1 / 21

National Framework for CRED Program Indicators

Update from the Grassroots Collaboration Galaxy IV September 18, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA. National Framework for CRED Program Indicators . Our Team . Mary Simon Leuci, University of Missouri Charlie French, University of New Hampshire Deborah Tootle, Iowa State University

ipo
Download Presentation

National Framework for CRED Program Indicators

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. Update from the Grassroots Collaboration Galaxy IV September 18, 2013 Pittsburgh, PA National Framework for CRED Program Indicators

  2. Our Team • Mary Simon Leuci, University of Missouri • Charlie French, University of New Hampshire • Deborah Tootle, Iowa State University • Paul Lachapelle, Montana State University • Scott Chazdon, University of Minnesota • Susan Jakes, North Carolina State University • Walt Whitmer, Pennsylvania State University • Sandra Thompson, Florida A&M University • Aida Balsano, USDA-NIFA • Rachel Welborn, Southern Rural Development Center

  3. Our Goals for Today • A brief snapshot of how we got here • Launch of the national initiative in 2012 • Current status and efforts update • Current challenges and next steps • Get your input and guidance

  4. What’s Driving Us… • Need to tell compelling story at state, local, and national levels about collective impact of our community and economic development work • To improve our ability to: • Gather and assess collective impacts and leverage each other’s strengths • Develop support forCRED programming • Make strategic decisions regarding the importance, value, and potential of CRED programs

  5. How We Got Here • Historical discussion of need for collective impacts across program, state, regional, and national levels • North Central Region took the lead beginning work in 2006 • South began to follow NC lead – then Northeast and Western regions, all assisted by the RRDCs • Daylong workshop held at NACDEP (2012) culminating in launch of the National Initiative and core team

  6. Our Immediate Goals • Build national network of partners to establish common framework for capturing and sharing the impact of CRED work • Identify core set of indicators that convey impact of our work regionally and nationally, while recognizing our diversity • Develop and share set of user-friendly tools and instruments that partners (or states and regions) can use to collect impact data • Identify ways of leveraging each other's resources and strengths to enhance our impacts on communities

  7. Our Challenges • Diversity of: • Programs within CRED • State and regional programs and priorities • Data collection methods across states and regions • Stakeholders and what information is most important to them

  8. Our Challenges • Attributing community or organizational impact to our work • Limited (but emerging) consensus around what is most important and feasible to measure • Consistency of indicators and aggregation • Time and resources

  9. Brief Regional Updates Northeast North Central West South

  10. North Central • Work to identify common indicators across CD programs began in 2006 • Tied to program logic models. • Collaboratively defined, collected and compiled impact indicators and published report since 2010 (4 years). • Data compiled, maintained and published at NCRCRD. • Indicators mostly economic, several reflect social and civic engagement.

  11. North Central • Each state enters data on EXCEL spreadsheet. • Includes space for vignettes. • Not every state will report on all indicators. But all states are reporting on some of the indicators. • Program leaders revisit indicators each year.

  12. North Central • Report is shared with extension directors, NIFA, other partners and used in each state. • Each state also uses its own data within the state. • Collecting data and tracking impact challenging because of differences across states.

  13. South • Similar to North Central structure and process. • Data compiled, maintained and published at SRDC. • Major difference in South – 1890 LGUs. Organizational structure and data needs differ from 1862 LGUs. • Has built a list of indicators based on NC Region with some modifications • Data collection initiated in August 2013.

  14. South • First year will be mostly a test case, and work toward better data collection in 2014. • Have strong regional team. • Initial work logic models too cumbersome  went straight indicators of impact. • See national collaboration as critical to building the collective knowledge; has been key resource for south.

  15. Northeast • Completed regional survey of potential indicators and related issues Fall 2012. • Next steps – program leaders/state contacts buy-in. • Several states working on developing common reporting system. VT, NH, ME, and MA including activity data, outcome indicators, data collection, and narratives. http://lmprs.net/.

  16. Northeast • Key survey findings include: • Do not perceive ourselves as doing a good job evaluating the impact of our work. • Strong desire by most to be more effective at measuring impacts and thinking how we can do this regionally. • To be realistic with our expectations, we should hone in on a set of 5(ish) indicators that span across CED functions that we can all agree upon.

  17. West • Last region to get involved • Now moving forward – 3 states cooperating • APLU's Commission on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Economic Prosperity (CICEP) • The Metrics Working Group

  18. 1890 Institutions • Currently working with the Southern Region • Not all institutions represented • Sample preliminary indicators include: • Number of loan applications for youth and adults • Number of youth and adult business start-ups • Number of community-based food and other products markets • Number of youth and adult business expansions • Number of business feasibility studies conducted • Number of jobs created or retained • Number of tax-exempt organization (CDCs) trainings conducted • Number of tax-exempt organization (CDCs) start-ups • Number of community based meetings (mapping, organizing, visioning, recognition) • Number of enterprise development and expansion trainings conducted for youth and adults • Number of land retention and estate planning trainings conducted

  19. Discussion & Questions • What state are you from? • What questions or issues does all this raise? • Do the indicators identified make sense? • What more would you like to see as all this evolves?

  20. 2013-14 Plans • Gather input from this meeting and national CRED meeting of PLs (9-16-2013) • Establish opportunities for others to provide input and join us. • Continue to refine regional indicators and enhance the processes for collection and compilation. • Set of indicators nationally identified by 1/1/2014. • Develop preliminary National CRED Impacts Report end of fiscal year (2013 data). • Another year before aggregate with multiple regions. • Focus on how we use the data to tell the stories of our impact • Keep making progress…

  21. Follow-up Survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CREDIND13 For more Information, contact: NC: Mary Simon Leuci, leucim@missouri.edu South: Susan Jakes, susan_jakes@ncsu.edu West: Paul Lachapelle, paul.lachapelle@montana.edu NE: Walt Whitmer, wew2@psu.edu, Charlie French, charlie.french@unh.edu 1890: Sandra Thompson, sandra.thompson@famu.edu THANK YOU!

More Related