by Ronald Conley, Riza Azzam and Arthur Mitchell
Pelavin Research Institute
March, 1995
These projects were funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Employment Training Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor.
During 1994, Pelavin Research Institutes was awarded a task order to describe, evaluate, and compare, the methods used by six projects that worked with schools and adult providers to assist students with very severe disabilities to obtain integrated employment using natural supports. In the absence of the assistance of these projects, it was anticipated that almost all of these students would have been placed in traditional sheltered employment with job coaches or in workshops.
A major goal of the projects was to assist school systems, adult service providers, and others to increase their capacity for enabling transitioning students to obtain integrated employment using natural supports. These projects focused largely on persons with severe mental retardation. In addition, some individuals were assisted who had autism, severe learning disability, or some other significantly limiting condition. Many persons assisted had multiple disabilities.
The major categories of services that the projects assisted in developing were:
Student Centered Planning (SCP): In each site, the project worked with school personnel to establish a futures planning process for each student with severe disabilities that was being assisted through project efforts. Student Centered Planning meetings always included school personnel, project personnel, and the immediate family of the student. The extent of participation by adult providers varied greatly.
One purpose of these Student Centered Planning meetings was to assist the student to identify his or her future goals and interests. A second purpose was to build upon existing student skills and identify what knowledge the student had to acquire, what changes in behavior would be needed, and what supports would be needed in order for the student to be successful in achieving his or her goals. The names given to student centered planning varied from site to site.
The Student Centered Planning process differed from the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and the Individual Transition Plans (ITPs) that the schools are required by law to carry out. However, the results of the Student Centered Planning process would often used to help in the development of the IEP and the ITP. The IEPs and, to some extent, the ITPs,
were usually described as primarily academic and school-based whereas the Student Centered Plan had a broader and longer term focus. Student Centered Planning was intended to give students with disabilities more autonomy and greater empowerment over determining the future course of their lives.
Job Experience: At every project site, there was a strong emphasis on placing students on community-based jobs in regular employment sites. Sites differed as to the age at which they would first place students on job, the extent to which students were rotated on different jobs, and the extent of use of nonpaid (volunteer jobs) or jobs provided on the school premises. The primary responsibility for job development and ongoing support while students were still in school was sometimes almost entirely the responsibility of school personnel, but more typically was a shared responsibility between project and school staff.
Job Placement: Usually, an effort was made to have a permanent placement using natural supports before the student left the school; however, this could not always be achieved and many placements still occurred after graduation.
Transition out of School System: The responsibilities of the school system usually end somewhat before the student reaches the age of 22 (in some cases, e.g., Minnesota, this responsibility may last somewhat longer). In most cases, continued assistance would be provided by an adult provider, usually funded by the State MR/DD program. The responsibilities of the adult provider typically include:
Long-term vocational support – counseling the worker, providing assistance to the employees supervisors, co-workers, and others as needed to maintain vocational activity;
Locating jobs when needed – for example, a new job may be needed if an student does not have a stable job when he or she leaves school, or if the employee with disability subsequently quits his or her job or loses it for some reason.
A major goal of the School-to-Work Transition projects using natural supports was to coordinate and integrate existing resources and support systems. Several important conclusions about coordination were:
Almost 335 persons with disabilities were identified as having been project participants by the six demonstration projects although this is clearly an understatement of the total number of project participants. About four-fifths of the persons were age 19 or over; about three-fifths of the participants were male. Almost all of the participants had mental retardation as a primary disability.
Although the selection procedures used by the six projects turned out, with one exception, to be somewhat judgmental, the intent of each project was to select people with the most severe disabilities. In this, they appear to have been successful based on the number of persons assisted that are identified as severe mentally retarded, and visual inspection of persons working at different sites.
Most of the participants worked less than half time. This was ascribed to a number of causes, the frail health of the participant, and the adverse state of the economy being the most frequently cited. However, a majority of parents of adults (and some of students, especially those over age 18) indicated a preference for increased hours.
The most frequently used method of locating jobs was by direct calls to potential employment sites. This is a time-consuming and costly method of doing so.
Several instances were observed of employees with disabilities who may have been hired for non-economic reasons, e.g., as a public relations gesture, or because it was believed that it was the right thing to do.
Although the employers of project participants tended to be strong supporters of hiring persons with severe disabilities, and the use of natural supports, most indicated a strong need for substantial up-front assistance when employing individuals with severe disabilities.
The use of the procedures developed through the projects undoubtedly result in some cost increase for school systems. The Student Centered Planning activity is considerably more elaborate than the development of an IEP and ITP alone, and it will usually involve considerably more effort and expense to develop community-based jobs with natural supports.
Most parents reported little increased expense. The most common increased expense was transportation, and even this is questionable since many would have incurred some transportation expense if the students were placed in more traditional work environments.
