D-LoT E-Learning Course

MODULE VIII

HUMAN RESOURCES AND ORGANISATIONAL

MANAGEMENT
Contents
LEARNING OUTCOMES: .............................................................................................................. 2
VIII.1 Social service organisation challenges .............................................................................. 3
VIII.2 Quality of life model.......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1: Conceptual model of individual quality of life ..................................................... 6

VIII.2.1 Quality enhancement strategies ................................................................................ 7

VIII.3 Change management strategies ....................................................................................... 7
VIII.4 Continuous quality improvement and use of the Organisation Effectiveness and
Efficiency Scale ........................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: OEES Application Model .................................................................................... 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY/RECOMMENDED TEXTS .................................................................................. 11

1
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
AUTHOR:
Miguel-Ángel Verdugo, INICO - University of Salamanca, Spain

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
A. (Knowledge) By the end of the course, participants will be able to recall:
a. Challenges that social service organisations face today
b. Organisational evaluation
c. Main characteristics of the Quality of Life model

B. (Skills) By the end of the course, students will be able to:

a. Analyse the main challenges than organisations of intellectual and
developmental disabilities have today
b. Evaluate your organisation’s status on addressing significant challenges
c. Identify and use of the main characteristics of the quality of life model and its
implementation

C. (Attitudes) By the end of the course, students will:

a. Understand how to face challenges of organisations
b. Positive and proactive approach to organisational transformation
c. Ability to guide or lead individual or teams

2
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
VIII.1 Social service organisation challenges
The organisations and systems serving individuals with disabilities meet important
challenges today. Some of these challenges are related to dwindling resources in a time of
increasing needs, work force shortages, service fragmentation, quality issues, structural
changes, the emergence of public-private service provision entities, and expectations for
increased transparency and accountability.
These challenges can be more successfully addressed by understanding the powerful forces
that are driving them and the context or ‘landscape’ within which they are occurring
(Schalock & Verdugo, 2012). Three powerful forces are driving the need for organisation and
redefinition: economic, political, and professional. Economically, all levels of government are
experiencing dwindling resources concurrent with an increased demand for services and
supports. This condition is resulting in reconsidering how resources are allocated and
increasing the emphasis on natural supports. Social-politically, there is an emphasis on the
personal and social benefits derived from the involvement of persons with disabilities in
education or rehabilitation programs, combined with the expectation that disability
organisations will be more effective and efficient. Professionally, there is a shift from general
services to individualised supports, an emphasis on self-determination and self-direction,
and an expressed need for evidence-based practices.

We live in a transformational era that focuses on change and creating value through
innovation. This transformational era can be described on the basis of five characteristics
(Schalock & Verdugo, 2013): the person is central, organisations are streamlined,
information systems are performance-based, quality improvement is a continuous
process, and participative leadership is a key element in the transformational process. More
specifically, in reference to the person as central, we have seen cultural changes based on
the values of inclusion, equity, empowerment, and subjective well-being. We have also seen
a significant movement away from vertically structured organisations to those that are more
horizontally structured and streamlined. Simultaneously, information systems have emerged
that extend thinking beyond simple data collection and analysis to knowledge production

3
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
through the use of performance-based perspectives and evidence-based indicators. Across
entities, the transformational era is also characterized by a commitment to continuous
quality improvement, and recognition of the essential role of participative leadership.

The person is central (first characteristic) means that organisations emphasize the
paramount importance of focusing on personal outcomes and the provision of individualised
supports. When organisations are streamlined, they focus on alignment and the
implementation of high performance teams. When organisations employ performance-
based information systems, they centre their data collection and analysis efforts on
performance-based perspectives and evidence-based indicators. When organisations view
quality improvement as a continuous process, they foster capacity building and a balanced
approach to quality improvement. And when participative leadership is employed, thinking
is expanded and synergy is manifest.

VIII.2 Quality of life model

The concept of quality of life is significantly impacting research and service delivery in the
field of disabilities, especially intellectual and closely related developmental disabilities.
Currently, the concept provides a framework for person-centred planning, a basic principle
to guide service delivery policies and practices, and a model for exploring the impact of
various individual and environmental factors on quality of life-related personal outcomes.

The conceptual model presupposes a contextual understanding of disability as a condition

that results from interacting individual and environmental factors. This ecological model of
disability focuses on person-environmental interaction and the congruence between
personal competence and environmental demands and opportunities resulting from these
interacting factors.

Definition:

Quality of life is a multidimensional phenomenon composed of core domains that constitute

personal well-being. These domains are influenced by personal characteristics and

4
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
environmental factors that act as moderators and/or mediators. One’s quality of life can be
enhanced through quality enhancement strategies that encompass personal involvement,
individualised supports, and personal growth opportunities.

The operational quality of life model of Schalock and Verdugo (2002, 2012, 2013a, 2013b;
Schalock, Verdugo, Gomez & Reinders, 2016) defines quality of life in terms of its empirically
derived domains (personal development, self-determination, interpersonal relations, social
inclusion, rights, emotional well-being, physical well-being, and material well-being) and
measurable indicators. QOL core domains represent the range over which the quality of life
concept extends, and thus define the multidimensionality of a life of quality. Domains were
initially synthesized and validated through an extensive review of the international quality of
life literature across various areas of disabilities, such as Intellectual and developmental
disabilities, special education, behaviour and mental health, and aging. Later, many cross-
cultural studies validated the etic (i.e., universal) properties of the eight domains.

The quality of life model measures quality of life-related outcomes on the basis of the
domain-referenced indicators. It also operationalizes and assesses moderator and mediator
variables that potentially affect variation in quality of life-related personal outcomes. And
depicts how one or more of the model’s components can be used as a basis for service
delivery, program practices, and program evaluation. In the next figure you can see a
Conceptual Model of Individual Quality of Life (Schalock et al., 2016).

5
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
Figure 1: Conceptual model of individual quality of life
A moderator variable alters the relationship between two variables and thus modifies the
form or strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable.
Moderators of quality of life can be Personal Demographics (gender, race, intellectual
functioning, adaptive behaviour, and social economic status), Organisation Culture (level of
personal involvement of the client, level of personal growth opportunities) and Family-Unit
Factors (family income, size of family, family geographical location, religious preference, and
family structure).

A mediator variable influences the relation between the independent variable and outcome
and exhibits indirect causation, connection, or relation. Mediators are Personal Status
(Residential platform, employment status, health status, and level of self-determination and
subjective well-being), Provider System (Services, individualised supports) and Community
Factors (Normative expectations, attitudes, media impact)

6
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 VIII.2.1 Quality enhancement strategies
Quality enhancement strategies to promote successfully quality of life can be developed at
the individual (Microsystem), organisation (Mesosystem) and society (Macrosystem) level.
At the individual level there are quality of life related principles and exemplary enhancement
strategies: Empowerment (Decision making, choice making, risk taking, goal setting, self-
advocacy, self-management), Skill development (Functional training and use of technology to
enhance cognitive), Involvement (Participation, inclusion, knowledge sharing, ability sharing).
At the organisation level: Opportunity development (Integrated employment, inclusive
education, community-based, less restrictive living options, community integration activities,
transportation, social networks), Safe and secure environments (Environments characterized
by safety, security, predictability, and personal control), Supports alignment (Aligning
individualised supports to personal goals and assessed support needs). At the society level:
Accessibility (Ensuring human rights and legal rights), Attitudes (Knowledge and positive
interactions), Environmental enrichment (Nutrition, cleaner environments, reduced abuse
and neglect, safer environments, adequate housing and income).

VIII.3 Change management strategies

Social and care service organisations can devise and employ eight change strategies whose
purpose is to enhance the organisation’s effectiveness in terms of personal outcomes and
efficiency in terms of organisation outputs. These eight change strategies relate to using 21st
Century thinking styles, measuring and using personal outcomes and organisation outputs,
developing high performance teams, employing a systems of supports, using evidence-based
practices, implementing a performance-based evaluation and management system, creating
value through innovation, and overcoming resistance to change. In the process of employing
these strategies disability organisations become increasingly more creative in how they
deploy human, technical, and financial resources and thereby redefine themselves and
become more sustainable.

7
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
A multidimensional approach to organisation evaluation and change is an emerging
characteristic among disabilities organisations (Schalock & Verdugo, 2012; Schalock, Lee,
Verdugo, et al., 2014). The Organisation Effectiveness and Efficiency Scale (OEES) was
developed by the International Consortium on Evidence-Based Practices (2013a, 2013b), and
consists of 4 performance-based perspectives and 20 best practice indicators. The customer
perspective focuses on personal goals, assessed support needs, individualised supports, and
personal outcomes. The growth perspective focuses on program options, high performance
teams, direct support staff involvement, and networks, consortia, and partnerships. The
financial perspective focuses on a standardised approach to calculating unit costs, cost
accounting, cost allocation, social capital, fixed and variable costs, overhead rate, and
resource allocation models. The internal processes perspective focuses on horizontal and
vertical alignment of program components, mapping system(s), research and evaluation
capacity, data sets, data collection systems, and quality improvement activities.

