The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.202106011 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2021 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers 130 S Galena Street, Aspen WEBEX www.webex.com Enter Meeting Number 142 146 3050 Password provided 81611 Click "Join Meeting" OR Join by phone Call: 1-408-418-9388 Meeting number (access code): 142 146 3050 # I.WORK SESSION I.A.Update on City Grants Improvements 1 1 | P a g e MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director THROUGH: Sara Ott, City Manager MEETING DATE: June 1, 2021 RE: City of Aspen Grant Improvement Updates REQUEST OF COUNCIL This is an update on progress related to advancing the City’s grants programs. Additionally, staff is requesting guidance from Council on the new, proposed Grants Steering Committee structure and next steps. 2021 GRANT CYCLE For the 2021 grant cycle, approximately $1.2 million in cash funding was awarded through a competitive process to 88 programs, excluding the funds distributed to the Red Brick Center for the Arts and the amounts dedicated to the Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for health and human services. BACKGROUND On November 18, 2019, City Council provided direction to proceed with an evaluation of the City’s grants programs. The primary study focus was to discern whether and how to 1) bring additional consistency, transparency and equity to the programs; 2) streamline and strengthen the programs for community and grantee benefit, and 3) update and enrich the grant review approach and processes. On February 22, 2021 (Exhibit A), Point b(e) (PBe), the City’s consultant, presented its grant program evaluation findings and recommendations: 1. Shift the timelines 2. Redefine the staffing structure 3. Consolidate the programs 4. Create multi-year partnership grants 5. Redesign and codify review committees 6. Develop strategic priorities for the funding 7. Develop scoring criteria that match the funding priorities 8. Modify the grant applications 9. Develop a communication campaign 2 2 At the February 22 meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with the recommendations, provide periodic updates, and return to seek Council guidance on strategic funding priorities. As previously discussed, staff completed the separation of the funding for the Health and Human Services (HHS) IGAs from that of the HHS grants in the City’s budget. Lastly, the new timeline proposed by PBe has been introduced to streamline the process for the grant recipients, reviewers and the City of Aspen. Staff have begun communicating the shift of the grant application release from Spring to Fall, with funding distribution remaining in April. DISCUSSION A priority recommendation from PBe is to implement an overarching strategy and policy-focused Grant Steering Committee “Steering Committee.” The Steering Committee would assist in the redesign and formulation, codification, and oversight of three review teams, one for each of the three grant programs: Community Nonprofit, Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Wheeler Arts. This includes creating the enabling legislation to provide:  The committee’s purpose  Position descriptions  Recommended number of members  Term starting dates and limits  Decision making processes  Other bylaws determined by the group to be helpful Further, the Steering Committee would serve as the conduit to City Council to advise on the recommended policies for the City’s grants program. Staff has examined two approaches to establishing the Steering Committee. Option #1: The first approach is to implement a Steering Committee volunteer-based and for City Council to direct the Committee to implement PBe’s recommendations. City Council would be responsible for interviewing and appointing these Committee volunteers. Staff is in early conversations with existing grant committee members about serving on the Steering Committee. Most members have expressed limited capacity to take on this work at this time but remain committed to seeing PBe’s recommendations implemented. City Council may choose to advertise for volunteers to serve on the Steering Committee who do not necessarily have experience with the existing program, but perhaps have other grant strategy and policy experience to share. Pros:  An inclusive and holistic community approach.  Fresh perspective on the grants program and PBe recommendations. 3 3 Cons:  Time intensive for Council and for staff. Training and educating volunteers to bring them up to speed along with the recruitment and Council interview process would cause delays in the execution of PBe’s recommendations. Many of the recommendations would likely not be implemented in the Fall application cycle and would be postponed until next year because of the time intensive process to add volunteers to the Steering Committee. The next step would be for staff to prepare a resolution to establish the Steering Committee and bring it before Council for consideration. Then for the City Clerk’s Office to recruit applicants and complete the volunteer interview and selection process with City Council. Option #2: The second approach would be for staff to lead the implementation of PBe’s recommendations, with a robust feedback process with existing grantees. In this model, staff with grants experience and additional hired technical assistance, would be used to develop the grant framework for Council’s review. In this capacity, staff would seek Council’s consideration of Council reviewing and approving the final framework, while staff manage the selection of grant reviewers. An additional option would be to add a few, experienced volunteers that may have capacity, to this approach. The next step would be for staff to draft the policy positions, structure of review teams, grant criteria, and decision-making processes that would be implemented. This would be brought before Council for consideration. Upon completion of the structural, grant framework and review committee members, staff would then be transitioned off the Steering Committee. A recommendation of the volunteer composition would be provided at that time. Pros:  This balanced approach would promote a combination of community participation and staff/consultant expertise to move PBe’s recommendations forward and meet the Fall timeline.  As a transitional step, staff and consultant expertise on the Steering Committee allows for a focused and dedicated approach to advance PBe’s recommendations in a timely manner.  Included in the consultant’s scope would be to identify and help staff understand the necessary time and work involved for grants administration. This evaluation would provide the a more in- depth analysis of PBe’s staffing recommendations around how many hours a committed part- time or full-time grants position entails. Cons:  Consultant cost and staff workload reprioritization. Under either option, staff liaisons will be used to provide support. Ongoing communication will continue with all applicable parties early, often and fully to increase equity and transparency. 4 4 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS Option #1: Steering Committee, no additional funds are necessary. Option #2: Requires further expenses for additional expertise and capacity for completing the work. Council should anticipate approximately $15,000 consulting time. This can be funded from City Council’s existing appropriations or direct staff to bring back funding in fall supplemental. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending Option #2 for the above stated reasons. In summary, under Option #2, staff with support, would be able to immediately and efficiently draft the framework items. This includes composing the committee’s purpose, position descriptions, term starting dates and limits, etc., in conjunction with the selection of grant reviewers. After extensive input is gathered and revisions completed, staff would then seek Council’s review and approval. 5 1 | Page TO: FROM: THROUGH: MEETING DATE: RE: Exhibit A: MEMORANDUM City Council Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director Sara Ott, City Manager February 22, 2021 Grants Program Evaluation Report Findings REQUEST OF COUNCIL Guidance from Council on next steps and preliminary plans to implement the recommendations in the Grants Evaluation Report. BACKGROUND On November 18, 2019, City Council provided direction to proceed with an evaluation of the City’s grants programs. DISCUSSION Project Development The City grant program has three components: •Community Nonprofit program •Health and Human Services program •Wheeler Arts program For the 2021 grant cycle, approximately $1.2 million in cash funding was awarded through competitive processes to 88 programs. (This excludes the amount of funds dedicated to the Red Brick Center for the Arts and the amounts dedicated to Intergovernmental Agreements for human services). In addition, for 2020 only, an additional $304,528 was awarded to 16 grantees through the Arts and Cultural Arts Recovery Grant Program, which was put into place to assist with the immediate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under Council direction, the City recently completed a formal grant program evaluation. Through a competitive process, staff hired Point b(e) to conduct the evaluation. In spring 2020, the consultant was poised to begin the study. However, the advent of COVID-19 delayed the launch of the evaluation project until third quarter of 2020. To elicit potential improvements to the grant program, Point b(e): Conducted best practices research Observed grant review meetings Held interviews with grantees, grant reviewers, City staff and managers, and City Council members 6 2  Hosted grantee focus groups  Conducted surveys of grantees