Network Development Evaluation Plan Template

Transcription

1 Network Development Evaluation Plan Template I. BACKGROUND Description of the Network: (What is the history of your network? Who are the members?) The Children s Village Network (Children s Village) provides a vertically integrated system of care for children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and their families in central Washington. Partners began planning Children s Village in 1993; the site became operational in For the past 20 years, Children s Village partners have successfully adapted to the rapidly changing health care environment by transitioning CSHCN from fee-for-service to capitated health plans, advocating for evidence-based practices for CSHCN to be reimbursed by health plans, adding Children s Village partners to further integrate care for CSHCN, and blending funding streams with school districts to manage care for CSHCN. The four Trustees (Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health, Memorial Foundation, Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic, and Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital) are located in 12 counties in Washington and Oregon. There are also over 40 additional Children s Village partners, many of which are also located in multiple counties in central Washington. Program Description: (What service(s) does the network plan to provide?) The purpose of the Maximizing Opportunities Under the Affordable Care Act for Rural Children with Special Health Care Needs Project is to expand access to, coordinate and improve the quality of essential health care services; and strengthen the rural health care system as a whole for CSHCN and their families via the following topical areas and activities of focus: 1) Expand access to, coordinate and improve the quality of essential health care services by focusing on projects and/or network activities directly related to the evolving health care environment by: a) improving coordination of services; b) collaborating with Essential Community Providers to leverage competitive negotiations and contracts with Qualified Health Plans; and c) implementing programs to increase primary care workforce in rural areas; 2) Improve population health by implementing promising practice, evidence-informed and/or evidence-based approaches to address health disparities in their communities by: a) addressing population health needs; and 3) Collaborate to achieve population health goals through the use of technology by: a) implementing electronic transmission of patient care summaries across multiple settings. Need: (Why is this service(s) needed?) Compared to CSHCN in the United States and Washington, CSHCN in central Washington (N=30,843) are less likely to receive coordinated care (37.1% compared to 43.0% and 45.5%), early screening (73.1% compared to 78.6% and 80.7%), organized care (52.9% compared to 65.1% and 62.6%), or have needed insurance benefits (88.9% compared to 86.8% and 89.7%); and more likely to have obstructed access to services (42.4% compared to 38.3% and 35.6%). In addition, compared to the population in the United States and Washington, the population in central Washington (N=246,977) is more likely to be Hispanic (46.3% compared to 16.9% and 11.7%), non-citizen (13.3% compared to 7.1% and 7.0%), Limited English Proficient (16.2% compared to 8.5% and 7.8%), employed in natural resources industries (17.3%

2 compared to 2.0% and 2.7%), receiving food stamps (24.8% compared to 13.6% and 15.1%), uninsured (23.2% compared to 14.8% and 13.9%), and below poverty level (33.0% compared to 22.6% and 18.5% for the population under 18 years). It also has a higher percentage of teenage mothers (13.4 per 1,000 females 10 to 17 years compared to 7.0 and 5.1) and a lower percentage of high school graduates (70.7% compared to 86.4% and 90.4%). Many of these intrapersonal/individual and interpersonal factors are associated with the unmet health needs of CSHCN. In addition to intrapersonal/individual and interpersonal factors, there are several organizational/ institutional and community factors associated with the unmet health needs of CSHCN, including workforce shortages, lack of training, and lack of collaboration. As the regional neurodevelopmental center in central Washington, Children s Village already addresses some of these factors; but additional network contributions are needed. Children s Village provides inter-professional care team training to medical and dental residents; with RHND funding, it will also provide training to allied health professions students. Target Population: (Who is the target population for this service?) The target population is CSHCN who live in the rural Yakima Valley, Washington. Objectives: (What are the objectives (SMART objectives) related to this service?) (Objective A) Expand access to, coordinate and improve the quality of essential health care services by focusing on projects and/or network activities directly related to the evolving health care environment, specifically by (Activity 1) providing Health Home care coordination for up to 240 rural CSHCN families; (Activity 2) ensuring rural CSHCN needs are represented in the CWHP ACO; and (Activity 3) providing inter-professional care team training to at least 18 allied health professions students; these activities will address coordinated care, insurance benefits, and obstructed access to service needs. (Objective B) Improve population health by implementing promising practice, evidence informed and/or evidence-based approaches to address health disparities in their communities, specifically by (Activity 4) providing universal developmental screening training to at least 24 health homes and childcares; and (Activity 5) providing early intervention consultation to at least 39 childcares and early learning centers; these activities will address early screening and obstructed access to service needs. (Objective C) collaborate to achieve population health goals through the use of technology, specifically by (Activity 6) interfacing the Seattle Children s HIE to the CWHP ACO HIE; this activity will address organized care needs. Stage of Program Development: (In what stage of development is the service, i.e., planning, implementation, etc.?) This project is in the implementation stage. Sub-contracts have been written and executed with Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital, Catholic Family and Child Services, The Memorial Foundation, and University of Washington.

3 The evaluation team (PIs, Evaluators, Evaluation Analyst, Project Coordinator, Project Administrative Assistant, and Children s Village medical director) has held four monthly meetings, beginning in August The Project Coordinator, Samantha Pearson and Project Administrative Assistant, Melissa Aguirre were hired in August CHPW is providing care coordination for CSHCN and coordination is being documented in MHITS. Currently 9 rural CSHCN families are receiving health care coordination. Universal developmental screening trainings are in the process of being scheduled with health homes and childcare centers. Early Intervention Consultation has taken place at four rural early learning centers; a fifth consultation is scheduled for December An affiliation agreement has been developed with Pacific University s Speech Therapy program and there are 3 additional programs (Physical Therapy at University of Washington, Mental Health at Central Washington University and Speech and Language Therapy at Western Washington University) with affiliation agreements in process. Four allied health profession students have applied for the interprofessional care team training. Selection for the training will be finalized in December 2014, and training will begin January Telehealth equipment and installation specifications are in the development stage. This will be completed and bids will be solicited by end of January 2015.

4 II. LOGIC MODEL

5 III. EVALUATION APPROACH Note your stakeholders and the information your stakeholders need from your evaluation, identifying your evaluation questions, and the indicators, base line measures, and benchmarks for your evaluation plan. Stakeholders: Utilizing this table, provide answers to the following questions regarding your stakeholders. Who will use the evaluation findings?(audience) What do they need to learn from the evaluation? How will the findings be used? Audience Evaluation findings of interest Utilization of evaluation findings CV Network Partners CV Medical Advisory Committee CV Clinical Operations Team CV Leadership Team Care coordination for CSHCN improves health of this population, improves their experience with care and reduces per capita costs. To improve the CSHCN patient s health and the patient s family experience with care. CV Network Partners CV Clinical Operations Team CV Network Partners CV Medical Advisory Committee CV Clinical Operations Team CV Network Partners CV Medical Advisory Committee CV Clinical Operations Team CV Network Partners CV Leadership Team Interprofessional care team training for students will increase their abilities to work effectively with CSHCN patients. Training for universal developmental screening in health homes will improve the quality of referrals to Children s Village. The interface of CHPW ACO Health Information Exchange with the Seattle Children s Health Information Exchange will improve coordination of care of CSHCN patients. Cost savings realized by the above projects will allow for reallocation of scarce resources to strengthen the rural health care system. To improve the CSHCN patient s health and the patient s family experience with care. To provide for earlier referral for CSHCN and improve the quality of referrals to Children s Village. To improve the CSHCN patient s health and the patient s family experience with care. Increased efficiency of health To strengthen the rural health care system. To gather data on how our stakeholders work together to achieve improvements in population health and enhance collaboration on health issues in this rural community, the PARTNERS (Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships) tool ( will be used. PARTNERS, a social network analysis strategy originally funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, will help us share the strength, quality and impact of this grant s evaluation findings with stakeholders. Evaluation Questions, Indicators and Benchmarks: Insert your evaluation questions, indicators and benchmarks into the table provided. Make note of both process questions (focus on examining the implementation of the program) and outcome questions (focus on showing

6 whether or not a service achieves the desired changes for patients, providers, network members, or the community). Evaluation Question Indicators Program Benchmarks 1. To what extent has care coordination for CSHCN and their families, providers and insurers/mcos increased family satisfaction and decreased health care utilization? 2. To what extent has the Yakima County ACO and MCOs increased their awareness of, and responsiveness to, the needs of rural CSHCN and their families? 3. To what extent does adding exposure to interdisciplinary care of rural CSHCN for training of local allied health professions students increase their knowledge, skills and improve attitudes toward this patient population? a. Number of contracts signed. b. Number of Care Coordinators trained. c. Number of rural CSHCN families who receive care coordination services. d. Number of referrals made by care coordinators. Outcome Measures - a. Percent of families satisfied with care coordination services. b. Percent of CSHCN families with improved appropriate health care utilization or improved quality of care. c. Percent of newly referred CSHCN with improved PPAMs. d. Percent of appointments kept/ scheduled appointments. a. Number of Trustee meetings in which rural CSHCN needs are communicated. b. Number of CWHP ACO and ACO care coordinator committee meetings in which rural CSHCN needs are communicated. Outcome Measures - a. Number of health plans that allow CSHCN to see needed health care providers, offer needed benefits, and cover needed services. b. Percentage of meetings where Directors, Trustees, and ACO members have increased exposure and education as to the needs of CSHCN. a. Number of affiliation agreements signed. b. Number of allied health professions students who are exposed to the care of rural CSHCN. c. Number of allied health professions students who receive interprofessional team training. d. Number of attendees to telehealth education sessions. Outcome Measures - a. Number of allied health professions students who are exposed to care of CSHCN in rural areas. b. Number of allied health professions students who receive interprofessional team training. c. Percentage of allied health professional students that have increased knowledge, skills, and improved attitude toward this patient a. 1 contract signed b. 3 care coordinators trained c. 240 rural CSHCN families receive care coordination. d. 1 or more referrals per encounter a. 70% of families satisfied with CC services b. 50% of CSHCN families with appropriate health care utilization or improved quality of care c. 80% d. 80% of appointments kept a. 1/year b. 5/ year a. 50%? b. 35% a. 4 b. 18 (6 per year) c. 18 (6 per year) d. 6 (2 per year) a. 18 b. 18 c. 80%

7 population. d. Percentage of allied health professional students that are interested in continuing to work with rural CSHCN. d. 50% 4. How is the early identification of children with developmental issues improved by providing developmental screening training to rural health homes and childcare providers? a. Number of rural health homes and childcares that received universal developmental screening training. b. Number of trainings provided. c. Number of rural children referred for developmental evaluation. Outcome Measures a. Percentage of rural health home/childcare workers using developmental screening tools b. Percentage of rural health home/childcare workers comfortable using ASQ c. Percentage of rural health home/childcare workers confident in knowing when and where to refer children for services. d. Percentage of new ESIT evaluations and eligibility referred from Developmental Screening Training sites. a. 24 (8 per year) b. 24 (8 per year) c. 120 a. Year 1-25%, Year 2-40%, Year 3-60% b. Year 1-25%, Year 2-40%, Year 3-60% c. Year 1-50%, Year 2-60%, Year 3-80% d. Year 1-25%, Year 2-40%, Year 3-60% 5. To what extent does early intervention consultation in rural childcares and early learning centers increase the workforce capacity of staff to serve CSHCN? a. Number of rural childcares and early learning centers that receive early intervention consultation. b. Number of rural children who receive early intervention services in childcare centers. c. Number of consultations provided. d. Number of neurodevelopmental centers trained. Outcome Measures a. Percentage of childcare workers with increased knowledge, abilities and confidence to work with CSHCN. b. Percentage of neurodevelopmental centers with increased capacity to provide consultation (Year 3). c. Percentage of no shows for consultations at outreach sites. a. 39 (13 per year) b. 150 (50 per year) c. 225 (75 per year) d. 3 a. 50% Year 1-50%, Year 2-60%, Year 3-80% b. 30% c. 20% 6. To what extent does HIT and Teleconferencing improve the provision of services and care coordination for CSHCN and their families? a. Percentage of rural children who have a continuity of care record that includes transition of care summary. b. Presence of HIE interface operationalized. Outcome Measures a. Percentage of care coordinators who report better communication with providers. a. 50% b. Year 3-100% a. 80% IV. DATA COLLECTION Explain what data will be collected, how the data will be collected (methods, tools), who will collect the data, and the time line for collecting data in your evaluation plan.

8 Data Collection Plan Indicator Data Sources/Tools Collection Who When How Activity 1 To what extent has care coordination for CSHCN and their families, providers and insurers/mcos increased family satisfaction and decreased health care utilization? Number of contracts signed. Number of Care Coordinators trained. Number of rural CSHCN families who receive care coordination services. Number of referrals made by care coordinators. Percent of appointments kept/ scheduled appointments. Percent of families satisfied with care coordination services. Outcome Measures - Percent of CSHCN families with appropriate health care utilization or improved quality of care. Percent of CSHCN with improved PPAM Percent of appointments kept/scheduled Review CV documents Care Coordination (CC) Contracts CC Training Documents CC log/report card or notes Family Survey CV Treatment Plan review (anonymized or de-identified ) Health Care Authority Health Action Plan updated every 4 months CC log/report card or notes Children s Village Children s Village Evaluation Team Evaluation Team Evaluation Analyst CV Quarterly Quarterly 6 months post initiation, annually Document Review CC Log/Report Card or notes Family Survey Review of Treatment Plans for CSHCN receiving CC, and CC Focus groups Review of q 4 month HAP CC Log/Report Card or notes

9 Data Collection Plan Indicator Data Sources/Tools Collection Who When How Activity 2 To what extent has the Yakima County ACO and MCOs increased their awareness of, and responsiveness to, the needs of rural CSHCN and their families? Number of Trustee meetings in which rural CSHCN needs are communicated. Document Review Trustee meeting notes Children s Village Review of Meeting Notes Number of CWHP ACO and/or ACO care coordinator committee meetings in which rural CSHCN needs are communicated. Outcome Measures - Number of health plans that allow CSHCN to see needed health care providers, offer needed benefits, and cover needed services. Document Review ACO & ACO CCC meeting notes. Document Review Health Plan benefits description. Children s Village CV Data Analyst Review of Meeting Agendas & Notes Review of Health Plan Benefits Evidence of Director, Trustees, and ACO members with increased knowledge and awareness of CSHCN needs. Interviews with Director, Trustee and ACO members. Evaluation Team/Ana lyst At end of Activity 2 Key Informant Interviews Activity 3 To what extent does adding exposure to interdisciplinary care of rural CSHCN for training of local allied health professions students increase their knowledge, skills and improve attitudes toward this patient population? Number of affiliation agreements signed. Number of allied health professions students who receive inter-professional team training. Affiliation Agreements Team Training Rosters CV/ YVFWC CV Project Coordinat or Document Review Document Review

10 Data Collection Plan Indicator Data Sources/Tools Collection Who When How Number of attendees to telehealth education sessions. Telehealth education session attendance sign in CV Project Coordinat or Compiled, from weekly sign in sheet Document Review Outcome Measures - Number of allied health professions students who are exposed to care of CSHCN in rural areas. Number of allied health professions students who receive inter-professional team training. Percentage of allied health professional students that have increased knowledge, skills, and improved attitude toward this patient population. Percentage of allied health professional students that are interested in continuing to work with rural CSHCN. Project Director review Project Director review LEND Pre/Post Training Assessment Tool Allied Health Student exit focus group CV CV Evaluation Team Evaluation Team Before and After Allied Health Professional Student Training Document Review Document Review On line Questionnaire Administration, with individual pre/post changes. Focus Group Activity 4 How is the early identification of children with developmental issues improved by providing developmental screening training to rural health homes and childcare providers? Number of rural health homes and childcares that received universal developmental screening training. Number of trainings provided. Number of rural children referred for developmental evaluation. Document Review UDS Training Records CV referral records Children s Village Training Schedule Review

11 Data Collection Plan Indicator Data Sources/Tools Collection Who When How Outcome Measures Percentage of rural health home/childcare workers using developmental screen tools Percentage of rural health home/childcare workers comfortable using ASQ Percentage of rural health home/childcare workers confident in knowing when and where to refer children for services. Percentage of new ESIT evaluations and eligibility referred from Developmental Screening Training sites. Pre/post surveys, Developmental screening coordinator ESIT evaluation referral records Children s Village Children s Village Quarterly Quarterly Survey Administration Document Review Activity 5 To what extent does early intervention consultation in rural childcares and early learning centers increase the workforce capacity of child care staff to serve CSHCN? Number of rural childcares and early learning centers that receive early intervention consultation. Number of rural children who receive early intervention services in childcare centers. Number of consultations provided. Number of neurodevelopmental centers trained (Year 3) Project coordinator CV Quarterly Document Review of Director survey, Consultant surveys, and Project team coordinator survey

12 Data Collection Plan Indicator Data Sources/Tools Collection Who When How Outcome Measures Percentage of childcare workers with increased knowledge, abilities and confidence to work with CSHCN. Percentage of neurodevelopmental centers with increased capacity to provide consultation (Year 3). Child care consultant, project coordinator, and program director Questionnaires. Post site visit child care provider survey. Project coordinator, program director, and child care provider questionnaires. Consultant questionnaire. CV At each consultatio n visit, consultant will complete. 4-6 month Post site visit surveys for child care providers Questionnaire administration by CV project coordinator Percentage of no shows for consultations at outreach sites. Consultation Attendance CV Project coordinator Quarterly PC survey review Activity 6 To what extent does HIT and Teleconferencing improve the provision of services and care coordination for CSHCN and their families? Number of rural children who have a continuity of care record that includes transition of care summaries. Presence of HIE interface operationalized. Outcome Measures Percentage of care coordinators who report better communication between providers. Children Continuity of Care Records HIE presence Survey Care Coordinator interviews/questio nnaires Children s Village Evaluation Team Quarterly Document Review, care coordinator focus groups in Year 2. Focus group

13 V. ANALYSIS In this section, describe what techniques will be used to analyze your evaluation data. Address issues such as: What data aggregation systems or software do you plan to use? What statistical methods (if any) do you plan to use? What stratifications (if any) do you plan to examine among the data? What types of tables or figures do you anticipate using? To determine success of the program implementation process and overall impact of the program, the analysis plan includes analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data collected during the three year grant period. Quantitative data: Quantitative data will be analyzed in the aggregate using either Survey Monkey (online survey tool), MS Excel, or SPSS (or similar statistical package). To summarize the findings and describe the sample, descriptive statistics will primarily be used. Qualitative data: The evaluation will have four types of qualitative data to analyze: (1) meeting minutes/notes, (2) web-based system data, (3) PARTNERS survey data, and (4) focus groups/key informant interviews. To analyze these data a four part systematic approach will be used: Data Review, Data Organization, Data Coding, and Data Interpretation. Data will be organized using a MS Excel template which allows for data organization based on question, respondent, or collection site. Qualitative data will be analyzed either manually or using Dedoose (or similar software). Data will be coded based on overarching themes and categories pertinent to the evaluation questions and outcomes for the activity being evaluated. Data may be further examined by stratifying responses based on participant s geographical location (Upper and Lower Valley), primary language spoken in the home (Hispanic and English speaking), and services received. Data collected as part of the grant activities will also be compared to other county and state level data sources, such as data collected from years prior to the current grant period (i.e., parent s survey and/or provider survey) and State level data from the 2012 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. To display quantitative data, frequency distribution tables will be used for each variable. Crosstab frequency distribution tables will be used to display select stratified data. Figures, such as bar graphs will be used to display comparative relationships for categorical data and stratified groups. Circle (pie) graphs may be used to display percentages of comparative relationships among stratified groups if there is five variables or less. The PARTNERS social network analysis tool provides visual graphing of strength and quality of network relationships. Qualitative data will be displayed by selecting key quotes, exemplars of themes, and short stories. When appropriate, tables and charts may also be used to display qualitative data. Rapid cycle evaluation of individual, as well as organizational activities, is prioritized. Using a rapid cycle evaluation approach will allow activity correction and improvement as integral in this Evaluation Plan ( Throughout the grant period, the Evaluation Team will review and refine the Logic Model to reflect evaluation results and integrate new areas of activity and expected achievements. Also in this section, explain who will be involved in interpreting the findings and describe the procedures and guidelines you will use to assist in interpreting the evaluation findings.

14 Interpretation and reporting of the evaluation findings will be conducted by a team of faculty and staff from the University of Washington LEND, who are experts in development behavioral pediatrics, and the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice (NWCPHP), who are experts in program evaluation, survey design, and bio statistics. NWCPHP has been contracted by LEND to provide evaluation consultation. As the community outreach arm the University of Washington School of Public Health, one of the core activities of NWCPHP is to provide evaluation training and technical assistance services, particularly to community practitioners. Kirkpatrick s four-level evaluation model will be used to evaluate the outcomes of training and workforce development activities. VI. RESOURCES/ CAPABILITIES Use the following table to identify the members of your evaluation team and what role they will play. Roles and Responsibilities of the Evaluation Team Members Individual Title or Role Responsibilities Beth Ellen Davis, MD, MPH Katherine Tekolste, MD NWCPHP Evaluators Create final evaluation plan (FEP). Set Agenda for Monthly Evaluation meetings. Submit or present Quarterly evaluation reports to the Advisory committee. Prepare Baseline Report due NLT 30 April Manage on-line PARTNER Tool. Prepare Final Evaluation Report. Katherine Smalley, PhD Evaluation Analyst Edit final evaluation plan. Create and maintain Process Measures data base to report process measures outlined in FEP. Provide updated copy of Process Measures data base to Evaluators at least 2 weeks prior to Quarterly Evaluation Report due date. Participate in monthly evaluation meetings. Samantha Pearson Project Coordinator Collect Care Coordinator Surveys for Activity #1. Collaborate with Developmental Screening Coordinator to collect pre/post training surveys (Activity #4). Hand out and collect Activity #5 parent and consultant surveys at child care centers. Help to coordinate various focus groups (Activities #1, #3, & #6). Act as liaison between Family Advisory Council, Advisory Council, and other Network members and the Evaluation Team. Participate in monthly evaluation meetings. Robert Sherwood Data Analyst Will assist with data acquisition. Will summarize data for reporting purposes. Melissa Aguirre Project Administrative Assistant Keep minutes of the Monthly Evaluation meetings. Data entry Assists the Project Coordinator as needed.

15 Describe the qualifications of team members to fulfill their role in the evaluation. Beth Ellen Davis, MD, MPH is Director of the Clinical Training Unit, CHDD and the UW Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) training grant and is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, at the University of Washington,. She retired in 2009 from the Army as Colonel, where she led the only Developmental Fellowship for military pediatricians in the country for the past 10 years. She received a MPH at UW in She is an executive committee member on the national Council for Children with Disabilities for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Davis has published peer reviewed articles in the field of developmental-behavioral pediatrics. Katherine TeKolste, MD is a Developmental Pediatrician and Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington. Dr. TeKolste has worked within the Medical Home Leadership Network (DOH) since 1993 to improve care of children with special health care needs. Dr. TeKolste was part of the Washington State team for the recently completed Assuring Better Child Development grant from the Commonwealth Fund and National Academy for State Health Policy. Many of her efforts center on improving developmental screening services. Dr. TeKolste has published peer reviewed articles in the field of developmental behavioral pediatrics. The NorthWest Center for Public Health Practice is in the Department of Health services at the UW School of Public Health. The NWCPHP serves to improve the quality and effectiveness of population health through training, research, and program evaluation. Key project staff involved in this evaluation team include Luann D Ambrosio MeD, Associate Director, and Megan Rogers MA. Additionally, Ross Howell, an MPH graduate student, is participating in the Baseline Report and Final Evaluation Plan development. Katherine Smalley, PhD, MD is the Program and Policy Analyst for Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic and has worked for as a program evaluator for YVFWC on federal, state and private funded grants for the past nine years. Prior to joining YVFWC Dr. Smalley advised graduate students in research and taught at state universities for twelve years. Dr. Smalley has published peer reviewed articles in the field of feline nutrion. Samantha Pearson, B.S. is the Project Coordinator for the Rural Health Network Development grant. Ms. Pearson graduated from Eastern Washington University (2013) with a Bachelor s degree in Children s Studies with minors in Sociology, Criminal Justice and Counseling, and Educational and Developmental Psychology. While in college she worked as an administrative program specialist and was a project volunteer for Northwest Autism Center. Since graduation she has worked as a Substitute Teacher for the Sunnyside School District. Robert Sherwood, is a Data Analyst for Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital and is 0.1 FTE associated with the Rural Health Network Development grant. Mr. Sherwood has over 8 years of experience in organizational analysis and small business leadership and management. He was the data management consultant for the Yakima Ready by Five project, data analyst for Maternal Health Services Partnering with Families for Early Learning and database designer for the MHS First Steps program. Since October 2013 he has been associated with Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital s Performance Improvement Department as the Clinical Outcomes Analyst.

16 Melissa Aguirre is the Project Administrative Assistant for the Rural Health Network Development grant. Ms. Aguirre has semester credits in Early Education and is bilingual, bi-literate and bi-cultural in Spanish and English. Ms. Aguirre has worked as a teacher assistant for an Early Head Start, Lead tutor, assistant and Job Shadow Director for the Toppenish School District Gear Up (college readiness) program and since 2010 has been a Paraprofessional, Data Entry Specialist, and 21 st Century program tutor. VII. Appendices In this section, include appendices to your evaluation plan. These might include references, copies of instruments or tools, analysis programs, reporting formats, etc. 1. List of References for Program Evaluation 2. Copies of many Activity instruments/surveys 3. On line tools a. PARTNERS link ( ) b. AUCD link(

17 VIII. Contact Information List the contact information for the person primarily responsible for the evaluation plan and implementation. Linda Sellsted, RHND Project Director, Children s Village Manager 3801 Kern Road Yakima, Washington lindas@yvfwc.org Phone: Fax:

18 Appendix 1. List of References for Program Evaluation Pdfs of articles, tools, and atlas are available by hyperlink (clicking on the title below) or posted at this link: a. NS CSHCN b. Family Centered Care Self Assessment Tool c. Care Coordination Atlas d. Medical Home Index e. COCWD, Patient and Family Centered Care Coordination: A Framework for Integrating Care for Children and Youth Across Multiple Systems PEDIATRICS 2014;133; e1451 f. Rural Health Network Profile Tool

19 Appendix 2. Copies of Activity instruments/surveys Drafts of survey tools for various activities can be viewed through this hyperlink (Sample Surveys) or accessed at this website Consultant, child care provider, project coordinator, and program director surveys for Child Care Center Consultation Activity. Developmental Screening Pre Training Survey (post training survey under development) Draft of an adapted Parent Survey using previous Children s Village (2008) surveys as baseline.