Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/3/2025 Item 5d, Hermann, Pennon, and Vethavanam - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: June 2, 2025 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager PREPARED BY: Matt Pennon, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Manager Samantha Vethavanam, DEI Admin Specialist VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 5d – CONSIDERATION OF THE 2025-26 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Staff received the following questions regarding the Human Relations Commission’s funding recommendations for the Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Human Services Grant. The questions are listed below in bold with staff response shown in italics: 1) How did the Commission’s final recommendations vary from the subcommittee’s initial recommendations, if at all? The Commission’s final recommendations altered the subcommittee's initial recommendations in the following ways: • Deducted $5,000 from the original funding recommendation to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) from $20,000 to $15,000. • Provided $5,000 to Meals that Connect. The subcommittee’s initial funding recommendation was $0. • Deducted $5,000 from the original funding recommendation to the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project from $20,000 to $15,000. • Deducted $10,000 from the original funding recommendation to People’s Self-Help Housing from $20,000 to $10,000. • Provided $15,000 to CASA of San Luis Obispo County. The subcommittee’s initial funding recommendation was $0. ITEM 5d – CONSIDERATION OF THE 2025-26 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 2) What performance metrics from previous funding cycles were evaluated in determining current funding recommendations? (For instance, was performance in previous grant cycles and an agency’s ability to meet previous grant objectives/requirements in the past, used to determine whether or not they should be funded in the future?) As a requirement for grant funding eligibility, applicants that have received previous Human Services Grant funding must be in good standing and have complied with all reporting requirements. The full Human Relations Commission also reviews all reports for each grant cycle, including the mid -year reports and the year-end reports to ensure compliance and targeted goals are being met. During the subcommittee review process, consideration of previous reporting and grantee performance was a factor in deciding initial funding recommendations. 3) Some of the agencies recommended for funding serve people throughout SLO County, rather than specifically, people within or from SLO City. How was the impact on SLO City (vs. County, or a wider area) evaluated and were programs with bigger impact in SLO City prioritized for funding? Part of the Human Services Grant applicant criteria states that “grants are primarily made to organizations serving residents in the City of San Luis Obispo” and that “agencies serving residents in neighboring communities, also serving a significant number of City residents will be considered.” While much of the services provided by the grant applicants are for the residents of the City of San Luis Obispo, because of the nature of homelessness services, these programs may open to the County as a whole. However, the impact to City residents was a factor during the Commissions funding deliberations with a priority placed on programs that primarily serve City residents. ITEM 5d – CONSIDERATION OF THE 2025-26 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 3 4) It appears that some proposals that directly focus on homelessness prevention were not funded, while others with less of a focus on this top- line priority were funded. Can you please provide a little more explanation and context on how those decisions came about? The main funding priority was communicated to applicants during the grant application process and to subcommittee and full Commission members during the application review and recommendation process. During deliberations, Commissioners defined homelessness prevention to include both direct homelessness prevention services as well as services that might have an indirect, but long-term impact on preventing homelessness. The Chair of the Human Relations Commission will be available at the City Council meeting to answer additional questions the Council may have about the Commission deliberation process. 5) Were projects/programs that prioritized using HSG funds for direct service provision prioritized over those that included a larger proportion of funds for operational or overhead costs? Funding criteria for the Human Services Grant includes that “applications for a specific program, project, equipment need, or general operational support will be considered if the organization’s mission falls under the main funding priority.” Additional funding information also states that “consideration may be provided to applicants who direct services efficiently to needy residents with low overhead and administrative costs.” The above criterion was considered during funding deliberations.