June 2, 2005 Meeting

The fourth video-conference meeting of the Disability Services Advisory Committee was held on June 2, 2005. The meeting was co-chaired by Ann Ford and Art Dykstra. A list of members participating in the meeting is attached to this summary.

Summary of May 20th Meeting

The following comments were offered on the draft summary of the last DSAC meeting was accepted without comment:

  • A fourth bullet should be added to the list of "resource categories" that began on Page 2 and continued onto Page 3. That should be "Legislative and/or regulatory actions needed to successfully complete the recommended action."
  • It was clarified that the "person-centered outcomes" listed on Page 3 were intended to reflect recommended person-based outcomes that were expected to be possible as a result of the transformation of the system and that calling them "person-centered outcomes" was a misnomer.
  • It was noted that any reference to affordable housing should include a reference to "accessible".
  • It was noted that the language continues to under-represent those seniors who need long-term supports.
  • It was noted that the System Outcome referencing PAS agents should be clarified to directly state that this should be a Single Point of Entry.
  • It was noted that the bullet referencing PAS agents as the primary case coordinators and single point of entry does not apply to seniors - a reference will be included that reflects that system.

Major Process Issues

It was agreed that the Implementation Plan would best be viewed as a Preliminary Plan, even though it not be labeled as such. This fits in well with the agreement reached at the May 20th meeting that the first 6 months after July 1st would focus on translating this Implementation Plan into a Work Plan.

Concern was raised that DSAC appeared to be creating new outcomes, goals and direction while the various state agencies had a plethora of long-range planning groups and activities that have been created since this administration began. It was clarified that the DSAC was comprised of people who participated in those very groups and activities so that the direction and action steps that directly relate to compliance with Olmstead could be lifted, adjusted (if necessary) and synthesized to develop this targeted Implementation Plan.

Major Policy Directions and Recommendations

It was clarified that there was NO substantive difference between Policy Direction v. 1.7 and 2.1. The only difference was the "highlighted sections" were no longer highlighted. It was also noted that the DSAC would not see the Major Policy Direction document in its current form. All suggested revisions were being inserted as this document was being integrated into the Draft Implementation Plan. This Draft Implementation Plan would be distributed to the DSAC in time for its review prior to the June 16th meeting.

Significant discussion centered on how the Implementation Plan and/or DSAC Final Report would confirm compliance with its enabling legislation. There was general consensus that the Implementation Plan may need to be organized around each of the 9 points listed in Section 20 (b).

After reviewing the legislation closely (after the meeting) we are proposing part of the Introduction Section to the Implementation Plan be used to cross-walk these 9 legislative expectations with the appropriate sections of the Implementation Plan. This is being proposed for the following reasons:

  • Section 20 (b) (1) references procedures for completing comprehensive evaluations. We believe this will be clearly articulated in the recommendations and action steps related to Policy Direction #1.
  • Section 20 (b) (2) references individualized service or treatment plans for each person. We believe this will be clearly articulated in recommendations and action steps related to Policy Direction #2.
  • Section 20 (b) (3) references Core services that will be outlined in a section of the Plan.
  • Section 20 (b) sub-paragraphs 4-8, as discussed at the meeting; only require that the Plan identify the minimum standards for community services. We propose that this be done by referencing appropriate appendices for the Core Services as they are presented in the Plan (see attached updated Implementation Plan Outline).
  • Section 20 (b) (9) references financial resources which will be dealt with in detail under Policy Direction #9.

The Introduction Section of the Implementation Plan would clearly state how the Plan complies with each of those 9 items (and others) be specifically articulated - in terms of where in the Plan they can be seen. However, it does not appear that the Plan itself should be organized around those 9 items.

There was a strong suggestion that these policy statements would benefit from some "entitlement" language. However, it was clarified that the enabling legislation, in Section 30, specifically constrained this Implementation Plan to actions that "This Act does not create any new entitlements….."

Primary Person-based Outcomes for Change

It was suggested that rather than creating DSAC's own person-based outcome statements for the Implementation Plan, that nationally accepted outcome statements be used. The ICDD submitted copies of the National Core Indicators Project outcome statements. The Illinois Council on Aging agreed to submit its national statements. These would be synthesized and integrated into the draft Implementation Plan as appropriate.

It was noted that IHDA has many housing alternative demonstration projects that need to be considered but that the language must be clear that most related funding is for supported living facilities (SLF) and not specifically tied to deinstitutionalization.

There was concern that the term "self-determination" is more sound-bite than content. However, there was consensus that the core elements of person-directed services should be a major piece of the Implementation Plan.

There was general consensus that the Implementation Plan would benefit from a short list of clear, concrete action items that would demonstrate change (consistent with the articulated policy direction) and keep this Plan from being a stereo-typical bureaucratic document. It was agreed that each DSAC member would be asked to identify up to 5 major system change outcomes that he or she would want to be considered. IHDA agreed to offer the template it used for an earlier group as a model. DSAC members would be asked to reply to an email request by c.o.b. Wednesday, June 8th.

Next Steps

  1. DSAC members will complete the template described above.
  2. State Agency DSAC members will complete their review of the action steps to make sure that they are properly articulated and located.
  3. State Agency DSAC members will be asked to complete a review of the "Core Services to be provided by agencies of the State of Illinois or other agencies" as required by enabling legislation. A draft of this section of the Implementation Plan will be circulated by email to ALL DSAC members by Tuesday June 7th.

The next meeting will be held on June 16nd from 1-3 PM. By that time a Draft Implementation Plan will have been distributed for review and the meeting will likely focus mainly on reactions and recommended changes to that document. An updated outline of the Implementation Plan is attached.