Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government - Results-Based Public Policy in Action
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Results-Based
Accountability (RBA)
& Connecticut State
Government
2013 Results-Based Public Policy in Action
by Arlene F. LeeResults-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 1
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government RESULTS BASED PUBLIC POLICY I N ACTION Table of Contents SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................... 4 PURPOSE AND PROCESS OF THE REPORT .............................................................................. 7 THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................................... 8 STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM ............................................................................. 8 CHALLENGES, SUCCESSES AND LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................... 18 MESSAGES FOR OTHER STATES .............................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX 1: STRUCTURE OF THE RBA FRAMEWORK .......................................................... 25 APPENDIX 2: CONNECTICUT’S RESULTS AND INDICATORS ................................................. 27 APPENDIX 3: ADDITIONAL QUOTES FROM INTERVIEWS ....................................................... 29 APPENDIX 4: RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 30 Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 2
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Acknowledgements - The Unsung Champions
There are countless people who have contributed to the RBA work in Connecticut and it would
be impossible to identify them all. However throughout the process of developing this report
there were key individuals repeatedly identified as having been instrumental to successful
implementation:
Legislative Leaders:
Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, former co-chair of the Appropriations Committee
Appropriations Committee co-chairs: Senator Toni Harp and Representative Toni Walker
RBA subcommittee co-chairs: Senator Bob Duff and Representative Diana Urban
Executive Branch Leaders:
Janice Gruendel, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Children and Families, former co-
chair of the Early Childhood Cabinet
William Carbone, Executive Director, Court Support Services Division and co-chair of the
Cross Agency Population Results Working Group of the Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit
Health and Human Services
Charlene Russell Tucker, Department of Education
Staff Leaders:
Susan Keane, Appropriations Committee
Chris Perillo, Office of Fiscal Analysis
Ann McIntyre-Lahner, Department of Children and Families
Brian Hill, Court Support Services Division
Non-profit and Foundation Leaders:
David Nee, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
Nancy Roberts, , Connecticut Council for Philanthropy and co-chair of the Cross Agency
Population Results Working Group of the Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and
Human Services
John Padilla, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Mark Friedman, of the Fiscal Policies Studies Institute, with the team at The Charter Oak
Group; Bennett Pudlin, Barry Goff, and Ron Shack.
“The remarkable thing about Connecticut is the way that the leadership came out the
legislature; the explosion of the work is a direct result of the leadership from Appropriations.
Then others became involved – the Memorial Fund, Annie E. Casey Foundation, local
government, non-profits, the United Way – which increased the momentum.”
-Mark Friedman, creator of Results-Based Accountability® (RBA) and author of Trying Hard Is Not Good
Enough
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 3Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Summary
During the last decade, the Connecticut General Assembly has devoted considerable time and
attention to the well-being of the state’s citizens by improving the provision of state-funded
services through a results-based public policy approach. While policymaking at the state level
has generally not examined the impact of those policies, in Connecticut Results-Based
Accountability (RBA) has emerged and matured as an integral component of governance with
program impact and implementation at the core.
This report examines state government policies
guiding the implementation of RBA in the budgeting
process and the subsequent spread across
“RBA is about changing the whole
government, funders and communities. The
system, which takes time and tenacity.”
research was conducted by the Center for the Study
of Social Policy (CSSP) and concentrated on the
role of Connecticut policymakers in improving well-
being through the use of RBA. The focus is on lessons learned about the development,
enactment and implementation of RBA that have proven to be effective.
Connecticut government was introduced to RBA through a legislative briefing by its creator,
Mark Friedman. The briefing was sponsored by the General Assembly’s Appropriations
Committee and implementation began shortly thereafter as part of the budgeting process.
Eight years later, through the convergence of separate activities that exponentially amplified
the progress, RBA is now used by government, community collaboratives, private funders and
nonprofits. Three primary themes emerged from this experience about how to successfully
implement an RBA approach in government: Sustaining Leadership, Building a Knowledge
Base and Using Data:
Sustaining Leadership
Sustained attention and systematic oversight is needed to resolve persistent problems, and
that is also true for the implementation of a strategy to address such problems. However, the
leadership does not necessarily need to reside in a single individual. In fact, RBA in
Connecticut appears to have been successful as a result of partnerships to create and manage
the environment most conducive to goal attainment. This approach to sustaining leadership
requires the following elements:
Chief Cheerleader and Negotiator: It is critical to have a champion leading the
process overall by building support and negotiating barriers. While the champion can be
either from the legislative or executive branches, having partners from both as
champions is ideal.
Agency Leadership: Successful implementation requires courageous agency leaders
who are willing to be transparent about what is and is not working within their agency.
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 4Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Leading by Example: Community groups, nonprofits and service providers recognize
the important connection to their work when state agencies begin using RBA.
Bi-partisanship: Ideally leadership comes from both political parties.
Communication and Participation: Consistent communication from the top is critically
important, but so is direct participation of the leaders with the management teams and
staff at every level. Leadership must be fully engaged; if the message is “just do it,” the
stakeholders will be resistant.
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 5Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Building a Knowledge Base
In the case of a results-based public policy approach, knowledge requires building capacity
along a number of dimensions that are structural, political, symbolic and practical. Building
such a multi-dimensional knowledge base across the state requires these key factors:
Collective Learning: To achieve spread requires state leaders, staff, communities,
nonprofits and funders all learning together through conferences, training and ongoing
technical assistance. Training should begin with a core group of staff from multiple
agencies but the goal is to achieve a critical mass of staff trained within each agency.
Training needs to be repeated several times to ingrain the knowledge with key
stakeholders as well as to make the information widely available.
External Experts: Initial training by an outside expert is likely to be important to capture
the attention of stakeholders.
Ongoing Technical Assistance: Ongoing training and technical assistance by an
instate provider is important to build the foundation of capacity and trust.
Peer to Peer Support: Competence is developed by embedding expertise in agencies
that support the growth within the agency as well as in other agencies that join the effort
later.
Networks: Creating a network of support from across the state that includes state
leaders, staff, communities, nonprofits and funders.
Using Data
Good quality data is vital to analyzing and objectively addressing a problem and a potential
solution, which requires the ability to reliably measure the problem through data that is
accurate and robust. However, building robust data can be complex and time consuming. The
Connecticut experience demonstrates that the RBA principles of using readily available data
while simultaneously improving data collection is critical. This involves the following
approaches to using data:
Good Enough Data: Understanding that the data do not have to be perfect is key, valid
data are essential but it is not necessary to wait for the perfect data.
Proxy Measures: Learning the value and importance of proxy data is another critical
component.
Data Development: Being given the time and opportunity to develop better data allows
staff to begin the work of RBA while continuing to pursue more robust data.
Story Behind the Data: Having a structured process that includes an opportunity to
explain the forces and influences behind the data alleviates the concerns of staff about
being held accountable for data that they view as incompletely describing the
circumstances.
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 6Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Improved Analysis: Developing the ability to use data to understand performance and
the effectiveness of programs has proven to
be a need in all agencies and in the
community.
Data in the Budget Process: Using
commonly understood questions and the
supporting data in budget decision-making Results Based Public Policy
has improved the process.
Using RBA in policymaking; a decision-
Common Data: Developing and sharing data
making process for developing public
by multiple entities is essential.
policy that starts with a clearly articulated
Develop Capacity: Using technical experts desired result or outcome to be achieved,
to help build capacity in data gathering and assesses current circumstances, uses
analysis is often necessary to using the data policy options that have demonstrated an
effectively.
ability to achieve this outcome, and
evaluates progress through data and
PURPOSE AND PROCESS OF THE REPORT performance measures.
This report was commissioned by the Annie E.
Casey Foundation to identify the pitfalls and
potential guideposts for implementing Results
Based Accountability (RBA) within state
government. Connecticut stands at the vanguard
and provides an opportunity to examine the work of
state policymakers over a period of eight years as RBA moved from a pilot project to a
statewide approach centered on increasing the well-being of the state’s citizens.
The information from the Connecticut state government experience can assist other
policymakers as they contemplate, introduce or implement Results-Based Public Policy in their
state. The report examines state government policies guiding the implementation of RBA in the
budgeting process and the subsequent spread across government, funders and communities.
Research was conducted by the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) that
concentrated on the role of Connecticut policymakers in improving well-being through the use
of RBA. The focus of this report is upon lessons learned concerning the development,
enactment and implementation of RBA that have proven to be effective. Eighteen individuals
were interviewed, representing legislators, agency leadership, agency management, agency
staff, private funders, foundations, nonprofits, community collaboratives and consultants.
Numerous reports and documents were reviewed including:
All RBA reports from the Office of Fiscal Analysis and the Legislative Program Review
and Investigations Committee
The report to the Governor by the Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human
Services
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 7Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
The Select Committee on Children’s Progress Report on Public Act 11-109, Results
Based Accountability Report Card on Connecticut’s Children
The Appropriations RBA subcommittee materials and presentations
Agency RBA plans, reports and report cards
Legislation and Public Acts
The Children’s RBA Report Card background and launch materials
The Annie E. Casey Foundation (Casey) report, Results Based Accountability - The
Road To Better Results, Targeting Capacity Building And Philanthropic Partnerships
The William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund (The Memorial Fund) reports, Local Early
Childhood Councils: A Structure for Improving Outcomes and Systems for Young
Children Birth to Age Eight- A Voice from the Ground and Discovery Community
Blueprints
THE PROBLEM
RBA was implemented in response to the Appropriations Committee’s need for an objective,
clear process to determine which programs to fund. Members of the legislature believed that
the budget process required greater accountability. It was commonly viewed that the
legislature often appropriated money without evidence of effectiveness. In addition, many
believed that the budget was purportedly program-based when in reality it was made up of line
items and lacked cohesion. Appropriators were asking themselves; “Do we know the
opportunity costs? Do we know the marginal costs?”
There had been a number of previous efforts to bring greater accountability into the
appropriations process such as a statute with a performance-based budgeting requirement,
taskforces and committee inquiries, and attempts at strategic management and zero-based
budgeting. The agencies reportedly saw these efforts as transitory; yet another “flavor of the
month.” The permanent bureaucracy saw each such effort as starting over again with a new
administration or new idea, and believed that there was little acknowledgement or
understanding of the work underway, previous efforts or accomplishments.
This situation was typical of many state budgeting circumstances; however leaders in
Connecticut took deliberate steps to improve both the budgeting process and the climate
surrounding it.
STEPS TAKEN TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM
Application of RBA to Policy
RBA was developed by Mark Friedman as a method for planning, accountability, budgeting
and performance management. It starts with the ends – the results we want for all children,
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 8Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
families and communities – and works
backwards to the means – the strategies The 7 Population Accountability Questions
and actions needed to achieve the 1- What are the quality of life conditions we want for the
results.1 RBA is characterized by five key children, adults and families who live in our community?
principles: simplicity, common sense, plain 2- What would these conditions look like if we could see
language, minimum paper and usefulness. them?
It is designed to be a straightforward, 3- How can we measure these conditions?
easily understood approach to improving
4- How are we doing on the most important of these
outcomes.2 The structure of the RBA measures?
framework uses the following components
5- Who are the partners that have a role to play in doing
to determine the effective use of resources better?
(See Appendix 1):
6- What works to do better, including no-cost and low-
Population Result: A quality cost ideas?
of life condition stated in 7- What do we propose to do?
plain language that
taxpayers and voters can
understand and support,
such as healthy people, safe communities or clean environment.
Population Indicator: A measure of the extent to which a population result is
being achieved, such as the rate of obesity, the crime rate, or rates of air and
water pollution.
Turning the Curve: Defining success as doing better than the current trend or
trajectory for a measure. (This means changing the direction of the curve or, in
some cases, slowing the rate at which things are getting worse.)
Strategies: a collection of actions with a reasoned chance of turning the curve.
RBA encourages the consideration of no-cost and low-cost ideas as part of the
mix.
Performance Measures: Distinct from population indicators, these are metrics
that demonstrate how well programs, agencies and service systems are working.
RBA puts all performance measures into three common sense categories: “How
much did we do?”, “How well did we do it?” and “Is anyone better off?”
Data Development Agenda: A prioritized list of where new and better data are
needed.
Information and Research Agenda: A prioritized list of questions we need
answered in order to understand the most important causes and most powerful
solutions.
1 Department of Children and Families: www.ct.gov/dcf/cwp/view.asp?a=4456&Q=522814
2 For more on the RBA process see: Fiscal Policy Studies Institute- www.raguide.org
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 9Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Connecticut has applied this framework in a range of areas which, taken together, have
spanned the breadth of state government and communities. Below are the key examples of
this work, primarily focused on the work within state government but also briefly describing the
RBA work that occurred outside of the government’s activities which ultimately reinforced each
other and created the overall momentum throughout the state.
RBA in the Legislature
In 2004 several legislators, including the new chair of the Appropriations Committee, attended
a session on RBA sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislators. Upon their
return, a legislative briefing was held where Mark Friedman was invited to present to the full
Appropriations Committee and other members of the legislature, whereupon a working group
was formed to determine whether RBA could be adopted by
“RBA gives the legislature the Connecticut General Assembly. The working group later
and the agencies an became the Appropriations RBA Subcommittee charged with
opportunity to talk in a using a results focus in the appropriations process, and
common language about engaging other subcommittees and executive branch
programs.” agencies.
RBA intrigued the legislators due to the CT Performance Accountability Questions
potential for bringing accountability to the 1- What is the quality of life result to which the program
budgeting process, measuring impact and makes the most important contribution?
targeting spending to effective programs. 2- How does the program contribute to the result?
They recognized that RBA could help 3- Who are the programs major customers?
drive their decisions about policies,
4- What measures do you use to tell if the program is
programs, practices and the investment of delivering its services well? How are you doing on the
taxpayer dollars. In addition, it was readily most important of those measures?
understandable by legislative and lay 5- What measures do you use to tell if the program’s
audiences alike (plain language) and customers are better off? How are you doing on the most
therefore it could be put into practice very important of those measures?
quickly. 6- Who are the partners with a major role to play in doing
better?
By late 2005 the legislature joined with the
governor's office to pilot RBA for policy, 7- What works, what could work, to do better, or to do the
least harm in a difficult financial climate?
budgeting and oversight decisions.
Agencies were invited to volunteer to 8- What specific actions do you propose to take over
the next two years? Focus on 1) no-cost and low-
participate in the pilot and the
cost actions 2) actions to reduce the harm of
Commissioner of the Department of
budget reductions and 3) reallocation of existing
Environmental Protection (DEP) and the resources to obtain best results.
Early Childhood Cabinet expressed
interest and became invested in
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 10Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
developing the RBA process. A delegation from the Appropriations Committee met with the
cabinet and the commissioner to discuss the process and invite them to present on the
programs of their choosing. Ultimately the pilot started with DEP’s Long Island Sound clean
water program and the Early Child Cabinet’s result, Ready by Five and Fine by Nine. Staff
from the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) and the Charter Oak Group (Charter Oak) provided
technical assistance to the subcommittee in the development of templates for agency budget
presentations based upon the results-based and performance-based decision-making
processes of RBA. Charter Oak also provided RBA training and intensive technical assistance
to all participating agency and legislative staff.
