Component 2 Introduction
The Community Support Alliance at the Center for Development and Disability conducted a comprehensive study of crucial infrastructure issues within the New Mexico system of service delivery for individuals with developmental disabilities. The Infrastructure Study used a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods as well as a comprehensive literature review to gather information related to this key evaluation question selected by the Infrastructure Study Steering Committee:
To what extent are Direct Support Staff being recruited, retained and
supported to provide quality DD Waiver services to adults with developmental
disabilities in New Mexico?
The quantitative research methods focused on the use of a written survey completed by direct support staff in New Mexico.
This component of
the final report focuses on the qualitative research methods, which
combined the use of individual and focus group interviews and open-ended
questions on the direct support staff survey.
The goal of this component of the Infrastructure Study was to gather and
analyze descriptive information related to recruitment and retention of direct
support staff in New Mexico from key stakeholders concerned about or affected
by the recruitment and retention of direct support staff serving adults with
developmental disabilities on the DD Waiver in New Mexico.
Methodology
Recruitment
of Respondents – Self-Advocates And Other Key Stakeholders
Numerous key stakeholders were involved on four levels within the Infrastructure Study. First, eleven key stakeholders participated in the Infrastructure Study Steering Committee[1] where they had the opportunity to guide study design, delivery and final recommendations and strategies. Second, twenty-nine key stakeholders were identified in partnership with the DDPC Funded State of the State Project representing system advocates/organizations, directors of agencies providing DD Waiver services (at least one director per region), parents and case management. These identified people, if available and willing, participated in individual interviews where they responded to interview questions related to the key evaluation question. Third, a sample of seventeen individuals with developmental disabilities (self-advocates) was selected to assure that all regions were represented by at least one person and that a tribal perspective was also obtained. This sample of individuals participated in focus group interviews to inform survey questions and enlarge the perspective on the focus of the study. Fourth, a representative sample of direct support staff received a written survey[2] and had an opportunity to respond to several open-ended questions.
Question Design And Development
The Infrastructure Study Project Team designed the questions in the individual interview, focus group interview, and survey[3] with input from the Infrastructure Study Steering Committee and other key stakeholders. Stakeholders including, self-advocates (i.e. people with disabilities) and family members, previewed and edited the questions. It was essential to ensure clarity and understanding of the intent of each question. Each focus group began with an explanation of the study, the context in which the questions would be asked, and how the results would be used.
Data
Collection Methods – Focus Group Interviews With People With Disabilities
Several techniques were employed to create a comfortable atmosphere and encourage participation. One of these techniques was to include a trained self-advocate co-facilitator with disabilities who openly shared relevant personal experiences in order to create an atmosphere of comfort to put the respondents more at ease to share their own experiences. In addition to the participation of a self-advocate co-facilitator, refreshments were offered during the focus group interview. After the focus group, a small gift was offered to each respondent and well received.
Another effective
technique was the use of the following introductory questions to frame the
context: 1) Who helps you in your
life? 2) How do they help you? From this point, the facilitators focused
specifically on the respondent’s relationship with direct support staff. These two techniques coupled with the
following focus group interview protocol helped to produce an environment of
trust and openness:
1.
Overview of the Infrastructure Study Project[4]
2.
How Your Input will be Used (i.e. included in final
report)
3.
The Key Evaluation Question
4.
Self-Advocate Co-Facilitator Story
5.
Focus Group Interview Questions[5]
6.
Conclusion of the Focus Group Interview
The focus group interviews took place in natural settings to encourage comfort. For example, one interview occurred in an area of the group’s regular meeting room. The focus group interviews were conducted with a facilitator, self-advocate co-facilitator, and a note-taker. The note-taker captured the responses on a large piece of paper using both text and colorful graphics linked with each respondent’s name. The note-taker, as well as the facilitators, frequently checked with the respondents to ensure that their input was accurately recorded. Responses recorded were coded with the representation data code of: SA for Self-Advocate. Each respondent was given a unique numeric identifier.
Data Collection Methods – Individual
Interviews
The
Infrastructure Study Project Team conducted individual interviews in
partnership with the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council funded State
of the State Project. This was done to
avoid replication as both projects were interviewing key stakeholders about
different topics simultaneously.
Interviewees were assigned across the projects and interviewers asked
questions that covered both projects.
In order to
accommodate the busy schedules of the twenty-six key stakeholders, they were
provided with the option of completing the interview questions in person, by
telephone, via email or by fax.
The following
protocol was used for all individual interviews:
1.
Overview of the Infrastructure Study Project[6]
2.
Describe How Input will be Used (i.e. included
in final report)
3.
State the Key Evaluation Question
4.
Conduct Interview Using Interview Guide[7]
5.
Conclude the Interview
To ensure consistency among
interviewers, this protocol was written on the interview guide. The responses during the telephone
interviews were recorded as spoken by the respondent during the interview. After each question, the interviewer read
the recorded response with the respondent to ensure accuracy. Changes were made as desired by the
respondent. Interviewers conducting the
in-person interviews used this same quality assurance method to accurately
capture each response.
Data Collection Methods – Focus Group Interview with
Case Managers
A focus group interview was conducted with seven case managers at an agency in the Metro region. Individual responses were not recorded (i.e. who said what). However, the group responses are included in the findings section of this component as a separate data set.
Data Collection
Methods – Open-Ended Survey Questions with Direct Support Staff
Two hundred and
ninety-one direct support staff responded to a written survey[8]
that contained some open-ended questions. These questions provided an
opportunity for direct support staff to share additional comments or expand on
their answers. The findings section
reviews the analyzed written comments from the direct support staff
survey. Component 3 analyzes the
quantitative data.
¢ Findings
Profile of All Respondents
Table
1 outlines the regional representation of all respondents of the focus group
interviews and individual interviews.
Table
1: Regional Representation of All Focus
Group and Interview Respondents (n=50*)
*17 self-advocates participated in focus
group interviews. 26 stakeholders participated in individual interviews. 7 case
managers participated in a focus group interview.
|
|
Metro |
Southeast |
Southwest |
Northeast |
Northwest |
Parents |
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
DD Waiver Provider Directors |
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
Self -Advocates |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
|
Case Managers |
7 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
TOTAL: |
15 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
13 |
Eight stakeholders shared statewide perspectives and represented organizations
such as: Protection and Advocacy, Arc New Mexico, Governor’s Committee for the
Concerns of the Handicapped, Association of Developmental Disability Community
Providers, University of New Mexico, and the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Profile Of Respondents – Focus Group Interviews
Seventeen adults with developmental disabilities, many receiving DD waiver services participated in two focus group interviews. One focus group interview was conducted with nine members of the statewide Self-Advocacy Advisory Council (SAC) to the Adult Services Task Force. This interview was conducted on August 2, 2001 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The second focus group interview was conducted on July 11, 2001 in Zuni (Pueblo), New Mexico. Eight members of the self-advocacy group called Echo of Our Voices participated. The self-advocates interviewed represent the five regions in the state as indicated in Table 1.
Summary Of Findings – Self-Advocate Focus Group
Interviews
The findings of self-advocate focus group interviews, as shown in Chart 1, revealed that many of them have a variety of direct support staff helping them. Also, many self-advocates shared that their direct support staff did quit or leave. The majority of self-advocates responding felt sad when their direct support staff left. One self-advocate reported feeling good that the direct support staff left because, “…I wanted them to.”[9] A number of self-advocates also expressed that they felt good or happy when their direct support staff stays.
Chart 1: Summary of Findings –
Self-Advocate Focus Group Interviews
N=17 Self-Advocates
|
Finding: |
Percentage: |
|
|
100%[10] |
|
|
89%[11] |
|
|
73%[12] |
|
|
65%[13] |
|
|
35%[14] |
|
|
27%[15] |
“Different job
coach almost everyday.” (SA2,NW)
The following tables feature the
self-advocate’s specific responses to the focus group interview questions 3 –
6.[16]. As mentioned earlier,
the first two questions were designed to frame the context of
questioning. Table 2 represents that
the majority of self-advocates have different direct support staff working with
them. Another self-advocate shared that, “Same job coach every day and it makes
me feel very comfortable.”[17]
Table 2:
Question 3 - Does The Same Or Different Person Help You? (n=17)
|
Same Person |
Different Person |
No Comment |
|
23% (4/17) |
65% (11/17) |
12% (2/17) |
According to several self-advocates, their staff frequently quit as shown in Table 3. One self-advocate said, “4-5 case managers left last year.”[18] While others mentioned that there were many job coaches quitting and leaving. Another self-advocate reported, “I tell them they’re leaving!”[19]
Table 3: Question 4 – Does The Staff That Helps You Quit (Leave)? (n=17)
|
Yes, Quit |
No, Stay |
No Comment |
|
65% (11/17) |
23% (4/17) |
12% (2/17) |
Yes, they
[direct support staff] usually tell me when they leave, sometimes you don’t
know why. 
In response to
a follow-up question from Question 4, several self-advocates shared that their direct
support staff told them goodbye before leaving. A few self-advocates said that their direct support staff did not
say goodbye before leaving. One
self-advocate mentioned: “They [direct support
staff] tell me when they leave and they tell me who is the new person.”[20]
When asked, “how do you feel about their [direct support staff] leaving or staying?”, self-advocates responded as summarized in Table 4. Other feelings expressed by the self-advocates include: “I like them to stay. I get kind of lonely when they leave. [I tell them] “I’m going to miss you.”[21] Another self-advocate expressed a desire for independence, “Sometimes, I feel good to do on own but then would have problems.”[22] Several self-advocates shared their feelings about how it affects them when their direct support staff leaves, such as, “I’m used to everybody. It was hard when my friend left.”[23] While others contributed statements like, “I’m happy when they [direct support staff] help me do things.”[24] “I would rather they stay.”[25]
Table 4:
Question 5 – How Do You Feel About Their Leaving Or Staying? (n=17*)
*Multiple responses possible per respondent. Some respondents answered both parts and others answered one part of the question. Two respondents had no comment.
|
Leaving |
Staying |
||||
|
Good |
Sad |
No Comment |
Good |
Sad |
No Comment |
|
1 |
8 |
2 |
9 |
0 |
2 |
The final focus group interview question asked
self-advocates, “How easy or hard is it to work with a new staff?” Table 5 outlines that the majority of self-advocates
interviewed find it hard to work with a new direct support staff person
Table 5: Question 6 – How Easy
Or Hard Is It To Work With A New Staff? (n=17)
|
Hard |
Easy |
|
65% (11/17) |
35% (6/17) |
Self-Advocate Discussions with Direct Support Staff
In
addition to the focus group interview questions, two additional questions were
asked to the nine Self-Advocacy Advisory Council members. These questions centered specifically on any
discussions they had with direct support staff about the reasons why
direct support staff stay at their jobs and reasons why they leave their
jobs. When the self-advocates asked their direct support staff “why do you stay
at the job?”, the majority responded that they enjoy what they do. When the self-advocates informally asked
direct support staff why they were leaving, the direct support staff typically
responded with “not enough pay”. In
addition to these responses, self-advocates shared questions that they asked
direct support staff about their leaving.
These questions were recorded as follows:
Didn’t you get paid enough?
Was it because of a better job?
Was it because you didn’t like the
other workers?
Are you embarrassed to work with me?
Is it because you don’t know what to
do on the job?
Didn’t you like the age group you work
with?
Profile of Respondents – Individual
Interviews
Twenty-nine key
stakeholders were invited to complete the Infrastructure Study interview. However, three stakeholders did not
participate. Two were due to time
constraints and one individual did not reply to the invitation to
participate. Twenty-six key stakeholders
completed the individual interviews.
The representation of these stakeholders as indicated in Table 6.
Table 6: Representation of Key Stakeholders
Participating in Individual Interviews
N =
26 Total Respondents
System Advocates /Organizations(Statewide) |
DD Waiver
Provider Directors |
Parents of DD
Waiver Recipients |
Case Management
Directors |
8 |
14 |
3 |
1 |
The
directors of Developmental Disabilities (DD) Waiver providers represented the
five regions in the state as indicated in Table 1.
Common Themes Across Interviews - Key Stakeholders
Chart 2: Common Themes Across Interviews[27]
– Key Stakeholder Individual Interviews
N=26 Stakeholders
|
Finding: |
Percentage: |
|
|
92% (24/26)[28] |
|
|
88% (23/26)[29] |
|
|
57% (15/26)[30] |
|
(e.g. effective communication, benefit package, flexible hours) |
50% (13/26)[31] |
Stakeholders
agree that there is a problem recruiting direct support staff to provide DD
Waiver services to adults with developmental disabilities in New Mexico. Several key stakeholders mentioned the
seriousness of the current recruitment situation. Some
“We believe we have exceeded the number of
direct support workers that naturally exists in our community. My two
biggest problems are lack of staff and lack of community resources.”(D8,NW)
stakeholders stated that recently the Legislature appropriated funds to serve people with developmental
disabilities on the waiting list which
intensifies the problems with recruitment and
retention as services expand. To serve
these individuals, agency providers need to hire more direct support
staff. However, the stakeholders report
that the pool of potential applicants of direct support staff is significantly
decreased. A possible reason for this
decrease is the low wage for high quality work expectations compared to what
the local job competition offers. For example, one stakeholder shared: “As part
of the lawsuit effort, there is an expectation that direct care staff are at
the Ph.D. level, to write sophisticated programs including OT, feeding plans,
and aspiration. Also, you have to be a doctor, a nurse, and a lawyer to project
rights, understand sophisticated behavioral challenges, and put up with being
yelled at, because we’re serving more and more challenging consumers.”
