This
section deals with the outcome data collected on choice participants throughout
the course of the project. UCPA contracted with Virginia Commonwealth University’s
RRTC to collect employment data on participants and our project’s voucher
accountant also maintained financial data.
A.
Demographic
data of project participants
Our
proposal to RSA indicated a target for our project of 225 participants.
Over the course of the project we actually provided services -- persons
who at least had a profile and plan developed -- to 220 persons.
Additionally, we had another 40 persons who were accepted for the project
but dropped out prior to receiving any services.
For purposes of this report, only those participants who actually
received services and used budgets are considered -- 221 participants.
Age
at intake:
N = 221
Mean=34.1 years, SD=11.2
The
age of those in self-employment was higher
37.0 years (N = 29)
The
age of those employed in regular employment
33.42 years (N = 105)
The
age of those who did not become employed
33.37 years (N = 87)
Sex
of Participants:
Employed:(N=137)
Female 40.74%
Male 59.26%
Not Employed:(N=84)
Female 60.94%
Male 39.06%
Race
of Participants:
Employed:(N=137)
Afr.-American 34.81% White
59.26%
Other 5.93%
Non-Employed:(N=84)
Afr.-American 27.42% White
70.97%
Other 1.61%
Marital
status: N
= 221
97.2% Single
2.8%
Married
Primary
disability: N
= 221
73.7%
Cerebral palsy
2.1%
Spina bifida
1.1%
Spinal curvatures
1.1%
Post-polio
3.2%
Muscular dystrophy
5.3%
Head injury
6.3%
Health impairment
7.4%
Other physical impairment
Secondary
disability:
9.1%
Additional physical impairment
30.2%
Mental retardation
3.7%
Mental illness
5.5%
Sensory impairment
5.5%
Health impairment
12.8%
Other
Percent
of participants with significant/severe disability:
98%
Significant/severe disability
2%
Milder disabilities
B.
Employment characteristics of participants who were employed
Employment
status of project participants: N
= 221
60.6%
Employed during project N = 134
21.0%
Self-employed of those who gained employment (29 of 134)
39.4%
Did not achieve employment (87 of 221)
Average/range
of funds spent by participants:
$8,360 (Range $1,750 - $15,821)
Participants in regular jobs
(N =105)
$8,660 (Range $2,525 - $21,277) Participants in self-employment (N = 29)
$1,146 (Range $500 - $6,000)
Participants not employed
(N = 87)
Average
length of time in project before job was developed
12.8
months (range 1 month to 57 months)
from application to the time the job began
Average
length of time in job development
2.41
months (range 2 days to 24
months)
from the time the job development contract was signed. (N = 134)
Average
wages of participants who were employed (on first day of work)
$5.09
(range: $4.25 hr. -- 12.00 hr.)
Average
number of hours of participants who were employed (during first
week of work)
19.69
hours (range: 4
hours/week -- 40 hours/week)
Average
length of time to closure
Participants
who became employed in regular jobs (N=134)
31.33 months
Participants who did not become employed
(N=87)
22.14 months
Overall participants (N=221)
28.06 months
C.
Descriptions of participants from completed profiles (taken from a sample
of 103 profiles)
Current
residential situation:
46.8% Lives in home of parent(s) or
other family member(s)
4.6%
Home/condo owner
25.7% Rents house, apartment, condo
0.0%
Transitional living center
21.1% Group home, boarding home
0.0%
Nursing home
1.0%
Public housing unit
0.0%
Homeless
1.0%
Other
Family
support available:
13.8% Did not appear to be available
20.2% Available but limited
66.1% Appeared available and
adequate
Friends
and social groups:
6.4%
No close friends or social contacts
49.5% Few close friends
44.0% Many friends and social
contacts
Neighborhood
of residence:
12.5% Poor
41.3% Urban
79.8% Middle class
52.9% Suburban
7.7%
Upper class
5.8%
Rural
Transportation
availability:
67.6% Public transportation
29.4% Transportation by parents or
other family members
68.6% Transportation by other
sources
Education
history:
33.3% Did not complete high school
20.4% Completed non-degreed special
education program
31.5% Completed high school or
equivalency
8.3%
Completed vocational/technical program or associate degree
6.5%
Completed bachelor's degree
0.0%
Completed master's degree or beyond
School
Integration opportunities:
58.5% Regular school
41.5% Special school
Classroom
integration opportunities:
30.9% Regular education classes only
19.1% Resource and regular education
50.0% Self-contained special
education
Vocational
program in school:
46.5% Yes
53.5% No
Community
training in school:
39.2% Yes
60.8% No
Recreation/leisure
training in school:
52.6% Yes
47.4% No
Percent
with work experience:
90.8% Informal work performed at
home
67.9% Formal chores performed at
home
62.4% Informal jobs performed for
others
42.6% Sheltered workshop
44.0% Previous paid competitive work
Potential
employers in family:
79.8% None
16.5% Some, willingness not
confirmed
3.7%
Some, willingness confirmed
Potential
employers among friends:
82.6% None
12.8% Some, willingness not
confirmed
4.6%
Some, willingness confirmed
Potential
need for accessibility assistance, technology, etc.:
42.2% Few or none
47.7% Some
10.1% Many
Physical,
health restrictions:
6.5%
Strict limitations
56.5% Some limitations
3.0%
Negligible
Behavioral
challenges:
7.4%
Serious
56.5% Some
37.0% Few
Negotiations
required with employers:
13.0% Significant
48.1% Moderate
38.9% Minimal
D:
Choice and Satisfaction
The
following questions were asked each time a participant chose a provider or
advisor: Participants were assisted
by family members, advisors, staff or friends, as appropriate, to respond to the
questions.
1.
“I feel that I made an informed choice to select the provider
identified in the attached contract.”
|
Response |
Un-employed |
Reg.
Employed |
Self-Employed |
|
Yes,
definitely |
95% |
91% |
83% |
|
Yes,
somewhat |
5% |
9% |
16% |
|
Not
much |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Not
at all |
0% |
0% |
0% |
2.
“What influenced your decision to select this provider?”
(Participants checked more than one category)
|
Reason
for decision |
Un-employed |
Reg.
Employed |
Self-Employed |
|
Reputation
in community |
33% |
39% |
36% |
|
Personal
knowledge/experience |
44% |
61% |
45% |
|
Responsiveness/timeliness
|
55% |
39% |
18% |
|
Cost/price
quoted for services |
22% |
0% |
0% |
|
Recommendations
by others |
44% |
27% |
73% |
|
Provider
lived close to participant |
22% |
6% |
18% |
|
Provider
had experience working with persons with phy. disabilities |
33% |
52% |
45% |
3.
“Why didn’t you choose other providers?” (Participants checked more
than one)
|
Reason |
Un-employed |
Reg.
Employed |
Self-Employed |
|
Reputation
in Community |
0% |
0% |
25% |
|
Poor
responsiveness |
57% |
64% |
50% |
|
Poor
attitude/lack of respect |
29% |
14% |
0% |
|
High
cost of services |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Lack
of employment experience |
43% |
21% |
50% |
4.
“How satisfied were you with the services that you received?” (From
both advisors and providers)
|
Response |
Un-Employed |
Reg.
Employed |
Self-Employed |
|
Better
than expected |
71% |
69% |
56% |
|
Fully
satisfied |
15% |
25% |
44% |
|
Minimally
satisfied |
14% |
6% |
0% |
|
Un-Satisfied* |
0% |
0% |
0% |
*
The
reason that our data did not indicate any “Unsatisfied” responses is that
payments would not be made to providers if the satisfaction data attached to the
Request for Payment form indicated that response. Before submitting such a request, the Site Coordinator would
assist the participant and provider through the Conflict Resolution process
outlined in the Participant Manual. During
the course of the project, we had four (4) conflict resolution procedures.