HIV Health Services Planning Council
Needs Assessment Working Group Draft MINUTES
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
25 Van Ness, Room 330A
4:00-6:00 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Catherine Geanuracos (co-chair), Billie-Jean Kanios (co-chair), Bill Blum, Dorothy Kleffner
Committee Members Absent: Laura Thomas Randy Allgaier, Ken Pearce
Other Council Members Present: Raymond Banks, Charles Siron, Darnell Durio
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Leah Crask, Skot Jonz
Others Present: Allison Weston (H&C), Erika Takada (H&Co) David Macias (HIV Health Services)

1. Introductions
CM Geanuracos called the meeting to order at 4:16.

2. Review/Approve Agenda
The group reviewed the agenda, and it was approved by consensus.

3. Review and Approval of Minutes
The group reviewed the July 27, 2005 minutes. CM Blum requested a change to his comment in Section 6. Council Support noted change. There were no other changes, and the minutes were approved by consensus.

4. Announcements
CM Geanuracos announced that she will not attend the Prioritization & Allocation meetings and is resigning from the Council. She has made arrangements with Council Support to continue work with Evaluation committee until new co-chairs are elected. The group thanked CM Geanuracos for her hard work.
CM Blum announced that San Mateo County is still hiring for a lead coordinator for street-based testing.

5. Public Comment

6. Progress Report
Harder & Co. provided a progress report on the Needs Assessment survey. The current number of completed client surveys is 608.

7. Review Final Report & Data Analysis
Allison reported on the focus groups and stated that data collection was completed for the client survey on August 5. An updated draft dated 8/16/05 was provided to those present (on file at Council Support Offices). Fourteen populations were identified for focus groups. Eleven focus groups were completed in three weeks. Some were not successful due to low or no attendance. The African American female group was unsuccessful again. The youth group was also unsuccessful, because it was difficult to find an agency that would host youth from all areas. The unsuccessful groups will be redone before the final report at the end of September. The data from the ten successful groups will be provided to Council Members prior to Prioritization.
Initial information from the Provider Survey was included. There has been a 68% response rate, and the information is still being compiled. The draft later this week will include all the data. The provider survey closed this past Friday. Follow-up calls and letters have been sent out. H+Co. is in the process of analyzing current data.
Most of the time was devoted to reviewing the data and a discussion of how to compile the information for the final report.
Harder + Co. solicited ideas and suggestions from the working group for format of the report.
CM Geanuracos suggested pie charts are easier to read.
CM Blum asked about something that would allow for continuity of data from prior Needs Assessments.
Group asked about the reliability of the data regarding Health Coverage. Erika reported that this was cross-referenced and seems to be accurately reported.
CM Kleffner pointed out that there was a typo: Medi-Cal/Medicare should be Medi-Cal/Medicaid.
CM Banks asked about those not in care.
Erika continued the review of Health Status. The data came out as expected. The data reflects “how they believe” rather than actual. The “don’t know” category came out as the third highest.
CM Blum asked about receiving demographic information on the 7.6% who tested HIV+ and AIDS at the same time, which would lead to information about late testers.
Erika discussed CM Banks’ question about those out of care. The variables used for this include: Question 23 from the survey (when was last visit with doctor, nurse, etc. for HIV health care needs). Questions 23, 24, 24a, and 24b are designed as variable questions that would provide data on those out of care. Also questions 19 and 26 are used as variables to determine out of care individuals.
Erika asked group which questions would be the most favorable to determine this. Group discussed that a combination would be preferred. Demographics will be generated on the people who answered these questions indicating that they were not in care. Question 23 will be the primary, with 19 and 26. Group discussed that there are two types of late presenters. One that shows up late in their disease and may test HIV+ and AIDS at the same time, and those who test positive for HIV and wait a year or more before seeking additional care.
Regarding the Health Section, Erika asked group if they had any input. None.
Group moved on to the Service Utilization Information. Erika reported that the data would be broken down into various demographic categories. Group discussed the format of presenting the data. Erika and Allison indicated that the final presentation will have the information flushed out and presented in a more visually-appealing format. Group asked for more to point to data regarding youth, seniors, and broken out regarding gender, in addition to the obvious categories of race.
Information regarding challenges and barriers will be added and presented later this week, including information on Prevention with Positives. Discussion revolved around the percentage of those who received a service and did not have their needs met, the data will be flushed out to see if there is any trends to determine unmet needs.
The final-final report will be over two-hundred pages. For prioritization, there will be a folio with different pockets with summary sheets, approximately fifty pages.
Group reviewed various data on substance abuse and health care and were informed that this would be looked at more closely to see if any determinations can be made. Erika mentioned that the data is quick and dirty, but consistent with data received from the community forums.
Group was reminded that more specific information will be provided at prioritization and that the information contained in the current documents is a rough draft.
Allison and Erika reviewed with the group preliminary data (and sample results) from the focus groups. Service needs and barriers were discussed in every group. Stigma issues seemed to come up more in API group and not in others. The 55 and older group was focused on the issue of not having social outlets. Allison mentioned that she would like to present the quantitative data peppered with real comments from participants that might lend support to some of the key findings from the focus groups.
CM Banks said he initially feared that Harder + Co. would prepare a sanitized and homogenized report and now gives his stamp of approval on a job well done.
CM Geanuracos encouraged a discussion about the process for getting it together. What should be done between now and next Friday? She asked if the presentation could be walked through at the next meeting. Allison mentioned that a flushed out written draft will be provided on the 19th. At Planning Committee next Monday, things missing will be identified as well as providing clarity on how numbers were arrived at. Allison mentioned that it would be helpful for them to meet prior to Prioritization for a run-through on their presentation. It was discussed that a smaller group could meet and preview the presentation. This meeting will be noticed.
ACTION: The August 24 meeting is moved to August 25 from 3:00-5:00.
ACTION: Group members were asked to send any further comments and suggestions to Erika and Allison as soon as possible so they can have the report ready by Friday.

8. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items – August 25, 2005 3-5 pm. Location to be determined.
CM Geanuracos adjourned the meeting at 5:35 PM.

Meeting minutes are considered to be in DRAFT form until reviewed and approved by Council attendees.

Home | Community Outreach & Advocacy Committee | Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation Committee
Membership Committee | Planning Committee | Steering Committee