ST OF CA-REHABILITATION-CAL-CIE
Stakeholder Forum - Overview
Moderator: Lana Fraser
May 15, 2015, 10:00 am CT

Coordinator:	Welcome and thank you for standing by. At this time all participants are in a listen only mode until the question and answer session of the conference. At that time if you would like to ask a question, you may press star, then 1. Today's conference is being recorded.

	If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. I would now like to turn the call over to Ms. Lana Fraser. You may begin.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you. Good morning everyone and thank you for waiting while we got everyone registered for the call. As you can see there's a great deal of interest in this project on a statewide basis.

	My name is Lana Fraser and I am the project manager for the California Competitive Integrated Employment Project, and I will be facilitating today's call. This public forum is the second of several that will be held during the development of the California Competitive Integrated Employment blueprint.

	Today's call will be one hour and 30 minutes. After the opening presentations there will be an opportunity for public comment and questions. If we are unable to get to all public comments, please note there will be additional forums.

	And also please feel free to forward any input or comments to the CaliforniaCIE@dor.ca.gov inbox. And I'll repeat that later at the end of the call. Your input is important to this project. So please feel free to continue to communicate with us. This is an operator assisted call.

	The operator will coordinate the comment portion of today's teleconference. Transcripts of the comments along with any additional written comments will be posted on the California Competitive Integrated Employment Webpage.

	This Webpage is located on the California Health and Human Services Agency website, at www.chhs.ca.gov. And once you reach that website look under the tab on the upper right-hand of the screen that's entitled CIE. And that will take you to our website.

	When speaking that you please refrain from using acronyms, since we have a large number of participants on today's call and not all may be familiar with each acronym. I would like to introduce today's speakers.

	We will have opening statements from Santi Rogers, the Director for the Department of Developmental Services. And Fred Balcom, Director of Special Education Division, California Department of Education.

	Following the directors, representatives from the California Competitive Integrated Employment interagency workgroup will provide information on the blueprint development process and work that has been done to date.

	In addition as part of the comment period we have developed a few questions and ask your feedback as it will assist us as we continue to move forward with the development of the blueprint. To speak during the comment period please press star key, then number 1 and state your name when prompted.

	I will now like to introduce Director Santi Rogers of the Department of Developmental Services. He will be followed by Fred Balcom, Director of the Special Education Division of the California Department of Education. Director Rogers.

Santi Rogers:	Yes, thank you Lana. Ladies and gentlemen and all of you who are listening it's on behalf of the Department of Developmental Services, I'd like to welcome you to participant in what I believe as a Californian an incredible opportunity to provide great and competitive work for people we serve.

	It's a pleasure to be part of this and it's a pleasure in my four and a half decades of experience that work is one value cornerstone of a good life. And we really welcome you here. Not noted for my brevity but I do want to pass on to you our appreciation of your participation.

	And with that it's an honor for me to pass this introduction over to Fred Balcom on the Director of Special Education Division of the California Department of Education. Thank you very much.

Fred Balcom:	Thank you Santi. It's a pleasure for me as well to be here. It is important work that we are all undertaking together. I'm sitting here with representatives of many agencies who have all joined hands to make this project become a reality.

	On behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson we have a huge interest in making sure that all of our youth successfully transition from high school into college careers and successful living.

	For my part being part of the lifespan development of youth from birth through age 22, it is certainly a pleasure to be at the beginning phases of this and then to see the positive outcomes that are occurring as youth move onto adulthood and success in later life.

	So I want you all for being a participant in this and turn it back over to Lana.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you. Thank you Directors Rogers and Balcom. I would now like to introduce our first interagency workgroup presenter, Denyse Curtright, the Chief of the Work Services Section for the Department of Developmental Services. Denyse.

Denyse Curtright:	Thank you Lana. In December 2014 the Department of Education, Department of Rehabilitation and Department of Developmental Services signed a memorandum of understanding with the intent to identify and implement improvements consistent with the State's Employment First Policy.

	And other federal and state laws describing employment in an integrated setting at competitive wage for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In February 2015 the three departments formed an interagency workgroup to being the development of a blueprint.

	The workgroup membership is comprised of subject matter experts on topics related to competitive integrated employment. The workgroup meets weekly and work products developed by the workgroup are shared with stakeholders for input and feedback throughout the blueprint development process.

	The blueprint is the plan for the departments to use to support the achievement of competitive integrated employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities over a five year period.

	The follow areas are being explored in the blueprint, development and administration of training for education, employment and day services providers, department staff, regional center staff, consumers, family members and others.

	Promotion and restructuring of state funding for integrated work sites. Preservation of consumer and family member opportunities to make informed and meaningful choices. Phasing out of payment of subminimum wages in state funded employment.

	Expansion of engagement with and outreach and training to private sector employers. Expansion of the capacity of and number of support employment providers. Development of meaningful outcome measures and improvement of the data collection and sharing among the three departments.

	Expansion of the availability of competitive integrated employment opportunities. Development of a common understanding of integrated and competitive employment.

	Improved interagency coordination including referral processes between agencies and the continuity of transition planning from school to work. Please note, no decisions have been made on any of these areas at this time.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you Denyse. I would like to now introduce our next interagency workgroup presenter, Jennifer Bianchi, the Education Program Consultant of the Special Education Division of the Department of Education. Jennifer.

Jennifer Bianchi:	Thank you Lana. Good morning. The workgroup has been meeting weekly to address topic areas outlines in the competitive integrated employment MOU.

	The four primary blueprint topic area are one, roles and coordination of state and local agencies for the achievement of competitive integrated employment. Two, funding and types of services and providers for the promotion

	And expansion of competitive integrated employment. Three, outcome measures for competitive integrated employment. Four, training and education for staff, regional centers and other partners, consumers and their families.

	Since February the workgroup has focused on developing draft content for the blueprint topic area number 1, roles and coordination. And 2, funding and types of services and providers. These work products will help form the building blocks for the blueprint.

	There are recent federal initiatives that cover all three department programs including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. They all emphasize competitive integrated employment. To date the workgroup has addressed three areas under Topic 1.

	The first area is the common definition for competitive integrated employment. The workgroup referenced a federal definition for competitive integrated employment as defined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

	And the 2011 Employment First Report to form an agreed upon definition. The three departments defined competitive integrated employment as full or part-time work at minimum wage or higher, wages and benefits similar to those earned by those without disabilities performing the same work.

	Work in a setting that is fully integrated. The individual's coworkers must be persons without disabilities. Work set as appropriate. Presents opportunities for advancement that are similar to those for other employees who are not individuals with disabilities and who have similar position.

	The second area is an informal dispute resolution process. This process was developed to ensure a timely resolution of any disputes that may occur between the departments during the blueprint development process. The third area addressed by the workgroup is planning services and coordination.

	This draft blueprint content outlines current collaboration between the California Department of Education, Department of Rehabilitation and Department of Developmental Services through various efforts at the state and local level.

	And proposed coordination strategies to provide opportunities to individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities to participate in or prepare for competitive integrated employment.

	Currently the workgroup is developing draft blueprint content for the promotion and expansion of competitive integrated employment through funding and types of services and providers.

	This includes exploring ways to promote and expand state funding for service programs using existing structures to enhance services and funding and expand the number.

	And availability of resources to individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities and their families as well as employers and providers.

	For today's call we would like to take this opportunities to reach out to our partners at the state and local level to receive input on the development of the blueprint content.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you Jennifer. At this time I'd now like to introduce our last workgroup presenter, Cheryl Adams. Cheryl is the Chief of the Cooperative Education Programs for the Department of Rehabilitation. Cheryl.

Cheryl Adams:	Thank you Lana. Good morning everybody. In the spirit of requesting input from the participants on the phone we have developed some questions to help us gather your feedback and ideas on how we can promote and expand competitive integrated employment for individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disability.

	I'm going to read the questions to you. The questions are, how can existing services such as day programs and work service programs be modified to become the stepping stones to competitive integrated employment opportunities for individuals with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities.

	Another question, what are some innovative strategies we could use to develop new or improved existing resources that support individuals in preparing for or engaging in competitive integrated employment.

	Another question, we've heard feedback from consumers and their families that there is a need for more job preparation services prior to engaging in employment. So given that need, what skills should the job preparation services focus on to better prepare consumer for employment.

	Also what are the barriers or concerns that consumers and family members about consumers entering competitive integrated employment and what suggested strategies do you have and how might these strategies be implemented statewide.

	So we want to know, where you believe the opportunities exist as we move to competitive integrated employment outcomes. If you do not share your thoughts during the call today, you still have an opportunity to do so by submitting questions or comments to californiacie@dor.ca.gov.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you Cheryl. These questions, if anyone needs to have us repeat those during the call, please feel free to do so. They were posted on the announcement for this teleconference.

	At this time I would now like to turn our call over to our Verizon coordinator who will assist with the comment period of the teleconference. Operator.

Coordinator:	Thank you. At this time if you'd like to ask a question please press star then 1. You'll be prompted to record you first and last name clearly to ask your question. To withdraw your question you may press star then 2.

	Once again to ask a question please press star then 1, record your first and last name clearly. One moment for your first question. Your first question comes from Sharon Jones. You may ask your question.

Karen Jones:	Good morning. It's actually Karen Jones from PBW. We currently run work programs and day programs and your first bullet of your first question is how can existing services such as day programs and work services programs be modified to become stepping stones.

	My question is, is there a sense out there that these programs are not already stepping stones to these services?

Denyse Curtright:	There's an indication in - this is Denyse from the Department of Developmental Services and currently what the data tell us is that students who are exiting school in particular.

	And adults who enter our day programs rarely transition from those programs to competitive integrated employment, even after years of services.

Lana Fraser:	So again this is going to be one of the many tasks that we want to look at and you've got thoughts that may assist us in this, this is not meant to be a criticism of existing programs.

	It's just looking at where we can move forward as we make this transition from a - for some people what would be group placement or segregated placements into a competitive integrated employment setting. We're fully cognizant of the fact that this can't happen overnight.

	This has to be a sequential movement for individuals who are participating in this type of activity. And we want to make sure we're providing the appropriate support.

Karen Jones:	Okay, I'm not looking at it so much as a criticism as I'm concerns that these service are set up at least in my organization and I know in many others to be a stepping stone for community integrated employment opportunities.

	And I want to make sure that we're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. And that we're going to continue to build on things that are already there. Because the sense that I have is this is not considered as a stepping stone. So I'm just trying to get clarification.

Lana Fraser:	If you are one of those programs that is doing this, we applaud that and we certainly like you to share with us your program and what you're doing.

Karen Jones:	And the other question that I have, I know that you mentioned earlier that, you know, one of the things that you guys will be looking at is funding. I just want to make sure that, that saying has a very high priority.

	Because right now programs that are doing what we're doing can't afford to move people into community integrated employment because of the current funding structure and the inflexibility of that structure.

	And so that's something that I would definitely want to give input on that has got to have some flexibility.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you. Next question.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes Richard Rosenberg. You may ask your question.

Richard Rosenberg:	Thank you very much. I would love to have you all on Skype so I could have seen the reaction when you heard that. I'm excited to be calling in. I am pleased with the energy from the three entities working together again in concert to help us improve the outcomes for young adults who leave our school districts.

	Who have, who are regional center in looking at integrated competitive employment. So I just love that. My question, two parts or expanding how do we assure relationships above and beyond the three entities that may include social security, adult school, ROP, community college, four year college is one chuck of questions.

	The other is the piece of employer engagement. We can all be doing a great job in the school districts, adult agencies like the previous speaker could be doing great jobs of supporting our young men and women as they navigate and go into the real world.

	We really need the employers to understand, to embrace and to grasp our students, our youth as we navigate to help them become gainfully employed. So one of the questions in the overall blueprint, and I haven't heard it yet, it may be there how and what are our plans as a state to truly engage the employers?

Lana Fraser:	Oh Richard. This is Lana Fraser. You're asking a question near and dear to my heart. WIOA I think is going to offer us a unique opportunity. We are now in engagement with the workforce investment board as we develop the new combined state plan under WIOA.

	And that's going to be one avenue that's going to give us an opportunity to really have - be at the table with business and employer and the workforce development programs throughout the state.

	That particular entity also includes outreach to the community colleges, to adult education, to what may have yet - apprenticeship programs as well as other programs that we may be able to take advantage of.

	But most importantly I think on a regional basis, because they are doing a lot of regional workforce development. It's an opportunity for us to have engagement with business. So this is something we plan to build into the blueprint.

Richard Rosenberg:	Thank you Lana. I have one more comment and it is only - am I allowed to you guys?

Lana Fraser:	Yes, Joe Xavier, our director wanted to chime in on this as well.

Joe Xavier:	Thank you for your very thoughtful questions here. One of the things I would like to ask, not just you but everybody else who's listening in as we - you know, you bring out that point that Lana just spoke to.

	Do you as members of the community, as our partners out there collectively involved through your department, if you have suggestions or thoughts around how we can approach that employment engagement.

	Whether it's, you know, either today or later through the other vehicles that are in future forums, we certainly want to hear that. So please don't hesitate to share those as well.

Richard Rosenberg:	Thank you Joe, and I think some of us who have done projects with industry and other and workability, with Jennifer and State Department of Education we have a large database of employers that are currently working with us.

	I don't think we have crystalized it for those who are supporting individuals with IDDD. So I think we have some vehicles that we can use but I just know if it's going to be successful that, that's going to be a real key. So I appreciate that. Thank you. I have one more comment.

	I know that surprises all of you. Can I go for it Lana?

Lana Fraser:	Yes, go ahead sure - go ahead Richard.

Richard Rosenberg:	Thank you. Only as Uncle Richard, not as a Whittier Union, not as a TPP, just as an uncle to an individual who has Down Syndrome and Autism, I am personally and professional very nervous and upset that we have totally said, subminimum wage permits are the worst thing in the world.

	For an individual like my nephew who could be working and participating may be producing at 50% and having a meaningful job is my understanding totally not in the options and I know good job developers will say, we haven't found the right job match for him.

	We haven't done the right assisted technology. He really could be competitively employed. I embrace that and I believe that, but right now we don't have that so I just am sharing only as an uncle a personal and professional.

	Excuse me, a personal frustration that we really don't even have that as an option.

Lana Fraser:	Jennifer, do you want to chime in on it?

Jennifer:	Okay. One of the things - Richard, I appreciate what you're saying and we're really - we've heard this from other parents as well and I think one of the things that we want to be sensitive to is that as we move forward that we don't completely take away something unless we have something to replace it with.

	And I know there is the requirement to phase out the subminimum wage and I know what has - what we've done in terms of work experience at the school. But stay with us. We hear your concern.

Richard Rosenberg:	Thank you very much. And thank you for being a team of three of you working together. Greatly appreciated.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you Richard. Next question.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Shawnee Mcclellan. You may ask your question.

Shawnee Mcclellan:	Hi, first of all I'd like to applaud Richard on his comment. I totally agree. I do have an aunt with intellectual disabilities who actually works for a job site in the program that I work for and she's never worked before in her life and she absolutely loves it.

	I can't imagine that going away because someone things that subminimum wage isn't good. I also want to kind of piggyback on the first caller's comment. We also have day programs and work service programs and we have individuals who have worked their way through.

	We have supported employment and we also have individual placement where everyone works their through. We are a transition program. So because we are that I don't want to see that taken away.

	I feel like if it's not broke why fix it. And so my question being is, is there going to be incentives for the businesses in the area? We live in a rural area with most of our employers and business, they are small family owned. So will there be an incentive for those people to hire our disabled adults?

Lana Fraser:	Okay, first - this is Lana Fraser. First of all there has certainly has not been any intent amongst those of us talking about for those programs that are working well and doing exactly what your program does. Those are the things that we're looking to see happen.

	With regards to specifics, it was employer incentives, I can say that we have gotten that far yet, because that is the fee - the funding structure, finding if there is put today there is no additional funding. There are no new dollars. So we have to see what we can do with what we have currently budgeted.

	But your comments with regards to incentives for employers is one we will put into our bucket of suggestions. Thank you.

Shawnee Mcclellan:	Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Next speaker.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Deborah Jacobs-Levin. You may ask your question.

Deborah Jacobs-Levin:	Hi. I also come from a school district in Northern California and I want to echo all the things that have been said by the speakers ahead of me in regards to seeing this collaboration go forward. It's very exciting.

	My concern is about the graduation requirements for students that are exiting high school if they have disabilities, if they have IEPs. And that is right now they're all required to pass the common core state standards.

	And pursue A through G requirements so that they get their diplomas and their diplomas take them into meaningful outcomes afterwards. How about for this population who is now being fully included in classes that may or may not contribute to this goal.

	I mean certainly socialization is a wonderful thing that does contribute to this goal but for young folks to sit in classes where they're not comprehending the material.

	And where they could more productively be practicing their job skills and getting ready for the transition rather than sitting in classes that don't have meaningful content for them.

	So I'd like to see something very specific in clear in the high school graduation requirements for separate populations of people to have a meaningful program. Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Those are good comments and this is Lana again. And I will tell you this has been a very specific conversation that we have had amongst - within the interagency workgroup around those that are exiting high school that may exist without a diploma.

	And legally what can -- or can't be done, but please know that it is something that's on our agenda. The other part of this is that for that 18 to 21 year old age group, what kind of meaningful.

	And I hear what you're saying - meaningful activities that could lead to competitive integrated employment rather than necessarily going into a day program. This will be something that we're working with.

	And Fred Balcom, our Director for Special Education is going to share some comments as well. Fred.

Fred Balcom:	Thank you Lana. One of the things we're considering is for students who are on a certificate path rather than a diploma path is that the certificate, as opposed to just saying you received a certificate.

	Actually outlines the skills and abilities that the students have mastered leading towards their departure from high school. It is in the infancy of development but it is an area that we're interested in looking at.

	So that a student walks out with something that an employer could look at or a job developer or a counselor to support employment beyond high school and know what skills have been developed, what still needs to be developed and determine an appropriate placement based on that information.

