white paper on performance management for community ... - FACA
white paper on performance management for community ... - FACA white paper on performance management for community ... - FACA
NASCSP 2013 On the following pages, we’ve laid out a few reporting options that might assist the Network in achieving the goals listed above. However, there are other concerns that must be noted alongside any recommendations for potential changes, such as cost of implementation, timeline for implementation, and training and technical assistance. In addition, these options do not address changes to reporting administrative uses of CSBG funds. The guidance provided in the Federal Office of Community Services’ (OCS) Information Memoranda 37 on reporting administrative uses of CSBG may be impacted in the different scenarios proposed. Data Collection Options The first option involves keeping Section E categories as they are currently reported and assigning those same categories to all of the other Federal, State, local, and private resources that are reported. The second and third options were ideas generated by OCS, and visually represented using mock data, for illustration purposes only. These data collection options were presented to the Nationally Certified ROMA Trainers (NCRTs) who contributed to the fourth option, a report based on the ROMA cycle activities. Page 38
NASCSP 2013 Option One: Current CSBG IS Survey Section E Categories The first option would be to connect all of a local agency’s funding sources that are reported in Section F on the CSBG IS Survey to the CSBG funding through the current service categories. The current categories would be maintained, but would require clearer definitions that include the activities to be reported as well as guidance on how to categorize other Federal, state, local, and private funding sources. The strengths to this approach would be the connection to the categories that are clearly listed in the CSBG Statute (Sec. 676 b.1.A.) and the comparison ability to analyze data across multiple years. The challenges with this approach include not adequately capturing organizational investments and specifically ROMA activities including planning, community needs assessments and evaluation. Also, categorization of an agency’s Federal, State, local, and private funding using the CSBG service categories would not adequately capture the use of those funds. Page 39
- 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 and 20: NASCSP 2013 UNDERSTANDING THE NATIO
- Page 21 and 22: NASCSP 2013 The graph shows the lar
- 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: NASCSP 2013 Percentage of low-incom
- 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 #
NASCSP 2013<br />
On the following pages, we’ve laid out a few reporting opti<strong>on</strong>s that might assist the Network in<br />
achieving the goals listed above. However, there are other c<strong>on</strong>cerns that must be noted<br />
al<strong>on</strong>gside any recommendati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>for</strong> potential changes, such as cost of implementati<strong>on</strong>,<br />
timeline <strong>for</strong> implementati<strong>on</strong>, and training and technical assistance. In additi<strong>on</strong>, these opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
do not address changes to reporting administrative uses of CSBG funds. The guidance provided<br />
in the Federal Office of Community Services’ (OCS) In<strong>for</strong>mati<strong>on</strong> Memoranda 37 <strong>on</strong> reporting<br />
administrative uses of CSBG may be impacted in the different scenarios proposed.<br />
Data Collecti<strong>on</strong> Opti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
The first opti<strong>on</strong> involves keeping Secti<strong>on</strong> E categories as they are currently reported and<br />
assigning those same categories to all of the other Federal, State, local, and private resources<br />
that are reported. The sec<strong>on</strong>d and third opti<strong>on</strong>s were ideas generated by OCS, and visually<br />
represented using mock data, <strong>for</strong> illustrati<strong>on</strong> purposes <strong>on</strong>ly. These data collecti<strong>on</strong> opti<strong>on</strong>s were<br />
presented to the Nati<strong>on</strong>ally Certified ROMA Trainers (NCRTs) who c<strong>on</strong>tributed to the fourth<br />
opti<strong>on</strong>, a report based <strong>on</strong> the ROMA cycle activities.<br />
Page 38
Change language