Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 181
Table 10: STATE COORDINATION ACTIVITIES Adopted Statewide Encourage Involved w/ Passed Coordinating Regular Coordination Medicaid State Coordination? Coordination? Legislation? Council/Board? Meetings? Plan? Brokerage? ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT DELAWARE FLORIDA GEORGIA HAWAII IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI MONTANA NEBRASKA NEVADA NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLINA NORTH DAKOTA OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING % Responding Yes 100% 90% 38% 46% 40% 22% 18% Every state responded to the research team's questionnaire 188 Casebook of State and Local Coordination Models SECTION IV
OCR for page 181
Table 10 shows state coordination activities for all 50 states. The table shows that most states encourage coordination and are actively involved in some aspect of the process. Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Vermont are notable for being involved in all aspects of coordination. Coordination activities have been implemented in various ways across the various states. Three main techniques are by legislation, by executive order, or through less formal agreements, committees, or working groups. Table 11 shows the primary coordination mechanism for various states and the Federal Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. As shown in the table, interagency agreements and other informal arrangements are the most frequent institutional tools for coordination, followed closely by coordination legislation; executive orders are relatively rare. ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL COORDINATION EFFORTS Several common Several common elements of success emerged from examining the results of the national survey and the practices of the most successful elements . . . have states. These ideas/actions/items have proven to be effective and proven to be essential essential components of the coordination process and could be applied components of the to coordination efforts in other states. coordination process . . . Chapter 7 Model Processes for Statewide Coordination 189