A Case Study in a Networked Approach

W HY WE DO WHAT WE DO ! 2

VPP 3 Making futures brighter for low-income youth in the National Capital Region by tackling the barriers to their success and forging public-private partnerships that achieve life-changing results. Vision Our most vulnerable children and youth (0-24 years) gain the education and skills needed for a productive, self- sufficient adulthood. We do it by:  Investing in what works.  Catalyzing action towards measurable outcomes.  Aligning efforts of business, government, nonprofits, and philanthropy.  Enabling strong leaders to achieve even more.

youthCONNECT Network Latin American Youth Center: Further evaluating and growing its youth “reconnection” program, Promotor Pathways, that provides extensive support to the most disconnected youth. KIPP DC: Expanding and evaluating its pilot program KIPP through College, which provides support to ensure that every KIPP student has the tools and assistance he or she needs to succeed in college. Year Up NCR: Implementing and evaluating a health education program that will provide health insurance to Year Up-NCR students and eligible family members for up to three years. College Summit NCR: Growing its core services to reach students earlier and evaluating and expand its 9th- 11th grade programming. 4 Metro TeenAIDS: Providing their health education program to 1,500 10th graders per school year at DC public charter schools, and train 200 public charter school staff on health education. Urban Alliance: Expanding their innovative Alumni Services department and developing a curriculum outreach program to teach disconnected youth the skills they need to start a successful career.

youthCONNECT & SIF Award youthCONNECT is VPP’s pioneering initiative in which six of the most effective local nonprofits are working together to improve education, employment, and healthy behavior outcomes for low-income and at-risk youth, ages 14-24, in the National Capital Region. In 2010, youthCONNECT received grant from the Obama Administration’s Social 5 Results from partnership include:  Development of region’s first Common Outcomes Framework  10,000 additional youth served in first 2 years; on track to serve 20,000 over 5 years. youthCONNECT partner outcomes:  Positive Growth in Hard/Soft skills – 81%  High School Graduation Rate – 86%  College Enrollment – 66% Innovation Fund, committing $6 million in the first three years.

6

7

8

A BOUT C HILD T RENDS 9 Child Trends is nonprofit, nonpartisan research center dedicated to improving the lives of children through research. We conduct research on children and youth at all ages and stages of their development from pre-birth through the transition to adulthood; and across all domains of well-being. In addition to conducting basic research and analyzing trends in well-being, we also conduct evaluation research for a variety of programs.

D EVELOPING THE C OMMON O UTCOMES F RAMEWORK : T HE PROCESS 10 Frequent meetings early on (every two weeks/monthly): – VPP, Child Trends; evaluation/data staff from the programs Topics: – Adopting a shared language. To minimize confusion, we came to agreement on how we would use certain terms: outcome, indicator, measures, etc.) – We selected common outcomes and indicators – We identified measures to use to track progress on the indicators Later discussions addressed – With what frequency should data be reported? – What is the appropriate format for reporting data to Child Trends? – How can we define an annual youthCONNECT cohort, so as to assess progress as a network?

Outcome: Youth attain a post-secondary credential, OR retain gainful employment Percent of students absent from school 10 or more days per year Percent of students with a completed college readiness plan Percent of students with a completed career readiness plan Percent of students with a completed FAFSA Percent of youth with program- supervised work experience Percent of students with specified hard/soft job skills Percent of youth with positive adult relationships Percent of youth avoiding negative peer relationships Percent of youth avoiding physical fighting, cigarettes, alcohol, & other drugs Percent of youth with appropriate knowledge of safe-sex practices Outcome: Youth sustain healthy behaviors Percent of students on track for grade… Percent of sexually-active youth practicing safe sex Percent of students with a completed college application Percent of students with a HS diploma Percent of students with a GED Percent of students who enroll in college or other P/S program Percent of students who enroll in college or other P/S program for a second year Common Outcomes Framework Interim Indicators Indicators Outcomes AGE

D EVELOPING THE C OMMON O UTCOMES F RAMEWORK : CHALLENGES 12 I.A diverse group of programs – Ages served (14 to 24) – Mode of service delivery (classes, workshops, individual case mgt.) – “Dosage” (Frequency, duration, and breadth) – Content (some focused on education, some on employment, some on healthy behaviors; a couple looking across multiple areas) II.As we implemented the framework, we ran into lots of variability in how indicators were measured, and how populations were defined.

Four Purposes for Data Collection To test the Common Outcomes Framework: for example, is progress on the interim indicators related to the long-term indicators? To strengthen performance management To inform the common measures that are part of each program’s external evaluation Simulate (model) the aggregate effects of the Network, and the potential if scaled up

Developing the Common Outcomes Framework: What facilitated success? I.Conducting site visits to the programs before the network meetings began Helped us to build relationships, get “buy-in” Understanding of program operations, differences in service delivery models, population served. Collected information on outcomes already being tracked by the organizations Performance management systems and how data are used. II.Don’t try to measure too many things. Focus on what’s most important. III.Acknowledge and accommodate program diversity – Programs are not expected to track an indicator when it’s not reasonable to think their activities will affect it.