This document represents the thinking of Mark Friedman's Fiscal Policy Studies Institute and The Forum for Youth Investment on the intersection and compatibility of the respective frameworks of Results Accountability Talk to Action and Ready by 21. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the relationships between these two bodies of work. It fits that those with a focus on improving the well being of children and youth in particular would start with the youth centered Ready by 21 process to develop their framework and then incorporate the Results Based Accountability lessons when the detailed results and indicators work begins. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the relationships between these two bodies of work. There is no way that an analysis like this can capture more than the basics of each framework, however in many instances there is an interest in using both frameworks and we want to facilitate that and show their compatibility. It fits that those with a focus on improving the well being of children and youth in particular would start with the youth centered Ready by 21 process to develop their framework and then incorporate the Results Based Accountability lessons when the detailed results and indicators work begins. A few summary observations: (1) Results Accountability and Ready by 21 methods and tools are very compatible. As the chart shows, both follow the same basic progression from population results and indicators to action. (2) Results Accountability is a generic process that can be applied to many different populations (e.g. all children, all elders) and to many different quality of life conditions (e.g. children ready for school, a clean environment). Ready by 21 is specifically designed to address quality of life conditions for children and youth ages 0 to 21+. (3) Results Accountability can be used to address one result or many results, to turn one curve or many curves. Ready by 21 seeks to address a comprehensive set of results and to turn many curves at once. Population: Results Accountability starts with a population in a geographic area (e.g. all children 0 – 5 in Pennsylvania). The starting point can vary widely from small to large populations and small to large geographic areas. The only restriction is that the population not be a service population, which is addressed separately in performance accountability. Ready by 21 focuses on the population of all children and youth ages 0 to 21+ or birth to adulthood. This is a large population, usually in a large geographic area (state, county or city). The Ready by 21 process can be used to define results for a sub-population (e.g. 16-24 year olds in Chicago or all children 0-5 in Pennsylvania). The recommendation however is that groups take some time to understand how results play out across the developmental continuum before zeroing in on a specific sub-population. Results: Results Accountability: Results are plain language end conditions of well-being for children, adults, families or communities. Results range from “Children ready for school,” and “People live in safe, stable affordable housing,” to “Clean environment,” “Safe Community,” and “A world free of hunger.” The Results Accountability process can start with one or many results. Ready by 21 Ready by 21 is the highest level outcome and really only measurable by breaking it down further. It is used for communication purposes to state an end goal. Ready for College, Work and Life is the next tier of outcomes still used for communications purposes but beginning to be measurable. One way to think of this is that “Ready by 21” is made up of three (second tier) results “Ready for School,” “Ready for Work,” and “Ready for Life.” Each of these is an end condition of well-being and each could be separately measured with indicators. To better understand what is meant by those results we look to the literature on youth development which outlines the following five developmental areas: Learning (Basic and Applied Academics), Thriving (Physical health), Connecting (Social and Emotional Well-being), Working (Vocational Career Experience), and Leading (Civic and Community Engagement). For the discerning data wonk these would be the outcome areas tracked. These are used in the “dashboard”(a visual representation of young people through the continuum of development that can be monitored in the same way that a car dashboard is used) and taken two dimensionally by age bracket to develop a third tier of 25 results across 5 age categories. (The total number of results is not out of line with other similar efforts. The UK, for example, has adopted a two tier results framework with 5 Tier 1 Results and 25 tier 2 results.) The “dashboard” is a creative way to generate a very complete set of results. The grid provides an audit trail that makes a compelling case that these 25 results cover all important aspects of child and youth well-being. In summary, Ready by 21 has a three tier results structure, with some additional clarification possible about tiers 1 and 2. Tier 1: Ready by 21 and/or Ready for School, Work and Life. Tier 2: Learning, Thriving, Connecting, Working, Leading and/or Ready for School, Ready for Work, Ready for Life. Tier 3: The 25 results that break out Tier 2 results by age range (Early childhood 0-5, Elementary age 6-10, Middle school 11-14, High school 15-19 and young adult 20-24). Indicators: Results Accountability An indicator is a measure that helps quantify the achievement of a result. A complete set of results and indicators is needed to create a report card on the well-being of a population. The talk to action process can start with one result and one indicator, or many results and many indicators. For each result there is a three part indicator list: primary measures (usually 3 – 5 per result), secondary measures (anything else that’s any good), and a Data Development Agenda which shows where we need new or better data. Ready by 21 The Results Accountability process would ordinarily take each of the 25 Tier 3 results in Ready by 21 and identify one or more indicators to go with that result. Ready by 21 takes a different approach and uses a second “dashboard” that crosses Tier 2 results against a set of action strategy categories: problem reduction, prevention, preparation, and participation. This has the effect of generating positive, not just negative indicators, but does not establish a direct relationship between tier 3 results and their attendant indicators. This dashboard leads to 20 indicators for each age range and produces 100 indicators in total (5 age ranges x 20 indicators). This is a large number of indicators that may have to be pared down to create a report card or