Listed in Table 7 are the responses[32]
for Question 1a:
How much of a problem do you see with recruiting direct support staff to
provide quality DD Waiver services to adults with developmental disabilities in
New Mexico?
Table 7: Responses for
Question 1a (n=22/26*)
*No Response (4)
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
73% (16/22) |
|
|
27% (6/22) |
How Much of a Problem is Retention of Direct Support
Staff?
“Another
problem is that direct support staff tell us for $9 they could work for a
call center like [company name] and not have to go through all the hassles
and stress involved in direct care work. They could be working in a nice,
clean, air conditioned place where no one is screaming at them and there are people who know how to talk.”
(P3,NE)
Stakeholders also agree that there is a problem with
retaining direct support staff in New Mexico.
Most stakeholders shared that this retention
problem is related to agency infrastructure issues such as
administrative support, supervision, and training. Some
stakeholders attribute the retention problems to low salaries
and working conditions. Yet, stakeholders disagree about
where the retention problem is the worse in the state
(i.e. urban or rural). “Each region is different. It’s all
different depending on your zip code and disability.”
According to the stakeholders, the ‘bottom-line’ is that retention is a major problem in New Mexico.
Table 8 outlines the categories of responses[33] for Question 1b:
How much of a problem do you see
with retaining direct support staff to provide quality DD Waiver services to
adults with developmental disabilities in New Mexico?
Table 8: Responses for Question 1b
(n=19/26*)
*No response (7)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
42% (8/19) |
|
|
32% (6/19) |
|
|
26% (5/19) |
Agency Providers Take
Initiative to Retain Staff
“We have experienced
more job stability this past fiscal year – we currently have less than a
30% turnover for all positions within [agency name]. Our average length of stay is close to
three years and we work to create a climate where staff can advance
Even
though the retention problem exists, there are agency providers who have taken
the initiative and implemented supports and techniques to promote retention of
direct support staff. “We attempt to stay competitive in the industry by providing that one plus service; additional training and supervision, creative opportunities for employees to increase their financial situation, a wellness program, set schedules, bonuses and cost of living increases. We also have an education assistance and employee assistance program. We have excellent benefits, an
employee recognition program, merit increases based on performance and longevity, bonus policy and training opportunities across the nation. We also have a growing mentor program for the preparation of advancement in the company.”[34]
What is the
Status of Recruitment Problem?
“It is slightly
better because last year the Legislature gave us a 3% increase for pay
rates. That helped a bit. But the problems are still there.” (SY5,Statewide)
Stakeholders
were asked, “Would you say that the problem has gotten better, worse or stayed
about the same over the last few years?” The response from most stakeholders
was that the problem has gotten better recently for two main reasons. One reason was that the Legislature gave
an funding increase. The second
reason was linked to the first, a wage
increase for direct support staff that had helped with recruitment. “I think recruitment has improved due to the training requirements and the subsequent increases in pay based on training. However, as I understand it, these pay increases are minimal.”[35]
A
few stakeholders feel that the recruitment problem has gotten worse due to the
dynamics of a new workforce and more competition for better pay. “During the last year, seeing it get harder. More competition.” (D12,NE).
Table 9 reflects
the responses[36] to Question
2a:
Would you say that the
recruitment problem has gotten better, worse or stayed about the same over the
last few years?
Table 9: Responses for Question 2a
(n=17/26*)
*No response (9)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
65% (11/17) |
|
|
35% (6/17) |
What is the Status of Retention Problem?
In contrast to the status of the recruitment problem
getting better, most stakeholders responded that the retention problem has
gotten worse. The main reason shared relates to the increased responsibilities
and training requirements for direct support staff that tends to compromise
their job satisfaction. “We don’t see that sense of enthusiasm and
creativity as often as we’d like, the sense of making a difference in people’s
lives, and not for a lack of know-how or inspiration by community programs. But
as systems have tried to turn that kind of thing into a daily occurrence, there
has been a lack of follow-through, and direct services have become more of a
daily drudge.”[37] A few
stakeholders felt that retention of direct support staff has gotten better due
to adequate training for direct support staff.
Table 10
outlines the responses[38]
for Question 2b:
Would you say that the retention problem has gotten better, worse or
stayed about the same over the last few years?
Table 10: Responses for Question 2b
(n=11/26*)
*No Response (15)
|
Response: |
Number of Responses: |
|
|
64% (7/11) |
|
|
36% (4/11) |
What are
the Biggest Barriers in Recruitment?
The
majority of stakeholders agree that lack of competitive wages for a high stress
work environment is the biggest barrier in recruitment. “The
State has made it more specific for the training needed for staff. They expect
our staff to be professional, yet they don’t want to concede the point that we
would then have to pay them professional salaries.”[39]
Some stakeholders expressed
that the biggest barriers in recruitment center around system infrastructure
issues such as lack of wages tied to career lattice; lack of pre-employment
training; lack of flexibility and innovation to attract new workforce and
provide individualized services. “We have too much of the same old thinking. We
need to realize when things are working, when things aren’t, and fix what needs
fixing. And we can’t always just look to DOH to fix things.”[40]
Table 11 shares responses[41]
of Question 3a:
What do you see as the biggest
barriers to recruiting direct support staff to provide quality DD Waiver
services to adults with developmental disabilities in New Mexico?
Table 11: Responses for Question 3a
(n=21/26*)
*No Response (5)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
67% (14/21) |
|
(i.e. lack of wages tied to career lattice; lack of
pre-employment training; lack of flexibility and innovation to attract new
workforce and provide individualized services) |
33% (7/21) |
What are
the Biggest Barriers in Retention?
Two major barriers emerged from
the stakeholder responses related to retention. These two barriers are intertwined. One big barrier that stakeholders identified is inadequate
funding for direct support staff salaries, benefits and training. The other big barrier that stakeholders
mentioned is related to the nature of the working conditions (i.e. high stress,
increasing challenges of the person served; quality of supervisors).
“Providers are serving more and more people
who are difficult/challenging to serve. We must acknowledge this problem.
We need to invest in doing it, and doing it well. If not, these folks will
burn out providers and direct care staff and press the system badly.” (SY3,Statewide)
“As family member ages, lose family member support…Case
managers are overburdened with caseloads that are too large and this affects
direct support staff.”[42] “We’ll
continue to see
high turnover rates until we can make the jobs
more rewarding.”[43]
“Adequate
funding to retain staff. Example:
better pay and retirement – people who love their jobs are leaving. How to
get people to training and still have coverage with inadequate funding.
More and more requirements from the state without adequate compensation,
which is a tremendous burnout for people.” (D12,NE)
The working conditions
combined with the low wage are the two biggest barriers in retention. “Lack of adequate funding for
salaries. In general, we have to do something to address the rate issue, not only in terms of
direct care staff, but management also, because
we’re losing a lot of qualified
individuals both
areas for that reason...they can’t afford
to support
their families.”[44]
“My grumpiness is not about
requirements such as training requirements – that
helps retention. Deeply angry at lack of funding
to
support them and staff needed to carry them out.”[45] “It
really impacts the system if you can’t give staff increases.”[46]
Some stakeholders provided
recommendations into how much of an increase in wage is needed for direct
support staff. “[There’s] the need to
increase pay substantially so we can keep them. We need to increase not from $6
to $7, but to $10 [an hour].”[47]
“We need to be paying $9-10/hour in urban areas.”[48]
Besides inadequate funding for salary increases,
some stakeholders mentioned the need for funding for training. “We had staff here in place to train our
other staff. Now those people are gone.”[49]
Table 11 summaries responses[50]
of Question 3b:
What do you see as the biggest barriers to retaining direct support
staff to provide quality DD Waiver services to adults with developmental
disabilities in New Mexico?
Table 11: Responses for Question 3b
(n=22/26*)
*No Response (4)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
50% (11/22) |
|
(i.e. high stress, increasing challenges of the person
served; quality of supervisors) |
50% (11/22) |
Possible Ways to Effectively Address Recruitment and Retention Problems
Stakeholders identified multiple ways to effectively address the recruitment and retention problems in New Mexico. These ways include:
obtain more funding from Legislature
to significantly increase direct support staff wage and benefits;
make the direct support staff position
more professional with certification process;
ensure agency supervisory and job
supports;
promote more collaboration among
providers, advocates, and state agencies;
provide more public education about
the DD field;
recognize and reward direct support
staff for outstanding work; and
explore innovative service
models.
