Next gen contracting virtual funding pool provisionsv6 (1)

1,890 views

Published on

Mark Friedman, Results Based Accountability

In September, Common Good Vermont was thrilled to welcome world renown Results Based AccountabilityTM founder Mark Friedman to Vermont for three days of training and policy discussions with over 300 agencies, legislators, and funders. Mark expertly guided everyone through his methodology for answering the three questions:
1) How much did we do;
2) How well did we do it; and
3) Is anyone better off?

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,890
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
52
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This list comes from the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families and is used by the network of Family Connections Councils in Georgia. Georgia has gone one step further and identified 25 indicators to tell if these conditions are being achieved. And Georgia has produced a report card at the state level and for each of the 159 counties. Many other places in the United States have produced such report cards, including CALIFORNIA                 Contra Costa County: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us                 San Mateo County: www.pls.lib.ca.us/healthysmc/33/children.pdf                 Santa Cruz County: appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm                 Silicon Valley Joint Venture: jointventure.org                                             GEORGIA                 Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and The Family Connection:                                                                      gpc-fc.org MINNESOTA                 Hennepin County: www.co.hennepin.mn.us/opd/opd.htm           OHIO                 Montgomery County Family and Children First Council:                                                                      http://www.fcfc.montco.org         OREGON                 Oregon Progress Board: econ.state.or.us/opb PENNSYLVANIA                 Philadelphia Safe and Sound: Children's Report Card and Children's Budget                                                                   www.philasafesound.org VERMONT                 Agency for Human Services: Community Profiles: ahs.state.vt.us                  . Links to the best of these sites can be found on www.raguide.org.
  • We have lots of examples of well-established standards in the upper right (How well did we do it?) quadrant, because we know what good service delivery looks like. But standards in the lower right (Is anyone better off?) quadrant are almost always experimental. This is partly because of the different mixes of easy and hard cases in different caseloads or workloads.
  • We have lots of examples of well-established standards in the upper right (How well did we do it?) quadrant, because we know what good service delivery looks like. But standards in the lower right (Is anyone better off?) quadrant are almost always experimental. This is partly because of the different mixes of easy and hard cases in different caseloads or workloads.
  • This list comes from the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families and is used by the network of Family Connections Councils in Georgia. Georgia has gone one step further and identified 25 indicators to tell if these conditions are being achieved. And Georgia has produced a report card at the state level and for each of the 159 counties. Many other places in the United States have produced such report cards, including CALIFORNIA                 Contra Costa County: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us                 San Mateo County: www.pls.lib.ca.us/healthysmc/33/children.pdf                 Santa Cruz County: appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm                 Silicon Valley Joint Venture: jointventure.org                                             GEORGIA                 Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and The Family Connection:                                                                      gpc-fc.org MINNESOTA                 Hennepin County: www.co.hennepin.mn.us/opd/opd.htm           OHIO                 Montgomery County Family and Children First Council:                                                                      http://www.fcfc.montco.org         OREGON                 Oregon Progress Board: econ.state.or.us/opb PENNSYLVANIA                 Philadelphia Safe and Sound: Children's Report Card and Children's Budget                                                                   www.philasafesound.org VERMONT                 Agency for Human Services: Community Profiles: ahs.state.vt.us                  . Links to the best of these sites can be found on www.raguide.org.
