音声ブラウザご使用の方向け: SKIP NAVI GOTO NAVI

STATE-LEVEL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATIONS: COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION ON A LOCAL LEVEL

Fred Tchang United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New Jersey Trenton, New Jersey

ABSTRACT

State-level assistive technology associations are proving to meet the networking and informational needs of professionals in several states. Five state assistive technology associations were interviewed to determine their history, structure, benefits and transformations. Their accomplishments towards advancing assistive technology in their states and their struggles to remain vital membership-based associations are recorded.

BACKGROUND

In the late 1980's, rehabilitation engineers, therapists, educators, and rehabilitation counselors in several states were looking for information, for ideas- for other professionals with whom they could share their experiences and relate problems both technical and administrative. While RESNA provided a forum for information exchange and networking on a national level, it did not concentrate on state issues, and it could not bring people together more than once a year. At least five such states created associations to meet these needs.

OBJECTIVE

Now that these state associations have had at least 5 years to develop, we can seek to understand them both as a whole and individually. Collectively, we will see what role they have played in meeting the needs of assistive technology professionals. Individually, we will learn from their novel approaches and successful practices.

METHOD

Through interviews with founding members, I gained an understanding of the state of the profession at the time and of each association's early years. Follow-up interviews with current board members provided up to date profiles along with significant developments in the history of the associations.

RESULTS

Five states responded to requests for information on state assistive technology associations, defined loosely as professional and consumer associations that gather together people interested in assistive technology. While they may be tied to other associations, they are not dependent on service provider organizations or grant agencies for their existence. Thus these associations are all volunteer-based and independent.

The five states are Ohio (Ohio Rehabilitation Technology Alliance, ORTA), Minnesota (Minnesota Assistive Technology Consortium, MATC), New Jersey (New Jersey Coalition for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology, NJ CART), Iowa (Iowa Rehabilitation Technology Alliance, IRTA) and Wisconsin (Wisconsin Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, WISSAAC). The last association is different in nature, being a state chapter of USSAAC, the United States Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, but is included here as its meetings cover a broad area of assistive technology and members are from a variety of professions. The Iowa group is also included although it ceased operating in 1994.

Beginnings

In states where just a few people were providing assistive technology services, a few familiar professionals would get together in a bar or restaurant and talk shop. Brainstorming would happen, stories would be swapped and ideas proposed for better service delivery all around. No doubt this same scene happened all around the country (as it did in Colorado, although no formal association was formed in that state). What brought those few people from a social gathering to an association with 501c3 (non-profit) status was having a few motivated people who expanded the group's desire to spread the then still relatively new knowledge of assistive technology to other people. Other goals included finding referral sources, finding local professionals who could do follow-up work, and looking for new employees. What supported them was usually one organization with staff interested in attending and organizing meetings. This lead organization typically did the mailings and acted as a recipient of mail and telephone calls.

Non-Profit Status

In order to gather fees and have a budget, these groups had to find a way of getting 501c3 status. NJ CART and IRTA have their 501c3 independently, WISSAAC is a state chapters of a national association (USSAAC), ORTA is a division of ORA, the Ohio Rehabilitation Association, a state chapter of the National Rehabilitation Association. MATC does not have this status as yet, having funds channeled to an independent living center which acts as fiscal host and provides administrative support. However, the group is considering affiliation with its state chapter of NRA as well. For Ohio, becoming a division of ORA was natural, as many assistive technology professionals attended the annual ORA meeting as a way of advertising their services to rehabilitation counselors.

Structure

Once other people were invited and membership grew, the groups started to become more structured-- with mailing lists, set meeting dates, topics and agendas. Two started out with meetings every month, later moving to 4 or 6 per year. Other groups kept to 4 meetings per year, with one having only an annual conference. Initially, due to long travel distances (especially in rural states), the meetings tended to be all day. Fees vary from no fee to $36 (the no fee made possible by the Tech Act organization). Member benefits consist mainly of free attendance at meetings, along with additional items such as a newsletter and member directory.

MATC has a unique structure that began in 1992, when it split up into 5 geographic regions. The existing assistive technology liaisons within the state's Division of Rehabilitation Services provided host facilities for MATC's regionalization, while about $2,000 and staff time on the board (from the state Tech Act organization) provided administrative and overall support.

Typical membership and attendance at meetings included: ORTA (120/40), MATC (1,000(mailing list)/10-100), NJ CART (80/20), IRTA (75/15), and WISSAAC (85/50(annual conference)).

Relationship With Other Associations

Surprisingly, WISSAAC and ORTA are very independent of their parent associations, with no specific guidance and little communication with the national associations. Few WISSAAC members are USSAAC members, although all ORTA members must belong to their state association. As for possible ties with RESNA, ORTA, MATC, and NJ CART each tried to encourage RESNA to start state associations, but found no interest.

Meeting Content

Activities include tours of hosting facilities, case studies, product demos, national conference reports and round-the-table networking and announcements. A meal is always included, with networking continuing all the while. Business meetings, to discuss committee activities or to set upcoming meetings, are either held that day or as entirely separate meetings. There have been joint meetings, held, for example, with the state USSAAC chapter, and annual conferences have been organized, usually with another organization such as a university. In addition, MATC's very structure also affects its meeting content. While the vitality of each regional chapter varies, the interaction of local service providers has been very helpful to some, allowing for very specific discussions of equipment and funding needs.

Problems Faced / Changes Since Inception

Almost all of the associations went through a time when the core few people who started the group rotated through the board positions. It has been difficult for these small organizations to draw additional members who will take on responsibilities and leadership positions. Related to this problem is that of staff getting time off from their employers to organize and attend meetings. One Tech Act staff person reasoned the importance of contributing time by saying that, although her organization is being re-oriented away from service delivery and towards systems change, increasing awareness of technology and getting professionals to know each other and cooperate is part and parcel of grass-roots systems change.

Other problems mentioned included trying to attract members from distant geographic areas, and not having anything outside of the meetings to keep members connected. The first problem was addressed creatively by MATC, although they also report the down side, which is less interest in statewide meetings, and a loss of momentum by a few regional chapters. Groups have also rotated meeting sites around the state. The second issue of connectedness has been resolved somewhat through newsletters, on-going committees or teams, and on-line services. Each of these solutions, however, inevitably demands additional time from members. The on-line solution makes use of a Department of Human Services free on-line service that is already being used by people with disabilities and rehabilitation professionals. In addition to a discussion area, there will be interactive on-line databases that the association hopes its members will help to update.

DISCUSSION

Clearly, the need for information, whether on products, techniques, or applications, is available from many sources. The contact with other service providers and the awareness of the services of other organizations is one need, however, that does not seem to be met through other means. Other possible unique applications include group action on legislative issues, information dissemination on quality assurance to those outside of RESNA, and assistive technology awareness to local professionals. For a state without such an association, is it worth the effort to start one? The relative importance of cooperation among service providers and between providers, researchers, students, suppliers and manufacturers, would determine the need for such an association. Undeniably, there is something about having met and worked together with those you compete with and those you serve that breaks down barriers.

As competition for scarce resources increases, will we close off and go the way of the commercial world, or will we keep the tradition of collaboration that makes our field so attractive and so worth working for?

REFERENCES

A search of RESNA proceedings back to 1989 yielded no articles on these state associations, and the author is aware of no other publications with such articles.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all of the participants who shared their experiences and ideas with me, including: for Ohio, Mark Ficocelli and Joyce Bengston-Mitchell; for Minnesota, Susan Asplund and Diane Goodwin; for New Jersey, Richard Dodds; for Iowa, Amy Hanna and Therese Willkomm; and for Wisconsin, Ed Ellingson, Janie Strutt, and Julie Marro.

For profiles of each of these associations, please contact me at:

United Cerebral Palsy Associations of New Jersey 354 South Broad Street Trenton NJ 08608 609-392-4004 x588 Ftchang@aol.com