Examining the Establishment of a Post-Secondary Education Program for Young Adults with Intellectual Disabilities at a R...


Material Information

Examining the Establishment of a Post-Secondary Education Program for Young Adults with Intellectual Disabilities at a Research University
Physical Description:
1 online resource (172 p.)
Morgan, Cheryl L
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education, Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
Committee Co-Chair:
Committee Members:


Subjects / Keywords:
developmental -- disability -- hermeneutics -- implementation -- intellectual -- postsecondary -- transition
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Post secondary education for students with intellectual disabilities is a growing trend on college and university campuses across the United States, and there is little research to guide implementation of such programs. This qualitative case study explores how program development team members and relevant stakeholders understood the process that led to the implementation of their post secondary education program in one very high research university. Implementation of the selected post secondary education program is viewed through the framework of implementation science, which serves as a guide to understanding the challenges of embedding research initiatives into practice within the realities of large organizations. Interviews were conducted with participants in the post secondary education programs implementation and comprised the primary source of data. A hermeneutic perspective was taken in this inquiry to go beyond a description of program implementation and to uncover a deeper understanding of the process of implementation. Critical Incident Technique was used to analyze the ways in which relevant stakeholders understood interactions, conversations, and actions that led to choices or compromises relevant to program development. Findings derived from this analysis suggest incidents occurring in four areas of concern were most critical in influencing program implementation: (a) addressing parental expectations, (b) supporting the inclusion of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in college, (c) defining the organization of the program, and (d) initiating friendships. Parental expectations were of primary concern to the participants at the initial and full implementation stages of program development as parents were unclear about the type of services provided in post-secondary settings and unprepared for the greater independence required of their adult children on a college campus. Additional concerns included simplistic understandings and negative attitudes about intellectual and developmental disabilities among members of the university community, which posed challenges for the inclusion of post secondary education program students in classes and activities. Active involvement of the Program financial sponsors in the implementation process unexpectedly influenced the alteration of the programs original design and ultimately shaped the program organization. Implementation was also influenced by the need to provide intentional assistance to post secondary education students in expanding their social lives and developing genuine relationships.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Cheryl L Morgan.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2014.
Co-adviser: SINDELAR,PAUL T.

Record Information

Source Institution:
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
lcc - LD1780 2014
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text




2 201 4 Cheryl L. Morgan


3 To my husband Brad, and my children Marcia and Jennifer


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is not the beginning of a journey or the ending of it that is important, rather it is the people, the relationships, and the experiences that paved the way that will be remembered at its finish. In my journey to earn a doctoral degree, t here are a few people that require specific mention, those that ran alongside me, those that encouraged my efforts, those who cheered me on, and those that provided an education along the way. Each interaction, each experience helped shape the person I hav e become as a result of this journey. I offer my sincerest thanks to Jean Crockett, who ran alongside me, encouraging me when I did not believe in myself, and who stood behind me pushing when I slowed down along the way. I would not have crossed the finish line without your steadfast support. Thanks also to Paul Sindelar who challenged my thinking, and made sure that my arguments could be supported; you have influenced my writing greatly. Thanks to Jeanne Repetto for sharing her expertise in transition, her resources, and enthusiasm, I appreciate your support and friendship. Thank you Penny for the opportunity to be involved with developing and implementing an amazing program that shaped my dissertation and deepened my passion to provide services for young a dults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I value your friendship and look forward to collaborating with you on future endeavors. Thank you Mirka Koro Ljungberg your guidance and understanding of qualitative research methods was instrumental to the development of this study. Thank you for asking the hard questions, and guiding me to reflect on what I was learning, to provide responses to your queries. These are skills that I will utilize for the rest of my life.


5 Two other very special women t raveled on this journey with me, Betsy Filippi and Mary Anne Steinberg. Thank you both for starting the journey with me and blazing a tr ail for me to follow. Thank you for standing at the end of the tunnel and shining a light for me so I would know the en d of the journey was near. Thank you for sharing your minds, your laughter, your tears, and your encouragement. I am certain that I would not be writing these acknowledgements now, had it not been for 1/3B and 1/3MA. I will be forever grateful for your su pport and friendship. I would like to thank Michell York, Vicki Tucker, and Shaira Rivas Otero for answering my questions of the day, sending me in the right direction, sharing your amazing personalities, your friendship, and your never ending wealth of kn owledge. You made the process of completing my degree program easy. Thank you, Brad Morgan for supporting me through this long, long, journey. Thank you for not giving up on me, for keeping up with the household duties while I wrote non stop for days, for handling the day to day stressors so I could focus on finishing my journey. I am very thankful you were by my side. Thank you Marcia Webb for listening to me when I was frustrated, and believing that I could. I appreciate the comedy relief provided by my grandchildren when I was tired. Thank you Jen Kreger for your long distance support, I could feel you cheering me on. Thank you family for your prayers, words of encouragement, and understanding. As I come to the end of this journey, I am thankful for th e new people who have become important in my life and the valuable lesson I have learned along the way. I feel well equipped for the next journey thanks to all of you.


6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14 Implications for Young Adults with Disabiliti es ................................ .................. 16 Change for Institutions of Higher Education ................................ ..................... 18 Program Settings ................................ ................................ .............................. 19 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 20 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Research Question ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ .................... 22 Overview of the Methods ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Limitations/Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................... 24 Definitions ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 25 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 Overview of the Dissertation ................................ ................................ ................... 27 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 29 Disability Policy ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 PSE Programs for Individual s with Intell ectual Disabilities ................................ ...... 32 Population Served ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 Expectations ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34 Prog ram Environments ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 Services Offered ................................ ................................ ............................... 35 Program Outcomes ................................ ................................ ................................ 37 Impl ementation Science ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 Exploration ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 39 Installation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 40 Initial imp lementation ................................ ................................ ........................ 40 Full implementation ................................ ................................ .......................... 40 Research on PSE Programs ................................ ................................ ................... 41 Selection Criteria ................................ ................................ .............................. 41


7 Purposes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42 Methodologies ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 42 Program Des ign and Capacity ................................ ................................ .......... 43 ................................ ................................ ...................... 53 Program and Student Outcomes ................................ ................................ ...... 55 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 62 Needed Research ................................ ................................ ............................ 64 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 68 Overview of the Methods ................................ ................................ ........................ 68 Purpose of this Qualitative Study ................................ ................................ ..... 68 Theoretical Perspective ................................ ................................ .................... 69 ................................ ................................ ..................... 70 Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 72 Selecting the Setting ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 The Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 72 Selecting the Participants ................................ ................................ ................. 73 The Participants ................................ ................................ ............................... 74 Assurance of Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ............. 77 Data Collection Procedures ................................ ................................ .................... 78 Means of Collecting Data ................................ ................................ ................. 78 Assessing the Cultural Context ................................ ................................ ........ 80 Data Analysis Procedures ................................ ................................ ....................... 80 Addressing C redibility ................................ ................................ ....................... 82 Transferability ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 82 Dependability ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 83 4 PROGRAM IMPL EMENTATION ................................ ................................ ............ 86 Description of the Program ................................ ................................ ..................... 87 What Do We Have Here? ................................ ................................ ................. 88 How Did We Get Here? ................................ ................................ .................... 90 The First Year, Exploration and Installation ................................ ............................ 94 Exploration ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 94 Installation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 99 Year Two, Initial Implementation ................................ ................................ ........... 101 Year Three and Beyond, Full Implementation ................................ ....................... 107 ................................ ........................ 109 5 FINDINGS: CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT .................. 116 Critical Incidents: Choices and Compromises ................................ ....................... 117 Addressing Parental Expectations ................................ ................................ .. 118 Su pporting Student Inclusion in College ................................ ......................... 124 Defining Program Organization ................................ ................................ ...... 127 Initiating Friendship ................................ ................................ ........................ 133


8 Discussion of the Critical Incidents in Program Development ............................... 136 Addressing Parental Expectations ................................ ................................ .. 136 Supporting Student Inclusion in College ................................ ......................... 137 Defining Program Organization ................................ ................................ ...... 138 Initiating Friendship ................................ ................................ ........................ 140 6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 146 Limitations and Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................ 147 Discussion and Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................. 148 Conclusion 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 149 Conclusion 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 149 Conclusion 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 151 Conclusion 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 153 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ........................ 156 Preparing for Installation ................................ ................................ ................. 156 Addressing Admissions Policy ................................ ................................ ........ 157 Preparing Parents for Transition ................................ ................................ ..... 157 Accessing Classes ................................ ................................ ......................... 158 Recommendations for Future Research ................................ ............................... 159 APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 161 B PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW 1 ................................ ................................ .............. 163 C PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW 2 ................................ ................................ .............. 164 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 165 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 172


9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Accommodations and Services in Higher Education for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities ................................ ................................ ........................ 67 3 1 Demographic Profile of the University ................................ ................................ 84 4 1 Program Implementation Process and Stages of Implementation .................... 113 5 1 Critical Incidents ................................ ................................ ............................... 143 5 2 Areas of Critical Concern ................................ ................................ .................. 144


10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Building blocks of disability education law ................................ .......................... 66 3 1 Hermeneutical Cycle ................................ ................................ .......................... 85 4 1 Organizational chart for the University PSE Program ................................ ....... 114 5 1 Multilevel Influences on Program Implementation for the University PSE Program ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 145




12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EXAMINING THE ESTABLISH MENT OF A POST SECONDARY EDUC ATION PROGRAM FOR YOUNG ADULTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES AT A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY By Cheryl L. Morgan May 2014 Chair: Jean Crockett Major: Special Education Postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities is a growing trend on college and university campuses across the United States and there is little research to guide implementation of such programs. T his qualitative case study explores how program development team members and relevant stakeholders understood the process tha t led to the implementation of their PSE program in one VHRU. Implementation of the selected PSE program is viewed through the framework of implementation science, which serves as a guide to understanding the challenges of embedding research initiatives in to practice within the realities of large organizations ( Fixsen et al., 2005 ) implementation and comprised the primary source of data. A hermeneutic perspective was taken in this inquiry to go beyond a description of program implementation and to uncover a deeper understanding of the process of implementation Critical Incident Technique (Gremier, 2004) was used to analyze the ways in which relevant


13 stakeholders understood interactions, conve rsations, and actions that led to choices or compromises relevant to program development. Findings derived from this analysis suggest incidents occurring in four areas of : (a) addressi ng parental expectations, (b) supporting the inclusion of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in college, (c) defining the organization o f the p rogram, and (d) initiating friendships. Parental expectations were of primary concern to t he participants at the initial and full implementation stages of program development as parents were unclear about the type of services provided in post secondary settings and unprepared for the greater independence required of their adult children o n a co llege campus Additional concerns included s implistic understandings and negative attitudes about intellectual and developmental disabilities among members of the university community which posed challenges for the inclusion of PSE Program students in cla sses and activities Active involvement of financial sponsors in the implementation process unexpectedly influenced the alteration of the p original design Implementation was also infl uenced by the need to provide intentional assistance to PSE students in expanding their social lives and developing genuine relationships.


14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2011 I helped a colleague plan a p ostsecondary education (PSE) program for individuals with intellectual disabilities at her campus at the request of parents of high school students with intellectual disabilities. We found adequate guidance f or initiating appropriate student supports, providing person centered p lann ing and gain ing access to college courses for her potential students. The larger challenges came when attempting to implement the program. We had to find out who to contact to gain access for the program, which offices offered what services, who would provide permiss ion, and who needed to come to the table to help bring the program to life. None of these topics were fully explained in PSE research or literature related to PSE programs. Basically, we knew what we wanted to do and we understood best practices for this p opulation of students, but we had little guidance for beginning the process. Background Postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities is a growing trend on college and university campuses across the United States as evidenced by ove r a 60% increase in the number of programs between 2009 and 2011, of which 13 were housed in very high research universities (VHRU s ) (Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010 ; Lewis, 2011 ). Research has addressed experiences in the se programs, and student and program outcomes in college and university settings ; however there is little information to guide implementation of such programs. T his study explores how program development team members and relevant stakeholders understood t he process that led to the implementation of their PSE program in one VHRU.


15 Many individuals consider higher education to be the ultimate educational experience, a rite of passage leading to opportunities to improve life options, achieve status, make frien ds, and attain greater income (Getzel & Wehman, 2005). Time spent at an institute of higher education allows young adults to establish their independence, learn to be self sufficient, and develop life long networks (Migliore, Butterworth, & Hart, 2009; Weh man & Yasuda, 2005; Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). Having been educated with their same aged peers in high school, many individuals with intellectual disabilities have increased expectations for what is possible in their lives after high school (Grigal, H art, & Paiewonsky, 2010; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Landmark, & Reber, 2009; McEathron & Beuhring, 2011). Growing numbers of parents, researchers, and practitioners have advocated for students with intellectual disabilities ages 18 21 years to receive instruction in settings similar to their same aged peers without disabilities (Grigal et al. ). Instead youth with intellectual disabilities frequently face unemployment, long waiting lists for housing and employment supports, isolation, and life at home with aging par ents ( Grigal et al. ; Lee, 2009; Moon & Inge, 2000; Weinkauf, 2002). Individuals with intellectual disabilities have not traditionally been afforded PSE opportunities through which they can pursue areas of interest, enhance their employment prospects, and establish a pattern of life long learning that would enable them to continue to gain social and life skills into adulthood. These i ndividuals need to observe skills in the social environment in order to practice socially appropriate behaviors, learn them, and adjust skills through observation, self regulation practice and problem solving (Goldstein, Kaczmarek, & English, 2002; Goldstein & Morgan, 2002; Wehmeyer, 1992). At this time programs for individuals with inte llectual


16 disabilities have provided limit ed opportunities for interactions with their non disabled peers ( Grigal et al. 2010 ). As a result, after high school individuals with intellectual disabilities seldom have opportunities to practice social skills within appropriate academic or vocational contexts ( Dolyniuk et al., 2002 ). Including individuals with intellectual disabilities in campus settings may add to the diversity of the university, help broaden the definition of diversity from the traditional boundaries of ethnicity, religion, and sexu al orientation, and may enhance understandings regarding the value of diversity and the scope of the human condition (Kleinert, Jones, Sheppard Jones, Harp, & Harrison, 2012). Individuals with intellectual disabilities may provide the campus community with opportunities to question idea s about the mission of higher education and to examine ideas about social justice and the meaning of disability in society. Research suggests that students with intellectual disabilities can benefit from college attendance w ith appropriate educational supports (Gilmore, Bose, & Hart, 2001; Kl e i nert, et al. ; Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). Their presence on campus can assist faculty in understanding the ways in which the human condition is represented by all participants in academic and social discourse (Eisenman & Mancini, 2010). Implications for Young Adults with Disabilities Susan Willis, an individual with an intellectual disability described the challenges f aced in social settings when deprived of opportunities to achieve gai nfu l employment. Willis explained w ith employment comes some level of s elf sufficiency, and with that independent living. Without a full or par t time job at (Willis cited in Lewis, 2011 p. 1 ).


17 In large numbers, individuals with intellectual disabilities have limited access to full or part time jobs at reasonable wages. Their view of the human cond ition is different from the view experienced by their peers without disabilities There is a positive correlation between even limited PSE experience for these individuals and their chance of securing competitive employment (Gilmore et al. 2001; Stodden & Dowrick, 2000 ; Zafft et al., 2004 ). In 2007, for example, 36,154 youth with intellectual disabilities ages 16 26 years entered Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services Of these 1,223 (3.4%) participated in some type of PSE and 537 (1.5%) successfully co mpleted a non degree program or vocational/technical certificate program. Nearly half of the youth who attended a PSE program were employed and earning a n average of $316 per week whereas those who completed a PSE program earned a n average of $338 per wee k. Youth who did not attend PSE left VR services with jobs averaging $195 weekly ( Migliore et al. 2009 p 1 ). The human condition however, is influenced by more than just gainful the quality of life experienced as one interacts with others. Congress stressed the naturally inclusive nature of the human condition in the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Ri ghts Act (Public Law 106 402). D isability is a natural part o f the human experience that does not diminish the right of individuals with developmental disabilities to live independently, to exert control and choice over their own lives, and to fully participate in and contribute to their communities through full int egration and inclusion in


18 the economic, political, social, cultural and educational mainstream of United States society (42 U S C 15001 § 101) If one considers issues of choice for young adults with intellectual disabilities, one might also be prompted to give consideration to postseco ndary education as one possible choice. During recent years increasing numbers of colleges and universities have been offering postsecondary opportunities for individuals with intellectual disabilities. According to a 2009 s urvey of PSE programs there were 149 college and university programs in 37 states (Hart et al. 2010). Testimony before the U. S. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in 2011 indicated that in the last eight years the number of college progra ms available for students with intellectual disabilities has grown from 4 programs to over 250 programs spread across 36 states and 2 Canadian provinces (Lewis, 2011). Despite recent growth in PSE opportunities for these student s only 2% of out of school youth with intellectual disabilities were enrolled in any type of PSE in 2009 (National Longitudinal Transition Study 2, 2009). For the majority of these student s college attendance is still not considered an option (Grigal, et al. 2010). Change for Inst itutions of Higher Education Some of the growth in PSE programs for this population of students can be attributed to modern disability law and some to the grass roots efforts of parents and families of young adults w ith intellectual disabilities. Advocates argue that the most appropriate education for these young adults, ages 18 22 years will not occur in a public high school and others expand the argument to say that the presumptive least restrictive environment for these students is in a college or uni versity setting with their


19 same aged peers (Getzel & Wehman, 2005; Shah, 2011; Warm & Stander, 2011). ne of the greatest barriers to creating inclusive campus communities is the attitudes and preconceived notions about the limited ability of students wit h intellectual disabilities to Kleinert et al., 2012 p. 30). Al though educating individuals with intellectual disabilities has not been part of have responded to the demands of parents and education advocates to expand inclusive opportunities for these individual s that are unique to their specific settings (Eisenman & Mancini, 2010). Consideration has had to be given to whether students with intel lectual disabilities should have access to higher education T hese institutions have had to examine their ideas about who gets access, in what ways, and with which supports and resources. They have also had to consider what impact inclusion might have on t academic standings Program Settings A 2009 national survey revealed that 90% of post secondary education programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities were located on college and university campuses and students followed the typ ical enrollment process in 53% of those programs (Hart et al. 2010). Approx imately 65% of PSE programs are collaborative arrangements between public high schools and universities utilizing dual enrollment formats for 18 21 year olds (Grigal, Hart, & Migli ore, 2011). current program data base contains self reported information for 202 PSE programs of which 72 are located at 2 year colleges, 99 at 4 year colleges/universities 20 at VHRUs a nd 11 at technical/trade schools. This represents a 21% increase in PSE programs from


20 2011 to 2012 ( http://www.thinkcollege.net/databases/progra ms database?task=searchform# ). Data from the National Survey on Post secondary Programs for Youth with Intellectual Disabilities indicated th at the majority of PSE programs offered a mixed option whereby students were provided limited supports to take college classes (Hart, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2005). Twenty five PSE program s using a dual enrollment strategy (linking high school and college) were identified. Few colleges offered inclusive PSE options with adequate supports for individuals with intellectual disabilities to participate in general education classes of their own cho osing (Hart, et al., 2004; Hart et al., 2005 ). The demand for PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities will most likely continue to grow due in part to new options provided by the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) Deman d for these programs can also be anticipated due to parent and student expectations for more inclusive opportunities beyond high school. Currently, T he size and number of PSE programs that offer the personalized supports needed by students with intellectu al disabilities are insufficient to meet the demand. That may change over time, as new legislation and grant supported investment in demonstration projects makes PSE for persons with intellectual disabilities both more affordable and more widely accepted (McEathron & Beuhring, 2011 p 1) Statement of the Problem According to the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 individuals with intellectual disabilities have the right to post secondary education on


21 college and university campuses. The passage of the HEOA for the first time, includes language allowing students with intellectual disabilities access to Federal Financial A id when receiving transition servic es at a college or university. PSE programs for this population have been in ex istence for over 30 years in small numbers but the number of programs is rapidly increasing perhaps in part due to the passage of HEOA. Despite the rapid increase in program development the focus of PSE literature has been on program design and capacity, student outcomes Although there is some mention of the process of implementation Moon, Grigal & Redd 2001, p. 165). Experiences of institutes of higher education, school systems, agencies, and individuals that created opportunities where none previously existed can be beneficial to emerging programs. Sharing of what worked and what did not work in terms of planning, brokering partners hips, blending resources and cultivating educational experiences for students with intellectual disabilities are required to assist those who are thinking about implementing PSE programs (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis 2012) One way to begin this work is by exami ning the ways in which program developers and key stakeholders understand the process that led to implementation of their PSE program Purpose of the Study Given the rate with which PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities are growing a nd the limited research available to guide implementation of such programs, research in this area is need ed. T he implementation of such program s in VHRUs which typically emphasize high academic achievement, has been especially impressive with a 50% increa se from 2011 to 2012 ( http://www.thinkcollege.net/ ). In t his


22 study a closer look will be given to one such program. The purpose of this inquiry is to examine the ways in which program developers and relevant st akeholders understand the process that led to implementation of their PSE program at one VHRU in the E astern United States O f particular interest is developing an understanding of the critical incidents and the choices or compromises influencing program i mplementation Research Question A conceptual framework can guide development of study questions and explain or suggest a relationship between concepts or ideas (Moore, Lapan, & Quartaroli 2012). This inquiry will be guided with a question informed by a c onceptual framework derived from implementation science ( Fixsen, Naoom, Blas, Friedman, & Wallace 2005) How do program developers and relevant stakeholders understand the process that led to implementation of their PSE program? Conceptual Framework Imple mentation of the selected PSE program is viewed through the perspective of implementation science, which serves as a guide to understanding the challenges of embedding research initiatives into practice within the realities of large organizations. The fram ework for implementation used in this case study posit s that implementation occurs across multiple stages from exploration through full implementation, and that organizational context and other factors influence successful implementation of programs and pr actices ( Fixsen et al., 2005 ) The model of Multi level I nfluences on Successful Implementation described by Fixsen and his colleagues is used to illustrate influences that include: (a) core implementation component s (b) organizational components and (c) influence factors that produce implementation outcomes (Figure 1) Influences that prompt changes in the implementation process can be understood by


23 examining relationships among the core components, organizational features, and external influence factors as they occur across the various levels Fixsen et al. cite effects shared by these domains. Core implantation components must be present for implementation to occu r with fidelity and good outcome. Components include training, coaching, and performance measures. Organizational components are required to enable and support the core components over the long term. All of this must take place over the years in the cont ext of capricious but influential changes in governments, leadership, funding priorities, economic cycles, shifting social priorities, and so on. (pp. 58 59) The stages used in implementation science and the multilevel co nceptual model inform the r esearch question central to this study as well as the methods and protocols for data collection Overview of the Methods Q ualitative methods were use d in conducting this case study, and Critical Incident Technique (CIT) was employ ed to analyze critical events tha t occurred in the implementation of this PSE program Critical incidents in this study we re de fined as any interaction, event, choice or compromise describ ed in great detail by members of the implementation team and relevant stakeholders These specific i ncidents may have been describ ed by one person multiple times or by multiple people involved with program implementation. CIT was used to identify and analyze these incidents in interview transcripts, e mail correspondence, and pr ogram documents Gremier ( 2004)


24 described CIT as facilitating the investigation of significant events, incidents, or issues identified by respondents the way they are managed, and the outcomes in terms of perceived effects. The CIT method is especially useful when the topic of res earch has been sparingly documented or when a comprehensive understanding is required when describing or explaining a phenomenon (Gremier) such as the implementation of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities The use of this analy tic t echnique provided insight regarding the critical decision points in the implementation of this PSE program. Limitations / Assumption s This study will provide an in depth look into the im plementation process of a program for students with intellectual disabil ities at one VHRU The degree to which reader s might transfer findings from this study would depend upon the degree to which their setting and situation align with those represented in this university As the researcher I will attempt to present enough det ail for the reader to determine the usefulness and transferability of the results of this study. Implementation science suggests that negotiating m ultiple levels of influence is an integral part of the implementation process (Fixsen et al., 2005). Conseq uently the present study is based on the assumption that program development team members and relevant stakeholders had to make choices at multiple levels to develop the program that was implemented at their university. This study begins with the assumpti on that program d evelopment team members started with core components that served as a basis for the p rogram they wanted to implement, and that organizational components and other influence factors shaped the development of the program that was ultimately implemented.


25 Definitions Several terms merit definition for purposes of this study. Critical i ncidents: I nteractions, conversations, or actions participants described as influential in prompting them to make choices or compromises in the implementation of their PSE program. It was anticipated r esearch participants would have had experiences during the implementation process that resonate d with them emotionally. The act of remembering such incidents result ed in discussion s that provided more detail and re flection than typical incidents. Implementation: specified set of activities designed to put into practice an n is a mission oriented process which takes 2 4 years and involves multiple decisions actions, and corrections Blas et al. 2010). Institutional c lassification of Very High Research University ( VHRU ) : The Carnegie Foundation (2010) developed six classification categories for higher education institutions. Doct oral granting universities include ; (a) doctoral research universities, (b) research universities high research activity, and (c) research universities very high research activity. The Carnegie Foundation has not established a definition for each of the su b categories ; however the F oundation document provides information on selection criteria that included levels of financial and other resources devoted to research and development as delimiters between high research activity and very high research activity universities referred to as VHRUs Doctoral research universities in contrast are typically 4 year universities that award fewer than 10 doctoral degrees annually.


26 Intellectual/Developmental D isability: This classification includes Autism, mental retardat ion, Down syndrome, traumatic brain injury, PDD NOS, and fetal alcohol syndrome. An individual with an intellectual disability is characterized by significant limitation both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. This disability typically originates before the age of 18. These are individuals who require extensive ongoing support in more than one major life activity to participate in integrated community settings and to enjoy a quality of life that is available to citizens with fewer or no disability. Support may be required for life activities such as mobility, communication, self care, and learning as necessary for independent living, employment, and self sufficiency. (Causto n Theoharis, Ashby, & DeClouette, 2009 p. 88) Post secondary e ducation: P rograms for young adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities that are offered on university campuses. These programs provide college experiences for persons who would not ot herwise qualify for university attendance. Significance of the Study Available research on the implementation of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities has addressed program design, student experiences, and student and program outcomes However, only two studies made mention of program implementation. T h e present study contribute s to the limited body of research by providing an intimate view of the implementation process in a VHRU as experienced by program development team members a nd other relevant sta keholders. In addition, it


27 offer s insight into critical incidents encountered during the process of implementing the program. This study adds to the body of research using a conceptual framework grounded in imple mentation science to illum inate the process of program development and evolution Understanding this process may be valuable to others attempting to implement new programs in VHRUs whether PSE or other innovations Overview of the Dissertation This dissertation research was conduc ted using qualitative case study methods In Chapter 1 the study is introduced and background essential to understanding the problem is addressed In C hapter 2 relevant literature supporting this inquiry is reviewed M ethods used to conduct the study inclu ding study design, data collection and analysis are included in Chapter 3 T he findings from this analysis are presented in Chapter s 4 and 5 and conclus ions, implications for practice and recommendations for future research are discussed in Chapter 6


28 Figure 1 1 Multilevel Influences on Successful Implementation Used with permission from the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, 2005. Influence Factors Core Implementation Components Organizat ional Components


29 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW T his chapter offers a review of topics essential to understanding the concept of providing higher education opportunities to you ng adults with intellectual disabilities These topics include : (a) an overview of disability policy and its intentions, including recent provisions of the H igher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA); (b) a description of the youth with disabilities typica lly served in these programs; (c) the type of services frequently provided; and (d) the higher education environments in which these opportunity programs are located. The topics guiding this review are these: (a) t he purpose of PSE programs for young adults with intellectual disabilities and (b) the ways in which they are being implemented in institutions of higher education. Research related to implement ation of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities is reviewed and synthesized. Finally, research related to program implementation is reviewed. Information for this review was select ed from peer reviewed journals and from books related t o opportunity programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities such as Autism, Down syndrome t raumatic b rain i njury (TBI) and pervasive developmental disability not otherwise specified (PDD NOS). Topics of interest for this review include d policy context s the population of students served in PSE programs as well as the service models utilized the environments in which programs were implemented and t he types of services provided in these programs The following search terms were used alone and in combination to locate relevant literature : special education, transition programs, post secondary education, transition to adulthood, transition research, transition to higher education, community


30 college transition/special education, co mmunity college/special education, special education/research/post secondary programs, special education/ p ost secondary programs, post secondary programs/adults with disabilities, research/adults with disabilities/education, and disability/higher educatio n/policy. The search terms were also used to search within specific peer reviewed publications. Research was conducted including: Academic Search Premier, Ebsco Host, Wils on Web, and ProQuest. Finally, a search of web pages including, ThinkCollege, Association on Higher Education and Disability ( AHEAD ) National Center on Educational Statistics, and HEATH Resource Center was conducted resulting in a number of resources that are included in this review of literature. The search was narrowed from 262 articles, studies and books to the 29 publications that were chosen for this review. In order to be included the literature had to be published after 1980 and address issues re lated to policy context, population served, service models, environments in which programs were implemented and t he types of services provided. Articles or studies that focused on high incidence disabilities were excluded in favor of those specifically add ressing Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities and Autism. In addition to books cited, a ll articles and studies are from peer reviewed professional journals or federally funded research projects investigating opportunity programs for individuals with deve lopmental disabilities and Autism. The review is organized according to the following topics : (a) disability policies (b) PSE programs for persons with intellectual disabiliti es (c) implementation science and (d) a r eview of empirical research Researc h is viewed through the lens of


31 implementation science (Fixsen et a l., 2005 ) and include s the following topics: program Further analysis address es ways in which implementation scienc e has been used to aid in program development Disability Policy Passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) is the most recent addition to disability policy that directly influences the future of thousands of young adults with intellec tual disabilities. This legislation builds on the strong mandate against discrimination presented in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) The intent of HEOA is to remove the last barrier to full parti cipation of individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities by providing access to higher education. HEOA also offers financial support in the form of Federal Financial Aid and work study for individuals with intellectual disabilities receiving tr ansition services in co llege and university settings. This legislation provides a certification process for colleges and universities providing comprehensive transition programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities that allows for access to Feder al Student Financial Aid funding T he Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provided a clear and comprehensive mandate for the elimination of discrimination by provid ing clear, strong, consistent, enfo rceable standards that address discrimination agains t all individuals with disabilities including those with intellectual and developmental disabilities This law further ensures that the federal g overnment plays a central role in enforcing the standards established on behalf of individuals wi th disabilitie s. Additionally, C ongress was given full authority to address the major areas of discrimination experienced by people with disabilities on a


32 daily basis. The 2008 reauthorization entitled the Americans with Disabilities A ct Amendment Act (ADAA) provided a broader interpretation of the construct of disability that may have implications for colleges and universities seeking to provide PSE access to people with intellectual disabilities (Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 201 0 ). T he Developmental Disabilities Act of 1963 (DDA) was the first legisla tion that specifically addressed the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities suggesting for the first time that this population was beginning to be viewed as participating members of society. This act provided fundin g and support to expand opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities and for professional development to expand the knowledge base regarding needs of persons with developmental disabilities. The DDA was reauthorized in the 1970 s with langu age requiring the integration of services for individuals with developmental disabilities to take place in the least restrictive environment Each piece of legislation from 1963 to 2008 provided more freedoms and rights for individuals with intellectual d isabilities. From the DD A in 1963 to the passage of the HEOA of 2008 there has been increasing recognition that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities ha ve specific needs requiring professionals to expand the ir knowledge and further e xpand the expectations of inclusion and adult educational opportunities for these individuals. Figure 2 provides a visual presentation of the building blocks of American disability law related to education PSE Programs for Individual s with Intellectual Di sabilities This section looks at information available regarding PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Topics covered include the population of


33 students served, expectations for their participation program environments, services off ered, and outcomes for students and programs. Population Served The population typically served in PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities are aged 18 22 years they have most likely graduated from high school with a non standard diplom a, and have received special education services. Thes e individuals have Autism, Down syndrome traumatic brain injury, a developmental disability, or a pervasive developme ntal disability not otherwise specified (PDD NOS) (The Florida Consortium on Postseco ndary Education & Intellectual Disabilities, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2011; Zafft et al. 2004). These individuals typically require support to improve self determination skills, make choices and express preferences. Self determination has been widely viewed as & Palmer, 2003 p 132). The value added to increased self determination includes adult outcomes such as employment, comm unity integration, and independent living. Providing opportunities for individuals with intellectual disabilities to achieve greater self determination could decrease costs to families and taxpayers by more than $1 million over an adult lifetime (Harmon, 2 011) According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) for academic year 2008/09 approximately 61,000 individuals with intellectual disabilities receiving special education services under IDEA graduated from U.S. high schools. I ndividuals with intellectual disabilities have not typically been afforded opportunities to explore, define, and redefine personal goals related to adult learning, employment and social connections. They may have been included in general education classes in high


34 school with limited choices in which ones they could attend. Students with intellectual disabilities might have been limited to life skills or functional academic classes with employment experiences that were teacher directed. Employment experience s m a y not and may not have led to paid em ployment (Grigal & Hart, 2010). Expectations In high school the guidance counselor is typically the gate keeper to college. Students with intellectua l disabilities seldom have access to a guidance counselor (Grigal & Hart, 2010). As part of a transition plan parents of students with intellectual disabilities are typically referred to State Vocational Rehabilitation Centers or the State Developmental Di sabilities Agency for adult services and supports. Few will be assigned an adult service provider who will find them job s in the community. Most will remain unemployed or under employed. Ninety eight percent will not engage in any kind of adult learning wh ether at a college or in other community education settings (Grig al & Hart ; Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2012). Often college and university faculty expect that in order to include students with intellectual disabilities, modification of curriculum will be requi red. However, according is not what students 137). Students do expect to be able to access appropriate accommodations available under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA available to all college students with disabilities. Program Environments Postsecondary education programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities can be found in a variety of environments. Current options include vocational technical


35 institutes, adult education programs, continuing education programs, community education programs, and distance education programs. Opportunity programs also exist on two year and four year college/university campuses. According to current data from Think College! ( http://www.thinkcollege.net/ ) web site there are PSE programs in 72 two year colleges, 99 in four year colleges/universities, and 11 i n trade or vocational schools. Of the 99 programs in four year colleges/univer sities 20 are located in VHRUs, 18 in public universities, and 6 in universities that are members of the Association of American Universities (AAU). Therefore although it might seem counterintuitive to include students with intellectual disabilities on th e campuses of VHRUs, they do indeed exist there. Services Offered Services offered to students in PSE programs located on college and university campuses typically use one of three model frameworks: (a) mixed/hybrid model, (b ) substantially separate model, and (c ) inclusive individual support model. Mixed/Hybrid Model In this model students with intellectual disabilities are included with students without disabilities in college courses and social activities. The level of support provided for each student is determined by individual need. Students with intellectual disabilities may also participate in separate courses designed specifically for students with disabilities. These life centered education courses might include topics such as self advocacy, inde pendent living, organization, time management, and financial responsibility. This model typically provides students with employment experiences on or off campus. The college or university usually provides a d and sometimes provides a space where students can meet for individual or small group counseling or instruction (Har t,


36 2006; Hart & Grigal, 2010). This model of service delivery provides inclusion in an age appropriate setting while supporting person cent er ed planning based on individual strengths, and goals. Substantially S eparate Model In these programs students participate only in classes with other students with disabilities (Hart, 2006). As in the mixed/hybrid model, students participate in life cen tered education courses that focus on skills of daily living. Employment experiences are often accessed through a specific rotation of employment options either on or off campus (Hart, 2006). Students may have opportunities to participate in generic social activities on campus. In some on campus programs a range of classes are developed and taught by graduate level special education students. These classes include academic, life skills, independent living, health and nutrition, self advocacy, and leadership (Hart & Grigal, 2010). Therefore, it appears as though this model is a continuation of a typical high school program for students with intellectual disabilities. The differences are in location and faculty ; oftentimes graduate students provide instruction for PSE program students in university settings instead of school district assigned faculty. I nclusive Individual Support M odel These p rograms are not typically based on a college campus. Using this model students receive individualized supports and serv ices to assist with access to and participation in all aspects of college and continuing adult education and the focus is on establishing specific career goals that direct the course of study and employment experiences based specifically on the individual


37 The difficulty with the inclusive education model lies in the individualized nature area of challenge is navigating access to colleges a nd universities in which entrance criteria may differ from that of matriculating students. Another area that requires mention is that of collaboration with interagency teams from adult service agencies, lity support offices. In the inclusive education model members of each agency help to identify a flexible range of services and share the costs (Hart, 2006; Hart & Grigal, 2010). For information on specific services offered to students with intellectual d isabiliti es in PSE programs ( Table 2 ) All of the services are available to students with disabilities in each program model. It should be noted that most of these services are required by ADA to provide equal access to higher education as reasonable. Pr ogram Outcomes Student Level Outcomes for students with disabilities attending PSE programs can be measured in their growth in: (a ) academic and personal skill building, (b ) c ompetitive employment, (c) independence, (d) self advocacy, and (e ) self confide nce (Hall, Kleinert & Kearns, 2000; Hart et al., 2010; Zafft et al., 2004). Students who had a PSE experience were more likely to be employed in competitive work than in sheltered employment and less likely to need employment supports when compared to thei r counterparts without PSE experiences (Hall, Kleinert & Kearn s; Hart et al.; Zafft et al.). two year or a four year college, was (G rigal, Hart, & Migliore, 2011 p 9).


38 Program Level Program outcomes indicate support to instructors, non disabled students and others involved in the c ourse of study for young adults with intellectual disabilities in a PSE setting (Weinkauf, 2002). Students taking college classes with their non students changed the way that th ese faculty members thought about their teaching and instruction (Causton Theohari s, Ashby & DeClouette 2009, p. 98). In addition, inclusion of these students had an impact on doctoral students who help ed teach courses. Issues of inclusion became real fo r students, teaching assistants and faculty members who had opportunities to interact with students with intellectual disabilities. Institutional Level. At th e institutional level PSE programs may be considered rs traditional and historical perceptions of intellectual disability and can be a catalyst to acceptance and accommodation of people with disabilities in th 34). Inclusion of these students increases positive perception and raises expectat ions of faculty and prospective employers, because once these students enroll in a university they are considered college students instead of simply an individual with a disability (Zafft, et al. 2004). Implementation Science Implementation of PSE programs can be viewed through the emerging lens of implementation science which can serve as a guide to understanding the challenges of breaching the stanch ions of large organizations to e mbed resea rch initiatives into practice. rge human serv ice organization s are characterized by multiple and often conflicting goals, unclear and uncertain technologies for realizing those goals, and fluid Rosenheck, 2001 p


39 1608). These are the characteristics that must be understood and addressed when undertaking t he implementation process in VH RUs. barrier and as a potential bridge be 16 08). When considering implementation of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities, adoption events as crucial and focuses on the actions of those who convert it into practice as the key to success or failur is essential (Petersilia, 1990, p 129). mplementation is synonymous with coordinated change at system, organization, progr Fixsen et al., 2005 p VI ). The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) describes four stages of i mplementation that take from 2 4 years to complete. The four stages are: (a) exploration, (b) installation, (3) initial implementation, and (d) full implementation ( http://n irn.fpg.unc.edu/learn implementation/implementation stages ) These stages do not necessarily have a clear ending or beginning and may overlap at either end of the continuum. If there are extreme changes in the process of implementation, efforts may drop b ack to a previous stage. Examples of extreme change might include staff turnover at the teacher, assistant, building, or institutional level. Exploration During this stage implementation teams assess readiness. The implementation team is accountable for h elping create a readiness especially when the goal is to reach an entire population such as the faculty, administration, and student body of a university ( Fixsen et al., 2005 ). Without readiness of the intended target audience, implementation will most lik ely fail.


40 Installation The purpose of the installation stage is to collect or repurpose resources necessary to do the work affiliated with implementation. This includes selecting staff, developing training, locating office space, equipment, and identifying assessment tools. All initial preparation must be complete before initial implementation can occur. Preparing implementation teams help organizations understand the need for resources and prepare for the next stage. Initial implementation Initial impleme ntation occurs when the new program is used for the first time. Practitioners are attempting to use newly learned skills in the context of a new program within a broader organization that is beginning to learn how to accommodate a nd support the new ways of work, o r in this study, leaning how to support a new population fragile stage where the awkwardness associated with trying new things and the difficulties associated wi th changing old ways of work are strong motivations for giving http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn implementation/implementation stages ). Without external support for change establishing and sustaining change to the p oint of integration in daily routine is not likely. Full implementation The full implementation stage is achieved when 50% or more individuals involved in the new program are using the new innovations with fidelity and good outcome. The new ways of providi ng services are the standard routine for work and practitioners and staff are routinely providing high quality services. The only constant at this stage is


41 change and ongoing support for new staff and administrators will continue to be necessary. Program c hanges will continue to take place and will be directed by results of ongoing program assessment and student outcome data. Vocabulary from the NIRN model and stages of implementation is used within the following analysis of current research of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. This analysis will focus on four main components: (a) how topics have been studied, (b) framework s used, (c) methodology, and (d) stage of implementation. Research on PSE Programs This section of the revie w provides an analysis of the ways in which PSE programs for students with intellectual disabilities have been studied. First, the rationale for including studies for review is discussed. Next a brief synthesis of the studies, purposes, methodologies and samples is provided to give the reader an overview. Then the 11 studies are presented and critically analyzed. The review addresses three programs, and (c) program and student outcomes. These areas serve as the organizational structure for analysis and synthesis of studies in this section. Selection Criteria Specific parameters for selection of studies for the review were established prior to searching the literature. First, s tudies were to focus on PSE programs for students with intellectual/developmental disabilities in the United States and Canada take place in two and four year institutions and provide services through one of three models: (a) mixed/hybrid, (b) s ubstantia lly separate, or (c) inclusive intensive support. All of the studies represented in this review were located in one of these settings.


42 The search for this review res ulted in research of PSE focused on program program outcomes. Search terms mentioned in the first part of this chapter were used to identify14 studies, 11 of which are examined in this section. Studies not included looked at the impact of self determination on post h igh school success of individuals with disabilities, support provision for individuals with intellectual disabilities and outcomes of vocational rehabilitation pro grams for the same population. None of these were related to individuals with disabilities in PSE programs in college or university settings and were set aside in favor of studies focusing on topics relevant to this study. Purposes Researchers have studied various aspects of providing transition services for 21 years in PSE settings. Some looked at program design and capacity (Hart, Mele McCarthy, Pasternack, Zimbrich & Parker, 2004; Neubert, Moon & Grigal, 2004; Papay & Bambara, 2011; Pearman, Elliott, & Aborn, 2004; Sharpe & Johnson, 2001). Others attempted to document stud (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2010; Paiewonsky, 2011) or describe the outcomes for students and other individuals involved in PSE programs (Causton Theoharis, Ashby & DeClouette, 2009; Grigal, Hart & Migliore, 2011; Weinkauf, 2002; Z afft, Hart & Zimbrich, 2004). Two studies alluded to implementation of PSE programs (Causton Theoharis, et al., 2009; Pearman, et al., 2004). Methodologies Survey was the method most frequently used in these studies. Two studies conducted secondary analyse s using data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 and the National Survey of Postsecondary Education Supports for Students


43 with Disabilities (Grigal, et al. 2011; Sharpe & Johnson, 2001). Others developed their own surveys that were used to a nswer their specific research questions (Hart et al., 2004: Neubert et al., 2004; Papay & Bambara, 2011; Zafft et al., 2004). Four studies involved qualitative methodology using narrative inquiry or a combination of narrative inquiry and in depth interview s (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2010; Causton Theoharis et al., 2009; Pearman et al., 2004; Weinkauf, 2002). One study used participatory action research (Paiewonsky, 2011). Program Design and Capacity Five studies addressed the topics of program design and capacity. Hart et al., (2004) investigated options that support youth with learning, cognitive, and intellectual disabilities (LCID) in PSE settings while still enrolled in secondary school. According to Hart et al, their national survey of 25 PSE options was desig ned to serve as an empirical foundation for future research of these services models. Programs were identified through postings on two national listservs related to youth with disabilities in higher education, a database of programs from the University of Kansas, Graduate College of Education, and the National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Telephone surveys of 40 college programs led to identification of 25 programs that met the selection c riteria of serving students with LCID ages 18 21 years who were dual enrolled and receiving services on a college campus. The programs represented in this survey were located in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kentucky, and New York. Results of surveys indicated that programs typically fell into one of three PSE models: (a) substantially separate model, (b) mixed model, and (c) inclusive model. The mixed model was the program m odel used in most PSEs (n=13). Data


44 indicated the substantially sep arate program model had been used longer than either the mixed or inclusive program models. Data revealed that 62.5% of the combined number of mixed and separate programs had been in existence for more than 5 years. The longest running program in this grou p had been operating for 16 years. Based on stages of implementation represented in the NIRN model, these programs are in the fully implemented stage. Substantially separate programs tended to be larger with 60% having over 21 students. Some programs had a s many as 70 students across multiple classes. Mixed programs served an average of 11 15 students whereas inclusive programs served between 6 10 students on average. All of the mixed and inclusive programs surveyed had fewer than 15 students at any one tim e. Postsecondary programs often (61.1%) mentioned by survey respondents were transportation, entrance standards, and a lack of transition planning. In this study, Hart et al ., (2004) described initial findings of a nationwide survey. Neither theoretical perspective nor the framework for conducti ng this research was provided. At the time of this study PSE programs for this population of students were beginning to grow and ther e was little research available to guide program development. These researchers were breaking new ground in the study of PSE program options for individuals with LCID. Although this study provided a detailed description of service models that are described similarly in subsequent studies in this section the results might ho ld more credence if there had been more description


45 regarding their process of analysis and if the empirical framework mentioned in the study had been fully developed and described. A se opportunities in postsecondary se ttings (Neubert et al., 2004). Surveys were mailed to teachers in 17 postsecondary settings, covering all of the local school districts serving studen ts ages 18 21 years All of the teachers identified were certified secondary special educators who were responsible for providing services to students with IEP objectives generally related to vocational training and community based instruction. All student s were on track to receive a certificate of completion rather than a high school diploma. Thirteen teachers returned completed survey forms. Descriptive data were compiled and links to adult services were entered into an Excel spreadsheet for data analysis Open ended questions from the survey were grouped according to themes of inclusion, transition, planning, interagency efforts, and follow up efforts however there was no explanation of the analysis process to help the reader understand how the results w ere derived. Teachers were asked to describe their inclusion and integration efforts at the postsecondary site, in the community, as well as their interagency efforts and the type of follow up activities through open ended question. Survey participants w ere also asked to provide specific information for students served during the 2001 2002 school year. Teachers did not consistently provide the s pecific information requested. Perhaps part of the inconsistency in reporting can be attributed to lack of commu nication between teachers and a program coordinator from the school system. There appeared to be some confusion regarding who was responsible for initiating the follow up survey.


46 Systematic follow up to document student outcomes is an area of need because only two program teachers reported engaging in these efforts. Two teachers reported efforts were in the process of development by their program coordinators which may suggest t hese programs wer e in the initial implementation stages. A majority of the PSE p rograms were facilitated on a two year college campus in which many social activities for students took place in the evening hours or on weekends. The teachers providing support for the students held teaching contracts with the local school district and th eir schedules mirrored the regular high school schedule. Therefore, teachers were not available during hours when college students might be engaged in social inclusion activities. To reach full implementation school system administrators should consider h ow to support teachers in collecting data on activities and outcomes. Logistical problems in accessing activities on campus were reported including transportation issues, conflicting student employment hours and lack of peer support structures. Due to shor tcomings in data collection and analysis, little can be gained from this study that can be useful to make a case for providing postsecondary opportunities. Even though there was no mention of a theoretical framework organizing this study, there was adequat e description of the service delivery models, types of activities and interactions that resulted from student access to PSE opportunities. A third study used descriptive methods of analysis to examine the general characteristics of PSE programs for student s with intellectual/developmental disabilities and the extent to which these students we re participating in college classes (Papay & Bambara, 2011). Data were collected through a national survey of PSE program coordinators in the United States bet ween Augu st and December 2008. To be included


47 in the study, programs had to provide access to a PSE program located at a two year or four year college or university. In addition, the programs had to provide services to individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities aged 18 21 years who were still receivi ng special education services. Through use of the ThinkCollege data base 87 programs were identified for inclusion. Researchers received 58 responses to the survey. Six programs were excluded because coor dinators reported the program did not provide access to a college campus, or did not serve students who were still receiving special education services, or did not serve students with intellectual/developmental disabilities. Findings indicated three model s of service delivery were represented by survey respondents. The majority of programs used the mixed model (n=40) whereas individualized and separate model types were used in the rest of the programs (n=6 of each type). More programs were located on two y ear or community college campuses (57.7%) than four year college/university campuses (42.3%). No difference in the type of program model by location of program was reported. The distribution of program models across program settings was approximately equal School districts operated 58.8% of programs but they may also have been operated by the college, an outside organization, or through a collaborative partnership between the school district and the college. The majority of programs were funded by school districts and student tuition was the second most cited funding source w ith the exception of individual programs in which student tuition was n ot a source of funding. Federal grants were relatively rare across the sample. Other sources of funding that cam e either directly or indirectly from


48 organizations receiving Federal supports include Vocational Rehabilitation, and Medicaid. Additional reported income sources in cluded grants and fundraising. All but two respondents indicated their programs were sustain able. The remaining two programs respondents indicated their program was time limited based on funding. The median enrollment across all programs was 12 students, although a few programs reported much larger enrollments that resulted in a higher average nu mber of students enrolled. The main criteria for admission into one of these PSE programs included: (a) a minimum age for participation of 18; (b) a desire to be on a college campus; and (c) residency in a particular school district. Other criteria were co nsidered in mixed and separate models. The majority of programs using one of these two models of service delivery excluded students who exhibit ed challenging behaviors and at least 1/3 of them exclude d students who lack ed safety skills. No individualized p rogram reported excluding students for either of these reasons. A higher proportion of individualized programs stated that they have no criteria for excluding students. Respondents reported the purpose of PSE was: (a) for employment or opportunities for vo cational training (90%); (b) for inclusion with same age peers (75%); and (c) for development of independent living skills (75%). Nearly 30% of all students enrolled in PSE programs were taking college classes. There was little difference in percentage of students participating based on type of institution. Papay and Bambara, (2011) indicated that future research should continue to enhance understanding of PSE programs in relation to other PSE activities in which students with intellectual/developmental di sabilities are participating. Future research should also focus on the benefits of participating in both of these settings and in college


49 classes with students without disabilities. This was a well designed study with results that were tied to data, descri bed in detail and tied back to th e original research questions. Such d ata representation would be helpful in decision making and for program development. The fourth study in this section used program theory to evaluate the Southwest Special Education Loc al Plan Area (SELPA) of the Los Angeles County School District and El Cami no College (Pearman, Elliot, & Aborn, 2004). Researchers interviewed 16 program staff from SELPA, conducted observations of 60 program participants and examined program records provi ding a historical record of program goals and objectives. These sources were selected in order to gain the most complete information regarding the program so that a set of theories could be created. he SELPA transition service emphasizes access, inclusio n, equity, equality, empowerment, natural supports, demonstrable results, personal development, social integration, affiliation, and Pearman et al., 2004 p 33). The transition services program theory model derived from t his study provided a prototype of collaboration between the local school districts and a community college. model provides linkages to services, instruction, and community referral proven to redress an unmet need for students between the ages of 18 a al. p. 33). The focus of service provision utilized individualized student planning to develop a flexible strategy to meet the unique ind ividual needs of each student. These might include class registration and access, tutoring, a cademics, job training, paid employment, independent living skills, use of public transportation, and job coaching.


50 The anticipated outcome of the program is to prepare young adults to live, work, and participate in their communities. The question guiding this research was: What are the underlying propositions or hypotheses of the transition program for secondary college students moving to community college? The researchers provided a description of the students served in the program as well as the program staff. They also included a description of the referral process, program design supports. The provision of services through a well established network of service providers is one of the strengths of the model developed through this study. The underlying propositions or hypotheses of the transition program were not addressed in this study. Providing an answer to the stated research question along with the program description would have made this a much stronger study. In t he fifth and final study in this section researchers conducted a secondary analysis using data from the National Survey of Postsecondary Education Supports for Students with Disabilities representing 1,500 disability support coord inators in PSE institutions across the United States. Sharpe and Johnson (2001) conducted a 20/20 analysis to study institutional characteristics of support services that reflect high and low levels of capacity based on supports and accommodations availabl e to student with disabilities. The main purpose of this study according to Sharpe and Johnson was to develop an operational framework to identify the parameters of institutional capacity to be used in subsequent longitudinal studies addressing a variety o f topics including program access, satisfaction, and positive perceptions of post school outcomes. This secondary analysis was derived from 24 survey items reflecting measures of capacity.


51 These survey items represented a service, program, support or techn ology that could be measured to estimate frequency of use or availability. Results indicated that a large percentage of public institutions were included in the high capacity groups compared to the relatively low percentage of such institutions in the low capacity groups. Whereas a high percentage of private institutions were found in the low capacity group in contrast to the relatively low percentage of private institu tions in high capacity groups. There were few difference reported in the types of support s and accommodations provided by either group although the availability of these services varied considerably. Low capacity institutions were found to have lower staff to student ratios than high capacity institutions. These findings hold significance for individuals with intellectual disabilities transitioning to postsecondary education in public universities with student enrollment in excess of 10, 000 students. These large public institutions are more likely to enroll students with disabilities and provid e a wider array of services than smaller private institutions. It appears that large public institutions have the capacity to address the needs of a wide range of students with disabilities through development of funding mechanisms and infrastructure. Shar pe and Johnson were able to describe some aspects of capacity present in both private and public universities. Studies in this section represented programs in the initial implementation and full implementation stages based on the NIRN model. The se five st udies utilized varying methods to describe characteristics of PSE programs, program design, and capacity. Hart et al. (2004) did not describe a theoretical perspective or a framework for organizing their research and the empirical framework they claimed t o be building did


52 not appear to be fully developed. The majority of programs described by Hart et al., and by the Neubert et al. (2004) study were located on college campus and facilitated by high school teachers selected by local school districts. These teachers were boun d by the same academic calendar/ daily schedule as most other high school teachers. If these are truly programs providing transition experiences on a college campus it would seem that there should be a difference in more than the location of their classrooms. One might expect that students receiving PSE on college campuses would be taking college classes, but only 37% of the students represented in the Neubert et al. study and 27.7% in the Papay & Bambara (2011) study were doing so Papay and Bambara ( 2011) suggest ed that the benefits of students with intellectual disabilities participating in PSE programs are that the programs offer a promising opportunity to promote lifelong inc lusion and self determination. Neubert et al., (2004) indicat e d that those who are planning PSE programs should consider whether campus environments are the best options in the community for social and recreational supports for this population. Finally, Sharpe and Johnson (2001) posit ed that large public universitie s have the capacity to provide services and supports to a wider range of students with disabilities including those w ith intellectual disabilities. Based on the results of these studies there is room for much more research on program design and capacity. A lthough there were similarities in service model descriptions, the interpretations ascribed to them differed across studies. There was lack of consistency in methodology and reporting of results and in some instances the research questions were not fully a ddressed.


53 Ankeny and Lehmann (2010 ) used narrative inquiry to examine the perceptions of four students with disabilities who successfully completed a college v ocational program and were gainfully employed. The study participants each under the age of 22 years, remained on Individual ized Educational P rogram s (IEPs) while attending a community college program. The purpose of this study was to understand how the t ransition program incorporated into their IEPs supported their successful outcomes. Data were collected through a series of three interviews with each student. Data were also derived from reflective journal entries, field notes of the interview settings, debriefing notes after each conversation and transcriptions of taped interview recordings. Finding s derived from the shared narratives of participants indicated that participation in the transition program provided the following benefits: (a) meaningful su pports to aid in transitioning into adult roles and status, (b) opportunities enhancing self esteem thus leading to gainful employment and (c) expectation s for the student s g of his or her experience provided insight into the community coll ege experience. of participating in the transition program each student could compose a new way of envisioning himself or herself 2010 p. 490). In Paiewonsky (2011) used participatory action research to promote active engagement of students w ith intellectual disabilities. Participants were recruited from a group of college students with intell ectual disabilities who participated in the Massachusetts Inclusive C oncurrent Enrollment ini tiative (ICE)


54 The initiative involves partnerships between 7 community colleges and 20 school districts and is administered by the Massachusetts Department of Ele mentary and Secondary Education in collaboration with the Department of Higher Educat ion. Funds for this initiative we re appropri ated by the State Legislature. To be included in this study individuals had to be at least 18 years old and no more than 25 ye ars of age, be eligible for special education services from their school districts and not meet the local requirements for a standard high school diploma. Two to three students from each of the seven community colleges were invited to be researchers in th is study. Scheduling conflicts prohibited participation by students from two colleges. A total of nine students accepted the invitation and consented to co research their own college experience facilitated by the experienced researcher conducting the study Data collected for th is study and narratives and procedure to organize and examine relationships among emergent concepts was an impor tant first addressed both what they liked Paiewonsky, 2011 p. 37). Student researchers descr ibed personal changes that resulted from their engagement in postsecondary ed ucation. Evidence also emerged to suggest developmental changes in identity, academic engagement, and self reliance. The studies conducted by Ankeny and Lehmann (2010) and Paiewonsky (2011) utilized student voice to identify characteristics of PSE programs that influenced student success. Missing from much of the literature on PSE programs is information regarding


55 own p erspectives Having primary source documentation of what works for students with intellectual disabilities in PSE program settings serves a useful role in program design. As with any other program s providing services to specific population s collecti ng data on what consumers need and what they want in PSE programs is important. This research may help program implementers make decisions about what to include in their programs. Program and Student Outcomes Four students addressed the outcomes for progr ams and students. Causton Theoharis et al. (2009) used qualitative inquiry to investigate two PSE programs in Central New York that supported students labeled with significant disabilities Purposeful sampling was used to select participants representing d ifferent groups involved in two PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Major stakeholders included parents, program staff, program developers, and University faculty. Those persons who were most able to speak to the complexities of ea ch of the programs we re selected for participation. Each of the eight individuals who agreed to participate in this study was involved in interviews that lasted from 45 minutes to 2 hours and consisted of open ended questions. All interviews were digitally r ecorded and later transcribed. is grounded on the assumption that all students, regardless of perceived abilities or disabilities, should be entitled to higher education with peers (Causton Theo haris et al., p 90). The questions guiding this study were: What are the benefits and major accomplishments of these prog rams? a nd w hat obstacles exist to implementing these programs?


56 PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities are perceived by major stakeholders as making a difference in the lives of students by creating opportunities for students who have not traditionally be en provided opportunities to obtain a University education. Accord ing to Caust on Theoharis et al. (2009), three perceived benefits emerged in response to the first research question: (a) benefits to students with disabilities, (b) benefits to college classmates, and (c) benefits to college faculty. The benefits or outcomes for stud ents with intellectual disabilities include d student growth and opportun ities for friendship. Data indicated benefits for classmates of these students that include learning to include others and opportunities for natural peer interactions. Benefits for fac ulty include d clear planning for instruction that benefit all changed the way that these faculty members thought about their teaching and Theoharis et a l., p 98). This is the only study in this collection that dealt directly with any facet of implementation. In this instance the focus was on obstacles to inclusion. Data from this study indicate d two main types of obstacles: institutional/logistical and attitudinal. Course selection and auditing obstacles to program implementation. A key component in both programs was inclusion in academic coursework with typical peers in a variety of disciplines, de partme nts, and schools; however, course selection wa s complicated by institutional and logistical barriers. In one of the programs non degree students we re required to register through a department that supports part time and non traditional learners. Acc ording to


57 Causton Theoharis et al. (2009), this department erected barriers to registration that hinder ed student access. Paraprofessionals posed a second logistical and structural barrier according to program participants. Paraprofessional support can be beneficial during early days of program participation but as one becomes more familiar with campus and the program less support is required and paraprofessionals become a barrier to social interactions with peers. Issues of access have been noted as obsta cles for students who attempt to o btain identification cards that allow access to campus services and the library. Lack of access to parking can also be an obstacle for students who do not have ac cess to public transportation and who rely on drivers for tr ansportation Attitudinal obstacles including faculty resistance also make it difficult for students with intellectual disabilities to be included in academic settings. Faculty resistance was identified when students attempted to register for courses and w ere told there was not enough room in the class. Others denied e nrollment with no explanation. Causton Theoharis et al. (2009) posit ed held perception that it takes specialized skills and training to be able to interact with and teach students wi 101). Peer mentoring was also seen as an obstacle to social interaction and the development of friendships. If arranged friendships are the only source of peer interaction these relationships ofte n preclude the development of real friendships (Causton Theoharis et al.) Design of this study used qualitative inquiry and purposeful sampling to examine inclusive/individual support model pro grams in two PSE programs. Al though the


58 programs are located o n mid sized private college campuses the programs are representative of much of what is happening in the development of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. Data from these two programs shed light on key issues in the field of inclu sive higher education and highlight challenges still to be overcome (Causton Theoharis et a l ., 2009 l). This particular study was chosen for inclusion in this section because it directly addressed the benefits of PSE programs and used analysis of collected data to identify those benefits. Another reason for selecting this study was the inclusion of a second research question examining obstacles to implementing these programs. This study provided a comprehensive look at the barriers to implementation of PSE p rograms. Although the setting for this study was in private institutions, many of the faculty and administrative attitudes described have been mentioned in literature addressing public institutions, as well. When planning implementation of PSE program s for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities understanding the possible barriers and detours may be beneficial to the implementation process. Another study addressing outcomes, conducted by Grigal, Hart and Migliore (2011), presents a second ary analysis of variables from the National Longitudinal Transition Survey 2 (NLTS 2). Students with intellectual disabilities were compared to students with other disabilities regarding post school transi tion goals listed on their IEPs Transition Plans, c ontracts/referrals made to outside agencies during transition planning, participation of other agencies/organizations in transition planning, and and employment outcomes. This study focused on ation outcomes.


59 A stratified random sample of 3,630 Loc al Education Agencies (LEAs) selected from the universe of 12,000 LEAs operating in the United States and 70 state supported special schools were contacted. A total of 500 LEAs and 30 special schools agreed to participate, yielding a total of more than 11,000 students eligible for the study. This study focuses on more than 520 students with intellectual disabilities as identified by school districts. Students with intellectual disabilities had less pos itive education and employment outcomes than did students with other types of disabilities. The only predictor associated with a greater likelihood of employment for students with intellectual disabilities was a post school transition goal of att ending a t wo year or four year college. 2 year or 4 year college, was relationship was not evident for students with other types of disab 2011, p. 9). The sample size represented in this study provides opportunities for generalizing findings regarding student outcomes to other PS E programs. One interesting finding was the association between receiving specific VR se rvices and employment outcomes. One possible explanation for this finding is that VR services are more readily accessible to individuals with intellectual disabilities than PSE programs on college campuses. One other interesting finding was the relationshi p between increased earnings in competitive employment and VR support of PSE programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Although both supports provided improved employment outcomes, the combination may provide a stronger network of supports for successful access to competitive employment.


60 In a Canadian study Weinkauf (2002) reported results of a study undertaken to describe a new adult education phenomenon at the time called Inclusive Post Secondary Education (IPSE). This descriptive study used a qualitative approach to interview senior staff of three IPSE programs in Alberta, Canada. All seven were full time employees with leadership positions in their respective programs. Interviews were recorded and transc ribed for use in data analysis. An oper ational definition of ISPE was developed as well as a description of student outcomes. Both were derived from opinions of participants. Weinkauf (2002) suggested that by utilizing a set of guiding principles, a n I PSE expe rience can prove beneficial to individuals with intellectual disabilities and to the community at large. experiences, employm ent, self esteem independence, community living skills, and the opportu nity to secure employment or supported employment in the community upon community attitudes toward individuals w ith intellectual disabilities. Weinkauf goes on to say t secondary institutions, but to also change what families of students with intellectual disabilities The f inal study addressing program and student outcomes used survey methods to measure the effectiveness of PSE on areas of employment including: number of hours worked each week, hourly pay rate, length of time on the current job, benefits received, type of work setting, work with or without s upports, assistance in finding work, and socialization with fe llow employees (Zafft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2 004). The sample in


61 this study wa s a matched cohort of 40 age s 18 22 years; 20 participated in PSE and 20 did not. All students previously par ticipated in substantially separate education programs at five local high schools, with almost all students enrolled in life skills classes rather than the general education curriculum The results of this analysis suggested several relationships: (a) s tude nts with PSE experience were more likely to be employed in competitive work than in sheltered employment; (b) Students who participated in PSE and were engaged in competitive employment were less likely to need employment supports when compared to their co unterparts without PSE; (c) PSE may increase the cost of the transition process, but students participating in PSE are less likely to need on going supports as they move on to their lives as employees; (d) students who participated in PSE were more likely to receive a high school diploma, and (e) 16 of the 20 students who participated in PSE chose to continue on at college after comp l eting their first class. A factor contributing to student success in the college environment was access to a wide variety of accommodations that students had not needed or used in high school. The four studies in this section were well planned and executed and looked closely at outcomes of students with intellectual disabilities participating in PSE programs on college and univ ersity campuses. Some of the studies addressed program, faculty, and community outcomes related to these PSE programs. One study directly addressed obstacles to implementation along with program outcomes. Three of the studies examined outcomes of PSE progr ams in the U S and the fourth described the operational practices of IPSE programs in Canada.


62 Although outcomes for students were similar in the U S and Canada, issues related to access were different. In the U S there are no universally accepted opera tional practices for PSE and access to programs differs based on the location of the program, service model used, and on the structure of individual programs. Likely in the U S ed ucational system will be offered in public schools and public institutions of higher education. Conclusions As of 2013 there were over 200 PSE programs on college and university campuses nationwide. Despite the number of programs currently operating, very little outcome data are available to suggest what works for students with intellectual disabilities in these programs. Large data sets such as those collected in the NLTS 2 may be the best way to access outcome data for those participating in PSE programs Certainly many of the researchers represented in this review based their studies on these large data sets. Admittedly there is a dearth of research on PSE programs however not all available research provides a level of detail that would permit replicatio n. For example, Hart et al (2004) and Neubert et al., (2004) provided no theoretical perspective or framework in their studies. Hart et al. did not fully develop the empirical framework that was stated to be the purpose o f the study. This information would be beneficial for others attempting to design and implement PSE programs. Several researchers posit that participation in PSE programs on college and university campuses result in higher rates of competitive employment for students with intellectual disa bilities (Ankeny & Lehmann, 2010; Hart et al., 2004; Pearman et al.,


63 2004). Despite this contention, Neubert et al. (2004) suggest ed that program developers consider whether campus environments are the best environments for PSE programs. Meanwhile, Sharpe and Johnson (2001) suggest ed that large public universities might be the best place for PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities because of the wide range of supports and accommodations typical ly offered by these institutions, and becau se of the number of resources available to support a large population of students with disabilities. If one w ere to compare what is line of reasoning makes sense. Based on self reported data available on the Think College website the largest increase in PSE programs is taking place in VHRUs. Neubert et al. also have a valid point in suggesting that progra m developers c onsider the appropriateness of two year college s as sett ings for PSE programs. The population on these campuses represents dually enrolled high school students, vocational technical students, and adult learners along with typical aged college students. Due to the lack of a student body predominantly represented by 18 24 year olds, perhaps two year colleges are not the best settings for individuals with intellectual disabilities to gain optimum growth and engagement with same aged peers. The studies represented in this review raised more questions than they an swered. Descriptions of service models, population served, funding mechanisms, inclusion criteria, and collaborative partnerships providing services and programming occurred frequently in the literature. Empirical studies derived from large data sets provi ded evidence of use of specific service models and limited result s related to student outcomes. If PSE programs c ontinue their pattern of growth, those wishing to


64 implement said programs would benefit from research that explains how implementation choices and compromises have been made and whether or how campus cultures allow such programs to exist. Needed Research The research reviewed in this chapter reveals that PSE programs have been studied mainly through survey design, or through qualitative methods u sing narrative inquiry. The studies have provided description s of program models, student s upports, and program outcomes. Researchers also provided insight into the perceptions of individuals participating in PSE programs. Information from each of these st udies could be placed into the NIRN framework s illustrating the stages of and influences on implementation The majority of information applied to the exploration and installation stages of implementation. Some researchers described programs in the full im plementation stage and two groups of researchers mentioned initial implementation. Researchers who looked at initial implementation stages discussed obstacles to implementation or advocated that a process for implementation was required. During a period o f time when PSE programs are steadily increasing in number more guidance is required. This review of literature points to the need for future research related to implementation of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. There is a need to establish a broader understanding of the implementation process through qualitative methods that collect the understandings and experiences of those who have been involved in implementing PSE programs for individuals w ith intellectual disabilities. The greatest amount of growth is occurring in VHRUs with a 50% increase in PSE


65 programs at these institutions from 2011 to 2012 as compared with a 60% increase in the number of PSE programs overall from 2009 2011. The rapid growth in the number of progra ms serving this population combined with limited research creates a need to investigate many aspects in order to build a foundation of research upon which to guide effective implementation of PSE programs There is a need to understand the PSE program imple mentation process as it occurs in natural settings: for the purpose of the present study that would be within programs located at VHRUs. There is need to further identify and examine factors influencing program implementation those that hin der the implem entation process, and factors influencing choices and compromises made in the process of implementation In order to accomplish this program developers and understandings of the process that led to implementation of their PSE progra m will be explored Chapter three provide s the methodological underpinnings of this qualitative case study which explore s the ways in which program developers and key stakeholders understand the process that led to implementation of their PSE program in a VHRU.


