Community Action Commission of Fayette County

COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION OF FAYETTE COUNTY 1400 US Route 22 NW WASHINGTON COURT HOUSE, OHIO 43160 (740) 335-7282 FAX (740) 335-6802

Emergency Food and Shelter Program Meeting Minutes

In Attendance: Christina Blair Jackie Tackett Winifred Brown Whitney Gentry Vicki Congrove Mekia Rhoades Greg Fessler

Fayette County has been chosen to receive $13,589 to supplement emergency food and shelter programs in the area.

As the local board we must determine how the funds awarded to Fayette County are to be distributed among emergency food and shelter programs run by local service organizations in the area. The Local Board is responsible for recommending agencies to receive these funds and any additional funds available under this phase of the program.

Under the terms of the grant from the National Board, local governmental or private voluntary organizations chosen to receive funds must: 1) be non- profit, 2) have an accounting system and conduct an annual audit, 3) practice nondiscrimination, 4) have demonstrated the capability to deliver emergency food and/or shelter programs, and 5) if they are a private voluntary organization, they must have a voluntary board. Qualifying organizations are urged to apply.

Fayette County has distributed Emergency Food and Shelter funds previously with Community Action, My Sister’s House, the Community Food Pantry, the Well at Sunnyside, the Commission on Aging and several churches participating.

All agencies requesting funding had to submit a written or emailed application to Bambi Baughn at Community Action, 1400 US Route 22 NW, Washington Court House, OH 43160. Call Ms. Baughn at 335-7282 or at [email protected] for a copy of the application.

Applications were due January 14, 2013 by either mail or e-mail.

Funds must be spent by March 31, 2013. We have received confirmation that our plan will be accepted.

The Community Action Commission of Fayette County will receive a 2% administrative fee of $271. This leaves $13,318. The CAC received 4 applications from: Commission on Aging, CAC (Brick House and Homeless Prevention), My Sister’s House, and Commission on Aging. We will be utilizing the scoring tool developed by the EFS Subcommittee. While a scoring tool was created, it was not decided how it should be utilized.

Christina told the group they had a couple of options that needed to be voted upon. First, whether or not an applying agency can score other applications. Second, on based on the scores, how funds will be distributed.

On the first matter, the group unanimously agreed that anyone applying could not assist in scoring. On the second matter, the group debated several methods. One idea was to use the scoring mechanism as a percentage of total points. The other was to fund based upon the ranking of the application. The third, and agreed upon approach, was to utilize the ranking as a way to inform the decision while also taking the time frame the money had to be spent and what the money was requested for into account.

The scores were as follows: Total Applicant Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5 Points COA 25 25 55 28 22 155 Brick House 50 25 45 44 38 202 Homeless Prevention 35 30 40 34 49 188 MSH 33 25 60 32 38 188 Rose Avenue 30 30 45 27 42 174

Application Review Comments:

Commission on Aging serves several people in the community and is a mass feeding site. However, based upon the time frame committee members didn’t feel like the transportation funds could be spent within the time frame.

The Brick House Homeless Shelter scored the highest and the group felt like based upon the request and the number of people served the program would be able to spend the funds quickly.

The Homeless Prevention tied with My Sister’s House in points. The group felt that the Homeless Prevention funds could be spent very quickly as many agencies received these requests.

My Sister’s House requested $1,000 for a generator. Some individuals felt that this was not in alignment with the purpose of the EFS program. Additionally, program guidelines state that no more than $1,000 may be spent on any piece of equipment. It was also noted that based upon the request for meat, flour, milk, eggs, and other goods that expired, it would not make sense to fund the request for the 3 month time period.

The Rose Avenue Community Center requested food for both the food pantry and the mass meals. The group felt that based upon the number of individuals served the Center would easily be able to spend the funds within the time allotted.

Per this input, the voting members distributed the funds as follows: COA 1500 Brick House 4818 Homeless Prevention 4000 MSH 1000 Rose Avenue 2000 Administration 271 Total 13589

This recommendation would be given to the full EFS board meeting at 12:00 for approval.