Employing People With Disabilities, With emphasis On The Blind

Table of Contents

- Introduction Page 1
- Barriers of Employment Among the Blind and Visually Impaired Page 4
- Consumer’s View on Barriers Page 7
- SSBG Funding Page 10
- ADA Policy Legislation Page 11
- Radio Address by President George W. Bush to the United States Page 12
- Some of the Highlights that Each Section Under the Law Cover Page 13
- Highlights On When the Law Took Effect Page 15
- Ways to Remedy Discrimination Page 16
- Policy Application Page 17
- Brief Description of the Ticket to Work Program Page 19
- What the North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind is Doing to
Help the Blind in North Carolina Page 26
- Recommendations and Input From the State Rehabilitation Council Page 32
- Comprehensive System of Personnel Development Page 32
- 2003-2004 State’s Goals and Priorities Page 39
- Summary and Conclusion Page 42
- Works Cited Page 53
- Appendix A Page 54




EMPLOYMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WITH EMPHASIS ON THE BLIND

By Michael W. Evers
Copy Right
May 8, 2004

INTRODUCTION
The disabled population across the United States and throughout the world is seldom thought of as having difficulty acquiring gainful employment. This is especially true regarding employment among the nation’s blind and visually impaired citizens, which is also at an unacceptably high rate. This research will demonstrate the need for more work to be done by policy makers in order to resolve the unemployment issues among the blind and visually impaired. This is largely because policy designers, important decision-makers and society at large are unaware of the significance of this policy problem. Why are they unaware? It is largely because they do not know such a problem exists. It’s also possible that employing the disabled is not high enough on their lists of priorities.
In North Carolina, the Division of Services for the Blind has been trying to resolve the unemployment situation among the blind and visually impaired for years with perhaps very little or no luck. It is true however, there has been a degree of improvement over the past several years, but it is not to be regarded as significant. If you look at the numbers, some of the improvements in terms of salary or yearly income may look significant in terms of the overall percentage increase, but it is by far below the national average. Hence it is an elusion.
It is the objective of this paper to promote awareness of this policy problem and to find out where the blind and visually impaired stand in all of this. Perhaps this research will prove beneficial not only to the blind and visually impaired, but to all people with disabilities. There is legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, along with President George W. Bush’s New Freedom Initiative Plan, which has enabled more people with disabilities to have equal access to employment opportunities. However, with the unemployment rate at 70% among the blind, it does not appear that these policy implementations have proven to be as effective as they should be.
Rehabilitation agencies are not as effective as they need to be at assisting the blind in acquiring gainful employment. Approximately 70% of people with disabilities are currently unemployed. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), designed specifically for banning discrimination of individuals with disabilities who are seeking employment, has taken steps towards assisting the blind in gaining employment. However, more needs to be done to assist the disabled so that they will become more integrated into society. This can be accomplished by creating more meaningful employment opportunities. To accomplish this, there needs to be more funding instead of budget cutbacks. A large portion of this funding comes from the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), which was created so that states could get funding for providing a wide variety of social services for people in need (Perdue, 2003).
Rehabilitation services and consumers agree that the blind and visually impaired continue to be significantly underrepresented in the competitive labor force, notwithstanding the persistent uphill struggle by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) policy architects and service providers. Estimates show there is a population of around ten million blind and visually impaired people of all ages, including those who are institutionalized and homeless. Approximately 1.3 million people, or 45% of those blind or visually impaired of working age are actually employed. There are 1.7 million people, or 55% of those blind and visually impaired people who have not been able to find gainful employment (Kirchner, 2001).
Even though many disabled people are employed and continue to remain employed, the unemployment rate is still at an unacceptably high rate, according to the 1994-95 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS-D). This survey researched the barriers of employment for adults with disabilities from the age of 18 to 64 years of age, using a pole of sixteen thousand people with disabilities with these following points: their disability, their type of employment, and their need for any specific accommodations. These results are compared to that of those who suffer with no handicaps (Statistics, 2001). The survey concluded that 79% of adults without disabilities were working during the time of the interview and only 37 % of individuals who have disabilities were employed. Two federally funded studies, published in 2000, provided insight as to why the unemployment rate among the disabled is so high. These studies analyzed the data collected from the contribution employers are making as far as the accommodations for employees with disabilities.
The information used by the Urban Institute was gathered from the Disability Supplement of the National Interview Survey (NHIS-D) to identify the barriers of unemployment among the disabled. There were sixteen-thousand people with various disabilities and each was asked a series of questions about their disability, their work environment and the need for proper accommodations within the work place. The researchers gathered and analyzed data from the respondents self-reports with specific limitations in their overall activity that defined their disabilities. Based on this premise, the researchers calculated that 37% of the 11.3 million disabled adults of working-age (18 to 64), were actually employed in 1994 to 1995. These statistics show that the policies that were enacted in 1964 have not been fully effective in assisting the blind or otherwise visually impaired population, of working age, in training them to be productive citizens and to become independent from federal aid.
The torpid growth of this segment of the blind and visually impaired labor force provoked the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to aid in the research on the identification of barriers to employment that can be addressed by employers, or respective rehabilitation agencies to help develop strategies in the development or identification of rehabilitation techniques or “Reasonable Accommodations that approach these barriers (McBroom, Crudden, Skinner, Moore, 1998).
Some of the most common barriers to employment of the blind and visually impaired identified by Moore and Wolffe (1997) that were considered by researchers and rehabilitation professionals, were:
A. Negative attitudes of employers towards people with visual impairments
B. Lack of employment and employment-related skills
C. Lack of motivation for employment
D. Government-generated work disincentives, such as entitlement programs that provide welfare or disability benefits
E. Lack of housing and family supports
F. Lack of transportation
G. Lack of access to information (McBroom et al., 1998)
BARRIERS OF EMPLOYMENT AMONG THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED

The American Foundation for the Blind conducted a research study that acknowledged barriers that rehabilitation professionals face when providing services to those who are blind or visually impaired. These barriers consist of:
A. Overemphasize case closures
B. Increasing numbers of consumers with multiple disabilities
C. Over-utilization of segregated employment settings
D. Personal, social, and vocational skill deficits in people with visual disabilities
E. Lack of understanding of employment options and demands
F. Financial work disincentives (McBroom et al., 1998)
“In a discussion on views of rehabilitation professionals who work for private agencies, Hopf (1991) said that some rehabilitation professionals probably do not spawn practical vocational goals with clients that are pursuing a college education and that blind and visually impaired college graduates may not be held to the same standards to that of their sighted counterparts.” He also says that it is the perceptible cessation of the educational system to provide sufficient training in job readiness skills and fundamental adaptive techniques that can be considered another barrier to competitive employment (McBroom et al., 1998).
Arnold, Seekins, and Ravesloot (1996) have indicated that there are certain socioeconomic factors in rural areas such as high unemployment rates, low wages, low population densities, as well as a distinct rural culture that can also provide barriers to lucrative employment opportunities for the disabled in rural communities (McBroom et al., 1998).
Some of the barriers employers utilize are: discouragement from working by family and friends, accessible parking or public transportation near work place, lack of elevators, adaptations to accommodate the employee in gaining access to work station, the availability of proper equipment required to function in the competitive work environment, inadequate training, and the fear of losing health insurance or Medicaid. Though these accommodations are an added cost to employers, they do receive tax deductions and favorable consideration and receive of government grants and contracts, but the personal insurance issue cannot always be over come (Statistics, 2001). As these reports show the most frequently cited reasons found in the consideration for those who are looking for jobs:
- No appropriate jobs available - 52%
- Family responsibilities - 34%
- Lack of transportation - 29%
- No appropriate information about jobs - 23%
- Inadequate training - 21.6%
- Fear of losing health insurance or Medicaid - 20.1%
- Discouraged from working by family and friends -14% (Statistics, 2001)
The review found similar concerns regarding work accommodations in the work place identified by both the people with disabilities who once were working and those seeking employment. Both stated a significant need for similar types of accommodations in acquiring employment and advancement in the work place. Two-thirds reported that they could work without special accommodations or were unaware of specific accommodations that might make employment possible. The other one-third of unemployed people with disabilities reported the need for some types of accommodations were necessary to acquire gainful employment. The most common accommodations cited were:
- Accessible parking or accessible public transit stop nearby -19%
- Need for an elevator -17%
- Adaptations to the work station -15%
- Special work arrangements (reduction in work hours, reduced or part-time hours, job redesign) -12%
- Handrails or ramps -10.4%
- Job Coach -5.6%
- Specific office supplies -4.5%
- Personal Assistant -4.0%
- Braille, enlarged print, special lighting or audiotap - 2.5%
- Voice synthesizer, TTY, Infrared System, or technical device - 1.8%
- Reader, Oral or Sign Language Interpreter -1.8% (Statistics, 2001)
In general, rehabilitation service providers have acknowledged the following barriers for employment among the blind and visually impaired: client’s lack of education and skills when they apply for rehabilitation services, government-sponsored work disincentives (i.e. SSI and Medicaid), client’s lack of knowledge and information about employment and labor related information, and the attitudes of society and employers towards the blind and visually impaired in addition to the heavy caseloads rehabilitation providers continuously encounter. Moreover, rehabilitation providers have to deal with the on-going problems with providing adaptive modifications on the job site (McBroom et al., 1998). This is not uncommon among the blind and visually impaired.
These are some of the many difficulties that people with disabilities encounter when seeking employment, and the amount of accommodations that are required to achieve an equal opportunity in the United States, especially those that are blind or visually impaired.
CONSUMERS’ VIEWS ON BARRIERS
Salomone and Paige (1984) did some research on barriers of blind and visually impaired consumers who were unsuccessful at retaining gainful employment. The most common barrier was “the lack of knowledge among the general public about the scope and variety of mental and physical capabilities of persons with visual impairments.” Other issues consisted of: “lack of successful personal and vocational experiences contributing to a positive self-concept,” employer resistance to hiring persons with disabilities, difficulty in acquiring adequate transportation and the lack of career preparation experience (McBroom et al., 1998). Malakpa (1994) had acknowledged some barriers on employment of people with blindness, visual impairments and supplementary disabilities. The barriers are:
A. Lack of adequate transportation resources
B. Obscurity locating suitable jobs
C. A Lack of long-standing job coaches
D. Inadequate endowment of on-the-job assistive technology
E. Complexity in effectively communicating with employers and co-workers
F. A shortage in vocational counselors and outreach workers
G. Inadequate public teaching
H. Narrow employer support
I. Overprotection from loved ones
J. Difficulties taking care of themselves
K. Low self-esteem
L. A shortage of inter-personal skills (McBroom et al., 1998).

In another research study, members of the American Council for the Blind were evaluated on their responses in a survey by Wolffe, Roessler, and Schriner (1992) on their experiences with rehabilitation service delivery systems. The respondents to this study revealed that more improvements were needed in job search strategies, education about job opportunities, and more resources for procuring assistive devices (McBroom et al., 1998). College graduates who were blind or visually impaired who were fortunate enough to succeed at retaining gainful employment recognized the following issues in their conversion from school to the workforce:
A. Locating transportation
B. Accessing signs, diagrams and charts on the job
C. On-the-job discrimination of their blindness
D. Accessing Computer hardware and software so they will be able to do their job
E. Lack of adequate time-management skills
F. The lack of opportunities for participation in physical athletic or recreational activities
G. Thoughts of loneliness (McBroom et al., 1998).

Schriner and Roessler (1991) scrutinized three respondent groups dealing with the barriers to acquiring gainful employment. The three groups consisted of people with disabilities, people with developmental disabilities, and college students with disabilities (McBroom et al., 1998). The respondents said that the most common problems were difficulty in acquiring as well as keeping a good job, poor health insurance, lack of opportunities to transfer within the company due to the nature of their disability, unfair treatment as a job applicant, having a lesser right of entry to training and career advancement opportunities within the company, insufficient information about Social Security programs, and restricted capacity to effect public policy (McBroom et al., 1998).
Finally, a deficiency in awareness of available resources among the elderly has also been alluding to barriers to acquiring meaningful employment opportunities. Louis Harris and Associates carried out a national telephone survey of older adults who are blind and visually impaired for the Lighthouse for the Blind in 1995. They found that more than one third of respondents reported that they did not know if services were available, while an additional twenty-one percent said that there were no such services available in their own communities. They concluded that the elderly and least educated were most likely to be unaware of services (McBroom et al., 1998).
These are some of the barriers that employers face when they consider hiring people with disabilities, especially those that are blind or visually impaired.
SSBG FUNDING
The elasticity of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) allows individual states to aim their SSBG funding to services according to where they are most in need in their state at the time. It is important to understand that many of the populations served under SSBG are mainly the elderly and disabled persons of who have no link to the established welfare system. This means that these individuals cannot be served under other federal funds such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds. In most cases, TANF funding cannot be used to make up for losses in SSBG funds (FDCH e-Media, Inc. 5/5/03).
Despite a continuous need for providing social services for needy families, the elderly, and disabled, federal SSBG funding has been cut significantly over the past few years. This shows a weakening of the federal commitment to disabled Americans in need. The most significant characteristic of the SSBG Program is that each state has the flexibility of investing SSGB funds in services with the most critical needs. States base this on their own Human Service Priorities. Examples of this are: “the protection of Children in the Child Welfare System, the need for Child Care funds for low-income mothers entering the workforce, or support for Elderly or persons with disabilities attempting to remain independent in their communities.” The SSBG not only has the suppleness to help address many of these needs, but they also have the ability to assist local communities through joint ventures with state and local governments and faith based and community providers (Perdue, 2003).
SSBG funding alone cannot do enough to lower the unemployment rate among all people with disabilities. Although it does provide resources for the disabled, it does not guarantee the disabled will have access to equal opportunity under the law. This is because SSBG funding was intended to provide for the needs of people who live in communities who need funding the most. In order for the disabled to be fully integrated in to society, there must be legislation that will indemnify their civil rights thus guaranteeing them equal protection under the law. It is only through that protection will they be able to have the opportunity to achieve there quest for independence.
ADA POLICY LEGISLATION
The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) signed in to law by President George Bush, Senior on July 26, 1990, prohibits discrimination rooted on disability. The ADA provides civil rights for individuals with disabilities. It protects civil rights for individuals like those provided to individuals on the basis of religion, national origin, race, and sex (Alliance, 2003). The ADA assures access to equal opportunities for those with disabilities in “employment, public accommodations, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunication relay services (Alliance, 2003).” The ADA is necessary, because the Civil rights Act of 1964 does not shield against discrimination of people with disabilities. Until the ADA was passed, federal safeguards against discrimination based on disabilities were strewn and very narrow. Congress determined that discrimination against one’s disability was apparent and often individuals were denied effective and meaningful opportunities for participation in society (Alliance, 2003).
The ADA defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual, having a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment (Alliance, 2003).” The same definition is also included in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Act Amendments and the Air Carrier Access Act (Alliance, 2003).
Sense the passage of the Americans With Disabilities act, the quality of life among the disabled population has significantly improved. However with any good piece of legislation, there is always more room for improvement. Providing reasonable accommodations can be expensive and confusing at times. Thus, there should be incentives and resources available for employers as well as government officials that will make it much easier for them to carry out the policies under the ADA. This is where the New Freedom Initiative comes in.

RADIO ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH TO THE
UNITED STATES

In the President’s radio address to the nation on July 28, 2001, the President acknowledged the 11th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the changes that it had brought into the lives of millions of American citizens with disabilities. Due to this legislation, Americans with disabilities have been given the freedom to choose more options in the areas of housing, use of public transportation and have gained greater access to public institutions. Also, with accommodations made by employers for access to employment opportunities have allowed citizens with disabilities to find gainful employment (Bush, 2001).
In February, the President announced a plan called the New Freedom Initiative that will further expand the opportunities available to Americans with disabilities. This would help those Americans with disabilities to enter into the work force by making it easier for them to work from home or to improve transportation. This initiative will also encourage private companies to meet the requirements of the ADA policy, by developing new assistive technologies to accommodate the many people with disabilities. The President is also committed in requiring federal agencies to ensure accessibility to their internet sites for people with disabilities, both inside and outside the governmental offices. In advancing the New Freedom Initiative, Congress will be required to provide the resources needed to fully implement this policy and fulfill the promises of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and to ensure that everyone with a disability can enjoy the respect that all United State citizens deserve (Bush, 2001).

SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT EACH SECTION UNDER THE LAW COVER:
Employment
• Employers may not discriminate against an individual with a disability in hiring or promotion if the person is otherwise qualified for the job.
• Employers can ask about one's ability to perform a job, but cannot inquire if someone has a disability or subject a person to tests that tend to screen out people with disabilities.
• Employers will need to provide "reasonable accommodation" to individuals with disabilities if needed. This includes steps such as job restructuring and modification of equipment.
• Employers do not need to provide accommodations that impose an "undue hardship" on business operations (Alliance, 2003).

Transportation
• New public transit buses and rail cars ordered after August 26, 1990, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
• Transit authorities must provide comparable Para transit or other special transportation services to individuals with disabilities who cannot use fixed route bus services, unless an undue burden would result.
• Existing rail systems must have one accessible car per train by July 26, 1995.
• New bus and train stations must be accessible.
• Key stations in rapid, light and commuter rail systems must be made accessible by July 26, 1993, with extensions up to 20 years for commuter rail (30 years for rapid and light rail).
• All existing Amtrak stations must be accessible by July 26, 2010 (Alliance, 2003).”
State and Local Government Services
• State and local Government may not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities.
• All government facilities, services, and communications must be accessible consistent with the requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Alliance, 2003).”
Public Accommodations
• Private entities such as restaurants, hotels and retail stores may not discriminate against individuals with disabilities, effective Jan. 26, 1992.
• Reasonable modifications must be made to policies, practices or procedures to avoid discriminating unless a fundamental alteration to the nature of the goods or services would result.
• Auxiliary aids and services must be provided to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities that substantially limit the ability to communicate - such as vision, hearing or speech impairment (e.g. talking),unless an undue burden or a fundamental alteration would result.
• Physical barriers in existing facilities must be removed, if removal is readily achievable. If not, alternative methods of providing the services must be offered, if they are readily achievable.
• All new construction and alterations of facilities must be accessible (Alliance, 2003).
Telecommunications
• Companies offering telephone service to the general public must offer telephone relay services to allow communications access for people with speech and hearing impairment ex: those who cannot use telephones (Alliance, 2003).
One must have the understanding, that the law does not enforce unlimited requirements on public accommodations, employers, or state and local government agencies. ADA policy legislation adopts a “reasonable compromise” in order to give people with disabilities access to day by day life without causing “undue burden” on American public and private enterprises. An example of this would be: that there are minimal requirements for retrofitting existing facilities, because physical barriers only have to be removed when the task at hand can be accomplished with minimal difficulty or expense (Alliance, 2003).

