This community assessment was carried out in collaboration with The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

This community assessment was carried

• ut in collaboration with The DREAM

Partnership, Cumberland/Perry IDD Program, Dauphin County IDD Program, and the Department of Social Work & Gerontology at Shippensburg University

Background

• This needs assessment was conducted by

Social Work students and faculty of Shippensburg University for the purpose of assisting the Cumberland/Perry and Dauphin County Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Agencies and the D.R.E.A.M. Partnership Board of Directors in determining the interest level of area individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDD) and their families in postsecondary educational opportunities.

• Postsecondary education (PSE) terminology

D.R.E.A.M. Partnership

• Dreams Realized through

Educational Aspiration Model

• Formed by parents and

professionals

• To provide postsecondary

education (PSE) opportunities to students with IDD to increase competitive employment and promote independent living in Central Pennsylvania.

• Intellectual and developmental

disabilities (IDD) arise from physical, genetic, and social factors and affect 1-3% of Americans (Arc, 2013).

• IDD is characterized by

– sub-average intellectual functioning – limitations in adaptive functioning skills – onset prior to age 18 (Arc, 2013)

• Research shows individuals with IDD

who obtain postsecondary education (PSE) have greater opportunities for competitive employment (DREAM, 2012).

Research Design

Qualitative Research

Parent/Guardian Focus Groups Student Focus Groups

Quantitative Research

Family Survey Interviews with Students

Two Types of Data Collection

Qualitative Research

Parent/Guardian Focus Groups Student Focus Groups

Two Types of Data Collection

• 7 focus groups were held during the last

week in February.

• The script and questions were developed

by Shippensburg Faculty, county offices of Cumberland/Perry IDD and Dauphin IDD, and the D.R.E.A.M. Partnership.

• Informed consent and assent forms were

signed by Parents, Guardians, Staff and Students.

• The qualitative information gathered

during the focus groups was recorded and transcribed.

Participants

Dauphin County

• 209 flyers sent to

individuals living in Dauphin County.

Cumberland County

• 174 flyers sent to

individuals living in Cumberland and Perry Counties.

An additional 630 flyers were sent to the 22 school districts in Cumberland, Dauphin and Perry Counties.

• Those in attendance were split into two groups: potential post-

secondary education students and parents/guardians/support staff.**

Quantitative Research

Family Survey Interviews with Students

Two Types of Data Collection

• Results of the focus groups guided

development of two questionnaires.

• Self-administered surveys were

mailed to households.

• Student surveys were completed

during face-to-face interviews. Questions evaluated barriers or challenges regarding:

• college curriculum
• independent living skills
• socialization in commuter and

residential college settings.

Family Participants

Dauphin County

• 209 surveys sent to the

households of individuals living in Dauphin County.

Cumberland County

• 174 surveys sent to the

households of individuals living in Cumberland and Perry Counties.

Surveys were sent to all households that had an individual aged 14-21 registered with the Cumberland/Perry and Dauphin agencies. Of the 383 surveys mailed, approximately 15% (57) surveys were returned.

Student Participants

Dauphin County

• The agency contacted

individuals on their caseload between the ages of 16-21, that had previously expressed an interest in PSE in their Individual Support Plans

• r Prioritization of Urgency
• f Need for Services

(PUNS).

• Five were scheduled from

Dauphin County.

Cumberland County

• A list of all individuals

between the ages of 16- 21on the caseload was collected.

• Random number

generation was used to select names.

• 39 individuals were

contacted from the Cumberland/Perry list with five scheduled from Cumberland County.

• Both surveys used a Likert

Scale with a rating of 1-5.

• Analysis was done using

Excel.

• Research questions were

then grouped by similar themes and analyzed to create charts and tables of data.

Survey Data

Results

• “She [student] can do a lot on her own, but she

would need to touch base with someone for reassurance and guidance.”

• “I think now a lot of these dorms are co-ed and that

would not work at all. For those kids with intellectual disabilities, that’s not good.”

• “…our children are used to individualized

education, so when you go to college, that’s not really individualized, you have to fit in.”

• “…I don’t think he could succeed in going to a

class that has 100 kids in it. You know he needs to go to a class that has five or six and that they aren’t gonna bother him…”

Focus Groups of Parents/Guardians/Staff

• “I had a student, she actually helped me with just

getting my work done because it just wasn’t happening.”

• “Your grades and the homework in college is hard.”
• “First, trying to find your way around everything and

second, is meeting people and teachers. You know their personalities and the social life.”

• “…it was happening more than once a week and

people I was in class with did not care to know me, did not care to want know me and they knew I was weak and knew I couldn’t defend myself as well as I probably could know they would take advantage

• f it.”

Focus Groups of Students

• Of the 383 mailed, approximately 15% (57)

questionnaires were returned.

• 27 from Cumberland, 17 from Dauphin, 3 from

Perry, 10 County not identified

• 10 (17.5%) stated they or their children had no

interest in PSE.