Over the next several years the legislature studied the process and in 2009 expanded it to
include all state agencies. Volunteer agencies were allowed extra time in presentations of their
budget to of the Appropriations Committee, which afforded the opportunity to explain
challenges the agency faced and engage in a dialog with the committee. The process allowed
the agencies and the committee to start from a point of agreement. The usual hearings that
were perceived as confrontational with demands to prove performance shifted to conversations
about turning the curve. The agencies began to explain how they contributed to Connecticut
quality-of-life results, and how they were using data to improve the performance of their
programs. The process gave agencies the ability to discuss challenges and seek cooperation
from the legislature in shifting funds. For example, the Department of Corrections showed data
about what was not working in the agency but also showed the story behind the data about
underfunding and understaffing, which turned a weakness into a strength and generated
legislative support. Another example was the DCF presentation on child abuse and neglect
which resulted in the Appropriations Committee supporting DCF’s proposal to move resources
to programs preventing and reducing neglect.
As required by Public Law 09-166, in 2010 the Office of Program Review and Investigations
(PRI) used the RBA framework to assess Family Preservation and Support Programs
administered by DCF. PRI found that the RBA approach:
is a promising process for promoting accountability and improving state government
performance
offers advantages over the sunset process3
Subsequently several bills were introduced which required the use of RBA including Public Act
No. 11-109, An Act Requiring An Annual Results-Based Accountability Report Card Evaluating
State Policies And Programs Impacting Children which mandated the development of a
Children’s RBA Report Card.
3RBA Pilot Project Study of Selected Human Services Programs (P.A. 09-166) January 15, 2010
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pridata/Studies/PDF/RBA_Pilot_Study_FINAL_Committee_%20Report.PDF
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 11Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
The Judicial Branch
The Judiciary has developed RBA Report Cards for multiple program areas:
Adult Probation Interpreter Services
Alternative in the Community (AIC) Judicial Marshal Services
Civil Case flow Juvenile Probation
Criminal Case flow Employment Services
Foreclosure Mediation Program
Under the active leadership of the executive director, the Judiciary’s Court Support Services
Division (CSSD) used RBA in their strategic planning and results management work as well as
with external partners. Their subcommittees were comprised of agency partners, businesses
and providers which contributed to the expansion of RBA throughout the state through the
sharing of knowledge and practical application of RBA. To begin the process, the CSSD RBA
team met with all 1,500 employees and introduced the RBA concepts which led to the kickoff
of an agency-wide effort.
RBA is now used in contracts and in the agency’s internal processes. RBA performance
measures are incorporated in all aspects of the division’s work, and are demonstrating the
effect of services on customer outcomes and not just activities. For example, CSSD’s measure
of how well the agency is performing includes whether a client receives treatment that is
matched to their need instead of the number of treatment services provided. Case
management systems also allow staff to record the “story behind the data” and note any
exceptions or problems, which reassured staff that there would be opportunities to explain
specific challenges and not simply be judged by a data system. Similar processes support the
contracted work by community based organizations and allow for the same “story behind the
data” information related to each performance measure. Through the inclusion of external
partners in their work, other agencies funding the same providers are able to set up a
coordinated reporting process that benefits the providers and the agencies.
The current three-year strategic plan notes that CSSD “utilize[s] Results-Based Accountability
as the framework to measure our success in CSSD. Through RBA, we have realized
tremendous gains in nearly all of our process measures and, most importantly, in recidivism
and conflict reduction. This is the case throughout the division and with our contracted
providers”.4
4Three Year Strategic Plan FY 2013 – FY 2015, Judicial Branch State of Connecticut, Court Support Services Division,
http://jud.ct.gov/CSSD/StrategicPlan_2013-15.pdf
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 12Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Department of Education
The Department of Education (CSDE) was already accustomed to a data-driven process, and
was able to appreciate how RBA could be used to communicate about all their programs and
help align their efforts to measure outcomes. CSDE started with the School Readiness pilot,
has formally expanded to 20 programs and numerous other programs have been “RBA’d”
(analyzed within their RBA framework). From 2005 through 2012, CSDE developed RBA
report cards on school readiness, the child and adult care food program, early childhood
special education, family resource centers, the even start program, adult education, early
reading success, after school programs, technical high school system, primary mental health,
special education teachers in training, interdistrict magnet schools, updated interdistrict
magnet schools and charter schools. They are also using RBA with grantees.
CSDE has an RBA team made up of legislative affairs, IT, the Chief Operating Officer and
program staff that meets every other month. They have provided extensive internal training,
both through Charter Oak and CSDE staff trained by Charter Oak to be RBA trainers. CSDE
trainers have also worked with staff in other state agencies to support their developing RBA
work.
CSDE has used RBA as the basis for their strategic plan5 to:
link agency work across divisions and bureaus to a common set of results;
inform the allocation of agency resources and the strategic discontinuance of
nonessential activities;
inform the selection and timeline of future programs for which RBA reports should be
developed;
guide strategic organizational decision making so that the work of the agency remains
aligned to the desired results;
facilitate clear communication to all constituencies on progress made annually; and
support communication between partners as the agency examines its contribution to the
population result.
