Connecting a Statewide Network of Grantees

A three-year backbone design connecting a statewide portfolio of grantees through shared data, regular convenings, practitioner peer exchange, coordinated reporting, and a common database of documented practices.

At a Glance

Client: Federal grant proposal

Sector: Public Health

Format: Systems and collective-work design

Audience: Statewide

What we noticed

Michigan’s COSSUP grantee portfolio included organizations doing important and related work across several parts of the substance-use response system.

Although they were funded through the same portfolio, the organizations had limited structures for learning from one another, identifying shared challenges, or coordinating across their work.

Information also did not move consistently between grantees, state leadership, and the evaluator. Without a clear view across the portfolio, it was difficult to understand where the work was strong, where organizations needed support, or how their separate efforts might build on one another.

The intervention

We designed HRW’s role as the statewide coordination partner across a thirty-six-month period.

The scope included nine measurable objectives:

  • A live portfolio data snapshot
  • Sixteen scheduled written reports
  • Quarterly data translations tailored to different audiences
  • Twelve convenings for grantee leaders
  • Twenty-four practitioner peer-exchange sessions
  • A shared database containing more than sixty documented Michigan practices by the third year
  • Quarterly proactive outreach to every grantee

The design was budgeted at $275,000 for the first year and $825,000 over three years, with a four-person team contributing a combined half-time staffing allocation.

Why we designed it this way

We made each objective specific and measurable because coordination described only in general terms is difficult to implement or assess. Naming the number of convenings, peer exchanges, reports, and documented practices made the work visible and accountable.

We also framed coordination as a partnership function rather than primarily a compliance function. Grantees are more likely to share an accurate picture of their work when the relationship is designed to help them succeed, and that honesty gives state leadership a clearer view of the portfolio’s actual health.

Questions for Consideration
  • What distinguishes a coordinating body experienced as support from one experienced as oversight, and can the same organization effectively serve both functions?
  • When organizations receive separate funding but work toward a shared outcome, what conditions turn a portfolio into a network?
  • How should the value of coordination be measured when many of its results appear through the work of other organizations?

SELECTED ARTIFACTS