The Rural Exchange, The Rural Institute: Center for Excellence in Disability Education, Research, and Service, Volume 11, Number 1, 1998
Note: Some of the projects and activies described in this docucment are no longer active so contacts and project opportunities may no longer be accurate.
Supported Employment
Employment for Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime: Creating New Employment Options Through Supported Employment
Rural Institute Member of National Supported Employment Consortium: A National Project to Identify Exemplary Practices
President Establishes Task Force on Employment of People with Disabilities
New Staff Joins Institute Employment Projects
Rural Supported Employment
Who's on First or Rural Rules
It Just Didn't Feel Right
Beyond Assistive Technology Technological Resources in Supported Employment
The Job Match: Maximizing Outcomes With Consumers With Mental Illness
Employment for Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime: Creating New Employment Options Through Supported Employment
by David Hammis & Cary Griffin, The Rural Institute
The Fire & Energy of S/E
Supported employment (S/E) is a raging fire, burning bright across the world. We've felt it now for 20 years, as it's burned a passion into our souls to strive for employment for anyone, anywhere, anytime. It still lights up our imaginations with promises and potentials unmet. We've seen it in the eyes of the best employment consultants. It's the intuitive energy of listening to someone during a Personal Futures or Vocational Profile process and really understanding the work and employment dreams of another person.
S/E is networking, marketing, and negotiating with the business world for profitable and exciting employment partnerships. Supported employment is searching the workplace for the clues of future job carving possibilities and ideas. It's engaging workers, co-workers, and supervisors to be their best and knowing when to assist and when to create time and space for natural events and relationships to occur.
S/E in a Global Economy
Supported employment, under its own momentum, will soon move into the 21st century. Without a doubt, S/E continues to validate its founding beliefs and dreams. The heros of supported employment are the 150,000 + employees, as well as employers and employment consultants around the nation, creating new social and cultural realities barely imaginable only a few years ago. The challenge is, as it has been from the beginning, to raise our expectations beyond the word "employment."
As we work more closely with the business world, new words are being added to our vocabulary-words like: profit, partnerships, corporations, s-corporations, limited liability partnerships, limited liability companies, micro -enterprise, entrepreneurial, leveraging resources, small business, women owned small business, minority owned small business, employee owned businesses, corporate culture, re-engineering, downsizing, rightsizing, owners, and shareholders. As we add these words from the business world to our vocabularies, do we really understand them and integrate their concepts into community employment? Perhaps the question is how do we blend the fire and energy of our brightest and most creative employment consultants with the challenges of the next century? What tools and cultures do we need to develop and promote as we push the limits of our existing boundaries? Where are we going? How do we build on and add to our current S/E strengths?
Self-Employment & Business Ownership
Moving S/E into the next century requires new options, new S/E cultures, and new tools for employment consultants. Fortunately, the next steps are here today. They've been here for years. Just as S/E started from the creativity and visions of excellence, the 21st century tools for new S/E futures are developing today as employment consultants embrace the business world and its array of work and employment options. The only real barriers seem to be in our beliefs and expectations. The business world has been and is ready to do business. How do we know this? We asked. Employers are interested in hiring employees who own substantial employment related resources, forming limited partnerships, and supporting sole proprietorships with people of similar interests and dreams.
Do you know that small business is the fastest growing segment of the business sector today? Employment consultants need to understand this business trend. We need to believe that all of the options in the business world are possible for people with disabilities, and then act on those beliefs. Acting on those beliefs makes it possible to achieve employment for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Creating paid work and profits from the needs of the business and economic culture opens new worlds and options for people to become partners in businesses, sole proprietors, and employees with ownership of vital business resources. If this can happen, as it has repeatedly in small, remote communities (such as Plains, Montana: population 1,200; Red Lodge, Montana: population 2,300; Alamosa, Colorado: population 10,000; Sterling, Colorado: population 5,400), it can happen where you live.
Employment for Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime
Recently in a small rural town in Montana, a "challenging" person who was identified as having multiple and significant disabilities, shared his work dreams with us. The place he identified for his work dreams, was a local "nature center." He took us on a tour and clearly demonstrated the interest and relationships he had already developed there. In attempting to job develop here, multiple objections were offered from the manager, including the lack of funding for new employees. The manager would agree to any volunteer help, but "had no money" for employees.
Acting on the belief that it is possible to create employment for anyone, anywhere, anytime, a business plan for a sole proprietorship for the "challenging" person was proposed to the nature center manager. The plan was to operate a retail sales business at the nature center (selling center-related items) and return 10% of the profits to the center. The manager reviewed and assisted in refining the business plan and then submitted it to her Board of Directors for approval. The business is owned by the person, and we were able to clearly "create" a work outcome based on our beliefs of employment for anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Another example involves a young man in another rural Montana town, where an employer was approached to develop a position as an entry level assistant mechanic. The employer did not have an adequate cash flow to hire him. A limited partnership proposal was written, using funds from a Social Security Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS), to become a part owner of a segment of the business. The wealth of knowledge of the business world came into play. The owner advised, amended, and assisted with creating an entirely new proposal for a sole proprietorship for the young man, based on a $28.00 per hour contracted rate for the individual's new small business, with a 25% consignment fee for the use of space at the principal owner's building, and a clear method for sharing customers and work loads. The business plan and PASS have been approved. In this case an absolute "no jobs available" from the potential employer was turned into a mutually profitable sole proprietorship and partnership. Once more the business world teaches us that it is possible to achieve employment for anyone, anywhere, anytime.
What Comes After What Comes Next?
For the past 20 years, the field has struggled with determining what jobs people can do; what jobs people should do; what jobs are available. The discussions and hard work are far too often focused on organizational resources, restrictive or limited policy, and agency convenience. These are the wrong concerns and mind set. The employment arena is not a finite resource, although the human services perspective has ascribed this characteristic to it. Neither is employment development a passive activity. Employment is created through vigorous and relentless invention, partnership, collaboration, and hard work. Even in the smallest communities, in the most rural corners of the world, we are finding, as our colleague Roger Shelley says, "that there may not be a lot of jobs, but there sure is a lot of work." Skilled consumers, families, and personnel will exploit the reality of market expansion through tenacity and risk-taking. There is a conscious choice to be made by each of us: have the world act upon us, or act upon the world.
Making employment happen requires a drastic change in daily activities. First, quit doing things that do not lead to employment. (Do endless meetings come to mind? How about work readiness training that has proven to be a dead-end towards community employment?) Second, ask business people how they got into business and what they need to stay in business. Act to help them find and hire people. Third, listen to the job seeker; what does he/she want to do and how close to that goal can you get by enlisting employers, friends, family? Fourth, stop making assumptions based upon behaviors and motivations witnessed in boring, repetitive, segregated settings. Stop wasting time and money on interest inventories and standardized testing. Instead, develop situational assessments and job analyses that give real information with environmental relevance. Fifth, listen to yourself. Are you in this job for something to do, or to do something? For most people served in community rehabilitation, there is no Plan B. Most people are stuck in dead end day programs, so what exactly is the big risk in trying a job, even an "unrealistic" one? Twenty years ago it was "unrealistic" for people with severe disabilities to work in any community job. Today we know that to be a misguided assumption. Do not become the people that the next generation frowns upon for being so "backwards" in its attitudes. All the pieces to create quality community employment exist now.
Looking into the future of supported employment, and the promise of the employment consultants who light up the sky with their dreams and skills and fires burning within, is an exciting and breathtaking experience. The early promises and potentials of supported employment have become the reality for thousands of people, yet millions of people wait for similar futures, in workshops, day activity centers, and institutions. There are still so many S/E promises unmet. It's time to take the next quantum leap into our shared futures with the business world around us, building on the employment consultants' energy and dreams and skills, and create employment for anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Rural Institute Member of National Supported Employment Consortium:
A National Project to Identify Exemplary Practices
The Rural Institute is one of several partners in the National Supported Employment Consortium (SEC) for the competitive employment of people with significant disabilities. SEC is designed to critically evaluate supported employment programs nationally and to provide technical assistance on exemplary programs and practices to state and local agencies. The SEC will:
- Identify and assess new exemplary supported employment practices;
- Provide technical assistance to States and provider agencies.
This National Consortium is administered by the Virginia Commonwealth University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Supported Employment (VCU RRTC) with: the Indiana University Institute for the Study of Developmental Disabilities, the Boston Children's Hospital Institute for Community Inclusion, Transcen Incorporated, and The University of Montana's Rural Institute. In addition, the SEC is comprised of eighty-two national experts who will be directly involved in implementation.
Evaluation Study Areas
- Persons Unserved or Under-served in Supported Employment (Mike Barcus, VCU RRTC, and Cary Griffin, The University of Montana's Rural Institute). State level policies that foster the inclusion in supported employment of individuals from unserved and under-served groups will be analyzed.
- Statewide Systems Change (David Mank, Indiana University). This study area will conduct a comprehensive national survey of supported employment state systems change
- Benefit-Cost Analysis (John Kregel, VCU RRTC). Work with state Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agencies will be used to document the costs of supported employment programs and to compare the costs of supported employment services to other rehabilitation alternatives.
- Extended Services (Michael West, VCU RRTC). Information will be obtained from state VR and other funding agencies on the most frequently utilized sources of funding for extended services and the unique strategies used by state agencies to leverage extended services funding.
- Employer Impact (George Tilson, Transcen, Inc.). The impact of supported employment on the business community will be identified.
- Meaningful Employment Outcomes (Gary Bond, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis -IUPUI). State and local programs will be identified that have demonstrated the ability to provide high quality employment outcomes and the strategies that foster these outcomes.
- Consumer Self-Determination and Personal Assistance Services (Michael West and Ed Turner, VCU RRTC). The extent to which interagency agreements, agency policies, and provider agency practices promote consumer choice and self-determination will be analyzed.
- Natural Supports (David Mank and Pat Rogan, IUPUI). Analysis regarding the efficacy of natural supports strategies with individuals who have not been the focus of natural supports research and demonstration efforts (i.e. individuals with psychiatric disabilities) will be conducted.
- Federal and State Policy Analysis (David Mank, Indiana University). Federal and state policies that impact the employment of persons with disabilities will be analyzed.
- Interagency Agreements (John Butterworth, Boston
Children's Hospital Institute for Community Inclusion). Exemplary models and strategies
for establishing effective state and local level interagency coordination
will be identified.
Technical Assistance
The National SEC will be equipped to widely disseminate newly acquired information on exemplary practices gained from the results of the evaluation studies. Technical Assistance strategies include:
- Replication Packets on Exemplary Programs
- Factsheets, Topical Newsletters, and Analysis Papers
- Regional Forums and Conference Presentations
- Audio Conferences and National Teleconferences
- Computer Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms
- Internet Courses and Forums
- Individualized Site Visits
The website address for the National Supported Employment Consortium
is http://www.vcu.edu/rrtcweb/sec. For more information call Grant
Revell (804) 828-1851 (VOICE), 828-2494 (TDY), wgrevell@saturn.vcu.edu (e-mail).
President Establishes Task Force on Employment of People with Disabilities
On March 13 President Clinton signed an Executive Order establishing a national Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities that will create a coordinated and aggressive national policy to bring working-age individuals with disabilities into gainful employment at a rate approaching that of the general adult population.
" Since 1993, we have created 15 million new jobs. But the unemployment rate among people with disabilities is far too high, and that is why I'm so pleased to sign today an executive order that will design a strategy to make equality of opportunity, full participation, inclusion, and economic self-sufficiency realities for all 30 million working-age Americans with disabilities," declared President Clinton.
Charged with developing and recommending to the President a federal policy to reduce employment barriers for persons with disabilities, the Task Force will submit four reports, the first by November 15, 1998, and the last on July 26, 2002. Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor, will chair the Task Force. Tony Coelho, Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, will serve as Vice-Chair.
Key components of the Task Force's directive include analyzing
existing programs and policies to determine what changes, modifications,
and innovations may be necessary to remove barriers to work; developing
and recommending options to address the barrier of health insurance
coverage; analyzing youth programs related to employment and the
outcomes of those programs for young people with disabilities;
and evaluating whether federal studies related to employment and
training can and should include a statistically significant sample
of adults with disabilities.
New Staff Joins Institute Employment Projects
The Rural Institute has three new employees working on research and training projects on employment for people with disabilities.
Roger Shelley is an Institute Organizational Consultant on the Montana Career Design Initiative (MCDI). Through this project, Roger provides technical assistance and training programs for Montana agencies engaged in supplying supported employment services to individuals with severe disabilities. Roger's background includes corporate sales and marketing, career planning for Native American populations, small business ownership, and supported employment program operations and management. He has extensive experience in the employment of people with disabilities in rural communities in the western United States. Roger works out of his home-office in Red Lodge, Montana.
Michael Flaherty is the Organizational Consultant for the Montana Rural Employment Initiative, which works with Montana supported employment service providers. Mike has twenty-three years of work experience in the human services field.
He has provided direct and administrative service to populations including persons with chronic mental illness, developmental disabilities, and physical disabilities. He has initiated both traditional and innovative employment practices and placement. Additionally, he has two years experience working with minority adolescent residential/community based treatment and Upward Bound. Mike received his M.S. in Rehabilitation from Drake University.
Helena Hoas is the Research and Evaluation Coordinator for the
Rural Institute's Research in Social Security Employment Support
(RISES) project and the Culpepper Foundation Bioethics project.
Helena received her Filosofie Licentiat Examen (equivalent to a
Ph.D.) in Educational Psychology and Evaluation from the Umeå University
in Sweden. Helena's work experience includes research into secondary
school reform, working with students with disabilities, and social
work. As Co-Director of the IEA Pre Primary Project, Helena was
responsible for establishing standard procedures for data collection,
processing, and analysis of data for eleven countries participating
in a study.
Rural Supported Employment
Supported Employment is defined as paid work, in integrated settings, with supports necessary to maintain employment. Roughly 40% of the nation's 3,700 supported employment vendors provide services in rural areas of the United States. The vast majority of the over 150,000 people benefitting from supported employment are identified as having a developmental disability (approximately 70%), with about 20% of employees reporting a psychiatric disability, and the remainder having a physical or sensory impairment (RRTC/VCU, 1997; McGaughey, et al., 1994; DiLeo & Langton, 1996).
Supported employees, regardless of geographic area, tend to earn over 45% more in wages than the almost 1,000,000 people with severe disabilities still served in sheltered day programs, and generate an estimated $768 million in wages per year, while working an average of 23.8 hours per week (Coker, Osgood & Clouse, 1995; RRTC/VCU, 1997). Further, Vocational Rehabilitation Status 26 Closures in supported employment cost only $1,255 more than a sheltered employment closure (U.S. Dept. of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration, 1994). Combined with the benefits of increased social contact, improved wages, and the dramatic decrease in long-term funding necessary to maintain supported employees, the positive benefit/cost of community employment is apparent.
To date, there is little empirical research available that shows definitive differences between rural and urban supported employment participants, programs, funding, or best practice. The Rural Institute, as a collaborator in the National Supported Employment Consortium headed by the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Supported Employment at Virginia Commonwealth University, and through a variety of training-demonstration projects, is beginning to collect data on various aspects of rural supported employment that may well increase participation, funding, and quality outcomes. Still, there is a large reservoir of anecdotal and experiential evidence that points to key issues, barriers, and best practice.
Key Rural Supported Employment Issues
As in urban areas, rural supported employment programs face a myriad of barriers. Systematic needs assessment surveys and focus groups reveal on-going concerns from rural providers and consumers (Griffin, 1995; Griffin, 1997a; Griffin, 1997b). These key issues include:
- A perceived lack of jobs and career advancement opportunities
- A lack of qualified staff
- A lack of adequate funding or funding incentives to increase supported employment
- A paucity of staff and consumer training and technical assistance in job development, situational/functional assessment, worksite instructional strategies, natural supports, non-aversive behavioral supports, Social Security Work Incentives, and self-determination
- A lack of management and leadership training and technical assistance to support and guide community employment expansion and sheltered program downsizing
- A lack of transportation options
Rural Best Practices of Promise
While facing a multitude of economic, programmatic, and policy obstacles, the rural tradition of pragmatism and inventiveness fosters rapid advances in quality community employment for individuals with the most severe disabilities.In South Dakota, the Vocational Rehabilitation agency has been instrumental in increasing the use of vouchers and micro-vendors for supported employment. This approach allows individuals in small communities to remain in those areas and call upon local friends, family, or service providers for assistance (S.D. Vocational Rehabilitation, 1997).
In Montana, transportation vouchers are proving to be an effective and efficient means of addressing social isolation (Bernier & Seekins, 1996). In various communities, utilizing co-worker car pools, using Social Security Work Incentives such as PASS Plans to underwrite transportation costs, and matching people to jobs of choice within walking distance of their homes are all successful strategies.
In small rural communities, supported employment is being expanded with the use of Social Security Work Incentives. These are being used to provide co-worker support; underwrite community-based training to identify vocational likes and dislikes; provide behavioral change support; pay for tools, transportation, and training; and to purchase employer-valued resources
Such resources might include tools or training or inventory that
allows a business to expand or improve. The rationale for this
approach is that typical workers come to the job market with exploitable
resources: a truck driver owns a truck, a mechanic owns hand tools,
a manager owns a college education. People with severe disabilities
need exploitable resources as well, and PASS Plans help equalize
competition (Hammis, Maxson & Griffin, 1997).
Situational Assessment and Person-Centered Career Planning use
is increasing. Traditionally, standardized vocational evaluation
has been used, which has very little predictive validity regarding
employment potential. Situational assessment and worker profiling,
as part of a systematic job match, has environmental validity
and allows people the opportunity to explore a variety of possible
work options and to personally guide the employment process of
their choosing (Condon & Hammis, 1997; Callahan & Nisbet,
1997; Griffin & Hammis, 1996)
"Supported Self-Employment" is being tested and expanded in some of the most remote communities in the West. Relying on the belief that employment can be developed for anyone, anywhere, at anytime, sole proprietorships (e.g. small engine repair) and limited partnerships (e.g. retail sales; stud horse ranching) are being developed in towns as small as 1,200 population. Again, the use of Social Security PASS Plans, and the networking of professionals, friends, and families are proving to be vital ingredients to success (Hammis & Griffin, 1998).
Active Business Councils (ABCs) are also being utilized to increase business and consumer networking. The basic model involves establishing a small council of employers, consumers, and rehabilitation professionals who meet monthly with a highly structured agenda. Here, the business people meet a couple job seekers monthly and individually agree to use their influence and networks to promote employment. In Greeley, Colorado, this approach produced over 50 jobs in one year (Griffin & Sherron, 1996).
There are many more opportunities than barriers to supported employment expansion in rural areas. As Rural Institute Organizational Consultant Roger Shelley says, "there may be fewer jobs in rural areas, but there is still a great deal of work." Three key factors influence the increase in quality supported employment. These include: an organizational philosophy that emphasizes community integration; flexible state funding policies; and strong family support and advocacy (McGaughey, et al., 1994).
References
Bernier, B. & Seekins, T. (1996). Rural Transportation Voucher Program for People with Disabilities: 3 Case Studies. Missoula, MT: The Rural Institute/The University of Montana.
Callahan, M. & Nisbet, J. (1997). The Vocational Profile: An Alternative to Traditional Evaluation. Gautier, MS: Marc Gold Associates & UCPA.
Coker, C., Osgood, M., Clouse, K. (1995). A Comparison of Job Satisfaction & Economic Benefits of Four Different Employment Models for Persons with Disabilities. Menominie, WI: RRTC on Improving Community-based Rehab Programs.
Condon, E. & Hammis, D. (1997) Supported Employment & Systematic Instruction: A Guide for Employment Consultants. Missoula, MT: The Rural Institute/The University of Montana.
DiLeo, D. & Langton, D. (1996). Facing the Future: Best Practices in Supported Employment. St Augustine, FL: TRN.
Griffin, C.C. (1995). Region VIII Training Needs Survey. Greeley, CO: CTAT/UNC.
Griffin, C.C. & Sherron, P. (1996). Finding Jobs for Young People with Disabilities. In Wehman, P. Life Beyond the Classroom. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Griffin, C.C. (1997a). Montana Statewide Training Needs Assessment. Missoula, MT: The Rural Institute/The University of Montana.
Griffin, C.C. (1997b). National Rural Supported Employment Focus Group. APSE Conference, Orlando, Florida.
Griffin, C.C. & Hammis, D (1996). Streetwise Guide to Person-Centered Career Planning. Denver: CTAT/Denver Options, Inc.
Hammis, D. & Griffin, C.C. (1998). Employment for Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime. The Advance, 9 (1).
