This fact sheet summarizes data on integrated employment (supported and competitive) and facility-based employment activities (sheltered workshops) from two national surveys of community rehabilitation providers (CRPs). These surveys were part of an ongoing national data collection project that addresses trends in day and employment services for people with disabilities.
Performance measurement and data
A popular saying in our field is, "If it gets measured, it gets done." Measuring performance--whether of staff members or of employment outcomes--is crucial for understanding what we're doing well, where we're lacking, and how we can improve. Explore this topic in the resources below.
In 2002 and 2003, the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) conducted a national survey of Community Rehabilitation Providers (CRPs) that was funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. The goal was to identify major trends in employment and non-work services for people with developmental disabilities. Since CRPs are key partners in implementing disability-related employment policy, including TWWIIA and WIA, researchers were interested in the extent to which organizations participated in these initiatives.
The proportion of individuals participating in non-work programs has grown noticeably over the past decade. Despite the push toward integrated employment for people with developmental disabilities in many states, non-work day programs continue to be a substantial component of the service mix. Butterworth et al.
Washington stakeholders report that the state’s focus on employment started in the late 1970s with values-based training based on the Program Analysis of Social Services (PASS-3) model.These workshops were widely attended over several years, and many of today’s key players in state and county services participated as leaders. One of the outcomes of this period was the first edition of the County Guidelines, a document that guided county and
Employment for people with severe disabilities was legitimized in P.L. 99457. However, some states have made more progress than others in helping individuals with disabilities achieve successful employment outcomes. This is the first in a series of publications highlighting the findings from the case studies in three states--New Hampshire, Washington, and Colorado--that have been recognized as high performers in integrated employment.
Between 1988 and 2001, New Hampshire's Division of Developmental Services transformed the state's day and employment services from a facility-based model, with 61% of individuals supported in sheltered workshops or facility- based day habilitation programs, to an inclusion model that supports 94% of its individuals in the community. Fifty- four percent of the individuals served work for at least part of their week in integrated employment.Two things are striking.
Between 1988 and 1996, the number of individuals supported by state mental retardation/developmental disabilities (MR/DD) agencies who participated in some type of community employment increased by 200% (Butterworth, Gilmore, Kiernan, Schalock, 1999). Despite this increase, many agree that outcomes in community employment are in great need of improvement and vary widely among states. The purpose of this report is to highlight the successful practices of states that have been identified as "high-performers" in integrated employment for people served by state MR/DD agencies.
In 2002, the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (DDS) developed a contractual requirement that employment service provider performance be tracked through outcome measures. As a result, DDS shaped its employment data collection system to focus on what it viewed as key outcomes for measuring success around employment.
In 2010, when the New Hampshire Bureau of Developmental Services (BDS) received grant funds to strengthen multisystem service delivery, its administrators partnered with area agencies; community rehabilitation providers, or CRPs (employment providers); and other stakeholders to improve and streamline the process of collecting employment data.
At the national level, integrated employment has become an important policy priority. Greater expectations are being placed on those charged with delivering employment supports, and disability systems are responding. However, the promise of integrated employment has yet to be realized for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).