Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Results Based Accountability
and
Grantmaking
Why Results Based Accountability?
Move from funding “projects” to funding “impact”
Build collaboration between agencies
Return on investment
Basic Steps of RBA Grantmaking
Identify…
the result to be achieved
the target population
the indicators of success
“what works”
Basic Steps of RBA Grantmaking
Provide support/technical assistance to…
the grant applicants
the review committee
the grant recipients
The Indy Parks Foundation
Community Crime Prevention Grant Story
Background
In August 2006, the Community Crime Prevention Task Force was convened to study the root causes of crime in the community, determine the types of programs most likely to prevent crime or effectively intervene in the lives of those at risk of criminal behavior, and make recommendations about how the community could prevent crime in the future.
On July 23, 2007, the City-County Council passed Proposal No. 264 to increase the County Option Income Tax (COIT) to provide funding for crime prevention initiatives like those recommended by the Community Crime Prevention Task Force in its January 2007 Report.
Per the Ordinance
The goal of the Community Crime Prevention Grant program is to reduce crime by funding programs that will fill a documented gap in existing services.
The one-year grants are not intended for capital improvement, general operating support unrelated to crime prevention, scholarships or endowments, but are meant for programs that address the root causes of crime and produce concrete outcomes that result in reduced crime.
The Situation in a nutshell
In 2011 the Indy Parks Foundation was asked to administer the Community Crime Prevention Grant Fund
Public Funds
Allocated by the City County Council (County Option Income Tax)
Focus is to reduce crime in the community
Funds are re-allocated every year
Step 1: Define the Result
Population Result:
Homelessness, Childhood Obesity, School Performance
Program Result:
Scholarships, Neighborhood Revitalization, Family Economic Success
Indy Parks Foundation: Community Crime Prevention Grants
Population Result to be Achieved: A reduction in crime
Is that possible?
Results Accountability is made up of two parts:
Performance Accountability
about the well-being of
CLIENT POPULATIONS
For Programs – Agencies – and Service Systems
Population Accountability
about the well-being of
WHOLE POPULATIONS
For Communities – Cities – Counties – States - Nations
How Population
& Performance Accountability
FIT TOGETHER
Contribution
relationship
Alignment
of measures
Appropriate
responsibility
THE LINKAGE Between POPULATION and PERFORMANCE
POPULATION ACCOUNTABILITY
Healthy Births
Rate of low birth-weight babies
Children Ready for School
Percent fully ready per K-entry assessment
Self-sufficient Families
Percent of parents earning a living wage
CUSTOMER
RESULTS
# persons
receiving
training
Unit cost
per person
trained
# who get
living wage jobs
% who get
living wage jobs
PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY
POPULATION
RESULTS
Job Training Program
Step 2: Define the Target Population
People in Marion County who by their previous behavior had demonstrated that they were at high risk to commit a crime Ex-offenders
Youth with a previous contact with the Judicial Center
Youth with a history of school suspension/expulsion
Not part of the target population: People who had experienced violence (ie: victims of domestic violence)
People who fit a high risk demographic but had not demonstrated a negative behavior
Step 3: Indicators of Success
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
A measure of how well a program, agency, or service is working
Three Guiding Questions for Performance Measures
How much are we doing?
How well are we doing it?
Is anyone better off?
Step 4: Identify “what works”
Ex-Offenders
Employment
Substance Abuse Treatment
Connection to Family/Friend/Mentor
Youth
School and Community Connections
Conflict Resolution
Volunteerism
Employment
Substance Abuse Treatment
Connection to Family/Friend/Mentor
The RFP
Identified the result to achieve: A reduction in criminal behavior for the population served
Identified the target population(s):
Ex-Offenders
Youth with a history of criminal behavior/at-risk behavior
Identified the what works
Identified indicators of success for each program strategy
Began with a letter of intent – goal was to sharpen the focus on agencies who were aligned with the result
In the LOI applicants had to…
Identify the target population they would impact
Identify the desired program result (ie: reduce recidivism, decrease substance use, decrease delinquency, etc)
Identify their strategies and make the case for their effectiveness
Identify their partners and their role
Identify the amount of funds requested and organizational budget
In the full proposal applicants had to…
Identify the number of people they would impact
Expand on strategies
Identify how they would track the data
Provide project budget numbers and evidence of organizational capacity
Provide board list, staff description, organizational capacity, and sustainability plan
RFP Indicator Questions
How much service will you provide?
How well will you do it?
How will you measure who will be better off?
Technical Assistance
Conducted community session and oriented participants on Results Accountability and reviewed the RFP question by question
Provided information on Effective Best Practices
Provided technical assistance via phone, email, and in person
Preparing the Review Committee
Training in Results Based Accountability
Developed application review sheet that followed the RBA format
Provided technical assistance during the review process – coaching to help hold to the model
What was tough….
Good agencies that were doing good work did not get funded
Agencies that were used to getting funded did not get funded – public protests, phone calls, media
Implementation
Convened grantees to network – aligned work
Provided technical assistance to grantees as they figured out “how” they were going to collect the data
Provided standardized data collection tool to all grantees
Conducted mid year technical assistance visits
Conducted end of year visits – heard the “story behind the data”
At the end of the year…
Produced a public data report:
• how much was done
• how well it was done
• how many were better off
• the story behind the data
Grantees said they had never been through a better process
Review committee refined their focus even further in order to have a laser-like focus
Round Two
Had fewer applications – they were much better targeted to the result – almost all agencies were invited to do a full application
Agencies collaborated on applications
Funded requests as fully as possible – rather than make sure everyone “got something”
No public outcry from those who did not get funded
What do you need to get started?
Staff familiar with the Results Accountability Framework
Commitment from Executive Director and Board
Ability to support the potential grantees as they “do their work differently”
Questions??
Lena Hackett, MPH
Community Solutions, Inc
www.communitysolutionsinc.net
317.423.1770
