COMBINING VENDOR F/EA AND SUPPORT SERVICES William A. B. Ditto Director, New Jersey Division of Disability Services & Project Director, Personal Preference (NJ Cash & Counseling Program)

COMBINING VENDOR F/EA AND SUPPORT SERVICES SOME HISTORY.....  NJ kept them separate when we began Personal Preference in 1999  We felt there were benefits to having the two functions performed by different vendors  Over time, we came to see that combining the two made sense  In 2006 re-bid we combined the functions

COMBINING VENDOR F/EA AND SUPPORT SERVICES  PROS 1.Increased communication between F/EA and counselors 2.Ease of monitoring and oversight 3.Less confusing for participants in terms of using the services 4.Ease of making policy changes 5.Training and orientation of staff made easier and more efficient

COMBINING VENDOR F/EA AND SUPPORT SERVICES  CONS 1.Potential of reduced choice for participants 2.Need to keep F/EA functions and counseling separate 3.“Double danger” in the event that vendor ceases operations 4.Program “identity” may appear to rest with F/EA & counseling vendor, not the state agency

COMBINING VENDOR F/EA AND SUPPORT SERVICES  SOME ADDITIONAL POINTS 1.Participants were not as interested in “choice” as we assumed. 2.It is better to prohibit the combined F/EA & counseling vendor from the delivery of any direct services 3.State and vendor must be clear in terms of expectations, performance standards and deliverables and understand that the counselor must sometime also be the “advocate”