MN HIV Services Planning Council
Meeting Minutes for December 10, 2002
Division of Indian Work

 

 

I.                  Welcome

Sarah called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m.  Introductions were made.  Roxanne lit the candle with a reminder of why we’re here and to keep in mind that the battle rages on and to remember the people who went before us and to remember those who continue to fight.

 

II.             Review of minutes and agenda

MOTION:  Sarah S. moved Mary May seconded approval of the minutes.  Passed unanimously.

 

III.         Open forum

Megan passed around information about the prioritization process and the discussion for improvements for the next round.  Planning & Priorities decided to convene three meetings with a specific goal to develop a plan based on the feedback that’s been received by the Planning and Priorities Committee.  This plan would then be brought back to the Council for review.  David B. asked if we could move the February and March meetings to the day after the Planning Council meetings so he can attend.  Megan said she’d bring it back to the committee and let members know if the dates are changed.

 

Tracy Sides then gave an update on the small pox vaccination information in both the pre-event stage and post-event stage in the case of a bioterrorism attack.  Those with any contraindications such as immune suppressed or compromised (or in close contact), those with eczema or atopic dermatitis or an allergy to any of the components of the vaccine should not be vaccinated.  Three phases – first would be core medical teams (MDH would be vaccinated first then vaccinate all teams in first responder hospitals/facilities), two would be larger group of first responders and third would be general population.  Speculation is that when the President makes a statement he’ll call for phase one only.  Tracy then fielded members’ questions.  Tracy shared that there is a lot of information about smallpox on the Minnesota Department of Health web page.

 

IV.             Co-chair update

Sarah R. gave her update – it’s been a busy month.  Sarah mentioned the list of topics that was developed for discussion at the last meeting.  The list will be brought to the Executive Committee, which will prioritize it and bring it back to the PC next month.  Mary Doyle spoke with Frances Hodge our HRSA project officer who gave us the green light to proceed with political advocacy on the part of the Planning Council.  We need to get in touch with the legislative group at Hennepin County and probably DHS to continue this discussion.  Dave Rompa said we need to also check with the Title II project officer to make sure they same information holds true for Title II.  Andrea shared that we should be mindful of broadening all of our potential vehicles for advocating.  Sarah also reported that she and Meg spent yesterday in Washington D.C. discussing a potential assessment called RARE.  They will be making a presentation on December 17^th at the Needs Assessment & Evaluation committee meeting.  Sarah encouraged all interested to attend that meeting.

 

V.                 Title I update

Jonathan provided the report.  Title I had a great response to the RFP for short-term funding of health education.  They are currently executing contract amendments for carryover funds and for the short term funding recently awarded.  In speaking with Frances a couple of months ago he discovered that there will probably be a delay in getting our award due to the fact that there is no current federal budget.  Until a new budget is passed HRSA will probably do month-by-month grants based on funding allocated this year.  This morning the grantees held a resource fair for vendors that was very well attended in an effort to share information about the services they provide.  They are also currently developing more training for vendors including staff training and retention, a mini-MBA program, program development and grant writing, marketing and public relations – the grantees will keep the PC informed.  Michelle McCafferty is our new Quality Management Coordinator, which means her current position is open so if anyone knows of anyone who would be interested in applying for this job please pass the information on.

 

VI.             Title II update

Michelle Sims gave an update to the access to care program – Ramone Consulting has been selected to look at the current system of care and evaluate changes that may be needed in the case management program.  DHS has embarked on collaboration with the adult foster care system to ensure that they receive the same level of care.

 

Barbara Simpson Epps gave an update of the Community Building & Healing process that she is working on with DHS.  This process began with the conflict resolution retreat that was initiated with the Planning Council.  She interviewed approximately forty individuals asking specific questions related to conflict.  The Planning Council then held a retreat led by Barbara and Dr. John Taborn.  Continuing with this project for the G-HAT, she will be working to learn about and build leadership in six communities – Native, AA, Hispanic, gay white men and government representatives.  A kick off meeting was held last week and was very well attended.  There was representation from all the communities identified except the Native American community. They are interested in learning about what conflicts exist in the community, how those conflicts are being handled and identifying four people from each community to continue working with them through the process to prioritize the issues.  She will also be working with the G-HAT to discuss cultural competency.  The final phase will be a joint review of a document that comes from all of the sources.  The project will run through mid-April of next year.

 

Jeff Redwan held an African community forum.  It was very well attended; over 40 people were in attendance.  The goal was to talk to people in the community to get a feel for what is being discussed in the community.  The Title II application is under way and due February 7^th.

 

VII.        Statewide plan presentation and questions

Debra reported on what has taken place with the workgroup over the last year.  We will have an initial discussion with a question period today and further, in depth, discussion at next month’s meeting.  Dave took over sharing that this subject came up at a Planning Council retreat two years ago.  It was then decided that it would be a shared effort with the Task Force.  There was much discussion of current capacity in Minnesota (pages 10-15).  Current gaps in the system (pages 15-21) should be reviewed.  The primary goals are also listed, to reiterate they are 

·        to identify core prevention and services that should be available statewide;

·        to identify barriers to providing access to these services and

·        to develop a plan to access core services;

·        to develop a structure for regional planning. 

 

The workgroup met seven times and Debra conducted several surveys with those in outstate Minnesota.  We want to get input from both the Planning Council and Task Force as we move forward to decide on any recommendations. 

 

Debra then reviewed the current practices and recommendations.  The first component is regional input.  She’s intentionally staying away from using other terms such as consortia because of the difficulties that that idea poses.  The concept with regional planning is to use currently existing CHS groups to assist with planning.  Tobacco and bioterrorism are two areas that the currently existing CHS regional planning groups have recently taken on.  Debra then solicited questions from members.  Bob O. shared that he hopes we don’t lose the opportunity to make this effort interdisciplinary and inter-jurisdictional.  Juan said that using the CHS framework some communities, such as the Native community, have not had a great relationship with their CHS communities which may create a barrier.  Norm added that the same might be true to for communities with correctional facilities close by.  Linda shared that there are other communities where this may be an issue on this level as well, specifically battered women, etc.  Sarah R. asked about how the planning process will be supplemental – she was curious about the weight of that process and how it would work with the Planning Council.  Debra answered, in part, by sharing the idea of a joint committee of the Planning Council and Task Force that would be called the Greater Minnesota committee which would create a way for each region to come together – reps from each region, the Planning Council and Task Force members could also sit on these committees as their primary committee.  There would be one elected representative from both the Planning Council and Task Force as a voting member of the Greater Minnesota committee.  The goal would be to share best practices, talking about what’s going on in Greater Minnesota and to bring forth their lists from each region about barriers, gaps and needs in service.  That group’s recommendations would be forwarded to Planning & Priorities for consideration.  The workgroup looked at core, access and HIV additional services from the Continuum of Care and then categorized their ideas of what were essential services.  There was also discussion of centralized vs. regionalized services (would be defined by the best way to deliver the services).  The proposal is to determine centralized services and funding those.  Greater Minnesota would have access to a pre-determined amount of funding set aside out of Title II funds for greater Minnesota.  Hennepin County would still use Title I funds to support services in the EMA with the remaining funds allocated equitably among the seven regions. 

 

Discussion moved to the financial impact on Ryan White Title I and II and Prevention funding.  Julie Hanson handed out financial information (copies included in meeting materials) for current allocations and as it relates to the proposed changes for statewide planning.  Julie spent some time reviewing the model developed to show the financial impact of regional input on Title I and II dollars.  She clarified that with regional input the money currently set aside for Greater Minnesota would no longer be available.  Also, under this model, agencies that receive this money would not be eligible to apply for other funding.  There would be additional cost to implement this process – those funds would be taken out of Title II admin funds.  The thought is that there would be a need for a full time position for at least one year – DHS would fund ¼ to ½ of the position with MDH funding the balance of the costs.  Each region would also get $5,000 to support their efforts in regional planning.  Julie said these costs were estimates based on their best assumptions.  Dave Rompa qualified that this is initial information for us to digest now and will be discussed in greater detail next month.  Julie then reviewed information as it relates to prevention dollars and how that money would be broken out.

 

Debra then passed out a question sheet that included some criteria to help frame the discussion in January.  She asked members to give any additional feedback they may have to her before the end of the meeting.

 

Julie from CHS said there were good questions that came up.  They are currently learning a lot and are on a steep learning curve – in six months they may have a lot more information.

 

VIII.    Task Force Report

Julie gave the report.  They will be meeting December 20^th.  They will be having a very similar discussion about the statewide plan.

 

Training on January 16, inviting Planning Council members – looking at Epi, prevention interventions and power and privilege and how it affects the community process.  3 p.m. to 9 p.m. at All God’s Children Church.

 

IX.            MHSPC staff update

Mary Doyle encouraged all members to attend the trainings being conducted by the Task Force.  Mary Doyle reported that Mary Dwyer has been working on collecting information on accessing computers for all Planning Council members.  She then encouraged everyone to examine the results of the Statewide Work Group recommendations because this has an important impact on service delivery.

 

X.                Committee reports

A.                Operations committee

A subcommittee of the Operations committee has begun work on the by-laws.  We will be soliciting input from all of the committees.  We are looking for further clarity of the by-laws.  Mary Doyle added that we may also be including information on rules of order.  We are also working on recruitment – we are looking for two or three African American MSM.  Please call the office with any names/ideas you might have.

 

B.                 Needs Assessment & Evaluation committee

Sarah S. gave the update.  Tracy Sides came and spoke on the SHAS data and also to look at CLRS data (bubble sheets) for additional information about utilization.  One question that came up is what our goal for utilization?  Different service areas may have different goals.  We also began discussing the Comprehensive Needs Assessment that the committee is currently working on.  We will be looking at the instrument used last time and asking the HIV Positive committee for other questions to be included this time.

 

C.                 Community Participation committee

Norm gave the update – we’ve met twice since the last Planning Council meeting.  We have been discussing groups that have barriers to participation and are currently working on web site enhancements.

 

D.                HIV Positive committee

Randy gave the update.  We met this morning here at DIW because Aliveness is not available.  Tracy Sides came and presented an Epi update.  We also worked with Nick on the committee workplan.  The next meeting will be at DIW also.

 

XI.            Meeting Evaluation

Mary Doyle passed out the meeting evaluation forms.

 

XII.       Announcements, next agenda

Randy announced that Aliveness Project is looking for individuals to adopt holiday baskets and passed out forms.

 

Documents distributed at or before the meeting:

• Statewide Recommendations: Concerns/Questions Already Expressed
• Planning & Priorities Committee invitation to participate in prioritization process discussion
• Title I Update outline
• Community Building and Healing written update
• PowerPoint printout of Statewide Plan presentation
• PowerPoint printout of Financial Impact on funding Statewide Plan
• Spreadsheets representing utilization and proposed allocation of funds as it relates to the proposed Statewide Plan
• Planning Council reaction questionnaire to Statewide Workgroup recommendations
• Proposed Statewide HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Plan

 

MOTION:  David moved Mary May seconded adjournment of the meeting.  Passed unanimously.

 

Adjourned at 3:20 p.m.