City of Seattle Human Services Department Date: August 30, 2013 To: Councilmember Nick Licata, Chair Seattle City Council Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee Sally Bagshaw, Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, Councilmember From: Catherine L. Lester, Interim Director Seattle Human Services Department Re: Statement of Legislative Intent 88‐1‐A‐1 Report on HSD Strategic Plan and Review of Outcome‐Based Contracts This memorandum transmits the Seattle Human Services Department’s second response to the City Council’s Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) 88‐1‐A‐1 included in the 2013 Adopted and 2014 Endorsed Budget, requesting the Human Services Department (HSD) to provide a report updating Council on implementation of the department’s strategic plan and to conduct a review of outcome‐based contracts. Specifically, the department was requested to provide: 1. Two written summaries on progress towards implementing the HSD strategic plan to the Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture (HHSHC) Committee; the first summary was submitted March 29, 2013, and this second is due no later than August 31, 2013. 2. One written report summarizing a comprehensive review of the department’s use of outcome‐ based contracting with clearly articulated goals for using this tool and analysis of other models from around the country, also due no later than August 31, 2013. The first attachment (Report on HSD Strategic Plan) is the second summary describing the progress towards implementing the department’s strategic plan. Specifically, this summary provides a status report on the following: Progress related to developing the new “outcomes framework” and “logic models” for each division; Status of new investment plans for each division; Public outreach and stakeholder input associated with the outcomes framework and investment plans with a focus on how HSD has engaged the community including agencies and service providers, prior to release of the final investment plans;
From: CatherineL.Lester,InterimDirector SeattleHumanServicesDepartmentRe: StatementofLegislativeIntent88‐1‐A‐1ReportonHSDStrategicPlanandReviewofOutcome‐BasedContractsThismemorandum transmits the Seattle Human Services Department’s second response to theCity Council’s Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI) 88‐1‐A‐1 included in the 2013Adopted and2014 Endorsed Budget, requesting the Human Services Department (HSD) to provide a reportupdatingCouncilonimplementationofthedepartment’sstrategicplanandtoconductareviewofoutcome‐basedcontracts.Specifically,thedepartmentwasrequestedtoprovide:1. Two written summaries on progress towards implementing the HSD strategic plan to the
Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture (HHSHC) Committee; the first summary wassubmittedMarch29,2013,andthissecondisduenolaterthanAugust31,2013.
The first attachment (Report on HSD Strategic Plan) is the second summary describing theprogress towards implementing the department’s strategic plan. Specifically, this summaryprovidesastatusreportonthefollowing: Progress related to developing the new “outcomes framework” and “logicmodels” for each
division; Statusofnewinvestmentplansforeachdivision; Public outreach and stakeholder input associated with the outcomes framework and
The second attachment (Review of Outcomes‐Based Contracts) is a comprehensive reportsummarizing findings from a review of the department’s use of outcome‐based contracts, anddetailing work and accomplishments to improve the department’s contract development andmonitoringpractices.ThisSLIresponse isalsoscheduledforaformalpublicbriefingtotheHousing,HumanServices,Health,andCulture(HHSHC)CommitteeatitsSeptember11,2013meeting.I appreciate your commitment to and support of our goal to create a seamless service deliverysystem that is standardized, equitable, effective, and data‐driven. I am happy to answer anyquestionsyoumayhaveabouttheattacheddocuments.Cc: BethGoldberg,CityBudgetOffice JeanetteBlankenship,CityBudgetOffice LisaMueller,CityBudgetOffice BenNoble,CouncilCentralStaff MikeFong,CouncilCentralStaff SusanaSerna,CouncilCentralStaff JalineQuinto,Mayor’sOffice
SeattleHumanServicesDepartmentStatementofLegislativeIntent88‐1‐A‐1ReportonHSDStrategicPlanTheSeattleCityCouncilapprovedStatementofLegislativeIntent(SLI)88‐1‐A‐1:ReportonHSDStrategic Plan and Review of Outcome‐Based Contracts as part of the 2013 Adopted and 2014Endorsed Budget. City Council members expressed an interest in reviewing the department’sprogressondevelopingandimplementinganewStrategicPlanattwointervals,thefirstbyMarch30,2013andthesecondbyAugust31,2013.InresponsetothetwoprioritiesrequestedbyCityCouncilinSLI88‐1‐A‐1,thisreportwillprovidethesecondupdate.NextStepsandImplementationHSDhasmadesubstantialprogresssince2010towardrealizationofourStrategicPlan’sFourPrimaryGoalsto:1)CreateaProactive,SeamlessServiceSystem;2)StrengthenandExpandPartnerships;3)EngageandPartnerwiththeCommunity;and4)UseData‐DrivenDesignandEvaluation.The following next steps, combinedwith the next steps outlined in the review of HSD’s Use ofOutcome‐Based Contracts & Recommendations for Future Alignment, have been identified tomoveHSDtofullimplementationoftheStrategicPlangoals:1. Refineindicatorsandperformancemeasures,inaccordancewiththerevisedlogicmodeland
outcomesframework,toinformDivisioninvestmentplans;2. DraftandevaluateDivisioninvestmentplansforimplementation;3. Partnerwithproviderstodevelopstrategiesthatmovetowardrealizationofstatedresults;4. Finalize the department’s Community Engagement practice and appraise with internal and
externalstakeholdersinpreparationfor2014procurementprocesses;5. Ensure the department data collection processes are reviewed through community
engagementprocesses;6. Ensure the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) principles are strategically embedded in
departmentalengagement,programming,procurement,anddatacollectionprocesses;and7. Continue to identify andprovide staff training tobuild internal capacity andensureall staff
Engagement of external stakeholders through quarterly meetings has informed the followingadditionalstepstohelpuspartnerbetterwithourproviders: Alignwithotherfunderstostreamlinedatacollectionpracticesandrequirementsinorderto
expectationsforsynthesizingandprovidingarealtimedatasummary;and Review the HSD Client Profile Report to ensure consistent implementation across HSD and
