Penobscot County committee pushes for clearer grant metrics, application fixes and limits on admin costs

Jamie, chair of the Penobscot County opioid settlement committee, led a March 10 discussion about tightening the county’s approach to awarding and tracking opioid-settlement funds as the committee prepares for a second round of grants.

Committee members said the first round succeeded in distributing funds but produced uneven reporting and measurement. One participant reported awardees had received their checks and said the group now needs clearer ways to judge whether projects met their stated goals. Lindsay of the MOSS Center described a two-part reporting approach that other communities have used: a short narrative quarterly report and a linked spreadsheet where grantees update SMART objectives. “We are creating a substance-use vulnerability index dashboard,” Lindsay said, adding the dashboard would score subdivisions and help target local priorities.

Members debated whether the committee should set county-level goals (for example, building recovery housing or targeting prevention) and align the next request for proposals to those priorities rather than leaving goal-setting solely to applicants. The committee agreed that a needs assessment should inform targeted RFP language so grantees’ objectives better align with county priorities.

The group heard repeated feedback from rejected applicants that the application platform caused problems: requiring a Gmail account to upload files, confusion about character versus word counts in Google Forms, and missing fields such as contact email. Members discussed options including using a platform such as Qualtrics, combining prefilled online fields with a short PDF upload for narrative and budgets, and publishing clearer FAQs and tip sheets with examples of SMART goals.

Committee members flagged reviewer inconsistency in scoring, noting occasional wide variance between reviewers. The group recommended more reviewer training, clearer matrix guidance (especially on scope of work, data tracking, budget and sustainability) and a scoring method that averages metric-level scores to reduce outlier influence.

A central policy question was how to treat indirect (administrative) costs. Some commissioners reportedly favor disallowing indirect costs; committee members cautioned that banning all indirects could exclude smaller nonprofits that cannot absorb admin expenses. Suggestions included: publishing a clear definition of “indirect,” allowing a short list of allowable admin expenses, or capping administrative or indirect costs at a modest percentage of an award so small providers can still apply.

Members also pressed the county for clarity on available funds for round two. Participants said the committee had disbursed roughly $400,000 in the first round and that about $1 million remained, but they asked county staff to confirm exact figures before drafting targeted RFP parameters.

The committee agreed to prepare materials to bring commissioners into a dedicated meeting to secure appointments for additional committee seats and to set a clear agenda. The group set its next meeting for April 14 at 9 a.m. and approved the January 29 and February 10 minutes.