Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Dan Dunlap: Good afternoon, everyone.
I'd like to welcome to you the Foster Grandparent Program
National Performance Measures Scenario Exercise Session.
My name is Dan Dunlap.
I'm with the Texas state office and I'll be assisting with the Q&A portion of this presentation.
It's my pleasure to introduce your presenters today, Frank DiSilvestro from the North Carolina state office
and Leroy Minor from the Texas state office.
Additionally there will be tech support from Campaign Consultation and you can,
if you have a tech issue, you can use the Q&A feature
and they will work with you directly to solve that issue.
So I'd like to turn it over to Frank at this time.
>> Frank DiSilvestro: Thank you, Dan.
And welcome to everyone who is joining us today.
We're very excited about this session and we've made it very interactive
and we look forward to your participation.
I can see we have over a hundred folks in this session and so I want to go through a few housekeeping issues
before we get in to the content.
What should you see on your screen right now is like a theater set up where you should see the Power Point
slide on the main part of your screen that says "Foster Grandparent Program".
And then in the left-hand side of your screen should see a little picture of the speaker profiles and under
that I want to direct you to two buttons that we'll be using today.
And those are the green Q&A button, which we will use later during our scenarios.
And then really throughout the session if you have any questions that pop up you can click on that
green Q&A button and submit your question.
Next to that, you'll see the blue content button.
And if you click on that you will see that there are files available and those files
are associated with our session today.
You can get a copy of the Power Point that we'll be going through and also want to really highlight the
"At a Glance" document, which you can find under that blue content button.
This is one-page snapshot of the FGP performance measure requirements and if you haven't seen this yet,
I'd encourage to you open it now, have it open on your screen during the scenario exercise,
print it out if you have a printer available, because it's really a handy one-page snapshot that shows all
the performance measures right in one place.
In addition, you can see under that blue content button,
we also have a form section.
In that form section, you can post ongoing questions throughout the virtual conference.
So even after our one-hour session ends if you have ongoing items you'd like to discuss,
we'll be responding to and monitoring that forms section.
So that's some quick housekeeping items.
And now let's get in to the content.
So looking at our learning objectives for today.
We are going to be going through material that will enable participants to understand how their current
work plans can fit in to the new national performance measures.
So, we have four scenarios that are going to highlight some current work plans and then go through the
exercise of allowing to you see how those can be adapted in to the new performance measures.
We want to highlight some key issues and questions that will come up as you try to convert existing work plans
to the new performance measures, and we'll have some periods of question and answer where
we can get in to some of those issues.
We want you to know where to look for additional support and resources after the session.
So our next slide looking how this session will work.
I want to quickly describe our set up for today.
We have four specific scenarios that we'll be presenting.
They are simplified work plans so you'll notice that the areas like community need and the service activity
are just about a sentence long.
And as you know from working on your FGP applications, the community
need and service activities are often very detailed.
So these work plans have been simplified for the purpose of the activity
but they are based on real projects.
So we want to you really see what it's like to take an existing project
and convert it to the new performance measures.
After we present the scenarios, you'll have chance to vote through an interactive voting procedure on which
performance measure you think fits the work plan that we just described and so,
we'll do it one scenario at a time where we present the work plan and then we will present some options
for an output and some options for an outcome.
Then want to see what you feel are the most appropriate choices for the appropriate performance measure.
Then after you vote, we'll take a few minutes to debrief each scenario where we will review what we feel
is the most appropriate answer and then talk about some of the issues that go in to deciding that.
Throughout the session, again, we have the ongoing chat feature and you can ask questions
at any time with the green "Q&A" button.
So moving to the next slide, I wanted to highlight a couple of things before we begin.
Our session today, these scenarios will be looking through
the process of how you choose these new performance measures.
We're not actually going to be going through each specific performance measure
and talking about those requirements.
If you haven't had a chance I encourage you go to the FGP program specific performance measure module on the
national service resources site.
That's on the CNCS resource center and that training module walks through the specific performance measures
and the specific requirements.
So for our session today, we're not going to get in to the real specifics of the measures,
we'll be talking more about the process.
And again, the second point here is just encouraging you to print out or open up that
"At a Glance" document.
Because as we present these scenarios I think you'll find that "At a Glance" document very helpful just to
see your menu of options right there in front of you.
And thirdly, we wanted to highlight that the national performance measures instructions are also listed under
that "Content" tab under the blue button.
