REQUEST FOR FUNDING
MHRSB recognizes that funding streams are not constant. There are changing target populations, levels of funding and restrictions for use. MHRSB recognizes that historical patterns and level of funding for programs and populations may change at any time. It is incumbent on MHRSB to use resources efficiently, effectively, and ethically to maximize fairness. This is the philosophical basis for funding decisions.
Guiding Principles:
The purpose of this section is to clarify ethical decisions related to choosing between marginal improvements for those who are relatively stable or those who are at risk of death, serious harm, or causing serious harm to others.
Each of the following is a guiding principle used in the consideration of funding decisions:
1. Efficiency- Return on investment without consideration of the outcomes.
2. Effectiveness- Maximizes client benefit while looking only at the best possible outcome.
3. Equality- Distribution of resources across clients in hopes of similar outcomes.
4. Equity- Distribution of services that does the least harm to all potential clients.
On their face, each of these appears to be equal in importance. However, in making budgetary decisions in times of complicated funding when it may not be possible to do everything that we have historically done or would like to do, it is imperative to place the funding in the areas that will impact those at greatest risk of serious negative outcomes.
MHRSB is the behavioral health safety net that places equity as the highest priority in making budgetary and programmatic decisions in treatment. Inclusion of efficiency, effectiveness, and equality as influencing factors in the decision-making process identifies this as the best model for MHRB. Focus on serving those who do not have access to a third-party payer or sufficient personal resources to secure services ensures that maximization of resources can occur. If there are people who by their choice do not access a third-party payer option, these persons shall not be a service priority for MHRSB.
Prioritization:
After analysis, there are three categories of funding to be considered.
1. Hard mandates- Those funds that are given with specific uses defined.
2. Soft mandates- Those funds that are given with defined areas, but no specific use designated.
3. Discretionary funds- Those funds that are without funder restrictions other than those that are
inherent in good, ethical stewardship and can be used to meet the priority populations and
services designated by MHRB as necessary carve-outs.
The safety net of services includes not only those services mandated by Ohio Revised Code and other funding bodies, but services that without such, would negatively impact the lives of those in Coshocton, Guernsey, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble and Perry Counties. Service mix is determined by community need and is included in the community plan, which serves as MHRSB’s application for funding from the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Local needs are determined by assessment of current conditions, forecasting emerging trends, and evaluating existing community resources. This results in a process that is not only fluid, but responsive to the needs of the community. All services, programs and populations have been prioritized according to the level of urgency and immediacy associated with client need. All services, programs and populations have been broken into five priority areas.
Primary considerations that will impact MHRSB priorities that have multiple organizations in competition for funding are listed below:
1. Highest priority will be given to programs that serve priority populations and identified carve-out
services.
2. Higher priority will be given to non-redundant programs which address underserved or emerging
programs.
3. Higher priority will be given to programs that leverage outside resources in a way that reduces
Board expenditures.
4. Higher priority will be given to programs that demonstrate the ability to coordinate services across
organizations.
5. Higher priority will be given to programs that demonstrate that individuals served are likely to
experience a reduction in system dependence.
6. Higher priority will be given to programs that are innovative and that are evidenced based.
7. Lower priority will be given to programs/services that MHRSB is not mandated to provide.
*Severely Mentally Ill, Severely Emotionally Disabled, Substance Use Disorders
DOCUMENTS
PRIORITIZATION
OF SERVICES
FAQ'S
EVALUATION TOOL
SFY25 MHRS BOARD PRIORITIZED CONTINUUM OF CARE