PAULA MCELWEE: It is time for us to talk about a transition. Transition in topics and in presenters, as you see. Both of whom you have met before. But they are going to talk with us in the next hour, or not quite an hour on the strategies of shifting SPIL development from the DSU situation to the DSE situation. How do we do that? So I am going to turn it over to our illustrious presenters for that topic. BRAD WILLIAMS: Learning objectives. We are going to describe the regulatory requirements regarding joint SPIL development, so we don't have to repeat that over and over again. This all applies to that subject. Then we are going to identify the appropriate rolls for the two primary and one supporting members for this subject and when I say that the SILC in the federal civil directors are the primary individuals or groups in this process. And then the DSE is the supporting group. Then we are going to review SPIL development from the Arizona and New York SILCs and then we are going to finish by identifying and discussing what works and what doesn't work. That's what we are going to do here. Okay, Larry. LARRY WANGER: All right. So first of all we are going to go ahead talk about the legal and regulatory basis for SPIL development and the process. And so first we are going to look at what the current law says and then we will look at what's in the regulations. And we can talk about questions or whatnot that folks might have. So Section 704 state plan we are all pretty familiar with this. Plan shall be jointly first off developed by the chairperson of the statewide independent living counsel and the directors of the centers for independent living after receiving public input from folks across the state, specifically people who have disabilities. And signed by the chairperson of the statewide independent living council acting on behalf of the council, in direction of the council and the director of the Designated State Entity and at least 51 percent of the centers for independent living in the state. So there's pretty straightforward. I think we are all pretty familiar with that. And then slide five here we continue with legal and regulatory issues. And what's on this slide is very similar to what you saw on slide four again developed by the SILC and specifically the chairperson of the SILC. And the directors of the centers after receiving public input from people with disabilities, people who have disabilities and other stakeholders from across the state and signed by the following folks: the chairperson of the SILC acting at the direction of the SILC, the director of the DSE and not less than 51 percent of the centers in the state. Here there is some notation here that is pretty important about legal entities or centers that have multiple Part C grants. BRAD WILLIAMS: And I was going to add like for instance in New York if you look in our state plan, it identifies 24 CILs awards. However, when you apply what's said here in the draft regulations, for the SPIL signing purposes, there's actually 15 legal entities that have these 24 CILs. It actually makes a lot of sense because why would people sign more than once. Right? So this does make a lot of sense. LARRY WANGER: And so just as a different example in Arizona we don't have that situation. So we are pretty straightforward here but other states certainly would. Any other questions or if we can move on quickly to the next slide and do all the questions. Continuing with the legal and regulatory basis. Here we start talking about situations in states where there are is a separate agency that is separate from the regular state vocational rehabilitation agency. It is a separate agency that would be charged with serving the blind population so that's the case in a number of states. So in those situations the plan must be again signed by the DSE, signed by the director of the separate state agency to serve folks who are blind. And signed by the chairperson of the SILC again acting on behalf of and at the direction of the SILC. And not less than 51 percent of the directors of the centers in the state. It's pretty important to note here. I think this was a bit of a surprise to folks. Because it seems inconsistent with the concept of a single DSE. You have got two folks here essentially signing in the role of the DSE so it creates some confusion. I know Brad again has that situation so perhaps some comments about that. BRAD WILLIAMS: This just doesn't make any sense in New York. Where we have two VR agencies. And we have recently made the decision to have a single DSE access VR. And that's the standard vocational rehabilitation agency. Why would the blind services agency director have sign off on the state plan? Unless we selected them to be the DSE or if we selected the two to be joint DSEs. It doesn't make any sense. Right? To in these draft regulations to grant the blind services director and the agency to have sign off on the plan. Right? Yeah. If the we chose the blind services agency and that director to be the DSE does that mean the standard voc rehab agency gets to sign off on the plan? If we chose the New York State Lottery agency to be the DSE does that mean that the blind services agency gets to sign off on the plan? They are extending power to the blind services agency in our state that really isn't authorized. We don't understand. If we selected them or as a dual DSE agency, then it would make sense. Then it would make sense. But it just doesn't seem to make sense. It's kind of like the old DSU model. So I don't know. I think that might be. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm sorry. I think it speaks to the power or the ability to organize on the part of blind and visually, that's what it says to me. BRAD WILLIAMS: Did you want to open it up to questions? LARRY WANGER: If there's other questions, just go ahead. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay Brad. We know why the DSE is signing off on the same end. We have a list of what their purpose is. Why they are signing off. What is the purpose of the blind agency signing-off. BRAD WILLIAMS: Right. It's just in here in the draft regulations. It doesn't seem to be consistent with the law. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I didn't know if I was misreading it or what was going on. Because I couldn't see a purpose. BRAD WILLIAMS: We have someone in the back. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barry from Oregon. In Oregon there is an IL program that takes residents within the commission for the blind and provides IL services and I am wondering if you have run into some states where that is also replicated and perhaps that might be a rationale. I don't know. I am just speculating for having a presence as a signatory. Not as a DSE. But because they are representing an IL program. It is still in Oregon it is a small program. Not nearly the size of the CILs but it does have theoretically an IL program component. Just a thought. BRAD WILLIAMS: I think the way it should read is that in each state you decide. So if in your state you decide to do that, or do dual DSEs, that's your decision and you go with it. Okay? And so be it. But to put in the power just doesn't seem right. For the states to have two voc rehab agencies. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I would just say really quickly I think it relates back, if you think this through, in terms of what is the role of the DSE with the SPIL. And it further complicates this situation because the role of the DSE is to receive the funds. They are not signing necessarily, they are not providing a level of input necessarily or agreement, if you will, in their signature that the SILC and the centers are, the role is different now. So unless both of those entities are giving you funds but even then it just seems contradictory to the language that is in the regulations. AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is Amelio from Washington. You read my mind Larry. You answered two things I was going to ask which is what if the blind agency provides I&E funding to the state plan? And then the other one to me is, and I am thoroughly confused. Just when I think I get it I turn around and I got more confused about what the law says. And yes I know we can choose two DSEs and the pros and cons of choosing two DSEs, and the public input and so on. To me is, I agree with Mark that if they are just signatories to administer the Part B funding, then why do we need two? But then I am hearing on the other side, what if they are providing funding or you choose to. So I don't know. It seems like it gets, you know, it's very nebulous at this point. BRAD WILLIAMS: And that's why I think what is appropriate, it is based on the law, it's a state decision but don't go saying in the law that you have to provide one or the other. It's a state decision. Right? LARRY WANGER: And I don't think I have to say this but obviously if however the final regulations shake out if you don't need both of those folks to sign as a DSE. But certainly the VR program serving the blind and visually impaired folks need to be at the table and part of your conversations about, at least gathering input about what you might put in your SPIL and not dictating to you what needs to be in there but certainly getting input from them about what is going on with the folks they serve and involving them in the process even if they are not on as a DSE. AUDIENCE MEMBER: You good? All right. That takes us to, we thought this would be a good exercise. So what do you believe are appropriate roles, steps in SPIL development process? We are kind of thinking forward here. And that would be with the SILC and the federal CIL directors. And the DSE if you are there. I mean if not, then as Larry is saying we are still working with DSUs right now. We really are until the end of September. But with any of these different components, you know with public hearings, with the review of that public input, identification of priorities. That committee process to determine the key elements of your state plan. You have to start drafting that state plan. You are posting and getting comments on the state plan and then you are putting together okay how are you going to get your federal CIL directors to kind of review and take action the plan as you are used to the SILC doing that. And then the whole technical review process. I mean in New York that used to take a definite period of time you have to budget for. That going to change before we upload it to ACL. So what do you think? I mean this is where we can open it up to you in terms of what do you think is appropriate? I mean how are you taking this on in terms of some of these appropriate roles in this process? Oh, I don't have the time? But think about these things. These are very definitive steps as we go forward for yourselves. So let's go to the Arizona example, Larry. LARRY WANGER: all right. So part of this presentation is to hear from at least our two different states and then some comments from you folks about how things are going in your state with development and how you are working through all of this, the SPIL development and how you are working through all of this process and I think for all of us it's an interesting time and it has been for us. Lots of change. And not just because of the federal regulations. I will talk more about that shortly. First of all just to give you an overview of the environment here in Arizona just a couple of points quickly to highlight the relationship with the DSE whoever that turns out to be is really important. So in our case that has been and will continue to be the Arizona rehabilitation services administration or our state VR agency. And we get along very well. We work well together. I have a couple of them in the audience here so they are interested in what we have going on and vice versa. So that's a positive for us. I know that's not always the case in every state and we can talk more about that certainly. But at least in our situation that's a positive. And likewise a relationship with our centers in our state. So we have five centers. So we are pretty small in number. But we maintain pretty good regular communication, have meetings on a fairly regular basis. We are working together on the SPIL development process and a number of other issues. So again a positive for us there. The other thing that's going on in our environment is that we have come through a time where we had significant change with our council. A number of new members have come on just since June. Unfortunately there was some delays in appointments and that slowed down the whole process so that's been a real challenge for us. So because of that we started this whole process a little bit behind where we wanted to be. But the environment here is overall good. And we are looking forward to what's going to happen in the future. On the next slide here just to talk about the process we are following. As I said the process was significantly slowed and impacted by changes with the council. But what we have done here as happens in most states, I am sure, is the creation of a SPIL development committee chaired by our council chair and some council members and a number of folks from other organizations around the state, representatives from the centers. And then as I said other organizations and persons who have disabilities so we really made it a diverse group to get a variety of points of view and they have been a key part of the process in developing the SPIL and getting to where we are at so far. So we have done those things that most states do as well, with a needs analysis survey, done that online. One of the challenges we have had, and offered it in person in a variety of formats. One of the challenges we had was getting enough input. I am sure we all face that from time to time. We have learned a lot and will be definitely looking to do some things differently in the future. That was certainly a challenge and then also conducting community forums across the state to gather input to help us obviously on an ongoing basis doing these things to know about the needs across the state. One of the things that we find unfortunately that as we do these every couple of years and it's an ongoing process that unfortunately a lot of the same issues rise to the top. Employment, public transportation all of these types of things that we hear are needs for people who have disabilities on an ongoing basis and in our state it's compounded. You are in the very urban part of the state right now with four and a half million people living in the metro here but there are many people who live scattered out in rural communities. And I know we all have that in our states and that presents challenges as well and the needs in those communities very widely. To move on pretty quickly, we have had, on the next slide here, various groups meet to help with the process. The council we have met with CIL directors on an ongoing basis and obviously the SPIL development committee to review the data that we gathered from the needs analysis survey and the community forums. We are in the process now of reviewing and developing, especially the SPIL activities that we are going to have in the plan. So we are working through that process now and then having a discussion about how those Part B dollars will be used in our state. Because obviously some opportunity there. On slide 12 just going to talk a bit about how we chose our DSE and we were and will continue to work with our state rehab services program. We thought about positives and challenges. Mostly positives that we have had working with those folks. Really relatively few challenges. Looking at the good working relationship we have with those folks. Good communication that we have. And we feel like we have autonomy and the opportunity to operate freely and do what we need to do. And just a note here that we have talked about our main challenge is that we have had to work through getting some contracts in place and that kind of thing. But that's really the only challenge. We thought about other government units within the state we could work with. And just felt like it was best to continue where we are at because we know these folks and you never want to base a decision on where you are at now and the positives. You have to think long term about the things could change with the administration. You have to think in terms of mission and what we are all about and what they are all about. And feeling that's the place we want to be. And then on slide 13 once we have finished the SPIL draft in later February talk about our intentions here to share some listening sessions. Share the draft of the SPIL online and through other means to gather public input. And we use webinars and any other methodology we can to provide opportunities for people across the state and different organizations to provide feedback. So that's really the process we are going to work through. If there's any quick questions? Okay. I just want to say really quickly I have one last slide here just some food for thought if you will. On slide 14, first of all I suggest to people to be the change that you want to see in their state. This is kind of a suggestion especially to states where things are challenging. I have had I have worked in different states. I have worked in states where relationships were tenuous and tenuous might not be the right word for the situation in some states unfortunately. And what I should say is that we are accountable to people who have disabilities in the community. It's not about us. It's not about our ego as you go forward and do what you need to be doing to get your SPIL done and work with your DSE. That this is a real opportunity to show how things can be in states where you have had a lot of challenges. So be that leader and be the change you want to see in your state. The other thing I would say is while centers and SILCs make the final decisions about the content that are in the SPIL, I encourage you to cast a very wide net and not minimize the role that those organizations can play in developing your SPIL and providing input in the process. So cast a wide net. BRAD WILLIAMS: So in terms of New York, first with the selection of a DSE it was over shadowed by the governor's proposal for an Office on Community Living, known as an OCL. And it looked to combine aging and disability which is a good thing because that's obviously what happened at the federal level. And a report was due out at the end of 2015, early 2016. I mean, this was really promising. And, but it also over arched a whole process that we had. So you know our mind-set really was oh, okay. Well, we got to really pay attention to this. We started networking and having meetings with aging and seeing what we could possibly do. But then what we also did was we then started saying but we have to actually have someone in place October 1st, 2016, because if you don't have a DSE in place at the start of the plan you don't have a plan. You know because they could actually create an Office on Community Living it could take two to three years to actually happen. Okay? So we had that to deal with. All right? So because we have this whole retooling of this SPIL formulation and development process happening which is ambitious enough. So what ended up happening? Well, they had surveys and forms and a whole bunch of other things that were taking place which we were too busy doing our SPIL process. But actually it ended up being kind of contentious and the court came out and in a typical New York fashion, we like our silos. What can I say? You know. And it's not looking too promising. At least at this point. But we didn't know that back then. Okay? We had to do our planning. So what we ended up with is more of a focus on a single DSE versus our previous dual partners. And we did our due diligence. We obtained public input on the issue. And that was kind of an interesting process. There were certainly individuals who had their opinion. Okay? There were other individuals and we were talking about a very technical issue and we had to get some input and actually provide a little technical information at the moment. But it was good and we also said to ourselves hey, if this OCL thing falls through, next cycle we heard colleagues and what some of them did. If we get the chance, we really are going to do a DSE scope of administrative services the next time around if we get a chance because we would love to be able to solicit from the current DSE. Like when your audit cycle comes up for your CPA every five years. You put out the scope of services and you include your current auditor and five or six other ones and you make sure you vet it out and you get your best for your buck, right? Do the same thing, right? It makes sense. So that's what we want to do next time around so we will see what happens. But right now we know who our DSE is and that's the standard voc rehab agency. So through the work with our SPIL committee we have a state plan committee. We did SPIL formulation and development timeline. We posted online. It was updated with WIOA considerations. And it actually changed our process. We retooled our process. We are drafting the state plan right now. And it's challenging. You know, there's new things that we have to do. There's new sections we have to do. We are also going to then post the comments of February which is a new part of the process. We have to make room for the federal CIL directors in March and then the SILC is going to do its job in April. We then fortunately the technical review is going to take less time in May and then take that into the signatures and the uploading in June. That's the plan. ha ha. We all know how plans go, right? We will see. Just two things we felt we needed a voting process and developed that for the federal CIL directors and a mediation process. Ha ha ha. We will see. You never know. But it was a good thought. They were developed and then overall we just felt that communication and participation was seen as crucial for the federal CIL directors. I mean, it was needed because they needed to know what their new role was in the process. And not everyone knew the SPIL, the formulation and development process. So you had to kind of bring everyone in. And we had conference calls at the beginning of the process. We had it at the end of the public input process. We are going to have one after we draft the SPIL and before it goes out to public comments. So key points and I think it's been extremely important to do that also. Two of the four public hearings were at federal CILs and out of the 16 members on our state planning committee nine are from centers. Six are federal CIL directors. And there's also a representative from our IL state association and two DSU members. state association and two DSU members. So I think we have a good mix going there. I think that's extremely important, so that's New York. So maybe any questions for Arizona and New York? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, I am Cathy from West Virginia. What do you mean by federal center for independent living. BRAD WILLIAMS: That is true. New York has a large network of at least 40 centers. Some are state, they are service centers for independent living. They are state only funded centers without having the plan right in front of me at least 18 and they do not comply with 725 regs. They actually are under state education law. They comply with state regulation. It is very similar but not the same as 725 regs. And that's those centers. They are then centers for independent living and they comply with 725 regs and they might get federal and state funding. And then there's a couple of centers that are kind of both. Just federal, federal funded centers. So it's quite a network. A mix. AUDIENCE MEMBER: So when they are going to sign the SPIL does that mean just the federal ones? BRAD WILLIAMS: Each state has its determination. We had to make a determination of what that meant to the state of New York. And it says centers for independent living and they must comply with 725 regs. We wrestled with that and said well, that's what it is and so in our state the only ones that comply with 725 regs are those centers for independent living. But it's a very good question and that's one that we really had to think about and discuss. So thank you for asking that question. AUDIENCE MEMBER: In your state and both your states I lived in Arizona for 11 years so I am familiar with that state. I never lived in New York but I have relatives that do. How did you go about garnering or putting out the word of what independent living is so that you could garner people make comments on what they saw as independent living movement in your state. I think that's kind of a disconnect. We have this independent living movement and we have some people who know about independent living services and we have some people that are disabled that know nothing about them. Again I think that's a crucial group of people and all of our areas, all states have rural areas that are pretty isolated in many instances that really don't pay attention to what's going on up in Indianapolis or Phoenix or New York City or Albany in your case. So how do you get that, how is a way to get that out so that people understand that this is something that's pretty important to them and they should be commenting on it. LARRY WANGER: I will make a quick comment. Sounded like you have been in Arizona for a while. But one of my observations, especially when we are dealing with folks in more rural communities where IL services from the centers were not as available. Folks participated in the forum because they, especially up in the native communities up north where our Native American populations live. The centers there, there is one and it's very small and they did a very good job of promoting and publicizing the two forums we did up there in Tuba City and Window Rock. We had a number of folks, especially in Window Rock that really, I don't think really understood completely what independent living was and what centers do. So I think that presented challenges in some of the comments that we got, in relation to the questions that we asked about centers. We certainly got a lot of feedback about need. The other thing, the way it affected us. I don't feel we got a very good response when we did our needs analysis and online survey. To speak to your question, I think it is incumbent upon us to always be promoting independent living. I know that's a no brainer I think. But to deliberately go to get out in the community and go to events and go to be present. And be promoting. And then we do a lot with our centers and that kind of thing and that's important. But another key role we can play as SILCs is raising awareness of independent living across the state. So wherever possible if it's going to events or writing articles that can get published somewhere about what independent living is about. Testifying in meetings and et cetera the more work we do to raise awareness about independent living and what centers do the better off we will be when it comes time to gather this feedback. BRAD WILLIAMS: I will just add to everything that Larry just said, I am here with two council members, Lindsey and Zach, who are also with our state association, which is really strong. And they do a great job in terms of awareness and media. The SILC does its part but then the center network is so large and strong, they all individually do their part. It's kind of like what Larry is saying. When it's all replicated it helps with the visibility and awareness. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, Larry and Brad from New York. My name is Shea Stevens. I am the SILC director from Arkansas. What we have done is taken a new approach to how we even appoint for finding board members. We want to make it personal and where people with disabilities can see that it is important. So one of our board members is from rural Arkansas. When she was sworn in she made it a big deal. Her students with significant disabilities was part of that swearing in ceremony. The newspaper was there. We got calls from that. People wanted to know what is independent living and what are the centers for independent living. So one of our center directors who just came on board as not as a center director but as a person with a disability she did the same thing it was a small group but she had people that actually watched her get sworn in. Because I think what happens is when people get sworn in, it's just like oh, I am appointed by the governor. Make it a big deal, invite people so now what my board is doing we are looking at the fact that we will have two or three positions coming up. We will take all three and they will be sworn in. I am working with the secretary of state's office to have someone there. We are going to make it ceremonial and invite people with disabilities. I think it will help you with your visibility and with people asking questions what is independent living. One of the things is having people with disabilities at the table. That's very important and in Arkansas we are going to change our road map. Before people didn't know what we were. But I think now they are getting to see we are going things, we are making a difference. I commend people like Brenda Stinebuck who is here and we are doing a Phil Stinebuck courage award. We are very excited about that because we have people that have selected individuals that have embraced their disability and are making a difference. And we are making those big things that tie back to our SPIL. So I want today share those two things with you guys. AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is for one or both panel members up there. With regards to outreach, do you sit and develop definite types of strategies and if so, do you have a committee or how do you approach the development of those outreach strategies out to various types of communities, populated, underserved, rural, and also poverty areas? BRAD WILLIAMS: We have an outreach committee and it's connected to the section in our state plan. We do a needs assessment every three years and identifies the populations that are most in need. And then in this last couple cycles we have done what we call capacity building independent living grant opportunities for centers to do outreach grants that hopefully are self-sustaining to these particular groups. It could be men, women veterans with disabilities, they could be minorities with disabilities. They could be, boy I am going to blank, they could be any particular groups, I am trying to think. of all the different possibilities. Youth with disabilities is large. Many different possibilities. It's up to the center to identify within their cachment area what the significant need is based on target populations we have identified and to write the grants. And then they go out and do that outreach. And they do kind of best practice. And at the end we then do, have them do a best practice manual. And they try to do self-sustainment. They are trying to find a way to keep the thing sustaining. They might do it in a way where they try to include it within their services or try to do some fee for services or try to do some grant writing it keep it going. That is one. The other one is similar to what Shea was saying. Our first center director in the state of New York was Pat Figuera. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Pat. He developed the CIDNY, basically the Manhattan center. Pat was a mentor to many of us. Pat was a mentor to me. And he has unfortunately passed away. If any of you know Denise, Denise runs the Troy center but in recognition of Pat, we have a Pat Figuera young adult sponserships which connects into young adults with disabilities. Which we then have a process to promote training for young adults with disaibilities for them to learn leadership development. But that committee, you know, works through that process. Then they do the monitoring. Because you know we are supposed to the, you know. We look at the needs, then do the monitoring and then we do the evaluation as well. So that's what we do. AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is Barry, I am the president of our state association and a center director in Oregon. And six years on the SILC. I think these are great examples and really appreciate you sharing those. I am also real proud of where we are in Oregon and what we have done over the last year. So I am going to share real briefly some of the things we have done like in Arkansas and that you have shared. First of all I think it's an opportunity we have experienced to do things a little differently. And one of the things we did differently is we started a year ago we formed a joint committee between the state association and the SILC. And so I am the co-chair along with the SILC chair of the SPIL development committee. And we started meeting monthly in person and out of that in the winter last year and into the spring came of that in the winter last year and into the spring came kind of the realization that we always knew we only had core services in two-thirds of the counties in the state. So we said how can we do this differently? And what we committed to was a process over the summer where we had these listening sessions in all the counties of the state not just the two-thirds served by core services and we hosted those not only at the centers but also in the unserved areas with community partners, ADRC partners, et cetera. And we also had a commitment that each host of these listening sessions would be represented by a member of the SILC, a CIL director who is in that area or adjacent, but also then another CIL director and we found that, I think, to be very informative in uniting in terms of building shared experiences and insights. We still stumbled along but we have our, thanks to Shelly our first draft of our SPIL is out this week and it's going back to those listening sessions and those partners for initial comment and then it will go to the SILC for its March meeting. We kind of feel like, like probably a lot of you do in the room, that we are behind the eight ball and are we going to get all this done? But it's been an opportunity to also generate new members on the SILC. I think in the last six months as a result of this dialogue and engagement process, that we have six maybe seven new SILC members that have been welcomed on to the SILC from around the state. So I see it as a real opportunity but certainly not absent of its headaches but I think we are happy with how we're plugging along and hopefully we will even do it better three years from now when we are doing the next SPIL. LARRY WANGER: I am impressed, that is great. You already have yours written. I think you are ahead of a lot of us.