Pinellas CARES Nonprofit Partnership Fund Program Evaluation : simplebooklet.com

To Our Pinellas County Community:The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting crisis proved to be an extraordinary challenge for our entire community. As such, an unprecedented, matching response was necessary. A unique partnership between Pinellas County government and Pinellas Community Foundation (PCF) established the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund. This fund used federal support from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), passed by the 116th Congress in March 2020. In July 2020, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners allocated $30 million for nonprot use in the strategic priority areas of food insecurity, behavioral health, and eviction mitigation through legal aid. The county government staff conducted listening sessions and selected these focus areas based upon relevant data about community needs resulting from the pandemic.The county chose PCF to distribute the funds through the creation of a competitive grant process (the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund), receiving applications from nonprot partners that could ensure the emotional and physical safety of Pinellas County residents that they know best. In addition to the compelling community needs posed by the pandemic, additional urgency was that such funds had to be spent by Dec. 30, 2020.Within two weeks of beginning this partnership, PCF launched a grant application, and by the end of August, PCF began distributing funds to nonprot partners. Weekly committee meetings were held to ensure continual deployment of CARES funding, and PCF staff were available to help both applicants and subsequent grantees with what was admittedly a complicated federal funding process.Ultimately, more than $18.6 million was awarded, and an extension was granted (through March 30, 2021, in most cases) to allow grantees to spend the remainder of their contracted funding amount, which was a signicant plus in this process.FOREWORDii Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 5

PCF would like to extend its sincere gratitude to the grant review committee members, Pinellas County government staff, and the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners for their leadership and guidance to ensure the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund was actively and rapidly deployed in the community. Also deserving of many thanks are Allegany Franciscan Ministries, the Area Agency on Aging of Pasco-Pinellas, Foundation for a Healthy St. Petersburg, Juvenile Welfare Board, and United Way Suncoast for their efforts to strengthen the success of this initiative.In this report, you will nd that 609,720 meals were served, 18,825 people received behavioral health services, and 1,053 households received assistance to sustain stable housing. This report also contains real feedback from the people who received these services, as well. Above all, we hope this narrative illuminates the way our community mobilized in a time of great need and shows ways to improve for future community emergencies. Duggan Cooley CEO Pinellas Community FoundationCheri-Wright JonesSenior Program OfcerPinellas Community FoundationSallie ParksCommittee ChairPinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership FundIN GOOD HEALTH,Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report iii

Page 6

Page 7

Chapter 1 — Grant Process Background ...............................................................1 1.1 Conditions for a Crisis ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Funding Principles ...........................................................................................................6 1.3 Stafng ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.4 Decision Process ...........................................................................................................10 1.5 Application and Reporting ............................................................................................12Chapter 2 — Statistical and Qualitative Analysis .............................................15 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Statistical Overview ......................................................................................................17 2.2.1 Food .................................................................................................................. 20 2.2.2 Behavioral Health ............................................................................................26 2.2.3 Eviction Mitigation ..........................................................................................32 2.2.4 Geographic Analysis .......................................................................................40 2.3 Qualitative Analysis ......................................................................................................42 2.3.1 Challenges .......................................................................................................42 2.3.2 Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 45 2.3.3 Insights .............................................................................................................48 2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback.....................................................................................52References ....................................................................................................................71 References ...............................................................................................................................72 Credits ......................................................................................................................................74CONTENTSPinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report v

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

CHAPTER 1: GRANT PROCESS BACKGROUND1.1 Conditions for a CrisisPinellas County is a west-central county in Florida, surrounded by Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco counties. As of 2019, Pinellas had a population of 974,996.The racial and ethnic makeup of Pinellas County is outlined in Table 1.1.Table 1.1: Pinellas County Racial and Ethnic Demographics, 2019The table shows the racial and ethnic demographics of Pinellas County. Residents are predominantly White and Non-Hispanic; roughly 10% of the population is Black, and 10% is Hispanic or Latino.Race EthnicityWhite 81.1% Not Hispanic or Latino 89.8%Black or African American 10.1% Hispanic or Latino 10.2%American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3%Asian 3.5%Native Hawaiian and Other Pacic Islander 0.1%Other race 1.3%Two or more races 3.6%As of 2019, 11.3% of Pinellas County residents lived below the poverty line.All demographic data on this page was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau (2019a).2 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 11

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, also known as the novel coronavirus and as the virus that causes COVID-19, rst emerged in December 2019. It spread globally within the next several months, becoming a pandemic. The rst two infections in Pinellas County were detected on Mar. 10, 2020, (Sampson & Surana, 2020).As is well known, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic extend well beyond infection and the subsequent physical health outcomes. According to the COVID-19 Community Vulnerability Index, Pinellas County is 91% more vulnerable to the cascading socioeconomic and health impacts of COVID-19 than other U.S. counties. This is principally due to its dense population (3,347 people per square mile; comparatively, the second-most densely populated county in the state is Broward with 1,445 people per square mile); the large number of people living in high-risk environments, such as nursing homes; and an increased number of people considered high-risk for COVID-19, such as those with comorbidities and elderly adults (Pinellas County, Florida, n.d.). Additionally, 1 in 5 Pinellas County residents works in a critical-risk job, such as retail or caretaking.Months into the pandemic, year-over-year indicators demonstrated a clear deterioration of local economic conditions, creating hardship for Pinellas County households. Unemployment increased 175% compared year over year in June 2019 and June 2020, and gross sales from consumer spending dropped 13.2% when comparing those same periods. Tourism dropped 29.4% as indicated by rooms occupied at tourist lodging in Pinellas (Pinellas County Economic Development, 2020). Employment in the leisure and hospitality industry consequently suffered as well. In March 2020, the St. Petersburg-Tampa-Clearwater metro area had 160,000 leisure and hospitality workers. In July 2020, that number was 126,900 — a 23% decrease (Pinellas County Economic Development, 2020).Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 3

Page 12

Correlated with these conditions was an increase in food insecurity. Some Tampa Bay food pantries saw the need “soar by up to 400 times the typical demand” with one organization reporting that “68% of the people they have served [were] new to food assistance” (Wynne, 2020).Mental health fared no better. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) shared that 2 in 5 Floridians reported symptoms of either a depressive or anxiety disorder in July 2020 (2021b). Furthermore, as of September 2020, Florida had a higher shortage of mental health care professionals than the national average (KFF, 2021a).Tied into the high number of residents losing work or working in a frontline job was the exorbitantly priced housing in Pinellas County, even before the COVID-19 pandemic began. Even prior to the pandemic, safe and affordable housing in Pinellas County was becoming further out of reach for many residents. More than 50% of renting households were cost-burdened, meaning that such households spent more than 30% of their income on rent. As the pandemic struck, this intensied, especially for those in the most-affected industries. For example, 13% of Pinellas County workers were employed in the leisure and hospitality industry with an average hourly wage of $12.87. The maximum affordable monthly rent, with “affordable” dened as being 30% or less of income, was $644. Yet, the median monthly gross rent in the county was $1,206 as of 2020 (Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, n.d.). Suddenly in the pandemic, many of these cost-burdened households that were already struggling to pay rent had little to no income. The threat of losing housing was one of the principal concerns after the massive job losses and signicant reduction in hours that occurred after the onset of the pandemic. To combat such a crisis, eviction moratoriums were enacted at both the federal and state levels. However, these were being extended intermittently, and there was no way to predict when these moratoriums would end. Many feared there would be a sudden ood of eviction lings, and consequently, a massive loss of housing.1.1 Conditions for a Crisis4 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 13

Racial disparities further revealed themselves as the pandemic progressed. In June 2020, Black residents of Pinellas were “2.5 times as likely to contract the coronavirus than white residents. … Although Black residents make up 11% of the population in Pinellas, they account for more than 23% of infections … in cases where race is known,” resulting in one of the “largest disparities in Florida” (Hodgson, 2020). In addition to the disparate health outcomes, economic disparities further affected the Black community in Pinellas during the pandemic. Nearly “half of Black workers in Pinellas are employed in health, education, or service industries,” usually as a frontline worker, which leads to a greater exposure to the virus, and “not having paid sick days make these jobs particularly dangerous” (Hodgson, 2020). For someone who had to stay home from work without pay due to COVID-19 infection, missing wages meant the possibility of falling behind on rent and being unable to afford food. This compounding of stressors inevitably leads to behavioral and mental health challenges.In order to meet these needs, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 20-60, allocating CARES Act funding to nonprot community partners in the strategic priority areas of “food programs … behavioral health, and legal assistance for evictions” (Pinellas County, Florida, 2020). The commissioners chose Pinellas Community Foundation (PCF) to distribute funds through a grant process in these three areas to qualifying nonprots throughout the county, and as such, created the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 5

Page 14

1.2 Funding PrinciplesUpon receiving its contract with Pinellas County government, PCF cemented founding principles under which the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund would operate:• Exhibit transparency with all transactions from this fund while providing an opportunity for the community to observe and participate in collective efforts.• Share accountability with grantees for the outcomes of this project and provide an opportunity to learn from both success and failure.• Act with urgency to ensure funds are deployed to organizations in a responsible yet rapid fashion to meet critical needs without unnecessary delay.• Ensure accessibility to nonprots of a variety of sizes and abilities to ensure funds reach deeply into the community to provide the necessary support.• Apply a lens of equity to deliberations and decisions to ensure the needs of our most vulnerable community members are addressed.6 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 15

Given the principle of equity, priority populations for programming were:• Communities of color.• Children and the elderly.• People experiencing homelessness.• People employed in high-risk, pandemic-response jobs (e.g. frontline workers, nurses, medical housekeeping staff, nonprot employees, law enforcement, rst responders, etc.).• Residents with language barriers.• People with disabilities.• Low-income families.To fulll the principle of accessibility, the eligibility criteria for the fund were set to be attainable for local, functioning nonprots. Organizations needed to have 501(c)(3) status from the IRS and offer programming for at least one year prior to applying. There was no minimum operating budget size, which ensured that smaller grassroots organizations could apply. The most-critical eligibility requirements were those that stipulated the identied programmatic needs not only needed to t into one of the three strategic priority areas designated by Pinellas County government but also demonstrated a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Organizations were also able to seek reimbursement for previously expended, unbudgeted funds that were incurred since March 2020 as a direct result of the pandemic.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 7

Page 16

1.3 StafngFive PCF staff members worked on this program and aided in the design of the grant process. In this report, these core members are referred to as the “Implementation Team.” Their titles and more specic roles in this program are included below:Senior Program Ofcer (Cheri Wright-Jones) — Full-Time on Program• Served as the principal contact for applications and grants funded through the program, ensuring budgetary and programmatic t/compliance.• Recruited a diverse committee membership to review grants.• Assisted the grant review committee in its role to review and approve grants.Program Associate (Brittany Baldwin) — Full-Time on Program• Provided administrative support to the Senior Program Ofcer.• Performed initial review of submitted weekly and monthly reports.• Communicated with grant applicants and grantees regarding application and reporting.Director of Finance (Bette Anthony) — Part-Time on Program• Maintained Pinellas CARES payment records in the PCF general ledger.• Established standardized grantee les for federal compliance record keeping.• Printed checks and transmittal letters.Director of Grants and Operations (David Bender) — Part-Time on Program• Managed various technical systems required for the program (grants management system, Zoom, WordPress, etc.).• Prepared CARES reports for the PCF Board of Governors.• Provided data analysis and visualization for the program evaluation.8 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 17

CEO (Duggan Cooley) — Part-Time on Program• Negotiated contracts with legal and accounting advisors, as well as contracts between PCF and CARES grantees.• Researched and reviewed federal CARES guidance.• Liaised between PCF and Pinellas County government staffs.Independent Evaluator — Dr. Barbara Morrison-Rodriguez• Provided technical assistance to applicants and grantees in planning outcome measures and data collection.• Aided in the design of the application and the reporting structure for evaluation purposes.• Conducted independent evaluation of the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund.Fiscal Consultant — Carr, Riggs, and Ingram LLC• Provided scal guidance on the permissible usage of CARES Act funds by both PCF and grantees.• Created the scal reporting structure and templates for grantee expenditure reports.Fiscal Reviewer — Carrie Werdine, CPA• Reviewed monthly scal reports and invoices from grantees.• Ensured alignment of expenditures with budget and contract.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 9

Page 18

1.4 Decision ProcessAll funding decisions went through a committee process. Once an application was submitted, the Implementation Team reviewed it for completion and feasibility (primarily looking at the strategic priority area t and budget completion) before sending it to the Pinellas CARES committee.Two committees were assembled (referred to as Committee A and Committee B), consisting of a variety of community members from all over Pinellas County. These members were recruited through an equity lens, ensuring that multiple voices and lived experiences were represented, as well as a variety of ages, professions, and educational backgrounds. Due to the rolling nature of the application process, committee meetings occurred weekly, with Committees A and B meeting on alternating weeks. There was one committee chair that served on both committees and reviewed all applications weekly. Each committee also had a “listener,” who served as a voting member on one committee and then abstained from voting on the alternate committee. These listeners acted to ensure continuity of decision-making between committees and assured that grants and service access were equitably distributed across Pinellas County.To allow public access, all meetings were livestreamed through Zoom and YouTube. PCF posted meeting recordings, applications, and committee minutes weekly on its website. Additionally, PCF posted a weekly fund status update, including how much funding had been awarded in each strategic priority area and in total.Nonprot organizations with pending applications were invited to the committee meetings. If a committee member had a direct question about any part of the organization’s proposal, the organization’s representative(s) could answer such clarifying questions.10 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 19

Table 1.2: Pinellas CARES Committees Demographic BreakdownThe table outlines the Pinellas CARES Committee members’ demographic data, including, racial background, gender, and sexual orientation. Race/Ethnicity Gender Sexual OrientationWhite 44.45% Male 33.33%Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual11.11%Black or African-American33.33% Female 66.67%Heterosexual or Straight88.89%Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Latinx22.22%Ultimately, 16 weeks of committee meetings were held, ceasing on December 17, 2020. The application period for behavioral health funding ended in mid-November due to the logistics of programming implementation and the original December spending deadline. The demographic makeup of the committees (n=9) is outlined in Table 1.2 below.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 11

Page 20

The application launched in early August 2020 with a rolling process, meaning that the sooner an application was submitted, the more readily a funding decision would be made. The last day for application submission was Dec. 10, 2020.To comply with data requirements set by Pinellas County, PCF required the submission of weekly and monthly reports from grantees. The weekly reports included the amount of funding spent, the number of clients served, a brief description of expenditures that occurred that week, and client ZIP code data. In the monthly reports (which also served as the weekly report for the last week of the month), the same data points were collected along with supporting nancial documentation to receive payment and a brief narrative of the impact of their programming on one client.Completed applications and weekly and monthly reports from all grantees are available at PinellasCF.org/CARES.Spending ExtensionOn Dec. 27, 2020, the Caring for Americans with Supplemental Help Act (CASH Act) was passed into federal law, which extended the original spending deadline for CARES Act funds. Subsequently, Pinellas County government extended its contract with PCF, allowing grantees several additional months to spend down the funds they had been awarded. If grantees had already spent their entire contracted funding amount prior to the deadline of Dec. 30, 2020, their contract was not extended, as no additional funds were available from the county.For the sake of the evaluation in the following sections, only data from the original spending period (August to December 2020) has been analyzed. Table 1.3 provides output measures across focus areas for the extension period.1.5 Application and Reporting12 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 21

Table 1.3: Output Measures, Breakdown by Strategic Priority AreaThe table shows the numbers served throughout the granting period, including the extension period. Food and behavioral health grantees, if granted an extension, were given until Mar. 31, 2021, to spend the remaining funds in their contract. Eviction mitigation grantees received additional time until Apr. 30, 2021, to spend the remaining funds.Strategic Priority AreaNumber Served (Aug.-Dec. 2020)Number Served (Extension Period)Total ServedFood 609,720 56,991 666,711Behavioral Health 18,825 10,437 29,262Eviction Mitigation 1,053 623 1,676Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 13

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

The following statistical overview and qualitative analysis will provide greater context regarding the robust impact of the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund.From August 24 through Dec. 30, 2020, there were 609,720 meals served, 19,769 people who received behavioral health services, and 1,100 households that received legal aid services or nancial assistance to avoid eviction and stabilize housing.The Implementation Team made a great effort to collect data from a myriad of sources to ensure the most efcient and equitable process. This was done at all stages of the process, from application inception and program planning to the decision-making process and evaluation plan development. This process not only included the opportunity for grantees to share and highlight their successes and challenges but also allowed the direct recipients of services and resources to provide feedback. PCF viewed this as a critical mechanism to bring equity into the decision-making process and to gain a deeper understanding in areas of programmatic improvements and community concerns, even at the funding lifecycle’s end.The statistical overview (Section 2.2) provides data regarding outputs and outcomes for programs. Unique to this section is the ability to review heat maps broken down by strategic priority area and geographic zones in the county. The ability to report where services were distributed in real time throughout the Pinellas CARES funding period allowed additional recruitment of grantee organizations to increase access in underserved areas of Pinellas County. The qualitative analysis (Section 2.3) shares feedback and qualitative data regarding the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund from stakeholders across the process, including the direct recipients of services.CHAPTER 2: STATISTICAL AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS2.1 Introduction16 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 25

