RETURN TO MAIN REPORT PAGE

 

Participant Stories

 

This sections highlights three participants whose names have been changed and the impact that having control and choice had on their rehabilitation.

 

Matt

Disability: Personality disorder/ stroke / orthopedic impairments

Age: 49

 

History: Matt came to PEP after a referral from DVR.  He stated during intake that he would like to receive training for computer repair.  Matt had multiple barriers to vocational success, including limited mobility and scattered work history.  He had been a participant with DVR previously and was closed unsuccessful after he tried employment in data entry.  Matt also had had a number of jobs and had attended several vocational schools.

 

Intake: Matt came to PEP intake with a large amount of medical information, he was declared eligible for services within a week.  At intake he presented the extensive research he had done on computer repair and requested the program support it.   It was explained to Matt that his vocational goal would need to be discussed in his team, after his PEP eligibility was decided.

 

Team/ Vocational Plan/ Control of Dollars: Matt chose a team that consisted of his father, a family friend, a personal friend of Matt’s who had knowledge in computer repair and networking and a PEP VRC.  The team was concerned that Matt had sought a number of professions in his life, none resulting in any particular success.  Matt presented his computer training information to the team with enthusiasm and passion.  He clearly stated this was the career he wanted.

 

The team agreed to support Matt’s first quarter in school, while he applied for financial aid.  Matt agreed to meet with the team after his first quarter to report on his progress and to determine if computer repair was still his preferred direction. 

 

Matt did well all through school maintaining an A-average.  After Matt’s third quarter his team approved the purchase of a computer.  Matt was responsible to research the best buy and PEP made the contingency that the computer officially belonged to PEP until Matt successful completed his plan.  Matt’s plan took two years to complete.  He had four team meetings and two vocational plans.  His rehabilitation cost was $3,272.64.

 

Employment:  Matt closed his case successfully employed as a PC Specialist II.  At closure he was earning $2,400 a month with full benefits.  His job duties included troubleshooting, training, software and hardware installation and repair.

 

The Role of Choice and Control: Matt came to PEP with his vocational goal.  He was clear in his determination to achieve that goal.  His medical reports, psychological and work assessments indicated he would not be successful in his goal.    Matt, however, accepted the responsibility of his choice and took the control of his service to ensure he was successful.  His team provided him with the support and direction to ensure he could remain focused on his goal.

 

 

Participant: Tessa

Disability: DD / Mental Health  

Age:  35

 

History: Tessa came to PEP from an agency that had employed her in its recycling enclave for over three years.  Her productivity was excellent, but she was unhappy in the position.  She wanted an office job and had been told for several years that one was being sought for her.  But an office job had never materialized.

 

A new manager was hired at the agency and began to talk with Tessa about community employment.    DVR was the first option for assistance.  Both Tessa and her family were hesitant.  Tessa had a long and negative relationship with DVR, mainly due to her feeling that her choices and interests were not heeded.  PEP was suggested as an alternative.

 

Intake and Past Rehabilitation Involvement: Tessa presented as a polite and extremely shy and soft-spoken individual.  She had little eye contact with the interviewer.  She was accepted for PEP services that day.  She gave permission for her closed DVR file to be sent to PEP.

 

Tessa’s DVR file was impressive.  It chronicled years of frustration both on the part of Tessa and her family, as well as DVR staff.   There were several letters of complaint written to DSHS and the DVR director by Tessa’s family.  The family felt Tessa was not being served well.  DVR was frustrated that Tessa’s family was not cooperating with suggestions made to help improve her behavioral skills on the job.

 

Tessa would request support from DVR in helping her find a social network and to move out of her home.  However, Tessa never had conversations with her family about these requests.  The family impeded these efforts because they were not involved in the process.  Tessa was very indirect and had trouble stating what she wanted.

Team / Vocational Planning / Control Over Dollars: PEP’s team decision-making framework helped alleviate some of the family’s and Tessa’s frustration with the system.  Tessa chose a team made up of her mother, one brother and a staff person from Tessa’s referring agency.   Tessa had five team meetings and wrote four vocational plans with the same vocational goal.  Tessa needed her plan broken into small concrete steps that she could measure and see success.   She was in plan eight months prior to achieving her vocational goal.

 

The team also was able to deal directly with Tessa’s desire to have a social network and move out of her mother’s home.   The VRC gave the team information and resources on independent living.  It became Tessa’s responsibility, with assistance from the team, to follow up on that information.

 

Her rehabilitation costs were $2,095.  Tessa and her team signed off on the vocational dollars spent in her plan.  She was not particularly interested in tracking her money expenditures but her team was and they provided support in this arena.

 

Employment: Tessa earns $1,600 a month as a clerical support person with full benefits for King County. After one year of employment Tessa had earned enough money to purchase a car.

