COMMUNITY AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INMATE TO CITIZEN CORE TRAINING SERIES: MODULE I USING PERSON-CENTERED PRACTICES TO FACILITATE THE SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY OF INMATES WITH SPECIAL NEEDS INTO COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP ROLES CAROL BLESSING THOMAS GOLDEN Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations Employment and Disability Institute Thomas Golden, Principal Investigator 201 ILR Extension Bldg. Ithaca, NY 14850 V: 607-255-2731 F: 607-255-2731 TTY: 607-255-2891 tpg3@cornell.edu http://www.edi.cornell.edu Carol Blessing, Project Director 11 Buchanan Way Averill Park, NY 12018 V: 518-283-4408 F: 607-255-2763 TTY: 607-255-2891 cjb39@cornell.edu http://www.edi.cornell.edu NYS Developmental Disabilities Planning Council 155 Washington Avenue Second Floor Albany, NY 12210 V: 518-486-7505 F: 518-402-3505 TTY: 1-800-395-3372 ddpc@ddpc.state.ny.us MISSION AND VALUES Cornell University is a learning community that seeks to serve society by educating the leaders of tomorrow and extending the frontiers of knowledge. In keeping with the founding vision of Ezra Cornell, our community fosters personal discovery and growth, nurtures scholarship and creativity across a broad range of common knowledge, and engages men and women from every segment of society in this quest. We pursue understanding beyond the limitations of existing knowledge, ideology, and disciplinary structure. We affirm the value, to individuals and society, of the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. Our faculty, students and staff strive toward these objectives in a context of freedom with responsibility. We foster initiative, integrity, and excellence, in an environment of collegiality, civility and responsible stewardship. As the Land Grant University for the State of New York, we apply the results of our endeavors in service to the community, the state, the nation and the world. The Employment and Disability Institute, in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, holds strongly to these values. Our mission is to provide a learning environment which cultivates inclusive and accessible communities for individuals with disabilities. We seek to provide resources and information to individuals attempting to manage diversity in the workplace, community, and American life. We are committed to ensuring that Americans with disabilities, including youth, are provided with the opportunities and supports needed to attain their goals in settings, environments, cultures and communities of their own choosing — based on their respective interests, preferences, and capacities. “I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study.” –Ezra Cornell TABLE OF CONTENTS Core I: PREFACE Mission and Values Table of Contents Introduction & Acknowledgement Agenda HISTORY OF SOCIAL TRENDS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Evolution of Services Exercise: Sizing Up The Problem Social Role Valorization Theory Exercise: Cultural Trends Across the Decades CITIZENSHIP AND COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS Exercise: Discovering the Potential for Citizenship Contribution Exercise: Gifts, Abilities and Natural Talents Exercise: Making the Connection BASIC QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARDS Self-Determination and Choice Exercise: Guide for Quality of Life Standards Exercise: For Your Own Review THE ROLE OF THE SERVICE WORKER Exercise: Understanding Influence Inside-Out Understanding Influence BASE STANDARDS FOR PERSON-CENTERED PRACTICES Exercise: Creating Conditions for Change –A Universal Experience Hallmarks of Person-Centered Practices APPLIED LEARNING ASSIGNMENT Setting Your Own Standards For Person-Centered Practices within the Special Needs Units (practicum) References/Resources and Suggested Readings ACKNOWLDEGEMENT AND INTRODUCTION Using Person-Centered Practices to Facilitate the Successful Re-entry of Inmates with Special Needs into Community Membership Roles. A Workbook for Supporters, Planners and Providers Welcome to the “From Inmate to Citizen” Core Training Series. The goal of this series is to develop a learning collaborative between service staff within the correctional system, the parole system and the community at large that facilitates the successful re-entry of inmates with special needs into valued community membership roles upon release from prison. The series will be conducted over three distinct sessions each comprised of two full days of training to give participants time to learn the material during class time and to apply the material between each session within the day to day operation of a given department. Participants will be both learners and teachers throughout the series in order to customize the theories of person-centered approaches to the distinct considerations and conditions of the Special Needs Units across the New York State correctional system. These efforts will make a remarkable contribution to the existing research pool in this unique area of service delivery to people who have developmental disabilities. We look forward to taking this journey with you! This Series was developed by the Community and Workforce Development Unit within the Cornell University Employment and Disability Institute. It has been sponsored by the NYS Developmental Disabilities Planning Council (Grant #C019652) in conjunction with the NYS Department of Correctional Services and the NYS Division of Parole “Beneath the favorite tale of the moment a deeper story always lies waiting to be discovered” -Thomas Moore AGENDA Agenda Day 1: 9:00 Welcome Review Agenda for Day 1 Ice Breaker 9:30 History of Social Trends 10:45 Break 11:00 Citizenship and Community Contributions 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Basic Quality of Life Standards 2:00 Quality of Life Exercise 3:00 Summary of Day/Questions Agenda Day 2: 9:15 Review Agenda for Day 2 9:30 Role of the Service Worker 10:30 Break 10:45 Base Standards of Person-Centeredness 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Base Standards, continued 2:00 Applied Learning Assignment 3:00 Summary of Day 2 Session Evaluation END OF CORE I TRAINING HISTORY OF SOCIAL TRENDS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABLITIES Over the last century, we have seen a major evolution in the way individuals with disabilities are perceived, interacted with, treated, and supported. From the late 1800s and the reform model to the medical and development model of the 1950s and 1970s, we now enter the functional supports era of service and supports delivery for individuals with disabilities. As the models have evolved they have struggled to foster general acceptance of disability. As a result individuals with disabilities have been afforded more and more opportunity to fill their roles in society as productive citizens. While medical and expert models of rehabilitation have focused on “decreasing perceived deficits” through “systems control,” the functional supports model has built upon the past successes in integrated living and employment options to ensure individuals with disabilities person-centered services and supports focusing on “natural connectedness” to ones community. This evolution in rehabilitation service delivery has been strongly supported by federal mandates set forth in several key pieces of legislation including the: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with its increased emphasis on inclusion and effective transition planning for youth; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended with its increased emphasis on choice and empowerment; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 ensuring community living and working access for all American Citizens regardless of disability; and most recently the Ticket to Work Act removing disincentives to work. The functional supports model starts with some basic questions: * What does the person want? * What are the person’s dreams and aspirations? * What is the person good at? * What kinds of things does the person dislike? * How does the person define quality? * What does the person need to achieve desired outcomes? * Where does the person want to live? * Where does the person want to work? * What types of family and social connections does the person desire? * What types of experiences has the person had to assist them in answering the above? This approach focuses on the uniqueness of the individual, their capacities, their interests and preferences, their needs and ultimately the supports that need to be in place to ensure their success within this context. It recognizes that barriers to success are as much if not more, a product of the environment as they are the individual. EVOLUTION OF SERVICES Prior to understanding the current implications posed by the functional supports era, person-centered service delivery and the values base and supports defined within legislation like the ADA, it is important for key players in the disability arena to understand the differences between the developmental and functional supports model. These key players include: Corrections and Parole personnel, the rehabilitation practitioner, person with a disability, family member, advocate, educator, and other key players in the disability field. Understanding the differences in the two models will assist the individual in gaining an understanding of “where” service providers “stand” in their own evolution of the services and supports they provide to individuals with disabilities. This will further assist the individual in making informed decisions regarding where to access services and how to use civil rights legislation afforded them in the ADA to access their communities. Upon reviewing the comparison, it becomes evident to the reader that the functional supports model promotes the access of individuals with disabilities to live, work, and recreate in their communities as productive citizens. This facilitates a movement away from our current “community-based system,” which falls short of true integration and inclusion of persons with disabilities into their communities. Developmental Model *Development of prerequisites *Continuum focused *Deficit-based *Behavior must be controlled *Constant services *System centered *Maximize disability *Regulations *Determine quality *Controlled *Congregate care *Fit to program Supports Model *“Pre” means never *Array of choice based preferences *Capacity-based *Environmental causation *Services and supports as needed *Person-centered *Minimize disability through capacity *Person determines quality *Encourage *Independence *Inclusion *Fit to person EXERCISE: SIZING UP THE PROBLEM COLUMN A: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ COLUMN B: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Directions: 1. Pair up with a partner. 2. Take 60 seconds a piece to share with each other a reason why you quit or were fired form a prior job. 3. When asked, share with the larger group the reasons. Record responses in column A. 4. Now pair up again and take a 60 seconds a piece and share with each other a trait or characteristic of someone in your life (possibly consumer) that always resulted in failure, chaos or crisis. 5. When asked, share with the larger group your responses and record in column B. SOCIAL ROLE VALORIZATION THEORY A "social role" is defined as the combination of functions, relationships, privileges, duties, and responsibilities that a person holds within a given society. These are widely understood, recognized and accepted in the mainstream of society and there is expectation surrounding a person who occupies a particular position within the social system. Human beings have a need to fill specific social roles in order to be a part of the grand scheme of things. People generally fill many roles at the same time. Expectancies are a core element in the concept of role, regardless of whether a person is filling the role or perceiving the role fulfillment of another person. When people live up to the expectancies associated with a particular role, then people take for granted that the person is carrying out or filling that role. People who violate expectancies associated with a role are apt to be discounted. Consequently the reinforcement of role expectancy is established. Expectations can be conveyed verbally, environmentally, and/or behaviorally. As a result of receiving expectancy "cues" and even demands from the social and/or physical environment, about how one is supposed to behave within a given role the person is apt to, quite literally, live up to the expectations. Over time, people internalize the role perceptions that others hold of them (either positive or negative) and consciously and unconsciously work to sustain a given role. There are two ways that a person may end up filling certain roles: either by choice; or, by imposition. Social roles can be viewed across a continuum from deeply devalued to highly valued roles. Many of these roles require certain competencies. Some roles require little to no competency. Social roles can also be considered to be big or small. Big roles fill more of a person's live and tend to be more life defining to and of that person. Small roles fill less of a person's life, and may only be carried out in some places and/or some times and tend to be less life defining. For example the role of employee, parent, spouse, student can be viewed as big roles. Big roles can also include prisoner, drug addict, child abuser, etc. Examples of small roles might include: bank customer, voter, tenant, chiropractor patient, etc. The value attached to the big roles a party holds will have more impact on the life of that person than the value attached to the smaller roles. Value-attributed to various social roles within the population tend to be generally agreed upon by most members of a society. For instance, the role of administrator, doctor, and athlete are more likely to be valued in general than the roles of mental patient, homeless person, criminal, or even trash collector. The fewer the roles one has, the more isolated one is likely to be. A person who holds few roles--and especially few big roles--may do all sorts of things that can be seen as maladaptive or socially unacceptable. The need for people to fit in to society some how-some where is so strong that holding a socially devalued role is preferable to holding no role at all. Consequently, it is imperative for service providers of people who are in devalued roles to find ways to explore and exploit the talents, interests and capacities of the person in order to help to establish and claim positive roles of social reciprocity within the mainstream of our communities. (Wolfensberger, 1998). EXERCISE: CULTURAL TRENDS ACROSS THE DECADES During the decade in which you attended high school: What were the fads? What were the scientific discoveries? Who were the idols? What did your mom/dad tell you about sex? Where did you see people with disabilities? Directions: 1. Separate into small groups based on the decade you went to high school. 2. Identify a small group reporter and recorder 3. Reflecting back on your high school experiences answer the adjoining questions. 4. As responses are generated the individual recording should do so on flip chart paper. 5. At the end of the exercise: the individual reporting should share the group responses. NOTES: CITIZENSHIP AND COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS Person-centered practices presume the critical nature of community connectedness as the primary vehicle through which human beings define and realize themselves. Yet people who have disability labels have been excluded from the mainstream of society for centuries. Despite valiant attempts on behalf of persons with disabilities, this history of denied access to and involvement in community life has led to social acceptance and perpetuation of the devaluation of certain groups of people. It has led to people not knowing how to connect to and with one another through the formation of strong social bonds. Person-centered planning processes attempt to surface, identify and highlight the unique talents, gifts and capacities inherent in everyone. Efforts are taken to explore and discover where in the (real) world these gifts can be shared, appreciated and reciprocated, where people’s contributions and social roles are valued. This simply cannot happen in isolated or segregated environments. It cannot occur in environments that claim to have exclusive capability to supply all the resources and energy to the people who are seeking services. It is not something to be done “on” or “to” a person. Community building rattles the foundation upon which the concepts for traditional service provision have been built. It presumes the creation of partnerships and the development of collaborative relationships beyond the typical framework of roles and scope of work embedded in traditional service structures by reaching out to others who may be better suited to moving a person nearer to his or her object of focus. Community building requires intentional thought, action and the vision of inclusive communities. In his work entitled, "What's Worth Working For? Leadership for Better Quality Human Services," (1989), John O'Brien discusses the need to develop high quality services for people who have severe reputations. He notes that when someone with a significant disability depends on services in the realm of housing, personal assistance and occupation, services become life defining. O'Brien poses a single question in which to frame the discussion of this work: "How can we use our resources to assist people who rely on us to live better lives?" The answer to this question, according to O'Brien, lies in the ability of service providers to actively engage in situations that are complex, emotionally charged and oftentimes ambiguous in nature. Services shape people's experience of community life. The policies and day-to- day practices of a service organization profoundly influence where a person ultimately lives and works; what activities fill up the days; who the person gets to know and where in the world a person belongs; the way in which the person understands themselves or how others come to understand them. “Clearly it is in our human grasp to see each other differently, to change our structures so that the barriers are leveled and to embrace each other's presence as full members of human society” -Judith Snow The challenge to service organizations is to find ways in which the services that are provided to the person lead to the experience of five universally valuable outcomes: * Having and growing in relationships * Opportunities to be a contributing citizen * Having authentic choices to make * Having the dignity of valued social roles, and * Sharing in typical community places & activities EXERCISE: POTENTIAL FOR CITIZENSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS Who in the world are you? Within the context of your family….. Within the context of your faith….. Within the context of your neighborhood….. Within the context of your employment….. Within the context of your leisure….. Within the context of your networks…… Directions: 1. Within the context of the large group identity the various social and community roles you fulfill. 2. Record responses on flip chart paper. EXERCISE: GIFTS, ABILITIES AND NATURAL TALENTS Write your answers to the following questions: What hobbies or special interests do you have? What are your “specialties” – the things everyone looks to you to do or to bring to gatherings? If you turned these gifts into community involvement of some type, what community role might emerge? Directions: 1. Individually write your answers to the adjoining questions using the worksheet provided. 2. When done and requested pair up with a colleague and share your responses. Answer the following: A. What do you have in common? B. What quality or traits does our partner have that you think are admirable? C. What roles could your partner play in the community? EXERCISE: MAKING THE CONNECTION Interest: Potential Role: Places that would support the Role: Directions: 1. Continuing to work in pairs, select one or two interest areas and corresponding potential role and identify places in a typical community that would support that role(s). 2. Be prepared to share your findings. BASIC QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARDS Traditional approaches to supporting people who have disabilities typically provide services in separate or specialized environments that have been designed to address the specific needs of the particular group of people. The segregation of people with disabilities from the mainstream of community life leads to the unintended outcomes of isolation, loneliness, powerlessness, severe reputations and low expectations for those who are recipients of these services. O'Brien (1989) challenged human service organizations to look at the use of existing resources and find ways in which the service delivery system could assist individuals with disabilities toward the identification and realization of lives that are reflective of the same quality of life standards enjoyed by people who experience valued social roles in society. The quality of life standards referenced by John O'Brien include: Community Presence - the person experiences daily activities and experiences in the typical places most people use in any community Choice - the person makes informed choices based on a wide range of options and experiences Respect - the person is recognized as a contributor to the community. These contributions are considered by most to be meaningful and a valued component of the relationship, experience, etc. Community Participation- the person spends time with people who share similar interests, talents and capacities in mutually beneficial social exchange Competence- the person is given opportunities to identify and build on existing strengths and skills in the on-going process of personal development Moving From This: Poor Reputation Powerlessness Isolation Loneliness Low expectations To This: Be Somebody! Make Choices! Go places! Share in relationships! Have respect! SELF DETERMINATION AND CHOICE Self-determination grew out of the independent living and disabilities rights movements that were begun during the sixties when individuals began to speak out against the commonly held belief that the condition of having a disability was an illness that was treatable only through on-going interventions by experts. People with disabilities began to demand greater say in and control over the types of services and supports they received and increased access and inclusion in the community at large. In the 1980’s John O’Brien introduced five valued experiences and accomplishments as a means to explore the nature of interacting with and/or providing services and support to individuals with disabilities. System reform relies upon the design of services that are built upon the intention to support people toward the valuable outcomes of community presence, community participation, having valued social roles, recognized and appreciated individual contribution and having real opportunities to make choices. During the 1990’s notable proponents of self-determination such as the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation (RJWF), forged four governing principles that serve as the framework for self-advocates as they speak out across the country for the right to enjoy a life that is self-determined The Four Robert Wood Johnson Principles: Freedom: the ability to plan a life with supports, rather than purchase a program. Authority: the ability to control a certain sum of dollars to purchase supports. Responsibility: accepting a role in the community through competitive employment, organizational affiliations, and general caring for others in the community and accountability for spending public dollars in life enhancing ways. Support: through use of resources, arranging formal and informal supports to live within the community NOTES: EXERCISE: GUIDE FOR QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARDS What opportunities are there within the day-to-day programs and services where these quality standards could begin to be implemented? What recommendations does the group have for how these standards could be translated within the life experience of inmates within the SNU setting? Directions: 1. In small groups of 5-6, discuss the Quality of Life experiences (choice, respect, competence, participation and presence) 2. Answer the corresponding question in the adjacent section. 3. Prepare these recommendations to report out to the large group. EXERCISE: FOR YOUR OWN REVIEW Write down something about today that really made you stop and think: Based on today, what might you try that you think will be helpful to you in your work? Directions: 1. Reflecting on the day, answer the questions to the left. 2. Prepare to share your responses if so inclined. THE ROLE OF THE SERVICE WORKER The traditional role of the human services worker arose, in part, from the desire of the worker to be of some help to those who enter the service delivery system. The service delivery system, also partly responsible for the role of the worker, developed a structure that was designed to contain the services and supports that the system says that it has to offer the person who comes in search of them. The structure arose in response to meeting the needs of a variety of key stakeholders - most of whom were the benefactors that provided the funds for services - which, in turn, gave rise to the bureaucracies and hierarchies of services that are so familiar on the landscape of the human service delivery system today. The average user of services, according to Michael Kendrick, (2000), does not have much say over the type, nature and frequency of the supports s/he receives, except in some cases to either reject the service entirely or to resort to an "advisory" position. Generally speaking, it is others that hold the decision-making power in the design and delivery of services. “A poor quality service will tend to require the person to fit to it rather than the reverse.” -Excerpt from Kendrick’s “Right Relationships” Unfortunately, the practice of standardizing services in an effort to provide equitable distribution to the ever-growing numbers of service users has led to depersonalization and a "one size fits all" approach to delivering services. The result is a delivery system that is responsive to the needs of the system rather than to the needs of the individual. Systems that are designed to be flexible in response to the unique interests and needs of the individual are more likely to actually work for people than does the traditional system approach that relies solely on standardized methods for delivering services. Fortunately there is recent interest from the field in integrating person-centered values into many existing service systems. Person-centered values and practices when used in combination with other best practices, plays a pivotal role in putting the human back into the center of human services. In his essay, "The Empowering Value of Life-Giving Assumptions About People," (2001), Michael Kendrick articulates a series of assumptions that underscore critical values from which one must conscientiously work toward in order to support the humanity of every person, particularly of those persons who are currently or are at risk of being socially devalued. These life-giving values include: * Recognizing the humanity and dignity of all people, regardless of perceived or real impairment; * Attributing the status of person to an individual vs. substandard status labels * Supporting human will and freedom * Recognition that justice is a birthright * Believing that people thrive in the fullness of community * Knowing that growth is ever possible * Upholding that people are meant for relationships and love * Conviction that people can and should contribute to life EXERCISE: UNDERSTANDING INFLUENCE INSIDE-OUT People who have done jail time for significant crimes, when released from the SNU, can and should be given the same chances as anyone to be a real part of the community: Directions: 1. Break into small groups of equal size (no more than five to six individuals per group) 2. Each individual in the group will have two uninterrupted minutes to respond to the question posed. (See left column) 3. Everyone must take a turn. If they choose to say nothing then the 2 minutes passes in silence. 