And the performance measures instructions are in draft form right now
so they have not been fully cleared yet by the Corporation.
But we wanted to present these to you for the purpose of our exercise because these performance measures
instructions will be helpful as we look at the specific performance measures and we try to look at the
definitions and the types of data collection tools you would use for the measures.
So I encourage to you look at that and, we will refer to the performance measure instructions during this
session but again, I would say the "At a Glance" document,
the one-page document is really the more critical thing to have open and to print out for the session.
And lastly, all the examples we present should be viewed independently,
so when we present the four scenarios don't think of this as one FGP sponsor,
just think of it as four independent work plans that we're trying to consider.
And the reason we're looking at them independently is because as you know from the performance measure review
and as you can see on the "At a Glance" document FGP projects are required to have 75% of their performance
measures in these agency wide measures.
Then you can have up to 25% in what are called the complementary measures and those are measures that
don't actually require an outcome and just for the purpose of keeping these scenarios simple,
we don't want to you worry about the 75% and 25% break down here.
We just want to you worry about the process of, okay,
how do I think about what performance measure to choose.
We'll view these scenarios independently.
So we're just about ready to begin our scenarios and I want to do a quick practice poll so you can get a hang
of the polling feature before we get in to the scenarios.
So before we begin, we're going to present you a poll right now that asks you your location by time zone.
And our moderator is pushing that poll out in the virtual environment.
We'd ask to you please click on your time zone.
And we can see the responses pouring in.
And now we will close the poll and show you those results.
And so we can see that about -- once we pushed the results to the audience,
we can see that about 47% of you are on the east coast.
About 30% of us are in Central Time.
13% on Mountain Time.
And 8% in Pacific.
So we just wanted to present that as a practice run so you can get a sense of how this polling feature works.
It looks like almost everyone was able to answer that.
So that's really encouraging.
I think you'll get the hang of this polling feature very easily.
We're going to do one more practice poll and this poll is actually to help us understand what your level of
preparation and familiarity is with the performance measures.
So we're going to push out one more practice poll.
And in this poll we're going to ask you your preparation,
or what you have looked at before coming to this session.
So there are four options here.
The first option if you have concluded the FGPs requirements course on the resource center and this is
the pre-recorded course that I mentioned goes through the specific performance measures
and talks about the requirements.
If you have completed that, you can choose the first option.
The second option is if you have had a chance to look at the "how to" session on the national performance
measure instructions and that's a course that is here at the virtual conference
and you can find it in your event agenda.
That course reviews basically how to use that instruction document.
So we want to get a sense of how many people have actually had that course yet.
Then if you haven't done either, let us know.
If you have done both, let us know.
And just so you know, the responses are anonymous, so don't be embarrassed or try to change your answer,
we don't know who has completed what.
So this is great.
We can see that -- I'm going to give this another minute as people put their responses in.
We can see that about 25% of you have completed the prerecorded course on the FGP requirements.
So you should you have pretty good sense of what the requirements are and the specific measures.
I do see that about 50% of the folks on the call have not completed either of the courses.
And about 20% of the folks have completed both.
So that gives us a good sense of how detailed we should be when we talk about these performance measures and
when we talk about instructions document.
But this is really helpful.
And I think it's also encouraging to see that everyone has navigated this online polling feature very well so
we've got a hi-tech group on the call.
So without further delay, I'm going to pass the microphone over to my colleague,
Leroy, and Leroy is going to walk through the first scenario with you.
>> LeRoy Minor: Well, good morning, everyone.
This is Leroy Minor.
I hope you can hear me okay.
So what we're going to deal with is scenario number one.
And what I'm going to do just because for different monitors you have different acuity,
for lack of better way of saying it, so I'll be reading each one of the items for your benefit.
This is using some of the old nomenclature from our previous performance measurement or PFI system.
And it starts with service category.
And it's tutoring K-12.
Our community needs reads: According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
2010, the literacy rate in Johnson County is the lowest in the state.
Based on state test results 60% of Johnson County students in grades K-3 are reading below grade level.
Our service activity, 21 Foster Grandparent volunteers will tutor 45 children during the school year.
Teachers will identify K-3 students to receive one on one reading support three times
a week for at least 20 minutes each session.
Our output: 45 students will receive tutoring assistance from FGP volunteers.
The intermediate outcome, participating students will show greater reading
and literacy skills based on a teacher survey.
And finally, our end outcome, 80% of participating students will be reading at grade level
based on an end-of-year assessment.
So, that is our scenario.
Let's see how it lines up.
What I'd like for you to do now is to decide which output fits this scenario.
And we have education, where we would consider the number of students that completed participation in CNCS
supported K-12 education programs.
Mentoring, where we consider the number of disadvantaged youth,
mentor matches that were sustained by the CNCS supported program
for at least the required time period.
School readiness, considering the number of children that completed participation in CNCS
supported early childhood education programs.
Child safety, welfare and health, considering the number of children served in child safety,
welfare and health programs.
And finally, economic opportunity, number of economically disadvantaged individuals receiving job
training and other skills developed and services.
So we're going to push out that poll, take about 30 seconds or so to allow to you respond.
[humming theme song from Jeopardy]
And they're coming in.
Okay, so it looks - we have, oh -- a little more than half of you that have responded or so.
So it appears that if we push that out so that you can see it we have 79% or 80% now chosen education.
7% almost 8% chose mentoring.
12% school readiness.
No one selected child safety, welfare and health.
And economic opportunity, one person. Excellent.
Well, let's move on and consider the outcome for this particular scenario.
Which outcome fits this scenario?
Here our category under education and mentoring our outcomes would be the number of students with improved
academic performance in literacy and/or math.
Or the number of students who demonstrated improved academic engagement.
Or number of students who improved their school attendance.
And finally under that category the number of students acquiring a G.E.D.
Under the category of school readiness, we would have selected as an outcome number of children demonstrating
gains in school readiness in terms of social and/or emotional development.
Or the number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of literacy skills.
And finally, the number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness
in terms of numeracy or math skills.
Finally, under the category of economic opportunity, our outcome would be the number of economically
disadvantaged individuals placed in jobs.
So make your selections now.
And they're coming in.
Very good responses.
So as we pushed it out, I'm assuming, and you can see how we're lining up here.
92% are going with academic engagement.
Seems to be the lead.
It's taken off now.
A few people school attendance, GED, and placed in jobs
and then finally, no outcome.
All right. Well, that's excellent.
That's excellent.
Well, let's move on to our next slide, and I'm going to hand it back over to Frank
and he's going to debrief this for us.
>> Frank DiSilvestro: Thanks, Leroy.
So we have -- this is our first example, and it's pretty straight forward.
We wanted to start with a pretty easy straightforward example to give you and so starting with the outputs,
we have 80% of folks that chose the K-12 education programs.
And that is exactly right.
We felt like that was the most appropriate for this scenario
and a couple of folks did put school readiness.
And the difference here would be that school readiness is focused on pre-K activities so those are activities
to help children get ready to enter school.
And so the way this work plan was described
we felt like it really matched the K-12 education programs directly.
As we're doing this debrief, for each scenario we'll spend about two or three minutes on debrief like this.
Now is good time to put in any questions in that little green Q&A box
and then we'll take questions after each scenario as well.
So for the outcomes, we actually felt like the appropriate outcome was number of students with
improved academic performance in literacy or math.
And this may be a bit confusing because I think the poll that was pushed --
the poll said academic engagement.
And something like 90 -- over 90% of you chose academic engagement,
which was the correct choice for that particular poll.
But the -- the correct outcome for this particular work plan was the academic performance.
And if we looked back at the scenario which is they were describing very specific literacy activities,
and so if you have your "At a Glance" sheet printed out,
you can look on that "At a Glance" sheet and see that given the output that we chose,
we chose K-12 output, that particular output can line up with three outcomes.
And those outcomes are going to be the academic performance,
academic engagement or school attendance.
And so it's a pretty straightforward calculation, any time you are choosing a K-12 education program,
something related to tutoring, then your outcome is either going to be that academic performance around
literacy and math, academic engagement or school attendance.
And the reason we felt like academic performance lined up here is because - they really didn't mention
anything about this initiative being tied to attendance.
In terms of academic engagement, it could potentially line up with academic engagement.
We didn't quite have enough specifics in the service activity description but academic engagement would be
changes in things like the student's behavior, their participation in the classroom,
a decreased number of disciplinary problems, those types of things would fall under academic engagement.
So, the issue that I just wanted to highlight are that, one,
when you're doing these school-based programs, the requirements around working with special needs
children, economically disadvantaged students, those are going to remain the same.
You know that now when you place your FGP volunteers in the classroom,
you have an assignment plan for each student and you have an identified need.
So that is not going to change in terms of the way you line up your
FGP volunteers with students in the classroom.
