Promoting change in employment supports: Impacts of a community-based change model

1 Introduction

To address disparate employment outcomes for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Anderson, Larson, & Wuorio, 2011; Butterworth et al., 2015), a capacity building model was created that integrated training on research-based interventions that not been combined in previous models (i.e. Customized Employment and the Discovery process, and the Self-Determined Career Development Model [SDCDM]) to impact personal employment outcomes with capacity building efforts designed to address environmental needs faced by support provider organizations and the community, including the creation and utilization of amalgamated funding strategies and an Active Employer Council. A call for applications to participate in a funded model demonstration project was issued in rural communities in a Midwestern state. Eleven sites applied, and three were selected based on quality of the application, the diversity of the team membership, and internal and external support. A site was required to have a lead organizer (e.g., disability support organization, school district). There also had to be a formal agreement with other collaborative partners in the community to participate in training activities. The local partners could vary, but were expected to include some combination of disability service providers, parent and self-advocacy groups, vocational rehabilitation, mental health services, school transition and employment services, and community employer and workforce development partners. Overall, at least 20 people from the primary site and related partners had to commit to attend initial training and participate in ongoing (monthly) technical assistance over the course of a year. At least 15 people from the initial training were expected to complete 40 additional hours of training to receive a national Association of Community Rehabilitation Educators (ACRE) certificate in Customized Employment in the first 3 months of the project.

The initial training was provided on-site over a five to seven day period, followed by monthly technical assistance including face to face meetings, webinars, and telephone assistance. Individualized follow-up targeted site specific needs and development activities. The training emphasized deep understanding the of the Discovery process, namely the creation of a vocational profile and career plan, and the use of the SDCDM to set goals for career development. The Discovery process is a person-centered, non-comparative assessment that focuses on identifying and then matching the person’s preferred activities, skills and tasks to environments where these attributes are relevant and supported. It produces a point-in-time, non-predictive amalgamation of information that already exists but is rarely captured in a standardized vocational evaluation or through psychometric testing leading to a set of ideal conditions for employment success (for more information, see Griffin & Hammis, 2003; Griffin, Hammis, & Geary, 2007). The SDCDM focuses on promoting self-regulated problem solving in service of setting and attaining job and career goals. The SDCDM goes beyond what occurs in Discovery by explicitly focusing on supporting people with disabilities to acquire and use self-regulated problem solving skills that enable them to set, take action, and evaluate their progress toward self-selected job and career development goals. It aligns with the focus in the Discovery process on interests that can be aligned with employer needs, but further enables the person with a disability to self-direct the process of identifying goals based upon their interests and preferences and, more importantly, solving problems that may emerge in the process of attaining those goals (for more information, see Shogren et al., in press; Wehmeyer et al., 2003).

After initial training, sites were required to implement the Discovery process and SDCDM with eight or more consumers with intellectual and developmental disabilities who were seeking competitive employment. At least one participant had to be in the transition from school to work process to promote facilitation between school and work support providers, given the identified importance of creating school-adult service linkages (Carter et al., 2009; Certo & Luecking, 2006; Rogers et al., 2008). For each person, an Employment Team was created (e.g. professionals, friends, family, community members, and other stakeholders) identified by the person as they went through the Discovery process. The Team was meant to support the person as they created their career plan identifying employment goals that matched their vocational profile and themes that could then be used to set goals and take action on goals identified with the SDCDM. The intended result of the training and the implementation of the Discovery and SDCDM process was (a) the creation an Employment Team of professionals, friends, family, community members, and other stakeholders for each person; (b) a career plan that provided a vocational profile and themes; and (c) by the end of year of implementation, 75% of participants obtaining integrated employment opportunities.

Sites also received training and ongoing support to build additional community supports, including training on general Customized Employment strategies, with a particular focus on resource amalgamation and economic development strategies targeted to rural areas to enhance job and business development (Certo & Luecking, 2006; Elinson et al., 2008; Fesko et al., 2008). Each community site also received a Consumer Employment Quick-Start fund of $4,000 from the project to support rapid engagement in assessment activities, or initial wage or self-employment activities (Nicholas, Luecking, & Luecking, 2006). These stipends were intended to enable the leveraging of other resources including Social Security Work Incentives, especially Plans for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) (Golden, O’Mara, & Czechowicz, 1998). Sites were also trained in Resource Ownership (RO) strategies (Griffin et al., 2007; Griffin et al., 2008) which involves the attainment of training, technology or tools that enhance employability and help an employer meet unmet needs. Finally, each of the three sites were eligible for $15,000 to support the creation of an Active Employer Council (AEC) (Griffin et al., 2007). AECs and other mechanisms to effectively partner with business networks, local Chambers of Commerce, and employers and leaders in the community have been used to build social networks to enhance employment options and supports for people with disabilities (Elinson et al., 2008; Luecking, Cuozzo, & Buchanan, 2006; Wehman et al., 2008; Winsor, Butterworth, & Boone, 2011).

2 Impact of the model

Information was collected on the characteristics of implementation at each site, and is summarized in the following sections. The lead agency for Site 1 was a special education cooperative in a rural county. The transition program at the cooperative was participating in a state-wide effort attempting to link special education programs, employers, adult service agencies, and community rehabilitation organizations, and was interested in more training and resources to bolster ongoing activities. Thirty-one people were trained at the initial training; the largest groups from the special education cooperative (n = 7) and the community rehabilitation programs (n = 6), followed by parents/caregivers (n = 4), people with intellectual disability looking for jobs (n = 3), state employment specialists (n = 3), and staff from regional community support providers (n = 4), including a director who provided assessment and placement supports for adults with intellectual disability. The remaining trainees were vocational rehabilitation staff (n = 2) and staff from transitional employment programs (n = 2). Twenty people went on to receive certificates from ACRE. Site 1 formed their AEC with key community members and employers, including the town mayor, who was also employed at a local business, the local school district superintendent, a member of two local boards, a hospital administrator, the executive director of a local non-profit, and the special education coordinator from the local school. The group met monthly during the project year beginning in month nine.

Site 1 enrolled 9 participants with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Of those, four (44%) found employment during the program year. Of the four who found employment, one was working full time, two were working at least 20 hours/week, and one was working eight hours a week in integrated settings. Of those participants who were not yet employed, two were developing small business plans, two were still in the Discovery process, one who had just been approved for VR. Six participants had open cases with VR to receive support for finding and obtaining employment. One person had developed and been approved for a PASS plan to purchase a vehicle, insurance, and oil changes, setting aside part of his wages from a part-time job. The same person used quick start funds from the grant to purchase a bike for transportation in the interim, and another person received funds through the Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act for a job coach. Quick start funds were also used to support a work experience for a young man who was not yet VR eligible and did not qualify for Workforce Funds targeted for out of school youth. Each of these opportunities emerged from work of the Employment Team with support from the AEC.

The Site 2 lead agency was a community support provider that served adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in three rural counties. Twenty-five people were trained in the initial trainings, over half were staff members from the lead provider, (n = 17). The remaining trainees were vocational rehabilitation staff members (n = 1), staff members from local schools (n = 2), local and state employment specialists for people with disabilities (n = 3), one representative from a state-contracted managed care organization, and one public benefits specialist. Ten people received an ACRE certificate from Site 2. The AEC at Site 2 also began meeting in month nine of the project year, with a retired city employee with contacts from various city organizations and an employee from an agency specializing in employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

Site 2 enrolled 8 job seekers. Of those, two were working when the project commenced, one at a community business and one at the on-site program offered by the provider, but both were interested in enhancing their job opportunities. Three additional participants found employment with the support of the program. One was working 30 hours per week, another participant was working four hours, and the final participant was working 20 hours through an agency-owned cleaning business. Of the remaining three who did not find employment, two withdrew from the program for personal reasons and one was interviewing for jobs aligned with his vocational interests at the end of the project year. Five participants opened cases with VR and two participants had engaged in structured work experiences. At Site 2, no PASS plans were written, but five participants were identified as potentially eligible for a PASS plan and the team planned to explore the use of PASS for one individual in the future. One participant leveraged quick-start funds to purchase a car to enable transportation to work.

The lead agency for Site 3 was a community support provider serving a large rural town. Over half of the 32 people trained at Site 3 were staff members from the lead agency (n = 18). The remaining were employment seekers with intellectual disability (n = 8) and self-advocates (n = 3), and one community volunteer and two family members. Twelve people received ACRE certificates from Site 3. Site 3 began their AEC meetings in the eighth month of the project, partnering with the Chamber of Commerce to promote employment opportunities. All eight participants with intellectual disability were still in the Discovery process at the end of the project year, and none had obtained jobs, although one was exploring a small business plan and needed financial supports.

3 Cross-site findings and implications

One of the intended goals of the project was to enhance collaboration across the multiple stakeholders that impact employment in rural communities (Certo & Luecking, 2006; Condon & Callahan, 2008; Elinson et al., 2008; Fesko et al., 2008; Luecking et al., 2006; Wehman et al., 2008). At each site, the training diversified the contacts and shared activities in which participants engaged. Each site invited multiple partners to attend and participate, although there were differences across sites in the diversity of training participants, and resulting outcomes achieved. For example, Site 1, which trained and brought together a much more diverse network of stakeholders, had better employment outcomes. However, this site had also been part of ongoing efforts to engage in systemic change, linking school, workforce, and disability supports; thus the present project allowed for further enhancement of changes that were already being initiated. This suggests not only the importance of recognizing the time it takes to build relationships and cross-organization collaborations, but also the importance of leveraging across multiple initiatives to break down silos.

Additionally, while every attempt was made through the trainings to ensure that people were developing deep knowledge and were provided ongoing supports for developing skills related to the person-level supports, issues related to fidelity of implementation emerged. However, one of the findings from the ongoing technical assistance, particularly for the sites that were beginning reform efforts (Sites 2 and 3), was that building relationships both within the disability community as well as across disability, workforce, and employer organizations, was critical and took a significant amount of time. This delayed the opportunity to begin to provide effective personal support for people with disabilities using the Discovery process and the SDCDM. For example, at Site 3, more focus was on building organizational and community supports than on implementing personal supports. Thus, all participants were still in the Discovery process (and had not yet started the SDCDM), at the end of the project year. As such, the employment outcome goals were not reached, but the site was being planful in building the relationships that they identified as critical to making changes. This suggests the need to assess where communities are in the change process when attempting to structure professional development and systems change initiatives related to integrated employment, and perhaps to develop strategies to further customize training and change strategies. For example, the training on Discovery and SDCDM occurred at the initial training for all sites, but it may have been more effective at some sites to have been provided later in the implementation, with more upfront support on building collaboration and shared responsibility for employment across all partners. Developing strategies for ensuring key competencies related to customized employment (Harvey et al., 2013) are targeted at the right time during training, ongoing supports, and as the disability workforce changes within organizations will be critical to promote ongoing systems change.

The composition of the AECs varied across sites, for sites that were just initiating these relationships, the AECs tended to be smaller. However, each AEC was able to provide meaningful advice to consumers with disabilities on their Discovery profiles, and in cases where they began working through the SDCDM, on goals and action plans. The AECs, as intended, typically involved those not part of disability support conversations and enhanced knowledge of available resources in the community. Site 1 included people on its AEC that were and were not connected to disability supports, and found that this helped enhance discussions and education between the general employment community and disability supports. This led to job options and creative funding solutions at this site that did not emerge in others. Further research is needed on the impact of the composition of AECs. Research generally suggests the criticality of social networks in the employment process (Carey et al., 2004; Donelly et al., 2010; Eisenman, 2007; Forrester-Jones et al., 2004; Langford, Lengnick-Hall, & Kulkarni, 2013), and the implementation sites outcomes suggest that leveraging community networks and resources can enhance the creative options considered in supporting integrated employment in people with disabilities, particularly in rural communities.

Even though all sites identified ways that building partnerships with multiple stakeholders enhanced the creativity of the Employment Teams, the sites identified broader issues that needed to be addressed to further enable such creativity, including structural changes that promoted fundamental changes in policy, practice, and collaboration. For example, sites identified the need for earlier referrals to VR and for changes in VR policy to support more people with intellectual disability, particularly those with more extensive support needs. Each site also identified the role of family and other natural supports, and the need to work while students were still in school to support visioning for the future and to challenge low expectations for employment outcomes. The need to partner more comprehensively with general workforce development activities earlier in the process was also highlighted (Elinson et al., 2008; Fesko et al., 2008; Luecking et al., 2008), as was the importance of social networks and community connections (Carter et al., 2009; Certo & Luecking, 2006; Rogers et al., 2008). Some sites noted that this might mean expanding the population targeted with the model, stating that the issues identified were not only relevant for people with disabilities, but for anyone struggling with employment and that providing more universal supports through general workforce development centers could enhance outcomes for everyone.

Although training was provided on resource amalgamation strategies, sites reported having the least experience and confidence in this area. However, they also reported having significant interest in actualizing financial resources, like PASS plans. Some sites were more successful in leveraging PASS plans during the project year than others, particularly related to addressing transportation barriers, which was frequently described as the most difficult issue in these rural communities that had no transportation options (except for driving). Further education is needed on financial resources across the life span, and strategies to train teams that may not be comfortable or familiar with creative financial strategies explored (Heath, Ward, & Reed, 2013). More focus also needs to be put on the perspective of people with disabilities particularly when developing business plans and engaging in social entrepreneurship, to identify how people with disabilities feel about barriers and facilitators of customized employment including creating use of resources and social networks (Harris, Renko, & Caldwell, 2013).

The goal of the model described in this paper, and its implementation in three sites, was to promote change in the supports provided at the person level through training, as well as to change the structure of employment supports and resources at the organization and community level. Future research is needed to further inform efforts to understand ways to combine structural changes and person-level supports to enable communities to achieve enhanced employment outcomes.

Conflict of interest

None to report.