Policy Work Group Meeting February 24, 2015

Transcription

1 Meeting February 24, 2015 Session Notes I. PARTICIPANTS Jennifer Chaffin, Andrew Cullen, Ryan Hatton, Brandon Herget, Gregg Keesling, Curt Langhammer, Mary Leffler, Mary Morgan, Shawniece Patton, Brian (Chris) Reeder CSI Staff: Lena Hackett, April Schmid II. III. RELATED DOCUMENTS Strategy Grid NEW INDIVIDUAL ACTION COMMITMENTS Name Action(s) With Whom By When Contribution to Result Andrew Cullen Gregg Keesling Mary Leffler Shawniece Patton Brian C. Reeder Keep April and Lena updated on 1006 and budget Send April and Lena list of Marion County legislative delegation Find out more info on HIP enrollment & RecycleForce Senate side of HB1006/Budget $50 million for local rehab (Research VoA response if appropriate) (Want passage of House version vs. Governor s version) Insurance Agents 1 month Help fulfill strategy 3 Exec Team By ASAP Research SB212 and SB173 Mary March First meeting. Read up on bills and House bill State legislator for 1006 Vop, Gregg, Chris Bring $$ to local community IV. UPDATED INDIVIDUAL ACTION COMMITMENTS Name Action(s) With Whom Julie Fidler April patient navigators and Christian Business contact By When N/a 1/8/15 Contribution to Result Push out for group to use Progress

2 Follow up with Indy Welds Follow-up with Doris re: BMV info N/a 1/12/15 Begin to build a program application for $ N/a 1/12/15 Inpact help V. INTRODUCTIONS/CHECK IN Mary gave a brief overview of the Results Based Accountability/Results Based Facilitation framework, including the purpose of check in. The idea is that we are being purposeful in the room, and check in lets everyone know where you are. If you are distracted for some reason, this is a good time to mention it to the group. Name Agency Check In Mary Leffler Volunteers of America Currently have a daughter and grandson in the hospital Gregg Keesling RecycleForce Feeling humbled Andrew Cullen United Way of Central Indiana Have full attention on this group Jennifer Chaffin IndyWelds Ryan Hatton IndyWelds Feel great Mary Morgan Various nonprofits Brandon Herget Senator Joe Donnelly s Office Group has my undivided attention Shawniece Patton United Way of Central Indiana (New Manager of Community Impact) Curt Langhammer Liberty Hall Focused and ready Chris Reeder Mayor s Office, Re-entry Vop Osili City County Council Excited to be here Name Tents Mary explained the purpose of name tents within the RBA/RBF framework. Name tents are a tool to indicate whether you are engaged in the discussion. If you turn your name tent sideways, you are indicating that you are disengaged for whatever reason (e.g. don t feel the conversation is in line with the topic, preoccupied with personal matters). If the facilitator sees that several name tents are sideways, they might ask those engaged in the discussion if they want to continue their conversation at a later time. In group work, turning the name tent sideways can indicate that you are done with your work. Individual Action Commitment Forms (IAC) April revisited the importance of recording action commitments on an IAC. This helps keep you accountable and ensures that the group is making progress on identified strategies. VI. DISCUSSION April explained that the primary goal of the meeting is to review the strategy grid, discuss what has changed, and determine where we are headed as a group.

3 IDOC Meeting Vop started the discussion by recapping a meeting he recently had with IDOC representatives (probation, healthcare, mental health, employment, transition, re-entry) and MCRC representatives (Julie Fidler, Chris Reeder, and Lena Hackett). They discussed Senate Bill 173 and their intent to do more direct employment services pre-release. SB173 would allow IDOC to train inmates for driving and other vocational certifications. They also addressed the fact that soft skills are an issue. The group also discussed healthcare and what HIP 2.0 can do for the population. There is current legislation pending regarding Medicaid benefits for individuals that are incarcerated (SB212). IDOC seemed to be committed to determining how they could effectively enroll individuals for health plans prior to release. They briefly touched on the medication access issue. Finally, they discussed the identity document issue. Mike Lloyd re-iterated his commitment to stay engaged with the MCRC, and the group agreed to meet to follow-up on the various discussions. Legislation Relevant to Policy Strategies The group spent much of the meeting discussing three bills that are being considered during this legislative session. SB173: DOC Specialized Vocational Programs Passed the Senate (49:1), has now moved to the House The group discussed this bill in reference to the meeting with IDOC The bill permits the department of correction to establish a specialized vocational program to train minimum security inmates in trades such as truck driving, manufacturing, plumbing, construction, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning SB212: Inmates and Medicaid Passed the Senate (49:0), has now moved to the House If passed, Medicaid services provided while the individual is incarcerated would be paid by the State and Federal Medicaid agency The State s financial obligation would fall to the criminal justice agency (Jail or IDOC) responsible for the individual Unclear whether coverage would continue upon release, or if individuals would have to re-apply (Andrew agreed to look into this) Unclear whether the bill allows criminal justice agencies to cover co-pays or premiums There was some debate about whether HIP 2.0 has enrollment limits and how that would impact this population. (Brandon sent information after the meeting indicating that HIP 2.0 does not have enrollment limits.) Curt shared that the majority of Liberty Hall residents are from IDOC rather than MCCC. For the residents from IDOC, IDOC is responsible for their healthcare costs. At RecycleForce, Gregg shared that 70% of the employees have been transitioned to HIP 2.0 and 30% were retained in traditional Medicaid. The group discussed the potential for Work Release being the first step in the community-based re-entry process, because it would take away their incarcerated

4 status and make them eligible for community-based services, including health coverage. IDOC has indicated that they would like to sign people up for HIP 2.0 with the start date being their release date. They still need to talk to FSSA to see if that is feasible. At the jail, it s less clear how long people will be there, so it s not as easy to sign them up for coverage that starts at release Andrew wanted to know what the group wants from SB212. The group indicated the following: o Sheriff s Office wants the bill to pass because it would give them some relief financially o For the population we serve, it would allow them the same coverage that the general population receives. Need clarification on whether the bill allows for continuous coverage (pre and post release) and whether the agencies can cover co-pays/premiums while they are incarcerated before we know the full impact on the population. HB1006: Criminal Justice Funding Passed the House (97:0), has now moved to the Senate Prohibits sending Level 6s to IDOC Appropriates $50 million to IJC to distribute to local Community Corrections agencies 75% of the funding would go to substance abuse and mental health treatment With the Governor s requests for funding to build another IDOC facility being stripped from the budget bill, the debate on this bill could get contentious The group agreed that supporting passage of this bill should be a priority for the MCRC Chris, Gregg, and Vop volunteered to testify when there are opportunities. Lena added that CSI would engage Bob as well as the head of the Steering Committee. Andrew agreed to send a list of legislators for the groups reference Strategy 1 Updates Andrew asked Liz Johnson a series of questions about identity documents and distributed copies of her answers at the meeting. The group agreed that the issues seem to be related to implementation (accountability/follow-through) rather than policy. Everyone agreed that Julie Lanham would be the person to talk to about this. Regarding the process at the MC jail, John Cocco is doing a pilot related to identity documents at the Sheriff s office. April agreed to send him a list of questions about the pilot or request his attendance at a work group meeting to find out more about the pilot. Chris mentioned that several years ago the jail was required to maintain a packet of personal belongings that would be returned to the individual upon release he is not certain if this is still happening. Summons vs. Arrests Vop wanted to discuss the possibility of advocating for policy changes to increase the use of summons to appear in court (over arrests.) The group discussed the concept and agreed that this wouldn t necessarily work for or apply to MCRC s target population (those

5 currently in or released from the system.) For the general population, Andrew confirmed that the court has discretion in choosing whether to summons, arrest or release ( authorizes summons for any crime at the discretion of the court.) The group scheduled the next meeting for March 10 9am in the Lilly Conference Room at UWCI.