3. Overview
A brief look into the Catholic Charities organization.
• Established in 1912
• 1 of 160 CCUSA member agencies
• Assists 147,000+ people annually in 11
countries
• 65 branches currently have Refugee
Resettlement
National St. Louis
Our Focus: Refugee and Immigrant Services
• Works with the department of state
• 207 refugees resettled to date, 1,115
immigrants served in total
• Resettlement occurs over period of 90 or
180 days
4. Agency Issue
Our research investigates opportunities and areas of improvement for the Catholic Charities.
How can the Catholic Charities of St. Louis benchmark itself in regards
to the other branches that also conduct refugee resettlement? What
data should be collected/analyzed?
Agency Issue
Research
Objectives
• What defines “self sufficiency” for a given refugee?
• What factors should be taken into account when deciding
how much progress has been made?
• What are the areas of improvement that can aid in the
benchmarking process?
5. Narrowing Down the Scope
In order to benchmark, we solicited all relevant data from various branches and sorted it based off of pertinence.
Various CC Agencies Pool of Data
What does the CCSTL think is most
important to measure?
Education
Employment
Assimilation
6. Methodology
Our benchmarking process involved compiling results and conducting data analysis.
Compilation and Data Sorting Data Analysis
Gap Analysis Communication Strategy
Approach
7. BENCHMARKING
1. DATA USED FOR BENCHMARKING AND ISSUES
2. GROUPING CITIES
3. INTERPRETATION OF BENCHMARKING
4. CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ST. LOUIS
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
8. Data Used for Benchmarking
We analyzed the data that was used in the 2011 Matching Grant Program.
2011 Matching Grant
Program
• % of employable adults
• Full-time and Part-time
• Health benefits
• Cases of self-sufficiency at
• 120 days
• 180 days
Useful Measures
• Lack of current data
• Lack of data from every branch
• Lack of data from past 180 days
• Outcome factors defined by CCSTL are not being collected
Issues
9. Grouping Cities
Cities should be grouped to provide more equal comparison.
Criteria
Economic Factors
Job Creation
GDP Per Capita Change
Median Gross Monthly Rent
Population-Based Factors
Total Population
Foreign-Born Population
Weights will be assigned to each statistic based on Catholic Charities’ observations of success factors
10. Grouping Cities
Cities should be grouped to provide more equal comparison.
Group A
• Populations > 800,000
• Large percentage foreign born population
• Strong economic conditions
Group C
• Populations between around 100,000 and 400,000
• Medium percentage foreign born population
• Average economic conditions
Group B
• Populations between around 400,000 and 800,000
• Large percentage foreign born percentage
• Average economic conditions
Group D
• Populations less than 100,000
• Small percentage foreign born population
• Poor economic conditions
11. Grouping Cities
Once data has been collected, the CCSTL can then effectively compare with other branches using these metrics.
15%
14%
42%
29%
City Grouping Data
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
• Mean % Employed: 55.94%
• Mean % SS cases at 120 days: 53%
• Mean % SS cases at 180 days: 65%
• Mean % Employed: 48.45%
• Mean % SS cases at 120 days: 53%
• Mean % SS cases at 180 days: 64%
• Mean % Employed: 42.4%
• Mean % SS cases at 120 days: 52%
• Mean % SS cases at 180 days: 71%
• Mean % Employed: 41.97%
• Mean % SS cases at 120 days: 48%
• Mean % SS cases at 180 days: 59%
12. Interpretation of Benchmarking
A look at CC’s benchmarking shows that it could be more comprehensive in order to compare with other branches.
• To create a standard that encourages collaboration among branches
Purpose
• Help ID potential factors and hone in on problematic statistics
• Some factors are out of the Catholic Charities’ hands such as:
• Movement out of cities
• Illness
• Loss of contact with client
Implication
• To measure this, more communication is necessary with other branches in similar cities
Takeaway
13. Current Standpoint of St. Louis
Cities should be grouped together prior to benchmarking to provide more consistency.
Collected Data (2011) Average St. Louis
% Employable with jobs 48.5% 52.38%
% Employed full time 36.59% 47.62%
% Employed part time 11.86% 4.76%
% with health benefits 57.68% 75.76%
% Self sufficient at 120 days 53% 54%
% Self sufficient at 180 days 64% 27%
Point of
Investigation
14. Research: Survey
Our survey was disseminated to key stakeholders in Catholic Charities.
• If there were three to five Refugee Services metrics you
would like to start being collected (which would assess
success), what would they be?
• Do you believe that “self-sufficiency” as currently used in
the Refugee Placement Program is an effective measure of
the program’s success? If no, how would you like it to be
measured?
• How would you describe the communication, in terms of
discussing benchmarking best practices, between various
branches of Catholic Charities?
Questions
15. Survey Results
We found that over half of those surveyed thought that the Charities’ current definition of “self-sufficiency” was inadequate.
“Ideal” Data
Collections
Measures
Current
Communication
within the
Agency
Definition of
“Self-
Sufficiency”
16. Additional Implementations
We also have prepared other recommendations that should be considered.
Further
Recommendations
12-Month TrackingNetwork-Wide Measurements“Self-Sufficiency” Redefined
Education
Employment
Cultural Proficiency
18. Implementation
Data collection will be an efficient and intuitive process.
Case worker inputs data for
compilation
Each branch averages data
every quarter and sends
data to “city group”
facilitator
City group facilitator
compiles the data and
organizes the quarterly
benchmarking meeting.
Facilitator sends out
agendas for the meeting
and each meeting should
tackle a specific metric.
Benchmarking meeting
attended by working group
and city group facilitator Implementation
19. Communication
Agendas will be prepared regularly for meetings to optimize communication.
Meeting
Purpose
This meeting offers an opportunity for each branch to discuss their data in the context of other
branches, improve services and increase impact.
Meeting Length: 1 hour 30 minutes
Individual Branch Insights
45 Minutes
Group Insights
45 Minutes
20. Implementation
Catholic Charities should keep the following points in mind when implementing our recommendations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Have Top Management Set the Tone
Establish Clear Roles
Be Clear About Program Intent
Demonstrate Value to CCUSA and its
Branches
Provide Training
Schedule Check-Ins and Share Results
Regularly
Set Timelines for Deliverables
21. Risks
There are several minor risks involved with our recommendations which should be noted.
Issues with Self-Reporting
Inter-Agency Competition
Failure of Implementation Preventing
Internal Analysis
Skewed Statistics
Risks
22. Impact
Our recommendations will have significant impact on the refugee resettlement program.
Internal Understanding of Strengths
& Weaknesses
Framework to Spearhead Nationwide
Improvement
Improved Outcomes for R&IS
Services
Foster Discussion of Relevant Best
Practices
Revamped Refugee Resettlement
Program
23. Conclusion
We firmly believe that the Catholic Charities will be able to improve on its already excellent resettlement services.
How can the Catholic Charities of St. Louis benchmark itself in regards
to the other branches that also conduct refugee resettlement? What
data should be collected/analyzed?
Agency Issue
• The Catholic Charities has many
branches that are spread widely
across the United States.
• The data collected from all of
these branches is inconsistent.
• Greater understanding of areas of
improvement
• More inter-branch discussion
• Better outcomes for Refugee
Resettlement
• Grouped Cities
• “City Group” Facilitators
• Centralized survey system
• Regular meetings to discuss
statistics
ImpactRecommendationOverview
