1 Family Community Participation The Results of a New Survey and Implications for Practice Poster Session Presented at AFP 2005 Beach Center on Disability University of Kansas www.beachcenter.org Denise Poston and Nina Zuna With assistance from Kandace Fleming, George Gotto, Janet Marquis, and Jean Ann Summers
22
Embed
Family Community Participation The Results of a New Survey and Implications for Practice
Poster Session Presented at AFP 2005 Beach Center on Disability University of Kansas www.beachcenter.org Denise Poston and Nina Zuna With assistance from Kandace Fleming, George Gotto, Janet Marquis, and Jean Ann Summers. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Family Community ParticipationThe Results of a New Survey and
Implications for Practice
Poster Session Presented at AFP 2005 Beach Center on Disability
Families of children with disabilities feel isolated.Communities provide supports, services, social connections, a sense of belonging, recreation, employment, and education.However, many families of children with disabilities can’t access all their community has to offer due to the barriers they face.But, we don’t know what exactly the barriers are and what families want to do, but can’t.
What We Know About Families’ Ability to Participate in Their Community
Survey development as part of a larger research program – what are the impact of policies on families?How satisfied are families with their ability to participate in community activities?What challenges do families experience?What are the relationships between activities, barriers, and overall community participation?What are the relationships between family community participation and family quality of life?
Literature review – participation, integration, isolationLiterature on the ability of people with disabilities to access community servicesConceptualizing family community participation Activities Barriers Overall community participation Sense of belonging
Focus groups with familiesInitial survey with telephone interviews – revised survey
Family Community Activities (CFA)MoviesGoing out to eatReligious activitiesWatching sporting eventsParksSwimming poolShoppingGetting together with family and friendsQuiet, indoor things (museums)Active, outdoor things (camping)Working outside the homeJoining hobby club or class
Overall results Mean = 2.36 Standard Deviation = .487
Generally, satisfaction with participation in community activities was slightly above somewhat satisfied.Generally, families are more satisfied with their participation in outdoor, active, less structured activities than indoor, quiet, structured activities
Challenges to Community Participation (CCP)Unfriendly peoplePhysical accessibilityChild’s behaviorNoisy or crowded environmentTransportationToo busy caring for childCommunity too smallCommunity not safeNo childcare for children without disabilitiesNo special childcare or respite for child with disabilityPeople don’t speak our languageNot enough money**Child’s health**Not adequate cognitive accommodations for my child
The lower the scores on challenges (CCP) (least problematic), the higher the scores on activities (FCA) (the more satisfied families were with their ability to participate in specific activities). (r = -.345)
The lower the scores on challenges, the higher the scores on overall satisfaction with belonging in the community. (r = -.432)
The lower the scores on challenges, the higher the scores on overall satisfaction with their ability to participate in the community. (r = -.413)
The lower the scores on challenges (CCP), the higher the scores on family quality of life domains. Family Interaction r = -.265 Parenting r = -.227 Emotional Well-being r = -.376 Physical / Material Well-being r = -.422 Disability-Related Support r = -.390
Disability Levels 3 levels - Mild/unknown – moderate – severe/very severeThere are differences among the disability levels The omnibus ANOVA was significant for group differences on
FCA for three disability levels Mean = 2.5, 2.4, 2.2 respectively F(2,267) = 6.47 p <.01 2=.047 (Small-medium effect size)
The omnibus ANOVA was not significant for group differences on CCP for three disability levels Mean = 1.7, 1.6, 1.6 respectively F(2, 299) = 1.78 p = .17
Disability Types 3 types - Emotional/Behavioral – Cognitive – Physical / SensoryThere are differences among the disability types The omnibus ANOVA was significant for group differences on FCA for
three disability types Mean = 2.2, 2.5, 2.3 respectively F(2,230) = 11.21 p <.001 2=.09 (Medium effect size)
The omnibus ANOVA was significant for group differences on CCP for three disability types Mean = 1.7, 1.5, 1.6 respectively F(2,255) = 4.01 p <.05 2=.031 (Small effect size)
Family Education Level7 Levels – ranging from no HS graduation to graduate degreeThere are differences among the education levels related to challenges– generally more challenges are associated with less education The omnibus ANOVA was not significant for group differences on FCA
for 7 education levels F(6,272) = .975 p = .443
The omnibus ANOVA was significant for group differences on CCP for 7 education levels F(6,303) = 3.31 p <.01 2=.063 (Medium effect size)
Family Income Level3 levels – <25k – 25-60k - > 60kThere are differences among the income levels related to activities The omnibus ANOVA was significant for group differences on FCA for 3
income levels Mean = 2.3, 2.5, 2.2 respectively F(2,261) = 6.30 p <.01 2=.047 (Small-medium effect size)
The omnibus ANOVA was not significant for group differences on CCP
for 3 income levels Mean = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 respectively F(2,293) = .727 p = .484
Applications for the Family Community Integration Survey
Planning supports for individual familiesEvaluating agencies or programs Community needs assessmentConducting researchHow could you use the FCI survey and other Beach Center tools in your agency?Just ask us! E-mail [email protected]
Consider how IFSP/IEP goals might support a family’s ability to participate in their community.How can you be a “door opener” for a family of a child with a disability? Can you provide training to community organizations on how to integrate children with disabilities and their families?
Asking more detailed questions Which community integration factors best predict a high family
quality of life? Are some families more likely to be more integrated than others? Are some communities more likely to be more “welcoming” than
others? What types of policies, services, and supports facilitate
integration of both individuals and families?
Based on the answers to these questions, building a data base of “what works” in terms of integrating families of children with disabilities in our communities is a future goal.