Assessing 3 Rehabilitation Agencies
Assessing 3 Rehabilitation Agencies
Dr. C.Edwin Vaughan,
Professor of Sociology
at the University of Missouri at Colombia
An Organizational Approach to the Evaluation
of Rehabilitation Outcomes:
Assessing Three Private Rehabilitation Agencies
by C. Edwin Vaughan, Ph.D.
**********
From the Editor: The following pilot study was conducted in
1997 and early 1998 by Professor C. Edwin Vaughan for the U.S.
Office of Education. Those who have attended annual conventions
of the National Federation of the Blind or who are long-time
readers of the Braille Monitor are familiar with the many
personal stories and anecdotes told by blind people lucky enough
to have been students at one of the three private adult
rehabilitation training centers conducted with Federation
philosophy as the basis of the program. Here, however, is a look
at these three programs and the ways in which they differ from
traditional training facilities. Dr. Vaughan also suggests
additional areas for fruitful investigation. This is what he
says:
**********
1. Background
There are approximately one hundred residential programs for
persons who are blind in the United States that provide
vocational, pre-vocational, and independent-living services to
consumers of the Title I Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Program. A conservative estimate would suggest that in the last
decade at least 30,000 clients participated in these residential
programs--ranging from three- to nine-month enrollments. The most
frequently stated goal is preparation for competitive employment.
Other goals include preparation for additional education
(including higher education) and independent living. These
residential programs are relatively expensive, frequently costing
from $2,700 to $3,000 or more per month for each student. Despite
the economic cost and the human effort, there is little evidence
that these programs have produced a significant improvement in
the level of blind people's participation in the labor force.
During the period 1984 to 1988 three new residential
rehabilitation centers were created by members of the largest
consumer organization of blind people--the National Federation of
the Blind. The reasons for developing these three residential
rehabilitation centers was an awareness of the limitations of
existing programs. Existing agencies were not, in the opinion of
the members of this consumer organization, educating their
students adequately for a life of independence, self-reliance,
and full participation in society. These three agencies have
flourished and are attracting clients from all over the United
States and from several other countries.
Those in the field of blindness rehabilitation frequently
discuss program evaluation; a fairly complete bibliography was
commissioned by the National Accreditation Council for Agencies
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped. Most traditional
approaches to evaluation consider the staffing and other agency
features and examine client progress in learning particular
skills. No research has been done, however, comparing agency
effectiveness. No evaluation procedures have effectively studied
the holistic effects on the individual in terms of alterations in
his or her subsequent life career.
Because of the public monies expended and the wasted human
resources, it is important to learn whether these three agencies
are more effective than others. As a first step this pilot study
will analyze the philosophy, curriculum, and staffing that are
all ingredients of the comprehensive rehabilitation experience
which these agencies claim is quite effective. In this pilot
study I interviewed representative graduates to learn, from the
client perspective, the strengths and weaknesses of these
programs.
**********
2. Objectives
1. Describe the three residential programs in terms of their
philosophies, goals, curricula, personnel practices, services,
and consumer outcomes.
2. Identify organizational features (philosophies, goals,
curricula, personnel practices, and services) associated with
high levels of consumers' vocational/educational success and
independence.
3. Analyze the relationships between agency goals and
personnel practices.
4. Analyze the relationships between organizational goals
and the curriculum provided to the consumer.
5. Establish baseline data for judging the future success of
these agencies.
**********
3. Procedures
1. I visited each of the three centers--the Louisiana Center
for the Blind (Ruston, Louisiana); the Colorado Center for the
Blind (Denver, Colorado); and BLIND, Inc.--Blindness: Learning in
New Dimensions (Minneapolis, Minnesota).
2. I reviewed relevant documents at all three locations,
including annual reports and contract proposals.
3. I interviewed each director, almost all members of the
staff, and several members of the boards of directors of the
three agencies.
4. As a participant/observer I visited several classes,
including mobility, independent living, computer skills,
industrial arts (woodworking), and group discussions about the
philosophy of blindness.
5. Throughout my site visits I talked informally with
clients.
6. From lists of graduates within the last twelve months, I
selected nine students for extensive open-ended, unstructured,
in-depth telephone interviews. They comprised a purposive sample-
-generally reflecting the gender, ethnic, and economic diversity
of the client group. From these interviews I tried to learn, from
the client's point of view, aspects of the rehabilitation
experience associated with the clients' subsequent occupational
success and their overall satisfaction with the rehabilitation
program.