HIGHLIGHTS ON WHEN THE LAW TOOK EFFECT
Employment
• July 26, 1992 - employers with 25 or more employees
• July 26, 1994 - employers with 15-24 employees (Alliance, 2003)
Transportation
• Aug. 26, 1990 - purchase or lease of new buses or rail and for privately operated bus and van companies
• Various dates for other actions related to transportation accessibility (Alliance, 2003)
Public Accommodations
• Jan. 26, 1992 - generally
• Jan. 26, 1993 - new construction (Alliance, 2003)
Telecommunications
• July 26, 1993 - provision of relay services (Alliance, 2003)
WAYS TO REMEDY DISCRIMINATION
If one believes they are being discriminated against on the basis of disability, an individual may file a grievance with the following agencies dependent on what actions were viewed as biased:
EMPLOYMENT
· A complaint can be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Legal remedies include, back-pay or court orders to halt discrimination.
· Private law suits may also be filed to combat discrimination, but monetary damages cannot be awarded.
· One can also file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney Generals Office who may file a lawsuit to obtain monetary damages or penalties to halt discrimination (Alliance, 2003).
TRANSPORTATION
· Individuals seeking legal action against public bus and rail systems can file a grievance with the Department of Transportation or file private law suits.
· If individuals have a grievance with private bus or van companies, individuals may file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney General’s Office or file a lawsuit under the Public Accommodations Procedures (Alliance, 2003).
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
· One can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice or other appointed federal agencies, or file a private law suit (Alliance, 2003).

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS
· An individual may file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, or file a private law suit (Alliance, 2003).
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
· An individual may file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (Alliance, 2003).
POLICY APPLICATION
This is a true case and point on how ADA policy is currently being applied when blind people are subject to job discrimination, provided they have been encouraged and or properly educated on how to handle the situation administratively. This situation is far too common among the blind and visually impaired and many cases are not reported. Often times, state rehabilitation agencies do not encourage their clients to pursue action against discrimination, largely because the case worker and agency do not want to tarnish their reputation. It happens everyday.
Job accommodations may have many types. This also includes the purchase of adaptive computer hardware and software modified for the blind and visually impaired. There is an on-going case being pursued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Denver office, which provides a clear demonstration of how an employer can subject himself or herself to an ADA claim when they are unwilling to provide “reasonable accommodations.” This suit provides an example as to how employer discrimination ADA claims can be brought against staffing firms as well as direct employers.
The EEOC’s Denver office has filed action on behalf of Frank Mares who is blind. According to the EEOC, Mares responded to an add in the newspaper, from United Personnel Inc. The add described customer-service positions available at Protocol Communications Inc. which is a direct marketing services company. The job involved making out-bound courtesy calls to customers to see if they were satisfied with Protocol's products (EEOC, 2003).
Mares first interviewed with United and then Protocol. He was hired for the job in August of 2000. The EEOC had said Mares had told the project manager for Protocol that he would need special adaptive software that would enable him to use a mouse and read the computer screen for his workstation. Mares was told that his software would be installed the next day. Instead, the EEOC charged that Mares was terminated even though he was on time for work and offered some suggestions for resolving the issue. He also told Protocol that there was a rehabilitation technician available to assist with the software’s installation (EEOC, 2003).
Joseph Mitchell who is the EEOC Regional Attorney said that the EEOC tried to reconcile the case so it could hopefully avoid litigation, but they had to take the case to Federal court in Colorado. The EEOC alleges both United and Protocol were two defendants with two separate ADA violations. First it accuses the two defendants for wrongfully discharging Mares on the basis of his disability. Second, the EEOC claims that both companies illegally failed to provide Mares with “reasonable accommodations” so that he could perform successfully on the job. The EEOC took in to account that Mares had performed successfully in the past as a customer-service representative. The EEOC has also taken in to account that Mares has performed successfully as a customer representative in the past using a computer (EEOC, 2003).
The lawsuit as it stands is seeking an injunction permanently excluding the two defendants from participating in disability discrimination in employment. It is also seeking monetary compensation from both defendants as well as a court order requiring United and Protocol to implement new programs, practices and policies that provide equal opportunity employment for people with disabilities (EEOC, 2003).
A good place to start would be to implement a program that would be beneficial to both Social Security Beneficiaries with disabilities and agencies willing to provide job placement services. Social security beneficiaries often have a disincentive for working. This is because there are limits on a beneficiary’s monthly income. If a beneficiary makes too much money, their benefits may be reduced or stopped completely. Once this happens, it may be difficult for them to have their benefits fully reinstated if they lose their job. Agencies who provide job placement services for the disabled are often under funded, thus making it increasingly difficult for them to place their clients in a more secure job. This is why a better program is needed, because it may begin to eliminate this policy problem area. This is where the new ticket To Work Program will come in.
BRIEF DISCRIPTION OF THE TICKET TO WORK PROGRAM
The Ticket To Work Program is designed to provide a choice for Social Security beneficiaries. Those who hold a ticket want more services to choose from along with more job opportunities. Providers who want to participate become Employment Networks (ENs) who provide more choices and services to Social Security Beneficiaries (http://www.yourtickettowork.com).
The Ticket To Work and Self-sufficiency Program is a nation-wide program which is derived from the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 and it is a part of President Bush’s Freedom Initiative. It is designed to provide SSA beneficiaries who have disabilities with more choices for receiving the Vocational Rehab(VR), and other support services clients need to obtain as well as maintain employment in addition to increasing provider’s incentives for serving these individuals. The daily management of the Ticket to Work Program is the duty of the Program Manager(PM). SSA has contracted with MAXIMUS, which is a private company to carry out this role (www.yourtickettowork.com/program).
Many SSA beneficiaries with disabilities ages 18 to 64 already receive a ticket. In excess of 10 million ticket-holders are already qualified to participate in this program nation-wide. Many of these participants are already working , however the demand is great, and the supply is limited. There are 10 million people under one program which serves the 50 U.S. states and it’s territories.
The Ticket To Work Program is elastic and voluntary – Social Security beneficiaries are not forced to take part in and ENs can in most cases, choose which types of services they want to provide - where and to whom. Beneficiaries receiving tickets have the option of discussing services with one or more ENs and once conformity between ENs and the beneficiary is reached, ENs and the beneficiary will work jointly in the development of a work plan until the beneficiary has reached his or her employment goal. The ENs receives much of their revenue dependent on the monthly wage level the ticket-holder receives (www.yourtickeettowork.com) The Ticket To Work Legislation mandated that SSA recognize a program manager (PM) to support the administration of the Ticket To Work Program. On September 29, 2000, MAXIMUS was awarded a government contract to assume the role as the Program Manager. Their responsibilities as program manager are: conscription of Employment Networks, supporting in the facilitation of access for beneficiaries to ENs, insuring that there is ample employment services available, making sure there is “reasonable access” to these services for SSA beneficiaries, operating a toll-free line to answer beneficiaries’ questions about the Ticket Program, and the overall administration and lapse of continuing program operations. (www.yourtickettowork.com)
Any organization or an apparatus of a state (or political subdivision), or a private body, which assumes responsibility for the synchronization, or genuine delivery of services is eligible to apply to be an EN. ENs can be a single unit, a conglomerate, or an involvement of organizations collaborating with one another to meet the needs of ticket-holders. Examples of organizations who might wish to become ENs are:
• Employers that offer (or arrange for) job training, vocational rehabilitation, support, retention, or other types of job-related services and/or assistance for individuals with disabilities.
• Any public or private entity that can provide directly or arrange for appropriate employment services including job readiness, placement, VR, training, support and/or retention services for individuals with disabilities.
• One Stop delivery systems established under the Workforce Investment Act.
• State VR agencies under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
• Organizations administering VR Service Projects for American Indians with “disabilities authorized under special sections in Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
• Alternate Participants (APs) currently operating under contract with SSA.
• Public or private schools providing appropriate employment-related skills training, VR services, transitional education or career development services or programs. (www.yourtickettowork.com)
There are two payment options for employment Networks. They are the Outcome Payment Option and the Outcome/Milestone Payment Option. The EN will decide on one of the two options dependent on the RFP the EN submits to the Social Security Administration. MAXIMUS is in charge of administering the payment process for the EN. Under the Outcome and Outcome/Milestone Payment Methods, however MAXIMUS will not oversee the payment process for state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies participating in the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program functioning as ENs that choose to remain under the traditional cost reimbursement payment method. (http://www.yourtickettowork.com/selftraining/EN_Unit6_PaymentOptions.doc).
Outcome payments for the two payment options are designed using the payment calculation base. This is based on the average monthly disability insurance or Federal SSI benefit which is payable during the preceding calendar year to all beneficiaries who were in current pay grade for the month for which the benefit is allocated. However the calculation base for SSDI beneficiaries is used when calculating Employment Network outcome allocations for coexisting beneficiaries. For SSDI beneficiaries the calculation base is $840.61. For SSI beneficiaries, it is $498.34. (http://www.yourtickettowork.com/selftraining/EN_Unit6_PaymentOptions.doc).
If an EN chooses to go under the MILESTONE PAYMENT SYSTEM, they have four milestones for which they can be paid. The milestones must take place after the date on which the ticket was first assigned once the beneficiary has started working. These milestones are based on earnings levels, which the Social Security Administration uses once it decides that work activity is substantial and gainful activity. Then the social Security Administration will use the SGA threshold amount for those beneficiaries who are not blind according to statute. Once that has been decided, SSA will apply the SGA threshold Amounts in order to measure the milestone objective. The Milestone System is applied as follows: The first milestone is achieved when the beneficiary has already worked for one calendar month and has received gross or net earnings from their employment or self-employment that are greater than the calculated SGA threshold amount for that month. The payment for the primary milestone is equivalent to 34% of the payment base for that calendar year in which the month of achievement for the first milestone will take place, and is then curved to the nearest total dollar. In the first month in which the individual has acquired the above-mentioned earnings, they are measured in to the first month of achievement for the first milestone.
The second milestone is achieved when the beneficiary has worked for 3 consecutive months in a 12-month period and has acquired gross earnings from their employment or net earnings from their self-employment for each of the 3 months that have exceeded their SGA threshold amount. Note: the first month used to meet the first milestone may also be included in the 3 months, which are used to meet the second milestone objective. The payment in the second milestone is equivalent to 68% of the calculation base for the calendar year in which the month of achievement will take place, curved to the nearest total dollar. The month of achievement for the second milestone is the 3rd month within the 12-month time period in which the beneficiary has the above-mentioned obligatory earnings.
The third milestone is met when the beneficiary has worked 7 consecutive calendar months within a 12-month time period and has acquired gross earnings from employment or net earnings from self-employment for each of the seven months that exceed their SGA threshold amount. Any of the months used to calculate the second milestone may be used to meet the 3rd milestone objective. The 3rd milestone payment is equivalent to 136% of the payment computation base for the calendar year when the month of achievement for the milestone will take place, curved to the nearest total dollar. The month of achievement for reaching the 3rd milestone is the 7th month, within a 12-month time period, in which the beneficiary has the above-mentioned obligatory earnings.
The fourth milestone will be met once the beneficiary has worked for 12 consecutive calendar months within a 15-month period and has acquired gross earnings from employment or net earnings from self-employment for each of the 12 months which are computed to more than the beneficiaries’ SGA threshold amounts. Any of the months used to calculate the first three milestones may be included in the 12 months to compute the fourth milestone. The fourth milestone payment is equivalent to 170% of the payment computation base in the calendar year when the month of achievement for the milestone will take place, curved to the nearest total dollar. The month of achievement is the 12th month, in the 15-month time period in which the beneficiary has the above-mentioned obligatory earnings.
Some important points to know about milestone payments are:
· Milestone payments can be completed during the trial work phase even though the beneficiaries’ payment may not be reduced to 0.
· An EN can receive payment for a milestone only after the beneficiary has handed over his/her ticket to the EN (s).
· An EN is allowed to keep all milestone and outcome payments for which an EN is qualified, even though the beneficiary has not achieved all 60-outcome months.
· All Milestones must take place before the outcome payment. If the beneficiary has reached his/her outcome payment period, for which Social Security has rendered the beneficiaries’ Disability or Federal SSI not payable to the beneficiary due to their performance of Substantial Gainful Activity, or on basis of earning from work, “the EN will not receive the remaining milestone payments (if any) and outcome payments will begin.” These outcome payments will be condensed by 1/60th of the total milestone payments made to that EN for that beneficiary. Example, if the EN receives the first three milestones, and then the beneficiary enters the outcome payment period, the outcome payments will then be condensed by 1/60th of the first three milestones
· Milestone payments may be allocated to more than one EN. If the beneficiary has assigned their ticket to more than one employment network at different times, and more than one EN has requested compensation for the same milestone, MAXIMUS will decide on the allocation made to each EN based on their contribution in services made toward their achievement of the milestones. It is important to note that milestone payments will not be increased just because payments are shared between two or more ENs.
(http://www.yourtickettowork.com/selftraining/EN_Unit6_PaymentOptions.doc).
Now that we have examined this policy issue on the national level, we need to examine this issue on the state level. To do that, we need to focus our attention on the North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind. The reason for this is, they are the primary entity responsible for carrying out the national policies under the ADA for the blind and visually impaired across the state. What they do in assisting the Blind and visually impaired has a significant impact on their employability. In insuring employability of the blind and visually impaired, must start with how the North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind chooses to implement its policies on the state level.







