Data Quality Steering Committee
4/5/2018 Meeting Minutes
Time: 10:00AM to 12:00PM
Location: The Learning Center, All Chicago
Attendees: Sal Munoz, Ken Lewin, Christophe Valcourt, Sharan Subramaniyan, Anthony Flores, Debbie Donnegan, Lavon French, Otha Gaston, Gwen Turner, Jose Carabeo, Cailie Swillum, Kimberlee Ross, Natalie Brzoski, Dana Kraus, Melanie Stathis, Sara Edelstein, Carrie George, Fred Friedman, Sharon Cargile
I. Welcome and Introductions, Approval of Meeting Minutes
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM. Attendees introduced themselves. Sal discussed the new group and the agenda, which is hosted on Google Drive and can be commented on by attendees and reviewed from meeting to meeting. The group then reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. Gwen motioned to approve the minutes; Debbie seconded. There were all ayes in approving the minutes.
II. January DQ Results
The attendees reviewed the January DQ results. Sal discussed trends in the number of compliant submissions and agencies with missing data, offering possible explanations for these variations. In reviewing timeliness trends, Debbie stated that those fluctuations can be explained by HUD’s changing data standards and definitions and the inability of agencies to keep up with them. Sal mentioned in October, there was an update for PSH projects needing to add a move-in date, which added new challenges to their workflow. Otha suggested reaching out to agencies who had no data quality submission and asking why they did not submit. Debbie also recommended conducting a survey to ask agencies why they did not submit.
Sal gave a schedule for this quarter’s data quality submissions. The first round of submissions is April 17, and the 2nd round is May 1st. Dana, Jose and Lavon stated that they did not receive that email. Sal said he would double-check the ATA roster, but also advised checking junk mail folders.
Sal mentioned a new change occurring is the reporting of Social Security Numbers. According to the data standards, “client refused,” “doesn’t know,” or “partial SSN reported” were supposed to be acceptable responses effective immediately. In previous quarters, it was counted against agencies if they had null SSNs, SSNs left blank, or fake SSNs. However, approximate SSNs will not count against agencies. Dana expressed confusion and finds she is still getting errors when she runs DQ reports for clients with Client Refused for their SSN. Sal said he would follow up with Adam to see if he updated the reporting to reflect the changes. Attendees also asked if those guidelines around SSNs would apply when using other reporting platforms.
Sal said that the Data Quality Plan was last published in August 2017, before the new HUD Data Standards. He asked attendees if the plan should be reviewed and if a subgroup should be created to work on a new DQ plan, or if that should be done at a later point in time. Natalie asked how the group should be using the plan when it is created and Sal explained the plan should set uniform community guidelines on data entry and management. Debbie stated now that the plan has been developed, it can be tweaked rather than created from scratch. Debbie suggested a phone conference with Dana and Melanie at the end of the month to review the DQ plan.
III. Coordinated Entry
Sal explained that Coordinated Entry is becoming a larger issue in the data quality process, and introduced Ken to have CE be a new focus for the group, to think about how it affects and is affected by the larger system. Ken explained that there is a broader shift from individual project data to a new world of collective data to help track the health of the overall system. He presented the idea of thinking beyond one’s own individual project data.
IV. Structure and the Action Agenda
Sal explained that the Action Agenda allows for more flexibility in how often the group meets and how decisions and changes can be made. He asked attendees what have been successful aspects of the new structure they have seen in other committees/work groups and how the meeting and leadership structure of the group should be set going forward. Regarding frequency, he asked if the group should still meet quarterly, or as needed with more subgroup meetings. Debbie preferred a quarterly structure, but having meetings before and after quarterly reporting checkpoints so that agencies and attendees stay informed about the data changes. Jose suggested meeting more often as he is fairly new and would like to catch up on all of the issues that the group has dealt with. Otha suggested more meetings so that ATAs can stay informed and aware and they can know what to adjust after they receive their reporting results. It was initially proposed to have 8 meetings (1 before and 1 after each quarter). Debbie asked if there are new people on the DQSC and was unsure if they became voting members. Sal suggested having open-door membership with a 2-meeting minimum for one to be considered a voting member. He said maintaining some structure may be helpful due to the impact of the decisions made by the group and to ensure voting is not influenced by members without sufficient attendance or background information. Membership comes after 2 meetings and general consensus among new members. Fred agreed with maintaining structure and asked what kinds of voting occurs with the group. Sal explained that decisions are made on data quality plans, which affect reporting and the entry of client information. Debbie and Melanie explained that most decisions are recommendations reached by a vote and move on to the HMIS Committee for approval. Someone from the DQSC must represent the group and go to the HMIS Committee meeting to raise the recommendation. Melanie said that questions about the DQSC require looking back on and revising the charter. Dana stated that with the recent committee restructuring, how things are slated to operate has been confusing to providers who have sat on committees for a while. She stated that although committees had issues and limitations, the old structure had some predictability. Sal explained that DQSC’s purpose is data quality and that a general structure of work is already in place. The group will not be free-floating, but will meet consistently. He asked if the group wants to meet quarterly (between when the quarters occur), or before and after. The group agreed to meet quarterly (Feb, May, Aug, Nov). Debbie said there needs to be an accounting of the old and new members and that those attendees who have come in twice will need to be voted into the group at their next meeting, with meeting minutes serving as a way to track attendance.
The structure will be open-forum, and new members getting voted into the group after their 2nd meeting. There will be no chairs. Fred asked who writes the agenda and facilitates the meeting and Sal explained the process of hosting the draft agenda on Google Drive, making it a living document. Debbie said that the decisions made today must be voted on. Lavon motioned to vote and Gwen asked for clarification on what was being voted on. The old voting members voted and Lavon motioned to approve the agenda with the decisions on the new structure for the group; Debbie seconded. There were all ayes. Gwen stated that there needs to be a chair who facilitates the meeting instead of All Chicago. Fred agreed, and stated that a motion must be read before a vote is made so that everyone knows what is being voted on. Sal asked who would like to be a chair for the DQSC. He suggested Lavon be an interim chair until May to give some time for the group to think about who should be the next chair.
V. End of Meeting
Carrie motioned to adjourn, Debbie seconded. There were all ayes. Meeting Adjourned 11:26 AM