MN HIV Services Planning Council
Meeting Minutes for November 12, 2002
Division of Indian Work

 

 

 

I.          Welcome and introductions; lighting of the candle

Sarah R. called the meeting to order at 12:40 p.m.  Introductions were made.  Lois lit the candle in the name of world peace and love.

 

II.          Review the minutes and proposed agenda

Sarah S. asked that the minutes reflect a designation of Sarah R. or S. in the minutes.  MOTION:  Andrea moved or seconded approval of the minutes.  Passed unanimously.

 

III.   Open forum

Sarah R. asked if anyone was interested in participating in the forum.  No one came forward.

 

IV.             Co-chair update

Sarah R. gave the co-chair update.  In accordance with Bob Olander’s motion to discuss selected topics in depth at every other Planning Council meeting, the Executive Committee decided to solicit selected topics for future discussion. A sheet will be passed around during the meeting.  Sarah R. asked members to please add any ideas they have for discussion topics.  The Olander three is also being assessed with respect to computer availability – we will continue to update the Planning Council as we learn more.  Mary Doyle has a conference call scheduled with Frances Hodge our HRSA Project Officer to get a sense of what role we can take in legislative advocacy.  The Operations Committee did arrange for a legislative update for today from Dan McCarthy of DHS.  Sarah R. also said that we’ve been thinking about how to present the Statewide Plan and asked that someone who has been involved in the process to give a historical update.

 

Dave Rompa volunteered that there was a discussion on how to involve greater Minnesota in service planning.  A work group was put together to look at various models that may meet the needs of individuals from greater Minnesota.  Lori provided additional information.  The Planning Council held a retreat in July of 2001 and prioritized statewide planning as a target area for development.  Copies of the statewide plan will be distributed before the next meeting.  There will be discussion of the plan in both the December and January Planning Council meetings.

 

V.                 Legislative update - Dan McCarthy DHS

Dan introduced himself and began by giving an update of the biennial budget and how it will be affected by the election results.  The Department of Finance website has good information about each department and what their budget requests are.  There is also information available in the Citizen’s Guide under budget narratives.  In DHS’ budget the HIV/AIDS line items are located under Health Care/Other Assistance.  All agencies were asked to prepare a 10% budget cut.  The State is expecting to be about $3 billion short for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.  In DHS they have tried to protect entitlements and avoid making changes in eligibility levels.  He reassured everyone that in terms of HIV/AIDS services there is a great deal of federal and special aid funding so when the State issues are addressed there probably won’t be a lot of focus on HIV/AIDS.  To hit the high numbers necessary for cuts they will need to go to bigger pots of money.  Members then asked questions about the status of the federal budget and the impact on our state budget.  Dan clarified that the federal budget has authority to deficit spend but states do not have that authority.  He also reiterated that the dollars spent on HIV/AIDS are relatively small compared to the numbers spent in other areas so he feels that we are a bit insulated.  Programs that have federal matching dollars like Medicaid may be at less risk of being impacted by the state budget than those that don’t.  Dave shared that the Operations Committee will be asking Bob Tracy to come give a legislative update from a community perspective.

 

VI.             Title II update - Jeff Buckles

Jeff passed out a Title II report.  The ADAP carry over plan has been submitted.  Lori needed to submit additional information but they haven’t heard about approval yet.  Jeff then introduced new DHS staff, Redwan Hamza, ORR grant and Ama Sabah.  DHS will be conducting an ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) community forum – November 21 at the International Institute.  Jeff is also working with Juan and Becky of CLEAR on the Out of Care report.  They are trying to close the gap in the number of people estimated to be out of care.  Jeff also shared the response from the Title I and II administrators regarding garbage collection. Many users spend their total allocation on heat and electricity.  For those who don’t need the full $400 more clients can be served if garbage collection is not covered.  DHS has received feedback from SAMHSA as to why they did not receive funding.  They are working on collapsing the information to save on printing but will be distributing it soon.

 

VII.   Title I update - Jonathan Hanft and Lori Lippert

Jonathan began his update by passing out information on spending to date.  He then introduced the reallocation process, which the Council needs to make a decision on today.  After six months, if a service area has spent 40% or less of their allocated funding the grantees look at the spending and decide if funds should be reallocated.  Ideally if funds need to be reallocated that are moved within a service area.  There are certain activities that may be reallocated within a service area.  The grantees are also requesting that some funds be moved into different service areas.  They have requested that $15,000 be moved from nutrition to transportation, $12,000 move from benefits counseling to legal services, $3,000 from greater Minnesota initiatives to transportation.  Members then asked questions related to specific spending in certain areas.  MOTION:  Efren moved Roxanne seconded approving the reallocation request as presented.  Passed with one dissenting vote.

 

Jonathan reported that our Title I carryover request was approved by HRSA.  The Title I grantee staff has just issued a short term RFP for health education.  Those proposals are due November 18.  One area in which they are awaiting a response is the MCQA report recommendations to develop an educational program for women consumers.  December 10^th they will be conducting a resource fair for vendors so all agencies know what others in the field are doing.  This will facilitate referrals and collaboration.  It will be held at Snelling Office Park.

 

VIII.    Relationship between prioritization, allocation and budget discussion

Jonathan began the discussion by reviewing the MAI funds that are administered by the grantees.  He began by reviewing the history of the funding, which began in 1999 as the Congressional Black Caucus initiative to address the severe and ongoing HIV/AIDS health crisis in the African American community.  It has since be renamed the Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) and has been expanded to reach all communities of color.  He continued to review the history and directives as set forth by HRSA including the RFP process and provider selection process.  Bob O. expressed his concern about the requirement that providers have documented history and documented linkages to others in the community when there may be newer agencies that are doing innovative work but don’t qualify for funding.

