RBA  - Results Based Accountability

 

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?

PowerPoint-Results Based Accountability - Charlotte Drury - WLGA-48 Slides

 

We continually talk about data being so important and RBA as being the best approach for understanding our situation.

What data do we collect and utilize wisely.

Why does each community need to seek their own data?

And, why is it often several years old already?

Why don’t we provide each person a unique Identifier number and if not their Social Security number, is another needed?

In the communities with increasing poverty, education become inherently more difficult to deliver to the consumer of such services. What entities should be involved in the process to be partners for solutions?

CT has the largest Achievement Gap, How do our lowest performing and highest performing “marks” compare to other states?

In other words, is the gap so large because our best are that much better or our lowest performers so low? Or ___________

How were the 30 lowest performing school Districts chosen?  They appear to be in almost complete correlation to the levels of poverty. 

Then, in each district, is it true that the level of performance correlates to the income level of each school?

If they do have a direct correlation, are there any anomalies that should then be looked at to see how they break the pattern?

If certain towns, or only sections of towns are hit so hard with poverty, what responsibility if any does the remainder of the town or the region have in helping resolve issues that hurt others?

If certain towns, or only sections of towns are hit so hard with poverty, why would anyone want to live there in the first place?

What if any is the difference about who moves to a depressed town, or only sections of town, a neighborhood.  Does it have to do with income level, race, education level????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 2012 Report to the Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services

 

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

Membership List

 

William Carbone, Co-chair, Executive Director, Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division 

 

Nancy Roberts, Co-chair, President, Connecticut Council for Philanthropy

 

Yvette H. Bello, Executive Director, Latino Community Services

 

Maureen Price-Boreland, Executive Director, Community Partners in Action

 

Yolanda Caldera-Durant, Program Associate, Annie E. Casey Foundation 

 

Michelle Cook, State Representative, 65th Assembly District - Torrington.

 

Kathleen Brennan, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Social Services.

 

Charlene Russell-Tucker, Chief of Staff, State Department of Education.

 

Brian Hill, Deputy Director II, Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division

 

Cathy FoleyGeib, Manager of Administrative Services II, Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division

 

Anne McIntyre-Lahner, Program Director, Department of Children and Families 

 

Patrick Hynes, Director - Best Practices Unit, Department of Correction

 

Janet Brancifort, MPH, Public Health Services Manager, Department of Public Health

 

Karin Haberlin, Behavioral Health Program Manager, Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services

 

Timothy Deschenes-Desmond, Planning Specialist, Department of Developmental Services

 

Mark Polzella, Director of Employment Services Department of Labor

 

Susan Keane, Senior Committee Administrator, Appropriations Committee, Connecticut General Assembly

 

Consulting Members

 

Susan Simmat, Policy Development Coordinator, Office of Policy and Management

Peter DeBiasi, President/CEO, The Access Community Action Agency

Bennett Pudlin, The Charter Oak Group, LLC

Ajit Gopalakrishnan, Education Consultant and GED Administrator, State Department of Education

 

Workgroup Charge

 

1.      Using a Results-Based Accountability (RBA) framework, create a comprehensive set of Population Results Statements for use by government and non-profit Health and Human Services agencies.

2.      Identify Headline and Secondary Indicators that provide a method for measuring progress toward the Population Results Statements.

3.      Identify a Data Development Agenda for each Population Result Statement that identifies gaps in data availability.

 

Background

Meetings

 

The Cross Agency Population Results Subcommittee met seven times between December 6, 2011 and May 22, 2012.  Meetings were held at the offices of Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division, the Connecticut Council for Philanthropy and the Legislative Office Building.  Copies of meeting minutes can be found in Appendix A.

 

Organization of the Subcommittee

 

The subcommittee was divided into five working groups according to broad domains intended to encompass the work of health and human services agencies: (1) Safety, (2) Success in School, (3) Healthy, (4) Success in Life for Disabled and Elderly Persons, and (5) Employment and Self-Sufficiency.  The workgroups were led by Brian Hill, Charlene Russell-Tucker, Yvette Bello, Kathleen Brennan, and Yolanda Caldera-Durant, respectively. 

 

Presentations, Guest Speakers, and Technical Assistance

 

Bennett Pudlin from the Charter Oak Group provided technical assistance throughout the project to the Co-chairs and to each of the five working groups.  His expertise in Results-Based Accountability was invaluable to the subcommittee’s work. 

 

Subcommittee members who had not attended training on Results-Based Accountability attended one of two RBA 101 trainings conducted by the Charter Oak Group in January and the Annie E. Casey Foundation in February.  This training was essential to ensure all subcommittee members were grounded in the language of RBA.

 

Susan Keane, Senior Committee Administrator for the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, and Barry Goff from the Charter Oak Group presented to the subcommittee on 12/6/11 regarding the RBA work over the past seven years led by her committee.  Ms. Keane was added to the subcommittee membership to ensure coordination of efforts on these RBA initiatives. 

 

Julia Wilcox, Senior Public Policy Specialist, from Connecticut Nonprofits attended several meetings as a guest and to provide insight from the nonprofit sector broadly.

 

Subcommittee Chairs, William Carbone and Nancy Roberts, met with Senator Toni Harp and Representative Toni Walker, Co-chairs of the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, on April 26, 2012 to review and solicit feedback on each of the result statements and associated indicators.

 

The subcommittee’s proposed Population Results Statements and Headline/Secondary Indicators were reviewed by a number of state and nonprofit agencies prior to finalization.  The technical assistance and feedback received from these agencies was invaluable.  The list of agencies that provided assistance and feedback includes, but is not limited to:  The United Way of Connecticut, Connecticut Association of Nonprofits, the Community Action Agency of New Haven, the Charter Oak Group, the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund, Departments of Social Services, Mental Health and Addiction Services, Public Health, the PSC Housing & The Reaching Home CT Coordinating Committee, The Donaghue Foundation, the Access Community Action Network, the Connecticut Housing Coalition, the Select Committee on Children’s “Children’s Report Card” committee.

 

Data, Information, Studies, etc. used to support findings, recommendations and conclusions

 

Budgeting for Results Commission Report, State of Illinois, Governor Pat Quinn.  November,    2011

 

RBA Reports Cards submitted to the General Assembly, 2009-2012, and all human services result statements contained in RBA materials presented to the Appropriations Committee by state agencies, 2005-2012.

 

Disruptive Forces:  Driving a Human Services Revolution.  Alliance for Children and Families, 2011

 

Fair and Accountable:  Partnership Principles for a Sustainable Human Services System.  Donor’s Forum, 2010.

 

State of Connecticut: Commission on Nonprofit Health and Human Services (2011).  Final Report, Special Act 10-5.

 

Findings

 

First, the subcommittee found substantial overlap with the RBA work of the General Assembly’s Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Children.  Much of the early work of the subcommittee focused on creating a comprehensive inventory of Population Results Statements (also known as Quality of Life Results).  Over thirty existing Population Results Statements submitted by Health and Human Services agencies were categorized in one of thirteen initial domains.  For clarity and communication power, the results statements were ultimately arranged in five domains and working groups were formed with the charge of developing a single results statement for each domain.  The workgroup results statement recommendations (found in Appendix A) mirrored much of the work done in Connecticut to date.

 

Second, each of the five Population Results Statements includes suggested headline and secondary indicators that will help to identify progress toward each result.  These indicators are provided as an initial list of possible indicators for each results statement.  The development of indicators at the population level of RBA is often an iterative process, dependent on data availability and quality.  This process will likely include the creation of a Data Development Agenda that included data not currently collected or available.

 

Finally, the subcommittee unanimously voted to acknowledge and include the work of the Select Committee on Children’s RBA Report Card as a sixth Population Results Statement.  This report card has been the product of a diverse working group that includes representatives from the General Assembly, the executive and judicial branches, the nonprofit sector, local government, parents, child advocates and higher education.  Addressing children from birth to age 18, this report card provides both a result statement and well-refined headline and secondary indicators, which are being publicly reported. 

 

A copy of the Children’s Report Card can be found in Appendix B. 

 

Recommendations

 

Consensus Recommendation

1.      State government and nonprofit agencies should locate their RBA Report Card and budget submission work under one or more of the following Population Result Statements:

a.       All Connecticut residents live in safe families and communities;

b.      All Connecticut residents are economically secure;

c.       All Connecticut residents are developmentally, physically, and mentally healthy across the life span;

d.      All Connecticut residents who are elderly (65+) or have disabilities live engaged lives in supportive environments of their choosing;

e.       All Connecticut residents succeed in education and are prepared for careers, citizenship, and life;

(Found following the subcommittee conclusions)

 

f.       All children grow up in a stable environment, safe, healthy, & ready to succeed (from CT Children’s Report Card, found in Appendix B).

 

Indicators are intended to be disaggregated at various levels, where appropriate and available (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, geography, age).

 

State government and nonprofit agencies can customize these Population Result Statements to focus on the quality of life of the specific populations they serve, if needed. 

 

2.      An organizing body should be established to implement and oversee this work.  A broad and diverse group that includes representation from each branch of state government and nonprofit agencies should be assembled under the direction of an appointed coordinator.

 

Majority Recommendations

           

None

 

Next Steps

 

1.      Operationalize the headline and secondary indicators by gathering the needed data and identifying gaps in data collection. 