Really what we're trying to do with these performance measures is just hone in a little bit more specifically
on what type of educational impact we're having.
So again, if you have your "At a Glance" sheet in front of you,
I just want to reinforce that when you are choosing education,
and you are focusing on K-12 programs, your output is going to be that number of students that complete
participation, and then your outcome is going to be one of those three outcomes,
academic performance, academic engagement or school attendance.
So let's take a minute or two just to see if there are any questions and I'm going to look here in our
question box and see if we can take one or two of these questions.
Okay, this is a very good question.
Someone asked, can a student have more than one outcome.
And you're right.
Students who are working with FGP volunteers may improve in both literacy and school attendance.
And with these new performance measures we want projects to choose one outcome
to focus on for a particular student.
And so you may have different schools that you're working with or different types of tutoring initiatives
that you're working with.
And so we want to you choose one outcome to focus on for a particular student.
Okay, another question I'm seeing here is, can you tell us what does completed participation means?
The output describes the number of students that complete participation.
That's also a very good question.
And that question leads us into the Performance Measures Instruction Document.
And so the Performance Measure Instruction Document is a little bit lengthy,
but it's very helpful because it actually describes the definitions
for what we mean by completing participation.
And if I look at my instructions right now I can see that with K-12 programs,
you the sponsor actually define what you consider to be participation in the program,
whether it's a semester long program, whether it's five hours a week or two hours a week.
You define that when you're defining your service activity and then you just need to track whether the
student completed that participation.
So that's a great question.
I think the main point is, you just -- you want to - only be counting those children who actually completed
the initiative so -- because the way these outputs and outcomes work you basically - in the output you are
saying the number of students who did the activity.
And then in the outcome you are trying to say how many of them showed that improvement.
So you don't want to throw off your numerator and denominator by having students that actually didn't
complete the program.
So those are terrific questions.
We're going to move on to scenario two.
So I will hand the controls back over to Leroy and ask him to walk through scenario two.
>> LeRoy Minor: All right. Thank you, Frank.
Scenario number two is service category is School Readiness/Head Start or early childhood education.
Our community need reads: Johnson County School District reports that over half of the children
entering kindergarten do not have the necessary social
or emotional developmental skills to be successful in kindergarten.
According to the report, 75% of these students are economically disadvantaged.
The Head Start Program addresses this need by providing the necessary structure and school readiness curriculum
to help students prepare for kindergarten.
The service activity: FGP volunteers will work on one on with children at the local Head Start Center to help
them develop school readiness skills.
The output: 25 volunteers will provide a minimum
of 19,000 hours of service this calendar year.
The intermediate outcome: 75% of children served will improve in at least four of the six developmental areas
measured by the program.
And our end outcome: 75% of participating children will be ready to enter kindergarten as measured by
teacher-administered tool in Johnson County Head Start Programs.
So that's our scenario for number two.
And our questions are going to be the same as it was for scenario number one.
Which output fits the scenario?
Number of children that completed participation in CNCS supported K-12 education programs.
Or mentoring, the number of disadvantaged youth mentored.
And I'm going to abbreviate some of these.
I believe we've gone through them.
School readiness would be the number of children that completed participation
in the CNCS supported early education program.
Child safety, welfare and health, the number of children that served - the number of children served in
child safety, welfare and health programs.
And finally, economic opportunity, number of economically disadvantaged individuals receiving job
training and other developmental skills.
So we're going to push that poll out for you to consider.
I know I didn't abbreviate too much but I will play my song.
[humming theme song from Jeopardy]
Okay, so let's see what we're looking - what we have here.
Looking at the poll, I am showing 75% have selected number three,
school readiness.
17% have selected education.
And we have a few that have selected mentoring, child safety and economic opportunity.
By far and large the lead on this one is school readiness.
All right. And we've got three-fourths or so responding on that.
So as we move on I'm going to look at the outcomes associated with this scenario.
Our outcomes then under the category education and mentoring.
We have the number of students with improved academic performance in literacy and math.
Number -- or math, I should say.
Number of students who demonstrated improved academic engagement,
or the number of students who improved their school attendance,
or the number of students acquiring a G.E.D.
Under school readiness, we have number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of
school and/or emotional development.
Number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of literacy skills.
Number of students demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of numeracy or math skills.
And finally, under economic opportunity, number of economically disadvantaged individuals placed in jobs.
Here comes the poll.
All right. And they're coming in, trickling.
This is a tricky one, huh.
So for social and emotional development we have 75%.
And 71 and 123 responded.
This sort of reminds me like when you are in school, you know,
you sort of look and see how everybody else responds you might be inclined to respond the same way.
Remember that "At a Glance" sheet that Frank has mentioned,
that's your tool to help you in making your decisions here.
If you haven't gotten your "At a Glance" sheet then next to the Q&A button there's a link - or a button
that you can push and you can look at the files you'll find that "At a Glance" sheet if you haven't had a
chance to pick that up yet.
Okay, so I'm showing that we're moving pretty good with 68% under social and emotional development.
About 69%, 20 in literacy skills.
5% with no outcome.
Let's just turn it over to Frank now and give him an opportunity
to consider our responses and debrief this section.
>> Frank DiSilvestro: Thanks, Leroy.
So it looks like folks mostly got this one spot on as well.
This one is a little bit trickier because of the way this work plan was worded.
We did feel like the output, the appropriate output here would be number of children that complete
participation in CNCS-supported early childhood education programs.
And so it mentioned that they were working with a pre-K Head Start type of program.
So it felt like as the output that's pretty straight forward that you would choose that.
A few people chose the education output again, but again,
we want to reiterate that the education output should be focused on K-12 programs.
So the output is pretty straightforward.
The outcome was fairly tricky because in the work plan they didn't describe exactly what they were getting.
They just said that children would be improving in four out of the six areas
that were tracked in terms of school readiness.
And so you didn't know exactly what are they tracking,
literacy, math, behavior.
And the reason we put social and emotional development down as the correct outcome is that the way they
described the community need is very focused on social and emotional development.
So, as you know from the sessions on setting up a work plan,
and how you set up your different pieces of the work plan,
the community need should always tie in to the outcome.
So we felt like social and emotional development would be the appropriate outcome to report on here.
Some of the issues here are again, they might be improving in more than one thing and so we don't want
to discourage you from also measuring the literacy improvement or from measuring the math improvement but
we do want to you choose which area to focus on that ties in to the stated community need.
The instructions will also be helpful in this case, in terms of looking at the definitions about what do we
mean by early childhood programs, the instructions actually describe what that means and so again,
we won't go through instructions in detail today but I do think the instructions will be helpful for you.
And another issue I wanted to highlight here is, data collection.
So I can see the questions popping in right now from those of you that are hitting the Q&A box.
A number of folks are asking about the data collection.
And for outputs and outcomes around school readiness, we're very excited about the school readiness -- the
tool that has been developed and this is not a required tool for to you use but it is something that we
recommend, that we have adopted from the Head Start Program and there is a session here at the virtual
conference on this tool specifically.
So, I did that session earlier this morning, and just review all the specifics that are covered,
there are some very good specifics about social and emotional development.
You know, what do we mean by that, what can we measure within that framework,
literacy skills and math and numeracy skills.
So if you haven't had a chance to view that session on the school readiness tool,
I'd encourage you to do that while you're here at the virtual conference.
So let's take a minute to look at the questions, and see if there are one or two questions we can address.
So someone asked about, do they have to be Head Start Centers,
and that's a good question.
The answer is, no, they don't have to be a Head Start Center.
As long as they're working with pre-K children and doing the activities that are specified in the
performance measure instructions
then it doesn't have to be a Head Start Center, per se.
And we have a couple of questions coming in, in the interest of time
I do want to move on to the third scenario.
We just have about 20 minutes left, but we'll take some time at the end to answer questions and then we'll also
come back to the forums, if you can post your questions in the forum sections
that will be up throughout the virtual conference.
And we can respond to your questions there.
So let's move on to the third scenario.
>> LeRoy Minor: Okay, scenario number three is service category is mentoring,
under our old nomenclature.
The community need reads: Teenagers in Johnson County's juvenile justice system are three times more likely to
encounter substance abuse or incarceration as adults than their peers.
Upon exiting juvenile detention, these youth, many of whom are also economically disadvantaged,
have limited educational and employment opportunities.
A recent study showed 25% of incarcerated youth received a G.E.D.
before the age of 21 and only 50% of incarcerated youth were employed at the age of 21.
Service activity: FGP volunteers are paired in one on one mentoring relationships with teenagers in the
juvenile justice system and spend at least two hours per week meeting with the youth.
The output: 25 at-risk youth will be served by FGP volunteers in the juvenile justice system.
