Family Voice and Choice Committee (FVC Committee)

Collaborative Management Program (CMP) Family Voice and Choice Committee (FVC Committee) September 12, 2011 Minutes

In attendance: Donna Heretick (Walden University); Margie Grimsley (FFCMHCC); Shannon Reiff (Larimer County); Quincy Sinele (Larimer County); Erin Ingoldsby (OMNI); Emily Corey (OMNI); Norm Kirsch (CDHS); Steffan Soto (Pueblo County); Elaine Arnold (Chaffee County)

Welcome and Approval of Meeting Minutes: August 8, 2011 minutes were approved by the Committee.

Sharing family and youth engagement successes: Steffan shared that 3 family representatives attended the August 18 CMP Quadrant meeting in Montrose. They were from El Paso, Pueblo and Montrose Counties. He also noted that the meeting was very informative.

Family Advocate Survey Data/review of the “Family Involvement Survey 2011-Preliminary Results” Discussion:  Step 5 was added to the Review Process created at the August 8, 2011 FVC meeting. Family Advocate Annual Report Survey Process: Step 1: Disseminate the report to the FVC Committee to review prior to the 9.12.11 meeting Completed

Step 2: Erin and Emily will present basic analysis and results from the initial draft report Completed

Step 3: Discussion – Begun but not completed. Timeline: Finalize at the October 10 meeting

Step 4: OMNI will revise the report based upon committee feedback. Timeline: TBD Activities:

Step 5: Develop and implement a Dissemination Plan for the final report. Timeline: Activities:

Step 6: Final report will be posted on the portal. Timeline: Activities:

 “ Family Involvement Survey 2011-Preliminary Results” Discussion: Erin began the committee discussion by asking everyone what their overall impressions were of the report format and to comment on the initial attempts to interpret the survey data. She noted the importance of: 1. Identifying the key points gathered from the data. 2. Getting agreement on how the information is framed and interpreted. 3. Defining what data will require more in depth interpretation. 4. Creating specific next steps.

Donna asked several questions for clarification, and highlighted that, depending on further analysis, the results may be interpreted differently. She also listed several areas where responses could be looked at separately for further investigation. An example would be to look at the Family Advocate category section to better understand the different roles, educational factors, etc. A concern was brought up regarding the Annual Report and the inability to capture the number of wraparound (individual planning) meetings that individual families attend. It was suggested that this information can be collected through the Walden University focus team process.

Donna noted that survey results identified that Chaffee, Elbert, Morgan and Lake counties seem to have the most number of people able to participate in focus group activities.

In response to the question, “What do we want to do in reaction to this report?”, the following action plan was agreed to: 1) Resend out draft Family Advocate Survey Report and survey questions. 2) Committee members will review the survey report and answer the survey review questions. 3) Return responses to: Emily Corey ([email protected]); and Margie Grimsley ([email protected]) (m_g); Deadline: Friday, September 30 4) Survey question responses will be sent out prior to the October 10 meeting. 5) The October 10 meeting will be extended to an hour and a half meeting. 6) Follow-up discussion will continue at the October 10 FVC Committee call.

 Survey Question Responses: 1. Should there be a follow-up survey procedure included in the process? 2. Can the definition for family advocate be put in a stand-alone paragraph to ensure that the term is clearly understood? 3. Can certain survey sections be formatted to become Walden University focus group questions?

Family Engagement Discussion: Elaine mentioned that she would like to make a request at the next Incentive Committee meeting, being held prior to the September 20 State Steering Committee meeting.

Her recommendation is for the incentive formula to include funding to be allocated to counties that had consistent family voice on their local IOG. She outlined that this would not only benefit our effort to have family/family organization and youth voice at every local IOG table, but would also provide an incentive for local counties to achieve this goal.

Norm did note that to avoid possible confusion, there should be an agreed upon definition for “family member”, “youth representative” and “family organization” included in this request. Margie read the definition of family member and family-driven organization that was used by the Family Voice and Choice Committee when doing the initial family and youth engagement surveying. The committee gave its support to Elaine to make this request to the Incentive Committee and agreed that these definitions also should be provided to the committee at the same time.

Additional next steps for the FVC Committee should include:  Making sure that counties are offered tools and recruitment strategies on ways to achieve this outcome.  Assist in identifying which counties would qualify for these dollars in the first year.  Demonstrate that this action is in line with what the FVC Committee has been advocating for and also allows the committee an opportunity to support counties, as they do this work.  Training opportunities.  Integrate this concept into survey key focus area.  Continued ways to support this kind of effort as a way to elevate family engagement efforts to a higher level.

Next Conference call meeting: Monday, October 10, 2011, 9:00-10:30 am. (Please note extended meeting time.)