TASH Connections, Volume 40, Issue 4
Peer Supports, Friendships, & Social Capital
Letter from Our President, Ralph Edwards
In the 60’s, Captain James Kirk of the Starship Enterprise embraced and kissed Lt. Uhura. This was one of
the first inter-racial kisses shown on television. The network was hesitant to show the scene and many
stations refused to run that episode.
In 2014, Michael Sam entered the NFL draft as the first openly gay football player. When drafted, he
kissed his white partner. The subsequent hullabaloo was in response to their gender, not ethnicity.
Perhaps, this is progress.
Many individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disability (IDD) long to be kissed, to be in a
relationship, to have friends. My son, Jon Kofi, tells me that while he enjoys doing things with me, he’d
prefer to be engaged with individuals other than family or staff; he’d like to have friends. To what extent
do our expectations and prejudices about individuals with IDD stand in the way friendships and
relationships that can be formed? How can we do better?
Peer Support is examined in this issue of Connections. The contributors seek to define what Peer
Support is, how it is expressed, and its impact; not an easy task. Peer Support is an important, essential
step in demonstrating the value of inclusion. Jim Ross, Co-Director of Arc Massachusetts Real Friends
Project, tells me that the absence of friends impacts one’s health. Loneliness contributes to sleep
problems, high blood pressure, depression and other health problems. Peer Support may nurture
friendships as well as improve academic performance.
We can do our part, on a personal level, to promote friendships through an introspective survey of our
attitudes, values, and interactions with individuals with IDD and work to include them in social activities.
Professionally, we can increase the participation of individuals with IDD in research and program design
as colleagues rather than solely as subjects. Through our efforts, kissing, relationships, and friends will
be a birthright for individuals with IDD.
Letter from Our Executive Director, Barb Trader
Changing the Way we Think and Act – Supporting People with Disabilities in the Community
“Friendship is a thing most necessary in life, since without friends, no one would choose
to live though possessed of all other advantages.” Aristotle
This issue of Connections is dedicated to the role friends play in a person’s life. One critical
factor in determining access to friendships is how included a person is – in school, community
life and at the workplace. People with the most significant disabilities and complex support
needs are still segregated in their communities and throughout their lives in stunning
proportions.
A major change is afoot which could change access to friendship and all life has to offer,
depending on how states implement this change. The new Home and Community Based Waiver
Settings Rule calls for states to stop funding “settings that isolate” with waiver funds
(http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Long-TermServices-and-Supports/Home-and-Community-Based-Services/Home-and-Community-BasedServices.html). “Settings that isolate” are facilities like sheltered workshops and residential
facilities. This rule will force states, through their providers and programs, to change settings
and services that they have determined are not compliant with the rule. The challenge
however, is not only in changing how and where services are delivered. A more significant
challenge is how we change people’s minds.
Caregivers and the people they support need a good foundation of information on which they
can base their decision-making for a wider variety of choices that may result in people having
more integrated lives in the community, without sacrificing their health, safety and security.
States have up to five years, or March 2019, to do this work. No state can change things
overnight. No one will lose services on March 17, 2015, like many providers have scared
families into believing. But some services will have to get better – or end – in the next five
years. What do we mean by “get better”?
Health and Safety: Is health and safety really the “gold standard” by which we measure
supports for people with disabilities? Is this good enough?
The Council on Quality and Leadership conducted an analysis on the relationship between the
factors in their Personal Outcome Measures survey and individuals’ outcomes. “Having looked
at the data and listened to people’s stories, we studied which individual outcomes best predict
the attainment of multiple outcomes? The regression analysis revealed these outcomes to have
the greatest degree of predicting many more outcomes for the person: exercising rights,
choosing where to live, choosing where to work, and performing different social roles. These
outcomes, though not commonly achieved, are good predictors for the presence of several
more important quality of life outcomes in a person’s life. Therefore, organizational efforts to
provide supports that increase the presence of these four outcomes can have an even greater
impact on the overall quality of life for people.” (A Word from Cathy Ficker Terrill;
www.thecouncil.org)
Health and Relationships: Doctors and other health care professionals are beginning to
appreciate the impact that personal relationships have on individuals’ health, and particularly
on their recovery following a significant health event. Yet, in a national sample, people living in
institutions reported that 50.6% of all their relationships were with paid staff; 39% with
relatives, and only .2% with unpaid people outside of their families. (National Council on
Disability (2012). Deinstitutionalization: Unfinished Business. Companion Paper to Unfinished
Business Toolkit. NCD: Washington, DC.)
What are the odds that the people in this sample have multiple relationships? Who is more
likely to have the emotional support they need in the event of a serious illness – people in an
institutionalized setting, or people who live in a real community?
Abuse and Neglect: Many studies point to how social isolation and lack of bonding human
contact resulted in permanent brain damage in children, difficulties in emotional regulation and
physical changes to the brain. (Spitz, 1945; Harlow, 1965; Nelson et al., 2007; Tottenham et al.,
2010)
Abuse is more likely to happen when three factors are present: power (of one person over
another), vulnerability, and isolation. People with disabilities and seniors who receive services
in settings that are typically only with other people with disabilities and paid staff are in this
powerless status. (Baladerian, N.J., Coleman, T.F., & Stream, J. (2013). Abuse of People with
Disabilities - Victims and Their Families Speak Out. A report on the 2012 National Survey on
Abuse of People with Disabilities. Spectrum Institute: Los Angeles, CA)
Choice and Self-Determination: Compared with institution residents, community residents
have more opportunities to make choices, form larger social networks and make more friends.
They access more mainstream facilities, participate more in community life, have more chances
to acquire new skills and develop existing skills, and are more satisfied with their living
arrangements. (National Council on Disability (2012). Deinstitutionalization: Unfinished
Business. Companion Paper to Unfinished Business Toolkit. NCD: Washington, DC.)
TASH members can have a huge role in helping people understand their options. There is
overwhelming evidence from a variety of sources to support the premise that greater
integration and involvement in the community, as opposed to life in segregated, disability-only
services, enhances health, safety and security of people with disabilities. Supporting an
integrated life in the regular community also supports individuals to “age in place” and to
realize more of their hopes and dreams than if they remained confined in segregated settings.
Barb Trader
Letter from our Editorial Board
Welcome to TASH Connections.
The new editorial team is excited to be working to make TASH Connections a useful and widely read
resource for everyone. The TASH Connections Team wanted to take this opportunity to introduce
ourselves to our readers and to extend the invitation to please share any ideas or feedback regarding
Connections. Over the course of the next year the team will be working together to bring some new
ideas to Connections. We would like to hear your thoughts of how we can improve Connections and
make it useful for all. Please send any ideas you have to:
Thanks,
Christi, Jamie, Carrie, and Julia
TASH Connections Editorial Team
Who We Are
Christi Kasa, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and Department Chair for the Department of Teaching and
Learning in the College of Education at the University of Colorado. Her teaching, research, and
consulting are guided by her passion to create successful inclusive schools for all students. Christi
teaches both graduate and undergraduate classes focusing on differentiated instruction, best practice
for inclusive schooling, and communication strategies for people with autism. Christi began her career
teaching in the public schools of California as a general education teacher, special education teacher,
and an inclusion facilitator. Christi conducts research on inclusive schooling and independent typing and
speech and typing for people with autism and other movement disorders.
Jamie Burke is 27 years old and a recent graduate of Syracuse University with a Bachelor of Arts Degree
from the College of Arts and Science. Jamie has used supported typing since age five, and has
progressed from supported typing, to independent typing, and typing with two hands. At age 12, he
became able to use his voice to read his typing, and continues to develop useful and reliable speech. He
is a frequent presenter at Syracuse University School of Education and also at conferences throughout
the United States. Jamie has been invited to England, Wales, and Germany, to speak about inclusion and
the process of typed communication and the life-changing impact it can have for those who have
difficulty speaking.
In the spring of 2002, Syracuse University produced a video written and narrated by Jamie, titled, “Inside
the Edge, A Journey to Using Speech through Typing.” This video won the TASH Image Award in 2002,
which honors those who challenge stereotypical beliefs of those with disabilities. Jamie is a regular
attendee of the Syracuse Symphoria, enjoys reading, theater, vintage movies, swimming, bowling,
biking, and hiking. He is a member of the National Honor Society, and currently serves on Advisory
Boards for the Hussman Institute for Autism and currently is a guest co-editor for the TASH Connections
Journal. He has had opportunities to be included in People and Time magazines, and CNN. Jamie
continues to advocate for typed communication as a gateway to speech, literacy, and connection. He
attributes much of his life’s success to years of innovative therapies, and most importantly, to full access
of regular education classrooms.
Carrie E. Rood is a doctoral candidate in the Special Education program in the Department of Teaching
and Leadership at Syracuse University. Her teaching and research are centered on inclusion and
disability studies in education. Carrie’s research and writing focus on inclusive education and preservice teacher preparation programming. As a former self-contained teacher, Carrie is passionate
about providing access to the curriculum and inclusive services to students typically secluded because of
disability label.
Julia M. White currently directs the inclusive and special education teacher preparation program at the
University of Rochester ąs Warner School of Education. In the fall, she joins the faculty in the
Department of Teaching and Leadership in the School of Education at Syracuse University as an Assistant
Professor. Her teaching and research is grounded in social justice for communities and individuals that
are typically stigmatized and segregated. Her research interests include inclusive education and human
rights, educational policy, Romani Studies, and Disability Studies in Education. Previously she was a
special and general educator in Washington, DC and South Carolina, and a lecturer in the Slovak
Republic through the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Grant program.
Letter from the Guest Editor April Regester
The last TASH Connections that was devoted to the promotion of social relationships and natural
supports for individuals with significant disabilities was published in the winter of 2011. In that edition,
the importance of social relationships and natural supports were discussed as some of the many
mechanisms that help to generate truly inclusive lives for individuals with significant disabilities. As the
series of articles highlighted, social relationships and supports are key for the academic success of all
individuals, regardless of their abilities, yet are typically not the area of focus for educators who teach
students with significant disabilities. The development and maintenance of social networks that sustain
over time may not be considered a high priority within school settings, despite what we know about
effective facilitation strategies, as well as personal narratives that describe what is perceived to be
successful and meaningful. Interventions such as peer support arrangements, peer partners, and specific
social skills instruction can increase the amount of social opportunities and account for higher quality
interactions, which may lead to the development of friendships (Carter, Sisco, Chung & StantonChapman, 2010; Hughes et al., 2012; Rosetti & Goessling, 2010). In addition, important perspectives
regarding these facilitation efforts have helped to inform and provide insight to researchers, educators,
and families on how to ensure that the voices of individuals with disabilities are included as new
strategies emerge (Van der Klift & Kunc, 1994; Fialka–Feldman & Cherup, 2011). This issue continues the