Focus Area Funding Grantees Number ServedFood $10,050,964.31 28 609,720 mealsBehavioral Health $4,692,053.53 27 18,825 peopleEviction Mitigation (Housing Stability) $3,857,618.71 7 1,053 householdsOther $25,000.00 1 N/ATOTAL $18,625,636.55 63 629,5982.2 Statistical OverviewTable 2.1: Funding SnapshotThe table shows the amount of funding provided, the number of nonprot organizations served, and the amount of specic services rendered in each of the three strategic priority areas. Three grantees received services in multiple strategic priority areas. Eviction Mitigation primarily includes services through legal aid providers; however, CARES funds were used in this focus area to reimburse Habitat for Humanity and Metropolitan Ministries for housing stabilization efforts. A grant was issued outside of the three focus areas to the Tampa Bay Black Business Investment Corporation to support the administration of the Working Capital Loan Fund, which is described later in Section 2.3.2 Partnerships.Following the pattern of the funds allocated and the number of grantees in each of the strategic priority areas, a signicantly larger number of people received meals. These may be duplicated counts as one person or family may have returned multiple times for food. Organizations were given the option to report their counts as duplicated or not based on their ability to capture this distinction.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 17

Page 26

Out of the entire grant pool, the smallest grant awarded was in the amount of $5,782, and the largest grant awarded was in the amount of $3,071,235.14.The largest allocation of funds was to provide food, followed by behavioral health services, and eviction mitigation. The demand for food often exceeded the expectations of applicant organizations based on their preliminary projections of meals they would provide.The amounts illustrated above are not indicative of how much was spent in the four-month grant period, but rather how much was ultimately awarded. If an organization had not spent their funding by Dec. 30, 2020, and had remained in compliance with grant requirements, they were allowed to request funding extensions until Mar. 31, 2021, to continue programmatic services.There were 60 grantees in total, with 21 (35%) estimated to be minority-led organizations. The grant application did not attempt to dene in advance what constituted the denition of a “minority-led” organization. The estimate for minority-led organizations is based on those that self-identied as such in a nal evaluation survey. Self-identication was not consistent across organizations, therefore an estimate was made. Figures 2.4-2.7 are heat maps that display the geographic density patterns of CARES funded services. The economic and demographic prole of these communities clearly indicate that CARES funds were successful in meeting the diversity and equity goals of the funding.A narrative and geographic breakdown of each focus area follows. For the purposes of geographic analysis, this report analyzes ZIP code data through the commonly known divisions of Pinellas County: North County, Mid-County, and South County. PCF used the Juvenile Welfare Board’s geographic denitions to dene each area of Pinellas.2.2 Statistical Overview18 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 27

Behavioral Health25%Food57%Eviction Mitigation18%The chart shows the breakdown of funds allocated by the strategic priority area: food, behavioral health, or eviction mitigation. More than half of the funds supported organizations that served food-insecure people in Pinellas County.Pinellas County Geographical DivisionsNorth County: Clearwater (33755, 33756, 33759, 33761, 33763, 33764, 33765), Clearwater Beach (33767), Crystal Beach (34681), Dunedin (34698), Oldsmar (34677), Palm Harbor (34683, 34684, 34685), Safety Harbor (34695), Tarpon Springs (34688, 34689)Mid-County: Belleair Beach (33786), Clearwater (33760, 33762), Indian Rocks Beach (33785), Largo (33770, 33771, 33773, 33774, 33778), Lealman (33714), Pinellas Park (33781, 33782), Seminole (33772, 33776, 33777), St. Petersburg (33708, 33709)South County: St. Petersburg (33701, 33702, 33703, 33704, 33705, 33706, 33707, 33710, 33711, 33712, 33713, 33715, 33716)Figure 2.2: Funds Distribution by Strategic Priority AreaPinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 19

Page 28

2.2.1 FoodThe program awarded $10,050,964.31 among 28 food service providers.The total meals distributed was calculated using a sum of weekly report totals from all grantees. Across the county, 609,720 meals were distributed. During the application process, food service providers had to submit anticipated monthly output measures of meals served by their organization. Sixty percent of food providers met their target service level during the grant period. As previously mentioned, organizations used either duplicated or unduplicated counts of food distributed.In North County, the highest concentration of food was delivered in the 33756 ZIP code, which is in Clearwater.In Mid-County, the highest concentration of food was delivered in the 33714 ZIP code, the unincorporated area of Pinellas County known as Lealman.In South County, the highest concentration of food was delivered in the 33705 ZIP code, the area known as South St. Petersburg.Figure 2.3 is a chart showing the rate of service delivery throughout the grant period, and Figures 2.4-2.7 are heat maps demonstrating the geographic distribution of services. The dramatic increase in meals delivered and peak at the end of the grant period can be explained through two conclusions: 1. Additional grant partners were added as the committee approved additional requests.2. The holiday season caused a higher demand for food in households. This holiday trend could be attributed to students being out of school and seasonal labor hours being adjusted. Additionally, certain food providers received increased funding due to an anticipated surge in food demand during the holiday season.20 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 29

Figure 2.3: Weekly Food Service Delivery in Pinellas County010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00027-Dec-2020-Dec-2013-Dec-206-Dec-2029-Nov-2022-Nov-2015-Nov-208-Nov-201-Nov-2025-Oct-2018-Oct-2011-Oct-204-Oct-2027-Sep-2020-Sep-2013-Sep-206-Sep-2030-Aug-20The chart demonstrates the number of meals distributed each month throughout Pinellas County with an increasing number of meals provided as the program continued and throughout the holiday season. The data may be slightly skewed higher since some organizations counted multiple meals served to the same client.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 21

Page 30

Figure 2.4: Food Service Delivery in Pinellas County0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,00033716337023370333713337103370733711337123376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563370433705337013468134698346983376733767337863378533708337153371533706In Pinellas County, the highest concentration of food services was delivered in the 33705 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg. Overall, 609,720 clients received food services during the program. This data may include duplicated counts, as organizations were given the option of reporting multiple meals per client.2.2.1 Food0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,0003371633702337033371333710337073371133712337603376233770337713377333774337823378133777337723377633778337093371433708346893468834685346843468334677346983376133763337593469533765337643375533756337043370533701346813469834698337673376733786337853370833715337153370622 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 31

Figure 2.5: Food Service Delivery in North Pinellas County0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,0003468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681In North County, the highest concentration of food services was delivered in the 33756 ZIP code, which is in Clearwater. Overall, 19,365 clients received food services in North County. This data may include duplicated counts, as organizations were given the option of reporting multiple meals per client.0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,0003468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 23

Page 32

Figure 2.6: Food Service Delivery in Mid-Pinellas County3376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083378533786337080 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000In Mid-County, the highest concentration of food services was delivered in the 33714 ZIP code of Largo. This area contains a well-known low-income neighborhood known as Lealman. Overall, 43,891 clients received food services in Mid-County. This data may include duplicated counts, as organizations were given the option of reporting multiple meals per client.2.2.1 Food3376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083378533786337080 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,00024 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 33

Figure 2.7: Food Service Delivery in South Pinellas County33716337023370333713337103370733711337123370433705337013370633706337150 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000In South County, the highest concentration of food services was delivered in the 33705 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg. Overall, 78,577 clients received food services in South County. This data may include duplicated counts, as organizations were given the option of reporting multiple meals per client.33716337023370333713337103370733711337123370433705337013370633706337150 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 25

Page 34

2.2.2 Behavioral HealthThe program distributed $4,692,053.53 among 27 behavioral health providers. Note, two of these providers only received reimbursement for past expenses, and therefore, did not report service levels or outcome measures that would be taken into account for the data analyzed.The total people receiving behavioral health services was calculated using a sum of monthly report totals from all behavioral health grantees, as most chose to report unduplicated counts. Therefore, monthly reports were found to be most accurate. Across the county, 18,825 people received behavioral health services through this funding.During the application process, behavioral health providers projected how many people they would serve monthly. Providers also needed to select a behavioral health progress rate, which is the amount by which their clients would improve, and a measurement tool that could track such progress. Common tools included the Patient Health Questionnaire and the Beck Depression Inventory. About 48% of behavioral providers met their target progress rate during the grant period, and 52% met their target service level.In North County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 34683 ZIP code, which is in Palm Harbor.In Mid-County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 33760 ZIP code, which is in Largo.In South County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 33705 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg.Below is a chart showing the rate of service delivery throughout the grant period, as well as heat maps showing geographic distribution of services. The massive increase in services towards the end of November can be explained through the increase in number of grant partners, including the funding of high-volume providers that frequently served hundreds to thousands of clients per week.26 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 35

