white paper on performance management for community ... - FACA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NASCSP 2013 There has not been an analysis of the data to establish standards for each indicator. If the aggregated number of individuals who secured employment in 2011 is over 100,000, as identified in the most recent CSBG Annual Report, what does this mean? Is this number small or large? What is the context for this data? To the latter bullet, we can and do compare the outcomes from the most recent year with outcomes for prior years to see if this effort has been maintained (at similar levels given funding changes in ARRA, etc.) over time. Also, we can and do demonstrate how our actual outcomes compare to our projections. However, using the current NPIs we cannot describe the actual change that these employment outcomes have made, either for families or for the communities in which they live. We cannot compare the effectiveness of different CAAs using this information because the conditions in each agency are different and these differences in situation (population, community conditions, resources, etc.) will affect the outcomes. MEASURING FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY Considering the long-term goals of family self-sufficiency and revitalized communities highlighted in the draft National Community Action TOC, it is important to examine how the NPIs falling under our current family and community ROMA goals can be adjusted to address the previously mentioned concerns and begin to track progress toward our long-term goals. Agency-level outcomes and data collection on professional development and capacity building are important incremental steps in achieving a long-term goal. This is outlined in the “Systems Capacity” portion of the Community Action TOC. However, these outcomes will now be collected and reported in the Organizational Performance Standards. Thus, NASCSP suggests removing the Agency-level outcomes from the NPIs and moving forward with a focus on solely the family and community level outcomes. A full listing of the NPIs can be found in Appendix D. As we begin this discussion, it’s important to note that not all Community Action program participants receive the same service approach. The Network’s multi-level approach to service delivery warrants using both a “light touch” and “deep touch” to provide appropriate assistance. One-time services provided to Community Action program participants are considered a "light touch" approach, while the provision of a comprehensive set of bundled services is considered a "deep touch" approach. Recent NPI data, shown in the graph below, indicates the majority of the Network’s program participants achieve short-term outcomes that are the result of a light touch approach. Page 20
NASCSP 2013 The graph shows the large percentage of outcomes (to the left of the graph) related to obtaining a needed service. These data have been criticized as being "outputs" rather than "outcomes." They are indeed proxies for families achieving a measure of stability in the domains of food, housing, energy, and others as a result of receipt of a service. They also include one-time services, such as tax preparation, which is a proxy for increased family income in the form of tax credit refunds, which may be considerable for a family with children. Analysis of this information leads to three observations: 1. Some emergency services (i.e. food baskets) are provided without a formal intake process. These light touch activities are not connected to any data collection system. 2. As a Network, we cannot universally say if families participated in multiple services and achieved multiple outcomes. Participants who achieve short-term outcomes from "light touch" activities may also achieve "self-sufficiency" outcomes because they are engaged in other "deep touch" activities provided by the CAA or one of its partners. The current reporting system does not allow for analysis of this combination of outcomes. 3. The number of families moving toward and achieving self-sufficiency will be small and progress will be slow. Sixty-nine percent of the families Community Action serves fall below the Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG) for a family four and face multiple barriers to Page 21
Page 1 and 2: WHITE PAPER ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEME
Page 3 and 4: NASCSP 2013 BACKGROUND The Economic
Page 5 and 6: NASCSP 2013 Revisiting the current
Page 7 and 8: NASCSP 2013 3. When will you achiev
Page 9 and 10: NASCSP 2013 scientific research, su
Page 11 and 12: UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY ACTION’S
Page 13 and 14: NASCSP 2013 simply reporting outcom
Page 15 and 16: NASCSP 2013 Outcomes vs. outputs Pr
Page 17 and 18: NASCSP 2013 disabilities, and child
Page 19: NASCSP 2013 UNDERSTANDING THE NATIO
Page 23 and 24: NASCSP 2013 3. The ability to meet
Page 25 and 26: NASCSP 2013 supportive environments
Page 27 and 28: NASCSP 2013 that old age does not b
Page 29 and 30: NASCSP 2013 Housing & Ut
Page 31 and 32: NASCSP 2013 CHALLENGES: This approa
Page 33 and 34: NASCSP 2013 CHALLENGES: Many of the
Page 35 and 36: NASCSP 2013 the four agencies’ sp
Page 37 and 38: NASCSP 2013 Percentage of low-incom
Page 39 and 40: NASCSP 2013 Option One: Current CSB
Page 41 and 42: NASCSP 2013 Option Three: Direct Se
Page 43 and 44: NASCSP 2013 CONCLUSION The Communit
Page 45 and 46: Community Action Partnership and th
Page 47 and 48: Family Self-sufficiency Revitalized
Page 49 and 50: Age of CAA Participants
Page 51 and 52: NPI Description Goal 1: Low-income
Page 53 and 54: 4.1 E # Federal Government 4.1 F #

white paper on performance management for community ... - FACA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?