OutcomesFramework&LogicModelsInJuly2010,theMayorandCityCouncilchargedtheHumanServicesDepartment(HSD)withthefollowinggoals:(1)createaseamlessservicedeliverysystem;(2)reorganize,redesigncontractinginfrastructureandprocesses;and(3)developadata‐drivenenvironmentthatguidesinvestments.HSD convened an internal data team in 2012 to begin its work in developing an outcomesframework with the focus on articulating the desired results from its investments withcommunity‐basedorganizations.Theoutcomesframeworkinvolvedthecreationoflogicmodelsfor each service division, using theW. K. Kellogg Foundation1 as a developmental guide. Thedepartment has also utilized resources on results‐based accountability from theAnnieE. CaseyFoundation2tosupportthedepartment’songoingoutcomeswork.Inadditiontotheinternaldatateam,HSDhasalsoconvenedanOutcomesAdvisoryGroupwhichincludes representation from members of local community‐based organizations, funders andotherCitydepartments(membersinAttachmentA).Feedbackfromthisstakeholdergrouphasbeen used to reconfigure the logicmodels using results‐based accountability and an integratedplanningmodel.TherevisedOutcomesFrameworkrespondstostakeholders’concernsregardingfeasibility and clarity. The revised framework also incorporates stakeholder feedback includingchanges to make succinct statements of our community’s values and goals for each of thedepartment’s three current divisions: Youth & Family Empowerment, Community Support &Assistance,andAging&DisabilityServices.Thedraftversion(AttachmentB)wasrecentlyvettedwiththeadvisorygroupat its June2013meeting and was met with positive feedback. HSD also engaged stakeholders in a data walkduringtheJunemeeting.Thedatawalkinvolveddevelopmentofpopulationleveldata,includingbothtrendlineanddisparitydata.Stakeholderswereaskedtoreflectontheirobservationsofthepopulationleveldataincludingthoughtsabouthowtheirworkcontributestomakingadifferenceinthedata.Asimilarexercisewasheldwiththedepartment’sseniorleadershipteaminAugust.AcopyoftheseslidesisincludedhereasAttachmentC.ThenextstepsinfinalizingaroadmapfortheOutcomesFrameworkincludedevelopmentoftheindicatorsandbaselinedatafortheindicators.Theindicatorswillreflecthowthedepartmentwillquantifyachievementofthedesiredresults.ThedraftindicatorsandbaselinedataareexpectedtobereviewedwiththeAdvisoryGroupinDecember.Thisworkwillcontinuethrough2013andwillbeusedtodevelopinvestmentplansforeachdivisionbytheendofthisyear.DivisionInvestmentPlansHSD’sdivisioninvestmentplanswillarticulatethealignmentofthedepartment’sresourceswiththe logicmodel outcomes. These investment planswill be developed using an equity lens, andembedthevaluesofthecity‘sRaceandSocialJusticeInitiative(RSJI)inthedepartment’splanning
and funding practice. More specifically, the investment plans will set the context for futurefundingprocessesissuedbythedepartment,andwillincludethefollowingelements:1. Department/Division Overview: Description of the department and specific divisions,
3. DesiredResults&Indicators:Descriptionofthedesiredresultsinthedivision,aswellasthemost important indicators identified for each of the results. The results will intentionallyspeak to a change in condition,whereas the indicatorswill describe how the resultwill bequantified.
5. ResourceAlignment:Descriptionofhowthedepartmentwillalignresourcestothedesiredresults,using fundingprocessesas the tool for thisalignmentwork. A fundingprocessmayinclude a Request for Investment, Request for Qualification, or Letter of Intent, and is theinvitationtoproviderstoteamwiththedepartmentonachievingthedesiredresults.Fundingprocesseswillaskproviderstodescribethestrategiesorinterventionstheywillusetoachievethedesiredresultsand indicators, aswell as theperformancemeasures to trackhowwellaprogram or service is performing. Performance measures will include quantitymeasures(how much did the provider do), qualitymeasures (how well did the provider do), andimpactmeasures(isanyonebetteroff).
Thedepartmentwillreleasedraftinvestmentplansforpubliccommentduringthefirstquarterof2014.ThetimingofthepubliccommentperiodwillallowHSDtofinalizetheinvestmentplansintime to informsubsequent fundingprocesses released in2014 for contractsbeginning in2015.The investment plans will be the framework for how the department will make investmentdecisionsoveramultiyearperiodbeginningin2015.CommunityEngagement&StakeholderInputHSDhasdonemucharoundCommunityEngagementsince2012,bothinternallyandexternally.Inaddition to the Outcomes Advisory Group, quarterly, divisional providermeetings continue, asdoes the intradepartmental Coordinated Community Engagement Work Group. These forumswereestablished toprovide anopportunity to solicit input fromexternal stakeholders that hasbeenusedtoinformthedevelopmentoftheOutcomesFramework.HSDhasalsodevelopedstructurestosolicitinputfromstaff.Severalcoreteamswereestablished
atthebeginningoftheyear,representingacrosssectionofstafffromacrossthedepartment.ThePlanningCoreTeamistaskedwithhelpingthedepartmentmovetoanintegratedplanningmodel.The Monitoring Core Team is tasked with helping the department implement a standardizedmonitoringpractice.InadditiontothePlanningCoreTeamandtheMonitoringCoreTeam,HSDhasalsoestablishedaCommunity Engagement Core Team. The Community Engagement Core Team is tasked withdeveloping a practice standard for community engagement across the department. Someof theaccomplishmentsoftheteamincludethefollowing: Two University of Washington graduate externs collected and analyzed HSD community
engagement data, and interviewed HSD staff. The reported findings revealed that the datacollected fromprior engagement processeswas difficult tomeasure and contextualize. Thisfindingwillresultindevelopmentofadepartment‐widepracticeforcommunityengagementdatacollectionandreportingtoincreasefutureutility.Inthecomingmonths,theteamwillbedecidingonthedataelementsthatneedtobecollectedinordertoeffectivelyanalyzetheresultsofeachengagementprocessandresearchaplatformonwhichtostorethisinformationtoaidincollaborationandtransparencyonthedata.
HSDresearchedandreviewedanumberofcommunityengagementmodelsofinclusivityanddevelopedaHSDContinuumofCommunityEngagementmatrix(AttachmentD).Thismatrixis a hybrid of twomatrices published by the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, Race and SocialJustice Initiative and King County. This matrix was presented at the June 2013 OutcomesAdvisoryGroupmeetingandwasmetwithappreciationforitscomprehensive,yeteasy‐to‐use,format.
