MAKING A CASE FOR
EXPANDING SHARED
LIVING IN PENNSYLVANIA
Introduction
• Shared Living arrangements provide a safe, affordable,
•
•
•
•
flexible and generally stable home alternative for
individuals who need residential supports
In Pennsylvania, most community residential providers
either do not offer it, or underutilize it
PA Department of Public Welfare released a “Shared
Living” request for information in July 2011
Improve shared living, expand shared living opportunities
IM4Q preliminary analysis shows positive outcomes for
individuals with ID in shared living
History
• The 1997 PA Office of Developmental Programs (ODP)
•
•
•
•
Multi-Year Plan included a recommendation to develop
the capacity for independent monitoring in Pennsylvania
Purpose was to help ensure quality of life, services and
supports to children ages 3+, and to adults supported by
the ODP services for individuals with intellectual
disabilities (ID)
Linked to national project – National Core Indicators
IM4Q grew from a statewide recognition that individual
and family satisfaction, together with other quality
measures, are an essential feature of a quality
management system
Based on principles of Everyday Lives
Methodology
• Counties select local IM4Q programs to conduct the interviews.
•
•
•
•
Criteria includes: independence of the projects from service
delivering entities, consumer and family involvement on
governing boards, and involvement of individuals receiving
supports and families in data collection activities
Institute on Disabilities trains local IM4Q programs on the
interview instrument
EDE is comprised of the following sections: Pre-survey; Presurvey addendum; Satisfaction; Dignity, Respect and Rights;
Choice and Control; Relationships; Inclusion; Monitor
Impressions; Major Concerns; Family Survey.
Data sent to Institute on Disabilities for analysis and reports.
Local IM4Q Program implements “closing the loop” (follow-up)
activity with the county
Results: Scales
• Scales comparison of people in shared living
with people living in relative’s home and people
in community living
• In 2012, there were 410 in Shared Living, 1752
in Relative’s Home, and 3010 in Community
Homes.
• On five of the seven scales, Shared Living had
the highest average score
Results: Satisfaction
Satisfaction Scale Score by
Residence
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100
89.3
87.8
80
85.1
60
40
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
100. A higher score is
better
• Shared Living and
Relative’s Home were
significantly higher
than Community Home
Results: Dignity and Respect
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100. A higher score is
better
• Shared Living and
Relative’s Home were
significantly higher
than Community Home
Dignity Scale Score by
Residence
100
86.8
80
87.3
80.8
60
40
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
Results: Never Afraid
Never Afraid Scale by
Residence
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100
93.3
92.8
91.3
80
60
40
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
100. A higher score is
better
• Relative’s Home was
significantly higher
than Community Home
Results: Choice and Control
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100. A higher score is
better
• Shared Living and
Relative’s Home were
significantly higher
than Community Home
Choice Scale Score by
Residence
100
80
60
57.3
54.5
40
42.4
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
Results: Inclusion
Inclusion Scale Score by
Residence
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100
80
60
48.9
44.9
40
41.3
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
100. A higher score is
better
• Shared Living was
significantly higher
than Relative’s Home,
which was significantly
higher than
Community Home
Results: Physical Setting
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100. A higher score is
better
• Community Home was
significantly higher
than Shared Living,
which was significantly
higher than Relative’s
Home
Physical Setting Scale by
Residence
100
97.3
98.7
94.6
80
60
40
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
Results: Family Satisfaction
Family Satisfaction Scale by
Residence
• Data from 2012
• Scale ranges from 0 to
100
92.8
92.5
90.8
80
60
40
20
0
Shared Living
Relative's Home
Community Home
100. A higher score is
better
• Relative’s Home was
significantly higher
than Community Home
Results: Longitudinal
Longitudinal Look At Satisfaction Scale Scores
84.8
2007
88.6
85.5
2008
89
2009
84.7
87.3
2010
84.8
87.9
85.7
2011
90.6
85.2
2012
89.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
All Others
Shared Living
70
80
90
100
Results: Longitudinal
• The number of people in Shared
Living varied each year
• All Others included all other
residential types
• From 2007 through 2012, Shared
Living had an average Satisfaction
scale score that was significantly
higher than the rest of the people in
the Independent Monitoring
database in every year
• Satisfaction research demonstrates
that individuals with intellectual
disabilities generally report higher
levels of satisfaction as result of
receiving supports and services
Year
Number
in
Shared
Living
Number
in All
Others
2007
327
6142
2008
412
6100
2009
441
6177
2010
367
6254
2011
413
6279
2012
410
9179