A Charge to Collaborate:

IT

’

S NOT JUST ABOUT WHAT WE DO… IT

’

S ABOUT HOW WE DO IT…

How we will get there. . .

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

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.

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

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

Tier 1: Statewide Leadership Team: US!

State & County Leaders in Child Welfare & Mental Health; State-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

Tier 1: Statewide Leadership Team Objectives  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

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.

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.

Sequencing of the LC process 

1 st Statewide Leadership Team Oct 28 th , 2013

 Regional Learning sessions occur Dec 2013 – February 2014  Regional Learning sessions occur March 2014 – June 2014 

2 nd Statewide Leadership Team July, 2014

 Regional Learning sessions occur Oct 2014 – Feb 2015 

3 rd Statewide Leadership Team between Feb – April 2015

The Learning Collaborative

Participants and Roles

BAY AREA COUNTIES

Bay

Initial county cohort by region – WELCOME teams!

Central Southern Northern

 Contra Costa San Francisco Santa Cruz Solano Fresno San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Nevada Los Angeles Glenn Orange San Diego Ventura Inyo Humboldt Mendocino Shasta Tuolumne

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

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) 

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?

Thank you so much for participating!

SHARED SUCCESSES

SYSTEMS AND INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION  AGENCIES HAVE CO-LOCATED SPACE AND STAFF  PROCESSES IN PLACE TO SHARE AND RECEIVE FEEDBACK TO SOLVE AND ENHANCE SUCCESS

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

SERVICE ARRAY  TAILORED SERVICES  COMMUNITY BASED  EVIDENCED BASED

INVOLVEMENT OF CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES 

AREA OF VERY FEW SHARED STENGTHS

 ONE SHARED AREA WAS PEER NETWORKS

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

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

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

SHARED CONCERNS

AGENCY LEADERSHIP  SHARED RESPONSIBILITY  FORUMS FOR SHARING INFORMATION  MEANINGFUL ROLE OF FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS

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

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

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

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

CULTURAL RESPONSIVENESS 

ALL COUNTIES SCORED ALL AREAS AS A 2 OR 3

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION 

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

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)