1. Planning for Performance Measurement:
Reviewing the Logic Models and Program Areas
Presenters:
Marcia Cohen, DSG, Inc.
Heidi Hsia, OJJDP

2. What Is Performance Measurement?
It is directly related to program goals and objectives.
It measures progress quantitatively.
It is not exhaustive.
It provides a “temperature” reading—it may not tell you everything you want to know but provides a quick and reliable gauge of selected results.
Performance measurement is a system of tracking progress in accomplishing specific goals, objectives, and outcomes.
Both performance measurement and traditional program evaluation are necessary—and they share some common elements—but they serve different purposes, involve different processes, and can be conducted at different times in the life of a program.
Performance measurement is a narrower form of tracking progress in relation to goals, objectives, and outcomes than program evaluation. It monitors a few vital signs related to program performance objectives, outputs, and outcomes. While program evaluation comprehensively examines programs using systematic, objective, and unbiased procedures in accordance with social science research methods and research design, performance measurement looks at a few indicators, is usually done annually, and usually by program staff.
Why do performance measurement? Answer: To improve services, strengthen accountability, enhance decision-making, and support strategic planning.

3. Measurement vs. Evaluation
Impact evaluations are broader and assess the overall or net effects— intended or unintended—of the program as a whole.*
Impact
evaluation
Scope
Evaluation
Outcome evaluations investigate whether the program causes demonstrable effects on specifically defined target outcomes.*
Outcome evaluation
Process evaluations investigate the process of delivering the program, focusing primarily on inputs, activities, and outputs.*
Process evaluation
How does performance measurement differ from program evaluation? Evaluation is a formal process for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information about a program’s implementation and effectiveness. It uses procedures that are systematic,objective, and unbiased.
If you look at evaluation on a hierarchy, we would have Impact Evaluation at the top, which assesses the net effects of the program as a whole generally using a rigorous research design. Under that, we would have outcome evaluation, which measures both the immediate and long-term effectiveness of program services. It answers questions about results the program is having on the participants, community, and society. Under that we would have Process evaluation, which measures and documents the service delivery process that leads to immediate results and outcomes. Answers questions about how well a program is being run and whether it is being carried out as planned.
Beneath that, we have Performance Measurement. Performance measurement does not make any rigorous effort to prove that the results were caused by the program alone or other external events. Evaluation requires adherence to a research design while performance measurement and process evaluation do not.
However, the effort that goes into both performance measurement and process evaluation—that is, defining goals, objectives, and measures—can be used to lay the groundwork for an outcome evaluation. (The Title V newsletter had more information on the difference between evaluation and performance measurement.)
Performance Measurement
Program Monitoring
Time
* Evaluation definitions excerpt from: Trochim, William M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition Internet WWW page, at URL: < (version current as of Aug. 02, 2000).

4. Outputs Versus Outcomes
Outputs are products of program implementation/activities.
Outcomes are benefits or changes as a result of the program. There are two types of outcomes:
Short-term: The first benefits or changes experienced and the ones most closely related to program outputs.
Long-term: Link a program’s short-term and long-term outcomes. Often they are changes in practice, policy, decision-making, or behavior.
Let’s review definitions related to performance measurement. There are two types of performance indicators: 
Output Indicators measure the products of a program’s implementation or activities. They are generally measured in terms of the volume of work accomplished, such as, amount of service delivered, staff hired, systems developed, sessions conducted, materials developed, policies, procedures, and/or legislation created. Examples include the number of juveniles served, the number of hours of service provided to participants, the number of staff trained, the number of detention beds added, the number of materials distributed, the number of reports written, and the number of site visits conducted.
Outcome indicators measure the benefits or changes for individuals, the juvenile justice system, or the community as a result of the program. Outcomes are easiest to remember by the acronym BASK: they may be related to behavior, attitudes, skills, or knowledge. They may also relate to values, condition, or other attributes. Examples are changes in the academic performance of program participants, changes in the recidivism rate of program participants, changes in client satisfaction level, or changes in the conditions of confinement in detention. There are two levels of outcomes:
Short-term Outcomes are the first benefits or changes participants or the system experience and are the ones most closely related to and influenced by the program’s outputs. They should occur during the program or by the program’s end. For direct service programs, they generally include changes in recipients’ awareness, knowledge, and attitudes. For programs designed to change the juvenile justice system, they include changes to the juvenile justice system that occur during or by the end of the program.
 Long-term Outcomes link a program’s initial outcomes to the longer-term outcomes it desires for participants, recipients, the system, or the community. Often they are changes in practice, policy, decision-making or behavior that result from participants’ or service recipients’ new awareness, knowledge, attitudes, or skills or short-term changes in the jj system. They generally occur within 6 months to 1 year after the program ends, such as changes in arrest rate, reductions in truancy, or reductions in substance use.They are meaningful changes, often in condition or status, or overall problem behavior that gave rise to the program/ intervention in the first place. They are the most removed benefits that the program can expect to influence and usually occur more than 1 year after completion. They should relate back to the program’s goals, such as reducing delinquency.

5. Outputs Versus Outcomes (cont’d.)
With regard to the Formula Grants and Title V performance measures, to summarize:
Outputs are at the micro level and reflect program-level activity.
Outcomes are at the macro level and, when aggregated, will reflect Federal outcomes.
A good performance measurement system should be results oriented and focus on desired outcomes, less on outputs.
With regard to the Formula Grants and Title V performance measures:
Outputs are at the micro-level and reflect program-level activity especially among subgrantees.
Outcomes are at the macro-level and, when aggregated, will reflect Federal outcomes.
Both outputs and outcomes have been aggregated according to type of objective, such as, increase organizational capacity, improve planning and development, improve program efficiency, reduce delinquency, or increase accountability.
A good performance measurement system keeps the following principles in mind. Measures should be:
 Results-oriented – focused primarily on desired outcomes, less on outputs
Important – concentrate on significant matters
Reliable – accurate, consistent information over time
Useful – information is valuable to both policy and program decision-makers and can be used to provide continuous feedback on performance to staff and managers
Quantitative – expressed in terms of rates or percentages
Realistic – measures are set that can be calculated
Cost-effective – the measures themselves are sufficiently valuable to justify the cost of collecting the data
Easy to interpret – do not require an advanced degree in statistics to use and understand
Comparable – can be used for benchmarking against other organizations, internally and externally
Credible – users have confidence in the validity of the data
Source: Fairfax County (VA), Manual for Performance Measurement, 2002)

6. Outcome Measure Definitions
Short-term: Occurs during the program or by the end of the program.
Long-term: Occurs 6 months to year after program completion.

7. Logic Model: Template
A graphic representation that clearly lays out the logical relationships between the problem to be addressed, program activities, outputs, and outcomes.
Outcomes
Problem
Activities
Outputs
A logic model is a graphic representation that clearly lays out the logical relationships between the problem, program activities, outputs, and outcomes. It is a description of how the program theoretically works to achieve benefits for participants.
Short term
Long term

8. Overall Formula Grants and Title V Programs Logic Model
OUTCOMES
Outputs
Juvenile Justice System Improvement Program Areas:
19, 23, 31, 33
Core Requirements Program Areas:
6, 8, 10, 17, 28
Activities
Increased system capacity
Improved planning and development
Improved program quality
Improved monitoring of compliance
Implement processes
Implementing Title V programs for keeping at-risk youth from offending or first-time, nonserious youth out of the JJ system.
Program Areas:
3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34
Implementing Formula Grants prevention and intervention programs
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34
Improved youth outcomes
Improved policies, procedures, operations, staffing, service delivery
Short Term
Long Term
Improved juvenile justice systems
Increased compliance with Core Requirements
Reduced recidivism
Increased accountability
Problems
To improve juvenile justice systems by increasing compliance with the Core Requirements and increasing availability and types of prevention and intervention programs
Goals
To support both State and local prevention and intervention efforts and juvenile justice systems improvements
Objectives
Juvenile Delinquency
Key
= System-level indicator
= Program-level indicator
The first logic model we produced was for the entire OJJDP Formula Grants and Title V grants programs. Above and in your packets is the logic model for the entire Formula Grants Program. We describe the problem to be addressed as juvenile delinquency. The goals are to improve JJ systems by increasing compliance with the Core Requirements and increasing the availability and types of prevention and intervention programs.
The objectives are: To support both State and local prevention and intervention efforts and JJ system improvements.
The activities are, as I already described, categorized into 34 program areas grouped as follows:
JJ System Improvement PAs: 19, 23, 31, 33
Core Requirement PAs: 6, 8, 10, 17, 28
Title V Program PAs: 3,4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34
Formula Grants Program PAs:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34
The outputs include: increased system capacity as well as improved monitoring of core requirements, improved program quality, improved planning and development, and improved program efficiency.
Short-term outcomes include: improved policies, operations, staffing, and service delivery
Long-term outcomes include: improved jj systems, reduced youth relapse and reduced delinquency.
These outcomes are illustrative and not an exhaustive list. You need to look at each logic model for the detailed outcomes expected from each program area.
Outcome measures are for illustrative purposes only and are not comprehensive. To see a comprehensive list of outcomes, refer to the individual program area logic models.

9. Title V Program Areas
Title V programs are for keeping at-risk youth from offending or first-time, nonserious youth out of the JJ system.
Title V has 18 Prevention and Early Intervention Program Areas:
3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34

10. Formula Grants Program Areas
Three Formula Grants Program Area categories:
Prevention and Intervention Program Areas:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34
JJ System Improvement Program Areas:
19, 23, 31, 33
Core Requirements Program Areas:
6, 8, 10, 17, 28