In earlier research (Centers for Independent Living: Rural and Urban Distribution of Centers for
Independent Living, 1999), we reported on five major models of Center for Independent Living (CIL)
service provision, including "standard CILs," "satellites," "branch offices," "outreach offices," and
others.
These "other" approaches reflect a variety of the strategies CILs use to provide services and
supports in rural and remote areas. How to provide rural IL services is an important question, since
about 40 percent of U.S. counties - mostly rural - lack access to CILs. Further, the goal of achieving
universal access is still elusive, despite the efforts of organizations such as the National Council on
Independent Living (NCIL) and the Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) to
increase funding and the number of centers.
"Rural outreach" fills a demand for community disability services and supports. Identifying needs and
building local support are the first steps. Accordingly, the various models are likely to start with
community education and move toward developing permanent programs or offices later. Usually,
outreach efforts start with broad public education and discussions with any other local service
providers to identify individuals interested in and potentially needing IL supports. After identification,
meetings are arranged with interested individuals.
In planning rural outreach models, CILs should consider their goals: Do they want to provide
individual services, to promote community and systems change, or to accomplish both?
We have identified fifteen rural outreach models for providing IL services and supports, and have
listed them in the following table which briefly describes each model. Other resources related to rural
outreach models are listed on the last page.
Rural IL Model |
Brief Description: |
Standard Center for
Independent Living (CIL) |
Community-based, non-profit, non-residential, consumer-directed program
providing four core services, including: (1) Information and referral, (2)
Individual and systems advocacy, (3) Skills training, and (4) Peer
counseling. RTC: Rural identified 88 CILs located in non-metropolitan
counties, but other CILs located in metro counties also serve surrounding
rural areas. |
CIL Satellite or
"Mentored" Center |
Shares an established CIL's board of directors, but meets all CIL criteria
and has a goal of becoming an independent CIL. |
CIL Branch Office |
Fiscally and administratively part of a main CIL, with at least a half-time
staff person in the community branch office. |
CIL Outreach Office |
Fiscally and administratively part of a main CIL, with a less than half-time
staff person in the community outreach office. |
| Out-stationing |
Red Rock Center for Independence in St. George, Utah, hires staff in
outlying communities to serve their immediate areas of residence. Using a
portable computer, a cell phone, and an internet connection, each out-stationed worker schedules services in surrounding communities on a
rotating basis and meets monthly at the central office. |
CIL Circuit Rider |
Similar to staff in outreach programs and out-stationing, circuit riders work
from the central office but lack permanent local offices. They travel a
circuit between the main office and consumers' communities and homes.
Other local agencies (e.g., hospitals, churches, etc.) may provide circuit
riders with office space for some functions. |
HUD Housing IL
Program |
Pioneered by Bill Malleris at the South Eastern Minnesota CIL in
Rochester. SEMCIL secured funding to build accessible housing and then
used the associated management contract to provide key IL services and
supports. |
Community
Volunteer Contacts
and Support
Groups |
A rural northern Michigan program recruited and trained local volunteers
from among active consumers. The volunteers provided information,
referred individuals to IL services, organized support groups, and provided
peer counseling. The program provided on-going support and linked the
volunteer leaders. |
Surrogate
Providers |
Lawrence Marrs created "surrogate providers" by identifying and training an
interested local agency to provide information and referral services to
people with disabilities. RTC: Rural modified this approach by placing
disability/IL materials in rural libraries and advertising their availability. |
Scheduled Program
Services |
Similar to a circuit rider approach, but focused on organizing and providing
ongoing workshops or programs. For example, North Central Independent
Living in Black Eagle, Montana, secured Medicaid reimbursement to
conduct the Living Well
health promotion program and was then able to
provide the workshop in several very small and remote communities. |
Virtual CIL |
Consultant Bob Michaels, Independent Living Research
Utilization, and the
Arizona State Independent Living Council developed a "virtual" internet CIL to provide information and referral, chat rooms, and other IL supports.