  • This list comes from the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families and is used by the network of Family Connections Councils in Georgia. Georgia has gone one step further and identified 25 indicators to tell if these conditions are being achieved. And Georgia has produced a report card at the state level and for each of the 159 counties. Many other places in the United States have produced such report cards, including CALIFORNIA                 Contra Costa County: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us                 San Mateo County: www.pls.lib.ca.us/healthysmc/33/children.pdf                 Santa Cruz County: appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm                 Silicon Valley Joint Venture: jointventure.org                                             GEORGIA                 Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and The Family Connection:                                                                      gpc-fc.org MINNESOTA                 Hennepin County: www.co.hennepin.mn.us/opd/opd.htm           OHIO                 Montgomery County Family and Children First Council:                                                                      http://www.fcfc.montco.org         OREGON                 Oregon Progress Board: econ.state.or.us/opb PENNSYLVANIA                 Philadelphia Safe and Sound: Children's Report Card and Children's Budget                                                                   www.philasafesound.org VERMONT                 Agency for Human Services: Community Profiles: ahs.state.vt.us                  . Links to the best of these sites can be found on www.raguide.org.
  • This list comes from the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families and is used by the network of Family Connections Councils in Georgia. Georgia has gone one step further and identified 25 indicators to tell if these conditions are being achieved. And Georgia has produced a report card at the state level and for each of the 159 counties. Many other places in the United States have produced such report cards, including CALIFORNIA                 Contra Costa County: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us                 San Mateo County: www.pls.lib.ca.us/healthysmc/33/children.pdf                 Santa Cruz County: appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm                 Silicon Valley Joint Venture: jointventure.org                                             GEORGIA                 Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and The Family Connection:                                                                      gpc-fc.org MINNESOTA                 Hennepin County: www.co.hennepin.mn.us/opd/opd.htm           OHIO                 Montgomery County Family and Children First Council:                                                                      http://www.fcfc.montco.org         OREGON                 Oregon Progress Board: econ.state.or.us/opb PENNSYLVANIA                 Philadelphia Safe and Sound: Children's Report Card and Children's Budget                                                                   www.philasafesound.org VERMONT                 Agency for Human Services: Community Profiles: ahs.state.vt.us                  . Links to the best of these sites can be found on www.raguide.org.
  • This list comes from the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families and is used by the network of Family Connections Councils in Georgia. Georgia has gone one step further and identified 25 indicators to tell if these conditions are being achieved. And Georgia has produced a report card at the state level and for each of the 159 counties. Many other places in the United States have produced such report cards, including CALIFORNIA                 Contra Costa County: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us                 San Mateo County: www.pls.lib.ca.us/healthysmc/33/children.pdf                 Santa Cruz County: appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm                 Silicon Valley Joint Venture: jointventure.org                                             GEORGIA                 Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and The Family Connection:                                                                      gpc-fc.org MINNESOTA                 Hennepin County: www.co.hennepin.mn.us/opd/opd.htm          OHIO                 Montgomery County Family and Children First Council:                                                                      http://www.fcfc.montco.org         OREGON                 Oregon Progress Board: econ.state.or.us/opb PENNSYLVANIA                 Philadelphia Safe and Sound: Children's Report Card and Children's Budget                                                                   www.philasafesound.org VERMONT                 Agency for Human Services: Community Profiles: ahs.state.vt.us                 . Links to the best of these sites can be found on www.raguide.org.
  • Rate each candidate measure high, medium or low on each criteria. Those that score highest rise to the top. Those that score H, H, L are powerful measures for which we do not now have data. These form the basis for the data development agenda.
  • Next gen contracting virtual funding pool provisionsv6 (1)

    1. 1. Draft 2 June 2011 Next Generation Contracting 2.0 An Approach to Flexible Funding and Integrated, Outcome-Based Contracting  Based on Next Generation Contracting and Virtual Funding Pool Principles developed by FPSIFiscal Policy Studies Institute
    2. 2. Next Generation Contracting Quantity Quality 1. Traditional purchasingEffort methods work fine in the upper quadrants. BUTEffect 2. They break down in the Is anyone better off? quadrants (because of case mix differences and perverse incentives). WHICH MEANS 3. What we purchase in the lower quadrants are not deliverables, but rather a RELATIONSHIP where funder and grantees work together to maximize customer results.
    3. 3. Next Generation Contracting Contract ProvisionsProvision 1. Specify the 3 to 5 most important performance measures (from the How well did we do it? and Is anyone better off? categories).Provision 2. Specify that the contractor will use a continuous improvement process (the RBA 7 Questions).Provision 3. Specify how the funder and contractor will work in partnership to maximize customer results (quarterly meetings using the 7 questions as the agenda).Provision 4. Specify that the funder will work with the funding community to simplify and standardize contracting and performance reporting.
    4. 4. Next Generation Contracting Contract ProvisionsProvision 5: : Clear articulation of role in population/community well-being. Language of contribution not attribution.Provision 6: 10% for quality management and administration.Provision 7: Multi-year funding using 3 year rolling contractsProvision 8: Use of targets that are fair and useful.Provision 9: Fund flexibility and virtual funding pool: transfer of up to 10% across line items and program lines.
    5. 5. Draft 2 June 2011 Next Generation Contracting 2.0  An Approach based on Next Generation Contracting and Virtual Funding Pool Principles developed by FPSI KEY FEATURES: 1. Allows fine tuning of the balance between control and fund flexibility. 2. Provides the benefits of "traditional" fund pools for mainstream funding, without the loss of fund identity, and with less accounting and administrative complexity. 3. Promotes partnership/alliance working on both population quality of life and service system performance improvement. Defines funder/contractor partnership for maximizing customer outcomes. 4. Makes use of simplified reporting on contract performance using RBA formats and the three RBA measurement categories: How much did we do? How well did we do it? and Is anyone better off? 5. Establishes 3 year rolling contracting (with safeguards) that prevents annual destabilization of service providers. 6. Institutionalizes contractor continuous improvement processes. 7. Provides funding for contractor management infrastructure.Fiscal Policy Studies Institute
    6. 6. Service Line Specifications 1. What is the role of the service in population quality of life? 2. Definition of the service 3. Service quality requirements 4. Key partners, alliance relationships 5. How many people will be served? (and relevant targets) 6. How much of what activities will be provided? (and relevant targets) 7. How well did we do it? and Is anyone better off? measures (3-5)Fiscal Policy Studies Institute
    7. 7. General Contract Provisions 1. The contractor will use a continuous improvement process. 2. The contractor will report on progress quarterly using a simplified format: Numbers, Accomplishments & Stories. 3. Targets, where used, will be set in relation to a baseline and will be negotiated so as to be fair and useful. 4. The funder and contractor will work as partners to maximize customer outcomes. 5. The funder will work with the funding community to simplify and standardize contracting and reporting requirements. 6. General provisions concerning management, due diligence, dispute resolution, termination, and other matters required by law.Fiscal Policy Studies Institute
    8. 8. Financial Contract Provisions 1. Standard provisions for accounting, financial reporting, audit and general fiduciary responsibility. 2. Specify budget by service line. 3. Provide 10% for management and infrastructure, adjusted for economies of scale. 4. Provide for rolling 3 year contract with new 3rd year amendment to be negotiated by the end of each contract year. 5. Allow contractor to move funds of less than 10% of budget between service lines in the interest of more effective services. 6. Allow contractor to retain (across contract years) savings in medium/high intensive services to expand prevention services.Fiscal Policy Studies Institute
    9. 9. Virtual Funding Pool Managing "as if" funds were pooled: Accountability and flexibility without loss of fund line identity Programs Low cost Med -High cost Prevention (using health examples) Intervention InterventionTransfer between service lines or to new service 1a. Health promotion $ 1,000,000 1b. Immunizations 3,000,000 1c. GP well visits 4,000,000 1,000,000 2a. GP sick visits 10,000,000 2b. Diagnostic testing 2,000,000 4,000,000 10,000,000 2d. Emergency room 5,000,000 25,000,000 3a. Hospital care 50,000,000 3b. Long term care 60,000,000 3c. Hospice care 5,000,000 4. Mgmt Infrastructure 1,000,000 2,000,000 10,000,000 11,000,000 22,000,000 160,000,000Fiscal Policy Studies Institute Transfer savings from deep end to prevention

    ×