Fy2011 mid year data report massachusetts bay and merrimack valley
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 12

FY2011 Mid Year Data Report – Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 89 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

FY2011 Mid Year Data Report – Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley. A national perspective….

Download Presentation

FY2011 Mid Year Data Report – Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Fy2011 mid year data report massachusetts bay and merrimack valley

FY2011 Mid Year Data Report – Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley


A national perspective

A national perspective…

“Years of economic uncertainty have forced nonprofits to adjust to the ‘new normal’ of scarce resources and increased demand. Some of the adjustments we’re seeing are creative and healthy – such as strategic collaborations to improve impact in a community. Other effects – layoffs, people who need services being turned away, organizations operating at deficit or with no cash -- are further compromising the social safety net at a great cost to America”

-- Nonprofit Finance Fund survey of 1,900 nonprofits

We are hearing much the same story from you…


How are we doing

How are we doing?


Healthy child development

Healthy Child Development


Children behind the numbers

Children – behind the numbers

Successes

Screening and Assessment – use of standardized tools becoming more widespread; important to gain engagement with families of children for screening because ultimately they have to follow up with referrals; agencies now screening because it is seen as a QRIS standard and a UW best practice.

Intervention and Treatment – using money to increase staff time to do more (deeper) on site consultation, classroom support, social skills group, allowing the agency to serve more kids, and have deeper relationships with staff

Strong, Competent Families – Some programs are using more rigorous measures to track progress, but these are generally showing lower improvements than agencies that are mainly using anecdotes and/or clinical judgment to demonstrate improvement.

Challenges

  • Transition to using standardized assessment tool is harder than they expected, there is a need for more trainings.

  • For children with multiple developmental delays problems result from the state-funded protective cases being closed and the treatment plans being interrupted; vouchers don’t extend beyond case closure

  • Some agencies noted that because their catchment area is being redefined and expanded, families and children are required to travel a long time to get to services


Increasing youth opportunities

Increasing Youth Opportunities


Youth behind the numbers

Youth – behind the numbers

Successes

  • Mentoring -- capacity-building works to improve quality of mentoring relationship and use of measurement tools; increase in partnerships with colleges

  • Civic Engagement – increasingly seen as a“core component” of agency work

  • College and Work Ready -- strong partnerships are developing with schools to improve focus on academic success; agencies themselves recognized as significant employers of youth and successful in building job skills

  • Positive Behavior– forming solid partnerships with other agencies to provide wrap-around services and referrals

  • Family Engagement – structured workplans are successfully focusing on drawing parents into activities

  • Parent Mental Health -- increased access for families through Children’s Behavioral Health Initiative Community Service Agency contracts

    Challenges

  • Recruiting mentors and job opportunities from corporations – agencies interested in what UW can do to foster relationships

  • Three largest contributors falling short of targets in academic support programs

  • Hiring qualified staff, funding cuts and low public reimbursement rates – challenge working with high risk youth and providing mental health services for parents


Family financial stability

Family Financial Stability


Families behind the numbers

Families – behind the numbers

Successes

  • Obtain/Retain -- Regional network model has led to more collaboration among providers;

    Organizations are placing a greater emphasis on prevention, diversion and stabilization.

  • Affordable Housing Supply -- CDCs are doing more Real-Estate-Owned conversion work; UW has new initiative connecting skilled volunteers to development projects

  • Gain Economic Milestones -- More organizations are delivering curriculum-based financial education with pre- and post- testing

  • Basic Skills or Job Skills -- More organizations doing standardized pre- and post- testing; for Basic Skills, job readiness skills being incorporated into programming

  • Employment -- Agencies are placing people into jobs-despite a very “challenged” target population (Legal Status, CORI, limited educational backgrounds)

  • Linkages -- More agencies seeing the value of collaboration; emphasizing service continuums

    Challenges

  • New federal homeless assistance resource (HPRP) has been exhausted

  • Key state prevention resource (RAFT) insufficiently funded

  • The slumping economy and the collapse of the low income housing tax credit market have adversely effected production capability

  • Students in programs to gain job skills often drop classes to take transient employment

  • Retrenched economy causing job freezes- employers “get their pick” choosing higher skilled candidates.


Public policy

Public Policy

  • Agencies understand the power of collaboration - they're reaching out to other advocacy groups, including those that aren't the "usual suspects," to try and pass policy.

  • They're being realistic in what they're advocating for -- not looking to pass huge increases in state-funded program budgets; in this economic climate, level-funding is a victory and they understand that.

  • They're advocating for "win-win" solutions and building on what the state already has or wants, e.g.,

    • Housing First/HomeBASE

    • MACDC's tax credit legislation

    • Ensuring the anti-bullying law is implemented

  • Agencies are pushing for shorter-term administrative changes or modifications of current law in stead of legislative initiatives, e.g.,

    • Mass. Afterschool Partnership is coordinating state agencies to better leverage existing resources

    • Mass. Advocates for Children is advocating to the administration regarding barriers facing those wanting to access the Children’s Autism Medicaid Waiver.


Agency demographics includes all persons served in all programs 12 months ending june 2010

Priority communities

Boston – total 214,771

Most served neighborhoods:

Dorchester62,926

East Boston42,824

Roxbury27,418

Cambridge12,143

Chelsea 5,671

Everett 4,049

Haverhill 9,820

Lawrence14,539

Lowell15,296

Lynn33,843

Malden 8,881

Medford 4,865

Peabody15,108

Quincy14,238

Randolph 3,103

Revere 3,430

Salem 9,159

Somerville10,182

Waltham10,415

Weymouth 4,213

Age

0-5 71,092

6-17198,500

18-64281,555

65+ 43,264

Race

Asian/Asian American 28,195

Black/African American118,910

White246,827

Two or more races 11,452

Other116,749

Ethnicity

Hispanic/Latino159,677

Non-Hispanic/Latino415,175

*excludes persons served in some public policy and short-term interaction programs (e.g. food distribution or help lines) where demographic information is largely not available.

Agency demographicsincludes all persons served in all programs – 12 months ending June, 2010*


Notes to tables

Notes to Tables

  • Data is for July 1 – December 31, 2010

  • Each table lists the measures to which agencies are contributing.

  • FY11 Target is the sum of individual agency targets for the measure.

  • FY11 Mid Year is the contribution to date for this year.

  • Percent Expected to Reach Target is the percent of agencies contributing to the measure that report they expect to meet the annual target.

  • FY11 Status is the assessment of the situation at this time: green=on track to reach or exceed targets; yellow=some concerns about reaching targets

    Greater Seacoast United Way

    For the measures in which the Seacoast aligns directly with Mass. Bay:

  • Children

    • Screening – 1,309 children

    • Assessment – 584 children

    • Strong, competent families – 633 families

  • Families

    • Obtain housing – 104 individuals

    • Retain housing – 123 individuals


  • Login