1 / 10

Coordinated Funding

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the Coordinated Funding model as presented to the Washtenaw Urban County Executive Committee in October 2013. It highlights the efficacy of the model, noting overall support, improved relationships among grantees and funders, and increased capacity. However, it also identifies areas for improvement like technical challenges in the RFP process and the need for meaningful outcomes. Recommendations for implementation from 2013-2015 focus on capacity building, community-driven outcomes, and resource leveraging to enhance coordination and efficiency in funding practices.

babu
Download Presentation

Coordinated Funding

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Coordinated Funding October 2013 Update to the Washtenaw Urban County Executive Committee

  2. Overview of the Model

  3. History of Coordinated Funding

  4. Overall Findings from Process Evaluation Working Well Areas for Improvement • Overall support for the concept and intent of the model • Grantees and funders report improved relationships and improved funder understanding of the sector • Support for the role of Planning & Coordinating Agencies • No evidence of negative repercussions in the community • Evidence for increased grantee capacity • Evidence for increased funder strategy Outcomes need a lot of work to be more meaningful Technical challenges in RFP and reporting process have caused frustrations in applicants and grantees Model has not resulted in time efficiencies for funders, and has added to their time burden Not all programs/services fit well into the service areas and selected outcomes

  5. Implementation of Recommendations: 2013-2015 and beyond… • New funding partner • Capacity Building for P&Cs • Increased Coordination Support for CoFu partners during RFI/RFP • Capacity Building for RFI applicants • And more…

  6. Implementation of Recommendations: 2013-2015 and beyond… • Community Outcomes • System- & Program-Level Outcomes • Contextual Analysis from each P&C • Cross-priority area outcome development to facilitate inter-P&C collaboration

  7. Implementation of Recommendations: 2013-2015 and beyond… • Leveraging Mainstream Resources: • Continuum of Care & Emergency Solutions Grants • Workforce Development • Substance Abuse • Mental Health • Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (DHS)

  8. Implementation of Recommendations: 2013-2015 and beyond… • Improving Application Process • Revised RFI process to make more organizations eligible • Soliciting a new provider for IT and technical support for CommunityGrants.org • Talking with other communities (Eugene, OR; Boulder, CO) about their processes and providers

  9. Next Steps Board Approvals – October/November 2013 Identify RFI/RFP Reviewers – Oct 2013 - Jan 2014 Community Meetings – November 2013 Request for Information (RFI) – December 2013 Review of RFI Submissions – January 2014 Request for Proposal (RFP) – January 2014 Review of Proposals – February to March 2014 Recommendations to Boards – April/May 2014 Start of New Fiscal Year – July 1, 2014

  10. Q&A

More Related