In August 1997, Tri-Counties Blood Bank (TCBB), a nonprofit public benefit corporation, sold all of its assets to Haemonetics Corporation, a Massachusetts for-profit corporation. In accordance with the California Corporation Code, after payment of liabilities and expenses, the remaining TCBB funds were transferred to the Santa Barbara Foundation, the San Luis Obispo Community Health Foundation, and the Monterey Community Foundation.
In July 1998, the Santa Barbara Foundation (the Foundation) entered into an agreement with TCBB to establish the Tri-Counties Blood Bank Fund (the Fund). Valued at nearly $5 million, it is now part of the Foundation’s restricted funds. Through an annual grant award process, the Foundation will distribute the income generated from the Fund to qualified nonprofit organizations. The Fund is restricted to activities that support blood and blood-related products and services in accordance with the plan of disposition (the Plan).
The plan of disposition is divided into three distinct sections. These guidelines outline the selection and award of Indigent Care Grants, Education Grants, and Scholarships as prescribed by the Plan.
Eligibility Requirements
Criteria by Grant Type
These guidelines cover the implementation of (1) Indigent Care Grants, (2) Education Grants, and (3) Scholarships:
Purpose: To reimburse “qualified hospitals” for “un-reimbursed costs” directly related to providing blood or blood products to “qualified patients” within Santa Barbara County.
Purpose: Education grants are intended for:
Scholarships are intended for:
Important Notes for Section B: Education Grants and Scholarships
The Foundation strongly encourages cooperation and joint partnerships among and between hospitals, clinics, the county medical society, professional associations, and Blood Systems, Inc. (the local blood bank) in the implementation of the above educational grants. Applications must reflect an understanding and analysis of the needs and interests of practitioners as well as current issues and emerging blood banking technologies in the field.
Grant amounts vary by funding category request, as follows:
Please note that based on funding availability, award amounts could be less than requested.
The grant period is up to one year from the award date. A final report is required and due within 13 months of the grant award, preferably no later than 30 days following the project completion.
Grant Limitations
Grants are not intended for:
Please visit the Eligibility Criteria & FAQs for a complete list of what the Foundation does not fund.
Indigent Care Grant Questions
Scanned copies of the invoices from the county blood bank for the qualified patient(s) under your care for whom you seek reimbursement. In order to ensure patient confidentiality, please eliminate any information that would identify the patient(s).
Education Grants and Scholarship Questions
1. Describe the educational, training, outreach, or scholarship opportunity for which funding is requested. Explain how the proposed activity will support one or more of the following:
2. Describe the need being addressed and how that need was identified.
3. Describe the target population or intended beneficiaries. If applicable, identify the provider of the training, educational activity, or scholarship program.
4. What are the project’s goals and desired outcomes? Please provide a timeline of key milestones and activities for the grant period.
5. If applicable, identify any collaborating partners (e.g., hospitals, clinics, county medical society, professional associations, Blood Systems, Inc. etc.) and describe their roles. How does this collaboration strengthen the program?
6. How does this activity strengthen existing training/education opportunities, improve blood banking technology, or improve blood banking practice in the service area?
7. How will you evaluate the impact of these funds? Please explain:
Application Process
Applications must be submitted through our SmartSimple grant application, which require an updated organizational profile in addition to the application particulars, depending on the Grant Type. Refer to our website for more information: https://sbfoundation.org/nonprofits/how-to-apply/
| Wednesday, August 12, 2026, 10:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. | In-Person Office Hours: SBF Santa Barbara Office |
| Wednesday, August 19, 2026, 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. | Virtual Office Hours |
| August 28, 2026 | Application Deadline |
| Mid-September 2026 | Funds Awarded |
| October 2027 | Final Report Due |
Contact Information
Questions regarding the Tri-Counties Blood Bank Fund, please contact De Vallejo, Senior Program Officer, at (805) 880-9385 or dvallejo@sbfoundation.org.
For technical assistance, please contact Hazel Naftzger, Data and Evaluation Coordinator at (805) 880-9377 or hnaftzger@SBFoundation.org.
Indigent Care Grants Verification Checklist:
Eligibility:
☐ Applicant is a qualified nonprofit hospital.
☐ Hospital operates one or more licensed acute care facilities in Santa Barbara County.
☐ Applicant is not a federal or state-operated hospital.
Qualified Patients:
☐ Request represents qualified patients as defined in guidelines.
☐ Number of qualified patients provided included in the application.
☐ Eligibility determination process appears reasonable.
