CENTER ON EFFECTIVE
REHABILITATION
TECHNOLOGY (CERT)
4/8/2015
Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University
Project Partners
2


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.
Definition of
Rehabilitation Technology
3

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)
Goal One
4

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 indepth study
12 case studies (Qualitative + Quantitative)
Cost-Benefits of RT Service Delivery
Goal Two
5

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
Goal Three
6

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
Target Audiences
7
State VR Agency Directors and Senior Management
State VR Agency Service Units
VR Counselors
Employment and Training Programs
Employers and Human Resource Professionals
Persons with Disabilities and Families including Centers for Independent Living
Employment Networks and the Workforce Investment One-Stop Career Centers
Policymakers at National, State and Local Levels
Rehabilitation Educators
Researchers from Multiple Disciplines
AT Practitioners, Manufacturers and Suppliers
Media (General and Targeted)
Lead Staff
8
1.
2.
3.
Peter Blanck (J.D., Ph.D.) – Principal Investigator

Expert on Employer Practices

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods
Marcia Scherer (Ph.D., M.S.) – Co-PI

Expert on AT Assessment and Use

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods
Michael Morris (J.D.) – Co-PI

Expert on AT Financing and Policy Development at a Systems Level

Knowledge Translation Activities
Deepti Samant, M.S. (Rehab), M.S. (ECE) – Project Director
4.

Expert on Employer Practices, Accommodations, Accessible
Technology

Grant Leader / Project Director
Core Staff
9







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
Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel
10

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
Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel
11

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
12
RESEARCH PROJECTS
13
Goal I
IDENTIFY, DOCUMENT, AND EVALUATE
REHABILITATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE
DELIVERY MODELS
(VR-Based, Employer-Based, and Consumer-Identified Alternative
Models)
Overview of Goal 1 Activities
14
Survey VR RT Support
Units
Survey SILCs & ILCs
Survey State AT Act
Programs
Survey Blue Ribbon
Panel
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.
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 to select 3
consumer-identified,
alternative models to VR &
Employer-based programs.
15
Research Project I
AT/ RT Service Delivery: The Vocational
Rehabilitation System and Non-Employer
Based Alternative Models
Proposed Activities
16

Activity A - Survey of all State VR RT Support Units


Activity B - Blue Ribbon Panel review & evaluation


Obtain baseline of services, systems, policies,
practices, and outcomes
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
Activities Continued
17

Activity D - Analysis of existing datasets e.g. RSA911
 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
Activities Continued
18

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
19
Research Project II
AT/RT Provision and Support in the Workplace:
Employer Models and Their Effectiveness
Proposed Activities
20

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
Proposed Activities
21

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

22
Goal II
RESEARCH PROJECT 3:
ASSESSING REHABILITATION
TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND USE
Proposed Activities
23

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
Proposed Activities
24

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
Proposed Activities
25

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
Dissemination Activities
26










Center Website
E-Newsletter
Conference Presentations
Distance Learning
Leadership Series
Communities of Practice
Policy and Program Briefs
Publications
DBTACs and TACE
Policy Roundtable
Materials Development
27

Quality
a)
b)
c)

Accessibility
a)

Usability
Sensitivity
Accuracy
Alternative formats
Customer Satisfaction
a)
b)
Relevance
Impact
Project Outputs (Research)
28
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development of a model policies and procedures template
for “effective service delivery”.
Development of a quality indicators self-assessment check
list for VR and non-VR managed programs.
In-depth case studies of VR (6) and non-VR AT (3) service
delivery programs.
In-depth case studies of 3 employer-based AT service
delivery programs.
A report that compares & contrasts quality indicators from
12 selected programs of AT delivery service.
Project Outputs (Research)
29
6.
7.
8.
9.
Development of a new RT assessment tool and
measures designed to create a better match for
consumers and technology solutions to advance
employment outcomes.
Development of a new data collection instrument
to help improve measurement of AT cost-benefits.
A longitudinal cost-benefits analysis of AT service
delivery.
Establishment of an RT accommodations
database.
Project Outputs
(Knowledge Translation)
30
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development of the website to serve as a
dissemination hub.
Initiation of on-site & distance learning
opportunities with CSAVR, NCIL & RESNA to reach
all audiences.
Research articles, informational briefs, journal,
newsletters, & mainstream media articles.
Establishment of communities of practice & an enewsletter to reach all audiences.
Initiation of a policy roundtable in Washington, DC.
Project Outcomes
31
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
New knowledge among target audiences of the systematic
supports needed for effective RT service delivery.
Changes at state and local levels through replications of
effective polices and practices.
Use of new methods to collect and analyze data on the
impact of RT on employment outcomes.
Improved sustainable collaborations among key
stakeholders: VR professionals, AT practitioners, employers
and persons with disabilities.
Improved informed decision-making between the VR
counselor and the individual with a disability to better match
AT with individuals needs and preferences.
Funding
32

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.
For further Information:
33

Please contact:
Deepti Samant
CERT Project Director
Senior Research Associate
Burton Blatt Institute
Phone: 202-296-5393
Email: ddsamant@law.syr.edu