1. Examiner Training July 2011

2. The ONE Award will identify and promote best practices in non-profit organizations and recognize our region’s Organizations of Noteworthy Excellence

3. Agenda Overview Roles, Responsibilities, Expectations 2011 Criteria Process Independent Review Consensus Site Visit Questions, Next Steps

4. Handouts Slides Glossary of Key Terms 2011 Criteria Independent Review Worksheets Share Food – Organizational Profile Conflict of Interest/Code of Ethical Conduct

5. Process Timetable Applications Due – July 15 Applications Distributed – July 21 Consensus Review Report Due – August 25 Site Visit Training – August 31 Site Visits Conducted – September 12-30 Site Visit Reports Due – October 7

6. Process Timetable Honorees Selected – by October 28 Feedback Reports Delivered – by November 15 Recognition Event – January 2012

7. Key Roles Applicants Examiners Selection Panel Award Process Team

8. Examiner Standards Confidentiality Conflict of Interest Code of Ethical Conduct Signed Statement Required

9. New in 2011 Biennial Cycle Streamlined Criteria Shortened Application Two-page limit for Organizational Profile Six-page limit (total) for Categories 1-3 Applicant Workshop Series Standards-Based Recognition

10. Criteria Characteristics Organizational Profile Three Categories – People, Principles, Process Approach-Deployment-Results (ADR) “What” Questions “How” Questions Non-prescriptive Results emphasis

11. Organizational Profile Key Characteristics Programs/services Purpose, Vision, Mission, Values Customers and stakeholders Suppliers/collaborators Workforce Accreditation, certification, regulators Governance system Major funder/foundation relationships

12. Organizational Profile Organizational “biography” Accept at face value Resource for evaluation of criteria responses Two-pages, text or bullet format Only source of “biography” information – cannot go to web site to learn more

13. Organizational Profile Competitive Environment, Challenges Key competitors Key competitive success factors Competitive/comparative data sources Core competencies Strategic advantages, challenges Operational challenges Human resource challenges

14. Categories Category 1 – People Leadership, Workforce, Governance, Related Results Category 2 – Principles Customer Focus, Strategic Planning, Organizational Performance Review, Knowledge Management, Related Results Category 3 – Process Value Creation, Support, Integration of Suppliers/Collaborators, Related Results

15. Reviewing Smaller Organizations Size does not affect criteria applicability Size does provide context for expectations Systems likely to be less formal Resource capacity may be limited Have had to make choices due to resource limitations

16. Important Terms/Concepts “Key” System/process Senior leaders Results – actual data Outputs and outcomes Trends

17. Independent Review

18. Organizational Profile Become familiar with the organization by thoroughly reviewing Profile prior to working on the Category analysis Convert/condense to “key” bullet items (1-2 pages) to support analysis Applicant’s have been trained in what you need/expect – revise and further condense if necessary Share Food example

19. Category Review The applicant is the customer of your work Selection panel depends exclusively on examiner team’s work This is not a compliance assessment – we are seeking to help them understand where they have strengths to build on and opportunities for improvement

20. Category Review Process Review the criteria and keep them handy for your analysis process Use the Glossary to help you understand the criteria requirements Read the application completely prior to beginning to detail your comments Rely on the Organizational Profile for reference and background

21. Approach-Deployment-Results Approach – methods used to address criteria requirements Deployment – the extent to which the approach is implemented Results – outputs/outcomes achieved through approach-deployment efforts related to criteria requirements – these are actual data, not anecdotes or subjective statements concerning effectiveness

22. Category Review Tips Focus on criteria requirements Look for “action” verb in criteria questions to clarify what is expected Keep the key factors from the Organizational Profile in mind – what is important to this applicant Review the “small organization” tips Avoid generalized assumptions Benefit of the doubt Applicants want actionable feedback – they need to know what to work on

23. Worksheets – Analysis Process Key ProcessEvidence of systematic approachEvidence of deployment Deployment of Mission, Vision & Values Two-way communication Promoting legal and ethical behavior Ensuring alignment with community goals Creating sustainability Item 1.1 – How do senior leaders lead?

24. Worksheets – Analysis Process Key ProcessEvidence of systematic approachEvidence of deployment Deployment of Mission, Vision & Values Discussed at staff meetings, used as decision criteria in management meetings Published in newsletters and brochures, staff members post in cubicles Two-way communication Forums held with employees to seek input, informal walk-around process Monthly all-staff meetings, employee focus groups, talk one-on-one Promoting legal and ethical behavior Values include commitment to ethics, ethical standards documented Discussed in staff meetings, shared at volunteer orientation Ensuring alignment with community goals Management reviews as part of organizational performance review Discussed in staff meeting and in volunteer orientation Creating sustainability Key factors reviewed annually by Board and senior leaders Leaders attend futurists conference, developing succession strategy Item 1.1 – How do senior leaders lead?

