Southwest Ohio Regional Prevention Council

Meeting Summary Notes

January 26, 2017

MEETING LOCATION, DATE, AND TIME

Building: Clermont County Mental Health & Recovery Board

Address: 2337 Clermont Center Drive, Batavia, OH 45103

Conference Room: Board Room

Date: January 26, 2017 Time: 1:00 to 4:00 PM

ATTENDANCE

First Name / Last Name / County/Region / 26-Jan-17
Barbara / Adams Marin / Clinton / Yes
Nancy / Baker / Butler / Yes
Shawna / Barger / Warren / Yes
Gretchen / Behimer / Clermont / Yes
Alexandra / Carpenter / Regional Representative / Yes
Mary / Eck / Hamilton / Yes
Sue / Giga / Clinton / NA
Shannon / Glendon / Butler / Yes
Susan / Grabowski / Clermont / Yes
Maggie / Henry / No
Sheila / Maggard / Adams / Yes
Linda / Ondre / Brown / Yes
Danielle / Ratcliff / Highland / No
Bob / Shapiro, M.D. / Regional Representative / Yes
David (Mitch) / Sharp / Brown / No
Sandy / Smoot / Warren / Yes
Valerie / Swayne / Adams / Yes
Karen / Vanzant / Highland / No
Moira / Weir / Hamilton / No
Heather / Wells / Chair / Yes
Jodi Messina / Volunteer / Yes
Michael / Patton / NA
Total Number Voting Members in Attendance / 13

MEETING PROCEEDINGS

The primary purpose of this Southwest Ohio Regional Prevention Council meeting was to discuss the Southwest Ohio Prevention Plan, including the award letter from the OCTF and startup of the Prevention Plan, and to formally approve the Southwest April Awareness Month Plan to be submitted by the end of January.

Prevention Plan Funding Award from the OCTF

-Southwest Ohio requested $1.2 million for an 18-month period beginning January 2017 and received 75% of what was requested (no region received more than 75%), with the exception of two disallowed strategies – the dashboard strategy because the OCTF will develop a statewide dashboard with regional dashboards, and the building a prevention network strategy across the region, because OCTF will do so on behalf of all regions (“building the prevention network … with a shared agenda to end child maltreatment was viewed as a statewide initiative to be led by the Trust Fund …”)

April Plan Discussion

-Community Collaboration Partnerships: We will use branded material that includes campaign messaging (coffee sleeves, table mats, post card size handouts)

  • Final imagery will come from the State’s campaign and will include a call to action
  • Call to Action = post on social media and tell what you can do in next 30 minutes to support child well-being, and drive the public to come to the website to see resources and what they can do as individuals to support child well-being.

-Spokesperson/Advertisement

  • The April Planning Work Group selected to recruit a spokesperson to promote the campaign in Southwest Ohio. The first choice to look for local celebrities.
  • This person would go on a local media tour talking about the prevention campaign
  • Advertising = radio, billboards, other print is also of interest to the Work Group

-OCTF will provide their campaign materials/messaging by March 1

-OCTF is receptive to our idea of what can be done in the NEXT 30 minutes as opposed to the LAST 30 minutes, but no final word has been given yet if the message will change

-Council’s reaction

  • Shannon Glendon (Work Group Chair) – before guidance came from the OCTF, we talked about incorporating the protective factors in advertisement materials (posters) from our prevention plan
  • Then OCTF gave guidance to more push the state campaign, so we had to shift to a plan that was a little more general but could still tailor slightly to our communities.
  • There was some frustration among Council members who presumed that since a April Plan Work Group is an OCTF requirement of the Regional Prevention Council, that the Work Group would have more of a decision-making role than simply carrying out the OCTF April month plan.
  • This is a different approach, and if we want to participate and get the funding for it then we have to follow the OCTF guidance. So the group needs to decide if we want to do that or not.
  • Another work group member said, “The OCTF message is going more for the shock value, whereas we would have focused on protective factors, but we could incorporate it elsewhere as examples as what you could do in the next 30 minutes, but if OCTF’s name is on it then we need to stick with their messaging.”
  • WSU’s role – counties tell us who they have reached out to (such as coffee shops) that are willing and interested to use coffee sleeves and/or placemats, and then WSU would take it from there in terms of interfacing with those companies and delivering materials.
  • Bob Shapiro noted that he is more excited about our Prevention Plan, and is curious as to how ours compares to others in the state.

-Motion to approve April Plan

  • Gretchen Behimer motioned to approve the April Plan.
  • Linda Ondre seconded.
  • “We can use our message of protective factors, but largely it has to be OCTF’s message,” Ms. Glendon reiterated. “If OCTF’s name is not on it and it’s only our message, then OCTF will not pay for that.”
  • One billboard off the highway costs $2000/month, Alexandra Carpenter mentioned.
  • Hearing no further discussion, the vote was made.
  • All were in favor of approving the April Plan.
  • None opposed

Conversation with OCTF about HB 463

-Kristen Rost and Nicole Sillaman joined the meeting at this point via conference call to discuss House Bill 463. They indicated that HB 463 hasn’t changed anything. It reiterates the importance of contacting the ethics commission to ensure no individual has a conflict of interest.

-When Council members seek input from the Ethics Commission, keep in mind that Councilappointment is you as an individual, it is not an appointment based on your place of employment nor is it based on your position or title within an organization.

  • In short, you aren’t appointed because of your job, you are appointed because of your expertise.

-HB 463 also ensures Council members can be reimbursed for the services they provide to the Council such as travel.

-The second paragraph of HB 463 changes a word from representative to member and then discusses conflict of interest.

-The reason that no discussions were held with Southwest Ohio before putting this into rule was a timing thing.

-Bob Shapiro said it would help to have OCTF send a statement in layman’s terms explaining that Council members are not in violation.

  • OCTF is working on putting out a memo, per Ms. Rost.

-HB 463 is in place so that there is no public perception of giving money to Council members. We want to clarify that it is not possible to craft an RFGA to suit any entity.

  • At this point we have all seen HB 463, so clearer and more timely guidance from OCTF would be more helpful.

-Ms. Rost again encouraged everyone to contact the Ohio Ethics Commission and then share the Ethics position with the State so everyone can learn.

Council’s Reaction after the Call

-What is our role moving forward?

  • Anyone who wants to apply for the Southwest Ohio Prevention Plan funding should leave the room while we discuss the RFGA.

-“I still think our role on the Council can be meaningful. If we are meeting quarterly, reviewing proposals, and doing evaluations, that sounds like a lot of responsibility and power,” said Mr. Shapiro.

  • “I would be comfortable with that work, but not meeting monthly,” said Ms. Glendon

-“If we have a team this big, we can maybe see some trends – prevention is hard to measure, how do you measure something that isn’t occurring – but as a team we can maybe see where things are decreasing, added Ms. Glendon.

3:00 PM – Before discussion of the RFGA began, the following people left the Council meeting:

-Barbara Adams Marin – wants to avoid conflict of interest

-Bob Shapiro – wants to avoid conflict of interest

-Shannon Glendon – could only stay until 3:00

-Sheila Maggard – confused, does not want to chance a conflict of interest

Discussion of the Prevention Plan RFGA

-Should we require a letter of intent (LOI) in the RFGA

  • You could do a registration instead of an LOI
  • Due to the timeframe, I’m not crazy about an LOI
  • The easiest way would be to do a registration on a website

-Page 6 – 1.4

  • Reference to needs assessment
  • Along with that should be something in the scoring rubric that says their proposal is linked to the needs assessment
  • Keep 1.4 and add a link to the needs assessment

-Page 6 – 1.3

  • Make change of “approximately $922,500” and “$550,000”
  • Second paragraph – change months to dates each period covers
  • Last sentence of second paragraph is very vague – the Coordinator offered re- wording which was approved

-Page 9 & 16

  • Logic Model will be there as an attachment (as a sample)

-Pages 9-10

  • #6 – Put something in here about reflecting needs in comprehensive needs assessment
  • Language in #6 is confusing
  • #6 is under the section “Global Criteria” but then this is very specific
  • #12 – should it be more specific who the letters of recommendation should be from? (to avoid conflict of interest of letters of recommendations coming from one of us) – Or should we just leave it?
  • “Two organizations that will be impacted by/will benefit from the programming” should be the new wording, or along those lines.
  • #13 – the word preferred is not liked, maybe change it to “encouraged”
  • #9 – change wording to “reach out and adapt to vulnerable populations”

-Page 11

  • The population at large includes vulnerable populations
  • Delete part on vulnerable populations under Prevention Programs for Parents/ Caregivers

-Page 16 – decisions to make

  • 3.1 Jane will change language on funding
  • Maximum amount? No
  • Matching funds? Less interested but want to know what constitutes their budget. So let’s not require information about matching funds.

-Timeline

  • Put in there when reports are due and how often you want them (e.g., quarterly)
  • Page 9
  • From time RFGA releases give people 4 weeks to respond
  • Release RFGA Feb 1
  • They have to turn it in by Mar 1
  • Then we have all of Mar to review (give ourselves 2 weeks)
  • We will break out into groups to review then come together

Rubric

-#2 – approved list of options is on page 5 of the RFGA

-#8 – collaborations would have been where matching funds was in the RFGA, but we are taking that out – Heather still wants to keep collaborations in #8, but needs to have something that goes along with it in the application.

UPCOMING MEETING DATES

Next meeting with the Proposal Review Team is Wednesday, March 8, from 9 AM-12 PM

Next full Council meeting in 2nd Quarter (June 14, 2017)

1