In attendance were the following Subcommittee members: Co-chairs Paul Slobodian and Dan Richardson, Charles Callahan. Carolyn French, SWIB member and co-chair of the Local Liaison Subcommittee attended. Representation from the following local areas participated in the discussion: Broome/Tioga; Tompkins; Chenango/Delaware/Otsego; Finger Lakes.
The Subcommittee questioned the amount of resources that they would have to accomplish their work and how did this Subcommittee fit with the Local Liaison Subcommittee? Staff support was discussed as well as the need to integrate with the Local Liaison Subcommittee in order for continuous input into the work/mission of both subcommittees.
Role: Present information that might support work already done and then to frame timeline or need for additional work in the benchmarking of success. Power Point presentation regarding the One Stop Center Benchmarking Project that Corporation for a Skilled Workforce has been involved.
Discussion of the Presentation and the direction of NYS work to date.
Discussion of the Draft Report that was presented and approved by the State Board.
These indicators are necessary but not sufficient in itself. We need to look at the research that has been done around preferred outcomes and look at instituting a process for a different, richer process. We can’t rely on just the quantitative indicators but the qualitative indicators. This is also something that the Local Liaison Committee is looking for – models for success.
Suggestion: The one stop certification process should be improved upon and taken seriously for measuring quality of services. This might be one of the recommendations of this Subcommittee for ensuring stronger quality measures in state certification.
The indicators are good starting point but the varying levels of which each of the local areas are operating will be a challenge for this process (how to collect the elements and common definitions).
Consideration: Common definitions-should this be done on a state or local level? We need to be able to get to the key data elements and local partners sharing of information. Require: mandating data and consistency definitions and data-then you can start looking at more indicators.
The SIT workgroup developed a process now the devil is in the details. The Subcommittee approved this product as the starting point. The Subcommittee has asked that the state partners come together to see how these data elements will be provided at the local level.
Recommend to the State Board that we endorse the SIT report and develop a process with State partners to collect and report data. One of the data elements that is not here is Customer Satisfaction – How this is done is a resource issue and the more localized the information gathering is the more quality. Could we look at the Customer Satisfaction as a required measure- how we can collect and use it. Quality feedback should be used for continuous improvement. Measures should not be a burden right now since the system is in its infancy and is still having growing pains. Local boards have been so focused on the mandates and now we are finally focusing on the business as customer.