7. From information gathered in conversations and interviews
with students and site observations, I conducted a second round
of interviews with the three directors.
**********
Philosophy
The philosophy behind the programs of the three centers, for
the most part, is similar.
(1) None of the three is associated with a sheltered
workshop. This physical separation from sheltered workshops
allows students to explore all employment options thoroughly
without the appearance of being directed into a sheltered
environment.
(2) All three centers address what Diane McGeorge (Director
of the Denver Center) referred to as "the real issues" of
blindness. These issues include what a person thinks of himself
or herself and what ordinary people and some professionals think
about blindness. To repeat a slogan frequently heard at these
agencies, "We are changing what it means to be blind." Most
students come from backgrounds of overprotection and have seldom
reflected critically on their own goals and potentials. All three
organizations provide experiences to challenge limiting self-
concepts.
(3) All agree that programs must be extensive and
comprehensive. Everything from attitudes to required skills must
be addressed before an individual can participate fully in
society. Students do not come to these residential rehabilitation
programs to learn only a particular skill such as mobility or
computer use.
(4) All three programs require sleep-shade training.
Residual vision is to be used, but only after the skills of
blindness have been mastered.
(5) All three continually stress positive images of
blindness--"There is nothing wrong with being blind." If a
student becomes skilled at alternative techniques to vision,
blindness can be reduced to an inconvenience. You should make the
best of what you have and reject society's negative images about
blindness.
(6) Whenever possible, alternative techniques should be
taught in real-life situations. For example, to teach cane travel
as technique is not enough; the student is learning cane travel
skills in order to go somewhere. The goal for students is that
when they have become proficient in the use of alternative
techniques and develop a positive self-concept, they move on to
pursue vocational training, post-secondary education, employment,
or a greater degree of independence.
(7) A wellness model is stressed. Students should focus on
their potential, not their limitations. There is the expectation
that with appropriate training most blind people will succeed in
their chosen fields.
(8) Rehabilitation is viewed as part of a lifelong process,
and students are expected to begin a long-term involvement with
consumer organizations. In the case of these three agencies the
preferred consumer organization is the National Federation of the
Blind. The purpose is twofold: 1) to give the blind person an
ongoing support group which will continually reinforce a positive
philosophy about blindness and provide encouragement when
difficulties emerge and 2) to involve the students in a
commitment to pay back or contribute to the ongoing organization
and to the lives of other blind people. The staff even refers to
the desire of student outcome as a spiritual experience;
rehabilitation will be so transforming you will want to share
with others the aspects of your newly found independence and more
positive self-image. One staff member in Louisiana mentioned that
the staff communicates this urgency to getting on with the
transforming of one's life.
Joanne Wilson, Director of the Louisiana Center, expanded
the religious theme, describing the rehabilitation experience as
somewhat like a traditional "religious revival." After the
initial intense transforming experience some people "backslide."
By becoming involved in an ongoing organization with positive
role models and a positive philosophy, the individual can
continually renew the original experience. The traditional
community-based attitudes about blindness are so pervasive that
it is easy once again to internalize negative self-images or to
accept traditional low expectations of what a blind person can
achieve. To quote Ms. Wilson again, "We have to teach the
students to give back to something else--if we are going to be
whole people, we cannot just take from this world, but we have to
give back. This is particularly important for blind people; it is
so easy never to give anything back because people have so often
given everything to you--paid for your coffee or taken care of
you through family, welfare, etc. The involvement in the consumer
organization helps sustain the social movement which produces
public education, legislation, litigation, new employment
opportunities, etc., which may in turn help the individual in
additional ways." Although encouraged, students are not required
to join the National Federation of the Blind.
**********
Curriculum
The three centers attempt to link philosophy to
rehabilitation outcomes through both curriculum and staff
involvement. For this discussion I have included the physical
environment as part of the environment.
(1) All students in the residential rehabilitation program
are encouraged to live independently. Furnished apartments are
provided for students, usually two students sharing a two-bedroom
unit. Students are responsible for cleaning the apartment and for
cooking and preparing their own food. In all cases these
apartments are considerably removed from the main rehabilitation
facility. Students are required to work out their own
transportation--usually public busses.
