1. Engage Partners

Tools

These tools have been collected by AMCHP and the MCH Evidence Center:

• California: Introduction to Needs Assessment and Engaging Stakeholders. California Title V partnered with the University of California, San Francisco's Family Health Outcomes Project to develop this webinar and introductory resources.
• Colorado: Needs Assessment Design Overview Visual. Colorado has used a visual such as this one in multiple assessments to organize and communicate about the design of the MCH Needs Assessment. It helps partners understand all of the elements of the assessment as well as the general timeline.
• Oregon: Partner Voices Key Questions. These are the key questions that were used in a survey of partners in Oregon, to both gather information and to engage partners in the work. The modes of data collection included an online survey of partners, listening sessions with key stakeholders, discussions with core partners including local health departments and tribes, and regional listening sessions with community organizations and agencies.
• Oregon: Youth Engagement on Surveillance and Assessment Tools. As part of Oregon’s effort to design better assessment and surveillance tools, Title V engaged youth in focus groups, surveys, and informational interviews to find out what health topics are most important to them, whether or not the survey speaks to those topics, and how the state can better design assessment to speak to their needs and strengths.
• New Mexico’s Title V CYSHCN Program: Using the National Standards as a Framework for Educating Stakeholders. For an increased understanding of how Title V programs are implementing the National Standards for Systems of Care for CYSHCN, this case study offer strategies and best practices for replication.

Stories and Strategies for Peer-to-Peer Learning

These stories and strategies have been collected by AMCHP and the MCH Evidence Center related to Step 1:

• Oregon Key Stakeholder Panel Discussion for Needs Assessment Specific to Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs. OCCYSHN invited professionals representing a wide range of organizations and institutions that serve CYSHCN (e.g., Coordinated Care Organizations, pediatric provider member organizations, county Developmental Disability, providers that serve CYSHCN) and representatives of families of CYSHCN to participate in a facilitated discussion on December 10, 2014. The discussion focused on the needs of CYSHCN and the capacity of Oregon’s system of services to address those needs. Participants also recommended priority areas of focus for OCCYSHN for the next 5 years. We included these recommendations in our priority area data tools used for our state prioritization process. Contact Alison Martin at [email protected], 503-494-5435 for information.
• Ohio: As a partner, I am seeing how we need to help be more of a go-between for Ohio's MCH. We are a step closer to some partners. As we were tasked with the need assessment, we then only administered surveys via email to our schools and optometrist partners, and would like to see more engagement in the future.
• Missouri: Seeing Indiana's Public, county health ranking dashboard. This dashboard includes MCH data in its overall rankings. After seeing this dashboard, it has prompted discussions to create an MCH county ranking dashboard to share with county and CPHAs as well as other partners/groups.
• Arizona: 1. Adding paid consultants to our NA steering committee. 2. Specific CYSHCN needs assessment for blueprint. 3. Being more intentional about getting to the comments versus expecting the communities to come to us. 4. Think beyond traditional partners.
• Maryland: 1. Data specialist, collect data, create data tool, create dashboard, DUA. 2. Data needs, data sharing between state and local and federal level instructions and some standard SOP's should be published.
• Maryland: 1. We use the SOAR approach. 2. Map out the partners.
• Maryland: In my role, I am working to share and engage with families to complete needs assessment surveys.
• New York: Think outside of the box and meet people where they are when engaging in listening sessions/focus groups. Try to engage organizations outside of typical public health space and go to community meeting places.
• New Hampshire: Broad representation on advisory committee. Including partners and populations not previously involved in a robust way in NA efforts, including parents, youth, youth, and SHCNs, Hispanic/Latino voice, and hopefully LGBTQ (recruiting), rural voice and those with practical experience.
• Kentucky: ID strengths, weaknesses, assets. How do you do this? ID partners. 1. funder. 2. convener. 3. informed. 3–4 sessions for small states. 3. Strengths and capacity. 4. Select priorities. What I'm doing! 1. coordinating the needs assessment activities in my MCH division, Meetings, communication, partners/stakeholders, outside consultants, etc. 2. Communicating progress of our various steps along the way. Why am working! 1. Set a plan and stick to plan! 2. Be clear and concise as the steps you are following or want to follow. There are so many ways to go about this.
• Connecticut: Working with a variety of partners, parents enjoy sharing and being included. Increase opportunities to share and help guide services, and help families share stories, so their needs are better addressed.
• West Virginian: 1. Trying to ensure a representative group of partners are surveyed and focus groups get the information back in a meaningful way. 2. Connections with faith based organizations and private funders to help get the word out about the needs assessment.
• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Utilizing network and existing partners to assist with the needs assessment and selecting MCH priorities. Providing expertise and intersection activities to develop the action plan.
• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Include CYSHN and families with practical experiences in the action plan. Having all MCH managers involved in the needs assessment. It will address more domains.
• South Carolina: Provide information/state action plan from previous plan to show what was worked on for the past five years and help to not duplicate and/or expand upon same or new priorities.
• Delaware: Engage families more!
• Utah: This time we established a contract with are F2F to hold focus groups across the state and then they will provide a report of their findings from CSHCN families. My advice is to work with and let them help you understand what they are hearing and seeing. They are the trusted source and are able to get people to the table.
• There needs to be a plan to engage partners for the next needs assessment during our current needs assessment, especially minor/youth populations.
• Connecticut: Seeking to work with the university of Alabama Birmingham: Develop surveys. Support planning, design and implementation of primary data collection methods and tools. Complete data analysis from primary and secondary data and develop key findings for prioritization. Assist with comprehensive needs assessment report.
• New Mexico: Engaging primary partners, most specifically, our Navajo, F2F, and community-based family organizations to elicit feedback from members in our population who have special healthcare needs. Utilizing establish community events which helps counter our limited staffing, and resources.
• Puerto Rico: Remember to include youth, voices and their families as valuable partners to bring their needs and ideas. We are including youth advisory council members as part of needs assessing. They are 14 to 21 year olds.
• Mississippi: We are mining the contact/partner list from programs, not directly or traditionally, or historically involved in the MCH needs assessment to add a minimum, leverage those organic relationships to increase stakeholder feedback and access the population(s) they serve. Pre Planning. (Comment: delegate authority to our very competent staff.
• Nebraska: Nebraska worked with a graphic facilitator to create a video graphic that describes the needs assessment process. We will share this with partners before they come to the kick off meeting for the needs assessment. We will be able to use this in the future when talking about the process.
• Alabama: Remember that partners are vital, and that personal relationships are what make partnerships work.
• Alabama: Better communication with our stakeholders on the timeline for the needs assessment.
• West Virginian: Engagement/education/activation of partners is not a one time, only five-year activity. Build, trust, accountability, and transparency in all actions everyday. Be intentional
• Not involved with this activity, but inspired by it. Pay a small sum of money to partners to conduct survey or convene focus group to gather information for the Title V needs assessment.
• Mississippi: Identifying key champions to provide authentic feedback and supports to understand the needs of the CYHCN community. Having supports for agency leadership allows persons who do the work, to freely do it.
• Republic of Palau: Utilizing multiple ways to obtain community feedback. Although population is small, we have various sub groups with different ways of getting information. Take time to learn about your community by allowing them to articulate their needs in their own way.
• West Virginian: Build and capitalize on synergy – where is this work already happening? Funds to these organizations to engage the families. They are already working with in a trust-based relationship.
• Montana: Engaging with tribal epidemiology center. They represent two states and nine federally recognized tribes, five reservations. It's a lot of "bang for our buck."
• Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Partner engagement. Ensure population representation. Keep partners in the loop (informed) of every stage of the NA process.
• New Mexico: Learn the language of how families describe themselves. Don't make assumptions as to who they are. Meet families where they are, and be truthful about what you can do, and what you need them to do to learn to be an advocate for their loved one.
• Arkansas: I enjoyed the Marshall Island information and thoughts. I plan to engage our Marshall Island community better. We are in the process of updating our program documents with Marshallese language. This will be my very first needs assessment, and I have lots of great ideas. Advice: to be open minded when engaging partners, and be OK with a "griping" session. Be empathetic to the partners and families.
• Alabama: Re-examining key informants. Did we include all MCHP funding grants. Did we include key government/agency leadership. Did we consider all appropriate laws and regulations and not just hot button issues. i.e. abortion. Are we sharing, intentionally, the needs assessment results with non-conventional partners. e.g., DOT, DOE.
• Republic of Palau: Continue to engage partners throughout the five-year period. (Feedback loop and recognize/appreciate them.)
• Republic of Palau: As Title V coordinator and new to the five-year needs assessment, I am actively learning from my fellow state and federal partners about how to better standardize our own process.
• Federated States of Micronesia: Our partners are mostly from other public health programs who are also working for the MCH population domain. In our country, people tend to listen to the health workers (especially nurses and doctors) when it comes to health needs in the community.
• New Mexico: We are having first meetings with other programs within NM DOH with a previous work in needs assessments to receive advice and input. Also, we are doing a stakeholder mapping by county. We are trying so hard to include all the voices around MCH, more special, those who live in rural areas.
• Wisconsin: Having needs assessment committee members go to local places (food banks, libraries, stores), to ask community members to complete survey. Staff helped with completing survey if needed. Staff had time to connect with community and each other.
• Missouri: Thinking more thoroughly about how to appropriately engage partners in a meaningful way and let them know what their information will be used for.
• Connecticut: Engaging or utilizing vocal/strong, family leaders, and providing them with stipends.
• Vermont: We are very intentional with seeking out new partners to engage, to ensure new needs/priorities are identified. Engagement Strategy identified multiple levels (direct source providers, family policymakers, advisory councils) to solicit input.
• New York: CYSHC and program: Interviews with families of children and youth with special health care needs. Feedback interview or in writing with local health department staff about their experience working on the CYSHCN program.

Dig Deeper. Share Your Work