and Council members In gathering this information, the primary focus was on discerning whether and how to 1) bring additional consistency, transparency and equity to the programs; 2) streamline and strengthen the programs for community and grantee benefit, and 3) update and enrich the grant review approach and processes. Point b(e) collaborated with a project Steering Committee to refine the research questions and recommendations. The members of the Steering Committee included representatives from multiple stakeholder groups: Grants Evaluation Steering Committee Members Barbara Owen Community Representative Daniel Ciobanu Community Representative Julie Gillespie Community and Former Staff Representative Teraissa McGovern Citizen Grant Committee Representative Chip Fuller Citizen Grant Committee Representative Cristal Logan Grantee Representative Michaela Idhammar Grantee Representative Lindsay Lofaro Grantee Representative Zander Higbie Grantee Representative Valerie Carlin Granting Agency Representative Point b(e) has completed its work and now has its recommendations for Council consideration. Project Recommendations The grant program recommendations are wide-ranging and encompass suggestions that will affect the program end-to-end. The recommendations include the following: 1. Shift the timelines 2. Redefine the staffing structure 3. Consolidate the programs 4. Create multi-year partnership grants 5. Redesign and codify review committees 6. Develop strategic priorities for the funding 7. Develop scoring criteria that match the funding priorities 8. Modify the grant applications 9. Develop a communication campaign Details for each of these recommendations can be found in Attachment A, Grant Program Evaluation Recommendations and an abbreviated summary is included below. The specific details associated with implementation of the recommendations will require further staff discussion. A preliminary workplan is available in Attachment B. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Some recommendations, if implemented, will have budget impacts. For instance, the acquisition of an electronic grants management system in a future year will have a budget impact. Additionally, in the short term, the Quality Office will continue to oversee and manage any of the approved Council revisions to the program. However, in the long-term, there will likely be a funding 7 3 request due to the program administration cost of approximately $50,000 for the management and coordination of the grants program. This may be in the form of an independent contractor or part-time employee. In addition, recommendations include 3-year partnership grants, subject to appropriations. Depending on how those are structured and rolled out, it may have short-term budget impacts. However, no additional funds are currently requested at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommendations is not anticipated to have negative environmental impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: If Council agrees with the nine recommendations, the following table proposes information on the next steps. Pending Council direction, Attachment B is included as a comprehensive timeline for possible implementation of the recommendations. Please note that the electronic application software is tentatively scheduled for acquisition in 2021 and deployment in 2022, and the three-year partnership grant option is scheduled for development in 2021 and implementation/rollout in 2022. Recommendation: Proposed Action Plan: Shift Timeline • Execute and communicate shift of the grant application release from Spring to Fall, with funding distribution remaining in April. Redefine Staffing Structure • Further evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach for the grants program administration. Consolidation of Grant Programs • Implement overarching strategy and policy-focused Grant Steering Committee. • Create separate funding line for the health and human services (HHS) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line. • Combine the application processes for the Wheeler, Community Nonprofit, and HHS grant application and review processes, separating HHS from the County grant application process. • Expand opportunities for the community to participate in grant reviews. Create Multi-year Partnership Programs. • Develop and implement a three-year partnership award, contingent up City budget and partnership reports. One-year grants would remain available. Redesign and Codify Review Committees • Strengthen and expand review committees to include overarching Grant Steering Committee and the following review subcommittees: Arts Review, Health & Human Services and Community Non- Profit. Consider adding a capital grant program and committee. Include committee charters. Develop Strategic Priorities for Funding • Work in conjunction with the newly created Grant Steering Committee to enhance additional strategic focus areas for each program. • Advance and refine scoring criteria to align with funding focus areas and develop matrix for grant evaluation. 8 4 Modify Grant Applications • Develop application for grants under $10,000, offer separate application for grants over $10,000 and implement a system for capital requests. Develop a Communication Campaign • Collaborate with the Communications Office and the Grant Steering Committee volunteers in the development of a targeted campaign to communicate Council approved improvements. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 9 5 ATTACHMENT A: GRANT PROGRAM EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT FROM POINT B(e) 10 Grant Programs Evaluation Final Recommendations Submitted February 17, 2021 Prepared by Point b(e) Strategies, LLC 11 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 1 Table of Contents Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 3 #1 Shift the Timeline ............................................................................................................................... 4 #2 Redefine the Staffing Structure ......................................................................................................... 6 #3 Consolidate the Grant Programs ....................................................................................................... 7 #4 Create Partnership Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 8 #5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees ........................................................................................ 9 #6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding .................................................................................. 12 #7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities ........................................................ 13 #8 Modify the Grant Applications ........................................................................................................ 14 #9 Develop a Communication Campaign ............................................................................................ 15 Implementation Outline ........................................................................................................................ 17 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................ 18 Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary ......................................................................... 19 Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary .............................................................................. 27 12 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 2 Introduction and Methodology The City of Aspen (the City) partnered with Point b(e) Strategies, LLC (Point b(e)) to evaluate its grant programs. The City of Aspen grants approximately $1.5 million per year to organizations seeking to improve the quality of life for residents in the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The City’s grant programs have been supporting nonprofits for decades. For example, since 2011, the City of Aspen has granted over $13 million to local organizations through its three grant programs: Health and Human Services (HHS), Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Opera House Arts grants. Collaboratively, the City and Point b(e) developed an evaluation of the grant programs with the following goals in mind: • Bring additional consistency across the City’s grant programs. • Streamline the grant programs. • Update the grant review approaches and processes, including governance and staffing. Additionally, Point b(e) and the City sought ways to increase transparency, equity and accountability throughout the grant programs, while remaining responsive to the needs of local organizations and the community. Point b(e) utilized a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the City’s grant programs and understand the unique needs of the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Each method is described in detail below. Steering Committee. Point b(e) and the City created a Steering Committee to help guide the evaluation process. The Steering Committee was composed of 12 members, including City staff, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee, nonprofit leaders, staff from other philanthropic institutions, and local members of the community. The role of the Steering Committee was to assess whether the goals and outcomes of the evaluation aligned with their expectations, weigh in on the development of the evaluation tools, and bring the perspectives of the community to the process. Document Review and Best Practice Research. Point b(e) reviewed grant-related documents from the City for all grant programs to understand the grantmaking processes. Additionally, Point b(e) researched best practices in grantmaking to inform recommendations. Citizen Grant Review Committee Observations. Point b(e) observed three meetings of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants. Similarly, staff observed two Citizen Grant Review Committee Meetings for the Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund, as it related to the Health and Human Services funding. These observations provided opportunities to understand the current process to evaluate applications and determine funding amounts. Grantee Survey. Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City’s grant programs to gather thoughts and feedback about the grant application and evaluation processes. The survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents completing the survey. Results of the grantee survey were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The results of the survey are provided in Appendix A. 13 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 3 Key Stakeholder Interviews. Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth information about the grant programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants, staff with the City of Aspen, and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online survey to all of Aspen’s City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey, and two Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed. The findings are presented in Appendix B. Grantee Focus Groups. Point b(e) facilitated three focus groups with a total of 12 current grantees of the City of Aspen. Focus group participants were recruited through the grantee survey, and survey respondents had the opportunity to self-select into a focus group. Focus group participants discussed ways to bring more transparency, accountability and equity to the City’s grantmaking. City of Aspen Recommendation Meetings. Upon drafting the initial recommendations for the grant programs, Point b(e) facilitated two meetings with City staff and the City Manager to understand their perspectives on the recommendations and how to best align them with the unique needs of the City of Aspen. Point b(e) used data, insights, feedback and research from all of the above data collection methods to formulate the recommendations presented in this report. Recommendations Throughout the data collection process, it was clear that there are a number of strengths in the City’s grantmaking. It is a unique and historical City tradition, which illustrates a consistency and commitment to ensure funds are available year after year. Through the grant programs, the City is making a statement that it values organizations serving the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. There are a number of dedicated and engaged community members who have volunteered significant time and energy to see that these programs bring important funds to organizations. Finally, the City’s grant programs enrich life in the mountains by supporting nonprofits. The data collection process also revealed numerous opportunities to improve the City’s grant programs. The recommendations presented below outline a process to transform the City’s grant programs into more equitable, efficient, transparent and accountable processes. The recommendations are a targeted synthesis of data gathered from the research in the community combined with best practices in philanthropy and grantmaking. Point b(e) proposes nine recommendations to transform the City’s grant programs. Each recommendation below outlines the current structure for context, followed by a detailed explanation of the recommendation, along with applicable justification based on the evaluation methods. These changes are significant and will require a concerted effort from City staff and community volunteers. However, Point b(e) believes that this community is more than capable of making these changes. At the end of the report is a recommended implementation outline that demonstrates the feasibility of these changes while maintaining the current award cycle that is vital to the success of the nonprofits that rely on this funding. 14 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 4 #1 Shift the Timeline The timeline of the grant process from Funding Announcement to Award is quite lengthy. Shifting some dates will streamline the process for the grant recipients, review committee and the City of Aspen. Current Structure ● The Funding Opportunity Announcement is released to grant recipients and the public in May and open until August 1st. ● The City’s volunteer grant reviewers (including the Citizen Grant Review Committee (CGRC) members for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants and a City Council member for HHS grants) have about a month to review nearly 90 City cash requests, plus City in-kind requests. The reviewers make funding recommendations in September, before the final dollar amount available for awards in the upcoming year has been formally approved by City Council. In 2020, due to budget uncertainties associated with COVID impacts, the Committee had to assume a much smaller amount of available funding than in previous years for the Wheeler Arts grants and come up with a formula for escalating the awards should more funding become available. ● In October, as a part of its budgeting process, Council reviews and approves the final budget for grants and the recommended grant awards are presented. At this point, the funding recommendations are public; however, Council has the authority to adjust the committee’s recommendations after this time. ● Contracts are distributed for signatures in January or February. ● Funds are distributed to grantees in April. Figure 1 provides an overview of the current timeline. Figure 1. Grant Timeline. 15 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 5 Proposed Recommendations ● Shift the timeline for the grant application release from spring to fall, with funding award distribution remaining in April. ● Keep City Council approval of funding amounts for each category (Arts, Community Non-Profit and Health and Human Services (HHS)) during the budget process in November, which allows the CGRC to know the final funding amounts available to award. ● Close applications early in the new year, giving the reviewers six weeks to make funding recommendations. ● This shortens the grant process from an 11-month process to a six-month process. Figure 2 provides an overview of the proposed timeline based on recommendations. Figure 2. Proposed Grant Timeline. Justification ● While grantees appreciate consistency in this grant cycle, the summer is often their most active season for programming, which means this application is due at their busiest time of year. Shifting it to a fall release and a winter deadline will allow them to complete the application at a more convenient time either before the holiday season or during January. ● This past year, the CGRC did not know how much funding was available to award to grantees. This led to a far more complicated evaluation and allocation process that required the creation of an equation to increase funding amounts after initial recommendations were made. While recognizing that 2020 presented unique challenges and uncertain funding levels, for the CGRC to most effectively review applications and make decisions, it needs to know the amount of funding available before it makes its allocation recommendations. ● Based on research in philanthropy, the typical grant award process lasts approximately six months. ○ Pre-award phase (4 months) 16 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 6 ■ Funding Announcement is publicized. ■ Applications are typically due 30–60 days later. ■ Applications are reviewed over a 1- to 3-month period. ○ Award Phase (1–2 months) ■ Funding decisions are finalized. ■ Applicants receive awards. ● As was seen this past year with the COVID pandemic, a lot of factors can shift for a small organization in 11 months. Shortening the grant cycle will mean that organizations are better able to write and adhere to the applications they submit to the City. This will allow them to better report on the impact of programs and the use of funds in subsequent grant cycles. #2 Redefine the Staffing Structure Staffing the grant programs within the City has shifted between departments over the years. The grant programs are currently housed in the Wheeler, with less than one FTE of time allocated. In 2020, the Quality Office provided significant assistance and support to the Wheeler staff. Point b(e) recommends housing the grant programs in a permanent department and devoting the appropriate staff hours to the programs. This will allow the City to measure impact and gain accountability from fund recipients in an efficient manner that can ensure the grant programs best meet the community’s needs. Proposed Recommendation ● Reconsider placement of grant programs administration, taking into account the multi- disciplinary nature of the programs and the benefits of a more strategic approach to the programs. ● Increase staffing levels associated with the programs, so that staff can more effectively cover the associated needs. ● Revisit and reintegrate the necessary portions of grants management within the job descriptions of City staff. ● Introduce a grants management software to ease the operational burden on City staff, grantees and the review committee. Justification ● Administration of grant programs takes a significant number of staff hours. Typical administrative costs for grant programs range anywhere between 5–20% of the overall fund, with the median at 7%. Without this investment, staff have little time to assure the programs meet more than minimal standards, much less best practices in programs management. 