RBAResults-Based Accountability                                                         TM         VERMONT SEPTEMBER 2012 ...
Service: __________________________________          School Hospital Job Training Fire Department           How much did w...
Child Welfare             Quantity                       Quality          How much did we          How well did we do     ...
Juvenile Justice              Quantity                       Quality          How much did we           How well did we do...
Personnel Department                          Quantity                               Quality                    How much d...
Information Technology (MIS)                 Quantity                                Quality           How much did we    ...
Audit             Quantity                       Quality          How much did we          How well did we do             ...
Next Generation Contracting         Quantity   Quality                                  1. Traditional purchasingEffort   ...
Next Generation Contracting               Contract ProvisionsProvision 1. Specify the 3 to 5 most important performance  m...
Next Generation Contracting                Contract ProvisionsProvision 5: : Clear articulation of role in population/comm...
Resources      www.raguide.orgwww.resultsaccountability.com   RBA Facebook Group        Book - DVD Orders            amazo...
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides

459 views
423 views

Published on

we were thrilled to welcome world renown Results Based AccountabilityTM founder Mark Friedman to Vermont for three days of training and policy discussions with over 300 agencies, legislators, and funders. Mark expertly guided everyone through his methodology for answering the three questions:
1) How much did we do;
2) How well did we do it; and
3) Is anyone better off?

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
459
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
67
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Introduction and the difference between population and performance accountability : We are going to talk about two different kinds of accountability: Accountability for whole populations , like all children in Los Angeles, all elders in Chicago, all residents of North Carolina. This first kind of accountability is not the responsibility of any one agency or program. If we talk for example about “all children in your community being healthy,” who are some of the partners that have a role to play? Notice that the traditional answer is “It’s the health department.” It’s got the word health in it and so it must be the responsibility of the health department. And yet one of the things we have learned in the last 50 years is that the health department by itself can’t possibly produce health for all children without the active participation of many other partners. And that’s the nature of this first kind of accountability. It’s not about the health department. It’s about the kind of cross community partnerships necessary to make progress on quality of life for any population. Now the second kind of accountability, Performance Accountability , is about the health department. It’s about the programs and services we provide, and our role as managers, making sure our programs are working as well as possible. These are two profoundly different kinds of accountability. We going to talk about how to do each one well and then how they fit back together again.
  • This chart shows in detail the different types of measure we typically find in each quadrant, and the measures that go with the three basic categories of performance measurement: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off? In the upper left, How much did we do? Quadrant, we typically count customers and activities. In the upper right, How well did we do it? Quadrant, there are a set of common measures that apply to many different programs. And there is a set of activity specific measures. For each activity in the upper left, there is one or more measures that tell how well that particular activity was performed, usually having to do with timeliness or correctness. In the lower quadrants, Is anyone better off? We usually have # and % pairs of the same measure. And these measures usually have to do with one of these four dimensions of better-offness: Skills/knowledge, Attitude, Behavior and Circumstance. For each of these measures, we can use point in time measures or point to point improvement measures.
  • Examples of measures for child welfare.
  • Examples of measures for a juvenile justice.
  • Examples of measures for a personnel department.
  • Examples of measures for an Information Technology division.
  • Examples of measures for an Information Technology division.
  • Welsh Epilepsy Unit case study was also posted on the same page and that's the one showing benefits such as:" • The average length of time from seizure to a confirmed diagnosis has decreased by 81 days from 111 days to 30 days • The number of patients who have been seen by a specialist within the NICE guideline of two weeks has increased from 35% to 61% • The average waiting time to see a specialist has decreased from 22 days to 11 days • The number of admissions following a seizure have decreased from 5 a month to 2 a month on average"
  • Welsh Epilepsy Unit case study was also posted on the same page and that's the one showing benefits such as:" • The average length of time from seizure to a confirmed diagnosis has decreased by 81 days from 111 days to 30 days • The number of patients who have been seen by a specialist within the NICE guideline of two weeks has increased from 35% to 61% • The average waiting time to see a specialist has decreased from 22 days to 11 days • The number of admissions following a seizure have decreased from 5 a month to 2 a month on average"
  • We have lots of examples of well-established standards in the upper right (How well did we do it?) quadrant, because we know what good service delivery looks like. But standards in the lower right (Is anyone better off?) quadrant are almost always experimental. This is partly because of the different mixes of easy and hard cases in different caseloads or workloads.
  • We have lots of examples of well-established standards in the upper right (How well did we do it?) quadrant, because we know what good service delivery looks like. But standards in the lower right (Is anyone better off?) quadrant are almost always experimental. This is partly because of the different mixes of easy and hard cases in different caseloads or workloads.
  • Vt 2012 09 supplementary slides

