1. Alliance for Full Participation November, 2011

2.  Indicator 14 not given enough importance  Indicator 13 allows work other than integrated employment to be post-secondary employment outcome in an IEP  Practical result – very few youth with significant disabilities have integrated employment outcomes in their IEPs  End result – School and IEP team not focused on integrated employment because its not a goal in the student’s plan…inviting VR is “not applicable” when it comes to Indicator 13 compliance

3.  No attention given to developing truly useful age-appropriate transition assessment for youth with most significant disabilities  Most recommended resource (NSTTAC Technical Assistance Guide on Age-Appropriate Transition Assessment) is 35 pages and includes one sentence addressing youth with most significant disabilities: “Students with more severe or complex disabilities would be best served by a person centered planning approach.” [p. 4]

4.  Lack of relevant AATA results in school believing integrated employment is not feasible  School staff still focused on what’s typically been done in the past – perpetuates status quo  Youth are still ending up in sheltered and non-work adult service programs  Occurs during school and after graduation  What can be done to shift focus toward integrated employment?

5.  Develop and use an AATA truly suitable for students with significant disabilities  Combine the best of Person-Centered Planning and Discovery  Expand Discovery approach to cover all life areas to be addressed in the transition plan  Target funding to transition opportunities that are aimed at integrated employment…Ask CRPs for something different

6.  Stop funding work adjustment training…Ask CRPs for something different  Fund Discovery rather than testing and evaluation for students with significant disabilities  Purchase customized approaches to job development, including use of visual resume  Involve families and friends in creating and implementing job development plan

7.  Redefined prevocational services in long-term care system…Asking CRPs for something different  All prevocational service recipients now expected to make reasonable and continued progress toward participation in integrated employment  Restricted access to prevocational services in sheltered workshops for youth and other new entrants  Must have integrated employment goal /intent documented in individual plan

8.  Community prevocational services can be authorized for youth who are uncertain about whether they want to pursue integrated employment  Community prevocational services allow exploration of integrated employment options…Asked CRPs to offer this  Sometimes leads directly to job offers!

9.  Rebalancing grants and technical assistance  Support to develop and offer something different: - Community-based prevocational services -Customized employment -Transition programs focused on integrated employment  Support to put organizational policies in place that make integrated employment the first option offered by the CRP

10.  Funding sources want to purchase something different…CRPs adapt OR  CRPs propose something different to schools, VR and long-term care agency…funders adapt -individual level or program level  Push for change from two directions

11.  Any funder of prevocational services can do it  Challenge CRPs to propose a target number of youth in prevocational service that they will assist to transition to at least part-time integrated employment by year end  Let CRPs choose the youth to focus on  Give them technical assistance and support  Get out of their way!  Ask them to mentor other CRPs to expand impact

12.  Lisa A. Mills, PhD Consultant (608) 225-4326 lmills67@charter.net Coordinator Wisconsin CRP Rebalancing Initiative Wisconsin Customized Employment Initiative Consultant on Wisconsin Waiver Service Definition Changes