Things to Consider About ROMA: An OEO Perspective

1. Things to Consider About ROMA: An OEO Perspective October 6, 2014 NC ROMA Retreat OEO Contractors’ Training OEO NCRT Team: Verna P. Best, Freeman Denton Trudy Logan, Gretchen Williams

2. NC ROMA Objectives • Discuss the Relevance of Performance Management Initiative on the NC Community Action Network and NC NCRT T/TA Team • Establish Potential Areas to Support the Movement from Performance Measurement to a Culture of Performance Management • Other Group Objectives

3. Organizational Standards ! ROMA Next Generation ! Accountability Measures !

4. OHH MY!

5. Definitions Performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward pre-established goals….Performance measures may address… process…outputs…outcomes…. http://www.gao.gov/assets/80/77277.pdf

6. Definitions Performance management is a tool used to maximize program success. It is the ongoing review and assessment of program accomplishments toward a project’s goals and objectives. Performance management is about improving organizational performance. A performance management system consists of a set of integrated performance goals, indicators, and targets combined with an organization-wide reporting system http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/afi/AFI_What_is_PM.html

7. Examples Performance Measurement OEO Form 212 OEO Form 240 (manual and AR4CA generated) Year-End Report (manual and AR4CA generated) Monitoring Targeting CSBG-IS OEO 286 Forms OEO 225 Forms Data

8. Examples Performance Management ROMA Cycle OEO Form 210 OEO Form 212 CSBG-IS Targeting Monitoring Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation Plan Proposed Organizational Standards ROMA Next Generation OEO 286 Forms OEO 225 Forms What You Do With The Data

9. We’re Moving Performance Management Performance Measurement ON UP!

10. Work Smarter….Not Harder ROMA Next Generation Organizational Standards Culture of Performance Management State Accountability Local Accountability

11. Documenting Evaluation and Analysis: Org. Standards Standard 1.3 • The Organization has a systematic approach for collecting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction data to the governing board. Standard 4.2 • The Organization’s Community Action Plan is outcome-based, anti-poverty focused, and ties directly to the Community Assessment.

12. Documenting Evaluation and Analysis: Org. Standards Standard 4.3 • The Organization’s Community Action Plan and Strategic Plan document the continuous use of the full ROMA cycle or comparable system (assessment, planning, implementation, achievement of results, and evaluation). In addition, the Organization documents having used the services of a ROMA- certified trainer(or equivalent) to assist in implementation. Standard 9.3 • The Organization has analyzedits outcomes within the past 12 months.

13. Source: NASCSP , Improving Performance Management Through the Next Generation of ROMA PPT. September 2014

14. Source: NASCSP , Improving Performance Management Through the Next Generation of ROMA PPT. September 2014

15. Supporting Org. Standards and ROMA Next Generation • CSBG Application: Narrative; Needs Assessment (210); Work Plan (212); Outcome Table; Monitoring Assessment and Evaluation Plan • Other areas/ ways the application can facilitate demonstration of assessment and analysis? • Thoughts on connecting organizational standards to the application in some manner

16. Supporting Org. Standards and ROMA Next Generation • Use of Logic Model ? • Use of Theory of Change ?

17. State Accountability Measures • Org. standards and expectation for Eligible Entities to meet 100% included in State contracts • Measure and report the number of Eligible Entities that meet org. standards at: 100% ; 90%-99%; 75%-89%; 50%-74%; Less than 50% • Corrective action plans in place for Eligible Entities meeting less than 100% of org. standards [NOTE: By FY2017, all Eligible Entities are expected to meet all org. standards.] • The State provides T/TA in org. standards areas that are met by fewer than 20% of the eligible entities [NOTE: FY2017 has a lower threshold (20%) than FY2016 (30%).]

18. State Accountability Measures • State agency provides semi-annual (later quarterly) feedback to local entities regarding review of planned versus actual performance as assessed through local data. • On a semi-annual basis (later quarterly), the State agency provides feedback to DSA regarding the progress being made by the local entities for a subset of measures based on the performance data collected. For the feedback, State agencies might compare local entity performance over time.

19. Work Smarter….Not Harder ROMA Next Generation Organizational Standards Culture of Performance Management State Accountability Local Accountability

20. Other Areas • Targeting • 80%-120% Expected Achievement Range • Data Dashboards

21. Targeting Reporting NPIs within 80% - 120% Source: CSBG-IS FYs 2009-2012, NPIs 1.1, 1.3, 6.3

22. Targeting Achievement Rate For NPIs Source: CSBG-IS FYs 2009-2012, NPIs 1.1, 1.3, 6.3

23. Continued Emphasis 80% - 120% • Contracted State Performance Measures • CSBG-IS NPIs • Facilitating explanations for performance outside expected range and planned actions to address • Aggregated data

24. Data Dashboards Source: http://www.socialimpactexchange.org/files/publications/REDF_Performance_Dashboards_Presentation.pdf

25. Questions/ Dialogue