66 Higher Education Opportunity Act 2008 Guarantees access to h igher education and financial aid for Individuals with ID/D Developmental Disabilities Act 1963 Amended 2008 Addresses the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities. The amendment p rovided a broader interpretation of the construct of disability ESEA No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2001 Ensures all children a fair, equa l, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education IDEA 2004 Ensures special education & related services meeting the needs of students with disabilities. § 504, 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 Protects individuals with disabilities against discrimination Figure 2 1. Building blocks of disability education law


67 Table 2 1 Accommodations and Services in Higher Education for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities Instructional Academic Test Accommodations Skill Building, Strategies & Services Note taker Counseling referral Setting: Separate r oom for tests Skills: Study Scribe Special advising Minimal distractions Memory Reader Priority Seating Organizational Tutor Time management Technology equipment and software Tape recorded lecture Early registration Time/Schedule Changes: Extend ed time (50%, 150%) Strategies: Meta cognitive Advanced receipt of syllabus & course handouts Course substitution for Breaks during testing Self advocacy Priority registration Administer tests in several sessions Career/Vocational Co urse materials available in alternative format Class relocation Format Changes: Reader to read directions & questions or oral test Services: Job placement, Internship opportunities Screen Reader (CCTV) Dictate answers to scribe or tape recorder Transfer of supports to work placement Screen Enlarger TextHELP: read/write software Allow student to mark responses on test rather than on Scantron answer sheet Spell/grammar checker Increase size of Answer Sheet bubbles Textbooks on tape Larger type Use of word processor for written responses Hafner, Moffatt, & Risa (2011); Hart et al., (2010); Stodden, Whelley, C hang, & Harding (2001); Wilson, Getzel, & Brown (2000); Zafft et al., (2004). Note: CCTV = closed circuit television


68 CHAPTER 3 METH ODOLOGY Overview of the Methods This c hapter provides an overview of the methods used in conducting this study In the first section of the chapter the purpose of the study is addressed and assumptions and rationale for the qualitative case study design ar e presented In the second section information on the selection of settings, participants, and assurances of confidentiality are presented. Issues of entry, reciprocity and ethics are also addressed. The last section of th e chapter includes detail of the d ata collection and analysis procedures used in this study. Purpose of th is Qualitative Study The purpose of this qualitative study wa s to examine the ways in which program developers and relevant stakeholders understand the process that led to implementat ion of their PSE program Of particular interest is developing an understanding of the critical incidents including the choices or compromises that influenced program implementation To accomplish this purpose incidents that were critical in influencing t he implementation process were analyzed The research question driving this study was this : How do program developers and relevant stakeholders understand the process that led to implementation of their PSE program? Qualitative inquiry was se lected for thi s study because q ualitative work starts (Hatch 2002, p. 9). Qualitative methods are especially use ful when answering how and why question in situations where investigator s would ha ve little control over events or circumstances (Yin, 2009). Case study design was used to understand the unique


69 experiences of program development teams and relevant stakeholders implementing a PSE program for individuals with intellectual disabilities in one VH RU Type of Design A case study is an empirical study that takes place within the real life c ontext of a n particular, case studi es are relevant when conducting research in organ izations where the intent is to study systems, i ndividuals, programs, (Yin 2003, p. 15) such as PSE programs in VHRUs Use of purposeful sampling in qualitative case study methods allows the researcher to select a case projected to yield great stores of information about a specific topic (Me rriam, 2009). T his case study is bounded by the selected university in which it is located and the personnel directly involved with implementation of the PSE program. Along with the program director relevant stakeholders include d the director of disabili ty resources, the director of special education, the former dean of the college of education and a parent of a student participating in the program. Data from the case wer e analyzed using CIT to identify incidents that appeared to be critical t o particip ants involved with implementation Provision of rich description of the context should be beneficial to understanding the processes and decision making required for PSE program implementation in this VH RU This case study was conducted through the theoreti cal perspective of hermeneutics. Theoretical Perspective or deciphering indirect meaning; a reflective practice of unmasking hidden meanin (Crotty, 1998 p 88). Hermeneutics was used in this inq uiry to go beyond a simple description of


70 program implementation and to uncover a deeper understanding of the process of implementation T o understand something, one needs to begin with ideas, and to use terms that assume a f undamental knowledge of what o ne is trying to understand (Crotty 1998 ). As the researcher in this study I bring ideas gained through my experience assisting in the development and implementation of a PSE program in a VHRU. This experience along with review of literature related to PSE programs and implementation science in combination with informant interviews serve as a means of transmitting understanding from one person to another. During the interview pro cess an affinity between the individuals with whom I interacted and me was cr eated. My pre understandings were the basis for interact ing with each informant and my pre u nderstandings combined with th e understandings of my informants contributed to a more developed understanding of the implementation process. The Hermeneutic C y c l e described by Crotty (1998) is useful in understanding the process used to create a deeper understanding of the process of implementation. Pre configuration is the knowledge that the researcher brings to assist in comprehending the understanding of data This pre configuration when combined with new ideas and perceptions for analysis provides a basis for new understanding to emerge. Configuration involves considering new information from data to gain new insights. New ideas and insights are combined with the researchers beginning understandings and reconfigure d into new understanding s. This Herme neutic cycle is illustrated in F igure 3 1 the world from th e perspective of cultural insiders. Their methods are designed to allow


71 (p 65). W hen investigating a specific topic, qualitative researchers should have a good understanding of the issues relat ed to their topic (Yin, 2009). I bring life experiences gained over a lengthy career in business and budget management, training, and administrative support. In each of these roles I have been responsible for implementing new initiatives and interventions and evaluating their resulting outcomes. These experiences provide context for administrative processes required in implementing new programs, initiatives, practices, and interventions. I have an adequate understanding of budget development, grant mana geme nt, and resource allocation, all of which assisted in my understanding of the experiences of my research participants. In my role as a secondary special education teacher I was responsible for assisting students and parents with planning for post secondary transition I found that transition options for work or further education for individuals with intellectual disabilities are few and opportunities are limited. Now, having helped to implement a PSE program for individuals with intellectual disabilities, I am aware of emerging practices that have the potential to provide additional transition opportunities for this often overlooked group of individuals. T hese experiences have been helpful to my understandings of the implementation process utilized by this U niversity Program. My pre knowledge of PSE programs and implementation science were utilized in analyzing data from each interview. A research journal was maintained throughout this study to help identify my personal thoughts and to help me be aware of h ow they might influence my understanding of w hat emerged from interviews and data analysis.


72 Procedures This section provides informat ion on the selection of the setting participants, and assurances of confidentiality. Issues of entry, reciprocity and eth ics are also addressed. Selecting the Setting VHRUs were located through use of the Think College data base of PSE programs ( http://www.thinkcollege.net/component/programsdatabase ) Thi s study used criterion based sampling and to be selected the institution had to: (a) have an established PSE program for young adults with intellectual disabilities, (b) be ranked as very high research institution on the Carnegie Ranking scale, (c) be a p ublic institution, (d) have a program that provide d more than vocational training or an extension of a high school program and (e) be implemented since the passage of HEOA in 2008 These criteria were chosen because implementation of PSE programs in this sector of higher e ducation is growing rapidly Research of the implementation process took place at one such VHRU election criteria. This university is located in the state capitol of a city at a publi c, Land Grant University in the E astern United States; for purposes of this study, the institution will be referred to as the University. The Setting Situated in a major urban area, the University is bordered by an industrial park, a heritage neighborhood an d a depressed area, a business district that is being revitalized with boutiques, restaurants, hotels, a conference center, and office suites. There is little to separate the University from the communities surrounding it because the boundaries are intersp ersed with green spaces, parks, creeks, walking paths and an occasional wrought iron fence. The campus itself has an urban feel, with specific use


73 areas set aside for the administration of university business, classrooms, and villages relegated to universi ty and Greek residence halls. City parking garages border the north side of campus providing parking for nearby businesses, visitors to campus, and university students, staff, and faculty. The University is a well respected research institution with high ly competitive entrance requirements, and strong athletic programs. It is also the first university in the state to implement a PSE program for students with intellectual disabilities. Proximity to the state capitol building and its concomitant resources may have played a unique role in the process of implementation of this Program. A variety of PSE program models are represented at universities involved in extensive research endeavors. Th is is a relatively new PSE program with a broader focus than most ot her PSE programs The selected university also has strong connection s with the community and state agencies providing services for individuals with intellectual/developmental disabilities This PSE program is not merely an extension of high schoo l in a dif ferent location but a new environment for individuals with intellectual disabilities to learn and to grow in self confiden ce, self advocacy, and decision making. The program implemented at this university uses a hybrid mode, is student centered and incorpo rate s planning to mee t the individual needs of participants. This PSE program will be referred to as the Program. See T able 3 1 for a demograph ic profile of this institution. Selecting the Participants In my previous role as a member of a PSE implementatio n team I have had opportunities to collaborate and negotiate with members of a university community. Each interaction contributed to the structure of the program that was implemented. I am


74 interested in exploring the understandings of personnel engaged in implementing PSE programs in a peer institution particularly in the ways they describe critical incidents leading to choices or compromises in their program implementation i nvolves locating a few key participants who easily meet the criteria you have p. 79 ). In this case study I was looking specifically for individuals who were involved with Program implementation ei during the implementation process and had responsibility for changing or adjusting the way in which the Program was operated. Selection began with contacting the Program Director to requ est his participa tion. He agreed to participate in this study and is considered the first point of contact at the U niversity and a key participant The director was asked to identify people involved in the Program implementation process and he identifie d the following individuals : the chair of the university department of special education, the director of disability services, and the parent of a program participant. The director of disability services recommended speaking to a former special education faculty member, and the former dean of the college of education. The chair of the special education department also suggested speaking to the former dean of the college of education. In all, six participants were recommended for inclusion in the study and five, including the program director, agreed to participate. The former special education faculty member could not be reached The Participants Program Di rector. Dr. Arthur Leadner received his Ph.D. in special education in 2009 and began working with the Program in 2010. Leadner has a background in adult


75 University Center of Excellence in Disabilities and with statewide transition. His primary research interests include th e community inclusion of individual s with significant disabilities; specifically their transition to college, supported employment, and the collaboration of personnel across systems to promote positive student outcomes Although Leadner was not part of the original implementation team he works closely with the team as the program continues to evolve. Program includes : hiring and training staff, selecting Program participants, working with faculty to gain access to classes, a nd interacting with adult services agencies and community members to attain support and vocational opportunities for Program participants. Director of Disability Services Dr. Delores Hopewell earned a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology in 2006. Dr. Hopewel l serves as the Co Director of the P rogram for students with intellectual disabilities on campus along with her other full time responsibilities. Hopewell has over 30 years of experience in education as a K 12 sign language interpreter and teacher, and in higher education in counseling, career counselin g and disability services in 2 year college and 4 year university settings. Hopewell serves on several university and community advisory boards and serves as a consultant for her Department of Educat ion regarding individuals with disabilities Hopewell teaches courses in educational psychology and disability studies in the College of Education along with a course taken by Program students called Un iversity 101


76 University Spe cial Education Department Chair. Dr. Suzanne Maestro earned a Ph.D. in Special Education in 1983 with a concentration on specific learning disabilities. She spent four years as an elementary special education teacher and 27 years teaching in higher education. Along with her duties as chair of the department, Maestro teaches courses in special education at the University and provides academic support to the Program. teacher training programs for special and regular education teachers, models for retaining special education teachers, and effective reading instruction for students with disabilities. Dr. Maestro is the chair for programs in special education, and is currently involved in six funded projects Former D ean of the College of Education. Dr. Gregory Knight earned his Ph.D. in Education al Psychology in 1973 and holds the position of special advisor to the provost at the University. Knight was Dean at the time the Program was being planned and implemented. Dr. Knight w as a middle school teacher for four years working with students with intellectual disabilities. He has had many positions in higher education throughout his working career of which 17 years were spent as a Dean of Colleges of Education. In his interview, Knight shared his passion for working with individuals with significant disabilities. Parent. Mr. Norman Wall is the parent of a young adult with autism and the individual who introduced the idea of PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilit ies to state universities and colleges and founded the College Transition Coalition. Wall has a degree in marketing from the University where he also played varsity football. Mr. Wall is the founder of an investment services firm, and is a


77 successful inves tment manager. Along with his work as an investment manager, Wall has been a member of the State Board of Trustees for the University. Wall is well connected with state legislators, high ranking administrators within the University, and the mayor of the s tate capitol in which the University is located. Assurance of Confidentiality Confidentiality was maintained through use of pseudonyms for the institution program (the Program) and informants. The Instit ution is identified as The Un iversity and all demo graphic data has been approximated to further protect the institutional identity. The identity of informants has been kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Neither the names of the informants nor the name of the program or institution will be us ed in any research reports or presentations. The research protocol as approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Florida was given to each informant before beginning this study (Appendix A) All participation was completely voluntary a nd there was no consequence for withdrawing from the study. There wa s no penalty for nonparticipation. Issues of Entry, Reciprocity, and Ethics Primary issues of entry were initiated through contact with the chair of the university department of educatio n at the selected institution resulting in preliminary approval to conduct research. Additional access to th e PSE program was gained through contact with the PSE program director The PSE program director at the selected University supported this research and anticipated mutual benefits It was also anticipated that t hrough the research process new partnerships would be formed that would be mutually beneficial to both myself as the researcher and the participants as they continue to grow their program and s hare their experiences with other institutions


78 participating in the emerging field of PSE for individuals with intellectual disabilities. For example participants may have the opportunity to extend this research at their own institution, or provide suppor t for expansion of PSE implementation efforts at other institutions. Research ethics were c arefully observed in this study with m inimal risk to informants and the participating institution Every effort was made to protect the identity of the institution and informant s. Identifying details have been removed from description of critical incidents to protect the identity of individuals sharing information. Data Collection Procedures This section provide s detail of the data collection procedures used in this study. Data collection, inte rview procedures and protocols, and review are described in detail. A pilot of the interview protocol is also discussed. Means of Collecting Data Individual interviews with the PSE program director and other relevant stakeholder s in program implementation are the predominant form of data. Program documents such as web sites, brochures, mission statements, applications, organizational charts, etc. represent additional form s of data. Finally, field notes and observations were used to provide rich description of the P rogram, the context and setting, and researcher reflections. During initial contact with the program director, I asked him to identify specific stakeholders that might be able to shed light on the multiple levels of impl ementation, and provide additional information regarding their unique experiences with the implementation process. The program director provided the names of three individuals to contact.


79 Interviews with the P rogram director and other relevant individuals were conducted with the use of an interview protocol designed to cap ture information about P rogram and organizational components, and other influencing factors. The interview protocol was piloted with a PSE program director not connected with the study to determine the appropriateness of the interview questions and whether they are likely to yield the desired data Feedback from the pilot use of the protocol was used to develop the final interv iew protocol used in this study (Appendix B ). After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, re levant stakeholders identified by the program director were contacted to request their participation, individuals who agreed to participate were provided with informed consent documents, and interviews were scheduled. The Program does not operate during summer semester so not all participants were available for on campus interviews. Therefore, interviews were scheduled at times and locations convenient to the participants. One interview was conducted with each partici pant and follow up interviews were conducted as necessary Two interviews were conducted electronically using Skype and FaceTime two were conducted on campus, and the interview with the parent was conducted in his hometown The interview protocol was des igned to include open ended questions and follow up questions to obtain a high level of detail. The average duration of each interview was between 45 and 120 minutes. I nterviews were recorded with participant permission, and transcribed for purposes of dat a analysis. Voice files were professionally transcribed at the end of each interview Transcripts were compared to voice files for accuracy and then forwarded to participants for their review to ensure that


80 their words and thoughts were transcribed as they re membered them After reviewing each transcript questions to clarify or expand on interviewee comments recorded during interviews were e mailed to specific participants for response s. Assessing the Cultural Context Direct observation was used to develo p a portrait of the PSE program and to assess the context of the PSE program and the institu tion with which it is affiliate d Information from the campus visit was used to describe the setting in which th is pr ogram is situated and the activities of the P rogram (Lawrenc e Lightfoot & Davis, 1997 ). Data Analysis Procedures Critical Incident Technique (CIT) was used to organize and analyze data resulting from this study. The strength of this technique is that it can be used to obtain recalled data in the form of critical incidents relevant to the P the University (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005) CIT is useful for recounting sequences of events that might be vital for understanding the outcome of a proces s such as the p rocess of implementation (Kaulio, 2008). In this study, CIT is used to investigate the process of implementation an d by examin ing the ways in which relevant stakeholders understood the critical incidents that led to choices or compromises relevant to progr am development. Critical incidents in this study are defined as any interaction, event, choice, or compromise described in great detail by members of the implementation team and relevant stakeholders. S pecific incidents may have been described by one perso n multiple times or by multiple people involved with program implementation. CIT was used to identify inc idents in interview transcripts or e mail correspondence. CIT analysis was used to determine how these contributed to or


81 detracted from program impleme ntation efforts. With regard to CIT Butterfield, et al. do not ascribe to set rules about how many incidents are sufficient but suggest the quality, clarity and level of detail provided by participants i n recalling the incidents are indicator s of accura cy. In performing CIT analysis t he purpose is to create a categorization scheme that summarizes and describes the data in a useful manner, while at the same time sacrificing as little as possible of their comprehensiveness, specificity, a nd validity (Flan agan, 1954 ). Data regarding critical incidents should include the following criteria: (a) they consist of antecedent information; (b) they contain a detail ed description of the experience itself; and (c) they descr ibe the outcome of the incident. Flanagan further recommended that researchers employ a frame of reference for understanding th e actions being described by informants and the conditions operating in the specific situation In the present case study Fixsen et al. (2005) Model of Multi level Infl uences on Successful Implementation was used as the frame of reference After data were collected and transcripts prepared, incidents participants described in great detail were culled from transcripts and document s. These i ncidents are grouped together by topic. Brief definitions of categories were established noting needs for redefinition and development of new categories. Categories we re f urther organized through coding. Coding is the process of defining what the data are about and describing what one is seeing in the data (Bryant & Charmaz 2010). Data analysis was ongoing throughout the interview process and began as soon as the first transcript wa s available. Critical incidents were identified in each transcript


82 individually, and categorized based on t he subject of the incident being described and categories from each transcript were compared and coded. The length of description and number of incidents represented in each category suggest the incident s relevance to the implementation process. Those inc idents that were mentioned one time, with little description were not considered critical incidents. Incidents described in great detail, or those mentioned by more than one informant were considered critical. Coded data w ere used to tell the story of the process of implementation of the P rogram in this University Findings from this analysis are described in terms of the multi level influences apparent in these incidents across core program components, organizational components, and other influencing facto rs related to the successful i mplementation. Addressing Credibility Credibility is established through use of multiple data sources and by conducting member checks Peers were asked to examine the emergent categories to determine the appropriaten ess of my interpretation and categorization of the data (Tirri & Koro Ljungberg, 2002). Participants were asked to review their own interview transcript to ensure that their thoughts were transcribed accurately, and asked to provide additional thoughts th at they may have had after reading the transcript Credibility was established by determini ng how closely the data reflect the perspectives of the participants. A local understanding of the implementation process was developed from analysis of the case. T ransferability Results of this study provide insight into the implementation of a PSE program at a very high research institution. However, singular aspects of this case limit the transferability of the findings to other VHRU programs or to PSE programs i n colleges or universities with other Carnegie designations Rich detail of the context of this


83 program and the critical incidents that occurred during the implementation process may prove helpful to those who are attempting to implement new PSE programs o r to those who are in the planning process. Dependability Demonstrating rigor in the process of analysis is an important step in any type of research and especially in qualitative studies where data analysis is an inductive process ( Leedy, 1997; Merriam, 2 009 ; Mertens, 2012 ). Therefore, d ocumenting the exact methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation, is a n important criterion for ensuring dependability in qualitative research (Krefting 1991). To address this criterion, I used a research jo urnal as a means of creating an audit trail to provide a detailed account of the methods procedures, and decision points in carrying out the study (Merriam). The journal w as also be used to document any points at which changes occur red in the research pro cess and my understandings related to that process (Mertens) Content of the research journal was used to capture quest ions regarding the process and to assist with the analysis process.


84 Table 3 1 Demographic Profile of the University Characteristic University Type of University Public Carnegie Classification Very High Research Other Affiliation n/a Undergraduate Enrollment Over 22,000 Main Campus Location Medium city Length of PSE Program 2 4 years Age of Participants Minimum age 18 Number o f Participants 12 20 per year Enrollment Status Non degree Diploma/Certificate Certificate Tuition and Fees $ 8 ,000 per semester Books n/a Room and Board $5,700 per year Financial Aid Yes Focus of Program Employment College Course Access Self Determi nation


85 Pre configuration Implementation of postsecondary education programs for young adults with intellectual dis abilities. 1. My understanding from literature review and experience 2. Data Sources Setting aside judgment to consider new information 3. Understandings from ne w data combined with original understandings to form new understandings New data, new insights Process repeated for each additional data source Configuration Reconfiguration Figure 3 1. Hermeneutical Cycle


86 CHAPTER 4 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION This qualitative case study examined the ways in which program developers and relevant stakeholders underst oo d the process that led to implementation of their PSE program for young adults with int ellectual disabilities at a research university. In this chapter the narrative of program implementation is organized using the NIRN framework The description deriv ed from interview transcripts documents e mail correspondence, websites, and observations during campus visitations T wo distinct categories emerged from the data: the vision driving implementation, and the process of implementation Participants discuss ed multilevel influences involved in the implementation of their program (a) beginning with a vision (b) enacted by a village, and (c) driven by visionary leadership Participants described situations and events that occurred during the implementation pro cess that shaped the Program What follows is a descriptive account of Program implementation base d on findings derived from the data. In telling this story of implementation comments to the tran script in which t hey occurred; c odes are also used to link references from Program documents. Bracketed words within participant quotes have been added to clarify the context of the quote Findings regarding program development represented in Table 3 are organized sequent ially and correlated with a stage of implementation The findings in this chapter are organized in accordance with this implementat ion sequence. ( Table 4 1 )


87 Descripti on of the Program This section begins with observations of the University campus and ope ning day activities for fall semester 2013 followed by an in depth description of t he program that has been implemented in this University Finally, the vision leading to Program implementation is presented. On a rainy morning in August 2013, students s warmed campus with their parents laden with bags, boxes, and suitcases, jockeying for position in the queue waiting to move i nto their new on campus homes. Ba ckpack wearing, umbrella toting students moved faster than the cars on the heavily trafficked road s nearby seemingly undaunted by the unrelenting rain Groups of students gathered at the student union, and waited in involved in the annual migration back to the hallow ed halls of higher education. This year, like the four preceding years, a n atypical group of students min gled among the campus community; students with intellectual disabilities were moving into their on campus apartments and getting ready to start a new academic year at the University. These students were indiscernible from the rest of the swarm T hey had similar backpacks and umbrellas; they wore t shirts emblazoned with the University mascot and; these students looked just like everyone else. Campus wa s not only crowded with students moving in but also cluttered with fences, equipment, and construction workers finishing up summer building projects, or starting new ones. Some of the campus streets were barricaded with detour signs flashing in the rain. Heritage trees were uprooted in the front lawn of a building, a hose was leaking into the street, joining the flow of rainwater as it ran into storm drains. Program students navigated through campus, around water hazards, and construction


88 equipment to soci alize with friends, and go about the business of moving onto campus. The Program that began with three students in 2008 has grown to include up to 20 students each semester and it a ppeared that efforts to weave students with intellectual disabilities, sea mlessly into the fabric of the University has been successful, in this very high research institution. What Do We Have Here? The mission of the Program is to facilitate high achievement of diverse learners in the areas of personal independence, self suffi ciency, and empowerment through inclusive teaching, research, creative activity, and services. (D2) The Program is a two to four year, post secondary program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities that might not otherwise have the op portunity to experience collegiate life in a way that is appropriate to meet their needs a nd advance their long term goals (D1) Individuals ages 18 23 years who want a college experience and are willing to work toward educational, vocational, social, and community living goals while enrolled are served in the Program. The Program uses the hybrid model, also know n as mixed model, to provide an appropriate higher education experience for individuals with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities with a hi gh school non academic track diploma. Students enrolled in this Program participate in academic classes and social activities with students without disabilities, and have the opportunity to live on campus in residence halls. In the Program stud ents have access to c lasses designed to increase skills of daily living, and improve their self advocacy and employment skills. Person centered planning is used to set individual goals for each student and the goals determine which classes are appropriate for studen ts and the requisite services vital to goal attainment.


