Creating a Culture of Outcomes PowerPoint Presentation

Creating a Culture of Outcomes PowerPoint Presentation

2018-10-21 15K 15 0 0

Description

Management (. OMGmt. ): . Showing . What Works. National Social Services and Disaster Management Conference. March 26, 2014. Presenters. . Major Lewis R. Reckline, Area Commander, National Capital Area Command in Washington, DC. ID: 691479

Embed code:

Download this presentation



DownloadNote - The PPT/PDF document "Creating a Culture of Outcomes" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentations text content in Creating a Culture of Outcomes

Slide1

Creating a Culture of Outcomes Management (OMGmt): Showing What Works

National Social Services and Disaster Management ConferenceMarch 26, 2014

Slide2

Presenters Major Lewis R. Reckline, Area Commander, National Capital Area Command in Washington, DCLeslye E. Wooley

, Area Command Director of Program Services, Washington, DC

2

Slide3

Overview of theNational Capital Area CommandArea Command was created in 2006Encompasses the Army’s programs in the following areas:Two suburban counties in Maryland – Montgomery and Prince George’s County

Washington, DCNorthern Virginia – City of Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, and Prince William Counties

3

Slide4

Creation of the Area CommandThe StrengthsIncreased visibility of The Salvation Army across the regionIncreased opportunities to expand programs, provide additional services across the entire regionIncreased the viability of our fundraising

Increased the influence of a regional Advisory Board

4

Slide5

Creation of the Area CommandThe ChallengesIncreased scrutiny of the effectiveness of our servicesIncreased need for funding, especially new funding streams

Increased emphasis on reporting our program outcomes

5

Slide6

Have you or your staff ever looked like this at the mention of outcomes?

6

Slide7

Tell the truth…Have you or your staff ever… 1.) broken out into a cold sweat when a grant application asked for outcome information? 2.) laughed manically when a donor asked, “what is your success rate?”

7

Slide8

Tell the truth…continued 3.) looked blankly at your Development Department colleagues when they ask you for a logic model for your program? 4.) cursed an Advisory Board member who asked “tell us about a ‘typical’ client?”

8

Slide9

Tell the truth, continuedIf you answered yes, to any of these questions, you are not alone. This presentation is the Area Command’s story of how it came to see data as a friend, not an enemy.

9

Slide10

Recognizing the Importance of Outcome Measurement “Why did we need to create a culture of data collection and outcome measurement?”

AND “Who cares about outcomes anyway?!”

10

Slide11

Why did the Area Command choose to focus on measuring outcomes?Increased accountability/stewardship – are our programs the best that they can be?a. Are we Doing the Most Good for clients? With donor dollars?

To answer, “what is your success rate?”What gets measured, gets improved.

Data backs up our anecdotal evidence.

The data validates the work that we do.

The data shows us our areas of weakness.

11

Slide12

Why did the Area Command choose to focus on measuring outcomes?Change in direction/emphasis by funders (example: homeless services).4. To make informed policy decisions and program changes.

a. If the program is not working, what changes need to be made? Can it be fixed or… b. Does the program need to end?

12

Slide13

Why did the Area Command choose to focus on measuring outcomes?To inform stakeholders of our successes. a. Donors – leads to increased donations;

b. Funders – leads to increased funding streams; c. Staff – what they are doing is having a positive impact on program participants; d. Program Participants – increased buy in because “this a good program that can really help me.”

13

Slide14

Who cares about outcomes anyway?Funders – nearly every grant requires information about outcomes from the programs that are applying. Then funders award funding to programs with proven results, “more bang for the buck.”

Donors – more major and smaller donors also want to know the outcomes of our programs. They want to know The Salvation Army really is “doing the most good” with their donation.

14

Slide15

Who cares about outcomes anyway? Continued3. Policy makers – want to know which interventions work best in order to replicate successful programs, end unsuccessful programs, and (hopefully) increase the funding for those with the strongest outcomes.

