The Short Answer
1. Results are plain language conditions of well-being for children, adults, families, and communities.
2. Choosing results is a political process more than a technical process. You are looking for a set of statements that are understandable to the public, say something important about the well-being of a given population, and are reasonably complete.
3. Create a process that includes a highly respected steering committee, is well staffed, and has lots of room for broad participation. Make sure the development process is kept on track with a clear and coherent framework.
Full Answer
(1) Choosing results is a political process, and it is important to recognize that at the beginning. So, we will discuss approaches to organizing the political process and then the technical process of selecting results.
(2) Political process: The most successful processes for selecting results seem to have the following components:
(a) A highly respected steering committee made up of public and private sector representatives. For example, the Georgia Family and Children’s Policy Council has prominent business leaders, faith community leaders, and high-level legislative and executive branch representatives.
(b) A framework: It is essential that the group adopts a conceptual framework for the work to keep it coherent and disciplined. (The RBA framework, presented here, has served this purpose in many states and counties.)
(c) Staff: If you pick the right people for the steering group, they will not have time to do much of this work. You will need one or more staff members to do the research, staff the meetings, and make recommendations.
(d) The steering committee and staff take the time necessary to get their act together and develop a version of Results and Indicators that they think is pretty good. This will take some back-and-forth between commissioners and staff. While this process should not be closed to the public, it should allow for plenty of give-and-take. The product should be something that could stand as the final best thinking of the group. This product is then offered as a starting point for discussion in the next phase.
(e) Broad participation: The best processes used many different ways to obtain local input including hearings, focus groups, as well as paper and electronic distribution methods.
(3) There is a debate that often takes place about whether it is necessary or desirable to gather public input BEFORE the steering group develops its recommendations. There is no right or wrong answer to this question. But agreement on a framework is absolutely essential before broad-based input is sought.
The steering committee and staff must have a structured way to hear, organize and interpret what people offer as recommendations. In one state where this was not done, the public input process generated recommendations for all the steps in the RBA thinking process (Results, Indicators, Story Behind the Baselines, What Works, etc.). It is exactly what you would expect from that kind of process.
The group did not have a clear method for sorting the difference between Indicators, What Works ideas, and Performance Measures. The consequent product was a hodgepodge of many different (non-parallel) components. It made the subsequent work difficult and confusing, and the process was ultimately abandoned.
(4) Technical How to: Here is an exercise that works with groups to develop Results for a population, starting from a blank slate. An important thing to remember is that different groups will produce different lists of Results (or anything else). You can run this exercise once with a single group and then use the product (with refinements) as part of an external review process. Or, you could run this exercise with many groups and craft their many products into something that represents common ground.
|
TECHNIQUE for Generating a Results List from Scratch Purpose: Create a list of 10 plain language Results. Prerequisites: all participants must be trained or instructed so they have at least a basic understanding of the difference between Results, Indicators, and Performance Measures. Preferably, all participants will have training in the full Results-Based Accountability decision-making process. Step 1. Ask participants in the whole group to brainstorm endings to these sentences: We want children who are… We want families that are… We want to live in a community that is… Step 2. Break into three groups (by children, family, and community). Have each group pare their list of answers down to 5 for children, 3 for families, and 2 for the community. (Option: have each group designate “emissaries” to the other two groups to discuss potential duplication, overlap, and other issues necessary for the work of the groups to fit together.) Step 3. Bring the large group back together and have each group report. Have the large group make recommendations for changes that will make the list function as a whole.
|
(5) We are now accustomed to the idea of Results for children and families. But the idea applies to almost any condition of well-being you can imagine. For example here are some “non-conventional” Results:
- Community with adequate affordable housing for all
- Community with adequate sustainable water supply
- Forrests not prone to fire
- Communities without graffiti
(6) An important pitfall: Starting with one Result, without a complete list of Results, creates the tendency to load everything onto that one Result.
For example, if “healthy children” is picked as the only Result the collaborative has identified to work on, then every part of the well-being of children tends to be made subordinate to health.
However, family self-sufficiency is one part of health since families with higher incomes have better nutrition and better access to medical care. The next month, a task force on family self-sufficiency might conclude that health is subordinate to self-sufficiency since families must be healthy to be self-sufficient. This is in fact just another version of the old game where the whole world is seen through the eyes of just one agency or profession.
It is probably better to develop a complete working list of Results before choosing which ones to work on.
(7) A word about the relationship of state and local development of Results and Indicators:
The wrong way to do this is to develop a set of Results and Indicators at the state level and then impose them on local folks. There is a legitimate state interest in having a core set of Results and Indicators that allow different parts of the state to be compared. But, this does not mean a monolithic top-down process.
There are two solutions that have been used in other states that seem to work well. In Georgia, the state developed a set of core Results and benchmarks and then allowed local Family Connection Councils to add to this list. In Oregon, the goals and (approximately 92) benchmarks provide a thorough picture of the quality of life conditions, that counties, cities, and communities can choose from for local use. Multnomah County, for example, has identified a subset that it calls “urgent” benchmarks.
Whatever approach you decide to take, make sure it is respectful of the legitimate differences that exist between local conditions, values, and priorities.
(8) Product: The Results list can be presented in many different forms. In a number of states (notably Vermont, Missouri, and Georgia), the Results or Outcomes list is a well-known communication tool by itself. The most usual format for presentation of Results and Indicators is a report card on the well-being of children and families.
See chapter 2.10 How do we create a report card and what do we do with it? (on child and family well-being, for other populations, for entire community quality of life)
