**CUSTOMIZED EMPLOYMENT**

**Employers and Workers: Creating a Competitive Edge**

**Summary Report on**

**Customized Employment Grants**

**and**

**Workforce Action Grants**

**Funded by the U.S. Department of Labor,**

**Office of Disability Employment Policy**

**Prepared by**

**National Center on Workforce and Disability/Adult**

**April 2007**

> **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Report Organization 3

Executive Summary 5

I.  **Background on the Demonstration Projects and Grant Initiatives
    12**

    a.  The Office of Disability Employment Policy 12

    b.  Grant Programs 13

    c.  Grantee Descriptions 15

II. **Recommendations 16**

    a.  Overall Issues 16

    b.  Local 17

    c.  State 22

    d.  Federal 25

III. **Development of Partnerships and Collaborations 29**

     a.  Key Findings and Successful Strategies 29

     b.  Overcoming Obstacles 32

     c.  Discussion
         ................................................................................................36

IV. **Integration of Service Delivery Strategies Within the 39**

> **Workforce Development System**

a.  Key Findings and Successful Strategies 39

b.  Overcoming Obstacles 42

c.  Discussion
    ................................................................................................45

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  **Experiences Leveraging Resources for Common Goals 46**

    a.  Key Findings and Successful Strategies 46

    b.  Overcoming Obstacles 48

    c.  Discussion
        ................................................................................................51

VI. **Policy and Systemic Influence 52**

    a.  Key Findings and Successful Strategies 52

    b.  Overcoming Obstacles 56

    c.  Discussion
        ................................................................................................60

VII. **Sustainability of Grant Activities 62**

     a.  Key Findings and Successful Strategies 62

     b.  Overcoming Obstacles 65

     c.  Discussion
         ................................................................................................71

**Appendix A - Grantee Description 75**

**Appendix B -- Glossary of
Acronyms\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....80**

**Report Organization**

Customized Employment strategies offer new processes to advance
employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The Office
of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor initiated a
series of demonstration projects to identify policy issues that support
the use of Customized Employment strategies in the workforce development
system. The purpose of this report is to summarize the lessons learned
from this demonstration initiative and the policy recommendations it has
generated.

Information for this report has been developed based on the technical
assistance provided by staff of the National Center for Workforce and
Disability/Adult. Technical assistance staff worked directly with
grantees in the design and implementation of their projects, and helped
them to identify lessons learned.

This report is organized in the following manner:

> Executive Summary

I.  Background on the Demonstration Projects and Grant Initiatives

II. Recommendations

III. Development of Partnerships and Collaborations

IV. Experiences with Integrating Service Delivery Strategies Within the
    Workforce Development System

V.  Experiences with Leveraging Resources for Common Goals

VI. Policy and Systemic Influence

VII. Sustainability of Grant Activities

Section I provides information and background on the demonstration
projects and grant initiatives embarked by ODEP starting in 2001.

Section II summarizes local, state and federal recommendations generated
as a result of this demonstration initiative. A key purpose of this
initiative was the identification of policy issues and strategies to
consider in order to address and ensure that individuals with
disabilities can access and succeed within the One-Stop Career Centers,
and achieve positive employment outcomes by using Customized Employment
strategies. The sections that follow provide greater detail on the
challenges and strategies experienced by the sites that contributed to
the development of these recommendations.

In sections III to VII, information gathered from grantees' experiences
is presented in a consistent outline.

-   Key findings and successful strategies---bulleted examples of
    grantee activities that have contributed to projects\' understanding
    of each issue

-   Overcoming obstacles---some of the challenges grantees experienced
    and the strategies they have used to address them

-   Discussion---the integration of findings across all of the grantees

Within the body of the report, individual grantees are identified by the
city and state where the grantee is based (with the exception of
Alabama, Montana, and Alaska, which were statewide initiatives).
Examples from grantees are used for illustrative purposes.

**CUSTOMIZED EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES**

**Executive Summary**

## Office of Disability Employment Policy 

The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) provides national
leadership by developing and influencing disability-related employment
policy and practice affecting the employment of people with
disabilities.

To identify policy issues and effective practices, a series of
demonstration projects was awarded from 2001-2003, resulting in a total
of 20 Customized Employment and six Workforce Action grants. In
conjunction with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, ODEP
also awarded five demonstration projects to serve individuals who are
chronically homeless.

The initiative factored in the following assumptions:

-   What we have learned from the best of disability employment
    practices over the last 20 years will benefit people with other
    complex barriers to employment.

-   Demonstrating the effectiveness of customized strategies through the
    generic workforce system will increase employment for all people
    with complex needs.

-   Building capacity within the generic workforce system to customize
    employment for people with complex barriers will require multiple
    changes across traditional and nontraditional systems.

##### 

### Customized Employment

The Customized Employment process is a flexible blend of strategies,
services, and supports designed to increase employment options for job
seekers with complex needs through the voluntary negotiation of the
employment relationship with an employer. The job seeker is the primary
source of information and drives the process. The Customized Employment
process begins with an exploration phase that lays the foundation for
employment planning. Planning results in a blueprint for the job search,
during which an employment relationship is negotiated to meet the needs
of both the job seeker and the employer.

##### Job Seeker Exploration/Discovery

Time spent engaging with the job seeker to explore their unique needs,
abilities, interests, and complexities is essential to establishing
successful employment. Unlike traditional testing or standardized
assessment, Customized Employment allows the job seeker to control the
exploration process, and captures information on their preferences,
personal networks and connections in the community. The job seeker
selects friends, family, and colleagues to participate in the
exploration phase so that they can share positive perspectives and
connections to potential employment opportunities. At the conclusion of
the exploration phase, the job seeker makes decisions about their
employment goals and potential employers to approach.

##### Customized Planning 

Information gathered from the exploration/discovery process is the
foundation for Customized Employment planning. The Customized Employment
planning process should result in a blueprint for the job search. There
are also numerous tools---including profiles and portfolios---that can
be used to capture, organize, and represent the information collected
during exploration and planning.

##### Employer Negotiations 

An essential element in Customized Employment is negotiating job duties
and employee expectations to align the skills and interests of a job
seeker to the needs of an employer. This negotiation results in a job
description that outlines a customized relationship, or agreement,
between employer and employee. Options for customizing a job description
include job carving, negotiating a new job description, job creation,
and job sharing. Other points of potential negotiation include job
supports, the hours or location of the job, or specifics of supervision.

# Benefits of Customized Employment

For individuals:

-   Customized Employment produces high-quality employment with
    increased wages, benefits, and integration into the community for
    people with disabilities who were previously considered unemployable
    by some systems.

-   Customized Employment can reduce reliance on public benefits.

-   Using Customized Employment strategies can result in employment for
    other groups of people considered "hard to serve" by the workforce
    system.

#### For the system:

-   The integrated Customized Employment model increases efficiency
    through new partnerships and funding sources.

-   Using Universal Strategies that are relevant to all job seekers
    versus specialized services for individuals with disabilities can
    change the way that employment systems are organized and
    operated---for both customers with disabilities and those with other
    barriers to employment. This produces more effective services and
    outcomes.

-   Leadership personnel, at all levels, are critical change agents for
    increasing employment for people with disabilities.

For employers:

-   Using Customized Employment strategies can assist employers to
    retain valuable staff.

-   Customized Employment offers a targeted approach to matching skill
    sets with a business need.

-   The use of Customized Employment strategies can assist employers to
    address specific conditions within their businesses that require
    attention.

# Systems Change Results

Throughout this ODEP-funded initiative, a total of 26 Customized
Employment and Workforce Action grantees were funded for periods of time
ranging from three to five years. In addition to demonstrating service
provision to individuals with disabilities using Customized Employment,
these projects were charged with operating as part of the workforce
system and demonstrating systems change in services to individuals with
disabilities, including in One Stop Career Centers operated under the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The following are key lessons learned
through this demonstration effort.

*Partnerships and Collaboration*

-   Partnership development requires investment. Whether establishing
    new relationships or building on preexisting ones, projects
    recognized that meaningful partnerships were formed only through
    investing the time to understand each other's systems,
    language/definitions, and the parameters under which they operate.
    When working within groups, projects often established ground rules
    to create a non-threatening environment and to ensure that the
    problems encountered were viewed as problems of the team or system
    rather than problems of individual partners or personnel. Together,
    partners identified clear visions and common goals, and developed
    team trust and cohesiveness.

-   To promote mutual understanding and systematize service delivery
    arrangements, including braided funding, projects produced various
    forms of clear collaborative agreements---formal and informal---that
    recognized common objectives and interdependent roles and
    responsibilities. Letters of Understanding, Memoranda of
    Understanding, and Purchase of Service Agreements were established
    with various entities \[e.g., mental health organizations,
    Vocational Rehabilitation (VR), community rehabilitation providers
    (CRPs), school systems\] as mechanisms to formalize these
    partnership arrangements.

-   Although collaborative service delivery is an effective way to
    demonstrate new ways of conducting business and promote systems
    change, multilevel partnerships were necessary to bring efforts to a
    broader level. Eliciting local, state, and federal support enhanced
    the workforce system's ability to serve their customers with
    disabilities. Identifying a "champion" at both the Local Workforce
    Investment Board (LWIB) and state agency levels at the onset of
    project planning played an important role in the overall impact of
    projects. Often this was achieved by building on previously existing
    local and state relationships and initiatives.

-   Effective utilization of partners was the cornerstone of their
    ongoing investment and engagement. Those projects that clearly
    defined the roles and tasks of partners as activities evolved were
    successful in maintaining continued commitment. Various strategies
    were effective in utilizing expertise over the long term, including
    sustainability planning teams; customized support teams; disability
    advisory councils as Workforce Investment Board (WIB) subcommittees;
    and business advisory committees. Teams and subcommittees maintained
    a clearly articulated vision and objectives that were very
    outcome-oriented.

-   No single partner or source of funds can adequately respond to the
    potential spectrum of needs of job seekers with complex barriers to
    employment. Limited partner resources necessitate collaborative
    service delivery. Furthermore, the additional up-front exploration,
    planning, and job development time needed for quality Customized
    Employment may act as a disincentive for One-Stop partner staff to
    provide services as opposed to deferring customers to alternate
    agencies such as the public VR system. Effective leveraging of
    resources was realized by establishing coordinated service delivery
    teams, joint person-centered planning teams, and collaborative case
    consultation among partners. In this way the additional time and
    resources required to effectively implement a customized solution
    were shared across multiple partners.

-   Sharing successes can spark interest. Sharing lessons
    learned---negative as well as positive---helped promote
    understanding among partners and built credibility. Helping partners
    to recognize their accomplishments and creating opportunities to
    recognize or reward partners resulted in their continued engagement.
    Case studies of specific customers were an effective way to
    illustrate the significance of systems/policy change and get others'
    attention and investment. Additionally, multimodal dissemination of
    these successes---whether in the form of individual case studies or
    aggregate outcome data---was critical for informing and engaging
    partners at all levels.

# *Service Integration*

-   To encourage \"seamlessness\" between systems, many One-Stop Centers
    adopted shared intake forms that could be used across multiple
    partners. This increased the ease of information sharing and reduced
    the individual's burden reapplying to another system should they
    require its services.

-   Some One-Stops established \"Intensive Service Unit Partnerships\"
    or similar entities meant to provide assistance to individuals who
    have difficulty accessing the standard, generic \"core\" services.
    The means to effectively identify these customers before their
    frustration forced them out of the One-Stop system was essential to
    providing more intensive services and supports.

-   Sites observed the need for a strong case management element in
    services offered to individuals with complex barriers. Furthermore,
    projects realized that offering effective employment services meant
    coordinating with providers of various life and employment support
    services such as transportation, housing, and personal support.

-   Many sites employed some variant of a customized support team: a
    group of multiple partners, led by the individual job seeker, who
    all jointly took some responsibility for the individual's needs.
    Although this was time-consuming, it typically resulted in success
    for individuals whose needs could not be met as well by a single
    agency.

-   To provide complex or time-consuming services, some sites built
    capacity in community providers through training, mentoring, and
    collaborative efforts. Effective coordination with these community
    organizations gave One-Stops a vehicle to provide Customized
    Employment services. Typically, these collaborative arrangements
    also included secondary funding sources such as VR, Medicaid, or the
    state developmental disabilities or mental health systems.

*Leveraging Resources*

-   Partnership was the basis of all multi-source funding agreements.
    The ability to access and employ multiple funding streams required
    knowledge of the various systems involved and their funding
    priorities. Furthermore, a system's willingness to commit funding to
    a creative endeavor depended on its knowledge of and trust in the
    various stakeholders. Formal agreements such as Memoranda of
    Understanding made resource sharing easier.

-   Funding could be braided on either a systemic or individual level.
    Systemic resource sharing could occur in jointly managed projects
    and shared staff positions. Funds braided for an individual required
    eligibility be met for support through each of the various funding
    streams. This type of braiding could often be time-consuming and
    require considerable case management but also created some of the
    most innovative Customized Employment and entrepreneurial successes
    nationwide.

-   In most cases, a small but entirely flexible allotment of seed money
    encouraged other systems to commit to braided funding ventures. In
    instances where flexible grant dollars were available and could be
    accessed quickly for a wide variety of purposes, other systems were
    typically more willing to contribute further funding towards the
    same goal. States showed conclusively that this allotment need not
    be large (often less than \$1000), but it had to be dictated by the
    individual's employment plan and accessible with very little delay.
    Without grant funding or other similarly flexible funding streams,
    most sites struggled to find a similarly flexible and
    customer-directed allotment.

-   Resource acquisition[^1] was shown to be a particularly potent use
    of flexible funding. Though the practice had previously been used
    primarily for entrepreneurial goals (e.g., to purchase equipment for
    businesses) it also became applicable to individuals seeking
    standard employment. In many career paths, possessing relevant tools
    or equipment makes an employee a more valuable asset to a company
    (e.g., an individual who purchased a rig for rebuilding engines was
    able to set up this side business within an existing garage). As
    such, resource acquisition was an empowering practice for the job
    seeker.

-   Customer-driven funding choices require a customer-driven system. In
    instances where a system or organization was acculturated towards a
    person-directed service philosophy---one where the individual\'s
    goals and priorities had primacy in the decision-making
    process---funding choices were more creative and customer-driven.
    For example, a community service organization in Georgia had not
    previously experimented with flexible funding, resource ownership,
    or the other major aspects of customer-driven funding until it began
    a major overhaul of its own operating principles. Having engaged in
    the internal changes that shifted the locus of choice from staff to
    jobseeker, the capacity to offer customer-directed funding options
    quickly followed.

# *Policy and Systemic Influence*

-   Local systems had considerable control and flexibility about service
    provision, and grantees worked with LWIBs regarding how to exercise
    it effectively to serve people with disabilities. Many sites were
    able to negotiate more flexible joint service provision and funding
    with mandated partners than occurred in other parts of their state.
    A range of entities participated in this joint service provision,
    including: VR; WIA; Veterans; community mental health; Social
    Security Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach[^2]
    (hereinafter referred to as BPAO/WIPA) counselors community
    providers; and Centers for Independent Living. The capacity to
    demonstrate success with some of the One-Stops\' most challenging
    customers created an openness and flexibility on the part of the
    LWIB and partners (mandated and non-mandated) to develop policies
    that could be applied more broadly.

-   To create systemic change beyond the funding cycle of the grant,
    sites integrated expectations concerning the provision of Customized
    Employment strategies into their Requests for Proposals when
    selecting One-Stop operator and/or training vendors. By
    standardizing these practices, the WIB communicated that serving
    individuals with disabilities was a priority and set standards for
    those services.

-   Several sites established local standards for performance and
    service provision to individuals with disabilities. One LWIB set a
    benchmark percentage of individuals with disabilities that needed to
    be served through the One-Stop and developed sanctions if the
    operator did not meet those standards. Another LWIB created a point
    system for preferred employment outcomes, attaching values to
    different types of job orders and job seekers through an "Investment
    Grid." High point values were attached to customers who had received
    the most support. Placing a job seeker from a special population
    (e.g., an individual with a disability) into a job with a priority
    status (e.g., health care or information technology) received the
    highest point value.

-   Sites influenced both local and state levels to address policy
    barriers and practices. This was particularly effective in the area
    of funding Customized Employment services. Several sites worked with
    their state Medicaid authority to access Medicaid funding for
    services to support employment. In several states, the expectation
    of employment as a primary service available to individuals with
    disabilities was integrated into state policy through the
    departments of Developmental Disabilities and Mental Health. VR
    payment processes were also adapted to allow payment for discovery
    services and supported self-employment.

-   All sites provided training opportunities for staff, including
    in-person options, distance education, and mentoring. To ensure that
    staff integrated this information into their work performance,
    several sites built expectations concerning staff competencies in
    serving customers with disabilities into their annual reviews.

*Sustainability*

-   Grantees found that developing staff competencies and maintaining an
    effective professional development system was a key feature of
    sustainability. Strategies for ongoing professional development
    ranged from creating modules for online training to infusing
    Customized Employment practices into existing statewide training
    curricula. Overall, projects recognized that investing time and
    effort in professional development was a must for staff to gain
    competence in meeting the employment needs of multiple customer
    populations with barriers to employment.

-   As additional partnerships were formed and innovative service
    delivery systems established, grantees entered into more formal
    contractual agreements to sustain collaborative efforts beyond the
    grant period. Letters of Understanding were developed ensure that
    partners were committed to continuing to support job seekers with
    barriers to employment; One-Stop operator contracts were modified to
    reflect customized service delivery; and Requests for Proposals
    (RFPs) included accountability measures for quality assurance.

-   The demonstration activities of the grantees served as a laboratory
    to identify and address local and state policy concerns. By
    demonstrating effective strategies to improve employment outcomes
    for individuals with disabilities, sites could move the employment
    agenda forward through various systems, including state workforce
    development, mental retardation, and Medicaid.

-   Workforce development systems have often struggled with helping
    customers with various abilities, learning styles, and barriers to
    benefit from the programs and services available at and through
    One-Stops. By applying the principles and concepts of universal
    design to workforce systems, many grantees promoted ease of use and
    meaningful access to employment services and opportunities.

-   The mosaic of human services includes pilot programs that often are
    not sustained beyond the funding period. The grantees' projects
    addressed sustainability through every phase, from planning to
    implementation. They developed sustainability think tanks, strategic
    planning teams, and WIB disability subcommittees as organizational
    strategies to ensure longstanding systems change.

**CUSTOMIZED EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES:**

**Employers and Workers**

**Creating a Competitive Edge**

**I. Background on the Demonstration Projects and Grant Initiatives**

Customized Employment offers new strategies to increase employment
opportunities for individuals with disabilities. The concept of
Customized Employment builds on elements of supported employment, with a
focus on individualization and negotiation to address the needs of both
the job seeker and employer. While originally applied with individuals
with disabilities, the strategies are universal and will benefit many
individuals with barriers to employment. To better understand the
process of Customized Employment and its use within the generic
workforce development system, the Office of Disability Employment Policy
embarked on a demonstration initiative in 2001.

**The Office of Disability Employment Policy**

The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) was authorized by
Congress in the Department of Labor's FY 2001 appropriation. Recognizing
the need for a national policy agency to ensure that people with
disabilities were fully integrated into the 21st-century workforce,
Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao delegated authority and assigned
responsibility to the Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment
Policy. ODEP is a sub-cabinet-level policy agency in the Department of
Labor.

With the ultimate goal of increasing the number of people with
disabilities who work, either as employees or entrepreneurs, ODEP
provides policy analysis, technical assistance, innovative practice and
strategy development, and education and outreach to employers,
employees, and the disability community. ODEP also funds a variety of
employment-related initiatives related to these efforts.

ODEP is the only federal agency that deals solely with disability
employment policy. Two specific expectations of ODEP are:

-   Increase the capacity of the service delivery system to serve job
    seekers with disabilities.

-   Increase planning and coordination within the service delivery
    systems for job seekers with disabilities.

ODEP does not regulate other federal or state agencies, and it does not
provide services to job seekers with disabilities. The agency works
collaboratively with other federal, state, and local systems to
identify, develop and enhance the employment outcomes for people with
disabilities within the service system to improve disability employment
policy. Examples of ODEP's work include:

-   Conducting research on the ways in which current policy affects the
    inclusion of people with disabilities into the workforce.

-   Developing projects to support systems change within current
    employment policy and practice.

-   Recommending changes in Department of Labor policy that will allow
    people with disabilities to become fully integrated into the
    workforce.