Figure 2.8: Weekly Behavioral Health Service Delivery in Pinellas County01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,00027-Dec-2020-Dec-2013-Dec-206-Dec-2029-Nov-2022-Nov-2015-Nov-208-Nov-201-Nov-2025-Oct-2018-Oct-2011-Oct-204-Oct-2027-Sep-2020-Sep-2013-Sep-206-Sep-2030-Aug-20The chart demonstrates the number of people served each month throughout Pinellas County with a spike in numbers during November that is likely due to an increase in the number of grant partners. The data closely represents actual numbers, as most grantees chose to report unduplicated counts of those served.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 27

Page 36

Figure 2.9: Behavioral Health Service Delivery in Pinellas County0 300 600 900 1,200 1,50033716337023370333713337103370733711337123376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563370433705337013376733767346983469834681337853378633708337063370633715In Pinellas County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 33705 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg. Overall, 14,325 clients received behavioral health services during the program. Two organizations provided a high volume of services from their headquarters, and only reported that ZIP code for participants, therefore, they were excluded from the maps above.2.2.2 Behavioral Health0 300 600 900 1,200 1,5003371633702337033371333710337073371133712337603376233770337713377333774337823378133777337723377633778337093371433708346893468834685346843468334677346983376133763337593469533765337643375533756337043370533701337673376734698346983468133785337863370833706337063371528 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 37

Figure 2.10: Behavioral Health Service Delivery in North Pinellas County0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8003468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681In North County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 34683 ZIP code, which is in Palm Harbor. Overall, 767 clients received behavioral health services in North County. The data closely represents actual numbers, as most grantees chose to report unduplicated counts of those served.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 8003468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 29

Page 38

Figure 2.11: Behavioral Health Service Delivery in Mid-Pinellas County3376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083370833785337860 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200In Mid-County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 33760 ZIP code of Largo. This area contains a well-known low-income neighborhood known as Highpoint. Overall, 1,106 clients received behavioral health services in Mid-County. Two organizations provided a high volume of services from their headquarters, and only reported that ZIP code for participants, therefore, they were excluded from the maps above.2.2.2 Behavioral Health3376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083370833785337860 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,20030 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 39

Figure 2.12: Behavioral Health Service Delivery in South Pinellas County33716337023370333713337103370733711337123370433705337013371533706337060 300 600 900 1,200 1,500In South County, the highest concentration of behavioral health services was delivered in the 33705 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg. Overall, 1,385 clients received behavioral health services in South County. The data closely represents actual numbers, as most grantees chose to report unduplicated counts of those served.33716337023370333713337103370733711337123370433705337013371533706337060 300 600 900 1,200 1,500Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 31

Page 40

2.2.3 Eviction Mitigation The program distributed $3,857,618.71 to seven eviction mitigation partners.Gulfcoast Legal Services, Community Law Program, and Bay Area Legal Services (referred to as legal aid providers) worked with tenants and landlords to resolve disputes and avoid tenant eviction. Funds distributed to these providers were used for stafng costs. A $2.5 million pool was administered by Pinellas Opportunity Council, which was used to pay back rent and legal fees once negotiations from the legal aid providers had been completed. Community Law Program partnered with the Homeless Leadership Alliance of Pinellas (HLA) to aid families who could not successfully negotiate with landlords to remain housed. HLA then used Pinellas CARES funding to support the transition to stable housing. This transitional funding was comprehensive, including but not limited torst month’s rent, security deposits, and utility connection fees. Pinellas CARES funding also supported housing navigators at HLA. Habitat for Humanity of Pinellas and West Pasco Counties and Metropolitan Ministries were reimbursed for programming to sustain stable housing for Pinellas County residents.Approximately 66% of legal aid providers met their service level target of households served, and 33% met their monthly outcome targets for keeping tenants housed. This may have been due to cases opening in one month and closing in a following month, which led to a lower outcome rate.The services provided by Gulfcoast Legal Services, Community Law Program, Bay Area Legal Services, and HLA are represented in the maps of Figures 2.15-2.18.32 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 41

Page 42

Page 43

Figure 2.15: Eviction Mitigation Service Delivery in Pinellas County0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35033716337023370333713337103370733711337123376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681337853378633708337063370633715337043370533701In Pinellas County, the highest concentration of eviction mitigation services was delivered in the 33712 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg. Overall, 906 clients received eviction mitigation services during the program.0 50 100 150 200 250 300 35033716337023370333713337103370733711337123376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681337853378633708337063370633715337043370533701Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 35

Page 44

Figure 2.16 Eviction Mitigation Service Delivery in North Pinellas County0 5 10 15 20 253468934688346853468434683346773469833761337633375934695337653376433755337563376733767346983469834681In North County, the highest concentration of eviction mitigation services was delivered in the 33756 ZIP code, which is in Clearwater. Overall, 105 clients received eviction mitigation services in North County.2.2.3 Eviction Mitigation 0 5 10 15 20 25346893468834685346843468334677346983376133763337593469533765337643375533756337673376734698346983468136 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 45

Figure 2.17 Eviction Mitigation Service Delivery in Mid-Pinellas County3376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083378533786337080 20 40 60 80 100In Mid-County, the highest concentration of eviction mitigation services was delivered in the 33709 ZIP code, in St. Petersburg. Overall, 283 clients received eviction mitigation services in Mid-County.3376033762337703377133773337743378233781337773377233776337783370933714337083378533786337080 20 40 60 80 100Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 37

Page 46

Figure 2.18 Eviction Mitigation Service Delivery in South Pinellas County33716337023370333713337103370733711337123370433705337013371533706337060 50 100 150 200 250 300 350In South County, the highest concentration of eviction mitigation services was delivered in the 33712 ZIP code, in the area known as South St. Petersburg. Overall, 512 clients received eviction mitigation services in South County.2.2.3 Eviction Mitigation 33716337023370333713337103370733711337123370433705337013371533706337060 50 100 150 200 250 300 35038 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 47

Page 48

2.2.4 Geographic AnalysisAcross all three focus areas, the highest concentration of service delivery took place in the ZIP codes 33705 and 33712, within the area commonly known as South St. Petersburg. Between these two ZIP codes, grantees served 141,254 meals and provided behavioral health services to 2,663 people during the initial grant period. As previously noted, organizations were permitted to submit duplicated numbers in regard to number served, provided they were consistent during the entire grant period.This area of St. Petersburg has been historically noted as a food desert, with a “lack of a major supermarket within walking range of the majority of residents. While small food stores provide little access to fresh foods ... even these are not readily available to the residents of much of Southwest St. Petersburg” (Johns & Dixon, 2013). The demographic makeup of this area is as follows in Table 2.19 and Table 2.20.Table 2.19: Racial Demographic of Southwestern St. Petersburg, Fla., 2015-2019The table shows the racial demographics of residents in the two areas, commonly known as South St. Petersburg, with the highest concentration of service delivery across all three focus areas. The majority of these populations are Black or African American. Data in this table was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau (2019a).RaceZIP Code33705 33712White 40.7% 26.7%Black or African American 52.7% 68%American Indian and Alaska Native 0.6% 0.1%Asian 2% 1.1%Native Hawaiian and Other Pacic Islander 0% 0.2%Other race 0.2% 1.5%Two or more races 3.8% 2.4%40 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 49

Table 2.20: Ethnic Demographic of Southwestern St. Petersburg, Fla., 2015-2019The table shows the ethnic breakdown of residents in the two areas, commonly known as South St. Petersburg, with the high-est concentration of service delivery across all three focus areas. About 5% of this population is of Hispanic or Latino descent. Data in this table was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau (2019a).Hispanic/Latino OriginZIP Code33705 33712Not Hispanic or Latino 94.9% 95.7%Hispanic or Latino 5.1% 4.3%Table 2.21: Poverty Status of Southwestern St. Petersburg, Fla., 2015-2019The table shows the poverty status of residents in the two areas, commonly known as South St. Petersburg, with the highest concentration of service delivery across all three focus areas. Roughly 20% of residents in this area live below the national poverty level. Data in this table was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau (2019a).Poverty StatusZIP Code33705 33712Income in the past 12 months below poverty level 22.72% 19.29%Income in the past 12 months at or above poverty level 77.28% 80.71%Given the focus on racial and socioeconomic equity in this grant process, it is considered a success that South St. Petersburg had a large amount of services delivered through this grant program’s funding.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 41

