Four Strategies, One Budget, and a Board Chair With a Garden
A regional nonprofit has $180,000 per year for three years from a state chronic disease grant. The scope statement allows policy, systems, and environmental approaches plus one direct-education component; it does not fund clinical services. The steering committee has four candidates: a school nutrition curriculum (900 children/year, strong evidence, $70,000/year); a sugary-drink excise tax campaign (countywide reach, mixed political support, $40,000/year); a community garden network (150 households, weak evidence, $35,000/year); and diabetes self-management education (120 adults, strong evidence, $95,000/year, requires clinical referrals). The board chair, whose family foundation donated the land for two existing gardens, has publicly promised to 'green the county' and asks the coordinator why the committee is 'wasting time on a matrix.' A year-one work plan is due in 30 days.
1. Design a prioritization process for the committee. State the criteria, how you would weight them, and what data you would bring to the meeting.
Read the worked answer
Criteria and proposed weights (weights set by the committee before scores are revealed, to prevent reverse-engineering):
| Criterion | Weight | Data source |
|---|---|---|
| Burden among intended beneficiaries | 25% | Local prevalence, ED rates, ACS |
| Evidence of effectiveness | 20% | Community Guide, peer-reviewed reviews |
| Reach × equity impact | 20% | Population estimates; share of highest-need |
| Feasibility and readiness | 15% | Staff capacity, partner commitments |
| Allowability under the grant scope | 10% | Scope statement; written answer from program officer |
| Sustainability past year 3 | 10% | Funding/policy durability |
Process mechanics that matter more than the weights:
- Score 1–5 per criterion as a group, with scores submitted independently before discussion to blunt anchoring by senior voices.
- Run a sensitivity check: does the top-ranked strategy change if weights shift ±10%? If yes, the ranking is fragile and should be reported as a tie.
- Flag scope questions before scoring. Diabetes self-management education may read as clinical; the tax campaign may read as advocacy not permitted by the grant. Get the program officer's answer in writing rather than assuming - a strategy that scores well but is unallowable wastes the entire exercise.
Reasoning: the matrix's value is procedural legitimacy, not mathematical precision. Publishing the weights and the sensitivity result is what makes a contested decision defensible.
2. The board chair lobbies for the garden network in the meeting and hints that the donation entitles his foundation to 'a say.' How do you handle this in the room and afterward?
Read the worked answer
In the room: thank him, then separate the two things he has combined. Ask the committee to score the garden network on the same criteria as everything else, and ask him directly to state the case in criterion language - which burden does it reach, what is the evidence, what would we measure.
- If it scores well, it enters the portfolio on its merits and the decision record shows why.
- If it scores low, the record shows that too, alongside the note that a garden could be a component of a broader PSE strategy if paired with a produce-prescription or corner-store component that carries the reach.
Afterward:
- Disclose the conflict in the minutes. A board member whose family foundation donated implementation infrastructure is a recognized conflict for this decision. Disclosure is the minimum; recusal from the vote is the cleaner call, and you should propose it rather than wait to be asked.
- Document the process, not just the outcome. Written criteria, scores, sensitivity check, and votes. This is the artifact that protects the organization with the state funder and, if it comes to it, with the IRS's view of board self-dealing.
- Give him a real role. Ask him to chair a garden sustainability subcommittee for year 3 - a legitimate contribution that does not corrupt year-one prioritization.
Reasoning: refusing to hear him damages the coalition; letting a donor's preference override the criteria destroys the process for every future decision. The move is to convert a loyalty claim into a criterion-based argument and put the conflict on the record.
3. Assume the committee ranks the school curriculum and the tax campaign top. Draft the year-one funding logic, including what you do about the remaining strategies.
Read the worked answer
Year-one allocation logic:
- Tax campaign - $55,000 (policy/systems core). Highest population reach and the only strategy with a plausible path to durable, self-sustaining impact after the grant ends. Year one is coalition building, local revenue modeling, and message testing, not a public ballot fight unless the political read supports it.
- School curriculum - $70,000 (the one allowable direct-education component). Strong evidence, contained cost, builds a school-district relationship you will need for the PSE work anyway.
- Evaluation and coordination - $40,000. Resist the urge to spend this on programming. A three-year grant that cannot show reach and dose at year three will not be renewed, and the tax campaign needs surveillance data to be credible.
- Contingency - $15,000, held for a mid-year opportunity or a mismatch between projected and actual costs.
What happens to gardens and diabetes education: do not silently drop them. Write them into the plan as deferred with a trigger - the garden network is folded in only if a produce-access partner commits matching staff time by month 9; diabetes education is pursued via a clinical partner billing it through insurance, keeping it outside the grant. This converts a rejection into a queue position.
Reasoning: the plan needs a portfolio shape - one high-reach policy play, one evidence-based direct service, and enough evaluation to prove both - not four underfunded pilots that each fail at implementation.