/NOLA_Ready_by_21_Audit_Report-02-14-11 by Partnership for Youth Development

Ready by 21® Leadership Capacity Audit New Orleans, LA

Key Findings & Recommendations

February 14, 2011 Prepared by the Forum for Youth Investment New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

About the Forum for Youth Investment The Forum for Youth Investment is a nonprofit, nonpartisan “action tank” dedicated to helping communities and the nation make sure all young people are Ready by 21®– ready for college, work and life. Informed by rigorous research and practical experience, the Forum forges innovative ideas, strategies and partnerships to strengthen solutions for young people and those who care about them. Founded in 1998 by Karen Pittman and Merita Irby, two of the country’s top leaders on youth issues and youth policy, the Forum is a trusted resource for policy makers, advocates, researchers and practitioners. The Ready by 21 Strategy was created by the Forum based on more than a decade of work with state and local leaders interested in broad scale change. Ready by 21 is a registered trademark.

About Ready by 21 Ready by 21 is a strategy that helps communities improve the odds that all youth will be ready for work, college and life. It taps the expertise and dedication of leaders within communities, meeting them where they are and helping them chart a course for better outcomes for young people. Using innovative strategic planning tools developed by the Forum for Youth Investment and the National Partners, Ready by 21 coaches support and mobilize communities to amplify their efforts to prepare youth for success.

About Leadership Capacity Audit

are critical to their mission so that they can increase their overall horsepower to make sustained change.

About the Ready by 21 National Partnership An unprecedented coalition of organizations representing government, education, nonprofit, business, research and philanthropy sectors, the National Partnership is a “dream team” of the country’s most effective agencies. It works with trailblazing leaders who are shaping youth and community development policies and best practices. Its combined reach is over 650,000 state and local leaders who impact the lives of more than 1 million children and youth across the United States. National Mobilization Partners include United Way Worldwide (signature partner), the American Association of School Administrators, America’s Promise Alliance, Children’s Cabinet Network, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the National Collaboration for Youth, National Conference of State Legislatures and Search Institute. The Ready by 21 National Partnership is focusing its outreach and technical assistance efforts in the Southeastern states.

About the Southeast Cities Challenge The Southeast Cities Challenge is a regionally specific initiative of the Ready by 21 Partnership which is working with Southeast cities and regions to develop core leadership capacities around developing broader partnerships, bigger goals, better data and decisionmaking, and bolder strategies.

Partnerships, goals, data for planning, improvement strategies – this is the language of leadership. Broader partnerships, bigger goals, better data, bolder strategies to improve program quality, consistency and reach – these are the goals of leadership. The Forum has identified 13 standards associated with these four building blocks. To support this work, we have developed a leadership capacity audit – a set of structured surveys, interviews and processes designed to assess a community’s overall leadership capacities. Leadership capacity audits serve the same purpose as financial audits. They provide leaders with a structured opportunity to receive feedback on core functions that

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Introduction The destruction wrought on the City of New Orleans / Orleans Parish (“New Orleans”) by the levee failures is well documented as are ongoing efforts to repair and improve infrastructure and services. As recovery moves beyond restoring housing, public safety and schools, community leaders are focusing their efforts on repairing the broader social fabric of New Orleans. Several ambitious initiatives are underway to address the critical needs of children and youth, including innovative efforts to revamp and revitalize K-12 education, juvenile justice and public recreation. Equally important, there is growing, if uneven, civic engagement and increasing awareness that long-term success will require meaningful youth and community participation. This confluence of public engagement and energetic leadership – from the mayor’s office and the Children and Youth Planning Board to the Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership and the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana, among many other stakeholders – suggests that now may be the time to advance an ambitious, coordinated agenda on behalf of children and youth. As one Children and Youth Planning Board member put it: “We couldn’t have focused on doing coordinated forward thinking two years ago. We were too busy fighting fires.” Truer words have not been spoken. Tactical coordination is hard. Strategic coordination is even harder. Broad leadership coordination – aligning goals, agendas, resources, data across systems, sectors, and issues – is virtually impossible unless a critical group of leaders have the capacity, motivation and authority to start the process and stay the course. In New Orleans this hard work is in its infancy and its success is far from assured. The determining factor will not be the depth of children’s needs (certainly great), or even the robustness of community, school and family

supports (fragmented and incomplete). It will be the amount of collective horsepower in New Orleans – and the ability of the community to harness that horsepower and “move the small gear” (see graphic below). Is the timing right for New Orleans to align efforts and pursue an ambitious agenda for children and youth? Findings from investigative work commissioned by the Baptist Community Ministries and conducted by the Forum for Youth Investment with support and guidance from the Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership suggests that the answer is a cautious yes. “The community is really primed for moving forward. It's a critical time and I worry that if we don't get ourselves organized and start doing the things that I’ve talked about, we'll lose momentum and the support of the mayor and city council. Now that we've gotten them to appoint the right people to Children and Youth Planning Board, we need to move right now.” -New Orleans Ready by 21 Audit participant

Over the past three months, members of the newly reorganized Children and Youth Planning Board and other key community leaders were interviewed or surveyed using the Ready by 21® Leadership Capacity Audit. The audit puts names and standards to the work leaders do (e.g., engaging stakeholders, setting goals, aligning resources) and asks them to score and comment on two questions: How essential is it that these tasks be done well in order to make lasting changes in community supports and youth outcomes? How well do you think they are currently being

Change the way Change the landscape Change the odds we do business of communities for children and youth New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011 3 Moving the small gear makes a BIG difference

performed in the community? The summary scores and main comments from these responses are presented in this report, combined with recommendations for next steps. As you read the summary, ask yourself four questions: •

Do these findings and recommendations ring true?

•

Do they compel me or my organization to act or to advocate for others to act?

•

Is it clear what should be done first?

•

Am I convinced that acting on these recommendations will make a difference to New Orleans’ and my organization’s capacity to change lives?

Even if your initial answers are “no” or “not sure,” we hope that the following analysis will begin to illuminate a path that you and your colleagues can follow to improve performance across the Ready by 21

Ready by 21 Leadership Standards: 4 Building Blocks and 13 Standards Broader Partnerships 1.1 Engaged stakeholders 1.2 Aligned coalitions, networks and intermediaries 1.3 “Cradle-to-career” leadership council

Bigger Goals 2.1 Clear goals for children and youth 2.2 Defined supports and performance measures 2.3 Youth-centered communications and planning

Better Data and Information 3.1 Data-driven planning 3.2 Aligned data systems 3.3 Useful information about what works

Bolder Strategies 4.1 Improved systems and settings 4.2 Aligned policies and resources

4.3 Engaged children, youth and families 4.4 Increased demand

leadership standards and turbocharge New Orleans’ collective horsepower for change. It is only by changing the way we leaders do business that we can change the odds for children and youth.

Audit Process During summer 2010, community leaders from New Orleans learned about the Ready by 21 Partnership’s efforts to strengthen leadership capacity in other Southeast communities and began exploring opportunities to bring the Ready by 21 process and resources to New Orleans. In November 2010, a local funder, Baptist Community Ministries (BCM), attended a session about the Ready by 21 Audit, and asked the Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership (GNOAP) to consider managing the audit process with a goal of having this work done in time to inform the work of the newly reorganized Children and Youth Planning Board (CYPB). BCM ultimately made a grant to GNOAP to fund the audit and help coordinate data collection. All parties agreed to complete the audit process and produce an initial report of findings by mid-February 2011. Delivery of this report completes the first phase of the audit process. New Orleans’ Ready by 21 work, however, has just begun. Deciding whether and how to share the findings and implement the recommendations is the next step, followed by securing the human, financial and political resources to move forward. The Forum for Youth Investment and the Ready by 21 Partnership stand ready to assist.

WHO? Staff members from GNOAP formed the core team for the audit process. This team participated in an interactive webinar with Forum staff in December 2010 to review and customize the audit process for New Orleans. During the webinar, the team discussed: (1) who would participate in different elements of the audit process; (2) how the audit process could connect with work currently taking place in New Orleans; and

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

(3) potential audiences and formats for audit deliverables.

HOW? The audit is designed to paint a preliminary picture of a community’s collective leadership capacity in an effort to prompt reflection, planning, and, ultimately, targeted improvement efforts. Forum staff members conducted surveys, formal interviews, informal one-on-one and group meetings, and document review, and asked members of the core team to summarize local knowledge using field-tested diagnostic tools. The audit reflects opinion as much as fact. It is done with, not for, the community. Findings and recommendations are vetted for accuracy and relevance with the core team. Forum staff will offer support and counsel to the core team and local funder(s) as they determine the best way to release the findings and recommendations.

What and When?  In early January 2011, two Forum staff members spent a day in New Orleans to meet with a range of leaders from various sectors who work on children and youth issues. During this visit, Forum staff interviewed leaders about current activities and initiatives, collected information on the range and accessibility of data regarding children and youth, and administered a battery of diagnostic tools to document stakeholder engagement and generate a basic picture of New Orleans’ coalitions and networks. Results from these diagnostics are included in appendices attached to this report.

 In mid-January 2011, Karen Pittman, the coFounder, CEO and president of the Forum for Youth Investment, was in New Orleans to discuss Ready by 21 principles and their implementation in the community. Ms. Pittman met with the Children and Youth Planning Board, Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership, Baptist Community Ministries, senior staff from Mayor Landrieu’s office, and other key business leaders and practitioners from a range of sectors that work on children and youth issues.

New Orleans’ Audit Process Participants Core Team: Lauren Bierbaum, Ph.D., Director of Research, GNO Afterschool Partnership Bebe Ryan, Director of Strategy and Development, GNO Afterschool Partnership Gina Warner, J.D., Executive Director, GNO Afterschool Partnership Leader Interviewees: Thelma Harris French, President and CEO, Total Community Action, Inc. Ernestine S. Gray, Chief Judge, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court Kevin Guitterrez, Deputy Superintendent, Louisiana Recovery School District Geoff Nagle, Director, Tulane University Institute of Infant Health and Early Childhood Mental Health; State Director, BrightStar – Louisiana’s Early Childhood Advisory Council Brooke Smith, Director of Strategic Partnership, Office of Mayor Mitch Landrieu , City of New Orleans Kyshun A. Webster, Sr,. Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Operation REACH, Inc. Community Rating Survey Participants: 18 community members (of 30 invited) completed the Ready by 21® Community Rating Survey, including members of the Children and Youth Planning Board as well as other stakeholders engaged in the Audit process Ready by 21® Audit Team: Karen Pittman, Co-Founder, President and CEO, The Forum for Youth Investment Larry Pasti, Director of Field Services, The Forum for Youth Investment Tom Devaney, Managing Director, David P. Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality Pam Stevens, Ready by 21 Coach, The Forum for Youth Investment Stephanie Randall, Senior Program Associate, The Forum for Youth Investment

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

 From mid-January through early February, the Forum’s Ready by 21 consulting team completed audit data collection and analysis. During this period, Forum staff:  Reviewed key documents concerning New Orleans children and youth and the services and systems serving them. Nine documents were provided to the Forum by the New Orleans core team. The Forum located additional reports and publications via web searches. See Appendix E for a complete list of reviewed documents.  Conducted in-depth interviews with six individuals identified by the core team as key leaders in New Orleans. Five of the six interviewees also rated New Orleans’ current capacity in each of the 13 Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity standards using the “Change Horsepower” diagnostic worksheet.

carry out their plans to improve child and youth outcomes from “cradle to career.” What distinguishes one community from another are the very specific ideas about both barriers and opportunities for closing this gap. Results from New Orleans’ audit – and leaders’ perspectives on improvement priorities – are summarized and discussed below. Audit Results. The Ratings from the on-line survey suggest that leaders who are well-positioned to assess the connectivity, horsepower and inclusivity of the groups and structures charged with improving developmental trajectories and outcomes for New Orleans’ children and youth believe that there is substantial work to do. Overall, the ratings reveal that local leaders: •

Believe that the Ready by 21 Leadership Standards represent very important performance metrics for their collective work and offer useful signals about their likelihood of achieving success. [Mean Rating > 4.0 for all standards].

•

See substantial room for improvement across virtually all of the standards. [Mean Rating < 3.0 for 10 of 13 standards].

 Distributed the Ready by 21 Community Rating survey to 30 leaders in the broader New Orleans community. Eighteen leaders (60% response rate) completed the survey.

Findings New Orleans’ audit results are consistent with those generated in other communities. Community leaders believe that, to meet their mission, they need to improve their capacity and horsepower in multiple areas. Indeed, when given an opportunity, New Orleans leaders willingly acknowledge and lament what the Forum calls the “leadership capacity gap.” That is, they identify gaps, often substantial, between the optimal and actual local conditions and structures available to help them

The chart on the next page shows New Orleans’ leaders combined responses to two questions regarding the Ready by 21 Leadership Standards: How essential is meeting these standards to our ultimate success in improving development trajectories for children and youth from “cradle to career?” How well are we as a community doing against these standards?

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Leadership Capacity Gaps in New Orleans*

High

Low

* The Ready by 21 Community Rating survey (n=18) covered 12 of the 13 Leadership Capacity Standards. Information regarding data system alignment (3.2) was collected using separate diagnostics. See Appendix D for details.

It is immediately obvious in the survey data that New Orleansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; leaders see substantial room for growth across all of the standards, with the largest gaps concentrated in performance areas related to cross-sector collaboration (e.g., clear goals for children and youth; defined supports and performance measures; improved systems and settings; aligned policies and resources) and data-

driven planning. Stakeholder engagement as well as data quality and connectivity are also seen as substantial, but secondary challenges. Interview participants largely corroborate these quantitative findings, lamenting in particular the uneven engagement by stakeholder groups such as the business and faith communities, the paucity of accessible, high-quality data on children and youth, and the sector-specific silos and internecine

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Key Findings & Recommendations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

conflicts that seem to have survived and perhaps even hardened post-Katrina. As interviewees said: ”The coalitions which arose after Katrina have not necessarily been effective, with pressure to participate for fear of being left out. What resulted were lots of people coming together and spending a lot of time, but no real impact came out of it.” “While lip service to the concepts of data sharing has existed for 20 years, it is still almost nonexistent across collaborations, much less stakeholder groups. This needs to be rectified before any further steps can be taken in this direction.” “[Networks and coalitions can] sometimes [be] a little bit competitive because, you know, the resources are so finite…So everyone’s busy fighting for their scraps, so they can’t fight together.”

Importantly, in spite of the nearly universal critique of New Orleans’ current performance against the leadership capacity standards, audit participants are cautiously optimistic about the future. Many believe that Mayor Landrieu’s administration has the vision, and is building the political infrastructure and will necessary, to advance its ambitious agenda for children, youth and families: “The mayor’s office is committed to children and youth issues and has an ambitious vision – but execution is currently limited by capacity. [There is lots of evidence that…] the administration will be able to overcome [that obstacle].” -New Orleans Ready by 21 Audit participant

A number of respondents also indicate that, with the appropriate mandate and supports, an existing network or coalition could assume a lead coordinating role and drive critical efforts to: develop a youth master plan; facilitate cross-sector goal setting, performance monitoring and reporting; and champion efforts to engage key stakeholders and increase public demand. Indeed, during the

audit, community leaders identified multiple entities that might fill this needed role, including the newly reconstituted Children and Youth Planning Board, Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership, and New Orleans Recreation Department Commission, among others. The following quotes reflect the opinions of most Audit participants: “CYPB is supposed to assess services and needs in the community, identify gaps and develop a plan to address those service provision gaps. Not just about juvenile justice, child welfare, education, all of that. CYPB should be the go to entity for what’s going on with children and families.” “GNOAP [holds a leadership role] in terms of what they’ve done to help individuals coalesce around what happens in the space they help support. Not only afterschool programming but extended programming ideas and scenarios and how that connects to what is being designed as the new New Orleans Recreation Department. There’s a lot of energy around that.”

Questions remain, however, about whether any of these entities currently has the necessary crosssector connections, mandate, decision-making authority, resources and structure to successfully and sustainably execute such a charge. The following quotes are representative: “We have great potential and good starting points, but we aren’t maximizing where we can take those structures and mechanisms. We [are building momentum] but we have a long way to go.” “We're doing better [but] there's a great need for more coordination/collaboration – particularly around priorities and goal-setting at the community level. As opposed to focusing just on groups that have funding for specific initiatives, we need to establish three or five community-wide goals and then develop communitylevel plans for pursuing those goals.”

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

“The Children and Youth Planning Board exists, has the power of legislative mandate behind it, and (theoretically) is comprised of the right combination of community organizations and position appointments. However, it has not yet proven effective, and needs a clear charge as well as a communication strategy to reposition it as an authority.”

Given the range of possible capacity improvement targets, limited time and resources, and other postKatrina challenges, the obvious questions are: Where to start? What steps should New Orleans’ leaders follow now to maximize their impact?

Recommendations As post-Katrina recovery efforts move beyond basic infrastructure repairs, community leaders, funders and other key stakeholders are increasingly and appropriately turning their attention, policies and programs toward the developmental needs of children and youth. The combination of accelerating activity, growing public demand and energetic leadership from multiple sectors, including the mayor’s office, is certainly exciting, but it is occurring in an environment where coordinating structures are immature, resources are limited and frequently controlled by the State, and fragmentation remains a persistent challenge. Consequently, structural barriers continue to impede multi-lateral cooperation, stakeholder engagement, and effective decision-making and leadership. In our experience, the most effective way to begin addressing these barriers is by building, empowering and supporting a legitimate coordinating body. Until this occurs, there remains a real risk that New Orleans’ increasingly energized leaders, engaged public and multiple “moving trains” may ultimately add up to less, not more, than the sum of their parts.

This is not to say that New Orleans is starting from scratch. In fact, like other Ready by 21 communities, New Orleans comes to the table with many strengths and many of the pieces required for success. It is the methods, structures and systems for focusing energies, initiatives and resources that are inconsistent or lacking and need to be improved. Our primary and immediate recommendation, therefore, is that New Orleans spend the next six months structuring a coordinating body / leadership council capable of: (1) managing a community-wide master planning process; (2) negotiating a common agenda and balanced set of goals; (3) reinforcing horizontal (cross-sector) and vertical (within sector) connections; and (4) overseeing the change and improvement process. Appropriately configuring and empowering such an entity or coalition will facilitate future improvement efforts across the other leadership capacity standards. The good news is that a likely candidate for this role – the Children and Youth Planning Board – already exists, has a legislative mandate, and is, according to many audit participants, poised to take on the work. The bad news is that CYPB’s low profile, lack of dedicated resources and uncertain decisionmaking power mean that it is not yet optimized to successfully carry out the charge. Indeed, as New Orleans’ Ready by 21 initiative advances, local leaders will need to ensure that CYPB has and maintains the vision, mission, authority, organizational home, composition, formality, staffing, funding and cross-sector connections necessary to meet its mandate. Our Audit recommendations are intended to help local leaders set that process in motion. We of course are not suggesting the CYPB assume sole responsibility for improving New Orleans’

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

performance across all of the leadership capacity standards. Nor are we suggesting that work across all standards begin immediately. The work will not be easy and some of it will be quite technical (e.g., cross-sector data aggregation, alignment and reporting). CYPB will therefore need appropriate authorization from the Mayor’s office as well as the commitment and cooperation of many other local stakeholder groups and in all likelihood technical partners. The Forum and Ready by 21 Partnership are ready and willing to help steward this process over the short- and long-terms. Our specific recommendations, in priority order, are detailed below. Recommendation #1 (Short-term): Give CYPB resources and horsepower to serve effectively as New Orleans’ coordinating council. This process should occur over the next six months and begin with an evaluation of CYPB’s structural features against the six components of effective leadership councils described below and immediately transition into a master planning process. We anticipate that such an evaluation will indicate that, to be successful in this role, CYPB will require a formal “restart” that includes: o A clearer public vision for its role.

o A mission statement that defines its purpose as a planning and coordinating body. o Clear guidance regarding the scope of its decisionmaking / policy-setting authority. This should include: o A stronger signal from the mayor’s office that CYPB is charged with managing children and youth strategies. o Clarity regarding its relationship to and role vis-à-vis the reorganized New Orleans Recreation Department Commission and other high-powered, high visibility entities (e.g., public private partnership on economic development; other city departments that offer youth services or supports). o Additional staffing and dedicated financial resources to execute core tasks (e.g., communications, data alignment, network mapping, quality improvement). o Increased cross-sector connectivity as well as access to vetted technical partners. In particular, CYPB will need: o Active leadership from BCM to engage other local funders and ensure that the Board has sufficient resources. o Technical support and expertise to pursue improvements related to cross-sector data aggregation and alignment.

