OR 211 Coalition Meeting
Wednesday, September 19, 2001
First United Methodist Church
1838 SW Jefferson, Portland, Fireside Room
Minutes
Attending: Cher Pendell, The Arc of Oregon; Raquel Amaya, Mult Cty Aging; Helen Goodin, City of Ptld I&R; Susan Berns-Norman, Clack Cty CCF; Phil Evans, Guideline; Lowell Greathouse, United Way; Dave Hablewitz, DHS; Dwayne McQuilliams, Clatsop CA; Doug Bartlett, Yamhill Cty CA; Gary Lasater, NW Human Svc; Terry Guza, DHS OIS; Wayne Armour, Am Red Cross; Rebecca Peatow, Guideline, Inc; Bonnie Davidson, CADO; Brenda Hawes, HeadStart; Liz Bartel, Clack Co Social Svc; Len Hockley, Infoline, Lane Cty; Kathleen Perry, ARC of Mult Co; Priscilla Gould, United Way, Eug; George Grosch, Benton Co. I&R
Grass roots effort continues - partners around the state are enthusiastic. Contacts made in legislature, also with head of housing and community services.
Other locations such as LaGrande are looking for a date to have meeting.
Marion/Polk counties are meeting and looking at how they will organize their 211 effort, Lane & Jackson counties are also meeting.
Contact with Quest - they have put a regulation in to PUC specifying how they will organize the n11 number services. PUC has no authority to approve or disprove the regulations, they just get the information and accept it. Quest is apparently thinking .05 per call (to the provider), plus some additional line and service fees that George said sounded reasonable to him from what he has heard. It appears this is the same rate structure they have proposed in other states.
Organization of Coalition structure:
Organization Issues:
Some bias was expressed against 5013C because of the amount of work involved in setting up and tracking.
NW Human Services expressed interest in helping, as are other I&Rs.
CADO - is soon to become a 501c4 - not gov't affiliated. There was some thought that this group might be a good umbrella organization.
Fiscal issues - Who is the fiscal umbrella? Could CADO be the fiscal agent - Bonnie said it would depend on timeline and what type of support is needed.
How as a coalition, does 211 associate with some other group - what would that collaboration look like? Agreements between groups could be enough to create the definitive group to lead.
Other choices? Sponsoring agency should be able to offer office space, phones, and other daily functional needs.
Look at staffing a developmental position for 1 1/2 - 2 yr time. Get funding and recruit for a person. They would like to get a person with I&R skills but also want to leave the door open for "loaned" staff, which wouldn't have it. Need to walk the line between helping and mandating what would happen with a central umbrella agency. What would be the job-description for such a person.
After discussion, it was determined that a sub-committee will be formed to address the following:
Proposal: get a small sub committee identified to define what is being looked at as an affiliation between members.
Volunteers for Sub Committee:
Bonnie Davidson, CADO
George Grosch, Benton County I&R
Liz Bartel, Clackamas County Social Services
Gary Lasater, Northwest Human Resources
Dave Hablewitz, DHS Columbia County
Phil Evans, Guideline
Organizational Tasks to be accomplished:
Other Ideas and Issues:
Agencies that want to be represented should have an attendee at every meeting.
The person who comes from an agency is the same person so the wheel doesn't need to be created each time - background, vision, etc.
Get a person to represent groups: Community Action groups, United Way, etc. Then that person will take the information back to their groups & disseminate it.
Premature to set steering committee at this time but work toward those means.
Step up levels - 1) come to meetings, 2) have a person come, 3) join the group. Gives ability to learn and get comfortable before committing.
Respect and support local strengths and local process determinations - find commonalities. Local efforts should be congruent with the state path. Lane Cty, Marion/Polk, Clark County WA.
Some local groups are close to implementing 211, hope those follow good beginning because they will set the tone for others.
