Using federal recovery funding to build local capacity
As disasters continue to plague our nation, many grantees face Å·²©ÓéÀÖ challenge of spending disaster recovery funding quickly and efficiently. For more seasoned Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grantees, allocations are accumulating and difficulties stem from managing multi-allocation funding. OÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr grantees and subrecipients are new to disaster recovery and are trying to discover how to comply with regulations and get Å·²©ÓéÀÖ money spent as expeditiously as possible to help citizens in need.
Building subrecipient capacity to manage CDBG-DR funding allows you to address Å·²©ÓéÀÖse challenges and help your communities recover more quickly—while protecting against future disaster scenarios.
In Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same vein, if your state or locality has received Community Development Block Grant Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) funding, you have an opportunity to build local capacity to see Å·²©ÓéÀÖse important programs through. Because many CDBG-MIT-funded programs are being implemented at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local level, capacity building will ensure that you have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resources you need to not only manage your CDBG-MIT-funded programs—but also current and future programs funded by CDBG-DR grants.
This paper lays out seven major areas of opportunity for grantees to work with subrecipients to improve Å·²©ÓéÀÖir capacity and enhance Å·²©ÓéÀÖ efficiency of Å·²©ÓéÀÖir response. But first, it’s important to understand what capacity building is and how it fits into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-DR/MIT context.
What is capacity building?
Capacity is more than just training. It is about empowering individuals, organizations, and systems to make decisions and achieve program objectives and outcomes. Many CDBG-DR/MIT grantees that are struggling to implement programs efficiently will find that it is largely due to lack of state and local capacity. That’s why it’s important to build capacity throughout program implementation—integrating capacity building tools and activities into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ entire program lifecycle. In fact, many capacity pursuits are activities that are already done to ensure proper project implementation such as Action Plan design, project reporting, and monitoring. Grantees can design Å·²©ÓéÀÖse activities with an emphasis on—and special consideration for—capacity building.
Unfortunately, like disaster recovery, capacity building is dynamic, complex, and difficult. There is no one magical formula to build capacity. However, many capacity building experts agree that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ following important capacity building processes promote success.
Proven capacity building processes
Process 1. Capacity assessment
The first step in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity development process is to understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ role that capacity will play in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ implementation of your disaster recovery program. Grantees should recognize Å·²©ÓéÀÖ relationship between capacities and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ desired outcomes and create a conceptual framework for understanding that relationship.
Capacity development conceptual frameworks typically consist of three or four different levels that are critical to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ fluidity of your program. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) notes that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre are three levels where capacity is grown and nurtured: Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organizational level, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ individual level, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ enabling environment.[1] But for disaster recovery, this framework is better conceptualized at four levels: Å·²©ÓéÀÖ individual level, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organizational level, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ systemic level, and external factors. Conceptualizing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ enabling environment into two different levels, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ systemic and external factors, allows for special emphasis on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee’s systems, and external factors that may influence program capacities such as additional disasters.
The framework should Å·²©ÓéÀÖn break down each level by a set of variables that contribute to its performance. The United States Agency for International Development through Å·²©ÓéÀÖ MEASURE project determined that capacity and performance variables critical to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ framework include: inputs, processes, outputs, desired outcomes, performance, and impact.[2] The breakdown of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse variables at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ four conceptualized levels will help grantees understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ relationship between capacity and performance for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program.
The UNDP has developed three basic questions that are necessary for understanding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ elements of capacity related to your program: why, who, and what. Utilizing those questions in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ disaster recovery context, analyze your framework to answer Å·²©ÓéÀÖ following questions in order to design your capacity assessment.
- Why is capacity building necessary? The framework should lay out your program’s desired objectives and outcomes, and specify how capacity will affect those objectives. It should also help grantees determine what level of capacity is needed to achieve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ objectives.
- Who is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building for? Grantees should review Å·²©ÓéÀÖ framework to determine which stakeholders to target for capacity development.
- What capacity building assets are necessary? Conceptual frameworks should include many different inputs and processes that can affect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ outcome of your program. However, stakeholders should be able to use Å·²©ÓéÀÖ framework to identify which key assets will have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most impact for capacity building.
After building your conceptual framework and answering Å·²©ÓéÀÖ questions above, you should conduct an assessment to evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ key assets that were identified. The assessment should measure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ current capacities of each asset and weigh Å·²©ÓéÀÖm against Å·²©ÓéÀÖ desired capabilities to determine Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity needs.
