SANTA CRUZ — Nearly a year into the award cycle that distributes millions of dollars to community-based nonprofits in Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors took a deep dive into that process at a meeting Tuesday, highlighting its successes and shortcomings. identified.

Santa Cruz County Department of Human Services Director Randy Morris, along with Deputy Director Kimberly Petersen, presented details of the Collective Outcomes and Evidence-Based Investments program, also known as “CORE.”

The Board should review the process, including discussing values ​​and priorities with stakeholders before announcing requests for award proposals, and holding public hearings after proposals are submitted but before awards are awarded. Approved a series of process adjustments, including starting 6 months in advance. Recommended.

The award, the second in the program’s history, was approved by the board last June and distributed approximately $5.9 million to more than 50 local award proposals over a three-year period. Officials said the program represents a move toward evidence-based funding to maximize collective impact.

However, the road to final passage has been rocky, with some organizations experiencing funding cuts or denials of funding criticizing the process for lack of transparency, and loss of funding may require them to scale back services. claimed no.

Local nonprofit Community Bridge said the funding cuts threatened services provided by the Family Resource Center.

“Without funding from foundations across the Central Coast, we will have tough conversations within the Community Bridge about how and when we can respond to the ongoing disasters in both Pajaro and the San Lorenzo Valley. It wouldn’t have happened,” said a Community Bridge spokesperson. Tony Nunes.

Morris said the proposed changes came after months of meetings and evaluations with stakeholders and stakeholders, and many misunderstandings about the process led to some frustration. was revealed. At the same time, he said he wanted to highlight the positive aspects of the process, which he felt were overshadowed by the current controversy.

“We ran a very competitive process,” Morris says. “We had more than three times as many applications as there was funding available, and almost 50% of the applications came from new organizations that had never had the opportunity to receive funding before.”

Supervisor and board chair Zach Friend said the intention behind the new evidence-based system is to replace the community program model that has primarily funded the same nonprofits for 40 years. . This system overhaul was intended to level the playing field for local service organizations that had previously struggled to access financial assistance.

As part of the presentation, leaders of several community-based organizations were solicited for comments, asking them to share their positive outcomes of the program and reflections on the harsh reality of misunderstandings.

United Way Santa Cruz County CEO Keisha Browder, who is black, said after the organization first applied for and received funding for the program last year, it said it had made threatening and racially charged attacks. said he personally received a voicemail.

“We didn’t get a chance to share our voices. We didn’t get a chance to celebrate the good, the new,” Browder said. “I know[the board]will not give up on us on this core process. increase.”

The new program was launched by the Board in 2015, with its first funding cycle beginning in 2018, which was expected to last three years, but was extended by two years due to the CZU Lightning Complex fire and COVID-19 pandemic. was done.

There was disagreement among Board members about the degree of involvement in application review. The program is jointly funded by Santa Cruz County and the city. Supervisor Justin Cummings, who was on the Santa Cruz City Council when the latest bonus period was approved, said he was denied access to review some of the applications while the controversy unfolded. The process requires judging by over 50 community-based expert panelists.

Conversely, Friend warned the board not to pursue avenues that could erode established processes.

“Either I trust people who have been in this field professionally for 30 or 40 years, or I don’t,” Friend said of the panel. “I know it’s not perfect, but I definitely don’t want to go back to what it was 40 years ago.”