Committee Members present: Ken Pearce, Billie Jean Kanios, Margot Antonetty,
Don Soto
Other Council Members present: Randy Allgaier
Council Support: Jack Newby, Leah Crask, Kari Orvik
Others present: Celinda Cantu (HIV Health Services)
1. Introductions
2. Review/Approve Agenda
The agenda was reviewed and approved.
3. Review/Approve Minutes
The minutes for November 9, 2004 meeting were reviewed and approved.
4. Announcements
Kari Orvik announced she will be leaving her position in January 2005.
5. Public Comment
6. Steering Committee Update
Council Support presented an update of the Steering Committee meeting.
7. Scope of Work for the Needs Assessment
Jack Newby reviewed the document covering information to be included on the
RFP for a needs assessment consultant. See handout.
Jack Newby stated that the alternatives to the RFP process would be conducting
interviews with each possible vendors, having them provide work samples, references,
etc., or use the same vendor as before (LaFrance and Associates).
CM Allgaier stated that the co-chairs were in the process of discussing possible
collaboration with the Prevention Council. If Prevention were to benefit from
the assessment, they might also be able to chip in financially.
CM Kanios urged that collaboration should happen with HPPC, in order to take
a holistic approach.
CM Thomas cautioned against replication information, and suggested building
on existing data, such as Reggie and EPI.
The Committee discussed the importance of asking the consultant how they plan
to access information concerning unmet need, such as methodology and outcomes.
CM Allgaier brought up the incongruity between HRSA’s categories and
the Planning Council’s, which should be standardized before a consultant
is brought in.
CM Allgaier suggested created a subcommittee/task force to work on the needs
assessment, consisting of members of evaluation and planning committees.
CM Thomas stated that bullet #’s 3,4,5 on the handout represented data
that could be available through DPH and EPI reports.
CM Thomas stated that, regarding resource inventory, last time providers did
not send back the complex surveys that would give that information.
CM Allgaier suggested collaborating with HAPN to get more provider input.
CM Antonetty stressed the importance of vendor accountability to ensure output
from the vendor.
CM Pearce referred to a proposal he made months ago requesting that Michelle
Long Dixon provide the Council with waiting list data concerning unmet need,
which he had brought to Steering and Steering had not approved.
CM Thomas stated that information from the service summary sheets can identify
under-utilization, but not unmet need specifically.
DPH and HAPN would have information regarding unmet need
Celinda Cantu stated that Reggie is being updated, and there is information
on people with disabling HIV, poverty, and recently incarcerated that can give
indications of the scope of unmet need.
Celinda Cantu will run reports for 6 months periods in 04-05 and have them
for the next committee meeting.
CM Thomas stated the need to do a large-scale client survey to identify people
outside the system of care.
CM Kanios suggested going distributing the surveys in inconvenient locations
such as shelters and on the streets.
CM Pearce brought up whether the committee wants to use a smaller sample size
and more follow-up, or cast a wide net.
CM Allgaier stated the need to ensure that all populations are explored. The
RFP should include how contractors plan to conduct outreach in order to determine
unmet need.
Jack Newby suggested it would be helpful to collaborate on this issue with
Prevention.
CM Thomas stated the need to make the survey standardized and statistically
reliable, which will be relevant at prioritization.
CM Thomas listed other existing reports that could be consulted to gather data,
such as the Bayview/ Hunter’s Point and the Urban Health research studies.
The committee discussed forming a task force to work on the needs assessment
from February through May, approximately twice per month. CM Pearce, CM Thomas,
and CM Kanios volunteered to be on the task force. Volunteers will be recruited
from other committees, specifically Evaluation.
8. Develop prioritization plan/process
The results from the Evaluation committee’s prioritization evaluation
will be available at the next Evaluation meeting on Wednesday, December 15.
Recommendations from the evaluation will be ready for the January Planning
committee meeting, which will be helpful to hone this year’s process.
Jack Newby stated that a training and evaluation coordinator should be hired
by January, who can help with trainings on prioritization information outside
of full Council meetings and after data is presented.
At the January meeting, the Committee will invite previous Planning Committee
members to have a frank discussion of last year’s prioritization process.
Jack Newby brought up the possibility of holding a 2-day summit for prioritization
in August. The first day would be devoted to information review, questions
and discussion. The second day would be voting and motions. Council members
would have to be present the first day to vote on the second day. Compared
to other councils, San Francisco does not spend a lot of time on prioritization.
The committee discussed possible days, such as Friday, August 26 and Saturday
August 27, 2005 for the 2-day summit. If people know in advance about the time
commitment, they can plan ahead.
The Committee discussed a timeline for the presentation of information related
to prioritization at full Council meetings:
January: presentation of Marin and San Mateo Counties prioritization process
and calendar
February: Data presentations
March: Unmet need
April: Surveillance
May: Service summary sheets
June: Reggie data
July: Needs assessment results
9. New Business/Next Meeting Agenda
At the next meeting the committee will discuss the Reggie reports from Celinda,
the recommendations from the prioritization evaluation, discussion with former
members, finalize the calendar.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30pm.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee