Comments for Nevada Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities http://www.nevadaddcouncil.org Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:16:45 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.5 Comment on FFY 2017-2021 Five Year State Plan by Mark L. Olson http://www.nevadaddcouncil.org/ffy-2017-2022-five-year-state-plan/#comment-3 Thu, 21 Jan 2016 22:16:45 +0000 http://www.nevadaddcouncil.org/?page_id=1642#comment-3 Dear Executive Director Sherry Manning and DD Council Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment on the NGCDD FFY 2017-2021 Five Year State Plan. It clearly reflects a lot of hard work and careful deliberation. I look forward to opportunities to work with and assist the Council in implementing the new 5-year plan.

The following are my observations and comments:
• The Plan explains the source of the Council’s funding on p.3. In the interest of transparency, is it possible for the Council to include the budget for where it forecasts to spend this money?
• Under the “Five-Year State Plan” heading on p.3, the plan lists 10 DD Act Areas of Emphasis. Under the subheading “Basic Findings,” the plan lists “Access to Services” as the #1 most important Area of Emphasis in the DD Act from the survey results. “Access to Services” is not one of the 10 Areas listed prior. For clarification, is it meant to correspond to “Community Supports”?
• Also on p. 3, in correlating #2 “Education/Training,” with the responses written into the open-ended questions and with the activities outlined in the Plan, it appears education/training could be interpreted as both the needs of individuals with I/DD and their families to get trained and the needs for agencies and service providers to get better trained on how to serve the I/DD population. The Plan addresses the former group several ways. Does the Council see as part of its role to facilitate education/training of agencies (e.g. Voc Rehab)?
• On p. 7, goal 2.3(c) should be to support people with I/DD, not just developmental disabilities, to serve, correct?
• On p. 7, Goal 3.1 seems quite ambitious. Transportation is undeniably a huge issue, and a barrier. While the idea of using Council funds to crowdsource ideas for transportation innovation is interesting, and 3.1(b) indicates sharing of information, should this be structured as a more collaborative goal and activity with Regional Transportation authorities as the Plan describes in other areas?

The Plan describes a broad range of goals and activities. On the subject of informed decision-making and choice, it is my hope the Nevada Council will take the broadest view possible of the diverse interests and preferences of Nevadans with developmental disabilities. A “one-size-fits-all” approach to where these individuals will live and work and enjoy their lives isn’t person-centered. They should have the broadest range of opportunities and settings from which to choose, and the least red tape and fewest barriers to choose them.

Some of the legislation and regulations meant to enhance the outcomes and experiences of individual’s choices, and some of the efforts of state and federal agencies and private advocacy organizations, are having the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of limiting or eliminating their options and rights to choose. Anything that put limits on their autonomy is wrong. Enabling people with disabilities to make their own choices, even if we think they are making the wrong choices, or different life choices than we would make, is a true measure of diversity.

Thank you.
Mark L. Olson
President & CEO, LTO Ventures (www.ltoventures.org)
Co-founder & Board Member, Coalition for Community Choice (www.coalitionforcommunitychoice.org)

]]>