Contracts Outline Neville by cdt11643


Contracts Outline Neville document sample

More Info
									                       First 5 CA/First 5 Association
                           Evaluation Workgroup
                    State First 5 Offices, Sacramento CA
                              November 29, 2007

                                       Meeting Notes

Teddy Milder                    Tina Fitzgerald
Stacie Sormano                  Sheila Kruse
Alyce Mastrianni                Tom Jordan
Sherry Novick                   Sarah-Neville Morgan
Kimberly Fulton                 Lynn Eldred
Lani-Schiff Ross                Armando Jimenez

1.       Welcome and Opening
Christina opened the meeting at 9:10 and reviewed the agenda. No new agenda items were added.

2.     Status Reports
           a. Consent Forms/PEDS Data – SRI has agreed to share the client data with
               requesting counties and/or First 5 CA only with specific consent authorization.
               The consent form that was used by counties who directly entered data into PEDS
               only identified SRI as the authorized user. Counties’ access to client-specific data
               was eliminated as of February 28, 2006. SRI was named on the consent form;
               not First 5 CA nor any specific counties. The general revised consent form and
               the consent form to reauthorize access to data will be sent to the State IRB at the
               same time. Any personal identifying information will only be given in the
               participant signs a specific consent. County representatives explained the
               difficulties in getting this type of consent and would likely not be able to get access
               to the data as a result.
              ACTION ITEM: State First 5 staff will send a general reminder to County
              EDs/Evaluators regarding consent requirements and new forms that will be

            b. Implementation of Center for Results – Stacie Sormano provided an update on
               the status of related contracts and implementation.
                    i. Annual Report - The Annual Report is being revised and the new report
                        will look very different from past reports and is based on the outline
                        previously discussed with the Evaluation Workgroup. The report is
                        streamlined from past reports. County profiles are being compiled in
                        separate report from the main summary analysis. It was discussed that
                        the county profiles may no longer be necessary. Existing county annual
                        reports may be helpful replacement and not necessarily used by

                      ACTION ITEM: Reconsider whether County profiles should be
                      included in light of the new annual report.

         c. Other Updates – First 5 CA has released an RFO to write the RFP for the new
             technology and database development. County representatives suggested that
             the First 5 CA may want to review recent county technology RFPs. They may be
             helpful as part of feasibility analysis or related planning. State First 5 plans to
             release all other related RFPs in the April to June timeframe with the target of
             having the Center for Results operational by November 2008, including
             appointment of all members of the Steering Committee.
            ACTION ITEM: Counties should send relevant RFPs or analyses as available
            to First 5 CA staff.

         d. Special Studies – The question was raised about the potential to make some
            early investments, prior to the startup of the Center for Results, in special studies.
            The suggestion was made that First 5 CA may have opportunities to augment or
            leverage county evaluations and research. Counties recommended that First 5
            CA consider these opportunities as a mechanism to address some of the larger
            State issues. First 5 CA indicated that they would open to considering these
            opportunities and look for partnering opportunities, consistent with the First 5 CA
            Strategic Plan.

         e. Southern CA Alliance for Results - Alyce reported that the RFP was
            developed and the Riverside County would take the lead and Los Angeles would
            provide technical oversight. The RFP is anticipated to be released in December.
            Once released, Alyce can provide copies of the RFP.

         f.   Special Needs Definition – Revised definition approved as submitted. Counties
              are encouraged to use as definition Statewide.
              ACTION ITEM: County workgroup members should provide notification and help
              distribute to members (final version attached). New definition will be effective
              January 1, 2008 with full implementation expected effective with start of new fiscal
              year (July 1, 2008).

3.   Annual Report Progress
     County representatives provided input and feedback on the 2007 Annual Report process.
     Feedback was discussed by the group and was organized into four main categories as
     shown on the table below.
             ACTION ITEM: Counties representatives will follow-up with counties in their
             region and provide any further input to First 5 CA staff by December 10th.
             First 5 CA staff will be working on a plan to address input and plan the 2008
             Annual Report process.

                          Feedback on 2007 Annual Report Process

Reporting Requirements:                              Forms and Instructions:
 - Kit for parents - Identifying programs that       - What improvements can be made to
distribute kits                                           electronic submission for FY07/08 data?
 - Ethnicity and language – Segregate between        - Eliminate redundant data entry
unknown and unknown/uncollected                           requirements
Impact of implementing revised Special Needs         - Verify all formulas; especially for CARES
- Definition – Does this change any current          - Re-title and re-number existing forms to
reporting requirements                                    make clearer
- County profiles – Are these necessary given        - Separate forms and instructions in
revised reporting formats?                                appendices
                                                     - Review page count/word count limits
                                                     - Cleanup ECCRS data for POP (data
                                                          should not rollup)
                                                     - Provide process for counties to receive
                                                          notification when submission successfully
                                                          received by the State
School Readiness                                     Fiscal Data
- Revisit SR program and service data                - Provide training on address lag time in
    requirements                                          receivables and discrepancy in annual
- Review fiscal/program data requirements                 audit
- All areas of DRDP consolidated – how can           - Annual depreciation of capital expenses
    progress on only one dimension be                - Instructions on fund balance and modified
    demonstrated?                                         accrual training instructions

4.   Future of Evaluation Workgroup
     Christina led the discussion on future of Evaluation Workgroup. The group agreed on the
     following plan:
     a. Transition to Evaluation Technical Advisory Committee
              i. Consistent with approved Framework, transition the Evaluation Workgroup to
                   a Technical Advisory Committee with primary purpose of implementing the
              ii. Maintain designated Regional Representatives as communication link
                   between State and counties
                         Meet quarterly (in person or via conf call) to review progress and
                            convene as necessary to address critical issues as they arise
                         Assist with providing connections between Center for Results and
                            County programs for research and evaluation
                         Provide ongoing input on Annual Report and other guidelines
                         Provide initial point of contact for contractors in working with counties
              iii. Membership will be selected by regional with minimal representation as
                         2 representatives from Bay Area
                         2 – 3 representatives from Southern California
                         At least one representative from every other region.

     b. Association Evaluation Committee – It was discussed that pending appointment of
        new chair of Association Evaluation Committee that the Association Committee would
        reinstate regular meetings to address county needs and issues, such as local
        evaluation strategies.
            ACTION ITEM: Each region will work to identify representative members and
            will notify Sherry Novick of appointments. Stacie Sormano will schedule
            next meeting of Evaluation Workgroup.


To top