June 27, 2001 Work Group Meeting Minutes
The William S. Cohen Community Center, Hallowell, Maine

Present: Catherine Ormond (Muskie staff), Cynthia Sudheimer, Tom Bancroft, Paul Saucier (Muskie staff), Ron Welch, Helen Bailey, Stuart Bratesman (Muskie staff), Kay Dutram (Muskie staff), Stephanie Crystal, Margaret Forbes, Tonya Labbe, Chandra Murphy, Dixie Leavitt, Chris Zukas-Lessard, Cary Gifford, Eileen Griffin (Muskie staff), Drew Bolduc, Susan Wygal

Not present: Peter Driscoll, Nat Hussey, Christine Bartlett, Kathryn Kazenski, Debbie Williams, Jonathan Connick, Lora Perry, John Baillargeon, Alice Conway, Deb Parker Wolfenden, John Shattuck, Tracy Piantoni, Jane Gallivan

Stephanie Crystal chaired the meeting.  Kay Dutram facilitated the meeting. 

1. Check-in and Roll Call
Today was the first meeting for Cary Gifford, so introductions were made.

2. Vision Statement
The original vision statement “All of us together, in community, happy, fulfilled, and equal in dignity and rights” was revised to read “Together in community with equality in rights and dignity, in pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.”

3. Meeting Minutes
The May 23 meeting minutes were approved with minor revisions.

4.  Real Choices Grant Application
Paul Saucier from the Muskie School presented the draft grant activities developed for the Real Choices grant application to the Health Care Financing Administration.  Paul explained the background on the grant application.  Based on a list of ideas developed by the full Work Group, a sub-group further developed and prioritized a list of grant activities.  Based on that list of priorities the Muskie School drafted the document under review.  The purpose of the discussion at this meeting was to get further input from the Work Group.  Also Work Group members were invited to submit comments to Paul no later than July 6.

Paul asked the Work Group for input on two items in particular.

• Portable Funding.  Paul said that the direction from the sub-group was to develop a demonstration around portable funding across multiple departments.  However, after looking into the subject more, staff at the Muskie School were afraid that idea was too ambitious and that perhaps the portable funding proposal should be limited to portable funding within one program or across two programs.  Work Group members said that they did not want to limit the proposal to just one or two programs.  One suggestion was to limit the pilot to a small subset of the population, such as mental health services for children, but to try to pool funding across multiple programs.
  
• Housing.  The Work Group had several ideas for the housing activities: 

1. Educating local councils about community development block grants; it was felt that, under this program local communities are selling bad houses to poor people
2. Housing inspectors and fire marshals need better training, including ADA training
3. Contact DD Council about their training and recruitment of consumers for participating in housing planning
4. Waiting lists for housing need to be addressed
5. Spreading the BRAP program to other population groups
6. Creating incentives to develop alternatives to large boarding homes
7. Working with the Maine State Housing Authority to develop ways of expanding housing stock
8. Paperwork (leases, etc.) for people who are blind
9. Communicating with landlords for people who are deaf
10. Fair housing rights
11. Working with the Maine Affordable Housing Network

The Work Group also discussed other activities proposed:

• Wraparound funding/Portland.  The Work Group discussed the appropriateness of this project.  One concern was that schools steer kids away from special education and IDEA entitlement programs and into less comprehensive services.  Others were concerned that the project focused only on Portland, when other schools could benefit.  Catherine Ormond explained that the Portland schools are already going forward with their plan to develop a wraparound service program and that grant money would be used to evaluate the effectiveness of that program, rather than to support the program.  The goal would be to find out whether or not the program could or should be replicated in other communities.  Paul explained that there was no reason this project had to be included in the grant proposal, but explained that there was some feeling that the grant should have at least one activity that targeted children.  Muskie staff were encouraged to consult with Roger LaJeunesse, also Muskie staff, who was working on a project related to mental health services in schools and might be a good resource.
  
• Recreation.  Work Group members suggested adding Maine Handicapped Skiing to the recreation project and suggested expanding on Karen Moore’s work in Portland.  Also, the recreation project should address activities for evening hours and promoting avocational interests (including possibly portable funding for recreation or avocational interests).  Members also mentioned the need for computers, allowing people access to the internet as a means of warding off isolation.
   
• Transportation.  Work Group members suggested that the transportation activity should reference the fact that there is a lack of fixed route bus services in most communities.

5.  Sub-Group Activities

a.  Services Sub-Group.  (Members present:  Ron Welch, Margaret Forbes, Chandra Murphy, Helen Bailey.  Staff:  Kay Dutram, Eileen Griffin.)  The Services Sub-Group discussed drafts of the advocacy sections and discussed transitional services with an statement.  Eileen will send the drafts to the sub-group and ask for comments while she is on vacation.     

b.  Workforce Sub-Group.  (Members present: Cynthia Sudheimer, Cary Gifford.  Not present:  Lora Perry.  Staff: Stuart Bratesman.) 

The group reviewed a preliminary work force issues draft that had been prepared by Lora and Stuart.  The draft covers:

• the need to address shortages and high turnover rates for direct care staff;
• improving respect for the direct care profession by elevating it's status to the same level accorded social work and teaching;
• securing major improvements in recruitment and training practices;
• bringing direct care wages well above the poverty level; and
• developing a effort to solicit private grant and foundation support to develop more permanent solutions.

The sub-group suggested several additions including more examples of existing staff shortages in Maine, including a discussion of employee benefits and employee transportation in the wage section of the draft, and some suggestions for portions of the draft that are still in outline form.

The sub-group will review a completed work force draft at the next Work Group meeting.

c.  Coordination Sub-Group.  (Members present: Tom Bancroft, Drew Bolduc, Stephanie Crystal, Tonya Labbe, Susan Wygal, Chris Zukas-Lessard.  Absent: John Baillargeon, Christine Bartlett, Jonathan Connick, Peter Driscoll, Nat Hussey, John Shattuck. Staff:  Catherine Ormond)

The group reviewed the four major recommendations for the coordination plan, chose the recommendation(s) each would like to draft, and agreed upon a format.  The group "volunteered" absent committee members to draft the remaining recommendations.  (Since Jonathan wasn't involved in previous subgroup discussions, Catherine will contact him to ask how he would like to participate).  The recommendations and the drafters are as follows:

1. Develop single point of entry/single application:   John Shattuck, Peter Driscoll, Tonya Labbe
2. Assess service inventory, review effectiveness of services; harmonize services:  Nat Hussey, Drew Bolduc, Christine Bartlett, Tonya Labbe
3. Improve information access for consumers, providers, and state agency personnel:  Tom Bancroft, Chris Zukas-Lessard, Tonya Labbe
4. Review case management system to improve service coordination:  Stephanie Crystal, John Baillargeon, Susan Wygal and Tonya Labbe

The group suggested that the MOU review should not be a separate recommendation, but that it should be included in each of the four recommendations, as appropriate.  The group agreed that each draft recommendation should be concise (1-2 pages), prepared in advance of the July 25th meeting, and use the following format, as appropriate:

I. Background of the current system

1. problem identification
2. advantages/barriers

II. Action Steps

1. research other states
2. research federal and
3. funding implications
4. legislation
5. policies and rulemaking
6. implementation - address mechanism to carry this to phase 2
7. outcome measures - how will we know if it works?
8. outreach and education

The group will share their drafts with all subcommittee members via email before the next meeting on July 25th.  At that meeting the subcommittee will discuss and give feedback on each of the four drafts.

6. Drafting Meeting
A sign-up sheet was passed around for members to sign up for the drafting meeting scheduled for July 11, 1:00 to 3:00.

7. Other Business
The Work Group discussed the question of whether to write a letter of support for Alpha One’s grant application to Real Choices.  The Work Group decided that it was not appropriate for the Work Group to sign letters of support.

Work Group members also signed up to be chairs for the following meetings.

July 25:  Drew Buldoc
August 22:  Stephanie Crystal
September 26:  Helen Bailey
October 24:  Ron Welch
November 28:  Volunteer Needed
December 19:  Cary Gifford

8. Next Meeting
Agenda items for the July 25 meeting include:  Report on the findings from the focus groups and case studies; sub-group activities.  The July meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 25^th from 1:00-to-4:00pm at the Cohen Center.  Drew Bolduc is the chair of this meeting.