Disagre e Strongly Agree Immed iate Priority Intermed iate Priority Long-Term Priority
Monitoring and Evaluation, continued
The system has developed a formal evaluation plan for using both internal and external
resources to monitor the processes and outcomes of all initiatives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C
State Agencies/Organizations NR (B): No comment. Score of 1 (C): Not formal.
Score of 2 (A): There is no formal evaluation plan. Score of 3 (A): Will be driven by State plan. Score of 5 (2 Bs): 1) No comment; 2) Don't know.
Score of 6 (A): Our reporting system did not provide us with the type of reports that we had hoped.
Score of 7 (A): New Hampshire has at the State and regional level; not sure regions or prevention partners agree across the State.
4 3 1
Statewide Organizations/Contractors 2 NR (no priorities): No comments.
Score of 4 (A): No comment. 1 0 0
Regional Organizations NR (A): No comment.
Score of 3 (A): With the completion of the plans this will all fall into place in the next year or sooner. Score of 4 (A): Not sure.
Score of 7 (C): No comment.
3 0 1
Prevention system question set copyright © 2008. Permission is granted to copy and use the question set provided the questions, acknowledgment, and copyright notice remain intact. Laurie Barger Sutter [email protected]
12
APPENDIX B
A2
LEADERSHIP PRIORITIES
INDICATORS
Strongly Disagre e Strongly AgreeImmed iate Priority Intermed iate Priority Long-Term Priority Inclusion
System membership reflects the demographics of the persons and communities served, and
includes stakeholders served or impacted by system actions and decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C
Large-Group Discussion: Those that gave a lower rank noted that some populations are difficult to identify and engage (e.g., LGBTQ, military personnel, business sector).
Those that ranked this indicator higher (6–7) stated that the regional networks are engaging various populations and provide the structure needed to improve in this area. One member suggested addressing this indicator prior to developing a mission or vision to ensure that it is inclusive of New Hampshire’s demographics.
Prioritization Discussion: Members agreed that while this was important, they didn’t want the system to become so large that it is difficult to move forward. Every sector
doesn’t need to become part of the Commission; they can be engaged in other ways. For example, the military alcohol and drug committee feeds information into the Governor’s Commission; that is how they have input. Members agreed on the importance of giving clear direction to the regional networks that they need to engage multiple sectors. This led to a discussion on cultural competency. Members noted that if coordinators were going to be asked to reach all groups, the system will need to make sure that their materials and policies are inclusive of all populations, so that no one is excluded. Members then asked, “Are we engaging those populations as we are developing policies? If we engage more members, how do we restructure ourselves?” Members decided to “bookmark” this important discussion and return to it later.
Strategic Planning
The strategies implemented by the system are comprehensive and evidence based, and
include policies and practices, as well as programmatic approaches. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C
Large-Group Discussion: Attendees differed on their views of what constitutes “comprehensive.” Some felt that the regional network was very comprehensive because
they engage a number of sectors in the in delivery of evidence-based programs, practices, and policies. Others stated the regional system lacks adequate resources to serve all populations and geographic areas and there are still service gaps within New Hampshire. One member commented that the system is good at planning, and is designed to be comprehensive, but lacks action that produces results. Attendees representing behavioral health stated that the implementation of evidence-based practices was erratic and somewhat hindered by a lack of willingness on the part of Children’s Mental Health Services.
Prioritization Discussion:Discussion focused on the descriptor of “comprehensive,” and appeared to define comprehensive as a large array of strategies, rather than the use of strategies that are—in and of themselves—comprehensive, in that they are far reaching and impact multiple variables. One member noted: “Nobody should expect a comprehensive, fully funded plan.” Members noted a need to engage sectors that have funding. With respect to timing, some members felt this was an A3, but because they believed it needed to happen soon, it was moved to an A2.
Accountability
The system and its membership proactively develop, support, and model policies and
practices that are essential to achieving goals and outcomes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C
Large-Group Discussion: Some attendees stated they were just starting to engage in this work at the State level and could not expect communities to do what the State
has not done.
Prioritization Discussion:Members noted that the system is great at planning, but now needs to start “doing.” Members agreed that, although the SPF pilot was outcome oriented in a sense, the system overall has never worked in a results-oriented way. Discussion also focused on the need to support and educate system members to be outcome oriented. Members asked, “Does the logic match and do we have a way to measure this? Are the key members of the system modeling this behavior?” With regard to the second question, members tended to believe it was just beginning to happen.
Sustainability
System leadership is shared across sectors, and new leadership (including that of youth) is
cultivated and developed on an ongoing basis. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B C
Large-Group Discussion: Attendees stated this was happening within the school districts and at the substate level, while others felt the Governor’s Commission provided
the infrastructure to promote shared leadership. Some were uncertain whether anyone would maintain prevention efforts if the regional network were to go away.
Prioritization Discussion: This indicator stimulated much discussion. One member led off by noting, “We are not building new leaders, but we try to keep good leaders in
their positions as long as possible.” It was noted that a leadership institute for treatment, which was opened up to prevention, hasn’t been held for the past 2 years. Members agreed that it has been harder to engage prevention in this way—that the leadership model has worked for treatment, but not prevention—and it might be necessary to come up with a strategy for prevention only. Members asked, “Are we getting new leaders and better advocates out of the training we are providing?” They
also noted the lack of a mentor system to cultivate those that are just entering the field.Some suggested creating a supervisory level of prevention that has the additional
responsibility of growing new leaders. Others observed that the system doesn’t recognize leadership well, and while the system is good at engaging leaders, it doesn’t retain them well at the regional level. Members observed that leadership is not just about titles, but more about who is willing to “put themselves out there.” They discussed the question, “If funding went away, is there sufficient distributed leadership to keep a good effort going?” They answered that while the answer varied from region to region, regional coordinators are still leading efforts, and if the system was really cultivating leadership, regional coordinators would not be leading but rather facilitating and coordinating. They noted there was not an intentional plan for how regional coordinators will cultivate others to carry out the tasks needed. Members concluded that this was an important indicator, but not an A1 priority because other things need to occur first.