Strategic Planning
History
Contract/Service Purchase Group
Policies Group
Service Design Group
Infrastructure Work Group
History
"Initial Stages 1999"
Strategic planning as a DDP priority began prior to July of 1999, when DDP management staff pulled central office staff together to develop a strategy for short range and long planning. The initial planning meeting was held on 7/7/99-7/10/99 in Helena, and DDP central office staff were challenged by the consultant and DDP management staff to identify:
- Quick Wins for the program.
- Essential roles, tasks, duties and responsibilities.
- Have To's, Should's and Could's.
- Ways to Improve Communication.
- Division-Wide Coordination.
The July planning meeting is summarized in an eleven-page document, available for review in the 1999-2000 Strategic Planning Notebook (Initial '99 section) . Staff responsibilities were identified, and staff assignments were given, based on group discussion. Probably the most significant strategic planning outcome was the development of the ideal to challenge DDP staff to contribute ideas on an ongoing basis. In essence, the need to systematize continual program improvement, based on staff participation and input, became an important theme in July, 1999.
The next activity in the planning process was a survey from Perry Jones dated 8/3/99 which was sent to all DDP staff to contribute to the setting of the strategic planning agenda, to take place at the fall staff meeting on 10/26/99 in Billings. Staff were challenged to consider three things:
- What could we drop that we don't need to be doing (poor cost/benefit ratio)?
- What should we be doing that we're not?
- What are we doing that we should/could be doing better?
The result of this challenge was successful. Over one-half of all DDP staff responded by 9/99, providing nearly thirty pages of written input. Due to the sheer volume of the responses, the unexpurgated input was combined with a two-page summary. These documents and a second survey went out from Maggie Bullock to all staff on 9/24/99. Fifty-two staff (65% of all DDP staff) responded by ranking their first, second and third choices for projects they would like to work on, and the five things we really need to fix. This information was compiled, and the results were used by DDP management in setting the strategic planning agenda for the fall staff meeting in Billings.
"Next Stages 1999/2000"
In Billings, staff were assigned to four work groups, and group leaders were assigned to each group. The initial activities for these groups, the membership and the chairpersons are outlined in a strategic planning document dated 10/26/99. This document was later updated in a 12/1/99 directive from Maggie Bullock to all DDP staff. The December directive accomplished two things:
- Reducing the meeting membership of the groups to a smaller core number of personnel. This was done to reduce costs associated with meetings and travel, and to make the group size small enough to help reduce "wheel spinning".
- The focus of the groups were narrowed, so that positive outcomes in the most essential group activities would be more likely. The list of the lead staff, and core group membership may be reviewed in a staffing list dated 12/1/99.
On January 21, 2000, a central office meeting was held to discuss the need to develop a "strategic planning/strategic issues working document", as well as the need to better utilize the Internet DDP Home Page as part of strategic planning input and improved communications with other persons with an interest or involvement in the DD service system. A deadline was established for creating a working document for strategic issues/planning. Strategic issues are defined as short term (one-year, maybe two-year goals). Strategic planning involves developing a plan for where the DDP should be in three to five years.
Summaries of the work group activities should be posted on the net to enable the public to better understand the critical issues DDP has devoted itself to addressing or improving, and to encourage the solicitation of input and ideas from others in the ongoing efforts to improve services. A relatively painless way to keep this effort up to date is to periodically (quarterly) update the efforts of the work groups in the DDP home page by posting the latest draft of the strategic planning document. Updates would be made based on a revised "work group" page forwarded from each of the group leaders to the Strategic Planning Specialist. The updates would then be forwarded to John Zeeck for posting on the DDP Web Page. The next version of the DDP strategic issues/planning document will go out following the spring staff meeting in May, 2000.
The following updates of the workgroups resulted from the responses of the work group leaders to an e-mail request for assistance from Perry Jones dated 1/28/00. This request asked each work group leader to summarize the past, present and projected future activities for the period from 1/00 through 1/01 in one page or less. The results of this request follow.
Four Work Groups/Goals/Progress
Contract/Service Purchase Group
PRIORITY TASKS for The Funding/Contracting/Service Purchase Group (as determined on December 16, 1999)
- Explore options to improve payment process for transportation services
- Explore options to improve payment and delivery of supported living services
- Explore options to improve accountability and payment of services delivered
- Review contract amendment process to determine if additional ways to streamline
- Review RFP process and explore options for other contracting possibilities
- Explore options to determine reasonable costs in community supports
- Develop method to determine average cost of intensive services versus non-intensive services with implications for different expectations for amount and kind of service to be delivered
- Review current system which includes some services which are more group-like and some which are more individualized. What are the implications for future direction in purchasing these services
- Review ways to gather more detailed information about what services are being delivered
Policies Group
Policy Group Chair: Dain Christianson
Members: Daphne Crosbie, Brad Johnson, Bonnie Chambers, Harry Guetherman, and John Zeeck
Subject: policy group assignment
Following our Policy Group conference call earlier today I visited with Maggie and explained the changes we are observing and proposing to our Policy and Procedure Group's task. I explained that we see our group's primary task as organizing existing policies, clarifications, etc. into a manual with a manual management system that assigns responsibility and sets regular time lines for review and update. The actual revision of policies or other material in that manual (and the development of new material) we see as a significantly different task. Existing groups may already be developing material that will be added to the manual.
We would like to propose a Manual Management System (including a new Policy on Policies) that assigns responsibility for each section and for updates to each section. The policy would also specify the process required for inclusion of new or revised material in the manual. Those individuals or groups thus assigned would be responsible for the actual development/revision of policies or other materials.
Our group would not actually participate in the development of new materials (unless we are involved as individuals due to our interests/expertise). We will share manual format and other requirements for new/revised items in the manual as those requirements are developed.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL
Time Lines - Grouped by Task
1/25/00
Manual Management System (MMS)
| February | Review Proposed Manual Management System |
| March | Review Draft of Policy on Policies |
| April | Finalize Selection of Manual Management System |
| April | Finalize Proposed Policy on Policies |
| May | Begin configuring old policies, handbooks, and any remaining clarifications to the document management system. |
| August | Complete configuring new and old materials to the document management system. |
Policy Clarifications (PC)
February
- Make recommendation of Policy Clarifications for deletion - distribute to DDP management and Field Service specialist for review.
- Decide on Policy Clarifications for deletion. Distribute list.
- Identify clarifications which require new policy, policy revisions or may remain as clarifications.
Presentations and Finalization (P&F)
| May | Present progress to date at may staff meeting. |
| June | P&F Review any proposed additions/ revisions to items in the Manual. |
| July | P&F Review any proposed additions/ revisions to items in the Manual. |
| August | Review final revision to Table of Contents |
| September | Group approves and submits a complete draft Policy and Procedures Manual to Maggie. |
| October | Group presents proposed Policy and Procedure manual at DD conference, distribute copies to staff and contractors? Responsible individuals/groups present on any new policies or significant policy revisions. |
Policy and Procedure Manual
Time Lines - by Due Date
1/25/00
| Date | Task |
|
| February 9th | PC |
Make recommendation of Policy Clarifications for deletion - distribute to DDP management and Field Service specialist for review. |
| February 29th | MMS | Review Proposed Manual Management System |
| PC | Decide on Policy Clarifications for deletion. Distribute list. |
|
| PC | Identify clarifications which require new policy, policy revisions or may remain as clarifications. |
|
| March | MMS | Review Draft of Policy on Policies. |
| April | MMS | Finalize Selection of Manual Management System. |
| MMS | Finalize Proposed Policy on Policies |
|
| May | MMS |
Begin configuring old policies, handbooks, and any remaining clarifications to the document management system. |
| P&F | Present progress to date at may staff meeting. |
|
| June | P&F | Review any proposed additions/ revisions to items in the Manual. |
| July | P&F | Review any proposed additions/ revisions to items in the Manual. |
| August | MMS | Complete configuring new and old materials to the document management system. |
| P&F | Review final revision to Table of Contents. |
|
| September | P&F | Group approves and submits a complete draft Policy and Procedures Manual to Maggie. |
| October | P&F | Group presents proposed Policy and Procedure manual at DD conference, distribute copies to staff and contractors? Responsible individuals/groups present on any new policies or significant policy revisions. |
SERVICE DESIGN GROUP
January 5, 2000
Hello all!
Herein lies the progress of the service design group for strategic planning--abandon hope all ye who enter here!
Our very large group has undergone fission (nuclear or otherwise) and now looks like this:
Supported Living: (pending)
Issues: health and safety, quality of life, how to simplify the process (too many categories and loop holes), staff orientation/training/support, provider accountability, inability of system to fit to person rather than fit person to system, isolation, guardianship
Sub Group Coordinator: James Driggers (Helena)
Team: Marge Brunckhorst (Billings), Heidi Bibler (Billings), Helen Cogley (Helena), Linda Nelson (Helena), Karen Corda (GFS), Irene Christianson (GFS), Carol LaRocque (GFS), Kyle Semenza (Helena), Tracy Sherick (Missoula), Lori Durrin (Missoula)
Dual Diagnosis: (meeting pending)
Issues: transition, how to serve kids (0-18) and their families, health and safety for all involved, MH expertise, "dual" case management, residential service, specific training for staff, developing partnerships with mental health, CPS/APS and the judicial system, long range planning for individuals and guaranteed services for individuals for who the State has custody/jurisdiction, guardianship, how to provide safe and effective services to persons with criminal histories (Sex Offenders--adjudicated and not adjudicated), how to best serve juveniles
Sub Group Coordinator: Michelle Sheedy (Billings)
Team: Lorrie Hefenieder (Billings), Suzn Gehring (Billings), Linda Walker (Billings), Craig Jensen (Great Falls), Kris Young (Missoula), Colleen Morgan (Helena)
Aging and Medically Fragile People (meetings in progress)
Issues: Grieving for families, staff and friends when someone dies, aging parents, health and safety, quality of life, alternative residential (but not nursing home!)/personal care/retirement homes, guardianships, day alternatives (stay at home), decreasing size of homes (without losing staff to meet the needs), living wills, burial funds, personal care without Medicaid, educating and partnership in the medical community
Sub Group Coordinator: Joyce Arnold (Billings)
Team: Janis Cooper (Missoula), Pat Tessmer (GFS), Connie Wethern (Glasgow)
Abuse Prevention (meeting scheduled)
Issues: CPS/APS interface, health and safety, partnerships with providers/other agencies, increase availability, written process/procedure, provider and staff buy-in (living by example!), allow funding to promote training
Sub Group Coordinators: Novelene Martin/Lori Wertz (Miles City/Great Falls)
Team: Jean Reed (Billings), Paula Sherwood (Missoula), Judi Allen (Kalispell), Jan Spiegle-Stinger (Helena), Mike Dwyer (Missoula), Perry Jones (Helena), Paula Miskuly (Missoula), Dewi Morgan-Jones (Helena)
Each subgroup is meeting in person or by conference call to address the issues outlined by the larger group. Latest reports indicate that even some of the smaller groups have undergone more division in an attempt to get the information but limit unnecessary travel (good job Joyce! ;-)). Notes of those meetings will go back to Lori Wertz for dissemination to the team leaders for each of our sub-groups as well as to the leaders of the Infrastructure, Policy and Rule, and Funding and Contract groups, understanding that some of what we come up with may impact the work they are doing. Our teams are free and encouraged to include any other representatives (Providers, Contracted Case Managers, Mental Health folks, ????) that can help us out! Coordinators were given a time line of mid-January to get their groups in a group, so minutes should start rolling in anytime with final recommendations to be addressed by the larger group at May staff meeting.
We also agreed that we would keep the following issues/trends and concerns in mind when formalizing our recommendations:
- training issues
- individualizing services programmatically and in terms of funding
- how our IP/IFSP process interfaces--communication, team building, relationship building, how to focus on the individual and his or her needs in a meaningful manner (quality/zest for life!)
- increasing supports for families (individuals don't live in isolation!--how can we support aging parents, and kids from school, how do we keep families involved once services start?)
- building on natural supports and resources in our communities and with families, increasing who is considered a qualified provider
- contract issues of monitoring, accountability, HCFA, OPI
HEALTH AND SAFETY!
Staff support and stability
Belief that we have a good, strong system that is meaningful to the people we serve and their families!
So thar she blows, batten down the hatches and man the poop deck. The seas are rolling!
Infrastructure Work Group
The infrastructure work group is comprised of staff members from the Developmental Disabilities Program (DDP-5 to 7 individuals) and executive directors and one direct care staff person from seven community based provider agencies that serve individuals with developmental disabilities. In addition to the initial organizational meeting that DDP staff had at the DD Conference on October 26, 1999; the full work group has met twice, on December 14, 1999 and February 1, 2000.
One of the outcomes of the initial meeting on 10/26/99 was the development and distribution of the Infrastructure Input Survey, which elicited input from community based provider agencies on the system's most important and secondary infrastructure needs as well as input on how additional funding should be distributed if it were acquired to address these needs. The results of this survey were compiled and reviewed by the work group at the December 14, 1999 meeting. The results of the survey indicated and the work group reached consensus on the recommendation that increasing the salaries of the direct care staff who work in the community based provider agencies is the most important infrastructure need that the system faces. The infrastructure work group also recommended that upgrading direct care salaries is the most important budget issue facing DDP in the next legislative session. At the 12/14/99 meeting, the work group recommended that the work group (may be different members) should have a long term focus and approach rather then advising the program director and administrator on only this round of legislative requests as a "one time fix" to infrastructure issues. The work group also discussed the fact that local economies are different in various parts of the state and that in requesting funding we need to tie the requests to a bench mark that is easy to understand and defend. In that regard, the work group decided that the job titles from the Arthur Young Study completed in 1988 and the current state pay rates that relate to those job titles (HA 1, HA 2, HST 1, etc.) were valid bench marks on which to base increased funding requests.
The work group also developed a second survey, the Provider Wage Survey which was distributed after the 12/14/99 meeting and collected and summarized prior to the meeting on February 1, 2000. This survey had each of the provider agencies report on the current entry level and current weighted average salaries for each of the job classification titles. The summarized information was discussed at the 2/1/00 meeting and rough estimates were calculated in terms of the increased funding needed to upgrade the current positions to the bench mark positions in state government. The work group will continue to refine the estimates of increased funding needed and will make a recommendation to the program director and administrator as to the specific percentage increase to request for upgrading direct care staff salaries. The work group is hopeful that this recommendation will be incorporated into the departments legislative request and will be funded during the next session. The work group remains convinced that upgrading the salaries of direct care staff is the system's most important need and one that must be addressed to retain the high quality of community based services for people with developmental disabilities that Montana's service system provides.
Page last updated 09/21/2006