Department of Children and Families
More than six years ago, DCF began using RBA for selected programs. Currently, the agency-
wide RBA strategic planning process is personally being driven by the commissioner, who has
appointed an RBA “point person.” RBA helped to refocus the agency on the whole child which
framed the structural changes of moving from siloed to cohesive divisions. The strong display
of support from leadership has encouraged the staff’s acceptance of these organizational
changes.
5 Department of Education http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2711&Q=322618
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 13Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
In preparation for a strategic planning process, well-being measures of children’s health, safety
and learning were used to look at the agency’s contribution to population outcomes which were
then aligned with federally mandated safety and permanency measures. The next step was a
strategic plan that includes developing performances measures that infuses RBA in contracting
and practice. Technical assistance from Charter Oak was credited with helping turn the
strategic plan into an actionable, outcomes-oriented working document.
DCF also used the RBA process to engage partners in achieving outcomes that require the
efforts of more than one agency. For example, to achieve
grade-level reading for all foster youth, DCF entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the Department of
Education for academic data related to foster children. “My commitment to RBA as a state
RBA helped both agencies overcome historic systemic government employee was
barriers. solidified through my participation
Community as a community member in my
Discovery Community. This works!”
In 2006, the Early Childhood Cabinet released Ready by 5
& Fine by 9, Connecticut’s Early Childhood Investment
Plan establishing Local Early Childhood Councils (LECC)
comprised of community members, nonprofits and state
agency representatives. The plan was followed by public/private funding of local capacity
building by the Early Childhood Cabinet and the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
(The Memorial Fund). The Memorial Fund had long been invested in improving early childhood
outcomes and had launched its current effort, the Discovery Initiative, in 2001. Simultaneous
to the public/private capacity building partnership was the developing partnership between the
Appropriations RBA Subcommittee and the Early Childhood Cabinet to pilot RBA in addressing
school readiness.
These two efforts came together in late 2007 as Discovery Communities began to develop
local plans, with support from the public/private capacity building fund. The Memorial Fund
engaged Charter Oak to provide training and technical assistance to community collaborative
teams representing parents, schools, early childhood and family service providers. Using the
RBA framework to develop community plans “stimulated greater ownership for results from
community leaders such as superintendents, municipal leaders, the business sector and
philanthropy.” 6 The inclusion of state agency representatives had a dual benefit: it allowed the
community to witness the state’s commitment to RBA and agency staff experienced the RBA
process firsthand which reinforced their understanding and commitment.
6 Local Early Childhood Councils: A Structure for Improving Outcomes and Systems for Young Children Birth to Age Eight- A Voice from
the Ground (2012) http://discovery.wcgmf.org/resources/local-early-childhood-councils-structure-improving-outcomes-systems-young-
children-birth
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 14Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government The primary purpose of using RBA in the community planning process was to “lay out the community’s vision to improve outcomes for its youngest citizens”7 and thus, align the local plans with the conditions of their communities and families. For example, one local plan noted “We have to ask ourselves, what would we like to see as an end result of enhancements in these areas or in other words – What Matters to Us? [That] all children in Thomaston, birth through age eight, will reach their potential in a quality, nurturing and healthy environment. (Population Result)”8 Concurrent to the Early Childhood Cabinet and The Memorial Fund partnership around the early childhood community plans, the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) began using RBA in their Connecticut Making Connections work. AECF introduced RBA 101 training for local nonprofits which advanced the momentum in the state exponentially. “The timing was right and the environment was ripe to use RBA as an approach to help local nonprofits strengthen the impact of the work … as RBA was establishing a firm footing in Connecticut through the leadership of several state legislators”.9 AECF also developed a partnership with the United Way of Greater New Haven to align their work in the New Haven community using an RBA framework, which was the beginning of a long-term effort to align the work of multiple local funders. 7 Local Early Childhood Councils: A Structure for Improving Outcomes and Systems for Young Children Birth to Age Eight- A Voice from the Ground (2012) http://discovery.wcgmf.org/resources/local-early-childhood-councils-structure-improving-outcomes-systems-young- children-birth 8 Thomaston's Blueprint for Young Children and their Families http://discovery.wcgmf.org/resources/thomastons-blueprint-young-children- and-their-families 9 Results Based Accountability - The Road To Better Results, Targeting Capacity Building And Philanthropic Partnerships (2011) http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Economic%20Security/Other/TheRoadToBetterResults/ResultsBasedAccountability_Report_We b.pdf Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 15
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
In 2007, AECF joined
with The Memorial
Fund to co-host a
Major Milestones of RBA in Connecticut- state-wide RBA
The Legislature’s Focus on Results conference that
2005- Appropriations Committee created an RBA Work Group (later the RBA featured Mark
Subcommittee) to use a results focus in the appropriations process, and to engage other Friedman and
subcommittees and executive branch agencies. The Work Group joined with the
included numerous
Governor’s office to identify volunteer agencies willing to use RBA for policy, budgeting
and oversight. Two major areas identified for the RBA pilot: the Long Island Sound state leaders. A 2009
program and the Early Childhood (EC) Cabinet's initiative Ready by Five/Fine by Nine. conference, co-
2006- Pilot project was expanded to include state parks and 29 additional programs sponsored by AECF
under the EC Cabinet. and Charter Oak, is
2007- The Department of the Environment and the EC Cabinet presented at special credited with creating
RBA forums for Appropriations. statewide synergy
and launching a
2008- RBA Subcommittee required the use of RBA for all new or expanded programs;
and used the eight RBA questions during budget hearings. critical RBA
practitioner’s network.
