OR 211 Coalition Meeting
Tuesday, December 5, 2000
Public Services Building - Basement A
Salem, Oregon
Minutes
In Attendance: Dan Johnson, Dept. Of Corrections; Kevin Nehila, OR Housing & Community Services; Kraig Ludwig, CAA of Yamhill Co.; Robert Green, OR Dept. of Human Services; Stacie Wheeler, Polk Co. Family Resource Network; Sue McGuire-Thompson, Youth Source CSC Linn County; Helen Goodin, Multnomah Co. I&R; Laura Young, USAF Family Resources; Lee Ann Ryles, Warmline I&R; Terry Guza, Dept. of Human Services OIS; Sandy Ensign, Helpline of the South Coast; Jeff Hill, Washington Co. Aging & Veteran's Services; Maya Close, OR Dept. Education; Debra Slater, OR Dept. Corrections; Jennie Gibson, Community Works; Jane Ellen Wiedanz, Senior & Disabled Services Division; Lynne Wimmer, Gorgehelp.net; Kate Kloos, United Way of Lane County; David Westbrook, Oregon Partnership; Linda Chase, Oregon Partnership; Len Hockley, White Bird; Liz Bartell, Clackamas Co. Social Services; Dawn Warneking, Benton County I&R; George Grosch, Benton Co. I&R; Dan Hayes, Community Services Consortium; Lyn Horine, OR Dept. of Education; Dick Matthews, OR Housing & Community Services; Phil Evans, Guide Line; Jose Gonzalez, Community Action Organization.
The group made self-introductions.
George Grosch opened the meeting with an overview of how this meeting originated. In July of 2000, the FCC set aside 211 as the designation for access to Information & Referral services. At the October 2000 conference of the Northwest Alliance of Information and Referral Systems a small group of Oregon I&R providers met to discuss 211 implementation. This meeting is the result of that discussion.
The goal for today's meeting is to determine if there is support to establish a steering committee for 211 implementation in Oregon. It was stressed that other than some very preliminary discussions between I&R providers in the Metro area there has been no work done on 211. We are currently on the ground floor and have the opportunity to develop and design a unique system to serve the needs of all of the people in Oregon.
Laura Young briefed the group on the history of 211 across the United States. The 211 system was first implemented in Atlanta GA about five years ago. Connecticut, Texas, Massachusetts and Florida are at various stages of operation and implementation.
When the FCC granted the designation they left implementation up to the states and set no specific guidelines. They also made 211 a five-year demonstration project so there is a need for states to begin work if the designation is to remain. Each state could have a different system for 211.
The Northwest Information & Referral Association (NIRA) made up of Metro area I&R providers met last spring and summer to discuss 211. Since that time the Washington portion of that group has started to participate with WIN 211 who is working on implementation in Washington state.
Nationally, the Alliance of Information & Referral Systems (AIRS), United Way of America and all of the regional I&R associations have formed the 211 Collaborative. The 211 Collaborative is taking the lead in developing national standards for 211 and 211 call centers. Laura has represented Oregon on the national 211 project. Texas 211 has been four years in the process. They have broken up the state into regions to be served by call centers. She shared a map of Texas with the group that highlighted this strategy.
Robert Gray mentioned he attended a meeting of the Oregon Public Utilities Commission that is working with the Department of Transportation and the phone companies to implement 511 as the number for state wide road conditions. At that meeting there were several points that were of high interest to the telephone companies;
He felt the PUC does not seem to be real involved and is looking to the groups to provide them with direction and answers to the questions.
Laura responded that similar conversations have happened in other states around 211. She passed around a copy of "Creating a 211 Service" a manual developed by the 211 Collaborative to outline the process for establishing a 211 system. She also gave out the website of the 211 Collaborative 211.org.
Group discussion followed and centered on cost, shared data, and benefits to Oregon and service providers of a 211 system.
COST: Cost and funding will be a factor. Atlanta has spent several million dollars to get their system up and running. The group acknowledged that cost would be a factor but that it was an issue that should be addressed at a later stage in the planning process. Develop a state coalition, design a practical system, involve stakeholders and costs can be worked out as the process progresses.
DATA SYSTEMS & COLLECTION: The Corrections Department has been working on a project to identify service providers in all counties and has that project just about completed. George spoke to concerns of I&R providers that data is the bread and butter of I&R and there is always concerns from I&R providers when outside groups ask for our databases. Dan said the Corrections Department intends to make the data available to providers and intends to use it to help with release planning for inmates. The group acknowledged the concern and also expressed a desire on the part of providers to make information universally available. Lynne said in conversations she has had with Info Line of Los Angles she learned that I&R providers usually always benefit from universal access and do not lose revenue from the sale of directories as a result. Liz brought p the fact that no matter how good the products and the databases are it will not take the place of trained I&R providers. Developing, maintaining and having clear standards for statewide database will be an issue this group will need to address.
BENEFITS: Having 211 means universal access to I&R, it will also foster and promote greater service integration across the state. It will increase aces to services in areas of the state that currently are under served or do not have an I&R provider. It is a means to remove barriers to service and can help standardize how information and referral services are provided. 211 has the potential to provide clear data on unmet needs across the state and can serve as a tool for future planning and may be the best resource to begin to truly meet the needs of the public.
George asked the group who should be represented at the table that is currently not here? PUC; United Ways; phone companies; FEMA; politicians; CUB; 911. Several members of the group said they would follow up locally on some of these contacts. Others will invite other key stakeholders in their communities to participate in future meetings.
What should be the next steps for this group? George mentioned that he felt there was support around the table to continue to meet and clarify the direction we want to proceed. Discussion centered on the following ideas:
George opined he felt there was consensus to meet again. The group expressed that the meeting was productive and was optimistic about bringing 211 to fruition in Oregon.
NEXT MEETING: Tuesday January 16, 2001, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Salem. Lyn Horine will coordinate the meeting room.