1. Changing Track and Tracking Change Lessons Learned from Systems Change Strategies in Los Angeles County, 1984-2011 Jacquelyn McCroskey University of Southern California mccroske@usc.edu

2. Critical success factors for organizational change (Kotter 2007) Establishing a sense of urgency Forming a powerful guiding coalition Creating a vision Communicating the vision Empowering others to act on the vision Planning for and creating short term wins Consolidating improvements and producing still more change Institutionalizing new approaches

3. Los Angeles County Land area = 4,061 square miles County government responsible for health and safety, but must coordinate with 88 cities and 81 school districts LA County 2009-10 budget total = $23.6 billion Key departments serving children and families: ▫Public Social Services, ▫Children and Family Services ▫Mental Health ▫Probation, ▫Health Services ▫Public Health

4. Population (2010) = 9,818,605 Persons under 18 (2009) = 25.4% Foreign born (2005-9) = 35.4% Language other than English spoken at home (ages 5+ 2005- 9) = 56.1% High school graduates (ages 25+ 2005-9) = 75.5% Persons below poverty level (2009) = 16% Ethnic/racial groups (2010) White = 50.3% Black = 8.7% Asian = 13.7% American Indian/Alaskan Native = 0.7% Latino origin = 47.7%

5. Lessons learned Changing Track: Data can help drive systems change, but you need shared understanding and common purpose among people who have relationships with key players. People who “translate” the meaning for particular decisions are essential. The “numbers” that count in systems change also include: how many votes you have, how many stakeholders care, how much agreement among unexpected allies. Tracking Change: Complex adaptive systems respond to information in the environment, so advocates must assure that information about children is widely available, conveyed through relationships at all levels with decision-makers.

6. Lessons about systems change Systems change is messy, chaotic, political and successful only when people from different perspectives share a common purpose. The more people with different perspectives are engaged in data discussions, the more likely they are to find ways to influence decisions. You can’t predict those most likely to have opportunities to “translate” the implications of data for policy decision makers Anchoring large-scale systems change efforts in data can help to offset drift, turnover and unforeseen events. Data need to be transparent and tied to social networks. Data that are held closely by one group will lose power over time. Effective “translators” need to understand different perspectives. Too often systems change fails because people can’t find ways to work effectively across boundaries.

7. Examples from LA Business leaders used findings from the Children’s Budget to persuade the Board of Supervisors to create the Children’s Planning Council (1991-2009). In response to Children’s Score Cards, County department heads encouraged the Chief Executive Officer to create the Service Integration Branch to facilitate cross-departmental collaboration. Civic and community leaders pressured the BOS to create eight common geographic regions, Service Planning Areas (SPAs), for planning and information sharing. American Indian Children’s Council leaders used paucity of data (relative to other groups) to change data collection methods in departments. BOS members who chaired the CPS were often sparked by a report or piece of information to start their own investigations.

8. Lessons about using data to drive policy decisions What is measured is important, but not as important as how and to whom it is communicated. The simple 5-outcome area framework used to organize indicators made the data easier to understand and more accessible: ▫Good Health ▫Safety & Survival ▫Economic Well-Being ▫Social & Emotional Well-Being ▫Education & Workforce Readiness Including a set of indicators under each outcome area acknowledged diversity of interests, allowed “something for everyone” and required specialists to listen and learn to build common ground.

9. Children’s ScoreCard Each of the 8 Children’s ScoreCards published between 1994 and 2008 had a different theme adjusted to the issues of the day, but the core format remained. ▫Changes in countywide indicators over 5 years ▫Comparison of indicators across the 8 SPAs ▫Comparison of indicators across ethnic/racial groups Specialists from each department/field debated theme and indicators. This assured some continuity over time, as well as inclusion of new indicators to reflect changing interests -- no one aspect of child well-being could dominate.

10. Next steps Continue working with County to deepen capacity for data collection and analysis Connect the multiple organizations that now provide on-line data on child well-being in LA County Create the next generation entity to influence policy through a “right data, right time” model

11. Further reference John Kotter. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, January: 92-107. J. McCroskey. (2003). Walking the collaboration talk: Ten lessons learned from the Los Angeles County Children’s Planning Council. http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/node/28884http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/node/28884 J. McCroskey. (2009). Using child and family indicators to influence communities and policy in Los Angeles County. In A. Ben-Arieh & I. Frones (Eds), Indicators of children’s well being: Concepts, types and usage. Springer Press.