HSDstaffweresurveyed togauge their readiness,andwillingness, toparticipate inmultiplestagesofcommunityengagementandtocapturetheiropinionsabouthowwellHSDengagesthegeneralpublic,racialorethnicgroups,othergroups(e.g.,LGBTQ,peoplewithdisabilities,age specific), community‐based organizations, private sector, decision makers, other Citydepartments and anyone else directly affected by the outcome – whether positively ornegatively – based on the Continuum of Informing, Consulting, Collaborating and SharedDecision‐Making.Resultsarebeinganalyzedbutearlyresponses indicateastrongdesire forimprovedcollaboration,coordination,anddata‐sharing.
HSD researched and tentatively adopted a working definition of Community/PublicEngagement:Theterms“CommunityEngagement”and“PublicEngagement”areinterchangeableanddefinedasactivitiesthat intentionallyenablecommunitymemberstoeffectivelyengage indeliberation,dialogueandactiononpublicissuesandinthedesignanddeliveryofpublicservices.Thepublicengagement process is a continuum of engagement strategies and actions depending on thegoals, time constraints, program, capacity and resources. TheHSD/City’s process includes thefollowingengagementlevels:inform,consult,collaborate,andsharedecision‐making.
HSD coordinatedwith the City’s Inclusive Outreach and Public Engagement (IOPE) training
teamtodevelopandhosttrainingfor19HSDstaff. ThetrainingtookplaceinJune/JulyandallowedplannersresponsibleforupcomingRFIprocessestolearnaboutinclusivestakeholderanalysis and to practice using tools developed to ensure equity and inclusion. Four HSDemployeeshaveregisteredfortheIOPEtrain‐the‐trainersessions.
The final overarching product from this work group will be a department‐wide practice forcommunity engagement that includes much of the IOPE philosophy; an RSJI focus; protocolsaroundidentifyingwho,when,andhowtoengage;transparencythroughouttheprocess;buildingrelationships and leveraging partnerships; continuous dialogue/information loop; and ensuringdatacollectiontoinformthenextprocess.StaffPerformanceManagementHSDimplementedtherevisedAnnualWorkPlans(AWPs)department‐wideprocessonJanuary2,2013, as part of revising its performance management system (Attachment E). Prior toimplementation,supervisors,managersandexecutivesintheAPEX‐SAMclassificationreceivedasignificant amount of training and participated in a threemonth pilot using the new form andprocess. As of July 31, 2013, 83% of all AWPs have been completed and the department hasconcluded the second quarter using the new quarterly check in process, which providessupervisors and their direct reports an opportunity to review and discuss core competencies,performanceandindividualdevelopmentgoals.
The next phase of the performance management system is to finalize the annual performanceevaluation toolandupdate thedepartment’sperformancemanagementpolicy. Thenewannualperformance evaluation tool,whichwillmirror the newAWP tool, is currently being vetted byHSDstaffandLocal17UnionrepresentativesandwillbediscussedatthenextLaborManagementCommittee(LMC)meetingscheduledforSeptember10,2013.OncethevettingisconcludedHSDwillupdatethedepartment’sperformancemanagementpolicytoreflecttherevisedprocess.
Thelastphaseofrevisingtheperformancemanagementsystemistoprovidetraining,whichwillbedoneintwostages.Thefirstphasewillconsistoftrainingforalldepartmentemployeeswithsupervisory responsibility (supervisors,managers and executives) on how tomonitor,manage,anddocumentperformanceprogressinpreparationforprovidingeffectivefeedback.Thesecondphase will include information workshops for staff to become familiar with the new annualperformanceevaluationformandprocessforcompletion.ThegoalisforallannualperformanceevaluationstobesubmittedbyFebruary15,2014usingthenewtool.
Re‐engineeringandImprovingHSD’sFundingProcessesThe current procurement process and procedures are guided by the department’s FundingProcess Manual. The manual is intended to provide an overall structure for HSD fundingprocesses, and also includes steps required for planning, implementation, and due diligenceguidelines.
In February 2013, HSD’s Planning Core Team embarked on a thorough review of the FundingProcess Manual and identified a number of policy issues that call for resolution prior toimplementingthe2014procurementprocesses:1. Strengthenandstandardizeinternalandexternalcommunication2. Quality,expectation,androlesofreview–clarityofroles&responsibilities;appealsprocess
InlateJuly2013,thedepartmentengagedanintradepartmentalworkgroupoffourplanninganddevelopmentspecialistswhorecentlycompletedfundingprocesses(e.g.,RequestforInvestment),to assist in addressing each policy issue and present recommendations to HSD leadershipensuring policies that are transparent, justifiable, and realistic. This workgroup is in the earlystagesofthisworkandisexpectedtoproviderecommendationstoleadershipinlateFall2013.
Uponcompletionofthiswork,theFundingProcessManualwillundergoare‐writetoaddressanyother issues or concerns uncovered during the policy development. Already, HSD staff hasstreamlined two forms used in the RFI planning process into one to help avoid duplication ofwork, reduce deadlines, and allow planning teams to focus on continuous improvement of onesingle planning document (throughmultiple drafts) explaining the history, need, and programgoalsforeachnewfundingprocess.DataInfrastructureNeedsIn July 2010, the Mayor and City Council charged HSD with a goal to develop a data‐drivenenvironment that guides investments. Since that time the department has been focused ondeveloping the data infrastructure and capacity needed to support the implementation of itsstrategicplanandoutcomesframework.Thefollowingareareaswherethedepartmenthastakensteps to address data infrastructure needs: 1) review of the HSD data infrastructure; 2) datacollection for the Mayor’s performance expectations; 3) development of client profile datawarehouse;4)technicalassistancetostrengthenSafeHarborsHMISsystem;and5)increasedstaffcapacity.Additionaldetailoneachofthesestepsisnotedbelow.HSDDataInfrastructureReviewHSD currently has nine databases used to collect and/or archive client profile data across thethree divisions (see Table 1 below). Historically, these databases have not communicatedwitheachother,andhavehadseparatepractices forensuringdata integrityaswellasdataanalysis.Table 1 includes the different databases in operation within the department, along with thedivisionwherethedatabaselives,andabriefdescriptionofhowtheeachdatabaseisused.
Leveragingclientdataiscriticaltothedevelopmentofaseamlessservicedeliverysystemandtoensuring equity in HSD funding processes. These nine HSD databases provide the internalinfrastructureforarchivingclientdatacollectedacrossthedepartmentandgeneratingadhocandclientprofilereports.Table1–ListofHumanServicesDepartmentDatabasesDatabase Division DescriptionCaseManagedCareSystem–CMC
DataCollectionforMayor’sPerformanceExpectationsIndicators for measuring performance as outlined in the HSD strategic plan are now collectedfromstaffacrossthedepartmentandenteredintoacentralizedSharePointsite.Fromhere,thesedata are submitted quarterly to the Mayor’s Office for a review of Department PerformanceExpectations. Thus, a data infrastructure is now in place with a repository for tracking keymeasurement points for the department. With the completion of the Outcomes Framework,including new indicators that tie to the desired results, the department will use the Mayor’sPerformanceExpectationsprocesstotrackindicatorsandmovetomore“realtime”accountingofdataelements.DevelopmentofClientProfileDataWarehouseOveradecadeago,theHSDAgingandDisabilityServicesDivisiondevelopedadatawarehousetorecord client‐level service and demographic information. As of May 2013, HSD InformationTechnologystaffcreatedaninstanceofthedatawarehousefortheentiredepartmenttouse.TheHSDdatawarehouseallowsforastreamlinedproductionofadepartmentalclientprofilereport.SafeHarborsHomelessManagementInformationSystem–ImprovementsThe Safe Harbors Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is a countywide datamanagement tool designed to facilitate data collection, and policymaking for the Seattle/KingCountyContinuumofCare inorderto improvehumanservicedeliverythroughoutKingCounty.TheSafeHarborsHMISisadministeredbytheHumanServicesDepartment(HSD)inpartnershipwithKingCounty and theUnitedWayofKingCounty and is theofficial homelessmanagementinformationsystem(HMIS)fortheSeattle/KingCountyContinuumofCare.Continuumprovidersuse Safe Harbors to collect client‐level data from persons who are homeless in order tounderstandtheextentandnatureofhomelessnessandtheeffectivenessofthehomelessservicedeliverysysteminKingCounty.HSD staff dedicated to SafeHarbors facilitate the analysis of information that is gathered fromconsumersthroughouttheserviceprovisionprocesstogenerateanunduplicatedcountandotheraggregate(voidofanyidentifyingclientlevelinformation)informationthatcanbemadeavailableto funders, policy makers, service providers, advocates, and consumer representatives. HSDrequested technical assistance from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development(HUD)to identifywaystoenhancethecapacityof thissystem. BasedontheHUDtechnical assistance report, the SafeHarbors Technical ProgramManager and the SafeHarborsExecutiveCommitteedevelopedaworkplan.ThistechnicalassistanceprovidedbyHUDwillhelpstrengthenourlocaldatainfrastructureandcapacityfordrivingtoresults.IncreasedStaffCapacityThedepartmenthastakenactiontoexplorewaytoaddressstaffcapacityforworkinginadata‐drivenenvironmentissuesthroughcrosstraining,revisedstafffunctions,andaccessinglocalandnationalresources.Belowaresomeexamplesofchangestostaffcapacity: SafeHarbors–AsaresultoftheSafeHarborstechnicalassistanceandreportdescribedabove,
Community Support and Assistance (CSA) – Staffing in the new Community Support and
Assistance(CSA)Division(combiningtwopreviouslyseparatedivisions)hasincreasedbytwoFTEs. CSA now has a new Grants and Contracts Specialist and a new Planning andDevelopment Specialistwho can support the execution andmonitoring of the strategic planandoutcomesbased‐contracting.
andexecutionofthestrategicplanandoutcomesframework.ThepurposeoftheCoreTeamsis to lead the department’s activities to create a seamless service delivery system that isstandardized,equitable,effective,anddata‐driven.EachoftheCoreTeamsmeetsmonthly.Inaddition, to facilitate integrated planning, leaders of the threeCoreTeamsmeetmonthly toplan theongoingdevelopmentandexecutionof thestrategicplanandoutcomes framework.For the remainder of 2013, the Core Teams are working together to launch the outcomesframework,andleverageinternalandexternalstakeholderstodeveloparevisedRFIManualto guide the HSD funding processes for 2014, and a ContractMonitoringManual to ensureequitable,streamlined,monitoringpractices.
Data Integrity Director – The department filled the Data Integrity Director position in
LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT INFORM CONSULT COLLABORATE SHARED DECISION MAKING
Goal for HSD Educate the public about the rationale for the project or decision; how it fits with HSD goals and policies; issues being considered, areas of choice or where public input is needed
Gather information and ask for advice from the public to better inform HSDs work on a program or project
Create a partnership with the public (i.e. key stakeholder group) to work along with HSD in identifying needs, generating solutions, shaping priorities and developing plans and recommendations
Community and HSD share in decision-making to co-create solutions together
Public Message HSD will inform the community about a specific topic
HSD will inform the community, listen to and acknowledge concerns and provide feedback on how public input influenced decision(s)
HSD will work with the public to ensure that their concerns and issues are directly reflected in the alternative developed and show how public input influenced decisions
HSD will advance collective solutions to complex issues
Participation Opportunities
To share information of actions by HSD that are of importance to the participant
To provide feedback and/or information about an action, community or cultural need, policy or service supported or in need of change
To participate with HSD in understanding an issue, analyzing data, generating solutions or changes, sharing recommendations, generating public reactions and revising as needed, actions, policies, investments or services
As a delegated body, participate in understanding an issue, analyzing data generating solutions or changes, sharing recommendations, generating public reactions and revising as needed, actions, policies, investments or services for ratification by HSD
Potential Strategies
Fact Sheets Brochures Websites/social media Open houses Public exhibits/displays
Newsletters Newspaper articles Outreach to vulnerable
populations
Focus group Survey, interview,
questionnaire Public meeting Workshop and/or
working session Deliberative polling Internet (interactive)
Citizen Advisory Group Visioning Consensus building Participatory decision-making Implementation committee
Citizen juries Ballots Delegated decisions to
specific representative citizen bodies or to voters
HSD Performance Management Process Performance Management is an integrated set of processes that support staff utilization and development, through a defined feedback process, that aligns individual performance goals with overall department mission, vision and performance.
