...
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.
...