SmartHome guru Greg Wellems and Imagine! PR Director Fred Hobbs will be presenting on our SmartHomes project to the Housing Colorado NOW Conference on October 15.
2. The mission of Imagine! is to create and offer innovative supports to people of all ages with cognitive, developmental, physical, and health related needs so they may live fulfilling lives of independence and quality in their homes and communities.
3. Bob and Judy Charles SmartHome, Boulder, CO Charles Family SmartHome, Longmont, CO
17. Cost Comparison John, who lives in a house with a live-in (asleep overnight) caregiver, has recently fallen a few times at night, and once broke his ankle. Everyone is concerned for his safety. Traditional Approach: Change Asleep Staff to Awake Staff Costs: $12/hr awake staff vs. $7.25/hr asleep staff = $4.75/hr additional $4.75/hr X 8 hrs/night X 365 days/yr = $13,870/yr $13,870 + 25% tax and benefits = $17,338 per year additional cost
18. Cost Comparison SmartSupport Approach: Use Technology to Alert Asleep Staff When John Gets Out of Bed Costs: $3,000 equipment + 5 yr. depreciation = $600/yr $300/month for monitoring services X 12 months = $3,600 $4,200 per year additional cost John, who lives in a house with a live-in (asleep overnight) caregiver, has recently fallen a few times at night, and once broke his ankle. Everyone is concerned for his safety.
19.
20.
Notes de l'éditeur
Introduce ourselves and why we are here – talk about an exciting new model – cutting edge
Imagine! has a history of innovative approaches to services, Emphasize – non-profit, length of time serving
Next step in our innovation – SmartHomes – use technology to improve quality of life and efficeicy of srvices and cost savings – two of them First in the nation Also a working laboratory Unique approach in our industry
Why are we doing this: facing significant challenges, inlcuding, dwindling resources Or funding sources, waiting lists, reduced services
Embrace the suck
Waiting list issue Families waiting Services reduced
Demand management idea Directing resources to reduce future demand (EI) Traffic light example
Embrace the suck – we
But was that good enough?
But was that good enough?
But was that good enough?
Why not everybody. And what kind of Impact could this have.
Cross disabilities, affordable housing, care needs