4. Stakeholders – including program participants themselves, Advisory Board members, etc.5. Ourselves/Staff – does our program do what we want/need it to do? Did our intervention produce change

?

(And, if yes, was it the change we intended?)

15

Slide16

Outcomes Measurement 101Pre-Test what was our existing culture around data collection and outcomes measurement at the outset?Intervention

Creating a dedicated staff position for outcomes measurement and outcomes management.Post-Test reviewing the outcomes, disseminating the outcomes, and making program changes to improve the outcomes.

16

Slide17

The Pre-Test: Assessing Our Existing Culture Around Outcome Measurement (or Lack Thereof)

StrengthsChallenges

“Extra” temporary staff to compile the data.

Staff commitment to starting the

process.

Increased Advisory Board involvement through Program Services Committee.

1.

Lack of staff resources

2. Lack of staff time

3.

Lack of staff

expertise

17

Slide18

The Pre-Test

Assessing Our Existing Culture Around Outcome Measurement (or Lack Thereof) Early Attempts – 2010-11

1. Emergency Rental and Utility Assistance

2. Angel Tree

3. Turning Point Center

18

Slide19

The Pre-Test: Emergency Assistance

19

Slide20

The Pre-Test: Emergency AssistanceProviding emergency financial assistance for rent, mortgage, and utility arrearages to prevent greater crises—e.g. homelessness prevention.What happened to the client after we provided financial assistance?WE HAD NO IDEA.

20

Slide21

The Pre-Test: Assessing Our Existing Culture Around Outcome Measurement (or Lack Thereof), cont.

21

Slide22

The Pre-Test: Angel TreeWhat did we want to know? 1. What are the characteristics of the “typical” family who is registering for Christmas assistance?

2. How can we use information about the families to market the program and increase the number of (corporate) donors who sponsor angels at Christmas?

22

Slide23

The Pre-Test: Angel Tree, cont.What data and reports did we have already? Using a common database, we could pull reports for: 1. Number of clients per zip code

2. Number of children by age and genderDoesn’t paint much of a picture…

23

Slide24

The Pre-Test: Turning Point Center

24

Slide25

The Pre-Test: Turning Point CenterThe Turning Point Center is a two year transitional housing program for young women, between the ages of 18 and 30 years old, with up to four children who are homeless. Families

may stay at TP for up to twenty-four months.

25

Slide26

The Pre-Test: Turning Point CenterChanges in emphasis within homeless services forced our handReduction/elimination of funding for transitional housing programsIncreased funding/emphasis on rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing programs

How could we use outcomes to strengthen our position as a TH provider in a PSH/RRH world?

26

Slide27

The Pre-Test: Turning Point CenterNeeded to be able to show why our transitional program was relevant and necessaryServe a population (young women with children) that needs transitional housing b/c many barriers to maintaining permanent housing

Show success in reducing lengths of stay, increasing numbers served, and better exit destinations, and better outcomes.

27

Slide28

The Pre-Test: Turning Point CenterTHE DREAM (2010)Proposed outcomes (based on former HUD SHP outcomes) e.g. what we were putting in our grant proposals: 1. Increased education and income

2. Exit to permanent housing 3. Increased self-determination

28

Slide29

The Pre-Test: Turning Point CenterTHE REALITYFirst Attempt: Using the data we knew we could get quickly, we asked the following: a. Type of Exit - how did our clients leave?

b. Exit Destination - where did they go?

29

Slide30

Turning Point Outcomes Data – First Attempt 201030

Slide31

The Pre-Test – Turning Point Center

The Results (reported to TP staff and the newly created Advisory Board Program Committee):

• 50% left for positive reasons

• 50% left for negative reasons

• Lengths

of stay ranged from 46 months

to 1 month

. Average stay

- 14 months.

• Exit destinations were unclear; no uniform definition for the exit destination

.

Honesty time…these were not good.

31

Slide32

The Pre-Test – Turning Point Center Additional Questions We Wanted Answered: 1. How long were families staying (supposed to be a twenty-four month program)?

2. Were HoHs employed before, during, after program? 3. Were household incomes increasing?

4.

Which ILS classes were most effective?

5

.

Were education levels changing?

32

Slide33

Conclusion of the Pre-TestWe had the will to measure outcomes, but not the means.

33

Slide34

The Intervention: Creating the Culture What did we need to do to create a culture of data collection and outcome measurement?

34

Slide35

The Intervention: Creating the Culture

35

Slide36

The Intervention: Creating the CultureContinued

36

Slide37

Intervention: Our First 18 Months What was our Program Outcomes Coordinator able to accomplish? (WHAT?)What did the data tell us/

what outcomes did we have? (SO WHAT?)What did we do with the information

once we had it? (NOW WHAT?)

37

Slide38

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish?1. Benchmarking

38

Slide39

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish?Defined who the “typical” client is using client data (v. anecdotal stories).

Example: Typical Angel Tree FamilyAverage Number of Children - 2.5Majority of Head of Household are Single Parents – 63.41%

Average Monthly Income - $1,135 ($13,620/yr)

39

Slide40

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish? 3. Developed logic models for each program.

40

Slide41

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish? 4. Established outcome measures per program.

Emergency Assistance30, 60, 90 day follow up asked two questions:1. Are you still housed or is utility still on?

2. Is your rental or utility balance current?

41

Slide42

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish? 4. Established outcome measures per program.

Turning Point Center Reason for ExitDestination at ExitChanges in:

income • education

employment • housing barrier assessment

Self-Sufficiency Matrix score

Independent Living Skills mastery

42

Slide43

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish? 5. Developed tools to measure those outcomes.

A. Emergency Assistance 30/60/90 day follow up – online tool, staff clicks on answers as they speak with clients, then Coordinator can view results immediately

43

Slide44

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish? 5. Developed tools to measure those outcomes.

Angel Tree Zip code analysis overlay with percentage of residents living at or below FPL in that zip code.

44

Slide45

Zip Code Analysis Overlay with FPL45

Angel Tree by

Zip Code

#

of Fami-lies

Percent of Cases

% of Residents with Income Below the Poverty Line

% of Residents with Income below 50% of the Poverty Line.

20020

699

25.35%

36.9%*

16.6%*

20019

434

15.74%

29.9%*

11.8%*

20032

397

14.40%

39.8%*

14.8%*

Slide46

Zip Code Analysis Overlay with FPL46

20009

266

9.65%

13.70%

6.40%

20011

231

8.38%

15.50%

6.50%

20002

193

7.00%

21.5%*

10.2%*

20010

171

6.20%

15.30%

8.5%*

20001

115

4.17%

26.8%*

11.6%*

20003

57

2.07%

20.4%*

7.00%

20018

55

1.99%

17.40%

10.4%*

20024

55

1.99%

21.3%*

7.90%

20017

42

1.52%

19.5%*

8.7%*

Slide47

Intervention: What did our Program Outcomes Coordinator accomplish? 5. Developed tools to measure those outcomes.

C. Turning Point Center • Developed entry/exit tools for Turning Point to track changes in income, employment, Self-Sufficiency matrix scores, ILS scores, Out of Poverty pre- and post-test, etc.

• Developed standardized definitions for reasons for exit and exit destinations.

47

Slide48

The ToolsExamples ofEntry/Exit Form Reason for Exit/Exit Destination Codes

48

Slide49

Post-Test: Now What?1. Reviewing the outcomes2. Disseminating the outcomes3. Making program changes based on the outcomes in order to improve the outcomes

49

Slide50

Reviewing OutcomesEmergency Assistance

Days after Assistance

Utilities Connected

Utilities

Current

30 Days

95.60%

68.80%

60 Days

100%

46.80%

90 Days

97.60%

41.80%

Is there any other type of assistance or services your family needs at this time

?”

Most Common Responses

Need Legal Assistance

Landlord that won’t repair broken items

Medical Bills/Affordable Health Services

Usually also resulted from job loss

Slide51

Post-Test: Reviewing OutcomesAngel Tree

Who is the typical Angel Tree family?• Average Family Size - 5.5Average Number of Children - 2.5

Majority of Heads of Household are Single Parents – 63.41%

48.35% African American, 45.18% Caucasian with Hispanic Heritage

Slide52

Post-Test: Reviewing OutcomesAngel Tree

“Typical” Angel Tree FamilyINCOME

Average

Income – Angel Tree Family

$1,135/month ($13,620/year)

Average

Income – DC Metro Area

$74,665/year

Median

Income – Angel

Tree Family

$1,022/month ($12,264/year)

Median Income – DC Metro Area

$107,000/year

52

Slide53

Post-Test: Angel Tree, cont.Our Angel Tree clients live well below the poverty line.Our clients average income is 81.76% less than the average income for the DC Metro area. Our clients median income is 88.54% less than the median income for the DC Metro area.

Slide54

Post-Test: Reviewing OutcomesAngel TreeTypical Angel Tree Family in the DC Metro Area: Average Monthly Income for AT Family

$1,135/monthly Average FMR in DC Metro Area

$1,239 1BDR/$1,469 2BDR

Slide55

Angel Tree Client Income by Household Size Compared to FMR in DC Region

Household Size

Avg. Monthly

Income

% of Income Spent on Housing

– 1BR*

% of

Income Spent on Housing – 2BR*

2

$680

182%

216%

3

$948

130%

154%

4

$1220

102%

120%

5

$1428

86%

103%

6

$1357

91%

108%

7

$1528

81%

96%

8

$1317

94%

111%

9

$1392

89%

106%

10

$1380

89%

106%

*

Based on Fair Market Value - $1,239 for 1 Bedroom, $1,469 for 2 Bedroom

Slide56

Post-Test: Reviewing Outcomes Turning Point Center1. Families at entry to programFamilies at exitReasons for exit

Exit destinations

56

Slide57

“Typical” Turning Point Client at EntryAverage Age – 22Average Number of Children – 1.6Unemployed at Entry to Program– 76.35%Education Levels at Entry

43.54% No H.S. Diploma or GED36.73% H.S. Diploma10.20% GEDAverage Monthly Income of $701 ($8714/yr)

Slide58

What impact did we have on our Turning Point Clients?Turning Point Family at Exit Decreased Lengths of Stay

a. Average length of stay in 2011 = 14 months b. Average length of stay in 2014 = 11 monthsIncreased Household Income

a. Families increased their household income by 16% from entry to exit.

b. Number of families with savings accounts increased – Only 2 families had savings accounts at entry, now all families savings accounts.

Slide59

What impact did we have on our Turning Point Clients?3. Increased Education Levels 77% of clients increased their education levels from entry to exit a. 80% with No HS Diploma Left with HS Diploma or Better

b. 77% with HS Diploma Left with Trade/Voc or Better c. 70% with a GED Left with Trade/Voc or Better

Slide60

What impact did we have on our Turning Point Clients?4. Increased Rates of Employment 31% of women who went through the Turning Point Program were employed at exit from the program.80% of women who entered the program employed were still employed at exit.

16.22% of Mothers who did not have a job upon entering Turning Point, left the program employed.

60

Slide61

ReasonPercentage

Obtained Housing (Name on Lease)

34.68%

Obtained Housing

(Name not on Lease)

22.58%

Voluntarily Leave Program

8.87%

Terminated

from Program

33.88%

Left

for Positive Reasons

57.26%

Left

for Negative Reasons

42.75%

Turning Point – Reason for Exit

Slide62

OutcomePercentage

Permanent Housing (Name on Lease)

45.04%

Permanent

Housing

(Name not on Lease)

44.75%

Back into the Homeless System/Continuum of Care

6.11%

Unknown

6.11%

Turning Point - Exit Destinations

Slide63

Overall Housing Outcomes89.79% of clients who left/completed the program went into permanent housing.29.01% went to Subsidized Housing.16.03% went to Un-Subsidized Housing.

