South Dakota SILC's Home Modification Program: Using Existing Resources
to Deliver More Ramps
2001
by Joel Niemeyer, Larry Tolzin, Greg Brandner and Shelly Pfaff
The South Dakota SILC, Designated State Units and CILs found creative
ways to stretch available funds and serve more consumers in their Home
Modifications/Assistive Devices Program:
Research resources existing in the state that might help address the
identified problem. Enter into conversations with the identified resources
and negotiate a win-win situation. Include opportunities for regular reporting
and evaluation of the project's efficiencies and outcomes in order to
continuously improve the quality of the service.
Background
South Dakota's Statewide Independent Living Council, Designated State
Units and Centers for Independent Living continually face challenges which
result from the state's demographic and geographic realities. South Dakota
is one of the nation's most rural areas. The state's population of 712,800
people lives within the state's 77,000 square miles. These numbers average
to approximately nine people per square mile. Close to 60% of South Dakota's
total population live in small, isolated rural communities of 4,000 people
or less.
In state fiscal year 1996, the South Dakota Statewide Independent Living
Council (SILC), Designated State Units (DSUs) and Centers for Independent
Living (CILs) established the Home Modifications/Assistive Devices (HMAD)
program. This program provided eligible persons with disabilities with
financial assistance to purchase needed assistive devices and/or home
modifications. To be eligible for the HMAD program, consumers must have
a significant disability, and they must meet economic need criteria. Eligible
individuals do not have to be homebound. By providing this program, the
SILC, DSUs and CILs expected people with disabilities would be able to
remain independent within their homes and communities. The initial budget
for the HMAD program was $35,000.
The Problem
Since its start, the HMAD program has been utilized fully each year. The
number of eligible consumers needing the program has annually surpassed
the amount of available resources, even though the SILC has committed
increased funding to the program. In 1997, the total HMAD budget was $67,370
and it served 92 people. During 1998, 126 people were served, fully using
$153,496 of budgeted funds. For 1999, 2000 and 2001 the total annual budget
for the HMAD program was $200,000. A total of 202 individuals were served
in 1999, 244 in 2000 and 310 in 2001.
Recognizing that increased funding was not always possible, the Statewide
Independent Living Council, Designated State Units and CILs decided to
pursue new ways to provide these services which would make available resources
stretch further. By doing so, they could serve more consumers.
Early in the investigation of creative ways to provide these services,
the SILC identified significant barriers in the provision of ramps. A
number of consumers whose quality of life would significantly improve
by having a ramp were on waiting lists. The SILC, DSUs and CILs identified
three key factors that would have to be considered in any solution. First,
the cost for ramps presently being built was high. Second, CILs were finding
it more and more difficult to locate local contractors who would build
the ramps. Third, ramps were often built in a way that did not allow for
portability.
The consequences of these factors were that fewer ramps could be purchased,
it was taking longer to get them built, and when a consumer moved or died,
often the ramp(s) was no longer of benefit to anyone. Even though these
ramps were often in very good condition, they were at homes where such
a modification was no longer needed. Yet consumers who had moved, or new
consumers who needed such a modification were not able to access what
they needed. The SILC, DSUs and CILs believed that the local manufacturing
of modular or portable ramps would address these identified barriers.
The Plan and Related Challenges
Initially, SILC, DSU and CIL staff explored types of modular ramps available
on the market. They looked at portability, cost, delivery times and related
issues. After completing this research, the SILC and DSU established a
pilot program with two CILs to investigate the feasibility of using portable
aluminum ramps or aluminum/wood ramps.
CIL staff reported consumers were satisfied with either type of ramp.
They spoke to problems with adaptability of the ramps and locating volunteers
to assemble them. They also encountered problems in the storage and distribution
of the ramps. They stated that the savings resulting from purchasing in
bulk were not enough to compensate for the problems they experienced in
storing and transporting the ramps. The CILs recommended the use of aluminum,
stating these ramps were easier to assemble and move. The SILC, DSUs and
CILs were not successful in locating local manufacturers that could produce
aluminum ramps at a reasonable cost.
Springfield Prison in South Dakota has a program in which inmates build
houses for sale to seniors and people with disabilities. One SILC member's
spouse was involved with that program, and it was agreed that it would
be beneficial to talk with him about the ramp problem and ways it might
be addressed. Two SILC members volunteered to go to the Springfield Prison
and visit with them about the possibility of building aluminum ramps.
A couple of visits resulted in a Springfield Prison staff person offering
to develop a model for a modular ramp and agreeing to present it at an
upcoming SILC meeting.
Lamont Cain, supervisor of the Department of Corrections Vocational Educational
Program at the Mike Durfee State Prison, presented a model of a portable,
wooden ramp at the March 1999 SILC meeting. Mr. Cain proposed the ramps
could be built at the Springfield facility and estimated the turn around
time for construction to be about a week. He expected they could stockpile
standard components, and he and his crews would then construct specific
components to meet the needs of individual consumers as they were required.
He estimated the average cost of a 30 foot ramp would be approximately
$750. The SILC supported this approach and the DSUs began working out
related details.
A related issue of concern to all involved was how the ramps would be
transported to the various CILs and consumers. Mr. Cain suggested that
the Department of Transportation (DOT), which has vehicles and personnel
located throughout the state, might deliver the ramps to identified sites.
DOT's "Bumble Bee" transit system was identified as the resource
which would be targeted as a means of delivering the ramps once construction
had been completed.
By August of 1999, the ramp project was going very well and had the full
support of the Governor's office. Mr. Cain developed a video on the assembly
of the ramps and disseminated it to the CILs and others involved with
this effort. The CILs reported that the ramps were well constructed and
easily assembled by staff and volunteers.
A few months later, however, the DSU reported to the SILC that the Department
of Transportation "Bumble Bee" transit system was not working
out as effectively as had been expected. The DSU director entered into
discussions with leadership of the South Dakota National Guard, and it
was decided that off-duty National Guard members would deliver ramps statewide
and be paid an hourly wage. Previous shipping costs averaged $130 per
ramp. This new approach to transporting the ramps would reduce the cost
and speed up the delivery time.
At this time, all the CILs are accessing ramps through this project.
One CIL has entered into a contractual agreement with a community rehabilitation
program to deliver and install ramps at the consumers' homes in their
service area. This arrangement has ensured more timely delivery and set
up of ramps and reduced the related costs.
Successful Outcomes
Prior to the implementation of the ramp project, the average cost for
ramps provided through the HMAD program was running at $75 per foot. With
the average ramp length being 30 feet, the cost of such a ramp was $2,240.
The average cost of a ramp manufactured at the Springfield correctional
facility has been $25 per running foot. The resulting cost of a 30-foot
ramp was $750. This equated to an estimated average savings of $1,500
per ramp. These cost savings have enabled the program to serve a greater
number of consumers with the same amount of budgeted funds.
Another success of the program has been the increased portability of
the ramps. This portability has allowed several consumers to use the same
ramps at different homes. In the case of the death of a consumer, ramps
have been made available to another consumer who has need of this modification.
In either case, the cost incurred in moving the ramps has been far less
than the cost of purchasing new ones. Often, the new consumers receiving
these recycled ramps live in communities within the same service area.
This results in timelier delivery and minimal costs related to the delivery.
The impact this program has had on inmates of the Springfield facility
is another successful outcome. The SILC and the general public have been
told of the increased sense of self-worth inmates experience knowing that
the work they are doing is helping someone with a disability live more
independently. Since the implementation of the ramp project, other projects
utilizing inmates' abilities and addressing the needs of people with disabilities
have followed. These efforts are providing broader vocational skill development
opportunities for inmates. These projects also provide inmates with the
opportunity to develop technically based expertise. We expect these skills
will be useful to them as they return to the world outside the facility.
Finally, the relationship with the South Dakota National Guard has been
positive for all involved. The SILC, DSUs, CILs and, ultimately, the consumers
have seen ramps being delivered on a timelier basis. The National Guard
has indicated a continuing commitment to this project, expressing their
appreciation for the opportunity to serve and make a difference in the
lives of people with disabilities throughout the state.
Conclusion
This approach to the construction and delivery of ramps evolved naturally
out of relationships which existed between members of the SILC, DSUs and
CILs. It was a process of exploring what resources existed within the
state that might help to address the identified problem. We then entered
into conversations with the identified resources and eventually negotiated
an approach that has been a win-win situation for all. The project included
opportunities for regular reporting to the SILC by DSUs and CILs. Based
upon these reports, the SILC, DSUs and CILs were able to evaluate the
project's efficiencies and outcomes. It also provided opportunities to
identify new resources that ultimately made the program even better than
when first implemented. The South Dakota SILC, DSUs and CILs believe this
project is attainable wherever a similar process is followed, similar
resources are available and an openness to doing things in a different
way are present.
Contact Information:
Shelly Pfaff, Executive Secretary;
South Dakota SILC
221 South Central Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 945-2207 (Voice/TTY)
(605) 945-2422 (Fax)
sdccdpfaff@dtgnet.com
The RAMP Project:
Greg Brandner
IL Program Specialist
Division of Rehabilitation Services
Hillsview Plaza
3800 E Hwy 34
c/o 500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
(605) 773-5117
About the Authors
Joel Niemeyer is director of governmental affairs
for North Central Chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. He was previously employed as an ADA specialist with Prairie
Freedom Center for Independent Living. He has served as chairperson and
presently serves as member-at-large on the South Dakota SILC. Joel also
serves on local boards and committees, such as the public transit advisory
board.
Larry Tolzin is retired after several years
working as a rehabilitation counselor. His past employment also involved
working as a high school band instructor. He presently serves as chairperson
of the South Dakota SILC, as well as on the board of Vocational Rehabilitation
and the Workforce Development Council. Larry has been a strong advocate
for increased collaboration between various agencies and boards; he was
instrumental in the project addressed in this article.
Greg Brandner is the independent living program
specialist with the South Dakota Department of Human Services, Division
of Rehabilitation Services. He works directly with various programs which
support people with disabilities living independently: Home Modifications/Assistive
Devices Program; RAMP Project; Personal Attendant Services Medicaid Program.
Greg worked closely with the SILC during his tenure with the division.
Shelly Pfaff is the SILC executive secretary
under an agreement between the Division of Rehabilitation Services and
South Dakota Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities (SDCCD). Shelly has
served as SDCCD's executive director for seven years. She worked more
than sixteen years as a rehabilitation counselor, counseling supervisor
and manager of special services for the Department of Human Services.
She is a certified rehabilitation counselor with a master's degree in
education.
|