discussion from four years ago, providing updated information on research, practice and perspectives
that is aligned with the values and national agenda items that TASH promotes.
Jamie Burke provides an excellent starting point to this issue by posing questions that engage the reader
in critically analyzing the different experiences and realities of students engaged in peer supports
programs. His questions consider the difference between a peer that is chosen purely to help the
student with a disability compared to one that is truly a match that is a thoughtfully and carefully
planned out. Jamie has experienced both and describes the benefits of thoughtful consideration when
supporting these relationships in a school setting.
Next, Erik Carter briefly reviews what we know about peer mediated interventions and the impact they
have on social related outcomes for all students who are involved. Erik points to educational design
factors that may be more likely to contribute to the development and maintenance of relationships
among students with disabilities and their peers. These factors are described as: (a) school related; (b)
staff related; (c) peer related; and (d) student related. He concludes with ideas on how to move the field
forward by highlighting the need for programmatic research that incorporates multiple methodologies
to fully understand the factors that support or hinder the development of friendships.
The research on peer mediated interventions that Erik reflects upon in the second article was a large
influence in the development of a Missouri based project funded by the Missouri Developmental
Disabilities Council. Erika Ayanaw and I provide information on the development of the Missouri Peer
Supports Project, which has been piloted at two high schools in the state. This school-wide initiative
includes three phases that are led by school teams that include a variety of stakeholders
(general/special education teachers, administrators, school counselors, etc.). This project is an example
of a new initiative that attempts to incorporate some of the factors that Erik discussed that may improve
the development and maintenance of long lasting friendships.
Matthew Medina shares his own personal experience regarding friendship throughout the years.
Matthew describes how his friendships developed early on in his life and have maintained over time.
Pictures and descriptions help to demonstrate the clear reciprocal nature of his relationships. He
describes examples of receiving support in high school from peers that developed into adult
relationships that include spending time together working, vacationing, exercising, and just hanging out.
It is clear that throughout his life, access to inclusive education, employment and extra-curricular
communities played a large role in the development and sustainability of his social network.
Lastly, Jennifer Culver and I provide an overview of the roles and functions of peer supports at the
postsecondary level. As multiple new postsecondary programs for individuals with developmental and
intellectual disabilities have emerged in the past few years across the country, the need for more
research at this level has become clear. The interventions and strategies that have proven to be
effective at the secondary level may need to be altered or changed, in order to account for the change
in resources and general age of the individuals involved. Future research directions are proposed to help
identify the most effective and relevant strategies in this type of educational setting, specific to
supporting the development and maintenance of social networks.
Collectively, this issue provides readers with varying perspectives on research, personal experiences,
innovative projects and potential directions for promoting social relationships for individuals with
significant disabilities and their peers. Meaningful, long lasting relationships prove to be a key factor in
happiness and overall success as an adult for all individuals. As TASH promotes, simple access to
inclusive environments is only one step in the process. The Connections issue in 2011 highlighted this
point stating; “being there” is simply not enough. This issue continues the discussion of what we know
can be done to support students in developing these relationships by describing researched strategies,
personal perspectives, known factors to consider and promising innovative examples.
April Regester
Guest Editor, TASH Connections
References
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y., & Stanton-Chapman, T. (2010). Peer interactions of students with
intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A map of the intervention literature. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35, 63-79.
Fialka–Feldman, M. & Cherup, A. (2011). Two friends talking about inclusion. TASH Connections, 37 (1),
8-10.
Hughes, C., Kaplan, L., Bernstein, R., Boykin, M., Reilly, C., Brigham, N., Cosgriff, J., Heilingoetter, J. &
Harvey, M. (2012). Increasing social interaction skills of secondary school students with autism and/or
intellectual disability: A review of interventions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 37, 288-307.
Rosetti, Z.S., & Goessling D.P., (2010). Paraeducators' roles in facilitating friendships between secondary
students with and without autism spectrum disorders or developmental disabilities. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 42(6), 64-70.
Van der Klift, E. & Kunc, N. (1994). Hell bent on helping: Benevolence, friendship, and the politics of
help. In J. Thousand, R. Villa & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to
empowering students and teachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Articles from Our Contributors
Peer Supports
Jamie Burke
Peer supports… what moves into your thoughts when you hear those words? Do you see a delightful
scene, where one student is engaging with another, offering supportive and encouraging ideas, and
perhaps in the dividing line of beginning and ending that time, sharing some fun and creative laughs?
Or, do you see a student sitting at a desk being “spoken to” but not really “speaking with” the student
who is to be a “peer?” It may be seen as one being an enormous helper, and filling the time they were
asked to do, and too uncomfortable to say “no thanks” to the request made, probably by a teacher or
high staff member. These are very different scenes and I have experienced both.
To me, why
ask, and then assume, a student wants to be helpful? Good educators need to figure this out; it surely
isn’t rocket science. I’m assuming as an educator, one must be somewhat skilled in understanding body
language. They seem to be able to determine if the answer to “is your homework completed?” with
ease. Why is it then that the selection of a peer to work with would not be an easy on-site
accomplishment? It’s important to select someone who seems unafraid and who is willing to navigate
the waters of personal discovery that people like me are, in truth, pretty cool guys.
Of course, there is some time in learning that there is strength in showing who you are, but if connected
to a peer with the right stuff, it’s confidence- filling, in the soul.
If you are someone who uses supported typing and a young man, as I am, and if the peer support is a
lovely young woman, there fundamentally develops the connecting sense of how it feels to have
someone in that personal space that people are always talking to me about (“Remember personal
space, Jamie!”). That surely can divert attention and focus in the beginning, but it’s a wonderful feeling
in the balance of some of the harder things about autism. I only wish that someone had understood how
cool this was and the wonderful sense of being opened to many school possibilities with a student in my
own class.
The focus when inclusive education is discussed is the levelling of class instruction and expectation;
however it’s not all about discourse that makes one feel a true part of the whole. Of course, that is
important, but a whole is made from parts and doing peer support with careful and thoughtful planning
can sure make a student develop self-confidence and the strength to move forward when those days of
struggle step in at times.
Supporting Lasting Relationships Among Adolescents with Complex Support Needs and
Their Peers
Erik W. Carter, Vanderbilt University
For nearly 15 years, my colleagues and I have partnered with secondary schools to explore promising
avenues for fostering friendships and shared learning opportunities among adolescents with and
without complex support needs. One goal of these efforts has been to identify effective, feasible, and
sustainable strategies that enable students with and without disabilities to meet one another, spend
time together, and—perhaps—strike up new friendships. This work is driven by a conviction that
relationships are at the very core of what helps people to flourish, that adolescents have much to gain
from getting to know their classmates with complex support needs, and that the presence of a disability
should never be a predictor of the opportunities young people have to enjoy lasting friendships with
others.
Much of our research in this area has focused on the design and delivery of peer-mediated interventions
such as peer support arrangements (Carter, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2009), peer networks (Carter et al.,
2013), and peer partner programs (Hughes & Carter, 2008). Reflecting on findings from the numerous
peer-mediated studies I am struck by the powerful impact these relatively simple educational practices
can have on the social-related outcomes of participating students. Substantial increases in peer
interactions, social initiations, conversational turn-taking, communication device use, social skill
acquisition, and class engagement are just a sampling of the findings documented in these studies and
observed as part of our work with schools (see reviews by Carter, Sisco, Chung, & Stanton-Chapman,
2010; Chung, Carter, & Sisco, 2012; Hughes et al., 2012). Yet, while the field can now draw upon a
growing body of evidence-based strategies for promoting these types of social outcomes, we still know
surprisingly little about how to design educational services and supports in ways that foster valued
relationships and lasting friendships among students with complex support needs and their peers. Social
interactions are certainly important to encourage, but it is the quality of the relationships students
develop with one another that has perhaps the most profound impact on their well being, learning, and
enjoyment of school. And so an enduring question for researchers and practitioners alike is this: How do
we design educational experiences in ways that students with and without disabilities have meaningful
opportunities to develop and maintain friendships?
Factors Impacting Friendships
In this article, I highlight a variety of factors that may contribute to contexts in which relationships
among students with disabilities and their peers might be more likely to develop and maintain. Although
the research literature reports no clear formula for fostering friendships among adolescents—and I
suspect it never could—it does suggest a number of factors that may increase the likelihood that
students with and without disabilities will have opportunities to choose one another as friends. These
include (a) school-related factors, (b) staff-related factors, (c) peer-related factors, and (d) studentrelated factors (Carter, Bottema-Beutel, & Brock, 2014). For each factor, I raise just a few considerations
related to fostering friendships.
School-related factors. Perhaps the most obvious—and pervasive—barrier to friendship formation in
schools is the limited opportunities students with and without disabilities have to ever encounter one
another during the school day. Despite substantial improvements in our field’s ability to generate
impressive position statements and discussion papers on this topic, most schools across the country still
do not reflect the sort of inclusive educational practices advocated in the literature. Students complex
support needs still spend proportionally little time in general education classes, miss out on most
extracurricular activities, and have inconsistent involvement in other social-related school events (e.g.,
dances, sporting events, service-learning), particularly in secondary schools (U.S. Department of
Education, 2012; Wagner, Cadwallader, Garza, & Cameto, 2004). While some social media advocates
might quarrel with this increasingly counter-cultural claim, it is simply not possible to become
someone’s “friend” without actually meeting one another and spending real time together over time.
Adopting inclusive service delivery approaches that cut cross the entire grade span from preschool to
postsecondary programs remains a central element of school-based efforts to promote lasting
relationships. Unless schools are structured in ways that enable students with and without disabilities to
learn alongside one another meaningfully, we will continually be tinkering to create brief and fleeting
opportunities for students to connect socially with one another.
Essential to these school-level efforts is strong leadership among district- and building-level
administrators to ensure articulated commitments to inclusion actually penetrate practice (Causton &
Theoharis, 2014). When program directors, principals, and department chairs consistently communicate
that fostering relationships is just as important as promoting rigor and relevance, staff may be more
likely to invest in instructional and support models that concurrently emphasize the development of
relationships. These school leaders are responsible for setting curricular priorities at their school, casting
a vision for what educational domains should be given prominence, and determining whether
professional development is provided to equip staff to do so well. Yet, many educators and
paraprofessionals report having limited access to training, resources, and coaching on promoting
inclusion, social relationships, and friendships.
Staff-related factors. As educators take steps to increase the access of students with complex support
needs to general education classes, clubs, and other inclusive school activities, the support models they
often adopt can inadvertently hinder students’ opportunities to develop friendships with their peers.
Increasingly, schools are turning to individually assigned paraprofessionals (i.e., one-to-one supports) as
the primary avenue for supporting participation in inclusive settings. In addition to the host of ethical
concerns introduced by assigning the least trained staff to students with the most extensive support
needs (Giangreco, 2010), research suggests these models tend to limit both academic engagement and
peer interactions within secondary schools (Carter, Sisco, Brown, Brickham, & Al-Khabbaz, 2008). It is
not uncommon to hear paraprofessionals and other school staff named as friends (or even “best
friends”) of youth with complex support needs. Thus, efforts to foster friendships with peers must be
accompanied by careful reflection on the educational support models being used throughout the school
day.
One alternative is to equip paraprofessionals to adopt more facilitative and supplemental roles within
classrooms. For example, a growing number of studies show that with strong training and sufficient
support, paraprofessionals can be effective at encouraging connections between students with
disabilities and their peers (e.g., Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; Chung & Carter, 2013; Feldman
& Matos, 2013). Paraprofessionals might look for natural opportunities to highlight the interests and
experiences students have in common, explain the communicative intent behind behaviors that seem
unconventional or hard to interpret, ensure classroom and club activities include clear roles for students
with disabilities, and/or redirect students’ conversations away from adults and back toward peers.
When paraprofessionals see one of their roles as fostering shared learning and social connections
among students, they come to view providing direct adult support as the last, rather than the first,
explored avenue of assisting students.
Another alternative is to equip general educators, club leaders, and others to adopt more collaborative
approaches to learning within the school day. Although cooperative learning groups have extensive
empirical support and are fairly feasible to implement (Johnson & Johnson, 2009), they are infrequently
used in secondary school classrooms. Similarly, peer support arrangements have emerged as a
promising alternative to the use of individually assigned adults to support inclusion (Carter, Moss,
Hoffman, Chung, & Sisco, 2011), but have yet to be widely adopted in secondary schools. Educators who
share the conviction that friendship matters in the lives of all of their students will benefit from
receiving high-quality professional development on using these and other related evidence-based
strategies in their work with students.
Peer-related factors. A friendship is a mutual, reciprocal relationship that involves two people choosing
one another as friends. And so it is important to consider the factors that support peers in pursuing and
forging friendships with their schoolmates with complex support needs. Of course, most friendships are
developed and sustained around shared interests or experiences—a passion for sports, a love of video
games, a particular hobby, or involvement in the same youth group. Finding peers interested in getting
to know a particular student who already shares one or more things in common provides a natural
starting point for conversations and mutually enjoyable activities. When students with and without
disabilities are “matched” to one another without consideration of shared interests and experiences, the
likelihood of friendships emerging may be less certain.
Some peers may initially be reluctant to work alongside their classmates with disabilities or uncertain
about how to interact with someone who has complex communication or behavioral challenges.
Providing students with information about one another and guidance on having good interactions early
on can help increase students’ confidence as they begin spending time together. Within more structured
peer-mediated interventions, such information is often shared as part of an initial orientation meeting
or follow-up training sessions (Carter et al., 2009). For example, students might learn about each other’s
interests, communication styles, strengths, activity preferences, and desired supports as part of these
informational efforts.
The roles and expectations communicated to peers may also impact the extent to which friendships
develop and last. For example, when the only opportunities at a school for students with and without
disabilities to spend time together exist within formal peer partner programs, peers tend to fluctuate
from one semester to the next, and maintaining relationships over time can be difficult amidst the
crowded secondary school schedule. Similarly, when peers are primarily asked to assume instructional
roles within classrooms (e.g., peer tutoring), it is unclear whether the interactions students have with
one another will lead to friendships. Thus, it is important for educators to reflect also on the extent to
which the ways in which students spend time together are likely to lead to lasting relationships.
Student-related factors. Many of the earliest intervention studies emphasized social and
communication skill instruction as the primary focus of social-related intervention efforts (Carter et al.,
2010). Certainly, having a reliable means of communication and age-appropriate social skills can
enhance the quality of interactions students have with their peers. At the same time, it is clear that
adolescent friendships do not depend on possessing a requisite set of social-related skills. In other
words, we have seen numerous examples of deep friendships forming between peers without
disabilities and their schoolmates who do not speak, who communicate in unconventional ways, and
who never come close to mastering the social skills used by others in their school. Social and
communication skills are often best learned within the context of ongoing relationships, rather than
viewed as a set of goals that must first be met before students can spend time with peers. Moreover,
there is much evidence that emphasizing social skill instruction to the exclusion of providing students
with regular, supported opportunities to spend time with peers is unlikely to translate into friendships.
Thus, while social-related skill instruction should be part of most individualized educational programs, it
is insufficient by itself to promote lasting friendships.
Moving the Field Forward
As practitioners undertake innovative efforts to support the development of positive peer relationships
in schools, rigorous research is also needed to inform and evaluate these efforts. Adolescent
relationships are inherently complex. [Your own memories of middle and high school likely confirm this
conclusion.] And so the field would benefit most from programmatic research that integrates multiple
methodologies to explore the most promising pathways for promoting peer relationships. For example,
high-quality longitudinal studies could examine the ways in which friendships among students with and
without disabilities develop, deepen, and dissolve throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.
While nationally representative longitudinal studies like the NLTS2 (www.nlts2.org) and SEELS
(www.seels.net) include some valuable information on the social relationships of participants, more
detailed studies focusing centrally on young people with complex support needs could shed light on the
particular factors that facilitate or hinder the growth of long-term peer relationships. Descriptive and
qualitative studies are also needed to explore the various dimensions of friendships among adolescents
with and without disabilities that have spanned multiple years. Such research could draw upon the rich
and varied perspectives of students, staff, and others who have been involved in supporting the growth
of these relationships to provide a portrait of how friendships might be supported to sustain. Finally,
well-designed intervention studies are needed to identify the most salient elements of existing
intervention approaches. For example, parametric and component analyses of peer-mediated
intervention packages could equip practitioners with guidance on how variations in the implementation
of these interventions might shape the outcomes and satisfaction of participating students and staff. To
date, we know little about how particular aspects of peer support, peer network, and peer partner
interventions serve to help or hinder the emergence of friendships.
Conclusion
Although most current conversations on schooling for students with disabilities focus on promoting
academic rigor and curricular relevance, it is the presence or absence of relationships that may have the
most powerful impact on the lives of young people with complex support needs. The practices raised in
this article hold potential for strengthening the quality of the social opportunities these students have
throughout the school day. Positively impacting the social lives of students with complex support needs
is well within the purview of secondary schools, and it ought to be a prominent part of educators’
efforts.
References
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Cooney, M., Weir, K., Vincent, L., Born, T., Hochman, J. &
Fesperman, E. (2013). Peer network strategies to foster social connections among adolescents with and
without severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46 (2), 51-59.
Carter, E. W., Bottema-Beutel, K., & Brock, M. E. (2014). Social interactions and friendships. In M. Agran,
F. Brown, C. Hughes, C. Quirk, & D. Ryndak (Eds.), Equity and full participation for individuals with severe
disabilities: A vision for the future. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (2009). Peer support strategies: Improving all students’
social lives and learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Hoffman, A., Chung, Y., & Sisco, L. G. (2011). Efficacy and social validity of peer
support arrangements for adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 107-125.
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Brown, L., Brickham, D., & Al-Khabbaz, Z. A. (2008). Peer interactions and
academic engagement of youth with developmental disabilities in inclusive middle and high school
classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113, 479-494.
Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y., & Stanton-Chapman, T. (2010). Peer interactions of students with
intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A map of the intervention literature. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35, 63-79.
Causton, J. N., & Theoharis, G. (2014). The principal’s handbook for leading inclusive schools. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Causton-Theoharis, J. N., & Malmgren, K. W. (2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with
severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71, 431–444.
Chung, Y., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Promoting peer interactions in inclusive classrooms for students with
speech-generating devices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 94-109.
Chung, Y., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. (2012). A systematic review of interventions to increase peer
interactions for students with complex communication challenges. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 37, 271-287.
Feldman, E. K., & Matos, R. (2013). Training paraprofessionals to facilitate social interactions between
children with autism and their typically developing peers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15,
169-179.
Giangreco, M. F. (2010). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive
classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong? Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 48, 1-13.
Hughes, C., & Carter, E. W. (2008). Peer buddy programs for successful secondary school inclusion.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Hughes, C., Kaplan, L., Bernstein, R., Boykin, M., Reilly, C., Brigham, N., Cosgriff, J., Heilingoetter, J. &
Harvey, M. (2012). Increasing social interaction skills of secondary school students with autism and/or
intellectual disability: A review of interventions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 37, 288-307.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 42, 365-379.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). IDEA data. Retrieved from https://www.ideadata.org.
Wagner, M., Cadwallader, T. W., Garza, N., & Cameto, R. (2004). Social activities of youth with
disabilities. NLTS2 Data Brief, 3(1), 1–4.
Missouri Peer Supports Project: A Schoolwide Example
April Regester & Erika L. Ayanaw, University of Missouri – St. Louis
The inclusion of individuals with disabilities remains at the forefront of conversation within our homes,
schools, and community. In addition to inclusion being a personal right for individuals with disabilities,
there are many benefits that cannot be overstated. The successful inclusion of individuals with
developmental disabilities in education, employment, and the community has been considered best
practice and is supported by federal legislation (Ford et al., 1989; Downing & Eichenger, 2002; Westling
& Fox, 2008). With the passing of P.L. 94-142 in 1975, and subsequent reauthorizations, federal
government mandates students with disabilities have access to a free appropriate education in the least
restrictive environment. When the appropriate academic and social supports are in place to support
students with disabilities in inclusive educational settings, there are many positive outcomes. Some of
these outcomes include

increased academic attainment

increased accessibility to the general education curriculum;

more meaningful and challenging curriculum; and

increased opportunities to develop social relationships (Carter, Cushing & Kennedy, 2009;
Gardner et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2013).
Furthermore, when considering inclusion in the school setting, there are additional benefits to students
without disabilities. This may include

development of more meaningful friendships;

better understanding of individual differences and diversity; and

greater academic outcomes (Carter, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2009; Cushing & Kennedy, 1997)
In response to the recognized need for increased academic and social inclusion for students with
developmental and intellectual disabilities in the state of Missouri, University of Missouri-St. Louis, in
collaboration with Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council and The Recreation Council of Greater St.
Louis, developed the Missouri Peer Supports Project in 2012.
Why is the Missouri Peer Supports Project Relevant?
The Missouri Peer Supports Project (MPSP) sought to develop a cohesive comprehensive school wide
project to improve inclusive social and academic opportunities for all students who participated.
Through the use of peer support strategies, which view peers as each other’s natural support, the
project strived to promote increased academic and social participation for students with developmental
disabilities and their peers without disabilities.
The following steps helped to guide the initial implementation of MPSP at two pilot high schools (a) host
an informational summit; (b) curriculum development; (c) identify target courses for curriculum; (d)
needed trainings; (e) ongoing facilitation (f) data collection and evaluation as designated by the Missouri
Developmental Disabilities Council. Some anticipated outcomes for students who participate in the
project include:

increased academic performance and engagement for students with and without disabilities, as
measured by grades, progress on IEP goals, attendance, and graduation rates etc.;

increased acceptance, understanding, and advocacy of people with developmental disabilities
in the school and community, as measured by perception surveys, focus groups, school climate
surveys, and other informal methods;

increased number of students with developmental disabilities receiving inclusive education
services;

increased number of students with developmental disabilities included in social activities with
their peers without disabilities.
Development of the Missouri Peer Supports Project & School Selection
The Missouri Peer Supports Project (MPSP) was initially funded in December 2011.The timeline for the
grant was 36 months, with renewals added on for a total of 42 months funded that conclude May 2015.
The start of the project was marked by the development of the MPSP development team. The
development team consisted of one Assistant Professor of Special Education and one graduate research
assistant at the University of Missouri – St. Louis, two representatives from the Recreation Council of
Greater St. Louis, and one representative from the Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council. The first
task of the team was organization of a summit to market the pilot project across the state of Missouri.
This would allow schools to receive information on peer supports and how to become one of the chosen
pilot sites.
On February 24th, 2012, a total of 150 attendees from across the state were present at the Missouri Peer
Supports Project summit in Columbia, Missouri. A total of 24 school districts from across the state were
represented. Current research on inclusion and the implementation of peer supports strategies was
presented. The summit also served as an opportunity for participants to learn basic information about
the project and interested schools were encouraged to apply for the 2012-2013 academic year. The
application for the project was designed to obtain general information, including a short essay
component, which asked for a description of why the project would be beneficial for their school. In
addition, the application required two school representatives to be identified who would support the
project implementation, and approval by a school administrator.
Following the summit, fourteen schools from across the state applied to participate in the first year of
the Missouri Peer Supports Project. One goal of the project was that the selected school sites attempt to
be representative of the state as well as have a good understanding of the project mission. Thus, a
rubric-point system including the above considerations was developed to rate each application by the
development team. The highest scoring schools became the chosen sites for the project. The two
participating schools included:

School A: Located in Kirksville, Missouri

School B: Located in St. Charles, Missouri.
What is the Structure of the Missouri Peer Supports Project?
The Missouri Peer Supports Pilot Project consisted of the development of curriculum to be embedded
within a required course/s, peer supports matching at each selected school site, and leadership
opportunities for student participants. The school team helped to identify which course or courses
would be best to include the curriculum, and worked collaboratively with administration and school
counselors to ensure that students with disabilities were actively included in the course (receiving credit
alongside their peers who do not receive special education services). The curriculum was designed to
support students in learning more about peers with disabilities (i.e., general ability/diversity awareness),
highlight topics that would benefit all students, and provide specific strategies for supporting one
another in inclusive academic and social settings at their school. The supplemented curriculum included
some of the following topics:

use of respectful language (i.e., person first language, identity language)

person centered planning and goal setting

team building/collaboration/interdependence

relevant education and civil rights law

self-determination and self-advocacy

adaptations and modifications

assistive technology and communication

social skills

inclusive education

employment exploration
Picture Caption: Presenters from the local People First chapter speaking to students in phase one
course.
The project was structured in three phases. For Phase One, students would be enrolled in a required
semester or year-long course that embedded the curriculum, depending on school site. While enrolled
in this inclusive course, students would be exposed to those previously mentioned topics. All students
(with and without disabilities) receive full course credit for their participation in the course. During
Phase Two, students who are interested from the phase one course would be matched with a peer, with
or without a disability, and enroll together in a general education course for the following semester.
During phase two, students have an opportunity to meet outside of their designated course together at
least one time a month. These meetings are facilitated by adult school team members and provide
ongoing support and participant feedback sessions to allow for project improvement.
Picture Caption: Students participating in phase two of the project, working collaboratively in a Physical
Science course as peer supports to one another.
Phase Three provides participants with an opportunity for leadership within the project and school.
Students who have participated in all previous phases can choose how to work with the school team on
future implementation of the project. Students with and without disabilities may develop and/or lead
facilitation meetings, organize awareness activities within the school and community, continue peer
supports matching in general education courses, lead recruitment efforts for new participants by
presenting in the phase one courses, and present on the project in local, state and national forums.
Training and support is ongoing for all team leaders, relevant school personnel, and students
participating and/or leading the project at each school. Figure 1 summarizes all three phases of the
project.
Figure 1. Summary of project phases.
At the two school sites, the phase one curriculum tapped into existing course structures, supporting
learning objectives that were already previously identified. For example, at School A in Kirksville,
Missouri, three courses were identified to be supplemented with the project curriculum. These three
courses were taken in a student’s freshman or sophomore year, and had multiple sections. The three
courses included Careers and Technology, Civics, and Health.
For School B, in St. Charles, Missouri, one course was identified to embed the project curriculum. The
selected course was a 9th grade Academic Lab, which is a required course for all freshman students. At
the initial implementation of the project in 2012, one section of the course was identified by the school
team to participate in the project, with a plan to include all sections in the following year. Both schools
received training (instructors and support personnel) and adult participants provided feedback on
implementation throughout the year. Students enrolled in the phase one courses were given an
opportunity at the end of the semester/year to participate further with the project in phase two. If they
were interested, they completed a survey that helped the school team match students appropriately
based on interests, preferences, course schedules, and teacher recommendations for the following
academic year. After completion of one general education course together, students may continue
involvement as leaders in phase three, choosing the level of participation they are most comfortable
with. All phases are repeated each year, with the goal of full school implementation (all students
impacted in some way by the project) by the end of the 2015/2016 academic year.
Picture Caption: Student leaders posing for a picture in Columbia, Missouri after presenting on the
project to the Missouri Developmental Disabilities Council.
What is the Current State of the Missouri Peer Supports Project?
The initial vision of the Missouri Peer Supports project was to increase inclusive general education
opportunities for students with disabilities across the state of Missouri. In addition, we wanted the
project to highlight the benefits for all students involved, utilizing peer support arrangements, schoolwide implementation and ensuring a model that allowed for all students involved to receive full credit
(avoiding peer tutoring situations that promote a helper/helpee relationship). The initial goal of the
project was to recruit at least 10 student participants from each school site. MPSP has dramatically
surpassed these minimal expectations. Since the start of the project in 2012, approximately 1,743
students have participated in one or more phases of the project in both schools. This number is
expected to grow as new students enter the school and continue to participate in phases one and two,
while existing participants remain involved via phase three.
Currently, the development team is working with schools to plan for withdrawal of University support.
School teams and student leaders are working together to plan for the maintenance and sustainability
of the project as it moves into its’ fourth year at both schools. Funding sources are being identified
within each school community and revisions are being made that reflect the individual school needs.
Research is now in the beginning phases to evaluate the impact of the project on student and adult
participants to better inform future implementation of school-wide peer supports interventions.
Picture Caption: Students attending the Homecoming dance together, who have participated in all three
phases of the project.
References
Carter, E.W., Cushing, L.S., & Kennedy, C.H. (2009). Peer Support strategies for improving all students’
social lives and learning. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Cooney, M., Weir, K., Vincent, L., Born, T., Hochman J., BottemaBeutel, K., & Fesperman, E. (2013). Peer network strategies to foster social connections among
adolescents with and without severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(2), 51-59.
Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (1997). Academic effects on students without disabilities who serve as
peer supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 30, 139-152.
Downing, J. E. & Eichinger J. (2002). The Important roles of peers in the inclusion
process. In Downing, J.E. (Ed.), Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical
classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers (pp. 169-188). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L., Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (1989). The syracuse communityreferenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Gardner, K.F., Carter, E.W., Gustafson, J.R., Hochman, J.M., Harvey, M.N., Mullins, T.S.& Fan, H. (2014).
Effects of peer networks on the social interactions of high school students with autism spectrum
disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39, 100-118. doi: 10 .117 7
/1540796914544550
Westling, D. L., & Fox, L. (2008). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
My Friends
Matthew Robert Medina
My name is Matthew Medina. I am 37 years old. I am going to tell you about some of my friends. I went
to Dos Pueblos High School and made a lot of friends there.
This is Mark and April. We met when I was in high school in 1994.
We all did Project Interdependence together. Mark and I were Wizards. Mark is a cool guy.
Mark and April were chaperones at my Prom.
They got married Halloween in 1998. We wore costumes. I was Elvis.
April and I have gone to a lot of conferences together. I have given talks about my life in her classes over
the years. She and I were on the Cal-TASH board.
They moved to St. Louis and I visited them.
We got to see the St. Louis Cardinals baseball stadium and we went to a game. Cardinals have a good
team.
They are Giants fans and I’m a Dodger fan. We all like the San Francisco 49ners.
This is Brad and Fiona. They are married now but I knew Fiona and went on a date with her before she
met Brad.
Fiona and I met in High School, over 20 years ago. She was my high school prom date. I wrote Fiona a
note inviting her to my prom.
We have been friends for a long time. We were at Project Interdependence together.
Brad was my first housemate when I moved into my own place in 2003. We hung out a lot and had fun.
Brad is a cool guy.
In 2004, Fiona began helping me in my house. She married Brad and I went to their wedding. They have
4 kids.
This is Lincoln and me; he likes to have fun with me. Sometimes I go to their house to watch football
with Brad.
I see Fiona on Wednesday. We do Boot Camp together. It is easy for me and hard for her and my Mom.
I met Amber in high school. She was part of Project Interdependence. We go to speak to college classes
about our lives. She is married to Alec. They have 2 kids. I work for Alec about every Friday. Alec and I
are friends now. I taught him about sports. Sometimes we forget to work and watch games instead. We
go and have lunch after work then he drops me off at my next job.
When I turned 30 in 2007, my family had a birthday party for me. Brad, Fiona, April, Mark, Amber, Alec,
Cy and many more friends attended.
I have a friend Cy. I met him in 2003. He helped support me in my house for 3 years. He moved to San
Diego and then to New York. I went to his college graduation in San Diego in 2010.
I met Ryan in 1987. Here is a picture of us on our baseball team. When I moved into my home, Ryan
came to help me in 2003. He hung out with me a few times a week.
We both like baseball. We went to a Dodger game.
He moved to Sacramento. I saw him when we visited Sacramento and when he came home to see his
family. He moved back to Santa Barbara this summer and now I will be going to his wedding in June.
Kat helped support me in my house. She worked with me from 2007 to 2009. She moved to Seattle. We
talk on the phone now. We talk about the Seahawks and the Dodgers. I call her and wish her good luck
with her team.
I met Brian in 2004 when he came to help me in my home. He moved to Philadelphia and I went and
visited him there in 2008. He moved back to Santa Barbara and he supported me in my house again. In
2009 he became my housemate.
He married Kristian in 2012 and they had a baby. His name is Seamus. They all lived with me until July
2014. Good news, they moved back into my house just this week!
Brian and I like to talk about sports.
Brian is a good guy! I’m glad he likes Kristian.
This is Seamus and me. He likes to hang out with me.
I bowl on Thursdays with the Elks. My team members include my Mom, Karen and Jim. I have been on
the league for 4 years. My regular average is 123. When I bowled a score of 212 they announced it and
everyone cheered.
Use of Peer Supports in Postsecondary Education Programs for Students with Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities
April Regester & Jennifer Culver, University of Missouri – St. Louis
Postsecondary education (PSE) opportunities for students with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (IDD) continue to expand as federal policies, research and grant funded initiatives have
helped to increase accessibility to higher education. For example, federal legislation such as The Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) has helped to legislate provisions aimed at increasing affordability,
accessibility, and regulating postsecondary program guidelines (McEathron, Beuhring, Maynard, &
Mavis, 2013). Additionally, researchers have sought to evaluate, assess, and compile information on the
various aspects of PSE programs to further the higher education opportunities for individuals with IDD.
Seeking to contribute to such scholarship, this article, explores the function of peer support
programming within PSE options for individuals with IDD. Such an exploration is important as PSE
programs continue to integrate peer support interventions as a means to foster inclusion and aid in the
development of relationships for students in PSE programs. By looking specifically at peer support
programs, this article offers information on the structure, usefulness and implementation of peer
support interventions in University environments. Additionally, it highlights areas within peer support
programming where further research is needed.
When describing peer supports at the post-secondary level, various labels have been used to denote the
supportive relationship between students without disabilities and students with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. Such terms include natural supports (Kelley & Westling, 2013; Westling,
Kelley, Cain, & Prohn, 2013), mentoring partnerships (Jones & Goble, 2012), peer mentors (Hafner,
Moffatt, & Kisa, 2011; Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010) and peer support (Casale-Giannola & Kamens, 2006).
Despite variations in the label used, there is consistency in defining the relationship as collaborative,
reciprocal, and supportive. Peer support interventions typically involve one or more classmates without
disabilities providing support to a student with a disability (Carter & Kennedy, 2006). Peer supports take
a very active and direct role in providing support within the postsecondary setting. Key to understanding
the peer support model is the recognition of peer support as an intentional partnership that is beneficial
for both parties; the relationship is characterized as both reciprocal and symbiotic.
In discussing peer support programming, it is important to make mention of the general types of PSE
programs through which peer support programs are offered. PSE programs for individuals with IDD are
categorized by three main models; mixed or hybrid, substantially separate, and totally inclusive (Hart,
Grigal, Sax, Martinez, & Will, 2006; Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2010). Each model offers a diversity of supports
and services and the level to which individuals with IDD are integrated into the larger campus/university
system is one of the main differentiating factors among the models. Therefore, while offering a general
exploration of the function of peer supports in PSE programs, this article also makes designations based
on the PSE program type.
Since PSE programs vary in structure, services, and supports, researchers have sought to provide a
unified cataloging for describing and understanding PSE programs. Specifically, McEathron, Beuhring,
Maynard, & Mavis, (2013) developed A Taxonomy for Postsecondary Education Programs for Students
with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (TPEID) to help facilitate consistency in evaluating,
comparing, and accessing PSE programs. The taxonomy includes four overarching domains, each
containing several components, and elements which describe various aspects of PSE programs at the
micro and macro level. The four major domains are 1) the organizational domain, 2) the admissions
domain, 3) the support domain and the 4) pedagogical domain (see McEathron, Beuhring, Maynard, &
Mavis, 2013 for complete listing of taxonomic domains, components, and elements). The taxonomy
provides researchers, clinicians, and family members alike with a standardized language for
understanding the varying components of PSE programs. As such, concepts and terminology from the
taxonomy are used to guide/frame the current discussion on peer supports.
Within PSE programs, peer supports (PS) fall under the Support Domain and are classified as a
Program/School-based support. That is, the peer support structure is a formal programmatic component
of the PSE program similar to other institutional backed platforms such as counseling and academic
advisors. As such, when implementing a PS program to an initial or established PSE program, it is
important that the PS component align with the PSE program type/model (mixed or hybrid, substantially
separate, and totally inclusive) and programmatic goals. Additionally, it is important that the PS
component has buy in from the institution as institutional support has implications for funding and peer
support recruitment. Although there are many important components to examine with a PS program,
this article will focus on roles & functions of peer supports and related research to help inform future
directions in the literature.
Roles & Functions
Peer supports can function in a multiplicity of roles providing various types of formal and informal
support. For example, Hafner, Moffatt, and Kisa (2011) noted varying peer support roles as they
categorized four types of peer mentors in their article: residence hall peer mentors, study skills peer
mentors, in-class peer mentors, and social peer mentors. Similarly, Kelley and Westling (2013) grouped
the roles of peer supports into five categories: Academic, Social, Vocational, Personal Development and
Community Participation. Describing the purpose of peer support interventions, Carter and Kennedy
(2006) suggested that the goal of peer support in the educational setting is to increase access to
curriculum as well as facilitate social interactions that might not otherwise occur. That is, peer support
interventions are aimed at both academic and social support; it fosters both educational attainment and
the development of peer relationships.
Taking into account the aim of peer support interventions as focused on educational attainment and
relationship development, peer supports can be best understood juxtaposed to the TPEID pedagogical
domain (the pedagogical domain includes academics, vocational, independent living, and social
components). This article categorizes the roles of peer support as functioning within the academic,
vocational, independent living and social components of PSE programs. Conceptualizing peer support
roles in light of the pedagogical domain is consistent with the understanding of peer supports in the
educational setting as functioning to increase access to curriculum as well as facilitate social
interactions. Moreover using categories from the TPEID helps provide consistency in language for
evaluating and understanding components of PSE programs. The following explores the function of peer
supports as aiding in the areas of academics, vocation, independent living, and social life.
Academic Peer Supports
The role of academic support can be best understood as peers engaging in activities that foster the
improvement of learning outcomes. Academic support includes both in and out of class support and can
be facilitated by both students who are and are not in the same course as their peer. Academic peer
support encompasses engaging in activities such as tutoring, assisting with projects and homework,
providing instructional support, paraphrasing lectures, and taking notes (Casale-Giannola & Kamens,
2006; Kelley & Westling, 2013). Academic supports enrolled in the same course as their peer may
engage in activities such as sitting near their peer, partnering with their peer for group work and group
assignments, and sharing class notes. Additionally, academic peer support may encompass attending
study sessions together, utilizing campus academic services together (e.g. writing center, math lab, etc.),
and attending recommended guest lectures together.
In delineating the roles of academic peer supports, there are various considerations based on the PSE
model. For example, in the mixed/hybrid, and totally inclusive models, traditional students have
opportunities to take courses where peers with IDD are enrolled (may be auditing, taking for credit,
depending on program type/structure). As such, the role of academic support mirrors a more
naturalistic formation, as the support peers have the commonality of a particular course. Conversely, in
substantially separate models, individuals with IDD do not take courses with their traditional student
peers. As such, when functioning as an academic support, the students may feel more distanced as
support is being offered from an outsider coming into the setting versus a supporter from within the
setting. Such may decrease the sense of collaboration on the part of either individual. Moreover,
academic peer support roles such as sitting near their peer and partnering with their peer for group
work are not an option. Moreover, academic support roles such as paraphrasing lectures and taking
notes become more cumbersome as it would require the peer support to have their partner (or make
arrangement with the instructor) to audiotape the lecture. When possible, substantially separate
programs may want to seek ways to provide opportunities for the peer support to be a part of the class
environment. This could be accomplished with the peer support serving as a teaching assistant for the
course, attending part of the class to facilitate an activity related to the course topic, or engage virtually
with the class through online interactions such as posting and responding to a classroom discussion or
blog.
Vocational Peer Supports
Within the postsecondary setting, the vocational component of the pedagogical domain focus on
providing students with opportunities to job shadow, obtain internships/employment and take
coursework focused on career exploration and the development of job skills (McEathron, Beuhring,
Maynard, & Mavis, 2013). As such vocational support includes activities such as serving as a job coach,
teaching career development content, and practicing interview and first impression skills (Kelley &
Westling, 2013). As a vocational peer support, students with IDD and traditional post-secondary
students may be employed at the same on campus or work study job, may attend class/workshop held
by the career services office together, or engage in activities to increase each other’s professional
networks by making introductions, referrals and recommendations. Through engagement in such
activities peers may gain additional leadership skills as well as an increased interaction with diverse
populations (Kaehe & Beyer, 2013). Kaehe and Beyer (2013) noted that through peer support
interactions, students with IDD are encouraged to mirror the employment pathways of their nondisabled peers and are exposed to those same peer’s views and opinions on employment. Similarly,
students with IDD can offer peers exposure to networks in field such as special education and human
service and development. For example, they may provide a peer who is a special education or
educational psychology major with a referral or an introduction to one of their advisors.
Independent Living Peer Supports
Independent living support comprises peer support that fosters the development of life skills and
independent living. It integrates the development of skills to help one access community resources and
includes activities that support accessing public transportation, grocery shopping, cooking, laundry and
budgeting (Kelley & Westling, 2013). As Kelley & Westling (2013) state in their article, independent living
peer supports may provide residential support to students living as a suitemate to assist with daily
routines, may help with personal care goals or community responsibilities such as participating in
residential committees and residential initiatives (i.e. residence hall meetings, residential recycling
program). Additionally, peer supports in this role may be involved in their peer’s person centered
planning meetings. Involvement may include helping them prepare for the meeting, attending the
meeting as a supportive presence, or attending the meeting to offer input and feedback.
Social Peer Supports
The role of a social peer support can be best understood as engaging in activities that facilitate the
development of relationships, personal interactions, and connection to the campus and surrounding
community. Social support encompasses not only engaging with the individual socially but also
providing both direct and indirect instruction about social norms as a means to help develop social skills.
Social peer supports serve as a model of appropriate social behavior.
Social supports provide students with a space to discuss challenging social situations. Peer mentors
engage in activities such as attending campus social events together, introducing the peer to their
friends, offering instruction about personal safety, interpersonal relationships, social skills, and selfdetermination and familiarizing the peer with campus and community life and how to integrate into the
campus social network. Looking at the role of social supports, literature has shown that elements that
foster friendship include (a) the sharing of personal info, (b) visiting apartments, (c) exchange of phone
numbers, addresses, emailing, text messages, etc. For example, studies have found that peer mentors
within postsecondary education programs for students with ID can serve important social support
functions by acting as models of accepted social behavior and creating bridges to new social activities
(Hafner et al., 2011; Jones & Goble, 2012).
Future Research on Peer Support Roles and Functions
As outlined in the above section, peer support includes an array of activities within and across several
peer support roles. As more programs are developed, more research can be done within these settings
to determine specific roles and their corresponding benefits for all students involved. For example, while
there are variances in the activities of supports in the academic category, research seems promising in
identifying benefits to academic peer supports. For example, in a case study, Casale-Giannola & Kamens
(2006) found that a preservice teacher providing academic peer support reported benefiting from the
opportunity to practice critical skills such as collaboration, communication and mutual support.
Similarly, her peer seemed to benefit from the collaboration as Casale-Giannola & Kamens (2006) noted
the student had a positive experience in the class. However, what is not clear is what direct benefits
came from the peer support interactions. In general, research has focused on benefits from inclusion in
classrooms (Carter, Moss, Hoffman, Chung, & Sisco, 2011; Kelley & Westling, 2013; May, 2012) and little
research has looked directly at the influence of academic peer supports. More research is needed to
explore/document/further substantiate the benefits of academic peer supports.
Very little research has looked at the role of vocational peer supports within PSE programs. This could be
in part due to the fact that the focus of many higher education institutions is more academic and less
vocational. Future research should explore the experiences of vocational peer supports. Moreover,
research should also examine the differences in vocational peer supports by PSE program model (mixed
or hybrid, substantially separate, and totally inclusive) and institution type (2-year, 4-year,
trade/technical schools). In addition, similar examination of the differences based on program model
and institution type should be done for independent living peer supports, to help determine what
benefits students experience, as well as how the relationships may maintain and/or develop beyond the
program structure.
The social peer support relationship has the likely possibility of extending beyond peer support
programming. Scholars have found that peer supports can turn into long-term friendships (Hafner et al.,
2011). What is unclear is identifying what type of social peer support structuring aids in the
development and maintenance of a relationship beyond peer support programming. Moreover, little is
known about peers perceptions and expectations of forming lasting relationships beyond the peer
support programming. For instance, in their case study, Casale-Giannola & Kamens (2006) noted
differences in peers perceptions of friendship.
The extent to which various roles and activities should be included in a PSE program is informed by the
PSE model, structure and services. Additionally, both the desired peer support roles and PSE model
influence program decisions such as peer support recruitment, training, facilitation strategies and
evaluation. All of the components listed above should be examined further in the literature to gain
insight on overall benefits and challenges to peer support programming.
Benefits and Challenges to Peer Support
Discussing the joint venture that exists within peer support relationships, Jones and Goble (2012) argued
that the relationship is considered a partnership because both individuals benefit from the experience.
Literature on peer support has supported this notion as various studies have documented benefits to
both peer supports and individuals with IDD (Carter, Moss, Hoffman, Chung, & Sisco, 2011; Kelley &
Westling, 2013; O’Connor, Kubiak, Espiner, & O’Brien, 2012) in various educational settings. As such, it is
important to examine the ways in which each of these groups has benefited from peer support
relationships. Kelley & Westling (2013) noted that for some students with IDD participating in
postsecondary programs provides them with their first experience of developing social networks beyond
their families or hired caretakers. Thus, one benefit of inclusion in colleges is the ability to develop
supportive social networks. The development of social supports is a common cited benefit as scholars
have referenced the opportunity to foster genuine friendships (Kelley & Westling, 2013) and form
support relationship between same-age peers with and without a disability (Casale-Giannola & Kamens,
2006) and make meaningful connections within personal and professional life (Hamill, 2003).
While some research has shown that PSE programs offer benefits academically and socially to both
students with IDD and their peers, research is not clear about the benefits of peer support programs.
That is, most research reporting benefits look at benefits as a result of participation in a PSE program as
a whole. It does not look specifically at the role of the peer support component. Therefore, it is not clear
what influence the peer support programming has on these reported benefits. This poses a challenge for
new PSE programs, as it is not clear what types of peer support programming is most beneficial to
students with and without disabilities. The roles/functions, recruitment, training, facilitation strategies
and evaluation of peer support programs should all be examined further at the postsecondary level to
help inform existing and new PSE programs with evidence based structures and practices.
References
Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support
strategies. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 284–292.
Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Hoffman, A., Chung, Y.-C., & Sisco, L. (2011). Efficacy and social validity of peer
support arrangements for adolescents with sisabilities. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 107–125.
Casale-Giannola, D., & Kamens, M. W. (2006). Inclusion at a university: Experiences of a young woman
with down syndrome. Mental Retardation, 44(5), 344–352.
Grigal, M., Hart, D. & Lewis, S. (2010). A Prelude to Progress: Postsecondary Education and Students
with Intellectual Disabilitie. Impact: Feature Issue on Postsecondary Education and Students with
Intellectual, Developmental and Other Disabilities, 23(3). Retrieved from
http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/233/6.html
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
Hamill, L. B. (2003). Going to college: The experiences of a young woman with Down syndrome. Mental
Retardation, 41(5). Retrieved from http://www.aaiddjournals.org/aamronline/?request=getabstract&doi=10.1352%2F0047-6765(2003)41%3C340:GTCTEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Hart, D., Grigal, M., Sax, C., Martinez, D. & Will, M. (2006). Postsecondary education options for students
with intellectual disabilities, Research to Practice, 45. Institute for Community Inclusion, University of
Massachusetts.
Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Expanding the paradigm: Postsecondary education options for
individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 25(3), 134-150.
Kaehne, A., & Beyer, S. (2013). Supported employment for young people with intellectual disabilities
facilitated through peer support: A pilot study. Journal Of Intellectual Disabilities, 17(3), 236-251.
doi:10.1177/1744629513495265
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
May, C. (2012). An investigation of attitude change in inclusive college classes including young adults
with an intellectual disability. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 240–246.
doi:10.1111/jppi.12013
McEathron, M.A., Beuhring, T., Maynard, A., & Mavis, A. (2013). Understanding the diversity: A
taxonomy for postsecondary education programs and services for students with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(4) 303-320.
O’Connor, B., Kubiak, J., Espiner, D., & O’Brien, P. (2012). Lecturer responses to the inclusion of students
with intellectual disabilities auditing undergraduate classes. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual
Disabilities, 9(4), 247–256. doi:10.1111/jppi.12009
Westling, D. L. ., Kelley, K. R. ., Cain, B., & Prohn, S. (2013). College students’ attitudes about an inclusive
postsecondary education program for individuals with intellectual disability. Education & Training in
Autism & Developmental Disabilities, 48(3), 306–319.
Regional Conference Recap
TASH organized two regional conferences in collaboration with TASH New England and North Carolina
TASH in May. State agency leaders and staff, vocational rehabilitation counselors, educators, parents,
family members, self advocates, adult service professionals, and the like gathered together to hear
about evidence-based practices that support people with significant disabilities and support needs to
live successfully in community settings throughout their lives. Both conferences were centered on
successful transition self-directed planning; employment experiences during high school and post
secondary options that lead to employment
The highlights at both regional conferences included the two working lunch panels. In New England, a
panel of young leaders facilitated by Lydia Brown discussed the importance of supporting people with
disabilities in leadership roles. They shared first hand experiences and recommended ways self
advocates can be active players in the promotion of equity and equal rights.
In North Carolina, Kelly Kelley and Ali DeYoung facilitated a panel of students and families from Western
Carolina University’s University Participant (UP) Program and Beyond Academics at the University of
North Carolina at Greensboro. Participants discussed their experiences in college and beyond; and
learned about relevant strategies to help increase independence and facilitate college success leading to
an overall improved quality of life and positive, inclusive post-program outcomes.
We are excited to welcome new members who experienced TASH’s work for the first time. These new
members represent an array of TASH’s membership base; parents, self advocates, field professionals,
and college students. Don’t be surprise if any of these members become future TASH leaders at the
state or national level. Our new members include: Ali Kelly (SC), Anne Fracht (MA), Tammie Coon(NC),
Jonathan Edwards (MA), Kelly Miller (WV), Pam Booth (MA), Angela Breeden (WV), Kelly Miller (WV),
Melani McLaughlin (MA), Judy Jennings (NC), Pat Sinko (MA), Liz Jennings (NC), Diane Huggon (MA),
Amanda Lilly (NC), Jill Judson (MA), Anne Bakeman (VT), and Alex Francisco (NC).
To view a complete description of the presentation visit http://tash.org/2015-regional-tash-conferencenew-england/ for New England and http://tash.org/2015-regional-tash-conference-north-carolina/ for
North Carolina.
Pictures:
NE Self Advocate Panel- New England Self Advocate Panel, facilitated by Lydia Brown, on self advocate
leadership in inclusion advocacy.
NC Panel- North Carolina Self Advocate Panelon "Getting Ready for, Experiencing, and Benefiting from a
College Education" (L-R) Denise Sumiel, Ali DeYoung (Facilitator), Jalen Cash, Kenneth Kelty, Ahmad
Rahman, Jackie Kelty, (bottom) Ali Hale, and Kelly Kelly (Facilitator).
Member Spotlight
One Agency’s Mind-Changing Experience – Seeing IS Believing!
Here’s how one TASH member is changing hearts and minds!
In the fall of 2014, a provider agency from Tennessee (which provides services to people in congregate
models of care) visited TASH member Katahdin Friends, Inc., (KFI) a community support provider in
Maine which supports people using individualized and personalized supports in the community. These
are reflections from the staff of the visiting agency who visited KFI to see what they do. These are
excerpts, shared with permission from Gail Fanjoy, Executive Director of KFI.
Visitor #1: “Our trip to your agency was eye opening for us. You showed us what I had already realized,
that our services are not really allowing people to fully participate in their communities because they are
too geared to protection from harm and not enough with helping people connect in their communities
and take the reasonable risks we all take in order to have a fulfilling life. We are cocooning people in
services in order to keep them safe, and this is leading to less independence, higher cost of services,
more behavioral incidents and a negative reputation for people with disabilities.”
Visitor #2: “During our time at KFI, I was particularly impressed with the staff and management. Not
only were they friendly, professional and accommodating, but they all obviously believed in their service
delivery system. Interestingly, most of the staff had no point of reference regarding facility based
services. This was an unusual circumstance given how rooted facility-based services are in Tennessee. I
was quite impressed with the level of confidence displayed by staff and people supported concerning
community inclusion and integration. They were unable and seemingly unwilling to deliver or receive
services any differently.
Prior to the visit I was having some difficulty envisioning how people with cognitive/intellectual
disabilities could coexist in mainstream society without an expensive support system. However, I bore
witness to an innovative, cost effective and self-sustaining model of community connectedness that
invigorated my belief and vision of Tennessean’s with disabilities realizing these same liberties.”
Visitor #3: “My recent experience visiting with Gail Fanjoy and the staff at KFI was uplifting and
reminded me why I got into this field of working with people with disabilities. Their mission statement
was clear from the beginning, that people with disabilities have the right to lead normal lives. It sounds
simple, but with all the regulations, laws and policies we have to abide by, we tend to forget the basic
things in life that people with disabilities have the right to enjoy.
I was very impressed with KFI's hiring practices, which include hiring people to work with individuals
based on common interests, not just on experience in the human service field. This was evident when I
met M. and his staff MN. MN was hired because he had a truck and had experience with engineering.
He had never worked in the field of helping people with disabilities, but it was obvious that he was the
best person to help M. with his small engine repair business. When I saw them working together in the
garage, it was hard to tell who was staff and who was the person with a disability. Mike was obviously at
his best, doing what he loved.
Another KFI practice that I found truly innovative was the flexibility in staff schedules to meet the needs
of the people they support. KFI understands that people's lives change, their needs change, normal life
doesn't always happen between 9am and 5pm, and that in order to truly support people becoming
active in the community, they need to be flexible. The staff are trained to help promote community
involvement and help people develop supports in the community, so that staff presence can be reduced.
Although this type of scheduling can be beautifully chaotic, everyone at KFI understands this is the only
way to really help people lead normal, independent lives.
Visitor #4: “I really enjoyed getting to meet T., who came out of one of the institutions in Maine and I
was so pleased and impressed by how far he had come. KFI supported him in buying his own home,
maintaining a job for many years, visiting with friends and neighbors, as well as exploring his interests.
Several times a week staff would take him down to the gravel pit where he could watch trucks and
heavy equipment come and go. But it didn't stop there. Staff would help T. write down the names of the
trucking companies and then do internet research with him to find out all about those companies. T.
looked familiar to me as my agency serves many people like him, but the difference was that T. owned
his own life and KFI was just there in the background supporting him when he needed it. If T. were living
in Tennessee, I'm sad to say his life would look very different. He probably would not own his own
home, he would have 24 hour a day support and his interests and hobbies would probably be classified
as obsessive. This would lead to behavior modification and T. would probably be very unhappy. But by
using KFI's approach of one person at a time, really getting to know the person, and helping them
develop and live rich, meaningful lives, T. is thriving. We couldn't stay and visit as long as I would have
liked with T. because he had to start making dinner for his friends who were coming over to watch a
football game (how normal is that?).
KFI is really onto something and I'm so thrilled that I got to see it with my own eyes!“
Visitor #5: “When I was first informed about KFI and how the agency provided services and used the
support of its entire community to help do so, my first words were how are they doing it, I just can’t see
it. Well, I am here to tell you, I saw and Yes I believe it and the pictures of people and all support staff
truly embodying KFI’s mission and philosophy statement was worth more than a thousand words, it was
priceless.
I was impressed as I visited the home of L. L. loved sports and he had several teams that he loved
discussing with his staff. Both the staff and case manager takes the time to watch sports or do the
research about sports so that they could always be engaged in the conversations with L. because that
was important to him. L. also is a great speaker and has facilitated many forums. L. also presents during
the hiring and orientation process at KFI. He makes it clear how he and other people supported want to
be treated. It was evident that L. played an important role in his community. If L. wanted to go
somewhere, he either rode his bike or was picked up by a neighbor or friend. If L. did not show up at an
event or was not present at one of the local hang out spots, KFI would start receiving calls inquiring
about the whereabouts of L.
My experience in Maine was a reminder on how important community connections are “because
sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.”
Association News
Registration for the 2015 TASH Conference is Now Open!
On behalf of the 2015 Local Host Committee, TASH invites you to join us for our 40th Anniversary
celebration & our 40th TASH Conference in Portland, Oregon. The conference will take place December
2-4 at the Marriott Portland Downtown Waterfront.
This year’s theme, “Celebrating 40 Years of Progressive Leadership,” acknowledges TASH’s 40 years of
generating change within the disability community and anticipates a brighter, more inclusive future for
people with disabilities in all aspects of life.
To learn more about the event and to register, visit: tash.org/conference2015
Welcome to the New TASH Member Community!
TASH is happy to announce the launch of our new member community! It is within this community that
TASH members have access to a full range of member benefits and can connect with others who share
our mission to promote the full inclusion and participation of people with significant disabilities in all
aspects of life. The TASHmember community includes the following new features:
Membership
The member community supports a more seamless membership registration and renewal process.
Renewing just got easier!
Donations
Your donations help support our advocacy efforts; training & event opportunities; activities at the local,
state, and national level; and highlight and support research and best practices to benefit the people we
service every single day. The member community supports monthly donation schedules and an easier
one-time donation process. You can donate by clicking on the button at the top-right of the TASH
homepage!
Community
The member community is the best since TASH’s inception and access is available starting now! This
community:

Allows chapters and committees to easily communicate using online forums, create repositories
for important documents, and network.

Gives all TASH members the opportunity to create interest groups to share thoughts, ideas, and
best practices.

Allows all TASH members to build a member profile and connect with like-minded individuals.
To access the TASH member community, visit www.member.tash.org and use your log-in credentials
that TASH emailed on May 13th. If you have trouble accessing your account, please contact TASH at202540-9020 or info@tash.org.
TASH Fund Development Committee Is Seeking New Members!
In order for TASH to fulfill its Mission, it needs to have the necessary resources to carry out the work.
The role of the Fund Development Committee is to ensure that TASH has an ample and diverse source of
revenue. Every member of the community must be aware of the impact of their personal contribution
and the need to seek out and cultivate others who share our Vision as contributors.
We seek members with fund development experience or openness to learn:

How to create and implement a fund development plan

How to identify potential corporate and individual donors

How to develop skills to cultivate and solicit funds from a variety of sources

How to help nurture a culture of philanthropy throughout the organization

How to work effectively on specific fundraising projects
In other words, if you are: enthusiastic about TASH and committed to its values; have the skills (or
willing to develop them); ready to explore and utilize your connections to support TASH…THEN, let us
know of your interest!
The FDC holds a monthly teleconference to conduct its business. For more information, contact: Ralph
Edwards, Development Committee Chair, (redwards747@verizon.net or 617-624-7755) or Dawn Brown,
TASH Development Director, (Dbrown@tash.org or 202-509-9596)
Thank You to Our Donors!
TASH relies on the generosity of our members to accomplish our work. Because of your support, we are
able to continue to work for equity, opportunity, and inclusion for people with significant disabilities.
We are grateful for the support we have received from the following people and organizations:
























Barbara Trader
Dawn Brown
Eileen M Medina
Elizabeth Healey
George Singer
Janice Fialka
Jessica L Best
Joanne Eichinger
Kathleen Fallon
Leslie Jones
Leslie Kolkmeier
Micah Fialka-Feldman
Michael Remus
Ralph W Edwards
Robin Blount
Sandra McClennen
Scott Shepard
Shirley Ann Rodriguez
Susan H Mann
Susan Schaefer
Tamera Leighton
Terri Ward
VCU School of Education
Zachary S Rossetti
If you would like to consider making a gift to TASH, contact Dawn Brown at 202-509-9596 or
at dbrown@tash.org.
Thank you, donors!
About TASH
TASH is an international leader in disability advocacy. Founded in 1975, TASH advocates for human
rights and inclusion for people with significant disabilities and support needs – those most vulnerable to
segregation, abuse, neglect and institutionalization.
TASH works to advance inclusive communities through advocacy, research, professional development,
policy, and information and resources for parents, families and self-advocates. The inclusive practices
TASH validates through research have been shown to improve outcomes for all people.
Policy Statement
It is TASH’s mission to eliminate physical and social obstacles that prevent equity, diversity and quality of
life for children and adults with disabilities. Items in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect attitudes
held by individual members of the Association as a whole. TASH reserves the right to exercise editorial
judgment in selection of materials. All contributors and advertisers are asked to abide by the TASH
policy on the use of people-first language that emphasizes the humanity of people with disabilities.
Terms such as “the mentally retarded,” “autistic children,” and “disabled individuals” refer to
characteristics of individuals, not to individuals themselves. Terms such as “people with mental
retardation,” “children with autism,” and “individuals who have disabilities” should be used. The
appearance of an advertisement for a product or service does not imply TASH endorsement. For a copy
of TASH’s publishing and advertising policy, please visit www.tash.org.
TASH Mission & Vision
As a leader in disability advocacy for more than 35 years, the mission of TASH is to promote the full
inclusion and participation of children and adults with significant disabilities in every aspect of their
community, and to eliminate the social injustices that diminish human rights. These things are
accomplished through collaboration among self-advocates, families, professionals, policy-makers,
advocates and many others who seek to promote equity, opportunity and inclusion. Together, this
mission is realized through:





Advocacy for equity, opportunities, social justice and human rights
Education of the public, government officials, community leaders and service providers
Research that translates excellence to practice
Individualized, quality supports in place of congregate and segregated settings and services
Legislation, litigation and public policy consistent with the
The focus of TASH is supporting those people with significant disabilities and support needs who are
most at risk for being excluded from society; perceived by traditional service systems as most
challenging; most likely to have their rights abridged; most likely to be at risk for living, working, playing
and learning in segregated environments; least likely to have the tools and opportunities necessary to
advocate on their behalf; and are most likely to need ongoing, individualized supports to participate in
inclusive communities and enjoy a quality of life similar to that available to all people.
TASH has a vision of a world in which people with disabilities are included and fully participating
members of their communities, with no obstacles preventing equity, diversity and quality of life. TASH
envisions communities in which no one is segregated and everyone belongs. This vision will be realized
when:





All individuals have a home, recreation, learning and employment opportunities
All children and youth are fully included in their neighborhood schools
There are no institutions
Higher education is accessible for all
Policy makers and administrators understand the struggles of people with disabilities and plan –
through laws, policies and regulations – for their active participation in all aspects of life





All individuals have a way to communicate and theircommunities are flexible in communicating
in alternate waysthat support full participation
Injustices and inequities in private and public sectors are eradicated
Practices for teaching, supporting and providing services topeople with disabilities are based on
current, evidence-based strategies that promote high quality and full participation in all aspects
of life
All individuals with disabilities enjoy individualized supports and a quality of life similar to that
available to all people
All individuals with disabilities have the tools and opportunities to advocate on their behalf