Development of the Progressive Employment dual customer model

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 49 (2018) 149–160

DOI:10.3233/JVR-180961

IOS Press

149

Development of the Progressive

Employment dual customer model

for vocational rehabilitation

Dennis Moore

a,b,∗

, Kelly Haines

, Hugh Bradshaw

, Alice Porter

, James Smith

and Susan Foley

Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, OH, USA

Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA

Vermont Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, VT, USA

Revised/Accepted August 2017

Abstract.

BACKGROUND: Current trends in vocational rehabilitation value demand-side “dual customer” approaches that serve both

businesses and job seekers with disabilities, as well as approaches that use rapid engagement in work-based experiences.

OBJECTIVE: This conceptual paper describes the evolution of Progressive Employment (PE) in Vermont and aims to deﬁne

the key features and critical components of PE as a distinct model of dual customer service delivery.

CONCLUSION: The PE approach has promise as an effective dual customer model with high potential for replicability in

employment systems, especially for job seekers with little or no successful work experience. Salient elements of the model

and replication considerations are discussed.

Keywords: Progressive Employment, vocational rehabilitation, transition programs, transition youth, supported employment,

dual customer, high risk job seeker, demand side rehabilitation, work experience

1. Introduction and background

Recent trends in vocational rehabilitation (VR)

have included two approaches that appear to have

great promise for advancing the ﬁeld. One is a greater

emphasis in VR on business engagement and respon-

siveness to employer needs, and the other is an

emphasis on rapid work engagement for job seek-

ers. In regard to a greater emphasis on employer

interaction, in 1997 the Institute on Rehabilitation

Issues released its 23rd study group report on “Devel-

oping Effective Partnerships With Employers as a

∗

Address for correspondence: Dennis Moore, PO Box 25482,

Silverthorne, CO 80497, USA. E-mail: dennis.moore@

wright.edu.

Service Delivery Mechanism” (Fry, 1997). The

authors call for a concerted effort to close the gap

between business and VR, and identify both peo-

ple with disabilities and employers as VR customers.

Nearly 20 years later, the emphasis on the “busi-

ness relations model” or “dual customer approach”

continues to grow as a priority for the state-federal

VR system (McDonnall, Zhou, & Crudden, 2013;

Leucking, 2008). Demand-side approaches in VR can

include a focus on the employer as a customer with

speciﬁc needs and preferences that should shape how

VR goes about providing services (Wagner, Arm-

strong, Fraser, Vandergoot, & Thomas, 2006).

Chan, Strauser, Gervey, and Lee (2010) identify

one purpose of demand-side approaches as a pro-

cess of discovering areas of growth in employment

150 D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model

opportunities and preparing workers for these in-

demand occupations. The rationale is simple: by

engaging in demand-driven VR service provision,

people with disabilities will more likely attain skill

sets that are responsive to current and future busi-

ness needs. Much of the rehabilitation counseling

demand-side literature has investigated employer per-

ceptions on hiring, training, and accommodating

workers with disabilities (Burke, Bezyak, Fraser,

Pete, Ditchman, & Chan, 2013; Chan, Strauser,

Maher, Lee, Jones, & Johnson, 2010; Copeland,

Chan, Bezyak, & Fraser, 2010; Domzal, Houtenville,

& Sharma, 2008; Stensrud, 2007), the intentions

of employers to engage candidates with disabili-

ties as part of recruitment (Fraser, Ajzen, Johnson,

Hebert, & Chan, 2011), the beneﬁts of providing

accommodations for employers (Solovieva, Dowler,

& Walls, 2011), and the employability skills valued

by employers (Ju, Zhang, & Pacha, 2011). In addi-

tion to understanding employer perceptions, some

demand-side research focuses on employer behav-

ior regarding ADA compliance (Bruyere, Erickson,

& VanLooy, 2006) or employer discrimination

against a subpopulation, such as the aging workforce

(Bjelland, Bruyere, von Schrader, Houtenville, Ruiz-

Quintanilla, & Webber, 2010).

Burke, Bezyak, Fraser, Pete, Ditchman, and Chan

(2013) conducted a review of literature on employer

attitudes toward hiring and retaining people with

disabilities, and concluded that adoption of demand-

side strategies by rehabilitation professionals would

likely have a positive impact on the work participation

rates of people with disabilities. But what are those

strategies? The need to identify emerging strategies

and conduct research that leads to evidence-based

practices in business relations for state VR agen-

cies is apparent. There is limited empirical evidence

to support the development of sustainable business

and rehabilitation partnerships (Unger, 2007) or job

development strategies in relation to employers’ pref-

erences (Simonsen et al., 2011).

The lack of well-deﬁned dual customer models,

approaches, and rigorous research conducted within

state VR agencies has limited the opportunity for

promising practices to evolve into evidence-based

practices. Despite this, VR agencies are taking steps

to meet the demands of businesses, as seen in their

service delivery and stafﬁng patterns. According to a

survey of VR agencies conducted in 2011, the Insti-

tute for Community Inclusion reported that 70% (45

out of 64 reporting agencies) of VR agencies employ

business employment representatives (Porter, Kwan,

Marrone, & Foley, 2012). A subsequent survey of

VR agencies conducted in 2014 found that 46 of

66 reporting agencies (nearly 70%) of VR agencies

have specialized VR staff – deﬁned as staff that spend

more than 50% of their time - implementing business

relations strategies (Haines et al., 2016).

Another recent trend in the provision of VR

services is an emphasis on rapid engagement of

job seekers with employment sites. One underlying

rationale is that work skills are best learned in a

work environment. The most prominent intervention

associated with rapid engagement is the Individual

Placement and Support (IPS) model (Drake, 1998).

