1. Any condition of well-being that can be stated in
plain language is a result.
2. Try to build consensus on a list of results. There is no right or wrong list
Advice from:
Organizational Resources
References
The Short Answer
1. Results are plain language conditions of well-being for
children, adults, families and communities.
2. Choosing results is a political process more than a
technical process. You are looking for a set of statements which are
understandable to the public, say something important about the well-being of a
given population, and which are reasonably complete.
3. Create a process which has a highly respected steering
committee, is well staffed and has lots of room for broad participation. Make
sure the development process is kept on track with a clear and coherent
framework.
Full Answer
(1) Choosing results is a political process, and it is important to recognize that
at the beginning. So we will discuss approaches to organizing the political
process and then the technical process of selecting results.
(2) Political process: The most successful processes for selecting results seem to
have the following components:
(a)A highly respected
steering committee made up of public and private sector representatives. For
example the Georgia Family and Children’s Policy Council has prominent
business leaders, faith community leaders, and high level legislative and
executive branch representatives. (GEORGIA, SEE ALSO MISSOURI FIT, OREGON
PROGRESS BOARD ETC.)
(b)A framework: It is
essential that the group adopt a conceptual framework for the work to keep it
coherent and disciplined. (The RPA framework presented here has served this
purpose in many states and counties.)
(c)Staff. If you pick
the right people for the steering group they will not have time to do much of
this work. You will need one or more staff people to do the research, staff
the meetings and make recommendations.
(d)The steering
committee and staff take the time necessary to get their act together and
develop a version of results and indicators that they think is pretty good.
This will take some back and forth between commissioners and staff. While this
process should not be closed to the public, it should allow for plenty of give
and take. The product should be something that could stand as the final best
thinking of the group. This product is then offered as a starting point for
discussion in the next phase.
(e)Broad participation.
The best processes used many different ways to obtain local
input including hearings, focus groups, as well as paper and electronic
distribution methods.
(3) There is a debate that often takes place about whether it is necessary or
desirable to gather public input BEFORE the steering group develops its
recommendations. There is not a right or wrong answer to this question. But
agreement on a framework is absolutely essential before broad based input is
sought. In other words, the steering committee and staff must have a
structured way to hear, to organize and to interpret what people offer as
recommendations. In one state where this was not done, the public input
process generated recommendations for all the steps in the RPA thiking process
(results, indicators, story behind the baselines, what works etc.). It is
exactly what you would expect from that kind of process. The group did not
have a clear method for sorting the difference between indicators and what
works ideas and performance measures etc. and the consequent product was a
hodge podge of many different (non-parallel) components. It made the
subsequent work difficult and confusing and the process was ultimately
abandoned.
(5) Technical How to:
Here is an exercise which works with groups to develop results for a
population starting from a blank slate.An important thing to remember is that different groups will produce different
lists of results (or anything else). You can run this exercise once with a
single group and then use the product (with refinements) as part of an
external review process. Or you could run this exercise with many groups and
craft their many products into something that represents common ground.
TECHNIQUE for Generating Results List
from Scatch
Purpose: Create a list of 10 plain language results.
Pre-requirements: all participants must have been trained or
instructed so they have at least a basic understanding of the
difference between results indicators and performance measures.
Preferably all participants will have training in the full
results-based decision making process.
Step 1. Ask participants in the whole group to brainstorm endings to
the sentences:
We want children who are...
We want families that are...
We want to live in a community that is...
Step 2. Break into three groups (by children, family and community)
Have each group pare their list of answers down to 5 for children, 3
for families, and 2 for the community. (Option: have each group
designate “emissaries “ to the other two groups to discuss
potential duplication and overlap and other issues necessary for the
work of the groups to fit together.)
Step 3. Bring the large group back together and have each group
report. Have the large group make recommendations for changes that
will make the list function as a whole.
Variations:
We want adults/elders who are...
We want an environment which is...
We want an economy that is...
Taken from FPSI Training for Trainers and coaches, June, 2000
(6) We are now accustomed to the idea of results for children and
families. But the idea applies to almost any condition of well-being you can
imagine. For example here are some "non-conventional" results:
Community with adequate
affordable housing for all
Community with adequate sustainable
water supply (LA, Santa Fe)
Forrests not prone to fire (pick
any western state)
Communities without graffiti
(7) An important pitfall: Starting on one result
without a complete list of results creates the tendency to load everything
onto that one result because it is the only game in town. So if
"healthy children" is picked as the only result the collaborative
has identified to work on, then every part of the well-being of children can
be made subordinate to health. So, for example, family self sufficiency is
part of health because families with higher incomes have better nutrition and
better access to medical care etc. The next month a task force on family self
sufficiency concludes that health is subordinate to self sufficiency because
in order to be self sufficient families must be healthy etc. This is in fact
just another version of the old game where the whole world is seen through the
eyes of just one agency or one profession. It is probably better to develop at
least a complete working list of results before choosing which ones to work
on.
(8) A word about the relationship of state and local development of results
and indicators: The wrong way tot do this is to develop a set of results and
indicators at the state level and then impose them on local folks. There is a
legitimate state interest in having a core set of results and indicators which
allow different parts of the state to be compared. But this does not mean a
monolithic top down process. There are two solutions that have been used in
other states that seem to work well. In Georgia, the state has developed a set
of core results and benchmarks and then allowed local Family Connection Councils
to add to this list. In Oregon, the goals and (approximately 92) benchmarks
provide a thorough picture of quality of life, counties, cities and communities
can choose which of these to adopt for local use. Mutlinomah county, for example
has identified a subset which it calls "urgent" benchmarks. Whatever
approach you decide to take, make sure it is respectful of the legitimate
differences which exist between local conditions, values and priorities.
