ROMA Next Generation Center of Excellence Update and Listening Session

1. ROMA Next Generation Center of ExcellenceUpdate and Listening Session 2013 NASCSP Annual Conference

2. Where We Are • 12 National Webinars • 6 Statewide and National Listening Sessions • 1 National Survey • 3 Iterations of the White Paper • Framing of pilots • Framing of case studies • Engaging other federal programs

3. Where We’re Headed • Release semi-final iteration of the White Paper • Select sites for pilot and case studies • Implement pilots and case studies • Toolkit and training development • Engage NASCSP Monitoring Workgroup

4. But, Before We Get There… We Need STATEspecific input • What information do you wish you had on the impact of CSBG? • What will the proposed changes mean for your monitoring and reporting responsibilities?

5. Creating the next generation of roma

6. ROMA Next Generation • Foster a performance culture in the Network • Create and implement a Theory of Change process throughout the Network • Increase use of client demographic information to contextualize indicators • Use a range of indicators to show progress toward family level stability and self-sufficiency

7. ROMA Next Generation, cont. • Focus on a short list of indicators and outcomes to be used at the federal level • Identify which outcomes (from existing and new) give the information needed about core programs at local and state levels (NOTE: Some will be required to be reported to the national data collection system and others will not) • Generally reduce the number of items required to be reported while preserving sufficient data to “tell the story.” • Make changes to the data collection system to allow for quarterly reporting (GPRA Modernization) and multi year reporting

8. ROMA Next Generation, cont. • Enhance ability of State CSBG Offices to monitor using ROMA and Organizational Standards • Enhance ability of State CSBG Offices to work together with State Community Action Associations, RPICs and national partners to provide training and technical assistance • Aim for full implementation of ROMA by all local agencies, State CSBG Offices, and OCS

9. See White Paper, Section Three Proposed Family Level Changes

10. The Big Questions What’s your impact on the lives of individuals and families? Are people better off as a result of Community Action intervention? What actually happened (what changed) to an individual or family as a result of the services you provided? If Community Action is about moving families to self-sufficiency, how many families have achieved self-sufficiency? If families have not “moved” but have received services to maintain or achieve family stability, how do you measure this accomplishment?

11. What You’ve Told Us • Our work is about stability and self-sufficiency. • Flexibility in reporting should be maintained. • A majority of agencies can provide an unduplicated count of individuals served (according to two surveys). • A majority of agencies can connect family outcomes with the services they receive (both in number and frequency of services and duration of service). • Some of the current NPIs are meaningful and should remain. Some are outputs, should also remain but be separated from the outcomes. • There are too many NPIs. However, we need a good number and a range of indicators to enable us to tell our story.

12. Defining Self-Sufficiency Pathway to Self-Sufficiency

13. Defining Self-Sufficiency, cont. Basic Needs – housing, utilities/telephone, childcare, food, transportation, health care, clothing and household items, and taxes (minus federal and state tax credits). Public Benefits – programs that limit assistance to those with modest or low incomes/means tested programs such as TANF, SSI, Food Stamps, Rental Assistance, Energy Assistance Sufficient Discretionary Income – ?

14. National ROMA Goals ROMA GOAL ONE: People with low incomes become more self-sufficient ROMA GOAL SIX (REVISED): People with low incomes, especially vulnerable populations, become more stable.

15. Defining Self-Sufficiency, cont. Pathway to Self-Sufficiency – Connecting the Dots

16. Impact of Proposed NPI Updates • Follow the progress of people who have increased their family income • Identify the number of people who have reduced reliance on public assistance (because their income is sufficient to meet the needs previously met by this assistance) • Identify the number of people who have acquired public benefits to enable them to meet family basic needs • Identify the number of people who have gained skills that support their movement toward stability or self sufficiency • Identify the number of people who have gained assets or resources that support their movement toward stability or self sufficiency

17. Proposed Family NPIs

18. Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

19. Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

20. Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

21. Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

22. Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

23. Proposed Family NPIs, cont.

24. Additional Family Level Reporting Questions • Should we make better use of scales and matrices? • If yes, how do we standardize these tools while still allowing for community flexibility to modify benchmark language? • If yes, how might the use of scale and matrices impact reporting? • Do we need separate scales/indicators for youth and senior citizens?