4. Team members should pay attention to one another’s responses and their reaction to it versus thinking of what they will say. NOTES: UNDERSTANDING INFLUENCE It is impossible to separate who we are from what we do. Yet time after time service workers will insist that they arrive to work in the morning, leaving home life at home, ready to face the day with "professional objectivity" in service to the people to whom they are being paid to provide services--whether they like the person or not. Many providers of service live with the delusion that the core set of personal values and beliefs that they spent a lifetime developing do not in any way influence the experience that is cultivated in the course of their relationship with the person to whom that service is rendered. Michael Kendrick (2001). Illustrates the power of the person who is in a service provider role. It is normal enough for most people to believe that their personal values are in the proper place and that they usually behave in a virtuous and blame-free way. Frequently, people tend to see the need for others to improve in this regard long before they recognize their own shortcomings. Naturally, if we become too smug and complacent in our view of ourselves it puts in place a very significant barrier to moving ahead. Yet, we live in a time when individuals, agencies, governments and many other bodies are awash in self-congratulatory proclamations. “Politically correct” speech and thought is everywhere evident, and this compounds the difficulty of undertaking a more genuine search for the authenticity of our actual lived values. It is simply too easy and reassuring to our self-esteem to uncritically presume we are blameless in our values and motivations, thereby depriving us of the growth and wisdom that comes with seeing ourselves as we really are, complete with shortcomings, limitations and the many layered falseness and ambiguity that is present in all people. These need not halt our progress towards some increased measure of virtue and coherency, as it is the facing of ourselves that we ultimately gain ground. However, this kind of personal scrupulousness does require both courage and humility. While such traits are seen in individuals of substance and character, it is all the more rare to witness these in our social institutions. The tendency of organizations to revert to a kind of “regression to the mean” tends to blunt the kinds of penetrating truths that are needed for progress. Both as individuals and as a society we must be exceedingly careful to recognize the role our values and assumptions play in shaping the way people with disabilities get treated. It is tempting to believe that we are blameless in this regard and that our values and assumptions cannot be faulted. Nevertheless, the poor progress many people with disabilities are experiencing in getting closer to their dreams and hopes for their lives should give us pause. Further, the quite reversible deprivations and degradations of people with disabilities at the hands of their society should also make us wonder if the reassuring rhetoric we hear about society doing its actual best is, in reality, a self-congratulatory myth. The Role of Power in Relationships: “It is normal enough for most people to believe that their personal values are in the proper place. Frequently, people tend to see the need for others to improve in this regard long before they recognize their own shortcomings…” -Michael Kendrick Much rests not simply on who we see ourselves to be but also who we may actually be underneath the veneer of socially acceptable behavior we can use to disguise ourselves from ourselves and others. At the same time, we are very much capable of, sincerely and with great care, choosing values and assumptions that bring added life possibilities much closer for people who would otherwise be denied them. It is this wonderful potential to bring out the good in all of us, that is the prize that awaits those who take up the problem of deep attitude with concern and hope. We must learn to frame our choices much more clearly as being those that are life-giving and those that are life-denying in order to see more clearly the better way ahead. 1 Michael Kendrick Opening Keynote Presentation For the Congress “Crossing Boundaries” (Over Grenzen”), Hosted by Stitchling Perspectief, Wageningen, Netherlands, September 12-15, 2001. BASE STANDARDS FOR PERSON-CENTERED PRACTICES Person-centered planning has become a familiar term in the service delivery world. In many ways the term has taken on a life of its own. People attend training in order to become “person-centered.” Organizations boast of being “person-centered” in the delivery of services to people who have disability labels. So common has the language of person-centered practices become that there is a danger that what is being assumed as person-centered work is really the “same-soup-in-a-different-cup syndrome.” What this means is that we run the risk of putting the newest trendy label on what we have always been doing! In the paper entitled “When People Matter More Than Systems”, Michael Kendrick discusses that person-centered work begins within each and every one of us and radiates out toward others. Our deep-seated belief systems guide the way in which we interact with other human beings. In other words, the planning processes we engage in with people are a mirror image of what we believe about a person or about a group of people. These core beliefs define our degree of what Kendrick has coined as person-centeredness. Simply thinking that we are being person-centered does not make us person-centered, it is what we actually do that ultimately reveals what we think really matters. It is thought giving rise to words leading to action that in turn, creates the experience with a person. In thinking about what we think about people with whom we are planning it is helpful to evaluate our actions against the following seven touchstones of person-centeredness: * A commitment to know and seek to understand * A conscious resolve to be of genuine service * An openness to being guided by the person * A