| REGION 10 STAKEHOLDERS REFINED VISION |
| |
| The Stakeholders reviewed input from the 6 Pod Work Groups. There were many commonalities among the visions of the 6 pods. Once the common themes were identified the entire group prioritized which issues were the most important. They were to do this within the parameters of the Stakeholders Belief Statements and that anything that we do should be personal, face-to-face, remove regulations that get in the way and assure flexibility. The common themes among the pods and the number of votes they received were: |
- Support workers are paid a living wage – 22 votes
- Maintain a consistent and stable source of funding (no waiting lists, funds specified for individuals with disabilities not diverted to general fund, etc) – 17 votes
- Single person directed plan and budget (people and their circles decide what their plan is and how to spend the resources allocated to them) -22 votes
- No limit on the savings an individual can keep – 0 votes
- Single, standardized entry point for individuals with disabilities – 0 votes
- Single funding stream (no CADI vs. DD vs. Sils vs. GRH vs. CSG, all one pot of money) – 12 votes
- Supports can be purchased from an array of options (not just licensed or typical providers but from anyone that makes sense for the individual) – 12 votes
- Continue QA system of some kind with a person directed model of evaluation – 4 votes
|
| |
| The group decided that they would focus on the top three issues. Workgroups were formed for each issue. Some of the pods included thoughts and ideas about each of these issues. That information is included below: |
- Support workers are paid a living wage
- Workforce understands that supports are based on what the person wants and needs
- Realistic wage, above poverty level
- Guaranteed health insurance
- Statewide, standardized skill training for all staff at every level
- Role of caregiver is valued
- A career not a job
- Maintain a consistent and stable source of funding (no waiting lists, funds specified for individuals with disabilities not diverted to general fund, etc)
- Funding that fits individual needs
- Uncomplicated funding source
- No ‘hoop jumping’ when it comes to funding sources
- Single entry point for access to funding
- Funding for services and housing in one funding source
- Response to fraud that makes sense (personal responsibility, don’t change the system because of a few problems)
- A dedicated tax or fee toward a disability service system
- Hijack the lottery funds for disability services
- Decision makers/legislators are educated about the disability service system
- Single person directed plan and budget (people and their circles decide what their plan is and how to spend the resources allocated to them)
- Individuals with disabilities have decision making control over their budgets
- Funding used for individual assistance is based on the persons wants and needs
- People with disabilities and their families are competent to manage resources and purchase their supports
- The plan and budget are developed an maintained by the person and their support circle
- Supports can be purchased from an array of options not just licensed providers
- Community, neighborly, family focused not institutionalized
- Lets people decide who and how many people they live with
- Flexible to meet the varying needs of individuals
- Don’t put people in a position of accepting more services than they need to fit into the system
- Budget supports individuals being able to stay at home with their families or move away from their families if they choose
- Addresses crisis needs
- Takes advantage of natural supports
|
| |
| Minnesota Region 10 Stakeholders Co-Chairs |
| Peter Fedorko: |  |
| John Flanders: |  |
|
