February 23, 2005 Work Group Meeting Minutes
Cohen Center, Hallowell, Maine

Present:  Stirling Kendall (facilitator), Deb Parker Wolfenden, Linda Huff, John Baillargeon, Nat Hussey, Danny Westcott (Muskie), Chris Zukas-Lessard, Chandra Murphy (Chair), Kathryn Kazenski, David Stockford 

The meeting began at 1:30 p.m. Chandra Murphy chaired the meeting.

1. Check-In and Roll Call
Chandra Murphy invited participants to introduce themselves. Stirling invited participants to describe new initiatives and policy directions that have had, or are anticipated to have, an impact on the progress of Work Group’s recommendations. Those reports are contained in agenda item # 5.

2. Mission Statement and Vision Statement
Chandra 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 October 27, 2004.

4.  Review of the Agenda
Stirling reviewed results of the October meeting and the agenda for today’s meeting. In October, the Work Group selected a set of recommendations from the Roadmap to develop performance indicators. The top three, Organized Consumer Advocacy, Waiting Lists, Funding and Planning received the greatest combined total of votes when viewed from the perspective of “most important” and “most achievable.” The purposes of today’s meeting are to (1) choose specific recommendations within the top three categories and use the Performance Indicator Framework to discuss the overall goals applicable to each recommendation; (2) decide what measures to use to determine if progress is being made; and (3) determine who should gather the information and how often.

5.  Activities Impacting Roadmap Recommendations
Before proceeding with selecting specific recommendations from the three categories, Stirling checked in to see if the Work Group’s choices were in any way affected by recent initiatives and policy directions undertaken by the state, federal governments, and others. Work Group members took turns describing new developments and funding challenges.

For example, Nat Hussey reported that DOL is developing a new client information system that includes need assessment and resources information to aid in re-entry and reduce recidivism, particularly among persons recommitted for lack of community support. Chris Zukas-Lessard discussed current waivers, new waiver applications, and other developments within BMS that have made for leaner benefits packages, but also greater opportunities for self-direction. John Baillargeon reported that there has been improvement in the area of organized consumer advocacy. Through the Maine Resource Network, a broad-based group of persons interested in long-term care has been holding monthly meetings to coordinate home care through regional AAAs. Deb Parker Wolfenden reported that MaineCITE has been exploring self- direction options targeted at keeping waiver-eligible youth out of waiver programs. Kathryn Kazenski noted that while the federal government reauthorized IDEA, only 7-10% of expenses have been covered rather than the 40% promised. Linda Huff said that the Developmental Disabilities Council’s 5-year plan, due Aug ’06, will include measures for the planning outcomes. And finally, Chandra Murphy reported that SUFU held a statewide meeting about regional transportation issues last week.

While no one questioned the choices of Organized Consumer Advocacy, Waiting Lists, and Funding and Planning, the Work Group did express concern about the impact of budget cuts on the pace of progress in implementing Work Group recommendations.

6. Measures that Indicate Progress with Recommendations
Deciding that no change in the choices was necessary, the Work Group went on to select several recommendations and offer ideas for how to measure progress or things to consider, including:

Organized Consumer Advocacy:

• Eliminate physical and communication barriers. Ideas discussed include: everyone has a functional communication system; interpreting services are available at legislature; advanced notification and outreach is given about issues being addressed; language in policy statements are more user-friendly.
• Support coalitions of advocacy groups around key issues. Ideas discussed include: getting a count of the number of people participating in the weekly state-wide disability coalition meetings, surveying coalitions about what kind of information exchange is helpful, identifying public-private partnerships.

Waiting Lists:

• Collect consistent data on waiting lists. Ideas discussed include: determining how wait lists are kept, causes for wait lists, how they are administered (first come-first serve v. most needy); determining if there is a regional impact on wait lists, building incentives for maintaining lists, using lists to determine unmet needs; measuring impact of public policy on private provider wait lists.

7. Other Business
Time ran out before the Work Group could consider recommendations under Funding and Planning and apply, to all, the Performance Indicator Framework. In light of this, the Work Group decided to convene a subcommittee comprised of Work Group members who have an interest in quality assurance. Linda Huff, Kathryn Kazenski, Deb Parker Wolfenden, David Stockford, John Baillargeon and Stephanie Crystal Wolfstone Francis volunteered to participate. The subcommittee will meet to further today’s agenda, then report its findings to the Work Group on May 25th.   

8. Next Meeting
The next Work Group meeting is scheduled for May 25, 2005, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Cohen Center in Hallowell.