Why Vision Matters

We have talked a lot about the series of policy changes back in late 2013 that resulted in the statewide Community First Choice K Plan, in consolidating services and payment into the eXPRS Plan of Care, and the rise of the Adult Needs Assessment as a primary point of departure for service planning and funding. Today, we believe that more change is necessary if Oregon is to regain a functional, sustainable structure for IDD services.

In our last post, we talked about the series of changes that reshaped the landscape for intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) services in Oregon. From the summer of 2013 until the close of 2015, we were taking on new processes, new forms, new rules, and new roles as fast as we could implement them. (And quite often, faster than we could implement them.) Now, as we take a breath, it feels wrong to be talking about system change again. But we are talking about it, and we have to keep talking about it, because where we have arrived isn’t where we get to stay. Our services are too costly, and they aren’t netting the kind of outcomes that we’d like to see for people in services. And therein lies the problem–how will we know success when we see it? To get to the right end, you have to go about things the right way.

binoculars

source: freeimages.com

Start with a vision.  Unfortunately, just because you put a lot of energy and effort into a project doesn’t guarantee its success. We started the 2013 change process with the goal of funding our services through the Community First Choice Option (K Plan), instead of through the collection of Medicaid Waivers through which services were previously authorized. At the outset, state leadership held the belief that this change in funding authority would be a back-end change, imperceptible to people using the services. It didn’t turn out that way. Making a federal funding authority our North Star didn’t lead us very far. This perceived lack of direction was part of what compelled OSSA to come up with our Vision for the Future of Disability Services in Oregon. It’s not enough to know how we’re going to pay for the services, we need to start with why we want to have the services in the first place. What is our vision for Oregonians with IDD? How should people be treated? What place should they hold in our communities? We need to start with a destination in mind, and then figure out how to get there.

Think long-term. It’s hard for public policy to plan for the long-term. Lawmakers come and go, appointed officials change office, public opinion supports a project one day, and has forgotten it the next. This capricious nature is why stakeholders must come together and do the long-term planning and visioning with state leadership, in an effort to safeguard funding and services for future Oregonians with IDD and their families. Many of the changes enacted with the K Plan in 2013 were reactionary. We were reacting to budget holes and to federal compliance issues. Though budgetary concerns and federal compliance are both important considerations, budgets are in a state of flux, as is federal law. Responding to their whims without balancing the long-term needs of a system will not get us the results we want.

planning for the future

source: freeimages.com

Plan for a Whole Life, not a Service Life. When evaluating a social service, it’s easy to focus on what you can get–how many hours, how much money, what’s the upper limit? But focusing on the benefit itself won’t get a person the outcomes they desire. You have to start with an idea of the life you want–who do you want to be, what do you want to do, what’s the upper limit of your happiness? We call this approach seeking a Whole Life instead of a Service Life, and it is key to making the most out of the services available. As a community, we have to refocus on the people using these services, and the lives they want to live, connected to their communities, building relationships, and benefiting from paid and unpaid supports. When we start with a goal, we often find that we can balance the imperative to be good stewards of public funds with the necessary funding and supports to live a full life.

This isn’t a detailed plan, but it is a place to start. There will be debates and arguments, differences in opinion about where to spend and where to save. We don’t have to agree on everything. But, in the end, what matters is we are all pulling in the same direction–toward rich and fulfilling lives for all Oregonians.

Advertisements

Nothing Endures But Change

We have talked a lot about the series of policy changes back in late 2013 that resulted in the statewide Community First Choice K Plan, in consolidating services and payment into the eXPRS Plan of Care, and the rise of the Adult Needs Assessment as a primary point of departure for service planning and funding. The entire system still struggles to find equilibrium in the wake of such wholesale change. Equity in service allocations, rates of pay, and time spent on face-to-face services vs. paperwork has been disrupted due to choices made during the implementation of these policies. Today, we believe that more change is necessary if Oregon is to regain a functional, sustainable structure for IDD services.

Disintegrating-DollarSpending  When Support Services were founded back in the early 2000s, the eligibility requirements for IDD services were intentionally broad to serve as many people as possible. The hard caps on service allocations, averaging around $14,000 annually by 2012, kept service spending well in hand despite increasing enrollment. Hard caps such as this were eliminated under the K Plan, and we have seen a corresponding rise in cost-per-case within Support Services. Another reason for this rise is Oregon’s choice of assessment tool, which currently determines service allocations. The Adult Needs Assessment (ANA) is an Oregon invention, adapted from the SNAP assessment used for years to determine Adult Foster Care rates. The ANA had to be adapted quickly, and there was not time for the Office of Developmental Disability Services to ensure that the tool was a valid measure of needs, nor that it was reliable from one person to another. The resource allocation mechanism was likewise completed without adequate time to test and ensure that funding was allocated at an appropriate level. The result of the rush to implement the ANA is a tool that allocates substantially more funds than are being used, on average. It is also more medical and deficits-focused than most stakeholders would like. The ANA and uncapped service structure have combined for a precipitous increase in spending by Support Services customers–a 42% increase from April 2014 to April 2015, according to the Department’s report to the Joint Interim Subcommittee on Human Services on September 28, 2015. These spending trends are not sustainable, and a core feature of any high-quality service system for people with IDD is that they are dependable and assured from year to year.

Case management  K Plan policy created a sea-change for Personal Agents, who were essentially forced to relearn their jobs while continuing to perform them. Anyone who has had a Personal Agent since before 2013 has probably felt the crunch–less face time, slower response time, more paperwork. New reporting requirements, mandated forms, and the eXPRS database have all added layers of additional responsibility to the Personal Agent position, moving them further and further away from the people they would like to serve. Strong case management is critical to a healthy, functioning IDD system–case managers serve as the pivot point for all services, a single focus of coordination to ensure that we adhere to state and federal rules, and keep the individual’s direction and wishes primary. A change in the job description for case managers, and in the structure of case management, is necessary to refocus worker time and workforce strength.

Pay rates  Service hours have become abundant for many people in the IDD service system. However, the rate of pay attached to those hours has decreased, or failed to keep pace with rising inflation. The result of this is that individuals are simply not able to find providers for all of the service hours for which they are currently eligible. Agency providers of IDD services have hundreds of open positions across the state that remain unfilled. As the economy improves and the reimbursement rate for these services remains low, skilled, experienced providers leave the system for jobs in unrelated fields. For a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon, please check out The Cost of Compassion, a short film created by the Oregon Rehabilitation Association.

Change is coming, and we need to be prepared. In our next post, we will discuss the methods and approach we will need to employ during the coming period of policy change. We have to learn from our recent history, improve on our own performance, and learn from our mistakes if we hope not to repeat them.

Vision, January 2016: A Second Look at the Future of IDD Services in Oregon

Nearly one year ago, the Oregon Support Services Association shared our February 2015 Vision for the Future of Disability Services in Oregon. It was meant to be a comprehensive look at what we want for our service system, with ideas about how we might get there. While the ultimate vision hasn’t changed substantially, the ideas for how we get there have been refined to fit a January 2016 understanding of the world. Click here to view the OSSA Vision For the Future of Disability Services in Oregon, January 2016.

As OSSA President Larry Deal and I reviewed our vision one year in, we were both struck by how much the IDD field has learned over the past 12 months. We have necessarily been on a crash-course education in Medicaid policy, Oregon law, and the

January 2016 deserves a second look.

It’s January 2016! IDD services in Oregon deserve a second look.

realities of working in the field. Oregon’s IDD system has been asking itself what is possible, what it values, and at what cost. A centerpiece of our original Vision was the suggestion that

Oregon seek two distinct K Plan options–one for Self-Directed services, and one for Agency-Directed services. Oregon’s current K State Plan is approved under Agency-Directed authority, which does not allow for the level of individual direction and control that we would seek to return. Subsequent work locally and with federal CMS has taught us that there can be only one K State Plan. However, that single plan can be written for a more complex authority that blends Agency-Directed structures with Self-Directed options. We hope that Oregon will move forward with this in the coming months as the K Plan renewal enters planning stage.

Each section has been updated with a paragraph at the bottom detailing major developments relevant to the topic. The highlights will give you a good idea of what our 2015 work has accomplished. However, we have also made comprehensive updates to every page throughout the document–if you can, please read it through.

Highlights of this January 2016 update:

  • Pg. 7 Case Management Funding is new. Funding mechanism (currently, billable encounters) has increasingly dictated structure in this area (case management time is only spent on billable activities), and we need to find ways to decouple the two.
  • Pg. 8 Eligibility is under scrutiny in Oregon, which has a long history of casting the doors open wide for those who need support services; we support a broad front door.
  • Pg. 9 Choice Advising is given its own page, due to the rise in problems stemming from our current lack of direction in this area.
  • Pgs. 11-15 describe our vision of the IDD service structure; Brokerages provide case management to adults living in their own or family homes, CDDPs provider case management to adults and children living in licensed/certified home settings, and both Brokerages and CDDPs are able to serve children in their own or family homes. There is a lot to say about how to get to this! Take a look at the details of this section.
  • Pg. 16 Plan Development has changed a lot in one year, with the introduction and full roll out of the Oregon ISP document for every individual in service.
  • Pg. 17 Assessment is an area in which a lot of work has been done, and even more is left to do.
  • Pg. 19 Community Provider Capacity hasn’t changed a lot in the vision, but there are a lot of large structural forces at work (federal laws, collective bargaining, etc.) driving this part of the system. 2016 is a make-or-break year for this area of the system.
  • Pg. 22 Data Systems have not seen the improvement that we would have hoped. We will continue to advocate for a functional, supportive statewide data system.

Our Vision for the Future is meant to be a living document, changing as conditions change and our understanding expands. We have committed to updating this every six months, especially during the rapid pace of change that seems poised to continue in Oregon’s IDD service system. Contribute your unique perspective in the comments below. Tell us what we got wrong, and what we got right. It is up to all of us to decide what comes next for Oregon.

This Week, Oregon Brokerage Association Celebrates Five Years

5-Year-Anniversary
This weekend, the Oregon Support Services Association celebrates its 5 year anniversary!

We formed the association in 2010 just as Oregon brokerages were about to celebrate a decade of services to the Intellectual and Developmental Disability (I/DD) community. The past five years have been filled with successes, challenges, and more twists and turns than anyone could have predicted. As many of you know, today’s terrain is significantly different.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of OSSA’s Executive Director, Katie Rose. Katie has been on the job for just about a year now and having her as a full-time leader has made a huge impact for brokerage operations and within the I/DD community at large. She has successfully represented the work of brokerages statewide through legislative efforts, legislative testimonies, partnership, training development, and advocacy. Thanks for all you do, Katie Rose.  Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the membership of the association – the brokerage directors – for their passion, their patience, and their drive. You do beautiful work and you are very much appreciated by the communities you serve.

The coming year, no doubt, will bring with it both new successes and challenges for Oregon and the community at large. OSSA looks forward to continued and deepening engagement with state leadership, community partners, providers, legislators, and, most importantly, with the individuals and families receiving services.

As we celebrate this milestone in our history, we hope you and yours are gearing up to celebrate a healthy and happy holiday season.

Our best to you and yours,

Larry Deal
OSSA President

A Diversity of Services Requires A Diversity of Providers

Community-based services are different.  In 2001, Oregon made a deep investment in community supports when it began to develop Support Services Brokerages.  This style of service, which seeks to serve people where and how they wish to live, is very support servicesdifferent from the institutional settings of the past.  People make different choices when you let them, they express different needs than you might have anticipated–they surprise you.  Oregon found that community-based services demanded a wider diversity of providers.  People inviting workers into their homes expected different things from those providers: willingness to take direction directly from the individual as to how to do the job, and an understanding and respect for self-determination.  Brokerage customers made use of established provider agencies for some tasks, direct employees for others; and over the years, Independent Contractors, or professionals in the field who go into business for themselves, have also sprung up around in-home services and customer needs.

Independent Contractors often offer a professional level of skills and experience, as well as ancillary expertise such as sign language, to provide the targeted training needed to build a more independent life.  For many people, an experienced, capable, autonomous, self-employed trainer has meant the difference between continuing to rely on others and acquiring the skills to live more independently.  Over the years, Independent Contractors have been essential to providing this kind of high-level skills training to Brokerage customers.

In 2014, the Independent Contractor stakeholder work-group mandated by the SEIU/DHS collective bargaining agreement issued a report concluding that changes to the system had likely made legitimate classification of independent contractors next to impossible.  The group’s work included consultations with The Oregon Employment Department.  Systemic changes due to the K state plan, overlay of union representation, implementation of the eXPRS payment system, and new rate structures have all resulted in incremental shifts, accumulating to a significant transformation of the business of Independent Contractors within the field.  This shift has jeopardized their correct classification as Independent Contractors by moving them closer and closer to the appearance of employees.rob_olga2

Brokerages believe and have always believed that Independent Contractors fill a particular need among brokerage customers.  Diversity of providers has been a hallmark of the brokerage system since its inception.  The elimination of Independent Contractors as a distinct class of providers with a distinct set of skills to offer people with IDD will be a significant loss to the people being served by Oregon.  When high-caliber skills training and the people who provide it are no longer supported by appropriate compensation, it starts to disappear as an option for the people who need it.  Community-based IDD services require people who can offer strength-based supports–people who can work with a person to understand a goal, create achievable steps, and get there.  OSSA supports a true diversity of provider options to meet the diversity of individual needs.

PSW-ICs deserve our support.  This group of people who have established businesses around the unique needs of Oregon’s IDD community, people who have built these skills and relationships, deserve a solution that allows them to continue to flourish and contribute their professional talents to serve the unique needs of Oregonians.

Choosing Between Vital Parts is a Losing Proposition for I/DD

When it comes to full lives for Oregonians with intellectual and developmental disabilities, we want it all.  As a member of the Oregon I/DD Coalition, OSSA helped to identify four top priorities for the 2015 legislative budgeting session.  These four priorities, together, represent a pathway to richer lives for Oregonians with I/DD.  The four priorities are:

  • DSP Wages: Raise the wage for Direct Support Professionals.
  • Brokerage and CDDP Workload Model Budget:  Fund workload model at proposed 95% equity for CDDPs and Brokerages.
  • Fairview Trust:  Keep the promise of community housing opportunities for people with IDD and restore the Fairview Trust.
  • Employment: Continue funding to improve employment outcomes for people with IDD.

These priorities are listed in no particular order, for one very important reason: we cannot possibly weight one over the other if we are truly in support of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  Together, these elements of community employment, quality support professionals, community housing, and high-quality case management work together in a person’s life.  Each makes the other possible.

When I think about trying to prioritize our four adopted budget goals, it seems to me that I’d be choosing between the “neck” of the system (our case management force, connecting people to vital resources) or the “head” of the system (the resources people need to create full lives).  The head will not prosper without a neck; employment services, housing services, and provider organizations will not prosper without a strong case management force to navigate people to engage with them.  Likewise, the neck is pointless without a head; case management services are pointless without the employment, housing, and provider resources to which we can direct customers.  Choosing between vital parts is a losing proposition for the I/DD body.

(public domain source)

(public domain source)

Choosing between equally critical services, or offering one to be cut over another, is a non-starter for the OSSA.  However, this does not mean that OSSA is unwilling to engage in the process of tough decision-making, should it be required at DHS.  The Office of Developmental Disabilities has new, dedicated, and promising leadership in Director Lilia Teninty.  We do not ask her to make hard decisions in a vacuum, but instead are willing to provide important education on the impacts and ramifications of various options as they are considered.  We do not wish to instruct, but we are happy to support, the budgeting activities of ODDS.

OSSA sees an incredible opportunity at hand for the many components of the Oregon I/DD community to develop a strong, cohesive presence at the capitol.  Our strength is in the purity of our collective goal: to promote quality service and supports which respectfully further the rights, equality, justice, and inclusion for all Oregonians with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.

OSSA’s Vision for the Future of Disability Services in Oregon

Sometimes, in the midst of change, it is hard to see the way forward.  Oregon’s system of services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities once felt like it had a clear identity as a national leader for progressive, community-based service.  We closed down institutions.  We gave control to the people using the services.  We showed that giving people self-determination can not only be right, it can also be cost-effective, good business.  Somewhere, in the crush of change and hurtling, forward momentum, we have lost the clarity of that identity.

Oregon the beautiful, through and through.

Oregon the beautiful, through and through.

Now is the time to work to reclaim that pioneering spirit at the heart of our state.  Make no mistake, it will take work–no one else in the nation is using the K Plan in the same way that Oregon has.  We’re out on the grand stage, we’re under the watchful eye of the national Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and we need to make this work.

It is in the spirit of collaboration, excellence, and service that we offer our Vision for the Future.  As is stated in our Opening Thoughts on page 2, this is “intended to be a starting point for discussion,” not a perfect, finished product.  We start with the vision and we fill in the rest, together.ossacoverforfacebook

Take a look, let your gears turn, and share your thoughts with us.

Thank you!

An Interview with Brokerage Association Leader Kathryn Weit (Part One)

By Larry Deal
Executive Director, Independence Northwest
Communications Director, Oregon Support Services Association

I recently sat down with newly-appointed Oregon Support Services Association Executive Director Kathryn Weit to discuss her history, her thoughts on the brokerage system, the implementation of the K Plan, and where she sees brokerage services headed.

Kathryn has been a hugely influential player in services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities both in the northwest and nationally. She played an integral role in the development of brokerage services in Oregon and brokerages statewide could not be more pleased that she’s signed on to lead us into Oregon’s next phase of services. Sometimes the best way to figure out where you’re going is to remember how you got where you are. Our conversation started there.

Larry: What did services look like in Oregon twenty years ago?

Kathryn: Looking back fifteen years plus, prior to the filing of the Staley lawsuit and the creation of the brokerage system, Oregon was in the process of downsizing an institution and we had very, very long wait lists.

Larry: Wait lists for community-based-services?

Kathryn: For everything. I use the term wait list loosely because it really never was a wait list. It was a crisis list. If you went into crisis, you got services. There were very few services for adults except group homes. Any family of a child under 18 who needed any kind of support had to go through the Child Welfare system. And they had to say they were on the verge of having to place their family member out of home, usually into foster care. It had to be that serious before there was a possibility of getting in-home supports. The stories you’d hear families tell about trying to survive without any support and then having to say this. It was devastating.

Larry: And your son, Colin – you were in this situation with him, right?

Kathryn: When my son was sixteen, we had a major crisis in the family and we had to go the crisis route. We had to go to Child Welfare and we had to tell people why we couldn’t handle our situation any longer by ourselves.  It was one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life.

Larry: And when you say services – what are we talking about here? What did these services look like?

Kathryn: Early on the services through Child Welfare were designed to support families with respite, in home support, and things like behavior support. Later the Developmental Disabilities Program created some very small, grant funded, family support programs for families with children under 18. It was later expanded to include families of adults. Services were extremely limited. For example in Multnomah County there were only fifty families who had access to supports. (Ed: for comparison, there are thousands in services in Multnomah County today.) It was very limited, but it gave advocates a model to draw from. First, someone needing supports got a “guide” (much like a Personal Agent) to help find and engage with community resources. And second, you got a little bit of funding. But for the first time it was funding that was family-controlled. The satisfaction level in that program was incredibly high. People thought it was amazing. And when the state asked, people told them that their “guide” was the most important thing. These pilot programs helped shape some of the understanding of policymakers.

