This community assessment was carried
out 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
Two Types of Data Collection
Qualitative
Research
Quantitative
Research
Parent/Guardian
Focus Groups
Family Survey
Student Focus
Groups
Interviews with
Students
Two Types of Data Collection
Qualitative
Research
Parent/Guardian
Focus Groups
Student Focus
Groups
• 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
Cumberland County
• 209 flyers sent to
individuals living in
Dauphin 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 postsecondary education students and parents/guardians/support staff.**
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.
Quantitative
Research
Family
Survey
Interviews
with
Students
Family Participants
Surveys were sent to all households that had an individual aged 14-21
registered with the Cumberland/Perry and Dauphin agencies.
Dauphin County
Cumberland County
• 209 surveys sent to the
households of individuals
living in Dauphin County.
• 174 surveys sent to the
households of individuals
living in Cumberland and
Perry Counties.
Of the 383 surveys mailed, approximately 15% (57) surveys were returned.
Student Participants
Dauphin County
Cumberland 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
or Prioritization of Urgency
of Need for Services
(PUNS).
• A list of all individuals
between the ages of 1621on the caseload was
collected.
• Five were scheduled from
Dauphin County.
• Random number
generation was used to
select names.
• 39 individuals were
contacted from the
Cumberland/Perry list
with five scheduled from
Cumberland County.
Survey Data
• 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.
Results
Focus Groups of
Parents/Guardians/Staff
• “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 Students
• “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
of it.”
Family Questionnaires
• 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.
• Parents identified obtaining competitive
employment as a primary goal for PSE.
Object 1: Curriculum Focus for PSE
4.5
91%
4
73%
3.5
58%
3
47%
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Vocational Skills Focused
Academic Focused
Academic (Personal
Growth)
Life Skills
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.
•Parents agreed that their students would need:
– Additional support
– An identified mentor and/or a specialized resident
assistant
Table 2: Supports Needed
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%
*Average answers based on Likert Scale
(5-Strongly Agree, 4-Agree, 3-Unsure, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree)
• 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
Table 1: Daily Safety
Question
Make decisions about daily living
without oversight
Standard
Average Deviation
Strongly
Agree/Agree
2.22
1.27
22%
Manage their medical situation
2.31
1.34
24%
Structure out-of-class time safely
Child would benefit from safety
awareness programs
2.33
1.18
20%
4.26
0.98
82%
*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
Student Questionnaires
• 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.
Table 3: Social Interests
Question
Standard
Average Deviation
Strongly
Agree/Agree
Excited to meet new people
4.57
0.53
100%
Nervous to meet new people
2.85
1.77
43%
4
1.52
71%
Interested in participating in sports
3.28
1.7
57%
Working and attending school
4.42
0.78
86%
Interested in joining a club
*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
Table 4 Bullying and Safety
Question
Standard
Average* 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%
• 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.
• 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.
Table 4: Everyday Abilities
Average
Standard
Deviation
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%
Question
Strongly
Agree/Agree
*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
Discussion and
Recommendation
Overview
• 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 oncampus living.
• Students are not currently
receiving preparation
geared toward success in
PSE.
Identified Areas of Focus
• Obtaining competitive
employment
• Preparation for PSE
• Mentoring
• Type of program
• Integrated Support
Model
Competitive Employment
• Work study/internship
• Enrollment in classes that are relevant to job
interests
Preparation/Transition
• 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.
Inclusive/Integrated
Support Model
• 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.
Peer Mentoring
• 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
Commuter vs. Campus Living
• 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.
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
opportunity for PSE.
• Identified areas of focus provide
opportunity.
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 faceto- 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.
References
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 continued
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
of 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 postsecondary students with physical and learning disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin,
38(1 & 2), 111-131.
Question & Answers
• 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