District Accountability Programs

[Mike Brown]

Does your agency implement a conservation district accountability program? If so, is funding tied to accountability?

[Johnna McHugh]

Kentucky has the District in Good Standing (DIGS) program. Each district has to fill out a report card at the end of the fiscal year. The card covers things like reports due, bonding requirements, meetings attended, etc. 3 of the 12 items are statutorily required, and the other 9 are required by policy.

Funding from the state is dependent upon the final score from this program.

If they’ve completed everything satisfactorily, the district receives 100% of their planned funding.
If they’ve completed all their statutory requirements and most of their policy requirements, the district receives 90% of their planned funding.
If they haven’t completed all their statutory requirements and/or most of their policy requirements, the district only receives 75% of their planned funding.

I don’t see a way to attach a file to this answer, but if you’ll email me, I’d be happy to provide a blank report card form.

[Ray Ledgerwood]

Washington State does have an accountability program…Conservation Accountability and Performance Program with 8 Performance Measures. Performance Measure #1 is the Compliance with Laws, a required standard for receiving funds through the Conservation Commission. Will email the details.

[John Switzer]

In Michigan, conservation district law mandates that to be eligible for a grant of $50,000 or more from our agency conservation districts must meet three requirements:
1) conduct an audit at least once every two years
2) pass an appropriations act
3) adhere to conservation district law
While we don’t have funding for district operations we do include money for administration in the grants we issue to districts. Last year we issued $6.65 million in grants to conservation districts. There are several other items we encourage like strategic plans, annual plans of work, annual reports, etc. but they are not required to receive a grant.

[Kent Zimmerman]

Nebraska has statute 2-3280 requiring the district to file in the Department it”s “Master Plan” and to update that plan as often as necessary but at least every ten years or the Department must withhold all funding. Nothing specific to accountability.

[Blair Gordon]

In Virginia, our 47 Soil and Water Conservation Districts are funded by the Department of Conservation and Recreation through two grant agreements, one for Administrative and Operational funding and one for implementing the cost-share program. Both grants have accountability through a grant assessment. SWCDs are assessed on various deliverables through out the program year and are awarded an A, B, or C for each grant deliverable. Any SWCD that receives a “C” on a deliverable may possibly have their funding reduced in the next program year. Assessments are presented to the local SWCD Boards, as well as the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board. If a “C” is given for any of the deliverables, the SWCD must meet with the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board to present a corrective action plan and to discuss any possible reductions in funding.

The grant assessment process has worked well for us over the years and all SWCDs work hard to keep an “A” grade for each deliverable. I would be happy to discuss our system with you in more detail and share a blank copy of both of our grant assessments.

[Doug Thomas]

In Minnesota we have implemented a SWCD Performance Review and Assessment Program http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/PRAP/index.html

The program is designed with three levels which increase the number of items assessed. We reserve level 3 evaluations to districts which have serious issues with their district operations.

[Author]

Posts