Page 50

2.3 Qualitative AnalysisTHEMATIC ANALYSES OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS MAJOR CROSS-GROUP THEMESContained in this section are qualitative analyses of various components of the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund. The following material provides an overview of challenges, technical assistance given to grantees, special partnerships in the community, lessons learned, and comments from stakeholders. These comments are the primary source upon which the major themes are derived.2.3.1 ChallengesTime CompressionAll feedback groups expressed that the time allotted for all phases of the funding process, from application to achievement of tasks, was extremely compressed and made fund distribution and service delivery much more difcult.Application RequirementsBudget preparation and submission requirements were considered especially challenging, particularly for smaller organizations not used to more complex applications. This required much technical assistance from the Implementation Team.Rolling Changes to Submitted ApplicationsIn some cases, the rst submission of the application required additional details, despite being in the pipeline for consideration. At times, an application considered programmatically worthy may have been sent on to the committee for review pending updates to the budget that was being worked on with the assistance of the Implementation Team. The reviewer may not have had the most up-to-date budget or outcomes necessary to make an informed decision whether to approve or deny the request. This was an understandable source of frustration for the Implementation Team and committee members. Usually by the time of the committee meeting, the Implementation Team was able to provide updated or missing information. Time-related pressure to keep the applications moving forward was a factor here, as well.42 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 51

Accurate Outcomes and Valid Measurement This was a special challenge for behavioral health programs. Some issues were related to providers’ lack of understanding and experience with outcome measures they hadn’t previously used, but most issues were again due to the effects of time compression in three areas: • It takes time for people to change behaviors targeted in the program.• Most behavioral health interventions (except for shorter-term crisis intervention) require intervention periods that are longer than several months.• Most behavioral health outcome measures have observation and scoring periods that need to be longer than a month.Reimbursement-Only Nature of FundingAlthough the application guides clearly identied the possibility of a reimbursement-only nature of funding, some organizations applied without a full understanding they would need to initially cover costs related to their proposed CARES program activities. Paradoxically, interpretation of federal guidance indicated that larger organizations with greater nancial resources and completed audits were able to receive prepayment, while smaller organizations could not. To address this, the program set up a special loan arrangement to assist organizations that found themselves in this position as described under Section 2.3.2: Partnerships.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 43

Page 52

Open and Transparent Grant ProcessFrom the program’s inception, PCF aimed to make the review, discussion, and voting on grant applications a fully transparent process, with all applications, committee deliberations, and reports made available digitally. While this had advantages, some felt it may have constrained reviewers from being more candid in their commentary, and there was discussion of concerns with grant applicants viewing and participating in their deliberations. Some applicants also went beyond answering additional questions that may have been posed to them, becoming advocates for their applications, and thereby putting additional pressure on the reviewers to approve their applications.Lack of Coordinated Information and Referral Response System in Pinellas CountyA challenge of a different magnitude was identied by the Implementation Team. This was found not only to be a challenge for distribution of the CARES dollars but was rather illustrative of a broader systemic issue and need. There is a signicant need for more investment in both the governmental and nonprot sectors to increase their capacity to respond to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, and to public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. There needs to be more focus on “front door” entry points where citizen needs can be rapidly assessed followed by a swift and appropriate response, including service navigation and care coordination.2.3.1 Challenges44 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 53

2.3.2 Partnerships Tampa Bay Resiliency FundIn March 2020, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and with the desire to have a more sustained effort to address future disasters, the Tampa Bay Funders Community Response Collaborative was launched. The initial funders included Allegany Franciscan Ministries, Foundation for a Healthy St. Petersburg, Pinellas Community Foundation, and United Way Suncoast. The rst initiative of the Collaborative was to create the Tampa Bay Resiliency Fund (TBRF), which addressed community resilience in the wake of the pandemic, while focusing on the needs exacerbated by race and socioeconomic status. TBRF raised and distributed funds throughout the Tampa Bay area during the rst several months of the pandemic.The partnership and collaborative spirit that developed through this joint venture laid important groundwork for the success of this Pinellas CARES Nonprot Fund. Collectively designing a funding process deeply rooted in the principles of racial equity, as well as the strengthened relationship among these local funders, ensured that the Pinellas CARES program would benet the community’s most vulnerable citizens. Each of these funders played a key role in the decision-making for the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund, serving as a sounding board for the development of solid policy and ensuring a strong focus on the equitable distribution of critical resources to the community.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 45

Page 54

Working Capital Loan FundTo address the challenge of the “reimbursement-only” provision of these grants, PCF developed a “Working Capital Loan Fund” in partnership with the Foundation for a Healthy St. Petersburg (FHSP) and Tampa Bay Black Business Investment Corporation (TBBBIC). TBBBIC administered “bridge funding,” made possible through $2 million in loan funds from FHSP. These loans were particularly useful for smaller grant-approved agencies that did not have sufcient nancial reserves to operate their funded programs until reimbursements were issued. Unique to this arrangement was that all issued loans were default-proof to TBBBIC and offered at a 0% interest rate to grantees. Listed below are the outcomes attributed to this partnership:• TBBBIC deployed loans rapidly, often within a few days of loan application submission. This allowed organizations to begin work immediately, rather than waiting through a more traditional loan process, which could have taken longer and delayed critical services. Furthermore, many of these organizations would not have qualied for a loan from traditional nancial institutions. Clear communication throughout the process kept all partners on the same page and up to date.• There were 10 organizations that accessed loan funds, which in turn allowed the use of awarded Pinellas CARES funds to address critical community needs. Without these “bridge funds,” it is highly unlikely that these grantees would have been able to carry out the programming at the scale and speed proposed in their applications.• The majority (60%) of loan recipient organizations were minority-led.• The loan fund provided $349,467, which was leveraged to allow approximately $1.4 million in federal CARES Act funds.• The loans had a 100% repayment rate.• This arrangement resulted in 50,979 meals being provided to people in need and 1,810 people accessing behavioral health programming. • FHSP has made this loan program permanent in order to help grassroots nonprots access more reimbursement-only funding and to advance race equity in Pinellas County.2.3.2 Partnerships46 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 55

Eviction Mitigation Funding Pool ProcessAs previously mentioned, Pinellas Opportunity Council (POC) administered funds for the eviction mitigation pool for this grant program. POC issued payments to landlords for back-rent claims and legal fees in an amount determined by the legal aid partner agencies for the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund. The executive director, Pattye Sawyer, was asked to contribute her assessment of how this process worked as a component of this evaluation report. Below are her reections and recommendations: Challenges“Realizing that this program was new to everyone, the signicant challenges we encountered were not having all the […] responsibilities outlined before the program’s start. As the program developed, the […] duties increased signicantly. The increased responsibilities made the process more time-consuming and created a heavier workload for the team.”Positives“The program features that worked well were the collaboration and communication amongst all of the partners. Questions and issues were resolved promptly.” Recommendations“During the initial meeting with all of the partners, a comprehensive explanation of tasks, requirements, roles, and expectations should be outlined and then adhered to for the duration of the program.” Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 47

Page 56

2.3.3 InsightsTechnical Assistance (TA) ProvidedCritical to the implementation of the Pinellas CARES funding stream was the availability of assistance to support applicants, and subsequent grantees, throughout the funding process. As will be demonstrated in the comments from grant recipients to follow, there was much praise and appreciation for the assistance of the Implementation Team for creating online guidance and hands-on technical assistance in preparation of applications, especially related to the preparation of program budgets. Special training and TA sessions were designed to assist potential and funded programs to complete their applications and performance expectations. This included a webinar at the beginning of the application process, “Fiscal Fridays” held almost weekly to answer grantee questions, and the option to consult with an independent evaluator regarding data collection and outcomes.48 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 57

Alleviating Time ConstraintsAs reported earlier in this section, the rapidness of this funding process was a constant constraining factor in effectively distributing the available funds. This was not only in regard to the original spending deadline of Dec. 30, 2020 but also as it related to reporting and committee decision-making. Reporting, while useful for geographic data collection, created a hardship for grantees and the Implementation Team. Grantees were required to submit reports weekly, and the Implementation Team had an obligation to review reports with 48-72 hours of submission. If a similar funding effort were to be carried out again, it is recommended that only monthly reports be required. The amount of insight gleaned from the weekly reports could have been gathered in a monthly format. At most, a weekly report stating how much was spent in a week would have been sufcient to check in on programmatic progress. Furthermore, grantees stated that reporting requirements diminished the critical service delivery this funding was meant to support and elevate.Similarly, the Implementation Team recommends future efforts have biweekly committee meetings rather than weekly. This would allow two committees to meet monthly and would reduce the burden on those teams. Furthermore, it would allow the Implementation Team more time to review and gather information from applicants as necessary.The Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund operated on a rolling basis, with the nal committee meeting just two weeks before the original spending deadline of Dec. 30, 2020. The Implementation Team would have ended the application period sooner, leaving valuable time for contract negotiations, program implementation, and ramp-up.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 49

Page 58

Paradox of Engaging Grassroots OrganizationsWhen this initiative was launched, there was concern that smaller organizations, especially those that were minority-led, would be challenged to be competitive in such a time-compressed funding period with heavy reporting requirements. The program implemented “Logistical Partner Organizations” (LPOs) to meaningfully engage smaller grassroots organizations, especially those located in disadvantaged minority communities, as partners to larger providers that were assumed to be able to more easily manage the execution of grant applications. The LPOs were intended to facilitate access to services “on the ground” through outreach and engagement of community members in need where larger providers may have more limited access. However, in actual practice, some of the designated LPOs determined that they were competitive and submitted their own organizational applications. In all but a few cases, these organizations successfully received funding. In fact, a few of them were the most successful in meeting their programmatic outcomes. Described below are a few stellar examples:Advantage Village Academy (Food)AVA exceeded its projected target of meals provided by 454%. For example, in the month of December 2020, it projected to provide 2,000 meals and actually provided 17,903, which is also a strong indication of the overwhelming need for food in the communities served.The Gathering of Women (Food)The GOW exceeded its projected goal for the number of meals served by 48%.Rhythm Changes (Behavioral Health)This is a very creative approach to behavioral health interventions in which drumming classes are provided for children in several targeted middle schools in Pinellas County. The organization exceeded its target number of classrooms engaged by 44%.2.3.3 Insights50 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 59

Page 60

2.3.4 Stakeholder FeedbackAs part of the evaluation process, the program sought anonymous, direct feedback from various stakeholders in the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund. Below is such feedback and recommendations for future funding endeavors.Pinellas County Government Staff — Written FeedbackPositive Feedback• PCF had an amazing staff and system for the collection of data and reporting. Impressed with online viewing of meetings, reports, contracts, etc. Looking forward to seeing the nal performance of grantees with direct services to community, providing food and legal aid.• Through this partnership, the county and the [Pinellas] Community Foundation gained a better understanding of how best to work together and support one another as partners. Though there were no shortages of challenges given the unprecedented circumstances, the extent of the need, and the incumbent pressures on all parties involved; the Foundation’s strong community relationships, ability to bring agencies together around solutions, and ultimately, their commitment to nding common ground to address the needs of the community were incredible assets in responding to COVID-19’s impacts on the community.52 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 61

Areas of Concern and Challenges• Grant applications and budgets were being updated and changed between committee review/scoring and meetings; committee expected to vote based on staff comment of changes; scores on applications had no value — committee could vote to approve even if average score was below a value. The rush to get money out often led to incomplete applications and budget submissions, requiring numerous follow-ups after committee review and approval. Unfortunately, (not a PCF issue) funding could go to organizational infrastructure rather than to serving the residents directly. Behavioral Health guidance from [the Board of County Commissioners] was not specic enough and allowed for a wide range of funding to go to BH providers who did not use it to provide a direct BH service to the community but rather boosted organizational bottom lines — every business in every sector had lost revenue; had to adjust delivery methods but only BH providers could get money for this, where other businesses/nonprots could not. Should have limited uses of funding where economic development/PPP offered funding. Performance measures for behavioral health were often unrelated to the money given.1Recommendations For Related Efforts• In addition to the funding area breakdown of awards, noting the location (north, south, or mid-county) awards served, and as applicable, the target population (homeless, youth, seniors, families, etc.) may assist future rolling application reviews to identify gaps and opportunities throughout the process. 1. Comment from the Implementation Team: When appropriate, behavioral health grantees received funding for hazard pay (in accordance with the organization’s bylaws and hazard pay policy). In these cases, the grantees displayed the direct detriment that COVID-19-related staff turnover had on their clients’ behavioral health outcomes. Organizations requested the funds necessary to run their programming, which included administrative staff needed to most effectively serve the community and provide scal oversight and management.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 53

Page 62

Pinellas CARES Grant Review Committee — Written FeedbackPositive Feedback• Overall, it was a smooth process on the reviewer side. PCF staff was prepared and supportive. Time commitment was minimal.• I would like to begin by saying that I enjoyed my time on the grant review committee and greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve in that capacity. It was an experience unlike anything I have participated in before and believe it will make me a stronger grant writer, manager, and reviewer moving forward.• Overall, it was a fantastic experience that I hope to encounter again, and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate.• Many thanks to staff, Duggan, Cheri, Brittany, and David, for the opportunity to participate on Committee A. Although a humbling experience, I learned so much and have a far greater appreciation of what we do at PCF and the opportunity before us in 2021 and beyond. I was so impressed with all the members on our committee as they were so thorough and able to deliver very important grants to those in need. All are true professionals. As a Board member of PCF, I truly enjoy meeting so many really wonderful people and look forward to getting to know all of you in the years to come. Special thanks to Cheri and Brittany for the wonderful support. • Application review process was easy to navigate and the staff did a great job responding to any questions and relaying additional information to the committee.• Overall, the process was pleasant given the novel nature of the coronavirus disaster and the speed at which the funds must be distributed.2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback54 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 63

Areas of Concern and Challenges• The application was lengthy. There were two similar questions about the organizational budget I felt could have been consolidated. • One of the greatest challenges I experienced as a reviewer was the uid nature of the application materials, specically the budget summary and narrative. The grant reviewers put forth a lot of time and effort to pore through the materials and compile questions/comments to bring forth an informed discussion for decision with the committee, often to learn during the live meeting that budget revisions may have already been made. Sometimes the revised budget(s) were sent to us via email during the meeting, but that did not leave much time for additional review and consideration since the committee was then on the spot for a decision. I understand the unique nature of this funding and the desire to funnel it out into the community as quickly as possible because of the great need and shortened time frame; however, it often felt too rushed as many of the applications presented to the committee were incomplete or in various stages of revision.• It was helpful to be able to ask the applicants questions during the meetings; however, I did not feel that it was appropriate for them to have the ability to argue and/or advocate extensively for their programs as some of the organizations did. I would have liked to have been able to meet as a committee with PCF staff in a private forum to review the scores, comments and candidly discuss any application questions and concerns before the formal public meeting with the applicants. I believe there was a ne line between identifying COVID needs vs. COVID benets that some of the proposed expenditures crossed and it would have been benecial to discuss whether those line items were reasonable, allowable, and necessary prior to the public meeting.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 55

Page 64

• The information I rated as “good” [versus] excellent was an issue with the submitters to the grant process versus the PCF process or staff work. We did have two or three go back for clarication, but came from our due diligence and probably could not have been anticipated by staff.• Some updates were provided late to the grant reviewers or during the grant meeting itself. It was difcult to provide a well-informed decision based on outdated information. Some requests for additional information were provided after the committee voted.Recommendations For Related Efforts• The only suggestion that I would offer would be that Reviewers had the most recent information from organization prior to the review date. Otherwise, it was a very pleasant experience.• Opportunity for a budget summary with more specic line items to better assess programs without referring to the budget narrative.• I would provide the grant reviewers with 5 business days to review grants.2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback56 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 65

Page 66

Grantees — Written FeedbackPositive Feedback• Excellent resources to counteract the COVID-19 pandemic’s negative impact on youth and teens. • We really enjoyed the partnership and were honored to work together to bring much needed services to scale.• Staff was very helpful and understanding of delays in reporting.• I am very grateful to the contract managers for their encouragement and technical assistance. They have made this project possible.• The application process was awesome. I wondered if there was ever any feedback on weekly reports. I also heard that certain organizations were given more money to extend their programs, was that based on their relationship with your organization? What was the criteria to be a recipient of more funds? All in all I would say that PCF was on point and very helpful for the smaller organizations. Thanks for the opportunity to work with your team!2• The Pinellas [CARES] grant was a great opportunity to provide awards to agencies and needed support to the community. Our participants, staff, and volunteers are grateful for the opportunity and look forward to a continued partnership.• Although this grant process has been a challenging due to COVID and severe time restraints, it has been well worth it! This grant has provided opportunities, which may have not been provided under normal circumstances.• Thank you for the opportunity to provide much-needed emergency food distribution and behavioral health care and support for those in recovery during the pandemic. 2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback2. Note from Implementation Team: All organizations had the opportunity to request additional funds prior to the original spending deadline of Dec. 30, 2021, provided the organization could display a demand beyond the original projection in their application.58 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 67

