IPS Fidelity Manual December 2015 edition Updates/changes/clarifications

Disclaimer! What we will cover: This presentation is based on the current manual and our best understanding of the topics. If there are any changes in how items are being interpreted in the future we will do our best to provide additional clarification via a statewide conference call or memorandum of understanding.

Disclaimer! What we will NOT cover: If you have questions about how your agency’s fidelity review was scored, and those questions are not answered under the presented topics here, please send a separate email to the reviewers who reviewed your agency. Feel free to ask for additional clarification from them.

Differences in How Items Are Scored We are part of an International Learning Collaborative Because of continued research and questions that have arisen over the years, researchers from the IPS Employment Center (formerly Dartmouth) have made clarifications in how to score fidelity items based on unique circumstances that have arisen all over the world.

Reasons Behind the Scores 8 Principles of IPS Statewide Trainer Education at Dartmouth IPS Fidelity Manual Additional clarification from researchers How was the same item scored the previous year? How have other agencies been rated on the same item?

Page 22-23 (pg. 32-33 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 22-23 (pg. 32-33 in pdf version on-line) “10. Reviewers should not lower the score because improvements were not made. An exception is when reviewers score incorrectly on an earlier review (see #11). 11. Acknowledge past scoring mistakes and score as accurately as possible… the reviewers make a comment in the fidelity report acknowledging the wrong score from the previous review and use accurate scoring going forward.”

Scoring Specifics: IPS Peer Specialists IPS Peer Specialists will be interviewed during upcoming reviews. Examples of questions that could be asked of IPS Peer Specialists is contained throughout Chapter 9. IPS Peer Specialists are not required to be members of the IPS Team in order to receive a specific score. “If peers provide non-employment services, the score for this item is not lowered.” pg. 41

Page 50 (pg. 60 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 50 (pg. 60 in pdf version on-line) Treatment Team Observations: # Of Tx Teams # of Observations During Review 7 3-4 5 2-3 3-4 1-2

Page 47 & 51(pg. 57 & 61 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 47 & 51(pg. 57 & 61 in pdf version on-line) About Treatment Teams: If an ES has 3 or more clients from a 3rd Tx Team, the score on Integration w/ Tx Team is automatically reduced to a 2. The ES would also be expected to attend a weekly tx team meeting for the 3rd Tx Team. If there are 2 or fewer clients on the ES caseload from one tx team, the ES should attend the Tx Team meeting at least every other week.

Page 64 (pg. 74 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 64 (pg. 74 in pdf version on-line) Role of the Supervisor- Monthly Field Mentoring: “…if fewer than 40% of the people on a specialist’s caseload are employed or if a specialist has fewer than three job starts each quarter, the IPS supervisor provides monthly field mentoring.”

Page 65 (pg. 75 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 65 (pg. 75 in pdf version on-line) Role of the Supervisor- Monthly Field Mentoring: “A supervisor reports that she accompanies new staff to meet with employers monthly for the first three months. Reviewers observe job development and realize that staff is not skilled at building employer relationships. They do not give credit for this component and recommend monthly field mentoring.”

Page 69 (pg. 79 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 69 (pg. 79 in pdf version on-line) Zero Exclusion: “When programs do not have mechanisms for clients to refer themselves to IPS, or clients and their family members do not know that they can self-refer, the score is not higher than 4.”

Page 85-86 (pg. 95-96 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 85-86 (pg. 95-96 in pdf version on-line) Work Incentives Planning: “Reviewers do not score higher than 2 when work incentives planning consists only of explaining the rules for entitlements.” “IPS specialists report that they refer most people for benefits planning, but less than 20% of program participants meet with a benefits planner. Reviewers assign a score of 2 and recommend that specialists or family members help clients attend the appointments.

Page 86 (pg. 96 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 86 (pg. 96 in pdf version on-line) Work Incentives Planning: “The IPS specialists only refer people for benefits planning prior to starting a job and do not help clients obtain more information as they make decisions about job changes… Do not score higher than 4.” “When IPS specialists do not help any workers with monthly reporting… do not score higher than 4.”

Page 95 (pg. 105 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 95 (pg. 105 in pdf version on-line) Ongoing Vocational Assessment: “When IPS specialists do not use a comprehensive career profile similar to the one in the Sample Program Forms near the end of this manual, reviewers score 3 or lower.” “When most profiles do not include information from sources other than the person, such as family members… staff, etc., the score is 3 or lower.”

Page 105 (pg. 115 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 105 (pg. 115 in pdf version on-line) Frequent Employer Contact: “When it is not possible to determine whether employer contacts were in person or whether the IPS Specialist spoke to a person with hiring authority, review some of the logs with the IPS supervisor. If the supervisor is unable to provide additional information about the contacts, rate this item 2.”

Page 116-117 (pg. 126-127 in pdf version on-line) Scoring Specifics: Page 116-117 (pg. 126-127 in pdf version on-line) Competitive Jobs: “Eleven people are employed. Nine jobs are competitive and two are volunteer positions. 9 (competitive jobs) divided by 11 (all jobs) = and .82 (82%). The score is 3.” “Four people are employed in competitive jobs and one is working in a sheltered workshop… 4 (competitive jobs) divided by 5 (all jobs)= .8 (80%). The score is 3.”

Questions?