The Needs Assessment Committee met via conference call:

Ms. Crowell reported on her discussion with Ray Toubern at DSHS regarding the training and timeframe for the community assessment. The Administrative Agency will receive training on the community assessments in April/May 2005 and train the Planning Council in June. The Planning Council will plan to begin the resource inventory and provider survey in April and the community assessment this summer.

Members Present: Chris Benfer (Chair), Christine Harris, Mark Donberger, Rita Castro, Janet Cates, and Sissy Riffin

BVCOG Staff Present: Crystal Crowell and Sherry Falgout

Austin - Title I
BVCOG has communicated with the Austin Planning Council about the needs assessment. Austin is in the process of working on the client needs assessment. Austin will do a detailed survey of Title I providers and abbreviated survey for all potential HIV/AIDS providers. If the Austin Title I Planning Council completes the provider survey for all ten counties, then the CTHPC can focus on the other four HSDAs.

Online Provider Survey
Ms. Crowell and Ms. Falgout received training for the online provider survey. This is a detailed survey intended only for Title II providers and will be implemented in June 2005.

Resource Inventory & Abbreviated Provider Survey
Comments were made about the resource inventory being a duplication of work. It is most efficient for the abbreviated provider survey and resource inventory to be conducted together. The provider survey provides supplemental data to the resource inventory. BVCOG informed the committee of the minimum data needed for the resource inventory and for the provider survey.

One source of information for the resource inventory is secondary data such as the 211-directories. BVCOG is in the process of obtaining the 211-directories for each HSDA.

BVCOG is reviewing and updating the provider survey previously used for all potential HIV/AIDS providers. Examples from other areas have been requested. The committee discussed strategies to increase the provider response rate. Mailing surveys then following up with a phone call; bringing the survey to the providers; explaining the importance of the survey; and interviewing providers were identified as methods to increase the response rate.

Local Needs Assessment Task Forces (LNATFs)
Waco has worked on setting up LNATFs. The committee needs to strategize for ways to recruit for LNATFs. Ms. Crowell and Ms. Castro previously discussed involving CPGs for recruitment and utilization of LNATFs. Ms. Castro recommended bringing in the expertise of the CPGs since they were just recently involved in community assessments. It is important to have everything together before getting community volunteers involved to avoid losing volunteers.

BVCOG will e-mail an outline of data needed for the provider survey and resource inventory and examples of provider surveys from other planning councils. The Needs Assessment Committee plans to meet after the next CTHPC meeting on April 12, 2005 to discuss and establish a timeline for completion of the abbreviated provider survey and resource inventory.

Posted by BVCOG-HIV at 08:21 PM | Permalink

The Allocations Committee (AC) met via conference call on March 9, 2005 at 5:15 p.m. to discuss the Temple Ryan White 2004-2005 reallocation request, Austin Ryan White 2004-2005 reallocation request, and state services 2005-2006 allocation adjustments.

CTHPCA Members present: Parker Willson-Chair, Blair Hodgkins, and Mark Donberger.

BVCOG staff present: Crystal Crowell and Sherry Falgout

A quorum of four members of the AC is needed to approve or not approve the allocation adjustments and reallocation requests. However, only three members were present for the conference call. In addition, Mr. Hodgkins cannot vote on the Austin reallocation because that is his HSDA. The committee will need to vote via e-mail.

Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hodgkins, and Mr. Donberger agreed on the Temple Ryan White 2004-2005 reallocation and the State Services 2005-2006 allocation adjustments.

The AC members disagreed on whether or not to approve the Austin Ryan White 2004-2005 reallocation request. The Administrative Agent informed the committee members that the purpose of the reallocation of funds into case management was due to a cut in case management dollars from Title III funds. [Note: It was originally thought that the provider requested the reallocation because of a loss of funds in case management from another funding source. Following the conference call, the Administrative Agency learned that the reallocation request was to address Title II funding cuts in the case management category, not Title III. The agency is also requesting a reallocation to address an overexpenditure of case management in Title II because a portion of ambulatory money was originally budgeted to cover part of a case manager's salary to serve as a clinical coordinator, but because the rural clinic wasn't set up until 6 months into the grant year, they were not able to charge ambulatory for that portion of salaries.]

Mr. Hodgkins expressed concern with the reallocation request and made the following points:
* The money should be allocated to service categories not to providers.
* The AC originally allocated money to the ambulatory and drug service categories, which have higher priority. Funds should not be reallocated from ambulatory/outpatient medical care (priority one) to case management (priority four).
* Only one month remains in the grant year and the provider had a year to adjust for this loss in funding. Others should have the opportunity to receive the money.
*The bulk of the clients are in Austin and most clients outside the EMA come into the EMA to receive services.

Mr. Donberger and Mr. Wilson made the following points in support of the reallocation:
*The reallocation request is for the case management service category not a provider. This provider was the only one to receive case management money.
*Without reallocation to case management, the agency would lose one case manager.
*This is a geographically challenged area with only one provider. The loss of a case manager would detrimentally affect the clients.
*Transportation is an issue for a rural area. Title II funds are used for the case manager to provide transportation for the clients.
*A change in funding or a loss of funding is reason for a reallocation request.

BVCOG will e-mail a summary of the discussion to the committee. The committee will vote via e-mail.

Posted by BVCOG-HIV at 08:39 PM | Permalink