tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post5403434026203184368..comments2023-09-16T05:17:59.903-07:00Comments on Developmental Disability System Reform: Train CampaignDoug The Unahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-46626392691757636832007-05-02T16:11:00.000-07:002007-05-02T16:11:00.000-07:00Paul, let me add that the site your name links to ...Paul, let me add that the site your name links to is interesting but I'm having some trouble understanding the thrust of the site. I'm interested to know more. If it is problematic to tell that story in public, feel free to email me at dpascover at mac dot com.<BR/><BR/>Thank you again for taking the time to read the post and write such a thoughtful comment.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-85199809003059363652007-05-02T16:01:00.000-07:002007-05-02T16:01:00.000-07:00Paul, that's a wonderful review and thank you very...Paul, that's a wonderful review and thank you very much for it. Obviously, this post was written before the revision, and I feel better about the new version as you've described it but with the following concerns:<BR/><BR/>First, I have trouble with any reform coming before a serious effort to start measuring outcomes. Right now there's no evidence that 200 hours of any kind of training will produce enough extra value for clients to justify a 15% rate increase. In my thinking, an employee only becomes better when (s)he becomes more helpful to the clients. If we had evidence that people with 200 hours of training produced 20% better outcomes for the people they serve, I'd withdraw this complaint but for now not only don't we know that, we have no means to learn it.<BR/><BR/>Second, the more person-centered the service, the less generalized the training can be. At my agency (~35 employees, 110 clients,) it's hard to think what we could train anyone in for 200 hours that won't be 90% useless for any given one of them. That said, if agencies are free to create and implement their own curricula with DDS approval, it does improve the odds that the training will be more useful. I might add that a larger agency which has staff to create or find a host of training modules and distribute them based on the needs of individuals served might be able to use 200 hours effectively. <BR/><BR/>Then of course, you have to ask if the legislation might benefit large agencies more than small ones. A legitimate question for an honest debate, but not what the sponsors had in mind.<BR/><BR/>In case it isn't clear from my post ('twas a long time ago) I do think this legislation is well-intended.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-68701324397363971142007-05-02T15:02:00.000-07:002007-05-02T15:02:00.000-07:00Doug,My cursory impression of AB1427 differs from ...Doug,<BR/><BR/>My cursory impression of AB1427 differs from yours. Although the bill has been revised I will try to refer only the the version for which your post referes.<BR/><BR/>The 200 hours referenced in AB1427 refers to a “a qualifying training program as set forth in subdivision (i).” This subdivision, subdivision (i), does not mention any “online” requirements or CoDS curricula.<BR/><BR/>Section 1, subdivision (d) does state that, “The College of Direct Support is a national standard and an example of a values-based training curriculum for consumer-directed services.”<BR/><BR/>Historically, under normal statutory interpretation, the purpose of the wording is to prevent the department from promulgating regulations that would preclude or not recognize the CoDs curriculum as a potentially part of a training plan developed by an agency. Id est, an agency potentially could include CoDS within its 200 hours of training, but is not required.<BR/><BR/>You have outlined the dowside and inflexibility of “Statewide training mandates”, and your points are well taken, and I agree with many of your concerns. However, the training plan under AB1427 does not, at this time, preclude an agency from developing a training program that is specialized to the particular service delivery environment. This was not as clear before the April 18th revise after that revise AB1427 said in part:<BR/><BR/>(j) In order to receive funding from the Quality Improvement Fund, an agency providing training shall be certified by the department to meet the criteria set forth in this subdivision. The Quality Improvement Review Board, established in subdivision (i) , shall evaluate all agency applications for funding and shall recommend to the department certification of the training program proposed by the applicant agency [emphasis added]] . …<BR/><BR/>Of course an agency must get “department[al] certification of the training program proposed by the applicant agency” and this process involves input from the quality Improvement Review Board. Combined, there can be no guarantee, at this point, as to what kind of training(s) will come out the other end of this gauntlet. So – while I agree, at this point in time, that there is no guarantee that an agency will be able to develop a training program finely tuned to its needs, there is also no reason to assume that an agency will not be able to develop a specialized training curriculum that fits the needs of the consumers served by that agency. The dirt will likely be in the details, the regulations promulgated by the department. This step will likely be as important as the original bill.<BR/><BR/>I have very much enjoyed reading your posts. If you do not agree with my assessment then I would still love to hear what you would have to say about a public policy that “presumes” what I have presented. That is, Trainings are mandated to received increased funding, but the training curriculum DOES NOT have to be based on any centralized curriculum. Rather, an agency is free to develop training programs that cater to individual needs and individual environments as per approval by the state.<BR/><BR/>TanxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-39222504218155341292007-04-06T10:42:00.000-07:002007-04-06T10:42:00.000-07:00Thanks, Ariel. I find the colors a nice substitut...Thanks, Ariel. I find the colors a nice substitute for grammar, apparently.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-31613626231227798622007-04-06T09:31:00.000-07:002007-04-06T09:31:00.000-07:00Nice colours!arielNice colours!<BR/><BR/>arielAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com