Standards of Practice for Disability Service Professionals · –Guide professional training, certification, evaluation –Require a regulatory body/professional association –Support

Standards of Practice for Disability Service Professionals

Boris Vukovic

Somei Tam

Bruce Hamm

Overview

• Why?

• What we did?

• How to apply these standards?

• Where do we go from here?

Why?

Increasing Numbers at DSOs

• % of swds registering with DSOs in publicly funded post-secondary institutions in Ontario– 10 to 15% college; – 5 to 8 % university

• MAESD (formerly MTCU)’s numbers– 2008-2009: 36,718 students (~7% of total enrolment)

• 19,022 college (~12% of total college enrolment) • 17,696 university (~5% of total university enrolment)

– 2015-2016: 66,808 students• 34.875 college (52%)• 31,933 university (48%)

Carleton’s Numbers

1566

1742

1922

2073

2311

2700

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017*

NUMBER OF REGISTERED PMC STUDENTS

Ryerson’s Numbers

Source: http://ryersonstudentaffairs.com/our-time-to-swim/

Ontario Universities Sector’s Numbers

90

895

1742

1540

548 588

1302 1302

456

1262

875

1510

412

2449

771

1735

518

2632

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

No. of Registered SWDS in 18 institutions: 2012-2013

Source: IDIA Caseload Survey (Parsons, Nolan & Wilchesky, 2014)

First Year Students 2001-2016

2001 2016

Gender: Female - Male 66% - 34% 66% - 34%

Age: 18 and under 37% 64%

Visible minority 14% 40%

Aboriginal 3% 3%

International 5% 7%

Disability 5% 22%

Parents: High school or less 29% 11%

Increase in Mental Health Numbers

• Canadian University Survey Consortium

– Half of the 22% of first year students identified as having a disability in 2016 are those with mental health problems.

• National College Health Assessment (NCHA) survey of 43, 000 students from 41 institutions, 2016

– 1/5 of Canadian post-secondary students are reporting feeling depressed, anxious or struggling with other mental health issues

SWDs at DSOs by Disability 2012-2013

536

2810

2336

381

5558

342

1569

6042

333

202

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

ABI

ADHD

CI/SM

D,d,Dd,HH

LD

Blind/LV

Mob/Funct.

PSY/MH

ASD

Other

Source: IDIA Caseload Survey (Parsons, Nolan & Wilchesky, 2014)

SWDs at Carleton 2011-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016

LEARNING DISABILITIES PSYCHIATRIC/MENTAL HEALTH

ADHD CHRONIC ILLNESSS/MEDICAL

Impact on Institutional Resources

• Test/exam accommodations and note taking support are the two frequently requested accommodations

• Increasing caseload of disability/accessibility advisors – average 300 per advisor

• Administration of the CSG/BSWD – labourintensive; overly prescriptive guidelines; funding spreading thin

• Space, staff, and information system to manage accommodation processes

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Extra time for exams: 31.9%

Quiet/alone room: 20.5%

Notetaking: 17.8%

High Frequency Accommodations

Accommodated Exams at Carleton

2000

3000

4000

5000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2010 2014 2016 2017 (est.)

NUMBER OF ACCOMMODATED EXAMS PER EXAM PERIOD (DECEMBER)

Other Factors

• Changing legal landscape in Ontario

• Documentation standards from health care professionals

• Accommodation decision-making across advisors

• Accommodations provided across institutions

• Accommodations rationale for faculty

Carleton faculty attitudes and practices

3.48

3.37

1.86

3.64

3.36

2.67

1 2 3 4

ACC

ACM

CM

ILS

IC

IA

Attitudes

DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE

2.82

3.15

1.15

3.22

2.72

2.07

0 1 2 3 4

ACC

ACM

CM

ILS

IC

IA

Practices

N/A NEVER ALWAYS

What We Did

The Concept

• Three standards:

– Accommodation

– Documentation

– Service

• Each consist of:

– Principles

– Guidelines

– Decision-making process

The Process

• Top down, bottom up– Top: OHRC policies and guidelines, institutional policies and

procedures

– Bottom: Collective experience, best practices, real-world examples, constraints

• Three-person working group– Drafting of the Standards

– Focus group with our staff

– Sharing with our community of practice

The Goals

• For our own practices

• Alignment of accommodation practices

• Standardizing of documentation requirements

• Clarifying the parameters of support services

• Training of new staff

• Confidence resulting from standardized practices

• For a community of practice• Inspire conversations about development of standards

for a profession

How to apply these standards?

The Discussion

• Review of the three Standards (10 min)– Three groups, one Standard per group– Consider the following when reviewing individually:

• Benefits for your services• Challenges to implementation

• Discussion within each group (10 min)– How well the principles, guidelines, and decision maps

reflect your work?– How can you implement these in your work?– What additional benefit can these Standards bring to your

work?

• Each group reporting (10 min per Standard)– Summarize discussion within your group

Where do we go from here?

The Future

• Future outlook

– Expanding mandate and scope of practice

– Less defined client population

– Growing variety of experts and sub-specialties

• Future Standards

– Guide professional training, certification, evaluation

– Require a regulatory body/professional association

– Support development of professional identity

• Accessibility and Inclusion (CoP)’s Post-Conference Workshop at CACUSS, June 15, Ottawa

Contact Us

Paul Menton Centre

Carleton University

www.carleton.ca/pmc

pmc@carleton.ca

613-520-6608