Recently, IPS was expanded to include a practice

principle based on developing relationships with

employers, and researchers at the Dartmouth Psychi-

atric Research Center developed guidelines around

this topic (Swanson, Becker, & Bond, 2013).

Honeycutt and Stapleton (2013) prepared an analy-

sis for a rapid engagement coordinated team approach

intervention (“the SGA Project”) under study by

the Institute for Community Inclusion to improve

employment outcomes of VR job seekers receiving

SSDI beneﬁts. Findings indicate that longer waiting

times (or delays) in receiving VR services reduce

earnings outcomes for SSDI beneﬁciaries, reduce

program income opportunities for VR agencies, and

may increase costs for the Social Security Adminis-

tration (Honeycutt & Stapleton, 2013). Preliminary

ﬁndings from the SGA randomized controlled inter-

vention in Kentucky and Minnesota indicate that a

rapid engagement (“faster pacing”) coordinated team

approach may increase employment outcomes within

180 days in both states (Kehn, Babalola, Honeycutt,

Livermore, Doubleday, Stapleton, & Sevak 2016;

Martin, Morris, Honeycutt, Livermore, Doubleday,

Sevak, & Stapleton 2017). Montana Rural Institute’s

efforts to understand why job seekers disengage from

VR services indicates that a signiﬁcant proportion of

“premature exiters” were dissatisﬁed with the speed

of services and the lack of information provided by

counselors about the local labor market (Ipsen & Goe,

2016). Ipsen & Goe estimate national ﬁnancial impli-

cations of premature exit from VR at $365 million

dollars per year.

Over the past decade, the Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation (DVR) in Vermont has recognized the

importance of a dual customer approach, as well

as the importance of early work engagement as

an employment strategy. Through systematic pro-

gram reﬁnement and feedback/evaluation, Vermont

DVR documented a substantial improvement in

D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model 151

rehabilitation rates using an approach known as Pro-

gressive Employment (PE). The remainder of this

paper details 1) the context for the development and

use of PE strategies in Vermont; 2) a description of

components that are considered essential to PE as

a distinct dual-customer model; and, 3) discussion

of the potential for model replication in employment

systems outside of Vermont, and the identiﬁcation of

future research needs.

1.1. Evolution of progressive employment

Vermont DVR is a designated state VR general

agency, housed in the Department of Disabilities,

Aging, and Independent Living, and serves in a small

state recognized as having the highest percentage of

its population living in rural areas. The DVR has

approximately 1800–1900 successful closures per

year and has sixty-ﬁve counselors providing services

in 12 ﬁeld ofﬁces organized into six regions. Ver-

mont DVR delivers most services directly, although

it has a unique relationship with a vendor, the Vermont

Association of Business, Industry, and Rehabilita-

tion (VABIR), that co-locates in all 12 VR ofﬁces

providing placement services through employment

specialists. In early 2009, Vermont DVR leadership

committed to a rapid placement approach, but identi-

ﬁed some implementation issues, especially in rural

settings. VABIR personnel (the CRP most directly

involved with VR job placements) and DVR staff

identiﬁed that employers consistently raised concerns

about risks of hiring people with disabilities includ-

ing costs of turnover, lack of soft skills, and “bad

reputations” of some individuals in rural areas.

Vermont DVR also had an interest in expanding

its reach in the business community beyond its cur-

rent employers. DVR leadership then reviewed the

behavior of high performing staff and identiﬁed a set

of practices to create a dual customer strategy that

advanced the employment needs of people with sig-

niﬁcant barriers to employment. DVR took advantage

of the opportunity to use American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds to implement the

strategy that prioritized job seekers that employers

perceived as high risk and to adopt private sec-

tor recruiting strategies familiar to employers. The

process, originally called “alternative placements,”

evolved into “Progressive Employment” within the

ﬁrst year. DVR incorporated the notion of a “risk-

free trial” from the sales and recruiting worlds so

that employers have a chance to screen potential hires

before bringing them on payroll. Initial contacts with

employers using this approach indicated that employ-

ers were more than willing to help VR job seekers

gain more experience, improve their resumes, while

at the same time giving employers a risk-free chance

to screen potential future employees. In a 2009 survey

of 100 businesses who had participated in at least one

PE activity, approximately 88% reported they were

either “very satisﬁed” or “satisﬁed” with the model

as a way to recruit candidates with disabilities. Sur-

vey results also indicated these businesses had a better

understanding of ways to recruit candidates with dis-

abilities, as well as a better understanding of how to

provide accommodations as a result of using the Pro-

gressive Employment model (Robertson & Madden,

2010).

The PE core team is the VR job seeker, Employer,

Business Account Manager (BAM) Vocational Reha-

bilitation Counselor (VRC), and the Employment

Specialist (ES). The expected roles of the core team

are expounded in a subsequent section.

1.2. Focus on high risk or difﬁcult to place job

seekers

This model was created for job seekers who are

hard to place due to a lack of prior work experience,

poor soft skills, or stigmatizing histories (e.g., incar-

ceration, mental illness, severe disabilities). Speciﬁc

work experiences are negotiated with the under-

standing that the worksite engagement is of limited

duration, with no expectation that the job seekers

must take a job at the end of the experience, or that the

employer is obligated to offer a job to the candidate.

job seekers have a menu of work exposure options.

With “higher dose” exposures such as “work experi-

ence” (in contrast to low dose exposures such as a

company tour), they can work up to 25 hours per

week from one to six weeks. The individual builds

his or her resume, while the employer evaluates the

job seeker for present or future positions in the work

place. This process can assist job seekers in reducing

fear about employment and job performance, while

reducing employer hesitancy about hiring persons

with disabilities. In addition, the PE setting provides

an excellent opportunity for vocational assessment of

a job seeker who is identiﬁed as being at greater risk

for employment failure.

PE could ﬁt a job seeker interested in career explo-

ration, enabling him or her to take a company tour or

shadow an employee at a business. Someone who has

little or no work history might use a series of short

work experiences to develop soft skills and receive an

152 D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model

introduction to technical skills. Perhaps a job seeker

has some experience and is interested in a particu-

lar job, but there are no openings currently. A work

experience with an employer could add to the per-

son’s resume and increase his/her skill level. It is

also a risk-free way to introduce the job seeker to the

employer, who is under no obligation to hire the indi-

vidual. Another beneﬁt is that the job seekers also

gain current, local business references. This can be

especially important in a smaller community.

For job seekers, particularly those in rural areas and

who have multiple barriers to work, a work experi-

ence can build a positive reputation for that person.

In rural settings an individual can get a reputation as

a bad prospect for hiring, but a PE exposure or work

experience can assist in ameliorating that problem.

In spite of there being no obligation for employers to

hire VR job seekers who are gaining work experience,

DVR has found that approximately 48% of PE job

seekers successfully closed are hired by an employer

where they carried out a work experience (Porter,

2016). In DVR, as well as in replication states, enroll-

ment in PE results in fewer early dropouts from VR.

This is an increasingly important distinction because

new WIOA regulations have changed the metrics for

measuring VR success to include more scrutiny of

the percentage of applicants who drop out before plan

(IPE).

Two key philosophical shifts accompanied the

development of PE. First, DVR eliminated the con-

cept of “job-ready” and switched to “everybody is

ready for something.” Instead of heavy use of assess-

ments or job readiness categorization, DVR wanted to

promote rapid access to real work settings and use the

experiences as a form of assessment. The idea was to

encourage momentum. The second shift was a focus

on job seekers generally thought to be too risky to pro-

mote to employers. Some of the employment risks are

disability related, but some include multiple barriers

such as limited educational credentials, no or poor

work history, poor soft skills, involvement with cor-

rections or substance abuse histories, and jobseeker

anxiety about working. Even with the advantages that

PE offers, it is not for everyone. VR job seekers who

already have skills and experience or those who desire

immediate employment are not good candidates.

In order to address their increased focus on

employer needs, DVR increased the number of staff

speciﬁcally assigned to business relations. This role

was titled “Business Account Manager” (BAM),

and this person was not expected to carry a client

caseload. This is similar to many VR programs at

this time, except that a proportionally larger number

of BAMs exist in Vermont DVR than in their counter-

parts in other VR agencies. DVR currently employs

nine full time BAMs.

In VT, a BAM may be an employee of VR or

of the primary CRP, Vermont Association of Busi-

ness Industry and Rehabilitation (VABIR). In the

case of VABIR BAM’s, their positions are funded

full time by DVR in order to give those staff greater

latitude in how they approach employers. They are

expected to spend at least 75% of their time in the ﬁeld

meeting with employers. DVR especially encourages

BAM applications from people who have worked

in occupations such as sales or stafﬁng agencies,

rather than vocational rehabilitation. The philosophy

is that business/employer engagement skills are not

as readily learned as rehabilitation considerations in

the workplace. DVR has discovered that teaching a

true salesperson about disability and social services

is easier than trying to teach a human services worker

how to sell.

In contrast to the BAM, the Employment Specialist

(ES) is primarily responsible for matching the inter-

ests, skills, and work tolerance of speciﬁc job seekers

with the vocational interests and nature of the expe-

rience that employers are willing to offer. DVR has a

high ratio of ES to VRC’s in each district ofﬁce with

most ES staff employed by VABIR. The ES is respon-

sible for arranging for work experience placements.

Since they can access DVR funds to accomplish this

goal, they do not need prior approval of the VRC to

effect these placements once a job seeker has been ini-

tially designated as appropriate for PE by the VRC.

DVR has found that requiring counselor approval

of speciﬁc job placements slowed down the rapid

engagement process, and was unnecessary for effec-

tive case management. In addition, within PE even

an unsuccessful work experience is a valuable learn-

ing step that ultimately assists job seekers in ﬁnding

employment. And since the ES is a team member

with the employer, unsuccessful placements can be

resolved rapidly with less responsibility falling on

the employer.

Although some group experiences are permissible

(e.g., company tours), the primary goal is to individ-

ually match the job seeker and the employment site.

Since the job seeker may have limited or no success-

ful experience with work, the ES is in most cases

expected to be at the work site with the job seeker,

at least during the ﬁrst few contacts. Furthermore,

the ES is expected to follow up with the employer

immediately after the ﬁrst contact, at least within

D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model 153

24 hours. Thanks to information in the employer

database, the employer is contacted via their preferred

method (phone call, text, email, site visit). The ES is

further expected to be available at any time to address

employer concerns that may arise from this place-

ment. The PE approach (see Table 1) provides the

ES with a range of high and low dose work exposure

options to match the immediate needs of job seekers

and employers.

The VRC roles in PE include referral of a speciﬁc

job seeker to Jobsville, which is the primary mech-

anism for enrolling the job seeker in PE. They are

also responsible for a hand-off to the ES, who is then

responsible for linking that person with an employer

and an appropriate work exposure option. A ﬁve-

minute presentation of a new referral is provided by

the VRC in the Jobsville meeting, followed by a dis-

cussion of potential work exposures that might be a

good match for this person. All attendees in the meet-

ing are encouraged to contribute, and it’s not unusual

for someone other than the BAM to know of a speciﬁc

work environment that might be a good ﬁt. Following

the discussion, a speciﬁc ES is assigned to the case,

and the VRC provides a folder to the ES on that job

seeker that contains basic case information. A client

release of information speciﬁc to Jobsville is signed

by the job seeker prior to the presentation in Job-

sville, and this is often obtained during the eligibility

or IPE phases of the case. VRC’s are intentionally not

given speciﬁc guidelines on who should be referred

for PE in order to give them greater latitude in their

approaches to job seekers. Approximately 12% of all

DVR clients are recorded as receiving one or more

PE service.