Successful Staff Performance Management includes:
Clear performance expectations and measures
Short and long term development goals‐realistic and stretch
Linkage to the department’s performance goals
Regular and timely performance feedback‐ individual, team, division and
department progress
Timely performance improvement action, when needed
Timely performance goals and assessments
Ongoing review, assessment and aligning of individual work priorities
Hiring
(Recruitment and on‐boarding planning)
On‐boarding
(Orientation to the City, Department, Division and Team)
Training
(City, Department, Division, Staff and Leadership Development)
Annual Work Plan – Phase One
Performance Expectation Planning, Setting and Staff and Leadership
Development)
Annual Work Plan – Phase Two
Performance Motivating, Training, Coaching and Monitoring
SeattleHumanServicesDepartmentStatementofLegislativeIntent(SLI)88‐1‐A‐1ReviewofHSD’sUseofOutcome‐BasedContracts&RecommendationsforFutureAlignmentThisdocument isa response toCityCouncil’s request fora “writtenreportonacomprehensivereview of the department’s use of outcome‐based contractingwith clearly articulated goals forusingthistoolandanalysisofothermodelsfromaroundthecountry.”Included isasummaryof theworkandaccomplishmentsHSDhasemployedtore‐engineerandimprovethedepartment’scontractdevelopmentandmonitoringpractices,recommendationsforfurther improvement, as well as a comparison and analysis of related literature and relevantnational models. This summary presents a recent history and near‐term road map for HSD’songoing strategic planning and reframing of investment strategies in support of the OutcomesFramework.RecommendationsI. Retainflexibilityfordifferentcontractstructuresandclearlydefine‘Outcome‐based’
Utilize the Outcomes Framework to drive funding processes. Determine theindicators, strategies, performance measures, and contract type that will achieveandtracktheintendedresults.
Clarify applicability of various contract types. Employ Unit Cost and CostReimbursement contracts where appropriate. Employ outcome‐based contractsonlywhenatruechangeinconditionwillbemeasured.
II. Strengthen contract reports to improve fiscal accountability and performancemonitoringbeginningin2014
RequireMid‐YearandYear‐EndReportsdetailingactualcontractexpenditureswithbackupdocumentationforallnon‐costreimbursementcontracts(thisisinadditiontomonthly service level reportsHSD currently receives). Thiswill increase fiscalaccountabilityandallowforprogramadjustmentsorcontractamendmentswhenanagencyisnotmeetingperformanceobjectives.
III. Allowflexibilityin‘BasePayment’andplacemoreemphasisonachievement Currentcontractpracticescallforabasepaymentof75‐80%formostdepartmental
Consider reducing the percentage of contract funds included in the ‘base’ and tiemaximum base payment reimbursement to achievement of service goals such ascaseloadnumbersorunitsofservice.
(suchasRSJI),thatdirecthowfundscanbespentorprogramservicesdelivered. ConsidermastercontractsforagencieswithmultipleCityfundingsources. ReduceoverallnumberofHSDcontracts. Consider entering into 18‐month to two‐year (or longer) contracts with annual
Create a more coordinated, multi‐level system of agency monitoring that clearlydefinesexpectationsofHSDProgramSpecialists,HSDDivisionDirectorsandotherManagers, the Fiscal Audit Specialist, HSD Finance Staff, and the ContractsManagementUnit.
Support and encourage HSD staff to provide problem solving, feedback andtechnicalassistancetoagenciesthroughoutthecontractcycle.
Develop a comprehensive Agency Monitoring File, to be stored centrally andavailable to HSD staff online, that includes all the monitoring assessments andreportsfromtheProgramSpecialist,theFinanceStaff,andtheFiscalAuditor.
Strengthen communication and coordinate monitoring efforts for agencies withcontractsacrossthedepartment.
Develop a checklist, toolkit, and training for HSD staff and agencies on propersupportingdocumentationtoaccompanyinvoices.
Ensure that potential agency fiscal issues arebrought to the attention of theHSDFiscalAuditSpecialistforaprioritizedagencyreview.