ODEP has implemented several demonstration projects to develop
innovative programs and provide technical assistance to improve
employment outcomes for adults and youth with disabilities. These
projects were expected to:

-   Increase the *capacity* of service delivery systems.

-   Increase *planning* and *coordination* within and across service
    delivery systems.

-   Increase *employment outcomes* resulting from customized strategies.

ODEP took the following assumptions as the basis for the initiative:

-   What we have learned from the best of disability employment over the
    last 20 years will benefit people with other complex barriers to
    employment.

-   Demonstrating the effectiveness of customized strategies through the
    generic workforce system will potentially increase employment for
    other people with complex needs.

-   Building capacity within the generic workforce system to customize
    employment for people with complex barriers to employment will
    require multiple changes across traditional and nontraditional
    systems.

The first Solicitation for Grant Applications for these demonstration
projects occurred in 2001. From 2001 to 2003, ODEP awarded 20 Customized
Employment grants and six Olmstead WorkFORCE Action Grants. Although the
Customized Employment and Olmstead grants had similar goals, they
targeted different needs within the workforce development system. The
following section summarizes the goal and the funds available under each
grant.

**Grant Programs**

*Customized Employment Grant Initiative*

The Customized Employment grant initiative aimed to increase the
capacity of One-Stop Career Centers to provide seamless and quality
employment services for people with significant disabilities, resulting
in competitive jobs that pay at least minimum wage and offer
opportunities for career advancement. To that end, each grantee worked
to infuse Customized Employment services[^3] into the local One-Stop
delivery system. As the grant recipients, LWIBs received funds to build
the capacity of local One-Stop Centers to provide Customized Employment
services to persons with disabilities who were not regularly targeted
for services by the One-Stop delivery system. Grants funded under this
program provided a vehicle for LWIBs to systemically review their
policies and practices around disability, and to incorporate new and
innovative practices to improve integrated employment outcomes.

The Customized Employment grant initiative was initially funded by ODEP
in FY 01 and continued in FY 02 and 03. Funding for FY 01 and FY 02 was
\$3.5 million; funding for FY 03 was \$2.5 million, with individual
grants ranging from approximately \$500,000 to \$750,000.

Each grant was awarded for a one-year period with the opportunity to
renew funding for up to four additional years. Eight grants were awarded
in FY 01, and they continued for five years. Eight additional projects
were funded in FY 02 for four years, and five grants were awarded in FY
03 for three years.

*Workforce Action Grant Initiative*

The Working for Freedom, Opportunity, and Real Choice Through Community
Employment (WorkFORCE) Action grant initiative continued ODEP's
development and documentation of programs that enable participation in
community employment through customized strategies. The goal of the
grant program was to support local nonprofit organizations to
demonstrate Customized Employment strategies for persons with
disabilities covered by the Olmstead Supreme Court decision of 1999
(Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 119 S. Ct. 2176-1999). The target
groups to be served were people with disabilities who were either
unemployed or underemployed and who were:

-   In non-work, segregated work, or transitioning to work settings;

-   Covered under the Olmstead decision and/or Executive Order; and
    therefore part of the state\'s overall Olmstead planning process; or

-   Awaiting employment service and supports following a move from a
    residential facility, or part of a plan to move into the community
    under the Supreme Court\'s decision in Olmstead and/or Olmstead
    Executive Order.

These grants were awarded to community providers who then partnered with
their workforce development system and LWIB. The first WorkFORCE Action
Grants were awarded in FY 02, with three grants funded for a total of
\$1.7 million for four years. An additional three grants were awarded in
FY 03, which were funded for three years.

*The National Center on Workforce and Disability/Adult*

The Institute for Community Inclusion was awarded an additional ODEP
grant as the central coordinator of the National Center on Workforce and
Disability/Adult (NCWD/A). NCWD/A functioned as a training provider for
the One-Stop system. It provided training, technical assistance, policy
analysis, and information to improve access for people with disabilities
in the workforce development system and to assist Customized Employment
grant initiatives and Olmstead WorkFORCE Action grantees to meet their
project goals.

**Grantee Descriptions**

Great variation existed among grantees with regard to service delivery
areas, primary implementers, project goals, and implementation methods.
Each project designed its program to reflect the idiosyncrasies of the
area and operations. Grantees generally organized their projects in one
of three ways:

> 1\) Project activities and service provision stayed primarily with
> One-Stop staff and management.
>
> 2\) Activities were based primarily within the One-Stop, while a
> disability provider, CRP, or other entity was responsible for
> implementing the individual services.
>
> 3\) Project activities were primarily based externally at a CRP.

Each method of implementation met with its own set of strengths and
challenges, some of which are highlighted in the section on
Partnerships. Worthy to note is that the project design often lent
itself to the focal area that projects held and their success---or lack
thereof---in achieving systems change.

**See Appendix A for descriptions of individual grantees.**

**II. Recommendations**

A primary purpose of this demonstration effort was to identify policy
issues that need to be addressed to ensure that individuals with
disabilities can access and succeed within the One-Stop Career Centers,
and achieve positive employment outcomes by using Customized Employment
strategies. This section identifies a variety of recommendations that
need to be considered at the local, state, and federal levels.
Recommendations are grouped in categories matching the report sections.
Overall issues from each report section have been briefly summarized
below to provide context.

**Overall Issues**

*Partnership and Collaboration*

Collaboration was the primary innovation of most of the grant sites, and
the foundation of all other systems change efforts. Whether considering
policy, resource allocation, or service integration, effective
collaborative efforts were at the base of every best practice.
Collaborative efforts hinged on attaining a shared understanding between
systems and being able to translate that relationship into formal,
tangible goals that positively affected each system and its customers.
Regular meetings with formal goals set, shared management,
implementation of experimental projects, and aggressive sharing of best
practices and information typified the best work of grantees in this
area.

*Service Integration*

Based on a collaborative foundation, service integration was the process
of instilling the best practices of a specialized grant project into the
structure of the overall service system. To promote seamlessness between
partner systems, grantees focused on creating shared intake forms,
information management systems, and case management. Using the resources
of multiple partners, grantees established new services within
One-Stops, such as Customized Support Teams; exploration/discovery; and
individualized, community-based job searches. Grantees also used the
One-Stops as the staging ground for capacity-building efforts with
community providers.

*Leveraging Resources*

Again working from a firm base of collaboration, shared and creatively
leveraged funding proved to be an important innovation for customers
with significant barriers to employment. By drawing resources from
multiple sources and using funds creatively and flexibly---in many cases
purchasing necessary equipment for a business or job seeker---the system
increased the effectiveness of its expenditures dramatically. Small pots
of flexible funding were a keystone element of resource braiding. They
let the system quickly meets customers\' needs while simultaneously
creating incentives for other systems to contribute their resources to
the job search.

*Policy and Systemic Influence*

The issue of policy change was a significant challenge to most grantees.
The first and most important step taken was to thoroughly understand
what policies allowed, and the degree of latitude the grantees had to
alter or affect these policies and/or their implementation. Research and
data collection were also key elements of this effort, ensuring that new
policies were broadly beneficial in the reality of service delivery.
Looking at policy change, sites needed time and information to develop a
comprehensive plan to address obstacles to collaboration or other
efforts for quality employment services. Grantees also put considerable
effort into examining performance measurement systems.

*Sustainability*

Efforts to ensure lasting positive change on the basis of time-limited
grant activities were a challenge to every grantee. Clearly,
sustainability was part of each of these other areas. Although it is
impossible to sustain every element of a short-term demonstration
project without essentially replacing the resources applied to it,
grantees were nonetheless able to use partnerships, shared resources,
and policy change to integrate new practices based on the key findings
from the services the grant provided. In the end, sites used the direct
service they provided as a tool to learn from, and to guide
sustainability and systems change.

Following are recommendations to local, state, and federal leaders.
Although these recommendations are based on the experience of the
Customized Employment grantees, they are designed to apply to multiple
levels within the workforce development system, including CRPs,
One-Stops, LWIBs, state WIBs, and federal policy makers.

**Local Recommendations**

*Collaboration*

[Position One-Stops as the hub of local collaborative
efforts]{.underline}

One-Stop Career Centers are a natural hub around which partnerships and
collaborations between public and private service providers, businesses,
and consumer groups can operate. An attitude that encourages
collaborative efforts should be an element of operation in every
One-Stop, exemplified by management, staff training, and public
outreach. The following are some steps a local One-Stop can take to
institutionalize collaboration:

-   Basic information (e.g., the purpose, customer base, and services
    offered) on local agencies and organizations engaged in human
    services and workforce/economic development could be available to
    staff, partners, and customers (in person and via the Internet), and
    made a key element of staff training.

-   Staff can be cognizant of the various ways that a One-Stop can
    partner with an organization---everything from short-term shared
    case management to Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and
    co-location---and could be empowered and trained to reach out not
    only to customers but to potential partners as well.

-   One-Stop public events and outreach/marketing presentations might
    focus on recruiting potential partners, as well as business and job
    seeker customers.

-   One-Stop leaders might identify other leaders in the community and
    seek to work closely with them to design (and align) services
    strategically.

[Engage leaders as a key element of collaboration and system
change]{.underline}

Leaders from every system can engage in collaborative efforts at the
local level. Buy-in and understanding on the part of leaders are
essential to the success of long-term, effective collaborations.

To this end, WIB and One-Stop administration might create a guide to
engage WIB members to some extent in the functions of the One-Stop.
Unlike leaders in other employment systems, WIB members are frequently
businesspeople who have little knowledge of the actual workings of
workforce development agencies and organizations. Too frequently, these
bodies are used not as genuine partners in service delivery but as
review boards for policies and practices in which they are not truly
engaged. It is the responsibility of staff to provide these boards with
appropriate opportunities to exercise real control and provide real
contributions. Points of engagement could include, but are not limited
to:

-   Business outreach

-   Future workforce talent needs and recommended training topics for
    job seekers

-   Business service design

-   Design and implementation of intake skill assessment (are the right
    qualities being measured, etc.)

[Engage a broad range of potential partners and creative partnership
arrangements]{.underline}

# Each partner represents a unique contribution of resources and expertise. It is suggested that One-Stops be open to the widest possible range of partners, and to accommodating a creative variety of partnership modes with the intention of becoming the center of a network of cooperative resources. For example, faith-based organizations and legal aid services brought resources to the One-Stop that had not previously been available. These groups helped address other needs that affected individuals' ability to pursue work. The level of partners\' commitment varied as well. Some entities provided time-limited activities through a referral process; others established a regular presence in the One-Stop so that customers could be served in that setting and be available for questions or quick referrals. 

[Engage partners in regular, focused and goal oriented
communication]{.underline}

Without overloading staff or partner schedules, regular (monthly,
bimonthly, or quarterly) meetings held with partner management and staff
are an important means to continually build and enliven collaboration.
This model typically evolves out of shared activities or projects, but
the habit of communication can be as meaningful as the activities of the
project itself.

Absent a specific project (such as a grant), these meetings can be used
to establish and promote common goals between collaborative
organizations. These might include projects and a jointly managed
caseload, or simply a mutually determined list of goals for systemic
change. The essential feature is that consistent, goal-oriented
communication emerges and becomes sustained as a feature of standard
operation.

*Service Integration*

[Establish collaborative functions and services]{.underline}

One goal of the above-mentioned collaborative meetings and activities
might be to establish shared aspects of service delivery,
administration, and management. Examples of these include:

-   Intake

-   Data collection and management

-   Case management

-   Performance measurement

By integrating these functions across partners, the systems themselves
become far more seamless and can better initiate more complicated shared
functions such as Customized Support Teams and shared funding.

[Allow and train for greater flexibility in staff roles]{.underline}

To encourage collaboration at a local level, and to work through the
numerous elements of systems and practical change required for a
progressive employment system, staff must be empowered to engage in
activities beyond a singularly focused job description. By having a
partial involvement (.1 FTE) in other institutional priorities of the
organization (policy and partnership development, outreach, skill
development, etc.), staff become more wholly engaged in the larger
mission of the organization. Such involvement could be through such
opportunities as task forces, team meetings, and the like.

In addition to staff involvement in organizational activities, staff
need flexibility in how they provide services to their customers.
Policies and organizational habits and attitudes which limit the staff
person's ability to engage in activities in the community limit the
services they can provide both to business and to job seekers. If staff
do not have the opportunity to interact with both customers in their own
environments they will have a narrow view of what is possible and how to
creatively meet the needs of their customers. Furthermore, they will be
unable to actively engage a wider range of partners to assist in the
delivery of workforce development services.

Strengthening relationships with business provides a cornerstone for
Customized Employment.

Business services staff need to build their relationships with business
with an eye towards gaining a more detailed understanding of their
needs, challenges, and goals. By working collaboratively with business,
staff not only provide more effective business services (beyond just
taking job orders) but also create an opportunity to negotiate with the
employer around individual job seekers\' needs. This focus on addressing
both job seeker and business needs is critical to the success of the
One-Stop.

[Expect and support self-direction from job seekers]{.underline}

The degree of self-direction expected from customers varies between
systems. Whereas the generic One-Stop system typically expects absolute
self-direction, specialized systems such as CRPs for people with
disabilities may provide more support. In either case, staff can be
trained to allow for *and support* self-direction. In specialty systems,
this means providing services in a way that best supports the
individual's goals and desires. In the generic system, it often means
training staff to recognize that many job seekers will require some
assistance to come to their goals and to make meaningful choices. Many
more people (other than those with identified or disclosed disabilities)
will require assistance navigating the generic system. Training could be
made available to staff (and potentially job seekers) around the
concepts of self-determination and self-direction.

*Policy*

[Develop a clear understanding of policies and each leader's latitude
within them]{.underline}

Before seeking to change a policy that presents a perceived barrier to
progress, local systems should first understand the policy and their own
ability to operate flexibly in this context. Designated staff should
have a clear sense of:

-   What decisions are locally controlled?

-   Are there other entities locally that are responsible for
    controlling the development of the policy?

-   How can partners properly go about addressing gaps or barriers in
    their own policy, and how can they petition others for needed
    changes?

-   What is the result of habits or holdovers from old policies and
    regulations?

The need to understand the point of control is highly relevant to policy
considerations. It is often overlooked in relation to a local system's
view of its role in decisions around funding, performance measures, and
other important policy features.

[Manage performance measures and craft them to expect excellence over
compliance]{.underline}

Local control of performance measurement policy can be exercised to the
greatest extent possible to meet the needs of the local systems and
customers. As with other policy concerns, local areas often fail to
realize the degree of flexibility they have in determining and meeting
performance measures.

Rather than pursuing measures that lower expectations for certain groups
("regressive measures," which make special allotments for lower measures
for people with disabilities or other barriers), local areas might seek
to establish *progressive* measures that demand more of the system
serving these individuals, and reward this effort accordingly. Examples
of this strategy involve WIBs either rewarding service providers for
providing the more intensive services needed, or requiring that services
to these groups be sufficient to bring them success. As federal policy
around performance measures is largely measured in \"bulk\" terms, it is
typically possible to provide a wide range of services to a wide range
of individuals and not see a negative effect on the sum performance
results of the local area.

[Leverage the vendor and operator certification process to emphasize
desired outcomes]{.underline}

The operator RFP process allows the LWIB to define those services and
populations that it views as critical, and to articulate expectations in
meeting the needs of these populations. Since the operator is evaluated
based on these articulated outcomes, the RFP gives the LWIB an
accountability system. Training vendors also need a clear message about
the expectations for serving individuals with disabilities.
Certification processes can *encourage* the creative and progressive use
of individual, work experience, and on-the-job training funds to better
answer the needs of individual job seekers who require nontraditional
services and training resources.

[Collect data that reflects the future and present goals of the system,
and that can potentially validate progressive efforts]{.underline}

At a local level, systems that focus on progressive work can collect
data that reflects their successes and resonates with the standards of
their system and, where possible, their major partners. Specialized
grant projects tend to report information in keeping with the goals of
the grant without determining how their outcomes compare to standard
system measures. This data can also be utilized in policy development.
Basing policy efforts on hard data can effectively convince those less
invested in the policy. It also provides a framework to judge the
effectiveness of the policy.

*Funding and Resource Allocation*

[Use partnerships as a foundation for creative and shared funding
allocations]{.underline}

The use of progressive allocation techniques, such as braided funding
and resource allocation, has proved highly effective. A firm base of
partnership must already exist in order for organizations to feel
comfortable allocating resources in conjunction with another agency
around a single job seeker or project.

[Recognize the importance of non-monetary resources in job development
efforts]{.underline}

Often discussion around local resource sharing becomes preoccupied with
the concept of shared funding. Although funding is a necessary element
of every service, it is nonetheless essential to recognize the
importance of non-monetary resources and their potential contributions
to an individual's job search. For example, a local BPAO/WIPA
organization most likely will not be able to contribute funding per se
but can contribute a service that enables a job seeker's success and
information being shared to One Stop staff.

[Determine a source of small amounts of flexible funding]{.underline}

In every successful instance of braiding[^4] multiple funding streams to
support an individual, the process started with the commitment of a
small allotment of flexible funding, typically provided directly by a
Customized or Workforce Action grant. This first contribution seemed to
pave the way for other agencies and organizations to commit funding and
other resources. Many agencies are averse to being the \"first
spender,\" particularly on ventures (such as entrepreneurship and
resource ownership) that be perceived as speculative. Local systems
might try to identify a standard funding stream that could serve this
purpose. VR, for example, has a great degree of flexibility in its
funding allotments, and could serve this purpose if its funding
practices were adequately expedient.

**State-Level Recommendations**

*Collaboration*

[Encourage and support the state WIB to act as a focal point of
collaboration]{.underline}

Echoing the role of One-Stops as hubs of partnership in local areas, the
state WIB may position itself at the center of statewide partnership
activities. State WIBs are inherently connected to governors\' offices
and have mandatory representation from business, state agencies, and
other important state players. Using the state WIB as a forum for
statewide partnership-building and collaborative efforts also naturally
moves business leaders and service leaders into a closer working
relationship, thus leading to a more effectively business-driven system
overall. To this end, the state WIB can actively seek to recruit members
from a broad array of large and small businesses, and from a wide
variety of service leaders in a given state.

Many of the efforts that involve building partnerships between agencies
and service organizations can presumably occur in a subcommittee so as
not to engage the entire board in what can be a time-consuming process.
Still, the overall board should remain informed of what is occurring
within the subcommittee. Furthermore, the subcommittee in question may
have a broad representation by leaders who can effect change in their
own organizations, rather than representatives who can talk about
partnership without moving their system towards it effectively.

Finally, the state WIB and its partners can seek to establish and
implement a set of common goals for the service system in the state.
Important goals typically hinge on the establishment of common practices
and policies that apply to all relevant service systems involved in the
state's One-Stop Career Center collaboration, potentially including:

-   Intake, orientation, and assessment procedures

-   Information collection and management

-   Case management and resource allocation

-   Performance measurement

This group also has the potential to act as the leader in implementing
the following recommendations, all of which follow a similar theme of
state-level collaboration and common goals, measures, and methods.

[Convene working groups representing systems change efforts across the
state]{.underline}

A variety of grant initiatives are focused on improving employment
outcomes for a wide variety of job seekers. These efforts can have a
forum to interact and establish strong collaboration. As grant projects
are inherently challenged by their time limitations, the ability to
establish a broader collaborative scope is key to having a real impact
on state and local systems.

[Use data to identify the most effective practices and share those
practices broadly]{.underline}

State leaders need to look across a variety of funding streams and
service delivery systems, identify the most effective practices, and
apply those practices across the broad customer base. Effective
strategies in serving returning veterans, displaced homemakers, or
recent immigrants need to be translated to other populations that might
benefit.

*Service Integration*

[Define and empower standard competencies for workforce staff,
preferably across agencies]{.underline}

The state needs to act as a leader in defining competency standards for
staff and making training available for local systems. To allow for the
necessary degree of local control required in this endeavor, it is
advisable to develop a list of core competencies by working with local
areas that have the clearest sense of their own needs.

Once consistent expectations of staff competencies are identified,
training resources need to be made available throughout the state.
Developing state-level training curricula will create consistency in the
information that is disseminated. Local areas will also need to be
supported in providing some of their own training, to ensure that staff
understand the intricacies of their local community and partners.

