SANTA CRUZ — Despite a flood of controversy shared among elected officials and members of the public alike, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved a three-year grant program that disseminates millions in funding to dozens of local nonprofit organizations.
The board, by way of a split 3-2 decision at its meeting Tuesday, agreed to distribute $5.9 million among more than 30 local nonprofits as part of its third cycle of the Collective of Results and Evidence-based Investments program, also known as “CORE.” From that top-line total, the program, launched in 2015 in partnership with the city of Santa Cruz, carved out $1.5 million for affordable housing and shelter services through the county’s Housing for Health Partnership.
But $3.7 million was partitioned for distribution through a competitive grant application process that left many less than satisfied. However, the program received 100 applications worth more than $15 million that had to be whittled down to 28 recommended proposals from 23 organizations.
“There is so much righteous, unmet need in the community and so little funding,” said county Human Services Department Director Randy Morris, whose team oversaw the process. “Very difficult for the (community-based organizations) who have lots of arguments to make (about) what their services do; for you (the board) to make the final decision; and for us, staff, to try to thread the needle of running a procurement when there’s not enough money.”
Public sounds off
The recommended awards, posted in advance of the meeting, drew a massive crowd inside the board’s chambers in Santa Cruz and elicited a combined public comment period that lasted about two hours. Most statements were from organizations that were experiencing funding cuts or were not recommended for any funding at all during the coming cycle, which starts in July and runs through 2028.
Many misgivings were voiced specifically about a lack of funding for programs that provide meals to seniors in need and that not a single child care service provider was among the list of award recipients.
“I understand that it’s the intention of CORE to no longer provide consistent funding to any agency and rather to try to spread out funds to multiple new agencies. This is shortsighted, as nonprofits can’t continue to provide services without consistent funding. It’s just not sustainable,” said Nora Caruso, co-director of the Santa Cruz Toddler Care Center, which was not provided funding this cycle. Caruso’s pointed comments were backed by testimony from many local parents who said access to affordable child care was a critical service for their families. “Consistently funding organizations with good track records makes good sense,” Caruso added.
Morris explained that the CORE process was designed in 2015 as a replacement to the Community Programs model, which guaranteed county funding primarily to the same nonprofits for decades. The new program was intended as an evidence-based alternative that could level the playing field and give newer nonprofits a fairer shot at securing financial support.
Representatives from senior-serving organizations, such as Meals on Wheels and Grey Bears, that were not recommended for funding by the program’s 60-member review panel described the negative impacts the decision would bring and pled with the board to delay the vote. But members of other vulnerable communities that did not get a funding nod spoke out, too.
Former Santa Cruz County Health Officer Gail Newel said she joined the board of the Diversity Center as a way to stay engaged in the community during retirement. But, she said, only a few weeks ago the county Sheriff’s Office received a bomb and death threat targeting Newel’s home and the Diversity Center. No explosives were found at either location, Newel said, but she shared the story because it illustrates how the LGBTQ community needs access to resources now more than ever.
“I’m telling this story to drive home the point that even in our open-minded, open-hearted community of Santa Cruz, the LGBTQ+ community is at growing risk,” said Newel.
Split decision
Supervisors Manu Koenig and Justin Cummings were the two votes against advancing the program recommendations and were sharply critical of the process to date, citing a lack of transparency and access to applicant information.
“It’s called ‘Collective of Results and Evidence-based Investments’ and we, as a board, have no evidence and no results to look at when making these decisions,” said Koenig, adding that he was concerned the process was too focused on individual applicants and not enough on the broader safety net of services.
Cummings called this round of CORE one of the “least transparent processes that I’ve ever had to work in.”
He continued, “The notion that we wouldn’t support child care at all — I just can’t understand why we would want to move forward right now.”
Supervisor Zach Friend defended the approval vote, saying the issues stemmed from a lack of available funding, not the process itself.
“We won’t be able to, and I don’t think the board should delude itself into thinking that it can, create a model process either from the dais today or even moving forward because the underlying issue isn’t the process, the underlying issues is the funding,” said Friend.
A similarly controversial scene played out the last time the board considered the CORE awards in 2022, with multiple nonprofits publicly lambasting the board and its process. The outcry led to an investigation by the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury, which found that the process had been administered with “integrity, transparency, and to create equity of opportunity for all applicants.”
Morris also tried to assuage concerns that the recommendations posed a risk to the broader safety net of services, saying the awards total considered by the board represents about 1% of what the county spends annually on safety net services and 2.5% of what the Human Services Department spends for contracted community services in general.
Looking forward
Something that did arise from the previous funding cycle was a series of 14 process changes in response to community feedback. One of those updates included setting aside about $1 million in discretionary funding for the supervisors to distribute and fill in gaps it saw in the panel’s recommendations. The board, again by way of a 3-2 decision with Koenig and Cummings voting against, agreed to distribute this money to 11 more organizations including Meals on Wheels, Grey Bears and the Diversity Center, but not for child care services.
Morris also strongly urged the board to not delay the vote because, no matter what, there will be winners and losers, and he predicted there is no further analysis that would bring to light any new decision-making information. Plus, he said, the incoming administration for President-elect Donald Trump comes with a series of potential policy shifts that could destabilize the safety net, including mass deportations and the overturning of the Affordable Care Act. Any more time spent on the CORE process is time not spent preparing for the next four years, he said.
“Fifty percent of my department’s budget is federal funding,” said Morris. “All of it is in play under a new administration with a Republican House and a Republican Senate.”
Despite the majority’s vote of confidence in this latest cycle of awards, there was some acknowledgment that changes needed to be made moving forward. The board unanimously declined to renew a contract with Optimal Solutions Consulting for almost $273,000 in services provided for the CORE process. Optimal Solutions had provided CORE applicants with consultation services and facilitated various community meetings.
