1 / 21

The Department of Research and Policy Development (RPD)

The Department of Research and Policy Development (RPD). Robert Grimm, Ph.D. Director. RPD’s Mission. Conduct high quality, rigorous social science evaluation research designed to measure the impact of Corporation’s programs and shape policy decisions;

gallagher-haren
Download Presentation

The Department of Research and Policy Development (RPD)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Department of Research and Policy Development (RPD) Robert Grimm, Ph.D. Director

  2. RPD’s Mission • Conduct high quality, rigorous social science evaluation research designed to measure the impact of Corporation’s programs and shape policy decisions; • Encourage a culture of performance and accountability in national and community service programs; • Provide national information on volunteering, civic engagement, and volunteer management in nonprofit organizations; • Assist in the development and assessment of new initiatives and innovative demonstration projects designed to shape future policy decisions

  3. Key Strategic Initiatives for 2005-2009 • National Performance Benchmarking • Scientifically-Based Evaluations • Customer Service Research • Volunteering and Volunteering Management • Providing results to manage to accountability

  4. Key Strategic Initiative #1National Performance Benchmarking Project Purpose: • To develop national performance measurement indicators – inform budget justification; • To collect data that helps assess the performance of the Corporation’s programs; and • Provide tested survey instruments for programs

  5. OverviewPerformance Benchmarking Survey • Current AmeriCorps members; • Former AmeriCorps members • Organizations that supervise members;

  6. Key Strategic Initiative #2Rigorous Evaluations in AmeriCorps Longitudinal Study of AmeriCorps Members • Civic Engagement • Public Service • Value of the Education Award • AmeriCorps Members without a history of volunteering

  7. Civic Engagement Volunteering for Non-volunteers (no recent volunteering prior to AC; volunteered in between fall 2000 and 2002) 80% Percent Volunteering 60% Impact of AmeriCorps is significant (25 percentage points) 40% 20% 0% AmeriCorps Members Comparison Group

  8. Key Strategic Initiative #3Focus On The Customer • American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) • AmeriCorps Member Satisfaction – piloting effort with five states

  9. Key Strategic Initiative #4National Research on Volunteering & Volunteer Management • Current Population Survey – Volunteer Supplement • Volunteer Management Capacity Study • Youth Volunteering and Civic Behaviors

  10. Key Strategic Initiative #5Providing Results to Manage to Accountability & Promoting Transparency of Results • Annual Performance and Accountability Report • First State Performance and Report

  11. Why a State Performance Report? • Response to 2002 PART Assessment of AmeriCorps*State • OMB directed Corporation to disaggregate data at the state level • Opportunity to increase the amount of transparency of our performance reporting. State Performance Report2002-2003

  12. Performance Indicators Primary intent to give an overall picture of the health of community service programming within a state: • Aggregated program highlights by state. • Aggregated member information. • State funding information. State Performance Report2002-2003

  13. For Example

  14. New for 2003-2004 State Performance Report: - Improved Maps

  15. 2003-2004 State Performance Report: Improving Usability • Working Groups—Link between expectations and accountability • State Performance Report • Reporting Requirements and Larger Data Issues • 2002-2003 State Performance Report Focus Groups • State Commission ED’s • Other Key Stakeholders

  16. Reducing Grantee Reporting Burden • The Corporation is continually looking for ways to improve the reporting process for all involved • Past efforts seem to have yielded a fair amount of change • The Corporation would like to informally assess how many of the State Commissions feel this is still a priority item for the Corporation to address • With a few Commissions, a group could be created to address this issue in further detail • Suggestions for improvements can be sent to Kim Sweet at ksweet@cns.gov

  17. Coordinating Research Efforts • Increase coordination with states on performance surveys and evaluations • Saves money, time, effort, and allows us all to have comparable data. • Expand State-wide Member Survey • Standard Performance Measures

  18. Contact Information Bob Grimm rgrimm@cns.gov Kelly Arey karey@cns.gov

More Related