Task Force on Eliminating Subminimum Wages meeting summary: October 11, 2022

· Location: Online meeting (Zoom)

· Participants listed below.

· Go to the task force webpage. and select the meetings tab to review the formal meeting agenda, presentation slides, and any other relevant documents from the meeting. (Sometimes postings to the Department of Human Services website are delayed.)

Main meeting topic

The summary below primarily captures task force reactions to draft recommendations, plus questions and discussions about some of those recommendations. It also includes notes on the presentation about engagement themese from Public Sector Consultants (PSC).

Key agenda items

1. Task force updates.

2. PSC: Engagement work update.

3. Recommendation ideas from work group on measuring and monitoring (polling).

4. Recommendation ideas from work group on services and supports about provider support (polling).

5. Poll results from September meeting — Discussion of recommendations that some task force members were leery about.

6. Refinements for recommendations about statutes, rules and policies.

Task force reviews, reacts to draft recommendations from workgraups

Note: Review task force presentation slides 13-36 for the complete language for draft recommendations. The presentation slides will be posted on the task force webpage. Task force members used the polling function in Zoom to register their reactions to suggested recommendations about measuring and monitoring and about provider support.

Suggested recommendations on measuring and monitoring: Task force reactions, questions and comments

Ryan Merz is from Minnesota’s Disability Services Division and the co-lead for the measuring and monitoring workgroup. He presented updated language for three draft recommendations from that group. The task force had already reviewed and discussed these ideas at its September meeting. Ryan noted changes made to reflect the September task force discussion and to incorporate ideas shared during public engagement sessions in September (solution sessions).

Task force questions and discussion about measuring and monitoring recommendations

· A task force member asked how long it would take the state to put data collection systems in place. Ryan said the recommendation calls for data collection to start by Aug. 1, 2023, so that is very soon. If Minnesota chooses a system that another state is already using, then start up might happened fast, he said. Another task force member said it might take time to put data sharing agreements in place.

· A task force member asked about tracking transportation, and several others said it would be helpful to identify the types of transportation available in different communities throughout the state to help ensure that transportation options are available in areas where they are needed. Another task force member said transportation is a big challenge for younger people with disabilities when they leave school and move out of the school-based employment programs that provide transportation. Ryan said the notes for recommendations on measuring and monitoring can include mention of key barriers, such as transportation.

Reactions from task force members to measuring and monitoring recommendations using Zoom poll

Task force members used the polling function in Zoom to register their reactions to three draft recommendations about measuring and monitoring. Table 1, below, shows the results. The numbers are tallies of task force members who picked each of the different options included in the Zoom poll. Two members reacted to some of the recommendations during the meeting, but sent reactions to other recommendations to Management Analysis and Development (MAD) outside of the meeting.

For more detailed language on each of these recommendations, review the presentation slides found on the task force website.

Table 1: Counts of how task force members reacted to measuring and monitoring recommendations using Zoom poll

1. Establish an ongoing statewide data collection system for monitoring the phase out of subminimum wages.	2. Establish an ongoing data collection system to evaluate the phase out of subminimum wages and to monitor employment and other outcomes for people with disabilities going forward	3. Use administrative data alignment for ongoing performance evaluation
8 = love it	7 = love it	6 = love it
7 = like it	6 = like it	5 = like it
0 = can live with it	3 = can live with it	5 = can live with it
1 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it
0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it
0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided

Suggested recommendations on assistance and support for providers: Task force reactions, questions, and comments

Danielle Mahoehney is from the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Community Integration (ICI) and co-lead for the services and supports workgroup. She presented on that group’s 11 draft recommendations about assistance and support for providers. The task force had already reviewed and discussed many these ideas at its September meeting.

Task force questions and discussion about recommendations on assistance and support for providers

· Several task force members commented on draft recommendations 10 and 11, specifically the parts that refer to Project SEARCH. According to the website for Project SEARCH Minnesota, that project “is a business led collaboration that enables young adults with disabilities to gain and maintain employment through training and career exploration.” Several task force members said the recommendations shouldn’t focus just on Project SEARCH. One member wasn’t sure Project SEARCH is available in all parts of the state. Another member said not many providers use the program and that results vary. Another said the task force should avoid citing a specific program, such as Project SEARCH, in its recommendations because if a particular program is mentioned, people will assume the task force is recommending that program. Several task force members suggested taking out references to Project SEARCH but still mentioning programs that build on customized employment and improve integrated employment outcomes for students with disabilities as they transition from school to jobs. One said it would be better to focus on what needs to be done instead of a specific program. If specific programs are named, it is better to cite several programs as examples. To address these concerns, recommendations 10 and 11 will be revised. For the Zoom poll, task force members were instructed to react to the current wording, which mentions Project SEARCH specifically. This explains the large number of task force members who said they didn’t like recommendations 10 and 11.

· For recommendation six about the disability waiver rate system (DWRS) and career ladders for direct support professionals (DSP), a task force member noted that rates are adjusted now but with at time lag of more than two years. Another task force member said this means that in this current period of high inflation, reimbursement rates for providers decreased because of trends from more than two years ago. Karen Gaides, from MAD, said Ryan Merz was looking at that issue so it can be addressed in the recommendations.

Reactions from task force members to recommendations about assistance and support for providers using Zoom poll

Task force members used the polling function in Zoom to register their reactions to 11 draft recommendations on assistance and support for providers. Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c, below, show the results. Once again, the numbers are tallies of task force members who picked each of the different options included in the Zoom poll. This includes two members who reacted to some of the recommendations during the meeting, but sent their reactions to other recommendations to MAD outside of the meeting.

For more detailed language on each recommendation, review the presentation slides found on the task force website.

Table 2a: Poll of task force members on suggested recommendations for provider support

1. Employer communications and engagement plan	2. Employer credentialing program	3. Transition Resources	4. Expand training opportunities for employment support professionals	5a. Benefits Information Training
7 = love it	4 = love it	11 = love it	8 = love it	11 = love it
7 = like it	7 = like it	5 = like it	7 = like it	5 = like it
2 = can live with it	4 = can live with it	0 = can live with it	0 = can live with it	0 = can live with it
0 = don’t like it	1 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it	1 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it
0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it
0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided

Table 2b: Poll of task force members on suggested recommendations for provider support (continued)

5b. Benefits planning messaging	5c. Benefits planning core competencies	5d. Benefits planning communications	6. DWRS Rates Enhancement and DSP Career Laddering	7. PCA and Individualized Home Supports (IHS) rate Enhancement
10 = love it	10 = love it	6 = love it	9 = love it	7 = love it
5 = like it	4 = like it	8 = like it	4 = like it	8 = like it
1 = can live with it	2 = can live with it	2 = can live with it	2 = can live with it	1 = can live with it
0 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it	1 = don’t like it	0 = don’t like it
0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it
0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided

Table 2c: Poll of task force members on suggested recommendations for provider support (continued)

8. Interagency collaboration and alignment to align rates, procedures, and requirements across employment supports	10. Strengthening transition programming (cites Project SEARCH)	11. Hybrid and adult Project SEARCH programming
7 = love it	2 = love it	2 = love it
6 = like it	2 = like it	2 = like it
3 = can live with it	4 = can live with it	2 = can live with it
0 = don’t like it	8 = don’t like it	10 = don’t like it
0 = hate it	0 = hate it	0 = hate it
0 = undecided	0 = undecided	0 = undecided

Draft recommendation nine on employment navigator services was inadvertently left off the Zoom poll because of last-minute changes from workgroup members.

Results from Zoom polls at September meeting and task force discussion

At their September meeting, task force members reviewed 16 draft recommendations and used Zoom’s electronic polling function to register their reactions. Matt Kane, from MAD, went over the poll results, which are included in the September meeting summary. Matt reminded task force members that they agreed to strive for consensus on their recommendations. However if not all members support a recommendation, they talked earlier this year about including recommendations in the report if those recommendations had approval from 75% of the members, so approval from 12 of the 16 members. Matt noted that the Zoom poll in September showed 12 or more of the task force members “loved” or “liked” 13 of the 16 draft recommendations. For the other three, 12 or more members were willing to approve them, but this includes some who chose “I can live with it” as their reaction.

Matt also said there were more than three cases among the 16 draft recommendations where task force members said they were leery of the recommendations. This means 75% or more of the task force members were willing to approve those three recommendations. But at the same time, one or two of members were leery about them. (The phrase "I’m leery” was on the scale for the Zoom polling in September but was replaced with “I don’t like it” in October to make the poll easier to understand.) Matt invited task force members to talk about the six recommendations that drew “leery” reactions from task force members in September.

For two of the six recommendations that drew “leery” reactions, there was no discussion or the discussion turned into one about clarifying the proposal.

Discussion about case management recommendations

Several members wondered if recommendations about case management fell beyond the scope for the task force to plan for the elimination of subminimum wages. Tackling case management might require a whole other task force, one member said. People in Minnesota have talked for decades about changes and improvements to case management. Some other task force recommendations already touch on important case management issues, another member said.

Another member argued that disfunction in the disability services system leads to jobs paying subminimum wages. Case managers need to work algongside people with disabilities and their families to explore and find employment options. At the same time, the heavy burden placed on case managers makes it hard for case managers to stay in that job. We can make progress if we increase the knowledge and capabilities of case managers, she said. While she understands that this might reach outside the scope of the task force, but she thinks it is important, aspirational and worth including. But, she said, Minnesota can end subminimum wages without these changes.

The task force member who wants to include the recommendations on case management said that all the task force recommendations should be put into categories, including one for what needs to happen to end subminimum wages and another one or two about ways to improve the system and hoped-for changes. The task force member who said case management was out of scope agreed that it would work to include recommendations on case management if they were categorized as beyond what’s needed to end subminimum wages but useful for improving the system.

Several task force members commented on the recommendation to cap the case load for case managers. One member asked if this might mean some people with disabilities won’t have case managers to assist them. This might happen if case managers can’t add people to their caseloads because their caseloads are full. Another member said putting a cap in place might mean more people would be willing to work as case managers because the job for any case manager would be more manageable.

Discussion about repealing the state law allowing subminimum wages and limiting how many can earn them during the phase out

A task force member said it will be hard to put the task force recommendations in place and pave the way for a smooth transition away from subminimum wages by Aug. 1, 2025. For task force planning purposes, the legislature cited this date as a target for the elimination of subminimum wages, but the law setting up the task force doesn’t end subminimum wages by that date. Another member also worried about the tight timeline. People moving out of subminimum wage jobs will need to have a safety net and a plan for moving forward, he said. To address these concerns from task force members, the task force report will note that the tight timeline from the legislature presents significant challenges for the transition.

Discussion about placing limits on how long someone can earn subminimum wages

A task force member said that placing limits on how long someone can earn subminimum wages could create worries among people with disabilities and their families. Plus, limits aren’t needed if the state uses a good timeline for eliminating subminimum wages, she said. No need to limit the time period when someone can earn subminimum wages if subminimum wages end soon. In addition, putting a limit in place could be seen as an excuse for continuing to allow subminimum wages, another task force member said. To address these concerns, the task force agreed to drop this recommendation about placing limits on how long someone can earn subminimum wages.

Presentations to the task force

Opening

Task force co-chair Jillian Nelson began the meeting by sharing an inspirational music video called “The Hiring Chain” about businesses that hire people with disabilities, found here on YouTube.

Task force updates

Karen from MAD gave the following updates:

· Susan Susan Fleurant, an Equal Justice Works Fellow from the Minnesota Disability Law Center, will become the representative for the center but Dalaine Remes is representing the center for the October task force meeting because the formal approval for Susan is still in process. (Kristina Petronko from the center left the task force when she left her job at the center.)

· The task force workgroups, which include about half of all the task force members, have meet to refine draft recommendations based, in large part, on task force suggestions.

· The recommendations may be refined further based on review and input from an administrative review committee that includes the task force co-chairs, task force members and state agency experts.

Karen also reviewed task progress and plans, including target dates for report milestones.

The Public Sector Consultants update and report on engagement and education work

Melissa Jimison from Public Sector Consultants (PSC) presented key topics from the extensive task force work PSC has carried out to engage people with disabilities, their families and guardians, employment service providers and other interested parties. Melissa presented on specific points that emerged from the engagement work. Her points related to the seven key topics listed below. (For more on Melissa’s presentation and the points she made about the seven key topics, review the presentation slides for the October meeting found on the task force website.)

· Culture/Attitudes/Education

· Services

· Supports

· Waiver case management

· Provider network

· Business network

· Inter-agency coordination

Oct. 11 Task Force Participants

Task force members present:

· Larissa Beck

· Sara Ellstra

· Brittanie Hernandez-Wilson

· Amanda Jensen-Stahl

· Alex Junge

· Michelle Kamenov

· Kirk Langsjoen

· Debbie Luther

· Heidi Hamilton

· Heidi Maghan

· Christine McVey

· Jillian Nelson

· Dalaine Remes

· Lori Schluttenhofer

· Raquel Sidie-Wagner

· Andrea Zuber

Others:

· Danielle Mahoehney (ICI)

· Ryan Merz, DHS

· Jessica Burke, MAD

· Karen Gaides, MAD

· Matt Kane, MAD

· Melissa Jimison, PSC