Lana Fraser:	That's great. Thank you again for your comments. Next speaker.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Mr. Paul Harvey. You may ask your question.

Paul Harvey:	Yes, thank you and appreciate all you all's hard work. I am a retired corporate manager that utilized the skills of this population in several excellent jobs, helped start an advisory committee made up of corporate representatives from Toyota, Honda, Mattel Toys and Nissan North America and Bagel Shop.

	I also was one of two business participants in President Clinton's summit in the 1998, I believe on this very subject of shutting down work shelters and minimum wage. So it's been going on for years. My biggest concern is I was two of 100 people that were business people.

	Do you have business people on your advisory committee because from my perspective you're out of touch with today's business employment issues?

Lana Fraser:	Mr. Harvey, thank you for your comment. And we will be linking with the business community and we are doing that through our communication with not only within our own department.

	And as one of the earlier speaker mentioned the work that we've done with our workability programs of business is going to be a key partner in this. And I hear exactly what you're saying. Your comments are right on. If we're not there with business then we're going to be missing the boat.

	And again I thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

Paul Harvey:	Well I think it's important that it be engaged in the development of the plan because if not engaged you're going to have unrealistic expectations. The other comment I have for the school district is in our area.

	And one of the largest employers is the school district and yet I can't find any ability to provide employment for our population. So are they doing anything to change their employment - they're criteria?

Lana Fraser:	I'm sorry, I could not hear what school district you mentioned.

Paul Harvey:	I'm sorry?

Lana Fraser:	I'm sorry, I could not hear which school district were you referring to.

Paul Harvey:	Well the school district that's here is Irvine Unified School District but I believe it exists in many of them, so.

Lana Fraser:	I'm sorry, what we will do is I will look at the transcripts of today's call and we'll get back to you. Thank you.

Paul Harvey:	I think you'll find almost no employment of our population in school districts even though cafeterias and gardeners and so for.

Lana Fraser:	Oh great. I appreciate that.

Paul Harvey:	The other - the final question about doing away subminimum wage groups, they come with a job coach. So how are you going to make up for the job coach?

Lana Fraser:	Job coaching will continue. The job coaching and the desire to move away from subminimum wage placement are two separate issues. Job coaching will still continue for those that are in need of it. Again I need to move to my next speaker. Thank you again for your comments. Operator.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Ray Smith. You may ask your question.

Ray Smith:	Yes, really - my name's Ray Smith with Health Services. We provide services to about 3500 with developmental disabilities. I wanted to just comment on Richard, his comment on subminimum wage.

	We have about 500 clients earning subminimum wage and I've had the opportunity to be involved with meetings with them and their parents and family members.

	And what we've learned is a lot of them have tried work in competitive integrated work environments and have been fired numerous times and the subminimum work activity program has been a fallback position for these folks.

	So we are working on transitioning out of those work programs because of regulations that are coming down outside of this group. It's unfortunate but a lot of these folks are going to be unemployed as a result.

	But want to just make the point here that I applaud the effort to have competitive integrated work so what's the fallback when it fails. And work activity programs and subminimum wage have been a really wonderful fallback to improve the quality of life for these folks.

	So I would like the committee to give careful thought to that. It's a very important component is what do we do when it fails. And that's where most of these people - that's what you say they haven't worked out of these programs? That was a comment made earlier.

	Well, because they've been in and out. They've been - what you don't see is the fact that they've been in competitive work environments and have been fired in many cases. So we have to take that in consideration. But I wanted to ask a question regarding the community integrated work effort.

	I applaud the effort for young adults. We're seeing a huge demand for this. And we just stared up a pilot program with Project Search. It costs us $50,000 to provide six months of service for nine clients. Fortunately some - a parent was willing to write the check for that.

	What we're finding with employers is that, you know, it takes six months to get people up to speed for their work and training. Employers don't want to pay for that inefficient time period. Somebody's got to fund it.

	And then the need for the coaches to help guarantee that they're going to have the right coaching to not get fired. So what I - my question to you is what are we going to do to bridge that funding gap? Because we've got plenty of jobs that we can put people into. There's just not adequate money.

	We have close to 300 people in competitive work environments with job coaches and every one of them lose money. So we put a hold on it. If there's adequate funding we could expand it.

	But there's no money to subsidize that loss for those job coaches and that's - you're getting some money but not adequate funding for the job coaches. People aren't going to be able to expand job programs when there's not adequate funding for it.

	So I want ask you what your thoughts are on adequately funding the job coaching requirement for these young adults.

Lana Fraser:	I think your question is thoughtful one. It is one certainly that the workgroup as part of our charge it probably - we won't have all the answers in the blueprint but the blueprint activities will extend out beyond the writing of the blueprint for an additional five years.

	It's going to take us some time to look and to see what we can do in terms of funding, additional funding or restructuring. Because today, as I mentioned before unfortunately we don't have new dollars today.

	But I wanted to go back to your earlier comment, too, about what those individuals who have not been successful in a competitive employment setting as opposed to - and then the fallback being whether it be group placement or a work activity program or subminimum wage.

	We're very, very cognizant of not taking something away without having something to replace it with. And we hear what you're saying and we've heard the same from a large number of parents as well.

	I think it's - our responsibility to look carefully at what would - what could replace something that looks like a work activity program. We're not there yet. Your thoughts certainly would be appreciated but I hear you concerns about the funding. Thank you again for your comments.

	Next speaker operator.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Amy Westling. You may ask your question.

Amy Westling:	Yes, hello. My name is Amy Westling. I'm calling from the Association of Regional Center Agencies. And I have just a couple of comments. One piggybacks on the previous caller in relation to the rates.

	And one of the concerns that we have is that because of the stagnation of a lot of the rates in employment services that some really dedicated providers are limiting the number of people they serve or aren't able to do as many creative things like customized employment and microenterprises we would like to see.

	The second thing is we would like to see more emphasis on people being trained up for skills for career paths rather than just to get them that entry level job. And the third thing was really a question.

	Will the blueprint address anything about how to make the state of California a model employer for individuals with developmental disabilities?

Lana Fraser:	Your final question - the other two are good comments are for us and they certainly are things that we are planning to look into . But how to make California a model employer for all individuals with disabilities but specifically for people with ID/DD.

	We're hoping that in large part what the blueprint will do. But it will also have to - we'll look closely with the state employment opportunity and that's another thing that's certainly been one of the discussion points within the workgroup.

	But thank you for bringing it up again because I do think it's something we need to make sure we keep high on our list. Next speaker please.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Denise Lambert. You may ask your comment.

Denise Lambert:	Hi, thank you for taking my call. This is Denise Lambert and I'm listening to the call because I'm trying to understand more of the structures of how the state is work but I also think locally about how are districts can change the opportunities for our students.

	So I - one of the things that I think could happen in the workability process is to actually create workability models that include all students. Because all students are not getting training for career pathways which might also increase the opportunity for more funding.

	So you already have integrated training for our students. The other thing that I look at is to be more visible. More media about, just, you know, students with disabilities, adults with disabilities being able to - highlighting their abilities.

	Also creating, celebrating the employers that do hire people that have disabilities. Also making a coalition of employers for supporting individuals with special needs.

	I don't know if any of things are out there but in that format those employers in that coalition could receive the education, work collaboratively with you. There might also be some employers that are creating new jobs and there might be some incentive, you know, businesses.

	I don't know where funding can come from, if there's restrictions on where funding can come from but looking at alternative sources of funding, grants, even kick starter or something for, like something like the coalition of employers that would be supporting the individuals.

	I'm just thinking, this is not a - this is something that would take a long time but I think that the public needs to be educated on the abilities of our families, our people that have - who have special needs. So I think it needs to be more visible. Because you don't see it any place.

	We're trying to find these employers but I think there's - I think there's got to people out there that don't even know that, oh wait a second, I haven't thought about employing somebody with special needs. So I think it needs to be more visible and I think everybody's doing an extremely great job.

	And I just want to say my son interviewed for his first job and got his first job and he's worked it two days and, yes, it's minimum wage but it's a start. So, you know, I'm excited that in like the Mount Diablo School District area that they're getting great training and things are happening.

	But I just think it needs to be more visible. Maybe celebrity endorsements. I don't know but it needs to be - people need to see it. The general public needs to see it. Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you. And congratulations to your son. Certainly I think what you're talking about, marketing and our visibility is something that we certainly will need to look into but thank you for your comments. Our next speaker please.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Aaron Carruthers. You may ask your question.

Aaron Carruthers:	Hello, everyone. This is Aaron Carruthers, the Acting Executive Director of the State Council on the Developmental Disabilities. First the State Council wants to thank and applaud DDS, CDE and DOR for your leadership on this issue.

	And more importantly to the partnership with the Council on Employment First as everybody knows the Employment First is a critical issue for the Council members.

	We have an Employment First Committee and really the question that I have when I first buzzed in saying I like to ask one was asked by Richard. So thank you, Richard for covering that and that was really about employer engagement on this issue. And to what extent is the employer community being sought to provide feedback.

	So thank you for the answer on that. I did want to offer resources to let you know that with our Employment First Committee we are currently recruiting a leader within a national organization whose role it is, is to train and educate store managers about hiring individuals with disabilities.

	So that will be employer expertise that this counsel will have on their Employer First Committee. And we're happy to bring it to the conversation as we all collectively develop the blueprint.

	So really small question then I guess is that, thank you for providing the link to give written feedback to the question that were provided in the announcement. When is that feedback due?

Lana Fraser:	That's - thank you. And, you know, I'm really quite interested in the training that you're looking at putting together and we'll certainly be interested in hearing how that comes together. Please stay in touch with us. Again thank you. Next speaker?

Man:	Feedback.

Lana Fraser:	Feedback?

Man:	When's it due?

Lana Fraser:	Oh, the feedback. You're welcome to send feedback to CaliforniaCIE@dor.ca.gov at any time. But after this call if you have feedback specific to those questions. Thank you. Operator, next speaker.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Steven Kapp. You may ask your question.

Steven Kapp:	Hello, yes, my name is Steven Kapp. And I'm the California State Council on Development Disabilities liaison to CEC the California Employment Consortium for youth and young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

	So a lot of words but thank you to Mr. Carruthers and others for their comments. So I've - in terms of existing services the question at hand about how to change them or leverage up with currently available that's working well, well some of what I've learned at CEC, especially there's the tailored day service model.

	That I know is at least in San Diego where the region centers work with others to provide I think it's up to 15 hours or so of integrated competitive employment, or competitive integrated employment.

	And that - the time and the day services is focused on learning the skills to perform the work and jobs and because a lot of times families are concerned that the work isn't 40 hours. What will they do in that other time?

	So, there's a coordination that's all with the focus on Employment First. Possibly higher education, et cetera as part of the process. And I know another current effort underway is that the Golden Gate Regional Center, the Orange County Regional Centers have an Employment First policy.

	And they're working with providers to transform their work to be compatible with Employment First because some providers have had some minimum wage or sheltered workshops.

	And instead of trying to banish those specific providers, it's working with them to help align them with this ongoing shift because they have Employment First policy follow the passage of Employment First Policy in the state.

	And other regional centers are beginning to add Employment First Policies, too. So that's a good movement. And there are ways of tracking accountability and to make sure that they're actually progressing towards, you know, that service transformation.

	There's also different higher education models. There's college to career programs, which are unique to California. They coordinate between the regional centers, the community colleges and what's the other - I think it's also DOR, the Department of Rehabilitation.

	And there are, I believe five of them around the state and I believe there's some outcome showing that a lot of people are after they graduate are getting good work.

	And there's also TIPSAID, I forget what that stands for but they're part of a national - there's a higher education opportunity act revision of 2008 that provides kind of, some people call it a back door to higher education for people with intellectual disabilities.

	And there - so there are programs popping up around the country. California there's the Pathway Program at UCLA for example and others and there's also Long Bend the Transition to Independent Living program at Tap College which is kind of a precursor to some of this.

	And so they have some good outcomes and they're showing that students with intellectual disabilities can, with support, with job coaches, et cetera - I'm with academic coaches, with - they can live off campus in apartments, et cetera and learn independent living skills.

	And with help, you know, with current students help them navigate around the campus. And with those supports so they can pass academic core classes at universities. So and which kind of challenges the notions of intellectual disability.

	It's not necessarily can't do the intellectual activities, but maybe you need the support in order to succeed at them. And so and another is that some schools currently have some self-advocacy programs that are useful.

	There's something called, Whose Future Is It Anyway, as one example which helps students with disabilities be more active in their IEPs, take more control over their transition planning, et cetera.

	And then in general I think we need to of course start early and raise expectations for students and families towards Employment First. And as far as again, education.

	There are some schools where that have innovative models of inclusion and I don't think there's enough research on this but I think there's the notion of differentiated instruction within universal design that instead of just teaching at the same - for the same intellectual level for the class.

	And just talking to the whole class at once that you modify the content for different students within the classroom and that you have - maybe you have students divided into different groups and, you know, you modify the curriculum.

	And the assignments on the same general topic and you - the teacher goes around to different students in different groups, instead of just talking to the whole class allows more checking in, too.

	There are different ways to implement inclusion and but it's not just dumping a student with an intellectual disability or whatever into the class. But it's, you know, actually again transforming the way education and the services and the systems are done.

	I think at Cal State San Marcos, Jackie Thousand and Richard Villa are example of people who are studying and working with schools on, you know, different - this kind of work of differentiated instruction. So I think there are other examples, or examples in other states, too.

	And I can also talk about why the difference between system transformation and some of the problems with the status quo because it sounded like sometimes people thought different things currently don't need to be changed or that certain options might remain - should remain available.

	But if the system is changed properly, you know, it's not just capacity building, it's also systems change so that other options will be available and California won't have the lowest labor force participation rate for people with disabilities in the country as some statistics suggest it does.

	I could go into more details if I have time but for at least right now those are some comments.

Lana Fraser:	Steven thank you. Thank you for your comments. I'll tell you this that many of the programs and projects that you noted are ones that the workgroup is closely looking at so thank you for sharing those with everyone on the call. And the - there actually are eight 22C programs throughout the state.

	They are funded by the Department of Rehabilitation and we're really looking closely at that model. It is a model based on the community colleges. So I think with that we will move to our next speaker. And again, thank you Steve.

Coordinator:	Your next question or comment comes from Dwight Hanson. You may ask your question.

Dwight Hanson:	Good morning. This is Dwight Hanson. I'm a lobbyist in Sacramento and I've worked with many of you and thank you for this call. I'd like to start just quickly by aligning my comments with that of several others that.

	So much conversation about the 14c and subminimum wage has dominated this conversation. And we have 80% unemployment in this community. And I don't see how eliminating employment, whether it's minimum wage or subminimum wage from anybody will achieve a single new job for folks.

	And so I'd rather see us focus a lot more attention on getting jobs for those folks that aren't working then the attention that's now been spent on eliminating the 14c certificate, which will do nothing but throw a lot of folks out of work. My second comment deals with the funding issue.

	The first and deepest cut to any program in this state, which happened in 2008 before any of the cuts to the DD system, happened to supported employment. A ten percent reduction.

	And it's the one reduction that has not in fact been reversed and it's hard to imagine why we're talking about a commitment to employment outcomes when we are not willing to fund even at 2006 levels the programs that have in fact the greatest opportunity to find jobs for people.

	And then I'll finish with this, I'm not yet recovered from yesterday's May revision. And I know I'm talking to officials who answer to the Governor. But my colleagues and I are outraged, absolutely outraged that the developmental disability field was entirely, entirely, entirely snubbed yesterday.

	I think that right now the idea that we are not going to fund these programs and we're going to put people of disabilities at risk is absolutely appalling. But to have a call now about employment outcomes.

	And all that, as good as the conversation may be without a commitment of resources from the administration is absolutely a waste of time. So I'm going to urge you all to incorporate within the blueprint an absolutely commitment to the type of funding it's going to take to make these programs work.

	The nonprofits that have been doing this for a long time are simply at the brink and cannot continue. So thank you much for listening to my comments.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you Dwight. Operator, our next speaker.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from (Pat Forgee). You may ask your question.

Pat Forgee:	Just briefly I just wanted to comment that there may be some resources and it sounds like you may have already checked this out in the 8086 Plans that were developed and submitted to the state from the 70 Consortia of community colleges and school districts across the state.

	Adults with disabilities is one of the populations called out in the 8086 language. And in the four consortia that I've been working with on behalf of tri-county digital center, I'm the central coach.

	All of them have adopted the message from Adults with Disabilities workgroups of creating accommodated vocational certificates on the noncredit side with a very strong input from regional employers using advisory groups to pilot programs.

	As the previous speaker just spoke, you know, we don't know what the funding will be. Certainly this bill was funded quite well for the planning stages.

	So at least there is some opportunity in the community college and also in the adult schools depending on how much funding is applied to these programs for vocational training certificates for people with intellectual disabilities.

	And other developmental disabilities as well as acquired disability to select a program that would be accommodated. The rest of the models that have been included in these regional plans also include request for transitional liaison position.

	As one of the other speakers noted, you know, without opportunity individuals don't really know what their plans might be so early in high school and also liaison to adult school or community college, having that support, as well as navigators and counselors on campuses and professional development for staff.

	So thank you very much for the opportunity to let you know about the possibility of 8086. If you want to go to that Website the tab for Consortia includes all the original plans. Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you very much.

Denyse Curtright:	Thank you (Pat). This is Denyse from the Department Developmental Services. We've been working closely with the Consortia here in the Sacramento area and tracking what's been happening with the 8086 programs. And the Consortiums are now beginning to develop their expansion plans.

	They've been funded for maintenance of effort and they have about $175 million statewide between them, there's about 70 Coalitions around the state and now they're beginning to develop their plans.

	So you're absolutely right, now is the time to come to the table as one of the partner organizations and make sure that folks with intellectual developmental disabilities are include in the plans and they develop them.

Pat Forgee:	Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Operator, next speaker please.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Carole Watilo. You may ask your question.

Carole Watilo:	Hi, this is Carole Watilo and I'm with an agency called Progressive Employment. One comment that I find in working with people directly and support folks in the community colleges, supporting folks in finding employment.

	Supporting folks in volunteering in microenterprise, working with both the Regional Center and the Department of Rehab, that it feels like there's good movement and I know everything takes time, but I'm getting older.

	To get things to the local offices, to the people who are actually making the decisions about a particular client and what support or funding they get, job coaching hours, et cetera, what type of initial support that somebody would get in the job development process.

	So just, I guess some specific attention paid to how to actually implement that and get the mindsets to change and the philosophy to change at the grassroots, at the bottom level where we're all doing the work.

	So some of your questions, how can existing services and programs change and be modified, I think one - the biggest thing is training. That people are going to be scared to change but we've - change is coming, CMS, change is coming. So we have to do it. Programs have to change.

	How to do it is crucial. Helping people to change their mindset and their philosophy that everybody can work, so how are we going to do it now. What are the supports and services that are needed so that people don't fall back to needing to go to a workshop.

	And we hear that, you know, well people have tried supportive employment but it didn't work. Well, that just tells me that that the supports and services weren't sufficient for it to work, not that the person can't do it.

	So we've got to change the locus of where the problem is to what we need to be doing to support it. Funding is a huge issue. Funding - and funding up front from customized discovery as an assessment.

	So that we can really match people to positions that work for them and not just try to get them in a door anywhere and then it doesn't work and we wonder why. So data driven best practice, we've got it. We've got that information in the universities, you know, all over the place.

	So we need to use that data and we need to use those - that best practice information to drive where we put our funds as well. So rather than watering down and giving everybody a little bit, we need to start looking at what is really working and fund that, not fund everything just because.

	So that's one comment. What are some innovative strategies? Again, DoR, at DoR level you have any employment prep time, employment prep time for people not habilitation side, not DDS folks.

	That would be a perfect tool to use currently to do some discovery type work with folks as an assessment to then getting people into customize situations. The internship bill in the state of California right now that would allow people to do internships with the state rather than the leap testing, I think that's a phenomenal idea.

	We had four people do internships through the community colleges, work experience classes with private business. This semester alone, all four were hired. So internships work. And then employer outreach in both the public and private sector.

	If the public - if all of our counties and cities and state government are doing it, private entities will follow as well. So we've got to be focusing on both. And that - those are my comments.

Lana Fraser:	Carole, thank you. Those are really thoughtful comments and we will certainly share those back with the full workgroup. We're running out of time here and I want to try to get to a few more speakers. Operator, our next speaker please.

Coordinator:	Your next speaker is Peggy Black. You may ask your question or make your comment.

Peggy Black:	All right. Thank you. My name is Peggy Black. I'm with the West Contra Costa Unified School District. I work in a young adult transition program. I'm also with the DD Council for Contra Costa County. We have students in our transition program who may not be clients of the regional center.

	They have significant learning disabilities and have received a certificate of completion from high school. They are in our program. And so far a lot of questions have been about how can we help consumers get a job.

	What I - my question is in particular for the DoR because these students will definitely be going to the DoR, what kind of increased emphasis and support is there going to be from Department of Rehabilitation for retention of work?

Lana Fraser:	Okay, I'm going to let Deputy Director Jeff Riel respond to it.

Jeff Riel:	Well it's interesting, the Workforce Investment Act going forward for the Department of Rehabilitation actually changes our outcome measures to address retention. Our outcome measures now are going to be retention after one year and after six months after the exit from our program.

	So we are now looking at the WIA as well as our services to see how can we ensure retention after our case is closed with the consumer. This could take - this could be outreaching the consumer after closure to sustain communication and make sure that they have no additional needs.

	Post-employment services could be made available to the consumer to secure their job. If they are at risk of losing their job we're bringing them back into the system if there is any risk of them losing their job or needing to advance in their job.

	So we are looking at how can we do a better job of keeping our consumers employed after we close the case.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you Jeff. Operator our next speaker.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Cathy Bouchard. You may ask your question.

Cathy Bouchard:	Yes, hi. I work for an organization called Hope Services and have worked with adults for many, many years. And I applaud this simply because these three departments have traditionally worked separately for the same outcomes.

	So now that you'll be working together I really think this is going to be great. But one of the things I wanted to see addressed is the whole transition process from school age to adult providers. Usually that hasn't been handled as well as I think it could be and I just wanted you to look at some of the models that had been previously tried out.

	There was one a few years back that Dr. Nick Certo, the Chair of Special Ed, at San Francisco State University developed where adult providers partnered with school districts. And we actually served the transition aged student.

	And we had access to all of your specialized services, like speech therapist, mobility trainers, all of that behavior specialists and it made the transition from school to adult world so much easier. So I just want to hope that this might be addressed in this whole blueprint. Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Yes, you know, providing sequential services to ensure that a student makes a successful transition from education to post-secondary educational lives is high on our radar, too. So thank you. And thank you for the suggestion. Next speaker please.

Coordinator:	Your next question comes from Sandra Aldana. You may ask your question. Sandra Aldana.

Sandra Aldana:	Hello, this is Sandra, Aldana. I'm also with State Council on Developmental Disabilities. I wanted to first of all thank you for having these community meetings.

	So that you can get feedback from those of us that are actually out there doing the day to day work with our group of folks who so desperately need assistance and facility for greater opportunities at all levels, not just at the ground level but, you know, starting from a top down structure as well.

	So I wanted to really commend you for doing this. I have a quick question about where we are at in terms of putting models together for implementation. Have we started to look at for example through the schools, scaffolding intervention and training programs.

	Are we looking at the DoR, at looking at different types of employers that could employ people with varying ability levels. I know there tends to be some difficulty for very high functioning individuals to find something that's sustainable.

	I know we've paid a lot of attention to individuals that are at the subminimum wage level but what have we done at this point in terms of looking at creating a breadth and depth of programmatic availability for those individuals.

	I know these are really good tough questions and we might not be there yet, but where are we in terms of heading towards those kinds of outcomes?

Lana Fraser:	Those are good suggestions and we are certainly looking into those areas and if you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we might best reach that, please feel free to send us any thoughts you might have to our inbox. We'd appreciate that. And this goes for everybody on the call.

	Any thoughts you might have please feel free to share with them how we can make this the best possible project for California. I think we'll be able to get about two more speakers in. Next operator.

Coordinator:	You next question comes from Donna Feingold. You may ask your question.

Donna Feingold:	Hi, my name is Donna Feingold and I want to thank you all for giving us the chance to give input. I was fortunate enough to move to California in 1987 when supportive employment was just starting and it was, you know, there was so much passion and excitement during that time.

	And I've been involved in working with people of disabilities employment for so long and I haven't done employment as much for the past ten years, but I'm starting to do it again and I find myself at a lot meetings these days, looking back at the times of 1980s and 1990s as the good old days.

	And they probably didn't feel like the good old days at the time but looking back I felt like we were on the right track. And I'm not sure what went wrong. Actually I am pretty sure what went wrong.

	I mean people keep on talking about the rates, but truly the rates have inhibited so much creativity and so much for what we all want and without a rate increase there, you know, I work in Contra Costa County now and there's basically no agency that is providing individual placement.

	My agency is trying and there's a little bit going on but agencies who have been doing it historically just can't afford to do it anymore. So I just quick comments, no one's mentioned, I think it was SB577, which was passed last year.

	That was a way to allow organizations to provide more services in terms of career exploration and helping folks find the right career path. And there's supposed to be five pilot programs.

	I haven't heard much about what's going on there. I know we have - there was a law that passed a number of years ago that really prohibited pretty much regional center to working with the 18 to 22 year olds. Back in the day, agencies were very involved.

	Non-profits and Department of Rehab and school districts and region center, we worked pretty well making transitions. You know, adult providers were able to go in and help the students before they left.

	Some of them had jobs and we were able to keep those jobs and now that, that lack of, that transition is really, it's just not as smooth at it used to be. A few people have really talked about employer engagement. I think we have to look at tax credits and incentives to get employers involved.

	We do it for other groups. You know, there's been, you know, we have to look at the success of things like the Wounded Warrior Project and how can we use some of their marketing tactics to try to engage employers.

	Once again back when supportive employment started there were very strong mayor committees on - for people with disabilities all the way up to the Governor's Committee and Presidents Committee, and a lot of them were employers on these committees.

	They were very engaged and it's sad that those went away. There are some services that Department of Rehab currently offers, or is able to offer, which is a work adjustment program. Years ago we used to be able to get six months of work adjustment for some of the consumers we worked with.

	You know, project search is kind of based on that model. That would really open up the ability to do internships. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the subminimum wage but not that much on the question about integration.

	I certainly think everyone should strive for the best possible job in the most integrated setting. But over the years I've seen wonderful group sites that maybe, that were minimum wage or more, a lot of federal contracts set asides that maybe might not meet that full integration question.

	But were amazing jobs, at good benefits and I'd really hate to see some of those go away. So I'm talking fast because I know we're out of time and I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity to give some input. Thank you.

Lana Fraser:	Donna, thank you for your comments. I, too, am a fellow early supportive employment worker, too. So I appreciate your historical perspective on it as well as your thoughts on some of these other projects. Okay, our next and last speaker please.

Coordinator:	Jim Baldwin, you may ask your questions.

Jim Baldwin:	Hi, this is Jim Baldwin. Interesting conversation today. I'm in Bakersfield. We work very closely with the current high school district and the Bakersfield Adult School. We have about a dozen teachers and aids on our campus every day that work alongside with our clients.

	We've been around for 65 years. There's not many organizations dealing with this community that have been around that long in California and our mission is to encourage our clients to attain their highest level possible.

	So all of our activities, whether they are the care side or the work side have been to help people transition into competitive employment forever. We've always done that.

	That said, we've had able classrooms that were on our campus and while the school district was building facilities for these classrooms and they always wanted us to provide them with work training and we've even approached DoR, and the DoR would say, no, it's against our regulations.

	We are, and I bet there's a lot of other organizations across the state that are poised to provide the number one training that is needed for these students according to the folks that spoke at the ARC California and UCP Policy Conference, which Stani was there.

	And they commented on the soft skills are the number one problem in the workplace today for these intellectually development disability community as well as having any kind of work experience.

	Knowing how to be an employee, how to get to work on time, how to dress appropriately, how to enter into conversations without interrupting, all these life skills that we teach here on our campus every single day to our consumer s that come here.

	So as we transition into this new whatever it's going to be in California, take a look at programs like BARC, Bakersfield ARC. And, you know, figure out how we can be used to provide that actual practical training for students who need to become, or will become adults and then need to have a job.

	A lot of the people that I have heard speak today, have spoken from an intellectual position. They have not spoken from a practical position, which is what I think the gentleman that called in as a business man early on, was trying to get across.

	That, you know, we can talk about all the good things that we want to come up with in our idealism but making it actually work can be a catastrophe and the best example we have of that is here on the West Coast. What Washington did was a catastrophe.

	And hope to God in California, we don't duplicate that. We need to do what we need to - whatever we can to help people find real employment, not pander to them because they are disabled. Getting somebody a job for two hours a week for a month is not employment.

	You can call it whatever you want to but that's not employment. The gentleman that spoke earlier, or maybe it was a lady who spoke earlier that talked about the fallback position of programming that we have now, is very important.

	The - figure out how we can maintain that without losing because I can tell you that in a practical position that we have many clients who after going out, getting the job, competitive employment job would come in.

	And - come into my office and say, Jim if you send me back out there I'm going to go home and sit on the couch, because I don't like it. They don't like me. And I will not do this again. So we need to have a safety net for the folks.

	If in fact all of us are here with the benefit of people in our state that have intellectual developmental disabilities and their families, and I believe that we are, we need to make sure that whatever we're doing does not do any harm. So no harm.

	Leaving nobody behind is what we are about here at Bakersfield ARC and I'm sure that, that's going to be primary in your blueprint as well. The other thing is, is that consumer choice has never been talked about.

	We've been here for an hour and a half today and not one consumer choice question, comment or statement has been made from our speakers. And if this is about the clients that we serve, and their families across the state then having their choices heard has to be a part of the blueprint formula.

	So that's my point. Thank you for letting me speak. Have a good day.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you for your comments and we certainly agree with you, consumer choice is an important factor that is going to (unintelligible) program. Again thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, we're running out of time this morning and I need to bring this call to a close.

	We will continue to reach out to engage and collaborate with you as we continue to develop the blueprint. We will be holding additional teleconferences later in June all to gather additional input on the draft blueprint.

	An announcement will be sent out to list two prior to the date of the call. Ongoing opportunities for stakeholder involvement will also be provided beyond the development of the blueprint and into the (unintelligible) phase of this project.

	Together we can impact (unintelligible) creative, innovative and cost effective way to maximize opportunities for individuals with both intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities to achieve competitive integrated employment.

	The Department of Education, the Department of Rehabilitation and the Department of Developmental Services greatly appreciate your participation in today's forum. At this time we would like to take some final closing comments from our Director, Joe Xavier.

Joe Xavier:	Thank you Lana. There's (unintelligible) obviously don't have access this. I just want to share with you that there's over 210 minds on this call. And we certainly know that there's multiple people from each of those calling in points. We know you still have comments.

	We know you still have information that you're going to share with us so I again want to emphasize what Lana has already shared with you, please submit that information, please submit your comments to us in the mail, email box that is provided and again we'll hold future forums.

	Thank you for making the opportunity for us to engage with you but more importantly for you to be here and to share with us it's time away from the work that you're doing every single day. But your input is very, very important to us. It's very informative

	And we need to have this input to move forward in a joined, collaborative way to get this to the outcomes that we're all looking for. I want to acknowledge the team and our partners.

	Our subject matter experts that are working on this day in and day out for the hard work that they're doing in developing the content as well as bringing together these forums and provide the opportunity for your engagement. It's very important that you continue to inform us.

	It's very important that you continue to bring your voice to this conversation and your perspective. And as Lana mentioned future forums will be coming. We'll certainly make those as readily known as we possibly can.

	With that, one of the things that I would ask you is if there is someone who has not joined this conversation that you believe should be a part of this conversation, please share this with them.

	Share the information with them. Encourage them to make their perspective, their voices known and again, thank you for your time. Enjoy your lunch. Enjoy the rest of the day.

Lana Fraser:	Thank you. This will conclude today's teleconference. Thank you.

Man:	And have a nice day.

Coordinator:	This concludes today's conference. All participants can disconnect at this time. Thank you.

END

The following comments were emailed to the California CIE inbox:

Carol Clayman:	We thank the members of DOR, CDE and DDS for providing this opportunity for the TRUE state-holders, those with developmental disabilities, to voice their needs, ideas and concerns regarding employment and the new, CIE push. 
 
As a parent of a 28-year-old young man with autism, I will try to convey his desires and needs.   I will then address possible strategies for CIE along with questions as to whether CIE should be pursued for ALL individuals with I/DD. 
 
Our son, Bradley’s, biggest desires and needs are to have something, daily, to look forward to and to do. For Bradley, and similarly for all of us, work provides that place to look forward to and that something to do.  It is also a place to achieve goals and a place to socialize.  
 
In the workplace and community at large, Bradley’s autism necessitates the presence of someone to make sure he is safe and can socialize/communicate with others.  In order for Bradley to work effectively in a ‘regular’ job, he would need an employer to make sure he stays on task and is tolerant of a slower speed with which tasks are done. Working groups of 2 or more with a job coach currently provide the support and opportunity for him to work in the community.  
 
This brings us to a strategy for those, like Bradley, who are already in the workforce in the form of supported, group employment, but you are now asking to perform a ‘regular’ jobs at minimum wage.  If employers are to be mandated to employ I/DD individuals at minimum wage, funding must be found to provide the support to these I/DD individuals to enable the work being paid for to be done.  This could be a combination of tax incentives for employers to hire I/DD workers and/or state funding of job coaches.  Additional jobs will also need to be identified. At the moment, there is a shortage of sub-minimum wage jobs. Once these jobs and employers are identified, training for identified, pre-developed jobs could be accomplished at the Junior Colleges with classes teaching the needed skills. As with the general population, we must match skills learned by I/DD individuals to jobs waiting for them once trained.
 
The same holds true for I/DD individuals still in school.  Job training should be linked to employer needs and identified job opportunities in the area. Specific jobs should be developed and school age individuals specifically trained for those jobs. Again, incentives for employers to hire I/DD individuals will need to be provided along with some supports.
 
Competitive wage employment, however, is likely NOT a fit for all. Either the skills cannot be mastered by the I/DD individuals or the employer cannot afford the cost of slower work and/or additional supports.  So we need to be careful not to destroy current working programs that meet the needs of something to look forward to and to do.  We believe that it is critical to Bradley’s and others’ quality of life for the state to support group employment opportunities and meaningful (art/music/school) group day activities that allow this population to continue to grow and contribute to society.  We urge DOR, CDE and DDS to maintain these alternative options while pursing CIE for those with the skills to be FULLY employed.

Gail Conrad:	This was a good opportunity to see what others are concerned about to serve persons with ID and autism.

	We have a collaborative program with DOR and SDRC in San Diego for 60 people. Because of the partners, employment is the main focus in this 3 year program and where the funds are spent follows that outcome. What we are lacking is the educational coaches in the academic portion to meet the additional needs of person with ID and autism in the community college. These persons are what makes the program successful for the individuals as they increase their self-confidence and therefore their ability to compete for integrated employment. Tailored day services is a start to provide that support, but more is needed if the programs are to grow to meet the need. This aligns with other research that looks at improved outcomes of completion for all students in higher education, especially those when looking at student equity and the needs of a diverse population. Thanks again for hearing our concerns and interest in a plan that will support the needs of the individual with ID.

Sheryl Bobroff:	First of all, thank you for the opportunity to participate in these teleconferences and discussions and thanks for all of the work you are doing. I wasn't able to call in, but I have some comments and questions. 
	
	I think the plan to focus on the skills an individual masters if they get a certificate from school instead of a diploma is an excellent plan. In order to prepare individuals with disabilities for employment, we should focus on skill development and increase training opportunities in a variety of areas and at different work and volunteer sites. This will help us assess a person's interests and skills (e.g., in areas such as clerical, animal care, janitorial, food service, childcare, retail, customer service, etc.). Identifying skills mastered and interests can lead to customized employment instead of limited job options (e.g., working in a grocery store, janitorial work). 
	
	Sometimes getting enough volunteer and work sites can be a challenge. Our school started sharing sites with post-school agencies and they share sites with us (e.g., we split shifts during the week or they take the mornings and we take the afternoons). They also cover us when we are on breaks (e.g., summer, holidays). This has been valuable in increasing opportunities for people with disabilities and we hope to continue this collaboration in coordinating work and volunteer options with agencies.
	What’s common between schools and post-school agencies is that individuals with disabilities are working on specific goals towards employment. We should take a close look at goal development and evaluation. How do post-secondary goals from Individualized Transition Plans (ITP) in schools or goals from person centered or person driven plan meetings translate to post-school documents?  Does the person with a disability (or the people supporting them such as family members) know and understand their vocational goals and does the person take ownership of their goals and monitor their own goal progress? Are their goals truly person driven or is it something they are told they need to work on? If a goal is suggested by the person supporting them, does the individual understand the rationale behind it (e.g., you need to practice greetings and having brief, positive interactions if you want to work in customer service).
	
	Are their goals developed based on baseline data? How do we evaluate goal progress to determine appropriate interventions?  How are we implementing accommodations that are individualized based on what works for the person so that they can complete job tasks (e.g., a visual checklist, tools on a smartphone).  
	
	I also think that day programs should keep expectations high. If we are preparing people for work, we should set goals that transition to work environments (e.g., being well-groomed, following dress codes, completing assignments through check sheets or other accommodations instead of relying on prompts from job coaches, accepting and following through on feedback, asking for clarification or help, etc.). 

	What skills should the job preparation services focus on improving to better prepare consumers for employment?
	I listed some examples of skills above, but teaching social skills and self-advocacy are extremely important. For example, can participants communicate their strengths, limitations, and accommodations that work for them? Do they have basic work skills (e.g., dressing for work, working when scheduled or calling in if they will be late or absent). Do they have problem solving skills and do they know how to seek support or ask for help if needed? 

	In order to build pre-employment skills, we use an online system for people with disabilities called Personal Data Wizard (http://www.hrop.org/wizard/) which is available to individuals at $2 a year. This helps students keep track of their resumes, sample job applications, career survey results, etc. Since it's accessible through the Internet, this would be a great tool for agencies to continue using with students post-school.

	What are other barriers or concerns that consumers and family members have about consumers entering into CIE?
	As you may already know, many individuals with disabilities or family members feel they will lose their SSI benefits if they are employed. We need to continue educating individuals, agencies, schools, and family members about work incentives and resources (e.g., DB101). There are still a lot of myths about SSI. Following up by assisting people with disabilities with the calculations so that they understand that they can make more $ working, will hopefully help them realize that living off an SSI check is living in poverty. 
	
	Another concern is that the person with ID/DD has support with activities other than work and that their day is structured so they are not sitting at home. I think with options such as Self-Determination services, along with Tailored Day Services/Ind. Living Services, we can help individuals structure their day using natural supports in community activities (so they have plans in place for non-work hours). 
	
	What suggested strategies do you have and how might these strategies be implemented statewide?
	Many of the people with ID/DD that we work with also have emotional disabilities and are challenged with feeling well enough to work when scheduled. Offering flexible schedules where either another program participant or even a job coach can sub for them can be helpful to employers. This model is used at some of the mental health clubhouses.
	Funding towards training and follow up coaching would be a great way to ensure that the people (e.g. job coaches) who support participants have the skills needed (especially if they are supporting a person in a microbusiness). Many coaches want to do the right thing, they just need training and support. Also, using procedures and data tracking methods can hold coaches accountable and is a way to check a participant's progress. 
	
	Many of the students I have worked with over the years get frustrated with the systems, but end up finding employment on their own. It would be great if we had a central place to report follow up post-school data to track individuals with DD who are working, but not utilizing support services. Our school currently tracks post-school data through an alumni survey (if people fill one out, they get a $10 Target gift card). This gives opportunities for participants and family members to give us feedback on their transition so we know how to best support people with disabilities in the future!
	
	Thanks again for this opportunity.

Jeffrey L. Strully:	a) Silos must come down. DOR, DDS, Education must work together including using funding to be blended if needed.
	b) There are no simple answers other then working with one person at a time. There is no magic that will escape the need for people to get to understand who the person is, what they want in life, and for people to come together to help figure this out.
	c) Together we are  better then when we are alone - circles of support, teams, or whatever you want to call it isn't the issue - the issue is a group of committed people working together to help support the person to have a good life.
	d) All means all - with the right support/assistance - all people can work - let's stop wasting time finding ways to exclude people and figuring out how to support people correctly.
	e) Priority # 1-  if you are receiving directly or indirectly state or federal funds you should be employing people with disabilities - if you are not then you have six months to either do it or stop counting on federal and/or state funds to build your business.
	 
	Thank you for your time.

Jill C.:	I am the parent of a 32 year-old son with cerebral palsy and other health conditions, including bi-polar disorder.  He is currently receiving supported living services in San Diego and, because of that support (individualized, personal, self-directed, and in his own home) he is able to live a life in which he is valued, connected, engaged, supported and safe.  The agency which provides this service, and others just like them throughout the state of California, will simply not be able to continue to serve him without sufficient funding.  Over the years, they have been committed to doing so despite cut after cut in funding.  But now any fat has been trimmed years ago, and these agencies simply cannot make it work.  The Lanterman Coalition has helped to educate people, including our Governor and many representatives about what these services actually mean to the lives of thousands of people with developmental disabilities across the state.  I am outraged that my son’s elected representatives (yes!  he votes! I am writing on his behalf, something which he is not able to do, but his heart and soul and desires are in each keystroke of this message) are not strong enough advocates to recognize that without restoring the years of funding cuts for services he depends on, the options available to him (and many, many other individuals like him) are essentially non-existent!   I am nearly 60 years old and have supported him (he lived with us until age 21) tirelessly over his lifetime, and still do in many ways, but returning him to my care 24/7 is not an option.  Living in a nursing home or large residential facility (more expensive, less personalized care) is also not an option.  It would be the equivalent of returning to the Draconian days of warehousing people whom we consider easier to cast off than to recognize and support.  The current system of providing services for those with developmental disabilities as needed in homes, neighborhoods and communities of one's choice and right, and our responsibility to carry out, as a society who values all human beings.  As the system currently stands, it an unfunded mandate.  People’s lives are at stake, and it is critical that we stop ignoring this impending, avoidable tragedy and simply prioritize the basic commitment to this right to a fair and decent life.  I should not have to beg for my son and others.	

Molly Nocon:	Please count this email as a vote to “RESTORE” emergency funding for the Department of Developmental Services (DDS). For the Governor to completely IGNORE the most fragile in our population is an outrage and a slap in the face for providers and families who have struggled and sacrificed to take care of them DESPITE the wage freeze since 2000. If the Governor would like to join those of us taking care of 280,000 people with developmental disabilities at an average wage of $3.00 an hour, please do. I don’t think you would last long.

	Please include the 10% band aid for funding in the DDS budget, or be prepared for massive closures of residential care homes and Day programs. I run Noah Homes in San Diego, and we take care of 70 residents. You are now asking this organization to absorb more than $600,000 a year in unfunded costs to keep residents safe and supported. If you won’t increase funding, then please ask Governor Brown to make a personal donation at www.noahhomes.org. It is tax deductible and at his pay level, I am sure he could use the write off.

Steve Boyer:	As a tax payer, I am ashamed of the way the Governor is picking the losers (our citizens with disabilities) in what is looking like some of the most prosperous times in California. We should all be proud of the hard work we have done to bring fiscal sanity back to our state.  A bit of the current windfall needs to shore up our disabilities system which all parties have agreed needs fixing.

Paul Harvey:	FIRST, let me say that there are a small percentage of the population that can be competitive in the for profit work place.  But by the California definition the population must meet this test:
	
	California law requires that the individual be substantially handicapped by the disability. In March 2004, new regulations took effect that define substantial disability as significant functional limitations in three or more of the major life activities contained in the federal definition above.

	So the people behind the CIE movement expect for profit businesses to choose someone meeting the above definition above other applicants that may have a high school degree or higher education.   They seem to expect business to pick someone with somewhat versatility and a higher probability of upward movement over a person that has significant limitations in three or more of "major live activities”. Are there business that can utilize a small percentage of this population at minimum wage or above - yes, but NOT the majority of this population. CIE initiative is doing a great disservice to the majority of those with "significant functional limitations in three or more of the major life activities”.

	As an example of how this philosophy is not realistic.  I answered an job advertisement on behalf of an individual consumer with a mega church where the cafe was looking for a dishwasher.  Initially the manager seemed to like the idea of hiring a consumer but had to check with his manager.   They decided they could not use a consumer as the position required the ability to run the cash register (this was not in the job description advertised).  You see the Cafe had to make money for the church to use in their “outreach” programs.

