Incorporating an Outcome Focus into the CIL Program
NCIL Outcomes Task Force
The Centers for Independent Living (CIL) program reflects
several basic tenets that are fundamental to how the CIL program
is designed and how it operates. First, the program is
intensely devoted to serving the needs and interests of persons
with disabilities (PWDs) – all else is secondary. Also,
the CIL program is not simply run for PWDs, but it
is also run by PWDs – they are intimately involved
in all facets and at all levels. Third, and perhaps because
of these first two tenets, one is impressed by the CIL program’s
constant drive to be as effective as possible for PWDs -- a
desire for continuous program improvement is obvious.
Now, in response to various forces, it has become essential
to introduce a fourth, equally important tenet – a more-explicit
focus on outcomes. In this situation, we could
define the word outcome as “a discrete, positive improvement
in the lives of PWDs or in the IL service system”. Given
this definition, outcomes are quite different from the CIL
program’s inputs (money, staff, facilities), activities (what
is done with these inputs), or outputs (the level
of activity, often measured in the number of persons served
or the number or service units delivered). Achieving
its desired outcomes is, quite literally, the bottom line – the
reason the CIL program exists.
This increased focus on CIL program outcomes comes from two
main incentives: one external to the program and one internal. The
external incentive is a relatively new requirement from the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that each federal
government program identify, measure, and report regularly
on a small number of program outcomes that capture the essence
of what each program aims to accomplish. OMB uses its
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to (among other things)
determine the degree to which each federal program is measuring
these outcomes, and the latest PART for the CIL program found “results
not demonstrated” in this area. Politically,
this is unacceptable to both OMB and the U.S. Department of
Education (ED), so the CIL program has no choice – it must begin
to measure and report its outcomes, and preliminary efforts
have already begun in this direction.
At the same time, the CIL program is also responding to a
second, more internal incentive for introducing a greater focus
on outcomes. Within all sectors of American services – private,
public, and non-profit – the past few years have seen
a powerful and irreversible shift to using outcomes as the
measure of a program’s effectiveness. In many instance,
this outcome focus did not arise in order to satisfy outside
reporting requirements, but to provide information to managers
on where programs are strong, where they are weak, and where
improvements are needed. Using this outcome information,
programs can then “manage for results” in a variety
of ways. Within the nonprofit sector, the United Way
of America has been especially vocal in urging programs to
identify their desired outcomes, measure them on a regular
basis, analyze the outcome data in various ways, and most importantly,
use the findings to improve effectiveness on a continuing basis.
Without doubt, then, the CIL program must and will introduce
a greater focus on outcomes. Our Task Force is currently
working hard on this effort, and we look forward to working
closely with all members of the IL community as we progress.
|
