Family Stability
Time-sensitive support that helps eligible households protect health, housing, safety, or essential stability.
Examples
- Emergency housing stabilization
- Urgent medical or wellness hardship
- Essential transportation or utility need
How funding decisions are made
Need matters.
So does fairness.
Every eligible request goes through the same basic process: written information, a standard scorecard, independent review, conflict checks, and a recorded committee vote.
The bottom lineMoney follows documented need, readiness, and community benefit—not friendships, pressure, or popularity.
Three funding lanes
Different needs. One accountable process.
Business Opportunity
Support for community businesses and founders with a practical plan to create jobs, services, or lasting local value.
Examples
- Equipment or startup need
- Business growth and job creation
- Training, licensing, or certification
Community Projects
Projects with defined leadership, measurable benefits, and a realistic plan to serve a broader group of people.
Examples
- Youth and workforce initiatives
- Neighborhood improvement
- Health, education, or safety programs
Minimum eligibility
Every request must pass the same first gate.
Fits one published funding laneProvides complete and truthful informationShows a specific need and use of fundsHas a reasonable budget or cost proofAgrees to verification and follow-upDoes not benefit a committee member improperly
Not eligible: investments promising a return, illegal activity, political campaign spending, personal enrichment without community purpose, undocumented requests, or applications involving undisclosed conflicts.
100-point scorecard
Recommendations are earned with evidence.
Eligible applications are independently scored before committee discussion. The score informs the decision; available funds, due diligence, and portfolio balance also matter.
70 pointsMinimum score for funding consideration. Reaching 70 does not guarantee an award.
Need & urgency
How serious, immediate, and clearly documented is the need?
Community impact
Who benefits, how meaningful is the result, and does it strengthen the community?
Plan & readiness
Is there a credible plan, responsible leadership, and ability to use the award well?
Budget & sustainability
Is the request reasonable, documented, and likely to produce lasting value?
2=1 alignment
Does it advance opportunity, stability, jobs, healing, ownership, or community wealth?
Decision path
Seven steps from request to public report.
- 1
Application received
The request is date-stamped and assigned a tracking number.
- 2
Eligibility screening
Staff checks completeness, funding-lane fit, required proof, and conflicts.
- 3
Independent scoring
At least three qualified reviewers score eligible requests before group discussion.
- 4
Due diligence
References, costs, identity, need, business standing, or project facts are verified as appropriate.
- 5
Committee vote
A quorum reviews the evidence. Approval requires a recorded two-thirds vote of eligible members present.
- 6
Agreement & payment
The recipient signs clear use-of-funds and reporting terms. Direct vendor payment is preferred when practical.
- 7
Follow-up & disclosure
Use and results are verified; aggregate award information appears in the Public Money Tracker and monthly report.
Committee safeguards
No one person controls community money.
Conflict recusal
Members disclose personal, family, business, or financial ties and leave both discussion and voting.
Recorded decisions
Scores, attendance, recusals, motions, votes, award conditions, and reasons are documented.
Separated roles
No one person should approve, release, and reconcile the same payment.
Privacy protected
Public reporting shows meaningful totals and outcomes without exposing sensitive family or applicant details.
Equal treatment
The same criteria and documentation rules apply to comparable applicants.
Misuse response
Unspent or misused funds may be stopped, recovered, or referred for appropriate action.
Responsible portfolio balance
Allocation targets are published before each funding cycle.
The board sets funding-cycle percentages only after reviewing verified available funds, reserves, current needs, and operating obligations. Targets may vary by cycle and are never changed secretly after applications are reviewed.
Reserve firstMaintain a board-approved operating and emergency reserve.Set cycle limitsPublish total funds available and maximum award sizes before review.Avoid concentrationPrevent one recipient or category from consuming an unreasonable share.Report changesExplain material changes to targets in the monthly public report.
Applicant fairness
Applicants receive written notice of approval, conditional approval, deferral, or denial. A denied applicant may request reconsideration only for a factual or procedural error—not simply disagreement with the committee’s judgment. A separate reviewer should handle the request.