Judging the Success of the Pilot Phase

Given the complexity of the Partnership for Regional Livability (PRL), the short time-frame for the pilot, the diversity of interests represented in the partnership, and the breadth of its ambition, how will we know if we have been successful? This breaks down into three fundamental questions: 1) By what criteria will we judge success at the end of the pilot phase?; 2) What process will we use to make that assessment?; and 3) What would success mean for the future of the PRL?

Although largely reflective of the proposal, the following is an attempt to restate our expectations, to suggest a process for assessing them retrospectively, and for discussing the implications of the "success" for future action through the PRL. This document will be used as point of departure for the discussion on the afternoon of Monday 3/29.

I. Criteria for Success

The criteria for success fall into two interrelated categories: 1) success of the partnerships at the regional level, and 2) success at the overall project level. The criteria include "hard" deliverables, as well as "softer" qualitative outcomes of the process.

a. Regional Site Outcomes

The outcomes targeted for the three-month pilot phase of the partnership at the regional site level are:

A Process

An effective, broad-based and inclusive planning process was initiated in the sites. The process included:

· Achieving a broad-based, inclusive, bi-partisan and collaborative involvement across sectors by "people who can make things happen"

· Initiating promising relationships between the regional public and private stakeholders and the regional (and/or national) feds that set the stage for longer-term projects and on-going collaborations

· Establishing a committed, effective and inclusive leadership team for the process

· Fostering new connections across sectors and jurisdictions

· The process’s "partners" (business, civic, local and federal government and nonprofits) see the process as adding value to their own work and want to continue to participate

· Communicating effectively with a broad range of relevant stakeholders both inside and outside the process

A Plan

An initial plan that is realistic and reflects thinking DELETE new thinking and approaches was developed. The plan is characterized by:

· The identification of a "ripe", multi-dimensional issue relating to "livability"

· The issue is regional in scope and links central city and suburban concerns

· A "mid-process" plan was developed and presented for discussion before proceeding to a final initial plan

· The plan reflects the alignment and involvement of diverse resources, authorities, and knowledge in creative ways

· The capacity-building needs by each of the sectors SAY WHAT SECTOR MEANS HERE are identified and an approach to addressing them is developed

· The plan reflects an attempt to use public authority to buttress private investment

· The plan is not driven primarily by an expectation of new federal dollars, but rather by a re-imaging and broadening of potential federal AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL roles

· The final initial plan’s components include: prioritization of near–term activities and achievable steps; details the measures for assessing progress toward goals; specifies the learning goals for the initiative across sectors; identifies barriers to success and approaches to get around them; identifies information and research needs to address the issue; and specifies the roles and goals of individual sectors.

· The plan reflects an ongoing approach to reaching other relevant stakeholders

Strategic Support

Strong and strategic local support for the planning process and the plan was generated. This support includes:

· Generating local support from the mayor and other local civic and political entities

· Securing support from state leadership

· Establishing support from the DELETE non-profit ORGANIZATIONS

· Securing favorable media coverage of the effort

Local Funding

Adequate financial support was provided at the site-level by one or more local foundations. This included:

· Providing responsive "resourcing" of the local partnership effort and leadership

Self-Assessment

A self-assessment of the progress made and lessons learned was completed by each site. The self-assessment included:

· Assessing the progress and lessons at the site level

· Assessing the quality of support from the overall project

· Suggesting a desired future, based on the above

b. Overall Partnership Outcomes

The outcomes targeted for the three-month pilot phase for which the overall Partnership and its Support Team are accountable include:

Effective Communication with Regions

The regions were provided with clear, consistent and useful information throughout the process. This included:

· Providing useful information to the sites on the purposes and expectations of the PRL

· Providing a clear description of the services the project could provide to the sites, as well as the limitations of the PRL

· Responding quickly to regional questions and requests

· Creating a Web site for joint learning among regions

· Sharing relevant information, approaches, and learning from other pilot sites

· Delivering on promises made in a timely manner

Research and Tools

The sites were provided with relevant and useful research information and tools that assisted their assessment and planning process. This included:

· Developing and providing in a timely fashion a common assessment tool for inventorying local assets, capacities and goals

· Developing a useful "best practices" manual for the sites to support their planning process

· Responding to specific short-term research needs on critical regional issues

Responsive Support of Regions

The regions were provided with appropriate technical support and follow-through throughout the pilot phase. This included:

· Providing analytic support to the REGIONS in conducting their regional assessments

· Providing targeted technical assistance to the RLT’s FIRST REFERENCE; WRITE OUT in response to specific needs and requests

· Assisting the regions in making connections to various resources and people

· Assisting the regions in designing and executing their initial planning process

· Assisting in identifying capacity-building needs and planning to address them

· Designing, convening and facilitating useful cross-site learning processes

· Providing short-term training in responses to regional requests

National Funding

The Partnership provided adequate financial support for the project. This included:

· National foundations providing support for the overall PRL & learning network

· Federal agencies providing in-kind support (staff, tools, facilities, information etc.) for regional initiatives

Federal Partnership HOW ABOUT PARTICIPATION, RATHER THAN PARTNERSHIP, GIVE THE NERVOUSNESS OF THE FEDS

The federal agencies at the national and regional level were accessible, creative and committed partners PARTICIPANTS? in the process. This included:

· Providing access to the relevant regional federal officials

· The national federal agencies supporting the efforts and involvement of the regional federal officials

· Federal agency staff participating effectively and fully in regional leadership teams

· Federal staff responding in good faith to the specific opportunities and needs of regions

· Federal staff sharing information and thinking about alternative opportunities

· Federal agency staff delivering on commitments made

Assessment

Effective methods were developed and implemented to capture the progress made, the lessons learned, and the critical project issues at multiple levels. This included:

· Establishing effective feedback mechanisms among regions and with the Partnership

· Developing a written documentation of the process and outcomes

· Supporting the site-base self-assessment process

· Facilitating on-going cross site learning and exchange

· Providing a final project report developed by the Support Team

II. Assessing the Outcomes

DELETE INDENTThe assessment process is designed to be DELETE help the board FIRST REFERENCE; WHO IS THE BOARD? IS IT THE SAME AS THE STEERING COMMITTEE? CONFUSING understand what happened in the previous three months and to decide what ought to happen in the future. Thus the goals of the assessment process are threefold:

1) To secure understanding and consensus on the "outcomes" from the pilot phase at the site and overall project levels;

2) To discern the agreed-upon "lessons" from the pilot;

3) To assess the project’s future potential. This includes consideration of the partnership structure, and the on-going work in the sites, as well as consideration of expanding the scale, commitment and scope of the effort.

DELETE INDENT The assessment of the project will be made by the larger "Partnership" board DELETE BOARD; JUST REFER TO PARTNERSHIP at the end of the pilot phase on the basis of the criteria outlined above. This discussion will include the federal, foundation and site-based partners. As background for its discussion, the board PARTNERSHIP will receive several written products. These include:

1) The four site self-assessments

2) The four site plans

3) The project documentors APOSTROPHE Sreport 4) The support team’s overall report and recommendations for future action

DELETE INDENTSupplementing the written materials will be presentations made by the regional teams and the support team.

Return to main page.

Last updated March 24, 1999.