Search

In February 2015 a large group of scholars, researchers, and practitioners interested in P-20 finance issues gathered in St. Louis, Missouri, for the National Education Finance Academy's annual conference, on February 25-27, 2015 to discuss, among multiple topics, the state of P-20 finance in all 50 states. There were 35 states represented in the round table session and representatives of 30 of those states submitted their manuscripts to the "Journal of Education Finance" for publication. This is the third year that JEF has published the State of the States manuscripts as a service to those interested in trends around P-20 finance and the 28 states represents the highest number of states included in the report to date. However, it is the intention to have all 50 states represented by 2016 and individuals interested in representing currently unrepresented states should contact Drs. Weiler and Hartman. Presenters at the 2015 National Education Finance Academy's State of the States Round table session were directed to address the following topics: (1) Funding priorities/trends for P-12 and/or higher education (2) Changes to the funding formula for P-12 and/or higher education; (3) Pressing issues affecting P-12 and/or higher education funding; (4) Exclusive to P-12: Diverting funds from public school districts; and (5) Exclusive to Higher Education: Trends in state funding for public institutions. The following information summarizes some of the more prevalent trends observed in the submissions. The following manuscripts are presented here listed alphabetically by state: (1) Alabama (Brenda Mendiola and Philip Westbrook); (2) Arizona (Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and David Martinez); (3) Arkansas (Dongfang Liu and Chao Liu); (4) California (Henry Tran); (5) Florida (Megan Lane, Jolande Morgan, and R. Craig Wood); (6) Georgia (Brittany Larkin); (7) Hawaii (Christine Kiracofe); (8) Illinois (Kelly H. Summers and Christine Kiracofe); (9) Kansas (Thomas A. DeLuca); (10) Kentucky (Tyrone Bynoe); (11) Louisiana (David G. Buckman); (12) Maryland (Sarah Irvine Belson and Thomas Husted); (13) Michigan (Brett Geier and Dennis McCrumb ); (14) Minnesota (Nicola A. Alexander); (15) Montana (Lou L. Sabina); (16) Nebraska (Barbara Y. LaCost); (17) Nevada (Deborah A. Verstegen); (18) New Jersey (Luke J. Stedrak and Robert Kelchen); (19) New Mexico (Joshua M. Cohen); (20) New York (Osnat Zaken); (21) North Carolina (Lisa G. Driscoll and Jim R. Watson ); (22) Ohio (Carlee Escue Simon); (23) Pennsylvania (Tim Shrom and William Hartman); (24) South Carolina (Misty B. Soles and Robert C. Knoeppel); (25) Tennessee (Betty Cox); (26) Texas (Ken Helvey); (27) Virginia (William Owings, Leslie S. Kaplan, and Richard G. Salmon); (28) Wisconsin (Faith E. Crampton); and (29) Wyoming (Kelly H. Summers). References are provided with each individual paper.

Patient engagement in primary care leadership is an important means to involve community voices at community health centers. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to have patient representation within their governing boards, while practices seeking patient-centered medical home certification receive credit for implementing patient advisory councils (PACs). Our objective was to compare and contrast how community health centers engage patients in clinic management, decision-making and planning within governing boards versus PACs. Qualitative study conducted from August 2016 to June 2017 at community health centers in California, Arizona and Hawaii. We interviewed practice leaders of patient engagement programs at their site. Eligible clinics had patient representatives within their governing board, PAC, or both. We assessed patient demographics, roles and responsibilities of patients participating, and extent of involvement in quality improvement among governing boards versus PACs. We interviewed 19 sites, of which 17 were FQHCs that had governing boards. Of the 17 FQHCs, 11 had also implemented PACs. Two non-FQHC safety-net sites had PACs but did not have governing boards. Governing board members had formal, structured membership responsibilities such as finances and hiring personnel. PAC roles were more flexible, focusing on day-to-day clinic operations. Clinics tended to recruit governing board patient members for their skill set and professional experience; PAC member recruitment focused more on demographic representation of the clinic’s patient population. Both groups worked on quality improvement, but governing boards tended to review clinic performance metrics, while PAC members were involved in specific project planning and implementation to improve clinical outcomes and patient experience. Patient involvement in clinic improvement in CHCs includes higher-level decision-making and governance through mechanisms such as governing boards, as well as engagement in day-to-day practice improvement through PACs. These roles offer differing, but valuable insights to clinic programs and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]