Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The National Alliance for Full Participation (AFP) is interested in how Indiana is doing on the path to the ambitious goal of 50% employment of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in five years. They have created a “scorecard” of possible benchmarks for state Alliances. This scorecard was created to help Indiana review the state policies, practices and strategies that impact on opportunities for integrated employment. The answers on this scorecard will help Indiana identify priorities and set goals for employment initiatives and outline a strategy for doubling our state’s rate of integrated employment by the year 2015.

Let’s each complete this individually and see what we find in the wisdom of the crowd.

1. Please select the ONE category that best describes your role: (This is a required question)

	Person with a disability; self-advocate
	Parent, guardian, or family member of a person with a disability
	Local community services provider
	Local VR or WorkOne provider
	Local school personnel
	Community employer of workers with disabilities
	State agency personnel
	University or college personnel
	Other: please specify

For each statement below, select the rating that you feel best reflects Indiana’s current situation.

2. Statement #1: Our state has measurable annual performance goals with clear benchmarks with respect to expanding the number of individuals in competitive integrated employment as a percentage of people served in day services. Select one of the following responses:

	1 = There are no goals relating to increasing employment of people with disabilities.
	2 = There are goals, but the goals are too vague and are worded within overall goals, such as quality of life.
	3 = There are employment goals, but they are not measurable.
	4 = There are measurable employment goals, but they are problematic (i.e., meeting the goal does not necessarily mean an improvement in or increasing the rate of services in employment, as compared to segregated or non-work services.)
	5 = There are measurable goals with meaningful benchmarks.

3. Comments?

4. Statement #2: Our state has a strong employment first policy. Select one of the following responses:

	1 = There is no employment first policy nor is one being considered.
	2 = We are considering an employment first policy, but there is not a formal group working on it.
	3 = We are actively working on an employment first policy; or we have one but it is flawed and is not clearly having employment be the first day service option.
	4 = We have an employment first policy, but it could be worded stronger so that employment first is more meaningful in influencing practice.
	5 = We have a strong employment first policy in legislation and policy.

5. Comments?

6. Statement #3: Our state collects and publishes data on employment outcomes. This information is collected on a regular basis and shared in summary form with stakeholders. Data are used to inform strategy and contracting decisions. Select one of the following responses:

	1 = There is no state-wide data system.
	2 = Partial data is sometimes collected.
	3 = Partial data is sometimes collected and summarized.
	4 = Data is collected and summarized but not a part of ongoing discussion.
	5 = A data system is in place. Information on employment, percentages and outcomes are routinely collected, analyzed, reported, and discussed.

7. Comments?

8. Statement #4: Strategies have been developed for achieving employment outcomes and are managed at multiple levels (state, county/region and local levels) and with all stakeholders. Select one of the following responses:

	1 = There are no statewide strategies in place.
	2 = Statewide strategies are sometimes discussed with some stakeholders.
	3 = A core group of some stakeholders are discussing statewide strategies.
	4 = All stakeholders are joining to develop statewide strategies.
	5 = Strategies have been developed and are discussed and adjusted at least yearly with all stakeholders.

9. Comments?