Financial Documentation:
☐ Amount requested provided.
☐ Cost calculation methodology provided.
☐ Request is based on prior-year unreimbursed costs.
☐ Percentage of total hospital costs attributed to blood products provided.
☐ Percentage of unreimbursed costs attributed to blood products provided.
☐ Request appears limited to direct blood and blood product costs.
Supporting Documentation:
☐ Blood bank invoices attached.
☐ Patient-identifying information removed.
☐ Documentation supports request amount.
Education Grants & Scholarships — Scoring Rubric
Tri-Counties Blood Bank Fund | Scale: 4 (Highest) to 1 (Lowest) | 5 Criteria | Maximum Score: 20 Points | All criteria weighted equally
| Criteria | 4 — Exceptional | 3 — Strong | 2 — Developing | 1 — Insufficient |
| Alignment with Program Priorities
Q1, Q2, Q6 |
Clearly supports one or more grant type with compelling evidence; need is well-identified and substantiated; activity demonstrably strengthens existing training, technology, or practice in the service area. For ongoing education projects/scholarships, a strong track record of past accomplishments is shown. | Reasonably supports a grant type with adequate evidence; need is identified with general supporting detail; some evidence of strengthening existing service-area efforts. Reasonable track record shown if ongoing. | Connection to a grant type is unclear or thin; need is asserted but weakly substantiated; limited link to strengthening service-area efforts. Track record for an ongoing activity is vague. | Does not clearly align with any grant type; need is unsubstantiated; no meaningful track record provided for an ongoing activity. |
| 2. Strategic Vision & Goals
Q4 |
Clear, specific, measurable goals with a well-defined timeline and milestones for the one-year grant period; a clear picture of what success looks like at grant end. | Solid goals and timeline; most milestones present, though some may lack full specificity. | General goals; timeline is vague or incomplete; milestones are unclear. | Goals are vague or absent; no clear timeline or milestones provided. |
| 3. Collaboration & Partnership
Q5 |
Clearly identifies relevant collaborators/ partnerships or an academic affiliation, with well-defined roles that meaningfully strengthen the proposed activity — or, where not applicable, a clear explanation of why. | Collaborators/partnerships or academic affiliation identified with reasonably defined roles that support the activity. | Collaborators/partnerships or affiliation mentioned, but roles or relevance are unclear. | No collaborators/partnerships or affiliation identified, and no explanation given where one would be expected. |
| 4. Community & Practice Benefit
Drawn from Q1 & Q3 |
Clearly demonstrates meaningful benefit to the identified target population, practitioners, or community, with specific detail on how they’ll be reached or served. | Demonstrates a reasonable benefit to the target population, with some detail on reach. | Benefit is modest or indirect; limited detail on how the target population is reached. | Little to no demonstrated benefit or reach to the stated target population. |
| 5. Measurement, Evaluation & Learning
Q7 |
Detailed, feasible plan with specific data collection tools/methods identified (e.g., pre/post assessments, tracking systems, budgets/financials); clear plan for using findings to inform decisions or improvements. | Solid plan with defined methods and tools; some detail on how findings will be used. | Basic plan with general data collection idea; limited detail on how findings inform decisions. | Plan is vague or absent, with no clear data collection method or use of findings. |
Reviewers should apply the guidance below when scoring Criterion 1, based on the grant type indicated in the application.
Education Grants:
Assess whether the activity clearly falls into one of the three defined focus areas (advanced medical technology/nursing education, physician education in transfusion medicine, or community education on blood diseases), and whether it reflects an understanding of practitioner or community needs and awareness of current/emerging blood banking issues.
Scholarships:
Assess whether the course of study or candidate’s field clearly falls under one of the two defined purposes (post-doctoral, non-medical study in a related discipline, or medical education in hematology/oncology), and whether the applicant articulates a clear connection to advancing blood banking knowledge or practice.
| Score Range | Priority Level | Description |
| 18–20 | Priority for Funding | Exceptional applications strongly meeting all criteria; compelling evidence of merit, strategy, and benefit. |
| 14–17 | High Consideration for Funding | Strong applications meeting most criteria well, with minor gaps. |
| 9–13 | Consider for Funding | Solid applications addressing program priorities but lacking some depth in strategy or evidence. |
| 5–8 | Low Priority; May Fund if Resources Allow | Significant gaps in one or more criteria or unclear alignment with priorities. |
| 0–4 | Does Not Meet Criteria for Funding | Insufficient alignment with program goals or eligibility requirements. |