willingness to struggle for difficult goals * Flexibility, creativity and openness to trying what might be possible * A willingness to enhance the humanity and dignity of the person * To look for the good in people and help to bring it out To summarize, person-centered planning is not something we do to someone, nor is it something from which everyone necessarily benefits. It is not an outcome of service delivery. It is not so we can just write a great plan. Person- centered planning is the beginning of listening to and understanding what matters to people from their own perspective. It is a means for shared discovery and for developing genuine partnerships and collaborations in our effort to walk with a person as they embark on their personal journey. It is the springboard for developing the next roadmap to an individually identified vision for the future. “It is so easy to change our language without changing our structure or our culture” -John O’Brien NOTES: EXERCISE: CREATING CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE In the days immediately following this critical event, what were you thinking? What words best describe how you were feeling? What do you remember were the actions and conditions that helped you to get through this experience? What qualities, capacities and/or skills did you discover in yourself as a result of going through what you went through? Directions: 1. Each individual should think about a point in their life when a critical event occurred that dramatically impacted their life. 2. When reflecting on this time, answer the questions to the left as requested by the instructor. 3. Be prepared to share your responses if so inclined. HALLMARKS OF PERSON-CENTERED PRACTICES Originally developed by the New York State Office of Mental Retardation, the hallmarks of person-centered practices have been adapted to serves as a point of reference from which one might assess the degree to which the services that are being provided are in alignment with the underlying values of person-centered practices. The reference points, or hallmarks, encompass eight primary areas that are easily transferable regardless of the population to whom services are being provided (i.e., students, inmates, recipients of mental health services or services designed for individuals with developmental disabilities, etc.) Hallmark #1: the planning processes and course of service clearly articulate the individual's vision for a desirable future and individualized responses to that vision. Hallmark #2: people who know and who care about the individual are included in the design of the plan and subsequent service. People who can assist the person in moving forward toward the goal(s) are included in the planning processes. Hallmark #3: The person is the lead in making life-defining choices related to where to live and work and in relationships. The person is provided experiences from which to make informed and educated decisions. Opportunities for making decisions are a part of the daily routine. Hallmark #4: Naturally occurring and generic community resources are utilized whenever possible. (For example, the person has a checking account at the local bank instead of going to the case manager/rep payee for money. The person attends yoga classes at the local gym rather than a special group set up for people with a specific disability diagnosis) Hallmark #5: Care is taken to identify and cultivate the person's interests and talents in the context of supportive community environments that facilitate association with people who share similar interests, capacities and talents Hallmark #6: Existing resources are used in innovative ways to better support the person's interests, capacities and needs. The person is provided as much control over resources as is possible. Hallmark # 7: Planning is an ongoing and progressive process. The person has a team of support comprised of individuals who are interested in helping the individuals experience success towards the goals. Hallmark #8: The person expresses satisfaction with his or her relationships, residential and work life, and daily routines. The person can clearly identify the goals and express satisfaction with the rate of progress being made toward realization of those goals. APPLIED LEARNING ASSIGNMENT Left Column: The person’s activities, services and supports are based upon his or her dream, interests, preferences and strengths Right Column: Initial assessments are comprehensive and lead to effective placement Left Column: The person and people important to the person are included in lifestyle planning and have the opportunity to exercise control and make informed decisions Right Column: Positive Profiles are developed and balanced with specific support needs Left Column: The person has meaningful choices, with decisions based on his or her experiences Right Column: Care, custody and control compliment the development of flexible program options. Left Column: The person uses, when possible, natural and community supports Right Column: Inmates make informed choices about program options Left Column: Activities, supports and services foster skill to achieve personal relationships, community inclusion, dignity and respect Right Column: Skill-building developing self-respect and enhancing personal dignity is the purpose of work Left Column: The person’s opportunities and experiences are maximized and flexibility is enhanced within existing regulatory and funding constraints. Right Column: An array of meaningful choices is available to the SNU inmate, within and beyond the SNU Left Column: Planning is collaborative, recurring and involves an ongoing commitment to the person Right Column: Project teams are dedicated to collaborative and on-going commitment to the person Left Column: The person is satisfied with his or her activities, supports and services Right Column: The inmate is satisfied with his program activities, supports and transition planning services Far Right Column: Project members recognize the importance of developing a positive profile that includes the life context, social history, psychological and physical considerations of the individual Creative and flexible use of resources is supported by facility and Central Office Administration Directions: 1. Review the list of person-centered planning hallmarks in the far left column. 