Table 12 shares responses[51] from stakeholders related to Question 4:
What
are your thoughts about some possible ways to effectively address any problems,
barriers or issues you have identified specific to recruiting and retaining
direct support staff to provide quality DD Waiver services to adults with
developmental disabilities in New Mexico?
Table 12: Responses for Question 4 (n=46
Total Responses*)
*Multiple responses per respondent
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
39% (18/46) |
|
(i.e. collaboration to solve problems such as serving those on the waiting with limited pool of staff applicants; consideration of new models; dealing with the complexity of serving people with multiple challenges) |
35% (16/46) |
|
(i.e. high quality training certification process
including mentoring; public education about profession; recognize and reward
staff) |
26% (12/46) |
Case Management Perspective on Recruitment and
Retention
Seven case managers in an agency from the Metro region expressed their shared view in response to the interview questions as follows: “We allocate so many slots a year. We don’t have the direct care staff for these new allocations. That’s a big problem.” “We talk to providers and the constant turnover of direct care staff is an ongoing problem. Some providers have 30, 40, 50 unfilled staff slots.” “Too often we see case managers, directors of agencies, and other higher level staff at the state’s training. It’s our direct care staff who don’t get so much training.” “Let’s take these expedited funds and do some public awareness.” “Let’s find a way to see these professions providing services for our DD population as a viable, positive profession in our state.”
Direct Support Staff Perspective on Recruitment and
Retention
As part of the Infrastructure Study, direct support staff were surveyed regarding recruitment and retention issues. To provide an opportunity to direct support staff to expand on their responses, a few open-ended questions were included in the survey.[52] Of the 291 respondents of the direct support staff survey, 97 responded with written comments for Question 2a[53] on the survey that Table 13 outlines:
Are there any other reasons that aren’t listed above that were
important to you when you took the job you have now?
Table 13: Responses for Question 2a
(n=97/291)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
65% (63/97) |
|
|
19% (18/97) |
|
|
9% (8/97) |
|
|
7% (6/97) |
Of the 291 respondents of the direct support staff survey, 79 responded with written comments for Question 5a[54] on the survey which Table 14 outlines:
Are there any other reasons that aren’t listed above that were
important to you about staying in the job you have now?
Table 14: Responses for Question 5a (n=79/291)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
29% (23/79) |
|
|
23% (18/79) |
|
|
23% (18/79) |
|
|
11% (9/79) |
|
|
6% (5/79) |
|
|
4% (3/79) |
|
|
4% (3/79) |
Of the 291 respondents of the direct support staff survey, 93 responded with written comments for Question 10[55] on the survey which Table 15 outlines:
Are there any other things you’d like to tell us about getting your job
or staying in your job that we didn’t ask?
Table 15: Responses for Question 10
(n=93/291)
|
Response: |
Number of
Responses: |
|
|
39% (36/93) |
|
|
32% (30/93) |
|
|
29% (27/93) |
n
Conclusions
DD system infrastructure issues related to recruitment and retention need attention as these problems are intensified by expanding services to those on the waiting list.
Related
Strategies
Key
stakeholders need to build collaborative partnerships to creatively solve
critical system infrastructure issues (i.e. increase Direct Support Staff wage,
benefits, training).
Partner
with Department of Labor to develop a workforce development plan for Direct
Support Staff.
Develop
a plan to market the Direct Support Staff position to attract long-term employees
and increase public awareness about the field of developmental disabilities.
Explore non-traditional service models
(i.e. self-directed services).
Staff
turnover has significant emotional impact on person served with relationship severing
and difficulty working with new staff.
Related
Strategies
Conduct
further study on the impact of staff turnover on the quality of services and
quality of life issues.
Direct support staff are expected to
perform professional work quality with non-professional wage and benefits.
Related Strategies
§
Conduct a
job analysis of a direct support staff that describes excellent performance.
§
Partner
with secondary education institutions to create a professional career path for
direct support staff which includes apprenticeship options (on-the-job training
and mentoring).
§
Obtain
additional legislative funding to ensure a significant hourly wage increase is
appropriated for direct support staff wages, benefits and training.
Agency
infrastructure needs strengthening to adequately support direct support staff
to provide high quality services.
Related Strategies
§
Complete a
comprehensive review of Direct Support Staff working conditions.
§ Field-test innovative ideas to reduce stress and improve working conditions (i.e. flexible hours, recognition, wellness programs, effective communication).