 |
Over the past few decades, the Legislature
has vested a variety of grant programs with the Board
and has provided related local assistance for distribution
to counties. Each grant program has unique legislative
intent and statutory requirements. Some programs' requirements
are quite prescriptive, while others are more general
in nature. Most programs require a competitive grant
funding process, some level of evaluation or assessment
to determine program impact or completion, and an overall
report of results or outcomes.
What is the Grant Management Process?
When the Legislature places the administration
of a grant program with the Board, three key elements
generally guide the Board's efforts:
- Policy Focused: The legislative
intent and the "big picture" public policy
impact are the primary focus.
- Constituency-driven Process: The
Board involves those people with the most specific
knowledge and expertise to serve on an Executive-level
Steering Committee (ESC) to provide recommendations
to guide each grant program's efforts (ESC Process).
Counties are responsible for design and development
of grant-funded projects to meet local needs.
- Timely Implementation: The grants
are awarded, and the specific grant projects in each
county are developed and implemented, in an expeditious
and timely fashion.
The Board's grant management process
was developed in collaboration with state and local
policymakers. It is an ongoing "systems approach"
as illustrated on the chart displayed on the next page.
There are two major bands that work concurrently in
implementing various grant programs. One band shows
the Board's grant management process; the other shows
the counties application of a systems approach to project
development and implementation. From the beginning of
the processes until project closeout, the Board provides
ongoing technical assistance and training to counties
to help ensure a successful effort.
Why is a Systems Approach Used?
An applied "systems model"
is a simple, yet powerful, philosophical approach that
has been historically used by the Board in working with
its constituents during the planning, development, implementation,
and assessment of various public policies, programs,
and projects. It is designed to convert concepts into
appropriate action, in an overall system of continuous
improvement. The model draws from fundamental principles
of public administration and program development/improvement.
As can be seen from the diagram on the next page, the
initial steps are used to determine what conditions
are to be addressed with a public policy, program or
project, what is to be accomplished, and various alternative
ways to address the conditions. The remaining steps
focus on the actual development, implementation, and
evaluation or assessment of the selected public policy,
program, or projects. Information provided in evaluation
or assessment of results is designed to be used by policymakers
to reassess the conditions and needs identified in the
first step, thereby forming a feedback loop of continuous
improvement.
|
Some steps in the model may not be applicable depending
upon the nature and requirements of the specific
grant program. |
Key Elements of the Board's Grant
Management Process
| Step 1 |
Analyze Statutory
Requirements: The Board begins each grant program
by analyzing law/statutory requirements and related
legislative intent. This forms the basis of future
steps and actions taken by the Board. |
| Steps 2-3 |
Establish an ESC
to Develop Process/Procedural Recommendations:
The Board appoints an ESC to guide the grant process
and provide recommendations on specific implementation
procedures. This may include recommendations on
criteria and elements of a Request for Proposals
(RFP), rating factors to be used to evaluate and
determine which counties receive grant awards, and
effectiveness indicators to be used to determine
project success. This process typically includes
draft material developed by the ESC that is circulated
to constituents and potential grantees for feedback
before finalizing recommendations to the Board.
Constituent feedback on draft material often provides
critical information that is used by the ESC to
develop recommendations to the Board. |
| Step 4 |
BOC Requests Proposals:
ESC recommendations are provided to the Board for
its consideration/action at its regularly scheduled
meeting and public comment, if any, can be provided.
In determining what action to take, the Board may
accept, change, or modify any ESC recommendations.