17 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 7 #3 Consolidate the Grant Programs The current grant programs do not have one process, but two, one of which is very reliant on Pitkin County and the decisions of a single individual. Streamlining the process into one unified system will increase efficiency and consistency and help create a far more equitable distribution of funds through the empowerment and onboarding of a more diverse set of community volunteers. Current Structure ● All Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit applications are reviewed by one committee made up of four individuals from the community, one of whom is the chair of the Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors. These individuals have to review approximately 80 applications in two weeks. Subsequently, they interview a subset of applicants and then come together in consensus meetings to make their final recommendations. ● The Health and Human Services grant applications are currently tied to Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund grant application process. A member of Aspen’s City Council sits in on Pitkin County’s decision-making process and makes recommendations based on those meetings as well as their own review of the applications. This individual is responsible for making decisions for the City of Aspen’s HHS grants. Proposed Recommendation ● The process through which grants are awarded should be consolidated into one system that is applicable for all those that receive City funds, including Wheeler Arts, Community Non- Profit and HHS grants. This will separate the HHS grant process from the Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund process entirely. ● Separate the funding line for the health and human services-related Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line. This funding, while dedicated to HHS services, is not available for competitive grants. ● Establish a strategy- and policy-focused Grants Steering Committee (described in more detail below.) ● Expand opportunities for more community members to become involved in City grants review. Create separate review committees for each of the three grant programs (described in more detail below.) Justification ● The current system wherein the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants are awarded by one Citizen Grant Review Committee puts an undue burden on Committee members. Because of the number of applications they need to review, it is challenging to spend appropriate time on each application to ensure an equitable and transparent process. ● Funding decisions should be made by individuals within the community who have specific content-area expertise and experience in order to adequately assess the applications. Peer and community-led review processes have been shown to increase equitable distribution of funds. 18 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 8 ● Standardizing the process for which all City grants are awarded allows for a more equitable process that will allow the City to better track its outcomes and ensure accountability to those whose tax dollars are funding these programs. ● Applicants will no longer have to be as concerned about applying for the “proper” grant program. With an integrated process, if someone applies for an inappropriate program, their application can be redirected to the correct program more easily prior to review. #4 Create Partnership Opportunities These grant programs have been funding organizations in the community for decades. Many of these organizations have received the same or similar funding year after year. The history and trust between the two have long been established. Formalizing this process into a multi-year partnership opportunity will further the long-established trust and increase accountability for the City. Point b(e) also recommends continuing to provide one-year grants for organizations that are new to the City’s grant programs or for organizations implementing new programs. Current Structure ● All grant applicants submit the same application to the City whether they are new or long- standing recipients, regardless of financial ask. ● Funding decisions are often made based on the funding given the year before. ● The total budget for the grant programs has largely remained stagnant over the past few years, despite an influx of applications from new organizations. ● There is no formal reporting process or requirement for grant recipients. Proposed Recommendation ● Create a new type of grant—a three-year partnership award. The funding would go toward general operating costs and would be contingent upon City budget renewal as well as partners completing a yearly status and outcomes report. ● Each year, rather than submit another application, partners would submit an evaluation report that would track their outcomes for the year and verify that the funds were spent as intended. ● Continue to evaluate applicants in subgroups distinguished by their grant program. ● Stagger the initial terms of the partnership grants, such that over time, the grant review committees are annually reviewing one third of the partnership applications. ● One-year grants would still be available, thus allowing new organizations the chance to apply and prove themselves eligible for partnerships in the future or accomplish shorter-term goals. 19 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 9 Justification ● The most significant emerging best practice in philanthropy is the creation of multi-year operating grants. ○ It fosters a feeling of partnership between funders and fund recipients. ○ It allows organizations more flexibility to adapt to participant and community needs. ○ It allows financial stability for organizations that often increases funding from other sources and frees staff time to focus on participants rather than cumbersome grant applications. ○ It allows funders to truly measure their work because it requires a yearly evaluation of results. ● Aspen has many grantees who have been receiving similar funding levels year after year. Introducing a three-year partnership grant will allow the City to formalize a longer-term partnership with these grantees. ● This process will also result in fewer applications year after year for the CGRCs to evaluate, thus allowing them more time to focus on new applications or applications where situations have changed (such as the onboarding of a new Executive Director). #5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees The integration of Health and Human Services Grants into the current Citizen Grant Review Committee is not feasible given the capacity and expertise of the individuals on the current committee. In order to ensure that the grant funds are distributed to the organizations that are best meeting community needs, applications should be reviewed by a broad range of individuals that interact with the services on a regular basis and/or have skill sets that are directly applicable to application review. This recommendation, therefore, focuses on strengthening and expanding participation in the review of City grants, building on the current volunteer reviewer. Further, reviewers currently operate without the guidance of a formal charter describing how they are appointed, how long their terms are, their roles and responsibilities and their expectations. To remedy this, Point b(e) recommends that the City formalize the roles of reviewers. Current Structure ● The current Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants exists without a charter or a formal appointment process. There are no term limits or formal processes to govern members’ appointment or actions. ● During the 2020 review process, the Citizen Grant Review Committee was comprised of four individuals, some of whom have sat on the committee for decades.1 They are passionate, 1 We acknowledge the loss felt by the community with the passing of a dedicated and long-standing committee member this year. 20 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 10 dedicated, intelligent and well-respected individuals who were all selected by various processes and never formally appointed. ● The review of the HHS grants is currently the responsibility of one individual from City Council. As with the Citizen Grant Review Committee, there are no guidelines for when and how the reviewer for the HHS grants is selected nor for how long they should serve. Proposed Recommendations ● Reformulate review responsibilities into four separate bodies, each with its own purpose and funding dollars. o Citizen Grant Steering Committee—This body does not conduct reviews nor make funding recommendations but serves as the main strategic arm that liaises with the City on logistics, sets strategic priorities, and monitors the subcommittees below. Members of the City, including the City Manager, could potentially serve on this committee, but should not be the only members of it. o Arts Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make recommendations for awards for the Wheeler Arts grants. This group should be comprised of individuals who have a passion for and experience with the Arts in Aspen and the surrounding community. Individuals could include local artists, gallery owners, radio hosts, stage managers, patrons, Wheeler Board Chair, etc. o Community Non-Profit Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make recommendations for all awards for the Community Non-Profit grants. This group should be comprised of individuals who have a passion for and experience with the community nonprofit work in Aspen and the surrounding community. Individuals may work in schools, run youth mentoring programs, be high school students, work in outdoor/environmental programming, or run local community gardens or other nonprofits, etc. o Health and Human Services Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make recommendations for all the Health and Human Services grant funds. This group should largely be comprised of individuals who work in or have lived experience with Health and Human Services. Individuals could include local doctors, mental health service providers, school district representatives, individuals with disabilities, case managers or day-program operators. o Point b(e) recommends that one person from each subcommittee sit on the overarching Steering Committee to serve as liaison between the groups. 