SDC Strategic Planning Meeting October 12, 2017

SDC Strategic Planning meeting – October 12, 2017

Attendance: Tammy Hoffman, Grant Smith, Christine Comer, Lena Wilson, Katie Griego, Nancy Dierker, Paul Potts, Mary Roberto, Todd Jorgenson, and Joanna Logan
Strategic Goals:
Enhanced Partnership between all partners
Implement a Robust Evaluation model
Implement Agile project management for curriculum design
Expanded training delivery
Idaho visit: goal was to be able to deliver virtual classrooms and on demand training to rural areas
Implement Process Based training
Goal is that by 2019 that the training is so relevant that counties want to come to us
Journey since Inception (SDC is approximately 5 years old now)
With only 5 years into it, we are still a fairly new training center. We have come a long ways and are still learning.
History of how the board was established:
Christine: When all of this started there was a lot of excitement and a lot of questions. We used to have weekly and/or biweekly meetings that became too huge to manage. There was a bit of a power struggle between two players at CDHS and HCPF and this structure evolved from that with the counties facilitating and providing direction. The governance board has worked well, and we have made headway with the relationship between CDHS and HCPF and are able to come to agreement on what is priority.
Katie: I would also add that the decisions about the structure, where it would be located, and so many other things that the board was responsible for that weren’t outlined in the road.
Mary: From what I remember, we had to fill in some blanks about the budget, the FTE, etc. One of the major issues early on was the inability to figure out how to spend the dollars – and that is where the board came in. Some of the things that I found to be difficult, and I think we should focus on from a county perspective are things like the LMS which isn’t intuitive; hiring staff that had deep program knowledge but not the training pieces of curriculum and instructional design; balancing a technical side of training with soft skills and knowledge of poverty. That would be what I would like to continue as the SDC moves forward.
The budget line item being housed under OIT so that it would be less visible to the JBC and wouldn’t get redlined.
Katie: Another piece of this was working through the pieces of the Affordable Care Act and what needed to be focused on.
Structure of the Center
Hiring of FTE and the program, adult learning theory, and technical design skillset mix
Budget as it stands today
Nancy: Still is in OIT, but FLIPT is talking about moving it to a budget request in 2019 and moving it to the departments
Lena: as its positioned, CDHS would be taking that over because they are the ones who have been ensuring that the bills have been (threats of eviction, etc). Still in a rough spot as we are trying to get this transitioned
Katie: A good question is how this is being presented to the JBC? (ACTION ITEM)
Nancy: Still under the CBMS budget which provides some protection
Katie: I will take back to see how that would be presented in the future.
Nancy: Most of the funding is to the departments and then re-appropriated to OIT. What we are talking about is that the money would go to and stay at the SDC
Mary: I think a big accomplishment is the staff that we have brought in
Katie: We have built based on the feedback from Charmane a series of evaluations that have showed what needs to happen, and have heard a lot from the counties that this maybe wasn’t the best way to approach that. We are still working through how to make a robust certification for trainers. We are working though the statement of work and the RFB is out right now for a new evaluation from a third party so that there is a complete and objective review.
The SOW looks at the certification process, the PBT evaluation through a pilot that will define rolls and responsibilities and that it meets the goals, and building an assessment component for CBMS access for users
With the right 3rd party we will have a really well rounded approach. We are also looking into what continued education looks like for trainers
Joanna: would this be a good PDA track for next year? Train the trainer
Todd: Looking forward, I’m really excited about the opportunity on the horizons. I’m hoping that we can talk about the big picture future goals
The Deloitte CBMS proposal
The SDC did play a role in proposing what they were putting together
Big picture training goals
Technical training vs soft skills training
How are we growing and moving forward
What is the statewide training model? How does that work with counties that have their own training programs?
Katie: As a reminder we have a smaller training until separate from the SDC, that houses the training for case management of COWorks. I’m happy to go into that and share lessons learned if anyone is interested.
Mary: What I would like to see for Denver, and other large counties, is connecting an element of staff longevity and retention from the evaluation team. It’s part of culture as well as training. The other part is that what the board becomes as we move forward, and what that looks like for the staff development piece.
Todd: I agree. If we can tie in some piece of engagement, recruitment, and retention. We are trying to keep up with training new employees, but then are also getting feedback from our veteran staff that doesn’t feel like they are getting enough training and may be behind new staff.
Nancy: Those are really good points. What I would like to build into a strategic plan is objectives that relate to this. What I came into this thinking was that those objectives would be fewer help desk tickets, but I really appreciate your point and think that it is important.
Grant: We experience the same thing as large counties with turnover; the problem is that when we lose someone we don’t have someone to fill it. We feel the impact of small changes in a large way and often feel left in the dark. When we reach out to the State, we find that it has taken a long time for the information to filter down. I think that there needs to be a better way of gathering and sharing information.
There is constant change, and we don’t feel like we have a go to person. We used to have one person that we get all our questions answered by.
Lena: we do have that structure at the state, are you finding out that isn’t working?
Grant: I’m sure that’s true. Maybe we just need to figure out who that person is. It would also be helpful to have a regular regional update. We used to have a small county regional meeting, and when we needed support from the State we would call them up and bring them in.
Goal 1: Enhanced Partnership Between all Partners
Katie: we have made good headway on the work between CDHS, HCPF, and OIT. Now I think that we need to focus on the relationship between the State and the counties. We can look at the continued education of trainers. We can look at regional trainers. What are your thoughts about having specific goals so that we can be successful at this goal?
Nancy: I think you are absolutely right. One thing that I notice is that trainers aren’t even listed here. They are partners not tools. I’m also excited that Paul and I are at the table and are committed to being here. We may not be the right people but we will stay unless we find someone better to be at the table. Joetta might be a better fit because of her relationship with the counties, but we continue to work through that at OIT to make sure the right people are at the table.
Paul: It’s hard for me to bring the OIT deliverables if I’m outside of some of those circles. But I did find it really valuable being in Weld county and hearing what they need to be successful.
Nancy: Joetta has the report (produced about a week ago). We will make that available to the counties. (ACTION ITEM)
Grant: I wonder if I am right to the county as well. I don’t want to speak for Tammy, but often times I feel like I am trying to make sense of what we are talking about. I’m not sure what the purpose of the board, and struggle to have agenda items.
Christine: This brings us back to the point of has the board outlived its usefulness? I do want to highlight that another purpose is that the counties have a voice and have input on the direction.
`Katie: What I find valuable is that this is the best place for the counties to provide feedback on the trainings and incorporate the county voice. What is the value that you see as a county partner? How do we continue that?
Grant: Maybe it’s just a shift and a re-title since I don’t know if we are exactly governing. Maybe we need to be more of an advisory committee.
Mary: I agree with Grant. “Governance Board” may have made sense at one point, but at this point there needs to be more collaborative efforts going on. For example, if the SDC is bringing someone in to train trainers, how can we capitalize on that at the county level? Renaming or repurposing the board to an advisory committee would be valuable.
Nancy: from an OIT perspective, the board provided oversight of the budget, and it helped to ask if the board had reviewed and approved the big spending.
Grant: do we actually approve spending? I can’t remember ever voting on that.
Katie: we bring the overall budget and vote on that, but found voting on the small items was a bottleneck
Nancy: There is an expectation from WPSC that someone is watching the budget. That was one of the benefits, but it may have outlived its usefulness. Can FLIPT decide these things? Maybe there are recommendations that come out of the IPTs that then goes to FLIPT
Lena: One thing that came to WPSC was the revamping and development of PBT. This group has served a function to compile feedback (good or bad) and respond to it. I don’t want to discount the flow and just push this down to the IPTs which are having trouble getting staffed. This could potentially become a black hole.
Grant: So maybe we just really need to focus on being very specific about what the role of an advisory group would be.
Nancy: maybe we have a governance board that meets a few times a year to approve the budget, and then an advisory committee meets more often.
Paul: What I kind of envisioned is that you are bringing that user experience to the table. We want you to bring that here, and we want to fill up the agenda with those items so that we can fix it.
Grant: It’s just Tammy and I, and we don’t hear everything.
Lena: My understanding was that the county chairs were communicating with the counties and then bringing that to the table. We know that you have a number of meetings, just like we do. I know that it puts more work on the person in the chair.
Tammy: I feel like I have done that, and it wasn’t well received.
Katie: I would like to address that. Since that feedback was about state staff, I have taken it seriously and addressed it. However since they report directly to me, I have not brought that back to the board how it was addressed.
Grant: I hear that, it wasn’t necessarily that it wasn’t followed up on. What Tammy and I are talking about is that when it was brought to the board, there really wasn’t any reaction. I didn’t take it personal, but didn’t know if anyone appreciated the effort.
Tammy: I think the other thing was the PBT and heard a lot of concern from the counties about it. One of the things that we talked about amongst counties, is why haven’t we used the F1 more to get direction and assistance.
Lena: I’m confused – I expected that PBT was not a stand-alone training tool, and that since counties all do something different, they would come in behind and add in their “why” behind it.
Katie: I did hear the concern that the county trainers were going to replace them, and hope that we have addressed that. Since there are 64 ways of doing things, there are some boundaries to what the trainings can include (ex: train on here’s how to enter something, but the counties add in what is allowable to enter since that is a county policy)
Christine: I think there are a couple of points to acknowledge – the work of an eligibility tech has trained dramatically. What we are trying to gain through PBT is a standardized way of entering things (such as entering income). With that said, it’s a blend. The SDC is continuously trying to find a balance, because you can’t train someone to do their job in 3 days. We have to train more if we expect to change things.
Tammy: We have a trainer network meeting, but not a lot of people attend.
Katie: Do we know why? I have my own thoughts, but really want to hear from counties why they aren’t coming?
Lena: I want to make sure that we are able to separate the work of the SDC and what is in their purview. Another point is that at a conference I attended, there wasn’t a state at the table that said their training was less than 6 weeks. PBT was never intended to be a nitty gritty on policy, but instead to give them an overview. I want us to be mindful that we needed to change in some way, but I don’t want us to forget that our function is to shape the direction of the trainings. If the counties saw some outcomes, I think that they would appreciate that a lot.
Grant: I think there is a fine balance between making sure that the materials are perfect, and giving timely trainings. Our frustration is age old – we need someone to deliver over the shoulder training, which is 6 weeks.
Todd: To summarize what I am hearing, on the county side, we would commit to continue to build the coalition to collect and provide feedback; and the state commits to continue to receive and work through that feedback.
Mary: From what I’m hearing, there needs to be some role clarification and deadlines.
Christine: There is a charter that we can dust off. We will continue to work through this, especially the communication piece of what has happened with their feedback.
So what is the structure moving forward? How to we ensure that there is a county voice and how do we maintain accountability?
Christine: I will send out the charter for everyone to review (ACTION ITEM)
Lena: If we are changing the structure, who is responsible for decision making? Does that end up at CDHS?
Mary: I think what would be helpful for us would be to understand what the work plan is and what the deliverables are. It seems to me that Katie and Christine would continue to make sure that the work is getting done, and our role is to provide feedback and guidance
Lena: One roadblock we face is counties or specific programs may be facing a specific issue that seems like the priority and the SDC has to look at the big picture.
Paul: I think that one of the responsibilities of this group has to be the communication so that people understand why things are being addressed in the sequences that they are.
Katie: I think that there will always be competing priorities. I think that this doesn’t get to the original issue of how to collect and react to feedback.
Grant: What has been done in the past on this? I don’t call other counties and ask for feedback. I know that we get feedback from trainers, but I don’t know if small counties know that they can provide feedback, or how to provide it.
Katie: It used to happen more frequently through CHSDA. They had a standing agenda item and would bring that feedback back to us. I agree with Christine that it has come from all directions and we try to find the trends in the feedback, versus reacting to each individual piece. We have not created or finalized an evaluation contract, and so we can include that piece in the contract so that this isn’t the sole responsibility of county chairs.
Todd: I think it really is up to the counties to decide how they want to provide feedback. The state may still receive it from another avenue, but ultimately the counties need to decide how to communicate. This is part of WPSC right?
Katie: yes it is, and so we also need to discuss how we stay connected to the other important decisions that are being made.
Christine: We have opened up these meetings to counties, and yet interest seems to come and go as people are made aware of it. That is another piece of the communication – ie. How, where, and when to provide feedback.
Todd: I have an idea that I chatted with Ki’i a little bit, is that when I was at the state we had a co-chair situation for SubPAC for 1 state chair and 1 county chair. Following the subPac model, the state provided the administrative support.
Paul: I would rather the counties provide the state with what they need so that we can solve it.
Lena: that was the original intent and that is what our perception is. We are just here to be responsive to what you need and develop it.
Mary: Does that set up a situation thought where there isn’t a communication loop? Is there an additional role for the state that we can add to provide a work plan and bring it back to this group?
Todd: I don’t want to give up county power in this, but I think this is why there is confusion.
Lena: It does put a lot of the ownership on the counties. I think the reason there is some discord is that we may not have been reacting as quickly as the counties would have wanted.
(ACTION ITEM) Provide onboarding for new county members as to what their role and expectation of their participation is. Provide tools for them to connect with people. (Todd? The Board? CHSDA?)
Christine volunteered to take this on
Nancy: I think that we need to look at how we as a group how we communicate out what we work on at the board meetings. Ie: here’s what we’ve heard, here’s where we are going, etc
Grant: I don’t feel comfortable presenting to some group without notes that are approved by the board.
Christine: We do have a communication plan and minutes
Katie: Currently we have Michelle and Sonia report out to the board, and they commonly say “this is what the board told us to do”. It should be the responsibility of the chairs to report out.
Nancy: We as a board should do a better job of bringing on new members, as well as facilitating the handoff from county chairs. (See action above)
Paul: I would like to propose that we change the name to the SDC Advisory Board
Christine: I second
(Initial approval before discussion dived deeper)
Todd: I would add that we maybe change the name to SDC County Advisory Committee so that we capture the objective of this board to be the forum for county feedback.
Mary: I would also add that occasionally we do make important high level decisions like the budget. I believe that we already have the advisory piece taken care of in the trainer network.
Paul: Sometimes we need to acknowledge that not all of the ideas and action items should not just be assigned to the SDC. Sometimes it may go to the help desk or county trainers.
Grant: Katie, is there a way that we can have a regional meeting with small and medium counties with a standing agenda item of training needs?