2009- Agencies proposed three to five programs to be analyzed under the RBA
framework; and produced RBA report cards for the selected programs.
Budget hearings included detailed RBA presentations for one program per agency.
The Office of Program Review and Investigations (PRI) conducted an RBA assessment
of the Family Preservation and Support Programs administered by the Department of
Children and Families (DCF): Intensive Family Preservation, Parent Aide, Supportive
Housing for Families, Intensive In-Home Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services and
DCF's Flexible Funding resource.
2011- Law established requiring an annual Results-Based Accountability Report Card
for state agencies that evaluates the progress of state policies and programs in
promoting the result that all Connecticut children grow up in a stable living environment,
safe, healthy and ready to lead successful lives.
Indicators (measures of progress) identified for stability, safety, health and future
success.
2012- RBA Jobs Summit with the employment and training system-- Office for
Workforce Competitiveness and CT Employment and Training Commission
Children’s Results Based Accountability Report Card launched
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 16Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services
The Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services was established in 2011 by Governor
Dannel Malloy “to help facilitate communication and enhance the public-private partnership
that exists in Connecticut in order to assure opportunity, quality service, and quality of life for
all of our residents.”10 The Cross-Agency Population Results Working Group, one of three
workgroups formed by the cabinet, was co-chaired by the court support services division
executive director and the Connecticut Council for Philanthropy president.The Working Group
membership included the range of stakeholders from nonprofits to state agencies.
The agency representatives introduced the idea of using RBA which led to work on the five
Connecticut Results Statements. A comprehensive inventory of “Population Results
Statements” of over 30 existing statements submitted by the agencies was arranged into five
domains with a single result statement for each domain. The Working Group also organized
corresponding headline and secondary indicators to identify progress toward each result. In
addition, the Working Group coordinated their efforts with the general assembly to incorporate
the work of the Appropriations RBA Subcommittee. (See Appendix 2)
The cabinet recommended that Connecticut:
adopt the cross-agency results and indicators for use by all health and human service
agencies and non-profits contracting with the state.
establish a population results organizing body to implement and oversee the cross-
agency RBA work made up of “a broad and diverse group that includes representation
from each branch of state government and nonprofit agencies should be assembled
under the direction of an appointed coordinator.”11
CT Kids Report Card
Initially the Appropriations RBA Subcommittee determined that different results statements
were necessary as part of the education process, but a set of shared results emerged as part
of the work of the Governor’s Cabinet with direct input from the agencies and communities.
This corresponded with the development of a Children’s Results Accountability Report Card
required by Public Act 11-109 to “evaluate the progress of state policies and programs in
promoting the result that all Connecticut children grow up in a stable living environment, safe,
healthy and ready to lead successful lives.”12
Through technical assistance from Charter Oak, and with a large group of stakeholders, the
CT Kids Report Card was developed. The report card utilizes the Results Scorecard software
10 Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services Report to Governor Dannel P. Malloy (2012)
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/assets/temp/governors_np_cabinet_annual_report_final_2012-10-01.pdf
11 Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services Report to Governor Dannel P. Malloy (2012)
http://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/assets/temp/governors_np_cabinet_annual_report_final_2012-10-01.pdf
12 Public Act 11-109 http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/act/pa/pdf/2011PA-00109-R00HB-06282-PA.pdf
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 17Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
developed by the Results Leadership Group to provide easy online access by all stakeholders.
The goal of the CT Kids Report Card is to “make the CT Kids Report Card website a
centralized source of data that can be used by the public, as well as policymakers, service
providers and other partners, to increase accountability and transparency”. 13
Other Agency Activities
There are numerous other related agency activities but notably the recent jobs summit created
significant intra and inter-agency momentum through the use of RBA. The Office for Workforce
Competitiveness has used RBA for planning and contracting. The Connecticut Employment
and Training Commission’s Youth and Performance Committees developed an integrated RBA
framework for program and policy development
as well as state and federal reporting. Their
annual report to the legislature on the
employment outcomes for employment, training “The process for the agencies and for the
and educational programs and institutions uses community nonprofits was not smooth, in fact it
their RBA framework. was rather lumpy. But even though there was
variability along the way, there has been a good
Next Steps trajectory.”
The next stage of RBA work in Connecticut is
universally seen as a multi-dimensional
process that continues work in each branch of
government and in the community, while moving towards even greater coordination. The
legislature plans to continue to engage new members, continue efforts to coordinate with other
RBA efforts in the state, publish the CT Kids Report Card annually and maximize support from
stakeholders before establishing legislative mandates. There is also discussion of codifying
Connecticut’s results statements. The Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human
Services is focused on implementing cross-agency population results and continuing to work
with all branches of government to establish shared outcomes between government, private
funders and community based organizations. State agencies are equally committed to
broadening efforts to coordinate while expanding the RBA work in individual agencies.
CHALLENGES, SUCCESSES AND LESSONS LEARNED
The materials and interviews documenting the work in Connecticut to implement RBA provided
an honest assessment of the progress as well as the obstacles overcome along the way. Many
of these challenges are typical, while others were unique to Connecticut. Over the past eight
years, time has allowed support from leadership to develop, staff engagement to increase and
knowledge to spread through a variety of strategies.
13 CT Kids Report Card: http://www.cga.ct.gov/kid/rba/results.asp
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 18Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government Staff Resistance After the initial pilot it was difficult to engage the agencies. There was general institutional government skepticism. Entrenched bureaucrats and skeptics saw RBA as “another tool” and they had seen too many tools come and go, or continued without impact. Another source of staff resistance was that employees were initially concerned about performance measures related to their individual work. Overcoming this resistance had to be approached cautiously and collaboratively. Staff need to be brought in to the implementation of RBA early so they can see that they will have full access to all data, can track their own performance and that they will have a process (the story behind the data) to explain challenges. “It was important for the Many staff were more comfortable with “counting widgets”, legislature and the agencies they were not oriented to thinking about whether people are to learn together and build a better off and it was a fundamental shift to use RBA. Initially relationship as part of the data staff, in particular, struggled with the process. They process.” viewed the approach as too simplistic and an incorrect use of data. But after working with the key concepts of RBA, utilizing proxy measures and participating in the data development plans, they have largely become enthusiastic and are championing the approach. Agencies needed to pay attention to both operations and administration in order to embed RBA and make it central to the agency’s vision. Leadership was seen as key to whether the staff accepted or rejected the RBA process. Leadership came from multiple areas; the legislature, the agencies and the community work by foundations. Agency heads with the courage to toke look at their agency and encourage staff to talk about what can be done differently were empowering and energizing. As a result, staff feel like the RBA work is being done with them not to them, and staff at every level can see their contribution. As new agencies became involved and moved from skepticism to compliance to enthusiasm, more agencies became interested. At this stage, peer to peer support became important. In addition, it became clear that dedicated staff were needed at every level; in the legislature, throughout each agency and at the community level in order to tie the pieces together, address data-sharing challenges and work with other staff. A network of RBA-trained staff became a critical support system by coaching their peers and becoming champions for the RBA process. Lesson: It is difficult for agencies and communities to acknowledge problems but when they do, and they work collaboratively to make improvements, the process is genuine. Training The training, technical assistance (TA) and institutes were described by some as initially painful, but in the end they brought everyone to the table. It was determined that a combination of external expertise, local consultation and in-house capacity was required to support the Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 19
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government ongoing TA needs. TA also came through cross-agency support as new agencies came online and were supported by the agencies with more experience. Buy-in required numerous trainings which included legislators so agency leadership and staff could see the sincerity of the legislature. Lesson: Need to develop a plan from the beginning about how to provide training and ongoing TA. Training is necessary but not sufficient, need to also have coaching and TA that is readily available. Data Data systems were a barrier as they are designed to count units or document compliance. Many staff were focused on the data that were being collected, with a sense that the outcomes are determined by the data they are able to collect. RBA forced them to look at specific data to see what it means in a single agency and across agencies. In addition, data were a significant barrier in the community planning process. Nonprofits struggled with basic data collection and it was difficult for communities to access town-level data previously reported to the state. Data needed to be available to communities, no matter how insufficient or incomplete. As the state and community level work became more aligned, it became clear that agencies and communities need to use common data. Lesson: RBA is data intense; it is critical to know what data are available, what data are not, develop a data development plan and immediately work on data systems. Establishing a data collaborative early will reduce some of the data challenges. Cross-Agency Work Cross-agency collaboration using RBA to develop policy changes was very effective, such as the effort to raise the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 18 which allowed more youth to remain in the juvenile justice system. RBA was also a useful framework for cross-agency systems work such as workforce and employment; it provides common measures and a common framework that encouraged the collaboration of multiple agencies. In cross-agency work, RBA gave the agencies the tools to discuss complex, technical work using language that is accessible to everyone; in turn, it helps them see how the system can work better to change lives. Lesson: RBA stresses that no one organization can improve population level outcomes alone. That realization is a relief for many agencies and makes cross-agency work possible in a new way. Budgeting The economic downturn created new pressures on state governments. In Connecticut, the expectation was that RBA could immediately be used to make funding cuts. Despite the fact that most agencies were not yet using RBA for agency planning or budget development, the Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 20
