|
|
|
The Performance Contracting Challenge Here are readers’ ideas for coping with this month’s Manager’s Choice dilemma. To post your own ideas, see the instructions at the bottom of this page.
NOT EASY AT FIRST
We have used a similar approach to contracting for employment and training services for TANF clients in St. Louis County for the past two years.
Employment and training services were easy to adapt to a performance-based contract. Has anyone had success with performance contracting with mental health providers?
Douglas Britton
Agree or disagree? If you think you have a better way to deal with this month's Manager's Choice dilemma or would like to expand on the approaches presented here, share your thoughts with other readers. Send your solution to mailbox@governing.com. Please include your name, location, government or business title or job description, and a daytime phone number (for verification purposes). Copyright © 2000, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. |
 |
It was not easy at first for our providers to switch from a guaranteed grant to a performance-based contract. We explained that if we were to be at risk of federal sanctions for not meeting work requirements, so were our contractors. It is working well now. In addition to paying for each client placed in a job, we also pay an amount for each individual who is still employed after 90 days and for each client whose wages makes them no longer eligible for assistance under TANF (in Minnesota, this criteria is set at 120 percent of poverty, which is a better standard for "economically and psychologically independent" than job placement). We have also talked about building in an incentive based on wage levels of persons placed.