Kenora Association for Community Living

 Policy Analysis Paper on

Lifesharing

Another Community Living Option

May 7 2010

Note on Board Policy

Board Policy is marked in blue on the web site at http://www.kacl.ca/ or bold dark print on paper.

General History of Segregation, Individualization and Personal and Enduring Relationships.

The history of some of the issues covered in this paper is older than lifesharing, itself. In the early years of the Association consumers were served in segregated programs along with other individuals with various handicaps. During the late 1970s and 1980s the issue of segregated programs came under attack by various Disability groups and elites. Various instruments for judging program quality included scales for judging this element of quality. For example Wolfensberger (1983) Rating requirement R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Client Grouping-Social value reads as follows:

A human service program grouping should, if at all possible enhance the image of clients in & by a grouping, & at the very least, not demean their image. Therefore, groupings should be so composed that the less valued (often, the less competent) members are in a small minority, & the more valued members constitute the large majority. Groupings of people who have different types of valued conditions should be avoided, unless the people with people with different devalued conditions are in a very small minority within a grouping with a much larger number of valued members. As well, a service grouping should emulate culturally valued practices in analogous services for valued people in regard to grouping of people by sex.

KACL's equivalent service delivery principle passed in the late 1980s is called: 4(h). Principle of Positive Image-related Service-structured Grouping & Relationships among People and reads as follows:

Positive image-related service-structured grouping & relationships reflect upon the client's image and must be consciously selected. These include:

1. The nearness of one human service program to another

2. The number of clients grouped together in one program, setting or neighbourhood

3. The composition of within-service client groupings and sub-groupings

4. The nature of the client's social involvements with members of the public, or with clients of other human services.

5. Identities of service workers and the degree of match between the identities of the staff, the nature of the program and the needs of the program.

In the late 1970s and 1980s the Association under went extensive quality control work and education and gradually segregated programs were down sized and alternative modes of supports provided. Large group homes were closed, sheltered workshops closed, Ministry of Health Day program phased out. The Association in effect moved from larger institutional settings to smaller mini-institutions.

The next stage of quality assurance moved to what might be called the personal planning stage although perhaps more accurately they might be labeled individualization and Individualized Planning. This stage is well represented by the two following service delivery principles:

2(a). Principle of Individualization

The individual must be the focus in the planning, development and delivery of human services and supports...each person has the basic human right and the freedom to have his/her capabilities, interests and needs used as the basis for planning, development and delivery of services and work, play and worship in their community or neighbourhood.

2(b). Principle of Individual Case Management and Individual Program Planning

Individual case management and Individual program plans must be prepared in such a way as to ensure that the individual concerned has opportunities to live a meaningful and satisfying lifestyle and to interact as an equal in their community with opportunities for personal growth through education and training.

As the Association matured still further there was recognition of the difference between an individual and a person. The term individual was apt to make the distinction between a unique person and a collectivity of clients but the emphasis still remained on the person as object as opposed to the person having personhood or person-ness or the quality of being a subject rather than an object. Thus certain homes with only one individual living in the home were referred to as Group Home (inaccurately since only one individual inhabited the home) because of the objectification caused by institutional models.

Lifesharing was one response to this recognition. A still later response her was the adoption of Service Delivery Principle 3(b). Principle of building personal and enduring relationships:

Every person should have the necessary support to help him/her become involved in personal and enduring relationships with non-paid persons who love, respect and care for the person.

History of Lifesharing - Family Home

The first "Family Home" program was funded under North West Regional Centre out of Thunder Bay and had a maximum limit of funding of $10,000. This program essentially provided a room and Board to an individual and little additional commitment. It was essentially used for "high functioning individuals". The Association approved a few such arrangements in special circumstances the 1980s but did not see a great deal of benefit in the program over the individual living with supports in the community.

As time went on this funding was also provided to a number of living arrangements - some more permanently than others. The common element in those family home arrangements was that they did not meet the much more fuller and strict commitments of life sharing. in terms of commitment (Life-long in the case of Life sharing), additional foster children or others supported in the home that diluted the time available to support a life sharing, or generally the commitment to truly share one's life with the requirement of building a personal support network around the individual  

KACL is not of the view that a its Family home program provides the same quality of relationship as lifesharing and does not thing it is worth as much funding. KACL's family home also provides additional staff for building personal support networks and other purposes. It can be employed as a temporary model until a better relationship can be established or is likely to be established but it should not be used as the predominate life - time model of support. Lifesharing was never about saving money and the progression should be from family home to lifesharing or alternatively semi - independent living –not the other way around.

In around the early years of the century, the decision was made to introduce this option to families and foster families in a positive way. There could be two options. They choose the family home rate with the lesser expectations and work towards a transition which would permit the person with handicapped needs to move on to an adult lifesharing. Or they can decide that they wish to readjust to a lifesharing arrangement and all the demands that that such a relationship imposes. While, based on our experience, we believe few will be able to make the required adjustments. Perhaps a minimum age of 21 or alternatively the child leaving school should be a prerequisite of lifesharing.

History of Lifesharing

Up to 1990, the Group Home living option was perceived to be the predominant living option and the only living option available to persons requiring 24 hour care (see Appendix B for Residential Living Options). The Association experienced mixed success in running group homes. John Lord in Life in the Community describes two types of home environments, which in review have also been found in KACL Group Homes, one labeled Enabling homes, and the other Institutional homes.

Summary of Patterns of Life in	KACL Group Homes
Enabling Homes	Institutional Homes
Consistency between the home's philosophy and practice.	Contradiction between home's philosophy and practice.
High level of respectful interaction and dialogue among residents and family.	Very limited respectful interaction and dialogue among residents and family.
A sense of cohesion among residents.	Home atmosphere characterized by tension or lack of cohesion.
Residents participate regularly in household activities, such as meals preparation.	Residents' movements controlled; residents have limited or no participation in household activities.
Residents supported to interact with and get to know the neighbours.	Residents (& staff) isolated from neighbours and neighbourhood.
Daytime options, including work that creates opportunities to participate with non-disabled citizens.	Segregated day programs.
Family members or volunteers go with person on a 1 to 1 basis into the community.	Group outings of 3-4 people with staff.
Family member, volunteer or staff person introduces person to someone in the community.	No one facilitates or enables person who needs support to meet others in the community.
A range of community experiences are valued and supported, including those that demand social interaction.	Community experiences tend to be in "safe settings", those that require very limited or no social interaction.
Family members involved in the life of the person.	Family members limited or no involvement.
Homes encourage and welcome family involvement, including siblings.	Home does not reach out to family, and may actively discourage involvement.
Staff is cognizant of the need to expand people's relationships.	No consciousness about the value of expanding people's relationships.
Agency actively seeks volunteers and advocates helping "connect" people with relationships.	Agency has no involvement with volunteers and advocates.
Agency accepts "friendships" and constructive relationships between family and residents.	Agency regulations prohibit and discourage friendship between family and residents.
Continuity of staff/low turnover rate	Rapid turnover of staff
Attention is paid to staff preferences and matches with residents, reflect consumer and family preferences	No attention is paid to consumer-staff relationships.
Families feel that staff demonstrates skill and confidence.	Families feel uncertain and ambivalent about staff.
Family members are involved in the life of the home.	Family members not involved in the home.
The physical environment is a good "fit" for the needs of the people (e.g. privacy, space etc.)	The physical environment is a "poor" fit for the needs of the people.

Various reasons have been given to defend the actions of staff in those homes that have been characterized as more institutional. However, in latter years, the very inherent institutional character of group homes has been called into question. Certainly the quality of living can vary from one group home to another based on staff leadership, better matching of residents and involvement of family and friends. However, "service" is not the same thing as "care". It may be questioned as to whether a "well run" group home can ever compete with even an "average" non-staffed alternative that is supported by an active personal support network.

Emphasis over the past 5 years has been placed on ensuring that service to consumers and families translates into maximum benefit for our primary consumers. Too often, when families are asked what they want, rather than reply in terms of needs, they reply in terms of service:

Desire		Service Translation
I want my child to be happy.		I want family that will look after my child.
I want my child to have friends.		I want my child to have paid friends (family).
I want my child to be kept busy.		I want family that will keep my child busy.
I want my child to be safe and secure.		I want family that will keep my child safe and sound.

In the past, ever increasing staff services became the preferred solution of meeting needs of most families. Indeed many families have lost their abilities to see needs being met by any other models. For some period, People First, a self advocate group for persons with developmental handicaps and an ever-increasing number of families have rejected the staff service model as the preferred model. Reasons given:

Staff models are intrusive.

Staff models bring in the additional needs of service provider.

Staff models create dependency on family.

The very presence of staff acts as a barrier and separator of the individual from society. The community would help except for the fact that family is there.

Staff becomes controllers rather than facilitators of growth and development.

Shortly after the initial approval of the original draft of the Association's Service Delivery Principles, the Association commenced looking for alternative residential options. New non-staff service models were examined and encouraged. The association has identified that supports and service for residential purposes may be delivered by eight residential options (See Appendix A).

Life sharing is defined as the sharing of living situation and accommodation with another. Simply put, one or more persons sharing time together by choice. In a broader context it includes marriages, "common -law" marriages, adoptions, and various relationships where people, who commence to live together for friendship or economic convenience, develop a mature interdependency. When placed in its broader context, most people don't have a great deal of difficulty understanding the concept: two individuals living together, develop a healthy, interdependency, each life sharer bringing together both needs and the ability to meet some needs of the other person into a relationship. In the context of KACL mission statement it is another living option presently available to consumers of support services.

Lifesharing was a response to an institutional mode, group homes that failed to serve the needs of certain individuals. The first life sharers were the biggest failures of group home living. Once the model was more fully developed, it was recognized that not only could the non - institutional model lifesharing solve the problems of individuals who failed group living, it could also be successfully employed as a positive alternative to institutionalized living whether in a group or otherwise. Lifesharing was not an institutionalized service delivery program as much as it was an institutionalized alterative funding arrangement. You couldn't program or even pay for love, respect and care and get what you got in a warm caring and respectful family or community. It was recognized that there was two aspects to lifesharing; (1) the issue of the individual as appose to the group and equally important (2) the relationship element. Lifesharing in origin did not purport to pay for love, respect and care as much as if you found a relationship that had it, KACL would agree to pay someone so they would’t have to work and could live the relationship unimpeded.

Evidence continues to mount that lifesharing ranks the most favoured by those who have experienced it as an alternative.

Several reasons have been suggested as to why lifesharing has been generally regarded as superior to Group home living which might be summarized under the immediately enumerated headings:

(1)   Individualized rather than group or greater stability in daily living environment

a.       Individual is not required to adjust as much to group norms and regulations

b.      Greater consistency of interaction with stable number of persons in immediate environment and hence less demand on consumer to constantly adjust to new persons, new and haphazard communication patterns and care patterns

c.       Less chaotic living conditions and stressors

d.      Greater and more direct motivation on surrounding persons to help the consumer to grow, learn to adjust to daily living environment

(2)   Personal relations needs as well as functional needs met more often

Group homes in many instants served certain functional needs. Consumers were protected, sheltered and fed. However the relationship needs were not being served. One has a functional relationship with a person whenever he concentrates on getting a service from him. What one wants from a plumber is to fix a pipe, from a dentist to have a tooth ache cured. In these cases one is after a functional association. What someone wants in a personal relationship is to let the other person thrive as a person, to give him the regard and respect he merits as a friend, and to be permitted to grow into a relationship in which all persons to the relationship desire no more from each other than mutual concern and enjoyment. Where lifesharing has been successful such relationships have continued to grow and be nourished.

In most families there is mixture of both functional and personal ways. There is a constant tension between expecting one's friend, spouse, etc. to deliver the rewards of friendship etc and respecting the friend only for what he or she is. To the extent that the functional is predominating we treat the other persons as a means rather than an end and thus dehumanize him. To the extent that only the functional needs of an individual are met you don't have what KACL originally set about getting in lifesharing. The relationship required to support a high quality lifesharing occurs only where when two or more persons have regards to each other as ends to be served rather than means to be used.

KACL got into lifesharing to provide an alternative financial support arrangement which promised higher quality lifestyle to our consumers. In the early years great care was spent in approving only those arrangements where there was a pre-established relationship which was of the right nature to support the arrangement.

Unfortunately too many lifesharing have been approved where such relationship was lacking or failed to grow. There may be many reasons why such " lifesharing " were approved:

1.      Pressure from families

2.      Pressure from Outside Agencies

3.      Pressure from Government

4.      Possibly even internal pressures

5.      The mistaken notion that because an individual had lived in a foster home for several years he should remain in such a home. (See Foster Parents as Lifesharers)

When placed in the context of a non-handicapped person sharing his or her life with handicapped persons, those who are not used to seeing the gifts of handicapped persons are generally suspicious of lifesharing:

"Why would he/she want to live with "them", "them" referring to an individual as a collective class pronoun; what's in it for him/her), "him" or "her" always referring to the non-handicapped person.

There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of one who wishes to share his or her life with a person who bears a label. However, the very nature of lifesharing requires great care when funding is requested to support the lifesharing.

The nature of lifesharing is somewhat analogous to foster parent-child relations except that in this latter relationship a commitment is made " to make a commitment". The purpose of this commitment is to ensure the continuing relationship of the natural parents or the opportunity for adoption by others. The funding does not establish an employer-employee relationship but rather reduces the need of one of the life sharers to work, thus freeing that individual to attend to some of the needs of the other lifesharer.

In contrast to the foster parent child relationship, in lifesharing commitment is an essential ingredient of the relationship. The following reasons may be given for the expected commitment:

Each lifesharer, in choosing life sharing changes his circumstances and options. While the lifesharing relationship may some day terminate such termination is not without financial and emotional consequences and disruption to both lifesharers.

Lifesharing is not a simple employer-employee relationship with a service provider. Much negotiation must take place between the lifesharers as to the style of living they will share. Such negotiations must take place in an established relationship of care and sensitivity to the needs of each other.

Foster Parents as Lifesharers

 The relationship of parent or foster parent is not the type of relationship that necessarily will support a lifesharing where the parent or foster parent is the lifesharer. Parents or foster parents may play a very valuable part in our lives. They set the initial environment for us grow and develop and hopefully they remain a significant part for the balance of their lives. However they can be limiting. Adult lives can be very different from what parents and foster parents expect. Lifesharers like friends can stretch us beyond our family of childhood. With lifesharers a persons with special needs can dream, desire, aspire and dare afresh. With lifesharers, people make attempts that they can never make with parents (including foster parents) watching. Lifesharers serve as fresh role models. People do many things with friends and lifesharers that they would never want their parents, brothers and sisters to know about. This does not mean that these activities are shameful, only that they are private and stand outside the limiting judgments and protections of relatives. On the other hand parents must be the final arbitrators of acceptable conduct when outsiders raise issues of conduct which might range from unsightly premise, clients drinking beer, issue of dress and more serious matters. Good lifesharing generates its own energy. Lifesharing like friendships become a haven from stress.

However a distinction must also be made between foster parents and parents. Parents are not selected. However in healthy parent child relationships bonding and attachments is such that deep emotional attachments develop. Parents do not provide for a child because they have legal or moral obligations. The provide love and care because they want to.

Foster parents are selected by an agency. They are selected on the basis of a commitment not to form such relationships which will lead to life time commitments or adoption. Too often the foster family provides only the functional association. Some senior staff believes that relationship requirements of foster parenting almost always preclude the relationship requirements of lifesharing. Other senior staffs suggest that while the relationship is different it may evolve with growth and change. However it is generally administratively impossible to justify that such growth and change has not been sufficient. Regardless of which of the two positions is adopted, KACL does believe as a general rule that it foster parents should be discouraged from continuing into lifesharing as adults except in those rare instances where the relationship of parent can become a relationship more analogous to an intimate friend.

Why do Some Parents Choose poor Quality Lifesharers

1.      They want guards rather than friends.

2.      They want a friend rather than a friend for their child

3.      They underestimate the importance of compatibility as appose to functional needs

4.      They underestimate reciprocity requirements

The nature of lifesharer has not and probably will never be fully elaborated but certain things appear certain. A lifesharer is not a substitute for a parent. A stand in for the parent will never achieve the relationship necessary to support lifesharing.