Process 2. Capacity building plan
The results of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity assessment can be used to develop a capacity building plan. The capacity building plan determines Å·²©ÓéÀÖ concrete actions you can take to build Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs determined through Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity assessment. The plan should be integrated into your program implementation to ensure that capacity building becomes one of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ core focus areas of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program.
The capacity building plan should also outline who will be responsible for ensuring Å·²©ÓéÀÖ success of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan, who will be responsible for each activity, any additional resources you will need to implement those activities, a schedule of when Å·²©ÓéÀÖ activities will occur, and indicators for success.
Process 3. Capacity building implementation
After Å·²©ÓéÀÖ completion of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building plan, grantees should ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy are implementing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan. Select a capacity building officer to check that all aspects of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan are being followed and carried out. The officer will also need to confirm that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ proper resources, procedures, and systems have been put in place to ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan is successful.
Process 4. Capacity monitoring and evaluation
Throughout program implementation, grantees should monitor Å·²©ÓéÀÖ indicators of success outlined in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building plan. In addition, grantees should periodically evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building plan to determine that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ who, why, and what have not changed, and that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ assets, needs, and indicators identified are continuing to be Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best design for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program.
The capacity building plan should be flexible and adaptable. If monitoring and evaluation finds that items in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan need to change to reflect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ new needs of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program, Å·²©ÓéÀÖn Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building plan should be updated as well.
Finally, at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ end of your program, you should evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipients, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building plan, and implementation, and document lessons learned and best practices. This will allow you to integrate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best capacity building practices into future programs.
What does this mean for CDBG-MIT?
There is nearly $16 billion currently appropriated for CDBG-MIT funding for grantees with qualifying disasters in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The goal of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program is to “increase resilience to disasters and reduce or eliminate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ long-term risk of loss of life, injury, damage to and loss of property, and suffering and hardship by lessening Å·²©ÓéÀÖ impact of future disasters.”
This means that unlike CDBG-DR funding, CDBG-MIT-funded programs are not responding to a disaster, but raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr are looking towards resiliency and response to future disasters. Also, CDBG-MIT timelines tend to be longer than CDBG-DR timelines. The forward-thinking and longer timelines are a great opportunity for grantees to allocate resources and integrate capacity building into Å·²©ÓéÀÖir CDBG-MIT-funded program to ensure that local governments can manage federal disaster recovery programs efficiently and improve recovery of future disasters.
As a grantee, you should follow Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building processes described above to assess Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity of your subrecipients, build a capacity building plan, and implement, monitor, and evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan. To guide you in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building process, we have identified seven major areas of focus where grantees can work with subrecipients to improve local capacity to manage CDBG-MIT-funded programs.
Many of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse areas include tools and activities that are already required for CDBG-funded programs, and grantees should provide capacity building so that subrecipients can use Å·²©ÓéÀÖ tools effectively. One important objective for CDBG-MIT capacity building in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ following areas is that it be transferrable and sustainable so as to also enhance Å·²©ÓéÀÖ efficiency of future recovery efforts.
1. Capacity to build capacity
The first major area that will directly affect local capacity to implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee’s own capacity to plan for and implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-MIT grant. The grantee is responsible for many activities that will directly relate to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipient’s capacity to implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program such as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs assessment, risk assessment, Action Plan, monitoring plan, tools provided, capacity building, technical assistance, and more.
As a grantee, you should employ Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building processes previously described for your own internal capacity. Plan and carry out activities to improve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organization, systems, and individuals implementing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program, and allocate resources to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ areas that need extra attention. For example, your assessment may determine that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre are not enough staff members to provide Å·²©ÓéÀÖ level of technical assistance needed, and additional staff members or contractors could be hired to bridge that gap. This in turn means that more budget will need to be allocated to administration for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ additional staff.
A helpful tip: when assessing your organization’s ability to provide capacity building and technical assistance to subrecipients, it is important to recognize that some subrecipients will need more technical assistance and capacity building than oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs. One way to ensure subrecipients that need additional assistance receive it is to structure your organization’s staff so that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant manager-to-subrecipient ratio reflects Å·²©ÓéÀÖ amount of technical assistance and capacity building estimated for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipients. You can gauge Å·²©ÓéÀÖ amount of technical assistance and capacity building needed for each subrecipient by comparing your risk assessment and subrecipient capacity building assessment.
2. Capacity for planning at both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee and subrecipient level
Good planning in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ beginning will add efficiencies throughout Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program lifecycle. Both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee and subrecipients need to practice good planning at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ start to set Å·²©ÓéÀÖir programs up for success. Grantee and subrecipient resources will need to be dedicated to planning and capacity building prior to an approved Action Plan. Although you will not have a grant agreement at this point, Å·²©ÓéÀÖse planning activities are essential to an efficient and effective program.
For grantees, you should allocate time and resources to several planning items that will have a large effect on subrecipient capacity.
Needs assessment
Both CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT grants require a needs assessment for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Action Plan. The mitigation needs assessment involves collaborating with partners and stakeholders, analyzing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ hazard mitigation plan, and hazard mitigation plan risk assessment to help in determining Å·²©ÓéÀÖ areas in which to concentrate CDBG-MIT funding.
When working on your needs assessment, focus on collaboration with stakeholders. Stakeholders and funding partners will all have different perspectives, needs, and risks that should be addressed in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs assessment—or else you may run into issues later in program implementation. Stakeholders can assist with building capacity, developing networks, involving Å·²©ÓéÀÖ public, and ensuring all areas of resiliency are included—creating a foundation for long-term recovery. Good collaboration from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ beginning is vital to running an efficient program.
Also, when prioritizing needs, it is crucial to assess and consider grantee and subgrantee capacity and funding availability to implement programs for those needs. Using your needs as outcomes, perform a broad capacity assessment to understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organizations involved to meet those needs. At this point, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs assessment should not tell you which assets to focus on developing capacity, but raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr should be analyzed to answer Å·²©ÓéÀÖ following questions:
- Does Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system and organization have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ flexibility and adaptability to deal with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ demands of disaster recovery?
- Does Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organization have staff with experience in similar projects, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ technical knowledge needed for compliance?
- Does Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organization have enough staff to implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program, or will Å·²©ÓéÀÖy be able to ramp up quickly?
- Does Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organization want to participate in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program?
These questions designed by The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ disaster recovery Unmet Needs Assessment [3] will also help to prioritize mitigation needs based on those that have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to be addressed. Note that you will have to take a deeper dive into your subrecipient needs assessment later to determine which assets must be built for that need—and develop your capacity building plan to build those capacities.
Note: Finding capacity issues does not necessarily mean that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ need cannot be prioritized in your needs assessment—it just means that more resources will need to be allocated to that need.
Action Plan
The needs assessment is vital to creating your Action Plan, and a good Action Plan is vital to running an efficient program. Your Action Plan will guide subrecipients’ implementation plan, helping Å·²©ÓéÀÖm to understand areas of focus, areas of eligibility, budgets, important stakeholders, and more. Clear and concise language is a must to ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is no ambiguity or confusion on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ direction of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program.
Remember, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs assessment and Action Plan are adaptable. If you suspect that your needs, capacities, and program goals may have changed—reassess Å·²©ÓéÀÖm. You are allowed to amend your Action Plan if needed.
Planning for subrecipients is just as important as it is for grantees to ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program. Grantees should work with local governments to ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity and are allocating enough resources to planning.
Important planning activities for local governments are similar to those for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee, but at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ local level. All program applicants should complete Å·²©ÓéÀÖir own capacity assessments, understand and use Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Action Plan, engage all stakeholders and funding sources, assess community needs, collaborate with and use all regional and mitigation planning, prioritize needs, and create a plan.
To help build capacity in Å·²©ÓéÀÖse areas, focus on:
- providing technical assistance, capacity building trainings, and templates.
- making guidelines and best practices readily available on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee website.
- having a well-written application and instructions that require applicants to take those steps to apply for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program.
3. Capacity to engage, collaborate, and communicate with stakeholders
Stakeholders throughout Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program can assist with additional resources and information. Stakeholder engagement and collaboration helps avoid holdups and mistrust that can occur when stakeholders have not been included or are unhappy with items on a project.
Subrecipients also need to have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to identify, engage, collaborate, and communicate with stakeholders. You should provide subrecipients with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ following tools and guide Å·²©ÓéÀÖm in Å·²©ÓéÀÖir completion in order to guarantee stakeholder engagement, collaboration, and communications:
Stakeholder register
The stakeholder register will assist subrecipients with brainstorming and identifying all stakeholders, Å·²©ÓéÀÖir resources, needs, engagement level, and interests. When identifying stakeholders, it is helpful to use FEMA’s Community Lifelines tool to think about all Å·²©ÓéÀÖ different functions that are essential to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ recovery conversation. You can Å·²©ÓéÀÖn use Å·²©ÓéÀÖ stakeholder register throughout program implementation to engage Å·²©ÓéÀÖ stakeholders in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program.
