1 / 32

NEADA Presentation

NEADA Presentation. Performance Measures Implementation Work Group

theoc
Download Presentation

NEADA Presentation

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. NEADA Presentation Performance Measures Implementation Work Group Jane Blank (WI), Janet Cesner (OH), Cari Crittenden (OK), Diane Dykstra (KS), Mike Kelly (NE), Leslie Lee (DE), Marcia Lemon (MT), Ralph Markus (MD), Susan Marshall (AK), Akm Rahman (MA), Melissa Torgerson (OR), Loretta Williams (NM)

  2. Objectives • Discuss the need for performance measures • Provide a progress update • Present the performance measures overlay matrix • Review tiered performance measures data structure • Introduce tier 1 performance measures data collection tools • Obtain feedback and input

  3. Performance Measures • Collecting LIHEAP performance measures data is critical, especially now; the data will help to: • Describe the national, local impact of funds and services; • Present a convincing argument to avoid cuts and increase funding and resources; and • Improve program efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity. • Despite funding reductions, many States are currently collecting or starting to collect performance measures data.

  4. Progress Update Since June 2010, PMIWG has: • Administered a 216-item online performance measures needs assessment survey to State LIHEAP Directors. • Distributed an Executive Summary for the needs assessment on October 4, 2010 via email.

  5. Progress Update • Highlights from the summary: • 90 percent completion rate, which demonstrates a high level of cooperation, interest. • > 65 percent of States collect some tier 2 measures and several States are already collecting some tier 3 data. These States are a valuable resource for ideas, best practices, and IT guidance.

  6. Progress Update • Collaboration with outside entities (e.g., vendors, utility companies, weatherization contractors, etc.) is crucial for collecting certain data, which is a barrier to many States. • The implementation process is going to take time. There are barriers to overcome, partnerships with outside agencies to build, and software/IT changes to make.

  7. Progress Update • PMIWG will continue to identify ways to overcome barriers, to ascertain and share successful best practices currently used by states, and to provide templates and tools to facilitate adoption of the performance measures by all states. • Sent the first grantee communication on December 1, 2010 via email • It provided information on PMIWG’s purpose, mission, structure, objectives, goals, contact information, and progress.

  8. Progress Update • The second one will be sent out in May, 2011. • Created a Basecamp site for communication between the PMIWG and state grantees • The site was established to facilitate communication and idea sharing, distribute work group products, and obtain feedback. It is extremely user friendly and easy to navigate.

  9. Progress Update • https://acf2.basecamphq.com/login • Invitations will be sent to state grantees to join the site within the month. A link to a user guide will be included for beginners. • We hope states will embrace and use it.

  10. Overlay Matrix • A Performance Measures Overlay Matrix was created in order to help states include performance measures data collection into their normal administrative and programmatic activities. • These standard activities include creating vendor agreements, state plan, client application, reports, subgrantee contracts and conducting site visits, trainings, etc.

  11. Overlay Matrix • For each activity, we identified strategies for including performance measures data collection and for applying the findings that the data yield. • For example, when developing vendor agreements, consider provisions for collecting data related to energy cost, consumption, payment behavior, and disconnection. Use this data to improve service delivery. Share your vendor agreements with others on Basecamp.

  12. Overlay Matrix • The Process Subgroup will provide specific examples of overlays for these standard activities for use by state grantees. These examples will be distributed in July, 2011. Please review these examples, apply them where appropriate, share your results, and send us your feedback via Basecamp.

  13. Tiered Data Approach Allows states to begin participating right away by utilizing data they already collect—as well as increase their capacity over time to collect more program outcome related information. Tier 1: It is anticipated that all States collect the majority of this data through Federal reports. Tiers 2-3: All states are encouraged to collect this data with the technical assistance of OCS. Tier 4: OCS is expected to collect this data at the national level.

  14. Overview of Tiered Data Tier 1: These measures are “outputs”— and are directly affected by program decisions. With the exception of a few measures--states report this information within current Federal reports (e.g. Household Survey).

  15. Overview of Tiered Data Tier 2 – These measures begin to reflect changes in the circumstances of recipient households. These measures will require information beyond what is currently required—however many utilize “proxy” data which can be potentially gathered through existing sources or basic assumptions.

  16. Overview of Tiered Data Tier 3 - These measures reflect long term changes in the circumstances of recipient households. These measures require the program office to track the actual experience of clients--and in some cases, over a period of time.

  17. Overview of Tiered Data Tier 4 – These measures reflect how LIHEAP impacts the general population. While earlier measures focus on the households we serve, Tier 4 measures begin to look at how LIHEAP impacts households within the overall population.

  18. Overview of Tiered Data In addition to the “tiered” framework-- measures are divided into three program areas: • Energy Assistance • Energy Services • Client Services

  19. ENERGY ASSISTANCE: Tier One Measures • # of HH who received Energy Assistance • # of HH who received Crisis Assistance • % of Income Eligible HH who Received Assistance

  20. Energy Assistance: Data Collection Tool

  21. ENERGY SERVICES: Tier One Measures • # of HH who received New Heating Equipment • # of HH who received New Cooling Equipment • # of HH who received Heating Equipment Repair • # of HH who received Cooling Equipment Repair • # of HH who received LIHEAP Weatherization

  22. Energy Services: Data Collection Tool

  23. CLIENT SERVICES: Tier One Measures • # of HH who received Energy Education • # of HH receiving Referrals for Non-Energy Services • Additional resources gained as a result of LIHEAP

  24. Client Services: Data Collection Tool

  25. Data Collection, Reporting Tool Instructions Input Worksheet • Data Description/Definition • Potential Sources Reports

  26. Demonstration of the Collection, Reporting Tool

  27. State Coordinator Testing, Feedback • TIER ONE: Beginning March 3, 2011 (Feedback until June 1) • TIER TWO: Beginning June 25, 2011 • TIER THREE: Beginning February 28, 2012

  28. Rollout, Collection Tier 1-2 Measures: October, 2011 Tier 3 Measures: October, 2012 Method • Web-Based? Other? Compilation/Analysis • NEADA Research Committee? Clearinghouse?

  29. Solution Based Lessons How have states incorporated new data collection into current programs? How have states overcome challenges in terms of utility, partner driven data? How have states overcome challenges in terms of resource, leadership constraints?

  30. Questions and Answers How many States think they can begin now? What support (e.g. technical, financial) do states need to begin?

  31. Performance Measures Implementation Work Group Contact: Mr. Ralph Markus (MD) rmarkus@dhr.state.md.us

More Related