MN SSLC UPDATE, FALL 2013
CALENDAR


January 8, 2014 (tentative) – Mini Collaborative meeting
January 22-24, 2014 – National project meeting, San Diego, CA
ENGAGING LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
SSLC Level One partners along with one of their elected officials joined the mini collaborative in early October for a panel
discussion focused on engaging and sustaining the involvement of policymakers in shared services discussions and
implementation. Highlights from the conversation include:






Engaging board/council members often takes place through one identified public health champion. Council members
described their own journeys to becoming that champion and the critical role of their relationship with public health
directors.
Being intentional about planning communications was identified as a best practice. For example, ask new
commissioners explicitly what level of communication they want, and through what means. Public health staff should
also be aware of other commissioners who may not be on the CHB, who may need more time to process information and
generate questions.
There were few concerns or fears described regarding loss of local control and autonomy through CJS. Most of the
panelists had longstanding positive relationships with partnering jurisdictions. Panelists described placing their emphasis
on program improvement and service provision. Working to keep council members involved from an early stage is
important. These fears can come up with staff when there are program changes being implemented.
Trusting relationships between commissioners or council members and public health leadership was a significant theme.
Panelists described the importance of having common goals and a common vision. A Commissioner commented, “Trust
was critical, and a willingness to take risk and ability to see it through long enough to see if it’s working or effective. It
boils down to time, patience, and trust.”
Transition in board membership can be a challenge, as new members may have less understanding of current issues. It
is important to get information to these members: “Sit down and have frank conversations: What are this person’s
concerns? What are they hearing that might not be accurate? What is their understanding the situation?” A
Commissioner offered that “most new commissioners will look to someone on the board who they look to as a mentor.
Target that person to help bring the other commissioner up to speed.” In one jurisdiction, new commissioners have a full
day orientation with public health staff. Another project team discussed the importance of intentional succession
planning for board or council vacancies.
In reflecting on the conversation, a level two partner noted how much relationship building and trust work seems to
occur outside of the formal board setting, while a Public Health Nurse Consultant added that county administrators can
be critical partners as well. A level one team lead reflected that unexpected changes in direction can have positive
outcomes—what may seem like a failure initially might turn out for the best in the end.
A full transcript is available upon request.
SSLC PRE-ASSESSMENT RESULTS
MN SSLC partners participated in a pre-assessment survey during the summer of 2013. The assessment was designed to
provide baseline information about the status of cross-jurisdictional sharing (CJS) in Minnesota from the perspectives of level
one (currently implementing CJS in their jurisdictions) and level two (exploratory phase of CJS) partners. The responses reflect
the Center for Sharing Public Health Services readiness factors in several ways.
11.12.13
MDH, Office of Performance Improvement
Minnesota System-wide Shared Services Learning Collaborative (ID: 70612)
 All respondents (100%), regardless of implementation level, indicated that they were motivated for change because they
wanted to make better use of resources.
 On average, 48% of the respondents reported that a policymaker champion has been identified to promote CJS, with
level one partners being more likely to have identified a champion than level two (64% and 23% respectively).
 Both level one (82%) and level two (77%) partners have key decision makers who support a vision for CJS.
 As expected, and given the different starting points for level one and level two participants, level one participants were
more likely to have CJS partner roles and responsibilities identified (82%) compared to level two participants (31%).
WEBSITE RESOURCES
The SSLC concurrent session presentation from the Community Health Conference has been posted on the Collaborative’s
website under Reports, Presentations and Videos. During the session, level one partners discussed the continuum of options
for CJS, change management, stakeholder engagement and identified factors for success within the context of their local
shared services projects. Resources and tools, such as Polk-Norman-Mahnomen’s Force Field Analysis, were also shared.
The Center for Sharing Public Health Services recently posted A Roadmap to Develop Cross-Jurisdictional Sharing Initiatives on
their website [www.phsharing.org/technical-assistance]. This Roadmap describes three phases for developing crossjurisdictional sharing initiatives: (1) exploration, (2) preparation and planning, and (3) implementation and improvement.
JUST FOR FUN
At a recent mini collaborative
meeting, SSLC partners were
asked to fill in the blank:
Working on Cross Jurisdictional
Sharing is ________? This word
cloud is the result of the group’s
round robin responses. The
larger the word, the more
frequently it was mentioned by
SSLC partners.
QUESTIONS?
Please contact Phyllis Brashler at 651-201-3877 or [email protected].
11.12.13
MDH, Office of Performance Improvement
Minnesota System-wide Shared Services Learning Collaborative (ID: 70612)