21 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 11 Figure 3. Structure of the Grant Steering Committee and Subcommittees ● Develop a charter for Committees that includes: purpose, term limits, recommended number of members, decision making processes, and other bylaws. ● These charters should be accompanied by job descriptions and desired skill sets of members. o All committees should include representation from the communities that the funding is designed to impact. This includes youth, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) individuals, local artists, etc. o Other recommended skill sets include: financial, legal, nonprofit management, philanthropy, equity, subject matter expertise, etc. ● All Committee members should be term limited in their service, which should be outlined in the job description and charter. ● A targeted recruitment plan should be developed and circulated within the community in order to fill all open positions with a representative population. Justification ● A thorough review of a grant application can take up to six hours. A thorough review of an application is paramount to ensuring funds are distributed to those who will best impact the community. ● The current structure leads to overworked volunteers who are challenged to devote adequate time to ensuring an objective and equitable review process. Grant Steering Committee Arts Review Committee Health & Human Services Review Committee Community Non-Profit Review Committee 22 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 12 ● Representation from the communities that the funding is designed for allows the committees to truly understand the needs of the community and therefore award funding where it will have the greatest impact. ● Formalizing the committees with the addition of charters will allow for increased direction and a greater degree of alignment with and accountability to the City’s priorities. ● Term limits allow for a graceful transition on and off the committee. This will increase interest in serving if it is known that it is for a set amount of time. It also allows for the addition of new perspectives and the opportunity to adapt to changing community needs. #6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding This grant funding is designed to positively impact the City of Aspen. In order to most effectively do that, the desired impacts need to be stated, clarified and evaluated. Current Structure ● There are currently strategic focus areas and funding priorities for the grant programs; however, they do not appear to be thoroughly understood by the grantees or aligned with the grant application. ● The general grant review criteria for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit programs are posted on the City website, but no matrix is available to help applicants understand what is needed to score well on criteria. ● The HHS grant application includes language on the City’s focus areas, but as with the other grant programs, no scoring matrix is available to help guide applicants in understanding expectations. ● The relative role of formal numeric scoring in overall considerations is not well communicated. Proposed Recommendations ● City staff should work with the newly created Steering Committee to create strategic priorities for each grant program. These grant priorities should be aligned with the City’s mission, priorities and desired outcomes. ● Priorities should be revisited on a regular basis along with the City of Aspen’s priorities. ● Priorities should be re-evaluated every three years. ● All grants should align with the strategic priorities. Justification ● Currently, neither the CGRC nor grantees understand what the City’s funding priorities are for the grant programs. Setting strategic priorities will allow the City to evaluate impact based on the priorities that City Council and the Steering Committee deem important for the community. 23 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 13 ● Strategic priorities allow fund recipients to understand where the community is focusing attention. This might allow them to better understand why they did or did not receive funding, or to share an aspect of their programming that is aligned with the City that they did not know was a priority. ● This is not designed to tell organizations how they should shape their programming, but rather allows them to understand what the City is prioritizing, and how those priorities are designed to strengthen the community as a whole. #7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities Point b(e) recommends developing an application scoring system that allows the CGRCs to evaluate applications against the established strategic priorities. This will allow the CGRCs to ensure funding is distributed to organizations and programs that are best aligned with the strategic priorities. Current Structure ● Two years ago, scoring criteria was introduced to the Citizen Grant Review Committee. Prior to that time, no numeric scores were used to guide decision-making. This year the CGRC calculated scores for individual applications, however, the scoring rarely factored into final decisions about funding amounts and was deemed relatively cumbersome by the CGRC members. ● No numeric scoring criteria exist for the HHS grant evaluations. Proposed Recommendations ● Scoring criteria needs to be created based on the strategic priorities set by the Steering Committee and the City. ● The criteria and the requirements to score at each level should be made public to all applicants with the Funding Opportunity Announcement. ● The criteria should be integrated into the review process by the CGRC through the use of a grant management system. ● Applicants' scores should be used as the primary basis for funding decisions. ○ If an application scores below a certain threshold, they should not receive any funding. ○ If an application scores above a certain threshold, they should receive funding. The amount they receive will not necessarily be their full ask but will be based on further criteria as elaborated below. ● Final funding amount should be based on total available budget, total dollar amount of approved applications, appropriateness of proposed budget, final score, and any other criteria the review committee deems relevant. These criteria should be finalized prior to the application review and published with the application. 24 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 14 Justification ● Establishing a criteria and matrix by which to assess alignment allows for the greatest amount of objectivity in a grant-making process. ● If an applicant is unhappy with their award, they can be given their score to understand why they were not funded. Because the score will not be the sole criteria that determines funding amounts notes should be taken about which other criteria precluded organizations from receiving their full ask. This also allows an opportunity to improve their application to receive funds in future years. ● Scoring criteria provides an opportunity for new organizations to have a pathway to increase funding if their work aligns with the City’s strategic priorities. However, if overall budget for the grant programs does not increase, this will decrease funding for other grantees. #8 Modify the Grant Applications Grant applications should give reviewers just enough information to make an informed funding decision without requiring them to wade through pages of irrelevant information. Due to the changes in prioritization and types of grants, the City’s grant applications will need to be streamlined and/or modified. Current Structure ● Potential Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grantees submit one application to the City, while HHS applicants submit a city-specific addendum to the Pitkin County Healthy Community Fund application. This application process is the same for all funding amounts ranging from $2,000–$100,000 or for in-kind donations. ● The application for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grant is eight pages long with extensive financial, board and salary information requests. While the City portion of the County application form is only two pages, it follows a much lengthier County application. ● Capital requests are made to the City on an ad hoc basis throughout the year, outside of the grant programs. If a capital request is made using the Community Non-Profit or Wheeler Arts grant application, it is usually denied because capital requests are not typically considered eligible for City grant programs funding. This places the city in a situation where capital requests are inconsistently considered on an ad-hoc basis without uniform evaluation criteria. Because of this, it may result in inconsistent decision making and may be perceived as biased. Proposed Recommendations ● Develop an application that is specific for grant requests under $10,000. Questions should be limited to those that are most important to assist the evaluators with scoring the application. Additionally, Point b(e) recommends requiring a much more limited financial request, such as requesting the organization’s 990 or Profit & Loss Statement and Balance 25 