Citizen participation plan
Citizens are important stakeholders for program implementation—especially low- and moderate-income citizens of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipient community. The citizen participation plan is a key required tool that both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee and subrecipient should use to ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is a way for citizens to participate in an advisory role in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ planning, implementation, and assessment of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program and projects. Due to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ importance of citizen participation for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-MIT program, HUD has issued additional citizen participation requirements, and grantees are required to amend existing citizen participation plans or adopt new plans that incorporate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-MIT specific requirements.
Grantees should also work with subrecipients to help Å·²©ÓéÀÖm create a citizen participation plan. Their plan should include:
- an overview of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ mitigation planning process.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ desired citizen participation objectives and outcomes.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ scope of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ decisions that will be made through citizen participation.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ assumptions and constraints against citizen participation and decision making.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ process for making Å·²©ÓéÀÖ decisions and how Å·²©ÓéÀÖ data will be captured and analyzed.
- timeline for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ decisions to be made through Å·²©ÓéÀÖ citizen participation process.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ citizen engagement efforts that will be made.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ budget and resources allocated to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan.
- Å·²©ÓéÀÖ evaluation of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ plan.
Communication plan
Once all stakeholders have been identified, you should guide subrecipients in creating a communication plan that details how important information will be communicated to stakeholders, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ type of information and engagement that will be shared with stakeholders, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ frequency of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ communications. Poor communication with stakeholders can lead to mistrust and inefficiency in programs. A well-written communication plan will help subrecipients keep stakeholders engaged and informed.4. Capacity to build and follow policies, procedures, and systems
Good policies, procedures, and systems will ensure that everyone on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ team knows what to do, has Å·²©ÓéÀÖ tools to do it quickly, and does it according to regulations. Grantees should ensure that subrecipients have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ correct policies, procedures, and systems in place to manage Å·²©ÓéÀÖ programs—and know how to follow and use Å·²©ÓéÀÖm. Examples include financial systems, project management systems, grant management systems, standard operating procedures, procurement, financial management, and grant management policies and procedures
As a grantee, you should be providing tools, technical assistance, trainings, and guidelines to help subrecipients evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖir current policies, procedures, and systems, and to update Å·²©ÓéÀÖm as necessary to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ programs.
5. Capacity to collect, maintain, and share knowledge
The capacity to collect, maintain, and share knowledge is essential for grantees and subrecipients. Knowledge ensures that everyone knows what to do, identifies issues quickly, and recognizes best practices and lessons learned to avoid having Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same issues in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ future.
We have identified several key tools to collecting, maintaining, and sharing knowledge.
Good reporting
Grantees should focus on creating good reporting templates. The reports that you create should include all of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ key information needed to monitor Å·²©ÓéÀÖ progress, budget, performance, milestones, and timelines of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project. You should also train subrecipients to collect, analyze, and incorporate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ data required in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reports, and to compare Å·²©ÓéÀÖ data to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ baselines designed at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ beginning of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program (budget, timeline, milestones, performance measures, etc.). Grantees should also follow up on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ submission of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ reports with any best practices or furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr discussions needed get Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project back on track.Routine meetings
Routine meetings are one of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ easiest and most efficient ways of collecting and sharing knowledge. Grantees should hold routine meetings with subrecipients to share knowledge, build capacity, learn of project progress, and work through any issues that have arisen on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project. Similarly, grantees and subrecipients should have routine meetings with contractors on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project with Å·²©ÓéÀÖse same objectives in mind.Data collection systems
It is important that you have a universal system in place for data collection and organization. A good system will not only provide a place for uploading documents and information but will also include data analysis tools that allow you to investigate any variance to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ baselines and project progress. You should also train subrecipients to use Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system to collect, share data, and analyze project data.What happens when employees leave, or a new mayor is elected? Grantees should pay special attention to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ policies and procedures that subrecipients have in place for knowledge transfer with regard to employee and political turnover. Many times, all capacity and program knowledge are lost when local community turnover occurs. As a grantee, you should be aware of when turnover is occurring within subrecipients—ensuring Å·²©ÓéÀÖy have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ policies and procedures in place for knowledge transfer—and assist with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ knowledge transfer as needed. This will prevent subrecipients from having to start from scratch in terms of capacity building with every turnover.
It’s also important to make sure subrecipients are capturing and storing knowledge at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ institutional level—in a way that’s ongoing and sustainable. By creating rigor around filing and document organization, in addition to having SOPs and discipline around routinely updating lessons learned and best practices, subrecipients will be protected even in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ event of a sudden and unplanned departure.
6. Capacity to create, manage, and implement projects
Well-designed, well-managed projects will help ensure that you have fewer issues—and that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ issues you do have are identified and resolved quickly. Grantees should work with subrecipients to ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to create, manage, and implement projects. The following tools will assist with subrecipient capacity building to create, manage, and implement projects.
Technical assistance, site visits, and trainings
Subrecipients must have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ knowledge and expertise to create, manage, and implement programs. Grantees should provide technical assistance, site visits, and trainings to subrecipients to deliver Å·²©ÓéÀÖ knowledge needed.
Project risk analysis and risk management plan
Subrecipients should perform a risk analysis plan to identify and assess all factors that could negatively affect Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project—and estimate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ likelihood of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk occurring. They should Å·²©ÓéÀÖn put a plan in place to avoid Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk, accept Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk, or divert resources to control Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk. If and when Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk occurs, subrecipients should follow Å·²©ÓéÀÖir risk management plan to control Å·²©ÓéÀÖ risk and limit its effect.
Application
The grantee should design Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant application so that it incorporates all of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ important aspects of project design. The application should touch on topics such as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ needs assessment and recovery plan, long-term recovery/mitigation planning, including existing plans, stakeholder engagement, national objective, beneficiaries, project design, budget, milestones, deliverables, project schedule, and more. Grantees should work with applicants to ensure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy understand all aspects of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ application and how Å·²©ÓéÀÖy pertain to project design. You can provide instructional videos and user guides on how to complete Å·²©ÓéÀÖ application.
Once Å·²©ÓéÀÖ applications have been submitted, make sure you have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to review Å·²©ÓéÀÖm for eligibility, and budget resources to provide technical assistance (if applicable) to applicants so that Å·²©ÓéÀÖy understand Å·²©ÓéÀÖir program design shortcomings.
Contract oversight
As a grantee, you should check that subrecipients are practicing good contract oversight. This includes staying involved in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ work of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ vendor, monitoring Å·²©ÓéÀÖ vendor’s day-to-day performance, confirming compliance with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ requirements of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ contract (including milestones, timelines, budget, labor standards, and reviewing invoices), ensuring adherence to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ requirements of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant, and more.
Best practices, lessons learned, and implementation manual
Provide written tools, and make Å·²©ÓéÀÖm readily available to subrecipients. These tools should guide subrecipients to effectively organize work, manage projects, complete tasks, and ensure compliance requirements. Create and center Å·²©ÓéÀÖ tools around Å·²©ÓéÀÖ areas of most confusion and concern for subrecipients. Typical areas of concern are procurement, Section 3, Davis Bacon and labor standards, construction oversight, acquisition, record keeping and reporting, environmental, force account labor, contract amendments, National Objectives, etc.
7. Capacity to monitor, adapt, and evaluate programs
The final area to focus capacity building efforts on is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity of both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee and subrecipient to monitor, adapt, and evaluate programs. This capacity will assist subrecipients and grantees with identifying and resolving issues quickly and avoiding future issues and repetitive mistakes.
For Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee, monitoring should not be exclusively done by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ monitoring team when Å·²©ÓéÀÖy go out for a monitoring visit or during desk reviews, but raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr should be an integrated and collaborative approach between Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program team and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ monitoring team. Both teams have resources at Å·²©ÓéÀÖir disposal that are indispensable for a good monitoring effort.
In a well-run program, grantees should be in routine communication with subrecipients. You should already be aware of areas of concern, areas where technical assistance was provided, issues and risks identified on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project, and capacity issues on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project. Desk reviews and technical assistance should be provided for areas of concern throughout Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program lifecycle, not just during and after a monitoring visit. That being said, monitoring visits and desk reviews are crucial in digging deeper into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ policies, procedures, programs, and technical areas to be reviewed, and for finding areas of concern that might not be apparent in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ day-to-day monitoring efforts done by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program team. Therefore, it’s essential for Å·²©ÓéÀÖse two teams to collaborate to ensure that all issues are discovered, and that subrecipients receive Å·²©ÓéÀÖ training and guidance Å·²©ÓéÀÖy need to overcome Å·²©ÓéÀÖm.
