April 28, 2004 Work Group Meeting Minutes
Department of Human Services, 442 Civic Center Drive, Augusta, Maine

Present:  Nat Hussey (Chair), Stephanie Wolfstone-Francis, Chris Gianopoulos, Danny Westcott (Muskie), Chris Zukas Lessard, Linda Huff, Chandra Murphy, Tonya Labbe, Deb Parker Wolfenden, Kathryn Kazenski, Helen Bailey, Julie Fralich (Muskie), Bill Burney, and Bill Maxwell (facilitator) 

The meeting began at 1:30 p.m.  Nat Hussey chaired the meeting.

1. Check-In and Roll Call
Nat invited participants to introduce themselves.

2. Mission Statement and Vision Statement
Nat read the Work Group’s revised vision statement: “All of us together, in community with equality in rights and dignity, in pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.”

3. Meeting Minutes
The Work Group approved the minutes of the March 24, 2004.

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

5.  Review of Work Group Purpose Statement and Workplan
The Work Group discussed at length the proposed Work Plan and, in that context, the revised Statement of Work Group Purpose.  Several Work Group members weighed in on the importance of having, as a principle activity under Goal 1 (promoting integration), the following reworded statement: 

Take affirmative action to implement Work Group recommendations by fostering the development of programs, plans, policies, and products that result in the kinds of services people need to sustain community integration (e.g., developing waiting list standards, supporting new funding initiatives that promote choice and control, workforce development, affordable housing). 

In attempting to understand the relationship between purpose and planned activities for the future, the Work Group systematically went through each work plan activity and corresponding point in the Purpose Statement.  It became apparent that the language in the documents was not clear and the recommended actions were, to some degree, off-point.  The Work Group therefore recommended that the Steering Committee further discuss these documents before the July meeting.

6. Membership
The Work Group continued the membership discussion started in March.  In March, the Work Group discussed procedures for determining whether current members wish to continue; 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 and other groups. Danny was charged with contacting members, both currently participating and not to determine each member’s continued interest in serving, and if not, with contacting the organizations that these individuals represent for suggested replacements.   

At this meeting, Danny reported on the results of her calls to participating and non-participating members.  Of the members Danny was able to reach, several requested that replacements be found.  The organizations represented by these past members include the Maine Center on Deafness, NAMI-Maine, and Long-Term Care Steering Committee (no longer in existence).  While discussing the list, the Work Group suggested that several organizations not now represented be contacted about naming representatives. 

Also discussed at the meeting was the question of whether to continue the practice of inviting staff from advocacy organizations to serve as well as, or in place of, consumers when consumer representatives cannot be found.  While consumer representation from advocacy organizations is preferred, the Work Group agreed that the rationale for inviting staff when consumers are not available is sound.  It is important that the disability group in question have a voice.

7. Performance Measures
To understand better its role in advising project staff on identifying and implementing cross-system performance measures, the Work Group requested at the last meeting, more information on the fundamentals of performance measurement.  Julie Fralich, expert in the quality improvement and Project Director for Quality TAG, was invited to speak.  Julie talked about why to measure performance (what you measure you tend to improve), what should be measured (areas of concern, things that can be influenced, things for which data is available), how to select measures and how often.  Julie suggested that some of the work undertaken by the Quality TAG in developing a common set of quality measures across waiver programs might be helpful to the Work Group.  For a plan of action, Julie suggested that the Work Group select five to seven categories (e.g., Roadmap recommendations) where measures could be identified and discussed. 

8. Quality Choices I Evaluation
At the last meeting Danny briefly sketched out the components for an evaluation of Quality Choices I.  At this meeting, Danny presented a draft evaluation plan comprised of the following components with sample questions for each:  

• Key informant interviews with policymakers and partners;
• Web-based survey targeted to all of the people participating in Quality Choices activities;
• Work Group Interview

The Work Group offered several helpful suggestions for focusing some of the questions.  For example, the Work Group suggested language that would clarify what role the Work Group has had in effecting program and policy changes. 

9. Other Business
Bill Burney of HUD shared information and materials about HUD’s Community Block Grant Program, and encouraged Work Group members to participate in HUD’s planning process and upcoming hearings.

10. Next Meeting
The next Work Group meeting is scheduled for Wednesday July 28, 2004, 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Cohen Center in Hallowell, unless an earlier date is agreed upon at the meeting.