Results based accountability101 powerpoint version 1.7 nl dutch language

353 views

Published on

Results based accountability101 powerpoint version 1.7 nl dutch language

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
353
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
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.
  • These are criteria you should apply to any planning or management system you are considering. Most past efforts have been big paper exercise wastes of time. It is possible to do this work in a way that is simple, common sense, plain language, minimum paper and most importantly useful. Results and performance accountability is one approach that meets these tests.
  • 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.
  • Common Language, Common Sense, Common Ground: Here’s another way of thinking about what we’re going to talk about today: Common Language, Common Sense and Common Ground. We’re going to start with Common Language, because the truth of the matter is that it’s a Tower of Babel out there. People are using words in so many different ways. So we’ll start with common language. Common Sense is about the way the rest of the world works. If you look at any serious successful enterprise…. Business is always held up as the way we should model our behavior…. But look at any of the…. Business, the military, the sports world, the faith community. Any successful enterprise starts with ends and works backwards to means. And Common Ground is about the political nature of this work. And all of this, from first word to last, is political in one way or another. This is not necessarily bad. Politics is how we make decisions. But look at the political system, national, state or local and what do you see? People fighting with each other. But look at what they’re fighting about… and more often than not they’re fighting about means and not ends. There’s remarkable agreement that teen pregnancy is bad for our young people. Now we fight about whether to preach abstinence or hand out condoms. But this is a means debate. The agreement about teen pregnancy is remarkably broadly based. And when you begin to articulate what it is we want for children, families, community in plain language. We want children to be born healthy, be ready for school, succeed in school, grow up to be productive, happy contributing adults. We want to live in safe communities with a clean environment. When you begin to say things in plain language like that, it turns out that these kinds of statements are not Republican vs. Democrat. They’re not state vs. local. They’re not executive branch vs. legislative branch. They represent a kind of common ground, where people can come together and say “Yes, those are the conditions we’d like to be able to say exist here.” Now let’s have a healthy debate about the means to get there.
  • The Language Trap: Now you’ve seen all these words before. Read the outer ring of words. And then you get these modifiers in the middle. Read some or all of the inner ring of words. This page is the Jargon Construction Kit. If you want to sound fancy about this work, just pick three or four words off this page at random and string them together. Give example: “Measurable urgent systemic indicators,” whatever the hell that means. And I guarantee you’ll get away with it too, because people will be too embarrassed to ask you what you mean. I have a new rule, that anyone who uses three or more of these words in the same sentence doesn’t know what they’re talking about. It’s very common for two people to be in the same meeting using the same word. They have two entirely different ideas of what that word means, and they’re just talking right past each other. Has this ever happened to you?
  • So what we did a few years ago is develop a set of definitions that would allow us to have a disciplined conversation about this very complex work we’re trying to do. Now the purpose of these definitions is not to impose words on people. Words like “result” or “outcome” are just labels for ideas. If you think about if for a minute, that’s what words are, labels for ideas. And the same idea can have many different labels. What’s important here are not the labels. You can pick whatever labels you like. What important are the ideas, and that we manage to keep three ideas separate at the beginning of this work. Read the ideas and the examples for Results and Indicators.
    Now this last category, performance measures…. Are measures of how well a program, agency or service system is working. Now there are many different ways to categorize performance measures, but I believe that all performance measures can be categorized into one of these three categories: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off? And this last category we sometimes call “customer results” or “customer outcomes.”
    And if you do nothing else in terms of your language convention, I would strongly encourage you…. That whenever you want to use a word like “outcome” or “result” and you’re talking about a program or agency, put a modifier in front of it. Call if “program results” or “client outcomes,” something to distinguish it from the use of the words results and outcome to mean the whole population. This is the single biggest source of language confusion in the U.S. today.
    The Language of Accountability
    From www.raguide.org
    The most common problem in this work is the problem of language. People come to the table from many different disciplines and many different walks of life. And the way in which we talk about programs, services and populations varies, literally, all over the map. This means that the usual state of affairs in planning for children, families, adults, elders and communities is a Tower of Babel, where no one really knows what the other person is saying, but everyone politely pretends that they do. As a consequence, the work is slow, frustrating and often ineffective.It is possible to exercise language discipline in this work. And the way to do this is to agree on a set of definitions that start with ideas and not words. 
    Words are just labels for ideas. And the same idea can have many different labels. The following four ideas are the basis for definitions used at the beginning of this work. Alternative labels are offered:
    Results (or outcomes or goals) are conditions of well-being for children, adults, families or communities, stated in plain English (or plain Spanish, or plain Korean...). They are things that voters and taxpayers can understand. They are not about programs or agencies or government jargon. Results include: "healthy children, children ready for school, children succeeding in school, children staying out of trouble, strong families, elders living with dignity in setting they prefer, safe communities, a healthy clean environment, a prosperous economy." (An interesting alternative definition of a result is provided by Con Hogan: "A condition of well-being for people in a place - stated as a complete sentence." This suggests a type of construction for a result statement as "All ______ in ______ are _____." e.g. All babies in Vermont are born healthy.")
    Indicators (or benchmarks) are measures which help quantify the achievement of a result. They answer the question "How would we recognize these results in measurable terms if we fell over them?" So, for example, the rate of low-birthweight babies helps quantify whether we're getting healthy births or not. Third grade reading scores help quantify whether children are succeeding in school today, and whether they were ready for school three years ago. The crime rate helps quantify whether we are living in safe communities, etc.
    Strategies are coherent collections of actions which have a reasoned chance of improving results. Strategies are made up of our best thinking about what works, and include the contributions of many partners. No single action by any one agency can create the improved results we want and need.
    Performance Measures are measures of how well public and private programs and agencies are working. The most important performance measures tell us whether the clients or customers of the service are better off. We sometimes refer to these measures as client or customer results (to distinguish them from cross-community population results for all children, adults or families). It is sometimes useful to distinguish "program performance measures," from "agency performance measures" from "service system performance measures."
    The principal distinction here is between ends and means. Results and indicators are about the ends we want for children and families. And strategies and performance measures are about the means to get there. Processes that fail to make these crucial distinctions often mix up ends and means. And such processes tend to get mired in the all-talk-no-action circles that have disillusioned countless participants in past efforts. You actually have choices about which labels to use in your work. And clarity about language at the start will help you take your work from talk to action.
    What Mission and Vision, Values, Goals, Objectives, Problems, Issues Inputs and Outputs?
    Many of us have grown up with these traditional words in strategic planning and budgeting. Where do they fit? 
    First, remember that words are just labels for ideas. These seven words have no natural standard definition that bridges across all the different ways they are used. They are terms of art which can and are used to label many different ideas. This is why we pay so much attention to getting language discipline straight at the very beginning. It's the ideas that are important not the words. So you can choose to label the ideas in this guide with any words you like, provided you are consistent. 
    The word "mission" is usually used in relation to an organization, agency, program, initiative or effort. It is therefore mostly used in connection with agency or program performance accountability. Mission statements are usually concise statements of the purpose of an organization, sometimes also telling why and how the organization does what it does. Mission statements can be useful tools in communicating with internal and external stakeholders. It is possible to construct a mission statement from the performance measurement ideas in the upper right ("How well did we deliver service?") and lower right ("Is anyone better off?") quadrants of the performance measurement framework: For example: "Our mission is to help our clients become self sufficient ("Is anyone better off?" lower right) by providing timely, family friendly, culturally competent job training services ("How well did we deliver service?" upper right)." One mistake that is often made is that organizations spend months and sometimes years trying to craft the perfect mission statement before any other work can proceed. In the FPSI framework, mission statements are set aside, allowing the work of identifying and using performance measures to proceed quickly. Then, on a parallel track a small group can, if it is useful, use the work of the performance measurement groups to craft a workable mission statement.
    The word "vision" is often used to convey a picture of a desired future, often one that is hard but possible to attain. This is a powerful idea. And in fact one can think of the set of desired results for children and families as one way of articulating such a vision. "We want our community to be one which is safe and supportive, where all children are healthy and ready for school, where all children succeed in school, and grow up to be productive and contributing adults." This is an example of a vision statement made up of desired results or ends. It is possible to craft such a statement before or after the development of results.