WHAT THE NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR THE BLIND IS DOING TO HELP THE BLIND IN NORTH CAROLINA

The North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind is a state run agency under the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services charged with rehabilitating blind/deaf-blind adults who have a desire to acquire the skills necessary for becoming more productive, living more independently and becoming more self-sufficient sense 1935, so that the blind can have the chance to live a better quality of life. The North Carolina Division of services for the blind (DSB) has a long and rich history of providing services to the Blind, Visually Impaired, and Deaf-Blind citizens of North Carolina. They are able to provide these services through the cooperative resources of the Federal and State governments, and all 100 counties in North Carolina. The Blind and Visually impaired as well as those who have suffered from vision and hearing loss have benefited from their long partnerships with the Lions Clubs along with other consumer and advocacy groups across the state. DSB provides services state-wide through their staff and 7 of their district offices strategically placed throughout the state and through social workers for the blind located in all 100 counties. Many of their services are mentioned on their website.
Clients who choose to pursue an education or career that will require the use of assistive technology attend the DSB Rehabilitation Center for the Blind on the campus of the Governor Morehead School for the Blind in Raleigh, North Carolina. While there, clients will have a chance to explore the technology lab equipped with assistive technology running the latest in screen-reading software, speech and Braille output devices, computers with enhanced font (E.G. Zoom Text) software, several sizes of monitors, various types and versions of CCTV’s, modified keyboards, lighted magnifiers, and other equipment. A technology evaluation is also completed while the client is at the rehabilitation center. The evaluation will consist of an assessment of the client’s skill level and current need, then the technology consultant will make a recommendation on the types of equipment and basic training that the client will need to pursue their vocational goal.
The Technology Center has four instructors who provide training in assistive technology. Instructors will design explicit learning plans based on the client’s needs and skill level. Instruction may start with simple keyboarding instruction, or instruction about the assimilation of assistive technology with the client’s obtainable computer skills. Often, a client’s needs may change as a result of a change in their equipment, education setting or job. If this occurs, one would have the option of returning to the Rehabilitation Center for the Blind for additional training. Training is available in a wide variety of assistive technology. A few examples are: use of a modified keyboard, CCTV, enhanced font (E.G. Zoom Text Software), screen reading software (E.G. JAWS for Windows), Kurzweil OCR Software with speech output used for scanning and reading textbooks, Openbook OCR Software with speech output used to scan and read textbooks, Braille display hardware used for Braille output for computer terminals, Braille Embosser Hardware and software used for transcribing electronic documents in to Braille, and Braille note-takers(PDA’s) such as the Braille Note, and Packmate etc (Evers1).
In the district offices across North Carolina, DSB presently has four rehabilitation consultants and one Rehabilitation Engineer. These individuals meet with clients in their own setting throughout North Carolina to provide assessments for assistive technology.
Once the purchase of assistive technology is a service on a client’s individualized plan, the consultants will travel to the client’s setting to deliver and set up the equipment. For clients who are employed, this may be at their job site and for those who are attending at a community college, university, or graduate school, this may be at their home or dormitory setting. The consultants provide follow up services to the clients so that they can make sure that the equipment is being used and functioning properly (Evers1).
DSB has recently created a part-time assistive technology teaching position on the campus of Asheville-Buncombe Community College. This position will use equipment that remains from the DSB Americorp grant program intended to help bridge the “Digital Divide” for persons who are blind or visually impaired. Training and the use of assistive technology will be made on hand to both DSB Vocational Rehabilitation clients and Independent Living consumers (Evers1).
During the past 2 years, DSB contribution in job modifications has increased dramatically. This is partially due to the current advancements in assistive technology that is now on hand. However, rehabilitation counselors now spend a large amount of their time building relationships with prospective employers and learning their desires regarding the hiring of highly skilled blind and visually impaired job seekers. These relationships are beginning to enable prospective employers to become increasingly aware of the pool of skilled employees who are blind and visually impaired. The Rehabilitation Engineer, the Rehabilitation Center Consultant, and the remaining Consultants in the district offices are meeting with I.T. staff in various corporations, working together to make major modifications, which are often extremely complicated. This need is continuing to grow and it is quite possible that the need will soon outgrow the existing staff (Evers1).
According to the DSB Rehabilitation Summaries reported through March of 2003, there have been 2200 people who have or who are receiving DSB Rehabilitation Services during the State fiscal year of 2003, which began in July of 2002. There is no current data available for the present fiscal year for 2004, because the current fiscal year will not end until June of 2004. The breakdown of the state geographical areas by region is as follows:
q Area I. District Offices, Western North Carolina,
q Serving Charlotte, Asheville, and surrounding counties, 680 clients
q Area II. District Offices, north central North Carolina,
q Serving Winston-Salem and surrounding counties, 458 clients
q Area III. District Offices, central North Carolina,
q Serving Raleigh, Fayetteville, and surrounding counties, 550 clients
q Area IV. District Offices, eastern North Carolina,
q Serving Greenville, Wilmington, and surrounding counties, 512 clients (Evers1).

89% of these individuals are considered to be significantly disabled, meaning it has been concluded that they have a disability that seriously limits one or more functional capacities and it will require one or more services over an extensive time frame for them to become employed.
q 50.1% are male
q 49.9% are female
q 60.5% are white
q 35.4% are African American
q 1.8% are American Indian or Alaska Native
q 0.8% are Asian
q 0.1% are Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
q 2.4% are Hispanic (Evers1).

This data exceeds 100% due to clients who have listed multi-racial backgrounds. (Evers 1)
In order for DSB to determine the quality and satisfaction of service delivery, the Rehabilitation Act as amended in 1998, requires the Rehabilitation Council to conduct a satisfaction survey of clients on an annual basis. This is supplemented by a minimal of 2 public hearings and by 3 focus groups and by random calls by Rehabilitation Council members. The survey requests feedback about job-placement, job satisfaction, and service delivery.
In State Fiscal Year 2001, 730 clients cases were closed due to successful employment. In State Fiscal year 2002, 679 client’s cases were closed due to successful employment. In State fiscal year 2003, through March, only 379 client’s cases were closed due to successful employment. The projection for 2003 is to close at least 660 clients’ cases due to successful employment by the end of the 2002-2003 State fiscal year in June.
The types of occupations where DSB clients chose work in State fiscal year 2002, were:
q Service Occupations: 26% (177 clients)
q Professional, Technical, and Managerial Occupations: 19% (129 clients)
q Clerical and Sales: 16% (107 clients)
q Structural Work: 11% (76 clients)
q Homemakers/Family Workers: 8% (55 clients)
q Miscellaneous: 7% (50 clients)
q Machine Trades: 5% (33 clients)
q Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry: 4% (26 clients)
q Bench work Occupations: 3% (21 clients)
q Processing: 1% (5 clients) (Evers1).
For State fiscal year 2003, the funding sources included $10,195,410 Federal, and $2,757,792 State, for a grand total of $12,953,202. Administration costs amounted to 78.7% of the federal stream through the Rehabilitation Services Administration, used for meeting the operational costs with a required state match of 21.3%. Around $7,000,000 is allocated for direct case service funds and the operation of the Rehabilitation Center, and the remaining $5,000,000 is allocated for rent, utilities, salaries, and other administrative costs. There are also other separate funding sources, such as the supported employment grant, which is matched funding received by DSB to go towards school systems for the operation of specialized transition caseloads in the high schools in these systems, and Social Security reimbursement monies from the Ticket to Work Program. These funding streams are received and allocated at different times as a result of the difference in State and Federal funding.
In fiscal year 2002, data reveals that the average cost of case services for closures for clients placed in successful employment was $3,662.30. It also shows that the average wage earned by clients one week prior to receiving DSB services was $127.83; the week after their case closure increased to $305.50. This only equates to an annual income of $15,886 which is still below the national poverty line. Prior to these case closures, the client’s average annual income was $6,647.16. There is on average an annual income increase of $9,238.84. This is estimated to be a 138% increase in a client’s annual earnings after the week of their case closure in fiscal year 2002. These results still do not support any substantial evidence proving that DSB has succeeded in assisting clients with acquiring a decent job that pays above the national poverty line. However, the DSB does manage to provide services that significantly increased the average annual income earnings for their clients after their case closures.
Although this data has provided evidence of significant progress, there is still a long way to go before gainful employment is easily attainable for the blind and visually impaired across North Carolina (Evers1).

RECOMMENDATIONS AND INPUT FROM THE STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL

The Council advises DSB to increase awareness of its Vocational Rehabilitation Program as well as to develop more outreach programs to focus on groups traditionally under served in the community. This could be accomplished through the DSB website. DSB’s response to the Council was to review its outreach program and make improvements where they were needed (State Plan2003-04, File 4.2(c)).

COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT (CSPD)

DSB has implemented a Comprehensive system of personnel development that was recognized in the 1999 State Strategic Plan effective January 1,1999. This system was amended in response to changes made in 1998 to the Rehabilitation Act, its regulations, technical assistance, and guidance from RSA. Changes made over the last 4 years have resulted in growth of the number of DSB’s rehabilitation counselors who meet CSPD educational requirements. In fiscal year 2000, only 47% of DSB’s Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors held a masters degree in vocational Rehabilitation Counseling or related social sciences. In fiscal year 2003, this increased to 76% of the counselors who hold a master’s degree or meet CRC qualifications (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
The experience and educational requirements were developed for Rehabilitation Counselor I positions by DSB, in concurrence with the Office of State Personnel (OSP), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and RSA. North Carolina presently does not have a state-approved licensing or certification registration of rehabilitation professionals. Hence the standards for hiring qualified rehabilitation counselors and other rehabilitation professionals are based solely on their education and experience needed in order to comply with that of the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC) as established by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC). (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
If applicants who comply with CSPD guidelines cannot be recruited for specific advertised vacancies after extensive recruitment occurs, DSB will consider applicants currently enrolled in a Rehabilitation Masters Degree Program or closely related masters degree program who is able to obtain their degree within 6 months. These programs must enable the individual to meet DSB’s definition of “Qualified Rehabilitation Counselor.” In insuring an employee who is hired for a Rehabilitation Counselor I, position meets the expectations of DSB. A letter of expectation outlining CSPD requirements that must be met within 6 months from the employee’s hiring date, must be signed by the employee and his/her supervisor and placed in their personnel file. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
All rehabilitation counselors are expected to comply with these standards sense the 1998 amendments did not provide a Grandfathering clause. In January 1999, all rehabilitation counselors were informed of these regulations and those who did not meet the new standards were expected to develop individualized plans to help them meet the current educational requirements within 5 years of the beginning of the approved State Plan Amendment, which became effective January 1, 1999. DSB has been supportive in encouraging its employees through a variety of methods to help them in meeting these new regulations. Information from colleges and universities about distance learning and flexible programs offered has been distributed throughout the organization. Funds through the Department of Health and Human resources and Rehabilitation Counseling Education Program (RCEP) have been identified to help assist current DSB staff with Costs of tuition, fees, and books along with granting educational leave to meet class schedules as required. Moreover, DSB current policy requires for counselors who wish to be promoted to Rehabilitation Counselor II that they meet DSB’s definition of “qualified rehabilitation counselor,” and complies with CSPD requirements. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
An analysis is conducted in order for DSB to decide on the number of personnel needed in each categorization for providing rehabilitation services to blind and visually impaired clients. The analysis along with the turnover rate is carried out in order to project the number of personnel needed to help meet DSB’s objectives. DSB will use data from other personnel systems statewide for helping them with conducting the analysis.
Based on the findings from this analysis, DSB’s vocational Rehabilitation Program has served an average of 3,610 clients per year over the past 5 years and the number of clients served is not expected to significantly change. The Independent Living Program served 1003 clients over the past year. The findings show an increase in the number of clients served under the Independent Living program and a new Independent Living Rehabilitation Counselor position has recently been added, effective June 1, 2003. Based on these projections of clients served per year, DSB has concluded, that they have sufficient qualified Independent Living Rehabilitation Counselor Positions within the organization (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
The turnover rate for Rehabilitation Counselors has been 14% over the past 3 years. Based on the turnover rate, together with those individuals who are approaching retirement age, it is estimated that 7 new Rehabilitation Counselor positions will need to be added over the next year. As a result, DSB has developed a system to analyze as well as record the educational background of qualified rehabilitation counselors as they are hired as part of the organization’s hiring practices (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
BREAKDOWN OF EDUCATION LEVELS FOR THE 49 POSITIONS
· 22 with Masters Degrees in Rehabilitation
· 15 with Masters Degrees in closely related fields
· 1 with Undergraduate Degree holding CRC certification
· 8 who do not meet DSB standards of “qualified rehabilitation counselors
· 3 vacancies
(State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).

Hence DSB’s 38 rehabilitation counselors (78%) have currently met the education requirements for “Qualified Rehabilitation Counselor.” 2 are working on their master’s degrees at local universities. 1 is applying for acceptance for a distance learning masters degree program in counseling. 5 of those who haven’t met the education requirements are approaching retirement; therefore, pursuing a masters degree in counseling would be a waste in valuable resources sense it would take too long for them to meet the education requirement and the amount of employment required for pay back purposes. Presently there are 3 openings for Rehabilitation Counselor Positions of which people holding a Masters Degree in Rehabilitation Counseling or closely related fields are actively being recruited. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
In the recruitment, preparation, and retention of qualified personnel, DSB has established a relationship with the 2 North Carolina universities who presently offer graduate degrees in the area of Rehabilitation Counseling. These include the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and East Carolina University in Greenville North Carolina. DSB and these universities have worked together in order to provide internships for students in their chosen programs interested in becoming rehabilitation counselors who help assist the blind with their vocational goals. Each program has 10 to 15 graduates per year, and DSB enthusiastically recruits these graduates. Sadly, these individuals usually do not choose to work for DSB or other vocational rehabilitation agencies, because of the low pay scale in contrast with employment opportunities in the private and non-profit sectors that offer much higher pay scales. As a result, this has created a serious shortage of qualified applicants and these positions are remaining unfilled for extended periods of time. This means that the remaining staff has to cover the unoccupied caseloads, which causes more stress for the entire office. Sharing time with empty caseloads is guaranteed to decrease production, which constitutes a lower quality in service delivery to DSB clients who are trying to acquire gainful employment. Presently, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is making changes to their program and they are talking about eliminating it altogether. The DSB is currently working on establishing relationships for recruitment purposes with other universities such as the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Appalachian State University, A&T State University, Western Carolina University, North Carolina Central University, and other universities and colleges that offer undergraduate and graduate degree programs in related occupations. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
In their national recruitment, DSB has posted jobs on the World Wide Web and on Federal Job Banks. This year, DSB has posted jobs on a job bank for rehabilitation professionals coordinated through the University of Oklahoma. DSB is making sure that contacts are made with other universities with master’s degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling and other closely related degrees outside North Carolina. This year, applications for job openings have included candidates from California, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
DSB takes affirmative action in order to pledge employment along with the advancement of employment of qualified people with disabilities. On a yearly basis, DSB conducts a workforce analysis of its representation of people with disabilities, of people from different ethnic origins, and of males and females in different occupational categories and personnel classifications. Those occupational categories and classifications and minority groups, which are under-represented, are identified and recognized in order to increase representation within DSB’s workforce. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
North Carolina currently has a rapidly growing Spanish-speaking population, which has resulted in more Spanish-speaking clients. DSB has worked with other organizations in order to provide outreach information about the rehabilitation services they offer. DSB’s Rehabilitation Program Handbook along with the brochure, “Having Trouble with Your Vision”, has been distributed to those blind and visually impaired Spanish-speakers. In addition, software has also been purchased in several offices that will translate Individualized Plan Letters, appointments and employment plans in to Spanish. Finally DSB has retained a list of qualified interpreters who can assist DSB with communicating verbally with Spanish-speaking clients as required. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
DSB also has a continuous comprehensive system of personnel development. That provides all staff positions with appropriate job-related training. Every year, all staff members must complete learning requests in order for DSB to identify specific training needs. The Program Specialist for training will analyze the training requests and then plan training activities to specifically meet these needs. As a result, there has been an assortment of training events with relevant curriculum and skills attainment experiences which included:
· Medical Update on the pathology and treatment of mental disorders, which was open to all classifications
· Adjustment to Blindness which is required by all new Rehabilitation Counselors and paraprofessional staff
· Best Practices for New DSB Rehabilitation Counselors which is required of all new Rehabilitation Counselors for training on the rehabilitation process and on casework practices
· Building Trust Relationships, an in-depth training experience on the Division’s Job Development and Job Placement Model, which is required of all new Rehabilitation Counselors, Job Placement Specialists, and Community Employment Specialists
· Office Assistant Training designed for Division office assistants on the use of Internet for research purposes and in the expanded use of Excel
· Rehabilitation Center Staff Development which consisted of a two-part training on best practices
· Job Development and Placement training on Ticket to Work, use of
E-resources for job searches, and job modifications, which is designed for job placement specialists, Transition Program staff, and other rehabilitation staff
· Customer Service training for better communication skills, which was required of all staff members
· Independent Living Rehabilitation Program training for updates in practice for Independent living Rehabilitation Counselors
· A joint training with NC Association of Rehabilitation and Education (AER), Governor Morehead School for the Blind and the NC Department of Public Instruction about independent living, Education topics, vocational topics, and collaboration between the organizations,
· Assistive Technology Training to continue the development of skills in job and home modifications for field assistive technology staff; and
· Professional and Personal Development that included review of ethical practices and emphasis on team building
(State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b))
DSB continues to require the professional skills needed in marketing in job-placement in order to enhance employment opportunities for the blind and visually impaired. Steps have been taken to insure continuity of these policy practices in its application for new staff. Every new Rehabilitation Counselor and Job-placement Specialist receives a brief 1-on-1 introduction to the Job Development/Placement Model by the Program Specialist for Job-Placement during the staff member’s first month of employment. After their 1-on-1 training, on the model, DSB requires new staff members to attend an intensive workshop for 1 week called “Building Trust Relationships,” on developing innovative marketing skills. Then the Program Specialist will provide more follow-up training by meeting with new staff for more 1-on-1 training experiences, an on-site interview with an employer in their area of the state, and other training modalities depending on the need. According to the statistical data which was gathered sense this training, the findings indicate that DSB staff have increased their number of employer contacts which has resulted in placement of more DSB clients, especially those with significant disabilities. (State Plan2003-04, File 4.11(b)).
At the beginning of 2003, the North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind, set employment goals for 2003-2004. These goals can be found in Appendix A.
2003-2004 STATE’S GOALS AND PRIORITIES

The North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind State Rehabilitation Council and Division staff met on June 14, 2003. Division staff and Council members jointly developed and approved the following 2003-2004 rehabilitation goals and priorities:


GOAL 1 – IMPROVE CONSUMER EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES

STRATEGIES:

· Continue the Division’s innovative job development/placement program
· Include the job development/placement program into New Counselor Training.
· Educate employers about the financial benefits of hiring persons with blindness or visual impairments.
· Provide ongoing staff development on the Workforce Investment Act (1998) and the Ticket to Work focusing on the delivery of specialized services.
· Maintain partnerships with local Workforce Development JobLink Career Centers with new charters and memorandums of understanding, to enhance consumer access and participation.
· Actively participate in The State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee advocating for more accessible products and services available to persons who are blind or have low vision.
· Continue the STAR Mentors Program to provide mentors for rehabilitation consumers upon request.

Evaluation Criteria:

- Increase in the number of job placements that are the result of direct contact with employers.
- Increase in employer use of financial incentives for hiring persons who have blindness or visual impairments.
- Staff participation in training in WIA and Ticket to Work via Internet, teleconferencing, meetings, etc.
- Increase in Division membership on local JobLink partner committees.
- Increase in accessible products and services provided by SOICC for individuals who are blind or have low vision.
- Availability of a STAR Mentor when requested.

GOAL 2 - ENCOURAGE THE EXPANDED AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE TECHNOLOGY TO CONSUMERS, EMPLOYERS, AND EDUCATORS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE WEB-BASED INFORMATION, IN VARIOUS FORMATS, ON VISION-RELATED RESOURCES

STRATEGIES:
· Research and gather current information on eye conditions, treatment, services, adaptive technology and available resources.
· Analyze data gathered and develop user-friendly format.
· Train staff on access and information dissemination.
· Offer technical assistance, demonstrations and training to disability coordinators and appropriate staff at community colleges, colleges and universities, JobLink centers, public libraries and other community based resources about adaptive education materials, models and technology to assist Division’s consumers who access their programs and services.
· Advocate for access to printed and electronic material through State Workforce and local board meetings.

Evaluation Criteria:

- Monitor use of database.
- Feedback from consumers, employers and educators.
- Increase in the availability of vision specific adaptive technology to all community based resources.
- Evaluation on staff usage of web based information.

GOAL 3 – INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE DIVISION’S VR PROGRAM TO CONNECT WITH PROSPECTIVE CONSUMERS AND EMPLOYERS

STRATEGIES:

· Design new brochures about employer services and the Rehabilitation Center, for use with specific populations in the most preferred modes of communication.
· Update, as needed the Division’s web site.
· Actively support and participate in outreach activities to reach minorities and individuals traditionally underserved.

Evaluation Criteria:
- Ongoing feedback from consumers, referral sources, employers and staff.
- Increase in the number of responses and requests for information from web site.
- Continue to expand the number of minorities served.

GOAL 4 – NETWORK WITHIN DIVISION PROGRAMS, OTHER AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPROVE CONSUMER INFORMATION AND SERVICES

STRATEGIES:

· Develop a new Guide to Services to be provided to all consumers in their preferred mode of communication.
· Actively participate on boards and committees for other agencies and organizations in local communities.
· Promote the use the Division’s web site by staff as a source for information that can be shared with consumers.

Evaluation Criteria:

- Increased consumer satisfaction as measured by Division surveys and comments from state wide focus groups.
- Feedback from survey of consumers about the format of their Guide to Services.


GOAL 5 -INSURE THE DIVISION’S TRANSITION SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE BLIND OR LOW VISION BEFORE LEAVING HIGH SCHOOL

STRATEGIES:
· Increase the awareness level of the Division’s Rehabilitation Counselors about Transition Services available to eligible consumers between the ages 14 to 21 years of age.
· Establish working relationships with local school systems to provide information about the Division’s Transition services.
· Make available the revised brochure about the Division’s Transition services in various modes of communication to all school systems and other referral sources.
· Develop a relationship with Department of Public Instruction’s Visual Impairment Transition Consultants.
· Investigate the possibility of additional Third Party Programs with school systems.

Evaluation Criteria:
- Increase in the number of new cases opened for consumers between the ages of 14 and 21.
- Identification of potential school systems for additional Third Party Transition Programs.
-
GOAL 6 – SUPPORT REHABILITATION AND INDEPENDENT LIVING REHABILITATION COUNCIL
STRATEGIES:
· Provide per diem cost for meetings.
· Provide staff support.
· Provide all materials in adapted format.

Evaluation Criteria:
- Better understanding of rehabilitation and rehabilitation laws, regulations and policies.
- Increased communication between Division staff and Council.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The National Health Interview survey (NHIS-D), from 1994 through 1995 concluded from a pole of 16,000 working adult’s ages 18 through 64, that 79% of non-disabled adults were actually working. However, only 37% of those interviewed who were disabled were actually employed. Two Federally funded studies published in 2000, also provided more insight on why the unemployment rate among the disabled was so high. The two studies analyzed data that was collected based on the contributions made by employers along with the accommodations made for employees with disabilities. The information in conducting these studies was used by the Urban Institute, which was gathered from the Disability Supplement of the NHIS-D in the identification of barriers to employment among the disabled. The researchers calculated that 37% of the 11.3 million disabled working age adults 18 to 64 were actually employed in 1994 and 1995. These statistics demonstrated that the current policies enacted sense 1964 have not been fully affective.
Some of the barriers to employment among the blind considered by researchers and rehabilitation professionals were: negative attitudes of employers towards the blind, client’s lack of employment related skills, government disincentives, lack of housing, and lack of family support. The American Foundation for the Blind acknowledged some barriers that rehabilitation professionals may also encounter when providing employment placement services for the blind. Some of these barriers are: overemphasize case closures, increasing number of consumers who suffer from multiple disabilities and financial work disincentives. It was Hopf (1991) in a discussion with rehabilitation professionals working in the private sector who said that some rehab professionals probably do not spawn practical vocational goals for clients pursuing a college education. He also went on to say that many of these blind and visually impaired college graduates may not be held to the same standards as their sighted counterparts and that may also be another barrier to employment among the blind and visually impaired.
The SSBG, Social Services Block Grant, allows individual states to aim Social Service funds to each state according to where they are most needed. This funding is used to help provide services to the elderly and disabled of whom have no link to the long established welfare system. Federal SSBG funding has been cut significantly over the past several years. Thus demonstrating a significant weakening in the federal commitment to those disabled in need.
The ADA signed in to law by President George Bush Sr. in 1990 prohibits discrimination rooted on disability. It was designed to provide civil rights for people with disabilities. Its purpose is to protect the civil rights for these individuals like those on the basis of religion, national origin, race and sex. The ADA also assures access to equal opportunities in the area of employment, transportation, public accommodations, telecommunication relay services, as well as state and local government services. It is necessary, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect the rights of individuals with disabilities against discrimination. Even though the ADA has had a significant impact on society, it is still often difficult for it to guarantee protection from discrimination against the disabled who are seeking gainful employment. Though it does provide legal remedies in that regard, the disabled are often discouraged from enforcing this legislation. The main reason perhaps is because disability discrimination cases are often difficult to prove.
In February 2001, President George W. Bush announced a new plan called the Freedom Initiative. Its purpose is to expand the opportunities of people with disabilities. It will help Americans with disabilities enter in to the workforce by making it easier to work from home and improve transportation services. Under the new plan, this initiative will encourage private companies to develop assistive technology that will be able to meet the guidelines of the ADA in accommodating prospective employees with disabilities. The president is also committed to requiring federal agencies in ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities to federal websites both inside and outside the federal offices. Congress will also be required to provide the resources needed to fulfill the promises of the Freedom Initiative Plan along with the ADA. This will insure that all people with disabilities will enjoy all of the respect they deserve as a citizen of the United States.
The Ticket to Work and Self-sufficiency Program is a nation-wide program, which is derived from the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, and it is a part of President Bush’s Freedom Initiative. It is designed to provide SSA beneficiaries who have disabilities with more choices for receiving the Vocational Rehab (VR), and other support services clients need to obtain as well as maintain employment in addition to increasing provider’s incentives for serving these individuals. The daily management of the Ticket to Work Program is the duty of the Program Manager (PM). SSA has contracted with MAXIMUS, which is a private company to carry out this role. Sense this program is still in its infancy; it will take some time to determine its overall effectiveness. However, it does seem to provide Social Security beneficiaries, rehabilitation agencies and their clients more of an incentive for working together in achieving there established employment goals. The North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind is a state run agency under the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. It is charged with rehabilitating blind/deaf-blind adults, who have a desire to acquire the skills necessary for becoming more productive, live more independently and become more self-sufficient. The North Carolina Division of Services of the Blind was created in 1935 so that the blind can have the chance to live a better quality of life. The North Carolina Division of services for the blind (DSB) has a long and rich history of providing services to the Blind, Visually Impaired, and Deaf-Blind citizens of North Carolina. They are able to provide these services through the cooperative resources of the Federal and state governments and all 100 counties in North Carolina. The Blind and Visually impaired, as well as those who have suffered from vision and hearing loss, have benefited from their long partnerships with the Lions Clubs along with other consumer and advocacy groups across the state. DSB provides services statewide through their staff and seven of their district offices strategically placed throughout the state and through social workers for the blind located in all 100 counties.
Clients who choose to pursue an education or career that will require the use of assistive technology attend the DSB Rehabilitation Center for the Blind on the campus of the Governor Morehead School in Raleigh, North Carolina. While there, clients will have a chance to explore the technology lab equipped with all of the latest assistive technology for the blind and visually impaired. A technology evaluation is also completed while the client is there. The evaluation will consist of an assessment of the client’s skill level and current need. Once the evaluation is completed, then the technology consultant will determine what equipment should be recommended for helping the client to pursue their vocational goal.
During the past 2 years, DSB’s contribution in job modifications has increased dramatically. This is partially due to the current advancements in assistive technology that is now on hand. However, rehabilitation counselors now spend a large amount of their time building relationships with prospective employers and learning their desires regarding the hiring of highly skilled blind and visually impaired job seekers. These relationships are beginning to enable prospective employers to become increasingly aware of the pool of skilled employees who are blind and visually impaired. The rehabilitation engineer, the rehabilitation center consultant, and the remaining consultants in the district offices are meeting with I.T. staff in various corporations, working together to make major modifications, which are often extremely complicated. This need is continuing to grow and it is quite possible that the need will soon outgrow the existing staff.
In fiscal year 2002, data reveals that the average cost of case services for closures for clients placed in successful employment, was $3,662.30. It also shows that the average wage earned by client’s one week prior to receiving DSB services was $127.83. The week after their case closure increased to $305.50. This only equates to an annual income of $15,886.00, which is still below the National Poverty Line. Prior to these case closures, the client’s average annual income was $6,647.16, so there is on average an annual income increase of $9,238.84. This is estimated to be a 138% increase in a client’s annual earnings after the week of their case closure in fiscal year 2002. These results still do not support any substantial evidence proving that DSB has succeeded in assisting clients with acquiring a decent job that pays above the National Poverty Line. They did manage to provide services that significantly increased the average annual income earnings for their clients after their case closures. However, more still needs to be done to insure that every DSB client has access to equal opportunity for gainful employment.
The State rehabilitation Council recommended that DSB increase overall awareness of its rehabilitation program. The council also encouraged DSB to develop more outreach programs for groups of blind and visually impaired people traditionally underserved in the community. This objective could be accomplished through the Division’s website. DSB responded by telling the council that it would review its outreach program and make changes where needed.
The North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind implemented a comprehensive system of personnel development, which was recognized in the State Strategic Plan in January 1999. Changes made over the last 4 years have resulted in growth of the number of DSB’s rehabilitation counselors who meet CSPD educational requirements. In fiscal year 2000, only 47% of DSB’s vocational rehabilitation counselors held a master’s degree in vocational rehabilitation counseling or related social sciences. In fiscal year 2003, this increased to 76% of the counselors who hold a master’s degree or meet CRC qualifications.
DSB continues to require the professional skills needed in marketing in job placement in order to enhance employment opportunities for the blind and visually impaired. Steps have been taken to insure continuity of these policy practices in its application for new staff. Every new rehabilitation counselor and job placement specialist receives a brief one on one introduction to the Job Development/Placement Model by the program specialist. This is for job placement during the staff member’s first month of employment. After their one on one training on the model, DSB requires new staff members to attend an intensive workshop for one week called “Building Trust Relationships,” on developing innovative marketing skills. Then the program specialist will provide more follow-up training by meeting with new staff for more one on one training experiences, an on-site interview with an employer in their area of the state, and other training modalities depending on the need. According to the statistical data which was gathered sense this training, the findings indicate that DSB staff have increased their number of employer contacts which has resulted in placement of more DSB clients, especially those with significant disabilities.
Employing the blind as well as the disabled presents a significant national policy problem. Statistics have demonstrated that a considerable minority of those able bodied blind and visually impaired is employed, while a significant majority is still unemployed. Largely, attitudinal barriers among the blind cause this. Some of these are: societies attitudes in their perception of the blind and visually impaired, insufficient funding for public rehabilitation programs, lack of knowledge among segments of the blind and visually impaired population about available programs and services, heavy caseloads for rehabilitation professionals, and a shortage in qualified rehabilitation professionals. This is largely caused by the low pay scales within public state agencies, such as the North Carolina division of Services for the Blind among many other factors. However, this is not to say that one or all state agencies are to blame for this policy problem. The federal government does not micromanage what states should spend and for what programs. This should be left up to the states to manage. They should be familiar with their own needs according to their first hand knowledge on demographical and geographical information which will enable them to know where to aim federal funding based on where it is most needed at any given time. However, they need to be better able to set more attainable goals within a realistic time frame, achieve them and then set new goals, which will enable them to provide a higher quality level of services to their clients.
Another problem, which wasn’t touched on much in this research, was the problem with the blind and visually impaired community. Being a member and an active participant of this subculture enables one to serve as a resource in order to provide observations on this topic of interest. The blind and visually impaired community can be its own worst enemy. This is largely because employment is not a significant concern. Many people have said the ADA does not do enough to protect against job discrimination among the disabled especially the blind and visually impaired. Truth is, the ADA does prove sufficient in that regard. However, many blind and visually impaired people simply do not choose to enforce the ADA because it is tedious work for them and often family, friends, and caseworkers discourage them from filing complaints as well. This is perhaps one of the main reasons why the ADA is not widely enforced when it involves employment discrimination. More often, discrimination cases are never resolved due to employers’ cover-ups. If a blind applicant hands in a resume and it says the person is blind on it, all the employer has to do is throw the resume in the trash and say they never received it. Then the applicant virtually has no grounds for filing any claim of discrimination, because they can’t prove that it was lost or trashed on purpose.
Another issue is tension among the blindness interest groups, such as the dispute between the ACB (American Council for the Blind), and NFB (National Federation for the Blind). Supposedly, the story was that the ACB had formed when some federationists who were members of the NFB no longer had a desire to conform to the NFB tradition. Hence these members were ousted and the ACB was formed. Unlike the NFB, the ACB believed that they were a more democratic organization than the NFB who wouldn’t allow any opposing opinions that raised conflict with their NFB traditions. Thus, the ACB were considered rebels and the NFB had deemed ACB as societal outcasts for years.
It is true that the ACB and NFB do work together on certain projects, which will benefit the blindness community, but the tension is still there. It’s almost like having two separate political parties. So there is politics among the members of the blind community. Politics is a good thing, because it is necessary for getting specific goals and objectives accomplished. The down side of this is that the blind and visually impaired community is already a significantly small minority group as it is. If these blindness interest groups keep encouraging this “he said, she said” mentality, as seen on their list serves, then the blind community will never get where it needs to be when protecting itself against discrimination; or when trying to pursue important objectives which will enable the blind community to achieve important goals for moving forward.
There needs to be more encouragement for research concerning the policy issue of employing the blind as well as the entire disabled population as a whole. Many who are in government, who make decisions which guide our public policy are mostly or perhaps all are sighted and have been mislead in to believing that discrimination against the disabled ended with the passage of the ADA in 1990. Those of us who are blind or disabled know this isn’t very accurate information and believe otherwise is simply irrational. There is an old vocational rehab argument that blind people lack basic skills, personal attributes, or don’t have the desire to work. This ancient way of thinking is no longer applicable for 21st century thinkers. Today, there are more blind people in the United States who have college as well as graduate degrees and to add further; they are all just as accountable as their sighted counterparts.
The National Organization on Disability (NOD) listed the top ten reasons for hiring a person with disabilities. They are as follows:
1. Employees with disabilities can ease concerns about labor supply.

2. People with disabilities have equal or higher job performance ratings, higher retention
Rates and lower absenteeism.

3. Employees with disabilities can relate better to customers with disabilities, who represent $1 trillion in annual aggregate consumer spending.

4. Diverse work groups can create better solutions to business challenges.

5. People with disabilities are better educated than ever, and are proven to have met and/or exceeded challenges.

6. A person with a disability motivates work groups and increases productivity.

7. Companies that hire and accommodate people with disabilities in their workplaces can receive tax benefits.

8. Employing people with disabilities is good for the individual, the business, and society. This is a "win-win-win" strategy.

9. People with disabilities are motivated by the desire to give something back, and opportunities for personal growth, job flexibility, and social inclusion.

10. It's ability, not disability that counts. (http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=319)

Holding employers accountable for discrimination against the blind as well as the disabled regarding successful hiring and promotion of adapted blind workers is essential for stopping employment discrimination in the United States today. A sad reality is that employers are at their own disgression and will hire whom they want. When push comes to shove, employers consistently hire the non-disabled applicant over the well-qualified blind applicant. Thus, many blind job applicants are left with jobs that the non-disabled job applicants absolutely refuse to do. These job types consist of low-level positions which are often repetitive and boring, with little or no opportunity for advancement. Finally, publicizing this reality of life for the blind will be a key ingredient for true progress in integrating the blind fully in to society while decreasing their reliance on costly and unproductive social welfare programs for the blind and disabled.
This research proves that national and state rehabilitation programs have made significant progress over the past few years, however this research also shows there is still much room for improvement. The idea of the Ticket to Work Program will help fuel the initiative of state run public rehabilitation programs to produce better results for assisting the blind/disabled in acquiring gainful employment. As a result of significant changes in concepts, social attitudes, and education about the employability of blind people, it is the hope that new jobs will be made accessible to all people with disabilities.









WORKS CITED
Bush, George W. (2001, July 28). Radio Address by the President to the Nation. White House. Retrieved 2001, October 30 on World Wide Web:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010728.html

Department of Health/Human Services; State Plan for Department Services for the Blind.

Employing People with Disabilities Q & A. (2001, November 15). ODEP Education Kit 2001. U.S. DOL. Retrieved November 15, 2001 on World Wide Web:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/oped/public/media/reports/ek01/employ.hm3

Jobs Being Done by People Who are Blind or Visually Impaired. (2001, October 1).
American Foundation for the Blind. Retrieved November 15, 2001 on World
Wide Web:
http://www.afb.org/infodocument--view.asp?documentid=905

Kirchner, Corrine. (2001, February 23). Employment Statistics for People Who are Blind or Visually Impaired. American Foundation for the Blind. Retrieved November
17, 2001 on World Wide Web: http://AFB.org

Personal Interview with JoAnn Strader, assistant to Debbie Jackson at North Carolina Services for the Blind

Statistics About People with Disabilities and Employment. (2001, July). ODEP
Education Kit 2001. U.S. DOL. Retrieved November 15, 2001 on the World Wide
Web: http://dol.gov/dol/oped/public/reports/ek01/stats.Iron

The Top Ten Reasons To Hire People with Disabilities. (2001, June 6.) Retrieved April 22, 2004 on the World Wide Web: http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=319








Appendix A

GOALS AND PLANS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF TITLE VI,
PART B FUNDS

Title VI, Part B funds will be utilized for the continuation of the current contract service providers of supported employment which were established in Fiscal Year 1990-91. These 8 programs will serve eligible individuals from all 100 counties through the Supported Employment Job Development model of integrated employment.

The North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind subscribes to the following FY 2003-2004 supported employment goals:

1. In all 100 counties, the Division plans to identify individuals with disabilities that have traditionally been underserved and unserved who will require Supported Employment services in order to achieve a successful employment outcome by using the following objectives:

a. Rehabilitation Counselors will identify and refer individuals with the most significant disabilities for Supported Employment services, and

b. Supported Employment programs will identify individuals with the most significant disabilities who want to work, and refer them to the Division for vocational rehabilitation services, which may include Supported Employment services.

2. During Fiscal Year 2003-2004, the Division plans to close thirty (30) individuals indicating successful employment outcomes (Status 26) after receiving Supported Employment services. This will be achieved by the following objectives:

a. All Model II Supported Employment Programs (Job Coach Position and Program Coordinator Position) will be responsible for six (6) employment outcomes, and

b. All Model I Supported Employment Programs (Program Coordinator/Job Coach) will be responsible for three (3) employment outcomes.

3. The Division will continue to study the operation of the statewide program to identify any areas that need change or improvement.