[Create models of and guidance around collaborative service
delivery]{.underline}

Collaboration around service delivery aspects such as intake, training,
job development, and resource allocation has been repeatedly shown to
maximize the effectiveness of each partner's resources. However, local
areas often struggle to determine where and how they can collaborate. If
the state WIB develops models of collaborative efforts, provides
guidance to institute them, and offers information about the benefits of
such collaboration, local systems will be far more likely to engage
their partners tangibly.

[Establish a statewide business outreach plan]{.underline}

To balance the needs of businesses and job seekers, it is recommended
that the state develop guidance to establish business outreach efforts.
Information might detail not only how best to serve the business
customer but also how to ensure that good business service also means
better service to all job seeker customers, regardless of the complexity
of their needs. Tap state WIB members to provide guidance on how to
integrate good marketing and placement of individuals with significant
barriers to employment into highly effective business services.

*Policy*

[Define policy and local and state latitude for change]{.underline}

As with local systems, it is extremely important that state officials
have a clear sense of the latitude they have. In some cases states
interpret federal policy and regulations differently, and do not
necessarily realize the flexibility they are allowed within those
regulations and policies, both inherently and through waivers.

In addition to having a comprehensive grasp of their own policy
parameters, state leaders can encourage local systems to define their
own fields of flexibility. This might be accomplished by assembling a
group of statewide leaders to express their concerns, while working with
state representatives to define their own latitude in changing the
relevant policies. State WIBs can then release guidance to local areas
in ways that defines areas of control and encourages implementation.

[Offer guidance in key policy areas]{.underline}

State-level leaders can create a series of model policy and guidance
documents, including:

-   Model MOUs for the state, endorsed at the state level by the
    agencies that would enter into them on the local level. These
    documents could offer sample language around sharing costs and
    space, common goals and service populations, potential braiding of
    resources, and the specific concerns of shared case management.

-   Informational guidance to local systems on the role of various
    agencies and the potential for local collaboration.

-   Policies and performance measures that tangibly *reward*
    collaboration, over and above supporting it as an abstract
    goal---for example, policies that explicitly allow shared case
    management and resources, and performance measures that explicitly
    reward systems for partnering around an individual job seeker. RFPs
    for One-Stop operators and competencies for staff could also reflect
    this priority.

[Engage local areas to proactively define their performance measurement
system]{.underline}

Performance measures are a matter of considerable concern for local
systems attempting to serve customers with multiple significant barriers
to employment. Local systems often perceive that federal measures built
for high-volume, generic efforts inherently put systems at a
disadvantage should they serve job seekers who require greater
resources.

However, although they must continue to meet the base standards applied
by the federal systems, states nonetheless have a considerable degree of
creativity in defining how they will meet these standards. State leaders
should first come to a clear understanding of their latitude in defining
measures, and then work closely with local systems to design measures
that both comply with the needs of federal measurement and provide local
incentives to meet the needs of all job seekers. Above all, states
should not be afraid to demand excellence over compliance from their
local systems.

[Understand the way partners measure success and the implications for
collaborative efforts]{.underline}

Performance measurement also differs between systems. An important part
of the state partnership discussion will include how best to balance
these different standards in joint service ventures. Ideally, the
different federal expectations placed on various systems can be
beneficial in allowing for a varied range of services in a local area.

Disability entities (e.g., Mental Retardation/Developmental
Disabilities, mental health agencies, community providers) need to
communicate that employment is the preferred outcome.

Many states still struggle with a dual service provision system for
individuals with disabilities, where segregated employment options
coexist with community-based employment services. It is recommended that
State policy makers communicate the clear value that employment in the
community is the preferred outcome, and their policies and funding
mechanisms support that message.

[Establish a consistent standard for tracking information about
disability status throughout the workforce systems]{.underline}

In order to effectively track and evaluate services to customers with
disabilities, One-Stops must obtain disability-related information and
identify data elements that help track the efficacy of those services.
As with other data collection elements, these might be standardized
across multiple systems to allow for a uniform understanding of the
demographics of the state's job seekers.

*Funding and Resource Allocation*

[Define and encourage funding latitude for local systems]{.underline}

State and local systems are often uncertain about how best to contribute
to funding joint ventures, whether on an individual or programmatic
level. As a part of its collaborative efforts, and as an aspect of its
role as a leader in policy definition, each state system could carefully
define local areas' potential roles in braiding funding and resources.
The parameters, then, will encourage innovation and urge staff to
understand the limits of local policy so that they may experiment
without running afoul of restrictions.

Given the repeatedly proven success of shared funding as a means of
supporting employment goals, state systems can make their support of
such creativity tangible. Possible methods for include:

-   Encourage shared case management and resource allocation as part of
    progressive performance measurement.

-   Provide fiscal support to state and local joint ventures and shared
    project management. Sources for such funding include the governor's
    15% set-aside under WIA funding, and innovation and expansion
    funding under VR.

-   Highlight success stories regarding shared funding, joint case
    management, and resource ownership.

**Federal Recommendations**

*Collaboration*

[Create an interagency work group on collaboration]{.underline}

Federal workforce development authorities could form an interagency work
group to promote seamlessness and collaboration at the state and local
levels. This group could potentially take responsibility for initiating
many of the following recommendations across members\' various agencies.

[Sponsor information briefs on various partner systems and their role in
state and local workforce development]{.underline}

At the local and state levels, lack of knowledge regarding other
agencies is often the key barrier to collaboration. An important first
step towards local and state partnerships would be to create information
briefs describing the basic purpose of other agencies, the population
they serve, and the resources and services they provide.

[Include a \"ramp up\" period for partnership-building in future
long-term systems change grants]{.underline}

As the findings of this report clearly show, a solid foundation of
collaboration is essential to work involving complicated service
delivery and systemic change. As such, long-term grants might include a
period of time, potentially at a lower rate of funding than later years,
which allows grant sites to build a foundation of partnership. Funding
rates could allow some service delivery, as practice is often the best
means to strengthen partnership, but then not expect service levels
equal to later years.

[Model effective collaboration at the federal level by funding grant
initiatives across agencies]{.underline}

Federal agencies need to communicate the importance of partnership
through their actions and funding priorities. Identifying areas of
common interest and potential barriers to local collaboration will
result in a model demonstration effort that could provide states and
local communities the flexibility to make some significant systems
change.

*Service Integration*

[Define Customized Employment, and establish a milestone payment system
for it under multiple funding streams]{.underline}

Customized Employment has been shown to be a highly effective service
model. However, local areas often struggle to deliver such services, as
they are not identified in the payment systems of different partners.
Clear definitions and standards must be created for the component
services of Customized Employment (exploration/discovery, portfolio
development, negotiation, etc.). Ideally, these definitions and
standards would conform to the service allotments for multiple
authorities, including, but not limited to the Rehabilitation Services
Administration, Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, Employment and Training Administration, Education,
and Veterans Employment Services. Once these standards are clear and
confirm with multiple authorities, equivalent payment structures should
thereafter be established that follow the expected outcomes of services.

[Encourage and support broad staff competencies and tie them to
incentives, performance measurement, or authorizing powers]{.underline}

Basic core competencies for workforce development staff can be
established on a federal level. These could presumably be broad and
permit a high degree of local control, while also defining the key
expectations that are held of all such staff. Ideally, these
competencies and the methods for enforcing or recommending them would be
established through collaboration across multiple authorities.

Along with generic workforce development concerns, it is recommended
that other elements be included in the competencies:

-   Supporting self-sufficiency

-   Person-centered and individualized service methodology

-   Collaborative service delivery

[Create guidance and models for state and local common intake processes,
shared case management, etc.]{.underline}

Collaborative efforts around service delivery can be encouraged through
federal initiative and guidance. Creating and disseminating guidance and
sample policy documents, and including discussions around collaboration
efforts in the requisite strategic planning process, would hasten the
movement towards local and state collaboration.

*Policy*

[Disseminate clear summaries of local and state policy
latitude]{.underline}

As noted above, confusion regarding the nature of policy and regulation
is an impediment to systems change. Federal authorities might offer
formal guidance on this issue, including a means to determine the degree
of flexibility of these policies at state and local levels.

[Create model local and state performance measurement systems based on
best practices, and guidance on the extent of local control on this
issue]{.underline}

Federal authorities might create model local and state-level performance
measurement systems that clearly define ways to encourage excellent
customer service to a broad range of job seekers and businesses,
including job seekers with significant barriers to employment. Guidance
then would include information about the degree of control local areas
have over negotiating performance measures. Model local measures should
typify a progressive system that rewards the intensive, individualized
service required by some job seekers, without compromising on the
expectation of success.

[Create performance measurements that are shared across multiple
relevant agencies]{.underline}

Furthermore, an interagency group could be established to explore the
possibility of creating shared performance measurements across multiple
systems relevant to workforce development. Although different
authorities have different needs, it is nonetheless advisable to create
a common language of measurement against which each system can
consistently evaluate its state and local entities.

*Funding*

[Create and disseminate guidance around creative, shared, and flexible
funding]{.underline}

The rules around sharing money on a project level, or simply braiding it
for an individual, are complex. Staff members\' fear of running afoul of
regulation tends to squelch innovation. These concerns would be easier
to overcome with clearly stated guidance synthesized from multiple
authorities. Guidance should not only detail what is allowable but also
set progressive methodology (such as resource acquisition and
braided/flexible funding) to actively encourage such innovation locally.

[Identify a way to create flexible funding in local areas]{.underline}

One lesson clearly shown in the findings from multiple grantee sites is
the need for a small allocation of highly flexible, easily accessible
money to meet a wide range of job seeker needs. In addition to
overcoming urgent barriers (such as lack of transportation or
appropriate clothing), flexible funding can act as a magnet to funding
from other systems that do not typically act as the \"first funder.\" It
is recommended that leadership in federal authorities clearly identify
means by which small amounts of highly flexible funding can be accessed
within their system, and disseminate this guidance to partner systems,
job seekers, and frontline staff.

[Create performance and monetary incentives for state and local resource
sharing]{.underline}

Furthermore, given the proven effectiveness and economy of such
strategies, its use could be encouraged through policy and monetary
allocation. One example of a potential federal fiscal incentive program
would be to establish an easy application grant process that would match
monies for state systems (on a 1:2 basis) with an equal amount of WIA
state money (presumably from the governor's discretionary funds) and VR
innovation and expansion funds. Both of these streams are intended to
spur innovation in a state but are too seldom used for collaborative
projects. By providing matching funds for such projects, the systems
would be compelled to collaborate. Allocating funds for flexible use is
one example of the type of project these resources might fund.

**III. Development of Partnerships and Collaborations**

Partnerships are the cornerstone of both the workforce development
system and the systems that support the employment of people with
disabilities. As the interface between these systems developed, grantees
entered a new realm of collaboration. Understanding these systems\'
parameters and operating conditions, coming to consensus on common
goals, and redefining roles in response to these goals created
opportunities on both the direct service and system levels.

The mix of partners involved per project varied based on the method of
implementation, primary focus, and the community in which it was based,
to name a few factors. To illustrate the array of partners involved, a
sampling is highlighted here:

Local and State Workforce Investment Boards

One Stop Career Centers

Community Rehabilitation Providers

Public Vocational Rehabilitation

Small Business Development Centers

Faith-Based Organizations

Wagner Peyser & Workforce Investment Act\
Employment Services

Departments of Developmental Disabilities/\
Mental Retardation

Business Leadership Networks

Public School Systems

United Way

Assistive Technology Centers

Universities

State Departments of Labor

Independent Living Centers

Legal Aid

Advocacy Organizations

Veterans' Programs

Mental Health Organizations

**Key Findings and Successful Strategies**

*Understanding Partners*

Many grantees found that understanding various partner and support
programs was a critical first step in fostering collaboration and
interdependence.

-   When initiating more collaborative relationships within their
    workforce systems, Flint, MI and Hempstead, NY recognized that they
    could not realize true collaboration until they fully understood
    their partners and the parameters under which they functioned.

-   In partnering across the workforce development, disability, and
    employer systems, Boston and Indianapolis found that each had its
    own distinct terminology and definitions for similar activities. To
    ensure that the systems\' goals, expectations, and benefits were
    aligned, these projects established common language and definitions
    among partners.

-   Although the San Diego project credited co-location as beneficial to
    facilitating partnerships, only through a working knowledge of
    partner systems and their policies did strong collaboration occur.
    Once this knowledge was gained, the fluidity and effectiveness of
    collaboration increased.

-   El Paso sought to understand all the employment service providers in
    the community in order to maximize the use of resources and
    opportunities for collaboration.

*Building on Preexisting Partnerships*

When initiating collaboration, using existing relationships moved
efforts forward. These relationships were also found to provide a
friendly entry point and establish credibility within new systems.

-   Detroit and Vancouver carefully selected their primary
    subcontractors based on previous relationships and experiences,
    consistent values, and the specific expertise offered.

-   Although expanding the number of project partners was a continual
    goal, Benton-Franklin, WA first sought opportunities to integrate
    efforts into existing partnerships or collaborations. This helped
    bring the right people to the table quickly and reduced the time
    needed to establish new relationships at the project\'s onset.

-   In Boston, capitalizing on the relationships and accomplishments of
    previous and existing initiatives---ranging from local advisory
    committees to a statewide Medicaid Infrastructure Comprehensive
    Employment Opportunities (MI-CEO) initiative---was invaluable in
    fostering systems-level collaboration.

*Identifying Shared Values and a Common Vision*

Grantees emphasized the need to identify shared values that influenced
professionals and the agencies they represented. Identifying common
values, vision, and goals helped build trust, interest, investment, and
support.

-   It was critical for the Boston project to address values and
    expectations about employment for people with significant
    disabilities before introducing specific employment models or
    advancing towards systems change efforts. Time needed to be spent
    promoting, universally, the idea that everyone can work.

-   Similarly, Cobb County, GA found that achieving systemic change was
    as much about changing individual minds as affecting policy.

-   Establishing a cohesive and committed team that shared a vision was
    instrumental for El Paso to create change to better meet the
    employment needs of the community.

-   When clearly defined goals with apparent beneficial outcomes were
    established among partners, Athens, GA found that partners were
    often willing to contribute time, resources, and possibly funding
    towards those goals.

-   Similarly, Fairfax, VA identified the parity between VR and
    Customized Employment goals in order to align the partners. After
    that, a key feature of partnership efforts became the broad
    applicability and dissemination of Customized Employment to a larger
    audience.

-   Montgomery County, MD clearly identified the value Customized
    Employment strategies added to other systems, thereby gaining
    support for and adoption of these strategies despite the
    considerable effort required to master them.

*Partnerships Enhanced Through Collaborative Service Delivery*

Both the partnerships themselves and the progress towards systems change
were promoted through collaborative efforts on the individual customer
level.

-   According to the Cambridge, MA site, systemic and policy change were
    best guided through direct work with job seekers that resulted in
    tangible best practices. This strategy also proved to be a highly
    effective means of building lasting partnerships.

-   El Paso found that when done well and effectively, braiding funds
    and services for mutual customers promoted further collaboration and
    the sustainability of these efforts.

-   Collaboration in Cobb County, GA occurred because project staff were
    enthusiastic about meaningful practices such as Customized and
    self-employment, and shared this with other community members. Good
    partnerships were built on the strength of shared successes and a
    powerful dissemination practice by the project. This hands-on
    experience was meaningful for staff and promoted further investment.

-   In Frederick, MD, the successful establishment of small businesses
    for customers with disabilities and the recognition of these
    meaningful outcomes acted as a catalyst for broad local service
    partnerships.

-   As individual successes were realized in Vancouver, formal resource
    sharing agreements were established.

*Multilevel Partnerships*

Though collaborative service delivery is an effective way to demonstrate
new ways of conducting business and promoting systems change, state- and
federal-level support was also necessary to bring the effort to a
broader scale. Effective systems change needed to occur at all levels:
national, state, and local.

-   Both Benton-Franklin, WA and Frederick, MD found that linking local
    and statewide levels allowed all participants to learn from one
    another and provided a forum for further networking.

-   The Frederick, MD project focused much of its energy on a systems
    change campaign at the state level. By employing existing ties to
    the various state systems, the project helped coordinate a steering
    committee that took on a comprehensive examination of the state
    employment service system.

-   In Georgia, partnerships towards collaborative systems change were
    most effective when they operated on both local and statewide bases.
    State-level representatives with decision-making authority over
    funding and organizational commitment were engaged at the onset.

-   Alaska also ensured buy-in at the state level at the inception of
    the project. Consistent working group meetings provided the
    opportunity to process information learned through service delivery
    and helped bridge the gap between local- and state-level
    participants.

*Collaboration Opportunities*

Those grantees that clearly defined the roles and tasks of partners as
the project evolved were successful in maintaining their continued
commitment and engagement.

-   Vancouver built a cohesive relationship on a series of collaborative
    activities, including active involvement in employment-related
    initiatives, service implementation meetings, and strategic planning
    events.

-   Partner-based work groups were highly effective in Alaska,
    particularly when they were assisted by an outside facilitator and
    based on mutually agreed-upon goals, and met regularly.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The effective use of advisory groups, partner planning meetings, and
    other groups was crucial in Cambridge, MA. The project maintained
    group cohesiveness and commitment through clearly identified goals,
    specific outcomes, and follow-up meeting notes.

-   Clearly defining partners\' roles and tasks as the project evolved
    helped El Paso ensure their continued commitment and engagement.
    Consortium meetings, integration task force meetings, and the
    establishment of a WIB disability advisory council are examples of
    activities that used partners effectively.

-   In Detroit, it was critical to establish a clear project
    organizational structure that incorporated multiple constituents on
    various planning committees, management groups, and work groups.
    Partners participated on specific groups that capitalized on their
    expertise and experiences. Teams and subcommittees were very
    outcome-oriented and had clearly articulated visions and objectives.

**Overcoming Obstacles**

### *Multiple and Complex Partners*

Grantees recognized the need to understand their partners---both
internal to the One-Stop system and external---to most effectively
capitalize on these resources to benefit both the customer and the
system.

When assisting customers to leverage system resources, the first step
for Hempstead, NY was to identify the array of employment resources
available. To this end, staff compiled a comprehensive HempsteadWorks
resource matrix. This manual included information about mandated and
non-mandated partners within the system, the services they provided,
eligibility criteria, and funding opportunities. The resource manual was
accessible to all partners within the system and included both
traditional and nontraditional providers. The effort resulted in
enhanced communications and collaboration among providers.

Flint, MI developed a monthly training program, called \"Meet Your
Neighbors,\" to help One-Stop providers better understand their
community partners. The initiative was established in response to an
identified need. It offered the opportunity for various programs to
educate their partners on the range of services provided, populations
served, and opportunities for further collaboration. This strategy also
enlightened providers and partners regarding the array of services that
customers could receive as a result of blending[^5] and braiding funding
and services.

El Paso took the concept of understanding partners to a broader scale
when the project procured experts to conduct employment resource mapping
of the El Paso community. This community resource mapping process
involved an interagency team comprised of key stakeholders. Team members
established a common vision and identified existing and duplicative
resources as well as gaps in services and supports. Community employment
providers identified the array of services available to job seekers with
disabilities, program eligibility criteria, and how services could be
accessed. The process resulted in a strategic action plan to help the
project work more collaboratively and efficiently, and develop
cost-sharing strategies (such as braiding and blending funding) around
employment supports.

### 

### *Maintaining Partner Engagement*

It was sometimes challenging to maintain partner commitment and
engagement throughout the life of the project. The following strategies
were effective in utilizing available expertise and maintaining
partnership engagement throughout the span of a project.

Joint strategic planning by grantees ensured partner buy-in. Such a plan
most often included a vision statement, guiding principles, goals,
strategies, and recommended actions. One of the initial activities that
helped Indianapolis engage partners and elicit their investment was to
begin the strategic planning process with a common vision. Using various
strategic planning methods, the project identified a three-to-five year
vision, a goal statement, and steps required to achieve that goal. A
core group consisting of the five primary partner agencies participated
in this process, with additional representatives engaged throughout the
evolution of the project. Partner representation instilled a sense of
ownership, reduced reliance on any single person within the
organization, and expanded the resources available to achieve goals.

Strategic planning committees were formed in a number of sites,
including Hempstead, NY; Detroit; and Napa, CA. With representation of
key constituents at decision-making levels, strategic planning teams
often resulted in city- or state-level systems change. The Detroit
project held Future Search strategic planning forums where 85
participants addressed critical areas of employment, training, and
support for Detroit residents with disabilities. The charge of the group
was to create a vision for Customized Employment across the city's
workforce system and propose a set of strategic recommendations for
improving employment outcomes for people with disabilities. This process
provided a framework for a strategic plan and common vision statement
that encompassed all areas of life (e.g., employment, transportation,
housing, education, assistive technology). As a result of this
multiple-constituent effort, not only were desired futures for serving
customers with disabilities identified but also links within the
community were expanded for ongoing investment in and support of this
shared vision.

The Cambridge, MA Advisory Board had a range of leaders from multiple
internal and external systems, including VR, the Department of Mental
Retardation, and the Department of Mental Health. It proved to be an
important planning forum that led to stronger systemic ties between all
the agencies involved. The Department of Mental Health, which had
initially been less involved in the project, became a more integral
partner on the basis of these meetings. For the future, the board hoped
to focus on garnering additional grants to create opportunities for
further collaboration.

To sustain the accomplishments of its projects and maintain disability
as a priority, the El Paso project developed disability councils as LWIB
subcommittees. The council advised the board on the Customized
Employment project, program service sustainability, and disability
employment issues such as recruiting, hiring, and training
opportunities. The disability councils were comprised of project
consortia members and targeted areas such as ensuring equal opportunity
and access to the system; developing relevant policies (e.g.,
accommodations, training); and identifying new or continuing community
initiatives for the employment of job seekers with disabilities.

The Knoxville, TN project created a very active business advisory
council as a subcommittee of the WIB. The council had the following
goals:

-   Provide the WIB with information on disability and diversity issues
    in the workplace

-   Advise the WIB on ways to promote inclusion and diversity in general
    workforce development policies

-   Function as a planning group to aid in the developing strategic
    direction towards increasing the employment of individuals with
    disabilities

Frederick, MD focused on a state-level systems change campaign. The
project used its ties to the primary disability agencies, the Department
of Education, the Department of Labor, provider agencies, consumers, and
advocates to create the Employment System Transformation Steering
Committee. This committee \"initiate\[d\] a comprehensive examination of
the employment service system for Marylanders with disabilities\"
through the following goals:

-   Establish common employment definitions

-   Identify value-driven outcomes

-   Create a vision/map for how the system should look

-   Define initial action steps towards realizing the vision

Through the course of its work, the steering committee generated
numerous recommendations to various state systems.

### *Impacting the Way Systems \"Do Business\"*

Developing partnerships often face the challenge of changing the
fundamental environment in which partners operate. Funding cuts and
staff turnover are elements of the culture that exacerbate such
challenges. They heighten the need for additional training, continued
support through technical assistance, and quality assurance monitoring
to sustain Customized Employment services within agencies. Otherwise,
Customized Employment services may be diffused to the point of
ineffectiveness and result in lesser outcomes.

In several communities, grantees made a concerted effort to enhance the
capacity of One-Stops and CRPs to provide employment services to job
seekers with disabilities. For this reason, grantees provided regular
training on Customized Employment and disability issues to One-Stop
staff and community partners. Projects developed and provided curricula
to community providers, community mental health centers, VR staff, and
the local school system. In Indianapolis, Customized Employment training
was being integrated into a simultaneous statewide supported employment
training program.

As the partnerships among the One-Stop and community service providers
in Knoxville, TN grew, the project became concerned about the quality of
work that the community service providers offered. To address this
situation, the project created Customized Employment services training
for staff from One-Stops, state agencies, and community service
providers to ensure that the quality of services was high. Through their
Service Provider Consortium, service providers could access a range of
staff training on a regular basis. Sessions included Customized
Employment approaches, building effective employer relationships, and
other practices to improve the overall quality of service delivery.

Because training and short-term technical assistance may not be enough
to modify long-standing practices, oversight and quality assurance
checks are critical to assist partners with adopting new practices. The
project manager in Detroit invested time in conducting case record
audits with providers to monitor service provision by the array of
internal and external providers. The manager issued sanctions if
customers were not receiving Customized Employment services as outlined
in provider agreements.

*Systematizing Service Delivery Arrangements*

In a number of sites, challenges emerged around mutual understanding and
service delivery arrangements. To address this issue, grantees created
various forms of clear, written agreements---formal and informal---that
recognized common objectives and interdependent roles and
responsibilities.

In Vancouver, MOUs were developed as the relationship between the WIB
and the mental health provider strengthened. The administration of the
mental health organization began to recognize that the relationship with
the WIB benefited not only their customers but also their business. The
WIB also recognized the value of disability consultation for policy and
procedural issues, and therefore contracted with the mental health
program for 10% of the vocational director's time.

Throughout the duration of the Richmond, VA project, the VR program was
one of the project's most significant and complex partners. Each system
had difficulty communicating its priorities to the other, which created
a number of issues. However, these and other barriers were surmounted
through the process of creating the MOU between the One-Stop and VR.

### *Limited Partner Resources*

No single partner or source of funds can adequately respond to the
comprehensive spectrum of needs of job seekers with disabilities.
Moreover, at times changes in partners\' working environments impacted
their ability to contribute services to the project. Decreases in
program funding for employment service providers increased staff
turnover and reduced overall staff levels. Generally speaking, the
additional up-front exploration, planning, and job development time
needed to serve people with significant disabilities acted as a
disincentive for partners to provide services as opposed to the more
"traditional" service delivery model of deferring customers to alternate
agencies such as VR.

Several projects helped ameliorate these issues by implementing
multiple-partner customized support teams. These teams diffused any one
partner's responsibilities and leveraged resources from a variety of
sources. Rather than relying solely on one partner program for
employment success, customized support teams provided a wraparound
approach that included braiding funds and resources to serve customers
and increase employment outcomes. This strategy proved effective in
Alaska, where it was being generalized to use with customers with a
variety of barriers to employment. The Richmond, VA project applied a
similar team approach. Customers with significant support needs were
assisted through person-centered planning techniques, which included a
preparatory meeting with One-Stop partners to determine the partners\'
roles based on the needs and goals the job seeker expressed.

**Discussion**

While taking the first and crucial steps towards systems change,
grantees recognized that building relationships takes time. Developing
team trust and cohesiveness was critical to making progress. Project
leads noted the need to take the time to facilitate an understanding of
each other's systems and constraints. For example, bringing together
community providers and One-Stop staff to engage in something akin to
resource mapping provided an opportunity for team building while helping
partners become familiar with each other and local resources.
Establishing ground rules for group settings, and ensuring that problems
were viewed as team or shared problems, set the tone for true
collaboration. This non-threatening environment aided partnership
development. To promote organizational/systems change, it was important
to ensure that various perspectives were heard and that critical players
were comfortable with decisions as efforts move forward. Only over time,
as partners felt a true spirit of collaboration and mutual benefit, did
project goals begin to materialize.

Grantees\' implementation strategy made a significant impact on
partnerships---their members, evolution, and challenges. As noted in the
introduction, three general implementation frameworks emerged:

> 1\) Project activities and service provision stayed primarily with
> One-Stop staff and management.
>
> 2\) Activities were based primarily within the One-Stop, while a
> disability provider, CRP, or other entity was responsible for
> implementing the individual services.
>
> 3\) Project activities were primarily based externally at a CRP.

As a result of the funding parameters, the grant recipient for WorkFORCE
Action grants were disability providers and so were more likely to
implement the third model.

Each implementation design offered its own set of strengths and issues.
When project activities were based within the One-Stop and implemented
through One-Stop staff and management, there was a clear perception that
the One-Stop system was the target of change. Disability partners\'
expertise was needed to equip One-Stop staff with knowledge and skills.
One-Stop staff generally acquired an understanding of disability issues
and the ability to shift from standardized services towards a customized
approach. Still, it remained a challenge to merge the culture of a
performance-based, self-serve system with a customer-centered model that
leveraged multiple resources and customized services.

This model was typically more effective for systems change, with the
downside that the goal of quality Customized Employment services and
individual outcomes may have been somewhat sacrificed. WIBs were
generally more invested in the effort and could often bring policy and
systems change, to some degree, to the state level. In a few cases, with
intensive technical assistance, the system was able to adopt Customized
Employment services. More often, successes with this model included
enhanced collaborations with the disability services system, enhanced
policies and partner agreements through modifying MOUs, and the adoption
of Customized Employment and customization principles and strategies by
One-Stop partners.

Projects designed along the second framework faced their own challenges
with partnerships. It was not as clear that the One-Stop system was the
target of change. The practice of some One-Stops of deferring customers
to VR prior to project implementation often morphed into deferral to the
project staff. This problem required mentoring and education to staff
about serving customers with disabilities and presenting the full menu
of One-Stop services, with VR and/or project involvement as an
additional option and not the default. When the disability provider
drove project activities, they frequently found it challenging to gain
buy-in from the WIB/One-Stop and achieve significant systems change.
Grantees often had to choose between creating One-Stops systems change
and providing quality Customized Employment services to individuals with
significant disabilities. However, providers often met with success in
training One-Stop staff and mentoring service delivery for customers
with disabilities, as well as accessing various partner resources to
accomplish this.

When project activities were externally based at a CRP, partnerships
with the disability community were more forthcoming while engaging the
One-Stop system often proved more challenging. WIBs were typically less
engaged. These projects typically focused primarily on enhancing service
delivery and achieving quality Customized Employment outcomes. Although
there were varying degrees of success, the focus on systems change may
have been compromised with this model, with the emphasis instead on
demonstrating individual employment outcomes and linkages between the
disability services and One-Stop systems. However, these projects made
progress implementing creative employment strategies and building the
capacity of VR, CRPs, and sometimes nontraditional partners to provide
Customized Employment services. Targeting specific partners who could
benefit from the universal application of Customized Employment
strategies (e.g., TANF, Veterans, older worker, ex-offenders) proved
particularly effective with this model. Communities also often increased
their commitment to the goal of enhancing employment outcomes for people
with disabilities.

Regardless of how projects were organized, partners inside and outside
the workforce development system had to come to understand their
partners before effective collaboration could occur. Interface between
the disability services system and the workforce development system was
often a process of merging cultures and employment philosophy, including
the belief in the capacity of people with disabilities to work. Grantees
spent varying degrees of time and effort in recognizing differences and
coming to consensus on common language, expectations, definitions, and
outcomes.

Identifying shared values or guiding concepts and principles was
critical to partner commitment and the direction in which activities
progressed. Shared values projects generated included:

-   Choice---expanding customer options

-   Cooperation---working together

-   Trust---open communication

-   Interdependence---the benefits of multi-agency collaboration

-   Advancement of human potential---the expectation and belief that
    people can work with appropriate supports

-   Customization---individualized response to individual needs

-   Flexibility---open to change in policy, practices, and support
    relationships

**IV. Integration of Service Delivery Strategies within the Workforce
Development System**

As service delivery strategies were developed, grantee staff worked to
integrate those strategies into overall One-Stop operations and promote
their universal application to a range of customers. As these strategies
evolved within the One-Stops, they typically occurred either within
generic services, which were adapted to serve a wider range of
customers, or as new services.

**Key Findings and Successful Strategies**

*Customizing Practices Within Core Services*

WIA core services are designed as high-volume, self-directed resources
for job seekers. While they can assist a wide range of job seekers, they
often prove a challenge for those with complex barriers to employment.
Following are examples of strategies sites used to assist all job
seekers to access these services.

-   In Boston, Chattanooga, TN and Knoxville, TN, projects provided
    training to customers with disabilities to foster independence,
    self-directedness, and self-determination. After this proved
    successful, grantees expanded the strategy to include a broader
    range of One-Stop customers.

-   Detroit modified case management reporting software to capture
    information on disability. This helped the project craft services
    and understand customer needs.

-   In Benton-Franklin, WA, One-Stop managers established fixed staffing
    for greeter and resource positions. Asking all staff to cycle
    through these positions increased center cohesion. This site proved
    that consistent staff rotation paves the way for a deeper sense of
    quality and accountability to these positions. Also, fixed staffing
    made it easier for project staff to introduce customized service
    principles to these staff through training and mentoring.

-   Many grant sites, including Richmond and Fairfax, VA, benefited from
    and contributed funding to Navigator-style positions.[^6] These
    positions opened the door to standard services and allowed broader
    access to generic resources. Experimental projects at some sites
    even suggested that the navigator model might apply well to the
    whole range of customers with significant barriers to work, not just
    people with disabilities.

-   Alaska and Richmond, VA modified and standardized intake forms to be
    shared by all major workforce partners. With the customer's
    permission, entry into one system could easily be transferred into
    another. This decreased the administrative burden of sharing
    resources and case management, and lessened the likelihood that an
    individual would be referred out of a system.

*Customizing Intensive Services*

Like core services, intensive services are often designed for
high-volume environments, which can make them difficult for some
customers to access appropriately. The following are examples of
grantees that worked to expand the nature and effectiveness of these
services.

-   In Richmond, VA, grant funds were used to augment the high-volume
    youth project so that youth customers could take advantage of some
    customized practices. These practices include mentoring, job
    shadowing and internships. This collaboration and customization not
    only resulted in a more successful project, but in ongoing funding
    from VR to continue the efforts.

-   The Montgomery County, MD One-Stop established a partnership with
    the WIA funded Intensive Service Unit to serve customers who could
    not use standard, generic services successfully. This group provided
    both service and policy guidance to the One-Stop, and collaborated
    with grant project staff to coordinate services for individuals with
    significant disabilities.

-   In many sites, including Benton-Franklin, WA and Cambridge, MA, it
    became clear that customers in the customized grants needed
    intensive case management. This presented a significant challenge to
    sites seeking sustainability, and suggested the need for strong
    partnerships to increase both funding and staffing.

-   Vancouver project staff collaborated with the One-Stop's Business
    Service Unit. In the Washington WorkSource system, Business Service
    Units are divided by industry and heavily oriented towards a
    demand-driven strategy. To face the challenge of customizing
    services to job seekers in this context, the grant embedded a
    business service representative who was focused primarily on
    disability and customization issues. This person both worked with
    companies and assisted other unit representatives with these skills.

*One-Stop Administration and Quality Assurance*

Sites worked with One-Stop leadership to make their guiding policies and
practices generally more welcoming to a broad range of job seekers.

-   Cambridge, MA and other sites issued multiple surveys during the
    grant to determine how welcoming customers felt services were. Staff
    and customer surveys showed that \"welcomeness\" of services was
    related to the extent to which One-Stop staff and management felt
    that serving people with disabilities was a critical element of the
    One-Stop's mission.

-   In Detroit, quality assurance became a piece of the One-Stop
    operator selection process. Standards determined by the grant were
    enforced in the process of contracting with operators. Continuation
    of their contracts was contingent on meeting the standards
    established.

-   Fairfax, VA and other sites established mystery shopper programs to
    help ensure that services addressed the needs of customers with
    disabilities.

*WIB Involvement*

As the local leadership bodies of the workforce investment system, WIBs
can be a powerful force for change. These are examples of proactive
involvement of WIBs to support grantee initiatives and goals.

-   In San Diego and Vancouver, among other sites, the LWIB
    administrative bodies and members themselves became keenly aware of
    and interested in the success of the customized grants. Their
    involvement included a strong sense that they would \"champion\" the
    efforts of the grant. This was backed up with formal policy changes
    and revised performance guidelines that provided incentives to serve
    people with disabilities.

-   In Illinois, the state WIB created a strategic plan that set a path
    of leadership towards greater systemic integration and better
    service. The keystone elements of the plan were:

-   Need for seamless service delivery

-   Improvement of staff knowledge and skills

-   Awareness of needs of the disability community

-   Need for collaboration with non-partner disability agencies

-   Need for accessible support services

-   Need for baseline standards

-   Need for a culturally appropriate marketing plan for people with
    disabilities

-   Establishment of employer-to-employer outreach

*Institutionalizing Practices Through Customized Support Teams*

Customized Support Teams worked jointly to plan with and support an
individual job seeker. Specific sites institutionalized the practice of
using such teams to meet the needs of their job seekers with barriers to
employment.

-   Many sites, including Alaska, Detroit, and Napa, CA, worked with
    Customized Support Teams consisting of multiple partners who all
    jointly took some responsibility for an individual's needs. While
    this practice was time-consuming, it typically resulted in success
    for individuals who needed more supports than a single organization
    could provide.

-   In Richmond VA, customers with significant disabilities participated
    in a person-centered planning process and met with partners to
    coordinate needed services. In this way, each participant had a
    clear concept of its own role in the process. Team participants
    sometimes changed as the individual's employment process and
    relevant needs progressed. The One-Stops were also developing a
    system to allow considerable information sharing between partners to
    ensure continued engagement from all parties.

*Coordinating with Community Service Providers*

As the One-Stop system is designed to be high-volume and to engage a
wide range of partners, many grantees worked closely with community
providers to establish partnerships. In these arrangements, the
community provider conducted the more intensive services that were often
not viable for One-Stops to offer with their own limited resources.

-   Many projects, including Utica, NY and Knoxville, TN, focused on
    building capacity in community providers through training and
    mentoring. This helped the sites ensure the long-term availability
    of customized practices after grant funding ended.

-   Many of Alaska's project sites formed a significant partnership
    between VR, the One-Stop, and community service providers. The
    One-Stop acted as the gateway; VR provided some case management and
    funded the efforts of the community providers who in turn provided
    intensive Customized Employment services that neither One-Stop nor
    VR staff could provide. The effectiveness of this practice appeared
    to depend in part on the flexibility of the community providers.
    This practice seemed set to continue after grant funds ended, as it
    could be funded through \"standard\" means, such as ongoing VR
    funding.

*Self-Employment*

Some sites identified self-employment as an important strategy for both
customers with significant complexities and customers seeking
self-sufficiency in struggling economies.

-   In Cobb County, GA and Montana, among other states, sites provided
    intensive assistance in small business development for some
    individuals. In addition to proving an important strategy for
    individuals with complex barriers, self-employment ventures created
    some of the most compelling partnership, creative funding, and
    resource ownership examples experienced by grantees. In one
    instance, VR, the grantee, the Social Security Administration, and
    the Department of Agriculture each contributed funding to support a
    small truck-hauling business. This variety of partners was nearly
    unprecedented in standard employment ventures.

**Overcoming Obstacles**

*Need for Quality Assurance*

Staff training on Customized Employment is critical to quality service
provision. However, often training has a time-limited effect, especially
in light of high turnover and the tendency to revert to \"standard
operating procedure\" in the absence of a special grant or project. Many
grants focused on training as a major piece of systems change throughout
their projects but still experienced frustration as they realized that
long-term changes had not taken place, or that their effectiveness was
limited at best.

Some grant sites responded to this challenge by making training
available online (Richmond, VA and Frederick, MD). Others worked
extensively with a variety of marketing pieces, often employing
instructional video case studies that explicated the goals and standards
of advanced customized practices (Montana and Cobb County, GA). The Cobb
County Community Services Board went a step beyond this and was able to
truly institutionalize advanced practices in a wide range of staff---to
the point that new staff were acculturated into these practices. In
addition to strong support from leadership in that project, there was a
wide range of staff that all looked to maintain the grant\'s standards.
They created a culture of higher expectations.

*Multiple Intake Processes*

Resource sharing and collaboration within the One-Stop has repeatedly
been shown to be an essential piece of successful customized practices.
However, it is often highly challenging. In most sites, co-enrollment
doubled the burden of time and energy on the customer, and presented
numerous administrative challenges for the two or more organizations
involved. However, enrollment was a prerequisite in every system for
people to receive services.

Multiple sites met that challenge with a shared enrollment form that
worked for every One-Stop or workforce partner equally. This form could
be shared from one system to the next at the customer's behest, often
with as little as an addendum of information required for each new
enrollment. This greatly reduced the administrative burden on both case
managers and customers.

*Business Service Units: Missed Opportunities*

Business Service Units were inherently driven by the needs of
business---their primary customer. As noted, in many states these units
were divided by industry. These were often seen as surrogates of the
business community and its concerns, and, as such, could be perceived as
showing a preference for job seekers who presented minimal barriers to
employment.

In the Vancouver and Benton-Franklin WorkSource Centers in Washington
state, projects placed grant-trained business outreach specialists in
these teams to model customized business outreach and marketing to other
unit representatives. With this approach, practices that may be viewed
as focusing on the needs of the jobseeker (e.g. job negotiation and
carving) were found to be very responsive to the demand-side needs of
employers. In a business service unit context, where representatives
often have very close and trusting relationships with community
businesses, these strategies might be particularly effective and allow
unit representatives to expand their services to include something akin
to human resource consulting to small business, based on these
customized techniques.

*Managing Collaboration with Community Service Providers*

In Vancouver, the WorkFORCE Action project exemplified many of the
challenges and rewards of collaboration between a One-Stop and a
community service provider. The project hinged on the existing
partnership between Clearview Employment Services, a service provider
with a focus on mental health issues, and the local One-Stop. The
challenges they faced in collaborating ranged from administrative and
technological (allowing an outside organization access to the WorkSource
MIS system) to methods for sharing cases and resources.

Two key factors played a role in the success of the project. First, both
sides maintained an ongoing commitment to work through the challenges
they encountered. Barriers to collaboration are too significant to
predict at the inception of a project, and must be continually addressed
throughout. Second, the LWIB took a strong hand in this partnership,
acting as a mediator when discussion could not resolve challenges. With
the involvement of the LWIB (which contracted for services both the
One-Stop operator and the community provider), neither side could simply
step out of the effort but had to continue to work through their
challenges.

As a result of the collaboration, the One-Stop instituted many
innovative customized practices, and the project developed a clear
method for providing intensive services as needed through Clearview. The
project was successful enough to compel the WIB to continue the
collaboration with Dislocated Worker funds. At the time of this writing,
these dollars were funding Clearview's efforts to work with dislocated
workers with disabilities.

*Institutionalizing Customized Employment in the Generic System*

Including a time-intensive process such as Customized Employment in a
high-volume \"generic\" system proved to be highly challenging. Although
many grantees were able to provide Customized Employment services
through the grant, often with grant staff who worked within the
One-Stop, of a greater concern were the solutions that would last beyond
grant funding. How does a One-Stop make time, and find and correctly
allocate funding, for Customized Employment services?

In Alaska, many sites created a partnership involving the One-Stop, VR
(often a co-located partner), and various community service providers.
The One-Stop remained the hub of operations, where customers are
encouraged to come for services. However, through the intake process,
trained staff recognized when an individual might be recommended to VR
services *as well as* One-Stop services. Once the customer was enrolled
in VR services, VR contracted with any one of a number of small (often a
single staff person) community agencies that provided Customized
Employment services.

This partnership was part of a grant-long process of systemic
reorganization that examined, piece by piece, each element of One-Stop
services. This analysis involved the leadership of each major partner in
the One-Stops and resulted in real change (sometimes even physical
changes) in Alaska service delivery. One-Stops were on their way to
being truly seamless and inclusive of a wide range of partners. Finally,
with the work done to bring highly flexible outside providers within the
system, One-Stops gained the capacity to provide the full range of
Customized Employment services on an ongoing basis.

*Systemic Barriers to Self-Employment*

As challenging as it has been to build Customized Employment into the
One-Stop setting, it seemed even more difficult to institutionalize
self-employment. Grantees reported that One-Stop staff often discouraged
this path, even for individuals who did not require a customized
solution. This was due in part to their understanding that performance
measures often did not account for self employment, and the fact that
many One-Stop staff were unfamiliar with this issue.

In Montana and Georgia, projects found success by reaching out to a wide
variety of community, state, and federal resources. One-Stops were
partners in this effort but not, in most cases, the lead entity. It
remained clear that, given the level of coordination and time required,
most staff in labor exchange would not be able take the lead role in
customized business development for individuals with significant
barriers to work. Partners such as VR, community providers, or
microenterprise centers could facilitate this process.

In Montana, grant staff used the One-Stop as the hub for much of its
business development work. They were able to access WIA Supportive
Services funding to support customers working to establish businesses.
Staff brought together such varied resources as VR, Social Security
Plans for Achieving Self-Support, and Department of Agriculture funding,
among other sources.

In Georgia, a partner was available to give the One-Stops and grant
staff some leverage on the issue. The Edge, an Atlanta-area
microenterprise organization, became a close partner both of the
community agency that led the grant, and the One-Stop itself. Edge staff
now attend One-Stop partner planning meetings and are part of the
network of agencies that receive referrals of job seekers and potential
entrepreneurs from the One-Stop.

**Discussion**

Service integration concerns revolved around both expanding existing
practices, services, and policies to the widest possible customer base
(customizing generic services), and adding new services designed to
serve those with the most complex barriers (institutionalizing
Customized Employment services). These goals were clearly related,
however, and neither was likely to be successful without the effective
implementation of the other.

Customizing generic One-Stop partner services is essential to fulfilling
the One-Stop's promise as a hub of community employment services. Sites
in Alaska, Utica, NY, and Richmond, VA worked closely with their local
One-Stops to create a system *everyone* could use, and that was widely
known as an important resource for both job seekers and employers.
Without broadly inclusive intake and service procedures, comprehensive
and easily accessible tracking systems, and customer satisfaction
practices that capture the responses of a diverse customer base, a
One-Stop that serves the whole community is not possible.

Many of the practices reflected here, such as shared intake forms,
navigators, and intensive service unit teams, contributed not only to
the inclusiveness of the One-Stop but to its seamlessness as a system.
However, no matter how effective these customized generic services are,
there will invariably be instances when job seekers require more
intensive, individualized services. In many cases, it has been shown
that WIA funding alone often cannot support every individual who
requires this level of service.

Success was apparent where the One-Stop was oriented to serving and
including the entire community. Good Customized Employment practices
depend on broad participation by numerous partner entities. Strategies
such as Customized Support Teams, subcontracted customized service
provision, and the provision of assistance beyond standard core services
require highly effective, dynamic partnerships. Along with job seekers
and businesses, workforce development agencies of all types and
clientele must view the One-Stop as a hub of activity.

**V. Experiences Leveraging Resources for Common Goals**

Job seekers who require more intensive employment supports will also
likely benefit from the support of multiple funding and resource
streams. \"Braiding\" resources is important and valuable, whether to
fund a broader array of services or help buy equipment the individual
can use in the job search. This effort is highly complex and often runs
into many barriers despite systems' attempts to share resources
creatively. Shared or creative funding allocation can occur either at a
programmatic or individual level, and can involve either monetary or
non-monetary resources.

**Key Findings and Successful Strategies**

*Braiding Resources Around an Individual*

The complex lives of many job seekers call for coordinated resources
from multiple sources. The following are examples of sites that used
resources from multiple entities to meet one individual's needs.

-   In Montana, multiple agencies (including VR, Social Security, WIA,
    Microenterprise, and the Department of Agriculture) came together
    around a given individual and provided either funding or other
    resources to contribute toward employment goals. Since
    self-employment was often the goal in these two sites, shared
    funding efforts typically entailed purchasing equipment for a
    developing business.

-   In Cambridge, MA, a small amount of flexible funding was used to
    encourage other partners (such as VR) to contribute dollars to an
    employment plan. See "Flexible Funding" section below for more
    details.

-   Multiple sites made clear that creative funding arrangements
    flourished in systems that valued person-directedness. Personal
    control over funding and resources could not happen without the
    underlying belief that individuals should direct and be responsible
    for their own job search.

*Flexible Funding*

When facing the difficult goal of braiding monetary resources from
multiple entities around a single individual, having a small but
flexible allocation of funds available was extremely helpful. These
funds could meet small but immediate needs that often crop up in the job
search.

-   In Utica, NY and other sites, grant funds were used as flexible,
    quick-response dollars to meet customer needs. The small amounts of
    funding that were allocated under the grant's budget were used for
    resource acquisition, small business development, and emergency
    needs such as clothing and car repair.

-   In Montana, Social Security Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS)
    dollars were very flexible for a variety of customers. Although it
    can be somewhat complicated to access these funds given the
    complexity of determining eligibility, it is an underutilized source
    of flexible dollars that can support employment goals.

*Resource Acquisition*

Resource acquisition emerged as an important outcome when using braided
resources. Purchasing equipment that became the property of the job
seeker increased the individual's value as a potential employee or
entrepreneur. This was among the most important examples of putting
resources directly in the control of the individual.

-   Customers in Cobb County, GA and Alabama could purchase equipment
    both in support of small businesses and for traditional employment
    efforts. Customers used various funding streams for these purposes.
    This setup was similar to an individually directed account, where
    funds from various sources are dropped into an account that an
    individual could use freely. In this case there was no account, but
    the person chose purchases based on employment goals and used
    various funding streams to buy equipment.

-   In Cobb County, GA WIA Individual Training Account dollars were used
    for resource acquisition for eligible customers.

*Programmatic Resource Sharing*

Many sites chose to blend resources at a systematic or programmatic
level. This allowed them to offer services that were co-funded or
co-sponsored by multiple agencies, which would in turn provide more
thorough service to a broader range of job seekers.

-   In Vancouver, the Clearview mental health employment agency and LWIB
    expanded the services available to One-Stop customers by pooling
    monetary and human resources. A formal MOU provided the foundation
    for a blend of finances, staffing, and resources (core services,
    etc.).

-   Knoxville, TN project staff and consultants coordinated a four-part
    partnership between the One-Stops, VR, the Division of Mental
    Retardation Services, and community employment services providers.
    This network was mutually beneficial, allowing easy service
    coordination and payment for community providers who implemented
    customized practices for customers referred by the One-Stop or VR. A
    series of Letters of Understanding (akin to MOUs) underwrote these
    partnerships.

*Non-Monetary Resource Braiding*

Policy makers often think primarily of braiding or combining money.
However, local levels proved to have a broad range of untapped,
non-monetary resources available for individuals.

-   The Hempstead, NY and Peoria projects braided their services with
    those offered by other community resources, such as Benefits
    Planning, Outreach, and Assistance services and WIA core services.

-   Recognizing that many factors affect an individual's ability to
    pursue employment, Montgomery County, MD grant staff coordinated the
    management of housing, transportation, and personal care needs.

-   In Montana, collaboration with a sheltered workshop yielded a
    variety of non-monetary resources to support multiple customers'
    self-employment goals. The Milk River Activity Center provided
    transportation, job coaching, and other staff support for multiple
    customers in integrated, profitable businesses. Incidentally, this
    collaboration also resulted in many of the Center's customers
    starting their own businesses.

-   In Cobb County, GA, \"The Edge,\" a microenterprise center, was
    engaged as a major partner to the project. Microenterprise centers
    work with very small businesses, akin to those typically assisted
    through Customized Employment methods. The grant worked closely with
    the Edge to ensure the universality of its training methods. The
    partnership resulted in a connection to low-interest loans that such
    projects usually did not have access to. The center\'s training was
    also highly valuable to the project.

**Overcoming Obstacles**

*Administrative Barriers to Sharing Resources*

Agencies\' spending rules and performance measures sometimes became
administrative challenges that could stand in the way of effective
resource sharing. Spending policies tended to lay out direct examples of
allowable expenditures, with little allowance for sharing resources with
other agencies or creative spending allowances. As such, without
specifically prohibiting such spending, policies often effectively
discouraged it.

In Vancouver, efforts of the One-Stop, WIB, and local mental health
provider (Clearview) were complicated by the performance measures
imposed upon the One-Stop's operator. One-Stop staff perceived something
of a contradiction between stringent performance goals and providing
services to individuals with barriers to employment. In response to
this, the WIB developed a graded performance measurement system that
demanded that the system not simply meet flat outcome goals but also
provide a wide range of services to the whole community.

In Richmond, VA VR felt unable to commit resources to \"generic\"
projects operated within the One-Stop, even if there was a perceived
benefit to some VR customers. The agency\'s mandate states that funds
must not be spent on individuals without disabilities; agency staff
feared that committing funds to a generic project (which, by definition,
served a wide range of individuals, with or without disabilities) would
violate this mandate. In response, project staff gathered information
proving that over 60% of the project's participants were youth with
significant disabilities who would be eligible for VR services. With
this information, an MOU was developed that allowed VR to cover the cost
of the project that had previously been absorbed by the grant.

In Montgomery County, MD the One-Stop's policy was to require customers
to make five visits to the One-Stop to use core services and wait for
thirty days to access additional WIA funding through Intensive Services.
This proved especially challenging for Customized Employment grant
customers, who often did not benefit from self-directed core services.
In response to these and other intensive needs, the One-Stop and the
grant worked together to create an Intensive Services Partnership Team.
This unit spearheaded both policy analysis and flexible, intensive
services. At the time of this writing, One-Stop staff were reviewing
One-Stop intake and eligibility rules and requirements.

*Human Resource and Time Demands*

In almost every case, and certainly when partnerships and methods were
new and untried, significant staff time was required to braid resources
effectively. As grant project staff often played a role in facilitating
resource sharing, and would likely cease to have the necessary time
after the grant ended, grants took various steps to fill this need.

Recognizing that information and referral is the foundational element of
person-centered resource blending, Peoria established systems within the
generic workforce project to expedite referral and information sharing
with VR and other major partners. These were specifically designed not
to refer customers \"out\" but rather to allow access to a broader range
of services. Richmond, VA and Alaska both went so far as to develop
joint intake forms that automatically directed an applicant to as many
partners as seemed applicable, and eliminated the need to re-enroll for
each new agency. Although these practices had clear ramifications for
systems attempting to better blend their resources, they were also
innovative steps towards the WIA system's original goal of
\"seamlessness.\"

To that end, sites such as Peoria and Cobb County, GA engaged benefits
planners to leverage resources. Such planners act as guides to various
work incentives and flexible funding streams that depend on the
individual's SSI/SSDI and Medicaid status.

In Tennessee, project staff developed a funding strategies planning form
to help staff gather the necessary information on each job seeker and
maximize their ability to take advantage of the widest possible range of
funding. This form was completed on intake and was designed to lay the
groundwork for planning employment and coordinating necessary ancillary
support services. The strategy mixed elements of benefits, employment,
and whole life planning to ensure a comprehensive but practical strategy
for the individual and their support staff.

*Multiple and Complex Funding Sources*

A clear challenge to the desire to leverage various funding streams was
knowing what those streams were and how to access them.

In Chicago, Thresholds, a project partner, applied to be a provider in
the City of Chicago Ticket to Work pilot. This pilot tested a \"capital
investment\" approach to assist Employment Networks to overcome some
perceived disincentives of the payment system, allowing 4-5 payments for
services over the year. The money was through the state Department of
Rehabilitation Services and the Mayor's Office on Persons with
Disabilities and allowed providers to receive payments while providing
services rather than waiting for Social Security Administration
reimbursement.

VR agencies in every state were seen as a potential source for flexible,
braidable funding on both programmatic and individual levels. That said,
while VR became an important partner in most sites, it did not happen
without considerable time and effort. Sites faced multiple challenges,
including the fact that VR was frequently not accustomed to concepts
such as flexible funding, person-directed funding, and resource
ownership. VR also often hesitated to mix its funding with other
streams.

Each site faced the most significant challenge creating shared goals
with VR around the validity of braided funding and resource ownership.
VR agencies have traditionally worked in conjunction with standard
community providers or supported employment services. Freeing up money
to purchase resources (outside of assistive technology) or buy
nontraditional support services is often outside traditional practices.

Cobb County, GA staff worked with VR counselors who operated with some
autonomy. Working with that VR agency was essentially a two-part
process. Systems change required buy-in at both the central leadership
and counselor levels. The grant used a marketing strategy to address
this issue. Staff from the LWIB created a multimedia presentation that
explained the concepts of braided funding and resource ownership,
linking the explanation to real success stories. This proved effective
in the project\'s efforts to collaborate with VR staff.

*Limited Access to Systems' Funding*

In Montana, in spite of difficulties accessing Individual Training
Accounts and other funding streams through WIA, many Customized
Employment customers were able to access supportive services funding.
This funding stream was designed to provide quick-response support for
job seekers who require housing or sustenance as they seek employment.
When customized solutions required time to assemble, this funding stream
could be necessary in the interim.

Individual Training Accounts were both a challenging and helpful tool
for Customized Employment. These accounts are designed to provide
training to job seekers, typically around certification courses. They
are typically dictated by a host of locally designed policies that
restrict their use and often pose challenges to individuals with complex
needs. As the highest level of WIA-specific options, \"training\"
services had the most stringent guidelines around their use.

Cobb County, GA project staff worked on this issue from several
standpoints. First, they co-located staff in the One-Stop and attended
the One-Stop's planning and management meetings regularly. Second, they
worked with many customers referred by the One-Stop. One example is a
customer who was seeking self-employment and had the support of VR and
the Edge Microenterprise Center. He benefited from an Individual
Training Account (ITA) that supported him to acquire the skills to open
a hair salon. Given that ITAs allow both training and the purchase of
equipment necessary to that training (which the customer thereafter
retains), these funds can fit into a Customized Employment plan nicely.

In Knoxville and Chattanooga, TN, project staff successfully accessed
state Medicaid waiver funding. This worked particularly well in
instances where a community provider referred an individual to the
project for customized job search services. In these instances, the
individual received long-term supports from that agency and paid for
these services under the state's 1915(c) Home and Community-Based
Waiver, which allows employment supports as a payable service. This
strategy depended on each state's waiver and the agency's ability to
access the funding.

**Discussion**

Partnership is the basis of all braided or multi-source funding
agreements. The ability to access and employ multiple funding streams
requires knowledge of the various systems involved and their funding
priorities. Furthermore, a system's willingness to commit funding to a
creative endeavor depends on their knowledge and trust of the various
stakeholders. Formal agreements between systems, such as MOUs, make
resource sharing easier.

Funding could be braided on either systemic or individual levels.
Systemic resource sharing could occur in jointly managed projects or
shared staff positions. Funds braided around an individual require that
the job seeker be eligible for support through each of the various
funding streams. This type of braiding was often time-consuming,
requiring considerable case management, but it also created some of the
most innovative Customized Employment and entrepreneurial successes
nationwide.

In most cases, a small but flexible allotment of seed money encouraged
other systems to commit to braided funding ventures. In instances where
flexible grant dollars were available and could be accessed quickly for
a wide variety of purposes, other systems were typically more willing to
contribute further funding towards the same goal. States showed
conclusively that this allotment need not be large (often less than
\$1000), but it had to be dictated by the individual's employment plan
and accessible with very little delay. Without grant funding, most sites
struggled to find a similarly flexible and customer-directed allotment
of funds.

Resource acquisition (the use of funds to purchase equipment or tools on
behalf of the customer) was shown to be a particularly potent use of
flexible funding. Although the practice was used primarily for
entrepreneurial goals (i.e., to purchase equipment for businesses) it
also applied to individuals seeking standard employment. In many career
paths, possessing relevant tools or equipment makes an employee a more
valuable asset to a company. As such, resource acquisition is an
empowering practice for the job seeker.

Customer-driven funding choices require a customer-driven system. When a
system or organization is acculturated towards a person-directed service
philosophy, funding choices will be more creative and dictated by the
needs and preferences of the customer.

**VI. Policy and Systemic Influence**

Customized Employment and WorkFORCE Action grants were charged with
conducting model demonstration of individual-level service delivery as
well as creating systems change within their local communities and/or
states. As sites began to demonstrate the effectiveness of Customized
Employment with individuals with disabilities, stakeholders began to
look at ways to structure services to make them available to a broader
population and institutionalize the approaches beyond the grants\'
lifespan.

**Key Findings and Successful Strategies**

*Local Flexibility*

Local systems had considerable control and flexibility about service
provision, and projects worked with local WIBs to exercise this control
effectively. Many sites were able to negotiate more flexible processes
for joint service provision and funding with mandated partners than
existed in other parts of the state. Individual success stories created
an atmosphere of openness and flexibility towards developing policies
from these examples to apply more broadly.

-   Flint, MI created an information and referral position to provide
    more individualized services to customers with barriers to
    employment. Initially put into place for individuals served under
    the grant, this role became critical for other individuals who were
    not benefiting from the self-serve resource room. This staff person
    also showed other staff how to serve a diverse customer base using a
    customer-driven approach.

-   Partnership with the local BPAO provider was an important
    accomplishment in Indianapolis. The project established an advanced
    referral system that combined the resources of the Customized
    Employment grant and the BPAO project. The result was easier access
    for customers to basic SSI/DI information and an expedited process
    of BPAO services for individuals who needed more extensive
    information.

-   El Paso staff developed and revised job descriptions for three
    positions to be absorbed by the operator after the grant: system
    navigator, career counselor, and job developer. All infused
    Customized Employment strategies into One-Stop roles and functions.

-   The Chattanooga, TN LWIB (Nashville, WAG) made a local policy change
    to allow part-time workers to be eligible for on-the-job training
    services. This program had previously been available only to people
    who worked full-time. This policy change was driven by the area\'s
    participation as a Nashville hub.

-   The Utica, NY project found that the system could not respond to the
    urgent needs of employees with disabilities who were in danger of
    losing their jobs. The Customized Employment grant created a car
    repair and purchase program through self-directed funds that allowed
    individuals to have consistent transportation so they could obtain
    and maintain employment. Individuals in this program were required
    to participate in financial counseling to ensure they could maintain
    their car and employment.

-   El Paso revised case management practices and policies related to
    One-Stop operator testing and assessment to allow Customized
    Employment strategies as an option for customers with significant
    barriers to employment.

*Systemic Policy Changes*

To achieve systemic change beyond the funding cycle of the project,
sites communicated with staff, operators, and vendors to convey
expectations for Customized Employment services.

-   The Peoria grant developed an agreement with the VR system to create
    a milestone payment system for services. The first installment was
    paid when an individual got a job. The second payment came when the
    person had maintained their job for five days, the third at 30 days,
    and the fourth at 90 days. The project built a long-standing
    employment program for individuals with significant mental illness
    in a catchments area where no such service had existed before.

-   Anoka County, MN developed a policy that made employment the initial
    consideration for people with disabilities and supported Customized
    Employment services delivered by community partners, the school
    system, the workforce system, VR, the Department of Developmental
    Disabilities, and mental health service providers.

-   The One-Stop operators in El Paso and Hempstead, NY integrated
    Customized Employment into their RFP for WIA vendor services.
    Applicants were required to demonstrate an understanding of
    Customized Employment concepts and strategies in their proposals.
    Additionally, in Hempstead the One-Stop\'s MOUs with partners
    provided a framework for how customized services were provided for
    HempsteadWorks customers.

-   Discovery or exploration is a key step to learn about the individual
    and form the basis for a Customized Employment plan. Detroit
    developed agreements with rehabilitation providers for a specific
    and standardized rate to provide discovery services and develop a
    vocational profile.

-   All One-Stops in Alabama went through a Commission on Accreditation
    of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) certification process. Grant
    staff worked with CARF to establish guidelines on accessibility and
    services to all customers. These guidelines were slated to become
    the statewide standard.

*Building Capacity*

All sites provided training opportunities for staff, including in-person
options, distance education, and mentoring. To ensure that staff
integrated this information into their work performance, several sites
built expectations into their annual reviews concerning staff
competencies in serving customers with disabilities.

-   Montgomery County, MD created a new partnership with the local
    Community College that resulted in a non-credit certificate course
    on advanced job development using Customized Employment strategies.
    The Community College agreed to continue to offer the course up to
    four times a year without grant funds.

-   Northern Virginia WIB (Fairfax, VA) required that all One-Stop staff
    receive training and become certified in workforce development
    areas. As a result of the project, changes were made to the WIB's
    staff training and certification process to emphasize customized
    practices and priorities.

-   WIA staff performance evaluations in Napa County, CA included
    knowledge of accessibility and interview skills when working with
    people with disabilities.

-   The Southwest Washington Workforce Development Council (LWIB) in
    Vancouver made serving individuals with disabilities a higher
    priority. The LWIB developed a policy to reward staff for
    successfully placing persons with disabilities, which was reflected
    in performance evaluations.

-   Staffing and service provision were also addressed in the contract
    the Rio Grande Workforce Board (El Paso) established with the
    One-Stop operator. Specifically, frontline One-Stop staff were
    required to attend a series of trainings to enhance their capacity
    to provide Customized Employment services, including conducting
    individualized assessments, developing portfolios, and conducting
    negotiations with employers for a mutually beneficial job fit.

-   Job developers in Flint, MI faced a number of issues with
    populations they did not previously have expertise and/or experience
    serving. The project implemented twelve months of job developer
    training that included information and resources on how to assist
    ex-offenders, many of whom had learning disabilities, mental health,
    or substance abuse issues. One-Stop job developers also engaged in
    more intensive peer support and technical assistance activities,
    such as participation in Customized Works! employment planning
    meetings for specific customers. This gave the job developers a
    mentoring and skill development opportunity that helped them serve
    their own customers with barriers to employment. An additional
    positive outcome of these activities was that they made job
    developers\' work more collaborative.

*Multilevel Systems Change*

Policy change must occur at multiple levels to be effective. Sites were
able to influence local policy and practices as well as work at the
state level to address policy barriers.

-   Projects in Virginia, Georgia, and Montana were involved in
    statewide efforts to develop Medicaid buy-in programs. These
    programs would promote employment for individuals with disabilities
    and address anxiety about losing Medicaid coverage, which could be a
    potential employment disincentive.

-   Further policy change concerning self-employment occurred in Indiana
    through identifying Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
    policy directives regarding coding various employment outcomes
    through the RSA reporting system. As a result of the project
    manager\'s efforts, the state VR agency created a new VR line item
    code under supported employment services titled "supported
    self-employment." With this in place, VR could support entrepreneurs
    with disabilities to achieve their goals, with creative funding to
    offset startup costs and job coaching needs.

-   The Illinois limitation on the amount of income people who live in a
    nursing home can earn continued to present a barrier for these
    residents to become employed. Staff members from Peoria were
    involved in efforts to educate the state legislature about this
    issue. In response, the Illinois House passed a resolution requiring
    a study of the income limits for nursing home residents.

-   The state of Illinois had a work group called Brand New Day that
    addressed vocational services funding issues for people with mental
    illness. The Chicago site was very actively involved with this group
    and began to streamline the terminology and eligibility of similar
    services available to individuals with mental illness. This group
    also provided technical assistance to the state's Department of
    Human Services to convert its billing system from grant-funded to
    fee-for-service for supports rendered.

-   The Peoria grant was involved with a review of all the various
    vocational activities provided by community mental health centers.
    The goal was to identify specific activities of customized
    employment that could be billable under the mental health Medicaid
    rehabilitation rules.

-   The Athens, GA site sponsored a commissioner's work group with
    representation from the Department of Human Resources, Department of
    Labor/VR, Department of Education, Medicaid, Developmental
    Disabilities Council, University Center for Excellence, and Georgia
    Protection and Advocacy. This was an ongoing effort to integrate an
    "employment first" policy in the state and use the experience of the
    grant to foster lasting systems change around Customized Employment
    principles in all state-sponsored services.

-   The Frederick, MD project coordinated an Employment System
    Transformation Steering Committee that included the state Department
    of Disabilities, Department of Rehabilitation Services, Department
    of Health and Mental Hygiene, Division of Developmental
    Disabilities, Department of Education, and the Department of Labor,
    Licensing, and Regulation (which oversee WIA funding allocations).
    The committee's stated purpose was to initiate a comprehensive
    examination of the employment service system for Marylanders with
    disabilities. One outcome of this committee was a pilot project that
    used Customized Employment in the state government hiring process.

*Local Performance Standards*

A common perception of workforce system personnel---from staff at the
front desk to management to the local board---was that customers with
disabilities are \"difficult to serve.\" This belief could make staff
hesitant to enroll customers with disabilities in the WIA system.
Several sites established local standards for performance and provision
of services to individuals with disabilities to address this concern.

-   To focus the One-Stop\'s commitment to serving individuals with
    disabilities, El Paso built into the One-Stop operator RFP process
    the requirement that a minimum percentage of job seekers with
    disabilities were to be served through the system (5% to be
    increased each year).

-   The Vancouver LWIB developed a proposed policy to avoid the tendency
    towards \"creaming\" to meet performance measures in its One-Stops.
    The proposed "investment grid" established a more precise system of
    service values to certain populations with more significant barriers
    to employment, and for the development of jobs considered
    particularly valuable to the local economy. Customers who had
    received the most support received high point values. Placing a job
    seeker from a special population (e.g., an individual with a
    disability) into a job with a priority status (e.g., health care or
    information technology) received the highest point value. The grid
    had not become current policy; rather, it was a suggested conceptual
    model for One-Stop and partner performance measures. Steps were
    being taken to enforce the grid's standards as LWIB policy and to
    hold provider systems accountable to the priorities it established.

-   San Diego stressed the importance of providing services to
    individuals who were considered "special populations,\" including
    individuals with disabilities. In the first year of this shift,
    additional funds were provided (in coordination with Customized
    Employment grant funding) to assist local One-Stops with this
    effort. After that, One-Stops failing to meet the revised service
    levels for special populations would be put on an improvement plan.
    Failing to meet this plan and its requirements would eventually
    result in decertification. This provided the required impetus for
    local sites to remain vigilant in their training and serve a wide
    range of customers.

**Overcoming Obstacles**

*Advancing from Grant Implementation to Systems Change*

All of the grants were charged with systems change, but some sites were
more successful in moving this agenda forward. The way a site originally
designed and implemented the grant determined, to an extent, systems
change and the sustainability of these efforts. Sites that were less
effective in systems change had set up their services as a separate
program and were less integrated into the operations of the One-Stop.
With services more segregated, One-Stop staff and partners were less
likely to see the Customized Employment strategies demonstrated as being
relevant to their population.

The Cambridge, MA project was very conscious about integrating
Customized Employment efforts into the options offered at the One-Stop.
Although there were One-Stop staff specifically assigned to work with
eligible candidates, these staff members used the range of One-Stop
options and worked to make all these services responsive to all
customers, including those with disabilities. The One-Stop manager
reported that this effort made the center rethink how they provided
services to all its customers and that they "now do business
differently.\" Cobb County, GA and Knoxville, TN also demonstrated
success in the approaches developed under the grant, which were then
expanded to all customers.

*Data Required to Inform/Influence Decision Makers*

To influence systems change, sites found they needed more than just good
ideas or intentions -- decision-makers wanted data to support these
decisions. Grantees reported that data collected under WIA performance
measures tended to underreport the true use of the One-Stop by
individuals with disabilities. Therefore, some LWIBs did not necessarily
view this as a priority issue. Sites worked to challenge this
perspective by educating boards on the reasons why disability is
underreported and identifying other approaches to track usage by
individuals with disabilities. The Detroit Workforce Development
Department added elements to its WIA tracking system that expanded
questions on customer characteristics, including disabilities,
Customized Employment services provided, employment outcomes, and
retention.

During the first year of implementation, Napa County, CA did an
extensive qualitative data collection effort that included input from
over 200 community members. The strategic plan developed after this data
collection provided the framework for systems change efforts.

Anoka, MN worked with the local university to implement a rigorous data
collection system that tracked services to transition-age youth in the
county. Not only was this data system effective in identifying services
that contributed to employment success, it also tracked individuals who
did not obtain employment. This information contributed to a change in
outreach efforts to engage out-of-school youth and ensure that schools
considered employment for all students, even those with more significant
disabilities.

The resource list Utica, NY implemented was not originally considered a
data collection effort, but over time the project realized that the list
was providing important information for assigning resources. The project
developed the resource list to help all customers identify areas of
potential need so that staff could make appropriate referrals to
partners. When individuals first began to work with the One-Stop, they
were asked to complete a checklist that included employment variables
such as assistance with job search or training as well as life support
resources such as housing, day care, and medical insurance. When the
information from these forms was aggregated, the WIB could identify the
needs of its customers and locate potential areas where resources were
insufficient.

*Need for Policies to Support Customized Services*

One-Stops are typically designed to handle a large customer flow, with
self-service and standardized practices the mechanism for customers to
meet their employment needs. To ensure that One-Stops were equipped to
allow service customization beyond the grant-funded period, grantees
worked with their LWIBs, One-Stop operators, and VR programs to ensure
that their policies reflected these expanded services.

More individualized service provision was reflected in modifications to
testing/assessment and case management policies in El Paso. These
policies were revised to allow more customization using formula funds
and customer-centered strategies. The testing and assessment policy
allowed alternatives to the typical standardized assessment tools and
practices. Assessment strategies were to be based on the individual job
seeker. An array of alternative assessment strategies was introduced,
ranging from nontraditional interest inventories to the discovery
process for customers with significant disabilities. This constituted a
major shift away from the standardized approach to assessment that had
previously been used. Case management policies were also modified to
allow for divergence from the traditional case management
model---specifically for coordinated service delivery through
multi-partner team meetings for job seekers receiving Customized
Employment services.

VR policies were modified in Indianapolis as an expansion of the
services then offered. Working with Bureau of Rehabilitation Services
leadership, project personnel incorporated Customized Employment into
the VR system\'s services and policies. Cost-sharing occurred by
developing Purchase of Service Agreements (POSA) between VR and
specific, qualified community providers who were competent in Customized
Employment services. After that point, Indianapolis VR financially
absorbed the cost of service for eligible individuals who required
Customized Employment strategies to obtain employment. This clearly had
mutual benefits, as VR customers attained employment opportunities not
previously realized. Additional POSAs were being developed with
qualified Customized Employment providers to enhance services and
provider choice for job seekers with disabilities.

*Need for State-Level Changes Reflecting the Reality of Local
Implementation*

Some sites struggled with directives that came down from the state level
that either did not consider their local communities' needs or were
unnecessarily cumbersome to implement. To address this concern, several
sites made sure that staff who were directly involved in grant
implementation were also involved in state-level systems change efforts.
That local implementation perspective was effective in achieving systems
change that addressed both state and local concerns.

Staff from the Boston grant worked closely with other state systems
change efforts to increase the focus and commitment to employment at the
state agency level. In conjunction with the Massachusetts Medicaid
Infrastructure/Comprehensive Employment Opportunity grant, they were
conducting an analysis of Executive Office of Health and Human Services
funding for employment services. Participation on the strategic planning
team provided an important opportunity to influence the process.

The Customized Employment manager in Juneau, AK participated in
designing the statewide Customized Employment pilot, which replicated
the approach within clients of the Department of Public Assistance. What
she learned during her startup years in the grant---both successes and
challenges---was important information to consider in the replication
effort.

*Local Entities Underestimate the Control They Have in Developing
Policy*

Although WIA calls for local flexibility and control so that services
can be designed to respond to the local community, many staff felt
constrained by state and federal policies. In some cases, there was an
assumption that because practices had been in place for a long period
they must be based on official policy. As sites started to look more
closely at these "policies" that created barriers to creativity and
innovation, they began to understand that there were fewer constraints
than they imagined. Although there were state and federal policies that
had to be considered, there were also examples of sites being innovative
within the implementation of those parameters.

Some of the local flexibility was defined through contracting processes.
For example, El Paso's contract required its One-Stop operator to become
an Employment Network provider under Social Security's Ticket to Work
program and to ensure that customers with disabilities had access to
Customized Employment services to meet their employment needs. The
contract also addressed staffing and service provision. Including such
language in the operator's contract sustained the benefits gained from
the project---including innovative, effective employment strategies for
workers with disabilities, and an expanded capacity in the system to
serve diverse groups through the One-Stop---beyond the life of the
project.

Several sites found it challenging to serve individuals with
disabilities when the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) evaluation
system was required for individuals to participate in training. Cobb
County, GA looked at the possibility of substituting a vocational
profile for TABE in the WIA system, and using a vocational profile as
supplemental evidence for the viability of an employment goal within the
VR system.

# *Barriers in Program and Service Accessibility* 

# 

# Workforce development systems often struggled to help customers with various abilities, learning styles, and barriers benefit from the programs and services available at and through One-Stops. By applying the principles and concepts of universal design for the workforce[^7] system, these grantees promoted ease of use and meaningful access to employment services and opportunities.

In Napa, CA the state Department of Rehabilitation and Access Ingenuity
(a consulting firm on assistive technology) provided assistance to
identify facility, program, and service accessibility barriers and
solutions for the One-Stop partners. Local universal access assessments
and work groups, comprised of service providers, One-Stop staff,
advocates, and consumers, were established to review accessibility
issues and ways to develop services that were more coordinated and
provided greater choice for people with disabilities.

Similarly, Cambridge, MA conducted accessibility audits of its One-Stop
facilities, programs, and services at the onset of the project.
Recommendations and subsequent modifications were then made to enhance
core services, to benefit various learning styles; intake and
registration practices and procedures; written products such as the
calendar of events and marketing brochures; and labeling and other
visual aids within the resource room.

One step towards implementing universal access to Hempstead, NY's
One-Stop programs and services was by developing a Powerpoint
orientation or "Information Exchange.\" The Information Exchange was
shared with all new customers during the orientation process. It
included information on the array of employment services available,
including those specific to any given population. The tool incorporated
information on disclosure of disability, confidentiality policy, and the
availability of assistive technology at the One-Stop. Providing workshop
information in various formats fostered understanding by a variety of
people, whether they had a learning disability, limited English
proficiency, or low literacy level, for example. Developing CD-ROM
portfolios for job seekers represented another step towards universal
approaches, as customers and employers benefited from using electronic
representations of the job seeker (versus the typical resume) to assess
a good job fit.

Mentioned earlier, the Michigan Inclusion Work Group focused on
universal access to One-Stop programs and facilities across the state.
With support from Flint, MI, the work group developed a full report with
recommendations, highlighting strategies to enhance the system\'s
universality. As a result of these efforts, a systemic approach to
ensuring universal access was being integrated into mandatory One-Stop
policies statewide.

**Discussion**

A key goal of these projects was influencing systems change within their
local communities, though many grantees took that challenge even further
and worked towards state-level change. The approaches used to influence
systems change varied significantly by grantees but were driven by
common concepts.

Sites spent considerable time developing local partnerships that helped
both provide services to individuals and develop systems that were more
flexible and responsive. Initially sites viewed resources from a
perspective of shared funding strategies, but as they got to know their
partners better they realized that the knowledge and connections they
could bring to the table were as critical as dollars. As sites developed
an increased respect and appreciation for the expertise of their
partners, they were able to think more creatively about what was
possible, rather than feeling constrained by perceived barriers.

Time was a critical variable that contributed to the relationship
development necessary for systems change. In their first year, grants
focused primarily on startup activities and partners starting to learn
about each other. Information sessions where partners described their
areas of focus were helpful in this initial phase. Real partnership
began when they started working together around individual customers.
Although the grant resources brought these partners together, the
improved ability to provide services resulted in real change that would
extend beyond the funding. After staff saw a better way to do business,
they were less interested in returning to standard patterns and
practices.

This initiative also made clear that systems change needs to occur in
both formal policies and day-to-day practice. Many sites created formal
agreements and MOUs that specified expectations. These could be critical
factors in institutionalizing systems change but also ran the risk of
becoming a forgotten policy that sat on everyone's shelf but was not
actualized. What really accomplished the change was the combination of
these formal agreements *and* changes in how staff functioned and worked
together.

Additional formal strategies that contributed to systems change were
articulating expectations through the RFP process and job descriptions.
Since these became the standards by which vendors, operators and staff
were to be evaluated, they communicated the priority placed on this
effort.

For state-level systems change to succeed, sites found it effective to
partner with other like-minded entities and efforts within the state
that had similar priorities. In some states these efforts were at only a
formative stage, and some projects began working at the ground level on
efforts such as getting a state Medicaid buy-in. In other cases,
projects drove group efforts and contributed recommendations to the
governor and state legislature. Sites also worked with a variety of
state agencies to promote policy changes that encouraged the use of
Customized Employment and a focus on employment as primary outcomes for
all individuals with disabilities within their states.

For effective systems change, sites found that orientation to
decision-makers needed to focus more on the intended goals and process
of service provision than on the parameters of the grant. Grants have a
tendency to be viewed as time-limited, accompanied by the mindset that
"we only need to do this activity with a finite number of people for a
finite time.\" When projects moved away from an emphasis on a specific
project and instead communicated a vision of new strategies,
decision-makers could view this effort in a larger context and start to
see how these strategies might apply to their broader customer basis.
Sites that began the education process from this perspective versus
trying to move to a systems change focus halfway through the grant were
more successful in accomplishing real change.

It was necessary to use a mix of different staff development activities
to build the capacity of staff responsible for implementing services. In
addition to formal training events, sites used job shadowing and
mentoring as strategies to help staff use what they had been trained on.
An ongoing system of training and reeducating staff was necessary since
with most direct service positions there is considerable turnover. Even
staff who had previously taken part in training could benefit from
getting a refresher to help reenergize them and add nuance to their
approach.

Several sites communicated their commitment to Customized Employment and
service provision to individuals with disabilities by setting goals
within staff performance reviews and vendor recertification processes.
This articulation of expectations sent a strong message and ensured that
the priority continued to be prominent after the grant ended.

