Improving competitive integrated employment for youth and young adults with disabilities: Findings from an evaluation of eight Partnerships in Employment Systems Change Projects

3.1.1 Policies supporting CIE: Spotlight on Employment First philosophy

Of the many activities that state consortia pursued to support systems change, states consistently identified strategies supporting the philosophy of Employment First. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), Employment First is a systems change framework that recognizes all individuals as capable of full participation in integrated employment and community life (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016). The Employment First philosophy is a statement of intent that evolved from grassroots state efforts. Based on these efforts, ODEP adopted the Employment First framework and encouraged states and other public systems to align policies, legislation, and systems change efforts with Employment First. This alignment results in a commitment to integrated employment as the preferred outcome of employment and other services for individuals with I/DD. Despite the uniform presence of Employment First-oriented activities in each PIE state, state consortia approaches to and outcomes from their efforts to align their state policies with Employment First philosophies varied. The following sections highlight some examples of state approaches to adopting Employment First policies.

3.1.1.1 Alaska, California, and Mississippi’s Employment First legislation. Alaska, California, and Mississippi consortia conducted legislative advocacy work to further Employment First policies and legislation within their states. To accomplish these outcomes, each of these states’ consortia forged connections with and engaged legislators, and provided testimony to the state legislature. State consortia each drafted recommendations based on research, led presentations and disseminated resources, and engaged legislators and other stakeholders directly to understand and alleviate their concerns.

In 2013, the Alaska Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education, the lead entity for the Alaska Integrated Employment Initiative (AIEI) consortium, adopted an Employment First policy. Members of AIEI identified a legislative representative that would sponsor Employment First legislation, and worked closely with the representative’s staff to draft legislation for the 2014 legislative session. At the same time, AIEI members worked to engage stakeholders and educate legislators to gain public and legislative support. AIEI members led presentations and met with stakeholder organizations, including the Alaska Association of Developmental Disabilities, employers, and state agency leaders to understand and address their concerns. Members of AIEI also researched states that had passed Employment First-related policy, and held teleconferences with these states’ leadership to develop a legislative packet. The bill’s sponsor used the packet to garner additional co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, obtain a Senate companion bill sponsor, and recruit Senate bill co-sponsors. The House and Senate bills passed unanimously and were signed into law by the Alaska governor in May 2014. Throughout the process, AIEI’s emphasis on and commitment to identifying and recruiting key legislative sponsors, and engaging public stakeholders were critical to the bill’s passage. Specifically, the identification of a legislative sponsor and working with the sponsor’s team ensured that the bill-drafting process included legislative law writers that could edit the bill, and that the bill was pre-filed at the start of the legislative session. AIEI’s advocacy and stakeholder engagement efforts helped the bill gain public support.

California’s efforts to provide testimony to the legislature, collaborate with legislators, and gather strong stakeholder support through cross-disability partnership were pivotal in the passage of the state’s Employment First bill in 2013. In addition to passing state policy, California also focused on local implementation of Employment First policies. Thirteen Division of Developmental Disabilities Agencies’ Regional Centers have adopted and are implementing their own Employment First policies. Participation in the California consortium, California Employment Consortium for Youth (CECY), inspired several Regional Centers to move forward with implementing change in their region. Implementation of Employment First policies at the regional level focused on vendor buy-in, ending new admissions to sheltered work, capacity building training and professional development, strong interagency collaboration, and information and supports for families.

Mississippi’s consortium, Mississippi Partnerships for Employment for Youth and Young Adults (MSPE), also focused on advocacy and awareness efforts, hosted awareness sessions, disseminated resources, and met with agency leaders and legislators. During the Disability Employment Partnerships Awareness Day at the Capitol in January 2014, the Governor signed an Executive Order that reactivated a Disability Resource Commission. With support from a legislative champion, legislation with Employment First language passed unanimously in the House but did not move out of Senate committee. In 2014, MSPE managing partners submitted a letter to the Governor requesting appointments to the Disability Resource Commission. Legislation was introduced again in 2015 and the Governor signed the Mississippi Competitive Employment Act in April 2015.

