Archives   Calendar    Coordinating Center    Multisite Activities    
Project Description  COSP References  Study Sites    Search Our Site   
Table of Contents    Upcoming Meeting Agendas

______________________________________________

Teleconference April 10, 8 a.m. PT

Present: Matt Johnson, Pat Corrigan, Bonnie Schell, Louetta Hix, Bob Schwartz, Ruth Ralph, Nancy Erwin, Sally Clay, Crystal Blyler, Jeanie Whitecraft, Greg Teague, Yvette Sangster

Sally Clay, chair
Bonnie Schell, Notetaker

Status of Publication offer from American Psychological Association:
Reviewers highlighted changes they would like to see, basically asking for a research focus, less description, more evaluation, more synthesis. The book as first envisioned is expository. Question rose as to reasonableness of sites adding discussion of what has failed.

Alternative Publisher search:
Sally found many presses oriented to self-help literature and also University Presses such as Vanderbilt and Temple. For this market, Pat said it would be a mistake to pitch the book to professionals, as the APA is looking for.

Discussion of accepting the APA offer:
The APA offer is good for six months (Sept. 2002), possibly longer. The salient question is whether we have the financial support and human resources to have this group pursue a book after Year 4 funding ends. The importance of the APA offer to this group is that it identified a need in the service community for a solid book on the principles of consumer run and aided services together with strong critical evaluation. If we do not take the APA offer involving substantial re-writing and chapters not yet even written, it does not preclude another group of researchers/writers/consumers doing the book they think is needed; this 2nd book would have to be larger than the COSP multisite study and include the research of Mowbray and Solomon. This 2nd book could perhaps take advantage of some of the findings of the multi-site study and in depth fidelity measurement and assessment of drop-ins, peer support, educational formats for delivering services.

The alternatives we have appear to be the following:

1. Work on two books, one structured as originally envisioned, the second geared for what the APA would be interested in. Matt does not think this is possible in last year.

2. Work on two sequential books. Greg believes it's too early to use research and that the first book can do writing that doesn't displace the 2nd offering, but rather becomes a resource to be cited by the 2nd book.

3. Work on the first book only. Pat thinks this book needs to cover how we came together around the common ingredients, our orienting experiences, how the 8 sites worked together in refining the CI. Ruth feels the CI ideas are crucial to the project and should be used in describing the 8 COSP's. Greg asserts that it would be a mistake in his opinion to throw out the first book on a second that is a Maybe. Bonnie suggested doing the first book with Jean's and Sally's chapter, writing about the common ingredients, but leaving out the discussion of the FACIT for a different audience later.

4. Scrap the first book now and leave the second book for those interested in its goals after the Multi-Site Project is over. Pat thought that the subject of the second book could be opened up to the Steering Committee. Crystal said people's final reports could include their descriptive chapters. Bonnie is against this because the flavor of the sites, their growth during the COSP Multi-Site process over the past four years, even a record of who struggled with what will be lost. If we do the first book right, she thinks it will become a resource for subsequent publications and writers/researchers.

The State of Funding and Priorities:
Earlier Pat said it would be highly unlikely for there to be an advance to work on our kinds of books.

Crystal Blyler, federal project officer, gave us some indication of where the current Administration wants CMHS to go. The COSP project is basically on an austerity plan. The GFA deliverables/obligations have priority. It is true that CMHS is under attack for supporting consumer initiatives. The CI Book is an extra project to the following four deliverables. Carryover funds will not be approved for the book.

1. Complete and clean data in a repository

2. Primary analysis of big six outcomes listed in the GFA.

3. Program manuals completed.

4. Fidelity analysis

Greg: Are you suggesting that the book as originally planned would be damaging to us? There will be a series of peer-reviewed articles. As an extra, the book would not be foolish.

Ruth: Resources have been spent and there is some money available through the end of the grant year.

Crystal: You need to focus on what you can get done by the end of the grant period that might convince people (e.g., the Administration, public detractors) that these programs are worthwhile. We don't want people to say, the government has spent $80 million on this project and all we got was a nonscientific descriptive book. The book is not one of the core products laid out in the original grant announcement; it is an add-on beyond the core products that are the priority for CMHS (see list above).

Matt: My way of thinking about the second book is that it will be guided by reports and articles done toward the end of the project.

Greg: Will carryover funds be available for empirical research articles?

Crystal: The priority for writing will be on the core multisite papers that answer bigger questions of wide interest.

Someone: Any second book, which might be funded later, would need a new prospectus.

Pat: The APA wants a critical book on consumer-operated services, not only these 8 sites. The APA is not interested in the COSP Multi-site procedures used in this research project.

Jeanie: The APA is interested in a book done a certain way, not how we have written our pieces.

Pat: They want us to be more clinical and a lot broader.

Crystal: This committee can continue to Sept with current funding. But the real pressure on us is to complete the analysis of the outcomes.

Matt: The Coordinating Center intends to provide their chapter and with the last site visit in June, I can have my chapter by the end of July.

Greg: Can we have a brief description of chapters from Jean and Matt that we are missing? The Publisher will respond to the ideas. We should take a closer look at all the APA comments and incorporate the changes we can do before Sept.

Matt: We are meeting the end of July. We can look at the second sequential book at that time. As Crystal is talking, I wonder about the first book. We need a realistic assessment of the resources to support the enterprise.

Crystal: I'd say try to find a publisher for the first book by the end of August or September; and leave the rest of the discussion for later.

Matt: Then we are endorsing the recommendation of the previous group meeting to look for a new publisher. I will have my chapter by the end of July.
    

Yvette: We may as well send out our prospectus and make changes based on what the publisher wants.
    

Ruth: We really need a draft of the Common Ingredients chapter so a publisher can see how the CI have been woven through the site operations and policies. I think Sally could revamp a lot of what she put into her proposal into a chapter.
    Sally asked about sending inquiries by e-mail or hard copy. Pat thought hard copy was best unless the publisher asked for e-mail. Pat recommends sending prospectus out to any publisher that seems suitable; if they bite, then send chapters.
    Do we have consensus on going ahead with Book One? In lieu of a vote, any objections were asked for. There were none.
    Conclusion: consumers and researchers on the call want to do the first book, trying to get a publisher before the end of August or September.