1. PRESENTATION TO CFILC July 18, 2016

2. Many thanks to Rosemarie Punzalan from California Foundation for Independent Living Centers for all of her work on our webinar. the SILC SPIL Committee: Jacqueline Jackson, Chair, SPIL committee Joseph Cody, Vice Chair SPIL committee Betsey Foote, SILC member (Tribal Representative) Jay Harris, Department of Rehabilitation, DOR Fiona Hinze, SILC member Peter Mendoza, SILC member Sara Moussavian, SILC member Jimmie Soto, SILC member, IL Network Representative

3. Outline of Presentation Current SPIL Next steps with SPIL Lessons Learned from this new process? Upcoming SILC meeting in Santa Barbara SILC Vacancies Questions/Comments

4. Thank You to signers! Signers: Ana Acton Dani Anderson Sheri Burns Rudy Contreras Louis Frick Eli Gelardin Larry Grable Ron Halog Paula Margeson Tink Miller Dolores Nason Lilibeth Navarro Elsa Quezada Susan Rotchy Donalyn Sjostrand Barry Smith Paul Van Doren Norma Vescovo Jan Vitro

5. Overview: Structure Goals: These are the desired outcomes. We may not expect to complete a goal in three years, but we should be able to see progress. We therefore tried to create goals that are attainable and realistic. Objectives: These are our short-term outcomes. We expect to be able to complete an objective in 3 years. Measurable Indicators: These are the data that we expect to collect to know whether we are successful with our objectives. An indicator defines our objective.

6. Goal 1: The California Independent Living Network will enhance and expand existing transition services. Objective 1.1: I.L. Network members will have access to more youth transition tools as funds awarded will tailor their services and consumer relationships to respond to the needs and interests of people with disabilities ages 14 to 24. Measurable Indicators: quarterly reporting (CILR) will demonstrate an increase in numbers of people with disabilities ages 14 to 24 served over the three year period.

7. Goal 1: The California Independent Living Network will enhance and expand existing transition services. Objective 1.2: Californians with disabilities move from more restricted settings into the community setting of their choice. Measurable Indicators: 1.Number of persons benefitting from transition grants. 2.Number of persons reported on CILR Narrative as transitioned from institutional living.

8. Goal 1: The California Independent Living Network will enhance and expand existing transition services. Objective 1. 3: Individuals who transition are assessed on their quality of life and ability to make informed choices. Measurable Indicators: Results from survey administered by ILCs using transition grants.

9. Goal 1: The California Independent Living Network will enhance and expand existing transition services. Objective 1.4 : Through existing state I.L. Network Technical Assistance structures, I.L. Network members access all available resources and tools for providing Transition. Measurable Indicators: Number of new transition resources and tools created or added to California resource sites. Reports from DOR Resource Specialists about technical assistance provided.

10. Goal 1: The California Independent Living Network will enhance and expand existing transition services. Objective 1.5 : SILC exercises its new authority to conduct resource development activities to support the activities described in this subsection and to support the provision of independent living services by centers for independent living Measurable Indicators: Number of resource development activities completed by the SILC. Dollar amount of funds added to support the provision of independent living services by centers.

11. Goal 2: In addition to direct services, Californians with disabilities will continue to benefit from the cultural legacy of Independent Living advocacy and community organizing. Objective 2.1 : The California I.L. Network receives effective and supportive coaching, mentoring, and training around Community Organizing and Systems Change. Measurable Indicators: Reports from the Systems Change contractor regarding coaching, mentoring, and training provided. CILR Narratives from centers about systems change results from center’s advocacy activities.

12. Goal 2: In addition to direct services, Californians with disabilities will continue to benefit from the cultural legacy of Independent Living advocacy and community organizing. Objective 2.2 : Through existing state I.L. Network Technical Assistance structures, I.L. Network members receive regulatory guidance on Community Organizing and Systems Change. Measurable Indicators: Reports from DOR Resource Specialists about technical assistance provided.

13. Under-served, Under-represented Study findings indicate that the SILC should support the expansion of services to: Individuals with hearing, cognitive, and visual disabilities; Asian-Americans and Latinos; Youth throughout the state; Members of the LGBTQI community; Speakers of Tagalog and Armenian (specifically, by making more materials available in those languages);

14. Under-served, Under-represented Geographic regions most in need of additional IL services: Six (6) ILCs catchment areas identified as “highly in need” are located in inland areas of the state. when the region served has a higher share of individuals with disabilities living in poverty. Thirty-four (34) counties Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, and Tulare counties have the lowest rates of services.

15. Coordinated Funding Language Repeated research on unmet independent living needs has emphasized the need for increased funding and expansion of the Independent Living (IL) Network. Encourages the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) to examine its interpretation of AB204 and the welfare and institutions code. Wide discrepancies in funding amounts in both state and federal allocations Obvious systemic inequity of funding for the IL Network. Examine current statute and consider development of a new state funding formula

16. Coordinated Funding Language endorses a multiple-term, minimum, combined state and federal IL funding formula for each of the 28 CA ILCs short-term target funding base is $500,000, the mid-term target funding base is $570,000, and the long-term target funding base is $746,000 per ILC. new, long-term Title VII-C funds (after COLAs) directed to those centers below the targets. equal distribution of funds to increase their funding to the target funding level. one-time, additional SSPI funding will stimulate partnership with the DSE and other stakeholders, both internal and external, to prioritize use of the available funding.

17. Expansion of Network California is not currently considering expanding its network. Service areas within the state have been divided up such that every region has a non-profit Part C federally-funded center for independent living (CIL) responsible for it. If an existing center should cease operations, the first priority of the State for the federal funding awarded to that center is to have ACL conduct a competition for a new center for the same geographical service area covered by the closed center.

18. Next Steps With 2017-2019 SPIL – Refine Operations Plan – Justification for SILC over 30% – Other changes required by ACL DOR budget

19. Refine Operations Plan How will we fund Youth Project? Reduce Legacy projects no more than 15%? Restructure Systems Change Hub so that portion dedicated to Youth? Other ideas? Measuring Diversion? Other ideas?

20. Financing and Justification State Fiscal YearDOR Budget DOR Expenses SILC Budget SILC Expenses SPIL Priority Funds Minus Carryover % of Budgeted 2012-2013 $ 915,000 $ 746,000 $ 570,000 $ 562,000 $ 1,077,000 $516,33725.8% 2013-2014 $ 924,000 $ 783,000 $ 590,000 $ 574,000 $ 820,000 $513,25825.3% 2014-2015 $ 954,000 $ 862,000 $ 583,000 $ 760,000 $451,14122.6% 2015-2016 $ 1,047,000 $ 982,000* $ 604,000 $ 604,000* $ 660,000 $317,21216.1% 2016-2017 1 $ 1,095,000 NA $ 604,000 NA $ 525,000 NA23.6% 2017-2018 1 $ 1,140,000 NA $ 615,000 NA $ 525,000 NA23.0% 2018-2019 1 $ 1,185,000 NA $ 627,000 NA $ 525,000 NA22.5% 1 DOR Budget amounts are estimates and are not representative of enacted budget amounts. *DOR and SILC expenses for 2015-16 are projections based on rate of actual expenses through May 2016.

21. Lessons Learned From This New Process – Start earlier Epiphanies can interrupt process Process independently from DOR work – Get commitment of timeline from DOR ACL will send out additional notes close to end; build in time for that

22. More Lessons To Come Expect insights as following up on Operations plan, justification, ACL requirements. SPIL is living document – Amendments – DOR funding decisions Regulations/Code may clarify or create need for amendment.

23. Upcoming SILC meeting in Santa Barbara Highlights – Committee meetings – Independent Living Resource Center – Assembly member Das Williams – Reports from State Agencies – SPIL Operations Plan Open to the public – please join – we need your voice

24. SILC Vacancies and Member Stats 12 Members out of 18 Possible (15 to G.O.) – Ben Jauregui retired June, 2016 – Michael Van Essen moved out of state 5 are ILC or State employees – Can receive one more and stay below 51% legal threshold (hint, hint) – Consumers, Board members, happy former employees great

25. Counties Represented on the SILC *The Governor’s Office considers the county a person resides in. Contra CostaSan Francisco FresnoSan Luis Obispo KernSan Mateo Los AngelesSutter San DiegoTulare 48 Counties Not Represented

26. Questions/Comments You are the experts – We need to hear from you Thank you! Liz Pazdral, Executive Director (916) 445-0142 liz@calsilc.org