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Six Structural Components of Effective Leadership Councils

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Recommendation #2 (Short-term): Charge CYPB with leading a youth master planning process for New Orleans. As efforts progress to empower and appropriately structure CYPB as New Orleans’ lead coordinating council, the community should move quickly to initiate work on a cross-sector youth master plan, which would include performance metrics for your collective work across “ages and stages.” To kick-start these efforts, CYPB and other stakeholder groups should leverage prior efforts by the early childhood education, juvenile justice and public education sectors to develop and deploy data-driven performance monitoring and accountability systems. Ultimately, New Orleans’ master plan should: o Reinforce CYPB’s role as the central coordinating body. o Create an overarching narrative about the child and youth readiness outcomes that New Orleans desires, and the desired school and community supports the community needs to achieve its long-term vision. The narrative, which should explicitly include a localized version of Ready by 21’s “Insulated Education Pipeline,” (see graphic below) can guide the development of specific, cross-sector “readiness” targets, objectives and strategies. o Capitalize on growing demand for data access and transparency by articulating goals, expectations, timelines and technical needs associated with aligning data systems, improving data access and implementing datadriven performance management.

o Define strategies and tactics for communicating data on child and youth readiness, and on school and community resources in ways that not only inform decision-makers but spark and sustain community conversations and provider accountability. o Advance efforts to assess performance and outcomes using a balanced set of indicators and metrics. The master plan should explicitly help New Orleans transition from “deficit” to “asset”-based language and metrics for the developmental stages and trajectories of children and youth. Recommendation #3 (Medium-term): Conduct due diligence, establish necessary partnerships and implement a data alignment and performance management strategy. CYPB, with assistance from local experts and partners should: o Evaluate the range, quality, interconnectedness, accessibility and transparency of system-level performance indicators and children and youth outcome data. This work began with a series of diagnostics during the Audit process (see Appendices) but broader mapping and deeper dives are essential. o Identify emerging agendas and existing efforts within and beyond New Orleans to define crosssector performance metrics, align data systems, and/or improve the timeliness and quality of public reporting. Evaluate and consider “off the shelf” data aggregation, performance management, and virtual enterprise solutions. o Develop a cross-sector data agenda. Based upon current capacities, we recommend that CYPB outsource responsibility for managing the data agenda to a third party organization or partnership (such as the mayor’s office or Greater New Orleans Community Data Center).

Ready by 21® Insulated Education Pipeline New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Recommendation #4 (Medium-term): Develop strategies for and find opportunities to increase stakeholder engagement. Although stakeholder engagement has increased in the post-Katrina era, it is far from universal. Indeed, audit participants suggest that the business and faith communities participate unevenly and that more opportunities are needed to engage families and youth in planning, decision-making and implementation. (This may require innovative strategies given the ongoing infrastructure challenges and the uneven penetration of CBOs across neighborhoods.) To improve performance on this standard, New Orleans’ leaders should:

The Forum is committed to meeting leaders where they are, challenging them to do more and helping them to build the capacity to do so. This report represents our commitment to listen, learn and ask questions, and then to provide recommendations that are consistent with what we have learned works in other communities and states across the country. We look forward to our continued work moving forward, together.

o Invest in efforts to secure community and service provider “buy-in” to a common, asset-based vision for children and youth and to subsequent planning and performance monitoring efforts. o Accelerate outreach and strengthen relationships with local corporate and philanthropic funders. Broad stakeholder engagement is critical for increasing public awareness of and commitment to your community's agenda.

Conclusion As the audit process winds down, the Forum, with support from the Ready by 21 Partnership, hopes to continue its work with New Orleans’ leaders to develop capacity improvement plans and implement the recommendations found in this report. Our perspective is that, in the near term, New Orleans should focus its energies on building CYPB’s capacity to coordinate local efforts and on developing a cross-sector youth master plan. Once this infrastructure is in place, the community will be far better prepared to harness local ambitions and energies, and to efficiently pursue improvements across the other leadership capacity standards.

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Ready by 21® Leadership Capacity Audit New Orleans, LA

Survey & Interview Results

February 14, 2011 Prepared by the Forum for Youth Investment New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Table of Contents Survey and Interview Results Leadership Challenge 1: Broader Partnerships – survey & interview results .................................... Pages 3-12 Leadership Challenge 2: Bigger Goals – survey & interview results .................................................. Pages 13-21 Leadership Challenge 3: Better Data & Information – survey & interview results............................ Pages 22-28 Leadership Challenge 4: Bolder Strategies – survey & interview results .......................................... Pages 29-36

2 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Leadership Challenge #1: Broader Partnerships Partnerships and collaborations can take many forms. Two organizations may work together to provide a service, a group of organizations and individuals may come together to coordinate service delivery, or a decision-making body may come together to set an agenda and allocate resources across a number of systems, neighborhoods or populations. Communities, even small communities, typically have dozens if not hundreds of visible partnerships, coalitions and initiatives in place that have web sites, logos, mission statements or MOUs. If effectiveness could be measured by the number, most communities would be much farther ahead than they are. Communities need to shift from listing their partnerships to assessing them and aligning them to create a coherent patchwork that adequately meets the needs of the whole child and the whole community. Communities and states that have well-functioning, well-coordinated partnerships that attend to a range of issues (from coordinating early childhood education to preventing risky behaviors to increasing workforce readiness) also have two other things: engaged individual stakeholders (the key individuals and organizations that make up the partnerships) and an empowered leadership group charged with keeping the vision, identifying resources, monitoring progress and coordinating the efforts of the multiple partnerships. The Broader Partnerships standards establish the ideal capacities needed at each of these three levels: Individual Stakeholders All stakeholders – from top level to frontline, from professionals to youth and families – are fully engaged as evidenced by: • • • •

a sense of urgency to improve conditions and outcomes, commitment of human and financial resources, interest/experience in working in collaboration others, commitment to “big picture” goals that are beyond their immediate interests.

Coalitions and Networks All of the coalitions and networks needed are operating together effectively as evidenced by: • adequate coverage of issues, populations and strategies, • adequate representation of needed stakeholders, • adequate performance/ accountability mechanisms, • managed overlaps in functions and intentional alignment of goals and strategies.

Overarching Leadership Group A single leadership group is effectively overseeing the whole as evidenced by its: • •

• •

broad scope, adequacy of staffing and resources to perform key functions, level of formal and informal authority and visibility, level of public and political accountability for achieving goals.

3 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 1.1: Engaged Stakeholders Survey Results Importance (Note: 18 responses) 1 %

Not Important

28%

72%

Essential

Capacity Community Level Rating Guide

Responses Standard 2.1 Engaged Stakeholders

Level 5 (High)

The community has highly committed and highly collaborative stakeholders. All stakeholders engaged – across sectors/systems, executive suite to frontlines – in ways that contribute to the overall mission of improving child and youth outcomes.

Level 4

The community has several key stakeholders that are committed and working together. Key stakeholders – such as education and business – are engaged in ways that contribute to the overall mission of improving child and youth outcomes.

17%

Level 3

The community’s stakeholders are unevenly engaged. Strong evidence of commitment in some sectors or systems. Stakeholders who are committed tend to develop and implement independent plans and have little incentive to work together.

78%

Level 2

The community’s stakeholders are weakly committed and narrowly focused. Weak or extremely unevenly-committed stakeholders who have little interest or incentive in working together.

Level 1 (Low)

The community’s stakeholders are narrowly focused and/or competitive. Extremely unevenly committed stakeholders with narrow goals, perhaps with evidence of competition.

Themes: •

A large number of stakeholder groups are engaged in efforts to improve the states of children and youth in New Orleans – but their efforts are not always well aligned or coordinated.

•

Post-Katrina education reform has increased opportunities for and actual participation among stakeholders groups, including parents, community leaders, and business. But because this participation is happening in silos (i.e., specific schools or programs), fragmentation remains an issue.

•

The Mayor’s office is committed to children and youth issues and has an ambitious vision – but execution is currently limited by capacity.