• Of the remaining questionnaires, 57% of parents

indicated that their child showed interest in going to college and that they were interested in PSE for their child.

Family Questionnaires

• Parents identified obtaining competitive

employment as a primary goal for PSE.

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Vocational Skills - Focused Academic - Focused Academic (Personal Growth) Life Skills

58% 47% 73% 91%

Object 1: Curriculum Focus for PSE

• Note. Numbers represent answers based on Likert Scale (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Unsure, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree).

There were no responses tallied 5 – Strongly Agree. Percentages based on responses of Strongly Agree/Agree.

Table 2: Supports Needed

*Average answers based on Likert Scale (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Unsure, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree)

• Parents agreed that their students would need:

– Additional support – An identified mentor and/or a specialized resident assistant

Question Average* Standard Deviation Strongly Agree/Agree Arriving to classes on time 3.93 1.08 78% Navigating the campus 3.93 0.98 78% Academic activities (i.e. homework) 4.36 0.8 91%

Table 1: Daily Safety

*Average answers based on Likert Scale (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Unsure, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree) Percentages based on answers of Strongly Agree/Agree

• Parents disagreed that their student could:

– Make decisions about daily living without oversight – Be able to manage their medical situation – Structure out of class time safely

Question Average Standard Deviation Strongly Agree/Agree Make decisions about daily living without oversight 2.22 1.27 22% Manage their medical situation 2.31 1.34 24% Structure out-of-class time safely 2.33 1.18 20% Child would benefit from safety awareness programs 4.26 0.98 82%

• 7 face-to-face interviews with students with IDD.
• 71% thought about going to college and are

interested in college.

• 86% agreed they would like help with their class

work.

• 100% agreed it would be easier for them with the

help of another student.

• 100% agreed that meeting their professors or

teachers prior to starting class would be helpful.

Student Questionnaires

Table 3: Social Interests

*Average answers based on Likert Scale (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Unsure, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree) Percentages based on answers of Strongly Agree/Agree

Question Average Standard Deviation Strongly Agree/Agree Excited to meet new people 4.57 0.53 100% Nervous to meet new people 2.85 1.77 43% Interested in joining a club 4 1.52 71% Interested in participating in sports 3.28 1.7 57% Working and attending school 4.42 0.78 86%

Question Average* Standard Deviation Strongly Agree/Agree I think I would be safe at college 3.57 1.27 57% Thoughts of getting bullied at college 2.85 1.06 29% Table 4 Bullying and Safety

• 57% agreed they would like to live in the dorms and

83% identified they would like to have a roommate.

• 100% agreed they thought college would help

them find a better job and learn to live independently.

Table 4: Everyday Abilities

*Average answers based on Likert Scale (5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Unsure, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree) Percentages based on answers of Strongly Agree/Agree

• 57% of respondents agreed they could manage

time, do their own laundry, and cook for themselves.

• 29% agreed that they could meet homework

deadlines on their own.

• Few (14%) felt they could manage their money.

Question Average Standard Deviation Strongly Agree/Agree I can manage my time 3.42 1.51 57% I can meet homework deadlines 2.85 1.06 29% I can manage my money 2.57 0.78 14% I can do my own laundry 3.74 1.11 57% I can cook for myself 3.42 1.13 57%

Discussion and Recommendation

• Many families expressed

little to no prior knowledge regarding PSE for individuals with IDD.

• Over half of participants

reported interest.

• Students and parents

differ on preference for commuting and on- campus living.

• Students are not currently

receiving preparation geared toward success in PSE.

Overview

• Obtaining competitive

employment

• Preparation for PSE
• Mentoring
• Type of program
• Integrated Support

Model

Identified Areas of Focus

• Work study/internship
• Enrollment in classes that are relevant to job

interests

Competitive Employment

• Trepidation was expressed regarding the

current level of preparation.

• Address student and family concerns for safety,

socialization, and program success.

• Facilitate the transition from the structured

environment of high school to the less structured college experience.

Preparation/Transition

• This model combines a genuine

college experience with several key features.

• Individualized College Plans

(ICP) are created and modified based on student goals and needs with input from families, schools, and relevant helping agencies.

Inclusive/Integrated Support Model

• Peer mentoring should be a vital component

providing benefits to the students and additional peace of mind for parents.

– Navigating campus – Help with homework and daily activities – Introduction to clubs and sports – Familiarity with dining facilities – Time-management – Routine safety precautions – Issues with other students

Peer Mentoring

• Parents consistently showed

concern and apprehension about dorm living.

• Research indicates that

programs with on campus dormitory components increase independence and social skills for students with IDD.

• Transportation is a serious

barrier to PSE.

Commuter vs. Campus Living

Research Strengths

• Research included families and

individuals across Dauphin, Cumberland, and Perry Counties.

