A Charge to Collaborate:

1. A Charge to Collaborate: IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT WHAT WE DO… IT’S 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 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

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!

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)