Final report

              JOINT LEGISLATIVE
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT
December 15, 1999
MEMBERS
Representative Laura Knaperek, Co- Chair Senator Randall Gnant, Co- Chair
Representative Bill Brotherton Senator Sue Grace
Representative Karen Johnson Senator George Cunningham
Mr. Vince Scott Mr. Roger Deshaies
Ms. Sharon Shelley Ms. Marta Urbina
Ms. Karen VanEpps
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Authority and Scope of Duties
11. Committee Activity
111. Report
IV. Committee Recommendations
V. Committee Minutes and Attachments
VI. Laws 1997, Chapter 299; Laws 1999, Chapters
204,262 and 292
I. Authority and Scope of Duties
The Joint Legislative Developmental Disabilities Oversight Committee is a
joint study committee created through HI3 2371 ( Laws 1997, Chapter 299).
The purpose of the committee is:
" To monitor the implementation of the electronic benefits
transfer pilot program; monitor the Division of Developmental
Disabilities in the Department of Economic Security's strategy
to reduce paperwork; develop an aggressive marketing program
for the expanded voucher system and other programs for the
developmentally disabled; study the feasibility of redesigning
the Division of Development Disabilities' service delivery
system; and determine the number of persons who would
qualify for Developmental Disability Client Services under the
Division of Developmental Disability in the Department of
Economic Security if the federal definition 45 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 1385 through 1388 ( 1998), is used to
determine eligibility. Effective 1213 111 999, the Committee
will hold public hearings to review the policy and procedural
changes in the model rate structure proposed by the Division of
Developmental Disabilities in the Department of Economic
Security and submit a report of its recommendations for any
modifications to the division's rate structure to the governor,
the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of
representatives on or before December 3 1 of each year.
Notes: The Division of Developmental Disabilities in the
Department of Economic Security shall submit a report to the
members of the Committee and legislative staff by December
15, 1999, regarding the estimated number of developmentally
disabled persons and potential costs for developmentally
disabled persons who do not currently qualify for services but
who would qualify if the federal definition, 45 Code of Federal
Regulations Parts 1385 through 1388 ( 1998), is used. Select
members are eligible for reimbursement of expenses."
11. Committee Activity
The Joint Legislative Developmental Disabilities Oversight Committee met
on December 14, 1999. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is attached to
this report.
- Staff
Keri Sparks, Legislative Research Analyst
House of Representatives
Barbara Guenther, Legislative Research Analyst
Senate
111. Report
Testimony
The committee heard a report from Susan Madison who is a member of the
President's Committee on Mental Retardation ( PCMR). Ms. Madison
reported that the PCMR committee went to Washington, D. C. for a
conference in September, 1999. Ms. Madison stated that the vision of the
committee is to design a service delivery system, ensure family centered,
person- centered service delivery and examine and redesign a quality work
force within the Developmental Disabilities arena. The goal is also to make
sure that policies and procedures align themselves.
The committee also heard a report from Roger Deshaies, Assistant Director
for the Division of Developmental Disabilities within the Department of
Economic Security. Mr. Deshaies explained the pilot Electronic Benefits
Transfer program and also distributed information on the current waiting list.
Mr. Deshaies also distributed information regarding the Self Determination
Initiative. Mr. Desaies reported that the computer system that DES has is
outdated.
Bev Hermon, from B & H Consulting, testified that there are incredible
opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities in the work
force today. Ms. Hermon also stated that the pay for job coaches is grossly
underpaid. Ms. Hermon stated that Representative Wong will have
proposed legislation to increase job coaches compensation to an adequate
level. Ms. Hermon requested that the Legislature support all efforts to train
and facilitate employment for individuals with developmental disabilities.
IV. Committee Recommendations
The committee approved a motion to request that a letter be sent to John
Clayton, Director of the Department of Economic Security, advocating that
the Division of Developmental Disabilities should be given priority for an
updated automation system. On February 24, 2000, a letter signed by
Representative Laura Knaperek and Senator Randall Gnant and a copy of the
report was delivered to John Clayton. A copy of the letter is attached.
The committee approved a motion that the Human Services Committee
review the Report to Study the Impact of Expanding the Definition of
Developmental Disabilities for the State of Arizona.
The committee approved a motion to request that the Auditor General, in its
upcoming performance audit of the Division of Developmental Disabilities,
include the assessment of the computer system and an investigation of
staffing needs within the Child Protective Services, specifically for
personnel who oversee children with chronic developmental disabilities. On
February 24, 2000, a letter signed by Representative Laura Knaperek and
Senator Randall Gnant and a copy of the report was delivered to the
Performance Audit Manager. A copy of the letter is attached.
Finally, the committee approved a motion to support proposed legislation
sponsored by Representative Wong regarding increasing the compensation
for job coaches.
February 24,2000
Mr. John Clayton
Director of the Department of Economic Security
17 17 West Jefferson, 0 1 OA
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Mr. Clayton,
The Joint Legislative Developmental Disabilities Oversight Committee met on December
14, 1999. The committee recommends that as a priority, you look into the issue of
upgrading the computer system within the Division for the Developmentally Disabled.
For your convenience, attached is the report that outlines this finding.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerelv.
February 24,2000
Ms. Shan Hays
Performance Audit Manager
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite # 4 10
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Ms. Hays,
The Joint Legislative Developmental Disabilities Oversight Committee met on December
14, 1999. The committee recommends that in the Auditor General's upcoming
performance audit of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, that it include an
assessment of the computer system and investigate staffing needs within Child Protective
Services, specifically for personnel who oversee children with chronic developmental
disabilities. For your convenience, attached is the report that outlines this finding.
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Sincerely, , , I-Representative
~ d rKaha perek Senator Randall Gnant
i
# V. Committee Minutes and Attachments
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LT\ Ftl 4
ARIZONA STATE LEGIS1, ATURE . -
m\ EF C - . :., fl JJ
Forty- fourth Legislature - First liegular Session
1:. 7"
JOINT LEGISLATIVE IIEVELOPMENTAL
DISABILITES OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting
Tuesday, December 14, 1999
Senate Hearing Room 3 - 2: 00 p. m.
( Tape I , Side A)
, - I he meeting was called to order at 2: 20 p. m. bq Chairman Knapereh. I he attendance \\ as noted
by the secretar!, .
Members Present
Roger Deshaies
Vince Scott
Sharon Shelley
Karen Van Epps
Representati~ K.~ n aperek. Co- Cl~ airn~ an
Keprescntati~ c Ijrotherton
Representatit e . Johnson
Members Absent
Senator Gnant, Co- Chairman
Senator Grace
Senator Cunningham
Marta Urbina
Speakers
Keri Sparks, Research Analyst, House of Representatives
Susan Madison, Ilirector, Governor's Council on Developmental llisabilities
I3ev Hermon. B & 1 I Consulting
Charge of the Committee
Keri Sparks, Research Analyst, I louse of Representatites. presented the charge of the (' ommittec
( Attachment 1 )
' I'he Members introduced themselves to the audience.
President's Commission on Mental Retardation
Susan Madison, Director, Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities. presented an
overview of the President's Committee on Mental Retardation and the subsequent follow- up
meeting in Arizona ( Attachment 2).
1) cpartment of Economic Security Status Rcports
Mr. Deshaies distributed infor~ iiatiori on the 1; lectronic I3cnefits ' l'ransfer program
( Attachment 3). Mr. Deshaies explained that. for clients, the program would be similar to
banking by phone, in which a person can control their utilization of approved scrvices and call in
to authorize payment for them. Regarding the pilot program, Mr. Deshaies added:
' The group of 60 fanlilies will include families living in urban, rural, and remote ( further out
than rural) areas. Remote families will be included to observe the impact of the program and
to see if it will create opportunities for under- served families.
Although it would be preferable to include more than 60 fa~ iiilies. this is thc largest number
of'participants that the Ilivision of Ile\ elopniental Tlisabilitics can include and still maintain
budget neutrality.
For those families in remote areas. they bill be provided nith a computer link or phone line
as part of the pilot.
Some of thc families in the pilot are currently on \ oi~ clicr programs; ho\\ ever. their
participation in tlie pilot program is \ rolu~ itary.
Mr. Ileshaies distributed the current \\ siting list for " open indi\, iduals" ( Attachment 4). and
added:
The grand total of " Number Authori~ edN o Services" indicates that there are 143 individuals
enrolled in the system who are on a waiting list and receiving no services.
' The four most- requested services are, in order of greatest demand: speech therapy,
occupational therapy, physical therapy, and respite care.
The grand total of " Number Authorized for Other Services" indicates that there are 423
individuals receiving at least one service and are awaiting additional service( s).
The " Number Authorized for Same Service" indicates the number of individuals mho are
receiving a portion of the requested services. though not at the level that would be ideal for
their development.
' I'he waiting list information can be considered 75 percent accurate. ' l'lie reason for this is
that service coordinators might not be 100 percent diligent in entering information into the
system. There are times when a client is not eligible for a service or the service is
unavailable and this may not appear to be valuable information to the service coordinator at
the time. As a result, when a service is not being immediately rendered or there does not
appear to be an immediate impact to the client, service coordinators. at times, fail to enter the
information so that it can be collected in a meaningful way.
Although the Arizona Long-' fern1 Carc System ( AIdWl'CSis) not supposed to have a \ baiting
list. there are times when this is not the case. especially when clients live in reniote areas,
away from services.
' l'he reason, presumably, why tlie second- highest enrollment population is 45 years and older
is because there are those with developmental disabilities who have been taken care of
outside of the system by their parents/ guardians. Once this support system falters, due to
death or decreased income/ resources, this group of people have need to come into the system.
' l'hc reason for a drop out rate of one out of every four children, age birth to 6, is that sonic
families prefer to have the school sqsteni assume full responsibility for their children. . l'Iie
families typically return their children to tlic s> stc~ iait age I9 to 21. after they have left the
school sq8stcni. . l'he enrollment statistic Ihr this categor! does not rcflcct referrals through the
sqstc111 to vocational rehabilitation.
Mr. Deshaies distributed and briefly overviewcd information regarding thc Self tlctcrmination
Initiative ( Attachment 5). Mr. Deshaies added that vouchers havc grown in popularity
throughout the State, with the exception of Pinal County. Co- Chairman Knapcrek noted that the
last time the Committee met there were approximately 200 people on the voucher program. Mr.
Deshaies indicated that there are approximately 1.800 on thc program now.
Committee Discussion
In rcsponsc to questions by the Mcnibcrs. Mr. Deshaies indicated tliat the 1113 computer s~ stcni
is outdated. It is prcsuniably >, ear 2000 ( Y2K) compliant, and no\\ the system is being testcd to
see if it will rccogni~ cF ebruary 29. 2000 for the iipconiing leap ! car. Additionall\. 1ll. S has
contracted \\ ith a medical cornpan) to test medical equipment \ kith computer componcnts. such
as \ entilators. for Y2K conipliance.
Ms. Van Epps stresscd the iniportance of updating the 1) l: S computer sj stem. at least from an
cfficicncy standpoint. Slic suggested that [ > I 3 be placed on \\ liatecer uaiting list csists for
funding such upgrades.
Co- Chairman Knaperek suggested to the Committee the following reconinlendations:
a A request to John Clayton, Director, DES, that DDD be given priority for updating its
automation system.
A request that thc [ Iousc Committee on Human Services review the report on eligibility and
for individuals with developmental disabilities, which will be prepared by IlIlD. as charged
by legislation brought forth by Representative I'ickens.
a A request to the Auditor General for specific rcconinicndations. uith rcgard to the upconling
performance audit of DES.
Mr. Scott asked if it is appropriate for the Committcc to support upcoming legislation.
Co- Chairman Knaperck indicated yes. Mr. Scott suggested tliat the Conimittcc support
upconling lcgislation sponsored by Rcprcscntative Wong that would seek to raise the
compensation for job coaches.
I3ev Ilermon. B & I 1 Consulting, cxplaincd that there are incredible opportunities for individuals
with dcvclopmcntal disabilities in the ~ vork force toda? ( Attachment 6). I loucvcr. the pa] ratc
for job coaches, who act as intermcdiarics and facilitate the proccss, arc grosslq underpaid.
Ms. IIermon noted that the proposed lcgislation, sponsored by Representative Wong. would
provide $ 3 million to bring their compensation up to an adequate level. Additionally.
Ms. IIcrmon requested that the Legislature fully support all efforts to train and facilitatc
employnlent for individuals with developmental disabilities.
Ms. Sparks rcvicwed the Conimittcc recomniendations.
Co- Chairman Knaperck moved that the Committee recommend that:
A letter, from the Committee, be sent to . John Clayton,
Ilirector, IIES, advocating that 1lIlD should be given priority
for an updated automation system.
The House Committee on Human Sewices review the Report to
Study the Impact of Expanding the Definition of Developmental
Disabilities for the State of Arizona, initiated by H. B. 2242
( developmental disabilities; oversight committee; duties),
sponsored by Representative Pickens, now Chapter 203,
Laws 1999.
I< equcst that the Auditor <; eneral, in its upcoming
performance audit of the llivision of Ilevelopmental
1) isabilities to: 1) assess the computer system, with an aim to
make upgrade recommendations, and 2) investigate staffing
needs within Child Protective Services, specifically for
personnel who oversee children with chronic developmental
disabilities.
Support proposed legislation, sponsored h! Representative
Wong.
The motion carried.
( Original minutes, attachments, and tape are on file in the Chief Clerk's Office. Copy on lile in
the Office of the Senate Secretary.)
Joint Legislative Developmental Disabilities Oversight
Committee
PURPOSE: To monitor the implementation of the electronic benefits transfer pilot program;
monitor the Division of Developmental Disabilities in the Department of
Economic Security's strategy to reduce paperwork; develop an aggressive
marketing program for the expanded voucher system and other programs for the
developmentally disabled; study the feasibility of redesigning the Division of
Development Disabilities' service delivery system; and determine the number of
persons who would qualify for Developmental Disability Client Services under
the Division of Developmental Disability in the Department of Economic Security
if the federal definition 45 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 138.5 through 1388
( 1 998), is used to determine eligibility. Effective 1213 111 999, the Committee
will hold public hearings to review the policy and procedural changes in the
model rate structure proposed by the Division of Developmental Disabilities in
the Department of Economic Security and submit a report of its recommendations
for any mo
MEMBERSHIP:
House Three members of the House of Representatives, not more than two from the
same political party, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Brotherton, Johnson, Knaperek ( Co- Chair)
Senate Three members of the Senate, not more than two from the same political party.
appointed by the President of the Senate:
Cunningham, Gnant ( Co- Chair), Grace
Other The Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities in the Department of
Economic Security or the Director's designee:
Mr. Roger Deshaies, Department of Economic Security, 1789 West Jefferson,
791A, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, Work ph.: 602- 542- 6853, Fax: 602- 542- 6870
One representative of a provider of services for the developmentally disabled.
appointed by the President of the Senate:
Mr. Vince Scott, AZTEC, 7400 West Olive, Peoria, Arizona 85345, Work ph.:
623- 412- 2888 x 122, Fax: 623- 412- 2766
One parent of an adult who is developmentally disabled, appointed by the
President of the Senate:
Ms. Sharon Shelley, P. O. Box 2181, Gilbert, Arizona 85299- 2181, Home
ph.: 480- 892- 9130
STAFF: S- Barbara Guenther, H- Mark Barry
REPORT DATE: 1213 112000, 1211 511 999
EXPIRATION DATE: 0113 112003
STATUTORY CITE: Laws 1997, Chapter 299; Laws 1999, Chapters 204,262 and 292
ATfr1CH M ENT
Joint Legislative Developmental Disabilities Oversight
Committee
One parent of a child who is developmentally disabled and medically at- risk,
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives:
Ms. Marta Urbina, 19602 North 32nd Street # 87, Phoenix, Arizona 85024,
Work ph.: 602- 242- 4366 x105, Fax: 602- 242- 4306
One representative of an advocacy organization, appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives:
Ms. Karen Van Epps, Arizona Consortium for Children with Chronic
Illness, 521 West Kaler Drive, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, Work ph.: 602- 997-
2368, Fax: 602- 997- 1538
Notes: The Division of Developmental Disabilities in the Department of Economic
Security shall submit a report to the members of the Committee and legislative
staff by December 15, 1999, regarding the estimated number of developmentally
disabled persons and potential costs for developmentally disabled persons who do
not currently qualify for services but who would qualify if the federal definition,
45 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1385 through 1388 ( 1998), is used. Select
members are eligible for reimbursement of expenses.
STAFF: S- Barbara Guenther, H- Mark Barry
REPORT DATE: 1213 112000, 1211 511999
EXPIRATION DATE: 0113 112003
STATUTORY CITE: Laws 1997, Chapter 299; Laws 1999, Chapters 204,262 and 292
G9V ' S COUNCIL ON DD Fax : 602- 542- 5320 Dec 15 ' 99 13: 43 P. 02/ 03
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON MENTAL RETARDATION
On September 17- 20 the Arizona team went to Washington D. C.
The fourteen members of the team included
Brenda Bargmann, Self- Advocate
Jodi BeckIey, Executive Assistance to Governor Hull
Skip Bingham, Program Manager with ReAabilitation Services Administration
Roger Deshaies, Assistant Director, Division of Developmental Disabilities
Representative Laura Knaperek
Susan Madison, Executive Director, Gov's Council on Developmental Disabilities
Teresa Moore with People First, Personal Assistant to Brenda Bargmann
Senator David Petersen
Mir'am Podrazik, Exceptional Student Services, Dept. of Education
Toni Povistak, Parent
Alan Schafer, Az. Health Care Cost Containment System, ALTC
Vince Scott, Az., Executive Director Training and Evaluation Center ( AZTEC)
Ron Smith, Assistant Director, Department of Health Services
Richard Zelznak, Deputy Director, Governor's Office of Strategic Planning and
Budgeting
The goals for the Academy focused on several states and tribes;
1) developing an overall picture of the current State system for people with
mental retardation based on the diverse perspectives of people with mental
retardation and their families; people who provide supports; members of the
community; people who fund, administer, and/ or oversee the system; and
legislators
2) developing a State Action Plan that addressed those key funding,
organizational, and/ or policy reforms that would enhance the life- long
inclusion ard participation of people with mental retardation in their
communities.
The teams in Washington discussed some of the following issues;
Current level of services and supports in their home State
Ways to enhance services and suppor's to promote lifelong community inclusion for
citizens with mental retardation
The barriers to enhancing the improvement of services and supports.
Identifying allies who support services and supports for citizens with mental
retardation along with identifying non- traditional allies.
Outline a State Collaboration Action Plan for community inclusion of persons with
mental retardation ( see sheet you asked for)
G3U ' S COUNCIL ON DD Fax : 602- 542- 5320 Dec 15 ' 99 13~ 43 P. 0; 5/ 05
December 6% meetiqg contained:
1. Alan Schafer with AHCCCS and Ron Smith from Departmect of Health Sevices
discussed their programs and how they interface with PCMR. Dr. Judy Hegenauer,
an authority in Transition discussed how transition is an underlying theme in the
goals for PCMR.
2. Discussed Business Organization and Operating Procedures
3. Identified three priorities that co~ respondto the Arizona Collaborative Actiorl Plan
A) the Missouri initiative
Corresponding to creating an integrated service system. Replicatins the
Missouri integrated services model in two schools in Tempe and refine for
Arizona. Rep. Knaperek, Miriam Podrazik are the leads working on this.
B) Workforce issues
Corresponds to all three goals of 1- Ensuring a more family- centered, person-centered
service delivey systenl, 2- gathering data and information to inform
decisions aqd 3- to create an integrated service system. Examining and
making recommendations to redesign the rate structure for service providers
to attract and retain a quality workforce. Need to look at data, cost, and
outcomes. This goes beyond rate structure to global employment issues.
RSA, providers, consumers will work on this.
C) Review statues, regulations
Corresponds to goal # 2, of gathering data and information to inform
decisions. Review existing programs, legislation to ensure the policies,
procedures align themselves to these principles. Rep. Knaperek, agency
directors, administrators, all participants to be ' nvolved.
Work is to be done in small groups with the reports coming to the core PCMR team.
The plan is to meet six times in the next year. h'ext meeting February 24'".
ELECTRONIC BENEFITS TRANSFER
In 1997 HB 2371 was passed mandating Lhe Division of Developmental Disabilities to
irnplement an " electronic benefits transfer" ( EBT) pilot beginning on April 1, 1998
throu, oh July 3 1, 2000. The purpose of this pilot was to explore options available to
allo~ vin dividuals with developmental disabilities and their families more corlrrol over
~~ urchasinsegr vices and/ or supports. The pilot was to be monitored by the Auditor
Genel- r~ l'so ffice and a report submitted t o the Governor, the Przsident of the Senate.
the Speaker of the Housc, the Secretary of State, the Joint Legislative De\~ eiopmental
Disabilities Otlersi- g ht Committee and the Director of the Department of Library,
Archives and Public Records before September 30, 2000.
EBT uses a debit system to allow families and consumers nlorz control over the
deii~~ eroyf needed services and supports. It allows for timely decisions on the need
and use of those supports. The Division i~ lvestigated the use of this type of system in
other programs within the Department. The Family Assistance Administration had
begun using EBT in their food stamp program through an agreement with Citibank
Corporation.
The Division's Assistant Director met on several occasions with representatives from
Citibank Corporation to discuss including the Division in this agreement. Citibank
indicated that their technology could be adapted to include the Division, at no
additional cost, once they had received information regarding the Division's automation
system and reporting requirements. When their assessnlent was complzte, Citibank
would submit their proposal to the Division and would specify the costs associated.
both with a pilot and with statz- wide application. Their proposal was to include a
timeline for implementation of the system, but it was certain that the April 1, 1998
implementation date mandated by the legislation would fiot be possible. An este: ision
of the timeframe associated with implementation of the pilot program was requested
through SB 1405. This bill was subsequently vetoed by the Governor.
The Division was advised during this time that, because of welfare reform and
privatization. the number of people receiving food stamps through the Family
Assistance Administration had been reduced to the point that Citibank decided thar it
would not be cost effective for them to include the Division.
Once the option to utilize Citiba~ lkw as eliminated, rhe Division researched other
options. It was determined that the Division did not have the technology or resources
available to pilot EBT without assistance. Delus Electronic Payment Systems, Inc. and
American Socio- Medic were approached as an alternative to Citibank. Both companies
determined that it would not be feasible to pilot the program unless the Division could
fund it. AlTACHMENT 3
During the 1999 legislative session, HB 2077 ivas pllssed and delayed the effective date
of iinplenieilration of the pilot to July 1 , 2000. ?' he i'iuiiiror Genet- 21' s icport would
then be due before September 30, 2002.
ERT ANA1, YSTS
Since it was clear that use of a debit card system utould requise money and eqiiipincnt
urtavailable to thc: Division. alternative systems were explored.
As a basis for the new system, the Division analyzed the vocchc~ p. sogral; l to esplor(:
which features were ~ vorkirlto~ alloiv fanlilies n? ol- e corltsol and what bar- I- iei- s
7 . prevented sonie fa~ liiliesf rom using this option. Ihc \, oiicher progranl was
ir: iplenler~ red as a piict d~~ no~ lstraliio~ hnil aricop~, I' irna and Gila! Pjiinl counli~ st o
cierei- 1ni11ei f a ser~, icaeu thorization voucher approacll to families' acquisitioil of I- 1on: e
and Comrrlunit~ B, ased Services ( FICBS) was ef'f~ cti\~ ine ernpo~ vei- in$ fr tiniliss and
stre: irnlinins the service delivsn systzrn.
The progi- am \\: as designed around vouchers being issued based upon [ lie IntIi\. idual
Service Program Plan ( ISI'P). Flexibiligr was a key element. Within the 1ilnit. s set
the ISPP and other Division requirements, families chose how and when to utilize their
vouchers and who would provide the services. Two groups participated in the \. 70ucher
Pilot, a test group who participated in the Pilot and a comparison group \ irho qualified
but did not apply for the demonstration.
Fanlilies and consumers had the responsibility to participate in the ~~ e\~ elopn~ ofe ithlte
ISPP. They would select providers from a current list of those wllo Lvere certified by
the Division, then would contact them to gain needed information and to sclied~ lle
muhlally convenient times for services to be delivered. The famil). and/ or the
consumer would complete the required documentation to ensure the pro\ idL- I- \ v; is
reinlbursed for providing the services.
In February 1995 the Department of Economic Security, Office of Evaluation
conducted an evaluation of the Voucher Pilot Demonstration Thcir e\ rctluari~\ In, : ih
designed to make long- term comparisons among indi\ 8idualsr ecei~ in s I- ICBS, Caqe
Managers and providers with respect ro satisfactian le~ zlsd. ifficuli~ a leas and ssr\( ice
delivery of the Voucher Pilot.
The Final Evaluation contains survey, demographic and payrncnt data gathered 2: 12
months into the Voucher Pilot and is intended to supplement the data contained in [ lie
Interim Report. The data contained in the February 1995 report was compared a- g ainst
the baseline data and the six- month follow- up ( interim) data to deterinin? if any furlher
changes had occurred in the areas of satisfaction, difficulty and/ or service dslivc. q,. Tn
addition, information from selected interviews with families. Di\~ isions taff. C:! je
iManagers and providers was presented to supplement the cliiantitati~. et' iilclin>; s
contained in the Final Evaluation.
Satisfacrion
The satisfaction levels, for the most part, improved over the cour- sc of the evaluation
for test group individuals and Case Manasers. It appears that the 1rouchi. r Pilot system
1 ~ 3asb le to inlprove oj~ erallc onditions for those groups. In particular. they liked the
added flexibility of the Voucher Pilot system and the feeline of additional control for
families. In tcrnls of satisfaction, tht: Voucher I'ilot appears to have been able to fuliill
its intended pur- pose, \+. hich may be due, in part, to the possibility t1i: it tlie dissatisfied
families dropped our.
As n y o u p , the proc. ic1ers appeared to bi: rl~ eg roup most ndv~ rsel:, a~ ff ccted by thc
Voucher- Pilot svstem ir: resms of satisfiiction. ' J'hey \ i. crt. the riiost optimistic ~ r ~ i l p
thc basclinc and h: id become the rnost skeptical gri) up in Lhe t'il~ al cvaluatioi~. The
reason for tlleir skepticisr~ la ppeared to be papcr~ vor- kd ifiicaiiiej. b10r- s specifically.
papsrn. ork that \\! as lost: slo\ iP, o r i~ npr- oper- I! c ~ n ~ p l cht ~.\ d ' o : Ic~~" PI. i l~? fr; i111ilies. 111
a d d i t i o ~ a~ g, e ncies in District I rzcjuired that the pr~ vi( 1~ c1o. jm ~~ lcnt csc p: i!- are set of
paper~ vorkt hat sonletin~ esd epended upon input from the Ili~,. ision. F or- exampls,
aaencies required auihosization codes before they ~ ' o u l dpa :\, providers for Voucher
Pilot services and those authorization codes were not al\ ilays established on time. This
slowed provider pay, making providers unsure of available hours, and generally made
an already difficult situation more difficult. Providers had less control over the
payment system under the Voucher Pilot.
Service Il) eli\ rerv
Frorn a service delivery system pzrspectiT: e, the \ Joucher Pilot system was a \) ery
rllinirlial change from the non- voucher system. District 1 was the only district that
experienced ally significant changes. Prin~ aril)~ th, e chanses \ irere a quarterly
assessment of hours and families \ vho were complztin_ c sollie of thc paperwork. 111
addition, District I was addin2 some independent providers, althou9h oi. er half of those
nc\ v independent providers were for one famil),' s use only and were not listt: d i11 the
provider directory. Therefore, the independent provider aspect of' the rroucher Pilot
\\: as of minima] imp~ catj ld ~ vouldo nly becon~ ea significant f2ctor if rhose pro\. idr3rs
were jllade available to other fanlilizs. For thosl. faIllilic~ t hat nrere still using the
agencies, the only substantive chanze nras the qunrlcrly asscssIneIlt of Ilours and [ he
responsibility of the paperwork.
Interviews and cornments from families and individuals indicated that the cluasteriy
assessment ILfas not enough of a systern change to justify the additional responsibiiitv.
This v,; as co~ ifjrmedth rou- g h calls to families that dropped out of the Voucher Pilot.
They indicllted that the Voucher Pilot \{. as of no benefit to t! leir f~ milissb ccausz of the
addition21 papzr~ vork and the \\ lay to make the Voucher Pilot system more acceptable
\\: as to eliminate the paperwork. ' fhc tlo\ ir of paper\ iJork ill the 1~ oucllerP ilot s\. stem
\ Lras nor partictll: lrl>. acci. p[: lhle to cir1;: r protriders oi. ktnlilies.
Payriients
The payment data illdicated tllar both tl~ cte st : ro: lp and thc comparison g o u p illcreased
their utilization of services. I- Iow. ever-, aurhol- ization amounts \\: ere. not consiticred to be
a reliahle source of data. prirnarily because of the wa). authorizations are entered into
the ASSISTS darabase.
There was an increase in the average payment amount, both overall and betiveen Test
and Conlparison groups. ' She case group ( 83 individuals) comparison slio\\, ed tll: it the
Test sroup utilized a iii, ohcr dollar anlount, but the conlparisc. rn ? I- oi~ hpa d : I la1- 2e1-
percent of i~~ creas( 2e2 .7%) than tllz test ~ I - O LiIG~. 9 i7cj. 1\' 11en the find corc ? I- oup ( 84
indi\: itiuals) \\, as coinpnrcd to rile 121- gzro rigin: tl ~~ opillatio( r- 1,5 7 indii- iduals) the test
group utilized a h i ~ h c cr! ollar ainoilnl and alsc had : i hig1li. r percent of incl- ease ( 34.4%)
than the C O ~ I I I ; I ~ ~ S OgIrIo up ( 1 9.3'; :).
Pani: r\\ losk -
During i~ lier~. iewfsa. m ilies ir; dicatc. ii [ ha; ri? e>. did not cars ro rake on additioilal
adillinistrative respo~ lsibili[ ies. ' Time rz.; rrictions and a perceived lack of system
benefits precl~ idedf ilnlilies from t. ndor. sin~ a dditional paperwork. In fact, fanlilies felt
that even a " true \~ oucherXs) . stt. r~\\~. a uld not justify the administrative responsibilities
associated with it. Some of those t'i~~ nilieisn terviewed i~ ldicatedt hat they could do the
paper\ i: ork, but did not want to. In fact, all four groups intervie\ ired indicated a limited
number of fanlilies could handle the paperwork. ' They felt that a system which
required family responsibility would be of benefit to a limited number of families.
For those families that stopped using the Voucher Pilot system, the burden of
complctin_ e the paperwork appeared to have been the rn:! jor issue in their decision to
drop out. For those ivho cited " lack of benzfit" papernSosk appeared to be a part of
those responses as well. It appeared that the slight system chanfzs were not enough of
a benefit for thern to continue usin2 the Voucher Pilot.
- C- ase hrlanacer~
There \\! as little irnprovement in the roli: of ths Case hianages under the Voucher Pilot.
Case hlanager turno\. er continues to be a problenl for far~ lilies and this made tile
acquisition and use of the Voucher I'iiot services tiifficult. It is tioubtf~ rl, ziven the
amount of Cast. blanager turnover, that rhz Vouc1; cr I'ilot could i: npro\. e conditions for
families. When families do not have Case hlanascrs. supervisors or other Case
hfana2el. s substitute 2nd this makes it difficult for tllc family and th?), often $ 0 fdr
extended periods of tillle \ 4. ithout Case hlana~ er- so r ofen have to ch; i11g? Case
Managers.
Pro\. idea
There ~ i a as continuing- lack of pro\, idzrs. both i~ ldependenta nd a~ encyb ased. In oile
year, a net sain of about 20 pr- oli. jderj Ilzd bzcn realized that ailonled any fan~ ilvc hoice.
' I'he other indep~ ndzntp rc>.; idcrs [ hiit ]!; id beeil ne\ i: ly cerrificd S ~ S Y CO I~! ~ f ' rirnil~ o. n ly.
Given the limire(] a\ r: li] abili~ o* f 1: 101. e r11;: rl hii! f of f! li' i l l i ~ ~ p ~ ~ pl drce~~\~ litd ei. tsh. c
perceptiorl of lour pay, and orher relnteii issucs, it is c l i ) ~ ~ b~ vfh' ~ er~ hlc rt he \' oucher
Pilot alone could create an), signific~ iilti ncre~ lccsi n pro\' ider c11~' lici'.
A f ~ e ra n,~ lyzinyt he findings, thc Division deieloped an 13BT alternative that should
meet the needs of families and consumers. The following is a sunmlary of the
alternative selected which meets the requirement of allowing families and consumers to
have more contsol over purchasing services and supports within the fiscal constrainrs of
the Division.
I- arnilics aricl consumers needcd service mix may chanse monthly, weekly 01- el. en
ctaily. l'lle s~~ stemrnu st be able to respond ro thesc chan9iny nzecis \ vithout ~ - e q u j r i n ~
families to request authorization changes fr- om the Ilivision.
rl'he usual itendor ma)! riot be available or a faniily nlny hear about a pro\ ricler \\, ith a
ni? i1,.. and exciting idea. Again: the fanlily should b? : il? le to s\ vitch providers \ r. ithout
requesting an authorization change from the Division.
, .
I his psoposecl nlodel allo\ ifs families to utilize icierltifieci resources by:
assi~ nriiento f an indi~~ idufaalm ily budget deve! opcd during thc planning 111- ocess
use of member directed seri~ icew hich allows flexibility in the use of services
identified in the planning process
0 individuals/ famiiies can purchase services from any authorized provider through a
flexible purchaselpayment system
The person centered planing process develops the service plan which identifies
appropriate services, and current rates and assigns the total funds needed as the
~ ndividur- llizedb udget. Those services are included as member directed services
The follo\ ving are questions that are cur- rentlj' being explored for this ne\ v system:
What service category n~ ovssa re allowed?
How large a change is allowed?
e Mow 111~ lchu 1lder/ over standards can an individual. ifa11ii11~ b e befori. an exception is
noteti'?
\ That exception reports are used and by whon~?
I- Iow do ipdividuals and families p! an to utilize their- budget efitlcti\, cly?
o What data is needed for AHCCCS and what data is needed for thc I> i\ lision'?
1h c rle\ ir model allows individualslfar~~ ilietos utilize assigned budgets by phone.
i ~ ~ [ e r nozrt paper. The final authorization must be established to ensure quick pCim\ enr
to attl-; icr and retain new providers. This system handles tra~ lsactionsonl! .
SUhIhl AKY
r . 1 he proposed 111odc. l will meet the needs of families and consumers for greatel-flexibility
and more control. By analyzing the problenls experienced through the
voucher, the model will include elements to elinljnate those barriers. The Division is
targeting a pilot of this model for July 1, 2000.
r- rn
Division of Developlnental Disabilities
Core Design Team - Self Determination Initiative
Implementation Update as of: December 6, 1999
Design Status
Component
Person Centered CS In an effort to include more family members, providers and advocates, training
Planning of Plan Facilitators has been rescheduled to begin in January.
Fair & Equitable e A provider rate survey will be sent to providers by 1213 1/ 99 to determine the
Rate Structure impact the defined rates would have on providers.
A special meeting of the Design Team will be held in December to review the
final methodology and proposed rates.
A rate has been developed for Member Directed Services.
Meetings are being held with family members to discuss the Independent
Contractors rates. Rates will be developed by 113 1/ 00.
Member CS Pending AHCCCS approval. The Division has prepared scenarios about to
Directed demonstrate how member directed services would be used. AHCCCS is
Services reviewing that information at this time.
Pilot Testing CS The request for exemption fiom procurement rules to conduct the pilot has
been sent to the State Procurement Office.
CS The Pilot will be open to all providers who 1) provide HCBS and residential
and day services or 2) provide HCBS and residential services or 3) provide
HCBS and day services AND agree to participate in phase III.
CS Phase I1 will add member directed services ( by June 2000) and Phase I11 will
add residential services ( by December 2000).
CS A letter will be sent to all providers inviting their participation in the pilot,
explaining the criteria for participation and defining the requirements of
participation.
The Pilot will include up to 60 individuals who have historically been unserved
or underserved. The District staff and advocacy groups are being asked to help
identifl60 individuals who are interested in participating in the Pilot.
Individual CS The Division is gathering information fiom other states about contracting for
Advocacy guardianship services. The Design Team has recommended the Division
contract for individual advocacy services as well.
Informat ion In addition to publication of this fact sheet, Roger Deshaies is conducting staff
Dissemination updates in each of the Division Districts, attending the AAPAD meeting and
meeting with individuals and family members about the design and the pilot
process.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORRlATION ABOUT IhlPLEMENTATION CONTACT:
EILEEN COLLERAN AT 602 542- 6826
ATTACHMENT 5-
7 7
4 F(
5. re, p ::
m - h
GT g
u s - c u m 5 z g
- I=: re,
y e - 2. % =
3 -*
0
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES FOR PEOPLE Wl'Sll DEVELOPMF. NTAL DlSABIl. I'T1ES
Individds w~ thd c v c l o p m ~ dli sabil~ hesa re an untapped labor markel. Thc
majonty or'pcople wth disnblljucs are unanployd, thocc employed arc ofien
underemployed. There arc peopk wanting to go ttu work who wed job opportunltles.
Rcswch has indicated that people with disabilities wlw arc properly inatchcd to a job
and grvcn the support thcy nccd will maintain tbeir psitions.
Many agencies are avaihblc tvprovide the support and accommodalions needcd by
employers who hire people with developmental disabiliues.
. .
acs of I&- . .
ImlividuaIs with developmental disabilihtxi can do all types of jobs. Their abilities arc
may range from the abflity to handle urnkilled job to the ability to handle , skilled and
profcssronal positions. Many developemalJy disabled individuals are not rctardcd
( they have physical limitations) and have no l~ milauonos n their abilities in handling
higher functioning, complex employmat positions.
Benefits:
Other than the need lo accommodate some disability related needs, people wth
dcvcloymertral disabiliues need no ; ld& t~ ond" b enefits" than other employees. Many
workers have ~ ~ s p d a t i pnronb lems; su do some people who are dcvclopmend
disabled; mimy worLcrs have illnesses and usc sick lave; so, a1 dmes, do workers
with developmental disabilities.. Rwsrch has indicated that p p l c wth disabilities
( all r pof d isabilit~ esu) se no mare leave time Liom work than o t k r workers.
Tnlninr;
Training can be acxomplishcd with the assistance, whcn nccrssiuy, of a job caach, a
mentor, or a co- worker who has kcn paired wth the yrrson wirh a d~ sd) ilityT. his is
an accommodation that the employee may need.
Job tasks can be broken Into smaller steps for those individuals who have coptive
drlicm This is an accommodatlnn that the employee may nccd.
Accmnmodn,.
Pcoplc with developmental disabilities may need some accommodauons. These
accommodat~ or~ arse usudly low cost and. 111 the long mn. wll tncreasc Ihc lenbqh of
ilmc a pcrson will stay employed. Accommodabons may include, but are not 11rn11ed
to, the followrng examples. the usc of u job coach, encouragins lnentorlng
relationships with co- workers. speak~ nga nd tlaining at a level that 1s understood by
thc ~~ idrvrdusd~. rnpl~ fiinthge appllca~ iona nd lntcrvlew pruwsb, devcloplng 3
constslent routmc, dcvelop~ ngp laures or hagrams ind~ catingt he seqr. rencc of tasks,
or devclopi~ igp hystcal acccss for a pcrson in ti wheelcharr
ATTACHMENT 6.
I
I VI. Laws 1997, Chapter 299
1 Laws 1999, Chapters 204,262 and 292
I
I
I
I
E
B
I
I
I
I
M
1
I
8
I
i
FIRST REGULAR SESSION- 1997
speaker of the house of representatives, the chairmen of the appropriations commit-tees,
and the director of the joint lepislative budget committee bv the twentv- fifth of
and yeai- to- date as compared to prior yea; totals.
It is the intent of the legislature that the provider increase be targeted, as
ill
Sec. 3. Individualized service program plan; monitoring; report
The assistant director of the division of developmental disabilities and the assis-tant
director's staff shall meet jointly with parents of clients in provider group
a perfonna& e- based contract monitoring. The assistant director of the division of
develo~ mentald isabilities shall send a report with the conclusions of their delibera-
1 : b46.%: 1 act is repealed from and after December 15, 199' 7.
Sec. 5. Electronic benefit transfer pilot program , 11 i? ll
States deiennial census.
B. The auditor general shall conduct an evaluation of the pilot propam and shall
submit a r e ~ o r to ftheir findings to the governor, the president bf the senate, the ! il / Ill
before September 30,2000.
See. 6. Joint legislative developmental disabilities oversight committee
IP 1. Three members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of 11 li
Additions are indicated by underline; deletions by SWIUUM 3335 ' i I/
Ch. 299, 0 6 43rd LEGISLATURE
2. Three members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate. Not
more than two of these members shall represent the same political party. The
president of the senate shall designate one of these members as cochairperson.
3. The director of the division of developmental disabilities in the department of
economic security or the director's designee.
4. One representative of a provider of senices for the developmentally disabled,
appointed by the president of the senate.
5. One repreientative of an advocacy organization, appointed by the speaker of
the house of representatives.
6. One parent of an adult who is developmentally disabled, appointed by the
president of the senate.
7. One parent of a child who is developmentally disabled and medically at- risk,
appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.
B. Committee members are not eligible to receive compensation, but members
appointed pursua:- o subsection A, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 are eligible to receive
reimbursement 01 , z! Jenses pursuant to title 38, chapter 4, article 2, Arizona Revised
Statutes.
C. The committee shall:
1. Monitor the implementation of the electronic benefits transfer pilot program.
2. Monitor the division of developmental disability in the department of economic
security's strategy to reduce paperwork and to develop an aggressive marketing
program for the expanded voucher system and other programs for the developmen-tally
disabled.
3. Study the feasibility of redesigning the division of developmental disability in
the department of economic security's service delivery system.
4. Submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the governor, the
speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the secretary of
state and the director of the department of library, archives and public records on or
before December 31,2000.
D. Legislative staff shall provide the committee uith administrative support.
Sec. 7. Delayed repeal
Section 6 of this act is repealed from and after January 31, 2001.
Sec. 8. Laws 1995, chapter 250, section 20 is amended to read:
Sec. 20. Delayed effective dates
A. Section 3 of this act is effective on October 1, 1995.
B. Sections 9 through 13, 15 and 16 of this act are effective on March 1, 1996.
C. Sections 1, 4, 5, 8 and 14 are effective on October 1, I996 1998.
Approved by the Governor, May 1, 1997.
Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, May 2, 1997.
WELFARE- REFORM- ARIZONA WORKS PROGRAM
CHAPTER 300
S. B. 1357
AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 11- 291, 11- 291.01, 11- 297, 12- 306, 12- 1596, 13- 2101,
13- 3701, 15- 393, 15- 401, 15- 1466.01,23- 783, 23- 784, 36- 895, 36- 2901,36- 2903.01.36- 2905,
36- 2905.03, 36- 2905.05, 36- 2931, 36- 2932, 41- 732, 41- 1005, 41- 1954, 43- 1021, 43- 1121,
Additions are indicated by underline; deletions by Ekikeout
Ch. 204, $ 1 44th LEGISLATURE
45, Submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the governor, the
speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the secretary of
state and the director of the department of library, archives and public records on or
before December 31,2000.
D. Legislative staff shall provide the committee with administrative support.
E. The division of developmental disabilities in the department of economic
security shall submit a report to the members of the committee and legislative staff
by December 15, 1999 regarding the estimated number of developmentally disabled
persons and potential costs for developmentally disabled persons who do not
currently qualify for services but who would quallfy if the federal definition in
subsection C, paragraph 4 is used.
Sec. 2. Laws 1997, chapter 299, section 7, is amended to read:
Sec. 7. Delayed repeal
Section 6 of this act is repealed from and after January 31,2QU 2003.
Approved by the Governor, May 12,1999.
Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, May 12,1999.
WATER QUALITY CONTROLPUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 205
H. B. 2257
AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 49451,49452,49353 AND 49- 353.01, ARIZONA RE-VISED
STATUTES; RELATING TO WATER QUALITY CONTROL.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Section 49351, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
8 49- 351. Designation of responsible state agency
A. The department of environmental quality is designated as the responsible
agency for this state to take all actions necessary or appropriate to ensure that all
potable water distributed or sold to the public through public amh& pbh water
systems is free from unwholesome, poisonous, deleterious or other foreign sub-stances
and filth or disease causing substances or organisms. All such actions shall
be taken at the direction of the director of the department.
B. All state agencies and any local health agencies involved with water quality
& ail, at the request of the director, m r o v i d e to the department any assistance
requested to ensure that this article is effectuated.
Sec. 2. Section 49352, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
8 49- 352. Classifying systems and certifying personnel; limitation; definitions
A. The department shall establish and enforce rules for the classification of
systems for potable water and certifying operating personnel according to the skill,
knowledge and experience necessary within the classification. The rules shall also
provide that operating personnel may be certified on the basis of training and
supervision at the place of employment. The department may assess and collect
reasonable certification fees to reimburse the cost of certification services, which
shall be deposited in the state general fund. Such rules apply to all public a d
twmpdh water systems involved in the collection, storage, treatment or distribu-
1096 Additions am indicated by undsrllne; deletions by rWlrswt
Ch. 262, 5 29 44th LEGISLATURE
4. One person representing natural resource conservation districts established
pursuant to title 37, chapter 6,- appointed by the governor.
5. Four members of the public with at least a bachelor's degree in biology,
botany, ecology, geology, geography, hydrology, resource economics or zoology and
who have significant work related experience in the area of water resources
management and conservation or natural resources management and conservation.
One person shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives, two
persons shall be appointed by the president of the senate and one person shall be
appointed by the governor. At least one of the members shall be from a county with
a population of less than five hundred thousand persons according to the most recent
United States decennial census.
6. Two persons who are knowledgeable in water resource issues related to
riparian ecosystems, aR$ who have been recommended by at least one environmental
organization that is incorporated under the laws of this state or that for federal tax
purposes files under section 501( c)( 3) of the internal revenue code and whose
purpose includes the protection, conservation or restoration of this state's rivers and
streams and associated riparian habitats, including fish and wildlife resources that
are dependent on these habitats, and who are appointed by the governor.
7. One person representing an agricultural improvement district established
pursuant to title 48, chapter 17, who has at least a bachelois degree in biology,
botany, ecology, geology, geography, hydrology, resource economics or zoology ad2
who has siMicant work related experience in the area of natural resources
conservation and who is appointed by the governor.
8. One person representing an Indian tribe appointed by the chairman of the
intertribal council of Arizona.
9. One person representing an industrial water user who has entered into a
subcontract for central Arizona project water appointed by the governor.
10. As nonvoting ex officio members, the director of the department of water
resources, e t h e state land c o m m i s s i o n e r h
B. Members of the commission appointed pursuant to subsection A, paragraphs
1 through 9 of this section shall be appointed for staggered terms of three years. A
member may serve more than one term and may continue to serve beyond the
expiration of the term until a successor is appointed and assumes office.
C. On request, members who are not ex officio members of the commission are
eligible to receive compensation pursuant to section 38- 611, not to exceed three
thousand dollars in any calendar year, and are eligible for reimbursement for
expenses pursuant to title 38, chapter 4, article 2.
D. Members of the commission are immune from liability for any action neces-sary
to cany out the purposes of this chapter.
See. 30. Delayed repeal
A. Section 45- 2115, Arizona Revised Statutes, relating to the joint legislative
oversight committee of the Arizona water protection fund, is repealed from and after
December 31, 1999.
B. Laws 1998, chapter 218, section 3, as amended by this act, relating to the
school fingerprinting and criminal history information technical advisory committee
is repealed from and after December 31,1999.
Sec. 31. Laws 1997, chapter 299, section 6 is amended to read:
Sec. 6. Joint legislative developmental disabilities oversight committee
1532 Additions are indicated by underlioe; deletions by ddkeout
Ch. 292, $ I 44th LEGISLATURE
Section 1. Laws 1997, chapter 299, section 5 is amended to read:
Sec. 5. Electronic benefit transfer pilot program
- 4. Begmning on ilp&&@% July 1, 2000 through JiQQ4- 2888 June 20. 2002.
the division of developmental disabilities in the department of economic security
shall implement an electronic benefit transfer pilot program in one county with a
population of more than 5QWQfQiv e hundred thousand persons according to the
most recent United States decennial census and one county with a population of less
than X@@ Q five hundred thousand persons according to the most recent United
States decennial census.
B. The auditor general shall conduct an evaluation of the pilot program and shall
submit a report to the golernor, the president of the senate, the
speaker of the house of representatives, the secretary of state, the joint legislative
developn~ ental disabilities oversight committee established by section 6 of this act
and the director of the department of library, archives and public records on or
before September 30, ZQ3 2002.
Sec. 2. Laws 1997, chapter 299, section 7 is amended to read.
Sec. 7. Delayed repeal
Section 6 of this act is repealed from and after January 31, ZN- L 2003.
Sec. 3. Developmental disabilities case management pilot projects
A. Notuvhstanding any law to the contrary, beginning on July 1, 2000, the
division of developmental disabilities in the department of economic security shall
establish two pilot projects to contract with individuals and organizations to provide
the case management services listed in subsection C of this section to persons who
are deemed eligble pursuant to section 36- 559, Arizona Revised Statutes. The pilot
projects shall provide additional choices of case management seivices through
contracts or agreements between the division and any of the following:
1. State employees.
2. Organizations.
3. Individuals.
4. Parents or family members of persons nlth developmental disabilities.
5. Consumers.
B. The divlsion shall establish one pilot program in an urban distilct and one
pilot program in a rural district. For the purposes of this subsection. " distnct" has
the same meaning prescribed in section 36- 596.31, Arizona Revised Statutes.
C. The pilot projects shall include the followng services:
1. Indn idualized program plan development, implementation and coordination.
2. Monitoring seivice delivery
D. Persons who perfoim case management services shall comply with title XI9
of the social security act and pilot program requirements prescribed by the division.
If a parent, family member or consumer is unable to comply with a specific seivice
requirement the division shall perform that function.
E. A consumel., parent or family member who provides case management
sen- ices pursuant to this section shall be trained by the division and shall not be paid
to provide these services.
F. An agency or individual that is contracted with to provide case management
sei~ ices pursuant to this section shall not provide other senices to the same
consumel. except as provided by Public Law 105- 17, part C, section 637, for children
who are under four years of age.
G. The division shall continue to perform intake, eligibility determinations and
service authorization and shall monitor the pilot projects.
Additions are indicated by underline; deletions by skikewt
FIRST REGULAR SESSION- 1999 Ch. 292, 9 4 I H. The pilot projects end on July 1, 2002.
I. If the report required by the developmental disabilitizs case management p~ lot
I projects committee in section 4 of this act recommends statewide implementation of
the pilot program, the division shall begin implementation on July 1,2003. After the
end of the pilot projects and before statewide implementation, the division shall
continue providing options in case management services for those persons who
i participated in the pilot projects and who wish to continue.
See. 4. Developmental disabilities case management pilot projects committee
A. The developmental disabilities case management pilot projects committee 1s
established in the divislon of developmental disabilities in the department of econom- I ic security and consists of the following members who, except as provlded In
paragraphs 14 and 15 of this subsection, are appointed by the director of the
department of economic security:
1. One parent of a nunor child wth developmental disabilities from an urban
area.
2. One parent of an adult child with developmental disabilities from an urban
area. I 3. One parent of a minor child mth developmental disabilities from a rural area.
4. One parent of an adult child with developmental disabilities from a rural area.
5. One consumer of developmental disability services who lives in an urban area
I 6. One consumer of developmental disability services who lives in a rural area.
7. One family member of a person mth developmental disabilities, other than a
parent, from an urban area.
I 8. One family member of a person with developmental disabilities, other than a
parent, from a rural area.
9. TWO persons who each represent an organization that advocates for persons
with developmental disabilities.
i 10. One case manager from the division of developmental disabilities.
11. The assistant director of the division of developmental disabilities who shall
senre as chairman.
I 12. A representative of the Arizona health care cost containment system admin~ s-tration.
13. Two persons who provide contracted semces to the division.
14. A representative of the governor's office of strategic plannlng and budget~ ng m who is appointed by the governor.
15. A representative of the joint legislative budget committee who is jointly
appointed by the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representa-i
tives.
B. The committee shall:
1. Develop recommendations to the division on the training needs of a person
who uill provide case management senrlces under the pilot projects. I 2. Recommend the locatlon of the pilot projects.
3. Develop recommendations on the design of the pilot projects.
4. Develop quality assurance measures for the pilot projects. u 5. Assist the division to evaluate the pilot projects.
6. Assist the division to develop a waiver proposal for the federal health care
financing administration.
7. On or before November 15, 2002. submit a report of its findings and recom-mendations
to the chairmen of the joint legislative developmental disabllitics over-
Additions are indicated by underline: deletions by skikeeuf
Ch. 292, 0 4 .. , 44th LEGISLATURE
sight committee, the chairmen of the joint legislative budget committee, the gover-nor's
office of strategic planning and budgeting, members of the developmental
disabilities advisory council established by section 36- 553, Arizona Revised Statutes,
the department of economic security and the Arizona health care cost containment'
Sec. 5. Satisfaction survey -
A. On or before November 1, 1999, the department of economic security shall
mail a survey to establish a baseline to each consumer or parent or guardian of a
child who is receiving case management services pursuant to title 36, chapter 5.1,
article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes. The developmental disabilities case manage-ment
pilot projects committee shall design the survey to determine the degree of
satisfaction with the current case management system including the response time of
case managers, the level of courtesy, the quality of services provided and other
issues determined by the committee. The survey shall ask the responsible person to
identify the person who made the placement and treatment decisions, including the
types of services to be received, the frequency of services and the location of
services. The survey shall also ask if their family members are receiving the
services the responsible person requested, which services the responsible person
feels would provide them with the greatest assistance and whether the responsible
person would use an electronic benefit transfer program.
B. On or before March 30, 2000, the committee shall submit the results of the
survey to the chairmen of the joint legislative developmental disabilities oversight
committee, the chairmen of the joint legislative budget committee, the governor's
office of strategic planning and budgeting, members of the developmental disabilities
advisory council established by section 36- 553, Arizona Revised Statutes, the depart-ment
of economic security and the Arizona health care cost containment system
administration.
C. The pilot projects are subject to the approval of the federal health care
hancing administration.
D. The pilot projects shall be conducted within and are limited by the existing
appropriation made to the division.
Sec. 6. Laws 1995, chapter 250, section 20, as amended by Laws 1996, chapter
359, section 9 and Laws 1998, chapter 113, section 61, is amended to read:
Sec. 20. Delayed effective dates
A. Section 3 of this act is effective on October 1, 1995.
B. Sections 9 through 13, 15 and 16 of this act are effective on March 1, 1996.
C. Sections 1,4,5,8 and 14 are effective on October 1, I398 2001.
Sec. 7. Repeal
Laws 1998, chapter 227, section 1 is repealed.
Sec. 8. Repeal
Section 4 of this act, relating to the developmental disabilities case management
pilot projects committee, is repealed from and after June 30,2002.
Approved by the Governor, May 18,1999.
Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, May 18, 1999.
Additions are indicated by underline; deletions by fkikeeut