Performance-based funding for community interventions – 7/6/11

Q: Florida's Tobacco Prevention Program is currently planning the next three years of its community-based interventions.  We are considering funding our communities using a tiered system based on current capacity and progress over the next three year period.  We would begin each grantee at a funding level consistent with capacity building, lower impact policies or higher impact policies/sustainability.  Once the grantee has reached the threshold for their current level and achieved the performance measures, their funding would increase the next year. Have any other states funded their community grantees in a similar way especially with performance measures? If so,

• Would you be willing to share your procurement documents?
• How were your performance standards determined?
• How do you assess performance, and how often is it assessed?
• What is your organization’s recourse for those grantees who do not meet the performance standards?

A:

1. Kansas: Kansas does use a tier-based system for grant funding. The basics of this tiered system are outlined on slides 8 – 12 of this presentation. The grant application is available here.
    
   Performance standards were determined by reviewing CDC Best Practices, considering milestones necessary for a successful local program and establishing a realistic timeline for progress. Our previous grant process had similar goals, but did not necessarily encourage grantees to increase work or capacity. We found that many grantees were satisfied to stay at the minimum level and focus on one area. Therefore we modified phases and added a maximum time period for phases.
    
   Performance is measured through mid-year and end of the year reporting. Our year end reporting forms are available here. We will be moving to an online system for reporting in the fall.  Regional outreach staff also conduct site visits during the non-report quarters to assess progress.
    
   Performance is a large factor in determining funding for the next grant year. We have denied funding to grantees who have not met the performance measures. Extenuating circumstances are certainly considered, but if the grantee cannot provide a valid reason for not meeting grant expectations, funding is denied. Grant funding is provided in 5 installments during the grant year. In one case we have even denied payment of a final installment for lack of progress and lack of reporting.
    
2. Texas: Sorry, we don’t have anything that can help with this one.
    
3. West Virginia: West Virginia has not used such an approach.

Back to Table of Contents