Access trainings by the type of learning that matches your need:

Self Directed: Know what you want to learn?

Looking for some assistance to help you find what you're looking for?
MCHfast Guided Search

Still looking or need assistance? You can always ask for Help.

Semi-Structured: Looking for trainings grouped according to your need?

Self-Reflective. Not sure of your learning needs? Take the online Self-Assessment.

Fast & Focused. Want to learn on the go? Sign up for one of our Micro-learning programs.

Intense & Immersive. Looking for a comprehensive course that covers everything? Access the MCHsmart curriculum - Coming Soon.

Focus Areas. Need specialized resources?

MCHwork: Transforming Learning

MCHwork: Transforming Learning

Session 3.2: The Hexagon Tool — A Budgeting Perspective

MCHwork

Introduction

As Title V agencies work through the five-year needs assessment, we have heard the need for a structure to address Step 7 of the State MCH Block Grant Needs Assessment Conceptual Framework: Seek and Allocate Resources.

State and local MCH departments can utilize the Hexagon Tool in conjunction with a budget analysis to strategically allocate resources and enhance implementation readiness for new or re-imagined programs. Each domain of the Hexagon Tool can be examined through a financial lens to identify potential strengths and weaknesses. By systematically analyzing budget allocations across all six indicators of the Hexagon Tool, MCH departments can ensure their financial resources are strategically distributed to optimize program implementation and improve MCH outcomes.

For more information, you can access additional resources at MCHneeds.net to learn about the full needs assessment process and join us below as we explore how to use this planning tool to assist with your budgeting process.

READY: Start with a Refresher on the Hexagon Tool

The Hexagon Discussion and Analysis Tool is an evidence-based resource to engage Title V staff and partners in determining how well a potential program addresses a problem and how prepared we are to implement the program. The tool also helps foster partner buy-in and support for putting a new program in place.

This edition of MCHwork makes the Hexagon Tool "real" in viewing it through the practicalities of budgeting. But before we dive into that perspective, let's review the six domains of the tool.

The Hexagon Tool prompts us to ask six questions when considering a new/updated program with our partners.

Program Indicators. Questions to ask about the program you're thinking about implementing:

  1. Evidence. Does the evidence indicate effectiveness? Are the outcomes big enough to be "worth it" to try the program?
  2. Usability. Is your team and the community motivated to adopt this program? Has the program been used in different settings with positive results?
  3. Support. Do we have the financial resources to support the program?

Implementing Site Indicators. Questions to ask about your team and the surrounding work infrastructure:

  1. Need. Do data indicate a specific area of need that is addressed by the program?
  2. Fit. Does the program align with current organizational, community, state, and federal priorities?
  3. Capacity. Do we have staff and administrative resources to support the initiative?

Don't forget to check our our last issue of MCHwork for a summary of How to Use the Hexagon Tool to Move from Assessment to Action.

SET: Expand your Knowledge with Microlearning Videos

Watch these three videos from the National MCH Workforce Development Center to expand your understanding of the budgeting process through the six indicators of the Hexagon Tool.

Program Indicators

Program Budgeting Highlights

  1. Evidence. When evaluating a program's Evidence domain, the budget should reflect an investment in understanding the program's scientific backing. Are there funds allocated to assess if the program has demonstrated impact with key MCH populations? Does the budget allow for exploring if the program addresses existing health disparities, and if the anticipated outcomes justify the program's cost (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis)?
  2. Usability. The Usability domain can be assessed by examining if the budget allows for researching the program's past implementations in different settings. Are there resources allocated to identify successful implementation examples from other MCH departments? In examining how a program has been implemented in the past, can an estimate of the budget required to achieve results be determined? – This will help determine what level of funding will be necessary for impact if implemented in a new setting.
  3. Support. The Support domain requires a budget that reflects the department's capacity to deliver the program. Does the budget allocate sufficient funds for staffing the program? Are there resources for training staff on program implementation and data collection methods (e.g., building a data infrastructure for measuring results)?

Implementing Site Indicators

Implementing Site Budgeting Highlights

  1. Need. When considering the Need domain, the budget should reflect an investment by the implementing site in understanding the community's perspective. Are there resources allocated to assess if the program addresses a gap in existing services, and if there's data to support its potential impact on the population of focus? Budget allocations for community outreach and needs assessments can be crucial in this domain.
  2. Fit. The Fit domain requires examining budgetary alignment with the implementing site's current workload and existing initiatives. Does the budget allow for integrating the program seamlessly within ongoing efforts? Are there resources allocated to ensure the program aligns with community values, particularly those of culturally and linguistically diverse populations?
  3. Capacity. Finally, the Capacity domain necessitates a budget that reflects the implementing site's ability to cover program costs. Does the budget consider staff training and time to effectively serve the target population? Are there resources allocated for data collection and program improvement initiatives?

GO: Learn More with Additional Resources

Start here with this resource from the MCH Digital Library:

Farmer S. So, We Did the Hexagon Tool. Now What? 2022. State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence-Based Practices. This article provides a case study to show the innovative nature of asking the questions in the Hexagon Tool as an innovative way to choose programs with real potential to have impact.

Learn more with these trainings have been collected by the MCH Navigator:

 

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UE8MC25742; MCH Navigator for $225,000/year. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.