Staley Implementation Group Meeting                 Previous Meeting Next Meeting
Official Minutes
July 17, 2002

Participants:  Tom Giles, Bill Lynch (facilitator), Ron Snook, Judy Cunio, Tim Kral, Mike Maley, Cynthia Owens, Kristin Ahrens, Charlie Hemmett, Nancy Milligan, Nancy Hazelett, Bev Herrin, Don Myers, Melinda Crader, Mary Lee Fay, Jessica Leitner, JoAnn Furhman, Kathryn
Weit

Introductions: Agenda was reviewed and changes made.

Updates:  There was a discussion about what data is needed from Brokerages. Data requested includes use of VR, number of requests for base plus and information about those that do not meet criteria for base plus.
· VR: SDRI reported that they just signed a letter of agreement with the local VR branch outlining how and when they will work with the brokerage to facilitate access to employment supports. Many people have had successes with accessing these services from VR and good
things are happening. The State is also circulating the letter of agreement that was developed to outline the relationship between VR and the DD system.
· We would like some  "success" stories to share with legislators and legislative candidates.
· Training for Brokers. Cynthia reported that initial meetings have been held regarding employment and issues around transition. They are now meeting with the brokerages and the lead workers/personal agents to work on person centered planning. Diane and Tara are also meeting with brokerages and the policy oversight groups. Judy and Cynthia are planning training to help groups to review and revise mission and value statements to reflect the shared goals of the new oversight group.
· Plan Review and Approval training. Some Counties have had this training and it will be available others soon. New forms were distributed last June to be implemented July 1.
· Mike reported that there are still questions about the role of the Personal Agents and the Support Service Specialists..
· Communication Committee:  The new support service flyer was distributed to a broad mailing list. If you did not get a master copy to make additional copies, please let Bill know. The State will be printing a more comprehensive brochure. The new brochures printed by the State are regional so all the brokerages listed in that area will be listed.
· Frequently Asked Questions: Mike was collecting these over the last several months. These are now formatted and posted on the state website. There is also a direct link from the ARC website.

Quality Assurance:
· Mike presented some context for the discussion. This group was conceptualized as the group that would help to define quality assurance standards for the brokerages. There is another group that is working on quality assurance standards for comprehensive services. Our goal today is to focus on consumer satisfaction.
· The State has to report to the legislature in September. The legislature is expecting a report that will focus on consumer satisfaction. Mike explained the following:

· The System:
We have the comprehensive and the support services sides of the system. The brokerages are in the support services side. They work with multiple counties. Each brokerage needs to have a quality assurance plan. From a system perspective each of them has to respond to or be accountable to some core set of components that are common. Each brokerage is also unique and will need to have it's unique set of goals that are responsive to the needs of that community (e.g. rural vs. urban).
There are four key components:
1. is the customer satisfied
2. is the provider responsive to the needs of the individuals it serves
3. is capacity being developed 
4. are people healthy and safe

· The County has to answer this question for its community – and may not be interested in how the brokerage is doing in other Counties when the brokerage serves multiple areas.
· Some quality assurance work was done by the SDS Councils. This information can be readily stolen! Our goal is to figure out how to implement this from a system perspective. This needs to include some overall state guidelines.
· The group brainstormed some ideas for a statewide customer satisfaction survey:
· we need to evaluate the process in addition to the outcome
· customer is defined as person enrolled in the brokerage and receiving the services
· other customers include the family and this needs to be considered/sorted out
· we could look at  a core set of questions that would apply to all consumers in the state, even those in comprehensive services. Additional questions specific to the service area would then be
added.

Using the items outlined in the OAR we came up with some ideas in the areas of ACCESS, CONTROL OF SUPPORTS, FLEXIBLE SUPPORTS, OUTCOMES, and EMPOWERMENT
A small group will need to get together and flush this out more. Specifically we need to group, reword and organize the questions into a survey or variety of formats that will get us comparable data. Whatever is developed would be required for the Brokerages and shared with counties and providers and we could ask them to integrate these core questions in to their own planned customer satisfaction measures, whether it is through a survey, phone calls, focus groups etc.
Everyone would be asked to report on the results with some regularity.

Kathryn, Judy, Nancy, Jessica, Bev, and Mike will continue work on this.  We will do an initial draft with sufficient time to get some feedback from the community and other groups working on QA stuff.

What we hope to have is a core set of questions designed to assess customer satisfaction at the brokerage level with the idea that if it is designed in way that many or all of the questions can be used in other service settings. These are not the only questions that the brokerage or other service provider will be asking. These are only the basic, fundamental, core set that will have to be reported on to fulfill our obligations to the legislature.

Policy Questions: Throughout this process, some key policy questions have been raised that need a place for discussion and decision. These policy questions will get raised and when possible the groups will make some recommendations.

Role of Family: Some counties reported that brokerages in their areas had told families that support services are for the individual only and that the family has no role. There are also issues with situations in which the family will not give access to the individual or declines services on behalf of the individuals. Some other examples include, when the family is the sole provider, when is it "family" support rather then individual support? What are the rights of the
individual? This would be a good topic for the next Brokerage "Halfly."  Recommendation: Kristin, JoAnn, Tara and Kathryn will work on identifying information, refining questions, identifying best practice and people who have worked through these issues, and possibly work on developing this training. 

Use of private resources: When developing individual budgets, do you mix family resources? How intrusive should we be in asking financial information? Because this program is entitled, the distinction is not whether or not they have outside financial resources but whether or
not they are waiver eligible and have met the financial eligibility. If the plan is broad and includes the person's life, more than likely all of the resources needed will be reflected in the plan. There needs to be training for personal agents to understand that because this program is an entitlement for the individual, there should not any judgement about private individual or family resources. It really doesn't matter what they have available as long as they are eligible.

We may want to spend some time reviewing the CMS expectations for use of the funds. For example, support service dollars may not be used for room and board. SPD has already written some information about this that can be shared.

Next Meeting HAS BEEN CHANGED and is on September 16, 2002 at 9:30 AM at OTAC.

The following meeting is on November 13 at 9:30 also at OTAC.

Agenda:

CMS - expectations of our funder
Comprehensive 300 Update
Check in on action items from last meeting

Previous Meeting     Next Meeting    Top of Page