MASON CITY QUALITY COUNTS KICK-OFF EVENT THE READY BY 21 CHALLENGE:

MASON CITY QUALITY COUNTS KICK-OFF EVENT

THE READY BY 21 CHALLENGE:Ensuring that Every Young Person is Ready for College, Work & Life

Karen PittmanThe Forum for Youth InvestmentMay 2008

© The Forum for Youth Investment 2008

The American DREAM

All youth can be ready.

Every family and community can be supportive.

Each leader can make a difference.


Too Few Youth are Ready.Only 4 in 10 are doing well.

Too Few Families and Communities are Supportive.Fewer than 2 in 5 youth have the supports that they need.

Too Few are Trying to Make a Difference.

The American REALITY


The American DILEMMA

THE GAP BETWEENVISION AND REALITY HAS TO BE CLOSED

At a time when“Failure is NOT an Option”

(The Hope Foundation)

and “Trying Hard is NOT Good Enough”

(Mark Friedman)


• Fragmentation

• Complacency

• Low Expectations of Youth, Communities and Leaders

The American DILEMMA


The Ready by 21 Challenge:

Changing the Odds for Youth by Changing the Way We Do Business

Change the oddsfor youth

Change the waywe do business

Change the landscapeof communities

Ready by 21™ Quality Counts Initiative

WANTED: Fully Prepared, Fully Engaged Young People


Are They Ready?





New Employer Survey Finds Skills in Short Supply

On page after page, the answer to the report – Are They Really Ready to Work? –

was a disturbing “NO.” Employers ranked 20 skill areas in order of importance.

The top skills fell into five categories:• Professionalism/Work Ethic• Teamwork/Collaboration• Oral Communications• Ethics/Social Responsibility• Reading Comprehension


Employers Find These Skills in Short Supply

• 7 in 10 employers saw these skills as critical for entry-level high school graduates

8 in 10 as critical for two-year college graduates, more than 9 in 10 as critical for four-year graduates.

• Employers reported that 4 in 10 high school graduates were deficient in these areas

Note: Only 1 in 4 of four-year college graduates were highly qualified.


43% are doing well in two lifeareas and okay in one

• Productivity: Attend college, work steadily

• Health: Good health, positive health habits, healthy relationships

• Connectedness: Volunteer, politically active, active in religious institutions, active in community

Too Few Young People are Ready

Doing Well43%

Doing Poorly22%

In the Middle35%

22% are doing poorly in two lifeareas and not well in any

• Productivity: High school diploma or less, are unemployed, on welfare

• Health: Poor health, bad health habits, unsupportive relationships

• Connectedness: Commit illegal activity once a month

Researchers Gambone, Connell & Klem (2002) estimate that only 4 in 10 are doing well in their early 20s.


We Know What it Takes to Support Development

• The National Research Council reports that teens need:• Physical and Psychological Safety• Appropriate Structure• Supportive Relationships• Opportunities to Belong• Positive Social Norms• Support for Efficacy and Mattering• Opportunities for Skill-Building• Integration of Family, School and Community efforts


Do these Supports Really Make a Difference? Even in Adolescence?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Youth with SupportiveRelationships

Youth with UnsupportiveRelationships

Ready by End of 12th Grade Not Ready

ABSOLUTELY

SOURCE: Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth Development

Gambone and colleagues show that youth with supportive relationships as they enter high school are 5 times more likely to leave high school “ready” than those with weak relationships…


… and those seniors who were “ready” at the end of high school were more than 4 times as likely to be doing well as young adults.

Do these Supports Make a Difference in Adulthood?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ready by 21 Not Ready by 21

Good Young Adult Outcomes

Poor Young Adult OutcomesSOURCE: Finding Out What Matters for Youth: Testing Key Links in a Community Action Framework for Youth Development


from 4 in 10doing well

to 7 in 10 doing well

Providing These Supports CAN Change the Odds

Gambone/Connell’s research suggests that if all young people got the supports they needed in early adolescence, the picture could change…

WANTED: High Quality Community Supports


Are They Getting the Supports They Need?





The NRC List• Physical and Psychological Safety• Appropriate Structure• Supportive Relationships• Opportunities to Belong• Positive Social Norms• Support for Efficacy

and Mattering• Opportunities for Skill-Building• Integration of Family, School and

Community Efforts• Basic Services (implied)

A Surprising Percentage of Youth Don’t Receive them… By Any Name

SAFE PLACES

CARING ADULTS

OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP OTHERS

EFFECTIVE EDUCATION

HEALTHY START

The Five Promises


One Third of 6-17 Year Olds Lack the Supports They Need

50% 37%

13%

6 – 11 Years Old

45%30%

25%

12 – 17 Years Old

• According to the America’s Promise Alliance National Promises Survey, only 31% of 6-17 year olds have at least 4 of the 5 promises. 21% have 1 or none.

• The likelihood of having sufficient supports decreases with age:• 37% of 6-11 year olds have at least 4 promises; 13% have 1 or none.• Only 30% of 12-17 year olds have at least 4; 25% have 1 or none.


“Communities should provide an ample array of program opportunities… through local entities that can coordinate such work across the entire community.

Communities should put in place some locally appropriate mechanism for monitoring the availability, accessibility and quality of programs…”

- Community Programs to Promote Youth Development, 2002

National Research Council Report Recommendations


Civic Social Emotional Physical Vocational Cognitive

Ages

Times of Day

OutcomeAreas

???

Reach Counts

Morning . . . Night

21

.

.

.

0 School AfterSchool

At its best, school only fills a portion of developmental space


Who is Responsible for the Rest?

• Families• Peer Groups• Schools and Training Organizations• Higher Education• Youth-Serving Organizations• CBOs (Non-Profit Service Providers and Associations)• Businesses (Jobs, Internships and Apprenticeships)• Faith-Based Organizations• Libraries, Parks, and Recreation Departments• Community-Based Health and Social Service Agencies

?


Improving Program Availability isn’t Enough

• There is basic agreement that young people who participate fully in school and programs and their communities have better outcomes than those who do not.

• Consequently there is increased interest in getting inside the black box -- mapping the program landscape what is available to whom, when, where, why, how, and how much it costs.

Youth outcomes

Youth Participation


It is Marketable

It Matters

It is Malleable

It is Measureable

Research shows that improved youth outcomes requires program attendance and program quality.

The core elements of program quality are both measurable and consistent across a broad range of program types.

Decision-makers and providers will invest in improving quality if they believe that it matters, is measurable and is

malleable given available resources.

Most programs can improve quality by undertaking integrated assessment and improvement efforts.

Quality Counts

NEEDED: A CHANGE IN THE WAYS WE DO BUSINESS

A Big Picture Approach to Thinking & Acting Differently


Changing the Way We Do Business

SET BIGGER GOALSBE BETTER PARTNERSUSE BOLDER STRATEGIES

Think Differently

so that together we can

Act Differently

BIG PICTURE APPROACH


Taking Core Principles … what we know about …

and turning it into Common Language… that can be used for planning and action.

The Big Picture Approach:Thinking Differently


Example Language

From Core Principles to Common Language and Expectations


Take Aim on the Big PictureHow are Young People Doing?

Pre-K0–5

School-Age6–10

Middle School11–14

High School15–18

Young Adults19–21+

Ready for College

LEARNING

Ready for Work

WORKING

Ready for Life

THRIVING

CONNECTING

LEADING


Pre-K0–5

School-Age6–10


High School15–18


Ready for

CollegeLEARNING

Ready for Work

WORKING

Ready for Life

THRIVING

CONNECTING

LEADING

Children Enter School Ready to Learn

Traditional Approach: Pick One Area


But What Happened to the Rest of the Picture?

Pre-K0–5

School-Age6–10


High School15–18


Ready for

CollegeLEARNING

Ready for Work

WORKING

Ready for Life

THRIVING

CONNECTING

LEADING




Alternative:Learning to Focus Differently

Shifting Red to Yellow,

Yellow to Green

Pre-K0–5

School-Age6–10


High School15–18


Ready for College

LEARNING

Ready for Work

WORKING

Ready for Life

THRIVING

CONNECTING

LEADING

Pre-K0–5

School-Age6–10


High School15–18


Ready for College

LEARNING

Ready for Work

WORKING

Ready for Life

THRIVING

CONNECTING

LEADING


Take Aim on the Big PictureWhat is the Community Providing?

Pre-K0–5

School-Age6–10


High School15–18


Ready for College

LEARNING

Ready for Work

WORKING

Ready for Life

THRIVING

CONNECTING

LEADING

This is a way to add up the commitments of individual providers and programs


Take Stock of Public and Private Community SupportsUsing a Common Set of Performance Measures

Efficacy (Opportunities to Help Others)

Skill Building (Effective Education)

Relationships (Caring Adults)

Structure (Safe Places)

Safety (Safe Places)

Setting ESetting DSetting C(e.g. rec cntrs)

Setting B(e.g. CBOs)

Setting A(e.g. school)NRC (5 Promises)


Harmful Minimal Optimal

Physical and Psychological Safety

Physical and health dangers, fear, feeling of insecurity, sexual and physical harassment, verbal abuse.

Safe and health-promoting facilities; practice that increases safe peer group interaction and decreases unsafe or confrontational peer interactions.

Appropriate Structure

Chaotic, disorganized, laissez-faire, rigid, overcontrolled, autocratic.

Limit setting, clear and consistent rules and expectations, firm-enough control, continuity and predictability, clear boundaries, and age-appropriate monitoring.

Supportive Relationships

Cold, distant, overcontrolling, ambiguous support, untrustworthy, focused on winning, inattentive, unresponsive, rejecting

Warmth, closeness, connectedness, good communications, caring, support, guidance, secure attachment, responsiveness

Opportunities to Belong

Exclusion, marginalization, intergroup conflict Opportunities for meaningful inclusion, regardless of one’s gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disabilities; social inclusion, social engagement and integration; opportunities for socio-cultural identity formation; support for cultural and bicultural competence.

Positive Social Norms

Normless, anomie, laissez-faire practices, antisocial and amoral norms, norms that encourage violence, reckless behavior consumerism, poor health practices; conformity

Rules of behavior, expectations, injunctions, ways of doing things, values and morals, obligations for service

Support for Efficacy and Mattering

Unchallenging, overcontrolling, disempowering, disabling. Practices that undermine includes motivation and desire to learn, such a excessive focus on current relative performance level rather than improvement

Youth-based, empowerment practices that support autonomy, making a real difference in one’s community, and being taken seriously. Practice that is enabling, responsibility granting, meaningful challenges. Practice that focus on improvement rather than on relative current levels

Opportunities for Skill Building

Practice that promotes bad physical habits and habits of mind; practice that undermines school and learning.

Opportunities to learn physical, intellectual, psychological, emotional, and social skills; exposure to intentional learning experiences; opportunities to learn cultural.

Integration of Family, School & CommunityEfforts

Discordance, lack of communication, conflict Concordance, coordination, and synergy among family, school, and community

Identifying Common Definitions for Quality


Take Stock of Public and Private Community SupportsUsing a Common Set of Performance Measures

NRC (5 Promises) Setting A(e.g. school)

Setting B(e.g. CBOs)

Setting C(e.g. rec cntrs)

Setting D Setting E

Safety (Safe Places)

Structure (Safe Places)

Relationships (Caring Adults)

Skill Building (Effective Education)

Efficacy (Opportunities to Help Others)


What it Takes

Goals & Data

Stakeholders

Coordinated Improvement Strategies

Aligned Policies & Resources

Public Demand

Youth & Family engagement

THE READY BY 21QUALITY COUNTS INITIATIVE

Changing the Odds for Youth by Changing the Landscape of Community Supports


across Systems

& SettingsTime

Supports

across

Ages

Outcomes

Populations

across

Stakeholders& Strategies

Using the Big Picture Approach to Improve Quality & Reach

across Systems & Settings

Ready by 21 Quality Counts Initiative





Capacity to Recruit, Train, Retain Workforce

Strong Policy / Leadership Horsepower

Capacity to Assess & Improve Programs

Strong, Stable Program Base

Ready by 21 Quality Counts Framework


Capacity to Recruit, Train, Retain

Workforce

Cross-system convening/coordination mechanisms

Widely adopted assessment and monitoring proceduresBuy in re definitions, quality standards, accountability requirements


Decision-maker engagement & coordinating structures Aligned policies for quality accountability and improvement

Shared vision, strong demand, active family/youth involvement


Professional development opportunities/incentives

Adequate assessment and improvement training/TA capacity


Healthy program landscape (distribution & focus)

Accurate data on workforce (skills, supports, recruitment, retention)Cross-system provider networks and communications

Cross-system program data base/info source

Ready by 21 Quality Counts Framework


Using Quality Improvement as the Anchor

Quality Matters presentation

Planning with Data

A la carte Methods Workshops

TAQuality Coaching

STEP 1Key $$ Holders

Decide to build QI system

STEP 2aSelf-

assessmentsconducted

STEP 2bExternal

assessmentsconducted

STEP 3Managers with StaffPlan for

improvement

STEP 4Managers help

StaffCarry out planat the Point of

Service

STEP 5ProgramsMeasure change

Program Self-Assessment

External AssessmentObservation-

Reflection

Focusing on quality improvement can be a concrete place to start….

