Organizational Standards Center of Excellence Update

1. Organizational Standards Center of Excellence Update Community Action Partnership of Utah 3rd Annual Conference on Poverty September 17, 2013 Presented by: Denise Harlow, MSW, CCAP, NCRT Community Action Partnership 1140 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1210 Washington, DC 20036 dharlow@communityactionpartnership.com

2. Thank you!!! The process of creating the Standards has been a national undertaking of the Community Action Network, on a scale not seen since the Monitoring and Assessment Task Force in the mid-1990s. Thanks to improved technology, the project has reached more members of the Network and allowed them to participate more fully than in past national efforts. The Network’s investment of time and energy has been enormous, when seen in light of the still record levels of consumer and community needs, as well as funding cuts. The Partnership’s Board and Staff extend our deep and sincere gratitude to all those engaged in this effort.

3. CSBG Performance Management Investments • Organizational Standards Center of Excellence (OSCOE) • Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) Center of Excellence • Performance Management Task Force (PMTF) • Regional Performance and Innovation Consortia (RPICs) & State Associations

4. PARTNERS’ 2013 TIMELINEMajor Milestones Quarter 1 (January – March) Quarter 2 (April - June) Quarter 3 (July - September) Quarter 4 (October - December) Third task force, detailed local, state, federal analyses, expert panels, draft recommendations Consultation on implementation/finalization of performance framework Recommended Performance Management tools and protocols Completion of first two task forces Release and pilot testing of organizational standards National listening sessions and work group process Presentation of organizational standards Training and technical assistance on standards Detailed policy brief and input process with recommendations for data changes Pilot testing updated CSBG-IS/NPI materials Revisions and updates to theory of change Revised data tools for pilot testing

5. OSCOE Center of Excellence • Coordinate the development and dissemination of a core set of standards with input from the State, regional and national partners • Create tools for organizational assessment that can be used by States and local CSBG-eligible entities to set and meet high-quality organizational standards

6. History, Background and Process • CSBG Working Group • Communication and Qualitative Input • Quantitative Survey Information • Field Testing in Pilot Projects • Network-wide Participation

7. So What is the CSBG Working Group? The CSBG Working Group was tasked with developing these Standards is composed of over 50 representatives from around the Network, representing agencies, State Associations and State CSBG Offices

8. Organizational Standards Operations and Accountability Fiscal Human Resources Data and Analysis • Maximum Feasible Participation • Consumer Input • Community Engagement • Community Assessment • Vision and Direction • Leadership • Governance • Strategic Planning

9. Key Considerations for Standards • Straightforward/Specific • Limited Number • Easily Measurable • Balance Compliance Against High Performance Expectations • Account for Network Diversity • Public/Private/Tribal/Limited-Purpose • Rural/Urban/Suburban

10. Outreach to the Network The Partnership held a total of 25 Listening Sessions: • 3 in-person sessions at the Partnership and NASCSP Winter Conferences • 11 regional sessions during Draft Standards development • 11 additional regional sessions after the release of the Draft Standards 4/15/13 – 5/3/13

11. Standards Pilot Projects • Alabama • Arkansas • California • Iowa • Michigan • Minnesota • North Carolina • Nebraska • Ohio • Oregon • Washington

12. Pilots • Three Partners in each State • State CSBG Office • Community Action Agencies • State Associations • 3 Week Turn Around Time • Separate CAA and State Assessment Tools

13. Pilots Served 3 Purposes • Test the usability of the Standards in the field to determine whether each Standard was well-written, clear and specific. • Measure whether there was a consistent understanding of the Standards by States and CEEs. • Evaluate whether the draft tools provided for an accurate measure of whether an organization met or did not meet each Standard.

14. Pilot Information • Showed which Standards were framed imprecisely, resulting in differing interpretation of how to meet those Standards. • Pointed out areas where Standards overlapped, leading to duplicative and therefore unnecessary assessment. • Showed where additional guidance is needed to assure an even national implementation of the Standards.