Larry: The structure sounds very much like the structure and services offered by brokerages today.

Kathryn: Yes. Then later, before the Staley lawsuit was filed, the state applied for and received a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant. The idea was to look at what was becoming a national agenda in terms of self-determination and to apply some of those principles to adult services. They set up a small model brokerage (Self-Determination Resources Inc.) and this really pushed systems change.

Larry:
At the time, over 5,000 people were waiting for services, which led to Staley v. Kitzhaber.

Kathryn: If you consider both adults and children who were eligible but not receiving services, yes. Yes, the lawsuit was based on the fact that there were people who were eligible for services but denied them. The State chose to negotiate a settlement of the lawsuit.

Larry: After the lawsuit was settled, the state set out to develop services for everyone on the wait list. How did the brokerage model emerge?

Kathryn: Oregon chose very specifically to say: “This is Oregon, we have economic ups and downs, we are not a rich state, we cannot afford to provide 24 hour, seven days a week residential services to everybody on our wait list.” Many people don’t need that level of service. We learned that people are good decision makers about what they need in their lives when given support and guidance that’s meaningful to them. A crucial element was that families and individuals with disabilities needed to be in the leadership role. Through much discussion, stakeholders arrived at the conclusion that small, decentralized nonprofit and community-based programs would provide a solid foundation for choice-driven services.

Larry: And then we fast forward thirteen years. Oregon chooses to pursue higher federal funding through the Community First Choice Option (the K Plan.) What are your thoughts on this change?

Kathryn: I think that for years we have argued that we needed more resources in the DD system. We all know that there are people with significant support needs who aren’t receiving the level of supports that they actually require and need. We knew that the existing Support Services funding was not adequate for many people. I think the K is an incredible opportunity for Oregon to bring more resources into the state. The challenge is in the implementation.

Larry: Do you think the state expects us to deliver services differently now as a result of the K Plan’s implementation?

Kathryn: Well, additional resources are wonderful but we need to remain focused on the goals, the vision that people with disabilities, with appropriate supports, can create a full life, rich in friends and meaningful community connections, employment and significant relationships.  It is what we want for all our children. There’s no reason we have to lose those values, though I believe they are significantly endangered. The K has forced change in what I believe are the fundamentals: self-determination, choice and control. We have moved to a system that is deficits-based. That being said, I think there are ways- could have been ways – that didn’t undermine these cardinal values. Brokerages are committed to keeping the conversation about these values alive. It hasn’t been popular because it isn’t easy. I think we all recognize that any kind of system change is difficult and that the implementation process is the hardest part. That being said I am struck by the lack of planning that has ignored the hydraulics of a lifespan service system, the failure to listen to the lessons learned in the past, and the failure to listen to operational wisdom of stakeholders. The result has caused long-held priorities to be turned inside out. We will continue to  push for involvement in these conversations, before decisions are made.  It is important to have our core values drive decision-making instead of being after-thoughts that are an inconvenience to the process.

Larry: You mentioned a deficits-based approach. This brings to mind the Functional Needs Assessment or Adult Needs Assessment, which is a tool we now use when people enter brokerage services. The tool measures a person’s support needs and determines what services they’re eligible for. When you think about having a needs assessment completed – well, that’s something many states require. This isn’t a new idea, it’s not out of left field. But what you’re saying is that it’s not the tool that is the concern, it’s the approach.

Kathryn: It’s the implementation that’s the problem. Most states have some kind of assessment like this – a functional needs assessment. I think the key is in how the process gets framed. I recently went through an assessment with my son. I think the person who did it is wonderful and I understand that time is short. But I would have liked to hear “What would he like to be doing? What would he like his life looking like?” It would help focus on the idea that these supports are being offered for a purpose. There is great power in starting an assessment by talking to someone about who they are and what they hope to be. It’s not just powerful for people with disabilities. It informs the way we all think and behave.

Larry: I think brokerages are focusing on goal development first and finding a way to fit the needs assessment in as naturally as possible. It’s a shift and we’re still learning how to make all the pieces fit. One of the bigger concerns right now is that the tool being used is temporary, just a placeholder. This is an untested experience and, as it stands right now, Oregon plans to change the assessment tool we’re currently using and replace it with a different tool by January of next year.

Kathryn: What we must not lose sight of is that this may be just a pilot project in some people’s eyes, but for the people going through this assessment having their support plans radically changed, there is nothing “pilot” about it. This is about their lives. It’s about getting the resources they need and are being told they’re entitled to under the new funding model. I think it’s a really important message that people making these decisions need to understand. This is not a pilot. These are people’s lives. Clearly, the introduction of any new assessment tool and process must be thoroughly planned and implemented in a way that does not disrupt the lives of customers and families or cause chaos in the system. January 2015 is too soon. The dust will have not settled from this last effort.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of our talk with Kathryn. She discusses the brokerage response to the K plan, the concern over monthly versus annual budgeting for customer plans, and thoughts on appropriate long-term strategies to assure a sustainable future for services for Oregonians with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

OSSA Announces Kathryn Weit as Association Executive Director

By Margaret Theisen
Oregon Support Services Association President

The Oregon Support Services Association (OSSA) is pleased to announce the hiring of Kathryn Weit as our Executive Director.  Kathryn is well known as an advocate and leader for services to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.  Her extensive history in our State includes participating in launching the Oregon Support Services Brokerage system, leading the Oregon Developmental Disabilities Coalition and serving as the Executive Director of the Oregon Council on Developmental Disabilities.

Her primary roles are advisory to OSSA regarding advocacy needs on major policy, budget and customer issues for support services brokerages and the broader IDD system; representation of OSSA at key DHS, legislative and other organizational meetings; recommending advocacy actions to OSSA and to function as the key communicator for the association.  Additionally, she will be working in support of spotlighting client success stories with the advent of the K plan and addressing implementation concerns identified in our current Advocacy position, posted here for your information.  Kathryn will report to the OSSA Board of Directors, which consists of the 13 Executive Directors of the Oregon Support Services Brokerages.  https://ossaweb.wordpress.com/about/

Kathryn is reachable at KathrynWeit@oregonsupportservices.org and 541-520-7461.

An Open Letter to James Toews, Beloved Friend of Support Services in Oregon

Dear James,

The Oregon Support Services Association hosted a 10th anniversary party celebrating the opening of the first brokerage in Oregon last month. This fantastic gathering was nearly perfect, and it would have been if you would have been with us! You were sorely missed and deserve significant recognition for your accomplishment.

Support Services as we know them would not have been accomplished without your vision, leadership and heart. As you will see by the photo display on our Facebook page, the 125 people in attendance included individuals and families who launched the effort that became the Staley Agreement. It was much like a family reunion with great food, laughter, storytelling and deep appreciation expressed for the dedication by the team who made it all happen. We can share some of this with you from pictures and people sharing their experience.

Perhaps the best way to acknowledge you for your accomplishment is to ensure the continuation of the high quality of Support Services you helped create. You have our full commitment we will do everything possible, and things that seem impossible, to do so. After all, you lead the way and doing the impossible is what dreamers do. Thank you for your work, dedication and leadership. You have our highest regards!

The Oregon Support Services Association

Margaret Theisen (Full Access)
Dan Peccia (Self Determination Resources Inc.)
Bill Uhlman (Eastern Oregon Support Services Brokerage)
Barbara Hedrick (Creative Supports Inc.)

Ed Little, Jr. (Mentor Oregon Brokerage – South)
Barbara Charette (Southern Oregon Regional Brokerage)
Bev Herrin (Resource Connections of Oregon)
Jill Ferns (Integrated Services Network)
Howard Miller (Inclusion Inc.)
Larry Deal (Independence Northwest)
Katie Rose (Mentor Oregon Brokerage – Metro)
Jennifer Bickett (Community Pathways Inc.)
Sarah Knight (UCP Connections)