89 Students are not required to take Program classes if they are not necessary for goal attainment F or example, if a student does not have problems with managing and handling money, and does not have go als that require managing and handling money, he or she would not be req uired to take a financial planning class. Students register to audit academic classes thus allowing for modified curriculum if required Dr. Hopewell and her staff in disability serv ices provide necessary accommodations to Program students just as they would for any other student with a disability. Dr. Leadner and the Program staff provide tutoring and curriculum participate in the ir chosen class es Program staff believes individuals with intellectual disabilities should have college experiences as similar as possible to those experienced by typical college students. Full time faculty, graduate and undergraduate students provide su pport to Program participants In addition to approximately 20 paid staff and faculty members providing support for the Program, administrative staff from University departments such office State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, and members of Greek, social, and intramural clubs provid e additional support to the Program and its participants. An organizational chart 1 Yo ung adults with intellectual/cognitive disabilities require individual supports to be successful in this inclusive post secondary environment as evidenced by the number of faculty, staff, and volunteers involved in this Program providing support to a maxim um of 20 participants. Because of the high level of individual student supports provided by the Program associated costs are also high with tuition amount ing to


90 approximately $8,000 per participant per semester. In addition to program costs, students who choose to live on campus pay rent of nearly $3,000 per semester for a fully furnished two bedroom apartment that includes a kitchen, bathroom, and living room as well as utilities, cable television, and internet service Program participants of the same g ender share apartments and have access to a resident mentor for support. Program participants can choose to cook their own food, purchase a meal plan for on campus dining, or choose a combination of both. Meal plans range in cost from $650 to $1,400 depend ent upon the number of meals and snacks chosen. Total cost for one year of program attendance including room and board, ranges from $22,650 to $23,500. Although the University has received Federal certification as a Comprehensive Transition Program and is authorized to offer Pell Grants and Federal Work Study for students who meet federally set income limits often times students and their families are unable to make up the difference between what is offered through Federal Financial Aid and Vocational Reha bilitation and the actual cost of attendance Consequently access to the P rogram is limited to individuals who have the financial means to participate In this research intensive university where inclusion of young adults with mild to moderate intellectu al disabilities might seem counter intuitive, the actions of a few key people were instrumental in facilitating their inclusion The following is a descriptive narrative of the broug ht it to life. How Did We Get Here? A young man with autism who wanted to go to college inspired t he vision leading to the implementation of this PSE Program This young man Norman Wall, Jr., spent most of his high school years in a private boarding sch ool for student s with


91 intellectual disabilities. He returned home before the end of his junior year of high school and told his parents that he did not want to return to his school. Reflecting on this event his father, Norman Wall recalls hen he stood up for himself and advocated for himself my wife and I said we have to listen. We have to encou rage that self advocacy of his ( NW 2 ) Young Wall also wanted to know if he would ever go to college to which his father responded, yes. Later Wall considered th e significance of his promise saying ittle did I know what I was promising my son at the time, but he wanted to go to college and I wanted him to go to college ( NW 2) According to Norman Wall, request ot my curiosity up and I recognized th at this is happening all around the country w g here (NW 2) Wall Sr., a sophisticated executive with political connections and a gregarious personality, contacted people across the United States involved with PSE programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities to gather information Wall had developed a wide network through experiences gained as a respected financial advisor in his hometown, an alumnus of the largest public university in his home state, and a forme r member of the State Board of Trustees He had developed a wide network of influential people including friendships with the University President the mayor of the city housing the University and state legislat ors Perhaps most importantly, Wall was firs t and foremost a husband and a father who viewed himself in the traditional role as the leader of his family. Wall had the connections required to promote the vision his son inspired. Wall and his wife began talking to other families of young adults wit h intellectual disabilities to see if there was interest in PSE programs Wall recalled L o and behold,


92 we found early on that there was a tremendous amount of interest in trying to get a ( NW 3 ) As a result of these initial conversations with parents, Wall began to get unsolicited calls from other parents throughout the state. One individual in particular who lived several hours away wanted Wall to come share his vision with a group of interested families. To surpri se all six families attending the meeting wanted to be involved with moving the vision forward. The next time Wall shared his vision was at a meeting in fall 2005 that took place in his hometown. Approximately 20 families attended this meeting during which the group decided to form a nonprofit organization to support the development of PSE programs in the state calling it the College Transition Coalition Interest continued to grow as evidenced by the 60 individuals who attended an informational meeting i n early 2006. S peakers from different walks of life who were and who could speak to some of the legal and educational issues that might be encountered in promoting the vision attended the all day meeting Wall was beginning to realize that although he was Simply a dad who wanted to do something for his son, there were a lot of men around this area that were trying t o do the same thing for the ( NW 5) Wall and his College Tr ansition Coalition board determined that th e next step was to publish a request for proposals (RFP) for development of PSE programs Universities and college s submitting winning proposals would be awarded 3 years of funding to assist with planning and implementing the proposed PSE program n ext step was in essence a leap of faith because although the vision was compelling, the funds were scarce. He wanted to get us some money out of the legislature


93 colleges and universities money; but ( NW 7) Even though Wall and his College Transition Coalition had raised some money it was not enough to provide adequate support for planning and implementing even one PSE program. Regardless of the lack of financial resources, Wall was confident that somehow everything would fall together to make funding the startup programs possible. In the meantime the College Transition Coalition sent out invitations to a roundtable meeting to all the state colleg es and universities to provide information regarding PSE programs and encourage the submission of proposals The coalitio n also invited individuals from existing PSE programs at the College of New Jersey and Penn sylvania State University Meg Grigal and D eb Hart from Think College at the University of Massachusetts, Boston Madeline Will, former Director of the Nati onal Policy Center of the Natio nal Down Syndrome Society, adult services agency personnel and a two young adults with intellectual disabilitie s, to speak to the group In the summer of 2007 Wall shared his vision with a group representing 12 colleges and universities including two major research universities. Wall recalls the serendipitous call from the state legislature just as he began his w elcoming remarks to the gathering. My phone rang and my contact at the senate called to tell me it had been approved, that the house and the senate had come together and the $300,000 had been approved in the budget. It was very huge. It was timely in tha


94 got the money to back it up. W ho is going to step up to the plate and respond to our RFP? (NW 9) O nly the two largest re search universities in the state responded to the RFP and one withdrew its proposal before decisions involving grant funding had been made The First Year, Exploration and Installation Two faculty members from the University were in attendan ce at initial roundtable meeting ; Delores Hopewell Director of Disability Services attended as a representative of the advisory committee for the State Department of Special Education and Dr. Linda Claro a faculty member representing the Universi ty College of E ducation Dr. Hopewell recalled going back to the University after the meeting and discuss ing the idea of starting a PSE Program in the University Hopewell and Dr. Claro determined Exploration H opewell and Claro worked together to share responsibility for developing a PSE program at their university. Hopewell took responsibility for the student services aspects of program development and Claro was responsible for the educational components Hope well discussed her thoughts regarding program development order for this to work we were going to have to make it a win win for everybody. ( DH 4)


95 Dr. Gregory Knight, Dean of the College of Education explained, the Program was esigned to provide a relevant higher education experience for young adults who happen to have significant cognitive disabilities ( GK 2 ) Selecting a model. Hopewell discussed how she and Claro decided on a model for their PSE Program, indicating that they had spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what would work for their campus and for the potential student s they anticipa ted would apply to attend the Program. Claro had spent time in public schoo ls and had an understanding of what was being taught and expectations for high school students Hopewell explained The implementation team also talked with CTC parents and found t he expectations and desires of these parents, who had either home schooled their children or had placed them in private settings for high school, were v ery different from those parents whose children attend ed public schools and the publi c school teachers who worked with the ir children Claro knew the public school setting and expectations, and Hopewell, in her role as the director of disability services, had an understanding of the University climate, I had a good handle on the campus en vironment and expectations of folks on campus. We both knew that we could not support a program that was totally separated from the rest of the university, which is what some schools had gone to. We also knew that the students we had met were not prepared for a totally integrated program. (DH 35) Hopewell went on to discuss what type of program she thought the University would be willing to support; she did not believe it would be a totally inclusive program.


96 After considering their options, Hopewell and h er colleague decided a hybrid model would be the best option for the University, and the students it would serve Students w ould be integrated at a level best matching their needs and abilities, with some separate courses to assist with skills of daily liv ing that they may not have had opportunities to work on in high school. All of the students selected for attendance would be required to have a level of self sufficiency including the ability dress themselves, spend time independently without supervision, and have at least some level of self advocacy, but their ability to manage money, make decisions, and pay for meals would most likely be limited. The hybrid model would provide flexibility allowing changes to accommodate the varying needs of individual st udents. Confronting concerns. Once the Program model was selected, there were many deta ils to be addressed before responding to the College Transition Coalition RFP Hopewell reflected on the work that was done to prepare for the grant submissio n. We started by talking to people, making friends, and explaining what the program would look like, what we wanted to do, and allaying their fears o f what the program (DH 5) According to Hopewell and Dr. Maestro, the Dean of the College of Educa tion Dr. Gregory Knight, played an integral role in allaying the fears of University administrators In discussing his role Dr. Knight described one of the main fears T hey might couch it in terms of liability, but I think in ce rtain respects they would say . what would the other students who were not disabled, what would they think? Would their parents call? Would somebody complain? My


97 view has always been you have to so metimes take a risk and institutions risks. People are just afraid, b ut a lot g, a personal kind of fear that, I ative or going to change the community. (GK 5 6) University administrators had a number of concerns about including students with intellectual disabilities. One of the main concerns was how including students with significant cognitive disabilities into the campus community might compromise the admissions process. To address concerns regarding admission of ind ividuals who might attend this proposed program, the implementation team limited Program eligibility to individuals with mild to mod erate intellectual disabilities that had finished high school with a certificate of attendance or a certificate of achieveme nt. Individuals who graduated high school with a standard academic diploma would not be eligible to attend the Program. Hopewell and her colleague submitted their Program proposal to the College Transition Coalition (CTC) and the University was the first in the state to receive Program fund ing. The grant was awarded in October 2007, with a projected Program implementation date of August 2008. Although 10 months seemed to be plenty of time, according to Hopewell in reality more time was needed to initiate the Program. A t first we thought it would be enough time but between the issues of staffing and then trying to work out the logistics, it just seemed like


98 everything took a lot longer than we thought, so by the time August got here we felt like we were r eally up against a wall. (KM 8) One of the unexpected consequences of receiving grant funding to develop and implement this Program according to Hopewell was the level of involvement the CTC expected to have in the process Th r ough the proposal process the implementation team explained how it would use the first year funding and expected CTC might check in to evaluate progress toward program implementation but CTC had other ideas about how the program would develop Drs. Hopewell and Claro knew that wit h the number of human resources required to provide adequate support for this population of students the cost would be prohibitive to many families. C onsidering the costs, the implementation team initially wanted to have a program that included opportuniti es for high school student s ages 18 22 years to be dually enrolled in their high school and in the day program for individual s who were no longer being served in a high school setting According to Hopewell, They [ members of the ment of Education involved. That was a huge obstacle for everybody but o ur concern was if this program is only for the children of privileged families, what message are we sending? What good is it doing? (DH 6) So the implementation team moved forward to develop a day program for students who were no longer attending high school and continued to build an infrastructure to support the fledgling program


99 Installation The first thing the implementation team members needed was assurance that they would be pe rmitted to take time from their assigned roles within the university structure to work on implementation. According to Dr. Maestro what was most needed was time, bu t with responsibilities in the C o llege of E ducation, time was the most difficult resource t o find so most of work for the Program was completed in her spare time. Dr. Hopewell also explained that her dean allowed her to work on program development, but she was not able to spend a great deal of her time doing so. Second, classroom space was needed and the University agreed to provide space for Program specific classes, the University also provided computers, and agreed not charge the usual fees associated with grant administration. Other than these supports provided by the University the Program had to be self supporting. Therefore the team had to develop a budget to include all of the exp enses related to operating the Program including; staffing tuition for general education classes, and any supplies or equipment required to facilitate lea rning for P rogram participants. Beyond, spa ce, time, computers, and budget the implementation team also had to define additional program supports that would b e necessary before recruiting and accepting students into th e Program. The team worked with admissions staff to develop a process for admission, and met which students would be registered for classes. According to Hopewell, Initially the university was not excited about this program because t here were misconceptions about the expectations of what a program like this would be like on campus. People thought it was going to water down the

PAGE 100

100 earn. We needed to sit down and ta During the team s many meetings with staff in the offices of the provost, admissi ons, the registrar, and legal services, the intent and purpose of the Program was explained with enough detail to gain approval to continue wi th program development Up to this point Maestro explained, I mplementation team members worked to develop an application f or Program participation and define the criteria for acceptance into the program. They also had to decide how many participants they could support during the first semester and provide d applicants with a fee schedule derived from their proposed budget. Hopewell explained It ended up that tuition was $8,000 a semester per student. There were no Pell Grants at that time, no student loans, nothing like that. We looked at our staffing and what we wanted to do and felt like we could not, that first year, handle more than three students. (DH 7) Applications were made available to interested families, and according to the implementation team, fewer than 10 were submitted. After a review of the applications, individuals who appeared to meet the criteria for admissions were invited to campus for interviews but according to Hopewe ll, not all of those who were invited came The interview panel included Drs. Hopewell and Claro and a representative from the State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. The panel met with the applicant had them provide a writing sample, and then met wit After interviewing five applicants the team sent out three letters of acceptance to two young men and one young woman who had either attended a private high school or been homeschooled.

PAGE 101

101 Hopewell explained, wo of the students en ded up living in apartments independently off campus. They were within walking distance of campus and then one student stayed at home and parents drov e them back and forth Hopewell and Knight described the first cohort of students as extraordinary individuals who were articulate, and well behaved with strong parental support. Once participants had been selected, Hopewell and Claro set up a schedule of classes, and identif ied appropriate supports for the first semester. They determined that first semester students would take University 101, a class for all freshmen entering the University and have other Program s pecific classes to meet student s individual needs. After developing participant schedule s graduate students were recruited to teach Pr ogram classes, and undergraduate student s were recruited to be academic and social mentors. I mplementation work to this point was accomplish ed by Hopewell and Claro who could only contribute part of their time toward this effort. When Hopewell described b ittle did she know what the future would hold. Year Two, Initial Implementation In August 2008 two weeks before the Program opened its doors to students Dr. Claro accepted a position at another university and left the P rogram. The sudden loss of a key member of the implementation team was a s hock to Hopewell because without the support of the second team member there was some doubt as to whether the Program would be able to exist as planned. Upon parture, Hopewell had a discussion with the University Special Education Program Coordinator, Dr. Suzanne Maestro, about how the program could continue

PAGE 102

102 So it was like, are we going to do this or not, because there was no way she [Mae stro] was going to hire another faculty member at that point in time and get them in here in two weeks. We both felt very strongly that we could make this work and so we did. (DH 10) At the time of their discussion, Hopewell was not aware that the Dean of the College of Maestro, I was a program coordinator in special education so I was involved peripherally at this stage. Before the program had started, when they were still tr ying to initiate it, Claro left for another position. So at that point the Dean asked me if I would step in for a year. It ended up being two or three years. (SM 3) According to Hopewell, in the first semester of the Program, students were enrolled in Uni versity 101 which she taught, and the rest of their time was spent in Program specific courses. First semester program specific courses were de sign ed to assist student s with navigating campus, learning to use campus transportation, accessing on line aca demic supports, and online supports such as BlackBoard. Students also learned how to use their student ID card to access campus resources such as dining, libraries, and recreational resources. Many of the program specific courses were taught by graduate s tudents thus affording the implementation team time to make plans for the upcoming semester That gave us time to then plan for spring. What are we going to do for

PAGE 103

103 supports do students need in the classroom? How can we get some faculty to buy in? It was a long semester of trying to make all those things work. (DH 10) Students work ed to ward set ting goals during the first semester of the Program which helped the implementation team answer the que stion: What are we going to do for courses? According to Dr. Leadner hat first semester is critical ; we talk about developing goals and getting to those student strengths. Then they can choose what classes they want to take and have autono my in their sc (AL 5) Students chose second semester classes that closely matched their interests Accessing classes. Hopewell and Maestro approached faculty to request access to specific classes for their students and to inquire about the format of t heir class es to see if the requested class would be appropriate for the requesting student. If it appeared the class was appropriate, Hopewell or Maestro met with the faculty to describe t he supports the Program staff was able to provide for the student the money for this student just like they do for every other student. Here are the supports that we have for you. You can contact Delores, and you can contact Suzanne. Then we would start talking to faculty [explaining] we in theatre, is there a course that we can make work? If they were in a course [and] they were successful the first semester then the next semester people were more inclined to say; we can do this again; i t kind of went from there and then it just kind of grew. (DH 11)

PAGE 104

104 After students recei ved approval to audit a class, they had to register ; Dr. Maestro shared the process of registering stud ents for classes ; If there was a slot available [in a class] after the seniors and everybody registers, w e contact the professor and explain the situation. In some colleges you had to go to the dean first, in some colleges you had to go to the department c hair. If there is a slot available we will try to get them in. (SM 8) Registering for second semester classes was another issue implementation team members were required to address. Processing registration. A process for fee payment was an issue the team h ad not considered before students arrived for their first semester. Tuition was set at $8,000 and would go toward payment of general education classes, program expenses, and salaries. Hopewell explained that she assumed responsibility for collecting and d isbursing funds, I ended up handling all that money the first year and I was not comfortable doing that Parents would make out the checks and then I would take them over to the College of Ed and we would disburse them. When it came time for their income t axes they [parents] needed the bill to show that their students were enrolled in courses. So trying to get our computer system to acknowledge these fees and set it up so they could pay all their fees on line at one time like everybody else was a logistical piece that took a while to figure out. (DH 12)

PAGE 105

105 Hopewell discussed explaining the purpose of the Program and working with the university accounting department to determine the best option for meeting the goals and obligations of the Program in regards to tuition payment and disbursement of funds to pay salaries and program expenses Hopewell and Maestro described the purpose of the program to many departments on campus and believed there had to be a better way to explain what they were trying to accompli sh. Hopewell talked about choosing a program that was already operating at the University to serve as an infrastructure model for the Program. Hopewell chose the English Language Institute (ELI) for international students who have been accepted to the Uni versity, but are unable to pass the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Individuals who enroll in this program are not registered as university students. According to Hopewell ELI operates much like the Program, So we took a lot of their policies and p rocedures, and the way they did things even to their charges and mirrored our program to theirs so that we could say we have this precede nt set, here is another program. Ours is just like that program, s o that kind of made sense to some people and helped us out a little bit there. (DH 12) Describing the needs of the Program in terms of ELI was beneficial to developing processes and procedures for the Program that mirrored those in place in other stand alone programs (DH, SM) Securing housing. The next d ecision Hopewell and Maestro began to address was housing for Program participants T hey considered the pros and cons to each living situation on and off campus and decided that providing on campus housing might

PAGE 106

106 be the better option. A typical college ex perience includes social as well as academic life, and Program students would have more access to the social learning environment by living on campus. less for us if they lived on campus [rath Hopewell and Maestro both discussed concerns regarding program students walking home from campus after dark, and for at least one student, the lack of supervision and support in the off campus apartment. Having made the decision to a ttempt to secure on campus housing, d etermining the type of on campus housing situation would be most appropriate for their participants was the next step in the process. The first living situation considered was a freshman hall; the benefits were being w ith their sa me aged peers but there were disadvantages too. Hopewell discussed two behaviors that would be beyond the control of Program staff in a typical undergraduate housing setting: promiscuous behavior and underage alcohol use. Instead, Hopewell and Maestro determined that a more stable environment, such as graduate student learn to cook, they have their own kitchens and living rooms, and also there are advantages for Hopewell broached the subject of on campus accommodations for Program participants with University Housing administrators, couching the request in terms of safety and security. Although the University always has more housing requests than space, Housing agreed to provide space in graduate student housing for Program participants Living on campus provided an extra measure of security for participants and also gave them access to full access to the local trans portation system (SM).

PAGE 107

107 Placement in on campus graduate apartments also contributed to the Program goal of participants being able to live independent ly upon program completion (DH). Year Three and Beyond, Full Implementation By the time the second cohort o f students arrived in 2009 a process for fee payment was in place along with an accounting process that would stand up to scrutiny and demonstrate accountability, on campus housing was available for Program participants, and the search for a full time prog ram director was under way. In addition, Maestro and Hopewell applied for Federal Certification of the Program to be designated as a Comprehensive Transition Program (CTP). Maestro and Hopewell both discussed their concerns regarding the amount of time re quired to keep the program going, and the limited amount of time left after keeping up with the responsibilities of their respective position s Dr. Knight explained the nee d for full time committed staff Y time person there. You have to have a college commitment to the program, P rogram will always be viewed as a sideling, not a part of the mission of the academic unit. (GK 10) ajor part of their ). A national search was conducted to find a director for the Program.

