Mark Friedman wrote a book (Trying Hard is Not Good Enough) in which he presents the Results Accountability method.  It involves program evaluation, community status assessments, and management strategies.  This page presents ideas in the book, from the www.raguide.org website, and from the workshop workbook.

This is a Results Accountability Manual

Results Accountability Decision-Making and Budgeting Workshop Workbook, version 1.7 (1/1/2007 word document)

This is the Results Accountability website

http://www.raguide.org

Key Concepts in the Results Accountability strategy

Accountability means being responsible to somebody for something.  Mark Friedman, who developed the Results Accountability strategy, notes that managers are responsible for their programs; they have performance accountability.  The connection between program performance and community well-being may not be direct; population accountability, or work to improve the well-being of the entire community, is shared among many individuals and programs.

Planning an evaluation using results accounutability works backward from where you would be if you achieved your goals:

• A result or outcome is a desired condition.
• An indicator or benchmark is a way to measure progress toward a result.
• Baselines are (a) the values of indicators at the beginning of a program and (b) the predicted changes in the indicators that would happen without the program.
• Strategies are what works to change indicator values and improve well-being.

Turning the curve is a way to define success.  It happens if, during or after a strategy is used, an indicator's status is different than the baseline and closer to the result.

Mark Friedman suggests that Results Accontability is only worthwhile if it produces useful information.  Results Accountability only works if it supports action to improve the well-being of a group of people.

For all involved, the experience of using this Results Accountability should be simple and logical; they should find that it employs common sense, uses plain language, and involves a minimal use of paper.

Step-by-step explanations of Results Accountability components

Using the list below, click on the topic you would like to read about.  Each component has several parts, which are listed at the top of their pages.

Population Accountability: How is a specific population in a defined geographic area, including individuals who did and did not receive certain services, going on the most important indicators?  Responsibility for population-level change is shared between many individuals and programs. [Tools]

Performance Accountability: What has a program, agency or service system accomplished for the people it has served? [Tools]

The population and performance accountability approaches use parallel processes; they differ on their scope.  Performance accountability assesses change in the well-being of a program’s customers, while population accountability looks at the well-being of an entire community.  Generally, the steps are:

• Define the focus of the assessment (decide on a target population or customer group)
• Decide what you want to achieve (for the target population or your customers) and select evaluation criteria (performance measures or indicators)
• Collect data
• Check to be sure that all of your important partners are engaged
• Review results, collect and review strategies to improve progress
• Make an action plan
• Review progress

Example

Click here to see a single-indicator example of an evaluation using the performance accountability part of this strategy. [example]