ERIC ED435700: Minnesota Family Service Collaboratives: 1998 Outcome Reports.

239 Pages·1998·3.5 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
TM 030 331
ED 435 700
Minnesota Family Service Collaboratives: 1998 Outcome
TITLE
Reports.
Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Center for Applied Research
INSTITUTION
and Educational Improvement.
1998-00-00
PUB DATE
NOTE
237p.
Reports - Evaluative (142)
PUB TYPE
MF01/PC10 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
*Agency Cooperation; Attendance; *Cooperative Programs;
DESCRIPTORS
Elementary Secondary Education; Evaluation Methods; *Family
Programs; *Integrated Services; Program Evaluation; *Social
Services; Urban Schools
*Minnesota
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
In 1993 the Minnesota Legislature provided funding to
establish local collaborative initiatives to integrate services and improve
outcomes for children and families. This report is based on the individual
outcome reports mandated for the 24 collaboratives that first received
implementation grants in 1995 or 1996. Information from a variety of sources
is reported in the categories of child and family health, family functioning,
school performance, youth development, and organizational and systemic
change. Improvements have been noted in each of these areas. Collaboratives
have been focusing their educational efforts on such things as improved
school attendance and increased graduation rates. The first two appendixes
discuss core outcomes and performance indicators and the collaborative
data-based decision-making process. The third appendix contains the 2-year
outcome reports for the 24 collaboratives. (Contains 10 references.)
(SLD)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
1998 Outcome Reports
C
4461*
[000.4401.*`
741111Cotta.
NMI
I
Minnesota
Family Service
Collaboratives
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
CENTER (ERIC)
BY
HAS BEEN GRANTED
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
RESOURCES
document do not necessarily represent
TO THE EDUCATIONAL
official OERI position or policy.
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
The College of Education
')
C7
8
& Human Development
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
2
Minnesota
Family Service
Collaboratives
1998 Outcome Reports
3
Acknowledgements
In 1993 the Minnesota Legislature provided funding to establish local collaborative initiatives to integrate
services and improve outcomes for children and families. This legislation also required each family
the
service collaborative site to submit a report to the Children's Cabinet describing the extent to which
collaborative achieved its targeted outcomes. This report is based on individual outcome reports for 24
collaboratives that first received implementation grants in late 1995 or 1996. A number of staff from the
University of Minnesota provided assistance to collaboratives in the development of evaluation plans
and the preparation of their reports. Patricia S. Seppanen and Marijo Wunderlich served as co-project
directors. Gayle Zoffer and Jeanette Colby served as report editors and coordinated the editorial process
with each of the collaborative sites. Tom Helfman handled the transfer of this report to the CAREI
website (http://carei.coled.umn.edu). Reports prepared by collaboratives in 1996 and 1997 are also
available via the CAREI website.
Copyright © 1998 by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement (CARE!),
College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota.
All material appearing in this report may be reproduced without permission of the authors.
Citation of the source is appreciated.
Comments and questions concerning any aspect of this report should be addressed to:
Dr. Patricia S. Seppanen, Associate Director
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement
College of Education and Human Development
University of Minnesota
159 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0208
e-mail: [email protected]
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Executive Summary
History of the Collaborative Initiative in Minnesota
1
4
Approach to Evaluation
5
Performance Trends
18
Future Evaluation Work
21
Appendix A: Core Outcomes and Performance Indicators
27
Process
Appendix B: Collaborative Data-Based Decisionmaking
31
Appendix C: 1998 Two-Year Outcome Reports
33
Aitkin County Family Services Collaborative
38
Beltrami Area Services Collaborative
57
Chisago County Family Services Collaborative
63
Clay County Family Services Collaborative
77
Crow Wing County Family Services Collaborative
83
Counties
Family Services Collaborative of Faribault and Martin
90
Freeborn County Family Services Collaborative
103
Houston County Family Services Collaborative
110
Jackson County Family Services Network
Meeker, Renville & Yellow
PACT 4 Families Collaborative (Kandiyohi,
120
Medicine Counties)
127
Morrison County Family Services Collaborative
134
Nobles County Family Connections Collaborative
142
Collaborative
North Suburban Ramsey County Communities
149
County)
FACES (Family Action Collaborative of Olmsted
158
Pennington County Family Services Collaborative
161
Pine County Family Services Collaborative
and Children's
Polk-Marshall Counties Family Services Collaborative
167
Mental Health Collaborative
179
Roseville Area Family Services Collaborative
186
Sibley County Family Services Collaborative
194
Collaborative)
FamiLink (South Hennepin Family Services
204
St. Croix Valley Collaborative
212
Todd County Family Services Collaborative
218
Watonwan Family Services Collaborative
227
Wright County Family Services Collaborative
p5
Executive Summary
History of the Collaborative Initiative in Minnesota
Family Services Collaboratives were initiated by the Minnesota Legislature and
the Governor in 1993. They were to be designed as "locally-driven service delivery
partnerships that help communities come together to improve results for
Families
Minnesota's children and families" (Minnesota Department of Children,
and Learning, 1998, p. 7).
Since 1993 collaborative designation and/or grants for implementation have
been available to communities that develop a comprehensive plan to integrate
and improve services to children and families.' These relatively small financial
incentives (about $100,000-$200,000 per site) are intended to stimulate better
coordination of services at the community-level and system reforms that will
who
result in an increase in the number and percentage of babies and children
learn, families able to provide
are healthy, children who come to school ready to
children, and children who excel in
a healthy and stable environment for their
academic skills.2
make
The collaborative grant program is a joint effort of the state agencies that
the Departments of Children, Families, &
up the Minnesota Children's Cabinet:
Learning, Health, Human Services, Corrections, Economic Security, Transportation,
and
Finance, Public Safety, and Administration; the Housing Finance Agency;
Minnesota Planning.
local
Also in 1993, state legislation was passed to facilitate the development of
children's mental health collaboratives to assist communities to target services
Collaboratives,
for better outcomes. Currently, 21 local Children's Mental Health
Cabinet.
representing 30 counties, have been recognized by the Children's
Collaborative.
Fourteen of the 21 are integrated with their Family Services
Trust, which
1 At about the same time, Minnesota became involved in an effort of the Pew Charitable
receive funds over a
funded the Minnesota Children's Initiative. Three collaborative sites were selected to
for chil-
three -year period. The Children's Initiative Partners focused their initial work on four outcomes
reduced barriers to
dren ages 0-6 and their families: Improved child health, adequate child development,
adequate school performance, and adequate family functioning and stability.
Collaborative
2 State dollars are enhanced by federal reimbursements to collaboratives through the Local
calculate federal
Time Study. Time study results are used by the MN Department of Human Services to
reimbursement (Medical Assistance and Title IV-E).
6
founded on three key themes related to
Minnesota's collaborative initiatives are
repeatedly in the 1990s:
systems reform heard
The general concept of organizational
1. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION.
of efforts intended as (a)an
collaboration or partnerships describes a variety
develop community-level
approach to the delivery of services; (b)an attempt to
(c)an attempt to reform
linkages among independent organizations;
which they operate; and/or (d)govern-
organizations and the larger systems in
coherent, efficient, public
mental attempts to develop and manage more
has come to be defined as a
policies. The phrase interagency collaboration
organizations that facilitates the
planned relationship between two or more
goals that the individuals, or organiza
accomplishment of shared or negotiated
of
The complex, multidimensional nature
tions could not accomplish alone.
difficult to evaluate.
this concept makes it extremely
people
focus on outcomes allows and encourages
2. A RESULTS-ORIENTATION. A
the procedures
they are trying to achieve rather than
to think about the results
In a 1996 publication, the Minnesota
they must comply with (Schorr, 1995).
bureaucratic approach to a more
Department of Human Services contrasted a
results-oriented approach to service management:
Results-Oriented Approach
Bureaucratic Approach
Outcomes-oriented
1.
Services- oriented
1.
Desired client changes drive actions
2.
Rules & regulations drive action
2.
Collaborative decisionmaking
3.
Top-down decisionmaking
3.
Individualized programs/diverse models
4.
Standardized programs/uniform models
4.
Flexibility to attain outcomes
5.
Rigidity in implementation
5.
Management by attaining results
6.
Management by controlling inputs
6.
Accountability by monitoring outcomes
7.
Accountability by monitoring delivery
7.
and reporting actual accomplishments
processes and reporting on inputs,
compared to desired results
activities and numbers served
Incentives to take risks
8.
Risk taking discouraged
8.
Focus on management/leadership
9.
Focus on administration
9.
Perceived as serving clients
10.
Perceived as self-serving
10.
community-based collaboratives, then, focuses on
A results-oriented approach for
communities
children, youth, and families in
the "bottom-line" condition of all
of
with results being dependent on efforts
(not just a particular sub-population),
more than one agency or group.
of categori-
collaboratives continue to exist in an era
At the same time, Minnesota
considered (even funding for the collabora-
cal funding. As particular initiatives are
if we fund this
continue to ask: "What can we expect
tives, themselves), legislators
7
101
for initia-
initiative (e.g., expanded funding for before/after school care, funding
fund this
tives focused on the prevention of delinquency, etc.)? Why should we
there
initiative versus that initiative?" And, as pointed out by Carol Weiss (1995),
community-wide results-oriented data:
are several short-comings of relying only on
Data that are community-wide rates reflect the condition of the entire
population of the community, not just those who are affected by the
initiative's work. These indicators are difficult to move, and lack of
change does not necessarily mean that nothing good is happening.
the
Any changes that show up in the data are not necessarily due to
intervention.
initiative. Many things go on in communities other than the
blame) for
It will be difficult to justify giving initiatives the credit (or
changes (or no changes) on outcome indicators.
