Survey National of Educational Support Provision to Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education Settings: Technical Report, June 2000
University of Hawaii @ Manoa NCSPES: National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports RRTC: Rehabilitation Research & Training Center
Introduction Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has settled many significant issues but also has raised numerous questions regarding access, support, and accommodations for students with disabilities (SWDs) in postsecondary educational institutions. These institutions are required by law to provide educational supports and reasonable accommodations to SWDs to ensure equal access to educational opportunities. However, the current practice of providing educational supports/services and accommodations for SWDs within postsecondary educational institutions has yet to be described, studied, analyzed, and defined. Thus an opportunity presents itself for research within an area of study that could profoundly impact the quality of life of persons with disabilities. This Executive Summary provides an overview of the current status of educational supports and accommodations offered in postsecondary programs across the United States. It is based on an analysis of a national survey conducted by the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES) at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. This profile provides a baseline of data regarding the provision of educational supports and accommodations to SWDs in postsecondary educational settings. This document also contributes to one of four priority areas identified in Phase I of the Strategic Program of Research being conducted within the RRTC on Postsecondary Educational Supports. The four areas of investigation are: 1) the nature and range of supports in postsecondary programs; 2) the contribution of technology advances and their impact; 3) the effectiveness of supports; and 4) carry over of educational supports to subsequent employment settings. It is assumed that investigation within these areas will lay the groundwork for understanding the provision of postsecondary educational supports as offered to SWDs. Overall, the Center applied a variety of methods to the study of this question, with one method being a national survey of disability support coordinators. Researchers developed a survey around the following key study questions as delineated within the Strategic Program of Research:
Key Study Questions 1. What educational supports are offered to SWDs in a range of different types of postsecondary educational settings? What is the nature and range of these supports? 2. How does the type and range of educational supports offered within postsecondary educational settings correspond to the type and level of student disabilities? 3. What technical supports and assistive devices are available to SWDs in postsecondary educational settings? How do students use and benefit from such technology and related services? 4. Do educational supports transfer from postsecondary educational settings to subsequent workforce settings or employment? Method A survey instrument was developed and distributed to a national sample of more than 1500 disability support coordinators (DSCs), working in postsecondary institutions. The survey was voluntary, and individual responses were treated with strict confidentiality. For a further description of survey distribution, sample response rates, and data analysis, please see the methodology section of this report. Respondents were informed that their participation in the survey could have an impact on future national policy and practice as the report would be circulated to researchers and policy makers nationally. The survey yielded a 45% response rate, with more than 650 respondents completing the full survey, equating a profile of educational support offerings across the nation. The respondents making up the sample were profiled as follows: 422 were from public educational institutions vs. 193 from private institutions; 246 were from two-year or less than two-year institutions vs. 369 from four-year institutions; and, 465 were members of the Association on Higher Education and Disabilities (AHEAD). Survey Content A working group of consortium members (each member providing their own expertise) developed the survey questions. A pilot study was conducted in the state of Hawai`i to field-test and provide feedback regarding question content and clarification, including suggestions for adding and removing items. From the pilot study feedback an 8-page survey was further developed around clusters of the following topics:
Institutions capacity to offer specific supports or accommodations Number of students who receive specific supports by disability type Availability of assistive technology supports Outreach program offerings Funding and specialized staff issues that affect SWDs Written policies Information about the respondent
Survey Distribution Two methods were used to select institutions that would receive the surveys. The first method involved distribution of the survey instrument to members of the professional AHEAD
organization. The AHEAD membership list is composed of disability supports personnel in public and private two-year and four-year institutions across the United States. To address sample bias that might be attributed to AHEAD member institutions, a second institution list of non-AHEAD participants was generated from a randomized, regionally stratified list of institutions representative of less than two-year, two-year, four-year and professional institutions, within both the public and private sectors. Stratification of Postsecondary Education Programs by Type The list of non-AHEAD postsecondary educational institutions was randomly selected from the 1995 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) CD ROM database, as maintained by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), at the U.S. Department of Education. The IPEDS includes data on some 3,000 primary providers (institutions) of postsecondary education. It is the primary postsecondary education data collection program of the U.S. Department of Education used to meet its mandate to report national statistics on the condition of postsecondary education in the United States. It is a single, comprehensive data collection system encompassing all institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to provide postsecondary education. The IPEDS system is structured to collect institution-level data in such areas as enrollment, program completion, faculty and staff, and financing. The IPED data set was divided into eight geographic regions and three sectors (public, private non-profit, and private for-profit). A random selection process ensured that each sector was equally weighted with respect to each type of program in any given region. After postsecondary programs were selected within the IPED, a sample of minority status institutions were selected and included within the sample list to ensure inclusive participation within the survey (e.g., 15 historically black institutions and 15 Native American institutions). Overview Of Significant Findings Provisions of Educational Supports and Accommodations (Type and Range) Postsecondary education institutions are expected to provide supports, services, and accommodations that meet the needs of SWDs to learn and progress within their educational programs. Primary study questions of the survey concerned the types and range of supports/services and accommodations offered to SWDs. Following is an overview of significant findings: 1. SWDs have reasonable access to personal counseling and supports in the majority of postsecondary institutions. 2. Disability support programs were well prepared to offer testing accommodations to SWDs. 3. Career/vocational assessment and counseling was commonly offered on postsecondary campuses. 4. Job placement services were offered to SWDs at more than 50% of the responding institutions. 5. Half of the responding institutions offered learning center laboratory services to SWDs on a consistent basis. 6. Less than 50% of institutions offered disability specific assessment/evaluations. 7. Less than 50% of the institutions offered accessible transport on campus. 8. Disability specific scholarships were not often offered to SWDs on postsecondary campuses. 9. Supports to study abroad were rarely offered to SWDs.
10. Real-time captioning of educational materials was rarely offered on postsecondary campuses. 11. Assistive Technology (AT) evaluations were rarely offered to SWDs on postsecondary campuses. 12. Most postsecondary education institutions did not offer facilitation or assistance with the transfer of supports to subsequent work settings. When comparing two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions, and public-private institutions, public were more likely than private to offer a service or accommodation for SWDs. Two-year institutions were more likely than four-year postsecondary institutions to provide a service or accommodation to SWDs. When comparing support offerings within two-year and four-year institutions, two-year institutions offered more support in most areas surveyed. Support areas such as a learning center laboratory, developmental/remedial instruction, equipment or software provision, skills training on equipment/software, and assistive technology supports across campus were offered more often at two-year institutions. Moreover, two-year institutions were better connected with the community through outreach programs with business/employers, federal programs, parent/family organizations, and consumer advocacy groups. Disability support personnel in postsecondary institutions typically did not collect information or gather feedback from students on the quality of their services or supports. Approximately onehalf of the responding public institutions did not offer assistive technology evaluations; this figure rises to 76% for postsecondary institutions in the private sector. When offering assistive technology supports, postsecondary institutions in the private sector were less likely to offer distance-learning access for students, impacting negatively, for example, on the participation of students who were deaf and/or blind. Supports such as accessible on-line student services, TV courses, and Web-based courseware were not yet commonly available in any type of institution. Assistive technology supports were offered at very different rates in public versus private postsecondary institutions. For example, regarding assistive technology supports provided across campus (e.g. library, computer lab), 87% of public postsecondary institutions offered such support, compared to 56% of the respondents in the private sector. Issues of Concern for Disability Support Coordinators Survey participants were asked to rank the top 3 of 9 possible issues that they felt would be of concern for their unit over the next 2 to 3 years. The listing included the following:
Funding Commitment of top administrators Faculty support Technology Number of professional staff available Availability of staff with specialized training Physical accessibility Compliance with Federal requirements Other