1.3. The employer and dual customer design

PE is predicated on a dual customer approach to

job placement, where the immediate and long-term

needs of local employers are integrated into the VR

planning process. Employers are offered a variety of

options to participate. There does not have to be a spe-

ciﬁc open position with a business that the job seeker

is slotted for in order to initiate a PE work experi-

ence. In some cases, employers take this opportunity

to create positions on a trial basis to see if they make

sense to the business. Employers are offered options

of engaging with job seekers in company tours, job

shadows, short-term work experience, and on-the-

job training options. DVR believes this approach

with employers will reduce the cost of recruiting and

hiring, reduce perceived risk, and ultimately create

better matches between jobseeker and employer.

DVR has found that accommodations that can be

conceptually daunting to businesses are often worked

out during the “no-risk” period. Consequently, if

the business is ready to hire a job seeker, many

of the details of accommodations, shift preferences,

transportation, and childcare, etc., have already been

worked out. The business beneﬁts because they are

assisting in hiring persons with disabilities (tax and

humanitarian beneﬁts), they can try out potential

employees with no obligation to hire, and/or they can

prototype new job descriptions or positions without

expending capital. For small businesses, DVR is play-

ing the role of an outsourced HR unit by seeking talent

that matches identiﬁed needs, providing advice to an

owneror supervisor about accommodations, and part-

nering on solutions. Particularly for entry-level jobs,

Table 1

PE service options for job seekers and employers

Work experiences

with training

offset

The employer allows the individual to try out a job on site for time-limited period (1–8 weeks)

DVR pays the individual a training offset to cover expenses related to participation

DVR provides workers’ compensation and general liability insurance

Company tours

and job shadows

Generally very short term (one to three days)

For a company tour the job seeker only visits the work site

For a job shadow the job seeker observes a speciﬁc job (or selection of jobs) over one to three days

DVR may provide the employer a small payment for their time and a stipend for the job seeker to cover expenses

DVR provides workers’ compensation and general liability insurance

On-the-Job

Training

The employer hires the individual directly

DVR pays a portion of the employer’s costs for additional training for a time-limited period (up to three months)

after hire

Because trainee is an employee, employer is responsible for workers’ compensation and general liability

insurance

Temp-to-hire The individual is employed by a temporary agency and placed with a local employer

The employer pays the temp agency

DVR pays a portion of the temp agency’s costs

The temp agency provides workers’ compensation & general liability insurance

154 D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model

employers stated that they had a “high failure” rate

hiring off the street, and therefore they value PE for

ﬁlling entry-level jobs (Robertson & Madden, 2010).

However, DVR is not in the business of providing

temporary workers to businesses, and steps are taken

by the BAM and ES so that employers do not receive

a continual source of free labor.

Although the overall success rate of PE is high

in VT, progressive employment is not a promise of

permanent work via any speciﬁc job exposure. The

job seeker and business both appreciate this, and this

aspect of PE minimizes unrealistic expectations or

concerns on both sides.

1.3.1. The weekly PE team meeting

One of the key components in PE is weekly meet-

ings, known as “Jobsville” where all VR and CRP

staff attend. In VT, these meetings are centered

around speciﬁc ofﬁces and geographic areas. In some

cases where rural distances make it difﬁcult to attend

a meeting, teleconference connections are utilized by

some staff. In a technological era where direct inter-

personal communication is becoming less common

in social service agencies, this meeting stands out as

distinctly different. The Jobsville communication is

most often identiﬁed by participating staff as to why

PE works so well. In VT, staff most often identify

Jobsville as one of the highlights of their work week.

The agenda is highly focused, time limited, and has

a designated leader (often a BAM). The set agenda

includes 1. Successes, 2. New referrals, 3. Updates

on PE job seekers, 4. Emerging local labor market

information, and 5. Challenging cases. This provides

a forum for sharing information about business needs,

while identifying VR job seekers who have an inter-

est in those business areas. Jobsville is considered an

essential component of PE, as it promotes better and

considerably more timely communication among the

team, resulting in rapid engagement of job seekers, as

well as quicker responses to identiﬁed business needs.

DVR has found that if the Jobsville meeting is func-

tioning properly, staff are highly motivated to attend

so requiring their attendance is not an issue. Stafﬁng

of job seekers in Jobsville can include persons in PE

as well as other VR participants.

1.4. Mechanism for set-aside training offset

funds and liability insurance

In order to avoid potential problems with beneﬁts

spenddown requirements or conﬂicts with provi-

sions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), job

seekers in a work experience are not considered as

paid for working but rather compensated for attending

this training experience. This approach makes addi-

tional sense when considering that work experiences

are short term (average six weeks or less) and less

than 40 hours per week. Funds for PE training offsets

are held in a “set-aside” funding pool that is sepa-

rate from VR counselor case management funds, so

that PE expenditures do not “compete” with other

VR needs. This DVR variation in compensation is

very much on a state-to-state basis, as the majority of

replication states have chosen instead to pay a tempo-

rary hourly wage to job seekers in work experience

placements (in part, a function of state policy and

interpretation of FLSA standards.) The PE process

can begin as soon as the IPE is signed, with work

experiences up to 25 hours per week, typically lasting

for between six and eight weeks. The job experiences

are not intended to provide a living wage, unless the

employer places a person on their payroll through

an On-the-Job Training option. However, training

offsets may be provided to job seekers to cover

out-of-pocket costs.

The 2016 DVR agency-wide annual PE set-aside

budget was $175,000, and these funds were inde-

pendent from individual counselor budgets for case

services. The separate funds help eliminate counselor

conﬂicts on how to spend limited case service dol-

lars early in a VR case. In VT, DVR ofﬁce managers

receive monthly reports detailing the amounts of set-

aside funds used by their counseling staff, so they can

gauge use of these funds compared to other budgets

or ofﬁces in the state. PE is deﬁned by the agency

as a short-term intervention, and unless unusual cir-

cumstances dictate, each work experience is limited

to six weeks.

Liability insurance and work compensation for PE

placements, as well as travel and training stipends

for job seekers, are underwritten by DVR, making it

much easier for employers to participate. This was

accomplished for DVR by adding a rider to an exist-

ing insurance policy within their larger Department

of Labor. Replication states have initiated their own

solutions for the provision of compensation and insur-

ance for job seekers in PE based on existing programs

and policies.

1.5. Reﬁning the PE model

The PE approach has evolved into a deﬁned model

through eight years of reﬁnement by DVR, as well

as input from national experts and state systems.

D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model 155

Reﬁnement activities include the following:

1. Committing the process to paper – written doc-

umentation of the approach has been integral to

its development since the inception. DVR has

produced a manual to show forms and processes

of the model.

2. Statewide involvement of community partner

organizations (e.g., TANF, criminal justice,

school programs) required elaboration and

standardization of model. Since the model

espouses a dual customer approach that includes

employers and community partners, the com-

munication process has been formalized across

agencies for clarity.

3. Extensive data collection of employer infor-

mation, interactions, and services as well as

jobseeker-speciﬁc data has been integral to

improving processes.

4. A continuing partnership with the Institute for

Community Inclusion (ICI, UMass, Boston) has

further reﬁned the model by assisting with con-

textualizing the model within current research

in VR as well as creating a mechanism for repli-

cation in other state policies.

5. Expert review has included focus groups and

work sessions with multiple current and for-

mer state VR Directors and Employment

Consultants. These processes have identiﬁed

components of the model that appear essential

and unique.

6. Replication in four states has been possible via

ICI’s RRTC on Demand Side Strategies, where

the model is being tested. Data collection and

research/evaluation activities are further testing

the PE model including essential components,

policies, and practices that facilitate its use.

7. Development of draft ﬁdelity measures was

completed via a learning collaborative com-

posed of the four replication states, VT DVR,

ICI, and national experts.

There are 6 core components identiﬁed as integral

to the PE Model (see Table 2):

1.6. Utilization and outcome data

Since the initial funding of PE with ARRA funds,

extensive records have been maintained by DVR

regarding PE utilization and outcomes. The ﬁrst ﬁve

years of outcome data convinced DVR to continue

this program when the funding cycle was complete.

Since the cessation of ARRA funding they have

maintained an annual budget for this activity sep-

arate from ofﬁce budgets. Data from May 2009 to

July 2016 identiﬁed a total of 2395 VR job seek-

ers who participated in PE, corresponding to 12%

of all agency clients during that time (Porter, 2016).

Approximately 29% of PE job seekers had two or

more high dose PE experiences of approximately

six weeks duration before case closure. A high dose

is any experience lasting more than one day, typi-

cally six weeks in duration. Approximately 44.4%

of all PE job seekers were transition aged youth.

The most frequent primary disabilities represented

in PE were mental illness (39.2%), cognitive disabil-

ity (35.9%) and physical/sensory disability (18.3%).

The rehabilitation rate (successful job placement post

IPE) for PE was nearly two-thirds (62%) verses an

agency-wide rehabilitation rate of 57 percent for

this entire time period. During the same eight year

period DVR staff (primarily BAMs) recorded rela-

tionships with more than 12,862 business contacts

(HR managers, business owners, supervisors etc.)

identiﬁed in 6,799 distinct businesses in Vermont and

adjoining counties in NH, MA and NY. It is noted

that business contact data also include those con-

tacts for job seekers not in PE; however, it never the

less demonstrates the degree to which new employ-

ers are contacted and utilized for job exposure or

placement options.

1.7. Consumer choice

Because Progressive Employment is ﬂexible

and allows for career exploration and discov-

ery for participants, DVR believes it represents

a true consumer-choice model. When an individ-

ual expresses an interest in a particular employer

or industry, the employment staff can use PE as

a way to introduce that candidate to a relevant

employer/business. In some cases, the individual

may discover that what they thought was a good

ﬁt is actually not something they are interested in.

This “learning” then becomes the starting point for

the next PE experience. This characteristic can be

challenging for some other VR programs where

the IPE is considered to be the ﬁnal plan that is

rarely modiﬁed.

1.8. Self-esteem and conﬁdence

Another beneﬁt of Progressive Employment is

the increasing conﬁdence and experience it provides

DVR job seekers. Many individuals have fears about

156 D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model

Table 2

Vermont Progressive Employment (PE) Model Components

Component Fidelity elements

Dual customer design 1. Employment staff negotiate directly with employers

2. Regular contact between employment staff and employers participating in PE

3. Business account manager role focuses on employer outreach, not VR caseload

Team approach with emphasis on

rapid engagement

4. Jobsville or equivalent regular team meetings focused on communication and coordination

between employment staff and VR counselors

5. Entire team credit for successful rehab closure

6. Job seekers meet with employment specialists close to time of IPE signing

Focus on high-risk or

difﬁcult-to-place job seekers

7. Option for job seekers with high risk for employment failure due to lack of work history,

criminal history, mental illness, multiple disabilities, or co-existing risk factors

Mechanism for set-asides or training

offset funds

8. Funds for PE training offset separate from VR counselor case management funds, so that

funds do not compete with other VR needs

Liability and workers’ compensation

insurance for trainees

9. Mechanism for providing liability and worker comp for trainees in lieu of employer need

to provide the same, or equivalent method of liability coverage

Data tracking tools for PE 10. Job seeker RSA-911 case services linked at client level with PE data forms

11. Continuously updated local employer database regularly used by PE team

returning to, or engaging in, employment after long

absences from the workforce, and they often have

low self-esteem related to performance and “ﬁtting

in”. Progressive Employment allows for incremental

steps to help a person build conﬁdence and skills over

time. For individuals who are particularly fearful, the

starting point may be brief tour of a business or shad-

owing for a few hours. This ability to incrementally

engage individuals and businesses is the hallmark of

Progressive Employment. “Progressive” in this case

does not mean to imply that job seekers go from low

dose to high dose work experiences. Sometimes the

opposite is true based on job seeker experiences and

the work experience options allowed by employers.

1.9. Replication states

Several other programs have replicated PE since

its inception at DVR. This includes four state VR

programs, as well as entities within VT that work

with TANF or criminal justice populations. The four

state-wide VR programs are NE general, ME general,

OR blind, and FL blind. In NE VR, the initiative has

enrolled nearly 700 job seekers, and their emphasis is

engaging VR consumers as soon as possible after they

have applied to the agency. ME Bureau of Rehabil-

itation Services (BRS) has targeted transition youth

in an effort to reduce “early dropout” from VR, and

they recently expanded their program to include more

BAMs. The OR Commission for the Blind (OCB) ini-

tially focused on stuck cases (in plan for two years

or more), as did FL blind. OCB claims that PE has

substantially changed how their agency approaches

job placement, and they also credit PE activities for

improving intra- and inter-agency communication.

These programs have found PE to be sufﬁciently suc-

cessful that they are continuing the programs and data

collection after the sponsoring ICI funding has ended.

Additional VR programs have either expressed inter-

est in PE or they have begun their own initiatives.

This includes KS VR, where they have recently begun

PE services. KS is primarily targeting persons with

intellectual disabilities or persons with disabilities

who have recently been released from state prisons.

Subsequent papers intend to address the cross site

data, as well as programmatic, policy, and adminis-

trative infrastructures that appear to support PE.

2. Discussion

PE has received a great deal of attention from other

state based VR programs, and it is currently being

implemented in a total of six VR agencies, including

VT DVR. A common comment from persons new to

PE is that this approach is already being utilized by

them, and it is “business as usual” for many agen-

cies. While it is likely that many VR agencies offer

related services such as paid work experiences and

on-the-job training, the PE model extends beyond

those service delivery strategies. The combination of

dual-customer approaches, high-risk job seekers, and

a strong and highly structured team communication

approach has not existed in this combination in any of

the states that have thus far replicated the PE model.

However, the fact that VR agencies often provide sim-

ilar employment services suggests that this model is

transferrable.

Extracting a practice that has been developed by

a state VR agency within the conﬁnes of policies,

D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model 157

funding obligations, and standard operating proce-

dures is a challenge as clientele, policies, practices,

and funding structures vary a great deal across VR

agencies. DVR leadership deﬁned the practice more

narrowly than ICI researchers during the extraction

process. However, key elements such as the Jobsville

communication strategy, the localized BAM posi-

tions, the ability of Employment Specialists to “close

the deal” with employers were not only key elements

but did not exist in other locations.

To further assist with transferability, Vermont

DVR and partnering researchers have undertaken an

extensive documentation of PE to detail the intent,

functioning, and expected outcomes of the pro-

gram. Forms pertaining to job seeker and employer

agreements, business contact information, reviews

of the work experience (including jobseeker self-

evaluations), and employer-focused resources (e.g.,

tax incentives) are available via online manuals and

training materials.

Adoption of PE as a model requires embracing

some key philosophical perspectives that affect VR

agency leadership and implementation. First and

foremost is the elimination of “job readiness” as a

metric for placement in work experiences. This is a

relatively novel concept within many VR systems.

Many state VR agencies see early services for job

seekers as including job readiness assessment and

evaluation away from any employment settings in

order to determine when someone has achieved some

level of ability to be referred for job placement. DVR

PE counters that ”everyone is ready for something”

starting the day the VR plan is signed.

Other implementation issues emerge as this philo-

sophical approach is adopted. Should a VR counselor

prepare an IPE early and then modify it as the job-

seeker learns more about work opportunities? Or,

should a VR counselor hold off on the IPE process

until a goal and set of services form a contract of

sorts. In some VR agencies, counselors may man-

age heavy caseloads by triaging new applicants to

assessments and evaluations. Eliminating the abil-

ity to manage case ﬂow in such a way puts more

pressure on counselors to concentrate efforts on new

customers. This is perceived as a challenging issue

in states with heavy caseloads or for counselors who

have a higher percentage of their customers who need

signiﬁcant support.

Recent legislation such as the Workforce Innova-

tion Opportunity Act of 2014 and civil rights lawsuits

such as the Olmstead cases have put more pres-

sure on VR agencies to serve young people, people

with limited work histories, people with signiﬁcant

disabilities, and people who are working in facility-

based work settings. VR agencies that seek to develop

dual customer strategies must do so in full knowledge

that their base of job seekers are persons with more

signiﬁcant employment service needs.

Other practices exist, such as Customized Employ-

ment, Project Search, pre-employment training

services, registered apprenticeships and supported

employment. PE is not in conﬂict with these services.

What PE offers is a dual customer strategy that starts

with the business perspective and expects speciﬁc

behaviors from the team of VRC’s, Employment Spe-

cialists, and Business Account Managers. As VR

agencies respond to WIOA regulations, they are

building business relations units, hiring personnel

to carry “caseloads” of businesses, and repurposing

their data systems to measure business engagement

outcomes. They are also designing pre-employment

training services, aligning career pathways services

with workforce systems, and developing more work-

based learning opportunities.

VT DVR’s innovation offers a solution of how

to align business-focused services with jobseeker

services all the while maintaining a clear focus on

persons with the most signiﬁcant disabilities. In that

way, VT DVR is maximizing the very strengths of

the VR program: availability of guidance and coun-

seling, rapid deployment of individualized services,

and coordinated social, clinical, and vocational ser-

vices. Foley, Marrone and Simon (2002) observed

that large employment systems such as welfare and

workforce functioned as cruise ships by moving

large numbers of persons through a menu of ser-

vices while VR systems functioned more like kayaks

moving high need customers along winding rivers.

In order to do that effectively, VR agencies need

practices that can be implemented in situ and are

based on the need for individualization. PE is one

such practice.

2.1. Outstanding features of the PE model

PE has several features that may lead to further

replications:

• Applicability to a range of businesses: A strong

focus on employer needs, with business account

managers who are responsible for contacting and

recruiting employers for PE. In DVR, Business

Account Managers tend to function similar to

stafﬁng agency personnel.

158 D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model

• Applicable to a wide range of populations:

Vermont developed the model to serve individ-

uals with multiple barriers to employment; the

approach is not speciﬁc for any population and

holds promise for a very wide range of job seek-

ers both within VR and potentially across other

human service systems.

• The PE model is “manualized” (e.g., many pro-

grammatic and training components compiled

into a single manual), including all forms and

data sheets necessary for the management of the

program. All VR and associated CRP staff in the

state have been thoroughly trained on the model

and have a consistent vision for how and why

to use PE, and PE is formally incorporated into

DVR policy.

• The team communication expectations in PE dis-

tinctly set it apart from how most VR services are

provided. The team meets very often and shares

real time information about employers and job

seekers. The team building aspects of the model

are reported to be very professionally rewarding

for staff.

• The risk is taken on by a third party, not

business: Liability insurance and worker comp

are provided by DVR; therefore, employers

have less reluctance to allow non-employees

into their job sites.

Since multiple state-wide replications of PE have

occurred in the last several years, aspects of the model

are being elaborated in order to be sensitive to the

wide differences in services delivery and popula-

tion characteristics that exist in state VR agencies

across the country. This has been assisted by an ICI

–supported Learning Collaborative among the agen-

cies that use PE. The permutations of PE being tested

and discussed in this Collaborative include varied

service delivery models (e.g., CRP vs. central case

management), roles and timing of vocational evalu-

ation, the deﬁnition of “early engagement” for work

experiences, mechanisms for compensation or other

support for work experiences, and how to provide

liability insurance or worker compensation for work

experiences.

2.2. Future research

The success of the PE program and the apparent

ease with which it can ﬁt into current VR practices

has generated much interest from other state VR

and human services agencies. In some respects, the

interest in replicating this program has outstripped

the available research on efﬁcacy and effectiveness.

To address this issue, the Institute for Community

Inclusion (ICI) at the University of Massachusetts,

Boston, in partnership with VT DVR, is completing

a ﬁve-year research project to evaluate and attempt

replication of this model in other state VR agen-

cies. This project is engaged in documenting critical

process and outcome data on replication of PE, as

well as more in-depth analysis of outcome data from

VT DVR itself. Some of the issues that are being

addressed include whether other states experience

improved outcomes with PE, the speciﬁc disability

and age groups that beneﬁt from PE, service delivery

models lending themselves to PE, the role of early

engagement in outcomes, and what PE services can

be utilized with transition youth and pre-employment

transition services.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance

and support of the following people:

Diane Dalmasse, Director VT Division of Voca-

tional Rehabilitation, for her insight and leadership

for encouraging her staff to be innovative with VR

services

Mark Schultz, Assistant Commissioner/Director,

Nebraska VR, and the great NE VR staff for agreeing

to serve as a beta evaluation site for replication of the

PE model

Angel Hale, Director, Rehabilitation Services,

Oregon Commission for the Blind

Betsy Hopkins, Director, Division of VR, State of

Maine

Robert Doyle, Director, Florida Division of Blind

Services

ICI staff, including research staff John Halliday,

Bob Burns, Vito DeSantis, Julisa Cully, Kartik

Trivedi, and Rafael Wainhaus. From the Marketing

and Communications team, David Temelini and

Anya Weber assisted in product development and

copyediting.

Conﬂict of interest

None to report.

Funding

Initial funding for Progressive Employment pro-

vided to VT DVR via the American Recovery and

D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model 159

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), President’s Eco-

nomic Recovery Advisory Board

ICI/RRTC NIDILRR funding: This paper was

produced in concert with the Vocational Rehabilita-

tion Research and Training Center on Demand-Side

Strategies, at the Institute for Community Inclu-

sion, University of Massachusetts Boston. This center

is funded by the National Institute on Disability,

Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research

(NIDILRR) Grant# H133B120002.

Project Ofﬁcer: Hugh Berry, EdD

Susan Foley, PhD, Principal Investigator, Univer-

sity of Massachusetts Boston

References

Bjelland, M. J., Bruy

ere, S. M., von Schrader, S., Houtenville, A.

J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, A., & Webber, D. A. (2010). Age and

disability employment discrimination: Occupational rehabil-

itation implications. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,

20(4), 456-471.

Bradshaw, H., Porter, A., & Smith, J. (2012). Progressive employ-

ment: A dual customer approach to vocational rehabilitation

services. Burlington, VT: Vermont Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation. Retrieved from: http://vocrehab.vermont.gov/

sites/vocrehab/ﬁles/pdf/ProgressiveEmploymentDescriptive

PaperAug2012.pdf

Bruy

ere, S. M., Erickson, W. A., & VanLooy, S. A. (2006). The

impact of business size on employer ADA response. Rehabil-

itation Counseling Bulletin, 49(4), 194-206.

Burke, J., Bezyak, J., Fraser, R. T., Pete, J., Ditchman, N., &

Chan, F. (2013). Employers’ attitudes towards hiring and

retaining people with disabilities: A review of the literature.

The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 19(1),

21-38.

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Gervey, R., & Lee, E. -J. (2010). Introduction

to demand-side factors related to employment of people with

disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4),

407-411.

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Maher, P., Lee, E. -J., Jones, R., & Johnson,

E. T. (2010). Demand-side factors related to employment of

people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the Mid-

west region of the United States. Journal of Occupational

Rehabilitation, 20(4), 412-419.

Copeland, J., Chan, F., Bezyak, J., & Fraser,R. T. (2010). Assessing

cognitive and affective reactions of employers toward people

with disabilities in the workplace. Journal of Occupational

Rehabilitation, 20(4), 427-434.

Domzal, C., Houtenville, A., & Sharma, R. (2008). Survey of

employer perspectives in the employment of people with dis-

abilities: Technical report. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/

odep/research/SurveyEmployerPerspectivesEmployment

PeopleDisabilities.pdf

Drake, R. E. (1998). A brief history of the Individual Placement and

Support model. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 22(1), 3.

Drake, R. E., & Bond, G. (2014). Introduction to the special issue

on individual placement and support. Psychiatric Rehabilita-

tion Journal, 37(2), 76-68.

Fraser, R. T., Ajzen, I., Johnson, K., Herbert, J., & Chan, F.

(2011). Understanding employers’ hiring intention in relation

to qualiﬁed workers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational

Rehabilitation, 35(1), 1-11.

Fry, R. R. (Ed.). (1997). Developing effective partnerships with

employers as a service delivery mechanism. 23rd Institute on

Rehabilitation Issues. NIDRR, Washington, DC. Wisconsin

University – Stout.

Haines, K., Soldner, J., Zhang, L., St. Laurent, M. L., Knabe,

B., West-Evans, K., Mock, L., & Foley, S. (2016). Vocational

Rehabilitation and Business Relations: Preliminary Indicators

of State VR Agency Capacity. Manuscript submitted for pub-

lication.

Honeycutt, T., & Stapleton, D. (2013). Striking while the iron is

hot: The effect of vocational rehabilitation services wait times

on employment outcomes for applicants receiving Social Secu-

rity disability beneﬁts. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,

39, 137-152. doi: 10.3233/JVR-130645

Ipsen, C., & Goe, R. (2016) Factors associated with job seeker

engagement and satisfaction with the Vocational Rehabilitation

Program. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 44(1), 85-96.

Ju, S., Zhang, D., & Pacha, J. (2012). Employability skills val-

ued by employers as important for entry-level employees with

and without disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional

Individuals, 35(1), 29-38.

Kehn, M., Babalola, L., Honeycutt, T., Livermore, G., Doubleday,

A., Stapleton, D., & Sevak, P. (2016). Minnesota’s SGA Project

Demonstration: An Interim Evaluation Report. Mathematica

Policy Research: Washington D.C.

Luecking, R. G. (2008). Emerging employer views of people with

disabilities and the future of job development. Journal of Voca-

tional Rehabilitation,

29(1), 3-13.

Martin, F., Morris, E., Honeycutt, T., Livermore, G., Doubleday,

A., Sevak, P., & Stapleton, D. (2017). Kentucky’s SGA Model

Demonstration: Interim Evaluation Report. Mathematica Pol-

icy Research: Washington, D.C.

McDonnell, M., Zhou, L., & Crudden, A. (2013). Employer atti-

tudes towards persons who are blind or visually impaired:

Perspectives and recommendations from vocational rehabil-

itation personnel. Journal of Rehabilitation, 79(3), 17-24.

Porter, A., (2016). Progressive employment statistics from incep-

tion 5/2009 to 6/30/2016. Unpublished excel spreadsheet.

Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Waterbury, VT.

Porter, E., Kwan, N., Marrone, J., & Foley, S. (2012). Demand side

strategies: Prevalence of business employment representatives

in vocational rehabilitation agencies. Review VR Series, No.

1. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute

for Community Inclusion.

Robertson, B., & Madden, P. (2010). Research report; Vermont

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation alternative placements

program survey. Portland, ME: Market Decisions. Unpub-

lished report.

Simonsen, M., Fabian, E. S., Buchanan, L., & Luecking,

R. G. (2011). Strategies used by employment service

providers in the job development process: Are they

consistent with what employers want? Technical report.

Retrieved from http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/sites/

default/ﬁles/content/TranCen%20MIG%20Report

Strategies

Job Development.pdf

Solovieva, T. I., Dowler, D. L., & Walls, R. T. (2011). Employer

beneﬁts from making workplace accommodations. Disability

and Health Journal, 4(1), 39-45.

160 D. Moore et al. / Vermont progressive employment model

Stensrud, R. (2007). Developing relationships with employers

means considering the competitive business environment and

the risks it produces. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(4),

226-237.

Swanson, S. J., Becker, D. R., & Bond, G. R. (2013). Job

development guidelines in supported employment. Psychiatric

Rehabilitation Journal, 36(2), 122-123.

Unger, D. (2007). Addressing employer personnel needs and

improving employment training, job placement and retention

for individuals with disabilities through public-private partner-

ships. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(1), 39-48.

Wagner, C. C., Armstrong, A. J., Fraser, R. T., Vandergoot, D., &

Thomas, D. F. (2006). Evidence-based employment practices

in vocational rehabilitation. In K. Hagglund & A. Heinemann

(Eds.), Handbook of Applied Disability and Rehabilitation

Research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.,

pp. 179-210.