Parents are people too. They have the same need for personal and non-paid relationships as do their child. However in giving a way a child to a new relationship is a gift that the parent is giving to their child – not an attachment to meet their own friendship needs.

There are personal challenges that must be met for good lifesharing to survive. Making and keeping a lifesharing relationship requires time, energy and willingness to extend oneself. The survival of lifesharing is more likely if the lifesharing is situate inside a larger community commonly referred to as a natural support network but it also requires intimacy that is difficult to achieve in "group living" or in situations where a certain amount of "one-on-one" time is missing.

Some common interest or value must be present or develop in order to sustain a healthy lifesharing. There is some level of non-monetary reciprocity. That is the non-handicapped person must get something out of the relationship besides money. This reciprocity may be enhanced self-esteem, it may be companionship. It may be providing some one with a mission. While some degree of reciprocity is required there is not equality of reciprocity. Power dimensions and other aspects of the relationships have to be negotiated within the relationship of lifesharing but negotiations are in the context of a relationship more akin to a friend or spouse than a parent.

Life sharing arrangements which require funding should not be approved unless there is reason to believe that the life sharer receiving funding is willing to enter a relationship where subtle negotiations can take place over an extended period (at least 2 years).

Personal Considerations Involved in Life Sharing With a Handicapped Individual

The same considerations that go into life sharing between two or more non-handicapped must be considered by "mixed" life-sharers:

Do I wish to live with this person?

What's in it for me: companionship, economic convenience, etc?

What am I giving up to enter this relationship?

Is what I give up worth what I receive?

Will my needs be met in the relationship

Is this relationship compatible with my identity of myself?

As well, additional issues arise when a life-sharer who does not carry a label considers life sharing with another who carries does:

Am I prepared to live with the discrimination and devaluement I may find if I live with this individual?

Am I entering into this relationship for the "right" reasons (Relationships entered into, as "missionary" are seldom healthy. Nor are relationships based on co-dependence (lost selfhood)).

What is the reaction of others with whom I have a significant relation, for example, spouses, family friends and can life-sharer and I live with such reaction?

Need for Strong Sensitive Monitoring and Advocating Element.

The relationship between the funding agency and the lifesharer who receives any payments is not an employer-employee relationship. One key element that is lost with the loss of any employer-employee is the loss of control and day-to-day supervision that is present in an employer-employee relationship. Even if it were possible to maintain such monitoring the institutional character of the monitoring would counter the very benefits perceived to flow from non-family models of care. While the relationship of lifesharing requires mutuality, respect and interdependency - abilities and the power that flow from such abilities to end such relationships gone sour, are not always equal to the task. As well, wherever government funds are paid to a life-sharer, inevitably some form of monitoring is necessary.

For the safety of the more dependent life sharer, a monitoring and advocating presence is necessary. Caring and involved family, other friends or a committed personal support network may provide such function. The primary role of monitoring and advocacy should be with family and friends. Additional monitoring and advocacy may be provided by the KACL although great care must be taken not to have advocacy and monitoring confused with supervision. Minimum role would be an annual interview with life sharers and where appropriate with next-of-kin or advocates circle.

This monitoring element has generally been referred to as a personal support network. Energy must be expended to maintain a strong personal support network. The first 3 lifesharing arrangements approved by KACL had strong personal support networks. Some subsequent lifesharing relations have allowed this personal support network to deteriorate. How deteriorating personal support networks should be dealt remains a concern for the Association.

Nature and Amount of Funding to Support Family Home and Lifesharing

Life- sharing without additional financial accommodation, might be considered superior in that such arrangements must necessarily involve what are generally considered to be superior morally higher intrinsic rewards. It may be the case that some life -sharing arrangements are entered to on the basis of that financial accommodation to non-handicap life sharer. Such an arrangements may be less desirable than where the arrangement is based more on friendships or the mutual satisfaction of needs.

This is so for various reasons:

As individuals move from group homes to more individualized situations group funding must be divided.

As an individual moves out from a group home the same level of funding may still be required for the group home.

A request for funding to support lifesharing will be considered only on the following basis:

Funding approved must be influenced by the association's need to economize on MCSS or MOH dollars.

The quality of life of a dependent citizen is likely to be improved by the proposed life sharing over an alternative living or support option available.

One of three levels of funding may be approved

For Individuals having minimal needs for supports as determined by KACL staff to access community, maintain routines of daily living and participate in valued social roles: $35 per diem.

For Individuals having moderate or intense needs for supports as determined by KACL staff to access community, maintain routines of daily living and participate in valued social roles: $75 per diem.

Where an individual has a lifetime commitment to an individual that has reached the age of the age 21 or has left high school and has intense needs for supports as determined by kacl Staff to access community, maintain routines of daily living and participate in valued social roles:$95 per diem

All rates are inclusive of respite. 

Rule forbidding additional Foster Children

Lifesharing funding is provide to permit one of the lifesharers to remain free from a need to seek employment and on the understanding that, that lifesharer will provide a healthy, safe and nurturing environment for the other lifesharer to the funding agreement. The more dependent adult requires additional care to ensure that he or she continues to grow and develop, that he increases his or her personal support network and involvement in the community. For this reason KACL does not except in exceptional circumstances become involved in lifesharing where other foster children are present in the home. Where KACL is requested to get involved in an existing arrangement with other foster children, generally it will only do so where there is a commitment on the part of the lifesharer to take in no additional children including replacements for any child or children who leave.

The Association's policy with respect to limiting extra foster children is a good one and one that can be defended in the context of the needs of the individual. Lifesharing is a full time job. The needs of a handicapped lifesharer is such that there is not enough time for other employment or the additional obligations of fostering other children who have extra ordinary needs. There is no desire to exclude family with children from lifesharing. However, KACL has every right to insist that no further obligations be taken on. In addition to the extra demands that foster children bring on which may sap strength, cause loss of opportunities, there is also an increased risks of child - lifesharing abuse.

Where an individual is determined to ignore the requirement of the contract that forbids the assumptions of additional responsibilities of other foster children at the very least senior staff believe that a lifesharing agreement should not be extended beyond the annual term of the agreement. Ideally the lifesharing arrangement should be determined in as quick and an orderly fashion as possible to permit the individual to find another person who wishes to accept the stringent conditions of lifesharing and the relationship required.

There is at the moment nothing to prevent the family from taking the child into the Family Home program which does not have the same stringent conditions as lifesharing. The Association recognizes that it will not getting the same level of commitment as required from lifesharers.

Where Life Sharers live

Often this will be determined by one of the life sharer's existing situation. The issue is at times very much determined by the non-handicapped life-sharer, as for example where physical accessible premises are required.

Is it desirable to live in association owned premises

Pro:

Association premises can give greater flexibility for repaying for damage.

Free or cheaper rent may be one of the compensating factors.

Discrimination on the basis of mental or physical handicap or race (particularly against first nation persons) may require assisted accommodation from the Association.

Con:

Increased likelihood of pressure to include other consumers in life-sharing arrangement to detriment of existing arrangement.

Increased likelihood of board or family intrusion, or perceived intrusion in personal life of life-sharers.

Advantages of life sharing may be reduced by unreal accommodations that can be made.

An "agency house" may contribute to labeling those who live in it.

Other things being equal, it would appear to be generally desirable for life sharers not to live in association owned.

How Accommodations Food and Clothing Paid.

For lifesharers (family home providers) with individuals receiving ODSP Room and Board Rates, lifesharers may charge a room and board rate up to current rates paid by MCSS . For lifesharers (family Home Providers) with individuals receiving shelter allowance, shared living expenses may be paid by, equal sharing of rent, unequal sharing of rent (possibly affected by who pay utilities), to the ODSP maximum rent limits, to life -sharer home owner or lease holder in addition to a food allowance to a maximum of $10 per day to be paid by the ODSP recipient from their Basic ODSP living allowance.

Notice of Termination of Life Sharing.

Most life-sharing arrangements will be based on pre-acquired friendships. In such cases, even when there is a falling out, it is assumed that friendship and common decency will dictate an orderly transfer. The nature of expected notice of termination of lifesharing will be dependent on various factors which must be considered at the time of drafting or reviewing a memorandum of understanding of lifesharing (See sample agreement).

Memorandum of Understanding

A contract between the funding agency and any life sharer receiving funding is essential for accountability purposes. A memorandum of understanding between lifesharers is desirable, or in circumstances of greater dependency of one life sharer, between the less dependent life sharer and the more dependant's lifesharer's family or next-of-kin. These agreements may be reflected in a multi-party agreement.

(See sample agreement)

Commitments, if any by Association

The association must be cautious in the commitments it makes. The association is not the guardian or next-of-kin of either lifesharer, merely a provider of services. The association must not make any unconditional commitments it cannot reasonably deliver on.

Process for Approving Life Sharing Arrangements.

The following factors must be considered in responding to requests for lifesharing assistance funding:

The length and quality of the existing relationship between the lifesharers.

The proposal of the person seeking lifesharing funding to ensure an increased social network for the more dependent lifesharer.

The proposal of the person seeking lifesharing funding to ensure external monitoring and advocacy for the more dependent lifesharer.

The existing alternative living options available to the more dependent lifesharer.

No lifesharer funding should be provided except to increase the Life sharers quality of life.

The wishes of lifesharer's family in circumstances of greater dependency.

Appendix A Kacl Mission Statement

The goal of KACL is to ensure that all persons with special needs have the opportunity to live a meaningful and satisfying lifestyle and interact as an equal in their community by providing continuing opportunities for personal growth through education, training, support, advocacy and an informed public.

Appendix B Residential Living Options

1. Paid Staff Residences: Least desirable and most intrusive residential option. Paid staff provides services on a rotational basis. Supervision of staff and residence is provided. Monitoring provided by Quality Assurance Program, and relatives and friends. Relatives and friend monitoring tends to be minimal. This is the most expensive model. Homes of 3 or more individuals are referred to as Group Living by government. Monies might be saved by moves to greater part-time staffed residence; less staff with specialized staff, e.g. only for meals and greater use of family or friends, and by the use of non staff such as college students who sleep over night and hence avoid the need for night staff.

2. Staff Supported Independent living- originally called SIL residence live independently except for staff that provide support on an individual client basis. Supervision and monitoring is minimal. This is considerably cheaper form of service but in part its availability is restricted to those who can live relatively independent.

3. Life -Sharing- Agreement envisions a lifetime commitment of life sharing, a commitment to nurture growth and development and to build a natural and personal support network. 

Appendix B

This Lifesharing Funding Agreement

Between

Kenora Association for Community Living (KACL)

And

Consumer (Consumer)

And

Lou Lifesharer (Lou)

And

Family (Friendly)

Witnesses as follows:

1. The Kenora Association for Community Living (hereinafter referred to as "KACL") is an incorporated association of members, who have as their mission statement and goal,

To ensure that all people with special needs have the opportunity to live a meaningful and satisfying lifestyle and interact as equals in their community by providing continuing opportunities for personal growth through education, training, support, advocacy and an informed public

And a set of service delivery principles found in schedule A of this memorandum.

2. Consumer, (hereinafter referred to as "Consumer"), is a citizen of Kenora who desires to live in the Community in a state of respect and dignity and who has requested certain support services from KACL to do so.

or

2. Consumer (hereafter referred to as the "Consumer"), a resident of Kenora, and a member of a caring and involved family, the Friendly family (hereafter referred to as the "Family") requires certain supports to permit him to live in the community.

If family signs add clause 4 below number clauses appropriately.

3. Lifesharer, (hereinafter referred to as "Lifeshare") is a resident of Kenora who has developed a friendship with Consumer and is desires to share his life with Consumer. He accepts the Principles of Service Delivery adhered to by KACL and desires that they live in a state of respect and dignity in the community.

4. The Family is desirous of having the Consumer live in the community, in a state of respect and dignity. They accept the principles of service delivery adhered to by KACL and have requested certain support services from KACL. They commit to manage Consumer’s financial affairs.

