Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
In September 2012, Common Good VT was thrilled to welcome world renown Results Based AccountabilityTM founder Mark Friedman to Vermont for three days of training and policy discussions with over 300 agencies, legislators, and funders. Mark expertly guided everyone through his methodology for answering the three questions: 1) How much did we do; 2) How well did we do it; and 3) Is anyone better off?
Citation preview
RBAResults-Based Accountability
The Fiscal Policy Studies Institutewww.raguide.org www.resultsaccountability.com
Book - DVD Ordersamazon.com
resultsleadership.org
TM
VERMONT SEPTEMBER 2012
SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES
How much did we do?
Service: __________________________________
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Primary customers# studentspatientspersons trained
Primary activity# hours of
instructiondiagnostic testsjob coursesalarms responded to
If your service works really well,how are your customer's better off?
# students who graduatepatients who fully recoverfires kept to room of origin
%
Unit cost
Workload ratio
% of ___x___ that happen on time
persons who get jobs
School Hospital Job Training Fire Department
How much did we do?
Child Welfare
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Quantity Quality
E
ffec
t
E
ffo
rt # ofchildren infoster care
Workload ratio: No. of children
per worker
# ofchildren in
permanent plcmt within 6 monthsor entering care
% ofchildren in
permanent plcmtwithin 6 monthsof entering care
How much did we do?
Juvenile Justice
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Quantity Quality
E
ffec
t
E
ffo
rt Number ofchildren in
custody
Percent ofchildren in
community based(vs. institutional)
care
# ofchildren exitingcustody with norepeat offence in
6 months
% ofchildren exitingcustody with norepeat offence in
6 months
How much did we do?
Personnel Department
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Quantity Quality
E
ffec
t
E
ffo
rtNumber ofApplicantsProcessed
AverageRecruitment
Period
Workforce# New Hires
WorkforceTurnover Rate(non-promotions)
CustomerSatisfaction
*
* Percent of supervisory staff who report that personnel provides the support they need to do their jobs.
How much did we do?
Information Technology (MIS)
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Quantity Quality
E
ffec
t
E
ffo
rt
Number ofIT projects
Average response timeto service requests
% Projects on scheduleon budget
Rate ofUnscheduled
Downtime
CustomerSatisfaction
*
* Percent of staff who report that MIS provides the support they need to do their jobs.
#
#
How much did we do?
Audit
How well did we do it?
Is anyone better off?
Quantity Quality
E
ffec
t
E
ffo
rtNumber of
audits completedPercent of audits
on schedule
Rate of repeat findings
$ value of corrected audit findings as percent of total agency budget
#
#
Next Generation ContractingQuantity
Effe
ctEf
fort
3. What we purchase in the lower quadrants are not deliverables, but rather a RELATIONSHIP where funder and grantees work together to maximize customer results.
WHICH MEANS
BUT2. They break down inthe Is anyone better off?quadrants (because of case mix
differences and perverse incentives).
1. Traditional purchasing methods work fine in the upper quadrants.
Quality
Next Generation ContractingContract Provisions
Provision 1. Specify the 3 to 5 most important performance measures (from the How well did we do it? and Is anyone better off? categories).
Provision 2. Specify that the contractor will use a continuous improvement process (the RBA 7 Questions).
Provision 3. Specify how the funder and contractor will work
in partnership to maximize LR customer results (quarterly
meetings using the 7 questions as the agenda).Provision 4. Specify that the funder will work with the funding
community to simplify and standardize contracting and performance reporting.
Provision 5: : Clear articulation of role in population/community well-being. Language of contribution not attribution.
Provision 6: 10% for quality management and administration.
Provision 7: Multi-year funding using 3 year rolling contracts
Provision 8: Use of targets that are fair and useful.
Provision 9: Fund flexibility and virtual funding pool: transfer of up to 10% across line items and program lines.
Next Generation ContractingContract Provisions
Resources
Book - DVD Ordersamazon.com
resultsleadership.org
www.raguide.org
www.resultsaccountability.com
RBA Facebook Group
![Lecture 11 Supplementary Slides - Earthdbj/PHY2506/PHY2506_Lecture1… · Supplementary Slides [ECMWF Lecture Notes, 2003] [From ECMWF Lecture Notes by E. Holm, 2003] [ECMWF Lecture](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/605f6a75ac25324c0e370be1/lecture-11-supplementary-slides-dbjphy2506phy2506lecture1-supplementary-slides.jpg)
