Staley Implementation Group Meeting                 Previous Meeting Next Meeting
Official Minutes
September 26, 2003

Participants:Tom Giles, Bill Lynch (facilitator), Tara Asai, Dayna Davis, Judy Cunio, Mable, Kathryn Weit, Pam Ring, Cindy Helvington, Cynthia Owens, Jessica Leitner, Ron Snook, Marla Henry, Flory Ericksen, Sarah Bischoff, Arlene Jones, Christine Merrit, Mike Maley Introductions: Agenda was reviewed and changes made.

Modified Settlement Agreement: The Settlement Agreement was signed by the Governor last Friday the 19th. The Agreement was signed earlier by the plaintiffs. The Agreement was amended to keep the agreement alive in the face of budget cuts and dwindling resources. The general content of the agreement includes: the requirement to enroll 1000 people from the Wait List in the Brokerages this biennium, and each biennium until all eligible individuals are receiving services; an extension of the phase in to 2009 and an extension of the Agreement to 2011; a reduction in the number of people who can access noncrisis Comprehensive services (AKA Comp 300 or Over 75 group) to 20 people statewide per biennium (this matches the number served in the last biennium). The number of people who have to be served in Comprehensive Services when agreement implementation is complete in 2009 is still 300; the State was just given longer to get it done. The order of enrollment (prioritization) was left unchanged. Although the enrollment numbers are down from the original agreement, the fundamentals of the agreement are unchanged. The underlying values are still there and the expectations remain the same. A good way to describe this outcome is that instead of having to ask "IF" people will get services, we will now continue to say "WHEN" will people get services. There was recognition that this amended agreement extends the time that people will have to wait, and this was very difficult to agree to. However, existing services were protected and 1000 new people will get services when other parts of DHS will see reductions in services. Nothing has come out in writing yet because there are several legal steps still to occur. These documents will go before a judge who will give preliminary approval to the modification of the agreement and will decide on the process to notify the members of the class. Members of the class will be allowed to file a written objection to the Agreement during a specified period of time. The judge will decide whether to hold a hearing on the Agreement. The judge will then make her final decision to accept or reject the modified settlement.

It is also VERY important to know that although DD has been criticized for not losing services when other agencies did, it is only now achieving equity with those other systems that never had to run or manage a waitlist. Bill reminded us that part of our role in the SIG Committee is to take information back to the groups we represent. There will be written information coming out in the Clarion. A recommendation was made to write a sound byte or other announcement that would come from the ARC or SAAL or from this group that could be distributed to PA's and Case Managers to share with individuals and their families that are still on the waitlist. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) format would be helpful. It would also be helpful to discuss with Counties where they are with the projected waitlist and if they will be able to answer the question "when will I be served" even if it is only a generic answer such as (next year, or sometime next summer). Mike and Jessica will discuss this with DD Managers next week. Kathryn and Cynthia will work on the FAQ document or script and bring a draft back to this group.

Updates and Reports:
State: Brokerage enrollments have restarted since the notice to lift the freeze was sent in early September. Unfortunately, some the people who were set to be referred before the freeze in February, have been bumped now by people turning 18, High School Transfers or crisis. That means that although the freeze is lifted, those who were to be refered in February were not necessarily guaranteed immediate admission. The brokerages reported that because the enrollment numbers are small - it is going very slow. Kids in Family Support that turned 18 during the freeze are going into the brokerage in addition to the brokerage enrollment numbers. This is true for some last minute or missed voc only clients.

The Voc Only clients that came in to the brokerage in July (more to come in October) continue to be a challenge. There was a huge group of providers who up until June 30 were operating under one set of rules, as of July1 were under a new set. No amount of training and discussion really prepared them for some of the impact. In some ways this transition really embodies the concepts of self-determination that this agreement sought to gain on behalf of individuals with disabilities. Individuals with voc services went from the slot based system where there was little control over the volume and content of work, to individual, service driven plans. Individuals were given the choice to continue their voc services as they were. Some chose to leave.

The toughest group to serve during the transition were those that did not have Medicaid. Because they were now on an individual budget, they had to come down to the General Fund portion of the benefit.

SPD will be preparing its annual report to the plaintiffs. The contracts to the Brokerages were extended to December 31, and a new contract will be initiated through the end of this biennium. Brokerages will need to be recertified between October and next February.

The enrollment schedule is still not final for the remaining dual waiver transfers. There are a number of policy questions left to resolve before this can be finalized. The waiver is due to be renewed next July, so it will be time to get to work on any needed changes to that as well. SPD also plans to have an all day planning meeting with the Brokerage Directors on the second Friday of October. Bill Lynch will facilitate this. SPD is also working with County Program Managers on the waitlist so that it could be restructured to reflect how the system really looks. Members of this group are interested in working on this process.

The question was asked if people in groups homes that are working are affected by any of these changes. At this time people in comprehensive services are not affected by any of the changes in the settlement agreement.

There was general discussion about the potential impact of the ballot measure early next year. Although the Settlement is not directly affected, the Department is, and it will ultimately impact funding for DD and for Staley.

Criminal Record Checks: Mike updated everyone that the wait time for a criminal history check has improved. New requests are moving quickly but they are still trying to unbury from the backlog that had built up. New requests are now taking about 2 weeks. The unit that manages this process held community forums and is planning to redo the rule. There is information out there available on the outcomes of these meetings. The main recommendation was to standardize the process across all departments within DHS so that people who pass the criminal history check can move back and forth between jobs that have similar working conditions. There is also a recommendation that the determination of fitness to work be decentralized. If you are interested in serving on this group contact cruinfo@state.or.us

Brokerage Update: Brokerages reported that a workgroup is forming for VR, Brokerages, and SPD. The intent of the workgroup is to discuss how the relationship needs to work or improve to assure access for Brokerage individuals. VR Branches handle things differently. VR is now looking for more uniformity across the state. Historically there have been barriers to people with DD accessing full services through VR.

Support Services Waiver Renewal: There is a need for discussion about adjustments to the service descriptions and to identify barriers to using the current service package effectively. Members are supposed to go back to their constituency and discuss this issue from their perspective. Everyone should report back at December meeting.

Family Committee: The Family Committee reported that at the morning meeting there was significant discussion about revising the format of the Oregon Network database. The plan is to go to the Brokerage Directors meeting to see if they will help get their customers signed up so that the list can be used to get information in the future. This would allow the Family Committee to contact other families for input on policy issues.

Protective Services in the Family Home was a carry over issue from the last meeting. In the early stages, no families were included in the planning so several family members are now attending. Several work groups have been formed to operationalize the Department's changing policy in this area. Anyone interested should contact Laurie Lindberg.

Vocational Rehabilitation: Ted Sigart from the State office of VR came to discuss the role of VR and the relationship with the Brokerages. He met recently with the Brokerage Directors and felt the discussion productive. There are some things happening around the state that are positive but also some problems came up. Following the meeting with the Brokerages, Ted met with all the branch managers and they also shared issues from their perspective. Ted shared that from his perspective, based on the meetings above, there are different understandings on both side about what the role of the VR Counselor and the role of the PA are. There is more work that needs to be done to help these two systems understand each other's roles. A work group is being formed that would include representatives from VR and from Brokerages. Representatives from the SIG can serve on the work group. There are questions about access for VR services and how criteria are being applied to determine eligibility. For VR, their role is to work with people who are ready to go to work and to assist them in determining their skills and readiness in the labor market. What has been a problem for VR is that many clients come from the Brokerages with up front work done, work experience etc. and the brokerage PA's want VR to fund job development. This has really eroded the role of the VR Counselor who is more then a check-writing agency. From their perspective, if someone has done all the skills building and readiness preparation, and is ready for job development, then they don't really need VR services. What they need is to go out and get a job. Ted feels there are other resources available for that. VR wants to do better in supporting people with special needs that are employable. Ted shared a project that VR is working on with Mental Health on Supported Employment. Mental Health is doing much of the pre screening work and helping people to get ready to work. They have another project going with Workers Comp right now. Concerns that the standard on being able to work is subjective. To VR, competitive employment means full time or part time in the open job market. But for people with special needs, that might be much fewer hours each week depending on the disability. There is also concern over what might be employment and what is really a hobby. For example, giving someone something to do for a few hours each week is not considered employment, even if it is what is needed. Some other barriers include the presence of mental health issues that cause the person to not be able to work regularly and so VR is involved intermittently. This begs the question, are they employable? VR is shifting to have people thinking about these critical questions in the context of "career".

Ted would like to see VR move away from the traditional way of handling things and to capitalize on the information that is made available from other agencies at the time of the referral. What he sees happening is that at the local level, VR is continuing to run people through traditional array of services including evaluation and assessment even when it is not needed.

There was discussion about the connection between VR and schools. Often parents are not informed that they can have VR present during IEP's for high school transition. There is also a mixed response from the local branch when one is requested. The goal is to have VR become more invested in working with kids at transition age in the schools. Ted shared that one of the problems is that VR does not have specific local control of the Youth Transition Programs. VR sets general parameters but the school districts participating get to determine how services are distributed in their area. Ted indicated the lack of resources to provide oversight of this program has compounded the problem.

In this biennium, contracts with schools now require specific outcomes reported. It will require additional work to get these programs to focus on kids with DD. Tara discussed the difference in perspective for the two systems since many people in the field have seen people with severe disabilities successfully employed with the right supports. Ted shared additional information about the pilot project VR is doing in Southern Oregon. What is working there is that the agency has become an integral part of the planning process. What is good about the change in the DD system is that now people are coming to the table with money to purchase the supports needed for ongoing successful employment.

Ted shared information about how transition services through YTP should look. The schools are paid to get things set up and identify kids when they are ready to go to work. VR usually becomes involved in the last 9 months or so before that transition. Judy asked if some of the hesitation around determination of employability on the part of VR counselors is based on stereotypes they hold about people with developmental disabilities. Ted believes that VR has some work to do around training counselors to see past all barriers and identify strengths for all people who walk through the door, not just people with developmental disabilities.

The group made recommendations that VR broaden the participation on the workgroups to include families and self advocates that have an interest or investment in this subject. They encouraged the inclusion of families and self advocates in the training for VR Counselors on employability to help them break down barriers to working with people with developmental disabilities.

Mike pointed out that one of the DD community strengths is training and the ability to mobilize people in that area. Perhaps using some of those resources for VR Counselors would be good. Mike also asked if there was some way to be involved with the local VR branches (e.g. and oversight committee or council). Ted reported that at this point there is not but that people can be involved with the local service delivery area (SDA). There are only 120 VR Counselors in the whole state. They are a relatively small part of the whole Department in spite of their large role. Many managers cover large geographic areas.

Base/Base Plus: Mike reminded the group of the history on the Base Plus criteria. This process was developed to limit the access to higher levels of supports to just people who have extraordinary need. Diana Buel presented information to the group about how the tool has been used over the first year of the program. As a result of her work SPD is recommending some changes to the document to clarify the sections where there are problems getting consistency in responses from those that use the tool.

Several handouts were distributed and there will be time for comments and feedback over the next month. One of the handouts was a draft of the form that had been revised to provide clarity in the questions that were ambiguous or too loose. Instructions to complete the form were also handed out. There are recommendations to change the way base plus is accessed but for now we are concentrating on clarification of the current tool/process. Some of the key areas were around clarification of definitions, process and scoring in areas such as ADL's, number of caregivers and behavior supports.

It was agreed that we needed to do assure that the tool is consistently applied across the state even if there are recommendations for changes to the tool.

Kathryn, Cynthia and Sarah are interested in reviewing the draft against the original and will provide comments and feedback in the next month or so directly to Diana.

Support Services Rule: The rule will be filed Tuesday and a public hearing will be held in the near future. The adoption of the rule will be at the end of December. Several representatives participated in revising the rule and most of the issues and comments have been resolved. There still is not resolution on the issue of durable medical equipment that requires people to go through the appeal process before using Support Service funds. Vickie Storie did a 3-page summary of the changes to the rule and this will be sent out with the minutes from the today's meeting.

Next Meeting and is on December 3, 2003 at 9:30 AM at OTAC.
Hold February 27, 2004 also at 9:30 at OTAC.

Previous Meeting     Next Meeting    Top of Page