25. Worksheets – AD Scoring Item 1.1 – How do senior leaders lead? 0-5%10-25%30-45%50-65%70-85%90-100% ApproachNot addressed No systematic approach, anecdotal Systematic approach for basic Systematic approach - all Mature approach for all National role model DeploymentNo evidence Early stages Deployed in most areas Fully deployed, few gaps Fully deployed, no gaps No gaps or weakness, role model

26. Worksheets – AD Scoring Item 1.1 – How do senior leaders lead? 0-5%10-25%30-45%50-65%70-85%90-100% ApproachNot addressed No systematic approach, anecdotal Systematic approach for basic Systematic approach - all Mature approach for all National role model X DeploymentNo evidence Early stages Deployed in most areas Fully deployed, few gaps Fully deployed, no gaps No gaps or weakness, role model X

27. Worksheets – Results Analysis Item 1.5 – People results MeasurementProvided/Not Provided LevelsTrendsComparisons Leadership effectiveness Workforce satisfaction, etc. Fiscal Accountability Compliance, legal and ethical behavior

28. Worksheets – Results Analysis Item 1.5 – People results MeasurementProvided/Not Provided LevelsTrendsComparisons Leadership effectiveness 360 evaluation results Overall ranking of 4.2 on a 5 point scale Increased from 3.8 in 2009 National average at 3.9 Workforce satisfaction, etc. Employee and volunteer satisfaction Volunteer satisfaction at 3.1 out of 5 One year’s data only None provided Fiscal Accountability Audit and internal assessment Zero exceptions on 2010 year-end Internal review - fewer exceptions than in 2009 None Compliance, legal and ethical behavior Times in compliance, legal/ethical breaches Four significant compliance violations 2009 and 2010 showed zero compliance issues Similar providers averaged less than 2 issues

29. Worksheets – Results Scoring Item 1.5 – People results 0-10%15-35%40-60%65-85%90-100% Levels No resultsSome good performance Good performance for most areas Good performance all areas National role model performance X Trends No trend data Little trend data, some adverse Positive trends in key areas Strong positive trends Exemplary performance trends X Comparisons None provided Little provided Some provided Good comparative performance Benchmark leadership X Overall XX

30. Consensus

31. Consensus Process One set of comments for the team Strengths and opportunities for improvement (OFI) Single “score” for the team on each item Identify site visit issues Submit feedback report with draft of strengths and OFIs by August 25

32. Comments – Feedback Report Most important Strengths Most important OFIs Criteria-based Actionable but not prescriptive Complete thoughts – 2-3 sentences 4-6 per category for AD items (include both strengths and OFIs) 3-5 per results item – 1.5, 2.6, 3.4 (include both strengths and OFIs)

33. Comments – Feedback Report Refer to “the applicant” but not their name Avoid prescribing solutions or making subjective judgments – state the specifics of the strength and/or OFI OFIs often need a “so what” or “so that…” Watch out for contradictions Don’t comment on application quality or presentation Make sure an independent reader can understand your comment

34. Comments – Format All comments need an item number (1.1, 2.3, 3.4, etc.) Bold the most significant comments Strengths first, OFIs next Avoid “would,” “could” or “should” Non-prescriptive – keep objectivity Professional, positive tone

35. Developing Comments Preliminary comments based on independent review worksheets Final, revised comments based on site visit findings

36. Developing Comments Possible comments relate to : Approach-related strength or OFI Deployment-related strength or OFI Gap in responding to criteria requirements (not apparent that the applicant has a systematic approach to…) Potential role model practice – rare but important to highlight – make sure to present in bold type Acknowledgment of anecdotal response while lacking a systematic approach

37. Sample Comments Item 1.1 – The applicant’s senior leaders and Board members review the organization’s Vision, Mission and Values statements as part of the annual strategic planning process. Multiple communications methods, such as monthly staff meetings, one-on-one meetings and the monthly newsletter are used on a recurring basis to make sure that all volunteers and staff members understand these three key statements. (Strength)

38. Sample Comments Item 1.4 – The applicant ensures fiscal accountability throughout the organization through a series of periodic internal audits conducted by key staff as well as an annual independent financial audit. Audit results are reviewed within 10 days of receipt by senior leaders, and the Board reviews these results as part of each quarterly meeting. (Strength)

39. Sample Comments Items 3.1 & 3.3 – The applicant reviews its core competencies – Service Delivery and Service Design – during the Strategic Planning process and relies on these competencies to strengthen its 3 key value creation processes – needs assessment, service design and care delivery. These processes are improved annually utilizing input from customers, employees, volunteers and other key stakeholders, as well as data developed from customer feedback instruments. (Strength)