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 15 Sheet. Questions surrounding staff salaries & other funding sources should be greatly limited, if included at all. ● For requests of more than $10,000, a more robust application should be created. This will include all three-year partnership requests that total more than $10,000 over the three-year period. If the City feels questions around other funding sources, staffing structure, and organizational capacity are relevant in order to make funding decisions for these larger grants, they should be included in this application only. o Financial reporting should still be limited to documents that organizations already have rather than asking for a budget based on City’s line items. o Information requests should still be limited to information that assists with decision- making for the review committees. ● A system for capital requests needs to be established and shared with the community, which should articulate a time frame. A separate application that is relevant to capital requests needs to be created, and a selection of the reviewers needs to be devoted to reviewing these applications. Additionally, it should be noted that funding for capital requests continues to remain separate and outside of the funding for the Wheeler Arts, Community Non-Profit and HHS grant programs. Justification ● Overly cumbersome grant applications do not benefit anyone. They lead to more time spent completing applications for organizations that are often understaffed. Time spent filling out applications can be better utilized to strengthen programs or create more robust evaluation processes. Additionally, the longer the application is, the longer it takes for the volunteers to review. ● The majority of the current CGRC members expressed that they do not have the capacity to review the significant financial information in each application, leaving it unread, and therefore unused. ● “Right sizing” grant applications is becoming increasingly common among grantmaking institutions because it allows organizations that are getting significantly less funding from a source to devote less time to the application. This is particularly important for smaller organizations that are often staffed by one or two individuals and do not have grant writers on staff. ● Capital campaigns often include information such as blueprints, building plans and significant budgets. Because of this, it takes a specific skill set to evaluate their merit. As such, a specific committee comprised of volunteers from the community who have that skill set should review and pass recommendations on to the City Manager. If established, it would require an additional grant review subcommittee, with at least some subject matter experts added. #9 Develop a Communication Campaign The City of Aspen is on the cusp of making big changes to the way it distributes grant funds. This is an exciting new endeavor that will increase equity, transparency and efficiency. The final recommendation is to communicate this plan early, often and fully. 26 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 16 Current System ● Information is disseminated to grant recipients and the community in a variety of ways, with limited structure for how or who receives information directly related to the grant programs. o The basic grant eligibility requirements, overarching criteria, grant applications and award process and schedule are posted on the City of Aspen website at https://www.cityofaspen.com/383/Grants o Current grant recipients are emailed the fund announcement when made public. o City staff respond to emails and phone calls regarding the programs. o City Council meetings are open to the public, so anyone can attend the meeting where decisions are finalized. o Emails are sent to the grantees with their award amounts. As well, those who do not receive funding are contacted via email. Staff also respond to questions from individual organizations regarding the funding decisions. Proposed Recommendations ● Create a targeted campaign within the City and surrounding communities that communicates and announces the new, more equitable and transparent City grant process. ● This campaign should include the recruitment of volunteers for the Steering Committee and program-specific review committees. ● It should target potential grant recipients that have not received funding but may be eligible. ● It should communicate all changes to the grant application, timeline and review process. ● Lastly, it should include a process wherein decisions are shared quickly with those who do and do not receive their full dollar amount, such as took place in 2020 when emails were sent to all grantees early. This will ensure that complaints are handled efficiently, rather than over an extended period of time. The scoring results should be the backbone of the communication process. Justification ● The number one way to create transparency is to communicate. The City should communicate all shifts in opportunity, priorities and funding. ● Grant recipients are currently unaware of significant aspects of the grant programs that have been made public through memos or at City Council meetings. ● Point b(e) has proposed significant programmatic and process adjustments that will affect all grantees and the community as a whole. It is vital to the success of the program that these changes are communicated to all potential stakeholders early, often and accurately. 27 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 17 Implementation Outline 28 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 18 Conclusion If implemented, these nine recommendations will strengthen the City of Aspen’s grant programs. They will increase transparency, efficiency and accountability, and help ensure the equitable distribution of funds to organizations that are best serving the community. They are not minor tweaks, but large changes that will require staff and volunteer time and energy in order to accomplish. Yet, they are extremely feasible to enact over the next year. The City of Aspen is filled with intelligent individuals who are extremely passionate about their community. Point b(e) has no doubt that the City staff will be able to effectively work with the community to foster real change for the City’s grant programs and therefore the community as a whole. There are alternative options to the recommendations offered, such as outsourcing management of the entire grant program or the creation of administrative only reviews. However, Point b(e) feels that in strengthening and empowering community members to take a more focused scope, the grant programs will best be able to meet the needs of the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. This approach will work best when implemented in its entirety and by combining a more targeted prioritization of fund dollars with a review process to match. Additional Resources DirectRFP®. “7 RFP Scoring Guidelines You Need to Improve Transparency and Buy-In.” DirectRFP®, 4 June 2019, directrfp.com/rfp-scoring-guidelines-to-improve/. DirectRFP®. “Write RFP Questions The Right Way & Get Better Responses.” DirectRFP®, 4 June 2019, directrfp.com/write-rfp-questions-the-right-way-and-get-better-responses/. Edwards, Sandy. “The Benefits of Multiyear Grantmaking: A Funder’s Perspective.” Philanthropy News Digest (PND), 31 Jan. 2013, https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/commentary-and- opinion/benefits-of-multiyear-grantmaking Gibson, Cynthia M. “Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory Grantmaking.” IssueLab, IssueLab, 2 Oct. 2018, participatorygrantmaking.issuelab.org/resource/deciding-together-shifting-power-and- resources-through-participatory-grantmaking.html. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. Benchmarks to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact” 8 March, 2019, https://bjn9t2lhlni2dhd5hvym7llj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/paib-fulldoc_lowres.pdf 29 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 19 Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City of Aspen’s grant programs. The survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents completing the survey. The results of the survey are presented below. Type of Funding Applied for This Year Respondents were asked to identify the type of funding they applied for—Wheeler Arts, Community Non-Profit or Health and Human Services. Figure 1. Type of Funding Number of Years Received Funding From the City of Aspen Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of years they have received funding from the City of Aspen. 20% 59% 20% Type of Funding % HHS % Community Non-Profit % Wheerler Arts 30 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 20 Figure 2. Number of Years Received Funding Strengths of the City’s Grant Programs Respondents were asked to describe the strengths of the City’s grantmaking programs. Responses fell into several themes: • The funding supports organizations that help the community in a variety of ways and illustrates the City’s commitment to the community (n=26). • The application process—The online form is easy, the process is clear, the grant guidelines are straight forward, there are fewer redundant questions this year (n=18). o HHS grantees appreciate that the application is connected to the Pitkin County application, as it reduces duplication (n=5). • The supportive team is responsive to questions and provides good communication throughout the process (n=14). • The funding is consistent and reliable (n=12). Grant Application Process Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant application process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 3 displays the results. 39% 11% 27% 23% Number of Years Received Funding 0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-19 Years 20+ Years 31 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 21 Figure 3. Feedback About Grant Application Opportunities for Improvement • Reduce the number of questions on the application, modify the way financial data is requested, consider a new online platform for the application, provide an abbreviated application for smaller grants. • Allow opportunities on the application for grantees to elaborate on their impact, show the extent of services provided, or share a client story. • Consider a multi-year grant cycle, rather than annual applications. Grant Evaluation Process Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant evaluation process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 4 illustrates the feedback by grantees. 80% 93% 91% 91% 86% 78% 76% 76% 78% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% The City’s funding priorities were clearly communicated. The eligibility criteria to apply for grants was clearly communicated. The City’s grantmaking staff was responsive to questions during the application process. The City’s grantmaking staff was helpful during the application process. The grant application process was clear. The online grant application was easy to use. The amount of information required on the grant application was reasonable. Based on the information asked in the grant application, I believe the City has a good understanding of my organization’s programs. Based on the information asked in the grant application, I believe the City has a good understanding of my organization’s goals. Feedback About Grant Application % Agree or Strongly Agree 32 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 22 Figure 4. Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process Respondents were also asked to rate how the City’s grant application compares with other grant applications their organizations submit, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It is more time consuming than most applications to 5 = It is less time consuming than most applications. Figure 5. City’s Application Compared With Other Grant Applications 64% 46% 63% 61% 46% 46% 45% 75% 67% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% I understand the criteria used to evaluate my application. I understand the criteria used to determine my draft funding amount. I believe all applicants are treated equally in the grant evaluation process. I believe all applicants are treated fairly in the determination of draft funding amounts. The City is transparent with its process for evaluating the applicants. The City is transparent with its process for selecting grantees. The City is transparent with its process for determining draft funding amounts for grantees. The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions about the evaluation process. The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions about draft funding amounts. Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process % Agree or Strongly Agree 31% 36% 34% City's Application Compared with Other Grant Applications Selected 4 or 5 (It is less time consuming than most applications) Selected 1 or 2 (It is more time consuming than most applications) Selected 3 (Neutral) 33 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 23 Opportunities for Improvement Respondents were asked to provide feedback about how the City can improve its grant evaluation process. Responses fell into the following themes: • Increase transparency in how award amounts are determined. • Increase clarity about how committees make decisions and the criteria that are used. • Consider a 'Zero Budget' exercise where applications are evaluated regardless of the previous year's awards or historical trends. • Provide a rubric about how applicants are scored. • Provide a pathway for organizations to increase the amount of funding, particularly for organizations that receive low amounts. • Provide clarity in the role of City Council in the funding decisions. Timing of the Grant Application Process Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the timing of the grant application process by rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Results are displayed in Figure 6 below. Figure 6. Feedback About the Timing of the Grant Application Process Respondents were also asked to rate the length of time it takes to receive awarded funds compared with other funders. Responses were on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It takes longer than most funders to 5 = It is faster than most funders. Figure 7 presents respondents’ feedback. 81% 69% 86% 78% 81% 75% 0%20%40%60%80%100% The date the grant opens. The date the grant is due. The length of time the grant remains open. The length of time to announce awards. The length of time to finalize contracts. The length of time to receive funds. Feedback About Timing % Satisfied or Very Satisfied 34 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 24 Figure 7. Time to Receive Funds Compared With Other Grants Opportunities for Improvement Respondents were asked to provide recommendations for how the City can improve the timing of the grant process. • Consider changing the timing to not coincide with summer programming. • Reduce the time it takes from application to receiving funds. 29% 27% 44% Time to Receive Funds Compared with Other Grants Selected 4 or 5 (It is faster than most funders) Selected 1 or 2 (It takes longer than most funders) Selected 3 (Neutral) 35 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 25 Overall Satisfaction With the Grant Programs and Impact of the Grant Programs Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they are with the City’s grantmaking process overall on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Figure 8 presents the results. Figure 8. Satisfaction With the City’s Grant Programs Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the impact of the City’s grantmaking on their organization, the community, and their field. They rated a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = No Impact and 5 = Significant Positive Impact. Results are presented in Figure 9. Figure 9. Feedback About the Impact of the City’s Grantmaking on Organization, the Community, and the Field 79% 72% 71% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Application process Evaluation process Award process Feedback on City's Grant Process Overall % Satisfied or Very Satisfied 88% 92% 76% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Impact on my organization. Impact on my community. Impact on my field. Feedback on Impact of City's Grantmaking % Positive Impact 36 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 26 Opportunities for Improvement Respondents were provided a final opportunity to provide feedback about how the City’s grantmaking programs can be improved. Results fell into the following themes: • Increase communication about the evaluation process. • Clarify criteria to determine funding. • Consider a multi-year grant cycle. • Decrease the overall time frame. • Identify a pathway for smaller grantees to increase their funding. • Provide a rubric for how applicants are scored. • Streamline the requested financials. 37 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 27 Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth information about the grant programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants, staff with the City of Aspen and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online survey to all of Aspen’s City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey and two Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed, and respondents from both data collection methods are referred to as interviewees. The findings are presented below. Overall Strengths and Impact of the City of Aspen’s Grant Programs Interviewees highlighted several strengths of the City’s grant programs. Feedback focused on the unique, historical impact the City has on arts, culture, nonprofits and health and human services programs. There is a level of consistency and a commitment of the City to ensure funds are there year after year. The grant programs are important to the economic, public health and social fabric of the community. It is a statement that the City values organizations within a small community and it funds a wide array of organizations within the valley. The grant programs enrich life in the mountains through the support of nonprofits. Finally, organizations can use the funding from the City as leverage for more donations. Interviewees did address concerns about the challenge of understanding the overall impact of the City’s grant programs. For one interviewee, the role and importance of the City’s grant programs has not been clearly defined or set. Another interviewee commented that it is unclear what the long-term goals of the programs are and how they are aligned with the community plan. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Revisit the purpose of the grant programs and clearly define the goals of the grant programs, aligned with metrics and objectives; create a funding program that can tell a story about why it’s important the City donate and how much it should contribute; answer the question about the effect the grant programs have on the community; provide better structure and clarity about what the City is hoping to achieve with this funding. • Increase funding when necessary to accommodate for increases in cost-of-living and additional grant applicants. This can include an increase in the RETT funding. • Change the order in how funding is approved and allocated. Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants Citizen Grants Review Committee Interviewees highlighted the knowledge and experience of the current Citizen Grants Review Committee. Members are active in the community, attend events, and the committee has representation from Wheeler Opera House, which is important to interviewees. Interviewees are 38 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 28 appreciative of the engaged and intelligent members who are currently on the review committee and recognize that the members respect the community and the nonprofits. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Provide more structure around the make-up of the review committee. For example, interviewees highlighted that members should be appointed by City Council, and members should cover a broad range of skill sets and areas of expertise, including business, entrepreneurship, health, arts, culture, etc. There could also be youth/younger populations on the committee. Additionally, there could be sub-committees to review the different grants to align with specific members’ expertise. While it’s great to have historical knowledge on the committee, interviewees noted that it would be appropriate to have term limits for members. • Develop a charter for the review committee. The structure could be more formalized, with a chair, vice chair, etc. There should be rules on how members are selected/appointed, how they are trained, and the criteria used to make decisions. There should also be structures in place for the City’s role with the review committee, such as the amount of oversight or management that should be provided. Health and Human Services The City of Aspen’s Health and Human Services (HHS) grant funding process is different than the Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants process. The City’s grant application is attached to the end of the Pitkin County Healthy Communities Fund Health grant application. Several interviewees were appreciative of the integration of the application process and noted that the City of Aspen enjoys several benefits from that integration. Pitkin County provides more oversight and accountability with those funded through the County funding, and the City of Aspen gets to benefit from that oversight. Interviewees expressed that the City and County have worked as great partners over the years, and by having the City and County coordinate funding, there is more continuity in the grant programs. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Increase communication about funded organizations between the City and County programs. • Provide more representation from the City of Aspen on the Pitkin County Citizen Grant Review Committee. Currently, only one City Councilperson sits on the review committee, and that Councilperson is terming off this summer. There should be more individuals with a wider range of expertise making decisions about the City’s HHS grant funds. Transparency Interviewees were asked to describe the extent to which there is transparency in the grants process. A few interviewees noted that the process has transparency because funding amounts are made public during the City Council meeting in which they are discussed. Individuals have access to who 39 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 29 was funded and the amount they received. However, many interviewees noted that the process to make those decisions, specifically why organizations are funded a specific amount, lacks transparency. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Develop more rigorous scoring criteria. Interviewees expressed a desire to have solid evaluation criteria with accompanying data in order to respond to applicant questions. Once a scoring matrix is in place and used, the results can be disclosed to applicants so they can improve the next time. • Provide information about scoring criteria and funding limits at the time the application is released. Interviewees noted it would be helpful if applicants were aware of total funding available, applicable funding limits, and evaluation criteria when they received the application. It would be ideal for applicants to see at the time of award a data-driven process that illustrates how they scored and the rationale for the amount of funding received. Role of City Council Interviewees were asked to discuss the role of City Council. Interviewees agreed that City Council has final decision-making powers on grants that are funded and that they make their decisions based on the recommendations of the Citizen Grant Review Committees, both for Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Art grants, as well as for HHS grants. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • City Council needs to establish the goals and objectives of the grant programs and revisit these regularly. • City Council needs to allocate the amount of total funding for the grants, and many interviewees indicated it is time to assess increases in the amount of funding that is allocated overall. • Communication and clarity should be increased. There is a gap between the decisions of the Citizen Grants Review Committee and City Council. While City Council has the final say in grant decisions, they don’t have a full picture of the evaluation criteria and the process to determine funding amounts. Administration Interviewees were asked to discuss questions related to the administration of the grant programs, such as whether they should continue to be managed in-house by City staff and whether the staffing structure is effective and efficient. Several interviewees indicated it is important the grant funds continue to be managed by the City, as opposed to a third party. According to one interviewee, because the funding comes from taxpayer dollars, it provides more accountability to have it managed by the City, and the funding should not go to an outside group. A few interviewees 40 City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 30 mentioned the possibility of having an organization such as Aspen Community Foundation manage the funds. Regarding staffing of the grant programs, several interviewees expressed that there needs to be better infrastructure to support the programs and more staff time devoted to the programs. Interviewees expressed that it has been passed around to staff and departments, which has caused a lack of consistency within the City. Recommendations Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations: • Develop better infrastructure and staffing system within the City to manage the grants. While many interviewees indicated the current department is a logical home for the programs, they agreed there needs to be more staff time allocated to managing the programs. • Adopt a grants management software program. Pitkin County recently adopted a new program to manage grant applications and tracking. A few interviewees highlighted the need to adopt a program that can better manage grants—from application, to contracting, to tracking progress. Additional Recommendations Interviewees were asked to provide any additional thoughts on improvements to the grant programs. The following recommendations emerged: • Adjust the timeline of the grant programs. The process from the time the application is made available to when the grantees receive funding is too lengthy. • Streamline the application itself, specifically the financial information. Potentially develop a short form and a long form depending on the size of the ask. Include more questions on the application that ask about how the funds will be used and how funds were used in the past. Include questions about the salaries of organizational leadership and questions around the number of people served and those under the age of 18. Also, include questions that illicit more information on an organization’s impact. • Develop a two-year grant cycle. 41 ATTACHMENT B: PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN FOR GRANTS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr Finalize grant round opening date Initial communication with grantees and reviewers re changes Open 2022 grant round Finalize amount of 2022 grant funds (Council) Close 2022 grant round Review applications Bring funding recommendations to Council Distribute contracts Distribute funding Evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach. Select staffing option Separate funding line for HHS grants and HHS IGAs Communicate process change to HHS applicant pool Update grant application form Develop/update eligibility criteria, gather key stakeholder feedback, develop grant parameters and monitoring process for 1 and 3-year grants Develop committee options for City Manager review Approve committee structure and charters Solicit committee members Train committee members Implement committee changes Prepare guidance document on City priorities Share guidance with Steering Committee (SC) Collaborate with SC to propose grant funding priorities that are in alignment with City priorities Develop agreement on purpose/use/role of scoring criteria Develop draft scoring criteria, based on priorities Align scoring criteria with funding priorities Modify grant applications Shift the grants timeline Redefine staffing structure Consolidate grant programs 2021 - Develop 3-year partnership grant program. *2022 - Implement/Rollout 3-year partnership grants.* Redesign and codify grant committees Develop strategic priorities for funding 42 TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr Develop draft application forms (under $10,000, over $10,000, capital) Implement final forms in 2022 grant cycle Verify target audiences Send initial message re grant cycle and other upcoming changes Develop additional key messages re 2022 cycle Select communication media, timing and frequency Implement touch points according to timelines Develop communication campaign 43