3.1.1.2 Employment First Executive Orders, commissions, and task forces in Mississippi, New York, and Tennessee. Prior to passing the state’s Competitive Employment Act, Mississippi advocated for its governor to sign an Employment First Executive Order. New York and Tennessee’s governors also signed Employment First Executive Orders to promote Employment First within their states. In all three states, the Employment First Executive Orders created Employment First-oriented task forces or commissions charged with promoting Employment First policy within their states. These commissions wrote reports and provided recommendations for legislators and state governors, and established networks and other groups that would benefit the employment landscape.

3.1.2 State policy work

States also worked to make their political, economic, social, or cultural contexts more favorable to systems change by revising or developing policies at the state agency level. State-level policies developed included changing Medicaid reimbursement or payment structures to encourage employment supports or remove incentives for segregated employment, revising eligibility requirements or application protocols for Medicaid to expand access to employment supports for youth with I/DD, and shifting education policy to support employment preparation. The section below highlights Iowa’s rate restructuring work as an example of state policy work to restructure reimbursement rates, and overcome barriers to employment.

3.1.2.1 Iowa’s rate restructuring work. Iowa’s PIE consortium titled Iowa Coalition for Integrated Employment (ICIE) focused much of its policy change efforts on restructuring its Medicaid rate reimbursement structures to better support individuals seeking employment. Before ICIE and the state’s efforts, Iowa’s reimbursement rates for employment services were frequently lower than the actual cost of the services, which caused many providers to either reduce or remove career placements from services offered.

To advocate for and recommend ideas for a revised reimbursement structure that would support employment, ICIE gathered and shared member feedback with the Iowa Medicaid Enterprise and Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services (IVRS). This work integrated resources across Iowa initiatives by combining recommendations from a funding analysis and input from a stakeholder retreat developed as part of Iowa’s membership in the State Employment Leadership Network (SELN). ICIE members also provided input on Medicaid rate restructuring during five community forums held across the state. Additionally, ICIE’s Funding and Policy Workgroup and Iowa’s Department of Health Services (DHS) Employment Services Redesign Workgroup collaborated to develop a funding transition model for rate restructuring purposes.

ICIE also began developing advocacy techniques as the new reimbursement rules were being drafted so that the rules would garner robust legislative attention. As part of ICIE’s advocacy plan, a memorandum of talking points was issued as a resource for advocates contacting legislators and the governor. ICIE members also called DHS Administrators and attended Mental Health and Disabilities Services Commission meetings during the rules’ public comment periods to provide input. ICIE members, providers, and family members of individuals with I/DD used these meetings as an opportunity to learn about the rules.

The final rules package went into effect in May 2016. Similar to the states that engaged legislators and stakeholders to create support for federally based policies, ICIE found that continued interaction with legislators and other stakeholders was valuable in creating support for the rules package.

3.1.2.2 Providing financial support for post-secondary education students in Tennessee. TennesseeWorks engaged in advocacy work that resulted in the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) changing policies to provide financial support for eligible students in Tennessee’s post-secondary programs, and also the passage of legislation establishing the STEP UP scholarship program for post-secondary students with an intellectual disability (Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation, 2016). In 2014, DHS released a memorandum to the Tennessee Division of Rehabilitation Services staff and Post-Secondary Education Alliance Tennessee regarding the availability of financial support for Vocational Rehabilitation-eligible students participating in Post-Secondary Education Alliance programs. This availability of financial assistance, in combination with scholarship support established by the STEP UP legislation (2013 and 2014) and Pell Grant assistance, made post-secondary education an option for young adults with disabilities in Tennessee.

3.2.1 Statewide model demonstration project sites

In six of the eight projects, states implemented model demonstration sites that provided students with opportunities to gain job experience and training that would help them obtain employment. The remaining two states pursued other opportunities to engage individuals with disabilities. These pilot sites varied in their design: Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin issued requests for proposals from potential pilot sites; New York worked with and modified an existing national model; and California selected sites based on their existing achievement of employment in CIE outcomes for individuals with I/DD. Iowa had two different model demonstration projects. For the first, the state selected school team sites based on performance indicators from Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation Services and Department of Education data; and for the second, the state collaborated with the Employment First State Leadership Mentoring Program (EFSLMP) to fund model service provider projects. While the majority of the 50 project sites in the six states served as demonstration programs that focused on local impact and future scalability, the sites also identified barriers to CIE and policy change. The states and their model demonstration projects are listed in Table 1.

3.2.1.1 Mississippi’s request for proposals to establish pilot sites. The MSPE established pilot programs by issuing a request for proposals and ultimately providing funding to four pilot sites, three of which were active from 2012 to 2015. For the duration of the pilots, the Mississippi Council on Developmental Disabilities provided administrative oversight to pilot projects. These projects demonstrated how schools could improve transition services, provide students with employment experiences, and ultimately help students find competitive employment in the community. For example, one of MSPE’s school-based pilot sites featured a community-based coffee shop where students with disabilities learned work and social skills, while another featured community-based work and a greenhouse.

At the end of pilot site funding, three pilot sites had trained 70 students in employment skills training programs and had assisted 55 students to find employment from 25 employers. Though funding for the pilots ended, MSPE continues to work with two school districts to develop an implementation guide for statewide distribution that shows how to replicate pilot results.

3.2.1.2 Sustaining and scaling-up pilot sites’ best practices through  Wisconsin’s coaching model. Wisconsin’s consortium, Let’s Get to Work (LGTW), also established pilot sites through a request for proposals. LGTW ultimately established five Round 1 pilot schools and four Round 2 pilot schools. LGTW pilot schools received training from two coaches to help plan their interventions, collect baseline data, and identify their current strengths and areas for improvement. The coaching team drew upon their experiences to create a comprehensive, user-friendly set of tools and strategies called the LGTW Quick Guide on Transition to Employment. The guide provides best practices, strategies, tips, and resources to help schools increase their employment and overall transition outcomes (Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities, 2016). Most of the topics were created because the coaching team found these areas to be particularly challenging.

LGTW pilot sites’ accomplishments included tripling the number of LGTW students with paid jobs in their community after one year from 5 to 18 students, increasing the percentage of LGTW students working in paid positions after three years to 66 percent, and doubling the number of employers hiring LGTW students. The pilots’ best practices also proved to be scalable, as the success of LGTW pilots led Wisconsin’s Promoting Readiness of Minors in Supplemental Security Income (PROMISE) project team to adopt the LGTW Quick Guide and promising practices from the pilot sites. Additionally, Wisconsin’s Transition Improvement Grant (TIG) schools, which had some of the same partners and coaches as the LGTW pilot sites, also used the LGTW Quick Guide and committed to using LGTW promising practices.

LGTW also conducted further best-practice dissemination activities, including co-hosting a Community Based Integrated Employment Summit that included LGTW pilot school sites. This Summit was an opportunity to help the five new TIG schools get started on improving their transition outcomes. Teachers, parents, students, and administrators from the LGTW pilot school sites shared their experiences participating in the project, including how they achieved outcomes and how their schools have changed their culture and improved CIE. LGTW coaches also shared the LGTW Quick Guide with TIG schools and other LGTW consortium members.

3.2.1.3 Re-tooling a pre-existing framework to create model demonstration projects in New York. New York State Partnerships in Employment (NYS PIE) took a different approach compared to other states’ consortia in that the state’s two pilot models were based on pre-existing frameworks, including the Employment Training Program and Project SEARCH^TM. The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), a NYS PIE partner, expanded the high school Employment Training Program to four additional sites as part of NYS PIE. The Employment Training Program focused on work-readiness school-based curriculum along with paid internship opportunities paid for by OPWDD within the community. NYS PIE leveraged Project SEARCH^TM’s pre-existing framework to explore and expand on ways to provide critical job experience and training through a one-year transition services program. NYS PIE took this approach in part because as an already established model, Project SEARCH^TM was tested and known among stakeholders. The New York grant recipient, the University of Rochester Strong Center for Developmental Disabilities is also the statewide coordinator for Project SEARCH^TM, and thus collected and tracked longitudinal outcome data for the seven NYS PIE Project SEARCH^TM pilot sites alongside the original New York State Project SEARCH^TM sites. Preliminary analysis of statewide Project SEARCH^TM data collected in January 2016 indicated that the employment rate of 2015 graduates was approximately 60 percent.

Some state consortia also worked to improve their states’ post-secondary education programs. The states identified a lack of awareness of post-secondary educational opportunities in colleges and universities for students with I/DD as preventing students from earning post-secondary degrees and attaining that qualification for CIE. To raise awareness for these programs, PIE states provided trainings, presented at conferences, and expanded post-secondary career programs for youth. Additionally, PIE states, including California, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, provided support for the expansion and creation of post-secondary educational programs for university students seeking special education degrees or other graduate certificates. Other initiatives increased access to post-secondary educational courses. Missouri also created the Propel program, a new 2-year certificate program for college students with I/DD at the University of Missouri Kansas City. Below are some highlighted examples of how California improved post-secondary education outcomes for students with I/DD.

3.2.2.1 Expanding post-secondary education options in California. In California, post-secondary education options improved through the expansion of the state’s College2Career Program, which offers students with I/DD greater opportunities to pursue post-secondary education. The lead entity of the CECY, the Tarjan Center, led evaluation efforts to determine employment metrics related to the program. These metrics included the existence of certificate programs in community colleges, types of jobs, and length of employment. A review of the data collected from 2011 to 2014 across five College2Career sites indicated course enrollments were increasingly in integrated settings with a greater proportion of those enrollments relating to students’ career goals. Over the course of the project, the number of Department of Rehabilitation-funded College2Career programs increased from five to eight sites. The Department of Rehabilitation will continue to fund eight programs beyond the grant and the California Community College Chancellor’s Office will continue to provide technical assistance and support the evaluation of the programs.

3.3.1 Engaging family members of individuals with I/DD

Several PIE states identified that individuals with I/DD and family members often had low expectations and limited knowledge about available CIE opportunities. To dispel misunderstandings and raise family expectations for their youth, PIE consortia engaged parents and families of youth with I/DD through various methods, including through surveys, trainings, and parent and family groups. Consortia also braided other grants, such as working with subject matter experts from the EFSLMP to engage family members and establish Parent and Family Coalitions in Iowa and Tennessee. The sections below highlight examples of each of these approaches.

3.3.1.1 Collecting surveys to understand and influence parents’ expectations in Tennessee. Tennessee’s PIE consortium, TennesseeWorks, developed the Family Expectations Survey in 2014 to understand family expectations related to employment and community engagement, and share family perspectives with policymakers and other stakeholders. TennesseeWorks recognized the importance of collecting diverse responses, and therefore collaborated with Tennessee Disability Pathfinder and the Multicultural Outreach Program to reach Spanish-speaking community members. TennesseeWorks worked with these groups to translate the survey into Spanish.

TennesseeWorks exceeded its goal for responses, and received over 2,400 responses in total. Based on these results, TennesseeWorks developed an infographic that advocates shared with legislators at the 2014 Disability Day on the Hill and included in the 2014 Governor’s Employment First report. The infographic shows information such as that “83 percent of families consider some type of employment in the community to be important,” and “75 percent of families consider some type of post-secondary education to be important.” TennesseeWorks also completed analysis of the survey and drafted reports of the survey results. TennesseeWorks included data from the survey on the TennesseeWorks website’s Employment and Disability by the Numbers data dashboard (Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, 2016). This data provides insight into Tennessee’s employment landscape, and suggests possible pathways for making change.

3.3.1.2 Creating Parent and Family Coalitions to engage families in Iowa and Tennessee. Iowa and Tennessee also created Parent and Family Coalitions to learn how to best support families and their youth with I/DD. In particular, Iowa identified low family involvement from some of the state’s PIE Model Employment Transition pilot sites. To increase family involvement, ICIE worked with an EFSLMP subject matter expert to begin a Parent/Family Coalition. Beginning with 10 members in 2013, the Parent/Family Coalition’s membership increased to 87 members in 2016. The Parent/Family Coalition provided regular communication, information, support, and advocacy resources for parents and families. As part of its no-cost extension work, ICIE will continue to support the Parent/Family Coalition and assist with identifying parent and family leaders to take over managing the coalition.

3.3.1.3 Creating resources to support families in Missouri. The Missouri consortium, Show-Me-Careers, collaborated with the Missouri Family-to-Family Resource Center and the National Supporting Families Community of Practice to develop family support resources. The LifeCourse Tools assist families and individuals with disabilities discover what it takes to navigate life stages (i.e., infancy, early childhood, school age, transition, adulthood, and aging) and life domains (i.e., daily life and employment, community living, safety and security, healthy living, social and spirituality, citizenship and advocacy) (University of Missouri Kansas City Institute for Human Development, 2016). One of these tools was the LifeCourse Daily Life and Employment Guide, which was tested in two of the state’s Show-Me-Careers Pilot Communities in 2014. Show-Me-Careers and the Missouri Family-to-Family Resource Center have collectively disseminated 6,180 copies of the Guide between September 2015 and September 2016.

In fall 2014, Show-Me-Careers also worked with two Pilot Communities to develop and implement community level plans to improve family engagement. In 2015, Show-Me-Careers collaborated with the Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council and the National Alliance on Mental Illness to develop a workshop for self-advocates and their families related to asset development. Over 70 participants attended the workshop, which discussed topics including social security benefits and financial education.

3.3.2 Business engagement efforts

PIE states also recognized that engaging businesses, changing businesses’ expectations and attitudes about hiring youth with I/DD, and forming relationships with businesses would be important to finding and creating job opportunities for youth with I/DD. States employed a variety of methods to engage businesses, which included meeting with employers through Community Conversations. Community Conversations use an adaptation of the World Café method to engage youth with I/DD, family members, educators, employers, and other community members in round table discussions on topics related to CIE for youth and young adults with I/DD (World Café, 2016). Tennessee and Wisconsin were the first two PIE states that used this strategy and California’s Local Employment Collaborative Teams (LECTs) later adopted and implemented Community Conversations. Other methods included creating formal partnerships between businesses and state organizations, collecting employer surveys, conducting trainings on how to engage employers, and developing resources for employers hiring youth with I/DD. The section below highlights how Alaska and Missouri employed some of these methods.

3.3.2.1 Creating formal partnerships between businesses and local organizations in Alaska and Missouri. Several states leveraged partnerships with businesses and state or local organizations to improve business engagement. For example, Alaska’s consortium, AIEI, facilitated the creation of the Business Employment Services Team (BEST), an interdepartmental business engagement team between the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Department of Health and Social Services. BEST’s goal is to improve hiring for individuals with disabilities and veterans and help serve state business needs. BEST has held monthly events including trainings to promote employer engagement. In February 2016, BEST hosted the annual Employment First Job Fair with 1,146 job seekers and 85 employers in attendance.

Additionally, Missouri’s consortium titled Show-Me-Careers leveraged partnerships with the Business Leadership Network of Greater Kansas City (BLN-GKC), the Kansas City Nexus, Add-Us-In Kansas City, and local business groups to improve business partnerships. The Show-Me-Careers Pilot Communities partnered with local business leaders such as the City Manager and the local Chamber of Commerce to host business roundtable discussions, and school districts created a shared employer database. The Show-Me-Careers Pilot Communities also received training and technical assistance to support the development of employer-driven partnerships. Since the beginning of the partnership, the BLN-GKC established at least four initiatives to engage local businesses in support of disability inclusion in employment. At the state level, strategies included obtaining funding from the Developmental Disabilities Council for the BLN-GKC to develop a web-based Business Resource Toolkit and a foundation grant to implement KC@Work. KC@Work later developed a partnership with a local business to train four individuals, and continued to engage additional employers.

3.3.3 Self-advocate and youth engagement efforts

Each PIE consortia also engaged individuals with I/DD to ensure that their state systems change efforts were informed by the opinions of those with I/DD, since they would directly benefit from the consortia’s efforts. Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin facilitated Take Your Legislator to Work Day, where state legislators attended the workplace of a youth employee with I/DD to learn about the youths’ employment experiences firsthand. Youth also frequently participated as members of states’ consortia. Mississippi in particular encouraged young adults to participate in leadership councils and present at several statewide conferences, including the state disAbility MegaConference. TennesseeWorks hosted an annual Think Employment! Summit, in which students with disabilities, their families, and service providers participated in policy, provider, or self-advocate-focused sessions.

3.3.3.1 Leveraging connections to connect with youth in Alaska and New York. Alaska and New York both leveraged connections with external groups to connect with self-advocates and promote self-advocacy efforts across the states. In Alaska, AIEI engaged youth through Peer Power Alaska, a self-advocacy organization. A group advisor was hired for Peer Power Alaska in 2013, and, as of September 2016, group membership included more than 100 youth from 14 cities in Alaska. In 2016, the group hosted informational tables at five job fairs across the state and co-sponsored a Youth Job Fair with the Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education that had 46 businesses and 63 youth in attendance.

In New York, NYS PIE worked with the Self-Advocates of NYS (SANYS) and Independent Living Centers in Western New York to engage youth with I/DD. During the 2012-2013 academic year, members of NYS PIE, SANYS, and the Independent Living Centers developed and piloted a training program in Western New York. This program included three in-person youth self-advocate summits with more than 100 students. Another region of the state hosted a self-advocacy summit in 2013 with 70 youth, family members, teachers, and professionals. A SANYS representative noted that participating in NYS PIE led the organization to “focus more on youth employment and become a partner on several initiatives across the state.”

3.4.1 Common data sources and displays

A key challenge that states acknowledged early in the grant was the lack of common data sources on certain key disability employment-related metrics. In particular, consortia identified that when collecting these metrics, state agencies did not share information with each other and did not agree on common metric definitions. As a result, there was also no single access point for advocates and other consumers interested in viewing the information. Therefore, a critical role of the consortia work to support shared data systems was supporting collaboration to reach a shared understanding of employment terms and outcomes. Efforts to reach a shared understanding between entities also supported building cross-agency collaboration.

In response to the lack of common data sources, Alaska, California, Iowa, Missouri, New York, Tennessee, and Wisconsin either developed their own data systems or worked to improve already existing systems. The section below highlights California’s work to establish a Data Dashboard to improve data compatibility between state agencies, and provide a single access point for stakeholders seeking data for advocacy or other uses.

3.4.1.1 California’s Data Dashboard. California’s PIE consortium, CECY, created a Data Dashboard with the help of its Data Nerds Workgroup. The dashboard monitors the state’s progress in employing youth and young adults with I/DD across the state. Specifically, it provides up-to-date data on measures of progress, such as the wage gap between individuals working in CIE and individuals working in groups in the Support Employment Program through the state’s Regional Centers, which provide services to individuals with I/DD. Other metrics shown on the Data Dashboard include California’s employment rate for individuals with I/DD compared to those without a disability, and secondary education outcomes for individuals with significant disabilities. The Data Dashboard, which is located on California’s State Council on Developmental Disabilities’ (SCDD) website, experienced consistent usage, and quickly became an important part of the SCDD website (California State Council on Developmental Disabilities, 2016). It is one of the top ten most-visited pages on the website and averaged 222 monthly views as of September 2016. Additionally, CECY members cited the Data Dashboard as a valuable resource in advocacy and legislative outreach work, since it shows tangible outcomes and statistics that advocates can use to support their positions. Due to the widely positive feedback from CECY members, the SCDD committed to sustaining the Data Dashboard beyond the end of PIE grant funding.

3.4.2 Creating tools and resources for individuals with I/DD, their families, and educators

Other states focused efforts on creating tools for use by youth and young adults with I/DD and other stakeholders. These tools increase access to a single, consolidated source of employment information and resources.

3.4.2.1 New York’s MyPathNY.org interactive tool. MyPathNY.org is an interactive online tool that provides a single source of information and connections to services and supports for individuals in New York seeking employment (New York State Partnerships in Employment, 2016). The content NYS PIE produced for the website includes resources on eligibility for Adult Career and Continuing Education Services-Vocational Rehabilitation (ACCES-VR) and OPWDD services, and job readiness tools. The website also features content developed for the New York State Commission for the Blind and the development of accessibility features for visually impaired site users.

To develop the website, NYS PIE worked to find and generate material for the tool, and market the tool to stakeholders. NYS PIE members provided demonstration presentations and webinars to three regional groups providing transition services, two provider agencies, one Parent Center, two Transition Conferences, and the New York State Rehabilitation Association. Additionally, members of NYS PIE developed a MyPathNY.org pocket folder and a version of the folder in Braille for distribution by schools to market and support use of the website. This folder, which includes a guide on how to use the website, and a glossary of useful terms, accompanies the web platform and provides space to store printed copies of all the reports generated by the website. Six school districts and three provider agencies requested school classroom sets of these folders, and, 1,900 folders have been distributed as of September 2016. After receiving positive feedback from MyPathNY.org users and NYS PIE leadership, NYS PIE leadership and project partners expressed interest in sustaining MyPathNY.org after New York’s PIE funding ends.

3.4.2.2 Alaska’s Disability Benefits 101 calculator resource. Alaska identified a concern raised by individuals with I/DD and their families was that youth would lose benefits if they worked. To respond to this concern and clarify misconceptions, AIEI recommended that Alaska’s Mental Health Trust Authority invest seed money into the creation of the Disability Benefits 101 online calculator, which would provide customized information on how employment is compatible with eligibility for benefits in Alaska. Due to AIEI’s strong advocacy work and relationships, the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority agreed to fund the calculator, and the State Independent Living Council (SILC) agreed to fund maintenance costs for the first year. Working with both the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority and SILC, AIEI completed initial information requests with this development team and met with subject matter experts on Medicaid, Social Security, and Vocational Rehabilitation. AIEI also held three feedback sessions with stakeholders, which included advocates and families. After launching the website in 2016, AIEI provided training in three Alaska cities along with a distance delivery training option, or virtual training, as part of AIEI’s commitment to engage individuals in all regions of the state’s large geographic area (World Institute on Disability, 2016).

3.5.1 Establishing and maintaining relationships

States identified that any scale or sustainability efforts require strong cross-system and cross-agency relationships. A major challenge faced by all states is turnover of staff at the state level, including agency leadership, as well as at the community level, including educators and service providers. States are faced with ensuring that these relationships and partnerships remain in place regardless of funding and staff or leadership turnover. Each consortium was faced with the challenge that many of the partners and systems did not traditionally communicate with one another. The consortia meetings were an opportunity to enhance communication and collaboration between these partners and establish a clear vision to achieve a common goal. Through these meetings, states developed strong partnerships with state agencies and other entities that will exist beyond the project.

3.5.1.1 Establishing formal Memorandum of Understanding or Memorandum of Agreement. State consortia coordinated efforts with other entities with which the consortium members had long-standing collaborative relationships that were either informal or formally established through a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The PIE Project request for proposals required each consortium to submit a signed MOU or MOA between, at a minimum, the state’s Developmental Disabilities Agency, Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, State Education Agency, and State Developmental Disabilities Council. States also included other partners in the MOU, such as Division of Workforce Development, a University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, self-advocates, Protection and Advocacy System, and other non-profit organizations. The specific partners and lead entities varied by state, with a University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities serving as the lead entity in four states, and the State Developmental Disabilities Council in the remaining four states.

These MOU or MOA allowed states to bring the appropriate level of leaders to consortia meetings that could make decisions, initiate systems change efforts, and advocate for change within their respective agencies. By identifying these partners prior to receiving grant funding, states were able to begin work immediately. Additional partners, not included in the original MOU or MOA, also joined the consortia to move the state forward with improving CIE. In addition to the original MOU required for the grant application, states identified existing or new MOU or MOA between other partners. To increase collaboration and coordination of state services, California, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee established MOUs and MOAs between state departments. Alaska and New York have also continued to support the development of MOUs. States identified that the commitment from administrative level leadership and other key partners was necessary for meeting long-term systems change goals.

3.5.1.2 Maintaining existing relationships. States recognized that interagency collaboration is an essential component for creating systems change and it is helpful to have an agreement of the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Prior to considering how to scale or sustain any activity, the state consortia established relationships with key partners and then identified which agency or member would continue the work in the short-term and possibly beyond the grant. For example, in California, the consortium held a two-day planning meeting a year before the end of the grant to identify which members would be responsible for specific activities. The in-person meetings resulted in the development of a 2015-2016 Strategic Implementation Plan and Draft Continuity Plan for potential work to consider after the end of the grant. Each CECY Workgroup also contributed to a Dissemination Planning document that summarized how each consortium product would be sustained, updated, and disseminated after the grant ends. California consortium members also contributed to the development of the California Competitive Integrated Employment Blueprint, which set a precedent for four California agencies to collaborate beyond the grant. Through consortium meetings, states developed strong partnerships with state agencies and other entities. All states acknowledged that the PIE grant has resulted in strong cross-agency relationships that did not exist before the project.

3.5.2 Scaling-up promising practices

PIE consortia held discussions around sustainability and continuation of PIE activities beyond the project. Sustainability plans included identifying strategies to engage consortium members, monitoring the effectiveness of best practice models, and assessing the availability of agency funding to sustain project activities. In addition, PIE statewide demonstration projects increased employment opportunities for youth and young adults with I/DD at the local level. Several states, including Alaska and Wisconsin, are using existing institutions and state initiatives, such as the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority and the Wisconsin TIG and Wisconsin PROMISE grant, to ensure that project activities continue. Alaska is collaborating with several partners to explore the use of distance delivery training as an innovative approach to capacity building in rural and remote regions of the state. States also adopted alternative certificates and diplomas for individuals with disabilities that place an emphasis on employment. In addition, state consortia assisted with trainings and increasing employer awareness and understanding of these alternative certificates and diplomas that will continue beyond the grant.

3.5.2.1 Leveraging and braiding existing grants or initiatives. The PIE states each have a long history of collaborative efforts to increase employment of individuals with disabilities. For example, states engaged in the EFSLMP initiative awarded prior to PIE in Iowa and Tennessee, and during PIE in Missouri and New York. States also had I/DD agency membership in the SELN prior to PIE in Iowa and Missouri, and during PIE in New York. As a result, states identified existing grants and initiatives that they can use to continue the activities started during the PIE Project.

During the final consortia meetings in the six states ending in September 2016, consortia members discussed the value of continuing cross-agency collaboration. All states identified the benefit of continuing this work and held preliminary discussions about which agency would host and facilitate the work of the consortia moving forward. In Iowa, the consortium leadership team, ICIE Core Team, and project staff were establishing the ICIE as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. States also considered how to expand this work to all individuals with disabilities, not just youth and young adults. In Missouri, members of the Show-Me-Careers leadership consortium planned to sustain activities through the Missouri SELN Leadership Team. Each agency serving on the Missouri Show-Me-Careers consortium identified a representative to serve on the Missouri SELN Leadership Team starting in November 2016. The focus of this new group will be on promoting integrated employment for individuals with disabilities and will expand its focus to address the needs of adults as well as youth with I/DD.

States have also replicated PIE promising practices in other state initiatives, including embedding PIE practices into other grants or expanding promising practices from the PIE statewide demonstration projects to other sites. In Wisconsin, the LGTW high school statewide demonstration sites used a coaching model to support youth with I/DD. The Wisconsin TIG and PROMISE grant adopted the Wisconsin LGTW coaching model and parent trainings. At state leadership meetings, consortium meetings, and regular state and national presentations, LGTW consortium leadership highlighted that the LGTW coaches were one of the main reasons the school sites were successful at increasing employment outcomes. Several Wisconsin LGTW pilot sites served as mentors for other school districts. In addition to sharing best practices with other school districts in Wisconsin, school districts in Mississippi and Missouri were interested in the best practices from the school-based demonstration sites. The two Mississippi school districts participating in the demonstration developed materials to share best practices with other schools. The Mississippi Council on Developmental Disabilities will disseminate the manuals or guides to support implementation across the state.

3.5.2.2 Embedding employment language into policy recommendations. States enacted policy and legislative changes to support employment that will continue beyond the grant. States are also looking at cross-disability legislation and policy work to include the entire disability community. States recognized that policy change required incremental steps to achieve broader goals. State consortia developed resources, shared success stories of individuals with I/DD working in competitive integrated jobs, presented data on demonstration site employment outcomes, and taught individuals with disabilities how to advocate for policy change. Consortia members also testified for policy change and presented recommendations to agency leaders that focused on employment for youth and young adults with I/DD. In Wisconsin, the LGTW Policy Team pursued several strategies to ensure funding and legislation for activities that support CIE. For example, the consortium engaged youth through the Youth Track at LGTW Consortium meetings that focused on self-advocacy specific projects. LGTW’s Policy Team and leadership from the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) also held regular meetings to discuss recommendations for DPI’s improvement plans around Results Driven Accountability, which the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs required for all states. LGTW recommendations resulted in DPI focusing on a broader age range of reading skills for improvement and conducting an analysis of reading’s effect on readiness for college and employment. One of LGTW’s job coaches served as the Statewide Transition Specialist for DPI, allowing some of LGTW’s past recommendations related to post-secondary education and the transition process to be revisited. In addition to Wisconsin, Tennessee consortium members prepared comments and suggested revisions to the state’s proposed revised and new Medicaid Waivers and HCBS Statewide Transition Plan to be more employment-focused and better aligned with the national movement away from facility-based services towards home and community-based services. Tennessee’s HCBS Statewide Transition Plan included the recommended employment language and was approved in April 2016.

Between October 2011 and September 2016, PIE states developed strong partnerships among state agencies, self-advocates, and other entities to continue the project work, established the infrastructure necessary for improved data sharing and employment resources, and enacted policies to support employment as the first and preferred option for individuals with I/DD.