JAMES SANDMAN, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION DR. … · james sandman, legal services corporation ....
26
JAMES SANDMAN, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION DR. SANJEEV KHAGRAM, INNOVATIONS FOR SCALING IMPACT DAVID BONBRIGHT, KEYSTONE ACCOUNTABILITY
Transcript of JAMES SANDMAN, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION DR. … · james sandman, legal services corporation ....
J A M E S S A N D M A N , L E G A L S E R V I C E S C O R P O R A T I O N D R . S A N J E E V K H A G R A M , I N N O V A T I O N S F O R S C A L I N G I M P A C T
D A V I D B O N B R I G H T , K E Y S T O N E A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y
2
I. Project Goals
II. Project Overview
III. Preliminary Survey Findings
IV. Next Steps
3
The goals of the project are to: • Enhance LSC’s ability to assess the quality, efficiency, and
effectiveness of the programs that LSC funds; and • Provide grantees with better tools to assess their own
performance, manage their operations, and increase private financial support.
Funding provided by the Public Welfare Foundation (PWF)
4
Project Overview
5
Needs Challenges Practices
Advisory Group
In-depth Interviews
Large N Survey
Landscape Review
6
Discussion and feedback from NLADA
Draft report based on comprehensive analysis of survey Feedback from community Finalize report
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Needs timeline
7
Assemble toolkit Update LSC Reporting System
8
Preliminary Survey Findings
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1: Veryunsatisfied
2 3: Neithersatisfied norunsatisfied
4 5: Verysatisfied
1: Very unsatisfied
3: Neither satisfied norunsatisfied
5: Very satisfied
10
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yes No
YesNo
11
0% 50% 100%
Client outcomes +4 months
Client well-being
Monetary or non-monetarybenefits beyond client
Win/Loss ratios
Monetary value of client benefits
Direct non-monetary benefits
Client satisfaction
% collected (for utility,please see next slide)
% Do no collect but wouldbe useful
% Do not collect but wouldnot be useful
12
0 50 100
Client well-being
Win/Loss ratios
Client outcomes +4 months
Client satisfaction
Monetary or non-monetary benefits beyondclient
Direct non-monetary benefits
Monetary value of client benefits
5: Very useful4: Useful
13
0% 50% 100%
Client well-being
Monetary or non-monetarybenefits beyond client
Clients responses to services
Monetary value of client benefits
Direct non-monetary benefits
Client satisfaction
% Collected (forutility, please seenext slide)
% Do not collect butwould be useful
% Do not collect butwould not be useful
14
0 50 100
Client well-being
Client satisfaction
Clients responses to services
Monetary or non-monetary benefits beyondclient
Direct non-monetary benefits
Monetary value of client benefits
5: Very useful4: Useful
15
Rank order of top five data types 1. Economic and monetary benefits 2. Other outcomes data 3. Client surveys including satisfaction surveys 4. CSR data 5. Number of clients served
16
Top five not collected in rank order 1. Long-term/follow up data 2. Client satisfaction surveys 3. Economic and monetary benefits 4. GIS Mapping 5. Community impact
17
0 50 100
Identifying most useful data
Usefulness of data
Data systems and technology
Possible mis-use of data
Technical resources and tools
Staff expertise
Staff buy-in
Cost-effectiveness to collect from clients
Administrative burdens and costs
5: Very significant4: Significant
18
0 20 40 60 80 100
Referrals
Other services narrative
Web analytics
Pro Se assistance
Community legal education
Other grantee activity reports
CSR case closing codes
Problem codes
Number of person served
5: Veryuseful
4: useful
19
0 20 40 60 80
LSC responses to Competitive GrantApplications
Grantee inputs to CSR/CSM visit reports
Competitive grant applications
LSC inputs to CSR/CSM visit reports
Data for GAR (minus CSR data)
Grantee inputs to PQV report
LSC inputs to PQV report
CSR data
5: Veryhelpful
4: Helpful
20
0 20 40 60 80
Efficacy of data for external stakeholders
Efficacy of data for LSC
Usefulness
Compliance audit burden
Hard to measure
Cost
Sensitivity to context
“One size fits all” approach
Administrative burdens
5: Verysignificant
4: Significant
21
0 20 40 60
LSC data reporting systems efficient
LSC responds usefully to GARs
LSC data reporting not burdensome
Understand how LSC uses my data
LSC program visits yield useful feedback
5: Stronglyagree
4: Agree
22
The survey indicates that too few grantees report that they are benefitting from interactions with LSC around major touch points like GARs and PQVs. • Only 15% of respondents agree or strongly agree that
LSC uses data from the GAR to provide useful feedback about program operations.
• 44% of respondents understand how LSC uses the data they submit to the organization.
• 50% of respondents agree that feedback from Program Quality Visits provides useful data.
23
Next Steps
24
Toolkit to support LSC grantees
Improvements in LSC reporting system
25
• Continue engaging with stakeholders
• Publish detailed analysis of all work to date • Recommend selected and high value-add
reporting measures
J A M E S S A N D M A N , L E G A L S E R V I C E S C O R P O R A T I O N D R . S A N J E E V K H A G R A M , I N N O V A T I O N S F O R S C A L I N G I M P A C T
D A V I D B O N B R I G H T , K E Y S T O N E A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y
