Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Services Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tempe Community Council recommends funding 35 programs from $1.136M pool after record 71 applications
Summary
Tempe Community Council staff and volunteers recommended funding 35 programs across 27 agencies from a $1,136,000 pool after receiving 71 applications totaling nearly $2.9 million; recommendations used blind scoring thresholds (full funding >90, partial funding 75–90).
Tim Birch, interim executive director for the Tempe Community Council (TCC), and Jacob Buttry, chair of TCC’s Community Impact Council, presented the agency review and funding recommendations to the City Council.
Birch described a multi-step process that used a community needs assessment (conducted with Arizona State University’s Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center) to prioritize local needs and to align application questions and scoring with those priorities. The process used volunteer reviewers, a blind scoring system and consensus meetings; reviewers awarded additional points for deep collaborations that matched priority needs.
Jacob Buttry said the program received 71 applications from agencies requesting nearly $2.9 million, the largest total amount received in the review’s history. The funding budget presented to council totaled $1,136,000, with $1,100,000 from general funds, $30,000 from water-bill donations to Together Tempe, $3,500 from TCC, and $2,500 from the Healthy Giving Campaign (the latter earmarked for housing and homelessness).
The Community Impact Council recommended fully funding applications that scored above 90. Applications scoring between 75 and 90 were recommended for partial funding proportional to their score (roughly 72–83% of the requested amount for those partially funded). The presenters said they were recommending funding 35 programs across 27 agencies (approximately half of programs that applied), including three programs funded for the first time and two collaborative projects.
Councilmembers asked why interviews were removed from the process; Buttry said interviews were removed to reduce inequities that advantaged agencies with stronger grant-writing or presentation resources, and staff described a written Q&A process where reviewers’ questions were compiled and agencies responded in writing.
If council accepts the recommendations, awards will be made over the summer, followed by quarterly reports and site visits to verify program delivery and track agreed outcome measures.