 

Questions re: qualifications –

·        Are all of these questions required of providers required in order to receive funding?

·        In the RFP language it’s stated that the organizations are required to have at least 50% of the staff and/or board represent the targeted population.  Who developed that recommendation?

·        Was the original intent of the appropriation to deliver services to these communities or to build the organizational capacity to build on other agencies to deliver these services?

·        How many people do you consider a group (i.e., women with HIV) and how many should be on the board of directors?

·        For emerging populations such as Somali or Oromo where there is no history of serving a certain population how can agencies successfully apply for this funding?

·        The recommendations that were made in 1999 by the Executive Committee – will a committee automatically review these recommendations before the RFP’s go out – ensuring that the decision of who the target groups are is reaffirmed by the Planning Council?

 

Discussion moved to the information on the spreadsheet related to the history of MAI funds.

·        Regarding the spreadsheet, there was a question about the target populations that have not been included as target groups.

·        With potential funding cuts coming does it make sense to require ASO’s to team with other agencies that aren’t HIV specific to increase capacity?

·        Are funding streams for culturally appropriate separate from the other Title I or II funds?

·        What’s the total amount of money for 2002-03 allocated for people of color and is it proportionate to the epidemic?

·        Can we have a graph developed to help us see where the additional $600,000 in funding to culturally appropriate providers was used?  This would help clearly differentiate the MAI funds from Title I and II grants.

·        Set aside funds should be looked at, specifically from a needs assessment standpoint to see if the needs these funds are allocated to meet are being addressed and filling the identified gaps.  We need to ensure that these conversations take place before the next prioritization process.

·        If we’re getting more information about culturally appropriate providers – what percentage of the people being served are people of color?

 

Bob O. suggested that future RFP’s be assertive in leveraging partnerships between agencies that could truly expand the capacity of providers.  Andrea shared that we need to continue discussing this because established institutions were not doing their job which is why this whole funding stream was developed – we have to be very deliberate and very precise about how the future of this will be structured.

 

Discussion moved to the prioritization and allocation process.  Lori passed out information that was used in decision making for members to review again.  The she provided some background on how those decisions were made.  She then asked for questions. 

·        How do the budget numbers relate to utilization figures?

·        Can we rethink the process?  We got a lot of data but need to be able to look at it in different ways.

·        Wouldn’t it be simpler to standardize billing requirements for all vendors to help simplify the financial reporting?

·        Funding categories are complex because of multiple funding sources – can they be separated out more?

·        Where would it be appropriate to have a conversation about when we end a service – we never have that discussion it just happens in the process.  Just because they fell to the bottom they’re just gone.  We may need to be more proactive in the future.

 

IX.            Task Force Report

Julie gave the report.  The Task Force has contracted with Becky Kroll to do training and the Planning Council is invited to attend.  The training is scheduled for January 16^th from 3:00 to 9:00 (dinner provided) to focus on HIV 101 and an overview of HIV prevention services including the epidemiology of HIV (concentrating on prevention), and power and privilege.  Debra mentioned that this timing is problematic because those with children don’t really have time to go pick up their children in a schedule like this.

 

X.                MHSPC Staff updates

Mary Doyle will email part of her update to members.  The training opportunity Julie mentioned is the first training that will be jointly held with the Task Force and she encouraged everyone to attend.  Another training being provided is working with Ted Bowman at the Executive Committee meeting on November 21^st to consider the facilitator roles of the co-chairs and possibly recommending restructuring Executive Committee meetings.

 

XI.            Committee reports

Because of time limitations at the meeting, it was requested that committees submit written reports to Mary Doyle who will then distribute them to Planning Council members.

A.             Planning and Priorities Committee 

B.              Operations Committee

C.              Needs Assessment and Evaluation Committee

D.             Community Participation Committee

Communication plan

The communication plan that the committee has developed was passed out to all members.  Bob Tracy introduced himself to new members and gave some background to how this plan came about.  The committee tried to come forward with a proposal that was modest for two reasons – appreciative of the limited resources of the Planning Council and a plan that was doable.  The concern was that if the committee had too aggressive a plan they wouldn’t be able to get it all done.  The plan addresses two strategies – a biannual newsletter and further development of the Planning Council website.  With respect to the newsletter the committee considered multiple options including publishing more than twice a year and working on a collaborative effort with the Task Force.  It was decided to work on a schedule of twice a year and to establish the Planning Council own identity before considering collaborating with the Task Force.  In developing this plan the committee can to the conclusion that it needs to expand on the Planning Council website using the newsletter as a brochure leading to the website.  Bob O. asked if there would be an effort to promote web access and information to the greater population.  Bob O. responded by saying the newsletter could make people aware of the resources that are available.  The committee did address that issue and decided that it needed to get better information about who really is connected electronically.  The committee found that more people have access than it thought – getting better information would serve the Planning Council well.  MOTION:  Dave R. moved Sarah S. seconded approving the communication plan as presented.  Passed unanimously.

E.              HIV Positive Committee

 

XII.          Meeting Evaluation

Sarah R. asked members to fill out their evaluation and mail it in if necessary.

 

XIII.   Announcements, next agenda

Debra Ehret has copies of the Statewide Plan recommendations that are available to members.

 

MOTION:  Bob O. moved Debra seconded adjournment of the meeting.  Passed unanimously.

 

Adjourned at 3:50 p.m.