• Thank you to the entire PCF team who assisted us along the way. We appreciate all of your help and support!• PCF provided great technical assistance throughout the process. Thank you!• Even though we struggled nancially, Duggan Cooley and his staff were extremely helpful and worked with our group to help keep us going. Mr. Cooley and his staff who were all very professional showed that they wanted Cross and Anvil to succeed just as much as we wanted to and my team and I thank them for all their assistance. • Thanks to all, especially Cheri, Brittany, and Duggan for your hard work to remain exible and patient with me. The long-term benet of this project is that it has enabled PCF to possibly be a conduit for future federal grants. I hope to work with you folks again. Best Wishes for a Happy New Year. • One of the better applications around. Staff assistance was remarkable. Thank you so much for the funding, it made a [huge] difference in so many lives. There is no way we would have been able to feed so many without your support.• I thought this whole process was very smooth!!! The Pinellas CARES staff was very helpful throughout the whole process. Thank you very much!!!• In light of the magnitude of this grant and all the required processes, information and documentation, it was extremely well facilitated and a tremendously successful project. Thank you for always being there to assist us!• Staff very responsive and helpful.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 59

Page 68

Areas of Concern and Challenges• The only issue we ran into was uploading documentation with the original application. Allowing for only one document caused numerous issues with size restraints for the amount of documentation requested. Additionally, we ran into some issues with the timeline after submission in receiving notication and disbursement of the grant, in relation to when the funding was required to be spent, and also caused delays and confusion around reporting. However, we received great assistance and support from those that handle the reporting and were easily able to get back on track, we just felt badly that it was outside of the deadline that we were unaware of initially.• The technical issues are challenging sometimes. The les that need to be uploaded are oftentimes larger than the system allows. Also, you must wait to move on when you upload a report. This can push people into being late when they have to rely on part-time workers who only have a single day to complete the items.• The people in the ofce are very helpful. Particularly the people who helped with the research. • Monthly report for reimbursement was labor intensive and time consuming for a small organization with limited staff but if that is what is required then we have no suggestions on changing the process. Also, for behavioral health care, the turnaround time for the grant was very quick and difcult to attain goals because behavior is unpredictable and it is difcult to get stable results in such a short amount of time. [The] PCF team was an invaluable help.• This has been a very interesting grant and maybe because this is my rst time implementing and managing a federal government grant which, is top heavy with instructions and procedures especially with the grant being a reimbursement grant. Because my organization is a smaller struggling nonprot with low to no operating funds, managing the grant was very challenging nancially. When my team and I realized the grant was a reimbursement only grant we were already in the middle of the ocean, too far out to swim back and change our minds because our team was well into the project and counseling had started.2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback60 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 69

• The grant requirements, procedures and stipulations were extremely detailed but personally it was both a test of my tenacity and a learning experience. I will admit I understand why many of the procedures were in place.• There were four changes in requirements as the grant developed - First was [the] requirement to be insured (something I had in back of mind, but procrastinated on, to save money). The team helped by covering the premium for the grant period. I decided to keep the D&O coverage for us, permanently. The second change was nancial — this is a report/reimburse rather than award/report structure. Perhaps, I didn’t understand this at the outset. The team helped us in 2 ways — Duggan authorized an advance for my rst large invoice, and secondly, arranged for the option of lender funding. The third change was the loss of 10% overhead. The team helped by enabling amendments to include those indirect costs attributable to the grant. That was a lot of amendments. Finally was the operational audit, which was unexpected, but went smoothly. • Many aspects of the grant process was [sic] not initially included in the many award webinars posted. It was required to watch weekly Zoom meetings to get the nite troubleshooting/instructions of completing the grant’s monthly report. I learned as the process went along, however, the weekly and 30 day turnover process was overwhelming! I did get a lot of help from the PCF staff. I understand with COVID-19, the implementation via the internet, text messages, and emails was the only option, but it was tough! Some of the instructions were confusing and conicting, leading to many, many revisions of the monthly report; sometimes as many as 11.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 61

Page 70

Recommendations for Related Efforts• More guidance in the contract regarding dates and requirements for reporting would be helpful.• The design of the Report forms could be improved... make it more appealing to the eye and easy to spot text (utilize highlighting, bold text, etc.) • A suggestion would be to have a digital reference guide similar to a policy/procedure manual separated by sections relating to the specic sections on reporting requirements. Webinars are good, but when you have one specic question, it would be helpful to have a reference manual instead. • If additional funding is available in the future, I highly recommend, a strong emphasis of consideration is placed on implementation time. • Please be kinder with new nonprots that may not understand federal grant processes. • Better communication • If I had to make improvements or changes to the process: 1. At the very least start-up funds should be provided for each participant. 2. A Reimbursement grant should be stressed up front during the application process. This gives an applicant enough time to bow out if needed. • I think that the Pre-Award Webinars should have been more inclusive of what specically is needed to be included in the reports.2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback62 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 71

Page 72

PCF CARES Implementation Team — Group Feedback SessionInterview MethodologyThe Implementation Team at PCF was asked to participate in a group interview facilitated by the external evaluator for the overall partnership. They were asked to respond to four questions which appear below, accompanied by their answers.What were the greatest challenges?• Several organizations had never applied for funding that was Federal in origin, which by nature has many scal and programmatic accountability requirements. This required much explanation and technical assistance, as many organizations did not anticipate the rigorous accountability requirements.• Time compression of the entire grant period.• Some grantees were very sensitive to feedback from the Team as they prepared their applications and/or feedback from reviewers which they perceived as criticism, rather than helpful technical assistance and an opportunity for learning. • Intermittent rule changes after the grant review process had begun (for example, “no indirect costs”) causing the Implementation Team to work quickly to help organizations pivot to new rules.• The virtual nature of work during COVID-19 made document sharing between the Team and grantee organizations a challenge.• Although they were contractually required, doing weekly grantee reporting and grant application updates on the website to reect ongoing changes was a challenge. • The Implementation Team was small given the extent of its responsibilities and the volume of related tasks. 2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback64 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 73

• Sometimes responses for policy or procedural clarications from County staff were either lacking or very slow, which was especially challenging given the time intensive nature of this grant process. Some of this may be due to County staff’s reticence to make decisions that might create conicts with Federal authorities. • Although Pinellas Community Foundation was the contract vendor for implementation of the CARES partnership, some County ofcials were very “hands-on,” which created a lack of clarity as to decision-making and roles, which also slowed things down. • The very transparent grant review process was a mixed experience. While the desire to be completely transparent was achieved, there was also concern by the Team that so much transparency may have constrained the Reviewers to fully identify issues of concern publicly without the protection that a closed session provides. (Evaluator’s Note: Reviewers also noted this as a challenge in their feedback.) • The use of “Logistical Partner Organizations” (LPOs) did not unfold as anticipated. This was viewed as a strategy to create a meaningful role for smaller organizations, especially those embedded in high-risk and high-need communities to assist with service delivery. There was also concern that smaller organizations would be more challenged to meet grant requirements under Federal guidelines and so much time pressure. However, several such small organizations were primary applicants and several delivered exemplary outcomes. But it also resulted in a few organizations who secured both their own grants as well as LPO sub-contracts with larger funded providers that was perceived by some to be “double dipping”.• Allowing organizations that had already received a grant to come back a second time for funding to extend activities covered in the rst award.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 65

Page 74

What were the most effective implementation strategies designed and carried out? What would change in retrospect and how?• “Fiscal Friday” updates related to budgetary requirements and any related changes. • The rolling deadline was a mixed, but generally effective implementation strategy because it made it possible for more organizations to submit applications. But it also made management of the application process more challenging as at any given time the Team simultaneously process applications at various stages of development.• Would not allow organizations who had received one grant to re-submit for additional funding.What recommendations would you offer to others tasked with distribution of future disaster relief funds?• Allow a “rolling time-line” for submission of applications until all the available funds are expended. This project contained a rolling deadline process, which would be recommended for similar processes due to the urgent nature of funding.• Create a longer funding period with grant preparation and review time.• Do more on the front end to train grantees around detailed application and budget requirements. Allow more “start-up” time.• Create a “running” online guidance document with real-time changes as soon as they occur.• Provide training for Review Committees if an open and transparent process is going to be used to help them understand and manage the challenges of working in very open settings. • Expanding the “housing assistance” category to be more than just “eviction mitigation” to offer a wider range of rental assistance and support for various housing alternatives. • Have a more targeted focus on diversity and inclusion to ensure the widest possible inclusion of organizations based in disinvested higher-risk communities which may require more planning and time for technical assistance.2.3.4 Stakeholder Feedback66 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 75

