Session 1_Nonprofit Information and Feedback for FY28 Changes-20260115_Meeting Recording - Feb 02, 2026

meeting

Loudoun County Administrator 1h 31m 1 speaker 8 agenda items transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of this public meeting and how is feedback being gathered?

Unknown 0:09

Alright, looks like we're recording Barb. For those just joining, please add your name and your organization to the chat. That

Megan 0:20

helps us with disseminating follow-up information or if there's any additional outreach that we need to do. We will do that. As Barb mentioned, as we begin, please mute your lines and the purpose of this is to support feedback from the nonprofit community regarding fiscal year 28 changes to the human service nonprofit grant process. This process started as a request from the board to look into better reporting, I think, for the county, for staff to be able to provide updated information to the board and also examine the efficiencies and potential impact of the nonprofit funding more broadly. So we did engage KPMG in the effort. So there were a number of different data analyses completed, feedback sessions with the nonprofit community back in

Megan 1:38

January, February of 2025. And that resulted in a list of recommendations by fiscal year that the county has implemented. The first being fiscal year 27 changes, which were mainly updates to the application, some potential for multi-year funding, which we are still examining and budgeting for, and creating some efficiencies, decreasing redundancies in the application, et cetera. We did receive about a few weeks ago responses from an LHSN survey. So for those of you who completed the LHSN membership survey regarding the changes, we do have those and we appreciate your feedback on that. the potential for changes moving forward and gave staff a lot to think about. So we do appreciate those. If there are specific comments as we move forward with the presentation, there will be plenty of time for conversation.

Megan 2:50

And we will also try to address some of the comments that were left in the survey as each slide presents itself. So with that, I'm going to turn it back over to Barb.

Barb 3:04

Thank you, Megan, and welcome again, everybody. Just a brief overview, we just have a short slide presentation for you to go over. There are seven proposed FY28 and kind of ongoing into FY29 changes. There's four that we really want to focus on and have some feedback and conversation around. But just to reiterate the purpose of the human service nonprofit grant is to strengthen the county's coordination with our nonprofit partners. And it's also to ensure local funds are leveraged in the most effective manner for services that assist our vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals and families in

Unknown 3:50

our community. So the seven

Barb 3:56

that have been identified for FY28, and we have prioritized them. The first adopted sequential and dynamic ranking system, programmatic performance metrics, long-term impact and

Unknown 4:13

sustainability.

Barb 4:18

The fourth is financial administrative stewardship. The fifth is multi-year funding. The sixth is consideration of new organizations applying. And then the seventh is establishing a reoccurring process to review the areas of need. And as I mentioned, time permitting, we'll cover the first four and then see where we are

Unknown 4:43

with timing and go from there. So to start, the

Barb 4:51

first, is to adopt a sequential and dynamic ranking system. So for this, as outlined in the KPMG summary, the model introduces a two-stage review process after the initial screening, and we would continue to use a 75% threshold. The highest scoring applicants undergo a second stage evaluation based on additional criteria, most notably concrete outcome and evaluation plans, data reflecting past accomplishments. By assigning a weighted score for demonstrated historical performance, this approach creates greater separation among top candidates and ensures that prior success meaningfully influences final rankings. The analysis showed that integrating outcome-based data in the second stage can significantly shift rankings and better differentiate applicants.

Barb 5:57

So with that, our thought is to open it up to comments, questions, feedback, concerns, but have an open dialogue. We've allotted some time around each of these at each of these four priorities. So we'll kind of watch our time as we go through it, but we'd like to open it up