1 Philadelphia Prevention Community Planning Group (CPG

Philadelphia Prevention Community Planning Group (CPG)
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
2:30 – 4:30 p.m.
Office of HIV Planning, 340 N. 12th St., Suite 203, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Present: Marne Castillo, Jennifer Chapman, Terri Clark, Christopher Collins, Tony
Daniel (Co-Chair), Antonio Davis, Annet Davis-Vogel, Andrew de los Reyes, Lomkhosi
Denson, Katie Dunphy, Lawrence Frazier, Emily Gibble, Jeffrey Jenne, Tyreef King,
Alison Lin, Lorett Matus, Alex Shirreffs
Excused: David Acosta (Co-Chair), Wesley Anderson, Nicholas Deroose, Lisa
Espinosa, Ken McGarvey, Renee Seaford, Erica Smith
Absent: Dawn Marie Acero, Kareema Graham, Dennis Hill, D’Ontace Keyes
Guests: Ron Allen, Lorraine Gomez, Gus Grannan, Kevin Huang, Patricia Jones
(AACO), Ronald Lassiter, Eleanor Lundy-Wade, Akil Pierre, Tye Underdue, Leroy A.
Way, Jacqueline Whitfield
Staff: Aneeza Agha, Debbie Law, Michael Milsop, Briana Morgan, Mari Ross-Russell,
Nishika Vidanage
Call to Order/Introductions:
T. Daniel called the meeting to order at 2:37 pm. Those present then introduced
themselves.
Approval of Agenda:
T. Daniel presented the agenda for approval. Motion: C. Collins moved, J. Whitfield
seconded to approve the agenda. Motion passed: All in favor.
Approval of Minutes:
T. Daniel presented the February 23, 2011 and March 23, 2011 minutes for approval.
Motion: T. Clark moved, J. Chapman seconded to approve the minutes from the
February 2011 and March 2011 meetings. Motion passed: All in favor.
Timekeeper:
C. Collins volunteered to keep time during the meeting.
Report of Co-Chairs:
J. Jenne stated that AACO had recently participated in a jurisdictional meeting for
directly-funded providers that had been organized by the CDC. He went on to say that
this meeting had included the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the Philadelphia
Department of Health, and the directly-funded providers. He added that M. Ross-Russell
1
had presented on the Philadelphia CPG while K. McGarvey had presented on the
Pennsylvania CPG.
T. Daniel stated that he was preparing to attend the next state CPG meeting, where they
would review interventions. He went on to say that the state CPG was currently
reviewing the Strategic Plan and revisiting a long list of interventions. He noted that the
state CPG planned to develop a list of the most effective interventions, in order to support
those.
T. Daniel next stated that Dr. Schwarz had revealed the official Philadelphia condom on
April 7, and asked those present to order the condoms to ensure that they were distributed
throughout the community. He also suggested that those present add the Philadelphia
condom to any safer sex kits.
T. Daniel added that he was glad to see new faces at the present meeting, and that he
hoped that the new attendees would participate moving forward.
Presentations:
 Intervention Update – Literature & Education Committee
J. Chapman stated that the Literature & Education Committee would be presenting their
work from the previous four years (see – attached slides). She explained that they would
ultimately reveal the draft list of recommended interventions at the end of the
presentation, although they would begin with a review of their process. She then thanked
all those that served on the committee, including T. Clark, A. Davis, T. King, W.
Anderson, A. Lin, and C. Collins. She also invited new members to join the Literature &
Education Committee.
A. Lin began the presentation by introducing the concept of structural interventions, and
reviewed two structural intervention strategies included in Enhanced Comprehensive
HIV Prevention Planning (ECHPP). She also gave examples of structural interventions
in Philadelphia outside of HIV/AIDS, such as hand sanitizer campaigns and smoking
bans. She also cited examples of structural interventions that were specific to sexual
health.
J. Chapman then discussed the process of creating a list of recommended interventions.
She began by reviewing the Literature & Education Committee’s objective and roadmap,
before explaining the initial intervention review process. She went on to say that a
designation of “with reservations” signified that the committee did not have enough
information to decisively determine whether to accept or reject the intervention. She
explained that, in these cases, they had either contacted the developers directly or held the
panel discussions to gather additional information. She then thanked the staff of the
Office of HIV Planning for their work on the spreadsheets used in this process, which
allowed the group to ensure that they used the same criteria for every intervention. She
added that the spreadsheets had been color-coded by population and initial reviews.
2
J. Chapman next explained that, after this initial screening of the compendium, the
committee had moved on to choose the factors they would use in rating the interventions.
She reminded those present that the CPG had approved the final list of factors, and that
the CPG had also weighted these factors. She then stated that the members of the
Literature & Education Committee were kept unaware of the actual weights of the factors
throughout the process, which prevented the weights from affecting the members’ ratings
of the interventions. She noted that the group had found intervention feasibility to be the
most important factor, since it was necessary to consider whether an intervention could
actually work in Philadelphia.
T. Clark stated that the each committee member had been assigned interventions to rate.
She went on to say that they used information from a variety of sources, and that two
committee members rated each individual intervention. She then stated that they would
be using Community PROMISE as an example in the presentation, and began a review of
a sample worksheet rating that intervention. She explained that Community PROMISE
had received a rating of 8 for norms, values, and consumer preferences due to the nature
of the intervention. She went on to say that this was intrinsically involved with the
community because it utilized role model stories.
N. Vidanage next began the portion of the presentation containing the actual scores for
the interventions. She explained that each group of interventions was divided by
population, and first displayed the bell curve for interventions for IDU. She went on to
say that the committee had decided to accept all interventions that fell above the mean for
each population before reviewing the bell curves for each population.
T. Clark then presented the list of recommended interventions by population. She stated
that these were the recommendations that would be forthcoming from the Literature &
Education Committee and asked for any questions, comments or concerns from those
present. M. Castillo replied that she appreciated the analysis by the bell curves,
explaining that it helped to make the process very transparent.
A. Davis stated that he was grateful that he joined the Literature & Education Committee
because the experience had helped him to truly appreciate the great deal of work that
happens behind the scenes. He went on to say that the committee members had been
very supportive as he learned how to rate the interventions. He also stated that it had
been helpful to have two committee members rate each intervention, since they were able
to help one another. He concluded that he hoped to continue to participate in the process
for years to come.
J. Chapman stated that the CPG would need to vote on the list of recommended
interventions. P. Jones asked why CRCS was not listed as a recommended intervention
for youth or PLWHA. J. Chapman replied that CRCS was not listed as an intervention
for youth or PLWHA in the compendium, so they had not scored it as a part of those
populations.
3
To provide historical context for the list of recommended interventions, M. Ross-Russell
explained that the CPG had approved the entire list interventions during the last planning
cycle. She went on to say that DEBIs and EBIs were new at the time, so the CPG did not
want to restrict the list of interventions. She then stated that, during the current planning
cycle, the Literature & Education Committee had pared the interventions down to a list
that fit Philadelphia. She explained that, for example, some interventions had no training
materials available after many years, so it would not be possible to implement these
interventions. She concluded that the list before the CPG was the committee’s
recommended list of interventions for each population. T. Daniel clarified that the CPG
would be voting on a recommended list of interventions that would remain in place for
the next three years. P. Jones stated that this would then be the list of the interventions
that prevention providers could choose from over the next three years. A. Lin clarified
that these would be the DEBIs and EBIs that providers could choose from, although it did
not address other types of interventions. P. Jones asked if counseling and testing would
be addressed separately, and M. Ross-Russell agreed that this was the case.
T. Clark next stated that CRCS had been rated for all populations with the exception of
youth and PLWHA, and went on to say that CRCS ought to be added to the list of
recommended interventions for those two populations. J. Chapman noted that the score
for CRCS fell above the mean for every single group, so they had a mathematical basis
for adding the intervention to the lists for youth and PLWHA. The Literature &
Education Committee then agreed to amend the list to include CRCS as a recommended
intervention for youth and PLWHA.
Motion: The Literature & Education moved to approve the list of recommended
interventions as outlined in the presentation, with the addition of CRCS as a
recommended intervention for youth and PLWHA. Motion passed: 16 in favor, 0
opposed, 0 abstentions.
 Update to Definition of High Risk – Planning Priorities Committee
M. Castillo introduced the definition of high-risk negatives (see – attached handout),
explaining that the Literature & Education Committee had reviewed this definition along
with the Planning Priorities Committee that afternoon. She went on to say that this
definition was in two parts, which included both populations and social drivers. She
explained that she hoped that this new definition would give providers the opportunity to
work with the populations that were most in need.
M. Castillo next stated that the draft table of populations was based on a great deal of
epidemiological data. She then noted that the committee had planned to adjust the age
range for youth from 14 – 24 years old to 13 – 24 years old, although this was not yet
reflected in the handout. She went on to say that she had been very impressed with the
CPG’s discussions on social drivers, so the committee had chosen to include information
from these discussions in their definition of high-risk negatives. A. Agha added that the
list of prioritized populations was available in the meeting packet (see – attached
handout).
4
Motion: The Planning Priorities Committee moved to approve the definition of high risk
as outlined, with the age range for youth changed from 14 – 24 years old to 14 – 24 years
old. Motion passed: 16 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions. M. Castillo then thanked
those present for their work on the committee.
T. Daniel stated that the next meeting of the Planning Priorities Committee would be on
Tuesday, May 17 from 10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
T. Daniel next stated that the CPG was running out of time in the planning cycle, and
went on to say that it would be very important for them to work on attendance. He
explained that the agenda had included an action item for a bylaws change, which they
would not be able to vote on due to the low attendance at the present meeting. He went
on to review the problems that had arisen due to low attendance, including the tabling of
action items and the inability of the Nominations Committee to meet to approve new
members and remove those that were not actively participating in the process. He then
questioned why members that were not attending meetings chose to remain on the CPG.
He explained that those not attending the meetings were occupying seats that could be
filled by others that would be better able to participate.
T. King replied that many CPG members were also service providers, and were
frequently required to work during CPG meetings. He explained that many CPG
members may want to be at the meetings, but are unable due to their work in the
community. He concluded that they would need to be mindful of that when discussing
attendance issues.
T. King then suggested that the CPG develop a strategy to promote the CPG and the OHP
to the community. He explained that it would be important to learn the language of the
communities that they were trying to reach, as well as increase exposure in these
communities. He went on to say that the CPG needed to be inclusive of voices of those
in the community, so they would need to find ways to bring community members into the
meetings. T. Daniel stated that it was important to remember that each CPG member
served a population, not a provider. He explained that the application asked if the
applicant could commit to four hours per month. He went on to say that he did
understand that some members had commitments during the meetings, and suggested that
those members recommend others that could attend. He then recommended those present
to “like” the Office of HIV Planning on Facebook. He went on to say that the number of
those attending the meetings had dwindled as information and commitment levels
expected from the group were rising.
Action Item:
 Bylaws Language
Tabled.
Review Committee and Workgroup Reports:
J. Jenne reminded those present that committee reports were included in the meeting
packet (see – attached handout).
5
J. Whitfield stated that the Positive Committee had discussed ideas for outreach in their
June meeting.
D. Law stated that an ad hoc workgroup had convened in order to approve applications
from new CPG members, as well as remove current members due to attendance issues.
She went on to say that both the CPG and the workgroup had discussed dissolving the
Nominations Committee, but that the CPG would be unable to do so without achieving
the quorum needed for a vote on a change to the bylaws. T. Daniel explained that the
Nominations Committee had only had two active participants. A. Davis-Vogel replied
that some members of the CPG had volunteered to participate in the Nominations
Committee, but that they had been told the committee was going to be dissolved. C.
Collins then explained that the Nominations Committee had only met for three months at
a time before taking a three-month break. D. Law further clarified that members of the
Nominations Committee were required to participate in another committee during the
three-month breaks.
Report of Staff:
B. Morgan stated that the Office of HIV Planning had Facebook, Twitter, and BlogSpot
accounts under the username “hivphilly.” She asked those that were currently “fans” on
Facebook to suggest the Office’s page to their friends. She added that business cards
with links to the Office’s Twitter, Facebook, and BlogSpot accounts were available.
M. Ross-Russell stated that members of the CPG were asked to complete a membership
evaluation survey at the end of every planning cycle. She explained that the survey
would include questions about data, the composition of the CPG, and other topics. She
noted that this was an evaluation tool from the CDC. She then stated that all of the
information referenced in the survey was contained on the Office’s website, and that
much of the information had been presented at the committee level. She added that CPG
members should expect to receive a survey within the next month.
Old Business:
T. Clark asked how they could begin to reconvene the Points of Integration Workgroup.
E. Gibble then asked for more info about the workgroup. T. Daniel replied that the
workgroup was a union between the CPG and RWPC, and that the group had previously
discussed issues related to integration with Hepatitis. J. Jenne added that the workgroup
had also dealt with PCSI. T. Daniel then stated that he had spoken with the co-chair of
the Ryan White Planning Council, who planned to discuss this issue with the co-chair of
the Points of Integration Workgroup.
E. Gibble stated that she had previously suggested the formation of a new IDU
workgroup, and asked interested parties to forward their availability to Office staff. T.
Daniel replied that the Office would be able to email proposed times to the entire CPG,
which would allow them to reach out to those not present at the current meeting. E.
Gibble then asked those present to ask for the availability of anyone that they knew that
was actively injecting and interested in participating. T. Clark asked if this would be a
6
workgroup or a formal committee. E. Gibble replied that she hoped that this could
become a committee in the future. T. Daniel noted that they would begin with a pilot
workgroup meeting for interested parties.
New Business:
C. Collins announced that he and P. Jones were working to create a new testing event in
Philadelphia. He stated that Houston had had great success with an event called Hip Hop
for Houston, in which they had tested over 17,000 people. He then explained that they
were trying to create an event like this in Philadelphia, and that they were seeking support
and information from the community. He went on to say that they would need volunteers
to plan and execute the event, which they planned to conduct on a large scale. He added
that he planned to attend Houston’s event along with T. Daniel in order to better
understand the workings of the event.
Following a request for additional information on the event, C. Collins explained that
Houston had found artists to provide free concerts, as well as organizations to provide
testing. He went on to say that the event included safe sex kits, child care, and treatment
when necessary. He then stated that those that were tested would receive a ticket to a free
concert. T. Clark suggested that C. Collins hold a meeting for anyone interested in
participating. C. Collins replied that he would most likely hold such a meeting after
AIDS Education Month ended. He then stated that he wanted every provider in the city
to participate in the event. T. King asked if C. Collins would be seeking artists from
Philadelphia, and C. Collins agreed.
Research Update:
A. Davis-Vogel stated that the HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Division was still
conducting an HIV vaccine trial for men who have sex with men and trans women who
have sex with men. She went on to say that they would most likely be recruiting for
another 10 – 12 months, and that they wanted to ensure that the community was educated
about the vaccine. She then announced that they would be holding a panel with research
staff, enrolled study participants, and representatives from the community on May 11.
She noted that the event would also include drag performances and entertainment, and
would be hosted by the program’s drag ambassadors.
Announcements:
T. King announced that "save the date" fliers for the Prom were now available.
T. Clark announced that Dining Out for Life would be held the following night, in which
33% of proceeds from participating restaurant would be donated to Action AIDS and
other ASOs.
L. Frazier announced that the Crystal Ball would follow the Youth Summit on June 4.
K. Huang announced that May 19 would be National Asian and Pacific Islander HIV
Awareness Day.
7
A. Davis announced that ACT UP would be conducting interviews on housing with those
infected or affected by HIV. He asked those interested in participating to email him. He
also stated that he would be included in an article on housing in the June issue of Poz
Magazine.
A. Davis announced that ACT UP was seeking submissions for a t-shirt design.
A. Davis announced that ACT UP was planning three large demonstrations, and would
like to visit support groups to discuss these demonstrations. He also stated that ACT UP
Philadelphia hoped to mobilize 1,000 people to demonstrate at the International AIDS
Conference in Washington, D.C.
J. Jenne announced that the PA/MidAtlantic AETC would be hosting a program on
biomedical interventions on May 18.
T. Daniel announced that May 18 would be Vaccine Awareness Day.
T. Daniel congratulated Philadelphia FIGHT on the opening of their new computer
center, which would allow them to provide programs to enhance computer literacy.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned by general consensus at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Briana L. Morgan, Staff
Handouts Distributed at the Meeting:
 Meeting Agenda
 Meeting Minutes from February 23, 2011
 Meeting Minutes from March 23, 2011
 CPG Literature & Education Committee Intervention Update Slides
 Definition of High Risk Negatives (Draft)
 Population Scores
 Bylaws Language on Committees
 CPG Subcommittees Report – April 2011
 OHP Calendar
8