While people with disabilities lag behind in access to and use of the
internet, this model is a glimpse of the future and fills an important gap in
the patchwork quilt of rural IL support models. |
Community
Development |
By using the Concerns Report Method to survey communities and conduct
community planning, Summit Inc. of Missoula, Montana, was able to create
a branch office in each of three rural Montana counties. The American
Indian Disability and Technical Assistance Center (AIDTAC) uses the
culturally-appropriate Tribal Disability Actualization Process (TDAP) to help
tribes identify and build tribal infrastructure to address critical disability
issues. With other human service agencies, LINK of Hayes, Kansas,
created a coordinated rural transportation system that improved services
for the entire community. Many examples suggest that community
development may be the rural way to advocate--by cooperating to
improve the community rather than forcing change with conflict. |
Interagency
Linkages |
Several rural communities or an entire region of a state may organize
interagency linkages that extend the availability of IL services to all
communities. Though typically limited to basic information and referral,
services may include instrumental supports. Partnerships with statewide
programs such as AgrAbility can also build resources. |
Cooperatives |
The USDA recognizes three forms of this traditionally rural approach,
including "producer cooperatives," "buyer cooperatives," and "worker
cooperatives." (See RTC: Rural Research Progress Report#9.) Groups of
Michigan consumers formed Personal Assistance cooperatives to combine
available resources more efficiently and let more people benefit from them. |
Community
Education and
Awareness |
Utilizes media coverage, public presentations and appearances, and
meetings with local providers and government agencies to discuss
important disability issues and to identify individuals who might benefit from
IL services and supports. May solicit individual consumers to discuss their
needs and opinions on important community disability issues. Discussions
can set parameters for a CIL's early community involvement. |
This list organizes some ways to reach and support rural people with disabilities. It is by no means an
exhaustive list of rural outreach strategies, nor are these models limited to CIL use. Other human
service agencies, such as Vocational Rehabilitation, might explore using them to structure and
distribute services.
Sometimes the lack of rural resources can be an advantage in that it rewards creative programs that
diverge from traditional practices. The RTC: Rural constantly seeks new strategies and
encourages
you to contribute your models. To share your strategies or to ask questions about rural service
planning, please contact:
Tom
Seekins, Ph.D., Director
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
The University of Montana Rural Institute: A Center of Excellence
in Disabilities Education, Research and Services
52 Corbin Hall, Missoula, MT 59812-7056
888-268-2743 toll-free or
406-243-5467 V/TT
406-243-2654 (Tom's office)
406-243-2349 fax
email the Rural Institute
References
Innes, W., Enders, A., Seekins, T., Merritt, D.,
Kirshenbaum, A., & Arnold, N. (2000). Assessing the
geographic distribution of centers for independent
living across urban and rural areas: Toward a policy
of universal access. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 10, 2, 207-224.
Marrs, L. (1989.) Community networking can
facilitate independent living. In G. Foss (Ed.) Meeting
the Needs of Rural Americans: Papers from the First
National Conference of the Research and Training
Center on Rural Rehabilitation Services, 7-11. Missoula: The University of Montana Rural Institute.
Seekins, T., Enders, A., & Innes, W. (1999).
(Factsheet). Centers for independent living: Rural
and urban distribution. Missoula, MT: The University
of Montana, Montana University Affiliated Rural
Institute on Disabilities.
Sperry, C., Brusin, J. H. & Seekins, T. (2001). Rural
economic development: Worker cooperatives and
employment of people with disabilities, part one;
Research progress report #9. Missoula, MT: The
University of Montana Rural Institute.
Resources:
American Indian Disability Technical Assistance
Center
Association of Programs for Rural Independent
Living
Barrier
Breakers
Breaking New Ground Resource
Center/AgrAbility
Community Tool
Box
Living Well with a
Disability
Independent Living Research
Utilization
National Council on Independent
Living
RTC: Rural is committed to making useful information readily available to service providers
and consumers. Rural Practice Guides summarize research findings and the consensus of
leaders in the field about the best approaches to various issues. Readers are cautioned to
contact RTC: Rural staff or other listed resources for details about the brief descriptions
provided here.
This research is supported by Grant #H133B70017-01 from the National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions reflect those of the
author and are not necessarily those of the funding agency.
Written by Tom Seekins © 2001, RTC: Rural