(2) All instruction is linked, as much as possible, to real
life situations. If a student needs to open a checking account or
make an appointment with a beauty shop, the task becomes part of
mobility instruction. Students will not simply learn to cook;
they will learn how to prepare a meal for all their fellow
students at the center.
(3) All three centers include at least four hours each week
in what is referred to as business seminars--the business of
living. These are discussion groups involving both students and
staff. They are intended to help students examine their own
attitudes about blindness and to understand the reasons for the
social and instructional arrangements they are experiencing. The
intent is to change attitudes and broaden perspectives.
(4) There is a distinct approach to mobility instruction.
Cane travel instruction is extensive throughout one's time at any
of these three rehabilitation centers. At some traditional
centers cane travel will be taught only one to four months. Only
the basic techniques can be learned in this brief period;
becoming a confident and safe traveler takes much longer. Russell
Anderson is a travel instructor at the Minnesota Center. He
prefers the word "travel" to "orientation and mobility." To him,
travel means learning to go out, to go somewhere safely and on
your own.
All three centers strongly recommend the use of the long
lightweight, carbon-fiber cane. Not only is this cane a symbol of
freedom, but it also enables the traveler to explore the travel
surface one stride in advance of traditional shorter canes.
According to the instructors this cane has many other advantages
that go beyond the scope of this report.
(5) The curriculum includes social experiences that most
students have never imagined. All three centers encourage their
students to attend state and national conventions of the National
Federation of the Blind. In this context students learn social
skills, self-reliance, and independent travel in quite diverse
settings. In 1997 all three centers sent students to attend the
NFB convention at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in New Orleans, a five-
day event with more than 3,200 registrants. To avoid criticism
from funding sources, the Colorado, Minnesota, and Louisiana
affiliates of the NFB provide scholarships for student
attendance. Funds from the state agencies sponsoring each student
are not used for this purpose.
(6) The student experience is based on more than an eight-
hour day. The positive philosophy is taught and lived in a
twenty-four-hour environment. Students learn from positive role
models: roommates, instructors, citizens in the community, and
board members. The staff accompany the students on a wide array
of field trips. These field trips are intended to provide
students with experiences they had never imagined or thought
possible. These include wilderness camping, rock climbing, white
water rafting, cave exploring, skiing, and attending festivals
such as Mardi Gras. The intent is to increase self-confidence and
promote a more positive self-image.
(7) Except for discussion groups much of the instruction is
one-on-one. Typically between eighteen and twenty-four students
are enrolled in the residential rehabilitation program. The
staff-to-student ratio is usually around 1.5 to 1. All three
centers thought twenty students to be the optimal number. These
numbers are approximate, but below twelve students is less
desirable because the number and variety of positive role models
is restricted.
(8) All students are taught Braille without regard to
residual vision. I met one student at the Louisiana Center who
was excited about learning to read--at age twenty-three. He had
experienced two rehabilitation centers in California, which did
not instruct him in Braille. They tried to use his residual
vision without success. Research has demonstrated that students
who become literate in Braille are far more successful in
employment and independent living than visually impaired students
not learning Braille. Braille is an important feature of the
curriculum for education, as is the long white cane for
traveling. Proficiency in both is essential and required.
(9) Students also participate in several additional
curricular areas, including computer skills, cooking, and
woodworking. These are subjects important in their own right but
also teach independence and self-reliance and provide a broader
perspective on the capabilities of blind people.
(10) As previously mentioned, sleep shade use is required
throughout the curriculum. Students are told this before they
arrive, and it is clearly communicated in most brochures and
informational material. All three directors agreed that there is
no better way to teach the skills of independent living. Although
programs are individualized for each student, all are told before
they arrive that these programs teach a distinct philosophy about
blindness.
(11) Students do not pick and choose preferred aspects of
the curriculum; the training is both intensive and comprehensive.
One staff member likened the experience to boot camp. Students
must follow all specific rules, or their training will be
discontinued. Students with problems other than blindness, if too
disruptive, will be sent home.
**********
Staff
(1) All staff members must have been competitively employed
before being considered for employment in these three agencies.
This is an additional dimension to the positive role modeling;
students learn from their competent blind instructors about other
employment opportunities that might be available.
(2) Blindness is not a requirement; however, most of the
instructors are blind. If a competent blind instructor is
available, this makes role modeling even stronger. At BLIND,
Inc., Joyce Scanlan, Director, observed that many students come
to the program initially having more confidence in the sighted
members of the staff. This quickly changes and bonding occurs.
Negative opinions of the sighted staff do not grow, but new
levels of appreciation and respect develop concerning the
qualities of the blind staff.
(3) All employees must share in the positive views reflected
in the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind--
otherwise they will not be retained. The agency in Louisiana is
the only one of the three that requires all employees to
participate in the National Federation of the Blind.
Such personnel policies differ dramatically from those
frequently seen at larger private agencies. Sometimes it is
difficult--if not impossible--for staff members from more
traditional agencies to express in their behavior their
philosophy of independence. They may encounter resistance in
larger agencies dominated by sighted or blind individuals with
traditional philosophies or practices involving custodial care.
The effort of a teacher to become more effective and be a
positive role model can become a threat in the traditional
agency. In fact Scanlan observed that workers in larger centers
are sometimes rewarded for their willingness to be dependent upon
other staff members. They are rewarded for being led around
rather than traveling independently because the former maintains
the status quo. Also in more traditional agencies there is the
additional problem of the accumulation of minimally competent
people because it is difficult to remove them. According to the
people I interviewed, learning from teachers who often appear to
have little confidence in other blind people is one of the most
deadening experiences a student can encounter. Staff members who
demonstrate unnecessary dependence or anything less than the
highest levels of accomplishment are not acceptable in these
three agencies, where the example and contribution of each person
is critical.
(4) Sighted employees undergo extensive sleep-shade training
as part of their new-employee orientation program. For example,
the sighted industrial arts teacher at BLIND, Inc., of Minnesota
spent three months at the Louisiana Center learning the skills of
blindness with the use of sleep shades. Sighted employees
frequently use their sleep shades as part of the educational
effort to teach a particular skill to a blind student.
(5) Although stated in several different ways, I frequently
heard employees characterize themselves as believing in blind
people. The intent of the staff is to accomplish more than
teaching a particular skill. According to Diane McGeorge of the
Colorado Center, a strong component of success is the commitment
of each staff member to the success of each student, along with
high expectations of what blind people can achieve. The program
tries to communicate that clients can take control of their own
lives.
(6) The staff expect self-reliance. Students are expected to
learn to solve individual problems as they arise. At many more
traditional residential rehabilitation centers things are done
for students that are not even considered at these three centers.
At some traditional centers I have observed students eating in
cafeterias rather than preparing their own meals. At one of the
other centers blind students raise their hands in the cafeteria
and receive prompt assistance. At another center students can
even request that meals be delivered to their rooms. To the staff
of the three NFB-oriented centers, such behavior would be viewed
as custodialism. Custodial treatment is detrimental to the
acquisition of a positive self-concept and the expectation that a
blind person can live independently.
**********
Social Organization
All three of these agencies began during the period 1984 to
1988. Each was established without the assistance of the others.
Each is closely linked to the state affiliate of the National
Federation of the Blind (NFB). Each was started by individuals
active in the NFB.
The NFB has affiliates throughout the fifty states and also
in Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. Each state affiliate is
formally linked to the national organization. Each state can
pursue its own way of promoting the interests of blind people and
the education of the public about blindness.
Each of these three agencies was begun with the financial
assistance of the state affiliates--the NFB of Colorado,
Minnesota, and Louisiana. The reason for developing these three
residential rehabilitation centers was an awareness of the
limitations of existing programs. Existing agencies were not, in
the opinion of these members of consumer organizations, preparing
the students adequately for a life of independence, self-
reliance, and full participation in society. They decided to
create new agencies that would address these concerns by
developing a curriculum and recruiting a staff that would embody
a more positive view of blindness. I have mentioned these values,
curriculum, and staffing patterns earlier in this report.
Each of these centers is a not-for-profit organization, and
each is governed by a Board of Directors. In all cases at least
half of the board must be comprised of blind people. The blind
members of these boards must be competitively employed and active
in local consumer organizations of blind people.
For most of the several hundred private blindness
rehabilitation agencies in the United States, board memberships
are based on wealth and social status--to help legitimate the
agency in the local community and assist in fund raising. These
are important issues to these three agencies as well; however,
the overriding concern is to have a governing board that is
sympathetic to and knowledgeable of the philosophies of these
agencies. All board members are expected to be involved in some
aspect of the agency's programs.
**********
Assessing Outcomes
Data to judge one agency or to compare the performance of
different agencies are rare. In a 1991 report BLIND, Inc.,
reviewed the subsequent experience of students graduated in the
previous year. This agency focused on outcomes. This helps avoid
wasting scarce resources and places emphasis on the frequently
stated goals of the rehabilitation process. In the short run this
means determining whether or not students have learned valued
skills and attitudes. In the longer view it refers to the
consequences the required skills and attitudes have for
vocational success and independent living. For example, BLIND,
Inc., in its annual report for 1991 listed the outcome of its
rehabilitation efforts.
**********
Twenty-six students participated in the comprehensive
training program in 1991. Of those, three had not completed
training. Those who have left the program are doing the
following:
10--attending high school or college
6--employed
4--seeking employment
3--living independently
(BLIND, Inc., 1991, pp. 2-3)
Whatever else the future holds for these individuals, the report
suggests that they have not become dependent on the agency and
are living independently and continuing their education and
employment.
**********
Agencies Compared in Minnesota
Data comparing agencies on student outcomes are also rare.
The Department of Jobs and Training, State Services for the
Blind, contracts with three private agencies in Minnesota to
provide alternative techniques for blind people to pursue their
vocational and rehabilitation interests more efficiently. These
are Blindness: Learning in New Dimensions (BLIND, Inc.), the
Minneapolis Society for the Blind (MSB), and the Duluth
Lighthouse for the Blind (DLB).
The following charts were based on data collected by the
staff for the Minnesota State Services for the Blind. For the
question concerning what students did with their lives after
leaving the training facilities, the first chart shows that the
difference in the outcomes for those involved in the three
agencies was great.
Concerning the use of Braille, BLIND, Inc., reported more
than twice the percentage of students using it every week. More
than 55 percent from BLIND, Inc., reported weekly use, while only
12 percent from the Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind did so.
Activities for daily living included grooming, upkeep of
clothing, cooking, housekeeping, sewing, shopping, etc.
Similarly, for these tasks there were pronounced differences
among agencies. The Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind was the
weakest on all measures, according to the NFB of Minnesota
analysis of the data.
I have no ready access to additional data that would permit
additional comparisons of the type mentioned above. It would
doubtless be a sensitive issue in most states. However, the
differences describing agency outcomes in Minnesota were so great
that additional research is justified.
.
**********
Activity after Training: This bar chart represents the
percentage of graduates from each agency engaged in each
activity:
Employment, BLIND 14 percent, MSB 5 percent, DLB 6 percent;
Student, BLIND 43 percent, MSB 14 percent, DLB 11 percent;
Planning, BLIND 28 percent, MSB 23 percent, DLB 6 percent;
Looking for Job, BLIND 14 percent, MSB 5 percent, DLB 0 percent;
Homemaking, BLIND 0 percent, MSB 10 percent, DLB 27 percent;
Retired, BLIND 0 percent, MSB 5 percent, DLB 17 percent;
Nothing, BLIND 0 percent, MSB 37 percent, DLB 33 percent]
**********
Daily Living After Training. This bar chart shows the
percentage of graduates from each agency engaged in the various
activities charted: Banking, BLIND 79 percent, MSB 51 percent,
DLB 50 percent;
General shopping, BLIND 79 percent, MSB 51 percent, DLB 50
percent;
Grocery shopping, BLIND 85 percent, MSB 42 percent, DLB 40
percent;
Personal organization, BLIND 70 percent, MSB 56 percent, DLB 56
percent.]
**********
I have no ready access to additional data that would permit
additional comparisons of the type mentioned above. It would
doubtless be a sensitive issue in most states. However, the
differences describing agency outcomes in Minnesota were so great
that additional research is justified.
**********
Interviews with Individuals
I conducted more than thirty brief, casual interviews with
currently enrolled students in the three agencies. I also
conducted nine open-ended, in-depth interviews with individuals
who had completed the residential programs within the previous
twelve months. Of this group comprised of four women and five men
ranging in age from nineteen to forty-two years, three were
continuing their higher education and six were competitively
employed.