	I was one of two for profit business representative invited to participate in a 1998 President Clinton’s input committee to advice the President on what to do with work shelters and sub minimum wage groups.  There were a 100 participants with only 2 from the for profit business world  — all the non business participants wanted to immediately eliminate work shelters and sub minimum wage groups. That is 17 years ago!

	There is a saying, “You cannot manage what you don’t measure”.  I have your information entitled “How Many Earned Wages”  showing the average number of consumers receiving wages.  Your data shows numbers not percentage of consumers earning wages which is the normal measure of employment data.  You summary does speak to the effect of increases in population, but by my calculation the approximate percentage of wage earners in 2005 was 15.7% and in 2011 was 12.5% as you reported.  THAT IS A 20% DROP FROM 2005 TO 2011.  THAT REPRESENTS FAILURE — In my opinion, it also represents a misguided idealistic expectation of CIE for the majority of consumers.

	WARNING: With the increases in minimum wages and future increases already approved plus the increasing cost of health care, direct hiring will decrease for our population and the CIE concept will lead to more unemployment.

	I was a corporate level Manager for over 50 years and have helped start programs utilizing, on a Win-Win basis, the many abilities of this population.  This includes over 130 jobs working 30 to 40 hours a week at major corporation headquarters, parts distribution centers, corporate cafeterias, mailrooms, and a City Hall.  Years ago, I helped establish business advisory committees at 4 Regional Centers in the LA area.  A very few of those employed met the CIE criteria which is focused on $/hour not $/week or month. CIE philosophy seems to say the value of a person is measured on how much they are paid per hour.  This would leave out full time Mom’s and volunteers who do a great service to their family and the community.

	As parents, our 33 year old son, has tried volunteering at our Church with “natural” supports, which did not work.  He was in a work shelter until we found him a job at a Cafe.  He has worked in a country cafe as a dishwasher 30 hours a week with owner providing “natural” supports which worked but was not paid minimum wage as if that mattered to him.   The most success has been in a sub minimum wage group working in a high tech corporate headquarters cafeteria 30+ hours a week making over $6.50 an hour with raises as he improves his productivity. Pay based on productivity is how for profit business survive.

	Advantages of a sub minimum wage or minimum wage group to an employer:

•	Larger employers outsource functions such as cafeteria operation, mailrooms, janitorial, and landscaping. They do not use direct hires as they do not have the time or expertise to manage these functions.
•	Employers do not want to job search, hire, train, and pay individuals that perform the above functions, they want the outsource provider to perform all human resource functions.
•	Employers do not want to be in a position to have to terminate the employment of a person with developmental disabilities. Outsourcing allows them to ask outsourcing firm to transfer person.
•	In many cases the employers want to pay one monthly fee to outsourcing firm who is held responsible for meeting all aspects of the job.
•	Larger employers have starting salaries well above minimum wage to insure they are able to hire people with high sill sets and versatility and upward movement potential.

	Advantages of a sub minimum wage or minimum wage group setting for a person 	with developmental disabilities.
	
•	More likely to work in an integrated setting
•	More likely to work more hours a week and therefor move dollars per month
•	More likely to stay on job longer
•	Will get on the job training
•	More likely to improve productivity and learn new tasks which can result in individual placement
•	Good job coaches look for other task that the consumers can do to help the employer
•	Job Coaches more able to handle social issues or issues of interface with Managers
•	Job Coaches more able to keep consumers safety on the job
•	Job Coaches and site Managers are more likely to hire the right people for the skill sets needed
•	Job Coaches able to assist in any medication requirements
•	Job Coachers and site Managers more likely to give parents/conservators feedback
•	Consumers more likely to have lunch with people they like as we all do
•	Consumers more likely to make more money per month than CIE employees due to number of hours worked per week
•	Parents more likely to have “fee time” to work or whatever
•	Group employment where possible provide an excellent first job that can lead to a minimum wage or above position
•	Allows the utilization of varying levels of abilities 
		
Disadvantages:

•	Consumer will need to be near larger employers
•	Small business and franchises normally can’t use 4 consumers at a time
•	Some job developers don’t understand that if is often the Outsourced firm that will hire a work group not the employer of the Outsource firm

Hard for me to answer the following questions since I do not agree with CIE focus on $/hour. The objective for our population should read something like this: "To provide maximum opportunity in the community in paid employment or volunteer work within the limits of a consumer/s capabilities.

How can existing services, such as day programs and work service programs, be modified to become the stepping-stones to CIE opportunities for individuals with ID/DD?
Better prepare parents, educators, and service providers in realistic opportunities and skill set needed in their local area. Help Area Councils understand it is not just about the consumer, the parents (often single parent) must be able to work and have a life. This means hours out of house in a safe environment for their consumer (change “consumer” to client (a person or organization using the services of a lawyer or other professional person or company.

What are some innovative strategies we could use to create new or improve existing resources that support individuals in preparing for or engaging in competitive integrated employment?
Employment agencies concept needs revamping. Data on specific accomplishments is lacking prior to parent having to choose an Agency. Once signed up, progress reports are lacking and consumer become captive. After 6 months of not finding a job, consumers should be listed as a “free agent” where an Agency in need of a consumer with specific skill sets can utilize them.

Although “work shelters” have a bad name they do provide  a much needed alternative to consumer just staying at home often left at home alone which may not be safe.

Also the work shelter concept is used worldwide in the assemble of everyday products — these businesses are often referred to as fulfillment houses. Problem in many work shelters is that they have difficulty getting good contracts.

Also work shelters accept consumers who have the most sever disabilities giving parents/conservators a break.

We have heard feedback from consumers and their families that there is a need for more job preparation services prior to engaging in employment.
Lean from Vocational Education institutions — create realistic task setups in our transitions programs - example: bagging groceries.

What skills should the job preparation services focus on improving to
better prepare consumers for employment?
Lean from Vocational Education institutions — create real life task setups in our transitions programs - example: bagging groceries.

What are other barriers or concerns that consumers and family members have about consumers entering into CIE?
CIE fails to understand for profit business needs. Parents/conservators must be trained in how to develop realistic job possibilities for their adult.

What suggested strategies do you have and how might these strategies be implemented statewide?
Learn from real employers why they utilize people with developmental disabilities and what types of tasks are being performing. Then ask "are we being realistic in our strategy of CIE”.

Tiffany Mandelbaum:	
How can existing services, such as day programs and work service programs, be modified to become the stepping-stones to CIE opportunities for individuals with ID/DD?
For day programs and work service programs, develop curriculum and teach the skills necessary for CIE.  
Utilize the IPP process to add prerequisite skills, goals and objectives into existing Adaptive Skills and Social Skills Programs. This is happening on a small scale currently.
What are some innovative strategies we could use to create new or improve existing resources that support individuals in preparing for or engaging in competitive integrated employment? 
See above
We have heard feedback from consumers and their families that there is a need for more job preparation services prior to engaging in employment. 
YES! Prerequisite skills must be taught individually ad mastery of individual skills must be documented/data must be taken.
What skills should the job preparation services focus on improving to better prepare consumers for employment?
a.	Communication Skills:  functional expressive and receptive communication skills to assist the consumer’s ability to communicate needs and wants to others. Access of communication modalities, i.e. AAC and PECS will also be targeted.
b.	Functional Academics to target functional math (simple money concepts, time concepts, and so forth), reading skills (ID street signs, ordering from a menu, reading pictures, and so forth)
c.	Self-Direction: Self management, time management
d.	Social Skills: Developing interpersonal relationships,  sharing and cooperating, and recognizing social cues, coping skills (manners, transitions, appropriate social interaction, controlling impulses, and responsibility) – all needed in order to hold and keep a job  
e.	Self Care and Hygiene: Dressing, grooming, bathing, shaving, etc. – Being presentable for a work setting
f.	Community Access: Safety, restaurant skills, accessing public transportation, and community rules.
g.	Work Skills: Job readiness. writing a resume, interviewing, following directions, completing work in a timely manor, 
What are other barriers or concerns that consumers and family members have about consumers entering into CIE? 
Barriers/concerns- not enough programs that teach these skills systematically. If there are programs that provide these services, the Service Coordinators at Regional Centers may not be aware that the programs exist.
What suggested strategies do you have and how might these strategies be implemented statewide?
Develop more programs that are able to successfully teach prerequisite skills and prepare individuals to obtain a job.

Karen Mueller:	
My 20 year old daughter a client of SARC and DOR. She has high functioning autism. She has an area of strength in computers.  She is currently pursuing a certificate program in computer graphics at Mission College.  She cannot handle a full load - she takes only 2 classes at a time.  I would LOVE to have her competitively employed.  Yet, her behaviors make her employment prospects call for job coach support.

In discussions with DOR, I was given a clear impression that they are very accustomed to working with cognitively impaired individuals.  Thus the mention of computer jobs entered unknown territory.  My input to CIE is that there needs to be a clear path for socially impaired individuals.

Thank you