Using Case Management Data to
Agenda
Presentation (30 minutes)
Q&A and Discussion (15 minutes)
Small Group Exercise (15 minutes)
Sharing and Wrap-Up (15 minutes)
A theory of change is a formal
rendering of the approach
adopted by an organization
(or collaboration of
organizations) to change
something about the world
A results framework is a
rendering of the details of
your theory of change (often
in the form of a table) that
assists the organization(s) to
plan for and examine what
does and does not work
A case management plan is a
results framework at the
Performance measurement
takes both data and program
managers to yield meaningful
As defined in the results
framework: As collected in the case management system:
Performance measurement questions:
Needs Assessment & Segmentation Analysis:
Total # household
and children, by age, living in the Promise Neighborhood footprint Target Population Segments by age groups, targeted schools, other targeting criteria such as ethnicity or housing circumstances Participant Identification and Intake Address and School Enrollment Demographics Family Roster
Performance Accountability:
Are we enrolling children and families
who can most benefit from our programs, per our TOC and Segmentation Analysis?
Are referrals from partners producing
the target populations we said we’d reach?
Have we identified the right partners
and methods for enrolling these families? Population Accountability
Are our enrollment numbers sufficient
to reach the penetration rates we specified across solutions in order to move outcomes for the entire
As defined in the results
framework: As collected in the case management system:
Performance measurement questions:
GPRA Performance Results and Target Setting:
The specific conditions
of well-being and target results (and related indicators)set for each target
population
A “turn the curve”
graph presenting historic baseline and forecast for target indicators for each population
Referral and Case Planning
Referring agency Enrolling agency (if
other than the Promise
Neighborhood agency, itself)
Baseline indicator
measures for target results at intake
Additional case
notes on presenting issues at intake
Additional baseline
data from program assessments/pre-tests
Performance Accountability
Are our case managers and/or
our partners referring children and families to appropriate solutions based on identified needs?
Population Accountability
Are we providing solutions that
match the level and type of identified needs in the target populations?
As defined in the results
framework: As collected in the case management system:
Performance measurement questions:
Continuum of Solutions and Evidence-Based Strategy:
The type and
combination of evidence-based or research-informed interventions chosen to achieve the results for each population type.
The partners who can
deliver these
interventions and their enrollment targets. Service Provision Types of service Units or intensity of service At or below target intensity/units Attendance Program exits
and reason for exit
For Performance Accountability
When we break down our case
management data by partner, can we verify that each referral partner is providing the type of solution(s) we said they would?
How much did each partner do? (Are
partners consistently at target enrollment levels?)
How well did each partner do it? (Is
the quality of or fidelity to the
intervention being provided by each partner appropriate? Are participants meeting the target intensity/dosage levels expected for each program? Are program attrition rates
As defined in the
results framework: As collected in the case management system:
Performance measurement questions:
Annual Performance Reporting and Continuous Improvement (all of the above): Annual performance data for target results and re-evaluation of performance targets
Annual Assessment and Case Review
Address updates Demographic updates Annual indicator measures for target results Additional case notes on progress Additional follow-up data from program assessments/post -tests Performance Accountability
For each partner or program, how many
children served achieved the intended results?
Do results of particular solutions vary
by type, dose over time, or quality of the solution provided by each partner?
Which partners are our high
performers? Why?
For Population Accountability
If changes occurred, were they the
result of our solutions the way our theory of change predicted, or was something else happening in the
community that may have had a bigger impact on the indicator?
Did some participants have better
results than others and, if so, what explains this difference?
BOX 2
Performance Measurement Questions: THE WHO
Are we enrolling children and families who can most benefit from our programs, per our TOC
and Segmentation Analysis?
Are referrals from partners producing the target populations we said we would reach?
Have we identified the right partners and methods for enrolling these families?
Are our enrollment numbers sufficient to reach the penetration rates we specified across
Program Implications
•
Segmentation analysis identifies Latino
children as high priority
•
“Partner B” has clearly enrolled more
Latino children than any other program
•
Understand Partner B’s success
•
Replicate the strategy in other parts of
the continuum through increased
financial and staff resources
BOX 3
Performance Measurement Questions: THE WHAT
Are our case managers and/or our partners referring children and families to appropriate
solutions based on identified needs?
Are we providing solutions that match the level and type of identified needs in the target
populations?
When we break down our case management data by partner, can we verify that each partner is
providing the type of service(s) we said they would?
How much did each partner do? Are partners consistently at target enrollment levels? How well did each partner do it? Are participants meeting the target intensity/dosage levels
Data
among chronically absent students the previous year Students who improved attendanceNumber of students improvement Considerable improvement Some improvement Little improvement No
% % % % Characteristic Gender Male 103 8 16 23 53 Female 112 29 33 18 21 Promise Neighborhood Program Mentoring 75 29 31 23 17
After school recreation 68 18 25 29 28
Tutoring 72 8 18 10 64
Program Implications
•
Current strategies seem to be working better for girls than boys
• almost a third of previously chronically absent girls showed
considerable improvement
• over half of previously chronically absent boys showed no
improvement
•
Mentoring program served the highest share of students who
showed considerable improvement in attendance,
• Tutoring program by far served the highest share of students who
showed no improvement in attendance
•
Further performance discussions with partners to understand
• how attendance solutions can better serve the types of students
who still are still struggling
BOX 4
Performance Measurement Questions: THE “SO WHAT?”
For each partner or program, how many children served achieved the intended results?
Do results of particular solutions (e.g., home visiting) vary by type, dose over time, or quality of
the solution provided by each partner?
Which partners are high performers? Why? Should funding be shifted among partners and/or
solutions?
If changes occurred, were they the result of solutions in the way the theory of change
predicted, or was something else happening in the community that may have had a bigger impact on the indicator?
Did some participants have better results than others and, if so, what explains this difference?
(For example, characteristics of the participants, mix of interventions, duration of interventions, intensity of interventions, etc.)