2. Review the hallmarks as they have been translated to apply to the SNU. 3. Between this and the next Core training, develop a strengths and gaps list for each item representing SNU Hallmarks. Identify those conditions, resources, support, etc. that already exist in your work environment. This is the “what have we already got going for us” section of the list. Next, identify those conditions, resources, supports etc., that represent significant gaps between what the item on the list and what actually occurs in your work environment. This is the “what we really need to work on” section of the list. 4. Bring your completed list for debriefing at the beginning of the next Core training session SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Initial assessments are comprehensive and lead to effective placement. Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Positive profiles are developed and are balanced with specific support needs Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Project members recognize the importance of developing a positive profile which includes the life context, social history, psychological and physical consideration of the individual Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Care, custody and control compliment the development of flexible program options Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Inmates make informed choices about program options Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Skill building, developing self-respect and enhancing personal dignity is the purpose of our work Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: An array of meaningful choices is available to the SNU inmate, within and beyond the SNU Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Creative and flexible use of resources is supported by facility and Central Office administration Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: Project teams are dedicated to collaborative and on-going commitment to the person Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ SNU HALLMARKS for Person-Centered Practices: The inmate is satisfied with his program activities, supports and transition planning services Strengths (What we already have working for us in this area): ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Gaps (What we need to do to get closer to the hallmark: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES, RESOURCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS REFERENCES Flynn, R.J., & Lemay, R.A., (1999) A Quarter Century of Normalization and Social Rolve Valorization: Evolution and Impact Kendrick, M. (2001) Right Relationships Part 1 and Part 2 Kendrick, M. (2001) The Empowering Value of Life Giving Assumptions About People Kendrick, M. (2000) When People Matter More than Systems O’Brien, J. (1989) What’s Worth Working For? Leadership for Better Quality Human Services Wolfensberger, W. (1972) Normalization: the principle of normalization in human services Wolfensberger, W. (1998) A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization NYS Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (1997) Hallmarks of Person-Centered Approach RESOURCES http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/tsal/pcp What is person-centered planning? We’re glad you asked! Person-centered planning is a process-oriented approach to empowering people with disability labels. It focuses on the people and their needs by putting them in charge of defining the direction of their lives, not on the systems that may or may not be available to serve them. This ultimately leads to greater inclusion as valued members of both community and society. Person-centered planning involves the development of a “tool-box” of methods and resources that enable people with disability labels to choose their own pathways to success; the planners simply help them to figure out where they want to go and how best to get there. In this site you will find: * an overview of the person-centered planning process * a self-study course covering the basic processes involved * a quiz section to help you focus on areas you may need to cover more thoroughly * a compendium of readings and activities for you to use on your own * Various links and downloadable resources …all of which are geared toward facilitating and enhancing your awareness of and appreciation for person-centered planning. We think you will enjoy your visit with us! SUGGESTED READINGS The Empowering Value of “Life-Giving” Assumptions About People Opening Keynote Presentation For the Congress “Crossing Boundaries” (“Over Grenzen”), Hosted By Stitchling Perspectief, Wageningen, Netherlands, September 12-15, 2001 Paper prepared by: Michael J. Kendrick PhD, 4 Bullard Ave., Holyoke, MA USA 01040 Email:kendrickconsult@attglobal.net, http://kendrickconsulting.org/docs/Life-GivingValues.doc “What’s Worth Working For? Leadership for Better Quality Human Service” John O’Brien Responsive Systems Associates, 58 Willowick Dr., Lithonia, Georgia, 30038 http://soeweb.syr.edu/thechp/rsapub.htm “Right Relationships”, Michael J. Kendrick PhD 4 Bullard Ave., Holyoke, MA USA 01040 Phone: 413 533 3511 Email:kendrickconsult@attglobal.net http://kendrickconsulting.org/docs/QAIRightRelat.doc