NextStepsHSDhasundergonesignificantchangeasadepartment,anditscontractandmonitoringpracticeshavebothbenefitedandstruggledasaresultofthesechanges.Thedepartmentispoisedtobegina newandproductive era of outcomes‐based contracting beginningwith the fundingprocessesplannedfor2015contracts,andfullimplementationoftheOutcomesFrameworkwillallowforafocusedandstrategicdrivetoresultsthatisbothtimelyandcriticaltosuccessineliminatingourcommunity’sdisparities.The following, and other next steps as outlined in the August 2013 SLI 88‐1‐A‐1 response onStrategic Planning, are key to the process of re‐engineering the department’s funding andcontractingsystems:
FinalizetheOutcomesFramework. Continue HSD staff and leadership engagement around new approach to funding,
contractingandmonitoringpractices. Proactively communicate with the Executive and City Council to communicate HSD’s
withnewapproach. Continuecommunityengagementandtrainingtoalignwithnewapproach. Implement staff development and skill building opportunities that align the current
workforcewithinHSD’sOutcomesFrameworkandcontractingmodel. Improve utilization of current technology infrastructure to meet new contracting,
monitoringanddata/outcomestandards.HSD’sCurrentContractingPracticeThe research and community engagement activities conducted around HSD contracting havebrought forth a number of industry best practices. Current contracting activities partially alignwith thesebestpractices.The strategiesand recommendations included in the followingpages,supportedbyimplementationofthedepartment’sOutcomesFramework,willbringHSDintofullalignmentwiththeindustrybestpracticeslistedbelow:
1. Useawell‐designedcompetitiveprocurementprocesstofacilitateinvestments2. Partnerwith community organizations to develop realistic andmeaningful performance
measures3. Linkcontractpaymentstoachievementofspecific,measurableperformancemetrics4. Conduct regular contract monitoring activities including evaluation of performance and
qualityofservices5. Usedatatoevaluatetheeffectivenessofcontractingpracticesandinformdecisionmaking6. Create a framework that is flexible and responsive as community needs and priorities
evolveovertimeHSD’s contractingmethods represent amixof outcomes‐based, traditional cost reimbursement,andunitcostcontracting.Thedepartmentisfairlyprogressiveinitsgoalsoffundingforoutcomes,whilemaintaining its ability to continue to value transactional serviceswhen appropriate.HSDbeganperformance‐basedcontractingin1999‐2000byimplementing‘outcome‐based’contracts.This model requires HSD to partner with community organizations to develop outcomes forcontractedservicesandforagenciestoimplementnewwaysofmeasuringclientoutcomes.Thismodel provides a ‘base payment’ – typically 80% of the contract amount – to support ongoingprogramoperationsanda ‘performancecommitment’payment–20%of thecontractamount–foreachoutcomeachieved.TheHSDmodelputalargeemphasisoncontractedagenciesachievingoutcomes, but took a less prescriptive approach to how these outcomes would be achieved,matchingwiththephilosophyofoutcomecontracting.HSDlastreportedtoCouncilonitscurrentprocessandproposedfutureworkrelatingtocontractdevelopment and monitoring in response to SLI 63‐2‐A‐1 in 2011. Since that time, HSD hasundertakenanumberofeffortstorefineandreframeitscontractingprocess,andhasexpandedthat work to incorporate a focused and strategic framework referred to as the department’sOutcomes Framework. While the work is still very much ‘in process’, the department hasimplemented many important changes which have already resulted in higher levels ofaccountability,communityengagement,demonstrableoutcomes,andtransparency.Specificstructuralchangesimplementedsince2011:
HSDhasimplementedgreaterinternalcontrolsoverfundingandcontractingprocessesbyutilizing the staff of its Contracts Management Unit who coordinate and oversee theactivitiesofthedepartmentintheseareas.
HSD has redesigned its contract templates and required that all contracts from 2012forwardaredevelopedusingstandardlayout,language,andoutcome/outputtracking.
o For example, an ‘Outcomes Advisory’ group was convened and meets quarterly,comprised of members of the provider network who have provided in depthfeedbacktothevariousstagesofthedevelopmentoftheOutcomesFrameworkandcontract restructuring; and an internal ‘Community Engagement Core Team’comprised of staff has focused on stakeholder analysis prior to engagement ofinvestmentplanning.
HSD has heavily invested its staffing resources in ongoing analysis and development of
industry best practices and alternative approaches to contracting relevant to the City ofSeattle’shumanservicesneeds.
o Forexample,twointernalstaffworkinggroupshavebeenformed(MonitoringandPlanning),comprisedofkeystaffmembers fromeachdepartmental team, toworkon incorporating the strategic plan and outcomes framework into contractingpractices,programplanning,andmonitoring.
Diverse and complex funding streams.HSD contracts are supported by City GeneralFund,federal,state,localandotherpublicandprivatefunds.HSDreceivesnearly100grantor revenuesourcesannually, representingnearly$100million.These revenuesareoftensubcontracted with community‐based agencies and include federal funds (CommunityDevelopment Block Grant, McKinney‐Vento funds, Workforce Investment Act, OlderAmericans Act, Medicaid TXIX), state funds (Early Childhood Education AssistanceProgram, Senior Citizens Services Act), local grants (King County Veterans & HumanServices Levy) and other private funding (Gates Foundation). Each source has distinctprogramandfundingrequirementsthatareoftencomplex,andrequirestafftobeabletoappropriately translatetheseelements intocontracts.Thisresults inaneedforadiverseapproach to contracting that allows for flexibility in determining which contract typesupportsthedepartmentinmeetingprogrammaticandfundsourcedrivengoals.
Lackofclarityonuseofoutcomescontracts.Since‘outcome‐based’contractingwasfirstimplementedatHSD,variousstaff transitions,data‐tracking issues forproviders,andthemismatch‘onesizefitsallapproach’haveledtoproblemswiththeuseofHSD’soutcome‐basedcontractingmodel.Somecontractsrequiredemonstrablepopulationimpact(suchascompletion of training or job placements), while others measure provision of meals ornumberofclientsservedasthe‘outcome’(whichinactualityisanoutput).
Non‐standard reporting &monitoring structure.While progress has been made to
standardizethetechnicalaspectsofthedepartment’scontractwork, inconsistenciesexistin reporting requirements and how contracts are monitored. Agency monitoring isprimarilyconductedbytheHSDProgramSpecialist.Monitoringincludes“desk”monitoringorreviewofagencyinvoicesandothersupportingdocumentationandformalandinformalprogramsitevisitstoreviewoperationsandachievementofprogramoutcomes.ProgramSpecialistscanprovidefeedbackandtechnicalassistancetotheserviceprovidersinordertohelpensurethequalityandsuccessofservicesandprogramoperations;howeversomecontract caseloads do not allow for this level of work to be done consistently or in acoordinatedwayforagencieswithmultiplecontractsacrossthedepartment.
Currenteffortstostandardizetheseelementsareunderwayand,whenfullyimplemented,will help support HSD’s ongoing work to strengthen its contract model and increaseaccountabilityforagenciesandtoHSDfunders.
guide the department’s work. The use of data to drive to results has greatly improved,howeverHSDstaffneedincreasedtrainingontechnologiesthatcanstrengthentheuseofdata and how to fully utilize data to guide in investment processes and to evaluate thesuccessofcontractedservicesmeetingintendedresults.
AreasofStrength:
Prior efforts to streamline the contracting process to be internally efficient and moreresponsive to community needs produced good recommendations and backgroundmaterial.
HSD’s current leadership team is excited about incorporating theOutcomes Framework,andisactivelyworkingtosupportitsimplementation.
HSD staff is committed to serving the community andeager for changes that benefit the
HSD’s newly hired Data Integrity Manager, is actively participating in the contract andinvestment planning processwhich allowsHSD tomore directly link data to programs,investments,andoutcomes.
Best‐practiceGuidanceonPartneringtoAchieveOutcomes“Difficult problems require transformative solutions (Coffman & Beer, 2011, p. 1).” Solvingcomplex,population‐basedproblemsofhealth and socialdisparitiesnecessitates a shift inbothculture and subsequent contracting that moves from transactional to that of a ‘learningorganization’, or fostering a culture that can critically evaluate data, learn from mistakes andsuccesses, and then adapt investment practices accordingly. HSD is working towardsinstitutionalizingthissortofadaptivecapacity,andsignificantprogresshasbeenmadeintermsofpartneringwiththeimpactedprovidercommunity.Partofinstillingthe‘learning’cultureinvolvesclose partnering both internally and externally, to ensure that disparate perspectives areincorporatedintheconversationandsubsequentpractice(Coffman&Beer,2011).Thenotionof‘boundaryspanning’(Clary,Ebersten,&Harlor,March2000),emphasizestheneedto work closely with partners and stakeholders to effectively achieve outcomes as a system.Consistently bringing the conversation back to a discussion and emphasis on clients and theirexperiencesandoutcomeshashelpedHSDfacilitateaproductiveandongoingconversationwithitsproviders.TheirinputhasallowedHSDtoevaluatedataandtheOutcomesFrameworkwithanemphasis on ‘context’, and the broader impact of revised process and goal setting (Coffman &Beer, 2011). Providers have been able to contribute immensely to the department’s goals andpractice,andHSD leadershiphasmadeaconcertedeffort toensuretheircontinuedplaceat thetable. “Fostering collaborative relationships between providers and funders has been seen ascrucial for successful performance‐based contracting…allaying fears, overcoming resistance andincreasingbuy‐intochangingpractices”(Gordon,Ray,Wandersman,&Chien,p.1435).
AnalysisofNationalModels&ResearchSince the 1990s, federal government agencies, states, and local municipalities have shifted thefocus of their investments and contracting models to emphasize pay for performance, andspecifically on compensation for meeting predetermined outcomes. The literature reviewconducted reveals that this focus on ‘performance‐based contracting’ has resulted in variousapproaches, and shifts in approach over time.Many jurisdictions havemoved to performance‐basedpay,but insteadofkeepinga focusonoutcomes,havealsovalued ‘outputs’asmetrics formeasuringthatperformance.Bystandarddefinition,‘outputs’aremeasuresofnumbersorservicevolume, while “outcomes are measures of improvements in people’s lives” (Gordon, Ray,Wandersman,&Chien,2010,p.1430).TheStateofArizona,whichhasa robustandoften imitatedmodel,hasdevelopeda “dictionaryand taxonomy of human services that includes standardized service definitions as well asstandardizedoutput,orunitofservicedefinitions”(Martin,2000,p.17). Themodelusedinthisstateemploysa cost reimbursement contractwith ‘bonus’payments receivedwhencontractorsmeet goals outlined for specific service metrics such as individuals placed in jobs or caseloadrates.MostinternationaldevelopmentandinternationalaidorganizationssuchastheWorldBankandtheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentfavormoreofan‘output’ratherthan‘outcome’‐basedapproach(Martin,2000).
Other nationally recognizedmodels, such as those used in the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, andPennsylvania, utilize a milestone approach that includes payment for each milestone (output)reachedduringaclient’sjourneytowardthefinaloutcomeachievedintheservicedeliverymodel.Anexampleischildwelfarepermanencyplanningwheremilestonegoalsaretrackedonthewaytoachildbeingplacedforpermanentadoption.The US federal government adopted performance‐based contracting policies & procedures in1997outlinedintheFederalAcquisitionRegulation(FAR)requiringfederalcontractstocontainthefollowingfourelements:performancemeasures,performancestandards,aqualityassuranceplan, and positive & negative incentives used to motivate contractors to meet the contractobjectives. These contracts are designed as cost reimbursement contracts with a pay‐for‐performancecomponent.HSD’s contracts evolution sharesmany similarities with other jurisdictions strugglingwith thesamechallengeof translating the ‘opaque’natureof servingpeople inneed intoactual contractdeliverables and measurable outcomes. States and municipalities from Maine to Texas, andCalifornia toNewYorkhaveallexperiencedsimilarchaptersofgrowthandroadblocksas theydevelop their own version of outcome‐based contracting. In the earlier stages of developingoutcome‐basedcontracting forhumanserviceorganizations, the“risk forperformance failure islargelybornbygovernmentcontractingagencies.” (Martin,2000,p.6). HSD’scurrentmodelofoutcome‐based contracting is reflectiveof this, and agencies typically riskonly20‐25%of totalfunds through the performance aspect of their contract obligation. The move towards greaterperformance‐based accountability has continued to be a source of discomfort for both theprovidercommunityandstaff,asitrepresentsadramaticshiftingofriskfromfundertoprovider.TheCityofSeattleisnotuniqueintacklingthisbalanceoffinancialandoperationalaccountabilitywiththe‘aimsofpublicpolicy’(Zullo,2006).Creatingacontractingandinvestmentenvironmentwherehumanservicevaluesarenotunderminedbytransactional,market‐basedcontractinghasproventobeacomplexandtime‐consumingprocess forHSD.Thisparticularpointhasstymiedmany governmental entities,where it is typically easier to just renew contracts rather than toprocureforservicesinanenvironmentwherefewprovidersexisttobeginwith(Blasi,2002).Thelack of competition in the human services environment has contributed to an atmosphere of‘mutual dependence’ (Blasi, 2002), and HSD’s historical practice and culture mirrors thatphenomenon.Culturechangeisattheheartofthechallenge,asprovidershavehistoricallyarguedthecaseforan inability or inappropriateness of being held accountable for the actions of their clients, andhaveviewedperformance‐basedcontractingasbeingpunitiveby itsverynature.There issomevalidity to thisperspective, as ineach jurisdiction studied therehavebeen instancesof funderssettingunrealistic targets, or attempts tomotivateproviders through the fearof losing funding(Friedman, 2005). This method typically backfires, resulting only in creating an adversarialrelationship between funders and the provider communities. These valid concerns fromproviderssupportHSD’smove towardsa ‘data‐drivenenvironment’,where theuseofdataas itrelatestopopulationdisparitiesbecomestheprimarydriverforserviceandinvestmentpriorities.
Through themethodical use and sharing of data, both funder andprovider canmakedecisionswiththesameunderstandingoftheworkandgoals.Using data to understand whether or not our clients are better off is a critical component ofstrategicinvestments,andanecessarystepincontributingtotheculturechangeofperformancecontracting.Fearrelatingtoalackofcontroloverwhichdataisbeingappliedisanotheraspecttoconsider as HSD moves through implementation of the Outcomes Framework. It is simple tocountthenumbersofclientsserved;however,assessing justwhathappenstothoseclientsasaresult of the service provided, and then tie that information to a performance measure ischallengingboth in termsofmonitoringandpractice (Friedman,2005). Themovement fromatransactional contract model of ‘counting widgets’ into one where both funder and providerbecome ‘change agents’ is the task before HSD as it implements the goals of the OutcomesFramework.States likeMainehaveimplementedsystemsthatallowforqualitativenarrativestobeincludedinthecontractdevelopmentandmonitoringprocess(Clary,Ebersten,&Harlor,March2000),broadeningthescaleandscopeofprogramandimpactknowledgeandunderstanding,andprovidedmuchneededcontext for capacitybuildingandestablishmentof realisticperformancemeasures.MethodologyWherethisresponsespecificallyaddressesthecriteriacalledforinSLI88‐1‐A‐1,thedepartmenthasbeencontinuouslyengagedinstrategicplanningandinternalreviewprocessforanumberofyears. Staff‐led teamshaveundertaken the following steps since2011, in theirworkrelating tocontractingandsupportoftheOutcomesFramework:1) Conductedin‐depthanalysisofcurrentinvestmentpractices,includingvariationsin‘unitcost’
per service and by Division, differences in use and understanding of contract language (i.e.‘Outcome‐based’),andacomparisonofexistingHSDcontractmodelstoassessapplicabilityofvariouscontractstructures.
2) Surveyed industry best practices and researched alternative approaches to contracting viainterviewswithanumberof jurisdictions (local andnational) andconsultedwith staff fromtheCityCouncil,CityPurchasing,CityAttorney’sOffice,StateAuditor’sOffice,UnitedWayofKingCounty,andothers.
6) Conductedsystematicanalysisofcurrentstructureandresources,specificallyfocusingontheassessment and analysis of the workload and workflow of the department’s RFI planningprocess,andcontractdevelopmentandmonitoringprocesses.
2013 ‐ 2014 Seattle City Council Statement of Legislative Intent Approved
Tab Action Option Version
88 1 A 1
Budget Action Title: Requesting the Human Services Department (HSD) to update Council on
implementation of its strategic plan and to conduct a review of outcome‐based contracts.
Councilmembers: Burgess; Clark; Licata
Staff Analyst: Michael Fong
Budget Committee Vote:
Date Result SB BH TR RC TB NL JG SC MO
11/07/2012 Pass 8‐ 1‐Absent Y Y ‐ Y Y Y Y Y Y
Statement of Legislative Intent:
In 2013, the Human Services Department (HSD) plans to continue implementing elements of the department’s new strategic plan. HSD internal policy decisions are likely to impact the development of future Requests for Investments (RFIs), agency contracting, contract monitoring, service outcomes and delivery and have ongoing staffing and budget implications. Council is interested in monitoring HSD’s progress in 2013 through this Statement of Legislative Intent (SLI). In addition, Council requests HSD to conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of its approach to outcome based contracting. The department is requested to provide the following:
1. Two written summaries on progress toward implementing the HSD strategic plan to the Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture (HHSHC) Committee. The first summary is due no later than March 30, 2013. The second summary is due no later than August 31, 2013. The HHSHC committee may request formal public briefings for each of these reports.
2. One written report on a comprehensive review of the department’s use of outcome‐ based
contracting with clearly articulated goals for using this tool and analysis of other models from around the country. This report is due no later than August 31, 2013. The HHSHC committee may request a formal public briefing on this report.
Below is additional information related to what the Council is seeking from the written reports requested in this SLI. 1. HSD Strategic Plan Implementation The Council is particularly interested in HSD’s progress on the following related to implementation of its new strategic plan:
Progress related to developing new “outcome frameworks” and “logic models” for each
division.
2 of 2
Status of new investment plans for each division.
Public outreach and stakeholder input associated with outcomes frameworks and investment
plans. In particular, a specific plan should be outlined that clearly articulates HSD’s
engagement with agencies and service providers prior to the release of final products.
Changes relating to RFI’s and other procurement tools.
Changes relating to contracts, including progress toward increasing the amount of detail and
financial information required from service agencies.
Changes underway to improve contract monitoring.
Update on implementation of HSD job duties and expectations and staff performance
evaluation tools.
Summary of findings and progress to address staff capacity and data infrastructure needs for
the department.
2. Outcomes‐Based Contracts Review In addition, Council is interested in HSD’s approach to outcomes (performance) based contracting. The department primarily uses an 80% base pay/20% performance pay model to incentivize service agencies to meet certain outcome thresholds. In Central Staff’s review of a small subset of HSD’s outcomes based contracts, it appears that the 80% base pay portion is not consistently tied to outcomes, but rather to outputs. It is also unclear as to whether failure to meet performance outcomes leads to any consequence for service agencies, other than not receiving the 20% performance pay for that particular contract year. The department’s ability to track, monitor and report on the relative effectiveness of the use of performance based contracts also appears lacking and insufficient. There are many other models throughout the country for human services outcomes or performance based contracting (see “Approaches to Performance Based Contracting (PBC) For Social Services” by Lawrence L. Martin, MSW, MBA, PhD, University of Central Florida). HSD is requested to review its approach to outcomes‐based contracting, identify any opportunities for improvement, evaluate other potential models and share with Council its findings and recommendations. HSD should develop clear goal(s) for having outcome based contracts and whether to continue the department’s current approach, modify it or potentially implement new models for outcomes‐based contracting to meet the articulated goals. Responsible Council Committee(s): Housing, Human Services, Health, & Culture Date Due to Council: March 30, 2013 and August 31, 2013