32.06% moved in with a Family Member.6.11% moved in with a Significant Other.4.58% moved in with a Friend.

Slide64

Post-Test: Program Changes Made in Response to DataEmergency AssistanceBetter knowledge of local resources in order to respond to the questions about need for:

Legal Assistance Landlord that won’t repair broken itemsMedical Bills/Affordable Health ServicesUsually also resulted from job loss

64

Slide65

Post-Test: Program Changes Made in Response to DataAngel TreePublicize better in areas with higher poverty rates

Relocate registration to areas convenient to higher poverty areasUse client data to better market the program to potential donors

65

Slide66

Post-Test: Program Changes Made in Response to DataTurning Point 1. Focus on employment and housing search now starts immediately upon entry.

Once a family is ready to transition, they exit. They don’t have to stay the full 24 months if they don’t need to.Results in decreased lengths of stay which then results in more families served each year.

66

Slide67

Post-Test: Program Changes Made in Response to the DataTurning Point cont.2. Tweaked referral and application process to get a better match between families and the program.

Resulted in more families exiting for positive reasons (50/50 in 2011; 57.26% for positive reasons in 2014).

67

Slide68

Post-Test: Program Changes Made in Response to DataTurning Point cont.3. Greater emphasis on reality testing with families regarding finances.

Resulted in increased rates of saving, earlier employment, and creative solutions to housing.

68

Slide69

Post-Test: Disseminating the Outcomes InformationTelling The Story of the DataTo Whom?

InternallyExternally

69

Slide70

Post-Test: Telling the Story InternallyProgram StaffHeld mini-presentations with the various program staff.Development Staff

Grants ManagerMajor Gifts ManagerPR Manager

70

Slide71

Post-Test: Telling the StoryExternallyAdvisory BoardMonthly Newsletter to DonorsImpact Statements to Prospective Donors, Annual Reports, Online In grant proposals, meetings with other stakeholders and potential non-profit partners

71

Slide72

Creating An Outcomes CultureOn a budget and can’t afford to hire an employee just to do outcomes? You can still get started:

Don’t make it more difficult than it needs to be. When in doubt, compare pre-test and post-test results.

72

Slide73

Creating An Outcomes Culture2. Assess where you are now – what data do you already collect? How can you use the data to measure change?3. What gets measured gets improved.

Choose what you want to know about and to improve.

73

Slide74

Creating the Culture4. Identify people who are interested and willing to help. Utilize the resources around you: a. Advisory Board members b. local universities

c. CoC staff d. United Way, etc.

74

Slide75

Creating the Culture5. As you gather results, be sure to communicate them widely.6. Make changes to the program as needed for improvement.7. Find an accountability partner(s) to keep you on task.

8. Make a date with data, don’t be scared of it.

75

Slide76

Thank YouQuestions and AnswersLink to presentation: http://bit.ly/omgmtContact Information

76

Major Lewis R. Reckline

Leslye E.

Wooley

,

JD/MSW

Area Commander

Director

of Program Services

Lewis_Reckline@uss.sal

vationarmy.org

Leslye_Wooley@uss.sal

vation

army.org

(202) 756-3913

(202) 756-2649


About DocSlides
DocSlides allows users to easily upload and share presentations, PDF documents, and images.Share your documents with the world , watch,share and upload any time you want. How can you benefit from using DocSlides? DocSlides consists documents from individuals and organizations on topics ranging from technology and business to travel, health, and education. Find and search for what interests you, and learn from people and more. You can also download DocSlides to read or reference later.