Capstone

Flooded with Opportunity

by Don Brunette, Chief Operating Officer, Friendship Inc., Fargo, ND

The floodwaters came and created within us the vision for unlimited opportunity. But we had no way of knowing it at the time. It was May 4, 2002. My phone rang bright and early that morning. “We have problems, 801 has flooded!” I arrived at 801, our vocational workshop in Fargo, to the sight of fire trucks, flashing lights and firemen. Maintenance staff was busy attempting to squeegee water from the building while vocational staff rescued files and supplies. I was soon to find out first hand that a water main located under our vocational workshop had burst sometime over the weekend and water and mud had filled the building.

My heart sank as I walked through the water and mud that had spread throughout 90% of the building. There will be no vocational services this week, I thought. Little did I realize it at the time, but we would be without a building for over a year. As time passed, the news of the damage turned from bad to worse. Apparently, the force of the gushing water had washed out sand from under the cement slab of the building. We had no way of knowing how big the void was under the slab. Even worse, the steel beams were beginning to sink causing structural damage to the building.

Throughout Friendship, Inc. there was a real sense of urgency to get back to business as usual, yet doubts about returning to our vocational services building started to emerge. We had been exploring vocational service options for some time prior to the flood so it seemed timely to explore service alternatives to traditional sheltered work. We have always wanted to duplicate the success of our supported employment services for the people served within our sheltered workshop. A moment of truth had arrived. We decided to begin the internal discussion. Our focus eventually centered around one issue. Should we continue to provide traditional day support services within our sheltered workshop or should we redirect our focus towards community-based employment? Through an intensive process of reflection and discussion, we arrived at some common values and themes important to all stakeholders. We felt that any change should focus upon the following themes:

1. Work would be our priority and expectation for all people we serve of working age.

2. Everyone should have access to work regardless of disability.

3. When people served define meaningful activity as something other than work, it would be because we have learned this through significant experience and exposure to a variety of work options.

4. Our focus would be on community-based services.

We started looking for supporting evidence and information that might reaffirm a commitment towards community-based employment and community-based supports. With the nation’s unemployment rate for people with disabilities at over 75%, we have always felt that somehow we need to do better for people with significant barriers to employment. Approximately 70% of the individuals served in rehabilitation programs are still in either sheltered workshops or segregated non-work day programs. In fact, the number of people in segregated settings has remained steady or risen in the past decade. We were also concerned that we were sending a mixed message to our community employers. Our message to employers has always emphasized the importance of people with disabilities being an inclusive part of their communities yet we served a large number of people in sheltered settings. This seemed to contradict the message we wanted employers to have.

When looking at national trends it is clearly evident that more than ever before in history, community rehabilitation programs are interested in focusing on outcomes leading to community presence and participation. Federal legal and legislative trends (Olmstead, IDEA, WIA, Rehab Act, ADA, TWWIIA) are strongly promoting community-based employment, community access, and self-determination. There seemed to be enough justification to begin to move our services in a different direction.

The plan to move towards community-based services led us down a path of identifying potential interim service alternatives. The service model we studied and eventually implemented came from SECOH (Supporting Exceptional Citizens Of Hawaii) Services in Hawaii. This service model is a move towards smaller community centers located throughout the community. The community centers function as a jumping off point as people served travel from jobs to community activities. The centers are not intended to be a place where people will spend their entire day and, over time, the centers will eventually lose their necessity. The success of this approach will be determined by our ability to connect people to their surrounding community through employment opportunities and meaningful community activities.

One of the biggest barriers we faced throughout our planning was the belief that people with the most significant disabilities can’t succeed in community-based employment. We found ourselves watching old Marc Gold instructional videos and rediscovering the unlimited possibilities for the people we serve. It soon became evident we would need additional expertise within the organization. Grant dollars would need to be part of this equation. We decided that our first efforts would focus on creating better, more effective teachers throughout the vocational program. Grant dollars were eventually received from CTAT (The Center for Technical Assistance and Training) to allow us to partner with the North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities in the development of a curriculum of systematic instruction. We wanted all vocational staff confident in their teaching/job coaching abilities.

Other grants soon followed. A grant received from the North Dakota Center for Persons with Disabilities has allowed us to enhance our job development expertise to more people within the agency. We also defined specific outcomes for 20 people served regarding community-based employment and community-based day support wrap-around services. Part of this project involved monthly conference calls with a consultant to plan activities and address barriers for these twenty people. Recently, we have developed a mentor relationship with an agency in Florida that has succeeded in transitioning to community-based services. This relationship will replace the role of the consultant as we meet monthly to plan for success of the people we serve. We know that success will need to be defined by the people we serve and that any measure of success will be defined one person at a time.

This story was written and submitted by the staff at Friendship Inc. Friendship Inc. is accredited by The Council on Quality and Leadership.

The Council is committed to collecting and sharing stories of achievement and the effects on people when an outcomes focus is in place. We encourage you to share you stories by sending them to Shelly McLaughlin at info@thecouncil.org.