Policy and Practice April 2019

2010 6 requires each city government contract to include performance standards and expected outcomes of the proposed contract. Step 2: Break Down Government-Funding Silos Even the best efforts by policymakers and providers to shift to a results-driven approach can be undermined by siloed programs and overlapping contracts. But increasingly, local and state human services leaders are experimenting with more flexible approaches, including combining funds frommultiple sources, streamlining reporting requirements, and forging more holistic solutions to entrenched problems. For policymakers, the first step is to review existing funding streams and determine whether government agencies can blend funding streams into one solicitation to allow providers to focus on outcome-oriented services rather than record-keeping for multiple grants. When Seattle was seeking better outcomes from its homeless services contracts, the city began by determining which contracts it could consolidate. Through its participa- tion in Bloomberg Philanthropies’ What Works Cities initiative, 7 the city’s Department of Human Services worked with the Government Performance Lab at the Harvard Kennedy School to merge 26 separate contracts into eight portfolio contracts, giving homeless services providers more flexibility 8 to shift funding between programs as needed to try to achieve the city’s overarching goal: helping homeless residents into permanent housing. When feasible, government agencies can also streamline allowable uses across each contract to minimize the administrative compliance burden on human services providers. Agencies

should also provide incentives for multi- year contracts that enable a focus on

sustainable, long-term change. When Bernalillo County, NM,

was seeking to improve outcomes in behavioral health services, county leaders worked with the Government Performance Lab to issue a new problem- based RFP 9 and used the new contracting process as an oppor- tunity to transform its service delivery system to focus on collaboration, real-time data sharing, evaluation, and program

improvement. This procure- ment approach is now being adopted more broadly throughout county government. Step 3: Issue Clear Requests for Proposals As government agencies develop their RFPs, they should make sure they include clear outcome goals and perfor- mance measures that reflect the input of providers and the broader community. By preferencing programs and practices with evidence of effectiveness—such as those found in evidence-based clear- inghouses—human services leaders can help increase the likelihood of achieving those goals. For example, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice requires 10 the use of evidence in the RFP process, and then uses real-time data uploaded to its Juvenile Justice Information System to track results—an approach that was featured in Results for America’s Invest in What Works State Standard of Excellence. 11 The Santa Cruz Probation Department, working with the Pew- MacArthur Results First Initiative, has used its RFP process 12 to drive investments toward evidence-based interventions while also collecting the outcomes data needed to help policy- makers determine which approaches are most effective. Simply cutting and pasting the word “evidence based” into RFPs and con- tracts is not enough, because evidence can mean anything from an anecdote to the most rigorous randomized

controlled trials. Policymakers should start by defining what they mean by “evidence based,” and they can find good models in the What Works Toolkit, including links to outcomes- focused RFPs and sample contracts that promote proven solutions. Step 4: Fund Outcomes and Build Evidence Another way government agencies can ensure they are getting the best results is to pay for them. By con- necting the payment of at least part of a contract to the achievement of mea- surable outcomes—whether through Pay for Success, outcome rate cards, or outcome bonus payments—human services leaders can incentivize and reward providers that meet key goals. In Pennsylvania, the state Department of Corrections uses a carrot-and-stick approach 13 to help human services providers assist newly paroled inmates as they transition back to their communities. Providers whose clients attain a better-than-expected recidivism rate earn an increase of 1 percent in the department’s per diem rate, while providers with recidivism rates that are worse than expected for two consecutive contracting periods risk having their contract terminated. Department officials credit this system with an 11.3 percent reduction in recid- ivism rates for 2014–2015.

Jed Herrmann is the Vice President of State and Federal Policy Implementation at Results for America.

12

Policy&Practice April 2019