1

Meeting with Fred Collignon

November 24

  1. For larger planning and planning grants there has to be a national wide universal application of project services in social change.
  2. So a secondary goal of the C.I.L. would be to establish and maintain communications with other client based disabled programs. A first step would be indentification of such programs.
    • A. Boston group — an adult/student program funded nine months to a year ago by (?) Human Relations. It has an organizational basis with client representation.
    • B. Kansas group — Barbara Thompson is getting in touch with them.
    • C. Handieapped at Chabot J.C. — Check on
    • D. Western Wheelers — check on

NOTE: A perspectus should show such an awareness of these groups.

Agencies for Planning Grants

    Agencies for Planning Grants
  1. R.S.A. — If amendment to Section 4 (innovative prgrams in new areas of service delivery) goes thru it will make it possible for R.S.A. to provide funds directly.
  2. S.R.S — these would be demonstration grants with much of the funding coming out of D.V.R. approriations (Norm Evans gig). There is a set procedure for review. Perspectus have to be into a panel of reviewers at a specific date. A routinely passed such proposals across State Agencies.
    NOTE: For credibility, perspectus should show that we have been in communication with Evans and we know what he has to say about it. Make clear to Evans that this is not State pie money.

  3. 2
  4. O.E.O. — This outfit is not as experimentally inclined as it was. When talking about large sums of money, you run the risk of bringing in professionals and losing control. However, it is these planning/research grants that show a universal application to the needs of the disabled that get the larger money. The Office of Education is on short planning notice (there was a funding reservation). Because we are unusual, they might be interested in seeing how we can do. This would probably invovlve a large amount of administration on the part of the University. It would allow us to do planning for community action, but it would be student oriented and there wuld be no hiring of non-students to do mangerial work. Perhaps, what we can do is to get O.E.O. funding and give some money to a University Institute. Thus we could hire outside people. Pretty limited horizons — must be rational of being part of a teaching program. i.e. community education. There is a new director of Field Studies (Chick) who is fairly aggressive. She can go to the U. and say we want you to underwrite our [illegible data] program and to find out if there is a basis upon which we can work with the University.
  5. Fundations — smaller fundations might be interested in pieces of the action — leads to increased credibility at Federal levels (there is a strong prejudice against the handicapped young with only a partial education). We need someone who knows the foundation game (Chuck knows some people, the Danforth foundation is interested in disabled programing).
    • A. archdiocese — they have self help money and up to now they've got no work in the area of physical disabilities, (call the Newman Center).
    • B. National Council of Churches — check into.
    • C. Fleischman's — they are moving into the area of community orientation.

    3

    People To Contact

      People To Contact
    1. Veneman-Undersecretary from California Legislature who is interested in Rehab.
    2. Tom Joe-SRB (conservative).
    3. National Rehab Association in D.C.-they may have wide foundation connections. It may be a good idea to send them a prospectus. We might tell them that we are talking to several foundations add that we'll be in D.C. soon and would like to talk to them. Problem-if they are indifferent, foudations may be consequently turned off.
    4. Lou Butler-He was an Associate Secretary for Policy in HEW and is now at the Cal Law Department.
    5. Norm Evans-
    6. Gordon-radical now working for the State of California. He does consultation work ofr APT Associates. He will call John or Herb.
    7. Mike Newman-SRS Administrator. Ferd will talk to him when he goes back to Washington.
    8. Dave Johnson (?)- He has been making some planning grants, works at U.C.. We may want to tak to him about structure.
    9. Gilliam-possible lobbyist now living in D.C. Herb will call. (Steve Blum)

    General Notes

      General Notes
    1. We should hit both Regional and Federal levels at the same time.
    2. We should make use of local people who have had previous HEW experience.
    3. Ranges-planning grants-$15,00-100,00-demo grants-$125,000-500,000.
    4. March 15th is the probable date for SRS planning money proposal.
    5. Try to work out a couple of D.C. visits.
    6. Re: planning grant-identify those people who could work for us without taking over control.
    7. If we want to initially stay small and quiet, we are talking of a maximum of $50,000. A smaller scale protects us, but affords less money.

    8. 4
    9. What we need to do is to get a prospective together and put a dollar sign on it. In order to look credible in terms of ability, we have to identify our services and push for money in those areas.
    10. Consultation work-It may be to our advantage to work with a consultation firm that has good connections in Washington. APT Associates has written proposals and can monitor them through their Washington office. We should make sure that we control the directions they take and be on the lookout for any in-put restrictions. Their daily fee in $150-200 or up to one third of a planning grant. We might need them half time for up to two months.