CENTER ON EFFECTIVE REHABILITATION

TECHNOLOGY (CERT)

Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University

04/22/23

Project Partners

The Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse University and the Institute for Matching Person and Technology (IMPT)

In collaboration with the Council of State Administrators of Vocational

Rehabilitation (CSAVR) Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology

Society of North America (RESNA) National Council for Independent Living (NCIL) Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.

2

Definition of Rehabilitation Technology

Systematic application of technologies, engineering methodologies, or scientific principles

to meet the needs of, and address barriers confronted by, individuals with disabilities

in areas including education, rehabilitation, employment, transportation, independent living, and recreation.

The term includes rehabilitation engineering, assistive technology devices, and assistive technology services

(29 U.S.C. §705(30), 2000)

3

Goal One

Conduct research to identify, document, and analyze models of effective rehabilitation technology service delivery to assist individuals with disabilities achieve employment outcomes Development of Quality Indicators Selection of State VR agencies and RT Support Units

(6), State AT Programs and CILs (3), Employers based programs (3) for in-depth study

12 case studies (Qualitative + Quantitative) Cost-Benefits of RT Service Delivery

4

Goal Two

Identify, test, and develop strategies to support the VR counselor to make informed and effective decisions in concert with individual with disabilities to select the most appropriate RT Develop new prototype measure for effective RT

assessment and decision-making Interactive Training Program to build skills to use

new tool and measures Validate tool and training program

5

Goal Three

Translate research findings to policy development and practice through a comprehensive menu of knowledge dissemination activities that accelerates and supports change at an individual and systems level Model policy and procedures Quality indicators self-assessment checklist Center website RT Accommodations Database

6

Target Audiences7

Lead Staff

1. Peter Blanck (J.D., Ph.D.) – Principal Investigator Expert on Employer Practices Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

2. Marcia Scherer (Ph.D., M.S.) – Co-PI Expert on AT Assessment and Use Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

3. Michael Morris (J.D.) – Co-PI Expert on AT Financing and Policy Development at a

Systems Level Knowledge Translation Activities

4. Deepti Samant, M.S. (Rehab), M.S. (ECE) – Project Director

Expert on Employer Practices, Accommodations, Accessible Technology

Grant Leader / Project Director

8

Core Staff

Meera Adya, J.D., Ph.D. – BBI Steven Mendelsohn, J.D. – BBI Lacy Pittman, Policy Analyst - NCIL Anjali Weber, M.S. (Biomedicial Engineer)

– RESNA Jurgen Babirad, M.S. (Rehab) – ReTech Margaret Glenn, Ph.D. (Counseling) –

CSAVR Kathy West-Evans, MPA – CSAVR

9

Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel

Brian McLane, Burton Blatt Institute (CHAIR) Nell Bailey, RESNA Kelly Buckland, NCIL Beth Butler, Wachovia, a division of Wells Fargo Berthy De La Rosa-Aponte, Former Chair, Ticket to

Work Advisory Panel Tom Foley, World Institute on Disability Dennis Gilbride, Rehabilitation Counseling and Human

Services, Syracuse University Glenn Hedman, AT Unit, Dept. of Disability & Human

Development, UIC Robert Kilbury, Illinois VR Agency Director

10

Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel11

10. Tammy Koger, North Carolina AT Program 11. John Lancaster, Individual capacity 12. Karen Milchus, RERC on Workplace

Accommodations, GA Tech 13. Kevin Nickerson, Disability Program Navigator /

CWIC, Tompkins Workforce, New York 14. Jeff Rosen, Agilent Technologies 15. Deb Russell, Walgreens Corporation 16. Carl Suter, CSAVR

RESEARCH PROJECTS12

IDENTIFY, DOCUMENT, AND EVALUATE REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE DELIVERY MODELS(VR-Based, Employer-Based, and Consumer-Identified Alternative Models)

Goal I13

Overview of Goal 1 Activities14

Survey VR RT Support UnitsSurvey VR RT Support Units

Survey SILCs & ILCs

Survey SILCs & ILCs

Survey State AT Act Programs

Survey State AT Act Programs

Surveys will identify current practices, identify strong VR-based programs, identify alternative programs to VR or Employers, identify quality indicators of success from which benchmarks will be constructed to evaluate programs selected for case studies.

Surveys will identify current practices, identify strong VR-based programs, identify alternative programs to VR or Employers, identify quality indicators of success from which benchmarks will be constructed to evaluate programs selected for case studies.

Survey Blue Ribbon PanelSurvey Blue Ribbon Panel

Use information gathered from surveys above & RSA-911 data to identify 6 VR-based programs for case studies. Consult with NIDRR on selection of sample.

Use information gathered from surveys above & RSA-911 data to identify 6 VR-based programs for case studies. Consult with NIDRR on selection of sample.

Use information gathered from surveys above and contacts through project partners to select 3 employer organizations for case studies. Adapt DOL & WorkRERC surveys as needed.

Use information gathered from surveys above and contacts through project partners to select 3 employer organizations for case studies. Adapt DOL & WorkRERC surveys as needed.

Use information gathered from surveys above to select 3 consumer-identified, alternative models to VR & Employer-based programs.

Use information gathered from surveys above to select 3 consumer-identified, alternative models to VR & Employer-based programs.