Next meeting: Wednesday November 14th, 2001, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. United Way of Lane County Office, 3171 Gateway Loop, Springfield OR 97477
Directions: From I-5: Take the Beltline/Gateway exit (northern most Eugene/Springfield Exit) East to Gateway in Springfield. At Stoplight turn right (South). Travel south to first stoplight and turn right. Follow until you reach our facility (just around the loop). Our road fronts onto the Freeway.
Agenda Items:
OR 211 Coalition Meeting
Tuesday, January 16, 2001
Public Services Building, Basement A
Salem, Oregon
Minutes
Attendees: Dawn Warneking, Benton County Information & Referral; Len Hockley, White Bird Info Line; Jennie Gibson, Community Works; Karen Holt, Community Works; Tom Harris, Public Utility Commission; Stacie Wheeler, Polk County Family Resource Network; Diane Merry, Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action; Liz Bartell, Clackamas County Social Services; Laura Young, 939th Family Readiness; Helen Goodin, City of Portland Multnomah Co. I&R; Kate Kloos, Lane County United Way; Lise Stewart, Lane County Health & Human Services; Lee Ann Ryles, Lifespan Warmline I&R; Sue McGuire-Thompson, Community Services Consortium; Terry Guza, DHS; Robert Green, DHS; Lynne Wimmer, Gorgehelp.net; Donna Davidson, CADO; Debra Slater, OR Dept. of Corrections; and 'lyn Horine, Dept. of Education.
Kate Kloos & Laura Young facilitated the meeting. Introductions were made.
Updates: Laura heard from Erica Jamin Policy Director for the State House Democratic Office. They are interested in learning about 211 and would like to talk with a representative from OR211 and pending legislative issues involving implementation. Group will have George Grosch follow up with her when he returns.
Lynne shared information about an article she had read regarding how to get virtual teams to work together. The article is available for review on the web at OR211.org.
Len told the group that the website is up and told the group about the information that is posted there. The site address is http://Or211.org/ He asked the group to consider the types of information that should be posted there.
Dawn announced that she had copies of the last set of minutes for anyone wanting them and that she also had copies of the RFP George had put together to request $500.00 from NW-AIRS (Northwest Alliance of Information and Referral Systems). NW-AIRS is a regional I & R professional organization that is also an affiliate of AIRS.
Kate shared the article that appeared in the Eugene Register Guard regarding OR 211.
Group reviewed the OR 211 Coalition Vision Statement Draft. The group made some minor changes and agreed to use it as the working document. Changes can be made in the future as needed. Changes will be posted on the website.
OR 211 Coalition & PUC: Tom Harris spoke about the Public Utility Commission and FCC designated numbers. The PUC is the organization responsible for regulation of the phone companies. His overall opinion is that phone companies will be willing to work with OR211 Coalition to implement the system. The Coalition will be a customer of the phone companies and they will be responsible for translating 211 to local phone numbers.
One of the challenges we face will be the lack of one statewide phone number and the number of companies we will have to deal with. Some companies will be easier to work with than others. He can provide us with the names and addresses of the contacts for the various phone company and phone exchange contacts around the state. There are over 200 contacts and it is a very competitive marketplace. The PUC also has no jurisdiction over cellular providers. The PUC is available to help with working with phone companies but he does not anticipate that will be much of a problem.
Question regarding if anyone could contact a provider and request the 211 designation? Tom replied that it was his understanding of the FCC decision that it should be an I&R type of provider (a group that helps people link to community services) making the request. He suggested that this group may want to take steps to let phone companies know that there is a coalition working on 211 in Oregon and who the I & R providers are in Oregon.
Is it appropriate for this group to communicate with phone companies to let them know that we are the coordinating body for 211 in Oregon? He suggested we send a letter of intent to apply for the designation with a key contact person identified that phone companies could contact with questions. It also gives them a referral for individuals or groups that may approach them about the designation.
Did the FCC set any criteria for designation of 211 and who receives it? Tom said the order was not specific. Laura mentioned that Florida has asked their PUC to assist in this matter. AIRS and the National 211 Coalition are currently setting guidelines for 211 Call Center designations.
Tom was asked if he would be at our meetings. Tom said that he does not feel his attendance will be necessary on an on-going basis but that he was willing to be involved on an as needed basis. The PUC is interested in seeing 211 become a reality in Oregon.
Is the Citizen Utility Board an appropriate group to involve? This is not something that is within their area of interest / scope.
How do phone service providers determine areas to be served? Phone companies can determine where calls originate and route it to the appropriate exchange. There are about 265 different exchanges within the state. Tom drew a small map to illustrate how exchanges work and to illustrate why it is important that we introduce ourselves to them in a letter. They are many and fragmented, meaning one phone company may have control of several exchanges scattered across the state. Some of the phone companies are large like Qwest or CenturyTel and others are small independent companies like the Monroe Telephone Company.
Kate suggested that additional technology questions be held for sub-committee discussion.
General Discussion: Bonnie mentioned that the group needs to be proactive and get the 211 message out to local areas to lay the foundation for implementation.
We need to remember that the point of what we are doing is to be inclusive rather than exclusive with the goal to bring providers into the fold so we have a comprehensive system. Do we have a vision as a group about how 211 will work in the state? There are several models being used with Texas and Connecticut having two different models. We need to be clear about what it is we are going to offer.
Do we need to consider involving the State Legislature in the planning process? We will need to have recognition that we are the group working on implementing the service. This is how WIN 211 got started and how it evolved in Atlanta. The group will need to have materials prepared to present to the legislature to bring them up to speed on what we are doing.
Kate facilitated breaking the group into four sub-committees, Organization, Marketing, Technology, and Database. The groups met and will forward action plans and committee organization information (leader, co-leader, and recorder) to George Grosch.
Need to begin to set Coalition meetings in other parts of the state to make it easier for others to attend.
Next Meeting: Tuesday April 17, 2001. Location to be determined.
Organization Sub-Committee
October 25, 2001
In Attendance: George Grosch, Benton County Information & Referral; Liz Bartel, Clackamas County Social Services; Gary Lasater, Northwest Human Resources; Phil Evans, Guideline, Inc.; Dave Hablewitz, DHS/Astoria; Laura Scott, Legal Services, Portland.
George opened the meeting and introductions were mad. He also gave an update on the status of legislation before Congress pertaining to terrorism. The legislation is in committee in both houses and the National 211 Collaboration is monitoring its progress. If passed it allocates $20,000,000 towards implementation of 211 systems across the country. At about $200,00 per state that could provide funding for the Coalition and activities to implement 211 systems around Oregon. Will keep the group apprised of status.
The charge to this committee is to look at issues surrounding the organization of the OR211 Coalition, the responsibility of membership, representation on the Coalition, and affiliation with an umbrella group. George asked for any additions to the agenda, there being none the agenda stood by consensus.
Review Vision Statement and Coalition Goals: Before getting into the organizational issues group reviewed and discussed the Vision Statement and Goals to determine if they remain relevant. Discussion focused on who is the audience and does the statement resonate with folks outside the social services community?
Discussion that vision itself may be to specific and that overall goals and mission are written for Coalition building activities rather than furthering the implementation of 211 across Oregon.
Recommended by consensus to leave the statement as it is for now, limit the distribution to coalition building and not for use with the general public. Consider revisions after organization issues are defined and operational.
Next vision statement needs to be something that defines 211 for the general public and provides a vision for implementation for the state.
Coalition Organization: George highlighted the four questions on the agenda:
The committee agreed that the answers to the questions would be different dependent upon if the Coalition were a service provider or an organization that supports and encourages implementation across the state. Discussion revealed that there is no support on the committee for the Coalition to become a direct 211-service provider. The Coalition has been built upon the premise of local decision making about provision of service and we should maintain that position.
