Blog Home
-
The ‘Let’s Go Out!’ Campaign and Participation in Self-Advocacy
Mar 24th, 2014 by | No Comments YetIn honor of Developmental Disabilities (DD) awareness month, The Arc is inviting people to participate in “Let’s Go Out!,” a day for DD awareness. “Let’s Go Out!” aims to raise awareness of DD by encouraging people to:
“Simply make plans to go out somewhere in public on Saturday, March 29. That’s all. Just plan a day out and about with friends and family or by yourself enjoying the things you like to do. And, in the process help raise awareness and generate some conversation about people with I/DD. This one-day movement will serve to harness our collective power to gain allies, foster understanding, dispel myths and encourage people without disabilities to recognize that we’re not so different after all."
Raising awareness and educating the public about persons with disabilities and how they can be included in all aspects of community life is a critical component of self-advocacy. “Let’s Go Out!” is an effort to encourage individuals with ID/DD to actively break down social barriers and participate in this form of self-advocacy.
The Arc’s campaign led us to look again at what NCI data show about participation in organized self-advocacy efforts.
The information in this blog post is drawn from the 2012-13 National Core Indicators (NCI) administration of the Adult Consumer Survey (ACS) of 13,157 adults from 25 states and one sub-state entity.
Slightly more than one quarter (26%) of all respondents to the ACS have participated in a self-advocacy group meeting, conference, or event. The rate of participation varies between states from a low of 17% to a high of 33%. 5% of all respondents had the opportunity to participate, but chose not to.
These rates also vary by place of residence. Nationally, those respondents who reported that they had participated in a self-advocacy group meeting, conference or event, had the following living situations:
Residence Type
Percent of those in each residence type who reported to have participated in self-advocacy
Institution
36%
Community-based residence
27%
Independent home/apt
30%
Parent/relative’s home
22%
Foster care/host home
22%
Other
26%
Of those living in institutional settings, 36% reported that they had participated in self-advocacy. Of those living in community based residences, 27% reported that they had participated in self-advocacy, while 30% of those living in independent homes, 22% of those living with parents or relatives and 22% of those living in foster care, host-homes reported that they had participated. 26% of those living in other living arrangements reported participating in self-advocacy.
However, rates of participation by residence also vary by state.
For example, in one state, of those who live in institutions, 67% report having participated in self-advocacy, while in another state, 10% of respondents living in institutions report having participated in self-advocacy. As another example, in one state, of those who live in a parent or relative’s home, 40% report having participated in self-advocacy, while in another state, 11% of respondents who live in a parent or relative’s home report having done so.
The wide variation by state in living situation of those participating in self-advocacy is a challenge to those developing targeted outreach to encourage involvement in self-advocacy. We hope that individuals living in all types of living arrangements will participate in the Arc’s “Let’s Go Out!” campaign to raise awareness about DD.
For more info on the rates of participation in self-advocacy in your state, take a look at the NCI Chart Generator (www.nationalcoreindicators.org/charts) or the Consumer Outcomes Final Report or your state report (both available here: www.nationalcoreindicators.org/reports)
**Please note that the 2012-13 data used in this blog are not yet available on the website.
-
Wages and Employment
Feb 5th, 2014 by | No Comments YetIn his State of the Union address on January 27, 2014, President Obama said the following:
“The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by, let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all. So our job is to reverse these trends.”
The President’s emphasis on wages and employment in his State of the Union address comes at a time when we at NCI are looking at the wages and employment of individuals with ID/DD who are working in community-based jobs and facility-based work. We are currently working on updating the 2012 data brief entitled “Working in the community: The status and outcomes of people with ID/DD in integrated employment” with more recent data.
This blog post will give a quick snapshot of some of our findings. The full, updated data brief is available here.
The information in this blog post is drawn from the 2011-12 National Core Indicators (NCI) administration of the Adult Consumer Survey (ACS) of 12,236 adults from 19 states and one sub-state entity. For the purposes of these analyses people under the age of 22 who were enrolled in public schools (or for whom this information could not be determined) were excluded. 11,803 adults remained in the sample.
Of the sample, only 13.4% of respondents were reported to have a paid community job. Comparatively, 21.1% were reported to participate in an unpaid community activity, 27.5% were reported to have a paid facility based job and 49.9% were reported to be in an unpaid facility based activity. Participation in these activities is not mutually exclusive, and there are individuals who participate in more than one type of work/activity.
Employment
Percent of Sample (N=11803)
Paid Community Job
13.4%
Unpaid Community Activity
21.1%
Paid Facility Based Job
27.5%
Unpaid Facility Based Activity
49.9%
Excluding individuals who live in institutions (because there were so few working in community jobs), we found that for people working in paid community-based employment, the three most common types of jobs were: building and grounds cleaning or maintenance (28.5%), retail such as sales clerk or stock person (14.1%), and food preparation and service (21.2%). Less common were office jobs such as general office and administrative support (4.4%), assembly and manufacturing jobs (7.6%) and materials handling and mail distribution (2.1%).
