Committee Members Present: Randy Allgaier, Anita Booker, Billie-Jean Kanios,
Ken Pearce
Committee Members Absent: Sparkie Spaeth, Laura Thomas, Catherine Geanuracos
Council Members in Attendance: Dorothy Kleffner, Bill Blum
Others in Attendance: Michelle Long Dixon,
Council Staff: Jack Newby, Leah Crask, Skot Jonz
1. Introductions
2. Review/Approve Agenda
CM Allgaier moved to approve the agenda. The agenda was approved.
3. Announcements
There were no announcements.
4. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
5. Elect Working Group Co-chairs-VOTE
CM Allgaier recommended one co-chair from the Evaluation Committee and one
from the Planning Committee. CM Booker moved to elect CM Kanios as co-chair.
CM Kanios expressed concern about duties and responsibilities. Other Committee
Members indicated they would provide support to CM Kanios as needed.
CM Allgaier recommended putting off nominations for the Evaluation co-chair
slot until the next meeting.
CM Allgaier moved to vote by voice on selecting CM Kanios as co-chair.
All present voted in favor of appointing CM Kanios as co-chair.
6. Request for Proposal (RFP) Status Update
Jack Newby presented the status of the RFP and reported that it was sent out
today. He reviewed recommendations and the time line for selection. Jack
indicated that he spoke with potential providers who indicated they could
complete the RFP in three weeks, although ideally four weeks would be better.
This was cited as the reason for immediate action. Discussion with the AIDS
Office regarding funding will be underway.
CM Allgaier asked about potential bidders from DPH. Jack Newby said he would
be in discussion with others to identify any other potential contractors. Jack
Newby identified the contractors from the list who he thought would be the
most efficient, and recommended getting three to four Committee members to
meet and evaluate the proposals when they come in on February 18th to have
them completed by the following week.
CM Allgaier discussed why there is a crunch time line on this matter. In order
to have the data by July, the contractors all indicated they needed to get
started ASAP. The 28th of Feb. is when the new funding cycle ends which will
allow for funds to pay for this item. The new funding cycle will not have funds
available to do so until later in the year. Committee discussed details about
the timeline to review the proposals.
CM Allgaier volunteered to review proposals.
CM Booker and CM Kanios said they would also offer to help.
CM Pearce asked for Newby to clarify the cost.
Jack Newby said the budget allowed for $125,000, which includes a $10,000 retainer.
Newby said he would discuss with the contractor whether they would be on board
with a retainer while they obtained the remainder of the fee.
Dorothy Kleffner asked about the instrument used to obtain Needs Assessment
data.
CM Allgaier indicated it would be based on prior needs assessments and adjusted
accordingly.
7. Membership of Needs Assessment Working Group
CM Allgaier advocated input from the Community Outreach and Advocacy Committee
(COA) as well as Evaluation and Planning committees, as COA could have forms
with useful data. It was suggested that the upcoming COA meeting be asked
for volunteers for the Needs Assessment Working Group. Newby indicated that
the Prevention Planning Group should also be included.
Michelle Long Dixon indicated that someone from the AIDS Office would be present.
CM Allgaier asked for Committee discussion about membership and ways to identify
outreach methods and affected communities.
Michelle Long Dixon emphasized the challenge with having experienced people
who can contact hard to reach and underserved communities, and the importance
of multi-county familiarity.
CM Kanios stated that different organizations work with specific populations,
so many organizations need to be involved.
CM Allgaier indicated that someone (other than CM Booker) from San Mateo Co.
should be present.
CM Pearce asked if funding for the Needs Assessment for three counties is being
paid for by San Francisco.
The Committee discussed that Marin and San Mateo counties have no funding for
these purposes, and that the Needs Assessment benefits the Council which is
working for the benefit of the entire EMA.
Committee discussed that San Mateo and Marin may have already done a Needs
Assessment and can provide their input and information. CM Allgaier reiterated
the need for representation from other counties, outreach people, and Committee
Members from the Community Outreach and Advocacy Committee.