# VII. Sustainability of Grant Activities

Sustaining systems change requires a plan that identifies priorities,
action steps, and the resources needed to overcome barriers to long-term
change. Although projects varied in the areas they chose to sustain,
they applied innovative methods to institutionalize their projects' best
practices. They identified key champions to support the initiative,
aligned partners with a common vision, and established strong internal
systems were in the pursuit of their specific efforts.

# Key Findings and Successful Strategies

# 

# *Multiple Funding Sources*

# 

# No one partner or funding mechanism is sufficient to meet the needs of multiple customers who each have unique employment goals and support needs. Establishing a way to access multiple funding sources on behalf of customers promoted the sustainability of Customized Employment services. 

-   Multiple funding streams and agency relationships were necessary for
    Fairfax, VA to provide the widest range of services required in its
    community.

-   Boston sought funding from multiple systems, such as Department of
    Mental Retardation, VR, and Department of Transitional Assistance
    (the state agency responsible for administering public assistance
    programs), as an approach to sustain service delivery needs in the
    workforce investment area.

-   While working with veterans, Montgomery County, MD utilized funding
    from the Veterans Workforce Investment Program (VWIP), in
    conjunction with WIA ITA's, to provide employment services,
    supports, and training to veterans with significant barriers to
    employment.

-   In Cobb County, GA, project staff worked to leverage resources from
    multiple streams and sources, including the One Stop Career Center's
    WIA funded Individual Training Accounts (ITA's).  In one instance, a
    project customer used WIA funded ITA dollars to pay for A+
    Certification at a local technical college, while also leveraging
    grant funding  to purchase additional tutoring time with the class
    instructors each week.  He also benefited from the accommodation of
    being able to audit the A+ class once after completion of his
    enrollment in order to review the content again.  WIA services also
    engaged VR to support job development services through a local CRP
    and a customized resource ownership situation was pursued with the
    support of an Employment Specialist.

*Staff Competencies*

Grantees found that establishing and maintaining an effective
professional development system was a key feature of ongoing
sustainability.

-   Fairfax, VA found that staff development systems needed to be
    established if quality services were going to be sustained.

-   The innovative strategies that Customized Employment offers, such as
    discovery, job creation, resource ownership, and supported
    self-employment, is pivotal to successful employment for job seekers
    with significant disabilities. Indianapolis recognized that time and
    effort be invested in professional development for staff to gain
    competence in these areas.

-   The availability of peer mentors for customers with disabilities in
    Cobb County, GA resulted in improved support systems for both job
    seekers and One-Stop staff, providing a beneficial supplement to
    staff training.

# *Use of Customized Employment Strategies with Other Populations*

# As other WIA-funded programs came to recognize the value that Customized Employment services offered to their populations, various agreements and capacity-building activities occurred to expand Customized Employment services to more customers with barriers within the system. 

-   Fairfax, VA found that the broad applicability of Customized
    Employment services made it attractive to many agencies, both in and
    beyond the disability service system

-   Customized Employment strategies were utilized with youth
    transitioning from high school in Knoxville, TN by adapting the
    grant\'s Transition Services Integration model.

-   In Utica, NY Customized Employment strategies were utilized with the
    court system in a jail diversion program. Courts used Customized
    Employment tools to develop employment plans. Treatment courts were
    also involved with drug-related cases since such charges often
    involved dual diagnoses, including some type of disability.

-   Building off of the innovations led by the Alaska Customized
    Employment Project, state leaders in the Department of Public
    Assistance (TANF) and Vocational Rehabilitation, among others, have
    partnered to offer family-based Discovery and Customized Employment
    services to recipients of TANF in Alaska.

-   In Montgomery County, MD the offender re-entry program saw such
    value in the methodology used in the Customized Employment process,
    that they began incorporating its basic principles into employment
    planning.

*Policy Influence*

Long-term systemic change can be supported through developing and
modifying policies on the local, state, and federal levels. Although it
warrants a mention here, please refer to the Section on Policy and
Systemic Influence for additional information.

-   To promote accountability in sustaining systems change, Flint and
    Detroit, MI, Hempstead, NY, and El Paso modified One-Stop operator
    and vendor contract language to include the principles and tools of
    Customized Employment, as well as universal design strategies.

-   The Indianapolis project worked closely with the public VR system to
    advance policies that promoted self-employment and Customized
    Employment services, which would continue to drive employment
    activities beyond grant funding.

-   Athens, GA found that the design of the Medicaid buy-in program must
    account for both the needs of customers and the political realities
    of cost and stakeholder support.

-   To promote greater access to employment options for individuals with
    disabilities within the county government, Montgomery County MD, the
    LWIB, and Customized Employment staff worked collaboratively with
    the Office of Human Resources (OHR) to create a Customized
    Employment initiative. As of this writing, OHR has decided to work
    with a local intermediary to: identify job tasks/create job
    descriptions based on current county workforce needs; and recruit
    qualified job candidates with disabilities from the Public School
    System, CRPs and the One Stop Career Centers to fill these new
    positions.

*Redesigning System Infrastructure*

Grantees recognized that significant systems change was necessary to
efficiently and effectively meet the needs of a broad customer base.
Considerations were made for designing a One-Stop infrastructure to
manage the system-building process to limit handoffs and redundancies,
address decisions around customers in a more unified way, and promote
collaboration within the system.

-   Benton-Franklin, WA found that lasting change was not likely to be
    sustained unless infrastructure (training, referrals, and funding)
    was institutionalized.

-   Examining the existing service delivery structure in El Paso allowed
    the project to identify roles and functions that aligned with
    Customized Employment. Staff functions could then be expanded to
    allow for the provision of Customized Employment services.

-   Projects in both Alaska and Detroit conducted process-mapping
    activities. Subsequent systems modifications included mechanisms for
    streamlining service systems and establishing collaborative service
    delivery teams for customers with barriers to employment.

*Leadership*

Grantees that elicited buy-in from a number of stakeholders at a variety
of leadership levels were the most successful in achieving long-lasting
systems change and keeping the mission of enhancing employment
opportunities for customers with disabilities at the forefront. Having
allies and leadership at the local and state levels was also valuable
for building trust, credibility, and investment among all constituents.

-   Sustainable systems change within the workforce development system
    required leadership at the WIB level to "champion" the effort.
    Boston recognized that this champion should have the leadership
    skills to steer the mission and foster improved coordination and
    collaboration among agencies both within and outside the workforce
    development system.

-   El Paso found that achieving systems change required board-level
    investment and commitment. It was critical that values be
    communicated and concrete steps for effecting change be proposed and
    supported throughout the process.

-   Strong leadership at the state and/or local level was critical to
    systems' ownership of projects and the recognition of their system
    as the target of change. Projects in Alaska, Georgia, and Detroit
    found that an important aspect of sustainable systems change was for
    recognized leaders to send a consistent, clear message.

**Overcoming Obstacles**

# *Continuing Informal Partnerships Beyond the Grant Funding Period*

# 

# Initiatives that involve service delivery and specific individual outcomes often exist only throughout the funding period. As additional partnerships were formed and innovative service delivery systems established, grantees entered into more formal agreements to sustain collaborative efforts beyond the grant period. These agreements helped ensure that partners were committed to continuing to support job seekers with barriers to employment.

As partnerships within the Nashville project evolved, it was determined
that formalizing the relationship would help systematize service
delivery processes. The chief tool in pursuing sustainability was
Letters of Understanding (LOUs) between the Division of Rehabilitation
Services and designated community rehabilitation providers funded
through the Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities system. These
agreements outlined the roles and responsibilities of specific agencies
and staff. As no similar support system existed for people with other
disabilities, such as mental illness, additional LOUs were explored.
Collaboration with the state's disability systems resulted in an LOU
between one of the grant sites and one of the state's largest CRPs that
supported people with mental illness. This allowed for the option of
long-term supports through numerous other programs.

Similarly, multiple projects modified contracts with One-Stop operators
and partners to reflect more individualized service delivery. This
communicated an expectation, and often requirement, that operators meet
the needs of all customers. El Paso, for example, utilized policies and
contracts as a mechanism to ensure that quality service delivery
processes remained in place beyond grant funding. The RFP for the
One-Stop operator included specific language to ensure that customers
with disabilities had access to services and that the system had the
capacity to deliver quality employment services.

*Systemic Barriers to the Development of Self-Employment Opportunities*

Innovative entrepreneurial opportunities proved effective in creating
meaningful employment for many project participants. Yet specific
workforce development and VR policies did not fully support the
establishment of such businesses. Grantees influenced systems in various
ways to promote the option of self-employment for job seekers with
disabilities.

In Indiana before the grant, self-employment options had been limited
for customers of both state public VR and One-Stops who had significant
disabilities. For example, job coaching supports were not accessed for
individuals in self-employment. Through education, policy exploration,
and leadership, Indianapolis VR established a small business
representative position. As of this writing, a pilot was being conducted
in which VR collaborated with the local One-Stops to assist its
customers who were interested in starting their own businesses. Grant
staff also examined RSA policy directives for coding various employment
outcomes. As a result of these efforts, VR created a new line item code
under supported employment services titled "supported self-employment."
VR now supports entrepreneurs with disabilities to achieve their goals,
with creative funding to support startup costs and job coaching needs.

Similarly, WIA funding was accessed in Indianapolis to allow customers
the training they needed in specific areas to begin their small
businesses. The demands on the system, continual funding reductions, and
pressure for outcomes---with self-employment outcomes being particularly
complex---created challenges to providing the support individuals could
need to start a business. For these reasons, One-Stops did not have the
knowledge or resources to support such goals. Education and support was
provided to the system regarding ways to use WIA training dollars to
provide entrepreneurial skill development.

As with many projects, Cobb County, GA project staff experienced an
ongoing progression in their relationship with VR and the agency\'s
openness to providing flexible funding for self-employment. This process
required relationship building and training, project staff reported.
Initially, the concepts of self-employment and resource acquisition were
almost entirely foreign to VR staff. However, after seeing multiple
successes under the grant, VR eventually became more open. Project staff
also reported that willingness to commit resources to self-employment
projects varied by counselor. Although state \"policy change\" per se
had not yet been achieved, the practices of individual counselors
changed significantly. This provided further evidence that barriers
assumed to be rooted in policy are often in fact created by habit,
assumption, and practice.

*Keeping the Employment of People with Disabilities on the Radar*

As project activities and influence were time-limited, grantees faced
the challenge of how to maintain disability as a priority at the LWIB
level. In response, grantees established disability subcommittees within
their local boards. In El Paso and Detroit, subcommittees advised the
LWIB on the Customized Employment project, program service
sustainability, and employment issues such as recruiting, hiring, and
training opportunities for individuals with disabilities. These
disability councils were comprised of members of their respective
consortia. Targeted areas included ensuring equal opportunity and access
to the system; developing relevant policies (e.g., accommodations,
assessments); and identifying new or ongoing community initiatives
concerning the employment of people with disabilities.

# *Promoting Staff Competencies*

# 

# Customized Employment is a new and different way of providing employment services, particularly for the workforce development system. To sustain quality services, it is essential to have ongoing mechanisms to ensure that staff members have the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of job seekers with various barriers to employment. The Indianapolis project provided training on Customized Employment and disability issues approximately once per month throughout the grant period to One-Stop staff and community partners (e.g., mental health centers, local school systems, community rehabilitation providers). Since then, partners have begun to incorporate Customized Employment trainings into the current statewide Supported Employment training program. 

# 

# Online modules also provided a mechanism for ongoing training. In Frederick, MD a number of experts convened through the project created an e-Learning center. These modules covered topics such as Customized Employment, Social Security work incentives, and interviewing and hiring people with disabilities. They provided an easy and sustainable way to ensure ongoing staff training in spite of high turnover, low training budgets, and limited staff time. 

# 

# The University of Georgia, a Cobb County project partner and another ODEP grant recipient, also created an online job developer training with much of the key information available on an ongoing basis. These online trainings were open to the public, and were widely distributed throughout the state. Each module was designed for both accessibility and universality. They offered a wide range of interactive learning opportunities to explore given issues in depth, with a skills test at the end of each module. 

Additional methods were used in Cobb County, GA to promote competencies
within the system. For example, project staff accessed archived
information available for no charge through Virginia Commonwealth
University and other organizations. The LWIB staff also developed
videos, interviews, and multimedia presentations to use for staff
training, media outreach, and outreach to partners.

As training in and of itself is often not sufficient to develop the
required competencies, the Athens, GA project also provided considerable
technical assistance to community providers throughout the state.
Customized practices require intensive, hands-on training and oversight
to instill in another system. They also require a system of partnerships
to surround and support the services.

# *Shifting Perspective from Pilot Project to Broader Systems Change* 

The demonstration activities of the grantees provided a laboratory to
identify and address local and state policy concerns. By demonstrating
effective strategies to improve employment outcomes for individuals with
disabilities, sites moved the disability employment agenda forward in
various systems, including state workforce development, state
departments of mental retardation, and Medicaid.

# 

# Athens, GA expanded on the foundation built through grant activities to achieve more than a special project could accomplish alone. The partnerships formed through these activities were expansive, ranging from One-Stop staff to statewide disability agencies to Protection and Advocacy projects. These partners pulled together to form "The Employment First Institute,\" intended to perpetuate and enhance many of the grant's original goals. The initiative was based on a statement of intent endorsing customized practices and employment for people with disabilities developed collaboratively through the efforts of the grant. The formal goals of the institute are:

-   Create, sustain, and disseminate innovation and innovative practices

-   Work with systems and policies to improve outcomes

-   Provide technical assistance to, and potentially assist in creating,
    community providers

-   Transform attitudes and perceptions

-   Provide leadership in connecting innovative work

In addition to having an impact on the local workforce development
system, Flint, MI was able to influence the state level through an
initiative to enhance accessibility for all individuals seeking services
at One-Stops. As a culmination of this yearlong initiative, Michigan
established a statewide One-Stop Center inclusion work group comprised
of the state VR director, Career Alliance, Inc. CEO and board chair, and
staff from the Department of Labor and Economic Development, the
Customized Employment project, Detroit Workforce Development, and other
collaborative entities. This work group focused on universal access to
One-Stop programs and facilities across the state.

The Flint project provided information and resources related to
universal design strategies within the workforce development system
developed by the National Center on Workforce and Disability/Adult and
its partners. The work group developed a full report with
recommendations highlighting strategies to enhance the universality of
the system. As a result of these efforts, a systemic approach to
ensuring universal access was being integrated into mandatory One-Stop
policies statewide. The Michigan Works! Association was slated to
provide a self-assessment checklist for the Michigan Works! One-Stops.
Subsequently, biannual site reviews would utilize this checklist to
further assist the One-Stops in achieving equitable service and
outcomes.

Both Tennessee and Georgia explored Medicaid systems as a means of
promoting employment for residents with disabilities. Athens, GA worked
to craft and secure the passage of a state Medicaid buy-in initiative.
This effort is, of necessity, carrying into the next year of the grant's
activities. However, to date, much progress had been made by state
representatives. For example, the state Medicaid infrastructure was
engaged in the process and worked closely with state leaders to craft
the buy-in language. Many major choices were made in regard to language,
including income limits, co-pays, and uptake rates. The efforts of state
partners secured buy-in from many partners, who have begun to craft a
policy that is both highly effective and works with the political and
fiscal limitations of the state.

Knoxville, TN also realized success with the state Medicaid waiver
program. They was able to provide on-the-job supports by using ongoing
extended funding through the Division of Mental Retardation's Medicaid
waiver. This provided an example of how Medicaid funding could be
adjusted to allow the use of funds for integrated employment instead of
sheltered work.

*Establishing a Design for Sustainability*

Many grant-funded initiatives are considered pilot projects. Despite the
time-limited nature of the Customized Employment funds, grantees
designed their projects to maintain services and benefits via a
sustainable process.

The Detroit project addressed sustainability throughout every phase,
from planning to implementation. A sustainability think tank met for a
series of working sessions to address service delivery architecture
(customer flow), employer and provider strategies, consumer and family
involvement, and policy issues that hindered or fostered sustainability.
The group identified lessons from project experiences; benchmarks for
progress; the value of the project\'s achievements with regard to the
impact on people with disabilities; and strategies to sustain, refine,
or create new approaches.

In Alaska, sustainability teams handled issues surrounding staff
training, partnership, service funding, and capacity development. These
groups were charged primarily with sustaining Customized Employment
practices---primarily discovery---within a given area\'s workforce
development system. By training and coordinating with community
providers, these One-Stops, in collaboration with funding from VR,
planned to continue to offer Customized Employment practices through
their overall network of resources. Leads and relationships with
employers were in place to further formalize the business outreach teams
that allowed employers a single point of contact with the system.

This movement in Alaska represented an important finding for One-Stops
nationwide that struggled to incorporate the work of community groups
into their efforts. Community agencies in this case have unique
advantages in that they can maintain a highly flexible style in serving
customers. This is an essential element for sustainability, as
customized services require considerable community outreach and
activity.

Benton-Franklin WA had a workforce integration committee comprised of
WIA contractors (adult and youth), Employment Securities staff, One-Stop
staff, disability providers, and VR. The committee broke into five work
groups to handle policy, pathways, staff training, technology, and
marketing. Each committee was charged with identifying and recommending
actions regarding the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to
effectively integrate services to customers with disabilities into the
daily operation and service delivery of the workforce system. Due to the
potential impact of these policy issues, the One-Stop oversight
committee established a permanent subcommittee.

# 

# *Meeting the Employment Needs of Diverse Populations*

# 

# Customers with disabilities are but one segment of the diverse populations served through the One-Stop system. Systems struggle to meet the needs of customers with complex barriers to employment. As with curb cuts and electronic door openers, Customized Employment strategies became recognized for their benefits to the broader population. Grantees worked with mandated and non-mandated partners towards adopting Customized Employment solutions with the customers they served.

Alaska implemented a Customized Employment model with Department of
Public Assistance recipients. Under this model, program staff developed
service teams, conducted assessments using the discovery process,
developed profiles, and negotiated individual jobs with employers. The
Department of Public Assistance funded these services based on the
success of the Customized Employment project. Furthermore, family
dynamics and involvement were quite influential in these efforts;
therefore, family discovery assessments were conducted and considered in
the overall planning process.

In Utica, NY, staff worked with the courts towards the development of a
jail diversion program. Using the tools of Customized Employment,
employment plans were developed for individuals at risk of being
incarcerated. The treatment court was also involved in cases of
drug-related charges---many of which involved dual diagnoses.
Individuals\' Customized Employment planning teams are comprised of a
case manager from the resource center, the disability program navigator,
substance abuse services, and potentially legal aid.

The Veterans' program in Frederick and Montgomery Counties, MD also
adopted Customized Employment principles and strategies. The barriers
that many veterans may face, including disability, long-term
unemployment, mental health issues, homelessness, and addiction, require
a more individualized approach to employment planning. The discovery
process, emphasis on contributions to employment, and individual
negotiation with employers created new opportunities for customers in
the Veterans' program.

# *Time-Limited Funding*

# 

# Projects built foundations through the financial and technical resources provided by the grants. Though not an answer in its entirety, the quest for ongoing funding to support grant efforts was necessary. Grantees have looked to a variety of sources to expand on their projects' accomplishments to date. 

# 

# As a result of this effort, the state of Illinois was awarded a Johnson & Johnson Foundation grant to fund a year of planning and infrastructure development to create incentives and expertise for supported employment as a sustainable service. As an expansion of supported employment, staff anticipated that the lessons learned through this Customized Employment initiative would have a direct impact on service sustainability. Project staff were working with the state partners to develop models for sharing costs when two state agencies provided services for joint customers. The Chicago project planned to then adapt this model to assist in sharing costs between the state and city agencies. This was creating additional funding options for individuals with mental illness. Additionally, staff worked very closely with the state representative and chair of the Department of Human Services appropriations committee to discuss options for funding project activities.

Negotiations with the state VR program in Indiana resulted a one-year
extension of the Customized Employment initiative. An agreement was made
to continue with state VR funding, which would cover administrative
costs, Customized Employment services data collection, and provider
training activities. Through the purchase of service agreements that had
already been established, providers would continue Customized Employment
services for VR clients. This extension created additional opportunities
to explore the expansion of the results-based funding system within VR
to include a tier for more intensive Customized Employment approaches
provided by approved Customized Employment vendors.

The collaboration between Cobb County, GA and the Georgia
Microenterprise Center was a compelling model for reproduction in other
areas. A key element that was most notable for sustainability was the
use of low-interest loans. Traditionally, these loans had not been
successfully accessed by customized self-employment ventures, as there
was very little connection between these two fields. Access to these
loans was highly beneficial to the customers who qualified. This model
compelled the Cobb/Douglas Community Services Board to provide a similar
service based on a foundation they were in the process of establishing.
With enough capital, the board would be able to create a revolving loan
pool to provide the flexible funding that was the key to the success of
many of the project's efforts.

**Discussion**

Moving forward with systems change required not only a clear sense of
what would change after the grant but also a strategy for implementing
and sustaining these changes. A number of key factors contributed to
successful sustainability, many of which structured the outline for this
document: building partnerships, the systemic leveraging of resources,
creating strong internal service delivery systems, and influencing
policy and systemic change.

Key factors that changed systems were effective leadership and project
management. Successful project leads were able to maintain a focus on
longer-term goals rather than getting lost in the day-to-day challenges
of project implementation. The initial bridging of the workforce
development and human services systems created a common ground to build
from. Critical to sustaining elements of the projects was the ability to
work effectively with the broad and diverse set of stakeholders and
partners who supported job seekers with disabilities.

Furthermore, the more project management elicited the support of other
leaders and the larger community, the more the goal of improving
employment outcomes spread. When project leaders invested in expanding
partnerships and securing the support of key senior decision makers at
the local and state levels (e.g., elected and appointed officials, key
state and LWIB staff, key staff working within primary agencies), policy
change, system engagement, and systems enhancements followed.
Communicating the project's vision and successes also elicited
broad-based community support.

Grantees agreed that taking the time to build a foundation for solid
relationships was critical. The partnership-building process prepared
them to move an agenda forward when the time was right. Many grantees,
for example, worked on building relationships for over a year before
incremental systems change began to materialize. Cross-agency
partnerships were required for the system to effectively meet the needs
of its customers. Grantees faced both the challenge and opportunity of
working with nontraditional partners to agree upon a common set of
outcomes and approaches. Multiple grantees realized successful
collaborations involving the Department of Labor, human services
organizations such as mental health and state VR programs, the
Department of Education, and nontraditional partners such as faith-based
organizations, small business administrations, and court systems.
Although the configuration of relationships varied greatly, capitalizing
on partnerships that could contribute to setting and achieving
outcome-oriented goals contributed to sustainability.

Two key elements to success were establishing a clear and mutual vision
among partners and developing a viable plan for sustaining specific
aspects of the initiative. Systems change efforts began with common
values or, in some cases, a shift in values. In most cases, partner
programs and WIB leadership shared and embraced this vision. Clarifying
the value added by Customized Employment set the stage for developments
that often manifested in shared agreements and formalized partnerships.
Over time, partners strengthened relationships, made further
investments, took more risks, and established trust as the foundation
for sustaining efforts. As projects evolved, partners reached a mutual
understanding and definition of the specific grant elements that they
wished to sustain.

Although the DOL/ODEP initiated the grants, it was not the long-term
fiscal supporter. Effective leveraging of the necessary political,
technical, and regulatory resources increased sustainability. In
relation to the historical timeline of employment services, Customized
Employment practices are in their infancy. Grantees struggled to
identify the types of financial resources necessary to sustain their
work. Some areas successfully redirected or reallocated funding for
LWIBs and One-Stops to use with customers with disabilities. Redirecting
resources, and braiding and blending funding in new and creative ways on
both system and individual levels, allowed grantees to use
non-categorical, flexible funding from a variety of public and private
sources. Various approaches---such as offering incentive funding pools
that prompted investment from other sources, using individualized
accounts under the control of the consumer, and creating service
collaboration teams---resulted in continuing partner investments and the
demonstration of effective practices for sustainability.

Sustaining Customized Employment practices within the workforce
development system was achieved by those grantees that examined their
service delivery infrastructure for points of alignment with Customized
Employment strategies. These grants identified the most natural
alignment of functions and targeted specific roles within the One-Stop
for change. Through leadership support, intensive technical assistance,
and quality assurance monitoring, systems adopted new ways of providing
employment services. Only through true ownership and investment by WIB
and/or One-Stop leadership can these services be sustained, since
continuous quality assurance mechanisms are needed to minimize the
likelihood of what may be a natural tendency to resort to \"business as
usual.\"

The extent to which grantees influenced policy and systemic change was
proportional to the extent to which systems viewed themselves as the
target of change. This perception and sense of ownership was conveyed to
constituents across all grants. Grants communicated that customizing
services and using the tools of Customized Employment were an
expectation of service provision. To achieve systemic change beyond the
funding cycle, sites integrated these expectations into their One-Stop
operators' Requests for Proposals and/or Memoranda of Understanding.
This contract language promoted higher expectations for and
accountability of WIA vendors. Regulatory mechanisms, such as monitoring
systems and quality assurance checks, were also necessary to bridge the
gap between policy change and actual practices. Significant systems
change required more than simply modifying procedures. Sites had to
institutionalize changes to promote a comprehensive and seamless service
delivery model.

Sustainability planning at the onset the project proved the most
critical element. The projects that considered how each activity/effort
would be sustained beyond the funding period achieved more enduring
change. In some cases, project goals were somewhat confused or projects
lost focus on the systems change aspect as demonstration activities
ensued. Thus, developing long-range plans for what projects wanted to
accomplish was a key strategy for maintaining focus for the well-defined
sustainability team. These teams focused primarily on working through
current efforts, challenges, and barriers, including potential conflicts
with other initiatives, priorities, and agendas. They developed
effective strategic plans to incorporate a clearly articulated vision of
the desired results, strategies for leveraging the needed resources, and
necessary support from key champions and decision-makers.

**Program Delivery Models and Impact on Sustainability**

Program design and project experiences set the stage for what elements
grantees chose to sustain.

Various factors influenced the ways that projects were initially
designed, including the unique needs of the system; existing
partnerships---or lack thereof---with the disability community; and the
primary author of the proposal. Three basic project designs emerged,
based on how significantly the workforce development system was the
locus of activity and the perceived target of change. These designs are
described in Section I of this report.

Furthermore, the year in which the proposal was written had some impact
on the direction and intent of the project. The initial round of
grantees did not have the benefit of the clarity around Customized
Employment that subsequent grantees were afforded. The first year of the
initiative was truly a learning experience, as little was known about
the interface and opportunities of Customized Employment within the
workforce development system. As a result, the emphasis was less on the
actual practices of Customized Employment and more on systemic
influence, which reflected the local needs and characteristics of each
project. For example, projects may have proposed to enhance the capacity
of the One-Stop system to serve customers with disabilities through
staff training, partnering more with the disability services system,
and/or developing disability-related One-Stop policies. As the
advantages of enhancing systems through Customized Employment and the
most effective access points became clearer, second- and third-round
applications generally were more reflective of specific Customized
Employment strategies and the methods for infusing these tools and
opportunities into One-Stop systems.

In many cases, this program design acted as a blueprint for the priority
areas of focus and, thus, desired areas of sustainability. Some projects
shifted focus in response to these experiences and lessons learned
throughout the process, but the majority held true to their initial
intent. These priorities, typically originating from the seeds planted
within program design, frequently acted as the driving force for
determining which elements would be sustained beyond project funding.
For example, a proposal written by a CRP that emphasized creating
self-employment opportunities by blending of workforce development
system and other resources would likely focus on enhancing partnerships
to promote self-employment, amending policies that impeded
entrepreneurship, and establishing mechanisms to braid resources to
maintain these services. Conversely, a second-round grantee, armed with
a clearer vision of how Customized Employment could be effectively used
in the system, may have proposed to influence not only policies but also
the roles of One-Stop staff to incorporate and adopt the practices of
Customized Employment. This would require a stronger commitment by the
WIB and partners at the onset.

**In addition to the array of benefits realized and sustained in each
locale, these projects acted as *experiments* that identified and
demonstrated key ways to enhance the public workforce system\'s capacity
to serve customers with a wide range of complexities, abilities, and
barriers to employment. The information elicited and highlighted in this
report can fuel future research projects targeted in response to these
findings, which would continue to improve the effectiveness of this
system.**

**Appendix A**

**Grantee Descriptions**

*Year 1 2001 Customized Employment Grants*

[Cambridge, MA: Metro North Regional Employment Board]{.underline}

The Metro North Customized Employment Project was based in two One-Stops
and administered by the LWIB. As such, it was rooted entirely in the WIA
system. The project employed two specialists (one for each site) and
used a significant amount of training and technical assistance to bring
awareness and expertise on disability issues to the One-Stops.
Collaborations with significant service partners such as VR and Mental
Health were strengthened, often resulting in joint case management.

[Napa, CA: Project Inclusion]{.underline}

The project encompassed Napa, Solano, and Sonoma counties. Project
Inclusion focused on two specific goals: to increase employment
opportunities and earnings for people with disabilities who obtained
jobs through the One-Stops and to increase the system\'s capacity to
serve people with disabilities by embedding Customized Employment
strategies into the policies and practices of the local One-Stops and
their partners.

[Cobb County, GA: Project Exceed]{.underline}

Project Exceed was awarded to a collaborative inclusive of CobbWorks,
Inc., a LWIB, and the Cobb County Community Services Board (CCSB).
Project Exceed served a diverse customer base with a variety of
economic, social, racial, and disability characteristics in customized
employment. Project staff provided direct services to grant participants
through a grant-based Individual Account (IA). These funds were distinct
from WIA-funded ITA's, and designed to be entirely flexible. The project
worked within the local One-Stop system, CobbWorks!, Inc., to support
and implement change that supported universal access.

[Anoka, MN: Anoka County\'s Transition and Customized Employment
Program]{.underline}

For the FY 2001 grant year, the Anoka County Workforce Council, in
collaboration with the local One-Stop, planned, developed, and
implemented a comprehensive adult transition and Customized Employment
model for extended-time high school students, ages 18-21, who had
significant disabilities.

[Knoxville, TN: Tennessee Customized Employment Project]{.underline}

Workforce Connections, a division of the Knoxville-Knox County Community
Action Committee, was awarded a FY 2001 grant to develop a Customized
Employment model to be provided through the Knoxville Area Career
Center. The project worked to increase the employment rate of people on
the state waiting list for VR and Mental Retardation services in the
region.

[Fairfax, VA: Customized Employment Grant]{.underline}

The Customized Employment grant initiative was a product of the Northern
Virginia Workforce Investment Board. The goal of the group was to build
the capacity of the local One-Stop Center to use Customized Employment
services to increase employment outcomes, choice, and wages for people
with disabilities who resided in Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
counties and the cities of Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas
Park.

[San Diego, CA: San Diego Workforce Partnership, Inc.]{.underline}

The San Diego Workforce Partnership Customized Employment project was
rooted in the One-Stop system. The grant was administered through the
LWIB and implemented in the One-Stops throughout the greater San Diego
region. Significant effort was committed to strengthening partnerships
for sustainability, and to altering policies to make the system more
welcoming and effective for job seekers with disabilities.

*Year 2 2002 Customized Employment Grants*

[El Paso, TX: Transition Adjustment and Career Education]{.underline}

Awarded to the Upper Rio Grande Workforce Development Board, this
project worked to enhance the capacity of the Lomaland One-Stop Career
Center to deliver services to people with disabilities by bridging
education and job development with Customized Employment services in the
Upper Rio Grande area.

[Juneau, AK: Alaska Customized Employment]{.underline}

Though administered in Juneau, the Alaska Customized Employment grant
served most of the state including the areas of Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Juneau, Wasilla, and Kenai. To this end, the project looked to build the
capacity of One-Stops to provide Customized Employment services on a
statewide basis.

[Benton-Franklin, WA: Success Project]{.underline}

Success Project served 14 counties in eastern Washington State
(Benton-Franklin, Tri-Valley WDC, Yakama, Klickitat, and Kittitas
counties). The goal of the project was to build the capacity of the
local workforce development system to provide Customized Employment
services to people with disabilities, with the focus on serving people
with cognitive disabilities who were in sheltered workshops and other
segregated settings.

[Montgomery, AL: Alabama Customized Employment Program]{.underline}

The Alabama Customized Employment Program served the entire state except
Jefferson and Mobile counties. Project goals included having a minimum
number of individuals obtain competitive employment as well as for some
individuals to receive intensive training and technical assistance on
microenterprises, micro-boards, supported entrepreneurship,
cooperatives, and small businesses.

[Detroit, MI: Detroit Partners for Customized Employment]{.underline}\
The Detroit Workforce Development Department was awarded this Customized
Employment grant in FY 2002. As the implementing agency, Goodwill
Industries of Greater Detroit worked with the system to create flexible
service strategies and business solutions through training, education,
and the development of a holistic, consumer-directed model for job
seekers with disabilities.

[Hempstead, NY: Whatever It Takes]{.underline}

The Town of Hempstead Workforce Investment Board used the funding to
enhance seamless and quality employment services for people with
disabilities through the One-Stop Career Center, serving the town of
Hempstead and city of Long Beach. Abilities, Inc., a local community
rehabilitation provider, was the primary grant activity implementer.

[Richmond, VA: Richmond Customized Employment Project]{.underline}

The grant worked to strengthen the linkages of the Richmond-area
One-Stop system with schools, VR, and the Virginia Business Leadership
Network, a business-directed group designed to encourage other
businesses to hire people with disabilities. The project focused on
expanding the reach and scope of existing service programs, such as a
WIA youth project, to make them more appropriate for job seekers with
multiple barriers.

[Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Customized Employment Grant]{.underline}

The Indianapolis Private Industry Council received funding to enhance
employment opportunities for job seekers with disabilities through three
One-Stop Career Centers. A primary focus of the project was supporting
individuals in developing small business ventures.

*Year 3 2003 Customized Employment Grants*

[Chicago, IL: Chicago Workforce Board]{.underline}

The Chicago Workforce Board worked to enrich the capacity of local
One-Stop Centers to provide Customized Employment services to
individuals with serious mental illness who had not previously been
targeted by the One-Stop system. The project took on a systematic review
of One-Stop policies and practices with the intention of incorporating
new policies and evidence-based Customized Employment practices
throughout the state.

[Montgomery County, MD: Montgomery County Workforce Investment
Board]{.underline}

This grant made use of partnerships between local, state, and national
organizations to expand the capacity of the Montgomery County Maryland
One-Stop Center to serve people with significant disabilities. The
partners worked to blend and braid funds from the workforce development
system with funds from other service systems in an effort to serve
individuals in a coordinated and effective fashion.

[Utica, NY: Workforce Investment Board of Herkimer, Madison, and Oneida
Counties]{.underline}

The project targeted individuals with disabilities living in group or
community home settings, individuals who work in segregated day
programs, and individuals in supported housing programs. The initiative
demonstrated the benefits of using supported entrepreneurship,
individualized job development, job carving, job restructuring, personal
agents, microenterprises, and individualized funding to increase
consumer choice and control in Customized Employment outcomes.

[Flint, MI: Customized Works!]{.underline}

The Genesee/Shiawassee Workforce Development Board was awarded funding
to better serve customers with disabilities through the One-Stop system.
Implemented through Michigan Works! Career Alliance, this project
focused on two One-Stops in the service delivery area.

[Helena, MT: Montana Job Training Partnership, Inc.]{.underline}

The project designed to provide outreach and marketing to persons with
significant disabilities about the services available through the
workforce development system, with an emphasis on Customized Employment
services. An important and innovative role of this project was to
demonstrate how to implement Customized Employment strategies in a rural
region.

*Year 2 2002 Olmstead WorkFORCE Action Grants*

[Boston, MA: Massachusetts WorkFORCE Action Grant]{.underline}

The Institute for Community Inclusion at UMass Boston was awarded
funding to build the capacity of local One-Stop Career Center staff,
community providers, and public human service agencies to provide
Customized Employment services to individuals covered under the Olmstead
decision. Implementation sites included the Quincy Career Center and
CareerPoint in Holyoke.

[Peoria, IL: An Innovative Supported Employment Program for People with
Serious Mental Illness]{.underline}

Goals for the Peoria project included generating information on how
workforce development programs can meet the needs of individuals with
psychiatric disabilities, and training One-Stop Career Center staff in
Peoria on how to meet these needs.

[Athens, GA: Jobs for All\... An Olmstead Initiative]{.underline}

Jobs for All was designed to increase the number of people with
disabilities in non-stereotypical, customized job settings by using a
multi-agency, person-centered approach that focused on the efficient
coordination of services across agency and departmental boundaries.
Techniques used to accomplish this goal included maximizing customer
choice through flexible funding, and using customer and peer supports.
This project focused on the dissemination and implementation of an
\"employment first\" philosophy in the State of Georgia.

*Year 3 2003 Olmstead WorkFORCE Action Grants*

[Nashville, TN: Tennessee Olmstead WorkFORCE]{.underline}

The Nashville project sought to document the stories of individuals who
used Customized Employment strategies to transition from segregated
environments to community employment. The project worked to expand the
capacity of the Tennessee One-Stop system by including disability
employment partners to provide services for job seekers with significant
disabilities.

[Vancouver, WA: Columbia River Mental Health Services]{.underline}

This project worked to assist individuals with psychiatric disabilities
to obtain employment in competitive and Customized Employment
situations. Project partners included the One-Stop system, CRPs, mental
health providers, developmental disability organizations, and faith- and
other community-based organizations.

[Frederick, MD: Maryland WorkFORCE Promise]{.underline}

This project created a coalition of 20 partner agencies and
organizations to provide Customized Employment services to individuals
with developmental and psychiatric disabilities who were in segregated
day activity, sheltered work, and public institutions. Strategies the
project enacted included partnering with the One-Stop system,
demonstrating best practices in follow-along supports, increasing
employer involvement, and offering benefits counseling.

**Appendix B**

**Glossary of Acronyms**

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
  BPAO        Benefits Planning Assistance and Outreach

  CARF        Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities

  CRP         Community Rehabilitation Provider

  DOL/ODEP    Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy

  ITA         Individual Training Account

  LOU         Letter of Understanding

  LWIB        Local Workforce Investment Board

  MOU         Memoranda of Understanding

  NCWD/A      National Center on Workforce and Disability/Adult

  ODEP        Office of Disability Employment Policy

  OHR         Office of Human Resources

  PASS        Plan for Achieving Self-Support

  POSA        Purchase of Service Agreements

  RFP         Request for Proposal

  RSA         Rehabilitation Services Administration

  SSDI        Social Security Disability Insurance

  SSI         Supplemental Security Income

  TANF        Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

  VR          Vocational Rehabilitation

  WIA         Workforce Investment Act

  WIB         Workforce Investment Board

  WIPA        Work Incentive Planning and Assistance
  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

[^1]: Resource acquisition occurs when funds are used to purchase
    equipment or tools on behalf of a jobseeker.

[^2]: In May 2006, due to an increased emphasis on work incentives,
    return to work supports and jobs for beneficiaries, the Benefits
    Planning Assistance and Outreach (BPAO) Program was renamed the Work
    Incentives Planning and Assistance (WIPA) Program. It became
    effective September 30 with awards to 99 WIPA projects in 49 States.

[^3]: Customized Employment services may include strategies such as job
    carving, self-employment, supported employment, job restructuring,
    providing natural supports, and other negotiated job development
    strategies that are individually determined and customized to the
    individual and the employer.

[^4]: Braided funding involves more than one public funding source
    authorizing their dollars to be included in an individual budget. 
    Each public funder maintains control of its dollars, and each tracks
    expenditures for agreed purposes and evaluates return on investment.
    In braided funding, the funding sources remain visible while they
    are used in common to produce greater strength, efficiency, and/or
    effectiveness.

[^5]: Blended funding occurs when public funding sources authorize their
    dollars to be utilized within an individual budget to respond to
    identified needs or gaps in services and supports.  These funds may
    be blended into one lump sum for use as needed, or divided into
    budget categories.  Regardless, the use of the funds is under the
    direction and control of the job seeker, with assistance from a host
    agency. Blended funding pools dollars from multiple sources and make
    them, in some ways, indistinguishable.

[^6]: Navigators are disability point-person positions funded by a joint
    initiative of U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training
    Administration and the Social Security Administration (SSA).
    Established in 2003, the purpose of the program was to provide
    information, through the One-Stop system, about work support options
    available to SSA beneficiaries and others with disabilities. These
    positions had funding to support and guide staff working with
    individual job seekers but to also support systems change and
    capacity-building around disability issues.

[^7]: Universal design for the workforce is the design of environments,
    products, and communication practices as well as the delivery of
    programs, services, and activities to meet the needs of all
    customers of the workforce development system.