•

The business community is generally under-involved. The faith community’s participation is inconsistent. 4

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

It can be difficult to adequately and legitimately engage community leaders as well as families and youth, particularly from neighborhoods still struggling to recover from Katrina.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: •

• • • •

• •

It appears that many of the education stakeholders are engaged but are not working as collaboratively or productively with each other and/or members from other sectors (e.g. there appears no cohesion between education stakeholders and members of the juvenile justice and the business communities when there should be a clear link). In many ways, the business community has ceded their involvement and leadership…, which can be counterproductive among some education groups. The mayor's office appears to use other groups as political cover without getting appropriately involved. City Council is involved but many members appear to have no one in their offices with any real context expertise. Nonprofit and education stakeholders are engaged, but not always in agreement. Business is underinvolved. City government is engaged to the degree possible given severe capacity limitations. I find that much of the engagement is top down, with very few front line workers participating in the decision-making process, or even the preliminary discussion on how to improve service delivery. Stakeholders seem to be engaged within their focus area, but not a lot of commitment to working across areas. Those who are engaged are perceived as "taking over." In my opinion youth-serving organizations and K-12 schools (and specifically charter schools that are independently run), are the most engaged in improving outcomes for children and youth. They tend to have the broadest breadth, too. Least engaged would be agencies dealing with youth employment (public programs have been notoriously badly managed), and perhaps libraries and museums, although limited resources are a factor in this last group's ability to engage. Nonprofit and education stakeholders are engaged, but not always in agreement. Business is underinvolved. City government is engaged to the degree possible given severe capacity limitations. Arguably, the Orleans Parish School Board should probably be more present and sometimes is not – let’s call it the reform crowd and the non-reform crowd, sometimes they get left out of that.

Interview Scores Importance Not Important

5 4

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

Assets •

[New Orleans has] some coalitions built. I think that we are fine with those structures that are formed over the last few years... we have the NOLA Kids’ Partnership convened group looking at youth partnerships [and] the work [the Greater New Orleans After School Partnership] has been very impactful 5

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

in bringing the right coalitions together to help support some advocacy agendas around youth programs. [Operation Reach has] a network of progressive youth organizations that really understand youth leadership development and engagement in service.

Potential Growth • • • • •

•

If speaking of the Children and Youth Planning Board particularly, we don’t see business community or actual youth. So there are some gaps there. What I see missing at almost all of them [tables] is business and industry Our business folks dip in and out of supporting these groups… [They provide] financial support but they are not necessarily at the table rolling up their sleeves, so there is a bit of disconnect. [With respect to early childhood education at the state level] I don’t think anyone’s missing, what may be missing are people’s commitment or a unified agenda, but everyone’s at the table. Seems like we haven’t done a good job of getting community groups or even faith-based groups “at the table”. It’s clear who I mean by faith based groups but by community groups we haven’t connected with all the formal and information groups that are working in neighborhoods. The Children & Youth Planning Board needs to concentrate on geographic diversity. We need to include voices from a broader range of neighborhoods, including from the East side. We want to implement a rotating meeting schedule so we can involve more neighborhood voices.

6 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 1.2: Coalitions and Networks Coordination Survey Results Importance (Note: 18 responses) 1 %

Not Important

56%

44%

Essential

Capacity (Note: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Responses Standard 2.2 Coalitions & Networks Coordination %

Level 5 (High)

The community has a cohesive base of highly effective and highly collaborative coalitions. Combined, these coalitions address all of the age groups and outcomes, involve all stakeholders and demonstrate a willingness to work together towards common goals and with common standards.

Level 4

The community has a number of coalitions that are actively working together. A number of coalitions are actively working together to coordinate efforts on multiple fronts, from communications to capacity-building, policy advocacy to service delivery.

11%

Level 3

The community has a number of coalitions that demonstrate pockets of effectiveness. Efforts have been made to bring stakeholders together around most age groups and outcomes. Some coalitions are strong but the effectiveness of these coalitions varies. There is some evidence of interest in working across boundaries towards larger goals, but there is also evidence of turf battles

67%

Level 2

The community coalitions have a sporadic record of working together. Efforts have been made in the past to work together, but these efforts have dissipated with changes in leadership or funding. Turf battles are common

22%

Level 1 (Low)

The community has few or no strong coalitions or coalitions that are narrowly focused and siloed. There are major coverage gaps. There is little evidence of interest or capacity to fill gaps or work together. Competition for funding or issue prioritization is the norm

7 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

Themes: •

There are multiple coalitions and networks active in New Orleans – and many important stakeholders sit at multiple tables.

•

Explicitly efforts to align and rationalize the work of these various groups are in their infancy. Collaboration can sometimes be hampered by competitive interests.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: •

•

• •

Coalition building and reform efforts have been plentiful and include national attention to these efforts over the last 5 years. Barriers still exist that impede true partnership development - with trust, sharing and building on strengths. The coalitions which arose after Katrina have not necessarily been effective, with pressure to participate for fear of being left out. What resulted were lots of people coming together and spending a lot of time but no real impact came out of it. I am of the school of thought, especially now after Katrina, to work collaboratively, not work to build collaborations. In my organization, we have a very strong track record for doing this, because we bring together parties who, by working together, are ADDING VALUE. Several of the coalitions reported by survey participants are meeting, and in some cases that is good just for the sake of networking, but there is no VALUE-ADD coming out of those meetings. As it relates to children and youth, the only consistent collaborative work has focused on early childhood but there are significant turf battles and leadership struggles there. I believe that the most effective work of community coalitions happens with schools at the center, because they are a natural hub of activity and they are where the majority of children and families are most consistently present.

Interview Scores Importance Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

1 1

3 3

How Well

Assets • •

We have great potential and good starting points, but we aren’t maximizing where we can take those structures and mechanisms. We have inertia but we have a long way to go. [With respect to early childhood education at the state level, existing coalitions and work groups are linked because]… pretty much the same people or the same subset of people are on each of these groups and of course there may be an additional person on each one, but it’s the same group of people you see at every meeting. 8

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

When I look at the legislation, I see CYPB as the organization in the community that drives service provision and helps identify needs for children and families. CYPB is supposed to assess services and needs in the community, identify gaps and develop a plan to address those service provision gaps. Not just about juvenile justice, child welfare, education, all of that. CYPB should be the go to entity for what’s going on with children and families. New Orleans has various different types of charters, some authorized by local district, parish school board, and others authorized by our state board in conjunction with their inter-recovery school district, there is a lot of energy that happens in the space you just defined. GNOAP in terms of what they’ve done to help individuals coalesce around what happens in the space they help support. Not only afterschool programming but extended programming ideas and scenarios and how that connects to what is being designed as the new recreation dept. There’s a lot of energy around that. They are the convener of that. Other than that, I could come up with a list of 6-12 conveners who we’re familiar with

Potential Growth •

•

What I’m shocked at, for such a small city, not only do we have an enormous number of non-profits and advocate groups, but there are so many organizations in so many coalitions doing similar work. So whether it’s the GNO Foundation bringing together a task force Stand up for Children. Or Early Childhood and Ed council… right now there is not an overarching coordinating body that are coordinating macro goals that these bodies see themselves in. Within groups there is beautiful collaboration. E.g., Early childhood council is a fantastic group that has produced a master plan. So within groups it’s possible to give an A+ on collaboration, deep thinking and data management. But when you take the 35k foot view [horizontally, across groups] things are still very silo-ed. We're doing better [but] there's a great need for more coordination/collaboration - particularly around priorities and goal-setting at the community level. As opposed to focusing just on groups that have funding for specific initiatives. We need to establish 3 or 5 community-wide goals and then develop community-level plans for pursuing those goals.

9 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 1.3: Overarching Leadership Council Positioning Survey Results Importance (Note: 18 responses) 1 %

Not Important

11%

39%

50%

Essential

Capacity (Note: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Responses Standard 1.3 Leadership Council Positioning %

Level 5 (High)

The community has an established leadership group in place with the capacity, authority, information and connections needed to play long-term oversight roles: setting and tracking goals, coordinating birth to adulthood supports, identifying needed resources.

11%

Level 4

The community has an established group in place that meets some of the criteria and is seen as the logical choice, or the community has no formal group in place but has an informal group of leaders who perform many of these functions and could be asked to assume this role.

22%

Level 3

The community has a number of groups that could be asked to join forces to play this role. These groups already work together, have logical divisions of labor and complementary strengths, and could be organized to operate under one umbrella.

33%

Level 2

The community has a number of groups that could play this role if provided with increased capacity, authority, information or connections. The road to a blended leadership group is rougher because of overlapping territory. It is likely that one or a subset would have to be selected.

33%

Level 1 (Low)

The community has no interest in creating such a group or has extremely siloed groups that are not interested in joining forces.

Themes: â&#x20AC;˘

There is no single group currently managing the various stakeholder groups and coalitions working to improve the state of children and youth in New Orleans across sectors and developmental stages. Many Audit participants believe that such a coordinating body could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing efforts. 10

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

•

Several groups exist that might play this role including, among others, the Children and Youth Planning Board (CYPB), Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership, NORD.

•

CYPB holds great promise as a leadership entity but there are questions regarding its visibility, staffing, mandate and, ultimately, ability to move its priorities into action.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: • •

•

The Children and Youth Planning Board is set up to do the work described in Level 5, however it has not done that level of work yet. This is a particularly hard question because of the varying degrees of capacity and funding of potential leadership groups. It often seems like one or another group gets tapped to be the "leaders du jour," because of the nod of the city administration, or a big funder, or some other factor. Much work gets done, plans made, and then there isn't enough funding to implement. I am somewhat hopeful about the CYPB emerging as a leadership group, but also fear it could become something of a cartel, disenfranchising groups who do not have access to the process. The Children and Youth Planning Board exists, has the power of legislative mandate behind it, and (theoretically) is comprised of the right combination of community organizations and position appointments. However, it has not yet proven effective, and (as per this audit) needs a clear charge as well as a communication strategy to reposition it as an authority. I think that someone just needs to do it, in coordination with some other entities, and be empowered to hold that role. A challenge is that structurally within City Hall we don't have a department that is dedicated to serving Children and Families, and in Jefferson Parish they do. That agency therefore has a clearer leadership role in their coordination efforts, plus has been given capacity building support. Absent that, our network can be a little unfocused. I appreciate that the Afterschool Partnership is stepping up to fill that role, but may need to do it in some partnership or collaborative capacity (with resources.), particularly as it relates to city government and bureaucracy. Many outside of this established group are not aware of its existence, most likely because it has been ineffective to date.

