Topic

Key Points Raised

Decision/Action

Member Survey (Survey Results in PowerPoint slides)

Lisa gave a short overview of the survey results.  9 surveys completed.  It looks like we are moving forward according to these respondents. They had generally favorable experiences.  The survey gave us a little bit of demographic data.  It also gave us some information about how we are doing in terms of communication across the alliance. 

The survey is a work in progress.  We still need to decide how we will administer it, by web or by paper.

What did we learn from the experience of the steering committee?

This survey was created for a new group, so it was a little uncomfortable for the group who took it.

Liz will work on a survey meeting date for 12/29/05, possibly by conference call.

Those who have expressed interest in working more on the survey are:

DeAnn, Lisa, Pam, Liz, Cheri and if possible Priscilla and Eileen.

Telephone Survey

(Evaluation Plan table)

The purpose of this method is to find out more about examples of ‘value added’ because of the Cancer Alliance.  Where are we having greater impact because of the Alliance?  To what extent is the Plan being implemented?   This method answers the 2^nd question on the Evaluation Plan “To what extent is the partnership achieving greater impact than would have been achieved without its existence?”

We need to have a loose list of questions such as:  Who? What? When? How?  How much? 

• What can the project or experience tell us in terms of program planning?
• Does this project have a way of measuring impact?  How much?  What kind of evaluation have you done? 

The Chronic Disease Directors (CDD) has a way of collecting info and creating ‘stories’.   Pam will send this to Liz and maybe to group.

We want to uncover success stories, anecdotes, and value added. 

The Diabetes program has two-three ways of collecting this info

1. Diabetes Plan Central
2. Informal Phone conversations
3. Updates at meetings

How do we capture what is going on outside of Cancer Plan Minnesota? How do we collect information about what is happening beyond what is supported by core team/staff?

The cancer evaluation committee likes the idea of having a file by the phone so we do not lose the information.  One key question is, Is there a way to quantify or measure success?

Do we want to ask Steering Committee members and others to discuss at Meetings how they are implementing the Plan? 

We could have journals at the Summit so that people could write about how they are coordinating with or implementing the plan.

Dialogue from researchers will keep this project moving.  What is the long-term benefit for my institution or me[EM1] ?

We are thinking of using this method to get qualitative stories based info to augment quantitative information in the annual report.

This will be an ongoing method, not specific to any point in time.

We need to get the Core Team, ready to capture info.  The responsibilities for collecting stories could fall to several groups including the core team, steering committee, and evaluation committee.

Pam York knows of a CDD tool to develop success stories.  She will send it to Liz to send to the group.

Elizabeth will write a ‘purpose’ for this aspect of data collection.  Modify CDD purpose to reflect Cancer Alliance evaluation needs.

Project Charters

(Project Charter, Action Plan questions, Iowa Report form)

The process of collecting project charters has not gone as planned.  Not easy to get groups to articulate what the yare doing.  Some groups are pursuing multiple activities but not able to articulate a specific or time limited ‘project’. 

It has been hard to get group leaders to put on paper the ideas that they have in their heads. 

The purpose of the project charter is to communicate the work of the project team to other groups, including the Steering Committee.

• The steering committee wants the groups to have a concrete plan and some ‘reality check’ on feasibility.
• Timeline/deadline has been hard for the groups to articulate.  They like the projects and resist the idea of focusing
• The steering committee and core team could try to provide more leadership to project team and task force leaders to help them focus the projects.
• It might help project teams to see the big picture, so that they can show how all agendas fit into the big picture.  It would let people focus in the short-term on a small project if they know that their agenda fits somehow into the grand scheme.
• Maybe we could have work group leaders or work groups hear a talk on how to think about and organize a project. 
• Maybe we should not put so much pressure on project teams to create a project charter.
• Ask Work group leaders/chairs to participate in steering committee meetings.  This would include Amanda Rudolf, Cindy Iverson & Barb Kunz, Marva Bohen, Access to Info Group leader.
• Possibly have 1-2 people make guidelines on community communication (?Mergersa)
• Do we need to have conference calls with chairs & leaders? NO
• In Iowa, implementation groups had a mini-grant process, so they were required to create a project outline, timeline, deliverables, etc.  Is there any possibility of funding for mini-grants in the future? 
• We could raise this issue to the steering committee to think about in future.
• Asking Task Force leaders and Committee chairs to attend Steering Committee meetings would bring more depth and understanding to their work.  They would feel more connected to those making decisions.
• Liz will ask the core team and Steering Committee to invite task force and project team leaders to first meeting.

Issues for first Steering Committee meeting (from DeAnn) 

What is the role of the steering committee in relation to the projects?

• Documenting projects
• Oversight of projects
• Communication about how we initiate new project and projects forward
• Support for community initiated projects vs. project in priority areas
• Evaluation of community initiated projects
• New ideas that come forth
• Set priorities for staff and evaluation support
• Resource needs

Comment:  All these questions about how the process works means that this is going well. 

“We have listened to your concerns and we are responding with this new form”

Let us call the project charter an ACTION PLAN, work plan or proposal.  Group decided on Action Plan.

Lisa will email project charter to Liz from Iowa.

Next steps:  Action Plan new draft

In-Kind Contributions

(Iowa spreadsheet handout)

The Diabetes program uses a similar form to the Iowa form. It includes contact information, and how long the person has been working on the diabetes activities, and which groups they are in.

At the end of the Diabetes questionnaire it asks, “What is your hourly consulting rate.” They use this rate to estimate in-kind contributions

For those that did not answer the last question, they derived the hourly rates from the Employment stats for Minnesota.  What is the going rate for someone in that profession?

In Iowa, they counted travel time and mileage in the In-Kind contribution total.  So in Iowa the equation was [(time spent in meeting+ travel time) x (hourly consulting rate) + (mileage rate x distance traveled)]x fringe + hotel expenses & per diem

Once or twice a year they ask work group leaders how many hours they spent doing work group stuff outside of meetings.

Tracking in Iowa has been informal and people are not always aware of being tracked or counted.

Asking people once for distance and time and hourly rate might be a good idea.   We could also use MapQuest to calculate travel distances and times.

Diabetes keeps track in Access Database.  Diabetes is updated after each meeting by support staff.  The person enters the attendance after each meeting and reports are printed about ½ yearly. 

Liz will ask Heather more info about Access Database and in-kind contributions. 

Committee membership for Implementation

We are at a transition point.  Original group on Evaluation Committee was recruited for April 2005-April 2006.  Maybe we should restructure a bit.  Those who made a commitment to complete tasks have fulfilled their original commitment. It is time to turn to new tasks and ask for renewed commitment.

Will we change or increase frequency and intensity of evaluation?  We need to work with project teams on action plans, finalize and revise tools, and carry out member survey

Next year will be very busy year, and it starts with a new Steering committee.  Maybe in 2007 when everyone is more familiar with the process, there will be less demand for evaluation committee meetings?

We need to think about who else we might recruit or need as additional members.

• Particular backgrounds or skills we are looking for.
• Data set—obtain data—once a year to update table. 
• Data interpretation

Let’s try having monthly meetings for at least the next 6 months.  Meeting length of about 1.5-2 hours.

• Having monthly meetings keeps meetings focused and helps the committee to meet deadlines. Conference call participation is ok
• Monthly meetings planned cancel when unnecessary, phone ok, and bring people on as necessary.
• We have focused this far on process evaluation.  We have more room to talk about outcome evaluation and impact evaluation over the next year in 2006.
• We need to keep research and design expertise on the committee
• Most talk about timeline for tasks and deadlines for CDC
• What if we released an annual report in Nov/Dec 2006?
• Need to assume collection of statewide data appropriate to plan (and for other disease plans as well)

Liz will draft email and send to DeAnn & Lisa to send. 

The email will ask if other members want to continue or if they have any suggestions for others to join the committee. 

Next meeting week of Jan 23^rd

Small group to meet on Survey on December 29th