Our intermediate outcome: 80% of youth will show an improvement in behavior,
social engagement and goal seeking -- setting.
End outcome: 70% of the youth involved will exit the system with educational
or employment opportunities in place.
So that's our scenario.
Moving on, which output fits this scenario: Education, mentoring,
school readiness, child safety, welfare and health or economic opportunity.
And here comes the poll.
And they're coming in with mentoring taking the lead, followed up by education at 5%.
Well, running neck and neck now with child safety, welfare and health.
Got 24% coming in at economic opportunity.
And about 135 respondents.
Okay, that looks pretty good.
At this point right now we have 65-66% mentoring.
And 23% at economic opportunity.
So I am going to go ahead and push out to you your outcomes for this scenario.
And again our outcomes fall in the - for education and mentoring.
We have number of students with improved academic performance in literacy and math,
or the number of students who demonstrated improved academic engagement.
Number of students who improved their school attendance.
Number of students acquiring a G.E.D.
Under school readiness, we have the number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of
social and/or emotional development.
Number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of literacy skills.
Number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of numeracy or math skills.
And under economic opportunity, number of economically disadvantaged individuals placed in jobs.
And here comes the poll.
And for outcomes for number three you've jumped, and went out quickly on this one.
We have 60% in mentoring.
31% in economic opportunity.
And about equal number of respondents.
Okay. Excellent.
I think you guys are getting the hang of this now.
So I'm going to push it over to Frank and have him look at scenario number three.
>> Frank DiSilvestro: Thanks, LeRoy.
And so this one is definitely trickier.
This one, we felt like the output here could either be mentoring or possibly job training.
Most likely you would choose the output around mentoring and that's what about 66% of you chose.
And the reason we felt like mentoring was most appropriate is because the way job-training programs
are described in the performance measured definitions is that they are specifically participating in a job
training course or a class or something like an apprenticeship.
And given the description in the work plan, we just didn't feel like there was enough specifics to really
know whether this was a job training program so mentoring would be appropriate here.
And given that mentoring is the output, there could be several possible outcomes.
And so we felt like depending on the nature of what this site could track,
academic engagement could very well be an outcome that you measure here.
And you'll notice on your "At a Glance" sheet that mentoring lines up
with the same three outcomes, that education can track as well.
So academic engagement again it captures some things like participation in a class or a number of disruptive
incidence, and so if that is something that they are tracking here,
academic engagement could be an appropriate outcome.
Attendance might also be an appropriate outcome.
Or you might not choose an outcome here.
This might be one of those cases where if the site cannot capture specific outcome data,
that lines up with the performance measures, this might be one where you stop at the output level and you just
describe the number of youth that are being mentored.
And so, this one - again it a little bit trickier but we feel like according to the poll results it looks
like most people actually understood the scenario the same way.
So, I'm going to take a minute here and look at our questions.
And I'll ask our moderator if you can send me any questions here.
Okay, we had a good question about mentoring, and folks asked,
FGP volunteers work both one on one and sometimes with two to three children at a time.
Does it have to be one on one?
And that again will reference us back to the performance measure instructions and you'll notice in
the mentoring description it defines mentoring where you can have up to three youth that are being worked
with and supported by each Foster Grandparent.
So that's a very good question, and again, the answer would fall under the performance measure instructions.
Someone else also asked a good question about, would the G.E.D.
outcome be appropriate here?
And that is a great question.
In the work plan, they mention that part of the reason they're doing this is because youth from a juvenile
detention system are much less likely to graduate from high school.
And so if that's something that the site can track, then that might be an appropriate outcome to tie to this.
You'll notice that the number of students acquiring a G.E.D. is an optional outcome.
So if you're looking at your "at a glance" sheet, those optional outcomes are ones that we encourage to you
track, if you can track them, but they are not required if you are trying to tie that to this specific output.
But those are very good questions.
And again, in interest of time, I do want to move on to scenario number four.
And then we can take some questions at the end.
>> LeRoy Minor: Okay, Frank.
Alright, scenario number four.
Other human needs is the category.
The community need.
Fort Johnson is a major military installation with large number of service members who have been deployed
to the Middle East.
The Fort Johnson Child Development Center, Fort Anywhere CDC,
provides child care services to the military community.
Many of the children whose parents have been deployed demonstrate adjustment disorders,
detachment disorders, and developmental issues.
Service activity.
Grandparents will meet with children ages 5-15 at least once a week and provide nurturing support,
play therapy, and model appropriate behavior.
Output. 30 children will be mentored by Foster Grandparents.
The intermediate outcome, 90% of the children assigned will demonstrate improvement in their social
interactions as related to developmental delays, detachment and emotional adjustment.
The end outcome, 80% of the children will demonstrate age appropriate behavior.
So let's look and see what output best fits this scenario.
Again, we have outputs of education, mentoring, school readiness,
child safety, welfare and health and economic opportunity.
So we'll push the poll and wait for your responses.
Yeah, I think you are getting real good at this now.
150 respondents, about 58% are selecting mentoring.
27% selecting child safety, welfare, and health.
And we have a few economic opportunities, school readiness, and education.
About 161 respondents so we're getting really good at this
or really anxious to get to the final questions and answer session.
Okay, so we're going to go ahead on and move from here and consider our outcomes.
Which outcome then best fits this scenario.
Under the category of education and mentoring we have number of students with improved academic performance
in literacy and/or math.
Number of students who demonstrated improved academic engagement.
Number of students who improved their school attendance,
or number of students acquiring a G.E.D.
Under school readiness, the number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of
social and/or emotional development.
Number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of literacy skills.
Number of children demonstrating gains in school readiness in terms of numeracy or math skills.
And under economic opportunity, number of economically disadvantaged individuals placed in jobs.
So we'll push the poll and wait for your responses.
Can we push number four?
Okay, there we go.
Looks like we have 42% going with academic engagement.
46% -- 45% saying no outcome.
A few with academic performance, school attendance, and G.E.D.
And 114, I'll give this a few more seconds.
We had a little problem getting the poll out there for a second.
All right, well we will pass this on to Frank and have him to debrief for us.
>> Frank DiSilvestro: Thank you, LeRoy.
This one again, is one of the more tricky scenarios that we presented.
The first two we felt were very straight forward
and these last two definitely have some area for interpretations.
So we'll talk through what we felt might be appropriate here then we can answer your questions.
And again, especially with these last two scenarios there is really not a right answer,
this is just what we felt was probably be most appropriate but depending on additional information or
the specific site there may be another output or outcome that matches up well.
So we felt like the output here would actually be under the number of children served in child safety,
welfare, and health programs.
And the reason, I notice most people chose mentoring and at first glance that's what I would choose as well
for this, because describing the situation where FGP volunteers are going to military community and helping
children who have adjustment issues.
So it does sound very focused on mentoring.
Looking more specifically at the definition of mentoring,
it's really specific around youth that have economic disadvantage and are living in poverty.
And so that may be the case for a number of these children, but it may not.
And so we kind of threw this in here as a curveball because the way they describe the community in need
here is really focused on what seemed to be health and emotional issues.
And so we felt like this output around child safety, welfare and health programs is broad enough that it
could capture this work without needing to figure out the particular economic situation in this community or
the particular special needs.
They mentioned here that there are adjustment disorders and detachment issues,
so we do get a sense that there is a special need for many of these children.
The output around child safety, welfare, and health is really output that can be used for some of these more
broad or perhaps sites that are not quite clearly defined with tutoring or mentoring activity.
And so we felt like that output could be appropriate here.
And then in terms of an outcome, if that output around child safety,
welfare, and health is selected, will not tie an outcome to that.
And so again, this would be one that would just stop at output level and you would not have to choose an
outcome to report.
Now, I can see the questions popping up in our chat box.
And I know some folks are probably thinking,
"Well, I disagree with that because they are doing great work here.
They are working with children that have social and emotional issues and we want to capture that outcome."
And you're right, if you can capture that, then this could be something that you choose a different output for.
And if this is something where these children are all going to school,
they're on the base, and this program is set up in a way that ties into the classroom.
You could even potentially set this up as a way where you're tracking things like their school engagement.
If they're improving in certain areas that help them in school you might be able to capture that.
But just given the description in the work plan, you didn't feel like there were enough specifics around
this being a good fit for tutoring or mentoring which is why we put it under that broader category
of child safety, welfare, and health.
And one thing did I want to highlight here is that working with veterans is a focus area,
it's priority for the corporation.
And so it is very important that you still want to capture the fact that FGP volunteers
are working with veterans and military families.
But that piece of data would not captured in the work plan,
it would be captured in the progress report supplement which,
as you know, is the report that comes out once a year and report on some of the specific demographic data and
some of the specific data about where your volunteers are serving.
And so that aspect of serving military families is still very important,
something you want to capture.
But it would not be reflected in the work plan.
So we just have a few minutes left.
I want to take just four or five minutes to take some additional questions because we are at 2:00 but we have
so many great questions come in we won't have chance to answer them all.
But let me just address two or three from the list here.
So I do see someone asks: I see that there no intermediate outcomes,
we don't we -- we don't have to include intermediate outcomes?
That is correct.
So in the old work plan system we included intermediate outcomes.
Under this new performance measure set up, it's just an output and an outcome.
And we tried to make this as simple and straight forward.
And this is actually across cross our entire agency.
Not only Senior Corps programs but AmeriCorps, VISTA, CCC,
other national service programs are tracking mentoring and tutoring in the same way.
And so you're right, the intermediate outcome would not be something you would include in the new performance
measure framework.
Someone asked about child assignment plans.
Do we still need to be child assignment plans or how do those tie in with the performance measures?
That is a great question, because, as you all know, we have assignment plans for each of the children that
Foster Grandparent volunteers are working with.
And you will still need to have an assignment plan.
Some of the templates that the corporation is developing,
like, for instance, the child readiness tool, you'll notice that that child readiness tool is basically like
a checklist to check off the different areas of social
and emotional development, literacy, and math.
This could also be used as -- that tool could also be used as an assignment plan.
I think we're not prescribing that you must use this particular template for a particular assignment plan,
we give you some options.
You can customize these tools in a way that they could serve as your assignment plan.
So that's a great question.
And you will still be required to have an assignment plan but you don't have to use something that we give
you to say here is what you use for performance measure X.
Again, I see at least three questions about, can I choose more than one outcome.
And that is a great question and it's a question that we touched on briefly at the beginning.
It is a little bit confusing, so someone here put an example,
I have three kids working at a Head Start center.
One is working on literacy, one of them is working on math,
and one of them is working on behavioral and emotional issues,
how do I report that?
And so in that example, you would want to choose your output.
Your output would be the number of students -- I'm sorry,
the number children participating in the early childhood education programs.
So you would have the same output but you would have a different outcome for each of those three children.
So for Sally, who is working on literacy, you would be reporting on her improvement in literacy.
And for the student who is working on math, you would report on his improvement in math.
And so it will take some getting used to, but as we get in to working on your applications,
and working on the rules, and once you actually choose these measures in increments,
I think it will become more clear about how they line up.
And again, the tools that Leroy and I have been mentioning in this call,
the "At a Glance" document, is really I think the most concise snapshot about how to see these measures.
So I would encourage you to print out that tool, and just put this on your cork board by your desk,
have this up to see that here are my options for how I choose performance measures for my FGP stations.
And I do see we have couple more questions,
and wanting to honor your time we are going to wrap up this broadcast.
But we will try to address any questions that you have sent to us,
in both the Q&A and in ongoing forum session.
So if we can just to go our last slide.
I want to wrap up by pointing to some additional resources.
The first resource here, again, is the Overview Module, which is on the Resource Center.
It goes through the specific performance measures and talks about the requirements.
So please have a look at that if you haven't had a chance to look at it yet.
Definitely talk about the performance measure instructions,
which we've referred to in this scenario exercise.
We haven't really dug down deeply into that document but I'd encourage to you look at that which is under
the "Content" button.
And again, there is an overview course on the performance measure instructions
here at the virtual conference.
Again, is in draft form but we expect it won't a tremendous amount
in the next few weeks before it becomes finalized.
And then there are a number of virtual conference resources,
as we've mentioned, there are sessions on the school readiness tool,
there are sessions on the performance measure instructions and there are links to all the PowerPoints
and the hand outs are available in the virtual conference.
So we encourage you to access that, to download it, to study it over the next several weeks,
the virtual conference will be up after the live session
so you can get back in and access these materials.
And then your corporation state offices are always here to support you
with questions about how you set up your work plans.
So, I do want to wrap up, and I want to thank you for your time.
Again, two things I'll highlight.
You can post questions in the forum section, which is right there under the blue button,
the blue "Content" button.
Please post your questions there and we'll be responding to them throughout the virtual conference.
The FGP track has a break right now, so we encourage you to go to the networking labs for the next five or
ten minutes and just chat with some of your fellow FGP directors.
We had over 200 people on the call today, and it's really neat to explore this virtual environment and
meet people in this unique setting.
So we thank you for your time.
And we look forward to working with you.