OCJP Victim ServicesDraft Planning & Allocation Process

THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE SHARED OUTSIDE THIS OFFICE

VOCA ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 2003-2004

Underlying Assumptions

Tennessee’s FY 2003-04 VOCA grant is expected to be at least 15% lower than it has been in previous years. The situation challenges OCJP with the difficulty of ensuring that priority service populations are served, making VOCA budget allocations equitable and victims of crime receive the most cost-effective services possible. With those challenges in mind, OCJP is developing a more structured allocation planning process. Our assumptions are as follows:

There are 111 agencies providing services to victims of crime under the state’s VOCA program. OCJP cannot imagine expanding services in a time when the total budget is 85% of its previous size. Therefore, no new applicants will be considered for FY 2003-04. Only current sub-recipients will be eligible for funding, and they will have to find a way to absorb some of the reductions in VOCA funds. The challenge is in making those allocations balance equity and cost-effectiveness.

The best allocation decisions tie budgets to program performance. They do not penalize those programs that represent the only alternatives for serving the target population, nor do they treat all agencies equal regardless of their history of accountable performance. Sub-recipients should not all bear the burden of reductions equally, although all should bear some of the burden of reductions that affect the entire victim services program.

OCJP’s allocation process provides a structured and analytical approach for ensuring:

  • the funding requirements for VOCA are met;
  • the people of Tennessee receive the most cost-effective services available; and
  • the state has a defensible rationale for its budget allocation decisions.

The allocation process consists of two components:

  1. VOCA Awards for FY ’03-’04: (50%)VOCA awardswill be based on three variables:
  2. the program’s importance to the state’s coverage of the priority servicepopulations defined in the VOCA program requirements;
  3. the sub-recipient’s performance history, as defined in component Two (the Project Management Review, or PMR);
  4. the integrity of program design for FY ’03-’04 (its “logic model”). The FY ’04 logic model will be scored on a 100-point scale by OCJP’s advisory group. This score will be reviewed by OCJP’s grant manager, and staffed at OCJP before a score is final. Using a tested review instrument with criteria weighted for the key elements of an effective program design (e.g., statement of the problem and target population, clarity of program purpose, logical service activities, outcome indicators that tie to accomplishment of program purpose), this review emphasizes the program’s understanding of its targets, its purpose and its ability to recognize and report the accomplishment of program results. The rating will inform OCJP of the…
  • …strength of the program’s design for services during the upcoming grant period, as represented in the application narrative (i.e., its “Logic Model”);
  • …the growth of the sub-recipient’s performance management skills (i.e., the pattern of observable improvement in performance since FY ’00).
  1. Program Management Review: (50%) The program management review is the equivalent to a project history file on each sub-recipient. It is a rating process that describes the current condition of a sub-recipient’s performance. The PMR considers the internal consistency and integrity of the program’s design, the agency’s history of complying with reporting

requirements, its performance output and outcome data, and its history of audit findings and corrective actions. The PMR gives OCJP a baseline for comparing the April ’03 VOCA applications.

Project Management Review (100-point scale)

Rationale: Past and current performance is the best predictor of future performance. Therefore, the performance review focuses on seven past and current performance criteria organized under four categories of inquiry, as follows.

1. INTEGRITY OF PROGRAM DESIGN or FY ’00-’03 “LOGIC MODEL” (20%)

OCJP will use a tested review instrument with criteria weighted for the key elements of an effective program design (e.g., statement of the problem and target population, clarity of program purpose, logical service activities, outcome indicators that tie to accomplishment of program purpose). This review establishes a baseline for comparison with future logic models. The emphasis is on the program’s understanding of its targets, its purpose and its ability to recognize accomplishment of results.

Criterion #1: FY ’00-‘03 logic model will be scored on a 100-point scale by OCJP’s grant manager, and staffed at OCJP before a score is final, using the revised rating sheet approved by OCJP. This score will count as 20% of the overall Project Management Review score.

2. REPORTING HISTORY (20%):

OCJP grant managers will review the sub-recipient’s project file to determine its compliance with reporting requirements FY ’00-’01, FY ’01-’02, and FY ’02-’03 YTD. The review will examine both annual and semi-annual reports, concentrating on the timeliness of the submission and its accuracy (i.e., the right form was submitted, with all pertinent data complete). A two day “grace period” for receipt of each report has been allowed

Criterion #2: (VOCA)Annual reports will be scored as follows:

  • FY ’00-’01 Semi-annual Report: 1 points
  • FY ’00-’01 Annual Report: 1 points
  • FY ’00-’01 SAR Report: 1 point
  • FY ’00-’01 12 Monthly fiscal reconciliation reports: 2 points
  • FY ’01-’02 Semi-annual Report: 2 points
  • FY ’01-’02 Annual Report: 2 points
  • FY ’01-’02 SAR Report: 1 point
  • FY ’01-’02 4 Quarterly fiscal reconciliation reports: 2 points
  • FY ’01-’02 Semi-annual OUTCOME Report: 2 points
  • FY ’01-’02 Annual OUTCOME Report: 2 points
  • FY ’02-’03 Semi-annual Report: 2 points
  • FY ’02-’03 Semi-annual OUTCOME Report: 2 points

Criterion #2 (STOP )Reports will be scored as follows:

  • FY 00-01 SAPR I (2 points)
  • FY 00-01 Semi-Annual Output Report (2 points)
  • FY 00-01 SAPR II (2points)
  • FY 01-02 SAPR I (2 points)
  • FY 01-02 Semi-Annual Output Report (2 points)
  • FY 01-02 SAPR II (2 points)
  • FY 02-03 SAPR I (2 points)
  • FY 01-02 Semi-Annual Outcome Report (2 points)
  • FY 01-02 Annual Outcome Report (2 points)
  • FY 02-03 Semi-Annual Outcome Report (2 points)

The total possible score for reporting history will be 20% of the overall Project Management Review score.

3. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE (40%)

OCJP grant managers will use actual self-reported performance data to determine a rating for recent agency performance. The review will concentrate on the FY ’02 Annual Report and the FY ’03 Semi-annual Report.

Criterion #3: OCJP grant managers will rate the agency’s FY ’02 output and cost data on a scale often five points, using a ratio of overall project costs to total number of participants served surveyed, based on information reported on the ’01 –’02 VOCA/STOP Annual Outcome Report. (5%)

Criterion #4: OCJP grant managers will rate the agency’s FY ’03 outcome data on a scale of fifteen points, using the following breakdowns:

  • compliance with outcome measurement requirements (3 points);
  • reasonableness of rate of return on client surveys (3 points);
  • client satisfaction data (3 points);
  • client knowledge of community resources (3 points); and
  • community awareness (3 points). (15%)

Criterion #5: OCJP grant managers will use a twenty-point scale (20%) to rate the agency’s overall program effectiveness by analyzing its

  • Project manager’s determination of overall project effectiveness (6 points). Among the activities to be considered as “overall effectiveness” would include the following activities:
  • Communication/notification to OCJP of pertinent changes (1 point)
  • Responsiveness to OCJP inquiries (1 point)
  • Program effectiveness (2 points)
  • Organization/Professionalism (1 point)
  • Demonstrate VOCA Program Manual understanding (1 point)
  • History of spending and under-spending of VOCA grant in 00/01 and 01/02 (10 points);

Years 00/01 and 01/02 will each count 5 points and will be scored separately as follows:

% Underspent Points Deducted from a possible 5 for each year

0-4% 0

5-10%2 points

11-14%3 points

15-19%4 points

20% and above5 points

  • Commitment to system improvement (5 4 points). Among the activities to be considered as “commitment to system improvement” would be participation in one or more of these activities:
  • Advisory groups in FY ’00-’01 (2 points);
  • Victim ad hoc needs assessment group FY ’00-’01 (1 point);
  • Application reviews and advisory groups and/or disk-based test group FY ’03-’04 (1 point);

4. PAR MONITORING (20%)

OCJP grant managers will use the sub-recipient’s history of PAR findings and corrective action to determine its score on both program and fiscal compliance. OCJP’s ratings will differentiate between substantive and marginal findings. OCJP’s ratings will examine the FY ’01 and FY ’02 years.

Criterion #6:Fiscalcondition will be rated on a scale of 10 points. No findings will yield a 10, and each minor or marginal finding will subtract points. Significant fiscal findings will subtract all 5 points per year, or a total of 10 points for the two-year period. Years 00/01 and 01/02 will each count 5 points for a two-year total of (10) and points will be deducted for each year as follows:

No Fiscal Findings: 0 Pts. Deducted

Minor Fiscal Findings: (budget revision issues or

minor repeat findings) 2-3 Pts. Deducted

Significant Fiscal Findings: (everything else) 5 Pts. Deducted

Criterion #7:Program condition will be rated on a scale of 10 points. No findings will yield a 10, and each minor or marginal finding will subtract a point. Significant program findings will subtract a minimum of 2 points, and as many as all 10 points for the two year period. Years 00/01 and 01/02 will each count 5 points for a two-year total of (10) and points will be deducted for each year as follows:

No Program Findings: 0 Pts. Deducted

Minor Program Findings (non-federal or contract issues) 2-3 Pts.Deducted

Significant Program Findings (related to federal and contract requirements) 5 Points Deducted

Note: Although this memo was developed to articulate the planning approach for VOCA awards for FY ’03-’04, it should be understood that OCJP’s process is similar for all its victim services decision-making. STOP grant awards maynot require such a detailed weighting system for this funding cycle, but the major categories of analysis will generally be the same for all grant types.

Allocation Process- Version #10 December 18, 20021