A Charge to Collaborate:

1
A Charge to Collaborate

• ITS NOT JUST ABOUT WHAT WE DO ITS ABOUT HOW
  WE DO IT

2
How we will get there. . .

• Participants, Roles, Structure, Goals and Values
  of the Learning Collaborative

3
Learning Collaborative Goals

• Create an environment for shared learning within
  and amongst county child welfare and mental
  health agencies and their key partners.
• Facilitate peer-to-peer learning
• Identify shared needs and solutions to meet those
  needs
• Connect counties to experts in other counties and
  in the field.

4
Learning Collaborative Goals (Cont.)

• Provide Implementation Teams with work time to
  establish and refine work plans with goals,
  actions, and a timeline
• Provide new knowledge and skills related to
  collaboration and the CPM that empower local
  county implementation to do the work
• Identify training needs for line staff,
  supervisors and community partners

5
Learning Collaborative Structure and Sequencing

• A 3-tiered structure is designed to facilitate
  implementation at the local, regional and
  statewide level
• Tier 1 Statewide Leadership Team
• Tier 2 Regional Learning Sessions
• Tier 3 Local Implementation Teams

6
Tier 1 Statewide Leadership Team US!State
County Leaders in Child Welfare Mental
HealthState-level Stakeholders Training
Partners Subject Experts

• ROLE
• Articulate state-level priorities for the LC
• Guide the planning of the LC process
• Share regional perspectives with the state
• Identify common barriers to implementation around
  the state, in order to generate solutions

7
Tier 1 Statewide Leadership TeamObjectives

• Identify needed resources and supports for
  training and implementation across the state
• Identify training and implementation tools to
  assist with statewide implementation
• Establish a communication plan that coordinates
  statewide and county-level training
  implementation
• Establish a plan for data collection

8
Tier 2 Regional Learning Sessions

• Regional events and activities facilitated by the
  Regional Training Academies, with assistance by
  content experts, CDSS and DHCS representatives,
  and key stakeholders
• Role
• Guide local implementation teams
• Identify barriers to implementation and possible
  solutions
• Share regional resources, tools and ideas
• Identify areas that may benefit from statewide
  training or technical assistance, and communicate
  them to the Statewide Leadership Team.

9
Tier 3 Local County Implementation Teams

• Cross-agency, cross-system teams with multi-level
  county staff, tribes, parent/youth reps and other
  stakeholders identified by the county
• Role
• Guide county implementation of new practice
  philosophy and services.
• Identify county-level barriers to implementation
  and potential solutions.
• Determine county-specific training and technical
  assistance needs.
• Identify areas of inquiry for the Regional
  Learning Sessions.

10
Sequencing of the LC process

• 1st Statewide Leadership Team Oct 28th, 2013
• Regional Learning sessions occur Dec 2013
  February 2014
• Regional Learning sessions occur March 2014
  June 2014
• 2nd Statewide Leadership Team July, 2014
• Regional Learning sessions occur Oct 2014 Feb
  2015
• 3rd Statewide Leadership Team between Feb April
  2015

11
The Learning Collaborative

• Participants and Roles

12
BAY AREA COUNTIES
13
Initial county cohort by region WELCOME teams!
Bay Central Southern Northern
Contra Costa Fresno Los Angeles Glenn
San Francisco San Luis Obispo Orange Inyo
Santa Cruz Santa Barbara San Diego Humboldt
Solano Nevada Ventura Mendocino
Shasta
Tuolumne

14
Roles Initial Cohort Counties

• Form a Leadership Team to guide statewide
  implementation and participate in the Statewide
  Leadership Team
• Participate in Regional Learning Sessions to
  guide regional implementation
• Form a county-level Implementation Team to guide
  local implementation and to direct and monitor
  training and implementation efforts

15
TOP FIVE PRIORITIES

• System Integration (paradigm shift, culture of
  shared responsibility, interagency communication,
  Integration of initiatives and data collection)
•  Sustaining Family and Youth engagement
• Out of County Placements (challenges assessment,
  service delivery, service integration,
  transitions)
•  Trauma Informed Systems
•   Reflective Practice
•   Coaching and Supervision model/strategy
•   Resources(staff, fiscal, services,
  non-traditional services, dosage)
•  

16
Table introductions expectations for the
Learning Collaborative

• Why did your county decide to participate in this
  Learning Collaborative?
• What do you hope to get out of the Learning
  Collaborative process?
• What do you hope to learn and accomplish today?

17

• AGENDA REVIEW
• COUNTY SHARING
• THE WORK BEGINS

18
Thank you so much for participating!
19
SHARED SUCCESSES
20
SYSTEMS AND INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

• AGENCIES HAVE CO-LOCATED SPACE AND STAFF
• PROCESSES IN PLACE TO SHARE AND RECEIVE FEEDBACK
  TO SOLVE AND ENHANCE SUCCESS

21
SYSTEMS CAPACITY

• PROCESS IN PLACE TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE REFERRAL
  PROCESS AND ACCESS TO SERVICES
• AGENCIES UTILIZE PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER AGENCIES
  TO INSURE FAMILIES HAVE ACCESS TO AN ARRAY OF
  SERVICES
• AGENCIES ENGAGE LOCAL COMMUNITY THROUGH
  ACTIVITIES, PUBLIC MEETINGS, FORUMS, ETC

22
SERVICE ARRAY

• TAILORED SERVICES
• COMMUNITY BASED
• EVIDENCED BASED

23
INVOLVEMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES

• AREA OF VERY FEW SHARED STENGTHS
• ONE SHARED AREA WAS PEER NETWORKS

24
CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS

• CULTURAL IDENTITY VALUED
• DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE OF STAFF REFLECT COMMUNITY
• TRAINING YAY
• MATERIALS PUBLISHED AND TRANSLATED INTO LANGUAGES
  FOUND IN COMMUNITY
• SERVICES PROVIDED IN OWN LANGUAGE
• SERVICE PLANS IN OWN LANGUAGE
• PARTNER WITH CULTURALLY BASED COMMUNITY GROUPS

25
OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION

• EVALUATION PLANS DEFINE SPECIFIC GOALS AND
  OBJECTIVES THAT ARE MEASURABLE
• EVALUATION PLANS DESCRIBE HOW DATA INFORMS
  QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
• BASICALLY 3 OUT OF 4 COUNTIES FEEL THEY HAVE GOOD
  DATA

26
FISCAL RESOURCES

• UNDERSTAND FUNDING NEEDS
• FISCAL AGREEMENTS AND COMMITTMENT OF FUNDING
• TRACK EXPENSES
• MULTIPLE FUNDING STREAMS

27
SHARED CONCERNS
28
AGENCY LEADERSHIP

• SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
• FORUMS FOR SHARING INFORMATION
• MEANINGFUL ROLE OF FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS

29
SYSTEMS AND INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

• LACK OF FORMAL AGREEMENTS, MOU, SHARED TRAINING
  PLANS
• JOINT OPPORTUNITY FOR TRAINNIG
• ESTABLISHED PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF
  POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
• INFORMATION SYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT SHARING OF
  INFORMATION

30
SYSTEMS CAPACITY

• TIMELY AND FULL MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
• EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR RECRUITMENT, HIRING AND
  TRAINNG PERSONNEL
• ADEQUATE NETWORK OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS

31
SERVICE ARRAY

• SERVICES THAT SUPPORT TRANSITIONS TO COMMUNITY
  AND ADULT (NMD)
• SERVICES TO MEET MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF COMMUNITY
• NON TRADITIONAL SERVICES

32
INVOLVMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

• FAMILY VOICE IN PLANNING, DELIVERY AND EVALUATION
  OF SERVICES
• OPPORTUNITES FOR FEEDBACK
• PEER SUPPORT NETWORKS
• TRAINING AND WRITTEN INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO
  FAMILIES AS INFORMED DECISION MAKERS
• FAMILY INVOLVEMENT IN QUALITY INDICATORS OF
  SERVICES
• AREA OF GREATEST CHALLENGE

33
CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS

• ALL COUNTIES SCORED ALL AREAS AS A 2 OR 3

34
OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION

• 3 OUT OF 4 COUNTIES SCORED THIS AS A 2 OR 3

35
FISCAL RESOURCES

• STAFF TRAINING IN TIME STUDY (SUPERVISORS GET
  THIS IN FOUNDATIONS)
• CROSS SYSTEMS TRAINING OF STRATEGIES AND FUNDING
  RESOURCES
• WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON FUNDING AND
  BLENDED FUNDING. (MIXED BAG 2 COUNTIES HAD A 1
  AND 2 COUNTIES HAD A 3)