1.
<ul><li>A presentation by </li></ul><ul><li>Jeff Tryens </li></ul><ul><li>Measures Matter </li></ul><ul><li>to the </li></ul><ul><li>Greater Portland-Vancouver </li></ul><ul><li>Regional Indicators Advisory Team </li></ul><ul><li>27 September, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Portland State University </li></ul>Characteristics of Indicator Programs that Engage Partners Effectively

2.
<ul><li>Metro (the Portland-area regional government) in cooperation with the Institute for Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University is developing a new set of greater Portland/Vancouver (WA) indicators ( http://www.pdx.edu/ims/indicators/ ). </li></ul><ul><li>This presentation was intended to provide the advisory committee overseeing the project with information about how “successful” indicator programs engage partners in the use of their data. The findings are drawn from a survey conducted during the summer of 2010. </li></ul>Background: Regional Indicators for Greater Portland

3.
<ul><li>are intended to improve community well-being; </li></ul><ul><li>use community-level indicators to inform, engage, intervene, or fund; </li></ul><ul><li>are considered at least somewhat successful; and </li></ul><ul><li>represent a broad cross-section of types and locations. </li></ul>27 programs were chosen that…

4.
<ul><li>Effectiveness was assessed against seven program aspects: </li></ul><ul><li>Improving well-being in the community; </li></ul><ul><li>Engaging partners/stakeholders - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>overall; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>through indicator development/revision; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>through incentives/requirements; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>through communication strategies; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>through encouraging collaboration; and </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Linking with similar programs in the area. </li></ul>METHODOLOGY: Effectiveness was judged exclusively on respondent self-assessments.

5.
METHODOLOGY: Self-assessed effectiveness in engaging partners was the key comparator. <ul><li>11 respondents considered their programs very effective at engaging partners, overall. </li></ul><ul><li>They were compared with the 16 others that rated themselves somewhat effective at engaging partners, overall. </li></ul>

6.
<ul><li>inform sponsors about community issues; </li></ul><ul><li>influence sponsors’ decision making; </li></ul><ul><li>spur community action; </li></ul><ul><li>facilitate public/private alignment; and </li></ul><ul><li>facilitate systems thinking. </li></ul>Programs that say they partner very effectively are more likely to be in business to….. <ul><li>They are less likely to be in business to…. </li></ul><ul><li>increase public awareness. </li></ul>

7.
<ul><li>community indicators are central to their programs; </li></ul><ul><li>overseers are very familiar with program information; and </li></ul><ul><li>overseers use program information. </li></ul>OVERSIGHT: Programs that say they partner very effectively are more likely to say that……

8.
<ul><li>involve partners in periodic updates ; </li></ul><ul><li>have regular dialogues with partners about data; and </li></ul><ul><li>regularly solicit suggestions for change. </li></ul>INDICATORS: Programs that say they partner very effectively are much more likely to….. <ul><li>All programs are likely to…. </li></ul><ul><li>involve partners in initial selection of indicators. </li></ul>

9.
Yes No While both levels of effectiveness tend to encourage partners to collaborate….. Very effective Somewhat effective

10.
20% 40% 0% 60% 80% … .the more successful ones tend to do more types of collaboration, more often. Very effective Somewhat effective

11.
<ul><li>interactive websites (67% vs. 27%) and </li></ul><ul><li>gatherings (45% vs. 7%). </li></ul><ul><li>And they are more likely to communicate extensively or moderately by…. </li></ul><ul><li>news feeds; </li></ul><ul><li>social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.); </li></ul><ul><li>blogs; and </li></ul><ul><li>memos. </li></ul>COMMUNICATION: Very effective partnering programs are more extensive users of…..

12.
<ul><li>Only half say they are very effective at engaging partners in indicator development. </li></ul><ul><li>Only half say they are very effective at engaging partners in collaborations. </li></ul><ul><li>Just one-third say they are very effective at communicating with partners. </li></ul><ul><li>Just one-third (of a small base) say their incentives or requirements are very effective at engaging others. </li></ul>But even with the very effective partnering groups, there’s no silver bullet. <ul><li>And just half say they are very effective at improving community well-being, overall . </li></ul>

13.
<ul><li>Programs that are primarily funded by foundations. </li></ul><ul><li>Programs that have the combined purposes of engagement and performance improvement. </li></ul>Two types of programs tend to consider themselves much more effective at partnering.

14.
<ul><li>Generally, groups that are very effective at partnering don’t employ strategies that are different from groups that are less effective, they just do more of it. </li></ul><ul><li>Very effective groups do tend to rely more on direct engagement with partners – gatherings, collaborative events, targeted communication – than less effective groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Very effective groups tend to have some form of partner accountability or performance improvement as part of their program purpose. </li></ul>Take Away

15.
<ul><li>For more information on the survey, contact: </li></ul><ul><li>Jeff Tryens </li></ul><ul><li>Measures Matter </li></ul><ul><li>503-244-4355 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>Questions?