During a recent Grants Pass City Council workshop, attention turned to the city’s current approach to awarding homelessness grants, specifically the limitations on the information provided to elected officials during the selection process. At the center of the discussion was the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP) process, which governs how funding recipients are chosen and how much information is shared with the Council prior to making final decisions.
The current RFP for the homelessness grant, issued on June 19, 2025, outlines a structured process whereby a designated review panel evaluates submitted proposals and assigns numerical scores. Applicants are ranked based on their average score, and only the highest-scoring proposal is advanced for formal consideration. The winning proposal is then scheduled for presentation to the City Council on or after August 6, 2025, along with a draft grant agreement.
Under the procedural guidelines outlined in the RFP, evaluation details for proposals that do not receive the top score are not included in the materials presented to the Council. Instead, these details remain confidential until after a final award is made. At that point, the full scoring breakdown becomes a matter of public record. However, this means that prior to approval, Council members are not given the opportunity to review competing proposals, compare evaluation scores, or understand the reasoning behind the selection beyond the final recommendation.
This limited access to comparative data has raised questions about the transparency and accountability of the process. In past competitive funding programs administered by the City—such as the Tourism Promotion Grant and federal ARPA Affordable Housing grants—Council materials often included information on multiple finalists or, at the very least, a summary of how top proposals performed relative to one another. While those practices were not required by their respective RFPs, they were implemented to provide broader insight into the decision-making process and to offer a clearer picture to both the Council and the public.
Despite the restrictive format of the current RFP, the City Council maintains full authority to approve, reject, or request modifications to the funding recommendation. Councilors also retain the option to request additional background on the scoring process, including anonymized summaries or breakdowns of how top-ranking proposals were evaluated. In addition, members of the public may request detailed scoring data through public records channels once the grant award is finalized.
The broader issue highlighted in this discussion is the balance between administrative efficiency and public transparency. While RFPs are designed to streamline funding decisions and protect the integrity of the competitive process, limiting decision-makers to only a single recommended proposal can potentially restrict meaningful debate and critical oversight. Greater visibility into the evaluation process—such as seeing how other applicants performed—could lead to more informed deliberation and greater public confidence in the outcomes.
Going forward, should the Council consider revising future RFPs or adopting internal policies that provide for expanded reporting on finalist proposals, even if not required. Doing so would bring the homelessness grant process more in line with the transparency standards practiced in other city-administered programs and would offer the Council a fuller view of the options available before casting their vote. As the grant decision nears and the public awaits the City’s announcement, the workshop discussion reflects an ongoing interest in improving the way public funds are distributed, particularly in sensitive areas such as homelessness services. Whether or not procedural changes are made, the issue has opened the door to a broader conversation about governance, accountability, and how decisions are made behind the scenes at City Hall.