|
|
|
|
2009 Allocations Process Executive Summary
Mission
To distribute the community’s unrestricted donated resources in response to identified community needs in an accountable and caring manner while honoring the wishes of the donor.
2009 Fund Distribution Process
The process and criteria used for making Allocations decisions for the 43 partner agencies and 71 programs in 2009-2010 has ended up being similar to the process in the previous four years. Funding decisions were based on the type of program, the quality of the services provided and the impact that the program has on its target population.
Funding decisions were individualized, that is, across the board funding increases or decreases were not recommended.
Programs experienced a decrease using the 2008-2009 final allocations funding as the base from which funding changes were made, irrespective of the amount requested by the agency for a specific program. Agencies were advised before the application submission date to only request the amount of funding actually allocated for 2008-2009 and, as in past years, agencies were allowed to submit proposals where 2008-2009 allocated funds could be reallocated by the agency to higher priority programs (as was done in the case of 3 agencies and 3 programs).
New programs were not funded (there were no requests for new programs this year).
Programs continue to be classified according to the following categories:
A funding matrix was developed, comparable to the funding matrix used last year. Funding for programs with higher quality program scores were reduced less that programs with lower quality program scores. Funding for programs with very low program quality scores was either discontinued or reduced significantly. The funding matrix minimally took into account funding categories giving essential services a priority in this economic downturn. Community volunteers involved with the Fund Distribution Review Teams made some additional revisions to the Agency Ranking Worksheet this year to further enhance the process of evaluating program quality. In addition, in partnership with the Council for Agency Executives, the weight given to scores for “agency participation with United Way” was increased to 18%.
Overall, more programs had reduced quality scores than increases over the prior year. This is reflective of the generally high scores that most programs have received in the past, offset by the impact of changes we made this year. However, overall, roughly the same percentage of programs scored in the two highest quality categories as past years (84%).
The Fund Distribution Committee spent considerable time reviewing all of the programs that rated less than 80% in quality scores to make sure we understood what factors were driving the low ratings, including whether the low ratings were driven by the change in United Way participation, budget, financial, or application content issues, or program service and outcome objective deficiencies (i.e. was the program still having an impact on its target population, even though there were “process” issues reducing the overall quality score). The Committee also wanted to understand if the low score was related to a “one-time” change (i.e. program in the past had consistently high ratings) or whether there was a consistent pattern over time of poor program quality scores.
The categories in the Agency Ranking Worksheet are as follows:
Section 1 covers: • Board Governance & Participation • Resource Development • Response to Prior Recommendations • Budget/Financial Resources Section 2 covers: • Program Accessibility and Population • Outcome Measurements Section 3 covers: • Performance as United Way partner • Compliance with funding requirements
The internal programs of United Way (First Call for Help, Volunteer Center, and Success by Six) will be reviewed in June using the internal program application which focuses on outcome measures and demographic data. Additionally, the Fund Distribution Committee will meet with program directors and a member of their respective advisory committee to discuss the program and its performance over the past year.
Note that the Fund Distribution Committee also spent considerable time deliberating the feasibility of a more “targeted” approach to the funding decision, but did not feel it could make a better decision than the approach used for funding decisions in past years, in the absence of very specific information about community priority needs that would allow the Committee to stop funding specific programs or types of program services for reasons other than program quality.
Allocations Funding Recommendations
The Allocations Panel Chairs were notified that there would be $1,675,000 in available funds for distribution. This amount reflects a decrease of $325,000 (16.5%) from last year’s available dollars. In consultation with the Executive Committee, a decision was made to only allocate $1,650,000 (a 17.6% funding decrease) and retain $25,000 as a reserve for collections shortfalls, appeals, or other unanticipated needs given current economic conditions.
To fairly allocate the limited dollars available, the committee chose to fund programs with the highest quality scores (90% or higher) with a base decrease of 10.5-12.5% from last year’s allocation, based on the program Category. Essential Services (category 1) programs, received the lowest decrease in funding. Programs scoring between 80% and 89.9% were given a 16-18.5% decrease in funding. Programs scoring between 70% and 79.9% received a 23% decrease in funding. Programs scoring between 50% and 69.9% were targeted for a 50% decrease in funding and programs scoring below 50% have funding discontinued.
The Fund Distribution Committee is recommending discontinuing funding for four programs due to program quality: Daytona Beach PAL – After School Tutorial and Summer Recreation Mental Health Association – Advocacy Mental Health Association – Prevention Salvation Army – West Volusia Social Services
In the case of Mental Health Association, the Fund Distribution Committee recommended above “model” funding for its Drop-In Center program to offset funding elimination in the agencies other two programs.
The Fund Distribution Committee is also recommending that the Rose Marie Bryon Children’s Center’s E.A.S.E. program be funded with “action” – meaning that funding for the full year is contingent on the program meeting very specific requirements, and that future funding will be at risk if the program does not meet those requirements.
· Percent Changes from 2008-2009 base (of 71 total programs) o 10.5-12.5% decrease – 38 programs o 16.0-18.5% decrease – 21 programs o 23% decrease – 3 programs o 50% decrease – 1 programs o No funding (100% decrease) – 4 programs o No funding – agency requested reallocation – 3 programs o Exception to model funding – 1 program
· Overall scoring for programs 2009-2010 2008-2009 Programs scoring 90-100%: 38 programs Programs scoring 90-100%: 60 programs Programs scoring 80-89.9%: 21 programs Programs scoring 80-89.9%: 14 programs Programs scoring 70-79.9%: 3 programs Programs scoring 70-79.9%: 4 programs Programs scoring 50-69.9%: 8 programs Programs scoring 50-69.9%: 7 programs Programs scoring 0-49.9%: 1 program Programs scoring 0-49.9%: 1 program
· Funding by Service Category 2009-2010 2008 - 2009 Category 1: $544,900 or 33% Category 1: $563,300 or 28% Category 2: $549,800 or 33% Category 2: $462,200 or 23% Category 3: $295,000 or 18% Category 3: $324,800 or 16% Category 4: $260,300 or 16% Category 4: $649,900 or 33%
. Allocations by Targeted Services
Allocation Summary Summary of the 2009–2010 funding recommendations by program and agency can be found in the attached spreadsheet. The Fund Distribution Committee continues to focus its actions on meeting its mission statement.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Increasing the organized capacity of our community to care for its people since 1941.
For questions or comments about this web site, click here. Last modified: 05/31/09
|
