Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC)

Governor’s Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) Meeting Minutes January 9, 2014

Attendance

Members: Andrea Bejarano Robinson, Joy Birr, Roxanne Botz, Barb Dalbec, Glenace Edwall, Jessica Mattson, Dr. James Moore, Cathy Nelson-Messer, Maya Nishikawa, Michele Willert, Jane Auger (for Karen Adamson), Lisa Backer (delegate for Melvin Carter), MaryAnn Marchel

Staff: Kara Hall Tempel, Kelly Monson, Meredith Martinez

Guests: Shawn Holmes

Introductions

Glenace Edwall introduced herself as the new representative for the Department of Human Services (DHS). Jane Auger attended the meeting for Karen Adamson.

Agenda approval

Agenda was approved as presented.

October 2013 minutes approval

A discussion was held regarding the accuracy of the October Minutes specific to the presentation on the Follow Along Program.

Action item: Kara will send out the July Minutes to the Committee for review. If there are any items that the membership feels needs to be changed, send those comments to Kara and we will discuss it at the April, 2014 meeting. (Minutes sent out January 9, 2014)

Action Item: The MNSIC grid was mentioned as a useful resource. Kara will contact Sue Benolken for the grid and will send it out to the committee. (Grid was sent out on January 10, 2014)

Minutes were approved as written.

MDE Updates

Kara gave appointment updates regarding new members and vacancies. Discussion was held about how we can get information out to the state representatives and senators. Lisa Backer stated that outreach to them would be helpful. Chair or co-chair could write a letter.

Action Item: Andrea asked for the list of the senators and representatives who are appointed and will research what other committees they are on to provide information to the chair and co-chair to develop a letter to send out as outreach. She will do this prior to the next meeting. (Sent to Andrea on January 9, 2014)

Action Item: Kara will send out the current vacancies to the committee. Kara to research past discussions about membership and what is in statute. (List of vacancies sent January 9, 2014)

Kara discussed status of Part C application and deadlines. Lisa discussed issues related to budget.

Old Business

Follow Along Program (FAP)

The 2011 Part C Regulations include screening as an optional activity and this is a change from the previous regulations. If screening is done by the FAP in response to a referral, then it needs to meet all Part C requirements, including consent and Prior Written Notice (PWN). A permissive use of Part C funds would be to follow up on children who were evaluated and found not eligible to determine if there is a change in their developmental status. A member asked how community screening (an event) could be conducted as part of Part C or even with three to five year olds. That could not be funded by Part C. Part C cannot fund universal screening. Lisa showed the Part C eligibility flow chart. There was a discussion about why rescreening sometimes occurs by the district. Jessica asked about FAP with Part C funds only? Jane Auger asked about PWN and screening.

State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)

This is the last year of this process due to changes being made by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The results of this year’s SPP/APR are mostly positive but Minnesota is not meeting its child outcome and summary statement targets in all areas. The gap is increasing but we will get to reset targets next year with the new process. We only collect outcome data on kids who were served for six months or more. We are required to report summary statement data to OSEP and we are also required to report summary statement data on individual districts. Twenty five percent age out and do not go on to Part B.

Preschool data looks different than Part C data. Statewide improvement plan needs to be submitted to OSEP one year from now.

National Help Me Grow (NHMG)

A physician’s dinner and statewide summit were held December 18 and 19, 2013. The physician’s dinner was a small informal event with Dr. Paul Dworkin. The all-day summit was on December 19, 2013 with attendees from various sectors. The purpose of the summit was to educate attendees about the NHMG system and to gain feedback from attendees representing community agencies and partners.

An online survey was sent out to all attendees to get a sense of the level of support of the NHMG system as well as to invite additional feedback from attendees.

A state e-mail address, Nationalhelpmegrow.mde@state.mn.us, has been created for others to provide feedback.

Andrea asked who was invited to the event and how was that decided?

Kelly replied that each state agency (Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), DHS and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)) made suggestions for attendees, including those from diverse communities. There was not significant representation at the event of communities of color. We are not sure why this was, but we need to come up with a follow-up plan to reach out to communities and partners not represented there.

Andrea asked if we go with the NHMG system, will this just be another effort that will change in a few years. For example, if we implement this in Minnesota, is it something that will change, like what happened with the changes to the Interagency Early Intervention Committees (IEICs) a couple of years ago?

Would local control be lost?

Barb D. stated that the strength of the model is that local input is essential to supporting the system.

Glenace shared that the main concerns within DHS have been about duplication of other efforts, especially around data systems being developed or in use in our state. The system can be tailored to what will work in Minnesota

Barb D. added that there will be opportunities for local partners and community members to give input into the design.

Andrea asked if this will be an easier process for the health care providers? Would this model address the feedback loop issue?

Meredith replied that this will not necessarily address the feedback loop issue. The system does not directly have a way for referral outcomes to be sent back to the primary referral source. However, it does have the potential to strengthen the early identification, referral, and linkages to services, which could provide the opportunity to have conversations about better feedback and coordinated communication.

Dr. Moore stated that many of the affiliate states are very diverse in their population. The national center and other states have practical suggestions about how to reach out to diverse communities. There is an opportunity with the NHMG system to engage and better-serve hard to reach communities.

Kara forwarded the email that was sent to the summit participants on March 25, 2014.

IEIC Summative Evaluation

We are in year three of the IEIC restructuring (96 IEICs to 12) and we need to choose an evaluator. For the formative evaluation, we used Management Analysis and Development (MAD).

Lisa Backer commented that at the time of the restructuring there was a plan to do a formative evaluation after three years. The question for the group – are you comfortable with using MAD to do the summative evaluation or would an independent outside evaluator be preferred?

A motion made by Michele Willert to use MAD to do the summative evaluation since they have experience working with this content area (Early Childhood Special Education).

Dr. Moore seconded the motion and said that MAD was very professional in their approach and they are very cost-effective versus an outside evaluator.

Jessica asked if we need to put out a request for proposals (RFP) if we want to use MAD?

Lisa Backer stated that we can enter into an agreement with them as a state agency. But that should not drive the decision; it should be the quality.

Michele Willert clarified that her motion is based on the quality of MAD and how well they did in the initial evaluation.

Barb commented that it would be nice to have more input and feedback from community members and stakeholders as part of the evaluation.

Jessica asked if we should we go back to the initial evaluation at the next meeting to look at it again and think about what we would like to look at this time around?

Several agree with this and think it would be good to look at this during the next meeting.

Motion passed.

The Formative Evaluation Report was sent out to the ICC on March 25, 2014.

Kelly reviewed some information about the last statewide IEIC meeting. Any other information about the day, Kelly will give to Kara to include in the notes for the ICC members.

Updates:

Head Start funding looks good, potential for mitigating sequester cuts.

Update on children and youth briefing that took place morning of January 9, 2014.

Meeting was adjourned.