TAKE SHAPE
What Makes an Action Planning Process a Ready by 21 Action Planning Process?
Guideline
Detail
Team of broad stakeholders brought
together, representative of diverse sectors,
settings, systems and relationships focused
on children and youth. Explicit strategies for
engaging multiple levels of leadership.
Intentionally map the full set of stakeholders that are invested in the learning
and development of children and youth. Identify specific individuals that can
represent multiple perspectives, including the diverse populations in your
community/state. Ensure connections to multiple levels of leadership from top level to frontline, policy makers, professionals, community members, par ents,
young people.
Careful consideration from the outset of who at the top decision-making levels
is expecting to receive and respond to the recommendations, while being clear
throughout the process that real change also depends on the power of what
each individual brings to the work in terms of their own influence and
connections. Clarity on when and how top leaders should be involved in
“process” versus consideration of recommendations and action.
Build on and intentionally link to the work of existing coalitions, networks, task
forces. Include leaders of these efforts. Make sure that the findings and
recommendations from their key reports are mapped out and included.
Helps ensure that those that need to
deliver on the strategies are informing
and invested in the goals and solutions
from the outset.
Ensure that the diverse perspectives of young people are included. Include
young people that are involved in the supports and institutions under
discussion. Support them in strategies for bringing the perspectives of a
broader group of young people into the process.
Direct inclusion of young people is one of
the most instrumental ways to make an
action planning process “youthcentered.”
Clear connections to and targeted
participation of top-level leadership that
will be instrumental in rallying additional
support and helping to deliver on the
recommendations.
Intentional connections to existing
coalitions and networks and intentional
infusion of pre-existing or parallel work to
identify challenges, develop
recommendations and implement solutions.
TAKE AIM
Explicit strategies for including the
perspectives of young people not just for
problem identification but for problemsolving solutions
Strong affirmation of key beliefs or
Helpful to state grounding principles about:
principles that undergird the community’s or --the desired outcomes for children and youth
state’s basic approach. Translation of these
--the quality and reach of supports (family, community, school)
principles into common terms and a common --the accountability of leaders
framework that can be used throughout the
planning process and beyond.
Concise, public-ready statement of the
A broad group agrees that a set of concise, public-ready statements have
outcomes desired for children and youth in
communications value for their key audiences.
a way that acknowledges developmental
stages (from birth to young adulthood) and
Compelling outcome statements help address the challenge that the
competencies (e.g., cognitive, physical,
preponderance of available data focuses on academics and behavioral/health
social).
problems.
Concise, public-ready statement of the
A broad group agrees that a set of concise, public-ready statements have
supports that children and youth need to
communications value for their key audiences.
receive from their families, communities
and institutions, and of what assets
Common statements help break down barriers and build bridges, giving actors
families, communities and institutions need focused on different outcomes and representing different institutions ( e.g.,
to have in order to provide those supports.
schools, health) a reason to work together
Well-crafted presentation of a balanced set
of indicators that will be used to gauge
changes in the outcomes, supports and
assets.
TARGET
ACTION
TAKE STOCK
Compelling presentation of data on key
indicators (outcomes and supports/assets)
including presentations that show trends,
highlight gaps, and reveal relationships
between outcomes and supports/assets.
TRACK
PROGRESS
UNDER REVIEW – JUNE 2010
Consideration and listing of the underlying
causes (referred to as “contributing factors”
in Results-Based Accountability) that affect
outcomes and indicators and clustering of
these underlying causes into common issue
areas.
For outcomes, a “balanced set” of indicators measure changes in skills,
behaviors and attitudes, including both “problem-reduction” as well as
“promotion,” across developmental stages and competencies. There should be
a commitment to keeping a broader set of indicators on the radar screen.
A “well-crafted presentation” includes identifying a subset of indicators with
the greatest data and communications power for high-level messaging. These
should be selected in a way that leads back into the full set.
For supports and assets, a “balanced set” of indicators helps capture quality
supports across the places where children and youth spend time.
