CTCDD: Proposal Review Meeting 8-4-11

Proposal Review Meeting 8-4-11

 

DRAFT  8-4-11

 

Draft                                       Unadopted Subject to Change                                       Draft

 

Council on Developmental Disabilities

Proposal Review Committee

(Teleconference)

Minutes

August 4, 2011

 

Present:  Guy Sullivan, Monica Smyth, John Curtin, Peter Morrisette, Maryann Lombardi, Gabriela Freyre-Calish

 

Meeting Assistant:  Lorraine Defreitas

 

Council Staff:  Molly Cole, Mary Ann Langton

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, convened the meeting at 4:00 P.M.

 

Mr. Sullivan reviewed the agenda for the meeting:

 

1.      Review and approve the minutes from the June 8th PRC meeting

 

2.      Review the Council actions on the PRC Recommendations (Smyth)

3.      Review the WeCAHR report and make funding recommendations for the project

4.      Adjourn by 5 P.M.

 

The Committee made no amendments to the agenda.

 

1.      The Committee members reviewed the June 8th meeting minutes. 

 

Motion: Ms. Smyth moved to accept the minutes.  Ms.  Lombardi seconded the motion. 

Vote: The minutes were approved by unanimous vote. 

 

2.      Ms. Smyth provided a brief overview of the 7/7/11 Council discussion regarding PRC recommendations.  The Council voted to ratify each recommendations made by PRC, and there were no changes to those recommendations. 

 

3.      The Committee discussed the WeCAHR proposal. 

Ms. Smyth questioned what specific activities were going to occur in year two.  Mr. Sullivan clarified from the activities stated in the proposal.  Ms. Smyth questioned who the partners are and how the consortium is accessed by this project. 

Ms. Freyre-Calish stated that there is no analysis of the survey that was extensively presented in the report.  There was also no statement of how the results would impact the project.

 

Ms. Lombardi stated that some of the individuals served were not people with disabilities, and questioned the criteria for persons to be served by the project. 

 

Mr. Sullivan stated that the project report indicated that there was difficulty in finding people with disabilities to be served by the project and that the population served seemed young.  Ms. Cole clarified for the group that if a person is 50 and living at home with their family members, they are actually ideal candidates for support through Aging in Place, since their caregivers are also aging.  These individuals must begin to plan for their own future after their caregivers are not longer available. 

 

Ms. Lombardi stated that the project appears to be recruiting from affluent areas where there may not be much need, but do not appear to have recruited in Bridgeport.  The project only worked with 15 individuals and some did not have disabilities. 

 

Ms. Langton clarified that Aging in Place is a new concept.  Many people donít think about their future and what will happen to them as they age.  WeCAHR has done much to promote the concept of Aging in Place for people with disabilities, not just in Connecticut but with national audiences as well. 

 

Mr. Sullivan referenced the financial reporting and indicated that 70% of the budget is salary and 30% o the budget is direct support.  In year two that will shift to 50-50. 

 

The group felt that the internal resource directory could be a great product from this project.  This Directory is at WeCAHR. 

 

Mr. Sullivan asked the committee if they felt that this project could create sustainable change.  He further asked if there is a strong rationale behind favorable funding recommendation for the remainder of the project and if there would be positive impact for persons with disabilities.

 

Ms. Langton state that right now, when a person ages with a disability the assumption is that the person will go to a convalescent home.  People want the opportunity to age in place, just like others in their community.  This is the first model in Connecticut for people with disabilities.  The Council held a Symposium several years ago and at the symposium, people with disabilities voices their concerns about where they would go.

 

Mr. Sullivan clarified that the target for this project would be someone living with their family who is 50 years old.

 

Mr. Morrissette reminded the group that this project is very important.  He lives in a nursing home, and he would like to move out.

 

The committee voiced positive feelings for the concept represented by this proposal.  The also expressed concerns that more resources seemed to be in administration and less in direct support to individuals in the community.

 

Motion:  Ms. Lombardi moved that funding be considered to be approved going forward based on clarification of:

 

       Outreach (expand program visibility and publicize the concept)

       Outcomes

       Population served

       Explanation of additional funding sources

       Sustainability

       Replication

       Deliverables

       List of contacts and agreements

 

                        Ms. Freyre-Calish seconded the motion.

 

Discussion on the Motion:  Mr. Curtin reinforced the importance of outreach for this project.  Ms. Langton suggested that a few people from the committee and Council staff meet with WeCAHR to review the recommendations. Mr. Morrissette requited more detail of the year two objectives, and Mr. Sullivan will send those to Mr. Morrissette.

 

Vote: The motion was passed unanimously.

 

4.       Adjournment. Mr. Curtin moved to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Morrissette seconded the motion.   The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 P.M.  

 

 

 

 

 



Content Last Modified on 8/5/2011 4:51:57 PM