25. Proposed Community Level Changes See White Paper, Section Four

26. The Big Questions What’s your impact on communities? Are communities better off as a result of Community Action intervention? What actually happened (what changed) to the community as a result of the services you provided? Are you a part of “collective action” with partners in your community? What evidence do you have to prove your part in the community level success?

27. What You’ve Told Us • Community Action is about helping maintain or regain community vitality. • We know that family success is inter-related with community success. • Community work takes collaboration and development of different kinds of resources. • Community work is difficult and it often takes multiple years to achieve a single outcome. • We’d like to do more community work.

28. Defining Revitalized Communities Revitalized communities enable everyone to meet their own basic needs. These communities provide opportunities for all individuals to be engaged and to achieve their personal goals. Revitalized communities are healthy, safe and resilient in times of change. Revitalized communities foster a sense of shared purpose and generate a sense of meaningful engagement.

29. National ROMA Goals ROMA GOAL 2: The conditions in which people with low incomes live are improved ROMA GOAL 3: People with low incomes own a stake in their community ROMA GOAL 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to people with low incomes are achieved

30. Defining Revitalized Communities, cont. Pathway to Revitalized Communities – Connecting the Dots

31. What Should be Measured? We discussed proposed changes to community level NPIs which included elements from the following sources: • Promise Neighborhoods • The Opportunity Index • The Partnership for Sustainable Communities • The National Core Indicators

32. Proposed Community NPIs

33. Proposed Community NPIs, cont.

34. Proposed Community NPIs, cont.

35. Proposed Community NPIs, cont.

36. Proposed Community NPIs, cont.

37. Proposed Community NPIs, cont. • Collective Impact Narrative • Community Intervention Title • Counties Served • Target Population • Shared Measurement System • Gather baseline data • Increase awareness and activity

38. See White Paper, Section Five PROPOSED CHANGES FOR REPORTING The Use of CSBG Dollars

39. Refining Service Categories

40. Refining Service Categories We must better define the following categories: • Emergency Services • Self-Sufficiency • Linkages

41. Refining Service Categories, cont. Emergency Services – This would capture the work of Community Action to respond to family emergencies. It would include such things as emergency fuel assistance and rent assistance (Outcome 5). Disaster Relief – This would capture the work of Community Action preparing for and during disasters. It would reflect community level work. As such, it would not be about people with low incomes only.

42. Refining Service Categories, cont. Self-Sufficiency –This would capture the work of Community Action’s direct case management work. It would also capture Community Action’s formal family development/self-sufficiency programs that provide a continuum of assistance (Outcomes 1-3). Linkages – This would capture the work of Community Action around partnership and coalition building (Outcomes 8-9)

43. Refining Service Categories, cont. • Addition of an Organizational Capacity Building category - • Community Assessment • Data and Analysis • Strategic Planning • Community Engagement • Consumer Input • Leadership • Governance • HR • Fiscal • High level reporting or is the above level of detail beneficial? • Direct versus capacity building services

44. Refining Service Categories, cont. Reporting of use of CSBG for “Administration” • Administration is not a separate category in Section E, but is included in the service category with which it is related. Should it be separate? • Some agencies “back fill” indirect costs for programs that do not have ability to pay full rate. How is this captured? • Proposed use of CSBG dollars to support improvement in Organizational Standards areas (most of which are administrative) will increase percent of funds spent on admin (see next slide). Is this to be expected?

45. Refining Service Categories, cont. • Health • Employment • Education • Income Management/Asset Development • Housing • Emergency Services • Disaster Relief • Nutrition • Linkages • Self-Sufficiency • Organizational Capacity Building

46. Connecting CSBG Dollars to the NPIs • Linking CSBG dollars to direct services; use the categories other than organizational capacity; connecting CSBG with the outcomes achieved • Some states are already doing this

47. Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding Leveraging: How do we demonstrate the uniqueness that is produced by leveraging CSBG dollars to secure other funding to address our mission? Comparison of Section E categories with reporting of all funding info in Section F

48. Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont. One suggestion is to take the information from Section F and create a graph similar to the one we have of Section E (See example on next slide)

49. Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont.

50. Connecting CSBG Dollars to Other Funding, cont. Would your state be able to add a column on Section F and ask reporters to identify how much CSBG funding was used to supplement that resource? (See example on next slide)