Tobacco Control Network

Funding formula – 4/27/09

Q: Colorado is working on a funding formula, a guide to allocate tobacco control and prevention money to our counties in a manner that is as fair and equitable as possible. Are there other states that utilize such a formula that would be willing to share?

Alabama: Alabama doesn't use a funding allocation formula.
Indiana: When Indiana set up its community based programs in 2001, we applied a population based formula for each county. Indiana has 92 counties. The counties were broken into four groups. An example, a county with less than 15,000 in county population was given $xx,000. This was a base amount. In addition, counties were given a per capita amount. So based on how the counties rank by population, grouping them into quartiles might work.
Iowa: Iowa does have a formula that is set in code. However, I don’t necessarily think it is the best method to use. It doesn’t set a floor, and I think ensuring a minimum level of funding is necessary to ensure that small counties have sufficient funds to mount a program. This formula is simple and we still utilize it, but we have set a floor with additional funding outside this “rules” funding so no county gets less than $20,000. (Many Iowa counties have populations of less than 10,000.)

151.2
(142A)
Community partnership areas.
It is the goal of the commission on tobacco use prevention and control that the entire state be divided into multiple community partnership areas, so that all portions of the state are included in a community partnership area and no portion of the state is without the services of a community partnership. Toward this goal, the commission will encourage formation of community partnership areas that incorporate surrounding communities in a manner that does not isolate any geographic region of the state, and encourages optimal use of resources. In addition to the requirements of Iowa Code section 142A.8(1), a community partnership area:
151.2(1)
Shall be composed of one or more counties, school districts, economic development enterprise zones, or community empowerment areas.
151.2(2)
Shall follow existing boundaries of one or more counties, school districts, economic development enterprise zones, or community empowerment areas.
151.2(3)
Shall serve a population of at least 4,000, including a minimum school-age population of 500.
151.2(4)
Shall serve a minimum geographic area of one county.
151.7(2)
The commission shall fund one community partnership per community partnership area. Funds shall be distributed equitably among the state’s community partnership areas based on general population, school-age population, and designation of county or counties which comprise the community partnership area as a rural county or a metropolitan statistical area as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Available funds will be distributed under the following formulas:

Rural counties:
$.84 per school-age youth plus an additional $.84 per non-school-age county resident

Metropolitan statistical areas:
$.52 per school-age youth plus an additional $.52 per non-school-age county resident
Maryland: In Maryland, there was a formula prescribed as part of our statute that created our MSA tobacco program in 2000.

THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DISTRIBUTE A LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH TOBACCO GRANT TO EACH COUNTY THAT IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF:

THE PRODUCT OF:
ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS ALLOCATED TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH COMPONENT IN THE STATE BUDGET; AND THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE COUNTY UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO SMOKE OR OTHERWISE USE TOBACCO PRODUCTS DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO SMOKE OR OTHERWISE USE TOBACCO PRODUCTS; AND

THE PRODUCT OF:
ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS ALLOCATED TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH COMPONENT IN THE STATE BUDGET; AND THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE COUNTY WHO SMOKE OR OTHERWISE USE TOBACCO PRODUCTS DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE WHO SMOKE OR OTHERWISE USE TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

This ended up creating huge discrepancies based on population (some jurisdictions received over $1M and some under $50K), so we have stuck to the formula, but given each county a "base" of about $50,000-$100,000 (depending on the amount of the state budget each year) before calculating the remaining budget in the formula.

We were also required to conduct a statewide Adult Tobacco Survey and Youth Tobacco Survey, with county data, as a baseline prior to distributing any funding. It is in statute that this survey be duplicated every other year to update our data.

There were also several other programmatic requirements along with the formula, which can be found in the legislation through the link above.
Nebraska: NACCHO was working on a local level funding model for its local application of the CDC’s Tobacco Best Practices. I don’t know if the model is complete.
Utah: We have one that is outdated and were looking to update it this year.
Nevada: Nevada has a funding formula based on population and the funding doesn’t cover the whole state at this time. See Nevada’s Funding Formula Explanation. Please contact me if further explanation is needed.
Oregon: Oregon uses a Funding Formula to fund tobacco prevention grantees. The Funding Formula was negotiated with the Conference of Local Health Officials (county public health administrators). There are five "tiers" of base rates depending on county population size, and then a per capita formula. See the Program Element that specifies the scope of the work for the grantees. In addition, we release a Request for Proposals for each funding cycle that provides more detailed guidance for their workplans and budgets.
West Virginia: WV funds “counties” through a very successful ‘regional tobacco prevention coalition network’ having a full-time coordinator in ten regions. We would be happy to share this concept, work plans, budget, etc. with our good friends in Colorado! For more information contact Garland Holley, CIA Program Coordinator, Garland.R.Holley@wv.gov or 304.558.0888.

Back to Table of Contents