1 / 18

Michigan’s Web-Based Data Repository

Michigan’s Web-Based Data Repository. SEOW Audio Call August 13, 2008. Michigan Department of Community Health Organizational Structure. The Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP) is located within the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), a cabinet level agency.

zurina
Download Presentation

Michigan’s Web-Based Data Repository

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michigan’s Web-Based Data Repository SEOW Audio Call August 13, 2008

  2. Michigan Department of Community Health Organizational Structure • The Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP) is located within the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), a cabinet level agency. • Medicaid, Public Health, and Mental Health are also located within MDCH.

  3. Michigan Department of Community Health Director Janet Olszewski Office of Drug Control Policy Director Donald L. Allen, Jr. Bureau of Substance Abuse and Addiction Services Vacant Division of Substance Abuse and Gambling Services Deborah J. Hollis Prevention Division Felix Sharpe Division of Law Enforcement & Educational Outreach Mark Steinberg Substance Abuse Contract Management Section Substance Abuse Treatment Section Substance Abuse Prevention Section Law Enforcement Grants Section Drug Education Grants Section ODCP Organizational Structure • ODCP has a staff of 30. • The current organizational structure was established in 2003.

  4. Regional Coordinating Agencies (CAs) • Established by statute (1978) • Eight are community mental health agencies • Three are public health agencies • Five are free-standing, non-profit agencies

  5. Michigan SPF/SIG Structure Office of Drug Control Policy CAs SPF/SIG Advisory Committee CEW IG SEW/EVAL CUAD COAL RFP CSPPC

  6. Michigan’s Web-Based Data Repository • As part of an initial prioritization process, if data was identified as important but not available or problematic, put on list off to side as gap • Once overall priority for SPF/SIG efforts identified, approved, and moving forward, SEW revisited gap list • Prioritization process of gaps (SAC, SEW, IG, CA’s) • When completed, #1 priority gap was a Web-Based Data Repository

  7. Why Need ~ • Data being accumulated in many places (Internal and External) • Due to sub-state regional planning structure, need for as much data as possible be available at (minimally) the county level • More cost effective to have in central (state) repository • Allows for standardization • Will aide in systemic process for engaging state and community agencies to dialogue about data trends, gaps, and implementations

  8. Benefit ~ • Provide standardized county-and state-level data for comparison • Utilize social information supported by survey data, when available • Include data to assess substance abuse related burden/consequences, consumption patterns, and contributing conditions (risk and protective factors) • Not just provide links to data sources, but to provide estimates in charts or tables

  9. Process/Action Steps ~ • SEW had a Core Team of members, who in turn established a data repository workgroup (about 4-6 people) to identify current and relevant data indicators and develop recommendations • Recommendations were based on data collection improvements, and included child welfare issues, court involvement, health care including substance related ER visits, and tax data (indicator for amount of consumption in community) • Recommendations on other indicators (consequences, consumption, risk and protective factors—community, family, and school domain)

  10. Process (cont.)~ • Total of 22 indicators were identified • Document taken to SEW for further discussion and support; then presented to SAC • Endorsement given from SAC, and SEW in process of prioritizing and ranking indicators most important to launch this effort • Survey developed and distributed (SAC, SEW, CUAD, IG, CW, CEW, CSPPC, CAs, other community partners) • Respondents asked to rank each of 22 indicators on scale of 1-5 measuring usefulness to them in their work • SEW review responses and make recommendations to SAC

  11. What helped~ • Through SPF/SIG, have strengthened (and in some cases built) strong state-level partnerships {DOE, DHS, Liquor Control Commission, MSP/OHSP, Coalitions} • Initial Available Data Sources for Community Needs Assessment helped show possibilities • Sense of ownership by group at all levels • Core Group and smaller workgroups of SEW allowed more members to take leadership roles and spotlight their strengths • As communities and CA regions began the planning and implementation process, excitement about ‘data’ caught on; led to recognition of need for more

  12. What helped (cont.)~ • State budget problems = recognition of technology as a cost-saving investment • Buy-in from key community and state partners • Governor with commitment to use technology (trickle down effect)

  13. Challenges/Lessons Learned ~ • Slow movement through process/maintaining momentum • Maintaining commitment from/energy of Core Workgroup members through slow process • Learning to recognize what’s not possible (at this point), proceed with what is possible, and commit to revisit what initially seemed impossible • Initial response to cost • Infrastructure—where to house and infrastructure needed to maintain

  14. Progress ~ • SEW will finalize list of top 7-10 indicators to receive priority for initial inclusion on Data Repository at meeting on August 11th • Recommendations are being based on results of survey as well as ‘what is needed’ for CAs and State for reporting purposes (including NOMS) • SEW recommendations will be taken to the SAC at their September meeting for final recommendation to ODCP

  15. Progress (cont.) ~ • In the meantime • ODCP staff (from three different sections) have been meeting with MDCH Information Technology to see what is possible ~ both short and long term • Decision was made to house central repository on ODCP website • Repository sites from other states have been reviewed (special thanks to State of Washington) to get ideas from others • One CA has developed a data repository specific to their region, and they are involved in the ODCP workgroup looking at designing site for the State (as are some SAC members) • Short term (by 9/30/08) will have preliminary data indicators available by clicking on specific county in map of the State (and hopefully cumulative by CA region option available as well)

  16. Progress (cont.) ~ • Longer term - Additional indicators will be added, as well as information on trends by county (as available) and region, with comparisons to state and national level indicators • ODCP Epidemiologist position being filled • Addendums (with Technical Notes) will be added, including basic information on epidemiologist data, how to read/cautions when looking at data, what the data does (and does not) say, reliability standards, etc. • Still outstanding: Decision on staffing needs for longer term updates/maintenance beyond life of SPF/SIG grant, however commitment to assure is present

  17. Contact Information: Carolyn Foxall Departmental Specialist Michigan Department of Community Health/Office of Drug Control Policy 320 S. Walnut Street, 5th Floor Lewis Cass, Lansing, MI 48913 517-335-0176 FoxallC@michigan.gov Brenda Stoneburner, M.A., LPC Communicable Disease Specialist Michigan Department of Community Health/Office of Drug Control Policy 320 S. Walnut Street, 5th Floor Lewis Cass, Lansing, MI 48913 517-335-0121 StoneburnerB@michigan.gov

More Related