PAGE 108

108 Knight and Maestro explained that they are one of the few programs to have a tenure line position of Program Directo r. Knight believes that without a tenure line position, the future of the program would be vulnerable and a ccording to Maestro, quality, very experienced, and has enough time to coordinate th GK 10, SM 17). Dr. Leadner became the Program Direct or and with the assistance of Hopewell, Knight, an d Maestro the Program has become the standard bearer for new PSE programs in their state (DH, GK, AL, & SM). Hopewell and Maestro worked tog ether to apply for CTP ce rtification. T he y called on the expertise of CTC members regarding the application process, making sure the Program met Federal requirements. According to Hopewell and Maestro theirs was one of the first three colleges in the count ry to receive CTP certification (DH 17 SM 5 ). This certification made it possible for Program participants to apply for Federal Student Financial Aid, and receive Pell Grants a nd Work Study funding if eligible. Unfortunately, according to Hopewell, few s tudents qualify for Federal Student Aid because this type of aid is income based and many of the students have been declared mentally incompetent ; as such their ability to pay is based on their parent By the third year, the Program had reached full implementation; it was fully operational, with a staff, students, and organizational practices, policies and procedures in place (Fixsen et al., 2005). The Program was in its fifth year at the time of this study, and after the intensity of establishing a fully implemented program in a new environment, program implementers were beginning to realize the need to establish plans for sustainability through professional development and fund raising.

PAGE 109

109 Implementation science suggests new social prob lems will arise, partnerships will change, and champions may move on to other causes. The challenge for implementation team members and program staff is to be aware of the evolution of influence factors and adjust to the changes without compromising the fu nctional components of the Program (Fixsen et al.). Discussion of the Program Implementation In this chapter a narrative description of the process of program implementation was portrayed within the sequence of a conceptual framework of implementation. Program implementation team members shared their understandings of the process that led to implementation of the PSE Program The telling of their story of implementation revealed overlap s between stages of implementation as discussed in implementation sci ence ( Blas et al 2010) and illustrated in Figure 4 2 In this case the progression of the implementation process described by team members was not unique in following the stages of implementation described by Fixsen et al. (2005) A distinguishing fact or that influenced its initiation, however, is the source of its vision a young man with an intellectual disability who wanted to go to college, and The program also received start up fu nding from a unique source, the College Transition Coalition comprised of parents invested in the establishment of PSE programs in the state. Most programs do have the advantage of such an initial investment, and typically rely on school district/IDEA fund s for support, or on private payments by parents once students are enrolled in programs (Grigal & Hart, 2010). Although many aspects of program development were consistent with implementation research and relevant research of PSE programs, there were some

PAGE 110

110 important differences in oversight resulting from relationship with t he CTC. Typically the choice of service delivery models resides with the program implementation team ; however, CTC members exerted their influence in selecting the model th at would be used at this university Other variances in implementation include d function as a supervisory body and the extent to which the C oalition was involved in program developmen t. Implementation team members in this case identified simila r obstacles to PSE implementation as those researching these programs, including obstacles related to course selection, auditing courses instead of taking courses for credit, parking, transportation, scheduling difficulties, and attitudinal factors such as fear and faculty resistance (Causton Th eoharis, et al., 2009). The team did not allow the obstacles to stop the process of implementation, but instead found ways to work around them and keep going. Tenacity is not a n uncommon trait to those engaged in pro gram implementation. Findings from a study conducted by Neubert and Redd (2008) indicated that program staff d ealt with obstacles to program implementation by using their own resources to meet the needs of program participants, and volunteered time to supp ort students. This narrative could be used to develop a sequential process for implementing PSE programs in very high research institutions but implementation of this program required more than a simple formula for implementation. It required the right people, those with t he authority and expertise to assist with the process. It required people who were passionate about including students with intellectual disabilities in to the culture of the University such as Dean Knight who early in his career had bee n a middle school

PAGE 111

111 special educator of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It took partners like Norman Wall, a college alumnus with ties to local and state government; a parent of a child with an intellectual disability who wanted to help his son realize his dream of college attendance. It took a state legislature recognizing the value of PSE programs for this population and willing to provide on going funding for program implementation. This program came into existence because the right combinations of factors came together at the right time, for the right reasons, and the right people were in place were supported by the University President who had a close relative with an intellectual disability and a wife who was willing to provide support to program students. The president attended many of the program functions and interacted with program students regularly. His wife interacted with the stud ents on a regular basis also, meeting with students monthly to teach coo k i ng skills in the residence hall kitchen (DH, SM, & GK). According to members of the implementation team, this program might not have come into existence if they had waited a year to start the program One year later, the economy declined Within the following two years, Dean Knight left the College of Education for a new position within the University, and there was a new university pr esident. Despite challenges along the way, this Program continues to be successful. The number of students entering the program has grown from three students in the first year to 16 students in the 2013/2014 cohort and a full time tenure track position wa s created and filled to support the Program. The University continues to provide support for the

PAGE 112

112 Program and inclusion for Program participants. According to Dr. Hopewell, the Program and its participants have been woven seamlessly into the fabric of the U niversity. In addition, the Program is one of only 14 PSE programs recognized by the US Department of Education as a comprehensive transition and postsecondary program for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. As such, this Program is approved to participate in the Federal Student Aid Programs and it s participants are eligible for Federal Pell Grant Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant and Federal Work Study programs if they meet the basic federal stude nt aid eligibility requirements Students who participate in this Program typically find employment when they leave, and are making more than minimum wage. One student opened a photography studio, another is employed as a personal trainer by his local YMC A, a third has been certified and teaches K indermusik and a fourth left the University with a culinary arts certificate and found employment with the Marriot Corporation F inally, over 80% of program graduates are gainfully employed Therefore, t his Progr am can be considered an exemplar of a successful PSE program in a research university. This chapter provided a narrative description of the evolution of the PSE Program under study. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of the critical incidents that prompted imp lementation team members to make choices or compromises influencing program development.

PAGE 113

113 T able 4 1 Program Implementation Process and Stages of Implementation Program Model Stage of Implementation Year 1 CTC Publishes RFP to establish PSE program s in state colleges and universities, July 2007 Hopewell and faculty member from University Special Education Department decide to respond to RFP Hopewell and colleague choose program model Program planning begins Response to RFP submitted CTC funding awar ded October 2007 Determined needs Implementation team addressed logistical issues related to program implementation Exploration Policies and procedures established Determined tuition costs Developed application process Recruited program participants, cond ucted interviews, selected participants Recruited graduate and undergraduate students to provide support for program participants Installation Year 2 Initial Implementation August 2008, 2 weeks before classes start, Faculty from Special Education leaves University for new Job University Chair of Special Education steps in to assist with program roll out First cohort of three students arrive on campus Students attend University 101 and Program specific classes Mentors assist with travel training and acade mic support Worked with Program students to set educational, vocational, and social goals Implementation team recruits campus faculty to include Program students in general education classes 2 nd semester Program students begin taking general education cl asses matching their academic goals Implementation Team applies for Federal Certification of their Comprehensive Transition Program Certification Awarded Financial Aid in the form of Pell Grants and Federal Work Study available for qualified program parti cipants Program applications available for Fall 2009 cohort Student interviews conducted and new cohort selected Year 3 Full Implementation On campus housing added to Program College of Education establishes a tenure line position for a permanent Progra m Director Search for Director begins New cohort arrives on campus 1 st year cohort continues on Director hired Planning begins for next cohort

PAGE 114

114 Director of Disability Services Chair, University Dept. Special Education Figure 4 1. Organizational c hart for the University PSE Program

PAGE 115

115 Exploration Installation Initial Implementatio n Full Impl ementation Figure 4 2. Process o f Implementation. Most n ew programs go through all four stages in the process of implementation however stages often overlap with no clear end to any stage (Blas et al., 2010). Used with permission from the State Implementation and Scaling up of Evidence based Practice (2010). Stages of Implementation: Initial Implementation. FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, The National Implementation Research Network, September 2010.

PAGE 116

116 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS : CRITICAL INCIDENTS IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT I ncidents that led to ch oices or compromises in the way the program was developed were of particular interest in this study In this chapter findings are configured in the form of critical incidents these incidents influe nced the choices and/or compromises made by members of the Program implementation team. The hermeneutic cycle informs the presentation of these findings beginning with my pre configured understandings of the PSE implementation process. The analysis of the data in the configuration of critical incidents is addressed in depth, followed by a reflection on my re configured understandings of program implementation. My experience as a member of a PSE program implementation team informed my pre understanding of th e implementation process and activities and decisions at each stage of implementation. In my experience the process of installing a PSE program within a research university was challenging because there was no w ritten process for implementing initiatives for this population of students. Educating this Mancini, 2010). Also, individuals who appear ed to be supportive in face to face interactions were not necessarily as supportive when the work of implementing the program took place. In addition, gaining access to classes for students was a challenge, as not all members of the university community were able to share our vision of inclusion for young adults with disabilities. Finall y, although students were excited about having college and independent living experiences, their parents were not always ready to let go.

PAGE 117

117 Research literature related to PSE also informed my pre understanding of various aspects of implementation S ome were reflective of my experiences and increased my awareness of emerging practices beyond high school that have the potential to provide additional transition opportunities for this often overlooked group of individuals. Prior experiences and information from p revious research shaped my own pre understandings of the implementation process D ata were configured through analysis and reconfigured as new understanding. The configuration of data was the source for identifying the critical incidents specific to develo pment of this Program. Reconfiguration of data resulted in my understanding of the salience of these critical Critical Incidents: Choices and Compromises In this study critical incidents have been def ined as any interaction, event, choice, or compromise described in great detail by members of the implementation team and relevant stakeholders. Specific incidents may have been described by one person multiple times by one person one time in great detai l, or by multiple people involved with program implementation. the significance of specific interactions, events or choices. Key phrases include: like a stealth bomber, flying under the radar, fl ying by the se at of our pants, the perfect storm, me, the biggest challenge, etc. The Critical Incident Technique ( CIT ) was used to analyze incidents in interview transcripts or e mail correspondence to determine which incidents appeared to be critical to some aspect of program implementation. My experiences and understandings were used in the analysis of events, choices and compromises discussed by members of the Program impleme ntation team.

PAGE 118

118 Program implementation team members described incidents that took place throughout the implementation process. Findings derived from a hermeneutical analysis of these data suggest incidents were most critical to its implementation. These incidents are discussed in terms of their influence on program decisions, and are ordered in this chapter by their level of intensity: ( a) addressing pa rental expectations, ( b) supporti ng student inclusion i n college, ( c) defining the organization of the Program, and ( d) initiating friendship ( Table 5 1 ). Discussion is guided by the model of Multi level Influences on Successful Implementation (Fixsen, et al., 2005), which allows for the development of a deepe r understanding of the critical incidents by examining relationships among core program components, organizational features, and influence factors producing changes in program implementation. The incidents are also discussed in relation to the ways in whic h relevant research and professional literature relate to these findings Addressing Parental Expectations P arental expectations were of critical concern to the professional members of the team at the initial and full implementation stages of program develo pment. Related incidents were emphasized by Dr. Hopewell, Director of Disability Services, (b) Dr. Knight, Former Dean of the College of Education, (c) Dr. Leadner, Program Director, and (d) Dr. Maestro, University Special Education Department Chair as ill ustrated in Figure 6 As Leadner noted, n o matter how much the implementation team planned, something new and unfore seen happened each semester Oftentimes, the unanticipated events were a direct result of parental expectations, many of which were incompat ible with core goals of the program addressing community inclusion. Some parental expectations interfered with inclusion, and others caused friction between

PAGE 119

119 Program staff and University administrators or faculty. One unanticipated event resulting from pare ntal expectations caused friction among stakeholders and had the potential to place the Program in jeopardy The team was not prepared for parents who did not understand the difference between high school and college for either themselves or their childre n This was not a unique misunderstanding though as related research indicates arents can also be schools and the types of services available in college (Hafner et al., 2011, p. 29). Adversarial relationships came out of these misunderstandings however, and these a ffected interactions at the program level, the administrative level, and with the city department of transportation. For example, Hopewell described an incide nt in which she received a phone call from the regional transit authority (RTA) regarding a request made by a Program parent. The parents contacted the RTA to have a campus bus stop od class. RTA personnel asked Hopewell to get these parents under control Parents seemed to lack understanding of the differences between high school and college. Door to door bus service is an accommodation available in K 12 school systems, but not in co llege. Parents also attempted to change times for typical campus social events ; they wanted things to happen between 8:30 am and 5:00 pm because that was convenient for them ents to re going to have to plug in DH 8).

PAGE 120

120 Some aspects of the program required parents to allow their students to plug in to campus activities, and in other aspects they were required to unplug. For example, during the first year of Program implementation, Program staff enrolled students for classes based on student interest, correctness of fit, and an agreement with specific faculty to include Program students. At the beg inning of each semester Program staff is required to inform admissions staff of the classes student s are taking. Once classes are set up, according to Hopewell, they cannot be changed without permission from her or Dr. Leadner. Parents, unaware of commitm ents made by Program staff and faculty, online registration system and add or reschedule classes for their children. Hopewell then had to have conversation s with parents to expla in how th eir behavior violated agreements desig ned to approve enrollment for Program students because they did not meet initial entrance requirements as matriculating students. Dr. Hopewell struggled to help parents understand that their son or daughter was not admitted to the University, but provided access to selected classes because of their relationship with the Program, Implementation team members described parents as unique individuals who approached independence for their student in differing ways. According to Dr. Hopewell, parents appeared to fall into one of three categories: (a) hands off, (b) middle of the road, and (c) extremely hands on. One incident having the potential to put the Program in jeopardy involved extremely hands on parents with little understanding of differences between inc lusion in high school setting and inclusion in the university setting. Hopewell provided an example of one such interaction.

PAGE 121

121 We had one set of parents that were extremely hands on and they would go to these different offices on campus and make demands. Pe ople were very nice to them, but then called me up and told me to get these parents under nilly go around campus like this; you have to go through me. Then they were not happy with me. (DH 14) This one set of parents was the catalyst for change in the early years of the Program. Their son was in a music class with a performance component and the parents were unhappy because he was not permitted to fully participate in course activities Th e parents approached the professor and demanded their son be included in public performances in which others in his class had auditioned. Unlike high school classes, college classes can have prerequisite skills required for participation, and in this class students had to audition to participate in musical performances. Unfortunately, this student was unable to maintain the required level of performance and consequently the professor refused inclusion. T he parents felt the professor was ac ting in a discrimi natory manner; about the class disturbances caused by the student and his parents and . it just blew up in Program stud ents Members of the implementation team were disappointed by this decision because they had other students who wanted to enroll in music classes but who were similarly not able to participate. Ultimately those students chose to attend programs at other universities. Due to parental decisions to remove these students from the

PAGE 122

122 program, the implementation team was unable to influence a positive change or to engage in compromise that might have created a suitable alternative Often parents are unclear about the type of services provided in post secondary settings and expect their son or daughter to receive the same services outlined in their IEP. It is sometimes difficult to balance parental expectations with the realities of university life. Universities ar e administered differently from high schools; the laws governing provision of services are different, as are the expectations for student participation. As Hafner, et al., (2011 ) note d any parents have been vigilant in needs were met during public school years, and it has been difficult to relinquish this same level of vigilance when thei r child is in a college setting (p. 29). As other scholars have indicated t here is a fine line between involving families in a PSE p rogram and helping them understand that th eir children are adults (Weinkauf, 2002, p. 34 ). Parents are unclear about the differences between high school and college in other ways too. This Program is expensive with tuition cost s of $8,000 and housing cos ts of $2,850 per semester. Dr. Hopewell explained one of the things she talks to parents about is the cost of the program. After looking over applications and talking with parents, the team knows if the family is able to afford the program. To facil itate t he use of a payment plan, the Program has adopted the same fee structure as the University, allowing four equal tuition payments over the course of each semester. Hopewell said one of the most difficult things for her was when several parents were able to meet the first payment deadline 25). Then when repayment

PAGE 123

123 did not occur, Program staff had to give families 30 day notice and at the end o f the 30 day period, students were removed from housing, or in the case of non payment of tuition, from the Program. Dr. Hopewell recalled kicking people out of the program, which was probably the hardest thing that we ha d to DH 25). According to Dr. Hopewell, Ju st everybody have no money for food. So at first you kind of try to help them out, and you you not? It was frustrating for me H ow could a parent send their child here and not send them with money for food? But I th sandwich. Well, one meal a day, but three? (DH 25) It is difficult to include students with their peers when they cannot go and do social activities. Althou gh the reality is that not everybody will be able to do all the things their peers are able to do, basic needs are met Parents cannot expect their children to live independently in college and university settings th rough the good will of others.

PAGE 124

124 Supporting Student Inclusion in College The second area of critical concern professional members of the implementation team addresse d was the efforts required to support the inclusion of students with intellectual and develop mental disabilities in an institution of higher education Related incidents occurred at the initial and full implementation stages of program development as illustrated in Figure 5 1 The implementation team worked with University administrators to build University. Each member of the team discussed the challenges related to including Program students in college classes. In the beginning, after students identified classes they were interested i n auditing, a member of the implementation team contacted professors to request inclusion for Program students. Team members would explain the purpose of inclusion, and the level of support the implementation team would provide for specific individuals. Often discussions with faculty focused on misconceptions regarding behaviors of students with intellectual disabilities and faculty responsibilities for their matriculating students and Program students. Some instructors think students with intellectual di sabilities are not capable of being successful in typical college classes, will be socially isolated, and will not fit into campus life (Hart et al., 2010). Dr. Maestro explained, Students have the responsibility of participating in their courses but the good support for our students, they take their courses seriously and participate to the fullest extent possible. (SM 7)

PAGE 125

125 Although Program students are entitled to accommodations a vailable under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA available to all college students with disabilities, they were not requesting modification to course content (Hart et al., 2010). Drs. Hopewell, Leadner, and Maestro each discussed issues rel ated to gaining access to classes for Program students and the ways in which Dean Knight often made the process easier. Members of the Program implementation team viewed Dr. Knight and say For example, when Drs. Hopewell, Maestro, or Leadner approached professors about including Program students in specific classes their request was sometimes denied. When this h appened, one of them would approach Dean Knight and ask for his assistance. Dean (GK 3). Knight along with the implementation team wanted to secure access to a variety of classes for Program students to audit. department chairs resulted in the opening of additional classes for Program participants. Related research underscores the institutional challenges to securing access because nlike access to general education courses in high school, students with disabilities at post secondary sites must often abide the policies of t al., 20 01, p. 251 ). According to Dr. Maestro, m any of the program students wanted to participate in Maestro approached faculty in the PE

PAGE 126

126 department requesting the inclusion of Program students. PE faculty members explained that because their courses were activity based, they did not allow them to be audited. The PE f aculty was concerned that students, who did not have a g reat investment in participating in the classes, would register and not participate Including Program students in these courses became a critical incident becaus e of the PE department policy The implementation team had to choose whether to attempt to ch ange policy, or compromise with members of the PE department in order to support student inclusion. The implementation team chose to work with members of the PE department to create a new policy allowing Program student s little bit of work and having a dean who could help broker access to PE classes for our Dr. Knight assisted with the new audit policy in his role as Dean of the College of Education ; it also helped that the PE department was under his pu rview. Some of the issues related to student inclusion discussed in detail by members of the implementation team might have been mitigated during the installation stage of implementation, if professional development for faculty had been provided. There ar e some faculty members who fear that including students with intellectual disabilities in their classes would weaken the academic rigor associated with college level classes (Hart & Grigal, 2009). There are others who would benefit by understanding that a successful college experience can be measured by improvements in learning, self determination, independence, and positive social experiences (Hart et al., 2010). Both of these issues could have been addressed prior to the beginning of the program. There i s evidence in literature to suggest the efficacy of providing professional

PAGE 127

127 development for faculty members on the rationale for including individuals with intellectual disabilities in PSE, and the practices that will help support its implementation (Hart e t al., 2010, p. 145). De f ining Program Organization Critical incidents also occurred at the installation stage, and when considering program organization the goals and outcomes of these servi ces, and also the philosophical beliefs and values al & Hart 2010, p. 241 242). Dr. Hopewell discussed the program she and Dr. Claro hop ed to implement at the University and the rationale for th e design an d organization they wanted (DH 19) Their original plan was to create a program for young adults with intellectual disabilities aged 18 22 years of age who were either still enrolled in high school and receiving special education services, or w ho had graduated from high school and wanted a college experience. In the implementation of this program, incidents involving the greatly influenced the alteration of the original plan and ultimately shaped the program organization. Claro and I spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what would work for our ( DH D 1) Hopewell and Claro spoke with parents pushing the PSE movement forward and f parents and teachers in public schools. We both knew we could not support a program that was totally separated from the rest of the University. We also knew the students we had met were not prepared for a totally integrated program. We did not believe the

PAGE 128

128 University would support a totally inclusive program at this time either. We chose a blended program because it would give us the best of both worlds, students could be int egrated at a level that best matched their needs and abilities. Having some separate courses gave us the opportunity to work on daily living skills these students may not have worked on in high school. All of the students were able to function independentl y in some areas but their ability to manage money, make decisions, and pay for meals was limited at best. ( DH D1) Thinking of some of the students who might be interested in attending the program, Hopewell talked about her conversation with the State Dire ctor of Special Education about the possibility of having a teacher from the agency or may not be dually enrolled [in high school] a nd we were still trying to determine how th at was going to DH 6). After the implementation team received a program start up grant from College Transition Coalition ( CTC ) were ac customed to writing a grant proposal and explaining what we intend to do with the money we are awarded, and then there might be checkups along the way. We did DH 6). CTC membership was comprised mainly of paren ts of young adults with intellectual disabilities who had abandoned the public school system in favor of private educational opportunities for their students. Many of the parents had been disappointed by the services and supports available to

PAGE 129

129 their childre n in the public school setting and had no desire to reinitiate a relationship with public school educators in a college setting. Dr. Hopewell described a conversation she had with CTC members that took place after the Program received funding. In this con the team to provide support for Program participants. CTC members demanded that the Program have no affiliation with the state public school system in general and specifically no affiliation with the state special education agency. Because CTC was the primary funding source for Program implementation, the team agreed not to involve the special education agency in the Program. Like the im plementation team, CTC wanted a program to serve young adults with intellectual disabilities who had received special education. Where they differed was in when they woul d serve their target population. In the same conversation, CTC members further emphasi zed their discontent with the public school system by requiring the Program to accept only those students who were no longer being educated in high school setting s Program implementation team r everybody because There is no single way to organize a PSE program and often the organization of a program depends u pon the range and intensity of resources that are available to s upport the initiative (Hart & Grigal, 2010 ). CTC was comprised of individuals who were influential members of their communities and who had the financial means to support and influence the dev elopment of a PSE program for their children. In this case CTC

PAGE 130

130 provided the resources to support the Program therefore, the implementation team felt obligated to develop a program that would be approved by their grant funders. had to drop back 10 a time doctoral student, who was also a special educator, to work with the Pro gram to keep program costs down, and to have access to a special education professional in the guise of a graduate student without involving the One of the main concerns with this decision was directly related to the inclusion of students across the economic spectrum Hopewell and Claro were both very concerned about the message they were sending to other fami lies. By excluding the support of a State Department of Education Special Education teacher the cost of the program was $8,000 per semester, making it a very expensive program for less privileged families. When PSE programs serve young adults who are no l onger being educated in a high school setting, the local education system no longer participates in providing student resource supports, and financial responsibility falls to families (Hart et al., 2006). There was no student financial aid available at the inception of the program so inclusion of less wealthy students was close to impossible. There is some financial support available through ehabilitation agency whose coursework is related to work readiness. There may a lso be support available through other rehabilitation organizations or through the Social Security Adm inistration (Hart et al. ) but funding equitable opportunities for young adults with intellectual disabilities to participate in this PSE program remains a challenge.

