A.
The project’s design was developed from a lineage of previous national
employment demonstrations.
UCPA
has recognized that in order for persons with severe physical disabilities to
become successfully employed, effective and individualized strategies must be
available to service providers. We
made a long-term commitment to develop such approaches and we embedded them in
the design of the Choice Access project. This
project individualized employment services by suggesting that participants
purchase services which result in:
1.
The development of a
descriptive and optimistic narrative profile of an applicant to be used as the
basis of planning,
2.
Implementation of an individualized employment planning process which
creates a personalized blueprint for job development,
3.
Tailored job development representation which negotiates, carves or
creates individualized jobs and entrepreneurial businesses ,
4.
An analysis of the job sites developed for applicants, and
5.
Facilitation and assistance of successful job performance using natural
supports and quality instruction
B.
The project targeted persons with severe physical disabilities, for whom
traditional rehabilitation services had not typically been successful.
The
project focused on the employment needs of persons who experience a life impact
of their disability in the areas of communication, manipulation and
mobility. This group is
traditionally the most under-represented in achieving successful employment
outcomes from both vocational rehabilitation and developmental disabilities
services. Approximately 40% of the
participants in the project also experienced an intellectual disability,
although it was neither a factor which was considered for acceptance or one
which excluded persons from participation.
C.
The “qualified provider” requirement required by VR regulations was
resolved by offering a qualified process to participants and providers based on
a “building code” concept developed from the UCPA Self-Directed Staff
Training Curriculum
Federal
regulations required that all choice projects assure that participants selected
“qualified” providers for service delivery.
Rather than requiring certification or licensure to assure qualified
providers, UCPA used a “building code” strategy, which described the quality
components of effective employment assistance.
This approach utilized the UCPA Self-Directed Staff Training Curriculum
for Supported Employment, which was developed through a project funded by RSA.
General components and indicators of quality employment services were identified
in this document which are much the same as the components for
house construction used by communities to assure that quality housing
results for home buyers. By using a qualified process rather than qualified
individuals or agencies, participants had a much broader range of choices for
service providers..
D.
Choice Coordinators fulfilled a redefined role of traditional
rehabilitation counselors and Employment Advisors provided independent, third
party advice to participants on either a paid retainer or volunteer basis.
Each
project site was managed by a part-time Choice Coordinator (.75 FTE) whose job
was to provide outreach and recruitment, to develop a pool of providers and
advisors, to liaise with the Local Referral Committee (see below), to assist
participants develop a Futures Plan for Employment and to handle all local
project data and financial forms. A
UCPA employment staff person was assigned to each site to provide part time
technical assistance and training of providers and advisors.
In
order to assure informed choice, the project recommended that participants hire
(or recruit on a volunteer basis) an Employment Advisor on either an outcome or
retainer basis to provide perspective in navigating the treacherous human
service system. The advisors then
assisted participants in negotiating with service providers to obtain their
employment outcomes. Participants
could then select from a variety of service providers -- traditional agencies,
individual providers, friends, generic services, anyone except a family member
who currently lives in the same residence.
A
pool of advisors was maintained by each Choice Coordinator to assist
participants to identify individuals. Advisors
chosen by participants fell into three categories: a) persons with disabilities
who knew how the system works (about 65%); b) local advocates who wished to
assist participants part-time (about 25%); and, c) parents or family members
(about 10%).
E.
Acceptance into the project was made by a volunteer citizen committee,
comprised of stakeholders, who offer participation based on the severity of life
impact of disability rather than on performance.
Employability is assumed for all applicants and persons with more
significant disabilities are considered first for selection.
Applicants
to the project applied through the Choice Coordinator and all names were
forwarded to a Local Referral Committee. This
committee was comprised of local volunteers who were stakeholders in the
employment of persons with severe physical disabilities.
Minimally, each committee had a person with a disability, a family member
of a person with a disability, a UCP agency representative, a local VR counselor
and a local school representative. Additional
members were locally added to achieve a maximum size of nine members.
The LRC was charged with the difficult task of selecting the fifteen
participants each year for each site. No
tests or evaluations were allowed to be used and the committee members were
directed to assume “employability” for all applicants.
Additionally, the committee had an affirmative action mandate to include
person with the most severe disabilities as well as persons who are minorities.
F.
Each participant received a targeted amount of funds, which were held in
individual accounts, with UCPA acting as a fiscal agent.
Upon
selection by the Local Referral Committee, each participant received $9,466
which was drawn down from the federal government by UCPA and held in individual
accounts. These funds were under
the sole control of the participant. Payments
were made through the use of Request for Payment forms initiated by the service
provider and approved by the participant. As
the “Remote Participants” were added in the final year of the project the
set amount for budgets was shifted to an individually determined rate.
The reasons for this shift are discussed in the “ASSUMPTIONS” section
of this report as it represents an important departure from our original intent.
G.
Each project site was assigned a technical assistance consultant who
provided the Choice Coordinator and Local Referral Committee members with
support and who provided training to employment advisors and service providers.
Training
consultants provided a minimum of three, multi day training and technical
assistance visits each year as well as on-going telephone assistance to Choice
Coordinators. Training was provided
to providers, advisors and local referral committee members as well as to
participants and family members on the indicators of quality, individualized
employment, on contracting and invoicing for services and payments, on consumer
empowerment and responsibilities and on overall project design and outcomes.