Responses to Observations and Opportunities for Improvement Indicated by the Review Panel
| Table of Contents | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Broader Impact - Opportunities to Improve
...
The ACO concurs with this recommendation. As the annual reviews of the program awardees complete and follow-up activities are done, the ACO will be bringing these issues to the EC for discussion. The ACO sees it as critical for there to be a shared understanding of its scope in order for it to have the opportunity for success. To illustrate the point, we call the panel’s attention to a comment made by the ACO evaluator in her
PY2 report (which was provided to the panel): “Without breaching confidentiality agreements, it is safe to say that the Service Track PIs have very different, in some cases irreconcilable views about the role of the ACO. In particular, when a conflict arises among members of the Service Tracks, some of the Service Track representatives look to the ACO to address the conflict. Other Service Track representatives believe the ACO should not take the lead in this way. Acting as a Track representative with an opinion on a contentious issue can easily be at odds with acting as a meeting facilitator.”
Recommendation 3.5: Also, the ACO team discussed a recent, specific conflict related to an
ACCESS-wide DEI discussion. We are pleased that the ACO team has taken constructive steps to address
this issue, including using an external conflict resolution expert. Continued efforts to ensure that issue
is resolved are important, including perhaps a broader discussion regarding DEI priorities within the
ACCESS team.
7
The ACO concurs with this recommendation and sees it also as a recommendation to the EC. The
...
ACO appreciates the panel’s recognition of the importance of resolving conflict within the EC. The
...
facilitated discussion is seen as a first step in a process to first gain alignment among the five PIs,
...
followed by expanding this to the EC and then further to all of the ACCESS awardee teams. While
...
this has a particular focus on DEI issues and priority of DEI efforts across the program, it is also
...
intended to address alignment more generally.
Recommendation 3.6: There are indications that interactions between ACCESS and Resource
Providers need to be improved - e.g. the low response rate from RPs to the RP survey and the modest RP
satisfaction rating.
The ACO concurs with this recommendation and noted in the review the collective effort now
underway by the program to better engage with RPs. These efforts are outlined in the document we
provided to the panel, “Improving the ACCESS Program RP Pathways (March 20, 2024)”. This
includes, among other recommendations, having the RP Forum Chair join the EC (a step already
taken).
Recommendation 3.7: There should be strong coupling with substantive feedback in both directions
with the RP community. The RP-related slides in the “ACCESS Annual Surveys” presentation and the
document provided to the panel “Improving the ACCESS Program RP Pathways (March 20, 2024)”
outline a number of constructive steps that the EC plans to take to address this issue. We look forward
to improvements in the coming year.
The ACO concurs with this recommendation and will be advocating these changes and their
implementation in the EC.
Recommendation 3.8: There is concern that the ACO is not fully attuned to all of the work occurring
between working groups and standing committees. Many important functions are being discussed
within these populations, and having a member of the ACO in the group is likely not strong enough
positioning to be able to understand the work and how it fits into the overall health and structure of
ACCESS - which is a primary concern of the ACO.
While it would be ideal if the ACO (and more importantly the EC) to be fully attuned to all of the
work occurring between Working Groups and Standing Committee, it is simply beyond the scope of
the ACO to do so. The ACO has established structure for working groups and standing committees,
and strives to be cognizant of the efforts across the program, but it is challenging for the ACO to
deliver on its many other obligations to allocate the level of staff time necessary for the oversight
activity the panel suggests. Further, not all work that has a program-wide impact is being done
within Working Groups and Standing Committees, but within specific teams. The situation is
improving as the need for greater cross-team communication and transparency becomes more
evident. The ACO is responsible for scheduling regular updates of the working group and standing
committees to the EC and those have not happened as frequently as they should due to other
pressing priorities. The ACO is already moving to rectify this.
8
Recommendation 3.9: We encourage a more robust system of bringing the ACO up to date on all
activities and work within the committee/group structures, and inviting leaders to attend your
meetings on a regular basis, so that the communication and group work is better supported by your
team to help achieve all desired outcomes.
The ACO generally concurs with this, but sees it as an issue for the EC and the ACO as part of the EC.
See response to Recommendation 3.8 above.
...