Most employers who were asked about increased costs felt that these costs were relatively minor and were not really a major consideration in their decision to hire and retain the worker with disabilities. However, most employers were heavily supported by outside publicly funded sources in dealing with inappropriate behaviors, training methods, and other activities involving the work of the individual with severe disabilities. Based on employer responses, we suspect that few employers would be willing to incur much of a cost increase, and that there will always be a need for publicly provided assistance in case of unexpected problems.
Based on our observations at employment sites, we believe that costs will be lower in a naturally supported environment for many (but not all) students and adults with severe disabilities than they would be in a more traditional work environment. These cost savings can be expected to substantially offset additional up-front costs for many of these workers.
Empirical data to fully validate these observations about costs are unlikely to be available from project evaluation studies yet to be completed. These costs are borne by numerous organizations and their accounting procedures will net lend themselves to easy collection of the relevant cost data.
There are numerous barriers to placing students and adults with severe disabilities in integrated jobs using natural supports. However, severity of disability is usually not an insurmountable barrier. Although there are obvious instances of persons whose disability is so severe that there is little possibility of vocational success, the projects have shown that integrated employment with natural supports is a realistic goal for most persons who are currently placed in segregated employment sites, enclaves, or placed on a job with a long- term job coach. The fact that such employment is possible, however, does not mean that it can be easily obtained. Among barriers to such employment are:
Based on the discussions with project, school, and adult service personnel in each state, we conclude that:
The projects have had a significant impact on individuals in a limited number of firms, schools, and adult providers. Personnel in these organizations have become convinced of the value of Student Centered Planning and natural supports for persons with severe disabilities, and will, if possible, continue these activities.
Although every school site has made use of improved transition procedures stimulated by the project, these improved procedures have not yet been extended to all students in any site.
Each project has developed training materials and guidelines for these activities which will continue to be available to schools and adult providers.
Two interrelated factors may adversely affect capacity build up in the future. First, the commitment to continue the transition practices were based on a small number of school and adult provider staff in many sites. Without a system-wide policy commitment, this capacity would gradually erode as school and adult provider staff changed jobs or retired. Second, there are significant time and resource costs to these transition procedures which may make them targets for discontinuation or reduction in times when school systems are examining methods of reducing costs.
The purpose of these projects was to stimulate increasing use of natural supports as a means of employing persons with very severe disabilities as they transition from school to work. Some areas in which changes in future directions need to be considered are as follows:
Expanding the use of naturally supported employment. To the extent that appropriate jobs can be found, persons with severe disabilities should be placed on naturally supported jobs whenever possible. The existing approaches which rely heavily on workshop production, enclaves and individual placements with long-term job coaching have paved the way to the use of natural supports. There is potentially a very large percentage of persons with severe disabilities currently in traditional employment models who are candidates for naturally supported employment.
Limits to the use of natural supports for the employment of students with disabilities. All students with severe disabilities should be considered for employment with natural supports. However, cases will arise in which the advisability of naturally supported employment must be questioned. There are a few students whose disabilities are so severe that they cannot be regarded as candidates for naturally supported employment. Another limiting factor is that some students with very severe disabilities can be placed in integrated employment only at very high cost. Such placements can be justified only by taking into account subjective benefits to the individual in question. Another unclear situation is when the person with severe disabilities can be more productive in a workshop or enclave than in an integrated job. A few cases will arise where students or adults with severe disabilities themselves prefer to be placed in segregated employment within workshops or enclaves.
The one common conclusion that respondents made on these issues is that all students should be evaluated for the appropriateness of job placement using natural supports. Most respondents felt that the majority of students would be placed in a natural supports setting, and as schools and adult providers gain experience and knowledge over time, the percentage who can be placed on jobs with natural supports will increase still further.
Improving job finding methods. Virtually every respondent in the survey agreed that improved methods of locating jobs for persons with severe disabilities were needed, including jobs that provided more hours of work. There were few innovative suggestions for doing so. Several suggestions were:
· Publicize the accomplishments and abilities of workers with severe disabilities be publicized. It was frequently observed that most employers are unaware of the potential labor resource that they can tap into.
· Ask business associations, trade associations, parents groups, and local leaders to encourage businesses to examine their employment needs and, if appropriate, hire individuals with severe disabilities. We believe that this will be most effective if conducted at a local level. National and even state-wide appeals of this nature seem remote to many employers. One respondent suggested identifying a number of target industries and firms within those industries and then have school or adult personnel become knowledgeable about the jobs in those firms and with company officials who could make hiring decisions.
· Increase the skill level and experience of job developers. Several respondents observed that raising the pay levels of adult provider employees who sought out jobs would reduce turnover and increase the ability of job developers to hire more skillful persons for this purpose.
Modifying funding arrangements. There is need to modify most funding arrangements between adult providers and state and local MR/DD and mental health agencies in order to enable and encourage adult agencies to place persons with severe disabilities on jobs with natural supports (or at least not to discourage such placements). Rather than require extensive face-to-face contact in order to receive payment, funding arrangements are needed that will:
Expanding the role of the JTPA program. All of the project sites accessed JTPA resources. However, the level of involvement was frequently not large. To increase the presence of JTPA, it was suggested that: