Innoweave Impact and Strategic Clarity Planning: Workshop #1

1. Innoweave Impact and Strategic Clarity Planning: Workshop #1 November 16th, 2012

2. What is Innoweave? A new national initiative to equip Canada’s community sector leaders with new tools and processes to effect large-scale change, brought to you by these four partner organizations

3. Agenda

4. Innoweave organization participants

5. This process will enable your organization to articulate what impact you want to have and how to achieve it What, for whom, and how (Today’s focus) Analytics and measures Priorities & resources; Organization

6. Reminder: we are now entering phase 1 of the six-month process PREP PHASE PHASE 1 PHASE 2 FOLLOW-UP WORK SHOP 1 WORK SHOP 2

7. Today is about defining strategic clarity, refining your intended impact and drafting/refining theory of change KEY QUESTIONS • What is a strategy? How do you know when you have one that is meaningful? • What impact will you hold yourselves accountable for achieving? For whom? In what time frame? • What activities will you undertake to achieve impact? TODAY’S DELIVERABLES • Increased understanding of strategic clarity • Refined intended impact statement • Draft/revised theory of change

8. Phase 1 is about testing and refining your organization’s theory of change through analysis ASK KEY QUESTIONS • What activities will achieve our intended impact? • Are you driving the impact as intended in all programs and work? • Does your field’s evidence base confirm that these activities create the change? PERFORM CORE ANALYSES • Theory of change (continue to draft/revise) • Program analysis • Evidence research Results guide implications and potential changes to programs and operations

9. The program analysis will explore if gaps exist between intended and actual impact From your draft theory of change Target constituents Target activities Target outcomes For each program, what is the difference between your target and actual program components? Actual constituents Actual activities Actual outcomes From an analysis of your program’s actual participants, services provided, and actual outcomes

10. The evidence research helps you pressure test your theory of change Conducting evidence-base research helps answer questions such as: • How plausible is our theory of change and program model? • What research-based practices exist in our field that might influence what we do? • What trends in the field might influence our direction? • What outcomes should we measure?

11. In phase 2, you will determine how/if programs and operations need to change as a result of your findings Determine changes needed Map out a plan Create a learning agenda • Given what you have learned, what changes do you want to make to your programs or operations? • How will you make those changes? • What are the financial implications, and how will you sequence changes? • Who will lead each change effort? • What questions are still outstanding? • Over the next 3-5 years, how will you answer those questions?

12. Innoweave organization participants

13. Agenda

14. At the most basic level, all nonprofits face the same central challenge Transforming available resources into maximum social impact Challenge : Available resources Maximum social impact • “Can’t do everything”-- resources are limited while social needs seem endless • “Everything isn’t equally worth doing”-- possible courses of action yield different levels of impact • Achieving tightest fit between actions undertaken and intended impact Bad news: Good news: “Strategy” is…

15. Intended impact and theory of change are the tools we use to achieve strategic clarity What? For whom? How? Intended impact Theory of change

16. Reminder: Intended impact defines success for your organization What is the impact that you will hold yourself accountable for achieving, in what timeframe? What? For whom? Intended impact

17. Two questions can help crystallize an intended impact statement Is it specific? How realistic is it - does it describe “accountability” or “hope”?

18. Agenda

19. Intended impact breakout sessions • Pairings for intended impact breakout

20. Activity: Check your partner organization’s intended impact by asking the following questions (15 minutes) How realistic is it - does it describe “accountability” or “hope”? Is it specific?

21. Agenda

22. Reminder: Theory of change explains how your intended impact will be achieved What activities will we undertake to achieve the intended impact? What changes are needed to get to the destination, and how will they be achieved? How? Theory of change

23. All good theories of change address the same strategic components What arewe trying to achieve? Ultimate outcome • What is our intended impact? Interim outcomes • How will we know we are on track? How will we getthere? Activities • What are the specific activities? For how long? How often? Resources • What staff, skills, systems, and tools do we need? Context • What external context creates the ideal program environment? Beneficiaries • What are the characteristics of the population we want serve?