Disclosure: I am a member of the NFB and am sympathetic to
its previously mentioned general goals. I am aware of my own
values and likely biases. I think my level of self-understanding
and critical reflection enables me to look at these agencies and
interview these individuals in a balanced manner.
**********
Self-Selection
Before beginning site visits, I presumed the likelihood of a
social network which might recruit clients to these three
agencies. Some critics have argued that these agencies exist
primarily to recruit members for the NFB. New members may be one
outcome, but it does not appear to be an explanation for the
level of staff commitment and the nature of student responses.
Of the approximately thirty informal interviews, only six
individuals had previously been involved in NFB local
organizations before attending these three centers. Only one of
the nine individuals in the in-depth interviews had previous
involvement in the NFB. Many of them had never heard of the NFB
or the state affiliates where these three agencies are located.
In all cases current clients are likely to come from the state
where the agency is located. However, approximately one third
come from other states scattered across the United States.
Incidentally, there are occasionally students from other
countries; staff from these three agencies have also been
involved in transporting their programs and philosophies to other
countries, most recently to Poland.
I repeatedly inquired why individuals selected these three
agencies. The answers were quite varied. Some were referred by
their local rehabilitation counselors. Others had heard of these
programs from acquaintances who had either attended or had some
knowledge of the agencies. One of my conclusions is that
individuals do not come to these agencies through an NFB network.
Any self-selection process biasing assessment outcomes is
minimal.
**********
In-depth Interviews
Based on my observations at the three sites and my informal
conversations with resident clients, I was not surprised that the
nine former students I interviewed by telephone were positive
about their recent residential rehabilitation experience. All
stated that the programs had helped them reach their individual
goals. These goals included greater independence, preparation to
pursue higher education more effectively, and employment. Those
currently employed had received placement assistance from their
rehabilitation center.
In various ways all nine indicated that they had left the
programs with greater confidence in themselves and a more
positive philosophy about their situations as blind people. Seven
of the nine spoke in different ways of the importance of the
"unusual things we did." They mentioned doing things that they
never would have thought of previously, such as rock climbing,
white-water rafting, and traveling to a distant city to
participate in a national convention.
Although they expressed it in different ways, all of them
thought that the stress on a positive philosophy (through staff
example, other students, and the regularly scheduled discussions
concerning a positive philosophy) were an extremely important
feature of their experience. Two individuals stated that, however
good they were, the specific techniques they learned were not as
important as the overall impact of the programs on their lives.
Four of the nine students had different levels of residual
vision. All valued the sleep-shade aspect of the training. They
valued cane-travel training from a blind instructor. This was
even the case for the two individuals who had encountered
blindness within the previous two years.
All of the students valued the independent-living experience
associated with their residence--having a roommate, being
responsible for their abode, preparing their food, and having
personal responsibility for things affecting their lives. One
mentioned that the "bar was placed very high." The staff set high
expectations and worked with each individual to this end. Other
individuals mentioned the importance of informal group
activities--the way in which students learned from each other's
successes. Eight of the nine had become active in local chapters
of the NFB. They developed ongoing friendships with their
teachers as well as with other students. They had not been a part
of a supportive social network before they came to these
agencies, but following their graduation they continued their
association with other blind people sharing a similar philosophy
about blindness.
I had to look hard to find complaints. Some felt that the
challenges in the early part of the rehabilitation process had
been too great. However, as they worked through their fears, they
retrospectively felt their anxiety to have been part of an old
self-concept that they had left behind. I have no doubt that
these nine individuals felt their lives had been permanently and
positively changed. They had not only reached their specific
goals in an important sense but felt that they had become
different people.
Not every person attending these programs will have the same
experience as these individuals. In my sample I tried to assure
that the nine individuals did not have obvious personal or
physical problems other than blindness. I obtained this
information from the directors.
These agencies do accept students with physical and other
problems as long as their behavior is not disruptive and as long
as the individual has a possibility of benefiting from the
rehabilitation experience. For example, one of the students I met
was recently blinded at age twenty-five--injured by a shotgun
blast while individuals disputed a drug transaction. While
beginning his rehabilitation towards independent living, Braille,
and mobility, he was required to attend programs to help him
become free from drug and alcohol dependency. Relapses in
chemical dependency would mean dismissal from the program. Other
students have various levels of mental ability, determination,
and ambition. They may not aspire to higher education and may
have limited employment goals. Clear progress is more difficult
to determine in these cases.