The Board issues the RFP, which is distributed to
constituents and posted on the Board's website.
|
| Step 5 |
ESC Rates Proposals
and Develops Funding Recommendations: If the
law (or BOC policy) has prescribed a competitive
grant process, each member of the ESC will independently
review each applicant's written proposal, hear county
testimony about the proposal, and apply the Board-approved
rating factors. For each proposal, the cumulative
scores on all rating factors, by all ESC members,
determine the applicant's rank in relationship to
other projects (BOC Grant Proposal Evaluation Process).
|
| Step 6 |
Award Grants:
The ESC provides the Board with a rank-ordered
list of proposed projects for funding consideration/action
at its regularly scheduled meeting and public comment,
if any, can be provided. In determining what action
to take, the Board may accept, change, or modify
any ESC funding recommendations. The Board awards
grants and counties are formally notified. Each
county project description and funding level is
posted on the Board's website. |
| Step 7 |
Monitor Program
Implementation: The Board monitors each county's
project and provides training and technical assistance
throughout development and implementation. The goal
of Board monitoring, training, and technical assistance
is to provide for early identification and resolution
of any issues and enable mid-course corrections
to be made if necessary. Monitoring also helps ensure
that the project is meeting its goals and objectives
and that it can be reasonably assumed that desired
outcomes can be achieved. |
| Step 8 |
Program Evaluation/Assessment:
Each grant program is subject to some level of evaluation
and assessment. Depending on legislative requirements,
this can be as extensive as formal research designs
using experimental and control groups or much less
formal methodologies (BOC Grant Program Evaluation).
For every grant program, regardless of the research
and evaluation methodologies used, the Board seeks
information to enable two fundamental public policy
questions to be answered: 1) Did the program work
as intended? 2) Were the program goals, objectives,
and desired outcomes achieved? |
| Step 9 |
Report Results:
If required by law (or Board policy), a written
report of program results is prepared for use by
state and local policymakers. This enables findings
and best practices to be identified, as well as
the ability to aggregate data and lessons learned
across projects statewide. It provides a valuable
feedback loop to enable necessary modifications
or improvements to be made to projects or related
public policy. |
Key Elements of the County Grantee
Project Process
| Steps A-B |
Identify Conditions/Needs
and Determine Gaps: When requests for grant
proposals are announced by the Board, the first
step taken by counties is an assessment of current
conditions and needs relative to the Board's grant
program. Counties determine if the grant program
can improve public safety or community conditions,
and address local public policy needs. If so, counties
identify specific gaps that may be met by the grant
program. |
| Steps
C-D |
Develop
Goals/Objectives and Assess Alternatives: If
the assessments in Steps 1-2 indicate that the grant
program may be a good fit, counties move into the
initial phase of project planning involving the
development of goals and objectives. Goals are broad
level statements of desired public policy, and objectives
are specific statements of what the project seeks
to achieve. At this point, counties generate and
assess alternatives and typically make a decision
whether or not to apply for a grant. |
| Steps
C-D |
Develop
Goals/Objectives and Assess Alternatives:
If the assessments in Steps 1-2 indicate that the
grant program may be a good fit, counties move into
the initial phase of project planning involving
the development of goals and objectives. Goals are
broad level statements of desired public policy,
and objectives are specific statements of what the
project seeks to achieve. At this point, counties
generate and assess alternatives and typically make
a decision whether or not to apply for a grant |
| Steps
E-F |
Project
Development/Action Planning and Effectiveness Indicators:
Although all steps up to this
point can be considered in the broad context of
initial project development, at steps 5-6 counties
typically develop a formal, written proposal for
submission to the Board. Counties planning and development
teams engage in intensive system wide collaboration
among key parties. Roles and responsibilities are
identified, action plans and timelines are developed,
lines of authority are established, policies and
project procedures are drafted, and project effectiveness
indicators (or desired outcome measures) and evaluation
protocols are developed. (If the county receives
a grant, project development continues and is refined.)
|
| Steps
G-H |
Project
Implementation and Evaluation/Assessment.
Counties start project implementation, which typically
involves operationalizing all policies and procedures
(e.g., taking clients, delivering services, starting
construction, etc.). At this point, necessary evaluation
data collection begins. |
| Step I |
Project Modification/Improvement.
Lessons learned in implementation, and evaluation
results, are used by counties to make project modifications
and improvements. This occurs throughout the life
of the project as part of an ongoing process of
program assessment and continuous improvement. |
|
|