The H/S Assessment Improvement Sequence

But there may be broader organizational and workforce needs and issues …

broader policy, leadership and public awareness issues …

a broader base of programs that you need to document and engage…

and there may be reasons not to lead with program assessment, even though that’s where you want to end up.

THE READY BY 21QUALITY COUNTS INITIATIVE:

Improving “Point of Service” Quality


Goal Area: Capacity to Assess & Improve

Program Quality

Assumptions:

• High-quality programs can influence key developmental outcomes for children and youth.

• Accurate, accessible data about program quality can influence staff practice and drive planning and decision-making at the system level.


Workforce





It is Marketable

It Matters

It is Malleable

It is Measureable

Research shows that improved youth outcomes requires program attendance and program quality.

The core elements of program quality are both measurable and consistent across a broad range of program types.

Decision-makers and providers will invest in improving quality if they believe that it matters, is measurable and is

malleable given available resources.

Most programs can improve quality by undertaking integrated assessment and improvement efforts.

Quality Counts


Measuring Youth Program Quality: A Guide to Assessment Tools at www.forumFYI.org

Assessing and Monitoring QualityConverging ideas about quality


Assessing and Monitoring QualityThe Youth Program Quality Assessment

Characteristics• Observation at point of service• Takes 1-2hours, training available but

not required• Applies to across content areas

Purposes:• Metric for most important part of

education and human service programs – point of service

• Increase access to experiences that motivate clients to attend and engage

• Staff learning and performance change• Foundation for more effective

accountability


Defining QualityPoint of Service Quality

PlanMake choices

Reflect

Partner with adults

Lead and mentorBe in small groups

Experience belonging

Engagement

Reframing conflictEncouragementSkill building

Active engagementSession flow

Welcoming atmosphere

Supportive Environment

Interaction

Safe Environment Healthy food and drinks

Program space and furniture Emergency proceduresPsychological and emotional safety

Physically safe environment


Program Quality Drops as the Expectations increase

Scores Across Diverse Samples Trained outside observers used

Self -assessed

Program Offering LevelMixed N=140

School Age N=12

21st Elem N=15

21st MSN=26

I. Safe environment 4.35 4.10 4.38 4.39

II. Supportive environment

3.75 3.14 3.69 4.16

III. Interaction 3.11 2.97 2.93 3.73

IV. Engagement 2.83 1.70 2.71 3.37

Score range: 1= lowest 5= highest


Program Quality Improves with Training and Capacity Building

Across settings, POS Quality decreases with movement up the pyramid from safety to engagement. The High/Scope research strongly suggests that best way to improve “POS Quality” is to: • Reduce staff turnover• Increase training, professional development and on-site support• Increase opportunities for young people to have input and share

control


Capacity to Recruit, Train, & Retain a Strong Workforce

Assumptions:

• Good youth development practice lies at the heart of high quality programs.

• In order to build and sustain an effective quality improvement system for youth programs, attention must be paid to building a strong, stable, skilled workforce.


Workforce





Next Generation Youth Work Coalition Youth Worker Survey, 2006

• 8 largely urban communities. Data collected in partnership with the National Training Institute for Community Youth Work, through local intermediaries.

Cities

Baltimore

Chicago

Connecticut

Hampton

Jacksonville

Kansas City

San Diego

Washington, DC


• Half of those surveyed are under age 30; one-third are under 25. However, one-third are 40 and over.

• Especially given age, education levels are high. 60% of those surveyed have a two-year degree or more.

• Most come from related fields: education, child care, social services and faith-based. Others come from retail, health care, technology, etc.

Age, Education and Experience


Satisfaction and Mobility

Length of Service

42

1913

1016

36

1812 12

22

1510 10 12

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-1 Year 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 5+ Years

Time at Current Job Time in Current Org Time in Youth Work

Nearly 80 percent are either satisfied or very satisfied. And part-and full time worker responses were surprisingly consistent. However, while workers report extremely high levels of job satisfaction, they do not tend to stay in their jobs for very long.


• 1 in 2 work part-time.

• Part-time workers report extremely high job satisfaction levels – equal to those of full-timers.

• Part-time workers anticipate staying in the field as long as full-time workers.

• 60 percent of part-timers were interested in full-time work, 40 percent were not.

• Part-timers earn less and are much less likely to have benefits.

Part-Time Employment


• While training is available, links between training and tangible rewards are rare.

• Over half say there are no clear opportunities for promotion within their organization.

• Only one third say their organization formally recognizes or rewards higher education and years of experience.

Training – Access and Recognition


Compensation

• Median salary range is $25,000 - $25,999. Median hourly wage is $9.00 - $10.99.

• Less than half of the total sample has access to health insurance.

• 39 percent have no benefits at all (insurance, paid vacation, sick leave, retirement savings).

• Access to benefits varies significantly by employment status; 80 percent of full-time workers, compared with only 5 percent of part-time workers, have access to health insurance.

• 27% of full-time and 53% of part-time workers hold second jobs.


Implications

• Address Compensation Concerns. Pay is the top factor influencing decisions to leave the field, regardless of demographics, part-time status, job satisfaction or setting.

• Strengthen Support Systems. Burn-out is real. Less satisfied workers are much less likely to say they get the feedback they need. Supervision and support matter.

• Create Clearer Organizational Steps and Career Ladders. Career advancement often requires changing jobs. Ensure PD opportunities are accessible, relevant and recognized.

• Legitimize Youth Work. Despite their altruistic commitment, youth workers feel underpaid, underappreciated and invisible. Increase public awareness about the critical role they play in society.



Assumptions:

• Building a quality assessment system that reaches across the range of programs in a community requires accurate information about the programmatic landscape.

• Once stakeholders have a collective understanding of the landscape (how many people, hours, dollars, slots are at play), the more motivated they are to assess and improve

quality.


Workforce





Program Landscape Mapping

• Ensuring all youth are ready requires early and sustained investments (0-21) across a range of outcomes. Do you know how well your community is delivering these supports?

• Information is power. Youth/families, providers, leaders need common information to inform decision-making.

• Make sure your map considers the following youth-centered dimensions: age, approach, outcomes, supports/services.


NYA 2004 Member Survey

The Nashville Youth Alliance represents a diverse array of public and non-profit organizations that provide informal services, opportunities and supports to young people in schools and in the community, during the school and non-school hours. Members include:• Public Agencies: Metro Nashville Public Schools, Police, Parks and

Recreation, Public Health Depts., Transit Authority, Nashville Public Library, Juvenile Court, Mayor’s Office of Children and Youth

• Cultural/Higher Ed Institutions: The Adventure Science Center, Frist Center for the Visual Arts, Village Cultural Arts Center

• Non-Profit Providers: e.g. Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Martha O’Bryan Center, Rocketown, YMCA, YWCA, Oasis Center, Community IMPACT!, Junior Achievement, Gordon Jewish Community Center.


NYA Programs and Organizations:Basic Facts

• 35 of the 37 organizations that are members of the Nashville Youth Alliance responded to the survey. Combined, these organizations offer 135 programs report reaching over 670,000 participants ages 5 to 24 years old (duplicated count).

• If these programs, which range from accessible sports and recreation facilities to intensive counseling and skill-building programs, were evenly distributed across Nashville’s approximately 258,000 5-19 year olds (the core group served) this would be an average of almost 2.5 supports per child.


Ages Served

• NYA organizations serve all ages of children and youth from early childhood to adulthood. The majority, however, serve teens.

• 87% serve 12-15 yr olds• 80% serve 16-20 yr olds• 53% serve 6-11 yr olds

• This focus on teens is unusual compared to other cities.

Percentage

25%

53%

87%80%

19%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-5 (33) 6-11 (70) 12-15 (116) 16-20 (107) 20-24 (25)

Ages No. %

0-5 33 25%

6-11 70 53%

12-15 116 87%

16-20 107 80%

20-24 25 19%

Percentage of Programs Serving Youth by Age


Location of services – Facilities used

41%

26%

24%

22%

20%

16%

12%

9%

9%

6%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

¨ School (55)

¨ Private Facility (34)

¨ Community Center (32)

¨ Other (29)

¨ Faith Organization (26)

¨ Non Profit (21)

¨ Park (16)

¨ Library (12)

¨ College (12)

¨ Child Care Center (8)

¨ Government Agency (5) • NYA programs are provided in a range of community facilities from libraries to colleges to faith organizations.