AT/ RT Service Delivery: The Vocational Rehabilitation System and Non-Employer Based Alternative Models

Research Project I15

Proposed Activities

Activity A - Survey of all State VR RT Support Units Obtain baseline of services, systems, policies,

practices, and outcomes

Activity B - Blue Ribbon Panel review & evaluation Develop a comprehensive list of possible quality

indicators

Activity C - Survey of ILCs and State AT programs Identification of effective VR managed and non-VR

models of service delivery

16

Activities Continued

Activity D - Analysis of existing datasets e.g. RSA-911 Identify which VR managed programs

demonstrate success in providing AT/RT for successful employment, findings combined with surveys results from VR RT Units, State AT Programs, ILCs

Blue Ribbon Panel will assist in developing selection criteria and short-listing programs for in-depth studies

Selection will be sent to NIDRR, which will approve final sample

17

Activities Continued

Activity E – Case Studies on Selected VR & Alternative Programs In-depth structured case study methods (interviews,

surveys, focus groups, analysis of case records and other data) to understand and evaluate the selected model programs

6 VR-Based Programs – 4 “mainstream,” 2 programs for People with Visual Disability

3 alternative programs identified through SILC and ILC surveys

Sample will include: Current and Past VR Clients, VR Counselors (VRCs), AT/RT practitioners, and Employers working with VR

18

AT/RT Provision and Support in the Workplace: Employer Models and Their Effectiveness

Research Project II19

Proposed Activities

Corporate Culture & Disability Employment Through Effective Accommodations Based on BBI’s ongoing research on the

employment of persons with disabilities, corporate leadership in disability employment, and workplace accommodations

Case Studies of 3 Employer-Based Programs Focus groups and in-depth interviews with employees with

disabilities, managers and supervisors; a company-wide employee survey; collection and analysis of written policies relating to

disability and diversity (archival analysis); and collection and analysis of available administrative data on

disability accommodations and initiatives

20

Proposed Activities

Workplace Accommodations: Cost-Benefits & Effectiveness Over the Long-term Development of an evidence-based framework

for understanding the cost-benefit analysis of the value of workplace accommodations, including on AT/RT access and use.

Workplace Accommodations: Cost-Benefits & Effectiveness Over the Long-term

Three waves of surveys, over 5 years with the same sample being tracked longitudinally

21

RESEARCH PROJECT 3: ASSESSING REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND USE

Goal II22

Proposed Activities

Develop a new prototype measure specific to devices used to enhance job skills and employment

Develop prototype computerized scoring, interpretations for new measure

Develop a pre- and in-service prototype interactive training program

23

Proposed Activities

Test the new measure, scoring and interpretations, interactive training program

Validate the effectiveness of the new measure, scoring and interpretations, interactive training program and assess impact

24

Proposed Activities

National experts will rate the importance of 75 items generated by research staff for new measure

Measuring usability of products by end-users Two-group, true experimental design with 40

VRCs

Information gathered from AT/RT consumers

25

Dissemination Activities

Center Website E-Newsletter Conference Presentations Distance Learning Leadership Series Communities of Practice Policy and Program Briefs Publications DBTACs and TACE Policy Roundtable

26

Materials Development

Qualitya) Usabilityb) Sensitivityc) Accuracy

Accessibilitya) Alternative formats

Customer Satisfactiona) Relevanceb) Impact

27

Project Outputs (Research)

1. Development of a model policies and procedures template for “effective service delivery”.

2. Development of a quality indicators self-assessment check list for VR and non-VR managed programs.

3. In-depth case studies of VR (6) and non-VR AT (3) service delivery programs.

4. In-depth case studies of 3 employer-based AT service delivery programs.

5. A report that compares & contrasts quality indicators from 12 selected programs of AT delivery service.

28

Project Outputs (Research)

6. Development of a new RT assessment tool and measures designed to create a better match for consumers and technology solutions to advance employment outcomes.

7. Development of a new data collection instrument to help improve measurement of AT cost-benefits.

8. A longitudinal cost-benefits analysis of AT service delivery.

9. Establishment of an RT accommodations database.

29

Project Outputs (Knowledge Translation)

1. Development of the website to serve as a dissemination hub.

2. Initiation of on-site & distance learning opportunities with CSAVR, NCIL & RESNA to reach all audiences.

3. Research articles, informational briefs, journal, newsletters, & mainstream media articles.

4. Establishment of communities of practice & an e-newsletter to reach all audiences.

5. Initiation of a policy roundtable in Washington, DC.

30

Project Outcomes

1. New knowledge among target audiences of the systematic supports needed for effective RT service delivery.

2. Changes at state and local levels through replications of effective polices and practices.

3. Use of new methods to collect and analyze data on the impact of RT on employment outcomes.

4. Improved sustainable collaborations among key stakeholders: VR professionals, AT practitioners, employers and persons with disabilities.

5. Improved informed decision-making between the VR counselor and the individual with a disability to better match AT with individuals needs and preferences.

31

Funding

CERT is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), for the “Center on Effective Delivery of Rehabilitation Technology by Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies,” Grant No. H133A090004.

32

For further Information:

Please contact:Deepti SamantCERT Project DirectorSenior Research Associate Burton Blatt InstitutePhone: 202-296-5393Email: ddsamant@law.syr.edu

33