1. The Theory and Practice of Results Based Grant Making Setting Targets & Measuring Results Jon Newkirk Western Center for Risk Management Education Washington State University jnewkirk@wsu.edu

2. Return on Investment The risk management actions that agricultural producers take are the return on the investment of the Extension Risk Management Education grant dollars an applicant is awarded.

3. The Design Context An applicant proposes a project that promises one or more risk management results, i.e. the Targets, for the participants. The decision makers determine whether the risk management Targets, i.e. the risk management results for the producers, are within the parameters of the program, do they meet the Congressional intent, are they important for the target audience, and do they fit within the priorities of the program.

4. The Design Context ( Continued) The remainder of the application is then used to determine whether the applicant has a good chance of delivering the results for the participants as promised. It is only about programs to the extent they are the means through which producers learn or apply improved risk management. Outcomes and impacts, within the context of this presentation, is exclusively focused on what ag producers learn, achieve, and apply in terms of improved risk management tools and strategies.

5. The Design Context (continued) The application asks only for enough information that the review panel can determine if there is a reasonable chance the applicant can deliver the results for the individuals who participate in the project.  A short, but complete, application improves the decision making process because all panel members can read every application.  A short, but complete application, conserves the most precious resource you have, your time.

6. Staying Within the Congressional Intent? Limiting the decision process to whether the project can deliver on the promised results keeps the process focused where the Congressional mandate says it will be, on improving the risk management of agricultural producers.

7. Other Considerations By seeking only the information needed to make an informed decision about whether participants have a chance of achieving the Targets, individuals and organizations with good ideas and experience working with producers on risk management, but who are not experienced grant writers, have a chance with the results based system.

8. The Results Based Process Theory Restated 1. The panel first makes a determination on whether the proposed risk management results that the producers will achieve are ones the grantor wants to invest in. 2. The rest of the application is used to determine whether producers can achieve those risk management results from the proposed project.

9. Questions that the application is designed to help answer. Are the risk management results the producers will achieve, ones the Center wants to invest in. Are the risk management results proposed appropriate for this program? Do they meet the Congressional intent?

10. Questions that the application is designed to help answer. Are the chances good that producers will achieve the risk management results promised? Does the project team know their audience? Will producers chose to participate?  A needs statement does not tell us whether the audience will choose to participate. Are the risk management results proposed important for the audience, i.e. are they needed?

11. Questions that the application is designed to help answer. Will the proposed action steps lead to the intended results? Are they well thought out? Will the methods proposed lead to the proposed results for the producers? Are there collaborators who strengthen the project?

12. Questions that the application is designed to help answer. Does the Project Team have the experience and expertise needed either internally or through outside resources that will work with them, to pull the project off. Is the cost reasonable? Are the expenditures allowable either due to USDA policy or a rules and procedures decision?

13. Results Based Grant Making - Targets Targets or the results for the participants. What participants will learn and apply in terms of risk management tools and strategies within 6 months to 1 year that can help them succeed in the longer term. If the return on the investment of the grant award is what the participants learned and applied, then it is important that the grant applicant can identify what that is and be able to verify to the investor that the project produced those returns. Thinking Specifically about the Application.

14. Results Based Grant Making - Targets The Targets are the applicants promise that ag producers and/or their families and employees will have a risk management tool, strategy, or action to use that they weren’t using before that improves their chances of managing the financial risks associated with farming and ranching. It could also be that producers hone the skill or confirm it is important to continue, or to strengthen something they are already doing. Thinking Specifically about the Application.

15. Results Based Grant Making - Targets The Targets are what is being purchased by the grantor. The Targets are the return on the investment of the grant dollars an applicant is awarded. The Targets should identify how many producers are projected to learn one or more risk management strategies, tools, or will take some action that leads to the improved risk management for the farm or ranch. Thinking Specifically about the Application.

16. Results Based Grant Making  Project Steps The action steps the project team takes from project beginning to the results for the participants.  Possible to use the project steps to see where the plan could be improved.  Project steps can be updated on line as the project develops.  Interim reports are centered on the progress in meeting the milestones. Thinking Specifically about the Application.

17. Results Based Grant Making  Participant Description – (Most often missed) “Can you reach this audience?” Will they participate so they can achieve the results you are proposing” Establishes  Who is the target audience?  Why would they CHOOSE to participate? What are the distinguishing characteristics of this audience that relates to their willingness to participate?  Where are they located? Thinking Specifically about the Application.

18. Results Based Grant Making  Participant Description – (Most often missed)  If applied, will the tools, strategies, or actions proposed assist producers in managing some part of the price, production, financial, human, or legal risks associated with farming or ranching, i.e. is there a need?  Will potential participants, see the need? Thinking Specifically about the Application.

19. Results Based Grant Making (continued)  Team Members – Identifies the project team. The folks who are responsible for creating, planning, and implementing the project.  References – Identifies the expertise, published references, or experience that would lead the panel to believe the team can pull this project off. Thinking Specifically about the Application.

20. Results Based Grant Making (continued)  Project Description – a 400 word synopsis that tells the project story from beginning to end and identifies the methods to be used.  Collaborators – Identifies active organizational or individual partners in the project. Bring expertise? Bring access to producers? Help secure participation? Meet the Congressional intent? Thinking Specifically about the Application.

21. Results Based Grant Making (continued)  Project Summary – An abstract of 150 words or less that communicates who is the audience, what the risk management results will be for those producers, and the methods to be used. Someone reading the Project Summary should be able to have a basic understanding of the essence of the project. Thinking Specifically about the Application.