Dec 4, 2003

OR211 Steering Committee Meeting
Thursday December 4, 2003
OCCRRN Office, Salem OR

Present: David Foster, Shaun Michael, Len Hockley, Lou Enge, Ramona Rodamaker, Becky Vorpagle. Lowell Greathouse, Liz Bartel

Staff: George Grosch Kenn Allen, Liesl Wendt

Welcome & Introductions: Introductions were made around the table. Lou Enge is representing Lane County United Way and will be working on implementation of 2-1-1 there.

Organizational Status: David reported that the Steering Committee at its November meeting agreed that the time had arrived for OR211 to seek organizational status. The consensus was that formation of a 501(c) 3 not-for-profit corporation was the avenue to pursue. There are funds available to hire an attorney to guide the process and George has had contact and received a bid from Blair Bobier in Corvallis to do the work. Liesl had also contacted an attorney Cynthia (?) in Portland who has done this type of work and has written manuals about the process. Group discussed the benefits of forming the non-profit and agreed that Lowell, George and Liesl should further investigate both attorneys and decide on who to hire to lead the process. There are funds in the Gates Grant to cover this cost which is expected to be between $1000.00 and $1500.00. Filing fees with the state and the IRS are not included in the cost and may be another $1000.00. The process will be to authorize filing of Articles of Incorporation in January, review and approve By-Laws in February and authorize filing with the IRS in March. The interim Board will be appointed in March / April. Steering Committee members should give some thought to if they want to serve on the new Board and also to potential members for the Board. Prospects can be sent to George. He will also work on Roles and Responsibilities for the Board.

Regional Updates: Len talked about Lane Co meeting facilitated by Kenn Allen visioning for 2-1-1 for Lane Co. Key issues are what 2-1-1 could be, identified database needs and who is responsible. Lou Enge said there is a need for trust building around database but felt a desire to collaborate and build on strengths. Regional meeting the next day brought folks from Deschutes, Benton Linn and Lane Douglas counties. There is interest in looking at regional strategies for implementation.

George updated on Lane County and regional meeting clarification of thinking about role of or211 as a catalyst for moving local projects forward. He is working on developing tools and applications to look at how partnerships are formed and what the roles and responsibilities of each county would be to the Call Center. While it is a complex process he believes we have been making it to complex and thinks we need to re-evaluate how we approach potential partners to participate.

Liesl: Parade Magazine recently ran a small piece about 2-1-1 and the role it will play in the human service system. Metro Business plan is complete, work with providers group to continue to keep lines of communication open, Susan Shepard of NW-AIRS to craft MOU with specialized providers to define protocol for movement of calls. On 1/27/04 AIRS certification test being given in PDX Liesl is contact. Multnomah Co I&R work group assessment of how I&R is funded w/i county and how to partner with 2-1-1 hopefully leads to $$ has assessment tool for information gathering on human service system. Tom Page of WIN211 is meeting with the Murdock Foundation regarding initial interest in two state proposals. Meyer Foundation site visit in Jan decision on funding in Feb.

Budget Update: will happen electronically to group.

Business Planning: Kenn Allen led the group through a review of the first version of the first draft of the Business Plan. The review went page by page and section by section to clarify processes and review strategies. The first draft will be available before the next meeting and we will follow the same process for review. We are on task to complete the plan by the end of January. Financial planning tool will be made available to George and we will have ability to project costs for system and for operations of individual call centers.

Next Meeting: Thursday January 15, 2004 at Oregon Child Care Resource and Referral Network office from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Meeting adjourned 4:15 p.m.

Nov 13, 2003

OR211 Steering Committee Meeting
Thursday November 13, 2003
OCCRRN Office, Salem OR

MINUTES

Members Present: Lowell Greathouse UWCW), David Foster (OHCS), Becky Vorpagle (OCCRRN), Jamie Yellow Kidney Crighton (OCADSV) Wendy vanElverding (CADO) Ramona Rodamaker (DHS), Priscilla Gould, (LCUW)

Staff Present: George Grosch (UWCW, OR211), Liesl Wendt (UWCW, 211Info)

Welcome & Introductions: David opened the meeting and introductions. There are two new faces at the meeting, Jamie Yellow Kidney Crighton from the Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence and Wendy vanElverding of the Community Action Directors of Oregon. Pricilla Gould will be joining the meeting and she is from United Way of Lane County.

OR211 Budget Update: Lowell informed the group about current status of Gates Grant and use of remaining funds. We have made the match requirements so remaining funds 225K have been disbursed. Have spent $9575.00 to date of available funds. The Gates Foundation is pleased with the progress of the project and the speed with which we were able to meet the match requirements. George gave some background about the Gates Partners and how the OR/WA project is a pilot for 2-1-1 roll-out in other parts of the country.

The project has also been awarded a United Way of America Breaking the Barriers Grant of 100K with WIN211 and United Way of King County. It was awarded in Sept 2003 and will be expended by Sept 2005 50K went to WIN211 and UWKC. OR211 has yet to spend any of those funds. It will be used to build rural capacity to implement and provide for some technology support for implementation. Lowell asked group for support of David, Lowell, George, and Liesl to consult on use of the funds and development of contract with OHCS outlining how funds are used. Liesl talked about certification and need for database development. Group agreed on having the four people mentioned develop the contract for use of the OHCS funds.

David gave background on 10k from OR Housing and Community Services who has committed 10 K to match that can be used towards the Gates project. Discussion about how these funds will be allocated. Capacity Building, Technology and Quality Assurance are the places we need to consider using the funds.

NW-AIRS Project Manager Enhancement Request: Lowell reported that NW-AIRS has requested to transfer funds from OR/WA to support the Quality Assurance Position for development of tools for QA work. They need additional time to complete the task and are requesting 10K from our 2nd portion to increase staff time. Total needed is 31K and they have 20K. Trade off will be need of Metro to have staff support for 211Info to certify and accredit 211Info in Portland. If we get agreement to have staff support for Metro then it is a something the group would support. Liesl, Lowell and George will work with the NW Partners to work out the details. David suggested emphasis on synergy nationwide to accomplish remaining portions of task for Gates.

Business Planning Process Update: George Report on process to date. We are past the midway point in the Gates Grant and are on track to have the business Plan finished by the first of the year. He has also recently returned form Boise Idaho with a group from Multnomah County who was looking at how 2-1-1 was being offered there. There are some exciting opportunities for partnership with ID211 to possibly provide services to Eastern Oregon. George will be working with WIN211 to identify potential for establishing a cross border project in the Columbia Gorge. He has spoken with the CAP Director in Pendleton who is interested working on 2-1-1 and will be setting up a preliminary meeting in early December. NW-AIRS has proposed a Memorandum of Understanding between the NW Partners and Idaho 211 outlining how we might work together and the resources we all bring to the project. The NW Partners will meet after the next Steering Committee meeting to work out final details to finish up the Gates Grant and outline future work. Group is inclined to look at regional strategies and will look for a report back from staff in December/January prior to signing a MOU.

Bottlenecks/Issues/Next Steps: DAS has made a decision to return the 2-1-1 designation to QWEST and move out of the planning process with OR211. Staffing considerations have been sited as the major reason for the change in policy. They have made a business decision to step back because they no longer have the ability to support staffing atOR211. They have not yet turned the number back to QWEST and they are waiting to coordinate their request to QWEST with our plan to who should receive the number. Our decision relates to who we wish to acquire the designation from the phone company. We need to advise DAS of who the customer of record will become before they make the request to QWEST.

Conversations have taken place with a telephone consultant to help move the telecommunication process in the Metro area forward. Potential exists to have UWCW take the number with an MOU with OR211 to define how transfer will take place. Discussion around what the options are and how to make best use of the consultants to get the assignment to move metro project forward and secure the number for future use in other regions. Ramona suggested a strategy for protecting the number. Talk with DAS make offer to receive the number, develop a contract for transfer of the number , provide some consideration of contract, which could be assurance that OR211 works to make 211 happen in a manner that meets agreed upon standards.

David will connect with DAS and determine timeline and process. David will take the lead in initiating the process with DAS and will report back to Lowell to move forward. Goal to maintain positive relations with das to support future policy and system coordination needs.

OR211 Organization: David spoke to the need for the group to determine what it is OR211 is going to evolve into. He hoped Business Planning process would advise but it keeps coming back as an issue that effects ability of group to move implementation forward. Discussion about options: early conversations identified non-profit as not a preferred option but conditions have changed to make the non-profit more attractive. Collaboration and other options do not provide the flexibility needed to accomplish goal. Now is the time to decide and get the work done as funds are available to make it happen. Consensus to move forward with non-profit organization. Get Business Plan done first, gather necessary incorporation paperwork, identify professional legal assistance, develop transitional plan with timeline, identify possible board members and include advisory board from current state partners. Staff will develop plan and recommendations to bring back to SC with goal to have organizational paperwork filed and potentially acknowledged by end of the Gates Grant in April 2004. Mission, Vision and characteristics will guide the transition process. Lowell suggested that members of the group begin thinking about the transition, who is currently represented and who should be represented. As names for potential new Board members come to mind write them down or get them to Lowell and we will develop a list as the process progresses.

Next Steps regarding organization: Identify professional help, Materials development for incorporation and Board development

Consistency with Steering Committee members has been a concern and we have never articulated how we deal with changes of the body. Consensus has been the decision making process and sometimes has limited the groups ability to decide important issues. We have a window to get the organization formalized and need to get the work done so as not to limit implementation. The business Plan drives the vision and work groups can accomplish technical, organizational and other tasks. Group agreed that work groups will serve as means to solve implementation problems and suggest policy to the new Board. We need to keep connected with the individuals and groups that have supported our work since the beginning and not lose the memory of the OR211 Coalition. The Vision, System Characteristics and Guiding Principles will serve as the guide into the future.

Project Manager Report

Metro Project: Liesl Wendt updated the group on the progress of work on the Metro Pilot Project. The go-live date is currently up in the air and they anticipate beginning taking calls by mid-2004. Multnomah County is currently making decisions about budget that will hopefully provide funds to support the project. A grant request to the Meyer Memorial Trust has been submitted and made the second round of consideration. Guideline the former I&R provider in Portland is now 211INFO headed by Jeri Shumate and they are working on accreditation and certification.

Lane County Project: Pricilla Gould from United Way of Lane county informed the group about efforts to launch 2-1-1 in Lane County. The project began with the award of a response grant for child abuse prevention to link providers. The network core is a parenting warm line that is currently providing service and they have technology to link systems together. The planning group was aware of 2-1-1 and built the system with that in mind. United Way will be hosting meetings on December 2nd and 3rd to bring together Lane County providers on one day and regional providers the next to explore the possibility of implementing 2-1-1 service. Kenn Allen of Civil Society will be facilitating the meetings that will serve as the starting point. Project is in the exploratory stages at this point but want to align with statewide planning around 2-1-1. This effort fits with the direction of OR211 and is happening at an opportune time in our planning process. Lowell and George will be attending and will update the groups on OR211 progress and how this work fits into the statewide implementation plan.

Next Meeting: Thursday December 4, 2003 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Oregon Child Care Resource and Referral Network in Salem. The Steering Committee will be reviewing the first draft of the Business Plan. Following meeting is scheduled for Thursday January 15 2004 at 1:00 p.m. location to be determined.

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

Aug 6, 2003

OR211 Steering Committee Meeting
August 6th, 2003

MINUTES

Attendees: David Foster, Kenn Allen, Becky Vorpagel, Liz Bartell, Lowell Greathouse, Gene Newton, DAS-IRMD, Donna Upson, Sara Siegler, Lenn Hockley

Unable to attend: Laura Wolf, Ramona Rodamaker, Bonnie Davidson

Contacts: Gordon Fultz, AOC, Deschutes County United Way

Re-cap from last meeting: Lowell gave an overview of the last meeting

Objectives for today:

• Agree on process structure and timetable to complete OR 211 planning and biz plan
• Agree on leadership structure and respective roles and responsibilities for planning phase
• Agree on priority work and approach to complete it

Planning Overview
Possible decisions:
Finalize or close to it
Process to finalize
Defer or ignore

Business Plan
-lays out road map for implementation
-demonstrates value, competency and opportunity to potential investors (those who can help you be successful)
Will present:
-What you are doing, why it's important, etc.

Demonstrate WIN 211 Example:

• WIN 211 Members, non profit, Advisory Committee for Director oversight
• WIN 211 Board of Directors
• Steering Committee act as the Executive Committee
• Planning Team
• NW AIRS-quality assurance
• Technology Committee-database, website, telephony
• Communication Committee-Brand Mgt., marketing
• Resource Dev Committee and network of call center directors (both of these nascent at the moment)
• Cooperation with OR 211

Committees - bring in people with expertise outside the WIN 211 Board

OR 211 Structure Straw Draft:
OR 211 Steering Committee
Planning Team
Work Groups
Guidelines:
Maximize local input

Focus on function, rather than form and allow form to follow function

Proposed OR 211 Structure:
draft

Legitimacy - process for formal structure

1. develop process for further development
2. add pilot project to the chart of the OR 211 structure

OR 211 Steering Committee
Scope: Representative, cross section of state, inclusive of policy and politics

Work Groups:

1. Call Center Logistics
2. Quality Assurance
3. Database
4. Telecommunication Issues
5. Marketing and brand management

Dotted Line Connection to the planning team and OR 211 Steering Committee:

1. HMIS
2. Homeland Security/OEM
3. DAS convening state agencies

Guiding Principles:

1. Maximize local input

Factors of consideration for outreach:

1. Efficiencies
2. local representation
3. statewide perspective
4. expertise

Process points:

• Community input-use business planning process as an organizing tool to gather input as the project develops.
• Invite local communities into process to ascertain local input.

Action items for follow up:

• Homeland security state map-Gene will send out
• Draft Federal 211 legislation-Liesl will send out
• George will draft membership for the committees and proposed matrix of representation for the committees and will send out for comment by the SC
• Deschutes contact-Liesl will send out

Leadership:

Staff role:

1. send out meeting notices/ coordinate meeting logistics, etc.
2. support the leadership for 211 development

Co-chairs:

1. Lowell Greathouse
2. David Foster

Next Meeting:
September 18th, 2003
9 am - 4 pm
Oregon Child Care Resource and Referral
805 Liberty Street NE, Salem
(503) 375 2644

Oct 8, 2003

OR211 Business Planning Retreat – Database Work Group Minutes

LaSalle-Stuart Center, Corvallis, Oregon

October 8, 2003 

Present:  Len Hockley (Co-Chair) – White Bird Clinic, Pam Horan – Oregon State Library, Lisa McAllister – Clackamas County Social Services, James Simpson – Oregon Department of Corrections, Jimi Smith – Washington County Community Action Organization, Lise Stuart – Lane County Human Services Commission, Becky Vorpagel (Co-Chair) – Oregon Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Sara Wasserman – Lane Council of Governments

 

Tasks Assigned

• Develop and recommend criteria for statewide database selection.
• Identify policy issues surrounding the development of shared data standards (Infoline Taxonomy.
• Define and describe criteria for selecting common data fields and what are the minimum field requirements for system wide database(s).
• Identify process for development of Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.
• Identify and define issues regarding web-access to database.
• Identify process to recommend minimum standards for database maintenance and updates.
• Identify process to determine minimum standards for client data collection and allowable use of collected client data.
• Recommend process to identify and resolve database development and implementation issues.

Missing from the assigned tasks:

• Development of a style sheet;
• Process for data sharing;
• Allowable uses of the data – local branding vs. branding as 211

 Difficulties with accomplishing the assigned tasks:

• Client data a real challenge.  Does it need to be kept statewide other than in the aggregate?  Confidentiality much more an issue.
• Different data is collected by different I&Rs.
• Different databases don’t talk to each other. AIRS XML standard may help to resolve this.
• Merging multiple databases results in duplicate data.
• A single database would be difficult to achieve, although desirable.

 In addition to identifying pieces missing from the assigned tasks and some of the difficulties in accomplishing those tasks, the group expressed concern as to whether they were not reinventing the wheel.  Lisa S. indicated that Bill Carpenter with Housing and Community Services is issuing an RFP to look at client management software than will also include a place to collect I&R provider information.  David Foster of HCS was called in to discuss this situation and stated that Bill’s project was HMIS (Homeless Management Information Services), a rather small piece of the I&R puzzle and that it should not include provider information.  He stated that he would check further on this and suggested that Lisa S. also clarify it with the Steering Committee she is on for HCS. The group identified a need for an additional presence from the Workforce Investment Act.  It was noted that Brad Malendy of Employment was supposed to attend the retreat, but was injured the previous day.The group then discussed databases, searching and selection and other issues until lunch.  Some basic desireable characteristics of the software were outlined.  Sara stated that the IT piece of such projects is often dreadfully underfunded and that the group be clear with the Steering Committee that technology was expensive. After lunch, the group further discussed the basic software characteristics needed, then explored the possibility of using the Dept. of Corrections I&R database as a possible basis for the 211 database.  The characteristics are outlined below: 

Essential database characteristics:

• Uses AIRS taxonomy.
• Also uses keywords (categories) and full text searching to allow the public more user friendly access to the information.
• Should be scalable (able to expand easily).
• Should be easily customizable.
• Should support ability to import and export the data with little difficulty.
• Should support direct entry by I&Rs that have not purchased their own software as well as uploads from I&Rs that already have I&R software packages.
• Should provide a user friendly interface for web access by the general public.

  Cautions/Questions:

• Should provider and client data be kept in the same database?  Is it possible not to do so?  Client data is so much more sensitive than provider data that the security/confidentiality of client data raises serious concerns for all.  Moreover, some organizations face the possibility of having to enter client data multiple times and this issue should be addressed.
• Need a style sheet.
• Need to resolve the issue of local branding of the data versus 211 branding.  At issue is whether the 211 data could be made available on the web as if it were being presented by a local agency instead of by 211.  It was recommended that the Marketing Committee deal with this issue.
• The group cautioned that the major challenge of data is keeping it updated.

 The group then discussed the possibility of using the Powder River database as a possible starting point, and discussed its strengths, weaknesses, and changes that would need to be made to make it useful: 

Strengths

• Affordable source of labor for database updating, that being the most labor intensive part of the data collection endeavor.
• A good starting point – both a database and a process already exist.
• The data source provides coverage of areas not now covered by I&Rs.
• The effort already has existing multi-agency state partnerships.
• Avoids duplication of state and national-level data.
• Single data source.

 

Weaknesses

§         Labor source problematic or unsavory for some; also would not work with ‘living wage’ concepts (these problems could be partially resolved by those agencies electing to enter/maintain their own data.

§         There may be a loss of local flavor due to the data being collected by geographically remote staff.

§         There could be possible problems or complications with AIRS certification for resource development; this would need to be researched.

§         Data entry personnel lack a social service background.

§         There are some concerns with confidentiality.  Moreover, it would be even more important that client data be kept totally secure in such a system.

§         There are concerns over the ownership of the data.

§         There are also concerns over the ownership of the product and about the distribution of revenue brought in from products.  Especially with multiple agencies adding to/updating the data, to whom would the revenue belong?

 

Changes/Processes Needed

• I&Rs would need to be able to elect if they would do the data entry and updating themselves or have the Powder River labor it for them; this would need to be done on a record by record basis.
• There would need to be a backup plan in the event of data instability.
• A timeline for updating would need to be established and a policy around removal of records that had not been updated.
• The Steering Committee of the Powder River project would need to work with the 211 Data Committee and would need to agree to be guided by 211 data collection/entry policy.
• There would need to be an expansion of fields and an expanded inclusion/exclusion policy.
• The Powder River database does not include an I&R application; this would still need to be purchased or to be developed and overlayed over the database.
• The database would need to be moved to a more stable platform (currently in Access).
• There would be a need for multiple strong, clear memoranda of understanding concerning product, access, and expectations.
• Explicit data sharing agreements would need to be put in place.
• Concerns about funding would need to be addressed – contingency plans in case of lack of funding, how will ongoing funding be provided, how will the cost of expansion be funded?

 Finally, to move things along, the group discussed committees that would need to be established in order to move things along; these committees would all report to the Data Committee, which in turn would report to the Planning Team/Steering Committee.

 Committees Needed: 

Inclusion/Exclusion – what goes in the database, what does not, and who decides.  Also deal with the issue of local I&Rs wanted a superset of the database – what if they want larger inclusion criteria?  Should there be an appeal procedure?  A removal procedure? 

Policy – address data sharing and ownership issues, address training for resource entry/update personnel, establish timelines for conversion, for funding to be obtained, for frequency of updates. 

Data Fields/Style Sheet – agree upon common data fields, develop a style sheet, explore ways to develop local use fields for local I&R information. 
Software Development/Selection – develop criteria for software, either for selection of existing software or for the development of new software.  Also develop criteria/model for public web access. 

Client Data – address concerns about the collection and storage of client data.  How do local I&Rs maintain sufficient information to do their job without jeapordizing the security and confidentiality of that data.  How is client data disseminated statewide?  Is aggregate data sufficient?  What statistics are needed?