ROMA Next Generation Center of Excellence Update and Listening Session 2013 NASCSP Annual Conference

Where We Are 12 National Webinars 6 Statewide and National Listening Sessions 1 National Survey 3 Iterations of the White Paper Framing of pilots Framing of case studies Engaging other federal programs Since the NASCSP Mid-Winter Conference…

Where We’re Headed Release semi-final iteration of the White Paper Select sites for pilot and case studies Implement pilots and case studies Toolkit and training development Engage NASCSP Monitoring Workgroup Fall work…

But, Before We Get There… We Need STATE specific input What information do you wish you had on the impact of CSBG? What will the proposed changes mean for your monitoring and reporting responsibilities?

Creating the next generation of roma

ROMA Next Generation Foster a performance culture in the Network Create and implement a Theory of Change process throughout the Network Increase use of client demographic information to contextualize indicators Use a range of indicators to show progress toward family level stability and self-sufficiency Evolved from the White Paper…

ROMA Next Generation, cont. Focus on a short list of indicators and outcomes to be used at the federal level Identify which outcomes (from existing and new) give the information needed about core programs at local and state levels (NOTE: Some will be required to be reported to the national data collection system and others will not) Generally reduce the number of items required to be reported while preserving sufficient data to “tell the story.” Make changes to the data collection system to allow for quarterly reporting (GPRA Modernization) and multi year reporting

ROMA Next Generation, cont. Enhance ability of State CSBG Offices to monitor using ROMA and Organizational Standards Enhance ability of State CSBG Offices to work together with State Community Action Associations, RPICs and national partners to provide training and technical assistance Aim for full implementation of ROMA by all local agencies, State CSBG Offices, and OCS

Proposed Family Level Changes See White Paper, Section Three

The Big Questions What’s your impact on the lives of individuals and families? Are people better off as a result of Community Action intervention? What actually happened (what changed) to an individual or family as a result of the services you provided? If Community Action is about moving families to self- sufficiency, how many families have achieved self- sufficiency? If families have not “moved” but have received services to maintain or achieve family stability, how do you measure this accomplishment?

What You’ve Told Us Our work is about stability and self-sufficiency. Flexibility in reporting should be maintained. A majority of agencies can provide an unduplicated count of individuals served (according to two surveys). A majority of agencies can connect family outcomes with the services they receive (both in number and frequency of services and duration of service). Some of the current NPIs are meaningful and should remain. Some are outputs, should also remain but be separated from the outcomes. There are too many NPIs. However, we need a good number and a range of indicators to enable us to tell our story.

Defining Self-Sufficiency Pathway to Self-Sufficiency Step Three The ability to meet family basic needs without public or private assistance, and to have sufficient discretionary income for savings and emergency expenses. Step Two The ability to meet family basic needs without public or private assistance. Step One The ability to meet family basic needs. The online survey asked about a standard definition for family self-sufficiency. We received lots of affirmation, but also a significant number of neutral responses. As such, the results didn’t provide us with enough information to definitively move in one direction rather than another. Following webinars and Listening session at Partnership Convention, we are proposing a definition that captures a pathway to self-sufficiency that begins with stability.

Defining Self-Sufficiency, cont. Basic Needs – housing, utilities/telephone, childcare, food, transportation, health care, clothing and household items, and taxes (minus federal and state tax credits). Public Benefits – programs that limit assistance to those with modest or low incomes/means tested programs such as TANF, SSI, Food Stamps, Rental Assistance, Energy Assistance Sufficient Discretionary Income – ? Public Benefits – Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=508 What should be included in basic needs and public benefits? What should be included in discretionary income? Is sufficient discretionary income is out of the range of CAA services because out of range of CSBG eligibility? Should we use the BEST Index to simplify these definitions and connect them to current research? The BEST Index is specific to family size, ages of children, location and receipt of employment-based benefits. It includes the cost of living across 11 domains. The online survey indicated survey participants were interested in our further exploration of this tool more than any other tools from outside the Network. It has been proposed that use of the BEST Index may be phased in at a later time, with current use of the FPG being simpler and more accessible to all. What are your thoughts?

National ROMA Goals ROMA GOAL ONE: People with low incomes become more self-sufficient ROMA GOAL SIX (REVISED): People with low incomes, especially vulnerable populations, become more stable.

Defining Self-Sufficiency, cont. Pathway to Self-Sufficiency – Connecting the Dots Step Three Thriving The ability to meet family basic needs without public assistance, and to have sufficient discretionary income for savings and emergency expenses. GOAL ONE Step Two Safe The ability to meet the family’s basic needs without public assistance. Step One Stable The ability to meet the family’s basic needs. GOAL SIX

Impact of Proposed NPI Updates Follow the progress of people who have increased their family income Identify the number of people who have reduced reliance on public assistance (because their income is sufficient to meet the needs previously met by this assistance) Identify the number of people who have acquired public benefits to enable them to meet family basic needs Identify the number of people who have gained skills that support their movement toward stability or self sufficiency Identify the number of people who have gained assets or resources that support their movement toward stability or self sufficiency Proposed changes to the NPIs correspond to the proposed definition and refined goals. They would enable the Network to measure the following…

Proposed Family NPIs

Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

Proposed Family NPIs, cont. Note the assets language here ties back to community and Promise Neighborhoods frame

Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

Proposed Family NPIs, cont. Emphasize that stability outcomes will be tracked by service counts/outputs Link to self-sufficiency is reflected in pathway to self-sufficiency on earlier slide

Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

Additional Family Level Reporting Questions Should we make better use of scales and matrices? If yes, how do we standardize these tools while still allowing for community flexibility to modify benchmark language? If yes, how might the use of scale and matrices impact reporting? Do we need separate scales/indicators for youth and senior citizens? Part of the reason that scales might be valuable for reporting is to show progress along the way to the long term goal of self-sufficiency? We have heard a lot of concern about scales being too narrowly defined at a national level and eliminating the flexibility needed at the local level? What are your thoughts?

Proposed Community Level Changes See White Paper, Section Four

The Big Questions What’s your impact on communities? Are communities better off as a result of Community Action intervention? What actually happened (what changed) to the community as a result of the services you provided? Are you a part of “collective action” with partners in your community? What evidence do you have to prove your part in the community level success?

What You’ve Told Us Community Action is about helping maintain or regain community vitality. We know that family success is inter-related with community success. Community work takes collaboration and development of different kinds of resources. Community work is difficult and it often takes multiple years to achieve a single outcome. We’d like to do more community work. Any disagreement with these statements? Anything that should be added?

Defining Revitalized Communities Revitalized communities enable everyone to meet their own basic needs. These communities provide opportunities for all individuals to be engaged and to achieve their personal goals. Revitalized communities are healthy, safe and resilient in times of change. Revitalized communities foster a sense of shared purpose and generate a sense of meaningful engagement. The online survey affirmed the use of both definitions provided. We’ve taken a closer look and worked to combine the two definitions as there were a number of similar elements in each. However, once again, more discussion is needed before we come to a standard definition. How would you change/improve this definition?

National ROMA Goals ROMA GOAL 2: The conditions in which people with low incomes live are improved ROMA GOAL 3: People with low incomes own a stake in their community ROMA GOAL 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to people with low incomes are achieved We have added Goal 4 to this discussion. Goal 4 has historically been connected with agency level outcomes, but it appears that, as the network has matured, there is an increased understanding that while partnerships can improve the agency’s capacity to achieve results, they also provide an avenue for community level work. So the impact of the partnership would be reviewed to identify if the partnership was designed to improve agency functioning or to contribute to community change. Would you all agree with this? What impacts should be tracked?

Defining Revitalized Communities, cont. Pathway to Revitalized Communities – Connecting the Dots Step FOUR Thriving Revitalized communities are healthy, safe and resilient in times of change. GOAL TWO STEP THREE Safe Revitalized communities provide opportunities for all individuals to be engaged and to achieve their personal goals. GOAL THREE Step Two Revitalized communities foster a sense of shared purpose and generate a sense of meaningful engagement. GOAL FOUR Step One Stable Revitalized communities enable everyone to meet their own basic needs.

What Should be Measured? We discussed proposed changes to community level NPIs which included elements from the following sources: Promise Neighborhoods The Opportunity Index The Partnership for Sustainable Communities The National Core Indicators We looked at sources from Promise Neighborhoods, Opportunity Index, Partnership for Sustainable Communities, National Core Indicators

Proposed Community NPIs Goal Two: The conditions in which people with low incomes live are improved Outcome 8: Community Action joins with other community stakeholders to improve or create the following assets in neighborhoods with low incomes: 8.1 Developmental Assets – These are assets that allow residents to attain the skills needed to be successful in all aspects of daily life (e.g., educational institutions, early learning centers, and health resources). 8.1a Accessible and affordable health care services/facilities created 8.1b Accessible and affordable health care services/facilities saved from reduction or elimination 8.1c Accessible safe and affordable child care or child development placement opportunities created 8.1d Accessible safe and affordable child care or child development placement opportunities saved from reduction or elimination 8.1e Accessible before-school and after-school program placement opportunities created 8.1f Accessible before-school and after-school program placement opportunities saved from reduction or elimination Promise Neighborhoods categorization match current NPIs. This is important to emphasize. Do we need to add something about community wide access to health insurance?

