1crayon.jpg (10866 bytes) February 16, 1999 -- Meeting Summary

9:00am - 12:00pm

The Chaps Room

Radisson Inn

SeaTac, Washington

 

Commission Attendance
Mona Lee Locke and Melinda French Gates, Co-Chairs; Kathryn Barnard, Don Brunell, Kim Cook, Yolanda Cortinas-Trout, Sheri Flies, Marty Jacobs, Peter Jackson, Mary Ellen O’Keeffe, Dee Ann Perea, Yvonne Ullas, Dee West, Lawrence White, Gayle Womack, Diana Yu and Kyle Yasuda.
Special Guests:
Pat Dickason and MaryAnne Deuyour – Brain NET
Ginny English – Healthy Mothers / Healthy Babies
Jana Halverson – Child Profile
Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson – Child Care 2000
Meeting Summary:
Mrs. Gates opened the meeting with a few brief announcements. First, the March 16th meeting time has been changed. The meeting will be held in the afternoon from 12 noon to 3:00p.m. or 4:00p.m.
The Bill of Rights subcommittee has not finalized the draft preamble as of yet. The co-chairs tabled the Bill of Rights discussion until the March meeting.
Robin Zukoski and Jennifer LeSourd would soon be moving to a new office, and will notify Commissioners of any change in phone numbers. Staff e-mail and PO Box will remain the same.
Commissioner Peter Jackson now has e-mail and staff will distribute an updated contact list.
Mrs. Gates then moved on to the issue of the decision making process for the Commission. She indicated that she and Mrs. Locke continue to hear, in between meetings, from Commissioners about issues discussed during meetings. Commissioners are expressing concern or agreement over these issues. The co-chairs believe strongly that these concerns should be brought to the attention of the entire Commission and that time is allocated during each meeting for this purpose. Mrs. Gates encouraged Commissioners to bring up their concerns about issues being discussed at the meetings so that all issues are heard.
Mrs. Gates pointed out that the Commission needs to step back and talk about decision making. It is important for the Commission, as a whole, to either buy in or not buy in on subcommittee decisions. What process does the Commission want to use to insure that all Commissioners are in line with the decisions?
Lawrence White mentioned the need for the Commission to revisit the core principles we developed. He noted that these principles express who the Commission is and what values it holds. He expressed the need for the Commission to continue to hold trust for each individual. If a subcommittee is given jurisdiction to establish something, the Commission as a whole, must support that subcommittee’s efforts.
Mrs. Locke noted that the subcommittees should make decisions knowing that this is what the majority believes in. Interpreting whether or not the Commission, as a whole, is truly in agreement is a challenge.
Mary Ellen O’Keefe noted that decision making has been an issue, particularly when controversial. Such controversial discussion has stifled any decision making so far.
Should the Commission do a formal vote on the issue? Should the Commission discuss the issue and get comments first, then vote? How should this process be set up?
Mary Ellen O’Keffe responded that her preference is to build consensus on a given issue.
Mrs. Locke expressed concern that Commissioners might not reach consensus. How do we define consensus?
Mary Ellen O’Keffe indicated that this should be a majority consensus.
Kim Cook noted that if Commissioners are ready to make a decision then we should have some form of consensus vote.
Robin Zukoski noted that there is a difference between a consensus and a vote. Should the Commission do some sort of a super majority vote like requiring two thirds of the Commissioners to agree? Or a simple Majority?
Don Brunell suggested that the Commission should come to consensus when it works and during times of controversy a formal vote should take place.
Mrs. Locke noted that if we vote on every issue we will know we have consensus no matter what.
Diana Yu noted that even if a few Commissioners disagree on a given issue consensus still can be reached.
Mrs. Locke expressed the need that if a few Commissioners still disagree on a particular issue that a vote take place.
Don Brunell noted that it depends on the product you are discussing.
Kathy Barnard explained that there should be a compromise where something is put on the table, then discussion takes place and then all agree to voice any negative opinion. Silence on an issue should be considered agreement. The opportunity to influence a change of those negative opinions should be given and Commissioners should be allowed to register a negative vote. She would rather influence commissioners than take a formal vote.
Mrs. Locke noted that we should always have discussion – this is paramount and healthy as a Commission.
Kim Cook favors taking a vote. Decisions are much clearer this way rather than by consensus.
Mrs. Locke expressed that the Commission should take a formal vote even if consensus is reached.
Robin Zukoski asked about Commissioners who are not present a given meeting. Do we leave them out, take vote by mail, how will their vote be considered?
Kyle Yasuda noted that if he could not to attend he would still like his opinion to be heard, and at least having the option to send Commissioners information and opinion.
Mrs. Gates noted that you might miss discussion on a particular issue and even with meeting minutes you don’t get the full flavor of that discussion.
Kyle Yasuda responded that it’s a Commissioner’s responsibility to get informed about an issue and to get the flavor of the discussion by communicating with other members.
Mrs. Locke asked if there were any other options for those members who might not be present.
Kyle Yasuda indicated that if absent members had a week to get the needed background information on a particular discussion they could make informed votes.
Mrs. Locke clarified that this would be an option for members to vote after the meeting if they were unable to attend.
Don Brunell expressed the need to have a motion to vote and a second of that motion. Don indicated that he has missed meetings but he doesn’t want to miss out and get hung up on votes.
Mrs. Gates indicated that again trust comes up. We need to trust members that all sides will be considered and that decisions made are the best decisions. It’s too hard to go back and revisit issues time and again.
Marty Jacobs agrees that if a decision is made and votes come in later - to change what was already agreed on is not fruitful.
Diana Yu agreed that trust is key. She expressed concern about turnout. If turnout at a meeting is low and a decision is required it can make it tough for others not there to feel all issues were considered.
Don Brunell suggested that the Commission establish a quorum.
Yvonne Ullas said she is concerned that messages may not get through about Commissioners being absent. She feels the Commission needs to pick a quorum number.
Don Brunell expressed that he would be happy to sit down and draft some rules on voting and quorum for the Commission.
Mrs. Locke noted that this was a good idea.
Kyle Yasuda noted that we all feel good about a majority of decisions the Commission has made. But, when it gets controversial those missing members can be valuable.
Mrs. Locke explained that we need to decide how we want to do it – a super majority or simple majority or what? Mrs. Locke asked Commissioners to E-mail Robin with ideas.
Mary Ellen O’Keefe said that having standards will be helpful and that it can be good to also delegate rules to subcommittees.
Mrs. Locke again asked Commissioners to E-mail Robin with decision making process ideas, and noted that Don Brunell will get rules drafted and sent out before next meeting.
Mrs. Gates then thanked Commissioners for their comments and explained that we would now turn to our Guest Panel.
Mrs. Locke explained that the Co-Chairs chose these four groups because they would give the Commission some perspective on what it takes to create a public engagement campaign and to get ideas about what other groups are already doing.
Pat Dickason and MaryAnne Deuyour from Brain NET, an interagency group; Ginny English from Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies who have a 1-800 number, etc.; Jana Halverson from the Department of Health Child Profile Campaign who are now sending information to all homes; and Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson from the Child Care 2000 campaign.
Mrs. Locke asked that, when listening to presentations, Commissioners consider what ideas we can incorporate, where the Commission can collaborate on projects, etc.
Mrs. Locke announced that the public will have time to comment at very end of the presentations and discussion.
Presentation Overview:
Brain NET
Pat Dickason and Mary Anne Deuyour
Since 1997, Brain NET has followed the I Am Your Child Campaign model. The goal is to get community organizations working on this campaign.
Brain NET brought trainers into the to state to set a state model – a train the trainers - to go out to the communities to share. Brain NET trained 6,000 people. They trained people from many backgrounds not just people involved in early childhood education. From there, with influence from President Clinton’s early childhood education conferences and Rob Reiner’s I Am Your Child Campaign, every state received federal funding to increase care and training for infants and toddlers to access more individuals regionally.
First, Brain NET developed a vision and mission statement – optimal brain development for all children – this has grounded their work.
They want to change child care practices, reach all people, become parenting partners, and support parents and care givers. They want to model family center community based support systems to raise awareness of brain research. This can only be accomplished with a long term campaign.
Since DSHS received federal funding for infants and toddlers, they will be doing a big display in Capitol Rotunda on March 22. This display will focus on issues drawn from brain research.
Second, Brain NET has developed local and regional speaker bureaus to cover all of Washington State. They have developed contacts with many community organizations such as Rotary, Kiwanis, etc. They can contact these local organizations to find good speakers to speak on brain development issues. The folks they train will become speakers at the local level.
Third, Brian NET has developed press kits to give to local media at local level. They believe the local media is critical to reaching all communities.
Finally, they are working with Oregon folks to do a two-state public awareness campaign.
Brain NET hopes that their next step can be to work with the Commission on its public awareness campaign. Brain NET sees itself as working at the grass roots level and believes the Commission has a nice compliment of their work.
Discussion
Brain NET has federal funding through the year 2002. The funding is for their campaign, and they are already doing much of these things like the legislative display, press kits, and working with Oregon State. But, Brain NET also wanted to wait to see what the Commission was doing, and noted that they have $70,000 dollars to work on an Infant/Toddler initiative that must be spent by September of 2000. There may be additional funds available in future years.
Robin Zukoski clarified that there was another effort in the works on a public engagement campaign for the Early Intervention Initiative for Infants and Toddlers, at DSHS – but that it is a different funding source from Brain NET.
Brain NET has a set of facts – "Brain Bits" - about early brain development that they are trying to share around the state. These are simple fact that parents and caregivers can grasp and easily remember (i.e., It is optimal to hold a baby four hours a day). Brain NET and the Child Care Coordinating Committee are working on these factoids.
The national I am Your Child Campaign currently has a video ( in Spanish and English), pamphlets that have 10 tips on what parents should do, etc. It is a big menu of things. You can order free videos.
Ms. Deuyour thanked Mrs. Locke and Mrs. Gates for Co-chairing the Commission on Early Learning. She said the work the Commission is doing is much needed and that kids and families are very fortunate to get this attention. She looks forward to helping the Commission in any way they can.
Healthy Mothers / Healthy Babies
Ginney English
In 1989, through the creation of First Steps, maternity care access grants from the Department of Health were implemented. The mission of Healthy Mothers / Healthy Babies is to enhance health of women, infants and children and to promote health education materials. Many coalitions are involved in this program (i.e., breast feeding coalition, immunization and action coalition, Medicaid outreach, post- birth partnerships, etc.).
This program has a 1-800 number that is the real thrust of the program focusing on social and health education, etc.
Their campaign has focused on local media, agency referrals, minority media outlets, etc. The original target has been for low-income households. Healthy Mothers / Healthy Babies now targets all parents.
The 1-800 number is staffed by a group highly trained and educated people. Some are bilingual. They can transfer callers in crisis to social service agencies depending on the caller’s needs. They have developed and maintained an extensive state wide database of demographic data. They do this by keeping data on callers and doing surveys. They provide families with information on pre-natal issues, child care resources, Medicaid, child development, parenting, etc.
They now have a baby book in 7 languages that contains immunization information, child development information, parenting tips, phone numbers and resources throughout state for many kinds of programs.
Discussion
The information in the database is updated 1/12 each month. In a years time the entire database is updated. They encourage people to call back if not getting through to resources, and they do checks when they’re working with local resources.
The 1-800 number receives 25,000 calls annually and they operate on about $700,000 per year. 25% is private funding. This includes the advertising campaign, which costs $400,000-$500,000.
Most callers are low-income. If a caller doesn’t fit within program requirements they are sent to Child Care Resources. Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies takes care to be sure that callers are helped by whomever they are referred to.
The staff for the 1-800 number have varied backgrounds but most are social workers.
Ms. English explained that there is not one part of their campaign that stands out more than another. They feel strongly that people have seen the campaign in various forms and that the impact is the interplay of all parts - this is what works.
Child Profile
Jana Halverson
Child Profile is a Washington State Department of Health project. Every child born in Washington receives developmentally appropriate information that is mailed to their home from birth to six years of age. A packet of all the materials was provided to each Commissioner.
Child Profile has focused on a vehicle for communicating with parents about issues surrounding children birth to six years old. This program is comprehensive and coordinated. It is a vehicle for public and private groups to work together to improve the health status of infants and toddlers. The vision is large. They are now in phase 1 of their project: immunization and health promotion. They hope to do high-risk follow up care coordination and possibly a well child component.
In phase one Child Profile receives weekly downloads from the Department of Health on statistics. The health promotion component is focused on finding the mailing addresses of new parents and sending these parents age specific information on their child.
Ultimately, Child Profile would like immunization history available at any stage by having the ability to find the history wherever care was given.
The funding for this project has two components. The Health component is a dedicated one million per year by the Department of Health. The Immunization component is supported by a user fee plan. Currently, about 20% of kids are in this immunization tracking system.
The mailings are done by bulk mail with an address request return. This way they can update address changes. They supplied a 1-800 number for people to call if they have a change of address. They currently mail about 14,000 pieces of mail a week of which 1,500 are returned.
Peter Jackson noted that it appears there is a county by county variation of the total number of kids in the system. Why was this occurring?
Ms. Halverson explained that there were 14 counties involved in the pilot project and that other counties were brought in later.
The Department of Health has dedicated one million dollars a year to the health education portion of the program. No state has found a way to successfully fund an immunization tracking program and that Washington is a leader in this realm by the user fee system.
Child Profile works with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to find ways to decrease SPI expenditures on immunization tracking. Child Profile is working on a parent consent form that will allow the school to look into the Child Profile database for information on any given student.
To reinforce the information that is mailed to the parents, Child Profile forms partnerships with other groups so that they are aware of this information and can assist where applicable to reinforce it. They are continually building in feed back loops.
Child Care 2000
Elizabeth Bonbright Thompson
Child Care Resource and Referral is a statewide referral service of 17 local networks. They have a 1-800 number. All of their networks are linked locally.
The goals of Child Care 2000 were to 1) transform public opinion about child care – from custodial to educational and nurturing, 2) to recognize caregivers as parenting partners and 3) to heighten consumer awareness about components of appropriate child care (training, accreditation, etc.).
There were 21 partners in the project (public and private). In order for them to get the word out they embarked on a public awareness campaign to advertise their program and called in Child Care 2000. Strong community partnerships are essential for any public engagement campaign.
Child Care 2000 hired a public media person to assist in formulating the campaign. They looked at their audience – child care consumers, public policy makers, business leaders and child care providers. Child Care 2000 focused on a multimedia strategy including billboards, bus signs, media, t.v., radio, etc.
It takes 6 to 8 hits before a person registers a message. Thus, a multimedia campaign increases the number and breadth of exposure by providing a sensory rich environment. They learned that you can’t just do one component at a time but rather have all the hits in the same time frame.
To influence policy makers they made boxes (press kits) for legislators with the Child Care legislative agenda inside. To try and reach people at work they sent information to businesses. Child care 2000 developed employee packets presented in garbage bags for cars. Child Care 2000 worked with local television stations to do public service announcements.
Success is measured by developing good demographics by asking questions like how did you hear about our number, what did you want to know, etc.
Discussion
Yvonne Ullas noted that her subcommittee has been trying to find about the type of information that was presented today. Having this information is very useful. She hopes that we can help as a Commission to coordinate all of these things that are out there.
Kim Cook was really struck by the presentations and is hoping we don’t recreate what they have already done, and feels it’s important to get our message out by coordinating with these organizations.
Diana Yu thought that Brain Net spoke a lot to why we were originally brought to together as a Commission, and that going through the Commissions goals has brought all the ideas together. Now the challenge is to bring all of this together as a package.
Mrs. Locke commented at how this information will help narrow the Commission’s focus, and help us to know how to integrate.
Gayle Womack stated that being on the other side of the state makes it hard to get information. She hopes we can keep in mind the rural communities.
Diana Yu noted instances like Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies only goes to low income parents – we need to look at all parents.
Mrs. Locke noted that hopefully a multi-media campaign can help solve this problem by reaching all levels.
Kathryn Barnard believes we have splendid ideas and information and that Washington State is ahead of the game. In thinking about parents in living their lives in their community, they may not be motivated to call a number. Some are overwhelmed by what’s available. Think about the PEP program – is it our job to do another massive campaign or is it to create linkages of these campaigns and connect things at the local level.
Mrs. Locke noted that when the Commission started we defined what we wanted to do. A campaign was one thing but there is still room to partner. We are focused on 0-3 and need to integrate services for this group. Maybe we still focus on this.
Kathryn Barnard explained that the Commission needs to find a translation of all the brain development research into what we actually do for this. For example, Reach Out and Read (Boston) provides every child with a book discussing the facts of the needs of new babies – holding, cuddling, etc. We need to make connections with parenting bits.
Kyle Yasuda has heard good ideas and realizes there are lots of programs. He expressed concern about uniqueness – in order to live our values of being bold and unique. Immunization registry isn’t cost effective – but the education part is good. We still need to educate on brain development.
Robin Zukoski explained that an image we have used was a patchwork quilt. We’re hearing same thing on other public engagement campaigns. We still don’t know about the big picture issues – these other organizations are focused on a particular issue like immunization or child care.
What should be the next step? What support does the Commission need? What should be done at the next meeting?
Mrs. Locke is hoping to get bids on a company to support our campaign. The main issue is how do you define what we are trying to do. The underline theme is that parents need support and respect. We need to come up with some guidelines for these companies. What terms would they use to reach our audience.
Robin Zukoski noted that the Commission also needs to learn about the state process on contracts – it may limit us in some respects.
Mary Ellen O’keefe noted that the power of the brain research is the documentation that infants need a certain kind of environment. We need to find a way to translate the realities of what happens in the brain and not lose the context of the relationship. The parent relationship component is important.
Mrs. Gates noted that this campaign is one of fun challenges – what is it that we want folks to come back with. This assignment could be just parenting tips, brain development, etc., or should it be all. We’ll be working on forming a group to work on this task over the next few months.
The Commission decided to form a short term subcommittee to develop a statement of what we want people to get out of any campaign we may do.
Robin Zukoski asked for volunteers. The following members will work on this assignment: Diana Yu, Yvonne Ullas, Craig Cole, Don Brunell, Kathryn Barnard.
Mrs. Locke then asked for public comment.
Public Comment:
Beverly Kooi noted that there seems to be lots of publicity things going on and that we need to move from publicity aimed at parents to publicity aimed at non-parents. Welfare depends on support of non parents. We need a vehicle to move from publicity to action. What existing organization can be used.
Sue Anderson wanted to note two things; 1) you want to change the attitudes and norms, and 2) what partnerships do you want to focus on?
Another individual was pleased to hear about the programs and feels we need more positive roles in helping parents develop functional families – rather than dismiss dysfunctional families as a chain of effect.
Mrs. Locke thanked the Commissioners, the presenter and the public for their input and announced that the Commission would now break into subcommittees.
The meeting was closed.

 Meetings | Home