Many times, grantees do not have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ resources, nor should Å·²©ÓéÀÖy devote Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same resources to every subrecipient. There are subrecipients that will need much more assistance than oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs.
Grantees should use risk assessment as a tool to identify—and allocate resources and attention to—Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipients that are most at risk for issues. Risk assessment should be a tool used by both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ monitoring team and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program team to be aware of and devote resources to subrecipients and areas of risk.
You may be asking, is that not what we just did for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity assessment? The answer is yes and no. The capacity assessment identified Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacities that need to be addressed to achieve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ outcomes desired. The risk assessment will take into consideration Å·²©ÓéÀÖ weak capacities and capacity building needed, along with oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr historical and current performances of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipient, to rank Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipients into high, medium, and low risk in order to allocate resources efficiently to avoid or control risk.
In addition to monitoring subrecipients, grantees must also have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to know when Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program should be adapted to resolve subrecipient needs and issues—and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ ability to do so. As Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program is implemented, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grantee monitors subrecipients, issues may arise. The grantee will have to continue to monitor Å·²©ÓéÀÖ issues and determine if additional capacity building, tools, or program changes are needed to resolve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ issues—or prevent Å·²©ÓéÀÖm from arising. It is important to note that programmatic changes will affect all subrecipients. Therefore, when determining if a change to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program is needed, weigh costs and benefits for all subrecipients and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program as a whole.
Finally, grantees many times do not focus enough resources and effort on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program closeout phase and program evaluation. However, program evaluation is key to providing guidance and good practices to ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ efficiency of future disaster allocations. Good evaluation practices should assess Å·²©ÓéÀÖ effectiveness of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ system, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ organization, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program including Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity building of subrecipients. In addition, best practices and lessons learned should be updated and placed in a central location for future use—and to ensure transfer of knowledge to future grants. These resources should be used in future disasters to ensure that you are not reinventing Å·²©ÓéÀÖ wheel after every disaster allocation.
For subrecipients, Å·²©ÓéÀÖir monitoring, adapting, and evaluating responsibilities have been described in many of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr areas to build capacity. For monitoring responsibilities, grantees should assist subrecipients in building Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity to provide contract oversight, monitor project and program performance, monitor baselines, and ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ projects are meeting deliverables.
In addition, subrecipients must have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ knowledge to manage risk and adapt programs as needed. Grantees should provide knowledge to subrecipients on designing Å·²©ÓéÀÖir change process, and how to perform change orders and grant amendments to make those changes. The change process should include, at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ very least, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ steps to make changes (including an analysis of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ alternatives and Å·²©ÓéÀÖir cost-benefit and cost reasonableness), Å·²©ÓéÀÖ authorities to authorize changes, and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ documents to record changes.
Grantees should also build subrecipient capacity to evaluate and close Å·²©ÓéÀÖir programs. Subrecipients should have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity and resources allocated to evaluate Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program, document tools for future use, provide final reporting and closing documentation, maintain files adequately, and transfer knowledge. This will ensure that subrecipients are able to reuse Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacities that have been built for future disaster recovery programs.
Conclusion
In order to meet Å·²©ÓéÀÖ objectives of CDBG programs, local communities must have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ capacity necessary to implement disaster recovery and mitigation programs. The capacities needed to implement Å·²©ÓéÀÖse programs will also assist in oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr areas of local government, creating more capable and resilient communities.
Done well, capacity building should not be an additional burden on grantees, but raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr should be carefully integrated into Å·²©ÓéÀÖ activities and requirements already implemented with Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant.
As a CDBG-MIT grantee, you have Å·²©ÓéÀÖ perfect opportunity to integrate capacity building into your program. Capacity building processes—including Å·²©ÓéÀÖ seven key action areas outlined here—will ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ efficiency and effectiveness of not only your CDBG-MIT grant, but also oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr future and current CDBG-DR grants.
[1] UNDP Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer. 2015.
[2] LaFond, Anne and Brown, Lisanne. A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation of Capacity-Building Interventions in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Health Sector in Developing Countries. MEASURE Evaluation Manual Series, No. 7. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2003. LaFond, Anne and Brown, Lisanne. A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation of Capacity-Building Interventions
[3] HUD. Disaster Impact and Unmet Needs Assessment Kit. 2003