Performance measurement and data

The growing emphasis on government accountability at the state and federal levels has increased interest in the collection and use of outcome data. Moreover, research has found that high performing states in integrated employment generally have a clear and visible data collection system that includes individual outcome data (Hall, Butterworth, Winsor, Gilmore, & Metzel, 2007). But what are the most important elements in designing and using a system?

Individual control over service delivery and life choices is well established as a value in supports for individuals with developmental disabilities. One policy-based strategy for expanding individual control is the use of mechanisms that provide for consumer direction of funding resources. This manuscript reports on the prevalence of consumer-directed funding for day and employment services, and the mechanisms that states are using to implement consumer-directed funding.

This is the first in a series of Research to Practice briefs based on the FY2002-2003 National Survey of Community Rehabilitation Providers (CRPs) funded by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. This brief presents findings on people with developmental disabilities in employment services and characteristics of the community rehabilitation organizations that provide those services.

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. The 1986 survey used a random sample from all states while the 1991 survey used a stratified sample of 20 states.

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. (1999: 23) suggest that "services are becoming increasingly individualized and differentiated... traditional service categories may not be sufficient to capture the full range of how individuals with developmental disabilities are spending their day."

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.

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.