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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Thinking Specifically about the Application.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.