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government report cards met an immediate need to inform the budget process. Leadership, especially those in the legislature, have seen the potential of RBA to change state funding and agency behavior to focus more on improving outcomes. Using RBA in the budgeting process has helped drive change and it is now believed that state funds are being used in a more effective and comprehensive way. Lesson: RBA needs to be used early in the budget decision-making process, with agencies creating their budget requests from their RBA plans and not just in preparation for presentations to the budget committees. The Legislative Branch Some believe the ideal is to introduce RBA through the executive branch but many in Connecticut believe that there is value in beginning through a legislative process. The agencies took it very seriously as it became a part of the budget process several years in a row. RBA has changed the discussion between the agencies and the Appropriations committee, moving from the interests of individual members or random constituent-inspired questions to a structured, meaningful conversation about the effective use of resources. It also helped to wrap the RBA process around a grant-planning cohort involving communities who could present to the legislature and reinforce the value and importance. Another challenge that had to be overcome was skepticism about partisanship, along with agency concerns that RBA was a ploy to critique them. Legislative delegation visits to the agencies helped dispense with early concerns, as it demonstrated that they were entering the process as partners. RBA was presented as opportunity to make improvements together. For example, when the Early Childhood Cabinet reconfigured their budget using RBA a program was identified jointly by the executive and legislative branches as appropriate for reductions based on the poor outcomes. Capacity building within the legislature is an ongoing need. While all members of the general assembly are invited to the RBA forums, attendance is erratic as many continue to see it as purely a budgetary tool. However, the participation of the legislative staff will help with long- term commitment. This has already begun to impact the analysis of agency program performance and budget preparation. The process now involves a better dialog between agency and legislative staff, with each asking better questions of the other and looking at new data together to see the effects of a program. These discussions are shared with legislators and will reinforce the value of RBA throughout the policy development process. Lesson: Utilizing an RBA approach in the budget process was useful in garnering the attention of agencies, as was the partnership attitude on the part of the Appropriations Committee delegation. However, it is also important to utilize RBA in policy hearings and committee discussions. Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 21
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government The Executive Branch The greatest challenge was the perception of uneven support for RBA from the governor’s office as administrations or priorities changed. Nevertheless, RBA has not been used punitively and the legislature has not retaliated when agencies did not fully cooperate, and as a result trust was built. Ongoing discussions and negotiations between agency leadership and governor’s staff built a bridge that led to the Governor’s Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services using RBA in the development of their recommendations However, uptake remains uneven across and within agencies. A common view is that RBA may be easier for human services agencies than regulatory agencies which struggle with identifying a direct impact on clients. But the cross-agency results and indicators provide an opportunity to engage all the state agencies in the RBA approach. The Cabinet on Nonprofit Health and Human Services’ recommendations of cross-agency results and a Population Results Organizing Body demonstrate how ongoing collaboration involving all three branches of government can advance the goal of improving outcomes for the State’s citizens Lesson: Executive branch support of RBA is a matter of good management practice in both governance and the effective delivery of state services. The Nonprofits and Foundations Working with the nonprofits requires a process of building relationships and then building capacity; the relationship part was extremely important. The partnership between the Early Childhood Cabinet and The Memorial Fund worked to advance their mutual goal of improving outcomes for young children. Advancing RBA was also mutually beneficial. The Memorial Fund liked the organizing and accountability aspects and saw the opportunity for communities to be in a better position to respond to the state’s interest in results. The state realized they needed to be in the position to respond to the community’s questions about results. Together they created a process that engaged the Discovery Communities. While The Memorial Fund and AECF offered technical assistance and capacity building to strengthen the community work, other private funders have been slow to adopt RBA. The primary concerns appear to be that not everything is measurable and that grantees will shape the data to demonstrate results. Lesson: Capacity building with the nonprofits and communities is important to building trust. It needs to be an inclusive process, engaging them in the development of appropriate measures and attainable goals. Nonprofits need to understand how RBA can be used to help them manage and improve their services. The Community One challenge was that initially the state and local RBA work occurred separately, although the work is now being more closely coordinated. Nevertheless, RBA has been very effective for Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 22
Results-Based Accountability (RBA) & Connecticut State Government
community planning - like Discovery Communities - which helps local groups develop
community-wide plans in a systematic way. Communities found that the visioning around
population results “is fun but developing performance measures is head banging work” and
required the support of peers. Although it requires hard work, the RBA process solidifies the
commitment of all the partners. As a result new collaborations are forming at the local level.
RBA strengthened existing early childhood collaborative efforts, and has led to better
alignment of state and local resources with strategies outlined in the community plans.
However, the emerging partnerships struggle in the face of competing reporting measures
from federal and state agencies and foundations.
Lesson: Coordinate state and local RBA efforts. Engage private funders early and often
to leverage the impact of using the same framework, language and measures.
Key conclusions drawn from the lessons learned in the first eight years of Connecticut’s RBA
work are:
RBA is simple but not easy.
Optimal leadership comes through the
cooperation between the executive and
legislative branches, and is bipartisan.
Ideally the state agency RBA work and the “Until RBA there was a disconnect in
community RBA work would occur our work. We knew how much we
simultaneously and jointly.
were doing and maybe how well we
Engaging communities and nonprofits in the were doing it, but not whether anyone
process strengthens the partnership and was better off. Now we do.”
accelerates progress towards results.
Engaging private funders can leverage
impact, if everyone is using the same
language and framework.
Going statewide (vertical and horizontal) is important to achieving well-being for all
children and youth.
A common language and core population results improves collaboration and
cooperation across all sectors.
Center for the Study of Social Policy Page 23You can also read