Service Recipients — Feedback from Comment Cards3Positive Feedback, including Specic Services ProvidedBehavioral Health• Attended the Mental Health First Aid training and [found] it to be very helpful and relevant in dealing with family with mental health issues. (Directions for Living)• MHFA training was informative and important to help reduce mental health stigma, help individuals and families understand mental health and to de-escalate/assist someone experiencing a challenge. This education is a necessity for everyone to understand and help one another. (Directions for Living)• I attended the [MHFA] Certication Course and it was very informative and much needed during the pandemic. Thank you for offering this course for free. (Directions for Living)• Mental Health First Aid Class was AWESOME! (Directions for Living)• Thanks for focusing on families who have babies. (University of South Florida)• Moving to telehealth therapy was a challenge at rst for my teen daughter, but then she preferred it. However, she is deeply saddened by not being allowed to have traditional senior class events. Please nd a way forward for our students.• [Changing the Game for a New Generation] gave me the tools to help with added stresses of COVID-19. The various sessions provided strategies and information on ways of handling stress such as deep breathing slowly in and out. Also, to nd someone who is a good listener. I know that I am not alone and there are services out there to help. I feel more in control.• [Changing the Game for a New Generation] helped me learn how to make things better for me and my kids. I felt that it was real relief when I needed food and other things during the holiday. It made me feel like a family member.3. Not all comments from service recipients are reported here, and identifying details have been removed. Comments were received from just over 200 service recipients. This is a thematic analysis of the nature of their comments with a few selected quotes. All grantee agencies were asked to strongly encourage clients served with CARES funds to complete written comment cards or provide feedback through a QR code on the CARES website. Some providers did a better job at this than others based on the number of comments about a specic program, such as Directions for Living’s Mental Health First Aid training, which received 25 positive comments.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 67

Page 76

2.3.4 Stakeholder FeedbackFood• [Neighborly Care Network] has been serving me hot meals 5 times a week. Over time they got better and went all out on providing me with food and even giving me extra when they had it. They are great people and I really do appreciate all that they do for us, the elderly, who really cannot do for ourselves any longer. Thank you. Many Blessings.• I just want to thank Michelle and Kris and everyone from [Harbor] Dish. They are a Godsend. I can’t thank them enough.• The Harbor Dish has been a life saver for so many people.• I’m very grateful for the help. FEAST has remained courteous and friendly throughout this process.• [Florida] Dream Center helps a lot with food and I have even gotten clothes from then when needed.Eviction Mitigation• My life was completely changed by your help. I am so incredibly grateful and I can’t give enough thanks. I have never received assistance like this before along with 211 assistance. I am extraordinarily impressed. What a wonderful experience. It was so nice not to receive weekly eviction notices. Because of this assistance, I was able to get a leg up, secure gainful employment, and no longer feel that I need to plan for homelessness. My experience with Pinellas CARES changed the direction of my life from frantic doom to peace. Thank you from my heart […]68 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 77

Areas of Concern and Challenges• The mental health training class could have been taken remotely from home. Poor planning. • Ensure that trainers are trained about mental health symptoms enough to describe and explain them. Trainer could not describe what auditory hallucinations were. Also [the] trainer was not experienced with Zoom, so training closed [every] 40 minutes and students had to log back in endlessly.• I am still going to lose my apartment January 1st. [They] saved me 30 days, but I don’t know what to do. They helped by getting someone to help me nd another apartment, but I can’t even afford the $75 credit-check fee right now. I am 62 years old and going to be kicked out of my house because I can’t make my payments.Recommendations for Related EffortsNo comments from service recipients specically contained recommendations for going forward.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 69

Page 78

Page 79

Page 80

ReferencesFlorida Housing Data Clearinghouse. (n.d.). COVID-19: Workforce & Housing Indicators Results. Retrieved from http://housingdata.shimberg.u.edu/covid-19/results?nid=5200.Hodgson, I. (2020, August 7). One of Florida’s biggest disparities: How coronavirus spread in Pinellas’ Black community. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/08/07/one-of-oridas-biggest-disparities-how-coronavirus-spread-in-pinellas-black-community/.Johns, Rebecca & Dixon, B. & McHan, C. (2013). Evaluating food deserts in St. Petersburg, Florida. Florida Geographer. 15-37. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287266197_Evaluating_food_deserts_in_St_Petersburg_Florida.Kaiser Family Foundation. (2021a, June 15). Mental health care health professional shortage areas (HPSAs). Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/mental-health-care-health-professional-shortage-areas-hpsas/.Kaiser Family Foundation. (2021b, August 20). Adults reporting symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder during COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adults-reporting-symptoms-of-anxiety-or-depressive-disorder-during-covid-19-pandemic/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22%3A%22Location%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22asc%22%7D#.Pinellas County Economic Development. (2020, September 14). Pinellas County economic indicators: Second quarter 2020. Clearwater, Florida. Retrieved from https://www.pced.org/resource/collection/67248A37-781F-4AC2-B4B8-0FEFABF0E41A/EconInd2020Q2.pdf.Pinellas County, Florida. (n.d.). Facts about Pinellas. Retrieved from http://www.pinellascounty.org/facts.htm.72 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 81

Pinellas County, Florida. (2020, July 7). Executive orders, Resolution 20-60, Pinellas CARES expanded and added programs, July 7, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.pinellascounty.org/emergency/declarations/resolution-20-60.htm.Sampson, Z. T., & Surana, K. (2020, March 10). Tampa Bay has three new coronavirus patients: Two in Pinellas, one in Pasco. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/03/11/tampa-bay-has-three-new-coronavirus-patients-two-in-pinellas-one-in-pasco/.Surgo Ventures. (n.d.). Epidemiological factors. Surgo Precision for COVID. Retrieved from https://www.precisionforcoviddata.org/?metricId=theme4&geoLevel=tract&psCode= 12103&focusLevel=county&focusFips=12103&lters=%5B%7B%22metricId%22%3A %22theme6%22%2C%22values%22%3A%5B0%2C1%5D%7D%5D.U.S. Census Bureau. (2019a). American Community Survey 5-year estimates – Pinellas County, Florida, ZIP codes 33705 and 33712. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?g=0400000US12_0500000US12103_8600000US33705,33712&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&hidePreview=true&moe=false.U.S. Census Bureau. (2019b). American Community Survey 1-year estimates – Pinellas County, Florida. Retrieved from https://censusreporter.org/proles/05000US12103-pinellas-county-/.Wynne, S. K. (2020, November 25). Food insecurity in Tampa Bay has doubled during pandemic. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2020/11/25/food-insecurity-in-tampa-bay-has-doubled-during-pandemic/.Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report 73

Page 82

CreditsAbout Pinellas Community FoundationCreated in 1969, Pinellas Community Foundation (PCF) funds effective solutions for Pinellas County’s most challenging social,environmental, and educational issues while supporting the advancement of arts and culture. More than 400 charitable organizationshave received $88 million in donor-funded grants to support their community programs. The purpose and mission of PCF are made possible through the generosity of thousands of donors giving at all levels. PCF is proud to be an innovator of public-private partnership models, such as that of the Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund.About the ContributorsDavid Bender, Pinellas Community Foundation Director of Grants and Operations, conducted background research and quantitative analysis for this report. He brings a strong history of social justice, community organizing, and data analysis to Pinellas Community Foundation. Prior to his work at PCF, he worked with two major Chicago-based nonprots where he used data to shape organizing strategies. Bilingual in English and Spanish, he earned a bachelor’s degree in political science and Spanish from Beloit College in Wisconsin. Barbara Morrison-Rodriguez, Ph.D., Pinellas CARES Partnership Fund External Evaluator, conducted qualitative analysis of grantee outcomes for this report. She has spent over 20 years providing nonprot organizations and governments with expertise in program evaluation and strategic planning. She earned master’s and doctorate degrees in social welfare research from the Columbia School of Social Work in New York City and a bachelor’s degree in sociology from Douglass Residential College at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. Cheri Wright-Jones, Pinellas CARES Senior Program Ofcer, provided oversight, guidance, and research support for this report. She has dedicated her career to improving communities, emphasizing collaboration and mission-related investing focused on the social inuencers of health to support healthy people and communities. She earned a master’s degree from Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and psychology from University of South Florida.74 Pinellas CARES Nonprot Partnership Fund Program Evaluation Report

Page 83

Page 84

17755 US Highway 19 N, Suite 150Clearwater, FL 33764727-531-0058PinellasCF.orgPinellasCF.org/CARESPINELLAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION IS A 501(C)(3) NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION REGISTERED WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA. A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR PINELLAS COMMUNITY FOUNDATION (CH3646) MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE WITHIN THE STATE 1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352) OR VISITING WWW.FDACS.GOV. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE. YOUR GIFT MAY BE TAX-DEDUCTIBLE; PLEASE CONSULT YOUR TAX PROFESSIONAL TO EXPLORE YOUR BENEFITS.