Ttfcci mid program presentation to trc 121411.cb

  • 1,086 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,086
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Data driven Evidence-based RFA committee established.
  • Reason for shift to policy focus was intentional. When the funding was cut by what amounted to ~70%, the TRC had a decision to make – stick with a comprehensive/patchwork focus with extremely limited funds… or focus in and try to get to outcomes with a reduced budget? Because it was uncertain how long the fiscal emergency would last, the group decided that outcomes – even in times of reduced funding – are still important and attainable. Funding: November of 2010 through June of 2012 (now a 3 month “transitional” period), so we’re about 13 months in right now.
  • Just a reminder --- we used these models to help inform the RFA development and policy focus. Also looked at what was working in Colorado – the Get R!EAL model, for example – and the evidence base – community guide, CDC best practices, etc. Should remember these from our presentation two months ago. When we talk about CPPW, talk about MAPPS.
  • In a competitive RFA, 18 communities were awarded funding. Two CBO’s One Housing Authority 11 LHA’s
  • The ingredients for success were derived by: Discussions among TA/CDPHE group Grantee survey One on one conversations.
  • (Ask Cindy and Susan to do this slide) As determined by TARP/SE2/CDPHE Give us a framework for where TA is needed and what type…
  • Regular meetings… (this was added about 6 months in – a recognized need by all) Discuss progress of grantees Keep everyone updated More responsive, faster response, Maintaining constant contact w/ grantees and TA providers across the system so that it is responsive, flexible and timely.
  • Under willingness to help: Challenges – work plans too prescriptive, lack of clarity on TA structure, unrealistic expectations Toolkit and TA – started with an idea of what was needed – many grantees expressed strong pro-business environment as a challenge, toolkit materials and TA have stepped up to meet this expressed need. Messages, etc. now congruent w/ the community value of pro-business.
  • Survey of grantees – anonymous feedback on how it’s going. # responded =18
  • Jill does this slide. Highlights: Understanding the policy process Communicating with the media and connections to resources  
  • Jill
  • Comment 1     The RFA was too prescriptive       Comment 2     It is difficult to determine the amount of time that will be needed to actually pass ordinances in a municipality. I feel that the expectations have been lowered to realistic levels during the course of the TFCCI project, but initially they were not realistic given the initial timeframe. Funding for administrative support for the project is much needed.       Comment 3     There have been questions about how this strategy was researched prior to the RFA, particularly with Colorado-specific issues. Also, it is very difficult for some grantees to work on these projects with no money allowed for things like rent, technology, accountant. Communication from CDPHE could be improved.       Comment 4     In dedicating all of our resources for two years into a single municipality we are beginning to see significant issues arise around cessation, disparities, and CCIAA compliance throughout the county.
  • Seeing a popcorn effect already YA policies have all been unanimous… No roll backs All are strong policies CDC is recognizing us
  • First bullet --- policy is good, important. However, when the $ comes back, need to reenergize the other components of a comprehensive program – cessation, other outreach, etc.

Transcript

  • 1. 2010-2012 Mid-Program Update Tobacco-Free Colorado Communities Initiative
  • 2. Presentation Purpose
    • To share progress, lessons learned and successes of the Tobacco Free Colorado Communities Initiative with the Tobacco Review Committee
    • Background
    • Communities
    • Ingredients for Success
    • Feedback from the “field”
    • Early Successes
    • Recommendations
  • 3. Background
  • 4. Objectives of TFCCI
    • Fund communities to pass policies that will sustainably alter the environment where citizens live, work and play.
    • Prevent illegal sales to minors by licensing tobacco retailers
    • Strengthen Colorado’s Clean Indoor Air Act locally
    • Eliminate smoking in multiunit housing
  • 5. Outcomes-focused Approach
    • FY 2011 & 2012 focus shift from policy process  outcomes
    • Work limited to achievement of identified public policy outcome
    • Evidence-based policies specified in RFA
    • Community chose policy area based on local data
    • Contracts focus on jurisdiction where policy is promulgated into law
    • Anticipated funding term = 24 months
    • Funding amounts $75k–$200k, based on jurisdiction
  • 6. Informing Models
    • American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST)
    • Funder: National Cancer Institute
    • (1991-1999)
    • SmokeLess States Program
    • Funder: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    • (1992-2004)
    • Communities Putting Prevention to Work Grant
    • Funder: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    • (2010-2012)
    • LA County Tobacco Control and Prevention Program 
    • Funder: CA Department of Public Health, CA Tobacco Control Program 
    • (1995-1999)
  • 7. TFCCI Communities
  • 8. TFCCI Communities
    • Reducing Illegal Sales to Minors
    • Aurora
    • Cortez
    • Fountain
    • Golden
    • La Junta
    • Longmont
    • Manitou Springs
    • Pueblo County
    • Steamboat Springs
    • Summit County
    • Strengthening the CCIAA
    • Durango
    • Lakewood
    • Unincorporated Jefferson County
    • Wheat Ridge
    • Multiunit Housing
    • Delta Housing Authority
    • Denver Housing Authority
    • Grand Junction Housing Authority
    • Behavioral Health & Wellness
  • 9.  
  • 10. TFCCI Budget total $6, 570,588*
  • 11. Ingredients for Success
  • 12. Ingredients for Success
          • Well-organized strategy, draws on best practices
          • Good internal support
          • Strong and diverse coalition including youth
          • Political will in community
          • Adequate support and clarity for grantees
  • 13. Technical Assistance
    • TARP
    • Policy advocacy training/technical assistance
    • Legal technical assistance
    • SE2
    • Communications training/technical assistance
    • Development of grantee toolkit/advertising
    • CDPHE
    • Content expertise
    • Contract management
  • 14. More Ingredients for Success
          • Willingness to adapt structure
          • Communities and coalitions are passionate about the work
          • Toolkit development
          • Trainings and webinars tailored to community needs
          • Personal connections
          • Diverse and skilled TA teams
  • 15. Feedback from the “field”
  • 16. Grantee Survey Results
    • How would you rate your level of understanding in the following areas today for the TFCCI project?
  • 17. Grantee Survey Results
    • How would you rate the following at the beginning of the TFCCI project compared with today?
  • 18. Grantee Survey Results What would you say has worked well during the TFCCI project?
  • 19. Grantee Survey Results
    • Overall, how would you say the policy-only focused funding has worked in your community?
  • 20. Grantee Survey Results
    • Overall, how would you say the policy-only focused funding has worked in your community?
  • 21. Early Successes
  • 22. Policies Already Passed
    • Reducing Illegal Sales to Minors
    • Fountain
    • Manitou Springs
    • Steamboat Springs
    • Multiunit Housing
    • Delta Housing Authority
    • Grand Junction Housing Authority
    • University of Colorado Behavioral Health and Wellness
  • 23. Recommendations
  • 24. Recommendations
          • Continue to prioritize policy at local level
          • Allow broader range of funding options (including community-based organizations)
          • Multiple-year funding for incremental change
          • Continue funding after policy has passed to allow for successful implementation and enforcement
  • 25.
    • Questions?