 

Conclusion

 

The Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee appreciates the opportunity to organize a diverse group of stakeholder in the development of common results statements.  We believe the recommendations set forth in this final report will provide a solid foundation for the continuation of the use of RBA across state government and the nonprofit sector. 


 

 

Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

 

 

Results Statement:  All Connecticut residents live in safe families and communities.

 

 

Indicators are intended to be disaggregated at various levels, where appropriate and available (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, geography, age).

 

Headline Indicators

 

1.   Per Capita Crime Rate (disaggregated by juveniles, violent and property)

(Dept. of Emergency Management and Homeland Security)

 

2.   Arrests for Domestic Violence (Source:  CT Judicial Branch)

 

3.      Substantiated cases of abuse and neglect – Child and Elder

(Sources:  Depts. of Children and Families and Social Services, Office of Protection and Advocacy)

 

4.      Traffic accident resulting in injury or death per capita  (Dept. of Emergency Management and Homeland Security)

 

5.  School Safety (Youth Risk Behavior Survey)

 

Secondary Indicators

 

1.      Percent of Infrastructure that are unsafe (bridges, roads, “blight”) (Source:  Department of Transportation)

 

2.      Per capita injury or deaths resulting from fires (Dept. of Emergency Management and Homeland Security)

 

3.      Percent of Communities with Updated Emergency Preparedness Plans

(Dept. of Emergency Services and Public Protection)

 

4.      Number of Workplace Accidents/Violence (Source:  OSHA)

 

5.      Rate of recidivism (Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security – Annual Arrests Data)

 

Data Development Agenda:

1. CT Crime Victimization Rates

2. CT Citizen perception of safety

3. Average emergency/rescue response time 

 

 


 

 

Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

 

 

Results Statement: All Connecticut residents are economically secure.

 

Indicators are intended to be disaggregated at various levels, where appropriate and available (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, geography, age).

 

Headline Indicators

 

1.      Unemployment rate for > 6 months and 12 months (DOL)

 

2.      Percent of population with income less than the 200% of Federal Poverty Level (Broken out by age group (youth, adults and seniors)  (U.S. Census)

 

3.      Percent of all households receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) (DSS)

 

4.      Percent of households paying more than 30% and  50% of income towards housing costs (U.S. Census)

 

5.      Percent of adults with post-secondary education (U. S. Census)

 

 

Secondary Indicators

 

1.      Percent of adults with at least a high school diploma (U.S. Census)

 

2.      Percent new workers retained in employment for 6 months and12 months (DOL)

 

3.      Percent of working age residents with affordable child care (DSS)

 

4.      Percent of children with no parent with full-time, year round employment (DOL)

 

5.      Number of jobs by wage level (DOL)

 

6.      Number of residents who are homeless (CT Coalition to End Homelessness Point in Time Count)

 

Data Development Agenda:

 

1.      Determine factors relating to an individual’s ability to work such as disabilities, educational status, etc.

2.      Percent of underemployed getting full-time employment beyond Unemployment Insurance limits

3.      Percent of households/families with savings/assets

4.      Percent of CT residents with reliable transportation

5.      Number of CT residents who are undocumented immigrants

6.      Rate/amount of student loan debt of CT residents.

 


Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

 

 

Results Statement:

All Connecticut residents are developmentally, physically, and mentally healthy across the life span.

 

Indicators are intended to be disaggregated at various levels, where appropriate and available (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, geography, age).

 

Headline Indicators

 

1.      Percent of CT residents without health insurance.(DOI)

 

2.      Premature mortality (all causes) up to age 75 or percent of CT residents who live to age 75.

 

3.      Percent of youth/adults who report mental health as not being good (i.e. stress, depression, and problems with emotions) during the past 30 days. (DMHAS, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBS) and the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

 

4.      Percent  of children born with low/very low birth weight ( DPH)

 

5.      Percent of CT residents who are obese  (BRFSS) and (YRBS)

 

 

Secondary Indicators

 

1.      Mortality rates for the top three causes of death in CT ( DPH Mortality data)

 

2.      Percent of adults who lost more than 6 teeth  (BRFSS)

 

3.      Percent of children who received Birth to Three (early intervention) services who did not require preschool special education services.  (DDS, DOE)

 

4.      Percent of youth/adults who reported having an addiction .   (YRBS) (BRFSS) (DMHAS)

 

5.      Number of days the Air Quality Index exceeds 100  (DEEP)

 

6.      Percent of CT residents who smoke.  (BRFSS) (YRBS)

 

Data Development Agenda:

 

1.      Mortality rates by cause, race and ethnicity

2.      Percent of CT residents that have a medical home.

3.      Oral health for adults

4.      Routine prescription medication adherence.

 


Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

 

 

Results Statement: All Connecticut residents succeed in education and are prepared for careers, citizenship and life.

