BETH GRAY

From: Beth Gray

Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:33 AM

To: Brownlee, Phillip - Wichita

Subject: Re: Editorial on "Favored"

Dear Mr. Brownlee:
Thank you so much for asking me for the background information on my comments on the issues regarding the agency CLO, and the allegations that they were favored.

In order to understand the conflict, you need to know the way Mentally Retarded/Developmentally Disabled services are given. The State of Kansas is divided into 27 Community Developmental Disability Organizations (CDDOs). Each of these CDDOs is the gatekeeper/single point of entry for all the people needing services in their area. They oversee the Community Service Providers (CSPs) in their area, such as Starkey, KETCH, and CLO, who provide the actual services.

The conflict of interest comes in because most of the CDDOs in Kansas are also CSPs, so they are in competition with the other CSPs in the area they oversee. An analogy would be if a person wanting to buy any car has to go to a specific Ford dealership first to find out about all the other car dealerships in the area. What are the chances
that the Chevy dealer will have a chance to get the customer?

My company, TSS, Inc., does business under three CDDOs: Sedgwick County, Reno County, and Harvey-Marion County. The Sedgwick County CDDO is independent of the CSPs, and they are very fair toward all the providers in the county. The new Harvey-Marion County CDDO is also independent, and they have worked very hard to be fair.

However, our experience with the previous Harvey-Marion CDDO, Northview, was a nightmare. They were the CDDO and also a competing CSP. They rarely sent any referrals our way, so we grew our company by taking difficult clients that other agencies did not want to take.

For instance, our clients came to us from Larned State Hospital, Paralax Drug Treatment Center, from SRS custody, from jail, and so on. The Northview CDDO/CSP also kept all of the thousands of dollars of county mill that the county commissioners gave them for client transportation, and our agency got none of it. Also, when a CSP has a grievance with the CDDO, the appeal process says the grievance should be brought to the Community Council: a committee of clients, guardians, agency reps, and interested community members. However, when I attempted to get on the agenda to present a grievance, I was denied by the CDDO to even have a chance to be heard. I could go on and on about the disparity in the treatment between our two agencies.

That brings me to the issue that CLO is having. They serve people with severe to profound disabilities-75% of whom are from state institutions, crisis cases, or SRS custody. Yet, when they attempted to get extraordinary funding for these individuals, their CDDOs, the decision-makers of this funding, were denying their funding requests.

Why is Interhab putting up such a fuss and accusing CLO of being the recipient of favoritism? Interhab's membership is comprised of nearly all of the CDDOs and the largest CSPs in the state. Their budget, including their lobbying budget, is huge. CLO, along with TSS, is a member of the Alliance, a very small organization made up of about eight CSPs, which has fought the conflict of interest issue of a CDDO also being a CSP, for several years now. Because we don't have the lobbying power of Interhab, any legislation in our favor has never
made it out of committee. The agencies comprising Interhab are angry that CLO was able to go over the heads of their CDDOs to get the funding that they deserved. SRS reviewed CLOs finances and compared them to other agencies which specialize in serving persons with significant needs. SRS recognized the specialty of their services, the funding problem, and the problem getting their applications through the CDDOs. Along with funding 43 persons at CLO, they also funded 10 persons from other agencies.

You quoted Carolyn Hill, CEO of Starkey, in your editorial. Starkey is also a member of Interhab. She said that, "For CLO to get money that's not made available to the rest of us is just not right."
Yet, because she does business under a CDDO who is not also in competition with her, she has had a much better chance of getting extraordinary funding than CLO ever did under their CDDOs. Also, the persons they serve do not, on the whole, have disabilities as severe as CLOs.

I sincerely hope that I was able to explain this in a way that is understandable. I have many more examples of the conflict of interest issue, if you want more information. I am very grateful for the opportunity to give you the other side of the issue.

Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
Beth Gray
On 3/6/09, Brownlee, Phillip - Wichita