SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIES, JANUARY – JUNE 2002

In the last six months, we overhauled and streamlined our Outcomes Management System. The system we previously used was cumbersome and did not accurately reflect our current concerns.

One major change was to separate the two components of our Employment Services: our Work Activity Program has its own Outcomes System which is identified as “Organizational Employment Services” (OES); and the Supported Employment Program has its own, identified as “Community Employment Services” (CES).

Each system is the result of hours of staff consideration and feedback from customers, funders, and persons served. We hope that this report will be helpful to you, a stakeholder, in understanding our services.

If you have any questions on this report, please contact Judy Senter at 310-532-6333, ext. 222, or email at arcsobay@lafn.org.

To measure our effectiveness as a program, we selected two objectives:

Effectiveness #1: Increased consumers placed in individual jobs. This objective measures the percentage of eligible consumers who were placed in individual jobs, such as day care, restaurant, etc.

Effectiveness #2: Increased consumers placed in enclaves. This objective measures the percentage of eligible (VR-WAP) consumers who were placed in enclaves, such as janitorial or lawn service.

To measure our efficiency as a program, we selected one objective:

Efficiency #1: Consumers placed within six months of identification. This objective measures the percentage of eligible consumers who were placed in community employment (either individual or enclaves) within six months of their eligibility. (Note that for this measure, we had to use January 1^st as the originating time frame.)

Two objectives measure satisfaction of stakeholders:

Satisfaction #1: Aggregate Stakeholders. This objective measures the percentage of stakeholders who are satisfied with the program. The stakeholders surveyed were: parents and careproviders, employers of consumers placed in individual jobs and people served by the enclaves, and funders/referrerers. Since each group had a different survey, an average of percentages was used to arrive at the final figure.

Satisfaction #2: Persons Served. This objective measures the percentage of persons served who are satisfied with the program. All consumers in the Community Employment Services program filled out a detailed survey in a meeting with their counselor.

A chart on the following page portrays the outcomes for each objective, compared to our targeted performance.

COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness #1 and #2: These objectives were established to give our CES services a defined goal for consumer placement. Our CES services had not been very active until March, when we created a separate CES department. They far exceeded their goals for both objectives. The department’s motto now is “Don’t rest on your laurels.”

Efficiency #1: Our goal here is to move the consumers as quickly as possible from the eligibility “pool” to their employment placement. For measurement purposes, we used the eligibility pool that existed as of January 1, 2002.

Satisfaction #1: Parents/Careproviders provided a 98.3% degree of satisfaction; employers and enclave recipients provided an 81.9% degree of satisfaction, and funders/referrers a conglomerate score of 64.3%. The lawn services enclave “employers” gave overall lower scores than the other respondents, so this is an area that needs further examination. It could be that there is a rather steep learning curve for the consumers in this program, as well as the staff. As far as the funders/referrers go, their lower score may be due to three responders who gave SWI low marks in “community integration.” Since the survey was done before our huge improvement in the community employment services, it very well could be that these people will be much more satisfied next time.

Satisfaction #2: We utilized a survey that asked specific questions for this measure. A score of 3 out of 4 was considered “satisfied.”

ACTIONS TAKEN SINCE LAST OUTCOMES REPORT

• After the last Outcomes report, we realized that the system itself no longer suited our needs. It was an “inherited” system, which we did not find relevant.

• The agency conducted a SWOT analysis with board, staff and production clients. The results were incorporated into the outcomes system.

• A Quality Assurance Team was created, which, over the course of several months, developed the new outcomes system. Members of the Q.A.T. include: Executive Director, Director of Administrative Services, Production Mgr., Rehab Mgr. and Community Employment Services Mgr.

• The most significant change we made was the creation of a new department: Community Employment Services. A counselor from our Rehabilitation Department was promoted to head of CES. Working under his supervision are a Job Developer and five job coaches. This arrangement has allowed our CES to grow at a phenomenal rate.

• Our method of determining the satisfaction of “persons served” was updated and improved – from a two-question inquiry to an 11-question survey.

• A new, more quantifiable system was developed for measuring increase in consumers’ work skills.

PLANNING IMPLICATIONS OF DATA

• Keep enrollment up in the work activity center (OES)
• Find new contracts or establish a proprietary product (OES)
• Keep the job placements going (CES)
• Fine-tune the training and performance of enclaves (CES)
• Look into additional facility space for CES program if needed as program grows

OTHER ISSUES

• In light of the State budget woes, funding is a major issue – it will be valuable to look at alternate programming or alternate means of funding in addition to the present arrangement.

• Another issue is the aging of our consumers – where will they go and what kind of activity can they do?

• Enrollment level is an ongoing issue – trying to maintain capacity in the work activity center while funneling consumers into the CES program.