 

Indicators are intended to be disaggregated at various levels, where appropriate and available (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, geography, age).

 

Headline Indicators

 

1.      Percent of Entering Kindergarteners Needing Substantial Instructional Support ( SDE)

 

2.      Percent of 3rd graders at or above Goal on CMT Reading and Math ( SDE)

 

3.      Cohort High School Graduation Rate ( SDE)

 

4.      Percent of 16-24 year olds employed, in school, or in the military (US Census Bureau)

 

5.      Percent of population age 25-34 with a college degree (US Census Bureau)

 

Secondary Indicators

 

1.      College graduation rate for Connecticut colleges and universities (Board of Regents?)

 

2.      Chronic absenteeism – Percent of students with absences of 10% or greater when compared to the total number of days enrolled in the school year (SDE)

 

3.      Percent of 8th graders at or above Goal on CMT Reading and Math (SDE)

 

4.      Percent of CT Technical High School graduates eligible for National or State Certification /Licensing Credential (Source: SDE)

 

5.      Percent of Connecticut residents without a high school diploma who are enrolled in adult education programs. (Source: SDE and U.S. Census Bureau)

 

6.      Percent of adults registered to vote ( Secretary of the State)

 

7.      Percent of registered voters who vote in elections ( Secretary of the State)

 

Data Development Agenda:

 

1.      Percent with Vocational/Certificate/Professional Licensure program completion (Source: ???)

2.      Percent of kindergarteners with pre-K experience (Source: SDE)

3.      Percent with summer reading loss (Source: SDE)

4.      Naturalization rates by state (Source: USCIS)

5.      Graduation rates for teen parents

 

 


Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services

Cross Agency Population Results Statements Subcommittee

 

 

Results Statement:  All Connecticut residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities live engaged lives in supportive environments of their choosing.

 

Indicators are intended to be disaggregated at various levels, where appropriate and available (e.g. race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, geography, age).

 

Headline Indicators

 

1.      Percent  of employed CT residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities.  (Employment Rate - http://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/laus/default.asp)

 

2.      Percent of CT residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities and are engaged in volunteerism or other community activities.  (DDS; data development for other populations; Area Agencies on Aging)

 

3.      Percent of CT residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities and receive care in an institutional vs. home based/ community setting.  (DDS, DMHAS, DCF, DSS, Commission on Aging)

 

4.      Substantiated cases of abuse and neglect.  (DDS, Office of Protection and Advocacy, DSS, DMHAS – Data Development for other populations)

 

5.   High School and Post-Secondary Graduation Rates – disaggregated by disabling conditions.  (SDE/ConnCan/Other Sources

(http://ctmirror.org/story/14927/expected-graduation-rates-drop-drastically)

 

Secondary Indicators

 

1.      Percent of CT residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities with depression.  (DMHAS – self-reported survey)

 

2.      Percent of CT residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities living in poverty (DSS)

 

3.      Substantiated cases of discrimination based on age/disability. (Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities)

 

4.       Number of crimes against persons based on age/disability.  (Judicial Branch)

 

5.   Percent of CT residents who are elderly (65 +) or have disabilities that are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. (DSS; AAAs; Commission on Aging)

 

Data Development Agenda:

1.      Community Engagement Data (non-DDS)

2.      Substantiated cases of abuse and neglect (Other vulnerable populations not included above)

3.      Institutional v. Home-Based Care

4.      Caregiver data

 


 

 

 

Appendix A

Minutes of the Sub-committee Meetings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B

 

PDF of Children’s Report Card

 

 

 


E-mail Contact

Absenteeism
Asset-Mapping
Aquaponics
Basic Needs
Bible
Brain Development
Children
Collective Impact
Community Building
Community Schools
Cradle2Career
Culture
Data
DCF
Definitions- terms
Determinants of Health
DHMAS
Drop-out
Drugs
Education
Faith Community
Fatherhood
Financial
Food
Funders
Healthy People 2020
Healthy people 2020 Resources
Health-Mental DHMAS
Homelessness
Home Visits
Housing
Hunger
Intro
KINGDOM SOLUTIONS.US -- Is there a better way? - HOME
Legal
Jobs
Kingdom Verses
Marriage
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mission

National Prevention Strategy

Obesity
Parenting
Placemaking
Poverty
Prevention
Programs
Public Opinion
Quotes
RBA
Reading
Regional Solutions
Safety
Sectors
Silo-busting
Smoking

Social capital

Solutions
Sources for opinions
Segregation
Social Genome Project
Protective Factors
Starting a not for profit
Status_of_CT
Stressors
Summer Learning
SWOT
Transportation
Youth_Service_Bureaus

 

E-mail Contact