A Case Study in a Networked Approach

WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO!

2

VPP

3

Making futures brighter for low-income youth in the National Capital Region by tackling the barriers to their success and forging public-private partnerships

that achieve life-changing results.

Vision

Our most vulnerable children and youth (0-24 years) gain the education and skills needed for a productive, self-sufficient adulthood.

We do it by: Investing in what works. Catalyzing action towards measurable outcomes. Aligning efforts of business, government, nonprofits, and

philanthropy. Enabling strong leaders to achieve even more.

youthCONNECT Network

Latin American Youth Center: Further evaluating and growing its youth “reconnection” program, Promotor Pathways, that provides extensive support to the most disconnected youth.

KIPP DC: Expanding and evaluating its pilot program KIPP through College, which provides support to ensure that every KIPP student has the tools and assistance he or she needs to succeed in college.

Year Up NCR: Implementing and evaluating a health education program that will provide health insurance to Year Up-NCR students and eligible family members for up to three years.

College Summit NCR: Growing its core services to reach students earlier and evaluating and expand its 9th-11th grade programming.

4

Metro TeenAIDS: Providing their health education program to 1,500 10th graders per school year at DC public charter schools, and train 200 public charter school staff on health education.

Urban Alliance: Expanding their innovative Alumni Services department and developing a curriculum outreach program to teach disconnected youth the skills they need to start a successful career.

youthCONNECT & SIF Award

youthCONNECT is VPP’s pioneering initiative in which six of the most effective local nonprofits are working together to improve education, employment, and healthy behavior outcomes for low-income and at-risk youth, ages 14-24, in the National Capital Region.

In 2010, youthCONNECT received grant from the Obama Administration’s Social

5

Results from partnership include: Development of region’s first Common Outcomes Framework 10,000 additional youth served in first 2 years; on track to serve 20,000 over 5 years.

youthCONNECT partner outcomes: Positive Growth in Hard/Soft skills – 81% High School Graduation Rate – 86% College Enrollment – 66%

Innovation Fund, committing $6 million in the first three years.

6

7

8

ABOUT CHILD TRENDS

9

Child Trends is nonprofit, nonpartisan research center dedicated to improving the lives of children through research. 

We conduct research on children and youth at all ages and stages of their development from pre-birth through the transition to adulthood; and across all domains of well-being.

In addition to conducting basic research and analyzing trends in well-being, we also conduct evaluation research for a variety of programs.

DEVELOPING THE COMMON OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK: THE PROCESS

10

Frequent meetings early on (every two weeks/monthly):– VPP, Child Trends; evaluation/data staff from the programs

Topics:– Adopting a shared language. To minimize confusion, we came to

agreement on how we would use certain terms: outcome, indicator, measures, etc.)

– We selected common outcomes and indicators– We identified measures to use to track progress on the indicators

Later discussions addressed– With what frequency should data be reported?– What is the appropriate format for reporting data to Child Trends?– How can we define an annual youthCONNECT cohort, so as to assess

progress as a network?

14-15 16-17 18-19 20-24

Outcome:Youth attain a post-secondary credential, OR retain gainful employment

Percent of students absent from school 10 or more days per year

Percent of students with a completed college readiness plan

Percent of students with a completed career readiness plan

Percent of students with a completed FAFSA

Percent of youth with program-supervised work experience

Percent of students with specified hard/soft job skills

Percent of youth with positive adult relationships

Percent of youth avoiding negative peer relationships

Percent of youth avoiding physical fighting, cigarettes, alcohol, & other drugs

Percent of youth with appropriate knowledge of safe-sex practices

Outcome:Youth sustain healthy behaviors

Percent of students on track for grade…

Percent of sexually-active youth practicing safe sex

Percent of students with a completed college application

Percent of students with a HS diploma

Percent of students with a GED

Percent of students who enroll in college or other P/S program

Percent of students who enroll in college or other P/S program for a second year

Common Outcomes Framework

Interim Indicators

Indicators

Outcomes

AG

E

DEVELOPING THE COMMON OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK: CHALLENGES

12

I. A diverse group of programs– Ages served (14 to 24)– Mode of service delivery (classes, workshops, individual case mgt.)– “Dosage” (Frequency, duration, and breadth)– Content (some focused on education, some on employment, some

on healthy behaviors; a couple looking across multiple areas)

II. As we implemented the framework, we ran into lots of variability in how indicators were measured, and how populations were defined.

Four Purposes for Data Collection

• To test the Common Outcomes Framework: for example, is progress on the interim indicators related to the long-term indicators?

• To strengthen performance management• To inform the common measures that are part

of each program’s external evaluation• Simulate (model) the aggregate effects of the

Network, and the potential if scaled up

Developing the Common Outcomes Framework: What facilitated success?

I. Conducting site visits to the programs before the network meetings began

• Helped us to build relationships, get “buy-in”• Understanding of program operations, differences in service delivery

models, population served.• Collected information on outcomes already being tracked by the

organizations• Performance management systems and how data are used.

II. Don’t try to measure too many things. Focus on what’s most important.

III. Acknowledge and accommodate program diversity– Programs are not expected to track an indicator when it’s not

reasonable to think their activities will affect it.