and application rating criteria, but without the financial scoring," and to provide program budgets and audited financial statements to advisory councils as supplemental information.

The recommendation comes after applicants and advisory council members raised concerns about the way financial information was weighted and scored. "There was a lack of consistency and objectivity," said Jennifer Fagenbaum of Family Promise, who testified that scoring without explanatory comments left applicants uncertain how to improve. Peter Casamento, another public commenter, argued the process "puts the larger agencies ahead" and warned smaller organizations are disadvantaged when strict financial metrics carry significant weight.

The county spends roughly $25 million annually on contracted human services, Henry told the board: about $15.8 million comes from the general fund and millage set‑asides, roughly $7 million from opioid settlement funds, and about $2 million from other sources such as court fees and interest. Henry also described a 0.1‑mill shift that supplies about $9.5 million for behavioral health programs and an additional 0.0661 mill (about $6.3 million) for non‑behavioral human‑services programs.

Commissioners generally supported eliminating the standalone financial score and instead requiring program budgets and the most recent audited financial information for council review. "If they're passing their audits and they are providing that information, honestly, for me, that checks the box," Commissioner Mast said. Several commissioners favored a three‑year contract term for proven programs, with annual reporting on outcomes and corrective‑action authority if deliverables are not met. New programs would be eligible for shorter or probationary terms, commissioners said.

Advisory council leaders told the board they prefer the simplified approach. "There are agencies that provide services that are not provided anywhere else in the community," Chris Johnson said, urging a path to protect unique providers from being disadvantaged in a competitive scoring system. Major Brian Meinberg, the sheriff's representative on advisory committees, also supported dropping the financial score, saying it had skewed outcomes in prior cycles.

Commissioners discussed whether surplus funds in the behavioral health allocation could be shifted to unmet human‑services needs. County staff and counsel said the dollars are general‑fund discretionary money allocated by the board and can be reallocated by budget amendment for a lawful public purpose; the board expressed interest in using surplus dollars to expand proven jail‑diversion programs and to consider a female Restore cohort to address gaps in services for women.

Staff told the board the FY26 cycle has already been scored and will come to the board with funding recommendations in early July. The changes discussed on May 23 would be applied to the FY27 application cycle; Henry said staff would work with advisory councils over the summer and return in the fall with a revised application packet, scoring sheets and recommendations.

What happens next: staff will draft specific changes to the application materials and scoring approach for the board's review this fall; FY26 funding recommendations will be presented in July. The board asked staff to emphasize priorities such as services for children, older adults (referred to in discussion as "seasoned residents"), and homeless populations when finalizing priorities and definitions.

The workshop concluded with public commenters urging the board to consider this year's scoring impacts on individual applicants and staff reiterating that the FY27 changes are intended to address those concerns going forward.