presented four options to the Consortium for their consideration:
Option A – serve Groups 1 and 2
Group 1 = $1.58 million @ $12,000 individual cap
Group 2 = $313,000 spent on training only
Option B – serve Group 1 only
Group 1 ONLY, @ $24,000 individual cap = $1.872 million
$120,000 left for training
Option C – serve Groups 1, 2 and 3 with shifting allocations
Five percent of funding toward training
50 percent of the remaining 95 percent to Group One @ $24,000 individual cap
30 percent of remaining 95 percent to Group Two @ $15,000 individual caps
20 percent of remaining 95 percent to Group Three @ $8,000 individual caps
(N= 125) if every child actually capped. However, it would be expected that every child would not cap
Each year the allocation for group one would decrease and the allocation for group three would increase
Option D: All groups/crisis split
Ten percent toward systemic training.
45 percent of funds toward crisis intervention @ $10,000 individual cap.
45 percent of funds toward non-crisis services @ $3,000 individual cap
After carefully reviewing the options, the Consortium agreed that options A and B were not proactive and did not provide the best long term solution to meeting the needs of the children to be served in the program. They consider the approach narrow in thinking and strongly advise against any plan that serves only children in crisis. After much discussion and weighing the pros and cons of Options C and D, the Consortium finally agreed upon Option C as a unique plan they believe conceptually best utilizes the limited financial resources allocated to the program.
Option C allocates no less than five percent of the total appropriation for the program to implement a statewide system of training for parents, providers and educators. The training program, developed by the Consortium, would be required for any provider wishing to bill under the program but would also be available to others throughout the state. To supplement