PAGE 131

131 Including students with intellectual disabilities into the academic community of a research intensive university had its challenges as well. Hopewell explained concerns voiced by the admissions office personnel, Entrance to this University is very competitive. There were concerns by some people that students would use this [program] as a backdoor to the admissions process, so we had to have a very narrow window for those who could attend. (DH 4) To address concerns regarding individuals who mi ght attend this proposed program, the implementation team limited Program eligibility to individuals with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities who had finished high school with a certificate of attendance or a certificate of achievement. Individuals who graduated high school with a standard academic diploma would not be eligible to attend the Program. According to comfortable, giving us some leeway and flexibility in how we 5). In addition, individuals participating in the Program would be eligible to register for and audit general education classes, but would be required to wait until all matriculating students had registered. As such there would be no concerns about Program students taking seats required by matriculating students. Finally, Program students would not be admitted to the University, they would be admitted to the Program with access to university cla sses, resources, and experiences b ut without access to degree programs Two additional incidents had the potential to change the course of the Program. The first happened two days before classes began for the first cohort of students when Dr. Claro left the program for a position at anothe r university. This incident is critical

PAGE 132

132 because without the support of administrators outside of the Program, this one incident could have led to the demise of the program. Instead, Dean Knight was already working to find a way to keep the Program going be cause of his strong passion for working with niece was a member of the first cohort of students enrolled in the Program and he too had a desire to see the Program co ntinue and succeed. Dean Knight approach Dr. and requested that she step in and provide leadership and support for the Program Maestro reflected the program dropped, so I was will (p. 17). So, with ardent supporters and two weeks before students arrived on campus, Drs. Hopewell and Maestro sat down persist and kept working to ensure a suc cessful opening day for the Program. The second incident took place during year two of program implementation when on campus housing was added. A graduate student had been hired to provide support with the independent living needs of the participants. On the day when students were scheduled to move in to their campus housing assignment, the housing mentor resigned. This incident also had the potential to change the direction of the program and its access to on campus housing Instead, Dr Maestro explained that she and Dr. Hopewell S tayed in the dorms for two weeks until we found somebody to take her place. If there were any issues, we were the ones who were called at any time, so we took that. But frankly I think it was a personal choice. ( DH 14 15 )

PAGE 133

133 The l evel of support provided from the highest level of the University administration to the high level of commitment of the program staff can be attributed to the success of this Program. took place after Wall Jr. graduated from the Program. Dr. Hopewell shared O ne humorous thing for me, in a very frustrating kind of way, was there son and that once his son graduated the program would go away. So the year after he graduated, when we started to try to enroll students, we At that point Dr. Hopewell turned to Dean Knight for assistance in gaining access to adm DH 2 0) According to st orm troopered our way through, saying This program was built w ith more than one child in mind ; there were 18 more waiting to be enrolled. Again, the success of this Program was the result of a concerted effort by ind ividuals at all levels of the University. Initiating Friendship others on campus arose throughout the evolution of the program from the installation stage through full implementation. Typical college students were utilized as mentors to

PAGE 134

134 provide social support for Program participants. The mentors provided entre into the social life of the University ; however program students rarely considered their mentors to be friend s Drs. Hopewell, Leadner, and Maestro each spoke with concern about these interactions which are also discussed in related literature Causton Theoharis, et al. (2009) describe the relationship between young adults with intellectual disabilities and thei r mentors as an arranged marriage Students with disabilities are matched up with typical college students and encouraged to engage in recreational and social activities. Obviously, the hope is that these peer mentoring relationships will develop into som ething more reciprocal and less programmed. While that has happened in some cases, in many, the relationship ends once the required time has been spent ( p. 102) The implementation team tried to develop na turally occurring relationships between Program stu lot of people w anted mentors where you applied, and matched a mentor with a Program student. You had all these rules that you must call your mentee twice a week and you must take them out onc DH 27). This is not what the implementation team wanted for its mentor program. Program students came to depend on their mentors waiting for them to call about going to the movies or to y never learned to reach out and call a friend or mentor when they

PAGE 135

135 The mentor mentee relationship did not yield th e anticipated results in this case. Instead, Hopewell and Maestro work ed together to teach Program students explicitly Hopewell prompted Program students to think about who they would like to go and do things with, and encouraged them to contact a mentor. Program student expectations were sometimes as unrea listic as the expectations of the mentors. Undergraduate mentors tend ed to over commit, they ma d e plans to do something with their mentee and sometimes forg o t to show up. Some parents would be very angry with mentors and according to Hopewell parents wo uld call mentors and ask DH 27)? Hopewell also indicated that parents wanted her to call mentor s and insist they hang out with their child ren Hopewell uses these situations as teachable moments for the mentees and paren ts This is not a supervisory relationship. This happens in friendships but what I would tell you is not to Almost all of the Program participants are in state students so they know other students from their high schools. In addition to high school friends, Hopewell talked about targeting specific groups to interact with Program students. One group she choos students in, made them members, and included them in chapter activities. The implementation team also targeted religious organizations which also provided good connections f or the Program students

PAGE 136

136 AL 17). However, not all pr ogram participants want friends; some only want friends who are in the Program and ot hers do not want to be friends with anyone in the Program. Because he considers all of the Program students as adults, Leadner indicated he does not require student participation in any social activity, but he does encourage participation. One of the inten ded outcomes o f be with others to establish friendships and relationships. As is the case with other students these friendships have the opportunity to continu e beyond co llege or ( Weinkauf, 2002 p.34). Discussion o f the Critical Incidents in Program Development The critical incide nts represented in this chapter resulted from dialogic and relational interactions In this study critical incidents appeared to be related to four major themes: (a) addressing parental expectations, (b) supporting student inclusion in college, (c) defining program organization, and (d) initiating friendship These themes are used to organize the following discussion of the critical in cidents and the ways in which they reconfigured my understanding of the implementation process (Table 5 2 ) Addressing Parental Expectations There were inconsistencies bet ween parent expectations and the realities of college life. Parents used to advocatin g for their students in high school settings were PSE program on a university campus. Whether incidents related to transportation, course selection, or social incl usion opportunities, much of the conflict was a result of unrealistic expectations or misunderstandings. It seems as though some of these

PAGE 137

137 incidents could have be en mitigated by providing parents with transition supports to help them understand the ways in which their parental roles would be transformed to support their children transition to college and adult life It is also important for parents to understand that their interactions with members of the university community have the potential of interru pting and even eliminating opportunities for other young adults as was the case with parental interaction with the music department at this University. Additionally, parent expectations can make it nearly impossible for their children to be successfully i ncluded in the social life of their college peers if they cannot insure their basic needs are met. Part of the college experience is learning self determination, and social skills; students who do not have the financial means to engage in activities to sup port these requisite skills, will not gain full benefit from their experiences. Supporting Student Inclusion in College It is interesting to note that individuals who have been highly educated still have misconceptions about what it means to be an individ ual with intellectual or developmental disability. The picture that comes to mind for many people is one of individuals who act out inappropriately, and have little to no impulse control This presumption of incompetence is evidenced by the amount of time th e implementation team spent convincing professors and other members of the University community that these students do belong on campus, and are able to gain new knowledge through their participation. Drs. Hopewell, Leadner, and Maestro spent time with faculty explaining the purpose of inclusion, and the level of support their team would provide for specific students. And when their attempts to gain access were unsuccessful, they called on

PAGE 138

138 Dean Knight for assistance. It was the dedication of this impleme ntation team that smoothed the road for the inclusion of Program students in this University. Beyond misconceptions related to individuals with intellectual disabilities, department policies regarding students auditing classes had to be addressed in order to include students. Again, Dean Knight was the right individual to assist with the development of a policy specifically designed for Program participants allowing them to audit PE classes. Implementation takes a group of the willing, led by those with pa ssion and desire to include young adults with intellectual disabilities in a university setting. Some of the issues related to student inclusion discussed in detail by members of the implementation team might have been mitigated during the installation st age of implementation if professional development for faculty had been provided. There are some faculty members who fear that including students with intellectual disabilities in their classes would weaken the academic rigor associated with college level c lasses (Hart & Grigal, 2009). There are others who would benefit by understanding that a successful college experience can be measured by improvements in learning, self determination, independence, and positive social experiences (Hart et al., 2010). Both of these issues could have been addressed prior to the beginning of the program. There is evidence in literature to suggest the efficacy of providing professional development for faculty members on the rationale for including individuals with intellectual disabilities in PSE, and the practices that will help support its implementation (Hart et al., p. 145). Defining Program Organization Changes to the Program model caused by affiliation with CTC resulted in a program that was not easily accessible to famil ies with fewer economic resources

PAGE 139

139 which in turn led to additional negative consequences for young adults with intellectual disabilities. As feared by Drs. Claro and Hopewell, families without adequate financial resources had difficulty gaining access to e nrollment in the Prog r am. Although each semester a few families were able to receive some level of support from vocational rehabilitation agencies that would get them in the door, they did not have the financial wherewithal in the Program. Thus, students who might have benefited from participation in the Program were removed as a consequence of lack of financial resources. The implementation team was also required to provide the University admission committee with assurances that Program participants would not use the Program to circumvent the traditional means of admission to the university. Furthermore, the team was required to inform students and parents that they were not University students but rather they were admitted to the Program. The Program would not have been installed in the University had these assurances not been made. Even so, University admissions committee members were under the impression that the Program was time limited. Finally, the implementation team was faced with two personnel issues that had the potential to end the Program. Drs. Hopewell and Maestro, with the cooperation of Dean Knight, and support of the University president ensured the future of the program by providing identifying a new team mem ber in Dr. Maestro, and through the dedication of Hopewell and Maestro during the opening weeks of their residential program. The tenacity and dedication of those involved with implementing and supporting the program cannot be overlooked as factors contrib uting to the success of this Program.

PAGE 140

140 Initiating Friendship Young adults with intellectual disabilities often have poor social skills and have difficulty initiating social interactions. The implementation team addressed these skill deficits through use of a peer mentor model whereby peers provided social supports for Program students and entre into the social life of the University. Without direct instruction for Program students, these relationships had little chance of resulting in lasting friendships as Program staff intended (Causton Theoharis et al., 2009). Instead, Dr. Hopewell recognized that Program participants would require additional support in this area and began to explicitly teach students what it meant to be a friend, and how one would enact friendship. Program students needed to understand the concepts related to friendship, and have opportunities to practice and enact what they were learning in order to begin to build lasting friendships. Almost all of the Program students attended high sch ool in the state and as a result, knew some other students on campus. Some students had religious affiliations that helped ease them into the social life of campus, and others had family members who were University Alumni with fraternity and sorority conne ctions that helped with social interactions and enjoyed spending time alone. The experiences I brought into this study as a result of membership in a PSE program imp lementation team were both validated and informed by findings in this chapter. In my role as part of an implementation team I learned that the process of installing a new program at a research intensive university can be challenging because oftentimes ther e is no written process for implementing new initiatives. Members of this

PAGE 141

141 admissions class registration, and fee payment. In the stages of initial and full implementation, team members spent a great deal s of the University community on behalf of their children. In many instances, these interactions led to unnecessary consequences for students and the Program. Although PSE programs have the potential to improve independent living and employment outco mes fo r participants, attitudes related to the abilities of individuals with intellectual disabilities in the university setting are one of the greatest barriers to creating inclusive campus communities (Kleinert et al 2012). These detrimental attitudes are no t limited to university faculty and staff, but can also be found among the parents of PSE students. I came into this study with the understanding that gaining access to classes for students was a challenge, and the Program implementation team shared this understanding. Not all members of the university community were able to share their vision of inclusion for young adults with disabilities ; however, in this program there was adequate support from Dean Knight and the University president to gain the needed access to classes and services for Program participants Finally, although students were excited about having college and independent living experiences, parents were not always ready to let go. Experiences shared by this implementation team informed my u nderstanding of the need for support at each level of the university community. Developing a common discourse in which to frame discussion of program development and access to services

PAGE 142

142 and supports is essential. In this case study, participants were able t o tap into the discourse of the University, and by utilizing concepts gleaned from the public health background of high ranking University officials, they began to develop a common dialogue on campus. When the University president gave his seal of approval to the Program, his message trickled down through the ranks, and support of the Program Program implementation occurs sequentially with specific tasks and experiences at each level. Strictly following a framework for implem entation alone will not produce the desired outcomes. Successful implementation requ ires the interaction between program implementation teams, university administrators, faculty, parents, and community leaders. Without these valuable assets, implementation will not be successful. Initial implementation requires change (Fixsen et al., 2005), and in this case the changes that occurred during these stages influenced the practices of the University, eliminated the ability for students to access music classes wi th performance requirements, and changed the ways in which Program staff addressed the social lives of students more intentionally. Literature suggests attempts to implement new practices effectively may end at the initial implementation stage due to overw helming influences on practice and management (Fixsen et al.). Despite the difficulties experienced during initial implementation, the Program did not end. Its evolution followed the progression suggested by implementation science. Chapter 6 addresses conc lusions that may be drawn from these findings, implications for practice, and recommendations for further research.

PAGE 143

143 T able 5 1 Critical Incidents Individuals for Whom the Incident was Critical Critical Incident Level of Influence Stage of Implemen tation DH GK AL SM Addressing Parental Expectations Influence Factors (Parents) Initial Implementation Full Implementation x x x x Supporting Student Inclusion in College The Program Influence Factors (Parents) Initial Implementation Full Implementation x x x x Defining Program Organization The Program Organizational Components Installation Initial Implementation Full Implementation x x x x Initiating Friendship The Program Initial Implementation Full Implementation x x x

PAGE 144

144 Table 5 2 Areas of Cri tical Concern Area of Critical Concern Critical Incidents Dialogical Event Relational Event Addressing parental expectations Parents contact RTA to request change in location of bus stop Parents request change of time for campus social activities Pare nts change student classes/class schedules Parent confrontation with music faculty. Future Program students denied access to music classes Parents choosing to enroll student without the ability to pay. Students removed from program before end of first se mester Parents failing to provide adequate financial resources to meet basic needs of child living on campus X X X X X X Supporting student inclusion in college Gaining access to classes Faculty attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities Changing PE policy to allow Program students to audit classes X X X Defining the organization of the Program No access to state special education agency staff per request of CTC Developing an admissions policy to sati sfy demands of University admissions committee Key member of implementation team leaves 2 weeks before program begins Graduate housing assistant resigns on the day students move in to campus housing supporting pro gram closes X X X X X Initiating Friendship Mentor/Mentee relationship did not result in desired outcome X

PAGE 145

145 The Program : Core Components Implementation Team, Pr ogram Model O r ganizational Components : University Administration, & Departments Influence Factors : Legislature, State Agencies, Parents Figure 5 1. Multilevel Influences on Program Implementation for the University PSE Program

PAGE 146

146 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter includes discussion of and conclusions drawn from the findings of this case study implications for practice, and recommendations for future research. To date there has been little investigation of how PSE programs for young adults with intellectual disabilities are implemen ted. This study contributes to the professional literature wit h research based on the experiences of PSE program implementers at a major research institution. The purpose of this case study was to examine the ways in which program developers and relevant s takeholders underst ood the process that led to implementation of their PSE program Interviews provided the primary data source, and the Model of Multi level Influences on Successful Implementation (Fixsen et al., 2005) was used to analyze the organization al context and other factors influencing successful implantation of programs and practices. Examination of the relationships among core implementation components, organizational features, and influence factors and an analysis of critical incidents that le d to choices or compromises in the way the program was developed provide understanding of the multi level influences on the implementation of this PSE program. Findings derived from this analysis suggest incidents occurring in four areas of concern were m parental expectations, (b) supporting the inclusion of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in college, (c) defining the organization of the program, and (d) init iating friendships among PSE students and their college age peers. Parental expectations were of primary concern to the participants at the initial and full

PAGE 147

147 implementation stages of program development as parents were unclear about the type of services pro vided in post secondary settings and unprepared for the greater independence required of their adult children on a college campus. Additional concerns included simplistic understandings and negative attitudes about intellectual and developmental disabiliti es by University faculty, which posed challenges for the financial sponsors in the implementation process unexpectedly influenced the alteration Implementation was also influenced by the need to provide intentional assistance to PSE students in expanding their social lives and developing genuine relationships. In this case study, members of the implementation team understood aspects of program implementation were subjective and specific to the community in which implementation occur r ed Their comments also conveyed their understanding that no matter how much preplanning and thought goes into the development of core program components, there will be situations that cannot be planned for or predicted. Data suggest they also understood that this program could not have been implemented without assistance from individuals at the organizational level, f rom other agencies, from personnel in departments within the university, and without student volunteers, or parents, or champions. Limitations and Delimitations Before conclusions can be drawn from discussion of this analysis, limitations of this study mu st be consider ed. This is a case study, not intended for broad generalization, but undertaken to provide insight into how program developers and relevant stakeholders understoo d the process that led to implementation of their PSE

PAGE 148

148 program. This case study t ook place in one PSE program housed on the campus of a university with very high research activity in the Eastern United States. It should be noted that levels of financial and other resources devoted to research and the development of innovative programs are higher at VHRUs than other colleges or doctoral granting instit utions. Also, in this case the V HRU was located in close proximity to the state capital, which provided implementers with ready access to policy makers in the state legislature. Readers sho uld assess the transferability of these findings to their own situations in other contexts. It should also be noted that this inquiry was delimited to only five individuals who had deep knowledge of the implementation process in this particular setting. Ot her stakeholders less involved in the process might have responded differently. Discussion and Conclusions I nclusive postsecondary education for individuals with intellectual disabilities has gained momentum nationally over the past decade, and s ince the inception of this study in 2013, 19 additional programs have been self reported to the ThinkCollege database bringing the current number of reported PSE programs in the US to 2 2 1 ( http ://www.thinkcollege.net/component/programsdatabase/ ) As college and university teams begin the process of implement ing new PSE programs, four conclusions based on the findings of this study are offered to inform their development : 1. Using research and und erstanding that it takes sufficient time to build a program. 2. Developing familiarity with the administrative and organizational structure of the university is important to implementation efforts. 3. Expecting the unexpected is a requirement of implementation teams.

PAGE 149

149 4. Realizing attitudes and expectations are major barriers to implementation. Conclusion 1 Using research and understanding that it takes sufficient time to build a program are central to core program development. Th is study was based on the assumption that program development team members started with core components that served as a basis for the p rogram they wanted to implement and that organizational components and other influence factors shaped the development of the program t hat was ultimately imp lemented Team members talked about using research to inform their decisions about what type of service delivery model they wanted to use, and t he core components of the service model they chose inf luenced the process of implementation. Team members also t alked about time, thinking that they had plenty of time to plan and install the program but learning that a year was not enough time. Researchers describing a study of program development conducted at one small college addressed this issue by providing a timeline for PSE implementation indicating when to begin program development tasks and list ing the type of activities that should take place at specific intervals in the planning and implementation process (Hall, Kleinert, & Kerns, 2000) This timeline suggests t hat a program can be planned and i nstalled with in six to nine months ; h owever research grounded in implementation science shows the typical process of implementation from the stages of exploration through full implementation, requires 2 4 years (Blas et al., 2010). Conclusion 2 Developing familiarity with the administrative and organizational structure of the university is important to implementation efforts. At each step of the process, implementation team members were faced with logistical q uestions related to installing

PAGE 150

150 the program within the existing structure of the University. Team members were able to be proactive in determining their needs related to the service model they had chosen for the program but they were not familiar with the administrative operations such as the process for billing and fee payment. Research suggests t he team that actively works to implement a program should include individuals who are familiar with each facet of the program being implemented (Fixs en et al., 2005) Dr. Hopewell was familiar with university student affa irs and disability law relating to provision of supports and accommodations for intended participants S he t aught courses in educational psychology and disability studies in the C olle ge of E ducation She had over 30 years of experience in K 12 sign lan guage interpreting and teaching and higher education counseling, career counseling and disability services. Dr. Maestro was familiar with academics in the university setting and her b ackground as a special educator with 27 years of teaching in higher education made her a valuable member of the implementation team. Both women brought relevant and important skills and experiences with them that influenced their understanding of the proce ss of implement ing a PSE program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities Even with their extensive experience, they were not fully aware of the university administrative functions required to build an infrastructure support ive of p rogram implementation. Fortunately, the team had the support of the dean of the C ollege of E ducation Dr. Knight. Dean employment history included 4 years working with middle school students with intellectual disabilities and an extensive backgro und in higher education including 17 years as a dean at this University These experiences a long with

PAGE 151

151 his intense passion for working with individuals with significant disabilities made him an indispensable ally and a strong advocate of the program. Knight was able to assist with gaining access to administrative processes having frank conversations with other university deans, and work ing in the background to ensure the program was implemented. Al though each of the implementation team members w as highly ex perienced and qualified all of them had other full time obligations to the University that limited the amount of time and attention they could contribute to program implementation. Conclusion 3 Expecting the unexpected is a requirement of implementation teams. Other influence factors that shaped the progra m were unexpected and implementation team members were unprepared and un able to develop plans to mitigate them. Members of the implementation team were unprepared for the influence the CTC exerted on pr ogram implementation as funders of the start up grant Even though Hopewell had previously applied for and received grant funding from other sources, and understood that each funding agency had priorities and specific reporting requirements she did not an ticipate the subsequent level of involvement expected by the CTC C onsequently the team was blind s desire for control Having a parent and power broker with a personal investment in the success of the program as the driving force behind implementation the team should not have been surprised that his involvement would continue after the grant was awarded It is not unusual for parents to be the driving force behind change in po stsecondary programs. A ccording to Warm & Stand programs have come into being because of the passion and supports of the families

PAGE 152

152 and support networks of a nd some of the parent funded grants come with strings attached. For example a Missouri parent group in terested in the implementation of a PSE program for young adults with intellectual disabilities issued a request for proposals, and met with college officials a nd propo sed staff to ensure the college and their group w ere on the same page regarding the principles that would inform and shape the program. In this case, a contract was created delineating the deliverables required for each phase of program development, and payment was only released when each phase and its deliverables were completed (Warm & Stander). In contrast, n o one was able to predict that Dr. Claro, a key member of the implementation team would leave the university two weeks before the first students arrived on campus or that that the graduate hous ing mentor would resign on the day students moved into their campus apartment. Scholars suggest t he only constant factor in the process of implementation is change because at its most basic level, implementation requires change (Fixsen et al., 2005). Chang e is required in the overall program environment, in the context of personal, administrative, educational, economic, and community factors that are themselves influenced by external factors many of which cannot be predicted (Fixsen et al.) Therefore, tho se involved with program implementation should be vigilant in planning for the unexpected. Any of the changes experienced by the implementation team could have brought about the end of the program T he team persisted however, achieving the overarching goa l of implemen tation which is to persist through the awkward stage s learn from mistakes, and manage expectations (Blas et al., 2010)

PAGE 153

153 Conclusion 4 Realizing attitudes and expectations are major barriers to implementation. In addition to logistical issues across multiple levels of influence the implementation team what effect including individuals with intellectual disabilities would have on institutional rankings, col lege admission, faculty responsibilities, and matriculating students. Research suggests that major barriers to implementation of inclusive higher education programs are attitudes and expectations (Causton Theoharis et. al., 2009; Hafner et al., 2011; Hart et al., 2004). Attitudes. In spite of the fact that individuals with intellectual disabilities are being included in classrooms, communit ies and colleges and universities on a more consistent basis, negative attitudes regarding the appropriateness of th eir inclusion still exist. Surveys of public attitudes in the US indicate that there is a presumption of incompetence about people with intellectual disabilities (Grigal & Hart, 2010). Members of the implementation team discussed their experiences with un iversity faculty and administrators who had the same presumption regarding potential Program participants. Thus, team members had to educate the university communit y regarding the purpose of the P rogram and address individual concerns about the appropriate ness of including these students. In order to gain class access for Program students, team members were required to speak with faculty, explain what the students needed, and the supports that would be provid ed for them Not all professors could be persuad ed to include P rogram students in their classes which according to Causton Theoharis et al. (2009) is not uncommon.

PAGE 154

154 rms of logistical constraints, not enough space, not enough time, others gave no reason for the ir refusal, but simply denied the In cases where professors refused to allow program students to enroll in their classes, Dean Knight would initiate conversations with department chairs and other deans to recruit their sup port of the program. Often these conversations opened classes that were previously unavailable to these students. Professional development and training for faculty and staff explaining the program, its purpose, and potential benefits to faculty, staff, and matriculating students is a necessary part of the implementation process described by Fixsen et al. (2005) as a method for reducing resistance to program implementation The process of implementation that took place at this University aligned with the sta ges and levels of influence frameworks supported by implementation science but the program implementers did not utilize a research based model to guide the development of their PSE program. A s a result some of the steps and recommendations for the success ful inclusion of participants were not implemented. In this case, professional development would have been beneficial. Exp ectations. There were expectations on multiple fronts that required the attention of mem bers of the implementation team such as expec tations for assurance of limited liability for the university, expectations regarding the behaviors of students, and expectations for the everyday operations of the program to remain separate from the everyday operations of the university. However, the mos t compelling and frustrating interactions were the result of parental expectations. Research suggests that most parents of children with intellectual disabilities never expected them to have

PAGE 155

155 opportunities to go to college. Parents who have realized the pos sibility of college for their child have expressed deep appreciation for having this dream realized (Hafner et al., 2011). Al thoug h parents anticipate the prospect of sending their child ren to college, they are not necessarily prepared for the real ities re lated to the adult roles they will take on in that setting. Parents, who are used to vigilantly watching over their children in high school to ensure their needs are met find it difficult to relinquish their vigilant role when their children go to colleg e (Hafner et al. 2011 ). Implementation team members described parent behaviors as they continued to try to supervise their children in college, sometimes interfering with staff efforts to teach their children to be independent and assume adult responsibil ities. Parents expected their children to get the same services outlined in their high school IEP and they were unclear about the types of services available in college. In order to avoid unnecessary com plications, Hafner et al. recommend ed that parents e accommodations and privacy, and also understand college policies such as student code s of conduct, financial aid, and tuition costs. P arents need to be informed of the appropriate protocol f or addressing is sues of concern at the college level. Providing this type of information might moderate parental expectations. The implementation team worked diligently to develop and successfully implement a PSE program for young adults with intellectual disabilities The program has grown every year since its initial implementation in 2008 when t here we re only three students; 16 students were expected to enroll for fall semester 2013. A n important by members of

PAGE 156

156 the university community, most notably, the President of the University and his wife. Their public efforts to support the Program influenced the attitudes of the university community regarding the importance of including young adults with int ellectual disabilities and their value to the un iversity community. implementation team, the support of university administrators from the very highest level of the organizational cha rt, and the host of others who came together to support the inclusion of young adults with disabilities into this university community made the implementation of this Program possible. Although outcomes may have changed with a different cast of characters, many of the lessons learned through this process can be used to inform future practice. Implications for Practice Current PSE literature provide s recommendations for the implementation of service models for PSE programs including suggestions of what need s to be done (Hart et al. 2010), sequential list s of tasks and timeframe s in which these task s should be completed (Hall et al. 2000 ; Warm & Stander, 2011 ) The complexity related to implementing a PSE program in a large public research university how ever, cannot be encompassed in a sequential list that addresses questions of what and when The following implications for practice are designed to help prepare program staff to address the complex issues related to program implementation. Preparing for In stallation Understanding the context in which a program will be installed is important to the implementation process. Implementers should d elineate how the new program can contribute to the mission of the college or university and share the purpose of the

PAGE 157

157 program with campus administrators and faculty members (Fixsen et al., 2005). C hampions and other individuals who are committed to providing college opportunities for young adults with intellectual disabilities should be identified, as well as i ndividuals who have knowledge of administrative policies and procedures. A social marketing strategy should also be implemented to mobilize a cadre of supporters, and to plan strategies to obtain the support of key policymakers (Fixsen, et al.). Addressing Admission s Policy Every institution of higher education has admissions policies governing access to the institution. When developing a PSE program for young adults with intellectual ld (Hart et al., 2010). It is better to amend current admissions policy to meet the needs of the program rather than develop a new admissions policy (Plotner & Marshall, 2014) In developing either an amended or new admis sions policy, consideration should be given to protecting the academic integrity of the P rogram. Prog ram admissions policies require the approval of the college or The program admissions policy should be written in such a way that potential participants and their parents/guardians will not misunderstand the purpose of the program or think that after a period of successful program attendance their student will be eligible for admittance to the university. It is important for pa rents to clearly understand the program admissions policy (Plotner & Marshall ). Preparing Parents for Transition Being proactive by building partnerships with parents is critical to successful transition for their children. The development of PSE program s has provided opportunities for young adults with intellectual disabilities that many parents never

PAGE 158

158 dreamed would be possible. As a result, parents have not had time to adjust to the idea of their child operating independently without their support. Provi ding as much information as possible about the program and the supports and accommodations available for college students with disabilities would be helpful. In addition, parents should be informed about the level of support that will be provided for prog ram participants. Research suggest s having parent orientation before students enter a PSE program to answer any questions, and to provide details of the pro gram structure and organization; periodic parent meetings to discuss issues and concerns of parents is also recommended (Grigal, Neubert, & Moon 2001). Accessing Classes Providing access to a wide range of classes should allow students to explore their personal interests and explore new ideas. In order to gain access to will be necessary t 9). It is also important for faculty to have an understanding of program goals and expe ctations ( Hafner et al., 2011). If a faculty member refuses to allow a program student to enroll in his/her class, it w ould be helpful to discover the reason for the refusal so that additional supports can be offered if necessary. I f this is a department wide issue, it might be necessary to enlist the help of someone in a higher position. In this study, Program implementation team members met with professors to get an overview of the course syllabus and the types of assignments required to determine the appropriatene ss of the class before making recommendations for students. The team wanted to make sure that the placement met the academic needs of the student and be engaging enough for the student to want to go to class and participate. The team also

PAGE 159

159 found that instr uctors who had positive experiences with program students were more willing to accept future students. Recommendations for Future Research In the growing field of postsecondary education for young adults with intellectual disabilities there is extensive l iterature describing effective program models ( Grigal & Hart, 2010; Grigal, Hart, & Lewis, 2010; Neubert & Moon, 2006; Stodden & Whelley, 2004) and limited research informing the process of implementing such programs (Causton Theoharis et al., 2009). More research is needed in this area to expand the current research base, and to inform emerging programs of complex issues related to program implementation. Future research should continue to enhance understanding of the process of implementation as it r elates to PSE programs in colleges and universities so that program implementation teams can be better informed of the logistical challenges to implementation The location of PSE programs for young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities a lso deserves exploration and documentation to determine whether there are any significant differences in the implementation process based on size or location of the postsecondary institution T he need exists to know more about how to monitor and evaluate t he practices for supporting individuals with intellectual disabilities that are occurring in postsecondary settings Missing from much of the literature on PSE programs is information regarding primary source documentation of what works f or students with intellectual di sabilities in PSE program settings serves a useful role in program design. As with any other programs providing services to specific populations, collecting data on what consumers need and what they

PAGE 160

160 want in PSE programs is important. This research may help program implementers make decisions about wha t to include in their programs. It is also necessary for future research to assess the change in faculty attitudes and instruction re sulting from interaction with students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in their classes. There is also a need for more large scale studies investigating the educational outcomes related to PSE program attendance. Findings from large sca le studies provide opportunities for generalizing findings to other PSE programs. In addition to investigating educational outcomes through large scale studies more research is needed to assess the usefulness of various accommodations in PSE settings. The intention of this study was to contribute to the literature addressing the implementation process as it applies to the development, installation, and implementation of PSE programs for young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities The need for studies that explore the PSE program implementation process as it occurs in natural settings continues, as does the need to further identify and examine factors influencing program implementation Although beyond the scope of this investigation, futur e studies might explore the factors that contribute to the sustainability of successful PSE programs, and the influential incidents in their implementation that permitted the se program s to flourish within institution s of higher education

PAGE 161

161 APPENDIX A INFORM ED CONSENT Protocol Title : Implementing Post secondary Education Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Very High Research Universities Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study : The purpose of this inquiry is to understand how program development team members and relevant stakeholders negotiated the process that allowed a PSE program to become established at one VHRU in the Southeastern United States. Wha t you will be asked to do in the study: You are asked to participate in one in depth interview, one follow up interview, and to review a typed transcript of your interviews to ensure that your words have been captured accurately. The program director wil l be asked to review the initial findings of this study. Time required : 45 60 minutes per interview Risks and Benefits : This is a qualitative case study exploring how program development team members and relevant stakeholders negotiated the process tha t allowed a PSE program to become established in one VHRU. Research ethics will be carefully observed in this study, and minimal risk to participants and the participating institution is anticipated. Every effort will be made to protect the identity of the institution and participants. Details of critical incidents occurring during the implementation process will have identifying details removed to protect the identity of individuals sharing information Compensation : There is no compensation for particip ating in the study. Confidentiality : Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The names of the participants will not be used in any research reports or presentations. R esults of this study may be used in presentations or pape rs submitted to education journals and magazines for possible publication.

PAGE 162

162 Voluntary participation : Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study : You have the ri ght to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study : Cheryl Morgan, Doctoral Candidate, School of Special Education, Schoo l Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies, Room 307 Norman Hall, phone 352 672 0665. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement : I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: __________________ _______________________ Date:____________ Principal Investigato r: ___ ______________________________ Date: _____________

PAGE 163

163 APPENDIX B PARTICIPANT INTERVIEW 1 Interview Protocol: Overall Theme: Birth of the program, negotiating the process of implementation Questions and prompts: 1) Tell me about your program for youn g adults with intellectual disabilities. a. Goals of the program b. Selection process c. Population Served d. Programs and Services offered 2) What led to the inception of your post secondary education program? a. Who championed the program? i. How did their support influence implementation of the program b. Was there any resistance to implementing this program? If so, please explain i. How did this have bearing on program implementation? 3) What supports did you need from university administrators to get this program started? 4) What assu rances were required by university administration? 5) What ongoing administrative supports were required to operate this program? 6) Were there social, economic, or political factors that had an influenced program implementation?

PAGE 164

164 APPENDIX C PARTICIPANT INTERVI EW 2 Interview Protocol 2: Overall Theme : Ad ditional information as needed to gain greater detail regarding incidents appear ing to be important to the program development team and relevant stakeholders. 1. In our first interview it seemed as though (specific topic) was important to you. Could you tell me more about that? 2. tell me what, if anything, you remember about that situation/conversation/decision?

PAGE 165

165 LIST OF REFERENCES Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, PL 101 336, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. Ankeny, E., & Lehmann, J. (2010). The transition lynchpin: The voices of individuals with disabilities who attended a community college program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 34(6). Blas, K., Duda, M., Naoom, S., Van Dyke, M. Sims, B., & Fixsen, D. (2010). Stages of implementation: Initial implementation. Developed by NIRN and adapted for use by SISEP. Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2010). The sage handbook of grounded theory London: Sage. Butterfield, L.D., Borgen, W.A., Amundson, N.E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical inci d ent technique: 1954 2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475 497. Causton Theoharis, J., Ashby, C., & DeClouette, N. (2009). Relentless optimism: Inclusive postsecondary opportunities for students with significant disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disabilities, 22(2), 88 105. Crotty, M. (1998). The f oundations of s ocial r esearch: Meaning and p erspective in the r esearch p rocess. Singapore: Sage. Dale, N., Baker, A.J.L., & Racine, D. (2002). Lessons l earned: What the WAY Program can teach us about program replication Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§15001 et seq. Dolyniuk, C., Kamens, M., Corman, H., DiNardo, P., Totaro, R., & Rockoff, C. (2002). Students with developmental disabilities go to college: Description of a collaborative transition project on a regular college campus. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 17 236 241. Eisenman, L., & Mancini, K., (2010). College perspectives and issues. In M. Grigal & D. Hart (Eds.), Think College! Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabilities (pp. 161 187). Ba ltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blas, K.A., Friedman, R.M. & Wallace, F. (2005) Implementation r esearch: A synthesis of the literature Tampa, FL: Univ ersity of South Florida disabilities a, Louis de la Part e Florid a Me ntal Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

PAGE 166

166 Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The Critic al Incid ent Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327 358. Getzel, E. E., & Wehman, P. (2005). Going to college: Expanding opp ortunities for people with disabilities Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Gilmore, D ., Bose, J ., and Hart, D (2001). Research to practice: Postsecondary education as a critical step toward meaningful employment: Vocational rehabilitation's r ole" (2001). Research to Practice Series, Institute for Community Inclusion. Paper 24. http://scholarworks.umb.edu/ici_researchtopractice/24 Goldstein, H., Kaczmarek, L. A., & English, K.M. (Eds.) (2002). Promoting social communication: Children with developmental disa bilities from birth to adolescence Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Gremier, D.D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65 89. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Lewis, S. (2010). A prelude to progress: Pos tsecondary education and students with intellectual disabilities. Impact: Feature Issue on Post Secondary Education and Students with Intellectual, Developmental and other Disabilities 23 4 5. Retr ieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/233 Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Lewis, S., (2012). A prelude to progress: The evolution of postsecondary education for students with intellectual disabilities. Think College Insight Brief, Issue 12. Boston, MA: Unive rsity of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Migliore, A. (2011). Comparing the transition planning, postsecondary education, and employment outcomes of students with intellectual and other disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 34 (1), 4 17. Grigal, M., Hart, D., & Paiewonsky, M. (2010). Postsecondary education: The next frontier for individ uals with intellectual disabilities. In M. Grigal & D. Hart (Eds.), Think College! Postsecondary Educ ation Options for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (pp. 1 28). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Grigal, M., Neubert, D., and Moon, M. (2001). Public school programs for students with significant disabilities in post secondary settings. Edu cation and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(3), 244 254. Hafner, D., Moffatt, C., & Kisa, N. (2011). Cutting Edge: Integrating students with intellectual and developmental disabilities into a 4 year liberal arts college. Ca reer Development for Exceptional Indivi d uals 34(1), 18 30.

PAGE 167

167 Hall, M., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2000). Going to college! Postsecondary programs for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(3), 58 65. Harmon, A. (20 11, September 17). Autistic and seeking a place in an adult world. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Hart, D., & Grigal, M. (2009). Students with intellectual disabilities in postsecondary Students with disabilities: Striving for universal success. Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association Hart, D, and Grigal, M. (2010). The spectrum of options: Current practices. In M. Grigal & D. Hart (Eds.), Think College! Postseconda ry education options for students with intellectual disabilities ( pp. 49 86) Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Hart, D., Grigal, M., Sax, C., Martinez, D., & Will, M. (2006). Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabili ties. Research to Practice 45 Institute for Community Inclusion, Boston, MA. Downloaded on 10/11/2011 from: http://communityinclusion.org/article.php? id=178. Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. (2010). Think college: A snapshot of postsecondary education fo r students with intellectual disabilities across the United States (Think College Fast Facts 2010 2). Retrieved from ThinkCollege: www.thinkcollege.net Hart, D., Mele McCarthy, J., Pasternack, R., Zimbrich, K., & Parker, D. (2004). Community college: A pat hway to success for youth with learning, cognitive, and intellectual disabilities in secondary education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(1), 54 66. Hart, D., Zimbrich, K., & Parker, D.R. (2005). Dual enrollment as a postsecondary education option for students with intellectual disabilities. In E.E. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.) Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities (pp. 253 267). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Hatch, J. H. (2002). Doing qualit ative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, PL 110 315, 122 Stat. 3078. Individ uals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108 446, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq Kaulio, M. (2008). Project leadership in multi project settings: Findings from a critical incident study. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 338 347.

PAGE 168

168 Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Landmark, L., & Reber, A. (2009, May 5). Postsecondary educati on fo r individ uals with disabilities: Legal and practice consid erations. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 20(1), 35 45. Kleinert, H., Jones, M., Sheppard Jone s, K., Harp, B., & Harrison, E. (2012). Students with intellectual disabilities going to coll ege? Absolutely! Teaching Exceptional Children, 44 (5), 26 35. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. The American Journal of Occup ational Therapy, 45(3) 214 222. Lawrence Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997 ). The art and science of por traiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Lee, S. S. (2009). Overview of the Federal Higher Education Opportunities Act reauthorization (Policy Brief Think College Policy Brief No. 1). Retrieved from Think College website: www. thinkcollege.net Leedy, P. ( 1997). Practical research : Planning and d esign. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lemley, C & Mitchell, R. (2011). Narrative inquiry: Stories lived, stories told. In S. Laplan, M. Quartarol, & F. Riemer (Eds.) Qualitative Research: An introduction to methods and designs, p. 219. Lewis, S. (Mar. 2, 2011). The current state of employment of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate. McEathron, M., & Beuhring, T. (2011, February). Postsecondary education for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A critical review of the state of know ledge and a taxonomy guid e to future research (Policy Research Brie f Vol. 21, No. 1). Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota. McMahon, D., & Smith, C.C. (2012) Universal design for learning: Implications and applications in UT Knoxville FUTURE Program. Think College Insight Brief, 14 Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston, Institute for Community Inclusion. Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Mertens, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research in educ ation and the social sciences. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 169

169 Migliore, A., Butterworth, J., & Hart, D. (2009). Postsecondary education and employment outcomes for youth with intellectual disabi lities Retrieved from ThinkCollege.net Moore, T. S., Lapan, S. D., & Quartaroli, M. T. (2012). Case study research. Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs 243 270. Moon, M.S., & Inge, K.V. (2000). Vocational preparation and transit ion. In M. Snell & P. Brown (Eds.) Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5 th ed., 591 628). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological r esearch m ethods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107 110, 115 Stat. 1425, U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. Neubert, D., Moon, M., Grigal, M., & Redd, V. (2001). Post secondary educational practices for individuals with mental retardation and other significant disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of V ocational Rehabilitation, 16, 155 168. Neubert, D. & Redd, V. (2008) Transition services for students with intellectual disabilities: A case study of a public school program on a community college campus. Exceptionality 16 220 234. Paiewonsky, M. (2011) Hitting the reset button on education: Student reports on going to college. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34(1), 31 44. Papay, C. K., & Bambara, L. M. (2011). Postsecondary education for transition age students with intellectual and ot her developmental disabilities: A national survey. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 46 (1), 78. Pearman, E., Elliott, T., & Aborn, L. (2004).Transition services model: Partnership for student success. Education and Training i n Developmental Disabilities, 2004, 39(1), 26 34 Petersilia, J. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision. Crime and Delinquency, 36(1), 126 145. Plotner, A., & Marshall, K. (2014). Navigating university policies to support postsecondary educati on programs for students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies XX(X), 1 11. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93 112. 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Rosenheck, R.A. (2001). Organizational process: A missing link between research and practice. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1607 1612.

PAGE 170

170 Shah, N. (2011, December 13). More students with disabilities heading to college: Postsecondary options expanding. Education Week 1 5. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/14/14disabled_ep.h31.h Sharp, M., & Johnson, D. (2001). A 20/20 analysis of postsecondary support characteristics. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 169 177. Stodden, R. A., & Dowr ick, P. W. (2000). Postsecondary education and employment of adults with disabilities. American Rehabilitation 25 (3), 19 23. Stodden, R. A., & Whelley, T. (2004). Postsecondary education and persons with intellectual disabilities: An introduction. Educati on and Training in Developmental Disabilities 39 6 15. The Carnegie Classification of Institutes of Higher Education (2010). Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Publications. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/basic Tirri, K., & Koro Ljun gberg, M. (2002). Critical incid ents in the lives of gifted female Finnish scientists. The Journal of Secondary gifted Education, 13 (4), 151 163. Warm, J., & Stander, S. (2011). EXCEL: Expanding college for exceptional learners. Developing a nonprofit org anization to support the creation of a postsecondary program for students with intellectual disabilities (INSIGHT, Think College! no. 9, 2011). University of Massachusetts Boston: Think College. Wehman, P., & Yasuda, S. (2005). The need and the challenges associated with going to college. In E. E. Getzel & P. Wehman (Eds.), Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities (pp. 3 23). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. W ehmeyer, M. L. (1992). Self determination and the education of students with mental retardation. Education & Training in Mental Retardation Wehmeyer, M.L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(2), 131 144. d ding: Inclusive post secondary education for adults with intellectual disabilities. Crossing Boundaries an interdisciplinary journal 1(2), 28 37. Wilson, K., Getzel, E., & Brown, T. (2000). Enhancing the post secondary campus climate for students with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 14 (1), 37 50. Winter, S.G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as s trategy. Organi zation Science, 12(6), 730 743.

PAGE 171

171 Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3 rd Ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series, No. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Applied Soci al Research Methods Series, No. 5. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zafft, C., Hart, D., & Zimbrich, K. (2004). College career connection: A study of youth with intellectual disabilities and the impact of postsecondary education. Education and Training in Develop mental Disabilities 39 45 53.

PAGE 172

172 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Cheryl L. Morgan was born in Gary, Indiana. She received her Associate of Arts d egree from Santa Fe Community College in 2002. In 2005 she received her Bachelor of Arts degree in history from the Univer sity of Florida. In 2006 she earned a Master of Education degree in special education and then in 2008 earned a n Educational S pecialist degree majoring in special education B oth degrees were awarded by the University of Florida Dr. Morgan came to th e field of education in a non traditional way. She started her career path as a motor inspector apprentice at U.S. Steel, Gary Works, and from there worked in restaurant and retail management before working in a university setting where she had opportuniti es to engage with student affairs professionals and aspiring graduate students. From 2006 until 2008 Dr. Morgan served as a teacher of students with varying exceptionalities in Gainesville, Florida Morgan began her doctoral program in 2008 and had a vari ety of experiences that enhanced her academics including providing support on federally funded programs, supervising special education graduate students in their final teaching internships, helping develop a post secondary education program for young adult s with intellectual/developmental disabilities teaching undergraduate and graduate classes in person and on line, co authoring publications and presenting her work at several national and international conferences. Dr. Morgan is currently employed by the Arc of Jacksonville as Director of On Campus Transition at the University of North Florida. At the culmination of her current work, D r Morgan earned her Ph.D. in Special Education with an emphasis in administration and policy from the University of Flori da in May 2014