Minnesota Department of Health
STD and HIV Section
HIV/AIDS Community Prevention Planning
COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE COUNCIL ON HIV/AIDS PREVENTION
Process & Procedures Committee
July 8, 2004
Present
CCCHAP Members
Gerry Anderson
Kip Beardsley
Traci Capesius
Kelly Hansen – by videoconference
Doris Johnson
Amy Moser
Drew Parks
Charlie Tamble
Rosemary Thomas – by videoconference
MDH Staff
Julie Hanson Pérez
Luisa Pessoa-Brandão – by phone
Absent
CCCHAP Members
Becky Clark
Lois Crenshaw
Steve Moore – notified
Gary Remafedi – notified
Muhidin Warfa
REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL PROFILE
Julie Hanson Pérez asked the committee to provide feedback on the draft of the epidemiological
(epi) profile. Luisa Pessoa-Brandão, the epidemiologist who updated the epi profile, attended the
meeting by phone in order to respond to comments and questions.
The following suggestions were made:
Under the Description of Minnesota section:
- Try and find newer Minnesota data related to employment statistics. The data in the plan
is from the 2000 Census, and there have been changes in the economy since then.
- Add information regarding cuts to the Minnesota Health Care Programs that went into
effect in 2003.
- Try and find statistics regarding prenatal care for Asian Pacific Islander women.
Under the Impact of HIV/AIDS on Minnesotans, Mode of Exposure section:
- Add information about who is not being interviewed by the Disease Intervention
Specialists and what the barriers are to conducting the interviews.
Under the Counseling, Testing and Referral System section:
- Add information about OraQuick testing
Process & Procedures Committee Minutes 7/8/04
Page 1
All charts related to age categories:
- Combine the age categories of 20 – 24 and 25 – 29 into one category of ages 20 –29.
This will match the other age categories of 30 – 39 and 40 – 49, and give a more accurate
visual representation of the impact of HIV/AIDS on the 20 –29 age group in comparison
to the other age groups. Data regarding 20 – 24 year olds, and 25 – 29 year olds should
be referenced in the narrative.
All charts or tables that describe racial/ethnic categories:
- Include all races and ethnicities. In cases where the numbers are too small within a
specific population to provide meaningful data, provide a note.
In the Ryan White CARE Act Services in Minnesota section:
- Check with Michelle Sims, case management coordinator at DHS, as to whether case
management clients must have an income lower than 300% of the federal poverty
guidelines. The plan currently states that they do not based on eligibility criteria for the
program, but there is a question about whether that is true.
Luisa noted that she will be adding findings from the Men’s Health Survey conducted at the
Twin Cities Pride celebration in the behavioral data section for MSM.
Julie stated that the full CCCHAP will have a chance to review the epi profile and provide
feedback at the August meeting. The Planning Council will also review the profile and provide
feedback, particularly on the section regarding CARE Act services.
BYLAWS DISCUSSION
Julie began the discussion by summarizing the issues that were raised at the May CCCHAP
meeting. Her understanding is that there is a lack of clarity about the role of the CCCHAP. This
issue was forwarded to this committee for more discussion and, if needed, recommendations for
changes to the Bylaws. As a part of the restructuring process, the Bylaws were changed to state
that the CCCHAP serves as an advisory group to MDH. The Bylaws also now state that the
CCCHAP is responsible for contributing to the development of the prevention plan, instead of
being responsible for developing the plan, as was previously stated. There seems to be a struggle
to understand how the roles have changed, and what decision making power the CCCHAP has in
its capacity as an advisory group. Rosemary Thomas noted that the term “advisory group” may
be perceived as disempowering.
Kip Beardsley stated that it might be an issue of semantics. The perception of an advisory body
may be that it just reviews information and gives a stamp of approval. He thought it may be
more accurate to describe the CCCHAP as a body that provides advice and expertise to MDH,
providing perspectives that MDH staff do not have. The CCCHAP also provides assurance that
the grant application matches the priorities in the prevention plan.
Kip noted there are times the CCCHAP must come to consensus on items such as prioritization
of target populations, identification of priority co-factors, and concurrence on the plan and
application. MDH would not be able to move forward without those decisions. There are other
times when the CCCHAP provides perspectives and feedback. Amy Moser suggested it would
be helpful to be clear at the beginning of any discussion about what type of input is being asked
for from the group.
Process & Procedures Committee Minutes 7/8/04
Page 2
After further discussion, the committee recommended that the following Bylaws changes be
forwarded for consideration by the full CCCHAP:
Clarify roles and responsibilities regarding the development of the plan. The CCCHAP
provides guidance, review and feedback, but MDH is responsible for writing the plan.
Identify major responsibilities of the CCCHAP that require consensus.
Clarify when concurrence is required.
Revise language regarding the CCCHAP’s responsibility to identify interventions for target
populations so that it reflects the new process under which they will be responsible for
identifying priority co-factors.
Charlie asked whether there needed to be any revisions to the grievance process portion of the
Bylaws since that led to one of the discussions around clarification of role at the last CCCHAP
meeting. Julie didn’t think so. The grievance process is strictly related to processes that the
CCCHAP is responsible for, such as prioritization of target populations, identification of cofactors, membership application, etc., so it seems to be appropriate to maintain it as is.
AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER CCCHAP MEETINGS
Julie reviewed the agenda items for the August and September CCCHAP meetings. Agenda
items that resulted in discussion and recommendations are noted below.
August Meeting
MDH wants to gather feedback on the principles that will guide allocation of funds to the major
target populations in 2006. The CCCHAP is not responsible for determining amounts of
allocation, but have always reviewed and provided feedback on the principles used to make the
decisions.
The CCCHAP will be asked to come to consensus about whether to allocate of funds to the
Greater Minnesota target population. Charlie provided helpful feedback for how to frame this
discussion. He asked that it be made clear on the agenda that MDH will follow the decision
made by the CCCHAP. If the CCCHAP agrees that there should be an allocation for Greater
Minnesota, then there will be one. If the CCCHAP decides there should not be, then no money
will be set aside for Greater Minnesota.
In the context of allocations, MDH also wants to have a conversation with the CCCHAP about
the relative importance they place on prevention with positives interventions compared with
interventions that have historically been implemented in Minnesota that target HIV negative
persons or persons whose status is unknown. MDH is not looking for consensus on this subject.
MDH will present proposed questions and a process to be used as CCCHAP members go to
established community groups or convene community forums. The information gathered through
this effort will be used in the prioritization process. Charlie suggested that in addition to having
a discussion with participants at these groups, it would be valuable to also have them complete a
survey. Otherwise, the feedback that is gathered is subject to interpretation by the person taking
notes. He also suggested taping the meetings, if possible. Amy asked that MDH be very clear
about who will be using the data and how it will be used.
Process & Procedures Committee Minutes 7/8/04
Page 3
For the review of the comprehensive plan, Julie suggested using a process used two years ago
where members were broken into three small groups and each group provided feedback on a
specific part of the plan. Kelly Hansen suggested assigning people to their groups prior to the
meeting so they know which section of the plan they will be responsible for reading. The group
agreed.
Julie reported that MDH has not yet received the guidance for the grant application. This means
that it will not be possible for the CCCHAP to review the application at the August meeting as
planned. MDH is hoping to have a draft of the application done in time to distribute at the
August meeting or to mail out the following week. Julie proposed scheduling a non-required
meeting during the third week in August for people who are interested in providing feedback on
the application. This would allow MDH to make the suggested revisions and mail out a revised
copy to the CCCHAP prior to the consensus meeting in September. The group agreed.
September Meeting
According to the agenda items that are planned at this time for September, it looks like the
meeting could be accomplished in one day. However, if there are issues that are carried over
from the August meeting, this may not be possible. The group agreed that if a one day meeting
is feasible in September, it would be preferable to hold it on the Friday.
SCHEDULING OF NEXT MEETING
Julie asked for feedback from the group about using the videoconferencing equipment.
Rosemary noted that it felt like there was some disconnect for her because of the slight delay in
sound and not being able to look people in the eye. The rest of the committee thought it worked
fine. Rosemary said she was willing to try it again.
The Process & Procedures Committee will meeting jointly with the Membership & Training
Committee in November, but there won’t be another regular meeting of this committee until
February. The group determined that a Tuesday afternoon would work best for the majority.
Julie will find a Tuesday in February when the Snelling Office Park (SOP) building has
videoconferencing equipment available, since that building will be more convenient for parking.
She will update the calendar once the date has been set.
Process & Procedures Committee Minutes 7/8/04
Page 4