24. Creating a theory of change can seem deceptively simple. Don’t fall into the six common pitfalls! • Confusing accountability with hope • Unconfirmed evidenceor plausibility 1 4 • Creating a mirror instead of a target • Failing to take external context into account 2 5 • Being unfaithful to your theory • Not specific enough to be measurable 6 3

25. Activity: Spot the pitfalls in Youth Boost’s (YB) theory of change Description of Organization: $3M organization runs series of wrap-around services to serve at-risk youth in grades 7-12(currently serving 200 youth annually) with the goals of transforming lives and ultimately transforming cities/districts to provide a safe environment for all youth First draft of Intended Impact/Theory of Change: Who do we serve? How do we serve them? Intended Impact Short-term: Transform lives of at-risk youth • Increase attendance/ on-grade promotion rates • Lower suspension and dropout rates • Improve academic outcomes At-risk youth: Wrap-around model customized to individuals’ needs: • More productive citizens (e.g., increased income and economic stability, greater self-sufficiency and resilience) • Lower impact on social services Grades 7-12 • Long-term mentoring and case management • At home, at work, and in school (with parental involvement) • Academic services (e.g., tutoring) Intermediate-term: Influence policy in service of youth • Reach ~1,000 at-risk youth per year within 3 yrs through growth in existing and new regions • Increase youth & high school graduation rates Schools: High schools in Edmonton • Support for wrap-around approach for at-risk youth

26. Answer key: Youth Boost’s refined theory of change addresses major pitfalls Who do we serve? How do we serve them? “Intended Impact” “Hoped for Impact” Short-term: Research-based, wrap-around modelcustomized to individuals’ needs: At-risk youth: • Increase attendance/ on-grade promotion rates • Lower suspension and dropout rates • Improve academic outcomes Transform lives of at-risk youth In grades 7-12 with at least two risk factors • Long-term mentoring and case management • At home, at work, and in school (with parental involvement) • Academic services (e.g., tutoring) • Employment training and placement • Post-secondary planning and preparation • More productive citizens (e.g., increased income and economic stability, greater self-sufficiency and resilience) • Lower impact on social services Schools: Implemented through: Chronically under-performing middle and high schools in Edmonton Intermediate-term: Coordinated client-centered, delivery system • Reach~400 at-risk youth per year by ’15-16 through growth in existing and new regions • Increase youth & high school graduation rates • Improve post-secondary success: • Raise college/ university enrollment • Raise 1 & 2 yr retention Improved data driven decision-making at all staff levels throughout the organization Tightened link between program, outcomes funding & org Accomplished with: District: School strategy aligned to district goals Edmonton School District seeking to support broader socio-emotional needs of youth Supportive school and district leadership Engaged gov’t leaders at all levels Involved business community Cooperative human service agencies Supportive higher ed. community Aligned philanthropy Achieve school tipping point Long-term: School trans-formation High penetration in schools • Transform Edmonton community • Safer, healthier youth environment for all local youth Deep district alignment Strong community engagement

27. The greater your focus on systems change, the more emphasis you should place on external context research

28. Agenda

29. Activity: Spend 60 minutes developing a first draft using the provided worksheets (or refine the drafts you already have) Beneficiaries Activities Intermediate outcomes Ultimate outcomes External context

30. Agenda

31. Activity: Check your partner organization’s theory of change against the six pitfalls (30 minutes) • Confusing accountability with hope • Unconfirmed evidenceor plausibility 1 4 • Creating a mirror instead of a target • Failing to take external context into account 2 5 • Being unfaithful to your theory • Not specific enough to be measurable 6 3

32. Agenda

33. Reminder: you will finish your theory of change revisions and complete two analyses during Phase 1 ASK KEY QUESTIONS • What activities will achieve our intended impact? • Are you driving the impact as intended in all programs and work? • Does your field’s evidence base confirm that these activities create the change? PERFORM CORE ANALYSES • Theory of change (continue to draft/revise) • Program analysis • Evidence research RESOURCES TO HELP Strategic Clarity guide and instructional video Program Analysis guide and program info template Evidence Research guide