Proposed Community NPIs, cont. 8.1g Accessible educational and training placement opportunities created, including vocational, literacy, and life skill training, ABE/GED, and post-secondary education 8.1h Accessible educational and training placement opportunities saved from reduction or elimination, including vocational, literacy, and life skill training, ABE/GED, and post-secondary education 8.2 Commercial Assets – These assets are associated with production, employment, transactions, and sales (e.g., labor force and retail establishments). 8.2a Increase in the availability of commercial services within low-income neighborhoods 8.2b Preservation of commercial services within low-income neighborhoods 8.3 Recreational Assets –These assets create value in a neighborhood beyond work and education (e.g., parks, open space, community gardens, and arts organizations). 8.3a Increase in the availability of community facilities 8.3b Preservation of community facilities 8.3c Increase in neighborhood quality-of-life resources 8.3d Preservation of neighborhood quality-of-life resources

Proposed Community NPIs, cont. 8.4 Physical Assets - These assets are associated with the built environment and physical infrastructure (e.g., housing, commercial buildings, and roads). 8.4a Safe and affordable housing units created in the community 8.4b Safe and affordable housing units improved in the community through construction, weatherization or rehabilitation achieved by Community Action activity or advocacy 8.4c Accessible new transportation resources, including public or private transportation 8.4d Accessible expanded transportation resources, including public or private transportation 8.4e Accessible transportation resources saved from reduction or elimination, including public or private transportation 8.5 Social Assets - These assets establish well-functioning social interactions (e.g., public safety). 8.5a Increase in the availability of community services to improve public health and safety 8.5b Preservation of community services to improve public health and safety

Proposed Community NPIs, cont. Goal Four: Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to people with low incomes are achieved Outcome 9: Community services and resources are accessible and affordable for populations with low incomes or other barrier 9.1a Number of organizations, both public and private, that Community Action actively works with to expand resources and opportunities in order to achieve family and community outcomes 9.1b Number of volunteer hours donated to the agency by the public

Proposed Community NPIs, cont. Goal Three: People with low incomes own a stake in their community Outcome 10: People with low incomes are connected to community networks and improve their social capital 10.1 Community empowerment through maximum feasible participation 10.1a Number of volunteer hours donated to the agency by Community Action program participants 10.1b Number of low-income people participating in formal community organizations, government, boards or councils that provide input to decision-making and policy setting through Community Action efforts 10.1c Number of low-income people engaged in non-governance community activities or groups created or supported by Community Action Social Capital can be linked to a Stanford Innovation Article and hard research; see White Paper

Proposed Community NPIs, cont. Collective Impact Narrative Community Intervention Title Counties Served Target Population Shared Measurement System Gather baseline data Increase awareness and activity OCS has expressed interest in this data… Keeping up with advancements in the field of community measurement…

PROPOSED CHANGES FOR REPORTING The Use of CSBG Dollars See White Paper, Section Five What information does your state currently collect re CSBG dollars that is in addition to what is required by fed? Do state policymakers want information about CSBG dollars and how they are used?

Refining Service Categories

Refining Service Categories We must better define the following categories: Emergency Services Self-Sufficiency Linkages This is an OCS request. Discussion thus far leads to the addition of one category. However, since feedback from the webinars indicated folks would be okay removing the OTHER category, we’d end up with about the same number of categories – one more if you count org. capacity bldg. Need to loop back with OCS on this…

Refining Service Categories, cont. Emergency Services – This would capture the work of Community Action to respond to family emergencies. It would include such things as emergency fuel assistance and rent assistance (Outcome 5). Disaster Relief – This would capture the work of Community Action preparing for and during disasters. It would reflect community level work. As such, it would not be about people with low incomes only. Definitions based on feedback from webinars and Partnership listening session… Addition of Disaster Relief category…

Refining Service Categories, cont. Self-Sufficiency – This would capture the work of Community Action’s direct case management work. It would also capture Community Action’s formal family development/self-sufficiency programs that provide a continuum of assistance (Outcomes 1-3). Linkages – This would capture the work of Community Action around partnership and coalition building (Outcomes 8-9) Why is it important to capture linkages? (Can we answer this?) Would state offices find information on linkages valuable? Do the state offices provide guidance on how to define linkages now? Information and referral? Service coordination?