Interview Scores Importance 1

Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

Assets •

The community is really primed for moving forward. It's a critical time and I worry that if we don't get ourselves organized and start doing the things that I’ve talked about, we'll lose momentum and the

11 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

• •

• • •

support of the mayor and city council. Now that we've gotten them to appoint the right people to CYPB, we need to move right now. We have the Children and Youth Planning Board (CYPB), but I’m not sure CYPB has been given full authority to move the work forward. [In terms of what organizations are well position to play a cross-cutting leadership role] I would probably say the forerunners in some of that work are organizations like GNOAP [and] Operation Reach… I think Kids Rethink New Orleans is doing a good job with progressive youth work, initiating school reform, pulling together coalitions to address those kinds of issues. The childcare advisory board is clearly in a position to take on that role, but they’ve never been asked to really do that, but they would be the natural. To cover it across the age range, across domains. Non-profit entities, particularly those with children as their mission, [are taking the lead post-Katrina]. Juvenile courts also deserve credit. I see the same faces at all of the tables. So by natural instinct we are linked but I am looking forward to CYFB being the “connecting the dots” piece. Many existing coalitions have specific focus areas and not always the “big picture”. CYFB has the potential to help with that. I think we need the big umbrella.

Potential Growth • •

•

• • •

I’m not even familiar with the Children and Youth Planning Board… I don’t know one person who sits on that board. I don’t really see anyone taking a lead. I see some collective action and I see real cooperation and communication about folks talking about things. I think it’s impossible in a community like NOLA, probably most cities, to knight one group to say this is the group everyone has to go to, everyone has to agree with the agenda. I think coalitions will probably form on ad hoc issues, and as needed folks join along the continuum of issues. I don’t know if [an overarching leadership group is] necessary. We did recently create the New Orleans Recreation Department [commission that is] really going to focus on youth programs from a municipal standpoint… but we haven’t really seen the impact yet from that appointed council. [At the state level] there is no group that is responsible for the whole range of outcomes across cognitive, academic, emotional health, etc. There is no common table [for starting new initiatives]. High School to college, school to career sort of space, that is an area that could use a… convener.

12 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Leadership Challenge #2: Bigger Goals In communities across the country, competing priorities, fragmented services, unstable funding and low expectations combine to create a sense of complacency. Establishing a common, “big picture,” action-oriented vision that conveys compelling goals for children and youth is a critical step towards aligning efforts. Why? Because common definitions and shared goals challenge leaders to work together more effectively and improve their ability to make a difference. And because metrics matter – what gets measured is what gets done (or at least prioritized). The Bigger Goals capacity audit, then, assesses against three standards that focus on: Goals for Family, School & Community Supports

Goals for Children and Youth Clear, measurable outcome goals established for children and youth that reflect what we know about learning and development, as evidenced by: • Age range: across age ranges and developmental stages, from birth to young adulthood (at least 21). • Breadth: across developmental areas, balancing academic outcomes with social, physical, emotional, vocational, spiritual. • Reach: applicable to all young people but built to acknowledge key sub-populations (e.g., special needs, SES, geography). • Balance: addressing “problem reduction” and “prevention” needs with “preparation” and “leadership” aspirations.

Frameworks for Decision Making and Communications

Clear, measurable performance goals Goals for children and youth and that address the quantity, quality and for family/school/community consistency of supports, as evidenced supports are memorable and by: marketable as evidenced by: •

•

Breadth of supports: based on the full range of key setting supports (e.g., safety, structure, positive relationships, high expectations, challenging activities, opportunities for skill building). Breadth of usage: usage across family, school and community settings, including formal systems and informal connections. Accountability: supports used to define performance measures by multiple systems.

• Communications power: specific goals developed are linked to core messages for the general public and for specific stakeholder groups. • Planning/decision-making power: outcome and performance goals are linked to planning and decision-making frameworks and reported on together.

13 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 2.1: Goals for Children & Youth Survey Results Importance (NOTE: 18 responses) 1 %

Not Important

44%

50%

Essential

Capacity (Note: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Standard 2.1 Goals For Children And Youth

Level 5 (High)

The community makes active use of a developmentally appropriate set of goals and indicators. A single set of goals for children and youth has been adopted for broad use across groups and systems. The goals reflect the standards. The goals are widely referenced and used for planning, communications and performance accountability.

Level 4

A single set of goals has been adopted but there is room for improvement in how well the goals and indicators meet the standards or how widely/deeply they are used.

Level 3

Strong community buy-in exists, but there are multiple sets of goals created by different groups that are uneven and unevenly used. The idea of having broad buy-in on goals has taken hold firmly but there are multiple goals and/or only moderate evidence of disciplined use for planning, communications and accountability.

22%

Level 2

Buy-in to a single set of goals is possible, but the process has not begun or there is work to be done to align deeply held frameworks.

72%

Level 1 (Low)

There is community resistance to having a shared set of goals. Leadership groups have rallied around competing goals that are narrow, fragmented. There is a sense of competition (e.g., early childhood versus older youth).

Responses #

Themes: •

Some individual stakeholder groups have set measureable goals for children and youth but cross-sector goals are harder to identify.

•

Efforts to specify common measureable goals are in their infancy. The common goals for children and youth that do exist are articulated very generally and are difficult to measure.

•

When available, goals for children and youth tend to be deficit rather than asset based.

Survey Respondents’ Comments:

14 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

• •

Most of the fragmentation has been due to the state accountability system and its reliance on test data only as a measure of how we are serving, or not serving, children. And yes, I agree that most indicators are deficit-based, not asset-based. We do children and youth such a disservice buying into this model! There is still the belief that there are too many needs with too few resources in communities throughout the area. Deeply held and diverse goals need to be aligned. You discovered the characterization that few here are able to recognize...that we are a community of deficits versus assets. Some of our biggest advocacy work has not been on policy and public engagement, but simply helping all to recognize that which we do have, that which we do which is good, and then go from there. Many are quick to point out why they think you can't do something or shouldn't do something, when they come from a perspective of no facts. Thus, establishing goals has been difficult. A couple of the coalitions you see have done a good job of articulating their goals, and have been successful; others are not nearly so far along. Most coalitions have not tied their work to any specific goals, community or internal. For instance, one says "Children are our most important community asset." (NOKP) I respectfully disagreed and was bullied for this; my point was not to place one community asset as more valuable than another, but to lift up each where it belonged so as to validate each and then gain buy in to keep moving forward. Since there is no comprehensive leader group, there are therefore no comprehensive goals. The goals of the LA Dept. of Ed are probably the only publicly know goals out there.

Interview Scores Importance Not Important

5 3

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

5 1

How Well

Potential Growth •

•

I think we’re doing very poorly [in terms of setting bigger goals for child and youth]. There’s a piece of work we were promoting, like a community youth development plan, that could really become an official document, and folks can really kind of align programs, funding around those set of outcomes and developmental goal, experiential goals for youth and community – we don’t have that collective vision, other than we don’t want them to go to jail and we don’t want them to steal our purse or wallet. If you sat down a representative from each of these coalitions, they wouldn’t see themselves in goals from outside of what they’ve set for themselves. They wouldn’t agree to take on or accept responsibility for a particular piece that would roll up into a larger metric…. It’s not that the potential is not there. It’s definitely something that CYPB, given the right authority and resources, could do. If you went up to anybody and said the goal is all children enter school ready to learn, everyone could agree on that goal. How you measure it or how you operationalize it, that’s where everything falls apart. 15

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

So, I don’t know if that answers your question. It’s not like there’s competing goals. It’s not like one group is trying to do something that would be in competition with another group’s goal and, like I said, I hope everybody is complimenting each other’s goals or something, but you know, it’s not like there’s just universal goals out there. We're not doing well. I would say that people say they want JJ reform but what does that mean? We say we want our children to be safe and successful but what do we really mean? That's probably what people would fall back on in terms of saying NOLA has common goals. But I think we need to have more specific goals, like we want to reduce youth crime by %, we want to increase school attendance by %, and we want to decrease truancy by %. We need clearer, more specific measures.

16 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 2.2: Performance Goals for Family, School & Community Supports Survey Results Importance (NOTE: 17 responses; 1 skipped)

% #

Not Important

12%

53%

35%

Essential

Capacity (NOTE: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Responses Standard 2.2 Performance Goals %

Level 5 (High)

The community makes active use of a developmentally appropriate list of performance goals to hold all systems accountable. A common set of performance goals has been adopted for broad use across groups and systems. These expectations reflect the standards and are widely referenced and used for planning, communications and performance accountability.

Level 4

A single set of performance goals has been adopted but there is room for improvement in how well the goals and indicators meet the standards or how widely/deeply they are used.

Level 3

Strong community buy-in to the idea exists, but there are still multiple sets of performance goals in use within different systems. The idea of having cross-system performance goals has taken hold firmly within systems but there is not yet alignment across systems. There is evidence of disciplined use of broad definitions of supports for planning, communications and accountability in multiple systems.

33%

Level 2

Buy-in to a single set of performance goals is possible, but the process has not begun or there is work to be done to get buy-in to the broad set of performance goals within some systems.

56%

Level 1 (Low)

There is community resistance to having a shared set of performance goals. Leadership groups have rallied around competing performance goals that are narrow and fragmented. There is strong resistance to change

11%

17 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

Themes: •

In general, cross-sector organizational performance indicators are not well established, in part because of competition among entities.

•

An innovative accountability system is a hallmark of post-Katrina education reform in New Orleans.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: • • •

There is a strong need to establish common performance goals that align with the respective performance goals of separately funded programs and initiatives. There appears to be a lack of willingness to do the work or "give up" narrowly focused agendas and perspectives to unite on a single set of performance goals. This is perhaps our weakest link, with many varied set of performance goals and standards. This is perhaps most evident in the interaction of education and other children and youth serving entities. The focus on testing appears to drive educational; decisions and limit interaction with the goals of other stakeholders...

Interview Scores Importance 1

Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

1 4

4 1

How Well

Assets •

We had a quality rating-system in the state and every licensed childcare provider, which would include in New Orleans, can participate in that, so yes is it absolutely here and there are dozens of providers and I could give you a website where you could actually pull up every provider and their star-level if you wanted to, but yeah, we’re basically in our fourth year of this system.

•

[The school based] accountability system, we’re able to track that, hold individuals accountable for that, and if we need to make change, we can, if it’s not doing well. We absolutely have a process; we now have the opportunity to provide alternative providers for kids. That’s the new thing that’s been created out of the accountability space in NOLA.

18 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 2.3: Frameworks for Decision-Making & Communications Survey Results Importance (Note: 17 responses; 1 skipped) 1 %

Not Important

18%

41%

Essential

Capacity (Note: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Standard 2.3 Frameworks For Decision-Making & Communications

Level 5 (High)

The community has a simple, consistent language for publicly communicating about “the challenge” that is also used in planning. High-level language is in place that links goals for youth with goals for systems and the community with efforts to improve both. Goals are linked to a consistent set of indicators, performance measures and initiatives. The goals are widely referenced and used for planning, communications and performance accountability.

Level 4

There is consistent messaging about goals but there is room for improvement in how well these goals are linked to each other (goals for youth, goals for community supports).

11%

Level 3

Strong community buy-in exists about the need for common language, but there are multiple frameworks in use or there is only moderate evidence of disciplined use of common frames for planning, communications and accountability.

28%

Level 2

Buy-in to a common framework is possible, but the process has not begun or there is work to be done to align deeply held frameworks across systems or groups.

61%

Level 1 (Low)

There is no interest in having a common framework or language. This task is not seen as important by those in a position to develop and promote the work.

Responses %

Themes: •

Competition among stakeholder groups has, to date, limited development of a common messaging framework.

•

Respondents are hopeful that the CYPB – or another empowered leadership network – can facilitate the sort of collaboration necessary for shared decision-making and communications. 19

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Survey Respondents’ Comments: • •

•

Seems to be little agreement about the core messages, communication, and progress reports. There is much work to be done in capacity building on all levels, stakeholder, collaboration and coalition before the goal of common language can be addressed. There will need to be true collaboration to enable this. Universal common language is hard given the diversity of stakeholders, but an entity like CYPB could serve as a code switcher or translator across stakeholder groups.

Interview Scores Importance 1

Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

1 4

How Well

20 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Leadership Challenge #3: Better Data & Information Leaders hoping to change the way they and others do business can find themselves simultaneously lamenting about information overload and the lack of good data. This is not because there is an overabundance of “bad” data. It is because there are very few examples of ongoing, cross-system efforts to identify data needs, fill data gaps and use data to influence real-time decision-making. Information and data are needed at every level – within individual programs; within organizations; within networks, coalitions or systems; within leadership groups (focused on orchestration, not service delivery); and within communities. While the goals and strategies change, programmatic data is usually needed to report on the basic demographics (who, how many, what dosage, what provided), performance (how well, how consistently, how reliably across populations), and impact (what outcomes, what cost). The Ready by 21 National Partnership has identified 14 types of data and information that are frequently collected and used to answer 9 broad questions frequently asked by leaders. (See Attachment C) The Better Data & Information capacity audit assesses against three standards that focus on: Data-driven Planning Key community planning bodies are using effective planning processes as evidenced by: • • •

• • •

Adoption of a results-based planning framework, Information and data-based goal setting, Use of population indicators and performance measures to set baselines and assess progress, Established reporting and feedback loops, Established methods of reporting to the public, Established and well defined steps.

Data Connections An effort is made to use child and youth-centered rather than systemfocused data as evidenced by: •

•

Capacity to provide data by outcome goals and/or service or support goals that cuts across programs or systems, Efforts to collect and connect comparable data horizontally (across systems and settings) and vertically (from individual young person to setting/system; from neighborhood to community to state), Identification of information or data gaps and the development of data agendas to drive innovation.

Information Use Decisions about strategies and priorities are informed by research and experience as evidenced by: •

•

Regular requests for and review of national research on what works, Use of local studies and surveys to inform decisions.

21 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 3.1: Data-Driven Planning Survey Results Importance (Note: 18 responses) Not Important

% #

3 6% 1

4 39% 7

5 56% 10

Essential

Capacity (Note: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Standard 3.1

Level 5 (High)

There is a structured results based planning framework in place. Both population indicators and performance measures are collected, tracked and reported to the planning group and the public. Established procedures are in place for regular feedback and course correction. Implementation strategies are clearly linked logically to the plan.

Level 4

There is a structured results based planning framework in place. Both population indicators and performance measures are collected, tracked and reported.

Level 3

There is a structured planning process in place which includes well defined steps. Information and data are regularly reviewed. Population indicators are established and progress tracked.

11%

Level 2

There is a planning process in place but it does not include well defined steps. Information and data are available but baselines and progress are not routinely measured or reported.

44%

Level 1 (Low)

There is not a structured planning process in use and information and data are not regularly used in an organized way to make decisions.

44%

Responses %

Themes: •

Data-driven planning is hampered by difficultly accessing appropriate data on children, youth and families.

•

A great deal of data may exist, but there are questions regarding its validity and reliability; data sharing remains uncommon; and there is no central data management or reporting system.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: •

In addition to the lack of a planning process, there is also a lack of transparency and accountability across most sectors--public and non-profit. 22

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

I was very pleased to see that the audit acknowledges that having one sole planning process is neither necessary nor even pragmatic. Yeah! Having said that, the struggle to identify what data is available, how to get it, how to interpret it is one of the largest challenges for any leader trying to set a strategy. I am really pretty embarrassed at how much data I do not have, compared to places I have lived in the past, which therefore leaves a vacuum for me and my board and our funders as we look at what needs to continue to be done and what needs to be tweaked, or eliminated. While lip service to the concepts of data sharing has existed for 20 years, it is still almost nonexistent across collaborations, much less stakeholder groups. This needs to be rectified before any further steps can be taken in this direction. We have lots of data -- it's whether or not the data is reliable and/or relevant by the time it is distributed. Furthermore, I don't think we have enough stakeholders trained in the appropriate way to interpret data, particularly seeing the forest through the trees. There have been initial conversations about comprehensive data management and/or clearinghouses at both the state and local levels. Local groups (e.g. LPHI and Cowen Institute) are moving forward with individual data management projects meant to store and make accessible various youth outcome data sets, but these efforts are not aligned and neither is truly comprehensive across all relevant youth indicators.

Interview Scores Importance Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

23 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 3.2: Data Connections Survey Results [This standard was evaluated separately via the diagnostic tool, “What Do You Want to Take Stock Of?” Please see Appendix D: Data Dimensions & Taking Stock for ratings, leader responses and analysis related to this standard.]

Interview Scores Importance Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

1 4

How Well

Supporting Quotes: •

•

• •

The school district has GREAT data. Back to my quote about innovation – now our charge in many cases has to be changing the ownership and understanding that data from the institutional perspective to community members – where community members are demanding high quality data. Only real data we see on youth is stuff that’s produced by schools and test scores. We get some population data, but there is not one repository for information that you can go to. And I’m sure such is the case all over the country. That’s a missing piece. [It would be great if we could access] … indices that would help orgs, communities, schools, even parents to be able to understand and take the pulse of youth attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, etc. across the community. I think it would be a much deeper kind of thing than just knowing age, grade, where they live, and what their socioeconomic backgrounds are. [It’s a] little bit of a hodge-podge… [Because of how education reform has unfolded since Katrina] we are seeking out the best data and using it to make the hard decisions we might have had a hard time making pre-Katrina. So there are some great examples of data being collected and used the way it’s intended to be. But there is a very basic disconnect across systems about how we collect and share in the community writ large - there we get a D- or F on. There’s lot of work to fill data gap on how we collect and share and use in decision making. Having said that - you won’t find resistance to try to make this happen because everyone wants the data. School districts are protective of data. We have districts and independently run charters. So that poses some challenges when you want to collect and link school based data. The Louisiana Public Health Institute and Tulane have done a lot of great work in this area and it might be worth speaking to them around the data system they are putting together around early childhood education. This system is looking at neighborhood data collection in real time whereby you can make community level decisions in terms of gaps re: provision of services, need creeps up from year to year (when you see a particular age group suffering from a lack of resources or needs help with literacy. 24

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

We aren’t getting good data other than Kids Counts from Agenda for Children. The minute you start taking about data sources, people start raising questions regarding its quality. Better data is a critical need.

25 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 3.3: Information Use – What Works Survey Results Importance (Note: 18 responses) 1 %

Not Important

22%

39%

Detail

Essential

Average

RESEARCH REVIEW. Leaders inform their decisions with the best information on what works by regularly requesting and using reviews of national research on what works LOCAL STUDIES. Leaders inform their decisions with the best information on what works by using local studies and surveys to inform decisions Capacity (Note: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide Level 5 (High)

Responses Standard 3.3 %

The planning group regularly reviews information on evidence based programs and research on what works to inform decisions. Local studies and surveys are conducted and the results used in planning.

11%

The planning group has some process for review of what works to inform decisions. Local studies or surveys are used on occasion as part of the planning process.

56%

The planning group occasionally reviews the research on what works or selects evidence based programs. Local studies or surveys are used on occasion as part of the planning process.

33%

Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 (Low)

Themes: •

Data on “what works” is leveraged inconsistently.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: •

It is really amazing how much stuff is going on with no consideration of if it works. As I work to evaluate programs on behalf of our schools, I am frequently amused that someone will say that kids are better off than they were before the program, but they will never tell you if the children met the GOAL of the 26

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

â&#x20AC;˘

program. So, doing this as a community will be very tough, and very risky, but at the end of the day, if there are only so many dollars and so much human capital, we HAVE to be deploying it in ways that are effective. We use national studies when they work to our benefit, particularly in education (National Alliance of Charter Schools reports, Ed Week surveys, etc.) but fail to acknowledge when we come out weak. We tend to rely on local think tanks to do work for us (BGR, Cowen, Policy Link) instead of using larger national researchers (like Rand). The one exception appeared to be the Brookings Reports that were issued after the 5 year storm anniversary, but even those were heavily influenced by local stakeholders.

