 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Identifying
the Technical Assistance Needs of
Community Based Rehabilitation Centers Serving
Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
Steven E. Boone, Ph.D Douglas
Watson, Ph.D.
University
of Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for
Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing
This research and publication
was conducted by faculty of the University of Arkansas Research
and Training Center for Persons who are Deaf or hard of Hearing,
which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research of the U.S. department of Education under grant number
H133B6002. The opinions contained in this publication are those
of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the University
of Arkansas or U.S. Department of Education.
Abstract
This paper presents the preliminary
results of a national assessment of the technical assistance needs
of community based rehabilitation centers (CBRC's) that serve persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing. Completed during 1998, the project
was conducted in order to identify and prioritize the types of resources,
support and assistance required to enhance the services delivered
by community-based agencies to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.
This paper overviews the study and its results. Content areas for
technical assistance and as well as preferred strategies to obtain
this assistance are discussed.
Persons who are deaf
or hard of hearing receive postsecondary education and rehabilitation
services to enhance employment from many entities. Often, these
entities lack the specialized expertise to face the challenges posed
by these individuals. They require technical assistance to orient
their services to the unique needs and communication accommodations
needed to provide these services. In response to this need, the
Federal government has funded a number of agencies and initiatives
to assist these programs.
Most recently, the Federal
government funded four regional postsecondary education technical
assistance centers. These Centers, collectively identified as PEPNet,
were mandated to assess the technical assistance needs of the nations
postsecondary training programs, including colleges and other programs
that assist deaf or hard of hearing individuals to enhance their
employability.
As part of the PEPNet
mission, a national needs assessment was conducted to identify and
assess the technical assistance needs of the nation's two and four
year college programs (Hopkins & Walter, 1998). They surveyed
10,391 postsecondary institutions listed on the 1995-96 Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) taken from the National
Center for Educational Statistics. The study verified earlier estimates
that approximately 20,000 deaf and hard of hearing students are
enrolled in two and four year colleges in the United States.
Focused on students enrolled
at two and four year colleges, the findings were targeted to the
more academically capable segment of the deaf and hard of hearing
student populations. The study did not include any special effort
to survey community-based rehabilitation and career training programs
-- not listed in the IPEDS database -- that nevertheless serve significant
numbers of the nation's less academically qualified deaf and hard
of hearing students.
Prior postsecondary enrollment
projections, prepared by the Career Development Educational Outreach
Consortium, a consortium of six federally funded postsecondary programs
for deaf students, estimated that each year approximately 7,800
hearing-impaired individuals graduate or leave secondary schools
in the U.S. (See Table One). These individuals can be functionally
divided into three groups with varying needs for services. The lowest
functioning group, those reading below the second grade level, number
about 2,000 per year, are considered prime candidates for career
and vocational training programs best provided by "Comprehensive
Community-Based Rehabilitation Centers" (CBRC). The middle group,
numbering perhaps 3,500 students who read between the 2-4th grade
level are usually not prime candidates for college but are considered
able to benefit from vocational training in CBRC programs or in
non-college proprietary training programs. The top 2,130 of these
7,800 students, those reading between grades 4-12 with an overall
grade achievement of 6-12, are considered to possess the skills
to benefit from postsecondary support services in colleges and universities
that offer special programs for deaf students (Watson, 1998).
Table One
Secondary School Leavers
(n=7,800 annually)
Services
Needed
Postsecondary
Colleges
Vocational
Training
Comprehensive
Number of School Leavers
2300
3500
2000
Overall Grade Achievement
6-12
4-8
2-4
Reading Grade Achievement
4-12
2-4
0-2
Service Providers
Gallaudet, NTID,
RPEPD*, 150+ Colleges
VR
Private Sources
Physical Capacity for New Students/Clients
2500
<3500
300
New Student/Client Demand
2500
>5000
>2000
Human Resources Capacity for
New Students/Clients
2300
<3500
<50
Source: Watson, 1998 reference to data
generated by Career Development Outreach Consortium, 1989.
* RPEPD: Regional Postsecondary
Education Programs for Deaf Students
PEPNet program personnel
recognized the fact that there is a parallel need to conduct a similar
needs assessment for the community-based rehabilitation programs
that provide career training services to enhance employment of persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing. To address this need, they invited
leading CBRC's in deafness and the University of Arkansas RRTC for
Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (RT-31) to a series of program
review meetings with federal staff at OSERS in order to determine
how to best survey the needs of community-based training programs
serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing. This paper provides
an overview of this study and its preliminary results.
The RT-31 National Survey
of Community-Based Rehabilitation
Centers
In the Spring of 1998,
in collaboration with PEPNet, RT-31 initiated a study in response
to the federally identified need to identify, prioritize and offer
technical assistance to community-based rehabilitation programs
that serve deaf and hard of hearing persons. In order to meet the
long range goal of designing a National Technical Assistance Network
for Community-based Programs, the project focused on three key goals:
- To Identify and Describe Participants
in the Network;
- To Identify and Prioritize Needs
for Assistance; and
- To Identify The Desired Types
of Assistance.
The impetus of the RT-31 study came
from limitations in the needs assessment conducted by PEPNet (Hopkins
& Walter, 1998). By design, the PEPNet study focused on two
and four-year colleges and other non-degree postsecondary training
programs. Thus, the results did not focus the nations needs on community-based
programs that serve deaf and hard of hearing persons who are not
college-bound, the majority of the deaf and hard of hearing population.
The RT-31 study surveyed these community based programs using parallel
questionnaires to complete the picture of technical assistance needs
for the population.
METHOD
Questionnaire.
A four page questionnaire was developed based upon the PEPNet College
Survey format. Questions were worded to be parallel to the PEPNet
survey, with changes made to fit issues relevant to community-based
as opposed to college programs. Items included multiple questions
regarding the level of services provided to persons who are deaf
and hard of hearing, the number and populations of persons served,
the outcomes of these services, the types of assistance desired,
and preferred strategies to obtain this assistance.
Sample. The sample
was identified from prior RT-31 research (Scherich, McGee, Watson,
& Geyer, 1995). In this study, a national list of programs were
compiled from multiple sources and sent to state rehabilitation
and commissions for the deaf or hard of hearing in each state. These
agencies were asked to review the list and add or subtract community
programs that provided services to deaf or hard of hearing persons.
For this needs assessment, these programs were again traced resulting
in a total of 969 programs. The programs were geographically distributed
across the United States. Figure One shows the geographical distribution
of responding programs across the four PEPNet regions.
Procedures. A
cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and the questionnaire
was mailed to all programs. Four mailings resulted in responses
from 452 programs, for an overall response rate of 46.6%. Geographically,
these programs can be divided into parallel regions as those of
PEPNet. As may be seen in Table Two, the response rate as well as
the geographical distributions are comparable to results obtained
in the PEPNet college survey. Data from the returned questionnaires
were coded, error screened and prepared for data analysis using
appropriate statistical procedures.
Table Two Response
Rate Comparisons
Region
PEPNet Survey
of College Programs1
RT-31 Survey
of Community Programs
N
Percent
N
Percent
Northeast (NETAC)
1068
23
129
28.5
Midwest (MCPO)
1065
23
129
28.5
South (PEC)
1275
27
113
25
West (WROCC)
1286
27
81
17.9
Total Responses
4694
45
459
46.6
1Source: Hopkins & Walters,
1998
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Populations Served
A total of 429 programs
reported serving an average of 1872.31 (SD=7512) consumers. Of these
programs, 395 programs provided information regarding the consumers
that they served. The majority of these programs (386, 97.7 %) serve
or plan to serve persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Only 9
programs (2.3 %) indicated they have no current plans to serve these
persons.
Most programs served
persons with a wide variety of hearing losses. As may be seen in
Table Three, the programs served significant number of persons with
hearing loss, averaging 528.6 (SD=2187.4) persons. As may be seen
in Table Three, the programs primarily served deaf consumers followed
by those who identified themselves as hard of hearing. As expected,
fewer numbers of persons were served from subgroups of the population
of persons with hearing loss.
Table Three Number
of Persons Served by Type of Hearing Loss
Type of Loss
Mean
SD
Deaf
238.7
1122.2
Late Deafened
27.9
148.9
Hard of Hearing
174.7
899.1
Deaf-Blind
11.4
62.3
Low Functioning Deaf
36.9
198.8
Other
47.5
533.7
Service Information
Data regarding the services
delivered during 1998 is provided in Figure Two. As may be seen
in the Figure, almost 80% of those identified were receiving ongoing
services (39.5%) or had completed their program (37.3%). A substantial
number of persons (20%) had been referred to other program for services.
Very few individuals had been terminated from the program (2.2%)
or had their program interrupted (.9%).
A substantial percent
(19.1%) of those served received employment related services. These
services led to the employment outcomes depicted in Figure Three.
These outcomes indicate a high degree of success in employment,
with over 60% of the sample becoming employed. Employment outcomes
were in competitive settings (39.7%), supported settings (13.7%),
or sheltered settings (10.9%).
Another 20% were seeking
employment. Less that 17 percent of the overall group were not employed
and not seeking employment. These findings argue for the success
of these programs in producing employment outcomes.
Technical Assistance
Needs
What are the technical
assistance needs of these programs. As may be seen in Table Four,
programs expressed needs in virtually all areas. High priority needs
revolved around resources to assist consumers and to promote access
to the programs. More medium priority needs were in the area of
staff development. Lower priority needs could be categorized as
program/staff management.
Table Four Technical
Assistance Needs
Would like assistance with:
Mean
SD
N
Strategies to Obtain Funding
to Operate Program (Grant Writing)
3.89
1.30
350
Strategies to Improve Services
3.83
1.12
353
Self-advocacy Training for
Deaf & Hard of Hearing Individuals
3.66
1.25
350
Strategies to Recruit Deaf
and HOH Consumers
3.46
1.31
350
Technology to Facilitate Accessibility
(ALDS, Realtime Speech to Text, Etc)
3.46
1.27
340
Resource Materials for Employer
Development
3.44
1.41
337
Mentoring Programs Matching
Persons Who Are Deaf or HOH with Adult Peers
3.44
1.30
339
Technology to Facilitate Learning
(Distance Learning, Computers, Educational Media)
3.43
1.25
341
Resource Materials for Workplace
Literacy Skills
3.40
1.42
340
Resource Materials for Problem
Solving
3.39
1.35
342
Training Staff to Work with
Deaf and Hard of Hearing People
3.38
1.29
350
Strategies to Retain Deaf and
HOH Consumers
3.37
1.35
344
Resource Materials for Job
Maintenance/advancement
3.35
1.36
338
Resource Materials for Job
Accommodations
3.35
1.33
343
Developing Communication Instruction/strategies
for Staff
3.33
1.30
343
Resource Materials for Assessment
of Basic Skills and Individualized Planning
3.33
1.34
339
Program Management (Computers,
Etc)
3.32
1.25
339
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Interpreters
3.32
1.47
346
Resource Materials for Work
Experience and Placement
3.28
1.40
337
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Interpreters
3.28
1.49
341
Strategies to Recruit Deaf
and Hard of Hearing Staff
3.23
1.32
346
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Counselors
3.19
1.40
342
Working in Partnership with
VR Counselors
3.19
1.26
346
Laws Related to Disability
and Service Delivery
3.18
1.39
343
Program & Facility Access
for Deaf and HOH Individuals
3.10
1.31
339
Resource Materials for Job
Interviewing
3.08
1.40
336
Strategies to Retain Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Staff
3.03
1.35
343
Financial Aid for Tuition,
Fees, Etc
3.02
1.49
340
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Assistive Technology Specialists
2.96
1.33
333
Resource Materials for Resume
Writing
2.95
1.39
336
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Counselors
2.91
1.34
340
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Assistive Technology Specialists
2.79
1.26
336
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Captioners/CART Reporters
2.70
1.33
339
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Rehabilitation Instructors
2.58
1.38
333
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Captioners/CART Reporters
2.57
1.35
333
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Rehabilitation Instructors
2.45
1.30
336
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Tutors
2.43
1.32
326
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Tutors
2.43
1.26
334
Recruiting, Scheduling &/or
Evaluating Notetakers
2.37
1.26
336
Professional Enhancement Workshops
for Notetakers
2.31
1.25
327
Total Means
3.1295
1.331
340.2
Preferred Strategies
for Assistance
Given the broad need
areas that were expressed, it is not surprising that preferred strategies
for obtaining this assistance emphasized opportunities for training,
collaboration and access to resources. Table Five illustrates the
preferred strategies to obtain assistance.
Table Five Preferred
Assistance Strategies
Types of Technical Assistance
Needed:
Mean
SD
N
State or Regional Seminars
3.75
1.13
346
Workshops for Service Providers
3.75
1.18
344
Collaborating with Professional
Colleagues
3.74
1.10
343
Agency Faculty/staff In-service
Training and Staff Development
3.70
1.16
343
Resources Materials Center
3.65
1.20
346
State or Regional Networks
3.64
1.16
338
Publications (I.e. Best Practices,
Proceedings)
3.62
1.14
342
Access to the Information via
World Wide Web
3.58
1.29
346
Newsletters
3.54
1.10
344
National Networks
3.45
1.27
337
National Conferences of Community-based
Programs
3.36
1.32
340
National Standards for Community-based
Services
3.35
1.27
339
Satellite Broadcasts on Specific
Topics
3.27
1.30
337
Peer Review Process to Identify
Program Strengths & Needs
3.18
1.22
336
On Site Consultation
3.07
1.30
338
Total Means
3.51
1.209
341.3
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented
preliminary results from a national survey of the technical assistance
needs of community-based programs serving deaf and hard of hearing
persons. Clearly, the results indicate there are substantial numbers
of programs that serve or desire to serve this population. A substantial
number of the individuals served do receive services that target
enhancing employment outcomes. For the majority of those served,
these outcomes are positive in terms of resulting in employment
in competitive, supported or sheltered settings.
Despite this optimistic
picture, it is evident that programs see the need for broad based
technical assistance. Such assistance would allow programs to improve
their service delivery efforts. In contrast to the needs identified
by a PEPNet national survey of college programs which emphasized
program development (i.e. staffing, management), the RT-31 survey
identified a need for resources and associated training for staff
to use these resources. This finding argues need for the national
technical assistance initiative directed toward these programs.
Such assistance should involve the development of needed resources
and well as the establishing a mechanism to deliver these resources
and training in their use.
Creative strategies are
required to accomplish both these goals. One possibility would be
to link organizations that actively research and develop needed
resource materials (such as the federally-funded Rehabilitation
Research and Training Centers) with other entities that are responsible
for technical assistance (such as PEPNet). Another possibility would
be to establish a formal network of community based programs. Policymakers
and advocates should accept this challenge by funding such efforts
in order to better serve persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.
The challenge is to collaborate to find an appropriate strategies,
organizational mechanisms, and method to accomplish this goal.
Additional information
regarding the RT-31 study or other activities of the University
of Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons
who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing may be obtained from the RT-31 Website:
http://www.uark.edu/depts/rehabres.
REFERENCES
Hopkins, K. & Walter,
G. (1998) PEPNet Needs Assessment: Summary of findings. In M. Kolvitz
(Ed.) Empowerment through Partnerships: PEPNet '98. Conference
Proceedings of PEPNet.
Scherich, D., McGee,
S., Watson, D., & Geyer, P. (1995). Identifying community-based
rehabilitation services for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Presentation at the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association,
Kansas, MO.
Watson, D. (1998, February).
The challenge of tomorrow for deafness: Rehabilitation of LFD
persons in the United States. Invited presentation, OSERS/PEPNET
Conference for Planning Postsecondary Training for Deaf or Hard
of Hearing Persons who are LFD, U.S. Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, Washington, D.C.
Steven E. Boone, Ph.D Douglas Watson, Ph.D.
This research and publication
was conducted by faculty of the University of Arkansas Research
and Training Center for Persons who are Deaf or hard of Hearing,
which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research of the U.S. department of Education under grant number
H133B6002. The opinions contained in this publication are those
of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the University
of Arkansas or U.S. Department of Education.
Abstract
This paper presents the preliminary
results of a national assessment of the technical assistance needs
of community based rehabilitation centers (CBRC's) that serve persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing. Completed during 1998, the project
was conducted in order to identify and prioritize the types of resources,
support and assistance required to enhance the services delivered
by community-based agencies to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.
This paper overviews the study and its results. Content areas for
technical assistance and as well as preferred strategies to obtain
this assistance are discussed.
Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing receive postsecondary education and rehabilitation services to enhance employment from many entities. Often, these entities lack the specialized expertise to face the challenges posed by these individuals. They require technical assistance to orient their services to the unique needs and communication accommodations needed to provide these services. In response to this need, the Federal government has funded a number of agencies and initiatives to assist these programs.
Most recently, the Federal government funded four regional postsecondary education technical assistance centers. These Centers, collectively identified as PEPNet, were mandated to assess the technical assistance needs of the nations postsecondary training programs, including colleges and other programs that assist deaf or hard of hearing individuals to enhance their employability.
As part of the PEPNet mission, a national needs assessment was conducted to identify and assess the technical assistance needs of the nation's two and four year college programs (Hopkins & Walter, 1998). They surveyed 10,391 postsecondary institutions listed on the 1995-96 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) taken from the National Center for Educational Statistics. The study verified earlier estimates that approximately 20,000 deaf and hard of hearing students are enrolled in two and four year colleges in the United States.
Focused on students enrolled at two and four year colleges, the findings were targeted to the more academically capable segment of the deaf and hard of hearing student populations. The study did not include any special effort to survey community-based rehabilitation and career training programs -- not listed in the IPEDS database -- that nevertheless serve significant numbers of the nation's less academically qualified deaf and hard of hearing students.
Prior postsecondary enrollment
projections, prepared by the Career Development Educational Outreach
Consortium, a consortium of six federally funded postsecondary programs
for deaf students, estimated that each year approximately 7,800
hearing-impaired individuals graduate or leave secondary schools
in the U.S. (See Table One). These individuals can be functionally
divided into three groups with varying needs for services. The lowest
functioning group, those reading below the second grade level, number
about 2,000 per year, are considered prime candidates for career
and vocational training programs best provided by "Comprehensive
Community-Based Rehabilitation Centers" (CBRC). The middle group,
numbering perhaps 3,500 students who read between the 2-4th grade
level are usually not prime candidates for college but are considered
able to benefit from vocational training in CBRC programs or in
non-college proprietary training programs. The top 2,130 of these
7,800 students, those reading between grades 4-12 with an overall
grade achievement of 6-12, are considered to possess the skills
to benefit from postsecondary support services in colleges and universities
that offer special programs for deaf students (Watson, 1998).
|
|
|||
| Services Needed | |||
| Postsecondary
Colleges |
Vocational Training | Comprehensive | |
| Number of School Leavers | 2300 | 3500 | 2000 |
| Overall Grade Achievement | 6-12 | 4-8 | 2-4 |
| Reading Grade Achievement | 4-12 | 2-4 | 0-2 |
| Service Providers | Gallaudet, NTID, RPEPD*, 150+ Colleges | VR | Private Sources |
| Physical Capacity for New Students/Clients | 2500 | <3500 | 300 |
| New Student/Client Demand | 2500 | >5000 | >2000 |
| Human Resources Capacity for New Students/Clients | 2300 | <3500 | <50 |
* RPEPD: Regional Postsecondary
Education Programs for Deaf Students
PEPNet program personnel
recognized the fact that there is a parallel need to conduct a similar
needs assessment for the community-based rehabilitation programs
that provide career training services to enhance employment of persons
who are deaf or hard of hearing. To address this need, they invited
leading CBRC's in deafness and the University of Arkansas RRTC for
Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (RT-31) to a series of program
review meetings with federal staff at OSERS in order to determine
how to best survey the needs of community-based training programs
serving students who are deaf or hard of hearing. This paper provides
an overview of this study and its preliminary results.
The RT-31 National Survey
of Community-Based Rehabilitation
Centers
In the Spring of 1998, in collaboration with PEPNet, RT-31 initiated a study in response to the federally identified need to identify, prioritize and offer technical assistance to community-based rehabilitation programs that serve deaf and hard of hearing persons. In order to meet the long range goal of designing a National Technical Assistance Network for Community-based Programs, the project focused on three key goals:
- To Identify and Describe Participants in the Network;
- To Identify and Prioritize Needs for Assistance; and
- To Identify The Desired Types of Assistance.
METHOD
Questionnaire. A four page questionnaire was developed based upon the PEPNet College Survey format. Questions were worded to be parallel to the PEPNet survey, with changes made to fit issues relevant to community-based as opposed to college programs. Items included multiple questions regarding the level of services provided to persons who are deaf and hard of hearing, the number and populations of persons served, the outcomes of these services, the types of assistance desired, and preferred strategies to obtain this assistance.
Sample. The sample
was identified from prior RT-31 research (Scherich, McGee, Watson,
& Geyer, 1995). In this study, a national list of programs were
compiled from multiple sources and sent to state rehabilitation
and commissions for the deaf or hard of hearing in each state. These
agencies were asked to review the list and add or subtract community
programs that provided services to deaf or hard of hearing persons.
For this needs assessment, these programs were again traced resulting
in a total of 969 programs. The programs were geographically distributed
across the United States. Figure One shows the geographical distribution
of responding programs across the four PEPNet regions.
Procedures. A
cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and the questionnaire
was mailed to all programs. Four mailings resulted in responses
from 452 programs, for an overall response rate of 46.6%. Geographically,
these programs can be divided into parallel regions as those of
PEPNet. As may be seen in Table Two, the response rate as well as
the geographical distributions are comparable to results obtained
in the PEPNet college survey. Data from the returned questionnaires
were coded, error screened and prepared for data analysis using
appropriate statistical procedures.
Table Two Response
Rate Comparisons
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Northeast (NETAC) | 1068 | 23 | 129 | 28.5 |
| Midwest (MCPO) | 1065 | 23 | 129 | 28.5 |
| South (PEC) | 1275 | 27 | 113 | 25 |
| West (WROCC) | 1286 | 27 | 81 | 17.9 |
| Total Responses | 4694 | 45 | 459 | 46.6 |
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Populations Served
A total of 429 programs reported serving an average of 1872.31 (SD=7512) consumers. Of these programs, 395 programs provided information regarding the consumers that they served. The majority of these programs (386, 97.7 %) serve or plan to serve persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Only 9 programs (2.3 %) indicated they have no current plans to serve these persons.
Most programs served
persons with a wide variety of hearing losses. As may be seen in
Table Three, the programs served significant number of persons with
hearing loss, averaging 528.6 (SD=2187.4) persons. As may be seen
in Table Three, the programs primarily served deaf consumers followed
by those who identified themselves as hard of hearing. As expected,
fewer numbers of persons were served from subgroups of the population
of persons with hearing loss.
Table Three Number
of Persons Served by Type of Hearing Loss
|
|
|
SD |
| Deaf | 238.7 | 1122.2 |
| Late Deafened | 27.9 | 148.9 |
| Hard of Hearing | 174.7 | 899.1 |
| Deaf-Blind | 11.4 | 62.3 |
| Low Functioning Deaf | 36.9 | 198.8 |
| Other | 47.5 | 533.7 |
Service Information
Data regarding the services
delivered during 1998 is provided in Figure Two. As may be seen
in the Figure, almost 80% of those identified were receiving ongoing
services (39.5%) or had completed their program (37.3%). A substantial
number of persons (20%) had been referred to other program for services.
Very few individuals had been terminated from the program (2.2%)
or had their program interrupted (.9%).
A substantial percent
(19.1%) of those served received employment related services. These
services led to the employment outcomes depicted in Figure Three.
These outcomes indicate a high degree of success in employment,
with over 60% of the sample becoming employed. Employment outcomes
were in competitive settings (39.7%), supported settings (13.7%),
or sheltered settings (10.9%).
Another 20% were seeking
employment. Less that 17 percent of the overall group were not employed
and not seeking employment. These findings argue for the success
of these programs in producing employment outcomes.
Technical Assistance Needs
What are the technical
assistance needs of these programs. As may be seen in Table Four,
programs expressed needs in virtually all areas. High priority needs
revolved around resources to assist consumers and to promote access
to the programs. More medium priority needs were in the area of
staff development. Lower priority needs could be categorized as
program/staff management.
Table Four Technical
Assistance Needs
|
|
|
|
|
| Strategies to Obtain Funding to Operate Program (Grant Writing) | 3.89 | 1.30 | 350 |
| Strategies to Improve Services | 3.83 | 1.12 | 353 |
| Self-advocacy Training for Deaf & Hard of Hearing Individuals | 3.66 | 1.25 | 350 |
| Strategies to Recruit Deaf and HOH Consumers | 3.46 | 1.31 | 350 |
| Technology to Facilitate Accessibility (ALDS, Realtime Speech to Text, Etc) | 3.46 | 1.27 | 340 |
| Resource Materials for Employer Development | 3.44 | 1.41 | 337 |
| Mentoring Programs Matching Persons Who Are Deaf or HOH with Adult Peers | 3.44 | 1.30 | 339 |
| Technology to Facilitate Learning (Distance Learning, Computers, Educational Media) | 3.43 | 1.25 | 341 |
| Resource Materials for Workplace Literacy Skills | 3.40 | 1.42 | 340 |
| Resource Materials for Problem Solving | 3.39 | 1.35 | 342 |
| Training Staff to Work with Deaf and Hard of Hearing People | 3.38 | 1.29 | 350 |
| Strategies to Retain Deaf and HOH Consumers | 3.37 | 1.35 | 344 |
| Resource Materials for Job Maintenance/advancement | 3.35 | 1.36 | 338 |
| Resource Materials for Job Accommodations | 3.35 | 1.33 | 343 |
| Developing Communication Instruction/strategies for Staff | 3.33 | 1.30 | 343 |
| Resource Materials for Assessment of Basic Skills and Individualized Planning | 3.33 | 1.34 | 339 |
| Program Management (Computers, Etc) | 3.32 | 1.25 | 339 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Interpreters | 3.32 | 1.47 | 346 |
| Resource Materials for Work Experience and Placement | 3.28 | 1.40 | 337 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Interpreters | 3.28 | 1.49 | 341 |
| Strategies to Recruit Deaf and Hard of Hearing Staff | 3.23 | 1.32 | 346 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Counselors | 3.19 | 1.40 | 342 |
| Working in Partnership with VR Counselors | 3.19 | 1.26 | 346 |
| Laws Related to Disability and Service Delivery | 3.18 | 1.39 | 343 |
| Program & Facility Access for Deaf and HOH Individuals | 3.10 | 1.31 | 339 |
| Resource Materials for Job Interviewing | 3.08 | 1.40 | 336 |
| Strategies to Retain Deaf and Hard of Hearing Staff | 3.03 | 1.35 | 343 |
| Financial Aid for Tuition, Fees, Etc | 3.02 | 1.49 | 340 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Assistive Technology Specialists | 2.96 | 1.33 | 333 |
| Resource Materials for Resume Writing | 2.95 | 1.39 | 336 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Counselors | 2.91 | 1.34 | 340 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Assistive Technology Specialists | 2.79 | 1.26 | 336 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Captioners/CART Reporters | 2.70 | 1.33 | 339 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Rehabilitation Instructors | 2.58 | 1.38 | 333 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Captioners/CART Reporters | 2.57 | 1.35 | 333 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Rehabilitation Instructors | 2.45 | 1.30 | 336 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Tutors | 2.43 | 1.32 | 326 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Tutors | 2.43 | 1.26 | 334 |
| Recruiting, Scheduling &/or Evaluating Notetakers | 2.37 | 1.26 | 336 |
| Professional Enhancement Workshops for Notetakers | 2.31 | 1.25 | 327 |
| Total Means | 3.1295 | 1.331 | 340.2 |
Preferred Strategies for Assistance
Given the broad need
areas that were expressed, it is not surprising that preferred strategies
for obtaining this assistance emphasized opportunities for training,
collaboration and access to resources. Table Five illustrates the
preferred strategies to obtain assistance.
Table Five Preferred
Assistance Strategies
| Types of Technical Assistance Needed: | Mean |
|
|
| State or Regional Seminars | 3.75 | 1.13 | 346 |
| Workshops for Service Providers | 3.75 | 1.18 | 344 |
| Collaborating with Professional Colleagues | 3.74 | 1.10 | 343 |
| Agency Faculty/staff In-service Training and Staff Development | 3.70 | 1.16 | 343 |
| Resources Materials Center | 3.65 | 1.20 | 346 |
| State or Regional Networks | 3.64 | 1.16 | 338 |
| Publications (I.e. Best Practices, Proceedings) | 3.62 | 1.14 | 342 |
| Access to the Information via World Wide Web | 3.58 | 1.29 | 346 |
| Newsletters | 3.54 | 1.10 | 344 |
| National Networks | 3.45 | 1.27 | 337 |
| National Conferences of Community-based Programs | 3.36 | 1.32 | 340 |
| National Standards for Community-based Services | 3.35 | 1.27 | 339 |
| Satellite Broadcasts on Specific Topics | 3.27 | 1.30 | 337 |
| Peer Review Process to Identify Program Strengths & Needs | 3.18 | 1.22 | 336 |
| On Site Consultation | 3.07 | 1.30 | 338 |
| Total Means | 3.51 | 1.209 | 341.3 |
This paper presented preliminary results from a national survey of the technical assistance needs of community-based programs serving deaf and hard of hearing persons. Clearly, the results indicate there are substantial numbers of programs that serve or desire to serve this population. A substantial number of the individuals served do receive services that target enhancing employment outcomes. For the majority of those served, these outcomes are positive in terms of resulting in employment in competitive, supported or sheltered settings.
Despite this optimistic picture, it is evident that programs see the need for broad based technical assistance. Such assistance would allow programs to improve their service delivery efforts. In contrast to the needs identified by a PEPNet national survey of college programs which emphasized program development (i.e. staffing, management), the RT-31 survey identified a need for resources and associated training for staff to use these resources. This finding argues need for the national technical assistance initiative directed toward these programs. Such assistance should involve the development of needed resources and well as the establishing a mechanism to deliver these resources and training in their use.
Creative strategies are required to accomplish both these goals. One possibility would be to link organizations that actively research and develop needed resource materials (such as the federally-funded Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers) with other entities that are responsible for technical assistance (such as PEPNet). Another possibility would be to establish a formal network of community based programs. Policymakers and advocates should accept this challenge by funding such efforts in order to better serve persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. The challenge is to collaborate to find an appropriate strategies, organizational mechanisms, and method to accomplish this goal.
Additional information
regarding the RT-31 study or other activities of the University
of Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Persons
who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing may be obtained from the RT-31 Website:
http://www.uark.edu/depts/rehabres.
REFERENCES
Hopkins, K. & Walter, G. (1998) PEPNet Needs Assessment: Summary of findings. In M. Kolvitz (Ed.) Empowerment through Partnerships: PEPNet '98. Conference Proceedings of PEPNet.
Scherich, D., McGee, S., Watson, D., & Geyer, P. (1995). Identifying community-based rehabilitation services for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Presentation at the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, Kansas, MO.
Watson, D. (1998, February).
The challenge of tomorrow for deafness: Rehabilitation of LFD
persons in the United States. Invited presentation, OSERS/PEPNET
Conference for Planning Postsecondary Training for Deaf or Hard
of Hearing Persons who are LFD, U.S. Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, Washington, D.C.
WROCC at WOU •
345 North Monmouth Avenue • Monmouth, OR 97361
Modified January 2006© WROCC at WOU • All rights reserved
Send comments or questions to wroccweb@wou.edu