Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 082001Orange County Human Services Advisory Commission Proposed Agenda * Regular Meeting Monday, August 20, 2001 5:30 p.m. Southern Services Services Center Chapel Hill, North Carolina Note: Background Material available in the County Manager's Office Compliance with the "Americans with Disabilities Act" - Interpreter services and/or special sound equipment are available on request. Call the County Clerk's Office at 732 -8181, extension 2130. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, contact the ADA Coordinator in the County Manager's Office at 732 -8181, extension 2300 or TDD# 644 -3045. t 1. Establishment of Quorum 2. Additions. or Changes to the Agenda 3. Member Comments JJ Items for Decision — Consent A. Minutes of July 16, 2001 . Items for Decision— Regular A. Agenda for 2001 Human Services Forum — Rosetta Wash This was mailed out with the the agenda for the August 20, 2001. See attached. M4mo i� fJa�c`� 1%ci5c. Facilitator Training — Dee Gamble ,� Inar,clo��� �c•cc A• C= X�- (c►sei.i IJomjnal ��p Te��t n� 4,ue r3 The Cams1-ar v,1*03 Pmces5 II// Adjournment • Commission Members: please review the Proposed Agenda. A request to have an item of business placed on the agenda must be received at least three working days before the meeting. Any board member may, by a timely request, have an item placed on the proposed agenda. IF UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE CLERK'S OFFICE AT (919) 245 -2125 OR 245 -2130. STAFF CAN THEN DETERMINE IF A QUORUM WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE MEETING. August 17, 2001 4:14 PM Memorandum To: Nancy From: Sharron Date: 08/17/01 Re: HSAC Forum Follow -up Items 1. The agenda for the forum is - confirmed with the following exceptions: (a) Secretary Hooker Buell (should know something this week) (b) Moderator from the NC Justice and Community Development Center (invited but not yet confirmed) (c) Consumer for the panel discussion — (any suggestions ? ? ?) 2. The HSAC members need to determine the questions for discussion during the strategy break -out sessions. The questions from last year's forum were: • What are the issues surrounding the mental health system? • What are the needs of persons with mental illness? • What are the available resources? • What are the gaps in service delivery? • How do we better inform the public about existing services? • How can government and non - profits partner to improve access to services and share resources for mental health? 3. Please confirm the facilitators and recorders for the break -out sessions. 4. Rosetta and Debbie need to determine their respective roles during the Agenda /Forum Update and Introductions — who will be covering which items? 5. Confirm the status of CEU's. If CEU's are to be made available, then an on -site application process needs to be coordinated since they were not referenced on the registration form. (see attachment from Louise.) 6. Guest column (800 words) for Chapel Hill News — Rosetta and Debbie (Once determined, please contact Debbie Meyer at 684 -5164; or email at deborah.meyer(a�duke.edu The deadline is Thursday, August 23, 2001. 0G\nA oU+ 0t-�I_Z.01e1 NSAC MeetinJ. I3c(nCLi hc,nd-ec{ this c, 'At ( 5 h0.v-ron C,nCl CL) V- 1 r) hI u. Ere 0 n va ca+ i 0r) 08/13/01 14:36 AHEC -> 919196443007 N®.163 IP02 GREENSBORO AREA HEALTH EDUCATION CENTER noo lyortn Elm Street Greensboro, NC 27401 -1020 3361832-8212, 336432 -2831 (Fox) CONTRMNG EDUCATION UNITS (**CEU) REQUMEMENTS To provide CEU credit For an organization, Greensboro AHEC needs the following information: TWO WEEKS PRIOR to date of program: 1) Agenda to calculate contact hours (60- minute teaching hours, exclusive of breaks and lunch). Be %ere seething Is' published on the ?Wrgh gr gLholim egaprm your calcdlatlonr whit AHEC Qr well as Ore worgkig orany announcenwar eboot the awardiV of credit, 2) Purpose of program overall (and each breakout session if applicable), 3) L,earniog objectives of program (and each breakout session if applicable). 4) Resume of each presenter (can be brief resume). 5) Copy of evaluation form, 6) $50 deposit which is the minimum charge for CEU processing. TWO WEEKS after program: '1) Roster (form provided by Greensboro AHEC prior to program or you may use your own) that includes each person receiving CEU credit with the following information: Name, Address, Phone Of County Employed, Gecapation. 8) Summary of evaluation results. 