Partners in Policymaking
I would like to...
  Online Courses  |  Classroom Program Coordinator List  |  Curriculum Highlights  |  Website Resources  |  Public Policy Action Center
Home Page >> Resources >> Documents

Resources Icon

Resources


Documents

The Status of Partners in Policymaking (1987-1994)

As Presented to:
Third Minnesota Summer Leadership Institute
July 17, 1994

By:
Colleen Wieck, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Minnesota Governor's Planning Council
on Developmental Disabilities

"A National Status Report on Partners in Policymaking"

This presentation will cover: (1) History, (2) Growth of the Program, (3) Quality Principles, and (4) Evaluation Results.

 

 1. History

Let's return to 1986. I want to dispel any notion that the Council or staff had any idea what we were doing or creating. I do want you to listen to how as a board member you can push concepts over time.

Our Council had selected "Case Management" as its priority in 1986. We released a request for proposal that allocated funds for research, a pilot project to use technology to reduce paperwork, and funding Category entitled " Consumers to Receive Quality Case Management Services."

The Council was willing to award one or more contracts for a total of $150,000 to implement training and technical assistance to consumers to raise expectations about case management, to improve the content validity of individual plans, to provide information about services, and to develop a consensus building process with local officials about quality case management services. The RAP was released in January 1986.

The state plan approved by the Council on June 4, 1986, established a goal that persons with developmental disabilities will receive a coordinated range of services that promotes quality of life, , integration, productivity, and independence. The corresponding objective stated that:

By September 30, 1989, consumer, advocate, and professional knowledge of practices in case management will have increased.

The minutes of the Grant Review Committee reflect the muddling we went through. The Committee rejected all the applications for Category except one. Discussion ensued:

  1. One member commented that little information about case management is being. We need to do a survey.

  2. A second member stated that the survey will probably result in conferences, workshops, and trainings. We need to know who consumers of case management services are and how to contact them.

  3. Another member stated that perhaps we should go to existing advocacy groups and let them go build consensus.

  4. A final statement since the Council's administering agency, the State Planning Agency has this function of consensus building as their role, they should take responsibility.

The first motion read:

The Grant Review Committee gives the Council staff discretion to identify the lead agency/consultant to produce the "consensus building survey" which will be from a consumer/parent perspective and report to the Committee at its August meeting.

The Council staff prepared a memo to the Grant Review Committee outlining a departure from a typical grant approach. We argued that we need a systems approach to the grant, not a gap filling approach; we stated that case management was an ambiguous issue spanning ages, disability areas, and agencies.

Our obligation was to reach out to the widest group of consumer and to assume a task master role.

The proposed work program included identifying training efforts underway in case management; creating a training institute devoted to consumers only; establishing a structured process for public officials to create informal agreements about case management roles and responsibilities; developing and delivering workshops in the areas of leadership training, board member training, and advocacy training; and preparing information to be used by consumers to influence public decision making.

In August 1986, the Committee moved:

That the $99,258 remaining in funding Category Consumers to Receive Quality Case Management Services be encumbered by the State Planning Agency and used to carry out selected tasks to be identified by the Grant Review Committee. The State Planning Agency may use this money to hire staff or consultants as needed or for any other purposes necessary to carry out tasks.

At the September meeting, designed to go over the work program, the chair stated the work plan was "bold and creative." Not everyone shared that positive viewpoint. One Council member declared it a hodgepodge with no cement to hold it together.

Seventeen days later, on September 19, 1986, the Senate held a committee hearing on Medicaid Reform. Ed and I testified and watched several witnesses, especially one young parent. We were concerned about how people handled themselves in that setting. Witnesses seemed doom to fail. The following week all of the ideas came together from the Grant Review Committee. Ed and I decided to create a series of sessions devoted either to issues or to influencing a level of government.

In December 1986, A New Way of Thinking went to the printer.

One of the contracted staff assigned to that project was willing to pull the program together. First, the title . . . No great debates, no major committees, no focus groups here is a list of words that can be in the title. It was decided to call the program Partners in Policymaking. We moved on to competencies, speakers, and dates. The kickoff was scheduled for April 30 and May 1, 1987.

The Committee received a report on February 4, 1987, and April 1, 1987. The concept began to look familiar:

At the same meeting, the staff was able to report 6,000 copies of A New Way of Thinking were disseminated in three months.

What's the moral of the convoluted process for future Council members in this room?

  1. Be willing to depart from how you always do business.
  2. Trust each other.
  3. Give ambiguous and ambitious ideas some time to evolve.
  4. Don't believe in the three-year cycle of funding.
  5. You never know if another state will adopt your ideas.
  6. Call upon the leaders in the field for help because they understand the need for fresh concepts.

Of that first class of graduates, we know that some have moved away and others have moved on to Master's degrees, law school . . .. We tracked longitudinal results of the first year's class and subsequent groups.

Return to top


2. Growth of the Program

Section Two of this presentation is based upon phone interviews with all the states that have created a leadership program. My caution to you is that there is wide variability in state efforts, but let us congratulate everyone on the great job in bringing the program to life.

States With Partners
1987 1988 1989 1990 April 1990 National Academy
MN MN, NH MN, NH,
AR
MN, NH,
AR, CO,
IA
ALABAMA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
NEW YORK
OHIO
TEXAS
VIRGINIA
1991 May 1992 National Academy 1992 1993
MN, NH,
AR, CO,
IA, AL,
CA, IN,
LA, TX,
CT, NY
ARKANSAS
ALABAMA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
N. CAROLINA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
S. DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
W. VIRGINIA
MN, NH,
AR, CO,
IA, AL,
CA, IN,
LA, TX,
CT, IL,
OH, NY
MN, NH,
AR, CO,
IA, AL,
CA, IN,
LA, TX,
CT, IL,
OH, NY,
DE, GA,
NE, NC,
PA, SD
May 1992 National Academy 1994 1995
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
DELEWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
N. DAKOTA
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
S. CAROLINA
S. DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VIRGINIA
N. MARIANA IS.
MN, NH,
AR, CO,
IA, AL,
CA, IN,
LA, TX,
CT, IL,
OH, NY,
DE, GA,
NE, NC,
PA, SD,
FL, HI,
MT, ND,
TN, WV,
NM, OR,
VA
MN, NH,
AR, CO,
IA, AL,
CA, IN,
LA, TX,
CT, IL,
OH, NY,
DE, GA,
NE, NC,
PA, SD,
FL, HI,
MT, ND,
TN, WV,
NM, OR,
VA, MI

States Pending
IDAHO
KANSAS
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MISSISSIPPI
NEVADA
NEW JERSEY
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
WASHINGTON,DC
WISCONSIN
WYOMING

What do we know about the states pending?

Return to top


3. Quality Principles

The third section of this presentation will provide a brief reminder of the quality principles of the Partners program:

In the three-ring binder produced for the 1993 Academy on Partners, we described the quality principles of Partners:

I cannot effectively convey how the integrity of the program is shortchanged, not with malice:

Why care about integrity? Because as you sit on boards, create programs, chair DD Councils, the fight will be to keep heart, mind, and soul on a synchronized mission.

How do we shortchange integrity:

Return to top


4. Evaluation Highlights

In section four I have selected highlights from evaluation reports that we have received from various states:

Iowa Partners

Georgia Partners in Policymaking 1992-1993 Annual Report

Georgia Partners in Policymaking 1992-1993 Six-Month Follow-Up

Minnesota Partners in Policymaking Year 6 Baseline

Contacts with Public Officials

How Many Have:

Evaluate Your Advocacy Skills:

Minnesota Partners in Policymaking Year 6 Six-Month Follow-Up

Minority Outreach Institute on Minority Development,
Minneapolis, 1993 Baseline

Iowa Partners in Policymaking 1989-1992 Evaluation: Years 1, 2, and 3
By Robin Cunconan-Lahr

27 Partners graduated in May 1992:

New Hampshire Leadership Graduates

The Best Part:

Other Comments:

Alabama Evaluation 1990-1991

Alabama Annual Report 1990-1991

The Spirit of Partners Is the Energy, Power,
and Outreach of Each Participant.

Alabama 1990-1991 Competency Evaluations
(5 = Highest)

Colorado July 1991 Evaluation Report of Year 2

Evaluation Methodology:

Leadership Literature:

Partners didn't define leadership in terms of followership. Partners changes ideas about leadership:

Partners Exceeded Expections:

Partners' Experiences:

The Impact and Influence of Illinois Partners in Action Class of 1993

Return to top

Return to the main documents menu