• Qualitative and quantitative

data.

• Direct interaction with students.
• New communication between

students and parents/guardians/staff about the

• pportunity for PSE.
• Identified areas of focus provide
• pportunity.

Limitations

• Relatively low response rate.
• Limits the generalizability of the findings.
• Difference in the selection process of students

and families in Dauphin and Cumberland/Perry Counties for the face-to-face interviews.

• More time for response to focus group flyers

may have increased participation; more face- to- face student questionnaires would have benefited the data collection.

Conclusions

• PSE enhances opportunities for

competitive employment and personal growth.

• Individuals and families require

more information about the possibilities to make informed decisions.

• Lack of supportive living and

transportation are barriers.

• On-going life skills, money

management, and emotional support components are suggested to improve outcomes.

Arc, The. (2011). Introduction to intellectual disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.thearc.org/page.aspx?pid=2448 Arc, The. (2013). Intellectual disability. Retrieved from http://www.thearc.org/page.aspx?pid=2543 Carroll, S. Z., Blumberg, E. R., & Petroff, J. G. (2008). The promise of liberal learning: Creating a challenging postsecondary curriculum for youth with intellectual disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(9), 1-12. D.R.E.A.M. Partnership. (2012). Dreams realized through educational aspiration model. Camp Hill, PA: D.R.E.A.M. Partnership. Folk, E. D. R., Yamamoto, K. K., & Stodden, R. A. (2012). Implementing inclusion and collaborative teaming in a model program of postsecondary education for young adults with intellectual

• disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 257-269.

Griffin, M. M., McMillan, E. D., & Hodapp, R. M. (2010). Family perspectives on post-secondary education for students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(3), 339-346. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Lewis, S. (2011). A prelude to progress: Postsecondary education and students with intellectual disabilities. Impact: Feature Issue on Postsecondary Education and Students with Intellectual, Developmental and Other Disabilities, 23(3). Retrieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/233. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migliore, A. (2011). Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 4-17.

References

Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Weir, C. (2012). A survey of postsecondary education programs for students with intellectual disabilities in the United States. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 223-233. Hafner, D., Moffatt, C., & Kisa, N. (2011). Cutting-edge: Integrating students with intellectual and developmental disabilities into a 4-year liberal arts college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 18-30. doi: 10.1177/0885728811401018 Hurtubis Sahlen, C. A., & Lehmann, J. P. (2006). Requesting accommodations in higher education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 28-34. Jones, M. M., & Goble, Z. (2012). Creating effective mentoring partnerships for students with intellectual disabilities on campus. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 270-278. Kelley, K. R., & Westling, D. L. (2013). A focus on natural supports in postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities at Western Carolina University. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 38(1), 67-76. doi: 10.3233/JVR-120621 Kleinert, H. L., Jones, M. M., Sheppard-Jones, K., Harp, B., & Harrison, E. M. (2012). Students with intellectual disabilities going to college? Absolutely! Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(5), 26-35. Martinez, D. C., Conroy, J. W., & Cerreto, M. C. (2012). Parent involvement in the transition process

• f children with intellectual disabilities: The influence of inclusion on parent desires and

expectations for postsecondary education. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 279-288. Mock, M., & Love, K. (2012). One state’s initiative to increase access to higher education with people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 289-297.

References continued

Papay, C. K., & Bambara, L. M. (2011). Postsecondary education for transition-age students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities: A national survey. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(1), 78-93. Random.org. (2013). True random number service. Retrieved from http://www.random.org/ Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2011). Research methods for social work, (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole: Cengage Learning. Shaw, S. F., Dukes, L. L., & Madaus, J. W. (2012). Beyond compliance. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(5), 6-12. Think College. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.thinkcollege.net/ Thoma, C. A., Lakin, K. C., Carlson, D., Domzal, C., Austin, K., & Boyd, K. (2011). Participation in postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities: A review of the literature 2001-2010. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 24(3), 175-191. Uditsky, B., & Hughson, E. (2012). Inclusive postsecondary education – An evidence-based moral

• imperative. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 298-302.

VanBergeijk, E. O., & Cavanagh, P. K. (2012). Brief report: New legislation supports students with intellectual disabilities in post-secondary funding. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 42(11), 2471-2475. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1481-4 Wilgosh, L., Scorgie, K., Sobsey, D., & Cey, R. (2010). Quality of life and empowerment for post- secondary students with physical and learning disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 38(1 & 2), 111-131.

References continued

• For information, contact:

– D.R.E.A.M Partnership, dreampartnership.org

– Executive Director, Sherri Landis, 717.975.0611

– Cumberland/Perry Co. IDD, Sue Carbaugh, 717.240.6320 – Dauphin Co. IDD, Shirley Keith Knox, 717.780.7050 – Principal investigator of the project through Shippensburg University, Department of Social Work & Gerontology, djminnick@ship.edu

Question & Answers