DEI Project Lead S Meeting

DEI Project Lead’s Meeting

Collective Feedback from the Field

This document consolidates the responses received during and post the April 11th Project Lead’s Administrative meeting to the following three questions. Through this collaborative dialogue, grantees had an opportunity to participate in a peer exchange of successes and barriers related to DEI implementation.

The point of this exercise was to help the national DEI Program Office develop a technical assistance plan for the next program year, which begins July 2016.

Based on the collective feedback, each of the three questions includes the topic areas in which the responses were organized. The “Other” categories include single topic responses. The beginning of each response includes a topic focus in bold.

a. Leading challenge (or barrier)?  Ticket to Work Operations  Relationship with Vocational Rehabilitation  Partnership Building  Career Pathways  Role and Responsibilities of DRC  Other

b. Leading strength?  Partnerships  Disability Resource Coordinators  Other

c. What resources would be helpful to further support your work?  Examples from the Field  Ticket to Work  DEI/DRC Exchange  Standardized Accessibility Templates for use in the Field  Other

Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6

A. LEADING CHALLENGES / BARRIERS Ticket to Work Operations Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6  With two rounds of funding, the state still has very small numbers, maybe 5 tickets assigned with no income and do not plan to continue as an EN after grant funding. After South Dakota X meetings with NDI TA team, they realized the situation is unique in that VR provides the follow up services to their ticket holders rather than un-assigning them.  Southwest Private Industry Council implementing site has slight anxiety over becoming an EN. However, one implementation site (Central MN Jobs and Training Services) that is already an EN will provide peer-to-peer support and Minnesota seek assistance from the NDI-DEI team. The third implementation site, Rural CEP, participated as part of the State EN in MN DEI 3 and has leveraged over $112,000 of TTW funds to date as part of the State EN.  Challenge working with SSA in the beginning around the Ticket but feel the relationship is much smoother. They have Alaska an admin EN, which is coordinated at the state level.  The challenge is not with the start-up and operations but rather getting assistance from SSA / Ticket Support Manager California X when there is a glitch or assistance is needed.  Projects that reported general challenges around the Ticket Connecticut includes (each indicated that they are working with the DEI Illinois X Ticket support team). Relationship with Vocational Rehabilitation  The relationship has improved but as a Round IV grantee, they had assumed by now it would have been much farther. Alabama It is continuing to get better but issues still exist.  With the Round IV adult grant, which really focused on Ticket activity, this relationship was a struggle but within the last Alaska year, they feel they have turned a corner.  Great partnership with VR especially around Ticket for DEI IV adult, which they hope will continue as they unfold Round VII youth; they have some rub and some challenges. Connecticut Transition service counselors have been invited to join the NDI-DEI VII orientation taking place this month.  With WIOA implementation, the WIOA Title 1 and VR partners have been inundated trying to put processes in Idaho place and it is hard to get them focused on more systemic issues.  The relationship with VR was a challenge at the beginning of project implementation but it has improved due to local Kansas X contact, outreach and communication. Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6 Partnership Building  Cooperation amongst staff regarding ownership or proprietorship or coordination with customers, i.e., getting Alabama them to work together.  DEI IV adult had outstanding results when it came to creating partnerships and systems working to align services. DEI V youth struggles with this. Many of the services are still being delivered in a siloed format because it is easier to Illinois X continue with the norm than it has been to change. It is a focus of grant activities. The project also lost a DRC in one of the regions, so the progress has been stifled but they are addressing it. Career Pathways  Initially the problem was not having a clear direction of how to take this concept from paper to reality. This is not something the grant can do alone, so the project has utilized DEI as the catalyst to partner with other stakeholders. They South Dakota X plan to create a web platform for career pathways in the next six months or so. This will provide an opportunity for various users (training providers, Labor Market Information, etc.) to incorporate their information into the career pathway.  Initially building the connections and partnerships. A year into the project, they have established certain pathways and New York X made needed connections. Role and Responsibilities of DRC  Not serving as a case manager Washington X  At the local level, getting the AJC managers understand the role of the DRC is more capacity building of frontline staff to New York X serve job seekers with disabilities versus DRCs serving as case managers. Other  Clarifying the definition of "significant disability" for our targeted population. With few states, serving this population it was difficult to truly identify those individuals that will fall Maryland under this category. We also encountered a delay when requesting a response for clarity of the definition.  Sustainability of grant objectives post grant funding Washington X  Grant administrative issues Hiring DEI state lead and local level (DRC). This was/is mainly due to staff turnover in HR Maryland and at the local level.  DEI Implementation Sites As a round IV project, they were Virginia part of the random assignment process and the two sites Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6 selected to serve as treatment/implementation sites are predominantly rural and have great limitations to resources. Transportation is a barrier and many of the individuals face greater barriers in terms of skills and education level. This is greatly reflected in the performance outcomes, which are much lower than the project expected.  Limitations of State Guidance The state has a requirement of 40 percent that does not include job training. Many customers are not ready to go directly into certification because they need more training/preparation time. Virginia Customers face challenges that preclude them for meeting WIOA eligibility requirements and it is a challenge to find the resources to address these barriers and help get them prepared.  Clarification of Outcome Measurements DEI outcome measurements versus WIOA Title 1 program performance measurements. Meeting these measurements leads the DRC role to a tendency towards case management versus Idaho coordination and facilitation. This was more of an issue with the Round IV youth project, which they are trying to address with their Round VII youth grant.  Accessing Real-time data It was a challenge to work with the system to be able to show data that is more accurate in a timely manner. As grant implementation has gone forward, Kansas X the project is starting to see the results of that activity even within KansasWorks.  Technology Issues Basic access to good technology (e.g., access to high-speed technology) allowing participation in Alabama general activities such as webinars, etc. AJCs still have some barriers in physical space.

B. LEADING STRENGTHS Partnerships  Partnerships: businesses, One Stop required partners, community partners, etc. have grown and are strengthened South Dakota X because of DEI.  Strong partnerships at the state level with disability agencies from behavioral health, developmental disabilities, Maryland Department of disabilities, and VR. All parties have been involved since the grant application process was initiated.  Partnerships with other agencies and employment services Washington X agencies. Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6  One of our regions has developed a great partnership with VR, and has designed a process for referrals back and forth Illinois X to serve customers in a quicker fashion. We have not had as much luck replicating that in the other region.  Strong partnerships with great coordination and collaboration Alaska X among both agencies and statewide entities.  Unlike with Round IV, the Round VI youth project has a strong partnership with VR enabling them to serve a wider group of youth. This collaborative relationship has allowed Alaska X them to do a lot of leveraging outside of DEI funds; they have not been expending grant funds as much as they should.  Great partnerships through the Idaho Interagency Council on Secondary Transition and the Idaho Employment First Idaho Consortium, who helped develop the Round VII proposal and are engaged and onboard with grant activities.  Strong partnerships at the state level and DEI project management was involved in the development of the Virginia Combined State Plan and with including information on disability.  Strong partnerships at the state, regional and local level. The partners have been able to do a three-year study of WIOA enrollment: pre-DEI, first and second year of DEI. In the year prior to DEI there were 87 individuals enrolled in WIOA and as of the end of March 27, there were 441. Prior to DEI the population of individuals with disabilities served Kansas X was 2.23 percent and in the latest report it is 11.67 percent. This is attributed to the outreach and relationships being built and the use of DEI strategies like the IRT. DEI is being asked to help the non-DEI sites, as they are moving into WIOA implementation. Disability Resource Coordinators (DRCs)  Because of their presence, the AJCs are serving a larger number of job seekers with disabilities and DRCs are Alabama educating WIOA case managers on strategies to support these job seekers.  The state has been able to retain the same staff who served as Navigators under the Disability Program Navigator Idaho initiative to serve as the DRCs under the Round IV and now Round VII grants.  At the local level, the impact of the DRCs and the noticeable Virginia improvements that have taken place in the AJCs as a result. Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6 DRCs working with partners have improved the customer flow and access to services. In addition, the DRCs are helping with local engagement of employers and businesses. The DRCs are role modeling to the system how to support the needs of customers with disability using strategies like the IRT and the system is acknowledging that this process does improve outcomes for customers. Other  AJC Survey Process In the process of redefining their existing survey process including what the team looks at and how it will be carried out. This is an activity currently in Virginia process that is expected to be completed in the next few months and then put into place.  WIOA Implementation DEI gave us a step ahead for WIOA. Everything with the exception of Ticket has been implemented into our regular WIOA programming. We South Dakota X operated DEI as a “supplement” to the WIOA Title I program for sustainability purposes. Thus, WIOA Title I policies incorporate the information gained from DEI.  Frequency of communications statewide For both rounds of projects, state leadership meets with each site face to face during the first quarter to work through project implementation. They hold a statewide quarterly meeting during the second month of the quarter that include all California X projects with presentations, project report outs, needed TA and ongoing support. The third month of the quarter includes a standing conference call in which the NDI-DEI TA Liaison participates to provide case study type support to brainstorm and problem solve any identified challenges.  Increased Disability Awareness and Understanding of AJC Staff and Partners Training of staff has increased confidence in serving individuals with disabilities. Prior to DEI, the Adult Title I program had about 9-10% disclosing a disability, at the end of December 2016, this was at 41% for the DEI service area. The AEL program had 11 individuals disclosing a disability prior to DEI, at the end of December South Dakota X this was at 66 individuals disclosing a disability. Although outreach has helped, I believe a lot of this is our staff asking more questions, identifying disabilities, and feeling confident in their ability and toolkit of services for individuals with disabilities. Although we plan to continue to train staff, we will miss the DEI funding to help support this.  Integration of DEI Strategies While financial literacy, IRTs, South Dakota X Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6 partner meetings are taking place across the state, the AJCs that had DEI funding are ahead of those that did not. Our challenge will be increasing the levels/expectations of the other offices to get them caught up with the DEI offices.  Increasing access to career pathways Established career pathways in all three implementation sites and other related projects such as the Pre-ETS pilot last year (three WDAs – Southwest PIC included), and our upcoming Pre-ETS Minnesota Outreach to Schools project (statewide focus). These projects help support the work of DEI by aiding the alignment of the Title I and Title IV providers in Minnesota – not only on a state level, but at the local level as well.

C. RESOURCES TO SUPPORT WORK Examples from the Field  To share more information from projects serving similar populations. Maybe a CoP for those serving similar Maryland populations  Sharing of outcomes, or other information from narratives Maryland that could serve as promising practices for new grantees.  Enjoy the information shared through the DEI Communities of Practice (Workforce EN and Business Engagement) and Connecticut seeing excerpts from quarterly reports.  Models of successful navigation through challenges. Washington X Ticket to Work  NDI TA team has been exceptional in their leadership. DEI Ticket Coordinator has mentioned admin ENs that an EN can use to help lessen the burden on the small amount of staff dedicated to this grant to have a structured system in place. A suggestion would be to write in that service as part of the DEI Grant terms. It would be a way to showcase what great things can come from the ticket program when serving this population and make it an easier decision for the AJC to continue to focus on ticket to work and consider the small Illinois X cost to use the service to make it a beneficial program for the EN. Right now, because our two regions are not relying on the money coming from the ticket program to support their staff, it is not as important to secure those customers as it is to VR, so it is easier to have VR open and maintain the ticket. In addition, when VR has an open ticket, there is no effort to reassign the ticket since the AJC does not need the revenue. Population DEI DEI Grantees Collective Feedback from the Field Grantee 5 6  The state of Alaska does not have access to certified work incentive coordinators, so the project is trying to determine how to access training for DRCs to become certified to help expand this capacity. VCU is the training vehicle recognized Alaska X in the state but due to its limitations, it may not be the vehicle to use. The leadership is currently exploring VCU and the training offered through Cornell.  This has been an area of challenge since the Round IV project; however, the project is working with the DEI Ticket Idaho Coordinator to affect change in this area under Round VII.  More targeted guidance on points of contact at SSA to California X address issues related to the Ticket program. DEI/DRC Exchange  Hosting a national convening of the Youth DEI projects. This would allow states who have had previous rounds to share best practices from those rounds as well as innovative Minnesota strategies that are being implemented in other states with a youth-focused DEI grant.  Regional DRC exchange would be very valuable. Connecticut  Attended a previous DRC exchange and thought it was Kansas X valuable, so would be supportive of another one. Standardized Accessibility Templates for use in the Field  Minimum standard adaptive equipment that all AJCs throughout the nation should be equipped with that provide Alabama guidance on supporting different types of disabilities.  Standardization around the types of assistive technology Virginia each AJC should maintain. Other  ILPs As project implementation continues, additional Idaho support around individualized learning plans.