3. Meeting Minutes
The Work Group approved the minutes of the January 28, 2004, meeting with minor corrections.

4.  Review of the Agenda
Linda reviewed the agenda and meeting materials.

5.  Revisions to Work Group Purpose, Scope, Functions and Structures

Purpose, Scope and Function.  The Work Group discussed at length the document describing the Work Group’s revised purpose, scope, functions, and membership.  Christine suggested, and the Work Group concurred, that several structural changes within the purpose, scope, and functions sections would help refine the intent as well as clarify Work Group activities.  Danny will make the recommended revisions and bring them to the April 28^th meeting for further discussion. 

Membership.  Having a firmer sense of the activities Work Group members are likely to take on, the Work Group discussed membership.  Current membership is comprised of State agency representatives, consumers, and advocates representing disability-related organizations.  The Work Group discussed: 

•  Procedures for determining whether current members wish to continue;

•  Procedures for determining whether the mix of organizations is still appropriate;

• Whether current members without organizational affiliation are eligible to continue; and

• Whether to broaden membership to include representation from provider agencies, staff from other governmental/sub-governmental entities (e.g., DOT, MSHA, HUD), as well as non-affiliated persons with interests and abilities that add value to Work Group activities.

John recommended that as a starting point, the Work Group ask current members to decide if they’d like to continue.  If not, ask who they would recommend we invite to join.  Christine suggested we revisit the list of organizations at the April 28^th meeting to see if we have a good mix of organizations represented and make suggestions for adding others, if appropriate.  Danny said she would send Work Group members an email list of members and organizations for their consideration before the April 28^th meeting.  

In terms of broadening membership to providers, several Work Group members had reservations about including providers, except by invitation to specific Work Group meetings or subcommittee meetings when their input on topics of expertise is needed.  Two reasons cited for this are:  1) Work Group size and 2) concern that the vested interests of providers would hinder communication.  There was general support for including as members a limited number of non-affiliated persons, including both original members who no longer represent the organizations that appointed them, and others valued by the Work Group.  In suggesting a limit for unaffiliated members, the Work Group cited concerns about increasing Work Group size without clear guidelines for how to determine added value and having members picked independently by organizations to ensure a broader constituency.

6. Future Business

Developing Cross-System Performance Measures.  This activity, specific to the Work Group, is one of three recently funded by CMS under the Money Follows the Person initiative.  Danny explained that the goal is to identify a set of measures that assess Maine’s success at expanding community integration opportunities and to develop a plan for implementing the measures, possibly on an annual basis.  Danny pointed out that KIDS COUNT, an annual profile of child well-being by state, may be a model the Work Group wishes to recommend to the State for annual reporting of measures.  Several members were confused about the Work Group’s role in this activity (e.g., developing measures or advising on the development of measures, reporting annually, or recommending a plan to help State agencies do the measuring). 

To help define tasks and sort out priorities, John suggested that Danny develop, and share with the Work Group at the April 28^th meeting, a Work Plan comprised of all the suggested activities for the coming year, including the development of performance measures.  Danny also suggested, and the Work Group concurred, that we invite an expert in Quality Assurance (i.e., Julie Fralich) to the next meeting to discuss the purpose and process for selecting performance measures.

Ideas for Evaluating the Quality Choices Project.  Danny described CMS’ formative evaluation requirements for the Quality Choices grant and ideas for augmenting that evaluation with:

• Key informant interviews with policymakers and partners;

• Web-based survey targeted to all of the people participating in Quality Choices activities (e.g., Work Group and TAG members, resource teams, other interested parties); and

• Work Group focus group.

Danny asked the Work Group for their input on the idea of expanding the evaluation for Quality Choices.  She said she would like to have suggestions on what questions to ask on the Web-based Survey.  Danny agreed to bring to the April 28^th meeting a draft of the evaluation plan for further discussion.

7. Next Meeting
The next Work Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 28, 2004, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Cohen Center in Hallowell.  The Work Group agreed to revise the start time from 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. to accommodate member schedules.  Nat Hussey will chair the meeting.  The tentative agenda includes finalizing membership, reviewing the Work Plan for the coming year, reviewing the draft evaluation plan for Quality Choices, and discussing performance measures.