Dara Geckeler, MPH

Community Health Equity & Promotion Branch

SFHIP Steering Committee Meeting

April 16, 2015 1

San Francisco Department of Public Health Population Health Division

Results Based Accountability: How It Can Help Achieve Collective Impact

Building a Healthier San Francisco

How Can RBA Support SFHIP?

• RBA aligns with collective impact – Common agenda – Shared measurement – Mutually reinforcing activities

• RBA aligns with the CHIP – Population-level impact on community health

• RBA can support SFHIP member capacity – Pledges – Barriers and needs – Work plans

• RBA can support SFHIP processes – Communications tool – Quality improvement aimed at “turning the curve” – Framework for meeting agendas – Budgeting?

Outline for Today

• RBA in four slides (10 min)

• Proposed SFHIP shared measurement framework (5 min)

• Questions/discussion on framework (5 min)

• Exercise instructions/example (5 min)

• Exercise: Starting SSB work plans (20 min)

• Report back to group (10 min)

• Next steps (5 min)

FPSI/RLG 3

Population vs. Performance Accountability

FPSI/RLG

RESULT

INDICATOR

PERFORMANCE MEASURE

CHIP Result: Healthy eating and active living in SF

1. How much did we do?

2. How well did we do it?

3. Is anyone better off?

A condition of well-being for children, adults, families or communities.

A measure which helps quantify the achievement of a result.

A measure of how well a program, agency or service system is working.

= customer results

PO

PU

LA

TIO

N

AC

CO

UN

TA

BIL

ITY

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

AC

CO

UN

TA

BIL

ITY

Three types:

CHIP indicator: Percent of children and adolescents who consumed two

or more glasses of soda or sugary drinks yesterday (CHIS)

(1) How

much did

we do?

The Three Kinds of

Program Performance Measures

(2) How well

did we do it?

Is anyone

better off?

Quantity Quality E

ffect

E

ffo

rt

(3) (4)

# customers served

# activities

# policies introduced

% customers satisfied

% staff turnover

% attendance

# changed behavior

# changed attitudes

# increased skills/knowledge

# changed circumstances

% changed behavior

% changed attitudes

% increased skills/knowledge

% changed circumstances

FPSI/RLG 6

How much did we do?

Not All Performance Measures Are Created Equal

How well did we do it?

Is anyone better off?

Quantity Quality E

ffect

Eff

ort

Least important

Most important

COALITIONS

PARTNERSHIPS

COLLECTIVE IMPACT

Most control

Least control

FPSI/RLG 7

Using Shared Measurement to

“Turn the Curve”

0

5

10

2013 2014 2015 2016

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2013 2014 2015 2016

Population Accountability

0

2

4

6

0

2

4

6

CHIP Indicator: % of children &

adolescents who consumed 2 or

more glasses of soda or sugary

drinks yesterday

(not real data)

SFHIP Performance Measure

SFHIP Performance Measure

SFHIP Performance Measure

Performance Accountability

Quantity Quality

E

ffe

ct

Eff

ort

# organizations approached re: developing

SSB policy

# of Sugar Science trainings hosted by

SFHIP members

# community health workers trained on

SSB

# peer health educators trained on SSB

# SSB posters displayed in public locations

# SSB educational outreach events

% of organizations approached that agreed

to a meeting

% of training participants that rated training

favorably

# organizations adopting SSB policies

# children and adolescents/parents with

increased SSB knowledge

# children and adolescents/parents with

unfavorable attitudes about SSB

# children and adolescents who consumed

two or more glasses of soda or sugary

drinks yesterday

% of children and

adolescents who

consumed two or more

glasses of soda or

sugary drinks yesterday

(from the CHIP)*

Proposed SFHIP

Shared Measurement

Framework

Policy (SSB & H2O access)

Education (SSB & H2O consumption)

Both

*Align performance measure with

population-level indicator

SFHIP Shared Measurement (Barriers/needs re: data to be identified)

(Backbone can help develop tools)

(Tools should be shared across SFHIP members)

SFHIP Member Contributions (some may be shared across >1 SFHIP member)

(selected measures lead to work plans)

(work plans become the pledges)

PAUSE…..5 MINUTES Questions/Discussion on proposed framework?

Background for Exercise: What are we working toward?

-Activities

-Performance measures

-Timeline

-Barriers & needs

-Summary of member activities

-Headline performance measures

-Timeline

-Plan to address needs

Results Reduced % of children and

adolescents who consumed two or more

glasses of soda or sugary drinks yesterday

(from the CHIP)

SFHIP work plan

SFHIP member work plan

SFHIP member work plan

SFHIP member work plan

10

Exercise Instructions

EXERCISE: 20 MINUTES REPORT BACK: 10 MINUTES

1) What do you propose to do, and what

are your performance measures?

2) Are there any additional partners that

SFHIP needs to bring to the table?

Next Steps

Next Step Who By When

Turn worksheets into draft work plans and pledges; email to members

Backbone April 24

Revise and finalize work plans and pledges

Individual Members May 1

Prepare DRAFT overarching SFHIP work plan, measures, & resource needs; email to members

Backbone with Leadership Committee

May 15

Discuss & finalize SFHIP work plan, measures, & resource needs

SFHIP Steering (agenda item)

May 21

Report back on measures Backbone ongoing

Revise work plans as needed

SFHIP Members, Leadership Committee, and SFHIP Steering

ongoing

1. Mark Friedman, Founder of the Fiscal Policy Studies Institute and author of:

Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough (Trafford, 2005)

www.resultsaccountability.com; www.raguide.org

2. Kania, John, and Mark Kramer. “Collective Impact.” Stanford Social

Innovation Review (2011)

http://ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact/

Thank you to: SFHIP Backbone & DPH Staff –

Special thanks to Patricia Erwin, Christina Goette,

Paula Jones, Marianne Szeto, Roberto Vargas

SFDPH Center for Learning & Innovation

Acknowledgements Portions of these materials draw upon the work of: