As I’ve commented before, I believe that this makes the system less adaptive in responding to new needs and in bringing in new solutions (as in new or smaller nonprofits). I believe that this is one case where a more diffuse (or “distributed”) mechanism makes sense.

Some questions it raises for me:
1. some benefits cost more: Callahan talks about the funding being outcomes-based. That’s good, but some populations take more inputs to get the same outputs. A former Pfizer employee who loses his house will be easier to re-house than someone who has been unemployed for years and who suffers from both chemical addiction and mental illness. So, programs that focus on the different populations will have different costs per positive outcome. How will the funding process ensure that it doesn’t benefit organizations that cherry-pick the easiest and cheapest to serve while leaving organizations that care for those who need the most services unfunded?

2. Gaps in coverage: There are several areas here that I don’t see covered: addiction recovery, mental health, domestic violence, job training to name a few. With an uncoordinated funding system, a social service agency can shop around to local funders looking for a group to fund it. Will a coordinated funding system block any chance for local funding for groups whose services don’t fit in the six areas identified?

3. Evaluation: Jeff Irwin suggested that the evaluation include a review of overhead costs. I think this is a very bad idea. There is no indication that lower overhead costs lead to better outcomes: often they can lead to worse! (For a further discussion of this see here and here.

Second emergent question: Mary Jo Collan made a presentation at County Commissioner Board, then the proposal will be voted on Nov 3 at the County Commissioner board. The process is correct.

But at the City Council, the presentation seemed suddenly cancelled on Oct 4. then I couldn’t find any public presentation on Oct 18. Under such manner, is it legal and proper to be voted at the City Council on Nov 1? Up to now, annarbor.com doesn’t have one article talking about this important issue. Is it because annarbor.com Executive director Laurel champion is also a board member at “United Way”? They’re having commercials on its page. Is it another issue of “Conflict of Interest”?

The third question is : Maary Jo Collan from Office of Community Development said that they’ve meetings to tell this issue to small non-profits. I’d like to know the time and dates of those meetings which already took place.

The same process should be in place for City Council as well.

This sounds like a good model and template for City Council members as well.

Is Mark Quimet eligible to vote on “Coordinated Funding Initiative” on Nov 3 at County Commissioner’s board meeting? Is there an issue of “Conflicts of Interest”?

If he is elected again and becomes the Chair at “Urban County”, he can order his staff “Office of Community Development” and make the recommendations and put on the table to be voted. So, what does it mean? The decisions then go to “United Way”……..???

Revenue total revenue $7745635
Expenses Different programs and allocations $5689403

Fund raising & Endowment $677649
Management & Operation $336812
Dues $51375
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets $990396
Collection Loss provision $358866
Losses on investments $571003
Pension & other post retirement-related charges $391980
Change in Net Assets $331453

You could find this financial report in “United Way” web site.
Office of Community Development has taken administration cost from the combined federal, county, city fund already and doing very fine job of allocating 47 non-profits. What’s the merit of adding such big non-profit to suck up the money?

AA Community Foundation allocated 2 million Scholarship & Fund. They used about eight hundred thousands for management. They raised 10 million last year. They have big asset for their organization, but donated $300,000 to this model. They are very clever to draw a clear line. What’s that message? It might be “We keep our big assets ourselves, that $300000 is the only amount on which you have administrative power.

Please see through this proposal and find out how much taxpayers money gone, especially this money is for Human Services. Is it moral? Don’t forget that many small non-profits, board members are also the staff, but they work for free. How can we safeguard our community?

Now, the new proposal adds “United Way” into it. Meanwhile, AA Area Community Foundation donates $300000 into the big pool of money. Please challenge the below questions.

1. Does “Coordinated Funding” really save money and time?
OCD takes away 10-20% out of 2.6 million as administration cost, then “United Way” “AA Community Foundation” also have 13 and 10 staff respectively. If you check “United Way” financial report 2009, page 12, you will find that over 2 million was used on management cost, pension, retirement plan, INVESTMENT LOSS , fund raising cost….Should the Human Service Fund go fill this gap? Save the time. It will. OCD transfers the job to United Way, less working hour at OCD.

2. Is big non-profits better than smaller ones?
Many board members in small non-profits are also staff there, but without getting paid or any pensions.

3. OCD is now doing a great job allocating the fund. What is the merit of adding “United Way”?
“AA Community Foundation” they raised 10 million last year, but they only allocated 2 million to scholarships and funding. They have about 40 million as asset. ( I checked their web page and I hope my memory works well) “United Way” and “AA Community Foundation” are of very different nature. How can all the entities be combined together? “United Way” raised about 7 million in 2009, but over 2 million was spent on investment loss and staff. Is it moral to put public money there?

4. Is the decision making process fair and complete?
The big Non-profits don’t have the decision making power on fund allocation. The decision is based on the recommendations from OCD, which will be voted at Urban County. However, half of the OCD salary is from Urban County. It leads to the question of fair & independent recommendations from OCD. As far as I have been involved, I’ve never seen recommendations voted down at Urban County. In the Exec board, there are chair, representatives from cities and 2 townships. Ypsilanti mayor is always there, but certain members not all the time show up.

5. What will happen in future, if we have someone who becomes Chair at Urban County and doesn’t support “Housing” and “Human Services”? (Please check candidate commissioners this year, we do have candidate saying that “Housing” should go to private sector and cutting “Human services”) My point is power highly concentrated at Urban County. That’s 5 million coordinated funding. It easily opens door to confusion, then corruption.

6. Who is going to supervise this big pool of money? Currently, 9 people from city, county, OCD reviewing the fund. If this proposal adopted, who is to review the money? Will they say no if they see the public money go to staff’s pension, retirement plan and private investment?

7. Will the fund be fairly allocated? Giving a jar of cookies to the big brother, and entrust him to deliver to his siblings…..

8. Did I hear at the last meeting that “Consulting company” would be hired to find out the best outcomes of non-profits? So, how much money will be left to the poor? We’ve lots of chicken-nuggets, but not enough dipping sauce.

What a wonderful utility (OpenBook). Thanks so much to Andy Brush for his work with this and other data provision. Among all the reasons to feel discouraged about local government, a glimmer, nay, a coruscation of hope has arisen with the interest of our local media in government transparency (Ed Vielmetti’s FOIA project and the Chronicle’s focus on OMA), the volunteer efforts of some citizens (thanks again, Matt Hampel) and most important, the voluntary establishment of these data resources by our city and county.