34. The next two months are analytically heavy and time-consuming, but there are ways to make it manageable • Develop a work plan next weekas a social contract for you and your team • Who is in charge of each analysis? • When will the working team discuss initial findings from each analysis? • When will the team look across analyses for themes? • How and when will we engage our Board with these findings? • Ask Bridgespan and your coach for advice – don’t be a stranger!

35. Sample work plan for Phase 1 analyses EXAMPLE

36. Deliverables for Phase 1 • Refined intended impact and theory of change statements • A workplan and first draft of the program info datasheet • Preliminary evidence research and analysis

37. EXAMPLE Program analysis example exercise: Essex Youth Services in principle… Essex Youth Services: TARGET Advance to Referred to Employment training Case Management (CM) Education • Program description • Youth get bi-weekly sessions with social worker • Case-load of 50 youth per case manager (social worker) • Target participants • 500 youth ages 14-18 living in Essex county • Youth come from families at or below Low Income Cut-Off poverty line • Target outcomes • Youth remain free from engagement with juvenile justice system • Youth get placed in education programs • Program description • Job skills training and internships • Offered twice a year • Target participants • 50 youth per session • Age 18+ • Target outcomes • Acquisition of a full-time job • Employed 90 days later • Employed 1 year later (may not be in same job) Math/English tutoring for in-school youth GED support for out of school youth • Program description • Weekly 2 hours of group tutoring in math and 2 hours of group tutoring in English, by grade • Target outcomes • Graduation from high school with an 80% average • Individualized Life Plan (ILP) to seek post-secondary education or employment • Program description • 2 hours a day, 3 days a week of GED tutoring • Target participants • 250 youth • Must be engaged in CM • Target outcomes • Acquisition of GED within 2 years • Individualized Life Plan (ILP) to seek post-secondary education or employment

38. EXAMPLE In reality, the program looked different Essex Youth Services: ACTUAL Advance to Referred to Employment training Case Management (CM) Education • Program description • Full participation in job skills training but only 25 internship slots per semi-annual session • Target outcomes • 85% job placement rate and 90% are still in a job 90 days later (close to target)…but • No data tracked for employment 1 year later • Internships do not influence likelihood of job placement • Program description • Only 50% of youth get bi-weekly sessions (vs. 100% target) • Case-load is 35 (vs. 50 target) • Target participants • 70% of 555 youth served are from Essex county (vs. target of 100% for 500 youth) • Economic status is not tracked (vs. target of only serving youth at or below Low Income Cut-Off poverty line) • Target outcomes • 35% of youth have additional involvement w/ juvenile justice system (vs. target of 0%) • Only 80% of youth participate in education program s (vs. target of 100%) Math/English tutoring for in-school youth GED support for out of school youth • Program description • Only 73% of youth participate in both math and English (vs. 100%) • Target outcomes • Graduation rate is 90% for students who participate in both math and English, but only 60% otherwise • ILPs and grade advancement are not tracked • Program description • 85% of youth get target dosage of GED support (close to target) • Target participants • 250 youth (same as target) but many not engaged in CM • Target outcomes • 90% get GED within 2 years (close to target) • ILPs closely tracked, in accordance with target

39. Select implications for Essex to consider Case management • Consider implications of implementing higher case-loads • Streamline intake process (e.g., focus on Essex county youth) • Explore potential link between more regular (bi-weekly) sessions and lower rates of juvenile justice re-engagement • Explore ways to ensure that youth get math and English support • Decide whether non-CM youth can participate in GED programs • Have GED team share expertise in ILPs with the tutoring team Education programs Employment programs • Consider making internships optional, or eliminating altogether • Decide whether Essex wants to track and be held accountable for 1-year employment retention