Lead Agency Viability Assessment Consistent with OPPAGA Report 04-65, DCF

contracted with FMHI to assist in the design and implementation of a centralized and coordinated system to assess lead agency viability.

Purpose: To provide early warning of potential Lead Agency conditions that may affect their long-term viability and guide decision makers in determining the need for further review beginning at the local level.

The viability assessment process compiles data already collected through various review, monitoring, and data collection mechanisms and is not intended to replace or substitute for any of these mechanisms.

What do we mean by Lead Agency Viability? Status of an organization whereby

conditions that promote sustainability, growth, and acceptable performance are present.

Viability is based on a comparison of these measurable conditions against generally accepted benchmarks.

Definitions Standard: A standard establishes the basis by which

an indicator is determined to be a relevant measure in assessing an organization’s performance, structure, or other conditions, and supports establishment of benchmarks.

Benchmark: A comparison measure established through one or more of the following: statutory requirement, contractual requirement, COA standard, or industry standard.

Research & Development Process

An extensive search of the literature was conducted.

Council on Accreditation organization and management standards establish and support most viability Indicators.

Other Sources of Standards

Other standards derive from:

Florida Statutes CBC Readiness Assessment Criteria CBC Final Services Contract Template CWLA Standards of Excellence QWICA U.S. Census Bureau Quarterly Workforce

Indicators

Research and Development Regional meetings held to obtain stakeholder

feedback to assist in the development process (January and March 2005).

The initial assessment tool and profile summary were presented in January 2005 at the CBC Transition Issues/Legislation Meeting in Tallahassee.

Participants: DCF headquarters/zone staff, Legislative Committee staff, CBC leadership, OPPAGA, Auditor General’s Office.

Resulting feedback provided guidance for finaliztion of assessment scale on Viability Assessment Tool and definition of viability and viability process.

Research & Development

A further revised tool and summary were presented in March 2005 at the regional meeting in Orlando.

Participants: DCF zone/district staff, various CBC leadership/administrative staff, OPPAGA, Auditor General’s Office, Community Alliance members.

Research & DevelopmentBased on feedback from participants, the following revisions were made to the final draft:

Deletion of Community Alliance factor (not deemed crucial to lead agency viability)

Revised rating scale on Profile Summary to be more consistent with early warning/early review purpose of assessment.

Consolidation of some indicators

DRAFT

* For descriptions of each of the 81 specific indicators, see CBC Lead Agency Viability Assessment tool.

Viability Domains/Factors

Based on standards /

benchmarks

Oversight

-LA Bd. of Directors -Independent -DCF Contract Compliance Reviews

Operations

-Reporting Systems -Infrastructure Main. -Partnership Perf. -Contract Monitoring

Pr-Program Perf. Tracking -Program Performance

Human Resources

-Staffing -Evaluation -Training -Supervision

Finance

-Liquidity -Performance -Risk Management -Financial Position

Funding

-State/Federal Sources -External Org./Private

Process

Procedural Guidelines

Data Collection

Reporting System

Tracking System

Assessment Tools

Agency-Specific Viability Profile

One page summary with Factor scores summarized into an overall

viability rating

Core Organizational Domains/Factors

Oversight: LA Bd., Community, Independent Finance: Risk Management, Financial Position Operations: Infrastructure Maintenance

Operational Performance

Domains/Factors Oversight: DCF Contract Compliance Reviews Funding: State/Fed., External Org. Res. Finance: Liquidity, Performance HR: Staffing, Evaluation, Training, Supervision Operations: Reporting, Partnership Performance, Contract Monitoring, Program Performance Tracking

Rating Scale Agency Strength Informational Further Review (Each indicator is rated separately then totaled and converted to factor score. For specific indicator ratings, please see Lead Agency Viability Assessment tool.)

Programmatic Performance

Domain/Factor Operations: Program Performance

Lead Agency Viability Concept

Lead Agency: Assessment Completion Date:

Rating ScaleFactor Score

Agency Strength Informational

Further Review

Domain FactorOversight Board of Directors 0 5-7 8-11 12-15

Community Oversight 0 2 4-6Independent Oversight 0 7 8-14 15-21

Finance Risk Management 0 1 3Financial Position 0 1 2 3

Operations Infrastructure Maintenance 0 7-15 17-21

Rating ScaleFactor Score

Agency Strength Informational

Further Review

Domain FactorOversight DCF Compliance Reviews 0 3-5 7-9Funding State/Federal Sources 0 3-5 6-7 8-9

External Organizational Resources 0 1 3

Finance Liquidity 0 1 2 3Performance 0 8 9-17 18-24

Human Resources Staffing 0 6-7 8-16 17-18

Evaluation 0 3 4-8 9Training 0 2 3-5 6Supervision 0 2 3-5 6

Operations Reporting Systems 0 2 4-6Partnership Performance 0 4-5 6-11 12Contract Monitoring 0 4-5 6-10 12Programmatic Performance Tracking 0 2 3-5 6

Rating ScaleAt or Above

TargetBelow Target

Domain FactorOperations Programmatic Performance 0 0

Rating ScaleAgency

Strength InformationalFurther Review

16 + 6-15 0-5

Lead Agency Viability Profile Summary

Indicate the total number of "Agency Strength" boxes circled above.

Overall Lead Agency Viability Rating

Programmatic Performance Domain

Operational Domains

Core Organizational Domains

Profile Summary Rating Scale Definitions

Agency Strength: Indicates that the agency is meeting or exceeding expected standards which contributes greatly to stability, performance, and sustainability.

Informational: For informational purposes only and should be considered in the context of the entire agency profile.

Profile Summary Rating Scale Definitions Further Review: Indicates a need for further

review at the Indicator level since this status may reflect a condition that can increase an agency’s vulnerability and impact on sustainability.

Trends, accuracy of source data, developmental stage of agency, and progress against any corrective or improvement plans underway are some of the conditions that will contribute to a better understanding of the Factor rated in this range and assist in determining if assistance or intervention may be warranted.

Process & Procedure Guide

Initial Recommendations: Frequency:prior to readiness assessment final site

visitbi-annually for any active CBC Lead

Agencyat the request of the Secretary of the

Department, Lead Agency CEO or Board President

Initial Recommendations: Completion and Distribution

Unless otherwise assigned, the Lead Agency’s Contract Manager: responsible for collecting the data and completion of Viability Assessment Tool and Profile Summary.

Finalized tool and summary are distributed to: District Administrator Zone Leader Lead Agency CEO & Board Chairperson DCF Office of the Secretary Readiness Team Coordinator (if related to pending readiness assessment)

Definitions Sustainability: The capacity of a system to engage

in the complexities of continuous improvement.

Domain: A primary categorical area for assessment of viability.

Factor: A key component in an organization’s structure, environment, operations, or performance that is integral to viability and sustainability.

Indicator: A functional and measurable element that describes actions, outcomes, or conditions that can be measured and compared to established benchmarks.

Next Steps

• study, review consideration for recommendation to secretary on use

• dcf need to met original concerns expressed ….anticipate and avoid la performance situations.

• Collaborative Approach to further development