Creating Policy and System Change
for Independent Living
VOICE (866) 866-SILC (7452) • (916) 445-0142
TTY (866) SILC-TTY ( 745-2889) • FAX (916) 445-5973
1600 K Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814 •
www.calsilc.org
Executive Committee Meeting
10-8-15 Special Session
DRAFT Minutes
1. Call to Order: 12:10
2. Introductions
Linda Schaedle – SILC Vice-Chair
Jacqueline Jackson – SPIL Chair
Ardis Bazyn – SILC Member
Teresa Favuzzi – California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC)
Jay Harris – Department of Rehabilitation (DOR)
Ana Acton – FREED Center for Independent Living
Dwight Bateman -- DOR
Sheri Burns – Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC)
Liz Pazdral – SILC Staff
Robert McCarthy – SILC Staff
Danielle Hess – SILC Staff
Ed Kako – Mission Analytics – SPIL Consultant
3. Public Comment
a. None
4. Debrief on the IL Summit
a. Data Collection – There are gaps between the information on most
Independent Living (IL) services and Information and Referral services (I&R)
provided and what this data reflects when reported. The SILC hopes to sift
through and solidify some other options for data collection for this SPIL or
future SPILs.
i. Summary of Penetration rate and alternatives
1. Penetration rate is a metric designed to identify underserved
populations, not determine how well the ILCs are doing in
general. It is currently at 0.6 percent of people with disabilities
being served. There had been a drop from the 0.9 percent at the
last SPIL, which may be partially explained by the loss of ARRA
funding. Inland areas, Vision and Hearing impairment, and Asian
Americans are the underserved populations according to data.
Executive Meeting – Special Session
10/8/15 Minutes - DRAFT
Page 2
2. Another factor discussed that might make the numbers look
artificially low is the fact that I&R service data is not included.
While these reports of persons served are higher than those for
other IL Services, the data is not unduplicated and is not usable
in the penetration rate calculation.
3. There are very few secondary data options. The current strategy
for the A.N.D. Plan is to augment the quantitative findings with
information about ARRA funding and the qualitative data
collected by Ellis Planning Associates. Liz provided Ed and Galen
with ARRA funding amounts and DOR has offered to help fill in
any gaps.
4. Teresa Favuzzi asked about other ways to represent the I&R
units, since they are not unduplicated but are a very important
part of what the ILCs do. Ed will include the I&R numbers, and
state their limitations. Linda Schaedle stated the importance of
identifying it as a Core Service. The ILCs spend a lot of time on
I&R and Community Education.
5. Sheri asked about the historical Penetration Rate, especially
prior to the recession and the use of ARRA funds. Researchers
created this measurement for the SILC in 2010. It has always
been below 1%, because the ILCs have never been sufficiently
funded to provide services to all people with disabilities that
need them.
ii. Measuring data going into the future
1. A taskforce has been formed to look at better ways of capturing
the performance outcomes to hopefully increase funding in the
future. They will work to reach a consensus on action that will be
taken.
2. It was asked if SILC has the capacity to measure the most
underserved population? The conclusion was reached that all
populations are underserved, but it is a measurement required
by all previous SPILs. The instrument for the next SPIL
submission is unreleased and hoped for end of October or
beginning of November. The committee is focused on the WIOA
requirement that 51% of California ILC directors (at least 15)
will have to sign off in approval. The SILC is working to address
all concerns, and would like to encourage all ILC directors to
complete the survey sent out by Ed Kako at Mission Analytics.
3. Teresa asked Ed for clarification on the disability group which
was identified as most underserved, and she was told it was
Hearing and Visual Disabilities. It was noted that Developmental
Executive Meeting – Special Session
10/8/15 Minutes - DRAFT
Page 3
Disability information is pulled out of the data because there are
systems specifically in place to help that population. This could
be a factor for other disability groups also, having resources
outside of the ILCs built specifically to serve their needs. Mental
Health and Elder Services are two types to specifically look at,
but it will be hard to factor this type of information in to the
data. Jacqueline recommended maybe using graduate students
to look for that data, since all non-profit organizations have to
make reports.
iii. Other ideas – Existing secondary data is hard to compare to ILC data.
There is a large amount of need in the state, and the fact that they
serve as much as they can is a great feat. How could ILCs do better
without dedicated increased funding?
iv. DDS and Regional Centers have a very strict definition of who can get
services from them, while ILCs serve a much wider variety of people.
Other systems which are better funded are less productive which
speaks very well for the ability of ILCs to work with limited resources.
Jay also wanted to caution against putting too much emphasis on the
ARRA funding going away, because we don’t actually have data from a
year fully without ARRA funding.
b. Jay mentioned that funding amounts over the last three years have been
flat, and that Ed can possibly look at the effect inflation had.
c. Linda brought up the two major issues about the data, that it has to be
honest and it speaks to the issues which are important to Californians.
d. The committee decided that it is ok with providing penetration rates, as long
as they are presented as a small part of a larger story. The I&R data has to
be included, and be as transparent as possible.
e. There was a question of how the ILCs can provide the new mandated core
services related to youth and transition services without getting additional
funding?
f. Jacqueline was asked to comment as a representative of the SPIL
committee, and she said that they are happy with how staff is handling this
year’s SPIL. Stakeholder groups have been held by location for different
geographic areas and Veterans. Telephone focus groups targeted Youth with
disabilities and Native Populations. Surveys were collected at the bay area
Disability Unity Festival. There has been a question of what legacy programs
should be carried over to the next SPIL, and a survey will be put out to the
IL network to determine what is most important to people. It is important
that everybody feels welcome and like they are a part of the process. The
SPIL Committee is comfortable with proceeding with using the current
Executive Meeting – Special Session
10/8/15 Minutes - DRAFT
Page 4
information on the penetration rate, and emphasizing other important
factors and data such as I&R, inflation, and ARRA funding.
g. Liz mentioned that in previous SPILs, they have asked “If you are given
enough money to open a new center, where would it be?” The penetration
rate was seen as a scientific and credible way to demonstrate what areas are
the most underserved. The penetration rate is not required, but this question
will likely be in the new SPIL. This is a legacy remnant of a decision made in
the 90s to declare the whole state covered by existing ILCs, because the
centers wouldn’t have been eligible for additional funding if there were areas
of the state which needed to be covered. Drafts will be available of the SPIL
throughout the process, and everyone is welcome to review them.
h. Linda suggested adding aging populations, I&R, and community education to
the data collection. Liz does not know if there is capacity in the contract, or
time available to collect additional data. The first draft of the report on data
from the consultants will come in around the end of the month. Ed is also
happy to provide updates whenever the committee would like them. The
next SPIL meeting is October 26th.
i. Moving forward – look at a serious commitment in the SPIL group on how we
are looking at data and reporting on the state plan. Sheri agrees and
supports. Passing this over to Jacqueline now.
5. Evaluate Committee Roles in changes brought about by the IL Summit
a. SPIL update
i. The SPIL plan is going to be developed with the help of the
consultants.
b. Communications and Collaborations update
i. Robert and the committee are working together to gather information.
c. Governance update
i. No representative available
6. Next Meeting – October 26, 2015, 1:00-2:30
7. Adjournment
a. 1:23