Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

• Introduction and Project Description
• Management of the Project
• Evaluation Approach
• The Partnership
• General Findings
• Progress on the Major Components Of the Project
• Recommendations for the Phase 11 Summative Evaluation

Introduction and Project Description

This brief would be of interest to individuals working with people who have intellectual disabilities. Choice and Opportunity is one of a number of joint federal-provincial projects undertaken under the Federal Government's Strategic Initiatives Program. The project attempts to re-design existing programs and delivery mechanisms and provide more opportunity for individuals with intellectual disabilities to make decisions about how they want to receive supports and services. The project also assists agencies and community organizations to be inclusive of persons with an intellectual disability.

Management of the Project

Choice and Opportunity involves four partners: the Governments of Prince Edward Island and Canada and the Canadian and PEI Associations of Community Living. Canada is represented by Human Resources Development Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island is represented by the Department of Health and Social Services, the Regional Health Authorities and the Health and Community Services Agency. The PEI Community Services Agency manages the project under the guidance of a Steering Committee which includes representatives of the four partners. New funding of $5 million was made available for the 1994-1998 period in addition to the current resource base.

Evaluation Approach

The Phase I Process Evaluation, which took place over the eight month period from October 1995 to June 1996, examined progress made on goals and objectives, partnership, and provided recommendations for the Phase II Summative Evaluation. Evaluation methods used included a document and literature review, interviews with key stakeholders and analysis of administrative databases.

The Partnership

The use of a four-way partnership is a challenge. A strength of the partnership is the scope and diversity of ideas that are brought to bear on the objective of changing the levels of support for those with intellectual disabilities. All partners continue to be committed to the project and see the process and the potential outcomes as a opportunity to demonstrate a new mode of service delivery which may be transferable to other service sectors.

Key elements that make up an effective partnership were identified as a shared vision; frequent and honest communications; a sense of equity; development of trust; a willingness to share responsibility and power; the ability to acknowledge and accept differences (validate and respect each other's roles); a respect for confidentiality; the ability to share strengths and resources; the ability to be creative; the capacity to support each other in pursuit of the project's objective; and on-going team building efforts and skills in conflict resolution.

General Findings

The project is changing expectations and introducing new approaches for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The evaluation noted that it was important that all project activities be tied to the original project objectives, which were:

• to develop more cost-effective alternatives to assist people with disabilities;
• to identify duplication and gaps in service delivery and to develop plans for their elimination;
• to develop community support systems which are more responsive to individual needs;
• to design and test a model of resource allocation for income assistance and community support services which is adaptable to other disabled individuals.

Initially, the project objectives were not clear as to how barriers and disincentives would be removed but this issue was being properly addressed in planning for the resource allocation model. The review of Literature found that rigidities had been put in place in the interest of accountability but that there was a need to balance individual service needs with accountability of public funds.

The involvement of all government departments and a willingness to explore and influence change in legislation and policies that affect Choice and Opportunity participants was found to be essential. The project was addressing this issue by hiring a policy advisor to research policy implications of the components.

Areas identified for improvement were: internal and external communications; matrix management; examination of Operations committee membership; and, commitment to strategic planning, team building and skill development for project staff, the Regional Advisory Committees and the Operations and Steering Committees.

Progress on the Major Components Of the Project

Component 1. Identification and Review of Existing Financial Resources
There were information gaps when data on individuals with an intellectual disability was merged. The largest data base, that of Social Services, represented only 37 percent of individuals in the merged database. It provided basic information on region, age, gender, income, expenses, family structure and employment of individuals but this information was not complete enough to give the ""picture"" of individuals with an intellectual disability in Prince Edward Island. In summary, certain information was never tracked or stored in certain databases and there were fewer matches between databases than originally expected. Data had not been consistently reported to allow the project to identify the costs of services or some of the duplication which may exist.

Component 2. Community Development
The Literature Review provided the following insights for the community development plans of Choice and Opportunity:

• community members may get discouraged if there is excessive bureaucratic process in the development of innovative and responsive models of community development;
• the best way to develop the community to support people with intellectual disabilities is to involve them in an aspect that they feel comfortable with;
• for sustainability, communities must have active volunteer support groups that involve all aspects of community life in their advocacy;
• people with intellectual disabilities need the support of employers, the churches, town councils, the school system and recreational facilities and programs to live a meaningful life in the community.

Component 3. Development of a New Resource Allocation Model

• The model development process is of high quality and continues to maintain a high degree of stakeholder involvement.
• There was a lack of clear mechanisms to provide planning supports for people with Intellectual disabilities.
• The ability for individuals to be involved in the determination and planning of their supports is a key success indicator for Choice and Opportunity. This is addressed and planned for in the model design.
• It is important for the support planning function to be offered by individuals or an organization that is separate and distinct from the funding and service providers in order to maintain maximum objectivity.
• Individual payment methods must be flexible to best meet the needs of the individual.
• There must be adequate attention paid to monitoring services and costs.
• Individualized service planning can take a variety of successful forms.
• The individual must be given the dignity of risk and the space to learn what is good and bad for them--the choice can mean a good choice or a bad choice in the view of society.

Component 4. Demonstration of the Model
The development of a resourcing model had taken more time than anticipated so that demonstration of the model had not been initiated during the first two years.

Recommendations for the Phase 11 Summative Evaluation

The Summative evaluation should determine the extent to which desired change has occurred for the participant/target group and the extent to which this change is attributable to project activities. The questions to be asked are: is the project having the desired effect and are the costs of the effects obtained acceptable? It is necessary to ensure a continuous feedback loop during the model implementation.