Collaboration Between Publicly-Funded Rehabilitation Programs and Community-Based Independent Living Centers

In recent years, several publicly-funded vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and consumer-controlled, community-based, independent living centers (ILCs) have undertaken collaborations focused on improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities (Thayer & Rice, 1990; Means & Bolton, 1992; 1994). However, program and practice characteristics that enable such collaborations to succeed are not well understood (Hanson & Temkin, 1997).

Successful collaborations between ILCs and VR agencies are important because increased employment is a key issue in the disability community. More than two-thirds of working-age persons with disabilities are not in the labor force (McNeil, 1997). According to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended (1998), employment outcome means, "entering or retaining full-time or, if appropriate, part-time competitive employment in the integrated labor market; satisfying the vocational outcome of supported employment; or satisfying any other vocational outcome the Secretary may determine to be appropriate (including... self-employment, telecommuting, or business ownership..."

To achieve employment outcomes, VR agencies and ILCs independently provide an array of employment-related services. These include job or career development, job placement, or supported employment services; training or support related to job modification, retention, or mobility; and/or community and employer awareness efforts focusing on the benefits of hiring people with severe disabilities.

Approximately 350 ILCs are recognized by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), which oversees 83 state and 38 tribal agencies designated to provide VR services. Although ILCs and VR agencies are funded by the same legislation and administered by the same Federal agency, their purposes, culture, and constituencies are very different. For example, while the VR system tends to locate the employment problem in the individual, the independent living movement focuses on the environment, VR solutions often focus on the assessment and training of the individual, while ILCs are likely to focus on advocacy, self-help, and consumer control. In their roles as champions of people with disabilities, ILCs often advocate for the rights of consumers in the public VR system. As a result, most VR agencies and ILCs have not worked together over the 25-year history of ILCs.

The VR-IL Employment Outcomes Partnership Project

To obtain detailed information about exemplary collaborations, InfoUse distributed best practice nomination forms to all state VR agencies, Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs), the governing bodies of American Indian tribes located on federal and state reservations, several National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) funded Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, and more than 350 independent living centers. We also contacted twenty ILC-based employment programs previously identified in the literature as involving a VR agency (Thayer and Rice, 1990; Means, 1994). All of these agencies and programs were asked to nominate any program, including themselves, that was conducting a collaborative project of any size. To date, 20 ILCs and VR agencies in 18 states have responded. This Issue Brief presents preliminary results based on information submitted by these nominees. The identity of specific nominees will remain confidential until the completion of the best practice review process.

Preliminary results

Characteristics of Existing Collaborations

Current projects are found in all regions of the United States and include two tribal VR agencies. Half of the projects serve rural areas, suggesting that ILCs and VR agencies in environments where services are scarce perceive a need to share resources despite ideological differences.

Formal agreements such as contracts and co-operative agreements between two or more agencies structure most collaborations. Some collaborations, however, are based on informal working agreements between local VR and ILC staff. Both informal and formal collaborations are built on cross-referrals, fee-for-service arrangements linked to consumer-written vocational plans, and VR-subsidized payments for ILC-provided services such as job coaching.

Most collaborations are cross-disability oriented, but some target specific disabilities (e.g., deaf, deaf/blind). Target populations include both those with and without previous work experience.

Employment-Related Activities. A variety of employment-related activities characterize the nominees, including sponsor activities:

• Outreach to businesses and civic groups regarding employment;
• Interest/skills assessment, person-centered planning, and employability assessment;
• Training in basic skills, literacy, and language skills;
• Job referral and information;
• Training in job preparation skills for finding competitive employment, such as job search, job applications, and interviewing skills;
• Work motivation and self-esteem building;
• Clerical, computer, and other specific job skills training;
• Preparation for self-employment, including assessing consumersÕ entrepreneurial skills and interests, assisting with business plan development, and teaching small business administration skills;
• Transportation services;
• Services to employers such as return-to-work case management, accommodation and assistive technology evaluation, evaluation of employment policies, and reducing impediments to employment; and,
• Job coaching.

Significance

Despite ideological differences, VR agencies and ILCs seem tohave forged effective partnerships to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities. Many of these collaborationsfocus on maximizing consumersÕ options in selecting vocationalgoals and writing their individualized written rehabilitationplans. These objectives are wholly consistent with the federalmandate for increased consumer choice in the rehabilitation process. Collaborations with ILCs appear to offer VR agencies onestrategy for enhancing consumer choice.

Interestingly, half of the nominated collaborations are located inrural environments or serve a largely rural population. Both independent living centers and VR agencies consider rural areastraditionally underserved. Determining how to foster and sustain these collaborations is especially important for areas with ascarcity of services for individuals with disabilities.

The InfoUse/WID VR-IL Employment Outcomes PartnershipProject uses a "best practice" methodology to systematically determine what programs and informal practices are exemplarymodels of collaboration. For policy-makers, the final results ofthis study, to be reported in late 1999, will have implications forencouraging more collaboration. For ILCs and VR agencies, thisresearch will provide successful models for replication.

References

Hanson, S., and Temkin, T. (1998). "Policy Background and Literature Review," VR-IL Employment Outcomes Partnership Project: Nomination and Selection Manual, InfoUse

Hilton, J. (1997). Survey of state VR agencies on exemplary practices and collaborative relationships that promote employment between state vocational rehabilitation agencies and independent living centers; and between basic vocational rehabilitation service programs and independent living rehabilitation service programs [Memo to state directors of vocational rehabilitation agencies].

McNeil, J. (1997). "Americans with Disabilities: 1994-99." Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau.

Means, B. (1994). Employability and Employment Approaches Currently Practices in Independent Living Programs, Arkansas Research and Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation.

Means, B., and Bolton, B. (1992). "A national survey of employment services provided by independent living programs." Journal of Rehabilitation, 58 (4, Oct/Nov), 22-26.

Means, B., and Bolton, B. (1994). "Recommendations for expanding employability services provided by independent living programs." Journal of Rehabilitation, 60(4), 20-25.

Thayer, T., and Rice, B. (Eds.) (1990). "Vocational rehabilitation services in independent living centers." Seventeenth Annual Institute on Rehabilitation Issues: Report from the Study Group, Las Vegas, NV. Hot Springs, AR: University of Arkansas, Arkansas Research & Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation.

Authors

Stuart Hanson is a senior project director at InfoUse. He recently completed a three-year study entitled "Evaluation of the Choice Demonstration Projects" for the US Department of Education.

Tanya Temkin is a project analyst at InfoUse. She is currently responsible for conducting a needs assessment and evaluation of the National Family Center on Technology & Disability operated by UCPA under contract to the US Department of Education.

This research is made possible through the support of The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (Grant # H133B50005).

The RRTC-ILDP is charged with conducting research and disseminating findings about policy issues that impact the lives of disabled people and the progress of the independent living disability rights movement. Specifically, the RRTC examines policy barriers to independent living goals in the areas of health care, housing, transportation, and employment. The Center seeks to demonstrate and facilitate collaborations between Centers for Independent Living, other community groups, and governments in forming and implementing public policies that respond to the needs of disabled people and improve the health of communities for all residents.

As a beginning, we offer this new series of Issue Briefs Independent Living and Disability Policy.

Staff of RRTC-ILDP, Formerly of WID

Deborah Kaplan
Executive Director

Devva Kasnitz, Ph.D
Research Director

Elissa Berrol, MEd
Training & Dissemination Coordinator

Linda Mona, Ph.D
Research Associate

Jackie Gross
Managing Editor

Karyl Eckels
Program Administrator

Alaine Perry
Policy Analyst