    The word "values" in some ways defies definition. It is about what we hold most dear, how we view right and wrong, how we believe we should act, and how those beliefs are, in fact, reflected in our actions.  Our values underlie all of the work we do. And that is nowhere more true than in the work on the well-being of children, families and communities. Our values will guide our choice of results for children and families and the decisions we make about how we and our partners take action to improve those results.
    The word "goal" is often used interchangeably with "result and outcome" to label the idea of a condition of well-being for children, adults, families or communities (as in the case of Georgia, Missouri and Oregon for example). The word goal has many other common usages as well. It often serves as an all-purpose term to describe a desired accomplishment. "My goal for this month is to fix the roof." "Our goal is to increase citizen participation in the planning process." " The primary goal of the child welfare system is to keep children safe." and so forth. The word goal (or target) is sometimes used to describe the desired future level of achievement for an indicator or performance measure. "Our goal is 95% high school graduation in 5 years." "Our goal is to improve police response time to under 3 minutes." These are widely different usages. Still another use of the word "goal" is in relation to an implementation plan. Given a strategy and action plan to improve a particular result (children ready for school for example), it is possible to structure the action plan as a series of planned accomplishments (goals) with timetables and assigned implementation responsibility. For example, a goal in a "children ready for school plan" might be to "increase funding for child care by 25% this year and 50% next year." This is a specific action which will contribute to achieving the result. There is nothing wrong with any of these usages, provided they are clearly distinguished, used consistently and do not confuse the underlying concepts labeled results, indicators, strategies and performance measures discussed above.
    The word "objective" is often paired with the word goal to specify what amount to a series of  "subgoals" required to achieve the "higher" goal. The set of terms "mission, goal and objective" have a long history in the military to describe the strategic and  tactical components of a large or small action or engagement. And some of their usage in the business sector and the public and private service sector derives from this history. In this framework, the terms goal and objective are most often used to structure the action plan and specify who will do what, how, and by when.
    The words "problem" and "issue" are used in more ways that just about any planning term. They can be used to describe almost anything. "The problem with this computer is that the keyboard is too small." "The problem with our community is that there is not a safe place for children to play." "We must solve the issue of affordability if we are to provide child care for all who need it." These are three different uses of the words and there are countless others. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of these usages, provided that they do not interfere with the language discipline discussed above about ends and means.
    The words "input" and "output" are commonly used categories for performance measures. There is no standard usage. The word "input" is most often used to describe the staff and financial resources which serve to generate "outputs." "Outputs" are most often units of service.  
    Change Agent vs. Industrial Models: Much of the tradition of performance measurement comes from the private sector and in particular the industrial part of the private sector. Work measurement - dating back to the time and motion studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries - looked at how to improve production. Industrial processes turn raw materials into finished products. The raw materials are the inputs; the finished products are the outputs.
    This model does not translate very well to public or private sector enterprises which provide services. It does not make much sense to think of clients, workers and office equipment as inputs to the service sausage machine, churning out satisfied, cured or fixed clients. Instead we need to begin thinking about services in terms of the change agent model. In this model, the agency or program provides services which act upon the environment to produce demonstrable changes in the well-being of clients, families, or communities. If the input/output language is maintained, then providing service is the input, change in customers' lives is the output.
    One common situation illustrates the problems which arise when industrial model thinking is applied to services. It is the belief that the number of clients served is an output. ("We have assembled all these workers in all this office space; and we are in the business of processing unserved clients into served clients.") This misapplication of industrial performance concepts to services captures much of what is wrong with the way we measure human service performance today. "Number of clients served" is not an output. It is an input, an action which should lead to a change in client or social conditions - the real output we're looking for. ("We served 100 clients - input - and 50 of them got jobs - output - and 40 of them still had jobs a year later - even more important output.") This is a whole different frame of mind and a whole different approach to performance measurement.
    A closely related industrial model problem involves treating dollars spent as inputs, and clients served as outputs. In this distorted view, dollars are raw materials, and whatever the program happens to do with those dollars are outputs. It's easy to see why this over-simplification fails to meet the public's need for accountability. In this construct, the mere fact that the government spent all the money it received is a type of performance measurement. This is surely a form of intellectual, and perhaps literal, bankruptcy. In this perverse scheme, almost all the agency's data is purportedly about outputs. This gives the agency the appearance of being output-oriented and very progressive. It just doesn't happen to mean anything.
    Much of the confusion about performance measurement derives from the attempt to impose industrial model concepts on change agent services. The best model would be one which could span industrial and change agent applications. Some government services still involve industrial-type production (although these are often the best candidates for privatization and a diminishing breed.) In other cases, discussed below, the service itself, or components of the service, have product-like characteristics and industrial model concepts apply well. But most government and private sector human services fall into the change agent category. The approach to performance measurement described in this website can be used for either industrial or change agent applications. (Excerpt from "A Guide to Developing and Using Performance Measures, Finance Project, 1997)
     
     
     
  • Now the principle distinction here is between ends and means. Results and Indicators are about ends. And performance measures tell us whether the particular programmatic means we’ve chosen to get there is working properly. Does that make sense. What we see as we look at the work around the country is that people are typically working on all three of these things, but it’s all mixed up in a hopeless soup of language. So one minute we’re talking about a condition of well being (result) and the next minute it’s a piece of data that measure that…. And the next minute a little program on the east side of town…. As if these were all the same thing and these distinctions really didn’t matter. And what happens when people mix up ends and means like that is that they get stuck. They start to circle and circle. The work becomes all talk and talk and talk. And we’ve all had experiences with process that are all talk. The talk is not what’s important here. What’s important is how we get from talk to action. And everything in this presentation is about that single simple challenge. How do we get from talk to action in a disciplined way. And I think the starting point is to have a common language.
    Within performance measures, we have another ends means distinction, like smaller Russian dolls nested inside larger dolls. Here, customer results become the ends and the services we provide become the means.
  • Rate each candidate measure high, medium or low on each criteria. Those that score highest rise to the top. Those that score H, H, L are powerful measures for which we do not now have data. These form the basis for the data development agenda.
  • These first two examples are not from a particular place, but rather illustrate a complete set of results. This slide, Results for all residents addresses quality of life for all residents in a geographic area, not just families and children.
  • This list of results was developed with a colleague at the Annie E. Casey Foundation. We spread out in front of us all the lists we could find having to do with children and families and tried to find the things these lists had in common.
    Notice that there’s only one thing on this list that’s stated in negative terms: “Young people staying out of trouble.” It’s on the list because that’s the way people actually talk. But all the other results are stated in positive terms and that’s a very important characteristic of results accountability.
    Most planning processes we have used in the past state with children’s problems or with unmet needs in the community. Now we have to talk about problems and unmet needs, but you don’t have to start there.
    We send a powerful message out into the community in the way we talk about this. And results should always be stated in positive, not negative, terms.
  • This list comes from the Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families and is used by the network of Family Connections Councils in Georgia. Georgia has gone one step further and identified 25 indicators to tell if these conditions are being achieved. And Georgia has produced a report card at the state level and for each of the 159 counties.
    Many other places in the United States have produced such report cards, including
    CALIFORNIA
                    Contra Costa County: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us
                    San Mateo County: www.pls.lib.ca.us/healthysmc/33/children.pdf
                    Santa Cruz County: appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm
                    Silicon Valley Joint Venture: jointventure.org                                   
            GEORGIA
                    Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families, and The Family Connection:                                                                      gpc-fc.org
    MINNESOTA
                    Hennepin County: www.co.hennepin.mn.us/opd/opd.htm 
            OHIO
                    Montgomery County Family and Children First Council:                                                                     http://www.fcfc.montco.org
            OREGON
                    Oregon Progress Board: econ.state.or.us/opb
    PENNSYLVANIA
                    Philadelphia Safe and Sound: Children's Report Card and Children's Budget                                                                  www.philasafesound.org
    VERMONT
                    Agency for Human Services: Community Profiles: ahs.state.vt.us        
           
    . Links to the best of these sites can be found on www.raguide.org.
  • There is a growing number of report cards on child, family and community well-being being developed across the U.S. and in other countries. Here are four such report cards from Georgia, San Mateo County California, Dayton Ohio and Santa Cruz County California.
  • This list illustrates the communication dimension of results accountability, as simple and direct a list as there is. Placer has done some extraordinary work linking these results at the population level to the individual case level work of programs and agencies.
  • Once you understand that results are the true ends of the work, you begin to understand that many of the other things we have been working on all these years are MEANS to the ends of better results, not ENDS in themselves.
  • LEAKING ROOF
    1. Ask "How many people here have ever had a leaking roof?" (Most hands will go up.)
    2. How can you tell if the roof is leaking? ("Water on the floor, down the walls etc.") So, this is how you might "experience" a leaking roof.    3. How could you measure how badly the roof is leaking? ("By how much water...") So you might put out a bucket and measure the number of inches in the bucket after each rainstorm! That's the chart  at the right (CLICK): the number of inches from the last three rainstorms.
    4. Where do you think this line is headed if we don't do anything? ("It will get worse. Through the roof, you might say.") (CLICK) Draw a forecast line going up. This is the forecast of where we're headed if we don't do anything. We want to turn this curve to zero, right! (CLICK) Draw it.
    5. Now, what's the first thing you do when you have a leaking roof? ("You get up on the roof and try to find out why it's leaking.") Right! You look for the cause of the leak. And this is the story behind the baseline, the causes of why this picture looks the way it does.
    6. Who are some of the people who might help you fix the leak? (brother-in-law, neighbor, professional roofer) These are some of your potential partners.
    7. Now, what kinds of things  work to fix a leak? (Patching material, get a whole new roof, sell the house.) You have some choices about types of patching material. Some will work better than others. Tar is probably better than duct tape.
    8. So let's review. You've got a leaking roof. It's getting worse and will keep getting worse unless you do something. You actually have the data on this. You've figured out the cause of the leak and the partners who might help fix it. And you've considered some of  the possible ways to fix it. Now the important final question is what are you going to do? This is your action plan.
    9. So now you've implemented your action plan. Maybe you've hired a roofer who's gotten up on the roof and patched it. And now what's the next thing you do? ("Wait for the next rainstorm.") Right! You wait for the next rainstorm to see if it's still leaking. And what if it's still leaking, what do you do? (Draw a new point lower but not zero.) ("You get back up on the roof.") Right! You start the whole process over again. You look for causes. You think about who can help and what works. And you try something else - maybe sell the house this time. This is an iterative process. Hopefully you fix the roof in one pass. But the things we are working on are much more complicated than a leaking roof, and one iteration won't do it.
    10. So, this is the whole thinking process! It's just common sense. It's how we solve everyday problems. And communities working to improve the quality of life, or managers working to improve their program's performance can use this same process. This is the thinking process at the heart of results and performance decision making! If you understand this process, you can go home now.
    11. Notice that we identified the "inches per bucket" measure pretty easily. With a leaking roof, it's obvious what's important and what could be measured. But with programs, agencies and service systems, the choice of what's important and what to measure is much more complex. That's the process that's addressed when we choose indicators or performance measures. (See for Question 3.7 for more information on choosing program, agency or service system performance measures. And see Question 2.7 for more information on the process for choosing indicators for population well-being.)
    12. Finally, notice that, in real life, we don't actually put out a bucket and measure the inches of water. We do this work based entirely on the way we experience the leak. We consider it fixed when we don't see water anymore. It is also possible to run the results decision-making processes without data, and use just experience. An action plan can be developed this way. It's a way to get started. But ultimately this is unsatisfying. In complex systems, you generally need data to see if you are making progress or not. Otherwise you are left with just stories and anecdotes. So if you don't have any data at all, you might start the process on the basis of experience. But you should give great attention to pursuing your Data Development Agenda.
  • Here is the “leaking roof” thinking process applied to population well-being:
    Population: What population are we talking about? All children; all children zero to five, all elders all residents
    Results: What results do we want for this population, stated in plain language.
    Experience: How do we experience these conditions in our everyday lives? How would we see it, hear it, feel it?
    Indicators: How could we measure these conditions? We are looking for 3 to 5 indicators for each result. (Beginning with the next slide we will provide a method for choosing indicators.)
    Baselines: For each indicator, we need to create a baseline. A baseline has two parts: an history part which tells us where we’ve been and a forecast part which show what path we are on if we don’t do something different. This allows us to define success as turning the curve away from the baseline.
    Story behind the baselines: What are the causes and forces at work that explain why the baseline looks the way it does? In public health we call this step “epidemiology.”
    Partners: Who are the partners who have a role to play in doing better. Stretch to consider non-traditional partners.
    What works: What works – or more powerfully, what would it take – to turn these conditions around. Consider the research and best practice, but don’t be limited by the research. Consider your own life experience and knowledge of your community. And make sure you consider no-cost and low-cost ideas. Not everything is about money.
    Criteria: If you do a good job considering what works, you will come up with more things than you can do in a year. You will need a set of criteria to set priorities and create and action plan…
    Action plan and budget. This is a multi-year plan of what you propose to do. Start with the no-cost low-cost ideas and build and refine the effort over time.
  • These are three criteria that have been used to choose indicators for a result.
    From www.raguide.org:
    Given a set of candidate indicators, it is then possible to use criteria to select the best indicators to represent the result. Using the best of whats available necessarily means that this will be about approximation and compromise. If we had a thousand measures, we could still not fully capture the health and readiness of young children. We use data to approximate these conditions and to stand as proxies for them. There are three criteria which can be used to identify the best measures:
      Communication Power: Does the indicator communicate to a broad range of audiences? It is possible to think of this in terms of the public square test. If you had to stand in a public square and explain to your neighbors "what we mean, in this community, by children healthy and ready for school," what two or three pieces of data would you use? Obviously you could bring a thick report to the square and begin a long recitation, but the crowd would thin quickly. It is hard for people to listen to, absorb or understand more than a few pieces of data at time. They must be common sense, and compelling, not arcane and bureaucratic. Communication power means that the data must have clarity with diverse audiences.
    Proxy Power: Does the indicator say something of central importance about the result? (Or is it peripheral?) Can this measure stand as a proxy for the plain English statement of well-being? What pieces of data really get at the heart of the matter?
    Another simple truth about indicators is that they run in herds. If one indicator is going in the right direction, often others are as well. You do not need 20 indicators telling you the same thing. Pick the indicators which have the greatest proxy power, i.e. those which are most likely to match the direction of the other indicators in the herd
    Data Power: Do we have quality data on a timely basis? We need data which is reliable and consistent. And we need timely data so we can see progress - or the lack thereof - on a regular and frequent basis. Problems with data availability, quality or timeliness can be addressed as part of the data development agenda
     Identify primary and secondary indicators, and a data development agenda. When you have assessed the candidate indicators using these criteria, you will have sorted indicators into three categories:
      Primary indicators: those 3 or 4 most important measures which can be used as proxies in the public process for the result.  You could use 20 or 40, but peoples eyes would glaze over. We need a handful of measures to tell us how were doing at the highest level.
      Secondary indicators: All the other data thats any good. We will use these measures in assessing the story behind the baselines, and in the  the scenes planning work. We do not throw away good data. We need every bit of information we can get our hands on to do this work well.
      A data development agenda: It is essential that we include investments in new and better data as an active part of our work. This means the creation of a data development agenda - a set of priorities of where we need to get better.
  • Rate each candidate measure high, medium or low on each criteria. Those that score highest rise to the top. Those that score H, H, L are powerful measures for which we do not now have data. These form the basis for the data development agenda.
  • This sorting process will create a three part list for each result. This list will change over time as new data is developed.
  • Baselines have two parts: an history part that tells us where we’ve been and a forecast part that shows where we’re headed if we don’t do something different.
    Forecasting is an art no a science and often we show a range of forecasts, high, medium and low.
    Traditionally we define success as point to point improvement. This is often a setup for failure, because, sometimes the best you can do is slow the rate at which things are getting worse, while you work to turn the curve in the longer run.
    The better definition of success is “turning the curve away from the baseline,” or “beating the baseline.” This is a much more sophisticated, but also a much more fair way to gauge progress.
  • The cost of bad results is the price we as a society pay when things go wrong, when children are not born healthy, when they are not ready for school, when they do not stay out of trouble. The cost of bad results includes both government and non-government expenditures, and is estimated to exceed $200 billion per year in the U.S.
    The convergence of flat or declining revenue with increasing costs of bad outcomes is driving out expenditures for prevention and infrastructure.
    We must bring an investment mentality to the work of doing better. If we invest in prevention, it will lead to lower than baseline costs for remedial services in out-years.
  • The cost of bad results is the price we as a society pay when things go wrong, when children are not born healthy, when they are not ready for school, when they do not stay out of trouble. The cost of bad results includes both government and non-government expenditures, and is estimated to exceed $200 billion per year in the U.S.
    The convergence of flat or declining revenue with increasing costs of bad outcomes is driving out expenditures for prevention and infrastructure.
    We must bring an investment mentality to the work of doing better. If we invest in prevention, it will lead to lower than baseline costs for remedial services in out-years.
  • Tillamook County was successful in bringing down the teen pregnancy rate, while the rest of Oregon stayed about the same.
  • Boston successfully turned the curve on juvenile homicide rates, with zero homicides between July 1995 and December 1997, 2 and one half years.
  • If you look at each of these examples you will see this thinking process reflected in what they did.
  • 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.
  • All performance measures can be derived from the cross between two sets of interlocking questions: How much did we do? And How well did we do it?
  • Vs. these two dimensions of the work itself: Effort and Effect
  • This leads to a four part or four quadrant way of describing the different types of performance measures.
  • Or an even simpler construction: How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off?
  • This illustrates the different types of measures for schools.
  • Here, with a tougher, more challenging measure in the lower right quadrant.
  • Examples of measures for a typical health plan or practice.
  • Examples of measures for a typical health plan or practice.
  • Examples of measures for a typical drug and alcohol treatment program.
  • Examples of measures for a fire department.
  • Examples of measures for a private sector business, in this case the auto industry. These examples are taken from an article in USA Today from September 1998
  • So why sort measure for your program into these categories?
    Simple. These categories are not equally important. The upper left is the least important. And yet we have some people who spend their whole careers living in this quadrant counting cases and activity. Somehow we have to push the discussion to the lower right quadrant, the one that measures whether our customers are better off.
  • This scheme accounts for all performance measures in the history of the universe and this chart is an attempt to back that claim up.
    A lot of us grew up with the terms “efficiency” and “effectiveness” as the terms of art in performance measurement. And you would think, considering their age and venerability, that they would somehow account for all performance measures. But interestingly enough they don’t. Efficiency is only one type of measure in the upper right quadrant. Effectiveness shares the stage with many other measures.
  • Other measures, in addition to efficiency, in the upper right quadrant, that answer the question “How well did we deliver services.”
  • Customer satisfaction has two different dimensions which are often mixed up together. Customer satisfaction with how well service is delivered is different from customer satisfaction with whether the service helped with the customer’s problems. The world’s simplest, yet complete, customer satisfaction survey: “Did we treat you well?” and “Did we help you with your problems?”
  • Customer satisfaction has two different dimensions which are often mixed up together. Customer satisfaction with how well service is delivered is different from customer satisfaction with whether the service helped with the customer’s problems. The world’s simplest, yet complete, customer satisfaction survey: “Did we treat you well?” and “Did we help you with your problems?”
  • As you move from the least important measures to the most important measures, you go from having the most control to having the least control. And this is another reason why people spend their whole lives in the upper left quadrant. Fear. It can be scary to look at the data in the lower right quadrant. But ask people why they went into their profession and the answers all lie in the lower right, in the ways in which we try to make our customer’s lives better.
  • The first purpose of performance measurement is to improve performance. We lose this simple idea in all the fads that run through this field. We forget that the purpose of the work is to get better.
    For many people, their only experience with performance measurement involves punishment. We must create a healthy environment in our organizations where people can use the most important information about what they do to get better.
    There are three ways to compare performance: To ourselves, to others and to standards. The first order of business is comparing to ourselves. Using a baseline, we can try to do better than our own history.
    We can compare to others when it is a fair comparison.
    And we can compare to standards.
  • Comparing performance:
    To others, when it is a fair apples/apples comparison
    What happens when you compare different providers of the same service on a measure? You get a bunch of providers clustered in the middle (click). You get some outliers high (click). And you get some outliers low (click).
    What happens when you reward these people (click), and you punish these people (click)? Well, before you answer this question you have to know why are these people doing well and why are these people doing poorly. Maybe these (top) people have all the easy cases. And these (low) people have all the tough cases. So you reward one and punish the other, and what message do you send throughout the service system? “Skim the easy cases for yourself. Dump the tough cases on someone else.” So if you’re not careful you can actually do damage to the service system and the people you are trying to serve. We’ve got to make sure that we go behnd these numbers so that we can know, “Are these people doing something exemplary or do they have an easier caseload?” “Are these people screwing up or do they have a tougher caseload?” We have to know the answers to these questions.
    For those trying to implement a results-based contracting system, I recommend a 3 year moratorium on rewards and punishments associated with the use of data. Give people time to learn how to do it right, working to improve against their own baseline. Then at the end of the period you can add rewards and if necessary punishments. You never give up your right to cancel contracts, so you always preserve that bottom line safeguard.
  • 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.
  • Note: You can use this slide here or after the discussion of standards in the Performance Accountability section.
    Here is a way to show all three comparisons on the same chart.
    Your baseline,
    A comparison baseline,
    And a goal, target or standard line, as a horizontal line – the idea being that you turn the curve and cross the goal line as soon as possible.
    Avoid publicly declaring year by year targets, if you can.
    Instead, count anything better than baseline as progress.
  • Remember the three basic categories of performance measures?
    Now let’s look at what measures fall in each of these categories in more detail.
  • Remember the three basic categories of performance measures?
    Now let’s look at what measures fall in each of these categories in more detail.
  • 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 the Jim Casey Youth Opportunity Initiative
  • Here is the thinking process in the form of 7 plain language common sense questions.
    These questions should be asked an answered periodically (monthly, quarterly) at every intersection of supervision from the top to the bottom of the organization.
    This is the most important take-away page for performance measurement. It can be used immediately without any further training.
  • We’ve talked about two different kinds of accountability. Now let’s look at how they fit together.
  • The relationship is a “contribution” relationship, not a cause and effect relationship. What we do for our customers is our contribution to what we and our partners are trying to do across the community.
    Often the only difference between a population indicator and a lower right (Is anyone better off?) performance measure is the difference in scale between a client population and the total population.
    This allows us to think about how our work is aligned with what we are trying to accomplish across the community. It allows us to think about how the measures we use at the program level relate to those at the population level. And it allows us to avoid the trap of holding programs responsible for population level change. We can hold program responsible for what they do for their clients. We must hold ourselves, across the community, responsible for the well being of the population.
  • The relationship is a “contribution” relationship, not a cause and effect relationship. What we do for our customers is our contribution to what we and our partners are trying to do across the community.
    Often the only difference between a population indicator and a lower right (Is anyone better off?) performance measure is the difference in scale between a client population and the total population.
    This allows us to think about how our work is aligned with what we are trying to accomplish across the community. It allows us to think about how the measures we use at the program level relate to those at the population level. And it allows us to avoid the trap of holding programs responsible for population level change. We can hold program responsible for what they do for their clients. We must hold ourselves, across the community, responsible for the well being of the population.
  • As the service population approaches the total population, the measures of client better-offness begin to play a double role. They are used as management measures for the service system and they also can be used as an indicator proxy for the well-being of the whole population.
    High School graduation rate is a good example. It is used by the school system as a measure of performance. And it is also used as an indicator by community collaboratives for the results “All Children Succeed in School.”
  • Budgets of the future will have two parts:
    Volume I will present a picture of quality of life results and indicators and what is being done by government and its partners to improve.
    Volume II will present performance measures for departments and programs.
    Both will use the Baseline, Story, What Works and Strategy format shown above.
    This is a fractal… the same pattern at every level of magnification.
  • Budgets of the future will have two parts:
    Volume I will present a picture of quality of life results and indicators and what is being done by government and its partners to improve.
    Volume II will present performance measures for departments and programs.
    Both will use the Baseline, Story, What Works and Strategy format shown above.
    This is a fractal… the same pattern at every level of magnification.
  • Budgets of the future will have two parts:
    Volume I will present a picture of quality of life results and indicators and what is being done by government and its partners to improve.
    Volume II will present performance measures for departments and programs.
    Both will use the Baseline, Story, What Works and Strategy format shown above.
    This is a fractal… the same pattern at every level of magnification.
  • Management, budgeting and strategic planning should be thought of as a single system. Of the three, the most important is actually management. If you use data on a day to day basis to manage your programs, then once a year you spin out the budget and once every two or five years you spin out a strategic plan. There is great power in having all three processes fully aligned and RBA provides a method for doing that.
  • The crosswalk form allows the results accountability framework to be crosswalked to any other framework. We can see how different frameworks label the ideas in the left column. This will allow us to see different approaches to the work as convergent and not divergent.
    Page 20 in the workbook is filled out to show the crosswalk to a typical Logic Model or Theory of Change. Note that logic models work up the page, while results accountability works down the page. These are complimentary approaches. Logic models can be useful tools in testing the “what works” ideas. The natural question to ask is “Why do you think this would work?” and logic models, or theory of change models force you to articulate the causality chain from actions back to results. While logic models are useful tools, they are not recommended as the overarching framework because they start in the wrong place, with means, not ends… and because many versions of logic models are very paper intensive and take a long time to complete.
  • Funders need to begin to think about their grantmaking agenda in terms of their role in a larger strategy to improve results.
    Indicators tell whether the overall strategy is working.
    Performance measures are used in two ways: first to gauge the performance of grantees and second to manage the grantmaking organization itself.
  • Community collaborative groups and programs and agencies could use this as the agenda for their meetings. The meeting would be aligned with the thinking process that produced the action plan. Each iteration of this thinking process will improve the action plan.
  • There are four kinds of progress which can be reported. The first at the population level, and 2 3 and 4 at the program agency or service system level.
  • Implementation of results and performance accountability should proceed along three parallel tracks.
  • This section presents instructions and reporting formats for the two turn the curve exercises, one for population accountability and one for performance accountability. And other exercises
  • Participant instructions for the population turn the curve exercise.
  • Group report out format for the population turn the curve exercise.
  • Participant instructions for the performance turn the curve exercise.
  • Group report out format for the performance turn the curve exercise.
  • Results based accountability101 powerpoint version 1.7 nl dutch language

    1. 1. De resultaatverantwoording bij besluitvorming en begrotingen Fiscal Policy Studies Institute Santa Fe, New Mexico WEBSITES www.resultsaccountability.com www.raguide.org BOEKEN BESTELLEN www.trafford.com www.amazon.com
    2. 2. EENVOUDIG GEZOND VERSTAND DUIDELIJKE TAAL WEINIG PAPIER BRUIKBAAR
    3. 3. RESULTAATVERANTWOORDING bestaat uit twee delen: Prestatieverantwoording over het welzijn van de DOELGROEP Voor Programma’s – Agentschappen – en Dienstverleners Bevolkingsverantwoording over het welzijn van de GEHELE BEVOLKING Voor Buurten – Gemeenten – Provincies – Staten - Naties
    4. 4. Resultaatverantwoording GEWONE TAAL GEZOND VERSTAND GEMEENSCHAPPELIJKE IDEEËN
    5. 5. DE VALKUIL VAN DE TAAL Te veel termen. Te weinig definities. Te weinig discipline Benchmark Streefpunt Indicator Doel Resultaat Doelstelling Eindresultaat Maatregel Bepalingen Meetbaar Kern Dringend Kwalitatief Prioriteit Programmatisch Gericht Prestatie Stijgend Strategisch Systemisch Lewis Carroll Centrum voor Taal Wanorde Programmatisch strategische dringende prioriteit Systemisch meetbaar kern gerichtCreëer je nieuwe vaktaal!
    6. 6. DEFINITIES Gezond geboren kinderen, Kinderen slagen op school, Veilige samenleving, Schoon Milieu, Bloeiende Economie Percentage babies met laag geboortegewicht, percentage gediplomeerde schoolverlaters, criminaliteitscijfer, index van de luchtkwaliteit, werkloosheidscijfer 1. Hoe veel deden we? 2. Hoe goed deden we dit? 3. Is iemand er beter van geworden? RESULTAAT of UITKOMST INDICATOR of BENCHMARK PRESTATIE MAATSTAF Een voorwaarde van welzijn voor kinderen, volwassenen, families of gemeenschappen. Een maatstaf die helpt het bereikte resultaat te kwantificeren Een maatstaf die aantoont hoe goed een programma, agentschap of dienstverlener werkt. Drie types: = Klant Resultaat PopulatiePrestaties Gezond geboren kinderen Percentage babies met laag geboortegewicht percentage gediplomeerde schoolverlaters Kinderen slagen op school criminaliteitscijfer Veilige samenleving index van de luchtkwaliteit Schoon Milieu werkloosheidscijfer Bloeiende Economie
    7. 7. Van Wensen naar Wegen Wensen Wegen Van Woorden naar Daden PopulatiePrestatie RESULTAAT of UITKOMST INDICATOR or BENCHMARK PRESTATIE MAATSTAF Klant resultaat = Wens Dienst verlening = Weg Van Woorden naar Daden
    8. 8. 1. Veilige samenleving 2. Criminaliteitscijfer 3. Gemiddelde reactietijd van de politie 4. Een buurt zonder graffiti 5. % onderzochte gebouwen zonder graffity 6. Mensen hebben banen en basis inkomens 7. % met een baan en basis inkomen 8. % deelnemers aan arbeidsreïntegratie die een baan met basis inkomen verwerven IS HET EEN RESULTAAT, INDICATOR OF PRESTATIE MAATSTAF? RESULTAAT INDICATOR PR. MAATSTAF RESULTAAT INDICATOR RESULTAAT INDICATOR PR. MAATSTAF
    9. 9. Resultaten – Indicatoren – Prestatiemaatstaven in Amhaars, Cambodjaans, Laotiaans, Somali, Spaans, Tigrigna, Vietnamees
    10. 10. Vertaalgids/Steen vanRosetta Niet de Taalpolitie Ideeën 1. Een toe- stand van wel- zijn voor kinde- ren, volwas- senen, families en gemeen- schappen 2. 3. etc. Groep 1 Groep 2 Groep 3 etc. Resultaat Uitkomst Doel Vertaling Terug naar het idee
    11. 11. Bevolkings- verantwoording Fiscal Policy Studies Institute Santa Fe, New Mexico www.resultsaccountability.com www.raguide.org Voor de hele bevolking in een geografisch gebied
    12. 12. Resultaten voor alle inwoners van een land, provincie, stad of buurt ● Een bloeiende economie ● Een schoon milieu ● Gezonde en veilige gemeenschappen ● Kinderen voorbereid op en succesvol in school ● Ouders en andere volwassenen gezond en in staat om in eigen inkomen te voorzien ● Ouderen worden gerespecteerd en kunnen hun eigen keuzes bepalen Zie ook: “Gezond, Welvarend en Wijs” of “De Vrijheid van Leven en het Streven naar Geluk”
    13. 13. Resultaten voor Kinderen, Families en Gemeenschappen Een Werkschema ● Gezonde geboorten ● Gezonde kinderen en volwassenen ● Kinderen voorbereid voor de basisschool ● Kinderen maken school af ● Jongeren komen niet in problemen ● Stabiele families ● Families hebben voldoende inkomen ● Veilige en zorgzame gemeenschappen
    14. 14. Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families Resultaten ● Gezonde kinderen ● Kinderen voorbereid voor school ● Kinderen maken school af ● Sterke families ● Families zijn in staat om in eigen inkomen te voorzien
    15. 15. Georgia San Mateo, CA Dayton, OH Santa Cruz, CA Rapporten
    16. 16. Placer County, California RESULTATEN voor KINDEREN VEILIG GEZOND THUIS IN SCHOOL NIET IN PROBLEMEN
    17. 17. WEGEN geen WENSEN 1. SAMENWERKING 2. HERVORMING VAN HET SYSTEEM 3. INTEGRATIE DIENSTVERLENING 4. DECENTRALISATIE 5. GEZAMENLIJKE FONDSEN Naar groeiende resultaten Op zichzelf staand
    18. 18. Lekkend dak (Resultaat van nadenken in het dagelijks leven) Ervaring: Maatstaf: Verhaal achter het uitgangspunt (oorzaken): Partners: Wat werkt: Actieplan: cm water ? Gemaakt Niet OK De curve ombuigen
    19. 19. “We hebben het geld niet dus moeten we gaan nadenken.” Lord Rutherford 1871 - 1937
    20. 20. Criteria voor Keuze van Indicatoren zoals Primaire versus Secondaire Maatstaven Communication Power Proxy Power Data Power Spreekt de indicator een groot deel van de betrokkenen aan? Zegt de indicator iets van centraal belang voor het resultaat? Brengt de indicator overzicht in de data MASSA? Beschikbaarheid van data op een periodieke basis en van goede kwaliteit.
    21. 21. Kiezen van indicatoren Werkblad Uitkomst van het resultaat:_______________________ Kandidaat Indicatoren Communication Power Proxy Power Data Power H M L H Maatstaf 1 Maatstaf 2 Maatstaf 3 Maatstaf 4 Maatstaf 5 Maatstaf 6 Maatstaf 7 Maatstaf 8 H Data Ontwikkeling Agenda Veilige gemeenschap H M L H M L H H H L
    22. 22. 3-delige Indicatorenlijst voor elk resultaat Deel 1: Primaire Indicatoren Deel 2: Secondair Indicatoren Deel 3: Data Ontwikkeling Agenda ● 2 of 3 of 4 “Hoofdlijn” Indicatoren ● Wat ‘betekent’ dit resultaat voor de gemeenschap ● Komt overeen met de ‘Public Square Test’ ● Al het andere dat ook maar nuttig is (Niets wordt verspild.) ● Wordt later gebruikt voor het verhaal achter de curve ● Nieuwe data ● Data die hersteld moeten worden (kwaliteit, passend zijn etc.)
    23. 23. De Zaak van de Basislijn Basislijnen hebben 2 delen: verleden en toekomst H M L Verleden Toekomst De curve ombuigenPoint to Point OK?
    24. 24. De kosten van slechte resultaten Investeer in preventie om jaarlijkse kosten te drukken of te vermijden. De kosten om problemen achteraf te herstellen Investerings- lijnKosten $300 billion Opbrengsten Convergentie van kosten & opbrengsten
    25. 25. 2005
    26. 26. SLECHT
    27. 27. Omslag
    28. 28. Alternatief voor Traditionele Evaluatie Methoden: AANTONEN van een BIJDRAGE Aan complexe veranderingen… vereist 3 elementen: Een curve om te buigen 1 We probeerden a heleboel wegen die een geloofwaardige kans maakten om dingen te veranderen … 2 …en dit had een passende relatie met…. 3 …. het buigen van de curve c FPSI
    29. 29. - Rosell “Als ik jou erbij betrek, word je mijn partner. Als ik je buitensluit, word je mijn rechter.”
    30. 30. Resultaat verantwoording Voor Programma’s, Agentschappen and Dientverleners Fiscal Policy Studies Institute Santa Fe, New Mexico www.resultsaccountability.com www.raguide.org
    31. 31. RESULTAATVERANTWOORDING bestaat uit twee delen: Prestatieverantwoording over het welzijn van de DOELGROEP Voor Programma’s – Agentschappen – en Dienstverleners Bevolkingsverantwoording over het welzijn van de GEHELE BEVOLKING Voor Buurten – Gemeenten – Provincies – Staten - Naties
    32. 32. “Alle prestatiemaatstaven die ooit hebben bestaan in ongeacht elk programma in de gehele geschiedenis komen neer op op het beantwoorden van twee met elkaar verbonden vragen.”
    33. 33. Hoe Veel deden we? ( # ) Hoe Goed deden we het? ( % ) Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Prestatiemaatstaven
    34. 34. Inspanning Hoe hard deden we ons best? Effect Is iemand er beter van geworden? Performance Measures
    35. 35. Inspanning Effect Hoe veel Hoe goed Prestatiemaatstaven
    36. 36. Hoe veel diensten hebben we verleend? Prestatiemaatstaven Hoe goed hebben we ze verleend? Hoe veel veran- dering / effect hebben we bereikt? Welke kwaliteit van verandering/ effect hebben we bereikt? Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning OutputInput
    37. 37. Hoe veel hebbe we gedaan? Prestatiemaatstaven Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Is iemand er beter van geworden? Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning # %
    38. 38. Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Onderwijs Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Is iemand er beter van geworden? Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning Aantal studenten Verdeling student-docent Aantal afgestudeerden middelbare school Percentage afgestudeerden middelbare school
    39. 39. Onderwijs Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning Percentage leerlingen MO die tijdig afstuderen en een vervolg- opleiding volgen of baan vinden na hun examen Aantal leerlingen MO die tijdig afstuderen en een vervolgopleiding vol- gen of baan vinden na hun examen Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Aantal studenten Verdeling student-docent Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    40. 40. Gezondheidskliniek Aantal behandelde patienten Percentage patienten dat binnen een uur behandeld werd Winst bedrag Aantal herstelden (voor patienten van de kliniek) Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Winst percentage Herstel percentage (voor patienten van de kliniek) EffectInspanning Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    41. 41. Consultatiebureau # kinderen volledig ingeënt (door het bureau) % kinderen volledig ingeënt (door het bureau) EffectInspanning Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Aantal behandelde patienten Percentage patienten dat binnen een uur behandeld werd Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    42. 42. Drug/Alcohol behandelingsprogramma Aantal behandelde personen Percentage geschoolde/ gecertifceerde medewerkers Aantal cliënten afgekickt van alcohol & drugs - direct na afloop - 12 maanden na afloop Percentage cliënten afgekickt van alcohol & drugs - direct na afloop - 12 maanden na afloop Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? EffectInspanning Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    43. 43. Brandweerkazerne Aantal keren uitgerukt Hoe snel bij de brand Percentage schade aan gebouwen bij meldingen Hoeveelheid schade aan gebouwen bij meldingen Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    44. 44. General Motors # productie per uur # tonnen staal Arbeiders per geproduceerd voertuig # auto’s verkocht $ winst bedrag $ autowaarde na 2 jaar Source: USA Today 9/28/98 % Markt aandeel Winst per aandeel % autowaarde na 2 jaar Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? EffectInspanning Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    45. 45. Niet alle prestatiemaatstaven zijn gelijkwaardig Minst belangrijk Kwaliteit EffectEffort Meest belangrijk Minst Meest Ook erg belangrijk KwaliteitKwantiteit Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? Hoe goed hebben we dit gedaan? Is iemand er beter van geworden?
    46. 46. RBA bevat alle categorieën van prestatiemaatstaven (in de geschiedenis van het heelal) Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Efficiëntie, adm. overhead, kosten per eenheid, verhouding inzet personeel, personeelsomzet, personeels moreel, toegankelijkheid, wachttijden, wachtlijsten, personeelsveiligheid Klant tevredenheid (kwaliteit dienstverlening & klantenvoordeel) Kosten / Opbrengst verdeling Rendement van de investering Klant resultaat of omzet per klant Effectiviteit Toegevoegde waarde Productiviteit Voordeelwaarde Produkt Output Impact Proces Input EffectInspanning Kosten TQM Effectiviteit Efficiëntie
    47. 47. kwantiteit Kwaliteit Proces Input EffectInspanning Kosten TQM Produkt Output Impact RBA bevat alle categorieën van prestatiemaatstaven (in de geschiedenis van het heelal) Efficiëntie, adm. overhead, kosten per eenheid, verhouding inzet personeel, personeelsomzet, personeels moreel, toegankelijkheid, wachttijden, wachtlijsten, personeelsveiligheid Klant tevredenheid (kwaliteit dienstverlening & klantenvoordeel) Kosten / Opbrengst verdeling Rendement van de investering Klant resultaat of omzet per klant Effectiviteit Toegevoegde waarde Productiviteit Voordeelwaarde
    48. 48. Kwantiteit Kwaliteit Proces Input EffectInspanning Kosten TQM 1. Hebben we je goed behandeld? 2. Hebben we je probleem verholpen? * Produkt Output Impact * ‘s Werelds eenvoudigste complete klanttevredenheidsonderzoek Voordeelwaarde Efficiëntie, adm. overhead, kosten per eenheid, verhouding inzet personeel, personeelsomzet, personeels moreel, toegankelijkheid, wachttijden, wachtlijsten, personeelsveiligheid RBA bevat alle categorieën van prestatiemaatstaven (in de geschiedenis van het heelal) Klant tevredenheid (kwaliteit dienstverlening & klantenvoordeel) Kosten / Opbrengst verdeling Rendement van de investering Klant resultaat of omzet per klant Effectiviteit Toegevoegde waarde Productiviteit
    49. 49. Niet alle prestatiemaatstaven zijn gelijkwaardig Quantity Quality Voordeelwaarde EffectEffort TQM Produkt Output Impact Kosten Proces Input Effectiviteit Toegevoegde waarde Productiviteit Kosten / Opbrengst verdeling Rendement van de investering Klant resultaat of omzet per klant Efficiëntie, adm. overhead, kosten per eenheid, verhouding inzet personeel, personeelsomzet, personeels moreel, toegankelijkheid, wachttijden, wachtlijsten, personeelsveiligheid Klant tevredenheid (kwaliteit dienstverlening & klantenvoordeel)
    50. 50. Hoe veel hebben we gedaan? De kwestie van controle Hoe goed hebben we het gedaan? Is iemand er beter van geworden? Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning Minst Controle Partnerschappen Meest Controle
    51. 51. De kwestie van gebruik 1. Het eerste doel van prestatiemeting is prestaties te verbeteren. 2. Vermijd de prestatiemeting betekent bestraffing valkuil. ● Creëer een gezonde organisatie omgeving. ● Begin klein. ● Bouw gelijktijdig bottom-up en top-down.
    52. 52. 1. Met ons zelf Kunnen we het beter dan in ons verleden? 2. Met anderen Als tenminste eerlijk appels met appels vergeleken worden. 3. Met standaarden Als we weten wat goede prestaties zijn. Prestaties vergelijken
    53. 53. 2. Met anderen Als tenminste eerlijk appels met appels vergeleken worden. 3. Met standaarden Als we weten wat goede prestaties zijn. Prestaties vergelijken 1. Met ons zelf eerst kunnen we het beter dan in ons verleden? Gebruik een GRAFIEK VAN DE BASISLIJN OP DE MUUR
    54. 54. Belonen? Straffen? 1. Met ons zelf eerst kunnen we het beter dan in ons verleden? Prestaties vergelijken 2. Met anderen Als tenminste eerlijk appels met appels vergeleken worden. 3. Met standaarden Als we weten wat goede prestaties zijn.
    55. 55. Prestaties vergelijken 1. Met ons zelf eerst kunnen we het beter dan in ons verleden? 2. Met anderen Als tenminste eerlijk appels met appels vergeleken worden. 3. Met standaarden Als we weten wat goede prestaties zijn.
    56. 56. De kwestie van normen kwantiteit EffectInspanning 1. Kwantiteits- of Inspanningsnormen zijn soms VAST VERANKERD ● Personeelsbezetting kinderopvang ● Verwerkingstijd applicaties ● Toegankelijkheid voor gehandicapten ● Reactietijd bij kindermishandeling 2. Kwaliteits- of Effectnormen zijn bijna altijd EXPERIMENTEEL ● Hersteltijden na ziekenhuisopname ● Uitplaatsing en baanbehoud cijfers ● Recidivisme cijfers 3. Beide vereisen een VASTGELEGDE en GEACCEPTEERDE OMSCHRIJVING van wat goede prestaties zijn. MAAR EN
    57. 57. Geavanceerde Basislijn Weergave Uw Basislijn Vergelijkende Basislijn Doel (lijn) Doelstellling of Norm In plaats daarvan: Tel alles beter dan de basislijn als vooruitgang. Vermijd mogelijk publieke uitspraken over jaardoelen. ● Creëer doelstellingen alleen wanner ze: REDELIJK & NUTTIG zijn
    58. 58. Hoe veel deden we? Programma Prestatiemaatstaven Hoe goed deden we dit? Is iemand er beter van geworden? Kwantiteit Kwaliteit EffectInspanning # %
    59. 59. Leken Definitie Alle data hebben twee gezichten Technische Definitie MO afstudeerpercentage % ingeschreven 1 juni dat slaagt op 15 juni % ingeschreven op 1 sept. dat slaagt op 15 juni % ingeschreven in het 1e jaar dat slaagt in het 4e jaar
    60. 60. Hoe veel deden we? Het kaf van het koren scheiden Types van maatstaven die in elk kwadrant terugkomen Hoe goed deden we dit? Is iemand er beter van geworden? # Cliënten/klanten geholpen # Activiteiten (per soort activiteit) % Gemeensch. maatstaven e.g. verhouding cliënt/staf, cijfers werkbelasting, omzet per werknemer, werknemerstevredenheid, % personeel volledig gekwalificeerd, kosten per afdeling % Competenties / Kennis (bijv. opvoedkundige competenties) # % Houding / Opinie (bijv. t.o.v. drugs) # % Gedrag (bijv. school bezoek) # % Omstandigheden (bijv. werkend, vaste woonplaats) # % Activiteitspecifieke maatstaven bijv. % passend, % cliënten die activiteit afmaken, % correct en compleet, % vergadernorm Punt op tijd vs. punt om te verbeteren
    61. 61. Hoe veel deden we? Keuzee hoofdlijn maatstaven en de Data Ontwikkeling Agenda Hoe goed deden we dit? Is er iemand beter van geworden? Kwantiteit KwaliteitEffectInspanning # Maatstaf 1 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 2 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 3 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 4 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 5 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 6 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 7 ---------------------------- #1 Hoofdlijn #2 Hoofdlijn #3 Hoofdlijn #1 DOA #2 DOA #3 DOA% Maatstaf 8 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 9 ----------------------------- % Maatstaf 10 --------------------------- % Maatstaf 11 --------------------------- % Maatstaf 12 --------------------------- % Maatstaf 13 --------------------------- % Maatstaf 14 --------------------------- # Maatstaf 15 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 16 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 17 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 18 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 19 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 20 ---------------------------- # Maatstaf 21 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 15 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 16 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 17 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 18 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 19 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 20 ---------------------------- % Maatstaf 21 ----------------------------
    62. 62. LR UR
    63. 63. Hoe Bevolkings & Prestatie verantwoording SAMEN PASSEN
    64. 64. RELATIE VERHOUDING Overzicht van maatstaven Aangewezen verantwoordelijk heid De BAND Tussen BEVOLKING and PRESTATIE BEVOLKING VERANTWOORDING Gezonde geboorten Cijfers van babies met te laag geboortegewicht Stabiele families Cijfers over verwaarlozing of mishandeling van kinderen Kinderen succesvol op school Percentage dat tijdig slaagt voor middelbare school diploma KLANT RESULTAAT # afgeronde onderzoeken % afgerond binnen 24 uur na melding # herhaalde mishandeling /verwaarlozing % herhaling mishandeling /verwaarlozing PRESTATIE VERANTWOORDING Jeugd Welzijns Programma BEVOLKINGS RESULTAAT Jeugd Welzijns Programma
    65. 65. BEVOLKINGS VERANTWOORDING Gezonde geboorten Cijfers babies met te laag geboortegewicht kinderen voorbereid voor school Percentage kleuters dat slaagt voor ‘kleutertoets’ Zelfvoorzienende families Percentage ouders dat een inkomen verdient KLANT RESULTAAT # personen die een training volgden Kosten per persoon per training # personen die baan met basissalaris verwierven % personen met baan en basissalaris PRESTATIE VERANTWOORDING BEVOLKINGS RESULTAAT Arbeidreïntegratie programma De BAND Tussen BEVOLKING and PRESTATIE RELATIE VERHOUDING Overzicht van maatstaven Aangewezen verantwoordelijk heid
    66. 66. Elke keer dat je een presentatie maakt, Gebruik een 2-delige aanpak Resultaat: aan wat u het directs bijdraagt. Indicatoren: Verhaal: Partners: Wat zou het kosten?: Uw rol: als deel van een grotere strategie. Bevolkingsverantwoording Progamma: Prestatiemaatstaven Verhaal: Partners: Actieplan voor verbetering: Prestatieverantwoording Uw rol
    67. 67. Elke keer als u een presentatie maakt, Gebruik een 2-delig format Resultaat: aan wat u het directs bijdraagt. Indicatoren: Verhaal: Partners: Wat zou het kosten?: Uw rol: als deel van een grotere strategie. Bevolkingsverantwoording Programma: Prestatie maatstaven: Verhaal: Partners: Actieplan voor verbetering: Prestatieverantwoording Uw rol
    68. 68. Division #1 Program #1
    69. 69. Population Results 1. Population 2. Results (Outcomes, Goals) 3. Indicators (Benchmarks) Data Development Agenda Report Card 4. Baseline 5. Story behind the baseline Cost of Bad Results Research Agenda Part 1 6. Partners 7. What works Research Agenda Part 2 8. Action Plan (strategy) 9. Funding Plan (budget) Program Performance 1. Customers (Clients) 2. Performance measures Customer results Quality of Effort Quantity of Effort Data Development Agenda 3. Baseline 4. Story behind the baseline Research Agenda Part 1 5. Partners 6. What works Agency/program actions Partner's actions Research Agenda Part 2 7. Action Plan (strategy) 8. Funding Plan Framework: __________ Framework Crosswalk Analysis (For Population Well-being, Across Communities, Across Systems) (For Programs, Agencies and Service Systems) Example Input Activity Output Outcome Goal Logic Model
    70. 70.
    71. 71. 6. Verandering in actieplan en budget6. Verandering in actieplan en budget 7. W.V.T.T.K.7. W.V.T.T.K. 5. Nieuwe informatie over financiering5. Nieuwe informatie over financiering 4. Nieuwe information over wat werkt.4. Nieuwe information over wat werkt. 3. Nieuwe partners3. Nieuwe partners 2. Nieuw verhaal over de curves2. Nieuw verhaal over de curves 1. Nieuwe gegevens1. Nieuwe gegevens Directievergadering AGENDA
    72. 72. Verschillende soorten vooruitgang 1. Data a. Bevolkingsindicatoren Echt gebogen curves: beweging naar een betere situatie vanaf de basislijn. b. Programma prestatie maatstaven: klantengroei en betere service: Hoe veel deden we? Hoe goed deden we dit? Is iemand er beter van geworden? 2. Realisaties: Positieve activiteiten, niet hierboven genoemd. 3. Verhalen achter de statistieken die aantonen dat individuelen beter af zijn.
    73. 73. Wat Nu? Een basis actieplan voor resultaatverantwoording SPOOR 1: BEVOLKINGS VERANTWOORDING ● Bepaal resultaten ● Bepaal indicatoren, basislijnen en grafieken op de muur ● Ontwikkel een rapportagemethodiek voor de indicatoren ● Richt actiegroepen op om de curves te buigen SPOOR 2: PRESTATIE VERANTWOORDING ● Prestatiemaatstaven, en grafieken op de muur voor programma’s, agentschappen en dienstverleners ● Gebruik 7 vragen van supervisor tot supervisor en programma tot program in management, budgeting en strategische planning
    74. 74. TER AFSLUITING
    75. 75. “Als je doet wat je altijd deed, krijg je wat je altijd kreeg.” Kenneth W. Jenkins President, Yonkers NY NAACP
    76. 76. BEDANKT ! WEBSITES: www.raguide.org www.resultsaccountability.com BOEKEN BESTELLEN: www.trafford.com www.amazon.com
    77. 77. OEFENINGEN Fiscal Policy Studies Institute Santa Fe, New Mexico www.resultsaccountability.com www.raguide.org
    78. 78. Buig de curve oefening: Bevolkings welzijn 5 min: Uitgangspunten - tijdwaarnemer en verslaglegger - geografisch gebied - twee petten (je eigen plus je partner’s) 10 min: Basislijn - kies een resultaat en een curve om te buigen - voorspelling – OK of niet OK? 15 min: Verhaal achter de basislijn - oorzaken/krachten aan het werk - informatie & onderzoek agenda deel 1 - oorzaken 15 min: Wat werkt? (Wat is ervoor nodig?) - wat kan dit werk bijdragen? - de bijdrage van elke partner - gratis / goedkope ideeën - informatie & onderzoek agenda deel 2 – wat werkt 10 min: Rapportage beperk aantekeningen tot een pagina Twee wijzers naar acties
    79. 79. EEN PAGINA Buig de Curve Rapport: Bevolking Resultaat: _______________ Indicator (Leken definitie) Indicator Basislijn Verhaal acher de basislijn --------------------------- --------------------------- (Zo veel als nodig toevoegen) Partners --------------------------- --------------------------- (zo veel als nodig toevoegen) Drie beste ideeën – wat werkt 1. --------------------------- 2. --------------------------- 3. ---------Gratis / goedkoop Kort & krachtig 4. --------- Op de muur 4. --------- creatief en origineel
    80. 80. De eerste stap in prestatieverantwoording is een GRENS TE TEKENEN rond iets dat een ORGANISATIONELE of FUNCTIONELE INDENTITEIT is De hele organisatie Divisie A Divisie B Unit Divisie C Functie Unit 1
    81. 81. ● # personen geholpen ● % deelnemers die een baan verwierven ● personeelsomzetcijfer ● # deelnemers die een baan verwierven ● % kinderen die in groep 3 al konden lezen ● kosten per eenheid dienstverlening ● # toepassingen verwerkt ● % patiënten die volledig herstellen Welke soort PRESTATIE MAATSTAF? Linksboven Rechtsonder Rechtsboven Linksonder Rechtsonder Linksboven Linksboven Rechtsonder
    82. 82. Buig de curve oefening: Programma prestaties 5 min: Uitgangspunten - tijdwaarnemer en verslaglegger - bepaal een programma om aan te werken - twee peten (je eigen plus je partner’s) 10 min: Prestatiemaatstaf basislijn - kies 1 maatstaf om mee te werken – uit het kwadrant linksonder - voorspel – OK of niet OK? 15 min: Verhaal achter de basislijn - oorzaken/krachten aan het werk - informatie & onderzoek agenda deel 1 - oorzaken 15 min: Wat Werkt? (Wat is ervoor nodig?) - wat kan dit werk bijdragen? - bijdrage van elke partner - gratis / goedkope ideeën - informatie & onderzoek agenda deel 2 – wat werkt 10 min: Rapportage Beperk aantekeningen tot een pagina Twee wijzers naar acties
    83. 83. Programma: _______________ Prestatiemaatstaf (Leken definitie)Prestatie Maatstaf Basislijn Verhaal achter de basislijn --------------------------- --------------------------- (Zoveel toevoegen als nodig) Partners --------------------------- --------------------------- (Zoveel toevoegen als nodig) Drie beste ideeën – wat werkt 1. --------------------------- 2. --------------------------- 3. ---------gratis / goedkoop EEN Pagina Buig de curve rapport: Prestatie Kort & krachtig 4. --------- creatief en origineel 4. --------- Op de muur

    ×