console. Some of these measures are ones for which states and counties will have data. Other measures will need to go on a Data Development Agenda. One challenge is to make sure that there is at least one indicator in each cell with good current data at the state/county level. This is necessary for the production of a report card and the Big Ticket Assessment. Another check would be to see if all of the 25 results in the ages/outcomes dashboard have at least one related indicator. Baselines: Results Accountability A baseline is an indicator graph with two parts, an historical part that shows where we’ve been, and a forecast part that shows where we’re headed if we don’t do something different. The forecast allows us to ask if this future is “OK,” and it allows us to define success as turning the curve. Ready by 21 Though Ready by 21 does not imply specific baselines it does say something about the desired shift in the population level outcome from the current 4 in ten young people doing well to 7 in 10 young people doing well. There is also a demonstration of how to manage the individual youth outcomes while maintaining focus on the big picture. Using the dashboard method any given community can set baselines for youth outcomes and track progress and setbacks with a simple color coding system. Story: Results Accountability The story (or story behind the baselines) is the place in the process where partners dig deep into the causes of past and current conditions (and also explain their forecasts). The Results Accountability talk to action process does not have to be followed in a linear way, with one exception: just as in medicine where diagnosis precedes treatment, the story in Results Accountability must precede consideration of what works. Ready by 21 provides a wide range of tools for partners to use to take stock of current conditions. This is the second set of “Taking Stock” tools shown in the chart. The first set of Taking Stock tools are used to create and present the results and indicators. In addition Ready by 21 encourages partners to create working groups to dig deep into causes and solutions. These work groups can be organized by age group or or result area. Either way, the requirement is that groups aggressively use the “other axis” of the dashboard (the 0-5 group has to look at all 5 result areas or the learning group has to work from 0-21+). In this way the groups are propelled to deeper thinking and are less o neglect a particular age or result area. Partners: Results Accountability pushes people to consider all the possible partners (traditional and non-traditional) with a role to play in doing better, and to engage all of these partners in the talk to action process. Active recruitment of partners is also part of the Action plan. Results Accountability does not include methods for creating partnerships and is often paired with other processes that address partnership formation and leadership development. Ready by 21 uses the Big Tent Partnership graphic, with youth at the center, to stimulate thinking about the wide range of partners needed for success. Ready by 21 offers specific methods and tools for building the Big Tent Partnership. What works: Results Accountability encourages people to think deeply about what could work to turn the baseline curves in the right direction. Results accountability specifically points people to the research/best practice literature, but also warns against being bound by a “research-only” approach. Common sense, life experience, knowledge of the community and opportunity to experiment and learn must also be part of the process. Results Accountability also encourages consideration of no-cost and low-cost action. In the latest iteration of the framework, the “What works?” question has become “What would it take?” This is a much more powerful question designed to push people past incremental change to consider comprehensive strategies. It is worth noting that this is where Systems of Care work fits in most directly. Systems of Care offers a set of tools and way of thinking about how to structure the service system so that it works for all children. Ready by 21 RB21, like Results Based Accountability points people to the research best practice literature while warning against being bound by a research only approach. Partners are encouraged, specifically, to engage young people when asking the “what would it take” question. We have developed tools and strategies for helping groups engage young people as partners in the entire accountability process. Ready by 21 is not content heavy – the materials and staff are knowledgeable but are not systems change experts. What it encourages and facilitates, however is the creation of big picture change structures that track responses to the what would it take questions as they emerge across work groups and result areas. They then help partners align policies, leverage resources, coordinate programs, connect partners, and shape communications in ways that increase rather than dissipate demand. Ready by 21 is about creating “comprehensive strategies to improve the well being of children and youth” but the strategies are leadership and change process management strategies, not systems reform strategies. Action plan: Both Results Accountability and Ready by 21 lead to powerful, concrete action plans. Performance Accountability: Results Accountability is made up of two parts: Population Accountability, addressed above, and Performance Accountability for programs, agencies and service systems. The Performance Accountability process is complex in its own right and is not presented fully in the attached chart. It makes use of three performance measurement categories (How much did we do? How well did we do it? Is anyone better off?) that replace the historically overly-complex schemes used in other performance frameworks. Performance Accountability also offers a simple set of 7 Questions that every manager can use to improve performance as part of day to day management practice. These methods can be used to structure management, budgeting and strategic planning processes inside organizations. Ready by 21 includes consideration of the performance of programs and service systems as part of the taking stock process. This information is used to craft the comprehensive strategies and action plan. This work can also be used to improve the performance of programs and service systems, but it is not clear if Ready for 21 puts forward an exp licit set of methods for this purpose. There might be a benefit in creating or borrowing more explicit performance accountability components from Results Accountability or another framework, or offering partners a menu of possible approaches.