Let’s Get to Work Wisconsin: Launching youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities into the workforce

2.2.1Statewide stakeholder consortium

Research has identified the need for collaboration among multiple partners to facilitate policy and practice change in transition (Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002; Kohler & Field, 2003). The LGTW consortium was integral to the success of the project with nearly 40 organizations represented. Partners included the state Departments of Public Instruction and Health Services, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Disability Rights Wisconsin, the University Center for Excellence on Developmental Disabilities, the Board for People with Developmental Disabilities, educators from the high school pilot sites, vocational providers, managed care organizations, parents/family members, family associations, disability advocacy organizations, and students. Consortium participants provided feedback on the overall direction and progress of the project and took information generated at meetings back to their respective organizations.

Quarterly meetings featured updates from each of the state agencies as well as school progress reports. The meetings allowed school personnel to share project activities as well as hear from each other and agency representatives. This allowed time to be spent both cross-pollinating ideas that were working and brain-storming strategies to overcome commonly identified barriers. For example, multiple schools expressed challenges with finding transportation for students to and from jobs and getting training for job coaches. Members discussed resources and potential solutions related to such barriers.

In addition to sharing ideas and strategies, a topic of the day was selected for each meeting and speakers selected to present information on the chosen subject. A sample of the topics covered were: VR requirements and practices, transition planning, post-secondary education (Think College), community building, Academic Career Planning, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), and Supported Decision Making. Affording opportunities for student involvement in transition planning activities was deemed essential by project staff based on the established impact of self-determination in transition outcomes (Carter, Owens, Trainor, Sun, Swedeen, 2009; Weymeyer, Palmer, Shogren,Williams-Diehm, & Soukup, 2010).

To effectively engage students, a youth track was included at consortium meetings and school sites brought students with and without disabilities to the meetings. Activities were planned to support the development of skills in areas such as social interaction, communication, self-determination, self-advocacy and employment planning. The youth track provided a meaningful way for students to be involved in the project at a higher level and have a statewide impact. Several times, youth and other consortium members spent all or part of meeting dates conducting educational visits with legislators at the state capital. Consortium member advocacy resulted in one piece of legislation being passed and several additional bills being drafted, which are still under consideration. The youth members were very effective at sharing their employment stories with legislators to facilitate better understanding about why integrated competitive employment is so important.

2.2.2High school pilot sites

To demonstrate efficacy and adequately inform policy changes, LGTW used pilot sites to demonstrate how high schools could successfully support employment. Sites were selected through a competitive application process. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for small stipend grant awards was sent out through various transition list serves, announced at conferences, and included in statewide and local newsletters. In the first round of selection, 28 proposals were submitted and five were selected. The five first-round schools represented seven school districts, as three of the districts from a rural area developed a plan to work together. In the second round, which took place a year later, four proposals were accepted out of 10 received. The second round included an urban district with two high schools. Thus, five sites representing seven schools were selected in the first round and four sites representing five schools were selected in the second round, meaning that in total, the project worked with teachers, students, and families from 12 high schools. Applications were reviewed by the six main project partners. Interest from the schools, along with a demonstrated ability to build a broad local stakeholder group, were of particular interest to the review committee. Table 1 provides a summary of demographic information from pilot school sites.

To that end, each school was asked to identify members of a core team that consisted of regular and special education teachers, students with and without disabilities, parents, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) staff, and community members. The core team would be responsible for working together on a work plan to help them meet their goal of getting each of their pilot students into paid employment within the three years they were part of the project. In addition, each school identified a change leader, or “project champion,” to coordinate core team and project efforts, as recommended in organizational change literature (Deal & Peterson, 1999). Change leaders were passionate about facilitating inclusion and competitive integrated employment outcomes, and instrumental to achieving school and overall project goals. Schools in both RFP rounds were also asked to recruit a minimum of 5 youth with I/DD between the ages of 15 and 17 to participate in project activities. A total of 72 students across the LGTW pilot schools participated in theproject.

2.2.3Interventions

Prior to implementation of interventions with school staff and individual students, research protocols were reviewed and approved by the University of Wisconsin-Stout Institutional Review Board. Written consent to participate was obtained from each student, parent, teacher, and community member before any data were collected. Once consent was in place, data were collected on student disability information, supports, accommodations, assistive technology, school class schedule, Individual Education Program (IEP), work and extra-curricular activities, self-determination, and quality of life. Table 2 provides basic demographic information about students who received targeted LGTW intervention strategies.

Intervention strategies focused heavily on expanding the experiences, opportunities, and relationships that youth with I/DD need to develop while still in school to prepare them for adulthood and the world of work. These were implemented based on the 5 C’s of Transition Services framework developed by a project staff member and focused on (1) coordination of transition services, including fostering self-determination, (2) increasing the integration of classes and extra-curricular activities, (3) developing individualized career goals based on strengths and interests, (4) locating paid community jobs while still in high school, and (5) facilitating collaboration across system partners (Neugart, Molfenter, & Webb, 2011).

Person-centered planning with selected youth and their families, starting at age 14, was used to identify strengths, interests, career goals and direction for a course of study and extra-curricular/volunteer involvement while in high school. While there were multiple activities utilized by the project with pilot schools within all five areas, we will provide key examples in the following sections.

2.2.3.1. Coordination. LGTW project staff developed the Transition Services Rating Scale (TSRS) as a resource to support increased understanding of specific activities involved in evidence-based transition services coordination (Molfenter & Hartman, 2011). Specifically the scale looks at what is being done to help foster (1) individual student self-determination, (2) identifying and pursuing individualized career goals, (3) collaborating with other services and systems, (4) participating in integrated classes and extra-curricular activities (with an emphasis on connecting to vocational rehabilitation services), (5) paid integrated community work experiences, (6) post-secondary education and training, and (7) coordination of services and supports.

2.2.3.2. Classes and extra-curricular. Pilot school sites were asked to implement a school-wide opportunity mapping process to identify the opportunities that exist throughout the school to assist LGTW students and their support teams to select from general education classes and extra-curricular activities. Schools were provided with an established mapping tool and coaching on how to use it (Sweeden, Carter & Molfenter, 2010).

2.2.3.3. Career goals. LGTW project staff created a Self-Directed Employment Planning tool for teachers to use with identified students and their teams. A portion of this planning form requires gathering information about school activities and another about home and community (Neugart, Molfenter, & Webb, 2011). In this way, the tool fosters collaboration and asks teams to consider transferrable skills the student can bring to the workplace when setting an employment goal.

2.2.3.4. Community work experiences. Pilot schools implemented a variety of strategies to expand the options available for students to gain work experience in their communities. This activity was often completed in partnerships with local education and business groups, such a Partners in Education (PIE), career and technical education teachers (CTE), and local DVR counselors. Paid work experience for all LGTW students was set as an expectation.

2.2.3.5. Collaboration. Strengthening collaborati-on between teachers and DVR counselors to provide community work experience opportunities became a primary objective under this category. Each school site also implemented at least one communityconversation where people from various vantage points talked about increasing employment opportunities for youth with disabilities in their community. Schools were provided with an implementation guide and training on hosting a community conversation. In addition to coordinating community conversations, the LGTW project hosted a parent training on the transition from high school to adulthood for youth with disabilities. Data were collected based on interventions within each of the 5C’s.

2.2.4Coaching

Educators at pilot schools were supported through coaching to assist them in implementing evidence-based practices. This method of technical assistance offered the opportunity for reflection, capacity building, and observable, measurable change. Coaching has been identified as a cost-effective strategy for facilitating practice change (Cook & Odom, 2013; Lieberman & Pointer-Mace, 2010). Over the course of the first four years of the project, the 12 pilot schools, representing 11 districts, worked with two Project Coaches. Each coach was assigned to work with specific schools. In the first year, the coaches visited each of their assigned schools every six to eight weeks to develop project goals and work plans, problem solve challenges, mentor interactions with students and employers, assist with outreach events, and help develop tools and resources to incorporate into student activities and curriculum. During visits, coaches typically met with project core team members from school sites and spent time with students targeted for interventions. This gave the teams that included special education teachers, general education teachers, administrators, VR, and community partners the opportunity to ask questions and share ideas, resulting in the growth of support for project activities. After each visit, the coaches would write up observation and discussion notes to share with each other, the school and the LGTW project lead. As the project progressed and the schools became more adept implementing best practices, the coaches visited less often.

Project coaches supported and advocated for the school staff, which built trust between them. This trust and familiarity helped school staff feel at liberty to openly discuss the struggles they were facing to implement changes. As busy teachers, having easy access to technical assistance is essential given the short amount of time in the school day to plan-out new strategies or creatively problem solve. The coaching support and site visits also held school staff accountable to implement plans that were discussed. As schools honed their practices, coaches would “cross pollinate” the ideas and resources used to the other schools, saving schools even more time and fostering the development of realistic and sustainable practices across the project. Additionally, the coaches could identify training needs and organize group trainings on topics such as Discovery, Customized Job Development, Self-Employment, and Job Coaching; or by including a short learning component at each quarterly consortium meeting, such as Children’s Long Term Supports, Work Incentives for Youth, and Academic & Career Planning. In addition to regular, on-site coaching, team leaders participated in a monthly Learning Collaborative that took place via phone to share successes, learn together and problem solve as a group. Schools agreed to administer project specific attitudinal surveys and participate in project evaluation to document efficacy of intervention strategies and to participate in the quarterly Consortium meetings.

2.2.5Policy team

The policy team worked to establish relationships with legislators to support policy recommendations and draft and introduce legislation. Specific outcomes related to this will be discussed in the next section. The policy team also worked on developing strong relationships with project partners, including regular meetings with state agency leaders on topics such as sustainability, provider capacity and interagency collaboration. Contract changes were made to prioritize integrated employment in the Managed Care Organization’s contracts. Children’s Long Term Support Services emphasized employment with new service codes for mentoring and supported employment for youth. The federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provided a response to LGTW on guidance around least restrictive environment as it applies to transition work placements. Members of the policy team also established regular, quarterly meetings with the State Superintendent to work on issues.

2.5.1Transition Services Rating Scale (TSRS)

In measuring the implementation of the LGTW Quick Guide on Transition to Employment via the TSRS with a sample of 11 LGTW students, teachers reported (with an inter-rater reliability of 87% ) a growth of increased engagement in transition services in all seven targeted areas over time, from Spring 2014 to Fall 2014 or Winter 2014/2015. Scores started as low as 33 points at initial assessment and increased to be as high as 248 points by the third assessment. Points were accumulated by increasing transition services for youth in the 7 TSRS areas. The most dramatic increase occurred in the “Classes and Extracurricular” section, where the mean points per student increased from 13, to 30, to 57 across the three assessments, respectively. In other words, the 11 students were receiving increasingly more integrated experiences in the classroom and through extra-curricular activities over time. Other notable increases occurred in the “Community Work Experience” section (9, to 27, to 40), the “Collaboration” section (9, to 25, to 40), the “Goals” section (5, to 16, to 36), “Self-Determination” section (4, to 11, to 33), and the “Postsecondary Education” section (3, to 9, to 17). The lowest growth total occurred in the “Coordination” section, where the mean point total increased from 2, to 5, to 8. The average increase across all sections of the TSRS from assessment one to assessment two was 11. The average mean increase across all sections of the TSRS from assessment two to assessment three was 15.

2.5.2Community conversations

Most community conversation participants reported that they believed that young adults (14 to 21 years old) with significant IDD are capable of working. Although some did disagree with the statement, with responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), the average response was 4.8. Most participants agreed that youth with IDD can work in competitive, integrated jobs if they have the supports they need to do so (averaging between 3.8 to 4.7 on these items), and most participants disagreed that youth with IDD cannot work or can only work in segregated settings (averaging between 1.7 and 2.7 on these items). In addition, most community conversation participants rated the community conversation as valuable, noted that their community was in a good position to help make a change, and believed the community conversation could have an impact on the employment possibilities of youth with disabilities.

In addition to the community conversations, LGTW, in collaboration with pilot school sites, hosted the “What’s After High School” trainings. Pre-and post-surveys were collected from 64 participants of this training series. Results demonstrated these parent trainings had an impact on what kind of employment parents thought was possible for their youth. A chi-squared analysis comparing pre-and post-parent self-reported knowledge and attitudes showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in percent of parents reporting they thought their youth can be employed inclusively in integrated employment (from 20% to 40% ) and a decrease in percent of parents reporting their youth’s employment setting should be both integrated and segregated (from 30% to 10% ). These changes in attitude could be explained by statistically significant (p < 0.05) increases in self-reported knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in transition planning (average scores increasing from 2.94 to 3.97 on a 5-point scale), and increased understanding of the difference between a job at a work center and integrated, community-based employment (average scores increasing from 3.05 to 4.05 on a 5-point scale).

2.5.3Quality of Life Questionnaire (QOL.Q) and AIR self-determination scale

With increased integration, independence and work, students self-reported (or when a student could not self-report, teachers reported) higher quality of life via the QOL.Q, with 63 youth completing the QOL.Q at baseline, 50 at year one, and 38 at year two. Total QOL.Q scores averaged 77 at baseline, 85 after a year, and 92 after two years. The increase in scores from baseline to year one were linked to increases in average community participation (scores increasing from 21 to 23; p < 0.05), independence (scores increasing from 20 to 23; p < 0.05) and work (scores increasing from 14 to 18; p < 05) scores. The increases in scores from year one to year two were related to increases in average independence (scores increasing from 23 to 27; p < 0.05). From baseline to year two, statistically significant increases were observed via increases in average community participation (scores increasing from 21 to 25; p < 0.05), independence (scores increasing from 20 to 27; p < 0.05) and work (scores increasing from 14 to 17; p < 0.05) scores. Data trended up for all three groups reporting AIR Self-Determination Scale information also. Student self-report started at the 70th percentile and went to the 77th; the percentiles reported by teachers went from 62nd to 69th percentile; while parent report saw the smallest increase in percentile from 67th to 69th.