Four-year institutions ranked the top 3 issues they expected to face as funding, technology, and commitment of top administrators, respectfully. Two-year programs ranked funding, technology, and availability of staff with specialized training, respectfully as their top 3 issues. Across all respondents, 66% believed that the lack of funding affected their units ability to serve SWDs. Other questions on the survey receiving weak or negative responses might also be attributed to lack of funds. For example, in areas such as scholarships, only 22% of the postsecondary institutions surveyed offered disability-specific scholarships; similarly, only 23% offered supports for study abroad. Both of these items were fiscally linked, and were items that affected an institutions ability to support the needs of SWDs. Thus, funding often becomes an over-riding concern for most providers of disability support services in postsecondary education. Written Policy Most responding postsecondary institutions made available written policy documents to SWDs on their campus. These documents described their institutional commitment to provide reasonable accommodations and confidentiality, as well as grievance procedures should an SWD wish to make a complaint. However, concerning several critical areas for SWDs, many responding institutions performed poorly. Few institutions indicated they had written policies in place related to: procedures for modification of admission requirements for SWDs (73% said no), definition of full-time status for SWDs (68% said no), or course waivers/substitutions (54% said no). Moreover, 50% of the institutions surveyed had no written policy regarding technology access referrals. In general, public postsecondary institutions had a greater number of written policies available, concerning the above issues, than did private institutions. Four-year institutions were more likely than two-year institutions to have written policies available regarding the following areas: process for students to declare a disability and request accommodations, and definition of full-time status for SWDs. Two-year postsecondary institutions were more likely to have written policies on access to technology than four-year postsecondary institutions. Advocacy SWDs on postsecondary education programs have often indicated the need for advocacy support on campus. One of the most striking findings of the survey was that only 1 in 4 responding postsecondary institutions offered an advocacy organization on campus for SWDs, and of those that provided such support, only 25% offered the organization any financial, advisory, or other means of support. SWDs often indicated such services were very important to their success in postsecondary education. Transfer of Educational Supports to Subsequent Workforce Settings As students exit their postsecondary program the transfer of educational supports to work settings become important. One question of the survey addressed the carry over of supports and related services from the educational setting to the workplace. Of the postsecondary institutions surveyed, 61% offered career/vocational assessment and counseling services, and 46% offered job placement services. Approximately 25% of the responding postsecondary programs had specifically designated personnel to facilitate transfer of supports to subsequent work settings. Few respondents could offer specific information regarding what those services or supports were and/or if they were effective. Outreach Programs Beyond providing educational supports and services to address the needs of SWDs on campus, postsecondary institutions are also expected to facilitate students linkages with off-campus agencies and community resources. One of the surveys questions asked whether institutions had
reached out to other agencies and community resources that could provide support for SWDs, and if so, what resources had they accessed. Most postsecondary programs (75%) facilitated student linkages with other community agencies, which provided related resources (such as vocational rehabilitation services). Approximately one-half of the responding postsecondary programs established and maintained connections with the following community resources:
Federal programs providing supports for educational employment in the community (63.5%) Business/employers (67.5%) Parent/family organizations (54.3%) Consumers/advocacy groups (59.8%)
Public institutions facilitated student linkages with community resources more often than private institutions, and public two-year institutions had established and maintained more community and agency outreach activity than public four-year institutions. Summary Educational supports and accommodations for SWDs in postsecondary programs across the United States are well developed in the following areas: access to personal counseling and support, provision of testing accommodations, career/vocational assessment and counseling, and job placement services. Support offerings are tenuous in the following areas: disability specific assessment and evaluation services, accessible transport on campus, and the provision of disability specific scholarships. Further, postsecondary institutions rarely offer assistance with the transfer of supports from educational settings to the workplace, assistive technology evaluations, or study abroad options for SWDs. It was further determined that education support offerings are highly dependent upon appropriate funding availability, specialized staff, and perceptions of the role of technological supports in the education of SWDs. With additional funding, there are several areas in which gains could be made, such as private foundations supports for scholarships specifically targeted assistive technology support, and accessible transport on campus. Related Reports Data analyzed as a part of this study complements two other reports published by the National Center on Educational Statistics (NCES). NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States. Their two recent reports, Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education: A Profile of Preparation, Participation, and Outcomes (June 1999); and An Institutional Perspective on Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education (August 1999), provide data as reported to a federal agency on students with disabilities from two-year and four-year postsecondary education institutions. The June report provides information in the following areas: 1. The representation of SWDs in postsecondary education. 2. Who, among high school SWDs, gains access to postsecondary education? 3. Among those who enroll in postsecondary education, how well do they persist to degree attainment? 4. Among college graduates, what are the early labor market outcomes and graduate school enrollment rates of SWDs?
The August report provides information in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Enrollments of postsecondary SWDs. Institutions enrolling SWDs. Support services and accommodations designed for SWDs. Education materials and activities designed to assist faculty and staff in working with SWDs. 5. Institutional records and reporting about SWDs. The August NCES study and the NCSPES study both examine enrollments of postsecondary SWDs and the offering of supports, services, and accommodations for SWDs. However, there are two major differences between these reports that are worthy of mention: 1. The reported study conducted by NCSPES provides a baseline of supports and accommodations offered to SWDs based upon a randomized, stratified, representative sample of institutions across the nation. 2. Respondents within the NCSPES study were assured of their institutions anonymity in an effort to alleviate any unstated pressure or concern that may arise when reporting data to a federal agency. Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has increased accessibility to postsecondary education for students with disabilities (SWDs). By 1998, the full range of SWDs (i.e., part-time students and students enrolled in graduate programs) had risen to 10.5% of the postsecondary population (Gajar, 1998). In their recently released report, the National Council on Disability (2000) revealed that as many as 17% of all students attending higher education programs in the United States are now identified as having a disability. The increasing numbers of SWDs has prompted numerous questions regarding access, supports, services, and accommodations as offered within postsecondary education institutions. Postsecondary institutions are required by law to provide educational supports and reasonable accommodations to SWDs to ensure equal access to educational opportunities. However, very little is known about the current practice of providing educational supports/services and accommodations to SWDs in postsecondary educational institutions. This technical report provides an overview or profile of the provision of educational supports and accommodations to SWDs in postsecondary programs across the United States. It is based on an analysis of a national survey conducted by the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports (NCSPES) at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. The structure and content of survey questions were developed to address the following research questions: 1. What are the types and frequency of educational supports offered to SWDs in a range of postsecondary educational settings? 2. How does the type and range of educational supports offered within postsecondary educational settings correspond to the type and level of students disabilities?
3. What technical supports and assistive devices are available to SWDs in postsecondary educational settings, and how do students use and benefit from such technology and related services? 4. Do educational supports transfer from postsecondary educational settings to subsequent workforce settings or employment? A summary description of the method applied to this survey is provided in the preceding Executive Summary. A detailed description of the methodology applied to this study is provided as Appendix B. A copy of the survey used in this study can be found at the end of this technical report as Questionnaire: Sample Survey Instrument.
Description of the Survey Sample Section I addresses data collected in the latter portion of the survey and focused upon demographic information regarding the participating institutions responses to the survey. Section I provides a breakdown of the demographics of the survey sample data, which consisted of approximately 1-1/2 pages of questions. Topics of investigation in Section I include various institutional characteristics, such as distribution of postsecondary institution locale within the community setting, public versus private institutional status, two-year versus four-year institutional status, and overall student enrollment within the institution. Further, a description of the Disability Support Coordinators (DSCs) who responded to the survey is included. These categories of question were established so the research team could examine the distribution of institutional types and compare variables such as, public with private, and two-year with four-year institutions, to see how they might differ when offering supports to SWDs. Further, researchers wanted to determine which types of institution SWDs enrolled in more often, and examine any trends that may exist between the public/private and two-/four-year institutions when offering supports for SWDs. As was mentioned in the Executive Summary, an 8-page survey* was developed around clusters of the following topics:
Institutions capacity to offer specific types of supports or accommodations Number of students who receive specific support by disability type Availability of assistive technologically Outreach programs Funding and specialized staff issues that affect SWDs Written policies Information about the respondent
*Because the survey provided a large comprehensive amount of data, the reader may find it helpful to refer to Appendix B, for a copy of the actual survey instrument used in this study. Familiarizing oneself with the actual survey questions and the format, may make it easier to grasp the range and complexity of the data reported. A. Breakdown of Demographics by Postsecondary Education Programs
1. Identification of Institution by Type: The questionnaire asked respondents to identify their institution by type in the following areas:
o o o
Public or Private, Two-year or four-year, Overall Student enrollment Small: less than 3,000 Medium: 3,000-9,999 Large: 10,000 or more Competitiveness of admission standards: ! Few admission restrictions or requirements ! Moderately demanding ! Among the more demanding ! Very demanding
o o o
o
o
Type of locale of institution: ! Urban ! Suburban ! Rural or small town 2. Overall Demographic Description of Postsecondary Institution Type: When profiling the 650 postsecondary institutional respondents, the following types of institutions responded (remainder were considered missing data for that specific section of the survey).
o
615 respondents were profiled as public or private institutions and two-year or four-year institutions as follows: Public -422 Private-193 Two-year-246 Four-year-369 604 respondents were profiled by size (overall student enrollment) as follows: Small-276 Medium-181 Large-147 619 respondents were profiled by type of locale as follows: Urban-197 Suburban-171
o o o o o o o o o o o
o o
Rural or small town-251 621 respondents were profiled by competitiveness of admission standards as follows: Few restrictions-288 Moderately demanding-192 Among more demanding-95 Very demanding-46 3. Analysis of Data Regarding Institutional Type: The following tables provide a breakdown of data concerning postsecondary institutional types, as each responded to the survey. The focus of this analysis was upon a comparison of public and private institutions and two-year and four-year institutions, regarding institutional size based on overall student enrollment, and the type of locale of the institution. Table 1. Distribution of Public vs. Private Institutions by Overall Student Enrollment Size for 1998-99 Public vs. Private Public Count Small % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Public vs. Private % of Total Count % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within public vs. private % of Total Count Large % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Public vs. Private % of Total 134 48.6% 32.3% 22.2% 144 79.6% 34.7% 23.8% 137 93.2% 33.0% 22.7% Private 142 51.4% 75.1% 23.5% 37 20.4% 19.6% 6.1% 10 6.8% 5.3% 1.7% 276 100.0% 45.7% 45.7% 181 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% 147 100.0% 24.3% 24.3%
o o o o
Institutional Type
Total
Overall Student Enrollment for Medium 1998-1999
Count Total % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Public vs. Private % of Total
415 68.7% 100.0% 68.7%
189 31.3%
604 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 31.3% 100.0%
Discussion: 415 of the respondents were public institutions, 189 were private institutions. 68.7% of the respondents were public postsecondary institutions and 31.32% were private institutions. Large and medium size institutions were mostly public, and small institutions were about equally public and private. Public institutions were equally distributed across enrollment size (small= 32.3%, medium= 34.7%, and large= 33%) whereas small institutions account for 75% of the responding private institutions. Table 2. Distribution of Public and Private Institutions by Type of Locale in the Community Setting
Institutional Type Count % Within Locale Urban % Within Public vs. Private % of Total Count % Within Locale Locale Suburban % Within Public vs. Private
Public vs. Private Public 124 63.3% 29.4% 20.2% 111 64.9% 26.3% Private 72 36.7% 37.5% 11.7% 60 35.1% 31.3%
Total 196 100.0% 31.9% 31.9% 171 100.0% 27.9%
Discussi on: 422 % of Total 18.1% 9.8% 27.9% of responde Count 187 60 247 nts were % Within Locale 75.7% 24.3% 100.0% public Rural or institutio Small Town % Within Public vs. 44.3% 31.3% 40.2% ns, 192 Private were % of Total 30.5% 9.8% 40.2% private institutio ns. 196 Count 422 192 614 were in % Within Locale 68.7% 31.3% 100.0% urban Total areas, % Within Public vs. 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 171 Private suburban % of Total 68.7% 31.3% 100.0% , and 247 in rural areas or small towns. Of the public institutions, 29.4% were urban, 26.3% were suburban, and the largest sector, 44.3%, were rural or small-town institutions. Private institutions were more evenly distributed with 37.5% in urban areas, 31.3% suburban, and 31.3 % in rural or small-town locations. Table 3. Distribution of Two-Year vs. Four-Year Institutions By Overall Student Enrollment Size (Small, Medium, and Large) Institutional Type Two-year vs. Four-year Two-year Four-year Total
Small
Count % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Two-yr vs. Four-yr % of Total Count % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Two-yr vs. Four-yr % of Total Count % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Two-yr vs. Four-yr % of Total Count % Within Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 % Within Two-year vs. Four-year % of Total
113 40.9% 47.1% 18.7% 76 42.0% 31.7% 12.6% 51 34.7% 21.3% 8.4% 240 39.7% 100.0% 39.7%
163 59.1% 44.8% 27.0% 105 58.0% 28.8% 17.4% 96 65.3% 26.4% 15.9% 364 60.3% 100.0% 60.3%
276 100.0% 45.7% 45.7% 181 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% 147 100.0% 24.3% 24.3% 604 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Student Enrollment for Medium 1998-1999
Large
Total
Discussion: 240 of respondents were two-year institutions, 364 were four-year institutions. 39.7% of the respondents from two-year institutions and 60.3% were four-year institutions. 276 were small, 181 were medium, and 147 were large. Of the two-year institutions, 47% were small, 31.7% were medium, and 21.3% were large institutions. Of the four-year institutions, 44.8% were small, 28.8% were medium, and 26.4% were large institutions. Four-year institutions account for 65.3% of large institutions. Table 4. Distribution of Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions by Type of Community Locale Two-year vs. Four-year Total
Two-year Count % Within Locale Urban % Within Two-year 24.8% vs. Four-year % of Total Count % Within Locale Locale Suburban % Within Two-year 27.6% vs. Four-year % of Total Count % Within Locale Rural or Small Town % Within Two-year 47.6% vs. Four-year % of Total Count % Within Locale Total % Within Two-year 100.0% vs. Four-year % of Total 40.1% 19.1% 246 40.1% 11.1% 117 47.4% 9.9% 68 39.8% 61 31.1%
Four-year 135 68.9% 36.7% 22.0% 103 60.2% 28.0% 16.8% 130 52.6% 35.3% 21.2% 368 59.9% 100.0% 59.9% 196 100.0% 31.9% 31.9% 171 100.0% 27.9% 27.9% 247 100.0% 40.2% 40.2% 614 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Discussion: 246 of respondents were at two-year institutions, 368 were at four-year institutions. Of the two-year institutions, 24.8% were in urban locations, 27.6% suburban, and the largest sector, 47.6%, in rural areas or small towns. Of the four-year institutions, 36.7% were in urban areas, 28% suburban, and 35.3% in rural areas or small towns. 4. Summary: The largest sector of institutions responding to the survey can be profiled as small, public, four-year schools, located in a small town/rural area with few admission restrictions. The smallest sector of respondents was profiled as private, two-year, large suburban institutions with moderately demanding admission standards. B. Breakdown of Demographics for Responding Disability Support Coordinators (DSC)
1. Characteristics: A portion of the survey sought to learn about the personal and professional characteristics of DSCs as found in a range of different types of postsecondary educational institutions. Questions asked were as follows: a. How many years have you worked in your present position? b. How many years have you worked in the area of student services in a postsecondary program? c. In what discipline or field did you receive your training? d. What is your highest degree earned? The following tables provide a breakdown of responses to the above questions. Table 5. Number of Years in Present Position as a Disability Support Coordinator (DSC) in Postsecondary Education Frequency Less Than 5 years Five to Ten years Valid Discussi on: Almost Total 625 96.2 100.0 one-half of the Missing .00 25 3.8 respond ents Total 650 100.0 (48.7%) in disability support roles in postsecondary education had been in their present position for less than five years. This figure reflects the "newness" of such roles in postsecondary educational institutions and the extent to which persons move from position to position. More Than Ten years 155 23.8 24.8 100.0 *Percentages in the Percent column are computed based on all 650 respondents including missing records. **Percentages in the Valid Percent column are based on only valid data, not including missing data. 301 169 *Percent 46.3 26.0 **Valid Percent 48.2 27.0 Cumulative Percent 48.2 75.2
*Percentages in the Percent column are computed based on all 650 respondents including missing records. **Percentages in the Valid Percent column are based on only valid data, not including missing data.
Table 6. Number of Years DSCs Worked in Area of Student Services in Postsecondary Education **Valid Percent 24.9 32.5 42.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 24.9 57.4 100.0
Frequency *Percent Valid Less Than 5 years Five to Ten years More Than Ten years Total Missing Total .00 155 202 265 622 28 650 23.8 31.1 40.8 95.7 4.3 100.0
Discussion: 57% of the DSC personnel responding to the survey indicated they had worked in the field less than ten years, supporting the perception of "newness" in this profession.
Table 7. Range of Disciplines or Fields in Which DSCs Received Training and Degree **Valid Percent 28.9 14.2 35.7 5.4 Cumulative Percent 28.9 43.1 78.8 84.2
Frequency *Percent Valid Education Arts and Sciences Counseling/Psychology Vocational/Adult 165 81 204 31 25.4 12.5 31.4 4.8
Related Disability Services Total Missing Total .00
90 571 79 650
13.8 87.8 12.2 100.0
15.8 100.0
100.0
Discussion: The largest portion of DSCs came from the fields of counseling psychology (35.7%), with education being the second field of choice at 28.9%. Given that postsecondary disability support services is not a degreed field of training, personnel appear to have training in closely related fields. *Percentages in the Percent column are computed based on all 650 respondents including missing records. **Percentages in the Valid Percent column are based on only valid data, not including missing data.
Table 8. Highest Degree of Training Earned by DSCs **Valid Percent 1.8 8.6 72.9 16.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.8 10.4 83.3 100.0
Frequency Less Than a Baccalaureate Baccalaureate Valid Masters Doctoral Total Missing Total .00 11 52 442 101 606 44 650
*Percent 1.7 8.0 68.0 15.5 93.2 6.8 100.0
Discussion: 73% of the DSC personnel responding to the survey indicated they possessed up to a masters degree; only 16.7% held doctoral degrees, and 8.6% possessed bachelor degrees.
*Percentages in the Percent column are computed based on all 650 respondents including missing records. **Percentages in the Valid Percent column are based on only valid data, not including missing data.
2. Other Questions of Disability Support Coordinator Sample: Another question asked of respondents was: Prior to your current position, did you have experience as an:
o o
Instructional faculty member Equal opportunity/ADA compliance officer Of the 650 respondents 41% reportedly had instructional or faculty teaching experience before becoming a DSC. 10% reported prior experience as an equal opportunity/ADA compliance officer before becoming a DSC. 3. Summary: The majority of DSCs possesses a masters degree, and has worked in the area of Student Services in a postsecondary program for less than 10 years. Only 15.8% possessed training in related disability services. Examination of the range of disciplines in which DSC personnel have training implies the field is not only new, but lacking of its own discipline.
Frequency and Types of Educational Supports in Postsecondary Programs (Question #1) A. Overall Picture of Frequency and Type of Educational Supports Offered Because very little has been known about the current practice of offering educational supports/services to SWDs at the postsecondary level, Question #1 of the survey was prepared. Thirty-four sub-items were generated for Question #1 with each sub-item referencing a specific type of support. This detailed information was to assist the research team in establishing a national baseline of the frequency and types of educational supports offered to SWDs in postsecondary programs. Question #1 What is the capacity of your institution to offer the following supports or accommodations as needed by students with disabilities?
Question #1 was structured as an ordinal-scale type question, where respondents were to indicate how often their institution offered each of 34 different supports or accommodations. The response options were as follows (See Appendix B for the actual survey text): Frequency of Supports Offering: 0 = not offered, 1 = offered less than 25% of time, 2 = offered 25-50%, 3 = offered 51-75% of time, 4 = offered more than 75% of time. Table 9 provides the percentages for responses to the 34 sub-items delineated within Question 1. Table 9. Frequency of Provision of Specific Types of Educational Supports (Percentages: Based on 650 Respondents) Not Offered Offered Less Than 25% of the Time 9.2% Offered 25% to 50% of the Time 2.9% Offered 51% to 75% of the Time 3.8% Offered More Than 75% of the Time 26.6%
Summer Orientation Programs for SWDs Priority Registration/Course Scheduling Class Relocation Testing Accommodations Disability-Specific Scholarships Disability-Specific Assessment/Evaluation Advocacy Supports for Study Abroad Learning Center Laboratory Special Learning Strategies
57.4%
23.5% 16.0% 4.3% 59.2% 53.7% 9.2% 63.1% 26.6% 12.8%
11.7% 14.8% 3.4% 20.8% 11.5% 6.2% 14.8% 5.1% 10.8%
5.1% 5.7% 1.8% 6.6% 6.5% 5.4% 4.2% 7.8% 15.2%
5.7% 11.1% 6.2% 3.7% 6.8% 10.9% 4.3% 9.7% 15.5%
54.0% 52.5% 84.3% 9.7% 21.5% 68.3% 13.7% 50.8% 45.7%
Developmental/Remedial Instruction Personal Counseling Accessible Transport on Campus Interpreter/Transliterator Note Takers/Scribes/Readers Tutors Real-Time Captioning AT Evaluations for Students Skills Training on Equipment/Software Equipment or Software Provision (Loan/Lease/Purchase) AT Supports Across Campus Adaptive Furniture Document Conversion Communication Skills Study Skills Memory Skills Meta-Cognitive Strategies Organizational and Time Management Skills Self-Advocacy Skills Career/Vocational Assessment and Counseling
27.7% 7.1% 57.4% 19.5% 9.8% 13.7% 70.6% 58.5% 28.5%
9.7% 5.1% 6.2% 11.4% 6.2% 4.9% 8.2% 13.8% 16.2%
7.7% 8.5% 4.5% 5.5% 6.6% 10.9% 3.4% 6.6% 14.6%
8.5% 10.9% 5.1% 6.5% 10.0% 14.5% 3.1% 4.8% 10.5%
46.5% 68.5% 26.9% 57.1% 67.4% 56.0% 14.8% 16.3% 30.3%
34.6%
15.5%
11.5%
12.3%
26.0%
24.5% 22.9% 34.3% 25.8% 9.2% 21.5% 26.6% 10.8% 15.4% 10.5%
12.2% 14.9% 13.8% 15.5% 8.9% 15.8% 15.5% 9.8% 7.5% 5.7%
14.0% 10.9% 10.9% 13.1% 9.7% 13.7% 16.3% 10.9% 12.8% 9.8%
14.8% 15.7% 9.7% 11.1% 13.2% 11.4% 10.2% 15.8% 16.3% 13.1%
34.6% 35.5% 31.2% 34.5% 58.9% 37.5% 31.4% 52.6% 48.0% 60.9%
Work Experience or Work-Study Opportunities Internships/Externships Job Placement Services Facilitate Transfer of Supports to the Work Setting Average Sum of Percentage
14.9% 22.6% 21.1% 54.3%
12.9% 13.5% 10.2% 18.0%
13.1% 12.9% 10.2% 9.4%
14.9% 12.0% 12.6% 5.2%
44.2% 38.9% 46.0% 13.1%
28.46%
11.17%
9.08%
10.00%
41.30%
B. Overview of Findings
o
The supports offered to SWDs most often in postsecondary education settings were testing accommodation (84% responded that they offered that service more than 75% of the time). The more commonly offered educational supports are: (1) note takers (67% indicated that note taking was a support offered more than 75% of the time); (2) personal counseling (69% indicated that counseling was offered more than 75% of the time); (3) advocacy assistance (69% indicated that advocacy assistance was offered more than 75% of the time). By contrast, SWDs indicated through a national focus group project that the type and timing of advocacy assistance was problematicstudents requested more focus on the development of self-advocacy skills rather than focusing upon others providing advocacy and information. Offering of related supports was fairly common across all types of postsecondary institutions: (1) organization skill assistance (61% indicated that organizational skill development activities were offered more than 75% of the time); (2) study skills (59% indicated that study skill assistance or training was offered more than 75% of the time). SWDs through national focus groups indicated organization and time management or coordination of supports within and across their personal, educational, and social life was a major concern not often addressed by related agencies or postsecondary institutions. This is often cited as a reason for dropping out of postsecondary education or for not progressing at a consistent pace with their non-disabled students. Offering of career related supports was fairly common (although it was not determined whether such supports are part of the generic student services or provided by disability support staff): 61% offered career assessment services
o
o
o
more than 75% of the time); 46% offered job placement services more than 75% of the time).
o
Of concern to SWDs was the extent to which supports provided during their educational years would transfer to subsequent work or employment settings (NCSPES, 2000a). Very few disability support personnel indicated that their institution offered such assistance: 54% indicated that they offered such support less than 25% of the time, while 13% indicated they offered this support more than 75% of the time. Disability specific scholarships and study abroad opportunities were rarely offered to SWDs in postsecondary programs. Less than 50% of the responding institutions offered disability specific assessments or evaluations. Real-time captioning was rarely offered in postsecondary educational programs; 71% indicated that they offered real-time captioning less than 25% of the time. Assistive technology evaluations for SWDs were rarely offered in postsecondary programs; close to 60% reported that they offered such a service less than 25% of the time.
o
o
o
o
C. Breakdown by Institutional Type To learn more about the frequency and type of educational supports or accommodations offered in postsecondary institutions, researchers conducted an analysis of data across the 34 items (specific areas of supports) for Question #1 by types of institutional characteristics. The four different analysis were conducted across the 34 items, providing a comparison across (1) public and private institutions, (2) large, medium, and small institutions based on overall student enrollment, (3) two-year and four-year institutions, (4) type of locale based upon urban, suburban, and rural status, and (5) the extent of admission competitiveness for the institutions. Table 10 provides the mean percentages across all 34 support areas surveyed, with a breakout for the five institutional variables described above. This analysis yielded the following findings:
o
Public postsecondary institutions more frequently offer educational supports and accommodations than private schools (32% of public schools vs. 23% of private schools offered overall supports more than 75% of the time).
o
Two-year and four-year postsecondary institutions appear to offer educational supports and accommodations at about the same frequency (42% of both types of institutions offer supports 75% of the time). More detailed analysis of each support area (Appendix A) indicated that some areas of support were provided with much higher frequency in two-year institutions (see discussion below). Larger institutions (based on overall student enrollment) offered educational supports at a much higher frequency than small institutions when looking across all types of supports offered (36% of small institutions vs. 50% of large institutions offered supports more than 75% of the time). When looking at type of locale of the postsecondary institutions, there was little difference in the frequency of overall support provisions. The competitiveness of admission standards for postsecondary institutions does not seem to affect the frequency of overall support provision to SWDs. The overall differences between those institutions with few admission restrictions and those who were very demanding, was only a couple of percentage points. Individual item (specific area of support) analysis for the above institutional characteristic breakouts was also conducted and tables were developed for specific areas of significant difference. Given the large number of tables yielded from this analysis, they have been placed in Appendix A for the interested reader. A brief discussion of each of the areas of support is provided with specific tables. Table 10. Overall Frequency of Provision of Types of Educational Supports or Accommodations by Breakout of Institutional Type: (Public vs. Private, Two-Year vs. Four-Year, Overall Student Enrollment, Type of Locale, and Competitiveness)
o
o
o
Not Institutional Characteristic Offered Public vs. Private Two-year vs. Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Type of Locale Public Private Two-year Four-year Small Medium Large Urban Suburban Rural or Small Town Few Admission Restrictions Moderately Demanding Among the More Demanding Very Demanding 23% 36% 26% 28% 34% 24% 17% 26% 28% 27% 26% 28% 27% 31%
Offered Offered Offered 51% to Less Than 25% to 75% of 50% of 25% of the Time the Time the Time 12% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 15% 16% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 9% 9% 8% 10% 12% 11% 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% 11% 9% 11% 10%
Offered More Than 75% of the Time 32% 23% 42% 42% 36% 44% 50% 44% 41% 42% 42% 42% 43% 41%
Competitiveness
D. Public Versus Private Institutions: Breakout for Specific Items or Types of Supports Overall, public institutions were more likely than private institutions to offer with greater frequency, a specific service or accommodation to SWDs. In the area of assistive technology, institutions, especially in the private sector, are less likely to offer distance-learning opportunities for students who are deaf and blind through such services as accessible on-line student services, TV courses, and Web-based courseware. Assistive technology supports were offered at different levels of frequency when comparing public versus the private sector. For example, 87% of public institutions vs. 55% of private institutions offered assistive technology supports across campus programs (e.g. library, computer lab) (see Tables in Appendix A). Overall, about half of the surveyed public institutions failed to offer assistive technology evaluations for students, and this figure rises to 76% in the private sector. The one area in which private institutions excelled in the frequency of support offerings was supports for study abroad. E. Two-Year Versus Four-Year Institutions Two-year institutions were more likely than four-year institutions to more frequently offer a service or accommodation to SWDs in several specific support areas. When comparing supports within two-year and four-year institutions, twoyear institutions offer supports with a greater frequency in many areas surveyed. Learning center laboratory activities, developmental/remedial instruction, assistive technology and software provision, skills training on equipment/software, and assistive technology supports in programs across campus are more often provided at two-year institutions.
F. Student Enrollment Analysis of data around institutional size (based upon overall student enrollment) indicated that smaller institutions less frequently offered supports to SWDs. Overall student enrollment was defined as follows: small: less than 3,000; medium: 3, 000-9,999; large: 10,000 or more. Small institutions did offer the more common supports such as testing accommodations, developmental/remedial instruction, personal counseling, tutors, and communication skills about as often as medium and large institutions (see Tables in Appendix A). Other than the areas of support mentioned above, there exists a distinct relationship between size of student enrollment and the institutions capacity to offer supports for SWDs: the larger the institution, the more frequently supports were offered. G. Locale of Institution For the most part, locale of an institution (urban, suburban, or rural/small town) did not have much of an influence on the institutions frequency of offering supports or accommodations to SWDs. There was, as always, variation among the groups. Exceptions to the previous statement are as follows: urban institutions did a little better in offering disability-specific assessment/evaluation, interpreters, assistive technology evaluations for students, and provision of equipment or software. Rural or small town institutions did somewhat better at offering services, such as learning center laboratories, developmental/remedial instruction, tutors, and communications skill programs. H. Competitiveness of Institution Across the range of supports and accommodations in the survey, institutions with few admission restrictions tended to offer more supports and accommodations to SWDs. Institutions with very demanding requirements tended to less frequently, offer supports to SWDs. Exceptions to the rule are as follows: very demanding institutions offer slightly better support in the areas of accessible transport on campus, note takers/scribers, and real-time captioning. Student and Support Program Characteristics Introduction Section III addresses the remaining portion of the survey, minus the demographics data covered in Section I. Because Section III covers the bulk of the survey, the reader may again find it helpful to refer to Appendix B, which contains the actual survey instrument. Familiarizing oneself with the actual survey questions, and the format in which they were asked, may make it easier to comprehend the range and amount of data covered in this section. Important areas of study such as the transfer of supports to postsecondary employment settings and to the extent of which institutions conduct community outreach programs are included in this
section. Moreover, the areas of monitoring and evaluating quality and effectiveness of supports for SWDs, written policy, funding issues that may impact an institutions ability to serve SWDs, and the major concerns for disability support coordinators are also topics covered in this section. A. Number of Students Requesting Supports/Services As a part of establishing a baseline of supports requested by, and offered to, SWDs in postsecondary institutions, the research team wanted to know how many requested, SWDs and were deemed qualified to receive, supports and services, and the percentage of those students who actually received such support. Two questions were used to establish this baseline. The first question asked for the number of SWDs within the institution who requested and were deemed qualified for supports and services and other reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (including students with 504 plans). The following table displays the average number of SWDs who requested and qualified for educational supports and services by different types of postsecondary institution. Table 11. Number of SWDs Who Requested and Qualified To Receive Support Services Institutional Characteristic Mean All Institutions 231.05 Public 307.31 Public vs. Private Private 73.80 Two-year 261.31 Two-year vs. Fouryear Four-year 217.19 Small 68.52 Student Enrollment Medium 207.81 for 1998-1999 Large 575.64 Urban 299.24 Locale Suburban 260.07 Rural or Small Town 167.50 Few Admission Restrictions 249.32 Moderately Demanding 224.19 Competitiveness Among the More Demanding 253.46 Very Demanding 171.22 Discussion: The average number of SWDs who requested and qualified to receive educational supports and services across all types of postsecondary education institutions was 231. Public postsecondary institutions enrolled and interacted with significantly more SWDs than private institutions. Overall, two-year institutions, of comparable size, served more SWDs than four-year
institutions. The larger the institution, typically, the greater number of SWDs who requested and qualified to receive educational supports and services. B. Average Percents of SWDs Receiving Supports and Services A second question asked of respondents is as follows: "Approximately what percent of eligible SWDs were offered and received educational supports and services during the past academic year?" The following table shows the average percents of SWDs who were offered and received supports and services at a given type of postsecondary institution: Table 12. Average Percentage of SWDs (As compared with all SWDs Known to the Disability Support Office) Offered and Received Supports/Services During the Past Academic Year by Institutional Type Institutional Characteristic All Institutions Public Public vs. Private Private Two-year vs. Two-year Four-year Student Enrollment Four-year Mean 66.99 69.56 67.23 66.85 70.14
Small 65.64 Medium 70.03 for 1998-1999 Large 73.17 Urban 68.22 Locale Suburban 68.37 Rural or Small Town 69.53 Few Admission Restrictions 67.50 Moderately Demanding 69.93 Competitiveness Among the More Demanding 69.38 Very Demanding 71.35 Discussion: The percentage of SWDs in postsecondary institutions that qualified for and received supports and services across all types of institutions is approximately 67%, or about two-thirds of the population of SWDs known to the institutions disability support offices. Looking at the table above, that number is fairly consistent across all institutional types, with four-year and large-size institutions having a slightly higher average. C. Percentage of Students Served by Disability Type
In an effort to learn more about the characteristics (types of disabilities served) of SWDs receiving services and supports in postsecondary institutions, respondents were asked to identify the percentages of students served by disability type. For example, the types of questions asked in this area, included: what is the general distribution of types of disabilities in the population of SWDs in your institution? Is one type of disability more prevalent than others? Does any particular type of disability align more with a certain type of institution? Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of services/supports provided within a given disability category. The following table displays the percentage of disability categories receiving supports, with breakouts by institutional characteristics. Table 13. Percentage of SWDs Receiving Support by Disability Type
Learning Disability and/or Attention Deficit/ADHD All Institutions Public vs. Private Public Private Two-year Four-year Small Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Medium Large Urban Locale Suburban Rural or Small Town Competitiveness Few Admission Restrictions 14.37 15.87 12.11 15.88 13.90 11.88 16.61 17.01 17.03 14.36 3.99 4.31 3.73 4.12 4.13 4.19 3.99 4.30 4.62 3.19 4.34 4.91 3.58 5.30 3.95 4.05 4.54 4.94 4.70 3.87 7.67 8.31 7.05 7.48 8.21 7.00 8.03 9.51 8.35 7.89 43.38 42.27 50.38 38.57 48.97 43.58 46.40 46.32 40.48 48.04 Mental Health / Emotional / Psychological Disability 7.91 8.80 6.78 9.02 7.60 7.40 8.75 9.05 9.16 8.06
Institutional Characteristic
Blind or Deaf or Multiple Health Visual Hearing Disabilities Impairment Impairment Impairment
Two-year vs. Four-year
13.19
4.38
4.73
7.55
46.37
7.50
16.36
4.15
4.85
7.75
43.19
8.90
Moderately Demanding Among the More Demanding Very Demanding
13.34
4.61
4.52
7.70
46.41
7.41
15.31
3.41
3.62
8.46
46.05
8.25
9.30
3.48
3.76
8.24
46.89
6.43
Table 13. (Continued) Percentage of SWDs Receiving Support by Disability Type Acquired Orthopedic Cognitive Head Disability Speech or Disability Mobility Injury / Without Language (Including Impairment Traumatic Mobility Impairment Mental Brain Impairment Retardation) Injury 6.95 8.23 4.94 8.35 6.43 5.71 8.02 9.11 7.74 7.70 6.46 2.45 2.94 1.61 3.34 1.98 1.62 3.23 3.32 3.47 2.39 1.84 1.23 1.11 1.24 1.19 1.12 .98 1.41 1.24 1.30 1.24 1.00 2.10 2.69 .91 3.28 1.36 1.27 3.22 2.25 1.90 2.61 1.96 2.31 2.64 1.66 2.29 2.37 1.77 2.61 3.12 2.12 2.84 2.17
Institutional Characteristic
All Institutions Public vs. Private Two-year vs. Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Public Private Two-year Four-year Small Medium Large Urban Suburban Locale Rural or Small Town Competitiveness Few Admission Restrictions
8.40
3.03
1.07
3.27
2.60
Moderately Demanding Among the More Demanding Very Demanding
6.43
2.09
1.42
1.18
2.16
5.68
2.29
1.20
1.41
2.24
6.41
1.28
.59
.26
1.57
Discussion: The most frequently reported student by disability type, across all institutions was learning disability and/or attention deficit/ADHD (average of 43% for all institutions), with private and large-size institutions reporting slightly higher averages for this category. Four-year institutions had significantly higher percentages of SWDs with a learning disability and/or attention deficit disorder than two-year institutions. The category of multiple disabilities came in a distant second with an average of 14% across all institutions, with large and urban institutions having slightly more than the average for this category. Public and two-year institutions had significantly more students with a cognitive disability than private and four-year institutions. Public institutions reported significantly more students with a cognitive disability and orthopedic disability without mobility impairment than private institutions. The more competitive (based on admission requirements) institutions had a lower than average percentage of SWDs receiving supports, with the exception of students in the categories of learning disabilities and health impairment disabilities. It is interesting to note that students with hidden disabilities, including learning disabilities, and health impairments were approximately 50% of SWDs served in postsecondary programs. It should be mentioned that the reported information about SWDs represents only those students who receive support and who have identified themselves to their institution as having a disability, as they are the only students whom the institutions had data to report. A category of "Other" was included in the questionnaire, with little or no response. D. Institutional Organization of Support Services Researchers wanted to know how institutions approached and organized the provision of supports and accommodations for SWDs within their campus. Respondents chose from one of the five categories provided in the table below to indicate the organizational structure and approach used to deliver disability supports and services. Table 13 displays the percentage for different responses for the survey sample (650 respondents). Table 14. How is Your Institution Organized to Provide Reasonable Accommodations and Support on Services for SWDs?
Discussi on: The most 45.4% 16.6% 9.4% 37.8% 14.9% commo n method of organization for disability support provision was a separate, centralized unit serving only SWDs (45.4%). The next most common means of providing services was through a similar unit that provided services to all other students (i.e., office of general student services) (37.8%). The "other" category was made up of responses that were a combination of two or more of the categories offered (e.g. separate, decentralized units serving SWDs only). E. Screening Services Do postsecondary institutions offer any kind of screening services for students with learning disabilities? Respondents were asked whether or not their institution offered screening services or assistance to students to determine if they had specific learning disabilities (previously undiagnosed). The following table shows the average percentage of "yes" responses by institution type. Table 15. Are Screening Services Offered by Institution Type?
Separate, Centralized Unit Serving SWDs Only
Separate, Centralized Unit Serving all Persons with Disabilities on Campus (Faculty, Staff, and Students)
Decentralized Services within Academic Departments / Units
SWDs Receive Services From the Same Units as all Other Students
Other
Institutional Characteristic All Institutions Public Public vs. Private Private Two-year vs. Two-year Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Four-year
Screen Services Offered to Determine a Specific Learning Disability 37.3% 43.4% 28.0% 35.8% 40.4% 27.4% 38.3% 59.5% 46.7% 39.2% 31.5% 34.5% 39.1% 50.5% 37.0%
Small Medium Large Urban Locale Suburban Rural or Small Town Few Admission Restrictions Moderately Demanding Competitiveness Among the More Demanding Very Demanding
Discussi on: Approximately 1/3 of the responding institutions indicated they offered a screening service for students (37%). Public institutions (43%) offer a screening service significantly more often than private institutions (28%). The larger the institution the more likely it would offer a screening service. Urban and the more demanding postsecondary institutions were more likely to offer screening services than their counterparts. F. Distance Learning Access for Students Who are Deaf or Blind The research team wanted to determine if the population of SWDs who are deaf or blind had access to current technological advances and benefits within their postsecondary institution. The question asked was: "Does your institution offer access to distance learning opportunities for the deaf and blind population?" The following table shows the average percentage of "Yes" responses for different institutional type for each type of service:
Table 16. Distance Learning Access by Institution Type for Deaf or Blind Students On-line On-line Accessible TV Accessible Institutional Characteristic Library Student Courses (e.g., Web-based Services Services Captioning, Courseware
(e.g., Registration) All Institutions Public Public vs. private Private Two-year vs. Two-year Four-year Student Enrollment for 19981999 Four-year Small Medium Large 47.8% 56.2% 34.2% 48.0% 50.1% 34.7% 51.9% 74.3% 55.3% 43.9% 49.0% 50.5% 49.5% 44.2% 54.3% 33.5% 40.8% 21.8% 29.7% 38.2% 21.3% 36.1% 60.1% 41.6% 31.0% 31.5% 29.2% 39.6% 41.1% 37.0%
Descriptive Narration) 20.3% 26.3% 9.8% 26.4% 17.6% 12.3% 21.3% 36.5% 22.3% 21.6% 19.5% 25.0% 16.7% 18.9% 17.4% 34.2% 41.5% 21.8% 41.5% 31.2% 28.2% 39.3% 45.9% 34.5% 33.3% 37.5% 39.9% 30.7% 30.5% 37.0%
Urban Suburban Locale Rural or Small Town Few Admission Restrictions Moderately CompetitiveDemanding ness Among the More Demanding Very Demanding
Discussion: The responding institutions offered on-line library services less than half the time (47.8%) for students with deafness or blindness. On-line student services (e.g. registration) were offered at one-third of the institutions (33.5%). Accessible TV courses were offered at 20% of the institutions, and accessible web-based courseware was offered at 34% of the institutions. More public institutions offered slightly more such services in every category when compared with private institutions. Four-year institutions offered on-line library and student services when compared with two-year institutions, and more two-year institutions offered accessible TV courses and web-based courseware when compared with four-year institutions. More larger institutions offered more distance learning services. No trend was detected when comparing locale or competitiveness of institution. G. Facilitation of Student Linkages with Other Community Resources Beyond providing supports and services to address the educational needs of SWDs on campus, postsecondary institutions are expected to assist in connecting students with other community resources. One of the key study questions of the survey focused on whether postsecondary institutions had reached out to other community resources that provide supports to people with disabilities. If they had provided outreach services, each respondent was asked to indicate the types of resources or agencies. The following table provides the average percentage, by
institutional type, for those respondents who answered, "Yes" to the following question: Does your institution facilitate, as needed, a students linkages with other community resources (such as vocational rehabilitation, transportation to/from campus)? (See Appendix B for further description of this question.) Table 17. Facilitation of Students Linkages with Other Community Resources Facilitate Students Linkages Institutional Characteristic with Other Community Resources All Institutions 74.9% Public 84.4% Public vs. Private Private 62.7% Two-year vs. Two-year 88.2% 70.5% Four-year Four-year Small 71.1% Student Enrollment for Medium 79.8% 1998-1999 Large 87.2% Urban 75.1% Locale Suburban 72.5% Rural or Small Town 82.9% Few Admission Restrictions 84.7% Moderately Demanding 74.5% Competitiveness Among the More 68.4% Demanding Very Demanding 65.2% Discussion: Nearly 75% of the surveyed postsecondary institutions provided services and facilitating linkages with other community resources. Public institutions offered significantly more support in this area than private institutions. Two-year institutions facilitated these relationships more often than four-year institutions. The larger the institution the more often this type of support was offered. Rural or small-town institutions and those institutions with few admissions restrictions facilitated connections to community resources more often than other types of postsecondary institutions.
The following table addresses the type and frequency of outreach programs offered to SWDs. The table shows the average percentageby institutional program typethat responded "Yes" to the following question: Has your program conducted outreach, with activities and/or materials, to any of the following: Table 18.
Percentage of Outreach Services Offered by Institutional Type
Institutional Characteristic
High State School Special Other Parent / Consumer Federal Businesses/ Vocational Counselors Education Rehabilitation Family /Advocacy Other Programs Employers Rehabilitation or Teachers Professionals Organizations Groups Transition Personnel Coordinator 70.3% 86.3% 43.5% 87.4% 63.1% 54.5% 84.2% 93.9% 69.0% 58.2% 72.7% 33.2% 76.8% 49.3% 45.1% 69.4% 77.0% 57.9% 72.3% 87.9% 46.1% 87.4% 66.4% 59.2% 83.6% 93.9% 75.1% 59.1% 73.0% 34.2% 76.0% 50.7% 48.4% 66.7% 79.1% 65.5% 36.6% 48.8% 14.5% 50.0% 30.1% 24.5% 44.3% 56.1% 41.1% 32.5% 40.8% 18.1% 45.1% 26.0% 25.6% 35.5% 44.6% 39.6% 45.5% 52.1% 34.7% 51.2% 43.6% 36.5% 52.5% 60.8% 48.7% 40.2% 49.5% 23.8% 45.9% 38.5% 26.0% 51.9% 59.5% 47.2% 6.2% 7.3% 3.6% 6.9% 5.7% 5.4% 4.4% 10.1% 8.6%
All institutions Public vs. Private Public Private
Two-year vs. Two-year Four-year Student Enrollment for 19981999 Four-year Small Medium Large Urban
Discussi Suburban 72.5% 55.0% 70.2% 55.0% 33.3% 30.4% 46.8% 43.9% 3.5% on: Locale TwoRural or Small 76.5% 65.3% 78.1% 61.8% 39.0% 31.5% 45.8% 35.9% 6.0% thirds of Town the Few sampled 83.7% 72.6% 86.8% 71.9% 44.8% 36.5% 47.2% 43.1% 7.3% Admission institutio Restrictions ns Moderately 67.7% 56.8% 70.3% 54.7% 34.4% 33.9% 50.5% 43.8% 5.7% indicate Demanding Competitived that ness they Among the More 64.2% 47.4% 62.1% 52.6% 31.6% 30.5% 45.3% 38.9% 5.3% reached Demanding out to people Very 43.5% 23.9% 45.7% 37.0% 26.1% 23.9% 32.6% 30.4% 4.3% Demanding and program s such as high school counselors, special education teachers, and state vocational and other rehabilitation professionals. Only one-third of the respondents indicated they had interacted with federal programs, and business/employers. Less than one-half indicated outreach to parent/family organizations and consumer/advocacy groups. When comparing different types of institutions:
Public institutions and two-year institutions offered more outreach programs to every type of community resource surveyed than their counterparts (private institutions and four-year institutions). The larger the school, the more outreach linkage was offered to SWDs. The lesser the competitiveness of the school, the more outreach linkage was offered to SWDs. An implication for SWDs is that they will receive more outreach support in a large public two-year institution that is not competitive in admission practice.
H. Negotiated Agreements and/or Interagency Agreements with Vocational Rehabilitation Further investigation of program outreach was conducted by asking respondents if they had obtained negotiated interagency agreements with vocational rehabilitation or other agencies in support of SWDs. The following table shows, by institutional type, the average percentage of "Yes" responses to the above question: Table 19. Negotiated Agreements by Institutional Type Institutional Characteristic All Institutions Public vs. Private Two-year vs. Four-year Student enrollment for 19981999 Public Private Two-year Four-year Small Medium Large Urban Suburban Rural or small town Negotiated Agreements for Serving SWDs 48.8% 55.9% 38.3% 59.3% 44.4% 48.4% 47.5% 57.4% 52.8% 43.3% 53.0%
Discussi on: Across the Locale sample, less than half the Few admission restrictions 55.9% institutio Moderately demanding 48.4% Competitiveness ns Among the more demanding 36.8% establish Very demanding 50.0% ed and maintain ed negotiated interagency agreements with vocational rehabilitation and/or other agencies to serve SWDs. Public and two-year institutions facilitated significantly more agreements than their counterparts. Also, institutions with few admission restrictions were more likely to have negotiated agreements in place than other institutions. I. Faculty/Staff Aid in Working with SWDs Researchers wanted to determine the types, and extent, of support offered to faculty and staff teaching SWDs at their institutions. Respondents were asked, "Which of the following types of material or activity, if any, are offered for
faculty/staff when working with SWDs?" The following table shows the average percentage of "Yes" responses by institutional type:
Table 20. Faculty/Staff Aid in Working with SWDs Frequent Information Annual Faculty/Staff Workshops Consultations Institutional Characteristic Mailings to Handbook &/or with faculty Faculty/Staff Products Presentations All Institutions Public vs. Private Two-year vs. Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Public Private Two-year Four-year Small Medium Large Urban Suburban Rural or Small Town Few Admission Restrictions Moderately Demanding Competitiveness Among the More Demanding Very Demanding Locale 59.7% 67.5% 49.2% 63.8% 60.4% 50.9% 67.8% 76.4% 60.9% 67.3% 59.0% 50.3% 53.8% 48.2% 49.2% 53.9% 42.2% 56.3% 66.2% 49.7% 59.1% 49.4% 51.7% 60.4% 38.3% 61.0% 48.5% 38.3% 63.9% 70.3% 61.9% 50.3% 49.8% 89.7% 96.0% 86.5% 92.3% 93.5% 87.4% 97.8% 98.6% 90.4% 94.7% 94.0% 64.9% 71.6% 57.5% 73.2% 63.1% 58.5% 75.4% 74.3% 67.5% 66.7% 67.7%
61.5% 64.6% 57.9% 60.9%
50.3% 56.8% 50.5% 47.8%
60.1% 51.6% 45.3% 39.1%
93.8% 93.2% 92.6% 89.1%
71.5% 64.1% 64.2% 60.9%
Discussion: More than half of the responding institutions offered supports and materials for faculty/staff working with SWDs across the five types of aids surveyed. Public institutions offered significantly more aid and support to faculty than private institutions in all areas. Two-year and four-year institutions are about equal in all areas, except for frequent workshops and/or presentations, where twoyear institutions offer significantly more assistance. In general, the larger the school, the more aid offered to faculty/staff. The consultation model is far above the most frequently provided support with faculty at 89.7%. J. Monitoring and Evaluating Quality and Effectiveness of Services for SWDs Researchers wanted to know if postsecondary institutions monitor the quality and effectiveness of supports and services offered for SWDs, and if they do, how that monitoring is completed. Respondents were provided a number of methods to choose from and asked to respond regarding the specific method. The following table shows the average percentage of "Yes" responses for a given institutional type by category of monitoring method: Table 21.
Counts Faculty Alumni Student Student Student Faculty Job of Evaluation FollowInstitutional Characteristic Satisfaction Retention Graduation Satisfaction Placement Services of up Survey Rate Rate Survey Rate Provided Workshops Surveys All Institutions Public vs. Private Two-year vs. four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Public Private Two-year Four-year Small Medium Large Urban Suburban Locale Rural or Small Town 71.8% 81.5% 59.1% 75.2% 74.0% 63.5% 84.2% 84.5% 72.1% 80.1% 72.9% 55.8% 65.4% 43.5% 65.9% 53.7% 52.3% 56.8% 70.9% 64.0% 52.6% 57.8% 58.0% 61.1% 57.0% 65.0% 56.4% 62.8% 54.6% 60.8% 55.8% 60.8% 62.9% 58.3% 61.4% 58.0% 62.6% 58.8% 63.5% 54.6% 61.5% 57.9% 56.7% 65.3% 21.8% 26.3% 14.5% 26.8% 19.8% 18.1% 21.3% 31.8% 26.9% 14.6% 24.7% 31.5% 38.2% 21.2% 42.3% 26.6% 26.4% 34.4% 43.2% 34.5% 31.0% 33.5% 18.2% 19.4% 17.6% 28.0% 12.7% 24.9% 12.6% 14.2% 17.8% 16.4% 21.5% 20.5% 21.8% 19.7% 30.5% 14.9% 23.8% 16.9% 21.6% 21.8% 17.5% 23.9%
Few Admission 77.8% Restrictions Competitiveness Moderately 70.8% Demanding Among the More 74.7% Demanding Very 67.4% Demanding
59.7% 61.5% 55.8% 41.3%
61.8% 57.3% 68.4% 43.5%
60.1% 57.3% 69.5% 58.7%
24.0% 24.5% 22.1% 8.7%
37.2% 30.7% 31.6% 19.6%
20.8% 20.8% 14.7% 8.7%
23.6% 22.4% 18.9% 8.7%
Monitoring and Evaluating Quality and Effectiveness of Services for SWDs Discussion: Across all respondents, the method of "counting services" was the most popular form of documenting or monitoring supports and services provided to SWDs. Student satisfaction surveys, student retention rates, and student graduation rates were more popular as a means of documentation than faculty satisfaction surveys, faculty evaluation of workshops, job placement rates, and alumni follow-up surveys. Public and two-year institutions focused on documenting and monitoring their activities more often than counterparts across all areas surveyed. K. Transfer of Supports to Postgraduate Employment Settings A smoother transition from postsecondary institution to subsequent work settings could occur for SWDs if the transfer of educational supports to the work setting were a common practice in postsecondary education. According to SWDs participating in a series of national focus groups, such an effort "could well make the difference in deciding to attend postsecondary institution and obtaining successful employment." A question within the survey asked if postsecondary programs coordinated or facilitated the transfer of educational supports for SWDs to their postgraduate employment settings. Respondents were asked, "Has your program attempted to coordinate the transfer of educational supports for students to their post-graduate employment setting?" The following table shows the percentage of "Yes" responses by institutional type: Table 22. Transfer of Supports to Postgraduate Employment Settings Coordinate the Transfer of Effective Institutional Characteristic Supports for Students to Their Postgraduate Employment Setting All Institutions 26.8% Public 28.7% Public vs. Private Private 23.8% Two-year vs. Two-year 28.0% Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Four-year Small Medium 26.6% 22.7% 30.6%
Large 31.8% Urban 35.5% Locale Suburban 23.4% Rural or small town 23.5% Few admissions 25.3% restrictions Moderately demanding 26.0% Competitiveness Among the more 36.8% demanding Very demanding 26.1% Discussion: Only about 1 in 4 institutions facilitated transfer of supports to subsequent work settings, with all institutional types reporting equally poor results for this item. Urban institutions and those with more demanding admission requirements offered more services concerning the transfer of supports than other institutional types. This low positive response indicates a need for increased efforts in this area. L. Affect of Lack of Resources The research team wanted to obtain the extent lack of resources affected an institutions ability to serve SWDs. The first question dealt with funding issues, and respondents were given four options from which to choose. The following table shows the average response percentage, by institutional type, to the following question: "To what extent does lack of funding affect your units ability to serve or support SWDs?"
Table 23. Lack of Funding Institutional Characteristic All Institutions Public Public vs. Private Private Two-year vs. Two-year Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Locale Four-year Small Medium Large Urban No Lack of Funding 9.7% 8.4% 12.5% 9.1% 10.1% 10.2% 8.4% 10.8% 10.9% Very Little Effect 21.6% 22.8% 18.8% 23.0% 20.5% 22.5% 21.2% 21.6% 19.7% A A Great Moderate Deal Extent 38.3% 30.4% 40.3% 28.5% 34.4% 34.4% 37.4% 30.5% 39.1% 32.0% 39.7% 45.9% 39.9% 30.3% 35.3% 30.7% 21.6% 29.5%
Suburban 11.8% 22.9% 36.5% 28.8% Rural or Small Town 7.2% 22.5% 38.6% 31.7% Few Admission 7.1% 20.1% 39.6% 33.2% Restrictions Moderately Demanding 8.4% 22.6% 36.3% 32.6% Competitiveness Among the More 14.7% 20.0% 44.2% 21.1% Demanding Very Demanding 20.0% 31.1% 26.7% 22.2% Discussion: About two-thirds, or 69%, of all institutions reported that lack of funding impacts moderately or a great deal, the supports and services provided by their unit. Public and private institutions reported lack of funding as having an affect on their units activities about equally, even though public institutions offer more services and supports to SWDs. A similar phenomenon occurs between two-year and four-year institutions. Although lack of funding is perceived to affect their delivery of supports and services about equally, two-year institutions tend to offer more supports and services to SWDs than four-year institutions. The more competitive institutions reported that a lack of funding had somewhat less of an impact on their ability to provide services and supports to SWDs. The second question addressed staffing resources by asking the respondent, "To what extent does a lack of staff with specialized skills affect your unit?" The following table shows the average percentage, by institutional type, of responses for each category: Table 24. Lack of Specialized Staff
No Lack of Very Little A Moderate A Great Specialized Effect Extent Deal Staff All Institutions 11.3% 26.3% 40.2% 22.1% Public 13.2% 24.5% 41.5% 20.9% Public vs. Private Private 6.3% 30.9% 37.7% 25.1% Two-year 9.9% 27.2% 41.2% 21.8% Two-year vs. Four-year Four-year 11.8% 26.0% 39.7% 22.5% Small 7.0% 32.6% 34.4% 26.0% Student Enrollment for Medium 11.0% 22.1% 43.1% 23.8% 1998-1999 Large 18.2% 21.6% 45.3% 14.9% Discussi Urban 13.8% 25.1% 41.0% 20.0% on: Suburban 14.7% 26.5% 38.2% 20.6% Approxi Locale mately Rural or Small 6.5% 27.9% 40.5% 25.1% twoTown thirds, or Few Admission 10.9% 26.1% 40.1% 22.9% 62%, of Restrictions all Moderately 8.4% 26.3% 38.9% 26.3% institutio Demanding Competitiveness ns Among the More reported 16.0% 27.7% 41.5% 14.9% Demanding lack of Very Demanding 13.3% 28.9% 42.2% 15.6% specializ ed staff had a moderate to significant impact on their unit. Moreover, the same phenomenon that occurred with lack of funding also applies here: public/private and two-year/four-year institutions all reported lack of specialized staff affecting them about equally, yet public and twoyear institutions offer more supports and services than their counterparts. Once again, the more competitive institutions reported that lack of staffing had less of an effect on their ability to serve or support SWDs. M. Complaints from External, Non-University Sources Institutional Characteristic In an effort to discern how often complaints were lodged against institutions for failing to provide adequate services to SWDs, respondents were asked if their office/program had any complaints from external, non-university sources, and if there were complaints, from what types of agencies. Respondents were given a list of categories to choose from. The following table shows the average percentage of "Yes" responses by institutional type for each type of complaint:
Table 25. Complaints from External, Non-University Sources
Institutional Characteristic All Institutions Public Public vs. Private Private Two-year vs. Two-year Four-year Student Enrollment for 1998-1999 Four-year
Any Complaints 19.0% 23.2% 13.0% 18.7% 20.9% 13.0% 16.9% 37.2% 24.4% 15.2% 19.1%
Other Office of EEOC State Civil Agency Court Rights 17.4% 23.0% 8.3% 14.2% 21.1% 3.7% 3.8% 3.6% 1.2% 5.4% 4.5% 5.2% 3.1% 4.9% 4.3% 3.5% 3.3% 4.7% 1.2% 5.4% 1.4% 2.7% 8.8% 5.6% 4.1% 2.0% 5.4% 6.9% 2.1% 4.5% 6.0% 2.2% 8.2% 8.1% 7.1% 4.1% 4.8%
Small Medium Large Urban Suburban Locale Rural or Small Town Few Admission Restrictions Moderately Demanding Competitiveness Among the More Demanding Very Demanding
Di...