RIIL Webcast No. 7
June 5, 2002 

LAUREL: Good afternoon.
This is Laurel Richards with ILRU in Houston, and welcome to
today's session of the Webcast.

Today's topic is SILC trends, a review of past SILC surveys and
we want to acknowledge first off that NIDRR is sponsoring this
initiative to promote use of research information to those of us
who are not researchers, whether we're people with disabilities
or whether we work in independent living and other service
fields or if we're members of disability groups, et cetera, or all
three or all of the above.

We're working in conjunction with a project called RIIL, it's
research information for independent living.  And ILRU is in
partnership with the folks at RTC on Independent Living at
Kansas, and they have been extremely supportive in this
initiative.

Right now I want to -- before I introduce Bob -- is bring your
attention to a couple of things on the screen just so you can
follow.

One is as you can see in the big box with the Realplayer if
you're using Realplayer, there is captioning going on, and this
is realtime captioning provided by Marie Bryant, and Bob, you
don't have this problem, but I have to keep reminding myself to
talk slowly, and you'll do just fine on that.

Secondly, if you care to submit questions at any time during the
presentation, you can see just beneath that captioning box it
says to submit questions for the Webcast, click here.

And that will bring up your e-mail program, and it's
preaddressed to ILRU, so you just type in your question and for
today's session I want you to make them as hard as you
possibly can.

Another thing is we have available folks sitting by the
telephones ready to provide technical assistance to anyone who
might need it any time during this presentation.  If you get
knocked off or if it seems to buffer longer than it should or
whatever, the phone number to call voice is (713)-520-0232.
That's (713)-520-0232.  Folks who need tty should file
(713)-520-5136.

And also you'll see an FAQ and that's a list of the questions we
most frequently received over the time since we've been doing
this.

By the way, when you submit questions, they'll go to Rachel
Kosoy and she's at a different office.  I'm working out of my
home office in Houston.  Bob, you're working out of your
Phoenix, Arizona office?

BOB:  that's right.

LAUREL:  and Rachel Kosoy is in the ILRU office kind of
near downtown Houston. So this is kind of a casual approach to
a formal presentation.

So without much further -- it's just a real pleasure to introduce
Bob. When we first started doing Webcasts live, along the style
we're using now, Bob was our first presenter, and Bob, we've
had some good ones since then, but none of them were quite as
good as yours, but this subject that we're talking about today is
part of a longitudinal study that ILRU has been working on
since, Bob, 1990 --

BOB:  95, 96.

LAUREL:  the first one done by NCIL, correct?
The first one done by us with you, and then one by NCIL and
from thence forth by us working with you.

Bob has been the project director on our SILC survey data, and
the changes have been astonishing and pretty gratifying.  Bob,
without much more information, I'll turn it over to you and you
let us know when you want a break or if there is a question
that's really hot and terrific, let's interrupt him.  He won't mind.
So Bob Michaels in Tempe, Arizona, please welcome and
please take over.

BOB:  thanks, LAUREL.  Before I get started I really want to
thank ILRU for hosting this Webcast.  They just continue to
bring innovative ideas and technology to our movement. I've
been working with them now for -- I guess over 15 years and
continue to affiliate with them because they're always on the
cutting edge and never seem to lose sight of what independent
living is all about.

I also want to thank the University of Kansas for their devotion
to this project and of course to NIDRR, the National Institute
for Disability and Rehabilitation Research for funding this
effort.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm coming to you as
Laurel said from Tempe, Arizona and she said there is a group
of individuals in various offices in Houston who are
coordinating the Webcast and the captioning and the
Realplayer technology and handling the mail messages, and
then there are all of you out there who are in different parts of
the country.

Some of you are listening through your computers to my voice
and some are reading realtime captioning and some are
following materials that you downloaded from the site.

ILRU has been conducting these Webcasts as Laurel said for
over a year and the technology and the methods are constantly
changing and upgraded to meet your needs.  So be sure to let us
know if you've run into problems or if you have suggestions on
how we can make these Webcasts more productive.

So having said that, let's talk about SILCs.  First of all, I guess I
should say why is it that we started doing this survey.

You know, in 1992 was really when the SILC's became
functional, when they were given real authority in addition to
just being created and out there.

ILRU contacted me several years after that, after the
regulations had been written, and the SILCs seemed to be
getting into place and they said let's talk about doing a survey.
And they had been getting questions from many of you asking
about what it is that the centers were doing.

So we created this survey really with the idea that this would
help you to learn from each other.

It would help you know what the state of the art is, and then it
would also help the movement in general because we could
take the information from the survey and use it, for instance,
during the reauthorizations.

Both NCIL and APRIL and the independent living center in
Montana have asked us for information in their reauthorization
recommendations.

And this year we're going to do things related to the
appointment process because of the information we've been
able to glean from the study.

We're going to make some suggestions for changes in the SILC
budgets and how you develop the state plans for independent
living, and as a result of many of the things that have been
raised to us in the past, we're probably going to have -- we're
definitely going to ask for some kind of an appeals process for
people so when an appeal doesn't go into effect exactly the way
a SILC wants it to there will be some way to take this on.

The process has evolved over the years as Laurel said, this
started out as a project with the research and training center,
and in around 1995.

We've done four surveys over six years, although two of those
were surveys that were two-year surveys.

So the information that -- the last year we have here is 2001,
and in 2001 we had 53 out of 56 of the SILCs around the states
and territories respond to our survey.  So every state was
involved in that.

We have run into some problems over the years.  One of them
has been the contingent funding.

We've had to kind of make due and ILRU has always seemed to
come forward in one way or another and we are continuing to
do the studies and overcome those kind of barriers.

Some other problems that we're running into have been related
to how the surveys have been completed, especially in the early
years we had some real erratic completion and were forced to
drop some items here and there that we had not received the
kind of feedback consistently so we could use them in the
study.

We've refined and we've added items and made changes over
the years we've also made some radical changes in the financial
information we asked for.

We were trying to did for very specific information and a lot of
detail and just weren't able frankly to get it from the SILCs for
whatever reason.  They weren't able to provide it.

So now we have kind of simplified that process and hopefully
we'll be able to get more specific information now in the future
years.

So what are the findings? Well, the first thing I guess is what
the SILCs look like. Almost from the beginning, we've had 19
members on average on the SILCs, that was within the first two
or three years, the SILCs just seem to settle in on the no. 19 and
that seems to be what works.

Of those, 14 members are voting members on the council and
five are nonvoting members. And that just has been very
consistent since about year two or three.

In terms of disability, we've always on the survey used the
same categories that the federal agencies have used, physical,
sensory, cognitive, mental and multiple, and we've done that
because we know when they're asking for that information, you
tend to develop your systems that way and so we thought it
would give us the best chance of getting that information.

There are probably some more specific information we should
be asking, but we haven't been able to con consistently get that. 
Of those five disability categories, 24 states had all of them in
2001, and in 2000, there were only 17.

So it's gone from 17 up to 24.

It's really been an interesting process when you take a look at
the representation on the council.

When the first -- when we first started out, people with
cognitive disabilities were the least represented on the council,
and what happened is over the years, the number actually
dropped during the first three or four years.
Advocates for people with cognitive disabilities said, well, that
makes sense from where we're coming from because the SILCs
were pretty -- they would say insensitive to our needs.
Maybe we just need to figure out how to do it, but they felt --
and it was mostly people with traumatic brain injury and people
with developmental disabilities, and they felt that the SILC was
not taking time to explain issues and was talking a lot of
jargon, people were feeling that they were not part of the
process, and therefore, dropping out of the -- dropping off the
SILCs.

Now, in the last couple of years, this has been addressed and it
appears to me that the SILCs are doing a much better job of
that.

In fact, people with cognitive disabilities now are no longer the
lowest number of states represented -- having people with
cognitive disabilities on it.  That's now mental disabilities.

So we've shown some improvement there.

On ethnic minorities.  Again the feds are asking five different
categories, African Americans, Asian Pacific, Native
American, Native Hawaiian and Hispanic.

It doesn't appear that people are drawing any lines between
Native Hawaiian and Asian Pacific.

This year there wasn't anybody even in Hawaii who identified
themselves as having a native Hawaiian on their SILC.

The most represented group across the country was African
Americans, and they were on 34 of the 53 SILCs that
responded and Hispanic persons were on 22 of the states that
responded.

With regard to SILC center staff, center for independent living
staff, and this includes staff and including executive directors,
but not volunteers or board members, and on average, states
have 2.5 members of center staff on their SILC.

41 of the 53 states had one director as part of that two and a
half. That has dropped over the years.

It used to be -- used to be significantly higher, and appears to
be in response to a concern expressed by some people on the
SILC that centers seem to dominate the discussion, especially
center directors.
Very often the first few years of the study, when people would
feedback they would say, well, they dominated -- they have all
the votes, and in fact, they had -- they cannot possibly have all
the votes by law.  They would need to be in the other 49
percent.

So it appears that there has been some response to that concern
that directors have too much say and they've gone now to
where they're dropping down to just one director in each SILC.

The other issue I wanted to address here before I take any
questions is the nonprofit status of statewide independent living
councils, and this appears to mostly come about as a result of
the autonomy question.

The law says that no council -- or the council shall not be
established as an entity within a state agency and many states
have determined that the only way for the SILC to be -- to meet
this requirement is to become a 501(c)(3).  That has gradually
grown.

It was then six and nine and in 199 it was 11 and in 2000 it was
14, and in 2001 it was 15, and we know that in this year, that
that number is going to jump some more because there are
several states out there that have not done that or are in the
process of changing over.

So are there any questions so far?

RACHEL:  actually we have a couple of questions.
I'm going to group two of them together because we have
questions about who has to be on SILCs.

So there is one question about minority representation and
what's the requirement for minority representation, and the
other has to -- refers that you were talking about CILs can only
be 49 percent of the membership, so who else has to be on it?

BOB:  okay. To answer the first one first, the minority
representation, there actually isn't a requirement that any
specific number of minorities be on the council. What it does
say is that you will have minority representation and what it
says in general about the SILC is that the SILC is supposed to
reflect the population in the state, and the state as a whole, so
you know, some states would have very small minority
representation, others would have significant representation,
and it really is something to be determined on a state by state
basis.

With regard to the executive director position, the way the law
reads is it says that a majority of the individuals who are on the
SILC need to be persons with disabilities, and that this does not
include people who are representing the state agency or people
that are employees of independent living centers.

So they would have to be in the other 49 percent, those two at
least. It says among the other people of the other 49 percent
would be people who do not have disabilities, family members,
people from the business community and so forth, other people
from other agencies.

RACHEL: okay, great.
Then we have a question that has to do with the table about the
representation of different disability groups, and the question
is, is the shift to having a larger representation of people with
mental disabilities -- has this shift changed the activity or the
influence of the SILCs?

BOB:  you know, I don't really know the answer to that
question.  It's gratifying for people who don't have the table in
front of them between 2000 and 2001, it went from 23 states
having representation of people with mental disabilities up to
35, and as we said, that's the lowest number.

I would assume -- you know, we would hope that by having
people with different disability groups on that those people are
expressing the concerns of the group that they represent.
That's the way it's supposed to work.

So I would hope that that's happening.

RACHEL:  okay.

BOB:  I don't know.  I just don't know.

RACHEL:  okay, well maybe if anybody out there knows or
has anything to contribute on that front, they can send it in.

LAUREL:  Bob, this is Laurel.
Maybe I could point out that handout on the website are the
things people can download, and the SILC survey handout and
that's a real nice chart that is -- that is in physical terms what
you're discussing here, and if I'm correct, the table is also
available in text form for folks who have a visual impairment
and need it in alternate format.

It's quite good.

RACHEL:  yeah, that's what I was referring to.  Sorry I wasn't
clear before that whoever wrote this question was looking at
the handout and that chart.

Okay, then I have two other questions that I might be able to
sort of wrap together. And they have to do with the nonprofit
status of SILCs. And one is from a center that hasn't filed for
nonprofit status, but wants to know they can be considered
autonomous in the state without it.

And then somebody else is also interested in achieving
nonprofit status, and wants to know is there another state or
some other states that they can look to who have been
successful in establishing their nonprofit status?

BOB:  okay, well, to answer the second one first, I think that
probably -- if I were to look across the country at all the
different states that are nonprofit, that have established
nonprofit status for the SILC, probably the two that are most
successful in that are New York and West Virginia in terms of
how they've evolved and the stature that they've been able to
maintain, both with their designated state unit and with the
centers in the state.

So I would say that probably New York and West Virginia are
the best two.

In terms of the seeking nonprofit status for the purpose of
making more autonomous, I think it's more than nonprofit
designation.

My own state -- Arizona -- just became a 501(c)(3) and we've
still got a way to go before we're autonomous; yet a lot of
people would look and say you must have it.

The issues here are who hires and fires the staff?
Who prepares the budget?
Does the SILC prepare their own budget?
Do they manage their own funds?
Do they advocate without interfere answer?
Are they able to do what they need to do and conduct business
the way they think they need to conduct it without somebody
telling them otherwise?

So that to me is more of an indication of autonomy than status
with the internal revenue service advice.

LAUREL:  that's very good, Bob.

RACHEL:  okay, great.  And also just want to let people know
that there is a message board that will be affiliated with this
Webcast.

So if after the presentation, if people have some comments to
suggest they want to put something up, a resource or an
experience they've been through to share with other people, you
can post that on the message board.

And I'm going to hold the other questions because I don't think
you've gotten to those topics yet.  So let me turn it back to you,
Bob.

BOB:  okay.

LAUREL:  Bob, I wonder if you could take a time outright here
just to say, especially with regard to the context of autonomy,
can you summarize what it is that the SILC is responsible for
doing?  What is its role and function? 

BOB:  well, you know, the SILC as I see it, one of the primary
functions is to take a look around the see and see what the gaps
are and the service that state and to do a good strong analysis of
what those needs are, and then develop a state plan that would
address those needs.

I don't think to necessarily just look at what the network of
centers is, as to take a look at all independent living services,
whether they're provided by centers or state agency or
somebody else and make sure that they're all coordinated and
working together and then to make sure that that plan is carried
out, I think that the rule of the SILC is to nurture and grow that
network, not to assume responsibility for things that perhaps
the state is supposed to do in terms of monitoring centers and
monitoring funds and all that business.

I think they have more of a responsibility for really planning
and trying to figure out ways to open doors and do new creative
kinds of things. 

LAUREL:  so it's primarily the spread of independent living
services around the state. They have statewide responsibility.

BOB:  right.

LAUREL:  thanks.

RACHEL:  we just got another question in that is somewhat
connected to this so let me throw it out and if you want to
answer it now or reask it later.

The rehab act is quite clear that SILCs can't, quote, live in state
government. Why is this not enforced?  And then is NCIL or
APRIL or ILRU going to demand more enforcement from RSA
on this?  Want to take that one now?

LAUREL:  there is a hot potato.

BOB:  we all agree with that.

We know of instances where there are SILCs that are still run
by the state designated units and that's really too bad.
You know, the degree to which people control it is really -- a
judgment made by each individual.

So it's kind of hard while one person dominates and another
person doesn't and I hear people from different states talk all
the time about their own state and about other states, I don't see
how they can operate like that.

Their state is blocking them from making these decisions or
whatever. So, you know, we've got to keep defining what it
means to be autonomous and defining what it means to be
making decisions on your own and independence and all this
business and I think what one of the things that NCIL and
ILRU and everybody needs to get together on is continuing to
really promote the consumer control here, and one of our
biggest problems here is that there are some really good state
directors that are doing really good things for the SILCs in their
states, and we have to acknowledge that, but at the same time,
realize that there is a bigger picture here.

If we're talking about consumer control and people with
disabilities really being in charge of things, then we need to
look past those exceptions and try to figure out systems that are
going to work for us in 10 and 20 and 30 years.

RACHEL:  okay.  Thank you.

If anybody else has other comments on that, please feel free to
send them in and I'll make sure to voice them to Bob.
Back to you, Bob.

LAUREL:  make him squirm.

BOB:  I think probably another comment is in order in that
right now there are a number of issues that are floating around
the country related to SILC autonomy, SILC making decisions
and actually being followed by the state agency and the SILC
being supported by, quite frankly, by the (inaudible)
administration and it seems not to be working very well right
now and a lot of states are upset that the plans they are trying to
develop aren't being followed and it's going to come to ahead
here I think very shortly because the frustration level on a part
of several states, and several states who understand that it could
happen to them as well is really high.

I don't mean to talk too globally or mysticly or anything like
that, but it really is true.

We're in a time here where people are going to have to put their
foot down and say, we made this decision and the law says you
need to follow it, so why aren't you doing that?

I know there are several people right now that are talking
lawsuits and things along that line and injunctions to stop
certain things from happening.

LAUREL:  Bob, just for clarification, what you're saying is that
the SILC is given authority to develop a plan to promote
independent living on a statewide basis, which they develop
this conjunction with the voc rehab agency. It's a joint plan.

BOB:  uh-huh.

LAUREL:  am I right on that?

BOB:  right.

LAUREL:  and they both have to sign off. If the SILC doesn't
like the plan, they don't have to sign off and the plan wouldn't
go into effect and vice versa.

BOB:  right.

LAUREL:  and then this is submitted to RSA headquarters,
first the regional and then the federal headquarters. 

BOB:  right.

LAUREL:  as the plan, the official plan for how the state is
going to meet the needs of its state, but also how they're going
to use the minimum x. dollars of funds that they receive
through Part B.

BOB:  well, B or C, but mostly C.

LAUREL:  what is the minimum amount of funds that a SILC
has to work with?

BOB:  well, you have a combination of your B and C funds,
and that's minimally is what they have to be guided by but in
other states they have some expansion from Title I, Social
Security Reimbursement Funds.

LAUREL:  in the early days it was like 300,000?

BOB:  now I think the minimum state allocation now is about
611,000.

LAUREL:  so we're not talking about a little bit of money,
that's half a million dollars.

BOB:  and in addition to that, the Part B money, and the SILC
-- I said not primarily, but they have responsibility for
determining how the network will be developed and how the
Part B will be spent both, so in addition to that 611, there is
another at least 300,000 dollars.

LAUREL:  so we're talking nearly a million dollars a year?

BOB:  minimally.

LAUREL:  so then what you're saying is -- am I correct that in
certain states around the country, the plan that has been signed
off by both VR and the SILC and submitted to RSA or really
just filed, in effect, is not being followed by whom?

BOB:  well, if I'm -- to believe what I'm hearing from different
states and it's more than one state and I have no reason to
believe that this isn't true, the decision-making then for how the
money will be distributed has not been followed in some states
and in some states the feds have actually talked to people at the
state designated unit and left the SILC out of the process
altogether.

So, you know, there are some pretty drastic things going on
right now and I'm hearing the stories from many different
states.

So if that's true, I think it behooves all of us to say, wait a
minute.  Stop this, because there is something not right about
the process, and somebody is subverting the process and if we
continue to did that, all the things that we've accomplished in
terms of consumer control of this process are out the window.
So we just can't let it happen.

LAUREL:  that's --

BOB:  I think what's going to happen if this doesn't get
resolved real soon, what's going to happen is it's going to
become grist for the mill and people are going to be talking
about this in front of senate and house committees.

LAUREL:  which is imminent?

BOB:  that's going to happen in the next two years and that's
going to be too bad because we're talking about more than just
Rehab Services Administration, we're talking about the
department of education, so I think it's very significant.

LAUREL:  thanks for clarifying that.
I was a little bit surprised at the ominous sound of that.
I knew there were one or two, but apparently it's a little bit
wider spread than that.

BOB:  that's my understanding.

LAUREL:  those are the alleged -- the allegations we've heard.

BOB:  yeah.

LAUREL:  thanks. Oh, and by the way, this may be a good
time to point out that although this activity is funded by
NIDRR and the department of education, the department of
education asked us to make very clear that the opinions
expressed here in are those of the presenter and the host and do
not necessarily reflect the opinion of the department of
education.

So, Bob...

BOB:  and if I'm disconnected in a minute you'll know why.
(Laughter)

LAUREL:  please go on.

BOB:  so the next section -- is that it for the questions?

LAUREL:  yes.

BOB:  the next section then is regarding employees of SILCs
and how the SILC offices are set up.

The law says that the council shall supervise and evaluate such
staff and other personnel has may be necessary to carry out the
functions of the council.

And further goes on to say that these staff are not to be
assigned duties that would create a conflict of interest.

Their idea there is that SILCs should be able to make and do
whatever they need to do.

They should be able to conduct business whether they use state
staff or they hire their own staff.

So how many are -- is the states now have paid staff.

It's pretty much stayed about the same now for the last couple
of years, about 45 of the states have staff and 8 of them don't.
In 2001, 35 of those states that had staff had management staff.
30 are clerical staff and 12 had other people.

What seems to be happening now is that -- I shouldn't say very
often -- but in some states they're hiring individual people to be
the SILC coordinator or whatever, and to work out of their
home.

It becomes kind of a job for somebody who is not -- they're an
employee of the SILC but they're also under contract and work
pretty independently.

Who is the employer of the SILC staff?

In 2000, the state independent living council is the employer in
25 of the states.

The designated state unit in 12 of the states and other agencies
in 7.

In 2001, we did something a little bit different because we
thought that maybe there was some confusion here and we said,
okay, now, in order to be the employer of the SILC staff, you
need to sign the checks, and when we did that, the SILC
employees dropped from 25 to 22.

We thought that designated state unit staff would jump by 3
then.  Instead, it dropped by one.

So it just seems to be happening in a change over between 2000
and 2001 and then a lot of states began using other people.

You know, so some of the employers who might be the
employees for the other 13 might be another state agency, an
agency on disabilities that's within the state or an office on
disability or it could be another nonprofit corporation that just
does this kind of work.

So it varies from state to state.

What about office space?
I'm not sure -- I'm going to tell you, I'm not sure whether this
has anything to do with autonomy at all, but in terms of office
space, we ask does the SILC have office space?  Now, this
could be anywhere, and in 2000, they said -- 41 said yes.

And in 2001, it dropped down to 38.
So again I think that reflects that they're hiring people who
work out of their home, hiring individual contractors, and they
increased by three.

The SILC decreased by three and I think that probably that is
reflected by people who are now working out of their homes.

Where are these offices?  Well, there are offices in government
offices, or the government facilities, it dropped from 15 down
to 13, and there are more now in the SILC and people working
at home.

The trend here seems to be -- and I think it's a pretty good thing
here -- that the government for the first time now in the last two
years is no longer the number 1 option.  For years they were the
primary source of support.  The SILC is steadily growing, but
there are also these other creative options that are happening
out there.

What about SILC meetings?
It's really stabilized over the last couple of years how many
meetings that we have.

When it first started out there were almost all of the SILCs
were having a meeting every month.

Once SILCs began to realize they had real authority and had
their own budgets and things, they began to look for other ways
to get their work done.

And most then started having meetings ever "they are month
and now pretty much settled in the last -- probably the last five
years now, most are having their meetings quarterly.

The mean, the average number of meetings is around five a
year, but the median, and that is the number that shows up the
most, is four.
So 36 states are having meetings four times a year.

Where are those meetings held?
Again, that seems to be stabilizing, although in the year before
the spill, there seems to be more of an outreach of where they
go around the state and I think that's just a function of SILCs
thing trying to go around the state and holding their meetings in
a public place so that people have an opportunity to come in
and listen to them and give input at the same time.

So you kind of get -- you know, I hate to use the expression,
kill two birds with one stone. They are doing a couple of things
at one time to save some money. 32 states are now having
meetings centrally.

LAUREL:  solely centrally?   Centrally only?

BOB:  what is it that people with disabilities need?  This gets
to that whole item related to needs assessment. Each SILC on
an ongoing basis needs to be assessing the needs of people with
disabilities in their state.

Now, too often what happens here is that something -- they
only do this during the last year before the state plan was
submitted.

And instead probably what there should be is ongoing research
to continuously identify what the gaps are and explore the
program options, and discover funding sources and plan for
growth.

And when it seems that SILCs tend to wait until the last year,
the process becomes hurried and fragmented and the solutions
are often unworkable.

So what trends are we seeing? Well, first of all, states continue
to do public forums. They always do them. 45 of the states out
of 53 that responded still do public forums, right around that
number for several years now.

There seems to be more teleconferences, and video
conferences, more focus groups and more SILCs taking a look
at the demographics within their state to see how the service
they're providing are meeting the needs of people that are
actually out there. 

And then there seems to be less people doing questionnaires
and surveys, and that was real popular in the first couple of
years.

People were trying to figure out how they could serve as many
people as they could, and the problem appears to be that either
you do a broad survey that is incredibly expensive that is part
of the statewide survey where lots of people get it, or you tend
to target those people who are already receiving services to find
out what they need and then you come up with more of a
consumer satisfaction survey than a needs assessment.

What works then? Well, what we've done in the last several
years is we've asked people, if this is what you do, then tell us
what works for you and we have them identify the couple of
things that they do that appear to work best.

Parenthetically, about 45 states here have on an ongoing basis
been doing public forums. About half of those say that they're
successful.

So you know, when you look at still one of the most successful
methods, but in terms of people (inaudible) half of them feel
that it works.

Things that they feel work well are running focus groups, doing
teleconferences and running conferences.

Things that don't work very well are again the surveys and
questionnaires, and people really pan them.

800 numbers and oddly enough, the review of the
demographics which is one of the things that people seem to be
trying more just recently, but what they're finding is that it's not
yielding very much for them.

So that's it.  Any more questions?

RACHEL:  yeah, we have a couple of questions and we have a
comment that relates back to our last question that I'll throw
out. It's more a comment than a question.

It comes from somebody who is sort of still frustrated with the
autonomy issue and he says, you know, if CILs were allowed to
be not free standing, we'd be changing ourselves to stuff
regardless of the performance of the center.

So why are we so willing to be, quote, understanding on the
issue of SILC autonomy when we certainly would be adamant
about the standards of what is a center?

And he finally wants to say that SILCs wishing to be free
standing or autonomous desperately need to support in the
enforcement of the rules.

So I wanted to let that listener be able to voice that to the group
that there is ongoing frustration there.

LAUREL:  any comments on that, Bob?

RACHEL:  I'm sorry, LAUREL, I couldn't hear you.

LAUREL:  any comments on that, Bob?

BOB:  no, I agree what the person says. I think what he's
voicing is that frustration and there is a lot of it out there right
now.

RACHEL:  okay, we have a couple of other questions. One is
sort of a general question, so let me know if you want to hold
this off until the end.

It might relate to some of your final comments, but basically,
do the results of this survey suggest that SILCs should be
moving in a certain direction?
For example, focusing on certain priorities or taking on certain
challenges or really shifting focus?

BOB:  you know, this survey doesn't I think yield that kind of
information, and it intentionally hasn't because we tried to word
it in such a way as to allow -- to assure that we get a good
response from everybody on some very basic issues about how
the SILCs are set up.

We haven't addressed what the priorities are because that is
such a state by state thing.

My sense of that, however, is that -- of having gone around and
talked many of the SILCs around the country, is that people are
heavily into the institutionalization and that really seems to be
the priority for people in Olmstead related activity and we're
pleased about that, and there seems to be something that
everybody is taking on and looking at.

I don't know if that answers your question.

RACHEL:  okay, a little bit.  It sound like it's somewhat
outside the scope of the survey and the topic that we're really
focusing on today.

I do have a couple of other questions that relate to the
information you were just talking about. The first one is what's
wrong with voc rehab providing the staff in the offices?
And then the money saved could actually be used for consumer
services.

LAUREL:  that's a good question, Bob.

BOB:  yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with it.
I mean, in some states it works very well.

You know, here is West Virginia that is a 501(c)(3) but their in
state offices and it works really well for them.

Idaho and Alaska, for instance, are not 501(c)(3)'s, but they are
operating out of state agencies and are state employees and that
works well, as well, and they seem to figure out how to make it
work.

There are problems in that, but there are problems no matter
how you do it.

My concern, is always that nothing is free and VR directors just
like SILC directors change periodically, and so you know, isn't
always going to be around.

So the bigger concern about the VR agencies, we really need to
be listening to things that happen because sometimes things
evolve and all of a sudden the SILC finds itself with not quite
the say they want to have.

They hear stories to the governor that never get sent out and
advocacy in the state legislature that's curtailed because it needs
to be coordinated out of the governor's office and things along
that line that I think means that somebody else is setting the
priority for the SILC rather than the SILC itself based on what
the consumers say around the state.

RACHEL:  all right, the last question I have also expresses
some frustrations, which I think is a lot of what we're talking
about today.

That's what good does it do to assess the needs of consumers in
our state if RSA is just going to ignore our state plan any way?

BOB:  well, there we are again.

There have been a number of examples where the current
administration seems to be ignoring the wishes of the people
with disabilities and I guess the state is one of them.

Two years ago, NCIL negotiated with RSA and a letter was
produced in which they promised to abide by the state plan, and
somewhere along the line this letter seems to have been set
aside and I know just recently NCIL asked the letter be
redistributed and they're going to try to get it put into the Rehab
Act, the content put in the rehab act during the next
reauthorization.

In addition to that, they're going to put an appeals process in
there so that when these state plans are ignored or appear to be
ignored, that there is something the state can do about it so at
least it gets put back on the table.

LAUREL:  are you talking perhaps an appeals processor review
process?

BOB:  yeah, an appeals process.

RACHEL:  okay, there also just came in a -- a question just
came in that you've been talking about this but here is the
opportunity for anything you want to add, advocates and SILCs
are asking do you have any suggestions for advocacy for SILCs
who are really struggling with some of the issues that you're
addressing today?

BOB:  well, I think the biggest thing is that people are going to
need to talk to each other and probably NCIL is the best place
for -- best central location for people to find out where there are
other states with common issues and to get educated about
what those states are running into and what they're liking to run
into.

I know that next week is the NCIL conference in -- I can't
imagine that this won't be an ongoing topic the entire week, and
it's really a good opportunity to find out what's going on and
what the issues are and how people are taking it on, what steps
they've taken already with RSA so people aren't duplicating
things.

There are letter writing campaigns already that are about to
kick into place to stop some of this.  So I think it's really
important for us to find out what other states are doing and talk
to each other and find out and get a common plan together.

I think there will be, before very long, after the NCIL
conference when several states that are having problems get
together and talk.

RACHEL:  okay, great. That's helpful. Okay, those are the
questions I have at this point.

LAUREL:  Bob, I have just a couple of nuts and bolts.
On the input method and the means that the SILCs found most
effective, I was surprised to see needs assessment came in -- I
don't know what im came in -- about no. 3 or 4 in terms of
usefulness.

Do you know how the needs -- what was the gathering
mechanism?

BOB:  that tends to be the surveying.

That's the surveying of people and what makes it I think
ineffective is that in order to do a real true needs assessment in
your state, you would need to send a good represent tif sample
out to all the people in your state or to people in your state, not
just people with disabilities and not just people who are already
affiliated with the center or VR or somebody else, and what
happens very often is that because it's very expensive to do it
that way, they usually -- a lot of times states have come back
and they have developed a list and it ends up being existing
consumers or people who are very closely affiliated.

And so it really doesn't give you a lot of new information.
It's actually more like how do you like the services that are
already being provided?

It's more like a consumer satisfaction survey than a needs
assessment.

LAUREL:  my other question, and it's real quick, has to do
with paid staff of SILCs, and you had noted that in both 2000
and 2001 8 SILCs did not have paid staff.

Do you recollect if those -- some territories were represented
this that?  Three territories are so small, you know, like the
Samoans or something like that.

BOB:  I imagine that's true. You know, I wouldn't know, but I
don't have that data in front of me right now.

LAUREL:  it just sound like 8 is a lot.

BOB:  I think it couldn't just be them, and I know that not every
territory is that way.

More than likely what it is is just that there is probably -- some
of it is the person works with the state and they've never put in
anybody -- they've never really assigned the responsibility to
anybody and so they don't count it that way.

And the other part of it might be on a particular time that we
send in the survey, they may have just been turning over staff.
So it could have been two or three months while we're waiting
to get a new person on board.

LAUREL:  thank you.

BOB:  yeah.  Anything else?

LAUREL:  no, sir.

BOB:  the last thing has to do with budgeting, and the budget
of the SILC, but also this concept of minimum budgets for
centers for independent living.

Several states -- and this is the question which we've just added
in the last couple of years -- but several states have chosen to
build their networks of existing centers before they start new
ones, and the amount that different SILCs have set for
minimum varies from state to state as it should, but it tends to
be in the 200 to 300,000 dollar range.

You know, I worked with ILRU a couple of years ago to do a
study and funded the average center when you're starting up
needs about 250,000 dollars to open its doors.

Now, it's somewhat less for rural centers and somewhat more
for urban centers but it averages around 250.

What we've been doing is asking states if they've set a
minimum funding face for their centers.

And of those in 2000, there were 23 states that did it, and in
2001 that number jumped all the way up to 34.  So 11 more
states did it in one year.

Now, I believe that was because that previous year was the time
when they were preparing the state plan, and that a lot of states
then needed to sit down and address that issue and once it got
on the table, many of the SILCs decided to do it.

The funding level that they put in there was -- in 2000, the
funding level was right at -- for the 23 states, was right at
250,000.  There was 250, or 35.

And in 2001 it jumped up about 7,000 dollars, up to 257, and
that was the average of 34 states that said that they had set a
minimum.

So that is something we've just had for the last couple of years.
With regard to SILC budgets, during the first four years of the
study, our results we found just became unreliable.

Frankly, because the SILCs just had so little control of their
budgets or such -- so little knowledge of the finances in
general, that they really couldn't provide the requested
information, and we just found that it was all over the place and
unreliable, and the more we asked people about the information
they were providing, the more confusing it got.

So we actually dropped all of the financial information out of it
for a couple of years until we could figure out what our next
most logical step was.

So what we started doing in 2000 was we started asking people
just to give us two figures and a total.

One was the operating budget and one was the project budget.
The operating budget would be the money used for the
day-to-day operations of the SILC, to have staff and furniture
and all the different kinds of expenses of just running the office
itself and holding meetings and all the rest of that business.
The project expenses were the ones that if you were going to
put on a conference or you were going the try some new --
something new for people who were deaf, for instance.
So any new kinds of projects like that, and it also included a
project might also be sending a bunch of people out of state to
a conference.

In 2000, the operating expense was 114,000 dollars.  In 2001, it
rose up to 130,000.  Again, this was a spill year.

And the project budgets in 2000, it was 94,000, and in 2001, it
jumped up to 118,000.

So the total budget in 2000 was 208,000, and in 2001, it was
248,000. So it went up 40,000 dollars.

LAUREL:  and when you say --

BOB:  any questions?

LAUREL:  Bob, when you say a spill year, you mean that was a
year they developed the statewide plan?

BOB:  right.  Right. So they needed to develop a new budget at
the same time.

Now, there is nothing to prevent that from happening at any
other time, but there is a tendency to wait and do all your
paperwork at once.

LAUREL:  a plan can be changed any time in the interim?

BOB:  sure.

LAUREL:  what is it a three year plan?

BOB:  right. Are there they questions?

RACHEL:  we have one question, usually you would think
money would -- the topic of money would generate more
questions, but can you talk about the sources of funds for the
SILC budget Do all the funds come from one place?

BOB:  I'd love to be able to talk about the sources of funds for
the budget.

And we haven't been able to do that and historically that
information, we can't get it from the SILCs, they're not able to
provide it.

And this year we're asking people to break it down again and to
try to give us -- you know, if your answer to the previous
question of the total budget was 248,000 dollars, then what
percentage of that is Part B and what percentage is innovation
expansion and what percentage is social security
reimbursement and to try to get people to break that down.
I haven't seen the results yet.

I suspect that not every state will be able to answer that
question, but I don't know how positive or negative I should be
on that. I really don't know how that will turn out yet.

RACHEL:  okay.

BOB:  by the way, that information should be provided by --
that information is available through the (inaudible) and if
they're compiling the 704s and the other documents that
information should be out there.

LAUREL:  so the SILCs have to account for the sources of
funds?

BOB:  right.

RACHEL:  okay, I'm going to let you guys talk for maten and I
know, Bob, you want to do follow up or closing and I did just
get an e-mail, but I'm unclear from this e-mail if I should share
it or not. So I'm going to go talk to one of my others real
quickly.

LAUREL:  how about I take a couple of questions and pose
them while you do that.

RACHEL:  I'll be right back.

LAUREL:  Bob, back on the state plan including a
specification of a minimum budget for centers, I wish you
would expand a bit on why this is important and then what had
been the procedure for funding centers before that.
The individual kind of small budgets.

BOB:  well, it just is really a recognition on the part of many of
the states that you can't fund a center with 50,000 dollars, and
that was the standard for a long time out of RSA, if there was
50,000 dollars available, they would try to start a new center,
and as we learned in our survey of rural and urban centers that
it takes five times that much.

And that, you know, you can't -- what we found centers doing
is they were getting this 50,000 dollars and they were grateful
because they had nothing, and they get this 50,000 dollars and
then the next year there would be five people from the regional
office step in their office and say why aren't you meeting the
standard?

And so people were really running into problems during that
and realistically, all the executive director was doing was on a
part time salary spending his entire time trying to keep his head
above water -- or her head, and you just couldn't really do the
kind of work the centers need to do.

You spend all your time trying to figure out how you were
going to survive and that just wasn't effective.

So a number of states started setting those minimums, and I
think the idea here is to build your existing centers up so that
they can operate effectively, and make sure you have some
good model someplace.

There are some things that are going to happen.

It just makes sense, and we haven't figured out exactly how to
pull it off yet, but in terms of starting satellites and branch
offices because it makes -- almost everybody does this, uses an
existing center to start a satellite and then spins that satellite
off.

There are other states like in California that they create the
branch offices and have all the benefits of being a satellite, but
in terms of sharing finances and board and all that business, but
don't need to spin off and have no intention of spinning off and
that should be okay as well.

We should do what works in our states and we should have that
kind of latitude that the law isn't written to allow that.

And in fact, one of the problems that they're running into in at
least one region right now is that they are taking existing
money, creating a satellite with it and then when they go to turn
that satellite into a full center, the feds are making them
readvertise.

LAUREL:  recompete?

BOB:  readvertise for the money.

LAUREL:  really?

BOB:  and in doing something -- or recompete I mean, and
what happens is that the person who is getting the 50,000
dollars, for instance, then runs the risk of losing that 50,000
dollars to somebody else who comes in for that money and the
more, you know, that they've been using to pay their staff.

So it's really causing some problems and we don't know exactly
how we're going to resolve it yet, but they have to figure out
some way to allow -- there are going to be some things done in
the next reauthorization to allow that to happen, how that fully
plays out yet, who knows.

Boy, if anybody has any suggestions on how to make that work,
we'd sure like to hear that.

LAUREL:  Bob, regarding a few years ago when so many
awards of 50,000 were scattered around the different states, and
with a designation that it had to go to a free standing center, are
you saying now that one of the things that I guess the states are
doing is raising the funding level of those under funded entities
before they start?

BOB:  right.

LAUREL:  initiating service or initiating a new service
altogether?

BOB:  the way the law is written, it says that any money that is
allocated to a state, first the centers who are in existence get it
at the same level they got the year before.

Then they get a cost of living and then if there is any money
left over, it goes toward the creation of new centers, but the
regulations then that were written to support the law say if the
states determine that that is an insufficient amount of money to
start a new center, then that money may be given out to either
the existing centers or given out according to the citation of a
particular part of the law, but basically what it boils down to is
it could be given to another state.

And so what a lot of the states have determined is that the best
thing to do is when you get a pot of monday money is to divide
that money up among the existing centers until they can build
up the a good strong base of support so that they don't have to
worry about how they're going to keep their head above water.

LAUREL:  nothing like under capitalizing an effort to make
sure it fails.

BOB:  well, that seems to be what was happening.
The finances -- the finances are the number 1 reason why
centers fail and why SILCs have problems.

It's just always ended up being the finances and it usually starts
out because people have unreasonable expectations of what
they can accomplish with the money they get.

RACHEL:  I got a couple of other questions in that both relate
to autonomy although they're very different questions. So let
me throw them both out.

The first one is what do you think about SILCs becoming their
own state agency?

Does this give them a stronger foot in the door in dealing with
the DSU.

And the second question is we've heard rumors that rsa has
concerns about 501(c)(3) status for SILCs, and that there is a
policy interpretation which they're preparing on the topic.
Can you speak to this?

BOB:  I've heard -- on the second one, I've heard that there is
an interpretation about to come out, too, but I haven't heard -- I
have no idea what's coming out or if there really is or anything
else.

They've always stated in the past that being a 501(c)(3) is okay.
So I don't even know why it's being raised right now, and if it
is, then it just means that we're going to have the deal with it
during reauthorization to make sure it's very clear in the law
that it's okay.

I mean, there are too many SILCs that are there already to then
turn around and say, no, you can't do it.

RACHEL:  have you heard --

BOB:  the first question was related to the SILCs being a state
agency.

You know, I have -- I was going to say I have mixed feelings
on this, but I really don't.

I mean, I certainly can understand how being another state
agency and being at the table on the same level as the
designated state unit at meetings that the governor is having or
somebody like that, that that certainly would be beneficial in
terms of making -- you know, of having yourself being heard.
I think that that's true, that you do gain something by being at
the table.

On the other hand, the governor is still your boss, and if you're
a state agency, then how are you any different than any other
state agency?

You're not.

The governor is still your boss and if the governor says here is
what your position is going to be, this is what your position is
going to be and that's not what SILCs were supposed to be.
They were supposed to be autonomous so they can say
whatever needs to be said.

And as we all know, you know, the person we often say it to is
the governor, and we have to feel free to do that and our job
and our autonomy shouldn't be on the line because of that.

LAUREL:  Bob, the issue of membership has always --
appointment of members to the SILC has always been an area
of difference from state to state.

What is the position now of the NCIL Rehab Act Committee
and NCIL itself on how people should be appointed to the
SILC?

BOB:  well, you know, I mean basically what it says is that the
governor makes the appointments, and I don't think that -- for a
while there, we thought the feeling was very strongly that at
some point the governor should then -- should have the option
of turning that responsibility over to the SILC, and we've got
that for reappointments, but not for appointments, and when
that came up this year, it was really funny because I thought
that was what people would want the SILC would become a
make your own appointments and that business and that is not
at all what we heard.

People said, no, we want to governor to be involved and we
want them to continue to be involved.

Now, there is a problem when it relates to the director of the
independent living center that is chosen by the other directors,
and that -- there is real I conflict in the way the law is written
right now that we hope to resolve during the reauthorization.
What it says in one point is that the director of the independent
living center will be chosen by the other directors, and having
been in those meetings, it's clear to me that that's what we
wanted was that that person kind of was set aside from the
process and just got placed by the directors.

But then it also says in the law that appointments are made by
the governor, and so then now what appears to be happening in
many states is that on -- or in a lot of states, the governor kind
of rubber stamps the person.

In some cases the governor comes in and says I don't want that
person on the council and very often it's because that person
has been doing his job or her job and advocating and that's
what we were trying to avoid.

LAUREL:  boy, that's a very interesting loop hole.

BOB:  yeah, hopefully we'll close it this time.

LAUREL:  what's being recommended?

BOB:  well, once the decision is made by the centers, that it's
done.

LAUREL:  and that person is appointed without having to go
through the governor?

BOB:  right.

LAUREL:  that will be interesting. Rachel, other questions?

RACHEL:  okay, those are all the questions that I have
received, and I know we're nearing the end of our time here.

LAUREL:  Bob, I know you have a wrap you need to do.

BOB:  about ten seconds.

LAUREL:  then let me ask you this:  I have really the pleasure
to sit in on the rehab act committee meetings, and of course this
year has been very big on development of the position --
NCIL's position paper on reauthorization and changes we think
ought to occur in the rehab act and things that ought to be kept
in the rehab act and it's been a terrific process, and before we
close we ought to let folks know if they don't have a copy of
the rehab position paper the how they can get a copy.

BOB:  you can get that by going up on NCIL's website, but for
disclosure purposes here I should say I'm the chair of the rehab
act subcommittee.

LAUREL:  thank you. Now, my question is, I was astonished --
not astonished, surprised by the discussion regarding sign off
authority of the statewide plan, and I wondered if -- we may not
have time at this point to present the different points of view,
but it was a very thoughtful discussion that still was surprising
to me on -- on the relationship between centers and the SILCs.

BOB:  yeah, it was surprising to me, too, but it seems to be an
evolving issue that we need to be dealing with.

I thought -- you know, our recommendation ended up being
just a continuation of the direction that we've been going in
toward more and more consumer control, and you know, what
we did here was what we tried to do in 92 and 98 was make the
SILC have the sole responsibility.

So you have a consumer controlled body have 100 percent of
the authority for making these determinations on how services
to people with disabilities at least in terms of independent
leaving is going to happen.

So we just -- basically, you know, the decision finally was to
drop the designated state unit as assignee on it.  Oddly enough,
there was also a suggestion in the course of our discussions to
allow the centers to sign off, and it went back and forth and
should be all centers should be one center, should be a
representative center, should be a personal on the SILC who is
representing the center, all the people from the center on the
SILC, so it went back and forth in terms of who should be the
person to sign off.

But basically, it came down to the issue of having the center --
one of the arguments was, well, you have to designate a state
unit and you have the SILC representative, the SILC chair, and
why not have the centers chair, too, because we are talking
about equal partners.

And there were a number -- it was great argument and probably
the most productive debate during the entire time in terms of
really kind of sorting through some of the problems and issues
and out of that came the issue about the autonomy of the SILC
directors in naming their representative on the SILC, not
having the governor sign off.

The appeal process came out of that. What other ones?

There were about four or five different issue that is we
identified stances that had to do with this one particular
problem. And one of the things that came up throughout there
was the tension in some states between the SILC and the
centers.

LAUREL:  oh, yes.

BOB:  and it was alarming to me the amount of -- the intensity
of the discussion there and it really points out something that
the SILC people needed to understand here, that there are -- the
response of the SILC is not to clean up centers and to run the
centers in the state, it's to expand the network and there seems
like there is real confusion there and real problems that are
going to crop up as a result.

You know, it's like somebody from a center quoted like what
bill cosby used to say, we brought you into this world and we
can take you out. It's funny. That's how strong the feeling is.

There are some centers that are saying our SILC is causing us
more problems than good, and while we believe in consumer
control and all that business, it's really -- it's really becoming a
problem.

And we had at least one state say to us, look, we have a better
relationship with the state agency than we do with the SILC,
and we'd rather have the state agency signing off on the plan
than having them dropped off at this time.

So I really hate to raise that as the last thing, but it's important
and it's one of these things that I hope will get on the table at
NCIL next week so that they can figure out some of these
problems.

LAUREL:  I think, Bob, --

BOB:  and the economy needs to be dealt with, too, next week.
There are a lot of issue that is really need to be addressed and I
think California has really raised some issues recently that I
think -- it really makes sense for us to sit down and rethink
what makes somebody autonomous.

And that discussion needs to happen.

LAUREL:  I think you're exactly right and at the level and the
thoughtfulness that occurred among the committee members,
but, Bob, I think the real issue got back to what you have
always said and Paul Spooner have always said, it's important
from time to time no matter how much we've grown and
progress we've made to get back to the basics, what is the
philosophy of independent living, what is the mutual support
that ought to be provided, what are the relationships between
different disability groups and now different entities funded
under Title 7, but eye returning to the basics and making sure
we're on track is just incredibly important and hearing the
people discuss it on that conference, those series of conference
calls was reassuring in a lot of ways because the ardor is still
there, these principles of consumer control and empower.  And
in revisiting what the philosophy was.

I thought it was terrific.

So I would -- from an outsider point of view I thought it was
uplifting even though people knocked heads.

BOB:  I think so,, too.

LAUREL:  and it's always entertaining to knock heads.

BOB:  we really spent a lot of time with this on the road and
we took it out to a lot of regions and conferences to get people's
opinions and I think -- and then, you know, I think people
really had an opportunity to give input.

I feel satisfied with it and I think anybody that sits down and
reads the paper is going to feel proud to be part of it.

LAUREL:  so you want to wrap?

BOB:  basically, all I want to do is thank ILRU for the
opportunity to share this information and to remind the SILCs
to send in -- the survey just went out last week.

If you haven't received one at your SILC, let me know and I'll
e-mail one to you.

I think my e-mail address and everything is up there on the site.
So other than that, thanks for the great questions and I
appreciate the opportunity to do this.

LAUREL:  well, Bob, thank you.

It's always a pleasure to work with you, and for those of you
who perhaps didn't hear Bob's presentation, golly, I think it was
back in the fall, it was on the study of the research project that
he led for us on the minimum funding of budgets for centers.
Now, it's archived and so if you would like to hear it or would
like to see the handouts, et cetera, you can go to the ILRU
archive page.

It's linked to the web page and listen to it.
It's quite good, and a little bit surprising.

It was a study of both 20 centers, ten rural and ten urban, and I
think you might find it of interest and a bit of a surprise.

I'd like to close now just with acknowledging the support of
NIDRR, again, for underwriting efforts to present research
findings of all kinds to those of us who aren't researchers.
In fact, our next presentation will be on wednesday, july 24,
and peg nosek will be presenting on an entirely different
subject on health promotion and prevention of secondary
conditions.

Real important to folks with physical disabilities. So we hope
you tune in for that.

Again, I want to acknowledge the support of our colleagues at
the research and training center on independent living at the
University of Kansas, and to also point out that the technical
end of our presentation is handled by two individuals, one is
Rob Dickehuth who is with the Baylor College of Medicine
who -- who not only makes all of this happen and works with
Realplayer and works with our broadcast on line, but he also
selection the music prior to the presents entasting, so if you'd
like to make a musical request, please send that to Rob.

The second is that the captioning is done by Marie Bryant and
she's just terrific and whereas Bob speaks nice and slowly,
there are those of us who go rather rapidly and she does a first
rate job.

So thanks to them.

And also our Webcast team here at ILRU who include Marj
Gordon, Sharon Finney, of course Rachel Kosoy, Dawn
Heinsohn and Mark Richards.

So on behalf of all of us at ILRU, thanks for tuning in and Bob
will be fielding questions and looking at the discussion forum
for at least a month and don't forget about the il coach which
you can connect on through the ILRU website and Bob is one
of our leading voices on that and people will pose questions or
make comments and Bob helps run down the answers if he
doesn't have them himself.

There are not many he doesn't have. It's an excellent method of
exchanging information and getting more information.
So please do check that out.

Meanwhile, we'll see you next -- on the 24th, on a Wednesday
on the 24th with Peg and Beth looking at health promotion and
prevention of secondary condition.

BOB:  one other thing.  I'm always curious as to who is out
there and the system here hasn't been designed for me to know
that.

So I'd appreciate it if I bump into people at NCIL or other
places if they said, hey, I listened to the thing and I liked it or
hated it or whatever, let me know how that worked out.

LAUREL:  we'd like to hear, too, but we just want the love it.

RACHEL: so there is an evaluation form.

Everybody certainly can fill out and send it in and you can send
comments and we'll pass them onto Bob.

LAUREL:  it's right at the bottom of the page with Bob's
handout. Thank you, Rachel.

RACHEL: all right, you guys, have a great day.

LAUREL:  we're closing in on the end of our time, so thank
you for attending this. The 24th will be our next presentation
and next week should be one terrific conference at NCIL.

So good afternoon and goodbye from us.