Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakewood advisory board reviews 29 social-service grant applications and schedules applicant interviews
Summary
Lakewood’s Community Services Advisory Board reviewed 29 applications that together request far more than the $475,000 available, debated scoring method and duplicate applications, and agreed to schedule applicant interviews and a follow-up meeting to finalize recommendations to council.
The Lakewood Community Services Advisory Board on Monday reviewed 29 grant applications seeking support from the city’s discretionary human-services fund and set a timetable for applicant interviews and final recommendations to the city council.
Human Services Coordinator Shannon Bennett told the board members that applicants collectively asked for roughly $850,000. "If I were to back that, each of those apps down to a maximum of 25,000, it still puts us at $694,750 that the agencies who applied are asking for, and we have about $475,000 to spend," Bennett said.
The shortfall framed much of the evening’s discussion. Members debated whether to treat multiple submissions from the same organization as separate projects or to combine them for equity and efficiency. One committee member said an organization that submitted four applications "is taking advantage of the system," arguing that multiple high-scoring applications could crowd out smaller providers; other members cautioned that programs can be distinct and merit individual review.
The board also flagged missing or duplicate application files — notably materials that appeared to duplicate entries from Tacoma Pro Bono and Tacoma Rescue Mission — and asked members to e-mail coordinator Shannon Bennett with any applications they did not receive. Bennett said she would resend missing materials and produce a compiled spreadsheet showing each reviewer’s raw scores plus the committee average and a prioritized breakdown by service category.
Members read and discussed scores for individual applicants during the meeting. The Boys & Girls Club, for example, drew praise for a clear outcomes narrative and budget detail, with scores reported across the mid-30s to mid-40s. Youth-council members who attended described the Club’s role in providing a low-cost, youth-centered third space. By contrast, members pressed Oasis Youth Center on cost-per-client metrics after a reviewer calculated the center’s proposed $25,000 ask would be about $833 per client under the submitted budget; others said Oasis’s intensive wraparound services are not directly comparable to low-cost food programs.
Committee members also questioned several large requests, including a Safe Streets pilot that listed a $90,000 budget and applications that appeared to concentrate a large share of the funds in a single provider. Several reviewers recommended the board consider whether a proposed program filled a local service gap or duplicated existing efforts in Lakewood when shaping recommendations for council.
Rather than deciding funding levels at the meeting, the board agreed to hold interviews with applicants in October, record sessions for members who cannot attend, and reconvene to finalize allocations. Bennett said she will provide the compiled scores and the five-category priority breakdown to reviewers in advance of the next meeting so members can discuss trade-offs and potential funding caps. The board plans to present recommendations to council on Nov. 12 and aims to meet Oct. 16 to make final funding determinations.
No formal grants were awarded at the meeting; members limited their actions to approving meeting minutes and setting logistics for interviews and the scoring process.