40. Sample Comments - Results Item 1.5 – The applicant’s annual workforce satisfaction survey indicates that overall employee satisfaction (those giving a score of “5” on a scale of 1 to 5) has increased from 41% in 2005 to 68% in 2008. Satisfaction among volunteers, who play a key role in the applicant’s service delivery process, has risen from 75% to 82% (scores of “5”) in that same time frame. (Strength)

41. Sample Comments - Results Item 2.6 – The applicant has reduced dependency on government funding through increased donations and other forms of private support as a source of revenue, addressing a key strategic challenge for the applicant. Private support has risen from 15% of its annual revenue in 2005 to almost 40% in 2008, while growing overall revenue by 30% in that same time period. (Strength)

42. Sample Comments - Results Item 3.4 – The applicant improved its process to report monthly performance to its funding partner, shortening delivery time from 30 days in 2006 to 15 days in 2008, six days less than the funder’s requirement of 21 days. The time made available by this improved process performance has led to the creation of additional capacity for providing service to customers. (Strength)

43. Sample Comments Item 1.3 – While the applicant expresses that its customers are satisfied, and indicates that it has received numerous letters from satisfied customers, it is not clear what systematic approach the applicant uses to determine the actual level of satisfaction of its customers with its services or how the applicant gathers data on customer experiences to develop actionable data on which to base improvement efforts. (OFI)

44. Sample Comments Item 2.4 – While the applicant indicates that it conducts monthly performance reviews, both by senior leaders and with its Board, it is not clear how or if the results of those reviews are shared with those individuals responsible for making decisions in the affected performance areas. (OFI)

45. Sample Comments Item 3.1 – While the applicant identifies its two key value creation processes, Needs Assessment and Case Management, it is not clear that the applicant has a process in place to assess the effectiveness of these processes in order to make improvements and incorporate emerging best practices. Lacking such a review and improvement process, it is not clear how these processes are kept current with evolving customer requirements, a key strategic challenge for the applicant. (OFI)

46. Sample Comments - Results Item 1.5 – While the applicant indicates that its customer satisfaction results have risen by 300% over the past three years (2006 through 2008), lacking actual data on the specific level of performance achieved, it is difficult to determine whether the applicant is achieving its goal of 95% customer satisfaction. (OFI)

47. Sample Comments - Results Item 2.6 – The applicant indicates that a key factor in its ability to compete effectively in its service delivery is minimization of delivery errors, yet its service delivery results actually reflect an increase in percentage of errors each of the past three years (2006 through 2008) from 6% to 8%. Given such a trend, it is not clear how the applicant will be able to ensure its sustainability in a highly competitive market. (OFI)

48. Sample Comments - Results Item 3.4 – The applicant indicates that it is critical for real-time data to be available at all times for effective service delivery in meeting customer needs, yet its system uptime remains at a level of only 85% in 2010. While this performance level has increased from 75% in 2009, it is not clear that the applicant can meet its customer requirements if data access is not available 15% of the time. (OFI)

49. Comment Improvement The applicant’s strategic planning process is highly effective due to the use of an outside consultant with much expertise.

50. Comment Improvement Item 1.2 – The applicant has excellent two-way communication due to its open-door policy and frequent e-mails from the leaders to the staff.

51. Comment Improvement Item 2.2 - It would be easier to assess the applicant’s approach to building relationships with customers if they would include more information about what they actually do in this area.

52. Comment Improvement Item 2.3 – The applicant does not include the results of its SWOT analysis making it difficult to assess the relevance and accuracy of its strategic objectives and goals. Without this information I cannot tell how the applicant will be able to improve its sustainability.

53. Comment Improvement Item 3.1 – The applicant could do a better job of improving its value creation processes if it would just take the time to map the processes and measure the performance of the process at each key step along the way.

54. Comment Improvement Item 3.1 – The applicant’s approach to managing its support processes is clearly a best practice that others should copy.

55. Comment Improvement Item 2.4 – The applicant would benefit from using a balanced scorecard approach as the over-arching framework for its performance management system. In doing so, the applicant would create better alignment of effort and produce greater impact. This would lead to greater likelihood of funding support increases, positioning the applicant for enhanced levels of sustainability.

56. Consensus Process - Review One set of comments for the team – seek to synergize comments, not just compile/combine Strengths and opportunities for improvement (OFI) Single “score” for the team on each item Identify site visit issues Submit single consensus feedback report with draft of strengths and OFIs by August 25

57. Site Visit Process - Overview Review comments and identify site visit issues Key site visit issues only Verify and clarify on site Review approach, deployment and results Revise feedback report based on site visit findings – new strengths and OFIs will emerge Training for examiners and applicants on August 31

58. Examiner Training July 2011