This lack
We know little about how soon change can be expected to occur.
of knowledge makes interpretation of indicators chancy.
belief that it
One of the key features of community-based initiatives is their
is vital to include individuals and neighborhoods in the evaluation process
collected by state
in order to help the community as a whole. But few data
neighborhood level.
agencies may be disaggregated and examined at the
of broader system
3. A STRENGTHS- OR ASSETS-BASED APPROACH. As part
national organi-
reform efforts to improve outcomes for children and families,
Youth
zations such as the Family Resource Coalition, the Center for
working to
Development and Policy Research, and the Search Institute are
communities, and
infuse promotional outcomes and indicators into how states,
Promotional indicators, as contrasted with
programs measure their progress.
of measures of the well-being of
. an array
deficit indicators, are defined as ".
.
growth, func-
children, youth, families, and communities that focus on positive
results" (Minnesota
tioning, and development that contribute to long term
assets-based approach
STATES Initiative, 1998). Proponents of a strengths or
There must
believe that "problem-free does not mean fully prepared."
families understand
be an equal commitment to helping children, youth, and
skills to
life's challenges and responsibilities and to developing the necessary
succeed (Pittman & Fleming, 1991).
children, youth, and
Given that statewide systems of data collection regarding
indicators, communi-
families have historically focused heavily on deficit-based
approach to being
ties are challenged to bring a strengths- or assets-based
existing
accountable for results. Most communities remain dependent upon
launch new
statewide systems for their data and just do not have the capacity to
deficit to promotional
efforts that better reflect this philosophical shift from
thinking.
Ell
8
Approach to Evaluation
Community -Based
The original Minnesota legislation for the Family Service and
Collaboratives stated that within two years of receiving an implementation grant,
describing
each collaborative would submit a report to the Children's Cabinet
the extent to which the collaborative had achieved locally identified outcomes.
with the
Since January 1995 the University of Minnesota has been working
implement an eval-
Department of Children, Families, & Learning to design and
in 1997, the work
uation system for Minnesota's collaborative initiatives. Starting
has centered on:
A continuing commitment to a "locally-driven" change process that is out
for
come-focused. At the same time, we are learning that it is not feasible
collaboratives to launch comprehensive data collection efforts related to
in their
their performance and the status of children, youth and families
communities. The 62 Family Service Collaboratives have therefore
rely as
reached consensus on a set of core outcomes and indicators and
planning
much as possible on accessing available community-wide data for
include a
and evaluation. Individual collaboratives may, however, elect to
subset of these indicators in their two-year outcome report and/or report
that reflect their work.
on additional performance indicators
planning
Building the capacity of collaborative sites to engage in strategic
and
that includes a focus on examining the status of children, youth,
families in terms of the core outcomes and indicators.
service
Building statewide consensus on the components of an integrated
self-study tool for use by
system and presenting these components in a
collaborative sites. Components of an integrated service system include:
Decisionmaking, Planning, Integrated Funding, Information Management
and
and Communication, Staff Training and Support, Public Awareness
Advocacy, and Delivery of Integrated Services. Quality attributes of an
integrated system include services that are: Comprehensive, Family-
and
Focused, Individualized, Culturally Relevant, Community-Based,
Accessible. This self-study tool will be incorporated into periodic strategic
planning efforts of a site.
(organized
Initiating a process for members of each collaborative focus team
and evaluation)
by key policy issue: service delivery, finance, governance,
then be documented and "passed up
to raise barriers and issues that are
Policy Group.
the line" for discussion and action by the Interagency
Current evaluation efforts related to the Family Service Collaboratives are built
around a decision-making model that has five major steps:
1. Examine the status of the community on a set of core outcomes for
children, youth, and families;
2. Identify "red flags" related to the condition of children, youth, and
families;
3. Work collaboratively to address identified "red flags by identifying best
practices, planning cooperative efforts, allocating new funding or
resources, and reallocating existing funds or resources;
4. Develop and implement collaborative work plans that may be system-wide
or initiative-specific;
5. Formatively evaluate any plans implemented (may involve a number of
cycles of reformulation and evaluation).
Thus, the collaboratives are being asked to both focus on community-wide reporting
particular
on core outcomes and performance indicators and the evaluation of
collaborative initiatives.
Since Family Services Collaboratives have been established gradually, 11 collabo-
ratives prepared two-year outcome reports in 1996, 12 reported in 1997, and 24
in subse-
are reporting in 1998. The remaining collaboratives are expected to report
quent years based on when they received their first implementation grant.
Performance Trends
Family Service Collaborative outcomes and performance indicators reported in
1998 group into the following categories: child and family health, family func-
tioning, school performance, youth development, and organizational and sys-
temic change.3 Collaboratives reporting has focused on:
A mix of outcomes and performance indicators related to the "bottom-
line condition" of all children, youth, or families in their jurisdiction and
evaluation data related to particular collaborative initiatives (serving a sub-
group of the general population);
3 Performance indicators related to increasing participation rates in programs and services related to
four categories of outcomes (child and family health, family functioning, school performance, and youth
development) have been grouped under organizational and systems change. please note that perfor-
and services to promote child
mance indicators focusing on increasing participation rates in programs
development (a fifth categcitol outcomes) are also included in organizational and systems change.
©
10.