Refining Service Categories, cont. Addition of an Organizational Capacity Building category - Community Assessment Data and Analysis Strategic Planning Community Engagement Consumer Input Leadership Governance HR Fiscal High level reporting or is the above level of detail beneficial? Direct versus capacity building services Would tracking CSBG dollars for Org Capacity Building be of value to your state office? Link to the Standards was rated highly on the white paper survey…

Refining Service Categories, cont. Reporting of use of CSBG for “Administration” Administration is not a separate category in Section E, but is included in the service category with which it is related. Should it be separate? Some agencies “back fill” indirect costs for programs that do not have ability to pay full rate. How is this captured? Proposed use of CSBG dollars to support improvement in Organizational Standards areas (most of which are administrative) will increase percent of funds spent on admin (see next slide). Is this to be expected? OCS efficiency measure… Can we talk some more about whether it is possible to eliminate the admin goal? If efficiency is something we need to track is there another way to get at it?

Refining Service Categories, cont. Health Employment Education Income Management/Asset Development Housing Emergency Services Disaster Relief Nutrition Linkages Self-Sufficiency Organizational Capacity Building These would be the final categories, in no particular order…

Connecting CSBG Dollars to the NPIs Linking CSBG dollars to direct services; use the categories other than organizational capacity; connecting CSBG with the outcomes achieved Some states are already doing this This would narrow the focus of CSBG dollar use on all services of an agency, and have them consider the definitions of “movement toward self sufficiency” -- this discussion is interrelated to the family level outcome discussion. If we define self sufficiency as movement up the FPG and movement off public assistance and movement to different kinds of income, then this could force a related change in definitions here.

Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding Leveraging: How do we demonstrate the uniqueness that is produced by leveraging CSBG dollars to secure other funding to address our mission? Comparison of Section E categories with reporting of all funding info in Section F Do state offices find information on leveraging of CSBG dollars valuable?

Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont. One suggestion is to take the information from Section F and create a graph similar to the one we have of Section E (See example on next slide)

Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont. This graph is a mock up of FY 11 data, with NASCSP staff assigning funding sources to Section E categories? The large % of education is head start and early head start.

Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont. Would your state be able to add a column on Section F and ask reporters to identify how much CSBG funding was used to supplement that resource? (See example on next slide) Are you doing this now? Would this be feasible? Would this be information that state policymakers care about?

Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont. This

DRAFT National Community action theory of change (toc) See White Paper, Section One, Appendix A

Current Structural TOC Note Network agreement and buy in as well as possible abbreviated version – more visual, perhaps

Creating a Programmatic TOC Assumptions Theories of Poverty Family Self-Sufficiency Revitalized Communities Interventions Indicators Service Strategies Intermediate Goals or Milestones Long-term Goals

DRAFT Programmatic TOC Assumptions The theories of poverty and beliefs Community Action bases is work on... Poverty Caused by Individual Deficiencies Poverty Caused by Cultural Belief System Supportive of Subcultures of Poverty Poverty Caused by Economic, Political and Social Distortions Poverty Caused by Geographical Disparities Poverty Caused by Cumulative Cyclical Interdependencies Poverty Caused by a Lack of Social Capital Poverty Caused by a Lack of Public Investment in key areas such as education and healthcare Movement out of poverty is impeded by crisis and a lack of stability Anti-poverty interventions are most successful when the target audience is included in shaping the intervention Anti-poverty interventions are most successful when grounded in a local community needs assessment TOC next steps

DRAFT Programmatic TOC Interventions The approach Community Action uses to reach its long-term goals... Community Action designs a range of “light touch” single service interventions and “deep touch” intensive, comprehensive and bundled service interventions to move families toward self-sufficiency and communities toward revitalization. Community Actions “light touch” and “deep touch” service interventions cover the nine CSBG Service Categories included in the CSBG Statute (employment, education, income management, housing, emergency service, nutrition, linkages, self-sufficiency and health). TOC next steps

DRAFT Programmatic TOC Indicators The indicators to Community Action’s long-term goals are really intermediate goals or major milestones. These would be the NPIs. TOC next steps

Next Steps Engage Committees Update White Paper Pilot Reporting Changes Case Studies of Bundled Services

For more information, visit: www.roma1.org Tabitha Beck, Project Lead, tbeck@nascsp.org Barbara Mooney, bmooney@nascsp.org Gretchen Knowlton, gknowlton@nascsp.org Jovita Tolbert, jtolbert@nasc4us.org Mary Virtue, mvirtue@nasc4us.org