Customer perspective
1. Aligns services/supports to identified support needs
2. Reports the number of clients living or working in more independent, productive, and
community-integrated environments
3. Measures personal outcomes
4. Reports and analyses aggregated personal outcomes
5. Uses technology to enhance personal outcomes

Growth perspective
6. Articulates the organisation’s mission and intended results
7. Enters into partnerships
8. Develops program options
9. Utilizes and evaluates high performance teams
10. Monitors job satisfaction and develops job enrichment programs

Financial perspective
11. Compares unit costs across different locations and service delivery platforms

8
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 12. Reports percentage of budget allocated to client-referenced supports
13. Monitors the relationship between social capital and agency-based fiscal capital
14. Uses fixed and variable cost data to establish a baseline cost rate
15. Analyses overhead rate to increase efficiency

Internal processes perspective

16. Horizontally aligns input, throughput, and output components
17. Vertically aligns an organisation’s input, throughput, and output components to the
corresponding individual-level input, throughput, and output components
18. Demonstrates relationship between units of service/support provided and the
clienteles’ assessed support needs
19. Uses data related to personal and organisation outcomes for multiple purposes
20. Uses evidence-based indicators for continuous quality improvement

VIII.4 Continuous quality improvement and use of the Organisation

Effectiveness and Efficiency Scale
Continuous quality improvement is a process to ensure programs are systematically and
intentionally improving services and increasing positive outcomes. It is proactive, cyclical,
data-driven process; a continuous process that occurs most readily in organisations that
have built the capacity to change, and in those organisations that take a balanced approach
to its formulation and implementation.
The OEES is used, through a continuous quality improvement approach that leads to
organisation transformation, for two primary and two secondary purposes
 Primary (as an assessment tool): Initial Self-Assessment and Subsequent Performance
Evaluation
 Secondary (as a planning framework): Strategic Planning and Capacity Building
The relationship among the four uses of the OEES and continuous quality improvement and
organisation transformation is depicted in the figure ‘Continuous Quality Loop’.

9
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
Figure 2: OEES Application Model

10
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
BIBLIOGRAPHY/RECOMMENDED TEXTS
 International Research Consortium on Evidence-Based Practices (2013). The
Effectiveness and Efficiency Scale. Retrieved from: http://www.oeesonline.org/
 Schalock, R.L., Lee, T., Verdugo, M.A., & van Loon, J. (2014a). Continuous quality
improvement as an internal, collaborative, and transformative process. OEES
Manual Supplement. Retrieved from: http://www.oeesonline.org/
 Schalock, R.L., Lee, T., Verdugo, M.A., & van Loon, J. (2014b). Continuous Quality
Improvement Strategies Referenced to the Perspective of the Customer, and the
Organisation’s Growth, Financial Analyses, and Internal Processes. OEES Manual
Supplement # 2. Retrieved from: http://www.oeesonline.org/
 Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on quality of life for human
service practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental
Retardation.
 Schalock, R.L. & Verdugo, M.A. (2012). A Leadership Guide to Redefining
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Organisations: Eight Successful
Change Strategies. My: Brookes Publishing Company
 Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013a). The impact of the quality of life concept
on the field of intellectual disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 37–47). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
 Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013b). The transformation of disabilities
organisations. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 273–286. doi:
10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.273
 Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2014). Quality of life as a change agent. In R. I.
Brown & R. Faragher (Eds.), Challenges for quality of life: Application in education
and other social contexts (pp. 60–72). New York, NY: Nova Science.

11
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by
 Schalock, R. L., Verdugo M. A., & Gomez, L. E. (2011). Evidence-based practices in
the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international
consensus approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 273–282.
 Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M.A., Gomez, L.E., & Reinders, H. (2016). Moving us
toward a theory of individual quality of life. American Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 12, 1-12.
 Verdugo, M. A., Schalock, R. L., Keith, K. D., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2005). Quality of life
and its measurement: Important principles and guidelines. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 49, 707–717. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005. 00739.x
 Verdugo, M. A., Navas, P. A., Gomez, L. E., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The concept of
quality of life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual
disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1036–1045. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01585.x

END OF HANDOUT

12
The Disability Leaders of Tomorrow Project
(D LoT) is generously supported by