 

 In obtaining this job she had to learn how to interview providers, state what she expected from a provider, and contract with one.  Tessa also learned how to fire a provider.  Tessa independently fired a provider who was not following the contract Tessa had with them.  The provider, instead of looking for the type of work Tessa requested, was busy telling the team and PEP that she did not want to work.  Tessa took control of the situation and fired the provider. This was a large step for Tessa to take in directing and controlling her services. 

 

 

The Role of Choice and Control: Tessa had a job when she came to PEP, and the past history she brought did not indicate that she would do well directing her rehabilitation.  Tessa did do well and did obtain the type of job she had wanted for the past three years.  She made a wise choice involving her family in vocational planning.   This action ensured that miscommunication and hidden agendas were minimized.  Tessa took control of her services and fired a provider who was not doing what the contract stated.  She took this action on her own without consultation from her team or VRC.

Participant:   Max

Disability: Limited cognitive functioning, epilepsy, mental health, carpal tunnel

Age: 43

 

History / Intake / Documentation: Max had been involved with DVR.  He said he didn’t like his last DVR VRC, and had thought about putting sand in her gas tank.  He presented with a defensive and negative attitude.  He believed that people constantly discriminate against him because of his disability.   He had past work experience but lost his job when the company closed.  PEP accepted Max on his self-report, although it was established from the start of his work with PEP that he would allow us to seek new information if it appeared to be needed and useful.

 

The PEP VRC, after working with Max and establishing trust, did request Max meet with a psychologist.  The VRC did not request a full-fledged psychological evaluation but feedback regarding Max’s interpersonal skills and what he needed to consider in a work setting.   Max and his VRC reviewed the feedback.  Max agreed that some of the issues noted were valid.  They included anger toward and resistance to authority and/or criticism.  Max’s vocational goal was to work in an office.  This did not appear to be a good match for his style of relating.  Max was very determined to keep office work as his vocational goal.

 

Team/Money: Max’s team discussed how his vocational goal would not be a good match for him.  Max did agree, upon the request of his team, to visit a physician to address his carpal tunnel concern.   The doctor’s report was reviewed with his team.   Max’s team consisted of a PEP participant, a friend from his church and his PEP VRC. 

 

For the first team meeting. Max forgot to tell PEP staff that he had scheduled it at a friend’s house and the date of the meeting.  When he informed staff, it was too late for them to attend.  Staff suggested Max go ahead and have his team meeting but asked that he use the future-planning format.   Max did that and brought the team notes and a possible plan into the office the next day. 

 

Max kept the same team for his entire involvement with PEP.  He had six team meetings prior to obtaining employment.  He was with PEP for 11 months before he became employed full-time.  His plan cost $1,404.51.  Max was very cognizant of the fiscal elements of his plan.

 

Employment: Obtaining employment was a struggle for Max and his team.  He hired a job developer but was unhappy with the service.  Max felt the job developer was authoritarian.  Max did not feel he was listened to and that he was

being rushed into accepting jobs he didn’t want.  He also was concerned that he was being billed inappropriately.

Max shared his concerns, both about the job developer’s work style and billing practices, with his team and VRC.  They suggested Max end the contract.  Max chose to continue it longer because he said he wanted to give the job developer a chance to improve.  Max felt the provider didn’t realize he was working for Max not DVR.  In the meantime, the job developer called PEP to say that Max was not following through on job leads.  PEP declined to discuss the issue without Max and a meeting was set.

 

Max shared his concerns both about the job developer’s work style and billing practices but the situation did not change.  Max ended the contract about a week after the meeting.

 

Max realized he was not getting any clerical job offers and decided to change his vocational goal to the field of printing.  He had some limited experience as a printer’s helper.  He wanted to go to a training program but was discouraged by his team because of his long history of going to vocational schools and it not leading to work. 

 

Max agreed to look for an OJT situation.  He and his VRC worked on researching printing companies and setting informational interviews.  The VRC accompanied Max to several interviews, until Max could go on his own.  Max became concerned that he was running out of savings and he could not pay his bills.  He increased the type of jobs he would consider and eventually took a full time job at a manufacturing shop starting at $1080 per month.  He has worked there for three years, been promoted once and is satisfied.

 

The Role of Choice and Control: Max began his work with PEP with sensitivities about several issues.  He was concern that he would not be heard.  He had strong feelings of anger and believed he was discriminated against.  He was frustrated that he was not employed at the level he wished.

 

Max was clearly sensitive about being labeled because of his disabilities.  PEP respected this concern and accepted Max’s self-reporting of his disabilities.  PEP pursued information with Max’s consent and control over the information when trust had been established and the need for it in planning was clear to Max.  He had the option to facilitate his own team without PEP staff.  He was able to spend time pursuing employment that was not the best match for his needs but fit with his image of himself.  Max was able to reach that decision himself based on experience rather than being told it by someone else or from assessment information that he resented.    Max is an individual that needs to be in control in order for the system to work for him.