CPPC Mission

Together, we keep children and their families healthy, engaged, and thriving.

Practice/Evaluation Committee MeetingNotes

December 12, 2014

Attendance:Kane Loukas (Spurwink), Joe Guarino (DHHS), Katie Camplin (Westbrook Schools), Regina Phillips (Immigrant Refugee Svces), Karen Small (DHHS), Linda Barker (SPPD), Sarah Dore (OCFS CPPC Statewide), Tom Chalmers McLaughlin (University New England),Katherine Endy (St. Andre), Abby Alfred (CPPC), Deb Dunlap (CPPC)

CPPC Evaluation Tools:

This was a combined meeting of members of both Practice and Evaluation Committees to review the new evaluation tools and requirements under the CPPC contract, and to discuss the role each committee and organizationwill play in implementation, planning, and follow up. Tom McLaughlin is the paid evaluator from University of New England who has working on evaluation of CPPC since the beginning. He and Sarah Dore have been working this fall to build on work that had been completed by Evaluation committees both here and in Bangor, and to develop streamlined tools that will be used across all sites and include both population and performance measures. Following tools were reviewed:

  • Partner Survey: this will be completed by partners every six months(January and July), and will be available online through Survey Monkey to simplify the process. The form has been reshaped so partners who participate in activities in multiple communities (i.e. Westbrook, Portland, and South Portland) can complete one form with feedback about their different experiences in each location. This link will be sent out to existing distribution lists. Group noted that this distribution method will only reach people who come out to meetings, and there are many people who participate in other ways. Group agreed that the request should include, “if you have staff who are connected to CPPC who may not be receiving this email, please have them fill this out.”
  • FTM Survey: this will be completed by every person attending CPPC Family Team Meetings at the end of the FTM. Group discussed the need to clarify the recurring question What is a CPPC FTM?Sarah noted that this survey is designed to measure preventive FTM’s only, so would not be used for Family Team Meetings that are facilitated by an assessment or permanency DHHS worker. Only participants in FTMs that are facilitated by community partners who have completed the CPPC FTM training should be completing the survey. Group raised the question about CPPC communities that don’t currently have a DHHS Prevention worker, where partners have not participated in preventive FTMs (or at least wouldn’t identify them as such), and the need for widespread training and raising awareness of CPPC FTMs. Group discussed the concern that people simply won’t fill it out, and suggested having a standard agenda for CPPC FTMs that has the feedback survey attached, which all trained facilitators and their supervisors will receive in hard copy and electronically as part of the training. Group also discussed the need for people to give feedback that they don’t want to put on a form that is collected by the facilitator, and suggested having envelopes so they can fill it out privately and seal/turn in or return later. Several people also encouraged sensitivity to learning styles, including participants who prefer to process in a private space well after the meeting, and many expressed support for having an anonymous way to give feedback at a later time. Group also stressed the importance of sensitivity to literacy, and making sure participants who don’t read are given opportunities to provide feedback. Group also recommended that we build ways to receive feedback on DHHS FTMs during assessment and open cases, as this is the only type of FTM many partners are involved in, and shared decision making in open cases is a frequent source of conflict among community partners.
  • Parent Survey: this will be completed by any parent attending a CPPC activity held by a partner organization that has parent participants, and should be completed at the end of the activity/event. Partners will be expected to administer this survey at each event that includes parents, then to aggregate the results into Survey Monkey. Sarah encouraged individual partners to think about how they want to use this. Tom clarified that this survey is not really about the event they attended, and more about how parents feel about their neighborhood, as research is clear that people who feel connected to their community are more actively involved/more resilient. This is not a population level survey, and should be administered to parents who are at a CPPC sanctioned event who might have an understanding of what CPPC is (or at least understand they are attending an event that is hosted by CPPC partners). Group discussed the continued challenge of CPPC awareness, not just among community members, but among members of partner organizations who are less or not involved. Group suggested Governance committee explore ways to raise awareness of CPPC, maybe through media exposure. Group also discussed the different levels of CPPC activities across sites, and acknowledged that some sites may have few or no events that would be considered CPPC events.

Quarterly Reports from DHHS:

Tom and Sarah introduced the quarterly reports that will be issued from DHHS to all CPPC sites. These will be drawn directly from MACWIS, and will include a wide range of child protective data presented in statewide, local, and neighborhood level aggregates. Information will include intake/referrals/assessments and outcomes, risk factors, demographics, substance ingestion/serious injury reports, and recommendations for next steps based on predictive factors of removal. Sarah and Tom will send this quarterly report to the backbone organization in each location, and will also include a one-page summary with the key points. Group discussed the question: what should our process be for receiving, reviewing, and responding to this report? Group decided the full report should go to Evaluation Committee, so they can complete a full review with Tom and Sarah in attendance. Tom is developing a process for local evaluation committees to use for review and developing recommendations. Evaluation Committee will work with Sarah and Tom to create a two page summary that goes to Practice, Governance, and other partners, as well as specific recommendations or items of note for the other committees to consider. Practice committee discussed the importance of avoiding data overwhelm, and staying to the mission of the individual committees, and decided to have a joint meeting with Practice and Evaluation Committees every six months rather than every quarter, while still receiving the two page summary in the interim quarters. All agreed to this process, with an understanding that this is a work in progress and we will learn together as we move ahead.

Practice Committee Work Plan:

Final edits have been completed and Deb will distribute via email.

Membership:

Group discussed the importance of having Kidspeace represented in CPPC, as they currently hold the Alternative Response Program contract. Kane and Deb will reach out to Ken Olsen.

Next Steps:

Action / Lead
Distribute final draft FY15 Workplan / Deb
Reach out to Ken Olsen to schedule meeting / Kane, Deb

MEETINGS HELD ON 2ND FRIDAY OF THE MONTH.

NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD

FRIDAY, JANUARY 9TH, 8:30-10:00 @ OPPORTUNITY ALLIANCE,

50 LYDIA LANE SOUTH PORTLAND, CROWTHER ROOM