Given the committee will be recommending a support and planning role for the Coalition what role do participants play and who gets to participate in the Coalition? To date the group has been fluid depending on where the meeting is being held with a core group of regular attendees. Other than the Vision Statement there have been no formal decisions or decision-making processes in place. This has posed a bit of a challenge because a large portion of every Coalition meeting has been spent bringing the group present up to speed.
Organizationally the recommended position of the Coalition will be one of "Decentralized support for 211 implementation and operational support". Participants in the Coalition could consist of anyone who has an interest in seeing 211 become a reality. This is essentially the way we are currently operating. Participants in Coalition meetings have provided input to committees, made up of people who are willing to serve, this group being an example.
If the Coalition is made up of a loose collaboration of interested parties, who speaks on behalf of 211 on the larger scale. The concept of a 211 Steering Committee was discussed. The proposed role of the Steering Committee could be:
Discussion turned to focus on who is currently not represented on the Coalition and if there is the need for an Advisory Group. Advisory Group members could include Department of Human Services, United Way of Oregon, Red Cross, Oregon Association of Child Care Resource and Referrals, 911, NW-AIRS, and CADO. Group attempted to define the role of the Advisory Group and develop an organizational diagram. Extended discussion brought about no consensus. Common ground areas are need for groups outlined as potential advisory members to have involvement with OR211 Coalition and benefit they could bring to the table to promote and effect implementation.
As time was running short Committee recommends taking work to date back to the full Coalition for a check-in and additional guidance. Coalition agenda will include ample time for a thorough discussion of these topics. Committee will set date for next meeting after the Coalition meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted
George Grosch
Organization Sub-Committee
February 27, 2001
Participants: Bonnie Davidson, Diane Merry, Karen Holt, Kate Kloos
Discussed the structure and agenda for the April Meeting
Roseburg location
Review work to-date and findings by committees
Outreach to all parts of the state
Next Steps: George to finalize and issue
By-Laws: Organization of the Coalition
Executive committee: Made up of chair, vice-chair, secretary and treasurer, as well as one person from each sub-committee
This group will have decision making authority
Decisions: Partners agreements and vote by partners
Community Action Process (CAPS) these exist in each county
Forged partnership
Poverty focus
Public or private non-profit
Assistance to people (directly or via a contract)
Formalizing process:
All inclusive
Partnership to vote
Struggle with who should convene in each locale
We need 911 representation, childcare resource and referral group
We can draft a document and both George and Karen have some interagency agreements to use
Our goal:
Get a contact in every county
Send an intro letter to every CAPS to get them informed and invited
Bonnie will inform the CAPS at their monthly meeting (next is 3/1/01)
Next Step: George to get subscription
Phone companies:
Next Steps: George to send the letter off to the phone companies to inform them of the OR-211 work and to reserve the phone number
The marketing committee is developing a one-page summary of what the OR-211 is all about and will bring it to the April meeting
Organization Sub-Committee
January 30, 2001
Participants: Bonnie Davidson, Diane Merry, Karen Holt, Kate Kloos
By-laws are needed to add structure and legitimacy
How are we going to organize?
We need tax exempt status (501.c.3 (allows for fund-raising and limited lobbying to 1/3 of activity) or 501.c.4 (allows for lobbying))
Can we use by-laws from another group and adapt them to our work? (eg. NW AIRS, CADO)
We should elect officers to make decision making path clear
Include a clear purpose
Staffing: We might need a staff person by end of year to get work done
Structure of the OR-211:
Structure for the meetings: George Grosch acting as interim chair
Coalition and Partner Agreements:
Modify other agreements
Next Step: George to prepare DRAFT for April meeting
Membership list: It is time to get this list out; we can list by county so interested people can see who, if anyone, is involved for their county
Next Step: George to contact Len Hockly to edit website accordingly
Statewide database:
Networking I&R around the state
Centralized information