    1. 1. RBAResults-Based Accountability TM VERMONT SEPTEMBER 2012 SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES The Fiscal Policy Studies Institute www.raguide.org www.resultsaccountability.com Book - DVD Orders amazon.com resultsleadership.org
    2. 2. Service: __________________________________ School Hospital Job Training Fire Department How much did we do? How well did we do it? Primary customers Unit cost # students trained persons patients Workload ratio Primary activity % of ___x___ that # job courses alarms diagnostic hours of tests happen on time responded instruction to Is anyone better off? If your service works really well, how are your customers better off? # patients whofully students persons to get % fires keptwhoroom graduate jobs recover of origin
    3. 3. Child Welfare Quantity Quality How much did we How well did we do do? it? # ofEffort Workload ratio: children in No. of children foster care per worker Is anyone better off? # of % of children in children inEffect permanent plcmt permanent plcmt within 6 months within 6 months or entering care of entering care
    4. 4. Juvenile Justice Quantity Quality How much did we How well did we do do? it?Effort Number of Percent of children in children in custody community based (vs. institutional) care Is anyone better off? # of % of children exiting children exitingEffect custody with no custody with no repeat offence in repeat offence in 6 months 6 months
    5. 5. Personnel Department Quantity Quality How much did we How well did we do do? it? Effort Number of Average Applicants Recruitment Processed Period Is anyone better off? Workforce Workforce Turnover Rate Effect # New Hires (non-promotions) Customer * Satisfaction* Percent of supervisory staff who report that personnel provides the support they need to do their jobs.
    6. 6. Information Technology (MIS) Quantity Quality How much did we How well did we do do? it?Effort Average response time Number of to service requests IT projects % Projects on schedule on budget Is anyone better off? Rate of # UnscheduledEffect Downtime Customer # * Satisfaction* Percent of staff who report that MIS provides the support they need to do their jobs.
    7. 7. Audit Quantity Quality How much did we How well did we do do? it?Effort Number of Percent of audits audits completed on schedule Is anyone better off? # Rate of repeat findingsEffect $ value of corrected audit findings as percent of total agency # budget
    8. 8. Next Generation Contracting Quantity Quality 1. Traditional purchasingEffort methods work fine in the upper quadrants. BUTEffect 2. They break down in the Is anyone better off? quadrants (because of case mix differences and perverse incentives). WHICH MEANS 3. What we purchase in the lower quadrants are not deliverables, but rather a RELATIONSHIP where funder and grantees work together to maximize customer results.
    9. 9. Next Generation Contracting Contract ProvisionsProvision 1. Specify the 3 to 5 most important performance measures (from the How well did we do it? and Is anyone better off? categories).Provision 2. Specify that the contractor will use a continuous improvement process (the RBA 7 Questions).Provision 3. Specify how the funder and contractor will work in partnership to maximize LR customer results (quarterly meetings using the 7 questions as the agenda).Provision 4. Specify that the funder will work with the funding community to simplify and standardize contracting and performance reporting.
    10. 10. Next Generation Contracting Contract ProvisionsProvision 5: : Clear articulation of role in population/community well-being. Language of contribution not attribution.Provision 6: 10% for quality management and administration.Provision 7: Multi-year funding using 3 year rolling contractsProvision 8: Use of targets that are fair and useful.Provision 9: Fund flexibility and virtual funding pool: transfer of up to 10% across line items and program lines.
    11. 11. Resources www.raguide.orgwww.resultsaccountability.com RBA Facebook Group Book - DVD Orders amazon.com resultsleadership.org

    ×