7

Measurement, Comparison & Accountability

"Did we improve—and for whom?"

Ongoing (initial setup: 2–3 weeks)
6 deliverables
9 required elements
3 accreditation alignments
Prove impact with defensible evidence. Support accreditation, monitoring, and funding requirements.

Objectives

  • Prove impact
  • Support accreditation, monitoring, and funding

Key Components & Required Elements

Baseline Data Lock
  • Time, access, experience, equity metrics
Post-Reform Data Collection
  • Same indicators, same definitions
Automatic Comparison
  • Side-by-side dashboards
  • Visual journey changes
  • Narrative improvement summaries
Outputs
  • Visual journey/process maps
  • Grant-ready reports
  • COA self-study evidence
  • CQI documentation

Maturity Rubric

Assess your organization's readiness across four levels

1
Not Started

No baseline data locked; no measurement plan in place

2
Emerging

Some baseline data collected but comparison framework not established

3
Established

Baseline locked with post-reform collection using same indicators; comparison dashboards active

4
Exemplary

Automated comparison with equity disaggregation; grant-ready reports generated; CQI cycle institutionalized

Sample Deliverables

What a completed phase produces

Baseline data snapshot report
Post-reform comparison dashboard
Visual journey change overlay
Grant-ready outcome report
COA self-study evidence packet
CQI improvement summary

Key Facilitation Questions

Is our baseline data complete and reliable enough to support comparison?

What is our data governance plan for ongoing collection?

How frequently will we run comparisons and report findings?

Who is accountable for acting on what the data reveals?

Discussion Prompts

Are we measuring what matters to clients or what's easy to count?

How do we ensure data quality and consistency across collection points?

What equity dimensions must be disaggregated in our outcome reporting?

How will we share findings with staff, clients, funders, and the community?

User Story

As a funder or accreditor, I want defensible evidence that improvement was intentional and effective.

Acceptance Criteria:

  • Baseline and post-reform data compared
  • Reports generated automatically

Accreditation Alignment

COA

CQI documentation

Federal Grants

Performance measurement

CARF

Outcomes management