Committee eyes process reforms: tiers, one-application limit and capacity scoring for grants

Committee members reviewed possible process changes intended to broaden participation and improve award outcomes. Discussion covered three linked topics: whether to keep both small (roughly $10,000) and larger award tiers (and whether to raise the small tier to $20,000), whether to maintain the restriction that organizations may submit only one strategic partnership application per cycle, and how to assess capacity and operations during review.

On tiers, some members suggested increasing the smaller award to $20,000 to make awards more meaningful and to align wording so applicants seeking larger sums are encouraged to pursue that track. One member suggested simplifying the application for smaller awards to boost participation.

On the one-application-per-cycle rule, several members supported retaining the limitation to prevent a few large organizations from dominating awards and to spread funds to more organizations. "I really agree with that limitation," one member said, arguing it helps reach more groups. Committee members also discussed an operational cap that would prevent an organization funded two consecutive years from receiving a third year immediately, giving other organizations a chance.

On capacity scoring, members urged clearer reviewer guidance to assess whether applicants have the staffing and project plan to deliver proposed outcomes. Suggestions included asking for a clear staff assignment and a "day in the life" scenario to demonstrate implementation. The committee agreed staff should refine scoring language and applicant guidance to emphasize capacity and measurable impact.

Why this matters: these procedural changes could shift who is funded and how funds are allocated across the nonprofit sector, affecting both small new organizations and established providers.

Next steps: staff will draft operational language on tiers, one-application limits and capacity scoring for future committee review.