**********
Repeat Visits to Residential Rehabilitation Centers
One of the unexpected findings of my informal interviews
with students at the three centers was the number of clients who
had previously attended one, two, or even three other residential
rehabilitation centers. With hindsight and their obvious
appreciation of their present situation, all of them said that
their earlier residential rehabilitation experiences had been
inadequate. They complained about various shortcomings, including
failure to teach cane travel properly and short programs that
were too brief to permit mastery of the skills of blindness.
If there is a national pattern to sequential visits to
different rehabilitation programs, it merits further study. The
costs of these visits are considerable; $3,000 per month is a
commonly quoted figure. Assuming the earlier visits were
inadequate, there may be unnecessary months and years when
potential workers are not in the labor force. There also may be
unnecessary months and years of individuals' living restricted
lives and being unnecessarily dependent on others.
To obtain a broader perspective on this issue, I spoke with
Ms. Suzanne Mitchell, Executive Director for Blind Services,
Department of Social Services/Louisiana Rehabilitation Services
for the Louisiana Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. She confirmed that the sequential visits do
frequently occur, although she did not know of any research
specific to this issue. She mentioned several possible reasons:
1) Some clients enjoy these experiences and request
additional opportunities.
2) Some counselors easily grant requests or themselves
suggest additional visits--it is something for the client to do.
3) Some visits are too brief to make significant
rehabilitation possible.
4) Some visits may be for a specific technique such as to
learn to develop computer skills or perhaps to train for a
specific occupation.
5) Frequently those who are gradually losing eyesight
receive rehabilitation services appropriate to their level of
vision loss. A year later a new round may be deemed necessary to
add additional skills of blindness.
I suggest other possible explanations. The first is the
politics of spending public money. Residential rehabilitation
centers are highly dependent on cash flow resulting from client
fees. In some cases some rehabilitation counselors, through
normal social networks, may be responsive to the needs of
particular agencies to receive more clients. Second, some
residential rehabilitation programs are not as effective as
others. Even after many months, some other graduates may not have
learned independent living skills or other skills necessary for
employment (see data comparing the Minnesota agency presented
earlier).
Finally, some blind individuals may have multiple problems
as do others in American society. These additional problems may
prevent significant progress. If some of these can be solved in
another context, it may make sense to send the person for another
session at a residential rehabilitation center.
The frequency of these sequential visits and the reasons for
their occurrence merit further research.
**********
Summary
My observations, reading of documents, and interviews
persuade me that the three agencies--BLIND, Inc., of Minnesota;
the Colorado Center for the Blind; and the Louisiana Center for
the Blind are offering remarkably effective residential
rehabilitation programs at this time. Main ingredients of this
outcome include able leadership; careful staffing; a broad,
positive, and yet realistic philosophy about blindness; and a
curriculum that links philosophy to student development. The
setting, including student residences, is also integrated into
the overall rehabilitation program. There is a pervasive upbeat
atmosphere which would be hard for any student to ignore. From
the board of directors, director, staff, and students there is a
strong commitment to the values and importance of these
rehabilitation centers. Almost everyone sets high expectations,
and everyone wants each student to succeed.
By the information these agencies present, the graduates of
these residential rehabilitation programs are successful as
measured by student goals for attending one of these centers.
Many current students and a small sample of former students speak
very well, almost without qualification, of these programs. Some
present and former students speak of their experience as "life-
transforming." In addition to particular skills, they have
acquired a self-concept, a guiding philosophy, and a social
network enabling them to sustain their ability to conquer future
challenges.
In general I have a critical attitude toward almost
everything and would have readily exposed any problems,
discontent, or failure in performance that I observed or learned
about. More research should be done in order to compare these
three agencies with other not-for-profit private agencies or the
few state-operated residential rehabilitation centers. Additional
research should be conducted on the issue of why students
frequently attend residential rehabilitation centers on multiple
occasions. Is it because some centers are ineffective? Are the
other reasons justified? Which reasons and why?
**********
Share a Comment