IBJNews

Council may give up crime-grant duty to Parks Foundation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Under a proposal on its way to the City-County Council, the Indianapolis Parks Foundation would oversee millions of dollars in tax-supported grants for crime prevention.

The council will consider the proposal on Feb. 28, following unanimous approval by the Public Safety Committee earlier this month. Ben Hunter, the Republican councilor who spearheaded the change, said his goal is to remove politicians from the grant-awarding process.

Hunter also hopes the parks foundation will use its connections to attract support for crime prevention from private sources. The city’s grant fund started out at $5 million in 2009, dropped to $4 million last year, and will drop again this year to $2 million.

cindy porteous Porteous

“What we’re doing is the start of moving this to a more professional format by teaming up with the Indianapolis Parks Foundation,” Hunter said.

The crime-prevention grants are the result of a 65-percent increase in the county option income tax the council passed in 2007 to address various public-safety issues, including funding pensions and hiring more police officers. Democratic councilor Monroe Gray advocated for a small amount of the more than $50 million in new revenue to be set aside for crime prevention.

Last year, 68 not-for-profit organizations and churches received grants for programs involving youth, education, health, neighborhoods and inmate re-entry.

It’s not clear yet how the spending priorities might change under the parks foundation, but the council would no longer have a direct say in the matter.

Grants would be approved by a separate seven-member board. Five of the members would be nominated by the parks foundation board and approved by the council. The mayor would appoint one member, and the seventh slot would be filled by the clerk of the council, who is Melissa Thompson.

In the past, an advisory board made recommendations, which the council tweaked or approved. The City-County Council will continue to decide each year how much money to funnel to the crime-prevention grants.

Parks Foundation Executive Director Cindy Porteous already is rounding up board nominees and hashing out details of her agreement with the city. If the council OKs the setup, she’ll announce it March 3 at the IPL Mayor’s Lunch for Parks, a fundraiser that draws about 500 businesspeople.

“We’d like to leverage these dollars,” Porteous said. “We want to demonstrate to them this is the right thing to do.”

Some corporate donors that have backed capital improvements in the city’s parks might also get behind park-based programs for kids and families, Porteous said. The foundation itself used a small crime-prevention grant of $19,000 to address bullying last year.

So far, the $6.5 million foundation’s only client has been the city parks department. Hunter said he wanted to partner with the parks foundation because it’s done a good job over the years. Last year, Lilly Endowment said it would give $7.3 million for major parks improvements, and the grants are being managed by the parks foundation.

Nominees to the new crime-grant board won’t have any previous ties to the parks foundation, Porteous said. However, they might decide to dedicate some portion of the money to not-for-profits that work in parks.

grantsSuch criteria would make less money available for applicants such as Wishard Hospital, which used $169,000 on an intervention program that tries to steer gunshot and stabbing victims away from future incidents of violence.

“I really feel the people appointed to this board will make a fair and equitable decision,” Porteous said.

Dennis Rosenbaum, a criminology professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago who studies prevention, said even small city grant funds can lead to model programs that have a measurable effect on crime. It’s important that whoever oversees the money takes “some kind of problem-oriented approach,” he said.

“You need a plan; you need to consult the evidence about what works,” Rosenbaum said.

Interest in the crime-grant fund rose last year as not-for-profits scrambled to balance their budgets. IndyReads even launched a new program because the fund existed. The literacy group is using a $24,000 grant to make its volunteer tutors available at Marion County Jail II.

Executive Director Travis DiNicola said his board of directors and volunteers wanted IndyReads to reach out to inmates, anyway, and Mayor Greg Ballard encouraged him to apply for a grant.

IndyReads so far has reached 55 men at the jail, which is for non-violent offenders. Their needs range from learning the alphabet to understanding the terms of their probation, DiNicola said.

IndyReads doesn’t typically start programs to chase grant money, DiNicola said, and the amount that was finally awarded doesn’t cover the costs. At the same time, DiNicola thinks the program is successful and necessary.

“We’ve been really struggling with this,” DiNicola said. “We don’t know how it’s going to continue.”

Hunter said he and other councilors behind the proposal—Republican Ryan Vaughn, Democrat Vernon Brown and Gray—would have liked to see more of the grantees working directly with the public safety department, either asking for advice or involving officers in their programs.

A memorandum of understanding that’s attached to the proposal will spell out any such criteria. The latest draft would direct 5 percent of the money toward professional-development costs for public safety employees who want to work with not-for-profits.

Porteous said the details could be revised again before Feb. 28.

While Hunter was concerned about the grant program’s lack of focus, the problem for not-for-profit managers was a huge delay in payments and time-consuming reporting requirements.

Porteous has promised that if the 2011 grant money is shifted to the parks foundation, it will be in the hands of not-for-profits by June 1.

“We know the importance of timeliness and efficiency,” she said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT