MN SSLC UPDATE, SUMMER 2013
NEWS


Thanks to those who’ve completed the Minnesota pre-assessment. We plan to share results in the next MN SSLC
Update.
Reminder that the MN SSLC Website is up and will be updated as new resources become available.
CALENDAR
Upcoming Mini Collaborative meeting dates (format and location TBD):


Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
GRANTEE UPDATES
Project Charters and Quarterly Status Reports: Thank you for sending in Project Charters and Status Reports! This
information is valuable and provides a broad snapshot of all cross jurisdictional sharing endeavors occurring across our state.
Here are a few project highlights:
PROJECT GOALS
Year 1 Goal: Using the MAPP process, we will complete phase 1, organization and partnership development, phase 2,
visioning, and phase 3, the four MAPP assessments. Year 2 Goal: Using the MAPP process, complete phase 6, action cycle
steps 1-3 and prepare Community Health Assessment and Action Plan for submission to MDH. (Brown-Nicollet)
PROJECT SCOPE
Align the Public Health Infrastructure Governance Functions and the Performance Planning and Reporting Functions to
address local government redesign, cross jurisdictional sharing, and public health accreditation standards.
(Partnership4Health)
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Trust between partners is increasing through monthly meetings, discussing differences and addressing fears and
concerns. (Kandiyohi-Renville)
CHALLENGES
“Challenging the Process” of how things have always been done is invigorating, brings new ideas and efficiencies, but
requires much time to dialogue, gain trust and apply the plan-do-study-act process to accomplishing the long term
visions. Sadly, Public Health professionals are stretched in many directions so “time” can be a challenge. (Polk-NormanMahnomen)
CJS RESOURCES
Our team referred to the Center for Sharing Public Health Services Readiness Factors in our discussions. Internally, we
also referred to MDH’s MN SSLC website templates and tools. The Project Charter template was especially helpful to us.
To guide some of our discussions for the work done with the Charter, we also took from the Communications Plan and
Project Scope Statement tools. (Fillmore-Houston)
RESOURCES
Website: At the recent Mini Collaborative meeting, Chris Dobbe from the Northwoods Shared Services Project spoke to the
group about this national grantee’s work in north central Wisconsin. Chris briefly introduced the Northwoods Shared Services
Project website. MN SSLC will likely find the Role of Policymakers and the Literature Review helpful.
7.26.13
MDH, Office of Performance Improvement
Minnesota System-wide Shared Services Learning Collaborative (ID: 70612)
The Policymaker Role in the Shared Services Learning Project briefly describes, within the context of Wisconsin, how
policymakers can contribute to the Collaborative, what role they play, and what they can do to further the work of the
Collaborative within their own jurisdictions.
REGIONALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES: LESSONS LEARNED AND APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
DELIVERY
Formal Citation:
Kaufman, N. (2010). Regionalization of Government Services: Lessons Learned &
Application for Public Health Service Delivery . Mequon, WI: The Strategic Vision Group.
Retrieved from www.rwjf.org.
Description:
Regionalization of government services has occurred in education, public safety (fire, police,
preparedness), water and waste management and economic development. This report
summarizes best practices and lessons learned. Case studies are presented, including the
example of how regionalization at the North Shore Fire Department in southeastern
Wisconsin also helped lead the way for regionalization for library services and public health.
Webpage:
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2010/rwjf70952
Key barriers to shared services include issues of mistrust, fear and the politics of place; state
and federal laws & regulations; engagement of stakeholders; timing and ignoring critical steps
Question For Health Officers:
in achieving change. How has your agency been able to overcome barriers in your current
shared services?
Question For Board Members: What barriers are present when two or more jurisdictions engage in shared services?
While a number of the articles and references on the website are specific to Wisconsin’s shared services context, there are
themes that will likely resonate for Minnesota’s SSLC grantees.
Newsletter: The Northwoods Shared Services Project just released their latest newsletter. Included is a short overview of why
cross-jurisdictional shared services should be considered and how do describe various levels of shared services.
Local governments face many challenges including the need to provide high quality services and often higher levels of
service in the face of declining or unstable revenue. Some reasons that local health departments may consider shared
services is to:
 Increase capacity to provide core functions of a local public health department and improve quality to meet new
performance measures (Public Health Accreditation Standards)
 Improve effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of services
 Develop and train staff for evolving public health problems and recruit and retain qualified public health
professionals who may be in short supply in more rural, sparsely populated areas
 Adapt to declining revenues from local, state and federal sources.
Cross-jurisdictional sharing is the process of reaching across boundaries to share resources, tasks and results. The levels
of shared services may include: informal "handshake" arrangements, service-related arrangements, shared functions
with joint oversight and regionalization.
View the entire newsletter at the Northwoods website. If you would like to sign up to receive their newsletter, select this link.
QUESTIONS?
Please contact Allison Thrash at 651-201-3964 or [email protected]
7.26.13
MDH, Office of Performance Improvement
Minnesota System-wide Shared Services Learning Collaborative (ID: 70612)