PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACHES FOR TRANSITION TO EMPLOYMENT
CONCEPT PAPER AND PROPOSALS FOR POSSIBLE PILOT PROJECTS
May 31, 1995
Prepared for the Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities by:
Human Services Research & Development Center
1195 Juno Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55116
(612-696-0012)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Surveys and interviews conducted throughout the state to county social services, day training and rehabilitation agencies, families, Personal Futures Planning facilitators, and colleges and universities indicate the current status of Person-Centered Planning and Community Action-like efforts in Minnesota:
(1) Many efforts in Person-Centered Planning approaches are occurring, including modification of the required formal annual planning process to a more person-centered one. Particularly successful uses of such approaches include efforts where the facilitation of person-centered planning groups has been designated in organizational structures, including specific staff roles and time.
(2) More is occurring with other forms of Person-Centered Planning than Community Action. Current efforts at linkages to community members primarily take two forms: support for individual relationships and volunteer programs. Many agencies report trouble finding community members willing to make personal commitments to individuals with disabilities. Most community members have only been asked to provide friendship and social networking, rather than to assist in realization of life goals such as finding employment.
(3) The parents who responded to the survey who had participated impersonal Futures Planning reported that although the first meeting or two was great, there was no follow-up.
(4) There are efforts in universities, colleges, and high schools to match students with individuals with disabilities.
These take three forms:
(a) a year-long class at the University of Minnesota in which students learn to be a Social Inclusion Facilitator through supporting one individual with disabilities
(b) a similar program at the high school level called "Yes I Can," with a curriculum used by 9 school districts throughout the state
(c) "Service Learning" projects based on volunteerism and promoted by Presidents Bush and Clinton; funded and coordinated by the Higher Education Coordinating Board at many colleges and universities throughout the state
(5) Many people implementing Person-Centered Planning and support for community relationships did not feel that rules and regulations were a hindrance -- it was more a matter of attitude and "just doing it. " There is nothing in state law and Rule 185 (Case Management) right now that would prohibit, for instance, Personal Futures Planning from being used to fulfill all requirements of the Individual Service Plan and interdisciplinary team requirements for annual planning. However, in two current pilots - the Mandates Reform Project and the Performance-based Contracting project - counties and agencies have requested rule variances to allow more time and flexibility for person-centered planning. These variances primarily reduce paperwork, eliminate paperwork redundancies, and put the decisions for content and frequency of planning and programs in the hands of the individual's interdisciplinary team.
(6) Although none of the above efforts have been directly aimed at promoting community-based employment, some employment has occurred for some individuals in all these approaches. Most efforts could be adapted to promote more community-based employment.
Successful models both in Minnesota and in other states are described. Four different types of pilot projects are recommended for consideration to use Community Action to promote employment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction -- Person-Centered Planning
1. Extent to Which Person-Centered Planning is Being Used in Minnesota for Transition of Youth
Surveys
Phone Interviews
Survey/Interview Results
Four Current Approaches to Person-Centered Planning
(1) Using Designated Person-Centered Planning Approaches and Altering the Formal Planning Process
(2) School Districts Empowering Students and Families
(3) Natural Supports in the Workplace
(4) More Time for Person-Centered Planning: Variances in Rules Parent Experiences with Person-Centered Planning
Role of CTIC's
Confusion about Person-Centered Planning
Implications for Recommendations
II. A Review of the Community Action Approach to Person-Centered Planning 13
Other Community Action Approaches in Other Parts of the Country Implications for Recommendations
III. Use of the Community Action Approach in Transition Planning for Minnesota Youth
Four Types of Approaches Currently Used
(1) Experience with Community Action in Schools
(2) Experience with Community Action in Adult Services
(3) University and High School Students Learning to be Community Inclusion Facilitators
(4) Service Learning Projects
Application of Community Action Approaches to Employment in Minnesota
Parent Experiences Regarding Community Action
IV. Assurance of a Culturally Competent Project
Recommendations
V. Recommendations for Utilizing Community Action Transition Planning 21
Overall Recommendations --
Themes and Principles 21
Recommendations for Pilot Project 25
A. Empower Person-Centered Planning Facilitation 25
B. Community Action Elements 26
Project Type #l: Employment Experts 26
Project Type #2: Wide Range of Community Members 26
Project Type #3: Matching with College/University Students 27
C. Pursue Rule Variances to Promote Person-Centered Planning 29
VI. Counties and Others Interested in Participating in Pilot Project 30 Universities/Colleges 30
Counties 32
Provider Agencies 33
REFERENCES 35
TABLE 1: SURVEY RETURNS AND RESULTS 5
TABLE 2: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POSSIBLE PILOT PROJECTS 24
Appendix A: Most Exciting Models horn Other States 36
(1) Midland, Michigan -- Personal Futures Planning and Circles of Friends (
2) New Hampshire -- statutory language
(3) Natural Ties -- Community Action based on group membership (4) Consumer-Directed Services: Vouchers for Employment
Appendix B: Barriers: Rules and Regulations, Funding, and Others 39
Appendix C: Surveys 44
SUPPLEMENTARY RESOURCE MATERIAL: Information on and Resources Used in Other Minnesota Projects
1. Contact Information for Counties and Provider Agencies Interested in Pilot Project
2. Natural Supports in the Workplace (PACER)
3. Citizenship Project (Stearns County)
4. Service Learning projects in Minnesota higher education institutions
5. Information on COACH (Choosing Options and Accommodations for Children) assessment tool, St. Paul schools
6. Person-Centered Planning Curriculum for students, Red Wing schools
PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACHES
CONCEPT PAPER AND PROPOSALS FOR POSSIBLE PROJECTS
This document is the response to the request from the Governor's Council for a concept paper for ideas for pilot projects utilizing the Community Action approach and how it could be applied in Minnesota to support transition to employment. The sections follow six areas of information requested by the Council.
In evaluating the extent of the utilization of these approaches in Minnesota and development of a possible pilot project, we incorporated several different key ideas that were all part of the Council's request for this paper:
(1) how to achieve effective Person-Centered Planning approaches (2) how to utilize Community Action for community-based employment
(3) whether waivers of existing rules and regulations could promote both of the above approaches
We also looked to model efforts in other states to see how they could be adapted in Minnesota. In developing ideas for projects, we tried to gather as much information as possible, cast as broad a net as possible and consider as many concepts as possible to determine which ways the Council could use to achieve the outcomes it has targeted.
Introduction: Person-Centered Planning
"Person-Centered Planning" refers to a broad perspective on planning for and helping individuals with disabilities live valued lives in the community. Several key ideas (O'Brien & Lovett, 1993) distinguish it from more traditional planning approaches:
(1) a perspective on seeing an individual as a person first, with an emphasis on their capacities and gifts rather than their deficits and labels
(2) a personal dream is invented for a person's life that is based on a desirable lifestyle and meaningful experiences as part of community life, rather than segregated and stereotypical program options
(3) control by the person and their family and friends, rather than by professionals, is supported; primary direction is from the individual in shaping the planning process and formulating plans
(4) family members and friends are involved in the planning process, with a reliance on personal social relationships as the primary source of support to the individual
(5) investment is made in opening up local community life and finding welcoming community associations, settings and people; there is an emphasis on the settings, services, supports and routines available in the community at large rather than those designed for people with disabilities.
A number of specific approaches are types of person-centered planning:
(a) Personal Futures Planning (developed by Beth Mount, John O'Brien and others) -- small groups of committed people gather overtime around one person to craft and realize a life of meaning for that individual. Typically, colorful posters capture a new understanding of the person's history, gifts, and dreams, and enable a rich vision to be developed for that person's life. The group is called into action by the vision and works overtime to realize it.
(2) Essential Life-style Planning (developed by Michael Smull and others) -- a process similar to Personal Futures Planning and often used with individuals with severe reputations. Two particular parts of the process include identifying a person's "core values" and the "non-negotiables" which would be absolutely necessary in designing support for the person's life.
(3) MAPS (McGill Action Planning System) -- is also similar to Personal Futures Planning in its use of charts and colorful markers. It has primarily been used with school children to help design an inclusive school life.
(4) Circles of Friends/Circles of Support -- some forms of person-centered planning are called "circles." The circle is the group of people who meets and uses whatever form of planning method is being implemented. Circles are typically formed by the individual's invitation, rather than by formal roles.
(5) Community Action-- uses Personal Futures Planning groups as described above, and broadens to match nondisabled community members in one-to-one relationships with individuals with disabilities. This approach is more extensively described below in Section II (p. 13).
One of the common misunderstandings and/or misuses of person-centered planning approaches in current practices is that these approaches are only used to plan. Rather, all these approaches were designed for groups to meet over time to actually implement the vision for the person's life, including creative problem-solving over time.
Another misunderstanding is that these approaches also were designed to include non-disabled community members who are not part of the formal system. While some groups initially start out with only professionals or with professionals and family, these approaches do emphasize inclusion of other friends and contacts. Some particular methods have specially emphasized such inclusion or made particular efforts in that direction such as the Community Action approach.
2
I. EXTENT TO WHICH PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING IS BEING USED IN MINNESOTA FOR TRANSITION OF YOUTH
The scope of the project envisioned by the Council is actually fairly broad. Clarification of the term "transition of youth" for the purposes of this project means movement to employment in four areas:
(a) from school to work
(b) from center-based to community-based employment
(c) from unemployment to community-based employment, and/or (d) from current community-based employment to more individualized and/or career-oriented employment (such as from enclave to individualized job or from entry-level job to a career ladder)
We surveyed and interviewed people throughout the state to determine the current status of any person-centered planning efforts in Minnesota, how they are being used for movement to employment, and how current efforts could be adapted to promote more Community Action and community-based employment.
SURVEYS
Mail surveys (Appendix C) were conducted to gather information on what is happening around the state regarding:
(a) Person-Centered Planning
(b) Community Action-like approaches
(c) any application of these two approaches to supporting community-based employment
The following four groups were surveyed:
Group I:
Special education directors
Community Transition Interagency Committees (CTICS)
Group II:
Day training and habilitation centers
Community rehabilitation program and facilities (extended employment)
County social services Persons who had received training as Personal Futures Planning facilitators in previous
Council-funded projects
Group III:
University Departments of Special Education
Community colleges and technical colleges
Group IV:
Parents and consumers
-- participants in Council's Partners in Policy-Making
-- some families of persons served by agencies surveyed (selected by agencies)
-- some Arc families (selected by state and local Arc offices)
PHONE INTERVIEWS
We also conducted phone interviews of some survey respondents. The purpose of these interviews was to gather more detailed information about efforts which were occurring, people's experiences of barriers, ideas for projects, and issues of cultural competence. Surveys received were prioritized for interviews based on depth of efforts in place, uniqueness compared to other surveys, and whether we already had sufficient information about efforts indicated.
The number of surveys mailed and received, and number of phone interviews in each group, is reported in Table In this table, a "Yes" response was counted to indicate that the respondent indicated that they had some type of experience with some form of either Person-Centered Planning approach or Community Action. "No" means that the respondent returned the survey and indicated they did not have any experience with either approach. Many of the "No's" indicated that although they did not have any experience with these approaches, they would like to participate in a pilot project.
We are extremely pleased with a return rate of approximately 25% for colleges and universities, 29% for agencies and 44% for county informants, which is higher than we anticipated and is an excellent return rate for this type of mail survey. The surveys which we received represented many of the efforts in Person-Centered Planning which we knew were occurring, and also a good number of other efforts. The surveys which we received appeared to provide an excellent representation of the efforts which are occurring throughout the state.
Parent Surveys
We also developed a parent/consumer survey at the request of the Council to find out direct information from parents and consumers regarding their experiences with Person-Centered Planning approaches and Community Action. This survey was mailed through three different avenues and the results are also reported on Table 1.
The results of both the surveys and interviews indicate that what is currently occurring in Minnesota is a great variety of experiences with various kinds of Person-Centered Planning approaches, and very little experience with any kind of Community Action. Four current approaches to implementation of person-centered planning are described.
FOUR CURRENT APPROACHES TO PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING
(1) Using Designated Person-Centered Planning Approaches and Altering the Formal Planning Process
As reported in Table 1, there were forty special education teachers or staff who indicated using a person-centered planning approach, although the size and complexity of effort, and understanding of "person-centered planning" varied greatly in the responses. The number of students involved ranged from 1 to 225 per respondent. In the instances in which clearly defined Person-Centered Planning approaches such as MAPS were used, such efforts have occurred due to the existence of a special project, a designated staff specialist, influence of an external agency (such as the Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota), or the efforts of a motivated individual.
In adult services agencies and county social services, 98 survey respondents (Table 1) indicated using such approaches. Again a range of size and complexity of effort as well as understanding of "person-centered planning" was reflected in responses. Reports reflected a combination of designated Person-Centered Planning approaches such as Personal Futures Planning as well as very many efforts throughout the state to alter the formal planning process to be more person-centered.
This second type of approach involves altering the nature of formal planning so it incorporates and is based on the fundamental values of Person-Centered Planning --a capacity-based view of the person and a clear image of a desirable future. Many of these efforts aimed at adapting the formal required system derive from the difficulty of staff maintaining a separate side-by-side "system" of Futures Planning Groups or Circles of Friends; instead, agencies have taken the approach of transforming their required processes. Systematic and thorough person-centered planning approaches take implementation over time, and the organizational structures to support it. A project in such Person-Centered Planning approaches at the University of Northern Colorado called it having to go "beyond the maps" (or charts). Only meeting and implementation over time, including the organizational structures which support that implementation, results in the realization of the vision for someone's life (Pantaleo, Griffin, Lieshout, & Deatherage, 1994).
(If such a system of Circles of Friends were to be maintained, either a separate entity would have to maintain it, it would have to be designated in staff roles, or staff would have to be released
6
from some current responsibilities. See the first recommendation for "Empowering Person-Centered Planning Facilitation" on p. 25.)
(2) School Districts Empowering Students and Families Using Person-Centered Planning
There are several efforts in some school districts to use the concepts of Personal Futures Planning and MAPS. A teacher in Red Wing teaches Personal Futures Planning directly to her students; then they translate the Personal Futures Plans into goals and objectives for their IEPs. About 18 students are involved each year. She also teaches them to self-advocate at their IEP meeting, including running their own meeting. One special education teacher in Duluth teaches her whole class about IEPs and has them write their own IEP goals in each of five transition areas; the students present these goals at their IEP meetings. Three staff use this approach with 32 students a year.
The St. Paul school district has made a substantial commitment to using Personal Futures Planning methods in transition planning. One teacher does fulll-time Personal Futures Planning. An educational planning tool named COACH (Choosing Options and Acomodations for Children: A Guide to Planning Inclusive Education; Giangreco, Cloninger, and Iverson 1993) is a family-centered, "valued life outcomes" method used with all students designated as moderately or severely disabled. The intention of both approaches for students age 16-25 is that the person graduates into a paid job. (Description of results is in the following section.) District 287 in the metro area also has a fill-time staff person using some elements of person-centered planning.
Requested contact information for these efforts is in the separate document, Supplementary Resource Section.
(3) Natural Supports in the Workplace (PACER project)
This federally-funded project operates with four school districts in the metropolitan area (St, Paul, Anoka-Hennepin, Forest Lake and 916) and three day programs at Kaposia RISE, and ESR. Career Planning/Person-Centered planning is used to identify areas of vocational interests and supports needed to be carried out in the workplace. This project is particularly targeted at employment for students who have not traditionally transitioned into supported or competitive employment from school, those who are classified in the moderate-severe range of disability and have traditionally gone from school into segregated day programs.
Adult service providers receive funds to do job development for the schools, with a focus on building employers' capacity to provide support. The job coach's role is changed from caretaker to that of consultant and facilitator in supporting coworkers and supervisors. Businesses are being empowered to get away from their dependence on job coaches and the expectation that job coaches will always be there to deal with behavior, physical needs, etc.
Up until the third quarter of the third year of this 5-year project, 58 students from ages 16-25 each year have participated. Of these students, 73% are in jobs that meet the project criterion including single site and hired directly by the employer. This is unique and valuable -- that the
7
high school students are being paid by the employers, and the student retains the job after graduation as "their" job. The number in enclaves or not direct hire increases the total employed. Most of these jobs have been developed through traditional job development, with a small percentage through contacts such as fiends of family.
Outcomes in the St. Paul school district are one example of the results of this project to date. In St. Paul, the process has been used with 20 students age 13-15, 23 students age 16-22, and 24 students who have graduated. Nine of the 43 school age students are currently working in a variety of jobs including mail carrier, at Ramsey County, and at an ice rink Of the 24 students who have graduated, four are in community-based employment including at the Mall of America, Federal Reserve Building, and Hotel Sofitel. Although there was no formal comparison group established as part of this project, the staff compare these results with previous graduating classes. For classes with students with this level of severity of disability, all previous students went to segregated adult day programs.
Additional information on this project is in the Supplementary Resource Section of this report, including the numbers of students who have any kind of employment versus those who have jobs meeting this specific project's higher criteria for employment (individual site, not enclave; direct pay from employer, JTPA or CYET; job developed and/or coworkers supported directly or through proactive technical assistance by project staff to other agency staff or school personnel).
(4) More time for Person-Centered Planning: Variances in Rules
Two pilot projects initiated by the state Department of Human Services, Mandates Reforms and Performance-Based Contracting, have allowed agencies and/or counties to reduce paperwork requirements and develop innovations in the planning and service delivery process. The Mandates Reform Project is completing in June of 1995 after three years, and the Performance-Based Contracting project is currently in the first year of a five-year project.
In the Performance-Based Contracting project, there are five residential services agencies which are piloting Person-centered approaches to services based on outcomes in people's lives. They all have Intermediate Care Facilities for which waivers of certain federal regulations are being pursued. Contracts with the state will be based on demonstrated outcomes in people's lives.
Although not directly affecting employment, these residential agencies are all designing and implementing person-centered planning approaches and identifying which regulations need to be waived in order to implement such approaches. They have requested numerous variances of the assessment and planning regulations to have these processes be more person-centered and to free up staff time to focus on issues of quality in people's lives (see Appendix B on "Barriers"). The variances requested also address county case manager time, to allow more time for county involvement in person-centered planning.
Stearns County participated in the Mandates Reforms project and requested variances in Rules 185 (case management), 42 (waivered services), 38 (day training and habilitation centers), 53
8
(ICF-MR finding), 34 (ICF-MRS), and 18 (semi-independent living services -- SILS). The variances affecting 185 and 38 directly affect time for focus on community-based employment. Many of these rules changes centered on: (a) identifying redundancies in paperwork requirements that were wasting staff time; and (b) a general approach of empowering interdisciplinary teams to develop reasonable alternatives for a particular individual rather than following prescriptive rules that were the same for everyone. As a result of these changes, the consumer and his/her family have also been very empowered in the annual meeting process. Consumers are running their meetings, making personal invitations, and deciding on and providing refreshments. Families have reported a shift in empowerment, including one parent who, when asked for their input at one of these meetings, exclaimed in great surprise, "You never cared what we thought before!" Putting more decision-making power into the hands of the team for each person results in a more individualized basis for such decisions as when and what assessments need to be done. Proposals for variances also have meant developing alternative methods to meet the intent of the regulations.
The variances which have been granted directly relate to freeing up staff time to promote more person-centered planning approaches. Some of the variances granted in both projects have been:
(a) eliminating quarterly reviews; documenting progress in log notes; basing timelines for reviews on when the individual team determines that reviews should be done; when staff and teams meet determined on an individual basis
(b) county guardianship rule -- reducing redundant paperwork
(c) reducing requirements for annual physicals and prescriptive dietary guidelines
(d) reducing the requirements for who has to get copies of all paperwork
(e) Rule 40 (use of aversive procedures) -- extend time for resubmittal of paperwork to the state for approval from every 90 days to up to once a year, based on team decision of when re-approval is needed
(f) reduction in data required to be accumulated by programs
(g) more individual consideration of staff qualifications besides QMRP standards
(h) consolidation of all program plans between agencies
(i) adaptations in number and types of staff training hours required (j) making the service planning team (as in Rule 185) more inclusive, especially of providers, or based on individual and family preferences
In the project in Stearns County, in the tie that was saved by these reductions in paperwork, staff were required to use the people resources which were freed up to help individuals with disabilities become more fully "citizens." (At the day training and habilitation program, variances allowed in Rule 38 added up to 40 hours of staff time a week which could be used for supporting citizenship and community-based employment. For the 20 target individuals, this meant that each could receive approximately 2 hours a week in 1:1 time which had been freed up among all staff time due to these variances.) The staff used this time productively: people were assisted to have more friends, and be more members of their own communities. After two years, 80% of the people had improved the extensiveness of their social network. In this "Citizenship Project," approximately four people also got community jobs. Obtaining these jobs occurred mainly
9
through the efforts of either professional staff or family members, rather than through other community members.
More information about this Citizenship Project is in the Supplementary Resource section of this report.
PARENT EXPERIENCES WITH PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING
School and agency staff reported positive comments by families involved in Person-Centered Planning efforts, such as that parents loved the processor reported this was the "first time they have felt involved." In some districts, students are very empowered in their own IEP process.
However, the parents who returned surveys reported many problems. Most used the opportunity of this survey to indicate their many problems with obtaining services or getting the right services, rather than being specific to Person-Centered Planning. Two mentioned having to use attorneys to obtain services. Most responses indicated recommendations that information about person-centered planning and Community Action should be distributed much more widely, that families should know more about both these processes. (Note comments in next section on "Confusion about Person-Centered Planning" about how much confusion and lack of knowledge there is about these processes.)
There were 12 parents who indicated they had participated in Personal Futures Planning or MAPS. Five of the nine reported positive experiences, 2 of these with MAPS, one in the Natural Supports project, one with no specific process mentioned, and one in which a person-centered planning process had been used for transition. This was the only parent who indicated positive success with her child getting employment through a Person-Centered process used for transition planning. In this case, only the first two planning meetings were held, then the participants simply went out and set up what needed to be setup, and there was no need for the group to continue to meet. Of the five parents who specifically mentioned Personal Futures Planning, three said there had been no follow-up or follow-through and two have been disappointed with the follow-up. (In the three cases with no follow-up, there was no systematic and organized structure for the facilitator to continue to meet with the group.) One reported no follow-up with MAPs.
ROLE OF CTIC'S
The role of the Community Transition Interagency Committees as reported in these surveys and interviews ranged greatly. Those CTIC'S which had a high degree of involvement had funded training about Person-Centered Planning, developed a Person-Centered Planning curriculum, and offered training about PCP to students and teachers from other school districts. (Information on the Planning curriculum is in Supplementary Resource section of this report.) In other districts CTIC'S had minimal involvement; in one case, their participation consisted solely of being informed of what's occurring regarding PCP. One CTIC respondent reported poor support by adult service providers of CTIC. Other respondents saw the CTIC as playing no real role -- they were advisory only and had no power or funding to put its ideas into practice (the lack of clerical
10
support made the burden of voluntary participation onerous; part-time staff support was needed). While some CTIC'S saw their most valuable role as reviewing the cases of individual students, one CTIC was not involved in individual student issues because confidentiality issues were seen as too cumbersome.
CONFUSION ABOUT PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING
In both surveys and interviews, we found a great deal of confusion about what is meant by "person-centered planning. " In trying to survey parents, agency representatives told us that their parents would not know the terms "Person-Centered Planning" or "Personal Futures Planning," etc. -- they only know whatever process they have gone through but do not know it by name. One family member called and told us this also - that she didn't know how to fill out the survey because she did not know the terms. She thought "Personal Futures Planning" consisted of team members writing out answers to questions on forms. It was evident from the remainder of what they wrote that several parents who responded that they had participated in Person-Centered Planning actually had not. Fifteen of the 48 parents returning surveys indicated they wanted more information which was sent to them.
Several counties responded to surveys that their planning processes already were "person-centered," either because the person was at the meeting and/or they developed long-range goals for the person. One case manager stated that all her meetings were person-centered, yet concluded her remarks by stating that the MAPS process would be "ludicrous" for her "low functioning, nonverbal clients. " Another respondent said that she's been doing person-centered planning for the past fifteen years, yet the people she serves in that county are still in segregated settings, socially isolated, and poor.
When asked about Person-Centered Planning some colleges and universities responded that they had classes such as Career Self-Assessment and Career Job-Seeking Skills (Resume Writing and Interviewing), and that students with disabilities could take these classes. District 187/Hennepin Technical College offers career exploration through the Career Assessment Center at unpaid volunteer sites in private nonprofit or public agencies.
A small number of other respondents viewed person-centered planning as "unrealistic dreaming." Some people think person-centered planning is "dream-making" and that people are asked to speak their hopes without a real commitment to working together to support the person actually achieving their dream.
There is also confusion about whether it is all right to use person-centered processes for assessment and planning. One Personal Futures Planning facilitator recommended that the state Department of Human Services issue a statement that person-centered planning is supported, with the recommended message being conveyed that "we don't care how you get the information as long as you have what we asked for and it makes sense for the person, it's OK."
Two recommendations from Personal Futures Planning facilitators made to the Council (apart from a Community Action pilot project) include:
11
(a) developing and disseminating a list of fundamental "characteristics" of person-centered planning. For instance, the Certification Project in Missouri's list of 30 "principles" of person-centered planning could be used in any future training and also be widely distributed, through such Council avenues as the Futurity newsletter. It is not recommended that a specific type of planning be excluded or endorsed (e.g., MAPS vs. Career Planning); however, principles should offer sufficient detail so that the "same old same old" type of planning would clearly not meet the criteria.
(b) the focus cannot only be on the type of planning, but on the actual implementation of those plans. Planning is easy, but outcomes and results in people's lives need to become much more important. Many futures plans have been made, with no follow-up. One of the apparently critical factors in that implementation is that person-centered planning groups continue to meet over time and that the facilitator role is safeguarded with time and resources designated for it (See section (1) under "Four Current Approaches to Person-Centered Planning," p. 6; "Implications for Recommendations," p. 12; and "Recommendations for Pilot Project, Empower Person-Centered Planning Facilitation" p. 25.) Organizational supports are needed for focus on the implementation of the person-centered plan, and all supports and requirements for person-centered planning, including training, regulations, and support for designated facilitator time and roles, need to have far more focus on this implementation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the Family Surveys indicated that although the Personal Futures Planning process had been started in some cases, all of them had not continued. The three parents who specifically mentioned Personal Futures Planning all said something like "there was no follow-up," "no follow-through" etc.
We looked for communities and states where others seemed to be using these approaches most effectively, where they were working the best; we looked to see if anyone had actually implemented these approaches successfully on along-term basis. In getting answers to the questions of what it had taken others to successfully get these approaches to work we felt we could learn some elements of what it might take to apply them in Minnesota. Information about these programs in other states is in Appendix A.
From this information it is clear that when Personal Futures Planning has been successful over a lengthy period of time and where significant change has occurred, one of the key factors in that success has been organizational structures and the empowerment of the process, including designated facilitator time and authority (Pantaleo, et al., 1994). In other states the facilitation role has been held outside the service-provider system, by a separate agency. (In Midland, Michigan, for instance, the social services system contracts with the Arc to facilitate Circles of Friends; see Appendix A). In Minnesota when it has been most successful, there has been specific staff time designated for it and a specific staff role, such as programs at the Arc-Ramsey County, and staff jobs at St. Paul schools and Bloomington's early childhood special education program.
12
II. A REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACH TO PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING
"Community Action" is the term used for an approach developed at San Diego State University by Dr. Ian Pumpian and his colleagues. It combines person-centered planning approaches to understanding an individual and planning for his life, with specific efforts to involve nondisabled community members. In this case, university students in a general education undergraduate course are matched on a one-to-one basis with individuals with disabilities, and get to know them on a personal basis. Many of the individuals with disabilities had participated in Personal Futures Planning types of groups. The existing interests and skills of the students are matched with the interests and needs of the people who have developmental disabilities. In some cases, depending on the interest and commitment of the particular student and life situation of the particular individual, the students assist with realization of some of the goals of the person-centered plan including finding community-based jobs. Some of the relationships have continued beyond the end of the academic term. San Diego State is now also developing these classes at the high school level and in community education programs.
OTHER COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACHES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY
In terms of other colleges and universities in other parts of the country which are implementing the "Community Action" approach in classes similar to that at San Diego State, we have found out that four other universities (including the University of Florida and Northern Illinois University) who have implemented "general education" classes of this nature are only presenting the material in lectures and are not doing the matching between students and persons with disabilities which occurs at SDSU.
Only one other university, Old Dominion University in Norfolk Virginia is doing one-to-one matching with students. In this case, a residential services agency (Hope House) received a grant from their state Planning Council for a part-time person to coordinate the matching and support of students as the practicum part of the college class. Because the class already existed, it took only one semester to plan and add this experiential component. Students get to know one person with disabilities over one semester as a friend/companion, and help with life goals designated by that person for that one semester. The objective is for the student to help complete one goal with the person during the semester. Some of the relationships have lasted longer than one semester, but not any have yet resulted in new jobs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
While this approach has not emphasized employment at SDSU or Old Dominion it certainly could be utilized to do so. Students who are matched could be given the charge of helping the individual with disabilities find a job. Any college or university which develops such a "practicum" component would need additional funding for the extra staff time needed to do the matching and support of individual relationships.
13
III. USE OF THE COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACH IN TRANSITION PLANNING FOR MINNESOTA YOUTH
The surveys and interviews which were conducted to determine the extent to which person-centered planning is being used in Minnesota for transition also asked about the use of Community Action approaches, and how such approaches were used for movement to employment. There were four different types of responses to inquiries about "Community Action" types of programs.
FOUR TYPES OF APPROACHES CURRENTLY USED
(1) EXPERIENCE WITH COMMUNITY ACTION IN SCHOOLS
The school system respondents indicated very few efforts to involve community members in students' lives. In some cases, non-disabled peers are involved in MAPS groups and there is some one-to-one matching between students at the same school. In general, one-to-one matching was very rare, and some respondents were skeptical of finding formal "volunteers" willing to help out in finding people jobs. (Although of course, people with disabilities could always have help finding jobs through the same formal networks as others do, family and friends.)
(2) EXPERIENCE WITH COMMUNITY ACTION IN ADULT SERVICES
For the adult services agencies and counties, the status of efforts to link individuals with disabilities with community members usually takes one of two forms:
(a) individual support for particular relationships, or
(b) formal volunteer programs.
Person-Centered Planning has been promoted in Minnesota at least since 1986 with the first Council funding of Personal Futures Planning training. Since them many other various efforts in the state have stressed support for relationships with community members, including the Council-funded "Friends Project" in 1989-90 and the "Person-Centered Agency Design Project" coordinated by the Human Services Research and Development Center from 1991-94 with eight agencies in different parts of the state. Other examples of efforts to involve community members in people's lives include an Arc's Companionship Program, the "Opening Doors" Project in Wright and Hennepin counties (leisure activities in groups with adults with moderate/severe developmental disabilities and age peers), and the Arc Duluth's Inclusion Project, which supports people joining clubs and groups. The St. Cloud Jaycees Chapter had a subchapter at a local day training program with Jaycees meetings there; some of the individuals who received services became integrated with the regular Jaycees chapter.
Many agencies have successfully learned how to support individual friendships with community members. In both this type of support and the formal volunteer programs, the community
14
members generally provide social interaction, but are not called upon to help realize goals in the person-centered plan (such as finding a job). In fact, simply having the friendship is usually one of the goals of the person-centered plan.
In any type of Personal Futures Planning or Circles of Support that have been successful throughout the country, one of the key elements of success has been the person having a "champion." In almost all cases in Minnesota that champion has been a staff, former staff, or family member. It is difficult to find any story in which a community member was the champion. However, in at least one day program agency in the metro area which has many people in supported employment, non-disabled coworkers have been a key factor in assisting supported employees move into more individualized positions or career-track jobs within the company.
Most, but not all respondents, when asked about Community Action, indicated marked difficulties in finding community members and recruiting volunteers. One program does volunteer recruitment from local volunteer agencies (churches, Seniors Federation local media). One agency is successful, but it pays its "volunteers." They say that this is the most important factor in their success. This agency brings in volunteers to support persons with disabilities in Community Education classes, and has assisted about 1000 people with disabilities. Almost all the volunteers are former staff of various agencies in town. When other efforts to link people with community members have been successful, there is usually at least one "champion" of such efforts, or as one interviewee called it, there has been a "one-person bandwagon. "
(3) UNIVERSITY AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS LEARNING TO BE COMMUNITY INCLUSION FACILITATORS
The University of Minnesota (Minneapolis) has offered for five years a Community Service Training Program, It offers a year-long class called "Implementation of Human Services Programs," which is offered in both the day and extension programs. Each year 10-15 students are matched with one person with disabilities for a whole year and learn to be Community Inclusion Facilitators, helping the person get involved in community life in the ways which they want. Students do a Person-Centered Social Inclusion Planning process (based on Personal Futures Planning) to identify interests and goals for community life. The first 6-8 weeks of the class are basic training in how to be a facilitator. In some cases, the person has gotten a job or better employment. The students do need a lot of support and training, in at least three areas: (1) matching and training; (2) connections with community organizations; (3) one-to-one support in individual situations. Some friendships have continued well beyond the academic year, and some individuals have gotten jobs as an avenue to social inclusion.
This program has also been developed for the high-school level. The "Yes I Can" curriculum is available in and sponsored by 8-9 school districts in different parts of the state, as well as in 7-8 other states. (Some of the Minnesota schools include: Roosevelt High in Minneapolis, Kennedy and Jefferson High in Bloomington; Roseville High; Eden Prairie High; St. Cloud Technical High School and Milaca High School; other states include Arizona Maryland and Pennsylvania.) The curriculum is similar to that used at the university level; high school students without disabilities
15
have a weekly class and are matched on a one-to-one basis with a special education student to support social life outside of school.
(4) SERVICE LEARNING PROJECTS
Various volunteering efforts in high schools and colleges have been propelled by President Bush's Points of Light Foundation and Office of National Service, President Clinton's promotion of volunteerism and Service Learning and the passage of the National and Community Service Act of 1990. In Minnesota, there are various projects at colleges and universities throughout the state tided by Minnesota Youth Works legislation, the federal National and Community Service Act, and the Corporation for National Service. (Minnesota's Commission on National and Community Service administers the Minnesota Youth Works legislation, which primarily funds programs for grades K-12; part of the MYW funding is designated for higher education institutions, which funding is coordinated by the Higher Education Coordinating Board. CNCS also administers full-time service programs such as Americorps.) This year the higher education projects funded through the Higher Education Coordinating Board are:
Bemidji State
College of St. Scholastic
St. Cloud State
Gustavus Adolphus
Mankato State
Brainerd Staples Technical College
University of St. Thomas
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities and Morris
Lakewood Community College
Normandale Community College
Brainerd Community College
Other colleges which have participated in the last three years include:
Concordia College, Moorhead
Rochester Community College
Southwest State University
St. John's and the College of St. Benedict
Metropolitan State
Moorhead State
Training, coordination technical assistance, and evaluation for these projects occurs through the Minnesota Campus Service Initiative of the National Youth Leadership Council and the Minnesota Campus Contact. Funding has been provided for teacher time, coordinator salaries, meetings in the Cities, and some student stipends for credits, time, and transportation.
Under these projects, hundreds of students have received credit for volunteerism and for the learning about their communities which occur in these "real life" experiences. In some of these
16
projects, students have volunteered with persons with disabilities. In some projects, both people with and without disabilities participate as volunteers. For instance, the Brainerd program works with people with disabilities to do projects in the community for people without disabilities -- providing people with disabilities the opportunity to be on the giving, contributing end. About 20 students a quarter take part in various volunteering efforts to enhance their vocational experiences, help others in need, and receive extra credit in certain classes. Vocational experiences included with latch key programs, Meals-On-Wheels, and Senior Citizens center; assisting second graders with reading, and volunteering as group aides with preschoolers. Other universities have had students work with individuals with disabilities in social services internship projects and "mentorships," and there also are other informal efforts organized by individual faculty members or students to fill course requirements.
The drawback is that most of the Service Learning projects fall within the "volunteer" (i.e., doing-for, charity) model. One director said they were encouraged by the state tom promote personal relationships between for instance, high school students and their college volunteers -- only that the college students should provide tutoring and other kinds of volunteerism but apparently not get together outside formal programs. However, "service learning" is a model through which a Community Action program could be developed specifically for individuals with disabilities, to promote personal relationships, and for support in employment. A specific program at one or more campuses could be designed to match students with individuals specifically for the purpose of helping people find jobs. The San Diego State one-to-one matching approach could be focused specifically on helping people find jobs.
Additional information on specific Service Learning projects funded by the Higher Education Coordinating Board is in the Supplementary Resource materials.
APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACHES TO EMPLOYMENT IN MINNESOTA
In the general public approximately 70% of all jobs are found through personal networks (Belles, 1990; St. Paul , May 28, 1995). Research in the employment market also indicates that the greatest number of avenues used by the job-hunter, the greater the job-finding success (Belles, 1990). Hence, using community members as one more avenue to help in job-hunting to promote employment for persons with disabilities should be an extremely valuable avenue to pursue.
Person-Centered Planning processes have been used in Minnesota in some cases to help in transition to work for instance to identify desired jobs. However, almost no one has tried to have community members help people find jobs; they could, if provided the opportunities, provide many job leads. Ideally, their involvement would come from personal and one-to-one caring relationships, or from being part of a circle of support. Turning community members into formal "volunteers" to help people find jobs should be avoided.
However, the use of this resource will require efforts to link informal and formal systems. The necessity for such linkages is reflected in the comments of one survey respondent who said
17
community members should NOT be involved in such efforts -- that employment is too complex an issue to be left to volunteers, that job developers from the formal system have the expertise and access to the needed system supports (such as job coaches). It probably is time that an individual with disabilities could only obtain work completely independent of the formal system, and with help only from community members, if they needed no support from the formal system. If a person needed formal supports, such as a job coach formal training for coworkers as natural supports, or sub-minimum wages, the job-identifying and job-locating efforts of the community member would at some point have to be tied to the formal system. Far more linkages and avenues could be established to utilize the rich resource which community members are for identifying both potential job interests and job leads. After such leads are identified, the formal supports could step in if necessary.
(Note example in Appendix A from Midland Michigan in which some community members did help people find jobs. The state Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) was in some cases threatened and annoyed when this occurred. They still had to step in to set up job coaches, and said that they couldn't have all these people out there helping people get jobs.)
In Greater Minnesota, interviewees indicated that attitudes about employment for people with developmental disabilities are often influenced by the employment situation for everyone. In many communities, jobs continue to be relatively scarce. Community "standards" do not often include approaching community members for assistance in identifying employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, since all jobs are scarce.
PARENT EXPERIENCES REGARDING COMMUNITY ACTION
When asked in the survey process about participation in Community Action-type approaches, 12 parents of the 48 survey respondents said "yes," but none of their descriptions were really Community Action. (They did include: two persons who volunteered themselves with a person with disabilities; one supported by a Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) counselor, one by a school employee, one through Job Service, one by a personal care attendant; two parent support groups, and one independent living program that had a formal volunteer program. The closest were one person who had many activities happening in their church, one participant in the "Yes I Can" program and one parent who had to force the school to accept a community member working with her child at a health club.) Most indicated how wonderful Community Action would be for their child.
18
IV. ASSURANCE OF A CULTURALLY COMPETENT PROJECT
The only survey respondents and interviewees who identified efforts in addressing issues of cultural competence were in the metropolitan area. For instance, in the St. Paul Schools, the person responsible for most Futures Planning and much transition planning indicated having to deal with many sub-cultural networks. Family networks are often large in minority groups and often have different values from professionals in the "system" regarding work, leisure, living skills, and studying, Different values can lead to different priorities and interests when doing life-planning. For students of southeast Asian heritage, interpreters have often been required. The concepts of Futures Planning and of transition planning may not translate culturally; some families have values of keeping the person in the family, which may differ from conventional support structures. The Person-Centered Planning process has helped in identifying "cultural" goals, such as regarding language, food, clothing, or religious practices, that may not have otherwise been elucidated.
One minority group parent noted that in dealing with the services system, in many cases the whole family of a minority individual needs support (hand-holding help, mentoring), that many individuals fall through the cracks, and many minority youth are in jail with absolutely no support or understanding of their needs. She also said the Arc, although it has tried to address diversity issues, has not been successful in meeting a person's needs if that person is a minority group member. If a child has a disability, that frequently becomes compounded into two-three disabilities because of family issues such as alcohol/drug use.
In planning for a minority student, school staff felt that community resource people should be identified who are from the same social or cultural background as the student and family. The avenues for getting these people involved are not through conventional service channels; rather, persons such as "blockwatchers" in Neighborhood Alert/Neighborhood Watch programs are often a good source of information. It is important to have the support of a key person who is of that particular ethnic or cultural community, for approval of the process and efforts.
Dr. Ian Pumpian at San Diego State noted that in the Community Action program in the university classes, ethnic and cultural issues have been an important issue to consider and respect in the matches between students and persons with disabilities, and preferences expressed by the persons involved are honored. Sometimes interprets have been used. Planning circles have often been conducted in alternative ways -- some families are more informal than others, some have huge groups including uncles, aunts, and cousins.
In Midland, Michigan social services staff noted that "culture" is not just an issue of race or ethnicity -- that every family has its own culture. There are different cultural issues in discussing family problems openly; sometimes the circles of fiends have been adapted based on these different family cultures. Cultural issues include how a person dresses, eats, and plays. A child moves toward more independence and employment, as they move away from their family, parent values may clash with the child's values or service system values. Whenever a professional enters, there's often a struggle, since everyone has their own set of values. In the
19
"Yes I Can" program among high school students in Minnesota some families have been reluctant to have their children go out socially as other students do.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Any project should include the issues regarding cultural competence addressed by respondents: interpreters, honoring preferences in matches with community members, respecting the wider family networks and different cultural values in planning, involving key community members for support, and respecting different family values.
20
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UTILIZING COMMUNITY ACTION TRANSITION PLANNING
In discussing ideas with people throughout the state and generating concepts for pilot projects, certain overriding themes and principles have emerged. These themes form the background context for the ideas generated:
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS - THEMES AND PRINCIPLES
(1) Remember that spirit and commitment are critical
Within the current rules, many people are implementing innovative ideas in Person-Centered Planning and in supporting connections with community members. Many of the people doing the most innovative things have spoken of "just doing it" despite barriers. In addition, there is often a problem of people thinking they are required to do something under rules and regulations which they are not required to do (for instance, having to do a psychological evaluation every three years under Rule 42); often rules change or are not as prescriptive as agencies think they are, or agencies engage in "over-kill" to avoid licensing citations. In addition, the fact that many people are doing the "same old thing" but calling it "person-centered" also reflects the principle that attitude is the critical factor.
Even without gaining any waiver of current laws or regulations, very interesting projects could be developed. The authority already exists within Rule 185 to do Personal Futures Planning and have that process fulfill all 185 requirements. (Also, case managers can delegate the meeting facilitation responsibility to others.) In situations where people are not being innovative, it is frequently a matter of perception of barriers in rules rather than any real barrier. If statute and regulation variances or changes were obtained some would still think the barriers exist; even if regulation and/or statute variances were obtained, the implementation of new ideas would probably still depend on the spirit and commitment of the parties involved. However, the state Department of Human Services could draw larger boundaries of what is allowable, leave more authority to the individual and their team and be more clear about what is and is not acceptable; advocacy groups could also support more flexibility. If some barriers in current rules and regulations were removed, individuals who were committed and empowered to use a person-centered planning approach would have more time and authority to implement that process.
Attitude about rules, rather than rules themselves, also need to be reflected in two other aspects of a project involving community members. The tendency to turn community members into "volunteers" and the tendency to not involve community members because of "confidentiality" issues are two other aspects where some agencies are far more progressive and innovative than others. This type of project, to specifically involve community members with individuals with disabilities, should ensure that participating agencies are able to go past these perceived barriers to support genuine relationships.
21
(2) Focus on circles -- a number of people is usually more powerful and long-lasting than a single community member
Although one-to-one matching of individuals with disabilities and community members would for many individuals be far beyond what currently exists in their social network, even stronger projects would be those which could support many community members being able to support an individual.
In addition when one individual with disabilities is "matched" with a community member or a college student, frequently the community member or college student has more say about terminating the relationship. When the school year is over and credit received, the student may move on, with the individual with a disability once again experiencing little control. If an individual is connected to a group or a circle, that hurt maybe avoided or alleviated.
(3) Any efforts need to be designed for commitment overtime -- not just planning but implementation
Some Personal Futures Planning groups have met only once or twice, and missed the point that real change occurs only when groups last over time. Any efforts in supporting matching of community members with individuals with disabilities need to be inside a structure which would allow for support over a significant period of time. There needs to be a focus not only on the type of planning that is done, but on implementation of the plans resulting in real accomplishments and desirable outcomes in people's lives. Usually this implementation takes organizational structures, including designated time for facilitation and meetings, to result in concrete outcomes.
Because the time commitment for person-centered planning is often a real and valid concern for people, project efforts should not focus only on "what we will do in the project" but also "what we will NOT be doing anymore in order to have the time to do the things we need to do. "
(4) A focus on employment will mean changing the type of involvement of community members in people's lives
If community members are expected to help support individuals in goals such as transitioning to work and finding jobs, many people's current ideas and ways of operating would have to change. Right now, in most cases, community members are mainly expected to provide social support and friendship, rather than help with life goals. (Although in some cases, community members have gotten involved with the other life goals that are the larger basis of Person-Centered Planning.) In any type of project effort, some community members may want to get to know people and be their friend, rather than help in finding employment. Their friendship should be supported, and they should not be forced into trying to help with something that many may perceive as an agency's job. At the same time, some individuals with disabilities may not want help from a community member in finding a job -- they may only want that person to be their friend. The relationship should be on the individual's and community member's own terms. In addition,
22
support for the relationship should not mean turning all community members into formal "volunteers."
A project should either be focused primarily on relationships with community members, and building up the relationship overtime to invite community members to get more involved in realization of a person's life goals such as employment; or, a project which would ask community members for significant help in the transition to employment would have to have the relationship setup clearly on those terms from the beginning.
(5) Employment for many individuals will still need support from the formal system
As noted above in the section on "Application of Community Action Approaches to Employment in Minnesota (p. 17), even if community members did help in finding people jobs and transitioning to community employment, the formal system would still need to support those contacts and be brought in for job coach support, employer training, and other formal supports that may be needed for many individuals with disabilities. Some individuals will need more intensive training and support than can be expected of only natural supports; also, community members should not be expected to learn or establish such complexities as job coaches or sub-minimum wages in situations where such support is necessary. Any efforts of community members in a Community Action-type program would need to be tied to these formal support provisions if they are needed for a particular individual.
(6) Principles for rule changes and variances
We found three broad principles at work when people did get rule changes and/or variances:
(a) identify with each rule: what's a waste of staff time?
(b) identify with each suggestion: how could this standard be provided in a more efficient manner and by other means already being done
(c) any effort at person-centered planning should be based on the individual and individual decisions about what's right for them (no one method of person-centered planning is right for everybody)
An excellent demonstration would be one in which a broad range of planning options was allowed, such as the language currently being piloted in New Hampshire with its strong values guidelines (e.g., assessment providing a capacity-based view of the person and a vision based on five valued accomplishments of community presence, participation contribution, valued roles, and choice). (See Appendix A for more information on the project in New Hampshire and efforts in other states.)
23
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PILOT PROJECT
From all these experiences and ideas, many possible pilot projects using different areas of focus are possible. However, given the Council's desire to focus on a Community Action approach to person-centered planning, and that this approach result in achieving community-based employment for a greater number of people, four types of projects are recommended. These projects incorporate the elements identified that would lead to achieving employment for the greatest number of people, if a Community Action type approach were used. Table 2 on p. 24 describes these elements and projects. Three separate elements to consider are Person-Centered Planning, Community Action, and Rule Variances.
A project that incorporates Person-Centered Planning, Community Action, and employment outcomes would ideally all have the following element:
A. EMPOWER PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING FACILITATION
Entities and personnel should be designated whose responsibilities were to conduct Person-Centered Planning groups and to facilitate the meetings of these groups overtime. These personnel would have to be funded for their time and other job responsibilities reduced to allow time for the conducting of these groups; they should also be highly skilled facilitators. Ideally the personnel would have a role separate from the service delivery system -- that is, not be either a county case manager or a provider. There are many examples of such a role being critical in effectively impacting the formal system rather than being a parallel bureaucracy.
For instance, as described below in Appendix A in Midland, Michigan when the facilitation of Circles is organizationally outside the system and adequately funded, more community members get involved and more happens in people's lives toward desirable futures and real lives that are not defined by "system" outcomes. The professional becomes one member of the Circle, and may or may not even be invited, depending on the individual's choice. (This location outside the system was also the critical factor in the success of the original 5-year Personal Futures Planning projects in Connecticut. In Minnesota when a specific staff role has been designated for this facilitation there has been more success; in cases in which such a facilitation role has not been formally established over time the groups have not sustained themselves and implementation of the futures plan has withered away.) Necessary resources would need to continue to be allotted in this direction and the process should be supported by the formal system and organizational structures (Pantaleo, et al., 1994).
Instead of the effort involved in empowering facilitation and sustaining person-centered planning groups over time for implementation of the plan, examples were noted above on p. 6 to alter the formal planning process to be more person-centered. However, in the situations when the best results have been obtained, including in employment (such as the St, Paul schools participation in the Natural Supports project), the facilitation role has been specifically designated and staff time has been specifically allocated for such facilitation.
25
B. COMMUNITY ACTION ELEMENTS
The first two proposed projects described below would operate with counties and day habilitation/rehabilitation agencies, and coordinate transition efforts with school systems.
These recommendations are made in the order of most likely to lead to community-based employment for greater numbers of individuals, in descending order:
PROJECT TYPE W: COMMUNITY ACTION WITH EMPLOYMENT EXPERTS
Community members who had experience, knowledge, and contacts regarding finding jobs would be invited to join the person-centered planning groups. Such individuals could be located through such avenues as:
a. members of Diversity Committees which many larger companies already have in existence, who are interested in and aware of many issues regarding the employment of people with disabilities (some of these companies are located in the Twin Cities and in some larger outstate communities such as St. Cloud)
b. experienced business people who volunteer through the Retired Seniors Volunteer Program
c. other individuals who would have personal contacts with planning group members, such as family fiends
d. businesses could setup internships and youth apprenticeships with high school students, or support inclusive Junior Achievement programs. These students and business people could be invited to join planning circles in high schools.
PROJECT TYPE #2: COMMUNITY ACTION WITH A WIDE RANGE OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS ASKED TO SUPPORT EMPLOYMENT
Some programs and activities that currently involve community members in people's lives could be asked to target requests to those community members to help people in finding jobs. For instance, the community citizens who have been connected with individuals with disabilities in the Stearns County Citizenship Project could be asked to support employment, and helped to join planning groups to generate ideas and contacts for jobs.
Two different approaches could be undertaken by counties and/or provider agencies to promote community members getting involved in people's lives and assisting them in obtaining employment:
26
(a) Identify community groups whose members are willing to be matched with people on a one-to-one basis
A county and/or agency(ies) could reach out and identify one or more community groups whose members would like to get to know people on a one-to-one basis overtime. For instance, churches, community service organizations (e.g., Kiwanis, Jaycees, Women of Today, etc.) could be approached and asked to participate. If a county or agency were responding to an RFP for a pilot project, they would have to identify at least (for instance) two community groups who would agree to participate.
Funds would be needed for at least a part-time person to match people and to support the matches over time. The community group would also have to have some structure whereby members could be supported overtime -- such as a meeting every two weeks or so. (in the San Diego State University Community Action program the class itself provides an opportunity for training and support.)
(b) Identify community groups in which the whole group includes someone
Several models, such as natural Ties, Circles of Friends in Midland Michigan (see Appendix A), and other places, have found that one person supporting an individual is insufficient. When a whole group of people come together, they can share resources, ideas, and energy.
A pilot project could be implemented in which a county and/or agency asks many groups to develop a relationship with one person each. (For instance, a county might have to identify ten groups who would make such a commitment, and connect 10 individuals.) That is, a Natural Ties model could be utilized but with post-college community groups. Although many examples now exist throughout the state of an individual joining a particular community group, these efforts could be strengthened by helping a group get to know more of a person's life, and asking them to support the person in realizing employment goals.
PROJECT TYPE #3: MATCHING WITH COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
In this type of project, funds would be provided to a day training and habilitation or rehabilitation agency, county social services, and/or a university/college. The project would have to bring together these three types of entities. A program similar to the Community Action program at San Diego State could be implemented, but focused specifically on students assisting people in getting a job.
Variants of the "Community Action" model at San Diego State could include the following. These are listed in descending order of likely impact on community employment, with the most potential impact listed first:
27
(1) Apply the Community Inclusion Facilitator training program to the preservice training of job development and Vocational Rehabilitation specialists.
A year-long program could be developed in which students in Vocational Rehabilitation and related areas learned to do Person-Centered Career Planning and had to assist, for example, three individuals with disabilities in finding and getting established at work sites. Such practicum experiences could be coordinated as internships with existing day program and rehabilitation agencies, and would provide concrete experience in the complexities of identifying career interests, possible worksites, and formal support requirements. Perhaps at least one of the three individuals should be a person transitioning horn high school.
(2) Replicate the Community Inclusion Facilitator training program (p. 15 described above) at university and college campuses throughout the state; encourage a focus on employment
(3) Replicate the Community Action program as in the classes at San Diego State or Old Dominion University -- focus on promotion of employment
Both programs have stressed needing grant support and funding for the mechanisms needed for staff time to implement and continue these projects.
(4) Natural Ties (see Appendix A)
The "Natural Ties" model could be initiated on many campuses throughout the state, and many individuals with disabilities could be assisted in joining clubs, associations, and groups, based on their interests. These groups could be asked to assist the person in realizing their life goals, such as finding employment.
(5) Modify current Service Learning Projects or develop new ones (p. 16 above)
Existing programs could be adapted or new programs started at both the high school and college levels in Service Learning -- students receiving credit for volunteering with an individual with disabilities and assisting them achieve life goals such as employment. This would be an alteration from many existing Service Learning projects, whose focus is volunteering with a particular program. Such matching could also occur under many current "Independent Study" projects. One of the advantages of this approach is the rich resource already currently existing in the Service Learning projects at the high school and college levels, and their strong encouragement to volunteer in the community.
28
C. PURSUE RULE VARIANCES TO PROMOTE PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING
Rule changes could be pursued to free up people's time and thinking to do more person-centered planning and pursuit of community employment. This approach can be combined with #1 and #2 or #3 above.
This approach would provide formal authority and make more widely available what several agencies are currently doing on a more informal basis -- altering their formal planning process to a more person-centered one. A regulatory scope such as that taken in New Hampshire (see Appendix ~ #2) would ideally provide the freedom for the Planning process to be designed in many ways, based on the person.
There are already existing processes for counties and agencies to request variances of many state-level regulations. To obtain variances at the level of state statute, such as applying to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, is possible, but maybe difficult. Any application to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation would be reviewed by the Division for Persons with Developmental Disabilities of the Department of Human Services and the Attorney General's office. Previous applications by the DD Division to the Board of Government Innovation for the state statutes affecting Rule 185 (case management) and the annual planning process have been denied on the basis of "procedural safeguards. " The Attorney General's office would be asked to assure that any requirement requesting to be waived is not a "procedural safeguard. " The second difficulty is that many requirements are based in federal law rather than state regulation and on that basis cannot be waived.
However, a pilot project could certainly be developed based on a wider-scale, several-county variance of certain assessment and planning rules (as delineated in Appendix B in the "Barriers" section) which would make time for more Person-Centered Planning. For instance, Stearns County is anxious to continue the variances it has received under the Mandates Reform project, which has freed up county and agency staff time to do more community-building. The variances which it has received are in rules, not statute, and they are very interested in extending further and also piloting changes in statute. Also, variance requests in the statewide pilot projects which have resulted in positive outcomes could be dealt with at the rulemaking or legislative level.
Two strategies could be pursued:
(a) abroad planning authority, such as that being piloted in New Hampshire -- which requires a capacity-based view of the person a desirable future, and meetings based on individual team process decisions
(b) specific rule variances to reduce redundancies and free up case manager and agency staff time for person-centered planning and job development (examples are in Appendix B, #30)
29
VI. COUNTIES AND OTHERS INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN PILOT PROJECT
When asked in the surveys for willingness to participate in a pilot project, many respondents indicated that it depended on what kind of project it was. However, there is a great deal of interest in participation.
In this section and the Supplementary Resource section is information on the survey respondents who indicated a willingness to participate in a pilot project. Through our interviews, we determined who had more experience with these approaches; if one of the conditions for participation in a pilot project was having such experience, we could make recommendations from these groups to the Council on who would be stronger candidates. It is extremely likely that, depending on the project, there are many more candidates for participation than people who responded to our survey.
There are three sections of respondents: universities/colleges; county social services agencies; and provider agencies. For the latter two groups, some respondents said they would definitely be interested in participating in a project and some indicated they might be, depending on the type of project. Some respondents indicated they had direct experience using some form of person-centered planning and others only knew about it but did not have direct experience. All these groups are indicated in separate sub-categories. Names of contact persons, addresses and phone information are in the Supplementary Resources section.
Universities/Colleges
The following schools have indicted interest in replicating the Community Inclusion Facilitator program (based on their interest in the program at UofM-Minneapolis) or a Community Action type program:
(1) St. Cloud State
(2) Mankato State
(3) Willmar Community College
for connections with appropriate faculty at these institutions, contact: Dr. Brian Abery
Institute on Community Integration University of Minnesota
150 Pillsbury Dr. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455
612-625-5592
(4) Moorhead State:
Dr. Sue Severson
Special Education Department
Moorhead State University, Lommen Hall
30
.
Moorhead, MN 56560
218-236-3527
(5) Augsburg College
Dr. Susan O'Connor
Education Department
2211 Riverside Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55454
612-330-1494
As outlined in the Council's original REP, we focused in our surveys on counties who would be willing to participate in a pilot project but also included that question in the surveys to provider agencies and school districts. We did not ask about participation in a pilot project in the survey to colleges and universities. Consequently, there may be more colleges and universities interested in piloting some of the various types of projects proposed.
Counties and Provider Agencies
On the following pages, the names of counties and provider agencies who are interested in participating are listed. Contact information is in the Supplementary Resources section.
31
Counties that are familiar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and would be interested in participating in a pilot project.
Carver County
Faribault and Martin Counties Human Services
Goodhue County Social Services
LQP County Family Services Center, Madison MN
Olmsted County
Stearns County
Washington County Community Services
Counties that are familiar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and might be interested in participating in a pilot project.
Blue Earth County Human Services
Brown County
Clay County Social Services
Kandiyohi County Family Services
Nicollet County Social Services
Polk County Social Services
Ramsey County Community Human Services
St. Louis County
Winona County DHS
Wright County Human Services Agency
Counties that are unfamiliar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and would be interested in participating in a pilot project.
Becker County Human Services
Grant County Public Health
Renville County Human Services
Sibley County Human Services
32
Agencies that are familiar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and might be interested in participating in a pilot project.
Clay County
St. Louis County Washington County
Blue Earth County
Goodhue County
Kandiyohi County
Winona County
ABC (Rochester)
Arc of Anoka
Ability Enterprises (Rochester)
Becker County DAC
Chisago County DAC
Clay County Diversified Services Inc.
Dakota Inc. (Hennepin/Dakota Counties)
Duluth Social Services DT & H
East Suburban Resources (Washington County)
Industries Inc. (Mora)
Le Sueur County Developmental Services, Inc.
Mahnomen County DAC
Mary T Inc. (Metro Area)
MN Valley Cooperative Center (MVCC) (Granite Falls)
MRCI (Lakeville)
MRCI (Mankato)
New Dawn Incorporated (Fulda)
Opportunity Services (Redwing)
Productive Alternatives Inc. (Parkers Prairie)
Rise Creative Partnership (Brooklyn Center)
Service Enterprises, Inc. (Redwood Falls)
West Central Industries (Willmar)
Winona County Developmental Achievement Center
Agencies that are familiar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and might be interested in participating in a pilot project
Cedar Valley Services
Homework Center Inc.(Fergus Falls)
IRC Industries (Redwing) Goodhue County
MBW Company (New Ulm) Brown County
Midway Training Services ( Ramsey County) Ramsey County Productive Alternatives Perham Branch Becker County Scott County DAC STEP. Inc. (Fairmont)
33
Agencies that are unfamiliar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and would be interested in participating in a pilot project.
Cedar Valley Services - Top Flight (Austin)
Community Involvement Programs - Aveyron South and Northeast Ramsey County
Community Involvement Programs -
Day Program South (Minneapolis)
Employment Enterprises, Inc. (Little Falls)
Polk County DAC
Progress, Inc. (PipeStone)
Rum River Ornamental Products
Sister Kenny Institute, Vocational Services (Minneapolis)
Agencies that are unfamiliar with either the Person-Centered Planning or Community Action Approach and might be interested in participating in a pilot project
Canby DAC
Midwest Special Services, Inc. (.Metro Area) Ramsey County Rock County DAC
34
REFERENCES
Bolles, R.N. (1990) What color is your parachute? Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C., & Iverson, V. (1993) Choosing options and accommodations for children: A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
O'Brien, J. & Lovett, H. (1993) Finding a way toward everyday lives: The contribution of person-Centered Planning. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Office of Mental Retardation.
Pantaleo, R., Griffin C., Leishout, R.V. & Deatherage, J. Beyond the Maps: Community, commitment. and solidarity. The Supported Life Training Projects Annual Monograph. University of Northern Colorado, Center for Technical Assistance and Training: May 1994.
St Paul Pioneer Press. May 28, 1995. "Keep ahead of the curve when seeking jobs; rules for the hunt are evolving. " Section K p. 1.
35
MOST EXCITING MODELS FROM OTHER STATES
Research was done concerning other communities and states where others seemed to be using these approaches most effectively, where they were working the best. We asked national experts for examples of where these approaches were being implemented successfully on a long-term basis. Elements from these models could be applied to Minnesota projects.
(1) Midland, Michigan - Personal Futures Planning and Circles of Friends
Community support services here are a model for many throughout the country. The formal planning process looks a lot like Personal Futures Plans. Assessments are only completed if the Planning group identifies the need for any. "Circles of Friends" is offered to everyone as a service, by an agency separate from the formal system (the Arc). About two-thirds of the service recipients have Circles of Friends. The assumptions of "Circles of Friends" are different at the beginning -- being grounded in community, not in the services system. There is also the assumption that the case manager is not the one to make everything happen nor is the Circle Facilitator responsible -- the support is within the circle itself
Four staff members conduct these various circles, with the facilitation funded by a contract with the community mental health system (like county social services here) and some school transition funds, Having the facilitation role funded and having designated and responsible facilitators allow the groups to sustain themselves overtime. Having the facilitation role separate from the formal services system is considered critical. It provides checks and balances, and a split role with the formal provider system.
Each circle operates differently -- some just want to have fun and others are very formal. In several cases, the circle has supported someone in finding a job. (The personnel there admit that the best way for anyone to get a job is still personal contact.) In many of these cases, that outcome was a function of group (circle) supports and not simply dependent on one community member. In some of these cases, the community members have run into objections from Michigan's Division of Vocational Rehabilitation - which got "territorial;" said they can't have other people running around finding jobs, that it's their role; and have sometimes not been able to fund job coaches. (DVR said if a job is available, they should decide who fills it; sometimes they thought the person didn't fit.) However, in other cases DVR has supported the job placement found by circle members and provided job coaches. The staff at Midland feel that the Circles provide excellent brainstorming and resources for employment that could be facilitated even more. The circles have a different feel than professional job developers, and potential employers might be more willing to trust their personal relationships with circle members who approach them about work.
36
(2) New Hampshire - statutory language allowing maximum freedom in individual planning
New Hampshire has undertaken several pilots and workgroups to alter their statutory and regulatory language to allow maximum flexibility in the Service Planning process. Broad-based regulatory statements don't require a specific structure for planning but do provide very strong values guidelines. For instance, the assessment process must provide a clear view of the person based on a capacity perspective, and also must result in a vision statement of where the person's life is headed based on the five valued accomplishments (community presence, participation, choice, contribution, and valued roles). These broad guidelines allow a great variety of planning approaches including Futures Planning, MAPS, and traditional plans. Such language might be considered a model for a proposal for rules changes here.
Systematic efforts in other states to promote person-centered planning include a requirement in California for everyone to have a Person-Centered Plan. The state has issues resource material such as a "Pocket Guide to Person-Centered Planning" and a curriculum for the training of regional case managers on person-centered planning. In Connecticut, the Overall Plan of Service (similar to the Individual Service Plan in Minnesota) must include elements of person-centered planning. Kentucky has used person-centered planning to implement their supported living program but not included specific requirements in legislation. In both Pennsylvania and the state of Washington person-centered plans have been used for planning for institutional closures. However, none of these other states are allowing the broad range of planning options which New Hampshire is piloting.
(3) Natural Ties - Community Action based on group membership
Natural Ties is a program which operates in 86 college organizations at eleven college campuses across the country (including Illinois, New Mexico, South Dakota Kansas, Wisconsin). Student groups such as fraternities, sororities, ski clubs, photography clubs, etc., include one person with disabilities as a member. The values of Natural Ties are very much based on friendship and inclusion rather than volunteerism and tokenism. The advantages of such an approach regarding group membership over one-to-one matching is that an individual's membership in a group provides for longevity in their community inclusion many relationships overtime, and support from many individuals. In Evanston Illinois, the approach is also being tried with other community groups such as Kiwanis, churches, Rotaract, a theater troupe, softball league and scuba classes. In some cases, groups have helped an individual get employment. This followed as a natural outcome of the relationships between group members and seeing priorities in a person's life. More formal focus on employment could be emphasized with such groups.
(4) Consumer-Directed Services: Vouchers for Employment
This is the project most directly tied to employment. A federally-funded UCP grant project directed by Mike Callahan in three test sites (Mississippi, New Orleans, and Pittsburgh) provides mechanisms and structures for persons with disabilities to hire their own job developers, coaching
37
and support. They control the funding, can hire community members themselves, and are empowered through the receipt of funds to pay directly for support from community members in finding work. Information about this project was presented to the Council in February, 1995. This approach could be adapted to ensure the use of person-centered planning methods and ensure that community members were included in the planning groups for a particular individual.
38
APPENDIX B
BARRIERS: RULES AND REGULATIONS, FUNDING, AND OTHERS
Most county and agency interview respondents were hard-pressed to say that any specific "rules and regulations" should be changed to promote more Person-Centered Planning and/or Community Action. Several respondents indicated that engaging in the efforts which they were conducting had very little to do with any rules, but was a matter of "just doing it" -- that attitude was fm more important than rules and regulations. Some interviewees indicated that attitude about rules was more a barrier than the rules themselves, and that nothing in Rule 185 stopped them from taking a person-centered approach.
The rule changes which were recommended were concepts related to making the whole job a lot easier, reducing redundancy, and saving time spent fulfilling "regulations" which could be better spent on individual planning. The following list contains identification of barriers and suggestions for changes made by respondents (mostly in their own words). Many areas of recommendation are covered, including rules changes, funding issues, and other areas. Some take the form of a problem or barrier without a specific recommendation, while others are specific suggestions. Some were recommended by more than one person and some may seem to contradict others.. This list contains the primary recommendations made.
R = a rule or statute change would be needed
F = either more funds or a different allocation of funds is indicated
When a rule change is indicated, usually several different rules are involved, and some involve federal regulations. Specific and lengthy language for variances is available for all items under #30.
39
R(1) A "universal" release form is needed to make information sharing between multiple agencies easier
R(2) A single assessment and eligibility form should be used so students don't have to go through the same sort of hoops every time they want to use a different service - interpretation of regulations by counties vary: determination of eligibility for services sometimes requires many assessments, sometimes not
R(3) Extend throughout all school years the mandate at the preschool level that community agencies be involved in developing the Individual Family Services Plan (IFSP, PL 99-457, Sec. 813, Part H)
R(4) Assessments:
-- documenting eligibility criteria for classification as "moderate/severe" and regarding adaptive behavior every three years takes up time which could be used for PCP
-- if documentation of deficits are required to meet eligibility criteria use the Person-Centered Planning process to document those needs without also doing standardized tests; or, update current assessment approach from deficit-based to needs-based
-- change IEP requirements for repeated standardized assessment; allow person-centered forms of assessment to satisfy eligibility criteria
-- assessment requirements should especially be reduced after ages 15/16
-- make it a DTH licensing or CARP requirement and get rid of other assessments
R(5) Doing Personal Futures Planning or MAPS is relegated to second place
-- too much time is required to Mill mandated assessment and planning process. Anything else is an "add-on" (especially for schools), not mainstream.
-- There is no plan for how support groups (circles) can continue to meet.
-- Possible change: have IEP requirements be satisfied with Person-Centered approach; IEP's should be person-centered (not all "domains" are necessary).
-- Person-Centered Planning and Circles should not be something to have to enforce, but rather should be made "user-friendly" to the participants
(6) In school districts, there is an absence of specialist staff to lead the PFP or MAPS process.
-- there should be mandatory training of DTH and school staff
F(7) To do Person-Centered Planning is very time-consuming, and release time for teachers is a major problem.
40
F(8) It is not feasible for adult agencies to actively participate in planning for large numbers of transition students, because they are not paid to do so.
(9) Lack of knowledge and confusion about "Person-Centered" planning processes (information has still not reached many families, and many professionals have not gotten intensive training to distinguish it from other processes they have been doing)
Coordination Between Work. School. and Adult Services Agencies:
Many coordination difficulties occur which were primarily attributed to a lack of tiding:
F(10) Job coaches from adult services are only paid to work with students in last year of school
-- county and DRS should pay for job coaching not just in last year of school
- students need more job training and more than just last year of school
F(11) There is a problem in transition regarding the timing for when DRS funds start. Ramsey County Social Services does not provide services until September 1 after graduation -- there can be a period over the summer with no services or support.
F(12) There are no transportation funds for schools for transportation to job sites
-- liability for school staff using their own cars to take students to work placements (adult services agencies often use their own cars, with or without agency insurance; school district policy does not allow educators to do so)
-- school bus pick up and drop off locations (related to boundaries) interfere with student travel to or from work placements
-- it is difficult to get school buses to transport to job training sites
F(13) Even if job development is in the IEP, schools are not funded to undertake the very time consuming process of individualized job development.
F(14) No support for work and work training for students during the summer.
F(15) Students not getting paid during work placement.
R(16) Allocation of jobs training money (Youth employment component of Jobs Training & Partnership Act ) -- some money is not spent because specific minority groups don't exist in certain school districts.
(17) Employment planning group should come up with an "exit document" targeted explicitly to employers, identifying specific supports, skills, etc.
41
(18) Adult agencies, DRS, and counties are not sitting at the table with schools to plan for transition; school districts need to free up transition money currently used for their own programs to involve and subcontract with adult providers earlier.
-- coordination between employers and educators is also not happening; they should be forced to get together
R(19) There should be a primary person responsible for coordination of all services in a person's life, as opposed to current division between work and home life (this person should be more directly involved in all aspects of a person's life than current case management system)
Barriers Affecting Employment
F(20) The six-month DRS limit on availability of job coaches and related support services is a major problem
-- supported employment services do not meet the needs of people who require LONG TERM support to hold a community job
-- not knowing how to access extension of job coaching money beyond 6 months
F(21) Greater flexibility and funds are needed to accommodate variability in work schedules (jobs are not 9-3 Monday-Friday during the school year)
R(22) Reduce complexity and paperwork involved in employers hiring someone with a disability
-- the sub-minimum wage regulations are too cumbersome for many employers
(23) Job coaches don't know how to empower nondisabled coworkers either in their outside-of-work social relationships with individuals with disabilities, and/or personal involvement with individuals with disabilities (so that the nondisabled coworkers might strengthen their own relationships, including support for persons moving to more individualized or career-track jobs)
(24) In rural Minnesota the scarce job market for everyone affects efforts to find work for people with disabilities, and affects approaching community members for assistance in finding employment for individuals with disabilities
R(25) Unions -- especially in situations of paying people below minimum wage
R(26) Employer entry and eligibility level requirements, especially public service entry requirements (such as the Post Office)
42
Barriers Affecting Community Relationships
F(27) Providers are not funded to facilitate natural supports -- they are funded to be on site.
(28) The perception that "friends" need to go through requirements for "volunteers" -- background checks, volunteer training, releases, Manto tests, medical/CPR training, etc.
(29) The perception of "confidentiality" as a barrier -- it is a systems issue, not an issue of community.
Rule Variances Implemented in Mandates Reform and Performance Based Contracting
R(3O) These can include:
(a) eliminating quarterly reviews; documenting progress in log notes; basing timelines for reviews on when the individual team determines that reviews should be done; when staff and teams meet determined on an individual basis
(b) reducing redundant paperwork required in county guardianship rule
(c) reducing requirements for annual physicals and prescriptive dietary guidelines
(d) reducing requirements for who gets copies of all paperwork
(e) Rule 40 (use of aversive procedures) -- extend time for resubmittal of paperwork to the state for approval from every 90 days to up to once a year, based on team decision of when re-approval is needed
(f) reduction in data required to be accumulated by programs
(g) more individual consideration of staff qualifications besides QMRP standards
(h) consolidation of all program plans between agencies
(i) number of training hours
(j) making the service planning team (as in Rule 185) more inclusive, especially of providers, or based on person or family preferences
43
APPENDIX C
SURVEYS
44
December 1, 1994
Dear Parents/Family Members:
I am writing to ask your help in collecting some information for the Minnesota Governor's Planning council on Developmental Disabilities. The Council wants to learn how to better promote the community employment of persons with developmental disabilities. One way is to help people get to know other people in the community, and to ask these community members to help people get better jobs and with other life goals. The Council asked us to (1) find out how various person-centered planning and community actin approaches are being used right now throughout Minnesota, and (2) make proposals for a project for better use of these approaches throughout the state.
We are sending a survey to many different agencies, parents and family members who have participated in the Planning Council;s Partners in Policy-Making, and to other family members who may have had the opportunity to participate in some form of Person-Centered Planning. We want to learn all the information we can about your experiences in using any for of:
(1) Person-Centered Planning approaches, such as Personal Futures Plans, Person-Centered Career Planning approaches, Circles of Support, and MAPS
(2) Community Action, an approach to link community citizens (such as college students, community service organization members, church member, etc,) in one-to-one relationships with person with developmental disabilities, or as part of planning groups to help them realize their life goals.
We are asking you to fill out the following BRIEF survey to let us know your experiences and problems in these two areas. If you would like to talk by phone, please put that on the survey and we will call you. You do not have to give your name.
I have enclosed a couple of extra surveys. If you know other parents who may have participated in either Person-Centered Planning of Community Action-type approaches, please give them these surveys and ask them to return them to us.
I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope. THANK YOU for taking five or ten minutes now to fill out the survey and pop it in the envelope. Please return by DECEMBER 31 or as soon as possible. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Angela Novak Amada, PhD.
Executive Director
FAMILY SURVEY
PERSON CENTERED PLANNING/COMMUNITY ACTION APPROACHES
I. "PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING" includes various interactive life-planning processes which focus on the unique gifts and personalities of each individual, help an individual and group develop a life vision with the person that expresses his/her dreams and desires, and assist in creating lifestyles that help people contribute in ordinary community life. Some examples of person-centered planning processes include Personal Futures Planning, Person-Centered Career Planning methods such as Career Visioning, Person-Centered Teams, Circles of Support, Circles of Friends, and MAPS (McGill Action Planning System). Write on the back if you need more room.
1. What have been your experiences with any form of Person-Centered Planning or trying to access such a process?
2. What were the experiences of your family member with disabilities in the use of the process?
3. What have the results been?
4. What difficulties have you experienced in the process? If you experienced difficulties, do you know what the specific barriers were?
5. What changes would you suggest to:
a) have this approach used for more people
b) have this approach used more effectively
c) have this approach used to promote community-based employment?
11. "COMMUNITY ACTION" is an approach in which the interests and skills of non-disabled community members are matched with the interests and needs of people who have developmental disabilities. Community members get to know individuals with disabilities on a one-to-one basis and help in realizing the individual's person-centered plan. They may become mentors, informal advocates, members of a support circle, or help in other ways, to help people with disabilities be active, valued and empowered members of their local communities.
1. Have you had any experiences with any form of Community Action approach or trying to access such a process?
2. What were the experiences of your family member with disabilities in the use of the process?
3. What have the results been?
4. What difficulties have you experienced in the process? If you experienced difficulties, do you know what the specific barriers were?
5. What changes would you suggest to:
a) have this approach used for more people
b) have this approach used more effectively
c) have this approach used to promote community-based employment?
Optional:
I would like to provide additional information by phone. Please have someone call me.
Name
(home)
(work)
The best time to reach me is
'COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE'
October 28, 1994
Dear Colleague:
I am writing to request your assistance in gathering some information for the Minnesota Governor's Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities. The Council is interested in determining how to promote the community employment of persons with developmental disabilities through connecting them with ordinary community citizens in one-to-one relationships, and to have those citizens assist them in realizing their employment and other life goals. We have been contracted by the Council to: (1) find out how various person-centered planning and community action approaches are currently being used throughout Minnesota and (2) make proposals for a project for greater and more effective use of these approaches throughout the state.
We are surveying county social services agencies, day training and habilitation centers, community rehabilitation programs/facilities (extended employment), public schools, Community Transition Interagency Committees (CTICS), technical and community colleges, university departments of special education and persons who have been trained as Personal Futures Planning facilitators. We want to learn all the information we can about people's experiences in using any form of
(1) Person-Centered Planning approaches, such as Personal Futures Plans, Person-Centered Teams, Person-Centered Career Planning approaches, and MAPS.
(2) Community Action an approach originally conceptualized at the University of California-San Diego to link community citizens (such as college students, community service organization members, church members, etc.) in one-to-one relationships with persons with developmental disabilities or as part of planning groups to help them realize their life goals developed in the Person-Centered Planning approaches.
We are asking you to complete the following BRIEF survey to let us know of any efforts in either of these two approaches which may be occurring in your local community. If you do not have direct information please direct this survey to the best respondent in your agency or another agency. -The survey is only to provide very brief information on current efforts. We will follow-up by phone with those who are implementing any form of these approaches to get their input on what kind of project they see would be desirable, whether they would like to participate in the project barriers they experience, and whether any waivers or changes in state regulations affecting services or case management are needed to promote more person-centered planning and more community action.
I have enclosed a stamped self-addressed envelope to assist in speedy return. THANK YOU for taking five or ten minutes now to fill-out the survey and pop it in the envelope. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Angela Novak Amado, Ph.D.
Executive Director
PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING/COMMUNITY ACTION SUPPORTS FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Your Name
Phone Number
I. PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING refers to various interactive life-planning processes which reflect the unique gifts and personalities of each individual, help an individual and group develop a life vision with the person that expresses his/her dreams and desires, and assist in creating lifestyles that help people contribute in ordinary community life. Some examples of person-centered planning processes include Personal Futures Planning, Person-Centered Career Planning methods such as Career Visioning, Person-Centered Teams, Circles of Support, and MAPS (McGill Action Planning System).
1. Do you how of any efforts by you your agency or other agencies with whom you work to implement any form of Person-Centered Planning? Yes No
2. If yes, please provide a brief description of the type of effort and size (number of persons using or with whom this approach is used):
3. Best contact person regarding these efforts: (if more than one, please write others on back)
Name
Agency
Phone Number
II. COMMUNITY ACTION is an approach in which the interests and skills of a variety of non-disabled community members are matched with the interests and needs of people who have developmental disabilities. Community members get to know individuals with disabilities on a one-to-one basis and assist in realizing the individual's persons plan. They may become mentors, informal advocates, members of a support circle, or assist in other ways, to help people with disabilities be active, valued and empowered members of their local communities.
1. Are there any efforts by you, your agency or other agencies with whom you work to implement Community Action or any similar approach? Yes No
2. Brief description of the type of effort and size (number of persons involved):
3. Best contact person for more detailed information: (if more than one, write others on back)
Agency
Phone Number
III. APPLICATION OF APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY-BASED EMPLOYMENT
1. Are any of these efforts, in either Person-Centered Planning or Community Action or both directed toward the movement to employment (supported and/or competitive community-based employment) for persons with developmental disabilities? Such movement would include:
(a) from school to work
(b) from center-based to community-based employment
(c) from unemployment to community-based employment, and/or (d) from current community-based employment to more individualized and/or career-oriented employment (such as from enclave to individualized job or from entry-level job to a career ladder).
Such efforts would include, for example, linking community citizens (such as college students, Service Organizations, non-disabled coworkers, etc.) to individuals with developmental disabilities to assist them in finding Community jobs.
Application of Person-Centered Planning to employment:
Yes No
Application of Community Action to employment:
Yes No
2. If yes for either, please briefly describe how the approach is used to support employment:
3. Best contact person for more information: (if more than one please write others on back)
Name
Agency
Phone Number
IV. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN PILOT PROJECT
1. Would your county or agency be interested m participating in a pilot project for the greater and more affective use of Person-Centered Planning and Community Action and the application of these approaches to community-based employment?
Yes -- No
2. If yes, who should be contacted?
Name
Agency
Phone Number
THANK YOU! If you have any questions, please call Angela Amado 612-698-5565. Please return in enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope.
PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING/COMMUNITY ACTION SUPPORTS FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Your Name
Agency
Phone Number
I. PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING refers to various interactive life-planning processes which reflect the unique gifts and personalities of each individual, help an individual and group develop a life vision with the person that expresses their dreams and desires, and assist in creating lifestyles that help people contribute in ordinary community life. Some examples of person-centered planning processes include Personal Futures Planning Person-Centered Career Planning methods such as Career Visioning, Person-Centered Teams, Circles of Support and MAPS (McGill Action Planning System).
1. Do you know of any efforts in any college or university programs (either yours or others) to teach students about Person-Centered Planning? Yes No
If yes, please provide a brief description of the type and size of effort classes, etc.:
Best contact person regarding these efforts: (if more than one, please write others on back)
Name
Agency
Phone
2. Do you know of any efforts with any school districts or community agencies with whom anyone at your college/university works to implement any form of Person-Centered Planning with persons with development disabilities? Yes No
If yes, please provide a brief description of the type and size of effort (number of persons using or with whom this approach is used):
Best Contact person regarding these efforts: (if more than one, please write on back)
Name
Agency
Phone
II. COMMUNITY ACTION is an approach in which the interests and skills of a variety of nondisabled community members are matched with the interests and needs of people who have developmental disabilities. Community members get to know individuals with disabilities on a one-to-one basis and assist in realizing the individual's person-centered plan. They may become mentors, informal advocates, members of a support circle, or assist in other ways, to help people with disabilities be active, valued and empowered members of their local communities.
Do you know of any efforts by your college/university or others to implement any type of Community Action-style program or any similar approach? Yes - No
Brief description of the type of effort and size (number of persons involved):
Best contact person for more detailed information: (if more than one, write others on back)
Name
Agency
Phone
III. APPLICATION OF APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY-BASED EMPLOYMENT
Are any of these efforts, in either Person-Centered Planning or Community Action or both directed toward the movement to employment (supported and/or competitive community-based employment) for persons with developmental disabilities? Such movement would include:
(a) from school to work
(b) from center-based to community-based employment
(c) from unemployment to community-based employment and
(d) from current community-based employment to more individualized and/or career-oriented employment (such as from enclave to individualized job or from entry-level work to a career ladder).
Such efforts would include, for example, linking community citizens (such as college students, service organizations, nondisabled coworkers, etc.) to individuals with developmental disabilities to assist them in finding community jobs.
Application of Person-Centered Planning to employment:
Yes No
Application of Community Action to employment:
Yes No
If yes for either, please briefly describe how the approach is used to support employment:
Best contact person for more information: (if more than one,
please write others on back)
Name
Agency
Phone
THANK YOU! If you have any questions, please call Angela Amado at 612-698-5565.
Please return in enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope.
