The Lacey City Council’s Human Services Work Group (HSWG) met to review proposed revisions to the Human Services Grant Program (HSGP), a $300,000 annual fund supporting nonprofits that serve low-income and special-needs populations.
Launched in 2024 to replace the previous ad hoc funding model, the HSGP is set to improve the consistency and fairness of grant allocations. It plans to retain the same budget in 2025.
Led by Human Services Coordinator Michelle Chavez, the HSWG discussed potential funding caps, application limits, and policy adjustments on Thursday, Nov. 7, to refine the program’s efficiency and accessibility.
Grant cap proposal
For a broader fund distribution, the HSWG proposed setting maximum grant awards across different project categories.
Chavez presented three potential funding cap scenarios: a $25,000 cap for 12 fully funded applications, a $30,000 cap for 10, and a $50,000 cap for 6.
“There’s no action needed tonight,” Chavez reiterated. “This is just to get feedback from you all on the staff report where we talked about this last time and a couple of different things that have come up.”
The group weighed the pros and cons of each funding cap option. Chair Brandon Stephens cautioned that lower caps might hinder funding for major projects as he cited past funding challenges where some projects went unfunded due to inflexible grant limits.
Board Member Elhadj Toure initially supported a $25,000 cap to maximize fully funded projects but recognized the practicality of larger capital projects.
The board also discussed different caps for capital and public service projects.
Chavez suggested $50,000 for capital projects, noting, “$50,000 to me, for capital seems reasonable… but the capitals can be so expensive that one project could take up all the funds.”
Vice Chair James Broman supported the structure, stating, “I’m in favor of the $50,000 limit on capital and $30,000 on the other projects.”
Board Member Angelina Goldwell suggested adding a contingency to capital budgets to account for unexpected expenses.
To further expand fund accessibility, the HSWG also proposed limiting nonprofits to one grant application per funding cycle. Stephens emphasized broad support for this adjustment. “I think we all definitely agreed on that. I don’t think there was any opposition,” he said.
Board Member Nancy Dihle raised the possibility of allowing collaborative applications among multiple agencies and asked if a joint project could be submitted alongside an organization’s primary proposal.
Chavez acknowledged the value of collaboration and noted it had previously been included in the application but was not heavily weighted.
Goldwell questioned whether additional points were awarded to applicants who secured matching funding as part of their application.
Chavez confirmed that the application included a question addressing potential impacts if full funding was not awarded. “I believe we did have a question that said, if you weren’t to get this funding, what would that mean for your program or project?” she said.
Board Member Tifanny Walker referenced her experience with local nonprofits and supported the matching funds approach. “I work with a group called 'Help Us Move In' at the Family Support Center, where we receive matched funds annually, matching their contributions dollar-for-dollar.”
The board also considered percentage-based funding limits as a potential alternative to fixed caps. This could allow for a broader distribution of funds without a single project taking a disproportionately large share of the budget.
“Instead of a set monetary cap, maybe a percentage limit would work better,” Goldwell suggested. “This could help prevent larger projects from taking an outsized share of the budget.”
Chavez indicated that this model might be viable, stating, “One of the things that we like to do is give the city council lots of options. So, one of them could be a percentage instead of a cap percentage.”
Toure acknowledged the benefit of a $50,000 limit for more costly capital projects and noted that “capital projects can be more expensive.”
Chavez reiterated that these discussions were preliminary and encouraged further community input. “We want to hear from the community on these proposed caps and application limits,” she shared.
She also emphasized that feedback would inform further policy adjustments and refinements.
“We have time to tweak all of this,” she said. “We’ll bring the revised policy and application back to you for further feedback before anything is finalized. This is the first year, and we’re learning from this cycle to make improvements for future ones.”
The HSGP review process will continue with additional feedback from HSWG, and final recommendations are expected to be presented to the City Council later this year.
EDITORS NOTE: This article's title was edited to clarify that it is a committee and not the city council in the article.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here