1. Employment Practice Review Panel Report October 1, 2015

2. Members:  Alyssa Klein- Minnesota Department of Economic and Employment Development  Bekah Satre- Minnesota Department of Human Services  Christina Schaffer- Minnesota Department of Human Rights  Melinda Shamp- Minnesota Department of Human Services  Jayne Spain- Minnesota Department of Education  Nick Wilkie- Metropolitan Center for Independent Living  Megan Zeillinger- Dakota County  Former members: Jenny Lewis (DHS), Natasha Lemler (SSB), Andrea Zuber (DHS)

3. Purpose of Today:  Share Employment Practice Review Panel (EPRP) activities and findings between July 2014- April 2015.  Provide suggestions and engage in a discussion on how to move forward.

4. Interview format:  DHS provided an outside consultant to support the design of the interview process.  Interviews were captured through a consistent note taker to increase uniformity.  In most cases for both adult and youth, members of the individual’s support team were present. For students it was primarily school staff and for adults it was primarily family members.

5. Interview format:  Interviews were narrative in nature allowing individuals to share their stories. The same set of guiding questions were used at every interview to be sure the needed information was drawn out of each story.  Members of the EPRP collectively reviewed the interview information.  EPRP members provided follow-up suggestions and support to interviewees.

6. Interview details: Adult interviews  8 adults interviewed  2 females, 6 males  All working  5 out of 8 had family and/or support staff with them  Most were under 30  Varied disabilities  All metro based  Predominantly White Transition aged interviews  7 transition aged youth interviewed  4 female, 3 male  6 out of 7 working  Primarily less significant disabilities  All metro area, representing 4 districts  Ethnically diverse

7. Adult interview findings:  People and/or families had to advocated strongly and often work against the system to get and keep their jobs. Current systems do not make working easy.  Difficult to access support if not linked to/not eligible for county services.  People are often stuck in entry level positions without opportunity to grow their career.  Having a focused person centered process early lead to employment in adulthood.

8. Adult interview findings:  People outside of the system had higher expectations with greater belief in themselves and were supported in that belief through their families and personal networks. This is in contrast to low expectations across agency professionals.  VR and county services are not coordinated.  Systems are very confusing for people to navigate.

9. Adult interview findings:  County staff will still encourage segregated settings even when not a person’s/family’s preference.  Resources outside of disability programs are not explored.  Benefits are a perceived barrier for advancing careers.

10. Transition aged youth interview findings:  Regardless of capabilities, if an individual has a particular diagnosis they are often tracked into a specific predetermined transition program level because of the diagnosis.  Professionals do not know the services offered by the other agencies and/or opportunities to collaborate across systems.  Work experiences in schools are not individualized or person centered.  Post high school planning is happening too late.

11. Transition aged youth interview findings:  There are low expectations of students identified as having Developmental and Cognitive Disabilities. This causes these youth to be tracked into more segregated experiences in both high school and post high school options.  Vocational Rehabilitation is engaging late and in a very limited way.  Counties are outside of the transition discussion until right before graduation.

12. Transition aged youth interview findings:  Over-reliance on disability specific services and programs.  Gap in service options for youth with disabilities who are not eligible for county services.  Over reliance on disability/school specific transportation limiting youth’s work options in their future.