Draft Scoping Statement: MCDC Performance Measurement Action Plan
Oct. 27, 2008
Problem Statement:
Social Services agencies provide detailed client information to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), who stores it in a large data warehouse. Tapping into the warehouse to access information for program management and assessment of results requires trained staff skilled in developing and executing database queries. Margie Boler(Margie is a Scott County employee; works at DHS) at Scott County fills this role for the Minnesota County Data Collaborative (MCDC) by running a series of scheduled reports that are distributed to participating counties.
However, questions have arisen regarding the value of the existing reports. Counties value the health data reports generated from MMIS and would like to have the MCDC continue this role. However, the reports do not appear to be meeting management needs as well as they could, with some counties using the reports very little if at all. This may be a result of management habits that do not currently incorporate data into decision-making, or it may be that the reports do not provide the information that managers need for communication and decision-making. In addition, there is a sense that the state databases have significant untapped potential to provide additional useful data to guide program decision making and assessment.
DHS has also begun producing a report with 23 measures of program effectiveness, and pressure is growing from the state (from both DHS and the Legislature) for counties to more effectively collaborate in accessing and using data to improve performance and outcomes. However, there is concern that the focus on DHS’ performance measures may drive data collection and analysis efforts too strongly, at the expense of measures that better reflect the priorities and strategies of the counties themselves. Further, there are questions about how the state and counties should partner to most effectively obtain results and assess performance.
Goals of the Initiative:
Using data to guide decision-making and help improve programs over the long-run is a best management practice that the MACSSA and MCDC would like to support more effectively. To this end, the broad goals of their initiatives for the coming year are:
- To pro-actively define the performance measurement needs and preferences of the MCDC counties
- To identify and remove barriers to collection and effective use of the performance measures
- To increase the access and utility of data warehouse data and reports:
- Expand access of Counties to the data warehouse;
- Increase utility of the information and reports;
- Increase the application of the data to specific performance measures
(3 is basically lifted from DHS IT plan)
- To refocus the MCDC role to support these goals most effectively into the future, enhancing the partnership between the State and the Counties in performance measure collection, analysis, and use
Participants and Roles:
The MCDC would like to develop a performance measurement action plan, in cooperation with the DHS Office of Strategic Planning and Implementation (OSPI), the DHS Data Warehouse, the Human Services Technology Group (HSTG), and the Human Services Technology Committee (HSTC), so that the counties can make more effective use of the resources available in the state data warehouse.
Scott County will be taking the lead to bring together the interested parties for this conversation. Dakota and Hennepin County will provide meeting facilitators. At this time, the participants are anticipated to include:
- The MCDC member county representatives
- DHS representatives
- The Director of the Office of Strategic Planning & Implementation
- Human Services Technology Group and Human Services Technology Committee representatives
- County Data Warehouse expert users
Major Tasks and Deliverables:
Task 1: Project Kickoff Meeting | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| Nov. 2008 (or Jan. 2009) |
| ||
| ||
* The DHS Human Services (HS) Technology Committee has held several meetings regarding County access to the database; increasing utility of information and reports; and increasing the applications of data to specific performance measures. Members include: Tom Oswald, Linda Ewen, Mary Arvesen, Jan Kennedy, Greg Poehling, Pat Singel, Don Jones, Don Holmberg, Tyrone Spratt, Jackie Coupar-Lawson, Rex Holzemer, Krista Boston, Peg Booth, John Glisczinski, and Linda Davis-Johnson.
** The County experts include Carah Koch (Dakota ); Karen Axtell, Johanna Lewis, Leslie Russell, Debra Tobin, Margo Gillance, and Jane Lay (Hennepin); Margaret Boler (Scott); Tom Risor, Cory Forsberg, and Tom Patsy (Ramsey)
At this initial kickoff meeting, the focus will be to explain the scope, reasons, and anticipated outcomes for the initiative. A brief overview of the role and importance of data in decision-making, as suggested by best practices, will be included.
Participants will have an opportunity to ask questions, identify the benefits they individually would like to obtain as a result of participation, and develop an initial list of expectations related to performance measurement.
Task 2: Define Current MCDC Performance Measurement System and Gaps | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| Jan 2008 |
| ||
| ||
At the meeting, the participants will develop a “system map” to identify and discuss :
- Those who supply performance measure resources and information to the MCDC
- Perceived gaps in those inputs
- MCDC processes to determine what performance measures to collect, report, and use
- County data/performance measure “customers” and their needs and expectations
- Perceived gaps in meeting customer expectations
- Communication linkages and gaps
This task will take place in a workshop, with small group breakouts. Four hours will be set aside for the workshop. The system map created will help characterize the existing performance measurement system, and help identify and define needs that the MCDC should address in its performance measure action plan.
If requested, an additional presentation on the initiative, geared toward leadership at DHS, will be provided.
Task 2: Refine System Map and Prioritize Gaps | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| Feb. 2008 |
| ||
| ||
During this meeting, participants will have two tasks. The first is to review and refine the system map, with a focus on understanding where gaps exist between expectations and what is currently provided. The second is to begin prioritizing which gaps are most important to address. To begin prioritization, participants will discuss and then vote on the gaps identified to date.
Task 3: Brainstorm Solutions to Address Performance Measurement Gaps | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| Mar. 2008 |
| ||
| ||
During this workshop, participants begin brainstorming solutions to close the priority gaps identified in February. These potential solutions, once refined, will form the primary basis for the performance measurement action plan. The dialogue will include potential actions as well as potential roles and responsibilities. A particular focus will be placed on the potential roles and responsibilities the MCDC.
Task 4: Refine Solutions to Address Performance Measurement Gaps | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| Apr. 2008 |
| ||
| ||
In this session, participants will further refine solutions to address the performance measurement gaps, more fully developing the roles and responsibilities of the MCDC, while clarifying the actions that could be taken by the state to remove barriers and address gaps in performance measurement data collection, analysis, and use.
Task 5: Review Draft Performance Measurement Action Plan | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| May. 2008 |
| ||
| ||
Participants will review a draft action plan crafted by the facilitators, based on the project team’s input. The draft action plan will include:
- A description of the current performance measurement situation
- A description of the desired future performance measurement situation
- A summary of the key gaps
- An outline of the action steps needed to close the gaps.
At this juncture, Scott County and the facilitators will again meet with DHS leadership to gather their feedback, if requested.
Task 6: Finalize Performance Measurement Action Plan | ||
Lead | Participants | Due Date |
Scott County, with assistance from Dakota and Hennepin County facilitators |
| June 2008 |
| ||
| ||
A “Final” action plan will be reviewed at this meeting, and first steps for implementation will be determined.
Report this page