**How Youth with Disabilities are served through the Workforce
Development System:**

**Case Study Research Across Six Sites -- Year 3**

**August, 2005**

**Writing Team**

**Barbara Kaufman**

**Irene Lynn**

**Christy Stuart**

**Marianne Mooney**

**Larry Searcy**

**Fritz Rumpel**

**George Tilson**

**Joe Timmons**

**and**

**Joan Wills**

**for**

**The Academy for Education Development**

> **1825 Connecticut Ave N.W.**

**Washington, DC 20037**

*This is a publication of the Academy of Educational Development, which
is funded by the Department of Labor Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Administration and Management (OASAM) (Contract #DOL049RQ10012)
through the Office of Disability Employment of Policy. The opinions
expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department of Labor.*

**Table of Contents**

Executive Summary [3](#executive-summary)

Section I: INTRODUCTION [12](#section-i-introduction)

Section II. FINDINGS [17](#section-ii.-findings)7

SECTION III. YOUTH INTERVIEWS 67

Section IV. SPECIFiC and IMPLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS 79

Section V. NEW and CONTINUING CHALLENGES
[82](#section-v.-new-and-continuing-challenges)2

Section VI. CONCLUDING ANALYSIS 89

APPENDIX A 99

APPENDIX B 136

aPPENDIX C 154

# Executive Summary

## GENERAL BACKGROUND

In the fall of 2002 the Academy for Education Development (AED) in
conjunction with the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) and the
Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) working with the U.S.
Department of Labor\'s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)
commenced on a multi-year study to identify supports that are needed to
provide efficient and universal access in serving individuals with
disabilities through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) supported One
Stop Career Center system. (We will refer to these centers as One-Stops
throughout the report.)   AED and IEL focused on serving youth with
disabilities while the ICI focused on serving adults with disabilities. 
This report will focus on the activities and findings of the youth
study.

In 2002, based on a number of factors such as geographic location,
demographic composition and economic challenges, six sites around the
country were selected for the study. The selected sites are:

1.  Tucson, Arizona: Rico Neuvo and Ajo Way

2.  Albany, Georgia: Albany One Stop

3.  Waterloo, Iowa Hawkeye: Community College Workforce Development
    Center (HCCWD)

4.  Syracuse, New York: CNYWorks

5.  Providence, Rhode Island: netWorkri,  and

6.  Bellingham, Washington: Northwest Workforce Development Council
    (NWDC)

Each site has been and will continue to be visited once a year for five
years by a team of experts in the employment of youth with disabilities
(Y-w-D).  They will interview staff and youth with disabilities on what
assistance is being offered and what supports are needed to meet the
unique needs of youth with disabilities.  Where possible the interviews
with youth have been and will continue to be with the same youth in
order to gain a five year longitudinal view of their experience in the
workforce development system.

To date, three site visits have been conducted.  The site visit teams
have been selected from personnel identified by the National
Collaborative on Disability and the Workforce for Youth (NCWD/Y) a
subcontractor to AED for this study. 

**[Research Questions]{.underline}**

At the outset of the study, ODEP framed six research questions to which
the study responds to each year.  These are:

1.  What specific context and conditions are necessary to promote
    increased access to services for individuals with disabilities?

2.  What strategies, including policies and practices, are being used to
    improve access and outcomes?

3.  What is the evidence of change relative to these strategies?

4.  Are individuals with disabilities satisfied with the services they
    receive and are they making progress towards their education and
    work preparation goals?

5.  With regard to policies and practices, what supports/constraints
    (including costs) influence implementation?

6.  How can the information in questions one to four be used
    systematically to provide technical assistance and training,
    disseminate information, and inform practice?

**[Description of the Most Recent Site Visits]{.underline}**

Six case study site visits were conducted between April and June of
2005.  Interviews were conducted with over 60 adults.  The adults
interviewed included One-Stop Managers and staff, Local Workforce
Investment Board (LWIB) Executive Directors and staff, Youth Council
members, in- and out-of-school Youth Service Providers, and One-Stop
partners.  Interviews were also conducted with 50 youths with
disabilities (Y-w-D) including in- and out-of-school youth between the
ages of 18 and 22 years old.  The number of youth served at each site
ranged from 63 to 1250. 

The geographic area covered by the One-Stops range from two to fourteen
counties.  In all, the sites encompass ten full-service and five
satellite One-Stops.

**[Specific and Implicit Recommendations]{.underline}** (See Section IV
for full discussion)

*[Performance Standards/Outcomes]{.underline}*

The primary cross-site recommendation is the need to develop enhanced
performance standards which measure progress in more refined gradations.
. Some of the sites felt that the groups of typical youth and Y-w-D were
different enough to merit their own set of measures. They also felt
strongly that the measures currently in use do not reflect real,
meaningful progress that they make with youth. Many of the interviewees
pointed out that 6 months of progress in reading, for instance, is
significant for a youth who has made no progress in reading for many
years and yet they receive no credit for this accomplishment. In fact,
if that's the best they can do, they are punished. Their opinion also
seems to be that if they are working with a Y-w-D, current outcome goals
are even more difficult to reach. With Y-w-D, credit should be given
rewarding more discreet amounts and types of progress.

*[More Effective Data Collection Systems]{.underline}*

All of the sites still feel they do not have accurate data. All of the
sites have now installed and are operating state driven data collection
systems. However they find these systems often do not collect/report
information that is useful for them. Importantly, these new data
collection systems do not provide any clearer picture of the most
fundamental data about Y-w-D. For instance, they do not collect data
that provides the percent of the youth served are Y-w-D; the prevalence
of disability type; or in what services Y-w-D most often participate.

The remainder of the site driven recommendations reflected specific site
specific situations and are categorized here, as they were last year by
the level of government that has the authority to act on the
recommendation.

**[Federal]{.underline}**

-   [Accept the special needs diploma as a credential]{.underline} under
    the Common Measures of Performance. "You cannot mandate their
    participation and then penalize us for their performance" (Regional
    Youth Services Planner).

-   [Hold service providers to one standard of performance]{.underline},
    either Common Measures of Performance or WIA measures- not both.

-   [Continued funding of navigator position]{.underline}- longer term
    (beyond one year)

-   [Develop a more efficient and accurate youth data
    system]{.underline} (current system does not accurately reflect the
    positive outcomes for youth).

-   [More financial support for staff development]{.underline} and
    developing successful colloaborative working relationships.

**[State]{.underline}**

-   [Have every youth services provider develop their programs based on
    a similar flow of service]{.underline} - one that is built on a
    natural progression of skills model (i.e., assessment, awareness,
    observation, basic skill development, job preparation, work
    experiences) for work-based learning.

-   [Improve understanding among case managers, service providers and
    educators on how assessment/testing drives services]{.underline}.
    Equip case managers to implement testing. Increase/improve
    assessment information on youth to help identify the most
    appropriate job training and placements.

-   [Assign a Regional Job Readiness Specialist to each VR unit
    area]{.underline} with an assistive technology specialist to assist
    them.

-   [Investigate use of Medicaid waiver]{.underline} for job coaching
    services

**[Local]{.underline}**

-   [Broaden/strengthen the number of employers]{.underline} working
    with WIA youth.

-   [Greater youth "voice"]{.underline} in WIB and Youth Council

-   [Better communication across agencies]{.underline}, particularly
    regarding the issue of outreach to out-of-school and older youth

-   [Increased communications and memoranda of
    understanding]{.underline} between the WIB director and top school
    system officers regarding the potential mutual benefits of working
    together. Improved joint problem-solving.

**[Research Question Analysis]{.underline}** (See Section V for a full
discussion)

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy
(ODEP) posed six research questions that were to be addressed by the
sites during each site visit.  The following represents an analysis of
the findings of the site visits organized by the ODEP research
questions. 

## What specific context and conditions are necessary to promote increased access to services for individuals with disabilities? 

*[Long Term Intervention]{.underline}*

This year the site visitors in Waterloo, Tucson and Providence observed
that many of the youth they interviewed were actually regressing the
older they got and the further they were removed from active supports
and programming. However, in Bellingham youth remained engaged with
their counselors for long (four to five years) periods of time and
continued to progress. Discussions with the leadership and front line
staff at Bellingham revealed that the strategy of long term intervention
was by design. Due to the short term nature one year contracts and other
factors, the other sites are unable to provide this type of
intervention. It is impossible to say that the length of support and
involvement alone contribute to positive growth by Y-w-D over time. But
it was the one, most noticeable difference in strategies.

If long term intervention is a strategy that yields higher outcomes with
Y-w-D, it carries with it serious implications for service models for
WIA supported services. For instance, performance measures could no
longer be based on a one or two year experience; local WIBs would
likewise have to move away from contracts that span only a period of a
year; case managers or youth workers will need to be able to
access/leverage a wide array of services for a potentially long period
of time (which may also have serious implications for other service
delivery systems).

*[Increased Capacity in Serving Youth with Physical and Severe
Disabilities]{.underline}*

At each site, the site visitors interview up to ten youth with
disabilities to learn about their experiences in receiving WIA supported
and other youth services. To date, none of the youth interviewed have
had physical disabilities other than hearing impairments. In fact one
site visitor who has visited two different sites reported seeing no
youth in wheelchairs involved in any of the programs observed. It seems
youth with these types of disabilities are either being served
exclusively by VR or they are not being served at all.

When viewed against the backdrop of an accountability system that is
already leading providers to "cream" the youth they serve, it seems less
and less likely that WIA supported services will ever serve youth with
physical and severe disabilities. As long as it doesn't, roughly half of
the Y-w-D will not gain the benefits of the WIA.

*[Non Employment Centered Support Services]{.underline}*

When asked about barriers to employment as well as to other employment
training services, the youth responses most commonly reflected a need
for basic support services like housing, transportation, health care and
child care. If any of these are missing the likelihood of Y-w-D (and
probably youth without disabilities) succeeding in building a career or
getting and holding onto their first job is remote. The negative impact
the lack of these support services has on Y-w-D is clearer the further
removed they are from school, family and other services.

##  What strategies, including policies and practices, are being used to improve access and outcomes? 

As discussed last year, on a policy level, the federal framework appears
to be sufficient. 

For the WIA supported system, it appears to be more a matter of
information and practice than it is a matter of policy.  However, one
area in which policy may come into play is the WIA
performance/accountability system.  Keeping in mind that the WIA
accountability system does not hold WIBs specifically accountable for
positive outcomes for Y-w-D, it sends a message that this population is
at least secondary in importance and possibly of no importance. 

*[Long Term Intervention]{.underline}*

As described above a key strategy consideration is long term vs. short
term intervention.

*[Braiding and Leveraging of non-WIA Resources]{.underline}*

A number of the sites are now becoming very effective at collaborating
with other organizations and leveraging non WIA resources. These
collaborations and outside resources can either assist the WIA supported
system in reaching its own outcome measures for youth by supplementing
services directly related to gaining employment or by wrapping other
support services around youth receiving WIA services. Leveraged services
may also provide the resources to allow youth who clearly will not hit
the performance standards to be served in a way that may increase skills
to the point that they may successfully participate in WIA supported
services. A clear example of this strategy can be seen in the Pre-GED
classes described now operating in at least two sites.

*[Fully integrate serving Y-w-D into all procedures and
policies]{.underline}*

All of the sites have done an excellent job in making their facilities
and equipment accessible. Bellingham, in particular, has developed
formal procedures and practices for all of their employees concerning
serving Y-w-D (adults as well). In addition to these procedures, a staff
person has been specifically assigned to look across all aspects of
Bellingham's operation and suggest changes necessary to ensure that
Y-w-D can access the facilities, equipment and programs offered by
Bellingham. As a result of her activities many other positive changes
have occurred. .

*[Navigators]{.underline}*

Four of the six sites now have Navigators. They are seen very positively
by their colleagues in assisting with the provision of services to
Y-w-D. The addition of a staff member who is highly knowledgeable about
services for Y-w-D like benefits planning is a key strategy being used
by all of the sites. However, it appears that the Navigators are
spending almost all of their time working with adults rather than youth
with disabilities. All of the sites with navigators would like to keep
them after the grants end. Only Tucson has developed a strategy to
maintain funding for the position.

*[Incentives]{.underline}*

Several sites reported the use of financial incentives to better gain
youth participation in programs. One example of these types of
incentives can also be seen in Syracuse where they have been able to
qualify more out-of-school youth (ages 18-24) by contracting with them
and providing an incentive. For example, if the youth regularly attends
GED classes and passes the exam, Syracuse gives them \$100.

## What is the evidence of change relative to these strategies?

## Evidence of change is mostly anecdotal. Concrete examples of absolute increases in serving Y-w-D include Providence which has now contracted with the Valley Community Mental Health Center School. The school serves only Y-w-D in need of mental health services. In Tucson, the Intergovernmental Agreement between the One-Stop and the VR agency is also concrete evidence of serving increased numbers of Y-w-D. Bellingham has finalized its procedures manual for serving people with disabilities. The procedures apply to all of Bellingham's personnel. Syracuse has relocated to a new building that is totally accessible. Waterloo's data system, which last year identified a 9% jump in the Y-w-D served again identified 28% of the youth served as Y-w-D. Albany operates a High School/High Tech program which exclusively serves Y-w-D.

Unfortunately, the data systems in most of the sites do not capture
specific data on the number of Y-w-D served. This limitation probably
leads to a serious under-identification of Y-w-D served by these sites.

## Are individuals with disabilities satisfied with the services they receive and are they making progress towards their education and work preparation goals? 

For the first time, this year, there were a few isolated complaints
about the services. One youth in Providence was the most critical and
after stating his complaints, the other youths, who had just articulated
support for the program, chimed in and supported his criticisms. On the
whole though, consistent with last year, youth interviewees were highly
supportive of the programs in which they participated.

Strategies for serving older out-of-school youth are emerging, but as
the youth interviewees age and leave the supports of programs, it
appears that they regress or hit new barriers that prevent them from
pursuing employment. Yet, when asked, they say they are very satisfied
with the services they previously received.

The same limitations on these opinions discussed in last year's report
still apply. "The expression of satisfaction must be tempered by the
understandings that for these youth contacts in the community were
limited and not very rewarding.  Additionally, the youth were not aware
of all the possible program models of which they could have availed
themselves; they only knew the programs in which they participated.  It
was difficult for them to speculate about program improvements as they
had no concept of practices and programs elsewhere in the country."

## With regard to policies and practices, what supports/constraints (including costs) influence implementation? 

### *[Performance Measures]{.underline}*

Based on the year three site visits, the single cross-site factor
driving implementation policies and practices is performance measures.
In at least three sites, the failure to meet these measures has led to
the creation of a new, very intense monitoring presence as well as
wholly new projects designed to hit placement goals rather than support
readiness activities. They have also led to a decline the number of
potential vendors willing to bid on the youth services RFP. In Syracuse
several service providers returned the funds they had been awarded
rather than attempt and fail to meet performance outcomes. Other
providers have been lost because they did not meet performance outcomes
in at least Providence, Albany and Syracuse. There is a general feeling
across many of the sites that the performance standards (both CPM and to
some extent WIA) are unrealistic. "Creaming" is already a necessary
practice, in the opinion of some sites, and will get nothing but worse.
The sites predict Y-w-D will be the first group to be "creamed" out of
the program. If, they say, the mission of WIA is to serve the "most in
need" or the "hardest to serve", the performance measures are counter
productive and lead to serving only the easiest to serve.

### *[Funding Cuts]{.underline}*

All of the sites are facing a reduction in funding from the federal
level and most are anticipating reductions from the state level as well.
Currently, the mix of funding utilized by the sites remains consistent
with last year (85% WIA funds) but movement is occurring that should
lead to increases in non-WIA funds. Some of the sites have already
embarked on utilizing non-WIA funds. The most notable is Tucson where a
partnership with the VR agency has led to a new \$1.2 million funding
stream.

An unforeseen impact of the reduction of funding may be the loss of key
personnel. In Providence, for instance, the Director of Youth Services
is leaving her position, in part, because of the uncertainty of funding
support for it.

*[Loss of Key Personnel]{.underline}*

Several key staff left their jobs after the interviews were completed.
Examples of this type of turnover are the senior staff person in
Waterloo who has established excellent collaborative relationships with
schools in her area; the Director of Youth Services in Providence; the
long-time executive director of CNYWorks (Syracuse); and, a full-time
navigator (Providence). High turnover continued in the community-based
provider organizations.

### *[Stronger Working Relationships with Schools and VR]{.underline}*

The sites continue to report strong working relationships with both
schools and VR. Tucson, through its Intergovernmental Agreement with VR
is the most significant development reported this year. Schools continue
to grow as partner organizations. For instance, in Waterloo, the
in-school staffer reports attending an increasing number of transition
meetings. Albany works with a host of school programs, Bellingham runs
several programs in conjunction with schools.

## How can the information in questions one to four be used systematically to provide technical assistance and training, disseminate information, and inform practice? 

## Continued utilization of the NCDW/Y's dissemination channels is recommended. Additional channels for dissemination include the Parent Training and Information Centers Technical Assistance Provider, outreach to the Client Assistance Program, the Protection and Advocacy System, the Independent Living Centers, the National Dissemination Center, and disability specific organizations that are national in scope with local affiliates such as the Epilepsy Foundation of America. All of which are currently part of NCWD/Y's dissemination channels.

## Content should continue to be developed focused on new and promising practices such as how to "braid" funding streams and/or the leveraging of non WIA resources. The sites studied here also provide good examples of how to infuse working with Y-w-D throughout their entire set of operating policies and procedures. 

## It also appears it would be helpful to provide information to the field concerning how to garner the funds to add Navigators along with strategies for keeping them once grant money runs out.

**[Concluding Remarks]{.underline}**

This year's site visits uncovered more signs of progress is serving
Y-w-D. However, these sites are struggling with data collection systems
that appear to not provide information that will assist in providing
timely, effective service to their customers. This is not a new problem.
Each year this issue has been highlighted by the sites. However, with
the added emphasis on achieving positive outcomes, the data collection
system takes on increased importance. It seems relatively difficult to
believe that still sites cannot even get a simple count of the number of
Y-w-D they are serving through an automated systemIf increased
accountability at the local level is something for which the WIA system
is striving, then it needs also to be accurately informed about who its
customers are. Otherwise, policy and service strategies evolve in an
uninformed vacuum.

It also appears, based on the year three site visits that there is a
basic disconnect between the stated mission of WIA services target
customers ("the most in need", "the hardest to serve") and the
performance measures used to document success. It is telling that
consultants, brought in by a state to advise local programs, concluded
with one of the sites that the whole problem was that they wee "serving
the wrong youth". The site was then urged to seek out and serve youth
with higher academic skills than the youth they had traditionally
served. All of the sites agreed that this sort of strategy will, in
effect, reduce or eliminate Y-w-D from the WIA customer base. This
approach seems to be counter productive to serving Y-w-D and other high
risk populations.

All of the sites in the study continue to make progress in serving Y-w-D
although in some sites it is only because of their ability to leverage
non WIA resources and gain flexibility in both service strategy and
performance measures.

#  Section I: INTRODUCTION

In the fall of 2002 the Academy for Education Development (AED) in
conjunction with the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) and the
Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) working with the U.S.
Department of Labor\'s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)
commenced on a multi-year study to identify supports that are needed to
provide efficient and universal access in serving individuals with
disabilities through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) supported
One-Stop Career Center system. (We will refer to these centers as
One-Stops throughout the report.)   AED and IEL focused on serving youth
with disabilities while the ICI focused on serving adults with
disabilities.  This report will focus on the activities and findings of
the youth study.

In 2002, based on a number of factors such as geographic location,
demographic composition and economic challenges, six sites around the
country were selected for the study. The selected sites are:

-   Tucson, Arizona: Rico Neuvo and Ajo Way (Tucson)

-   Albany, Georgia: Albany One-Stop (Albany)

-   Waterloo, Iowa: Hawkeye Community College Workforce Development
    Center (HCCWD) (Waterloo)

-   Syracuse, New York: CNY Works

-   Providence, Rhode Island: netWorkri (Providence),  and

-   Bellingham, Washington: Northwest Workforce Development Council
    (Bellingham)

 

Each site has been and will continue to be visited once a year for five
years (funding permitting) by a team of experts in the employment of
youth with disabilities (Y-w-D).  Each year they have and will continue
to interview staff and youth with disabilities on what assistance is
being offered and what supports are needed to meet the unique needs of
youth with disabilities.  When possible the interviews with youth have
been and will continue to be with the same youth in order to gain a five
year longitudinal view of their experience in the workforce development
system.

The study has completed its third year of site visits.  The site visit
teams have been selected from personnel identified by the National
Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth (NCWD/Y), a
subcontractor to AED for this study. 

## Research Questions

At the outset of the study, ODEP framed six research questions to which
the study responds each year.  These are:

1.  What specific context and conditions are necessary to promote
    increased access to services for individuals with disabilities?

2.  What strategies, including policies and practices, are being used to
    improve access and outcomes?

> 3. What is the evidence of change relative to these strategies?

4.  Are individuals with disabilities satisfied with the services they
    receive and are they making progress toward their education and work
    preparation goals?

5.  With regard to policies and practices, what supports/constraints
    (including costs) influence implementation?

6.  How can the information in questions one to four be used
    systematically to provide technical assistance and training,
    disseminate information, and inform practice? 

> These questions are discussed in more detail in Section VI of this
> document.

It was decided that this year's site visits would utilize the same
protocol as last year.    In addition to the protocol used with the
professional staff at the One-Stop and those providing other youth
services, the study also included structured interviews with youth with
disabilities (Y-w-D).  Ten Y-w-D were selected from each site to track
over five years to assess the progress of their career goals in the
labor market.   Section III of the report (see below) addresses the
results of the third year of youth interviews. 

## Description of the Most Recent Site Visits

Six case study site visits were conducted between April and June of
2005.  Interviews were conducted with over 60 adults.  The adults
interviewed included One-Stop Managers and staff, Local Workforce
Investment Board (LWIB) Executive Directors and staff, Youth Council
members, in- and out-of-school Youth Service Providers, and One-Stop
partners.  Interviews were also conducted with 50 youths with
disabilities (Y-w-D) including in- and out-of-school youth between the
ages of 18 and 22 years old.  The number of youth served at each site
ranged from 63 to 1250. 

The geographic area covered by the One-Stops range from two to fourteen
counties.  In all, the sites encompass ten full-service and five
satellite One-Stops.

## Overview

As with the previous two years, it is difficult to identify how many
youth with disabilities were served in total the previous year.  This
information, in several sites had to be "hand" generated as the data
collection system in use does not report it. The table in Figure I-1
provides a quick snapshot of key demographics in each site.

Consistently over the last three years, the sites struggled with
providing data in four key categories within this table: "Y-w-D Age
5-20;" "Number of youth served in the prior program year;" "Percent
In-School Youth;" and, "Percent Out-of-School Youth." From a WIA
perspective, if this fundamental information about WIA customers is not
available, it is difficult to design a service system that is truly
responsive to the customers it serves. For instance, performance outcome
measures such as numeracy and literacy (reading) are based on an
apparent belief that the customers entering the system have the ability
to raise skill levels at a rate that will allow them to earn a GED
within one year. However, if it were known that very high percentage of
the customers were also people with Learning Disabilities that make
reading and language comprehension very difficult, it is possible that
outcome measures, as well as the services provided, might be different.

The lack of this fundamental information and an automated way to
routinely collect it has been identified each of the last two years as a
continuing challenge and it was again this year. A more detailed Y-w-D
profile and economic context for each site can be found in Appendix B. 

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><h3 id="figure-i-1-overview-of-site-demographics"> 
Figure I-1: Overview of Site Demographics </h3>
<p><em><u>Sites 2004</u></em></p></td>
<td colspan="11"><p> </p>
<h1 id="characteristics"><em><u>Characteristics</u></em></h1></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Site  <br />
Population</strong></p>
<p><strong>2004*</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Site  <br />
Population</strong></p>
<p><strong>2000</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Major  <br />
Cities</strong></p>
<p><strong>2000</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Population</strong></p>
<p><strong>Density</strong></p>
<p><strong>ppsm</strong></p></td>
<td><p><strong>Youth</strong></p>
<p><strong>Population %</strong></p>
<p><strong>5-24 yrs. (2004)</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Y-w-D <br />
ages 5-20 % 2004</strong></td>
<td><strong># of Youth served prior program Yr.</strong></td>
<td><strong>State Poverty Level 2004</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Site Poverty Level</strong></p>
<p><strong>2004</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Percent in School Youth</strong></td>
<td><strong>Percent out of School Youth</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Pima County, AZ</strong></td>
<td>885,025</td>
<td>843,746</td>
<td><p>Tucson</p>
<p>486,699</p></td>
<td>91.8</td>
<td>27.6</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td><p>2214</p>
<p>320 (ywd)</p></td>
<td>14.2</td>
<td>15.4</td>
<td> 47.02% (1041)<br />
46.88% (150 ywd)</td>
<td>52.98% (1173)<br />
53.12% (170 ywd)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Dougherty County, GA</strong></td>
<td>95,684</td>
<td>96,065</td>
<td><p>Albany</p>
<p>76,939</p></td>
<td>291.5</td>
<td>24.4 (2000)</td>
<td>8.0 (2000)</td>
<td><p>1232</p>
<p>179 (ywd)</p></td>
<td>14.8</td>
<td>24.8 (2000)</td>
<td><p>68.02%(838)</p>
<p>92.18%(165 ywd)</p></td>
<td><p>31.98% (394)</p>
<p>7.82% (14 ywd)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Black Hawk County, IA</strong></td>
<td>126,418</td>
<td>128,012</td>
<td><p>Waterloo</p>
<p>68,747</p>
<p>Cedar Falls</p>
<p>36, 135</p></td>
<td>225.7</td>
<td>26.3</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td><p>106</p>
<p>32 (ywd)</p></td>
<td>9.9</td>
<td>13.3</td>
<td><p>64.15% (68)</p>
<p>62.50% (20 ywd)</p></td>
<td><p>35.85% (38)</p>
<p>37.50% (12 ywd)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Onondaga County, NY</strong></td>
<td>460,517</td>
<td>458,336</td>
<td><p>Syracuse</p>
<p>147,306</p>
<p>(2002)</p></td>
<td>587.4</td>
<td>27.5</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td><p>920 (WIA: 666, TANF: 254)</p>
<p>230 (ywd)</p></td>
<td>14.2</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td><p>92.61% (852)</p>
<p>94.78% (218 ywd)</p></td>
<td><p>7.39% (68)</p>
<p>5.12% (12 ywd)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Providence County, RI</strong></td>
<td>639,442</td>
<td>621,602</td>
<td><p>Providence</p>
<p>173,618</p></td>
<td> 1,504.1</td>
<td>26.9</td>
<td>10.0</td>
<td><p>97</p>
<p>21 (ywd)</p></td>
<td>12.8</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td><p>53.61% (52)</p>
<p>47.62% (10 ywd)</p></td>
<td><p>46.39% (45)</p>
<p>52.38% (11 ywd)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Whatcom County, WA</strong></td>
<td>176,571</td>
<td>166,814</td>
<td><p>Bellingham</p>
<p>67,171</p></td>
<td> <br />
78.7</td>
<td>32.2 (2000)</td>
<td>6.9 (2000)</td>
<td><p>350</p>
<p>59 (ywd)</p></td>
<td>13.1</td>
<td>14.2</td>
<td><p>68.29% (239)</p>
<p>86.44% (51 ywd)</p></td>
<td><p>31.71% (111)</p>
<p>13.56% (8 ywd)</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\*2004 Data- American Community Survey 2004, 2000 data is from Census
profile, tables; http://factfinder.census.gov

# Section II.  FINDINGS 

**Leadership **

*[Policy Changes]{.underline}*

Three of the sites reported the major policy change they dealt with
during the last year was a more intense enforcement of the performance
standards compared to the year before (see below for a more detailed
discussion of performance standards). The Albany site reported policy
shifts such as new cost allocations (see Fiscal Issues below);
supportive services policy; and, the availability of unemployment claims
intranet (now available).

In Providence, the Acting Chair of the Youth Council also indicated that
the Council had recently clarified its mission. The Council has
refocused its efforts on providing oversight to the programs and funds
for which it is accountable. The Council now has a two year strategic
planning process in place that will provide the direction for
WIA-supported youth programs. Additionally, for the first time, the
Council is asking its members to set examples for other employers by
providing resources to supplement the current level of funding youth
programs receive from WIA funds. At the time of the interview there were
no concrete examples of this happening as the conversation had just
started at the Council level, but both the Acting Chairperson and the
Youth Director were highly optimistic that positive contributions were
about to be made. While the new planning process brings the focus of the
Council onto activities and resources it can directly impact, there is
still some desire to develop a broader mission and vision. The Acting
Chairperson is looking for examples of Youth Councils that play the role
of city or county planning arm for all youth services.

In Bellingham, the "Procedure Guidelines for: WorkSource Policy Relating
to the Provision of Reasonable Accommodations, Reasonable Modification,
and Auxiliary Aides and Services to Persons with Disabilities," was
finalized. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide Bellingham
staff: (1) information and ideas regarding how to apply principles set
forth in the Accommodation Policy on Serving Customers with Disabilities
with WorkSource Centers, (2) practical examples to illustrate the
Policy's intent and further staff's knowledge and skills, (3) a
framework from which to continue to develop quality services, (4)
additional resources, training, and information necessary for continuous
quality improvement of both staff skills and center operations..

The Tucson, site reported a lot of youth-related activity at the state
level. For instance, the Statewide Youth Council developed a focus on
two youth related goals: 1) to improve the K-12 system of education and
2) "to create stronger pathways to post-secondary opportunities by
aligning workforce skill needs with educational standards, improve high
school graduation rates and readiness, and ensure easy transitions and
clear occupational paths".

The Governor established a Statewide Taskforce on Youth Development. The
Taskforce is supported with WIA discretionary funds. It has established
four workgroups (Youth Workforce Development, Education, Youth Voice and
Advocacy, and Positive Youth Development). The Taskforce will develop a
comprehensive youth development plan to be presented to the Governor by
the end of the year. Once the plan is finalized, the Workgroups will be
replaced with Implementation Groups. The Taskforce goes out of existence
at the end of 2008. At the local level, the Tucson Youth Council
continues to meet but has not planned any major youth events this

In Albany, the GeorgiaWorks! reflects a leadership initiative from the
State Commissioner of Labor's office. The GeorgiaWorks! Program allows
individuals (both youth and adults) to draw unemployment and participate
in a job training program simultaneously. The hope is that the trainee
will be hired by this employer at the end of the training. According to
the One-Stop Director, "We've been very successful with this initiative.
In fact, at the latter part of last year we were one of only two offices
in the state that had already met our job placement goals. The majority
of participants found work or acquired additional skills which added to
their resumes to increase employment opportunities. The trainees that go
through the program and get involved in it have been very pleased. They
were able to build skills so that they could get out and sell themselves
and find a job."

*[Changes in Board Membership]{.underline}*

Most of the sites reported that their LWIB and Youth Council memberships
were stable. Syracuse reported the hiring of a new LWIB Executive
Director. Several reported the addition of up to two new members.
Albany, reported that the Camilla board "purged" inactive members.
Albany Youth Council membership was reported in similar terms. Waterloo
reported the addition of ex-officio members to its Youth Council like
people with disabilities and senior citizens.

All-in-all, the information reported lends to a picture of stability for
both the LWIBs and the local Youth Councils.

*[Opportunity for Youth Leadership]{.underline}*

Three of the sites reported some youth involvement in the local Youth
Council, ranging from one youth serving as a YC member to seven
(Tucson). The three that did not have such involvement utilized other
methods of gaining input such as customer satisfaction feedback cards or
focus groups. For instance, in Bellingham a Y-w-D focus group was held
in conjunction with DVR to identify strategies to better assure that
people with disabilities can access both DVR and other WIA funded
services. In Syracuse, youth developed brochures and posters in
"youthspeak" to assist in informing youth about the available WIA
supported services. In all of the sites, whether there was a formal
mechanism or not, the staff and other interviewees understood the
importance of and supported providing opportunities for youth
involvement and leadership.

Tucson has established a team of 12 former interns that had previously
been funded by a Youth Opportunity Grant and now are supported by county
funds. They are involved in a variety of youth development activities,
including publishing a monthly newsletter that is distributed to of
3,000 youth in the community, including current and former program
participants.

In the past, the Cairo One-Stop (Albany) staff has facilitated a series
of leadership workshops for youth that extended over several months.
Because of the high mobility of youth in this area and difficulty
getting persons to commit to a long-term activity, the career center has
condensed this leadership training into a two day (16-20 hours) workshop
over a Friday and Saturday. This has resulted in greater commitment from
participants, staff and outside speakers. The Cairo One-Stop Director
noted, "We are doing it back to back in a block format instead of
stretching it out so that we can keep the same people involved in it
from beginning to end. Time wise for the staff, it's better because they
can block that time aside, and get any needed commitments from folks
outside the staff to present. The staff felt like they were getting
better participation and they were getting more bang for their buck. We
are willing to change anything so that we can get the better outcomes.
We use the suggestions from hands-on people\--they know what works and
what doesn't."

In Syracuse, youth leadership opportunities appear to expand every year.
For example, this year, the Career Fair will take place on the campus of
Lemoyne College, which has donated the use of two buildings, including
the performing arts center. Twenty-five college students will be the
youth guides. Clear Channel Entertainment will provide music throughout
the event. Several local department stores will sponsor "dress for
success" fashion shows. Coca Cola and Wegman's Market are providing
refreshments. A local private transportation company is providing free
bus service for the youth. A hotline has been set up so that youth can
call from any quadrant of the city to say they need transportation. All
of the participating companies are not only providing in-kind services
and products; they are also making themselves available as employers to
interview youth or provide exploratory information.

Youth continue to be involved in the development and implementation of
their summer work experience positions, and at their other work sites
and activities arranged through Syracuse's subcontractors such as ARC of
Onondaga and BOCES. Participants in the BESTT Program at Baker High
School were particularly involved in the planning of this program. One
youth served regularly on the Youth Council, while other youth were
brought onto ad-hoc sub-committees for specific events and projects
centering on youth issues. Many of the youth served by Syracuse during
the summer employment program have opportunities to serve in leadership
roles as peer-to-peer mentors, tutors, recreation leaders and workshop
leaders. They are also invited to participate in professional
conferences on youth panels. CNYWorks continues to sponsor county-wide
workshops where employers present mini-workshops on related
employment/leadership topics.

In Bellingham, the DVR Office participated in Youth Mentoring Day for
the first time this last year. Staff found it difficult to find mentors
but ultimately found the experience positive for the participating
Y-w-D.

In Waterloo, youth were involved in shaping a variety of activities. For
example, in the academic component of the summer experience last summer,
youth were responsible for brainstorming the content and layout of a
"booklet" about careers. Each Wednesday during the summer this group was
involved in learning experiences that included college campus tours and
business tours. The youth were responsible the week before each tour for
formulating a list of questions to ask the representative from the
business or college.

Workshops are also held throughout the school year regarding similar
topics. Citizenship activities are also planned for the Youth Program.
For instance, a youth in the WIA program was chosen to deliver a
personal story at the Waterloo WFDC for presidential candidate John
Kerry's visit. Through collaborative relationships with organizations
like Big Brothers and Big Sisters, Waterloo also offers activities such
as mentoring and community service.

All of the sites reported activities that are designed to develop
leadership skills in the youth with whom they work. There is some
increase in the number of youth and sites at which youth participate in
the local Youth Council. It appears that in most instances, these youth
are in-school youth although in at least one instance the youth is a
former participant now employed by one of the provider organizations.

Four of the sites responded to the online data survey this year. In the
area of Youth Leadership they responded to the following items:

**1. Are youth involved in developing and implementing group
activities?**

> Two sides answered yes to this question. One site indicated that youth
> ideas and leadership development are incorporated into summer
> worksites and several community events each year. The other site
> listed a wide range of programmatic opportunities for development of
> leadership skills in areas such as decision making and teamwork among
> others. The programmatic opportunities included exposure to
> post-secondary education opportunities; community and service learning
> projects; peer mentoring and tutoring; determining priorities, life
> skills training, work behavior training and budgeting of resources.

**2. Do youth have an opportunity \'to grow\' into leadership
positions?**

> Two sites responded yes to this question. One site indicated that
> youth leadership training occurs on a regular basis and upon its
> completion; youth are given the opportunity to take on additional
> responsibilities either at the work site or in further training. The
> other yes respondent described a program in which youth learn
> entreneurial skills through the operation of a farm stand. Second time
> students have the opportunity to become team leaders.
>
> **3. Are there structured and/or informal activities which allow youth
> to practice leadership skills? Learn how to work with others?**
>
> Three sites indicated that they had structured and informal activities
> which allow youth to practice leadership skills. One site described a
> series of field trips into the community in which the youth were
> responsible for developing questions for the company or organization
> they were visiting. Another described a camping experience in which
> survival through teamwork was taught. Yet another described a
> community based organization that involves structured groups
> throughout the year in community activities such as planning,
> organizing events and outreach to the community via survey and
> informal social activities.

**4. Do you have a mentoring program?**

> While three programs indicated that they did, one of those indicated
> that youth very rarely took advantage of it. The remaining two sites
> offered a wide variety of mentoring opportunities. Both sites required
> mentors to go through mentoring training. One of the mentoring
> programs was an extensive 12 month program.

**5. Do you promote personal responsibility?**

> All of the sites indicated that they promoted personal responsibility.
> One site indicated that during their orientation they emphasized the
> need for youth to be responsible for themselves. The two of the sites
> described programs in money management and life skills. One program
> described the goal of getting the youth to take responsibility for
> his/her own employment and training plan.
>
> **6. Are opportunities provided for youth to participate in community
> service?**
>
> All of the sites provide opportunities for community service. This is
> usually done in conjunction with community based organizations.
>
> **7. Do your leadership activities for youth with disabilities include
> self advocacy skill building?**
>
> Three sites indicated that they provided support for self-advocacy for
> Y-w-D. One .site described a school based program which teaches
> self-advocacy skills as well as training provided by their Navigator.
> Another site described community based organizations that work on
> independent living and related issues. The third indicated that it
> provided training in self disclosure
>
> **8. Are families involved in the programs?**
>
> Three sites indicated that parents were involved in their child's
> activities. Two of the sites describe parent involvement in terms of
> parents being part of the career planning team for their son or
> daughter. The third describes families attending informational
> workshops and parents serving as volunteers in community based
> organizations.
>
> Based on this limited input, it can be reasonably generalized at least
> to the sites in this study, that youth leadership activities are
> fairly common in the sites. It is a bit surprising that Mentoring had
> one site that seemed rather lukewarm to it and another that didn't
> offer it at all. Self advocacy for Y-w-D was another area in which
> even some of the yes's seemed misdirected. Indicating that more work
> needs to be done on increasing WIA staffs' understanding of self
> advocacy for youth with disabilities.

**SERVICES**

*[Changes in Service Providers]{.underline}*

Three of the six sites reported a loss of community-based service
providers. The Albany site (Camilla) reported terminating three
providers due to non-compliance. One provider chose not to renew its
contract. Another provider is being considered for termination. In the
other areas of the Albany site, the providers have not changed and seem
to be doing well. As previously discussed, both Providence and Syracuse
have also lost providers. Both are contending with being out of
compliance and many providers in both areas are no longer willing to
provide services. In Syracuse, Arise is no longer a provider. This has a
serious negative impact on Y-w-D as Arise provides services for
out-of-school youth with severe disabilities. The other three sites
reported no changes in external providers.

Tucson is about to engage in a major test of a service delivery strategy
that is rooted in collaboration. Through a soon-to-be-executed
Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County One-Stop and RSA, the
site will launch a "dis/ABILITY EMPLOYMENT project." The project will
"test collaborative delivery by the following types of entities: WIA
agency, Vocational Rehabilitation agency, public charter school,
homeless service center, independent living center, behavioral health
services network, and a community-based workforce service provider for
the Deaf." The funding for this project is coming from RSA and County
funds. County funds (\$300,000) are being used as part of the required
match for \$1 million in federal funds that RSA had not previously
accessed because of the lack of match.

The goals of the project are to:

-   Develop the One-Stop to be a resource for persons with disabilities.

-   Implement expanded services.

-   Develop a Collaboration Model that provides information related to
    changes that are needed and accomplished through the agreement.

Additionally at the Tucson site, funds will be used to establish another
Navigator position at the Rio Neuvo One-Stop center. The Navigator will
lead a team of specialists who will work as a "triage" in providing
in-depth services to individuals with disabilities. Funds will also be
used to provide services. Services will also be provided using other
one-stop funding streams, such as WIA, Adult Education and VR. This
model will test the braiding (but not blending) of funding streams.

As reported last year, the most common form of braiding often supports
some of the higher cost services such as occupational training. In these
cases, either formal or informal agreements are established between key
partners in a one-stop center that have a hierarchy of which source of
funds are to be tapped first for tuition and other educational supports
(e.g., Pell Grants or other tuition assistance programs supported by the
state, Individualized Training Account funds from Title I of WIA and the
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency). Other forms of braiding can be as
simple as one organization providing space (e.g. a One-Stop) for a GED
preparation course with the teaching staff funded through WIA Title II
funds and VR and/or WIA youth funds providing a modest stipend for the
youth in attendance. Other common examples of braided funding are
"in-kind" services ranging from assessment service to transportation.
The in-kind services were usually provided by partner agencies.  The
Intergovernmental Agreement activities in Tucson should provide valuable
information regarding the strengths and weaknesses of braiding
resources.

Internal providers (think staff) experienced some changes. Three of the
sites reported the addition of new Navigators. In addition, the job
responsibilities of some of the staff have changed. In Waterloo, for
instance, a new division of labor has one staff member focused on older
youth and the other now focused on 14--18 year old youth. The Tucson
site continues to more fully integrate its youth and adult services,
partially in response to the loss of YO funds. The most significant
change has been in the restructuring of its front-line worker position.
Effective July 1, Tucson no longer has separate front-line workers for
youth and adults. The functions have been merged into a newly-created
position, called Workforce Development Specialist. An extensive training
program has been implemented to prepare staff for the change.

All of the sites reported their level of service will be reduced next
year due to a reduction in resources. Tucson is adjusting to a larger
loss of resources than most due to the ending of a YO grant as reported
last year.

*[Changes in Services Provided]{.underline}*

The service mix in the sites remained stable over the last year. As
mentioned above, all of the sites reported a net drop in the available
providers of service and they expected further drops in providers in the
coming year. The reduction in providers may limit some of the range of
services available at these sites. However, through the building of
closer collaborative relationships with partner organizations and
others, it also appears that all of the sites are becoming more
effective at accessing non-WIA supported services.

Tucson is unique because it is gaining significant new support through a
collaborative arrangement with VR in which \$300,000 of county funds
were used to match federal funds brining in \$1.2 million in federal
funding (including match). The new funding will support a new mix of
services as described above.

Providence has experienced both a drop in the number and type of service
providers and has established several new service providers. A new
contract was let to the Daily Community Nursing (DCN) organization that
includes occupational skill training components. DCN's name is a bit
misleading as it actually is a firm that specializes in placing
temporary workers in a variety of fields. It is a very expensive program
and provides training slots for only 12 participants. The program
provides twelve weeks of job readiness and occupational skill training.
While the training is going on DCN looks for intern and other work
experience placements that are consistent with the interests of the
training participants. The costs average \$10,000 per year in total
costs (readiness, case management, vocational training) per participant.
The Operations Manager wanted to be sure that it was clear the people
going into this program are much higher skilled than youth they had
served in the past. The program design was developed with consultants
brought in by the state through the Charter Oaks consulting firm.

The second major change in WIA-funded services for Providence is a new
contract with the Valley Community Mental Health Center School. This
school serves only youth who are in need of intensive mental health
services. The school is housed in a secure facility. In addition to
locking external doors to assure that youth cannot leave the premises
unattended, there are also secure "time out" rooms throughout the
building. The school is state accredited and can issue a high school
diploma. The curriculum is consistent with a typical Rhode Island high
school curriculum with emphasis on the development of vocational skills
through vocational classes such as small engine repair and learning
skills necessary to be an auto mechanic

Another significant change in the service mix in the community is a
trend at Providence to develop programming that is not supported by WIA
funds. . An example of this sort of programming is Project Hope. This is
a summer work experience project modeled after the Boston Compact. Youth
work for private businesses in areas of their interests for
approximately six weeks over the summer. The employers pay the wages.
WIA staff works only as a liaison to recruit the youth in school before
the summer begins and does follow up. The Rhode Island Foundation also
provided financial support. This year 26 youths participated in the
program and were placed in banks, law offices and other professional
settings. When asked if this program served any youth with disabilities,
Providence staff indicated that they were not sure but they will move in
that direction in the coming year. Although not yet finalized,
Providence is also working on both retail and a customer call center
work experience program that would be supported by private funds.

While these are new initiatives, the effort to utilize funding other
than WIA is not new to Providence. Providence has established a pre-GED
program that is now thriving. The Pre-GED program utilizes funds from
the school district to support the Pre-GED teacher and in-kind support
from the One-Stop for a rent-free room. The furnishings in the class
room as well as the materials are all donated from individuals. A
similar collaborative effort brought the Youth Center (also located in
the One-Stop) into being.

Syracuse reports that it continues to provide a wide array of services
for youth with and without disabilities, as well as for adults. One of
the respondents put it this way: "I believe I mentioned last year that
we have gained a reputation in the State for the high goals we set for
ourselves programmatically. We are able to do this because we tap into
every possible resource, federal, state, and local -- not just for the
money, but for ways to partner and share resources. Other organizations
team up with us because they know we're upfront with them and we'll bend
over backwards to contribute to their efforts---for the common good."

Likewise, in Bellingham a very successful summer camp program has
operated over the last several years in which the school district
provides teachers for classroom activities, the parks department
provides park rangers for work experience and outdoor education
experiences and WIA supported youth staff provides case management. The
camp builds on the sector approach with employers.

Syracuse has also established a pre-GED program and Tucson is embarking
on a large collaborative effort with VR utilizing county and federal VR
funding.

Overall, the sites are becoming more effective at leveraging other
sources of funding. It's too early to establish that this is an ongoing
trend but with each success it is likely that more effort will be
directed at pursuing outside funding/programming.

*[In-Kind and Leveraged Services]{.underline}*

As discussed above, all of the sites are becoming more effective in
obtaining in-kind and leveraged services. Typical of such services are
free meeting space, tutoring, assistive technology, grant writing and
shared recruiting techniques. However increasingly they are also
developing the ability to "braid" resources.

For instance, in Waterloo**,** relationships with mandated partners and
non-mandated partners are strong. Because Waterloo is not a large town,
it is relatively easy for staff to make a single phone call to start a
service for an individual---for example, tutoring. There are several
places a young person can receive tutoring (for GED, state tests,
specific college classes, etc.) and staff can arrange for this by
directly contacting the service provider. Regular participation in the
local Career Consortium meetings keeps staff aware of services
available.

As described in previous reports, the Career Consortium in Waterloo is
made up of representatives from all of the 23 school districts in Region
Seven, the workforce center and the community college staff. School
representatives are special education teachers, guidance counselors, or
work coordinators. They meet regularly and share information, resources
and also give guidance to workforce staff. This group is the source of
some of the referrals made to Waterloo and VR. It also functions as an
internal conduit for communication among students, educators and VR
staff. Others who work in workforce system also participate. The
consortium has employer contacts and develops relationships that are
useful in terms of work experiences, internships, etc. The Chairperson
of the Consortium is a member of the RWIB and thereby serves to connect
stakeholders and enhances the collaborative activities that are
on-going. VR participation in the process is also ongoing and strong. VR
consults with Waterloo staff on individual cases and on larger policy
issues regularly.

The State of Iowa Workforce Program has put assistive technology in the
One-Stop Resource Center. Formally, there has been no other "leveraged
services" but shared resources are common on a smaller scale. These are
less formal and usually come about after a phone call or meeting from
any stakeholder serving youth.

In Bellingham**,** DVR staff members are co-located at the One-Stop
centers. DVR is co-funding a Disability Navigator who focuses on both
adults and Y-w-D. School districts partner with the Workforce
Development Council in assessment and services for eligible youth. They
also give Bellingham staff space to meet with students in the schools.

Bellingham is successful in carrying out collaborative projects with a
number of the other service agencies in their area. The camp described
above is an excellent example of this collaborative approach to
services.

Providence is clearly open to and aggressive about leveraging outside
(non-WIA) resources. For instance, the call center described above will
be funded by a private association of call centers. Additionally, the
pre-GED program and the Youth Center established last year are stable
and are becoming known by word of mouth as well as through formal
arrangements with school districts (for tours). Fiscal support for the
Youth Center Director has been developed with the juvenile justice
system

Up to now, the key to Providence's ability to leverage funds has been
the vision, energy and ability of the Youth Services Director. The state
of Rhode Island is considering consolidating the two workforce
development areas in the state into one in order to reduce costs and
operate on reduced income. In the process some positions will be lost.
Unfortunately, these concerns coupled with the likelihood of reduced WIA
youth funding led her to accept a position elsewhere. Her absence could
present a barrier to the continued effective leveraging of outside
resources.

Syracuse has continued its efforts to work collaboratively with other
organizations as well as employers to support and deliver services. An
example of leveraging private resources is the Job Fair. For the
recently held Job Fair, Clear Channel Entertainment provided music
throughout the event. Several local department stores sponsored "dress
for success" fashion shows and Coca Cola and Wegman's Market provided
refreshments. A local private transportation company provided free bus
service for the participating youth. A hotline was set up so that youth
could call from any quadrant of the city to say they needed
transportation. Additionally, all of the participating companies not
only provided in-kind services and products, they made themselves
available as employers to interview youth or provide exploratory
information. Private businesses supporting Job Fairs should be easily
replicable in other communities. There was a consensus among the
Syracuse respondents that many community agencies, including those
serving people with disabilities, were mindful of the benefits of
sharing resources and did so whenever possible.

Tucson, as described above, provided the best example of leveraged
services through its new Intergovernmental Agreement. Not only does this
agreement possibly pave the way for a closer working relationship with
VR it utilizes resources, none of which emanate or draw from WIA funding
streams.

The goals of the project are to:

-   Develop the One-Stop to be a resource for persons with disabilities.

-   Implement expanded services.

-   Develop a Collaboration Model that provides information related to
    changes needed and accomplishments of the agreement.

Funds will be used to establish another navigator position at the Rio
Neuvo one-stop center. The navigator will lead a team of specialists who
will work as a "triage" in providing in-depth services to individuals
with disabilities. Funds will also be used to provide services. Services
will also be provided using other one-stop funding streams, such as WIA,
Adult Education and VR. This model will test the braiding (but not
blending) of funding streams. A kick-off event to introduce the project
to all one-stop staff was being planned for late June.

*[Youth Outreach Strategies]{.underline}*

By and large, the outreach efforts to youth are growing through the
building of stronger partnerships with schools and VR agencies. Waterloo
reported that its staff is increasingly participating in the IEP
meetings of students transitioning out of school. Referrals have also
increased from VR in conjunction with transitioning students and other
out-of-school youth. Tucson, as described above, is embarking on a
formal, broadened collaborative relationship with VR. All of the sites
reported improvement in their working relationship with both schools and
VR.

All of the sites also indicated that **out-of-school youth and
especially out-of-school older youth are very difficult to recruit**.
Syracuse, in an effort to improve its outreach to out-of-school youth,
has formed several ad hoc committees focused on only this group of
potential customers. They have also utilized the results of a survey of
dropouts designed and administered by the Maxwell School of Public
Affairs of Syracuse University. The resulting strategy is an attempt to
convince dropouts to return to school or enter a GED preparation
program. Due to the low academic skill level of this group, similar to a
Providence strategy reported last year, Syracuse has also established a
pre-GED program.

*[Disability Disclosure Procedures]{.underline}*

There is no prevailing pattern of how disability disclosure occurs at
each of the six sites.

It ranges from fairly structured and formal to very informal.

Waterloo uses the intake forms and assessment materials as well as a job
seeker's school and other records (obtained with a release of
information) as the starting point for discussion about disabling
conditions. Y-w-D make their own informed decisions about disclosure to
prospective employers. They are counseled about disclosure issues by
Waterloo staff.

In Bellingham, all youth are asked if they have a disability and are
informed that disclosure is optional and information is confidential.
For in-school youth, the Bellingham site staff works with the school
district counselors and administrators in obtaining copies of the IEP,
which include assessment information regarding the students'
disabilities. All assessment information is used in the development,
revision and implementation of the Employment/Work Readiness Services
Plan. The information is kept in a separate file with limited access to
only staff that needs the information.

Syracuse continues to use a fairly informal disclosure process. The
One-Stop primary registration form asks the registrant questions related
to disability and the pre-application form for WIA has a box to check if
the applicant has a disability. In both cases, disclosure of one's
disability is a personal choice. At the service provider's intake
meeting, the counselor may discern a possible disability and ask some
probing questions about supports received in the past or educational
classes taken, to help determine the need for additional testing or
referrals. Any questioning is conducted privately, and the questions
asked are "comfortable" for the youth.

In the Syracuse One-Stop Resource Room, the specialist generally tells
each large group that if they need any accommodations that she will talk
privately with them and discuss accommodation options. She explains to
the individuals that requesting accommodations is one way to "give
oneself every opportunity to be successful on the job."

In Providence, the disability disclosure procedure remains a process of
self-disclosure on the part of youth with non-visible disabilities. As
reported last year, in-school youth receive information regarding
disclosure but neither in-school nor out-of-school youth receive
training about the pluses and minuses of disclosing.

Overall there is still a strong feeling in the sites that they are
working with many more Y-w-D than is documented. The likelihood of the
frequent presences of disabilities within the customer base also
contributes to questions about the appropriateness of performance
measures.

*[Assessment and Individualized Planning]{.underline}*

Most of the sites utilize a variety of standard aptitude, career,
vocational and aptitude tests and programs to assess their customers and
clients. These assessments are usually shared with other agencies, with
the approval of the customer. In some cases the assessments are
completed through the auspices of a partner agency such as VR. This
approach to assessment has been described in earlier reports and the
interviewees expressed satisfaction with the information it provided. A
brief summary of the most common assessment practices across sites
follows.

Waterloo uses aptitude and vocational assessments to begin the career
planning process. These include CASAS for math and reading, and the
Self-directed Search (SDS) by Holland, COPES and COPS for values and
interest, and the Choices career planning instrument. Older youth may
take the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), full EDits, Wonderlic,
and SDS. All of the information is brought together with other records
and interviews to form an Individual Service Strategy.

There have been no changes in documentation this year. The Waterloo
staff is interested in more training related to assessment.

Waterloo shares information with other providers if they have
appropriate releases. Joint staffings are held with VR, the TAP program,
and other stakeholders. Site staff attend IEP meetings, as appropriate.
Due to the close working relationships they have developed with
employers, they are also able to visit participants at work sites to see
how they are doing.

In Bellingham**,** the staff uses a variety of assessment tools in the
development of the employment/work readiness plan. For in-school youth,
information is obtained from school systems which include academic
assessment. For out-of-school youth, local training facilities often
administer the TABE tests and Computerized Placement and ASSET testing
for occupational skills training. Bellingham has a practice of accepting
known and credible assessment information from partners so as to not
duplicate the testing process.

For career assessment of customers, Bellingham uses Career Choices, O
Net, Workforce Explorer and the
[www.go2worksource.com](http://www.go2worksource.com/) sites. The site
includes access and information to
[www.DisabilityInfo.Net](http://www.DisabilityInfo.Net/). The regional
youth portal [www.youthworksnw.org](http://www.youthworksnw.org/) also
has access to assessment materials and programs for Y-w-D. The DVR
counselor also utilizes CAPS, COP, COPES, and other career assessment
inventories.

Syracuse has developed the "Individualized Income Improvement Plan" or
IIIP. The purpose of the IIIP is to develop a plan that will be utilized
by an out-of-school youth services coordinator. Individuals referred to
and found eligible for VESID (VR), work with the VR counselor to develop
an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE).

Syracuse also continues to provide academic and career interest
assessments, as part of the discovery process, to determine an
individual's characteristics, skills, strengths, experiences,
disabilities, barriers in life that prohibit progress, and support
service needs. Most assessments are administered by partner providers.
The VR assessments include medical information from treating physicians;
substance and chemical abuse documentation; results of standard group
psychological tests such as the Weschler-Adult; results of
attention-disorder testing, a vocational evaluation, and a physical
capacities test. VR contracts with BOCES and Upstate Medical Center for
some of these evaluations.

VR shares assessment results with its customers, and provides other
agencies with this information at the request of the customer.

In Providence**,** all of the youth service providers either perform
assessments or utilize assessments performed by others. The most often
mentioned standard assessment was the TABE. If it is determined that a
youth needs a comprehensive assessment, s/he is referred to Rhode Island
Learning Disabilities Program (RI LD). ORS (Office of Rehabilitation
Services) remains a primary source of training for identification and
assessment of disabilities, types of supports and assistive
technologies, and available special resources.

In terms of individualization, the Rhode Island ORS develops new
individualized plans for youth receiving its services. The other
providers continue to set individualized goals with the youth they
serve; however, their programs seem to emanate from a prescribed menu of
service offerings in which every youth they serve participates as
opposed to a truly individualized program of services designed for a
specific youth.

The IEPs of In-school and occasionally out-of-school Y-w-D are shared
among school staff and with the proper permissions. They are also shared
with professionals outside of school.

Overall, the sites most frequently identified standardized assessment
tool was the TABE. It is not clear from the reporting if the TABE is
administered with appropriate accommodations or is used to trigger a
suspicion that the person taking the TABE may, in fact, have a hidden
disability. Individualized plans are primarily developed while a youth
is still in school through the IEP process or upon entering the VR
system with the development of the IPE.

*[Information Sharing Across Agencies]{.underline}*.

Only the Bellingham and Albany sites specifically and briefly discussed
sharing information about youth with disabilities across agencies. They
indicted that this was not a key issue or concern. Most of the other
sites indicated under varying sections of their reports that they did
not share information about their customers without permission.

**PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

*[Changes in Professional Development Strategies]{.underline}*.

All of the sites indicated that staff has many opportunities for
professional development tempered in some cases by lack of funding. For
instance, in Iowa, the annual conference for Association of Iowa
Workforce Professionals, which local staff attended, included four
workshops in working with people with disabilities

In Bellingham, a "training portfolio" coordinator has been designated in
order to systemically track and disseminate pertinent trainings. There
have been no changes in the amount budgeted for professional
development. Training occurs in a variety of ways:

-   Training outside the Bellingham Area from National Experts and
    attendance at Conferences

-   The Northwest Partnership (all of the WIBS in Washington) has a
    structured system for offering local trainings which are identified
    through data obtained by the process improvement teams (Training
    Teams or Center Use Teams)

-   One Stop and other partners extend invitations to training provided
    by their agency

-   The Continuous Quality Improvement Team analyzes data provided by
    both employers and job seeking customers.

-   Self-paced web trainings are made available through the partnership
    web site

Additionally, as described above, Bellingham has now completed the
development of its procedural guide for working with people with
disabilities. As these procedures have been rolled out, staff training
in all of the areas impacted by them has been carried out. Staff has
received numerous and intense trainings on disability protocol,
assistive technology and how to communicate effectively with people with
disabilities. The most recent example of these trainings is a series of
trainings on signing that has begun within the last several months.

In Providence opportunities for professional development remain similar
to the practices described in last year's report. There is still an
annual conference that is well attended by professionals from public and
private agencies alike.

In Syracuse**,** staff continue to have access to New York Association
of Training Employment Professionals (NYATEP) training, which at various
times has offered training on state and local WIA issues, performance
measures, reporting outcomes and youth issues. Just prior to the 2005
site visit, staff had participated in a teleconference conducted by
State officials regarding the literacy and numeracy outcome measures and
the ongoing challenge of aligning and reconciling youth outcome data
with the State's workforce development data base which is geared towards
adults. In the 2004 report it was noted that Syracuse was sanctioned by
the State on certain performance measures. This year all of the
respondents felt that the organization responded quickly and thoroughly
to the State's recommendations for improvement.

In Albany, the Georgia DOL has provided on-going training on case
management to their service providers. This year, the trainings are in
response to findings from the compliance monitoring reports. One of the
findings that came out of monitoring was that counseling notes were not
effective. The Georgia DOL staff, therefore, provided a three-day
training on effective case management and effective counseling note
writing.

The Georgia VR agency has concentrated trainings this year on SSI-
reimbursement and Ticket-to-Work. VR offered "lunch and learn" sessions
and evening workshops for parents but participation was generally low.

The Albany WIB Director has focused her staff development on the
WIB-based, pre-designed management reports now available from the state
and compliance monitoring reports on service providers. Employees have
been sent to WIB-focused trainings on how to pool the data for Southwest
Georgia from the state reports, and break it down by counties. This
information is then sent to the providers to assist them in managing and
monitoring their programs.

In Tucson, a strength of the Pima County youth workforce development
system has been the emphasis placed on training front-line staff. This
has not changed and, if anything, it has intensified with the
restructuring of the front-line staff job to Workforce Development
Specialist (now serves both youth and adults). Tucson launched an
extensive staff training program across all providers and all staff in
order to prepare individuals for their new responsibilities.

A comprehensive training plan has been developed and implemented. Staff
has multiple opportunities to attend the training sessions. There are 15
separate training components and each staff person has a notebook that
is divided among the topics and is used to keep and organize the
training materials. The 15 topics are: Assessment; Crisis Intervention;
Customer Service, Quality, Continuing Improvement & Confidentiality;
File Management, Case Notes, Case Management & IEP/ISS; Intensive Resume
Workshop; Intake & Triage; Job Orders; OJT, SYP, AWEP, Internships &
Work Experience; Performance Measures, Goals, Mission & Funding; Pima
Community College Information/Procedures; Supportive Services; Trade
Adjustment Act; Unemployment Insurance; Vocational Rehabilitation &
Disability Awareness; and the State's Virtual One-Stop Data System.

The staff continues to be organized in clusters across service providers
with a lead case manager. Staff also continues to meet bi-monthly in
either small or the entire group to discuss issues, review performance
and learn about resources within the community. It is not clear how
these staff development meetings will be organized once the shift is
made to the new job classification. That will be an item for follow-up
on next year's visit

*[Cross Agency Training]{.underline}*

Almost all the sites are trying to secure better and more cross-training
opportunities with varying degrees of success. In Waterloo**,** special
education programs and VR have ongoing training opportunities for their
staffs. Common training involved sessions where stakeholders teach each
other how their agencies work and how collaboration can work. Much of
this is informal.

More informal training is done in committees and working groups (Career
Consortium, for instance). Waterloo and VR staffs work together on the
Transition Task Force and prepare for the Transition Fair.

In Bellingham, partner agencies participated in three trainings serving
youth and people with disabilities:

-   Provision of Reasonable Accommodation (Developed by DVR---attended
    by Job Corps, Employment Security, DVR, NWDC, the local colleges,
    and a local Community Rehab. Program provider).

-   Assistive Technology Overview provided by Washington Assistive
    Technology Alliance---attended by all partner staff working out of a
    One-Stop.

-   Hands-on AT (provided by DVR and NWDC staff)---attended by all
    WorkSource staff.

Disability Specialists across the region have been established and
provide informal, one-on-one trainings as needed. This has included
problem solving, technical assistance, and the provision of information
on disability issues.

In Providence**,** ORS remains the primary source of cross-agency
training on disability issues. However, it appears that in the last year
the frequency of this training has declined. ORS is planning to offer
training in the coming year but has not identified topics.

At the Albany site, co-training across agencies/contracts providing
youth services is not happening on a large scale. The Regional Youth
Services Planner indicated that cross-training will become essential
soon in order to address using the common measures. The One-Stop staff
members at Cairo (Albany) continue to receive their technical assistance
and training from the Georgia DOL in Camilla.

Additionally, the Albany One-Stop staff participates regularly in the
state's training opportunities. Staff members register on-line and
attend sessions regularly on topics such as marketing, unemployment
insurance, veteran's benefits and disability issues. Many of the staff
attended the IAWP (International Association of Workforce Professionals)
trainings hosted for the district at Albany State University.

The VR staff attends continuous training opportunities provided through
the Georgia Association of VR Counselors, such as their annual
conference (part of the National Rehabilitation Association). The local
subchapter provides training on the role of the counselor and program
specialists. Staff received some training on disability-specific topics
such as spinal cord injury this year.

*[Staff Turnover]{.underline}*

Again this year staff turnover was not reported to be a problem by any
of the sites. However as described in the Challenges section, there has
been turnover in key leadership positions across at least four of the
sites. The impact of key leaders leaving the sites is yet to be known
but will be highlighted in next year's report.

*[Staff Skill Sets]{.underline}*

Attitudes on the part of management towards what skills are needed by
youth serving professionals has not changed since last year In an effort
to establish training that might assure the skill set they need the
sites have utilized different strategies such as those in Waterloo and
Bellingham.

In Waterloo**,** direct service staff must have a Bachelor of Arts
degree and must have knowledge of community services and understanding
of diversity. Experience in social services is desired and current staff
have excellent backgrounds for the work they do. The state of Iowa is
looking into a credentialing program for case workers that would
establish specific criteria for the hiring and training of case workers.

Continuing education and staff training addresses some of the
"information" needs of Waterloo staff but funding is limited for such
activities. In the last two years, training has focused on job
development skills and on serving persons with disabilities and other
at-risk individuals.

In Bellingham**, s**taff participates in a web-based training program
for gaining the 12 competencies of Workforce Development. Upon
completion, staff is certified as a Workforce Development Professional.
It is the expectation of the Council that all staff has a variety of
skill sets and staff is cross-trained to provide an array of services to
all populations.

The other sites have maintained their training regimens and therefore
the skill development of their staff.

*[Disability Training for Staff]{.underline}*

All of the sites reported continued training on disability related
information and skill development. Most often this training was provided
by the VR agency in that area. In some instances, Disability Navigators
were the source of the training and yet rarer and only in a few
instances, community based organizations like the ARC provided the
training.

However, in Syracuse**,** disability awareness training for staff has
been imbedded into the training agenda over the past few years.
According to all of the respondents, this training and technical
assistance has proven to be effective. In Bellingham, as described above
the training on disabilities is part and parcel of their training agenda
as they have now completed a procedures manual on how to work with
Y-w-D.

**DATA COLLECTION AND DATA SHARING**

*[Collection of New Data, Including Data on Youth with
Disabilities]{.underline}*.

All of the sites reported involvement in state level data collection
systems. This is a major change from last year. However, last year all
of the sites were anticipating the implementation of state level
systems, so it is not unexpected.

In Albany, the WIB-focused reports come straight off of Georgia's DOL
data entry system. The reports are based on programmatic performance.
Also, the new Compliance Monitors enter data from their on-site visits
into the system (i.e., completed customer plans and counseling notes
every 30 days).They are able to track time in a program and progress
toward performance measures (indicators). Local reports can be run from
this data, and progress toward area goals can be determined by funding
stream or regional area. Monitoring reports are providing the Georgia
DOL with a "snapshot" of each provider and general trends across
programs. For example, the system documents what kind of jobs youth are
primarily getting and how long they are staying in a work experience
setting.. The Compliance Monitor explained that these reports can help
providers to conduct follow-up of program participants who exited one
year ago, measure progress toward performance goals and track funding
streams.

The WIB Director can now send county service providers reports from the
State to track new and old variables. She describes some of those
variables, "We are looking at new data this year. We are looking at
number of days since last case note; how many they have in the different
services that we bill for; how many youth got credentials, and how many
youth got GEDs. We can look also at how many goals were met and how many
goals expired." Some reports are generated weekly and some reports are
monthly. Unfortunately, many service providers are now dependent upon
data entry program assistants to help with entering the data. Because of
drastic cuts in funding, many service providers will lose those
assistants and be required to enter the data themselves, according to
the Regional Youth Services Planner.

In Syracuse, the State DOL data collection system (OSOS) is being
increasingly utilized to handle youth intake and performance
information, per the new performance measures. Syracuse staff is still
learning to manage its data better in an effort to more accurately
reflect the site's actual performance.

The OSOS system, in the opinion of all the Syracuse staff who were
interviewed, makes it nearly impossible to accurately reflect the youth
activities and outcomes. One staff said, "Everyone's doing data
collection, but they are not sharing across data systems. It is like
Apple and Windows. You have systems that are excellent in and of
themselves. But they are incompatible. So it's frustrating for the
users. It's next to impossible to communicate true activity and
outcomes. The database used by the Department of Labor is different from
ours. \[It is\] counterproductive at the very least. The people in
charge, what planet are they from?"

Bellingham hired a Program Analyst to become a "power user" in the data
base (SKIES) the State uses for multiple programs. He has undergone
several months of training and hands-on use of the data base to extract
reports. It is expected that within the next year, the Council will have
accurate reports about the duration of, and types of services youth with
disabilities receive that lead to positive outcomes.

Currently, demographic reports on the number of youth with disabilities
are available. Successful outcomes are more difficult to obtain as the
demographic report only produces entry to employment as an outcome and
does not provide data regarding other positive outcomes (return to
secondary or post-secondary placements).

The One-Stops in Washington State share a membership system across all
certified WorkSource Centers. Information is collected through the use
of "swipe" cards and customer surveys. One of the data elements that is
optional in the Northwest area is disclosure of disability. This data is
collected by all partner staff working out of Bellingham. It is shared
with the Partnership's CQI team and respective Center Use Teams (one at
each site) to determine numbers and ages of new members using the
system. This information is also compared to the numbers of people
filling out comment cards and their satisfaction of services.

Tucson's use of data for monitoring performance and for program
improvement has been driven by its use of the U. S. Department of
Labor's "e-teams" for collection, reporting and analysis of its Youth
Opportunity Program data. This data system has really been the
foundation for the County's focus on the use of data. This data has been
and continues to be compiled monthly and provided to the LWIB and Youth
Council and is used in staff training and development.

There had been no comparable data system for Tucson's WIA funding
streams or for other one-stop partner agencies. At the time of last
year's study, the State was working out the "bugs" on its system, called
VOS. The system is now fully implemented and includes the adult and
youth WIA funding streams as well as Wagner-Peyser. Tucson reports that
while the system is fully operational, it can be slow and there are some
remaining issues with data quality. An intern from the University of
Arizona, who is a "computer whiz," will be working to see how the data
can be mined and used.

One significant change in data collection and use concerns the partner
agencies within the Tucson One-Stop system. This past year, for the
first time, data is being compiled for 15 different funding streams.
These include the Department of Labor WIA adult, youth, and dislocated
worker programs, Job Corps, Job Service, Migrant Worker, Native
American, Older Worker, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Unemployment
Insurance and Veterans programs. Also included are several
non-Department of Labor funded programs -- adult education, Carl Perkins
Post-Secondary, Vocational Rehabilitation, and HUD employment and
training programs. The data is somewhat limited but does include
financial and client served data. This is a way to track the scope and
scale of the one-stop system in Pima County (Tucson). The LWIB receives
this data quarterly and uses it to oversee performance and make policy.

As reported last year, the state of Iowa's Workforce Development Common
Intake Case Management System (CICMS) is designed to be utilized by
partners who sign the Memorandum of Agreement in WIA regions.
Unfortunately, to date, only the workforce centers and Job Corps have
"signed on" and are using the system to track data. Other partners,
notably Vocational Rehabilitation Services, have chosen not to use this
system. Funding, training, and confidentiality policies remain barriers
to full utilization.

In Providence, the new America\'s One-Stop Operating System (AOSOS) data
collection system has been put in place and been operating over the last
six months. Currently, Providence is operating the system that predates
AOSOS in parallel with it. Staff indicated that they were not sure that
the new system will be an improvement or provide any new data that they
felt was useful. They weren't sure when the cut-over to using only AOSOS
would occur but felt it would happen before the next site visit.

While progress seems to have been made in establishing the new state
level data collection systems, major partner organizations like VR are
usually not inputting into the same system. Additionally, as most
clearly expressed in Syracuse and supported in other sites, like
Providence, the move to these new data collection systems does not
necessarily mean that frontline workers will receive in better
information to help them carry out their job responsibilities.

Many of the sites indicated that even with the new data collection
systems, very little data was being captured about Y-w-D. There was also
a strong feeling that the new systems do not reflect or give credit to
the work the sites are actually doing. The experience of this study in
attempting to pull together very basic information about youth served by
the sites and in particular Y-w-D served by the sites confirms the
difficulty of obtaining this sort of data.

*[Use of Data for Decision-Making]{.underline}*

Since the last site visit, it appears that data systems are increasingly
driving programmatic decisions all the way down to a case-by-case
project management level. For instance, performance outcome data are
driving every element of the Providence service delivery. In addition to
the case-by-case screening of potential program participants, new
programs like the DCN project described above came about in an effort to
bmp up short term placement outcomes. In Albany, the data collected from
the monitoring staff has been used to determine which service providers
will be funded and to make some administrative cuts. Financial
monitoring occurs for all the youth contracts. "We are doing a much more
effective job of monitoring now that we have the manpower to handle
that, and we are using that data more because of the funding shortages,"
stated the Regional Youth Services Planner.

Likewise, in Syracuse, data collected from the State informed staff as
to the site's progress in meeting WIA performance measures and avoiding
sanctions. As a result of last year's data shared by the State, Syracuse
has made an effort to develop programs and connect with agencies whose
outcomes were job placements for youth, and fewer agencies with job
readiness as their goal. They looked at "outcomes over process."
Syracuse continues to seek credentialing programs for older youth, in
high demand occupations.

It's probably too early in the adoption of the new data systems to
accurately assess their impact. However, it is clear that they have
sharpened the focus on meeting performance measures as well as
tightening the monitoring of program performance at the local level. It
is not at all clear at this point, that they will provide any improved
data focused on Y-w-D.

**MEASURING PERFORMANCE**

*[Setting High Expectations for Youth]{.underline}*

All of the sites demonstrated a belief that "high expectations" for
youth was an essential element of effectively serving youth. This has
been reported in each year of the study.

*[Monitoring]{.underline}*

Several of the sites reported new initiatives to monitor the performance
of service providers. For instance, the Camilla DOL (Albany) hired two
compliance monitors this year to oversee the programmatic and
performance monitoring of both the youth and adult service provider
contracts. The compliance monitors report directly to the WIB Director.
They report findings and needed follow-up, as well as other
recommendations. The WIB Director then sends a report to the
superintendents of school systems. The providers are held accountable
for the monitor's findings. The compliance monitors identify areas that
need technical assistance but do not provide technical assistance to the
providers. The Regional Youth Services Planner arranges any technical
assistance that is needed for providers to be in compliance. For
example, providers may be cited in non-compliance for timeliness and
usefulness of counselor notes, enrollment numbers, administrative
issues, etc.

According to the WIB Director, "Initially 40% of the service providers
were out of compliance for a variety of reasons. The contract personnel
and funds are based on the number of slots given to a program. If at
least half of those slots aren't filled halfway through the year, then
there is a problem. We may give those slots and money to another program
immediately if they are performing successfully, or we can find an
alternative source to contract with. Based on the state reports and our
monitors making on-site visits, we are able to offer technical
assistance to those that need it and identify others who are just not
performing. We go through the routine 30-day probation period and if
they don't get right, we can de-obligate or terminate them. They have
ample time to get technical assistance and we attach a technical
assistance form with every compliance letter." In response to the new
monitoring efforts, the 2005 contracts are much more detailed and
provide timelines for enrollment for providers to follow.

The monitoring situation in Albany differs from that in both Providence
and Syracuse in-so-far that the monitors work for and report to the WIB
director. In Providence and Syracuse the monitors work for and report to
the state.

In Providence, the Director of Career Tracks for Youth (CTY), the
out-of-school service provider, spoke at length about what she
understood to be some of the new practices due to decisions by monitors.
These practices, on their face, appear to present barriers to CTY's
ability to maintain program stability. For instance, if CTY (or any
other vendor for that matter) sets an attendance rate target of 85% for
the year, and in the first month reports an attendance below the target;
funds will be withheld for that month. If in the next month the
attendance rate is high enough that the two months together average 85%
or above, then CTY will receive payment for both months. If it is below
the target, funds will be withheld for that month as well. CTY's
expenses for those two months remain the same. The ability to meet its
bills, however, is withdrawn. At a minimum this practice will lead to
serious cash flow problems for CTY and may lead it to withdraw from
being a WIA service provider. Negotiations around these sorts of issues
were ongoing at the time of the interviews and neither the vendors nor
Providence staff would proffer a guess as to how this will be settled.
The fact that the specter of this sort of practice has been raised has
had an unsettling impact on CTY and other service providers.

Syracuse is also experiencing increased monitoring. The state is
utilizing data collected and reported by its system, known as OSOS. The
Syracuse staff stated that the OSOS database did not track everything
they accomplished with youth; specifically basic skills achievement,
placements for older youth, and the wage increases for older youth.
Instead the OSOS database records only that performance standards are
met or not met. Any progress less than full achievement of the standard
is not captured.

Monitoring may be a growing issue as the state level data systems come
up to speed and programs are held increasingly accountable to the Common
Performance Measures as well as the WIA outcome measures. None of the
other sites reported concerns about increased monitoring.

*[Impact of Common Measures of Performance(CMP)]{.underline}*

Two of the sites indicated that the common performance measures took on
even greater importance during the last year. In Providence, consultants
brought in by the state (a response to not meeting performance measures)
indicated to the staff that they were serving "the wrong youth." They
were told they needed to recruit higher skilled youth who would be able
to achieve the performance standards. In addition to designing a new
program focused heavily on work experience and job placement activities,
the consultants also established a new monitoring system that looks
extremely closely at the performance of local service providers.

One impact of the performance measures seems to be a reduction in
service providers because many of them view these measures as
unattainable, given the population they are serving. In Providence, the
staff felt the performance measures along with monitoring/reporting
requirements led to a serious decline in the number of organizations
willing or able to provide youth services. Over a three year period the
number of youth service providers has dropped from 14 to 7 to 4.
Syracuse has had a similar experience. For instance, during the last
year, 2 of 3 providers returned money at mid-year when it became obvious
that they would not meet performance standards (although they may
reapply next year).

As discussed in last year's report, it appears that the primary strategy
for meeting the performance standards is "creaming." In Providence, for
example, it is now clear that the youth they have typically served will
largely go unserved in the future by programs supported with WIA funds.
They will be replaced by youth with higher academic skills and, if
possible, no previous work history. Even the out-of-school program in
Providence requires that youth read at a 7^th^ or 8^th^ grade level upon
entry or they are not accepted into the program. It is surmised by
Providence staff and others that the impact upon Y-w-D will be severe as
their academic skill levels are usually lower than that needed to
achieve performance standards.

Last year, the Providence staff along with others anticipated that the
CMP would lead to extreme "creaming" and leave those most in need with
fewer or no services or supports. Their predictions played out for their
programs. For instance, youth with low reading levels are now simply not
taken into WIA supported programs. Basically, WIA supported services are
now appropriate for only fairly high academically skilled youth.

One impact that the Providence staff did not foresee last year was the
influence from the state level that would be brought to bear on the
design and monitoring of local programs. As described above, the state
brought in consultants to advise Providence on how to set up programs
that would meet outcome measures. The result was the development of the
DCN work experience project accompanied by new monitoring practices also
described above.

Syracuse also reported that the implementation of the new Common
Measures of Performance has had a direct impact on the provision of
services for all youth, including youth with disabilities. In 2004 New
York State made the decision to adopt the proposed WIA common measures
of performance whether they appeared in the WIA reauthorization or not.
As stated previously, Syracuse was sanctioned in the areas of earnings
gain, entered employment, and credentialing for older youth.. In
response to these sanctions, "We \[Syracuse\] have become a heck of a
lot more sophisticated in how we do business and interpret our efforts
and accomplishments."

In Syracuse, , the emphasis on performance standards led to a change in
the site's RFP process that also placed more emphasis on job placement
than it did on "readiness training". Syracuse is now contemplating
moving from an RFP process to a fee for service structure in the hopes
that this will allow the site to utilize vendors that are more
proficient in reaching the performance standards and to make changes
quicker if the vendor is not succeeding.

In the other three sites, performance standards were mentioned but not
singled out as a serious barrier over the next year. Bellingham, however
did voice great concern over the literacy and numeracy measures they
anticipate having to meet next year.

For instance, the Cairo (Albany) One-Stop Director does not anticipate
any negative impact from the new common measures of performance-
"entered employment outcomes and exiting out will be fine." The Regional
Youth Services Planner indicated that the Common Measures of Performance
are very similar to what they have been measuring for WIA already, and
should not have a great impact on DOL data collection but will greatly
impact their skills attainment measures. The WIA measures now require
(at the time of the interview) a ½ grade level improvement on the TABE
for attainment; the Common Measures of Performance require two grade
levels (one TABE level) to receive credit for performance. This concern
is similar to that mentioned by Bellingham for the coming year.

The Regional Youth Services Planner also discussed how the Common
Measures of Performance will be new for many, if not all, of their
partnering agencies such as the Department of Education and Adult and
Technical Education. She said, "We have always been very performance
oriented. For our partners it's going to be a bigger adjustment. It will
put a little heat on some of those partners who haven't done performance
measures before. Instead of just saying we are partners, we actually
have to be actively partnering. We've got to come to the table and work
together. All the measures are common for all the federal partners, so
it's going to be interesting. They really are just now starting to talk
about it. I think that WIA has been talking about it longer than any of
the other partners. We've talked to folks in the Department of Education
as we've been doing contract negotiations, and they still don't know
what we're talking about when we say common measures."

Some of the sites, like Waterloo, are even more positive. As reported
last year and confirmed this time around, Waterloo staff feel that these
are concise indicators of successful outcomes and are useful in setting
goals for individuals. The CMP also fit into the concept of high
expectations for all and tend to positively affect the philosophy of
agencies serving Y-w-D. They indicated that the CMP continue to be an
important part of program evaluation. The agency receives incentive
funding for meeting performance goals and they use it for "quality
control". The performance goals are "higher" each year as the state
expects the agency to increase productivity and to use resources more
effectively as time goes on.

Whatever the reported perspective is, it is clear that all of the sites
are keenly aware of the CMP and in some instances are pretty frank about
the need to be very selective in who gets into their programs and who
does not. One site went so far as to say that the CMP would have a
"chilling effect" on its ability to serve Y-w-D in particular.

**FISCAL ISSUES**

*[Budget Cuts]{.underline}*

All of the sites are dealing with and preparing to do more with less.
Budget cuts are a reality and appear to be the norm for the immediate
future. As of April 20^th^, the Camilla DOL (Albany) saw their overall
budget cut from \$1.7 million last year to \$1.1 million for the
upcoming year (July 1, 2005 fiscal year)- a reduction of 33 1/3 percent
from the state. The region had anticipated an 11% cut in funds because
this is what had happened at the state level. The monies from the
southern counties of the state were reallocated to the Atlanta region
based on population (census findings), unemployment rates and an
emphasis on retail opportunities. Allocations were considered
preliminary at the time of this site visit. An emergency meeting of the
southern county WIB Directors was held immediately following the budget
cut announcement to petition the Georgia DOL for refinancing- a
reallocation of funds based on performance, not population. The State
Commissioner of Labor plans to meet with this group and hear their
options and suggestions. The WIB Director said, "They are listening. I
am hoping to be made whole. I told them, I can stand a 10 or 11% cut,
but you know...."

The Cairo One-Stop (Albany) will also see a reduction in funding for the
next contract year. Their WIA contract will be cut from \$200,000 to
\$95,000. They will lose 1 ½ positions (out of three). With the warning
that budget cuts were imminent, the office began to look at ways to
streamline their services, to provide more in-house services, and to
make other necessary adjustments. The Cairo One-Stop Director commented,
"We are prepared for anything that is coming down the pike. We still
plan on having best program in the State." The management at the
One-Stop in Albany does not anticipate any direct cuts of WIA funds but
does acknowledge that their partnering organizations will feel the
impact.

The situation is a little different in Tucson but the bottom line impact
is potentially the same. Beginning this year (PY 2005), the only Youth
Opportunity funds available in Tucson are those that have carried
forward into PY 2005. The amount is \$2.4 million in YO funds. These
funds will be used to complete services for those participants who are
enrolled in YO and still in the service "pipeline." Pima County received
a one-year no cost extension. There are other funding declines as well
for the formula youth funds and for HIB worker grants. Together, the
funding level for the Pima County one-stop is over \$3 million less than
the prior year. Even with the addition of the \$1.2 million through the
Intergovernmental Agreement described above, Tucson faces a reduction of
\$1.8 million in funding.

Providence has also reported a steady decline in resources over the
three years of the study.

*[New Resources]{.underline}*

As reported above, the sites have responded to budget cuts and other
reductions in funds by becoming more aggressive in their pursuit of
additional funds from new sources such as foundations and employers.
While it's too early to predict how successful they will be in the long
run, they seem to be doing well in the short run. As described above,
Providence has established entire new programs utilizing funding support
from private employers and at least one foundation. Their intention is
to build upon these efforts with the establishment of a retail work
experience program and a customer call center program. As envisioned at
the time of the interview, both of these programs would be primarily
supported by private funds.

Tucson has also done an excellent job of developing new fiscal support
for needed programs. The expected agreement with Vocational
Rehabilitation is anticipated to generate approximately \$1.2 million in
new funding. Of this amount, \$300,000 is county funds. These funds will
be used to serve both adults and youth with disabilities. Until the
program is actually implemented, there is no way of knowing the
percentage of funds that will go to youth clients. But at least some of
this new funding will support older youth and to that extent off set
some of the reductions in other funding.

**MARKETING AND OUTREACH TO EMPLOYERS**

All sites report active outreach strategies to employers. For the most
part, they do not "highlight" individuals with disabilities as such, but
let employers know that this population is one of the groups they serve.
The sites, normally on request, will provide more information about
employing youth with disabilities.

In Waterloo, for instance, a significant increase in participation in
the "For Our Generation Career Fair" for both youth and employers has
occurred. As described above employers are providing high levels of
in-kind services to assure that the Career Fair is a success. The event
draws more than 700 students and 150 employers.

The Career Consortium continues to make connections with employers
through Waterloo programs such as EMC2, a manufacturing internship
program, and EHC2, a healthcare internship program, to provide career
exploration opportunities. Youth with behavioral and academic
disabilities have participated in these programs.

Employers have also been involved in focus groups and findings show that
employers need and want more information about how to "employ" people
with disabilities. Employers continue to actively serve on the RWIB and
discuss issues related to disabilities that come up regularly at
meetings.

At present, there is not a "wide range" of employer based experiential
learning opportunities due to a lack of need in this area. Most youth
(including Y-w-D) who come to the Waterloo site are looking for paid
employment, assistance with high school completion, and post-secondary
education planning. For those who are hard to place, these services are
available. Youth who have significant disabilities are more likely to
receive these services through VR. Summer programming has grown recently
and a number of participants have received experiential based
opportunities in these activities.

Bellingham, has protocols for engaging business customers and all
programs and potential job seekers are included in the marketing of
Bellingham's services. Every effort is made to work in partnership with
DVR in engaging employers for on the job training and internships.

Bellingham continues its sectoral approach to employer outreach. Even
though they targeted a new set of employers, they would not call it a
"new" strategy. They have a recruitment and training initiative in
health care and shipbuilding. This year work continued in the
manufacturing sector. Staff meets with employers from those industries
on a regular basis to identify the industry-specific skills required. 
They then work with educational institutions in developing either
certificate, degree, or training programs that can deliver those skills
to individuals.

In the past year, Bellingham has created a program Marketing Health
Occupations to Middle and High School Students. The purpose of the
program is to develop awareness of career opportunities in the health
professions; to educate students of the entrance requirements for health
care professions; and to build capacity within the system for preparing
students for those professions, have had career awareness activities and
this summer were to have health care camps and internships

In Providence, new efforts to engage employers are part of the
development of new programs. For instance, a summer work experience
program created the need to contact specific types of employers that
matched the interests of the youth in the program. Additionally, the DCN
work experience project utilizes the employer connections and employer
outreach capability of a private temp agency (DCN). Both of these
efforts are new and it is the first time that Providence has utilized
the skill of a private firm to establish contact with employers.

Providence is also collaborating with an association of retailers to
establish a retail work experience program in which youth will work in
various retail settings (consistent with their interests) in a variety
of positions. By working through an association to reach employers,
Providence carries more credibility than it might by making individual
direct approaches. The traditional outreach strategy of recruiting
employers for job fairs continues.

The one caveat to all of the Providence information above is that there
are few if any youth with disabilities participating in these programs.
Providence staff indicated that in the future they will actively attempt
to recruit youth with disabilities into these programs but could not
assure that there were any involved during the first year.

In Syracuse, staff finds local employers amenable to working with youth
with disabilities. Employers continue to play a large part in the BOCES
Projects with Industry (PWI) Career Fair at LeMoyne College. This year
Syracuse conducted a job fair orientation for youth prior to the fair,
using employers as seminar speakers.

They've also continued their green industry youth internship program and
had added eight new employers. Syracuse used a local television station,
Channel 5, to solicit employers -- asking employers to pledge jobs to
the One-Stop. They also have brochures available to employers describing
their Employer Incentive Program, Businesses for Youth Program, and
Syracuse Business Services. The One-Stop brochure informs employers
about their free business services such as: individualized consultation,
customized recruitment and job fairs, linkage to economic development
and tax incentives, worker training coordination and incentives, free
job postings, resumes of qualified workers through Virtual Recruiter,
free linkage to their website and logo, and a community events calendar.

In Albany**,** the Compliance Monitor, while she doesn't work directly
with employers, reported that her data indicated the tendency to use the
same employers for youth placements year after year (i.e., Dollar
General, Boys & Girls Shops, florist shops, school system) and she saw a
need to expand the placement options. The Regional Youth Services
Planner indicated that they have been working with some new employers
this year and have some new work experience sites. The case managers
locate these employer sites- this year placing greater attention to a
positive job match.

The VR has been able to establish positive relationships with employers
who have hired VR clients, and is currently focusing on new employers
coming into the downtown area. Businesses in downtown Albany are being
rebuilt and these new businesses are being encouraged to hire VR
participants.

The Albany One-Stop management is working closely on a committee with
the Chamber of Commerce, workforce development professionals, and other
town organizations to determine what each organization offers and how to
coordinate these services and supports. A synopsis of each organization
is being developed to post on the Chamber of Commerce website. This
committee, along with DOL, will sponsor a youth workforce conference in
November in Albany as part of a state conference. They will bring in 50
students from each school/region to focus on employer expectations.

Two new initiatives, Good Works and GeorgiaWorks! brought in more
employer contacts this year. Marketing representatives are "selling"
these programs to employers and have had positive reviews. Employers are
interested in participating in these subsidized employment programs
(TANF) because they reduce training costs. The Albany One-Stop continues
to provide space for employers to conduct interviews on site.

In Tucson**,** the Pima County One-Stop career center has had
significant employer involvement. Weekly job fairs offered employment
opportunities to both youth and adult clients. Pima County has
established an employer outreach team. This team is comprised of five
workforce development specialists. The positions were open to all staff
and the top five applicants were selected. The goal with this team is to
centralize and coordinate outreach efforts to employers so that there
will be less duplication of contacts and the outreach will be more
strategic. The focus of their work is employers within the 11 identified
industry clusters. Now the weekly job fairs are organized around the
industry groups.

The expectation is that the individual service providers will coordinate
their employer outreach and support efforts with the one-stop employer
outreach team. It is too soon to know whether this will happen. As noted
in last year's report, each of the service providers does job
development and provides support to youth that are placed in jobs,
whether for internships or permanent job placements. It is unlikely that
this activity will be replaced by the employer outreach team. Each of
the providers has employers that they traditionally work with and this
is unlikely to change. Also, it will continue to be a responsibility of
the service provider to insure that youth receive the support they need
to succeed on the job. However, it is quite likely that the employer
outreach team efforts will result in new employment opportunities for
the youth served by these programs.

**Accessibility and Assistive Technology**

The sites reported that they continue to become more accessible. For
instance, in Waterloo has taken positive steps to insure that
individuals with physical disabilities find their offices and services
accessible. The Web site, brochures and other text materials point out
the accessibility of buildings and services and also give the director's
name and phone number to contact for questions or problems. Staff
understands the accessibility issues and meets with a lot of
participants at their school or workplace.

Waterloo also uses sign language interpreters and TDD/TTY equipment.
They have access to Braille printers, CCTVs, and speech and large print
output on computers. New this year are power assist doors at the
entrance of the building and better relationships with community
agencies that work with people with sensory impairments. The Web site is
fully accessible according to standards set by the State of Iowa.

DVRS and Services for the Blind staff are available to Waterloo for
consultation related to assistive technologies. Generally, individuals
with physical or sensory impairments are more likely to be eligible for
VR services and receive AT through them.

Most provision of AT is done through schools or through VR as indicated
in IEPs or IPEs for individuals. The AT in the resource room was paid
for by the state of Iowa. Waterloo can fund AT for individuals who are
not eligible under IDEA or VR. However, this is a rare occurrence.

Bellingham has had assistive technology in place since the start of the
case study. This year physical changes were made to increase
accessibility. It included changing the location of the front door,
adding technology so the door could be opened easier. The reception
counter was lowered so that persons in wheelchairs would have access to
information.

Also, Bellingham had, prior to this year, invested in assistive
technology in the one-stop area. This year Bellingham has added
assistive technology to the classrooms that are used for various
services. The site continues to monitor needs of all its participants
and adjust accordingly. Assistive technology has either been paid from
the state WIG grant, state dollars or out of Bellingham's own operating
funds.

Bellingham, has demonstrated exceptional interest and ability to infuse
working with Y-w-D throughout their entire system. As mentioned above,
the "Procedure Guidelines for: WorkSource Policy Relating to the
Provision of Reasonable Accommodations, Reasonable Modification, and
Auxiliary Aides and Services to Persons with Disabilities," was
finalized since the last site visit has been prepared. The purpose of
these guidelines is to provide Bellingham staff: (1) information and
ideas regarding how to apply principles set forth in the Accommodation
Policy on Serving Customers with Disabilities; (2) practical examples to
illustrate the Policy's intent and further staff's knowledge and skills;
(3) a framework from which to continue to develop quality services, and,
(4) additional resources, training, and information necessary for
continuous quality improvement of both staff skills center operations. A
staff member has been designated to coordinate all of the activities
that address eliminating barriers for Y-w-D.

In Providence, there is still a high level of accessibility and the
commitment to serving youth with disabilities as reflected in the strong
RFP language requiring applicants to assure that both programs and
facilities are accessible to youth with disabilities.

As with Providence programs and services, there were no changes in the
facilities or equipment as they are already accessible. However, very
few, if any, youth with physical disabilities appear to be utilizing
neither the One-Stop nor ORS services.

In Syracuse**,** offices are now co-located with the Department of Labor
in an attractive and [accessible]{.underline} building.

In Tucson, as noted in earlier reports, both of the one-stop centers
appear to be accessible. Last year, the Ajo Center had recently opened.
Its assistive technology had not been set up. It now is and there is
staff that is trained in its use. However, no data is available on the
extent of its use. The interview with the Navigator suggests that the
equipment is used.

*["188" Checklist Awareness and Use]{.underline}*

Waterloo and VR staff now refers regularly to the 188 checklist and
incorporate it into communications with stakeholders. The state office
of Workforce Development has been aware of and has used the Checklist
since its publication.

In Bellingham, the checklist has been used extensively by management
staff in the development of the policy regarding accommodations and the
Universal Access Reviews. Staff has only been trained in the practical
application of how this affects their work. The Regional Disability
Group has reviewed the checklist during the development of the processes
and products necessary to implement the policy. No formal training was
received or provided. At all of the other sites, there remained little
recognition or understanding of the "188" Checklist.

# Section III. YOUTH INTERVIEWS

## Background

Youth in general, and Y-w-D in particular, present complex challenges to
WIA programs in terms of providing adequate services.  During the first
year, site visit teams interviewed youth in two phases.  In Phase I,
they spoke with several youth in person as a part of the overall
interviewing process. In Phase II, they contacted an additional ten
Y-w-D at each site to determine what services and opportunities they
were given to help them find jobs and reach their goals.  These youth
interviews were conducted by telephone using a protocol specifically
developed for this part of the study. 

Following the first year site visits and in preparation for the second
year site visits, the site visit teams expressed dissatisfaction with
the phone interviews completed the prior year.  They thought the youth
interviewed via phone were not as forthcoming as they might have been in
person.  They felt that non-verbal cues that would have been picked up
in face-to-face interviews were lost on the phone. Additionally, they
believed that one-on-one interviews might not yield as much information
as group interviews.  Therefore, it was decided that during the second
year site visits an attempt would be made to interview all of the youth
participants in person and in small groups..

During the first year, two different interview protocols were used. One
for the youth interviewed in person and another for those contacted by
phone. It was decided that for the second and third year the two
protocols would be merged into one and utilized with all of the youth
participants (See Appendix C).

In the description that follows, the numbers of youth reported will vary
from item to item as not every youth provided information to every
question.  In some cases they did not know the information and in others
they simply did not want to provide it.  As in the previous years, the
information that these youth provided during these interviews seemed
very generalized and unfocused.  It is likely that this is a reflection
of the distance in time from many of the activities in question and the
fact that, for most youth, the activities did not register as high
priority in their lives at the time they were occurring. 

An additional limitation to the information provided during the third
year interviews was the difficulty in finding many of the participants. 
In sites that focused on in-school youth, reestablishing contact was
largely possible.  In sites which focused heavily on out-of-school
youth, reestablishing contact again proved to be very difficult.  This
meant that not all of the youth who were interviewed in the first and/or
second year were interviewed in the third year.  Most of the youth were
interviewed either in pairs or in small group settings of five or less. 
A few of the youth were interviewed by telephone and one youth was
interviewed via e-mail.

###  *[Demographics]{.underline}*

Forty-nine youth were interviewed as part of the six case studies this
year. Of the 49 youth interviewed 29 participated in the case study
interviews in year two.  The youth ranged in age from 16 to 27. Seventy
six percent of the youth were male and 24% female. Forty percent of the
youth interviewed were still in secondary school. Nine percent were in
post-secondary school. Thirty-nine percent were working either part or
full time. Twelve percent were not in school or working. Of those out of
high school, 42% had graduated with diplomas, 21% with special education
certificates, 32% with GEDs and 15 % with no credential. None of the
youth interviewed had physical disabilities related to mobility or
movement of limbs. Seventy-eight percent of the youth described their
disability as a learning disability ranging from Attention Deficit
Disorder to processing difficulties related to the spoken word, reading
and math. Sixteen percent of the youth described their disability as
"multiple" disabilities. In these cases most of the combinations of
disabilities were combinations of LD such as reading difficulties and
ADD. Six percent of the youth interviewed described their disability as
Downs Syndrome (only at one site).

*[Living Arrangements]{.underline}*

Of the youth reporting their current living arrangements 81% reported
living with one or both parents. Sixteen percent reported living
independently and 3% reported living with relatives other than their
parents. The percentage of youth living with their parents is
disproportionate to the percentage of youth attending secondary and post
secondary school. This disproportionality could be caused by several
factors, but at the very least it paints a picture of a population in
need of support to meet basic needs.

### *[School Environment]{.underline}*

Of the youth that confirmed they had received special education services
while in secondary school, 18% indicated that they took classes in
"regular" classroom settings. Sixty-five percent indicated that they
received services through a resource room although they spent a portion
of their time in "regular" classes. Seventeen percent of the youth
indicated that they received services in self contained special
education classes. Several of the youth also indicated that they were
not diagnosed until after leaving school and in the programs through
which they came to be known by the study.

### *[Past Work Experience]{.underline}*

As reported last year, all of the youth interviewed (except those too
young to get work permits) reported previous work experience either in
the program through which we connected with them or in competitive
employment.  Excluding summer programs, 22 of the youth interviewed
indicated they had recently held or still held full or part time jobs.
Examples of the types of jobs held by the interviewees include:
supermarket (bagger), nursery (maintenance and landscaping), seafood
restaurant (busboy), amusement park (ride attendant), adult daycare
(assistant), child daycare (assistant), high school attendance office
(clerical), plumbing company (assistant), and a fast food restaurant
(cook and cashier). Salaries ranged from \$5.15 to \$7.40 per hour
although two former program participants earned as much as \$13.50 per
hour. Most of the employers for which they worked did not offer benefits
or very meager benefits at best. For instance, only two employers
offered health insurance. This year, the interviewed youth spoke more
about seeking employment with benefits than was reported last year. This
could be due to being a bit older or in at least one case, the youth's
parent had lost her benefits and so he was looking to replace them.

*[Current Work Status]{.underline}*

At the time of the interviews, 20 of the youth interviewed indicated
that they were currently working. Several others indicated that they had
offers from their summer job employers to continue working into the
school year but that they had declined the offers. The situation
described in Albany is typical of the reported work experiences of youth
while still in school. Six of the youth (nine interviewed) are currently
working. The generally work 10-20 hours a week during the school year
and 20-29 hours a week during the summer. They all work for minimum wage
which is \$5.15/hr.

A similar situation was described in Syracuse where four youth (of 10
interviewed) were hired on full or part-time with their summer
employers. One youth was hired full-time with benefits at the same
healthcare facility were he had worked during the summer. He worked
there an additional four years until the center closed and he was laid
off. He is now unemployed and receives SSI and Medicaid benefits.
Another youth continued in his medical clerk job part-time (10-12:30
each day) at this same center throughout the school year for two
additional years but was laid off. He currently works part-time at a
local mall five days/wk for one and one half hour per day. He was
working with VESID (VR), ARISE and BOCES to find a job since he is not
eligible to participate in the summer program. Another out-of-school
youth was hired by his summer employer to continue working during the
past school year. He now works four days a week for three hours per day
at \$7/hr. The employer offered him additional hours, but he declined
because he would lose his SSI and Medicaid benefits. One youth
originally began working through a school work study program and was
hired by his manager part-time six months ago. He earned \$5.40/hr and
works between 20-30 hours per week. After one year of employment, he
will receive a one week vacation, but no health benefits.

An anecdotal observation made by several of the interviewers of the
youth interviewed was that as youth get out of the programs or whenever
a drop off in active support occurs, it appears that they have much less
success at finding and holding jobs and/or pursuing additional
training/education . The Waterloo site visitor described it this way:
"The rest of the group is going through some typical young adult
tribulations. Two of the eight had quit attending college (because of
disinterest) and two others who had finished school were working less
than half time. The other four were working full time, going to school
and working, or, in one case, had just graduated from Hawkeye Community
College. Only three of the youth had continued their formal relationship
with the Waterloo site but two others admitted that reconnecting with
the staff would be a good way to resume pursuit of better employment and
more education or training." In Tucson, the Site Visitor summed it up by
saying: "One observation from having interviewed youth over the last
several years is how, for the most part, these youth continue to
struggle with completing their academic work and successfully
transitioning to post-secondary education and employment. It just may be
that these young people need more on going supports to succeed. And,
while case managers do maintain contact, it does not appear that they
have the resources to provide the level of support many of these youth
need."

In Providence, two of the youth who had previously been interviewed were
now seriously struggling compared to their status the year before. At
the time of the interview last year, one of the youths reported that he
was employed in a commercial kitchen. His goal was to attend a college
of culinary arts. He had identified a local program and was completing
an admissions application. Over the last year he was unable to achieve
his goal. He relocated to Florida for a while to live with relatives
there. While there he was accepted by a school of culinary arts but
could not afford the tuition. He explored financial aid but all that was
available was a school loan and he was unwilling to assume debt to go to
school. (He could not provide any details of these efforts causing the
interviewer to think he may have made no effort to gain admission or get
financial aid.) He moved back to the Providence area but had not
explored culinary arts schools any further. He has an interest in music
and planned on cutting a demo cd in the very near future. He had been
away from the CTY program for just over one year.

Also, interviewed in the previous year, another Providence youth was in
the midst of taking her GED and was applying to local cosmetology
schools with assistance from CTY (even though she had formally exited
the program). This year she was still working on attaining her GED while
pursuing employment in cosmetology. When asked how she was doing that,
she indicated that she was "doing hair" for friends and relatives out of
her house. She is planning on completing her GED in the near future but
did not have any specific plans at the time of the interview for doing
so. While she agreed that it might be a good idea to get back in touch
with CTY she didn't know if that would be possible because she was about
to move in with a friend on the other side of town.

In contrast to the above experiences, in Bellingham youth interviewees,
many of which have long since been formally terminated from the program,
experienced no real separation from their counselors and were either
employed or pursuing post secondary education/training. For the most
part, they felt perfectly comfortable calling their counselor about any
new problems or barriers with which they were dealing. Bellingham staff
felt this was due to the long term intervention strategy upon which they
built their services indicating that it was not unusual to work with a
youth for four or five years.

*[Community Connections]{.underline}*

Consistent with last year's findings, the youth that expressed an
opinion about their connectedness to the community painted a picture of
near isolation with most if not all of the connections emanating through
the family. For example, in Providence, only one of the four youth
interviewed indicated that he had any connections outside of his family
or work. This lack of connectedness seems to grow as especially Y-w-D
age and move away from school and youth service programs. This growing
isolation also affects the thinking of youth when considering their
immediate future. In Albany, for instance, most of the graduating youth
seemed undecided about their career goals even though graduation was
just month away. They mentioned a number of possibilities for jobs but
had not made the effort to pursue these opportunities. Many of the youth
also indicated that they would go to work where relatives worked
(brother, mother, cousin, sister, etc.). They did not appear to be
thinking "outside the box" when it came to career planning. Also, many
of the youth could articulate their strengths in the workplace but were
not selecting future jobs/careers that focused on any of these strengths
or interests. For example, one youth indicated an interest and strength
in landscaping and working with flowers but is seeking a job at the
local chicken plant, hospital, or fast food restaurant. Another youth
has had three successful daycare and elder care jobs in the past two
years but is considering a job after graduation at Proctor and Gable as
an assembly-line worker.

*[Future Plans]{.underline}*

Also consistent with last year, youth often expressed their future plans
in terms of employment although some took a broader view. In Syracuse,
for example, each of the youth described a plan for their future in
relation to working. Four youth planned to continue working at their
current part-time job; two youth planned to attend a postsecondary
institution full-time (one university, one community college); two youth
planned to get postsecondary vocational training either at BOCES or at
the local community college. Four youth planned to examine new career
fields, perhaps in the areas of office work, security, and
manufacturing. One youth planned to own and operate a craft business.
One youth planned to finish high school. Most youth had more than one
future goal. One youth indicated that despite having many goals for his
future there was still the uncertainty of living independently due to
unemployment.

Likewise when asked about their future, the youth in Providence all
expressed it in terms of employment or more education/training. One
youth indicated that he was thinking of becoming a professional
musician, another cosmetology, another (currently employed as a
mechanic) moving into a better job at a car dealership. The remaining
youth indicated she would pursue an AA and then a BA and then she wasn't
sure what the future held for her.

However in Albany, when the youth were asked to envision themselves five
years from now and describe what they would like their life to be then,
they primarily saw the future in terms other than employment. Eight of
the nine youth intend to live in Georgia, preferably in the Albany area.
One youth would like to live in Seattle, Washington with a relative.
Five of the nine youth would like to be living independently in an
apartment or home. The others plan to be living at home with their
parents. Two youth would like to be married and have a family within the
next 5 years. Four youth plan to get their driver's licenses and own a
car. Two youth mentioned they would like to have high-paying jobs with
good companies in order to pay their bills.

*[Satisfaction with the Program]{.underline}*

Consistent with last year, the vast majority of the youth interviewed
(as well as two parents) expressed great satisfaction with whatever
program in which they had participated. For instance, in Albany all of
the youth interviewed indicated that their work-based learning program
was helpful and enjoyable. They participated in job preparation
activities (i.e. interviewing, resume writing, role-playing) and had
paying jobs at local venues. They appreciated the opportunity to leave
school early for work and the money that they made. Some youth indicated
that their paycheck helped their families to pay bills.

The youth that participated in the HS/HT program strongly recommended
this program to other students. This program taught them a number of
things beyond science content such as people skills, communication
skills, manners, understanding and overcoming their disabilities,
informed decision-making, self-esteem, and employability skills. The
HS/HT also provided youth with reading support (tutoring). One youth
mentioned that he would like to give back to the HS/HT program when he
is older by giving money and mentoring students.

Every HS/HT youth interviewed indicated that they would recommend this
program to other students. Two of the HS/HT students make presentations
to upcoming 8^th^ graders about the program and its benefits. They do
indicate that to succeed in this program, a student must be committed to
the program- willing to do the work.

In Bellingham, all youth expressed satisfaction with the services they
had received and had connections with staff even if they were no longer
enrolled in the program. The assistance in finding an internship and
financial assistance with transportation and other things like paying
for a cap and gown were appreciated.

All ten youth and both parents interviewed at Syracuse were satisfied
with the program overall and would recommend the Syracuse *Summer Youth
Employment Program* to other young people with and without disabilities.
The youth and parents were very complimentary of the special education
teacher who facilitated their participation in the program with the
Syracuse site and in other school-year work experiences. Some comments
from youth concerning their satisfaction with the program included:
"Everyone should contact CNY Works (Syracuse). I had no problems with
them- they help you get a job." "It's a good program to get into. It
tells you how to get along with everyone." "You have people that can
help you find jobs and help you on-the-job too." One youth emphasized
that the summer program opened many doors for her and opened her eyes to
possibilities. She further stated, "Well, it's really hard out there and
so not like the first job you get or the first job you get an
application for will hire you, to keep filling out applications until
one of them calls you back. Keep trying and don't give up."

One difference between the reporting from last year to this year was
that for the first time some dissatisfaction was reported from several
sites. In Syracuse there were still concerns about the involvement of
job coaches. One youth recommended keeping the job coaches because they
gave him good directions and worked with him 1-1, while another youth
recommended not having job coaches because it "felt odd and babyish"
having someone with her. One youth commented, "I think that people need
more toughness because it keeps me motivated. My job coach gives me
expectations, she knows what I can do and stuff and she tries to get me
to do harder stuff." In general, the availability of funds for job
coaches has made it increasingly harder for employers to agree to hire
youth who participate in the summer employment program without support.

In Providence, one of the new youths did raise some concerns about the
CTY program as well as strong reservations about the services provided
at the One-Stop. Concerning CTY, he indicated that he felt the program
was often disorganized and did not provide consistent programming from
day-to-day. He could not provide specific examples of what he meant by
that observation. He went on to say that he felt the One-Stop "was a
complete waste of time." He indicated that he did have good access to
the computers at the One-Stop for job searches but that he found better
listings in the local paper than he did online at the One-Stop. He
attended an "orientation" (his characterization) but no other services
were extended to him. He found his own job and then a second, better job
through a person from whom he bought auto mechanic tools. (The salesman
knew of an opening in another shop and suggested that he contact the
owner.) He went on to say that he did not believe his experience was
unique as his girlfriend also tried to find a job through the One-Stop
and had similar results. Interestingly, at the conclusion of his
remarks, the other youths (who had just praised the program) chimed in
supporting his views but did not offer any examples of their own.

# Section IV. SPECIFIC and IMPLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS 

As last year, the recommendations coming from the sites were often
specific to the situation at each site. One common recommendation did
come across. It is still strongly recommended that the U. S. DOL revisit
performance outcomes (both WIA outcomes as well as the Common Measures
of Performance) especially in the areas of numeracy and literacy. Some
felt that the groups of youth and Y-w-D were different enough to merit
their own set of measures. They also felt strongly that the measures
currently in use do not reflect real, meaningful progress that they make
with youth. Many of the interviewees pointed out that 6 months of
progress in reading, for instance, is significant for a youth who has
made no progress in reading for many years and yet they receive no
credit for this accomplishment. In fact, if that's the best they can do,
they are punished. Their opinion also seems to be that if they are
working with a Y-w-D, current outcome goals are even more difficult to
reach. With these youth, credit should be given rewarding more discreet
amounts and types of progress.

A second recommendation across all of the sites is in response to the
need for accurate data, is the refinement or development of a data
collection systems that provides all of its stakeholders with the
information they need to better perform their job. As discussed above,
all of the sites have now installed and are operating state driven data
collection systems. However they find these systems often do not
collect/report information that is useful for them. Importantly, these
new data collection systems do not provide any clearer picture of the
most fundamental data about Y-w-D. For instance, they do not collect
data that captures the percent of the youth served that are Y-w-D let
alone what type of disabilities or what the types of programming in
which Y-w-D participate.

The remainder of the site driven recommendations reflected specific site
situations and are categorized here, as they were last year by the level
of government that has the authority to act on the recommendation.

**[Federal]{.underline}**

-   [Accept the special needs diploma as a credential]{.underline} under
    the Common Measures of Performance. "You cannot mandate their
    participation and then penalize us for their performance".

-   [Hold service providers to one standard of performance]{.underline},
    either Common Measures of Performance or WIA measures- not both.

-   [Continued funding of navigator position]{.underline}- longer term
    (beyond one year)

-   [More financial support for staff development]{.underline} and
    developing successful colloaborative working relationships.

**[State]{.underline}**

-   [Have every youth services provider develop their programs based on
    a similar flow of service]{.underline} - one that is built on a
    natural progression of skills model (i.e., assessment, awareness,
    observation, basic skill development, job preparation, work
    experiences) for work-based learning. Develop this flow of services
    chart prior to program set-up.

-   [Improve understanding among case managers, service providers and
    educators on how assessment/testing drives services]{.underline}.
    Equip case managers to implement testing. Increase/improve
    assessment information on youth to help identify the most
    appropriate job training and placements.

-   [Assign a Regional Job Readiness Specialist to each VR unit
    area]{.underline} with an assistive technology specialist to assist
    them.

-   [Investigate use of Medicaid waiver]{.underline} for job coaching
    services

**[Local]{.underline}**

-   [Broaden/strengthen the number of employers]{.underline} working
    with WIA youth.

-   [Greater youth "voice"]{.underline} in WIB and Youth Council

-   [Better communication across agencies]{.underline}, particularly
    regarding the issue of outreach to out-of-school and older youth

-   [Increased communications and memoranda of
    understanding]{.underline} between WIB director and top school
    system officers regarding the potential mutual benefits of working
    together. Improved joint problem-solving.

# Section V. NEW and CONTINUING CHALLENGES

**Across Site Challenges Identified during the 2005 Site Visits:**

*[Program Compliance]{.underline}*

Five of the six sites, reported compliance with the Common Measures of
Performance, and in broader sense accountability for program outcomes, a
challenge they will have to contend with in the coming year. Albany's
approach to this challenge will be to keep the Compliance Monitor
positions in place. They will continue to monitor the service provider's
(case manager's) progress toward meeting their program goals and
measures. Case managers will need to be more creative in their efforts
to recruit, retain and successfully exit program participants. They will
need to identify alternative incentives for youth, and additional work
sites for relevant work experiences based on assessment findings.
Reports on program compliance will be used to determine whether programs
continue or are terminated.

Similarly to last year but possibly more intensely, all of the
Providence interviewees, especially the staff, felt the performance
standards will increasingly drive everything they do. They believe the
performance standards are directly responsible for the reduction in the
number of proposals they receive to their annual RFP. They further feel
that the new intensity of the monitoring brought about by the state will
negatively impact the willingness of vendors to accept WIA funds.

In particular, the Providence staff expressed frustration with being
asked on one hand to serve the "hard to serve" youth and on the other be
held to outcomes that cannot be reached with such youth. They are
resolved to having to "cream" their participants and remain greatly
concerned about youth that are at higher risk and in need of services.
They also believe that youth with disabilities will be (or already are)
the first group to be "creamed" out of the program as the performance
standards seem particularly inappropriate for them.

Likewise, Syracuse felt the performance measures are restrictive and do
not address the needs of youth with more significant disabilities and/or
academic challenges. Youth serving organizations that were awarded
grants last year from Syracuse continue to struggle meeting the required
outcomes (i.e., adequate enrollment and staffing). Despite ongoing
guidance from Syracuse to fulfill requirements of the grants, the
grantees fell short of meeting their obligations. The Youth Program
Coordinator stated, "I sat down with them (YS organizations) and said
this is what you need to achieve by the end of June and they said that
there was no way they could do that. They said we would rather end it
right now on good terms with you in the hopes that maybe someday we can
come back and submit a proposal that we can do as opposed to trying to
do something that we know we can't at this point." As a result, this
organization removed itself and returned a large portion of the money to
the Syracuse site..

The Youth Career Advisor also stated that Syracuse had conducted TABE
testing of all youth who worked in the summer 2004 program. "I will tell
you that 75-80% did not meet the measures. So, how are we to devise a
program that will raise those 2 reading levels in one year? It's
impossible. The schools can't do it; there is no way that we as career
advisors are going to do it." To further complicate matters there have
been no guidelines given in how to accommodate youth with disabilities
in taking the TABE. "So, you get irate parents saying that these kids
should not be taking these tests in order to be getting into summer
jobs." As in Providence, Syracuse is also experiencing a drop in the
applications responding to their RFP due to a shift to "placement" and
away from "readiness".

Bellingham also expressed concern over meeting performance standards
against a backdrop of declining resources. While not so concerned about
the current measures, the measures such as 2 years increase in reading
levels during 1 year of service to which they we be held accountable
next year seems unattainable.

*[Streamlining Programs and Services]{.underline}.*

All of the sites reported they were facing potentially very extreme
budget cuts. Some sites were responding to reductions from the federal
level and some from the state level or both. The challenge as they
expressed it was to determine how to keep a viable slate of services
functioning by either "streamlining" how services are delivered or by
reducing costs in some other aspect of their organization(s). In Albany,
the challenge of streamlining was explained this way by the WIB
Director, "This budget hit gives us the opportunity to stand back and
make priorities- what are the bare necessities and how can we best
provide them?" It is apparent that positions will need to be eliminated
and therefore duties and responsibilities will need to be redistributed
among staff members. For example, data entry persons and program
assistants may be cut. The Director of the Cairo One-Stop (Albany), with
a hopeful eye to the future, declaimed, "We are prepared for whatever
happens or comes from the State or Federal levels. Our staff will go the
extra mile, including working late hours."

In the Bellingham interviews, leadership identified one of their
challenges of providing meaningful programming for youth given the
reduced dollars at hand. In Providence, the staff continued to expect
further declines in funding. This has an immediate and clear negative
impact on their ability to fund services. It has also had an unexpected
impact of causing the Director of Youth Services to accept a position
elsewhere due to a belief that her position will soon be eliminated due
to lack of funds.

In Syracuse, one difficulty continues to be funding for job coaches.
Many programs for youth with disabilities were being operated this year
with a minimal amount of job coaching. Supporting youth on job sites,
particularly youth with disabilities emerged as an obstacle to
successful employment. All of the interviewees cited a severe shortage
of job coaches due to unavailable funds as a primary challenge.

All of the sites are looking at how to deliver services that are "leaner
and meaner" due to anticipated budget cuts from the federal and state
levels. This "streamlining" is occurring against a backdrop in which
accountability measures are becoming increasingly the only determinant
of program effectiveness.

*[Reauthorization of the WIA]{.underline}*

In last year's report, the S*tate of Suspension* was identified as a
factor in program development at the local level. Basically, the lack of
reauthorization of WIA led to inaction on the part of sites in designing
new programmatic strategies. The most tangible sign of the *State of
Suspension* could be seen in Tucson where the Youth Committee did not
release a new RFP as they wanted to be sure in incorporated the changes
in the reauthorized WIA. Syracuse and its partner organizations are
anxious to see how the WIA re-authorization will impact their youth
services and processes, especially with regards to numeracy and
literacy. It was the Youth Career Advisor's impression that the
reauthorization of WIA was likely to require serving 50% in-school youth
and 50% out-of-school youth. "There will be four common measures as
opposed to the eleven we have now. But NY State will probably keep
theirs so it will not only give us 10 or 11, it will give us 14 or 15
\[measures\] we will have to meet."

All of the sites at least mentioned the need to adjust some of their
approach to better meet the anticipated new WIA requirements.

**Additional Specific Site Challenges**

In addition to these challenges, several sites listed specific
challenges not identified by other sites but likely to be present at
other sites.

***[Albany]{.underline}***

*[Population Mobility]{.underline}*

Youth (and their families) in this WIA area are very mobile. It is
difficult to keep youth in programs from beginning to end. Many services
are just initiated and the youth move to a new area in the state or to
another state. The Cairo One-Stop Director explained, "They may be here
today, gone tomorrow. They could be in Louisiana next week. I knew that
people were mobile but I did not know they were that mobile. Some people
just get tired of living in a small town - want to move to where
relatives live. Some of them are actually going to the location and
obtaining employment. There's just a variety of personal reasons. If I
had to take a wild guess I would say about 50% return to this area. You
know, they move into the program, they move away, and then move back to
the program. We try to get them re-engaged." This level of mobility
causes great difficulty in the follow-up process and showing that
someone has exited successfully and program measures have been met. The
One-Stop Director stated, "We have used all sorts of innovative ways to
try to track youth down. We have examined our wage files to see if wages
have appeared in another state. We use court records. When they move out
and we don\'t know where they are, and they are not working, we don't
exit them. So that when they come back in we can re-enter them and
provide services immediately." The One-Stop staff also shares
information with non-project staff that assists with the intensive
follow-up of youth participants. At times, the staff can help youth make
connections in their new location in order to continue in a similar
program (i.e. GED programs).

***[Bellingham]{.underline}***

*[Disability Specific Practices and Procedures]{.underline}*

Bellingham staff also identified challenges around completing disability
specific work that was already underway. Including:

-   A review of all Bellingham products to meet 508 guidelines.

-   A review of all outreach to access inclusiveness and effectiveness
    to youth and people with disabilities.

-   Offering training to employers regarding the needs of people with
    disabilities.

-   Developing protocols and best practices for co-enrolling WIA
    programs with DVR.

-   Identifying key Bellingham products and services for the provision
    of training to VR counselors.

-   Developing a systemic approach to linking transition programs with
    Bellingham for all High Schools in the Northwest area.

> ***[Syracuse]{.underline}***
>
> Syracuse interviewees also identified the following challenges:

-   Issue of *high school exit documents* (i.e., IEP certificates versus
    diploma) continues to plague the youth programs. CYNWorks (Syracuse)
    is taking the stand that if youth with disabilities have completed
    all of their expected educational outcomes as delineated in their
    IEPs, they should be able to tell employers they have graduated from
    high school. The real issue is: Do the youth have the specific
    skills needed by the employer?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The *employment sector* is shifting dramatically in Syracuse from
    manufacturing to human services work -- started focusing more on
    demand occupations.

-   The *unemployment rate* in the area continues to be high

-   *Incompatibility of data systems across partners and systems* --
    time spent on data entry is a concern, accurate reflection of
    efforts is a concern. While there has been some effort made by the
    State of NY in 2005 to provide training in a more consistent data
    collection system, this continues to be viewed by the practitioners
    as a major obstacle.

-   Many *community-based partners have been losing funding*, leading to
    high staff turnover, which negatively affects outcomes for
    Syracuse's youth programs

-   *Enrolling youth in summer programs* when the schools have failed to
    provide essential information (especially when school personnel are
    not available after the end of the school year). This is
    particularly of concern when summer program staff have no idea of
    the accommodations that are needed for a youth.

-   Catch-22 situation: some *high schools seem to be stalling in
    issuing student discharge papers* (in the case of dropouts); without
    these official documents, these youth do not meet WIA eligibility
    for CNYWorks (Syracuse) services

-   *Too few transition coordinators* in the schools to handle the large
    numbers of exiting youth

-   *The "drop in, drop out" nature of many out-of-school youth.*

# Section VI. CONCLUDING ANALYSIS 

The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy
(ODEP) posed six research questions that were to be addressed by the
sites during each site visit. The purpose of this multi-year study is to
identify supports that are needed to provide efficient and universal
access in serving persons with disabilities through the Workforce
Investment Act system. The following represents an analysis of the
findings of the site visits organized by the ODEP research questions. 

## What specific context and conditions are necessary to promote increased access to services for individuals with disabilities? 

###  In last year's report four specific contexts and conditions were listed as necessary to promote increased assess to services for individuals with disabilities. They were *Accurate Data*; *Professional Development*; *Ownership of Youth with Disabilities by the WIA Service system (Title I)*; and, *Accessibility of Facilities and Services.* These contexts and conditions are still necessary to promote increased access to services for Y-w-D. The additional observations from this year's site visits include:

*[Long Term Intervention]{.underline}*

In several sites, site team visitors witnessed the impact of short term
intervention on Y-w-D. As described above the site visitors in Waterloo,
Tucson and Providence felt that many of the youth they were interviewing
were actually regressing the older they got and the further they were
removed from active supports and programming. Additionally, the site
visitors in Bellingham also saw the positive impact on Y-w-D when they
have the opportunity to develop long (four-five years) relationships
with counselors. Discussions with the leadership and front line staff at
Bellingham revealed that the strategy of long term intervention was by
design. Since most of the sites are unable to provide this type of
intervention, it is impossible to say that the length of support and
involvement alone contribute to positive growth by Y-w-D over time. But
it was the one, most noticeable differences in strategies.

If long term intervention is a strategy that yields higher outcomes with
Y-w-D, it carries with it serious implications for service models for
WIA supported services. For instance, performance measures could no
longer be based on a one or two year experience; local WIBs may likewise
have to move away from contracts that span only a period of a year; case
managers or youth workers will need to be able to access/leverage a wide
array of services for a potentially long period of time (which may also
have serious implications for other service delivery systems).

*[Increased Capacity in Serving Youth with Physical and Severe
Disabilities]{.underline}*

At each site, the site visitors interview up to ten youth with
disabilities to learn about their experiences in receiving WIA supported
and other youth services. To date, none of the youth interviewed have
had physical disabilities other than hearing impairments. In fact one
site visitor who has visited two different sites reported seeing no
youth in wheelchairs involved in any of the program observed. It seems
youth with these types of disabilities are either being served
exclusively by VR or they are not being served at all.

When viewed against the backdrop of an accountability system that is
already leading providers to "cream" the youth they serve, it seems less
and less likely that WIA supported services will ever serve youth with
physical and severe disabilities. As long as it doesn't, roughly half of
the Y-w-D will not gain the benefits of the WIA.

*[Non Employment Centered Support Services]{.underline}*

When asked about barriers to employment as well as to other employment
training services, the youth's responses most often reflected a need for
basic support services like housing, transportation, health care and
child care. If any of these are missing the likelihood of Y-w-D (and
probably youth without disabilities) succeeding in building a career or
getting and holding onto their first job is remote. The negative impact
the lack of these support services has on Y-w-D is clearer the further
removed they are from school, family and other services.

## What strategies, including policies and practices, are being used to improve access and outcomes? 

As discussed last year, on a policy level, the federal framework appears
to be sufficient.  It mandates Y-w-D as customers of the WIA supported
service system.  It also appears there are no countervailing policies
that would prohibit serving youth with disabilities.  In other federal
policy, schools are charged with preparing youth with disabilities for
the transition into the post-school world, VR agencies are charged with
the provision of employment services for youth with disabilities, and
the SSA now has developed a series of work incentives meant to support
Y-w-D entering the workforce while not jeopardizing their SSA benefits.

For the WIA supported system, it appears to be more a matter of
information and practice than it is a matter of policy.  However, one
area in which policy may come into play is the WIA performance
accountability system.  Keeping in mind that the WIA accountability
system does not hold WIBs specifically accountable for positive outcomes
for Y-w-D, it sends a message that this population is at least secondary
in importance and possibly of no importance. 

*[Long Term Intervention]{.underline}*

As described above a key strategy employed in Bellingham is long term
vs. short term intervention.

*[Braiding and Leveraging of non-WIA Resources]{.underline}*

A number of the sites are now becoming very effective at collaborating
with other organizations and leveraging non WIA resources. These
collaborations and outside resources can either assist the WIA supported
system in reaching it own outcome measures for youth by supplementing
services directly related to gaining employment or by wrapping other
support services around youth receiving WIA services. Leveraged services
may also provide the resources to allow youth who clearly will not hit
the performance standards to be served in a way that may increase skills
to the point that they may successfully participate in WIA supported
services. A clear example of this strategy can be seen in the Pre-GED
classes described above now operating in at least two sites.

*[Fully integrate serving Y-w-D into all procedures and
policies]{.underline}*

As described above (and in last year's report) Bellingham, has developed
formal procedures and practices for all of their employees concerning
serving Y-w-D (adults as well). In addition to these procedures, a staff
person has been specifically assigned to look across all aspects of
Bellingham's operation and suggest changes necessary to ensure that
Y-w-D can access the facilities, equipment and programs offered by
Bellingham. As a result of her activities many other positive changes
have occurred (as described above).

All of the sites have done an excellent job in making their facilities
and equipment accessible. Bellingham's approach, however, appears to be
the most comprehensive.

*[Navigators]{.underline}*

As reported in last year's report and reemphasized by the sites this
year, Navigators are seen very positively by their colleagues in
assisting with the provision of services to Y-w-D. Four of the six sites
have Navigators. At least one site, for instance, recommended this year
that Navigators be funded for more than a year at a time. Four sites
reported hiring at least one new Navigator and one hired 1 ½ new
navigators. The addition of a staff member who is highly knowledgeable
about services for Y-w-D like benefits planning is a key strategy being
used by all of the sites. All of the sites with navigators would like to
keep them after the grants end. However, only Tucson has developed a
strategy to maintain funding for the position.

*[Incentives]{.underline}*

Several sites reported the use of financial incentives to better gain
youth participation in programs. As a staff person in Providence put it,
"Without incentives youth don't participate in short term activities
because they cannot comprehend the long term benefits. With incentives a
short term activity provides an excellent short term benefit." One
example of these types of incentives can also be seen in Syracuse where
they have been able to qualify more out-of-school youth (ages 18-24) by
contracting with them and providing an incentive. For example, if the
youth regularly attends GED classes and passes the exam, Syracuse gives
them \$100.

## What is the evidence of change relative to these strategies?

##  Evidence of change is mostly anecdotal. However, several sites are now working with organizations that exclusively serve Y-w-D and so there is some hard evidence that the sites are reaching out to Y-w-D. For instance, Providence has now contracted with the Valley Community Mental Health Center School which serves only Y-w-D in need of mental health services. In Tucson, the Intergovernmental Agreement between the WIA supported services and the VR agency is also concrete evidence of movement towards serving Y-w-D. As already described above, Bellingham has gone to great lengths to infuse serving Y-w-D into everything they do. Additional evidence can be seen in Syracuse where the site has relocated to a new building that is totally accessible. Waterloo's data system, which last year identified a 9% jump in the Y-w-D served again identified 28% of the youth served as Y-w-D. The Albany site has close connections with a High School/High Tech program which exclusively serves Y-w-D.

Unfortunately, the data systems in most of the sites do not capture
specific data on the number of Y-w-D served. This limitation probably
leads to a serious under-identification of Y-w-D served by these sites.

## Are individuals with disabilities satisfied with the services they receive and are they making progress towards their education and work preparation goals? 

For the first time, this year, there were a few isolated complaints
about the services. One youth in Providence was the most critical and
after stating his complaints, the other youth, who had just articulated
support for the program, chimed in and supported his criticisms. On the
whole though, consistent with last year, youth interviewees were highly
supportive of the programs in which they participated.

One segment of Y-w-D that does not seem to be utilizing WIA services is
youth with physical, especially mobility, disabilities. This may be a
result of their almost certain ability to access VR services or there
may be more at work. There is no data or opinions from the sites that
otherwise explain their absence.

Strategies for serving older out-of-school youth are emerging, but as
the youth interviewees age and leave the supports of programs, it
appears that they regress or hit new barriers that prevent them from
pursuing employment. Yet, when asked, they are very satisfied with the
services they previously received.

The same limitations on these opinions discussed in last year's report
still apply. "The expression of satisfaction must be tempered by the
understandings that for these youth contacts in the community were
limited and not very rewarding.  Additionally, the youth were not aware
of all the possible program models of which they could have availed
themselves; they only knew the programs in which they participated.  It
was difficult for them to speculate about program improvements as they
had no concept of practices and programs elsewhere in the country."

## With regard to policies and practices, what supports/constraints (including costs) influence implementation? 

### *[Performance Measures]{.underline}*

Based on the year three site visits, the single cross-site factor
driving implementation policies and practices is performance measures.
If possible, they are even more of a force than they were last year. In
at least three sites, the failure to meet these measures has led to the
creation of a new, very intense monitoring presence as well as wholly
new projects designed to hit placement goals rather than support
readiness activities. Additionally, they have also led to a decline the
number of potential vendors who are willing to bid on the youth services
RFP (Providence and Syracuse), In Syracuse several service providers
returned the funds they had been rewarded rather than attempt and fail
to meet performance outcomes. Other providers have been lost because
they did not meet performance outcomes in at least Providence, Albany
and Syracuse. There is a general feeling across many of the sites that
the performance standards (both CPM and to some extent WIA) are
unrealistic. For Y-w-D some sites predict that as the performance
standards become tougher, Y-w-D will be the first group to be left out
of the program. "Creaming" is already a necessary practice, in the
opinion of some sites, and will get nothing but worse. If, they say, the
mission of WIA is to serve the "most in need" or the "hardest to serve",
the performance measures are counter productive and lead to serving only
the easiest to serve. Other sites felt they could live with current
measures but were concerned about the numeracy and literacy measures to
which they will be held next year.

### *[Funding Cuts]{.underline}*

All of the sites are facing a reduction in funding from the federal
level and most are anticipating reductions from the state level as well.
The reduction in funding has let to a "streamlining" of services and an
intense search for new, non-WIA funding. Currently, the mix of funding
utilized by the sites remains consistent with last year (85% WIA funds)
but movement is occurring that should lead to increases in non-WIA funds
by the time of next year's site visits.

An unforeseen impact of the reduction of funding may be the loss of key
personnel. In Providence, for instance, the Director of Youth Services
is leaving her position, in part, because of the uncertainty of funding
support for it.

Some of the sites have already embarked on utilizing non-WIA funds. The
most notable is Tucson where a partnership with the VR agency has led to
a new \$1.2 million funding stream.

*[Loss of Key Personnel]{.underline}*

While none of the sites indicated staff turnover was a problem, it was
noted that there was more staff turnover this year than last.
Importantly, there are several key staff leaving after the interviews
were completed and may be gone at the time of writing. Examples of this
type of turnover are the staff person in Waterloo who has established
excellent collaborative relationships with schools in her area. Also, as
mentioned above the Director of Youth Services in Providence has taken a
new position outside of Providence site. In Syracuse the long-time
executive director of CNYWorks left the position and currently an acting
director has assumed this role. Yhe full-time navigator, who was highly
regarded by his colleagues and customers alike, also left the position
to work for the State office of Social Security.

All of the sites reported stable staffing for the most part but the
turnover in key staff is worth watching for next year.

### *[Stronger Working Relationships with Schools and VR]{.underline}*

The sites continue to report strong working relationships with both
schools and VR. Tucson, through its Intergovernmental Agreement between
the Pima County One-Stop and VR is the most significant development
reported this year. Schools continue to grow as partner organizations.
Albany has found itself in the position of having to sanction school
programs that were not performing but for the most part, sites report
strengthening their collaboration with schools. For instance, in
Waterloo, the in-school staffer reports attending an increasing number
of transition meetings. Albany works with a host of school programs,
Bellingham runs several programs (most notably the camp described above)
in conjunction with schools.

It is still recommended that ODEP or the U. S. DOL develop a study
examining the relationship between outside agencies like schools and the
WIA service system.  The focus of the study would be to identify if
these relationships are strengthening due to a perceived mutual benefit
by all concerned or if they are being driven by schools viewing WIA only
as a potential funding stream.  It would also be of value to attempt to
identify the impact that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has had on the
willingness or interest of schools in collaborating with agencies in the
workforce development system.

## How can the information in questions one to four be used systematically to provide technical assistance and training, disseminate information, and inform practice? 

## Continued utilization of the NCDW/Y's dissemination channels is recommended. Additional channels for dissemination include the Parent Training and Information Centers Technical Assistance Provider, outreach to the Client Assistance Program, the Protection and Advocacy System, the Independent Living Centers, the National Dissemination Center, and disability specific organizations that are national in scope with local affiliates such as the Epilepsy Foundation of America. All of which are currently part of NCWD/Y's dissemination channels.

## Content should continue to be developed focused on new and promising practices such as how to "braid" funding streams and/or the leveraging of non WIA resources. The sites studied here also provide good examples of how to infuse working with Y-w-D throughout their entire set of operating policies and procedures. 

## It also appears it would be helpful to provide information to the field concerning how to garner the funds to add Navigators along with strategies for keeping them once grant money runs out.

## 

##  

**APPENDIX A**

**Protocol Youth Case Studies**

**Protocol General Guidelines**

**[Why]{.underline}**

It's important to remind ourselves and those with whom we work at the
sites that this study is **not an evaluation. T**he purpose of this
longitudinal study is to:

-   provide a snapshot of representative localities in terms of how
    local workforce development efforts are serving youth with
    disabilities in One-Stops and WIA youth-serving programs;

-   identify what supports are needed by these programs and staff, how
    policies, governance, and partners influence service delivery, and
    how youth with disabilities access and benefit from WIA services;

-   discover what skills and knowledge are needed to effectively include
    youth with disabilities in workforce development systems, as well as
    identify emerging practices; and

-   inform policy development at DOL and ODEP as well as the work of the
    Collaborative.

This year we are attempting to describe what changes have occurred since
our site visits last year. To that end, the protocols are organized
around the site-identified challenges reported last year.

**[Who]{.underline}**

Surveyors should seek interviews with the same interviewees that
participated last year. If turnover precludes interviewing the same
person interviewed last year, it should include the person now handling
the responsibilities of the person interviewed last year. By title or
category the people interviewed last year included:

-   2 LWIB members (Director and staff person responsible for youth);

-   2 Youth Council members (Director of Youth programs and another
    Youth Council member);

-   1 One-Stop Manager; 2 Managers from Youth-serving Organizations
    identified by the One-Stop (one general organization and one
    disability-specific if possible);

-   1 Youth Practitioner (formerly Front-line staff) from a One-Stop;

-   1 Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (liaison for WIB area if
    possible); and,

-   at least one youth with disabilities who accesses services from the
    One-Stop or service provider.

In addition to these on-site interviews we interviewed ten youth with
disabilities from each site by phone. This year, in a departure from
last year, we hope to perform face-to-face interviews with the same ten
youth at each site and do away with the phone interviews.

This year we will also be interviewing state level WIA staff. The first
point of contact should be the state person with whom initial contact
was made last year. The most appropriate person to be interviewed is the
state person who has responsibility for Youth issues at the state WIB or
state administrative WIA office. It is anticipated that these interviews
will be phone interviews and will be carried out following the site
visits.

**[What]{.underline}**

Attached to this guide are several packets of materials to be utilized
with the sites. The packets include pre-visit introductory materials and
on-site protocols. The pre-visit introductory materials includes a copy
of last year's site report, the "challenges" section of the synthesis
report and a copy of this year's protocols including all of the
questionnaires within the protocols. A sample cover letter is also
included that you should personalize as is appropriate.

While approaches to site visits may vary, the need for consistency
across sites in the retrieval of information is critical. In particular
the responses to the tables and questionnaires found within the
protocols are critical to establishing a fact-based view of the sites.

**[Question Codes]{.underline}**

The questions that follow this set of instructions are coded with
letters that appear immediately below the question. These sets of
letters indicate the suggested audience for each question. The codes
should be viewed as the minimum range of appropriate interviewees for
that question. As you go through your visit you may decide, based on the
responses that you are getting, that a particular question may also
yield constructive information when asked of someone not in the code.
That's fine. Asking a question of a broader range of interviewees than
is indicated by the code does no harm. It is critical, however, that the
constellation of interviewees indicated by the code are asked the
question. The codes are

PMA -- local policy maker/administrator

SP -- local service provider

YP -- youth practitioner (formerly known as front line staff)

OS -- One-Stop staff

(Protocols for both state level personnel and youth will be contained in
separate documents.)

**[Responses to Probes]{.underline}**

To the extent practicable gaining responses to all probes is advisable
although not absolutely mandatory. Probes for which responses are
mandatory will be signified with a \* next to them.

> **Protocol Youth Case Studies**

**April 9, 2004**

**[Introductory]{.underline}**

1.  Has participation in this study resulted in you or others being more
    active in accessing information about or developing services for
    Y-w-D?

> (ST-PMA-OS-SP-YP)

# Leadership at all Levels, Including Youth

2.  What policy changes have occurred in the past year centered on youth
    issues? *Probe:*

-   *If so, what are these changes and what generated the change?\**

-   *How were they shared with the field? \**

-   *For example, new MOU's, RFPs , etc. for serving all youth, public
    policy? And with Y-w-D specifically?*

> (PMA-SP-ST)

3.  What changes have occurred in the membership on the SWIB, LWIB and
    Youth Council?

> *Probe:*

-   *What are the changes in the representation of organizations serving
    Y-w-D on these bodies?*

> (PMA) (ST) (Get new membership lists)

4.  What are the changes in youth serving on the SWIB, YC, LWIB or other
    decision-making body?

> *Probe:*

-   *If changes from last year, what are they?\**

-   *If "no changes" confirm youth are or aren't involved.*

-   *If they are: how many and how are they recruited? \**

-   *How do youth or Y-w-D participate in decision-making?*

-   *Is there a particular decision that was especially influenced by
    the input from Y-w-D? \**

-   *Are there examples of other concrete decisions that were influenced
    or decided by youth or Y-w-D? \**

-   *Do youth or Y-w-D receive any training or other support to help
    them to participate effectively in leadership roles inside the
    workforce development system?*

-   *If they receive training do you have examples of the training
    material? \**

-   *Who conducts the training?*

-   *Do other board members, in addition to youth, receive training on
    effective board participation?\**

> (PMA) (ST)

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Identifying, Assessing and Serving 

# Youth/Y-w-D

# Identifying, Assessing and Serving Youth/Y-w-D

5.  Did you have any changes in youth service providers under WIA and
    how has that impacted the type of services and the provisions of
    services to youth/Y-w-D? (PMA) (ST)

6.  What strategies are you using to reach in- school youth, at-risk
    youth, out-of-school youth and special populations including Y-w-D?
    Have there been any changes in the last year?

> *Probe:*

-   *Do you conduct different outreach strategies for different groups
    (e.g. those in foster care, juvenile justice systems, or with
    disabilities) of out of school youth?*

-   *What are those strategies and why do you feel they are needed?\**

-   *What specific and distinct role does the One-stop play in reaching
    in and out-of-school youth? \**

> (PMA-SP-YP - OS)

7.  How do you inquire or learn about a person's disability at intake,
    during assessment, or in providing services?

> *Probe:*

-   *Screening process for hidden disabilities?\**

-   *How is that information used? \**

-   *Who is it shared with? \**

-   *Are individuals with disabilities counseled about disability
    disclosure and its benefits/potential consequences? \**

-   *If so, who does this counseling, and at what point in the process?*

-   *What specific and distinct role does the One-Stop play in this
    process?\**

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

8.  What is included in the development of individualized plan? Academic
    and career interest assessments?

> *Probe:*

-   *Which academic assessment instruments? Who administers them?\**

-   *Which career and vocational interest assessments? Who administers
    them?\**

-   *Process for determining accommodations to be provided?*

-   *How do you document each young person's individual needs, assets
    and interests?*

-   *Have there been any changes in documentation over the last year?\**

-   *Biggest issue with assessment?*

-   *Development of specific goals and means to track the achievement of
    the goals?*

-   *What is done with this information?*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Any changes over the last year?*

-   *What role does the One-Stop play in development of an
    individualized plan? \**

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

9.  *Do you share assessment information across agencies?*

> Probe:

-   If yes, for what purposes is the information shared?\*

-   Who participates in sharing assessment information? \*

-   What types of assessment information is shared?\*

-   What unique role does the One-Stop play in the sharing process?\*

> *(PMA-SP-YP-OS)*

10. *What information do you have regarding the service mix for youth
    and Y-w-D within your community (or your organization)? SEE ATTACHED
    SERVICE ARRAY TABLE*

> *(PMA)*

11. *Tell me about your leadership activities as a part of the mandated
    services for youth?*

> Probe:

-   What are the changes in the content of leadership program services?
    Who initiated them? \*

-   How were you involved? *SEE ATTACHED LEADERSHIP QUESTIONAIRE*

> *(PMA-SP-YP-OS) (be sure to include leaders of other mandated
> partners)*

12. Are you able to access any "in-kind" services from mandated partner
    and/or other agencies?

> *Probe: For instance, co-located staff at no additional cost;
> transportation; shared facilities; other....*
>
> *(PMA-SP-YP)*

13. What services have you leveraged for organizations outside of your
    own? Have there been any changes in your ability to leverage
    services during the last year?

> *Probe:*

-   *For instance, do you work on eligibility for programs/services such
    as Ticket-to-Work, TANF support, mental health services, SCHIP
    participation, services of an independent living center, or services
    from an assistive technology center?*

> *(PMA-SP-YP)*

**[Professional Development]{.underline}**

**[Professional Development]{.underline}**

14. Over the last year, what changes have occurred in your professional
    development strategies?

> *Probe:*

-   *Are funds for professional development typically in the annual
    budget?\**

-   *Does the professional development portion of the budget vary much
    year to year?*

-   *How is the professional development or training agenda established
    from year to year?*

-   *Do youth practitioners have input into selecting what content will
    be covered by the professional development activities in which they
    will participate? \**

-   *What role, if any does feedback from your customers play in setting
    the training agenda? \**

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

15. *Over the last year have partner agencies had the opportunity to
    receive common training and technical assistance regarding
    effectively assessing and serving youth/Y-w-D?*

> Probe:

-   Do they train together.? \*

-   Who sponsored this training?

-   What staff is involved e.g. supervisors, direct service providers,
    etc.?\*

-   What topics were covered in the training?\*

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

16. Is staff turnover a barrier to establishing an ongoing professional
    development agenda/curriculum?

> *Probe:*

-   *What is the turnover rate among front line, youth practitioners and
    other personnel?\**

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

17. Are skill sets tied to a career path for your staff? If yes, how
    were those particular skills chosen? What are they?

> *Probe:*

-   *Do the skill sets for youth practitioners include criteria such as
    serving youth with special needs, assisting people with disabilities
    or knowledge of the youth "legal system" e.g. juvenile justice,
    child labor laws, civil rights etc?\**

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

18. In the last year, what training has your staff received regarding
    their serving persons with disabilities?

> *Probe:*

-   *If such training was provided \-- did it include how to assess and
    how to get information about making your programs, services,
    activities, facilities, equipment, technology, and communications
    accessible? \**

-   *Appropriate etiquette for working with persons with disabilities?
    \**

-   *How to identify difficult to recognize or "hidden" disabilities?
    \**

-   *If yes, samples of training curricula.*

-   *If no, where does the staff go to get such information?\**

> (PMA-SP-YP-OS)

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Data Collection and Data Sharing 

# Data Collection and Data Sharing

19. Over the last year, what changes in quantity and/or type of data
    shared between mandated partner agencies have occurred?

> *Probe: Any data sharing with any other agencies?*
>
> (PMA)

20. Over the last year, what attention has been given to collecting data
    about Y-w-D that adequately represents the number of people served
    and the types of services in which they participated?

> *Probe: Does ETS's or other agency's data collection requirements
> present a barrier(s) to collecting data on Y-w-D?\**
>
> (PMA)

21. How do you use the data you collect to make key decisions?

> (PMA-ST)

22. What are you doing to develop a common, state-wide data collection
    system or meshing a variety of systems that may exist across the
    state into one system?

> (ST)

#  

**[Measuring Performance]{.underline}**

**[Measuring Performance]{.underline}**

23. Last year one of the key observations that was made in each of the
    sites was the importance of setting and maintaining an environmental
    tone of "high expectations" for all youth. Can you provide examples
    of anything that has occurred in the past year that is directly
    related to the community's or your organization setting and
    maintaining a high expectations culture?

> (PMA-SP)

24. What data do you see and how do you use it? Any changes in the last
    year?

> (YP)

25. How do you use data to improve performance. Any changes in the last
    year?

> (PMA-SP)

26. Over the past year how have you used data to change services to
    youth/Y-w-D? How are these changes different from the previous year?
    Any new issues with which you are dealing?

> *Probe:*

-   *Has any attention been given to collecting data about Y-w-D? If
    not, why? \**

-   *What are the key barriers to doing so? \**

> (PMA-SP)

27. During the last year the DOL has begun to implement new Common
    Measures of Performance. What effect do you anticipate these
    measures will have in terms of providing services to Y-w-D?

> *Probe:*

-   *Positive effects..*

-   *Most problematic to serve "at-risk" populations. \**

-   *How to assure that creaming won't occur?*

> (PMA-SP)

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Fiscal Issues 

# Fiscal Issues

28. Identify the number of funding sources over which you have lead
    oversight responsibility? What are they? How many other sources of
    funds do you have a "significant management role" in terms of
    setting priorities for their use (e.g. setting RFP criteria)?

> *Probe:*

-   *For instance, WIA Titles I, II, IV, TANF, Carl Perkins, local or
    state specific support (non-federal), private or corporate support,
    other?*

-   *Do any of these funding sources directly focus on services to Y-w-D
    and if so how do these resources influence your own strategic
    planning and priority setting processes?\**

-   *How much funding are you getting specifically to serve Y-w-D? \**

> *(PMA )*

29. Over the last year, has there been any law or rule that impacted the
    flexibility you have regarding the use funds, other than WIA funds,
    for services for youth/Y-w-D?

> *Probe:*

-   *For instance, any specific Federal rule or policy, state policy,
    WIB policy?\**

-   *What sources are used for flexibility?*

-   *Which source of funds do you find the most "flexible" to support
    youth/Y-w-D and why?\**

> (SP-YP)

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

30. Over the past year what changes been made in local or state policy
    regarding eligibility criteria (e.g. family of one, use of
    non-income capped dollars, use of locally refined definitions of
    eligibility)?

> *Probe:*

-   *What about 5% (local leeway monies) or state 15% (off the top,
    highly flexible) funds? \**

-   *Use of IDEA eligibility criteria, VR, etc\**

> (PMA)

31. Do you access services that are not dependent on income eligibility?

> *Probe:*

-   *If so, who provides them and what are they? \**

-   *How do you access them?*

-   *Are they frequently utilized or only utilized in a limited way?*

> (PMA)

32. Do you access funding that is not dependent on income eligibility?

> *Probe:*

-   *If so, who provides it? \**

-   *How do you access it?*

-   *Is it frequently utilized or only utilized in a limited way?*

> (PMA)

33. Do you have funding to serve non-categorically eligible youth/Y-w-D?

> (PMA)
>
> **[Engaging Employers]{.underline}**
>
> **[Engaging Employers]{.underline}**

34. What changes, if any, have occurred in terms of engaging employers?
    Have any materials been developed to assist employers (and their
    employees) in working with youth and Y-w-D specifically? If so, are
    these materials widely used by One-Stops, Job developers, and youth
    serving organizations? School-based programs? Do employers
    participate in the design of services provided to youth and Y-w-D?
    If so, how?

> *Probe:*

-   *Do employers actively participate in planning bodies regarding
    services to youth/Y-w-D? \**

-   *How are they identified/selected?*

-   *Are there examples of employer input that has led to particular
    decisions around services to youth/Y-w-D?\**

> (PMA-SP-YP)

35. Have there been any changes in the way(s) the job developer team
    supports employers in hiring and supporting employees with
    disabilities?

> *Probe:*

-   *Do they have knowledge in the specific impact of a wide range of
    disabilities on potential job performance and needed
    accommodations?*

-   *Are there a wide range of employer based experiential learning
    opportunities such as job shadowing, internships etc...?\**

> (PMA-SP-YP)

36. What information do you share with potential employers or employment
    related service providers about a person's disability?

> (PMA-SP-YP)
>
> **Please complete the attached "Employer Support Services"
> questionnaire.**(SP-YP)
>
> **Communication/Coordination among Partners**

**[Communication/Coordination among Partners]{.underline}**

37. In what ways have relationships changed over the last year with both
    mandated and non-mandated partners?

> *Probe:*

-   *Any new resource sharing, support services, training
    opportunities?\**

-   *How have these changes (if any) altered/enhanced joint case
    management at the front-line level?*

> (PMA-SP)

38. Have there been any changes in your relationship with schools?

> *Probe:*

-   *Are there examples of new collaborations with schools?\**

-   *Are there barriers in collaborating with schools? Any new
    barriers?\**

> (PMA-SP)

**Accessibility and Assistive Technology**

**[Accessibility and Assistive Technology]{.underline}**

39. Over the last year have there been changes to your programs,
    services and activities to make them fully accessible to and useable
    by people with disabilities?

> *Probe:*

-   *Have there been any changes or new outreach initiatives to let
    people know that your program is fully accessible?* \*

-   *How do you let people know that your program is fully accessible?*

> (SP-OS)

40. Have there been any changes to your physical facility (ies) such as
    path of travel, water fountains, restrooms, public work areas
    (desks, tables).

> *Probe: Is your site located on a route accessible through the public
> transit system? \**
>
> (SP-OS)

41. Have there been any changes to your methods of communication with
    the public and your customers with disabilities?

> *Probe:*

-   *How do you arrange to communicate with deaf and hearing impaired
    customers? \**

-   *Are all your videos captioned? \**

-   *Do you have a TTY/TDD? How do you assure your information and
    materials are accessible to people who are blind and visually
    impaired? \**

-   *Are your on-site computers accessible through software such as
    Dragon Speak or other text reader? \**

-   *Is your website accessible? \**

-   *If so, what standards did you use?\**

> (SP-OS)

42. Are there new or additional assistive technologies available onsite
    for customers with disabilities? What are they?

> *Probe: Does staff know how to locate assistive technologies when they
> are needed?\**
>
> (SP-OS)

43. How are you funding the provision of assistive technology?

> *Probe: Sources?\**
>
> (SP-OS)

44. During this past year the DOL's Office of Civil Rights released a
    "188"Checklist. Have you seen the checklist? Has that Checklist been
    used to help the youth service delivery system refine its services
    for Y-w-D?

> *Probe: If so, please describe how. Was any specific training provided
> on how to use the checklist? \**
>
> (PMA-ST-OS-SP-YP)

## 

**YOUTH LONGITUDINAL PROTOCOL**

**[Youth Protocol]{.underline}**

[Interviewer:]{.underline} [Date:]{.underline}

[Location:]{.underline}

Age of consumer:

Youth ID#:

Name:

**[Section 1.]{.underline}**

1\. Is there one person who will always know how to reach you?

Relationship to you?

Name:

Address:

(include zip code)

Phone:

Cell:

Email:

2\. Please provide the name of another person who will always know how
to reach you:

Relationship to you?

Name:

Address:

(include zip code)

Phone:

Cell:

Email:

3\. Current living arrangement:

Where do you live?

With whom?

What are your current living expenses?

What do you pay for?

4\. Current Status: In school Completed school Did not complete

5\. Enrolled in postseconsary training?

6\. How long has the consumer been accessing services?

7\. Disability?

> **[Section 2]{.underline}**

8.  How did you find out about this agency?

9.  Why did you go to it?

> *Probe: What were you expecting to receive from this agency?*

10. Did it meet your needs? Why/Why not?

11. How were you treated? Explain.

12. What did you like about your experience? Why?

13. What did you dislike? Why?

14. Would you recommend this agency to friends? Why/Why not?

> **[Section 3a]{.underline}**

15\. Current Status: *(if out of school skip to section 3b)*

In school?

Where?

Grade?

16\. Have you received any help at school so you can do your best?

(Some examples: extra time, extra help, sit in front of the room etc)

Can you describe the help you got?

17\. Has a teacher helped you to identify future goals and develop a
plan to get the information, experience and services that will help you
work and go to school after you graduate?

18\. Were your parents or guardian involved in developing the plan?

19\. What grade were you in when the plan was written?

20\. What were your goals and did the plan help you reach your goals?

21\. Did other organizations or people from outside of your school help
you develop your plan?

**[Section 3b]{.underline}**

OR:

22\. Out of school?

Completed high school? Y\_\_\_\_ N \_\_\_\_\_

Diploma? Y \_\_\_\_\_ N \_\_\_\_\_ Certificate? Y \_\_\_\_\_ N
\_\_\_\_\_

Did not complete (last grade completed):

23\. Did you receive any help at school so you could do your best?

(Some examples: extra time, extra help, sit in front of the room etc)

Can you describe the help you got?

24\. Did a teacher ever help you to identify future goals and develop a
plan to get the information, experience and services that will help you
work and go to school after you graduate?

25\. If yes, were your parents or guardian involved in developing the
plan? *(if no, skip to question #30)*

26\. What grade were you in when the plan was written?

27\. What were your goals and did the plan help you reach your goals?

28\. Did other organizations or people from outside of your school help
you develop your plan?

29\. Did you use the services of any other organizations? What services
did you use?

30\. Are you currently working on getting your GED?

31\. Are you in a program that is helping you prepare to reach your
goals?

If yes, who told you about the program?

31\. Is there anything that affects your ability to go to school or
participate in class? Can you describe?

32\. Is there anything that affects your ability to work? Can you
describe?

(Some examples: getting to work, following directions, needing help to
perform tasks, etc)

33\. Is there anything that affects your ability to be independent? Can
you describe?

34\. Do you receive Social Security Benefits? *(if no, skip to question
#36)*

If so, have you ever decided against going to work because you were
afraid of losing them?

35\. Has anyone ever helped you to figure out how to keep them and still
work?

If yes, who?

36\. What are your long-term goals?

(Some examples: finish your education, get additional
education/training, live in an apartment, etc)

37\. What type of job/career are you interested in? How did you decide
on that job/career?

# 38. If you and your teachers developed a plan while you were in school, was this job/career a part of it? 

39\. How did you find out what working as a \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ involves?

40\. How did you find out what types of skills and abilities an employer
wants you to have?

41\. Are you enrolled in an education/training program so you can get a
job as \_\_\_\_\_\_\_? Yes No

42\. If yes, what are you studying/type of training?

Where?

When will you be done with your education/training?

43 .Do you pay for it?

If not, do you know who does?

(Some examples: parent/guardian, vocational rehabilitation counselor,
Ticket to Work, student loan, Individual Training Account, scholarship,
etc.)

44\. How did you find out about the services offered by
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_? (insert name of program identified
by LWIB)

45\. Why did you want to participate in this program? What did you hope
to achieve?

46\. Does your family know about this program?

Has anyone from the program told them how they can help you to succeed
in this program?

Was your family invited to an orientation to learn about the program and
how they could support your efforts, including coordination of benefits
and services?

**[Section 4]{.underline}**

**Did the program:**

47\. Provide tutoring?

[]{.mark}

*Career Development activities such as:*

48\. Help you identify what types of activities or work you are
interested in doing?

49\. Help you to learn about your abilities, skills, interests and
readiness for employment?

50\. Help you explore different careers with you and how you can prepare
for them?

51\. Arrange for you to observe someone doing a job that interests you?

52\. Arrange for you to interview someone doing a job that interests
you?

53\. Arrange for you to work for a short time in a job that interests
you (paid or unpaid)?

*Job Seeking Skills Training such as:*

Help you develop a resume?

54\. Teach you how to find a job?

55\. Help you learn about how to interview for a job?

56\. Teach you how, why and when to tell a boss that you may need some
help at work or a flexible schedule or anything else such as special
equipment that you may need to help you do your best at work?

57\. Help you learn how to speak up for what you need?

58\. Help you learn about different laws that protect you at work and at
school?

Did the program:

59\. Provide a Mentor?

60\. Help you get a job?

61\. Check in with you to make sure you\'re doing ok at work?

62\. Help you get any special equipment to do your job and learn how to
use it?

63\. Refer you to a training program?

64\. How has this program helped you to achieve your goals?

65\. How long have you been using their services?

66\. Is there anything else they could do to assist you?

67\. Is there anything else you need to achieve your goals that they
cannot help you with?

**[Section 5]{.underline}**

68\. Are any other programs currently assisting you to achieve your
goals? If yes,

What program?

How did you find out about it?

How are they assisting you (what services have been provided?) or how is
your participation helping you to achieve your goals

**[Section 6]{.underline}**

Employment information:

69\. Are you currently employed? *(if not currently employed, skip to
question #84)*

Name of employer:

Date of hire?

Hours per week?

70\. Are these hours the number you want to work?

71\. What is your job?

72\. What are your duties?

73\. What is your salary?

74\. Does your job provide any benefits? (examples of benefits include:
sick leave, vacation, health insurance, etc.)

75\. If you don\'t receive health insurance benefits through your job,
are you covered by your parent\'s insurance plan or some other plan?
(this can include a government plan like Medicare)

76\. How do you get to work?

77\. Did the program (name of program) help you find your job?

78\. Did you need any help or equipment to be able to perform your job?

79\. Who helped you get the help or equipment you need?

80\. Have you needed any assistance to keep your job?

f yes, what did (name of program) do to help?

(Examples: someone to help you learn the job, someone to support you on
the job, linkages with any other community based organizations,
equipment, equipment to help you do your job, benefits planning,
transportation, health care, counseling, etc)

81\. Is there a possibility that you could be promoted where you are
working? What job would you be promoted to?

Will you need any training to be able to do that job?

What type of training?

Where can you go for training?

Do you need help to find that training?

Who will pay for training?

If you cannot pay for training, who can help you find a way to pay for
training?

82\. Will you require any help or equipment to do that job?\
Please describe:

Who will provide it?

83\. Are there any other jobs you\'d like to do at your workplace?

What are they?

Will you need any additional education or training to qualify for them?

If you are not currently working but you have previous work experience:

84\. Why aren't you working?

(Examples: don\'t want to lose benefits, going to school, personal
choice, transportation, disability-related such as need special
equipment, laid off/terminated, etc)

Please provide the following information about your previous jobs:

85\. Employer?

86\. How long did you work there?

87\. What did you do?

88\. What was your salary?

89\. Why did you leave?

**APPENDIX B**

**SITE CONTEXTUAL PROFILES**

**RHODE ISLAND**

**Disability and Education**

Level of educational attainment was strongly associated with disability

prevalence. Respondents who attained higher levels of education were
much

less likely to have a disability.

37.7% of Rhode Island adults without a high school diploma had a
disability, whereas 13.8% of college graduates had a disability.

The pattern remained the same for the prevalence of severe disability;
12.6%

of those who did not finish high school had a severe disability,
compared

with only 3.0% of those who had a college degree.

Although the prevalence of disability decreased progressively as
educational

level increased, the greatest differences were seen between those who
had notfinished high school and those who finished high school. This
pattern

remained basically unchanged even when age differences across
educational

levels were taken into account.

**Persons who have not finished their high school education were twice**

**more likely to have disabilities than persons who have finished their
high school education.**

**SOURCE:**

**RHODE ISLAND DISABILITY CHARTBOOK**

**Findings from an Analysis of**

**the 1998 Rhode Island**

**Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System**

**June, 2000**

**Disability and Health Program**

**Rhode Island Department of Health**

Special Education (Part B)

All data about special education following on this page are from DANS.
\[U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs,
Data Analysis System (DANS).\]

Number of children served under IDEA

3-5 years old 2,692

6-17 years old 27,821

18-21 years old 1,303

Percentage of 6-17 enrollment served under IDEA 17.6

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school with
a diploma 65

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school by
dropping out 29

Number of special education teachers for students ages 6-21 1,738

Percentage of fully certified special education teachers for students
ages 6-21 98

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Special Education and the National
Population, Ages 6-21: 2001

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
  White (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                79.6

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   76.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Black (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                6.3

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   6.4
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Hispanic                                                         

  Special education                                                12.2

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   12.9
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  American Indian/Alaska Native                                    

  Special education                                                0.7

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   0.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                           

  Special education                                                1.2

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   3.5
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Distribution of Special Education Students in Different Educational
Environments: 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Outside regular classroom less than 21% of time (46.1%)

  Outside regular classroom between 21 and 60% of time (20.1%)

  Outside regular classroom more than 60% of time (27.9%)

  Separate facilities\* (6.0%)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

#### \*Includes public facility, private facility, public residential facility, private residential facility, and home/hospital environment.

Geographic Area: **Rhode Island U. S. Census 2000**

+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| **DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED  |     |   |
| POPULATION**                                              |     |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| > **Population 5 to 20 years**                            | **  | * |
|                                                           | 234 | * |
|                                                           | ,28 | 1 |
|                                                           | 7** | 0 |
|                                                           |     | 0 |
|                                                           |     | . |
|                                                           |     | 0 |
|                                                           |     | * |
|                                                           |     | * |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| With a disability                                         | 21, | 9 |
|                                                           | 713 | . |
|                                                           |     | 3 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
|                                                           |     |   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| > **Population 21 to 64 years**                           | **  | * |
|                                                           | 589 | * |
|                                                           | ,70 | 1 |
|                                                           | 5** | 0 |
|                                                           |     | 0 |
|                                                           |     | . |
|                                                           |     | 0 |
|                                                           |     | * |
|                                                           |     | * |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| With a disability                                         | 1   | 1 |
|                                                           | 16, | 9 |
|                                                           | 305 | . |
|                                                           |     | 7 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| > Percent employed                                        | 5   | \ |
|                                                           | 8.4 | ( |
|                                                           |     | X |
|                                                           |     | \ |
|                                                           |     | ) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| No disability                                             | 4   | 8 |
|                                                           | 73, | 0 |
|                                                           | 400 | . |
|                                                           |     | 3 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+
| > Percent employed                                        | 7   | \ |
|                                                           | 9.4 | ( |
|                                                           |     | X |
|                                                           |     | \ |
|                                                           |     | ) |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+-----+---+

**GEORGIA**

**[Special Education]{.underline}**

All data about special education on this page are from DANS. \[U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data
Analysis System (DANS).\]

Number of children served under IDEA

3-5 years old 17,709

6-17 years old 155,005

18-21 years old 5,525

Percentage of 6-17 enrollment served under IDEA 10.5

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school with
a diploma 19

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school by
dropping out 57

Number of special education teachers for students ages 6-21 10,901

Percentage of fully certified special education teachers for students
ages 6-21 96

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Special Education and the National
Population, Ages 6-21: 2001

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
  White (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                55.8

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   56.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Black (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                39.8

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   34.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Hispanic                                                         

  Special education                                                3.4

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   6.4
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  American Indian/Alaska Native                                    

  Special education                                                0.1

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   0.2
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                           

  Special education                                                0.9

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   2.2
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Distribution of Special Education Students in Different Educational
Environments: 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Outside regular classroom less than 21% of time (36.2%)

  Outside regular classroom between 21 and 60% of time (35.1%)

  Outside regular classroom more than 60% of time (26.7%)

  Separate facilities\* (2.0%)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

\*Includes public facility, private facility, public residential
facility, private residential facility, and home/hospital environment.

Geographic Area: **Georgia**

  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
  **DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED                   
  POPULATION**                                                              

  **Population 5 to 20 years**                              **1,914,727**   **100.0**

  With a disability                                         157,923         8.2

                                                                             

  **Population 21 to 64 years**                             **4,732,912**   **100.0**

  With a disability                                         940,344         19.9

  Percent employed                                          57.3            \(X\)

  No disability                                             3,792,568       80.1

  Percent employed                                          77.6            \(X\)
  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------

**U. S. Census 2000**

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### 

#### NEW YORK

#### Educational Attainment Distribution 

The disability subgroups varied in the distribution of highest
educational level attained. In general, those with disabilities were a
less-educated subgroup than the rest of the population. Nearly a third
(32.5%) of those with no disabilities reported being college graduates,
compared to 24.4% of those with a disability needing no assistance and
17.6% of those needing assistance. About a quarter (26.1%) of those
needing assistance reported having less than a high school education.

**People with disabilities were proportionately less likely to be
college graduates and more likely to have less than a high school
education.**

![](media/image1.png){width="4.469444444444444in"
height="3.2694444444444444in"}

# SOURCE: Chartbook on Disability in New York State, 1998 - 2000

## Demographic Characteristics by Disability Status

Special Education (Part B)

All data about special education following on this page are from DANS.
\[U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs,
Data Analysis System (DANS).\]

Number of children served under IDEA

3-5 years old 53,313

6-17 years old 364,975

18-21 years old 21,944

Percentage of 6-17 enrollment served under IDEA 12.7

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school with
a diploma 37

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school by
dropping out 43

Number of special education teachers for students ages 6-21 40,264

Percentage of fully certified special education teachers for students
ages 6-21 75

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Special Education and the National
Population, Ages 6-21: 2001

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
  White (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                53.6

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   56.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Black (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                23.8

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   18.5
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Hispanic                                                         

  Special education                                                19.9

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   19.0
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  American Indian/Alaska Native                                    

  Special education                                                0.6

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   0.4
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                           

  Special education                                                2.2

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   5.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Distribution of Special Education Students in Different Educational
Environments: 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Outside regular classroom less than 21% of time (49.5%)

  Outside regular classroom between 21 and 60% of time (12.9%)

  Outside regular classroom more than 60% of time (29.8%)

  Separate facilities\* (7.8%)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

\*Includes public facility, private facility, public residential
facility, private residential facility, and home/hospital environment.

Geographic Area: **New York**

+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| **DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN                    |        |   |
| NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION**                      |        |   |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| > **Population 5 to 20 years**                         | *      | * |
|                                                        | *4,197 | * |
|                                                        | ,977** | 1 |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
|                                                        |        | . |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
|                                                        |        | * |
|                                                        |        | * |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| With a disability                                      | 3      | 8 |
|                                                        | 70,856 | . |
|                                                        |        | 8 |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
|                                                        |        |   |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| > **Population 21 to 64 years**                        | **     | * |
|                                                        | 10,932 | * |
|                                                        | ,732** | 1 |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
|                                                        |        | . |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
|                                                        |        | * |
|                                                        |        | * |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| With a disability                                      | 2,2    | 2 |
|                                                        | 94,611 | 1 |
|                                                        |        | . |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| > Percent employed                                     | 54.1   | \ |
|                                                        |        | ( |
|                                                        |        | X |
|                                                        |        | \ |
|                                                        |        | ) |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| No disability                                          | 8,6    | 7 |
|                                                        | 38,121 | 9 |
|                                                        |        | . |
|                                                        |        | 0 |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+
| > Percent employed                                     | 74.1   | \ |
|                                                        |        | ( |
|                                                        |        | X |
|                                                        |        | \ |
|                                                        |        | ) |
+--------------------------------------------------------+--------+---+

**U. S. Census 2000**

**ARIZONA**

Special Education (Part B)

All data about special education on this page are from DANS. \[U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data
Analysis System (DANS).\]

Number of children served under IDEA

3-5 years old 9,906

6-17 years old 86,788

18-21 years old 4,192

Percentage of 6-17 enrollment served under IDEA 9.4

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school with
a diploma, 2000-01† 42

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school by
dropping out† 56

Number of special education teachers for students ages 6-21 5,632

Percentage of fully certified special education teachers for students
ages 6-21 88

†Arizona did not report any students receiving a certificate of
completion.

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Special Education and the National
Population, Ages 6-21: 2001

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
  White (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                51.8

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   52.7
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Black (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                6.0

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   3.7
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Hispanic                                                         

  Special education                                                33.1

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   34.8
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  American Indian/Alaska Native                                    

  Special education                                                8.1

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   6.9
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                           

  Special education                                                1.0

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   1.9
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Distribution of Special Education Students in Different Educational
Environments: 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Outside regular classroom less than 21% of time (48.2%)

  Outside regular classroom between 21 and 60% of time (31.3%)

  Outside regular classroom more than 60% of time (17.6%)

  Separate facilities\* (2.8%)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

\*Includes public facility, private facility, public residential
facility, private residential facility, and home/hospital environment.

**Geographic Area: Arizona**

  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
  **DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED  ** **           ** **
  POPULATION**                                                              

  **Population 5 to 20 years**                              **1,199,960**   **100.0**

  **With a disability**                                     **95,958**      **8.0**

  ** **                                                     ** **           ** **

  **Population 21 to 64 years**                             **2,813,449**   **100.0**

  **With a disability**                                     **546,773**     **19.4**

  **Percent employed**                                      **56.9**        **(X)**

  **No disability**                                         **2,266,676**   **80.6**

  **Percent employed**                                      **74.2**        **(X**
  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------

**U. S. Census 2000**

**IOWA**

Special Education (Part B)

All data about special education on this page are from DANS. \[U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data
Analysis System (DANS).\]

Number of children served under IDEA

3-5 years old 5,487

6-17 years old 64,100

18-21 years old 3,497

Percentage of 6-17 enrollment served under IDEA 13.2

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school with
a diploma 56

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school by
dropping out 40

Number of special education teachers for students ages 6-21 5,373

Percentage of fully certified special education teachers for students
ages 6-21 89

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Special Education and the National
Population, Ages 6-21: 2001

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
  White (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                88.8

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   91.1
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Black (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                6.3

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   3.0
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Hispanic                                                         

  Special education                                                3.4

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   4.0
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  American Indian/Alaska Native                                    

  Special education                                                0.6

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   0.4
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                           

  Special education                                                0.8

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   1.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Distribution of Special Education Students in Different Educational
Environments: 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Outside regular classroom less than 21% of time (45.2%)

  Outside regular classroom between 21 and 60% of time (36.2%)

  Outside regular classroom more than 60% of time (14.8%)

  Separate facilities\* (3.8%)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

\*Includes public facility, private facility, public residential
facility, private residential facility, and home/hospital environment.

**Geographic Area: Iowa**

  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
  **DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED  ** **           ** **
  POPULATION**                                                              

  **Population 5 to 20 years**                              **680,631**     **100.0**

  **With a disability**                                     **49,880**      **7.3**

  ** **                                                     ** **           ** **

  **Population 21 to 64 years**                             **1,602,398**   **100.0**

  **With a disability**                                     **244,183**     **15.2**

  **Percent employed**                                      **63.0**        **(X)**

  **No disability**                                         **1,358,215**   **84.8**

  **Percent employed**                                      **84.0**        **(X)**
  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------

**U. S. Census 2000**

**WASHINGTON**

Special Education (Part B)

All data about special education on this page are from DANS. \[U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data
Analysis System (DANS).\]

Number of children served under IDEA

3-5 years old 11,881

6-17 years old 103,950

18-21 years old 5,139

Percentage of 6-17 enrollment served under IDEA 10.3

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school with
a diploma 48

Percentage of students with disabilities ages 14-21 exiting school by
dropping out 44

Number of special education teachers for students ages 6-21 4,719

Percentage of fully certified special education teachers for students
ages 6-21 99

Racial/Ethnic Composition of Special Education and the National
Population, Ages 6-21: 2001

  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
  White (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                74.1

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   76.4
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Black (not Hispanic)                                             

  Special education                                                7.3

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   4.2
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Hispanic                                                         

  Special education                                                10.6

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   10.8
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  American Indian/Alaska Native                                    

  Special education                                                3.9

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   1.9
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   

  Asian/Pacific Islander                                           

  Special education                                                4.1

  National population \[U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates   6.6
  Program, Population Estimates for 2001, released October 2003;   
  http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/files/STC4-6R.txt.\]   
  ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Distribution of Special Education Students in Different Educational
Environments: 2000

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Outside regular classroom less than 21% of time (48.7%)

  Outside regular classroom between 21 and 60% of time (34.6%)

  Outside regular classroom more than 60% of time (15.5%)

  Separate facilities\* (1.2%)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

\*Includes public facility, private facility, public residential
facility, private residential facility, and home/hospital environment.

**Geographic Area: Washington**

  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------
  **DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN NONINSTITUTIONALIZED  ** **           ** **
  POPULATION**                                                              

  **Population 5 to 20 years**                              **1,355,830**   **100.0**

  **With a disability**                                     **103,962**     **7.7**

  ** **                                                     ** **           ** **

  **Population 21 to 64 years**                             **3,399,917**   **100.0**

  **With a disability**                                     **606,589**     **17.8**

  **Percent employed**                                      **57.6**        **(X)**

  **No disability**                                         **2,793,328**   **82.2**

  **Percent employed**                                      **78.1**        **(X)**
  --------------------------------------------------------- --------------- -----------

**U. S. Census 2000**

**Industries with the** **Most Openings** **by MSA -- May 2004 (number
in cell indicates industry ranking up to ten)**

  ------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
  OCCUPATION                AZ      GA      IA      NY      RI      WA

  Office and administrative 1       1       1       1       1       1
  support occupations                                               

  Sales and related         2       3       3       2       2       2
  occupations                                                       

  Food preparation and      3       5       4       5       4       3
  serving related                                                   
  occupations                                                       

  Production occupations    9       4       2       4       3       4

  Transportation and        8       2       5       6       6       6
  material moving                                                   
  occupations                                                       

  Education, training, and  4       7       6       3       5       7
  library occupations                                               

  Healthcare practitioners  6       9       7       7       7       8
  and technical occupations                                         

  Management occupations    7       10      10      10      8       

  Construction and          5       6       8       9       9       5
  extraction occupations                                            

  Installation,             10      8       9       8               10
  maintenance, and repair                                           
  occupations                                                       

  Business and financial                                    10      
  operations occupations                                            

  Building and grounds                                              
  cleaning and maintenance                                          
  occupations                                                       

  Healthcare support                                                
  occupations                                                       

  Personal care and service                                         9
  occupations                                                       

  Protective service                                                
  occupations                                                       

  Computer and mathematical                                         
  occupations                                                       

  Architecture and                                                  
  engineering occupations                                           

  Community and social                                              
  services occupations                                              

  Arts, design,                                                     
  entertainment, sports,                                            
  and media occupations                                             

  Life, physical, and                                               
  social science                                                    
  occupations                                                       

  Legal occupations                                                 

  Farming, fishing, and                                             
  forestry occupations                                              
  ------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

**Occupations with the** **Most Openings** **by MSA -- May 2004 number
in cell indicates occupation ranking up to fifteen**

  ------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
  OCCUPATION                AZ      GA      IA      NY\*    RI      WA

  Retail salespersons       1       2       1       1       1       1

  Cashiers                  2       1       2       2       2       2

  Office clerks, general    5       7       6       4       5       5

  Laborers and freight,             3       11      11      6       7
  stock, and material                                               
  movers, hand                                                      

  Registered nurses         7               7       5       3       

  Waiters and waitresses    4       12      4       9       4       3

  Combined food preparation 6       8       3       15      10      4
  and serving workers,                                              
  including fast food                                               

  Janitors and cleaners,    10      9       5       3       11      8
  except maids and                                                  
  housekeeping cleaners                                             

  Customer service          3       14      9               12      
  representatives                                                   

  Bookkeeping, accounting,  11              10      8       7       6
  and auditing clerks                                               

  General and operations            6                       14      
  managers                                                          

  Secretaries, except               10      14      7       9       
  legal, medical, and                                               
  executive                                                         

  Stock clerks and order            15      8               13      13
  fillers                                                           

  Truck drivers, heavy and          4       12      14              10
  tractor-trailer                                                   

  Elementary school         8                                       14
  teachers, except special                                          
  education                                                         

  Executive secretaries and 9                       12              
  administrative assistants                                         

  First-line                14                              15      
  supervisors/managers of                                           
  office and administrative                                         
  support workers                                                   

  Sales representatives,                            10              
  wholesale and                                                     
  manufacturing, except                                             
  technical and scientific                                          
  products                                                          

  Nursing aides, orderlies, 15      5                       8       
  and attendants                                                    

  Maintenance and repair            11                              15
  workers, general                                                  

  Teacher assistants                        15      6               9

  Team assemblers                                                   

  First-line                                13                      
  supervisors/managers of                                           
  retail sales workers                                              

  Receptionists and                                                 
  information clerks                                                

  Secondary school                                                  
  teachers, except special                                          
  and vocational education                                          

  Accountants and auditors                                          

  Security guards                                                   

  Truck drivers, light or                                           
  delivery services                                                 

  Carpenters                12                                      12

  Maids and housekeeping    13                                      
  cleaners                                                          

  Packers and packagers,                                            
  hand                                                              

  Food preparation workers                                          

  Construction laborers             13                              11
  ------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------

\*: New York (Syracuse MSA) lists its #13 occupation as "Postsecondary
teachers, all other" which does not appear in the list of official SOC
occupations

**Unemployment Information for Sites**

+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| **Site      | **Un  |     | **   |      | **Un |       | **      |
| Name**      | emplo |     | Unem |      | empl |       | Percent |
|             | yment |     | ploy |      | oyme |       | Change  |
|             | R     |     | ment |      | nt** |       | from    |
|             | ate** |     | Rate |      |      |       | March   |
|             |       |     | M    |      | **M  |       | 2003 to |
|             | *     |     | SA** |      | SA** |       | March   |
|             | *Stat |     |      |      |      |       | 2004**  |
|             | e\*** |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
|             | June  | J   | June | June | June | June  |         |
|             | 2004  | une | 2004 | 2005 | 2004 | 2005  |         |
|             |       | 2   |      |      |      |       |         |
|             |       | 005 |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| Arizona     | 5.3 % | 4.6 | 5.8  | 4.8  | 2    | 19141 | -1.0 %  |
|             |       | %   | %    | %    | 0986 |       |         |
| (Tuscon     |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
| MSA)        |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| Georgia\    | 5.1 % | 5.6 | 5.8  | 6.2  | 4251 | 4634  | +0.4 %  |
| (Albany     |       | %   | %    | %    |      |       |         |
| MSA)        |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| Iowa        | 4.7 % | 4.4 | 4.8  | 4.6  | 4337 | 4180  | -0.2 %  |
|             |       | %   | %    | %    |      |       |         |
| (Waterloo   |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
| MSA)        |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| New York    | 5.9 % | 4.7 | 5.6  | 4.9  | 1    | 16287 | -0.7 %  |
|             |       | %   | %    | %    | 8401 |       |         |
| (Syracuse   |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
| MSA)        |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| Rhode       | 5.2 % | 4.8 | 5.6  | 5.1  | 3    | 36042 | -0.5 %  |
| Island      |       | %   |      | %    | 9088 |       |         |
|             |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
| (Providence |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
| MSA)        |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+
| Washington  | 6.3 % | 5.4 | 6.0  | 5.0  | 6053 | 5294  | -1.0%   |
|             |       | %   | %    | %    |      |       |         |
| (Bellingham |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
| MSA)        |       |     |      |      |      |       |         |
+-------------+-------+-----+------+------+------+-------+---------+

-   The National Unemployment Rate for July 2005 was 5.0%. All
    percentages are seasonally unadjusted.

**APPENDIX C**

**SITE REPORTS**

**ALBANY, GEORGIA CASE STUDY REPORT 2005**

*TransCen, Inc.*

**6/30/05**

**INTRODUCTION**

**I. GENERAL OVERVIEW**

Marianne Mooney and LaVerne Buchanan of TransCen, Inc. conducted the
case study site visit in Albany, GA on April 20-21, 2005. The visit was
coordinated by Suzanne Williams, the Youth Services Planner for this
region. The One-Stop area consists of 5 counties, the WIA region
consists of 14 counties, and 23 youth contracts are being implemented at
this time. The visit consisted of visits to the Albany Career Center
(One-Stop), the Georgia Department of Labor --Workforce Investment Board
(Camilla, GA), and two local high schools. The interviewers also visited
the HS/HT in-school business enterprise.

Interviews were conducted with eight adults- two One-Stop Managers
(Albany and Cairo), the WIB Executive Director, the Regional Youth
Services Planner, one Compliance Monitor (new position), one in-school
youth service provider, one out-of-school youth service provider, and a
VR Regional Assistant Director. Informal conversations were held with
the HS/HT teacher, the school-based enterprise coordinator and the WIA
program director and staff at the high schools. No Youth Council member
was interviewed because no Youth Council exists at this time. Six of the
eight adult interviewees were part of the site study last year. The
out-of-school youth service provider interviewed last year left that
position, and one high school teacher was on temporary leave. Two
Compliance Monitors were hired this year to oversee the youth and adult
programs, so one Monitor was interviewed.

Interviews were conducted with nine youth. Five youth were participants
in the HS/HT program at Westover High School, and four youth were
participants in a WIA program at Mitchell-Baker High School. Five of the
nine youth interviewed were interviewed last year.

**II. CONTEXT/CHANGES IN CONTEXT**

> a\. [Demographics of Geographic Region]{.underline}

*Unemployment*. Georgia's unemployment rate for April 2005 was 4.7%, as
compared with the April 2004 rate of 3.5%. The SW Georgia WIA Area's
unemployment rate for April 2005 was 4.9% as compared with the April
2004 rate of 3.8% and the 2003 unemployment rate of 6.3%. The
unemployment rate in this region of the state has been higher than the
state's rate every year since 1992. While the state unemployment rate
has risen by nine tenths of a percent over the past year, job growth has
declined by four tenths of a percent in the same period. The State Labor
Commissioner, Michael Thurmond, States," Annual job growth remains weak
throughout the state and there are currently 31,000 more unemployed
workers than at this time last year. We would prefer to see a decline in
the unemployment rate coupled with modest job growth."
([http://www.dol.state.ga.us](http://www.dol.stste.ga.us/).)

*Occupation Outlook*. Non-farm employment by industry shows minimal
change in employment during the past year. The majority of non-farm
occupations continue to be centered on the following industries:
service-providing; trade, transportation and warehousing; government;
goods-producing; professional and business services; manufacturing;
educational and health services and leisure and hospitality. Based on
long-term occupational projections (2002-2012), the top 15 occupations
with the most openings in WIA #17 are: cashiers; retail salespersons;
registered nurses; farmworkers and laborers; waiters and waitresses;
childcare workers; combined food preparation and serving workers
(including fast food); Laborers and freight, stock and material movers;
nursing aides and orderlies; team assemblers; janitors and cleaners;
general and operations managers; office clerks; stock clerks and order
fillers; and teacher assistants. The fastest growing occupations in WIA
#17 are security guards, correctional officers, nursing aides and
orderlies, helpers (production workers); receptionists and information
clerks, registered nurses, team assemblers, childcare workers, food
preparation workers, combined food preparation and serving workers;
waiters and waitresses; cashiers' janitors and cleaners; teachers
assistants; and maintenance and repair workers. The education, health,
social service and manufacturing industries employ the greatest
percentage of workers in Region 10 and the state (GA DOL, 2005). SW
Georgia is a chief producer of agricultural products including peanuts
and pecans. Southwest Georgia is also a principal producer of food and
kindred products, apparel and other textile mill products, and lumber
and wood products.

*Population Characteristics*. The population growth rate in Region 10
over the past decade was the second lowest in the state. Region 10's
residents were older than the population statewide. More than 12% of the
region's population was at least 65 years old. Region 10 also has the
highest dependency ratio (younger than 18 and 65 and older) in the state
at 67.0%. Region 10 consists of a smaller percentage of White residents,
Asian residents and Hispanic residents than the state, and a larger
percentage of Blacks. Seventeen percent of all families in Region 10 are
living in poverty, compared with 10% of families in Georgia. Eighty
percent of Region 10 is defined as a "lagging rural" area- performing at
or below average on economic and social indicators. Thirteen of 14
counties in Region 10 are classified as persistent poverty. One-third of
the workers residing in Region 10 worked in another state or in another
county within the state (Housing and Demographics Research Center,
University of Georgia, 2003).

*Defining Boundaries*. This WIA area (#17), also known as the Region 10
service delivery region, includes the 14 counties of SW Georgia in and
around the city of Albany and 46 municipalities. Region 10 is located in
the southwest quadrant of the state. Region 10 is bordered on the west
by Alabama and Florida to the south. It includes the following counties:
Baker, Calhoun, Colquitt, Decatur, Dougherty, Early, Grady, Lee, Miller,
Mitchell, Seminole, Terrell, Thomas and Worth. The largest city in
Region 10 is Albany (population 76, 939). The Albany One-Stop (Career
Center) serves 5 counties. As reported last year, the State Department
for Workforce Development is the Georgia Department of Labor (DOL).
Georgia DOL remains the fiscal agent, so WIA employee at the local level
-- such as staff of the WIB and One-Stop -- remain state employees.

**FINDINGS**

**I. LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS, INCLUDING YOUTH**

a.  [Policy Changes.]{.underline}

*Federal Changes*. The common performance measures reports are due to
the federal government by July. The interviewees commented on their
similarity to the WIA measures and questioned the value of reporting
both measures. The common measures reporting will require both mandated
and non-mandated partners to be more actively engaged as partners and
more performance-driven. Participation credit will not be awarded to any
partner until three quarters have passed, and this will impact all
partners having served each participant. Partners will be judged on
accountability, consistent performance, meeting requirements and common
measures. Participants must move up two grade levels (as compared to the
previous ½ grade level) to be counted as a success. Partners must
provide one year of service and one year of follow-up. The Regional
Youth Planner stated that she was "not sure who would benefit from these
changes." The Regional Assistant Director of VR indicated that each
region's counselors are now required to close more cases in order to
meet the federal level requirement. Performance measures are discussed
more fully later in this report.

*State* *Changes* . Most interviewees reported there had been no policy
changes related to youth issues, at the State level, since last year.
However, the new cost allocations will have a great impact. This impact
is more fully discussed in the Fiscal Issues section of this report. The
Regional Assistant Director of VR reported that there has been a strong
emphasis on social security benefits in the past few years. Also, as of
3-4 years ago VR staff now must be certified and credentialed.

*Local Changes*. The Regional Youth Services Planner reported an
internal policy change in regards to their supportive services policy.
This policy has provided funding for childcare, transportation, work
clothes and tools, exam fees, etc. for needy participants. "We've had to
gear that all back, real drastically too. We had to gear it way back
because of funding restrictions. For instance, we were open ended as to
how long we could pay for childcare. If they needed childcare for six
months it was fine but now we're limited to twelve weeks. A waiver
committee can listen to their cause and may be able to extend some
supportive services, but it will require a strong justification,"
explained the Regional Youth Services Planner.

At the Albany One-Stop Career Center, the unemployment claims are now
available on intranet. This helps the One-Stop customers become computer
literate and frees staff to work with customers on other issues. The
staff does help to train/coach the customers on using this new computer
program when needed.

b.  [Board Membership Changes.]{.underline}

In Camilla, the WIB membership was purged of inactive members and new
members were invited to join. This WIB has 12 of their 14 counties
represented- one more county (Ward County) than the previous year. WIB
members continue to bring in-kind services to the table, especially the
Board of Education. The WIB Director focuses on "working with employers
to provide on-the-job training, with a greater focus this year on
dislocated workers." The Camilla-based WIB has also started to use a
facilitator. The Albany WIB experienced no changes in its membership
this year.

c.  [Disability Representation; Youth Councils; Youth
    Participation.]{.underline}

Based on the interviews, it was ascertained that, as with the previous
year, there are no disability organizations serving on the WIB, and
there continued to be no Youth Council (YC) or youth participation on
the local Board.

**II. SUPPORT FOR IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND SERVING YOUTH WITH
DISABILITIES**

a.  [Changes in Service Providers.]{.underline}

There were changes in youth service providers for a variety of reasons.
Three programs (Phoebe Network of Trust, Moultrie Career Center, and The
Neutral Zone) were terminated because they were out of compliance:
perhaps due to low performance (low enrollment or low productivity)
and/or programmatic issues with personnel. The performance of one high
school WIA program director is being questioned and this program may be
dropped. Monitoring reports initiated probation for these providers,
made administrative requests for timely corrective actions within 3
months, and followed through with termination if actions were not
implemented necessary. The regional office ensures that students
continue to receive services in their area by another provider in the
area. For example, The Neutral Zone "slots' were given to Grady County
and DOL staff supervised the Moultrie Career Center participants until
the end of the school year. One contract, Pelham City Schools, chose not
to renew its services provision contract. The Boys and Girls Club
contracts will not be renewed due to funding restrictions.

The Directors of the Albany and Cairo One-Stops indicated no changes in
their youth services providers. The Albany site just completed an MOU
with the participating agencies for the upcoming year. The Albany
One-Stop won an award for being a good partner with Turner Job Corp this
past year. They are currently working closely with Turner Job Corp to
arrange transportation for students to the One-Stop on Fridays for the
upcoming school year.

b.  [New Youth Outreach Strategies]{.underline}.

The Cairo One-Stop Director cited a new initiative for this past year.
The first initiative, called GeorgiaWorks!, came from the State
Commissioner of Labor's office. The GeorgiaWorks! Program allows
individuals (both youth and adults) to draw unemployment and participate
in a job training program simultaneously. The hope is that the trainee
will be hired by this employer at the end of the training. According to
the One-Stop Director, "We've been very successful with this initiative.
In fact, at the latter part of last year we were one of only two offices
in the state that had already met our job placement goals. The majority
of participants found work or acquired additional skills which added to
their resumes to increase employment opportunities. The trainees that go
through the program and get involved in it have been very pleased. They
were able to build skills so that they could get out and sell themselves
and find a job."

While the on-line diploma program is not new this year, there have been
changes to the program and the venue.

The Cairo One-Stop has a certified teacher on staff to provide remedial
instruction and assessment. Approximately 15-20 youth have received a
diploma this year. This grant program has been funded for a third year
(July 1, 2005-June 30, 2006). This on-line diploma program has become
very popular- to the point that recruitment is no longer necessary. The
local school system has become quite interested in participating in this
program, so the next budget request includes an in-school program. The
One-Stop Director explains, ""The recruitment has changed. We no longer
have to get out and recruit for this program. We have more young people
coming to us wanting to participate than we've got slots. We work very
closely with the school system here. So when our new contract was
negotiated, we requested some in-school slots so that we could work with
those students that are enrolled in school but that the school system
knows will not graduate on time. So that is something new that we are
just now getting into. It's a win-win not only for our program and the
student it's also a win-win for the school system because they do not
have to withdraw them. Technically they would still be a high school
student so that would improve our graduation rates in Grady County."

The on-line diploma program has become so popular that they will be
close to maxing out their enrollments within the first few months of the
next fiscal year. The One-Stop staff is currently reviewing the status
of participants to determine who can be exited because they are employed
and not actually participating regularly in the program, or not meeting
the classroom time requirements. The Director states, "We are trying to
get our students in and out within six months. Some of them won't be
able to do it and some of them will be able to do it. For those that are
not able to achieve their goals within six months, we are providing them
some intensive services for the following six months. We've had that
problem in the past where they've hung around, year after year. They
started out participating and then their commitment just dropped. So if
they are not going to be committed to it, we do not have to saturate our
funding and hold those slots, we need to give it to somebody who is
dedicated to getting their high school diploma or GED and then getting a
job."

c.  [Disability Disclosure Process]{.underline}.

There were no changes from the previous year in the manner in which
staff inquired or learned about a customer's disability, whether at
intake, during assessment, or in the provision of services.

d.  [Assessment and Individualized Planning]{.underline}.

In this portion of the study, interviewees were asked to describe the
process for developing an individualized plan for customers and to
identify academic and career interest assessments used. Overall, there
have been no changes in the assessment and individualized planning
process since last year's report.

e.  [Information Sharing Across Agencies]{.underline}.

The information sharing process has not changed from the previous two
site visits.

f.  [Service Mix in Community]{.underline}.

Regarding the service mix for youth with and without disabilities, there
were no changes in the past two years.

g.  [Youth Leadership Activities]{.underline}.

In the past, the Cairo One-Stop staff has facilitated a series of
leadership workshops (LIFT) for youth that extended over several months.
Because of the high mobility of youth in this area and difficulty
getting persons to commit to a long-term activity, the career center has
condensed this leadership training into a 2-day (16-20 hours) workshop
over a Friday and Saturday. This has resulted in greater commitment from
participants, staff and outside speakers. The Cairo One-Stop Director
noted, "We are doing it back to back in a block format instead of
stretching it out so that we can keep the same people involved in it
from beginning to end. Time wise for the staff it's better because they
can block that time aside, and get any needed commitments from folks
outside the staff to present. The staff felt like they were getting
better participation and they were getting more bang for their buck. We
are willing to change anything so that we can get the better outcomes.
We use the suggestions from hands-on people- they know what works and
what doesn't."

h.  [In-kind and Leveraged Resources]{.underline}.

Regarding leveraging of services outside the LWIB, none of the
respondents cited examples. There seemed to be consensus that no
services were leveraged. This represented no change from last year's
report.

**III. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

> a\. [Changes in Professional Development Strategies]{.underline}.

The local DOL (Camilla) has provided on-going training on case
management to their service providers. This year, the trainings are in
response to findings from the compliance monitoring reports. The
Regional Youth Services Planner explained, "One of the findings that
came out of monitoring was that counseling notes were not real
effective. So, the DOL staff started doing a three-day training on
effective case management and effective counseling note writing. I think
the providers are getting tired of hearing from us, so we have been
doing some peer training too. We always do 3-day trainings at the
beginning of the contract year where we train all the new staff. We
separate out new staff and continuing staff and we do three days with
them. This year, I have done a lot of one-on-one technical assistance
because there have been some personnel turnovers in the provider
contracts. At least every three or four months we have some kind of
train whether its data collection (GWS), programmatic, or financial
issues. Normally training topics are selected in reaction to problems
that DOL is seeing - areas that we see are weak areas that need
strengthening."

VR has concentrated trainings this year on SSI- reimbursement and
Ticket-to-Work. VR strongly encourages counselors to assign tickets to
VR. They are coordinating with SSI and Medicaid benefits specialists to
do cross-training for VR staff and providers.

VR has also focused on transition-related trainings for VR staff and
school personnel. They educated youth, families, schools and employers
on how working can impact benefits and Medicaid specifically. They
informed the stakeholders about the move from the school system to the
adult agency world and about the PASS program. VR offered "lunch and
learn" sessions and evening workshops for parents but participation was
generally low.

The WIB Director has focused her staff development on the WIB-based
"canned" management reports now available from the state and compliance
monitoring reports on service providers. Employees have been sent to
WIB-focused trainings on how to pool the data for Southwest Georgia from
the state reports, and break it down by counties. This information is
then sent to the providers to assist them in managing and monitoring
their programs. The WIB Director explained, "For example, a report can
be pulled to see how many incentive payments have been made and how many
kids have received them. We know if they are not paying incentives, they
are not having high enrollments."

[]{.mark}

The WIB Director views this as an opportunity for service providers to
ask for and receive technical assistance from the DOL. The providers can
ask for technical assistance or the compliance monitors can offer
suggestions for technical assistance. "There has been some resistance
from providers but they have no choice. It's time to step up to the
plate. I don\'t want the service providers to think that this is a
gotcha type deal. I want them to know that we want them to be successful
and we want to offer whatever technical assistance they may need. Our
monitors are very good; they don't go in like the Mafia." Technical
assistance is available to help providers to make corrective actions
within 30 days to become compliant. This compliance process was
initiated by the WIB Director.

> b\. [Cross-Agency and Disability Training.]{.underline}

Co-training across agencies/contracts providing youth services is not
happening on a large scale. The Regional Youth Services Planner
indicated that cross-training will become essential soon in order to
address using the common measures. The One-Stop staff members at Cairo
continue to receive their technical assistance and training from the DOL
in Camilla.

Staff members at the Albany One-Stop participate regularly in the
state's training opportunities. Staff members register on-line and
attend sessions regularly on topics such as marketing, unemployment
insurance, veteran's benefits and disability issues. Many of the staff
attended the IAWP (International Association of Workforce Professionals)
trainings hosted for the district at Albany State. The IAWP provides
sessions as part of their Workforce Professionals Development Program.
Albany One-Stop staff are also participating in a training this July on
a new resource, Education Rocks, a CD available to high school guidance
counselors and career and technical education teachers on "hot jobs" in
Georgia. This CD was created by the Georgia DOL.

The VR staff attends continuous training opportunities provided through
the Georgia Association of VR Counselors, such as their annual
conference (part of the National Rehabilitation Association). The local
subchapter provides training on the role of the counselor and program
specialists. Staff received some training on disability-specific topics
such as spinal cord injury this year.

> c\. [Staff Turnover]{.underline}.

Both One-Stop Career Centers have had some personnel changes this year.
The Cairo One-Stop had 2 vacancies at the same time this year- the
director of the on-line diploma program and another provider. The
vacancies ran for 4 months and during this time, the One-Stop Director
and his staff kept the on-line diploma program running until the
positions were filled. "We picked up where we left off and just tried to
continue to do what the community needed. We learned a lot about the
program in those 4 months- the entire staff now understands the basics
of the program- which is a good thing," declared the Cairo One-Stop
Director.

The Albany One-Stop has 27 staff members. This Year, 2 staff retired-
one person has been replaced and interviewing for the other position is
in May. There has been no staff turnover for front-line staff this year.
This is typically a very stable staff.

> d\. [Staff Skill Sets]{.underline}.

No changes were evident in the skill sets expected of current and new
employees since last year's report.

**IV.** **DATA COLLECTION AND DATA SHARING**

a.  [Collection of New Data, Including Data on Youth with
    Disabilities]{.underline}.

It appears that new data have been added to the information management
system (GWS) described in last year's report. The WIB-focused reports
come straight off of DOL's GWS data entry system. The reports are based
on programmatic performance. Also, the new Compliance Monitors enter
data from their on-site visits into the system (i.e., completed customer
plans and counseling notes every 30 days).They are able to track time in
a program and progress toward performance measures (indicators). Local
reports can be run from this data, and progress toward area goals can be
determined by funding stream or regional area. Monitoring reports are
providing DOL with a "snapshot" of each provider and general trends
across programs. For example, youth are primarily getting jobs as
cashiers and janitors, and youth are staying in the same work experience
for too long. Indirectly, new data shows that case managers are not
taking full advantage of all aspects of the program (i.e. incentives for
students). The Compliance Monitor explained that these reports can help
providers to conduct follow-up of program participants who exited one
year ago, measure progress toward performance goals and track funding
streams.

The WIB Director can now send county service providers reports from the
State to track new variables. She describes some of those variables, "We
are looking at new data this year. We are looking at number of days
since last case note; how many they have in the different services that
we bill for; how many youth got credentials, and how many youth got
GEDs. We can look also at how many goals were met and how many goals
expired." Some reports are generated weekly and some reports are
monthly. Unfortunately, many service providers now have data entry
program assistants to help with entering the data. Because of drastic
cuts in funding, many service providers will lose those assistants and
be required to enter the data themselves, according to the Regional
Youth Services Planner.

VR has instituted a customer service survey for applicants to complete
after each meeting and put in a drop box. These are collected by the VR
Director for customer feedback purposes.

b.  [Use of Data for Decision-Making]{.underline}.

There were changes in how data were used to make key decisions and
improve program and youth performances. The data collected from the
monitoring staff has been used to determine which service providers will
be funded and to make some administrative cuts. Financial monitoring
occurs for all the youth contracts. "We are doing a much more effective
job of monitoring now that we have the manpower to handle that, and we
are using that data more because of the funding shortages," stated the
Regional Youth Services Planner. She also indicated that DOL has
stressed using ONET to assess everyone that comes into the program as
part of their enrollment process. This data helps the providers to more
closely match the participants work experience with what their strengths
and interests. This, then, increases the number of successful work
experiences for youth participants.

The Albany One-Stop Director indicated that the Workforce Information
Analysis Data is now being used in schools to make people more aware of
resources available and hot jobs in their local areas. VR uses the
results of their customer service survey for program improvement and
report writing.

**V.** **MEASURING PERFORMANCE**

a.  [Setting High Expectations for Youth]{.underline}.

According to several respondents, the community's expectation that all
youth achieve at high levels remains the same. The DOL is working to
establish measurable goals for both older youth and younger youth by
setting goals and benchmarks appropriate for each age group (i.e., pre-
and post-test measures).

b.  [Monitoring Performance of Service Providers]{.underline}.

The Camilla DOL hired two compliance monitors this year to oversee the
programmatic and performance monitoring of both the youth and adults
service provider contracts. The compliance monitors report directly to
the WIB Director. They report findings and needed follow-up, as well as
other recommendations. The WIB Director then sends a report to the
superintendents of school systems. The providers are held accountable
for the monitor's findings. The compliance monitors identify areas that
need technical assistance but do not provide technical assistance to the
providers. The Regional Youth Services Planner arranges any technical
assistance that is needed for providers to be in compliance. For
example, providers may be cited in non-compliance for timeliness and
usefulness of counselor notes, enrollment numbers, administrative
issues, etc.

According to the WIB Director, "Initially 40% of the service providers
were out of compliance for a variety of reasons. The contract personnel
and funds are based on the number of slots given to a program. If at
least half of those slots aren't filled halfway through the year, then
there is a problem. We may give those slots and money to another program
immediately if they are performing successfully, or we can find an
alternative source to contract with. Based on the state reports and our
monitors making on-site visits, we are able to offer technical
assistance to those that need it and identify others who are just not
performing. We go through the routine 30-day probation period and if
they don't get right, we can de-obligate or terminate them. They have
ample time to get technical assistance and we attach a technical
assistance form with every compliance letter." In response to the new
monitoring efforts, the 2005 contracts are much more detailed and
provide timelines for enrollment for providers to follow.

c.  [Impact of Common Measures of Performance]{.underline}.

The Cairo One-Stop Director does not anticipate any negative impact from
the new common measures of performance- "entered employment outcomes and
exiting out will be fine." The Regional Youth Services Planner indicated
that the Common Measures of Performance (due in July) are very similar
to what they have been measuring for WIA already, and should not have a
great impact on DOL data collection but will greatly impact their skills
attainment measures. The WIA measures now require a ½ grade level
improvement on the TABE for attainment; the Common Measures of
Performance require two grade levels (one TABE level) to receive credit
for performance.

The Regional Youth Services Planner also discussed how the Common
Measures of Performance will be new for many, if not all, of their
partnering agencies such as the Department of Education and Adult and
Technical Education. She said, "We have always been very performance
oriented. For our partners it's going to be a bigger adjustment. It will
put a little heat on some of those partners who haven't done performance
measures before. Instead of just saying we are partners, we actually
have to be actively partnering. We've got to come to the table and work
together. All the measures are common for all the federal partners, so
it's going to be interesting. They really are just now starting to talk
about it. I think that WIA has been talking about it longer than any of
the other partners. We've talked to folks in the Department of Education
as we've been doing contract negotiations, and they still don't know
what we're talking about when we say common measures."

**VI.** **FISCAL ISSUES**

a.  [Sources of Funding and Budget Cuts]{.underline}.

Recent budget cuts have had, and will have, the greatest impact on youth
services and programming this year. As of April 20^th^, the Camilla DOL
saw their overall budget cut from \$1.7 million last year to \$1.1
million for the upcoming year (July 1, 2005 fiscal year)- a reduction of
33 1/3 percent from the state. The region had anticipated an 11% cut in
funds because this is what had happened at the state level. The monies
from the southern counties of the state were reallocated to the Atlanta
region based on population (census findings), unemployment rates and an
emphasis on retail opportunities. Allocations were considered
preliminary at the time of this site visit. An emergency meeting of the
southern county WIB Directors was held immediately following the budget
cut announcement to petition the Georgia DOL for refinancing- a
reallocation of funds based on performance, not population. The State
Commissioner of Labor plans to meet with this group and hear their
options and suggestions. The WIB Director said, "They are listening. I
am hoping to be made whole. I told them, I can stand a 10 or 11% cut,
but you know...."

Should the budget cuts stand, the Regional Youth Services Planner
anticipates she will need to cut 14 staff, cut funding to programs,
terminates some contracts, and most importantly, serve 300-400 fewer
youth in the upcoming year. The decisions on where to make cuts will
depend on data collected from the WIA reports, program performance and
financial monitoring reports. The Regional Youth Services Planner also
anticipates discontented contractors and the loss of program assistants
for data entry purposes. She states, "It is ironic that we are expected
to evaluate our providers based on measures of performance, but that we
have been performing at the top of the state and are losing our funding
anyways. The unemployment rate is down in our area which says 'good for
us' because we're doing our job. But now we are being penalized for it
because we are actually able to get the people back on the job. It's
hard to sell the performance piece now. My staff just said, 'Well, we'll
just perform poorly and we'll get a bunch of money.' Meanwhile, the
Camilla DOL is actively engaged in grant writing. They are currently
writing a proposal for a USDOL grant for customized on-the-job training
in the construction business sector with local housing authority and
community ventures partners.

The Cairo One-Stop will also see a reduction in funding for the next
contract year. Their WIA contract will be cut from \$200,000 to
\$95,000. They will lose 1 ½ positions (out of three). With the warning
that budget cuts were eminent, the office had begun to look at ways to
streamline their services, to provide more in-house services, and to
make other necessary adjustments. The Cairo One-Stop Director commented,
"We are prepared for anything that is coming down the pike. We still
plan on having best program in the State." The management at the
One-Stop in Albany does not anticipate any direct cuts of WIA funds but
does acknowledge that their partnering organizations will feel the
impact.

b.  [Flexibility of Funding]{.underline}.

Over the last year, there have not been any legal or policy changes that
impact the flexibility interviewees had regarding their use of non-WIA
funds for youth with disabilities. The two One-Stop Directors each
indicated that their funding is not very flexible. They have no specific
monies for youth or for people with disabilities. Funding is tied
directly to income eligibility, which is not always adequate.

The Assistant Director of VR indicated that they are not getting as much
reimbursement each year because it has become more difficult to close
cases successfully for reimbursement. Also, due to an overall cut in
funds, VR can only hire for "critical staff" positions. VR is concerned
about the efforts to block grant their funding with authority over
funding given to the Governor. They are kept abreast of legislation and
lobbying efforts through the Georgia Rehabilitation Association.

**VII. ELIGIBILITY**

a.  [Policy Changes in Eligibility Criteria]{.underline}.

Over the past year, no changes have been made in local or state policy
regarding eligibility criteria (e.g. family of one, use of non-income
capped dollars, use of locally refined definitions of eligibility). The
WIA eligibility criteria apply to all the service providers. VR also
cited no eligibility criteria changes in the past year.

b.  [Non-Income Eligibility Services]{.underline}.

The interviewees indicated that all the monies they receive are income
eligible monies only. They do not have access to services that are not
dependent on income eligibility.

c.  [Non-Categorical Funding]{.underline}.

The interviewees indicated that they do not receive funding that is
non-categorical-specific to youth with disabilities unless the program
itself serves only individuals with disabilities, such as VR.

**VIII. MARKETING AND OUTREACH TO EMPLOYERS**

a.  [New Efforts to Engage and Retain Employers]{.underline}.

The One-Stops, DOL and their partnering organizations continue to engage
employers in their activities and communicate their services for working
with employees with disabilities. The Compliance Monitor, while she
doesn't work directly with employers, reported that her data indicated
the tendency to use the same employers for youth placements year after
year (i.e., Dollar General, Boys & Girls Shops, florist shops, school
system) and she saw a need to expand the placement options. The Regional
Youth Services Planner indicated that they have been working with some
new employers this year and have some new work experience sites. The
case managers locate these employer sites- this year placing greater
attention to a positive job match. The WIB Director said, "Instead of
being top heavy in the job training aspect, I work directly with
employers for on-the-job training opportunities. I go straight to the
bottom line where the impact is greatest."

The VR has been able to establish positive relationships with employers
who have hired VR clients, and is currently focusing on new employers
coming into the downtown area. Businesses in downtown Albany are being
rebuilt and these new businesses are being encouraged to hire VR
participants. VR staff members spend time educating employers through
participation in both chamber and civic organizations. For example, VR
will be hosting an information booth to showcase available services at
the Albany Business Showcase on May 12^th.^ VR holds an Employer
Appreciation Luncheon with media present to market their services and
bring positive attention to participating businesses. VR staff members
are part of many area organizations, boards and committees on behalf of
VR (i.e., the Director of VR serves on the WIB). VR staff members also
attend legislative events to share organizational information and
disability information.

The Albany One-Stop management is working closely on a committee with
the Chamber of Commerce, workforce development folks, and other town
organizations to determine what each organization offers and how to
coordinate these services and supports. A synopsis of each organization
is being developed to post on the Chamber of Commerce website. This
committee, along with DOL, will sponsor youth workforce conference in
November in Albany as part of state conference. They will bring in 50
students from each school/region to focus on employer expectations.

The Albany One-Stop Director indicated they have a few new employers
this year but some businesses may be leaving town. There will be a
review of the local Marine base on May 16^th^ to determine if that base
will remain open. A long-standing business in Albany, Bob's Candies, was
recently bought out and the impact on jobs is still unknown. Two new
initiatives, Good Works and GeorgiaWorks! brought in more employer
contacts this year. Marketing representatives are "selling" these
programs to employers and have had positive reviews. Employers are
interested in participating in these subsidized employment programs
(TANF) because they reduce training costs. The Albany One-Stop continues
to provide space for employers to conduct interviews on site. The
One-Stop Director is the Coordinator/Chair of the Education Workforce
Committee with the Community College and a number of other
organizations.

> b\. [Supporting Employers in Hiring Youth with
> Disabilities]{.underline}.

The interviewees did not indicate any changes in how they support
employers in hiring and accommodating employees with disabilities.

c\. [Disclosure to Employers]{.underline}.

The interviewees did not note any changes in how an individual's
disability is disclosed to a prospective employer.

**VIX.** **COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION AMONG PARTNERS**

a.  [Changes in Partner Relationships]{.underline}.

The Compliance Monitor noted that the service providers are contacting
each other more regularly for technical assistance rather than
contacting the monitor or DOL staff. She does note that the service
providers are happy with the technical assistance provided by the
Regional Youth Services Planner. The Albany One-Stop Director noted some
changes in on-site partners. The contact from the local Technical
College is not housed at the One-Stop anymore (was on site I day a week
last year). In response, they have made an effort to "beef up" the
Technical College literature available to One-Stop customers. In
addition, the Adult Literacy partner is now housed at the Technical
College. It is important to note that the Technical College is located
next to the One-Stop, so partner services should not be interrupted.

The Assistant Director of VR shared that she makes numerous connections
with and between agencies and specialists to assist them in finding new
providers, especially supported employment providers. She notes that the
partnerships between VR, the school systems, the Chamber of Commerce,
WIA folks and ARC are effective and crucial. She stated, "We have worked
hard to eliminate turf-guarding. It was state idea but honestly the
regions had to learn to work together. I know that there are some that
don't work as well as others. We asked, 'What do you need to do in your
particular region to make it work?' Everyone is sitting at the table
now. Every quarterly meeting helps to erase the lines, and see how we
can better work with these students. We share ideas, best practices
across the regions. We are strongly encouraged to be part of the rehab
professional organization because they provide lots of training
opportunities. Also, the Atlanta office people come out to the regions
from time to time to meet with us and get to know us. We introduce them
to people in the community and provide a friendly atmosphere for
discussions."

[]{.mark}

b.  [Changes in School Relationships]{.underline}.

Interviewees indicated that their relationships with the school system
and individual schools remain primarily positive, and are improving. The
Assistant Director of VR reported that their school partnerships were
effective collaborations. Regional Job Readiness Specialists are out in
the high schools providing employability skills training (i.e., filling
out applications, etc.). VR also has a team of counselors that educate
employers in the community. Each team has an assistive technology
specialist as a member. Two counselors in each area are assigned
specifically to the high schools to work with youth starting at age 16.
The Albany One-Stop conducts monthly presentations at the high school.
They are working with Westover High School to plan a bank within their
school (to open Fall of 2005).

**X.** **ACCESSIBILITY AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY**

a.  [Changes in Programs, Services and Activities]{.underline}.

The One-Stop and partnering organizations indicated that no significant
changes had been made to their programs, services and activities in
order to make them more accessible to people with disabilities.

> b\. [Changes in Physical Facilities]{.underline}.

The One-Stop management and staff indicated that minimal changes had
been made to their physical facilities. The Albany One-Stop had invested
in ergonomic work stations for their staff and had upgraded the
computers. The Cairo One-Stop reported that they are closing one of
their two offices in May and moving all their staff to the Career
Center. Although space is limited, the move will allow for better
coverage by staff and improved information sharing. The Cairo One-Stop
Director expands on this idea, "It's easier to provide coverage when we
are all in the same building. When the case managers and teacher are out
dealing with the participants, then we've got somebody here that can
cover answering questions or answering the phones, etc. So basically, we
are streamlined now. We are going to be looking at providing services
within the career center instead of outside in the other location."

> c\. [New Assistive Technologies]{.underline}.

There are no new assistive technologies available on-site for customers
with disabilities.

> d\. [Funding Assistive Technology]{.underline}.

Assistive technology needs continue to be funded through requests to the
LWIB.

e\. ["188" Checklist Awareness and Use]{.underline}.

The One-Stop management and staff, as well as the WIB Executive Director
were unaware of the "188" Checklist.

**XI. YOUTH INTERVIEWS**

Interviews were conducted with nine youth. Five youth were participants
in the HS/HT program at Westover High School, and four youth were
participants in a WIA program at Mitchell-Baker High School. Five of the
nine youth interviewed were interviewed last year.

[Population Description.]{.underline}

Of the 9 youth interviewed for this study, 7 were male and 2 were
female. The youth ranged in age from 17 to 22. Six of the youth were
in-school youth (4 in grade 12; 2 in grade 11), and 3 were out-of-school
youth. They had been out-of-school for approximately 1-3 years. One
youth had dropped out of school in 11^th^ grade and also discontinued
participation in a GED program. One youth graduated with a regular
diploma, one with a special education diploma. Eight of the youth have
been diagnosed with learning disabilities (mild to moderate) in reading,
math and study skills. One youth has multiple disabilities including
Tourette's Syndrome, behavior and emotional disorders (depression), and
learning disabilities. Most youth had been receiving special education
services since elementary school. All nine youth live at home with one
or both parents. Three youth participated in a WIA training program
(Work-Study, 2 blocks a day) and five youth participated in High
School/High Tech. One youth did not participate in either program.

[Work Experiences.]{.underline}

Three of the youth (2 out-of-school youth and one in-school youth) are
not working at this time. One youth was fired from his job after one
year for allegedly stealing. One youth has tried several short-term jobs
but appears unable to retain a position because of behavioral and
emotional issues. One youth works only during the summer and has not
retained a job for the upcoming summer as yet. One youth is working with
a counselor at the Camilla DOL to find a job; another youth is working
with a WIA case manager at the Cairo Workforce Development to locate a
job. He recently interviewed with Advance Auto Parts to do stock and
inventory. One youth is working with his high school WIA instructor for
a re-referral to Vocational Rehabilitation.

Six of the youth are currently working. The generally work 10-20 hours a
week during the school year and 20-29 hours a week during the summer.
They all work for minimum wage which is \$5.15/hr. Over this past year,
the youth have had jobs in the following locations: supermarket
(bagger), nursery (maintenance and landscaping), seafood restaurant
(busboy), amusement park (ride attendant), adult daycare (assistant),
child daycare (assistant), high school attendance office (clerical),
plumbing company (assistant), and a fast food restaurant (cook and
cashier).

Two youth had formal training for their positions at the child daycare
and the amusement park. The other youth indicated that they were
informally trained on-the-job by co-workers or supervisors. Three youth
said they got their job through family and friends, one got the job by
himself, one was arranged by the HS/HT teacher and one was arranged by a
WIA instructor. One non-working youth recently interviewed to be a
stocker at an auto parts store. His interview was arranged by the WIA
case worker in Cairo.

Three of the youth reported that they do chores regularly at home
including washing dishes, cleaning the house, picking up trash, mowing
the lawn, and planting flowers. None of the youth belonged to school,
religious or community clubs. They reported their hobbies to be
basketball, football, hunting, shopping and playing video games.

[Further Education.]{.underline}

In addition to their WIA and HS/HT program participation, two in-school
youth participate in career and technical education classes in their
high school (small engine repair, auto mechanics), and one youth
participates in a Graphic Arts and Printing Design class at Albany Tech
(one period a day).

Two of the 11^th^ graders are considering attending Darton College
(local community college) for Childcare and pre-engineering. Both are
considering a 4-year college after obtaining their Associate degree.

Three youth are graduating this year and two have established
educational plans for the upcoming year. Two youth are enrolled in the
Forklift and Warehouse Management program (3-month course) at Albany
Tech starting in July. One of these youth also intends to take other
courses at Albany Tech and has met with a counselor at the disability
support services office there to talk about his needed accommodations.

One youth is working on obtaining a GED. One youth has no plans for
further education. One youth is considering going to school to get CDL
certification to drive trucks but he hasn't made any inquires at this
time.

One youth is entering his 3^rd^ quarter of instruction in an automotive
technology program at Albany Tech. He has successfully completed his
core academic courses and computer classes and will have strictly
automotive classes this coming year. He attends school Monday-Thursday,
8:00-3:00. This 2-year diploma program is year-round, and he will
graduate in December 2006.

[Career Goals.]{.underline}

Most of the graduating youth seemed undecided about their career goals
even though graduation was just month away. They mentioned a number of
possibilities for jobs but had not made the effort to pursue these
opportunities. Many of the youth also indicated that they would go to
work were relatives worked (brother, mother, cousin, sister, etc.). They
did not appear to be thinking "outside the box" when it came to career
planning. Also, many of the youth could articulate their strengths in
the workplace but were not selecting future jobs/careers that focused on
any of these strengths or interests. For example, one youth indicated an
interest and strength in landscaping and working with flowers but is
seeking a job at the local chicken plant, hospital, or fast food
restaurant. Another example, one youth has had three successful daycare
and elder care jobs in the past 2 years but is considering a job after
graduation at Proctor and Gable as an assembly-line worker.

One youth has applied for entrance into the Air Force and if accepted
would like to be a medical technician and would consider this as a
possible career choice. If he is not accepted into the Air Force, he
wants to work for the City of Albany in their sanitation department. In
the meantime, he will keep his current supermarket job.

One youth wants to be an auto technician/mechanic at a local dealership,
preferably Fairway Toyota because he thinks they have good benefits,
paid vacation, etc. He has talked with his Career and Technical
Education teacher (former Fairway employee) about the work environment
and is researching the job benefits. He is considering taking NASCAR
tech in North Carolina but has not researched this option thoroughly

One out-of-school youth knows that he needs a career plan but has not
been able to focus on a particular path. He mentioned several job
options that interested him including firefighting, computer repair and
restoration, land construction, and tractor driving as possibilities. He
does not have any training in these areas but feels that he can handle
the job requirements. He did look into working for SW Georgia Computer
Service in Cairo but they were not hiring due to slow business. He is
working on his job skills, and math and reading skills with his WIA case
manager in Cairo.

[Visions of the Future]{.underline}.

The youth were asked to envision themselves 5 years from now and
describe what they would like their life to be then. Eight of the nine
youth intend to live in Georgia, preferably in the Albany area. One
youth would like to live in Seattle, Washington with a relative. Five of
the nine youth would like to be living independently in an apartment or
home. The others plan to be living at home with their parents. Two youth
would like to be married and have a family within the next 5 years. Four
youth plan to get their driver's licenses and own a car. Two youth
mentioned they would like to have high-paying jobs with good companies
in order to pay their bills.

[Program Satisfaction]{.underline}.

All of the youth interviewed indicated that their work-based learning
program was helpful and enjoyable. The participated in job preparation
activities (i.e., interviewing, resume writing, role-playing) and had
paying jobs at local venues. They appreciated the opportunity to leave
school early for work and the money that they made. Some youth indicated
that their paycheck helped their families to pay bills.

The Youth that participated in the HS/HT program strongly recommended
this program to other students. This program taught them a number of
things beyond science content such as people skills, communication
skills, manners, understanding and overcoming their disabilities,
informed decision-making, self-esteem, and employability skills. The
HS/HT also provided youth with reading support (tutoring). One youth
mentioned that he would like to give back to the HS/HT program when he
is older by giving money and mentoring students.

Every HS/HT youth interviewed indicated that they would recommend this
program to other students. Two of the HS/HT students make presentations
to upcoming 8^th^ graders about the program and its benefits. They do
indicate that to succeed in this program, a student must be committed to
the program- willing to do the work.

[Program Recommendations]{.underline}.

Two HS/HT youth recommended that those students with transportation
should be able to leave their work site and go directly home. Right now,
students are bused to and from the work site from school regardless of
the availability of personal transportation. This limits the number of
hours the youth can work each day. A WIA staff member did comment that
they have lost students from their program because school transportation
was not available during the hours the employers needed workers.

One youth reported that he did not think school personnel did a good job
of explaining his disability to him and his family, and that teachers
did not understand what he needed to be successful. He recommends that
efforts be made to better educate school administrators and general
education teachers about the different types of disabilities.

**XII. CHALLENGES IN UPCOMING YEAR**

The One-Stop staff and management, as well as their partnering
organizations, presented several continuing and new challenges that they
must address in their efforts to provide the most effective services to
youth with and without disabilities. Most of these challenges fell into
4 categories: Program Compliance, Streamlining Programs and Services,
Population Mobility, and Staff Training.

[Program Compliance]{.underline}.

The WIB intends to keep the Compliance Monitor positions in place. They
will continue to monitor the service provider's (case manager's)
progress toward meeting their program goals and measures. Case managers
will need to be more creative in their efforts to recruit, retain and
successfully exit program participants. They will need to identify
alternative incentives for youth, and additional work sites for relevant
work experiences based on assessment findings. Reports on program
compliance will be used to determine whether programs continue or are
terminated.

[Streamlining Programs and Services]{.underline}.

Leadership, management and staff will need to streamline programs,
services and supports to align with the new reductions in funding. They
will need to make tough decisions about which programs are viable and
which programs need to be terminated. According to the WIB Director,
"This budget hit gives us the opportunity to stand back and make
priorities- what are the bare necessities and how can we best provide
them?" It is apparent that positions will need to be eliminated and
therefore duties and responsibilities will need to be redistributed
among staff members. For example, data entry persons and programs
assistant's positions may be cut. The Director of the Cairo One-Stop
states, "We are prepared for whatever happens or comes from the State or
Federal levels. Our staff will go the extra mile, including working late
hours." The WIA contracts for June 30, 2005-June 30, 2006 indicate the
Camilla DOL anticipates serving 1,155 youth (both in-school and
out-of-school youth) in 19 different youth programs.

[Population Mobility]{.underline}.

Youth (and their families) in this WIA area are very mobile. It is
difficult to keep youth in programs from beginning to end. Many services
are just initiated and the youth move to a new area in the state or to
another state. The Cairo One-Stop Director explained, "They may be here
today, gone tomorrow. They could be in Louisiana next week. I knew that
people were mobile but I did not know they were that mobile. Some people
just get tired of living in a small town - want to move to where
relatives live. Some of them are actually going to the location and
obtaining employment. There's just a variety of personal reasons. If I
had to take a wild guess I would say about 50% return to this area. You
know, they move into the program, they move away, and then move back to
the program. We try to get them re-engaged." This level of mobility
causes great difficulty in the follow-up process and showing that
someone has exited successfully and program measures have been met. The
One-Stop Director stated, "We have used all sorts of innovative ways to
try to track youth down. We have examined our wage files to see if wages
have appeared in another state. We use court records. When they move out
and we don\'t know where they are, and they are not working, we don't
exit them. So that when they come back in we can re-enter them and
provide services immediately." The One-Stop staff also shares
information with non-project staff that assist with the intensive
follow-up of youth participants. At times, the staff can help youth make
connections in their new location in order to continue in a similar
program (i.e. GED programs).

[Staff Training]{.underline}.

Due to the budget reductions, compliance monitoring and the advent of
the Common Measures of Performance, staff development (case management
and service provider training) continues to be a top priority. The
Albany One-Stop Directors cited the need for staff and customer training
on the new customer self-entry, registration forms, and employer job
orders. They are now able to file unemployment claims over the phone or
via computer.

**XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS**

The One-Stop staff and management, along with their partnering
organizations, made the following recommendations for improved programs
and practices that serve youth with disabilities:

-   Have every youth services provider develop their programs based on a
    similar flow of service - one that is built on a natural progression
    of skills model (i.e., assessment, awareness, observation, basic
    skill development, job preparation, work experiences) for work-based
    learning. Develop this flow of services chart prior to program
    set-up.

-   Improve understanding among case managers, service providers and
    educators on how assessment/testing drives services. Equip case
    managers to implement testing. Increase/improve assessment
    information on youth to help identify the most appropriate job
    training and placements.

-   Spread resources equitably across the state- focus attention on
    small rural areas.

-   Broaden/strengthen the number of employers working with WIA youth.

-   Accept the special needs diploma as a credential under the Common
    Measures of Performance. "You cannot mandate their participation and
    then penalize us for their performance" (Regional Youth Services
    Planner).

-   Make statewide funding decisions based on numbers served and
    successes, not on population (census numbers) only. Performance
    should outweigh population when making budget cuts.

-   Hold service providers to one standard of performance, either Common
    Measures of Performance or WIA measures- not both.

-   Educate employers, educators, youth and families regarding the
    relationship between working and SSI and Medicaid benefits.

-   Assign a Regional Job Readiness Specialist to each VR unit area with
    an assistive technology specialist to assist them.

**XIV. SUMMARY**

The local Southwest Georgia sites and partners made every effort to
effectively serve the population of youth with disabilities. There have
been some changes in policies and practices this past year. They are
highlighted below.

The Federally-based common measures reporting requirements will
necessitate both mandated and non-mandated partners to be more actively
engaged as partners and more performance-driven than in previous years.
No policy changes related to youth issues were reported at the State
level although they do anticipate changes as the budget reductions take
place. At the local level, the supportive services policy has been
restricted due to budget cuts. In Camilla, the WIB membership was purged
of inactive members and new members were invited to join. This WIB has
12 of their 14 counties represented. As with the previous year, there
are no disability organizations serving on the WIB, and there continued
to be no Youth Council (YC) or youth participation on the local Board.

There were changes in youth service providers for a variety of reasons.
Three programs were terminated because they were out of compliance due
to low performance (low enrollment or low productivity) and/or
programmatic issues with personnel. The One-Stops indicated no changes
in their youth services providers. The Cairo One-Stop Director cited a
new initiative this year, GeorgiaWorks!, which allows both youth and
adults to draw unemployment and participate in a job training program
simultaneously. While the on-line diploma program at the Cairo One-Stop
is not new this year, there have been changes to the program and the
venue. An in-school program is being developed for the coming school
year. The on-line diploma program has become so popular that they will
be close to maxing out their enrollments within the first few months of
the next fiscal year.

There were no changes from the previous year in the manner in which
staff inquired or learned about a customer's disability, whether at
intake, during assessment, or in the provision of services. In this
portion of the study, interviewees were asked to describe the process
for developing an individualized plan for customers and to identify
academic and career interest assessments used. Overall, there have been
no changes in the assessment and individualized planning process since
last year's report. The information sharing process has not changed from
the previous two site visits. Regarding the service mix for youth with
and without disabilities, there were no changes in the past two years.

The Cairo One-Stop has condensed their leadership training program
(LIFT) into a two-day (16-20 hours) workshop over a Friday and Saturday.
This change has resulted in greater commitment from participants, staff
and outside speakers. Regarding leveraging of services outside the LWIB,
none of the respondents cited examples. There seemed to be consensus
that no services were leveraged. This represented no change from last
year's report.

The local DOL (Camilla) has provided on-going training on case
management to their service providers. This year, the trainings are in
response to findings from the compliance monitoring reports. VR has
concentrated trainings this year on SSI reimbursement and
Ticket-to-Work. They are coordinating with SSI and Medicaid benefits
specialists to do cross-training for VR staff and providers. VR has also
focused on transition-related trainings for VR staff and school
personnel. The WIB Director has focused her staff development on the
WIB-based "canned" management reports now available from the state and
compliance monitoring reports on service providers.

Co-training across agencies/contracts providing youth services is not
happening on a large scale. Staff members at the Albany One-Stop
participate regularly in the state's training opportunities. The VR
staff attends continuous training opportunities provided through the
Georgia Association of VR Counselors, such as their annual conference
(part of the National Rehabilitation Association). The local subchapter
provides training on the role of the counselor and program specialists.

Both One-Stop Career Centers have had some personnel changes this year.
Both One-Stop lost 2 staff members who have been replaced. No changes
were evident in the skill sets expected of current and new employees
since last year's report.

It appears that new data have been added to the information management
system (GWS) described in last year's report. The WIB-focused reports
come straight off of DOL's GWS data entry system. The reports are based
on programmatic performance. Also, the new Compliance Monitors enter
data from their on-site visits into the system. Monitoring reports are
providing DOL with a "snapshot" of each provider and general trends
across programs. The WIB Director can now send county service providers
reports from the State to track new variables.

VR has instituted a customer service survey for applicants to complete
after each meeting and put in a drop box. These are collected by the VR
Director for customer feedback purposes.

There were changes in how data were used to make key decisions and
improve program and youth performances. The data collected from the
monitoring staff has been used to determine which service providers will
be funded and to make some administrative cuts. Financial monitoring
occurs for all the youth contracts. The Albany One-Stop Director
indicated that the Workforce Information Analysis Data is now being used
in schools to make people more aware of resources available and hot jobs
in their local areas. VR uses the results of their customer service
survey for program improvement and report writing.

According to several respondents, the community's expectation that all
youth achieve at high levels remains the same. The DOL is working to
establish measurable goals for both older youth and younger youth by
setting goals and benchmarks appropriate for each age group (i.e., pre-
and post-test measures). The Camilla DOL hired two compliance monitors
this year to oversee the programmatic and performance monitoring of both
the youth and adults service provider contracts. The compliance monitors
report findings and needed follow-up, as well as other recommendations,
directly to the WIB Director. In response to the new monitoring efforts,
the 2005 contracts are much more detailed and provide timelines for
enrollment for providers to follow.

The Cairo One-Stop Director does not anticipate any negative impact from
the new common measures of performance. The Common Measures of
Performance will be new for many, if not all, of the partnering agencies
of the Camilla DOL.

Recent budget cuts have had, and will have, the greatest impact on youth
services and programming this year. As of April 20^th^, the Camilla DOL
saw their overall budget cut from \$1.7 million last year to \$1.1
million for the upcoming year (July 1, 2005 fiscal year)- a reduction of
33 1/3 percent from the state. The region had anticipated an 11% cut in
funds because this is what had happened at the state level. The monies
from the southern counties of the state were reallocated to the Atlanta
region based on population (census findings), unemployment rates and an
emphasis on retail opportunities. Allocations were considered
preliminary at the time of this site visit. Should the budget cuts
stand, the Regional Youth Services Planner anticipates she will need to
cut 14 staff, cut funding to programs, terminates some contracts, and
most importantly, serve 300-400 fewer youth in the upcoming year. The
decisions on where to make cuts will depend on data collected from the
WIA reports, program performance and financial monitoring reports. The
Regional Youth Services Planner also anticipates discontented
contractors and the loss of program assistants for data entry purposes.
The Cairo One-Stop will also see a reduction in funding for the next
contract year. Their WIA contract will be cut from \$200,000 to
\$95,000. They will lose 1 ½ positions (out of 3). The management at the
One-Stop in Albany does not anticipate any direct cuts of WIA funds but
does acknowledge that their partnering organizations will feel the
impact.

Over the last year, there have not been any legal or policy changes that
impact the flexibility interviewees had regarding their use of non-WIA
funds for youth with disabilities. The Assistant Director of VR
indicated that they are not getting as much reimbursement each year
because it has become more difficult to close cases successfully for
reimbursement. Also, due to an overall cut in funds, VR can only hire
for "critical staff" positions.

Over the past year, no changes have been made in local or state policy
regarding eligibility criteria (e.g. family of one, use of non-income
capped dollars, use of locally refined definitions of eligibility). The
WIA eligibility criteria apply to all the service providers. VR also
cited no eligibility criteria changes in the past year. The interviewees
indicated that all the monies they receive are income eligible monies
only. They do not have access to services that are not dependent on
income eligibility. The interviewees indicated that they do not receive
funding that is non-categorical-specific to youth with disabilities
unless the program itself serves only individuals with disabilities,
such as VR.

The One-Stops, DOL and their partnering organizations continue to engage
employers in their activities and communicate their services for working
with employees with disabilities. The VR has been able to establish
positive relationships with employers who have hired VR clients, and is
currently focusing on new employers coming into the downtown area. The
Albany One-Stop management is working closely on a committee with the
Chamber of Commerce, workforce development folks, and other town
organizations to determine what each organization offers and how to
coordinate these services and supports. The Albany One-Stop Director
indicated they have a few new employers this year but some businesses
may be leaving town.

The interviewees did not indicate any changes in how they support
employers in hiring and accommodating employees with disabilities. The
interviewees did not note any changes in how an individual's disability
is disclosed to a prospective employer.

Partnerships between VR, the school systems, the Chamber of Commerce,
WIA folks and ARC are considered effective and crucial. Interviewees
indicated that their relationships with the school system and individual
schools remain primarily positive, and are improving. The Assistant
Director of VR reported that their school partnerships were effective
collaborations.

The One-Stop and partnering organizations indicated that no significant
changes had been made to their programs, services and activities in
order to make them more accessible to people with disabilities. The
One-Stop management and staff indicated that minimal changes had been
made to their physical facilities. The Albany One-Stop had invested in
ergonomic work stations for their staff and had upgraded the computers.
The Cairo One-Stop reported that they are closing one of their two
offices in May and moving all their staff to the Career Center. There
are no new assistive technologies available on-site for customers with
disabilities. Assistive technology needs continue to be funded through
requests to the LWIB. The One-Stop management and staff, as well as the
WIB Executive Director were unaware of the "188" Checklist.

The One-Stop staff and management, as well as their partnering
organizations, presented several continuing and new challenges that they
must address in their efforts to provide the most effective services to
youth with and without disabilities. Most of these challenges fell into
4 categories: Program Compliance, Streamlining Programs and Services,
Population Mobility, and Staff Training. The One-Stop staff and
management, along with their partnering organizations, made
recommendations for improved programs and practices that serve youth
with disabilities.

> **SYRACUSE, NY CASE STUDY REPORT 2005**
>
> *Prepared by TransCen, Inc.*
>
> 6/30/05
>
> **GENERAL OVERVIEW**
>
> George Tilson and Christy Stuart of TransCen, Inc. conducted the third
> case study site visit in Syracuse, NY on March 30-31, 2005. The visit
> was coordinated by Terry Smith, the Youth Services Coordinator for
> CNYWorks (One-Stop). This One-Stop serves Onondaga County and the City
> of Syracuse in New York State. The adult interviews were conducted in
> a conference room at CNYWorks, and the youth interviews were conducted
> at Baker High School in Baldwinsville, NY.
>
> Interviews were conducted with 8 adults- the One-Stop Manager, the
> One-Stop Youth Services Coordinator, the One-Stop Resource Room
> Specialist, one in-school Youth Service Provider, one out-of-school
> Youth Service Provider, one VR Counselor, a Youth Council member, and
> one Disability Organization Service Provider (One-Stop partner). These
> were the same individuals interviewed in the previous year, with the
> exception of the representative of the disability organization service
> provider.
>
> Data were updated for 10 youth, 8 via face-to-face interviews. These
> were the same youth interviewed last year. All of these individuals
> have participated in the *CNYWorks Summer Youth Employment Program*
> for a number of years, and several have had additional school-year
> employment. Four of the youth are currently out of school***.*** Five
> of the youth were in the "post-graduate" program for 18-22 year olds
> located at Baker High School.
>
> [Interview Protocol]{.underline}
>
> While the interviewers followed essentially the same protocol that was
> used in the previous year's site visit, the broad categories for this
> year's questions were defined by the issues and outcomes identified by
> the respondents in the 2004 report. The focus was on (1) what had
> changed since the previous year; (2) new issues and challenges; and
> (3) new recommendations. The protocol was configured to keep each
> interview to the scheduled one-hour timeframe. All interviews were
> tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed, and field notes were taken
> by both interviewers.
>
> The youth protocol questions were condensed and presented in a more
> conversational manner prior to the interviews. Eight of the ten youth
> were able to answer the questions with minimal difficulty. Two of the
> youth, both with Down's Syndrome and limited verbal skills, were
> accompanied by their parents. Their interview responses are primarily
> the responses of the parents.
>
> CNYWorks is serving approximately 1,350 youth this year as compared
> with the 1,400 youth served last year. The mandated partners remain
> the same with 2 of the 17 partners specifically serving youth with
> disabilities (VESID and Onondaga ARC). Other workforce partners
> represented by staff at the new location include VESID, OCM BOCES,
> OCC, and the New York State Department of Labor Department of
> Employment Services.
>
> One major change in logistics is the new location of CNYWorks. In
> September of 2004, CNYWorks reopened for business at their new
> downtown One-Stop Career Center, in a restored historic district,
> retaining striking architectural features. CNYWorks is now co-located
> with the Department of Labor offices. The new location is readily
> accessible to the highway and public transportation. It offers free
> customer parking one block from the office. There has been a
> considerable amount of positive feedback as to the professional
> environment, state-of-the-art resource room, meeting rooms, and
> knowledgeable staff.

I.  **CONTEXT/CHANGES IN CONTEXT**

> New York State's unemployment rate for April 2005 was 4.7%, compared
> with 5.5% in the previous year. The Syracuse Metropolitan Area
> consists of 4 counties: Cayuga, Madison, Onondaga and Oswego. The
> unemployment rate in the Syracuse Metropolitan Area for March of 2005
> was 5.2% as compared to March of 2004 at 6.2%. The majority of
> non-farm occupations are centered around the following industries:
> service-providing (retail trade), professional and business services,
> educational and health services (healthcare), leisure and hospitality,
> government and financial activities. Occupational projections show
> that the top 25 fastest growing occupations in the Central New York
> region are in the information, healthcare (medical), social services,
> education, natural resources, and hospitality and construction trades.
> Currently, the top 25 occupations with the most openings are in retail
> sales, healthcare (nursing), food service, teaching, clerical work,
> childcare, janitorial services, office management, bookkeeping,
> customer services and security. "
>
> **II. FINDINGS/DESCRIPTIONS OF CURRENT SERVICES FOR YOUTH/YWD**
>
> **a. LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS, INCLUDING YOUTH**
>
> *[Policy Changes]{.underline}.* The New York State Department of Labor
> has been increasingly directive with the One-Stops statewide,
> regarding required performance measures for youth services. Last year
> CNYWorks was sanctioned by the state for not meeting performance
> measures in five areas.
>
> While significant improvements have been made, the issue of meeting
> and measuring literacy and numeracy remains a daunting challenge for
> New York State. In fact, all of the interviewees stressed the
> difficulty in implementing these particular performance measures.
> Regarding the task, CNYWorks staff expressed frustration in
> determining appropriate accommodations. The Youth Program Coordinator
> stated," We are being asked to do basic \[academic\] skill enrichment
> with youth which really is on the side of education and not employment
> training. And then on top of that, we are required to TABE test
> everybody." All of the respondents commented on the lack of clear
> guidelines and support from the State on this issue. According to one
> respondent "This continues to be a problem for us. The State wants us
> to be more accountable, and we should be -- but it would help if they
> could give us clearer guidance."
>
> Last year, CNYWorks' response to performance sanctions and the
> possible reauthorization of WIA led them to change the content of
> their internal RFPs to service providers to be more stringent, to
> reflect higher performance measures/outcomes, and to focus much more
> heavily on job placement as opposed to the provision of "readiness"
> skills. Despite CNYWorks awarding three contracts of \$50,000 each
> there has been increased difficulty maintaining the targeted number of
> participants obtaining services through the grants. Because of this,
> two of the grantees returned a portion of the money mid-year in hopes
> to reapply for future RFPs. CNYWorks has maintained a greater emphasis
> to out-of-school youth and new age brackets (16-21 or 16-24).
>
> Targeted out-of-school youth groups (as cited in the 2004 report)
> include: *TANF or long-term Unemployment recipients, juvenile justice
> youth, GED graduates or near graduates, Youth TANF mothers, court
> ordered non-custodial parents, recent high school graduates without a
> focus, college students with financial needs, youth identified by
> community leaders in need of service; and other youth that will help
> meet WIA performance measures. In-school youth targets include:
> graduating seniors, youth completing alternative school programs,
> foster children, and younger youth that will exit while still in
> school and achieve a literacy gain. Programming must provide a "work
> first" strategy for youth, and be mindful of the anticipated common
> measures. Monies are for programming only, no administrative funds
> this year. The results that are expected of Service providers include:
> skills training activities that produce credentials; remediation
> services to assist with basic skills goals if applicable; on-the-job
> or work experience activities for youth; and/or internship programs
> coordinated with private sector employers. To meet the new Onondaga
> WIB's performance measures, 85% of program participants must be exited
> successfully.*
>
> According to one of the respondents: "Many of the Service Providers
> are having difficulty obtaining these performance measures and
> maintaining youth participation."
>
> This was evidenced by two partner agencies that realized several
> months into the program year that they were not going to meet the
> specified outcomes. A one-stop staff member said "They told me 'There
> is no way we can do this within a year's time.' They said they would
> rather return the money and stay on good terms with us in the hopes
> that they could come back another time and submit a more realistic
> proposal." CNYWorks is giving careful consideration to the idea of
> going from an RFP process with its partners, to a fee for service
> arrangement. "This may be particularly useful around the area of
> academic support. If we're going to be expected to move these youth to
> an 8^th^ grade reading level within a year, then we better find
> partners who can deliver some really excellent instruction!"
>
> The VESID (vocational rehabilitation) counselor serving the One-Stop
> indicated that last year's emphasis on increasing VESID's presence in
> the schools and following through with the transition process from
> school to work or college through case management and service
> coordination opportunities has been implemented although it remains a
> challenge because of the lack of counselors. The VESID representative
> to CNYWorks told us: "Every school has a VESID counselor that works
> directly with the secondary special education population. We begin
> working with students as early as two years prior to their leaving
> school. Sometimes we have even been able to provide earlier
> intervention in the case of students with multiple disabilities."
>
> *[Board Membership Changes.]{.underline}* One major change was the
> hiring of a new Executive Director. The LWIB recently oriented two new
> partners appointed by the Mayor and Executive Board. Both changes were
> with private sector members whose primary job responsibilities had
> changed. The Youth Council (YC) had a few changes in membership "for
> the better" according to a Youth Council member. A new member
> represents law enforcement and juvenile justice. A new Disability
> Navigator was hired mid-year to replace the two previous Navigator
> positions. The WIA navigator located at CNYWorks, has also started
> coming to the YC meetings also. This YC member indicated that the
> group dynamics were better now, and they were on the right track for
> an advisory group. The YC also has created several ad-hoc committees.
>
> *[Youth Participation]{.underline}*. Youth participation remains a
> challenge this year. One youth member participated regularly on the
> Youth Council. The Council recognized that they needed both more youth
> and more businesses as members. Other youth were active in designing
> brochures and posters using "youth language" to outreach to other
> youth about new GED options and supports available in the city of
> Syracuse. There was the development of several ad-hoc committees
> focusing on youth. To date, there is the Marketing for Youth Council,
> Youth Committee, Alternative Education, and the Out-of-School
> Committee.
>
> **b. SUPPORT FOR IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND SERVING YOUTH/YWD**
>
> *[Changes in Service Providers]{.underline}*. CNYWorks had some
> changes in the youth services providers funded under WIA. Although
> CNYWorks funded one full-time Navigator and one half-time Navigator
> (DPN) position beginning November of 2004, both positions needed to be
> filled because the half-time Navigator spent most of the day working
> for BOCES and the full-time Navigator recently left this position. The
> full-time Navigator position has been filled in 2005. Both DPNs are
> located at the One-Stop. The previous full-time Navigator was a real
> asset to the One-Stop because he had a disability himself and would
> oftentimes be approached by One-Stop staff for questions or
> information about employment and training services available within
> the local One-Stop Career Center and community. Their responsibilities
> remain the same; i.e., providing and developing ongoing partnerships
> with local support service agencies top ensure that individuals with
> disabilities completely understand the impact employment will have on
> the continuation of their services, supports, benefits, and
> entitlements prior to beginning or returning to work. The full-time
> Navigator provided five days of full training on this new service
> provider position. This gave the staff and co-located service
> providers at CNYWorks the opportunity to reach out to an expert with
> their disability questions (i.e. Social Security benefits), and try to
> move beyond compliance. One of the respondents said "I've heard about
> other navigators in the State who don't have a clue about disability
> issues. We have been fortunate. Our navigator, who recently left for a
> new assignment, is dynamic, helpful and non-threatening to people."
>
> []{.mark}
>
> The Navigator positions are funded one year at a time. The half-time
> DPN is an individual particularly "well-versed on the youth
> accommodations" needed during the job search process.
>
> A long-term partner, ARISE, whose extensive activities were cited in
> the 2003 and 2004 reports, is no longer a contracted partner. This
> program provided many resources for out-of-school youth with
> significant disabilities. Several respondents noted that there is a
> "disincentive" for serving this sub-group, because of the high needs
> for supports and accommodations -- particularly job coaching. As
> addressed elsewhere in this report, there continues to be a severe
> shortage of funding available for essential job coaching. "It almost
> seems a moot point to say you'll serve all youth, when there are some
> whose needs are very demanding. They can be successful IF they get the
> support. Without it...well, you tell me."
>
> *[New Youth Outreach Strategies]{.underline}*. There were several
> changes/additions to the strategies that CNYWorks and its partner
> organizations used to outreach to in- and out-of-school youth, at-risk
> youth and youth with disabilities in the past year. Several new
> approaches are described below. Several Ad-Hoc committees were
> developed. Some of these committees included: Marketing for Youth
> Council, Youth Committee, Alternative Education, and out-of-school
> committee. The Maxwell School of Public Affairs developed a survey
> targeting drop-outs. The Youth Council used this information to plan
> new approaches in the community to effectively serving dropouts and
> out-of-school youth ages 19-21. There was an emphasis this year on
> getting out-of-school back in school or in alternative programs
> through participation in a One-Stop program. A second survey was
> developed and disseminated to gather information on all the various
> GED programs offered in the State.
>
> This information will be compiled, analyzed and shared with school
> guidance counselors in the State. CNYWorks continues to help local
> schools recognize the dropout problem by implementing two programs: a
> [Pre-GED Program]{.underline} for youth 16-17 years old, and a [GED
> Program]{.underline} for youth 18-21 years old that connected them
> with two vocational schools to gain skills, and the One-Stop for job
> placement. In addition, there was a concerted effort for student job
> matching based on interests and strengths than in previous years. All
> youth participated in both academic and vocational programming.
> Participants were awarded \$100 completing their GED and had to be WIA
> eligible. Many of these youth had undiagnosed learning problems.
>
> There was ample discussion across the respondents on the issue of
> youth with disabilities exiting school with an IEP document rather
> than a diploma -- and the implications for entrance into employment
> and particularly post secondary education. One CNYWorks staff person
> asked, "What I want to know is, if a special education student can
> leave school and earn a GED, why did they need an IEP program to begin
> with? If that young person's goal all along was to go to a 2 or 4 year
> college, why didn't the school enroll him or her in a GED program much
> earlier?"
>
> Management and staff of CNYWorks continued this year to "chisel away"
> at the challenge of meeting WIA performance measures, particularly
> developing creative and alternative strategies for out-of-school youth
> to receive credentials in numeric and literacy. Beginning last year,
> CNYWorks reached out to successful alternative, literacy, GED and life
> skills programs in the local area that they hadn't worked with
> traditionally.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> CNYWorks endeavors to expand "entered employment" credentials, so they
> try to do everything possible to connect with out-of-school youth
> prior to their entrance into alternative education programs. As with
> last year, they have been able to qualify more out-of-school youth
> (ages 18-24) by contracting with them and providing an incentive. If
> the youth regularly attends GED classes and passes the exam, CNYWorks
> gives them \$100.
>
> CNYWorks is continuing their implementation of The [Career Paths to
> Success Program]{.underline}, originally created in an effort to
> reduce juvenile gun violence in the Syracuse community, taught youth
> better decision-making skills; exposed youth to career and educational
> opportunities; taught youth conflict resolution skills; and offered
> six college credits for two courses. Participants took two classes in
> Career Exploration and Human Adjustment taught on the Onondaga
> Community College (OCC) campus. Youth who completed the program
> received up to a \$500 stipend. Course materials and tuition were
> free. Eligible youth were City residents, at least 16-years-old, and
> met a 9^th^ grade reading level on the TABE. The program was a
> collaboration between OCC faculty and JOBSplus!, a CNYWorks partner
> organization. (JOBSplus! is a partnership between Onondaga Community
> College and the Onondaga County Department of Social Services. The
> program is designed to help individuals make the transition from
> welfare to the workplace.)
>
> []{.mark}
>
> The [Businesses for Youth Program]{.underline} is still being
> implemented for CNYWorks. Previously, there was a partnership between
> CNYWorks and OCM BOCES that connected young adults, ages 16 to 21,
> with local businesses. They are currently providing this program for
> CNYWorks only. The goal of "Businesses for Youth" continues to be a
> seamless continuum of workforce development services for youth
> including identification, recruitment, workplace orientation and
> preparation, job referrals, as well as employer/employee matching
> services in private sector work experiences throughout the Central New
> York area.
>
> CNYWorks is committed to improving their efforts to match jobs for
> individuals based on interests and abilities. By hiring the city and
> county's young people, participating businesses gain competent
> entry-level candidates for their employment needs. Employers identify
> their job openings, set their own wage rates, and provide "Businesses
> for Youth" with a brief description of job duties. The Program assigns
> an employment specialist to work directly with the company throughout
> the process to provide counseling, support and follow-up services.
> This person also screens candidates from the CNYWorks database to
> insure a good match, then refers the candidates to the company. The
> company conducts the interviews with referred youth and hires the
> candidate that best suits the job. The "Businesses for Youth" program
> provides a wide variety of employment opportunities, including summer
> employment, part-time employment, and full-time jobs. It is an
> on-going, year round program.
>
> CNYWorks continues to offer [In-house Classes and Scheduled
> Workshops]{.underline} at their facilities throughout the year for any
> County or City residents, including youth. Some of the courses offered
> included: Introduction to Word, Computer Literacy, Interviewing
> Skills, Supervised Computer Lab, Dealing with Job Loss, Career Change,
> and Office Technology.
>
> Last year, ARC wrote a grant for a statewide readiness program that
> varied the curriculum for youth, and allowed them to have more
> possible outcomes. The [ARC Job-Readiness Program]{.underline} was a
> 5-week certificate program which provided classroom training, employer
> presentations and comprehensive visits to businesses in 4 job areas:
> human services, hotel/hospitality, manufacturing and retail. Program
> participants were WIA eligible and out-of-school youth with a high
> school diplomas or GEDs (or in the process of obtaining a GED). This
> program helped youth get jobs with benefits and opportunities for
> advancement once a certificate was awarded. Funding was provided by
> the NYSDOL. The program continues to be implemented through this year
> as well.
>
> The summer program has been expanded to serve more inner-city youth,
> with the establishment of space in the old Central Tech High School
> building, a space easily accessible by public transportation.
>
> *[Disability Disclosure Process]{.underline}*. The disclosure process
> and training about disclosure at CNYWorks continues to be fairly
> informal. The One-Stop primary registration form asked the registrant
> these questions: Are you a person living with a disability? Are you
> currently receiving SSI and/or SSDI? Are you living with a disability
> and seeking employment? Are you concerned about how employment will
> impact your benefits? The pre-application form for WIA had a box to
> check if the applicant has a disability. In both cases, disclosure of
> one's disability was a personal choice. At the service provider's
> intake meeting, often times the counselor was able to discern a
> possible disability and asked some probing questions about supports
> received in the past or educational classes taken, to help determine
> the need for additional testing or referrals. Any questioning was
> conducted privately, and the questions asked were "comfortable" for
> the youth.
>
> In the One-Stop Resource Room, the specialist generally told each
> large group that if they needed any accommodations that she would talk
> privately with them and discuss accommodation options. She explained
> to the individuals that requesting accommodations was one way to "give
> oneself every opportunity to be successful on the job." When someone
> did approach the specialist to request accommodations, she did not
> direct them to specific disability services, instead she explained the
> range of available supports and services to the individual. The DPN
> provided some training to One-Stop staff and partners about
> identifying people with hidden disabilities. He was available for
> advisement or consultation on this topic.
>
> The co-located VESID counselor reported that the One-Stop staff and
> related service providers have become highly attuned to disability
> issues and sensitive to the needs of persons with disabilities,
> including youth, without help from VESID. "I have to give a lot of
> credit to our navigator who made himself very available to our staff
> regarding disclosure and SSI issues. He was also great with customers
> who came in with specific concerns. Great counselor and role model."
>
> All of the respondents were told about the newly-published workbook
> for youth with disabilities entitled [The 411 on Disability
> Disclosure]{.underline}, developed by the National Collaborative on
> Workforce and Disability for youth and the U.S. Department of Labor's
> Office of Disability Employment Policy. They expressed interest in
> using this resource.
>
> *[Assessment and Individualized Planning.]{.underline}* The
> individualized plan developed at CNYWorks is called the
> "Individualized Income Improvement Plan" or IIIP and remains the plan
> that is developed for youth career development programs. The purpose
> of this IIIP was to determine a plan that will "help an individual
> improve their income to get where they want to be," according to an
> out-of-school youth services coordinator. Detailed description of the
> components of the IIIP was included in the year two report.
>
> As with previous years, those individuals referred to and found
> eligible for VESID, worked with the counselor to plan for employment
> using the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE). This plan is
> required by the federal regulations for public vocational
> rehabilitation agencies.
>
> CNYWorks continues to provide academic and career interest
> assessments, as part of the discovery process, to determine an
> individual's characteristics, skills, strengths, experiences,
> disabilities, barriers in life that prohibit progress, and support
> service needs. Most assessments are administered by partner providers.
> The VESID assessments included medical information from treating
> physicians; substance and chemical abuse documentation; results of use
> standard group psychological tests such as the Weschler-Adult; results
> of attention-disorder testing, a vocational evaluation, and a physical
> capacities test. VESID contracts with BOCES and Upstate Medical Center
> for some of these evaluations.
>
> The One-Stop youth service providers share IEP information with BOCES
> staff; however this confidential information is not shared with other
> outside agencies without the youth's permission. The assessment
> information is used to improve the transition from school to work for
> each individual. VESID shares assessment results with their consumers,
> and will provide other agencies with this information at the request
> of the consumer.
>
> *[Service Mix in Community]{.underline}.* CNYWorks continues to
> provide a wide array of services for youth with and without
> disabilities, as well as for adults. According to one of the
> respondents: "I believe I mentioned last year that we have gained a
> reputation in the State for the high goals we set for ourselves
> programmatically. We are able to do this because we tap into every
> possible resource, federal, state, and local -- not just for the
> money, but for ways to partner and share resources. Other
> organizations team up with us because they know we're upfront with
> them and we'll bend over backwards to contribute to their
> efforts---for the common good."
>
> [*Youth Leadership Activities*.]{.underline} CNYWorks and its partner
> organizations continued to provide many outstanding leadership
> activities, in keeping with the mandated services for youth under WIA.
> The Youth Council has made it clear to all partner agencies that
> integrating youth leadership into their programs is a must.
>
> Youth continue to be involved in the development and implementation of
> their summer work experience positions, and at their other work sites
> and activities arranged through CNYWorks' subcontractors such as ARC
> of Onondaga and BOCES. Participants in the BESTT Program at Baker High
> School (refer to the youth interviews) were particularly involved in
> the planning of this program. One youth served regularly on the Youth
> Council, while other youth were brought onto ad-hoc sub-committees for
> specific events and projects centering on youth issues. Many of the
> youth served by CNYWorks during the summer employment program have
> opportunities to serve in leadership roles as peer-to-peer mentors,
> tutors, recreation leaders and workshop leaders. They are also invited
> to participate in professional conferences on youth panels. CNYWorks
> continues to sponsor county-wide workshops where employers present
> mini-workshops on related employment/leadership topics.
>
> Personal responsibility is promoted through the leadership activities
> sponsored by CNYWorks and their partnering organizations. This
> includes training on financial management. CNYWorks continues to bring
> speakers into the One-Stop from local banks and credit unions to
> engage youth in discussions about financial responsibility. Budgeting
> and "financial wellness" have been incorporated into pre-employment
> classes. Youth are also referred to the local Independent Living
> Center for assistance with understanding and taking personal
> responsibility, self-determination, rights and responsibilities, and
> the law. These leadership skills are also reinforced by the navigator.
>
> Fostering leadership through service learning and a multitude of
> volunteer activities continues to be an important part of CNYWorks
> youth programs.
>
> This is now the third site visit to CNYWorks, and the opportunities to
> foster youth leadership appear to expand every year. The annual Career
> Fair is an example of this. This year, the event will take place on
> the campus of Lemoyne College, which has donated the use of two
> buildings, including the performing arts center. Twenty five college
> students will be the youth guides. Clear Channel Entertainment will
> provide music throughout the event. Several local department stores
> will sponsor "dress for success" fashion shows, Coca Cola and Wegman's
> Market are providing refreshments. A local private transportation
> company is providing free bus service for the youth. A hotline has
> been set up so that youth can call from any quadrant of the city to
> say they need transportation. It should be mentioned that all of the
> participating companies are not only providing in-kind services and
> products, they are making themselves available as employers, to
> interview youth or provide exploratory information. The youth career
> advisor at CNYWorks comes from a business background, and her
> expertise at outreach and marketing to employers has yielded
> impressive results.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> *[In-kind and Leveraged Services]{.underline}.* Other than the
> employer in-kind contributions just mentioned, there was no change
> from the previous year in CNYWorks' efforts to access in-kind services
> or to leverage resources from its mandated partners and other
> co-located agencies such as: staff, grant-writing partnerships; shared
> facilities; project co-management, (i.e., the DPN works with BOCES);
> shared recruitment and hiring; staff development opportunities;
> accessibility assessments; and transportation.
>
> There appeared to be consensus among the respondents that many
> community agencies, including those serving people with disabilities
> specifically, were mindful of the benefits to sharing resources
> whenever possible. "Doesn't it make sense that if I \[my agency\]
> offer GED training and your organization has teleconferencing
> facilities as well as GED classes, and a third agency has
> transportation services and people who need GED classes, and another
> place has people who know how to accommodate people with learning
> problems -- that we get together and figure out a way to maximize our
> resources by working together? Whenever possible we try to do this."
>
> **c. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**
>
> []{.mark}
>
> *[Changes in Professional Development Strategies]{.underline}*. There
> have been no significant changes in the approach to professional
> development at CNYWorks since last year's detailed report. Staff
> continue to have access to New York Association of Training Employment
> Professionals (NYATEP) training, which at various times has offered
> training on state and local WIA issues, performance measures,
> reporting outcomes and youth issues.
>
> Just prior to the 2005 site visit, staff had participated in a
> teleconference conducted by State officials regarding the literacy and
> innumeracy outcome measures and the ongoing challenge of aligning and
> reconciling youth outcome data with the State's workforce development
> data base which is geared towards adults. According to one respondent
> "I think the State truly gets it, that this is a problem for all of us
> youth workers. What they haven't been able to come up with yet is a
> solution. To give credit where credit is due, they are at least
> beginning to address this situation. I'll let you know next year if
> anything has improved!"
>
> In the 2004 report we noted that CNYWorks was sanctioned by the State
> on certain performance measures. All of the respondents felt that this
> year the organization responded quickly and thoroughly to the State's
> recommendations for improvement.
>
> *[Cross-agency Training]{.underline}*. CNYWorks' staff and management
> continue to initiate and or participate in a variety of cross-agency
> trainings. It appears that in the past year the new Disability Program
> Navigators (DPNs) made themselves available to provide technical
> assistance not only to the CNYWorks staff, but to personnel in outside
> agencies. The DPNs provided one-to-one career consultation/advisement
> and job/academic referrals; wrote individual employment plans; and
> explained information on training options. One in-school youth service
> provider said, "The DPN is a real resource. We can go and talk with
> him if we have a specific question or issues we want to explore. He's
> very good with issues around SSI and incomes. He has a real open door
> policy." CNYWorks also hired someone to work in the Partners for
> Education in Business (PEB) program that works with in-school youth
> with and without disabilities.
>
> *[Staff Turnover]{.underline}*. In 2005 the long-time executive
> director of CNYWorks left the position and currently an acting
> director has assumed this role. The new acting director has extensive
> background in youth services. The full-time navigator, who was highly
> regarded by his colleagues and customers alike, also left the position
> to work for the State office of Social Security. These two positions
> were the only ones to turnover at CNYWorks.
>
> It should be noted that while turnover continues to be very low within
> the one-stop itself, turnover within partner agencies was significant
> in the past year. Several respondents were of the opinion that low
> wages, agency uncertainty about funding, and the demand that "more and
> tougher outcomes be achieved with less" all contributed to this
> situation. As described earlier, two partners actually "opted out"
> mid-way in their grant year. They made the decision to return the
> funding to CNYWorks. "I have to give them credit. They realized they
> weren't going to come through on the conditions of the grants, so they
> decided it was in their best interest to cut bait; wait for the next
> time around when they would be better equipped to handle the
> expectations. I think we'd all be better off using a contract or fee
> for service system."
>
> *[Staff Skill Sets]{.underline}*. CNYWorks' management prides itself
> on hiring individuals who are "gung ho about working with teenagers
> and young adults," according to one of the respondents. "It does us no
> good to bring in people who lack the experience and maturity for
> working with school systems and businesses. They need to be able to
> hold their own in serving this population." The same also holds true
> when recruiting temporary mentors for the CNYWorks *Summer Youth
> Employment Program*, "particularly professionals who aren't afraid of
> so-called 'at-risk' kids."
>
> As stated in previous years, VESID requires that their counselors have
> a degree in rehabilitation counseling. They also look for knowledge of
> workplace, disability, medical benefits, youth programs, and skills
> assessment. Strong people skills and communication skills were cited
> by all the respondents as essential.
>
> *[Disability Training for Staff]{.underline}*. Disability awareness
> training for staff has been imbedded into CNYWorks' training agenda
> over the past few years. According to all of the respondents, this
> training and technical assistance has proven to be effective. One
> staff person put it this way: "I think we're moving beyond the
> 'training' phase -- to a real awareness of the issues. A real
> sensitivity permeates our work. And no one will hesitate to go get
> information or help if an issue arises that challenges us. Since we
> are a veteran staff, new employees have any number of people to turn
> to for information and assistance."
>
> **d. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA SHARING**
>
> *[Collection of New Data]{.underline}*. Over the past year, there was
> no new data collected across agencies. However, the State DOL data
> collection system (OSOS) is being increasingly utilized to handle
> youth intake and performance information, per the new performance
> measures. As mentioned earlier, CNYWorks is still learning to manage
> their data better in an effort to more accurately reflect their actual
> performance. The case management system at VESID continues to be
> totally separate from the OSOS database. VESID has a written referral
> form that can be shared with One-Stop partners, within the confines of
> confidentiality.
>
> The OSOS system, in the opinion of all the CNYWorks staff who were
> interviewed, makes it nearly impossible to accurately reflect the
> youth activities and outcomes. One staff said, "Everyone's doing data
> collection, but they are not sharing across data systems. It is like
> Apple and Windows. You have systems that are excellent in and of
> themselves. But they are incompatible. So it's frustrating for the
> users. It's next to impossible to communicate true activity and
> outcomes. The database used by the Department of Labor is different
> from ours. Counterproductive at the very least. The people in charge,
> what planet are they from?"
>
> *[Collection of Data on Youth with Disabilities]{.underline}*. There
> was no change from last year's report: *While the OSOS database did
> have a variable on disability, no one was aware of data being
> collected specifically on this population of youth at the State level
> or at the One-Stop. The disability organizations that served as
> One-Stop partners did provide program and participant information to
> CNYWorks in monthly reports and discussions as required by their
> service contracts.*
>
> *[Use of Data for Decision-making]{.underline}*. CNYWorks continues to
> use data to make key decisions and improve their performance. Data
> collected from the State informed CNYWorks as to their progress in
> meeting WIA performance measures and avoiding sanctions. As a result
> of last year's data shared by the State, CNYWorks has made an effort
> to develop programs and connect with agencies whose outcomes were job
> placements for youth, and fewer agencies with job readiness as their
> goal. They looked at "outcomes over process." CNYWorks continues to
> seek credentialing programs for older youth, in high demand
> occupations.
>
> One of the respondents, a youth worker with over 25 years experience,
> spoke of the ongoing frustration caused by the limits of the State
> data system to accurately capture meaningful youth data: "We are
> driven by the OSOS system (State Department of Labor). The way of
> reporting \[outcomes\] is very cumbersome for reporting youth data. It
> works fine for the adult population but isn't set up to accurately
> capture the picture for those youth that come back year after year.
> The nature of youth development is that it is going to take many years
> for these kids to finally get it. Youth who are in special education
> are going to need more time to gain the skills they need; to be
> marketable to employers. Under WIA you have one year to work with the
> youth and have them be productive citizens working full time. In my
> opinion, this is not youth development."
>
> VESID uses its data to aid consumer rehabilitation, make program
> operation decisions, and to obtain funding.
>
> **e. PERFORMANCE MEASURES**
>
> *[Setting High Expectations for Youth]{.underline}.* CNYWorks
> management and staff continue to set high expectations for themselves
> as well as the youth they serve, including youth with disabilities.
> Efforts are made to educate management and staff about youth with
> disabilities and accommodations, which has led to higher expectations
> for youth with disabilities. Youth with disabilities are held to the
> same standards as youth without disabilities.
>
> *[Impact of Common Measures]{.underline}.* The implementation of the
> new Common Measures of Performance has had a direct impact on the
> provision of services for all youth, including youth with
> disabilities. In 2004 New York State made the decision to adopt the
> proposed WIA common measures of performance whether they appeared in
> the WIA reauthorization or not. As stated previously, CNYWorks was
> sanctioned in the areas of earnings gain, entered employment, and
> credentialing for older youth. Apparently, only exiters were being
> counted. In response to these sanctions, "We \[CNYWorks\] have become
> a heck of a lot more sophisticated in how we do business and interpret
> our efforts and accomplishments."
>
> CNYWorks' staff members continue to question the value of the OSOS
> data collected as it pertains to tracking whether they had met their
> performance measures or not. There is also the concern of the
> incompatibility amongst data sets and their worth in tracking
> accomplishments. The staff stated that the OSOS database did not track
> everything they accomplished with youth; specifically basic skills
> achievement, placements for older youth, and the wage increases for
> older youth. As one respondent remarked, "We are now making every
> effort to align our program goals more closely with the WIA
> performance expectations."
>
> **f. FISCAL ISSUES**
>
> *[Sources of Funding and Oversight]{.underline}*. The One-Stop Manager
> and Executive Director of the WIB hold primary responsibility and
> oversight for funds relating to WIA, TANF, dislocated worker monies,
> H1B, and internal service contracts. None of these funds are directly
> focused on services to youth with disabilities. Disability-specific
> funding is obtained by VESID and the other partner agencies whose
> mission is to serve this population solely.
>
> *[Flexibility of Funds]{.underline}*. Over the last year, CNYWorks'
> management has not observed any legal or policy changes that impacted
> their flexibility to use non-WIA funds for youth with disabilities.
> Most of their funds are very prescriptive, and are not directly
> designated for youth with disabilities.
>
> The One-Stop disability organization partners did not know of any
> legal or policy changes that had impacted their flexibility to use
> non-WIA funds for youth with disabilities.
>
> **g. ELIGIBILITY**
>
> *[Non-Income Eligibility Services]{.underline}*. CNYWorks and its
> partners continue to have access to services that are not dependent on
> income eligibility. For example, the out-of school youth service
> providers have access to services that are not dependent on income
> eligibility through the Navigator funds, Businesses for Youth (BOCES),
> Career Paths for Success (Onondaga Community College program), and
> coordinated, county-wide events through the One-Stop. Self-services
> through the One-Stop are available to anyone in the County without
> income requirements. However, the training program services are
> dependent on income eligibility.
>
> *[Non-categorical Funding]{.underline}*. As stated above, CNYWorks
> does not receive categorical funding based on specific disability.
> Most funds are specific to youth, but not specific to youth with
> disabilities. This past year, CNYWorks staff and management and the
> disability organization One-Stop partners were unaware of any changes
> in local or state policy regarding eligibility criteria that effect
> their programming and activities.
>
> **h. MARKETING AND OUTREACH TO EMPLOYERS**
>
> *[New Efforts to Engage Employers]{.underline}*. CNYWorks and their
> partners continue to use creativity and tremendous effort to engage
> employers in all aspects of their programming and to communicate ways
> for supporting employees with disabilities. Overall, the CNYWorks
> staff finds local employers amenable to working with youth with
> disabilities. One staff person stated, "We market skills and
> potential. We don't go out and scare employers with a heavy dose of
> disability information right off the bat. I want them to see us as a
> bonafide resource for finding future talent." They continue to play a
> large part in the BOCES Projects with Industry (PWI) Career Fair at
> LeMoyne College. This year CNYWorks conducted a job fair orientation
> for youth prior to the fair, using employers as seminar speakers.
>
> They've also continued their Green industry youth internship program
> and had added eight new employers. CNYWorks used a local television
> station, Channel 5, to solicit employers -- asking employers to pledge
> jobs to the One Stop. They also have brochures available to employers
> describing their Employer Incentive Program, Businesses for Youth
> Program, and CNYWorks Business Services. The One-Stop brochure informs
> employers about their free business services such as: individualized
> consultation, customized recruitment and job fairs, linkage to
> economic development and tax incentives, worker training coordination
> and incentives, free job postings, resumes of qualified workers
> through Virtual Recruiter, free linkage to their website and logo, and
> a community events calendar.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> *[Supporting Employers in Hiring Youth with
> Disabilities]{.underline}*. The CNYWorks' staff and management did not
> indicate any changes in how they support employers in hiring and
> accommodating employees with disabilities.
>
> *[Disclosure to Employers]{.underline}*. There were no changes from
> the 2004 report, as far as the way in which disclosure is handled.
>
> **i. COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION AMONG PARTNERS**
>
> *[Changes in Partner Relationships]{.underline}*. As with previous
> years, the disability partner agencies were highly complimentary of
> their working relationships with CNYWorks. However, as noted earlier,
> two partner agencies were found by CNYWorks to be lacking in their
> ability to meet promised outcomes. After discussions to remedy the
> situation, these partners made the decision to opt out. They returned
> unused funds in order to maintain their credibility with CNYWorks.
> According to one of the staff, "It was the classic Catch-22: I'm the
> grantor. I tell you \[the partner agency\] 'Guess what? This year you
> have the pleasure and honor of serving more youth than last year, with
> less money. On top of that, you aren't going to get any credit for
> trying. We want employment outcomes, not readiness.' Well some
> agencies are telling us, 'No thanks.'"
>
> *[Changes in School Relationships]{.underline}*. The CNYWorks youth
> service providers commented on the continued improvement of
> relationships with the county and city school systems. They continue
> to experience an increase in summer work experience requests from the
> county schools. This is attributed to several factors: an increase in
> recruiting for the Summer Youth Employment Program in the schools; a
> change in one county's school staff to include a former One-Stop
> staff- member familiar with their services and successes; publicity in
> countywide job fairs; much more media (three TV and two radio
> stations); and neighborhood interest in the Job Fair. Approximately
> 150 youth attend the Spring Job Fair, and 850 youth are enrolled in
> the summer employment program each year.
>
> VESID reported a much-improved relationship with the county schools.
> New teachers are oriented to the services VESID can provide to youth.
> Unlike previous years, there is now a formal protocol for schools to
> follow when referring youth to VESID. There are clear guidelines about
> what VESID can offer youth while they are still in high school.
>
> []{.mark}
>
> **j. ACCESSIBILITY AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY**
>
> *[Changes in Programs, Services and Activities]{.underline}*.
> CNYWorks' management and staff indicated that no significant changes
> were made to their programs, services and activities in order to make
> them more accessible to people with disabilities. "We are extremely
> proud of the way we make our programs and services comfortable and
> accessible -- and flexible \-- for our customers with disabilities."
>
> *[Changes to Physical Facilities]{.underline}*. CNYWorks' offices are
> now co-located with the Department of Labor in an attractive and
> accessible building. The new site has been praised by customers as
> being inviting and professional-looking. As one respondent put it,
> "These new digs reflect outwardly what we have always tried to portray
> with our customers: we're here to serve you." While the new office is
> near a public transportation stop, apparently some think it is more
> difficult to get to for some customers, because it necessitates
> transferring buses. Another respondent had a differing view: "On the
> other hand, I think it encourages customers to think more seriously
> about the effort it takes to get to a job site. I've even noticed
> people coming in dressed more appropriately -- and without their kids
> in tow."
>
> *[New Assistive Technologies]{.underline}*. There were no new
> technologies added since last year's report.
>
> *[Funding Assistive Technologies]{.underline}*. There were no changes
> in funding sources since last year's report. State funding is the sole
> source.
>
> **III. YOUTH INTERVIEWS**
>
> *[Demographics]{.underline}.* Ten youth were interviewed (8 in
> face-to-face interviews) as part of the Syracuse, NY case study. One
> youth was accompanied by a parent due to very limited communication
> skills. All ten of the youth participated in the *CNYWorks Summer
> Youth Employment* Program through Baker High School.
>
> The youth ranged in age from 18 to 27. Three of the youth were female;
> seven of the youth were male. Eight youth were in-school youth, and
> two youth were out-of-school. One youth was currently a high school
> Junior. Three of the eight in-school youth were participating in the
> "postgraduate program" for youth ages 18-22. Two youth were graduating
> with regular diplomas; two youth were graduating with IEP diplomas and
> staying on for the post-graduate program at the high school. One
> out-of-school youth exited with an IEP diploma and one exited with a
> GED.
>
> Four of the ten youth had learning disabilities, primarily in reading
> comprehension, writing and mathematics. Two of the youth had Down
> Syndrome with significant speech and language impairments. Four of the
> ten youth had multiple disabilities including ED/LD and LD/OI.
>
> Nine of the ten youth were living at home with at least one parent.
> One youth lived independently in an apartment. Four of the youth
> currently received SSI; two youth had recently applied for SSI; two
> youth did not receive SSI; and two youth were unaware of their SSI
> status.
>
> *[School Environment]{.underline}.* Four of the youth were educated in
> a self-contained special education classroom, while 6 of the youth
> received special education services in a resource room with additional
> supports (i.e., tutor, notetaker, and reader) in their general
> education classes.
>
> The education of those youth attending, or who will be attending, the
> "postgraduate program" focused primarily, if not solely, on
> occupational studies and the development of employability skills. For
> example, one youth will return next year to take additional coursework
> in business operations and vocational classes in sewing and crafts.
> Another youth will be attending a certification program in
> construction at BOCES. Still another youth will be taking Productions,
> Materials Processing and Auto Shop classes in the vocational and
> technical education program at the high school. The two youth who
> exited school did not attend any training or postsecondary
> institutions at this time.
>
> *[Past Work Experience]{.underline}.* All of the youth visited
> CNYWorks to get their work ID and complete paperwork for their summer
> employment. All of the youth were transported to their worksites on a
> bus arranged for by CNYWorks through the school system. All of the
> youth had participated for multiple years (2-5 years) in the
> *CNYWorks* *Summer Youth Employment Program*. Each youth was assigned
> a job coach for each summer job.
>
> The youth participated in a wide variety of summer jobs including:
> indoor and outdoor maintenance at the YMCA, grocery stores, community
> parks, retirement homes and public school buildings; clerical work at
> the school district office and school buildings; teaching assistant to
> a scuba diving teacher; medical records file clerk in a healthcare
> center; assistant at a local apple farm; assistant at a public
> library; and grocery store clerk and stocker. One youth worked five
> years as a paperboy for a weekly newspaper prior to participating in
> the *CNYWorks Summer Youth Employment Program.* Most of the youth
> worked in at least two different positions over their years of
> participation.
>
> *[Current Work Status]{.underline}.* Seven youth were not working
> during the school year. Six youth planned to continue working in the
> *CNYWorks Summer Youth Employment* Program this coming summer. One
> youth would like to focus this summer on work in the computer repair
> field.
>
> Four youth were hired on full or part-time with their summer CNYWorks
> employers. One youth was hired full-time with benefits at the same
> healthcare facility were he had worked during the. He worked there an
> additional four 4 years until the center closed and he was laid off.
> He is now unemployed and receives SSI and Medicaid benefits. Another
> youth continued in his medical clerk job part-time (10-12:30 each day)
> at this same center throughout the school year for two additional
> years but was laid off. He currently works part-time at a local mall 5
> days/wk for 1 ½ hrs/day. He was working with VESID, ARISE and BOCES to
> find a job since he no is eligible to participate in the summer
> program. Another out-of-school youth was hired by his summer employer
> to continue working during the past school year. He now works 4
> days/wk, 3 hrs/day at \$7.00/hr. The employer offered him additional
> hours, but he declined because he would lose his SSI and Medicaid
> benefits. One youth originally began working through a school work
> study program and was hired by his manager part-time six months ago.
> He earned \$5.40/hr and works between 20-30 hrs/wk. After one year of
> employment, he will receive a one week vacation, but no health
> benefits.
>
> *[Benefits of Work Experiences]{.underline}.* All of the youth
> indicated that participation in the *CNYWorks Summer Youth Employment*
> Program was beneficial to them. The benefits of the work experiences
> were categorized in the following way:

-   Increased self-advocacy (speaking up for themselves; asking for

> accommodations; independence)

-   Improved attitude toward work ("building a work ethic")

-   Improved socialization skills (listening; interacting and working
    with co-

> workers and supervisors; making friends)

-   Self-recognition of skills, abilities and career interests

-   Paid work- "I got to find out what a pay stub looks like."

-   Increased employability skills (resume writing, interviewing, work
    behavior)

-   Increased technical skills (specific and varied skill-building)

-   Opportunities to prove abilities using "hands-on" skills

-   Keeping busy in the summer

> *[Community Connections]{.underline}.* Six of the youth noted no
> connections with their community outside of their jobs. One youth
> served as an advocate for his friends and even strangers with
> disabilities in his community. He got them "hooked up" with adult
> services and CNYWorks. Another youth attended a weekly support group,
> Connections of Syracuse, with his parent. This family was also
> connected with the community adult services programs offered through
> Onondaga Community for the Living. Another family was connected with
> Exceptional Family Resources (a non-profit advocacy group) and VESID.
> One youth mentioned participating in Challenger Little League for many
> years. Most of the youth who participated in community support
> programs were initially contacted because of the family's involvement.
>
> *[Future Plans]{.underline}.* Each of the youth described a plan for
> their future in relation to working. Four youth planned to continue
> working at their current part-time job; two youth planned to attend a
> postsecondary institution full-time (1 University, 1 community
> college); two youth planned to get postsecondary vocational training
> either at BOCES or at the local community college. Four youth planned
> to examine new career fields, perhaps in the areas of office work,
> security, and manufacturing. One youth planned to own and operate a
> craft business. One youth planned to finish high school. Most youth
> had more than one future goal. One youth indicated that despite having
> many goals for his future there was still the uncertainty of living
> independently due to unemployment. There was still concerns about loss
> of benefits versus employment. One out-of-school youth stated, "if you
> are working you can't get ahead but if you are not working you get
> ahead, that's wrong. I mean you should be able to work, feel like you
> are accomplishing something, but they make it so you can't accomplish
> anything and then you feel worthless because you are sitting home all
> the time and you are not doing anything." In addition, "I would love
> to have a job and get paid for it and feel like I am accomplishing
> something. And it's not so much accomplishing everything; it's that
> connection with other people. You can't get along without that
> connection, you know? Because if you are sitting home all the time."
>
> *[Program Satisfaction]{.underline}.* All ten youth and both parents
> were satisfied with the program overall and would recommend the
> *CNYWorks Summer Youth Employment Program* to other young people with
> and without disabilities. The youth and parents were very
> complimentary of the special education teacher who facilitated their
> participation in the program with CNYWorks and in other school-year
> work experiences. Some comments from youth concerning their
> satisfaction with the program included: "Everyone should contact CNY
> Works. I had no problems with them- they help you get a job." "It's a
> good program to get into. It tells you how to get along with
> everyone." "You have people that can help you find jobs and help you
> on-the-job too." One youth emphasized that the summer program opened
> many doors for her and opened her eyes to possibilities. She further
> stated, "Well, it's really hard out there and so not like the first
> job you get or the first job you get an application for will hire you,
> to keep filling out applications until one of them calls you back.
> Keep trying and don't give up."
>
> *[Program Recommendations]{.underline}.* Overall, the youth did not
> have major recommendations for the program except for a few isolated
> programmatic suggestions. Specifically, three youth had no
> recommendations for program changes. Two youth recommended longer work
> days during the school year, and adding a couple of weeks to the
> summer program in order to help employees understand the "reality of a
> job." One youth stated, "I'd like more hours per week so that it's
> more like real life." This same youth also recommended that program
> managers try harder to find the youth jobs that are enjoyable and
> applicable to their future career plans.
>
> One youth recommended doing the required paperwork for the summer
> employment program earlier on in the school year. He would have liked
> to have had more information from CNYWorks, prior to the job, about
> work permits and other required paperwork. He claimed it was difficult
> to get the medical paperwork done through the school nurse after
> school was out of session.
>
> There were still concerns about the involvement of job coaches as
> indicated from previous years. One youth recommended keeping the job
> coaches because they gave him good directions and worked with him 1-1,
> while another youth recommended not having job coaches because it
> "felt odd and babyish" having someone with her. One youth commented,
> "I think that people need more toughness because it keeps me
> motivated. My job coach gives me expectations, she knows what I can do
> and stuff and she tries to get me to do harder stuff." In general, the
> availability of funds for job coaches has made it increasingly harder
> for employers to agree to hire youth who participate in the summer
> employment program without support.
>
> **IV. NEW AND CONTINUING CHALLENGES**
>
> The staff and management at CNYWorks presented several continuing and
> new challenges that they face on a day-to-day basis in their efforts
> to provide effective services to youth with and without disabilities.
> Most of these challenges continue to fall within four categories: the
> employment environment in New York State and their local region;
> support across stakeholders (families, job coaches, community
> partners); data collection; and outcomes expectations and performance
> measures (especially measures for youth with disabilities).
>
> As cited last year, the employment sector shifted dramatically in
> Syracuse from a manufacturing focus to human services orientation. The
> State, as well as CNYWorks' staff and management, started focusing
> their efforts around certain demand occupations such as healthcare and
> retail. The unemployment rate in the area continues to be high for
> youth in the private sector. Many available jobs for youth and adults
> are entry-level positions with no benefits; many are part-time or
> temporary positions with no benefits. In fact, because of the rise in
> small businesses in the area, youth may face a dismal employment
> future without highly technical or extended education.
>
> One difficulty continues to be funding for job coaches. Many programs
> for youth with disabilities were being operated this year with a
> minimal amount of job coaching. One of the respondents, representing a
> disability agency, talked about her agency using Medicaid waivers to
> fund job coaching. "This means we can provide services as soon as
> someone is eligible. We are hearing from other agencies that they will
> not or they don't want to do that. I don't know why. As a Youth
> Council member, I am committed to leading the community discussion on
> this."
>
> Supporting youth on job sites, particularly youth with disabilities
> emerged as an obstacle to successful employment. All of the
> interviewees cited a severe shortage of job coaches due to unavailable
> funds as a primary challenge. Youth serving organizations that were
> awarded grants last year from CNYWorks continue to struggle meeting
> the required outcomes (i.e., adequate enrollment and staffing).
> Despite ongoing guidance from CNYWorks to fulfill requirements of the
> grants, the grantees fell short of meeting their obligations. The
> Youth Program Coordinator stated, "I sat down with them (YS
> organizations) and said this is what you need to achieve by the end of
> June and they said that there was no way they could do that. They said
> we would rather end it right now on good terms with you in the hopes
> that maybe someday we can come back and submit a proposal that we can
> do as opposed to trying to do something that we know we can't at this
> point." As a result, this organization removed themselves and returned
> a large portion of the money to CNYWorks.
>
> Supporting families of youth with disabilities also emerged as an area
> of need. Several interviewees expressed concern that many of the
> families of youth being served were not properly informed as to the
> transition process, including the diploma options, adult services, and
> their legal rights and responsibilities. As a result of this lack of
> involvement, youth who have exited school and their families are left
> unprepared to take full advantage of the services and supports that
> are available through the OneStop.
>
> CNYWorks continues to be concerned about the incompatibility of data
> systems across partners and systems. They were also concerned about
> the value and accuracy of the State database, OSOS. CNYWorks staff and
> management did not believe that the data collected accurately reflects
> their efforts for youth; certain youth variables were not even in the
> database. The OSOS (the State) database continued to not track youth
> variables such as basic skills achievement, placements for older
> youth, and increases in wages for older youth. The time spent on data
> entry by youth service providers was also a concern. The youth service
> providers must enter their own data (assessment, intake, recruitment,
> program, and outcomes), while the adult service providers had
> designated data-entry help.
>
> There really are two issues looming over the CNYWorks youth program.
> One is that there doesn't seem to be definitive guidelines
> specifically for inputting data on youth and despite CNYWorks staff
> asking for assistance and clarification, this continues to be an
> ongoing frustration. Second, the performance measures are restrictive
> and do not address the needs of youth with more significant
> disabilities and/or academic challenges. However, it should be noted
> that at the time of this interview, the State had conducted a 2-hour
> web-cam workshop on youth data entry.
>
> CNYWorks and its partner organizations are anxious to see how the WIA
> re-authorization will impact their youth services and processes,
> especially with regards to innumeracy and literacy. It was the Youth
> Career Advisor's impression that the reauthorization of WIA was likely
> to require serving 50% in-school youth and 50% out-of-school youth.
> "There will be four common measures as opposed to the eleven we have
> now. But NY State will probably keep theirs so it will not only give
> us 10 or 11, it will give us 14 or 15 \[measures\] we will have to
> meet."
>
> The Youth Career Advisor also stated that CNYWorks had conducted TABE
> testing of all youth who worked in the summer 2004 program. "I will
> tell you that 75-80% did not meet the measures. So, how are we to
> devise a program that will raise those 2 reading levels in one year.
> It's impossible. The schools can't do it; there is no way that we as
> career advisors are going to do it." To further complicate matters
> there have been no guidelines given in how to accommodate youth with
> disabilities in taking the TABE. "So, you get irate parents saying
> that these kids should not be taking these tests in order to be
> getting into summer jobs."
>
> In summary, new and ongoing challenges are:

-   Issue of high school exit documents (i.e., IEP certificates versus
    diploma) continues to plague the youth programs. CYNWorks is taking
    the stand that if youth with disabilities have completed all of
    their expected educational outcomes as delineated in their IEPs,
    they should be able to tell employers they have graduated from high
    school. The real issue is: Do the youth have the specific skills
    needed by the employer?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The employment sector is shifting dramatically in Syracuse from
    manufacturing to human services work -- started focusing more on
    demand occupations

-   The unemployment rate in the area continues to be high

-   State emphasis on outcomes vs. process much more prescriptive this
    year -- greater emphasis on outcomes data collection

-   Incompatibility of data systems across partners and systems -- time
    spent on data entry a concern, accurate reflection of efforts a
    concern. While there has been some effort made by the State of NY in
    2005 to provide training in a more consistent data collection
    system, this continues to be viewed by the practitioners as a major
    obstacle.

-   The state of New York is taking on the new performance measures
    regardless of WIA re-authorization- need to examine One-Stop
    performance in sanctioned areas more closely

-   Fewer RFP proposals coming into CNYWorks due to increased attention
    to job placement vs. job readiness

-   Common measures regarding literacy and innumeracy have put youth
    workers in the role of basic educators rather then employment
    specialists

-   Many community-based partners have been losing funding, leading to
    high staff turnover, which negatively affects outcomes for CNYWorks
    youth programs

-   Funding for job coaching services is dwindling. This makes it
    extremely difficult to support work placements for those youth with
    the more significant needs for accommodation and monitoring.

-   Enrolling youth in summer programs when the schools have failed to
    provide essential information (especially when school personnel are
    not available after the end of the school year). This is
    particularly of concern when summer program staff have no idea of
    the accommodations that are needed for a youth.

-   The strict outcome measures dealing with literacy and innumeracy may
    prove to be a disincentive for serving youth with disabilities

-   Catch-22 situation: some high schools seem to be stalling in issuing
    student discharge papers (in the case of dropouts); without these
    official documents, these youth do not meet WIA eligibility for
    CNYWorks services

-   Too few transition coordinators in the schools to handle the large
    numbers of exiting youth

-   Partner organizations who "overpromise and underdeliver" on their
    outcomes.

-   The "drop in, drop out" nature of many out-of-school youth.

> **V. SPECIFIC AND IMPLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS**
>
> The CNYWorks staff and management, along with their disability agency
> partners, made the following recommendations for improved programs and
> practices that serve youth:

-   Better, up-front directions from State about WIA outcomes
    requirements

-   Streamlined data system that does not take away from direct service
    time

-   Create data collection system more appropriate for youth services

-   Continued funding of navigator position- longer term (beyond one
    year)

-   Greater youth "voice" in WIB and Youth Council

-   Better communication across agencies, particularly regarding the
    issue of outreach to out-of-school and older youth

-   Expand the use of ad hoc committees to encourage greater involvement
    of youth in the Youth Council; offer an honorarium or stipend to
    youth leaders

-   Increased communications and memoranda of understanding between WIB
    director and top school system officers regarding the potential
    mutual benefits of working together. Improved joint problem-solving.

-   The federal and state government should consider establishing two
    minimum wage standards: a higher one for youth 18 and older; a lower
    one for youth under age 18 -- to provide incentives to employers to
    give younger teens more opportunities to "try out" work.

-   Replace RFP process with fee for service arrangement (for
    community-based partners) or contracts -- so that there is increased
    accountability towards outcomes.

-   Develop creative avenues for credentialling youth with disabilities,
    particularly those who are unable to achieve high academic
    standards, but who have the potential to be successful in certain
    occupations

-   Develop a more efficient and accurate youth data system (current
    system is onerous and does not accurately reflect the positive
    outcomes for youth). This will reinforce the positive intent of
    W.I.A. while meeting the unique needs of youth.

-   Investigate use of Medicaid waiver for job coaching services

**SUMMARY STATEMENT**

In closing, it is important to note that this report reflects the
commitment and dedication of a successful One Stop Career Center and its
partnering agencies. This report suggests that after three years of
reporting on the status of the programs and practices that serve youth,
there are still challenges that remain an obstacle in providing those
exemplary programs. This 2005 report reflects the new and innovative
ways that CNYWorks and its partnering agencies are addressing these
challenges with specific and implicit recommendations (as noted above)
to advance their services to more youth with and without disabilities in
the Syracuse, NY region. Their dedication to improvement and meeting the
requirements set forth by the federal government are to be commended.

TUCSON, ARIZONA CASE STUDY REPORT 2005

Institute for Educational Leadership

# INTRODUCTION

## GENERAL OVERVIEW

This report covers the third year case study for the Pima County
(Tucson) youth workforce development system. On May 10 -- 11^th^, Irene
Lynn of the Institute for Educational Leadership conducted the site
visit for this case study. Arnold Palacios, Youth Services Manager and
One-Stop Manager, who has coordinated the case study for all three
years, coordinated the visit. This is also the third year that Irene
Lynn has conducted the study. This continuity has been extremely
valuable in understanding the Tucson workforce development system and in
identifying changes from year to year.

For the 2005 study, interviews were conducted with some, but not all, of
the same individuals who were spoken with in 2004. The same service
providers were spoken with, about half the youth were among those who
were interviewed in 2004, and, of course, Arnold Palacios provided
significant input, as he has in each of the study years. At the State
level, repeated attempts to contact the Director of the Governor's on
Workforce Policy, proved unsuccessful. A staff person was interviewed
from the recently created Statewide Youth Development Task Force. In
addition, the State has recently completed its two-year strategic
Workforce Investment Plan. Information from the plan has been
incorporated into this report.

## CONTEXT/CHANGES IN CONTEXT

Arizona is the sixth largest state with 114,000 square miles. While it
is has a relatively small population, in terms of projected job growth,
Arizona is the second- fastest growing state, behind only Nevada. For
2005-2006, Arizona's economy is expected to add 191,000 jobs, in a State
whose overall population was at about five and a half million in 2003.
Between 2000 and 2003, the population has grown by 9%, well above the
national average of 3%. The State is a border state to Mexico and about
25% of the population is Hispanic. It has the third highest American
Indian population in the U.S. with a little over 5% of the state of
American Indian heritage.

Pima Count, in which Tucson is the county seat, is one of the southern
most counties, bordering on Mexico, it cover 9,184 square miles. The
2003 population count was 910,950; of which 426,000 are in the labor
force. The unemployment rate for 2003 was 4.3 percent. Between 2000 and
2003, the population increased by approximately 10 percent. Almost 15
percent of the population is 15-24; 28 percent are 25 --44 and 21percent
are under 15 years of age. Thirty percent of the population is of
Hispanic heritage. There are small numbers of African Americans, Native
Americans, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

Three American Indian reservations account for ownership of 42 percent
of the land in Pima County. In the county, the state owns 14.9 percent;
the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management own 12.1
percent; other public lands, represent 17.1 percent of land ownership;
and individual or corporate ownership, 13.8 percent. The county has an
Enterprise Zone which covers the central areas of Tucson and South
Tucson and a central portion of Pima County.

According to the *Arizona Statewide Economic Study 2002,* several
economic activities drive the Arizona economy. These activities include
base industries that bring dollars into the region as well as local
service industries that provide services to the State's growing
population. The most important base industries are two high-technology
manufacturing industries; computers and electronics and aerospace.
Tourism, mining, agriculture, administrative supports (such as call
centers) are other major industries. Service-producing industries and
the construction industry complete the State's current economic base.

As with most States, Arizona's industry base has become considerably
more service-oriented over the years. The service groups, which account
for an increasing share in the number of firms, employment and wages,
are retail trade, local government, and health care. Over the next 10
years, the greatest job growth is projected in health case and social
assistance, administrative support, retail trade, construction and
educational services.

According to the State two- year plan, "The key to Arizona's economic
success is ensuring better-qualified workers for jobs in high-growth,
high-potential industry sectors throughout the State. Specifically,
Arizona must ensure that students leave the elementary and secondary
system with the right skills to begin a path toward successful careers."

Arizona's Workforce Connection is the name for the State's workforce
development network. According to their web site Workforce Connection
brings "together all of Arizona's workforce development partners to
provide businesses with a comprehensive, streamlined service,
representing \$270 million in federal and state programs." There are
sixteen agencies listed as one-stop partners, including all the
mandatory partners and employment and training activities under the
Community Block Grant and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The State continues to refine and further develop its
"virtual" one-stop system, which is organized around the 16 local
workforce service delivery areas.

There are several notable changes to report this year. These are
detailed within the report. Tucson's Youth Opportunity grant funding
ends June 30^th^. The site has a one-year no-cost extension of their
grant and will have \$2.4 million in funds remaining. These funds will
be used to cover the costs of youth who are still in the pipeline. No
new youth are being enrolled. The loss of this significant funding
source is impacting how youth services are delivered in Tucson. Service
provider funds are being significantly reduced. While it is expected
that the County will provide some additional funding, it will not come
close to replacing this key funding source.

Pima County continues to more fully integrate its youth and adult
services, partially in response to the loss of YO funds. The most
significant change has been in the restructuring of its front-line
worker position. Effective July 1, Tucson will no longer have separate
front-line workers for youth and adults. The functions have been merged
into a newly-created position, called Workforce Development Specialist.
An extensive training program has been implemented to prepare staff for
the change.

With respect to its one-stop centers, Pima County has closed its
satellite locations, a process that began last year. Services are
delivered through the two full-service centers at Ajo Way and Rio Neuvo,
as well as through the State's "virtual" one-stop system.

With respect to employer outreach and engagement, Pima County has
refocused its efforts around high growth industries. This is a
significant shift in emphasis which reflects the Employment and Training
Administration's policy direction. An employer outreach team has been
established.

Services to individuals with disabilities (both youth and adults)
continue to be enhanced through the strengthening partnership with the
Rehabilitative Services Agency and the location of a Navigator position
at the Ajo Way one-stop center. At the time of the site visit, an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Vocational
Rehabilitation Services Administration was being finalized. This
agreement is for a pilot program that is being jointly funded by the two
governmental-entities. This pilot program is evidence of the significant
and positive change in the relationship between Voc Rehab and Pima
County. Arnold Palacios attributes this change to Pima County's
participation in this case study.

Pima County continues to provide all of its citizens with quality
workforce development services. Its one-stop centers are comprehensive,
attractive and accessible facilities. Pima County, despite its loss of
YO funding, continues to provide quality alternatives for academic and
skill attainment for its most vulnerable youth.

### Leadership at all Levels, Including Youth

# State Workforce Investment Board

The Governor's Council on Workforce Policy continues to provide the
leadership and policy direction for the State's workforce development
system. Governor Janet Napolitano, through Executive Order 2003-24,
established the composition of the Council, with its 35 members, the
majority of the representatives from the private sector. The council is
chaired by Jack Jewett, a business person from Tucson Medical Center.
This is a change from last year.

In last year's report, it was noted that there had been changes in the
Council's focus on youth issues, although not specifically on youth with
disabilities. An Education Committee had been established and chaired by
the Council representative from the Department of Education. There was a
proposal to establish a State Youth Council, with proposed funding of
\$300,000.

The Council's emphasis on youth continues although the focus of its
activities has changed. In response to a question around economic growth
in its State plan, the State outlined seven strategies of which the
first two relate to education and youth.

-   Improve our K-12 education system with support and input from
    business and industry.

-   Create stronger pathways to post-secondary opportunities by aligning
    workforce skill needs with educational standards, improving high
    school graduation rates and readiness, and ensuring easy transitions
    and clear occupational paths within secondary and post-secondary
    learning institutions.

Instead of establishing a Youth Council, the Governor opted to establish
a Statewide Task Force on Youth Development. It was established through
an Executive Order and began its work in January. The Task Force is
comprised of 25 members appointed by the Governor. Funds from the State
WIA set-aside dollars support the work of the Task Force, and its
activities are closely coordinated with the Council. Members of the
Council sit on the Task Force. Four policy work groups have been
established -- youth workforce development, education, youth voice and
advocacy and positive youth development. These policy work groups are
comprised of Task Force members and others who have been recruited to
serve on the work groups. Youth are represented on the Task Force and on
each of the policy work groups. Arnold Palacios is a member of the youth
workforce development policy group. The Task Force and each of the
policy work groups meet monthly.

The goal for the Task Force is to develop by the end of the year a
comprehensive plan for youth development for the State of Arizona. There
is an expectation that the plan will include philosophical, policy, and
programmatic recommendations. The draft and final plans will be
presented to the Governor's Council for their input and for their
assistance in disseminating the plan throughout the State's 16 workforce
areas. Once the plan is completed, the Task Force will form
implementation teams that will replace the policy work groups. The
Executive Order establishing the Task Force sunsets at the end of
September 2008.

# Local Workforce Investment Board/Youth Council

The local WIB continues to be active and engaged. There have been some
changes in membership from last year. The chair has changed. Vice-chair
Shawna Adams, General Manager, of Jobing.Com is chair. The committee
structure has also changed. There are now 4 committees -- planning,
performance, oversight and membership. Unlike last year, the Pima County
WIB had not, as of the visit, issued an annual report for 2004. This
report was used to inform the community of the workforce system's
accomplishments and articulate its goals for the next year. It's not
clear why the report had not been issued.

The performance committee is responsible for overseeing WIA performance.
The oversight committee looks at the system more broadly and reviews
data and performance across agencies. This year, for the first time,
data from 15 separate funding streams is compiled in one chart for the
Committee's review. In addition to the title II and III WIA funding
streams, data from Adult Ed, Carl Perkins Post-Secondary Education, HUD,
Vocational Rehabilitation, and a number of the WIA targeted population
programs are included in the one chart. The chart includes data on
funding and on services to individuals, but not outcomes.

The planning committee undertook a major industry-focused initiative.
The committee identified Tucson's high-growth industries and occupations
within those industries. The WIB then issued new policy direction to the
local one-stop system around how it targets and engages employers. The
WIB established a high-growth industry focus for the one-stop system.
Eleven industries and a select number of jobs in other industries were
targeted for this initiative. The industries are Production, Information
Technology, Security (both public and private), Customer Service,
Finance, Transportation, Maintenance, Hospitality, Education,
Construction and Medical.

It was noted last year that the vacant representation from Vocational
Rehabilitation had recently been filled with the regional manager.
Bertha Villegas-Kinney, Program Manager RSA Region II has been an active
member of the LWIB. She serves on the membership committee. She has
worked to heighten the Council's sensitivity to serving people with
disabilities in the workforce system.

The Youth Council continues to work closely with the LWIB and to be
active and engaged. The new Chair is Peg Harmon. She has served on the
LWIB and Youth Council for several years. She is the CEO of Catholic
Community Services of Southern Arizona. She has a special interest and
focus on serving youth with disabilities. While she was not interviewed
for this report, she was interviewed for prior reports. Of the 26
members on the Youth Council, seven are youth. They continue to
participate in the monthly meetings of the Council.

Unlike last year, when the Youth Council undertook an initiative around
out of school youth and hosted a Youth Summit, this year there have been
no major youth-related initiatives.

### Identifying, Assessing and Serving Youth/Youth with Disabilities

#### One Stop Centers

Services for youth continue to be linked through the Pima County
One-Stop. The Ajo Way one-stop center which had just opened last year is
fully operational. The accessibility technology, which had not been
available last year, is now available and there are staff trained in its
use. The youth interns, funded under Youth Opportunity, will continue
even though the YO funds will no longer be available to support them.
County funds will be used instead. There are 12 interns who participate
in a variety of youth development activities, including publishing a
monthly newsletter that is distributed to over 3,000 youth in the
community, including current and former program participants.

As noted in last year's report, the two one-stop centers have increased
their capacity to serve people with disabilities, including youth
through the location of an RSA representative and a navigator position
in the one-stop offices. There has been turnover in both the RSA
representative and the navigator position in the local one-stop office.
At the time of the last visit, the RSA representative was preparing to
leave, so this change was expected. The new navigator began in February
and was interviewed for this study. She has a masters degree in
counseling and her background is in substance abuse treatment and family
counseling. At first she found the job requirements "squishy." Through
training she attended that was sponsored by DOL, she learned about the
job requirements. She reports that she works closely with RSA and with
other one-stop staff. She has worked with individuals with a wide range
of disabilities, both youth and adults. She assists them in using the
assistive technology at the one-stop center, makes referrals to services
and provides help with job interviewing skills.

The biggest change from last year is the soon to be executed
Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County One-Stop and RSA for a
"dis/ABILITY EMPLOYMENT project." The project will "test collaborative
delivery by the following types of entities: WIA agency, Vocational
Rehabilitation agency, public charter school, homeless service center,
independent living center, behavioral health services network, and
community based workforce service provider for the Deaf." The funding
for this project is coming from RSA and County funds. The County funds
at \$300,000 are being used as the required match for \$1 million in
federal funds that RSA had not previously accessed because of the
matching requirement.

The goals of the project are to:

-   Develop the One-Stop to be a resource for persons with disabilities.

-   Implement expanded services.

-   Develop a Collaboration Model that provides information related to
    changes need and accomplished through the agreement.

Funds will be used to establish another navigator position at the Rio
Neuvo one-stop center. The navigator will lead a team of specialists who
will work as a "triage" in providing in-depth services to individuals
with disabilities. Funds will also be used to provide services. Services
will also be provided using other one-stop funding streams, such as WIA,
Adult Education and VR. This model will test the braiding (but not
blending) of funding streams. A kick-off event to introduce the project
to all one-stop staff was being planned for late June. It will be
particularly interesting to see how this program was implemented and the
outcomes at next year's site visit.

#### Youth Service Providers

Pima County continues to use a network of services providers to deliver
youth services. As noted in the last report, separate procurements were
issued for case management and for program services. This year a new
procurement was issued for case management. This procurement changed the
case manager classification to a workforce development specialist. The
workforce development specialists now must be able to serve both youth
and adult clients. Also, workforce development specialists must now
perform job development functions. In the summary, the job description
says that the workforce development specialist "counsels, evaluates,
trains, and assists One-Stop Career Center customer requiring
assistance. . ." Separate duties are listed for the general public (i.e.
job seeker) and employer customers. There was little change in the
organizations that provide case management services, except that now
their responsibilities are broadened.

The Youth Council did not issue a new procurement for program services
this year. There is a sense that the next procurement will need to
reflect anticipated changes to WIA under the reauthorization. The big
change is that there is substantially less resources available for
program services with the ending of the YO grant. While only two youth
service providers changed, the scale of their services has been
curtailed. Of the service providers, one, DK Associates, continues to be
the only disability-specific organization providing both program and
case management services.

The mix of services and service providers is illustrated in the chart
below and the attachments to the chart that are at the end of this
report. Changes in the number of youth served from last year are shown
by crossing out the prior year number if it changed.

**[Service Array]{.underline}**

+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Service**     | **Agenc        | **Identify all | **N    | **     |
|                 | y/organization | partners       | umbers | Number |
|                 | responsible**  | involved in    | of     | of**   |
|                 |                | this service** | youth  |        |
|                 |                |                | invo   | *      |
|                 |                |                | lved** | *Y-w-D |
|                 |                |                |        | invo   |
|                 |                |                |        | lved** |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Information** | **Pima         | **Partner      | **12   | **2**  |
|                 | County**       | agencies**     | int    |        |
| **Services**    |                |                | erns** |        |
|                 | **Youth        | **(attachment  |        |        |
|                 | services**     | A)**           |        |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Outreach**    | **PCYS**       | **See "A"**    | **12   | **2**  |
|                 |                |                | int    |        |
|                 |                |                | erns** |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Intake**      | **PCYS**       | **"A"**        | **0**  | **0**  |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Assessment**  | **PCYS**       | **"A"**        | **2**  | **0**  |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Case          | **PCYS**       | **"A"**        | **~~   | **     |
| Management**    |                |                | 2500~~ | ~~121~ |
|                 |                |                | 2214** | ~103** |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Tr            | **PCYS**       | **"A"**        | **0**  | **0**  |
| acking/follow** |                |                |        |        |
|                 |                |                |        |        |
| **up**          |                |                |        |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Tutoring**    | **PCYS**       | **Project      | **     | **No   |
|                 |                | YES**          | ~~306~ | data** |
|                 |                |                | ~157** |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Education     | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **     | **No   |
| (including      |                | "B"**          | ~~390~ | data** |
| alternative     |                |                | ~381** |        |
| setting)**      |                |                |        |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Summer        | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **~~   | *      |
| Employment**    |                | "C"**          | 1000~~ | *~~69~ |
|                 |                |                | 1200** | ~106** |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Wor           | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **     | **15** |
| k-experiences** |                | "C"**          | ~~295~ |        |
|                 |                |                | ~262** |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Leadership    | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **     | **No   |
| Development**   |                | "A"**          | ~~270~ | data** |
|                 |                |                | ~337** |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Support       | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **~~   | **~~No |
| Services        |                | "D"**          | 2896~~ | data~  |
| (provide        |                |                | 2214** | ~103** |
| information on  |                |                |        |        |
| those           |                |                |        |        |
| provided**      |                |                |        |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Mentoring**   | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **~~59 | **No   |
|                 |                | "A"**          | ~~34** | data** |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+
| **Guidance and  | **PCYS**       | **Attachment   | **~~54 | **No   |
| Counseling-     |                | "E"**          | ~~72** | data** |
| including       |                |                |        |        |
| substance       |                |                |        |        |
| abuse**         |                |                |        |        |
+-----------------+----------------+----------------+--------+--------+

Staff from three youth service providers were interviewed for this case
study report: DK Associates, Las Artes, and the Pima Vocational High
School. All three providers were included in each of the last two year's
visits. As indicated, of these, DK Associates is the one organization
that services people with disabilities, both youth and adults, almost
exclusively. DK Associates receives funding from multiple sources and
its projects change somewhat from year to year, depending upon the
funding source. WIA currently represents 20% of their funding, but will
be a smaller percentage next year. One significant funding source is a
Department of Education project with industry program, representing 40%
of the funds. Next year, for the first, time DK Associates will station
a representative of that program at the One-Stop Center half time. This
will allow for more coordinated services and referrals. Staff believes
that the procurement process used by WIA has fundamentally changed the
culture among service providers in Tucson, promoting collaboration
across service providers.

Las Artes continues to serve out of school and highly at-risk youth. It
works with youth in small group settings, and while it does not focus
specifically on youth with disabilities, this structure and support
enables all youth to succeed. It uses arts as a vehicle to engage youth
and to build their self-esteem. The projects produced by Las Artes,
large mosaic tile designs, are located throughout Tucson and South
Tucson. These are sold to various local government entities. The funds
generated from these projects are sufficient to cover the costs of the
arts portion of the program. YO funds provided a significant percentage
of the costs of operating the GED and other classroom instruction as
well as the case management.

At the time of the visit, staff were continuing to explore options for
replacing the funding loss of YO. It seems clear, though, that there
will be fewer funds available so that fewer youth will be served.

The Pima Vocational High School also serves at-risk and out of school
youth. The school continues to operate from three different locations,
working with small groups of students. Work experience and career
preparation are fully integrated into the curriculum and students earn a
regular high school diploma. About one-third of their students are youth
with disabilities. Last year, the school brought on a special education
coordinator to work with the students, their teachers and their
employers. This position continues to enable the school to better meet
the needs of the students. One programming change was around the initial
work site experience. A number of the students were having difficulties
completing their first experience. For these harder to place students,
the first work placement is now in a small group that includes an adult
to provide on site supervision. Many but not all of these students are
youth with disabilities. In addition, a life skills class was added to
the curriculum. This is a five-day course that focuses on interpersonal
skills, substance abuse and other issues. Staff interviewed also
indicated that they have become more strategic in using data for
performance management.

### Youth Interviews 

A focus group of 8 youth participants was conducted. Included were five
of the youth who were interviewed for last year's study. The youth have
an array of "hidden" disabilities, including ADHD, traumatic brain
injury and mental/emotional disorders.

The youth that were interviewed in prior years have largely completed
the services but continue to work with their case managers. Only one of
the youth has a permanent full-time job. He views this job as temporary
until he can work with his family to open a restaurant. One young woman
graduated from high school but has elected to stay home with her
daughter this past year. She indicated she plans on starting school in
the fall and will begin to look for a job soon. Another of the young
woman continues to attend Pima Community College but she struggles with
completing her program of study because of her mental disabilities. She
also has difficulty keeping a job. Her disability becomes apparent when
she talks about her struggles with completing school and with work.

One young man interviewed last year had recently been released from
juvenile detention. Since then, he has not made much progress. He is not
working or going to school. He has worked on and off over the last year.
He says transportation is an issue but that may be an excuse because
when questioned further he acknowledged that there was bus service near
by. He needs to complete his high school diploma or GED and his case
worker continually tries to reengage him in school.

Three of the youth are enrolled in services and are pursuing or near
completing their studies. Two attend Pima Vocational High School and one
is graduating this spring. The other youth is 17 and working towards his
degree. His interests are in computer graphics. Another youth, who had
graduated from high school, received services from DK Associates but she
also is having difficulty retaining her job. She says that her job at
Subway was too stressful.

When asked, all the youth indicated that it would be beneficial to have
more options available for services and for work. One observation from
having interviewed youth over the last several years is how, for the
most part, these youth continue to struggle with completing their
academic work and successfully transitioning to post-secondary education
and employment. It just may be that these young people need more on
going supports to succeed. And, while case managers do maintain contact,
it does not appear that they have the resources to provide the level of
support many of these youth need.

### Professional Development

As noted in both prior years' reports, a strength of the Pima County
youth workforce development system has been the emphasis placed on
training front-line staff. This has not changed and, if anything, it has
intensified with the restructuring of the front-line staff job to
Workforce Development Specialist. Pima County launched an extensive
staff training program across all providers and all staff in order to
prepare individuals for their new responsibilities.

A comprehensive training plan has been developed and implemented. Staff
have multiple opportunities to attend the training sessions. Training
sessions are held at both centers although Rio Neuvo is primarily used
for the training. There are 15 separate training components and each
staff person has a notebook that is divided among the topics and is used
to maintain the training materials. The 15 topics are: Assessment;
Crisis Intervention; Customer Service, Quality, Continuing Improvement &
Confidentiality; File Management, Case Notes, Case Management & IEP/ISS;
Intensive Resume Workshop; Intake & Triage; Job Orders; OJT, SYP, AWEP,
Internships & Work Experience; Performance Measures, Goals, Mission &
Funding; Pima Community College Information/Procedures; Supportive
Services; Trade Adjustment Act; Unemployment Insurance; Vocational
Rehabilitation & Disability Awareness; and the State's One-Stop Virtual
and Data System.

The training began in early winter and continues throughout the Spring
with the goal of having all staff fully trained by the July 1 start date
for this new job classification. The training does cover a wide range of
topics and includes specific training on Vocational Rehabilitation and
Disability Awareness. This study has most likely had a positive impact
on insuring that disability-related training is included within the
overall training plan.

Last year, it was noted that Pima County had become a registered
apprenticeship employer for the youth development practitioner program.
As noted, Pima County was working with the nonprofit organization, SER,
in implementing this U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Apprenticeship
and Training registered and credentialed program. Twelve individuals
were in the first class. Arnold Palacios is quite proud of the fact that
all these individuals successfully completed the program and are
employed with a variety of organizations both in Tucson and in other
States. He would like to begin a new class; but is awaiting the "dust to
settle" from the change over to the Workforce Development Specialist
occupation and the funding challenges from the end of the YO funding.

The staff continue to be organized in clusters across service providers
with a lead case manager. Staff continue to meeting bi-monthly in either
their small group or the entire group to discuss issues, review
performance and learn about resources within the community. It is not
clear how these staff development meetings will be organized once the
shift is made to the new job classification. That will be an item for
follow-up on next year's visit.

### Data Collection and Data Sharing

Pima County's use of data for monitoring performance and for program
improvement has been driven by its use of the Department of Labor's
"e-teams" for collection, reporting and analysis of its Youth
Opportunity Program data. This data system has really been the
foundation for the County's focus on the use of data. This data has been
compiled monthly and provided to the LWIB and Youth Council and is used
in staff training and development.

There had been no comparable data system for WIA funding streams or for
other one-stop partner agencies. At the time of last year's study, the
State was working out the "bugs" on its system, called VOS. The system
is now fully implemented and includes the adult and youth WIA funding
streams as well as Wagner-Peyser. Arnold Palacios reports that while the
system is fully operational, it can be slow and there are some remaining
issues with data quality. An intern from the University of Arizona, who
is a "computer whiz" will be working to see how the data can be mined
and used.

One significant change in data collection and use is around the partner
agencies within the One-Stop system. This past year, for the first time,
data is being compiled for 15 different funding streams. These include
the Department of Labor WIA adult, youth, and dislocated worker
programs, Job Corps, Job Service, Migrant Worker, Native American, Older
Worker, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Unemployment Insurance and Veterans
programs. Also included are several non-Department of Labor funded
programs -- adult education, Carl Perkins Post-Secondary, Vocational
Rehabilitation, and HUD employment and training programs. The data is
somewhat limited but does include financial and client served data. This
is a way to track the scope and scale of the one-stop system in Pima
County. The LWIB receives this data quarterly and uses it to oversee
performance and make policy.

It should be noted that other than Vocational Rehabilitation, no
disability-specific data is compiled. This is unchanged from prior
years.

### Measuring Performance

The biggest change in terms of measuring performance is around the loss
of the YO funding. With the end of that funding, the accompanying
performance measurement system will be discontinued. However, this does
not mean that Pima County will no longer focus on performance. Pima
County continues to have a high expectation that all youth, regardless
of their circumstance, can achieve positive education and employment
outcomes. WIA performance measures continue to drive program oversight
and improvement.

Tucson continues to perform well under the seven youth measures for WIA.
The most recent data for PY 2004, third quarter, Tuscon is exceeding its
negotiated performance levels in all categories. During this same two
quarter period, 520 younger youth and 194 older youth, or a total of 714
youth have been newly registered in the WIA program. During the same
period, 311 younger youth and 82 older youth, were exited from the
program. This suggests that for the most part, youth are being retained
in the program for long periods of time.

For the adult measures, Tucson also continues to perform well. During
this same three quarter period, a total of 1,666 individuals were
enrolled in either the adult or dislocated worker programs and 707
exited services. For the eight adult measures, performance exceeded the
negotiated level for all of the measures. Again, it appears that Tucson
is on track to meet all its WIA performance measures for adults.

WIA performance data is compiled quarterly and provided to both the LWIB
and the Youth Council. Below is the third quarter report for PY 2004 for
the WIA youth program.

+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| ##### Measure                  | #####             | # Actual Level  |
|                                |  Negotiated Level |                 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Older Youth Employment Rate    | 68%               | 68%             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Older Youth Retention Rate     | 70%               | 85%             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Older Youth Earnings Change    | \$2,500           | \$3,421         |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Older Youth Credential/Diploma | 42%               | 36%             |
| Rate                           |                   |                 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Younger Youth Retention Rate   | 54%               | 54%             |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Younger Youth                  | 52%               | 47%             |
| Credential/Diploma Rate        |                   |                 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+
| Younger Youth Skill Attainment | 75%               | 90%             |
| Rate                           |                   |                 |
+--------------------------------+-------------------+-----------------+

### Fiscal Issues

Pima County continues to administer federal, state and local funds in
support of its workforce development system. By far the majority of
funds come from the federal Department of Labor. The chart below lays
out the funding streams for this year. Prior year numbers, crossed out,
show the changes in funding from the prior year. Most significant is the
loss of Youth Opportunity grant funds. Beginning this year (PY 2005),
the only Youth Opportunity funds available are those that have carried
forward into PY 2005. The amount is \$2.4 million in YO funds. These
funds will be used to complete services for those participants who are
enrolled in YO and still in the service "pipeline." Pima County received
a one-year no cost extension. There are other funding declines as well
for the formula youth funds and for HIB worker grants. Together, the
funding level for the Pima County one-stop is over \$3 million less than
the prior year.

There is some expectation that the County may increase its funding, but
likely only for several of the alternative programs that YO funds
supported, specifically Pima County Vocational High School and Las
Artes. Also, the expected agreement with Vocational Rehabilitation is
anticipated to generate approximately \$1.3 million in new funding. Of
this amount, \$300,000 is county funds. These funds will be used to
serve both adult and youth clients. Until the program is actually
implemented, there is no way of knowing the percentage of funds that
will go to youth clients.

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                 | **Actual Dollar | **Percent of    | **Change from   |
|                 | Amount**        | Total**         | Last Year (%)** |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| WIA: Title I    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| > youth         | ~~1.6~~1.4      | ~~16%~~20%      | ~~+3%~~+4%      |
|                 | million         |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| > adult         | ~~1.3~~2.1      | ~~13%~~29%      | ~~-3%~~+16%     |
|                 | million         |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| AE Title II WIA | N/A             |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| VR Title IV WIA | N/A             |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| State/Federal   | N/A             |                 |                 |
| Pass Through    |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| State General   | 250,000         | 2%              | 0               |
| Fund            |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Source**      | 500,000         | 5%              | 0               |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| City General    | ~~100,000~~0    | ~~1%~~0         | 0               |
| Revenue         |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| United Way      | N/A             |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Private         | N/A             |                 |                 |
| Foundation      |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Fee For Service | N/A             |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Federal         | ~~5.25~~2.4     | ~~53%~~33%      | ~~0~~-20%       |
| Competitive     | Million - YO    |                 |                 |
| Grant Funds     |                 | ~~10%~~7%       | ~~0~~-3%        |
| (Please         | ~~1~~.5 million |                 |                 |
| Describe)       | -- H1B          |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

### 

### 

### 

### 

###  

### 

### 

### 

### Eligibility

There have no been no changes in eligibility over the last two years.
Pima County is awaiting the WIA reauthorization which will likely change
eligibility. It seems likely that Pima County will serve less in school
youth under WIA reauthorization. With respect to out of school youth,
Pima is already reaching the hardest to serve and most at-risk target
populations. As with last year, a number of providers, including the
three that were interviewed, Las Artes, DK Associates and Pima County,
have multiple funding sources. This allows them to serve a variety of
youth without regard to income eligibility. Also, the pending Vocational
Rehabilitation pilot program offers potential for serving a number of
additional youth with disabilities through the one-stop system.

### Engaging Employers

This is an area of change in Pima County although not specifically
targeted to youth or adults with disabilities. The Pima County one-stop
career center has had significant employer involvement. Weekly job fairs
offered employment opportunities to both youth and adult clients. The
way that the system conducts outreach and engages employers is
undergoing change as a result of the direction from the LWIB. As noted
earlier, LWIB has launched a high-growth industry focus for its employer
outreach as well as its training and workforce preparation efforts.

The biggest change is that, under the direction of the LWIB, Pima County
has established an employer outreach team. This team is comprised of 5
workforce development specialists. The positions were open to all staff
and the top five applicants were selected. The goal with this team is to
centralize and coordinate outreach efforts to employers so that there
will be less duplication of contacts and the outreach will be more
strategic. The focus of their work is employers within the 11 identified
industry clusters. Now the weekly job fairs are organized around the
industry groups.

The expectation is that the individual service providers will coordinate
their employer outreach and support efforts with the one-stop employer
outreach team. It is too soon to know whether this will happen. As noted
in last year's report, each of the service providers does job
development and provides support to youth that are placed in jobs,
whether for internships or permanent job placements. It is unlikely that
this activity will be replaced by the employer outreach team. Each of
the providers has employers that they traditionally work with and this
is unlikely to change. Also, it will continue to be a responsibility of
the service provider to insure that youth receive the support they need
to succeed on the job. However, it is quite likely that the employer
outreach team efforts will result in new employment opportunities for
the youth served by these programs.

### Communication/Coordination among partners

As has been noted in the last two years' reports, in Pima County there
is a culture of coordination and collaboration among service providers.
This has not changed. This culture enabled Pima County to implement
their decentralized system of case management and menu of services. This
system has now been in operation for over three years. It is reinforced
through the training of youth case managers across agencies and
assigning case managers to small groups with a lead case manager.

Service providers that were interviewed attest to the high level of
collaboration that exists across agencies. This is clearly a unique
strength of the Pima County one-stop system. It has enabled the
leveraging and aligning of resources across providers.

It is too early to determine the impact of the ending of YO funding. It
is clear that YO dollars where the linchpin that drove the system-wide
collaboration among youth providers. It should be that this culture is
now so ingrained in the system that it will survive the decline in
funds.

### Accessibility and Assistive Technology

As noted in earlier reports, both of the one-stop centers appear to be
accessible. Again, the reviewed did not complete a fully accessibility
inventory. Last year, the Ajo center had recently opened. Its assistive
technology had not been set up. It now is and there is staff that is
trained in its use. However, no data is available on the extent of its
use. The interview with the Navigator suggests that the equipment is
used.

Attachments to Service Array Chart

#### Attachment A

Child & Family Resources

~~Chicanos Por La Causa~~

Dorothy Kret Associates

City of Tucson Family Self Sufficiency

~~Family Counseling Agency~~

Job Corps

Juvenile Court

~~Open Inn~~

Our Town

Pio Decimo

Project Yes

SER Jobs for Progress of Southern Arizona

TIC

Tucson Urban League

Tucson Unified School District

Tucson Youth Development

Pima County

#### Attachment B

Project MORE

P.A.S.S.

T.A.P.P.

CPLC

Las Artes

Job Corp

Pima Vocational High School

Aztec College

PCAE

Youthworks

#### Attachment C

Altar Valley School District

Catholic Community Services/Community Outreach for the Deaf

SER Jobs for Progress of Southern Arizona

Tucson Urban League

Tucson Youth Development

Desert Waste Not Warehouse

#### Attachment D

Posners Art Store

Jeri's Uniforms

Uniforms Plus

Pima Uniforms

Sally's Beauty Supply

Grainger Industrial Supply

International Corp Apparel, Inc.

Child Case Services

Target

Arizona Restaurant Supplies

Sun Trans Bus Passes

Eye Glass World, Nationwide

#### Attachment E (counseling services)

Center for Life Skills Development

Marc Dimas

Tobie Dimont

Family Counseling Agency

Jewish Family & Children's Services of Southern Arizona

Project PPEP

**Bellingham Washington**

**CASE STUDY REPORT 2005**

**INTRODUCTION**

**I. GENERAL OVERVIEW**

Barbara Kaufmann and Larry Searcy conducted the case study site visit of
the Northwest Workforce Development Council (NWDC) headquartered in
Bellingham, Washington, May 3-5, 2005. The visit was coordinated by
Sanjay Rughini, the Youth Services Director, with assistance from
Malinda Bjaaland, who has responsibility for disability issues**.**

The Council operates in the state's Northwest Workforce Investment Area
comprised of Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and San Juan counties. The
Northwest Workforce Development Area has had a functional Partnership in
place since 1992 in Whatcom County and since 1994 in Skagit, San Juan,
and Island Counties. The Northwest Area workforce development system
includes three community colleges, a technical college, apprenticeship
training, 22 School Districts with secondary vocational programs; three
WorkSource Career Centers; a WorkSource Affiliate; a Job Corps Center,
and a variety of other State and local programs for adults and youth
needing assistance entering or transitioning into employment.
(Worksource is the state of Washington's brand name for its one-stop
system).

Island County is made up of five islands and is one of two Washington
counties surrounded by water. To the east lie Skagit and Snohomish
counties, separated by several bodies of water. To the west are the
Strait of Rosario, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Admiralty
Inlet-passages separating it from San Juan County and the Olympic
Peninsula. The north is separated from Skagit County by Deception Pass.

San Juan County, is the smallest county in the state. It is one of two
counties that are surrounded by water. To its east and northeast are
Whatcom and Skagit counties (separated by the Strait of Rosario). To its
west and northwest lie Vancouver, B.C. and the Canadian mainland. To its
south are Island and the Olympic Peninsula-.

Skagit County is bounded by Whatcom County to the north, Snohomish
County to the south, and parts of Chelan and Okanogan counties to the
east. To its west lie the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the mouth of Puget
Sound, as well as San Juan and Island counties, lying scattered off its
coastline.

Whatcom County is situated in the furthest northwest corner of both
Washington and the continental U.S.A. It is bounded to the south and
east by Skagit and Okanogan counties. Its northern boundary coincides
with the 49th Parallel-the longitudinal line that delineates the
U.S.-Canadian border. The county is bounded to the west by both the
Strait of Georgia (separating it from British Columbia, Canada) and
Rosario Strait (separating it from San Juan Islands). 

The visit consisted of visits to the Bellingham Worksource center,
Skagit Worksource Center, the Mt. Vernon High School (to interview one
youth), and La Conner High School (to interview a youth).

Interviews were conducted with:

Executive director

Assistant executive director

Council Chair

Youth Council Chair

Vocational rehabilitation counselor in Whatcom county

Worksource Bellingham center director

Frontiline staff working with youth

Navigator

Interviews were conducted with ten youth, of which two had not been
interviewed before.

**II. CONTEXT/CHANGES IN CONTEXT**

The population of the three counties is approximately 376,000 with
Whatcom (location of Bellingham) the largest. The percent of population
under 18 years of age is 25.5% in Island County, 19.1% in San Juan
County; 26. 3% in Skagit County; and 24.1% in Whatcom County. The
population density is 56 people per square mile. The state poverty level
is 12.4% and for the workforce development areas it is 10.4%.

> a\. [Demographics of Geographic Region]{.underline}

*Unemployment*. Washington's unemployment rate for May 2005 was 5.6%, as
compared with May 2004 rate of 6 percent.

Labor market conditions continue to improve in the Bellingham
Metropolitan Statistical Area. The May preliminary numbers show the
unemployment rate as 4.7 percent, The 4.7 rate of May was a drop from
the 5.0 percent rate of April and was below the 5.3 rate of last May
2004. Statewide, the unemployment rate was at 5.4 percent. Last May, the
statewide rate of unemployment was 6 percent even.

The Civilian labor forces of the four counties are as follows:

Whatcom 106,300

Skagit 60,230

San Juan 9,540

Island 32,500

The fastest growing occupations in the area are

**Occupation** **Employment**

> Numerical Tool and Process Control Programmers
>
> Tool and Die Makers
>
> Grinding and Polishing Workers,
>
> Engine and Other Machine Assemblers
>
> Computer-Controlled Machine Tool Operators, Metal

**FINDINGS**

Disabilities are a thoughtful and priority issue for NWDC. As the
executive director said, " If people can be inclusive to people with
disabilities, they can be inclusive to everyone."

**I. LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS, INCLUDING YOUTH**

a.  [Policy Changes]{.underline}

*Federal Changes*. None reported

*State* *Changes* . None reported

*Local Changes*.

1)  The "Procedure Guidelines for: WorkSource Policy Relating to the
    Provision of Reasonable Accommodations, Reasonable Modification, and
    Auxiliary Aides and Services to Persons with Disabilities," was
    finalized since the last site visit has been prepared. The purpose
    of these guidelines is to provide WorkSource staff: (1) information
    and ideas regarding how to apply principles set forth in the
    Accommodation Policy on Serving Customers with Disabilities with
    WorkSource Centers, (2) practical examples to illustrate the
    Policy's intent and further staff's knowledge and skills, (3) a
    framework from which to continue to develop quality services, (4)
    additional resources, training, and information necessary for
    continuous quality improvement of both staff skills center
    operations.

2)  A Program Navigator began work with NWDC in April 2005.

3)  Creation of a regional disability resource group to provide
    oversight on disability issues.

4)  Creation of goals with DVR: They are*:*

> GOAL 1: Accessibility and usability review for core service products:
> 1)Tour of Services and 2) Menu of Services. Development of
> modification specification and design of products as recommended for
> customers with disabilities.
>
> GOAL 2: Development of systemic practices, including policy, practices
> and/or tools, that lead to successful access of WIA Title 1-B services
> for adults and youth with disabilities

a.  [Board Membership Changes.]{.underline}

None this year beyond the normal rotations in the board.

b.  [Disability Representation; Youth Councils; Youth
    Participation.]{.underline}

The Northwest Workforce Development Council in partnership with the
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) has conducted a focus group
with individuals with disabilities to determine barriers to services at
the One Stop. A Regional Disability Group populated by WIA mandated
partners has been charged with eliminating these barriers through
increasing staff skills and knowledge, improving products, and
saturating disability issues throughout the Partnership's process
improvement structures.

**II. SUPPORT FOR IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND SERVING YOUTH WITH
DISABILITIES**

i.  [Changes in Service Providers.]{.underline}

There have been no changes in providers but a continued emphasis on
providing longer term intervention. This has resulted in higher levels
of performance on both the State and Federal performance measures.

In addition to longer term interventions, youth staff has received a
number of trainings that increase their awareness of hidden
disabilities, understanding of disability issues, and an increase in
skill and resources to provide reasonable accommodation. NWDC Youth
staff have reviewed and received the NCWD/Youth assessment guide as well
as an assessment developed for providers and parents to track transition
elements through the youths' educational services.

There is discussion through the juvenile justice system of bringing
Communities in Schools into the area to work with schools. NWDC is
involved in those discussions.

j.  [New Youth Outreach Strategies]{.underline}.

Staff continues to participate in the recruitment and enrollment for all
youth applicants including youth with disabilities. In partnership with
the schools and DVR, the Council staff recruits and works with youth
with disabilities for services in the WIA program.

The Northwest Region recognizes that it needs to improve outreach
activities to youth and to support the positive transition of youth into
post secondary education, employment, and other youth and adult
services. Areas for improvement are outreach and provision of
appropriate services to youth with disabilities, staff knowledge and
skill development necessary to work with successfully with youth with
disabilities utilizing methods that achieve top performance while
meeting the individual needs of youth, and capacity building and
collaboration with K-12 and disability program partners.

A work plan had been developed for the Disability Program Navigator
(DPN) Initiative which has several goals to improve and create effective
outreach to youth with disabilities.

k.  [Disability Disclosure Process]{.underline}.

The staff use a comprehensive assessment process during intake and
through out program participation. The assessment process and
application for the youth program includes questions around
disabilities. For in school youth, staff works with the school district
counselors and administrators in obtaining copies of the IEP which
include assessment information regarding the students' disabilities.

All assessment information is used in the development, revision and
implementation of the Employment/Work Readiness Services Plan. The
information is kept in a separate file with limited access to only staff
that needs the information.

All staff has completed a HIPPA training which informs staff about the
legal responsibilities in the access, release, and secure maintenance of
any medical information.

It should be noted that in the WorkSource Northwest Area, all youth are
asked if they have a disability and are informed that disclosure is
optional and information is confidential.

l.  [Assessment and Individualized Planning]{.underline}.

The Council uses a number of assessment tools in the development of the
employment/work readiness plan.

**Academic Assessment**

In school youth- information is obtained from school systems which
include academic assessment.

For out of school youth, there are a number of assessments used- TABE
tests and Computerized Placement and ASSET testing for occupational
skills training at local training facilities are the most commonly used
assessment tools. Depending on the test, they can be administered by
Council staff, school district staff or college intake counselors. The
Council has a practice of accepting known and credible assessment
information from partners as to not duplicate the testing process.

**Career Assessment**

The Council and local Partnership for Workforce Development use common
assessment tools for participants. Career Choices; O Net ; Workforce
Explorer and the [www.go2worksource.com](http://www.go2worksource.com/)
sites are used for customers. The site includes access and information
to [www.DisabilityInfo.Net](http://www.DisabilityInfo.Net/). The
regional youth portal
[www.youthworksnw.org](http://www.youthworksnw.org/) also has access to
assessment materials and programs for youth with disabilities.

Also mentioned by the DVR counselor CAPS, COP, COPES, and career
assessment inventory.

m.  [Information Sharing Across Agencies]{.underline}.

No problems were stated with information sharing. HIPPA regulations
require that permission forms be signed more often by the participants.

n.  [Service Mix in Community]{.underline}.

o.  [Youth Leadership Activities]{.underline}.

For the first time, the DVR Office participated in Youth Mentoring Day
this last year. Office thing to show activity for the youth with
disabilities that were on the list awaiting services. Staff found it
difficult to find mentors but ultimately found the experience positive
for the youth.

p.  [In-kind and Leveraged Resources]{.underline}.

DVR staffs are co-located at the one stop centers. DVR is co-funding a
Disability Navigator who has several deliverables in regards to youth
with disabilities.

School districts partner with the Workforce Development Council in
assessment and services for eligible youth and give them space to meet
with students in the schools.

*The Council has received a Work Incentive Grant (WIG) which moved
disability work along. The Council received a second WIG to fund a
Disability Navigator.*

**III. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

> a\. [Changes in Professional Development Strategies]{.underline}.

NWDC continues to display a commitment to staff development. In the past
year, a "training portfolio" coordinator has been designated in order to
systemically track and disseminate pertinent trainings. There have been
no changes in the amount budgeted for professional development.

Staff requests training through a formal process of submitting a
training request identifying the training need, how the staff will
benefit and how the organization will benefit. To date, no requested
trainings have been denied. All staff going to training submits a
written report which other staff may access or, following the
train-the-trainer model, present this information at quarterly all staff
meetings.

Training occurs in a variety of ways:

-   Training outside this WDA from National Experts and attendance at
    Conferences

-   Northwest Partnership has a structured system for offering local
    trainings which are identified through data obtained by the process
    improvement teams (Training Teams or Center Use Teams)

-   Partners extend invitations to training provided by their agency

-   The Continuous Quality Improvement Team analyzes data provided by
    both business and job seeking customers. Information and brief stand
    and deliver trainings or process improvement initiatives regarding
    specific issues

-   Self-paced web trainings are made available through the partnership
    web site

> b\. [Cross-Agency and Disability Training.]{.underline}

*This past year partner agencies participated in three trainings serving
youth and people with disabilities:*

-   *Provision of Reasonable Accommodation (Developed by DVR---attended
    by Job Corps, Employment Security, DVR, NWDC, the local colleges,
    and a local Community Rehab. Program provider).*

-   *Assistive Technology Overview provided by Washington Assistive
    Technology Alliance---attended by all partner staff working out of a
    One Stop.*

-   *Hands on AT (provided by DVR and NWDC staff)---attended by all
    WorkSource staff.*

*In addition to these stand and deliver Partnership trainings,
Disability Specialists across the region have been established and
provide informal, one-on-one trainings as needed. This has included
problem solving, and technical assistance, provision of information on
disability issues. The Disability Specialists consist of membership of
Employment Security, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the
Northwest Workforce Development Council.*

> c\. [Staff Turnover]{.underline}.

Staff turnover is not an issue. Staff is stable and has led to god
relationships with school personnel.

Side note: school leadership is also stable and changes, whether
leadership or counselors, occur within the service area.

> d\. [Staff Skill Sets]{.underline}.

Staff participates in a web-based training program for gaining the 12
competencies of Workforce Development. Upon completion, staff is
certified as a Workforce Development Professional. It is the expectation
of the Counsel that all staff has a variety of skill sets and staff is
cross-trained to provide an array of services to all populations. There
is staff that specializes in industries, social issues, or service
delivery based on their skill sets. These staff members act as champions
to assist the team in increasing their knowledge and skills.

**IV.** **DATA COLLECTION AND DATA SHARING**

c.  [Collection of New Data, Including Data on Youth with
    Disabilities]{.underline}.

The Council has paid serious attention to obtaining working reports for
the data that is currently collected about youth with disabilities
through hiring a Program Analyst Mike Koepp. He is designated as this
area's power user in the data base (SKIES) the State uses for multiple
programs. Mr. Koepp has undergone several months of training and hand-on
use of the data base to extract reports. It is expected that within the
next year, the Council will have accurate reports about the duration of,
and types of services youth with disabilities receive that lead to
positive outcomes.

Currently, demographic reports on the number of youth with disabilities
are available. Successful outcomes are more difficult to obtain as the
demographic report only produces entry to employment as an outcome and
does not provide data regarding other positive outcomes (return to
secondary or post-secondary placements).

Other challenges have been accurate data entry or willingness of the
youth to disclose. Unless disability is the eligibility criteria for
program entry, many out of school youth enter the program choosing not
to disclose their disability.

The One Stops in Washington State share a membership system across all
certified WorkSource Centers. One of the data elements that is optional
in the Northwest area is disclosure of disability. This data is
collected by all partner staff working out of WorkSource Northwest. It
is shared with the Partnership's CQI team and respective Center Use
Teams (one at each site) to determine numbers and ages of new members
using the system. This information is also compared to the numbers of
people filling out comment cards and their satisfaction of services.

No changes have occurred between mandated partner programs. Data
collection is a goal in the DPN initiative.

d.  [Use of Data for Decision-Making]{.underline}.

NWDC has used data for many years in their operations. Satisfaction data
from youth, and request for feedback to service enhancements are
continuously collected from youth throughout their program
participation. These are key elements to service enhancements and
changes in programs.

1.  The Council utilized benchmarking data---researching methods that
    result in positive outcomes---to specifically enhance follow up
    services. They are now structured, scheduled services from which we
    collect real time outcome data.

2.  The Partnership collects data on the staff's needs in terms of the
    skills and knowledge needed to improve services through web-based
    self-evaluations and evaluations of trainings provided.

3.  The One Stop system collects satisfaction data to make service
    enhancements to Core customers. The CQI team is now able to analyze
    disaggregate demographic data and develop strategies to increase the
    services or provide outreach to targeted groups.

The One Stops in Washington State share a membership system across all
certified WorkSource Centers. One of the data elements that is optional
in the Northwest area is disclosure of disability. This data is
collected by all partner staff working out of WorkSource Northwest. It
is shared with the Partnership's CQI team and respective Center Use
Teams (one at each site) to determine numbers and ages of new members
using the system. This information is also compared to the numbers of
people filling out comment cards and their satisfaction of services.

No changes have occurred between mandated partner programs. When we
visited they were at the beginning stages of updating their plan to the
state, which would include relationships among the mandated partners,

**V.** **MEASURING PERFORMANCE**

a.  [Setting High Expectations for Youth]{.underline}.

b.  [Monitoring Performance of Service Providers]{.underline}.

c.  [Impact of Common Measures of Performance]{.underline}.

**VI.** **FISCAL ISSUES**

c.  [Sources of Funding and Budget Cuts]{.underline}.

NWDC is looking for funding for one-stop from all the various systems
that use the one stop. As the director said, we have to support one-stop
infrastructure costs or it becomes a house of cards."

d.  [Flexibility of Funding]{.underline}.

NWDC received \$100,000 from the state for two years for drop-out
prevention. They have put those dollars in the two school districts with
the worse dropout rate.

**VII. ELIGIBILITY**

a.  [Policy Changes in Eligibility Criteria]{.underline}.

NWDC doe have the local 5% window which is used for youth that may not
be eligible otherwise. They have received some state 10% funds with a
specific target of drop out prevention/retention in secondary school.
The funds have the same eligibility criteria as WIA formula allocations.

For youth with disabilities, they use the family size of one eligibility
criteria.

b.  [Non-Income Eligibility Services]{.underline}.

None

c.  [Non-Categorical Funding]{.underline}.

The NWDC received WIA Incentive funds as a state targeted at the health
sector. The Northwest Workforce Development Council used these funds and
HRSA grant funding to host "summer health career camps" for middle and
high school students". The initiative is designed to market health
occupations to middle and high school aged youth. The initiative has
been recognized by as a Best Practice Governor's Award.

The executive director indicated that there will be no more additional
youth initiatives if the dollars continues to decline.

**VIII. MARKETING AND OUTREACH TO EMPLOYERS**

The Northwest Partnership for Workforce Development has protocols for
engaging business customers and all programs and potential job seekers
are included in the marketing of WorkSource Services. Every effort is
made to work in partnership with DVR in engaging employers for on the
job training and internships.

b.  [New Efforts to Engage and Retain Employers]{.underline}.

NWDC continue its sectoral approach to employer out-reach. Even though
they targeted a new set of employers, they would not call it a "new"
strategy. They have a recruitment and training initiative in health care
and shipbuilding. This year work continued in the manufacturing sector.
Staff meets with employers from those industries on a regular basis to
identify the industry-specific skills required.  They then work with
educational institutions in developing either certificate, degree, or
training programs that can deliver those skills to individuals. This
started as part of the adult services program and then expanded to
include youth. In this past year, NWDC has created a program Marketing
Health Occupations to Middle and High School Students. The purpose of
the program is to develop awareness of career opportunities in the
health professions; to educate students of the entrance requirements for
health care professions; and to build capacity within the system for
preparing students for those professions, have had career awareness
activities and this summer were to have health care camps and
internships

> b\. [Supporting Employers in Hiring Youth with
> Disabilities]{.underline}.

Staff meet with employers to work out accommodations and check back on a
regular basis to ensure that the match is working.

c\. [Disclosure to Employers]{.underline}.

With participant informed consent, only information that is related to
the job duties and the need for an accommodation or modification would
be shared with the business customer.

**VIX.** **COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION AMONG PARTNERS**

a.  [Changes in Partner Relationships]{.underline}.

None

b.  [Changes in School Relationships]{.underline}.

Interviewees indicated that their relationships with the school system
and individual schools remain positive, and that school personnel work
well with staff for NWDC. The only relationship singled out as less then
positive was with the special education directors of the various school
districts.

Staff indicated that two school districts help their students talk about
their disabilities and staff have found those youth much more active in
their IEPS, using advocacy and self-determination skills that they have
learned. Both these school districts send the students to the Worksource
centers as part of the training.

**X.** **ACCESSIBILITY AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY**

b.  [Changes in Programs, Services and Activities]{.underline}.

None

c.  [Changes in Physical Facilities]{.underline}.

Worksource Bellingham has had assistive technology in place since the
start of the case study. This year physical changes were made to
increase accessibility. It included changing the location of the front
door, adding technology so the door could be opened easier. The
reception counter was lowered so that persons in wheelchairs would have
access to information.

Worksource Skagit is moving so no changes were made to the facility this
year.

> c\. [New Assistive Technologies]{.underline}.

Worksource Bellingham prior to this year had invested in assistive
technology in the one-stop area. They have added assistive technology to
the classrooms that are used for various services. They continue to
monitor needs of all their participants and adjust accordingly.

> d\. [Funding Assistive Technology]{.underline}.

Assistive technology has either been paid from the state WIG grant,
state dollars or out of NWDC own operating funds.

e\. ["188" Checklist Awareness and Use]{.underline}.

This check list has been used extensively by management staff in the
development of the Policy regarding accommodations and the Universal
Access Reviews. Staff has only been trained in the practical application
of how this affects their work. The Regional Disability Group has
reviewed this check list during the development of the processes and
products necessary to implement the policy. No formal training was
received or provided.

**XI. YOUTH INTERVIEWS**

Of the ten interviewed, two were female and eight were male. Age range
for the ten was from 16 to 22. Of the ten interviewed: three were
working and seven were in school.

Of the seven in school, four were in high school and three were in
postsecondary institutions. Of the three in postsecondary, one was also
working while in technical college.

Of the three working, all three had benefits. Two expressed satisfaction
with their employers; one was about to leave his job and move out of the
area.

Of the two younger youth (both in 10^th^ grade), one had a career goal
of mechanic in mind; the other did not express any career goal. The
older youth who were in high school expressed varying career aspirations
as did two of the males in postsecondary settings.

[Program Satisfaction]{.underline}

All youth expressed satisfaction with the services they had received and
had connections with staff even if they were no longer enrolled in the
program. The assistance in finding an internship and financial
assistance with transportation and other things like cap and gown were
appreciated,

Those that had participated in the SKY program found that the most
satisfying part of their participation.

[Program Recommendations]{.underline}

**XII. CHALLENGES IN UPCOMING YEAR**

The challenges that NWWDC face are in one part the same as other
workforce investment areas, \-- meeting performance measures and doing
more with less dollars and the other hand are specific to their
upholding their excellent performance to date.

In the interviews, leadership identified one of their challenges of
providing meaningful programming for youth given the reduced dollars at
hand. They also identified an ongoing challenge of finding new and
creative ways to bring or create jobs in the communities.

Staff also had challenges that they identified, mainly around completing
work that has started.

-   Review of all WorkSource products to meet 508 guidelines.

-   Review of all outreach to access inclusiveness and effectiveness to
    youth and people with disabilities.

-   Training to Business regarding needs of people with disabilities.

-   Protocols and best practices for co-enrolling WIA programs with DVR.

-   Identification of key WorkSource products and services for the
    provision of training to VR counselors.

-   Systemic approach that to linking transition programs with
    WorkSource for all High Schools in the Northwest area.

**XIII. RECOMMENDATIONS**

Out-of school youth. Three of the ten youth we spoke to were working and
not in school and at least one of those had been first recruited to the
program while in school. Additionally when we asked those working
directly with youth about recruitment of youth for the program, most
activity took place in the schools. Out-of-school youth also came
through recommendations of school staff. The Youth Council ' emphasis is
changing to out-of-school youth; for example working with the foster
care system.

**XIV. SUMMARY**

The NWDC continues to build the strengths seen in earlier visits. They
are:

1.  Continued commitment to a continuous improvement process and making
    decisions based on data. The continuous improvement process predated
    the start of the case study visits and is ingrained in all that NWDC
    does. To ensure that they have accurate data about youth with
    disabilities NWDC has hired a program analyst to have accurate
    reports about the duration of, and types of services youth with
    disabilities receive that lead to positive outcomes.

2.  Ongoing youth connections to the staff, whether they are in the
    program or not. The staff assumes the role of mentor to the youth
    and connections between staff and youth continue. Staff members
    follow-up with youth not for the mere monitoring but for the
    continued success of the young person. As one staff person said, "
    we try to maintain continuity with our customers because maintaining
    relationships are in their best interest."

3.  NWDC has used the "out of the ordinary" to propel their disability
    related activities. Three years ago the state received a WIG grant
    and NWDC took full advantage of their participation in that grant to
    create some of the disability tools they now have in place. They
    also used the NCWD/Youth case study visits for visibility of the
    issue within their service area and as a benchmarking. They now a
    WIG grant for a disability program navigator. And because of their
    earlier work have outcomes in place for the navigator.

4.  Board members are committed to long-term interventions and have high
    expectations for the staff. Participation is good among the private
    sector members. Board members seems to play a planning and oversight
    function and leave the day to day operations to the staff that they
    hold in high regard.

5.  NWDC collaborates with community organizations, especially the
    schools. DVR is integrated into Worksource. Other community systems
    include NWDC in decision making such as the juvenile justice system.

+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Name  | A  | Sch      | If   | In    | Ser   | How     | Living   |
|       | ge | ool/Work | in   | Pr    | vices | inte    | arra     |
|       |    |          | sch  | ogram | rec   | rviewed | ngements |
|       |    |          | ool, | Y or  | eived |         |          |
|       |    |          | are  | N     | or    |         |          |
|       |    |          | they |       | are   |         |          |
|       |    |          | wor  |       | rece  |         |          |
|       |    |          | king |       | iving |         |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| A     | 19 | 12 grade |      |       |       | Focus   |          |
| manda |    | in HS    |      |       |       | Group   |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| David |    | C        |      |       |       | Focus   |          |
|       |    | ommunity |      |       |       | Group   |          |
|       |    | college  |      |       |       |         |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| I     | 20 | About to | Yes  |       |       | In      |          |
| sidro |    | finish   |      |       |       | -person |          |
|       |    | t        |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | echnical |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | program  |      |       |       |         |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Jason | 20 | Working  |      |       |       |         | About to |
|       |    | as       |      |       |       |         | move to  |
|       |    | diesel   |      |       |       |         | Tucson,  |
|       |    | mechanic |      |       |       |         | AZ       |
|       |    | making   |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | \$13,50  |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | with     |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | benefits |      |       |       |         |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Kelly |    | Sr. in   |      |       |       |         |          |
| (     |    | high     |      |       |       |         |          |
| new)  |    | school   |      |       |       |         |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Mi    |    | working  | N/A  |       |       | In      |          |
| khail |    |          |      |       |       | -person |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Luis  | 16 | 10^th^   |      |       |       | In      | In       |
|       |    | grade    |      |       |       | -person | terested |
|       |    | High     |      |       |       |         | in       |
|       |    | School   |      |       |       |         | m        |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         | echanics |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         | Other    |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         | support  |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         | includes |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         | church   |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         | group    |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Ron   | 16 | 10^th^   |      |       |       | Te      | Got job  |
|       |    | grade in |      |       |       | lephone | through  |
| (new) |    | HS       |      |       |       |         | W        |
|       |    |          |      |       |       | Not     | orkforce |
|       |    | Learning |      |       |       | inte    | Source   |
|       |    | di       |      |       |       | rviewed |          |
|       |    | sability |      |       |       | in      |          |
|       |    |          |      |       |       | p       |          |
|       |    |          |      |       |       | revious |          |
|       |    |          |      |       |       | years   |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Doug  | 22 | Working  |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | cons     |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | truction |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    |          |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | \$11.32  |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | and      |      |       |       |         |          |
|       |    | benefits |      |       |       |         |          |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+
| Mi    |    | Working  |      |       |       | Focus   | Living   |
| chael |    | on GED   |      |       |       | Group   | at homer |
+-------+----+----------+------+-------+-------+---------+----------+

Amanda, sr in high schoo;

David, \-- community college

Isidro --techncial college; liked Sky programn

Kelly

Mikhail -- previouisly in Job Corp now working

Mike did not finish highs chool so is working toward GED

Luis -- in high school at Mt. Vernon; wants to be a mechanic

Ron, 16 10^th^ grade

Case Study for State of Iowa

Hawkeye Community College Workforce Development Center

July 8, 2005

By Joe Timmons and Mary Mack

**Note: Charts/tables are found in a separate document. Other materials
are available only in print versions and will be forwarded by regular
mail.**

**General Overview:**

Joe Timmons and Mary Mack conducted interviews with six adults (related
workforce staff) and ten youth in May, 2004. All of the adults and 7 of
the youth were interviewed in person. Two youth were interviewed by
phone and one by email (this youth is hearing impaired). The ten youth
were the same ten who were interviewed last year.

The adults interviewed were three staff from the HCCWD center (the
director, the associate director, and a youth services case manager),
the Hawkeye Community College K-12 Liaison, a VR supervisor, and a new
position, a Service Navigator. All but the navigator were interviewed
last year.

**2005 Update:**

Joe Timmons conducted interviews with seven adults (related workforce
staff) and 8 youth in May and June, 2005. Interviews were held in person
with all but one adult (a state representative from Des Moines, and two
youth, one who is hearing impaired and one who has moved 70 miles from
Waterloo). Two youth were not interviewed because they had moved and not
left forwarding information.

The adults interviewed were basically the same as last year. However,
Barry Cuvalier has replaced Carol McIntosh, who retired. I also
interviewed Doug Keast, from the state Workforce Development office.

**Context**

The Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) system divides the state into 16
regions, each one led by a Regional Workforce Investment Board (RWIB).
Region Seven is in northeastern Iowa and is made up of five mostly rural
counties. There are four workforce centers in the region, one each in
Waverly and Independence, and two in Waterloo.

Region Seven has an active RWIB that is comprised of one representative
from the community college, one county elected official, one city
elected official, five business representatives, and five labor
representatives. In its advisory capacity, the RWIB's responsibilities
include identifying local workforce development needs, assisting in the
award of local service provider contracts and monitoring their
performance, and providing an annual report and recommendations to the
State WIB.

The region has an active Youth Advisory Council (YAC) called the Career
Consortium that has representatives from 23 school districts, vocational
rehabilitation, housing administration, workforce development, job
corps, juvenile justice, economic development, the Chamber of Commerce,
John Deere Corporation, and the Transition Alliance Program
(TAP)---(collaborative transition services for youth with disabilities
who are still in high school. Vocational Rehabilitation and the school
districts share the costs.) The Career Consortium's role is primarily
that of strategic planning and communication. It is a volunteer group
and there is no paid staff dedicated to its ongoing operation.

Our case study is focused on the Hawkeye Community College Workforce
Development Center (HCCWD) located on the west side of Waterloo. The
staff at the HCCWD are employees of the college---IWD service offices
are subcontracted to colleges or community based organizations
throughout the state. HCCWD is considered a One-Stop and is co-located
with the Iowa Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services (DVRS),
TANF (Promise Jobs), and a resource room. The other Waterloo One-Stop
has a Job Service office and Wagner-Peyser services.

HCCWD formally partners with DVRS, the Iowa Department for the Blind,
Black Hawk Center for Independent Living, Hawkeye Community College,
Proteus, Inc. (Migrant Family Farm Workers) and the Transition Alliance
Program (TAP). Some of these partnerships are established by a formal
Memorandum of Agreement within Region Seven agencies and organizations.

The goal of the HCCWD youth program is to assist youth in completing
high school, obtaining employment, and/or entering postsecondary
education. HCCWD serves approximately 80-90 youth at any given time and
provides them with objective math and reading assessments, career
exploration and counseling, job shadowing assistance, internship
assistance, and summer leadership activities. Support services such as
transportation and childcare may also be provided. HCCWD youth services
also coordinate basic skills remediation with the local schools and
works closely with special education professionals. They also can assist
youth in obtaining a GED and high school completion credits. The HCCWD
also may provide WIA funds to pay for up to two years of technical
training (up to \$950.00 per semester for tuition, books, and fees for
postsecondary education).

The strongest collaboration to serve youth with disabilities is between
the HCCWD, DVRS, and the Transition Alliance Program (TAP). TAP is
funded 50% by state VR and 50% by schools' general funds. Funding
resources are combined to best serve each individual and the
collaborative partners work together to ensure services are covered. For
example, customers may be funded as following: VR may pay for living
costs or driver's education, WIA funds may be used for education/tuition
costs, and Transition Alliance Program staff may provide lifeskills
training. Coordinating services with programs such as the TAP has helped
in-school youth receive additional services and generally smoother
transitions when secondary school programs end. This collaboration
serves in-school youth.

**2005 Update:**

No significant changes from last year.

**II. Findings/Descriptions of Current Services for Youth and YWD**

**A. Leadership at all Levels, Including Youth**

**Policy Changes** HCCWD has had programming and services for youth for
a number of years. With changing demographics, funding, and priorities
the office has undergone significant policy changes that have led to
increased efforts to serve youth, specifically at-risk youth, and youth
with disabilities. Since the opening of the "One-Stop" offices (5 years
ago), the staff at HCCWD has become less "siloed" and much more aware of
the barriers faced by YwD, especially with hidden or non-apparent
disabilities.

The biggest change this past year has been the reallocation of staff
within the office. First, a case worker, Michele Clark, has been
reassigned with an emphasis on serving "older" youth who seek services
at the HCCWD. This will allow Jill Hageman, primary case worker, to
spend more time serving participants who are aged 14 to 18. Second, the
state of Iowa sought funding for and then hired six "Navigators", one of
whom was assigned to this office. Her job is to serve as a resource
person for One-Stop staff and all participants with disabilities
particularly related to Social Security and other financial issues. .

According to those who participated, this study and subsequent staff
discussions have lead to increased awareness and training related to
issues of disabilities. Stronger partnerships and communications with
schools and vocational rehabilitation staff has lead to more "educated"
HCCWD staff who are better equipped to address the special issues of
youth with disabilities. Ongoing programs and professional groups (such
as the Careers Consortium, see below) have received more input regarding
issues of disabilities and resources (such as the Navigator) are
becoming better known among the community at large.

**2005 Update:**

It has now been 6 years since the One-Stop has opened and staff have
become more comfortable providing collaborative services to youth with
disabilities. The HCCWD has maintained its commitment to serving youth
and the expertise of the direct service providers has grown (due to
professional development and training).

On the state level, Iowa has benefited from federal grant funding that
supports collaborative efforts among stakeholders. The ODEP Intermediary
Grant that is "run" by the VR office has set up resource mapping and
strategic planning activities that indirectly help all One-Stops through
policy and practice materials that are available to administrators and
WIBs. Other grants have had a focus on youth---work incentive grants
(labor) and a state partner initiative through RSA. There has also been
a SSA Grant, Smart Start.

The state continues to keep a focus on the Iowa Memorandum of Agreement.

Some changes have occurred that affect services. The Healthy and Ready
to Work grant has run out and a social worker and an RN have lost their
jobs. These individuals were responsible for home visits and health care
support for local youth with significant disabilities. Also, Darci
Krouse, the region's Navigator, was moved from the HCCWD one-stop to the
downtown Waterloo one-stop (her role has not changed significantly but
she has less contact with HCCWD clients).

**Collaboration and New Connections** The Career Consortium is made up
of representatives from all of the 23 school districts in Region Seven
and by workforce center and community college staff. School participants
are special education teachers, guidance counselors, or work
coordinators who meet regularly and share information and resources and
also give guidance to workforce staff. This group is the source of some
of the referrals made to HCCWD and VR but also functions as an internal
conduit for communication among students, educators and those who work
in workforce and VR programs. This consortium also has employer contacts
and develops relationships that are useful in terms of work experiences,
internships, etc.

Formerly, the Career Consortium was less formal in method and practice
but was bolstered several years ago by adding a facilitator. Paula
Boyce, the K-12 liaison for Hawkeye Community College and the chair of
the consortium, has added duties that allow her to be more influential
in connecting school districts and their staffs to programs in the
community college and in the workforce system. Ms. Boyce meets regularly
with many stakeholders in the transition setting which leads to
increased interaction and awareness of the needs of YwD. This includes
connecting with school principals and district superintendents. Her
advocacy for YwD to be included in career education at HCC is strong.

HCCWD has become quite active in the Transition Task Force. This group,
representing 40 entities (governmental, educational, and non-profit)
meets monthly to discuss issues related to specifically to YwD and
transition. Jill Hageman is very active in the group and is involved in
a sub-committee that is planning a transition fair later this year that
will provide 250 YwD employment and education information from vendors
and service providers from all over the region.

HCCWD has become more connected with the University of Iowa
demonstration program, Healthy and Ready to Work (HRW). See above. HRW
"addresses the disruptions in health care services which may compromise
the health and potential for independence of young people with special
health care needs who are transitioning to the working world." In
Waterloo, there is a nurse and a social worker who work with families
who have children with health care problems or disabilities. Jill
Hageman and Michele Clark have developed a strong relationship with this
program and can assist with transition issues as they come up.

HCCWD partners with a foster care transition initiative that pays
particular attention to the needs of foster children especially as they
approach age 18. Many of these youth become emancipated at that time and
have little in the way of resources and many also have disabilities.

2005 Update:

The Careers Consortium (serving as the youth council) continues to be a
vibrant component of services in the region. Paula Boyce, the
facilitator, continues to be a great link among services to students
both in the public schools and at HCC. Her participation in the RWIB,
and the consortium connects stakeholders and enhances the collaborative
activities that are going on. Ms. Boyce has taken on additional duties
involving high school students taking classes at HCC. Since she meets
many of the region's high school students who have disabilities, she is
very helpful at referral to the one-stop and to VR services.

Jill Hageman, one of the youth counselors at HCCWD, has developed a
relationship with a state staff person that that administers services to
foster care youth who are turning 18 and "aging out" of the system. This
staff covers 13 counties so it is difficult to provide sustained
services but Jill has been instrumental in assisting individuals in the
Waterloo area.

Jill also continues to be active in the Transition Task Force. Their
sponsored Transition Fair for YWD attracted over 400 participants last
October, a big increase from last year. The Waterloo VR office is also
very involved in the task force. Three or four counselors and Douglas Wu
are regular attendees.

**Board Changes** There has been little change in the membership on the
LWIB or the Career Consortium. Unfortunately, there continues to be no
youth representation on the consortium due to meeting schedules (they
meet during the school day), transportation, and interest. Attempts have
been made to address this issue and a partner agency may be able to help
pay for transportation for youth representatives. There are parents who
serve on the council.

To get youth input, HCCWD and partner agencies informally survey youth
who receive services on an on-going basis and use customer satisfaction
questionnaires when services are completed. Because HCCWD staff have
become more experienced with issues related to disabilities, their input
and influence on the Careers Consortium, and other groups, has increased
and YwD have had more "representation" than in previous years. Jill
Hageman's ability to advocate for youth and YwD is strong and she takes
her position seriously.

Board members actively work to understand issues related to constituency
groups. Attention to in-service training related to disability issues is
stronger than in previous years.

**2005 Update:**

A 15 year veteran of the LWIB retired. A new member from the city's
economic development group has joined. The state is allowing the LWIB to
have ex officio members that include people with disabilities, senior
citizens, others.

The Careers Consortium is pretty much unchanged but has participants
that are more active and some that are less active.

**B. Support for Identifying, Assessing and Serving Youth/YwD**

**Changes in Service Provision** A HCCWD staff person has been
reassigned to serve older youth (instead of adults). She will have
special focus on serving out of school youth, many of whom have
disabilities.

**Outreach to Youth** Referrals to HCCWD come from many places. The
outreach and collaborative efforts by the staff have led to a wider
range of referral "types" and the number of YwD has increased this year.
Special education teachers and VR staff (through TAP, etc) have taken
positive steps to improve the transition out of school and into the
workforce. HCCWD staff have been involved in IEP meetings and other
related venues to assist with these transitions.

Like many other places, reaching out of school youth is more
problematic. As mentioned above, a caseworker has been reassigned to
work with older youth. A major responsibility of her job will be to
increase the number of participants who are out of school (and are at
risk). Linkages with juvenile justice, foster care, and other sub groups
will be strengthened and collaborative efforts increased for out of
school youth.

At the One-Stop, the intake process seeks information on existing
disabilities (if the participant wishes to disclose) and that initial
assessments may indicate possible hidden disabilities. Staff people are
trained in identifying and following up with suspected problems. Intake
also requests information (after releases are signed) from schools and
other sources related to past education and services.

Vocational rehabilitation services, the area learning center, and the
community college have resources and staff who can work with individuals
with learning and cognitive disabilities and collaboration is strong
beginning as early as elementary school in some cases.

As stated above, a HCCWD staff person has been reassigned to a caseload
working with youth aged 19-21. She will increase efforts to find and
serve at-risk and out of school youths including YwD.

**2005 Update:**

Referral activities have increased some due to the continued involvement
of stakeholders in many facets of the education process. Otherwise, no
significant changes have occurred. Participation statistics have not
changed significantly either.

More referral sources are being uncovered---see above on the Foster Care
Transition situation. Also, the HCC Metro campus (with GED and ESL) has
become a source of referrals. Some of their staff have previously worked
at the HCCWD and have reconnected with it.

VR services do connect with area dropout prevention programs and GED to
seek more referrals of out of school youth.

**Disability Disclosure Process** The HCCWD considers each participant
as an individual who has strengths and needs that must be identified and
incorporated into planning related to work or education. All efforts are
made to help the participant understand these strengths and needs and
the intake process (with subsequent services) are designed to ensure
that all options and opportunities are explored

The questions on intake forms regarding disability and on assessment
materials are the starting points for discussion about disabling
conditions. A review of records after obtaining a release of information
may contribute to this discussion and is an important part of the intake
process. Information related to disabilities is only shared with those
providing direct services [and]{.underline} only when it is germane to
those services.

Screening for hidden disabilities is done based on assessment results or
other information collected. All activities are "client centered" and
are done with for the benefit of the individual. YwD make their own
informed decisions about disclosure to prospective employers. They are
counseled about disclosure issues by HCCWD staff. Other psychological or
educational counseling is available as it impacts an individual's
ability to participate in services.

**2005 Update:**

No significant changes.

**Assessment and Individualized Planning** HCCWD uses widely used
aptitude and vocational assessments to begin the career planning
process. These include CASAS for math and reading, and the Self-directed
Search (SDS) by Holland, COPES and COPS for values and interest, and
Choices 2004. Older youth may take the TABE, full EDits, Wonderlic, and
SDS. All of the information is brought together with other records and
interviews to form an Individual Service Strategy. These tests are
administered by Jill or Michele or other qualified staff.

There have been no changes in documentation this year. There may be an
increased need for more thorough testing for some participants.
Sometimes the HCC can do this but psychological testing (or other things
commonly used in VR) is not as easily accessible and HCCWD does not have
a great deal of experience in this area. Consultation with VR works in
some cases but there are still some "jurisdiction" issues related to
funding. HCCWD staff are interested in more training related to
assessment.

HCCWD shares information with other providers if they have appropriate
releases. Joint staffings are held with VR, the TAP program, and other
stakeholders. Jill and Michele attend IEP meetings, as appropriate.
Paula Boyce, as Hawkeye Community College liaison, has contacts with all
area high schools and gets to know many of the students while they are
still in high school.

Jill and Michele visit participants at work sites and they have
developed relationships with many of the employers at these work sites.
They are able to provide employment support and assessment information
is shared when appropriate. Information is provided only after informed
consent is obtained.

**2005 Update:**

The HCCWD regularly uses the Choices career planning instrument, found
at Bridges Transition, [www.bridges.com](http://www.bridges.com/).

**In-Kind and Leveraged Services** Relationships with mandated partners
and "informal" partners are strong. Because Waterloo is not a large
town, it is relatively easy for HCCWD staff to make single phone calls
and start up a service for an individual---for instance, tutoring. There
are several places a young person can receive tutoring (for GED, state
tests, specific college classes, etc.) and Jill and Michele can arrange
for this by directly contacting the service provider. Regular
participation in Career Consortium meetings keeps staff aware of
services available.

VR participation in the process is also ongoing and strong. VR staff
consult with HCCWD staff on individual cases and on larger policy issues
regularly.

The State of Iowa Workforce Program has put assistive technology in the
One Stop Resource Center. Formally, there has been no other "leveraged
services" but shared resources are common on a smaller scale. These are
less formal and usually come about after a phone call or meeting from
any stakeholder serving youth.

**2005 Update:**

No significant changes.

**C. Professional Development**

Jill and Michele have come to understand better the dynamics of their
caseloads and purposely seek out opportunities to learn more about
employment issues and issues related to disabilities. This year they
attended a two-day workshop that focused on job development skills that
was geared towards working with people with disabilities. This workshop
resulted, sponsored by the University of Missouri-Columbia, resulted in
an Employment Services Certificate. The annual conference for
Association of Iowa Workforce Professionals, which local staff attended,
included four workshops in working with people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, professional development is not a line item in the budget
but staff are encouraged to seek free or low cost training opportunities
and time is made available for attendance.

HCCWD has used focus groups of clients, employers, and others to help
them to understand professional development needs.

**2005 Update:**

Professional development continues to have a high priority at HCCWD.
State directors of workforce development offices are seeking efficient
methods of providing training that leads to certification for center
staff in various areas (job development, counseling, etc.). Staff are
encouraged to participate in PD that can be used for certification or
recertification. There has not been, however, more funds allocated
specifically for PD.

**Cross Agency Training** Special education programs and VR have ongoing
training opportunities for their staffs. Common training involved
sessions where stakeholders teach each other how their agencies work and
how collaboration can work. Much of this is informal.

**2005 Update**

More informal training is done on committees and working groups (Career
Consortium, for instance). HCCWD and VR staff work together on the
Transition Task Force and prepare for the Transition Fair.

**Staff Turnover** Staff turnover has not been a recent problem. Jill
has been at HCCWD since 2001 and she has been able to work continuously
with students and employers for these 3 years. Michele Clark has been
with HCCWD since 1998. Carol Mackintosh, the youth program supervisor,
has been at the agency for over 15 years.

**2005 Update:**

Carol Mackintosh retired in December, 2004. She was replaced by Barry
Cuvelier, a twenty year veteran of the HCCWD. We do know that Jill
Hageman will be leaving HCCWD later this summer.

VR has had little turnover.

**Staff Skill Sets** Direct service HCCWD staff must have a Bachelor of
Arts degree and must have knowledge of community services and
understanding of diversity. Experience in social services is desired and
current staff have excellent backgrounds for the work they do (Jill
Hageman is a licensed social worker and Michele Clark has a degree in
social work). The state of Iowa is looking into a credentialing program
for case workers that would establish specific criteria for hiring and
for training of case workers.

Continuing education and staff training addresses some of the
"information" needs of staff but funding is limited for such activities.
In the last two years, training has focused on job development skills
and on serving persons with disabilities and other at-risk individuals.

**2005 Update:**

No significant changes.

**Disability Training for Staff** Please see the attached "QUESTIONNAIRE
ABOUT KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, & ABILITIES FOR PRACTITIONERS" print copy
completed by Jill Hageman

**D. Data Collection and Data Sharing**

**Collection of New Data** The state of Iowa's Workforce Development
Common Intake Case Management System (CICMS) is now operating in all 16
WIB Regions. This data is able to track the progression of services for
WIA program participants and includes demographic data for many sub
groups, including youth with disabilities. The demographic data allows
HCCWC staff to put more emphasis on specific needs of the region (this
includes YwD). Unfortunately, VR services are not tied into this system
yet and sharing data is still problematic.

A significant increase in the percentage of youth with disabilities has
been noted for participants of HCCWD. In fiscal year 2002-03, there were
70 youth new enrollments, 17 of whom had given evidence of a disability
(24%). In the first three quarters of this fiscal year, 63 youth were
new enrollments, 21 with disabilities (33%). The HCCWD staff are
heartened by these statistics and feel that their collaboration and
outreach efforts are bearing fruit.

**2005 Update:**

This fiscal year shows 102 youth participating; 29 (28%) report
disabilities.

Of course, youth provide this evidence voluntarily and there is a chance
that a number of youth served have undisclosed or undiagnosed
disabilities. As HCCWD staff receive more training and become more
experienced with working with YwD, it is possible that more youths will
disclose or "discover" the presence of a disability. This in turn, will
lead to services that should better serve the individual's needs.

This data is used to determine training needs, accommodations and
adaptations within the service system, and the types of service partners
needed. The emphasis on serving YwD has led to increased staff
knowledge, more accessible programs, and significant collaboration among
service providers.

The state of Iowa's Workforce Development Common Intake Case Management
System (CICMS) is designed to be utilized by partners who sign the
Memorandum of Agreement in WIA regions. Unfortunately, to date, only the
workforce centers and Job Corps have "signed on" and are using the
system to track data. Other partners, notably Vocational Rehabilitation
Services, have chosen not to use this system. Funding, training, and
confidentiality are barriers to full utilization.

CICMS has been in place since 1999 but it is only since 2003 that all
demographic data has been available to participating agencies.

**2005 Update:**

To their knowledge, partner agencies of HCCWD do not keep specific
statistics related to YWD.

The VR system, despite acknowledgement of potential benefits, still
cannot link up with the CICMS. Their reporting needs (to the RSA) is
still quite different than those of the workforce system.

**Measuring Performance and High Expectations**

HCCWC staff and related stakeholders understand the importance of high
expectations. This past year, the main activity related to setting and
maintaining this culture was related to educating stakeholders.
Identifying the strengths and needs of each individual and then setting
individual goals in the context of high expectations is gradually
replacing the mindset in some stakeholders that "those kids can't
succeed".

More emphasis is being placed on outcomes and participants are made
aware at intake of the importance of goal setting and achievement.

Testing and assessment, both in school and in state agency programs,
measure the same things for youth with and without disabilities.
Accommodations in testing and assessment are available to participants
but outside of the high school setting, accommodations are rarely
utilized. Staff attribute this to self-consciousness and a lack of
awareness on the part of those testing and those being tested.

**2005 Update:**

Some HCC staff (instructors, counselors) are becoming more informed
about the needs of their students with disabilities but progress in this
area comes slowly. Students continue to downplay their disability in the
college setting. HCCWD staff continue to "screen" for disabilities
through their intake questionnaire but few of the "out of school" youth
will claim a disability unless it was diagnosed in the public school
setting.

**Use of Data and Youth with Disabilities**

HCCWD staff keep the Youth Council and the RWIB informed about
performance indicators and demographics. This information is used to
shape local policy and form programs in the collaborative efforts of
stakeholder groups. With more data available, there is a better
foundation for making decisions.

One of the major benefits of collaboration is the ability to use a
variety of agencies and educational programs to address individual
needs. If an individual has needs in a particular area that has not been
successfully addressed, then data can be used to inform stakeholders and
changes in service policies can be changed.

**2005 Update:**

Anecdotally, this situation continues to improve.

**E. Performance Measures**

The Common Measures of Performance (CMP) are similar in nature to the
current WIA performance standards. Staff feel that these are concise
indicators of successful outcomes and are useful in setting goals for
individuals. These also fit into the concept of high expectations for
all and tend to positively affect the philosophy of agencies serving
YwD.

The CMPs/WIA performance standards are a more difficult sell to
out-of-school youth particularly in the academic area. Out-of-school
youth who left school because of learning and/or personal issues are
often difficult to re-engage in academic goals and work must be done to
develop policies and strategies to serve these youth.

WIA activities can be used in school settings as a dropout prevention
strategy and collaborative efforts (through TAP, etc.) can lead to
successful interventions.

**2005 Update:**

The CMP continue to be an important part of program evaluation at HCCWD.
The agency receives incentives for meeting performance goals and they
use them for "quality control". The performance goals are "higher" each
year as the state expects the agency to increase productivity and to use
resources more effectively as time goes on.

**F. Fiscal Issues**

**Sources of Funding and Oversight** There are five sources of funding
that HCCWD staff have direct oversight responsibility. They are WIA
Adult, WIA Youth, WIA Dislocated Worker, Farm Focus, and PROMISE JOBS
(PJ). WIA Youth and PJ are the two funding sources that support programs
for YwD. There is no specific funding dedicated to just YwD. Eligibility
for WIA Youth funding is not determined by one's disability, although it
can be a factor in prioritizing services.

PJ is Iowa's welfare reform program. Disability is not a factor in
determining eligibility but services to alleviate a disability may be
part of an individual's plan.

There is also a sub contract with VR to place their clients in
unsubsidized employment.

There have been no changes in funding sources, rules, or policies in the
last year. The limited sources of funds does not limit the scope of
services only the amount of services.

**2005 Update:**

Funding sources have not changed. There has been no significant increase
in the agency budget but there are increased expectations for
"outcomes".

**G. Eligibility**

**Policy Changes in Eligibility Criteria**

In Region 7, 95% of WIA funds must be used for low income participants.
Youth with disabilities can be considered as "family of one" for these
criteria. VR has an order of selection so many individuals with less
than severe disabilities are referred to HCCWD. Because they are often
unemployed or underemployed, it is not difficult to become eligible for
HCCWD services. There is also the 5% of funds that can be used for
others who may not be eligible for income reasons.

At least thirty percent of youth funding is designated for out-of-school
youth.

**2005 Update:**

No change in past year.

**For the "Number of People Served by Qualifying Source", see
attached.**

**H. Engaging Employers**

**New Efforts to Engage Employers** Engagement of employers is a
difficult task. Committing time to it is difficult when there are so
many individuals who need services. However, there are some positive
activities and situations that lead to good connections between service
providers and employers. Employers do serve actively on the RWIB and
issues related to disabilities come up regularly at meetings.

The Career Consortium has made some connections with employers through
HCC programs such as EMC2, a manufacturing internship program, and EHC2,
a healthcare internship program, to provide career exploration
opportunities. Youth with behavioral and academic disabilities have
participated in these programs. The consortium also collaborates on the
"Career Fair for Our Generation," a transition fair that is offered in
at Hudson High School. The event draws more than 700 students and 150
employers.

Employers have been involved in some WFD focus groups and findings show
that employers need and want more information about how to "employ"
people with disabilities. Experience shows that the more PwD that you
hire, the more you learn. HCCWD staff work hard at developing model
cases that show how successful placements do not "cost" employers in the
long run.

HCCWD staff have attended training related to job development and skills
learned have contributed to better access to employers and the key
people who do hiring and make policy decisions.

**2005 Update:**

There have been no significant changes in this area except in regard to
the increased participation in the Career Fair for both youth and
employers.

**Supporting Employers in Hiring YwD** HCCWD is getting more experience
supporting YwD in the workplace. They have developed more relationships
with larger employers in the area and work well with the VR staff to
develop needed accommodations and assistive technology for individuals.

At present, there is not a "wide range" of employer based experiential
learning opportunities due to a lack of need in this area. Most youth
(including YwD) who come to the HCCWD are looking for paid employment,
assistance with high school completion, and post-secondary education
planning. For those who are hard to place, these services are available.
Youth who have significant disabilities are more likely to receive these
services through VR.

Summer programming has grown recently and a number of participants have
received experiential based opportunities in these activities.

Very little information about prospective employees is shared with
potential employers by HCCWD staff. Youth are encouraged to advocate for
themselves to request accommodations needed to perform a job and
training is provided to individuals that leads to understanding of how
best to talk about disabilities and accommodations with employers. HCCWD
will, with a release, discuss supports and accommodations with employers
when needed.

**2005 Update:**

Supporting employers continues to have a high priority in HCCWD.

**I. Communication/Coordination among Partners**

**Changes in Partner/Provider Relationships** Connections with
established partners have been strengthened mainly because of increased
education and experience working with YwD. HCCWD staff have been
involved with schools, the community college, employers, and other
agencies in issues related to disabilities and successful outcomes are
increasing because of this.

**2005 Update:**

No significant changes.

**Changes in School Relationships** The Careers Consortium is more
active and stronger than ever. Its representatives from all of the 23
school districts in Region Seven and by workforce center and community
college staff meet regularly to address transition issues for all youth.
This group is the source of some of the referrals made to HCCWD and VR
but also functions as an internal conduit for communication among those
who work in the schools, students, and those who work from outside. This
consortium also has employer contacts and develops relationships that
are useful in terms of work experiences, internships, etc.

Paula Boyce, the K-12 liaison for Hawkeye Community College, has added
duties that allow her to be more influential in connecting school
districts and their staffs to programs in the community college and in
the workforce system. Ms. Boyce meets regularly with many stakeholders
in transition programming which leads to increased interaction and
awareness of the needs of YwD. This includes connecting with school
principals and district superintendents. Her advocacy for YwD to be
included in career education at HCC is strong.

**2005 Update:**

Jill Hageman's relationship with the schools continues to get stronger.
She meets and collaborates with more school staff each year.
Additionally, Paula Boyce has expanded her duties further. She now
coordinates high school student attendance at HCC and meets even more
students with disabilities in this context.

**J. Accessibility and Assistive Technology**

**Program and Services Accessibility** HCCWD has taken positive steps to
insure that individuals with physical disabilities find their offices
and services accessible. The Web site, brochures and other text
materials point out the accessibility of buildings and services and also
give the director's name and phone number to contact for questions or
problems.

The HCCWD building is on one level and fairly easy to travel in (for
someone with mobility impairments). The building is on a bus line but
the system is not the most reliable and the bus stop is about 100 yards
from the front door, down a hill through the parking lot. HCCWD staff
understands the accessibility problems and meets with a lot of
participants at their school or workplace.

HCCWD uses sign language interpreters TDD/TTY equipment. They have
access to Braille printers, CCTVs, and speech and large print output on
computers. New this year are power assist doors at the entrance of the
building and better relationships with community agencies that work with
people with sensory impairments. The Web site is fully accessible
according to standards set by the State of Iowa.

DVRS and Services for the Blind staff are available for consultation
related to assistive technologies. Generally, individuals with physical
or sensory impairments are more likely to be eligible for VR services
and receive AT through them. Jill and Michele are, however, able to
develop resources when needed.

Most provision of AT is done through the school or through VR as
indicated in IEPs or IWPs for individuals. AT in the resource room was
paid for by the state of Iowa. HCCWD could fund AT for individuals who
are not eligible under IDEA or VR. This is a rare occurrence.

**188 Checklist Awareness** HCCWD staff had not heard of the 188
Checklist prior to our interviews. Plans are being made to learn more
about it and incorporate relevant parts into programming and policy.

**2005 Update:**

HCCWD and VR staff now refer regularly to the 188 checklist and
incorporate it into communications with stakeholders. The state office
of Workforce Development has been aware of and has used the Checklist
since its publication.

**III. Interviews with Youth Participants**

During May and June, 2004, all of the young people were interviewed,
eight in Waterloo. Of the other two, one was interviewed by phone and
one using email (this young man is hearing impaired).

Last summer, all ten young people were either in school or had recently
graduated (two are employed in the medical field and have training
certificates as dental and nursing assistants). After this spring, only
one has left school but he may return in the fall or winter. Likewise,
last summer, eight of the young people were working (the other two are
full time students) and this summer, seven of those eight are still
working---three of whom have better, higher paying jobs.

All in all, nine of the ten young people are making progress
educationally and/or vocationally. Nine of the ten are still connected
with the HCCWD. Six students are attending Hawkeye Community College and
are receiving tuition support.

When discussing the survey questions this summer, all respondents were
satisfied or very satisfied with services they received from HCCWD. All
said they would recommend the services to others and no one had negative
comments about any of the services. Even the participant who is
unemployed and not attending school was very positive about the help he
received and was glad to continue working with his case worker to secure
employment and to return to school.

The participants had heard about HCCWD from one of three
sources---through the VR office (2), through a teacher or counselor in
high school (5), or through a parent (3). All felt that making
appointments and meeting with HCCWD staff was convenient and timely.
Meetings took place at the HCCWD offices, or at participants' workplace
or school.

None of the participants had concerns about confidentiality or privacy
and all participants felt comfortable talking with NCSET staff about
issues related to their disability.

**2005 Update:**

In 2005, eight of the original ten youth were interviewed by Joe
Timmons. Six were interviewed at the HCCWD. One was interviewed by phone
and one was conducted by email (a youth with a hearing impairment).

One of the youth who I did not contact could well have moved on to a
four year college. She was probably the most engaged in school and had
plans to get a degree in corrections. She had been in a work study
program and was doing well despite her learning disability. The other
youth had not been in school or working full time at this time last
year. Her situation is more troubling as her health situation seemed to
be a barrier to her work and school opportunities.

The rest of the group are going through some typical young adult
tribulations. Two of the eight had quit attending college (because of
disinterest) and two others who had finished school were working less
than half time. The other four were working full time, going to school
and working, or, in one case, had just graduated from HCC. Only three of
the youth had continued their formal relationship with HCCWD but two
others admitted that reconnecting with the staff would be a good way to
resume pursuit of better employment and more education or training.

Three of the youth had moved out of their parents' homes. One got
married and moved away from Waterloo (about 75 miles). One individual ,
with a seizure disorder, had some recurrence and had to forfeit his
driver's license for 4 months---this led to decreased hours at work
temporarily.

Four of the eight are working full time (one is actually averaging 60+
hours per week) at an average hourly rate of 9.80. These are a cabinet
maker, a dental assistant, a personal care attendant, and a nursing
assistant. Two others are working part time work in a local grocery
store. Another youth works at Goodwill about 10 hours a week.

Three of the youth have open VR cases. Interestingly, it appears that
the HCCWD staff have more involvement with these youth than does VR. One
reason could be the connection with HCC. Since there are some tuition
benefits connected with HCCWD that don't necessarily come with VR, it
may make more sense to let HCCWD do the case management at this point.
However, there remains some ambiguity about who does what in these
cases. Two of the youth with VR cases open do not seem to understand all
of the services that VR may be able to provide.

**Continuing Challenges and Recommendations**

The enrolled, eligible youth with disabilities who receive services at
the HCCWD are doing well as a group. It appears that these youth are in
considerably better employment situations and are more likely to be
attending postsecondary education than if they had not been receiving
services. HCCWD staff have had training and experiences leading to more
knowledge about the issues faced by YwD and their understanding of how
best to serve YwD has grown a great deal. HCCWD has also been very
active in reaching out and forming useful collaborative relationships
with other organizations in the region and are able to find needed
services for individuals that they are not able to provide.

With a new federal focus on serving youth with disabilities
[and]{.underline} with a better understanding of the dynamics of youth
with hidden disabilities, it has been prudent for HCCWD to put more
emphasis and resources toward serving youth at risk and YwD. HCCWD has
been able to add and reassign personnel to serve youth better.

There are still some barriers in the "system" that need to be addressed
before all eligible youth can take advantage of the services offered by
HCCWD and that services are optimized. This is particularly true of
out-of-school youth who may be underserved--- attempts should be made to
determine how many of these youth there are and how they can be
"recruited". Additionally, collaborations already in place might work
together to develop more outreach to all youth who might benefit from
workforce programs but are not aware of them.

HCCWD should continue to devote attention to staff development and
training. With dedicated staff, increasing knowledge, skills, and
aptitudes not only improves service delivery but tends to make staff
feel more valued and increases their engagement with the work they do.

Finally, HCCWD should emphasize continued engagement with employers,
leading to increased community participation for youth. Creative
relationships with employers can broaden access to work experiences,
internships, mentorships, and real employment. This also gives
stakeholders an understanding of the needs of many employers and this
increases opportunities for all stakeholders to share their visions with
one another.

In the end, HCCWD should be proud of its commitment to improving the
lives of the young people they serve. Their skills and dedication are
impressive and we are glad to have spent time with them and seeing them
work.

**2005 Update:**

Overall, it appears that HCCWD has continued to make progress in its
services to YWD. The enthusiasm and the energy of the staff remains high
and the youth that actively seek support from HCCWD staff seem to get
the services they ask for. As the youth get older, there may be some
drop-off of connection with agency staff and some "falling through the
cracks" may occur.

Engagement with employers continues to be a priority; this despite a
local economy that is not thriving. Waterloo is dependent on farm
industries and that market is not doing well. Stakeholders do seek out
support from employers and the "small town" nature of the region leads
to some good contacts in the business community.

Staff development and collaborative events are also given high priority.
It would be great if more financial resources could be made available
for these.

**Rhode Island Site Report**

**August 12, 2005**

**GENERAL OVERVIEW**

Larry Searcy conducted the case study site visit in Providence, Rhode
Island on June 27 - 29, 2005. The visit was coordinated by Marilyn
Coppola, the Director of Youth Services for the Providence/Cranston
Workforce Development program known as Workforce Solutions (WS), and
Anthony Lucca, Director of Operations for WS. The adult and youth
interviews were conducted in the Youth Career Center housed at netWorkri
(the One Stop). Mr. Searcy was joined on June 27^th^ by Alicia Epstein,
Project Officer, U. S. Department Labor and Allison Cohen, a Site Team
Visitor for the Adult Case Studies from the Institute on Community
Inclusion.

Interviews were conducted with twelve adults:

1.  Administrator of Workforce Solutions (Providence/Cranston)

2.  Director of Operations - Workforce Solutions (Providence/Cranston)

3.  Youth Services Director -- Workforce Solutions (Providence/Cranston,

4.  One-Stop Manager

5.  Chairperson of the Youth Council (also a member of the Workforce
    Investment Board)

6.  One-Stop Youth Services Coordinator

7.  Two in-school Youth Service Providers

8.  One out-of-school Youth Service Provider

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  One Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Supervisor (Providence Region),

10. Two Disability Organization Service Providers (One-Stop partners).

Of these, two had not been previously interviewed (the Administrator --
Workforce Solutions and the VR Supervisor).

Interviews were conducted with four youths. Three of the four youths
were interviewed last year by phone. All four youths have participated
in a program provided by a youth service provider and all six had used
resources at the One Stop. All of the youths interviewed are out of
school youths.

Providence/Cranston (PC) is serving approximately 118 youths this year,
essentially the same as last year. The mandated partners remain the
same. However the number of youth service providers has been reduced to
4 from 7 due to a loss of funding and the number of providers who were
suspended due to failure to meet performance measures.

I.  **CONTEXT/CHANGES IN CONTEXT**

**CONTEXT/CHANGES IN CONTEXT**

The Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training provides Labor Market
information on its website <http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/>. Rhode Island's
unemployment rate for July 2005 was 5.4%; the nation's rate at this time
was 5.2%. The Providence-Fall River-Warwick Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) consists of 49 cities and towns, of which 37 are in Rhode
Island and 12 are in Massachusetts. The unemployment rate in the Rhode
Island portion of the MSA for July of 2005 was 5.4%, which is the same
as the rate for July 2004 (the 2004 annual average was 5.2%). This
translates into 30,370 people unemployed in July of this year as
compared with 29,973 unemployed workers at that time last year.

In the city of Providence the unemployment rate for July 2005 was 7.5%
and in July 2004, 7.2%. This translates into 6,091 people unemployed in
July of this year as compared with 5,702 unemployed workers at the same
time last year.

[NOTE]{.underline}: None of the statistics provided for Rhode Island are
seasonally adjusted.

In July 2005, the number of non-farm jobs was 492,900 and in July 2004,
487,300. This is a 1 percent increase. The majority of non-farm
occupations are centered on the following industries:

1.  Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2.  Production Occupations

3.  Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations

4.  Sales and Related Occupations

5.  Education, Training, and Library Occupations

Occupational projections show that out of the top 50 fastest growing
occupations in the state the top ten are:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Registered Nurses                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2.  Waiters and Waitresses                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers (Including Fast     |
|     Food)                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4.  Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.  Home Health Aides                                                 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.  Social and Human Service Assistants                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7.  Accountants and Auditors                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 8.  Construction Laborers                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 9.  Receptionists and Information Clerks                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 10. Medical Assistants                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Currently, of the top 50 occupations with the most openings the top five
are Waiters and Waitresses, Cashiers, Retail Salespersons, Registered
Nurses, and Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers (including
Fast Food).

The Rhode Island Labor Market Information issued a publication in 2002
titled "A Decade of Change in Rhode Island: *An Analysis of Private
Sector Employment in the Ocean State 1992 -- 2002.*" The following is an
excerpt from the introduction to this publication 9
<http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/publications/decade.htm>):

> The past ten years have brought significant change to Rhode Island's
> economy. Between 1992 and 2002, nearly 43,700 private sector jobs have
> been added in the Ocean State, a 12.1 percent increase. Within the
> state, nearly all of the major economic sectors have contributed to
> this gain, led by Services and Retail Trade. Regionally, Rhode Island
> has trailed its neighbors in employment growth during most of this
> period. However, an analysis of short-term employment data shows that
> the Ocean State has fared the recent recession and subsequent period
> of economic stagnation better than other northeastern states to this
> point.

**II. FINDINGS/DESCRIPTIONS OF CURRENT SERVICES FOR YOUTH/YWD**

A.  **LEADERSHIP AT ALL LEVELS, INCLUDING YOUTH**

> As in our findings last year, the interviewees did not feel that
> participation in this
>
> study resulted in Providence/Cranston Workforce Development System
> (PCWDS)
>
> being more active in accessing or developing services for youth with
> disabilities.
>
> However, they did note that they were now paying more attention to
> goals set by the
>
> state and other policymaking entities that targeted the participation
> of adults with
>
> disabilities at 10%-12% of the total adult involvement. They have also
> informally
>
> adopted the same goal for youth. While they did not have specific data
> to verify this
>
> level of participation, they felt on an anecdotal basis they were
> achieving that level of
>
> participation. In particular, the Youth Coordinator felt very certain
> of hitting this goal
>
> as one of the new youth contractors was a private school that served
> only students
>
> with disabilities.
>
> As in previous years, the Youth Director shared last year's site
> report with the youth service providers currently under contract or if
> not, those that participated in the survey last year. Sharing the
> report, she felt, did stimulate conversation within the staff and
> contractors regarding how to best serve 19-21 year-old, out-of-school
> youth. She also indicated that participation in the study did help
> elevate awareness of serving youth with disabilities and that our
> annual visit caused everyone involved to refocus on those services
> each spring.
>
> [*Policy Changes*.]{.underline}
>
> As was the case last year, all of those interviewed confirmed that
> while there have been no policy changes since the last site visit,
> there has been a continued emphasis on assuring that performance
> measures are met. During the last year the state brought in a
> consulting firm to work with PCWDS to address this issue. The Youth
> Services Director, Administrator, and Operations Manager all felt that
> the most significant recommendation the consultant gave them was to
> increase service to more highly skilled youth.
>
> This recommendation was viewed by them as another confirmation that
> the only way to survive WIA performance standards was to "cream" at
> the front end of the selection process. They felt strongly that it
> flies in the face of the notion that they are to serve the "hardest to
> serve." All of the interviewees but especially the PCWDS staff
> expressed great frustration at the limiting impact the performance
> standards have on client screening.
>
> While they do not consider it a change in policy, they stressed that
> there is a
>
> continuation of a policy that 10-12% of all of the youth that go into
> their training
>
> programs be youth with disabilities. In particular, they highlighted a
> new service
>
> provider, the Valley Community Center, which runs an alternative
> school for youth
>
> with disabilities (primarily those with emotionally disabilities-- in
> need of intensive
>
> mental health services) that starts with 4^th^ and 5^th^ graders up
> through high school.
>
> The older youth in the program participated in a summer employment
> program in
>
> which they are placed in jobs geared to the interests of each youth
> with private
>
> employers. The private employers paid the youth's wage and the school
> provided an
>
> ongoing classroom experience. The Providence/Cranston youth services
> program
>
> paid only a stipend to keep the youth enrolled in the school.
>
> The Acting Chair of the Youth Council also indicated that the Council
> had recently clarified its mission. Over the last several years some
> members of the Council have initiated or prolonged a discussion about
> the role of the Council. In particular, they have been attempting to
> transform the Council into a planning (and possibly implementation)
> body for all of the city's youth services. They especially voiced
> strong concerns about the "failure" of the local school system to
> adequately serve poor, inner city students. In the words of the Acting
> Chairperson, "the Council spent all of its time in this internal
> conversation and really didn't deal with monies over which it actually
> had authority."
>
> Since the last site visit, the Council has refocused its efforts on
> providing oversight to the programs and funds for which it is
> accountable. The Council now has a two year strategic planning process
> in place that will provide the direction for WIA-supported youth
> programs. Additionally, for the first time, the Council is asking its
> members to set examples for other employers by providing resources to
> supplement the current level of funding the youth programs receive
> from WIA funds. At the time of the interview there were no concrete
> examples of this happening as the conversation had just started at the
> Council level, but both the Acting Chairperson and the Youth Director
> were highly optimistic that positive contributions were about to be
> made.
>
> While the new planning process brings the focus of the Council onto
> activities and resources it can directly impact there is still some
> desire to become broader in its mission and vision. The Acting
> Chairperson is looking for examples of Youth Councils that do play the
> role of city or politico geographic (city, county) planning arm for
> all youth services.
>
> As anticipated last year and noted above, the number of service
> providers were again reduced from 7 to 4. The reduction came about as
> a combination of fund reduction and failure to meet performance
> standards. The programmatic emphasis is still academic skill
> development (literacy, numeracy, and GED attainment).

# *[Board Membership Changes]{.underline}*

> The Rhode Island Human Resource Investment Council (HRIC) serves as
> the State\'s Workforce Investment Board (SWIB). It was established by
> state law in 1992 in order to coordinate Rhode Island\'s workforce
> development system by providing policy, planning and oversight at the
> state level. The HRIC advises the governor on related work force
> issues. Members of the SWIB are appointed by the governor. At the time
> of the site visit there had been no changes in the makeup of the SWIB.
>
> Likewise there had been no changes in the makeup of the LWIB. There
> had been minor changes in the makeup of the Youth Council. The Council
> added two new members.

# *[Youth Participation]{.underline}*

> Currently there is one youth, a former participant, serving on the
> Youth Council. There is no other formal mechanism for input into WIA
> supported youth programs. However, there does appear to be a variety
> of youth programs in the Providence area that do encourage/facilitate
> youth input. In particular, the Training School (part of the juvenile
> justice system) is opening a new program that has already solicited
> extensive input from youth already in the juvenile justice system.

**B. SUPPORT FOR IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND SERVING YOUTH/YWD**

*[Changes in Service Providers]{.underline}*

As previously mentioned, the most significant change concerning service
providers was the result of funding reductions and failure to meet
performance standards. The number of providers was again cut in half.
Over a two-year period the number of service providers has dropped from
14 to 4.

*[Outreach to Youth]{.underline}*

No new outreach strategies to youth had been utilized during the time
since the first site visit. However there is still recognition on the
part of the Youth Services Director and the youth service providers (at
least those who were interviewed) that more effective outreach is
needed. While there is still concern that there is no new outreach
strategy for older out-of-school youth in place, there is a new
programmatic option. A contract was let to the Daily Community Nursing
(DCN) organization that includes occupational skill training components.
DCN's name is a bit misleading as it actually is a firm that specializes
in placing temporary workers in a variety of fields. It is a very
expensive program and provides training slots for only 10 participants.
The program provides twelve weeks of job readiness and occupational
skill training. While the training is going on DCN looks for intern and
other work experience placements that are consistent with the interests
of the training participants. The costs average \$12,000 per year per
participant. The Operations Manager wanted to be sure that it was clear
the people going into this program are much higher skilled than youth
they had served in the past. The program design was developed with
consultants brought in by the state through the Charter Oaks consulting
firm.

Additionally, there is some concern on the part of the Youth Services
Director and the Operations Manager that if they are successful in
outreaching to large numbers of youth, it would be counterproductive as
they cannot serve such additional numbers. Therefore, to encourage youth
to contact them and then be unable to serve them would put the word on
the street that there is no reason to go there as nothing happens.
Should this occur, they hypothesize, they would experience a reduction
in the numbers of youths they have had success in reaching.

There is still a close working relationship with the school district
that serves as the primary outreach activity for WS. Each year the
district provides WS contact information for students the school
district feels is at risk of dropping out. These youth receive
informational packets of WS programs with contact information. It is the
feeling of WS staff that these students do not avail themselves of
services until after they drop out and discover that even entry level
jobs require a high school diploma or its equivalent.

While the Youth Center is not WIA supported it does work with WIA
eligible youth. The Director of the Youth Center is also employed by the
Bridges project that works with youth in the juvenile justice system.
The project is the Youth Center's primary referral source. The Youth
Center also hosts groups from schools and experiences a high volume of
walk-ins, who are primarily youth that just showed up at the One Stop
(the Center is located on the lower floor of the One Stop).

In-school referral sources include school counselors and counselors
employed by the Office of Rehabilitative Services (ORS) who are located
in the schools.

One segment of the disability population that does not seem to be served
by either WIA funded programs or ORS is youth with physical
disabilities. The ORS staff person who works at two high schools in the
Providence area noted that although he sees, for instance, students in
wheelchairs in the halls at school, they are never referred to him.
Likewise, when ORS personnel sit in on IEP (Individualized Education
Program) meetings or transition planning meetings the students involved
do not have physical disabilities. It appears that students with
disabilities are either on 504 plans or have no special education
related services whatever. The ORS staffer has tried unsuccessfully to
make contact with school nurses, thinking youth with physical
disabilities must be receiving physical or occupational therapy at the
school but has not turned up any so far.

Throughout the entire interview process, interviewees were asked about
students with physical disabilities and none of the interviewees had any
information or first hand experience with youth with physical
disabilities. It seems clear that there are no outreach efforts for this
segment of youth with disabilities.

*[Disability Disclosure Process]{.underline}*

The disability disclosure process remains a process of self-disclosure
on the part of youth with non-visible disabilities. As reported last
year, in-school youth receive information regarding disclosure but
neither in-school nor out-of-school youth receive training about the
pluses and minuses of disclosing.

The One Stop still asks the question \"Do you have a disability
accommodation need?\" of all customers at registration. Even with that,
the number of youth served who have disabilities is probably much higher
than the One Stop can document. When asked "How many youth with
disabilities do you serve?", everyone interviewed, except the Valley
Community school, again said they really didn't know. However, this year
several of the youth service providers when asked if they felt they hit
the 10% - 12% goal for adult services said they were way over that
percentage.

*[Assessment and Individualized Planning]{.underline}*

As in our findings last year, all of the youth service providers
interviewed indicated that they either performed assessments or utilized
assessments performed by others. The most often mentioned standard
assessment was the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). If it is
determined that a youth is in need of a comprehensive assessment, s/he
is still referred to Rhode Island Learning Disabilities Program (RI LD).
As described in the Year One site report, it is funded by DHS through
the Office of Rehabilitation Services (ORS) and is a unique DHS
intra-agency initiative between ORS and the Family Independence Program
(FIP). ORS (Office of Rehabilitation Services) remains a primary source
of training for identification and assessment of disabilities, types of
supports and assistive technologies, and available special resources.

In terms of individualization, the Office of Rehabilitative Services
appears to be the only organization that develops new individualized
plans for youth receiving its services. The other providers continue to
set individualized goals with the youth they serve; however, their
programs seem to emanate from a prescribed menu of service offerings in
which every youth they serve participates as opposed to a truly
individualized program of services designed for a specific youth.

As reported last year, in-school youth and occasionally out-of-school
youth with disabilities have/had IEPs that were shared among school
staff and with permission of the youth's parent(s) or guardian (or the
youth if of legal age) could be shared with professionals outside of
school. The private providers rely on IEPs for identification of a
youth's disability and how that disability might affect program
activity. They do not necessarily change their approach to a youth but
they know, for instance, to ask for accommodations when a youth with a
disability tests for a GED.

*[ServiceChangesy]{.underline}*

Several significant changes have occurred in the service mix since the
last site visit. In terms of WIA-funded services, the two major
developments have occurred. First, the consultants brought in to assist
the Providence/Cranston Workforce Development Area better meet
performance criteria has put together a program model operated through
the DCN described above.

The second major change in WIA-funded services is a new contract with
the Valley Community school. This school serves only youth who are in
need of intensive mental health services. The school is housed in a
secure facility. In addition to locking external doors to assure that
youth cannot leave the premises unattended, there are also secure "time
out" rooms throughout the building. The school is state accredited and
can issue a high school diploma. The curriculum is consistent with a
typical Rhode Island high school curriculum with emphasis on the
development of vocational skills through vocational classes such as
small engine repair and learning skills necessary to be an auto
mechanic. The school is a project of the xxx mental health services,
inc. As such, it can draw on the mental health resources of its parent
organization if needed.

The school also runs a summer program in which students can earn credits
in typical high school courses and gain work experience through
school-based projects.

Another significant change in the service mix in the community is a
trend at WS to develop programming that is not supported by WIA funds.
An example of this sort of programming is Project Hope. This is a summer
work experience project modeled after the Boston Compact. Youth work for
private businesses in areas of their interests for approximately 6 weeks
over the summer. The employers pay the wages. WIA staff works only as a
liaison to recruit the youth in school before the summer begins and does
follow up. The Rhode Island Foundation also provided financial support.
This year 26 youths participated in the program and were placed in
banks, law offices and other professional settings. When asked if this
program served any youth with disabilities, WS staff indicated that they
were not sure but they will move in that direction in the coming year.

Although not yet finalized, WS is also working on both a retail and a
customer call center work experience program that would be supported by
private funds.

While these are new initiatives, the effort to utilize funding other
than WIA is not new to WS. As described in some detail in last year's
report, WS has a history of collaboration and sharing of resources with
both the Providence school district and the One Stop, as well as others.
For instance, the Pre-GED program utilizes funds from the school
district to support the Pre-GED teacher and in-kind support from the One
Stop for a rent-free room. The furnishings in the class room as well as
the materials are all donated from individuals. A similar collaborative
effort brought the Youth Center into being.

It did seem that WS is now becoming more comfortable with and more
aggressive in pursuing resources outside of WIA funds. The advantages to
using other than WIA funds, include, according to WS staff, much greater
flexibility, more realistic outcome expectations and more practical
monitoring. Since they are anticipating even greater cuts in WIA funding
they seem especially motivated to secure funding from other sources.

# *[In-kind and Leveraged Services]{.underline}* 

As noted above, WS appears increasingly open to and aggressive about
leveraging outside (non WIA) resources. Additionally, the resources
described in last year's report appear to have stabilized and are likely
to remain in place for a significant period of time into the future. For
instance, the Pre-GED program has maintained a full load of students and
now, from time-to-time, has a waiting list. The Pre-GED teacher is the
same teacher that has been with the program from the beginning. The One
Stop now knows to block the Pre-GED classroom as unavailable for other
uses as part of its annual planning activities.

Likewise, the Youth Center is becoming known by word of mouth as well as
with formal arrangements with school districts (for tours) and fiscal
support for the Youth Center Director has been developed with the
juvenile justice system. However, it is also true that due to a drop in
funding, the Youth Center is now down to only one staff member.

Interviews with private service providers (one currently under contract
and another no longer under contract) demonstrated that these providers
are also not looking to WIA funds to support their projects. For
instance, the Urban League, no longer a WIA provider, is utilizing
education monies, Youth Build monies and other funds to continue to
offer the services they were providing to youth last year along with new
services that they were not providing last year. When asked if they
would submit a proposal next year for WIA funding, the response was
positive but couched in phrases like "we will need to take a good hard
look at it before we jump back into that funding stream".

Career Tracks Youth (CTY) is still a WIA vendor and anticipates
remaining one. However, the new monitoring requirements/practices
emanating from the state level appear to be causing CTY to seriously
look at continuing to be one. The monitoring practices about to be put
into place (as CTY understands it) could potentially cause serious
disruptions in cash flow and put the entire program in jeopardy. If the
practices play out as they have been explained it is likely that CTY, as
with other previous WIA vendors, may not submit a proposal for WIA
support next year.

Up to now, the key to WS's ability to leverage funds has been the
vision, energy and ability of the Youth Services Director.
Unfortunately, concerns about continued funding for her position has led
her to accept a position elsewhere. Her absence could present a barrier
to WS to continue to effectively leverage outside resources.

*[Disability Disclosure Process]{.underline}*

As reported last year, the disclosure of disability process remains self
initiated. This takes on added importance with the new understanding
that the One Stop (as well as ORS, let alone other WS supported
services) by and large does not serve youth with physical disabilities.
Essentially, all or at least the vast majority of youth that become
known to WS have hidden disabilities. If the youth do not self disclose,
WS really has no way of knowing how many youths with disabilities it is
serving. One factor that improves on the ability to quantify the number
of youth with disabilities served is the contract with the Community
Valley Mental Health Center school described above. As all of the
students served there are youth with disabilities, the enrollment of the
school represents a floor. Hence we can say that WS serves the
population of the school plus an unknown number of other youth with
disabilities.

**C. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT**

Opportunities for professional development remain similar to the
practices described in last year's report. There is still an annual
conference that is well attended by professionals from public and
private agencies alike. Other than that there is no specific training
agenda developed at the WS or other local agency level. Some of the
private agencies support their employees in attending conferences within
the state or region on a case-by-case basis.

Since the last visit, the state has become much more involved in program
design and monitoring in response to being out of compliance with older
youth outcomes and possibly others. At the urging of the U. S.
Department of Labor, consultants were brought in who in turn worked with
WS to develop at least one new program and to establish a new monitoring
presence over local programs. There have been a series of meetings
related to all of this and some of it might be considered professional
development, although the professionals involved did not.

*[Cross Agency Training]{.underline}*

ORS remains the primary source of cross-agency training. However, it
appears that in the last year the frequency of this training has
declined. The decline is probably due to a reduction in staff at ORS
along with a feeling that the staffs in need of training (both One Stop
and WS service providers) have previously received sufficient training.
ORS is planning to offer training in the coming year but has not
identified topics.

*[Staff Turnover]{.underline}*

All of the people interviewed this year were with the same organizations
and in the same roles they were in last year. None reported staff
turnover as high or as a problem. It was noted that several people, all
front line staff, who were interviewed last year were no longer with the
programs they were with last year and were not interviewed. This
included a former "Disability Specialist" at the One Stop and several
private vendor staff members. While it had not happened at the time of
the interviews, the departure of the WS Youth Services Director was
imminent and was an issue for everyone interviewed.

*[Disability Training for Staff]{.underline}*

As reported last year, ORS remains the primary source of training on
disability-related topics (practices and policies). There seems to be an
emphasis during this last year on what ORS can and can't do in order to
better assure appropriate referrals. ORS feels less of a need to do this
training as it has, in its own opinion, become the disability case
manager at the One Stop.

**D. DATA COLLECTION AND DATA SHARING**

*[Collection of New Data]{.underline}*

Since the last visit, the new America\'s One-Stop Operating System
(AOSOS) data collection system has been in place and operating.
Currently, WS is operating the system that predates AOSOS in parallel
with AOSOS. WS staff indicated that they were not sure that the new
system would be an improvement or provide any new data that they felt
was useful. They weren't sure when the cut over to using only AOSOS
would occur but felt it would happen before the next site visit.

# *[Collection of Data on Youth with Disabilities]{.underline}*

As reported last year, the AOSOS does have a variable on disability.
However, WS staff was not aware of data being collected specifically on
youth with disabilities at the State, WS or the One-Stop. The
organizations that serve youth still provide program and participant
information to WS in monthly reports and discussions as required by
their contracts but they do not necessarily identify youth with
disabilities. As was stated last year, it appears that the intense focus
on hitting performance outcome measures contrasts dramatically with the
emphasis placed on serving youth with disabilities and documenting how
many youth with disabilities were served; that no change in data
collection is anticipated in the near future. In essence, if it is
important, it will be required. Otherwise, no one has time for niceties.

# *[Use of Data for Decision Making]{.underline}*

Even more than last year, performance outcome data are driving every
element of WS service delivery. In addition to the case-by-case
screening of potential program participants, new programs like the DCN
project described above came about as a direct result from failing to
meet performance outcomes last year (both within the PCWDS area as well
as the rest of the state of Rhode Island). WS staff feels their hands
are tied and at times expressed frustration over not being able to serve
those "most in need" and instead crafting everything they do with the
outcome measures in mind.

Other mechanisms such as customer satisfaction surveys described in last
year's report are still in use. However, while programmatic changes can
be considered relative to these forms of customer input, the bottom line
decision will focus on does the proposed change make it more or less
likely that outcome measures will be met.

**E. PERFORMANCE MEASURES**

*[Setting High Expectations for Youth]{.underline}*

As reported last year, all of the interviewees agreed with holding youth
to high expectations. The difficulty, they all felt, was that the
performance standards hold youth, especially youth with disabilities, to
unrealistically high expectations.

# *[Anticipated Impact of the Common Measures]{.underline}*

Last year, the WS staff along with others anticipated that the outcome
measures would lead to extreme "creaming" and leave those most in need
with fewer or no services or supports. They were right on the mark. For
instance, youth with low reading levels are now simply not taken into
WIA supported programs. Even the out of school service provider will not
accept a youth with under a 7^th^ grade reading level (they prefer an
8^th^ grade reading level). They feel that only youth with at least this
level of skill stands a chance of earning a GED within a year.
Basically, WIA supported services are now appropriate for only fairly
high academically skilled youth.

One impact that the WS staff did not foresee last year was the influence
from the state level that would be brought to bear on the design and
monitoring of local programs. As described above, the state brought in
consultants to advise WS on how to set up programs that would meet
outcome measures. The result was the development of the DCN work
experience project accompanied by new monitoring practices.

The Director of CTY, the out of school service provider, spoke at length
about what she understood to be some of the new practices due to
decisions by monitors who report to the state. These practices, on their
face, appear to present barriers to CTY to maintain program stability.
For instance, if CTY (or any other vendor for that matter) sets an
attendance rate target of 85% for the year, and in the first month
reports an attendance below that target; funds will be withheld for that
month. If in the next month the attendance rate is high enough that the
two months together average 85% or above, then CTY will receive payment
for both months. If it is below the target, funds will be withheld for
that month as well. CTY's expenses for those two months remain the same.
The means to meet its bills, however, is withdrawn. At a minimum this
practice will lead to serious cash flow problems for CTY and may lead it
to withdraw from being a WIA service provider. Negotiations around these
sorts of issues were ongoing at the time of the interviews and neither
the vendors nor WS staff would proffer a guess as to how this will be
settled. The fact that the specter of this sort of practice has been
raised has had an unsettling impact on CTY and other service providers.

**F. FISCAL ISSUES**

*[Flexibility of Funds]{.underline}*

As reported last year, WIA funds are not viewed as flexible due to
outcome measures and the ten WIA program elements. However, unlike last
year, WS, as described above, is more aggressively pursuing non-WIA
funds in order to provide youth programs that show progress even though
they may fall short of WIA outcome measures.

**G. ELIGIBILITY**

# *[Policy Changes in Eligibility Criteria]{.underline}*

As reported last year, none of the interviewees knew of any eligibility
policy changes. However, as stated several times above, the practice of
"creaming" intakes has become something of an art. WS staff and WS
service providers are well versed in admitting only youth most likely to
hit outcome measures while referring less likely candidates to non-WIA
supported services.

*[Non-income Eligibility]{.underline}*

As reported last year, none of the interviewees served non-income
eligible youth with WIA-funded services. However, the new program
manager at the Valley Community Mental Health Center was entirely sure
that all of its youths were income eligible.

Referrals to the pre-GED program did not have to be income eligible as
the funds supporting the program do not emanate from WIA. However, even
with that flexibility, all of the interviewees still reported everyone
they served was income eligible.

**H. MARKETING AND OUTREACH TO EMPLOYERS**

*[New Efforts to Engage Employers]{.underline}*

New efforts to engage employers are part of the development of new
programs. For instance, the summer work experience program described
above created the need to contact specific types of employers that
matched the interests of the youth in the program. Additionally, the DCN
work experience project utilizes the employer connections and employer
outreach capability of a private temp agency (DCN). Both of these
efforts are new and it is the first time that WS has utilized the skill
of a private firm to establish contact with employers.

WS is also collaborating with an association of retailers to establish a
retail work experience program in which youth will work in various
retail settings (consistent with their interests) in a variety of
positions. By working through an association to reach employers, WS
carries more credibility than it might by making individual direct
approaches.

A traditional outreach strategy such as recruiting employers for job
fairs continues.

*[Supporting Employers in Hiring Youth with Disabilities]{.underline}*

During the summer work experience program and the DCN program, WS and
DCN staffs provide support to the involved employers. Typically, the
support consists of staff visiting job sites and keeping in touch with
employers to assure that everything is going well.

The one caveat to all of the information above is that there are few if
any youth with disabilities participating in these programs. WS staff
indicated that in the future they actively attempt to recruit youth with
disabilities into these programs but could not assure that there were
any involved during the first year.

**I. COMMUNICATION/COORDINATION AMONG PARTNERS**

# *[Changes in Partner/Provider Relationships]{.underline}*

As reported last year, all of the interviewees indicated that there was
an increase in collaboration across partners, increased awareness of
services available, and increased resource-sharing because of a lack of
resources.

The most significant change appears to be the working relationship with
ORS. Previously a Disability Resource Specialist was housed at the One
Stop. ORS interacted primarily (almost exclusively) with that person.
Since the Specialist is no longer there, ORS feels it has become the
disability case manager for the One Stop. Additionally, ORS is now
rotating staff through the One Stop (different staff person each day).
The One Stop would prefer to have one person housed there full time vs.
the rotation schedule with which they are now dealing. ORS feels that
the programmatic offerings for youth with disabilities at the One Stop
now very closely resemble only those that could be accessed at any ORS
office as opposed to the previous experience of using the One Stop to
provide services that supplement ORS offerings. ORS attributes this
reduction in programmatic offerings to the absence of the Disability
Resource Specialist.

Both ORS and the One Stop seem willing to work through the current
situation but, at the time of the interviews, no solution seemed at
hand.

# *[Changes in School Relationships]{.underline}*

As reported last year, the relationship between WS, the One Stop and the
school district remains strong. For instance, the Pre-GED program is
thriving; WS staff is able to outreach to "at risk" students through a
collaborative arrangement with the school district that allows WS to
mail to them in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the
students; and the WS Youth Services Director continues to sit on many
key school district committees.

The coming school year poses real challenges to this relationship as the
WS Director of Youth Services has taken a new position and at the time
of this writing had not been replaced. As so often happens, the
collaboration that has been achieved up to this point appears to be the
product of building good personal/professional relationships. The key
school district person is still in place and seems determined to make
sure that this relationship continues.

**J. ACCESSIBILITY AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY**

*[Changes in Programs, Services and Activities]{.underline}*

As reported last year, all of the interviewees indicated that no
significant changes were made to their programs in order to make them
more accessible to youth with disabilities. There is still a high level
of accessibility and the commitment to serving youth with disabilities
as reflected in the strong RFP language requiring applicants to assure
that both programs and facilities are accessible to youth with
disabilities.

*[Changes to Facilities]{.underline}*

As with programs and services, there were no changes in the facilities
or equipment as they are already accessible. Additionally, very few, if
any, youth with physical disabilities appear to be utilizing One Stop
nor ORS services. As described above, they also do not appear to have
IEPs and in many cases 504 plans, and so are not referred to ORS or WS.

# *[188 Checklist Awareness and Use]{.underline}*

A few of the interviewees recalled that the 188 Checklist was discussed
last year but had no other familiarity with it.

**III. YOUTH INTERVIEWS**

# Demographics

Four youths were interviewed. Three were interviewed in a group setting
at the Youth Career Center housed at netWORKri and one by telephone. Two
of the youths interviewed had been interviewed the previous year. All of
the youth were/are out-of-school youths. All had previously participated
in the CTY program. One youth was currently working and all but one had
previously been employed for short periods of time, some more than once.
Two of the youths were female. Ages ranged from 17 to 20. All had
disabilities.

All of the youth interviewed indicated that they were diagnosed with
ADD. Interestingly, one of the participants indicated a different
diagnosis the previous year. When asked about it, she indicated she had
been diagnosed with more than one disability but she felt the ADD was
the more serious of the two. (She couldn't remember the other exact
diagnosis.)

Three of the youths interviewed had attained their GED. One was still at
the testing stage but had three content tests to retake. She wasn't sure
when that would happen. She had taken her first round of tests more than
a year before the interview.

While in school, only one of these youths had an IEP. The others were
not diagnosed while in school. They were diagnosed through assessments
that were done in conjunction with CTY after leaving school. Consistent
with last year's interviews, all of the youth reported a lack of success
in school. They all said they found school to be valuable and each
reported that at least one teacher had helped them in some way. Yet they
also said that they rarely spoke to teachers and found most of them to
be uncaring.

At the time of the interview last year, one of the youths reported that
he was employed in a commercial kitchen. His goal was to attend a
college of culinary arts. Over the last year he was unable to achieve
his goal. He relocated to Florida for a while to live with relatives
there. While there he was accepted by a school of culinary arts but
could not afford the tuition. He explored financial aid but all that was
available was a school loan and he was unwilling to assume debt to go to
school. He moved back to the Providence area but had not explored
culinary arts schools any further. He has an interest in music and was
planning on cutting a demo cd in the very near future. He had been away
from the CTY program for just over one year.

The other youth that was interviewed last year was still working on
attaining her GED while pursuing employment in cosmetology. When asked
how she was doing that, she indicated that she was "doing hair" for
friends and relatives out of her house. She is planning on completing
her GED in the near future but did not have any specific plans at the
time of the interview for doing so. She had left the CTY program two
years ago.

Of the two youths being interviewed for the first time, one of them had
earned his GED and was currently employed as an auto mechanic. The other
had also earned her GED and was planning on attending Rhode Island
Community College in the fall. Both had left the CTY program less than a
year prior to the interview.

Three of the youths lived with their parents or other relatives. One had
his own apartment he shared with a roommate.

As our findings of last year, all of them spoke highly of the CTY
program. They felt the staff was excellent and really cared about the
youth in the program. One student said she felt that without CTY she
would be home doing nothing.

One of the new youths did raise some concerns about the CTY program as
well as strong reservations about the services provided at the One Stop.
Concerning CTY, he indicated that he felt the program was often
disorganized and did not provide consistent programming from day-to-day.
He could not provide specific examples of what he meant by that
observation. He went on to say that he felt the One Stop "was a complete
waste of time." He indicated that he did have good access to the
computers at the One Stop for job searches but that he found better
listings in the local paper than he did online at the One Stop. He
attended an "orientation" (his characterization) but no other services
were extended to him. He found his own job and then a second, better job
through a person from whom he bought auto mechanic tools. (The salesman
knew of an opening in another shop and suggested that he contact the
owner.) He went on to say that he did not believe his experience was
unique as his girlfriend also tried to find a job through the One Stop
and had similar results.

Interestingly, at the conclusion of his remarks, the other youths chimed
in supporting his views but did not offer any examples of their own.

When asked what barriers they still faced, all but one youth indicated
transportation (one has a car) and housing. All of the youths seem to be
very fluid in their housing situations. They are primarily reliant upon
relatives and the relatives do not have stable housing.

Unlike last year, they had no specific recommendations for improving the
CTY program.

**IV. NEW AND CONTINUING CHALLENGES**

# *[Performance Measures]{.underline}*

Similar to last year but possibly more intense, all of the interviewees,
especially WS staff, felt the performance standards will increasingly
drive everything they do. WS staff believes the performance standards
are directly responsible for the reduction in the number of proposals
they receive to their annual RFP. They further feel that the new
intensity of the monitoring brought about by the state will negatively
impact the willingness of vendors to accept WIA funds.

In particular, the WS staff expressed frustration with being asked on
one hand to serve the "hard to serve" youth and on the other be held to
outcomes that cannot be reached with such youth. They are resolved to
having to "cream" their participants and remain greatly concerned about
youth that are truly in need of services. They also believe that youth
with disabilities will be (or already is) the first group to be
"creamed" out of the program as the performance standards seem
particularly inappropriate for them.

# *[Continued Decline in Funding]{.underline}*

As reported last year, WS staff anticipate even further reductions in
funding. This has an immediate and clear negative impact on WS's ability
to fund services. It has had an unexpected impact of causing the
Director of Youth Services to accept a position elsewhere due to a
belief that her position will soon be eliminated due to lack of funds.

**V. SPECIFIC AND IMPLICIT RECOMMENDATIONS**

The impact of the performance standards is so omnipresent at this time
that no additional recommendations were offered. As we found last year,
there is a strong feeling that the performance standards set programs
and youth up for failure. At times it seemed that the interviewees are
already looking past WIA funding and are now seriously attempting to
develop non-WIA resources and thereby utilize WIA funding for only the
very few youths that are essentially guaranteed to meet the performance
outcome measures.

WS staff is also looking at ways to "streamline" services as they feel
resources will continue to decline. While they are always optimistic
that they can accomplish a continuation of services with less resources
they are just now beginning to develop the partnerships (as described
above) to accomplish the needed "streamlining".

**SUMMARY**

The site visit confirmed that many of the trends described in last
year's report are continuing. The state imposed consultants, responding
to failure to meet performance criteria, have instituted new program
models and an intense level of monitoring that is not viewed by local
programs and staff as positive. As a result, it is anticipated that
service providers will again decline and fewer of the "hard to serve"
youth will be served. It is also anticipated that even though efforts
will be made to recruit and retain youth with disabilities, it may not
be possible in light of the need to meet performance outcome measures.

Collaborative relationships appear to still be strong although the
relationship with ORS seems a bit shakier than last year. ORS now feels
it is the disability case manager at the One Stop as opposed to being
one of a number of partner resource agencies. Part of this shift in role
appears to be connected to the loss of the Disability Resource
Specialist.

Youth interviewed this year are now further removed from formal
programming than

they were last year. While no absolute correlation can be demonstrated,
it seemed that

those youth who were interviewed both this year and last are no better
off than they were

last year and possibly are worse off. It is difficult to tell if this
reflects a failure in the

services they received or if it reflects the trials and tribulations of
youth in their late teens

and early twenties.