Interview Scores Importance 1

Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

27 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

Leadership Challenge #4: Bolder Strategies At the end of the day, broader partnerships, bigger goals, and better data and information are only useful if they significantly increase the likelihood that timely, well-vetted, evidence-based strategies will be implemented and nurtured towards success. This capacity-building category is probably the most difficult to audit because of the noise factor. Every community has dozens if not hundreds of strategies in place that are focused on improving or expanding particular programs or services, engaging youth and families in programs, advocating for policies to support particular programs or causes, or generating public awareness and demand. Scholars at the Harvard Business School developed this formula: C = D x V x P, for explaining the fact that some large companies are able to affect major corporate change while others fail. “C” stands for the amount of change created. “D” for dissatisfaction with the status quo or, more positively, demand for change. “V” for the clarity of the vision associated with where change will lead. “P” for the adequacy of the plan pitched to get there. The model works well for companies, where top down leadership is the norm. The assumption is that there, the vision and plan are developed at the top. Managing the communications and adoption of the vision and plan is what separates the good from the great. The formula, interestingly, also explains why communities have such difficulty taking even good change strategies to scale. Every leader who has a passion for an issue has a vested interest in proposing a vision and presenting a plan for changing the status quo related to their issue. Policy makers and funders review hundreds of competing plans each year, each with guaranteed “demand generating” data and videos. The Bolder Strategies audit focuses specifically on mechanisms for counteracting the inevitable development of individual, issue- or population- specific strategies. Coordinated Improvement Strategies Decision-making groups have the capacity to coordinate efforts to improve quality and reach as evidenced by: • • • • •

Shared standards. Shared training & TA. Coordinated outreach strategies. Coordinated performance data. Shared professional workforce development

Coordinated Policies & Resource Allocation Public and private funders coordinate decisions about resource allocation as evidenced by : • A jointly endorsed policy/action agenda. • Transparent budgets with comparable data. • Jointly developed progress reports. • Innovative pilot projects.

Coordinated Advocacy Advocacy awareness building efforts are connected or aligned, as evidenced by: •

•

The use of common messages or a message framework to bind issues together. Joint efforts focused on larger issues that have common appeal.

Coordinated Outreach to Youth and Families Intentional efforts to include youth and families as planners and critics, as evidenced by: • The development of regular mechanisms for seeking input and supporting influence. • Independent validation that youth and families feel empowered.

28 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 4.1: Coordinated Improvement Strategies Survey Results Importance (NOTE: 18 responses) 1 %

Not Important

18%

29%

53%

Essential

Current Capacity (1 Low To 5 High)

Importance (1 Low To 5 High)

2.3

4.7

Shared training ...have regular cross training and TA opportunities for staff and TA

2.1

4.2

Coordinated ...have intentional integration and coordination of services service strategies including outreach, intake, assessment, referral

2.1

4.3

1.9

4.3

Detail Leaders Increase Efficiencies When Implementing Coordinated Services & Supports That . . . Shared standards

Coordinated performance data

...have shared standards for types of services and quality of those services

...have identified common measures that community providers can use across multiple contracts and systems

Capacity (NOTE: 18 responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Standard 4.1 Coordinated Improvement Strategies

Level 5 (High)

The community has developed clear procedures for integrating services with common standards for types of services and program quality across multiple systems. Procedures are established for cross systems trainings and workforce development. Common performance measures are used across systems.

Average: 2.6 SEE SUMMARY STATEMENTS BELOW

39%

The community has few integrated or coordinated services across systems with no common standards for types of services or program quality. There are only ad hoc opportunities for cross system training and little attention is paid to support workforce development. There are few agreed upon performance measures.

56%

Level 2-4 Level 1 (Low)

Responses %

29 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

Themes: •

Efforts to coordinate improvement efforts across systems are being reinvigorated in the Post-Katrina era. These efforts are promising but there is a long way to go.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: • • •

There is extremely little integration of services with standards and quality. To obtain the level of efficiency indicted requires sophisticated collaboration among coalitions and we are at the very beginning of this process. We barely have systems, let alone coordination across them.

Interview Scores Importance Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

Assets •

Greater New Orleans Afterschool Partnership is leading the charge to do the data analysis of youth population in general and then really understand landscape. A lot of my observation is that we’ve tried to jump in on a particular issue—so early childhood, maximizing OST, juvenile violence – so our tendency is to go after issues that feel concrete and solvable. As opposed to taking the time to map out the landscape and get the data to define true need...

30 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 4.2: Coordinated Policies & Resource Allocation Survey Results Importance (NOTE: 17 responses; 1 skipped) % #

Not Important

3 18%

4 24%

5 59%

10 Current Capacity (1 Low To 5 High)

Importance (1 Low To 5 High)

. . . have common policy agendas which support consistency in regulations, funding and values

2.0

4.3

. . .have an open allocation process, common fiscal definitions and regular sharing of budget information across agencies and with the public

1.8

4.3

. . .have common time frames and definitions for the types of information to be collected

2.1

4.3

. . .have discretionary dollars to support innovations and support their sustainability and have cross agency support for innovation implementation

1.7

4.5

Detail Leaders Increase Efficiencies Across Systems And With Providers When They . . .

Joint policy agenda Transparent budgets Joint progress reports Innovative projects

Essential

Capacity (Note: 18 Responses) Community Level Rating Guide

Level 5 (High)

Level 2-4

Responses Standard 4.2 Coordinated Policies & Resource Allocation %

56%

The community has a clear joint policy agenda agreed to by leaders. Budget and fiscal information are shared and easily available to decision makers. There are joint allocation decisions made across systems. Joint administrative and progress reports have been agreed to by the leadership group. Innovative programs are encouraged and sustained. Average: 2.22 SEE SUMMARY STATEMENTS BELOW

31 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 14, 2011

There is no overall policy agenda for the community. Limited budget or fiscal information is readily available to decision makers. There few agreements on accepting joint progress reports. Innovation in programming is not routinely supported or sustained.

Level 1 (Low)

44%

Themes: •

Competition for scarce resources has, to date, stymied development of a joint policy agenda.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: • • • •

Alignment of resources and cost sharing, along with increasing the level of discretionary funding for program implementation is critical. Again, New Orleans struggles with improving our efficiency, planning and communication. The lack of a shared vision and shared understanding results in competition rather than collaboration in these agencies and shareholders. A comprehensive policy agenda is emerging, but faces challenges (particularly at the state level, where education funding is zero-sum).

Interview Scores Improvement Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

1 3

How Well

Supporting Quotes: •

[Networks and coalitions can] sometimes [be] a little bit competitive because, you know, the resources are finite so unfortunately, you’re never directly pitted against each other, but you know there’s only so much out there so everyone’s got to fight for their scraps so everyone’s busy fighting for their scraps so they can’t fight together for each other’s scraps.

32 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 4.3: Coordinated Advocacy Survey Results Importance (NOTE: 17 responses; 1 skipped) 1 %

Not Important

18%

53%

29%

Detail Leaders Increase Efficiencies Across Systems And With Providers When They…

Essential

Current Capacity (1 Low To 5 High)

Importance (1 Low To 5 High)

Common messages

Have developed and use a common framework to bind issues together.

2.4

4.3

Joint advocacy efforts

Have joint advocacy efforts that cut across specific issues and have a broader common appeal.

2.3

4.4

Capacity (Note: 17 Responses; 1 Skipped) Responses

Community Level Rating Guide Level 5 (High) Level 2-4 Level 1 (Low)

Standard 4.3 Coordinated Advocacy %

The community has a clear common framework that has broad appeal to support the advocacy efforts of multiple interests

Average 2.6 SEE SUMMARY STATEMENTS BELOW

47%

The community has limited joint advocacy efforts. Most advocacy remains focused on single issues.

47%

Themes: •

Despite competitive pressures, there is a sense that stakeholders in New Orleans are beginning to recognize the importance of joint advocacy efforts. There is still a long way to go, however, before joint advocacy is the rule rather than the exception.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: •

Oddly enough I think this might be strength. Leaders of the various stakeholder groups actually understand the importance of advocating together and I believe at least some of the failure to move forward from this point is due in part to the dismissal result of these efforts. 33

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

•

Few stakeholders have the time/energy to develop cohesively linked advocacy projects between education, health, and criminal justice. There is tremendous advocacy in each of these areas but few people are working together on all three. New leadership is establishing joint and coordinated efforts at the local, state and national levels.

Interview Scores Importance 1

Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

Potential Growth •

In terms of how resources are allocated and policy issues are addressed when it comes to youth, we don’t really see a real impetus for any innovative thought around it.

34 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Standard 4.4: Coordinated Outreach to Youth & Families Survey Results Importance (NOTE: 16 Responses; 2 Skipped) 1 %

Not Important

25%

38%

Current Detail Capacity Leaders Increase Efficiencies Across Systems And With Providers When They . . . 1–5 (Low - High)

Essential

Importance 1–5 (Low - High)

Youth And Family Have regular mechanisms for seeking youth and family input Input and support

2.2

4.4

Have developed a process for maintaining youth and family Youth And Family influence on policy decisions, philanthropy, practice and Influence entrepreneurship.

2.0

4.4

Capacity (Note: 18 Responses) Responses

Community Level Rating Guide

Standard 4.4 Coordinated Outreach To Youth And Families

Level 5 (High)

The community has established regular opportunities for youth and families to provide input and feedback to community plans. Youth and families are routinely requested to support the policy decisions, to participate in funding decision and are looked to for entrepreneurship in creating innovative interventions.

Level 2-4 Level 1 (Low)

Average: 2.25 SEE SUMMARY STATEMENTS BELOW

61%

The community episodically invites youth or families to provide input into community plans. Youth and families are rarely involved in supporting policy decisions or participating in funding decisions.

39%

35 New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Themes: •

Although some stakeholder groups and service providers do better than others, in general, outreach to and engagement of youth and families is inconsistent.

Survey Respondents’ Comments: • •

•

Some youth and family engagement is happening, but it is sporadic and uncoordinated. Community input is invited but seldom are those that are true stakeholders able or comfortable making statements and truly involved in policy decisions. New efforts -- NORD Commission - are being realized and will impact and build on opportunities. Lack of leadership across sectors does not allow for the understanding of the value of youth voice and family participation. As well, a history of not being included in discussions and decisions makes engaging families and youth difficult. Public hearings are irrelevant if community members aren't being heard. This has been demonstrated time and time again with the education reform community where decisions have been made in advance and the public hearing is merely a protocol to comply with state requirements. New Orleans is a city with an overabundance of "public" and "community" meetings, but the majority of these meetings are to provide information to constituents and (sometimes) elicit feedback on existing plans/policies. Rarely are community members engaged from start to finish in the drafting of policies or the crafting of interventions.

Interview Scores Importance 1

Not Important

Important

Current Capacity How Poorly

How Well

Supporting Quotes: •

•

I think the YMCA is doing some work around youth voice, youth engagement, youth policy, and convening some groups of youth people from schools around the city to help develop civic voice and policy making, and they do like this mock youth legislature, caucus, I forget, that’s one place to look. Then there is Children Rethinking NOLA, and we see them as really a real quintessential example of a youth-led agenda around school reform. From a systematic perspective, there are not many opportunities for that to occur; you could almost argue that there are none, other than the periodic symbolic ones that occur, like from the mayor’s office. I know on a school by school or CMO basis, there is a strong opportunity and voice for families and youth to be heard, and how they can get resources to meet those needs 36

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report Survey and Interview Results – February 14, 2011

Ready by 21® Leadership Capacity Audit New Orleans, LA

Appendices

February 14, 2011 Prepared by the Forum for Youth Investment

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Key Findings & Recommendations – February 14, 2011

Appendix D: Data Dimensions & Taking Stock The Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit process includes exercises designed to (a) illuminate the range and completeness of youth-oriented performance management data available in a community; and (b) surface availability gaps and initiate dialogue about data development priorities. In this portion of the Audit report, we review results from the Data Connections exercises, offer advice on priority setting, and identify areas where additional information is likely to be required before complete infrastructure investment recommendations can be made. Table D1 summarizes key leaders’ evaluation of (a) the importance of 14 types of information that community leaders find useful for performance management; and (b) the routine availability of these data types to New Orleans’ leaders. “Importance” and “Availability” ratings are provided on a scale where 1=Low, 3=Medium; and 5=High. Data types with a mean “Importance” score above “4” and an “Availability” score below “3” are designated as the highest priority development areas (RED COLOR CODING).

Table D1: Data Priorities

Leader Commitments

Family & Community Supports & Resources Youth Outcomes

Ways to Take Stock for Children & Youth (n=20)

Importance Availability Priority 1–5 1–5 Level Low - High Low - High

Notes

Demographics & Public Data – (e.g., Census Data, Administrative Data)

4.7

3.1

Often pre-Katrina Census data

Developmental Progress – (e.g., social, emotional, learning indicators, internal assets)

4.5

2.2

KidsCount data is a primary source of youth outcome data.

External Assets & Supports – (e.g., 40 Assets, America’s Promise Every Child, Every Promise Survey)

3.4

2.2

Varies by program

Program Participation – (e.g., Program/System Participation Reports, Tracking Individuals Across Programs)

4.1

1.5

Varies by program

Program Landscape – (e.g., Program and Offering Inventories)

4.4

3.0

Early childhood sector

Program Quality – (e.g., Program Assessments)

4.8

1.6

System/Organizational/Program Effectiveness– (e.g., Performance Measure Reports, Fidelity Reports)

4.5

1.8

Professional Workforce Capacity – (e.g., Youth Work Workforce Survey, External Assessment Reports)

4.3

1.5

Resources/Investments– (e.g., Fiscal Maps)

3.5

1.7

Leadership Actions – (e.g., Mapping Initiatives and Task Forces)

3.5

1.9

Policy Priorities – (e.g., Policy Benchmarks, Cross Plan Analysis)

4.2

1.5

Public & Family Demand – (e.g., Polling, Focus Groups, Key Informant Interviews, Surveys)

3.8

1.7

Financing & Sustainability – (e.g., Children’s Budgets, Sustainability Plans)

4.5

1.6

Political Will – (e.g., Political Leadership Assessment)

4.1

1.9

K-12 accountability system is primary example.

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Appendix D: Data & Information Detail – February 14, 2011

In New Orleans, there are gaps between Importance and Availability for all 14 data types. This indicates that leaders and community members lack routine access to the full range of information and reporting tools that they feel are necessary to efficiently and effectively assess, plan, and improve community-wide efforts to improve the odds for children and youth. Given ongoing postKatrina recovery efforts, the number and span on high need areas should not be surprising. Clearly New Orleans’ leaders are hungry for a clearer picture of community-wide priorities, available resources and, perhaps above all, information regarding the developmental settings where young people spend time (Where are the settings? Whom do they serve? Are they of high or low quality?). Table D2 summarizes key leaders’ consensus evaluation of New Orleans’ current capacity to collect and use child- and youthcentered information and data in four domains – data range, adequacy, integration and analytics. In general, respondents take a rather dim view of New Orleans’ current data capacity. Mean scores are lower than 3 (out of 5) across the board. Many leaders also express concern that available indicators and outcome metrics narrowly focus on youth deficits rather than assets.

Table D2: Data Quality Dimensions of Data Connections

Range of data (Avg.: 1.8)

Ready by 21 Purpose Definition Leaders have capacity to collect & use child- & youth-centered info and DATA that… Covers the range of information on outcomes, supports and leaders as reflected in completion of Taking Stock Worksheet (See Forum tool: “What Do You Want To Take Stock Of?”).

2.0

Provides a process and a framework to sort and analyze efficiently large amounts of information and data.

1.7

Can be added vertically up the levels from the individual, program, city/county and state across the range of data where appropriate.

1.6

Can be shared horizontally across multiple systems and setting, e.g., juvenile justice, Data adequacy education, health, etc. (Avg.: 2.0) Can be disaggregated for target populations, groups or communities.

1.9 1.8

Is accessible to leaders at all levels, e.g., CEOs, mid managers, frontline.

2.4

Is available and collected consistently over time.

2.6

Contains common data definitions across systems, e.g., age of maturity, service definitions, etc.

1.8

Data integration Is governed by policies supporting information sharing by addressing confidentiality and privacy issues. (Avg.: 1.9) Is linked by technology bridges which provide for data sharing and mining between different systems’ software, data warehouses, etc. Data analytics (Avg.: 2.0)

Ratings: 1-5 Low - High

2.1 1.8

Is easy for leaders to access and use to create reports, track progress, allocate funds that cut across systems.

2.1

Can respond to requests for information by child or youth outcomes or services rather than by systems and settings.

1.9

These findings signal an all too common problem in communities across the country – individual systems and organizations frequently have ample data, but building cross-sector linkages and making performance data available across levels of setting is difficult because (a) data definitions vary from place to place and system to systems; (b) it can be expensive and complicated to bridge technology system boundaries; and (c) organizations are often reluctant to share data.

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Appendix D: Data & Information Detail – February 14, 2011

Audit participants suggest that New Orleans faces some of these universal problems: •

There are pockets of good data in sectors like early childhood, but in many others data is incomplete or of low quality.

•

Although some efforts are underway to create centralized data repositories (examples include the housing sector and Greater New Orleans Community Data Center), cross-sector data sharing remains the exception, not the rule.

•

No organization or coalition currently has the mandate or resources to advance a truly comprehensive data sharing agenda.

Leaders also suggest that the community faces specific post-Katrina challenges: •

Decentralization of New Orleans’ public schools has complicated data aggregation and reporting. Although lots of data is collected, the various school systems are not yet able or willing to link their data warehouses.

•

Demand for data among leaders and community members is growing – but the low availability of neighborhood-level metrics as well as questions about data accessibility, quality and transparency has led to confusion and frustration.

Like other communities that have participated in the Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit, New Orleans clearly faces substantial data alignment and sharing hurdles. As noted elsewhere in this report, however, we see the development and implementation of a cross-sector data alignment agenda and performance management system as a mission-critical but medium term priority. The Children and Youth Planning Board needs to be positioned as a legitimate coordinating body, and work on a community-wide youth master plan needs to be in motion, before leaders turn seriously to capacity building on the data and information front.

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Appendix D: Data & Information Detail – February 14, 2011

Appendix E: Documents Reviewed 1.

2009 Louisiana KidsCount databook

2010 Louisiana KidsCount profile

2010 Orleans Parish KidsCount Indicator profile

School-Based Health Centers are Making a Difference: An Evaluation Study of School-Based Health Centers (2010). School Health Connection, a program of the Louisiana Public Health institute

The New Orleans AfterZone Application – Statement of Need (2010)

The New Orleans Index at Five: Reviewing Key Reforms after Katrina (2010). Metropolitan Policy Program & Greater New Orleans Community Data Center

The New Orleans Promise Neighborhood Application – Statement of Need (2010).

The State of Public Education in New Orleans: Five Years After Katrina (2010). Tulane University & the Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives

Treated Like Trash: Juvenile Detention in New Orleans Before, During and After Hurricane Katrina (2010). Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana

10. Understanding Youth Funding in the 2010 New Orleans City Budget (2010). GNO Afterschool Partnership.

New Orleans Ready by 21 Leadership Capacity Audit Report – Appendix E: Documents Reviewed – February 14, 2011