5. It is necessary to plan for Consumer's support needs, keeping in mind his personal vision for his future. The growth and development of his positive personal vision requires that they have a support circle that nurtures and keeps it first and foremost in planning appropriate support, and that they have opportunities to make choices about lifestyle. The members of the support circle who are the most intimately committed to assisting him fulfill his own vision, must carry that image of the future as a sacred trust. Lou commits to building a support circle for Consumer that will keep Consumer’s personal vision to the forefront.

6. Subject to the conditions and agreements mentioned in this memorandum, KACL will pay to Consumer [the annual sum of $16,000 payable in equal monthly payments in arrears of $1333.33 (per diem of $43.84).] to permit Consumer to pay Lifesharer a per diem of $43.84 payable in equal monthly payments in arrears of $1333.33.

7. Lifesharer will provide all personal supports, services and care required by Consumer to permit him to live a meaningful and satisfying lifestyle in the community.

8. Lifesharer accepts responsibility to continuously move Consumer toward his personal visions as it grows and evolves. The expectation that supports provided, result in growth and development may mean that support priorities shift, decrease or disappear over time. Lou accepts an obligation to move Consumer toward greater community independence.

9. The consumer agrees that he is a tenant or co-tenant with the lifesharer and will pay rent of $427. Lifesharer agrees that no extra amounts will be charged to the consumer other than the monthly sum of $300 for food, clothing or miscellaneous expenses except as expressly authorized in writing by KACL .

10. Consumer, Lifesharer and Family accept that the funding provided by this agreement is provided in lieu of all attendant care funding support and services and will notify KACL if they should become entitled to alternative support services.

11. The lifesharer agree not to talk any foster children into care subsequent to commencing this lifesharing.

12. He accepts that the family as a caring and involved family has the right to monitor the quality of lifestyle enjoyed by Consumer and the financial management of his affairs and will assist the family to do so.

13. Consumer, Lou and Family acknowledge the responsibility of KACL, as long as it is the relevant funding agency, to assure a minimal standard of care and will facilitate annual or semi-annual reviews of the lifesharing. The family will further co-operate with KACL to facilitate annual or semi-annual reviews of the lifesharing.

14. The lifesharer and family agree to participate in planning for Consumer’s future including planning for the provision of alternate supports that provide natural or less costly support

15. The Lifesharer and family agree to inform and assist KACL to complete any notification to the Ministry of Community and Social Services of any serious occurrence involving the consumer within 24 hours of the occurrence.

16 The lifesharer and the family agree to provide all the information required to complete a lifesharing agreement as well as any other documentation required by the Ministry to secure or maintain funding.

17.The consumer and the family acknowledge that they have chosen the lifesharer to Lifeshare with the consumer and that KACL will not be providing supervision to either the home in which the consumer lives, the lifesharer with whom he/her lives. Nor will he/she have the benefits of the Association's residential operational guidelines with whatever increased risks this may bring. KACL will provide minimal monitoring. The consumer, family and lifesharer assume entirely to themselves the associated risks and will indemnify KACL for any action brought against KACL for neglect on the part of the lifesharer and the family to fulfill their responsibilities under the terms of this agreement.

18. This agreement may be terminated immediately by notice in writing served on the lifesharer by the consumer, the family, or KACL or in the event of the consumers or lifesharer's death. KACL will pay 30 days per diem in lieu of a more extended notice period. This agreement may be terminated by 30 days notice in writing, served on the consumer, the family and KACL by the lifesharer.

19. The payments specified in paragraph 6 are conditional upon continued funding provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

20. KACL does not save harmless Lou from any income tax liability that may become due and payable on the moneys paid to Lou and Lou agrees to obtain independent advice regarding any income tax or other charges to which he may become liable.

21. This agreement shall be reviewed annually by the parties 30 days prior to the termination date and failing agreement may be unilaterally altered by KACL.

	Kenora Association for Community Living
Date:	per: ____________________________
Date:	______________________________
Witness:
Date:	- - -----------
Witness:	Consumer
Date:	________________________
Witness:	Lifesharer
Date: ________________	____________________
Witness:	Family