9) One check payable to Greensboro AHEC from the orggnization requesting credit totaling S1Q per person receiving CEU credit over 5 participants. (The S50 deposit/minimum Charge covers the first 5 participants. However, iC program is cancelled, the $50 deposit is retained for AHEC administrative fees.) AIIEC will provide you wtr /t we numhdv of CEU certificates you request' prier to the conference In order fer you to disvibute the day of the conference ro individuals wantlltg credlt- Following the conference, you rrulsl return any srausad eert#leatei to Greensboro AHEC along with final paywwnt check. To meet the requirements detailed above, Greensboro Af•fEC will be glad to send you a packet ofsamplc forms upon req yesr_ Greensboro AHEC will keep records of each person's attendance for at least seven years, as required by most certification/licensu re boards. If other credits are desired, such as AN•CC, ACPE, ASHA, Substance Abuse, LAP, or something other than the standard CEU, an additional fee will be charged. Contact AHEC immediately if you want Addl[loael credit to ensure that the application for that credit meets their advance notice requirements, ipcluded on the certificate for Mental Health professionals will be NBCC credit for natlonel certified counselors since Greensboro AY^YEC is an NBCC certified provider. **The Continuing Education Un1t (CEO is an internationally racognhed measure of participation in a continuing professional edacallon prrograrn. One Continuing Education Unit (1,0) as d4flned as ''Ten contact hours of participation in organised cominuing education experience urrder responsible, qualified direction and lnatruetlon0 (Infernational Association for Contbiubig Edacation and Training, Cr i rria and tridell►r for Ovaltty Continai E'dnc Training Programs, 1998). A, portion of a CEU can be given for any number of contact hours, such al 0.1 CEUfor r oc 60- miintc1e hour. JAW0l THE CARDSTORMING PROCESS - Facilitators Guide Janice H. Schopler, Paul Castelloe, and Dorothy N. Gamble School of Social Work, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1. Ahead of time, prepare and get feedback on the statement for group to brainstorm. Prepare newsprint sheets for wall, count out 5 x 8 cards for ideas, prepare tape strips for posting ideas, set out colored marking pens. Alternatively you can use 5 x 8 post it notes so that tape isn't required. 2. Begin group with introductions to acquaint members with each other and to focus on the topic. Relate the statement that will be completed to the purpose of the session. 3. Briefly note the following points: • Everyone has important ideas to share and should participate. • Respect each other's ideas. • It's okay to disagree - -in fact, different ideas should be encouraged. • Check to make sure everyone is understanding what is said. 4. After presenting the statement to be completed, give people time to do their own thinking and write down their ideas. That way all participants have time to organize their ideas. 5. Divide the larger group into small teams (about four individuals in each) and have people share and discuss their individual ideas. Then, members of each team choose the ideas they want to present and write these on 5 x 8 cards, using just three to four words for each card. Remind teams to write large enough so everyone in room can read. Suggest the number of cards each team should produce. 6. Ask each team to tape their ideas on the newsprint sheets. Then select a couple of volunteers to move the cards around, putting similar ideas in clusters. Encourage all participants to point out similarities and suggest places to shift cards into idea clusters. (This step has been done successfully with groups as large as 40, but the group has to be able to read the cards from where they are sitting.) 7. Discuss connections among cards. Ask the group to come up with labels for the idea clusters. The facilitator should write labels on cards and tape above clusters. 8. As discussion proceeds, check out meanings of words, add ideas on new cards if important ideas have been left out. Refine "labels" for clusters. Discuss why ideas are important. Examine differences as well as similarities. As discussion concludes, summarize and check with participants whether this accurately reflects their thinking. NASW's Meeting of the Profession, Baltimore MD, Oct. 6, 1997 4 H Ctkl\ d tJ%.4fi by 0 -ee 6­a r--,bI -C I Hints for facilitators. . . • Think through the statement that is to be completed carefully with the group leadership. Completing a statement and thereby affirming something seems to work better than responding to a question. • If using 5x8 cards rather than post -it notes, prepare an adequate number of tape strips in advance - -these can* be lined up on tables near newsprint. Saves time and confusion. • Be sure to remind people to keep their ideas to three or four words and to write large so that later they ideas can be seen by everyone for the clustering step. • Be sure to allow 3 or 4 minutes for individual brainstorming after posing the statement -- otherwise some participants won't have time to collect their thoughts and their wisdom will be lost if they don't participate. • If you bypass the small team discussion, you will be less likely to get everyone's ideas and a few people may dominate the discussion. • Ask participants to cluster the cards and rearrange them or tell the facilitator exactly where to place them - -this is a group decision. The facilitator shouldn't be the one to organize ideas but should ask questions to clarify meaning and help the group come to a consensus. • Think ahead of time about the importance of the ideas being generated. Conclude with a question about implications or next steps. This gives people a chance to see the value in their thinking together. • Keep additional cards handy to use in labeling clusters of ideas. NASW's Meeting of the Profession, Baltimore MD, Oct. 6, 1997 5 References Brassard, M. (1989). The memory iogger plus +. Methuen, MA: GOAL/QPC. Brody, R. (1982). Problem solving: Concepts and methods for community organizations._ New York: Human Sciences Press, Inc. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Fatout, M., & Rose, S.R. (1995). Task groups in social services. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fellin, P. (1987). The competent community. The community and the social worker (pp. 49 -59). Itasca, IL": F.E. Peacock. Finlay, J. S. (1991). Using the (Japanese) new management tools to solve organizational problems. Organization Development Journal, 9(1), 81 -89. Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers Kaner, S. with Lind, L, Toldi, C. Fisk, S., & Berger, D. (1996). Facilitators's Guide to Participatory Decision - Making= Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Kramer, M.W., Kuo, C.L., & Dailey, J.C. (1997). The impact of brainstorming techniques on subsequent group processes: Beyond generating ideas. Small Group Research, 28 (2), 218 -242. Learning with the community through Participatory Rural Appraisal. (1996). World Neighbors in Action, 24(IE), 1 -8. Lee, B., & Balkwill, M. (1996). Participatory planning for action: Popular education techniques to assist community groups to flan and act. Toronto, O.: CommonAct Press. Moore, C. M. (1994). Group techniques for idea building (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment: Predicting participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 85 -121. Schwarz, R.M. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups, San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D., & Thomas - Slayter, B. (Eds.). (1995). Power, process and participation: Tools for change. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. The `new' tools (On -line, 1996, October 22). Available: http : / /ciee.vuse.vanderbilt.edu /es 130 /quality /newtool.htm. Timmel, S., & Hope, A. (1995). Training for Transformation, Revised Edition Vol. I, II, III Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press. NASW's Meeting of the Profession, Baltimore MD, Oct. 6, 1997 6 Exercise in Nominal Group Technique* Adapted for the Human Services Advisory Commission Forum - September 13, 2000 This exercise is useful for groups to make judgmental decisions such as "what is the most important problem for our group to tackle ?" or "What is the best approach to solving the problem we identified ?" It provides the opportunity for everyone in attendance to contribute ideas and participate in the judgment. It offers the opportunity for a small or large group to have some results after a few hours work. One round of voting can be done in about one hour. Two rounds of voting takes about two hours, and more if you include a lunch break. It is called "Nominal Group" because a group is formed in name only to benefit from the creativity and versatility that comes from many minds thinking about the same issue. Preparation: 1. Organize the meeting room so that people can meet in small groups. You can have a hundred people meeting at the same time, but they will be meeting in small groups. The ideal group size for this exercise is no more than nine members, each with two facilitators. We will be meeting with larger groups which makes the facilitators' tasks a little harder. 2. Each group will have two trained facilitators. The facilitator with the best handwriting should be the recorder on news print. Neither facilitator will act as a group member. That means the facilitators should not give their opinion about the issues that are raised, and should not suggest that one idea is in any way more important than another idea. This is not easy, but the facilitators must try very hard to be neutral. The ideas should come from the participants. 3. Each group needs a flip chart, at least one good felt pen, a sheet of paper with the question to be considered at the top for each group member, and enough colored dots so that each member has five different colored dots. 4. Give people a little time to eat their lunches before starting the NGT process formally. 5. We will consider two questions for the NGT process. • What are the most important mental health issues that should be considered by the County Commissioners for this age group and /ability level? • Among the issues we listed, what are the top five choices in order of importance? V ,A -out b,l Q-ee "mble, VI2o1z�o 1 Opening of the meeting: 1. One of the facilitators welcomes the participants and has them introduce themselves. The facilitator then helps people relate to the importance of their task. 2. Participants are informed of the importance of each person's contribution. Each ideas will be recorded as it is spoken. Each person's words and perceptions are valued. The recorder will not alter or paraphrase the comments unless the person who suggested the idea agrees with a shorter version. 3. The leader will indicate how the output from the meeting will be used by the Human Services Advisory Commission to write a report to the County Commissioners about the mental health concerns in Orange County. 4. The ideal size for the NGT process is no more than nine people. We are doing this process with more than nine and must pace ourselves a little more quickly because of that. It would be expected that a diverse group of people who do not necessarily know each other will make up the group. More creative thinking occurs with heterogeneous groups. The NGT Process: Step A: (5 -7 minutes) 1. Present the question to be considered in writing, and read it to the group. 2. Ask group members to silently and independently use the rest of the sheet of paper as a work sheet to write down key ideas that respond to the question, using brief phrases. Step g: (10 -15 minutes) 1. Ask group members to suggest one idea from their list in round -robin style. 2. Write these suggestions on newsprint so that everyone can read them. Use the words as stated by the group member. 3. Keep going round the group, asking for ideas one by one, until everyone has exhausted their list. If people wish to pass on one round, then later make another suggestion, allow them to do so. Step C: (10 -15 minutes) 1. Go through each item on the list to discuss it for clarification and understanding. 2. The facilitator should pace the group so that all the items get attention, although each item may not necessarily be discussed. 3. In the clarification discussion let people know they do not have to agree with each other but they should be able to understand what is intended by the idea. 4. The person who suggested an idea should not be put on the spot to defend the idea but rather to simply explain it further if someone doesn't understand how it applies. S. Do not combine two items unless both members who suggested the two items agree. This helps preserve the value of each person's suggestion. Step D: (10 -15 minutes) 1. Remind each person they have five rank ordered votes in the form of colored dots. ________ is worth five points and should be used for a vote on the most important issues. _______ is worth four points. __________ is worth three points. _________ is worth two points, and ______ is worth one point. 2. Ask each person to vote on the top five issues by placing their dots beside the ones they think are most important, in order of importance. 3. The two facilitators will quickly tally the votes and on a new sheet of newsprint will list the issues in order of importance according to the group vote. 4. If time allows, discuss the results of the voting with the group. Are there any particular points that should be made in reporting the results to the whole group when we reconvene? * Source: Delbecq, Andre L., Van de Ven, Andrew H., & Gustafson, David H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning. Glenview, II.:Scott, Foresman, and Company.