Jack Newby asked if the Committee would like Council Support to invite people
to attend the meetings.
CM Pearce indicated that key people in San Mateo and Marin counties would be
contacted to advise that this Needs Assessment was being worked on.
Committee agreed to have Council Support to contact people for membership on
the Committee as needed.
8. Meeting Date & Time-VOTE
Jack Newby indicated that this could not be decided until the full Committee
was present. Committee discussed the frequency of meetings and possible days.
CM Allgaier suggested not choosing a standing date at this time. Leah Crask
and Jack Newby indicated that everyone would be contacted to determine the
most appropriate day for the next meeting.
9. Inclusion of San Mateo & Marin Counties in the Project
CM Allgaier stated that the Planning Council is more involved in how San Mateo
and Marin counties do their work and indicated that the scope needs to be
widened, and the Needs Assessment needs to be EMA-wide.
CM Pearce asked why this was on the agenda if the decision was already made
to include San Mateo and Marin counties.
Committee discussed that this agenda item is more a “how-to” include
these counties rather than an “if”.
CM Allgaier suggested that this might be more appropriately discussed when
more Committee Members are present, and possibly the consultant. Jack Newby
indicated this item will remain on the agenda to keep it fresh in the minds
of Council and Committee Members to think EMA-wide. Dorothy Kleffner indicated
that things are tense in Marin County and she hopes that some of her Needs
Assessment data from Marin County makes it onto the upcoming EMA Needs Assessment.
She emphasized confidentiality and that some people are afraid of commenting
negatively because they might lose benefits. CM Booker asked if the consultant
will need to go through providers to access client data. Jack Newby commented
that people who are not in care or afraid of reprisal need to be identified
so that their voice is heard.
CM Pearce asked whether Kleffner advocates three different Needs Assessments
because of differences present throughout the counties. CM Pearce suggested
a template with individual adjustments for each county. Committee discussed
that the instrument should be universal and then looked at differently by each
county and the overall EMA, and adjusted as needed.
Michelle Long-Dixon emphasized the need to make clear that this is not a survey
about satisfaction of provider services, but what a person with AIDS needs
as an individual.
CM Pearce asked for a copy of the previous Needs Assessment given to all committee
members.
Council Support indicated how to obtain the requested documents.
Committee discussed unique problems present with Marin County to get people
to respond to the Needs Assessment survey. CM Kleffner indicated that needs
had been identified in the past, but no changes were ever made. CM Booker indicated
that if people don’t respond, necessary changes won’t be made.
CM Allgaier indicated that interviewers will be individually meeting with people,
and this approach could reduce fear of reprisal when notified that it will
not be going through Marin County agencies, but rather through the Council
or a separate contractor. Michelle indicated that clients may not make a distinction
between Marin County agencies and the Planning Council and indicated the helpfulness
in having groundwork done ahead of time to get people comfortable with the
process and feel safe enough to respond prior to sending out the survey.
CM Blum asked if Michelle had any comments regarding the success of prior needs
assessments.
Michelle discussed various forms of sampling used, and reiterated the need
to make clients feel safe and stated that the previous Needs Assessment has
been very labor intensive.
CM Pearce identified attempts to hire local people to administer the survey
and lack of consistent training could have been as much a barrier to accuracy
as language barriers or other concerns.
CM Blum expressed concern and doubts about speaking for San Mateo as a representative.
He also expressed a concern that the results of the Needs Assessment could
have an adverse effect on San Mateo services based on the issues with Marin
County. He reiterated the importance of Council’s response to Marin issues
not result in EMA-wide changes.
Committee discussed difference between confidential and anonymous, and the
use of unique identifier codes that is not name based.
CM Allagaier stated the intention of the Committee is to have some sort of
accountability in place.
CM Blum indicated that changes in San Francisco may not have a huge effect
but could really disrupt a smaller county. Committee agreed on having a process
that is consistent.
10. Development of Needs Assessment Timeline
Jack Newby discussed the overall process for information on the Needs Assessment
be available to Council for the prioritization and allocation processes.
He recommended that the Needs Assessment Working Group develop a timeline
and work together to decide when to get the contract done, meeting with contractor,
and coordinating work between Council and Council Support. Jack suggested
beginning a timeline identifying approaching projects and assigning responsibility
for who handles what task. Jack expects the consultant will work with co-chairs,
and from a management standpoint issues will come up and there needs to be
a way to address them. Jack informed Committee Members that the timeline
is aggressive and needs to be coordinated with the AIDS Office.
CM Allgaier reiterated that CM Booker and CM Blum are neither representatives
nor consumers of San Mateo, but will be present as Council Members.
Jack Newby asked for CM Blum to identify who in San Mateo should be apprised
of the process.
CM Pearce suggested a consumer from San Mateo should be included.
CM Blum offered to identify potential participants.
CM Allgaier restated that a consultant would be on board by the end of February.
Jack Newby identified September 26th as the date for completion of the Needs
Assessment and informed Committee Members that he would prepare a draft timeline.
CM Pearce reported that the previous Needs Assessment process became too involved
with developing the instrument and left insufficient time for the actual gathering
of data and meeting with respondents. CM Pearce emphasized the importance of
making sure enough time was allowed for reaching consumers.
CM Allgaier reminded Committee that the prior Needs Assessment was done from
scratch and this time there is something to start with.
CM Blum indicated some way to identify “severe need” clients.
Jack Newby discussed the importance of maintaining credibility in the process
so that consumer input is equal to provider input.
CM Booker stated that the previous Needs Assessment be adjusted to specify
how “severe needs” clients will be identified.
CM Pearce stated that the Committee is unqualified to identify the “severe
needs” groups and likewise turning it over to a consultant might be risky,
suggesting that a more efficient method needs to be developed.
Michelle stated that coordinating with Centers of Excellence will help.
CM Blum indicated that clean data may not come through the first time, but
the work needs to begin.
Jack Newby reiterated that after this Needs Assessment additional targeted
assessments directed to specific populations can be conducted annually thereafter.
11. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
CM Allgaier indicated that Council Support would come up with dates/times for
the next meeting and notify committee members.
CM Pearce asked if Committee Members could get copies of results of prior Needs
Assessments, specifically the instrument itself, including examples of Needs
Assessment instruments used in other EMAs. Council Support indicated that it
was available and had already been distributed, and would be provided to anyone
who needed it.
Jack Newby stated that an agenda item should include the process and how to
avoid pitfalls and that the next meeting will be held within three weeks, probably
in the last week of February.
CM Pearce asked if Committee will be meeting after the review of RFPs and how
to get more participation in the review process. He offered to be involved.
Jack Newby emphasized the importance of consumers feeling as if they are involved
on the ground floor part of this process so that their comments are valued.
For Marin and San Mateo counties the critical issue is that people feel their
voice is heard and valued, and the job of this Committee is to make sure that
happens from the beginning. Committee discussed various ways to bring consumers
in to review RFPs, and whether the consumers choose to get involved or not,
they should be given the opportunity. Discussion ensued regarding the need
to effectively contact monolingual consumers; marketing and promoting to get
people aware of the process, specifically tailored to the needs of the community.
Committee agreed that at least trying to identify people for participation
is important.
CM Blum asked about stipends for unaffiliated consumers. Committee indicated
that child care, transportation, and food vouchers can be provided, but cash
cannot. CM Blum reinforced that identifying unaffiliated consumers to participate
in the process would be difficult as they would likely be losing wages.
Committee agreed that strategies for providing incentives should be added as
an agenda item.
Committee discussed the importance of contacting absent Committee Members regarding
the decision on the proposals to be made prior to the Next Committee meeting.
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED @ 5:30pm
Audio recording for this meeting is saved as DS330193
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee