1. 1 Outline for Implementation Plan Discussion Recap of January results –Table 1 – identification of Priority Activities for FY15 (and FY16?) –Modifications to Activity descriptions –Identified potential “Focused Actions” for three of the Priority Activities Continue process of identifying potential Focused Actions for remaining Priority Activities –“Focused Actions” should be defined at a level of detail that an RFP to generate specific projects could be written, or a designated provider could write a detailed scope of work Continue discussion of funding strategies (broad, deep, combined) –How could alternative approaches be implemented? Pros and cons?

2. 2 Recap & development of focused actions See handouts distributed with Agenda

3. 3 Funding / portfolio strategies There is a lot to be done, and a lot of ways in which limited funding could be distributed… In annual Implementation to date, the basic strategy has been to “spread around” available funding – to allocate some funds to each Priority Topic and to each Focused Action. There were some exceptions: –FY12 funding focused exclusively on TEK-related projects –Through FY13, no work related to Priority Topic E had been funded –Within the RFPs for FY13 and FY14, specific Topics were emphasized for some In January, we discussed alternative approaches –Do not fund similar project / similar Focused Activities related to the same Priority Topic in successive years – wait for results –Use results of previously funded work to determine / identify / support priorities for future work –Pick a single focus each year and fund “deep” in that area; rotate the focus over a several year timeframe –Combination approach: Pick a primary focus each year and allocate a majority of funding to that focus (50% to 75%), while “spreading around” the rest of the funding

4. 4 Funding / portfolio strategies Broad distribution of funds –To date, many factors have been considered as we aimed for a broad or balanced portfolio. The Portfolio was broad in terms of Priority Topic, Focused Actions, and Geographies Narrow or focused distribution of funds –Around what factor(s) do we define our “narrow” focus?  One Priority Topic at a time?  One Focused Action at a time? (e.g., fund Vulnerability Assessments only)  One type of management decision at a time? (e.g., ?  One “goal” at a time? (would have to define what we mean by a “goal”)  Combination of the above (e.g., one Focused Action for a single Priority Topic) Combination approach –how focused should the portfolio be?

5. 5 Funding / portfolio strategies Broad distribution of funds Narrow or focused distribution of funds ProsCons Partnership engagementLittle bits of funding only enable little bits of progress – making it difficult to point to any “big wins” Appearance of lack of focus ProsCons May enable more / better collaboration among projects in a given year Allows more time to learn from previous work before pursuing more work in an area May discourage partner engagement (e.g., if the focus topic is not relevant to their agency)