15. Submission to OCS • Four Part Document • Executive Summary • History, Background and Process • Implementation Recommendations and Framework • Organizational Standards • www.communityactionpartnership.com

16. Overarching Implementation Considerations • Block Grant Environment • Funding Reductions • Performance Management • Diversity of Local CSBG-Eligible Entities • Administrative Costs/Program Costs • Training and Technical Assistance • Unduplicated Count and Data Systems • Designation of New Eligible Entities

17. Implementation Recommendations • Voluntary Implementation • Offers a ramp-up period • Assessment and capacity building tools provided • If a State wishes to formally adopt/mandate the Organizational Standards prior to any OCS directive, the Formal Implementation applies

18. Implementation Recommendations Formal Implementation Considerations • State administrative law for adoption of rules and regulations • Include Organizational Standards in the State Plan • Notify OCS in writing if the State intends to modify any Organizational Standard • Modify and finalize monitoring tools and offer the opportunity for CSBG-Eligible Entity feedback on the tools • Develop revised CSBG contracts in coordination with State CSBG Lead Agency legal counsel • Train State staff, including monitors, on the Standards

19. CSBG Monitoring Map ToolkitBased on IM 116 • This publication was created by National Association of Community Action Agencies - Community Action Partnership in the performance of the U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services Grant Number 90ET0428. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

20. CSBG Monitoring Map & Standards Recommendations

21. Standards with a 2015 Target Date Due to Cost and Time to Implement • 4.5: Agency-wide Risk Assessment • 5.3: Bylaws review by an attorney • 6.1 – 6.5: Agency-wide Strategic Planning • 7.1: Attorney Review of Personnel Policies • 7.3: Current written job descriptions • 8.5: Audit Procurement • 8.9: Agency-wide Budget

22. Organizational Standards Operations and Accountability Fiscal Human Resources Data and Analysis • Maximum Feasible Participation • Consumer Input • Community Engagement • Community Assessment • Vision and Direction • Leadership • Governance • Strategic Planning

23. Standards that Have Changed • As noted earlier, 11 Standards have a delayed Target Date due to cost and ramp-up time • Many Standards have minor changes; please read the full document • Based on Network Feedback, several Standards have been modified significantly and one Standard has been removed • The next few slides will address these

24. Modified Standard 1.3 Original Draft Language: • Standard 1.3 Private: Every Community Action Agency (CAA)/CSBG Eligible Entity (CEE) has access to and utilizes the services of a minimum of one Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA)-certified trainer. • Standard 1.3 Public: The Department has access to and utilizes the services of a minimum of one Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA)-certified trainer.

25. Modified Standard 1.3/4.3 New Language Submitted to OCS • Standard 4.3 Private: 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 4.3 Public: The Department’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 Department documents having used the services of a ROMA-certified trainer (or equivalent) to assist in implementation.

26. Modified Standard 4.7 Original Draft Language 4.7 • Standard 4.7 Private: The Board receives financial reports at each regular meeting that include at minimum: 1. Revenue and Expenditures-Summary Budget to Actual by Program; 2. Balance Sheet/Statement of Financial Position; and 3. Cash Flow Report/Update/Needs for the next 30 days. • Standard 4.7 Public: The tripartite boards/ advisory body receives financial reports at each regular meeting, for those program(s) the body advises, as allowed by local government procedure.

27. Modified Standard 4.7/8.7 New Language Submitted to OCS • Standard 8.7 Private: The governing board receives financial reports at each regular meeting that include the following: • Organization-wide report on Revenue and Expenditures that compares Budget to Actual, categorized by program; and 2. Balance Sheet/Statement of Financial Position. • Standard 8.7 Public: The tripartite board/advisory body receives financial reports at each regular meeting, for those program(s) the body advises, as allowed by local government procedure.

28. Modified Standard 9.4 Original Draft Language • Standard 9.4 Private: The agency has a system in place to produce an unduplicated count of customers served, with the exception of those grants/funders that prohibit data aggregation. • Standard 9.4 Public: The Department has a system in place to produce an unduplicated count of direct customers served, with the exception of those grants/funders that prohibit data aggregation.

29. Modified Standard 9.4 Due to Network Feedback and current data capacity, this Standard has been removed • Verbiage on need to address data integration and aggregation issues and needed investment in data systems has been included in the Overarching Implementation Considerations

30. Next Steps • Awaiting Feedback from OCS • Tools for States and Agencies by end of September • T/TA for States and Associations • Toolkits • Webinars • Conference Sessions • Other?

31. Open Discussion This publication was created by National Association of Community Action Agencies – Community Action Partnership in the performance of the U.S. Department of Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services Grant Number 90ET0434. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

32. Contacts Lil Dupree ldupree@communityactionpartnership.com Denise Harlow dharlow@communityactionpartnership.com Cashin Yiu cyiu@communityactionpartnership.com