Hammis, D., Maxson, N., Griffin, C.C. (1997). Montana Career Design Initiative Annual Monograph. Missoula, MT: The Rural Institute/The University of Montana.
McGaughey, M., Kiernan, B., McNally, L., Gilmore, D., Keith, G. (1994). Beyond the Workshop: National Perspectives on Integrated Employment. Boston: ICI.
RRTC/VCU, (1997). National Trends in Supported Employment Fact Sheet. Richmond, VA: RRTC Supported Employment.
South Dakota Vocational Rehabilitation (1997). Privatizing the Purchase of Services. Pierre: SD Vocational Rehabilitation.
U.S. Dept. of Education (1994). Selected Work Status at Closure. Washington, D.C.: Rehabilitation Services Administration.
This factsheet was written by Cary Griffin, Director of Training
at the Rural Institute.
Who's on First OR Rural Rules
By Roger Shelley, Organizational Consultant with the Rural Institute
Kevan, Deb, Milt, Bernie, Rog, Lori, Troy, Barb, Herb, Brian, Pam, Susan, Lew—hey, can't tell the players without a scorecard? Employer, VR counselor, student, business owner. Match the names with the labels above. Still can't tell who's who? Want to see the difference? Sorry, no such luck. Sounds like Abbott and Costello's routine "Who's on first...?" I'm afraid we're all on second and just trying to get home. Home is, after all, where it all began, and home is where, in the end, it will end.
Systems change. Organizational conversion. Employment initiative. Natural supports. Scarce funding. Institutional depopulation. People wonder just what the heck I'm talking about! They really don't care about technical terms.
"When are you gettin' me a job?"
" I really don't want to be a volunteer!"
" I'm really looking for a good worker."
"Now we're getting somewhere!"
Small towns—rural settings. Everyone's doing the best they can to stay and make a living and...a life. Contributing to the well-being of your community is a function of how you give of yourself, your resources, your time. Honoring connections with fellow towns folk makes the difference. Only that. Everybody knows everybody, anyway.
Still trying to match the names and the labels? Would it help to know that any one of the names could be matched with any one of the labels? That each of those people could be matched with any of those positions/roles at any time?
Rural Rule #1
We're all in this together.
Good times, bad times, at all times.
We're all just trying to make the best of it. That's why we're volunteering for civic positions, planning boards, city councils, hospital boards, and giving money to the boys' and girls' clubs, fellow citizens who need support, and the local petting zoo. We start businesses to bring money into our community from the outside. We all know that it only circulates through the town a few times before leaving to buy goods and services from the cities. Economic development for most of us is figuring out how to get folks from somewhere else (preferably a metropolitan area) to leave a few dollars in our community's coffers before they go home. The differences in people begin to fade when Rule # 1 is understood. All people who are members of this rather exclusive group contribute to everyone else. Got an idea for bringing in money? Have at it! Most people don't care what your IQ is. What they want to know is do you care about them, do you care about the town, what can you do to make life better. Do you do what you say you're going to do? This leads us to rule #2.
Rural Rule #2
Always do what you
say you're going to do.
Your life and the lives of your fellow community members depends on it. In the intricate collaboration of people in rural communities, in the relationships that nourish them, trust and caring are prized commodities. Building trust and exhibiting caring hinge on following through with what you start. Your contribution in a small town is not judged by what you say, but what you DO. Don't think people are watching? Just wait! You are what you do! Not where you're from or where you were educated or what your beliefs are, but good old rubber to the road stuff.
By the way, how are you going to make life better for everybody? Talk's pretty cheap. Doing something about the quality of life for everyone in town—now that's something that I can get into! Working seven days a week? Ten to twelve hours per day? Let me at it! It's possible that nothing less will do. Many people have two jobs—some three or even four. Their contribution is apparent. How many jobs are you willing to take on? How much are you willing to DO? The opportunities are waiting. Making a difference—not being different—is what's important. Which leads us to Rule #3.
Rural Rule #3
Everybody is different. It's how you
make a difference that counts.
In rural communities, differences between people are obvious. In fact, differences are so obvious that they become non-existent. Your individuality defines you. It's a given.
Now, how are you going to use it? What can you contribute that no one else can? Now we're beginning to get to the heart of the matter. It's why you don't need the scorecard to figure out who's who. Anyone could be anything at anytime. Anyone can become an employer, a civic leader, a role model, an educator, a prized employee. The sense of home and belonging, your contribution to the community through your presence and effort is what counts. Labels fall by the wayside when seen in the light of contribution.
Creating a Passionate Steward Culture for Supported Employment in Texas
Thirty-five people came together for four days to design the Texas Steward model. The idea of stewardship originated from the staff of Imagine Enterprises, supported by a grant from Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities. The original intent was to bring together people who have made meaningful contributions and to utilize their talents and experience to expand supported employment efforts. The Stewards are professionals and consumers who have daily contact with supported employment activities. They are charged with helping other providers and consumers achieve greater community employment outcomes through mentoring, technical assistance, marketing, and personal or systems advocacy.
The people who represent the Texas Stewards collaboratively developed their principles and overall goals, taking personal responsibility without taking any salary for their efforts. The right combination of lectures on best practices from nationally respected consultants (Dale DiLeo, Cary Griffin, Howard Green, Al Condeluci, & Katherine Carol) and passionate declarations and reflections by stewards, helped establish the mission and build a common foundation. The mission is to increase local community capacity by sharing personal experience and success in expanding or improving community employment. Stewards' local level success will be measured by the increase of people working and participating in inclusive community activities.
For more information on the Texas Stewards, call Ernesto Sanchez: (281) 405-9604 or email esanc76691@aol.com Debby Murray (512) 835-7492 or email Murray@ kdi.com or Norine Jaloway (282) 474-4778 or email Njaloway@eden.com
It Just Didn't Feel Right
by Joan Sweeney, Independent Organizational Consultant and Rennae O'Connor, Service Director for SESDAC
When Kate began going to the Pizza Hut for lunch after her shift at the sheltered workshop, no one thought much of it, until we got a call from the Pizza Hut manager. It seems Kate was enjoying multiple visits to the lunch buffet without having money to pay. The Pizza Hut workers tried to get her to show them the money before she indulged herself, to no avail. She would often force her way to the buffet. As an agency who provided support to Kate, our initial reaction to this news was to either keep her from going to Pizza Hut by escorting her home (using physical restraint if necessary) or the other not so great option—tackle her at Pizza Hut! One of the things we began to realize is that some of the options we were using to control behavior in the agency were not very pretty when used in the workshop and were downright ugly when used in the community.
The South East South Dakota Activity Center, Inc. (SESDAC) is located in rural Vermillion, South Dakota. Vermillion is a small university town with a population of 10,000 (until students and faculty leave during school breaks, which results in a population of 5,000). It's a community where everybody knows somebody who knows you and word gets around town quickly. This makes embarrassing behavior in public (such as stealing, eating too much, and/or physical aggression) doubly embarrassing because news travels fast and is not easily forgotten. The fact that we live in a small town has also worked in our favor. Using our personal connections to educate via the rumor mill can often turn around perceptions about people we work with. Given all this, we were concerned about the messages we were conveying to the community about how to treat people with disabilities and were also beginning to struggle agency-wide with the use of physical restraint as a method of behavioral control. Our experience had taught us that taking control of a person's behavior using traditional methods (i.e. physical restraint, tangible reinforcers, etc.) never resulted in long-term behavior change and was also emotionally and physically draining to all involved. Plus, physical restraint often resulted in injury to staff and the people we supported. It just didn't feel right!
This was the beginning of the end of SESDAC's long time use of physical restraints. We made a commitment not to use physical means to keep Kate from the buffet but rather to try and understand why Kate was helping herself to the food without paying. Observation became the data collection strategy we used for our problem solving. We had turned a corner. Little did we know that making this seemingly small commitment would result in a much bigger agency-wide resolution to never use physical restraint again.
We had been through a similar experience with Kate a few years prior to this when she was taking donuts from the gas station. At that time, we used physical restraint with Kate many times. It usually started with some basic body positioning that Kate could shove through, followed by a controlled wrestling match necessary for the staff member(s) to get her in the hold. It always resulted in the staff member(s) and Kate on the ground in a heap. The silliest part of the whole thing is that she usually had already consumed the donut. So, besides the public struggling, lots of sore muscles, dirty pants, and negative messages in the community, it still ended up in a lose-lose situation for all involved. Kate, our staff members, and the agency were all losing their dignity.
We knew what we had to do. We had to figure out what she loved so much about Pizza Hut and try to replicate it. Kate was gaining a lot of weight, couldn't afford to eat out everyday, and was not being accepted with dignity at Pizza Hut. One of our staff members went to Pizza Hut for lunch one day, which provided the opportunity to observe Kate at the buffet.
Kate sat alone, drank pop from a straw and ate many heaping plates of macaroni salad and pizza. Of all the items on the whole buffet, all she wanted was macaroni salad and pizza. We then talked to her family about our concerns. Guess what? During the forty-plus years she was at home, she went to restaurants and to stores on a regular basis, was encouraged to take what she wanted, and her mother or brothers paid for it at the counter. Kate didn't know about paying for what she wanted. She thought you just went in and got it. She had grown up in a small town where everyone knew her, so even if she was alone, all the business owners knew her family would pay for her things later.
After a lengthy team meeting, we came up with a plan to replicate Pizza Hut. We had to teach Kate that she could get lots of pizza and macaroni salad without going to Pizza Hut (she was on a tight budget). So, we began to help her make macaroni salad each evening—a five-quart ice cream bucket of it! We also assisted her to buy the personal size microwave pizzas at the grocery store and to put this all together to bring as her lunch. We also helped her ask her boyfriend to eat lunch with her everyday and manipulated the schedules just a bit to make that happen. We assisted her in purchasing a calendar and helped her mark each Friday as Pizza Hut day. We gave her a consistent message that she could go to Pizza Hut every Friday, just because it was Friday. There were no strings attached to Pizza Hut day—it didn't matter whether the alternate plan worked everyday and she went to Pizza Hut without money, she still went on Friday.
So, everyday Kate came with her five-quart bucket of macaroni salad and her five or so microwave pizzas to the workshop. She walked down the hall with her boyfriend on her arm and a smile on her face. Several staff members were very upset; they were sure that Kate would eat until she became sick, and she was gaining weight. (It took some convincing to get people to accept that she was gaining weight anyway—either here or at Pizza Hut). Once this plan was enacted she seldom went to Pizza Hut, except on Fridays. Today her lunches are normal size and don't consist of macaroni salad and pizza everyday. We lost track of exactly how long it took for her to change her lunches to other things. Actually we never kept track; it wasn't important. What was important was that Kate's life, and the lives of every person in our agency, had been changed forever.
We now have an annual Dignity Week celebration commemorating the anniversary of the last use of physical restraint in our agency. As we train new staff members, they give us strange looks and ask, "what's physical restraint?," when we talk about our policy that says physical restraint is not an acceptable option. For those of us who have lived through the whole story, there is a great sense of pride, accomplishment, and relief that we have overcome our dependence on such an undignified idea.
Currently, we focus our staff training efforts in the areas of functional analysis, communicative intent of behavior, quality of life, and teaching positive replacement behaviors. We're closing our sheltered workshop and helping people find real jobs in town. It has forced us to completely change our mind-set. Now we ask ourselves why? and how can we? to develop a strategy for understanding and problem solving for each behavior that occurs. Many years ago we used MANDT and our own rendition of behavior intervention techniques. We have now learned that if staff members aren't taught physical restraint holds as an intervention option, they can learn different and dignified approaches to build positive behavioral supports.
You can reach Joan Sweeney at (843) 406-7685 and Rennae O'Connor
at (605) 624-4419.
Beyond Assistive Technology
Technological Resources in Supported Employment
By David Hammis, Organizational Consultant with the Rural Institute
Employment consultants think of assistive technology devices first—augmentative communication devices, switches, power wheel chairs, etc.—when they imagine technology helping people accused of having the most severe or profound developmental disabilities achieve employment goals. But assistive technology, or technology adapted to a disability, is an attempt to "fix the person" and if you emphasize "fixing the person," you may ignore other technological resources that can make employment possible for people with even the most severe disabilities.
Instead of "fixing a person," "fix" the environment. Go beyond the unspoken rules of traditional employment development efforts and search for an answer to the following question:
What technological resources would improve a potential employer's business (increased profits) and simultaneously use an employee's gifts and talents to achieve his/her career goals and dreams (increased inclusion, personal choice, meaningful work, individual wealth)?
If you take all of the best supported employment methods—such as systematic instruction, co-worker supports, natural supports, marketing or job development based on an individual's dreams and gifts, and active involvement in community activities related or unrelated to work—and then search for an answer to the above question, the answer can and often does reveal new and unique employment possibilities.
A Case Study: Jane Doe
Jane's job profile was developed using the Marc Gold vocational profile format. This is similar to Personal Futures Planning, and yields an "ideal" job description for a person based on the person's gifts and dreams. Jane's ideal job was sewing. When Jane's employment consultant applied the above question to Jane's situation, the answer was: "Purchase an employment-specific resource—a computer controlled industrial sewing machine—that enhanced the employer's profit potential and simultaneously used Jane's gifts and sewing talents."
Money for Jane's sewing machine ($2,800) came from a Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS) submitted to Social Security. The PASS money meant Jane owned the sewing machine, not her employer or a state agency. If she left the job, her equipment left with her. The sewing machine would be located at her employer's plant and the employer agreed to insure and maintain the equipment. Jane's employment consultant created a position for her through "job carving" or job restructuring, successfully marketed the position, provided systematic instruction task training, and developed some assistive technology related to the tasks.
The answer to Jane's employment problem had more to do with universal technology than assistive technology. Assistive technology was introduced because it was appropriate, and also partial participation and job carving. But the primary answer was not assistive technology.
Results
Jane's quality of life increased with her employment. She worked in the community in an individual position for the first time in her 52 years in the system. She developed friendships at work and participated in after-hours Christmas parties and moved from an eight-bed group home to a "supported lifestyle" two-bedroom home with a roommate she was able to choose. She was able to fly to California for the first time in years (and paid for the trip herself) to visit her only living relative, an older sister.
She was often frustrated when she could not go to work on Saturday.
After a four-month intense on-site job training and a two-month fading period, Jane received about two to four hours of follow up per month for the length of her employment. Her position was terminated after two years when the employer unsuccessfully merged with another company and went out of business. Her loss of employment was not related to her skills or performance, but was simply an outcome of a failed business decision.
The power of employment related resources to transform the lives of people who have rich internal gifts and resources, yet are externally resource poor, is tremendous. Even if the person decides to change careers or loses his/her job, that person still owns a significant resource, which can be converted to cash and reinvested in another career goal in the future. The person with a disability retains the value of the resource. We are not just giving the employer some sort of financial reimbursement, such as Targeted Jobs Tax Credits (TJTC), On the Job Training (OJT), or Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which can never be recovered.
Values
I have struggled for years with the values and concerns related to purchasing technological resources, such as:
-
Are we buying the job with the resource?
My experience and my own values tell me no—if the job match is based on the person's dreams and gifts.
Ownership is more empowering to the employee than the employer. The resource makes practical sense to the employee, employer, and funding source.
- Does the employer just want the resource and not the person?
The employers I have dealt with deny this with their words and their actions. They do admit they are concerned about profits as well as employees.
- Will someone distort this concept and find an employer that needs
something and then find someone capable of purchasing the resource
regardless of the person's gifts and dreams (instead of starting
with the person)?
No one has yet, to my knowledge, but I believe it will happen.
- Is purchasing resources for employment purposes a questionable
practice?
I believe we all purchase resources without questioning if it is appropriate. Some jobs require a car, such as real estate sales. Some jobs require significant investment in college degrees. Mechanics generally are required to have a significant investment in hand tools. Carpenters are required to have resources. This is commonly accepted practice and not questioned for people without disabilities, who have not been stripped of all personal resources because they receive government assistance.
Ask the resource question in your supported employment efforts. Ownership is power. Think about it. Ask the question and the answer will surprise you.
Coming Soon!
The Rural Institute Presents The Rural Supported Employment Monograph Free to Montana Organizations!!! $7.50, out-of-state orders; includes postage and handling. For information call (406) 242-4620.
The Job Match:
Maximizing Outcomes With Consumers With Mental Illness
By Mike Flaherty, Organizational Consultant with the Rural Institute
Geoff has been a valued employee for nine years at a vibrant business that benefits from his skills and high level of energy. The key to his job retention was, and continues to be, identifying and matching a specific business culture to Geoff 's skills, preference, and behaviors. He has achieved a level of confidence and independence that allows him to maintain a quality of life that once was considered beyond his reach.
I first met Geoff while working as a vocational specialist for community mental health services in western Montana. His diagnosis of chronic mental illness, coupled with repeated attempts at suicide, compromised many attempts at community job placement. Additionally, Geoff embraced a lifestyle choice that often left him isolated and fearful. Geoff 's obvious assets were his energy, sense of humor, and intelligence. Brief, unsuccessful attempts at community employment left Geoff frustrated, angry, and more prone to episodes of self-abuse. At one point his case worker suggested that Geoff move to Seattle, where he might find a larger community to support his alternative lifestyle, perhaps giving him a broader base of support and mental health services.
Geoff considered and, at first, embraced the move. However, he felt that his roots were in Montana. He decided he would exhaust all employment options (with my assistance) before opting to move. Both of us believed that in a supportive workplace, we would find a viable solution. Our primary objective would be identifying a work culture (place, people, and product) that would both support and benefit from Geoff as a person. Geoff 's skills were not an issue; he could learn and perform a variety of jobs. We paid attention to the often overlooked factors in the workplace culture that affect long-term job satisfaction and retention. After a series of work-site evaluations, Geoff found a workplace that would change his life and assist him in achieving a level of self-reliance that few, except Geoff, thought possible. The applied principles of job matching made the difference for Geoff.
Job Matching
Job matching is exactly what its name implies: matching the person to the job, or matching the skills and behavior of the job seeker to the employer's needs/expectations and work culture. More than simply a job placement, a job match works to the mutual benefit of the employee and the employer. And a good job match translates into long-term job retention.
Long-term job retention depends on a variety of support factors. Typically, personal economic need and cultural values associated with work support job retention. Personal economic need is an obvious factor, given our basic living requirements. Cultural values/supports aren't as easily defined; they relate to specific, underlying, personal and social desires to work.
A variety of environmental factors provide secondary supports at the workplace. These factors include all the variables associated with time, place, and the expected work outcomes.
The acceptable job match, whether self-directed or as part of an integrated approach in job development service, includes both the primary and secondary supports identified above. But effective job matching addresses more than just these basics. It includes identifying the job seeker's personal or psychological issues.
The Worker Profile
When developing a worker profile, the job consultant should identify and evaluate all the issues that will likely impact the self-esteem of the worker and ultimately his or her satisfaction with the placement. Get all the information about the job seeker before any specific job development begins. Incorporating psychological or medical factors with other job factor ensures that good, natural (psychological) supports are identified and valued.
This includes specifics about medication and its side effects on physical functioning, personality, and behavior. Direct and side effects of prescribed medication will impact the job match and the achieved outcome. My personal experience in providing vocational experiences to persons with persistent mental illness has taught me that overlooking these elements can compromise the best efforts of long-term job placement. Common side effects of psychopharmacological medicine affect an individual's ability to remain alert, control bladder urgency, and retain fine motor skills over a period of time/tasks. The side effects and factors of "clock and biological" time will also affect an individual's performance. Clock and biological time refers to our innate ability to function outside of typical 8-to-5 work schedule.
Long-term job retention for persons with mental illness depends on an accurate analysis of the individual's "comfort zone" as well as the potential stressors in the workplace. A good job match includes consistent attention to those psychological factors that result in a safe and supportive environment. Psychological "safety" can be the most overlooked element in job retention. Overlooking the issue of personal safety will likely compromise the chance for success.
Evaluate the Culture
Equally important to identifying specific psychological factors is identifying related factors in the proposed workplace. A good job profile analyzes work performance, corporate culture, and the availability of support to ensure a long-term job. Involving the job seeker improves the chance of achieving and retaining the desired job. Identifying those traits that will be valued environmentally and culturally in the workplace is key to a good employment fit.
Individuals are more likely to lose employment because they simply
don't "fit in" or don't get along with co-workers on
a personal basis than for lack of required skills. Skills are more
easily acquired than the more subtle ability to "fit in." Employment
specialists have done a better job at matching people to required
skills than to workplace culture/environment. Pay attention to
potential sources of both support and conflict in the work culture.
Evaluate the "unwritten" guidelines for employee relationships.