On average, people employed in paid community jobs (excluding those living in institutions) worked 27.2 hours in a two week period and earned $211.33 or $7.90 per hour. This is slightly above the federal minimum wage in 2012 of $7.25 per hour.
On average, people employed in paid facility-based jobs worked 35.65 hours in a two week period and earned $63.46 or $2.35 per hour. This is well below the federal minimum wage in 2012 of $7.25 per hour.
To put the wages earned by respondents to the ACS in perspective, we found the following data on US mean and median hourly wages. According to the May 2012 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean hourly wage of employees from all industry sectors in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in every State and the District of Columbia is $22.01 and the median hourly wage is $16.71.
-
NCI Respondents Who Communicate Non-Verbally
Jan 13th, 2014 by | No Comments YetNCI staff-members are working on a data brief and a webinar on what NCI data show about outcomes for adults with ID/DD who communicate non-verbally vs. the outcomes for those who communicate verbally. This blog post will give a snapshot of a selection of our interesting findings regarding the demographics of both populations.
For the purposes of this blog, we looked at the 2011-2012 administration of the Adult Consumer Survey. The Adult Consumer Survey is a face-to-face interview with adults with ID/DD receiving state-funded services. The total sample was comprised of adults from 29 states and 23 sub-state entities. All individuals surveyed were aged 18 and over, and receiving at least one service in addition to case management. The questions analyzed for this data brief come from the Background Information Section.
The individual’s primary means of expression is also assessed by a question in the Background Section of the ACS. For the purposes of these analyses, only individuals for whom a primary means of expression was reported were included in the sample. This means that those respondents for whom this question was left blank or coded as “Don’t Know” were excluded from the final dataset. The final dataset includes 12,041people. For the purpose of this Data Brief, only group differences that were significant at the p<.01 level are reported.
We found that 24% of the sample was reported to primarily communicate non-verbally. Of those who were reported to communicate non-verbally, 83% communicate primarily using gestures and/or body language, 6% communicate primarily using sign language and/or finger spelling, 4% communicate primarily using a communication aid/device and 7% reported “other” as their primary means of communication.
Different races and ethnicities differ significantly in the percentages of respondents who communicate verbally. Specifically, 56% of respondents identified as Pacific Islander and 62% of those identified as Asian communicate verbally, while 78% of those identified as White communicate verbally.
Respondents who communicate verbally and those who communicate non-verbally differ significantly in prevalence of diagnosis with other, additional disabilities. For example, 38% of respondents who communicate verbally have been diagnosed with Mental Illness/Psychiatric Diagnosis, while only 21% of those who communicate non-verbally have been diagnosed as such. In addition, 40% of those who communicate non-verbally have been diagnosed with Seizure Disorder or Neurological Problem, while only 20% of those who communicate verbally have been diagnosed as such. The below chart demonstrates the percentage respondents who communicate verbally and non-verbally who have been diagnosed with other disabilities.
Other diagnosis
Individuals who
communicate
non-verballyIndividuals who
communicate verballyMental Illness/Psychiatric Diagnosis
21%
38%
Autism Spectrum Disorder
18%
10%
Cerebral Palsy
25%
11%
Seizure Disorder or Neurological Problem
40%
20%
Limited or No Vision
13%
5%
Hearing loss—severe or profound
10%
4%
Down Syndrome
8%
11%
Prader Willi Syndrome
0%
1%
No Other Disabilities
8%
17%
Respondents who communicate verbally and those who communicate non-verbally differ significantly in the amount of staff support they need. 70% of respondents who communicate non-verbally have 24-hr on site support or supervision, while 52% of those who communicate verbally have such support. Conversely, 9% of respondents who communicate non-verbally require no staff support, while 21% of respondents who communicate verbally have no staff support.
Individuals who communicate verbally and those who communicate non-verbally differ significantly in place of residence. Those who communicate non-verbally are more likely than those who communicate verbally to live in an institutional setting or a community based residence (such as a group home or an agency operated apartment) while individuals who communicate verbally are more likely to live independently or with parents/relatives. The table below demonstrates these results.
Place of Residence
Individuals who
communicate
non-verballyIndividuals who
communicate verballyInstitution
12%
2%
Community-based residence
42%
37%
Independent home or apartment
4%
15%
Parent’s/Relative’s Home
31%
35%
Foster Care/Host Home
6%
6%
Other
5%
5%
The differences in outcomes among the populations of respondents who communicate verbally and those who communicate non-verbally demonstrated in this blog may be influenced by differences in other personal and demographic characteristics such as age, socio economic status, gender, level of disability, mobility level, etc. The potential moderating role of other demographic and personal characteristics merits further attention.
There is very little existing research into the population of individuals who communicate non-verbally and their demographics, quality-of-life outcomes and experience in the public service systems. We hope this blog and the upcoming webinar and data brief will bring attention to the additional challenges and unique characteristics, service needs, and life circumstances experienced by individuals who communicate non-verbally.
.