• 4 out of 10 programs, however, are provided in schools.

NOTE: The STARS program was counted as 11 separate programs operating in 11 schools.


Location of Services – After school only programs

• Surprisingly, there are fewer “after school only” programs that are operated in schools (29% vs 41% all)

• More are operated in private facilities (41% vs. 26% all)

• Non-profit and faith based venues are used more by after-school only programs.

7%

2%

2%

12%

15%

27%

27%

12%

29%

41%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Government Agency (3)

Child Care Center (1)

College/University (1)

Library (5)

Park (6)

Non Profit (11)

Faith Organization (11)

Other (5)

Community Center (12)

Private Facility (17)

School (12)


Focus Areas – All vs. After School

• Prevention was the top category among all programs and those offered only

• After-school only programs were less likely to focus on prevention, workforce development and youth engagement.

• They were more likely, however, to focus on education and life skills.

PreventionALL31%

After School

20%

Youth Engagement 13% 10%

Education 12% 17%

Sports & Recreation 8% 7%

Workforce Development 8% 0%

Intervention 8% 7%

Foster Care 5% 5%

Multicultural/Cultural Specific 5% 5%

Life Skills 5% 10%

Cultural Arts 4% 7%

Service 2% 5%

Other 8% 0%


Expected Outcomes

• Respondents were asked to identify the specific outcomes they hoped to achieve using a chart that provided examples of outcomes along a continuum from “reducing negatives” to “increasing positives.”

Cognitive Vocational Health Personal/Social

Civic

Reduce negative

outcomes

Dropping out of school; retained in school grade

Poor work habits/work history

Substance abuse; early pregnancy; STDs

Violence; gang participation; antisocial behavior

Voter apathy; hate crimes

Increase positive

outcomes

High academic motivation and aspirations; higher academic achievement

Employed/ seeking employment; positive attitudes towards work

Physical safety; engage in regular exercise and healthy die; practice “safer sex”

Teamwork; valuing diversity; navigation skills; supportive relationships with family and friends

Politically active; involved in community life


Expected Outcomes

• NYA programs work to address and prevent problems and promote skill building and participation across the full range of outcome areas.

• Positive outcomes were accentuated more than negative in every area.• 3 out of 4 programs focus on improving personal and social skills and increasing

cognitive/academic skills.79%

75%

48% 48% 48%50%58%

45%39%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Personal/Social Cognative Health Vocational Civic

Positive Outcomes Negative Outcomes

Cognitive


Strong Policy/Leadership Horsepower

Assumptions:

• Changing child and youth outcomes requires broad commitments to a comprehensive set of goals that cut across systems and settings.

• A shared vision; supportive policies, structures and funding; and engaged leaders and decision-makers are critical to building and sustaining a quality improvement system.


Workforce




ConnectingThrivingLeadingWorkingLearning

As measured by indicators e.g., Teen birth rate

(common resources: Kids Count; Search internal assets)

Program/System Level PerformancePARTICIPATIONHow much do we

do?

QUALITYHow well do we do

it?

PROGRAM OUTCOMES

Is anyone better off?Point of Service Quality

Improved skills, knowledge &

behaviorsAs measured by indicators e.g., %

with improved decision-making skills

Frequency, duration,

intensity of participation

CHILD & YOUTH FAMILY & COMMUNITYOUTCOMES or RESULTS

Caring AdultsSafe PlacesEffective Ed

Healthy StartsOpportunities to

Contribute

As measured by indicators e.g., % with caring adult

(common resources: Search external assets)

SUPPORTS or INPUTSPOPULATION

LEVEL

GOALS

e.g. e.g.

How is our community doing? How are our young people doing?

The Forum for Youth Investment www.forumfyi.org

MASON CITY QUALITY COUNTS KICK-OFF EVENT THE READY BY 21 CHALLENGE:

Documents

Transcript of MASON CITY QUALITY COUNTS KICK-OFF EVENT THE READY BY 21 CHALLENGE: