Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Social Security, 9-26-02 Testimony

Statement of David Gadaire, Program Director,
Career Point, Holyoke, Massachusetts

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Fourth in a Series on Social Security Disability Programs' Challenges and Opportunities

September 26, 2002

First let me express my appreciation for the efforts put forth to get me here. I appreciate the efforts and feel bad for y'all if you need to expend this amount of effort and all you get is to listen to me.

I am told that I need to get my point across in five minutes or less, so let’s dispense with the chitchat and get to it.

Before running a OSCC I spent 20 plus years in the disability employment business and the concepts of ‘Universal Access’ and ‘no wrong door’ are what attracted me to the OSCC business. Categorical funding challenges these concepts but that is an argument for another day and another committee.

The decision to become an Employment Network The Ticket to Work opportunity was a ‘no brainer’ for CareerPoint, and I proud to report that CareerPoint was the first One Stop in the nation to become an ‘employment network’, the first to have a ticket assignment and the first to realize an employment outcome based on our efforts.

Having said that, I feel that the Ticket to Work legislation is the finest example of equal rights legislation for people living with disabilities that I have encountered in my humble career. I fully believe it is a perfect match for the mission of the OSCC’s, and although I fully support this legislation, I do believe there are potential improvements that will enhance the impact and just maybe actually put a dent in the unemployment rate for people living with disabilities.

Simply put the following 9 suggestions are the results of our (CareerPoint’s) hands-on- experience combined with a continual commentary with other ‘employment networks’ and/or Community-based organizations either deciding to become an ‘employment network’ or having made the decision not to.

1. Enhance to role of benefits planning in the legislation. Although we have a benefits planner out-stationed at our center, not all EN’s have full access to this. We added the benefits planner before becoming and EN, and our numbers have quadrupled since benefits planning became part of our menu of services. An educated customer has the greatest chance at success, and benefits’ planning improves the potential for success.
(N.B. CareerPoint has a co-location memorandum of agreement with The Resource Partnership & shares any interpretation of success with talent and quality they bring to our table)
2. I strongly suggest building in the ability to toggle back and forth between payment choice options. By mandating this decision in the application process we are forcing to the EN’s to cater to recruiting based on revenue potential. The ability to modify the payment option based on the needs of the customer is a time-tested concept. The very legislation designed to open employment doors can close them for some of the recipients. Our goal needs to be to flex our programs to the needs of the customer, not find customers that meet the design of our programs.
3. Whether intentional or not, the legislation is geared toward people that have the ability to work full time, and minimizes the options for people needing or wanting to work part time. I suggest that part time work is a crucial part of almost any career plan at one time or another, and ‘people living with disabilities’ are not different. I further suggest that failure to address this will unintentionally invite those deterrents prepared to suggest this is a 'creaming’ program.
4. I understand we are considering legislation to include the support of an Employment Support Representative. This simple addition would legislate a circle of support for our customers. As a Career Center, identifying and developing an individuals ‘circle of support’ may be the most valuable career counseling advise we offer.
5. I fully acknowledge that I have no idea how to do this, but the payment mechanisms for EN’s and State VR need to be the same. Neither side would suggest this is a good system as it now stands, and, at least for Career Centers, I believe will only serve to widen the gap between the two service provision models. For the people benefiting from this legislation, we need to combine our respective expertise, and not compete. The Person living with the disability should not be put in the middle of this growing turf-driven debate.
6. Now that we have added the concept of a ‘ticket on demand’, I fully support spreading out the mailing and marketing strategies, so the limited numbers of EN’s don’t get so consumed that quality might suffer to quantity.
7. I truly don’t have an idea on how to do this, but if we really want to maximize the number of EN’s we need to come up with some way of building in some up front or planning money. Capacity is forcing potential EN’s away from the table, and people living with disabilities are experiencing lesser choices as a result.
8. Let the organizations do the marketing and outreach to employers. Although support is needed at so many levels, I think the employer world is still dominated by stigma and fear, and therefore needs recognize the positive business aspect of a diverse workforce. This will only come when it is outlined and presented through and existing relationship. Although many organizations may need and use supportive research, I believe the actual communication with employers, maybe the most important ingredient in the future success of this program should be done by the local EN.
9. Finally, and maybe the most difficult suggestion to solve, I strongly, strongly believe that a cross match needs to be developed between computer systems tracking SSI and/or SSDI payments to the computer systems tracking EN progress. The success of this program may ultimately lie somewhere in the relationship between the EN and the person living with the disability. As long as either side of this relationship is forced to either request personal financial information or forced to provide this information, there is an unnatural component that would challenge even the most positive of relationships.

I realize I have flown through these ideas in an attempt to play by the five minute rule and need to be back in Holyoke by 5PM, but I can be reach for comment, rebuttal or some good old fashion debate at 413 532-4900 or on the web at dgadaire@detma.org.

Finally, I would be remiss is I didn’t offer the fact that as Executive Director, I am somewhat of a figure-head in this process. The true success is based on the work of Leslie Brooks (Career Counselor extraordinaire), Teri O’Shea (benefits planner), Lucy Carlson (Employer Account Representative), Joanne Tyler (ground breaking Career Counselor), Jane Peoples (Director of Operations) and a full compliment of the best staff that has ever been assembled. CareerPoint has been voted the Nation’s best Career Center by the National Alliance of Business, and that honor is truly the result of the hard work and dedication of the people making up the CareerPoint team and family.

My sincerest thanks for the opportunity to express my opinions and offer my personal and organizational support to the resolution of these or other enhancements.