results based accountability: how it can help...
TRANSCRIPT
Dara Geckeler, MPH
Community Health Equity & Promotion Branch
SFHIP Steering Committee Meeting
April 16, 2015 1
San Francisco Department of Public Health Population Health Division
Results Based Accountability: How It Can Help Achieve Collective Impact
Building a Healthier San Francisco
How Can RBA Support SFHIP?
• RBA aligns with collective impact – Common agenda – Shared measurement – Mutually reinforcing activities
• RBA aligns with the CHIP – Population-level impact on community health
• RBA can support SFHIP member capacity – Pledges – Barriers and needs – Work plans
• RBA can support SFHIP processes – Communications tool – Quality improvement aimed at “turning the curve” – Framework for meeting agendas – Budgeting?
Outline for Today
• RBA in four slides (10 min)
• Proposed SFHIP shared measurement framework (5 min)
• Questions/discussion on framework (5 min)
• Exercise instructions/example (5 min)
• Exercise: Starting SSB work plans (20 min)
• Report back to group (10 min)
• Next steps (5 min)
FPSI/RLG 3
Population vs. Performance Accountability
FPSI/RLG
RESULT
INDICATOR
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
CHIP Result: Healthy eating and active living in SF
1. How much did we do?
2. How well did we do it?
3. Is anyone better off?
A condition of well-being for children, adults, families or communities.
A measure which helps quantify the achievement of a result.
A measure of how well a program, agency or service system is working.
= customer results
PO
PU
LA
TIO
N
AC
CO
UN
TA
BIL
ITY
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
AC
CO
UN
TA
BIL
ITY
Three types:
CHIP indicator: Percent of children and adolescents who consumed two
or more glasses of soda or sugary drinks yesterday (CHIS)
(1) How
much did
we do?
The Three Kinds of
Program Performance Measures
(2) How well
did we do it?
Is anyone
better off?
Quantity Quality E
ffect
E
ffo
rt
(3) (4)
# customers served
# activities
# policies introduced
% customers satisfied
% staff turnover
% attendance
# changed behavior
# changed attitudes
# increased skills/knowledge
# changed circumstances
% changed behavior
% changed attitudes
% increased skills/knowledge
% changed circumstances
FPSI/RLG 6
How much did we do?
Not All Performance Measures Are Created Equal
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Quantity Quality E
ffect
Eff
ort
Least important
Most important
COALITIONS
PARTNERSHIPS
COLLECTIVE IMPACT
Most control
Least control
FPSI/RLG 7
Using Shared Measurement to
“Turn the Curve”
0
5
10
2013 2014 2015 2016
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2013 2014 2015 2016
Population Accountability
0
2
4
6
0
2
4
6
CHIP Indicator: % of children &
adolescents who consumed 2 or
more glasses of soda or sugary
drinks yesterday
(not real data)
SFHIP Performance Measure
SFHIP Performance Measure
SFHIP Performance Measure
Performance Accountability
Quantity Quality
E
ffe
ct
Eff
ort
# organizations approached re: developing
SSB policy
# of Sugar Science trainings hosted by
SFHIP members
# community health workers trained on
SSB
# peer health educators trained on SSB
# SSB posters displayed in public locations
# SSB educational outreach events
% of organizations approached that agreed
to a meeting
% of training participants that rated training
favorably
# organizations adopting SSB policies
# children and adolescents/parents with
increased SSB knowledge
# children and adolescents/parents with
unfavorable attitudes about SSB
# children and adolescents who consumed
two or more glasses of soda or sugary
drinks yesterday
% of children and
adolescents who
consumed two or more
glasses of soda or
sugary drinks yesterday
(from the CHIP)*
Proposed SFHIP
Shared Measurement
Framework
Policy (SSB & H2O access)
Education (SSB & H2O consumption)
Both
*Align performance measure with
population-level indicator
SFHIP Shared Measurement (Barriers/needs re: data to be identified)
(Backbone can help develop tools)
(Tools should be shared across SFHIP members)
SFHIP Member Contributions (some may be shared across >1 SFHIP member)
(selected measures lead to work plans)
(work plans become the pledges)
PAUSE…..5 MINUTES Questions/Discussion on proposed framework?
Background for Exercise: What are we working toward?
-Activities
-Performance measures
-Timeline
-Barriers & needs
-Summary of member activities
-Headline performance measures
-Timeline
-Plan to address needs
Results Reduced % of children and
adolescents who consumed two or more
glasses of soda or sugary drinks yesterday
(from the CHIP)
SFHIP work plan
SFHIP member work plan
SFHIP member work plan
SFHIP member work plan
10
Exercise Instructions
EXERCISE: 20 MINUTES REPORT BACK: 10 MINUTES
1) What do you propose to do, and what
are your performance measures?
2) Are there any additional partners that
SFHIP needs to bring to the table?
Next Steps
Next Step Who By When
Turn worksheets into draft work plans and pledges; email to members
Backbone April 24
Revise and finalize work plans and pledges
Individual Members May 1
Prepare DRAFT overarching SFHIP work plan, measures, & resource needs; email to members
Backbone with Leadership Committee
May 15
Discuss & finalize SFHIP work plan, measures, & resource needs
SFHIP Steering (agenda item)
May 21
Report back on measures Backbone ongoing
Revise work plans as needed
SFHIP Members, Leadership Committee, and SFHIP Steering
ongoing
1. Mark Friedman, Founder of the Fiscal Policy Studies Institute and author of:
Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough (Trafford, 2005)
www.resultsaccountability.com; www.raguide.org
2. Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social
Innovation Review (2011)
http://ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact/
Thank you to: SFHIP Backbone & DPH Staff –
Special thanks to Patricia Erwin, Christina Goette,
Paula Jones, Marianne Szeto, Roberto Vargas
SFDPH Center for Learning & Innovation
Acknowledgements Portions of these materials draw upon the work of: