11 minutes

Questions for examining an outcome difference

The practical tool: a one-page inquiry guide that turns an observed difference into an examination somebody owns, with the response agreed before the answer is known.

What you’ll be able to do

Build a written inquiry guide for one real outcome difference in your own work, naming the question, the people who should shape it, the steps to examine, and what accountability would require if the answer points back at the division.
Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What is the most responsible next step?
Draft a disparity inquiry guide for one outcome for your work, including the outcome and the difference you can see, denominator, categories and who is missing from the number, the steps where the difference could have been produced.

From noticing to asking well

Most outcome differences inside a large public system are noticed long before they are examined. They appear in a quarterly report, somebody mentions them, and the conversation moves on because nobody has a way to turn an observation into work. The missing piece is rarely willingness. It is that nobody wrote the questions down.

An inquiry guide is a short document, no longer than a page, that turns one observed difference into something a group of people can actually examine. It names the outcome and the difference, the denominator and the categories, the steps where the difference could have been produced, the people who should shape the inquiry and how they are paid, what the division will do if the answer points at its own decisions, and who owns each part.

The last two lines are where inquiries usually fail. Community advisors, people with disabilities, families, interpreters and culturally specific organizations are co-designers and advisors here, not subjects, and their time is paid for. Arrange the payment route before the first invitation goes out, because it takes longer to set up than the meeting does. Then write down what happens if the answer is inconvenient, while you still do not know the answer. A commitment made in advance survives a finding nobody wanted.

A disparity inquiry guide for one outcome

One page that turns an observed difference into an examination somebody owns.

The outcome and the difference you can see On-time approvals for a waiver service. Across three cycles, the share approved within the standard timeframe for one recorded group runs roughly twelve points below the next largest group.

Denominator, categories and who is missing from the number Denominator is applicants, not the likely eligible population. Broad race categories; at this size we cannot look inside them. Not in the number at all: people discouraged before they applied, and people whose race field is blank.

The steps where the difference could have been produced The recently signed form requirement; interpreter availability at the assessment rather than at intake; which office processed the file; automatic closure after a missed appointment.

Who should shape the inquiry, and how they are paid Two people who went through the process, one family member, one culturally specific organization, one interpreter. Paid at the agreed advisor rate through the existing grant route; confirm with fiscal before any invitation goes out.

What we will do if the answer points back at us Record the finding in the program file in plain words, name an owner for the step, add a second route to meeting the requirement or change it, and contact the people whose applications were closed under it.

Owner, report-back date and next review point Named program manager owns the guide. Advisors and affected applicants hear what was found within one cycle of the last session. Reviewed again at the agreed point.

Copy the six fields onto a single page, fill them in for one outcome you are responsible for, start with the line on who is missing, and settle the payment route before the first invitation goes out.

Browse and download only. Staff notes are not typed or saved on this page.

Questions to take into the room

What exactly is the outcome, and for whom is it a good or a bad one? Say it in a sentence a person outside the division would understand.
What is the denominator, and what would the picture look like with a different one?
Which categories are we using, what do they collapse, and what are we prepared to say about the communities inside them?
Who is not in this number at all, and at which step did they leave or never arrive?
Which steps in the path could have produced this, and which of those does the division control?
What would we expect to see if each competing explanation were true, and which of those can we actually check?
Whose expertise is missing from this conversation, and what would it take for them to shape it rather than review it at the end?
What does accessibility mean here beyond the legal minimum — in how the inquiry itself is run, not only in what it examines?
Does the way we plan to describe this make sense to people who do not already know how DHS works?
If the answer points at one of our own decisions, what will we do, and who has agreed to that in advance?
If harm or exclusion has already occurred, what would accountability and repair require for the people it happened to, not only for the process going forward?
Who hears what we found, in what language and format, and by when?

If the answer points back at us

Say it in the record

A finding that a division requirement produced a difference belongs in the program file in plain words, with a date and a named owner. Softening it there is how the same requirement survives the next review untouched.

Separate what is obligated from what is chosen

Some responses are legal obligations under civil rights and accessibility law, and they are decided by the responsible offices rather than by a program team. Others are choices a program can make immediately. Keeping the two apart prevents both paralysis and overreach.

Repair is about people, not only process

Changing a requirement going forward does not reach the people already closed out under it. Ask who they were, whether they can be contacted, and what could be offered: a reopened application, a waived step, a direct call rather than another letter.

Tell the advisors what happened

People who helped examine a difference are owed the finding and the decision, including the parts that did not go their way. A report-back that only arrives when the news is good teaches people not to take part next time.

Expect the defensive turn, and plan for it

When a finding lands, the first reaction in the room is often polarization: the number is attacked, or a person is blamed. Naming that possibility in advance, and returning to the design question rather than the motive question, is usually what keeps the work moving.

Decide the response before you know the answer

What you can change

You control whether the commitment to act is written down while the finding is still unknown. Afterward, every commitment reads as a concession.

What to watch for

Do not open an inquiry you are not prepared to have answered, and do not invite paid advisors into a question whose answer you have already decided. Both cost trust you will need later.

Your next step

Before the first session, write one sentence: if this examination finds that our own step produced the difference, we will… Then have the person who can authorize it agree to that sentence.

A joint inquiry finds that a division requirement produced most of an outcome difference. The program changes the requirement for future applicants. What is still missing?

Nothing further is required; the process has been corrected going forward.

The people whose applications were closed under the old requirement, who are owed contact and a route back in, and the advisors who helped, who are owed the finding and the decision.

A written statement of regret in the next public report.

Try a situation

A contract manager is preparing a renewal for a large provider that supports people across several counties. Performance information attached to the renewal shows that among the people this provider supports, the share who reach competitive integrated employment differs sharply by recorded race. The provider is the only one of its size in part of the region, and the renewal is due in six weeks.

What is the most responsible next step?

Add a renewal condition requiring the provider to close the gap by the next contract period, with reporting against it.

Note the difference in the contract file and keep monitoring for another cycle, since the counts are small and there is no alternative provider in part of the region.

Open a short joint inquiry with the provider and paid community advisors before the renewal, covering referral, assessment, expectations about capability and where job development staff are actually placed — and write down in advance what the division will do if the cause sits on our side.

Carry this forward

Most outcome differences in a large public system are noticed long before they are examined. The missing piece is usually not willingness; it is that nobody wrote the questions down.
Who is asked to help examine a difference decides what can be found. People with disabilities, families, interpreters and culturally specific organizations are co-designers and advisors in this work, paid for their time, not subjects of it.
Arrange the payment route before the first invitation goes out. Setting it up takes longer than the meeting does, and an unpaid invitation is a request to subsidize the state.
Write down what the division will do if the answer is inconvenient, while you still do not know the answer. A commitment made in advance survives a finding nobody wanted.
Changing a requirement going forward does not reach the people already closed out under it. Accountability names them; repair reaches them.

A scenario about a contract renewal where provider-level differences appear, a disparity inquiry guide you can copy into your own work, an ordered question set to take into the room, an accordion on what to do when the answer points back at us, and a knowledge check on what a finding obliges.

Fill the inquiry guide in for one outcome you are responsible for. Start with the line naming who is missing from the inquiry, and ask a contracts or fiscal colleague about the payment route before the first invitation goes out.

Your next step

Which outcome in your own work would you be willing to examine this way?

Name one outcome you are responsible for where a difference has been mentioned but never examined.

Write down the denominator it uses and one group its categories collapse.

Name the people who should shape the inquiry, and the colleague who can confirm the payment route.

Write the sentence that says what you will do if the answer points at a step you own.

Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.

Mark this lesson complete

Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.