“Compelling” presentations do more than share trends in one indicator at a
time. They provide a more complex view by bringing data about different
indicators together. Action plans can do this by highlighting gaps (e.g.,
achievement gap between minority and white students) and revealing
relationships between outcomes and supports/assets (e.g., between student
achievement and school quality). Variations in outcomes (e.g., by
neighborhood) compared to variations in support (e.g., by neighborhood).
Understanding of how the underlying causes are often the same even though
the outcomes and indicators that they affect seem very different.
Agreed-upon prioritization of issues
concerning children and youth.
Prioritization of issues can be accomplished through methods such as focus
groups and surveys. It is important to solicit input from a broad range of
stakeholders playing diverse roles.
Community-specific documentation of
existing levers – programs and services,
coalitions, initiatives, policies, political will –
that can be built upon or applied towards
solving the problems identified, as well as
their specific recommendations and work
plans.
Many action plans do not acknowledge or summarize existing efforts or
building blocks. Building on what exists and what is working is a key to not
“reinventing the wheel.” Demonstrating how a plan builds on and leverages
existing efforts helps to make the case for targeted additional investments.
Reviewing extant recommendations and work plans acknowledges hard work
that has been and is currently being done and provides additional input for the
action plan.
Specific strategies for addressing these
trends, gaps and relationships that are
anchored in research and practice,
prioritized because they connect to multiple
indicators, linked to specific actors to
ensure implementation, and rated by cost
and level of effort required.
A balanced set of strategies focuses on the frontline as well as on broader
program and system improvement, but it doesn’t stop there. It also maximizes
policy and resource alignment, harnesses community demand, and powerfully
engages young people and families.
Prioritization of this range of strategies should be informed by the best of
“what works” and how they can address the specific indicators of focus.
Recommendations should be concrete, addressing who, what, where, when &
how much. Explicit connections should be made between each
recommendation, improved supports/assets, and changes in outcomes.
A comprehensive action plan should have a long shelf life. As an ongoing
framework for action, plans should be staged over a number of years and
should be revisited regularly.
Timelines and stages that reflect the reality
that everything cannot be done at once but
acknowledge the value of a long-term plan.
Rationale
Buy-in and awareness from the top will
help to address key policy concerns and
engage other top leaders in the work.
Instrumental in linking and informing
planning efforts with the work of existing
coalitions and networks.
Helps establish a common framework and
common terms so groups can talk across
traditional “silos.”
Articulating the “bigger picture” helps
keep the full range of stakeholders at the
table.
Distinguishing between outcomes and
supports/assets helps tell a compelling
story and build realistic timeframes for
change. It underscores how multiple
systems play important roles and helps
steer the group toward useful research
about what works. 1
Important to help stakeholders see how
critical supports and assets can address
multiple outcomes, leading to joint
efforts that cross traditional silos.
Explicitly highlighting gaps and inequities
and committing to address them is one
way to get the full range of stakeholders
engaged in solutions.
Helps the group identify common issues
to address and work together to find
common solutions. Instrumental in “silobusting.”
Everything cannot be tackled at once –
prioritizing issues allows progress to be
made in the most important places and
concentrates available horsepower.
Mapping current efforts – both front-line
delivery and broader coalitions/networks/
policies – helps identify who needs to be
engaged to address the broader picture.
Recommendations should address broad
policy issues but should also reflect the
“power of the individual,” speaking to
what everyone involved has to offer,
given their resources, skills and
connections.
Ongoing action and accountability, using
a big picture (responding to emerging
needs) and big tent (engaging more
actors) over time.
Distinguishing between “outcomes” and “inputs” (or “results” and “means”) is a fundamental premise of planning processes such as Results-based Accountability, Getting to Outcomes, UWW’s Community Impact model and others. When it comes to data, frameworks offer different advice on what
to measure. Bringing precision into this space helps. Drawing a clear line between outcomes and inputs doesn’t take much time and gives you increased horsepower to: 1) tell a compelling “cause and effect” story and build an accountability structure that stays; 2) give peopl e confidence that they
can report and claim progress on improving key supports even though it takes longer to improve specific outcomes, reducing the pressure to set unrealistic timeframes for improving outcomes; and 3) draw upon us eful research to help prioritize and link improvements in community supports to
measurable improvements in skills, behaviors and attitudes of children and youth.
1